TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Doctor_Loggins Archive

View 18 posts and 1,009 comments by Doctor_Loggins on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
503

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights22/01/13 06:12 AM
161

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights22/06/12 06:39 AM
71

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights19/02/12 05:43 PM
70

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights24/10/12 03:09 PM
69

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights05/11/13 05:02 PM
56

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights04/05/14 05:28 AM
37

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights01/06/12 06:28 AM
35

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights30/09/13 11:57 PM
33

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights23/02/12 06:33 PM
31

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights06/04/12 04:43 PM
31

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights08/11/14 03:56 PM
14

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights26/03/12 05:48 AM
14

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights22/05/12 03:03 AM
6

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights24/04/12 11:15 PM
6

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:12 PM
3

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights14/03/12 02:02 AM
2

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights04/12/14 10:21 PM
1

Doctor_Loggins/r/MensRights24/03/12 02:39 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,009 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
20

Nope. Internalized misogyny.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 04:58 PM
2

Exactly why i haven't said shit in response to this campaign.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 03:45 PM
18

If a person is so intoxicated that they literally cannot maintain consciousness, that goes beyond the standard for intoxicated and goes straight to incapacitated. The sober party in such a situation has a responsibility not to fuck someone who is incapacitated.
/r/MensRights01/08/17 03:14 PM
6

So we need to dispense with the patriarchal double standard that women are better caregivers, but it's also perfectly rational that the father should spend only four days per month with his child? Stop smoking the kool aid my dude.
/r/MensRights29/07/17 06:26 PM
8

It's [current year]!
/r/MensRights27/12/16 08:13 PM
14

"Manspreading" is taking up more than one seat in a public space such as a bus or theater. Generally this is caused by the man spreading his legs, as though he has some kind of biological reason for doing so. It cannot be remedied by asking the man to close his legs or scoot over because reasons, and is different from a woman placing her purse on the seat beside her because also reasons.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 09:53 PM
4

I hardly think that's a fair representation. There are plenty of accusers on the right as well. Or have we forgotten the Obama administration entirely? When he was not American, secretly Muslim, a too- radical Christian, AND an atheist? Or the HUAC hearings? Or the Salem witch trials? The inquisition? This shit aint new and it ain't just MUH LIBTARDS.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 04:14 PM
5

Welp. Guess i have to leave the typo now.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 08:20 PM
1

Like enough for the comparison, yes. Bad patenting knows no sexual orientation.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 07:45 PM
3

Well, monasteries have you swear off sex and cults tend to ruin you financially, so while it's not a direct comparison, there are enough similarities to sustain the metaphor.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 07:45 PM
32

Most gay couples are normal couples. What these people are doing is comparable to indoctrinating their child into a cult or sending them to a monastery. They're goading the kid into a life- altering decision. It's unlikely that this kid is capable of understanding the feelings that they associate with "being trans", much less the consequences for the decision to transition. It sounds like they might be psychologically abusing the kid, which is decidedly abnormal.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 04:17 PM
2

So I'm supposed to simultaneously believe that there's am epidemic of unpunished men, abusers and rapists all, but simultaneously believe that there's an epidemic of men getting women convicted by dint of the master legal strategy "call the cops first"? Come on feminism.
/r/MensRights08/06/16 01:54 PM
4

EXTREY EXTREY, READ ALL ABOUT IT, BONES'S BLUNT AND UN SUBTLE APPROACH MAKES PEOPLE LOOK LIKE IDIOTS! Remember the episode where they go stay with a circus? Remember the episode with online gaming? Or the one with conic book nerds? Or the one about the voodoo murder cult? Bones is not a delicate or nuanced show. It's prime time schlock. If you go see Borat expecting haute couture, you're gonna have a bad time.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 07:53 AM
4

I remember seeing that title and being skeptical. By percentage, sure, women are effected more than men. But the gross numerical increase is THREE TIMES AS SIGNIFICANT among men. Edit: twice and some change. Sleepy eyes misread the decimal. Double edit for the curious: even by percentages the numbers aren't true. Amerind and native Alaskan women's numbers rose 89% compared to white women's 60% rise. So the only way to massage truth out of the article title is to measure gross increase when compa…
/r/MensRights23/04/16 01:19 AM
2

Honestly (aside from that specific meaning of the word nigga, which I'm not a fan of but that's just a matter of personal preference) I'm inclined to agree with you. There have been times where I've expressed sentiments like "oh my god these gossipy fucking bitches are about to get hit with a chair." If someone took an isolated statement of frustration like that - frustration with a single group of individuals - and tried to claim that i just like hitting women with chairs, it would be equally b…
/r/MensRights07/04/16 12:31 AM
11

Women are the REAL victims of police violence.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 02:03 PM
3

the moment i was into her bacon Um wut
/r/MensRights02/04/16 07:06 PM
2

I had a similar discussion on ~Buddha~ burden (fucking christ, swype) of proof and how it's "rape culture" and the onus is on men to "not be in situations where they could be falsely accused."
/r/MensRights28/03/16 02:46 PM
7

Cis- is a Latin (i think) prefix, opposite of trans- but, like trans, has been turned into an independent word.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 09:26 PM
1

Again, not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is it's a shit position to be in.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 04:23 AM
2

It's hardly unheard of for people to lie and cover for their abusers, especially in official settings. My step mother was an abusive piece of shit but i covered for her for years. And ultimately, like kesha, i have only myself to blame when she never suffered for it. But that doesn't mean she wasn't a piece of shit, and it didn't mean that my living situation wasn't bad.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 09:42 PM
2

If we believe she might lie about being abused, is it such a stretch that she might lie about not being abused? I'm not talking in a legal context here. Just as an outsider speculating on events.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 05:07 PM
6

I'm not about to berate people for treating dr luke as guilty before the trial and then turn around and treat her as guilty. There are doubtless a lot of facts we're not privy to, so I'm treating everything with the same level of healthy skepticism.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 04:52 PM
17

She was allegedly raped and abused by her producer for a long time starting ten years ago. Slightly different. It's a terrible situation to be in, and probably indicative of how shitty and shady the recording industry can be. It's not "rape culture." It's "the law."
/r/MensRights20/02/16 03:21 PM
1

I'm glad I'm not the only one who hears people bitching about sexism against hilary (alleged sexism from the left, god help us) and thinks immediately to the counter-example of Warren. There was a ton of momentum for Warren to run for office after Obama took his second term. Were she running, the field might very well be Warren/Clinton. And i would love to see what Clinton made her campaign about absent the freebie that is "muh lady bits."
/r/MensRights15/02/16 11:50 PM
3

COMPARE YOUR LIVES TO MINE AND THEN KILL YOURSELVES
/r/MensRights15/02/16 02:55 AM
1

Between 12 and 50 percent of rape victims suffer this immobility? Is that a serious statistic? A variance of 38 points is worse than useless.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 01:47 PM
4

Supporting feminism is not the same as supporting radical feminism, ideologically speaking. Granted the showrunners of feminism use the same tried and true tactics as supporters of gun control, marriage traditionalism, and anti-abortion. But the average follower has just fallen prey to a slick marketing campaign and pseudo-facts.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 02:01 AM
3

Here's my thing: If the problem was really sexism, we wouldn't have heard so much cheerleading for Elizabeth Warren to run in 16. Sanders is the surrogate for all that displaced Elizabeth Warren excitement. Is not because hilary is a woman. It's because she's got genuine problems in her campaign.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 09:20 PM
5

That's a pretty sweeping statement, friendo.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 09:17 PM
4

This is a dog and pony show but it's not because women can get pregnant. It's because the age of the American military draft is over. We have the most well-funded military on the planet, and despite thirteen goddamn years of desert clusterfuck we still have people signing up. After an abysmal military suicide rate and a crumbling veteran infrastructure, we still have people signing up. The draft is done. Making women sign up is just an empty gesture, and feminists are gonna act like they're thro…
/r/MensRights03/02/16 04:39 AM
2

You can't be sexist against men because men have the power. I've never been able to get them to tell me what power but i imagine it has something to do with castle greyskull.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 01:32 PM
1

I don't think it's that big. It exists but from what I've seen it doesn't have much momentum or support.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 03:39 PM
8

There's a difference between finding male spaces toxic and finding the red pill toxic. Even without going into the merits or flaws of trp as a concept, it's just one male space. Mras in general seem pretty well in favor of boy scouts, which is a male space (for now at least). So you can't draw any generalizations just from the prevailing attitude towards trp.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 05:46 AM
-1

The argument to instinct is an asinine one. The whole point of boot and drills is to reprogram the soldier's brain with new instincts. Hell, the whole point of this big juicy brain we've got is to defy instinct. The "muh instincts" argument is veiled misandry of the same stripe as "teach men not to rape." It's not instinct to jump on a grenade to preserve the lives of competition breeding males but soldiers do that. And, of course, that's assuming our protectiveness over women can be laid wholly…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 02:36 PM
1

That implies that the woman has somehow done the unborn child harm, or potential harm. That she is responsible for taking an otherwise-healthy person and placing them in jeopardy they would otherwise not be exposed to. That's not true. The unborn child is incapable of self-sustenance. Its continued existence is contingent on the continued consent of the mother to use her body as a host. If I marry someone, that's my choice. If that person falls ill and needs constant blood transfusions to surviv…
/r/MensRights27/12/15 08:12 PM
1

And if it's incapable of surviving outside the womb? Its life is dependent on compromising the bodily autonomy of another person, which again is inviolable.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 06:09 PM
2

A mother should not be required to provide her body, but she is required not to kill even if that obligation may require her body. Fine. Don't kill it with "brutal" methods. Just remove it from the mother's body so her autonomy is uncompromised.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 08:50 AM
2

Would you support mandatory organ donation? Some guy got in a motorcycle accident and needs a new kidney and some skin grafts. You're just the right size. Surrender the organs. The principle is the same. Even at the expense of another human life, you cannot be compelled to compromise your bodily integrity against your will.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 05:33 AM
2

Press x to pay respects.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 07:38 PM
8

She should check her internalized misogyny. /s
/r/MensRights09/11/15 04:44 AM
1

I hope it didn't come off as me saying we should disregard him. I'm just on the side of treating such claims with the proper amount of skepticism, which - absent any corroboration whatsoever - is a very large amount.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 06:06 AM
3

I'm not really any more comfortable with the nebulous bogeyman than i am with a specific victim (though it could be argued that former ceo whatsername is the target of the accusation, or at least an accusation of complicity). Let's leave the making shit up and the fearmongering to the people without anything real to say.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 03:05 AM
38

Yeah... given the MRM's focus on false accusations, I'm REALLY uncomfortable taking something like this at face value. Seems a little hypocritical. I mean, I'm uncomfortable trusting an anonymous source about whom I know nothing and from whom I have seen no corroborating evidence, but in this context it seems especially self-unaware.
/r/MensRights04/11/15 04:57 PM
10

Remember: mean words are violence now!
/r/MensRights29/10/15 08:07 PM
1

Nope Never been linked to aggression Certainly not in ways that could be revealed through a twenty-second google search Not in a search of scholarly resources either. I didn't say causally linked. I said linked. There are a metric fuckton of studies which show high testosterone in aggressive individuals.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 08:12 PM
3

As sickening as the comparison is, it has become one of my favorite simply because of how effective the logic is. I have yet to hear a response that does not essentially fall back to "but muh men are privileged."
/r/MensRights21/10/15 11:36 PM
-7

Testosterone has been clinically linked, ad nauseum, to anger and physical aggression, so I don't think the idea that boys whose bodies are flooded with the stuff might be more predisposed to physical altercations is all that outlandish. I'd search for more on the topic, but I'm not in school any more and most things seem to be behind a big paywall these days.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 11:30 PM
1

I really doubt Satan wants a bunch of neckbeards in Hell.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 05:31 PM
5

The way you phrased it made it sound like that 13yo was not someone you would have sex with, which is a very different animal than "13 is too young for sex."
/r/MensRights07/10/15 12:43 AM
2

I think the implication here is that she's taking partial credit for his rise to power, not that she's crediting herself with marrying a powerful man. That may be its own issue, but it is not the same.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 10:34 PM
2

Behind a paywall. Anybody got a screengrab? I'm not paying Newsweek my moneys.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 03:07 PM
1

Yes, but only to those who don't hate fun.
/r/MensRights23/07/15 06:02 AM
5

It's someone who uses the language of "social justice" but is unfamiliar with the concept of intersectionality. Therefore, it's an idiot incapable of even understanding their own dogma.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 07:40 PM
18

UNblock.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 07:39 PM
11

Yeah, that's one up on the US, it seems.
/r/MensRights06/06/15 04:32 AM
49

The men's names haven't been released. That, by itself, is cause for celebration. These two won't have their names raked across the coals.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 05:53 PM
2

That is an uncomfortable moose-knuckle.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 09:16 PM
3

Larry Wilmore actually spoke with conviction about the double standard present when boys are sexually abused by their teachers compared to when girls are. He called one of his guests out on it. He's not always my favorite, but he's not completely off the deep end either.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 02:07 PM
5

I really wish it was still a thing. I remember when there was a YTMND for anything you could possibly need. Now it's just "google the reaction gif."
/r/MensRights22/05/15 06:07 PM
15

I'm female so I guess part of me feels like I don't have the right to make that decision The criteria for "can make that decision" is not "being male." The criteria for making the decision is "is the owner of the penis in question." It can get really shitty and crusty behind your ears. I've seen a kid in elementary school who had to have, like, ongoing medical treatment because he didn't clean back there for years. Constant antibiotics, bandages, the works. By your boyfriend's logic, you should …
/r/MensRights22/05/15 04:49 PM
141

I'm sorry, but I had to stop and just giggle for like 5 minutes straight about "chocolate with sprinkles!!" It was such a Bill&Ted moment and it totally ruined the gravitas of the trailer.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 04:23 PM
1

You weren't talking about Sansa's feelings about winterfell. You were talking about Sansa feeling invincible because she's escaped death so many times. According to the books, still pretty fucking terrified. Certainly not "invincible." At no point in the books do we get the impression that Sansa is immune to intimidation, or that she suffers from a surplus of unrealistic confidence. Move, move, move them goalposts
/r/MensRights20/05/15 09:25 PM
1

Sure, you might do that, if you didn't have massive trust issues thanks to the Lannisters murdering your dad, marring you to a grotesque, twisted little man, and playing mind games with you for months on end while keeping you prisoner. Oh yeah and that one time when her betrothed promised to spare her dad's life and then had him murdered in front of her eyes. You can't judge an in-character action based on a fourth-wall set of criteria. Especially not when we have the books to actually tell us h…
/r/MensRights20/05/15 08:15 PM
2

First of all, Trant definitely hits her, at least in the books. Second of all, where would someone whose life is in near-constant peril, who only escapes through an outlandish series of near-misses, ever get the idea that one day her luck might run out? Gosh, i can't even imagine.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 07:07 PM
1

Honestly i don't think I've spoiled much if anything, but it's better to be safe than sorry. The final paragraph is devoid of specific show/book references, so that one you can read safely.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 04:49 PM
5

Which will be of great comfort to her when she's dead, I'm sure. Come on, now. Just because they wouldn't get away clean doesn't mean they can't intimidate her. Despite her newfound savvy, she's still basically a child, and a victim of abuse. If you think joffy didn't leave a lasting mark on her, you're mistaken.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:30 PM
6

She was coerced with the implicit threat of violence. Ramsay put Theon on display as a "This is what happens when you defy me" trophy. Consent given under duress doesn't count under any circumstances, sexual or otherwise.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:09 PM
1

I made a similar comment about the kerfuffle over this week's episode. The net is dark and full of spoilers. Proceed with care. "Yeah, the main immediate difference between show and books is that in the show this happens to Sansa instead of her former handmaiden and Lannister pawn Jeyne Poole. There are far-reaching potential consequences and implications, such as the involvement of Baelish (who is setting himself up to hold two Warden positions for both East and North, similar to Tywin's attemp…
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:56 PM
1

Sorry, you're right. Her rapist gets her drunk. I had forgotten about that part. Doesn't change anything else I said.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 11:22 PM
2

Stop arguing semantics and get back to the point. In a world as over-the-top as that of Mad Max, a tribe of people called the Vulvina are not really outlandish. You can contest whether Max is called Mad Max or not all day (and you can continue to be wrong about it), but that doesn't fix your busted-ass argument.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 11:21 PM
2

You're right. He's another guy whose name is, totally by coincidence, Max. Who refers to himself as Mad. But he's not Mad Max. Let's not get confused here.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 10:50 PM
1

In most works of fiction? Yeah, that'd be heavy-handed. In a series featuring such characters as The Humungus, Master Blaster, and Auntie Entity - oh, not to mention the goddamn title character who is called Mad Max? No, the vulvina are not really that outlandish.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 10:43 PM
1

dialogue is for suckers. See Also: The Raid, Dredd
/r/MensRights15/05/15 10:40 PM
2

It's still shit on a canvas. Never said it was good (quite the contrary). Only that it's art. And artists, even bad ones, have the right to self-expression. Welcome to murica. adult female teachers getting teenage boys drunk or drugged so they can have non-consensual sex with their pupils First, you're introducing a new element - drugged coercion - not present in Ensler's work. Ditch the red herring. Second of all, it's interesting that you mention high school boys with older teachers, because b…
/r/MensRights15/05/15 04:26 PM
10

He takes orders - or cooperates with other wastelanders - repeatedly when the situation demands. The gyro captain and the villagers in 2, the whole bartertown/thunderdome thing? It is the eternal paradox of mad max that he is a wandering loner who is constantly forced to cooperate with or rely on others.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 09:36 AM
1

Because she chose to remove the offending section rather than defending it. She values popular success over artistic integrity.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 09:30 AM
-1

I repeated the answer "like a parrot" because five fucking people gave me the same damn near-verbatim response like a chorus of mockingbirds. She originally included the speech because art, good or bad, is frequently in violation of or direct opposition to popular sensibilities. She removed it because she valued popular success over artistic integrity. As to your third question, i think the fact that i used Nabukov as an example of narrative vs. Authorial voice speaks for itself. Nabukov is most…
/r/MensRights15/05/15 09:29 AM
0

why spoil an exiting franchise? Allow me to pose a counter-argument: Why restrict Mad Max movies to the same thing they've done three times before? Why not expand the scope of Mad Max to include more of the world in which he lives? If I just want to see Mad Max in a man movie featuring manly men, I have that option. The Road Warrior isn't going anywhere. imagine if the sequel of Frozen had a preview that looked similar to the first but focused on the issues of a male character. If you're compari…
/r/MensRights15/05/15 07:02 AM
0

You have not acknowledged they are valid arguments and that is the essence of your argument. I have disagreed with them. It's not the same thing. going through ranger school is the same as living for a decade in a post-nuclear hell The women in question also don't have goddamn robot parts. Charlize Theron's character does. Both of these things are apparently false 1) So you haven't seen the movie but are perfectly comfortable passing judgment on it? And 2) Every review I've read so far points to…
/r/MensRights15/05/15 06:28 AM
-1

Oh my god are there really this many goddamn people in the goddamn world who don't know the difference between authorial voice and narratorial voice? The 13-year-old girl is a character who has a twisted view of healthy sexuality because guess what she was fucking raped at 13. It has nothing do with having a female lead or "competent femininity" Since the original hoopla was over a returnofkings post bemoaning the role of Charlize Theron as Not A Sex Object, it does in fact have everything to do…
/r/MensRights15/05/15 06:21 AM
0

Wait, I haven't acknowledged it and I've actively argued against it? What kind of fucking wizard am I? Why is Charlize Theron's skillset "improbable" any more than anyone else who has survived through adulthood in the postapocalyptic hell that is Maxian Australia? The previews haven't told us dick about the plot, so of course they didn't tell us about sex slavery.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 05:55 AM
10

So you're basically pretending there's no difference between narrative voice and authorial voice. I suppose you believe Nabukov was a child molester and Machiavelli was an advocate of monarchy? I don't like the vagina monologues, but let's not pretend that everything an author pens is their own viewpoint. These are stories told from the pov of different characters, and that particular character's worldview might be kind of warped because SHE WAS RAPED AT 13.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 05:51 AM
-1

So you're basically pretending there's no difference between narrative voice and authorial voice. I suppose you believe Nabukov was a child molester and Machiavelli was an advocate of monarchy? I don't like the vagina monologues, but let's not pretend that everything an author pens is their own viewpoint. These are stories told from the pov of different characters, and that particular character's worldview might be kind of warped because SHE WAS RAPED AT 13.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 05:51 AM
-3

So you're basically pretending there's no difference between narrative voice and authorial voice. I suppose you believe Nabukov was a child molester and Machiavelli was an advocate of monarchy? I don't like the vagina monologues, but let's not pretend that everything an author pens is their own viewpoint. These are stories told from the pov of different characters, and that particular character's worldview might be kind of warped because SHE WAS RAPED AT 13.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 05:50 AM
0

I've asked for specific criticism. Where is it? If I'm ignoring so much criticism, then surely you can produce one solid example of it. What valid critique have i disregarded? And I'm assuming when you say "disregard" you mean "ignore" and that you're not misusing the word because i disagree with you. Maybe I've given you too much credit.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 01:18 AM
0

You objected to my posts. They are, by definition, objectionable. So what is your objection, aside from the fact that i use words that other people also use? Or are you going to keep dodging questions and arguing semantics?
/r/MensRights15/05/15 12:24 AM
3

You wanna define your terms? What makes it a "male movie" and how has that been "whitewashed"? What "valid criticisms" am I refuting? So far, you haven't actually pointed out anything in my posts as specifically objectionable, so I'm kind of at a loss as to what your objection actually is.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 11:59 PM
0

Who said anything was beyond criticism, friend? Certainly not I. I've yet to see the movie, but by all accounts it's good. That being the case, who gives a shit who wrote or consulted on it?
/r/MensRights14/05/15 11:37 PM
21

So? Do you track down every writer or consultant who works on the movies you watch to make sure they don't disagree with you on stuff? I can watch a movie that contains things I don't agree with and still enjoy the movie, because I am a grown-ass rational adult.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 11:28 PM
3

I'm referring to the ROK post that's been plastered all over FB as though it's representative of the MRM in general. It's pretty clear those guys are threatened by something in the movie, and from the sounds of their butthurt, the threat comes from Women Doing Things.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 11:27 PM
2

That sounds like the same kind of reactionary bullshit logic that gets the GTA games labeled "prostitute murder simulators." So what if one of the writers is a basket of petrified turds? Orson Scott Card is an outspoken homophobe, but Ender's Game is a classic. Frank Miller is a card-carrying member of the international douchebag union, but I'll be damned if he's not great at what he does. Hollywood has a storied history of writing women like set pieces rather than developed humans, and if Ensle…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 11:25 PM
36

What's to be threatened by? Theron has been playing various flavors of action badass for a decade or more. And why would this be any different than Salt or The Tourist or The Italian Job or Dredd or anything else that features competent femininity? I want more of this and less airheads and damsels.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 08:54 PM
6

His record is mixed but, for the most part, pro-2A. He's the best democrat on gun issues in recent memory.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 08:00 PM
8

Well, I usually use my hands. I can't imagine trying to work a voting booth with my danglies.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 02:20 PM
23

Dunno about ever, but I am pleased as punch that Bernie Sanders is seeking the nomination as a genuine leftist Social Democrat. Sanders also has a pretty good record of not having his head up his ass about guns, which is more than most of the candidates on the left can say. I see his chances of winning as about on par with Ron Paul - he's too far left to get the moderate voters and will be absolutely crucified by the big-money media - but I think his presence during the race will at least provid…
/r/MensRights04/05/15 02:18 PM
7

That last line got me good.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 10:48 PM
2

no, show up to the interview with a matching print weed tie and suit
/r/MensRights18/04/15 02:37 AM
3

I wish they hadn't taken a goddamn hatchet to it in the editing phase. Or maybe it's better this way.she has the air of someone used to speaking with a lot of volume and not a lot of density.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 02:34 AM
2

What even is happening?
/r/MensRights17/04/15 10:28 PM
1

Always overdress.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 08:49 PM
2

The rule I've always been taught is "The hiring manager assumes you will never look nicer than you do at an interview." Set the bar incredibly high at the interview so that they know you can clean up well - even if the day-to-day at the place you're working is jeans and band t-shirts. While what she's wearing doesn't look all that bad (though the sweater ought to be buttoned), it's definitely not dressing her most professional.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 08:48 PM
1

Women's walk against violence. Men $40, women $25. If we're being realistic.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 07:59 PM
1

As I understand it, yes
/r/MensRights08/04/15 06:24 AM
3

To be honest, I'm gonna go with Hanlon's Razor on this one. It's more likely this writer is an incompetent hack than that he's actively trying to obfuscate the truth.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 07:25 PM
5

To be fair, the article's language isn't terribly clear. I can see how you might get the mistaken impression that he slept with her THEN drove her home.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 05:03 PM
1

I'm definitely not convinced that heterosexual partner parenting is somehow better than homosexual partner parenting, but it's not something I'm qualified to argue for or against with my knowledge base. I'm simply meeting the argument on its own terms and dismantling it from there.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 09:56 AM
1

Saving this for after work.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 03:00 PM
7

The only way to really guarantee a "traditional marriage" is to criminalize single parenthood. Why is it that people are okay with parents harming their children by withholding vaccines, using religious indoctrination, or beating them, but they get in a non-trad relationship and suddenly the damn sky is falling? Mother and mother not be as ideal as mother and father in the abstract, statistical sense, but two loving caretakers is better than one. Two incomes are better. Two perspectives. Two tea…
/r/MensRights19/03/15 02:56 PM
4

The only concrete reason she offers is "what if he escapes? Then we need a judge to order the release of his identity." How fucking often are accused rapists fleeing custody? That seems like something that would need to be addressed. Or, you know, her reasons are bullshit.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 02:19 PM
5

I'm not saying you didn't notice a trend. I'm saying you may be chasing phantoms. I actually tend to like how Whedon approaches issues of gender in his work, but in public statements he's occasionally said things that sound tumblrific, so it's not unraisinable to think he might be a tumblr regular, with some or all of the cultural baggage that site tends to carry.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 08:08 AM
14

He's at seven upvotes. That hardly display the trend across the entire sub. Calm your tits.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 01:37 AM
1

STAHT DA REACTAH!
/r/MensRights14/03/15 06:58 AM
3

Is this you?
/r/MensRights13/03/15 03:30 AM
1

I agree. I've already shared it amongst some of my friends.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 10:51 PM
11

"One justification for biasing the system to favor women and disfavor men is a perception that, in the campus drinking culture, men have more power than women, along with a social-change intuition that a rule shifting bargaining power over sex decisions from the former to the latter, precisely through the threat of predetermined victimhood and guilt, will be an effective way to change that culture. This logic makes sense: get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow. But it is no…
/r/MensRights19/02/15 06:06 PM
3

He's not wrong about that. But the lawyer sounds like he's using an affirmative defense. There's at least some video evidence. It lasted for at least a year, south at least six students. The facts we have are pretty damning. And I'm having a hard time imagining a situation in which a teacher would be morally justified in letting her students get sexually aggressive for an entire year without reporting it.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 05:33 PM
0

On the other hand, coercing someone into sending you nude photos is no bueno. Not defending the decision to prosecute, but throwing out there that if that's true, it might change the dynamic of the relationship.
/r/MensRights17/02/15 06:16 PM
2

Probably the influx of immigrants, including a lot of Catholics from Latin America who have pretty puritanical sexual ideas of their own. Age is not the only indicator of whether someone will be a puritan.
/r/MensRights17/02/15 06:09 PM
2

I found the second picture to be far more upsetting than the first. The first woman just seemed slightly hysterical. The second one was explicitly and blatantly associating "men" with "rapists." Why else would the release of sexual assault stats have ANY bearing on the existence if "men's night" at the local bar? Valentine's Day is clearly a holiday dedicated primarily to women. The social onus to get a good gift falls upon men - spend, boys, spend! - and for the most part the burden of finding …
/r/MensRights11/02/15 05:32 PM
1

I've been to FOUR of those seminars in my school career, and no they don't. As for the alleged false dichotomy, how much money do you think the government spends on these seminars? How much do you think schools spend on them? That money could go to enforcement, but instead it's going toward saying "rape is bad, m'kay" to 98 people who already know and 2 people who don't care.
/r/MensRights06/02/15 11:38 PM
1

I'm not against rape prevention efforts. I'm against rape prevention efforts that don't work. There are limited resources, and given a choice between one of these seminars and pretty much anything else, I'd choose pretty much anything else, because pretty much anything else would have a greater impact. Teach bystander intervention - what to be on the lookout for, how to intervene, how to evaluate a person's level of intoxication, and so on. Encourage people to actually prosecute their rapists, e…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 11:25 PM
1

Discussing the factors that contribute to rape is a good thing. But telling me that the crimes other people commit are somehow an "internal source of the rape problem" is not. Any time we try to isolate what factors might contribute to rape, we must remember that the primary factor that contributes to rape is the individual who decides to rape someone. "Johnny told me to do it" is not an excuse for stealing candy. "I saw it in a movie" is not an excuse to shoot up your school. "I did it in a vid…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 07:58 AM
1

There's no excuse for being a bigot, even if you've been hurt by a member of the group you hate. Sorry, bud. I'd very much like to live in a world with less rape. I'd also like to live in a world where people who are victimized by violent crime don't become prejudiced against a whole class of people who share only a limited physical resemblance to their attacker. I think we can have both.
/r/MensRights06/02/15 07:27 AM
1

I'm not denying that some men are complicit in or actively responsible for harming others. I'm denying that they can be placed in a morally complicit group simply because of gender. Individuals do harm or are complicit in doing harm. I hold those individuals responsible, each to their own degree according to their actions. If my only tie to a rapist is shared gender, then I have neither control over not responsibility for their actions. I can only ask that everyone maintain their own moral integ…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 12:25 AM
1

If if 98% of people did that, that would be enough; unfortunately, the default for most people is to do nothing. Again, I cannot be held responsible for what other people do. I can't force people to do the right thing. I don't think it requires an intuitive leap to say that that part of male culture should be phased out. I think it is an intuitive leap to associate that behavior with male culture, considering I've seen plenty of women sleep with men way drunker than they are, and people don't ge…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 09:33 PM
1

So actively intervening in situations where someone might get raped doesn't help stop rape, but impotent navel-gazing does?
/r/MensRights05/02/15 07:50 PM
1

You do, however, have the choice to be part of the solution, and are choosing otherwise. "You don't agree with my rhetoric, therefore you are not helping to prevent rape." I stopped someone from raping my friend at karaoke night two weeks ago. Go fuck yourself.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 07:16 PM
2

I giggled. Well played.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 03:56 PM
11

why women who disagree with me just don't know what they're talking about and actually agree with me But no, we're the ones stripping power from women to fuel the phallocentric rapeocracy.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 03:54 PM
1

I never said I was somehow special for not raping anybody. What I said is that, because I don't rape, there is no internal source of rape for me to fix. The actions of other men are not an internal problem, they are an external one. Your assertion, by calling male rapists an "internal source" of the rape problem, essentially amounts to telling me that, because some rapists have a dick and I also have a dick, I am somehow partially culpable for their heinous acts.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 03:23 PM
5

when faced with a problem stemming from two sources, one internal and one external, you should start by addressing the internal factor. There is nothing about the problem of campus rape that is "internal" to me. I have never raped someone, and am respectful of others' bodily autonomy, personal space, and desire not to get sexually harassed. Calling male rapists an "internal factor" is just reinforcing the idea that all men are sexual predators in waiting.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 01:13 AM
26

Men's Resource Center. Ah, so this is one of those "jokes" I've been hearing about, where you build a farce based on an absurd premise. Why would you want a rape HQ on campus, shitlord? /s
/r/MensRights05/02/15 01:05 AM
2

Marybeth Seits-Brown: Do some research on intimate partner violence No u.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 11:56 PM
1

I think the intent of the line about power is that you can't have consensual sex if you hold some kind of legal or institutional influence over your potential sexual partner. An employer using their position to get sex out of a subordinate, a police officer acting in an official capacity, a professor/student thing, stuff like that. Social power and institutional power, not physical might.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 06:55 AM
1

I went to Collin a few years ago and didn't have to do this. Guess it's a new thing.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 06:47 AM
1

Probably a matter of public record in the court system, if Aussie courts work like American ones do. If you really don't believe them, then comb their prosecution's records.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 08:50 AM
3

You're right. Some folk will make the choose not to use protection. So why is that a choice people get to make, but the choice of whether or not to amputate part of your dick not a choice people get to make? That's all we want. For every man to have the right to choose.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 04:43 AM
7

A lot of them - Bill gates, iirc, is an advocate of circumcision in African nations because there was some research indicating that out would reduce hiv rates.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 04:39 AM
1

The thinkprogress coverage of this study briefly mentioned a similar study which revealed roughly the same attitudes in men and women. No link to the study and of course they proceeded to report about how this little miniature survey proves rape culture, but it is a good question. Without female respondents this data is basically meaningless.
/r/MensRights14/01/15 04:07 AM
9

I've tried explaining this to people, but they just don't seem to get it. And it really is just that one line, isn't it? "I know you want it" is a sign that her consent is both affirmative and enthusiastic. YOU SHOULD BE ALL FOR THAT SHIT!
/r/MensRights05/01/15 10:34 PM
2

It doesn't. I was directly addressing your point about critique of the left not making one a conservative. That being said, there's a very effective propaganda campaign being waged against conservatives in America (I dunno if the same is true of Ye Olde Englande) painting them as enemies of women, and there are plenty of conservative representatives and talking heads ready to pony up soundbites that validate the claim. Whether or not you like it, being associated with conservatives gives your en…
/r/MensRights20/12/14 07:25 PM
3

Writing for Breitbart is a reasonable indication that someone's a conservative. Breitbart's slant isn't exactly a state secret.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 06:48 PM
1

Whoops, we accidentally all the frat activity by publishing unverified lies about a rape factory. Teehee.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 03:09 PM
1

Do you really think the court would give a wet fart on a dry day about a legal document if it came down to a choice between "respect contract" and "kid starves to death"? Because I'm skeptical. Ultimately, it's the state which has the metaphorical gun to his head, because they have the legal authority and the power to compel him to pay (or jail him if he cannot/will not). I don't think this is a question of her being "nice" at all. I think it's a question of the two of them both making decisions…
/r/MensRights05/12/14 01:43 AM
1

Based solely on her responses, she's not interested in interfering with his life. She just wants to know whether she should inform his parents. Unless he's living at home, there's no reason that the two should be at cross-purposes.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 10:43 PM
2

I can't say I agree with him, but I also can't say I know all the circumstances. What I can say is that it's a decision to be made between the two of them, and the moral imperiousness of these commenters is both disgusting and terrifying.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 10:33 PM
3

NP link posted because The Rules and sech. Don't go seeking this out and get shadowb&. She doesn't want to collect child support. She doesn't need, and is not interested in, his money. And somehow she's a criminal for not wanting to make him pay. Someone went so far as to call her a moron for not taking his money. Jesus fucking christ, respect her decision. She's a grown-ass adult.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 10:29 PM
2

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. Consent SHOULD require both (or all) parties to act in some way. If I ask to borrow your car, and you don't respond, I don't take that as a "yes" and take your keys. I'm consenting by asking for the keys, you're consenting only if you give me the keys (or tell me where you left them or whatever else). If I say "hey, wanna go bareknuckle for a round or two?" and you don't respond, I DO NOT PUNCH YOU IN THE FUCKING FACE. Because that's assault. Consent is not impli…
/r/MensRights30/11/14 04:40 AM
2

You're right. Body language and behavior are important. And any reasonable definition of affirmative consent includes provisions for nonverbal affirmation. And a person who is not moving or speaking AT ALL is not providing the kind of body language that could reasonably imply consent. There's nothing ambiguous about that. Unless you're in a previously established sexual relationship and have had a discussion about flat affect sex (the kind of discussion that generally involves setting up safe wo…
/r/MensRights30/11/14 04:34 AM
2

So... it's only sexual assault if they verbally object? Help me out here.
/r/MensRights30/11/14 04:24 AM
0

there is no practical difference between "affirmative" and "enthusiastic" There's a semantic difference, regarding the connotations. If you don't think those subtle linguistic differences are important, go read some scholarship in the field. Affirmative can mean "yeah, okay" or it can mean that when you go for a kiss, they physically respond in a positive way, or that when you get started they escalate the situation. Enthusiastic implies that any sex you have when your partner is not super-into …
/r/MensRights29/11/14 06:10 PM
0

To be clear, I think affirmative consent is something we should be teaching people to get because it's just common goddamn courtesy. I don't think it's fair or necessary to legislate for affirmative consent, but I do think it's something we should be teaching people. Note that there's also a difference between AFFIRMATIVE consent and ENTHUSIASTIC consent. Affirmative consent doesn't have to be verbal. It just has to be some kind of positive response from your partner. All I'm saying is, the pers…
/r/MensRights29/11/14 03:58 PM
1

You have yet to explain why you're glossing over the spectrum of consent that tretches between "cheerleader" and "literally flat affect." Until then, like I said, we're done here. And yes, continue to ignore the clarification I provided. That's an argument winner.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 05:06 AM
1

If you're going to ignore the HUGE difference between enthusiasm and flat affect, then were done here. I am not arguing for ENTHUSIASTIC consent. You don't have to get out your fucking pompoms and cheer for the party. I am arguing for AFFIRMATIVE consent. I am arguing for both people actively participating in sex. That's it. A man sitting in a chair, doing literally nothing, is not a goddamn active participant. Also, you keep using words like "majority" which are nowhere to be found in my post. …
/r/MensRights29/11/14 12:52 AM
2

And I'm sorry you're too lazy to go looking for three minutes to find the comments in this very fucking thread which imply, or outright state, that verbal consent is required in affirmative consent cases. Like this guy, who's implying that physical resistance is required for it to be rape and is equating sitting motionless with begging to be fucked and literally saying that if you didn't actively protest, you're obviously consenting. Or this guy claiming that he must have consented because there…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 08:47 PM
2

I accidentally deleted a fat comment full of links, but if you take five minutes to actually browse the comment trees in here, you'll find plenty of comments that question the need for affirmative consent, usually by distorting, misrepresenting, or ignoring the complexity of consent. The fact that people are objecting to "if the person you're having sex with is staying completely still and remaining completely silent you probably should not be fucking them" is deeply troubling to me. I never cal…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 08:01 PM
2

The general opinion was significantly more skewed to the negative when I made my post. There are plenty of subcomments on other trees saying terrible things about him, questioning why he didn't resist, etc. And the objections to the notion of affirmative consent are everywhere in this sub, not just here. It's one issue that I simply do not seem to see eye-to-eye on with most of the other posters in this sub.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 06:17 PM
2

Here's someone calling him a faggot... Here's someone delegitimizing him because he's "fucking insane." He's a jackass. It's all just a publicity stunt! Listen, I'm not saying we should take his word alone and use it to convict someone in court. But this is the reaction people have to him claiming he was raped. Can you fucking imagine the reaction if he had physically resisted this woman? He's putting on an exhibition where he basically sits there in silence, doing and saying nothing, and then a…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 03:52 PM
20

Jesus, people. On this, of all subs, you can't imagine why a man wouldn't raise an alarm about being raped? After all the stories we've seen of male rape and dv victims ending up accused in court? After all the talk of public attitudes making it hard for a male to taken seriously when he claims he's raped? And after the comments in this very fucking thread, calling him a freak and a weirdo and a faggot? What in the actual fuck? This is goddamn shameful. And all of the objections to affirmative c…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 10:51 AM
1

Yeah, that was an unfortunate turn in the article.
/r/MensRights25/11/14 06:39 PM
9

How about a game where the gender of your foes is determined by the gender of your player character? So if you roll a male, you're killing legions of females. If you roll a female, you're killing legions of males? That way, anything that happens to the men happens to the women. Really test that reflexive "violence against women" reaction that people seem to have.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 05:20 AM
1

I don't know much about her. What has she said that you disagreed with?
/r/MensRights21/11/14 07:04 AM
5

Attempting to ban things is masculinist, and trying to impose your will on foreign nations is patriarchal ethnocentrism. Czech your privilege, shitlord.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 07:44 AM
1

This isn't a legislative push, to my knowledge (except for people who believe wack-ass shit like that catcalling causes reasonable fear of bodily harm). It's just another thing to add to the laundry list of shit these wackjobs think men should be ashamed of.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 01:42 AM
3

I'm against catcalling and such, because I don't think random strangers need your opinion on their sexual value any more than they need your opinion on their style of dress, their weight, or their hair color. I don't particularly want random people stopping me while I'm walking around, and I'd do strangers the same courtesy. That's not to say NEVER TALK TO STRANGERS. There are times when conversation is perfectly normal - waiting in line, on opposite sides of a checkout counter, waiting in an el…
/r/MensRights09/11/14 04:26 AM
2

Relevant text: an assault, in the eyes of the law, is anything that either causes grievous bodily harm or death, or something that creates a reasonable fear of grievous bodily harm or death. Street harassment that doesn’t involve touching is the latter, directly causing a woman to fear for her bodily integrity and in some cases her life.
/r/MensRights08/11/14 03:58 PM
2

I was curious too. Blah blah privilege, blah blah your achievements aren't real because muh oppression. I'm not denying that there are issues of discrimination or opportunity. That's true, and the numbers back it up. But whether someone is better because of inherent talent, hard work, or privilege, SOMEONE WHO IS BETTER IS STILL BETTER. If you want to "fix" the "problems" with meritocracy, you don't do so by crying about privilege. You do it by instigating cultural changes to attitudes about gen…
/r/MensRights07/11/14 06:58 PM
0

And I'm saying that you can't know that he'll be fine. I'm saying she put him at risk of being a parent, which puts his financial and emotional health at risk. This is a woman who is supposed to be trustworthy. She's supposed to be in a position of authority over him. She's a representative of the government for shit's sake. And even if THIS kid is fine, by allowing this instance to go unpunished you set the precedent for other teachers to fuck their students. What if the next one has the clap? …
/r/MensRights02/11/14 06:23 AM
0

Having sex with a beautiful woman is not a compromised decision. Having sex with a grown-ass woman in a position of authority who should goddamn know better IS a compromised decision, because of a number of factors. Among those factors are the potential (and probable) financial ruin should she become pregnant. And as to when our brains are fully formed? About 25, according to the latest science. If you'll read my posts elsewhere in the thread, I've said that there comes a point where we have to …
/r/MensRights02/11/14 05:57 AM
8

we were wrong That might be the most encouraging aspect of this whole article.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 06:13 AM
1

I was referring to "A Modest Proposal." Not sure if that was the original intent
/r/MensRights31/10/14 12:43 AM
2

They're criminal if the employee or client is fucking underage. Just like professor/student relationships.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 10:16 PM
2

There's a reason bosses asking their subordinates for sex is grounds for a lawsuit. There's a reason a therapist fucking their client is grounds for revocation of license. A position of power and trust is something that, as an adult, SHE is responsible for NOT abusing. What he felt about the matter is not the only problem here. The problem is also that she's old enough to fucking know better. You don't think this kid bragging to his friend was a power play? "She is the person in power, but she s…
/r/MensRights30/10/14 09:51 PM
0

That's right. Go ahead and ignore all the other factors that, WHEN COMBINED WITH HIS COMPROMISED JUDGEMENT, make this case egregious. How's that reducto ad absurdum treating you? [eta]There comes a point where we, as a society, must by necessity start treating kids as adults because they have to start contributing to fulfilling the demands of themselves and their families. But let us not mistake the fact that we have to treat them as adults with the fact that, in some undeniable biological ways,…
/r/MensRights30/10/14 07:42 PM
3

What I was or am able to rationalize is not the same as what is a clear, responsible decision. And when the matter in question is a grown-ass adult, in a position of authority, taking advantage of a student, and when the consequences are up to and including being financially fucked for the next 18 years of your life, yeah, I think it's fair to say his judgment was probably fucking compromised.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 07:41 PM
6

Yeah, and at age 16 the part of your brain which deals with long-term decision making and impulse control is still not fully-formed. So, no, his judgment isn't clear.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 03:02 PM
6

Tough crowd. Swift jokes may not be the way to go here.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 03:00 PM
9

Emotional violence only gets one slice of the pie? That's... woefully underrepresented. Emotional violence deserves as much of that graph as physical or sexual violence. It's the 21st century. Isn't it time we really started accepting that manipulation and emotional abuse can be fucking deadly?
/r/MensRights06/10/14 01:28 AM
5

It's not just physically that this is the case. The same is true of male emotions. There is a strong social pressure to keep one's chin up, soldier on, that sort of thing. Just suck it up. And then, when you finally hit an obstacle that you cannot simply push through with stoicism, you feel like it's your failing. It's a behavior I recognize in myself, and in many of my friends. It's a behavior I've recognized among men as a whole. And it probably contributes to the higher rates among men of sel…
/r/MensRights04/10/14 11:29 PM
3

You seem to have missed the crux of the argument, because you've cited the author's evidence as examples that he's wrong by divorcing them from their critical rhetorical context. You also don't seem to have gotten past the first screen's worth of text, which means you missed over 80% of the content of the article. This kind of toxic bullshit is why I can't take half of men's rights seriously. Declaring something to be toxic bullshit without giving it even the courtesy of a full read-through does…
/r/MensRights29/09/14 06:53 AM
2

Because how much stock other people put in you is a component of value. There's no grand cosmic scale by which we can evaluate people objectively. All we have is our worth to ourselves and our worth to others.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 06:29 AM
3

Even the term “male birth control” reveals that the world considers contraception a decidedly feminine endeavor Gosh. That's so weird! It's only that, you know, the female body is the one in which the egg is produced, fertilized, and gestated. Probably sexism. Or patriarchy. Or something.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 07:40 PM
1

Jungle is fed, gg noobs.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:49 AM
1

The shots went right through the giant gauged holes of their ears. Whoosh
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:48 AM
4

And then, when they make a product designed for women, we can all get on Amazon and write snarky reviews about how our husband had to show us how to use it and how it interferes with our baking and laundry!
/r/MensRights15/09/14 04:43 AM
3

try to combat parts of the feminist movement that are problematic Like pointing out when they do heinous shit, or blatantly lie, or misrepresent scientific data, or display an astonishing lack of self-awareness? while building bridges with those who see feminism and MRM as parallel movements. I'll absolutely do that, so long as those feminists follow basic guidelines of decency, like not using proven false or misleading statistics or actively opposing men's rights causes. Understand, though, tha…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 08:45 PM
7

How's that working out for you? Well, let's turn that microscope around. How is "talk[ing] about how shitty it is to grow up as a boy in this day and age" working out for you? Because for me, it's not a successful way to get any traction in conversation. Feminism is already fighting the culture war, and it's winning because its adherents have the credibility in the public sphere to say things like "oh, well might have said ____, but isn't a real feminist, you don't know what real feminism is." S…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 04:45 PM
17

Counseling and emotional support for divorced women. None for men. It's the same shit all over.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 07:47 PM
1

You claim that people are reading nefarious intent into a comment in which there is none. You then say that the parent poster claims "no substantive discussion..." which is patently false. I went ahead and checked all his comments in this thread just to make sure. Pots and kettles, friend. Pots and kettles. Post's been edited. No longer relevant.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 08:12 AM
1

I don't think it came off as concern trolling. I had similar concerns when I read the top-level comment. The way it's phrased seems not only to attempt to negate Obama's statement, but to suggest that the opposite is true.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 06:25 AM
3

But muh internalized misogyny! /s
/r/MensRights14/07/14 05:09 PM
1

Imagine that they needed to take a picture of the girl's lubricated vagina and were going to medically induce the lubrication with an injection. Then you're closer to the sense of violation here.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 04:25 PM
8

I'd hesitate to use the term "use" when talking about sex workers. It may seem like no big deal, but with all the focus on "objectification," that word gives people ammunition to claim you're treating women like objects. "Visiting," "patronizing," or "soliciting" would probably be better - emphasize the transactional nature of the thing.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 08:13 AM
1

I did nothing of the sort. I was referring to the numerous people I've heard make utterly asinine claims like "I _____ better when I'm drunk," where you can fill the blank with just about any action and it'll be wrong just about every time. You can recognize that you're intoxicated and still not realize you're impaired.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:01 PM
6

People who are impaired rarely seem to think they are impaired. Also, getting high has different effects on different people, with different intake methods, and with different strains. Even IF you are a person who suffers NO negative effects from getting high, you are certainly not representative of the general population. Sorry, bud.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 01:55 AM
2

I don't think the way she presents herself in Pussy should be related to the actions of these individuals against her, I think it's an entirely separate issue. Pretty much this. Even if we make the incredibly generous assumption that her stage character is completely indistinguishable from the way she behaves in real life, how she chooses to portray herself in a music video has nothing to do with common fucking decency in public. Pornstars fuck on camera, but I still don't assume I have carte bl…
/r/MensRights20/06/14 12:57 PM
3

And you don't see how that sounds eerily similar to the rhetoric of tumblrinas and SRSers? "We're not misandrist. We're responding to the toxic masculinity we see around us every day. We just need a safe space. We're not awful, we're just pretending."
/r/MensRights12/06/14 04:43 PM
1

Watch the sequel. Just mute it every time whatsername starts talking. It's okay, except for that atrocious accent.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 11:00 AM
7

They have the right to be upset, yes, but that anger should be directed toward the specific people who have wronged them. Too often, when I talk to a red pill type, that anger seems to have gone beyond anger at the culprit or culprits and become anger at women in general. If there's one thing that I came to the MHRM to promote, it's the notion that bad experiences with one, ten, or a thousand people of a given gender still do not justify blaming the gender itself.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 10:54 AM
41

But muh privilege checking
/r/MensRights09/06/14 06:38 PM
1

More boring? I disagree! When you widen the definition it opens all kinds of doors, not just the back one.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 11:11 AM
1

Hey there, thread necromancer. You must be bored tonight. some feminists were protesting the war [Citation needed]. And, assuming that's true (which I'm even willing to grant, if only for the sake of argument), others were in favor of the war and the draft in particular. At best, we've got a wash. this place never talks about the many, many, many, many times a rapist never goes to trial.. It's funny how you neglect all the discussions we have about male rape victims who never get justice, or eve…
/r/MensRights17/05/14 05:57 AM
7

Only if your baseline assumption is that sex drive is unhealthy and unwanted.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 06:07 AM
2

I don't see how what is legal could possibly not be relevant when the thread topic is someone confessing to a crime. You're absolutely welcome to think that it shouldn't be illegal, but until such time as the legislation changes, an illegal thing is still illegal. FWIW, I'm not the one calling you sexist.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 06:02 AM
2

This is not "the minute alcohol enters the picture." This is when someone is so fucking drunk that, again, they are passing out DURING THE DEED. There are degrees of intoxication, and there comes a point where someone is clearly too fucking drunk to be having sex with, and I think the moral obligation absolutely falls on the sober party to end things at that point.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 06:00 AM
2

You being drunk does not excuse other people committing crimes against you. Putting yourself in stupid situations is a bad idea, but it still doesn't make it suddenly legal to do things to you that would otherwise be illegal.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:07 PM
2

I dunno. Is using force to coerce someone into sex legal when you're sober? Being drunk does not change the legality of already-illegal actions such as sexual assault or DWI. If she didn't consent, or if she was unable to consent, then it's a crime. Being drunk and horny also does not excuse someone else committing a crime against you.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:06 PM
3

Again, you're applying female hypoagency. Just because his body is the one doing the moving does not mean she's not involved in the sex. She had any number of opportunities to extract herself from the situation. She knew he was too drunk to provide reasonable consent. She holds at least partial responsibility for this chain of events. And, of course, all this is based entirely on accepting her word as gospel truth. Even HER account of the events is borderline AT BEST. We wouldn't take her word o…
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:04 PM
2

He got drunk Definitely on him He called her She answered he attempted to have sex with her She acceded after being presented, point blank and multiple times, with evidence of his inebriation. She took her clothes off. She stayed there long after it was evident that he was not in a right state of mind. So no, this was not all his fault.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:01 PM
2

Are we both sober? Check. Not in this story.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 07:58 PM
1

I think sober people are responsible for recognizing when someone is too drunk to consent and not putting themselves in a sexual situation with such a person. Responsibility works both ways. If a drunk person told me to take all the money out of their savings account and set it on fire, I wouldn't do that either - legality notwithstanding. The fight metaphor isn't apt, because fightin and fucking are on different legal ground. It's ALREADY illegal to fight someone. It's not illegal to fuck someo…
/r/MensRights04/05/14 06:18 PM
0

That depends. Are you talking about the legal definition? If so, yes, you were. Are you talking about the feminist definition? Amy Schumer was speaking at a feminist conference, so she probably would be. There's certainly no "enthusiastic consent." So from her perspective, the answer should be yes.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 03:14 PM
4

That's a VERY thin line to tread, and it certainly wouldn't hold water if it was a man using this defense.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 03:10 PM
5

Thank you! For a while there I was starting to think I was the only person who sees the problem here, and I felt like I was taking crazy pills. It's even worse because some of the women on my facebook news feed are holding this up as some kind of example of female empowerment.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 03:08 PM
6

Classic female sexual hypoagency. It's a two-way street. They were doing things to each other.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 03:04 PM
12

There's "a few drinks," and then there's passing out drunk. If you're at the point of uncconsciousness, you cannot consent, male or female, gay or straight, old or young.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 06:26 AM
22

This isn't rape? In what universe is someone who's so drunk that they're falling asleep DURING THE ACT not too drunk to consent? It fits the legal definition of rape, to be sure. It fits the definition of rape at every college I've ever heard of. And if it was a sober man on the receiving end of that phone call, if it was a man who had continued attempting to fuck a woman who was passing out DURING THE DEED you can bet your ass it would be considered rape. Because it's rape. She doesn't victim b…
/r/MensRights04/05/14 06:10 AM
5

Full text of speech. Here I go, and if it doesn't go well, please just don't blog about it. Right before I left for college, I was running my high school. Feel it. I knew where to park, I knew where to get the best chicken-cutlet sandwich, I knew which custodians had pot. People knew me. They liked me. I was an athlete and a good friend. I felt pretty, I felt funny, I felt sane. Then I got to college in Maryland. My school was voted number one ... for the hottest freshman girls in Playboy that y…
/r/MensRights04/05/14 05:29 AM
1

How much of it is actually different times and how much of it is just fearmongering?
/r/MensRights03/05/14 06:19 PM
1

My parents divorced when I was a wee 'un. I had to fly from Maryland to Texas and back about twice a year for ten years of my childhood. It's not as uncommon as you might think.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 05:07 PM
2

US Airways Flight 999 stars in the devastating docudrama, "RAPES ON A PLANE" - the tragic story of one Boeing 747 who is forced to sit quietly on a runway as literally hundreds of men force themselves inside her. Premiering this Friday at 8 PM on the Lifetime Movie Channel.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 05:05 PM
8

that I'm aware of Privilege is invisible to the holder. Check it, shitlord. /s Seriously though, that's the feminist counterargument. You oppress them simply by being part of the overclass, but you can't tell who is part of the oppressed underclass because you're not in the oppressed underclass, so you'll have to take their word for it that you're the oppressor. See how much power you have?
/r/MensRights02/05/14 06:11 PM
8

Did you not get the newsletter this month?
/r/MensRights02/05/14 06:10 PM
20

I don't think the preponderance of men in those fields invalidates the point, since it's culturally encouraged for men to become soldiers or work in dangerous jobs. If feminists want to use "cultural conditioning" as an excuse for things like women choosing low-paying jobs, then they must also accept that reasoning for things like combat deaths and industrial accidents.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 09:21 PM
1

Just to play devil's advocate here, but it sounds like that's exactly what they're trying to do. Many of the memes are not telling you "you can't say because ____." They're telling you "we don't say because __." The formatting on this post is weird and I don't know why. Except maybe I used underscores like a dingus.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 01:31 AM
2

Do you have a citation for that actually happening? If not, let's not resort to misinformation.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 01:27 AM
1

We don't know that there is a treatment for Gay<sup>2</sup>
/r/MensRights27/04/14 06:10 PM
8

But if you take the plane to get cured, won't you catch DOUBLE GAY? Or Gay<sup>2</sup> ? Where does it end?!
/r/MensRights27/04/14 04:02 PM
3

I dunno, that one's just kind of rude in general. I'm not gonna act like I don't gossip about people in public, but I at least have the common courtesy to wait until they're out of earshot.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:43 AM
6

Wow, this is tripe.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:39 AM
2

"These are a few popular rape memes circulating the internet." 1) I don't think this writer knows how memes work, or what the word "popular" actually means. 2) I don't think this writer knows the difference between a husky and a wolf. 3) I don't think this writer's eyesight is very good. 4) I don't think this writer is actually looking at facts so much as making what they saw conform to what they expected to see.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 11:24 PM
2

you still haven't made an argument that equates to the idea that we can avoid recognizing and acting on patterns in the behaviors of others or ourselves. My argument is "personal responsibility for one's actions." Can you avoid recognizing patterns? No. But you absolutely can control how you react to those perceived patterns. That's part of being an adult and living in a society. Norms are unavoidable, yes. But reacting to those norms is not unavoidable. That's all on you.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 08:47 PM
3

I feel like you're concern trolling right now. There's no evidence of anti-male sentiment in /u/mwilke's post. Got anything to back up what you're saying?
/r/MensRights23/04/14 07:55 PM
1

I protest your use of "unavoidable." We reflexively perform pattern recognition, yes. But that doesn't mean the patterns that we think we recognize are actually there, it doesn't mean we recognize the reason for those patterns, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be conscious of that, and that we shouldn't attempt to rectify it when our inherent reactions harm others. Something can be a universal human truth and still hurt people.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 07:50 PM
9

Like pockets. What's up with girls not getting pockets?
/r/MensRights23/04/14 07:43 PM
-1

It's distressing, in fact, how few people recognize The Onion as satire.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 06:41 PM
9

"I can't afford my mortgage!" Then sell and get a smaller place...?
/r/MensRights20/04/14 04:07 PM
1

all text on 4chan is green But that's wrong...
/r/MensRights19/04/14 07:52 PM
3

Well shit. I'm gonna have to read this whole blog now, aren't I? A lot of these articles are good stuff.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 09:30 PM
5

You only really know the anti-male legislation that many feminists produce, you don't know of other gender neutral or good ones that are made. That's a pretty ignorant assumption to make. It's also not in line with the prevailing narrative in the national discourse, with the lobbying actions of major feminist organizations, or with the conversations I've had with feminists in person. Please don't insinuate that the MRM is my only source of information regarding gender issues.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 08:57 PM
12

The trouble with your response is that, unlike Christianity, the "most vocal group" is also the one with the most institutional power. They are the ones guiding policy decisions and lobbying concerns. So unlike the WBC, whose power is pretty much limited to the ninety-odd people that Fred Phelps has corraled into some squicky family-cult, those "minority" feminists are actively pursuing things that directly oppose the push for men's rights. I know not all feminists are awful. But I also know tha…
/r/MensRights17/04/14 08:10 PM
1

You gon' act like a child, you gon' get ignored like a child.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 11:01 PM
1

1) You clearly have no concept of degrees. 2) You called me a fucking idiot. Go fuck yourself.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 10:57 PM
1

Discouraging false accusations does in no way discourage truthful ones. But discouraging accusations for which there is little to no evidence is not the same as discouraging false accusations. when it is "he raped me" and "no I didn't" and that's IT -- what the fuck do you expect them to do? They don't know this until after they do some investigating. This, to you, warrants a full investigation by the police and publishing this dude's name as a potential rapist? HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE! I'm not g…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 09:33 PM
2

Not necessarily. Equality can be between two things in a set of many. White men and black women could be equal, but if hispanic men or asian women were still treated like shit, it would be equality for some but not all. By the same token, if all people are equal except for the extremely wealthy, who are still way better off in all categories, it's equality for some but not all.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 09:03 PM
1

What evidence would you like gathered? Interview potential witnesses. Collect security footage. Examine social media. You know, basic police work. it's up to them to begin a criminal investigation simply because I said she raped me? Yes, actually. It is up to the police to investigate reported crimes. That's why we pay them. There are a LOT of steps between "go to the scene, ask around, talk to potential witnesses, look for physical evidence" and "petit jury trial to determine guilt or innocence…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 08:53 PM
1

If you accuse someone of rape, without evidence, you should absolutely be told by the police, or your lawyer, 'Look. I doubt you can win this case. Part of the job of the police is to gather evidence, friend. The legal system is not predicated on the civilian complainant providing all the evidence. In fact, evidence provided by a civilian holds much less water than evidence provided by the DA which has been gathered by police and vetted by evidence. And no, I don't think we should discourage peo…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 07:30 PM
3

I've got mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, yes, it is absolutely dangerous to be making allegations about a popular person on campus, in much the same way that it is dangerous to make accusations about a major politician, a corporation with a wealthy legal department, or a celebrity. On the other hand, I'm not fond of the police warning people about it, because I can really only see a couple possible outcomes: 1) The accuser is telling the truth. The accused party is guilty. There's physi…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 03:52 PM
0

I know. tips fedora
/r/MensRights15/04/14 08:46 PM
13

Nothing is funny on big bang theory.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:49 PM
2

I feel like there's been a bit of a demo shift, because when I first came to /r/MensRights I felt, as a hard-lefter, like the odd man out. I don't get anywhere near that sense any more. Could just be a gradual shift in my views which I haven't noticed over time, but... /shrug
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:47 PM
16

Since you're too tired, I'll hop on board and agree with you here. I hate that feminism has appropriated the whole alphabet soup of gay/trans/queer issues as their purview. For one thing, it gives them an excuse to hate "cishet" men (because we're Bad People who can't handle The Gays, apparently?). For another thing, feminism is absolutely women first, and I cannot see how feminism can honestly claim to work for the rights of gay and trans folk when they're so dogmatically focused on the problem…
/r/MensRights06/04/14 04:51 PM
5

I notice. I just don't let it interrupt my sets.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 06:36 AM
7

Not if you read the article and get it in context
/r/MensRights05/04/14 07:49 PM
157

Feminists criticize Mayer During her tenure at Google, she took pains to accommodate working mothers, only she did in a way that did not give them special status. Found the problem (emphasis mine). Mayer’s way seems more viable in a world in which men and women compete equally for scholarships and jobs and are moving toward sharing domestic responsibilities, too. Wait, what? You meanhere's a person fighting for people to be treated equally by instituting fair, utilitarian policies... and some fe…
/r/MensRights05/04/14 03:01 PM
4

They blamed him for his part in the shopping spree. And then they convicted and sentenced her.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 06:39 PM
5

Except... she didn't actually get a pass...
/r/MensRights02/04/14 06:19 PM
2

I'm not terribly big on sluttiness of either gender, but I'm a cranky sumbitch, so don't mind me.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 07:22 AM
34

because our physiological reaction is more visible Let's be real here. Ladies can get all hot and bothered by visual stimulation. But it's not okay to shame women for their sexuality. Being talked down to because of your sexual proclivities is just one more privilege of being a man.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 10:21 PM
1

Oophorect?
/r/MensRights01/04/14 06:00 AM
8

Come on now, that's the same kind of logic used to dismiss boys who are harassed or molested by their teachers. Let's not do that, please. Her relative attractiveness has no impact on the inappropriate nature of the act.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 05:35 PM
1

Reasonably sure I don't know that.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 03:36 AM
6

Welp. I suppose that's that then.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 11:12 PM
4

That's an assumption I'm not ready to make without knowing anything about the course material. If it is as you say, then of course it's bullshit. But we don't know what it actually is, and the text blurb is not blatantly accusatory.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 09:22 PM
9

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. I hope it's sarcastic.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 09:14 PM
11

Participants will have the opportunity to: raise their awareness of aggressive behavior, recognize how aggressive behavior impacts their lives, learn steps to avoid aggressive behavior, consider how they can be part of reducing aggression and violence, and practice hands-on self-defense skills to resist and escape aggressive behavior directed toward them. This program is designed to empower participants to make safer choices when confronted with aggressive behavior. Based on the text blurb, it d…
/r/MensRights21/03/14 08:10 PM
2

Is "she doesn't have the natural beauty of some" really degrading? Beauty is subjective, yes, but there are generally agreed-upon standards of beauty that she does not conform to. Not everyone can be the prettiest girl at the dance, and that's not degrading. It's just a fucking part of life. Saying a basketball player "doesn't have the natural jumping ability of some" isn't degrading. It's just a subjective observation.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 04:49 PM
-6

This is just man-on-man violence. Let them wipe themselves out. /s The /s stands for sarcasm. C'mon guys.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 04:34 PM
5

I would LOVE to see someone going public and accusing fucking RAINN of being rape apologists or giving in to "rape culture."
/r/MensRights14/03/14 07:30 AM
1

I don't know, she seems like her heart is largely in the right place. Besides, it's up to the parents, both, to teach him. Unless he's in a single-parent household, there's probably a father there too.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 07:33 PM
6

I don't think I'd call them dates, but I do think it's good to teach your kid how to act when you're out at a restaurant, especially when you're out one-on-one. And at least that one's reciprocal - he should treat people well and be treated well in return.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 05:52 PM
90

Copied so you don't have to give them page hits. Although I wanted daughters my whole life, I ended up having two awesome boys instead. I've always been a bit of a guys' girl, so, in the end, someone knew better than I did. But coming from a family of all girls, I was really scared when I found out I was carrying a member of the foreign male species, cuz I didn't know nothing about raising no boys. So I went on a mission asking every mother I knew for advice. And here's what those lessons boiled…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 04:28 PM
9

You conveniently didn't screencap the comment before it was deleted, so nobody - not you or I or Raptor Jesus - can prove that that "dissenting opinion" wasn't, in fact, violating the sub's rules. Troll elsewhere.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 05:02 AM
6

Yeah, the problem is exactly the terminology used. The comments in the thread are exaggerating and being absurdist, but I think the initial claim was so ridiculous that absurdity is the only reasonable response.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 10:04 PM
1

TRIGGER WARNING, SHITLORD! /s
/r/MensRights28/02/14 09:59 PM
5

But reports it nonetheless. And that reporting gets bigger if OP organizes a protest - even a small one - on campus. That, in turn, gets our message out and tickles the nerve in the back of a few people's heads. They realize "hey, I'm not alone," they investigate, they discover us or COTWA or GWW, and the MRM grows just a little bit more. Get enough drops and eventually any bucket will spill over.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 04:40 PM
1

Stop acting like a white feminists. How so? I'm not stifling the discussion. I'm just saying that the Men's Rights subreddit's concerns tend to be more immediate than "sweeping overhaul of the government" - the posts here focus on smaller issues that we actually have the manpower and momentum to tackle.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 08:17 PM
1

You should probably get counseling for anger issues. You're reading a whole lot of things in my posts that I've never actually said.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:05 PM
3

Again, you're preaching to the choir here. There are a lot of issues championed by republicans that I simply cannot abide by. The same is true of libertarians. I have a different idea of how to fix the problem than most MRAs. But just know that when you support Democrats in the US, you're in the minority among MRAs. The real culprit, of course, is the two-party system that pigeonholes people into picking issues wholesale rather than selecting them a la carte. But that's not generally what we're …
/r/MensRights04/02/14 07:56 PM
5

Which would be fine, if the article itself hadn't specifically taken the time to say "It appears that one or more people at the very top, just beneath Obama, have been blocking it from reaching the president over the past three years." Metonyms are okay unless they obfuscate the meaning of things, which I think in this case they might.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 07:51 PM
-1

My evidence is anecdotal, but it's pretty strongly here. It's fairly common to find a high-level comment chain blaming "the liberals" or "Democrats" or other, more perjorative names. I've yet to see such a comment chain regarding "conservatives" or "republicans." The up/downvote system isn't a perfect indicator of reddit's demographics, but it certainly helps. [edit] I looked up the survey. Results indicate that slightly more than 25% of the respondents declared "democrat" as their political aff…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:32 PM
8

The article title and the article content are not at parity. They present no evidence that Obama himself is the one blocking the council. I'm not going to say unequivocally that he's not responsible, but I will say that the title makes a bold claim that the text can't support.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:08 PM
14

You'll find that leftists are in the minority in the men's rights movement, and many MRAs will place the blame for the vicissitudes of feminism squarely at the feet of leftist politics. To a point, they're right: feminism and leftist Democrats (such as they are in the United States, so still right of center in the rest of the world) are intricately tied. The government takes a lot of actions to "ensure equality" for women that end up harming men. Mainstream MRA thought says that, to really advan…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:06 PM
1

I'm not disagreeing - they're probably serious. But if you want to get a lot of attention, pissing people off is the way to go.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 10:17 PM
2

I feel like posting up satire right where everyone else is being serious is just about the most effective way of getting attention. It's like the guys who piggyback on anti-gay-marriage protests with signs that say "This guy's cock tastes great."
/r/MensRights01/02/14 10:04 PM
2

Terrible place? Or best place?
/r/MensRights01/02/14 09:55 PM
11

The front page is constantly changing. And it's never "more about feminism than men's rights." I could screencap the front page once an hour for the next week and it would not be a true statement. Not once.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 06:29 PM
2

My god, guys, this is genius: if you just swap all the references to men's rights and feminism, this is a scathing expose on things that actually happen. The doxing, the rigid ideological enforcement, the spoonfed statistics, the internet slacktivism, it's all there. He's just slipping it under the radar with a clever touch of Rule 63!
/r/MensRights27/01/14 06:28 PM
10

I think you'll find, if you spend some time here on /r/mensrights, that a lot of the things feminists fought for in good faith have resulted in negative repercussions on men or, at the very least, leave men in the dust. Women have reproductive rights, and that's great, but men still don't. Women have tons of resources with which to recognize, avoid, combat, or escape domestic violence. Men have almost none. the primary models of recognizing and diagnosing domestic violence are heavily weighted t…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 06:25 PM
13

So we're all to stupid to recognize a smear campaign? If it was easily spotted, it'd be a shitty smear campaign. It's just simply that the front page of this sub makes a lot of people really uncomfortable. MR talks more about feminism than men's rights. Have you ever looked at the front page? That's blatantly false. There were only 3 threads about feminism when I checked a few minutes ago, two of which involved feminists actively opposing men's rights and a third was a self post by a nonsubscrib…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 06:09 PM
15

Because of the active disinformation campaigns? Because we have a label that has been misappropriated by a bunch of troglodytes with antiquated, awful views on the relationship between men and women in society? Because people don't actually give it a fair shake? Because people take the worst of us and use it to represent all of us? Because of the prevailing opinion of society that men have it all, and even MRAs sometimes have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that we have justifiable com…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 05:40 PM
1

Children have less experience making decisions. They have had less time to watch the unfolding consequences of their major decisions. There's no good reason to treat them like adults when they don't have the years under their belts that adults do. It would be like putting high school football players on the field with pro teams. They're playing football, sure, but they've not playing the same game.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 03:04 AM
1

That's why the law includes a provision for people within a couple years of one another, so a high school couple in different grades doesn't have to worry about statutory rape charges.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 10:31 PM
1

Adults are held to a higher standard of responsibility than children in our society. I know that's a tough concept, but there it is.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 09:54 PM
1

18 isn't actually the age of consent in most of the US. So for the most part, we don't charge people with statutory for fucking 17-year-olds.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 09:52 PM
1

Yet at the same time children under the magic age can still fuck as many other children as they want. Yeah, that's because the state trying to regulate teenagers fucking one another is an exercise in futility, and a grave breach of privacy. Until a child reaches legal majority, the state assumes that the parents or legal guardians will take responsibility for regulating their kids' actions.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 09:50 PM
1

I feel like your sarcasm has not been appreciated.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 09:39 PM
3

But the i isn't the sound being dragged out. It's actually the sibilant c. But typing out nicccccccccccccccce just looks silly, because we've been conditioned to read back-to-back c as either a hard k sound or a ch sound. So by typing out "niceeeeeee" you imply that it's the end of the word, rather than the middle, which is being drawn out. It's hard to type out the sound the cop makes in that south park episode with the letters we have at our disposal.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 09:39 PM
18

I just tell them about the time I spent my entire childhood living in a predominantly-black county as an undersized white boy with a brain and a mouth too big for my own well-being.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 06:04 AM
4

Showing yourself naked is deeply personal to most people And if it's that sensitive to you, maybe TV isn't the place to be naked? It's not like the paparazzi pilfered nudes from her cell phone and put them on TMZ. This is HER show. It's HER character. She really doesn't have any ground to stand on here; she elected to appear naked, and by extension, to receive commentary from people on that nakedness.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 10:11 PM
7

It's not salacious because they're hot. It works because they're hot. It's salacious because it serves no plot-critical purpose and is only there to appeal to baser drives. It would still be salacious if they were all pug-fugly, but people wouldn't watch as much. The implicit question was, "because the target audience for 'Girls' is not generally the type to be drawn in by salacious female nudity, what is the purpose of that nudity?" The baseline assumption is they're NOT doing it as a ratings g…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 10:08 PM
1

Well, problem solved. Now we're only liable for 18 years of support. /s
/r/MensRights04/01/14 12:05 AM
10

It seems like her interest in a "unified" men's rights movement is a pragmatic one rather than a dogmatic one. Feminism, as a united front, was able to accomplish far more than a bunch of intellectual free agents could have. And when you agree on a lexicon, you facilitate communication between different experiences. To those ends, a more stanardized men's rights platform would be useful. Where it falls down is that feminism's insistence on a lexicon that facilitates communication only does so in…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:50 AM
5

The term is certainly part of the objection I have. Misogyny implies hatred, and I think that misrepresents the foundation of a lot of sexism. So-called "benevolent sexism" gets held up as an example of "misogyny" - "hate of the female" - when, in fact, the source of it tends to be an excessive value placed on the female; that is, the exact opposite of hatred. The additional use of intensifiers (not just misogyny, but choking clouds of it) seems to be claiming that the hate is so omnipresent tha…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:40 AM
8

capture, arrest, and fair trial preferred response.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 04:00 PM
3

The argument (asinine as it is) is that you're viewing that woman, not as a whole person, but only as a sexual object.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 06:02 AM
2

violence against men isn't violence against women Well... Last quote before "Senate Years."
/r/MensRights07/12/13 07:08 PM
3

Well, when they conflate "violence against women" with "domestic violence," rendering the two terms indistinguishable, then it would be fair to say "violence against women [which = domestic violence]" happens to men.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 02:12 AM
20

Well, I know who I am
/r/MensRights06/12/13 03:41 PM
2

Judging by your post history, this comment really isn't worth my time. I can't tell if you're some kind of shitposting troll, a sorely misguided would-be MRA, or just not terribly bright, but regardless I'm not terribly interested in what you have to say.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 08:02 AM
8

But that's really the point of this whole conversation, isn't it? Someone who follows you the fuck home is clearly an actual threat. Lumping people like that in with guys who try to hit on you and are awkward at it is supremely unfair to the vast majority of men who are NOT violent. If you call someone creepy just because they hit on you, you're immediately resorting to your worst-case-scenario response. You're treating them as though they're going to get all violent on you. Forget that they hav…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 07:59 AM
13

OP, I'm inclined to agree. It seems that the overuse of the word "creep" stems from the pervasive mistrust of the male. Men are always dangerous, and when are they more dangerous than when they don't get what they want? Don't men lack impulse control? Aren't they so violent? God, how can I even walk to my car tonight? I feel so unsafe with that man out and about.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 05:50 AM
1

Nah, there are a couple trolls but largely it's half-decent commentary.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 10:03 PM
4

Oh, I do. For all the good it does. -________-
/r/MensRights05/11/13 09:30 PM
6

Yeah, I basically want to avoid doing what so many self-proclaimed feminists have done to me, which is discrediting me because I don't have enough oppression points. My whiteness, my maleness, my relative affluence (ha) do not diminish my ability to strive for change.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 07:47 PM
15

Maybe I'm just deluding myself here, but I think the difference is that this sub frequently addresses issues that are NOT just problems for our demographic. Are false rape accusations a problem for young white males? Yes, of course. But they're also a problem for males of all ages and all stripes. Male athletes seem to get targeted a lot, especially basketball and football players, and let's face it - white is not the dominant skin color there. Is suicide an issue for young white men? Yes, but i…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 07:39 PM
12

It seems to me like she never really stepped into that online bubble in the first place, which might be why she has such a different perspective on the issues.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 05:47 PM
11

Did anybody expect it to happen? Probably not, no. But the effort had to be made, dinnit?
/r/MensRights27/10/13 03:39 PM
5

I don't think the author read the original article. She blatantly misinterprets things and takes other things out of context. Oh, and she puts words in the article author's mouth.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:32 PM
3

I can't see my turtle privilege from inside this shell.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 04:26 PM
2

You're right. Romance novels aren't marketed as smut; they try to apply a veneer of respectability. When comics do cheesecake, they know they're doing cheesecake.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 04:20 PM
7

I think it's relevant. For one thing, it's nice to see a self-described feminist admit, however guardedly, that women have privileges that men don't. For another, it's relevant in that we are constantly abused of boo hooing about things that aren't really oppression. It's nice to have a basis for comparison. Just my opinion. You're welcome to yours
/r/MensRights01/10/13 02:39 PM
2

Just saw this and came here to post it myself. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's relevant. This is not a gendered issue. It affects everyone, and it's a crime that can be committed by anyone. And it's nice to see a campaign that acknowledges that.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 02:53 PM
1

Oglaf is always relevant.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 04:25 AM
5

Both genders need to be more forthright in discussing the obstacles Good so far... that women face. Oh, so close.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 08:44 PM
2

Our marching band was 600 people strong, and there was overlap with most other school organizations. One did not fuck with the band at my school, lest one wished to suddenly be on the outs with most of the athletes, most of the school clubs, and a solid quarter of their classmates.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 08:20 PM
1

No u.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 09:23 PM
4

Ask a feminist if the inverse would be acceptable. Tumblr and Twitter and Facebook are full of feminists complaining about jokes that target women. Academic feminism is quick to declare such jokes emblematic of a culture that devalues women. The short answer is that, no, feminists are not okay with jokes about women. They are thunderously silent regarding jokes about men which, given how loud they are about "problematic" jokes, is tantamount to a tacit form of endorsement.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 08:33 PM
10

The point is not that this joke is unacceptable. It is, as you say, just a joke. The point is that the joke would be unacceptable in the inverse, and it's that double standard that the author is challenging.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 06:16 PM
10

It's not considered super rape. It's just considered literally indistinguishable from violently accosting her with a weapon and forcefully raping her. I wish I was exaggerating.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 03:46 AM
2

So... many... quarters...
/r/MensRights27/07/13 06:11 AM
1

semantic argument based on using the origins of a word, rather than its current meaning, in order to cast the people who use that word in a bad light. Well that's on par with "I can say faggot because it means bundle of sticks!" Your logic is shit, and you should feel shitty for it. It doesn't matter what the origins of the word "bitching" are. The current usage of the word bitch is non-gendered. The origins of the word "cool" describe temperature, but that doesn't stop me from using it to descr…
/r/MensRights27/07/13 06:10 AM
2

it dehumanizes women by comparing them to dogs No, it dehumanizes people by comparing them to female dogs. Since your initial thesis is flawed, everything that descends from that thesis is now suspect. I'm pretty sure "context" is not the word you're looking for either, because "context" is about the circumstances surrounding something. The "context" of telling a guy to stop bitching has literally nothing to do with human women. I believe what you're thinking of is "connotations."
/r/MensRights26/07/13 05:32 PM
3

This is exactly what I was hoping it would be.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 05:17 PM
2

Then I am on the right track, at least. Hooray!
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:16 PM
1

Was your second quote from the comments, or is there a second page to the article I didn't see?
/r/MensRights25/07/13 06:49 PM
1

I feel that way when I order a bagel. The thought of my awful phallic-symbol teeth penetrating that poor, vulnerable vagina-symbol hole... it just sickens me to be a part of that gender. /S
/r/MensRights25/07/13 06:35 PM
1

I have a lot of issues with the Good Men Project. For one thing, I take exception to the implicit assertion that those men who are not involved in the project are, by default, bad (or at least ungood, in the truest legacy of Orwell). For another, I disapprove of the notion that masculinity is something that can be quantified and distilled into "good" and "bad" parts; I refuse to let other people tell me how to be a man, or whether I'm doing it right or wrong. I also disapprove of how many articl…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 06:34 PM
1

I don't know about voicing yourself as the hero (or voicing the hero as you) but I do know that parents reading to their kids is one of the best bonding experiences you can possibly have. Just ask Commander Samuel Vimes of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 06:26 PM
1

Both my parents liked to read to my brother and me. My dad actually used to read books onto casette tapes. My parents split when I was young, and with the books on tape I could listen to him reading stories even when I was staying at my mom's place. I think I still have a few hidden somewhere in a box. I owe my parents big time for giving me such a love of reading. Unrelated: How does one get into freelance editing? Can your sister do an AMA?
/r/MensRights25/07/13 06:20 PM
1

"We don't need a men's rights movement because men cause men's problems!" EVEN IF we allow for that patently ridiculous assertion to pass unchallenged, it DOESN'T MATTER. Men's Rights is, at its core, not about who causes these problems (though we certainly do call a lot of attention to that). It is about ending the problems. It doesn't matter if the source of our woe is men, women, or green tiger-people from the Crab Nebula. This is not an ivory-tower academic movement aimed at "deconstructing"…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 03:20 PM
6

Hurting someone's feelings =/= being a dick, at least not always. You can hurt someone's feelings in a lot of ways, and the more sensitive a person is, the easier it is to hurt their feelings in a totally innocuous way. Reddit feminists make a hobby out of being offended by innocuous things. Hurting their feelings (or hurting the hypothetical feelings of other people, upon whose behalf SRS and company have decided to be offended just in case) is not necessarily being dickish.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 03:39 PM
2

No, because that's conspiracy to commit. You're actively seeking out someone to commit a crime. You're offering financial compensation for services rendered.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 06:20 AM
1

Political assassination is not the same thing and you know it. There is a specific law that makes it illegal to threaten to kill the president. Try harder.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 01:53 AM
1

It's Jim Carey, not Dr. Pepper.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 12:21 AM
3

People aren't punished for statements of intent. Nor should they be. If your hypothetical pedophile was murdered in prison, and a guard was heard stating intent to murder, that's grounds for investigation. If your hypothetical guard expresses intent to murder the pedophile to the pedophile's face, that's threat of violence, and maybe assault, and should be charged accordingly. You are certainly bound by the consequences of speaking certain things, but you are also most certainly not criminally l…
/r/MensRights12/07/13 11:45 PM
46

"May I pull it out?" "NO!" Awww, sheeeeeeeeeeeit.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:28 PM
14

The prosecutor, Joseph Del Russo, said it was wrong to think that because the victim was a boy, the case should be looked at differently. "Some people say, 'It's kind of different for boys,'" he said. "Well, it's not kind of different for boys. Because 'boys' is the operative word." Yes. All of my yes.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 06:42 PM
1

Yep. No point strangling them if they're going to hang themselves.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 09:17 PM
8

I hope it works out for you. That really sucks.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 08:39 PM
1

Well, if you're so sure that they're going to be hypocrites, it can't hurt to let them get the words out of their mouths before you condemn them, can it? Be better than they are.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 08:38 PM
138

IANAL but here's how I've learned to deal with bureaucracy. Call the IRS back. Record the conversation. Get the name of the person who tells you that they're ignoring your court order. Then ask to speak to their supervisor. Get that person's name and job title as well. If they, too, tell you that the judge's order is invalid, ask for the next rung up the ladder. Tell each person you talk to that you have a signed judicial order, and that if they do not recognize the legality of that order, you w…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 06:35 PM
2

If that implication was in the text, I would agree with you, but honestly I think there's some projection going on here. Let's not put words in her mouth. Are there people who would say that? Probably. But let's not start punishing people for thoughtcrimes they might or might not be committing, you know?
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:59 PM
1

I really don't see the implication. If the genders were reversed, the situation would be the same - if a woman promised a man a monogamous, exclusive sexual relationship and then went out to sleep with other men nothing would be different. By this absurd definition, it would also be sex without consent and therefore rape.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 04:13 PM
5

You know, the real tragedy of 9/11 is how many women were systematically targeted by those misogynist middle eastern terrorists. /s
/r/MensRights31/05/13 06:43 AM
2

Hey Facebook, we'd appreciate it if you stopped people from saying rape and other forms of violence are okay, but only if the target is female. Nope. Nothing smacks of "privileged overclass" there.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:28 PM
6

Misogyny is supposed to mean "hatred of women" in the same way that misandry is "hatred of men" or misanthropy is "hatred of humans." The word has been appropriated in certain circles to mean "saying mean things about women" or "looking at boobs without the proper blood sacrifice" or "having a penis and not apologizing profusely for it."
/r/MensRights20/05/13 06:35 PM
3

She didn't give them a free pass, actually. There's plenty to disapprove of in this article, but that's not among the problems.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 06:34 PM
6

OP might have misunderstood. She does a lot of hedging and qualifying re: what behaviors are "masculine" (rar rar bad) and what traits are not. What really bugs me, though, is that even when she's talking about women in an exclusively-female social space, she STILL refuses to allow for the autonomy of women - for their right to make choices like "I want to go-go dance at a lesbian party" - and paints it with the brush of "objectification."
/r/MensRights20/05/13 06:32 PM
2

in the fight to gain equality for the underclass, they end up screwing the people they perceive as part of the overclass So, basically it's a micrcosm of the Men's Rights movement as a whole?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 06:29 PM
3

It's a bit anachronistic, but it's still used from time to time.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 06:26 PM
2

Just remember, charged is not convicted.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 10:07 PM
23

Now, nobody's saying not to take reasonable precautions. Gosh, I wish that were true. Suggesting that people take reasonable precautions often gets lumped right in there with "victim-blaming" because you're allegedly "telling them how not to get raped."
/r/MensRights24/04/13 04:05 PM
4

Awesome, they are. Feel great, they do!
/r/MensRights24/04/13 04:01 PM
7

the rhythm of the boogie the beat
/r/MensRights21/04/13 01:57 AM
1

Just trying to get my foot in the door.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 05:22 PM
1

Shit. My parents ruined me early.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 05:34 PM
5

People told me that, as a virgin, I was going to be quick my first time. It was all I heard. "Bring an extra condom; you'll fill the first one." We actually got down to doing the deed and I found that, while it was pleasant, I wasn't climaxing at all. After about an hour, I said "enough is enough, my fucking hips are tired" and faked one. Later found out that the condom size was to blame. First and only time I've faked, but definitely not the first or last time I've failed to orgasm during sexyt…
/r/MensRights16/04/13 10:12 PM
3

I'm not sure his ignorance is necessarily his fault, and it's not necessarily bad in the context of his work. We don't know how much of his work at his practice or in his research is with gay men, and at least he's admitting ignorance rather than trying to speak with some kind of authority on the topic. Of course, if he talks a lot about it in his book, then his ignorance is unacceptable and that's a different thing altogether.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 10:01 PM
6

I don't fake because I wouldn't want her faking on me. I've had a few women whose feelings got hurt because I wasn't just "insert penis, receive semen" and I had to explain that, yes, my mood, my thoughts, and my physical comfort ARE important and no I'm NOT just a cock puppet.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 07:15 PM
31

It's commonly accepted because it's the only thing most people have heard of. They don't necessarily know the details, but patriarchy as an idea is definitely mainstream now - at least the "men are in power and that's real bad" aspect.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 04:03 PM
1

I trust this man. He looks like a porn site.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 06:55 PM
9

even according to other feminists. Tell that to all the blog traffic they develop and all the people who post that shit on Facebook.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:41 PM
5

Happy now? With your response? Yes. Absolutely. And that response is all that I want any time an article like this comes up. Not "that's not real feminism," because that's a copout. Just an honest, straightforward, non-evasive "This is bad." It's a lot harder to find than you might think.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:40 PM
14

Unfortunately, yes. Yes you do. We get enough shitposters and concern trolls around here that it really becomes necessary to tag sarcasm.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:04 PM
9

Chapelle's Show did a pretty brilliant sketch about that.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 04:18 PM
9

But, again, you can literally SEE feminist groups in action. There are people who call themselves feminists, who actively lobby for policies that benefit women over men. They are PROUD of it. There IS NO SUCH THING for Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 07:40 PM
5

The difference being that feminism is a visible movement with lobbying organizations and funds. You can literally see the influence of feminism in government. The same is not true of "patriarchy" - accusing patriarchy of being responsible for something is like accusing the Illuminati, as though there's some kind of invisible shadow government that I can't see because I dangle.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 06:34 PM
1

Fetish fuel. All of them. Just more whitemale lust fantasies. /sigh
/r/MensRights28/03/13 02:26 AM
3

Oh, the article was full of reasons. There was a whole segment on the episode where the guy takes over the ship and the writer of the article.was talking about how it was a contrast of virtuous white make lust against sinister black male lust. I wish I was joking.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 01:52 AM
2

I, too, am not one of them. I'll cook like a champ, but fuck if I can be arsed to do the dishes after I've finished eating my masterpiece.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 03:42 PM
7

Got a source for that claim? Don't get me wrong, I know plenty of fellas who know their way around the kitchen - I'm one of them - but I'm not prepared to claim that "most young adult men are much better at cooking and cleaning than women." That's a pretty bold statement.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 03:16 PM
5

It is, of course, vitally important to work against sexism, but trying to hang on to sexual violence as something that only men do to only women is not going to help in that struggle. We can honor the victim and still feel empathy for teenagers convicted of the rape. We can put responsibility on men not to rape and still discuss prevention strategies with women. We can acknowledge that women are perpetrators, too, and we can make room for the fact that men are sexually assaulted in vast numbers …
/r/MensRights25/03/13 04:43 PM
2

Redditing from my phone. Might be the problem.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:02 AM
2

Link is not working for me. What should I use as search terms to make it not suck?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:14 AM
1

autocorrect and rum are conspiring against me, but I think you and I disagree to the point where we won't agree. I'm going to call it a night. Maybe next time. [again, edited for drinking and autocorrect.]
/r/MensRights08/03/13 06:49 AM
1

I disprove of parental approval substituting for personal approval.If you allow for parent approval, then male or female parental approval can permit circumcision for a child, which I also don't agree with. It's allowing one person to grant consent to do something permanent to someone else,which is not okay in any circumstance. Being filmed having sex is included in the "pernanent" department. [edited for alcohol and autocorrect.]
/r/MensRights08/03/13 06:06 AM
1

For a vast majority of contracts, especially financial contracts, and especially in the u.s., you must be eighteen. What Europe wants to do is their own business but I demand consistency, and I don't think children, especially children under sixteen, can handle commitments of that nature.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 05:48 AM
1

They're all consentingto contracts as well as sex. Contact consent seem to be universally age eighteen.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 04:43 AM
1

But consent is not just limited tip consent to sex. Limiting adults from consenting to sex but allowing them to consent to everything else is hypocritical. That's the point. They're removing adults' ability to consent yup sec but not tampering with their ability to consent to anything else. Children cannot consent to anything, so letting them consent to sex makes no sense. Adults can consent yup everything else, so barring them from consenting to sex also makes no sense. Consistency. Consistency…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 04:08 AM
3

Why would your argument not apply [to children]? Because children cannot legally consent?
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:06 PM
2

I take this group's stated mission as gospel truth. I'll concede the point that they are not against men's rights only if you accept that their definition of men's rights is sorely lacking in substance, depth, and scope.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 09:42 PM
5

It's amazing how that article can be so blatantly partisan and flat-out wrong on so many counts, and I only made it past about three paragraphs.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 09:37 PM
5

Here you go.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 09:01 PM
5

Actually, my dad got granted custody of me rather than my mom, and we had to fight tooth and nail to even get my case to court so we could seek a change of custody. She didn't have a drug problem or an arrest record. The judge simply made an ad-hoc decision that my dad's lifestyle was "more stable." The decision was made when I was about six. When she lost her job during the MCI/Worldcom layoffs, the courts continued to demand child support and place larger and larger penalties, despite my mom's…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 08:04 PM
5

The GTA series is crap entertainment IMO - or at least it has been for its last several installments. However, I'll concede the point: females are not well-represented in the game. That said, the treatment of sex workers (at least in the united states) owes much to the feminist stance of "make it illegal" because it takes sex work outside the realm of what can be overseen and regulated and shoves it straight into the criminal underworld and much to the feminist habit of looking only at the probl…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 07:36 AM
3

I think the point is to point out how ridiculous it is when the shoe is on the other foot in hopes of discrediting the original argument. I agree that the implementation here wasn't that good, and that there are better audiences for this kind of post, but (at least to me) it doesn't seem like straight imitation.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 06:46 AM
1

Play Borderlands 2.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 06:45 AM
2

But when it's women it sets an unrealistic body image standard and we have to pwotect the widdle helpless wimminz from that ;__; /s
/r/MensRights28/02/13 06:43 AM
21

No one is uncomfortable with killing imaginary terrorist women. I... don't think that's true. In fact, I can remember several feminist critiques of various forms of media that complain about the gruesome or violent deaths of women in games or movies which completely gloss over the much greater number of men who are similarly killed or mutilated.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 06:38 AM
5

Although I do have to wonder what exactly discussions involving rape topics have to do with a conference on IT security. The post indicated that it was a non-technical talk on sexuality within hacker culture, or at least that it could be adapted as such. Sometimes conference talks aren't technical, but they can still be relevant.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 11:45 PM
3

There's a sizeable "natural parenting" community, at least in the US, that makes "showering with your infant" look positively puritanical by comparison. I doubt your brother's going to get in any trouble for that. As /u/oneiorosgrip said, check into the statutes for harassment and malicious prosecution.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:09 PM
9

Getting through to men is difficult due in large part to the amount of misinformation that's spread. Any lie, repeated often enough, becomes more believable than the truth. When almost nobody speaks the truth in the first place, the lie can burrow deeply indeed.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:06 AM
1

It's nice to have you on board. Every woman who understands and agrees with our cause is one more person that cannot simply be dismissed as a man who simply misses the "glory days" of drafts and forced servitude.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:57 AM
1

It's possible that she's limiting his exposure, but it's also possible that she's only mentioning feminine things because those are the things relevant to this particular article. Hard to say from a thousand words in what is basically a blog post.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 05:09 AM
1

That's not necessarily true. I have a friend with two kids, boys. Their father is a very traditionally masculine man, their mother is not classically feminine, and neither of them is a feminist. The older of their children loves pink and watches Dora and sometimes he plays dress up. He's got more girl friends than boy friends. The younger one looks up to the older one, so in many ways it's second verse same as the first (though his favorite color is purple rather than pink). Sometimes, kids defy…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:35 PM
3

Wait, people actually say that and aren't being snarky? Jesus... that's absurd. I'm sorry people suck.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:53 AM
9

Dominant women is a power fantasy for men who feel like they "do all the hard work." By forcing the woman into the dominant position in the bedroom you justify your dominant position outside of it. Fucking swine. /sarcasm
/r/MensRights22/02/13 02:00 AM
14

Fucking is assaultive because the word "fucking" is assaultive because fucking is assaultive. Delicious tautology.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 01:56 AM
1

That's a fair point. That said, when I see links about "girls are not as good at math because they're told they're not as good at math" they're never from scientific journals. They're from blogs bemoaning the fate of women in engineering and technology fields and crying about how few women are graduating with science degrees and talking about how the big mean men chase women out of such classes and we need to protect the poor, helpless strong, independent women.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 07:30 PM
1

If you don't have a problem with negging then we're talking from wildly different perspectives. I personally thinking that criticism for the sole purpose of lowering someone's self-esteem so they'll sleep with you is selfish, manipulative, and reprehensible. It's possible not to excessively compliment someone, but also not be rude to them; if you need to resort to insults to change the pace of conversation, the problem is with you. As for the transactional view of relationships, it feels pretty …
/r/MensRights19/02/13 01:32 AM
1

Not without compromising the whole system. Things like "negging" are inherent to that school of social interaction. It also relies on treating interactions with women as transactions or else as competitions for dominance. Being shitty is integral to the method.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 09:47 PM
0

Indeed. People who ignore or try to marginalize the existence of the bad seeds - or who try to convince me that such people simply do not exist, as though I have not personally encountered many of them - is one of the things that's so infuriating about feminism.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 08:09 PM
13

I think the biggest problem with PUAs isn't with PUAs as a whole - it's with specific groups of PUAs, like Manhood Academy, who are explicitly woman-hating, foulmouthed jackasses (at least when they come here). They emphasize traditional masculinity as though that's the only acceptable behavior for men (unwittingly carrying out the same coward-shaming and creep-shaming that groups like SRS are so fond of). They commoditize human relationships in a way that I personally think is harmful to egalit…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:28 AM
3

Nothing worthwhile. Their school of "pua" involved treating people like shit in the interest of short-term sexual gratification. [edited for autoincorrect]
/r/MensRights17/02/13 11:26 PM
4

Just double-checked. The article is a few weeks old. Wouldn't be anybody around to see it at this point.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 10:26 PM
14

They post on here sometimes. They refer to us as manginas, and really are exactly as odious as this article would have you believe that we are. If you're feeling particularly masochistic, you can check out their website, but I don't recommend it.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:51 PM
5

Do I have to be a site member to comment? I was going to just link to http://reddit.com/r/mensrights with the comment "decide for yourselves."
/r/MensRights17/02/13 06:59 PM
36

I almost stopped reading when they lumped us in with Manhood Academy.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 06:52 PM
1

I was under the impression that "his" default state was hermaphroditic. Course I dunno how many rules are applied strictly to chaos gods so /shrug
/r/MensRights15/02/13 02:39 AM
7

The difference between a psychologist and a teacher, which cannot be ignored, is that students don't really have a choice - they're required to go to school. This is not an adult willingly placing themselves into a situation where they have to trust someone. This is a child (and I believe that, in many ways, people are still children at age sixteen) being told by their parents and by the government, "This is a safe space and these are people you should trust." I don't know that it should necessa…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 08:15 PM
25

I don't think the issue here is with who can or cannot give consent. I think the issue here is that authority figures, figures that students are supposed to trust, have an ethical responsibility not to enter in intimate relationships with those students - just like psychiatrists are ethically compelled not to sleep with their clients.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 06:40 PM
6

I particularly liked the guy who said (and I paraphrase): I apologize on behalf of my gender, even the ones who aren't sorry. Gooooooo fuck yoself.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:27 PM
1

Well, since they get the nice things in a lot of areas... I'd be okay with that.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:10 AM
6

accusation does not mean a conviction, as implied. I'm not sure I can agree with that. Time and again we've seen stories where, at least on college campuses, an accusation is as good as a conviction. Students, almost exclusively male, who are accused of sexual assault get expelled without public judicial proceedings, without satisfactory evidence, and without a recourse through an appeals system. Even if they're never formally charged, or when they are able to successfully appeal a decision, tha…
/r/MensRights05/02/13 07:49 PM
2

I'm not saying I somehow trump science. I'm saying my "seems to me" was not an asspull, as you implied. It was based on experience. And came off as condescending? How? By asking questions? How do you find out things you don't know where you come from?
/r/MensRights04/02/13 09:54 PM
1

I've never gotten that impression, but maybe I'm from a different corner of the internet.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 08:18 PM
1

Summarizing in a blue bar is fairly common, and in context of the discussion obviously does not make you sound like a pride because we were obviously talking about toddlers. I don't have any studies because I didn't know much about the topic - which is why I was asking. If you had just answered the question I first asked without the shitty attitude, I would have just thanked you and moved on. The only reason it seemed normal to me is because I experimented with my older brothers and then, in sho…
/r/MensRights04/02/13 07:21 PM
2

I wasnt quoting. I was summarizing. So go fuck yourself.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 07:03 PM
8

Oral sex isn't part of normal sexual experimentation Isn't it? How do you know? Have there been any studies of preschooler sexual experimentation? Because it seems to me that the age group that's fascinated by their genitals and still young enough to just put shit in their mouths for a giggle might progress to combining the two.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 06:10 PM
3

Some children really are sexual that early, but they don't necessarily see it as sexual because they don't understand. Kids will experiment, and it's not unusual except in that it happened, apparently, so many times.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 06:07 PM
15

McCarthy, the father of the 4-year-old boy in question, claims that he cannot send his son to another school and "let a predator loose." Also says he has spoken to other parents of male children who have the same worry. Their own parents are the ones labeling them predators. That's pretty fucked.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 06:06 PM
7

It's not a refutation of an argument no one is making because it's not a refutation of an argument at all. It's pointing out something that is visibly present even though it's specifically not being said out loud. OK so it's speculative Yes. And it's based on overwhelming evidence from previous interactions with that group. Again, NOT AN ARGUMENT. Just calling attention to hypocrisy and failure to live up to what is, by your own words, the "central ethic" of feminism. we don't have to consider a…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 08:07 PM
8

First comment talks about a prevailing undercurrent in feminist dialog. It's not a quote, and does not need to be attributed to one person. Just look at the way feminism treats women as though they have no agency, and takes it as their job to speak for women everywhere. Second comment facetiously speculates on actions that will obviously NOT be taken because of a group's well-established single-gender supremacy ideology. there is no central feminist authority But there are popular leaders that o…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:40 PM
12

First comment talks about the bizarre lack of agency placed on women by self-proclaimed feminist protectors. Railing against laws which treat women as somehow inferior and unable to make their own decisions or stand up for themselves. Does have to do with gender inequality. second comment Points out that for an equality movement, NOW does alarmingly little to encourage the equal enforcement of genital mutilation statutes, death penalty or amnesty for same, etc. Again, directly deals with a failu…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:11 PM
13

You're making a mistake in your categorization. This sub isn't dedicated to bashing feminism. It's dedicated to bashing the people who either claim to fight for equality but fail, or who actively campaign for laws hurtful to men. If feminists would stop doing those things we would stop bashing them. But the bashing is not because they're feminists, as you seem to be implying.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:36 PM
12

Stick around, read a few of the sidebar links (especially "Interesting Discussions to Consider") and you'll see why.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 06:30 PM
1

Black people make up a sizeable majority of U.S. prison populations. I think that's what was being referenced.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 03:17 PM
2

When you recognize your own flub, we are much less likely to call out the Luftwaffe.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 10:06 PM
2

Now we just need to get Downton Abbey to cover it and it will really transition to this side of the pond.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 10:05 PM
2

The Equalists actually had some legit concerns. I would have been pleased if they had done a bit more exploring of the legitemate gulf between benders and non-benders. Maybe season 2... Anyway, digression.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 06:09 AM
4

I would love to see a currently-relevant Freudian theory. I would also love a solid-gold toilet.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:57 PM
1

I don't want to bet anything. I'd rather know for sure.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:55 PM
3

Yeah, but the UK has a whole political party devoted to common sense.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 07:49 PM
7

I... think there was some sarcasm in that post. It's hard to tell because internet, but that sounds mighty sarcastic.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:07 PM
2

The whole reason some of us are cheering at the inclusion of women in the draft is that nothing is more likely to get the draft permanently ended than women being included in the potential drafting pool. By giving them a personal investment in the ending of the draft policy, you accelerate that end.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:05 PM
3

SO MUCH SHAME!
/r/MensRights23/01/13 05:54 AM
1

I've linked the thread somewhere in these comments. The article seemed to do a better job explaining things than I did.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:43 AM
2

Here's their website. Here's the wiki page. Note the "women and children are vulnerable" claptrap. It ignores male victims and has a lot of that "dynamics of power" bollocks going on. This article talks about its use in all fifty states and in other countries, but is tragically non-specific on where.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 07:37 PM
3

It wasn't in SRS, and I didn't bother checking their post history.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 07:34 PM
8

LOL DILDZ MIRITE
/r/MensRights22/01/13 07:33 PM
6

Because the more examples we have of attempting to engage in discussion and being utterly shut down by the other party, the less credibility they have in the future. Because this sub is full of other people who have had similar experiences, and maybe someone has come up with a way to work around this kind of rejection. Because if I'm the one at fault in this case, or if I'm somehow misrepresenting the MRA case, then the posters here are damn sure going to call me out on it.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 07:31 PM
3

You can only engage in a discussion for as long as the other party is willing. I cannot force them to respond. I cannot force them to confront these issues for which they don't have answers. And if they will not join in the conversation, then my power to engage with them ends.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 07:27 PM
9

Comments and article link
/r/MensRights22/01/13 03:22 PM
23

Whoa. Did I get violent or bigoted while I wasn't looking?
/r/MensRights22/01/13 02:45 PM
7

This guy knows what's up.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 02:41 PM
5

Perhaps three-fifths of a person?
/r/MensRights22/01/13 02:41 PM
24

Good call.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 07:02 AM
72

It all goes back to that modernism/postmodernism thread earlier today. The logical answer is "examine position, revise, and continue discussion." The postmodernist answer is "ignore, discredit disregard, throw tantrum."
/r/MensRights22/01/13 06:49 AM
17

I took a look at about eight pages' worth of your post history trying to find an example of where your posts were downvoted or met with hostility, but all the ones in mensrights had a positive upvote/downvote ratio except for one which was sitting at 3/3. Are you sure you're not getting downvoted about gender politics issues on other subreddits? Because for the most part, the discourse in here is pretty civil.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 12:26 AM
9

Don't confuse "modern" with "contemporary."
/r/MensRights22/01/13 12:00 AM
18

You only think they're great because you're also all those words. /s
/r/MensRights21/01/13 11:57 PM
5

Then they are equally competitive. I don't see the problem.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 05:14 PM
0

/s is a sarcasm tag. I wasn't being serious.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 06:08 PM
7

You're not the only one.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:32 AM
8

mankind Check your privilege, cisscum. /s
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:31 AM
14

people like you provide more than sufficient reason for most people to declare the entire MRM a reactionary, hate-based movement And you lost all your credibility right here. "You are one person and your behavior more than justifies me categorizing all people who share this belief with you" is in no way an acceptable argument. Especially when you follow in literally the next paragraph (two sentences later!!) with Painting any group in as broad, negative strokes as you have done here does a disse…
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:28 AM
2

/pol/ is... less bad.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 07:45 AM
1

So if I say "ladies and gentlemen" your assumption is that I'm talking to the entire world as well?
/r/MensRights04/01/13 03:25 PM
2

Bingo.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 12:55 AM
2

We not talking about resources. We talking about problems. And there are plenty of those.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 12:54 AM
0

Not all women on the planet. Just the ones in our culture. [EDIT] In case you're not just deliberately misinterpreting me (in which case my sarcastic reply was uncalled-for) note that I did not say "all women think this." If it was implied, that's my mistake. It was addressed to the type of women who want to "feminize" men and make them less masculine, but at the same time ridicule men for any appearance of weakness, hesitance, or indecision.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:37 PM
3

Good talk. Enjoy your redditing.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:18 PM
2

Men have had their way over women for thousands of years and the gross majority still do. That's a misconception on numerous levels. Even if some men have held an unfair amount of power, how is it fair to give me the finger for that? I don't lord my power over women. I don't have any power of note to lord over anyone. Assigning blame to a blameless party is a tool of oppressive organizations the world over, and letting it slide is letting the oppressors win. I don't really care if women feminist…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 07:57 PM
2

That's just not true, because that particular comment 1) was not "nothing" and 2) was certainly indicative of a general trend among the more evangelical of our conservative lawmakers to fuck up science royally and then legislate based on that blatant lack of knowledge. If you can't be upset about lawmakers getting their facts wrong, then a lot of the Men's Rights platform dissolves as well. Or is it also "nothing" when Obama cites the "77 cents to a dollar" statistic?
/r/MensRights03/01/13 07:53 PM
1

I can see that point of view. I don't agree with it, but I can see where it comes from.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 07:30 PM
0

That's all well and good. There are certainly matters of severity. I'm just being very careful to avoid the temptation that many feminists and SRSers and their ilk seem to fall to of treating "my problem is bigger" as "you don't have problems at all."
/r/MensRights03/01/13 07:29 PM
2

First of all, "everyone does it" is a weak argument, and also false. Children do that. Children see the attention focused on someone else and try to make the event about them. Adults do not. Second of all, you're still limiting your interpretation of this video to what she says out loud, and that's not the whole story. The segment is called Target: Women. Any time she features something on that segment, from the very onset you know that she is saying "Women are the primary target here. They are …
/r/MensRights03/01/13 07:26 PM
8

And I'll respond to you the same way as to the other fellow who reacted to this comment in a similar way. This is not a zero-sum game. The question is not "who has it worse" because this is not the victim olympics. We're not here to complain about who has it worse. We're here to try and make sure everyone has it better.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 07:10 PM
13

Again, it's not a zero sum game. Leave the victim olympics to the feminists. We're not here to quibble about who is hurt more by this. We're here to try and stop anybody at all from getting hurt. What you describe, this taking offense at nothing to promote an agenda, is not a women-only tactic. It's outrage politics, and it's a very powerful and effective tool no matter who's using it.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:58 PM
1

Icy watt chew dither.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:56 PM
6

Of course she never states it outright. She doesn't have to. Her tone, her expression, and even the title of the segment - "Target: Women" - do plenty to imply that she's not concerned with how the ad impacts men. Then, if she's called out on it, she does exactly what you just did: She denies. "Oh, I didn't say that." And she didn't. That's factually accurate. But that's not the same as true.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:53 PM
1

You check your privilege. That's what you do. /s Seriously, I'm not sure what one is supposed to do about "privilege" except feel bad and let "less privileged" people get away with shit.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:04 PM
12

Yes. Everyone is hurt by sexism. But the an individual instance of sexism can clearly hurt one gender more than the other.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:58 PM
22

There's still plenty of shit for women to be offended about. It's not a zero-sum game. I don't contest their right to be offended when some dipshit who obviously never had a sex ed class in his life says something blatantly false about the body shutting down "legitemate rape." All I ask is the same courtesy returned to me when someone treats me like Schrodinger's rapist.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:27 PM
17

One more place where we're not allowed to show any vulnerability or weakness because the women are watching. Make up your mind, ladies, do you want us to be sensitive or do you want us to be invulnerable? Can't have it both ways.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:26 PM
6

If we could get advertisers to use their powers for good, they could revolutionize our world. Instead, they use their powers to push shitty products we don't need. So... capitalism as usual.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:22 PM
9

Thanks, Cee-Lo. We're really glad you came to perform for us. We all love hearing more of your hit songs.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:21 PM
16

And even when the sexism is blatantly against men, some people find a way to make it about women...
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:20 PM
1

They give a few other states i the article. I know Texas has such laws. I live here. Apparently Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota also have similar laws.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 06:14 PM
1

I agree wholeheartedly that it's good to keep abusive parents away from children. I'm just chafing a little bit that these groups apparently weren't watching closely before. It's just a subtle "fuck you" to dads, and has nothing to do with the actual law.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 06:12 PM
3

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but an increased watchfulness for domestic violence happening concurently with fathers being granted a lot more parenting time with their children... I don't buy that it's completely innocent.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:11 AM
2

A few other states already have such laws in existence. Arizona's just joining the party.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 05:24 AM
5

Advocates for mothers' rights say the laws are a ploy to help fathers. And I don't think anybody's disputing that. Fathers need the help. Groups that combat domestic violence are watching the effort closely to assure it doesn't expose children to an abusive parent. Law that will, by and large, lead to greater time spent with fathers. Domestic violence groups suddenly placing increased scrutiny on family law. Niiiiiiice. /s
/r/MensRights02/01/13 05:22 AM
1

I'm not making a case that one is really that much different from the other. As I said, both obsessions are unhealthy. What I'm saying is that while most of us are content to just mind our own crotches, these groups feel the need to poke their noses in everyone else's crotches and that's Not Okay.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 02:59 PM
6

I also think it's important to differentiate between care for one's own genitals and wanting public policy that integrates with other people's genitals
/r/MensRights22/12/12 02:22 AM
6

I think you're the extent to which they talk about that in public or politics.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 02:19 AM
6

Grunka lunka dunkety darmed guards...
/r/MensRights22/12/12 01:53 AM
5

big Typical male obsessed with genital size. /s
/r/MensRights22/12/12 01:51 AM
12

In political dialog? Pretty much. Feminists and asshat religious right republicans have almost a monopoly on the crotch-gab. Neither obsession is particularly healthy.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 01:50 AM
10

So will 99.99% of boys who play football. Sucks for almost everyone.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 09:26 PM
2

If your work's unionized, I'd recommend talking to a union rep about what happened and what you plan to do. That way if your job does start retaliating, you've got a head start with the guys who are there to protect you, the worker.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 11:24 PM
16

Because the phallocentric manocracy patriarchy bullying slut-shaming. /s
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:34 AM
3

I've been in that situation. I was drunk, and at the time I was a virgin. I didn't have any condoms, and it wasn't my house. I had no interest in fucking in someone else's bed, so she insisted that we have sex on the floor. The only thing that sort of saved me was my inability to actually get an erection - thank you, liquor - but the fact that I didn't want to have sex never even entered her consideration and, because I was drunk, I wasn't able to muster the coherent defense, rhetorical or physi…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:33 AM
2

Plus, it would be SoL after the kid turns 18, if SoL applies to debt, which I'm not sure it does.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 02:18 AM
1

As a man who grew a tail for about five years and went through a huge struggle convincing myself to cut it off, I cannot imagine your pain. It sucks that, in addition to all the other bullshit, you have to add this little salt in the wound. Condolences, man.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 02:09 AM
34

Approaching marriage like grown-ups? Dafuq do you think you are, some kind of grown-ups?
/r/MensRights07/12/12 01:12 AM
0

That simply is true depending on where you are. Source: My friend who went to Oberlin and also nearly everybody else who went to Oberlin at that time. [edit] Clarification: My friend was not one of those people. Just met a lot of them. I also met a lot of them when I went to visit.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 01:11 AM
5

If women are frustrated by my inability to placate their insecurity, know that I am frustrated by your inability to acknowledge that my anger is legitemate.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 05:35 PM
0

Fair enough
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:38 PM
10

Not disagreeing that the rage comic is out of place, but this is hardly an example of misogyny
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:23 PM
10

Do you care for the meanings of words?
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:13 PM
2

This article does a way better job of reporting the facts of the case, such as are available.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 04:55 PM
1

Fair enough, but due process is as close as we can get to knowing the truth, so we work within the systems we've got.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 10:52 PM
11

This. The woman calling him a "gentleman" doesn't necessarily mean she's making stuff up. It just means she's observing appropriate courtroom decorum. Let's not, in our haste to preserve the defendant's "innocent until proven guilty" status, automatically accuse the victim of being guilty of lying without proper cause. Remember, guys, it's about fairness and equality. Even to people who might very well be scumbags.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 05:35 PM
16

I disagree. It's not about "is this guy guilty or not." It's about the fact that this case has been mishandled from day one, and is rife with fuckups, and yet the baseline assumption still seems to be "guilty until proven innocent." If he's guilty, then by all means, he's a rapist and needs to be punished according to local statutes. But we don't know if he's guilty until after the trial, when he is evaluated by a jury of his peers.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 05:33 PM
3

I think it's pretty reasonable to expect anybody to defend themselves in whatever way is most reasonable. Verbal defense against verbal assault, physical defense against physical assault, etc. I don't think gender needs to enter the equation at all. If you want to defend yourself, do so. That said, chasing down confrontations and claiming self-defense is basically just rationalizing aggression, and that's still Not Good. I don't know exactly what you're trying to get at, but I hope I ight have a…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:21 AM
6

I think there are differing definitions of "aggressive" at play here. Aggressive in terms of relationships - good. Aggressive as in one who actively seeks out confrontation - not so much. Of course, I'm not Erasmus and can't speak for him, so maybe I've got this all wrong.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 01:53 AM
25

Links to some of the comments? I'd like to see these people and, if they're being as unreasonable as you say, downvote them as is proper. [edit] To sate my own curiousity, I browsed through your first page or so of comments. Most of them (with only a couple exceptions) were comments on the MR subreddit, so that was fortunate - I didn't have to dig far. I didn't see a single "fuck you." I saw some of your posts upvoted because they contribute to the conversation. I saw a number of your posts down…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 01:34 AM
1

Not sure if pulling my chain or genuinely doesn't know Taric's joke comes from an '80s tv show...
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:54 PM
2

I only recognize this as hilarious because I have a friend (male, age 25) who absolutely fucking loves that show.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:03 AM
1

But rape happens all the time. We have a whole culture dedicated to it. We glorify it and we don't teach people not to do it. /s Also, /sigh
/r/MensRights26/11/12 12:05 AM
94

Guise spermjackers don't exist that's just mra hysteria, SRS teld me so! /s
/r/MensRights25/11/12 03:56 AM
3

Response doesn't change. Especially if they've already asked you if you're gay. They're clearly trying to proposition you.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 01:23 AM
17

[spoiler]It's necrophilia[/spoiler]
/r/MensRights24/11/12 01:20 AM
5

My god! A 14-year-old has seen naked breasts! What shall we dooooooo?! No, seriously, you're coming into a lot of these questions the same way many of us did, I think: You've got honest inquiries, you try to approach people who seem like they should know, and those people shut down your questioning rather than answer. There is no blanket group for which we can give you an answer. Some of them assuredly hate men, but do not take SRS as representative of feminism as a whole. I think feminism's mis…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 03:28 PM
8

The unfairness in the courts was addressed just long enough to dismiss it by the article's writer. Like most of the other points, it was written off as not unfair because teh menz aer ebul.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:51 AM
11

Personally, I'm all for the "reclaiming" of the word. I'm not a big fan of making certain parts of language taboo for any reason, and there's no better way to disempower a word than to cheerfully agree when someone uses that word on you.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 12:21 AM
24

BUT ABLEISM RACISM TRANSPHOBIA BLERP BLERP ITS YOUR FAULT YOURE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!
/r/MensRights18/11/12 11:40 PM
20

It's been said by others, but as someone with quite a few friends with non-hetero orientation, "queer" or "genderqueer" has been adopted by some groups as an affirmative term rather than a derogatory one.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 11:37 PM
15

Movember doesn't discriminate against women. You can fundraise even if you don't grow a 'stache. There's a specific part of the website for movember ladies. Jesus.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:36 PM
4

not being a person Which was not a thing post-emancipation more disenfranchised That's some nice revisionist reading. What the Irish didn't have to worry about was, you know, being lynched Unless they went to the wrong neighborhood.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 04:20 AM
4

It's hard to hurt your feelings because you were probably not taught from an early age that your feelings should be hurt by these things. You may have been told that you're not entitled to hurt feelings - You're white. It could be worse. Be glad you have what you do.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 04:08 AM
1

Comedians can be philosophers. Look at Jon Stewart. Just because he's not thumbing through a volume of Aristotle every night doesn't mean he's not doing philosophy.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 04:06 AM
1

I dunno. Ask the Irish that lived in daily fear of gang wars in nearly every urban environment in America. Who were frequently greeted by signs like "Irish need not apply." Who were as disenfranchised as black voters i the south.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 04:05 AM
1

Trigger warning? Who the fuck is having flashbacks to that one time when they were asian in 1776? Also, way to be ethnocentric, you fuckwits.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 04:02 AM
1

Unsolicited ass play is Not Okay, mang. Not once. Not never.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 01:43 AM
2

Try using /s tags next time. We have problems on this sub of people sometimes saying outrageous shit and not being sarcastic, so /s tags help distinguish between the wingnuts and the jokers.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 03:15 PM
3

I'm not disagreeing that it's problematic, but I hardly think it's a men's rights issue. It's an issue of one particular man's possibly unhealthy relationship. Hardly indicative of systemic oppression.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 03:13 PM
4

I'd be checking for Chris Hansen.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 02:50 PM
2

I go see movies alone sometimes, because fuck you all I wanted to see Battleship on opening night!
/r/MensRights14/11/12 02:43 PM
3

And one of those sex tips will be "try putting your finger in his ass."
/r/MensRights14/11/12 02:40 PM
1

it is about making people dependent on feminism. fixed.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:24 PM
2

You're the man now, Dave!
/r/MensRights10/11/12 06:59 PM
22

What I mean is, applying rationalizations for her behavior removes the responsibility for that behavior from her head. Should he throw this incident in his face forever? No. But he should always remember that this is a thing she chose to do, by herself and of her own volition. Saying "My sister-in-law encouraged her to do it" no longer makes her the responsible actor in the situation. It sets up two options: 1) The sister-in-law is actually the reason she did what she did. That's bad because it …
/r/MensRights08/11/12 08:49 PM
20

And that's a good thing. Doesn't excuse past behavior.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 07:56 PM
3

I'm sorry too. Wish it wasn't like that, but I've seen it in action.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 07:55 PM
11

Please add /s tags. The last thing we need is some jackhole screencapping this and using it as "MRAs support wife-battering" crap.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 06:18 PM
2

pissed charges Autocorrect strikes again?
/r/MensRights08/11/12 06:17 PM
130

I hate to be That Guy, but "My sister-in-law told her to" or "My ex told her to" really sounds like you're rationalizing away things that are pretty damn serious. Like destruction of property and wanton disregard for your happiness.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 06:16 PM
4

a penny-grabbing 5% would be happy to reverse roles So letting someone pay for your date is penny-grabbing? Did they just call a large portion of women "penny-grabbing"?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:12 AM
7

So glad I'm not the only one who thought this.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 02:39 PM
15

Well said, and good investigatin'. As pinkycatcher says, nothing happens overnight, but it's good to be reminded that this kind of victory is only incremental.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:52 PM
2

Do you believe it's not? Without a description of the threatening behavior, we have no reason to assume this man was threatening except "he was a man, she was a woman," and that's no reason at all. I interact with people bigger and/or stronger than me pretty frequently. I am not a fighting man, and I am not particularly strong. I don't carry any weapons. And yet, I don't assess every big, strong person as a threat because - shocker! - most of them aren't.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 02:58 PM
7

you stuck your dick in it For one thing, we've seen stories of women raping men and then forcing those men to pay child support. For another thing, she put her pussy on it. Sex is not a male-to-female act. Sex is a mutual act between two consenting adults. To berate men for having sex without considering the consequences is to totally miss the point; namely, that in our system, men have far fewer options with regards to how we react to those consequences. Most of us are not advocating the abilit…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:00 PM
4

Wait, what? I was talking about this subreddit. This "generalize an entire gender" stuff isn't tolerated here, because both the community and the mods lay down the hammer on it. I didn't intend to invoke a discussion of Reddit at large.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:59 PM
3

But "All The Wimminz" vitriol is pretty heavily policed by both the community and by the mods...
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:47 PM
3

The problem with the "both parents" thing is that there are definitely people who get women pregnant and then just disappear. There's really no effective way to differentiate between those people and the people in committed relationships, and there's no way to know if the "father" who signs such a consent form is the actual kid's dad - AFAIK, they have to do DNA tests after the birth. It sounds like an ideal solution, but the implementation is a fucking nightmare waiting to happen.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:28 PM
5

I can't grow facial hair either. It comes in patchy and weird, and my moustache is on the pale side of ginger. I'm considering the merits of just getting a marker and drawing a moustache on my face instead.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 05:02 PM
2

That's wonderful. I'm so glad for you.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 08:36 PM
1

Ah, sorry. I read the post title and interpreted the text of the email as two separate followers. My mistake.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 07:31 PM
4

Which means that the other one wasn't. Nice. -_______-
/r/MensRights21/10/12 03:59 PM
2

squirt Yeah, I can tell this discussion's gonna be real mature. Noooooope.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 03:54 PM
3

No. I don't see how you're drawing a correlation between the two. As far as we know, Hilary's actions had nothing to do with Bill's infidelity. The fact that you're so eager to draw that conclusion speaks to an ideological agenda.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 12:08 AM
5

Actually, I think that's exactly why Hillary is qualified to dispense such advice: because she knew the consequences of prioritizing her work over her family. She accepted responsibility for those consequences and went ahead and prioritized career. Now she's former First Lady, current Secretary of State. She's living her message.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:13 AM
10

Let cowardly downvoting and removal commence Because it's impossible that people are downvoting you because your comment is inflammatory, factually inaccurate, and doesn't contribute to the conersation. Nope, must be cowardice.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 09:28 PM
1

That doesn't make any sense And now you can see the problem with your argument. The Mens Rights movement is forced to prove that it is not misogynist on a regular basis just to get our rhetorical foot in the door. Why should you get to take for granted that your movement isn't hateful?
/r/MensRights14/10/12 06:54 PM
4

That's circular logic. It could be argued that the burden of proof lies on your subreddit, which asserts that it is against this movement but not against men's rights. Try again. [edited for spelling]
/r/MensRights14/10/12 04:24 PM
2

calling it a club instead of a firm Classic male violent tendency, turning something from an expression of female fortitude into a veiled penis reference. For shame. /s
/r/MensRights14/10/12 04:15 PM
6

Thanks for taking the time to check it out instead of just writing off or ignoring a potentially uncomfortable truth.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:47 AM
8

Rightsbot, you are my Oprah.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:46 AM
1

You're the one making baseless value judgements on how problematic someone's problems are based solely on the color of their skin and their gender. So... who's the one cherry-picking for convenience again?
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:24 AM
6

Good thing my feelings had nothing to do with that definition.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 06:29 AM
2

White men f'd nobody harder than they did the Native Americans Only if you don't count the shit white people did to other white people. Varying shades of "white" sat around in Europe duking it out and murdering each other and destroying other cultures for CENTURIES before they ever got off their asses and started conquering other continents. Don't believe me? Ask the Picts. Ask the Gauls. Ask the Saxons. Ask the Normans. Ask the Goths. Ask the Trojans. And so on, ad nauseum. I haven't seen a wes…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:57 AM
3

If you genuinely believe that telling someone their problems are not problems simply because you feel their problems to be invalid is "simply 'being unkind'" then I think you need to seriously readjust your attitude.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:48 AM
7

It's a small consolation, but she actually not only admitted to a bit of recreational hate, but she used the word misandry. There are a lot of people who aren't even aware that's a thing.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 02:32 PM
1

The comment you make about lesbians brings up a good point: you can be at risk for unwanted sexual evaluation or advance at any time - no matter how strictly segregated the restroom facilities. So it's clearly the penis that is being called out as problematic in the article. I think the problem, in the end, is gender-segregated bathrooms in a culture that no longer acknowledges the gender binary.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:27 PM
2

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were judging. It was the article that's pretty much treating her like a predator. I agree that the potential for abuse exists, but I still don't think it's fair to assume she's got sexual intentions toward a bunch of minors - as the writer clearly did - just because she's sexually attracted to women.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 03:36 PM
1

Why does being "very horny" have to do with this at all except that the article included it? The "horny" comment was in reference to the feelings brought on by the hormone treatments and her claim of being "kinky" was on a dating site. I love sex, but I'm perfectly capable of separating my sexual desires from my bathroom behavior. Assuming she's a sexual predator because she's chromosomally male is exactly the kind of baseless prejudice that we should be fighting against.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 02:52 PM
2

Even if the intention is to make the changes reversible, why must the ability to change her mind be sinister? Is it not possible that she's taking on a female identity as a means of advancing awareness and fair treatment of transfolk? Stranger and more hazardous things have been done in the name of activism. Besides, it's possible that she's not 100% sure about her female identity, and she doesn't want to burn her bridges should she wish to resume identifying as a male, or to procreate.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 02:31 AM
23

The "don't rape" message relies on the ever-expanding definition of what rape "is." For instance, we all know not to screw a girl at knifepoint, but did you know that sex while both parties drunk is EXACTLY AS BAD - if you're a man? /s
/r/MensRights02/10/12 10:34 PM
9

It should be, but there seems to be a breakdown in the traditional "Presume innocence -> try suspect -> assess guilt" structure. In rape cases, many people are inclined to assume an accused rapist is guilty. So the "obvious" conclusion is obscured by the emotional aspect.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:50 PM
4

So did I. /sigh
/r/MensRights30/09/12 06:00 PM
9

SOP on this sub seems to be to put a /s tag after a sarcastic comment, because Poe's Law comes peeking in the door all the time. It's very difficult to tell what things are Colbert-style parody and what things are genuinely what some people believe.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 08:59 AM
3

That was well-said, and brought a new light to a couple things for me. Thanks for sharing your insight.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 08:56 AM
60

You know, I've never actually heard those things except in the context of feminists telling me how horrible it is that people say those things.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 01:44 PM
1

But surely especially galling when one's full-time occupation is minding one's children.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 10:48 PM
-1

And public perception, where fathers are sometimes accosted for the crime of being near kids in public...
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:12 PM
8

And now you seriously can't see the difference between "remember a thing" and "take photographic evidence of a thing and share it"? You've got to be shitting me. There's a clear-cut distinction between what one does in privacy and what one does in a public forum. I don't know what in either of my posts indicated I would be okay with a woman creep-picturing me, or any other man, any more than I would be okay with a man creep-picturing a woman. It's not empowering to anyone. It's Not Okay. I would…
/r/MensRights25/09/12 04:54 AM
8

I want to show off my body but I don't want anyone to take unauthorized pictures of my sexy bits. Can you honestly not see the distinction between "don't look at me" and "don't exploit pictures of my body without my consent"?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 04:35 AM
9

Bracing for impact, but can we not admit that they both have valid points wrapped up in their writing? The idea that the human body and sexuality are taboo, and that people should be shamed for it, is one of the key markers of the sexual monopoly of which this subreddit is intensely critical. I, for one, am pretty fond of the idea that we should all be a little more confident in our bodies and a little less shy about showing them. That said, the argument that our bodies should not be commodified…
/r/MensRights25/09/12 03:50 AM
3

I accidentally a word in my first post. I don't edit Wiki enough to know how is what it should say. Obviously there are people here more savvy than me. It sounds like you're way more knowledgeable about the topic, and I appreciate you educating me.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 01:33 AM
21

I'll be honest: I don't know where you guys are getting "one or two IP addresses." In most of those talk pages, there is mention of "multiple" or "several" IPs - not one or two. Without knowing exactly what was changed, I can't really speak to the validity of the ban. That said, how reliable a source is avfm? He seems to spend a lot of time editorializing (article titles like "the new nigger" don't help his case), and NO editorials should have a place on Wikipedia - MRA, Feminist, or anything el…
/r/MensRights25/09/12 12:07 AM
1

Quite so, quite so.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 06:58 PM
3

I find myself wondering how much vocation and inclination contribute to problem-solving attitudes that are usually attributed to gender differences. Alas, I am no scientist so I can't get the funding to find out.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 06:26 PM
5

Are you actually in some kind of STEM job? Is your problem-solving method informed by that? Or are you just a rare jewel?
/r/MensRights24/09/12 05:52 PM
8

Most feminist dogma seems rooted, to some extent, in the male-female heterosexual relationship dynamic. Since you don't take part in that dynamic, much of what radical feminists say to portray men as universally horrible just doesn't apply to you.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 02:19 PM
2

Actually, they make a pretty decent showing for themselves later (section... 9 i think?) when they're talking about men preventing themselves from getting raped. With the full series to give context, the part about "not getting consent, even while drunk, is rape" makes a little more sense - they do even go to great pains to specify that men can be raped by women for a number of reasons, including being too drunk to consent. I just feel like it might be more effective and less off-putting if they…
/r/MensRights22/09/12 01:26 AM
1

Yeah, that's a great idea. WAS I BEING SARCASTIC? YOU'LL NEVER KNOW! [spoiler]I wasn't[/spoiler]
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:23 AM
-1

Awesome.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:22 AM
1

The "rape prevention" part is actually the first decent segment of the film so far. "I thought you said rape was never my fault." "It isn't, and I'm not suggesting that if you don't protect yourself you're at fault. I just want to give you tools in case you ever find yourself in a bad situation." Can we just quote that and put it in every thread ever about "victim-blaming"?
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:46 PM
7

This mindset is clearly demonstrated in the alcohol section, where they explicitly say that drunk women cannot give consent, but drunk men have a harder time getting consent. Seriously. Being drunk is no excuse for not getting consent from a girl - even if the girl is sober. What. The. Fuck.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:37 PM
1

"Remember P and C.R.A.P." Wait... this was supposed to be serious?
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:32 PM
4

Aaaaand, perhaps the crowning moment of what the fuck: Being drunk is no excuse for not getting consent. Why the fuck is the onus on the drunk man to GET CONSENT FROM HIS PARTNER? How can he be forced to get consent - and be punished for not doing so - when he is unable to give consent himself? [edit] The summary for part 6 sums it up. It impair's men's ability to get consent and women's ability to give consent. Men are always the active agents.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:22 PM
3

How the fuck can "many rapes are accidental or the result of poor communication" possibly exist in the same exact conceptual space as "rape is a power play?"
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:08 PM
-1

"Because noone has the right to do something to someone else's body unless they can actively consent to it. Except chopping your foreskin off. Hack away, rabbi."
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:52 PM
2

"Including how both men and women can learn to protect themselves from ending up in sexual assault situations." "It is never the victim's responsibility to stop sexual assault." WOO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:45 PM
3

Please be aware that while some distinctions do exist, the overall result and traumatic consequences of sexual assault are the same You heard it here, folks. Fucking someone while they're passed out and touching their arm when that makes them uncomfortable are equally traumatic and rapey. I'm twenty seconds in and I cannot ಠ_ಠ hard enough.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:41 PM
1

implying that movie isn't amazing
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:15 AM
1

Man, usually Bill Maher comes off as a smug douche, but I was pleasantly surprised by this.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:04 AM
2

I know, but it coincides well with the content of the comment, and the delivery method (post-ellispis) hinted that it might have been a beat for comedy's sake.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 10:15 PM
-1

1) Unfortunately you can't use a single line return to create a new line. It's double space or nothin'. So your list is kind of tough to read. That said, I agree that rape is less bad than murder. 2) I wouldn't say the main negative consequence of rape is unwanted pregnancy. The removal of one's agency is pretty much always unpleasant to some degree. If we say that the consequence of rape is unwanted pregnancy, we limit rape to male-female vaginal intercourse (male rapes female, impregnates her …
/r/MensRights17/09/12 06:44 PM
1

SRS-ly Not sure if intentionally awesome pun, or just happy accident.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 04:56 PM
17

Nearly two-thirds of boys with a parent in jail will go on to commit some kind of crime themselves, research shows, and children with a parent behind bars are three times more likely than their peers to engage in anti-social behaviour. Their chances of suffering mental health problems also increase threefold. Yet despite evidence that even a short maternal absence can be extremely disruptive to a child... Emphasis mine. Parental absence is bad. Parental absence is bad. Parental absence is bad. D…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 04:47 PM
1

Smart Guy Roger Moore - is a victim of domestic violence. Gets the fuck out of the relationship.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 05:27 PM
6

masculism promotes male dominance Then, by definition, feminism promotes female dominance. Problem, feminists?
/r/MensRights12/09/12 01:05 AM
2

I am a 25-year-old man and I still do that gesture fairly often. To be fair, it's usually an affectionate thing with family and friends, but still... it's a wonderful thing to do with your hands
/r/MensRights07/09/12 06:54 AM
13

Bring four kidnapped children to disneyland, get the fifth in free!
/r/MensRights07/09/12 06:03 AM
3

she accused him instead of their son Jesus, I didn't go into the second threat because the summary was pretty painful. What the actual fuck?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 06:01 AM
6

Poe's law at work. This has to be a joke.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 08:22 PM
8

women wouldn't be able to go to law school if it wasn't for birth control Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... DAE see the problem with this assertion?
/r/MensRights06/09/12 08:06 PM
2

Jesus, man. That hurt me just to read. I don't pray, but my hope goes with you. At least your kids still love and support you, and they know what's what in this case.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 07:31 PM
2

If porn devalues people, does theater do so as well? You're watching people perform on camera solely for your entertainment. How about professional sports? The Olympics? How about when you go to a mechanic? Are you devaluing them as a human being because you're only interested in them for their knowledge of automotive repair? If porn devalues the actors, then every job devalues those who work it. That logic is not only asinine, it's unsustainable. Watching porn does not convey contempt for a per…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:14 AM
3

One day, I will find a girlfriend who says things like this.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:01 AM
1

I'm sorry, but what the fuck are you on about?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 10:46 PM
0

Your prediction is inaccurate. Listen to conservative talk radio. Watch conservative news stations. Pay attention to conservative blogs. Character assassination is a staple of their arsenal. They do it to Obama. They do it to unions. They do it to prominent leftists. They hopped on board when Anthony Wiener tweeted a picture of his junk through his boxers. They do it to prominent leftist politicians. Character assassination is not party-dependent. It's a classic tactic for discrediting your enem…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 10:31 PM
0

It just isn't relevant because we should still expect to see something popular like SRS but for conservatives, if political ideology really has nothing to do with it. Political ideology has nothing to do with the concept of a smear campaign. The right has plenty of media outlets that smear loudly and proudly all the time. The reason there isn't a rightist equivalent of SRS on Reddit is that there's not much of an audience for it on Reddit, in much the same way that there's no conservative equiva…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 09:56 PM
0

You're saying a whole lot and not backing it up with anything but vague accusations and doomsaying. I'm done here.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 07:59 PM
1

But you're making a bad comparison. Abortion, which is dangerous to the woman having the abortion by the very nature of the procedure (independent of law enforcement), is made more dangerous by its illegality. Premeditated murder of a conscious human being, is equally dangerous to the murderer whether it is legal or illegal. Your comparison (replacing the word aborting with the word murder) is fallacious at best. I don't feel I'm being disingenuous to punish one and condone the other because, to…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 06:40 PM
1

I never said they hated any of those groups. I simply said that for a group that claims to value all life as sacrosanct, they seem awfully picky about what sort of life is worth expending effort or resources to save. take a life, lose your life If life is sacred, then life is sacred, and it's never right to take another life. Otherwise, life has a finite value. For example, in your value system, the value of a life taken by murder is greater than the life of the murderer. That explains why you'r…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:06 AM
0

The right's stance on foreign intervention is, as a general rule, far more pro-war than the left's. The conservative party has a very strong focus on the idea that there should be no "hand-outs" or "entitlement programs," which overwhelmingly go toward the poor (and the poor in this country are disproportionately minorities). Despite claiming to draw their moral foundation from Christianity, many conservatives are pretty reluctant to lift a finger to help those in need. The right's stance on cap…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 03:29 AM
0

I believe that there are individuals who feel that way, but the conservative party as a whole seems pretty cavalier when it comes to the lives of foreigners, poor people, minorities, and criminals, so I have a really tough time swallowing the "sanctity of life" argument. And sorry, but the sanctity of marriage argument is bunk. 1) Marriage, the social institution and ritual is separate from marriage, the government contract. 2) You have no right to tell other people what is and isn't sacrosanct …
/r/MensRights29/08/12 03:16 AM
2

I would rather my corporation pay for abortions than for a shitload of political donations, or a colossal legal budget to enable them to dodge tax loopholes and abuse the legal system. If abortion is the biggest problem you have with corporate spending, your ethics worry me.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 02:08 AM
3

Pregnant women are always under the supervision of a doctor My friend's hippie brother and sister-in-law beg to differ. So do people with no money. So do people who don't realize they're not pregnant (since sometimes it can take a couple months or more to figure that out).
/r/MensRights29/08/12 02:06 AM
2

Such as?
/r/MensRights29/08/12 02:03 AM
3

educated people are going to take having sex -- and consent -- more seriously, but more importantly, it will become more formally recognized. FTFY. The people who have the most abortions are the people for whom sexual education has been slim to nil, whether because schools won't teach or because they won't attend school. The people who are well-educated about sex already do tend to take it pretty seriously, and thus get into fewer inescapable jams. Abortion helps to keep poorly-educated, poor pe…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 01:51 AM
-1

Apples and oranges. Murder affects the victim but not the culprit (except in cases of self-defense). Abortion affects only the mother-to-be (and the fetus, if you're counting it as a person, but that is a separate moral question and not relevant to this one).
/r/MensRights29/08/12 01:41 AM
8

There are people who will quite vehemently assert that even a cow deserves the same respect and rights that ahuman deserves. Personally, I think it's bollocks, but it's not irrational. Just indicative of a very different system of values than yours.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 01:34 AM
1

You pointed out that sometimes people do that. I pointed out that, in this scenario, she didn't, so the fact that sometimes people do is totally irrelevant.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 02:06 PM
3

IT'S AN UGLY PUSSY! A RUG PUSSY! A PUSSY HOSTILE TO LIFE AS WE KNOW IT! [edit] holy shit this whole movie is full of quotes that become hilariously filthy with little to no effort. "Your enemy cannot pull a boner if you disable his hand!"
/r/MensRights28/08/12 03:14 AM
6

Fall before the might of my mixed metaphors! You put the worm on the shoestring, duh.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 02:58 AM
5

You contested the commonly-accepted, in-context usage of the word "sex" when it was specifically contrasted in the text with "modifier sex." You caught a boot because you went fishing with laces.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 02:46 AM
6

pedantry You opened the can of worms, pal. You can't complain when you catch a fish.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 02:41 AM
4

Non-sequitur: the most ironclad of all debate strategies.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:58 AM
5

That doesn't work. Consent can be revoked at any time.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:57 AM
7

Anal sex is sex. Sex with multiple partners is sex. Sex on camera is sex. If you're going to demand specific consent, you have to be consistent with it. Some people don't equate oral sex with sex - and, in fact, don't even call it oral sex. They call it "oral" or "head" or "going down" or any number of other names. That said, it's so heavily implied that Hugh meant vaginal sex that it would be asinine to draw any other conclusion: first, because we, as English-speaking members of American upbrin…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:54 AM
2

if you want to be anal about it snerk.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:49 AM
3

Since nobody's pointed this out yet, if she asks you to stop. Let me go ahead and paste that again in case you missed it. if she asks you to stop. According to this scenario, she did no such thing.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:49 AM
3

I now want my next sexual encounter to resemble the propaganda scenes from Starship Troopers. "Doctor_Loggins's penis is strong! It is willing! But his penis can't function without YOU! The Citizen! Would you like to know more?"
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:41 AM
4

If you tried it with your mother, for instance.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:39 AM
7

he could say no at any time So could she.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:38 AM
1

Well, the anaesthesia example might not be the best, because I'm pretty sure you have to appoint a medical proxy whenever you go under. On the other hand, it might be a hilarious example. "I hereby provide sexual decision-making proxy to my friend Dante if at any point I am unable to provide consent. Therefore, anyone wishing to engage in sexual intercourse with me while I am drunk, sleeping, or otherwise incapacitated must first obtain express written permission from Dante. Failure to do so con…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:30 PM
1

I'm not advocating the logic. Just relaying what I've heard.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:54 PM
0

Nope. It's still rape if she wakes you up with fellatio, because (and I'm paraphrasing here) the most important part of consent is the ability to revoke consent, and when you lose that ability to consent you are, by default, non-consenting. So unless you can sleep-consent, it's rape. Every time. /s
/r/MensRights27/08/12 01:52 PM
0

The article, and most of the posts in the comments, were about sleep-rape (that is, fucking someone while they are in bed or asleep). I don't have a problem with that being called rape, because it is. I've gone through some of the comments and haven't actually seen the argument that express oral consent is required for it not to be rape, but if I do see that argument, I'll be sure to speak up against it. [edit] Found one! My response: That's awfully cut and dried for such an intricate and compli…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:27 AM
6

Jesus, if I had a nickel for every ill-timed boner that did not signify my intent to fuck...
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:43 AM
-1

Did he just... did he just use Dred Scott to condemn abortion? Eat twelve dicks, Napolitano. Eat them raw.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 03:13 PM
1

Ah. I misunderstood where you were going with that. Carry on.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 06:18 PM
1

It's shit like this, Arizona...
/r/MensRights25/08/12 05:09 PM
2

if you have to get a conviction (or really, even if you have to start the legal process) the point at which you'd be able to access abortion rights would probably be too late for Republican's tastes anyway. And it's totally impossible that they would engineer a law that forestalls the abortion process for so long that by the time you're allowed to get an abortion, you're no longer allowed to get an abortion? A de facto ban is still a ban. I'm not saying that's what they're doing, but given the s…
/r/MensRights25/08/12 03:13 PM
4

What a queuerious phenomenon.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 03:08 PM
3

The analogy fails to take into account a lot of things. It's a very simple analogy, and you're reading a lot into it that's just not there. I'm not denying that the things you mention exist. All I'm saying is that the stupid key/lock thing isn't reducing anybody to an automaton seeking sex. It's not crushing a whole person into a genital-sized package (no pun intended). It's looking at the genitals and paying no attention whatsoever to the person or to the society that person lives in or to that…
/r/MensRights25/08/12 05:50 AM
2

I don't think it treats women (or anyone) that way. It's just a limited analogy talking about one aspect of people. It's still a shitty analogy, but it's not dehumanizing because it doesn't attempt to encompass a whole person in its scope. Just the genitals.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 04:47 AM
1

In much the same way that many women reinforce the "girls who have a lot of sex are sluts" thing. Social conditioning is tricky like that.
/r/MensRights25/08/12 04:43 AM
7

This whole thing is just... absurd. First, the assumption that homophobia must be tied to some hangups about women (because it could never just be shitty social conditioning or familial/peer influence). And then there's this fucking gem: "Maybe... she doesn't actually want you to [hit on her]." So what's stopping her from saying so? Why is the onus on the man making the approach to somehow, telepathically, determine whether that advance is wanted? Just say no. It's not that hard, and 99.99999999…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 05:09 AM
16

Good for you, girl. Wish more ladies would start doing this. It's the 21st century! Get liberated!
/r/MensRights24/08/12 04:51 AM
8

according to Johns Hopkins University, the vagina is even wetter, warmer, and sweatier than the underside of a man's foreskin. So... we should probably cut that off too. Oh, and armpits? Those things are deathtraps. The mouth traps a bunch of bacteria in the hot and moist. Remove the lower jaw. Problem solved. The anus is a filthy part of the body, and if feces get in your eyes, nose, mouth, genitals, or pretty much any open part of your body, that shit (ha ha) can spread diseases. Remove everyb…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 06:47 AM
3

That's one of the sources of inspiration. It's a very overblown parody of the big brother, red scare thing (although that's a gross oversimplification).
/r/MensRights18/08/12 02:24 AM
0

CoD is only frustrating while you're learning/getting used to it.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:24 PM
24

Friend computer would never kill you. Suggesting that Friend Computer would ever act as anything other than your friend is treason. Please report to your nearest Killing Booth for a Friendly Chat.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:21 PM
10

I think that's part of the problem: the idea that shit-talking is somehow the purview of men. It's not. Shit-talking is the purview of gamers. There's nothing inherently Y-Chromosome about dishing out and taking good-natured ribbing or foul-mouthed insults. It's got nothing to do with the gender of the players and everything to do with the fast-paced, highly-competitive game combined with the anonymity (and accompanying lack of empathy) provided by talking to people's avatars rather than the peo…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 09:18 PM
2

It's not "less important because it only matters in war." It's something that will hurt you if you don't sign up. The draft is less likely, but selective service is an issue for every American man.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 10:04 PM
1

I am aware of that. It didn't seem super-relevant on account of I was making a joke.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 04:21 AM
3

The people who take the statistics frequently define sexual abuse by penetration, or at least they did for a long time.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:47 PM
5

the only known case of in-flight child sexual harassment was a woman harassing a boy THAT MEANS THE NO MEN NEXT TO CHILDREN POLICY IS WORKING! /s
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:44 PM
29

Also to prove that your state's soldiers were more killy than anybody else's soldiers, so they wouldn't fuck with you. That's why many of the original Olympic games were variations on the themes of "things you can use to murder each other" and "proof of physical might."
/r/MensRights13/08/12 05:02 AM
0

Let me hold you, midget man...
/r/MensRights12/08/12 04:19 AM
1

The logic behind "we don't tell men not to rape" is not "we don't tell men not to hold women at knifepoint and penetrate them." The logic is "rape is more than just violent forced intercourse." To an extent, they're right. Everybody should have the right not to be forced into sexual intercourse. But the idea is that if you convince someone to have sex when they're not sure; if you have sex while drunk, even if both of you are consenting; if she lied about her age to make you think she was older;…
/r/MensRights08/08/12 08:04 AM
6

I'm not familiar with laws outside the U.S., but here you can't get in trouble for calling somebody a shithead - even if their head is not, in fact, made entirely of shit.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 07:07 PM
6

The thesis of this argument (such as it is) seems to be "it's not objectification if you can see their head."
/r/MensRights07/08/12 04:56 PM
2

that's libel/slander Not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure namecalling is not covered by libel/slander protections. Besides, most people wank from time to time, so it's probably also true, and libel/slander is for false accusations.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 04:51 PM
2

Nice try, Pat. /s
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:26 AM
5

One would think it's obvious in that particular post.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:25 AM
3

While in most cases you're right, there is a certain argument to be made for "arrest both of them" - specifically, some abusers are clever enough to provoke the partner into striking first, or else provoke their partner into making visible bruises by striking them in a way that leaves no visible impression. It's an imperfect solution to an ugly problem.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 12:06 AM
2

The report is especially galling because it lists several things - one party with visible injuries and another with none, one party reporting violence first in order to gain the upper hand in future criminal proceedings, and the like - that could easily be used by men or women to scam the police in a domestic violence situation, but the accusations rest firmly on the shoulders of the male "aggressor."
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:35 PM
7

There's another (incredibly gender-biased) factor called the "primary aggressor" - the way they determine "who started it" when that is ambiguous. here is a paper written by a California DA on determining primary aggressor. There is an absurd level of bias throughout the whole paper, but the factors for figuring out "whodunit" start on page 4. A lot of the criteria are subjective, and many of them seem to put lots of weight on the bigger party being the abuser (in keeping with the "batterers are…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:25 PM
1

Being prepared for an unfair accusation does not mean that I can't also stand up for myself. But it's much easier to stand up for oneself when one is not being detained.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:25 PM
2

Don't get jailed while watching your friend's kids first. Stand on principle later.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:13 PM
12

Jesus, reading some of these physically hurt me. As a 25-year-old male who sometimes watches his friends' kids (4 and 6), I feel like I need to start carrying a signed note from them authorizing me to watch their children.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:40 AM
3

It bugs me that on her second post (linked elsewhere in this thread by EvilPundit) accuses the commenters on Dermanus's post of being an echo chamber. The comments section on the follow-up is pretty echo-chamber as well. I'm unimpressed with the "dialogue" going on there. The first post was full of critical responses (critical as in critical thinking, not critical as in harsh or accusatory) and, in many cases, those comments were met with critical rebuttals. I don't have to agree with the posts …
/r/MensRights28/07/12 01:37 AM
18

Yeah, she refers to friendship with her as "access to resources," which is classic Feminist dogma and infuriates me every time. You were having long conversations together. That is not him accessing your resources. That is the two of you sharing time together. Welcome to the 21st century and the friend zone, lady. It's not as common as some fellas think, but it's definitely a thing.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 01:19 AM
7

Personally, I prefer the analogy of wearing your seatbelt. Bad shit happens sometimes when you drive a car. Say you get hit by a drunk driver. The other driver is clearly at fault for the accident, because he was breaking the law. But by wearing your seatbelt, you can reduce the severity of your accident. It is not victim blaming, nor is it condoning drunk driving, to say "wear your seatbelt in case you get in an accident."
/r/MensRights24/07/12 05:47 AM
11

Cars are replaceable Have you got enough money laying around to replace a car?
/r/MensRights24/07/12 05:35 AM
5

I think the internet with blackjack and hookers is just called "the internet."
/r/MensRights23/07/12 03:59 AM
6

This "the media is to blame" thing is kind of old hat now. Yes, media consumption is a big factor in socialization - if parents allow their children to consume. My parents limited how much TV I watched, how much time I spent playing video games, and how much time I spent on the computer. They did their best to teach me what is and is not worth investing energy in - including trying to moderate, when appropriate, or counteract, when necessary, the influence of things like TV. Yes, media providers…
/r/MensRights19/07/12 05:59 PM
6

cosplay girls are a combination of geeky women and attractive outfits, and I like that. OMG Y U NO CONSIDER COSPLAY GIRLS 2 B PEOPEL Fuck off.Nobody said they exist solely for Simon Pegg to enjoy their brass bikinis. But when they all pose together for a picture, to claim that they're not seeking sexual attention is ridiculous. Even if that's not their goal, the fact of the matter is that a dozen nearly-nude women is going to attract sexual attention, and to be upset by that is like streaking on…
/r/MensRights18/07/12 07:54 PM
1

The huns, you say?
/r/MensRights12/07/12 05:05 PM
13

It's not your gender. It's people who just happen to have the same gender as you. Big difference. That's the kind of mindset that leads to gender-discrimination and gender-hate. It's the opposite of what we need. Sympathy is okay, but apologizing for something you didn't do is pointless.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 09:00 PM
1

ano nymous said... Peeps, this seems like a pretty obvious solution to me: just let the man decide! I know it will be more painful to have the circumcision done as an adult but I don't think its right under any circumstances to perform the mutilation of ANY part of one's body without their consent. Personally, I think that circumcision is unnecessary and silly. It is based on Abrahamic beliefs that date back to the times when women were stoned for leaving their husbands and whole tribes were mas…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:43 PM
1

capnsherve said... I love uncircumcised penises! I love the way they feel in my mouth and in my vagina. I can't even believe that there are women who won't accept a penis the way it is supposed to be. How can a woman demand that a man have part of his most intimate part cut off? Circumcising a little boy is way beyond what any parent has a right to do. If a grown man wants to cut part of his penis off then it is his right and I wouldn't dream of stopping him (I would also still have sex with him…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:43 PM
1

Anonymous said... Well, Im 23 and not circumcised but wish i was. Ive been with many girls and all of them have a different opinion about cut or uncut! Im from australia and it appears that circumcision is going out the window and is harder to get done. I'm planning on getting cut but i dont know how to go about it or who to see? 10:27 AM, April 01, 2012 Anonymous said... I'm 24, from the US, and spent most of my life uncircumcised. After feeling peer pressure in school, I requested that I be cu…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:42 PM
1

Anonymous said... You people are disgusting. It is purely unnecessary cosmetic surgery. You wouldn't tattoo you child's body, even though that's also cosmetic and perminant. At least research it and ask the doctors. They'll tell you that there's no reason. You are not men, and you do not know. 2:32 AM, January 30, 2012 Anonymous said... I am 60 and i am so glad i was never cut. I have read all of the previous comments and there is merit in some of them. However, the sensitivity is better for me …
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:42 PM
1

Anonymous said... My boyfriend is uncircumcised and I actually prefer it that way SO much more. His penis generates more lubrication, which feels nicer during sex, and he doesn't fuck me all hard. There's more to play with during oral sex, and I mean yeah there's more goo but I'd expect that from genitalia lol. He doesn't have to pull his foreskin back to have sex and it's not painful for him at all unless I'm rough. It can get pinched, but it's no more sensitive than my vagina. I honestly think…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:42 PM
1

Anonymous said... Girls you don't even have penises so shouldn't comment and uncircumcised people are always going to say uncircumcised is better and circumcised people are going to say circumcised is better but when 95% of those circumcised people never even had the chance to feel what its like to have a foreskin and then they post up here that being uncircumcised is bad they would have no idea. Foreskins rule 2:49 PM, October 22, 2011 Anonymous said... @ Joel- I find it hard to believe that an…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:41 PM
1

Anonymous said... Got pressured into a circumcision at the age of 10 by my father. Regretted it ever since. My foreskin was slightly sensitive when I used to pull it back to wash, made the mistake of telling my father this, within about a month I had been taken into hospital and circumcised despite the fact that the doctor who examined me that morning at the hospital, said that nothing was wrong with me and my penis was fine. The pain after the surgery was so bad, I could hardly stand up for fiv…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:41 PM
1

12:01 PM, October 07, 2010 Rebecca said... Personally, my preference is for circumcised, although it's not a dealbreaker - I've been with one guy who was uncut and he kept clean so it was fine, although we did have recurring issues with condoms. But overall I think circumcised looks hotter and is better for oral. I'm not sure what I would do for a hypothetical son, but I would definitely want input from my hypothetical husband. I have sympathy for the position that it's painful, but I don't thin…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:40 PM
1

evil p0ptart said... Thank you Robert, for actually taking the time and responding to this. I always enjoy when males give their perspective. And I think if it actually came down to it and I was really feeling the man I was with, I would love him no matter what his penis looked like, and I would do whatever possible in order to please him. 5:27 PM, October 01, 2010 Caroline said... Well, I've experienced both, and I prefer men in their natural state. More fun, more comfortable, and honestly, I d…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:39 PM
1

Amanda said... Cut...all the way. I've been with a few uncut...harder to find. And if you don't do it just right, it hurts them. And when they were inside me, instead of me feeling it, the penis just moved inside it's own skin. Couldn't feel it. 8:13 PM, September 23, 2010 Sexxxay said... DEFINITELY prefer cut. It just seems...cleaner. When I am going down on a guy, I don't like a whole bunch of musty skin moving around! Bleh! Plus, yeah, they have to pull it back and it's easy to do it wrong an…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:39 PM
3

FULL TEXT (sans images) so you don't have to give this shit pageviews. I'll do the comments next. [EDIT] Got all the comments from the post. It took me about ten comments on this post to get em all, but they're there. My sister keeps asking, if I had a son, would I get him circumcised? My immediate response is, YES! Only because, its way harder to clean, it looks weird and my son will thank me later on down the road for saving him the embarrassment. Yes/No? Although I have never been with a man …
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:38 PM
2

This was very well-written, and I'm always pleased to see the men's rights movement getting some attention from the gay community. I feel like a lot of times the MRM turns into a straight boys' club, not because of any inherent hetero bias, but because many issues involved deal specifically with male-and-female interactions (like reproductive and family rights), and the other issues are important too. The suicide, the workplace discrimination, the healthcare issues - these are all things that co…
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:36 PM
3

This could never happen in America. Our officers would be too fat to be mistaken for strippers. Seriously, I don't understand how fitness standards for police departments in this country can possibly be so low.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 09:28 PM
11

"... and I don't have feelings, 'cause feelings are gay." Jon Lajoie (comedian) people actually believe this about men
/r/MensRights02/07/12 09:54 PM
7

Lots of publications from grad level and beyond trade on dogma rather than accuracy.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 06:47 PM
3

"I'm not a ____, but..."
/r/MensRights02/07/12 04:13 PM
8

No, you've got it pretty much right. They blatantly contradict themselves though. Our aim is to focus on whether the gap between women and men... has declined This paints the gap as a one-way thing, that is, when women make less than men it is gap, but when men make less than women it is something else. Rather than whether women are "winning" the "battle of the sexes So they're going to ignore places where women come out with better outcomes than men [it] rewards countries that reach the point w…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 03:01 PM
10

Yeah, if the use of ellipses to the exclusion of full stops didn't turn you off to this comment, the wealth of uncorroborated assumptions should.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 08:17 AM
12

dulcy · 16 weeks ago give me your list of poor names that originated in being used to slam men...then give me your list of names that originated to slam women...I love men dearly but I don't tolerate racist gender games...then take a look at the percentage of violence towards women sexually verses towards men...I warn my daughters about men...men you trust sometimes will rape you...that is true...also look up domestic violence...which sex is being murdered more in America in domestic disputes...…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 08:03 AM
6

Or that we objectify different things. Sexual objectification gets the spotlight, partly because our society has all kinds of wacky hangups about sex and, I'm sure, partly because feminism has drawn a lot of attention to sexual objectification (which, depending on who you ask, includes everything from watching strippers to looking at cleavage when a girl wears a low-cut shirt). But if we're using "objectify" as I interpret it - that is, viewing a person as a means to an end - then we objectify l…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 05:57 AM
6

Spearmint Rhino is actually pretty "upscale" as strip clubs go. She's just using charged language to make it sound like the fucking Mos Eisley cantina.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 05:44 AM
5

But even this is a generalization and not a universal truth - were it true, Chipplendales would never have been a Thing. I'd love to hear someone defend the complex eroticism of Chippendales dancers. If it was all in the mind, then that SNL sketch where Chris Farley auditions to be a Chippendale wouldn't have been funny.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 05:34 AM
1

*Hormonal. The male pill is not widely known about, and I'm not sure how readily available it is, at least in the United States. Of course, I'm not really having sex with anybody so it's hardly an issue for me right now.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 04:59 AM
3

This guy's right. Throwing insults back and forth like fucking middle schoolers gets us nowhere. It also provides screencaps for people like Jezebel and SRS to grab and then throw in our faces in order to devalue our legitemate interests in the eyes of the public. It doesn't matter if it's a logical fallacy. Most people don't care. They just see you spouting off shit like "herp derp daddy issues" and then they see the poor oppressed feminists struggling to be heard amid the tide of misogyny beca…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 04:57 AM
0

I love the part where they try to emasculate men, or infantilize us, because we're upset. Isn't that the exact same shit that feminism was started to combat? Men treating women like helpless little girls? It's awfully hypocritical to turn the exact same thing around on us fifty years later.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 04:50 AM
1

No, the words effect whoever is listening in the way they choose to let it effect them. How many listeners is immaterial. But you're still missing the point. The point is that this poster equated calling someone a bitch with mutilating their genitals, or paying them unequally, or unfairly discriminating against them in the justice system, calling all of those things "just offending [our] delicate sensibilities." And that's fucking stupid.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 03:26 AM
0

I'm not saying they're the same. They're spoken with different intent. But their effect is entirely the same unless you, the listener, allow one to affect you more than the other. The intent is immaterial. Only your reaction matters. That does not mean that there are not times when it's appropriate to react with indignation when someone says something to you. But if you refuse to be upset, then the words have no effect. And to compare calling someone a bitch to mutilating her genitals is moronic…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 06:15 PM
1

For the purposes of this comparison, no, it is not. Because calling someone a name has no effect beyond that which the listener allows it to have - which is pretty clearly explained.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:56 PM
5

It wasn't.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 04:48 AM
1

South Part advocated National Kick a Ginger Day Emphasis mine. Why the fuck can people not make the distinction between portrayal and advocacy? South Park is 1) not intended for fucking middle schoolers and 2) obviously not being serious about kicking gingers. The problem here is not "kick a ginger day." The problem is parents not policing their kids' media intake and kids being shitheads.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 04:47 AM
5

Nowhere did I say that... False. You claimed that "everything in this subreddit" is simply offending one's delicate sensibilities. You literally equated hurtful language with physical violence and discrimination. You can't backtrack like that, buddy.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 04:31 AM
8

Waiting for the irony hammer to drop.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 03:51 AM
6

That's simply not the case. A word is a word is a word. Nothing more or less. When a word is spoken, its effect is entirely determined by your reaction to that word. But an action is different, and there is more at stake than one's sensibilities when actions are in play. An action can have consequences independent of the listener. Therefore, calling someone a "bitch" or "dick" is not the same as hitting them, or mutilating their genitals, or denying them certain privileges or benefits based on t…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 03:49 AM
1

[citation needed] I'm a ginger and I've never fucking heard of this.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 03:25 AM
6

"Stop being a faggot and suck that dick." Louis CK
/r/MensRights29/06/12 03:23 AM
0

Except I wasn't responding to her. I was responding to the person who responded to her (that person's response being "I can't believe people think women's issues aren't issues") by pointing out that people sometimes get wrapped up in their own issues - regardless of what kind of issues those are - and forget that those issues effect other people as well.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 08:33 PM
1

That's pretty much what I thought. Thanks for letting me know I'm not the only one who thought this exchange was a little wack.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 08:32 PM
4

I wasn't even responding to "thank you for acknowledging" girl. I was responding to the person who said "I can't believe people think women's issues aren't issues any more." It just struck me as hypocritical, that's all. The way I saw it was, (A) "Thank you for acknowledging women's issues." (B) "Women's issues are still issues and people don't see that." (C) [Me] "Everybody has issues and sometimes people get too wrapped up in their own to see everybody else's." (A) "OMG STOP WHINING WHILE I'M …
/r/MensRights22/06/12 08:31 PM
1

I appreciate the sympathy.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 08:27 PM
6

This. "It's because of the patriarchy" is a cop-out, because it's saying "you've got a penis, therefore you are responsible, so you fix it." For a movement that claims to hate victim-blaming, they're doing an awful lot of it. "It's your fault you lost your kid and have to pay child support."
/r/MensRights22/06/12 08:23 PM
2

Yeah, that was it. I usually like Willis, but that particular strip rubbed me the wrong way.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 08:20 PM
2

But even in academics, a lot of professors prioritize dogma over rhetoric (as a couple of my profs have). When you are dogmatically inflexible, you are rhetorically unreachable.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 04:10 PM
1

Appreciate ya buddy.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:48 PM
3

You accidentally your links, Celda. I'd like to read these as well, but right now they're just numbers.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 03:43 PM
2

I got it from my hair.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 02:30 PM
11

Unfortunately it was a limited-life thread (think the comments were disabled after about 24 hours) so I never got a chance to respond, on account of I was out looking for a job all day. If only I had invoked my Patriarchy Powers I'd be employed already.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 02:29 PM
2

I didn't have sex until I was 23, and I know exactly what you mean. People would usually just assume I had had sex, and then when they found out it was like some huge shock. "How does that happen?" That question got old quick.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 12:18 AM
1

BRO-vakhiin!
/r/MensRights16/06/12 04:21 PM
1

That is the point. It's just not a very effective parody because it's retributive rather than instructive.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 03:06 PM
1

I want to get a bacon hat, so that when I promise to eat my hat I can do it in style.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 03:05 PM
0

It means take the high road and don't buy into the bully tactics of the opposition. It has nothing to do with rape.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 02:58 PM
2

No, I'm seriously confused. Did you accidentally the entire content of your post, or what?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 06:43 PM
2

The crime was stopped when the man was unconscious. As I said before, there's a very short jump from "unconscious" to "in mortal peril" where head trauma is concerned. We don't know how many times the father hit the other man in the head - that's something that we might see if the court takes this to trial. If his whole head is a caved in, bloody pulp then you might be able to argue excessive force. But we presume innocence until we can prove guilt, so I'm giving the guy benefit of the doubt, es…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 06:18 PM
2

And it would almost certainly be considered justified based on castle doctrine.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:50 PM
1

I wish there were a more specific way of phrasing it than "afraid of the power they have." Most of the power that women have gained is power I also have, and I'm okay with sharing it. Voting is great. Not getting your ass grabbed by your employer? Also great (I'm twitchy and don't react well to surprise ass grabs). Equal pay? Mission pretty much accomplished, and also great. What I am afraid of is the power they are capable of abusing. Like claiming I pinched their ass and getting me disciplined…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:49 PM
3

I take issue with the use of the word "murder." Murder is the ending of another human life deliberately and with malicious intent. Protecting your child from assault does not fit the criteria. But you're clearly dead-set on framing the argument that way, so we're probably done here.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:36 PM
-1

So you just skipped the part where, immediately after, I explained exactly what I meant? Your responses frequently lack basic comprehension, so by all means, let's call it quits.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:30 PM
1

I think you misinterpreted my use of the word "you" in that sentence. It was a rhetorical "you", as in this poster or this one. I'm sorry for being unclear. As for this: I don't know where you're getting your detailed picture of the advance... That's a legitemate question. You speak with great certitude, as though you knew the circumstances surrounding this incident. If you do, I'd like to know how because I'd like to know more. If you don't, then you shouldn't speak with that amount of convicti…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:11 PM
1

A head injury can kill long after it is suffered. The first hit might have caused internal damage, bleeding, or a disruption in a key cerebral process, without noticeably slowing the attacker. Even one blow to the head, applied with sufficient force, can be fatal. But there's no way to tell that somebody's going to suffer death from a brain hemorrhage by looking at the outside of their head. Without knowing a more precise description of the attack, it's hard to tell. But hitting someone in the h…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:00 PM
2

Are... are you trolling yourself?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:10 PM
0

Yet you presume to impose familiarity I'm sorry, but where? I do not assume that there was appropriate context for advances. I never said the context was appropriate. I simply said that you have no more reason to assume that it's inappropriate than that it's appropriate. You have NO details whatsoever.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:09 PM
2

Rightsbot <3
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:01 PM
2

marxists NAGALT Uhhhh... what? Most gays aren't how he describes. NA_ALT is not actually a counter-argument. It's almost universally a statement of fact, and is totally irrelevant to the points being made. The article is chock full of misandry and bullshit, but it's hardly a communist conspiracy to place the means of production in the hands of The Gays. This rhetoric smacks much more strongly of classic feminist misandry and demonization than of some kind of ultra-leftist conspiracy. I think you…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:01 PM
3

As well as being mostly young, poor, uneducated and unemployed, violent criminals are overwhelmingly heterosexual. Dafuq did I just read? A majority of people fit into two or more of those categories. Even by the most generous estimates, 10% of people are gay. If my human sexuality prof wasn't talking out of her ass, the actual number is closer to 3 or 4%. So when you tell me that a vast majority of violent offenders are hetero, I'll just tell you a vast majority of people who never go to prison…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:55 PM
2

According to Texas penal code, I'm pretty sure it is. You're authorized to use necessary force to stop the commission of a crime on your property. Furthermore, the man hit the assailant in the head. Head injuries are tricky. They are one of the most effective ways to get someone to stop doing whatever they're doing, but they also carry a greater risk of accidental death. I doubt a jury in Texas would condemn a man for taking what is essentially the most direct route to stopping a sexual assault …
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:51 PM
0

Apparently a couple at last year’s conference had gotten friendly with a particular woman in her mid-30s. Eventually “Mary & John” handed the woman their card—suggesting quite clearly that they were “open” to “adult activities.” This is all the detail we have on the invitation. Now, unless the card said "We double-team strangers at conventions - Mike and Lucy" then obviously there was some sort of context. Since we lack that context, we cannot judge the appropriateness of the advances. I don't k…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:40 PM
1

My husband and I have had girlfriends, but we would never do what is written about in this article - approach a stranger with hints and insinuation of interest - because it's rude and obnoxious. Even at events and activities involving people who by nature are supposed to be more open-minded (like a progressive event or some "alternative religion" groups) this is unacceptable behavior. I would not expect being female to exempt me from being called out for this kind of behavior, not because it's s…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:17 PM
1

This author doesn't seem to be totally misandrist, actually. Willing to give credence to the idea this was a joke. For example, this article, [Why You're Not Married(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-mcmillan/why-youre-not-married_b_822088.html?utm_hp_ref=relationships) begins the explanation portion by saying, "the problem is not men, it's you." [edit] Got a bit farther, discovered how wrong I was. Turn out it's a different author, who has some interesting things to say about men's insecurity…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 02:30 PM
3

Necessity, mostly. It's not like we've got a choice in the matter.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 06:02 AM
7

Underageb&
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:33 AM
3

Yes, there were stretches of unity and peace - stretches that were achieved by long stretches of warfare, conquering, raping, pillaging, etc. And "unity and peace" is a bit of a relative term. The transition from one ruling family to the next was, without exception, a long and bloody affair, and the "official" dates for transfer of power are really more of an arbitrary line than anything. Wikipedia will show you in brief what my Chinese history class went over in a bit more detail. You must also…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:03 PM
4

But all these "white people war more harder meaner" stuff ignores, like, all of Chinese history. And we frankly don't know that much about African history pre-colonization. However, based on the conditions at the time of Europe's arrival on the continent, it's fair to say that many African groups had been warring and slaving at each other for millennia. White people don't war harder, they aren't meaner with their conquests. They just happened to have technological superiority over most of their …
/r/MensRights10/06/12 04:21 PM
2

If only...
/r/MensRights10/06/12 02:38 PM
9

Ironic that they chose the y, seeing as that's the name of the male chromosome...
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:56 AM
6

Downvotes are for comments that don't contribute to the conversation. Your comment adds nothing, and comes off as shitty and snarky as well. Coming to the r/mensrights subreddit and then implying that you either don't vote or regularly downvote on general principle will not endear you to the subreddit. Telling Reddit at large that you upvoted or downvoted something is generally frowned upon - we can see that because of how many points a post has or does not have. It's an unwritten social rule of…
/r/MensRights10/06/12 06:55 AM
2

erm, beneath the nose. That was poorly worded.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 08:42 PM
9

Or excessive facial hair, but misplaced on the throat rather than the cheeks and nose...
/r/MensRights07/06/12 08:34 PM
4

I tried, but it won't upload my screencap. Communism is surely to blame.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 01:46 AM
2

I presume that the AFA / One million mums thing is pretty much a running joke for most USians? I can't really say whether it's "most" or not. I know that, in my social group, we've pretty much reached the consensus that OMM is a bunch of dildos, but I can't speak for the country at large.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 03:47 PM
2

Suits and fedoras are swank as fuck. That said, it would still be a statement on fashion, not on masculinity. Twenty Thirty years ago, this picture would have had punks on the right side instead of hipsters. It's still not a significant statement. Fashions change, and selecting the most... shall we say avant-garde?... adherents of a pioneered fashion and comparing them to the fairly traditional dress of the forties is like comparing the suits and fedoras of the forties to the ruffs and frills of…
/r/MensRights31/05/12 09:38 PM
2

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 03:02 PM
4

Well, what's wrong with saying men shouldn't lie to, cheat on or abuse women? It's okay to lie to, cheat, or abuse men? This is the 21st century. Gay relationships exist and are publicly recognized. Even without that as an issue, relationships are not the only places where people lie, cheat, and abuse. Nobody should lie, cheat, or abuse. But it should not be tied to one's masculinity because, and I'll say it again, the two are not related. Nobody should lie, cheat, or abuse. When you say "men sh…
/r/MensRights31/05/12 02:54 PM
3

"Real women don't cheat, lie or act like bitches" is a group (27k likes). By contrast, the male equivalent group (Real men don't cheat, lie to, or abuse women) has over a million likes, despite being narrower in scope (applying protections only to women, as opposed to the "real women" group which applies to everyone). Obviously, society thinks one of these messages is okay and the other is not. I thought /r/mensrights liked the idea of separating rapists and other scum from "all men". I can't sp…
/r/MensRights31/05/12 02:28 PM
2

Yeah. Can't be masculine unless you're gritty and violent. But, wait, don't women hate violent men? Isn't that what sites like Jezebel are always bitching about?
/r/MensRights31/05/12 01:51 PM
2

But why is gender something that can be stripped from you if you misbehave - but only if you're a man? Is a woman who beats her husband not a real woman? Why gender? Why not just say people who do asshole things are assholes? A person's gender is not a title that can be granted or revoked. It's part of who that person is. Calling it imaginary is meaningless at best and dehumanizing at worst.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 01:49 PM
1

If your goal is to spread global misinformation, yes. If your goal is to do good, then it is equally counterproductive.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 03:24 AM
3

I'll cede the point that there is a biological component, but it is certainly not the only component. We no longer live in a society (mostly) in which reproduction is viewed as "as many as possible, as quickly as possible." Your point about pregnancies is an interesting one, but people assign negative value to a vagina, not by how many babies have come through, but by how many penises have entered. That metric (number of penises) is utterly meaningless, and frankly I'm tired of hearing it as tho…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:08 PM
3

Huh. TIL. Okay, edited my comment.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:54 PM
2

Dammit, Corporate! Oh shit I've said too much. Tell my wife I l
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:52 PM
1

I mean, we still can if you want. Wet noodles at 4:38 PM, June 31st, 2208. I'll be the brain in a can.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:15 PM
2

Alright. I think I see where you're coming from, and I am inclined to agree.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:07 PM
2

A fair complaint, but if there's ever a place where we won't take that assumption on faith thanks to her genitals alone, it's here.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 07:34 PM
2

"personal gain" Uhh... don't think this phrase means what you think it means. He blogged it to raise awareness of his situation, and I don't see how sharing it with the MR subreddit runs counter to that goal. Thought this was in reference to the OP. Apparently it was referring to menznet, which reposted the original story.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 07:12 PM
3

I didn't get that authoritarian nanny-style vibe when I read this. My interpretation was that she was looking at the resources we provide to boys - or rather, the resources we don't provide to boys that we should. This does not mean she knows what is best for every individual boy. It is simply an acknowledgement that the current system is failing our gender, and that there are things we could provide to all boys that would surely help many of them.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 07:10 PM
4

The naturalistic fallacy is a bullshit argument when you're dealing with humans. There's your counter-argument. Between the complexity of our societies and the broad range of personalities and circumstances within those societies, you cannot make a brushstroke that wide. There are men who prefer to be hunted and women who like to be assertive, and there's nothing wrong with either of those. The view of the penis as a key and the vagina as a lock is not only sexist, but damaging to the idea of me…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:06 PM
1

I would take a dookie in that urinal.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:46 PM
4

That's actually misleading and unhelpful, given how much rape occurs between acquaintances, friends, and sometimes even relatives.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:46 PM
6

You, specifically, might not say that, but I've seen plenty of women getting all kinds of offended because they "cannot post a picture without being objectified" - and the definition of objectification includes any kind of comment on the sexual attractiveness of the picture. It's a fairly common thing.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 02:11 AM
4

Flinging. It's like "tyres." It's a British spelling.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 02:08 AM
8

Well, getting the help they don't need is certainly an equity issue. Since this article purports to be all about inequity, it seems a little hypocritical.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 03:25 AM
8

Women have more program, scholarship-, affirmative action, and benefit opportunities than men. If they're outperforming men, why are they still getting benefits like they need help catching up to men in terms of school performance?
/r/MensRights23/05/12 03:08 AM
1

America's involvement made as much sense as war ever makes, but the instigating factors were largely stupid.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 06:29 PM
2

Be more constructive with your feedback.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 05:57 PM
3

The motivation for the "be gentle with them" mindset is that these were people who, largely, had never been in the workforce - and never expected they would be. It's not unreasonable that bosses, who were used to career employees, might get frustrated at having to deal with rank amateurs doing non-amateur jobs. Could it have been partly because of women's status as "the weaker sex?" Quite likely. But the main motivation of the poster was "these guys are new; don't forget it and start treating th…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 02:04 PM
5

It's not assuming their incompetence. It's displaying common fucking decency.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 06:18 AM
2

Armchair historian to the rescuuuueeeee!
/r/MensRights22/05/12 03:52 AM
1

Oh, I totally agree. I just didn't feel like arguing the point over facebook. Also, I'd guess it's closer to WWII - our commitment to WWI was relatively small, came relatively late in the war, and was relatively short-lived. In WWII, there was a massive boost in military service, voluntary and conscripted (including over eleven million draftees compared to under three million in WWI) and the workforce was far more concentrated in industry rather than agriculture, so the call for women to enter t…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 03:45 AM
4

The complaint was that it was "condescending" because it was gender-exclusive.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 03:28 AM
6

When you supervise a man: Expect him to figure out his job without any help Don't give him technical manuals - men don't read that shit! Set his desk too high and make his chair too short. Make that fucker work for his supper! Be a dick. Dudes eat that shit up. Call him a faggot. He'll like it. Scold him for things, even if there's no way for him to have known better. Never let him know you appreciate what he's done. He may resent it. Don't help him. He's a big boy, he can figure it out on his o…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 03:06 AM
3

Just because it's not scholarly doesn't mean you shouldn't obey the rules of intellectual ethics. This is a piece designed to influence people's opinions about a topic. Lying to achieve that end is bad form.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 11:21 PM
8

There's the sensationalism, the yellow journalism, the lack of any kind of hard, credible data, the use of ad hominem and perjorative... it's an intellectually dishonest paper, and it skirts around the occasional fact but fails to present anything meaningful.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 02:31 PM
3

On this, I'm inclined to disagree. Men and women have, by and large, different needs from a "safe" space and different support needs. For instance, a men's center might not need a pregnancy crisis center, but they're far more likely to have suicide risk students, so a suicide counselor always on staff would make more sense for them. I'm not against separate spaces for separate needs for the same reason I'm not against gender-segregated bathrooms.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 02:29 AM
8

I went to visit a dear friend at Oberlin in, I think, 2010. If anything, it's worse.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 02:21 AM
2

You know, this analogy is perfect because I actually chose to be a white male. ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ Never mind, I finally reached the bottom of the article, where he specifically tells you you can't choose your class - and then acts like that doesn't invalidate his entire rant.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 03:35 PM
2

How is it hypocritical? If someone states something as fact when that statement is false, how can you claim it's wrong to disprove that claim? If you're going to introduce an argument, you need to be prepared to back it up, or else you need to be prepared to be wrong.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 02:00 AM
4

from what I can tell it just makes it easier to manage. And if, as an adult, the child decides he's tired of cleaning his penis, he's totally within his rights to have his foreskin removed. But for a parent to make that decision for the child without ever giving him a chance to decide? That's wrong.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 01:02 AM
2

But that argument is solely for the purpose of countering the misconception that female circumcision is somehow worse than male. If a person is going to assert a position - i.e. FGM is worse than MGM - then it is perfectly reasonable and logical to rebut that position with opposing facts. That's not a "competition." It's a "refutation." Learn the difference.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 12:52 AM
3

I don't think we're acting like it's not an issue for women. I think we're pointing out, quite rightly, that the same issue is treated with different gravity for men and women.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:15 PM
17

It's clearly not working.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:59 PM
22

Hey, some US Americans don't have maps.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:38 PM
7

That doesn't mean firing is the appropriate response. If the woman goes unpunished, the response is disproportionately gentle. If it were a man, and he were fired, the response would be disproportionately harsh. There must be a middle ground.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:37 PM
2

That doesn't make it right, buddy. You should be filing a complaint if anybody emails you some sexist-ass shit. "Hurp durp they do it so we can too" is not an argument.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:32 PM
2

I gave it 4 minutes before I gave up on it. I concur with your assessment.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:31 PM
6

While it's hardly an accurate portrayal of the dating world, it's not entirely without merit either. The fact is that, by and large, women and men are conditioned quite differently in terms of relationships. Movies, TV, books, and the like reinforce this uneven playing field. There are people who don't fit anything on this list, but there are probably a lot more for whom at least a couple of these items are true. Even if a woman does not expect a man to pay for dates, a man may have been taught …
/r/MensRights16/05/12 06:05 AM
5

You might be surprised.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:50 AM
4

Wow. 40% of this is "so take your own pill as well." 40% is "herp derp that's nawt nat'ral" and the remaining 20% is "It's not fair that you can make unilateral decisions about our sexual lifestyle. Let me make unilateral decisions about our sexual lifestyle!" Let's take a different example: A man doesn't want children, so he abstains from sex with his wife. By her logic, the wife should be free to force herself upon her husband with the aim of getting knocked up - because he's made a decision t…
/r/MensRights15/05/12 04:34 PM
1

I liked the part, in the fourth article, where the woman equates being unmarried with all sorts of flaws. If unmarried, then untrustworthy, slovenly, forgetful, dishonest, diseased... As a man, am I supposed to define my worth by my commitment to a monogamous sexual partner? Because, hey, bizarro 1950s called. They want to subscribe to your newsletter.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 04:31 PM
1

only men get caught up in passionate moments and don't go for condoms Fuck you too, lady.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 04:26 PM
1

It's not that I don't get it. It's that the reasons for getting offended are stupid and backward. The number of people it offends is immaterial.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 05:59 PM
1

No, if I follow the argument to its logical problem, malice against women is the problem. "Cunt" is not. And if I say "cunt" in a context which has nothing to do with women, then I'm not displaying malice against women. Therefore, "cunt" is not the problem.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 05:08 PM
1

But that just demonstrates that the word itself is NOT the problem.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 04:56 PM
1

Saying "cunt" doesn't make me any less required to register for selective service. Neither does not saying cunt. The banning of certain words is never going to make people not say hurtful things. The fight against "offensive" words is an exercise in futility. I try to respect other people's feelings and not offend them, but that doesn't mean I have to apply the censor's pen gleefully. You say not to spread focus too widely, but why not? When the use of the word "cunt" is the topic, why not talk …
/r/MensRights13/05/12 04:54 PM
0

And the more aware you are of what words might offend you and why, the more effectively you can condition yourself to resist offensive or manipulative words. That is why propaganda panders to the lowest common denominator: because most people never examine the significance words have to them. So instead of prohibiting words that hurt people, why not encourage people to resist words - especially words whose sole significance is vulgarity? Malpractice is worrisome because the implications of malpr…
/r/MensRights13/05/12 04:35 PM
1

And words possess only the power we give them. As someone who is not a big fan of the idea of "prohibited" words, I don't have a problem with the use of "nigger." I don't use it because other people's opinion on the word differs, and I respect that. But as far as I'm concerned it's just a word.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 06:49 AM
-2

But how is "cunt" any more hateful to women than "shit" is hateful to people who defecate? The whole point of profanity is that you're using the word, not for its literal meaning, but in a specific emphatic and negative context. Nobody would argue that "ass" the butt or "ass" the inconsiderate person is the same as "ass" the farm animal, so I don't see why people insist on conflating "cunt" the insufferable moron with "cunt" the inelegant term for vagina.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 06:45 AM
2

I think shitpeasant might actually be a step or two up the ladder.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 06:43 AM
12

Well, yeah, that kind of illustrates the point. When ShitDickMcCuntFace thinks you've gone too far... it's time to turn around and go home.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 06:40 AM
2

And they disabled downvoting. How charming.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 06:38 AM
1

I think they were trying to reinforce the "these are dads" image because in a still visual medium, that sort of thing doesn't get conveyed otherwise. Notice the mom has a child with her too. It's just the unspoken signal for "these are parents."
/r/MensRights12/05/12 02:23 PM
3

Because crocs are stupid and ugly, is why.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 02:21 PM
1

I mean, at least she was willing to admit to the double standard regarding Selective Service. It's... not a step in the right direction, per se, but it's at least a bit more self-aware than a lot of the self-righteous claptrap.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 11:07 PM
1

I actually had a discussion with an amateur feminist yesterday regarding that. At least she had the decency to admit that she didn't like the idea of "true" equality because she doesn't want to sign up for Selective Service. She had a hard time with the concept that circumcision is male genital mutilation though, and refused to accept that there might be some equivalency between male and female circumcision.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 10:48 PM
6

I think you could really just change the second half of this post to "facebook makes us look like idiots." I'm a white middle-class male, but I don't copy-paste facebook statuses about abused puppies or cancer because I'm not fucking twelve.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 05:30 PM
3

This is all assuming the article is legit, which seems unlikely, but... You, the consumer, have a reasonable expectation that if you enter a professional workplace you will be served adequately by the staff of that workplace. A person's own biases or emotions have no place in their determination of whether to perform the duties they are contractually obligated to perform. In the case of a dentist, that means that when you walk into the dentist's office, you have a reasonable expectation that the…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 05:54 PM
5

Even if we're being facetious, we should be careful what we say. At the very least, please put a /s at the end of the post so people can't take it out of context.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 05:45 PM
2

I'm not entirely convinced that the presence of crude humor (and there will be some; it's Adam Sandler) will entirely negate the potential for a fresh look at teenage fatherhood.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 06:40 PM
3

It's definitely some kind of criminal offense, on account of the teacher gets locked up for the maximum sentence because of it.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 06:30 PM
20

The movie is That's My Boy. First of all, this isn't a movie about the statutory rape of a 13-year-old. It's a movie about the consequences of that rape. In the first minute of the trailer, the hapless boy becomes a father and the teacher is given the maximum sentence. It seems, from the trailer, to be very clear that the teacher took advantage of the boy. It looks like there are some things that will highlight the difficulty of a male teenager being responsible for a child, which is something t…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 06:19 PM
2

*Adversarial
/r/MensRights30/04/12 04:08 PM
2

Who said "at first sight?" We're talking about someone you love and then they subsequently become a hideous humpback.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 09:09 PM
7

Because double cheeseburgers are delicious? It's possible to love someone without being attracted to them. She could be the nicest girl in the world, who rolls her baby beluga ass off the couch every day to cook you dinner and shout at football games with you in your man cave and play vidja games with you on the weekends and you could love her with all your heart. You just wouldn't want to fuck her when the lights go out.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 04:26 PM
2

period Spoiler alert: That's what broke.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 03:55 PM
13

Even if you still love her, are you obligated to be sexually attracted to her? If I suddenly developed a horrible skin condition that made my flesh slough off of my bones, she might not love me any less, but I wouldn't be surprised if she suddenly couldn't stand to look at me. Wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd understand.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 03:54 PM
6

DO NOT MENTION THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER WOMEN! LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
/r/MensRights28/04/12 03:50 PM
2

jeterosexual Sexually attracted to Gulfstream 600s?
/r/MensRights26/04/12 11:22 PM
2

Which is kind of the problem. When one person says "you're wrong" and your response is "I'm offended," you're not actually doing anything to show that you're not wrong. If one person says "You're wrong because of these reasons" your response should not be "that offends my sensibilities;" it should be either "I never thought of it that way; thanks for enlightening me" or "No, I'm right, and these flaws in your reasoning should demonstrate why."
/r/MensRights26/04/12 11:20 PM
6

I don't see anything in the article that indicates this is an inequality issue. How about this?: "A gain in life expectancy should be equal among men and women,"
/r/MensRights23/04/12 07:40 AM
7

I cackled out loud while reading this article.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 06:45 PM
3

Well of course you think it's expensive. You're nutritious slop - the only food cheaper than Ramen Noodles.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 05:27 AM
3

Oral contracts, when done correctly before witnesses, can be enforced. Who are the witnesses? You can't really name the woman or her two companions - all are interested parties whose interests can be described as "conflicted" at best.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 05:23 AM
2

It doesn't specify that he didn't. But even so, maybe he expected her to pay? It seems just as valid as her expecting him to pay.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 05:11 AM
4

This. A traffic stop turned arrest at a bad time can fucking ruin you. Arrested on your way to work? No call/no show. Arrested on the way to a date with a woman who's not completely awful? Yeah, good luck explaining that one and not looking like an absolute tool. Arrested on your way to see your grandma on her deathbed? Yeah, you didn't need to see her anyway. There's not a reason in the world this guy should get arrested, at all, ever.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 05:10 AM
6

That doesn't particularly seem to matter with regards to how ridiculous it is, but it is certainly worth noting. Upboat for you.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 05:08 AM
2

It's not entirely bullshit though - we're all heavily influenced by social conditioning we receive in childhood, and we're not always conscious of that conditioning and how it conflicts with our conscious or biological desires. That doesn't make it any less frustrating or unfair for us, as men, but it at least makes it a bit more understandable. Since the women article came first, I doubt the motivation was to create false parity.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 09:58 PM
12

I used to be pretty judgemental of "strategy 1" men as well, but I've adopted a live and let live policy. Monogamy and romance are just hardwired into my behavior (for what reasons I can only speculate), and I thought hooking up was a reprehensible thing to do. But, as you said, the older I get the harder it is to judge them for it. I can understand their frustration.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 09:31 PM
1

Yeah, it's pretty relevant. Perhaps more so for adults than for high schoolers.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 09:28 PM
5

So the argument is "people can't distinguish what's funny when fictional with what's acceptable in real life?" If that is the argument, then it's an awful one. Modern comedy is all about saying things you're not allowed to say or telling funny stories about things you'd never really do - in short, it's about the unexpected. When someone tells a dead baby joke, we know they would never fuck a dead baby and then eat it. That's *why *it's funny. Jokes about dead babies do not "normalize" baby death…
/r/MensRights13/04/12 10:40 PM
9

I need feminism because I'm not worth just 75 cents on the dollar Good to see that one's still alive and well ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights13/04/12 10:13 PM
1

"Despoiling" seems pretty clear-cut.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 10:09 PM
9

People joke about a lot of things. People joke about murder. Are we contributing to a "murder culture?" People joke about theft. Are we contributing to a "theft culture?" People joke about castration. Are we contributing to a "castration culture?" People joke about tsunamis. Are we contributing to a "natural disaster culture?" Jokes =/= advocacy. That's like saying "Lolita" is an advocacy text for pedophilia. It's conflating portrayal with endorsement, and that's fucking stupid.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 10:01 PM
1

Apparently not well enough. I got downboated :C Now I know how the Titanic felt!
/r/MensRights13/04/12 12:38 AM
1

Silly question. Serious response. Works for me.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 09:32 PM
4

Does 3 hours count as succinct? Still, opened for later listening.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 07:29 PM
-1

I'm aware that a lot of lawsuits that are portrayed as frivolous are actually legit - much of that is porporate PR and legal departments doing their best to make sure we, the voters and the potential jurors, side with them on these cases. But that's exactly the problem. We, as a whole, are not educated in the nuances of the legal system. Many people would be inclined to vote guilty or not guilty, not on the merits of the law, but on the merits of the emotional arguments from one side or another.…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 07:22 PM
0

1) I don't see anybody justifying that behavior, regardless of gender. Unwilling impregnation is unwilling impregnation. It's pretty clearly wrong behavior, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees. 2) The total percentages are comparable (still about 15% greater for men, but perhaps not different enough to be statistically relevant. I'm not a statistician, so... /shrug). But a closer look at the specifics reveals the difference between the two: Men were almost twice as likely to …
/r/MensRights12/04/12 07:03 PM
0

There are movies about a lot of things. The difference in mindset between a 13-year-old girl and a 51-year-old man is a difference of decades of development, learning, and maturing. There is also an enormous difference between a weeks-long campaign of psychological warfare and a few comments on a Reddit post. I'm not defending their actions, but I'm not willing to take a formal position about whether or not legal action is justified based on the information is available. Something about the "she…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 06:30 PM
1

Trolling is a art. FTFY, champ.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 06:28 PM
0

And SO BRAVE
/r/MensRights12/04/12 06:28 PM
1

I know where you've been, little boy. On the internet, mmyes? Browsing a... certain site? Mmyes...?
/r/MensRights11/04/12 07:13 AM
2

But only because we were begging for it.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 08:10 PM
2

Yep. Men are only interested in sluts. Right. Still can't believe it's 2012 and women still think this. There are men who feel that way. Usually there's some convoluted logic about good keys and bad locks. It's 2012, and I shiggy you giditty but some guys do still do this. Shitty people are shitty people, x or y.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 06:33 PM
4

Oh, I think it's ridiculous to call it a gift, regardless. But if the ejaculate is still in the confines of the condom, it's never left his possession. It's like a fumble, and the condom is the sure-fingered reciever who holds onto the ball no matter how hard you slam him.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 07:06 AM
11

I think that's if he puts it in her mouth. Because then it's a gift. If he deposits the sperm in the reservoir tip of a condom and disposes of that condom, and she subsequently takes it, isn't that theft? It's his trash, at least til he takes it to the curb.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 06:47 AM
4

Webcomics writers seem to be a pretty tight group. This seems like a matter of professional courtesy. He could reasonably expect any other webcomic artist to do the same for him.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 06:35 AM
10

There is no consent. Only Zuul!
/r/MensRights07/04/12 07:17 PM
1

Fine. I chose the wrong word. But that's semantics.
/r/MensRights07/04/12 06:50 AM
4

I'd like to see a comparison of methods of attempted and successful suicide parsed by gender. It seems to me that I read somewhere that men's suicides tend to succeed more because they use more violent methods (guns, tall buildings, bridges) where women use more peaceful methods (like razors, pills, and the like) and that contributes a lot to the difference in attempts/successes - but I'm fucked if I can remember where I saw it, or if it was scholarly or reputable.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 09:04 PM
5

Ooh, I'm a captain. Does that come with a pay raise?
/r/MensRights06/04/12 08:08 PM
10

Oh, look! An innovative and exciting troll pioneering new methods! I've never seen such a well-constructed troll post. I suppose I have no choice but to get angry now. I know! I'll say something vaguely misogynistic! Maybe I can advocate violence against women, or talk about rape a little bit. Would that make you feel better, since you're clearly just starved for attention? [edit] And now he's deleted his comment to make me look like the douche. Ah, well.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:41 PM
2

The only response to that post: never change, funfeminists Apparently equality is only for casuals.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:25 PM
3

Because apparently Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz wrote the dictionary?
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:24 PM
2

I hadn't seen the first post, so you're okay by me.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:10 PM
5

I agree that greater suffering is more important. The problem I have is that people mariginalize the suffering of men, not based on the relative merits of that suffering, but based on the fact that we belong to the group known as "men." If men's problems were confined to things like "not sure what polo to wear today when golfing" and women's problems were more like "Not sure whether to go outside today because of gasoline-toting rape-and-burn mobs" then the "women's problems" clearly take preced…
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:08 PM
3

I'm with you on that. Some people just don't realize, or else willfully refuse to acknowledge, that when they talk about ending violence against women they're ignoring half the population. You're preaching to the choir here, and if you try to take that kind of logic on SRS or TwoX or the like, the majority of the posters will ignore you or call you a privileged patriarch or whatever other tactics they use to dismiss you.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:02 PM
8

Another "don't hit women" post. Sorry, fellas, it's still okay for us to get hit. Does that change if you have gender reassignment surgery? Who's woman enough to not get hit? What about people in XY bodies who identify as female? People in XX bodies that identify as male? People with mixed gender characteristics? As long as feminism keeps enforcing the false dichotomy it claims to despise, I can't take it seriously.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 04:52 PM
14

A man's gotta enter the picture somewhere, though. Cloning's illegal.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 06:57 PM
2

Wait, St. Mungo's is a real thing? I thought that was a nonsense British name made up for Harry Potter. Welp, TIL.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 07:10 PM
4

This. It's passed down via female inheritance, yes?
/r/MensRights01/04/12 09:16 PM
1

You might not have said it, but the privilege checklist (and every other similar iteration I've ever seen) does or did. Again, much of my problem with talking about privilege is anecdotal - I had a professor just two semesters ago who said that men, as members of a privileged group, should be obligated to make "reparations" to women. This is not the first time I've heard such a claim from a feminist source. I can't prove a point with anecdotes, but I hope they'll at least give you an idea of why…
/r/MensRights01/04/12 07:19 PM
8

Individual agency and autonomy have no place in issues of moral uncertainty!
/r/MensRights31/03/12 06:26 PM
3

"Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases – from a boy being bullied in school, to a soldier dying in war – the sexist society that maintains male privilege also does great harm to boys and men." This is an admirable disclaimer, if true, but unfortunately somewhat toothless. By assigning a defa…
/r/MensRights31/03/12 02:30 PM
4

Anecdotally, plenty. Unfortunately, "I've had professors who spent whole semesters harping on the point" and "I know a lot of people at Oberlin college" don't really fly on the internet, and since I'm about to leave, I don't have the time right now to go looking for other sources.But offhand, I would say start by looking at feminist blogs that use "privilege" like some kind of perjorative. A brief search of /r/mensrights will probably turn up plenty of such links.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 12:06 AM
15

Except that it's used to invalidate anything a "privileged" person says, or shame a "privileged" person into behaving a certain way. I have never seen privilege used solely as an informative tool. It is pretty much categorically used to silence or invalidate things said by someone who is considered a member of a "privileged" group, or to justify the actions of a member of an "oppressed" group.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:47 PM
6

This led me to google "cis privilege," which in turn led me to a couple of "privilege checklists." I don't think that word means what certain people think it means. I mean, it's hard to really conceptualize the enormity of the charges laid against you just for having, and identifying with, a y chromosome until you see a list of fifty "privileges," like "8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race," and "17. I can talk with my m…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 10:27 PM
1

I always want to put an extra i in curriculum, and I'm not sure why.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 03:29 PM
2

You're a role model, sir. I want to be a published author, but that's not really something that pays the bills[edit: for most people, anyway]. I wouldn't mind being a homemaker if it freed me up to chase my passions.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 09:24 AM
3

Might he be referring to things like medicine, the social sciences, and law? I don't know how those numbers stack up, but there's probably an increasing number of female students in those cirriculae (cirricula? Whatever). I wouldn't know, just venturing a guess as to what might be meant by that passage.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 09:21 AM
3

nunfuck skillz?
/r/MensRights29/03/12 01:38 AM
8

Well... she is a Large Target, so +1 to hit that.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 04:22 AM
16

Family's family.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 11:44 PM
13

"Now I can't get a date because I'm poor!"
/r/MensRights27/03/12 11:43 PM
13

Striking out maybe. Striking for +2 damage. I could go on, I guess.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 11:41 PM
1

I can't claim credit for it. I picked it up from another MR poster. But it really is a good idea.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 11:01 PM
1

There may be an orchestrated attempt to weaken the subreddit, but I assure you I'm not a part of it. I'm not asking you to stop posting stories. I'm not asking you to stop being upset. Just seems to me like a waste of effort to be fighting amongst ourselves when there's a much larger enemy beyond the walls of the subreddit. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 08:23 PM
1

Sorry, you're right. "Democratic socialist" would have been more accurate. I'm used to not even bothering with the distinction because most people aren't familiar with it. Bad habit I guess.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:35 PM
1

I'm actually pretty familiar with those axes, but thanks for the interesting links, and for the input.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 05:25 PM
1

Thanks for the response. I really didn't expect such a shitstorm, but I guess I know better than to bring it up again.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 04:43 PM
3

When you insinuate that I'm some kind of SRS troll, I think I'm well within my rights to get a little bit offended.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:42 AM
3

Have an upvote. I've actually started downvoting Rightsbot so the more relevant comment threads can float up to the top. Rightsbot knows it's not personal.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:40 AM
2

Golly gee willickers! It's almost like people can agree on some things and not on others! STOP THE PRESSES! [edit] Also, this is a post about not using it as an insult any more. Since I have no intention whatsoever of NOT using sucks and/or blows as insults, I don't see what this has to do with me.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:38 AM
2

"It sucks" is interchangeable with "it blows." They're both oral sex references. Almost without exception, at least in any part of the country I've ever been in for more than two hours.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:31 AM
2

What the fuck does being a leftist have to do with interpreting the word "suck" in that context (which, by the way, means "removes good" BECAUSE it means "oral intercourse." You can't separate the two)? Seriously. I'm confused.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:21 AM
2

Rightsbot, you're an angel.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:14 AM
0

And a vast majority of "gang banger" crime is against other "gang bangers." To the average person outside the hood, you don't actually have to worry about them committing crimes at you. I'm not denying reality. Just including more facts in my worldview.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 01:08 AM
0

libtard As I suspected. I'm done here.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 01:01 AM
0

I'm not saying "don't learn anything from this." I'm saying "learn that just because someone's wearing a hoodie doesn't mean they're going to get all rapey on your wife." The problem is, the lesson you're learning is a passive one that perpetuates a negative atmosphere and leads to further similar crimes. Stop reducing my point to a false binary.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 12:52 AM
2

So basically your justification is "this person looks like they might commit crimes, therefore they must already be guilty?" Get the fuck out of my United States. You're the cancer killing this country. [edit]In case it's not obvious, I've decided that I'm not going to continue arguing with you, because if you're going to claim that a hoodie is the same as a KKK uniform, you're obviously not worth carrying on with.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 12:47 AM
1

And if Zimmerman's reason for shooting Martin was "he broke my nose," that's a different story entirely. But placing the responsibility on Martin for wearing a fucking hoodie absolves Zimmerman of his part in the act because Martin "looked suspicious." Looking shady isn't a crime. It's not just saying "Martin should have dressed differently." It's "Martin should have dressed differently, and therefore Zimmerman's actions were justified." That's the difference between "teaching people to avoid be…
/r/MensRights24/03/12 10:43 PM
4

And what I'm saying is, if "wearing a hoodie" is seriously one of the reasons you might kill someone, you need to re-evaluate your reasons. By placing the blame on the victim, REGARDLESS OF CRIME, you remove the burden of responsibility from each individual not to commit a crime. You are granting amnesty for criminal behavior because you are saying "it does not matter if the other party is not doing anything illegal or wrong; if they fail to be paranoid enough, they're fair game and it's their f…
/r/MensRights24/03/12 10:37 PM
1

I don't know if you two are being deliberately obtuse, but no, the clothing you describe is not the equivalent of a Klan uniform. There is no uniting ideology behind people who wear hoodies and have sagging jeans. It's a fashion style, not a uniform. Whether that fashion is associated with a repugnant social status quo is moot. The Klan is a single organization with a uniting hatred of very specific groups. People wearing those clothes are not. More importantly, freedom of expression means you c…
/r/MensRights24/03/12 10:32 PM
2

I don't know if you two are being deliberately obtuse, but no, the clothing you describe is not the equivalent of a Klan uniform. There is no uniting ideology behind people who wear hoodies and have sagging jeans. It's a fashion style, not a uniform. Whether that fashion is associated with a repugnant social status quo is moot. The Klan is a single organization with a uniting hatred of very specific groups. People wearing those clothes are not. More importantly, freedom of expression means you c…
/r/MensRights24/03/12 10:30 PM
5

Case in point. Victim blaming. "If he didn't want to get shot, he shouldn't have dressed that way." Thanks for proving my point.
/r/MensRights24/03/12 06:29 PM
1

The original poster put it up here, so if you upvote me, go ahead and do another one over there.
/r/MensRights24/03/12 02:39 PM
9

The best part is that he's got an emoticon of free speech being smashed flat by a boot... but it seems like he's missed the irony.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 03:30 PM
1

Trying to spread what I found in a thread recently: It might be better to downvote rightsbot. Not because you disapprove, but so that the real conversation gets bumped higher in the thread. Don't have to, but it's something to consider, and a policy I've adopted.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:33 AM
1

You might even edit your OP to include these stats, so people with Reddit Enhancement Suite can see them just by clicking the plus.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:31 AM
0

Did I say don't hold her accountable? I am ANTI-VIOLENCE. That means I am against woman-on-man violence. I am against man-on-woman violence. I am against man-on-man or woman-on-woman violence. One party doing violence to another does not give the victimized party carte blanche to react with more violence - that is a self-perpetuating cycle that rarely ends in anything other than serious injury or death. You're putting words in my post that simply are not there. Hitting is wrong. Hitting someone …
/r/MensRights17/03/12 03:02 AM
1

savemyprefs didn't say that, and I don't think it's a fair extrapolation. The general policy, as far as I'm concerned, is that if you're hitting someone, regardless of gender, and regardless of who hit first, you're doing a Bad Thing. The only exception is in a life-or-death situation. I think a lot of MRAs would agree. Now, not hitting back is not the same as not doing anything. I'm not advocating savemyprefs' argument against the Men's Rights movement, but let's limit our criticisms to what he…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 02:30 AM
3

Quoted and capped to prevent shenanigans. An extended, in-context quote from a feminist group called SCUM. Now, if we're quantifying a whole movement by quotes taken from one source, which one appears more damning? The satirical one about retributive violence or the one advocating mass androcide?
/r/MensRights17/03/12 02:22 AM
2

Why would consumer spending NOT apply? Consumer spending determines, in the long haul, what ideas we are exposed to as a culture. If women spend on pro-female and anti-male products (media products especially), then those messages will be more profitable and will be embraced more readily. Then people grow up in a culture where the unspoken assumptions are things like "men have all the privilege" and "life is so hard for women" and don't question those assumptions - and why should they? They've s…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 02:16 AM
4

That argument cuts both ways. If MRAs really want equality why do they call it Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights17/03/12 02:12 AM
1

I have adopted a new policy vis a vis rightsbot.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 06:22 AM
2

Defines the acceptability of an action based on the skin color of the actor. Pretty sure that's the textbook definition of racism, amigo. Generalizes a large group of people whose sole uniting characteristic is a vague similarity in their skin coloration. Also racist. Dismissing a group's suffering, as though because of privilege - whether proven or alleged - that group cannot suffer Sounds a lot like when people bitch that black people don't have to try to get into college because of affirmativ…
/r/MensRights15/03/12 05:56 AM
11

Wow. You're painting with a broad fucking brush there, throwaway account. Golly gee, you should be careful though. If you generalized all people of any other skin color, you'd be racist! And you wouldn't want that! Better stick to the SAFE generalizations.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 10:02 PM
59

“Anybody who hits someone else the way you did is a bad person. You need to learn to control yourself.” Somebody give this commenter a fucking medal. Responding to male aggression my ass. Take your sob story somewhere else. IF YOU HIT PEOPLE, YOU ARE DOING A BAD THING. Welcome to kindergarten
/r/MensRights13/03/12 03:57 PM
3

Both parts were posted a couple days ago. I know on account of I posted this article directly in response to the first post of the pro-MR piece.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 01:16 AM
1

Well, is it up to the court to enforce you being a good parent? Anyway, the discussion of parenting seems to be straying off topic. The subject of child support is another trouble area for the Men's Rights movement, but alimony has nothing to do with children; it's just the payment of one divorced partner to the other based on the other's inability to support himself or herself outside of the marriage. It's kind of like welfare paid by the employed person to their ex-spouse, but that welfare has…
/r/MensRights10/03/12 02:56 AM
1

How do we prioritize that? How do we place a value judgement on whether a broken home is more or less harmful to a child than a home where one partner is abused? And how do we prioritize the health of the father or the health of the children?
/r/MensRights10/03/12 12:19 AM
2

Yeah, I got kind of snappy and that wasn't called for either. Consider me edited.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 10:36 PM
5

Instead, the new law dictates that a woman's value is based solely on the length of time she spent enabling her husband to earn a certain income while she cooked, met with teachers and took the kids to soccer practice. This part is particularly charming. We're all enlightened, 21st-century people who don't expect women to sit around on their hands at home while the man brings home the bread... until the time comes to collect alimony, in which case we're reverting to stereotypes that were old in …
/r/MensRights09/03/12 09:16 PM
2

I'm not advocating the perspective. I'm just posting the corresponding "opposition" link for discussion. Since there are very clearly two sides to this story, I thought it might be nice to actually examine them both and discuss their relative merits.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:40 PM
5

This. I tried to read the article, but the author looks like he was rolling his face on the keyboard half the time. It's hard to gain credibility when you write like the protagonist of an H.P. Lovecraft story.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:26 PM
6

The objection to child circumcision is that it's unnecessary in most cases. It's the same reason we don't remove the appendix unless it actually gets infected. You're perfectly entitled to like your circumcision, but the problem is that many people are never given an opportunity to experience life with a foreskin, and they certainly aren't given the right to choose whether or not to get circumcised. It's kind of a big deal. The comment about the ear was clearly sarcastic. Ears, like foreskins, s…
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:25 PM
8

Compare this mensrights perspective with this woman's perspective.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 07:13 PM
4

Welp, that's me can't read. My bad.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 04:08 AM
4

I don't know if they are just plain stupid or something but, the "fact" that twice as many women as men are injured during DV incidents does not contradict the "fact" that female initiation of IPV is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence. Do you realize that I was agreeing with you? I was bewildered that the SPLC was accusing the female partner violence statistic of being unfounded while citing a statistic that is at least as unfounded, and probably moreso.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 03:22 AM
15

The site trumpets as a “key fact” that “[f]emale initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence,” even though a study shows that approximately twice as many women as men are injured during incidents of domestic violence. This passage seems to be kind of missing the point. I don't claim to know the statistics, but... men, overall, tend to be stronger and have more muscle mass than women. Therefore, when a woman hits a man and a man reta…
/r/MensRights09/03/12 02:10 AM
2

You know how we love to exact sexual payment in exchange for dinner! We're just big scary menfolks!
/r/MensRights07/03/12 04:37 PM
4

In most cases, you're correct. But there are enough cases - female-on-male rape, people lying about what birth control they're on, tampering with contraceptives to encourage conception, stealing condoms from the trash and manually inseminating - that the lack of an option for men who are duped into fatherhood is distressing. A man can be responsible - that is, use condoms, select his partners carefully, and the rest - and still end up being forced into having a child he doesn't want. Why is it u…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:01 PM
1

Typhon's being ironic. You must have missed it.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 06:38 AM
5

Eleanor Roosevelt had a good head on her shoulders. I think it's safe to assume she'd be even-handed with her dispensations.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 05:18 AM
1

Golly, isn't it a bitch when people take the words and actions of a small few and judge an entire group by those actions? -___-
/r/MensRights05/03/12 04:59 AM
8

Barring a specific proclamation to the contrary, I think we can safely say she would utilize the same logic.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 04:45 AM
26

He's not protesting that. He complied with the court and paid the back support. The problem is the violation of his privacy and the garnishment of his wages.
/r/MensRights02/03/12 06:53 PM
1

Every [space] day. Everyday means something different.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 11:17 PM
3

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 02:07 AM
7

I thought I made it pretty clear...
/r/MensRights27/02/12 01:10 AM
4

Power, in men and women, is derived largely from sexual desirability. Therefore a fantasy that allows a user to feel more sexually desirable IS a power fantasy. The only difference is the emphasis placed on physical appearance for women's sexual desirability. Male power can derive from attractiveness, skill, wealth, and ability to exert force (physical or more abstract). Female attractiveness relies almost purely on the physical. While it's unfair that this places an onus on women to be attracti…
/r/MensRights27/02/12 12:25 AM
18

BUT THAT'S A POWER FANTASY NOT OBJECTIFICATION BECAUSE WOULDN'T IT BE AWESOME TO BE A STRONG INDESTRUCTIBLE MAN? WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE THAT GUY? ARE YOU ONE OF THE GAYS? Ignores the possibility that being strong and fuckable might be a female power fantasy. Ignores the diversity of male aspirations that do NOT include physical strength. Pigeonholes male mindset, discounts those that do not fit into superimposed mold.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 12:20 AM
1

I used to be quite the cryer. I cried at least once a year, in one class or another, in school. I caught a lot of flak for a lot of shit at school, but amazingly enough, crying was never part of it. It seems there's something about seeing a man, who is, as you say, supposed to be strong, but who is crying. It's a crack in the facade, and it resonates instantly with people who wish they could be as free as you. As I got older, I stopped crying so much, but only because I had learned to deal with …
/r/MensRights25/02/12 06:27 PM
1

Thanks for the well-organized, thorough response. It helps to have a point-by-point breakdown. Have some karma.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 07:44 PM
2

I wasn't asking you to do my work. I was just asking for your recommendations, because sometimes that's more helpful than just trawling through google or wikipedia.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 07:22 PM
3

This seems like it might be helpful. Any authors or websites I should look for in terms of the feminist material? I'm afraid googling "feminism and porn" is... unproductive, to say the least.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 06:58 PM
1

I don't believe you can categorically state that ANY "adjective adjective gender" would be better than any other. I also think it's pretty unfair that all three of those things - "old," "white," and "men" are clearly being used as a perjorative when there's nothing wrong with being any of them, or any combination of them. The assumption that, because they are old and/or white and/or men, they will automatically be out to restrict women is insulting.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 02:09 AM
6

If she's fighting a paternity test, I bet she could drag that fight out for a LONG time. I've had my share of experience as a victim of the family/custody court system - I was in my dad's custody for years. I hated the woman he married and wanted to live with my mom instead.My dad married the harpy when I was about 6 years old. I didn't get to speak my wishes to a judge until I was sixteen. We didn't have a court hearing regarding custody for TWELVE YEARS - since I was FOUR. The trigger for that…
/r/MensRights20/02/12 12:30 AM
1

That kind of "choice" is an illusion. You have choices, but if they're not smart choices, and the alternatives ARE smart choices, putting them down as "your freedom to choose" is kind of asinine. It's like saying poor people have the "choice" to eat expensive, healthy food, but instead the "choose" to eat cheap crap and also have a place to live.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 12:17 AM
7

Sorry, I haven't been paying attention, because I don't have, and I quote, "any right to speak for women, their choices, their thoughts, or their lives..." If I'm going to be excluded from ethical debates because I don't have a uterus, regardless of my opinion, I don't see much reason to keep track of them.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:34 PM
45

He's been locked in a battle over a paternity test. Until he can see proof that the child is his, he's refusing to pay. His issue isn't with paying the child support, it's with making sure the child he's supporting is his. It's taken him 10 years (and counting) to get a paternity test. The accruing of child support is not entirely his fault. Also, it should be noted that at this rate, his child support is something like $100,000 A YEAR.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:31 PM
12

The healthcare part doesn't bother me. The inflammatory anti-white-man rhetoric, on the other hand, is both unnecessary and caustic.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:27 PM
2

DAE read this in an Asian accent of some sort because the sentence lacked a "the"?
/r/MensRights17/02/12 06:19 AM
1

I've found that, with cats, a sharp "PSST!" will do the trick. Maybe try that?
/r/MensRights10/02/12 06:17 PM
2

Well, first of all, you need to be clear with your kids on the difference between what's on TV and what's in real life. If your kid is taking behavioral clues from commercials, you've got bigger issues to sort out than gender disparity. And if you're ACTUALLY suffering from domestic abuse, again, you've got bigger issues than this commercial. Evaluating the commercial purely on its merits, I agree with GCAL - there's nothing wrong with it, and there would be nothing wrong with it if you Rule 63e…
/r/MensRights07/02/12 04:56 AM
6

The only thing you need to do to fix this commercial is have the guy body check the girl out of her seat at the end. Physical comedy IS funny. Just needs to be a bit more egalitarian.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 03:40 PM
3

This might call for [NSFW] tags. There are an awful lot of images of genitals...
/r/MensRights05/02/12 03:05 PM
4

Yo, preventative medicine is the best medicine. You certainly spend a lot less buying birth control than paying for all the costs of pregnancy.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 08:27 PM
6

If you want to pay the same for dry cleaning as men, get yourself a men's suit.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 08:26 PM
2

Did Fox News seriously just allow their favorite candidate to advocate health insurance companies paying for birth control? Isn't that, like, the danger zone for them?
/r/MensRights30/01/12 08:24 PM
3

+1
/r/MensRights27/01/12 07:00 PM
1

You know, there's a reason we act on the gender binary. Because an overwhelming majority of people conform to it. I address people I don't know based on the gender binary for the same reason that I address people I don't know as if they can hear, and as if they can speak English. If you don't conform to the societal or genetic norms, that's fine, but it's not my fucking job to walk on eggshells around every pair of tits that walks because heaven forbid that they're DIFFERENT. Everybody's differe…
/r/MensRights27/01/12 02:58 AM
7

What if she has an STD? What if she's not good in bed? What if she's his cousin? What if he has an unfortunate history with her? What if he's just not in the mood? What if she's involved with one of his friends? tl;dr get better friends.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 06:53 PM
0

This seems appropriate.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 06:18 PM
2

If you remove the gender-specific language (and the tip about "never ever interact with anyone ever")...
/r/MensRights16/01/12 01:44 AM
-1

And yet, the letter of the law says under 18 is a crime. . . . . . . . . Besides, she's fat.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 12:33 AM
6

It's like the way the words "people's" and "democratic," especially combined, automatically unite to mean "autocratic shithole."
/r/MensRights04/01/12 11:28 PM
7

I'm a full-time student maintaining a 3.8 average, living at home and unemployed, and this is a constant specter hanging over my back. I'm bringing in a healthy share of money through scholarships, student loans, and veterans' benefits programs (my dad is 100% disabled and literally not allowed to work, so the VA helps pay cost of living as long as I'm full time and maintaining grades). I help out my parents (both of whom suffer from one or more serious physical disabilities) all the time, and a…
/r/MensRights04/01/12 11:27 PM
3

No need to be redundant.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 11:17 PM
18

They're called MECHANICAL-AMERICANS, you insensitive meatbag!
/r/MensRights04/01/12 11:17 PM
3

People often refuse to plan ahead and can only accept spur-of-the-moment arrangements [or insist on the other party making the plans] People show fears of commitment after first dates by failing to make or attend second dates [or they just didn't like you after the first date and are trying to give you a hint] Too many people fail to bring sufficient funds to even share the cost of possible activities on dates [or just assume, especially if it was "you" asking "me" out, that "you" would pay] Peo…
/r/MensRights04/01/12 11:16 PM
12

I'd like to see how they formatted that survey. Those are awfully specific complaints. What was the survey? "Show me on the checklist where the bad man hurt your feelings"? It's very easy to tweak the results of a survey by picking the most inflammatory responses.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 11:08 PM
9

Emotional labor We call that fucking human decency where I come from. It's a two-way street. Stop acting like you can monetize it - that, or pay me for every fucking spider I smash, despite the fact that I hate the thought of bugs on my skin to the point where it's almost a phobia.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 11:00 PM
1

We're still on top though - we can scratch our balls in public.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 12:30 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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