TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Embogenous Archive

View 1 posts and 1,477 comments by Embogenous 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)
0

Embogenous/r/MensRights06/05/12 09:18 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,477 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Because it's shameful and they're just being honest.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 09:05 AM
1

Not that it isn't a problem. Rather, that the argument MRMRising used to claim it was a problem is nonsense. "In some cases x gets screwed and in some cases y gets it easy" doesn't prove that x has it harder than y.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 11:12 AM
1

Have you actually seen evidence that no unemployed woman has been refused reduced CS payment? Have you actually seen evidence that no man has ever had their CS dropped because of visitation costs?
/r/MensRights02/07/13 03:53 PM
-1

Men pay barely anything all the time. The amounts vary hugely, and even if it's true that women pay less than men in the same circumstances (which seems likely) that doesn't mean men are always screwed or women are always let off scot free.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 03:52 PM
2

Edit: The Reimer experiment (victor/victoria) is an interesting case and cautionary tale, but it really isn't demonstrative of anything. Anecdotal evidence is just that, and there were far too many unaccounted for variables to make any conclusions from it. For starters, everyone knew he was born a boy. We can't say with any certitude that that didn't change the way he was treated. In fact, if you read the study he wasn't really treated like a boy or a girl, more like a lab rat. It's sad really. …
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:38 AM
8

Neither. Just that the attitude exists. If this were the only time anything like this happened, it wouldn't be a men's rights issue. But it's reflective of a pretty common attitude; an assumption that a man is a pedophile based on things that would be perfectly normal for a woman (e.g. being with a child in public).
/r/MensRights21/06/13 02:39 AM
1

as if the age of the argument negates the absolute ridiculousness of your comments I didn't imply it did. Rather, reading such dated material and bringing it back from the dead implies a personal interest in it, which is weird. As in, "why would you care so much about a stupid argument a month ago that you can't just let it lie". EDIT: Oh, and of course, my comments aren't ridiculous, though your interpretation of them most certainly is. against things such as abortion I am 100% for abortion. To…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 03:23 AM
2

One thing I have seen - I read an article reporting a study which found female perpetration of violence was correlated with female empowerment. They accounted for the possibility of arrest rates simply increasing, too. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to conjecture that more assaults from women would be paired with more rapes too.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 02:34 AM
5

The NISVS found 1.9% of female rape victims were raped by women.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 02:32 AM
5

I don't understand the contention. I reworded them; Don't insult me, or patronize/infantalize me Don't insult yourself or pretend you aren't interested sexually Don't insult my friends Don't touch me unnecessarily Don't brag about yourself (money or otherwise) Don't be an asshole (if you're rejected) The "don't pretend you aren't interested sexually" is the only one that sticks out, as it is contrary to common advice. The "no touching" one is iffy, mostly because of the justification. The other …
/r/MensRights17/06/13 08:54 PM
-1

I was linked here from another thread, read maybe halfway down the page This isn't a correction. You got linked here from another thread... and then trawled through a 26 day old argument. rightfully called you out for sounding exceptionally rapey (or possibly just "rape-friendly" if you genuinely see nothing wrong with the original sentiment which started this thread) Hmm, nope, pretty sure your response was nonsense. You can try to explain where the date rape support is in my comment if you wan…
/r/MensRights17/06/13 12:14 AM
-2

You trawled through a 26 day old argument, responded with an off-topic and nonsensical accusation to a random comment, then when it was pointed out you called me angry and said I take myself too seriously and implied I don't have much sex (none of which is at all derived from my comments). What are you even doing?
/r/MensRights16/06/13 08:50 PM
-2

Um, we were talking garden-variety date rape No we weren't. Or at least I wasn't. Date rape isn't mentioned in my post. You accused me of being a date rapist (or rather, possessing "date-rapist ways" which I assumed to mean the same) out of nothing, so I did effectively the same thing to you. Nobody here is thinking of raping children except you. Do your fingers act independent of your thoughts?
/r/MensRights16/06/13 04:26 AM
-3

Oh, clever_username, you and your love of child rape. Aren't you a funny thing.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 08:02 PM
-4

...What? How did I imply that? Are you just writing whatever comes to mind? Why don't you read what I wrote and actually respond to it? "sometimes the guy does make his intentions clear but the woman deliberately misleads him for selfish reasons." I did not talk about a woman saying she'd rather be friends. That was not mentioned in my post. Seriously, are you an idiot?
/r/MensRights24/05/13 03:16 AM
-3

What the fuck are you on about? Before irrational aggression, try exercising reading comprehension. If a guy is dumb enough not to make his intentions clear then he deserves to be "friendzoned". ...You claimed that the "friend zone" situation only ever happens if the guy doesn't make his intentions clear. I questioned that; I implied that it isn't true, that sometimes the guy does make his intentions clear but the woman deliberately misleads him for selfish reasons. what lesson is "the media" te…
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:07 AM
-4

You I never said that. You (somehow) mistakenly inferred it from my comment, most likely due to personal bias. I imagine the same is true of the OP; while I can't be sure, he definitely didn't say it explicitly. I read his point as being a more extreme version of mine; that some women do this (number unsaid), and it's bad. He just has more extreme feelings towards the people that do and about the ideal consequences. "I think these women's" "such a woman" "Women who do this" You can't honestly te…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:23 AM
2

No, I'm seriously asking you, what possible mechanism would there be? This just seems silly, it's obvious there isn't anything.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:45 AM
2

Actually, they are. What happens if men take progesterone blockers and so on to artificially simulate the same conditions? What do they fixate on? And do you have any support for that claim? We don't know that. How else would the male body detect that it's caused a pregnancy?
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:34 AM
-4

Your beef is with one single female. Not all women. ...Obviously. Was somebody saying otherwise? Or rather, any single woman that does that, but yes, obviously not even close to all women. Regardless of how the person he set his affections on feels? Really? You do realize I wrote "legitimate opportunity", right? She can feel one of two ways in this situation; like she's willing to give him an opportunity, or like she isn't. Going on a date feeling like you aren't giving them an opportunity but y…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:22 AM
2

I've read stuff about it before. I tried googling but could only find a few unsourced claims. So never mind. Biologically, the hormonal changes that occur in fathers, occur prior to birth. Hormone changes aren't parental bonds. And the changes in fathers are in reaction to the mother's pregnancy; they don't happen regardless of the circumstances.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 06:17 PM
2

No. Nor did I claim that you did. Also, I should say... men have very limited bonding with children until after they're born. Fathers can leave prior to the birth.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 06:01 PM
3

Masculinity and femininity refer to social concepts; a person can adhere to a masculine role or a feminine role, regardless of whether those things are biological or social in nature. A masculine appearance includes biological aspects that are typical of men; a square jaw is masculine, for example. If a woman is born with such a jaw, we say that she has a masculine jaw. Over time, we associate things typical of men with masculinity and vice versa. Men tend to show less emotion; that's masculine.…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:28 PM
-1

How is that a bad thing? If you don't want kids, a vasectomy is the smart thing to do, assuming you can afford it and are willing to accept the risks. Women can't get reversible physical sterilization (that I'm aware of), but if a woman doesn't want kids it is absolutely her responsibility to ensure sex occurs with the proper protection.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:19 PM
1

By that argument, wouldn't abusive fathers (and mothers) not exist? And since it's indisputable that at least one father has left because he didn't want the kids, we know that your supposed explanation isn't universal; if it isn't universal, how are you supposed to gauge the likelihood? An assumption that it's somewhere between "most" and "almost all"?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:15 PM
1

Most fatherless homes never had a married couple to begin with.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:13 PM
-10

Seems to me like she gave him a chance, while on the date realised there was no potential or sexual attraction, and just moved on. ...No, she did it deliberately. She knew in advance that there wouldn't be a second date. She went out with him for a free meal, end of story. He doesn't deserve anything either. He deserves a legitimate opportunity to continue the relationship as opposed to getting conned. But he doesn't deserve that because he paid for a meal, he deserves it because he's a person a…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:03 PM
2

it only shows that men disproportionately sign up for service. Exactly. What you want to show it that men disproportionately die in the service No we don't.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 03:23 PM
-1

Are you really claiming that in the entire history of the universe, there isn't a single case of a woman deliberately misleading a dude about her feelings for him for selfish reasons? That even the women who claim they've done it are lying, and you know this because you're... what, psychic? Also because that's clearly how you romance a woman, by being their friend. Fuck you people are dumb When media constantly teaches a particular lesson people tend to absorb it. It doesn't make you stupid to d…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:54 PM
-11

No. Women don't manipulate men. Men manipulate women. Why would you open with this? Who would even write this? their abuse goes far, far, far, far, FAR beyond not wanting to have sex with you. If you seriously think not wanting to pursue a relationship is abuse then fuck you my good sir. Nobody thinks this. Pretending they want a relationship (or sex) and using it to exploit a person is what is abusive, and what they were talking about. Hell, we can look at this from the other direction, since I…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:41 PM
-9

Nigerian Prince scammers; So the scammer forced the victim to give them all their savings? What, did they hold a gun to their head? They can always choose to not give them any money. When people go on dates, they expect to have a fair chance to prove themselves in order to enter into a relationship (whether that be a one night stand or getting married five years down the line). When there's no chance of that happening, they are being deliberately misled about the parameters of the date. And this…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:30 PM
6

The point isn't that if men and women both sign up to the military, men are more likely to die. The point is that men die in the military. The main reason for that is that the vast majority of people in the military are men. Exactly the same for workplace fatalities. The point isn't that if a man and a woman have the same job, the man is more likely to die; it's that men die at work more, mainly because men take dangerous jobs. And it's a factor in all the other cases too.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 09:45 PM
-12

My example was a hypothetical; it isn't a real situation. I get to define the parameters and what is happening. I am telling you that in the example, it wasn't a series of misunderstandings, it was a woman exploiting guys to get her dinners paid for. "But people do that without being malicious" - sure. But that isn't happening here. "But teh menz" - sure. But I was talking about a woman.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 11:35 PM
-12

I don't know. I don't think it would work as a valid law. It's shitty behaviour but not all shitty behaviour should be dealt with by a legal system.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 07:04 AM
-39

It isn't. At least not by the guy who started this; "such a woman tends to manipulate men for fun and profit by encouraging them to pursue her, then pretend she hadn't a clue they were interested in her and shoo them away." It's not "not having sex with someone" that's abusive, it's encouraging men to pursue them to gain things from them, while intending all along to dump them. As a simple example; consider a woman who either hits on guys or goes out looking her best looking for guys to hit on h…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 04:06 AM
16

Evopsych as a field is mostly bullshit, but the concept itself is legitimate.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 08:08 PM
1

That's my point; the effective age of consent isn't 13 at all. You're arguing things based about it using that number as a premise when in reality it's just a number in a book that has no real-world application. "Federal" law has no meaning here. In the US you can get prosecuted using federal laws or by state laws depending on the nature of the crime. In Japan the "federal" laws will never actually apply. Also, back to your original comment, most crime estimations in Japan will be smaller relati…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 12:44 PM
0

Japan has an age of consent at 13… There is no place in the country where it is legal to have sex with a 13 year old. Prefectures can set their own AoCs, and they all have - the lowest in the country is 15.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:19 AM
3

He used an analogy to point out why criticizing a view doesn't necessarily mean you're closed-minded. He wasn't saying "criticizing multiculturalism is literally murder", he was arguing that your statement was bad. You can do it with any number of examples; "If you criticize me for advocating legally forced racial segregation then you're closed minded" is pretty much just a more extreme version of what you said.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 10:01 AM
1

Clearly I don't say that my experience of the world is universal in all cases, but language is generally used a certain way, and in this case you and feminists are not using it in the way it is usually used. Okay, so the point here is that that use of the word is standard in my experience. You think otherwise. I'm asking how you would know that it's not "generally" used that way, why your experience of the word trumps other people's. But the fact that if they were true their definitions are absu…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 06:25 AM
1

If someone says they were barred from doing something then no-one would assume they just didn't want to do it. Since you didn't address my question, I'll ask again; Why do you presume that your experience of the word is universal? But they women are oppressed even if biology means they don't seek power as much as men, or even if we force men to seek power at great personal cost. This seems like a patently absurd definition of oppression. Feminist theory rests on the assumption that the former is…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 05:11 AM
0

You are using words in a way so different from the way they are commonly used that you are basically lying. Why do you presume that your experience of the word is universal? When we say someone is facing barriers to doing something we never include not wanting to do that thing as a barrier. "A circumstance or obstacle that prevents communication or that keeps people or things apart: "a language barrier"." How does that not apply? How do you know this? I could equally well assert that society bra…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:27 PM
18

I think it's safe to say that 90% of men would love the situation while a minority of women would. What are you using to make that judgment? there is a difference between how a 6 year old boy and a 6 year old girl would be effected by this situation. Your analogy doesn't hold ground, at all. Yes, adults interpret things differently depending on gender. But implying that a developed adult reacts to sex in the same way as a child who is five years away from even developing a libido is moronic.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 04:55 PM
0

I totally reject that society confers an advantage on men. An advantage in regards to gaining "power". You can argue that that's a bad thing or that you personally don't care or whatever, but that's the point being discussed.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:54 AM
0

Fine, to say specifically what you did say Is me not wanting to buy ice cream a barrier preventing me from buying ice cream? I never said prevent, though that's because I'm suspicious about your use of it and think it likely you'll make a semantic argument I don't want to get into (irt "prevent" implying an external force). But in answer to your question, yes, of course it is. Evolutionary theory, the fact that other animals have huge gender differences in behaviour, the fact that differences in…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:43 AM
1

It's 50% biological Proof? But feminism gets the cultural reasons almost completely wrong. I disagree with feminist theory on a lot of stuff, but can I ask what you think feminism's ideas about it are and what you think the truth is?
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:36 AM
0

But it does say; if there are more men in power it must be easier for them to gain power. This is incorrect. How so? Choices people make don't develop in a vacuum. If you like you can argue that gender roles are biological in nature and we can end the argument, but if you accept that culture socializes people to make decisions then you must accept that society confers an advantage to men (in regards to gaining things that men have gained).
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:34 AM
-1

A man has a much higher chance to be in poverty than in power So? a much higher chance to be in poverty than a woman Actually, while men are more likely to be unsheltered homeless and such, there are more women in poverty overall. This a circular argument and means nothing. If it's a circular argument then you agree that it's easier for men to gain power which is the argument I was making. (It's actually not circular at all, though I would expect it to be self-evident (when we can rule out chanc…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:32 AM
0

Does it make sense to say that the fact that I don't like chocolate ice cream is preventing me from buying it? Like I said, I didn't say that preferences are preventing them. while there is very little evidence that socialization is the cause of men and women's preferences. You think there's little evidence that preferences are due to external influence/socialization? But there is very good reason to think that there are large gender differences due to biology. What's that? Do you think the reas…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 09:02 AM
0

I didn't say something preventing you from doing it if you want to. Living in a culture that socializes you to not want to do something is a barrier to doing it. Preferences don't arise from a vacuum.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 08:49 AM
0

So what is the definition of oppression that feminists use? The existence of barriers to gaining power.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 07:37 AM
0

Normally when the word because is used it is used to refer to one of the largest factors that explains why something happened. Suppose Jewish parents are 1% more likely to push their kids into science. Would we say that Jewish scientists are scientists because they are Jewish? No, because that is a very small causal factor causing them to be scientists and saying they are scientists because of that implies it is a big one. Yeah, fair enough. The number here is a lot higher than 1%, but male poli…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 07:26 AM
0

It isn't easier for men to gain power because they are men, men gain power because they sacrifice more for it. So why do men sacrifice more? started reasoning that patriarchy is society makes men sacrifice more for power, but that doesn't change the fact that men aren't in power because they are men. If society treats men in such a way that they're more likely to sacrifice more for power, and sacrificing more for power means you're more likely to gain power, then society treats men in such a way…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 07:04 AM
0

How is it an advantage to want to sacrifice your quality of life in order to make more money. Working fewer hours and receiving less pay is in no sense an objectively worse choice. Even if men prioritize their work more due to socialization this doesn't leave them any better off overall than women. Okay, sure, you can argue that. It's changing the argument though, and I can't really be bothered switching.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:46 AM
0

It's mostly your insistence to view all men as one collective group with one shared purpose or goal that is rather upsetting. Your response here is equally logically flawed. Your response is "It's either easier, harder or equally hard [for men to gain power]". Who are these men? If you take a man and a woman who are identical in all other respects, it's easier for the man. It's easier for men on average. It's easier for a lot of women than a lot of men because those women can be privileged in ot…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:45 AM
1

uses words incorrectly So what are the correct definitions for words? The oldest ones? As a computer scientist, if you're right I must be unbelievably full of shit, because the amount of appropriated jargon in my field is massive, and according to you we're not allowed to use it because words can't change meanings.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:41 AM
0

And watch him squirm now: "That's one possible explanation. It can't really be proven, though. There are other possible explanations that are just as legitimate." What? So if it isn't the Patriarchy, whetever else could it be that's at fault for such disparities in harms? The Matriarchy? Male disposability could be a force that works independent of male privilege. Feminists assume that it's a result of patriarchy (though I doubt many would use the term); "men are seen as strong and women are see…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:39 AM
0

No...
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:36 AM
-1

If most women don't want to work 80 hours a week for 30 years for a shot at CEO, that doesn't mean any company is preventing the ones who want to do it from doing it. Yes, but why do they not want to? Biological, chance, or an advantage conferred by society. Those are the three options. Pick.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:36 AM
0

Your logic suggests you believe they are rigging the system somehow. No, it doesn't... There is indeed a genetic advantage here, but my logic still applies to it. It is easier for a black person to win than an Asian; they're not getting the medals because they're black, they're getting them because they win, and they win because they're black (among a multitude of other factors, of course, that's just one that happens to make it more likely).
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:34 AM
-3

But why'd you post it in that context, specifically?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:40 PM
-3

So why did you post the anecdote, then?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:27 PM
-6

This leap in logic is quite astounding. So... What's the alternative? It's either easier, harder, or equally hard, no other option.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:25 PM
-10

Yes If men and women were equally likely to gain a position, men occupying 80% would have a chance of 1%, 90% would have a chance of 0.01%. I don't know how you'd calculate the probability of maintaining percentages like that but I can guarantee it'd make them plummet. "Why" hardly matters, no one has to rationalize their choices. But of course it does. If the "why" is "society" (rather than biology or chance) then we've gone back to our starting point; that society advantages men irt their gain…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:11 PM
-3

I made it very clear in my subsequent posts that my stance is that a disturbing number of feminists hold that view, so no, I was not directly contradicting you. You did at the time. Responding to a statement with "actually, x" implies that the statement is incorrect, and that x is actually the case.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:00 PM
-12

Oh honey Do you always call dudes "honey"? Or is it just when sexist assumptions and being a condescending prick happen to cross paths? It causes us to have seven times the industrial death rate, bear almost the entire weight of wartime death and injury, and to lose our children to spiteful, narcissistic haridans with the full weihgt of the coercive power of the supposedly patriachal state behnd. That's one possible explanation. It can't really be proven, though. There are other possible explana…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:55 PM
-8

And they hold money, not because they're men, but they've either earned it or inherited it. So is it coincidence that most people that hold that money are men? It's also argued that it's because women almost NEVER go into politics compared to men. And this isn't because of some systematic oppression, it's personal choice. And is the reason women go into politics less due to coincidence or biological reasons? Define power. It can be a number of things, but it's generally "people in charge of impo…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:47 PM
-4

...What, are you now implying that you weren't contradicting me (despite starting with the word "actually"), you were just offering a tidbit of information because you felt like it? You were pretty clearly disagreeing with me and then using the "talked to" bit as supporting evidence.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:41 PM
-12

No, because I literally never said all feminists thought that way. Doesn't make a difference. Exactly the same logic involved. The purpose of an analogy is to demonstrate the logic used in an argument - in the same way that I used "literally every" and you used "almost every", I used "Indian" and you used "feminist". You simply inferred that I had. ...No, you explicitly said "almost every".
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:37 PM
-19

Patriarchy Theory holds that the majority of power in the world is held by men "because they are men." ...Are you suggesting that isn't the case? What, you think it's a coincidence? And through this all men are at an advantage In some respects, they are, obviously. If 90% of people in power are men then clearly men have an advantage in that it's easier for them to gain said power. whilst systematically oppressing all women. In the context of this discussion, "oppression" means "barriers to gaini…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:27 PM
-13

...No, the point is that not all Indian people own dairies. I can extend for the full analogy if that makes it easier for you to understand. You: All Indian people own dairies Me: No they don't. You: literally every Indian person I know owns a dairy See where I'm coming from here?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:23 PM
-18

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=patriarchy+101&l=1
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:10 PM
6

Why are the child's rights important on one issue but not the other? It's not a child. Abortion is about the rights of a person versus the rights of a foetus. Foetuses don't get rights; people do. Being pro-choice isn't about saying "we totally don't care about that foetus so you might as well kill it"; it's about saying "forcing a woman to be pregnant and give birth against her will infringes on her rights". If I am going to die without constant blood transfusions from you, personally, I don't …
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:03 PM
-23

That the world is "run by men" and all the problems are "from men." Can't get any more correct than that. Without actually knowing what it means.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:51 PM
-23

And literally every Indian person I know owns a dairy or is the child of a parent that owns a dairy.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:50 PM
-14

Feminism is an academic field that appropriates words for jargon. The definition of patriarchy within feminism is not the dictionary definition of patriachy.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:49 PM
-36

but at the same time it's "all their fault." You should go and find out what patriarchy actually means before you argue about it.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:11 PM
2

It's used by prosecutors when sex has been established to cast doubt on the non-consensual nature of it. "If she wasn't planning on having sex, why did she get dolled up and willingly go back to his house?" and so on.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 11:24 AM
40

Actually it says the opposite; if you're sexist you like big boobs. Either is a possible interpretation of the study, though that ones seems more likely (there are of course other possibilities, they just found a correlation).
/r/MensRights27/03/13 11:21 AM
3

Python Well just look at how phallic the namesake is, how is it not oppressive when women are being sexually harassed every time they see the word?
/r/MensRights27/03/13 11:19 AM
2

You didn't say often, you said majority.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 10:27 AM
1

IF A PENIS ENDS UP IN A VAGINA UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THE PENIS' OWNER DOESN'T DESIRE, NO CRIME WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN COMMITTED That's not the case; like Infinitely said, it just says rape is penetration without the consent of the victim. It doesn't say that the victim is the one with the vagina, so if penetration occurs without the consent of a male victim (with his penis) then it fits the definition.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 11:36 AM
-2

Now, if someone would like to provide some sort of evidence that this is the majority of cases, then I will concede that all the Feminist hysteria over drunken sex = rape has some legitimacy to it. The feminist argument is that if a person chooses to drink alcohol and then chooses to have sex while drunk they were raped. In my opinion, if the sex is somebody else having sex with them while they don't have the mental coherency to understand, object or resist, then it's rape (including if they cho…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 10:31 AM
-4

at Starbucks or drinking everyday drinks ...Spiking alcoholic drinks with more alcohol. Isn't the whole GHB thing about bars too? Or when you hear "drinks being roofied" do you automatically think of starbucks? that someone who's out at a bar Oh wait, you already said that - why did you switch from alcoholic drinks at a bar to starbucks? You're telling me, that the majority No... I didn't say or imply that in any way...
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:43 AM
-7

You can't "get someone else drunk" unless you hold the glass to their damn lips. Fact. Period. You can spike drinks...
/r/MensRights18/03/13 02:55 AM
24

If you want to shut up a person like that, a good response is to say something like "I totally agree with you - I'm a 20 year old man who's slept with a 10 year old girl. She loved it and there was nothing wrong with it. I wish more people felt like us."
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:54 PM
6

I used to have this great image, but unfortunately no longer. It was a "conversation" between two people, and it went something like this; 1: Intelligent, rational argument 2: Irrational response 1: Well-cited, logical counterargument 2: Hateful contradictions with no evidence 1: Another intelligent and rational counterargument ... 2: I AM ANGRY It's beyond easy to "prove" your opponents wrong when you're the one making arguments for them. The one arguing in the comic is an idiot, and even if so…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 07:36 AM
8

"Also, according to the US Census Bureau, men pay owed child support at a higher rate than women who owe child support." - This is good information but has no place in the article, you should remove it as part of the integrity of the website and as somebody would remove it sooner or later. It's a page about abortion, not child support, so only parts of child support that are relevant to abortion (the fact that men most certainly cannot "walk away from parenthood") should be there. Keep on-topic …
/r/MensRights09/03/13 07:05 AM
1

When there is a perspective that a woman knows more about (either because she's more experienced or because women in general know more about it (like pregnancy & she's a mother)), and a man assumes he knows more than her. But I think in most cases, it's just a know-it-all not seeing gender (there might be more male know-it-alls but there are certainly female ones), rather than "entitled man thinks woman brain small". its primary use, however, is "you are disagreeing with me (and probably a man) …
/r/MensRights09/03/13 05:12 AM
6

If you're working 30 hours a week and making 30k/year then it would be $20/hr by Peter's metric (1500 hours/yr instead of 2000).
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:27 AM
8

Redistribution still should be an issue. Not on the same level as an adult having CP, of course, but it should definitely warrant punishment.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 06:45 PM
1

You can't, idiot. That's the point. Ignoring is one of the many possible hallmarks to help a person recognize an abusive relationship. Not a definite indicator.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:52 AM
6

Yes, totally. Cutting off body parts isn't harmful at all. Hang on a second while I lop off my little finger because apparently that isn't harmful.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:57 AM
6

Baptism doesn't harm a baby.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:52 AM
2

I get it's fun to mock but this is like that "pizza is a vegetable" bullshit. Ignoring your partner and never letting an argument go are often aspects of abusive relationships. The idea is that a relationship doesn't require physical violence to be a problem, there are other ways it can manifest, but since the stereotypical abusive relationship people jump to involves violence it's much more difficult to recognize other forms. Yes, I'm sure there are people who think a relationship is genuinely …
/r/MensRights26/02/13 10:53 AM
1

If the abused partner has a child, then it's often true. Earning enough money to support yourself plus a child, which includes paying for childcare whenever you're working and they're not at school can be very difficult for somebody without a degree/other qualifications or a good work history. There's also short term, though there exists the possibility of finding a job and then ditching.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 10:47 AM
2

Refusal/rejection of love/marriage/sex 2/3 of victims are children Well that's just nauseating.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 05:05 AM
1

Why not? What's wrong with it?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 11:10 PM
1

The poster says sexual violence... The only use of the word "rape" is 80% happens between people that know each other which is also well supported (or something close to it, I generally see stats 75-80% so they're just rounding up a little).
/r/MensRights16/02/13 12:38 PM
2

Rape is the grand daddy of sexual violence and a big part of the pie. So? Do you know the questions they used for other forms of sexual violence? I haven't seen the specific questions, but the definitions are in the main study and I'm assuming they adhered to them.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 12:06 PM
2

That article doesn't address the other sexual violence statistics, only the rape statistics.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:01 AM
2

If you ever take a look at the plans for a building, the rest room will generally be labeled "WC" for water closet. I don't think it's used any more outside of that, *though it may well be in some places.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 08:41 AM
5

You're thinking of 1 in 4 college women have been raped, I think. That is indeed a very famous statistic from a heavily flawed study (in which something like 3/4 of the "rape victims" didn't consider it rape). The poster says sexual violence which is supported by many studies, such as the CDC'S NISVS (27.2% of women have experienced unwanted sexual contact).
/r/MensRights16/02/13 08:39 AM
1

It's paranoid to say "Any guy who lives in the west puts himself at risk by associating with women." (in the context of avoiding all women). I accept it can happen, and it is outrageous, and I do want it to change. I just don't think the risk is as big as some people act.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 01:23 PM
1

I'm not saying these things aren't often poorly handled, but death by shooting can potentially happen to anyone. The frequency just doesn't warrant the paranoia.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 12:42 PM
1

Why do you think that?
/r/MensRights15/02/13 06:32 AM
1

You've grown up in a society that caters to your every whim and protects you and provides for you at every turn. Pfffahahahahaha How delusional are you, seriously.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 06:23 AM
1

Obviously anybody who doesn't try to change the world and themselves to reflect the way you want it must hate women.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 06:00 AM
1

This is such a stupid argument. By your logic, I shouldn't associate with men either - because all they have to do is shoot me and I'm dead, much worse. Anybody can totally fuck your life up if they want to; women have a particular route that men don't really have access to, and it does require special consideration given it has much lower penalties than most, but it's still one of many. We get through life by not assuming everybody around us is a sociopath, because it's true in the vast majorit…
/r/MensRights15/02/13 05:58 AM
7

You can, within the bounds of a healthy relationship. Where is the evidence that I can't outside of one? Are you sure you aren't just projecting, that this isn't just an issue with you?
/r/MensRights15/02/13 04:21 AM
8

Sure, but your argument seems to assume that you can't do both simultaneously.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 02:07 AM
1

So no feminist has ever used a qualifer of "some" or "many" or a "few" to describe mra's? I was talking about SRSers, not feminists in general. And yes, I am still making a generalization, but it's pretty accurate. I've seen people banned for defending MRAs by commenting to say "not all of them are like that".
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:44 PM
2

But they don't use the qualifier, they seriously argue that all MRAs are terrible people. A minority of them will say things like "some MRAs think rape is awesome" and "some MRAs argue that beating women is a good thing" but that doesn't really count.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 10:56 AM
1

yet reject a biological explanation ...No. I'm willing to accept biological explanations for most things. I don't have absolute confidence that socialization is the root of most behaviours. But different things seem more or less likely to me. So if their experiment indicates a biological mechanism is having an effect It doesn't. what mechanism do you think is influencing the results? Do you think the differences observed in primates are the due to some type of unseen primate sociological pressur…
/r/MensRights11/01/13 08:32 AM
1

Yet you stated the former as being so No, I didn't - I said I would unsurprised if it were the case. How can it be both bogus It is bogus to state it as fact when it is unknown whether or not it is fact. Why are you so keen to discount evidence of a positive correlation in this case? I didn't do that. I disagreed with their assertion of the cause of the correlation. It just seems to me that when all studies indicate there is a gender preference for toy selection and this is consistent through pe…
/r/MensRights10/01/13 06:39 AM
14

embracing the LGBT lovefest YEAH WHY DOESN'T EVERYBODY HERE JUST HATE FAGGOTS LIKE RATIONAL PEOPLE GOD.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 08:13 AM
1

how they played with these toys was also identical to how boys and girls might." Since monkeys don't cook, if the girl monkeys were cooking with the pots that means they were emulating behaviour they'd seen in humans.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:44 AM
1

I don't see how that backs up your claims... that proves that our identification with a particular gender is genetic (which I agree with), not that a gender's preference for a type of toy, career, behaviour etc is genetic.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:42 AM
1

Why do you adopt the colloquial language and mannerisms you see, then?
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:40 AM
1

Do you have a study or some such about this or are you making the judgment based on what you remember? A boy raised as a girl liking boy things doesn't prove it's genetic; an alternative explanation is that the boy still identifies as male, so he emulates male behaviour and absorbs the messages aimed at males. The cases I've heard about this, the "girl" has either strongly identified with their birth gender (i.e. they're trans... or trans-trans... cis I guess...) or had other problems related to…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:40 AM
1

You've contradicted yourself. How so? Read the context. For the former, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. For the latter, we don't have proof. There's no contradiction there. yet if anyone suggests that perhaps there is a biological mechanism that explains why male infants are more attracted to spatial, building, construction type play, it's met with a storm of howls of protest and claims of gender stereotyping. I would be more surprised about this, but I'm prepared to accept it. I just d…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:31 AM
1

Didn't work on me though So can you please explain why you follow the vast majority of the customs and normal behaviour for the society you live in, as opposed to any of the many other options that you should be just as likely to pick if your brain is magic as you claim?
/r/MensRights05/01/13 02:47 PM
1

Science is in fact proving all the time a little more that genetics are in fact why even entire races behave differently. Can you please cite that? Yes, you can completely brainwash people- it's been proven a million times throughout history, but in order to do that, you must break their WILL - destroy that part of the mind that makes decisions independently. But in a free society, people cannot be told what their will is - that statement doesn't even make sense. Getting it yet? ...Nobody is tal…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 02:45 PM
2

sometimes facts don't fit popular theories. True of course, but evidence to show this is a fact doesn't exist. I have the vague memory of a study... Children aren't immune to socialization. In fact, they're far more susceptible to it.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:56 AM
3

You will like what I tell you what to like That's not how it works. Have you spent any time around infants or toddlers? It is really, really easy to sway their opinions. If you get a toddler to play with a dog that is quiet, playful, and small, no worries. If the same toddler plays with a huge dog that scares the shit out of them, they will be afraid of dogs for a long time. The idea that every desire is hardcoded is moronic. Why is it that rich people and certain cultures (East Asian ones) seem…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:55 AM
6

Oh god, that second link. "Female monkeys prefer a cooking pot - so therefore women must biologically be compelled to enjoy cooking!" Monkeys don't cook. There is nothing inherent about a cooking pot that ties it to cooking, domestic chores, food etc. To a monkey, a pot is a piece of metal. I would be unsurprised if females of any species were predisposed to dolls and things, as a reflection of mothering instincts manifesting in young. But the fact that that study found female monkeys prefer pot…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:52 AM
1

So if I'm an employer, and my requirement is that you must bench 200lbs... I'm sexist if 99% of my employees inevitably are male? Sorry, I don't think so. ...How is that being treated differently? Agreed... but tell that to the feminists who keep... The vast majority of feminists, even the terrible misandrist ones, would agree with it.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 03:05 PM
1

Uhh, yes it does... at least the way 99% of all feminists I have ever heard who try and use the patriarchy. Either they're using it wrong or you're mistaken. That doesn't say anything about the massive majority of men not in those positions It isn't supposed to. Let's assume that I think you are 100% correct in this. How do you propose with fix this? With male-discriminatory legislation to try and "counter-balance" this social bias... or, just pure equality and time. ...The latter? If men happen…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 05:38 AM
3

So... where do you think people's desires come from? If I like computers and archery, are you saying that no matter where I was raised, how I was raised, how I look, was treated, blah blah blah I would like computers and archery no matter what?
/r/MensRights02/01/13 01:17 AM
1

The family unit is heteronormative, but romance and sex are not.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 01:16 AM
2

wildly promiscuous, binge drinking, abortion obsessed, VD reddened, status obsessed, extremely superficial, cold, dead and empty, drug addled toxic whores just looking for a confrontation Proof? I'm twice your age and I've witnessed it first hand over the last 50 years. There was once upon a time when women actually adhered to functional, social behavior. Still haven't bothered to find out what bias means, huh? anti-social, defensive, dumbed down, narcissistic, predatory, always on the look out …
/r/MensRights02/01/13 01:12 AM
1

You'd be surprised. I suppose this can get fiddly when transgender people come into it, but if we're talking about people who are born male and people who are born female, of course it's a fact there are differences - it's true by definition. these cultures where homophilic and paedophilic relationships are the norm still manage to reproduce? Yes - for the most part (i.e. all the ones I know of), these cultures have had strong gender roles, and had the homosexual/pedophilic relationships kept di…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 01:04 AM
3

the fact that they don't want to. ...Yeah, so this toy is to get them to want to. In practice this is impossible unless we force them to; free choice means by definition that we can't and shouln't control who does what. Or, if we change the way that kids are brought up to make it more gender neutral, then similar numbers of each gender will want to do things.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 12:57 AM
5

Yes, that doesn't sound delusional at all. On a related note, you should be embarassed about your poor observational skills for not noticing that women are actually reptilians. Seriously, pick it up. Have you googled selection bias or confirmation bias yet? Because if you find out what those mean then maybe just maybe you'll realize why "maybe that's why you don't recognize it for what it is anymore. They've brainwashed you into thinking their behavior is now the new 'normal.'" is retarded.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:50 PM
2

Really? Do they not still sell huge buckets of lego, K'nex, meccano, even that newer one magnetix? As far as I'm aware the stuff like what's linked is a drop in the bucket for this sort of toy. It's technically discriminatory (as in, it's aimed at girls and not boys) but it doesn't matter.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:19 PM
3

No individual people are doing it deliberately, but there must be something that's stopping them; the idea of this toy is to counteract that.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:17 PM
1

what they are *As what the high and mighty genius Demonspawn personally perceives them to be.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:15 PM
2

So... what exactly is a dude that likes other dudes? Are you just saying "lolno don't make a word for it because I said so" or are you arguing that men are incapable of ever finding other men sexually attractive?
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:13 PM
6

Oh wow I just looked at some tv stuff and some internet videos and I've come to the conclusion that Jews are all greedy bastards and black people are stupid and poor. And this has to be fact because otherwise how could I have come to the conclusion, durr. I think somebody (you) needs to take a high school statistics class and find out about such complex ideas as selection bias and confirmation bias.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:06 PM
-4

which has no use beyond treating ED Exactly. It's a medicine used to fix a medical problem. Birth control can do the same, but it isn't intended for such a purpose so it isn't recognized as such.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:58 PM
5

Stop asking me to not be an asshole! You're destroying my rights! Help! I'm being oppressed!
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:56 PM
5

American women tend to be obnoxious, toxic and confrontational. Evidence?
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:56 PM
1

What about the differences between male and female physiology makes men want to get into politics more?
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:05 AM
1

Do you or do you not believe there are biological differences between men and women? That This is an objective fact. That men and women make different choices because of certain differences? I believe they're predisposed to certain choices based on differences. Would you say that most women are attracted to men and most men are attracted to women because of society or because of biology? Actually a tricky one - you're probably thinking the latter, but the truth is both are factors. An example is…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:05 AM
0

Economic power = money. "But women control more spending" doesn't contradict it. "But child support and alimony" doesn't either. The vast majority of money is owned and controlled by dudes.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:01 AM
1

If something is all wrong then "nah its all wrong is the correct response." Then prove it. Argue. Provide evidence that it's all wrong. But no I do not think society is set up to cause men to economic or political power in any way. So... why do they have more economic and political power? Women who actually attempt to gain political or economic power are more likely than men to succeed Evidence? And, second - even if true, this doesn't contradict a patriarchy, as there must be a reason why men a…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:59 AM
0

The fact that you can't see this just proves you are blinded by your female privilege. What makes you think I disagree? What did I say that contradicts it?
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:56 AM
1

Women are doing better in school. They are graduating at far higher rates then men. Despite the above, there are female only scholarships with no such equivalent for men (therefore it's cheaper on average for them to go). There are hiring quotas for women (again, with nothing equivalent for men). Women also make up a huge, massive majority of consumer spending. Yes, but that doesn't contradict the existence of a feminist patriarchy, just some arguments that feminists use it for. So is society cu…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:56 AM
1

Just checking - are you sure you aren't thinking of psychology? Physiology is the way physical bodies function, and the ways that male physiology is superior to female physiology (height, muscle mass etc) doesn't give you a leg up your thinking ability. Although, now that I think about it - being tall does actually make people respect you more, same for having a deep voice, so it would be true that men have an advantage there (though I don't know how significant it is).
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:48 AM
-5

None of that changes anything. Yes, women help men get political/economic power. Yes, there are other ways to define power. Yes, men are not vile and evil. Yes, both genders perpetuate these attitudes and behaviours. Yes, men typically do a lot to provide for and protect women. But a patriarchy doesn't mean that stuff doesn't happen - none of it is relevant to the existence of a patriarchy. I mean, it's relevant in that a patriarchial society will have factors that affect these things, but they …
/r/MensRights31/12/12 03:33 PM
0

physiology Our physiology influences social factors. But physiological differences don't affect ability at math or anything like that, nor political ability, nor economic ability (in most cases). In today's world, very few things are actually relevant.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 03:28 PM
-2

It's not unthinkable. People's beliefs on this matter will differ. I know there are some people (or used to, I haven't been in mr for a while) who believe that all differences between men and women are purely biological. It just seems obvious that society will affect people, and given no solid evidence of an alternative, the simplest option to me is that this is predominantly or purely due to social factors. It's like evolution; we don't have much evidence of this occurring, but we have a solid …
/r/MensRights31/12/12 02:37 PM
0

Sorry but as long as shit like the patriarchy is a mainstream view of feminism Tell me; do you or do you not believe that society is set up in such a way that men are more likely to gain political or economic power? Keep in mind that men pretty clearly do have more political and more economic power (a.k.a. government jobs and money). So either society is set up in such a way that it's easier for them, or they're biologically more capable. At its simplest level, that's what patriarchy means. So w…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:39 PM
6

The entire point of wearing mini-skirts is to hyper sexualize yourself to sexually arouse and attract the attention of men. So the only reason women ever want to feel attractive is for the sake of men? Are you aware that women are autonomous and that their lives don't automatically revolve around men? How does your belief explain why a woman would make herself appear more attractive when a man isn't going to be seeing her? Attractiveness is valued, it's a positive trait. A person, regardless of …
/r/MensRights29/12/12 01:06 AM
7

Basically, gay men have sex with men, which is what women do. Therefore if you hate gay men for being gay, you hate them for doing something women do, which means you hate women. Excuse me while I put a hole through my door with my face.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 11:29 AM
1

It is not sex if he changes his mind, not it was not. That is what is says. It uses the present tense, thus referring to sex that is happening in the present. If somebody is having sex, in the present, and they change their mind, and explicitly make that clear, then it becomes non-consensual.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 01:46 PM
2

Kidnapping sexy kids and locking them in my basement? Sign me up!
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:37 PM
7

Jesus fucking christ. How is that not illegal? How is it not battery, or torture, or something? The scream that kid made when he was shocked was awful.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:19 PM
1

As perhaps a better analogy, if a person is drugged into unconsciousness, then somebody pinches them; the pain centers in their brain will be activated but they lack the conscious capacity to be aware of them.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:17 PM
6

Am I crazy for feeling scared of false rape accusations? Mildly paranoid. It doesn't exactly happen to many people, and I don't know if they're more likely for somebody who does have sex vs somebody who doesn't (the whole thing being made up). No reason not to avoid intoxicated sex, though, if you don't want to have it.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:11 PM
1

I couldn't give less of a shit about a baby dying if nobody wanted it. I don't feel bad on the baby's behalf; no different to me than if a fly is squashed. I do, however, feel bad on behalf of the people who care about the baby, if they exist; if a mother kills her baby and the father wanted it, I view it as wrong because of the effects on him. Spartan practice of ditching disabled babies - doesn't faze me. I wouldn't support this though because holy hell is that a slippery slope. But this doesn…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:09 PM
2

If you stab a frog there will be pain. The idea is that they lack the conscious ability to actually suffer, for that pain to be more than a button-push on a computer (like writing a computer program to say "ouch" when you hit space; stab -> electrical pulse -> crying vs space -> electrical pulse -> crying). Though I have no idea if this is true and it sounds pretty morally abhorrent to me either way.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 12:05 PM
11

Women, children, indigenous people, and other minorities are living with the crushing reality of hunger. So... everybody except non-indigenous adult men.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 01:27 AM
0

I had no analogue because, as a guy, there's really no situation where that applies to me. B-but... what if you drink too much and have sex... What? Rape culture was originally used to refer to prisons. As in, they actually have a culture where rape is expected and accepted. It was co-opted by feminists to refer to women in society. There is some legitimacy to this concept - while the thing called "rape" is viewed as horrific by the vast majority of people, certain behaviors, some of which are l…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 01:24 AM
1

loads of "relatively good" anecdotal evidence (not "smoker dies at 110, smoking cures cancer" kind of stuff) with easily observed truth to it, which position would you take? Assuming there is a rational foundation to it, then I would adopt that position. Which is what I have done here; concluding there isn't any reason at all to believe women are less logical on average. "There are lots of illogical women" != "Women are less logical than men on average". I know plenty of men who are complete mor…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 10:49 PM
1

Eh, not really. People who look at history and think that women were all basically submissive children who obeyed their husbands until they got their nightly beating are utterly delusional, but we don't know what the "norm" is. A couple of hundred years ago men participated a lot in childrearing, and women did active work (at least on farms, don't know much about elsewhere). I couldn't tell you how frequent different family structures were but the narrative of women being slaves to their husband…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 07:36 AM
1

Yes, you're right. But none of that means men are biologically predisposed to like sports more.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:49 AM
1

All evidence to the contrary. Go ahead and post it, then. We know that men and women's brains are wired differently, and we can observe distinct differences in the mentality's between the genders. But not this one. But you on the other hand simple "argue" as if you are arguing for a religion. Actually, it's more in the way that one would argue against religion. It's possible women are inferior at logic - I've seen no hard proof to the contrary (though I do doubt a difference, or significant diff…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:01 AM
5

I'd say moderate feminists are the majority, but moderate feminists that actually give enough of a shit to talk about it are a minority.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 12:58 AM
21

It was interesting when I watched the video - most of the guys seemed pretty normal, there wasn't any name-calling from them. We had that one guy who was attending because his friends killed themselves, for example. And when they try to go to this thing there are nutjobs screaming "you're scum! You're a rapist!" in their faces. I actually laughed pretty hard when that one woman was like "Why do they go to men's rights groups about this stuff? Why not a feminist group?" Look at yourself, moron. Y…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 12:56 AM
1

So have you ever wondered why this difference you perceive as "social" came to be in the first place? Surely "society" didn't arbitrarily decide this, based on absolutely nothing? Probably not arbitrarily, but "because they're biologically drawn to it" seems unlikely. Men do sports because men do physical exercise because men hunt buffalo and women nurse babies works too.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 12:53 AM
11

17 year olds can legally consent to sex in over half of the US (I think it's about 3/4), not to mention a lot of other first-world countries. Consensual sex from a 17 year old is not tantamount to rape. It may be a problem in some contexts, especially things with teachers, but on its own, no. If they are actually raped, then no, but Maxted's comment wasn't talking about that.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 12:20 AM
2

So would you accept this logic in relation of women's logical capability? No.... Because it isn't true... Fuck off and stop making personal attacks, it's slightly annoying. Your chosen justification for your belief is incredibly irrational, not to mention arrogant in the extreme (everybody around me is wrong; I am enlightened).
/r/MensRights02/12/12 02:57 PM
2

Do they have the ability to become logical and intelligent? ...No. Their brains are literally incapable of handling the processing an adult's brain is capable of. And you've still yet to provide even the faintest scrap of evidence. Grow up and acknowledge that you're the moron here.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 02:05 PM
2

The problem here is that you are not a "logical thinker". You think you are, but anybody who genuinely believes that what you just said means anything is an ignorant moron. That's the problem here. It isn't the women around you, it's you.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 01:39 PM
1

You implied that I implied that women aren't capable of logical thought. No... I implied that you implied that women are less capable of logical thought than men. Because you did. Today's women are illogical in most regards, and stupid, but that doesn't say anything about their ability to be logical and intelligent. ...Being illogical doesn't say anything about your ability to be logical? Being stupid doesn't say anything about your ability to be intelligent? The fuck?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 01:37 PM
1

Really? LunaRosa said "Because women lack logic that men have." You said "The sad truth. (as a generality)". Exactly what did you think LunaRosa's comment meant if not that?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 10:49 AM
0

How is that ironic?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 10:06 AM
2

You're right, you're right. You didn't say men are smarter, just that they have logical abilities that women do not. That's completely different.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 10:04 AM
6

...Are you under the impression that I'm some kind of hysterical feminist? No, Dave. Dismissing people who claim men are smarter than women with no evidence is not limited to the feminist movement.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 09:03 AM
3

I was being facetious. Do you expect me to respond seriously to something like that? Is it possible to argue with a person who thinks personal experience, made utterly useless by the host of biases (both in your own interpretation/recall/other influence (movies and such) and the non-representative sample) is absolute fact?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 08:36 AM
6

That doesn't make sense. You can't have one observation of an average, as there isn't a single man or woman who are "average" - and even to find a representative pair, you'd need a large amount of observations to determined what average is. So either way you need a large amount of data to form a conclusion, and there is no way that you can escape bias - the most obvious ones being selection bias and confirmation bias. Plus your sample size is tiny, but utterly useless anyway since you can't cont…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 08:07 AM
10

Cite or get out.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 06:12 AM
12

Cite or get out.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 06:11 AM
3

Sue has a history of taking random guys home with her and has a reputation of being the bar "slut." Do you have any evidence that women who frequently have consensual sex are less likely to be raped?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 03:33 AM
2

Hey, me too! Got it as a birthday present when I was around 7-8, it really kicked off my passion for reading.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 03:20 AM
2

It is very emasculating.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 07:04 AM
6

The person saying it is coming from a viewpoint of "The group, men, actively works to oppress the group, women. To obtain equality we must stop the men from oppressing the women". So when you turn around and say "men have issues", they jump to assuming you're claiming the opposite of what they think, that you're saying "women oppress men", and they disagree with that. That's my interpretation, anyway.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 11:19 PM
8

is that men benefit from the system, while women do not. Being killed in wars = benefiting. Getting more social support = not benefiting. Face facts, men and women get different things out of our society. You can't tell me it isn't a benefit to get sentences half as long for the same crime, or be 5% of work deaths, and so on. Here's my list. is not caused by a hatred of men. What systemic woman's issues are caused by a hatred of women?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:59 AM
2

I read somewhere that it's estimated 50% of pregnancies miscarry at such an early stage the mother isn't even aware of it (just ends up being a slightly heavier period).
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:30 PM
1

As Eryemil said, no, but honestly we don't know - nobody ever really bothers to find statistics for men, but some journalists have done investigations into rape against men used as a war and oppression tactic (it's pretty hugely demoralizing). I'd be skeptical if it were the case in a lot of backwards countries, but in some that are pretty consumed in violence, less so.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:29 PM
-1

I thought it was pretty funny. So long as she gauged her audience (which she apparently did - she said they have twisted senses of humour and regularly prank each other) and she didn't make too big a deal of it (pretending to call the police or maintaining it for hours), it's a good prank. If you can laugh it off a short while after and you aren't hugely inconvenienced, I'll generally think it's okay. Unless you're fucking with somebody's PTSD or something.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 09:25 PM
3

If you're trying to say I haven't lived through traumatic experiences enough to know how I'd react, then you're quite wrong. No, I'm sure you have your own experience, but you don't have theirs. Not everybody works the exact same way that you do. Just because you react a particular way, doesn't mean everybody will. For you to claim you know how other people will react because you know how you have is insanity. That's ludicrous. Source? Here, relevant info in this image.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 07:44 AM
3

making it more likely that in a one-to-one struggle, the man would win. Yeah, in a randomly selected pairing. What makes you think this would be the case for a rape? Your whole deer-in-headlights phenomenon is borderline bull-shit. Human instinct is self-preservation, not freeze in fear. So tl;dr my lack of experience trumps everybody else's experience? In addition to that, the main point I had is that it's highly improbable for a man to be raped. And yet it happens... according to the CDC, as f…
/r/MensRights24/11/12 07:28 AM
1

The first part doesn't make sense. My point is that most women who are forcibly raped could get away from their rapist despite the strength differential, by ramming their thumb into their eye (or other means, that was an example). The idea you're supposed to get from that is that the strength differential isn't the only factor (even when restraints/drugs/blackmail aren't involved). Note you said it couldn't happen forcibly unless "she's like a body builder and you're the 90 pound weakling"; do y…
/r/MensRights24/11/12 06:36 AM
7

A 40 pound kid raping somebody 100-115 pounds is pretty surprising in terms of force involved. The ages are very relevant, in a way not so in your example, because it's much less likely an 8 year old would be using drugs or restraints. Nobody's ruling anything out, just saying that the mass and age differences (8/11 is not equivalent to 18/22) make it surprising, and that coupled with the fact that one of the kids nearby supposedly had no involvement make it more so.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:52 AM
1

How many women do you think would be incapable of getting away from their rapist if they rammed their thumb into the guy's eye? It's okay if you don't understand. I guess it's entirely possible that you are level-headed no matter the situation, that you've never lost your cool or freaked out and acted irrationally. But just don't tell other people they have to be the same, okay? Even if you can't understand that viewpoint (generally a combination of fear (of the situation/assailant, potential co…
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:42 AM
1

No one really thinks she deserved it, but it's the lawyers job to find some way to cast doubt on the accuser and get his client off. That part is fair, I guess, but the issue here is that things like "she led him on" are actually considered by a jury to reduce the defendant's credibility. Ideally, the defense lawyer could call her a slut all he likes and it wouldn't make a difference in the case.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:19 AM
-1

A generalization is when you take a limited amount of information and make a grand claim of it. Something like, you notice there has been a string of break-ins by black people recently, so you conclude most/a lot of/all black people do that. The whole point of something being a generalization is that you don't have enough information to claim it. If you actually look at legitimate, unbiased statistics and they say something, then it's totally fair to repeat it. But that's not a generalization. T…
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:17 AM
2

It happens to both, we're just busy raging at the man up version right now. Subtle sexism is very difficult to notice for people it isn't directed at, so it's likely the guys here wouldn't have much knowledge of how it affects women. I'm sure all (most?) of us acknowledge it happens, we just don't have much to say about it personally.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:06 AM
1

I need a strong man that I won't squish I'm surprised she don't not need no man.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:04 AM
5

I've found that people with strong motivation can simply not understand lacking it. Sadness, you can often get through. "Imagine feeling incredibly anhedonic and sad all the time regardless of what you do" is fine, so long as they believe you. But tell somebody "I just don't have the energy to get out of bed, I can't handle it" and it's pretty much universally "Just do it you pansy".
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:02 AM
2

I'm unsure, but it's possible that a large excess of some vitamin (or other supplement, I believe "vitamin" can colloquially mean any kind of nutrional pill) can trigger depression.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:00 AM
4

Fittest means most likely to survive and reproduce. You can be bulletproof able to lift 500kg but if your dong doesn't work you aren't remotely fit. In today's world, fitness is not determined by toughness - in fact, being emotional and gentle often gives you an edge.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 04:58 AM
1

Do they clean up the cuticles and the skin around the nail when you get one? My nails are fine but I always get rough skin around them, especially little bits sticking out at the base of the nail that end up tearing and giving me painful hangnails.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 04:56 AM
-1

I agree with your point about the transport, but I don't see how it's misogynistic? Even if the creator is informed, at worst it would be "I don't want women-specific problems to be catered to in a gender-exclusionary way, therefore I hate women"?
/r/MensRights16/11/12 07:45 PM
2

GUYS I JUST FOUND THIS SUBREDDIT CALLED MENSRIGHTS AND THEY WERE ALL LIKE ADVOCATING MURDERING WOMEN. SOMEBODY CALL THE POLICE.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 09:22 AM
3

Society has never been a place where a man can freely talk about his weakness (or anything perceived as such).
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:45 AM
-1

It doesn't open any real doors to power where privilege exists. The point of privilege isn't that being white gives you everything, it's that if you're not white it's just harder. Yes, black people can succeed (potus, c'mon), and yes, life still tends to be very difficult for white people, it's just that in certain areas it's harder for black people on average. A lot of people in /mr think to disprove privilege by pointing out an area where life sucks for the supposedly privileged group, but tha…
/r/MensRights14/11/12 11:22 PM
5

It's more about what her decision to do so says about her. If she broke his rig by accident or something then she's done the same thing but it's not as big an issue (just her not being careful enough). Her decision to utterly destroy what is likely thousands of dollars of hardware that the guy clearly cared about in an effort to hurt him as much as possible isn't something that can be shrugged off. I certainly don't know the situation well enough to make any judgments but anybody willing to do s…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 01:41 PM
2

Actually each of those categories on their own were majorities, but not combined. About 65% male, mostly white etc, but not a majority of white males.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 07:03 AM
1

Gender equality does not mean the destruction of "manliness." It's not about equality, it's about men's rights. And it does involve men not being bullied or shamed because they don't live up to an ideal.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 06:50 AM
2

My point is that a man typically has no reason to be afraid of a female who's trying to sexually harrass him If a woman is in a bar with bouncers and other patrons, why would she have a reason to be afraid of a guy? Also, a woman could more easily get away with hitting him or throwing drinks on him or whatever than the reverse. or just left had she not backed off. That's what he did. He shouldn't have to. Where are these statistics pulled from? I'm having a hard time believing that a woman getti…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:31 AM
1

So things are automatically worse if the person intends to harm you? Doesn't that mean that a man that gropes women because he thinks it'll turn them on isn't as bad as a woman that gropes men because she wants to make them uncomfortable? By your logic here I don't see why that wouldn't be the case.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:27 AM
1

Obviously, because a subreddit about men's rights would have no reason to take issue with somebody insulting others by telling they aren't manly enough because they're upset.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:22 AM
2

You said "girls get it too", but girls get something very different. Also, I'm not really sure why my comment got downvoted. What about the womens.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:22 AM
3

etc So basically, you're just restating your assertion with nothing further. Right. men have the added benefit of generally being better able to handle themselves. Women aren't helpless. You don't need the additional 60% average upper body strength to push somebody or yell at them. And a man is at a much higher risk of being physically attacked after rejecting somebody. if they don't feel threatened enough to leave than they don't feel very threatened at all. ...Yeah, I'd say they rarely feel th…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 06:02 PM
3

I don't think op would call what happened to him sexual assault. My mistake, it's actually aggravated sexual contact in the USA. Still illegal. Women have more of a reason to believe that men would invite sexual touching simply because more men would than woman would. Citation? And a similar parallel exists between me touching a straight woman versus a straight man, but you don't think that makes it okay to touch a woman. I doubt that men see being groped in the same way that women do on average…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:24 PM
2

No but i'm saying that it isn't looked as bad at by a man than it is by a women. Not talking about all men. Okay, I see your edit in the original post, because that phrasing does in fact mean you're talking about all men. "X is felt by a man" means any given man, which means all men.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:15 PM
3

"Oh, well, you shouldn't have led him on" "You shouldn't have dressed like that" Some people saying a specific bad situation was your fault != virtually everybody saying there's no reason why the situation would be bad.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:16 PM
3

I'm not saying that men like it, but they're not so discussted by it. So... you're saying OP isn't a man?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:11 PM
3

Of course it's different, as a guy you can forcefully shove her away. Right, because obviously women have arms made of noodles and jello. And all women weight 100 pounds.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:11 PM
8

I always find it a bit silly when a guy complains or seems "hurt" from sexual harassment. I always find it a bit silly when a gay person complains about being harassed and called faggot. Hell, as the bearer of a stupendously high pain tolerance, I find it silly when people complain about getting puched, just shake it off, jeez.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:09 PM
-2

If a guy did go that route he is setting himself up for some solid false rape accusations. Paranoid much?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:08 PM
7

You want to explain that one to me, champ?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:06 PM
1

Get downvoted for not agreeing with the hivemind *Get downvoted for being a shallow moron who makes bullshit comments. of whiney half-men. Just get out of this subreddit.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:06 PM
5

Suppose that 99% of guys wanted the behavior that OP shunned. Why in the fuck would I suppose that?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:05 PM
6

Your viewpoint is exactly the problem. You clearly feel differently to the OP. That's okay, you're allowed to. But the fact that you're saying his problem is irrelevant because of his gender is the entire point of men's rights. No, it's not "mountains out of molehills". Telling men that they should enjoy being sexually assaulted, that it doesn't matter, while the reverse for women is a terrible terrible double standard. Men and women aren't that different. Did you think she was going to assault …
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:04 PM
26

I think it's more likely he's making that conclusion based on multiple experiences, but only giving one. I've heard a lot of stories of this on reddit, men talking about women getting incredibly angry at denial of sex, and also women talking about their feelings when it happens to them - that they've been socialized to believe that men always want sex, so if a guy turns them down it isn't his desire that's the issue, it's her desirability, that the rejection isn't that the guy doesn't want to ha…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 02:44 PM
1

It's the free market, if it's efficient, it rises to the top. If it isn't, it will sink to the bottom and fail. Assuming of course that free markets can sustain themselves indefinitely. Which in this context, they can't. And what happens if what comes after is a lot worse than government? Somebody buys all up all the roads between one place and another? People will have no choice but to pay.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 04:09 AM
5

If you're seriously going to discredit someone based on a username, then I don't want to talk to you in the first place. LOL dood u jst dnt git it ryt itz nt jst da naym itz da wy u presnt urslf. That's making my head hurt, but people will make judgments based on name choice, because it generally does say something about the person who owns it. Would you argue seriously with somebody who wrote like the above line?
/r/MensRights11/11/12 03:57 AM
15

You're allowed to debate in /r/AskFeminists (i.e. the sub that demmian told you about - "The better place for such discussions is /r/AskFeminists").
/r/MensRights11/11/12 03:55 AM
1

Print this out and leave it on her desk. The sources should all be able to be found in the first or second link by googling the titles. CDC's NISVS 2010 Adult female victims of "completed forced penetration", "attempted forced penetration", and "completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration" - 1.27 million women in 2010. Adult male victims of "made to penetrate" - 1.27 million men in 2010. The "fact sheet" that was used by media sources did not think the latter was relevant information to quote…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 04:09 AM
1

When he says "average", he might mean the median. Simple example, if all men have a moderate number of sex partners, a large number of women have few sex partners, and the remaining small portion of women have an extremely large number of sex partners, the median number for men would be higher. Though of course everything you said is correct and so I'm skeptical of that.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:36 PM
0

Wait, so a white man who's been raised by a horribly abusive parent that tortured them and sold them for drugs, before trying to set them on fire when they were 18 has a life that is "comparatively problem free" compared to other people?
/r/MensRights12/10/12 11:14 PM
0

And hence you don't have "every right...", which is the point of the guy you're arguing with.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 03:31 PM
0

If it's not slander And what about when it is slander..?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 06:20 AM
8

Since you're trying to insult somebody by saying they spend free time researching penises, can I then assume that you don't and hence you're badly informed on the issue?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 06:10 AM
5

You realize there are plenty of feminist organizations with similar monetary statuses and efforts?
/r/MensRights24/09/12 09:58 PM
-1

No, mansplaining is expecting a male perspective to be absolute (or rather, explaining things as though it is). A man would be mansplaining when telling a woman that pregnancy isn't a big deal, and a woman would be doing the equivalent when told that being automatically suspected when you're around children isn't a big deal. It's something that they may well have a good appreciation of, but they won't be able to understand to the same degree (but they aren't aware of this so they talk as though …
/r/MensRights19/09/12 10:46 AM
3

Dirt and sweat don't collect under the foreskin. That's the point of it. The glans/inner foreskin don't sweat, and nothing can get in there.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 10:06 AM
1

Once a man can carry a embryo/fetus/child (whatever you prefer to call it) in his body and then have the government dictate on whether or not he has the choice to continue with the pregnancy (regardless of who can afford to care for the child after it is born) then I will not argue anymore. Some trans men are entirely capable of carrying a child, so any and all restrictions on abortion apply to them equally.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 10:01 AM
1

The idea that women possess special insight via "women's perspective" Different insight. A male perspective will be able to understand things that women cannot, as well.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 09:54 AM
4

The glans is a mucosal membrane...
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:59 AM
4

Wearing revealing clothes isn't analogous to leaving your door unlocked or your wallet hanging out. Why? Because the last two things actually increase your chance of being victimized, but the first doesn't. Miniskirts and hitched-up boobs don't make a woman more likely to be raped - rapists don't go out normally and then see a woman's bare skin, get turned on, and give into their animal instincts. In fact, some studies have found that women dressed more innocently are more likely to be victimize…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 03:08 PM
27

The proper use is somebody who presents themselves in such a way that people around them become legitimately concerned that they might harm them, especially in regards to sexual crimes (most frequently somebody who is too sexually forward, such as making inappropriate sexual contact or comments). This generally also includes behaviour that matches negative stereotypes about people who perpetrate said harm (which is unfortunate, because some people have unrelated reasons for presenting that way o…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 02:55 PM
2

Blue pill means you view gender issues in the way they're typically portrayed, that men are powerful and women are weak, that men are oppressors who always get ahead. Red pill means you realize that's bullshit.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 10:18 AM
2

Given that's not true, you were, actually. Well, I don't know about sadiebb.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 08:42 AM
1

The data is confirmed false accusations. If an accusation is made, then the accuser later admits it didn't happen. That's what those studies show. So, it's almost certain that those numbers should be taken as a minimum, rather than an accurate estimate. A study reporting 3% means at least 3%, but almost certainly more. The data is incomplete, because it doesn't include false accusations that nobody knows is false. We have no effective way of finding out what proportion these are - studies like t…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 08:38 AM
1

What are you babbling about? I made my point and have nothing further to add. Do you seriously lack the reading comprehension to understand what "Why not ban all trolls? Why only trolls that are feminists?" means? Too complex for you? I'm beginning to realize why I have you marked as an anti-MRA troll. You're not arguing in good faith. Let me guess, you came to /mr here recently after being banned from other mr websites? You use the words "mangina" and "cunt" constantly? You complain about how t…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 04:30 AM
3

Fellas, if you want to halt the destruction of the white race The war between the sexes is just another way that Jews profit from our decline. What is this crap? Also the argument is bullshit because it conveniently forgets the female presence in the feminist movement.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 04:15 AM
2

As long as someone can defend their statement and show its relevance it shouldn't be a problem. That statement is indefensible. In order for it to be defensible, then calling people niggers has to ever be okay, which is bullshit. Obvious feminist trolls should be banned because they are nothing but a distraction. That didn't answer my question.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 04:13 AM
5

Research that's cherry picked to do so. I can go cherry pick four studies myself and tell you 1 in 40 is.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 04:08 AM
2

Why not ban all trolls? Why only trolls that are feminists? And there's a pretty wide border between being PC and not being a terrible bigot. You don't have to tiptoe and be careful to avoid saying "fucking niggers should die", and that should most certainly get a warn at least.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 04:03 AM
1

So you believe that women should act like they are always under the threat of rape and wear protective clothing? Look at it this way; when I drive a car, I act as though I'm always under the threat of being in an accident caused by somebody else. So I let tailgaters pass me, I drive 3 seconds behind in case the person ahead brakes suddenly, I check my mirrors, don't speed, don't run orange lights if I can safely stop, slow down at intersections, never ignore a give way or stop sign even if I thi…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 06:10 AM
4

Just so we're clear, this makes us sympathetic towards violent rapists. I'll feel sympathy towards pretty much anybody under the right conditions, because I'm a decent human being. I'm not bothered by his death, if I had a button that'd bring him back I wouldn't push it, but I can still not feel happy that somebody died. Plus I could celebrate his death and still object to this. Vigilante justice is a bad idea. Tolerating it is not good. Consider the following; the woman's claims about what the …
/r/MensRights04/09/12 02:41 AM
1

Nothing to do with your second paragraph. I actually assumed that plyers was one of the very large number of accounts that are created to troll /mr and end up with heavy downvotes. Apparently I was mistaken. He isn't a troll trying to make /mr look like rapist supporters at all, he's just an ordinary guy who himself has some very fucked up views regarding rape (and given your support, you do too. But I could have guessed that already, eh buddy?).
/r/MensRights27/08/12 09:07 AM
1

...That is conjecture?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:23 AM
1

simply because... Conjecture.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 07:00 AM
0

How doesn't it infringe on their bodily autonomy? They must put their body through motions they may not wish to in order to comply. That's not what bodily autonomy means. Simply assuming that taxes are legitimate whereas forcing you to give blood is not is not compelling or illuminating Sorry, I just assumed you were a sane person and so you'd be able to understand the analogy. I guess not.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:40 AM
10

He means takes it back after the sex has concluded (like waking up after a one-night stand and regretting it).
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:51 AM
0

So you believe that parents may be forced to care for a child I don't think he said that. or to go out of their way to take it somewhere it will be cared for... what's the difference? Are you seriously asking what the difference is between calling CYF or police or a hospital or some other shit and dropping off your kid, and going through the physical and mental burden, plus the risks, of pregnancy and childbirth? Why is forcing someone to take a baby someone or care for it right, but forcing the…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:39 AM
3

Are you actually supporting the incredibly obvious troll with -40 karma who is trying to make MRAs look like rapists?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:28 AM
5

I hope one day we men will get our vendetta on women Just want you to know man, you totally don't give off a "kill women and bury them in your basement" vibe. ...Unrelated note, do you own a gun?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:26 AM
1

The guy's crazy, ignore him. For him this post is almost sweet to feminists.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:25 AM
1

Are you admitting that you think women are stupid and think men buy them drinks just because? No, because I don't think that, which is why I haven't said anything even remotely implying that. The difference between me and you is that I can do my own thinking and I don't need some other researcher to prove the point that is blatantly obvious. The difference between me and you is that if you think something is likely based on your own sheltered and biased worldview you assume it must be absolute f…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:05 AM
-1

So you're admitting that you don't have such a study, and hence the claim must be anecdotal evidence?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 12:20 AM
-1

Want to link me to the one that says that "women as a whole" go to bars and accept drinks knowing the man wants to have sex? Or hell, want to link me to the study that finds "women as a whole" go to bars?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 12:05 AM
1

Holy shit, I had two out of three. Also I hit our cat when I was a baby and if there's a bug near me the fucker's getting squished. Should I be scared?
/r/MensRights20/08/12 09:59 PM
3

If there aren't enough women that actually want to do it, then they legally aren't allowed to let the boys who do.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 09:55 PM
2

Pointing out, or even being angry about, negative behaviors that the majority of women perpetuate But if your claims that the majority of women perpetuate a behaviour isn't properly supported, then it's just a bullshit generalization. "Fucking black people constantly stealing shit" is "pointout out" a "negative behaviour that the majority of black people perpetuate", except I'm full of shit.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 09:53 PM
2

It's not "reality denial", it's "your personal reality as generated by your anecdotal evidence". Other people have "realities" that differ, which means it's terribly likely your tiny worthless amount of evidence is correct.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 09:51 PM
4

They are raised in a system that tempers particular worldviews. People like demonspawn are raised in a different system but hold the same views. Therefore, something has gone wrong. Believing blacks are inferior when it's something every person you know, all the media, even scientists publishing peer-reviewed studies think is indisputable is perfectly natural. Thinking they are inferior where these things are far from true requires something very different.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 09:47 PM
3

If you hit somebody to prevent them from continuing to hit you, and you're actually at risk (so it's not a four year old or whatever), that's justified. If somebody hits you and you hit them back multiple times because you're pissed off, that's not. "They started it" is a petty excuse.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 04:51 PM
9

Every time I see a video of The Young Turks it makes me like the woman more and dislike the guy more.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:47 AM
3

Why shouldnt he have reacted to violence with violence? Hypothetical situation: Somebody walks up to me and pushes me on the shoulder, then turns and walks away. I pull out a gun and shoot them in the back of the head. What I did was justifiied. Why shouldn't I have reacted to violence with violence?
/r/MensRights20/08/12 02:10 AM
1

I'm guessing there are a couple of controversial decisions in it and he knows that if he releases it you're going to blow it out of proportion and start a huge shitstorm he doesn't want to deal with.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 02:55 PM
7

I guess they knew all along that their big story was a lie. Or it was deleted because it breaks the rules and the community has no interest in it. But no, it's much more likely they're running away from the truth.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 01:29 AM
2

Most self-identified atheists don't make a strong assertion. Atheist literally means not theist, as in a lack of a positive belief in a deity. Most atheists are what people generally call agnostics (an agnostic is somebody who believes that we can't ever know anything with absolute certainty).
/r/MensRights19/08/12 01:27 AM
2

Why?
/r/MensRights18/08/12 11:38 PM
3

Nobody involved in the statement you made to me does. As in, by saying it to me, you aren't disagreeing with anybody.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 02:06 PM
2

I'm not defending anything. If a couple genuinely has to choose between occasional slaps or murder then obviously I'd be for the former, but that's not going to happen. It's better but still bad.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 01:59 PM
5

Nobody disagrees.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 01:56 PM
9

She's saying that if a woman emotionally abuses her husband, there's a good chance that one day he'll refuse to take it anymore. She's saying that a man occasionally reacting to emotional abuse by slapping her is a preferable outcome than him trying to ignore it for a long time until he snaps and does serious damage (or kills her). She isn't saying the slaps are okay, she's saying they're betting than him killing her.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 01:08 PM
2

("You" means the writer, w/e). One person's opinion of the world, called bullshit because your opinion is different. It's assertion vs assertion, utter crap. At least you could say "there's no solid proof of that", nope, you have to go all the way and say "that's wrong because my experience invalidates yours". See 1. You misread it. It doesn't say "men are never promoted because of their sex", it says "if man's sex doesn't cause him to not be promoted". See 1. Saying that studies find incorrect …
/r/MensRights18/08/12 09:40 AM
1

The definition isn't a proper law, it's used for stats by the DoJ (and used to inform other policy). So we'll find out from a future study. Hope for the best.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 09:37 AM
2

But in this case, calling it rape is wrong. She said she didn't want to have sex without condoms and he ignored her, she squeezed her legs together and turned her hips away and he pulled them apart, and he held her arms down when she reached for condoms. That's what his lawyer, the defense, said, and it sounds like rape to me.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 05:02 AM
2

I read one study that looked at job losses for a lot of jobs, and found male-dominated (blue-collar stuff like builders) lost about 3 million jobs and female-dominated jobs (education and healthcare stuff) gained about 600k.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:53 AM
2

South Islander here too, what organization is that? Also, Dunedin?
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:52 AM
3

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. The definition doesn't specify that the victim is penetrated, it says it's rape if penetration occurs without the consent of the victim.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:37 AM
2

Don't forget to include real statistics on rape, which is committed equally by both sexes: [2] http://i.imgur.com/Ps9wW.jpg That's gender of victims, not perpetrators.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:35 AM
1

They are all true. Just because somebody doesn't explicitly state one thing doesn't mean they think the opposite.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:34 AM
2

Random teenager, I think he was 17. Thought he was alone (at a field at his school, I think), so he went and peed in some bushes. Couple of other students saw him, reported him, bam - on the sex offender registry with child molesters.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 04:29 AM
1

But I am never the one to push these talks onto people with PTSD. Where did they come from all of a sudden? No one here talked about PTSD. I am not trying to talk about what is the best way to care for people with PTSD. PTSD often develops post-rape, so it's relevant to saying "you should have x" to rape victims. If that's irrelevant and I'm strawmanning you just ignore me, I'm tired and cbf thinking. It's just learning from bad experiences so it won't happen again. It's a good thing. That is wh…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 09:35 PM
2

It's essentially your logic, I'm just taking it one step further. Men are dying in wars that men started - that's how you look at it. But men are not a collective entity, there is no hivemind; they are individuals that share a gender. So we can go to the next level, and say men are dying in wars that human beings started - again, I'm implying that the men who die are the same group as the ones who started the wars, but now the "started" group includes women.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 08:50 PM
1

I don't think anybody here (okay, more than a few people) think sexual harassment is okay; they just differ on what constitutes it and don't think it should face legal penalty.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 08:27 PM
1

If a person is traumatized, you are a dick if you say utterly pointless things to them that augment that. Even the lion example; your question serves no purpose and will just piss them off/make them sad, it's a dick move. When they have PTSD, or it's a situation where their brain won't shut up about how they could have avoided it and how it's all their fault, it goes beyond "dick move" to "fucking stop it now".
/r/MensRights16/08/12 08:25 PM
3

it's downright stupid to ignore that dressing like a slut and acting like a slut is going to increase a woman's chances of being raped . Do you have any evidence? I've seen one study on the topic, and it found rapists were more likely to target innocently-dressed women. Men aren't horny brutes that rape the nearest women when they get an erection.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 08:23 PM
2

Different words have different connotations depending on where you live. I'm a New Zealander, and I could happily call a teen or early 20s a "good cunt" and they'd take it as a compliment. My understanding is that such a thing would be ill-advised in the USA (note: "right cunt" is an insult). Abnormal has a negative connotation to me, too (though "abnormally intelligent" or "abnormally handsome" doesn't, I think that's because there's a presumption that that is a compliment and a similar presump…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 08:19 PM
2

men started those wars. But those men are humans, and women are humans, therefore women share the exact same amount of responsibility.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 08:03 PM
1

Not recognizing female rapists/child molesters hurts women because it often turns the abused into rapists themselves (a few studies have found 50-80% of convicted rapists in their sample).
/r/MensRights16/08/12 07:56 PM
-1

If cows eat hay (as well as grass), then cows are the animal that systematically eat hay and grass; horses are cows.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 07:34 PM
1

Rape is considered to be one of the most appalling crimes in our society. I really wonder how many people actually protect rapists and say that the rapist should be able to rape women because it was always the women's fault. There are two aspects, and one works perfectly well with this. Basically, the thing that is called "rape" is most certainly considered abhorrent. However, not everybody agrees what that is, and an act one person can (totally legitimately) call rape is considered okay by othe…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 07:31 PM
7

Your example is actually a good one, because I've seen serious complaints about a mining company where the men made more than the women; I can't quite remember, but I believe it was a lawsuit and it ended up getting a law drafted (or maybe even passed?). Utterly ridiculous, of course, since something like 98% of miners were men and most of the women dealt with paper and so on.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 02:42 PM
5

That's a really bad standard. Initialization can be totally or somewhat mutual. Even when both parties want sex, the male is more likely to make the first move. If one person is smashed and hits on another person, and the hittee thinks (despite being very drunk themselves) "they seem really drunk, maybe I shouldn't do this" and the hitter thinks "gurrr" it seems nonsensical to classify the latter as a rapist.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 02:01 PM
4

Get out.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 10:32 PM
5

First, have you done any reading on underreporting of female perpetrators? I'm sure you're aware of the differing attitudes to statutory rape, perhaps you've seen that study that found 86% of people molested by women weren't believed the first time they told somebody? Plus, I don't understand why it's too dangerous to let men sit next to children, but not to let men sit next to women. Sure, it's probably easier to get away with the former, but the latter is going to be a lot more common. Nor doe…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 10:04 PM
5

So do I? Also, it is highly probable I feel greater sexual pleasure than you, I find it easier to masturbate, and statistically I'm better able to please a woman.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 01:58 PM
7

"No you're wrong" isn't very convincing, it makes a pointless comment. I don't know why you bothered to click save. Let's see; A cosmetic surgical procedure. Performed on a baby. That has few or no benefits. Is irreversible. Has a risk of complications. Tattooing, of course, isn't as bad as the other 3 because it doesn't have any functional effects, just cosmetic (which may be the case for slit nostrils, I'm not sure, but certainly isn't for circumcision or removed finger).
/r/MensRights12/08/12 01:40 PM
-4

There is absolutely nothing wrong with male circumcision. Nor is there anything wrong with me tattooing a baby. Or cutting off one of its fingers. Or slitting its nostrils.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 12:39 PM
1

Why would the crime with the greater penalty and higher chance of getting caught be more common? Because more people want to commit it?
/r/MensRights11/08/12 11:54 AM
2

You treat the parties involved as though they are innocent. That's what innocent before guilty means. It means you don't convict somebody of rape unless you can prove they are guilty, and you don't convict somebody of perjury unless they're proved guilty. It doesn't mean that in the real world, they actually are innocent. If that were the case, then you could rape somebody and a rape wouldn't have occured if/until you were convicted.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 11:52 AM
3

So you're willing to count cases that were "reported" anonymously These are things like surveys. No names are named, no accusations are made. They get asked a question and punch a specific number into their phone. Sure, they might be overreported, but they can't be false accusations because they aren't accusations (also official reports will be underreported, of course).
/r/MensRights11/08/12 11:49 AM
2

Or pacifists. I mean, I don't think some terrible injustice was committed, but nor do I think it was right.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 12:20 AM
1

Often? Total and utter bullshit. You've provided no fucking evidence. Put up or shut up. By the way, the "stats" that have been posted, if you've been following my replies, mostly support what I'm saying. ...What, you mean the one that showed 0.87% of adult men are raped by women every year?
/r/MensRights05/08/12 11:15 PM
2

how on earth could that even happen?? Hey, here's some cool info; you know the stereotypical rape where one big strong person holds down a weaker person while the victim struggles to get away? That's only a small portion of rapes. Your problem is that you seem to think that's the only type that can occur, when you're miles from reality. Also you apparently don't understand the sex strength differential, nor have you apparently ever heard of these crazy things called "weapons", or "threats", or "…
/r/MensRights05/08/12 11:05 PM
2

You have to be kidding me!!!! More men are raped outside prison by women then are raped inside prison by men???? That is absolute insanity. Why? People have posted studies showing it to be true. Why are you dismissing them? Why are you so confident? I have the strong suspicion that most of these men did! Why? I have not, one time in my life, EVER heard of a woman raping a man, outside of the occasional sensational case of it. Well now you have, because here's one. I know of a couple of other /mr…
/r/MensRights05/08/12 07:05 PM
2

I am most certainly not wrong! Yes, you are. You misunderstood the study you posted, it didn't include rape by envelopment. Thousands of men are raped in prison every year, many get AIDS or kill themselves. And a lot more are raped by women out of prison, many get STDs or kill themselves? Also, 37% of prison rapes are committed by female staff, source. this stupid women raping men crap. What? Why is it stupid? What the fuck is wrong with you?
/r/MensRights05/08/12 03:17 PM
1

Doop.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 08:41 AM
5

You don't see it because their comments have been deleted, obviously.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 08:34 AM
2

Any chance that since you turned out to be wrong, you want to apologize for calling people fucking idiots, hmm?
/r/MensRights05/08/12 05:04 AM
3

vast majority That can't be accurate, given 37% prison rapes are perpetrated by female staff, source.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:01 AM
4

The BoJ's statistics don't include rape by envelopment. That means the only types of female-on-male rape it includes are a woman penetrating a man's anus with a body part or object.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 02:53 AM
1

understand what your saying, but again, my objection is this: [1] there is no religion in which it is common for practitioners to remove their ears or the ears of their children. It doesn't exist. That doesn't matter. The point is, if one existed, then in order to be consistent you would have to approve of it. Would you approve of it? No? Then you're hypocritical. The purpose of the other individual's "analogy" was not for the purpose of demonstrating anything Yes it was, it was to demonstrate t…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:21 AM
1

First off, no person should be able to make another person get an abortion. Never ever ever. Terrible thing. In regards to getting abortions; it's somewhat legitimate. Abortions are expensive, there is a waiting period after visiting once in most places (meaning two concurrent trips), they aren't common. If you're a single parent that needs to take care of children, or you can't get time off work, it will be extremely difficult or impossible. Adoption and abandonment are certainly possible, but …
/r/MensRights03/08/12 04:48 AM
5

there seems to be a lot of misogyny here... <discussion of antifeminism> A few people here oppose feminism because they want strict gender roles in society (i.e. traditionalists). But the vast majority of anti-feminism is not motivated by a problem with women, but with feminists and feminist idealogy. It seems that it's implying that women do not face discrimination, when they clearly do. He considers social discrimination trivial compared to legal discrimination. That is, he thinks that when pe…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 04:40 AM
2

Backing up seabass here because I've had this argument a few times; You said that circumcision is okay because; he's the boy's parent, and human tradition dating back through time immemorial is that parents induct their children into their religious practice(s). Circumcision is part of that practice for some cultures/religions. What you are saying here, the argument you are making is that "the choice of the parent's, and ancient human tradition for religious practice, are sufficient conditions f…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 04:04 AM
1

Throwing up all day? Unless that watermelon drink was over 100 proof it sounds pretty unlikely it was that. Although I suppose he could just react badly.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:27 AM
11

He's not interested in researching, he's interested in you backing up your claims.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 08:09 AM
1

According to them, I should feel ashamed to be proud of being a protective man. They don't want you to place value in your ability to be a meatshield. They don't like the social expectations that are forced upon men, to be providers and protectors, to sacrifice their health and lives for others simply because of their gender - the expectations that have shaped your view on the topic. Feel free to protect others with your life, it's certainly noble, but the greater societal deal is the issue here…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 02:46 PM
9

That MRA was Factory2, someone [4] Alanna has thought is a radical misogynist for some time. lol, Factory2 is a radical misogynist.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 10:13 AM
7

No way, is this Jeremiah back to us again? Haven't you been banned like twice? Didn't get the message we don't want you?
/r/MensRights27/07/12 10:09 AM
10

0 day old account trying to stir up shit by making outlandish accusations. Sounds like troll to me.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 10:06 AM
5

However rights does not necessarily equal effect... Right you are. That's why default shared parenting is optimal. If both parents are capable, then initialize at shared. If a parent can't regularly take the kids, get them less, if the kids want to stay with one parent give them more, if a parent can't take them/doesn't want them, then none for them. The issue is presumptive custody for the mother and the difficulty and expense of changing that. Men are the people in positions of power (governme…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 10:02 AM
7

How many OPs are a really bad troll?
/r/MensRights27/07/12 09:36 AM
3

I disagree; along those lines, those who have to suffer without the dead soldier will be all of his friends and family. That will often be his wife and mother, yes, but also his son, male friends, father and so on (assuming he has them). If her comment was along the lines of "The ones who suffer are those left behind", I would still hate it but wouldn't find it misandrist, but she specifically said women.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 05:59 AM
1

Don't ditch on account of Factory2. There are only 4 people on reddit that have less than -20 karma from me and he's one of them.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 03:13 AM
2

Find out if any men want a group. If they do, start one. If they don't, that's probably why there isn't one.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 03:01 AM
1

That would require either the victim to be some kind of master actor or the rapist to be socially inept to a degree that would imply some kind of mental abnormality. No, they wouldn't. It doesn't take a "master actor" to act normal when you're mildly intimidated. Especially so if the other person is doing all the work, how much effort does it really take to stop your face looking scared? It takes a master actor to keep a straight face when mildly intimidated? Do you start running around screamin…
/r/MensRights26/07/12 10:06 PM
1

But since people can't read minds, if your partner gives no indication they feel intimidated then how could you possibly know? If someone feels intimidated with literally no basis in reality, there is definitely a deeper problem going on that needs to be addressed before sex ever happens. I totally agree, but what if the "rapist" isn't aware of this? Like I said earlier, there are some crazies that believe all PIV (penis-in-vagina) sex is rape because patriarchy. I doubt very much that everybody…
/r/MensRights26/07/12 04:01 AM
1

If you're intimidated you can't give consent, so that would be rape. So you're saying that if you feel intimidated even if that feeling has no basis and is totally irrational, you're a rape victim? Even if you initiate sex and are wildy enthusiastic throughout? No one in the history of the world has ever thought they were raped because they had half a beer. Proof?
/r/MensRights25/07/12 06:27 PM
1

Neither of those would be rape under turtle's definition because both partners gave consent. Just because you give consent, doesn't mean you can't believe you were raped; the examples I gave were if they felt intimidated for no reason or because you had 1mL of alcohol (/half a beer). I've been over this.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 05:25 PM
1

First paragraph I'm aware. Read the context of the argument to understand what I wrote. Seriously, you're inventing ridiculously implausible situations to justify your idea that rape is this hard-to-define thing. It's not. No, I'm inventing ridiculously implausible situations that are covered by the definition the person I was arguing with gave in order to illustrate how ridiculous the offered definition was.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 04:46 PM
1

Jails can BE required to service those needs. Are they though? The physical and mental stress involved is a result of bad action on the mothers part, for one. Irrelevant, it's not a matter of protecting the mother. For another, there is no guarantee, or even requirement, that the home environment is stress or strain free EITHER. There certainly isn't a guarantee their home life isn't worse, but it's very likely. where, say, drug use is less common. This is a good point I hadn't thought of. Thoug…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 07:55 PM
1

First, pregnant women have dietary requirements which the jail is not obligated to cater to. Plus there's the physical and mental stress involved, and even if it doesn't matter that she's suffering it's not good for the baby.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 04:30 PM
-3

You think pregnancy is irrelevant to getting bail? Do you see no reason why it isn't good to have a pregnant woman in jail?
/r/MensRights24/07/12 03:42 PM
2

In all honesty, then, where would you draw the line for a pregnant woman. What if she had the resources to easily travel internationally? What if she was a serial murderer? I'm not saying we should let any pregnant woman out, no matter what. I wouldn't object to nobody getting bail unless they had a good reason to be out, pregnancy being one of them. Personally, I'd vote for at least an ankle bracelet and house arrest. I don't think that'd be "fair", but at least it'd keep from being as much of …
/r/MensRights24/07/12 03:39 PM
-18

I think bail is fair, given her pregnancy.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 12:17 PM
1

No, but lashing out at someone else that questions the scenario cheapens this movement. I'm not lashing out at you because you're questioning. There are two ways that I can interpret what you said; either you think that a man can't be raped by a Mila Kunis look-a-like (the natural interpretation of this is that they couldn't be raped because they'd do it willingly, I'll assume you're not saying attractive women don't rape) or that if they are raped, they wouldn't go to the police about it (imply…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 11:56 AM
3

There are ways to communicate without using words. Obviously. That's why I didn't say "and they don't explicitly verbally state that they don't", I said "they in no way communicate to you that they don't". That's why positive consent is a thing. Yeah, but expressing positive consent doesn't mean you can't be raped, nor does it mean you can't feel you were raped. Well, why don't you ask? Giving consent once doesn't mean you can't withdraw consent a second later. Your proposal would require a pers…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 08:16 AM
2

Right. Because clearly, you are so much smarter and wiser than whoever you're sleeping with that you know whether their emotions and feelings are irrational. Are you implying that there are absolutely no circumstances in which a person could judge that another's reasons for claiming they were raped are irrational? You're telling me that if one person initiates sex, is verbally and physically enthusiastic, and is acting perfectly normally, but an hour later they say they had half a beer before se…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 08:09 AM
2

If somebody considers what anyone else is doing to be rape, then the person doing it has to stop. Immediately. And they are in the wrong. If one person tells their partner to stop, no matter the reason, and they don't, they are in the wrong. If they are not told to stop, and they have no reason to, why would they? You are not in the wrong for doing something that your partner doesn't want if you have every reason to think they want and they in no way communicate to you that they don't. If you th…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 06:07 AM
2

We have to be careful about that. If we make every sexual experience that somebody considers rape (and will be legitimately hurt by) rape, then we're going to end up with pretty much no way for sex to occur. There are plenty of people (radfems) out there that believe all PIV (penis-in-vagina) sex is rape, because patriarchy or something. I don't think everything that hurts a person should be illegal. Everything that reasonably consistently hurts people a great deal, yes, but that's not always go…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 05:36 AM
3

Okay, so your second point in your previous post was a good one. Basically, people have certain definitions of rape; the vast majority of people condemn what they consider rape, and if you want to tell me otherwise don't bother, but many are much more okay with morally dubious things that they don't consider rape. That's not condoning rape. It's condoning something that they do not believe is rape and you do. It's only condoning rape if we take your definition over *theirs, and either way it mis…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 05:11 AM
1

Given what I know of her, I'd say her point is that in the 1970s they were dealing with serious issues and today a lot of people just nitpick about pointless shit and blow it out of proportion.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 05:02 AM
0

It uses the word shemale. That's a slur, yo.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 04:59 AM
2

Blackmail? Seriously? You don't think you're being a TAD hysterical about a couple of Facebook messages that may or may not even be real? Do you know what blackmail means? any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations. the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the dishonor of blackmail. It doesn't make a difference whether it's on facebook or not. If it was real life, it would be the same. In regards to their authenticity, if the…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 04:36 AM
9

Society is different everywhere. There are elements of mine that do. Then it's a meaningless counter, because you can make that argument for pretty much anything. You think our society believes the Earth revolves around the sun? Nuh-uh, there are a bunch of people who disagree and so on.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 04:30 AM
2

It's like saying "almost 1:2 left-handed men will be raped in prison" or "almost 1:2 brown-haired men will be raped in prison". What about the other men? I would guess they don't have stats for left-handedness or brown hair. I'd say that whatever source the 1:2 for white men stat came from found a lower rate for other races, so he's reporting the highest. Or perhaps his source only included white men.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 04:28 AM
5

Do you think it's equally strange for a woman to report that an extremely attractive man raped them? If you don't, you're a bigot, congrats.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 04:26 AM
1

on what basis can you claim that all victims of rape suffer significant, lasting trauma? "I'd say yes" = my opinion, not a claim of knowledge. I guess I can allow for a few exceptions, but it's really not something you shrug off.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:38 AM
1

Wiki link. I don't know any specifics like frequency. reasonable people are going to assume you're doing so as a counter-argument to the one you responded to. They shouldn't, because that's silly. Let's say I make an argument; Male suicide is a serious issue, it's the largest cause of death for men. And somebody points out that that latter claim isn't true; is it reasonable to assume I'm saying male suicide isn't an issue?
/r/MensRights22/07/12 09:38 PM
14

"Cut the opressive bullshit, or else." This just made me laugh. She's using her power over you to intimidate you into complying, while simultaneously telling you to stop the oppressive stuff. I would recommend keeping safe with easy numbers - things like male suicides and homeless, male DV/rape/assault/murder victims and the like. If she was a problem with that then yikes, might be best to give it up. You could also try talking with her with some statistics; firstly, that even if men are the opp…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 03:15 AM
2

It's society in general. Both men and women perpetuate the problems. Some are pretty much men's fault (e.g. men get longer sentences, most judges are male), but it isn't really a matter of finding the group that's doing it, because it's everyone (well, members of every group).
/r/MensRights22/07/12 02:59 AM
3

I never said getting kicked in the crotch is worse for women overall, I only said that women have a greater risk of getting their pelvises broken. You said Just wanted to mention that the ol' cunt punt has the potential to be much more dangerous than a shot in the pills. In what way is that quote not saying that it's more dangerous for women? Like I said, the greatest possible danger is dying. Kicking a woman does not have the potential to be more dangerous than that, and it's significantly less…
/r/MensRights21/07/12 04:25 PM
1

Except I did specify exactly that. ...Not in that specific post. Okay, you were talking about how dangerous a potential broken pelvis is. Now, in your initial post, you said that a kick "has the potential to be much more dangerous" for a woman than a man. I hence assumed that you were unaware of the greater risk of death from testicular injury, which would explain that comment. I haven't seen you say that your earlier comment was mistaken and only one type of injury is more dangerous, but it's m…
/r/MensRights21/07/12 04:08 PM
2

That may be the case but I was talking specifically about pelvic injury. So when you said "Just laying out the facts; there's a risk of it for both genders, but the risk is worse for women.", you meant specifically that the risk of a broken pelvis is greater for women? Should have specified. You said Just wanted to mention that the ol' cunt punt has the potential to be much more dangerous than a shot in the pills. Which isn't true; the greatest danger for either gender is death, and the chances …
/r/MensRights21/07/12 03:30 PM
12

Okay then, put your money where your mouth is. Next time your girlfriend says something mildly offensive, I want you to slap her in the face. Not hard, just give her a slap. Tell us how it goes. Also I'm interested to know how you became such an expert in this case; you appear to know exactly how hard she hit him, which puzzles me, because you have no way of doing so.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 03:13 PM
2

but the risk is worse for women. Except you can die from being kicked in the balls. Here's *some cases (some of them are different). I read an article the other day about "sack tapping" - it had something like 40 cases of boys needing to be hospitalized, and 7 died (these numbers may be way off, I can't even find the article. It shocked me with how high they were, though). I would conclude from this that, if kicked in the crotch, the chances of dying from a testicular injury are greater than the…
/r/MensRights21/07/12 02:49 PM
0

we live in a rape apologetic society where we blame the victim for being asked to be raped because of her clothing etc. Sort of - I think it's a bad way to represent it. We live in a society where a) some people are quick to tell victims what they could have done to avoid it (regardless of gender or crime), and b) some people don't take most instances of rape as seriously as they should (while something they consider rape is heinous, not as much if they don't). I don't think that's rape apologia…
/r/MensRights21/07/12 11:53 AM
2

but one of the causes of any specific victim being the target can include "dressing like a slut." Studies have found the exact opposite to be true - rapists go for innocently dressed girls. Men aren't such animals that a bit of cleavage will make us lose our minds and rape where no cleavage wouldn't.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 11:27 AM
1

That isn't always a negative...
/r/MensRights21/07/12 11:23 AM
1

First part Is that meant to be contradicting me? Not all trauma is PTSD. The problem is that you seem to think that spending time in prison is irrelevant I haven't said anything implying that. Your comment was diverting the topic because it was missing the point being made to shift it back to how false accusations are worse. Imagine a comment structured "x is worse than y because z". Another person comes along and says "Hmm, saying 'z' is kind of misleading, it isn't really that accurate". Then …
/r/MensRights21/07/12 03:05 AM
1

False accusations do not potentially lead to prison time? They can. Or do you think that every rape victim will suffer significant, lasting psychological trauma? This is kind of awkward. If you use a broad definition of rape, then no (situations which are technically rape but the "victim" thinks it was consensual). If you use a stricter, more common definition, then I'd say yes. Trauma isn't necessarily waking up screaming every night. Also, I don't see how those questions follow from what I sai…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:49 PM
-1

Probably worse, but there's no need to divert the topic like that.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 02:26 PM
4

Rape ends. And the trauma often doesn't. The NISVS found almost half of female rape victims are raped below the age of 18 (didn't have enough info for males). Things that happen that young shape your whole development.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 03:25 AM
9

No no, she tried to tell her friends about the rape and they didn't believe her. She was upset because it reminded her of that.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 03:20 AM
1

Once again, you're failing in your understanding. No, you are, because you're still going on about discrimination. It doesn't fucking matter. Holy shit, I can't believe how many times I've said this, it's unbelievable that you can't get it. One race being in a position below another is a bad thing. Therefore, let's fix it. We can do that in this specific instance by increasing the number of minority races that attend university. That's it. It doesn't matter if fewer minority races graduate high …
/r/MensRights19/07/12 03:58 AM
1

You've provided a set of numbers that are not proof of under-representation, which in and of itself is a relative concept anyway. Their enrollment relative to their population is lower. Nor have you offered any credible evidence of a hiring bias... In order for you to demonstrate that, you need to show cause, and numbers aren't cause. You don't really get science, do you? That places you squarely in the position of troll. No, but this comment places you squarely in the position of "person who do…
/r/MensRights19/07/12 03:30 AM
1

You took your argument full circle, offered no credible evidence, and failed to prove your point. I have shown that minorities are underrepresented. You have claimed that this isn't justificaiton for minority scholarships, but haven't provided a legitimate argument (claimed it brings standards down without evidence, ignored the comparison to sports scholarships). I have provided credible evidence that minorities have a hiring bias against them. That's my entire point. The argument has gone all o…
/r/MensRights19/07/12 02:49 AM
0

Repeating yourself does not make your argument valid. So why do you keep doing it? Neither does your attempts at dodging. So why do you keep dodging? I've asked several questions you've just nitpicked with bullshit to avoid answering. Also, what exactly have I dodged? It's all a nice try, but all you've done here is repeat your old arguments with new spins, and level accusations you don't back up. I'm pretty sure that's what you're doing. See all the "baseless assertions" in the problems? You su…
/r/MensRights19/07/12 02:17 AM
0

Then you follow it up with a quot of the conversation in which you did, justifying the impact to the individuals who lose out on your belief that it doesn't impact the group. No, I didn't. I didn't "justify the impact to the individuals". I said there was an impact on individuals, and then I said there wasn't an impact on the group. Saying there isn't an impact on a group is not the same thing as saying the impact on the individuals doesn't matter. Goddamn. Problems: You do not explain or justif…
/r/MensRights19/07/12 01:56 AM
14

I think most, if not all, men will have been, though generally in a way they don't realize (or consider unfair). A serious problem (from which a shit ton of men's problems derive) is that men are seen as disposable; their pain and hardship (and death) just isn't as bad as when it happens to a woman. This often gets reframed as "people think women are too weak to handle said issues", but that's just crap, because even in cases where it's clear the man can't handle it it applies. We've all grown u…
/r/MensRights18/07/12 01:59 PM
2

I wouldn't say they'd be likely; by the same token, they wouldn't be likely to know how to build a site in the first place. Therefore, they'd either be one of the minority who can do that, or they'd hire somebody else - no different to any other non-CS major.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 11:01 AM
7

Yeah, got a -1 from me. Seems like pretty pointless and nonsensical way to move the point into hating on women's studies majors.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 10:35 AM
1

it's okay to harm individuals within the group as long as you don't consider the group to be harmed Oh god, no, that is not what I said. You: You're actively arguing that reserving a benefit for a portion of the population based on race has no impact on those excluded. Me: No, I'm not. The individuals who lose out, it does. White people as a group, it doesn't. You: This is an assumption on your part. Me: A tiny portion of scholarships are race-specific. I googled but couldn't find it.. I think i…
/r/MensRights18/07/12 05:53 AM
1

The amount is irrelevant. Harm done is harm done, whether it's major or minor. No, because if it's too minor, it can't harm white people as a group. Wow. Nice generalization. What? I'm not saying people who play sports are stupid. I'm saying people who play sports can get a scholarship even if they're stupid. They can get a scholarship over a person more intelligent than themselves (because they're better at sports), so isn't that exactly the same problem you were talking about earlier? This is …
/r/MensRights18/07/12 03:22 AM
1

This is an assumption on your part. A tiny portion of scholarships are race-specific. I googled but couldn't find it.. I think it was either 2% or 0.2%. It just isn't enough to shoot white numbers down. Hyperbole Uh... they don't give scholarships to people who are below average intelligence? Unless they play sports, of course. Then it doesn't matter if they're an engineer. This supports my point, not yours. Turning what you just said here around, you're supporting keeping poor smart white kids …
/r/MensRights18/07/12 02:59 AM
16

Oh god, don't go on that page if you're an epileptic. I'm not but I practically passed out for a few seconds. Flashing blue/red.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 02:34 AM
1

You're actively arguing that reserving a benefit for a portion of the population based on race has no impact on those excluded. No, I'm not. The individuals who lose out, it does. White people as a group, it doesn't. It's not a matter of percentages. It's a matter of individual, human rights. Others disagree. By promoting unsuccessful students who do not show academic merit, you place students with a starting handicap into higher education, where they have to either compete with higher performin…
/r/MensRights18/07/12 02:19 AM
-2

It's aimed at the people who say things like "if you don't want to get raped, don't drink". It's basically a childish way of saying "instead of talking about what a woman should do to not be raped, we should tell rapists not to rape" (childish because it isn't founded in reality).
/r/MensRights17/07/12 11:47 AM
1

Your study does not show causation, only raw numbers. You need something more concrete than that. It's not evidence of systemic, ingrained discrimination any more Are you not reading what I'm writing? In terms of scholarships, it's entirely possible that white people really are just giving the best applications, meaning no racism (though I'm sure there have been studies on this if you look). Still, many people consider it an issue that minorities are underrepresented, so there's a tiny portion o…
/r/MensRights17/07/12 11:12 AM
1

The experiment has been done a number of times. Here's one and another. Offer me proof that systemic, ingrained discrimination exists today and that it has a measurable and documented effect today on the ability of minorities to obtain college financing through the receipt of conventional scholarship and grant money Here's a study. Like I said in that post, In terms of scholarships, it's entirely possible that white people really are just giving the best applications, meaning no racism (though I…
/r/MensRights17/07/12 06:13 AM
0

It's different when you're in a LTR. Also, everybody will feel differently; you're cool with it, okay. There is a huge difference between rape and someone seducing or pressuring someone. There are other things that aren't actually rape, but are kind of rapey and may cause problems Perhaps I should emphasize the may there. I'm not giving any guarantees of outcome, they're just no good. If people really film that they should be prosecuted. Those people are stupid and dangerous. I doubt they are th…
/r/MensRights17/07/12 01:46 AM
1

Everything you've said here - the very idea that these measures are necessary today - is conjecture, based only on popular opinion and repetition. These are things that are believed because the believer has heard them over and over, and because the believer knows it's what "everyone" thinks, not because of any concrete evidence. Well, for the hiring/promotion, there have been studies done where identical CVs were sent out, with only the name changed - either a white-sounding name or a black-soun…
/r/MensRights17/07/12 01:42 AM
-1

Men look at consent as something to "work for and gain" because this is what it is in many cases. Many women will be on the fence about sex. If somebody doesn't want to have sex, then leave them alone. It's not hard. And it isn't a gendered problem, it goes both ways. It is not rape to try to make them choose sex over no sex. I said "There are other things that aren't actually rape, but are kind of rapey and may cause problems". And it all depends on the situation; sometimes it's perfectly fine,…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 10:14 AM
1

Video here. He pokes the guy's ass with a dildo. They look like they're in their late teens. One guy appears to be drinking beer.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 09:06 AM
-1

The reason hate crime laws were created is because people kept committing crimes against people because of their race and we wanted to try to stop that. Though I don't know why you wouldn't make a hate crime any crime based on race etc just for inclusiveness. Minority scholarships were created because minorities don't get scholarships anywhere near as often as white people when they have the same or better applications. Minorities get hire priority in some jobs because they're generally discrimi…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 08:53 AM
2

Rape culture can mean different things. I've seen it used by feminists in terms of the things the people here are refuting, but that's not all of it. Our society condemns rape. That is, the act called rape. However, it doesn't necessarily condemn actions that aren't commonly considered rape, but are still terrible. You ask a guy who put his dick in an unconscious girl's mouth if he is a rapist or if he would rape a girl, he'll almost certainly say no (and probably look disgusted) - however, he i…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 08:29 AM
20

Vasectomies can be reversed, there's just a decent risk it will fail (I think I read that 70-80% of reversals within five years are successful?)
/r/MensRights16/07/12 08:13 AM
1

What you're saying here is that describing the loss of the head of your penis and the loss of your foreskin should be able to be described by the same word even though there is a clear difference between the two. Cutting off your lip and cutting off all your limbs are both mutilation, too. Flicking a cigarette ember onto somebody's arm and dousing them in flaming gasoline are both burning them. What's your point? The study you referred to regards the inflibulation of women. They are women who ha…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 08:05 AM
1

Look, calling it mutilation takes an arguable definition of the word and applies it in order to make the act seem worse than it is. Yes, circumcision is mutilation in the same way that getting a tattoo or piercing is mutilation. It's a type of body modification. It's not the same kind of mutilation which is a synonym to "cripple" or as egregious as docking, branding, cropping, or amputation (the things that come to mind when someone mentions mutilation). This argument applies to FGM... the inten…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 05:26 AM
4

Cheese sauce is an art form!
/r/MensRights14/07/12 01:39 AM
2

...What?
/r/MensRights12/07/12 10:00 PM
1

Einstein certainly won't be studied in any fields with majority female attendance.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 08:27 AM
5

Something as insignificant as that quote I would think ridiculous, but even if it's something like "the 30 person team included two women" or something, I support it. Most important things through history have been dominated by men, so I think it's helpful to focus on achievements women have made, at least for the benefit of female students. On an individual level, I have zero objection to discussing men and men alone, but when everything on the topic is that way I think it's a problem.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 05:45 AM
2

By the dictionary definition, it is, though I don't use the word in that case. It's a pretty loaded term, implying that it's bad and generally non-consensual.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 05:38 AM
8

Sure their argument sucks, but awesome transphobia, M.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 09:57 PM
0

This woman was lying to you. If this were true, she would be unable lift her own body off the ground to be able to stand up. Seriously... that's how much my cat weighs. My cat could literally kill her by sitting on her hand until she died of dehydration.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 06:07 AM
0

Proof?
/r/MensRights08/07/12 08:09 PM
1

I made it from the CDC's NISVS.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 09:24 AM
3

Here we go.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 08:42 AM
1

Because they don't get paid based on how long a game takes. You can easily have a 3-set game that lasts longer than a 5-set game, it's just not typical. Should the pay then be reversed in that case? No, because they aren't being paid based on play time.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 08:35 AM
0

Women naturally have greater endurance, but the number of women who train to that level are still fewer. So in a slightly different world women could potentially dominate endurance activities the way men dominate strength activities. There are plenty of skill-based activities where neither gender has a natural advantage but men dominate because they're far more likely to do it (chess, for example; I think 2 or 3 of the top 100 players are women)
/r/MensRights08/07/12 08:33 AM
3

A lot of people have shifted the definition of misogyny, to two explicit definitions and one implicit; the former two are "reflections of a societal attitude that is negative about women" and "assigning a negative trait to women in general", and the implicit being "anytime a man says something bad about a woman". You're using the second explicit one. Here in /mr, we generally don't use those definitions, we use the dictionary ones. For your first statement; I believe that monkeys are less intell…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 01:48 AM
4

Did they press charges? Did they file a complaint? Because apparently our society totally looks down on women stripping men. Yep, it's not like we have assholes like you whining about how lucky they are that have any effect. No way they'd face ridicule from your ilk, nossir. Police narrowly escaped an undressing were greeted by an enthusiastic group of women who shouted that the strippers had arrived and tried to pull their shirts off. nearly had their shirts torn off, but they managed to escape…
/r/MensRights06/07/12 11:23 PM
1

Oops, I read what you wrote as the other way around (female red, male grey).
/r/MensRights06/07/12 11:18 PM
2

or do you have an instance where male police officers were molested by throngs of women, against their will? Uh... that's what the story is about. The instance is the linked article.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 10:57 PM
2

Grow some balls you bunch of limp dicks. Don't want sex, not brave enough, you're not a real man, you need to learn your place in the world. it's not about crying over the facts of everyday male/female interactions. ...like sexual assault?
/r/MensRights06/07/12 10:56 PM
1

It is why male cardinals are red, while females are grey. It's biology, not the behavior of men. Many bird species have the reverse; think peacock/peahen.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 10:54 PM
1

This situation was more a case of mistaken identity than harassment I don't know much about strippers, but do they want women leaping on them and tearing their clothes off? Wouldn't it be harassment either way?
/r/MensRights06/07/12 10:50 PM
1

And basically all white rights activists are extremely racist, so if somebody thought a WRA was a white supremacist it would be foolish to say "you don't even know what a WRA is, it's somebody who advocates for white rights, not a supremacist (dictionary)". The two aren't analogous, because feminism isn't like white rights, but quoting the dictionary definition is equally pointless.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 10:45 PM
2

Or, alternatively, a boy who is regularly bullied by a girl, shoved around and stolen from every day, is now free from her bullying forever. This is entirely possible, you don't know the context.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 12:08 AM
2

And that's why he should not have fought her. She was unskilled, whereas he was skilled. He didn't fight her. She assaulted him for a couple of minutes and then he defended himself. And are you suggesting that you need to be a trained martial artist to know how to punch somebody in the face? He was skilled enough to take advantage of an opening of several seconds, ball his fist, and move it quickly towards her jaw? Yep, that takes some real skill. lol, I didn't say she passed out from the pain. …
/r/MensRights05/07/12 06:05 PM
5

youre simply happy that a female child was hurt by a male child. I'm happy that somebody who was being beaten up without retaliation won against their aggressor. That viral video of the Australian kid slamming the one picking on him? Exactly the same deal, and that was two guys. In a video of a guy beating up a girl and the girl knocking him out, I'd feel the same way. I shouldnt have to point out that mens rights are certainly not about seeing females get hurt for the fact that they are women. …
/r/MensRights05/07/12 04:37 PM
17

Rubbish. The reason her hits didn't take him down and his did isn't because she's female, but because hers were random flailing and his was a good clean shot to the jaw. She didn't pass out from the pain, she was knocked out from her brain being rattled in her skull. Why would gender change this? If she'd managed that same shot on him I'm pretty sure she'd be capable of doing the same thing - it doesn't take much force to knock somebody untrained out with a lucky blow. In my humble opinion, he s…
/r/MensRights05/07/12 04:31 PM
3

And a white rights activist is simply somebody who advocates for the rights of white people.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 09:15 PM
6

Man, I spent like 10 seconds staring at the word "predating" trying to figure out what the correct form is. And it's preying. I should sleep.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 09:07 PM
5

I now officially like that woman.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 08:37 PM
12

It mean legal fatherhood, as opposed to having a genetic offspring.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:18 AM
2

The idea that a man may consider actually himself a feminist probably never occurs to people here, or if it does, it's viewed in the same way "race traitors" are viewed among racial supremacists. "Gender traitor" works just as well. But no, that's not the view. Some say that feminist men are basically making that association to suck up to women. And that's not "believing in equality" feminist, it's the other sort. And yeah, as thrway_1000 says, plenty of r/mr isn't antifeminist, myself included.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:16 AM
-1

I think it's fair; it's true that women play for shorter periods, but it's extremely rare for them to play for a significant amount of time. They're not being paid for the amount of time they played, they're getting paid for winning. I would support prize money depending on turnout, though... I'm surprised that it isn't.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 05:37 AM
8

If a person is a) not consenting being unconscious being forced telling the rapist to stop and not reciprocating - that is, making their lack of consent clear without physically resisting b) imparting invalid consent intoxicated to the point where they're semi-conscious (so the fact that their judgment is affected isn't the issue, it's that they're confused as to what's even going on) being coerced (threatened with job loss, physical violence, false accusations etc)) Significantly younger than t…
/r/MensRights01/07/12 05:33 AM
1

"The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997) estimated that 91% of United States rape victims were female and 9% were male, with 99% of the offenders being male and 1% of the offenders being female.[1] Several studies argue that male-male and female-female prison rape are quite common and may be the least reported form of rape." [1] Source. a) Those statistics do not include a man being forced to penetrate against his will - only 1% of rapists are female there because only 1% of rapes where the…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 03:56 PM
1

It may be true, though it's premature to claim that. It's based on the CDC's 2010 data for "made to penetrate", added to figures for being penetrated from prison rape (as well as non-institution, but that's sufficient). So it's true given cherrypicked numbers, though honestly I don't know if any better (or other!) numbers even exist. It would also only mean "men" in the sense of adults.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 03:46 PM
2

Sorry but that's not what this sub-Reddit believes Proof? your hatred of women... is obvious Proof? your hatred of feminists... is obvious. Obviously you're not meaning me personally. But I just want to commend you for being able to figure out that some people here hate feminists with no more evidence than them explicitly stating it.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 02:13 PM
5

Misandry isn't "women disliking/distrusting/etc men". That's why you haven't seen evidence of it; you're defining it incorrectly. Society is misandric, because societal norms assign negative traits to men and place a lower value on their lives and health as individuals.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 01:42 PM
1

'm pretty sure I've read some stuff (STUFF!) that says, basically, that men are quickly catching up with women as far as disordered eating and body image issues. While I wouldn't be surprised if this were true, one explanation is simply that the method people used to use to measure the number of people with body image issues were biased towards women; women typically want to be as skinny as possible, and while there are plenty of men like that, men are much more likely to want to be muscled and …
/r/MensRights30/06/12 10:10 AM
1

My list
/r/MensRights30/06/12 10:03 AM
6

The "benefit" was that a husband would want to marry you more. Proponents also make a lot of the same (bullshit) claims MGM advocates do - that it's cleaner, stops infections, looks better etc.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:58 AM
1

Primarily? The poor are oppressed by the rich. And, those with little to no political or legal power are oppressed by those who possess some. If we just take the dictionary definition; "Keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, esp. by the unjust exercise of authority." - a lot of men's problems are caused by misandric views through society; those are propagated by everybody, but to a greater degree by various media. So the real answer is "society", which is the exact same source of women's o…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:52 AM
4

I think he was referring to more and more people "taking to blue pill"; the increase of articles about men's issues in mainstream media, for example.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 07:43 PM
11

A downvote brigade is a group that travels in packs to other subreddits to downvote people expressing an opinion. It is not a subreddit that downvotes comments it dislikes or whatever. Otherwise pretty much every subreddit would be a downvote brigade.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 07:41 PM
1

Source.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:23 PM
1

this was stating that 'it happens to women, but it happens to men too'; I would have thought that stood as an affirmation that the reader is not to feel stupid, or like they're making a fuss about nothing, etc. Uh, just saying it happens to men would do this. And it doesn't say "While most victims are women, men can be victims too"; it says "Most victims are women, though we acknowledge men can be victims too". I read it as designed to reassure men who had gone down the 'this only happens to wom…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 09:44 AM
10

It’s why every Nice Guy is shocked to find that buying gifts for a girl and doing her favors won’t win him sex. Men are taught by society that the proper way to woo a woman is to be as nice to her as possible. It's pretty much how movie romances work; often she'll start with a jerk of a boyfriend, or not want to date because of her career or past relationships or something, and the protagonist will be just such a nice guy that she falls head over heels for her. They try this in real life, and ge…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 05:11 AM
7

A male friend of mine is terribly sick. Without the mandate, he'd be pretty much fucked. There are a bunch of ways I'd improve it, it's far from ideal. But it's better than nothing.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 04:23 PM
1

I'm suggesting that there isn't one (and only one) way of reading that info. If you read it like a victim seeking confirmation, then it could be construed as being insulting if you're looking to be offended. But that doesn't make it the only option. Right, of course. Now, the question I asked, that you claimed to have answered; What is another possible reason? Why not mention both sexes when talking about rape? Why does mentioning the other sex or how common assault is for both automatically mea…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 03:38 PM
1

Yes, I did. Your not agreeing isn't the same thing. No, really, I don't see it. I see you telling me my reasoning is incorrect, but not you offering your own reasoning. Are you talking about this? this page is/ was specifically stating that it does indeed happen to men, and gives/ gave some context addressing that very concern. Because that doesn't explain why it talks about men raping women. it just listed that it happens more to women, but also happens to men - ergo don't feel that you're maki…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 01:40 PM
1

You didn't answer my question. Why did they put it there? this page is/ was specifically stating that it does indeed happen to men, and gives/ gave some context addressing that very concern. Why not "men and boys are often sexually assaulted" instead of "most perpetrators of sexual violence are men targeting women but we acknowledge sometimes it's the other way around"? What is the gain from putting that there? Do you have an answer? simply because one person (or more, apparently) is a little bi…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 12:49 PM
1

Then tell me; exactly what is the reason for putting it there? Can you think of another? Was it to serve women who were reading the male rape page? What?
/r/MensRights28/06/12 12:03 PM
-2

It's true. You just have to not talk to anybody and and not accept drinks from strangers. That would have reduced rapes by 50% in 2010!
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:40 AM
2

A man is raped. Society has taught him this is impossible or that he actually wanted it, so he googles to try to find support. Aha - a page for male victims of rape. Surely this will help. He reads "Most rapes are men raping women, but we acknowledge that men can be raped too" (emphasis mine). Hooray for the man! Now that he's read that most rapists are of his gender, and see the website acknowledge he can be a victim too, he feels much better about himself. The paragraph served no purpose in he…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:39 AM
5

But what I mean is while it may be morally odd, if you look at it logically it doesn't really seem to cause much in the way of actual harm. Slapping around babies and stubbing out cigarettes on their backs does even less.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:23 AM
0

Heh, I made a new account just for the programming submission, and forgot to switch in RES. why don't you? you're one of the users here who comments the most in subs that sit on both sides of the aisle; i would think you, more than most, would understand and appreciate when others encourage users to join the discussion, whereever it exists. no? I don't object to MRAs posting in TwoX, but I basically don't like when it's a large group of people making the same argument against one person or a cou…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 09:34 PM
-3

it broke rules that are in place to give excessive power and control to the mods. ...Power to stop invasions. I think that's fair. but no, they only enforce their rules against us and non-likeminded comments/users. That's probably where "odious" comes from. It's their sub, if they don't want that sort of thing going on, that's their decision, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 09:14 PM
0

Wassup. the post is 300+comments long by now, are you seriously concerned about a handful of votes one way or the other and the impact they'll have? This submission is nothing but "come join in on this argument I'm having" and I don't like that. Partially because subs like TwoX now routinely refer to MRAs as "MRA trolls", partially because I know they don't like it. I'd support mandatory screenshotting (i.e. if you want somebody to see an argument, take a screenshot so they can't influence it).
/r/MensRights27/06/12 09:12 PM
0

censored You mean removed for breaking the rules. Equanimity: No drama-inducing crossposting of content found in other subreddits. Likewise, posts found to direct odious influxes here may be removed. Odious might be strong but it was an influx.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 08:51 PM
-10

WOW COOL MAN. EDIT: IS IT TOO LATE FOR ME TO GET ON THE VOTING BRIGADE.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 07:27 PM
0

without evidence we need to judge entirely based on the claim. and now you want us to make no assumptions on the claim. so do we judge him "maybe guilty"? Judge? No, the jury should give an innocent verdict if they are unsure (I've already said that; that a maybe should be a not guilty). But that's not all there is to it; there's the social aspect and the investigation.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 03:05 PM
0

i'm sorry i don't lack reading comprehension i jsut have to keep fucking contradicting your stupid claims. Which claim have I made that you keep contradicting? Serious question, I want you to tell me. you repeat yourself endlessly The reason I have to repeat myself is to repeatedly contradict a claim you make about me. If you stopped making the claims, I wouldn't have to contradict them over and over. at least i don't go in thinking i'm oh so awesome and can do no wrong. Nor do I. I just have a …
/r/MensRights27/06/12 03:02 PM
1

Haha, my bad. I saw Iceland out away from everything and thought it was the UK.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 10:52 AM
0

I don't know why she shouldn't get bail - somebody who rapes a kid is probably a flight risk, but that seems unlikely. And yeah, not a pedophile. And totally with Liverotto - kissing a 15 year old should not be a crime.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 10:49 AM
0

September 19, 1692: Sheriffs administer Peine Forte Et Dure (pressing) to Giles Cory after he refuses to enter a plea to the charges of witchcraft against him. After two days under the weight, Cory dies. That case was insane. I read about it in a cracked article, I think, about how amazingly badass the guy was. EDIT: Here we go; Last Words Of: Giles Corey, farmer and accused witch, while being crushed with stones According to colonial law, a person who refused to plead innocent or guilty of a cr…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 10:47 AM
2

Are you suggesting that anybody who says they watch a movie for an attractive female will automatically be jumped on?
/r/MensRights27/06/12 10:29 AM
87

Gotta love how that's directly followed by this; If you are a man or a boy that has recently experienced rape, you may find it difficult to talk about your experience for fear of being ridiculed or not believed. Yeah, I wonder why.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 10:27 AM
0

Wow, 14 in the UK? Doesn't that only apply if the person they're having sex with is less than 5 years older than them? Oops.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 10:23 AM
21

Banning slavery is racist against white people!
/r/MensRights27/06/12 10:09 AM
1

no. those are called missunderstandings Yes, that's a good way to word it. When you're 100% sure of something but you're actually wrong, it's a misunderstanding. Good. nor have i ever claimed they should. Except for when you did; "as long as she stands to gain from lying you should defiently assume she's lying" they should look at the evidence. The evidence of "she stands to gain", sure. Then we can assume she's lying. Maybe it's just your memory. ...What? You're saying that I concocted false me…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 08:44 AM
1

oh so we shouldn't go in assumeing he is innocent but we should go in assumeing he is guilty. Oh my god, this is like talking to a brick wall. You supposedly have "above average" reading comprehension, yet I've already contradicted this about five times. We should not assume the claim is true or false without evidence. How can I make that clearer? you belive if agirl claims she has been raped better just punish the guy in order to be sure. Totally, that's why I've said the exact opposite to you …
/r/MensRights27/06/12 08:36 AM
1

i'm saying you'd have to be off in some way if you are 100% sure of an expirence and still be wrong about it. Wow, this happens to everybody. Go to AskReddit and find one of those posts about things you thought during your childhood that you later found out were wrong (or something, they're all the time). are you honestly saying the people who are make a judgement on wether or not you are guilty should not make assuptions about wether or not you are guilty? Of course? If they think they know whe…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 03:47 AM
1

what fucking trauma? The trauma from being raped... i also never said we should treat them like shit. But that's an inevitable result of assuming they're lying. because it would not affect them at all. you have to be on trial to be affected by a trial. you have to be under investigation to be affected by an investigation. Accusers get interviewed by police. They get interrogated by the defense in court. Maybe, instead of assuming you know exactly what it's like for them because you're just that …
/r/MensRights27/06/12 03:40 AM
14

It also said she's tried to kill herself - it's attempting to imply possible motives.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 09:39 AM
1

so you don't think i'm insane for thinking the moon is pink... you are just going to take such a utterly rediciolous statement at face value? see this is exactly what i do not want the legal system to do. ...Are you saying that a woman claiming a man raped her is "insane" and "ridiculous"? you seem to have it the other way around. Except, as I've said at least three times, I do not believe we should assume the accused are guilty. I believe I actually said we shouldn't assume anybody is lying. Go…
/r/MensRights26/06/12 09:37 AM
1

it doesn't matter how anyone is treated by court if they are not on trial. Yeah, because apparently terrible life-shattering trauma doesn't matter. i was talking about how legal authorities should treat it. Who? Police? Judges? If you're a "legal authority" then it doesn't matter how much emotional pain you cause?? also no i advocate dealing with the cause of the problem You think false accusers will stop accusing if you treat all accusers worse? You might drop a few, but this is analogous to pr…
/r/MensRights26/06/12 09:34 AM
1

it doesn't matter how we treat her Oh god, just shut up and stop leaving your house. You just said it doen't matter how a rape victim is treated. That is what you said. You are a bad person. You need to accept that so you can grow and maybe one day be a decent human being. How do you think a person would react if their good friend, brother, son, father was falsely accused of a crime? You think they'd be perfectly cordial to the person trying to tear their life apart? Seems unlikely. And you are …
/r/MensRights26/06/12 08:16 AM
1

i'm 100% sure the moon is pink. now prove i'm not 100% sure. ...You're arguing for my point and against your own. You claimed that women who falsely accuse aren't totally sure they have the right guy. I asked you to prove it. Now you've reversed it and shown me that I can't prove you aren't 100% sure the moon is pink. That's agreeing with me - I have no way of knowing how sure you are, I can't prove it one way or the other. Similarly, you can't prove whether or not the girls are sure, which mean…
/r/MensRights26/06/12 08:12 AM
1

so they are sure but it's the wrong man. and how exactly might that work? Do you even know what the words you're using mean? I don't see how it wouldn't work. so they are sure but it's the wrong man. and how exactly might that work? that's like me being sure the moon is pink. What? No... there is a very large, solid amount of evidence that the moon is not pink. You can see the moon - you can see it's not pink. Essentially everybody on Earth knows that it isn't. And there is no reason to think th…
/r/MensRights26/06/12 07:48 AM
1

i did answer you question. Where? but your question is irrelevant because you refuse to discus the part of the discusion where it is relevant. ...Except that's not true. You said we should assume she's lying. That would mean we'd treat her as a liar. I asked you if we treat perceived false accusers the same way we treat rape victims. It's a rhetorical question; obviously we don't. So you're advocating that we take a person who is statistically likely to be a rape victim who's endured horrible tr…
/r/MensRights26/06/12 07:45 AM
1

Are you outraged that Spain and Japan have the age of consent at 13? Just so you know, every municipality has a higher age of consent itself.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 06:33 AM
3

This is bloody, sustained and unnecessary attack. He has him pinned for some time without striking him. The guy on the bottom sucker punches him in the head. He retaliates for a short while and then stops. Then he doesn't hit the guy at all except for light taps while saying he could be hitting him, while repeatedly telling him to calm down and relax, and saying he'll let the guy go if he calms down (probably because he thinks if he let the guy up right away he'd just start attacking him). EDIT:…
/r/MensRights26/06/12 06:16 AM
9

Android -> male robot, gynoid -> female robot. Words are fun!
/r/MensRights26/06/12 06:03 AM
7

Hidden? Or removed because they were shitty spammy answers that weren't serious or helpful, as per policy?
/r/MensRights26/06/12 12:20 AM
2

Jesus Factory2 is crazy.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 12:09 AM
1

we haven't yet conclude what she might be. What? Ugh, anyway, answer my question. that discussion you told me you weren't having so i'll ignore it. No, I'm not discussing her being prosecuted for lying.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 10:37 PM
1

because they think it's him. but thinking isn't being sure. Do you have any proof that they aren't sure?
/r/MensRights25/06/12 10:37 PM
1

it will not affect her life. You... do realize that accusers are actually involved in the prosecution, right? They don't just say "oh, you say x raped you? Well, you stay at home on your own and we'll call you back in a couple of months and tell you whether he was convicted or not". Are you telling me that people treat rape victims who are trying to put away a monster exactly the same way as they treat malevolent liars trying to destroy an innocent man's life?
/r/MensRights25/06/12 09:47 PM
1

no it would still be intentional. ...If you don't know a statement is false, then it is not intentionally false. don't fucking tell me these girls are 100% sure and get the wrong guy Wait, you really think that never happens? So in cases where there is physical proof a girl is raped and they accuse a man who is physically proven to be innocent, why exactly do you think they're accusing the wrong person?
/r/MensRights25/06/12 09:45 PM
1

i'd call of that bullshit you list lying though Lie: An intentionally false statement. So you'd be wrong.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 09:25 PM
1

you insists on discussing irellevant semantics. semantics can be rellevant but it surely is not in this case. Exactly what is the irrelevant semantic issue I'm discussing? You mean the difference between a bad person lying to destroy another's life and a rape victim who is accusing the wrong person unintentionally? How is that not relevant? but here you are defending all those poor defenseless girls of being thought of as possible liars Let me correct you: I'm defending all those poor defenseles…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 09:23 PM
1

the only reason we are even having a discusion is because you insists on discussing semantics. Yeah, because the meaning of words is totally irrelevant when it comes to arguments.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 08:54 PM
1

wishsy washy white knighting How is this white knighting? I'd say the same if it were a man accusing a woman; we shouldn't assume the man is lying. either the man raped her or not. that means either she's telling the truth or lying. Okay, this is going to be the third time I've told you this... seriously, why are you even arguing if you don't bother to read the replies? There are other possibilities if the man is innocent; she could also be mistaken - got the wrong person, something happened tha…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 08:53 PM
1

and this is why we can't have this discussion. it's like talking about gender equality and ignoreing an entire gender. you can't just cling to one part of a discusion becuse you don't like the other part. What? Do you even understand the argument that is happening right now? How the hell does not discussing a person being prosecuted for lying in the context of saying you shouldn't assume an accuser is lying mean you're ignoring some of it because you don't like it? It's not relevant to the argum…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 03:52 PM
1

Theozoph said she had to prove the claim in order for it not to be rejected as a lie, in response to me saying it shouldn't be assumed she is lying. My point being that not all evidence for a prosecution will exist at the time of an accusation; she indeed has to prove it, but we shouldn't assume she's lying because she does not have proof at the current point in time.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 03:48 PM
13

It works like this: A protective parent who accuses her/his ex-spouse of harming their child(ren) is deemed mentally ill -- solely by virtue of the accusation. Surely I misunderstand what PAS is because if I'm right then that would be horrifyingly explicit lies. Isn't parental alienation syndrome about when a parent with custody poisons their child against the non-custodial parent by lying to them? Falsely telling them the other parent was abusive, that they're an addict etc? I can kind of see h…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 01:12 PM
2

Switcharoo time! A woman rapes a man and is impregnated with his child. The father doesn't approach his rapist for years because it's too traumatic, but eventually decides that he shouldn't force his child to grow up without a father. So he petitions for shared custody and eventually gets it thanks to cool shared parenting laws. When he's looking after his child, he notices that they have bruises on their wrists and inner thighs, and suspects the rapist mother is sexually abusing the child. So h…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 12:31 PM
1

If she's able to prove it, she will do so if/when this goes to court. OP is assuming that it's a lie, I'm disagreeing with the title choice.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 11:21 AM
1

if you own somwthing i lost and can't prove you got it legitmately should that be proof you stole it from me? Uh.. If I have the item that you lost then of course it's yours - unless I have some sort of cloning machine there's no other possibilities. If it's just the same thing that I could have bought myself then it isn't proof I stole it, and nor is it proof I didn't steal it.. I don't see how this analogy works. in a he said she said case you can't honestly tell me you belive we should punish…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 11:00 AM
1

So... if a person doesn't bring a host of evidence to a police station, they should never investigate the claim and instead just ignore it?
/r/MensRights25/06/12 10:51 AM
1

if all you have is the claim of the woman with no evidence beyond that chances are she's lying. Why do you think that? If it's established two people had sex, the man says it was consensual and the woman says it wouldn't, then unless she's covered in bruises (rare) or they were filmed or caught in the act by others (also rare) then there isn't going to be any evidence available - so that means "chances are" it was consensual? The very nature of the crime means that by your standard most real rap…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 08:42 AM
1

please don't take what i write out of kontekst like that. I'm not taking it out of context? You said as long as she stands to gain from lying you should defiently assume she's lying unless we can find proof to the contary. but that only works to have the man in question found innocent. Of course it does, but assuming she's lying != finding the man innocent, or even assuming the man is innocent. She could also be mistaken - got the wrong person, something happened that she genuinely considers rap…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 05:08 AM
1

Not all men can defend themselves, there are plenty of men with social anxiety and men are often depressed. They're comparing averages... it says men are less likely to get depression, not that they can't.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 04:57 AM
1

Just awful how they segued from "men can better defend themselves from rape" to For young boys, there are plenty of Sandusky-type perverts lurking around, but most adult men are exclusively heterosexual, so the unreported sexual victimization of minors is almost certainly higher for girls than for boys. They suddenly conflate forcible rape with "sexual victimization and imply that the number of female pedophiles is trivial compared to male. EDIT: TIL that it's spelled "segue", not "segway".
/r/MensRights25/06/12 04:56 AM
9

Probably because it's not a men's rights issue, and OP didn't want to talk about it.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 04:31 AM
0

in the legal system you investigate. you find proof. if there is no proof to be found or not enough proof you are considered inocent. if you find the proof well the person is guilty. so when someone says another person raped them the guy should be considered a possibly culprit but untill the evidence is there he should be considered innocent. Correct. if he is then found not guilty it might be worth looking into wether or not the girl lied. You said earlier that we should assume she was lying fr…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 04:13 AM
1

Yeah, which would then not be assuming they're lying. Assuming guilt or innocence of nobody is the best way to go.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 06:26 PM
0

innocent untill proven guilty and all. That applies to an accuser as well. as long as she stands to gain from lying you should defiently assume she's lying unless we can find proof to the contary. So do you then believe we should convict all accusers of lying if they can't prove they were raped?
/r/MensRights24/06/12 05:39 PM
6

seems like you're already aware of why these analogies fall short with that second paragraph there. Uh, no, there are also perfectly valid reasons to not want to lock your door, or to walk in bad neighbourhoods at night, or leave our things lying around. what exactly is the action a person should take that is analogous to "wearing your seatbelt" or "leaving your valuables lying around in public" when it comes to avoiding rape? It's not like you can totally stop it - just like you can never make …
/r/MensRights24/06/12 09:36 AM
2

The more important part is accidens caused by other people. We should be able to drive around without having to be scared somebody else will crash into our house. We should be able to leave our doors unlocked, or leave our valuables lying around in public. But we can't; that isn't how the world works. If you aren't aware of that, then you're ignorant as hell, if you're aware but still do those things, you're an idiot. It's slightly more complicated for rape because a lot of the things that incre…
/r/MensRights24/06/12 09:14 AM
-2

There is no proof that her claim isn't true... it certainly sounds fishy, but you can't assume it's a lie.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 09:03 AM
2

tl;dr of these threads; SRSD: All MRAs are stupid misogynists that are wrongly convinced men don't have perfect lives because they're stupid misogynists. MR: I disagree with feminist idealogy and the way it, and many feminists, ignore male problems and work on ways to further women that hurt men.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 03:14 AM
5

Are you aware people get paid more for being taller and more attractive? You're misinterpreting the conclusion. It's possible that you're correct, but the numbers don't prove that. What they prove is that people who are taller and more attractive make more money on average. There are a myriad of reasons why this might happen. There's being more likely to be selected over an equally qualified but less attractive person for a job with fixed pay (so jobs with more demand will end up with more attra…
/r/MensRights23/06/12 04:16 AM
1

Ada Lovelace. Always say the first name. I learned that lesson after people asked me what a porn actress had to do with anything.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 03:46 AM
0

You contradicted yourself No, I won't tell you where Just.. I don't even know why you bother posting. You're 100% claims, 0% justification/evidence.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:18 PM
0

self-contradictory arguments Which ones are those?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:03 PM
0

You don't really get how arguing works, do you?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 03:54 PM
0

But when your definition is "whatever you believe is right" then how can what I believe be wrong? ...what? Definitions are defined by a) authorities and b) collective agreement. Even though you refuse to tell me your definition, I can tell it jars with both, so that makes it wrong. Therefore it's wrong.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 03:48 PM
0

It doesn't matter what your definition is; I already know you're wrong, and I already know that no matter what I say I could never change your mind. I wouldn't bother trying to break down your definition because it would be a waste of time. I'm just curious. Is a man somebody with a penis? Somebody with a Y chromosome? Somebody who is legally recognized as male?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 03:12 PM
0

...You define words tautologically? No, seriously, can you actually give a definition?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 02:54 PM
1

Never mind, goodbye. Have fun being an asshole.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:24 AM
1

Oh, are you referring to where you said that strength is the same thing as intelligence? I didn't think that was connected. It's irrelevant anyway, because the word "pussy" is in no way an attack on a person's intelligence.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:19 AM
1

...what? You said that men who aren't strong are useless. I gave three examples of ways that men have essentially built the modern world that don't require more than minimal strength.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:13 AM
1

So I guess we don't need televisions or phones or any of the millions of incredible technologies that required no strength componenet to invent. How about the millions of men that perform manual labour jobs that don't require great physical strength; farmers, namely. How about fathers? Being emotionally strong might make you a better father but you can certainly be a great one if you're not. And so on and so on.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:57 AM
1

No, I mean what's wrong with them? Where do you get off with this attitude?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:46 AM
2

There is something wrong with men who aren't strong. What?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:43 AM
2

I bet you wish you had more downvotes for me don't you? No, I more just wish you'd stop implying there's something wrong with men who aren't strong. It's not helpful. The fact is that "drainedsoul" started the ad-hominem An ad hominem is attacking the credibility of an argument based on a trait of the person making it, it's not an insult. I have no problem with you insulting people, if you want to, go ahead. It's your choice of insult that I object to.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:39 AM
2

Why don't you start calling people faggots and tell them to man up while you're at it?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:33 AM
2

Stop being such a pussy. Your pussy attitude is disgusting. Don't do that in /mr.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 07:18 AM
1

(Or were born without a Y chromosome and later transitioned due to possessing gender identity disorder).
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:53 AM
0

Okay, I've read all of your comments in this chain; how do you define "man" and "woman", the genders (so that you can then rule that trans women are not women and trans men are not men)?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:52 AM
1

If he wants more male teachers more men should go into teaching. Yes, that would solve the problem... but how exactly is that his decision?
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:47 AM
2

You need a better mike. Also this is loopy misogyny.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:32 AM
2

Alleged? He caught him in the act. It's not like he heard about it second-hand and beat him to death because he assumed it was true. And after he killed him he called 911 saying the guy was dying; clearly he didn't intend to kill him. I honestly can't get it up to give a shit about the guy.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:31 AM
7

The guy's an idiot. You don't need another dozen people mass-downvoting him and telling him he's wrong. Fight your own battles.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 06:26 AM
1

You've got it backwards. He's not saying "Fathers shouldn't have those rights", he's saying "The system is currently set up in a way that fathers have no rights, and that's bad". Like how in the early 1800s one would say "black people don't have the right to freedom" - they should have that right but they were prevented from having it.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 12:54 AM
10

It gives me warm fuzzies how highly you must view /mr to make this claim.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 02:38 PM
1

but did anyone else almost punch their computer screen when they read that "Men have no rights, only responsibilities" quote? It's in regards to family court, not in general.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 03:15 AM
0

*She
/r/MensRights18/06/12 03:04 AM
2

Sounds bad, but like onetimeuser said, her "boyfriend" was 26. Letting your 14 year old daughter have sex with a 26 year old is in no way okay.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 12:31 AM
2

Should you physically attack a person because they did the same to you in the past? No, no you should not. Violence is only justified in self-defense or other cases where its necessary (e.g. citizen's arrest or otherwise restraining a person). Hurting a person simply for revenge is stupid; you might feel some sadistic twist of pleasure, but that's not something you should encourage and beyond that there's no gain to anybody.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 12:28 AM
1

So could you give me some examples of how it is present in different forms of media (especially video games)? The biggest issue in news reporting and such is villification; a male perpetrator is always cast in a much worse light than a female perpetrator is for the same crime. When a man and a woman have a disagreement, it tends to talk about or headline what the man did, and then only later on do you find out the woman is just as much in the wrong. Women are just cast as more sympathetic; and t…
/r/MensRights16/06/12 06:12 AM
2

Ah, that's cool, I tend to jump to conclusions. When somebody says "circumcision is wrong", just mentally replace it with "routine infant circumcision is wrong". For medical reasons it's all good, and if somebody wants to do it, feel free.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 03:04 AM
6

I was circumcised at age 28ish, electively. I hated having foreskin. Since you wanted to do it, I guess we should do it to everybody in the world without their consent because their consent and the potential complications don't matter. Amirite?! Or are you conflating circumcision by choice and circumcision performed on a non-consenting infant? The latter is the only one anybody here objects to (though many will think the former is stupid for non-medical reasons).
/r/MensRights15/06/12 02:43 AM
5

But downvoting me because I happen to be more than okay with my circumcision that I had no say in is petty. Did the way your comment was worded perhaps imply that your being okay with it meant circumcision is okay? Most guys who are circumcised are fine with it. Plenty (I hesitate to say most because I don't know, but given it continues I don't think it unlikely) of women who are mutilated are fine with it. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't make it okay, it doesn't say squat about the issue. W…
/r/MensRights15/06/12 02:36 AM
14

faggot faggot faggot Wow, get out.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 02:32 AM
1

I've had people yell they're going to kill me or give me a hiding (i.e. beat up). Why aren't I scared when I go walkabout?
/r/MensRights14/06/12 10:21 PM
7

I just really hate when men treat women like objects for their amusement. All people treat other people like "objects". There's nothing special or unique about catcalling in this regard. Not everything you do fully considers the humanity of every person you interact with. I mean, 1 in 4 women have been raped! If you use very loose definitions. If you use similarly loose but gender-compensated definitions for men, you get similar numbers. Or that if I'm ever assaulted, the guity party will almost…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 11:42 AM
2

I'm saying this to illustrate the legitimate fear that women have living in a rape culture, one that is perpetuated by inconsistent rulings, cultural bias and a flawed legislative system. But an additional (and often ignored) result of this is prejudice against men who do not deserve it. Just a note, all those things are true of men, and I would argue worse.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 06:12 AM
2

They have a hivemind-decided set of things that are bad, and everything else is fine. Similarly, they have a list of things that it's funny to mock, and other things that, if you joke about, you are a disgusting bigot. Their lists jar with reality, sometimes contradict their own standards, and their reactions are terribly hyperbolic. They claim to be all about defending oppressed minorities, but I've seen upvoted comments saying pretty terrible things about furries, people who watch My Little Po…
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:44 AM
27

Gay men, in contrast, rarely participate in such belligerent behaviour. Usually more gentle and refined, most of us queers prefer to love men rather than fight them. What is this crap. Gay men aren't all camp stereotypes. Being gay doesn't make you a clone of Queer eye. This is even worse than "we men all love sports and beer".
/r/MensRights12/06/12 01:45 PM
1

I seem to be confused by what you means by "mess[ing] with someone's sexual orientation without his/her consent". I thought you meant actually changing whether a person was homo/hetero/etc, moving them along the kinsey and whatever.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 09:12 PM
1

But why should they have to do that, why can't the partner say they have a problem first? That doesn't seem like something that would happen often. The average person doesn't have much knowledge of gender identity or what GID is; there are way too many transphobic stereotypes about drag queens and "shemale" porn and so on. I don't think that people would generally ask their partner if they were trans or explicitly give their feelings on the subject unless it happens to come up. I think it should…
/r/MensRights09/06/12 12:17 PM
2

Out themselves to everyone they meet? I think it should work the same way as religion or sexuality or being vegan; reveal it when it's relevant. Barely anybody knows I'm pansexual, genderqueer, atheist etc, I only mention them when it's relevant and if I don't think the person I'm talking to will react poorly. A partner should most certainly qualify for those things.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 10:58 AM
1

Either way, it doesn't matter. Things like this can be a problem in a greater context, but since you're aware the worst that's going to happen is the girl will expect to get the bed from somebody less accomodating. You could say it's sexist simply because it's discrimination, but I don't really think so.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 06:16 AM
1

Hmm, true, but there's an implicit assumption a person is cis that isn't present for the others. For the religious one it could be asking out somebody at a Church. They're technically the same case but different in terms of scale.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 05:36 AM
1

And even if it is, why would it be acceptable for a trans person to mess with someone's sexual orientation without his/her consent? They aren't doing that. Sexual orientation isn't defined by who you have sex with, it's defined by who you're attracted to. If they aren't aroused by penises then it doesn't change anything. More to the point, why would a trans person desire to have intimate relationships with what is, in their view, a bigoted person who would feel revulsion for them if they knew th…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:33 PM
3

without telling him that she is a he. She isn't a he. She is a she. A trans woman has a gender identity of female. Gender pronouns refer to the gender of a person; in this case female, she. I think it's wrong if there's a quality about yourself that you believe will cause a person to reject you, and you deliberately hide it so to avoid that. It's not illegal, though, nor should it be. I don't want to use the rape word, but it feels wrong, is there any legal protection in these situations? Should…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:14 AM
1

but if you attempt to involve yourself in someone else's quarrel, you're taking a risk. If there's a bunch of huge guys beating another guy into the pavement and you run up and try to stop them - in that case, you should expect to get hit. There's an obvious risk, you're choosing to take it. But in this case, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think he would hit her in the face - no reason to think that risk even exists. did the woman in white really believe her physical response was necessa…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 06:01 AM
2

If you defend somebody else, you deserve to get hit in the face?
/r/MensRights08/06/12 01:19 AM
1

If a guy swatted a woman with papers and yelled at her, and she smacked him in the face, wouldn't you consider that a reflection of the view in society that female-on-male violence doesn't matter? Her behaviour may have been provocatory (though I doubt it was intentional, she was probably just pissed) but there's no way in hell that justifies hitting her, at all.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 01:18 AM
0

You're only defending yourself if you use violence to stop somebody from hurting you. It looks like the woman in white swats him with her papers; at any rate, she isn't dealing enough damage to constitute hitting her in the face.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:42 PM
1

Is it really this hard for you to believe this? It's not hard to believe, I've certainly heard that before, I just don't automatically believe eveything I read.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 10:13 PM
1

feminists claimed... male circumcision was just 'removing a piece of skin you don't need' Source?
/r/MensRights07/06/12 10:03 PM
7

Since when were most feminists pro-circumcision? Do any feminist organizations advocate it?
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:41 PM
1

You think you're a cat, now? You really are a crazy feminist.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 01:02 PM
4

If someone calls themselves a feminst and doesn't believe in complete equality between genders then they are not a feminist, they are a supremacist. Except there's no objective means to judge equality. You can be a feminist without wanting to erase every gender role in existence, use only gender neutral words and so on.
/r/MensRights05/06/12 10:55 AM
1

Crazy gender confused feminist^
/r/MensRights05/06/12 05:22 AM
1

Way to project, feminist. Not everybody has three dozen cats, you'e the weird one.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:37 PM
1

Clearly you're a feminist that's stolen somebody else's account. That's exactly what a feminist does, so that conclusively proves it must be true. Damn feminist.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 07:21 PM
5

I'd say they're hoping to the company will settle.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 08:25 AM
1

The same sick, sadistic sense of humour all feminists share, I see.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 10:21 PM
1

Yet another smear tactic. You're digging a hole, feminist.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 07:51 PM
1

More smear tactics, huh, feminist?
/r/MensRights03/06/12 07:39 PM
1

Yeah man, I bet there's like 20 people avidly following me lazily bullshitting you. It's just sooo fascinating, because you're involved of course. Also, note that you have a couple more downvotes than I do, early on (the no ups/no downs on most of the comments totally proves how many people care). And what am I, exactly? I gave up on the argument because it's impossible to argue with somebody whose entire point revolves around "I know that you're lying and you can't convince me otherwise no matt…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 05:47 PM
1

That's just what a feminist would say, feminist. I can't believe you thought your disgusting smear campaign would work.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 05:21 PM
1

Ha, nice try defending yourself, feminist.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 04:31 PM
1

Bullshit, it was a smear. All I hear is "lalala I know everything you're all lying and out to get me". Typical feminist tactic. Given what you mean by feminist, isn't that you attempting to smear me? Yeah, it is! Don't bother trying to deny it because I'll just repeatedly insist I'm right. Looks like you use smear tactics too. I guess that makes you a feminist.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 04:13 PM
1

The fact that you go on denying it? well... That was not an intentional attempt to undermine your reputation, credibility, and character. Nor was it an accusation. It was a question. I wondered if it was the case. You are a person who believes that Germany was in the right in regards to WWII (or something, whatever). There is a strong link between that and holocaust denial, as people who believe one tend to believe the other. I wondered if your assertion of that meant that you were also a holoca…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 03:42 PM
1

Could you please share your magical mind-reading technology with the rest of the world? We could make some great strides in the field of wizardology.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 03:11 PM
1

A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character. Using the smear from that; I did not intentionally try to undermine your reputation, credibility, and character. Therefore, I did not try to smear you. QED.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 02:30 PM
3

while men's rights groups fear they will rob children of time with both parents. AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
/r/MensRights03/06/12 02:18 PM
2

You are criticising being instructed in technique, and recommending developing physical ability instead. True, if your physical ability is great enough compared to the opponent, it doesn't matter how good their technique is; if you can take them down in a couple of seconds and block any attempt they make to hit you in the nuts/eyes/throat etc, you will certainly win. But people have limited free time, and getting to that level compared to another person who "punches a bag" regularly requires qui…
/r/MensRights03/06/12 06:09 AM
1

Effectively it was an accusation and you know it No, it wasn't. If it was an accusation, why would I have automatically believed you when you said you weren't? Wouldn't I have said "Oh yeah I'm sure you aren't" or perhaps something more explicit? You are a feminist No, I'm not. There's the motive. ??? No, I dislike you because you're terrible at arguing but you're very obnoxious and incapable of admitting you're wrong. It's not because you're anti-feminist (there are tons of people in r/mr that …
/r/MensRights03/06/12 03:44 AM
2

grab my wrists? Yeah, wrists are the parts on your forearms just above where your hand connects, and grabbing them means I wrap my hands around them which would prevent you from being able to throw a punch. you've never hit a bag, have you? I've hit bags and people. I know how to punch. Knowing how to throw a punch is the most fundamental of self defense. You've never been attacked, have you? I think learning to throw your knee into their crotch or stomach or something is going to work out much …
/r/MensRights03/06/12 03:26 AM
2

Of course not. Let's say I grab your wrists. Luckily for you, you hit a punching bag a lot! So you'll, uh, emulate the thing you could already do, by... punching... me....
/r/MensRights02/06/12 06:18 PM
1

Impressive sample size and bias reduction.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 06:17 PM
3

How exactly does hitting a punching bag teach you proper self defense?
/r/MensRights02/06/12 06:15 PM
1

BoJ stats are based on police reports, not convictions. But there's definitely a bias (2 studies I've seen found women are 10x as likely and 4-6x as likely to call police after being assaulted, if violence is reciprocal men will almost always be tagged as the aggressor etc). The studies like in the above link are based on surveying people rather than relying on whether they'd called police.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 06:14 PM
1

Does the ellipsis represent you trying to think of way to spin and rationalize this to stop you being wrong?
/r/MensRights02/06/12 04:55 PM
1

No, you're just trying to get yourself out of the hole you dug when you tried to smear me as a holocaust denier. I asked you if you were, because, as I said, there is a link between that and your belief. After you said you were not, I accepted it and moved on. And I didn't try to smear you, I simply asked. realizing you had made a big mistake I didn't make a mistake; I asked a question. If I had said "I bet you're a holocaust denier" or "it's so obvious you're a holocaust denier" then you would …
/r/MensRights02/06/12 12:56 PM
1

Women are not portrayed as just sex objects My post says Women in TV are certainly sexed up, but I think the "women are only valued for their sex appeal" does not apply. And the post you're responding to says I was disagreeing with an argument that was not made (the reason I assumed for the effect on girls vs boys, the feminist argument of men being portrayed in consisently active roles and women being portrayed almost exclusively as sex objects). I think the vast majority of characters who are …
/r/MensRights01/06/12 08:41 PM
2

Ah, true, that's the result of very poor wording on my part. I don't think that women don't have their self-esteem affected by TV (I said later "I seriously struggle to believe that anyone could not be affected")... I was disagreeing with an argument that was not made (the reason I assumed for the effect on girls vs boys, the feminist argument of men being portrayed in consisently active roles and women being portrayed almost exclusively as sex objects).
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:23 PM
1

The only bit I said that disagreed with the study was when I said I struggle to believe that television has no effect on the self-esteem of white males; is that what you're disagreeing with? Based on COCKPUNCHER's other comment, that's not what he was talking about.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:59 PM
0

True, true, and I certainly shouldn't advocate committing felonies. But honestly, a couple of hints here and there and you wouldn't get in shit for it...
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:25 PM
1

I've watched basically every blockbuster in the past 3-4 years... there is probably a fair amount of confirmation bias going on, but which part exactly do you disagree with?
/r/MensRights01/06/12 04:25 PM
1

Great title, by the way. Sums it up well, the link between the stereotype of a "real man" or a (male) hero and being self-sacrificing (i.e. getting killed).
/r/MensRights01/06/12 02:28 PM
0

My personal opinion, ignoring the study; I could totally see the hit to minority races, especially black people; the black kid in South Park is called "Token" for a reason. There's a running joke in horror movies about how the black guy always dies (and I always add 10 points to the movies where one of the survivors is black, like that movie with the super-intelligent shark). An easy majority of black people in movies are either shitty stereotypes or negative portrayals; even the positive ones a…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 02:19 PM
2

You're simply making assumptions about what happened based on little evidence. It is just as likely that the woman started hitting the man, with little effect, he grabbed her to stop her, and she bit him to force him to release her. Juvenile assumptions aside, nlakes is correct in saying that they don't know what happened, and you're just assuming. I have little doubt that if the injuries were reversed you wouldn't feel exactly the same way about the woman. I'm sure you'd deny that, but the fact…
/r/MensRights01/06/12 02:01 PM
6

Should I post them No. I would personally tell her that I possessed them, to screw with her head, but I wouldn't ever support doing something like that. In fact, I would support your using the pictures to attempt to get your money back... but I would condemn you ever posting the pictures. Revenge feels good, but it never makes any gains beyond that; beyond your short-term satisfaction, nobody wins, and even if she doesn't decide to get back at you for it (perhaps in a far more harsh manner than …
/r/MensRights01/06/12 01:48 PM
1

Well what else is there to say to someone like you? How about "Oh yeah, I guess those are all links between the two". But that would mean admitting you were wrong, and we both know you aren't capable of that.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 08:29 AM
1

Be quiet you idiot. Wow, nice defense. Can't think up an argument, but don't want to be wrong? Tell them to be quiet. Terribly effective. I've told you, I am not a holocaust denier. I've been aware since your first response. Doesn't change the fact that things you've said since are wrong.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:15 AM
0

Clearly doesn't.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 10:23 AM
2

If you check out the NISVS and take a look at the full report, it found that in 2010 44.7% of perpetrators of heterosexual rape were women (40.5% total). Here's an image to show the numbers. This assumes your acquaintance accepts that a women forcing a man to have sexual intercourse without his will is rape, which not everybody does. If anal penetration is required then it's much smaller but still quite a few.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 10:05 AM
1

There is no direct link. Many people who think one also think the other; both require assuming known history is incorrect in order to believe them; both place Germany in a more positive light than is normally assumed.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 09:14 AM
0

(But it does show us what lengths you are willing to stoop to to discredit someone, doesnt it. You disgusting little creature). Ha. There's a pretty direct link between thinking Germany wasn't at fault for WWII and the holocaust didn't happen. They tend to go along with each other in... certain types of people. I'm not trying to discredit you (you do that pretty well all by yourself), just asking a question.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 03:13 AM
1

And I dont believe that Germany was at fault for the war, I think it was British propaganda. I think we've been lied to about everything. Holy shit, are you a holocaust denier too?
/r/MensRights30/05/12 04:54 AM
4

The worst thing about this article is that it constantly questions how these things are the fault of women. Did anybody say that? No! It's the way society in general treats men. Some women, some men - exactly the same thing that causes women's issues. if women and girls were merely "lagging at school" and "the butt of cruel jokes", rather than victims of systemic violence and inequality, we'd count ourselves damn lucky. Comparing two men's issues to two women's issues and concluding women have i…
/r/MensRights30/05/12 04:54 AM
2

It's an increase in reporting. The rates aren't increasing that I'm aware of, but it's definitely making the papers more.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 04:33 AM
4

That is just the worst article. Got 1/4 of the way through, I've had enough. Why don't these morons try to educate themselves on what MRAs are actually complaining about before they start their hateful spiel?
/r/MensRights30/05/12 04:28 AM
4

I agree with hardware. If it were a one-night stand, it would not be cool at all. But in a long-term relationship, you learn each others' boundaries.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 04:24 AM
23

A lot of negativity over at 2X has made me wonder what exactly [3] /r/MensRights is. A forum for posting and discussing pretty much anything about men's rights. The antifeminism here almost always isn't anti-women's-rights; it's anti-feminist movement/idealogy. The only times it is are are with the small subsection of traditionalists, who aren't even misogynists, just believers in gender roles and the nuclear family (which I get, I just can't agree because it's so restrictive). From polls and di…
/r/MensRights30/05/12 04:21 AM
0

A real man is a legal adult who identifies as male. Can't be bothered reading a long article right now so I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I don't think any essential qualities should be ascribed to the definition. If a man is terrible - a rapist who watches videos of puppies being kicked for fun, say - he's a terrible person, but that doesn't have any effect on his manhood; it doesn't make him more or less of a man.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 04:01 AM
3

Have you ever spoken to anyone about it? I tried to, a long time ago... it didn't go well, so I decided not to again. I'm not the sort to benefit from "a problem shared is a problem halved"; I'm more of a "a problem shared is a problem somebody else knows about oh god what if they're thinking about it right now". Do you have any residual feelings about it? I don't know, really. When I hear/see people say that female->male rape can't happen or isn't as bad I get a faint nausea in how hateful it m…
/r/MensRights30/05/12 12:11 AM
3

For me, it was somewhere between the two... thought they were nice, turns out they didn't respect my objection/drunkess/physical resistance. Because they told others it was consensual, and called me a pussy and such when I tried to bring it up; unless they were a fantastic liar (/sociopath), I can only assume that they genuinely wanted to have sex and didn't understand my issue with it.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:46 PM
8

Boys are more likely to be given false positives; to be diagnosed with ADHD (or similar) and medicated quiet simply because they're energetic and active.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:58 PM
12

You can't give a proper counter-argument Okay, how's this: people aren't keys, nor are they locks. You're discussing something unrelated to human sex, and the analogy does not apply.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:55 PM
7

There certainly are exceptions. Men doing horrific things and getting a slap on the wrist, women getting long sentences. The former isn't that uncommon (though there's a certain demographic that it tends to affect... yep, wealthy white dudes) but the latter is very uncommon. The main issue is those are exceptions to a trend where men are on average treated much worse. When people say after a woman gets a slap on the wrist "fuck, a guy would have been in jail for years" - often that wouldn't be t…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:52 PM
4

It is in a mens toilet so there is no demographic being painted as rapists since the female demographic won't see it. ...The fact that women can't see it is what makes it paint men as rapists. If there was an equivalent one in women's bathrooms then it would still be stupid, but wouldn't be misandrist.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:43 PM
4

This is using the logic that "Only you can prevent forest fires." It is, in a way... but there's a crucial difference, which makes the rape one offensive and the fire one not. People often do things like dropping cigarette embers, having open fires when camping etc which can accidentally start a fire. It's a caution, telling you to be careful. Obviously I can't stop some other person from doing it, but I can stop myself by being careful with any fires I light. With rape, this doesn't really appl…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:41 PM
2

Technically, you're a spider/human hybr- ah, fuck it. Go ahead and be spiderman, champ.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:32 PM
2

My bad, I mistook your meaning. The title is worded that way, yes, but the point being made is the reverse; that the argument doesn't work for date rape, therefore it doesn't for circumcision. We have a situation; date rape. We can also use simpler situations like borrowing something from a friend then keeping it when they forget they lent it. Just because the friend forgot it, doesn't make it okay. We can use these situations to form a moral axiom; that just because a person does not remember s…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:37 PM
1

How can you claim op did not make this comparison? ...Did you read my comment? OP compared one aspect of date rape to one aspect of circumcision. He didn't compare the acts themselves. If I say "controlling behaviour, physical violence and sexual violence are abuse", I'm not saying that demanding to see your partner's text messages is the same as raping them, I'm saying that they share something - they are both abuse. That doesn't make them the same thing. If (some statement) is true in regards …
/r/MensRights27/05/12 06:09 PM
-1

That's not a baby, that's a toddler. Huh? What do you mean? Are you saying they don't knock out toddlers? My son had a ring put around his penis, and it was tied. His foreskin foreskin fell off, there wasn't a single tear. Without painkillers? I'm calling bullshit. If really he didn't react, then either his nervous system is broken or it was so agonizing he froze from the shock. Congratulations for mutilating your son, by the way.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 06:03 PM
1

Look, you can certainly compare circumcision and rape But OP did not do that. They compared one argument used to defend infant circumcision with the same argument used to defend date rape. That is not the same thing as comparing circumcision and date rape.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 03:11 PM
3

Circumcised men get smegma as well. I am uncircumcised, and have not had smegma at any point in my life, including a 2 week period where I did not shower once. Also, women get more smegma *than men. Let's cut off inner labia and clitoral hoods of little girls, yay!
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:34 AM
1

Why do people not understand how analogies work? Shouldn't you have figured this out by now? Look; Somebody says "A woman should take her husbands' surname because it's tradition". I say "slavery was also often tradition". I am not saying that slavery and taking a surname are the same thing. I am invalidating the argument used to support the latter, by using a different example with the same inference, which is obviously invalid. Two arguments that revolve around the same inference (x is okay be…
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:32 AM
3

I believe in it for medical reasons. Why? Because I had them. You... realize that circumcision can cause medical issues, right? Your argument doesn't make sense. We should circumcise just in case it becomes necessary later in life? Shouldn't we also remove tonsils and appendixes at a young age, then? Last I checked, an unchecked appendix can kill you, phimosis can't. it keeps it much cleaner So does removing all the dangly bits from a female. Yay, FGM! Also, learn to wash your dick.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:27 AM
7

They knock you out before they slice. Since when? How often? Last I heard, babies weren't knocked out unless absolutely necessary because it's so dangerous; if they were, the death rate would be a lot higher. Even painkillers are often not used.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:24 AM
-2

Nobody cares.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:21 AM
1

"People who treat other people like shit", you mean.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 08:16 AM
1

The idea that they would publish these awful ads is completely untenable. What makes you think that the point of the ad isn't just saying "this is what they're really like"? So he intended to make the point that family court is biased against men by implying that biased lawyers might exist? No... that the system is set up in such a way that, at the woman's say so, family court is an effective tool to suck every drop of money possible out of her ex-husband, and the lawyers are more than happy to …
/r/MensRights27/05/12 04:41 AM
8

It isn't targeting some abstract concept of a family court lawyer, it is specifically attacking a real lawfirm. OP isn't, though. The image was probably made by somebody who was screwed over by them, or somebody who believed they were screwed over, or somebody who just picked a firm at random to make their point. OP is making the point in general. A lawfirm with a real concern, not just for getting money, but from getting through a divorce with as little emotional catastrophe as possible. Right,…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:23 PM
14

And yet somehow the nature of divorce and family court proved itself to be virtual no obstacle at all for me in determining if this was real a) Your perceptions on the matter most likely differ from OP's. b) He was most likely not being literal. Rather, he was making a point. c) Congratulations, aren't you such a smart cookie. I stand in awe of your genius.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 04:09 PM
11

They could if there was a statistical difference in cost of insuring people of different races. No, they couldn't. There are laws about this, and even if not they would get shut down in record time.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 03:47 PM
13

...It says a lot about your ability to detect obvious satire/hyperbole/straw men/etc? No, it says a lot about the nature of divorce and family court.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 03:33 PM
12

This is the website... I think it's likely that the image was created elsewhere to mock their practices.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 10:12 AM
1

Vaccines are a very touchy debate with many. I am not anti vaccination, I am PRO SAFE vaccination. Which in my research and understanding-- ARE NOT.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 09:53 AM
1

Anti-vaccines...
/r/MensRights26/05/12 09:27 AM
1

Ooh, ooh. At the end of the film, after the trials he's gone through, make him finally break down crying, and have some random passerby laugh at him and call him a pussy.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:03 AM
1

NZ? Why do you say that? Do we have similar deals going on (I actually don't know)?
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:02 AM
-1

Is that a woman reaching around the white guy in the blue shirt?
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:42 AM
6

I think so. I've read a few blogs by transphobic feminists, and that's exactly what I get from it. "Sorry guys, you aren't a woman just because you think it's hot to have tits" (a blog "explaining" why trans women aren't women) - that's obviously basic transphobia, by denying the concept of gender dysphoria, but I feel the reason they're so opposed is because they hate men. Pretty much all of them I've seen talk about trans women, about men encroaching on their gender, but not about trans men do…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:29 AM
1

Never really thought of this, but... that's quite clearly rape. Penetration of the penis is an unusual thing to think about, since sex doesn't work that way, but they're putting objects in his genitals without his consent... I don't see why that shouldn't be rape.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:47 PM
2

Nothing at all, wrong thread. My bad.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:46 PM
2

On the other hand, women who choose to sty single are glorified In some contexts, yes. But certainly not all. I think it's definitely more acceptable for a woman. But it's certainly not something that every person will admire. I've read almost this exact post by women who say they don't want to have children, with the genders reversed. Why is the value of a man's life decided upon the number of women he slept with, how many was he with, etc.? This I can certainly agree with. The sexual conquest …
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:53 PM
2

This image doesn't give details of perpetrators; 1.9% of those who raped women were female, and 20.1% of those who enveloped men were male. So it's 40.5% female perps overall.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:32 PM
2

HRT does a hell of a lot more to the body than simply growing facial hair. And he is legally recognized as male. Being non-op doesn't stop you from being trans.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:31 PM
3

You can['t?] just make assumptions that his father was this great guy and the woman was a cunt for divorcing him I wasn't intending to; I was offering the possibility, but what I was talking about more was the possibility his access to his father was reduced. Even with a bad father and good mother this would apply, the kid may have wanted to see his dad but wasn't able.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 11:18 AM
1

Never really thought of this, but... that's quite clearly rape. Penetration of the penis is an unusual thing to think about, since sex doesn't work that way, but they're putting objects in his genitals without his consent... I don't see why that shouldn't be rape. Wrong thread.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 11:15 AM
5

There are a host of reasons, and most of them are the same as why men don't, though I should think weighted differently. Mainly; a minority of abusive relationships are one person beating the shit out of the other, or anything big like that. Physically abusive; it can be shoving around, an occasional slap, grabbing by the hair or throat etc - these things are all pretty terrible, but are very different to the stereotypical abusive partner; so people rationalize them away. They blame themselves f…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 11:11 AM
4

Against. While I'm pretty iffy about ambiguous definitions, I don't at all support the "forcible" thing. And I'm pro-choice, so I oppose the rest.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 09:42 AM
2

they're so vastly different in intent and lasting harm that there's nothing even close to a "double standard" here There are multiple types of FGM; including ritualistically drawing blood from the clitoris by pricking it, removal of the inner labia, removal of the clitoral hood etc. All types of FGM, including these, are illegal. not trying to justify it, just clarifying No, I'm seriously asking; you said it was biological in nature, I want an explanation of how you know that, factoring in other…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:35 AM
2

this is pretty disingenuous given your next couple points Aspects of the roles are developed from biological differences, but we do not adhere to the roles if we are not raised with them - in a society where gender roles were reversed, the average person's ideals would be very different, but those reversed roles are unlikely to happen. and tangentially related but since we're talking about biology don't you think it's also disingenuous to mention circumcision in the OP, since it has nothing to d…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:52 AM
1

By the way, I'm not married Aren't you like 14? Or am I thinking of someone else?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:49 AM
18

Male suicide is a huge men's rights issue - 80% of suicides are men and boys. This doesn't really make a point or anything, but shit, it's a 7 year old kid who killed himself. That's seriously fucked up. Plus there were the reasons behind it - the parents' separation (it's possible he wanted to see his father more) and bullying.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:37 AM
2

i do plan to argue that advertising and entertainment media aren't teaching me what it "means to be a man" or whatever you guys are so fragile and insecure about, yeah There are basically no biological components to gender roles. Certain aspects of them are based on biology (men's physical strength, for example) but the roles themselves are purely social. Those roles came from somewhere. You might like to think that you've got total free will, complete control over yourself, but everybody is a p…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 04:15 AM
2

the concept of living in a world where you take dr. pepper commercials and shitty romantic comedies so seriously that it damages your self-worth just seems really strange and childish to me If you plan to argue that you aren't affected negatively by advertising or entertainment media, hold my coke for me so I don't spill it when I'm rolling on the floor laughing at you. nobody gives a shit Wow, you're saying nobody that you personally know has a grievance that you personally know of about a gran…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 02:32 AM
6

But I don't feel it's one that I need to hold to myself. Good for you! That's what we want. could easily argue that those who feel this way are a vocal minority, but even then there's nothing substantial to back it up. It's a stereotype that fills media and discussions. "Vocal" minority it would have to be. But anyway, either way it's enough men for it to be a problem. GF and sister both say it hasn't gotten any better over the years. They are two people, who live in one particular area, who int…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 01:55 AM
4

again "it's a lot easier for a man to decide to become a stay at home dad or something than it is for a woman to secure a job held predominantly by males" I'm not talking about the process... I'm talking about cultural pressure. There is negative pressure that stops people working in fields dominated by the opposite gender or perceived as suited to the opposite gender. There is also negative pressure that stops a man becoming a homemaker or stay at home dad. The latter is greater than the former…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 01:40 AM
5

and generally you stop hearing it once you're no longer 16 years old Maybe you did, but r/mr clearly disagrees with you, as does a ton of the internet. you really think "enough men" feel so pressured by some perceived role they need to play that they can't express their feelings? Are you claiming that few or no men struggle to express emotion? Do we live on the same planet? but no normal, intelligent person judges another man for expressing emotions, give me a fucking break. Yes, they do. Includ…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 01:01 AM
2

Should my disgust at being followed around in a store not be as equal to someone outright calling me a slur? Both of those are meaningful and oppressive. By "meaningful", I mean things that a) are rooted in a high level of bigotry (so the people around them could become aware of it) or b) have a tangible effect. If your only racism was the 1% more scared thing, it won't have a noticeable effect on anybody's life, and nobody will become aware of it.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 12:56 AM
18

First thing I don't buy into the idea that men simply need to man the fuck up. That's the point of the image; that it's a bad reponse. I've personally never felt pressured into expressing my feelings and have no problems whatsoever crying in front of another person. Enough men consider it an issue that I believe your experience is a minority one. My girlfriend is often made to feel very insecure as a result of stuff she gets shouted at her on the street. This is often overtly aggressive sexual t…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 05:29 PM
3

Crap. Just a load of stereotypes. I don't watch sports, I know what peach and mauve are, I remember dates, I rarely drink beer and don't care about it. Plus a bunch of them are things that aren't gendered; retaining old arguments, not wanting to talk during TV. "Crying = blackmail" is crap (faking crying certainly is EDIT: I meant is emotional blackmail, not is crap), "If you think you're fat, you probably are" isn't true either.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 05:05 PM
4

It's pretty much impossible to never discriminate based on race. If you feel an unnoticable 1% more scared when you see black youths loitering in the street at night than you would if they were white, that's technically racism. It's kind of stupid to categorize it that way, though; you lose the distinction between meaningful, oppressive racism and things that really don't matter.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 05:01 PM
1

I meant in the context of male circumcision to prevent masturbation specifically. Oh, true.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 02:29 PM
3

Can we at least agree on one thing: that removal of clitoris negatively affects a woman's sex life much harder than removal of foreskin? Yeah, I never denied that. Doesn't occur enough to be an issue, and must be reviewed on a case by case basis. Of course, but what I said was correct.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 01:51 PM
3

Many men can actually orgasm more easily from prostate stimulation than glans stimulation. Similarly, many women can orgasm more easily from other sources (though I'd quite confidently say a small minority). Also, personal anecdote; purely rubbing the glans is, for me, a slow and ineffective way to get off. Surrounding areas along with the glans is preferable. And anyway, the number of nerve endings isn't the end-all be-all. There are far more nerve endings in the foreskin than in the glans or c…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:55 PM
4

It's possible for men to orgasm without contact with their foreskin (prostate stimulation, shaft, very rarely nipple) - however, it's very uncommon for people to do this; men with foreskins almost exclusively masturbate in a fashion that includes their foreskin. He's extending that analogy to the clitoris - while most women are physically able to orgasm otherwise, they have no reason to and as such are not practiced at it.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:41 PM
4

Well, no functional clitoris (or no clitoris at all) means pretty much sexual life ruined forever Not necessarily. It would certainly be fucked up, but most women can orgasm without.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 10:41 AM
4

Certainly not on his side, but I guess I can support him for his effort and for acknowledging his mistakes.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 10:38 AM
1

Terrible post by default, due to the poor English and lack of any solid argument. But anyway; i think this embarrassing because male body (penis) is more exposed by women.it’s like, women have more valuable body so they always secretive than a men.i got a mental scars now. This makes no sense. Men like to watch a woman giving head because they project. It's nothing to do with having a problem with seeing a female body (seriously), it's imagining that they are the ones getting head. But there's a…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 10:36 AM
2

That... doesn't really make sense. It's a term redefined by feminists, so their own definition can't be wrong. Unless you're saying most feminists don't actually understand feminist theory.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:35 PM
0

Hopefully this should show you how complicated it is to say a woman wants to see men commit violence for her This is different to what is said in the article - "these men are service machines prepared to make assaults on their behalf". The assertion was an expectation by the women, not a desire. I wouldn't know about desire either but I'd think it much more likely.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:32 PM
1

If you read that as witty, by all means enjoy. You were attempting to be witty. As you are now. Fact is, offering opinions in an opinion piece is pretty standard practice in the real world. Doesn't mean I have to respect them. Like I said, because you say things like that, I can't take you seriously. I'm not saying you aren't allowed to make the claims.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:28 PM
-2

Too lazy, don't care enough.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:27 PM
0

I don't think that supports the assertion; he said that most women see men as machines that are prepared to assault others on their behalf - the study you are talking about simply says that women are more attracted to men if they do.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:26 PM
1

It's a definition I got from feminists. Maybe it's wrong, I don't know.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 10:24 PM
0

I guess posting in mens rights makes you not a pussy. No, I meant insulting people by implying they are weak in a subreddit that despises the cultural pressure on men not to be weak is stupid. You misinterpreted what I was saying, so by your logic you're a dumbass. try reading, wow Can you point out where he explicitly stated the reason he misread was because we wanted you to have said circumcision is better for the women? Or post some proof of the mind-reading technology you employed to discove…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 07:42 PM
0

You're a pussy. Way to post in men's rights, tool. Do you even know why a guy got called a dumbass? It was because he acted like a dumbass. Not the same thing. Which you'd know if you had the reading comprehension/attention span of an 8 year old. he read what he wanted to instead of what was actually there. Proof?
/r/MensRights23/05/12 07:10 PM
0

You're a silly prick who can't defend himself beyond insults. Presumably because he lacks the critical thinking ability to construct any semblance of a real argument.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 06:42 PM
1

That's what I meant by "the definition of patriarchy varies depending on who you ask". Some feminists will assert that rape is a tool used by men to oppress women (I don't know how these people manage to breathe on their own), some (most?) assert that domestic violence is gendered; to these people, patriarchy tends to be a social structure that men deliberately uphold because it gives them power. But I've seen it used and defined in other ways - I don't know if they're correct, to be honest, bec…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 05:37 PM
0

Dam you are hostile. No, I'm not. Did you read anything before hand other than 'dumbass'? Yep, all the posts. That's how I know you made a claim, he asked you to cite it, you attacked him, and that he misread you. If I hadn't read anything else, I would not know any of this. And yes, if some one misreads all of 1 sentence then goes and finds a source trying to disprove the one sentence but actually backs up that one sentence they misread, then yea, they are a dumbass. For the latter part of that…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 05:33 PM
3

Responded.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 05:29 PM
1

I have no doubt that women as described exist, it's obvious in the way men are sometimes portrayed in movies, or in cases (that make the news) where a woman eggs a man to fight for her, along with the "fight for her honour" stereotype. But to prove "most" women feel that way, I'd like some hard data, or a very good argument that links something factual or obvious to it (though the latter could easily fall victim a fallacious argument ala "most of congress is men, therefore most men want to keep …
/r/MensRights23/05/12 05:28 PM
2

I say those things because they represent my experience with both men and women, and because they are consistent with matters I see documented in other ways. Right, a tiny amount of anecdotal experience, like I said. Of course I don't have statistics on this. I don't have statistics that prove women evaluate men based on income, or that men evaluate women based on physical appearance. Do I need a study to cite before I can make those assertions, too? Studies to support those things actually do e…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 05:26 PM
1

I'm a New Zealander, and honestly every piece I see posted here about us makes me steadily more patriotic. I don't think there's a serious notion of "men's rights" here, but people can deal with related issues without a huge number of people screaming about how it's misogynistic or some crap. Anywho, I agree with you; only wanting the opinions of a select group of people is perfectly acceptable. The central issue here is that they don't consider trans women to be women (rather terrible transphob…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 02:20 PM
6

Can you carry a 7 pound baby in your stomach for 9 months It's only 7 pounds for a short portion of that... but anyway, men (and women) often have tumours as heavy as that for extended periods, so clearly yes. Can you cook, clean and talk on the phone at the same time Obviously. This isn't exactly difficult, I'm not sure why more than a small portion of people would be unable to do so. Unless you're doing something seriously amazing, cooking requires very little attention, and cleaning barely an…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 02:10 PM
1

Wow, great article. I'm sick of the all-too-common "patriarchy hurts men too... but not much, and anyway we need to address women's problems!" bullshit. It's sexist and unproductive. How can feminism address these problems if it barely acknowledges their existence? was a great line. given the constant drone of anti-feminism and misogyny that hums beneath much men’s activism is kind of iffy; the former is certainly true, though it's less "hum[ming] beneath" and more explicit (offering similar obj…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 01:59 PM
-3

Why do you say things like For most women these men are service machines prepared to make assaults on their behalf Do you have any statistics to support your assertion? Any proof besides a tiny amount of biased anecdotal evidence that is generalized to millions of people? You make a lot of good points, but I can't take you seriously because of things like this.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 01:46 PM
8

I don't understand your title. That's not what the article says. Now, the definition of patriarchy varies depending on who you ask. The one used in the article is pretty accurate, but you seem to be objecting purely because of the terminology used. Our society does prescribe gender roles. Most of the things expected differently for men and women are not biological in nature; while women may have a stronger connection to children and men may be more suited to working, these things are undeniably …
/r/MensRights23/05/12 01:44 PM
3

Nice article, but you're mixing up alimony and child support; alimony is support for an adult after divorce, child support is money given to a parent to provide for the child (so if you knock up a one-night-stand, you'd never have to pay alimony, but you would have to pay child support).
/r/MensRights23/05/12 01:35 PM
1

It says the maximum sentence is 10 years. NZ's age of consent is 16, so it's unlikely for sex with somebody less than a year from the age of consent to get harsher charges.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 11:20 AM
3

Nope, it's New Zealand. Where the rivers are filled with sunshine and merry children ride their sheep about the fields of clover.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 05:08 AM
6

Damn, you are hostile. If somebody asks you to cite a claim, try not attacking them because it's difficult for you to do so. If somebody misreads, that doesn't make them a dumbass.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 04:59 AM
2

This post is a very good one.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 04:58 AM
4

Some people could call that "rape by deception". I'm actually unsure about the laws here... but I'm pretty confident they don't exist in the USA. I heard about one person being charged with it because they pretended to be a woman's partner or some such, but no idea where that was in the world. But I think that's stupid. Rape is sex with coerced or lack of valid consent. Redefining it to include enthusiastic consent in certain situations makes no sense, you're competely changing the definition. S…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 04:34 AM
10

You're conflating the MRM and men's rights issues. I doubt very much they think men's issues are not trivial (though your arguing spermjacking to an SRS mod makes me think you're a troll), but you're hardly going to convince them the movement is good by arguing the issues are serious. These people are seriously not rational enough to convince this way. Especially with a poor argument. Stop posting SRS stuff here.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 04:29 AM
0

Yes, because it's the 18th century. More people died in the 18th century, but that doesn't mean nobody dies today. Further, if having a baby is entirely conscious, then why is there a "biological clock?" Women tend to get an increased libido in the years preceding menopause. That doesn't necessarily increase their desire to have children; there are plenty of women who do not want kids. And even when somebody desperately wants kids, that doesn't make their actions towards achieving that unconscio…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 10:54 AM
1

Talking in a real sense, not a legal one; the presence of alcohol doesn't make it rape. If one party is barely conscious, they're struggling to even know what's going on around them; in that case, if somebody initiates sex with them, then they aren't getting a fair shake to deny it. If they're actually unconscious then it's obviously rape. Otherwise, it's pretty awkward and difficult to decipher; drunk people are often terrible at asserting themselves. A sober "Hell no, this WILL NOT HAPPEN" can…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 01:03 PM
2

Edit: Everything that happened was true, but now for the twist. It was a guy who this happend to.he and she should be reversed. still feel the same way? In r/mr, you're likely to make people even more pissed off about it. Other people may have double standards of victimization (women = are, men = are not) but that won't really apply here; plus we're more sensitive to male victims.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 01:32 PM
2

Yeah, I thought she was 14 years old and just "drunk". I didn't realize what you meant by "14 deep".
/r/MensRights20/05/12 01:30 PM
6

And when they don't (read: often, especially for lower income and education), they'll pop out a bunch more babies who will most likely grow up in a similar lifestyle and be at a hugely increased chance of committing crime (plus various arguments about poor living conditions for children, getting state welfare etc). I read a study which I believe concluded every $1 spent on birth control saves the state $4 in later costs. Think long-term. I agree that it makes sense people should pay for their ow…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 10:51 AM
4

that doesn't mean she is the only one that should make decisions for it. No, she shouldn't be the only one making decisions. But she should sure as hell be the only one who gets to decide whether she stays pregnant with it.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:20 PM
24

Childbirth is hardly life-risking Wait, what? Why is nobody else commenting on this? Childbirth does have risks associated with it. The chance of death in first-world countries is pretty slim, but it's still nothing to scoff at. having a child is an incredibly selfish act You could argue this, though I think your wish to provide the happiness of a child to your partner would negate it. But putting personal motivation aside, if nobody had children then humanity would cease to exist within a hundr…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 04:49 PM
4

Except males have an objective advantage over females in most sports. That's why we segregate in the first place A trans woman has a disadvantage in a beauty pagaent, as they will naturally appear/sound more masculine. Can't change the laws of biology and the chromosomes. Tell me; if somebody has X, XXX, XXY or XYY choromosomes, are they a man or a woman?
/r/MensRights19/05/12 12:41 PM
4

And now they favor the rights of MEN to participate in WOMEN's pageants? No, they favor the rights of women to participate in women's pagaents. Trans or otherwise.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 11:53 AM
1

Should they mention the father? I personally think a pregnancy is purely an issue for the pregnant woman.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 11:42 AM
1

Aw, sucks to lose somebody who's got +19 from me on RES. Anyway, for the best dude. Good luck.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:54 AM
1

The perpetration isn't perfectly even. 1.9% of women were raped by women, and 20.2% of men were raped by men. So 40.5% of perpetrators were female. Use this image Good job, by the way.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:50 AM
1

That's a weak argument. No, it isn't. You are saying there is nothing wrong with you being circumcised because you are happy with it. I'm saying that it's possible you would have been happier uncut, which means your present satisfaction is meaningless. Just because somebody is happy with something that happened to them doesn't mean that it's the best possible thing. None has ever complained of problems (mental or physical) related to their circumcision. How many of them are close enough to you t…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:47 AM
5

You go talk to your school about it. Say that the girls were hitting you and sexually harassing you. If they do nothing, tell your parents and ask them to speak to the girl's parents. Be present, and tell the girl's parents what she did. If nothing eventuates, you could opt to talk to police about the death threats/sexual harassment/battery, or otherwise, sorry, bud. Still smells like troll, though...
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:19 AM
9

Then I'm happy for you. However, that's not universal. In addition, you don't know if you would have been happier uncut.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:16 AM
2

And then they get out of prison. They're everything they were when they entered, except now suffering from PTSD, filled with rage, with a deadened sense of empathy. If they were in prison for rape, something tells me their chances of staying straight will drop like a rock. Prison for punishment is a bad idea, because it's rarely for life and you're just messing people up more. Petty revenge might satisfy your sadistic tendencies, but rehabilitation improves society by reducing the number of vict…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:08 AM
2

Huge guys ("built like a brick shithouse" and all that) look pretty strong; most competitive weightlifters have plenty of fat as opposed to being toned.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:05 AM
22

Because the patriarchy teaches women that they are only valued for their looks, but not men. If you then realize that men do suffer from body image issues just as much as women it destroys that narrative and makes it nonsensical. In order to preserve it, the easiest thing to do is bullshit and act as though it's exclusively a female problem.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:04 AM
-1

they can be unstable and violent at times. So can men, idiot. EDIT: Oh wait, "genuinemra". God.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:07 PM
1

Its justified completely that the less sexist ones, (I wouldn't call them better) aren't anywhere near as public/political. On average, I meant that there are still public figures who are egalitarian.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:56 PM
1

A lot of people here don't differentiate, or think the majority are the terrible ones. It's justified somewhat in that the better ones aren't as public/political, but is still very frustrating.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:19 AM
9

If there is evidence of your injuries (bruising, scratch marks, bite marks) and your friends will testify that they saw her hit you first, your chances are good. It could be painted simply as a reciprocal fight (in which case you'd be in bigger trouble) but then your chances of being convicted of anything aren't high. Your being arrested isn't a presumption of your guilt. Police generally have policy to arrest the men in a reciprocal dispute (it's generally defined as "physical size" or "ability…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:18 AM
1

79.2% of men under the "made to penetrate" category were victimized solely by women.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:45 AM
1

They can indeed, but I would suggest that it would be far less likely due to greater camaraderie between people of the same gender. The irrational fear part also won't occur (except for gays/lesbians, now that I think about it... who knows what happens there).
/r/MensRights16/05/12 07:28 PM
1

Why is segregation inherently negative, then? We segregate by age all the time.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:53 PM
3

Women who've been abused can see that there are non-abusive men which exist. Men who've been abused can see that there are non-abusive women which exist. Well, a lot of DV is reciprocal and not everybody in a shelter is a fragile flower (see what Erin Pizzey has to say on the topic). So there can easily be a non-abusive woman and an abusive man, or vice versa, in the same shelter. A shelter should be a totally safe place. Having both genders present just increases the chances of things going wro…
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:42 PM
4

segregation means discrimination Discrimination isn't automatically bad. We discriminate by having differing standards for adults and children.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:39 PM
2

=Male= Gold acquisition + 10% Strength + 5 Intelligence xp rate - 5% Charisma - 20 Leadership + 5 Summoning - 10 This is actually fun.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:21 PM
3

that would actually be dangerous to survivors of domestic violence while shielding abusers from accountability That's what the current VAWA does. What they mean is "dangerous to female survivors [and helping male far more, but who cares] while shielding male abusers from accountability [and helping to bring far more female abusers to justice, EDIT: But who cares].
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:03 PM
7

I don't think having men and women in the same shelter is a good idea... two shelters, one for each gender, works much better.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:02 PM
36

Yeah, it's not "I own her because I was the first to say I owned her", it's "nobody else ask her out, because I'm going to". Nobody is saying the woman isn't free to make her own decision, it's just creating an order to trying to get her to choose them.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 11:42 AM
1

Can you give me some examples?
/r/MensRights15/05/12 10:39 AM
1

That's pretty much exactly what I was saying. It is choice, but that choice is heavily influenced by the society we live in, among other things, the expectation of the women being responsible for childcare and household activities. Right, my point was that MRAs generally don't dispute that (maybe some think it's purely biological, I don't know), they dispute the feminist claim that it's sexism on the part of employers (which is what the government is targeting in their attempts to close the wage…
/r/MensRights15/05/12 04:28 AM
1

The irony is that MRAs will insist that personal choice is the only contributing factor to the aforementioned feminist complaints and dismiss any societal factors while completely ignoring the personal choice component in many of the areas where men are behind chalking it up entirely to discrimination. Proof? The wage gap is due to personal choice, not because bosses are sexist and refuse to pay women as much. However, women are socialized to not negotiate pay and to have children and to work in…
/r/MensRights15/05/12 03:18 AM
2

As are many feminist complaints, like earning less and being in government less. The issue is that true "free will" doesn't really make sense, everything you do and think is a product of your upbringing. There will be genetic components for a lot of things but social factors will always play a part too, and can/do ovverride the biological ones.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 01:30 AM
0

any even handed debate is always downvoted there. You realize that their policy is to never post any form of debate or discussion, and to delete/ban anybody that does? SRS is a circlejerk. And I don't mean that in the /r/atheism sense, I mean it in the /r/circlejerk sense; it's explicitly pointed out in the rules.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 09:23 AM
1

You're posting to tell us that you're downvoting the threads in a different subreddit? Total men's rights issue right there. And you're probably going to be/have been shadow banned. Reddit detects voting patterns and if it thinks you're a bot it makes it look like you're voting (so you don't become suspicious) but the vote doesn't actually register.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 09:22 AM
1

You think that's a good thing?
/r/MensRights14/05/12 05:28 AM
1

Damn, that's a nice post. Bookmarked for your citations on parenthood.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 11:44 PM
1

..I am a moron.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:27 PM
-1

Who is "they"?
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:19 PM
3

Pretty stupid article. In most cases, dating is harder as a single mom, as you have to find somebody who is okay with your having kids, and you have to schedule childcare when you're out on dates. And this stuff; Many children in two-parent homes grow up in a negative environment with constant anger, fights and abuse. is stupid because the "myth" is in general, and the "reality" is ruling out an absolute case. Of course there are single mothers who are better than married couples, but a great co…
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:19 PM
2

Trolls everywhere. We do not condone violence except when used in self-defense.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 07:28 PM
5

DON'T WORRY BRO I GOT YOUR BACK I UPVOTED ALL YOUR POSTS AND DOWNVOTED EVERYONE ELSE.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 07:17 PM
1

He just made that up. I have no idea about the subreddit but there's no evidence of a link.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 03:48 PM
12

I think doxxing should always be abhorred. If it beomes accepted when people cross a particular moral barrier, then when others use a different barrier to you it can create a whole load of problems. You think it's okay to dox somebody that endorses child abuse, somebody else endorses doxxing for "known members of a hate group" - the line is different for everybody, so to avoid people with lines you view as irrational, it should be avoided in all situations.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 09:15 AM
2

I'm not sure if it's stupidly optimistic or pessimistic to think the world will carry on as it currently is for another thousand years.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 03:04 AM
12

"Thomas, he's out, he's leading his life," she explains. "But with a rape victim, it just never goes anywhere. Just... fuck. 23 years in prison and you don't think he'd have any issues?
/r/MensRights12/05/12 10:29 PM
1

In terms of motherhood, mostly the latter. The problem with the political types is that they don't think through the effects of their decisions on men, whilst trying to help women (or perhaps they do and don't care, no way to tell). Wanting mothers to get custody isn't the same thing as thinking men can't be good parents.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 10:17 PM
14

The *MRM is about men's rights, not antifeminism. Some aspects of fixing men's rights necessitate opposing feminism (e.g. shared custody, male victims of DV), but many/most issues are not caused or even contributed to by feminism. Unless you just meant "men don't have problems" worldviews in general, in which case never mind, ignore me.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 11:15 AM
2

Ear lobes are useless, but pinky toes actually provide a lot of help in balance. Though the function of the foreskin means a lot more to me (and I should think most guys) than the pinky toe.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 09:15 AM
1

Why do you persist in deliberately misunderstanding the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? Ahaha, what? You're the one who claimed "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to rape cases. I'm asking you to back that up.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 05:26 AM
1

Want to cite men being found guilty in the vast majority of cases where there's no evidence of innocence?
/r/MensRights12/05/12 04:37 AM
9

A basic human right is the right to bodily integrity. Somebody is making a life-changing decision to violate that right at a point in your life when you are unable to consent.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 02:57 AM
1

every woman has the power to say a man raped her and in our insane legal climate he has to prove he didn't. Do you have any legal citations? Can you cite a conviction rate that is extremely high relative to other crimes?
/r/MensRights12/05/12 02:35 AM
1

I meant 10% of accusations are false.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 02:35 AM
0

a significant number of men are being convicted of rape when they are innocent , but they didn't record the encounter. Studies indicate it's around 10%. But a tiny portion of sex encounters result in an accusation of rape.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:38 PM
0

No, I just.. don't see what I'd be addressing.. Unless when you said: We're OBVIOUSLY not talking about most people because most people haven't committed a crime in their life (excluding speeding tickets/jay walking etc.) The legal system isn't intended to deal with MOST people, it's intended to deal with criminals. You were saying those things are a deterrent to "most people", but not all people? Which is the case, of course... but the guy I was responding to said there are no deterrents, full …
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:37 PM
0

No idea what the relation of this is to either of my posts. The other poster said there are no deterrents to making a false accusation. I said that things like effort, time, guilt etc are deterrents.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:19 PM
-7

Funny, I've never had that sort of welcome. I wonder why.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 06:38 PM
2

Oh. You didn't write the blog post. I don't even know why I assumed you did. Now I'm all embarassed and shit.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 06:37 PM
4

You call it "An urban myth".
/r/MensRights11/05/12 06:33 PM
5

You They argue that nonpaternity rates are low, but remember that most posters here are from the USA; your data shows 10.1% when confidence is high and 42% when a test is requested (and 18% when unknown). Those numbers seem pretty big to me. Hell, even 2% seems pretty big to me.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 06:24 PM
1

I guess I was thinking of it in terms of "if she's cool with splitting the check after you offer, then you'll continue dating" which of course isn't necessarily the case. You could just ask if she's cool with splitting the check up front. I honestly don't know how common what reactions will be, because I have no base data and even if I did I don't know where you are or what sort of girls you're going out with. If you get frosty silence and glares then clearly that's going nowhere so you could ju…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 06:03 PM
0

It's a general societal expectation much more than a personal one. That is, women will typically assume you'll pay because that's just the done thing, but if they're aware that you have a problem with it that doesn't mean they'll personally require you to. So how to navigate to that issue? Well, paying for a date or two and then mentioning that you prefer to split tabs seems pretty damn safe, and you're only out half a check (/one check). You could of course bring it up prior, I'm just worried a…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 05:11 PM
2

I'm honestly shocked that 4% of women haven't lied to their partner. Perhaps those 4% of women haven't had a partner. The more relevant part is the highlighted piece, Half said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby's real father. Forty-two per cent would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner. I can only hope that the women that read That's Life! are much worse than average…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 05:03 PM
-3

You act like those are the only options. There's also, you know, neither, which is what happens 99.999999% of the time.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 04:42 PM
1

No idea, I didn't read it. OP said These days, a man has to record every sexual encounter. And then In most cases, however, the issue of consent is moot. [dismissing the consent of the woman being recorded] That's what I'm disagreeing with.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 04:39 PM
-4

Can I assume then that you support all internet surveillance bills such as CISPA? You have no problems with the TSA scanners? In fact, why don't we just cut out the risk entirely and make it law to have the government install cameras everywhere in every home? That way all you have to do is have sex inside a house and you're totally safe from false accusations. Any objections?
/r/MensRights11/05/12 04:36 PM
-5

We were discussing OP's defending of secretly recording yourself having sex with women. I am not criticising the man in the article, I'm criticising a) OP's paranoia and b) the defending of secretly recording people having sex without permission or their knowledge. Seriously, would you be perfectly okay with me recording you banging some girl and hanging onto the video? If you got falsely accused I could use my video to exonerate you, so you shouldn't have any objections to that, right?
/r/MensRights11/05/12 04:30 PM
-2

It is insanely high. Cite? It's sort of amusing, in a darkly morose kind of way, all the innocent men that are being proven innocent using DNA evidence that wasn't available at the time of their convictions. You know that happens with other crimes too, right? Cops assuming somebody is guilty (often "they're black" -> "they're guilty") or a DA looking to win some big cases. Most of them are from forced confessions by really young guys.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 04:21 PM
-4

That is how it works though. So... given it's impossible to prove your innocence in a he said/she said scenario, shouldn't the conviction rate be insanely high?
/r/MensRights11/05/12 04:02 PM
-4

I can't believe I'm being downvoted and called a tool for objecting to making pornography of a person without their consent. No sorry, but when you've got a "guilty unless proven innocent" situation pushed by feminists Except that's not how the legal system works. And socially, all that will change is that people will also know you're a scumbag who records women having sex with him without consent.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 03:42 PM
-9

SHE FUCKING ACCUSED HIM OF RAPE. No, "she" didn't... "she" is a fictional, hypothetical character who OP has decided to record prior to them even having sex. Unless you think every woman who has sex falsely accuses her partner of rape, this makes no sense.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 03:38 PM
0

That isn't remotely what I said. I said that the time and effort you expend is a barrier (along with people generally not wanting to destroy the lives of others for no valid reason, and the social ramifications) to making a false accusation. It's not like a woman can just send an anonymous note to the cops calling somebody a rapist and they get locked up.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 03:10 PM
-4

Feel bad about sex the next morning? Rape. Yeah because this is totally the norm for false accusations. Since you put forward the 6% figure, the burden of proof is on you, actually. That's what I meant. I could have included a few extra words; "I understand the onus of proof is on me and all that, I'm just curious".
/r/MensRights11/05/12 01:12 PM
-8

There is no deterrent to making a false accusation. Except for this crazy thing called "not being a sadistic freak". Also the negative social ramifications from people who support the accused, and the amount of time and effort they have to put forward into maintaining the charade and going to court to testify and whatnot. False accusations are very rarely punished and only then when there is hard proof. Alleged murderers are only punished if there is hard proof too... That 6% figure is totally b…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 01:06 PM
-9

So instead we should just play Russian roulette every time we hop in the sack? Right, I'm going to go and murder all of my roommates now. Otherwise I'm totes playing Russian roulette by gambling they aren't going to murder me in my sleep. It's totally fair, yo. You do what you want. I'm staying alive. Just pray that she's not going to abuse her unlimited power to incarcerate all former sex partners? You think an accusation is guaranteed to result in incarceration? Say again? Shit, there are goin…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 01:00 PM
-6

Do you really think the privacy rights of a false rape accuser trump the liberty rights of an innocent person facing prison? Wait wait wait, do you not realize how tiny a portion of occasions of sex result in a false accusation of rape? And yet you're saying that she is a false accuser? If every woman who had sex accused the guy of rape, then I wouldn't give a shit. But that's not the case. You're violating somebody's rights to account for the tiny possibility they'll attempt to screw you over.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 12:49 PM
-8

And the sleazy, privacy-violating aspect of this doesn't bother you? No violation of personal rights issues?
/r/MensRights11/05/12 12:44 PM
5

These days, a man has to record every sexual encounter. Failing to do so can put you in prison. Doing so can also put you in prison, given that it's illegal (without consent).
/r/MensRights11/05/12 12:40 PM
2

It's still different. Underage consent is better than underage lack of consent.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 11:35 PM
4

So is your drunkness irrelevant? Can you not prove that you were drunk? Does nobody care? With that situation, that plea sounds goddamn terrible. IANAL, but I'd recommend you try talking to a few others. That seems like the sort of case that could be easily dismissed, and even if you were found guilty you're hardly guaranteed to get more than 10 years. How do you know what evidence she has? Have you had a pretrial hearing?
/r/MensRights10/05/12 06:30 PM
-4

I certainly don't approve of "romance vacations", but there's a world of difference between a 10 year old imprisoned in a brothel and being raped versus a teenager choosing to do it and getting paid for it. About the former, I'd feel the same way about a woman raping a 10 year old boy slave, and about the latter the same way about a man paying a teenage girl without extorting her.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 06:20 PM
8

Label me skeptical as all hell. A 10 year plea? "A lot of evidence" that you raped her when you didn't? Even getting charged with rape when you were both drunk and it was consensual is so uncommon I struggle to believe that alone. Either you're omitting information (e.g. it wasn't consensual) or this is a troll.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 06:17 PM
1

You can cherry-pick for other reason like to misrepresent facts or push ideas that you want that have been disproven. Yes, but why would they want to do that?
/r/MensRights10/05/12 03:59 PM
0

Of course, misandry and dislike for MR aren't the same thing, I've never claimed otherwise. Right, my point is that wanting to cherry-pick studies in order to make a false claim about women doing more would be anti-male, and that they don't appear to be anti-male.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 03:35 PM
4

I actually just checked back through your history. This is hardly positive. You're generally good so I'm cool with you but it does seem like you think r/mr is misogynistic.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 03:34 PM
2

looks like a troll, acts like a troll How the hell were they acting like a troll? When you see a person posting a list of studies to contradict a claim, and are barely adversarial when they write it, why do you assume that they're only doing it to be an asshole? Seems to me like they were trying to ensure the people in this thread had more information about the issue (and didn't start asserting men are more charitable based on the posted study). basically has a history of biased hate directed at…
/r/MensRights10/05/12 03:01 PM
10

But I believe our stunted and contentious discourse about men’s issues is mostly the result of long standing male cultural norms. Read this as "nobody knows about men's problems because men are taught to shut the fuck up and pretend their problems don't exist". That seems pretty accurate.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 02:53 PM
0

who is the financial decision-maker in the family? Women are more likely to be (or rather, they make more spending decisions. I'm not sure if there's a difference). Though men would typically have more disposable income (and directly receive bonuses and whatnot). And women volunteer more despite the other duties that they routinely perform, like childcare, running a household, caring for elderly parents and, y'know, working. Men also routinely perform these things. If you want to make the point …
/r/MensRights10/05/12 02:47 PM
9

Tell me; if somebody in r/feminism posted a study with shitty methodology that found 90% of domestic abusers are men, would you object to somebody posting several studies (/fiebert) to contradict it? Would you assume anybody who posted that would only be doing so to troll and try to play oppression olympics? Also, ultimately, who gives a shit who gives more to charity? This thread is about who gives more to charity. You have an objection to people discussing that?
/r/MensRights10/05/12 02:42 PM
1

being beaten can land you in a coma, disable you for life, or even kill you. That's why I said generally. I've been both raped and seriously assaulted, and the latter was worse.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 02:36 PM
5

Goddamn, that video makes me think of my little sister and makes me want to punch the crap out of her (EDIT: The woman in the video, not my sister. Yikes). When she talks she sounds perfectly happy and knowing that people could actually be okay with that is so goddamn fucked up.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 09:09 AM
2

Since nobody else has said so, I want to thank you for linking to an immage instead of the comment. It was brought up in meta but not everybody is doing it and I think it's a really good policy (both for deleting and downvoting).
/r/MensRights10/05/12 08:51 AM
1

The title is accurate ("would outlaw depositing sperm anywhere but a woman's vagina"). Nobody actually wants it to pass though, it's a political stunt to point out the stupidity of saying an embryo is a person - she's taking it a step further and saying that if an embryo is a person, then sperm is too (it is alive, after all).
/r/MensRights10/05/12 03:57 AM
7

Woman hits man -> who gives a shit. Man hits man -> Not that big a deal, can still get in big trouble, homophobia here means you'd do better. Man hits woman -> He's the antichrist.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:28 PM
3

I'm pretty confident I won't have kids. It would require a pretty drastic change in my personality. But if I did have a son, I wouldn't reinforce them much. I hate that whole "do whatever you want, don't let haters get you down!" mentality. If somebody is super obnoxious or annoying, then their parents shouldn't be encouraging that. But if it's just a matter of wearing feminine clothes/colours or doing feminine hobbies, then I would teach him that he can do those things, but he'd better need a t…
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:24 PM
8

Note he said "what feminists are fighting for", not "what the dictionary says feminists fight for". I think it's more common for feminists to not think a problem affects men too, or not care about the effects on men if it helps (or "helps") women, but there are a few good examples of obviously seeking to be on top, such as NOW's opposition of shared parenting.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 10:44 PM
1

What's rapey but not rape? I mean like a situation which may be consensual but you can't be totally confident of that. Like if a girl is being a dead fish and being really hesitant or saying "hold on" or even "stop" a couple of times but then falling silent; she might totally want it (and just be nervous/getting prepared (and meaning "stop for a sec")) but might just be too scared/unprepared to push you off or whatever. Sex should have enthusiastic consent from both parties, and absent that it g…
/r/MensRights09/05/12 12:50 PM
2

You can escape the characters with backslahes. i.e. [text](link) Which was written \[text](link)
/r/MensRights09/05/12 01:40 AM
4

The chances of three drunk women being grabbed and raped on their way walking is incredibly small. The chances of equivalent guys being beaten would be significantly higher, and while being beaten is (generally) not as bad as being raped, the far higher risk means caution would still be warranted. A serious fear of being attacked in a situation like that is irrational. It might happen, it's certainly possible, but we all expose ourselves to far greater risks every day (just by virtue of getting …
/r/MensRights09/05/12 01:39 AM
1

It's not a meme
/r/MensRights08/05/12 10:58 PM
1

Yet you claimed that they are victims of 'rape lite'. Rape lite being something that is rapey behaviour but not actually rape. If the 18 year old who got semi-conscious drunk did so of their own volition (wasn't force-fed alcohol or anything similar) What if they didn't intend to get as drunk as they did? People generally don't want to vomit and pass out, they just don't watch their drinks. they alone are responsible for their own decisions whilst drunk. The issue I have is that they aren't maki…
/r/MensRights08/05/12 10:37 PM
1

there are TONS of cases women use a "few drinks" to get declared unable to consent. Link me? Where the jury is actually convinced she did have a few drinks but the guy got convicted? but how is a guy to tell if shes just drunk and able to give consent vs unable is what I was asking you. First, "fully conscious" and "conscious" are not the same thing. I meant "working out whether somebody is not completely blackout wasted". Second, it's an arbitrary standard which isn't defined explicitly by law.…
/r/MensRights08/05/12 12:09 AM
1

Strawman. You're equating paedophilia with lying to a potential sexual mate of adult age and mind. Actually, I was giving an example of where you claim did not hold true. It's not a strawman, I wasn't implying that's what you were meaning to refer to, I was using an analogy to show your claim is false. Even in this post you said "Because I, being a sane human being, understand that consensual sex is not rape." - from this sentence, if a 10 year old "consented" to sex with you, it would not be ra…
/r/MensRights08/05/12 12:04 AM
1

Well, you're still responding, so clearly you care a little. But I don't know what you're complaining about now, I'm right after all.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:14 PM
1

The gender discrimination part is reinforcing the notion that men should toss everything aside to protect women. Of course, it's just speculation that the article wouldn't have said the same for a reversed-gender version, but it seeems pretty safe to assume. Though as some people have argued, regardless of gender what he did wasn't on.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:08 PM
1

Maybe if you twist the word misogyny around the mean something different from what everbody does uses it for.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:03 PM
1

Then they are idiots. Can you tell me why you feel you know more about the topic than them? What makes you an expert and them ignorant? And go take it up with them anyway. Just that the 'rapes' (consensual sex) that rape-culture-advocates talk about isn't rape as both parties consent to the sex Right, so if an 8 year old "consents" to sex you're perfectly fine with banging her?
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:01 PM
1

Oh, I thought you were being tautological to dodge the question. You mean "if somebody self identifies as a feminist, they are a feminist"? That's incorrect. First, I don't self identify as a feminist. Second, if somebody believes that women are inferior and should not possess the same rights as men then they are not a feminist even if they call themself one.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 08:59 PM
1

What? That makes no sense. you can put male in there and it would make sense. I mean that they're basically just giving extra information about the frequency of rape by gender. The word isn't inherently defined to mean it's usually against a female. A girl who chooses to drink, how is a guy to tell if shes beyond the ability to give consent? Are you really incapable of working out whether somebody is fully conscious? strawman strawman No. Don't add subtext to a post that isn't there because you …
/r/MensRights07/05/12 08:58 PM
0

2: to commit rape on Yes, the verb form of rape means to commit rape on, and that makes me wrong. (What?) If we then look at their noun form of rape, unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent Which is subjective. Therefore the webster definition doesn't support whatever you're trying to say. Also webster is pretty shit. "Usu…
/r/MensRights07/05/12 04:43 AM
1

I don't understand why the guy would consent to sex in that situation. If you don't consent it's rape. If he would gnaw off his arm to get away from her, why would he consent?
/r/MensRights07/05/12 04:31 AM
1

And would you say i was justified in Nazism because i was ignorant of the holocaust? If you had no idea about the bad things the Nazis had done and had some incorrect positive beliefs about them, then calling yourself a Nazi wouldn't make you a bad person or mean you agreed with them. But that's a poor analogy because virtually everybody knows (some of) the bad things the Nazis did but very few people know anything about feminism's idealogy. But they benefit from the misandric elements, they mig…
/r/MensRights07/05/12 02:18 AM
-1

it was feigning ignorance. I was leading demonspawn to answer a particular way that agreed with me (i.e. by saying essentially what you did). Second, if that had been the point you were making it would run directly counter to your point in the OP. No, it doesn't.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 02:15 AM
-2

No more than anybody else who talks about rape culture (for or against). I guess I've read psychology articles and studies on rapists that lead me to believe it, capped with a bunch of anecdotal experience, but nothing I can be bothered finding or would likely convince you.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 01:20 AM
1

That doesn't make sense.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 01:19 AM
-2

Your rape lite example is not rape and therefore society condoning it is not indicative of a rape-culture. By the definition of the people who talk about rape culture, it is. I contrasted actual rape with what you called rape lite (being lied to). One of those scenarios is rape, the other is not. My rape lite examples and being forced aren't the only possibilities for sex. If it's made explicitly clear by one party they don't want to have sex but don't struggle, then legally they were raped.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 01:19 AM
-1

No, that's not your point. Your point was this: Actually, I meant the point I was making in the post that you responded to.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 12:31 AM
-1

But having your feelings not hurt is not a right, so let's just jump to the ultimate end of your chain and defeat it. Huh? I don't see where you're coming from here.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 12:13 AM
1

To say that someone deserves 5+ years in prison for telling a girl that he's a doctor so he could have sex with her is just ludicrous. I agree. I was talking more about Barney's attitude to sex rather than saying each lie is a rape.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 12:10 AM
1

it shows that they view the world through a hopelessly broken lens which neglects men, demonises men, and holds us responsible for all the worlds ills, and even if they don't they are still profiting off the work of those who do. First off, a lot of people use the dictionary definition and aren't very well educated about the idealogy. Second, all feminists pick and choose aspects of the idealogy to believe, and have differing beliefs from one another. Third, most of feminist idealogy isn't inher…
/r/MensRights07/05/12 12:07 AM
1

What definition of feminist are you using?
/r/MensRights07/05/12 12:05 AM
-2

First off, that is your definition of rape-culture, I've heard several others. I'm arguing against what people here usually say to dismiss it. And I mean rape as in forced to have sex So if the victim doesn't resist enough then who cares about them? But I guess those scenarios wouldn't fit your feminist narrative... Not a feminist, bud.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 12:05 AM
-2

That not all rights are held in equal regard, obviously. And why is that? Could *it have something do do with some rights violations being worse than others?
/r/MensRights06/05/12 11:59 PM
-2

Every non-rapist agrees: rape is horrific and awful. Did you read my post? Most people think things they personally consider rape horrific and awful. For things that the victims consider rape (and are affected by in the same way as forcible rape) many people view as sleazy at worst.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 11:58 PM
1

This isn't "but we can work together". Most feminists involved in politics are so obsessed with male privilege they can't take a MRM seriously. I just think a) some of their beliefs have merit (some!), and b) just because somebody identifies as a feminist doesn't say anything bad about them.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 11:57 PM
-2

You know perfectly well that the reason your right not to be bumped into is not as vigorously protected as your right not to be beaten with a blunt object (for example) is because one is a far more egregious violation. Yes, that is exactly my point.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 11:42 PM
-5

What are those reasons?
/r/MensRights06/05/12 10:05 PM
-4

The reason we make rape illegal is because if it's violation of a persons right to choose whom they will have sex with. Laws exist to punish violations of rights, not violations of feelings. Well, touching a person is a violation of a person's right to choose who touches them. Why is rape considered worse than that?
/r/MensRights06/05/12 09:56 PM
8

Some aspects of being a cis man will not affect you (e.g. the education you had as a child, assuming you didn't transition early, infant circumcision), but most will (because they're rooted in the way others perceive and treat you). Some issues for cis men will affect you to a greater degree (e.g. suicide risk). Since you have experienced the treatment that women do, your voice on men's issues is very strong. You are likely to have a better understanding of the difference in the way men and wome…
/r/MensRights06/05/12 08:38 PM
1

If you point out that a person who has been hit in the head with a baseball bat won't do as well on IQ tests, etc., you're stating the obvious. Yes, but if you assert that every black person is currently being hit with a baseball bat, then you'd be wrong. Black people have a higher chance of being criminals than white. But if I don't want to go near any black people because I don't want to take the risk they'll attack me, I am racist.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 08:21 PM
0

I don't think your semantic quibble is accurate. 'Sex' and 'gender' can be synonyms. I was talking about biology as my context made clear. Depending on the context, the discriminating characteristics vary from sex to social role to gender identity. For example, trans men are of the female sex and male gender, because while they are biologically female, they present as male. If you add, "because of what's been done to them by white people" to your statement, then yes, it would mean you were not a…
/r/MensRights06/05/12 05:45 PM
-1

Just as a racist is defined as someone who hates a race No it isn't. If you think black people are all bad drivers it doesn't mean you hate them. a misogynist is one who hates a gender. Both mean hating people for their inherent, biological characteristics. Except gender isn't the same thing as "inherent, biological characteristics". That's sex. Gender is the roles one takes on. Sex is male and female, Gender is masculine and feminine. If I say "God, black people are so fucking worthless and stu…
/r/MensRights06/05/12 05:14 PM
2

Rude and stupid are a bad combo for those who would presume to criticize the writings of others. I'm not criticizing your writing (your writing ability is actually pretty good), I'm criticizing your beliefs. A false belief about male aggression/libido, claiming you aren't a misogynist when you clearly are. I get your point with the filling congress with slaves, but nobility generally gets the "Distinguished in manners or bearing" meaning. there is and must be a difference in the nature of the ge…
/r/MensRights06/05/12 04:45 PM
2

It's the reversed form of feminism. Feminine -> feminist, masculine -> masculist.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 04:42 PM
3

demonstrating the glaring moral inferiority of the female gender in its current level of social development. lolno. the obvious truth that a male's aggression is a biologically imposed enslavement of the human spirit, as is the often obsessive and intrusive nature of the male libido. Studies have found that when women are alone, they are as aggressive or more aggressive than men, but when in groups they are signifcantly less aggressive. That's social conditioning. Libido is the same; women don't…
/r/MensRights06/05/12 04:36 PM
4

There's /r/masculism which could always be more active.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 04:23 PM
-2

That's why we shouldn't work with feminism. We actually do have a lot of common ground. Even if egalitarian feminists are the minority we want the same things. I personally don't see why it would hurt to pick-and-choose each individual group we respsect based on their actions. Identifying the same way as a bad person doesn't make you a bad person, and it's stupid to act like it does.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 04:21 PM
1

Not asexual men!
/r/MensRights06/05/12 04:19 PM
2

Here's a thread from SRS itself in which the linked comment is making fun of male rape and SRS doesn't like that Pretty much all of those comments are complaining about the double standard reddit takes when it comes to each gender being raped. SRS has a lot of things wrong with it, but they absolutely do not defend or deny female-on-male rape. I didn't mean to imply that, I just meant that the particular example wouldn't be representative of their views about it.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 04:09 PM
2

SRS wouldn't view it as a man being raped, they'd view it as a trans man being raped. I'm sure they like to think they're super progressive and whatnot, but I doubt more than a small minority of them actually feel the same way about the two.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 11:31 AM
4

It has for the past six months after something like 80 years not doing so.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 04:24 AM
1

All three of us are the same person, it's a goddamn conspiracy.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 03:35 AM
132

God, I hate this so much. There was a really prominent case a while back where a little girl (EDIT: she was 2, thanks leprendun) wandered around the streets a while and ended up falling into a pond and drowned. She passed a bunch of people who ignored her and when asked, they said the reason they didn't say anything is because they were afraid they'd look like pedophiles. Whenever a parent lashes out to cover up their own failings or acts on their paranoia, they're fostering an environment that …
/r/MensRights06/05/12 01:09 AM
3

Okay, good stuff, your views are pretty much the same as mine. Just checking you weren't being hypocritical, heh.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 01:02 AM
5

I laughed so hard where it said "Please drink responsibly" at the bottom.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 01:01 AM
6

Goddamn that is fucked up. Sex is such a huge part of the human experience that I seriously can't understand how anybody could seriously think intentionally making it worse could not be a bad thing. If circumcision actually did reduce pleasure enough that teen pregnancy was reduced significantly I would easily consider that a net loss. Teen pregnancy sucks but that is the worst goddamn (not) solution I've heard. EDIT: Putting a little bit more thought into it, that is quite literally the justifi…
/r/MensRights06/05/12 01:00 AM
3

The man pestered her into harming him. If she had wanted to do it, but he didn't and she pestered him, then your point would stand. A question since I don't know you well; do you have any problem with a woman who is drunk that initiates sex with a guy (and then regrets it the next day, she may have a boyfriend or whatever)? I'm not sure how sex is "essentially a positive act" when it can be anything but a positive act. I think he meant consensual sex.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 12:51 AM
3

I have often noticed an ongoing struggle to make r/MR more "accessible," which I feel quite conflicted about. I often see people making comments that essentially say "I always thought r/mr was misogynistic, but after I gave it a go and starting participating I realized it wasn't". I think that's very, very common. If somebody is turned away the moment they show up (say if there's bad luck with a troll or badly titled submission) then we could potentially be missing out on a great ally. People of…
/r/MensRights06/05/12 12:31 AM
7

The feminist assertion is that there is societal discrimination against women, but not against men; so when you're sexist towards a woman, you're reinforcing that systemic sexism, but when you're sexist towards a man it's individual discrimination and not sexism. There's also the idea that you need power to be sexist, and men have all the power. Basically it's flimsy premises that ignore reality, used to justify definitions that are twisted so that women can be painted as the victims and men can…
/r/MensRights05/05/12 07:55 PM
1

Well, I can only speak for myself; but a lot of people on reddit have a poor understanding of this subreddit, so if they asked that I'd assume they'd been fed misinformation and try to correct it by saying pretty much everybody I see discussing it is pro-choice.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 07:34 AM
0

True, my bad. Then replace my examples with "I know I'm in mensrights, but I hope to convince some of you that abortion shouldn't be made illegal and women's shelters shouldn't be closed". Would you react positively to that?
/r/MensRights05/05/12 07:23 AM
3

Uh, no, they are not behaving badly. Imagine if somebody came into r/mr and said "why do you oppose abortion? x person I know died because they didn't get one!" or "Why do you think women's shelters should be closed down?". What answer do you expect me to give to that besides "I don't, why would you think that?" The question should have specified "those of you who are opposed to men's spaces" and then talked about the prompt for the question, as most people there probably don't even know about t…
/r/MensRights05/05/12 07:17 AM
25

Men who had their balls kicked by friends and loved ones would be questioned, if they brought it up to anyone else in complaint. “Well did you do something to piss her off? I wonder if she realizes that this is actually what happens.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 04:36 AM
6

My grandmother is a big knitter/crocheter/embroidery-er. One time I stayed with her, I asked her to teach me how to knit and she gave me a couple of needles and some yarn. I then knitted on the bus to school for the next few days (while staying with her). I had a few people make comments about it (not to me), which ranged from "what a faggot" to "that's so cute". I gave up knitting after a bit (takes ridiculously long to make anything practical) though I tried my hand at crochet and made a few c…
/r/MensRights04/05/12 07:46 PM
7

I just genuinely think you're a bunch of whiners who need to grow a pair. Yeah, if men would just ignore any forms of criticism, negative stereotyping and discrimination then the men's rights movement wouldn't even exist!
/r/MensRights04/05/12 07:39 PM
10

OH MAN MEN'S RIGHTS IS SO MISOGYNISTIC LOOK AT THIS COMMENT SAYING WOMEN SHOULD SUCK COCK THAT CLEARLY PROVES THAT EVERY SERIOUS MEMBER HERE IS A SERIOUS MISOGYNISTIC!!!!!!
/r/MensRights04/05/12 10:51 AM
1

Haha, had a good chuckle. I swear I get more antifeminist by the day.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 07:45 AM
1

the direct effect is probably something more like ambition or desire to be "successful" and rich in order to attract women. Question: Do you believe a society where women pursue men and men simply have to be attractive could possibly exist?
/r/MensRights04/05/12 07:30 AM
9

You were banned for calling people cunts. Was that edited out or in PMs?
/r/MensRights04/05/12 01:49 AM
1

Nice conspiracy theory, but you can't arrest someone for drug posession inside their own body. Really? If you buy a bunch of meth and take it, then walk up to a cop and tell him you're on meth, is there nothing he can do? I would have thought that the fact that he was on drugs would give a pretty solid case that he possessed meth at one point a short while ago, can you not be charged unless you're arrested while drugs are currently in your possession? There was no proof that the guy knew that th…
/r/MensRights04/05/12 01:36 AM
3

*people want
/r/MensRights04/05/12 01:29 AM
14

For women, it's the right to abortion and the right to obtain and use birth control. Those rights are infringed when *these things are arbitrarily made more difficult, and would be removed if made illegal. For men, it's the right to ownership over your own sperm and what happens to it (court precedent says once you've come, it's no longer your property). If men had reproductive rights it would be things like criminalizing trying to get pregnant with a man's sperm against his will or not automati…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 08:58 PM
1

It was a rhetorical question because the answer was irrelevant to my point.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 08:20 PM
0

You must not really know a lot of married couples or be familiar with the average married dynamics... In her eye and in the eyes of the government, that is her money. Proof?
/r/MensRights03/05/12 08:19 PM
1

I would argue biology. Biology makes women less likely to go into engineering or something, or that women are biologically less patient/apt at handling stress/ambitious etc? Yes, but how is this a disadvantage? Socialization or biology determines what the woman values more, and because of that she has different priorities and chooses to made decisions which prioritize other things over pay. How is any of this a problem for her? Well, yeah, if you give up high pay you get other things in return. …
/r/MensRights03/05/12 07:36 PM
1

Your actions and choices (and luck, but that's obviously gender-neutral) result in making different amounts of money. Why are men more likely to make the actions and choices that result in them getting higher pay? Socialization something something etc. Yes, women can do that if they want, but clearly they don't as often, which means that if a person is born a woman, statistically they are less likely to. Imagine being born into a very racist family/environment. You could choose not to be racist,…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 06:51 PM
1

Well.. yeah, in an abusive relationship the abusive party would be the one to control pretty much everything. But most relationships aren't like that.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 05:16 PM
9

It does not say they had sex after he refused. Yes, it does. A police spokesman was quoted as saying: “He complied with the woman's wishes another few times so he could finally leave the apartment."
/r/MensRights03/05/12 08:15 AM
2

A bit of speculation on what happened; the officer told him he would be freed to make him feel relaxed. They then intentionally planned on leaving meth in the cell with him, hoping that he would take it of his own accord and so they could charge him and claim he took it prior to the arrest. After five days they pulled him out because he was in danger of dying. Though I don't know why they wouldn't take him out earlier. If there wasn't malicious intent, then they must just be idiots who somehow l…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 08:07 AM
3

Somebody just posted to tell me I was mistaken, it was 40% of trafficked adults were male; http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/26/two-fifths-human-trafficking-male?newsfeed=true
/r/MensRights03/05/12 06:37 AM
1

Oh shit, my bad. Must have pulled the two out of "two-fifths" and added a zero.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 06:36 AM
1

thought it might be a more fitting place. You were wrong. This is r/mensrights, not r/bashonwomen.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 04:28 AM
5

I'm not sure what angle you're going for; unless she's a terrible shot, her side of the story seems likely. I can't think of why the guy would lie about abusing her if he hadn't, so it seems safe to conclude he had. I know the article isn't going to give us all the info on the situation, and we can't absolutely trust it, but it certainly seems likely what she did was justified, and should not be going to jail for it.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 04:26 AM
5

It's only misogynistic if the reason it's devalued is because women are doing it, or if women are shunted into it being it's already worthless. Can you provide evidence that either thing is the case? Also, this isn't about it being devalued. They aren't saying "bah, it's not a real job, so you can't get a credit card because you aren't good enough". They're saying "you don't get to declare other people's income on your own credit card application unless they give permission". Which makes perfect…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 04:14 AM
4

Setting up men's rights groups at universities is, I think, a great thing to do. It would get a lot of exposure, effective recruitment, and the group could organize advertizing campaigns (1in6, male-focused depression/suicide, men as victims of IPV etc) and do fundraises for pretty much anything related to men (donating to something like SAVE, that hotline for male victims of domestic abuse, innocence project etc). I think getting more people interested and knowledgeable is the most important th…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 02:35 AM
3

But that was the entire point I made. This entire comment chain is just you somehow not being able to understand it despite me repeating it half a dozen times.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 02:20 AM
3

ಠ_ಠ It does by the dictionary definition. Jesus. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I know that the dictionary definition isn't all there is to it. That's why I never said that.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 02:13 AM
3

If you're not being ignorant, or willfully ignorant, then I dont know what the problem is. Cognative dissonance? It's called "being rational". It just suddenly happened to me when I was like 7. Maybe you'll get there some day. You need to find another label for yourself if you are truly equal rights for both men and women. Do you still think I call myself a feminist? Dear god, you are slow.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 02:00 AM
3

It's basically a woman's article for women, so I'm okay with it just discussing cheating men, though I think it's good she put the women's number in so it wasn't just reinforcing "men are all cheaters" mentalities. Could have done without the "This one really shocked me." but oh well, good enough I guess.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 01:41 AM
1

It might be fake.. but I don't understand why this is posted here. "A girl made a rape allegation that looks shady and may be false" isn't much to go on.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 01:29 AM
3

The dictionary definition of feminist is "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." By that definition, most people here are feminists ("A person who supports feminism.") It says it right there. Are you telling me you never noticed it?
/r/MensRights03/05/12 01:26 AM
5

I think you're misinterpreting the comment. I don't think he meant "Reasonable people who don't support rape as opposed to /r/mensrights...", he's saying "there's nothing wrong with eating it up because all reasonable people, which may include /r/mensrights, who don't support rape...". i.e. he's saying it's not just us that have a problem with people laughing at it, he's saying all reasonable people would.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 01:23 AM
3

I honestly don't see how you can't understand. You're impossibly thick-headed. I'm not saying anything about the feminist movement. "Feminism has become far darker than the cosy theory you hold on to." - the point I'm making is unrelated to what "feminism has become", and you apparently don't understand what I think of it (because I've said three times now I don't think well of it and your words imply otherwise). I'm talking about the word feminist. Not all the connotations you choose to attach …
/r/MensRights03/05/12 01:15 AM
3

...I myself posted the criticisms of feminism. I typed them. On my laptop. My brain was the one that decided what to write. I'm pretty sure that if I didn't know the criticisms of feminism, then that couldn't happen. You aren't actually debating the point I made, you're just criticizing the feminist movement... which I've already stated twice, including in my initial post, I agree with (to a degree). I said The dictionary definition of feminist is "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds o…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 01:00 AM
1

True, you could argue it's female privilege that your work environment is likely to be far better (obviously <5% work deaths is).
/r/MensRights03/05/12 12:29 AM
3

Im used to thrashing it out with feminists who actually purposely try to deceive, but you actual believe what you're saying, when all the time you're just ignorant. And yet you're totally incapable of explaining why, despite ample opportunity and even an explicit request. So, intentionally trying to decieve, or ignorant; which are you?
/r/MensRights03/05/12 12:21 AM
-4

And earning the money is an issue of privilege, but spending it isn't? No, both are advantages. I was saying that the person who earns the money has the final say on where it goes. Their choice to allow their spouse to spend it may be an issue, but doesn't negate that. That is obtuse. If a man is in the role of protector and provider (servant), it is that, not the wife, that controls him. It makes him a utility. And that is the fundamental problem with your entire argument, and why I wrote the a…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 12:20 AM
4

I just think that it's very, very important to make clear that "male privilege" does not exist in the way that feminists say it does. And, agreed. Good talk.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 12:14 AM
-4

That's not how privilege works. Privilege is an advantage you're provided by society, a head start. It would be privilege if it were easier for men to make a larger amount of money. That's not the case. The factors that cause it to happen are the privilege. Just like whatever factors cause men to commit suicide more often are female privilege; clearly women are benefiting in some way men aren't (unless it's biological in nature, but that seems unlikely).
/r/MensRights03/05/12 12:13 AM
6

You've had the criticisms of feminism explained to you on countless occasions, even in this thread. ...I myself posted the criticisms of feminism. I typed them. On my laptop. My brain was the one that decided what to write. I'm pretty sure that if I didn't know the criticisms of feminism, then that couldn't happen. Any person that believes women should be equal to men can choose to identify as feminist. Choosing to do so doesn't change anything about them. It's just a label that can apply to any…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 12:12 AM
0

The gender "gap" does not exist, the [1] U.S. Department of Labor has debunked the gender "wage gap" already. They debunked the idea that it was caused by sexism, not that the median wages were different. There are various choices you can make that will reduce your pay, and if you're a woman then for whatever reason you're more likely to make those choices. And I think there was an article posted to [2] /r/MensRights not too long ago shining light on the fact that about 50% of trafficked people …
/r/MensRights03/05/12 12:09 AM
3

So are you too stupid to articulate it or are you just bullshitting?
/r/MensRights03/05/12 12:05 AM
-8

If you're single then it's an advantage. Also "controlling money" and "deciding where money is spent" are not the same thing. Unless a man is totally controlled by his wife, letting her choose where to spend the money isn't an issue of privilege.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 12:00 AM
3

I know what a feminist is, darling, it seems you dont, or you're just willfully ignorant. Educate me?
/r/MensRights02/05/12 11:57 PM
1

First, I'm aware of the issues. Here's a post I wrote. Did you just ignore my entire post? All of the things you listed are examples of female privileges. But the existence of female privileges doesn't mean that male privileges don't exist. Your argument seems to be "men are discriminated against/behind women in these areas, therefore women can't be discriminated against/behind men in any other areas". If that's not what you're saying, I have no idea. I'm no good at thinking of women's issues of…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 11:56 PM
-7

Prove it, else you prove that you are being ridiculous. You are statistically more likely to make a larger amount of money. And whatever you believe the reasons are for the causes of that (if you think the decisions rooted in biology or sociological factors or some combination of the two), the fact remains. As an analogy, when men kill themselves at 4x the rate of women, that's a men's rights issue; it doesn't matter what the cause is, it's still a problem (i.e. a female privilege would be that …
/r/MensRights02/05/12 11:42 PM
3

I have no idea what you even think a feminist is. It's not like a secret club where you get magic rings and sit about plotting the downfall of men. It's a label that anybody can apply to themselves as long as they adhere to the dictionary definition (i.e. support equal rights for women), which I do. However, if you do not choose to apply the label, you are not a feminist, and I'm pretty sure I already explained why I choose not too.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 11:38 PM
8

I don't like how people take the most extreme form of privilege and then use it to dismiss the whole concept. Being male gives you some advantages. It's seriously ridiculous to disagree with this. Likewise, being female gives you some advantages, and disagreeing is ridiculous. I like to call those advantages male privilege and female privilege respectively. Yes, there are plenty of feminists who are just ridiculous about it; every man has individual power over every woman and all that. There are…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 10:47 PM
5

EDIT: I actually read this as "Is it possible to be an MRA and a feminist", but my response works just as well so oh well. The dictionary definition of feminist is "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." By that definition, most people here are feminists ("A person who supports feminism."); there are some traditionalists (who aren't necessarily anti-women's-rights but are generally) and a few outright misogynists, but apart from that we…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 10:41 PM
26

I like how they're talking about misogyny when it's actually gender neutral - a stay-at-home dad or male homemaker would face the exact same issue. I don't really see why you would object to requiring all parties who income you are declaring to sign off on it. If it's in your name or will affect your credit rating, it shouldn't be done without your permission. You may feel it's demeaning but I think it does serve a useful purpose and it's honestly not that big a deal.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 09:52 PM
2

Then should we force everybody to give all their possessions away, infect themselves with malaria, and stop eating more than 100 calories of food per day, because there are people living that way in the world, and making us equal with them matters more than letting us live happy lives?
/r/MensRights02/05/12 09:37 PM
2

some semblance of right is to do heinous things No, you're just making it more wrong. If there are two people and I punch one in the face, it might be more equal if I punch the other one but it sure as hell isn't more right.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 09:03 PM
23

Or using emotional hyperbole to amplify the issue for people who don't know better.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 08:52 PM
1

I am a female social worker who is an advocate for women's issues, so this is a difficult thing for me to do... will not get in to debates with anyone about why I am an advocate for women's issues We aren't opposed to women's rights (except for a crazy few, ignore them). The antifeminism you see here is opposition the feminist movement or idealogy, not opposition to their stated goals (I am not antifeminist myself). There's less coverage/knowledge of male abuse, so they will mostly likely feel l…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 08:48 PM
3

She misinterpreted the comment as saying he wouldn't support anti-FGM unless more people were anti-MGM. She wasn't saying he had to actively fight for it, she was saying he should be against it. Lets get this straight honey, people like you have little influence. Men like me set the agenda. That makes me extremely sad for the future of the MRM. Also makes me laugh somewhat at your inflated ego.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:31 PM
2

Then feminists should stop coming here and complaining that we dont do enough for female issues. Link to examples of that? Absolute garbage. Really? You think if the headline of the MRM changed from "let's target equality by solving men's issues" to "let's fix men's issues while disregarding the negative effects on women" people will think better of it? We already get accusations of misogyny (no thanks to you and your ilk), I don't think your idea is gonna improve that.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:10 PM
2

The environment the feminist movement grew in was a much easier one; we have to contest with how huge it has become and far fewer people thinking about ways men are discriminated against. People used to think "meh, the system works, it's not so bad for women"; now they think "women are so goddamn oppressed and men are so goddamn privileged" (minor hyperbole but eh).
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:07 PM
1

Exactly. I've argued this... three times, I think, and none of the times did they get it. It seems so simple, makes me rage. They just talk about how some types of discrimination that used to exist still do which means it's the same thing or- fuck, I don't know.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:04 PM
1

Relevance to men's rights? The talk is purely about abortion, not other areas. I'm pro-choice and I don't see why the MRM would have anything to say on the matter (in terms of legality of abortion I mean, not about male reproductive rights).
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:00 PM
4

a) Your premise is false. The feminist movement almost exclusively fights for women's rights. That is not the same thing as not caring about them. I don't expect the MRM to fight for women's rights. b) Because we're decent human beings and not bigoted assholes. c) Because not caring about women's rights would make the mission of the MRM much harder, as people would rightly oppose it.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 05:57 PM
2

Heh.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 05:51 PM
3

You need to get out of a male space. Except r/mr isn't a male space, women are welcome to post here. Also, I'm male. Turns out it's not only women that are less insane than you, shocking. Seriously, this is why men dont like women. Inaccurate hyperbole, also false inference given my posting methods have no effect on men liking women (unless I'm talking to somebody more rational than you and it improves). You come here with your bullshit accusations, tie up everybodys time with garbage. Hmm, nope…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 05:11 PM
5

We get a lot of "r/mr is a hub of misogyny" shit and a fair few "you gotta be nicer" threads, so a lot of people are sick of it and clearly some are downvoting you automatically. If your post was better formulated you'd avoid some/most of it, but you were very accusatory without posting any supporting evidence.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 05:06 PM
3

batshit insane I consider her misguided. I consider you batshit insane. woman Unlike you, I don't consider this a bad thing. feminist She's already said she isn't a feminist. To you. Explicitly. who uses false accusations. As do you..
/r/MensRights02/05/12 04:57 PM
4

Don't engage. I would happily say he's the worst poster in mr. He uses woman as an insult.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 04:36 PM
5

saying that all women are gold-digging whore feminists. I rarely see anything of that nature, and I think it's likely I read this subreddit more than you. Somebody complaining about how common it is for women to be gold-diggers isn't any more misogynistic than saying you're shocked by how many men are rapists is misandric; it's just pointing out a reality (you can contest if they're right, but anyway) and saying it disgusts you. Or that if women are raped they deserve it. I don't like this sort …
/r/MensRights02/05/12 04:19 PM
5

Brings up quite a few issues. Education, custody, mentions sex and suicide. I'd like an article to just reel through a list of concerns but focusing on a few works too. Hate this crap though: "For thousands of years women were subjugated as second class citizens... The men's activists are denying history. While of course poor men were pretty goddamn oppressed too, nobody is saying "women were never oppressed", we're saying "women aren't oppressed" (more than men, or at least significantly more).…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 04:02 PM
2

As an aside: Why does this subreddit feel the need to document every crime or wrongdoing committed by women? The idea is that there are common stereotypes where women are always innocent and don't do bad things. If you look at comments on articles where a woman, for example, assaulted an ex-boyfriend, there tend to be a lot of people talking about how he got what he deserved; when a man does, he's a monster. When a man has sex with a minor, he's a sick pedo, when a woman does people often say he…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 03:38 PM
8

I personally hate how PE is always playing boring sports. I have no interest in playing basketball or rugby, I loathe them. I think elementary schools do great PE; mine have always revolved around playing various games, with the odd lesson doing sports. That way people learn how to play sports if they want to, but the lessons are generally a lot more fun. I don't like the idea of compulsary dance (which is what zumba is, isn't it?), but opportunities to use gyms, do swimming, rollerblading or cy…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 10:31 AM
0

Durr durr Neither, I was mocking you. I don't believe that all behaviours are sociological. That's why I never said I believed that. You just assumed I thought that way; I actually only clarified a point you misunderstood.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 04:04 AM
1

And that is insanity. It's not "insanity". If you look at the availabe evidence, a rational person would generally conclude that there are biological mental differences, but it's not the obvious, common sense conclusion you seem to imply. Common sense or "just look at it, durr" can not divulge to you the root cause of behaviours. A question - if somebody is a serial killer, do you believe that that's hardwired into them and they would have turned out that way no matter their upbringing? Given it…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 06:52 PM
-3

Nobody thinks that in today's society men and women are exactly equal, that would be lunacy. The belief is that the differences are sociological in nature and not biological. Proving the latter isn't a simple matter of saying they're different so therefore duh, it's a complex area of study.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 06:32 PM
0

I think that a fetus is worth less than a dog, but that the harm of killing a fetus is the emotional trauma and physical damage caused by it is worse. A mother may feel the same way about her beloved dog dying as her fetus miscarrying, I have no idea, but I find that unlikely.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 06:27 PM
1

I don't think they're the same thing.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 06:22 PM
1

It can't be.. feticide Wat. Killing a fetus... can't be feticide. But that's the definition of feticide. Killing a fetus.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 06:19 PM
0

I'm just as valid You're suggesting he's never seen any information on the topic and is simply making things up? You haven't provided any evidence. That was my point. I've provided more than you.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 06:10 PM
0

Opinion with no scientific basis provided. Right, because Mr. random dude on the internet is waaaay more knowledgable on the subject than a professor of pediatrics at Harvard. I'm sure he's just talking out his ass and has never seen a scrap of proof to suggest what he's saying is true. And there are no changes before those few days, or just that in those first few days the changes are faster? True. There's just no mention of changes during the pregnancy, which suggests that either the studies h…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 05:59 PM
2

You think that depriving a woman of a child that she wants and has bonded with (not to mention the health aspects, but they don't contribute to the murder-ness) is the same thing as a woman choosing not to take on the enormous physical strain and risk of pregnancy in order to enter servitude to a fetus she doesn't want? If a woman is pregnant - it's wrong to force her to carry it to term if she doesn't want to. But, if she wants it, it's also wrong to forcibly end her pregnancy and deny her the …
/r/MensRights01/05/12 05:32 PM
1

This. Bonding for a father usually begins when initial eye contact is made and the baby responds to him, says Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, professor emeritus of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School This A recent wave of studies are starting to bear fruit: We are now learning that in the first few days after birth, changes occur in the brains of both the dad and the baby, depending on whether the father is around or not. [emphasis mine]
/r/MensRights01/05/12 04:44 PM
1

So? You may have felt genuine affection and love during the pregnancy, but as I said, that was your reaction to the notion of your own child, and not a personal attachment.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 04:23 PM
1

Got any evidence contradicting that assertion?
/r/MensRights01/05/12 04:18 PM
-1

Couvade syndrome != bonding with a child. It's a series of physical effects. The dad-to-be may love the concept of the child (and thus suffer emotional pain at its failure), but they won't love the child itself until it's born so it won't be the same.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 04:15 PM
-1

This is the ONLY argument you have made which holds up to criticism, because And it's enough on its own. Already done to men, nobody cares. Men can't get pregnant. You're ending somebody else's pregnancy which includes the man's genetic matter. Not remotely the same thing, especially since father-child bonding occurs post-birth and for mothers it begins during pregnancy. Already done, and shock horror, nobody cares. If you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses the baby, there's a g…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 03:37 PM
2

And which is worse, that or 18 years of servitude? Given that it's not actually "servitude"; The former. You're breaking trust, putting their body at risk, ending their pregnancy (killing a fetus they may want to keep), all behind their back and without their consent. I think forced child support for a kid you never wanted is wrong. But I think this is far worse.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 03:17 PM
8

Like most drugs, RU-486 has a list of possible negative side effects. It can also negatively impact any babies that she has in the near future after taking it. Giving somebody a drug that can put them in the hospital without their knowledge is disgusting. Not to mention the emotional trauma of a "miscarriage".
/r/MensRights01/05/12 03:08 PM
3

For the former, there can be legit problems with it. Having sex with somebody who is extremely drunk is morally repugnant (obviously if you are too drunk to care you get a pass). But I just can't characterize it the same way if they give enthusiastic consent while drunk. But there's a third possibility in between the two. It isn't "enthusiastic consent because I want to" or "I was forcibly raped", there's a middle ground. Think of when you really wanted/needed to do something, but you just could…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:02 PM
5

Got your title backwards.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 01:23 PM
2

Afeministmedia is. Demonspawn is kind of. iImplying said something misogynistic the other day though I'd never seen him before that.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:45 AM
0

I don't think that exists, but this isn't a debate I want to have (and am not prepared for). Okay, but first, just curious; do you think it exists for men? Not if it's true that people of varying races have varying levels of intelligence for genetic reasons. But that's another rabbit hole I'd rather not go down. Right, and if that's true then you're just stating facts (though one can state facts and still be a bigot.. I mean that the fact-stating itself doesn't make you one). But you need proof.…
/r/MensRights29/04/12 10:54 PM
1

They very much do apply. You think every single historical circumstance of men is still fuly in effect today? It's ridiculous for you (or anyone else) to blame women for these ideas when you (as in men, not you specifically) planted these ideas! What decisions of a woman are actually her own and not somebody else's? Do you think women have any agency whatsoever?
/r/MensRights29/04/12 10:37 PM
3

Didn't he include dressing sluttily and flirting with men as "stupidy put[ting] themselves in harm's way"?
/r/MensRights29/04/12 04:29 PM
-6

No, he advocates not caring about rape victims if they didn't do everything they could to avoid being raped.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 04:12 PM
3

Guys, guys. I just have to say; the police station it shows, and that cool sculpture in the background when the cop is talking? I've been there!
/r/MensRights29/04/12 04:10 PM
1

Oh god, seriously. Will you read it if I write it? Is it true for every single feminist? Perhaps not. Yet it is true for the dominant majority. One example doesn't prove that point.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 04:08 PM
3

If you're empirically correct, it's not bigotry. If I say "black people commit a relatively larger number of crimes than white people", it's not bigoted, it's accurate (I think. If not, bear with me). If I then say "black people commit more crime than white people"; given the arrest/legal bias against ethnic minorities, I wouldn't feel very safe making that claim. It might be true, but it's still a grand claim. But if I then say "black people are inherently more predisposed to crime", then I'm b…
/r/MensRights29/04/12 12:28 PM
2

discriminating is excluding or restricting the use of something to a certain group. Wiki says "Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category."
/r/MensRights29/04/12 07:01 AM
1

It's both discrimination and a marketing strategy.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 05:36 AM
5

There's no evidence There's a piece of paper that explicitly says it. I mean, we don't have absolute proof, but there's certainly evidence. And even if it's fake; that situation has happened elsewhere so the discussion is still relevant to that.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 05:33 AM
11

[Girls] are inherently vain and shallow. Guys.. please don't upvote his comment. Please.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 05:30 AM
0

but we still must contend with its aftereffects even today. Right, but we don't contend with slavery itself. The modern world is built upon the past, influenced by the past, but it isn't the past. Our culture was founded, in part, on the principle that women aren't actually people, but possessions. Men were also possessions of the wealthy elite. How is sending people to die in their thousands for no good reason treating them like people? Women were thought of as less intelligent and weaker (that…
/r/MensRights29/04/12 05:29 AM
3

You're thinking the clitoris itself. But how many nerve endings are removed isn't the important part. It's the erogenous tissue that's the issue. But the foreskin also has a mechanical function, which reduces friction pain and risk of vaginal dryness.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 05:24 AM
1

Tough titties chica, you made your bed, time to sleep in it. So.. did she choose how much money to earn?
/r/MensRights29/04/12 05:17 AM
1

However, you are failing to see the the incredibly complex set of historical circumstances that have contributed to WHY women aren't often expected to pay for their own dinner. These were social constants placed on women BY MEN, and surprise surprise they were not in fact set in place to oppress men. These things don't apply any more. Yeah, not so long ago expecting a woman to pay for dinner would almost always be ridiculous; but the present isn't the same as said historical circumstances.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 04:55 AM
1

Both are entitled, but like I said this one is far worse. Don't menstruate, talk or try to make friends?
/r/MensRights28/04/12 02:23 PM
1

I assumed the point of this was to parody the "20 things guys should never do to girls" submission. But the message is very different.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 02:07 PM
4

This one is a lot worse than the guy one...
/r/MensRights28/04/12 01:56 PM
2

So the common perception is that it purely affects women. This is no different to male rape victims or male domestic violence victims. Being less than half is completely irrelevant, the male victims are ignored.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 05:02 AM
5

Saw that was my comment and I was like Holy fuck what And then realized you mean the person I was arguing with. Heh.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:57 PM
-1

No, just that that boy is better. Though boys do tend to be better at sports.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:55 PM
-1

Yeah, definitely agree.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:00 PM
4

Women are viewed as less capable in many areas, especially technical fields or labour (the latter is generally true, but many women are very capable). Women are stereotyped as caring more about children (which is an issue for women who don't; there's often an assumption all women will end up wanting kids). These lead on to the "girls don't play games" and "girls are bad at math" sort of stereotypes. There are stereotypes of ditzyness, or being over-emotional or excessively talkative. Women that …
/r/MensRights26/04/12 06:59 PM
17

Men do not suffer discrimination for being men Oh, so.. men getting higher sentences for the same crimes, as supported by every study ever done on the topic. That's not discrimination? How terribly confusing. Yes and they get money because they're disabled not because of their gender Yeah... that was the point I was making. And what are MRAs activists trying to do to help this? Irrelevant to the topic. This doesn't support your argument, and the fact that this is all you can say about it makes i…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 05:12 PM
16

Citation? I hear this all the time, sometimes legitimate (scholarships) and sometimes obviously not (primarily funding women-specific cancers is okay because non-gendered cancers focus on men... somehow). But given the majority of homeless and unemployed are men and there are women's offices for education, health etc (but no male counterparts) - can you provide a citation showing that the male focus in other areas counterbalances the specific funding? Also, funding men's groups and funding group…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 04:53 PM
4

I read about 300 books every year. So fuck you, motherfucker.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 02:57 PM
1

You're under the mistaken assumption that I'm for discriminatory hiring practices like that No I'm not. I was just giving one specific example of casual racism. Most people in the world discriminate based on race in some way, some in very minor ways, some in major ways. I know that I am casually racist in a few ways, and I'm sure I am in other ways I'm not aware of. I'm sure the same is true of you. Also, consciously supporting discriminatory hiring practices is not the same as actually subconsc…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 02:27 PM
7

The common perception, along with most advertising of the issue, is that it exclusively affects girls and women. This study found that's inaccurate, and in fact 40% of the victims are male. So... what. Oh, it's a whole freaking 60%, therefore there's something wrong with anybody finding out it's not 100%? What is the point you're trying to make?
/r/MensRights26/04/12 02:22 PM
3

TWO young girls made up allegations of rape against an 11-year-old Westhoughton schoolboy, a court heard. Liverpool Crown Court was told yesterday that the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told police the claims were false. The girls claim he's a rapist, he claims he isn't. You title is incorrect because it makes assumptions of guilt without proof.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 02:09 PM
-3

You raise a good point, I'm sure plenty of people do just look to blame others - I'm just projecting. That's why I don't like the feminist line of "the only person responsible is the rapist, you're 100% innocent" - yes, your actions weren't bad, and you didn't ask to be raped, but that line of thinking basically says "do the exact same thing again because it's perfectly fine" which of course will keep your risk high. But I don't like lack of sympathy for things that fuck with your head; if it's …
/r/MensRights26/04/12 01:15 PM
2

You can read the study here. Note that the Fact Sheet makes no mention of the number of men raped via envelopment.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 05:16 AM
2

You're under the impression that racist means KKK. It doesn't. If we look at an employer/interviewer who hires a white person 90% of the time when they're up against an equally qualified black person, then that is almost certainly due to racism. If you see a bunch of black thugs hanging around in front of a shop and you get more concerned than you would if they were white, that's racism. Casual racism is subconsciously or consciously treating people of different races differently, based solely o…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 05:15 AM
3

The CDC's NISVS found approximately equal numbers, shown here (ignore the patronizing tone, I made it for somebody who was told like 3 times and insisted the numbers didn't exist). There's also prison rape.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 05:02 AM
5

If you have given general sexual consent to someone, as an ongoing fuckbuddy, boyfriend/girlfriend, or husband, can the other person truly rape you? Jesus, what the fuck? 0 days old, this is your first post Phew, looks like you're a troll. Anyway, just in case; rape is sex without consent. If you have sex with somebody when they do not want to, if they tell you to stop and you refuse or they try to get away and you stop them, that's rape. There is absolutely no reason why it should be a differen…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 04:57 AM
12

If they actually got raped, then they are already going to be thinking about how they could have avoided it. I'm sure everybody does that; after something terrible happens, you just go over and over "Why didn't I just punch him and run? Why did I go back to his place? Why didn't I just stay home tonight?". When you repeat those worries to them, even if your intent is just to protect them in future (seriously, wait for a better time) you're basically confirming their fears and making them feel li…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 04:51 AM
1

Clearly I was wrong, you have made me see this with your extremely convincing evidence. It's anecdotes vs anecdotes here. It's too much effort to bother googling for anything substantial. But if you care, try having a look at how deep voices and being taller earn you more respect, it's pretty well documented. You are just being ridiculous. No.. you quite literally are being judgmental. If someone says that people are jerks and that they are going to act like a selfish douche we can't assume that…
/r/MensRights25/04/12 04:12 PM
1

Please share your experiences that tell you that the only reason people look out for other people is the threat of violence. Some people, not all. When you're a lot taller and bigger than people, you notice really obvious changes in their demeanor when they see that. I've had people tell me over their shoulder to "fuck off" when I ask them to move, and then when I ask again they turn around grinning or sneering, then have a total change of expression and move out of my way. When I'm walking alon…
/r/MensRights25/04/12 03:40 PM
1

Again, this is just not the way the world works. It does in my experience. Maybe you live some idyllic life where everybody prioritizes other people over themself, but that's certainly not how my life works and unless they're all just delusional ,it's not how huge numbers of people who talk about this on the internet's lives work. I don't really see why they need to move instead of you going around them. Because me going around them would require me to fly my bicycle over a wall or a fence. It s…
/r/MensRights25/04/12 03:19 PM
2

So you think that people on the subway are only pushy to you, and it is only the threat of violence that keeps them from pushing other people? That is not how the world works. Not the threat of violence, necessarily. Just the belief that they can or will do something about it. That can range from calling them an asshole to shooting them in the chest. Maybe the people on the subway didn't see the people inside, or maybe they have no problem with their being a bit of a logjam on entering the subwa…
/r/MensRights25/04/12 02:57 PM
6

1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men have been sexually assaulted at some time in their lives Ouch, they didn't even say rape. If they'd said rape, then they could use screwy definitions to make that technically true, but since they said "sexually assaulted" it's a blatantly false statement.
/r/MensRights25/04/12 02:44 PM
3

I upvoted it. She's exaggerating and generalizing (though that may really be her specific circumstances), but I agree with her. People care less or more about the opinions and desires of men/women, depending on the situation. People tend to care more about getting where they're going with minimum hassle, than they are catering to other people's ability to get where they're going. An example; Japan's trains are crazy busy (especially during rush hours, you're packed in like sardines right to the …
/r/MensRights25/04/12 02:29 PM
1

..Of course she would?
/r/MensRights25/04/12 02:14 PM
1

Probably?
/r/MensRights25/04/12 05:49 AM
3

She initiated sex while he was asleep. He woke up to his pants being pulled down. Are you okay with a guy stripping a sleeping girl? I don't think she's a rapist at all, but I think it's ridiculous that you can initiate sex with somebody, do it all yourself and at no point during sex want or try to stop, and still be a rape victim.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 08:01 PM
3

Incredibly obvious shop. Just bad. You didn't even think to blank out "viperz". How embarassing for you.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 07:55 PM
5

It seriously cracks me up that you can say things like that and not feel embarrassed. Also that you even think that you're insulting me.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 07:00 PM
2

Both are in the wrong, neither did something respectable or okay. But the guy started it. I think the reaction to her is fair. Of course, there wouldn't be such a reaction if the reverse happened. Comments would be "you DON'T touch women" and "lol I wish I'd get flashed!". But the article itself is fine in my eyes.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 06:56 PM
4

I can't work out how to take care of them. You have to buy food.. but there are like 10 different types. How do you know which one to get? Meat or biscuits? Also I'm scared that he'll scratch me and I'll become so aroused from the pain (like all women) that I'll rape him. Also, since you're probably going to get scared of losing too many internet points soon and quit, I'm a guy. I'm messing with you because you're stupid.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 06:46 PM
5

Relatability. Take the line about how the parents have said it to the son, and they're thankful to him because they feel he got through better. Teenage boys are more likely to look up and relate to men. If women took that place in his life it should be just as good, but that doesn't happen as much.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 06:42 PM
3

Am I close? Hit the nail on the head ;-; I lied, there is no man. No man will touch me. I can't stand my body. But luckily there are wonderful people like yourself who tell me I'm worthless because of my weight to incentivize me to lose it. Maybe some day I'll finally be less than 200lbs and I'll be able to get a boyfriend who will teach me how to operate a dishwasher. Then I'll have way more spare time for laundry (which I need because those gosh-darned pegs are so tricky to use).
/r/MensRights24/04/12 06:25 PM
1

I can't, my inferior female brain couldn't operate the light-box so my big smart strong man helped me get on and now I can't figure out how to get off ;-; It's a real problem, I wish I wasn't biologically inferior to an impressive specimen like yourself.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 06:18 PM
1

So mean ;-; I guess I'll adopt your style and berate anybody who dares to express a preference within the confines of r/mr.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 06:10 PM
0

Hey, I like you. I'm just being adversarial right now because I've been drinking. You're a cool dude. Peace.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 04:44 PM
4

The "men are assholes" part is the same as what he did (worse, actually). Though yes, I don't think talking about your own appearance with friends is the same thing as talking about other people's appearance when they don't welcome it. Though I don't object to saying somebody is hot. Nor do I think using "girl" in that context is belittling.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 04:43 PM
12

It was your words, not the submission, that I objected to. Just seems kind of over the top. We all know how terrible some women can be. I actually don't like large numbers of "a woman did a bad thing" unless there's misandry in reports about it, I'd prefer large volumes being posted at once at fewer occasions. But I'm okay with them.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 04:33 PM
15

Yes, we get it, there are bad women too.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 04:19 PM
1

Why?
/r/MensRights24/04/12 12:15 PM
1

You don't have to explicitly say "Yes, I want to have sex" to consent. Reciprocating is implicit consent. Even not actively reciprocating isn't necessarily lack of consent (see awkward people losing their virginity).
/r/MensRights24/04/12 11:55 AM
3

Most people in the thread, too, read this part: See, I was caught off guard and wasn't prepared to be having sex that night, so it was bareback. I came inside her. I wasn't even sure she knew it was me. But I was in no state to argue, because I was half asleep, and she practically raped me! And interpreted it as "sober guy rapes drunk girl because she thinks it's her boyfriend". In that case, I still wouldn't consider it rape (seriously, how the fuck can mounting a guy ever be getting raped, thi…
/r/MensRights24/04/12 11:18 AM
7

Judge it on its own merits, it's a good article.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 01:54 AM
2

He's speaking of trends and averages; what he said is like saying "women like tall men". There are women that like the opposite, but you're much less likely to come across them.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 01:41 AM
15

The social contract breaking isn't a bad thing; the option still exists but it isn't so restrictive. The issue is that it was smashed aside by the rise of women's empowerment, and men basically haven't found a new way. Women got to abandon it as they moved into the traditionally masculine place in society, while still retaining the ability to stick to the traditional feminine one. Because gender roles still exist (or perhaps a biological reason, don't know), as well as pedophile hysteria and the…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 02:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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