TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DoublespeakAbounds Archive

View 7 posts and 145 comments by DoublespeakAbounds on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
12

Obamacare is very anti-men. It specifically shifts health costs to young, adult males. There is no overall cost-saving. Just cost-shifting. And how male lives have been "saved" by LGBT rights progress, I don't know.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 07:28 PM
1

The benefits still outweigh the risks. And that's the bottom line IMO.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 04:43 PM
2

I don't believe for a second that doctors get into circumcision because they think that's where the big money is at. My doctor did not recommend a circumcision either way. In fact, she freely admitted that, as an Asian, she would not circumcise her own child as its not part of their culture.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 05:19 AM
0

We do the same thing with vaccines. Most vaccines have rare but potentially-severe side effects, yet we get them for our children because there are consequences to waiting until adulthood.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 05:16 AM
1

This is one of the most retarded conspiracy theories I've heard in awhile. There was no "big pharma" company remotely involved when I decided to circumcise my sons. On the contrary, medical staff did their best to not push one way or the other.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 11:10 PM
1

I don't think natural selection accounted for AIDS and penile cancer. Besides, vestigial body parts exist due to natural selection.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 11:07 PM
0

I guess it's possible that Bill Cosby is just the single unluckiest person in history or something....but that's extremely unlikely. Or he must be the luckiest. He supposedly raped "more than a dozen" women and not one had charges filed. Sorry, I refuse to give credence to allegations made 30 years after the fact.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 05:59 PM
3

Welfare enables women to have access to men's income without having to return anything as little as just a little gratitude. So men become essentially disposable as far as women are concerned. Just one of many unintended consequences.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 04:52 PM
1

To be fair, I think this is a far better looking guy than the girl in the other video, who was just average or a little above average. I.e. You're comparing reactions to a 6/10 to the reactions to a 9/10.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 04:06 PM
1

White supremacy? Wtf?
/r/MensRights30/10/14 06:50 PM
1

IMO, that's what they are telling you, yes. I agree that the "harassment" they captured is mostly underwhelming, but I can imagine even lesser versions of "harassment." A guy saying "Hi there!" for example.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 05:23 PM
1

That's how it should be. But the question is whether it's right to legally mandate such behavior.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 04:47 PM
1

The admission I saw was that white guys did some things but they were all too mild to include or weren't captured on camera (I assume there were plenty of non-whites who were edited out too). I seriously doubt they avoided more obnoxious behavior simply because the antagonist was white - their point was to show how tough women have it (not that I think they really accomplished that) not to promote some racial stereotype. It's not news to women that non-Asian (Asians are probably the mildest) min…
/r/MensRights30/10/14 04:43 PM
1

Isn't it possible that blacks are simply more likely to catcall or harass, and do so in the most overt manner? Or is it just too un-PC to even consider that possibility?
/r/MensRights30/10/14 03:25 PM
3

I'm pretty sure they're using a lay person's view of harassment, not a legal definition. And if you were to use a legal definition, you would have to start with defining the jurisdiction as the legal term varies according to the applicable legislative body. That said, the guy who walks next to the girl for five minutes is definitely engaging in what I would call "harassment." And you could make a good case that he committed a crime as it's pretty clear he should have known his behavior was intim…
/r/MensRights30/10/14 02:53 PM
3

I hope you're not serious.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 02:51 PM
1

I like how she identifies the "rapist's" political affiliation - I wonder if she would have called it "rape" if he were a Democrat.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 08:17 PM
9

That part stuck out to me too. More annoying, I thought, was the fact that she was citing anecdotal evidence from three Chinese women (read: completely different culture) from "years ago." I assume, since this is CNN, that it's written for an American audience. If so, why cite to a vague memory of Chinese women's perspectives?
/r/MensRights15/10/14 07:55 PM
10

Yes. It got lots of laughs.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 05:49 PM
62

Hah - I watched this and thought of this subreddit. I actually asked my wife "Could you imagine if the genders were reversed?"
/r/MensRights08/10/14 03:29 PM
1

No, you just started in with sarcasm and saying how stupid I am for having a different opinion from you. You're right - you were a real gentlemen.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 09:00 PM
1

Don't pretend to be civil now. You were being a condescending jerk. I hope your day is as good as your manners.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 08:45 PM
1

I'm not mad. I just think you should come to terms with the fact that you're being an asshole before continuing conversation.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 08:33 PM
1

Stop being a dick if you actually want to have a intelligent conversation.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 08:21 PM
0

Yes it does. But that is not why he is receiving the money. It isn't "to make him rich" as you so eloquently put it. If I count up all the money I made since I entered the workforce, I'm a millionaire. Unfortunately, life costs money to live. I'm not sure what you're pointing out here. Do you think you're telling me something I don't know? So in other words, they followed the presumption of innocence? Oh My God ! NO! When you've already been convicted, your presumption of innocence is gone. You …
/r/MensRights30/09/14 07:12 PM
4

"Yes means yes." Brought to you by the "Ministry of Justice."
/r/MensRights30/09/14 05:51 PM
0

Having $500K in your bank account makes you rich by a lot of people's standards. I don't know a single person who had $500K in their bank account at the age of 31. Being wrongly convicted shouldn't excuse you from having to be a productive member of society. As a side note, this looks to me like another case where the guy was released, but they didn't prove him innocent; rather, they just cast doubt on the verdict. Two UW law students, Nikki Carsley and Kathleen Kline, who graduated last year, d…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 05:38 PM
1

Agreed. I've been working for 10 years at a decent job and don't even have $100K saved. Besides, we are talking about public money here - as in, we're cutting teachers so we can make this guy rich. The reality is that there will never be full compensation. This is just a "We're sorry. Here is a gesture to indicate we're doing our best." Hell, you can spend 10 years fighting in Afghanistan and come out with less money.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 04:08 PM
0

I'm ready. I'll tell him what I'll tell you. I made the decision that I thought was best for him, and I refuse to apologize for that.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 02:50 AM
1

I was circumcised as an infant and I'm glad my parents did so. The graph is retarded because circumcision as an adult is a far more complicated and painful procedure due to the development of sex organs.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 02:50 AM
1

If tits didn't improve sensation, increased your odds of STDs, and essentially constituted extra unnecessary weight, I would support cutting them off. But, as I'm sure you know, cutting off your tits do none of those things. Oh yeah, they're necessary to feed infants. Stupid comparison.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 02:48 AM
1

I did. I specifically requested to do so. People assuming I did this lightly are wrong.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 02:46 AM
-6

The odds of complications arising from not doing a circumcision are less than the odds of complications from going through with it. Yes, we discussed that. But my doctor (who was no advocate mind you - she's Asian and admitted that it was more of a cultural phenomena than anything) pointed out that the complications from a circumcision are extremely minor compared to the complications arising from not having one. So quality of the complications must also be considered.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 04:58 PM
-3

I can't tell which of you is dumber. You really swayed me with that. No doubt you know better than actual practitioners - that takes a special kind of arrogance.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 04:55 PM
-2

I haven't looked through all of your links yet, but it already sounds like a flawed premise to assume pleasure is based solely on the quantity of nerve endings. It also sounds like you're cherry-picking your data. I don't have the time to refute all of this stuff, but one of your links I know is a discredited study... The study, published in February in the British Journal of Urology International, found that circumcised men reported less sexual sensitivity than their uncut brethren. But several…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 04:51 PM
-4

It goes both ways. If I didn't do the circ and he wanted it, it would be too late for him to do it without it becoming a major medical procedure. When you're an infant, it's a much simpler procedure. That's the reality of parenting. You have to make decisions with lifelong repercussions even though you're not sure you're always making the best decision.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 03:14 PM
-16

I think you're overblowing the issue. I recently circumcised my son after doing a lot of research and consulting my highly-qualified and well-liked obstetrician, as well as my not-quite-as-trustworthy pediatrician. There are health benefits (albeit minor), it makes your dick easier to clean and more sanitary, and it's debatable whether having a foreskin is more pleasurable or not (my obstetrician believes exposing the head more is probably actually more pleasurable). One of the nurses also relay…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 06:04 AM
1

I dispute the assumption that she "lied." It would be normal for someone's recollection to change after twenty years. Memory isn't static.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 03:26 PM
-8

You could put it that way. Regardless, the burden shifts to the convicted individual.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 07:32 PM
-8

Damaging for the prosecution. I bolded it because I thought that was the most damaging portion of the quote.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 07:21 PM
-12

Wouldn't you agree that you might be able to prove someone's guilt today, but not twenty years from now? The evidence is supposed to prove his guilt, not his innocence. After someone is convicted, then they have to prove their innocence. That's not crazy. That's the law.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 06:35 PM
-19

Let's be clear. I'm not saying the guy's guilty or not. I don't know. My point is that some of these "exonerations" should be treated with some skepticism, particularly since they are politically popular right now and prosecutor's are not eager to defend old cases that are nothing but political liabilities to them. This guy has not been proven innocent - rather, there has been serious doubt cast on his conviction. This is different from what I would call an "exoneration." With that in mind, I'd …
/r/MensRights23/09/14 05:57 PM
-26

Call me crazy, but I'm not a fan of this trend of trying to tear down victim testimony twenty years after the crime (the victim ID'd this guy as her rapist and never backed off the ID - no forensic evidence ever proved her wrong). Everyone's testimony gets shaky after twenty years. EDIT: Here's a more thorough (albeit biased in the man's favor) account of the case http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4246
/r/MensRights23/09/14 04:54 PM
10

C'mon now, be fair to Emma. She's a famous pretty white girl.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 03:10 PM
1

I agree. There probably is sentencing disparity, but I don't believe it's 10 to 1. That said, I also think sentencing disparity numbers are generally overblown. For example, men and women act very differently in court - men generally being more cocky with women being more sorrowful. Facts like that aren't going to show up in any statistics, but they certainly affect your sentence.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 01:23 AM
5

MRA's prolly gonna hate me for pointing out the (what should be) obvious, but the fact is that men commit more violent crimes, even among homicides (most homicides are no eligible for death penalty punishment). For instance, a common-ish death penalty case is the cop-killer. Cop-killers are going to be more male-dominated than your typical homicide offense.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 08:21 PM
5

Probably because it's assumed that the maternal grandfather is acting on behalf of the mother.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 05:02 PM
1

Nah, it's a well-established approach that works very well - you don't want adults answering for crimes they committed when they were 16. And juveniles have a very good recidivism rate as a result.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 02:24 PM
7

This isn't sexism. Juvenile cases are kept confidential to promote the rehabilitation of kids.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 05:45 PM
1

Blacks are often targeted more. In part, because they commit more crimes, a lot more crimes. I never hear anyone talk about it, but I think their minority status contributes but not due to racism. Being a minority race makes you easily identifiable to police, so that makes blacks easier to catch (kindof like how a red-headed criminal would be easier to locate) - so that's part of it too (just my hypothesis on that part though...I've never heard of anyone actually studying that issue). If these s…
/r/MensRights16/09/14 08:10 PM
3

IMO, blaming the justice system is a scapegoat. The justice system isn't making blacks commit crimes (and they are committing a disproportionate amount of crime). I've worked in the justice system a long time and accused criminals are given every break they can get prior to conviction. Although our punishment is more severe in the U.S. than most other countries, nonviolent offenders are nearly always given probation for a first time offense. And there's always going to be some degree of drug war…
/r/MensRights16/09/14 05:02 PM
3

Sorry to hear that man. IIRC, the alimony law in Texas was recently expanded, if you can believe that. I think alimony can be had in five years now, under very limited circumstances. Even so, alimony is limited and extremely rare in Texas.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 04:26 PM
1

I can respect that opinion. Just wanted to see if you were consistent. To play devil's advocate, if we adopted your strategy, blacks still would be discriminated against by most businesses today - they are generally poorer and bigger liabilities to do business with. As much as I sympathize with your assertion that businesses should have a lot of freedom to determine their business practices, I'm still convinced that government intervention is/was necessary to prevent entrenched and widespread di…
/r/MensRights16/09/14 04:05 PM
13

In other words, you're okay with businesses engaging in race and gender discrimination?
/r/MensRights16/09/14 02:50 PM
6

What if blacks are a higher risk?
/r/MensRights16/09/14 02:38 PM
2

I upvoted you but I disagree that it was an appropriate sentence. If it was ONLY assault, I would agree. But she also called police and claimed she was assaulted. IOW, the worst part (by far) is the attempt to paint an innocent kid as a criminal. That deserves a more severe sentence.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 05:49 PM
1

Or maybe men actually commit more severe crimes and more crimes generally...
/r/MensRights21/08/14 06:18 PM
2

White people don't experience -systemic-, entrenched racism. I'm not sure what affirmative action is if it isn't systemic and entrenched.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 11:10 AM
3

Yep - have seen it three times now and it's not remotely old. His rant is that refreshing.
/r/MensRights29/07/14 03:48 PM
2

According to the story, prosecutors dropped the charges. I'm guessing the officers are the ones that made the decision.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 03:17 PM
19

43 percent of boys "coerced into unwanted sex?" Read: Bill Maher's not talking about rape. That's a stat that makes me roll my eyes as well - with a number like that, it sounds like they're grouping people who have sexual remorse with rape victims. That stat deserves to be made fun of. MRAs, don't become feminists, please.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 01:12 PM
2

Presumption. Your assertions are still as yet unfounded. Yeah, that's why I said "presumably." Do you disagree with the presumption? Which assertion do you believe is unfounded? You never challenged any particular assertion and my citation proves that men's premiums are going up, which is the only assertion I made - in fact, you seem to agree when you say "I downloaded the chart and women are receiving an average of 31% increase, while men are seeing an average of a 50% increase." So, what's you…
/r/MensRights19/06/14 08:49 PM
6

Yeah but women in Texas were pummeled beforehand... And why was that? Presumably because women have more healthcare needs and Obamacare requires men to make up the difference, right? What about auto insurance - men have been getting pummeled there for decades and no one gave a damn.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 08:05 PM
6

For example, in Texas (where I live), the health insurance rates for 27-year old men have gone up by 79 percent. For 27-year old women, 29 percent. In the 40 year old group, 59 percent versus 9 percent. Only in the age 64 range, have men got it (slightly) better - 12 percent versus 18 percent.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 05:04 PM
2

OP doesn't understand that privately-owned businesses have freedom of speech too.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 03:08 PM
2

The problem isn't the judges, it's the laws.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 06:02 PM
3

Aren't they? They at least aren't perpetrating the feminist deceptive propaganda like women earn 76 cents on the dollar and MRA's are hate organizations.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 05:56 PM
1

But bullying predates mass shootings...i.e. mass shootings are a recent phenomena; bullying has been around forever.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 05:04 PM
4

Ugh, I hate seeing shit like that. I saw my two sisters belittle their husbands for being unintentionally "underemployed" (i.e. taking part-time, low-paying work to get by) during the beginning of the recession.
/r/MensRights20/05/14 08:19 PM
9

No mention of how men work more or do the yard/maintenance work, of course. Just lazy, filthy men refusing to clean up dust bunnies. The lady in this argument sounds like the typical feminist idiot - the guy (who isn't much better) states that cleanliness is subjective and the girl disagrees while espousing her subjective standards as if they're objective. There's a funny, hypocritical moment at ~18 minutes where the woman mentions that it's different in her home because she is home more than he…
/r/MensRights20/05/14 05:58 PM
0

Because, unlike WWII, most wars are controversial, particularly if you're the instigator. Is that not a fair distinction?
/r/MensRights15/05/14 07:58 PM
-1

Are you seriously saying she shouldn't have joined congress if she was going to vote no on going to war? No, I'm saying she shouldn't have joined Congress if she was going to vote no on going to war, no matter the circumstances. Beyond that, if one of our states just got the shit bombed out of it, in conjunction with a declaration of war against us, I don't think there is any principle that justifies not acting in defense of the country you swore to protect. IMO, that's morally equivalent to tre…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 07:46 PM
0

You don't campaign to get into Congress with its constitutionally-granted power to declare war, and then decide "hey, I can't vote for war cause I'm a woman." The Japanese and Germans were fucking slaughtering people, including Americans. Fuck that lady. She should have never been allowed to leave that phone booth. And fuck you for defending that piece of shit - at least she can say she didn't have the power of hindsight.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 05:43 PM
-1

Long before there was Nancy Pelosi, there was Jeannette Rankin, the first woman ever elected to the U.S. Congress. Rankin was also one of the few suffragists elected to Congress and the only congressperson to vote against U.S. participation in both world wars. From Wikipedia: Rankin was the only member of Congress to vote against entering WWII following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hisses could be heard from the gallery when Rankin cast the vote and several colleagues asked her to change it to ma…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 05:18 PM
6

I don't disagree with failing him (failure to check breathing sounds like a big no-no), but there is a problem with allowing weaker people (i.e. women) to "save" smaller victims, and he's right to call attention to that.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 05:07 PM
2

I think it's both. As many have already said, if the father were in the teacher's shoes and he did that to a little girl, I'm pretty confident he would be in jail.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 04:02 PM
4

Watch the video. The father accurately sums it up as "If I were to do that to her, I would go to jail."
/r/MensRights15/05/14 03:07 PM
5

I don't believe Obama was basing that statement on the hyper-technical fact that the male/female population isn't exactly equal in terms of sheer numbers (Not to mention - I would guess, as far as college-aged people go, men outnumber women slightly...women don't start passing men in population until old age sets in). It's possible I guess, but I don't believe that for a second - not in a publication designed to appeal to the masses.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 09:04 PM
32

I probably wouldn't say it's "outrageous," but it's certainly worth noting that the "great accomplishment" is that MORE women are graduating than men (rather than "as many women"). This isn't some off the cuff remark; it's a carefully prepared and edited article. And if you don't think a Harvard law graduate isn't choosing his language carefully, I've got news for you. I believe his goal is political instead of insidious (i.e. he's trying to monopolize women voters), but that doesn't change the …
/r/MensRights08/05/14 05:55 PM
4

You use the word "weird" like it's not a highly subjective term.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 08:31 PM
8

As a father, I treasure bathtime with my kids. It's a playful, happy time (usually) and there's an element of innocence reflected in the fact that they think there's nothing to being naked. I completely understand why someone would like to record those moments (those years pass quickly, or so I'm told). OOC, would you think any different if it was a mom taking the picture?
/r/MensRights16/04/14 05:59 PM
12

'Cause taking pictures of your naked child can be construed as "child pornography" if you're a father. This story scares the shit out of me as a father. This guy won, eventually, at least. But after two years of humiliation and legal battles.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 04:27 PM
1

Not explicitly of course, they just said this scholarship is for x, y, z races - white male was never one of the listed races. Same thing with gender - this scholarship is for women. It's no different than saying "whites need not apply" or "men don't bother" though.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 02:20 PM
3

White male here. It's a pretty old experience that started when I began applying for scholarships in high school (in the 1990's). My hopes of a color-blind America were dashed when I saw how many scholarships rejected me for simply being white and male.
/r/MensRights14/04/14 08:40 PM
0

And that still makes no sense. And btw, NASCAR sucks.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 09:25 PM
-5

If the gender of the parent is important, how do you justify not giving gender-based preferences to parents for adoption purposes? I'm not sure how AIDS activism relates to this topic.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 08:22 PM
-4

First off, I appreciate you keeping it civil. Look at that show Modern Family - the gay couple is two men, and they have an adopted daughter. A - Television isn't a good example of reality. B - it's FAR more common for lesbians to have children together than gay men due to lesbians being able to have their own children. The gay rights movement does not minimize the role of fathers in families Not expressly, sure, but the viability of gay parents depends on the premise that gender is irrelevant f…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 08:16 PM
-20

IMO, the men's rights movement is incompatable with the gay rights movement. The gay rights movement depends on the minimized role of fathers in families so that lesbian parents are viewed just as viable as hetero parents. OTOH, one of the main tenets of men's rights is restoring father's access to their children due to the importance of fathers being in their children's lives. Thus, there's a natural conflict between the two movements. Now you may downvote me to oblivion:)
/r/MensRights09/04/14 07:49 PM
5

The "War on Women" campaign is actually a war on men campaign. Doublespeak abounds, folks.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 04:25 PM
14

I agree of course, but people's ignorance doesn't excuse Obama's decision to exploit and reinforce their ignorance.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 01:40 AM
1

Exactly. And she didn't even back off of the statement.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 02:52 PM
-1

No offense guys, but we're making a losing argument to say men are not more aggressive. Statistically, we commit more murders, assaults, rapes, etc. And I would bet my life that will not change during our lifetimes. It's obvious in your personal lives as well. Watch sports? There aren't a lot of women wanting to play football and rugby...Talk about your fantasies? Not many girls have ever had a Red Rider-esque fantasy about shooting bad guys with their BB guns. But similar fantasies seem to be n…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 02:39 PM
1

I agree that its sexist, but a feminist takeover of the Supreme Court is of little concern at the moment. Right now, there probably should be more women there. I respectfully disagree. Gender should have nothing to do with your qualifications as a judge. It sounds like what you're supporting is a form of affirmative action. But, IMO, we should strive for the best judge's on the Supreme Court, regardless of gender. The flaw of Sotomayor's thinking is that she thinks that being a man makes you les…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 05:50 PM
4

I'm simply trying to be concise. I don't think the whole speech changes the meaning of the quote. Here's more context from your link: Sotomayor spoke briefly about the contributions of women judges and attorneys in race and sex discrimination cases, while acknowledging that Supreme Courts made up completely of white men have made seminal decisions on those issues. It's in that context that Sotomayor made the statement heard round the world via YouTube. "Whether born from experience or inherent p…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 04:23 PM
0

If you think addicts aren't hurting anyone, you're naive. You're equally naive if you think the availability of a good educational system will prevent people from engaging in substance abuse. You're lucky if an addict wastes charitable money on drugs and doesn't hurt anyone in the process. The more likely scenario is they, in their drug-addled state, hurt the people around them, like their kids, through neglect, abuse, or waste of their time/resources. Sorry if that hurts your feelings and makes…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 05:49 PM
0

Giving cash to addicts makes the world a lesser place, not a better place. Don't be such a sucker. You would be infinitely more effective by giving your money to a fathers'* rights organization.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 04:53 PM
9

"Diversity" has become a code word for anti-white/Asian and anti-male.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 03:18 PM
1

Perhaps you're speculating, which is a poor start for making accusations.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 03:38 AM
-6

I've never once heard one of those politicians, much less ALL of them, support endless war or spying without limitation. Your point is based on blatantly false factual allegations. The sarcasm is warranted.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 04:56 PM
-5

Yes, and they strive for global domination and the extinction of the human race too. /s if that's not clear
/r/MensRights19/03/14 04:33 PM
-6

Eh, she lost me when started with hyperdrama about how named female politicians (Clinton, Bachman, Palin, Pelosi, etc.) support "endless war" and spying without limitation. If you have a good point, you shouldn't need to exaggerate.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:31 PM
1

Can we stop calling statutory rape "rape?" That's the sort of language that leads to unjust sentences, for everyone (although mostly men). There's a gaping moral difference between "consensual" sex with a teenager and forcing someone to have sex with you.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 06:34 PM
0

1984 - wut? Apparently, that didn't make sense to you. I'm not talking about government-compulsion or Big Brother-esque activity. Far from it. I'm talking about how people choose to raise their children. I'm suggesting that it's possible that, based on gender-specific traits, it's good that parents steer men away from child-rearing duties and favor steering them toward productivity instead.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 09:05 PM
-1

I agree that he doesn't "owe us shit," but if that's the case, I think it would be evolutionarily consistent for people to discourage men from childrearing. Imagine if the next Jonas Salk was at home raising his kids instead of inventing a vaccination against a deadly disease. That's millions of people's lives lost because we want to pretend that men and women are equal in every way. It would be a failure for humanity. Does that make sense or is that too politically incorrect to stomach?
/r/MensRights11/03/14 07:47 PM
0

Women who have never had children and have never married out earn men in certain professions. Sure. I wouldn't dispute that women may be better suited than men in various professions. That said, evidence (and my personal experience FWIW) suggests that men are still the big innovators of our society. Assuming that's true, isn't it at least possible that moving men into childcare hurts society in the long run? Because they are spending their time changing diapers instead of advancing technology? T…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 07:36 PM
14

"Capital murder" in Texas is a crime that requires the proof of an aggravating condition in addition to intentional homicide. For instance, you have to prove there were multiple victims, the victim was a public official in the course of his/her duties, the offender was engaged in another felony (e.g. a burglary) at the time of the murder, etc. The reason this lady was not convicted of capital murder is probably due to the failure to prove that aggravating condition, which isn't apparent from the…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 04:58 PM
-4

While I think it's good to allow people to fill whatever role in society they wish to, I can't help but wonder . . . Is it possible that society is worse off with men and women equally sharing parenting duties? What if men are inherently better producers and women are inherently better caretakers? If that's the case, the social pressure against teaching men how to take care of babies might have some evolutionary basis.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 04:52 PM
1

That's my mentality. I plan to off myself when I'm 70 or so - whenever I feel like I'm more of a liability than I'm worth and my retirement funds would do more good for my children than myself. I don't get people who want to live forever even though you're completely miserable and will never get better.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 04:51 PM
1

The over-diagnosis of ADHD is arguably the biggest men's issue of all. One boy's passion often meets a woman's definition of "hyperactivity."
/r/MensRights03/03/14 06:25 PM
1

This guy needs better credentials. I don't know where he's getting his information, but judges' salaries do not go up based on removing children from homes as he suggests. And you don't lose your child JUST because you smoke marijuana. My impression is that he needs to ease up on the ganja and Alex Jones.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:24 PM
2

Well, when you fake orgasms, you're teaching your partner to do something that doesn't satisfy you. So she's bringing her bad sex life on herself.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:21 PM
1

Complaining about Americans generalizing while generalizing Americans. Nice.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 09:52 PM
2

Having your own child in addition to supporting another child can lower your payment. It depends on your jurisdiction however. For example, in Texas, Texas has established a formula to calculate what amount a non-custodial parent should pay for child support. If a non-custodial parent’s net monthly income is less than $7,500, Texas law has established the following guidelines for child support payments. The amount withheld is based on the net income each month. • 20 % for one child • 25 % for tw…
/r/MensRights13/02/14 07:37 PM
-1

Don't be a moron - I've read more profound thoughts out of a fortune cookie. It's very rare that people go into a marriage not prepared for a partnership. Regardless, anytime a partnership dissolves (and they often do over a long passage of time), you aren't suddenly gifted with the moral entitlement to your former partner's assets.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 05:50 AM
-1

I get it just fine. You're the one who doesn't get it. You're talking about the legal entitlement - that spouses are legally entitled to each other's earnings. But being legally right doesn't make you morally right. You shouldn't be trying to seize your spouses earnings if you didn't earn them. For example, Tiger Woods's wife was legally entitled to lay claim to a huge chunk of his fortune. But did she deserve it? Fuck no. He's a dick for cheating, sure, but IMO she's a bigger dick for taking so…
/r/MensRights30/01/14 12:00 AM
-2

So you think it is fine that all her salary goes to support the family and household for years while he builds up a secret slush fund with his salary? I must have missed the part where "all her salary goes to support the family and household for years." It sounds to me like they both work, there are no children, and there is no reason to believe either doesn't contribute to their household.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 10:34 PM
-1

I would demand that not only she not be friends with someone of the opposite sex but also of the same sex. It is the same for her. Seriously? Sounds a bit controlling to me. I would never tell my wife who she could be friends with.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 09:57 PM
-2

Make sure he doesn't hide any assets because, after 19 years of marriage, you should be entitled to a healthy share of them. I would assume hidden assets are assets he has earned (or it would be very difficult to hide them, no?). And if she's working, she shouldn't be thinking about how to get access to his assets. That's my gripe. Things aren't working out? Then get divorced and be on your way. Stop grubbing for money that isn't yours.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 09:55 PM
-2

I agree, but whatever the nature of their problems, I hate that the solution is "get a lawyer and get as much money as you can." It's just another example of why marriage is a bad deal for men IMO. If the relationship goes sour, the recommended action for women is to rake you over the coals in court.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 05:55 PM
-3

But would you demand your spouse not be friends with someone of the opposite sex?
/r/MensRights29/01/14 05:53 PM
-2

None taken - I put "platonic" in quotations for a reason. No one knows the truth from this one-sided letter. Regardless, even real or presumed cheating shouldn't be an excuse to raid someone else's assets.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 04:27 PM
1

Not like Romney was going to change any of that It's not like he had a chance to. That said, I guarantee he wouldn't be perpetrating this 77 cents on the dollar myth.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 04:04 PM
5

Using the cops too. She called the cops on him and locked him out of the house cause he used the "ef word" over the phone.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 04:16 PM
-5

Yeah, this doesn't pass my smell test either. Will wait for follow-up.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 10:07 PM
2

Meat resistant guy here. It only made me associate Chevy with douches more than before.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 08:48 PM
2

I used to prosecute those cases (Class C misdemeanors, including non-injury assaults). Believe me, the prosecutors hate these cases almost as much as you do - there's almost always very little evidence beyond "he said, she said" and the "assault" sounds like the sort of crap that happens in a ton of relationships (X pushed Y in the middle of an argument). AND, like you said, most of the time, the "victim" comes out trying to get the case dismissed.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 10:09 PM
5

Part of me thinks that needs to be balanced with a men's studies course. The same thought occurred to me, but I immediately recognized that this is the line of thinking that created a lot of discriminatory institutions today (e.g. womens studies and affirmative action programs). The truth is that there will never be a perfect "balance" without engaging in systematic, explicit injustice (i.e. quotas). So yeah, as you said, I think you have to shut it all down. As Justice Roberts put it with regar…
/r/MensRights13/01/14 04:16 PM
11

If "women's studies" is wrong, so isn't "male studies"? Gender discrimination should have no place in the subject of your studies.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 03:39 PM
1

Welcome to being a foster parent. You are not the permanent parent; you are a temporary parent. It doesn't matter if you're a "better parent" because they aren't your kids. Someone didn't read the fine print of their foster care agreement.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 08:04 PM
1

Your comment reflects a lack of appreciation for the separation of powers. (i.e. members of the executive branch should not choose which laws to enforce, otherwise they would be usurping the function of the legislative branch, which would in turn create even more of a police state). The fact that police officers follow orders is respectable and, by design, a limitation of their power.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 06:27 AM
2

Also, even if this is true, I have a hard time feeling a lot of sympathy guy because this happens to gay people all the time, all over the world, with hardly a peep ever. Now one dude might get to know how it feels a little bit. Are you serious? Fuck this noise. Who the hell thinks it's okay to treat one category of people like shit because another category gets treated like shit? You should logic more.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 06:42 AM
1

It's pretty common for victims to recant when the perpetrator is someone they love. From the article: Experts caution to be wary of recantation, especially in a case like this. “The relationship between the defendant and his recanting accuser — father and daughter — is renowned at law and in social science as one most likely to breed a false recantation,” said the report. Not saying the recantation is true or not. You just can't stop your evaluation of a case based on a recantation. Source: I've…
/r/MensRights17/12/13 02:59 PM
1

If you tell it to one person, you don't have full control over who knew. But that said, I agree it's somewhat foolish since she presumably shared it with so many people at once, but it's nothing approaching morally reprehensible. I've seen teachers do far worse things that didn't get them in trouble.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 03:51 PM
1

That's a fair point, if she said it to the students. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm under the impression she did not have students as Facebook friends.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 05:18 AM
0

As if it's news to students that teachers have favorites.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 03:40 AM
2

When did a Facebook post acknowledging having crushes on unnamed students become the equivalent of fucking a student or telling a specific student "you have nice tits"? Where's your ability to make distinctions now? I'm sure if you were in a classroom full of 16-year old girls, you wouldn't be attracted to any of them, would you? And if you were, how dare you admit as much to your family or friends!!!
/r/MensRights13/11/13 07:40 PM
2

Who says what's okay and what isn't? You? It sounds to me like you're just making an arbitrary declaration about what a teacher is allowed to say. If she's not mentally or physically hurting anyone, or even creating a risk of harm, what's the problem?
/r/MensRights13/11/13 07:29 PM
3

Your distinction detracts from his point. Believe it or not, it's normal for a teacher to find one of their students attractive (assuming we're talking about post-pubescent students). We shouldn't act like the teacher is a freak or something because of that. I think it's in poor taste to put it on Facebook, but it's not like the teacher named names or took any action beyond admitting that she often develops a crush on one of her students. As long as she keeps herself under control, there's nothi…
/r/MensRights13/11/13 07:20 PM
1

According to the article, she was laughing at two, calling the police at three. Bear in mind, this is her spouse we're talking about, not some stranger on the street. My wife sometimes bites my ass as a joke and it hurts like hell, but I sure as hell wouldn't call the police if she did it one time too many.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 06:20 AM
2

So the short story is that he tazed her twice on camera and she laughed. He tazed her a third time and she called the police. My take: The extra taze was kindof a jackass-ish thing for the husband to do, but who would go from laughing to calling the fucking police and wanting her husband facing charges over it?! Fuck that wife. That's just the sort of thing that has guys walking on eggshells.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 11:09 PM
1

Stupid video. The title should have quotation marks around "Wrongfully." There is so much more to those cases, but even some of the cherry-picked facts he presents aren't definitive one way or another (e.g. the killer didn't have a drop of blood on him minutes after the crime, as if you can't kill someone without getting blood on you or you can't clean blood off in minutes). EDIT: shitty grammar
/r/MensRights02/11/13 06:22 PM
2

Was gonna say the same. The world is hard on you if you're ugly, regardless of gender. (Maybe even harder on ugly women - in the words of J.D. Salinger, "Ugly girls got it tough.")
/r/MensRights31/10/13 02:31 PM
0

Except for "universal health care," (which is still better than our current system IMO) I agree with you on all of those items and consider myself conservative/libertarian.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 07:13 PM
164

That subtitle: "At last, women on top." They're not even pretending equality is the goal.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 09:40 PM
4

Whatever you think of Coulter, she made those women (well-educated, "strong" women no less) look like idiots.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 04:21 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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