TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

EricTheHalibut Archive

View 2 posts and 767 comments by EricTheHalibut on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

If anyhitng I'd say the MRM is a potentially useful tool for the powers that be. I don't mean that in the sense of promoting patriarchy or anything that a feminist ideologue might say, but rather two practical points. The simplest is that the reintroduction of lower-class women to the workforce and the introduction of middle-class women to formal employment was good for employers, because it increased the labour pool and thus, by simple macroeconomics, helped keep down wages while still allowing…
/r/MensRights27/02/14 10:36 AM
1

In some places the legality of circumcision rests on the filmy basis of the potential medical advantages, not on any freedom of religion argument, so that would encourage Jews to support non-theraputic child circumcision for gentiles as well.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 02:40 PM
1

Apparently the RCC got rather vocal about it too - they support religious freedom over other rights, presumably to protect their own institutions.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 08:54 AM
0

I doubt it, the party is a tiny minor party that everyone outside their few churches think are a bunch of idiots. The first I heard of that ad was a mocking 2-paragraph piece from a blatantly pro-Liberal (that is, right-wing) senior journalist in a Murdoch rag.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 02:12 PM
1

The fertility aspect is irrelevant to my conscious mind, since I don't heve the slightest interest in kids, but I'll happily concede that it is probably why the markers of youth are attractive to me.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 02:06 PM
2

I don't think the SS is a fair comparison - the Young Turks led the country to genocide, they undid a lot of the multiculturalism of the Empire, and were more dictatorial than the Ottoman government (they were formally less dictatorial, but had more practical control), but they secularised and westernised the country, and developed the schools, infrastructure, and so on, which had been neglected.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 01:10 PM
1

You can check whether a page is in people's history by testing the computed style for a link and making some request to the server which depends on it (indeed, it can all be done in CSS by using images in the computed styles, so it works even with JS off). If RES puts items into your history, it will appear to the reddit admins as though you have visited them yourself (although if they were evil, they could figure out whether you accessed the images via RES or the link by detecting the "active" …
/r/MensRights07/08/13 12:36 PM
1

That is probably illegal, though, so OP should be careful.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 12:29 PM
0

There are still far too many scalpel-happy butchers out there who can't tell the difference between normal penile development and phimosis - such as the ignorant bastard who cut me.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 02:54 AM
1

There have been female versions of that poster too, going back at least a century (albeit talking about different diseases). Unless the campaign featured only male versions, I don't think there is anything to object to here.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 12:30 AM
1

The impact I think we're overlooking here, ignoring industry, is the impact on thinking itself, that thinking is being stifled about an issue because media about it can't be produced. The vast majority of Australian porn consumption is downloads from overseas, so the law, while technically applying, is not actually enforced. While I think the law sends a bad message, it don't actually make much difference to ordinary citizens. The law against imports isn't enforced against downloaders or against…
/r/MensRights13/06/13 06:18 AM
1

I think it is because originally porn was banned completely, other than "art studies", so when the ban was relaxed they only allowed tame porn, with "extreme" porn remaining banned. Now, no politician wants to upset the religious voters by un-banning it, and the only real impacts are the harm to the Australian porn industry (tiny) and the fact that a large number of people violate the import restrictions by brining extreme porn in on their laptops. The lack of practical impacts on citizens mean …
/r/MensRights13/06/13 04:57 AM
2

They certainly seem to be traditionalists, they appeared first in opposition to the gay marriage bill, and their references to "family" are rather too similar to traditionalists in English-speaking nations.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 05:43 AM
2

AIUI, the difference is that on-topic heckling is considered to be part of the "game", while off-topic heckling is just being a nuisance.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 04:39 AM
1

What makes that even worse is that they're getting the kind of oral sex wrong - giving oral is what makes oesophageal cancer more likely, not receiving it.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 04:58 AM
1

Yeah, and openly doing it in her article about how women are nearly as bad as men.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 04:01 AM
1

You want to be treated equally? Walk the walk like a man. Or even take him back to her place, then he has to walk home and she gets to stay in bed - although that would mean admitting to her friends that she picked up one of those men that she claims to despise.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 03:31 AM
1

There's a rather heavy dose of slut-shaming aimed at those men too - she sounds like a 1950s mother telling her daughter to guard her purity or nice men won't want to marry her.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 03:27 AM
1

I especially "liked" the case a few years back where the girl was tried as an adult, which isn't self-consistent even if you do think that prison and sex-offender status are a suitable way to "protect children" from themselves.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 06:06 AM
1

It isn't just obesity that makes it early, malnourishment causes it to be later (ISTR that it is shortage of particular nutrients, not just low calorific value, which matters).
/r/MensRights31/05/13 06:04 AM
0

I'm more upset that the new pope isn't a secularist. :) I think it is actually possible for nuns to be cardinals, since the only requirement is that they be appointed by the Pope. Also, if you want the RCC to introduce female priests in the first world, the best way to do that is to exclude priests from the skilled immigrant rules, so they have to compete with unskilled labourers for immigration places (and in many countries, they fill up whatever space is left in the immigration quota after ski…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:20 AM
1

I don't think it does, but some urine remains in the ureatha, IIRC. AIUI, the regulations were written way back when the authorities didn't recognise that female ejaculation was a real thing, and so they said it must just be urine. When they were shown to be wrong, the "it contains urea" was just an excuse to not change the rules and admit their ignorance.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:31 AM
2

The linked Salon article is pretty good - it makes the point that most people here have been making pretty much exactly.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:45 AM
6

The linked Salon article is pretty good - it makes the point that most people here have been making pretty much exactly.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:45 AM
3

When I was in college I got an ear-bashing from the dean about there being topless posters hanging on the walls in the common area outside my room ,because they weren't appropriate in an area where there might be women. He got rather flustered when the women who lived in that area got home and said "what, our posters?"
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:41 AM
1

Obviously there needs to be a lesbian magazine. :)
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:40 AM
2

why so hell bent on protecting the right to make people feel uncomfortable? Because some of us aren't puritans. it's especially awkward to have kids with you in a gas station or even at B & N, It is awkward because you don't feel able to discuss sex and sexuality maturely with them. If they're old enough to care about titty mags, they've got access to far "better" stuff though other means anyway. I'm not saint, but people should keep their private stuff private! Grammar aside, what do you mean b…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:39 AM
3

The solution to that is to improve sex ed and access to condoms, std care, and abortions, not to try to stop teens having sex - the difference in outcomes between France, and, say, the USA (or even within the US between different regions), suggests rather strongly that they're doing something right.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:30 AM
1

Technically, it isn't small tits, it is a purely subjective decision made up by the (essentially unaccountable) censors. If they think it looks too young, they can ban it and you have very little recourse. The other rules aren't much more sensible either - apparently, if there is explicit sex and violence in the same frame, it counts as extreme porn and is thus banned, even if the sex and the violence are separate. What's worse, if a jury believes the model looks under 18 and thinks the material…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:27 AM
1

I thought there was some evidence that blow jobs became rarer after soap taxes were introduced, for obvious reasons, but I forget where I read that.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:25 AM
1

Oh, come on, you might as well claim that it means being underage for the state pension - in the context of this discussion, voting age is totally irrelevant.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 03:57 AM
2

Iff the decision that you would do so was agreed to by both partners at the time, and not a unilateral decision by one party, then I agree with you, although the compensation should be based only on what you gave up and what you contributed unless the partners agreed to something different.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 03:49 AM
4

Oh, so he (probably) is. Well spotted.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 03:28 AM
5

It depends on the local law - AoC isn't 18 even in all of the USA.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 02:55 AM
1

Yeah, i was taken in by the smokescreen that's been spread around. Even so, I don't think that 14+18 should be a criminal matter, as it is only a year beyond war is pretty common, at least here.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 02:44 AM
1

It is a bit of that, but sex matters, and good looks or being either especially clever or tear-jerkingly disabled get points too.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 01:42 AM
3

I'm probably going to vote Pirate if they have a candidate here, since I agree with most of their operating principles (especially the concept of defensive legislation - that legislation should be written on the assumption that sooner or later any evil or obnoxious application of the law will be used), although I disagree with the idea of implementing something like the US 5th Amendment right to not answer the court, and I think their freedom of religion policy needs re-wording, as, like everyon…
/r/MensRights27/05/13 07:08 AM
1

It seems to be a kind of insane combination of traditionalism and PUAism: they seem to support the ideas of people like the /r/Rights4Men crowd, on the basis that their epic Game Skillz would be even better then.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 02:10 AM
1

It would be wrong that the law had charges which could be pressed.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 06:52 AM
1

Personally, I think anyone being punished for something which is later legalised should have their crime expunged - after all, society no longer believes that whatever it was is wrong enough to justify punishment.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 06:32 AM
1

If the photos are real, it might be because of her handedness, or because of the lighting in her bathroom.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 05:57 AM
1

AIUI, she was 14 but is now 15.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 05:56 AM
1

I still heard quite a bit of flak for it (mainly jokes though, she was smart enough that I clearly wasn't taking advantage of some young naive girl). At my school, boys in that situation got quite a lot of flak, but there was a very clear undercurrent of jealousy in most of it.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 12:48 AM
1

Are you suggesting it should be legal for fathers to fight for custody of wanted children so they can drop them off at safe haven locations? That would be an absurd and rigmarolish mechanism for achieving the desired result. Think abut the practical effect. The mother can drop the child off at a safe haven. At that point, her responsibilities and rights are terminated. If the father is interested (and knows), he can then apply to adopt the child, and then becomes the sole parent. Obviously, if t…
/r/MensRights24/05/13 12:37 AM
1

It is better than in South Australia, where the AoC is 17 and there's no close-age exemption. Two 16yos are technically raping each other, and it is only the good sense of the Director of Public Prosecutions (and the fact that no-one will give honest testimony) that stops them both ending up on the sex offenders registry. I wouldn't ben want to bet on that lasting too long since the AG said last year that the anti-CP laws would be enforced against teenagers taking self-shots.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 12:06 AM
1

There are, but the close-age laws only allow 2 years and they were 3 and a few months. Someone said that the close-age exemptions are weaker for homosexual couples too, but I'm not sure what the difference actually is (or if that's even legal).
/r/MensRights24/05/13 12:03 AM
1

Apparently she's been offered a plea bargain (IMO one of the most evil parts of the legal system) which gives her 2 years and no registration, but IDK if she's accepted it.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 11:58 PM
1

I don't think it is too unreasonable. In my year at high school (120 students) I can think of at least 10 relationships offhand with age gaps that big or bigger while the younger partner was underage, and that was about as boringly middle-class as you could get (here it is middle-class teenagers who have the least sex, the fewest relationships, drink the least, and take the least drugs).
/r/MensRights23/05/13 11:48 PM
1

A lot of places have a law which says that if you use a position of authority to demand sex under threat (sometimes even an implied threat) of abusing that authority, you're committing an offence (although usually a lesser offence than rape). If those laws were modified so that the position of authority was rebuttably presumed to be abused (i.e. the partner in authority would have to prove that the other partner actively sought the relationship), that would probably be adequate. I do think that …
/r/MensRights23/05/13 11:26 PM
0

The discretion should be curtailed and the law fixed (and, as a general rule, everyone convicted (or even just arrested) for actions which are no longer illegal should be freed and have it removed from their record).
/r/MensRights23/05/13 11:07 PM
1

The excessively harsh law (even if you think there should be a legal obstacle to their relationship, the life-destryong penalties which could be applied here are unjustifiable) is "justified" in public opinion by demonising male sexuality, which brings the issue within the sphere of MRAism. I believe that if they were talking about a male 18 y/o and a 15 y/o male that there might be a push to free the person. But you'd hear it from the LGBT rights community, not the MRA's. I don't recall a recen…
/r/MensRights23/05/13 11:04 PM
1

IMO we need two reforms to the law: we need the ability to appeal a sentence on the basis that it is lower or higher than that applied in a similar case (IOW, sentences should set binding precedents on future cases); and we need an end to prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors should be obliged to bring to trial every case where there is sufficient evidence unless the innocent victim, without duress or other tampering, defines to cooperate. Also, whenever politicians say that a law will only be u…
/r/MensRights23/05/13 07:00 AM
1

The problem is that the law shouldn't even make conviction possible in this sort of case.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:38 AM
3

She was in a lesbian relationship with a younger girl, which was legal while she was 17 but became a felony when she turned 18. The younger girl's parents found out while she was 17, but allowed the relationship to continue and then reported Kate to the police because they didn't approve of their daughter's homosexuality and thought Kate "turned her gay".
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:36 AM
3

It is usually suggested that the father can only opt out before birth, but as the mother is near-enough always a custodial parent and thus has the ability to give up the child already, that wouldn't actually make any real difference. I would make the law gender-neutral to allow surrogacy or situations where the mother is willing to carry it to term but not to look after it and the father does want it, but that would probably be a very rare usage.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:25 AM
1

Presumably there are provisions for investigating suspected abuse of funds by trustees, so the same could be used for abuse of funs by custodial parents.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:18 AM
6

Assuming you agree that that doesn't preclude men accepting responsibility in exchange for rights with the mother's consent, all this does is change the default from what is being asked for.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:08 AM
4

That's not practically useful though, since unmarried fathers are not usually custodial parents by default, and it is going to be very difficult for them to gain custody just so they can get rid of it. If they try to do it without custody, they are liable to be charged with kidnapping at the very least.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:01 AM
1

Because to men, a key is a device to open something. For women, it’s a weapon we hold between our fingers when we’re walking alone at night. That's her personal paranoia generalised to all women. Plenty of women would just see a key as a tool for unlocking doors, not an impromptu weapon, and plenty of men have used keys as weapons. Because the biggest insult for a guy is to be called a “pussy,” a “little bitch” or a “girl.” Is it? From here on out, being called a “pussy” is an effing badge of ho…
/r/MensRights23/05/13 05:57 AM
0

If they'd never been born, they'd never have existed at all and so wouldn't suffer from not living, just like the kid I didn't conceive yesterday won't suffer from not living. Sure, most people are glad to be alive, but that doesn't mean they'd have suffered by not living.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 06:28 AM
1

change her mind and abort Death is preferable to a difficult life? If it never lives, can it be said to have died? In any case, the argument has been accepted as a valid one in favour of abortion rights for decades.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 06:27 AM
1

Every action has an associated risk. Nothing is consequence free. That doesn't mean we should legislate to create consequences.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 06:25 AM
1

It varies from state to state: 17 in TAS and SA, 16 everywhere else except that it is 18 for anal in QLD (straight or gay) and anyone in a position of power over the other partner (even if the powerful one is younger, in theory). Close-age exemptions vary between states: SA has none, other states have them. Ignorance of the person's age is generally a defence but the specifics of how it must be proved vary from state to state.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 02:37 AM
2

Maybe it depends on the judging criteria? The self-driving model car takes time and a reasonable knowledge of CS, but essentially anyone can do it, whereas her project required much more support in the form of lab equipment. Also, for an Intel-sponsored event, they might be mrs interested in software than batteries.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 02:26 AM
1

The fact that she said she was waiting for the end of the school year suggests that after term ends, the laws will change for them. That happened with one of the teachers at my school.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 02:23 AM
4

For the US population as a whole, the average favours men. For those under 30, it favours women, and as you get older, the balance shifts. This means, of course, that if everything stays as it is now, the pay gap will reverse itself in under 30 years as people retire, and if the change continues at the same rate that will happen even sooner. However, a big contributing factor is women not fulfilling their earning capacity - having kids and getting married both lead to a larger wage gap than sing…
/r/MensRights22/05/13 02:14 AM
1

Most of the ones I met at Uni were Marxists in the same way that the average bible-thumper is a Christian.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 02:11 AM
0

I think WIkipedia grid to ban "Criticism" sections a while back, but I'm not sure if the rule stuck.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 01:49 AM
1

The thought Schafly did, to avoid female conscription.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 03:23 AM
2

Not really - you can agree that a crime occurred, but think that the punishment is excessive, especially given the (worse than usual) incompetence of american prison guards (if you can't run a prison without inmates getting beaten and raped, you shouldn't have any kind of public office) and the lifelong punishment of sex offenders. You can also change your mind about whether you really think the matter deserves punishment, especially after 2.5 years, but once the case is underway feel that you'r…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:41 AM
1

The man was also sloshed, and she said she was willing at first, so the drunkenness would make it mutually-rape at first, which is an obviously absurd scenario. In any case, I suspect the whole thing is bullshit, since the rapist would only have had to say that he pulled out as soon as she said to stop, and without more evidence the whole case would (or at least should) fall apart. Of course, he could have had an incompetent lawyer, or the conviction could have just been a case of "fuck it, he's…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:32 AM
2

I dunno, the preceding section seems to have an antiabortion bias, so I'd guess that it is traditionalist rather than feminist.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:12 AM
3

In the UK, consent to sex can be conditional on actions taken (so welshing on a prostitute is rape rather than breach of contract, although the judge who made that ruling said, basically, "I know this is silly but that's what the law says"). The law allows consent to be conditional on statements which relate to the act of sex itself (lying about STD status is rape) but not about broader facts (an undercover policeman in a criminal anti-vivisection group did not commit rape when he had sex with a…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 02:08 AM
3

Nowhere near all of this is due to excluding women from dangerous jobs: homicides other than gang wars and drug dealing, for example, are nothing to do with dangerous jobs, suicide is obviously nothing to do with the danger of one's job (after all, dentistry has a consistently high suicide rate and is a very safe job). Initiating divorce doesn't have anything to do with workplace safety either. The allocation of child custody is one of the things which OP was complaining about.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:00 AM
3

Mods can hide the down vote button with CSS (that's how SRS prime and AMR reverse their vote buttons too), but the RES keyboard shortcuts still work, and you can turn off the custom stylesheet.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 06:57 AM
3

A friend of mine who used to be a real looker (not that she's ugly now, but she's not a stunner anymore) complains about not being ogled when she's had a few drinks, for pretty much the same reason.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 06:55 AM
1

If it is reported soon enough afterwards, it may be possible to calculate the BAC at earlier times from the levels of metabolites, or, in theory (although I've never heard of it being done in practice) from remnants of drinks in the gut. Also, witnesses can provide evidence of intoxication, especially if the alleged victim was unable to stand, or was passing out.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 06:51 AM
1

"But you've got to help me, I'm a minority!"
/r/MensRights17/05/13 06:29 AM
1

Don't worry, Labour isn't socialist. TBH, I wish they were, at least if they were led by someone like Tony Benn. At least there would be a bit more choice.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 06:27 AM
3

I hope so, but I doubt it. IMO, the first thing to do is to abolish alimony for all future marriages unless explicitly included in a pre-nup. That doesn't have any problems for existing couples, so you don't have to worry about the effects on them, and people who want traditional family structures can negotiate them before they marry.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 06:23 AM
8

Not at all - just ask them if they think that a penny should be spent on men in our own countries, and you'll never hear the end of the horrors of life as a woman under Islamic/religious repression. :)
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:47 AM
2

Oh, I thought it said he was charged with a federal crime which was equivalent to murder under the Protection of Unborn Children Act.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:29 AM
1

The growth of consumerism and pornography, and the absence of traditional role models, have given rise to a culture of hypermasculinity that exaggerates what are perceived as manly qualities and encourages misogyny and homophobia, according to Ms. Abbott. [my emphasis] This is clearly nonsense: support for gay marriage is steadily rising, and, to me, supporting gay marriage is a pretty clear sign that someone isn't homophobic (although one can oppose it without being homophobic). It is harder to…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:27 AM
2

There might be fewer of them than some people posting here think, but the author of that book isn't imaginary (although it might be a rather elaborate troll) and nor is the academic who set that book (although it might have been set for comparison, like, say, Mien Kampf might be).
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:55 AM
1

Apparently he forged his father's signature on the prescription.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:32 AM
1

If prosecuted (rather than sued) for battery, that usually has the option of prison, although I don't know Florida's laws.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:30 AM
4

Honestly, if he didn't want the kid and she was going to demand child support, this was probably the logical solution for him, even if he gets convicted. I don't think life in prison is a better outcome than most things the law can do to you (apart form a very long spell in solitary, or perhaps death, and the unconstitutional evils that go on).
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:28 AM
1

There are different classes of assault, with different names in different places - here an attack like that's at least battery and quite likely assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but it shouldn't be murder
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:25 AM
2

I think it is completely the wrong charge, because it is inconsistent that killing a foetus against the mother's wishes is murder but killing it in accordance with her wishes is totally legal. Certainly, all the other charges made sense, but murder is, IMO, totally wrong.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:13 AM
0

Well, call it a big stack of cash, or bearer bonds or something like that, if that makes the essential point clearer. In any case, the original violinist question is about whether the woman has the right to get herself unplugged, so by the same token ddxdd's question would include whether he has the right to refuse to let the payment be made: if he does not, the transaction wouldn't be fraudulent and the CC company would not be under any obligation to return the money.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 11:20 PM
1

While I am in favour of abortion on pragmatic grounds, the idea that taking a series of action can lead to a temporary abrogation of some of one's rights for the public good (joining the military, committing a crime (punishment), having a child (obligation to provide a minimum standard of living), getting a security clearance (restrictions to free speech, free association), marriage (through alimony), etc.). Now, I don't think the public good is served in that case, but for cases other than rape…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 11:12 PM
1

If in the scenario, there is no feasible alternative to the man paying for the violinist, then we may judge the violinist's life to be worth more than the man's absolute right to his money. I don't think that's applicable, as there are alternatives: the child welfare budget could be expanded to replace the opted-out fathers' CS payments (of whom we can assume a significant proportion will be those who already don't pay anything for one reason or another); the government could lend the mother the…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 10:43 PM
2

Feminists also claim that the lack of Michelin-starred female chefs is a sign of the glass ceiling, but I wonder if the idea that strong, determined women (i.e. the type of people who rise to the top of most professions) shouldn't be interested in cooking might also play a part in that.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 10:25 PM
1

The point of using the median is that it gives what the "typical" person earns, which is a little more useful than the mean if you're only looking at one number (because it excludes outliers like millionaires with country homes)
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:06 AM
0

AIUI the forces were ordered to work on job-specific fitness tests (as in, lift this weight n times, throw a grenade n metres, etc.) for all jobs (just like, at least here, clearance divers have to pass extra swimming tests over and above the navy's norm). That would mean that the standards for, say, male blanket stackers or hydrographers would probably drop, while the standards for female personnel in some jobs would rise, and those who can meet the standards for the combat arms would be allowe…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 02:23 AM
1

I think Reading PA is the poorest city, while Allen SD is the poorest census place.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 12:52 AM
1

Some can, but less than half have any reported income. It is the median, not the mean.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 12:50 AM
1

Israelis believe their nation to be under mortal threat (rightly or wrongly is irrelevant) and thus need conscription to ensure that they have a large enough trained reserve to use in a sudden war. Also, women are used is less dangerous roles, and have a shorter obligation.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 07:07 AM
1

It is only a big deal if sex itself is a big deal. If sex itself is just a fun thing people do together, and the harmful potential consequences are minimised or easily resolved, the level of maturity needed to decide to do it is much lower. That, to me, suggests that needing a high AoC is a bad thing.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 04:33 AM
1

Oh, a couple of years back it was the other way around: /r/feminisms was a "safe space", and /r/feminism was more relaxed.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 04:13 AM
1

No one needs to be fucking anyone, but you don't need to be posting on reddit either. That's a totally lousy argument.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 03:52 AM
2

Former bi teenager here, asking "says who?"
/r/MensRights13/05/13 03:27 AM
1

It is British, most of that sandstone is Oxford. I hate page 3 girls, not because of the sex issue, but because of the hypocrisy of publishing topless photos and then demonising sex and youth sexuality. (Also, it helps sell The Sun, and anything which helps increase Murdoch's wealth and power is a bad thing.)
/r/MensRights13/05/13 02:38 AM
1

She's probably British, so she's actually trying to re-introduce it.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 02:28 AM
1

True, but if I'd already cared about how much I ate at 12 I wouldn't have had such hard time shifting the excess weight I gained in my late teens. You can be careful about what you eat without starving yourself, and you can be morbidly obese and still be malnourished.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 02:23 AM
1

Supposedly there is such thing as "feeders", but I'm not sure if that's actually real or just an elaborate joke that people have gotten carried away with (like the thing about huffing rotten faeces).
/r/MensRights13/05/13 02:20 AM
1

58. Should it be in this day and age? ... I'm British we don't have the death penalty here. Most of those sandstone buildings are Oxford, so I'm guessing she's British too. She should also know that the death penalty is probably a violation of the ECHR.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 02:18 AM
1

But anyone who will get weirded out by that is likely to be socially and politically incompatible anyway, so it will only save her a lot of wasted time and effort, not to mention heartache.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 02:12 AM
1

Given that a lot of them appear to be Oxford students, it makes me a little concerned for the future (not that there haven't been dumb fashions there before, but still…)
/r/MensRights13/05/13 02:08 AM
1

In Australia, they have a higher (18) AoC where one partner is in a position of authority (for the inferior partner, normal AoC generally applies to the superior I think), which applies to a person's teachers, managers, priests, scoutmasters, coaches, and so on, and to general authority figures such as policemen.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 02:00 AM
1

How about some suggestions for female candidates. To start off: Lady Astor - important figure in the history of women in British politics, very conservative. Mary I - first Queen Regnant to have control of all of modern England and Wales, called Bloody Mary for a reason.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 01:41 AM
1

As a general issue, rather than a specific case, it has been claimed that profitability of Norwegian businesses dropped as they adopted 40% female quotas for directors, and that similar results and been seen elsewhere. I have seen citations, but I can't remember any links, I'm afraid.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 12:04 AM
0

Do you think adults should also be able to engage in sex with really young children? Since, you know, they know how to use a condom and all. Where do you draw the line? There is a line which mere geometry and biomechanics dictates: below certain typical ages, vaginal and anal sex with an adult would be dangerous to the physical health of a child: the full AoC for those acts should obviously be set no lower. Beyond that, it is a question of mental health. Now, since no-one has presented even a to…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 11:07 PM
0

If she just jumped on him out of the blue then that would constitute sexual assault if he hadn't retrospectively given consent (which IMO is legitimate as a concept even if it isn't something I'd be too happy to rely on). If, OTOH, he invited her up after allowing her and others to touch him though his jeans, I would place her actions in the "dodgy, but not rape" category, or even "completely fine", depending on the details. (I am a little curious about the interaction of what she did and decenc…
/r/MensRights10/05/13 06:02 AM
1

It has been claimed that he invited her and several other people int he front row to touch him through his jeans, and beckoned her up on stage. If that's true, especially the second part, I think it falls more into the "dodgy but not rape" category. If she jumped up uninvited and started out of the blue, then I'd say it is rape (although I do think that retroactively giving consent is legitimate even though I wouldn't want to rely on someone giving it). I haven't actually watched any videos of i…
/r/MensRights10/05/13 05:57 AM
1

IIRC there was a survey of polygynous Sudanese men, which found that they tended to think that wives from tribes which did not perform FGM were better in bed (actually, I think it was in the same summary paper as I was thinking of before, entitles something like "The Suppresssion of Female Sexuality" (it used to be in the sidebar)). Unfortunately, that isn't really going to be very convincing to mutilating mothers, especially if they think that fun sex is sinful. That does makes me wonder if it …
/r/MensRights10/05/13 01:34 AM
1

I suppose I should have stated reasons: opinions without justification are just hot air: I would say it should be available even without parental consent provided the boy is able to understand the risks and benefit This is based on my recollection of UK abortion law and the reasoning behind it: essentially, even if the teenager is not fully medically competent, the expected consequences of getting birth control (taking into account the chance of bad outcomes such as allergic reactions) are still…
/r/MensRights10/05/13 01:19 AM
2

I think he means teen pregnancy, teen parenthood, std rates, and so on. (I haven't actually checked that those statistics fit what he said though.)
/r/MensRights10/05/13 01:08 AM
7

I don't remember this sub going upon arms against the proposal, which makes me wonder about the quality of the rest of the article.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 07:29 AM
1

I would say it should be available even without parental consent provided the boy is able to understand the risks and benefits, and that it should be heavily subsidised if not free for children at least (ditto for female permanent/long-term BC and for condoms). It should also be heavily advertised and birth control in general should be emphasised in sex ed (mandated at a federal level in the US if necessary). However, I don't think compulsory BC is a good idea.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 07:26 AM
1

Some insurance is already mandatory (health insurance in some countries, third-party injury insurance for drivers in most places), and few for compulsory services amount to taxation. Also, the insurance market is not easy to enter, which IMO justifies stronger restrictions on the market.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 01:40 AM
3

The trouble is the insurance market has huge barriers to entry, and very large economies of scale (because if you have too small a pool it is too easy for one large claim to wipe out your liquidity, so you have to charge more).
/r/MensRights08/05/13 06:46 AM
4

In the EU that already happened: the law is a result of feminist lobbying.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 06:36 AM
4

Since her ministry was in favour of the same EU law when it was removing an advantage from men, I think her response is sexist. However, I do think that the EU should have copied one common practice from Australia: banning blaming price rises on specific pieces of legislation unless the company can actually prove that that is the case (which means publishing detailed financial information) and applying fairly serious fines for violations.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 06:35 AM
1

Why is it okay that someone pays a higher premium because he lives in munich as opposed to say leipzig? Well, you can choose to move from Munich to Leipzig, and you can probably afford to spend more on car insurance in Munich (or at least, more absolutely while paying a comparable amount of your fixed expenses).
/r/MensRights08/05/13 06:32 AM
3

It is justice in that certain people lobbied for gender-neutral pricing for health insurance and are now discovering that gender-neutral pricing applies elsewhere too. In fact, the EU law goes further, and requires equal pricing for many personal attributes outside of the customer's control, such as race. However, I would say that it would be fairer to require that profit margins be equal between groups rather than prices.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 06:29 AM
1

Quite plausible: you hear that sort of rhetoric from sex-negative types (whether progressive or conservative flavoured), so I'm not surprised to hear that some schools have handed it out. They shouldn't do it, but it is totally unsurprising that they have done so.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 06:05 AM
1

Actually, at least among the traditionalist Iraqi Kurds, it is the grandmothers that are mostly responsible for enforcing it, according to an article a year or so back in National Geographic. IIRC there was a similar observation among the south Sudanese: the men were generally less enthusiastic one way or the other but generally were willing to go along with the mother.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 05:58 AM
1

It might be that rapists aren't excluded to avoid issues around purely statutory rape, or where a rapist has been released and is deemed rehabilitated (although, given the nature of the US justice system, that seems unlikely to actually occur in practice), but in any case the judge has pretty broad discretionary powers and it should be fairly easy to argue that a convicted rapist is unfit to have visitation rights.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 01:04 AM
1

Would those men be better off claiming to be of a different (or no) religion?
/r/MensRights07/05/13 10:48 AM
1

Apart from the little problem we could summarise as "what is equality", we there is a major disconnect about ways and means. Most feminists who say they're working on men's issues (such as the ones who have been reposting that excerpt from a Jezebel article recently) say that by abolishing the patriarchy by changing social attitudes, they'll solve the issues men have. Most MRAs, OTOH, would prefer a direct legislated solution where that can be achieved, just like most feminists want direct actio…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 06:07 AM
1

And is Oscar Wild really his sources on this? I don't think Oscar Wild has ever written a paper for any major biology journal I know of. He isn't citing Oscar Wilde, he is acknowledging a particularly nice turn of phrase. I've come across references to and quotes from Spike Milligan and Douglas Adams, not to mention the Pythons, in academic papers which have nothing to do with any of their publications.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 06:05 AM
1

Enthusiastic consent as a social norm is OK, even perhaps positively desirable, but as a legal standard it would be disastrous, especially in situations like the university tribunals which exist in America.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:57 AM
1

It also makes prostitution effectively equivalent to rape: I work, not because I'm enthusiastic about working, but because I need the money, and I'm sure the same is true for most sex workers (certainly it is for the part-time sex workers I know).
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:57 AM
1

There is obviously a need for at least three categories of rape, since they have fundamentally different natures: forcible rape, intoxicated rape, and purely statutory rape. forcible rape has violence or a threat of violence against the victim or another, either to force cooperation or to achieve sex without cooperation. intoxicated rape comes in two flavours: where one party is out cold or incapable of response: this should obviously be illegal, unless the unconscious party has expressed consen…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:51 AM
1

I know this is an old post, but I think the reason transexual people find here so welcoming is that most people here are more or less social libertarians (even those who, like me, are economically fairly left) and so have no basis to exclude you, and most of the rest are just glad to have anyone on their side.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:01 AM
1

The Catholic church believes that transgenderism is disordered, which is the same term they use for homosexulaity. Transgender people are regarded as being unfortunate sufferers of an affliction which it would be sinful to act upon - effectively, he'd be regarded as mentally ill. To get SRS as a catholic would be to enter a theological grey area (it is a little hard to tell exactly what the church believes because it doesn't seem to have a coherent position), but as far as the church was concern…
/r/MensRights06/05/13 07:01 AM
5

Academic feminism is centred almost entirely around patriarchy theory, which is generally considered to be a load of hogwash by most MRAs, so an academic meeting is probably about as likely as trying to reconcile, say, Christian and Hindu theology - you might get some agreement about what people ought to do, but nothing sensible about principles.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 04:29 AM
1

The difference is the point of the action: for a civil suit over a false accusation, the point is to pay for lost earnings, psychological and psychiatric care, the effects of losing one's family and friends, and so on, so that the victim is as near as possible as well-off as they were beforehand. That also means that if the victim were a drugged-up, mentally ill, unemployed gaolbird with no family, they'd probably be eligible for far less compensation than a well-respected professional with a pe…
/r/MensRights06/05/13 12:53 AM
1

If he wrote a will, then if it isn't in the will then it obviously isn't what he would have wanted.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 05:14 AM
9

The reality, of course, is that MRAs think that false rape accusations happen frequently enough that stripping due process from the accused violates [1] Blackstone's Formulation. Even if they were rare enough that that weren't the case they would become more common if we started assuming guilt - extortion and revenge would be much too easy.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 05:09 AM
1

Well, it is a well-developed gut. I'll get my coat...
/r/MensRights03/05/13 05:05 AM
1

If nobody ends up formally charged, it should be treated as a false police report. However, this could end up harming people who believe they've been raped but are not aware of the precise legal definition, and discourage victims from coming forward. That's not really a problem: if you report a crime, and specify the wrong offence or don't use the technical term, but report the facts correctly, that's not a false report. If someone says they were raped, and when asked for details, it turns out t…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 04:30 AM
1

No, civil suits are about making good the damage done, criminal law is about punishment. The whole concept of punitive damages paid to the plaintiff is an American weirdness.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 04:22 AM
4

The draft is probably almost useless without conscription on the national service model (where everyone does a short spell in peacetime), since pretty much any war serious enough to need conscripts is likely to either end fairly quickly with the use of strategic nuclear weapons (so the war will be over before new conscripts can be trained and equipped), or to turn into a meat-grinder war of attrition which the american public won't accept again (so they'll not be called up).
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:52 AM
1

That's the wrong state, the Age of Consent is a year older in SA and the rules are different about mistaken age. SA has the most restrictive laws (2 15yos are technically raping each other, although prosecution is obviously nearly impossible), apart from the higher AoC for sodomy in QLD.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:26 AM
1

They are. If they have underage children, if identifying them would identify their alleged victims, or, in SA, if they haven't been indicted yet, then their identity may not be published. The details vary from state to state, but the rules are fairly consistent.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:23 AM
2

If they have underage children, or if identifying them would identify their alleged victims, or, in SA, if they haven't been indicted yet, yes.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:21 AM
1

Because ignorance of the law is a valid defense now. That's ignorance of the facts, not ignorance of the law, and that is a valid defence in plenty of crimes: for example, receiving stolen goods is generally only an offence if a reasonable person would have believed the goods to be stolen. But we can't release her name, let alone charge her or put her on a registry. She can't be named to protect her daughter from bullying and shame, and she can't be put on a registry because Australia doesn't ha…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:19 AM
1

No, in most if not all states in Australia you can't publish the name of parents accused of sex crimes to protect their minor children from bullying and so on - IIRC it was partly intended to protect abused children from getting a hard time at school, and partly because there had been some suicides because of that sort of bullying. Also, some states have laws against perp-walking those accused of sex offences, but I don't think that's the case here.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:11 AM
1

2 reasons: names of sex offenders aren't generally published if they have children (to protect the children from mistreatment), and there are protections for the accused in some states to prevent perp-walking in sex cases.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:09 AM
2

It already wasn't in some states, so I don't know if this is a new precedent in NSW. However, in SA at least it is an affirmative defence and requires reasonable grounds for the belief, so this is an improvement on that.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:00 AM
3

Also some very idiotic and cut-happy doctors who thought that circumcision for developmental phimosis without any attempt at other treatments is a good idea - which is why I was circumcised. Unfortunately, by the time I found out the facts about circumcision, I was almost 21 and thus the statue of limitations would have run out before I could get the money to sue for malpractice (especially since i was a broke student living overseas, and my parents didn't see why I'd be upset - but then they do…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 05:11 AM
1

Metro is a free local paper in some of the eastern states of Australia. It is quite good, as it is a source of free fire lighters and so on, and in desperation one can eat it - it isn't nutritious but supposedly paper makes you feel full. Reading it, OTOH, is not advised.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 04:54 AM
1

AIUI, he can't be charged yet because of a quirk in the Swedish police procedures which means it is difficult to charge someone in absentia (it has to be done in person by a court official similar to a French Investigating Magistrate), and it actually has to happen in Sweden.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 04:49 AM
2

Given that polygamy predates Moses (assuming he existed), argument from tradition against polygamy is pretty absurd.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 05:03 AM
1

One of the commenters on TFA said he'd found a reference to an interview with the author about it on a french local radio station - presumably it is awaiting review or in a publication queue somewhere.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:43 AM
1

People sell alcohol illegally, but it is small-scale stuff: distilling a little moonshine for your mates, selling a few beers at events without the proper licences, importing a few too many bottles of duty-free booze, that sort of thing. There's no point in having a gang war over the illegal alcohol business, because you're competing with the legal industry which can not only save all the costs of running a gang war, but can crush you through economies of scale too.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:40 AM
2

The funny thing is that people complaining about men being on top because of those things also complain that people like Thatcher aren't feminists because they only care about equality in people doing those things.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:40 AM
1

They all share a certain misogynistic view of women. hundres of millions of people over the millenia have shared these principles and a more moderate intrepretation only really started to emerge after the enlightenment. The odd thing is that the most patriarchal denominations of Christianity are the most dependent on women - my parent's parish would have lost perhaps half its regular churchgoers (and most of the children) if all the families where the wife was "dragging" the husband along didn't…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:40 AM
1

To add to the list, Dowager Empress Cixi (for all that she was a disaster, she definitely lead), Matilda of England was named as heir (but King Stephen was able to bribe the barons to support his coup), Eleanor of Aquitaine (only Queen consort, but the most powerful diplomat of her age, mounted a bloodless coup against her husband, and temporarily gained almost all of France for England), and Catherine the Great. Also, Empress Theodora is great because she rose from poverty to become the most po…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:38 AM
2

I'm not an equestrian, but some kind of underwear like bike shorts would seem like a good idea for horsemen. I'd actually assumed that jockeys' silks were constructed along similar lines, but having cycled long distances in ordinary shorts and underwear, it isn't something I'd do again in a hurry.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:37 AM
1

He's talking about physiological utility, in the context of sports medicine (so presumably primarily athletic women - someone else said it was athletic young women but I haven't seen the paper linked anywhere). She's talking about psychological and social needs, and women with larger breasts (which is generally although by no means exclusively correlated with a higher body fat level and so as a coarse supposition probably falls outside his field of professional interest). Thus, while her facts a…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:36 AM
1

Now look what you've done, you've made me want to read it to see if he's used the word meaningfully and not just as a pretentious replacement for "absorbs". OTOH, by the time I've finished reading the article, I'll be too brain-damaged to tell.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:33 AM
2

Yes, or at least they operate in Australia.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 03:51 AM
2

BeyondBlue actually sometimes mail out little brochures asking you a series of questions and telling you to see a psychologist, psychiatrist, or counsellor (who can refer you on and help you find someone free) if you answer "yes" to five or more.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 05:23 AM
2

"Stuff" is a very mild substitute for "fuck", basically, although only used in very limited contexts ("X is stuffed", "don't give a stuff", "stuff you", and a few other phrases). Literally, it just means "I didn't care"
/r/MensRights16/04/13 05:20 AM
1

That's an australian nationwide local-rate number. You mostly see them on info-lines, taxi companies, and so on.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 05:19 AM
1

Idiot used to be a specific academic term, as did moron, spastic and a few other terms which are now almost invariably derogatory. Of course, if you stay away from the lunatic fringe, "cis" mostly is just used descriptively, but that doesn't mean it can't be an insult (even if it is a moronic one). However, OP doesn't seem to be objecting to its use as an insult but to the use of a specific prefix to mean cis-men (rather than using "men" for cis-men and explicitly stating when you're including t…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:42 AM
1

Usually "man" is a social label, so while you're mostly thinking about cis-men you aren't actually excluding trans-men if there happen to be any in the relevant population. If you do mean only cis-men it is important to specify that, and cis-man is as good a word as any (although Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB) or bio-male are sometimes used too).
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:37 AM
2

I only use 'cis' in the gender context when I'm explicitly excluding trans-people, because at times it is worth making it clear that I'm talking about people whose identity matches their natural body configuration only.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:33 AM
1

Feminism does mean you're for equality, Yes, but that's as useful as saying that socialism means your for protecting the rights of workers - while true (at least in theory, but then some people try to restrict women's options in the name of feminism too), it is used to imply the reverse statement. Yes, feminism means you're for equality, but it doesn't just mean that[1]. If it just meant that, there would be no debate about whether Christina Hoff Summers, Warren Farrell, or Margaret Thatcher wer…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:29 AM
1

I don't know how it works at the UofG, but at my uni only the university could collect the compulsory fees, and set the level at which it was collected. They also decided how much additional funding from general university revenue the union got, and what its terms of access to space and the like were. The Uni only used that power to force the union to spend money on things it didn't want to but which were within its (legislated) remit, but could have used it more widely and potentially had the s…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:12 PM
0

NO JEGGINGS!
/r/MensRights10/04/13 07:32 AM
1

In that series he was respectful and polite about religious views.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 06:11 AM
1

I support special assistive measures for disadvantaged groups, but I think that they are only justifiable if eligibility is defined in terms of the actual disadvantage the system is supposed to adjust for. Thus, if you want to help poor urban youths in America, you define the system in terms of wealth and location rather than just saying "well, most of those people are black"
/r/MensRights30/03/13 05:42 AM
1

I think it has become co-opted, but it is one of those all things to all people terms. /r/sjsucks is mostly about so-called social justice warriors, who are mostly the kind of so-brave tumblr activists who get let out into the real world.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:32 AM
5

As a matter of general principle, I'm in favour of these kinds of programmes provided they are equally available for men and women. Obviously any particular programme is a specific matter to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:29 AM
1

I'd like to know how much is owned by men by the same measure. Is land owned by corporations counted as owned by the shareholders (when you get to actual people) or by the directors? Is land owned by married couples assigned to either gender, or is it split based on how it would probably be split in the event of divorce? Is it based on the value of the land or just the area? If the latter, a square kilometre of desert counts for more than an office tower, despite the fact that anyone would pick …
/r/MensRights28/03/13 03:45 AM
1

Not exactly - the land you're thinking of is a mixture of Crown land (which includes land which belongs to no-one in some Commonwealth nations, such as parts of the Australian outback, military land, the inter-tidal zone, and so on), the crown estates and the Duchy of Lancaster (which are effectively owned by the UK government in that the income goes into general revenue and it would create a huge political stink if she actually tried to treat it as her own) oddments like some of the London park…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 03:37 AM
1

I take it you haven't watched his series "Sex, Death, and the Meaning of Life" then.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 03:19 AM
1

The article doesn't comment on the fact that left-wing parties tend to offer specifically pro-women policies, even when the right isn't doing anything which could be counted as actually anti-woman. That of course means that out of honest self-interest, women are more likely to join left-wing parties, but that means that around half the time they'll be out of office just because the public mood is against their side.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 03:12 AM
1

The age of consent is often below the age of adulthood, and while "child" isn't the word I'd use, I think the meaning was fairly clear.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 01:34 AM
1

I think that if someone had a clear intent of getting drunk to lose their inhibitions and have sex, the fact that they succeeded should not make them a victim in law. The problem with that is that you'd have to determine their intent, which would include things like past behaviour and mode of dress, things which the defines is often barred from using as evidence.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 12:27 AM
1

I'm not sure about the local precedents, but emails are usually considered to be like letters for copyright purposes, which means that you still own the copyright even though she owns the physical letter. For emails, that typically means something like she can keep the message (because she has implicit permission to make the copies which are a normal part of receiving and processing the message), but cannot send it to anyone else without your permission. However, she can show the message to some…
/r/MensRights26/03/13 12:01 AM
1

For a fun application of the text (at least as reported and translated), it bans any opposition to eliminating all categorisation on grounds of gender, which means that opposing the abolition of quotas would itself be banned.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 11:02 PM
6

Google translate Criminalize anti-feminist statements in the public debate, just as hate speech is criminalized today. It proposes a tax-funded Nordic expert group of 35 experts on anti-feminism and right-wing extremism in a report to the Norwegian government. Like this article on Facebook Share / Print Share on linkedinShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services 16 Behind the report, according to NRK Ressurssenteret Reform and the Nordic Council of Ministers, who on Wednesday made ​​sev…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 06:03 AM
2

Short answer: yes. Rudd is obviously waiting for her to resign, when he can stand again with the moral high ground. The leaders of the spill wanted to hold the ballot now rather than waiting until after the election because it is probable that if they are still in government, their own faction might well be relatively weaker. Of course, she is making full use of her gender, but I don't think she'd have lost on Thursday if she'd been a man.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 05:52 AM
2

If you think that the punishment for some crime should include rape, get yourself elected and change the law (and make sure it survives challenges under the constitutional rules and international laws against cruel and unusual punishment). Until then, the law should eb applied to its fullest extent (and if the administration is incapable of enforcing law in a closed environment with restricted civil rights, it is clearly incapable of protecting anyone).
/r/MensRights25/03/13 02:47 AM
1

s/grandma/cat-lady/ I hope, anyway - I'd hate to think of her kid's lives, especially her sons.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 12:56 AM
0

They are, factually popular with women. That's why women buy them more than any other fantasy. So it does follow that a lot of women must fantasize about rape and violent tendencies within men. Women also spend a fortune on chick flicks featuring men who would be totally unattractive IRL as the designated boyfriend - the leading lady almost always ends up with some pedestalising lap-dog who acts like the much-reviled "nice guy" who has no chance of getting "the girl" IRL.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 12:44 AM
5

Not anymore - what with inflation and all, a million USD is achievable with skills and a decent amount of luck (knowing the right person, being in the right place at the right time), not to mention that pure dumb luck can work (happening to own the mineral rights for an apparently worthless farm, say).
/r/MensRights24/03/13 11:23 PM
3

In my state an overwhelming majority of the people taking the "suicide five" (maths, hard maths (what you need to do university maths for an engineering or physics degree), chemistry, physics, and hard English) at matriculation, which is generally held as the most academically rigorous set of courses, are female. Since they're choosing those subjects at a time when patriarchal social pressure would be greatest, it seems rather improbable that the same pressure would be much more effective in get…
/r/MensRights24/03/13 10:59 PM
3

The line at the end of her author bio suggests that she is at least personally a traditionalist even if she doesn't advocate traditionalism for everyone else - she comments that she is pleased that her husband has never had to make his own sandwiches. I haven't read anything else by her that sticks in mind, but that's what I'd assume.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 10:42 PM
0

If the hotel were purely personal property with no corporate protections for the owners, that would be fine, but since the government is giving them benefits in the form of liability shielding and favourable tax rates, it seems perfectly reasonable to make those conditional on acting in ways which are beneficial to the general public.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 05:54 AM
3

SAH parenthood is not an MR problem in itself (although there are some social arguments against promoting it). The problem is if it isn't a decided by mutual consent. Essentially, if a new mother decides she wants to be a SAHM, there's nothing her husband can do about it if he disagrees but wants to have some custody of his child. If he divorces her, he will almost certainly lose custody of the child, especially if the mother is breastfeeding, and is unlikely to get custody until the child is ol…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 05:38 AM
1

If women are more vulnerable, men's cases will be fewer and simpler, so they won't be much of a burden (and in practice they will probably be taking some of the caseload from the counselling and legal aid services and putting it onto people with relevant training and contacts, so for the same expenditure they might even be able to provide more and better services).
/r/MensRights21/03/13 03:55 AM
1

/. effect refers to back when slashdot.org was one of the biggest aggregator sites (and certainly the biggest "news for nerds" aggregator), and could easily send enough hits to even fairly respectable organisations websites to knock them offline for a while - effectively an unintentional DDOS. /. isn't big enough to do that to any serious web host anymore, but Digg did it a few times and reddit has managed it from time to time.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 03:54 AM
1

Wait, are women the ones gang raping men in India? Are you not looking at the big picture here, that rape and misogyny are out of control in India? If they aren't doing it, it would have done no harm to include female on male rape in India's rape laws. If women are committing rape (or, to be pedantic, acts which would be rape if the law were fair), I'm sure even you wouldn't argue that they should be excluded. Thus, there is no case in which female-on-male rape should not be in the law and there…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 02:42 AM
2

The death penalty is unacceptable for any crime where there is the possibility of wrongful conviction. Extreme laws like this aren't created without reasoning behind them. That may be true, and the reasoning may even be valid, but if the laws aren't explicitly restricted to only apply in the case where those reasons are valid, they will inevitably get used in other cases as well. Look at the ridiculously broad application of anti-terrorism laws around the world.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 02:04 AM
1

Speaking of which: has any people here managed to get a decent relationship out of a hook-up? Not me personally (but then I've never sought to convert the one to the other - I've no active desire for an LTR right now, although I wouldn't end a relationship merely because it had gone on too long), but I do know of people who've met and hooked up immediately and then ended up in a decent relationship. An old friend of mine married a man she hooked up with at a free concert, and they seem to be doi…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 02:01 AM
1

Quebec seems relatively sane (even with the French).
/r/MensRights17/03/13 11:10 PM
2

Without the form you are legally just some friend of the mothers - if she stops liking you, then you have no right to see the kid (although if the kid is old enough local law might give him the right to see you despite his mother's objections).
/r/MensRights17/03/13 10:10 PM
1

Yeah, I was just guessing based on a product information leaflet I read years ago when my mum got an IUD (I read everything lying around). Glad to hear things worked out so well for you and your ex.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 10:13 AM
1

I think the privacy issues could be resolved by requiring her to ensure that the potential men are notified (which means that no-one but them and her (who already know about the sex) need to be told), and having an exemption if they are not listed in public registries or of the mother genuinely had no knowledge of their identity (which would pretty much just apply to one-night-stands and prostitutes). Also, DNA profiling to identify basic traits is relatively cheap, so you could probably narrow …
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:59 AM
1

If a household cannot afford to raise their children by themselves (and do not wish to give them up for adoption) they should be lent the money sufficient to cover the difference between their income and their cost of living, to be paid back on an interest-free but CPI-linked basis as an increase income tax or an extra slice on the death duties once their children are of age. That way, the cost burden is on those who made the decision to have children, and the children aren't left to starve.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:53 AM
1

I thought the child part was something to do with a risk of permanent damage which could prevent natural childbirth (as opposed to c-section) and which was more likely if the woman hadn't had a child. The LTR part I'm not so sure about, but it might have just been that the doctor was trying to stop her going off of condoms to protect her against STDs or something, which IMO he shouldn't really be insisting on.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:52 AM
1

It makes little practical difference - the woman still should be obliged to tell the man, and the notification still needs to be sent by recorded delivery, and the response ought to be as well.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:46 AM
1

I would say the father ought to be able to opt in before sex: that protects pro-life women (who can insist on his opting in before consenting to sex), and saves effort all round if they actually want children together. Also, I'd design the system so that women can opt out too, which provides a solid legal mechanism for surrogacy.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:44 AM
1

especially Christians, Fortunately, their influence is declining throughout most of the West, so what thy think is fast becoming an irrelevance. and several people from this lovely subreddit There aren't very many of them - almost everyone here except the traditionalists accept that readily available abortion is good for society - and those few there are tend to get argued with or down voted (look at the thread above this one).
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:34 AM
1

Babies are humans. They have rights. That is a rather questionable point - what is it which makes a lump of meat a person with rights? You are simply placing the point which makes it a human rather earlier than many (probably most, given that abortion is legal in most of the west).
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:28 AM
2

How are you any better than the feminist that whines because men get to stand up and pee and are stronger than them? Because the biological difference is made relevant by a matter of law, and law is entirely an artificial human construct which can be changed to do anything. If those feminists wanted a law which gave them whatever benefits they see in men standing up to pee, and such a law were meaningfully possible, I'd be more than happy to see it passed. Then write up a contract that states: "…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:19 AM
1

Maybe it shouldn't be called a right, but that is the language used by feminist campaigners and generally accepted as valid.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:05 AM
1

In some states the father can adopt the child from the state, but the mother's responsibility is extinguished when she surrenders it, so there's no CS just as there wouldn't be if an unrelated person adopted the child. Also, that means complying with the standards required to adopt a child, rather than the standards required to keep a child you already have custody of (in terms of earnings, stability, and so on). Utah is supposedly the worst state for fathers trying to gain custody of their chil…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 05:02 AM
2

Because only the non-custodial parent is obliged to spend any particular amount above the bare minimum required to not count as neglect, and the non-custodial parent has no way to ensure that the money is spent in the interests of the child - the custodial parent doesn't have the kind of obligations a trustee would have, for example.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:59 AM
1

In safe haven the state is automatically an accepting party, whereas there is no automatic accepting party for non-custodial fathers.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:55 AM
2

My school had a uniform (with actual specific shirts, skirts, and dresses), and there were still a few who wore them ways they shouldn't be worn, what with rules lawyering (it says you must wear X, it doesn't say no Y as well… until the obvious patch), re-tailoring (which at least is educational), and the observation that a faulty batch of dresses were transparent.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:50 AM
1

Were I a boy at that school, I would try to organise a sympathy protest involving either bike shorts or footy shorts, especially if the new rule only banned girls wearing tight clothes.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:50 AM
5

Aristotle did know about atoms (although what was called "atomos" was closer to a molecule, and didn't make any distinction between mixtures and pure substances). The sentence is still nonsense though, even by comparison to the rest of the post.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 02:43 AM
1

The male benefit of creating offspring is the genetic longevity. If paper abortion becomes a thing, then men would get to spread their genetics without any responsibility. Does anyone really think like that on a conscious level? I mean, sure, genetically, all men "want" to have children with as many fertile women as possible, but on the genetic level they don't know about all the laws and customs which make that a bad idea, and at a conscious level, they generally don't want that many children (…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 02:43 AM
1

I don't think that's too likely, at least over here where abortion is socially acceptable except among serious Catholics and conservative Protestants (who shouldn't be having extramarital sex anyway) and is reasonably affordable (although it should be subsidised more). Most women aren't child-mad and don't want children at any given time, and they'd have no reason to ask a man to sign such a thing. Any who did, apart from a religious enthusiast, would be effectively declaring that she wanted a c…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 02:32 AM
1

What about coconut milk?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 06:57 AM
1

That doesn't even make a bit of sense, unless they are assuming that sometimes she'd be driving you around.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:45 AM
1

They should be consistent between types of policy, and shouldn't discriminate in the expected profits charged. However, I think they would prefer to charge a flat rate than to have to reveal their calculations to anyone who sued them.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:44 AM
4

The actual story isn't so bad, although it is rather weird. The wedding between Sanele Masilela and Helen Shabangu was witnessed by both families including the bride’s husband, her five children and a guest of 100 people. The boy’s aunt, Patience Masilela explained why the wedding took place. “The boy was named after his late grandfather who never had a white wedding, so the ancestors told the boy to get married and he chose Helen to be his bride. The family took his desire to get married very s…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:15 AM
3

Islam in some ways has it easier, since not only is circumcision not actually mandatory, but also in many traditions there is no particular reason to do it in early childhood except to comply with western laws, so Islam isn't threatened at all by having to wait until the boy is 16 or 18.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:15 AM
2

It is because a teacher can threaten a student with penalties if they don't have sex, and because too many people are inclined to believe teachers over students. Here they have a lesser penalty - essentially it is presumed to be sexual harassment even if it is apparently consensual unless there is very solid evidence that it really was consensual.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:11 AM
1

Remember that illegal earnings are still earnings for tax purposes, so it isn't entirely unreasonable to claim that illegal expenses are also expenses for tax purposes. IIRC someone in the Netherlands got a tax deduction for an illegal pistol he used to hold up shops. ISTR that he was threatened with being locked up for tax evasion as well as robbery, and was able to claim that the gun was a work-related expense which brought his income under some threshold.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:02 AM
1

They still have to have custody to do it, otherwise they are kidnapping the child.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:47 AM
1

That sounds pretty optimistic, since the resolution called for voluntary measures from ISPs and publishers, which usually means strong-arming them into implementing the bans through terms of service, opt-out filters, and all sore of extra-judicial evil by threatening them with liability or exclusion from government contracts and think-tanks and so on. You see the same sort of thing with all the "voluntary" anti-piracy and anti-CP measures - so long as there isn't an actual legal mandate, the ECH…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:15 PM
1

Isn't female ejaculation still illegal because urination is illegal in porn and female ejaculate may contain urea (and the visual difference can't be distinguished by the geriatric halfwits at the BBFC anyway)?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:14 PM
1

I agree, but I think the only way we'll see a change int he law anytime soon is with something like the ERA and a ruling that unequal sentencing is illegal discrimination.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:50 PM
2

Child support has already been like that for a long time - indeed, in most of the US being unmarried means you'll almost certainly get no custody at all, so that counts against you. There have been proposals for alimony for unmarried partners suggested in Australia, although they've never gone anywhere. Still, de-facto and common law marriage puts you into a real crapshoot anyway, and then you don't even get the dubious protection of a prenup.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:31 PM
1

It might be possible for her to be contractually bound to find someone else to take over his share of the responsibility, but you'd be very hard pressed to find a way to do that without it being ruled unconscionable.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:31 PM
0

I can add my own anecdotal evidence to dungone. I was in a co-ed college dorm, and there they had mixed bathrooms because the students had been too lazy to walk an extra 15m or so to the ones designated for their gender, so they gave it up as a bad job. That was in a country where single-sex facilities were by far the norm, and there were very few problems, except with a particularly tall bloke in an old part of the college. So, you might be uncomfortable ATM, but that is unlikely to last if you…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:47 PM
1

Yes, but a false accusation about a lack of consent in an acknowledged sexual encounter is the exact type which can't be disproved by this kind of research.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:45 PM
7

Google's pay for their technical and scientific staff is based on the value they deliver to google - the formula is somewhat complex, but essentially you can work on any project which needs you and you get paid based on how much work you did on it and how much revenue it generates: the complexity comes from allocating value to back-end services, such as development of Go). Their non-CS staff are paid more conventionally, I think.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:41 AM
5

Most minimum wage workers in Australia are doing ancillary jobs which essentially have to be here - cleaners, shop staff, and so on. If the business could manage without them, they already would, so very few will lose their jobs (a few might, if the business becomes unsustainable). Also, the minimum wage is below the cost of living, which means that near enough everyone on minimum wage is also on benefits, so effectively their pay is subsidised. By raising the minimum wage it actually takes peop…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:06 AM
2

Yes, No.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 01:57 AM
1

I think every female English leader except Bloody Mary has been involved in war: Boudicca, Matilda, Empress Maud, (Eleanor of Aquitaine, if you count her), Elizabeth I, Baroness Thatcher. (I'm ignoring Lady Jane Grey, but she doesn't really count as she was just a puppet.) That said, most of the male leaders were involved in war, and most of those female leaders didn't start the most important wars they were involved in (in order, the Romans, Stephen, Stephen, everybody, Philip of Spain, either …
/r/MensRights05/03/13 12:11 AM
1

That assumes that the person you're helping the with AA programme is the same person who lacks privilege: sure, kids from the ghetto might need additional educational assistance so they can have a chance to get into university, but that doesn't mean some black kid from the good suburbs is any worse off than his white neighbours.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 11:41 PM
2

If you want to actually claim that 32 is a matter of privilege one way or the other, it is just as much a female privilege: in Old English, "man" was the word for "person", and was neuter. It gradually came to replace the gender-specific word for a male person, "werman".
/r/MensRights04/03/13 11:33 PM
3

You could perhaps get some idea from commission or piece-work rates per logged hour of work. Also, some workplaces have efficiency or achievement metrics, which are often more or less bullshit but are at least the measure the administrators are using to determine bonuses and rises, and women have the same opportunities to exploit the rules as men do. (There is a fairly well-known rule in economics which says that whenever a metric is treated as a proxy for some objective, and rewards for achievi…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 11:23 PM
1

I think that would be OK if they were required to make equal expected profits per customer from each group rather than being required to charge a flat rate, but only if that rule were applied to all insurance companies.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 10:34 PM
1

Oh, right. It was stuff like that which led to the sports clubs at my uni disaffiliating from the union and seek direct funding from the university (they got away with it too, and have a bigger budget than the union). The most troublesome non-sporting clubs are protected by the simple fact that if they're disaffiliated they can endorse candidates for union elections, and if they do that together they'll probably win.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 09:34 PM
1

Actually, you've got a bit of a point there. Under the health and safety law here, they would have to discipline him for endangering himself (because they mustn't encourage people to actively intervene if they don't need to, and he could have been safe personally), but a quiet talking to (with an explanation) and a minimal punishment (whatever you get for not shutting up in class, for example) would probably satisfy everyone.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 04:17 AM
3

But that debt is dischargeable by bankruptcy whereas the CS debt is not.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 01:48 AM
1

Doesn't your state have a victims of crime compensation fund? (Ours is paid for by an extra fee on top of all fines, and sometimes greatly exceeds the actual fine for minor offences.) The child is clearly a victim of crime almost as much as the father is.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 01:44 AM
1

To make it even worse, Gillard is using the wrong attacks for her audience: she's attacking him for his social conservatism, which will help slow the loss of inner-city progressive votes to the Greens from the Labor Left, but only serve to scare off the socially conservative lower-class voters who live in Western Sydney (and the other areas she's visited recently). Also, if she carries on like this, she risks losing the endorsement of the Catholic Bishops Conference, which has traditionally supp…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 11:13 PM
1

(Do they do these seminars still?) At my college they did something like that (don't get drunk and walk home, stay away from the riverbank or you might get murdered), but it was mixed-sex and also included information about the dry zones, statutory rape law (because we have the highest AoC nationally), and a warning about the fines for underage drinking (and some comments from the policeman giving the seminar that when he was a beat constable he used to hate checking IDs in certain pubs because …
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:40 PM
2

I think you're thinking of the Boys versus Girls episode from Season B, where he said that studies showed that on panel shows the panel laughed more when they were mostly women on the panel, but the audience laughed more when the panel were mostly male.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:40 PM
1

IDK what GP was thinking of, but men do tend to be more willing to do things like that for a "free' lunch - doing something random and kinda fun for some small reward seems to appeal more to men than women for some reason.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:40 PM
1

Bilbo's mithril armour came from Smaug's hoard. IIRC the appendices or the Silmarillion do state that Galadriel was on the Council of the Wise, because she supported Gandalf for the leadership (which he refused) rather than Saruman. All five wizards were on the council, along with the other two ring bearers (Galadriel and Elrond) and a few other elves (possibly Celeborn and Glorfindel, but I can't remember if it says so explicitly).
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:39 PM
1

I think the author is making a critical mistake in confusing the MRM and PUAs - perhaps analogously in a corrupt political system, a PUA is a fixer, a wheeler-dealer who makes the best of things for himself at the cost of perpetuating the broken system, while a MRM is a reformer who hopes to make things better for himself by fixing the system (and a MGTOW is an émigré). You can argue about which is the most sensible or the most ethical option, and you can certainly live as one and occasionally a…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:20 PM
1

I think the author is making a critical mistake in confusing the MRM and PUAs - perhaps analogously in a corrupt political system, a PUA is a fixer, a wheeler-dealer who makes the best of things for himself at the cost of perpetuating the broken system, while a MRM is a reformer who hopes to make things better for himself by fixing the system (and a MGTOW is an émigré). You can argue about which is the most sensible or the most ethical option, and you can certainly live as one and occasionally a…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:20 PM
3

The Union being out of touch - the union recently cancelled the Varsity rugby match between UCL and KCL which conflicted greatly with the student view, when the students organised a non union affiliated match this was black mailed into closing OT, but why would they cancel the match? The other things sort of make sense from within the twisted minds of student politicians - student politics is full of Social Justice Warriors, buggering up campus catering until it gets privatised and the students …
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:15 PM
2

The Union being out of touch - the union recently cancelled the Varsity rugby match between UCL and KCL which conflicted greatly with the student view, when the students organised a non union affiliated match this was black mailed into closing OT, but why would they cancel the match? The other things sort of make sense from within the twisted minds of student politicians - student politics is full of Social Justice Warriors, buggering up campus catering until it gets privatised and the students …
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:15 PM
2

The Union being out of touch - the union recently cancelled the Varsity rugby match between UCL and KCL which conflicted greatly with the student view, when the students organised a non union affiliated match this was black mailed into closing OT, but why would they cancel the match? The other things sort of make sense from within the twisted minds of student politicians - student politics is full of Social Justice Warriors, buggering up campus catering until it gets privatised and the students …
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:15 PM
1

The solution to the problem of supporting a child that people want to keep custody of while not being able to afford to do so could be resolved by lending the necessary additional funds to the parents (to be spent in the interests of the child) to be paid back after the child is of age either through increased income taxes, welfare reductions, or specially increased death duties (or rather, by treating it as a tax-priority debt on the parent's estate). That covers voluntary single parents and pa…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:15 PM
1

Over here 10 and 12 don't happen, not because of feminism but because the tax and benefit rules are designed to force mothers back to work unless the parents are married and have a very large difference in earning capacity in the father's favour (as in, he's earning something like triple what she was). 13 doesn't happen here either, but then our politicians' family affairs are less interesting than their extra-familial affairs ( ;-) ) or their prior business dealings. The only times you hear abo…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:11 PM
1

I think quite a lot of feminists simply don't think through the consequences of their ideas on men, then when called out on it, are happy to accept the misandrystic excuses because that sounds better than admitting to sloppy thinking. You see similar sorts of things with antiracism: if you criticise some idiotic AA programme which is failing to meet its stated purpose, you'll get attacked by people who associate any criticism of their pet movement's achievements with opposition to their group.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:11 PM
5

What about the child's right to know his father? Many places already give adopted children the right to know the identity of their biological parents. Perhaps even ore importantly, what about the child's right to have true and accurate medical records? Deliberately putting made-up information in a person's medical record is potentially dangerous even if it isn't actually illegal - what if the real father has some hereditary disorder, for example? Ordinarily, the child could be warned, tested, an…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 02:58 AM
4

And the child, who has the right to the care and support of its parents, but also has the right to have true and accurate medical records.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 02:52 AM
0

Not really, you can reach a point where further campaigning is pointless (anti-anti-semitism, for example, is pretty much redundant in most of the west, since even the lunatic fringe of the far right tends to consider jews as at least an ally of convenience against muslims, or to forget about them altogether) or where you've won (Catholic emancipation and discrimination against the Irish in the former British Empire).
/r/MensRights02/03/13 01:50 AM
0

Middle school reading lists in my experience were mostly full of character-lead and relationship-based stories about teenagers discoing themselves and establishing relationships with nature, little old ladies, or family members they hated, all written for barely literate imbeciles. (And the entire plot was so predictable that you could usually figure it out after the first chapter or two.) The classics on the list were a welcome relief, since at least they had a bit of variety to them.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 01:43 AM
1

It seems even worse that non-divorced parents don't have any particular obligation to fund their adult children's tertiary education.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 03:45 AM
1

There are plenty of public-spirited public defenders, but there are also quite a lot of them who are there because they can't get anything better, especially if you're in a smaller city or the country. Of course in the end you're better off with a state-appointed lawyer no matter how bad he is than no lawyer at all, since at least they know the paperwork and the procedure.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:53 AM
1

However, whether the law is right or wrong, it should be applied equally to all classes.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:52 AM
2

For extra fun, all the anti-cannabis campaigning focused on the name marijuana, which sounded scary and hispanic.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:52 AM
0

I also object to the idea of raising the minimum age, since I don't like the idea of restricting the rights of any citizen of voting age (except for age pensions for obvious reasons).
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:39 AM
2

If he forces her, then no, that's still rape, but if they're equally drunk and equally involved in sex, then morally it isn't even if it is legally or administratively.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 11:33 PM
3

Nuclear shells would have very light casings unless they're relying on the casing to contain the explosion used to compress the fissionable material (I assume they're mainly relying on the shape of the charges, but I obviously haven't seen the design), but the fissionable core is very dense (I don't know what the density is, but depleted uranium feels quite a bit heavier than lead), so it probably comes out around the same weight as a conventional shell, or perhaps even heavier.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 11:32 PM
1

The obvious solution to that is to remove the name and gender marks and use an anonymous ID number - I'm sure you have one because you'll have a unique ID number on your card (the library database needs it if nothing else), so it isn't exactly a problem which would cost any money to solve.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 01:48 AM
1

You can do that by making sure that the selection system can't tell if the candidate is a man or a woman.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 01:36 AM
1

In that case, the correct solution is to remove the identifying information and replace it with an anonymous ID - not only does that prevent discrimination (unless candidates insert their gender into the assessment somehow), it also allows everyone to see how much discrimination there was under the old system. A truly blind process (and I am aware that a nominally blind process may not always in fact be blind) is self-evidently the most fair way to choose the most meritous candidate for a short-…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 01:34 AM
2

It probably depends how you account for the various forms of injuries - for example, rugby players get more injuries, but are less likely to get a career-ending injury than a soccer player, because soccer players put abnormal strains on some of their ligaments and tendons. (Also, you get odd effects like boxing gloves increasing long-term brain damage from boxing, by changing the nature of the impacts.)
/r/MensRights24/02/13 11:46 PM
1

Infanticide is murder. It always has been. Not always - for a while in Roman law, a child under 2 wasn't a person (although killing them could still be a crime in some circumstances, much like inducing miscarriage against the mother's wishes is a crime separate to the assault on her in some places).
/r/MensRights24/02/13 11:33 PM
1

The point of the paper was to argue that birth is a purely arbitrary distinction, and that a newborn was just as much a person as it was immediately before birth, and thus that there really needs to be an ethically sound definition of what is a person. GM can still be argued against while accepting that infanticide is unethical if you hold that the infant is not a person, because GM harms the person which will later exist, whereas infanticide never affects a person because there is no person to …
/r/MensRights24/02/13 11:31 PM
2

The most obvious problem with this idea is that the obvious solution is for the rapist to stuff some sacrificial object up the victim's vagina first if those become at all common, and, speculating wildly, getting a stick rammed up your vagina then being raped is probably worse than "just" being raped, especially since it greatly increases the risk of permanent damage.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 11:12 PM
4

While men were definitely worse off in the war, the pre-war USSR was much better for gender equality than any of the western allies or the Axis powers. After the war, things changed and they became much more conservative, especially for party members.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 11:05 PM
11

Many studies show that single motherhood harms children in the long term, i've never heard ONE study that says single fatherhood harms a child. That could just be because single fathers tend to have to be conspicuously good to win custody, whereas single mothers just have to be not too blatantly awful. It might be worthwhile comparing results for children raised by widows and children raised by widowers, since parental death should be pretty much randomly selected from the general population, bu…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 10:46 PM
2

There could also be a class issue, although statistically distinguishing between "urban poor" and "black" is pretty difficult in the US so it is hard to tell if something is a race issue or a class issue.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 10:24 PM
1

If you ignore bisexuality (which people tend to do), the vaccinated gender is obviously protected, but so are people who only have sex with them because you've made sure that there isn't anyone to catch it from, which only leaves the (in this case) gay male population.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 09:21 PM
1

Also, HPV protection is widely cited as an excuse for circumcision (for example, that's what got Brian Morris into circumcision advocacy), so vaccination is obviously worthwhile for anyone who thinks circumcision is.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 09:21 PM
1

I think you are working from a mostly unstated premise that it is desirable to build a society which is in static equilibrium, and an assumption that that is the goal of other social reformers. That is, you seem to want to be able to establish a set of rules which will work indefinitely so long as no-one fiddles with them. OTOH, MrStonedOne and others work from a premise that constant fiddling with the rules is fine so long as the rules are always working within a stable premise, for most of us …
/r/MensRights24/02/13 09:21 PM
1

They haven't entirely dumped it (the vaccine hasn't silenced Brian Morris, and circumcision is still available and probably legal in NSW and Victoria) but Australia does show that the intactivist movement can win.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 09:20 PM
1

IIRC it only applied to DV, which seems bizarre - if the new rules are sensible they should apply to all cases, and if not, they shouldn't apply to DV either.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 09:17 PM
2

I agree - although if a teen is diagnosed as trans they're likely to get puberty-blocking drugs which allow them to prevent going throughout he wrong sex's puberty until they are old enough to consent to the transition treatment (which is psychologically problematic in itself, but also allows them to be much more convincing afterwards), which means that they won't have the same level of muscular development.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 09:10 PM
1

I would say that in countries where health care is based on insurance, the cost should be on the welfare budget funded by general revenue, rather than spread across everyone's health insurance, especially when only women receive the direct benefit. (Obviously in countries where the funding is near enough all national, such as the UK NHS, that would just be an accounting nuisance.)
/r/MensRights24/02/13 09:10 PM
5

As I said to Ma99ie, the law is wrong but it should be applied equally, and it is pretty clear that if it were a man sex charges would have been laid.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 02:40 AM
3

The law is wrong, but it is perfectly clear that she broke the law and it would be even more wrong to let her off when men have been punished for doing similar things. The law should be changed, and all those punished for breaking it should be released and have their records cleared, but until that happens, the law should be applied equally to everyone.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 02:38 AM
2

Yeah, but at least they could be forced into dangerous and unpleasant work, which is rather more than most countries did.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 06:25 AM
2

(Side note: Why does circumcision still occur? Someone else mentioned it as a MRM issue as well, but I always thought it was a religious rite or something about the personal preference of the parents. I see no reason why that practice should continue to occur otherwise.) There are a few reasons that MGM is a MR issue. Firstly, even if you believe that routine childhood circumcision is a net medical benefit, it is exempted from anti-quack laws in many places, which needlessly endangers children. …
/r/MensRights19/02/13 04:55 AM
1

People do tend to volunteer for the nicer jobs, but when you have near-universal conscription they can simply reject people that would be too useful in the forward operating roles (infantry, gunners, spotters, and so on) for the roles which don't need such high levels of fitness, unless they have specialised skills. Also, it depends whether we're talking about a draft like for the US in Vietnam, where a relatively small population was drafted and mostly for the infantry, or if we're talking abou…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 02:51 AM
2

There is a school of thought that conscription is slavery, because you are forced to do specific work under threat of imprisonment or death and your life is no longer your own.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 02:42 AM
1

For equality to exist in that situation, the man that got her pregnant would also need a dishonorable discharge if you placed equal blame on the man and the woman for being consenting adults having sexual intercourse. In many militaries, deliberately or negligently rendering yourself unfit for duty is grounds for serious punishment - so having sex without adequate contraceptive measures and failing to abort afterwards is rendering yourself unfit for duty. Also, a dishonourable discharge does not…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 02:41 AM
0

mistreat is a stupid choice of word, but what women say they want in a boyfriend or husband when surveyed doesn't match what statistics about relationships show us - for example, women say they want men to do more around the house, but are more likely to dump a boyfriend if he does more housework.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 02:17 AM
3

I think it is a sex-positivity issue, which as a movement has some overlap with branches of feminism, some overlap with LGBT (not so much I or A) issues, and some overlap with MR, so it is important for MRAs to be involved in the movement to ensure that our interests are not forgotten. That said, it is probably wise for the MR organisations to avoid getting too closely ties to the sex-positive movement, since it would make it too easy to confuse sex-positive MRAs with PUAs, even though sex-posit…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 02:06 AM
1

I thought the crime was in lying to the parents about the blood and not performing the aftercare properly, not practicing surgery without any qualifications or proper facilities.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 01:42 AM
6

In the places where both are legal (and MGM isn't being performed by western doctors as in parts of Africa), FGM and MGM are done with similar tools and under similar conditions. Thus, in Malaysia and parts of Indonesia, MGM and FGM are both done in reasonably clean facilities by ordinary doctors - sure, the conditions aren't up to modern western standards, but they're not that far behind and are as good as you'll get for other operations. At the other extreme, there are plenty of reports of Afr…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 10:59 PM
1

If mandatory allowance of parental leave is a proper use of government power to promote the national interest, then it is a proper use of government funds to support it. If it is just splashing money and entitlements around for the sake of vote-grubbing, then the state shouldn't be granting special leave entitlements to parents at all. EDIT: that said, nearly every western government wants to increase population, because the end of exponential growth will be painful and the changes which will be…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 09:17 PM
2

The solution to that problem is to allow the facts of the case, including the full transcript, to be published with only the identifying information removed, and to allow the accused to give up his anonymity if he wishes. That's pretty much how it works in South Australia, except that anonymity is only for sex crimes and only until committal. That's also pretty much how it works for some juvenile cases.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:58 AM
1

If the magistrate believes that an accused criminal is likely to offend before trial, they can be refused bail and held on remand.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:52 AM
2

In South Australia, there is anonymity for sex crimes until committal for trial, which prohibits publication or broadcast of the identity of the accused, but doesn't seal the court or prohibit discussion, and it allows the facts of the case to be broadcast other than the identifying details. The accused is allowed to give up their anonymity provided it doesn't reveal the identity of the alleged victim (unless the alleged victim also gives up their anonymity). That prevents a media-led perp walk,…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:50 AM
2

It was a Leveller slogan as well (and I think a Digger slogan at the same time).
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:36 AM
2

You can be an adult and you can socialise without having kids - indeed, kids are pretty detrimental to the latter. Having kids is a terrible decision from a financial POV, so if you want to not have to live at work you'd do far better by not having them. Personally, I'd prefer a system with a state pension based on income (so for each year of work, you are entitled to so many months of support at your after-tax net income), but in which you can take that time at any point in your life, for any r…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:28 AM
1

IMO parental leave as it currently exists should be treated like a reservist being activated - so the employer is compensated for the inconvenience of losing an employee, so that they aren't discouraged from hiring reservists. If that isn't done, employers will always try to avoid hiring those most likely to disappear on parental leave, and will want to pay those workers less.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:19 AM
1

He can't be compelled to be involved in the child's life, but unless he disproves paternity (and does so quickly enough) he still has to pay CS, which he'd have a hard time hiding from his wife (unless he lucks out and some other poor sod with the same name ends up on the hook - there have been a few stories about hopeless negligence in getting the right guy in CA).
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:45 AM
3

At my university you could conduct a protest anywhere outside where you didn't violate the fire and OHSW regulations (there was no suitable place indoors other than perhaps the main refectory, where you'd be an incredible PITA), except that you had to book some areas, but even then the booking didn't require a purpose to be specified and the bookings were allocated purely on a first-come first-serve basis (and were also used for things like BBQs, sales, games, and so on).
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:31 AM
2

Neville Shute wrote about a hypothetical society where a person could have up to seven votes, with every competent adult had one vote, and then more could be earned - you got one for having a degree, commission, or master craftsman's ticket, one for military or public service, and so on, and the seventh was rarely awarded and was given for outstanding acts of personal merit (like earning a VC or GC/GM, or some great act of self-sacrifice) and was considered one of the highest honours that could …
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:24 AM
1

Most western Christians will ignore all of the old testament which doesn't agree with their own prejudices, and will excuse a lot of Paul's rubbish by either saying that he was doing his best in a troubled but imminently doomed world, or by relying on the fact that between the gospels, Paul's letters, and Acts, you can justify just about anything. (GB Shaw argued (in his preface to Androcles and the Lion) that Jesus supported the principles of Fabian/Shavian communism, while plenty of Americans …
/r/MensRights13/02/13 11:12 PM
2

Also it seems to be much easier to pay 0% rather than 15% tax if your organisation adds "and Jesus" into its objectives somewhere.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 11:11 PM
1

There have been accusations that the Gates Foundation pressures third-world governments into restricting the availability of generic drugs and banning parallel imports, as well as other increases to copyright and patent protection, by making those changes a condition of donations of medicines. I haven't actually looked into the evidence myself, though, so it might be exaggerated.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 10:47 PM
2

The mother has to approve a paternity test, so presumably the father can approve a maternity test.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 02:45 AM
1

There was an article in New Scientist last week which said that the US military has been directed to produce gender-neutral fitness tests for each specialisation which are to be job-specific - things like "throw a grenade n metres" or "operate this jack" or "march n miles with full kit in m hours".
/r/MensRights11/02/13 01:51 AM
1

It is probably the simplest icon which is predominantly identified with business - if some of the people that claimed it was sexist had a suggestion for an alternative, their case might have a bit more merit.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 11:57 PM
0

The problem with proper studies into this sort of thing is that, if the behaviour was spontaneous, it probably started gradually, which means that if there were proper supervision (or even just enough supervision to be able to chart progress) someone's duty of care would have required them to stop it. With what sounds like a complete breakdown in supervision, we have a single datum, but without plenty of other instances of incompetent supervision, we can't tell if this is the normal result of un…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:41 AM
1

If WWIII breaks out, before the conscripts are any use it will almost certainly have ended, either with occupation or nuclear obliteration.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 06:31 AM
1

Also, a lot of roles in the "tail" are female-dominated in the civilian world - logistics, HR, and so on. They also tend to end up top-heavy, so that might make up some more of the difference. You'd really need to compare male and female combat-related officers. (Also, since men serve twice as long as conscripts, they might want to encourage women to go career to get more out of them.)
/r/MensRights05/02/13 02:33 AM
1

I really hope they sue her for slander and libel (since I'm sure both would have occurred). Even if it only bankrupts her, at least it would be more punishment than what she got in the criminal trial.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 01:45 AM
1

I would say that she was guilty of attempted kidnapping, attempted fraud (of the cost of imprisoning those two men), fraud (of the cost of the investigation), and wasting police time, as well as the civil matters of slander and libel.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 01:36 AM
1

Arguably you could use prostitution law, by having sex on the condition that she pay all your resulting expenses plus one cent, but that only works if she can't go bankrupt.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 11:48 PM
2

Yes you can - the child of a sperm donor has no rights in relation to its biological father. As far as the rights of the child go, the only difference between a pre-sex opt-out of the kind mentioned by GP and sperm donation is that the mother has had to pay some official to make the agreement valid, which is obviously worse (if only marginally) for the child.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 11:46 PM
1

The safest way is to tie it all up in trusts with very tight conditions.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 02:40 AM
1

I have no objection to people getting themselves circumcised as adults, provided the decision is made entirely voluntarily and in full knowledge of the science - I'd question their wisdom if they were my friend, but ultimately it isn't my business and it doesn't do any real harm to anyone else. That said, as a secularist I'd be rather worried about religious indoctrination which is sufficient to convince someone to go ahead with circumcision.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 02:39 AM
1

It has to be checked by her lawyer, it has to be signed well in advance of the wedding, and it has to give her something, and it mustn't make any arrangements for CS or child custardy. IANAL, but that's usually the grounds the rejecting them that you see here.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:25 AM
0

Actually, form a certain POV you'd actually want gay men to be using women's changing rooms and so on, except that there's no practical way of instantly determining that a person is gay like there is determining they they're male. After all, having gay men in the men's changing room greatly reduces the benefits of excluding women (and letting lesbians into the women's room likewise). Of course, it is really just about making people feel comfortable rather than anything really rational, so no-one…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:24 AM
1

Probably fake, but if true, totally moronic on her part, since there's now very clear evidence of at least wasting police time.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 03:20 AM
3

Women shouldn't be a part of the draft because they're biologically weaker and more vulnerable than men, generally. An 18 year old woman is significantly weaker than an 18 year old man. On the field, they would be the first to die, or cause others to die protecting them. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be useful as clerks, fitters, cooks, doctors, tank crews, pilots, AWACS crew, and so on, and it certainly doesn't mean they couldn't be conscripted into munitions factories and other essential war…
/r/MensRights29/01/13 03:04 AM
1

One argument for the restriction of abortion being morally permissible is that the woman fails to opt out of carrying it to term by not aborting before the time limit is up. You could equally argue that you opt in to parenthood by having sex without adequate contraception, in which case, if you're raped, you haven't consented to sex and thus haven't opted in.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 02:35 AM
1

The trouble is, I'm paying for their poor decisions through the welfare system. Since dozens of abortions are cheaper than a single kid on welfare, the cost would be well worth it. For the same reason, I do think that male and female BC should be available for free to poor people (by which I mean anyone who would receive child benefits) and those under 18, because even that is probably cheaper than paying for their kids.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 02:34 AM
1

From some of the other articles on the case, the reason de facto marriage became the norm in Quebec was a wave of secularism and anti-clericalism in the 60s.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:38 AM
2

Consenting to sex is consenting to the possibility that there might be a child as a result. That is, indeed, the current law. However, that doesn't mean that's what we think the law ought to be. You're arguing is, we're arguing ought.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:36 AM
1

While I've never delved too deeply into the law, there seems to be an effective legal maternity surrender in that if a mother gives up her child to an adoption agency, but the father intervenes and claims it, her responsibility is still severed, at least in some states. While that option is theoretically open to a man if he has sole custody, it is implausible that he would have sole custody of a newborn if the mother wanted custody.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:36 AM
1

Synacson is the only one arguing for a right to force abortions (occasionally someone wants a veto right, but that's a pretty rare opinion). Most of /r/MR agree with his observed problem, but prefer a solution modelled on sperm donation or adoption agreements - if the father wants out, he becomes a mere sperm donor (or a parent who has given up the child for adoption). The main point of debate is instead on what form the decision should take: a pre-sex opt-out is pretty close to existing legal s…
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:36 AM
1

If the DNA is actually stolen (i.e. the sperm was stolen, or some future technology allowed the creation of sperm from stolen cells), then I could see grounds for a case against the mother for that. However, the usual proposed solution is to make the father into a sperm donor, or for the child to be regarded as being adopted by the mother from the couple. Coupled with second-parent adoption, that also allows private sperm donation agreements for lesbians, or, by flipping the genders, a simple fr…
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:36 AM
1

It is perfectly feasible to clone the foetus from the aborted tissue, and if you need to do a surgical abortion it might be technically possible to extract an early-stage embryo intact (although I would expect it would be rather tricky to do it without causing damage - but that's just engineering). Of course, a clone might not have the same soul if you believe in that sort of thing, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to give the father the right to take a tissue sample for the purposes of re-impla…
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:36 AM
1

They are in my mind manifestations of religious beliefs and should be protected as part of a culture or heritage. I, and I think quite a lot of other people here, take the opposite view on freedom of religion and believe that it should just be a consequent right of the rights to free speech and free association
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:35 AM
1

Even if circumcision is an essential part of Jewish religious identity, the religion itself isn't an essential aspect of the ethnic identity (and that's even apart from whether Jews can be properly considered a race at all).
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:35 AM
2

While /u/OThompson is a bit incendiary at times, he is a left-wing MRA (and probably quite a lot further left than your peers), although he hasn't posted as much as he used to lately.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:35 AM
1

The problem is for poor people: here, you have to pay for an abortion yourself (starts at around $500, usually more), but if you keep it it is free. If you can't scrape together the money in time, you're stuck having a baby you don't want and can't afford. Obviously, if you can pay up-front you should be allowed (and encouraged) to do so. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with the state paying the full cost of abortion, but the approach to medical funding is totally different here.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 03:11 AM
1

Ultimately, her refusal to have an abortion is either self-punishing stupidity, or, if it turns out there is a God and a Heaven and he does hate abortion, her reward will be suitably greater as compensation for her suffering for her faith. If there is some medical reason that she couldn't abort but could carry it to term (I dunno, I'm not a doctor), then she should be exempted from CS.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 03:11 AM
1

Would you accept a compromise law which allows the man to opt-out before sex (i.e., analogous to a sperm donation agreement), and would you approve of the law tying to that opt-out an obligation to pay a half the cost of an abortion if that's what the woman chooses?
/r/MensRights26/01/13 03:10 AM
1

hile I agree with your basic principle, and I know that the younger partner usually is the girl in a teenage heterosexual relationship, the law should, IMO, be defined in terms of older and younger partners without reference to gender at all (even apart from male-female equality, the impact on non-hetrosexual couples and so on would make it a violation of the ECHR).
/r/MensRights25/01/13 02:45 AM
1

Oh, right, I just hadn't heard about that. Thanks.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 02:37 AM
1

What was the disaster with vasagel/risug?
/r/MensRights19/01/13 03:13 AM
11

Also, penile cancer is usually caused by HPV, which is also the cause of cervical cancer. The main thing that seems bizarre to me though is that it is restricted to just two types of cancer.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 02:13 AM
3

You won't find any that has sensible grievances or complaints about ill-thougt-out solutions to inequality (i.e. everything that mistakes a class-based or location-based problem for a a race based one) which isn't over-run by the far right.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 01:45 AM
1

The upvoted (purple) comments on the article are mostly pretty good.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 01:05 AM
1

The fact that someone did some form of work in the past doesn't mean they're encouraging people to do it in the future. After all, someone shoo flipped burgers during uni isn't ruled out as a potential teacher because we don't want to prime our children to be burger flippers.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 12:53 AM
1

Oh, in that case that's fine then.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 08:13 PM
2

If that is correct, surely a more general approach which corrects problems of jurisdiction between state, federal, and tribal systems would seem more appropriate than just a quick-fix for one particular category of crimes.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 03:59 AM
12

She also hasn't said why "the end of courtship" is actually a problem, just attacked it as a sign of immaturity.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 01:48 AM
2

In general you can insure anyone for anything (just ask Lloyds of London, and kiss goodbye to your bank balance), it is just that some medical insurance policies offer a package deal for spouses and dependent children.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 12:08 AM
1

IMO alimony should only be available if fault is proven on the part of the paying party (you could still have no-fault divorces which work like the former Quebec system, where they divided up the assets according to input and left with no further obligations). However, the more important reform is to ensure that the decision about SAH patenting is actually a mutual decision, since if the mother of a new-born baby decides she wants to be a SAHM the father has to either give in or divorce her (whi…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 12:06 AM
10

It would be mildly interesting to test the constitutionality of prohibiting transparent clothing (health-realated arguments can create issues in relation to actual nudity) - IIRC there were some people testing the nudity ban in SF, but I don't know how far they got with their case. Actually, a fun way to do it would be to start a cult which held that covering God's work is a sign of moral failure and is blasphemy (you could quote Genesis here) and then claim that prohibiting nudity is a violatio…
/r/MensRights14/01/13 11:20 PM
1

In most places with English-derived legal systems, the state retains the prosecuting legal team and organises the expert witnesses for the victim. However, in some places you are allowed to prosecute privately if the state declines to prosecute, although if they have the judge is likely to throw the case out for lack of evidence or whatever reason the state decided not to proceed. You can sometimes ask the state not to prosecute, but they can ignore your request in many crimes (OTOH, they can us…
/r/MensRights14/01/13 11:08 PM
2

Every woman who has ever had cosmetic surgery would be guilty of it. I don't think so, unless you really cared about the appearance of potential offspring - after all, you are having sex with the same woman you're looking at and touching up.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 06:35 AM
3

The only aspect I can see is that it doesn't apply reciprocally to men in the current wording, and there is a risk that it will carry on only protecting women. Also, unmarried women are more likely to be in situations where the law could apply, so the usual problems of potentially questionable standards of evidence come into play (i.e. exactly what was said and in what order, and how do you prove it).
/r/MensRights14/01/13 06:34 AM
1

I think the unofficial reason for that was that they didn't want to take their professional soldiers out of those positions. Also, conscripting women would have been unprecedented in the USA, and it had only rarely been done overseas (the UK partially did it during WWII, and the USSR had some female conscription,and I'm not sure when Israel started including women in their National Service) and there was some fear that dead female conscripts would undermine support for the war.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 05:50 AM
1

I could buy it if it were an automatic or a semi-automatic and some of the bullets hadn't hit him (especially if some had hit her), but from what little information there is in the article, I think I'm with the jury on this one.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 12:37 AM
1

Provide anonymity for those accused of rape until they are convicted. Actually, think that should apply to all sex crimes, on a system somewhat like the South Australian rules (although lasting until conviction rather than until indictment). Treat female murderers, rapists, and abusers exactly the same as males murderers, rapists, and abusers. IMO, the law should require that sentencing only consider: the harm done(I'm thinking of something like a big table of injuries similar to the ones used f…
/r/MensRights10/01/13 12:29 AM
2

If they didn't want to marry their daughter off to him, why did they take the money? Without knowing specific details, I suspect the answer is that they did want to marry her to him, but she didn't.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 10:55 PM
3

They did - it was ruled to be acceptable because the military didn't want women in combat roles, and they only needed conscripts for cannon-fodder.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:38 AM
2

The UK abolished National Service for all men born after 1939: conscription could be reintroduced, but there is no registration requirement (and if they need it it will probably be even more gender-neutral than last time, when unmarried women could be called up for labour but not for combat). Australia doesn't have any sort of conscription either, although it is constitutional.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:36 AM
3

I think, perhaps, it would be a good idea to have a separate WBB subreddit.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 03:33 AM
1

Oh, that makes sense - I misunderstood your previous post and thought you meant it was a major trafficking point on the global scale.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 06:15 AM
11

The intervening guy should have eyewitness testimony that is relevant. IMO a good-faith act on the part of the intervenor should be acceptable if he is acting on the request of the apparent victim, and that that apparent victim should be the one responsible if they've misrepresented the situation.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 05:17 AM
3

Wrez asked for evidence, he didn't say that even if there was evidence for that it was less important than men's rights. However, do you have a citation or explanation for the importance of Toledo, OH, as a trafficking point? It seems like a rather odd place: I would expect places either side of the US-Mexican border and on either side of the weaker parts of the Schengen area (plus perhaps London just because of its dominance within the British CTA), along with some in SE Asia and in Africa, but…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 04:45 AM
1

That's why the conditions would have to be about ensuring that the obligation does not arise rather than waiving the obligations. However, the big problem with that is that the limits of conditional consent are not defined yet. You couldn't require the mother to cover all his costs, because that could be discharged via bankruptcy whereas the CS debt usually cannot.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 02:51 AM
1

IMO the criminal should be paying the compensation, not the state (even if the state has to lend the criminal the money or seize the criminal's pension and welfare once the children are of age).
/r/MensRights04/01/13 11:05 PM
1

That's assumes GP was wanting a relationship.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 11:05 PM
1

DAE find it funny that the site has filtered the word "semen" from their own article body?
/r/MensRights04/01/13 11:05 PM
1

I think suspension is an excessive punishment for that incident no matter what the previous offences were - detention or lines or a telling off from the principal would be more appropriate. At that age I would have probably just moaned about an unreasonable rule, but when I was in about fourth grade I remember taking part in a protest against an absurdly excessive punishment for making paper planes (IIRC, it was an after-school detention for making or throwing (so you got two for making and thro…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 08:57 AM
5

When I was in pre-K, the most popular game among my cohort involved pretending to wrestle our peers into a sausage-making machine (a tangle of pipes in an alcove, with a door that could be opened to block it off). Apart from some rules to reduce the danger of play-fighting on tarmac, and of accidentally getting fingers caught in a door-jamb, it was tolerated by the staff. Compared with that, finger guns seem pretty mild.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 06:49 AM
2

I didn't think that was true since the polytechnics were made into universities, although I'm pretty sure it is true of all public schools together, and is true of Oxford and Cambridge.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 01:38 AM
10

They're not doing FGM like that because they want to do a botch job, that's just the best they can manage in the circumstances. In Malaysia and parts of Indonesia FGM is done in hospitals under conditions which are just as good as for other operations (including MGM) - not up to our western standards, but certainly much better than some improvised blade in a mud hut. Where peasants are using bits of glass and so on on girls, they're also using those sorts of things on boys too - that's part of t…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 01:13 AM
7

He's comparing the AAP to non-US bodies, not to other american ones - almost all state that routine circumcision is at best neutral and at worst harmful and unethical. ETA: the dutch medical organisation even recommended outlawing it.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 12:25 AM
1

HPV is a red herring, as a vaccine is available (and has been given to girls routinely in Australia for several years). The first amendment argument is irrelevant - Hindus are not exempted from anti-tattooing laws (and there is definitely no medical impact if done hygienically), muslims are not exempted from anti-FGM laws, and so on. The entire civilised world places the child's well-being ahead of the parents' religious freedom and has done for decades - and rightly so, since adults who value t…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 12:37 PM
1

I'm not very good at comparisons That much is obvious.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:45 AM
2

You can't chose whether he gets tattooed, or get peircings anywhere except in his earlobes (and in some places not even there) until he is old enough to express consent, and those are purely cosmetic modifications which have no functional impact at all. No mater what, until he's an adult you can't do any kind of ritual scarification of any other part of the body (as is traditional in some african tribes).
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:44 AM
1

Only if it does so to an extent which harms the future of the species - there is a more than adequate supply of humans, so your point doesn't apply.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:38 AM
1

It all comes down to the ancient question "what is man, that thou art mindful of him" (which is, I think, a quote from someone's scripture). That which does harm to a person is bad (even if the harm done is the consequence of a much earlier act - think land mines) but that which never harms a person is not. Thus, an act which harms someone who will become a person is bad, but if they never become a person, no evil is done. Abortion removes a potential person, who thus is never a person to be har…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:35 AM
1

Contact the person responsible for Title IX compliance, the head of student welfare, or the director of student services (whichever is appropriate for your uni). That way, they cannot plead ignorance.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 07:26 AM
1

The inflationary effect is limited if you don't raise the minimum net income (that is, wages-tax+benefits) and reduce corporate taxes (starting with payroll taxes) to compensate. That eliminates cross-subsidisation, and encourages high-skill, high added value businesses to set up here. Minimum-wage workers are already being removed from the essentials - supermarkets are introducing self-checkouts, so one person can operate about a dozen lanes (more, if you used security tags), and only refrigera…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 07:19 AM
1

He was deported, and when you are deported they can only send you to a country which will accept you. He probably didn't get much choice about where to go.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:58 AM
1

I suspect you'd by stymied by that classic problem of verbal contracts - if there's dispute about the wording, it is only as good as the paper it is written on. However, if you got it all in writing, that's still wouldn't get you out of paying CS if she had a child, and victims of crime coverage almost certainly wouldn't cover it. (Also, you'd probably want the conditions to include something like taking whatever measures are necessary to prevent you incurring any parental obligation, in case th…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:54 AM
1

Not at all, but she had a fair bit of influence over judicial promotions and a jury would have been hopelessly biased in a case with two celebrities, both loved and hated by large parts of the population, so you'd never get an unbiased jury. That means that if she won, she'd still be crucified by her opponents, and if she lost, his opponents would say that he got lucky. Both of them would be harmed by the case, so neither would actually be the real winner.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:40 AM
1

Obvious (but totally flawed) solution: allow all women from countries without effective equal-rights laws to qualify as refugees (but not men), thus attracting a large number of female economic migrants and improving the male:female ratio (without changing the ration in the electorate).
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:30 AM
1

A slightly ironic user name...
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:26 AM
1

Count it as part of the welfare budget - every potential child not born is one that won't have to be supported through to adulthood, then potentially paid welfare for much of its adult life. (Of course, if welfare and health both come from general revenue, then it doesn't matter where it is accounted, but in the US system, it does.)
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:16 AM
1

She is Arwen's grandmother (she is Elrond's mother-in-law), and her childhood was in the Age of the Trees, before men even existed.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:04 AM
1

Galadriel is not a princess! She is the ruler of Lothlorien, and while I don't think she is ever styled as such, the closest equivalent title would be queen. In the appendix, it says that technically Celeborn is the king but that they rule jointly - IIRC there is a comparison to Thingol and Melian.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:59 AM
1

Beorn is human, and so are the people in Esgaroth (including the archer who actually kills Smaug, whose name I forget).
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:53 AM
2

They were made by Aule (with accents), but the Silmarillion does say that they reproduce in the manner of the children of Illuvatar (as do orcs, despite what you see in Isengard in the film of Fellowship) - that is, sexual reproduction. However, I don't think there's any mention of human-dwarf or elf-dwarf hybrids, whereas elves, orcs, and men are all genetically compatible. Trolls are the tricky part - the Ents and Dwarves were granted sentience by Eru, but trolls were Melkor's creation but sti…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:49 AM
1

In the book it is a little more clear that Elrond couldn't really stop her marrying Aragorn or choosing to be human, but he wanted to force him to take up his throne.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:40 AM
1

There's always Lobelia Sackville-Baggins.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:30 AM
1

I think it would be fair if the mother could adopt the kid (or hypothetical kid) from the couple - so she'd obviously have to sign too, or, looking at it differently, if a sperm donation agreement could be done as a simple ad-hoc, one-sentence agreement without any formalities about when or where it is signed or the methods used for insemination.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 05:13 AM
1

Female circumcision is a huge problem in the third world, namely Sudan. memymineown has already responded to the rest, but it is very hard to convince a famine-ravaged nation with serious internal tensions to help stamp out a cultural practice which they don't particularly object to even if they don't practice it themselves, rather than using that time and money on dealing with starvation, AIDS, and avoiding civil war. Outlawing unnecessary boyhood circumcisions at home is far simpler - it needs…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 04:50 AM
1

IMO BC[1] and elective abortion aren't really health issues - it is about saving money on welfare, especially if you massively reduce the number of people growing up to be unemployed and unemployable. [1] when actually used as birth control and not because it is medically necessary
/r/MensRights03/01/13 03:30 AM
1

It depends on the relative costs of providing the service to those you would consider excluding from it (bearing in mind potential losses of economies of scale) and means-testing it (and the extra effort for the distribution channels to ensure that only eligible people get the service). As BC is in itself fairly cheap, it might well be cheaper to give everyone BC (with a prescription to make sure they get the right type for them) and rely on ordinary border controls to prevent export for sale.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 03:22 AM
1

Bearing in mind that about 1 in 3 people will suffer some form of mental illness in their lives, even taking into account that many of those cases are just part of geriatric decrepitude, a fairly large number of people will have sex with people with mental health issues. Also, she might have been fine when the kids were conceived, especially since some conditions are stress-triggered.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 02:57 AM
2

IMO it should be paid and compensated by the state in a similar manner to when reservists are called up - here, at least, employers are compensated for the hassle and expense of hiring a temp. That way, the temptation to try to avoid hiring a woman who is likely to have children is much reduced. I would write the law so that the leave becomes available when becoming responsible for a child, so it happens at birth normally, but also applies for adoption or when paternity is asserted and found by …
/r/MensRights03/01/13 01:54 AM
1

Good point.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:05 AM
1

Yeah, but it is worth checking - it would be a little embarrassing (in the sense that a CFIT is embarrassing) to get told that not only is your perfect evidence inadmissible but that you've just confessed to another crime.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 01:35 AM
1

...assuming that is legal under relevant local laws, especially since in some places illegal recordings aren't admissible as evidence.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 01:01 AM
5

No, she should be sentenced as though she had kidnapped him for a year, slandered him, and defrauded the state of everything it spent on investigating and imprisoning him (which is effectively what she has done); then she should be civilly liable for all the lost earnings, slander and libel, effect of his broken friendships, mental anguish (both his and everyone who was friends with him) and so on. (Personally, I think that anyone who is criminally convicted should automatically become civilly l…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 12:42 AM
1

If half of these withdrawals are still wanted by the mother, or even a quarter, that would mean several hundred thousand more kids per year being raised fatherless. OTOH, it would almost totally eliminate the idea of having a baby to keep one's bf, encourage men to actively support abortion access, and create a financial disincentive against raising a child alone. It is impossible to say what effect those aspects would have, especially the effect on men's interest in abortion rights (which is a …
/r/MensRights13/12/12 12:12 AM
2

They used to say 3, so at least the marketers are getting a little less extreme.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 12:26 PM
5

Her consent to sex can (and, really, should) be conditional on a barrier contraceptive as well, especially if she doesn't know and trust the man (pregnancy may be bad, but AIDS is far worse). However, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the man to be liable for half the cost of abortion if he hasn't opted in, provided the woman hasn't deliberately mislead him about her use of contraceptives, unless enough of the cost is covered by socialised health that the remainder isn'r worth chasing…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 11:47 AM
1

It would have to be implemented as a waiver of parental rights and responsibilities (effectively, as the mother adopting the hypothetical child from the couple), or as a sperm donation agreement (I don't know if they exist in NH - in some jurisdictions sperm donor must be anonymous to not be held responsible). If the law was written in a gender neutral manner, it would also allow for surrogate mothers and clarify the situation for egg donors.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 02:49 AM
1

You lived through all that, and still view patriarchy and rape as stupid theories? To call the US a rape culture when talking to someone from a country like that would sound pretty absurd. But I honestly don't understand how you can be sitting around in America worrying about misandry in a college classroom, instead of trying to figure out how to rescue your mom and nanny. I don't know where Heptad is from, but it isn't likely to be somewhere where you can just look up people in the marriage reg…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 02:39 AM
1

How many threads in each direction per inch, I think. I'm not sure if thread count exists or is meaningful for fabrics not woven on an ordinary square weave.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 11:44 PM
1

There is no such thing as a mandatory medical procedure for children in the USA. Parents decide what tests their children have. There are: parents cannot refuse to allow their children to be treated in some circumstances where such refusal could be harmful. The best-known aspect of that is that JWs and so on cannot refuse to allow their children to have blood transfusions. You could argue that having an accurate medical history is also essential to the well-being of the child, but mandatory medi…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 11:39 PM
1

Affirmative action which isn't forced by law is a form of "corporate social responsibility" (scare quotes because for public companies it is really just a form of marketing, since by law they can't do it if it would harm them overall and Norway, among other examples, has shown that affirmative action can be harmful when applied to senior positions). It is therefore quite plausible that the companies are promoting women because they want a popular form of CSR, rather than using CSR because they'v…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:59 PM
3

It is also rather over-the-top for a simple unwanted kiss: sexual assault is a serious crime, a moment's unpleasantness and irritation doesn't warrant that level of response. (That's not to say it should be totally allowed, either socially or legally, but it is a small matter, and should be treated as such.)
/r/MensRights07/10/12 06:58 AM
1

You could make it mandatory as soon as any of the child's DNA is sampled, but in any case I would suggest that the law should be that the birth certificate should only contain the proven biological parents, with a supplementary document allowing a kind of instant adoption for second-parent adoption of children conceived with donated sperm or eggs.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 06:31 AM
4

Do you mean girlwriteswhat?
/r/MensRights07/10/12 05:44 AM
1

One major structural problem is that, at the moment, the mother has almost unilateral ability to decide to become a stay-at-home parent. If the father disagrees and she doesn't want to compromise, he's SOL: he can't force her to go back to work, because withholding money can be construed as abuse. he can't divorce her straight away, because she will almost certainly win virtually full custody. he can't divorce her later, because she'll get a substantial amount of alimony for having been out of w…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 05:12 AM
1

It wouldn't be unreasonable for him to have been punished for attempted rape if he had been bi[1] since he would have probably gone through with the rape had he not been stopped. However, if there was evidence that he liked anal sex with ciswomen it would possibly be correct to find him guilty of attempted rape. [1] If he were gay, he obviously wouldn't have attacked her at all.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 04:52 AM
2

ETA: it says here that the kid left the father when he found out. It could be that he recognised the real father as the boy grew up, or the boy knew he might not be his "father"'s son and told him in a row (after all, kids that age do row with their parents). Or, possibly, the boy's future was essentially secure, and he either needed the money or wanted revenge (and it is likely to be a crippling debt for the mother). Another possibility would be that he guessed out who the father was and hoped …
/r/MensRights06/10/12 07:37 AM
1

Only if you give them the DNA, or if they can extract it from something you've thrown away (usually). If the subject is a child, you have to have permission from the custodial parent.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 07:25 AM
1

Some places require joint agreement to undertake medical testing, and if the mother is the sole custodial parent the father may not have the right to take a sample of the child's DNA.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 07:24 AM
2

An earlier article said that in Swedish law for an "attempt to X" crime where you are stopped before you get to actually doing "X", you are only guilty if the court believes that you would have done X had you not been stopped. Thus, since he wouldn't have completed the rape once he discovered that the victim lacked a vagina, he wasn't going to actually have raped her and thus it didn't count as an attempt. If, OTOH, there was evidence that he'd be willing to have, say, raped her anally instead o…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 07:09 AM
1

There are precedents for industrial conscription - that is, conscripting people into war-related industries instead of the forces. Sometimes that is done based on pot luck (Bevan's Boys, for example), but other times it is done based on skills or fitness assessments. Of course, people in essential jobs are usually exempted from conscription in that sort of scenario, unless they can easily be replaced by other conscripts who are less suitable for more demanding roles.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 06:55 AM
1

That is also a fun contradiction in feminist arguments about privilege. If men were privileged with access to power and influence, then it is only natural that they should make up the majority of the interesting history, and thus history should have less emphasis on women until recently. And in any case, it isn't like people don't remember the important women in history: Dowager Empress Cixi (how many people know who Henry Pu-Yi was?), Queen Isabella, Queen Eleanor (although she's less memorable…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 11:41 PM
1

As a start, it would probably be socially acceptable to say that a man is in the clear if the woman has stated that she intends to abort if their contraception fails - that amounts to a pre-sex opt-out for men, since the simplest way to prove it would be to have a form agreement that the woman signs. To make it fair, and to give women a reason to sign, the man should then become liable for a share of the cost of abortion if necessary, so he would have to sign the form too. (It would probably als…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 11:36 PM
1

Quite a few of the formerly gender non-specific porn subs have split into male and female subs, usually with the formation of a new male sub and then eventually a change in rules of the old one. That does make sense, since most people are not noticeably bisexual, and those who are can subscribe to both easily enough.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 04:53 AM
1

I'm not familiar with the premiers you mentioned, but Gillard took over after Rudd's government was already declining in the polls. She's also not great personally: she hasn't got the character of someone like Hawke or Keating, or even Howard, who managed to do a fairly decent man of the people. OTOH, she's better than the Mad Monk opposite (not that it matters what I think, I'm in a safe seat).
/r/MensRights03/10/12 02:41 AM
2

As an experiment, I would suggest that the next time you pee try sitting vs standing. The time it takes is negligible in my experience. I suspect that a large amount of extra time is taken up by hovering or laying out paper in places which don't have arse-gaskets. Oriental-type squat toilets might be the solution to that. I do believe that a urinal design for female use is something that can (and I believe has been) done. I just happens to be that there is no market for them. There is, but the d…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 02:04 AM
1

In South Australia there are limited privacy rights for accused sex offenders: if you are accused but not indicted, your name or equivalently identifying information cannot be published (in the legal sense), unless you give permission (although that can be preempted by privacy rights of the alleged victims).
/r/MensRights02/10/12 11:57 AM
1

I mean you have young girls who go around pretending to be older than they really are, sneaking into clubs that serve alcohol, smoking cigarrettes, in both cases you need to be over 18 or 21 depending on where you are, but in reality they are in high school and they go out and hook up and then the parents find out because they regret iy and cry rape. Hows it any ones fault but the girl. Here they have an affirmative defence of a reasonable belief that the younger partner was of age, which is pro…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 11:47 AM
1

Agreed.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:51 AM
2

Parental alienation, horribly biased family law, and sexist assistance for single mothers harm poor men even more than richer men, because poor couples are less likely to be married and men's parental rights are even more limited if he is not married to the mother. Poor fathers are also unlikely to be able to afford the kind of legal assistance which richer men can get: surely you've seen plenty of posts in here where some man says "help, I'm in a divorce, I can't afford a lawyer, and I'm gettin…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 07:44 AM
1

I see, thanks for that.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 11:56 PM
1

And that doesn't take into account the added financial burden of supporting a woman who is likely to be earning less after marriage, nor does it say whether the economies of scale counterbalance that. It also doesn't take into account the risks of divorce and the health and financial impacts of that.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 10:52 AM
1

I'm not remotely a biologist (I last studied bio at high school), but I was under the impression that it was very difficult to build new tissue from stem cells without an existing piece of adjoining tissue to act as a guide, since a rigid frame was impractical for some reason. I also thought that building completely new tissues, some of which don't exist anywhere else, was much harder than repairing or replacing existing tissue. I also thought there were serious engineering and surgical difficul…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 09:29 AM
1

He was a right-wing columnist (by British standards), and has some views which are a bit conservative for some people's tastes, but he seems like a charismatic and likeable guy. I wouldn't necessarily vote for him, but he manages to act human, which is a nice feature in a politician.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 03:16 AM
1

And if food additives are demonstrated to be dangerous in sane amounts[1], they should be banned. [1] I'm not trying to ban rhubarb or strawberries, which can kill you but only with impressive dedication - you're likely to die of malnutrition or over-eating first.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:59 AM
1

I think Foregen are over-optimistic in their claims, but I don't know whether that it genuine enthusiasm, morally grey advertising, or an outright scam.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:47 AM
1

Maybe your bus drivers are a little more cautious than ours, but over here the bus-riding public generally prefers to be packed in like sardines and driven as quickly as the road rules allow, rather than waiting for a more empty bus and being driven more gently, especially on the evening run. There's also the question of proportionality. I've been groped in clubs and so on, and while mildly irritating, it hardly justifies ruining someone's life over. If any public transport behaviour deserves be…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 02:35 AM
3

Yeah, especially since it is feminists who supply the shoddy research which is used to indoctrinate girls into fear of stranger rape, which they then cite as an example of male privilege.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 11:56 AM
1

Does anyone know if "unnecessary suffering" is a specific term of art in German law? If not, there is room to argue that all circumcision is unnecessary harm, but I wouldn't have thought they'd compound the stupidity of passing an unconstitutional law with the stupidity of passing a law which won't do what they said it would. Unrelated: Why does every AFP article about circumcision tack that last paragraph on?
/r/MensRights23/07/12 11:54 AM
2

The "women should be terrified of going out alone at night" meme is actually perpetrated by feminist campaigns. It is propagated by them, but I think it was more traditionalist women who started of the "you gonna git raped" idea, as a part of slut-shaming.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 11:35 AM
2

I'd find the constant objectification degrading I'm not so sure about that, although my perspective is probably skewed because, as a pretty average guy, I only get objectified when I actually want to be (and not always then). That means I've no real idea what it is like to be continuously objectified. (Also, I'm an immodest slut, so I'm probably not the best sample-of-one anyway.) That's actually a problem I, and probably many other MRAs, have with the classic female privilege list - we just don…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 11:33 AM
3

Depends on where you are, and what existing laws there are. English common law seems to have regarded circumcision of the children of Jews as not being assault, so you'd need to make sure that your local legal system had fixed that. It also depends on how much parental autonomy is permitted by medical consent rules: if parents can get cosmetic surgery done on tier kids without good cause, circumcision is probably legal too. However, even where it is illegal, you'd need to have a case brought to …
/r/MensRights23/07/12 11:15 AM
1

In Australia there is a practice of creating parties purely to advertise an issue, with minimal desire to actually get elected. The point is simply to be able to use the special advertising rights which political parties have (for example, being permitted to put up signs on lamp posts and power poles which others aren't allowed to remove or deface), and, if they have a bit of success, to do preference deals with the other parties. Occasionally, they turn into serious parties whose candidates hop…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 11:15 PM
1

It won't make much difference in practice, because the unelectable women will be put up agains the other side's unbeatable men (because if they could potentially win on their own merits, they'd have been selected anyway). The bigger problem is that it forces the minor parties to put up extra female candidates who weren't otherwise worth nominating, and then get stuck with either wasting resources on those candidates or appearing to discriminate against their female candidates.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 11:07 PM
1

The quota candidates will be nominated for the other side's safe seats in the parties which have a central selection process.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 11:02 PM
1

The author also states that Sarah Palin was not taken seriously because people only considered her looks, etc, and not her policies. Indeed, if her looks were the only consideration, Sarah Palin would have probably been taken more seriously than, say, Hillary Clinton or the iron lady when they were here age, even taking into account past fashion tastes.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 08:50 AM
1

The original thread.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 06:25 AM
1

To a lesser extent, yes, although you don't get such good air circulation, which is important when it is humid. There is also a very noticeable and quite strong gender distinction in the minimum "acceptable" length for shorts. For young women, it is acceptable and fairly common to wear shorts which barely cover the buttocks (and even sometimes leave the crease between the buttocks and the thighs partially exposed), whereas for men it is only marginally acceptable to wear shorts which don't reach…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:58 AM
1

I wouldn't bet too much on that - they compared public school kids with religiously schooled kids. There was a rather interesting study in Melbourne a few years ago, which found that patterns of sexual promiscuity and precociousness were pretty similar in the most elite girls school as among the girls at public schools attended by the children of skilled factory workers and people of that class (i.e., those between unskilled labour and the better-paid trades), but that it was the children of the…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:32 AM
2

I'm sure that can apply to plenty of other things -- if you tell boys they're part of a rape culture, that diminishes the seriousness of rape, compared to telling them "rape is a terrible crime committed by a small number of violent criminals". I think the 1 in 4 "stat" is really quite harmful there, since it quite possibly promotes rape. Partly, it normalises rape, as you suggest, but also because, a young man who hears it is likely to discount the significance of acquaintance rape by looking a…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 05:13 AM
1

I'm marginally curious about what language they have Powerpoint set to, since "the", "of", and "must" are recognised, but "very" and "idea" are not.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 02:36 AM
2

They don't keep you warm, … That's quite a useful advantage in warmer climes.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 02:24 AM
1

1.1% of all men were raped by being forced to penetrate a person, according to the Centre for Disease Control's 2010 Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 02:01 AM
3

Personally if a girl is a slut doesn't mean she didn't get raped… I think it depends on the other aspects of her life. If she's a slut whose family think is a virgin I would be more inclined to disbelieve her in my private capacity. Of course, as a hypothetical juror, I'd base my decision on the evidence at hand.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 01:56 AM
0

If people got no more money from a 'high powered job' then a part-time job, then no one would be in 'high powered jobs.' I'm not so sure - power and prestige are attractive even without high pay, which explains why people are willing to go from high-paying business careers into government and community work, and why people seek promotion even in places like Japan where senior executives don't make as much more than the average.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 11:27 PM
5

I think the problem is not so much the formal punishment, although I think 4 months is perhaps a little excessive on top of the civil damages, but the ongoing punishment which is likely to result from the conviction.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 11:07 PM
3

The misandry definition has been spammed massively, but I can't see a "report spam" button.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 11:09 PM
4

Even without women being allowed in the front lines, conscripting women would still make sense, since there is a need for truck drivers, logistics men, and so on, not to mention additional labour for war-related work.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 01:02 AM
5

Even with the normal standard of evidence were applied, false allegations are an enormous waste of public resources, even apart from the effects of defamation and the effects on the believability of real victims.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 12:40 AM
2

Not at all, I just doubt the level of free choice a teenager has over something which is likely to be very important to his parents when he is financially dependent on them, they can apply all sorts of pressure on him under the colour of parental discipline, and they can greatly restrict his exposure to alternate world views.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 04:54 AM
2

The answer is even simpler than that: TFA says that the legal age for men is 21 but the legal age for women is 18. ETA: doch_doch had spotted that when I commented, but I hadn't read that far down.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 11:37 PM
1

In GERMANY? Germany isn't really alone in outlawing circumcision. If someone were to put the law to the test in Queensland or Tasmania, they would almost certainly be convicted of assault (the courts haven't actually ruled on it, but the QLRC has reported that a ban is unnecessary because it is already illegal, and Tasmania's is expected to come back with the same result. They might be wrong, but it isn't likely.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 06:24 AM
1

The BVG can't grant religious exemptions unless they decide that this ruling was wrong in its interpretation of the GG and the relative importance of articles 2 and 4, and, if article 4 takes precedence over article 2, whether it applies more strongly to the boy's future freedom or the parents' current freedom.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 06:19 AM
3

I do think that 16 is rather too young to make a permanent commitment of that sort on the basis of religious teaching, especially without any kind of rumsrpinga, because a 16yo is pretty much entirely dependent on their parents and is far too easy to pressure into acceptance.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 05:15 AM
2

I am curious about this statistic...is the percentage of men lower because of he percentage of incarcerated black men, perhaps? Apart from the reasons others have posted, men on average get longer sentences for the same crimes, so in the states where disenfranchisement of ex-cons is based on length of sentence men lose more votes that way. Also, men are more likely to be of no fixed address, and thus unable to register to vote. How about the abortion restrictions that grow in number every year I…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 01:32 AM
1

I didn't read enough of the article to know where she lived, but it might well be that she couldn't afford to get her own place even if she worked full-time. That would mean that if her parents were to kick her out, she could well be homeless, even if she had legal rights to notice before eviction (because it would take time and money to peruse). People have killed for a lot less than that, so I suppose making a false accusation is not too insane.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 07:43 AM
1

Social pressure, or some other sort of external influence on the decision notwithstanding, the end result is the same; a person makes a conscious yes/no decision on whether to have it done to their own body. I think it depends on circumstances: I don't think consent is really valid for, say, someone raised in a very closed Islamic community, who is indoctrinated from childhood to believe that genital cutting is essential or they won't be able to marry, will go to hell, and will have all sorts of…
/r/MensRights14/07/12 01:44 AM
1

As they can be imprisoned (and presumably struck off) for doing it, I suspect not. Some mohelim and whatever muslims call theirs probably are still doing them.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 06:52 AM
2

In genesis, the story of Abraham, Isaac, and the covenant, and again in, IIRC, Exodus when all the Israelite men are circumcised before entering the promised land.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 06:48 AM
2

I'm cut and rabidly opposed to it. In my case, it was done as a supposed treatment for phimosis, at the age of about 4. Unfortunately, I can't find out if that was induced phimosis or a bad diagnosis, although I do know that no attempt was made to use non-invasive treatments. While I don't remember any pain, I do remember how sensitive my glans was, and how much the sensation has become dulled. I've also ended up with scrotal skin on my shaft, which is somewhat unsightly. Luckily, I've still got…
/r/MensRights13/07/12 06:45 AM
1

In pre-pubescent boys, that is almost always a misdiagnosis, unless the problem was caused by forcibly retracting the foreskin, which causes scarring and prevents it developing as the properly elastic tissue which it should. The foreskin isn't actually supposed to retract fully until puberty. Also, circumcision is over-prescribed for phimosis, since often stretching and topical steroids can be sufficient, but are often not tried in regions where circumcision is common.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 06:39 AM
1

Subincision, I think. Mostly done by some Australian Aboriginies (usually to mark religious leaders or elders, IIRC), but also by a few Polynesians and some other groups.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 06:34 AM
1

Also, it greatly weakens one of the supposed health benefits of circumcision.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 06:31 AM
1

In terms of AI and animatronics, we're probably pretty close to being able to produce a sexbot which is at least as convincingly enthusiastic as a cheap prostitute. The problem is cost - it would cost far more than simply hiring a woman, at least for quite a long time, creating the usual problem which retards robotics. The most obvious market for them would be long-distance freighter crews, but that's hardly going to be a big enough market to get an industry going.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 06:28 AM
2

On top of that, are there even a lot of conservatives here? I don't think there are many Tories or Republicans (as appropriate for the country in question), except as a matter of lesser of two evils, but there are quite a few right-libertarians and rabid monetarists, and they tend to be very vocal when left/right issues come up. I'd be up for a poll.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 02:23 AM
6

Racism is a common accusation used to try to shut down criticism of any group which happens to be non-White or Jewish, no matter what the criticism is or if it is in any way tied to race. Suggesting that the children of Muslim parents should be protected is therefore obviously "racist". (Of course, when she wants muslim girls to be protected, that's not racism because it is for a cause she likes.)
/r/MensRights13/07/12 02:12 AM
11

It is common in feminist articles about the MRM, and among schoolboys. You also see it in more subtle form in mainstream media when talking about non-traditional but non-effeminate men.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 02:07 AM
1

… and that's just the poetry. Supporting child circumcision only makes it worse. The whole thing is just a lousy publicity stunt, using poetry to get attention from the media.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 06:27 AM
1

From an insurance POV, the absolute number is more important than the number per km, unless premiums are based on distance driven (and I know mine are not).
/r/MensRights12/07/12 06:14 AM
1

AIUI, that was part of the origins of child protection law in England and Wales, where it was found that as people are animals, you couldn't treat a person under your care in a way which would be forbidden for a "lesser" animal.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 02:20 AM
0

While a sperm donation agreement wouldn't work, since in most places they aren't effective if they're not anonymous, a conditional consent to sex could be applied, whereby the man consents to sex on the condition that the woman pays him all costs which he incurs as a result of the encounter, other than STD treatment. That way, he can't be pursued for CS because every attempt to do so comes back as a higher bill for the mother (because you have to add the legal fees to the requested amount), and …
/r/MensRights11/07/12 03:17 AM
1

I think the point is that, on a rational cost-benefit analysis, abortion is almost always the superior choice, unless one has a strong desire to become a mother. (Exceptions apply when abortion would be likely to kill the mother, or in places where the social penalty would be very high.) That means that either unwilling men are being forced to subsidise something women are wanting to do anyway, or there are a lot of irrational women around. (For those women who can't get the ready money together…
/r/MensRights11/07/12 03:08 AM
1

I suppose it depends how you consider how the principle that a person seeking damages is ineligible for compensation for harm they exacerbated should be applied to the victim's right to compensation for injuries done. Is aborting the child of rape a harm minimisation measure, and if so how does that fit with religious freedom? There is also the problem that a rapist will probably never be able to repay the costs, so that state will have to bear most of it.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 02:16 AM
1

You could argue that the difference is that the mother has voluntarily relinquished her right to bodily autonomy in respect of the baby through consenting to sex, which shifts the balance from her rights taking precedence to the baby's. If she does not consent to sex, she has not surrendered that right. Indeed, a variant of that is pretty much the normal answer to the balance of rights questions in abortion time limits, in that her rights are surrendered, subject to certain limitations, if she c…
/r/MensRights11/07/12 01:58 AM
1

You performed an action, and the legal status of such action is well-known and well-established. The argument is not that the legal status is somehow incorrectly interpreted, but that the legal status ought to be changed. You're mistaking an "ought" for an "is". You know that rules and regulations are in place to minimize the risk and you accept that risk by agreeing to fly. That doesn't preclude arguing for stricter regulation to reduce the risk. You might as well argue that, say, debtors' pris…
/r/MensRights11/07/12 01:56 AM
1

What I meant was that the mother ought to be able to opt out on paper as well as by aborting, since that allows the mechanism for non-anonymous sperm donation (which is what this amounts to) to be used for surrogacy as well.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 01:10 AM
1

Most proposals suggest that the man would have the bill for half the costs of abortion, including ancillary costs, if those are large enough to be worth recovering. Where I live, I am pretty certain that cases where neither parent wants it would greatly outnumber cases where the woman wants it and the father does not, which means that there would be more female winners than losers. In any case, the woman is the only one who can be certain what contraception she is using, and if she doesn't like …
/r/MensRights10/07/12 06:41 AM
1

I agree with that, but the father should still be able to adopt the whole child before conception, since surrogate motherhood is at present a rather tricky legal problem in some jurisdictions, and could be established simply by making the law symmetrical.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 06:30 AM
1

ISTM that Dalrock agrees with the conclusions reached by the PUA and MGTOW communities, but thinks that will result in undesirable effects. If he had his way, MGTOW would be pointless and Game undermined by making women less receptive. I don't think his proposals are economically desirable or politically feasible, and he seems to have massively overestimated the burdens of "domestic duties" on a single man's life.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 01:56 AM
4

“Were we to introduce a ban we would be the only country in the world to forbid ritual circumcision. Consequently, I cannot imagine that it will happen,” the minister told the newspaper. The stupidity of that statement is unbelievable - even Jim Hacker would see that that was an invalid argument. While it might have been true at the time, there was a first place to ban sending children into dangerous work, a first place to give women the vote, and so on.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 01:02 AM
1

It depends whether "I want kids, don't care when" counts as planned or unplanned. For a woman who has minimal promotion prospects, an enormous effective marginal tax rate[1] (so future raises, even above inflation, don't mater much), and no expectation of long-term involvement from the father have less reason to time childbearing precisely than someone climbing the career ladder and hoping to find a suitable partner. [1] In the early 90s, there were sour spots in the British welfare system where…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 03:13 AM
1

IIRC, the statistic was 20% of all pregnancies are aborted or otherwise deliberately prevented after sex, with an assumption that only unplanned pregnancies would be aborted. Obviously, that's not totally true, since some planned pregnancies might be aborted owing to complications, deformities, or other reasons, but it is probably close enough.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 03:06 AM
1

The Catholic Church has more recently opposed legislation to prevent circumcision because it forms a further restriction on religious liberties in regards to medical matters.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 03:59 AM
1

This article seems to be a little more detailed, but google translate sucks for German->English (the grammar is still mostly German). I'm pleasantly surprised that Germany was the democracy to achieve this, since I expected too many people to be afraid of accusations of anti-semitism.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 06:30 AM
1

I think you're missing the point. The Atlantic's article said that, essentially, women had to choose between childrearing and professional advancement, and was regretting the necessity of that choice and wanted the government to make it easier to do both. This article suggested that it was possible to have a little of both, by having just one child and accepting slightly less advancement. (There were other things as well, but that was the most important part of the response)
/r/MensRights27/06/12 06:17 AM
1

My understanding of the law regarding MGM was that it is not Actual Bodily Harm (or its local equivalent) because it was medically beneficial and thus could be consented to by the parents on behalf of boy. That means that with newer research it is likely to become illegal (as has possibly happened in parts of Australia). Without new legislation, it would at very least be covered by battery, unless it were implicitly legalised (say, by licensing mohelim, as the legislature could not intend to lic…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 06:16 AM
1

There has definitely been a trend towards more modest swimwear for men over the last 30-40 years: not just the trend away from budgie smugglers (speedos, the kind that are cut like a pair of underpants) which I still remember as being pretty normal 15 years ago, but also an increase in the length of shorts worn for swimming. 25 years ago, they tended to be of comparable length to the shorts worn for, say, Aussie Rules, but now they tend to reach to close to the knee. It doesn't even make sense f…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:53 AM
1

JOOC (and I'm not demanding links or anything, this isn't some kind of Spanish Inquisition), do you have any specific kinds of things which MRAs are more likely to do? While /r/MensRights tends to regard itself as fairly pro-trans, if we're doing something which we don't notice we could at least stop patting ourselves on the back. (OTOH, I know /r/Rights4Men are terribly transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic, and generally nutty; but they went there because they were getting too many down votes …
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:44 AM
1

While I think that any man (or woman, for that matter) who cares ought to ask if he cares about it right from the start (or otherwise make his position clear), once a relationship is established you ought to disclose it just like you would if you were infertile or belonged to a weird religion. "Pre-op" (and yes, I know that is horribly imprecise), I think that it is probably a good idea to disclose right away, both to avoid wasted time and because the other person might react badly so it would p…
/r/MensRights20/06/12 04:37 AM
1

Also, when "everyone" believes something, an awful lot of them believe it as a kind of default opinion. An obvious example is belief in God: I'm sure you know a good few people who believe in God and maybe even identify with a particular denomination, but who never pray, rarely attend church except for weddings and funerals, and have no real personal theology. As more and more people disagree with the idea, people who are essentially uncommitted are encouraged to question their beliefs and thus …
/r/MensRights20/06/12 01:41 AM
3

Since circumcision never became popular in Norway, I suspect that virtually all unnecessary circumcision there is religious.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 12:29 AM
3

Here, it depends if the jury likes you. In theory, no, unless you should have known otherwise (say, you already know her), but if the bar is notoriously slack about IDs then that might not be regarded as sufficient grounds. Since the AOC is a whole year younger than the drinking age, that does provide a bit of extra safety. Also, there is no equivalent of the fifth amendment, and that would discourage over-reactions from parents.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:07 AM
0

I suspect that part of the reason is that sexual activity in teens is affected by social class (at least in Melbourne): middle class kids have sex later than poorer or richer kids. When you take into account the relatively larger number of poorer kids, and the fact that poorer girls are more likely to become pregnant than richer girls for a number of reasons, that probably accounts for some of the difference.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 01:30 AM
5

South Australia uses reasonable belief as an affirmative defence: the advice I was given (by a serious crime detective) was that if you were unsure of a girl's[1] age and hadn't seen her get her ID checked, send her to the bar to get a round of drinks (even if you give her the money). If she comes back with them, you can assume that she is of age. He did warn that an unsympathetic jury with a little nous might not accept that at certain bars (and listed some, which the 17yos present found quite …
/r/MensRights13/06/12 12:04 AM
1

It could be done, but it would mean a massive drop in GDP and the welfare system would go completely tits-up. After all, with everyone back in single-income families, people would have less disposable income, so a lot of service industries and luxury good suppliers would have to downsize or close, releasing labour for essential industries.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 11:33 PM
1

as long as they make their final decision in the same time period that the woman has to get an abortion. For practical reasons, that really needs to be a week or two shorter. That isn't perfectly equal, but the woman needs time to act on the man's decision.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:38 AM
0

If he's pro-life, but they weren't expecting a baby and so didn't discuss the matter, her going ahead with an abortion could be unacceptable. Furthermore, not discussing a fairly major decision even in passing is not really a good thing to do in a serious relationship. While it is quite right that she should make the ultimate choice, failure to communicate about something that important is a pretty worrying sign.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:03 AM
1

Having finally R'dTFA, this is actually a silly article. It isn't talking about Crown lands or the royal estates, as I had assumed: rather, it is talking about the legal concept that all land in countries using English law is formally owned by the Crown, and "owners" merely own a title to the land, which is an indefinite-term lease (for which land taxes are your payment). The practical upshot is that you own the land, but it isn't yours absolutely because if you don't pay your taxes or if the go…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 01:42 AM
1

It isn't entirely accurate: the lands are owned by the Australian Crown (which owns everything which is neither common land nor owned by somebody), and the she is the nominal controller of the Crown.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 01:21 AM
3

Someone found a source which said that 20% of US girls under 18 who were sexually active would not mind becoming pregnant. That is a rather different thing, because I suspect a large proportion of them have received abstinence-only sex ed and consider the risk of becoming pregnant worthwhile for the pleasure of sex, and a smaller group probably think that becoming pregnant is no big deal because they can abort it. When you also remove those who aren't positively trying to become mothers, but don…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 03:05 AM
1

That can be solved with a simple pre-printed form agreement, which both partners sign before sex. Now, I think that opt-in makes more sense than opt-out, because I think most people (at least once you ignore all those who want to save sex for marriage) have more parters they don't want to have children with than otherwise, and probably don't want to conceive a kid on their first night. That approach is also dirt cheap, and simple enough that any fool could manage it. However, if the father is "o…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 02:54 AM
3

If there were a religious exemption, I would like to see an ethnic jewish man sue the state for discrimination against him on the grounds of his ethnic origin, in contravention of the ECHR, by failing to protect him from harm when boys of other ethnicities were. In any case, religious exemptions from laws are usually tested based on whether they cause harm to anyone other than a person who is willingly a member of that religion: a religious exemption to anti-MGM laws is no more necessary nor jus…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 02:19 AM
4

The extra protection for weaker persons could be achieved in a non-discriminatory way by punishing based on harm done: that meets the stated objectives, and achieves them more broadly than the current law.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 02:09 AM
2

The health benefits are insufficient to justify routine circumcision in the first world, and almost every first-world medical authority recommends against it. Also, things like religious indoctrination can be broken out of: it is sometimes difficult, but people can do it. Circumcision is irreversible.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 01:50 AM
3

airodynamic is talking about their relative importance of the structure: the foreskin is more highly enervated than the clitoris, so it is only natural for men to object to its characterisation as an unimportant piece of skin. While I know you are correct about the structural equivalencies, the foreskin has a much greater sexual importance.
/r/MensRights04/06/12 01:41 AM
1

I think it is supposed to mean even if it is adopted by someone else.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 01:48 AM
3

Unfortunately, in some ways that makes it harder to campaign against it because opponents of fair reform can claim "If what you are proposing were in the best interests of the child, it would happen now, but it doesn't, so it isn't. Why do you hate children?" With an explicitly fair law it is much easier to argue for legislative reform rather than just changes to non-binding guidelines.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 12:07 AM
6

In some places it is/was the traditional end to a pronouncement of the death sentence.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:58 PM
2

We don't let parents perform any other body modification without a genuine medical need, other than simple ear piercings. Furthermore, the foreskin has actual sexual functions, so it isn't even a purely cosmetic modification like tattooing or scarification.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 05:08 AM
1

Have frank discussions before you get intimate to see if you and the woman want the same thing. That's all well and good, but those discussions aren't binding. If she changes her mind, you're SOL.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 02:55 AM
1

If it is opt-in, IMO signing before sex should be the default. In a one-night stand, if the woman is opposed to abortion, she can make her consent to sex conditional on having the form signed. Opting in post-sex would just be for either genuine happy little accidents or where they decide to try for a kid and then discover she is already pregnant. Opt-out, pre-sex would be rather a nuisance, especially since here it would probably become the default. Post-sex opt-out, for an anti-abortion woman, …
/r/MensRights28/05/12 02:49 AM
1

It is perhaps one of the more urgent issues. Most places where circumcision is legal but rare have steadily growing Islamic populations. While they might well be pragmatic about it once it is outlawed (especially since it could still be done electively by adults, and there is no time requirement like there is in Judaism), it is safe to assume that they will be opposed to bans on circumcision. That means that we need to make sure that the anti-MGM movement has enough momentum that they can't stop…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:24 AM
2

No, you're right about the ancient Greeks. At least in some periods, circumcised men had to wear leather covers over their glans while competing in athletics (and, IIRC, men with short foreskins had to as well). The idea was that nudity wasn't indecent, but exposing one's glans was. Some of those covers pulled the foreskin remnant down over the glans, which was the origin of the "uncircumcision" mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:05 AM
1

I don't think they account for those who don't stay married. Thus, while being married is good, getting married, from a statistical point of view, might not be.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:59 AM
3

How do you think we can be environmentally sustainable, maintain current standards of living, and increase our population?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:01 AM
1

IMO, in that scenario the mother should be treated just like a polluter who caused the same harm (in terms of fines, gaol, and ongoing civil liabilities), at least if she continues those behaviours after she should have known she was pregnant. Obviously, if she does abort, the issue becomes moot.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 01:39 AM
1

In practice, post-sex opt-out is the same thing, but it is a little more polite and with a more politically acceptable emphasis.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 01:26 AM
1

While the story as described is rape, the part about her becoming dizzy after drinking just one shot seems a little surprising, even if it was something like spiritos. Also, I'm not quite sure why she thought that a park would keep out felons, alcohol, or drugs. I can't even see how she thought they could do that.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 01:24 AM
1

I was quite pleased when I saw the comments about child support in the Doctor Who episode The Doctor's Daughter. While it was just a throwaway joke about sperm-stealing and the stupidity of the current law, for it to be recognised on a popular family television programme written by a progressive gay man was a very positive sign.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 02:06 PM
1

The family law reforms, I assume.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 07:50 AM
1

Even if HPV reduction had been a valid reason for circumcision, it is no longer: there is a vaccine, which has been in widespread use for the past few years.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 12:30 AM
2

Ah, that makes sense.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 07:25 AM
2

Laying aside the question of when she got the tattoos, she might have gotten them done for free by a student - presumably they need to practise, same as student barbers, and I shouldn't think too many people would be willing to take the risk of getting a bad tattoo.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 07:09 AM
1

Bad idea: I've heard of homeless people in Alice Springs committing crimes and deliberately getting caught just to get a few months board and lodging in prison (although the rampant alcoholism among the town's homeless would be an effective deterrent for many - drying out cold turkey would not be much fun).
/r/MensRights21/05/12 07:06 AM
1

Aerik claims this is fake.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 07:01 AM
1

Varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 18-20 weeks is around the low-end of normal, and in a few places anything up to partial birth.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:57 AM
1

it would send a worrying precedent in terms of prosecuting pregnant women who smoke, IMO they should be prosecuted, or at the very least be subject to the same civil liabilities as polluters would be for the same potential harm. If a woman decides not to abort, for whatever reason, then she should be obliged to make a best-effort attempt to bring it into the world healthy. However, at the same time I think that abortion should be freely available.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:55 AM
1

Don't be so confident - all they have to do is modify common-law marriage by statute, or re-create a similar de-facto marriage.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:34 AM
1

I think it can affect death duties.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:12 AM
2

This is part of the reason that I think CS should be calculated on the basis of marginal cost of living, rather than on the basis of parental income.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:10 AM
2

I think it is worthwhile to recognise that men do slut-shame women, but only a few groups of men: The sexually-conservative: old men, religious enthusiasts, and so on. Mostly these men have little social interaction with the women who are being slut shamed, and generally they are just as disapproving of slutty men. "Nice guys": I think they mostly do it out of a combination of jealousy and aping women. Angry blowhards, who aren't really slut-shaming in the feminist sense, but who use the same la…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 06:06 AM
1

has not contracted out of them, it is virtually impossible to contract out of them. If he could, the whole matter would be resolved.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:51 AM
0

Not necessarily, the dated signatures of the parties would probably be sufficient. The witness would make questions of forgery easier to deal with, but courts have been dealing with questions of forged signatures for centuries.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:28 AM
1

Principally, the CONSAD report for the US Department of Labor. ISTR hearing about other countries' reports, but the CONSAD one is the only one I've read.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 03:30 AM
3

Also, we ought to emphasise that the odds are pretty good that their foster or adoptive parents will not raise them in their parents' faith.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 01:24 AM
3

By accident.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 06:07 AM
2

There have been a few articles posted here about a report commissioned by the Tasmanian government (expected to report in about a month) into the legal status of circumcision. The question was, principally, whether circumcision can be consented to by parents if there is no condition for it to cure. If not, it would be at least battery under present Tasmanian law, and possibly a more severe form of assault. If the report says that unnecessary circumcision of minors is illegal in Tasmania, it woul…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 06:00 AM
14

Alas, I've been here too long to be surprised. However, if the Tasmanian report says that it is illegal in Tasmania (even though it would only be a lesser offence), that might trigger similar investigations in other states. We would then be able to campaign to get the penalty increased more easily.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 02:01 PM
1

That is usually only possible if the father had some level of custody before the mother gave up her share. If the parents are unmarried, in most places the mother gets full custody, and if she gives it up is entirely relieved of her obligations, even if it is the father who adopts.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 12:30 AM
1

If she choses not to keep the baby and you want it you can hold her equally responsible. By what mechanism? If she choses not to keep it, there is no way for him to hold her responsible.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 05:36 AM
0

Quite so, but it is better to prevent people having the problem in the first place.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 01:45 AM
1

As I said to /u/oneiorosgrip, think of it as a welfare cost rather than a health one. If a woman can't get together the ready cash to pay for an abortion, you can be pretty sure that she's going to be getting some form of welfare for the kid. In the long run, giving her several abortions is going to be a lot cheaper than paying for the kid. However, to encourage responsible contraception, a nominal fee would be reasonable. I also think that contraceptives should be available for free or a nomina…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:54 AM
-1

Consider it a part of welfare, rather than health. If they can't get the ready money to pay for an abortion, who do you think is going to pay for the kid for the next 18 years? You can get an awful lot of abortions for that much money.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:46 AM
5

All right then, would you take half your life savings and bet that (and more) on a coin toss at your local mob bookie's? That pretty much reflects the financial risks of marriage.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:49 AM
2

Also, once kids reach 11 or so, they don't really need a caregiver between the end of the school day and dinner time, unless they need to be driven home from school. Even over the holidays they can look after themselves all day as teenagers.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:39 AM
1

And I don't disagree that the spouse that stays home with the children should be entitled to monies necessary to continue to raise those children while he/she stay home and continues to do that job. They should also be entitled to monies for job training and education once the children are raised. I do think a pre-nup ought to be able to explicitly rule out or limit SAH parenting, since at present the mother can decide to be a SAHM without the father being able to do anything about it: he can ac…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:18 AM
1

Does anyone have a link to Celda's copypasta summary of information regarding MGM? I haven't seen it posted for a while, and a quick google doesn't turn it up.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 04:59 AM
2

girls would be at the same physical level as the boys While you are probably right about technical skills, for many sports speed and strength are too important. Of course, for those where that is not the case, mixing is perfectly sensible (shooting, modern archery, motor racing, and so on).
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:46 AM
1

Interesting, but how would the 'opt-in' be recognised? Given the nature of casual or short-term sexual activity, I think it would be difficult to enforce. I would assume that it would be very rare that people would opt in. After all, would you or the women you know keep the child of a casual encounter? Over here, a woman probably wouldn't, and would only ask a man to opt in if she was pro-life (which would be unusual, since most pro-lifers are opposed to promiscuity) or really wanted a kid, so w…
/r/MensRights16/05/12 01:37 AM
1

Unfortunately, it couldn't pass here unless the Wet Liberals controlled both houses, and even then I wouldn't be too hopeful. The Greens and Labor Left would oppose it because it would be seen as harmful to women, the Labor Right relies too much on endorsement by the RCC, and the Dry Liberals are pretty well stuck with "family values".
/r/MensRights15/05/12 10:39 PM
1

I personally prefer an opt-in model, although I do recognise that for Ireland, much of the USA, and a few other places that is not practical because abortion may be prohibitively difficult to access. Under that idea, if the father opts in before sex, he is on the hook for half the cost of raising the child if the mother decides to have it. If he does not opt in (or, in an opt-out system, opts out), he should be responsible for half the total cost of an abortion (assuming that that is a sum worth…
/r/MensRights15/05/12 07:00 AM
3

We are talking about a wealthy, secular, densely-populated, progressive welfare state. It seems pretty obvious that essentially all women who carry a child to term do so because they wanted to, not because they had no choice. Now, I think my preferred model (which would be an improvement for women, and in this case a loss of flexibility for men) is fairer, since, were I making the rules a man would have to opt in (conditional on a paternity test) before the abortion deadline[1], so the mother wo…
/r/MensRights15/05/12 12:22 AM
1

What I meant was that not only has the false accuser effectively kidnapped an innocent person, but that the state has been defrauded of what is very likely to be at least the better part of a million dollars. Since that in itself is usually enough to get a substantial gaol term, which really ought to be added to the punishment for kidnapping.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 11:21 PM
1

Even it turns out that female circumcision causes horrific problems I still don't support a ban because the constitution has been eroded enough. Religious freedom is the ideal that this country was founded on and if that means having to put up with ugly shit we don't like then so be it. Have you never read the Jefferson Papers? The right to religious freedom extends only so far as it does no harm to anyone else.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 06:07 AM
1

The state is a victim too, since it is defrauded of thousands of dollars to pay for a pointless investigation, the trial, and the imprisonment of the innocent victim.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 05:37 AM
1

If it results in imprisonment, it is effectively equivalent to kidnapping the victim for many years, and defrauding the state of a huge sum of money. IMO, the punishment for a deliberate false accusation should be the penalty for fraud of the amount taken to apply that punishment (and the cost of investigation and trial) plus the penalty for kidnapping for whatever the maximum sentence for the crime (or for fraud if the maximum penalty is a fine, or for murder if the penalty could be death), alo…
/r/MensRights14/05/12 05:19 AM
2

South Australia protects the identities of the accused, but only until they are indicted. That does at least make sure the accused is protected until it is determined that there is a case to answer, but IMO it should be extended to all crimes and be until conviction. The accused is allowed to permit his name to be published, and their identity can be discussed, it just cannot be published.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 04:35 AM
2

If she believes she is telling the truth, she isn't lying even if she is telling a falsehood.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 04:27 AM
1

Partly because the entire Ukrainian public education system is screwed. Also, with 9% unemployment, a huge drug and alcohol problem, and a totally buggered economy, other employment isn't easy to come by, and welfare doesn't provide a decent living. The real problem is that the gangs are so powerful that legitimate prostitutes are forced to accept protectors, meaning that many of the problems with forced prostitution (which is also common in the Ukraine) apply to voluntary prostitution as well.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 02:46 AM
1

Sounds like it is time to have another look.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 06:56 AM
1

Traditionalists have suggested that women should not be able to get abortions without the permission of the father, but most of them aren't really part of the MRM since most of their proposals don't increase men's rights except as a side-effect of removing rights from women - they are usually pretty hard to distinguish from christian conservatives. Sometimes MRAs suggest outlawing abortion because consent to sex is consent to parenthood, but that is purely a rhetorical stunt in response to the a…
/r/MensRights12/05/12 06:56 AM
3

For the children, you could combine the surnames without hyphenation, which seems to be a more common practice in England than America (and relatively rare there), but that messes up some stupid databases and forms. Another option would be to divide them based on sex (and hope none turn out to be trans, or the system will break). One thing to watch out for is that, IIRC, in the UK the mother has absolute control over the names of her children, unless the names are rejected by the courts (which i…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 05:11 AM
2

The usual resolution proposed is to effectively allow the father to opt in or out, and if he is out, to effectively make the mother adopt the father's portion of the parental rights and responsibilities. If the mother decides not to carry it to term, he's SOL, but if she does, if she wants it, custody should presumptively be divided 50/50 and if not, the father should get be able to adopt it unless he is unsuitable (that is, if he would be able to retain custody of a kid, rather than adopt a new…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 05:07 AM
2

It used to have only a few good articles drowned in a sea of pro-feminist, patriarchy-blaming rubbish. While the site has improved since then, I don't think a lot of people have looked at it again or forgiven it.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 04:23 AM
0

While it is the man's problem to fix, I think that their parents are partly to blame. What we might call romantically conservative parents who advise their teenage sons that the way to a relationship is to make friends with girls, broaden your social circle, and so on, and eventually end up pairing off with someone. While that does seem to work to get a long-term relationship, it is utterly useless to get the sort of short- to medium-term relationship that young people tend to want. By the time …
/r/MensRights11/05/12 04:17 AM
1

The truth is that women's reaction to sincere and romantic men does not really match these things society declares women want -- they want in theory a romantic, stand under her balcony with flowers, write her songs etc. Where are you getting this from? That is what happens in romantic movies and so on - all of which are targeted primarily at women and couples, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that this was market researched to fit what women actually want. However, this doesn't actually …
/r/MensRights10/05/12 11:54 PM
1

They don't quite flip votes, they just mess withe css to put a '-' in front of the score, and to reverse the vote buttons (which /r/Mens_Rights does too). Using RES keyboard shortcuts works normally.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 02:36 AM
7

Grrrrrr! Someone's raising HPV as a reason to circumcise, again! FFS, there is a vaccine already, in use around the world. HPV is a complete red herring.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 01:38 AM
1

I thought it was still legal for religious reasons too. If not, thats another good step along the way to outlawing it worldwide.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 01:12 AM
1

A kind of high-flying helicopter dad!
/r/MensRights09/05/12 12:50 AM
1

It is posts like these that make me hate these threads. Not because they are wrong or off topic, but because I know they are right but can't do anything about it for my own benefit. :(
/r/MensRights09/05/12 12:15 AM
1

As would be the case if a woman had sex with a man who lied to her. i.e, said he would be happy to be in a relationship with her and bring a child up with her. He would have no incentive not to lie about his intentions. He could consent to a child with the woman and the take it away once she falls pregnant, for any silly reason. She could have an abortion, but what if it's an option she never wanted to take - either for health or moral reasons? She has been lied to, tricked into that situation, …
/r/MensRights08/05/12 12:36 AM
1

There does seem to be a distinction between "egalitarian feminists" and "equity feminists", in that the latter are mostly conservative and the former tend to be progressive or neutral.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 06:00 AM
1

At most of my schools boys and girls did some sports together and some separately - the girls didn't do rugby or aussie rules, the boys didn't do hockey, netball, or, at most schools, lacrosse.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 03:52 AM
6

The obvious thing for the doctors to do would be to sue the mother for fraud. They deserve some of the cost for incompetence, but not all of it if she pretend she had the ex-husband's permission. Personally, I think that when a household unit has more children than they can afford they should be advanced the money by the state and then required to pay it off (inflation adjusted) by higher taxes or garnishment of welfare (or, ultimately, seizure of assets). That way, it avoids starving children o…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 03:15 AM
2

Can he get a doctor to provide expert testimony regarding the bruising? If the university has a medical school with any doctors who are specialists, that would be ideal because then the university would have to attack their own staff to reject his expertise.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 01:50 AM
3

Even if a spouse is working, in a community property state (and possibly others as well) both partners end up responsible for the financial activities of either, so both partners should be required to give permission for credit, and it should not be illegal to withhold permission.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 01:44 AM
1

I've seen "partisan feminist" used to mean feminists who either don't care about men (they aren't actually out to hurt men, but don't care if men are harmed) or who actually want to drag men down to punish them for the advantages earlier men had.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 01:07 AM
1

There is a difference between drunkenly agreeing to sex and being raped while too drunk to stop it, just like there is a difference between giving money to someone because you were too drunk to realise it was a dumb idea and having your wallet stolen while you were too drunk to notice. In both the latter cases, while I don't have much sympathy for the victim, that is (and should be) illegal. In the former cases, that should be legal provided the beneficiary did not trick or manipulate the person…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 06:46 AM
3

THis is why I usually try to consistently say "Mainstream organised feminism" when I'm referring to things like feminist opposition to presumptive equal custody: otherwise, a reference to NOW action alerts and the like can be dismissed with "But that's not my kind of feminism". I think one important thing to bring up every time a egalitarian feminist wanders in and complains about us railing against feminism is that our politicians hear groups like NOW, and assume that they speak for most self-i…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 06:23 AM
1

For the sake of protecting the interests of the child while avoiding rewarding irresponsible childbearing, perhaps the custodial parent should be loaned the necessary money, which can then be pad back by an increase in taxes or a slice off of welfare or social security. If it were on an interest-free but index-linked basis, the financial burden wouldn't be crippling but it would discourage irresponsible parenting.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 05:38 AM
5

This is why officers of the state, when acting in a manner which a reasonable person not aware of the law would believe to be in their official capacity, should be personally liable for any harm done by following advice or interpretation which they provide themselves, and the state should be liable for any advice or interpretation which has been officially sanctioned.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 05:37 AM
9

Because women are more oppressed, and therefore a man's feelings are irredeemably corrupted by their privilege. Ugh, I feel dirty just writing that.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 12:57 AM
3

Legally, I expect that everywhere in the developed world it has to be opt-in, because it is an extra operation. However, that doesn't actually prevent malpractice regarding the consent forms, and there have been occasional stories here about consent being hidden, or obtained in the immediate post-birth moments when the mother is not fully competent.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 03:52 PM
1

Regional differences, I think. I was thinking about defamation laws more like the UK's (although our local ones are less insane than theirs), where the belief has to be reasonable.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:38 AM
1

Just keep a copy of the old Unix manual on your desk (the edition with photos of Kerningham, Ritchie, Thompson, and someone else on the cover). I'm lucky at my current job as there are enough ex-forces personnel around as clients that beards and moustaches are unusual but OK if neat (also, the formal dress code is pretty much "no harassing slogans, no getting arrested for indecent exposure").
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:28 AM
1

At all of my schools the rule was pretty much no female staff in male changing rooms and vice versa (with exceptions for the cleaners, and at one school both male and female teachers went in to drag some girls out of the boys changing room).
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:25 AM
2

So am I. I was circ'd because of a diagnosis of phimosis with was far too early to be entirely legit. What made it worse was that when I asked my parents about it, my dad just shrugged it off because he's cut too, and my mum just said "we have enough pleasure to have had you, that's good enough". I won't cut my (extremely hypothetical, since I don't want any) children, although they can thank /. for that rather than reddit, since I used to be pro-circ until people on there convinced me otherwise…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 06:48 AM
1

That won't necessarily save him, especially if she gets custody.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 06:43 AM
1

It would be worth doing in places with a loser-pays rule, especially if you can claim for emotional harm or stress.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 04:21 AM
1

Relationships with a 3 or 4 year age difference were, socially acceptable and even regarded as a good thing (for both sexes) at my secondary school, and that was pretty much the most boringly conventional bourgeois demographic in the country.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 12:30 AM
1

The importance of wikipedia is that it is widely used as a first reference by people who know nothing about a subject. Those are the people we need to reach, but if their first impression of the MRM is minimising or negative, it makes our task much harder. It isn't insurmountable by any means, but it is an added difficulty.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 12:17 AM
3

Technically, I believe they are selling companionship or a massage or whatever, not sex. Among other things, that means that you aren't entitled to your money back if she withdraws consent to sex, and if all you get is a massage, you're probably SOL.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 03:15 AM
1

Men are valued for their income by women, and are not less attractive for being older, so they start out at their lowest value in their teens, and peak in their thirties. Also, a physically attractive man's looks depend far less on skin-quality and body-fat distribution than an attractive woman, which means that working out and a little genetic luck can keep a good-looking man attractive well into middle age, whereas most women have to work much harder, especially after menopause messes up their…
/r/MensRights29/04/12 02:43 AM
1

Also to create trouble in areas where the CSA regained control of the land, and to provide talking points for those who wanted to stop the UK and France getting involved on the side of the CSA.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 02:24 AM
2

If you are refused official status for frivolity or offensiveness, you may be able to appeal on neutrality grounds: for their own sake clubs administrators usually have a rule that says something along the lines of any political club which is not a clear duplicate of another is entitled to be recognised, because otherwise there is too much risk of partisan bias.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 02:12 AM
1

The rules here are that if you have a male student out of school you need a male staff member (likewise for female), and if you have more than one you need at least two of the same sex (in case a student needs to be removed, taken to hospital, or whatever), so the reason might not be too dumb, even if it is annoying in practice.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 01:52 AM
1

That said, you're a moron. Since swimming, track, and field events are mostly solo All of those sports are team sports, despite the athlete in question competing individually. Ah. Over here they run the school tournaments rather differently: the athlete all compete individually, win individual titles, and the "team" is merely an administrative construct consisting of whichever athletes the school nominates. Medal tallies are sometimes recorded officially, but are of limited interest to anyone no…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 07:46 AM
1

I think there ought to be a distinction made between those who have too many children by choice, and those who have too many through no fault of their own. I think people like this, or quiverful families and so on, should have to pay back their child welfare money once their children come of age, whereas people who are widowed, or who have a reasonable number of children but fall on hard times, and so on, deserve public sympathy and support. Unfortunately, with the useless sex ed, weird restrict…
/r/MensRights27/04/12 02:01 AM
1

This is obviously some strange new interpretation of quoting of which I was not previously aware.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:54 AM
1

It is a perfectly equal solution, and is pretty much what the two main school sports conferences (catholic and state) in my state use for swimming and athletics: each school sends along as many boys and girls as they like, up to a limit which IIRC is based on student population for each gender, and they compete as individuals or event-specific teams. Boys and girls results are tabulated separately, and everyone gets what they want. SPECIAL RIGHTS Oh, you're the manhood academy guy.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:48 AM
1

There's also the question then of the bicycle's status on the sidewalk-- is the cyclist now subject to pedestrian laws or motor ones? Here the law is simple: if the cyclist is dismounted, or under some age, they are a pedestrian, otherwise they are a vehicle (and thus restricted from using footpaths and pedestrian crossings), but there is also an over-riding traffic law: any sequence of otherwise legal manoeuvres which is taken for the purposes of avoiding a traffic control measure is illegal. U…
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:28 AM
1

The point is that they shouldn't be forgotten or ignored, as Lord Blair did the other day.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:14 AM
1

I think it is more usual for the harvesting and transplants to happen overseas, in former east-bloc countries where record-keeping is less consistent and the necessary bribes are cheaper.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:10 AM
1

If making sure there is equal access to sporting activities were worth keeping, it could be achieved more reasonably by requiring proportional numbers of gender-restricted extra-curricular places (or perhaps a proportional try-out pass rate). If there are not enough boys that even WANT to play field hockey... then tough crap for the ones that do. We tried. There isn't enough interest. If there isn't enough interest, allowing cross-school teams might work. In my state there were two tournaments f…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 11:32 PM
1

Since swimming, track, and field events are mostly solo, it seems like an obvious solution would be to have a nominal 1-man swim team or whatever. Such a team wouldn't win the "best school" award, but the same would apply to a very small school, so that's not really an issue. Alternatively, they could record the male times and achievements (and apply the limit on the number of competitors) in a separate category to the female ones.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 11:17 PM
0

So no one gets to drink because: rapists can't control themselves. Oooookay. No, but if you're drunk you're more at risk and have to take that into account. Even going on a bender in good company can be fun, but you have to plan ahead or things can end badly. In any case, that only applies to drink-rape or alleyway rape where drunkenness or stupidity were significant contributing factors, and does nothing to reduce the guilt of (or appropriate level of punishment for) the perpetrator.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 10:27 PM
0

While the criminal is the one to blame, it is a little hard to sympathise with someone who was victimised because of their own stupidity: sometimes you just have to wonder WTF the victim expected to happen. Sure, it would be nice to have enough police presence to prevent such crimes, or to fix human nature so that they don't happen, but that just isn't plausible. If I walk along the riverbank at midnight while dead drunk and looking rich, I would expect to get home safely on any particular occas…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 06:56 AM
1

Why is there even a need to have both people agree to divorce. Such a stupid fucking law. Because marriage is a contract. If you want to get out of a contract, ordinarily you need either the other person's agreement, or some fault on the part of the other person, or to buy your way out, or to pay the penalty for breaking it. Marriage is actually weaker in that regard, because in certain circumstances you can get out of it, unpenalised and sometimes even rewarded, without the other party's agreem…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 06:03 AM
1

IIRC he was, but I forget where it was supposed to have happened (so he may have been over the AoC at the time, or for close-age exemptions to have applied). If not, it would have been funny to charge her with statutory rape and falsifying a statutory declaration (which is equivalent to perjury in some places). She would then have had to confess to falsification to escape the rape charge.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 05:07 AM
1

In some ways the idea of counting age from the last period makes a certain amount of sense, since it is at least potentially provable (whereas examination of the foetus is obviously impossible once it has been aborted and incinerated) and doesn't require trans-vaginal ultrasound (not sure if that is actually needed to be certain about the age at 18 weeks, but someone in /r/Feminism said it was). However, it is a sneaky way to remove 2 weeks from the 20 weeks limit which is based on supposed deve…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 04:45 AM
1

From a mental health point of view it might be worth keeping a distinction: if they actually wanted it at the time, it would seem to me (admittedly not even remotely an expert) that it would have different long-term effects than if they did not.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 04:36 AM
4

It is more a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander (and the goose's little sister). If women (as a group) are not interested in the common run of men their own age when they are at their peak of physical attractiveness, but are instead more interested in fooling around with older men, they don't really have any grounds to complain that men their own age are sleeping with younger women when they become those interesting older men.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 03:52 AM
1

Indonesian and malaysian research claims that removal of the labia reduces the risk of UTIs and HPV, but we won't even consider that in the West because, regardless of the justifications, we know it is an unacceptable violation of the girl's bodily integrity, and rightly so. HPV is a red herring, because there is a perfectly good vaccine available, and male circumcision does not provide enough protection against HIV to allow one to dispense with condoms.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 02:19 AM
2

That only counts African FGM: when you add in the Type I FGM (and the purely symbolic forms which nonetheless are banned in the West) as practiced in Malaysia and Indonesia, that changes the numbers.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 02:10 AM
1

The majority of circumcised women undergo the lesser forms, especially across Malaysia and Indonesia, where it is done medically and justified partially on medical grounds, much like MGM is in the US. Most of these women, just like most circumcised men, have a diminished but nonetheless effective capacity for sexual pleasure, and regard their circumcision as neutral to good. Of course, that doesn't make it a good thing, and it should still be outlawed, but all the arguments for outlawing these l…
/r/MensRights24/04/12 02:01 AM
2

The paper on the source of sexual suppression of women which gets posted here every few days claims that, African men: tend to prefer (sexually) their intact or less-cut wives if they have multiple wives, and tend to follow their wife's opinion when deciding whether and how much to cut off Also, ISTR reading an old article in a National Geographic about religion in Kurdish Iraq, which said that the real drivers of FGM, along with most other matters of religious morality, was social pressure from…
/r/MensRights24/04/12 01:53 AM
3

Essentially what happened was that the Greek converts to Christianity didn't want to follow Jewish law, whereas the Christian Jews still followed Jewish law, albeit in a more moderate form (that is, in terms of the spirit, not the letter, and with a more merciful treatment of sinners than demanded by the law, which were core parts of Jesus's teachings), and were insisting that true Christians had to follow Jewish law as they did. Circumcision was one of the key aspects of that, because the Greek…
/r/MensRights24/04/12 01:34 AM
2

I feel evil using such a tactic I don't really like having to fight a propaganda battle, especially against such well-funded groups as the are in the pro-circumcision camp, but there are too many people who will never be swayed by scientific arguments. Unfortunately the only way to stir up support among the general political mass is to use propaganda. I suppose another worthwhile tactic would be to take a leaf from the anti-abortion book and use things like posters of babies tied down and scream…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 11:17 PM
1

Why should it be illegal, if contraceptives are used in parent-child and brother-sister incest, or in highly incestuous situations (that is, generation after generation of cousin marriage, and that sort of thing)? If everyone involved is consenting, then what basis does anyone else have in trying to prevent it? Who is hurt?
/r/MensRights23/04/12 07:19 AM
1

It works for the anti-Catholics, even though their priests aren't much worse, proportionately, than other denominations (there's just a lot more of them). Playing on the "evil Muslim" theme might well help too, especially in places where circumcision among natives is rare.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 06:22 AM
0

At the universities whose rules for clubs I know about, it would be impossible to apply rules like that to a club, because it would violate all the protections which guard against political and religious interference in the activities of opposing clubs. Of course, the feminist group isn't usually a proper club, but instead a part of the political action unit of the union, but that's another matter.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 06:09 AM
1

Well, he's taught his parrot to say the same pretentious and cheesy lines he'll try on you during a first date. Great. "Polly want a cracker?", while potentially cheesy, is not exactly my idea of a pick-up line.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 05:59 AM
1

The trouble is the CARE principle (Cover Arse, Remain Employed): if you don't know why someone is on the offender registry, and they do anything bad while they work for your company, you're going to be in trouble. That means that most people wouldn't want to take the risk, even if they are registered for something trivial.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 05:14 AM
1

These countries are in deep trouble, they dont have any money. Greece is in real trouble with multiple bail-outs from europe, Spain and Italy are on the edge, and yet all three of these countries vote overwhelmingly in favor of pouring billions into this feminist bullshit. Or, they want to turn the whole anti-Climate Change effort into a giant mess of gender politics, identity issues and anything else which will distract EU effort from anything which might actually do any good, in case that hurt…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 04:45 AM
2

Over here, AIUI the rule merely relies on sexual contact, so something like cunnilingus or frontage still counts. There is also no romeo & juliet exemption, so the solution where both are underage is for the accused's lawyer to ask if the accused is planning to confess. A prosecution will almost certainly fail if the prosecutor doesn't provide sufficient proof of the "victim"'s own guilt, and so funnily enough charges tend to be dropped (usually they don't even get so far as a police report in t…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 04:27 AM
1

There might be enough originality in the spreadsheet, or applicable database rights, to give the creator grounds to sue the woman who published it.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 12:55 AM
1

But political women are more likely to join the ALP than the LPA or the Nationals, so I assume the same applies to the LNP. It wasn't so much that women were rejected, but that the party most female politicians join was rejected.
/r/MensRights20/04/12 05:23 AM
0

TBH, i know more male bronies than female, but that could just be that I know some weird people.
/r/MensRights20/04/12 04:32 AM
1

I am an atheist, and if I were convinced of the existence of a sufficiently powerful and nearly-omniscient god I would consider him my personal enemy (on the basis that if a human did to me what such a god would have done to me (or allowed to happen through deliberate inaction) he'd be looking at a good few year's gaol), so I'm not trying to defend Christianity here, but: Taking a child to church is really child-abuse. It isn't as bad as all that: without a fundamentalist education, strong paren…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:28 AM
3

In places where sex ed is lousy and circumcision very common, it isn't all that unlikely that he would have never seen an intact penis (or even a description of one) and never have been told that he'd been circumcised. While I would have expected him to discover the difference through porn, it isn't entirely inconceivable that he might have not looked into it until now (especially since circumcised penises are common in US-produced porn). The way I understood TFA, he's complaining about sexual d…
/r/MensRights18/04/12 12:03 AM
7

It is an obvious case of medical malpractice if the doctor claimed that it was necessary, since it clearly isn't, or if his mother was otherwise pressured by hospital staff into consenting. The small sum of money (1kUSD) and his recognition that genuine restoration is impossible makes it look like this is more about the principal than the money.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 03:29 PM
2

I don't know if you've ever read things like Jefferson's letters on the subject, but religious freedom is about being able to exercise your beliefs in so far as it does not impinge on the freedom of others. What gods you believe in or otherwise has, in and of itself, no impact on me: it "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". Interestingly, in those EU countries where non-medical circumcision of boys is permitted only on religious grounds, it would be interesting for an apostate Jew or Musl…
/r/MensRights17/04/12 03:00 PM
2

Is there a rampancy of ED and infection? Supposedly ED drugs are more widely used in the USA than in western Europe, but I don't think anyone has looked into whether that is because of wider marketing, over-prescribing, harm from circumcision, or something entirely different.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 02:48 PM
2

I think with any medical procedure, cosmetic or otherwise, there is a risk. Is this really something that needs to be regulated by the government? All other cosmetic surgery on children, excel to fix deformities, is prohibited in most of the developed world. Even things like tattooing children (including with, say, Hindu caste marks) is generally forbidden, even though the only consequences are cosmetic. The only way those things can justifiably be illegal while circumcision is legal is if non-m…
/r/MensRights17/04/12 02:44 PM
1

It is claimed by some that asserting that the accuser had an active sexual history makes the jury less sympathetic and less inclined to believe a rape accusation. Personally, I'm not sure that that makes sense when the accuser is a woman who is openly a complete slut: the fact that she's had consensual sex with a large variety of men would suggest that if she is complaining about rape, she probably means it and isn't covering up or lying out of remorse. I'd be far less inclined to believe someon…
/r/MensRights17/04/12 02:36 PM
1

In systems derived from traditional English practice, names are just arbitrary letter strings which, by convention, follow certain traditions, and you can use any name you like except for the purposes of deception (although some unfriendly men from the tax office might pay rather more attention to you if you have too many names). Record systems still tend to get hopelessly muddled if you don't have two components to your name, but you can break up the components however you like: David Lloyd Geo…
/r/MensRights17/04/12 08:15 AM
1

It confuses parliamentary party status with AEC party status. You only need a fairly small number of members to count as a party for electoral purposes, and no MPs.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 07:44 AM
1

Gender neutrality? that we should avoid gender identification at all? I don't understand. Gender equality I understand--men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. Usually the meaning of "gender neutrality" is something akin to strict secularism: the idea that the government should be totally blind to gender, and only notice sex insofar as is necessary for things like health planning. The problem with "gender equality" is the stupid argument about what equality actu…
/r/MensRights17/04/12 07:31 AM
2

I think you ought to give Mugabe and his "war veterans" some credit. They did manage to turn a significant food exporter into a large importer while not improving the diets of the common people.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 06:57 AM
1

Policies benefiting white women? Obvious example: affirmative action remaining in place for university entrance, when women make up a majority of new graduates, rather than being reduced or even temporarily reversed in those fields where women predominate (even if it remains in place in male-dominated fields), to bring numbers to equality. What about the countless bills in congress dedicated to limiting the reproductive and women's health rights of women? Remember that while more women than men …
/r/MensRights16/04/12 11:54 PM
1

There is no cabal.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 04:53 PM
1

Firstly, that's irrelevant to the question at hand, which is about equal application of the law (rather than ignoring or overriding the constitutional requirements to apply the law equally, as so many countries do). Secondly, much of the "obviously bad debt" is owed back to German companies, or had conditions attached requiring purchases from German companies (the arms to be sold to Greece, for example), so this might be a cheaper or more politically acceptable way to subsidise certain German bu…
/r/MensRights16/04/12 03:33 PM
1

If you separate the roles of companion and playmate, it might be easier to find suitable partners.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 03:32 AM
1

It seems obvious from the quotes in TFA that he is criticising what in Australia we'd call cashed up bogans, not all women and certainly not those who are part of the celebration of fashion and class-status that the event is all about (from the perspective of the attendees). The shopkeeper and so on seem to be completely missing the point.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 02:39 AM
2

giving herself out for free sexual pleasure of her own. FTFher
/r/MensRights10/04/12 11:27 PM
1

ISTR an Australian case where a sperm donor was required to pay CS, and one where a surrogate mother gained custody and CS, but those were both too recent to give even a hint about how similar cases would turn out in the UK.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 11:08 PM
1

I suspect it is actually rather more common among men than people admit. If one thinks about all those all-male situations where homosexuality is stereotypically rampant, there must be a reasonable proportion of bi and gay men to either act as bottoms in those environments or to phantasise and project about those situations and create the public idea of widespread homosexual activity.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 03:44 AM
1

I think the "could care less" version was once sarcastic, but the intonation is gone and the wording remains just a weird regional idiom, but at least it is obvious what is meant. A more confusing one is "not half", which in some places means "completely" and in others "not at all", although that one is rarer in written english.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 12:39 AM
1

cough half the congressional republican party cough Personally, I think that anyone who says "being gay is a choice" is probably not entirely heterosexual, whereas those who say "acting gay is a choice" are more likely to be straight.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 12:32 AM
1

That does invite the question of why gay men would bother. Getting attention from those in whom one is not even remotely interested seems pointless to me, and homophobes round here seem to like bisexuals even less because they are easier to mistake for straight people. I suppose one obvious reason might be that they are looking for a "beard". Straight women might identify as bisexual just to appear sexually liberated (or simply open to a 3some).
/r/MensRights10/04/12 12:29 AM
1

Do you have a link to that, or know where it was published? Not that I don't believe you, it's just that I can't think of a reason to ban sexbots which wouldn't apply to any other sex toy, unless it looked child-like enough to fall under anti-CP laws. After all, if a sexbot is banned, why not a Real Doll, and then why not a lousy blow-up or a fleshlight, and so on.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 03:33 PM
5

Given that the signs are in English, and that this is from Femen, the sexy topless ladies are there to get the image republished everywhere for free. Also, if she were just an object, I'd have paid far less attention to her body.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 12:21 AM
2

If the app manages to scrape that information anyway, that is a more complicated issue. Apparently all the information retrievable via the API (apart from what is sold to advertisers, of course) is accessible via the web interface, so morally the app is equivalent to an alternative presentation system, something the W3C used to encourage.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 07:44 AM
2

The article is new, but IIRC the link between HPV and male cancers was not as well-proven back when HPV vaccination was introduced for girls. However, now that the evidence is firmer, it should definitely be extended to boys, especially because preventing HPV infection would eliminate most of the cancer-based arguments for circumcision.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 07:39 AM
3

Within the first three months, if the father may request that the child be aborted or his parental obligations terminated. It might be worth restricting this to ten weeks, because the cost of abortion goes up after around 12-14 weeks.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 07:29 AM
1

This is stil a pretty obscure topic, so I suppose I shouldn't really have expected anyone to have heard of it. It is a weird little problem because it brings the right to choose abortion and the right to die into conflict, and both come up as a consequence of the right to bodily autonomy.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 07:28 AM
3

It isn't something which comes up here much. It appeared recently as the equivalent of a tort in Israeli courts. The argument is that someone suing on behalf of a child that their quality of life is so poor they would have been better never to have been born, which follows on fairly reasonably from the ideas behind voluntary euthanasia, that it would be better to die than to live like that. The first such case I heard about was a mother suing her doctors on behalf of her child, for not providing…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 02:29 AM
1

How about relating it to sperm donation then? In the absence of any pre-existing agreement (which marriage would automatically qualify as unless there were a no-children cause in the pre-nup or marriage contract), the sperm should be regarded as a donation, rather than a weird kind of gift as it is now. We already have support mechanisms for mothers who have children by IVF from anonymous donors, as well as the far more common case of children where the non-custodial parent is either incapable o…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 02:10 AM
2

At my high school in the equivalent of US 9th Grade they had a "Care for Kids" elective (which led into "Child Studies", taken by people who wanted to do things like primary teaching). That included a practical in which students had to care for baby simulators for a fortnight. Those were sufficiently irritating to everyone that it was quite effective pro-contraception propaganda.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 12:07 AM
4

What if a man wants to abort the child and the mother wants to keep it? Should he be able to legally force her to get an abortion? Only, perhaps, in the case of "wrongful life", but that's an entirely different argument. In ordinary cases, no. If the child is kept, does the MRM believe the man should be able to opt out of child support payments? Most of us do, under some structure or the other. The general consensus is that the decision should be made either before sex or before the time limit f…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 11:28 PM
1

I think there should be elevated penalties for ongoing violence especially when combined with systematic victimisation. However, I don't think it should be limited to domestic situations, and I don't think it should make any gender-based assumptions.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 07:05 AM
1

Why cant they just be known as a cross dressing men and be done with it. I get there is more to it. Im just saying if a man wants to be a woman, or feels that they are a woman, why not just say they are a feminine man. Once an officially gender-blind world has been created, or once transpeople are not at risk of specific victimisation, there doesn't need to be any official recognition of trans status either (except for funding GID treatment). However, until then, for their physical safety, it is…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 06:53 AM
1

I, and I think most of the progressive elements of the MRM, think that there should be no official distinction between individuals on the basis of gender (other than what is necessary for medical logistics and so on). That answers most aspects more or less for free. Regarding physical transformation, I think most people here feel that it should be funded however they want the rest of the health system to be. Regarding private organisations, I think the two most popular options are either or both…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 06:45 AM
1

If you disagree with something, you form an intelligent argument against it and convince others logically, not create a propaganda term about it. Not necessarily. Arguing from propaganda is a bad way to organise a movement, but it is a perfectly appropriate tactic when used at the right time and to the right audience. Remember that this is partly a political campaign, and propaganda is a very important political weapon. That said, it is probable counter-productive when talking to circumcised men…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 04:43 AM
1

It cannot possibly not be scarred - that is inherent in how the body patches itself up after it is cut that severely. Likewise, it must dry out, unless you keep it covered by some form of foreskin-substitute. You're just butt hurt because it has religious roots, it's ok though, with the atheist rebel and stuff, i understand. Its modern prevalence in the US, RoK, and the Philippines (and its former prevalence in the the UK and its white colonies) comes from Victorian quasi-medical psudeoscience a…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 04:20 AM
1

Ignoring any question of the functionality of the foreskin, are you in favour of allowing babies to be tattooed with caste marks or tribal patterns, or given ritual scarifications as is the practice in some sub-saharan tribes? All these things are already illegal, even for religious reasons, throughout the developed world: all anti-circumcisionists want is for genital modification to be rested equivalently.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 03:37 AM
2

Am I also mutilated because they cut my fingernails and toenails? What about my hair? That's pretty much a complete non-sequiteur because hair and nails grow continuously, and in any case nails have to be kept trimmed if one is to engage in any normal activity (or there is a risk of them breaking off too short and becoming ingrown). Conversely, if foreskins were dead tissue which regrew every time they were removed there wouldn't be much opposition to the practice.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 01:45 AM
1

As I said over in /r/SexPositive , I think a fair and reasonable system would be one where: The baseline AoC should be set as the median age of those first engaging in sexual contact in the previous calendar year. This ensures that it follows current social standards without further legislation. A longer period could be used to save money on surveying, but if it is too long it is likely to cause a political fuss from conservative-puritanical types. A 3-year "Romeo and Juliet" window for those ov…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 01:30 AM
2

Charging a peppercorn rent and not publicly identifying as married should together be enough to avoid a common law or de facto marriage.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 04:46 AM
1

I think it could be justified if the press were forbidden to reveal the identities of those in witness protection, or the accuser in sex cases. However, I'm fairly sure it would be very hard to make it work legally.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 03:06 AM
1

You're allowed to discuss it, but not to publish the identity (the distinction is similar to that used in some places between libel and slander). If anyone really wants to know who has been accused, they can go along to the court and watch, or go to one of the pubs outside the upper courts (since most sex cases anyone would care about would be tried in Adelaide) and ask around. People who know the accused can often guess, just because they are disappearing off to court without any other explanat…
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:07 AM
1

I think the solution to the problem would be a system where: The AoC is based on the median age to the nearest month of those engaging in their first sexual activity in the previous calendar year. (This way, the law automatically follows social standards and the actual practices of teenagers.) Purely statutory rape (that is, where the only factor making the act rape is the age of the victim) is not an offence if the age difference is three years or less. (3 years is arbitrarily chosen, but was t…
/r/MensRights27/03/12 01:41 AM
1

lecturers banging 21 year old uni students etc. That should at very least raise serious professional conduct questions if that lecturer ever marks that student again, because there is the potential of sex-for-grades issues, or vindictiveness against an ex. It certainly shouldn't qualify as rape, but it should probably be treated equivalently to a manager/underling relationship in terms of sexual harassment issues.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 01:17 AM
1

You can't whisk people away to have a trial in secret. WTF? It's not feminists campaigning against it - its blatantly unconstitutional I can't believe you actually think it's attainable. The solution in South Australia is that the identities of those accused of sex offences may not be published without the permission of the accused, but the courts are still open, every other aspect of the case may be reported, and the accused may give his permission for his identity to be published at any time. …
/r/MensRights27/03/12 01:05 AM
1

But anyway, being born male gives her zero advantage in a beauty pagaent. It's would most likely set her back, in fact, given she started with masculine features. Looking at the matter in general, part of the issue is that banning plastic surgery is an obvious rule for beauty pageants, and that effectively keeps out anyone who didn't start hormone therapy early enough because the facial features will usually be too masculine to win a beauty contest. It does also make sense to ban anyone who has …
/r/MensRights27/03/12 12:53 AM
1

Men are the only gender to have selective service (or conscription) in countries with such laws. That is discriminatory against men. IIRC Israel has conscription for women too, but even there it is for a shorter time and has wider exemptions than for men.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 12:03 AM
1

It marginally reduces the transmission of HPV from men to women, but there is a HPV vaccine which is much more effective, and (according to some Indonesian research posted here a while back) labiaplasty is more effective than male circumcision for that purpose (although less effective than vaccination). For HIV, the foreskin contains cells which trap HIV, the African large-scale studies haven't given consistent results and some have been significantly flawed, and there has been no evidence of it…
/r/MensRights26/03/12 11:57 PM
1

The comment was a reference to a particularly silly fallacy which runs like this: A) No Scotsman puts salt in his porridge. B) My granddad is a Scotsman and he puts salt in his porridge. A) Well, no TRUE Scotsman puts salt in his porridge. Scotsmen actually have nothing to do with it.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 11:18 PM
0

Being predisposed to want to do something harmful is not the same as actually doing something harmful.
/r/MensRights23/03/12 02:59 AM
0

In that case, from a Christian point of view, the additional burdens in this life from single motherhood would be a form of suffering for her beliefs, and so would increase her reward in heaven. From a secularist point of view, it is a self-inflicted punishment for believing such nonsense. However, in a system of LPS, I would support allowing a man to opt-in before sex. To me, and I suspect to most men, asking for that would be my signal to make a quick exit, but then virtually all pro-life peop…
/r/MensRights23/03/12 01:44 AM
1

Well you're acting like she has a choice in the matter. If she doesn't see a moral issue with abortion, she does in fact have a choice. But a lot of women (and men), don't believe that abortion is is acceptable choice to make. Where I live, virtually all opposition to abortion is based on conservative christianity. Every significant church which opposes abortion also regards extramarital sex as a serious sin. From the point of view of a Christian, the disadvantages of raising a child alone would…
/r/MensRights20/03/12 04:29 AM
3

They aren't arguing for any right to force women to have an abortion. The argument is that sex should be treated as sperm donation as a default, at least outside of established relationships.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 04:04 AM
1

For accidental pregnancy, it would be fair if men had to pay for half the costs of getting rid of the foetus or putting the child up for adoption, and of extraordinary costs of pregnancy if they arise. Outside an established relationship,parenthood is not the usual purpose of sexual activity, and in societies where abortion (chemical and surgical) and contraception are socially normalised (which is the vast majority of the developed world, with the exception of Red US states, Ireland, and a few …
/r/MensRights20/03/12 04:02 AM
0

At present, in general custody is given based on the "best interests of the child", which, given the enormous variety of research findings, means it is essentially up to the judge.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 02:12 AM
1

I think there is some evidence to suggest that pubic and armpit hair acts as wicking, so it would actually discourage ringworm and similar infections. I know anecdotal evidence from friends who have shaved their butts was that it feels a lot sweatier (and prickles like all hell until it grows back), but I can't remember where I heard about research into it (it might have been in sex ed).
/r/MensRights19/03/12 01:49 AM
2

One small problem: apart from abusive parents, and relatively unusual cases such as military personnel serving in the field or people living full-time in areas unsuitable for children, someone who is unfit to be a parent probably can't earn very much money. That means that if the non-custodial parent is left with a liveable income, there isn't likely to be very much CS to collect (possibly not even enough to be worth chasing). Of course, that problem is ignored now, but we are trying to come up …
/r/MensRights19/03/12 01:00 AM
2

That's so cute how you assume that a woman raping a man even gets arrested, let alone jailed. To activate the procedures for dealing with the situation of the mother conceiving by raping a man, the mother would have to be demonstrated to be a rapist, which in practice would probably have to mean convicted of rape. While I know there is a good chance that she would get away with it, there isn't really much else that can be down in terms of family law. And further assuming that in the event she go…
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:44 AM
2

Well, here, the tax breaks are effectively averaging the two partners' salaries (there is a lot more to it than that, but that is the core), so that if you have a breadwinner/homemaker partnership, the tax level is far lower than it would otherwise be. The justification for this is that it helps promote stable relationships, for the sake of children. However, this benefit is available to all married couples, whether or not they have children or indeed even can have children (menopause, homosexua…
/r/MensRights18/03/12 04:42 AM
2

OP got his Newspeak wrong: extremely bad is double plus ungood, not double negative ungood.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 04:35 AM
1

I think if the mother were a rapist, she'd inevitably lose custody when gaoled, and if she gets out before the child is of age, it would still be unlikely that she'd get custody, partly because the child would hopefully have been adopted and settled into a new family, and mostly because she wouldn't be a fit and proper person anyway.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 04:22 AM
4

I already commented on this over in /r/Feminism: I disagree with the idea that, if the custodial parent remarries, their new spouse should become responsible for the support of the child in place of the non-custodial parent. That would be problematical because: The custodial parent would have a disincentive to remarrying, especially if the potential new spouse is earning a similar income (which in many places massively reduces any tax or welfare benefits given to married couple) If two custodial…
/r/MensRights18/03/12 04:18 AM
1

them; however, it should not be made as a universal law applied to all marriages in a state. That is just absurd. Your claim that "it doesn't affect anyone who hasn't voluntarily agreed to it" is false. Why? Because if you make it a stipulation of marriage for all marriages, then it only takes one of the people to be dishonest and make claims to the contrary of what actually happened. ...it should be possible to put into a marriage agreement… Where I am, pre-nups are legally non-binding, only th…
/r/MensRights15/03/12 12:20 AM
1

My reasoning was that, in a with-fault divorce, the not at fault partner is usually more favoured in decisions regarding child custody, alimony or spousal support, allocation of assets, and so on. Since in over threads relating to sterilisation it seems that there is is a non-trivial minority who regard having children together as being as important as not cheating it would be reasonable to allow couples to agree to treat sterilisation as though it were cheating. That doesn't affect anyone who h…
/r/MensRights14/03/12 09:24 PM
3

I agreed with everything else you wrote, I just thought it was reasonable for her to request (not force) you to wait a few weeks.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 03:35 PM
4

i think a good solution would be that circumcision be an option put forward to a male child at the age of 12 wether or not he would wish to undergo the procedure ... even then at that age he is succeptable to parental and peer pressure so im not sure its a perfect solution The obvious solution to that is to either require the doctor to believe that the consent was freely given, or to make the required age the same as for non-essential cosmetic surgery. In fact, my personal position on circumcisi…
/r/MensRights14/03/12 03:10 PM
1

Yes, it would suck if you wanted kids and your partner got sterilized against your wishes. But you can leave that relationship and find another to make babies in. I would add that if with-fault divorce still exists in a jurisdiction then it should be possible to put into a marriage agreement that there will be a genuine attempt to have children, and if one partner in such an agreement gets sterilised without the agreement of the other, that would be grounds for a with-fault divorce. That provide…
/r/MensRights14/03/12 03:05 PM
5

now my wife is making me wait until my daughter is born (shes due in 2 weeks) before moving forward with it because she thinks its "bad luck" to get sterilized while shes still pregnant That part makes a certain amount of sense, since if anything were to go wrong she might want to try again, and if she is at all superstitious it could be seen as tempting fate.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 02:59 PM
1

I thought that even in the US, retractions and apologies could be required (possibly instead of a larger payout) in libel cases if the original statement were proven false. However, even then the retraction had to be published in the same way and with the same prominence as the original statement, so a post to a private Facebook group would at most require a retraction there.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 05:49 AM
1

That's what hate groups do. Even hate groups aren't what they used to be! In the Good Old Days a self-respecting hate group would leave the body where everyone could see it. Kids these days!
/r/MensRights14/03/12 04:47 AM
1

Do you know if that is just knuckle-headed drafting, or if that is actually the intent of whoever wrote the regulations? I can see the sense if the rule was written before any form of civil union existed in California, so single gays could adopt if they were in a stable long term relationship even if it wasn't legally recognised, but a stable long-term hetero relationship was expected to marry or have become de facto.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 04:42 AM
1

The difference is, AIUI (IANAL), that in the first quoted paragraph they are talking about her husband's legal status. He is innocent because they can't prove him guilty now. The second is talking about her: they believe the story, which might have been relevant as a mitigating factor, even though it hasn't been proven.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 04:38 AM
1

Apart from what Celda said, she apparently didn't mention that she had been threatened (whether or not the threats count as duress) when she retracted her retraction. That suggests that her lawyer might have blundered there. AIUI, the point of prosecutions like this is to make lying to the courts and the police scarier than anything anyone else might do. The actual rape and abuse seem to be generally believed but, because of the retraction and the subsequent delays, even more difficult than usua…
/r/MensRights14/03/12 04:34 AM
1

Plus Romans didn't burn people for witch craft. Even in English law, the penalty for witchcraft was hanging, not burning. Burning was only for heresy and blasphemy.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 04:05 AM
1

I'd enact the ERA (well, I'm not in the USA, but I'd introduce an equivalent amendment).
/r/MensRights14/03/12 03:33 AM
1

arguably the most important economist of all time. Really? I'd say that Keynes and Smith were both more influential, even though Smith's ideas are overly simplistic and Keynesian economic policies weren't original (Lloyd George and Mosley separately supported Keynsian policies before he justified them), although the economic explanation was.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 04:10 AM
1

We want to have a say in birth control and if it's being used properly to avoid "accidents". We want to have a equal decision in IF a conception goes to term. (right now we have ZERO input) I think a satisfactory compromise would be a sperm donation agreement signed before sex, so that the mother alone adopts any hypothetical children of the couple. The legal concept is not new, and is something which is broadly supported by MRAs and feminists. In places where abortion is not available for free …
/r/MensRights13/03/12 01:49 AM
2

I would add on to the requirements that if the man gives up paternity during pregnancy and the mother decides to abort, he should be responsible for 50% of the cost of an abortion. For practicality and fairness, there should probably be a table of going rates, so that his share of the cost is based on when he was told and when he opted out, so that neither partner is worse off because the other dithered. It would also be worthwhile to allow a man to opt-in before sex: that satisfies the objectio…
/r/MensRights08/03/12 05:07 AM
2

Where did that happen?
/r/MensRights08/03/12 04:33 AM
2

Even if there is some benefit in the board's makeup matching the company's customers, the article still misses the point that users are not Facebook's customers.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 03:59 AM
1

the whole raft of civil rights accorded to your real as opposed to assigned gender That's the part where, IMO, a problem arises. There shouldn't be any difference in rights based on gender.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 01:41 AM
2

Those who believe it is a matter of choice are afraid of teaching children that the other sexual identities exist because they think it might encourage children to make a choice other than cissexual heterosexuality. Looked at another way, this makes a cruel kind of twisted sense, in that children who don't understand any form of non-standard sexual identity are far less likely to realise that they are not straight and cissexual.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 01:29 AM
4

I don't really understand why [1] /r/mr cares so much about Circumcision as compared to other things of focused. Party, I think, because in the developed world other than the USA and Israel (and to a far lesser extent the other English-speaking nations where circumcision used to be common), outlawing non-theraputic childhood circumcision would be a relatively easy task. The legislative requirements are trivial, enforcement relatively easy, and it doesn't involve fighting groups which nominally r…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 12:57 AM
1

Penile cancer is, IIRC, one of the cancers linked to HPV. That suggests that men should be given the HPV vaccine, not circumcised.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 02:57 AM
1

I can see the sense in having an age of consent set to 18 or thereabouts (albeit with a far lesser penalty than is currently applied) for the specific case of a person under the authority of the older partner, on the basis that when the younger person's lesser emotional maturity is combined with the greater opportunity for "grooming" and pressuring. Other than that, I'd specify the age of consent based on, say, the lower quartile age for first relevant sexual activity, with a 2-3 year "Romeo and…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 01:22 AM
3

In 18 sub-saharan countries where there have been large-scale investigations of the relative prevalence of HIV among intact and circumcised men, 8 show a decrease and 10 show an increase among circumcised men. In both cases the difference in infection rate is not very large. This would strongly suggest that even if circumcision is helpful, other factors can outweigh it.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 11:52 PM
3

ISTR a post here a week or so back which claimed that you could do more to reduce cancer by reducing boy's breast buds than by circumcising, assuming the HPV vaccine is as effective as it appears to be.
/r/MensRights02/03/12 07:22 AM
5

What makes it an even worse waste of money, brains, and time, is that if the case came to trial the prosecution would have a hard time getting the alleged victim to testify. The only evidence would be whatever they could dig up from phone and email records, and unless they were utterly idiotic, that wouldn't be enough to get a sound conviction.
/r/MensRights02/03/12 06:58 AM
1

[This article](femininebeauty.info/suppression.pdf) makes the same claim, and appears to be a legitimate source.
/r/MensRights02/03/12 06:27 AM
-3

The legal, chemical, and logistical problems with dissolving a month's supply of viagra into their morning coffee are unfortunate...
/r/MensRights01/03/12 04:17 AM
4

It's false pretense. Most women there don't feel it's a harmless procedure, some women accept it due to religious beliefs, but grudgingly it should be added. That varies from place to place. In the Sudan, fathers are significantly more likely to be apathetic or opposed to FGM than mothers, but generally let mothers make the final decision; men also tend to prefer sex with intact women there. In the Kurdish region of Iraq, the women who maintain the tradition pride themselves on being more holy t…
/r/MensRights01/03/12 04:13 AM
6

I wonder if that has anything to do with anti-science view among conservatives, especially in the US, and the generally higher levels of support for universities under left-leaning governments.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 03:38 AM
1

Should we allow parents to tattoo their children, or give them tribal scarifications? After all, if it became common enough, most won't mind when they grow up, and people would be used to seeing it and think unmarked people were weird.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 02:45 AM
1

I made the suggestion elsewhere in the thread, but in cases like this her school email might be the best bet, since she can read and reply away from her mother's interference.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 12:31 AM
1

She's already tried to take her away from me legally, now I think she's ignoring my calls so she can tell my daughter I'm not trying to contact her. I can't see anything to show how old your daughter is, but if she's old enough, email, Skype, Facebook, and so on might be helpful (especially if she's allowed to use her school email for personal use, since her mother can't easily interfere with that).
/r/MensRights01/03/12 12:28 AM
2

That's a nice idea, if it weren't for common law or de facto marriages.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 05:35 AM
1

IIRC most countries have reciprocal debt-collection agreements, at least for CS, back taxes, and so on. In any case, one would have to get an work visa and leave the country before one's passport is seized, or it would be weather difficult to start a new life anywhere else. That said, a hand-to-mouth living painting freighters for food and passage until one found somewhere better to live would beat living in a gutter.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 04:00 AM
1

I suppose one work-around would be for the custodial parent to also have to pay up (either in cash or by an extra slice on income tax) and get that much back on the voucher.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 02:12 AM
1

To expand on that, the problem is that we're back to unequal risks. Now, a woman can have the baby or not, be supported or not. A woman can say "Sure I'll have an abortion" and then change her mind and force him to be an unwilling support-paying parent. With no option for women who say they'd keep it ahead of time, you can end up with men who say "Yeah, sure, honey", but then still choose to opt-out. A pro-life man who doesn't want to pay can know his spawn won't be aborted, but get out of havin…
/r/MensRights28/02/12 02:07 AM
1

How do you enforce it? Contracts. How about a pre-sex opt-out form? That is probably the most convenient solution, and if we make sure that all young men are told to get one signed before having sex with a woman, it would become socially acceptable. As a balancing trade, the same form could also make the man responsible for 50% of the costs of abortion, and maybe for some portion of incidental expenses or lost earnings. Opt-in would be better for the man's point of view, and opt-out post-sex wou…
/r/MensRights28/02/12 02:04 AM
1

Bigamy was outlawed a fairly long time ago to stop men marrying multiple women who didn't know about the previous wives, which made sense when comprehensive centralised databases were not available and the husband was the primary provider. Nowadays, I don't have any in principle objection to group marriage, on a partnership basis, although perhaps a special kind of incorporated association (with tax breaks and greater rights as a landlord) would be the ultimate answer to gay marriage and most of…
/r/MensRights25/02/12 03:27 PM
2

IIRC MGM isn't explicitly required by the original texts, but since Mohammed was "born circumcised" (presumably he had a tiny foreskin), if Allah made him like that it must be a good thing.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 02:05 PM
1

Just be careful of de facto or common law marriage: some combination of a long-term commitment, a sexual relationship, and cohabitation without one or the other being a lodger, can result in you being legally married or almost married.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 06:17 AM
1

Assuming topical steroids and less-damaging surgical techniques have already been tried and have failed, then certainly circumcision should be permitted as an unfortunate necessity. However, it should be regulated like any other surgery.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 02:09 AM
1

What choice? The choice not to get pregnant? That's kind of too late, now isn't it? He means the choice to have an abortion (chemical or surgical), or take the morning-after pill.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 05:45 AM
1

Personally, I think the universities should be forced to either have real courts, or to refer any accusation of serious criminal activity to the police. IMO, it ought to be sufficient to shuffle around tutorials and swap dorm rooms to make sure that the two people are not forced together, and to help the alleged victim make a proper crime report.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 03:43 PM
1

Why not? If you are thinking of religious exemption, it is hardly fair, just, or sensible to protect only those who have Christian or non-religious parents (who are unlikely to be circumcised except for genuine medical necessity), while not protecting those who are of Jewish or Muslim parents, who are far more likely to be unnecessarily circumcised.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 03:32 PM
2

It is if the "initiation" occurs when she's under 16.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 01:50 AM
3

Everyone knows that the right way is to sniff her chair. If you do that, you can become premier of West Australia :)
/r/MensRights06/12/11 10:20 AM
1

At least it isn't Ledasha spelt with a '-'.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 10:18 AM
3

There are laws against vigilanteism and taking the law into one's own hands for a reason. In any case, isn't there also a good chance that she is just unhinged? (And that's assuming she did it - she hasn't plead guilty, although there doesn't seem to be much chance she'll be acquitted.)
/r/MensRights06/12/11 06:03 AM
12

It is now, the argument is that it shouldn't be.
/r/MensRights18/11/11 04:23 AM
1

I don't think the complaint is that his naked picture is shown: he was perfectly prepared to run naked across the pitch in full view of everyone, after all. The complaint is that it is legal to show a picture of him naked, but not for him to be naked, which is inconsistent and nonsensical. Any harm done by his nudity isn't going to be much worse than the harm done by publishing the picture of him (which is definitely protected speech). In any case the justification for public decency laws only s…
/r/MensRights18/11/11 12:28 AM
1

They did a few years ago when I was in England - although not for things like gymnastics, only for winter sports (the soil on the fields was quite sandy and it was a rugby school - you showered, or you got your nuts grated for the rest of the day), or on hot days in summer.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 10:55 AM
1

Of course women would still have children, but those children would often than not have the mother's last name. I like this idea. I actually support men having financial abortion rights because let's be honest, most of you would want nothing to do with your own children. Firstly, even if there were no more formal marriages (or de facto, or anything equivalent), and even if men and women stopped living together in long-term units (a rather implausible idea), families wouldn't actually disappear. …
/r/MensRights17/11/11 10:36 AM
1

Why not ban it, without a religious exemption, then let SCOTUS decide whether the free exercise right of the parents outweighs the child's rights to being secure in his person and to equal protection? That, after all, is what this debate comes down to, although the debate is a question of ought rather than is. However, once the is is determined, we can carry on arguing about the ought. In any case, the proponents of the ban are arguing a human rights argument on behalf of the boys, arguing that …
/r/MensRights17/11/11 07:52 AM
2

If she was openly pro-life and he knew she thinks it's murder, that is ultimately her decision: you can think of it as the price she's paying to get into heaven, or the penalty of believing that rubbish, depending on your views. However, she is the one eliminating an option. In any case, Indog's point still holds.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 06:49 AM
2

Or even merely to be careless about it. And in any case, condoms are still the best general protection against STDs, so both partners still have good reason to wear them for casual encounters.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 06:34 AM
1

Does someone have a decent translation? Google translate seems to be failing hard here.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 05:55 AM
1

Interestingly, Aerik has demonstrated some sanity over in r/againstmensrights: no, incest isn't wrong. Why would you put the focus of your critical post on that issue? Seriously, I want this post gone, circa. Actual consensual incest is a non-issue. That is not what we're here for. We're not here to pick on anything an MRA does that you don't personally like. What's next, criticizing one of them for liking fruity pebbles for breakfast? Cut that shit out. Of course, Aerik is still one dumb person…
/r/MensRights05/09/11 12:09 PM
2

That doesn't answer the question of why there should be a court order telling them to stop.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 11:40 AM
1

16 is AoC in the UK, and IIRC 18 is the age at which prostitution (in certain forms) is legal.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 10:58 AM
1

Close blood relatives can consent to sex (assuming that the sex would otherwise be consensual), whereas an animal can't. Provided adequate precautions are taken to minimise the risk of genetic defects, I see no issue with adult incest. EDIT: Incest ins't appealing to me, but it isn't really any of my (or your) business who someone else is having sex with, unless they are in a supposedly-exclusive relationship with me (or you). OTOH, one could argue that the consent of a lesser animal isn't neces…
/r/MensRights05/09/11 10:27 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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