TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Fatalistic Archive

View 6 posts and 1,628 comments by Fatalistic on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,628 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

Your only argument is to now call me a misogynist while infinitely looping an incredible bit of cognitive dissonance that you somehow think you believe in equal rights but that it's ok to deny them to men. You lose.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 08:39 AM
0

The motherfucking FBI motherfucker. CITED AND SOURCED. BOOYAH. Do you just read the numbers? Even the examiner said his own statistics are almost meaningless. The old "I was just joking" routine. Sorry, no. You don't get to refer to women as vaginas in that context and claim it was a joke. Replacing the word "woman" with "vagina" is not humor. You slipped up and let it out in a moment of frustration and anger. You done goofed. Thanks again for the amateur psych analysis.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 08:30 AM
1

OK good. You've admitted you have no problem leaving that woman and her child out to dry despite acknowledging she has no real choice. Women have all of the choices. What are you even talking about? You're back to making things up as you go along again I see. Reason a man's desire and morality is not considered: Giving his desire any consideration effectively puts him in control of another person's body. No, it doesn't. The woman still has full control over whether she aborts, gives up for adopt…
/r/MensRights18/08/11 08:23 AM
-1

And you are making the assumption that the rape shield law automatically means the man is being railroaded. In order for someone to be railroaded, they have to be innocent. You are making a blanket assumption that the person on trial is innocent. If you simply want to argue that rape shield laws prevent a fair trial, fine, but don't presume the man is innocent as a basis for your argument. There is an overwhelming likelihood that, by the letter of the law, he is guilty. Is that how jurors should…
/r/MensRights18/08/11 08:04 AM
-3

That would be a nice argument if you'd actually made it originally, except you didn't and that wasn't the context of your post. You brought up nullification out of nowhere without any mention of Rape Shield laws. Regardless, that's STILL simply voting not guilty because he has reasonable doubt. You said it yourself: "and there is no convincing evidence." Are you suggesting he nullify on the basis of rape shield laws alone? As I said-- Yes, if there's no convincing evidence that the man did it an…
/r/MensRights18/08/11 05:42 AM
2

You would definitely hear about this kind of thing in the news if a man did the same thing. What you would not see is anyone trying to rationalize things and suggest that his wife's infidelity was any excuse for his actions.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:36 AM
3

Same reason they downvote just about everything posted here without explanation. Can't stand the dissenting voices.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 03:54 AM
9

And even when this article was new it was just another in a long line of articles written by middle-aged women who'd finally discovered that they can't shit away their youth slutting it up and then expect very many men to become willing financiers for their baby crazy. But instead of advising women to stop doing this, they would rather try to control and change the behavior of men who are refusing such women for very good reasons.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 03:11 AM
5

I think that female circumcision shouldn't be compared to this as that's the equivalent of chopping off a guys knob They are very comparable, though it depends what you're talking about when you say "female circumcision." The most commonly practiced form of mutilating female genitals (circumcising the clitoral hood) is directly analogous to the male genital mutilation practiced without a thought in our so-called civilized first world countries. Neither should be done on infants or even children …
/r/MensRights18/08/11 01:47 AM
-2

The "Armchair" in your name is apt and maybe you should read about jury nullification yourself. It isn't ONLY used to find someone not guilty even though you believe them guilty of violating the law. Once again proving yourself to be a dilettante who skims things and presents yourself as some sort of expert, I see. It IS used if you believe the law is unjust but since rapes do actually happen I would rather not tell him to simply go in and nullify the jury no matter what. What you mean to say is…
/r/MensRights18/08/11 01:15 AM
1

If you want an estimate of the rate of paternity fraud in the general population, you would need to select a random sample of fathers from the general population (not just those who suspect fraud) and conduct paternity tests regardless of their suspicions (or lack thereof). The results of the paternity testing labs are random by definition of the reasons of the people who seek them. Not all are suspicious men, and I would in fact say that there are more women seeking child support who have them …
/r/MensRights18/08/11 01:07 AM
1

Should be true. Much like a man who wants a child from a woman who does not is shit out of luck and has to deal with the fact that it's her body, her choice. Nothing wrong with that at all. I know where you're going with this, though. The same hare-brained repetition of "that's just how it is, deal with it! Man up!" You believe women are entitled to this current system of bilking men who don't want to be fathers and that if they weren't through men having a separate choice, well in your fantasy …
/r/MensRights18/08/11 01:04 AM
1

No, it's reading between the lines and looking at how you view this. This isn't an insistence on equal rights. It's about no consequences for guys and all responsibility and burden on women. It's you making shit up in a ditch effort to try to not look like an irredeemable turd who supports despotic regimes where men are held to be second class citizens denied equal rights. What you're doing is using the force you say you despise. You're forcing a woman who doesn't want those rights and will neve…
/r/MensRights17/08/11 04:37 PM
1

No, you want no consequences for sex for males. That's your motivation. This is you putting words into my mouth, actually. And again, the fallacious belief that a woman's morality is immaterial and inconsequential [because you don't agree that moral view]. Your entire argument rests on that fallacy. It is completely immaterial and inconsequential to the state of legal rights. What "fallacy" is at play here might I ask? None. You however are using an appeal to emotion fallacy as you have done rep…
/r/MensRights17/08/11 03:47 PM
1

Well it would have to actually be the truth and it would have to be flat-out censored and leave a trail of [Deleted] first. This woman finds mutilating baby boy's penises in a ritualistic way to be empowering. It is disgusting.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 03:38 PM
1

What you want is no responsibility or consequences for your actions, not equal rights. You're crafting an argument around that desire and using false logic to back it up. Wrong. I want equal reproductive rights for men. You want men to "man up and suck it up" whenever they run into a baby crazy woman who's going to do whatever it takes to have one even if the man doesn't want one. No thanks. Your refusal to acknowledge a woman's right to morally oppose adoption and abortion as options is false l…
/r/MensRights17/08/11 03:26 PM
2

The right to do something obligates someone to consider it against their own morals. That is your flawed interpretation. I believe men should have equivalent rights to women. YOU are the one who believes that men should be workhorses that are yoked to the chain of female whim and that women are helpless passive actors who cannot take responsibility for their own choices in deciding to do something only they wanted. Not me. A man is a slave when he pays child support while women have to do nothin…
/r/MensRights17/08/11 02:38 PM
2

I already admitted it's not perfect. It's just that your suggestion puts the entire burden upon the woman. Better to lay the burden on the one who actually has any say or control over issues than the one who does not. No taxation without representation and all. You favor men being a modern day serf class, though. Again you fallaciously equate rights with an obligation to consider. Ok, then let's take away all of women's rights to choose anything. Sound good? No? I don't think it is either, but t…
/r/MensRights17/08/11 02:15 PM
0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
/r/MensRights17/08/11 01:49 PM
1

Not only did she offer the money, someone took it and did the deed. Her scumbag lawyer is of course saying she was "just venting" even though they have the evidence of her facebook post AND communication with the man she paid to kill her boyfriend.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 01:38 PM
5

As well he should be if he was a mere sperm donor. Look, when you donate sperm the agreement is that you have no parental rights or responsibilities. He made a contractual agreement to this effect. I've never said this before now but this is really not a valid men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 01:33 PM
3

Pay close attention to the EVIDENCE that exists. If the evidence is clear and points to the man being guilty, then sure, you should be saying he's guilty. HOWEVER... If there is no convincing evidence that the man is guilty and your fellow jurors are willing to throw him in prison based on the mere allegation, you need to call for jury nullification.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 01:28 PM
3

They never will. Not until feminists rightfully become another fringe hate group that is only tolerated under the auspices of free speech like neo-nazis and other bigots are will you see those who identified as feminist saying "well maybe those niggers men aren't so bad after all".
/r/MensRights17/08/11 01:18 PM
2

Giving men the ability to walk away from parental responsibility would shift the burden of raising children entirely upon women. That is inequitable. The current system enforces a shared burden. That is equitable. The current system enforces women's whim rather than anything equitable, sorry. There is nothing wrong with women being the only one taking responsibility if she's the only one who wants to have a child. Enslaving men who are unwilling fathers in a day and age when women have a ton of …
/r/MensRights17/08/11 01:04 PM
1

Unfortunately the way the law stands now for men it is even worse. Imagine if a woman had to carry the baby to term, the rapist was never convicted even though there was proof, and then she had to hand the baby over to the rapist and pay child support on top of that. That's the kind of legal reality men face in this situation.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 08:05 AM
20

The woman, who was granted name suppression What exactly is with this disturbing trend of granting women anonymity when they COMMIT crimes.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:43 AM
4

Astounding bigotry on the societal level there.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:37 AM
5

Insane how those who willfully created the situation still have a job in anything even related to the justice system.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:14 AM
2

It's sort of like how the audience in shows like Springer actually boos the man who's there for a circus sideshow paternity test including a woman getting the 6th or so man tested for paternity against her child.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 09:44 PM
3

Newsflash: Not every woman agrees with that. Doesn't matter. As long as women have these rights, men should get equal but separate rights. "The woman has to be the sole decider of the baby's fate simply for the fact she's the one carrying the baby. To give anyone else any control over that decision is to take the decision away from her completely." How exactly is giving men their own independent decision taking the decision away from the woman. By the way what does carrying the baby in your body…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:46 PM
7

Things are already changing. You wouldn't have even heard about the sorts of issues that are starting to pop up in the mainstream media just two years ago. No amount of crying "man up" (and take the abuse "like a man" of course) at men as some the commenters there posted will stop the continuing change as long as the message keeps getting out. The number of men who refuse to swallow that bullshit will continue to grow. As it should.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:20 PM
14

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Eric Bergstrom told Peterson on Monday that "the reality is you love your children and had absolutely no intent to harm your child." Wonder if he'd say the same thing about a man following his own religious or cultural customs and doing that to a baby girl? Rhetorical question, of course.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:13 PM
5

It's different because she HAS the choice. We're not talking hypotheticals or personal feelings here. We're talking real legal rights here. Legal rights which feminists had worked to enshrine in law but now wish to deny men the equivalent of. The fact that she won't make these choices she has doesn't change the fact that she does have them. If you believe women have these inalienable rights, then you must give men equivalent rights or you are quite simply a hypocrite bent on female privilege ove…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:09 PM
5

How is a woman forced to consider these choices unless she's a delicate little flower unable to care for herself and her own, contradictory to your own feminist beliefs of women being equal and as capable as men. Do tell. That is the basis of your argument that women should have unilateral choices and men should shut the fuck up and keep shoveling since they have no choices whatsoever. No, "don't have sex" isn't a valid argument here since feminists have railed against religious conservatives wh…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 03:10 PM
15

That is the male reproductive rights argument in a nutshell. Pure hypocrisy. Feminists believe that for women, sex does not equal consent to parenthood and that women should be free to have sex without any responsibilities should a woman choose. Bring up the subject that men should also be able to and you will see a complete 180 .
/r/MensRights16/08/11 03:05 PM
6

Standard feminist fare as they fail to be able to address dissenting voices. Their entire shtick is to repeat misinformation and when that fails bust out the unsubstantiated personal attacks.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:49 PM
6

No, they're not. It's unfair. Again, that unfair imbalance is a result of the biological fact that women carry babies. The solution is not to flip the power balance in the complete opposite direction and make men completely and wholly devoid of any responsibility whatsoever. That's illogical. The solution is to recognize the reality of the matter and not fight it. The solution is for men to be aware they will be held responsible and let that be the standard. They must act with that awareness. So…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:36 PM
10

There's the rub. They don't actually believe in that shit. They just say it to posture themselves. Re: Every single male reproductive rights convo that has ever taken place. Exhibit A: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jk94z/the_bickering_and_the_trolls_dont_make_any/c2ctkfg
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:11 PM
4

He should absolutely be going to prison if he didn't disclose his status as being infected to her. HOWEVER... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/09/alberta-hiv-teen-in-court.html Girl with HIV has reckless unprotected sex without informing of her status to those she had sex with. Somehow she's the "victim." Bullshit. Compare if you will: http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/canada/britishcolumbia/story/2011/06/10/bc-hiv-infection-appeal-dismissed.html Man does the same thing, gets 10 years…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:03 PM
1

It's not a matter of being narcissistic. It's like this: If a woman is leading me to a child is mine and that I am raising my own child, it had better fucking be mine. Some people want to have their own children and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. Adoption and the like are a completely different beast. Men go into that knowing and accepting the child is not theirs. There is no deception at play. I don't have a problem with it. If someone wants to adopt and they're going to ca…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 01:53 PM
9

Your "choice" in the matter is to not engage in sex in the first place. It's the biological reality of two people making one baby. Fuck biological, it's just physical reality. One person has to carry it. Only one person can carry it. Women aren't told to not have sex. You tell men to not have sex. Equality! Your style. Therefore, the person who doesn't carry it makes the choice by engaging in behavior which opens up that possibility. It's how it has to be because only one side can carry the chil…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 01:44 PM
1

It is far more likely as men who are committed to being parents and have a reasonable assurance that the child is theirs will be motivated to try and care.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 12:43 PM
2

That is CURRENTLY what men should be doing. A trust, but verify model. Legal systems should be holding women accountable and protecting men from this, however, instead of somehow deciding that men should have to keep paying even if they don't want to because they were raising a child based on deception and fraud. A deception that, if it were laid out in the beginning the man who wants out when he discovers he's been duped would most assuredly have never taken part in the child's life to begin wi…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 12:34 PM
12

You are forcing women to make a choice between giving up their child and trying to raise it on their own without any assistance by refusing any responsibility for assistance. You are making the consequences of sex wholly her responsibility. You are not balancing anything out. You're putting it all on the woman. That is not equality. In your scheme, guys have zero obligation to prevent a pregnancy or deal with its ramifications. There is no incentive for a man to do anything to prevent pregnancy …
/r/MensRights16/08/11 12:19 PM
19

An even crazier feminist in the comments there thinks it would be a good idea that a random, well-off man (why not also a well-off woman if they're to be consistent?) should be "assigned" to pay child support to a criminal who statutorily raped a boy. And of course doesn't consider the fact that this is indentured servitude, but I guess feminists never really have cared about when the system they helped create makes slaves of men, have they?
/r/MensRights16/08/11 11:52 AM
10

But again, just like the abortion issue, you're forcing a woman into making a decision to give up her child. Actually, I'm not. I am only "forcing" women to decide to raise children on their own if that is their prerogative, rather than enslave men who are not willing fathers. You're talking about this as if a child is a piece of meat or a dog or a cat. You're approaching this as if the child doesn't represent a human life, and that the woman is going to have no emotional attachment. You see the…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 11:35 AM
9

Let's talk about hypotheticals for a moment. Let's say we live in a society in which women can't get abortions. Not just legally, but literally cannot get an abortion. Doesn't happen. Do you still, in this situation, demand the right to walk away? As long as they get the unilateral decision to give up for adoption or simply abandon and walk away as they do right now, yes. These are the other options women have that are not abortion that allow them a complete abdication of any responsibility. The…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 11:18 AM
14

Another believer in completely hypocritical paradigm that women have all of the choices, men have all of the responsibilities, I see. Nobody cares what you think is "un-manly";what you think is "manly" is self-sacrificing slavery and the antithesis of fair treatment. No thank you. These calls for men to "man up" and accept injustice and all sorts of blatantly unfair situations are unacceptable.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 10:51 AM
1

Distorting facts on paternity fraud. InfinitelyThirsting already explained to why your statement is misleading/false. How is this distorting facts? The fact is that those laboratories are the best credible source that we have in this political climate. InfinitelyThirsting did not counter it at all. You see unlike a survey that asks misleading questions about sexual assault or rape, paternity via DNA test is something that is overwhelming either true or false, except in the exceedingly rare case …
/r/MensRights16/08/11 09:50 AM
3

Most women tend to have a very kneejerk, irrational, primal reaction and revulsion to the very idea of paternity testing. Not surprising. It's a holdover of pre-civilized mating strategy and should be completely unacceptable in a truly civilized society as the male equivalent (rape) is. When was the child born, by the way? I assume sometime in the 80s to early 90s before the state of the technology was such that they could extract a sample from, say, a painless cotton swab inside the cheek? You'…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:51 AM
4

An outstanding article. It avoids unnecessary condemnation of women, even coining a new term to avoid "fraud", but this is a perfect approach for a mainstream outlet like MSN. Just as we at /mensrights get annoyed at "all men are potential rapists", so do women dislike the implication that they are all deceptive because of the actions of less than 4% of them. This is a false equivalency, really. This "coining a new term" is downplaying the seriousness of it and who is to blame for it. It can and…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:37 AM
2

You don't need to have a discussion about it. You do it privately on your own when the child is less than a year old, without telling the mother. Sort of like the one guy in that article seemed to have and is planning to walk out.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 04:55 AM
4

The Judeo/Christian tradition of circumcision was also likely not based on anti-maleness. It was a holdover from some barbaric bronze-age traditions designed to curtail male sexuality. Only here's the thing: How do you make it seem acceptable in times which are becoming more civilized? Well, in those days, you attached bullshit mysticism to it. It's now an edict from god, you see, so you have to do it.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 04:31 AM
2

but their existence points to a larger group of feminists who have started to accept men's issues as real, Not really. They acknowledge they're real but are reactionaries looking to hold onto their power base by attempting to derail and misrepresent us wherever possible. You will not be able to work together with these types of people. Ever. The target audience should be people who are not feminist ideologues.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:04 AM
3

It's really simple when you understand the premise that society considers the vast majority of men to be expendable producers and cannon fodder to be used up and thrown away when convenient. You will see the same callous attitude when it comes to all sorts of other issues men face like paternity fraud.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 12:37 AM
11

Bingo. There's no real arguments against why it shouldn't be happening, either. Hospitals already run all sorts of tests as is.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 12:25 AM
7

I take it by this statement that you support the stoning of adulterers in the middle-east. You must.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 05:14 AM
5

Here's the thing. It isn't about convincing indoctrinated ideologues who would literally deny the holocaust happened if it were convenient for them to do so. It's about showing everyone else how things have gotten.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 10:32 PM
5

Bingo. Whenever you hear about terrible things that happen in 3rd world countries from our mainstream media you always hear about how it's only women and girls affected.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 10:08 PM
-4

This subreddit is also full of feminists obsessed with maintaining their hegemony in the mainstream who do all sorts of lame trolling and downvoting because they see the writing on the wall. Looks like Cliffor has made another account in any case given the PM spam you got.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 05:28 PM
3

Children are not human shields to be used to evade the consequences of your actions.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 04:32 PM
5

You know those old tropes that feminists made up? Like where they said all men are rapists and that men believe women getting wet is consent and that you can't rape your girlfriend/wife? It was actually projection.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 09:42 AM
2

26 minutes ago* See that star/asterisk? It means you edited your post. You know, like the bits where you tried to call me "kid" among other things have been edited out of your post. Good job. That doc is about drug possession and in no way illustrates a discrepancy between men and women. You'd do well to read your links before you post them. YOU would do well to do more than skim the very first page which passingly mentions drugs. So.. alright. You've now given me 5 links that in no way back up …
/r/MensRights10/08/11 03:30 PM
1

I already have, and I've already posted evidence that feminists--like yourself-- want to enshrine this obscene legal double standard in official policy and then have the gall to call it "equality." Here's another recent one, as you have requested. http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/27008_4.pdf I'm sure you'll still deny. From now on, you can do your own research though. Good job on losing your temper and resorting to the ol' ad homs, though.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 03:10 PM
2

I think he would not as males accused of heinous crimes routinely have their names published regardless of circumstances while women rarely do and there is some sort of uproar when it happens. Take for example: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sex-abuse-of-boy-woman-walks-free-20110429-1e08d.html Her name wasn't published. But remember when a woman named Crystal Gail Mangum's name was published and how some people thought it was somehow obscene even though it was pretty clear she was a liar at …
/r/MensRights10/08/11 03:04 PM
1

No, I'm claiming that your level of denial here is as great as someone who's been shown pictures of the mass graves, who's actually been to the places where the slaughter took place... and still denies it. Yes, I suppose I just made it all up. That's why multiple papers in the UK reported on it, and why this exists. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8E544B4E-E5E1-475C-9B6C-0156FD46BC1C/0/2010_etbb_intro.pdf Whoops. What's that? That's it going in one ear and out the other as you deny, den…
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:57 PM
0

The "misplaced conception of equality" is feminist doublespeak that the charlatan in black robes is appalled that women be held to the same standards as men. Perhaps you should read more than what you want to see to find out that the criteria that they say makes women's experiences different... really doesn't. Do you know why? Because it claims things such as socioecnomic status during upbringing. Things which are hardly unique to women and are pertinent to male offenders as well... somehow make…
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:41 PM
7

Would a young man engaging in reckless sexual conduct while potentially spreading a deadly virus to those unaware he even had it be presented as some sort of a victim? The question hardly survives being asked.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:35 PM
3

Not only is it still happening, but look at this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7995844/Judges-told-be-more-lenient-to-women-criminals.html They're attempting to enshrine it in legal policy now. I'm sure you'll still deny, though.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:30 PM
2

And yet we still see the same outcomes today. Irrelevant indeed.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:25 PM
3

Of course. Feel free to google the multiple studies on sentencing disparity that exist. It is in statutory rape cases that we see the most egregious examples. There are no studies specifically for the crime statutory rape as an issue alone but there are enough studies out there that show a clear bias in sentencing for the same crimes committed across the board. Here is one of them: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf ... but I'm sure you'll still play the incredulous troll role you'…
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:16 PM
1

How so. Civilizations aren't built and maintained by men who feel no need to invest or to work more than for their own basic needs because these men cannot be sure children are theirs or in the modern context even if they know about DNA testing that they won't be fucked by a biased family court system which has policies that are clearly influenced by and tempered by emotionality and animal instinct (i.e. male expendability, female reproductive value). Societies which fully support, condone or tu…
/r/MensRights10/08/11 07:18 AM
2

Cliffor, how many reddit accounts do you even have.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 05:52 AM
1

Well, unless you happen to be raked over the coals in a family court or have your dick cut off or are falsely accused of rape or are victim of paternity fraud or any number of things really. If you're a young guy, chances are you haven't had any of this happen to you. But as time goes on.... let's just say that ignorance isn't bliss.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 05:50 AM
5

It is only a correlation, sure, but it's still more than anti-porn puritans and feminists trying to say that porn actually increases the incidence of rape while it has demonstratively gone down per capita even as the system has become 100% friendly to women reporting.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 05:42 AM
-3

Sentencing disparity and the myth that men are all monsters and women do no wrong is a men's rights issue. Still up to the same ol' same ol' concern trolling I see, CoonTown.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:46 AM
-7

Or it could be that statutory rape laws are by and large used as an assault on male sexuality because when you see women charged with it they tend to get off either free or with a slap on the wrist.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 10:53 PM
2

http://www.9news.com/news/article/209153/188/Coach-convicted-of-sex-assault-could-serve-life-sentence Here's another person abusing their position of trust, only it's male! Larger sentence once again.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 09:19 PM
0

It is a large random sample by very definition of the people who seek them for differing reasons. Some seeking child support, some seeking to know whether it's actually theirs. It's not all just suspicious men as you seem to be saying here.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 03:58 PM
13

"What's right for the family" = do what the vagina owner wants.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 03:34 PM
1

It'd be like looking at people who went in for STD screenings, and running an extrapolation off of that. You're more likely to get a screening if you have an STD, because of symptoms making you wonder, than if you're healthy. Actually it wouldn't because unlike a disease there are no real symptoms to paternity fraud. It doesn't burn when you pee. You make the same leap in logic that just because people aren't being tested or think that children are theirs that somehow, they magically must be so.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 03:29 PM
21

Of course they did. It's just like when the Hofstra false accuser was exposed. Somehow the guy who recorded it was the bad guy even though that was the only way he could prove their innocence in our sick feminist society where the presumption of innocence is inverted.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 03:24 PM
11

When men are the custodial parents and women ordered to pay child support, they do so less than half as often as men ordered to pay child support.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 03:00 PM
-1

If an honest and promiscuous woman has five possible fathers of her child, tells each of them and they get tested, then there will likely be four exclusions added to your stats. I bet you're going to claim these women are the norm. Without supporting that claim, of course. The most common reason the tests are taken is for child support related reasons either when a relationship sours or when a woman wants a child but a man does not. However even the men and the women in this majority group take …
/r/MensRights09/08/11 02:43 PM
1

Where exactly is this "damage" coming from when a man does not want a child but a woman does and he decided to opt out? It seems that you think that women are incapable of taking care of the responsibilities of a child on their own...? That they are incapable of paying their own way in this modern world where nothing prevents from doing so. Again, where this leads is that you think women are entitled to ownership over men's bodies simply because men had sex, but you don't think it's true the oth…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 02:40 PM
1

The fact that you think women should have all of the options that they do in regards to reproduction while men should have none makes you a pretty clear-cut hypocrite. It's pretty clear that while maintaining the reproductive rights women have right now, the only solution that you can call equal or just in any regard is to give men reproductive rights in the form of what we call the "financial abortion." Yet here you are saying that you don't think men should be able to do that. That makes you a…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 05:46 AM
1

Get mad at me if you want, but letting men cut ties because they don't like the outcome of a scenario that they played a VERY active role in causing is...well...an insufficient answer to this problem, in my opinion. So I am not a hypocrite, You are by your own admission since you find no issue with women who cut and run and will not allow men any equivalent option. So are women "strong and empowered, independent" or are the dependents you feel are entitled to the product of men's labor merley be…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 05:27 AM
0

It's probably pretty accurate. I mean, look at this. 2001, Of 310,490 cases, 90,227 (29.06%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 2 of 12) 2002, Of 340,798 cases, 97,681 (28.7%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 3 of 51) 2003, Of 353,387 cases, 99,174 (28.06%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 3 of 53) 2004, Of 374,171 cases, 100,588 (26.68%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 6 of 62) http://www.aabb.org/sa/facilities/Pages/relationshipreports.aspx
/r/MensRights09/08/11 05:22 AM
1

Perhaps you should explain what this has to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 05:18 AM
0

I see, so to you the woman is all that matters. You pretend to be some champion of ethics but you are OK with yoking the men to the chain of involuntary servitude caused by a woman deciding to keep the child and milk him of the product of his labor. You honestly believe women are entitled to a man's money in a day and age when women are not prevented from holding jobs and paying their own way. Why is that. What happened to personal responsibility and agency? i.e. the woman is the only one who wa…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 05:11 AM
1

I think the financial burden is; And that financial burden is ownership being claimed over the man's body by forcing him to labor for a child he did not want under the pain of debtors prison and/or severe social penalties. You would not force a woman to carry to term and/or raise a child she didn't want, so why are alright with forcing men...? Is it because you are ok with the status quo outlined above by another poster of... And right now, our culture's priority list goes Woman > Child > Man. O…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 04:23 AM
4

FYI that was written by a woman 2 years ago. Good strawman though.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 01:07 AM
5

Well yes, he is an atheist who actually believes in things like equal protection under the law, equal rights and so on.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 11:57 PM
3

This is an astounding display of the lowest order of pussy begging.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:21 PM
4

The point is that it's a system with unequal legal treatment. Men have no reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 04:12 PM
5

This is a non-answer to the legal double standard faced by men.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 03:05 PM
15

Of course. Meanwhile, women who saddle men with bastard children deserve the wronged man's money. That is the feminist definition of equality in a nutshell.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 10:46 AM
24

Feminism is even worse than a traditional religion. A traditional religion has questions that can never be answered. Mysticism like gods, the afterlife, things like "karma." Feminism is predicated on answers that must be never be questioned. It is totalitarian by nature.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 10:07 AM
16

It's Amanda Marcotte, the feminist who headed the cyber lynch mob during the Duke lacrosse false rape fiasco. Facts and evidence as well as legal realities don't matter to her. Only sacred cow feminist dogma that you're totally a "misogynist" for questioning.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 09:23 AM
1

I will quote quote the pertinent section. You should really read the book, though. The Most Underappreciated Fact The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women? It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 08:16 AM
1

It is not surprising at all to see that the guy who posted this article didn't approve your comments. Echo chamber effect and all from feminists. All dissent must be silenced with totalitarian commenting systems and the like.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 08:06 AM
33

Why bother? What women is going to buy a guy saying "Hey, don't worry, I'm on the pill". Since the serious negative consequence is theirs, they would be stupid to trust that. Women have choices in such an event. Abort, give up for adoption, abandon, or keep and make him pay money. In the reverse event, where a woman lies to a man, a man has no choices. He is utterly at her mercy due to the way our feminist infiltrated legal system is setup.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 07:54 AM
1

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm It seems very unbelievable to hear about it, but the testing beared it out. It's sourced in this book, by Dr. Roy F. Baumeister. http://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X/ Note that while the book may largely be about evolutionary psychology and the like, DNA analysis results are not subjective in any way.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 07:44 AM
1

PDFs are available on aabb.org. These were from laboratories which met the testing standards of the Parentage Testing Accreditation Program. 2001, Of 310,490 cases, 90,227 (29.06%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 2 of 12) 2002, Of 340,798 cases, 97,681 (28.7%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 3 of 51) 2003, Of 353,387 cases, 99,174 (28.06%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 3 of 53) 2004, Of 374,171 cases, 100,588 (26.68%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 6 of 62) You…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 07:40 AM
2

And I'm sure they'll still claim to be champions of equality, just like feminists who've pulled stunts like this everywhere else do.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 10:27 PM
1

Figures around 30% are also from more recent findings such as the American Association of Blood Banks study in 1999 which found 30% of 280,000 (!!!) blood tests excluded a man as the father. Laboratories keep consistently reporting 25% or higher. It is only those who somehow magically believe that whether you think you are the father of a child or not somehow has any relation to whether you actually are who keep denying things-- i.e. damage control.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 10:12 PM
5

I very much doubt that many women who don't know who the father of their child is would have that many men tested. The ones who do on the Maury show are doing it because they want their 15 minutes of fame.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 10:07 PM
2

See, what this guy in this article is doing is framing the issue, and calling selection bias while quoting other statistics that are even more rife with selection bias. Furthermore he is making this enormous non-sequitur/bit of magical thinking that somehow whether you think you are the father of the child has any kind of bearing on whether you actually are, as all of the other damage control "experts" have. The only way we'll know for certain what the real non-paternity rate is like is if we ha…
/r/MensRights07/08/11 09:58 PM
1

ANYONE who knew much about the culture could have told you all of this. It being "women only" is a product of propaganda in the western media.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 08:56 AM
3

"Equality" in their sense really refers to the thought process of a petulant child who thinks "anything that benefits me means equality." There can be no other explanation to feminist organizations like NOW cooking up lies about men and opposing things like shared parenting.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 11:07 PM
6

In other words: your position is irrational and invalid. Well it would be if feminists didn't claim to be champions of gender equality and all that.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:02 PM
1

This is an emotion-based argument. As long as the government is in the business of making sure a man pays, they ought to be in the business of making sure they have the right man.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 06:59 PM
3

Holding women to the same standards you hold men = misogyny, I see. Male privilege has been debunked so many times it's not even worth talking about here.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 04:09 PM
1

Well they don't allow it at all. The legal system and its biases against men is what facilitates this, by making it such that a woman literally has to be 10 times worse than a man for the man to get custody during a disputed custody battle.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 04:05 PM
0

I guess the revulsion to incest is even greater than the usual compulsion to dole out the pussy pass.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:58 PM
2

Here we see Apex Fallacy in all its glory; Most rulers are men, therefore all men rule. This is nonsensical. If you could earn 3x your current salary by selling your body, and earn 3x your current salary by doing some other work you enjoy, which would you choose? Guess what? Men at the ass end of society don't get either choice. They are stuck with shit payment for awful drudgery.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 08:04 AM
4

Well, in short yes. The problem is self-correcting however at the cost of the civilization itself.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 08:00 AM
3

If you haven't figured it out by now, feminism isn't even internally consistent. They literally make it up as they go along.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:09 AM
6

Yes it is. And, might I ask what child has needs that amount to $46,000 dollars per month? Might I further ask what business a highly paid supermodel has in collecting child support.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:04 AM
10

It's cool how you remove personal responsibility for your choices from the equation which goes against the idea that women are as capable and equal to men and able to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. It's almost as if you're doing the same paradoxical special pleading thing that makes you internally inconsistent that just about every other feminist has before you, but with a stupid Batman posting gimmick.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:54 AM
9

More like StrawmensBegins
/r/MensRights04/08/11 02:16 AM
3

There are actually such men out there? They must be either frigid or pick-up artists and I'm not sure either of these would make for a great control group... Men like those "conscious men" that get sex once a month while their wives go and fuck other guys every other day, I'm sure.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:58 AM
7

It's another piece where they trot out the usual feminist ideology stance on the subject, that the women are somehow all exploited and forced into it and that the men are all vicious predators. They claim that this sex trafficking is increasing although cannot provide any proof. Sound familiar? Oh, it should because it happened recently with the trafficking prostitution hoax at sporting events that was soundly debunked. Somehow they even managed to shoehorn pornography into that this time. Let's…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:53 AM
1

Political correctness is a tool used by at least one previous police state in recent history, and one on which feminism relies.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 08:52 PM
3

Not just black culture but rather the culture of the lowest economic classes in a day and age where getting a living wage is becoming an impossibility for a large percentage of the population to the point where a lot of people literally have to commit crime-for-profit to feed themselves whether that be dealing/smuggling drugs and things like that.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 05:46 PM
0

the only way to ethically choose which group gets the advantage is to do just as you do here -- examine who gets a choice about what. Children have no choice at all. Ok well what's going on right now is that a second party that also has no choice is being subject to forced labor. We CAN call it a movement for gender equality when we expect equivalent rights to what the other gender enjoys. The obvious solution is for women to not have children if they cannot find someone who wants to have them w…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:37 PM
1

Are you somehow going to posit that children's needs override men's rights, but not women's? Women are able to opt out in a number of ways. Men are not. Men do not get any choice and are, under the current system, 100% beholden to whatever choice the woman makes even if that leads to involuntary servitude enforced by the state.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:17 PM
2

The argument from their perspective, then, is that we implicitly give consent through biological enabling. This is the same poor argument used by anti-abortionists decades ago, that having sex somehow means you consented to all sorts of other things. Those poor arguments were soundly defeated. If it's not true for women, then it shouldn't be true for men.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:04 PM
-1

Without that cooperation, BOTH movements are doomed to become wrong at some level because they exclude their own perspective from those with inverse genital geometry -- the exact thing both movements try to defeat is thus embraced by both implicitly. This isn't exactly true. Take for example, the reproductive rights issue. What you could call the "official" men's rights stance on this is that, yes, we think that women should be able to be the sole arbiter of abortions. It is their bodies. No one…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:20 PM
8

Canada is already far more entrenched in PC and feminism than the US is.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:06 PM
6

No, the mounties are just getting away with shooting multiple different men.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:05 PM
3

Is this an argument? Doesn't look like it.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:18 AM
3

Another strawman argument from a terrible poster. When a man is milked for thousands of dollars per month it becomes mommy support. Not child support. You do not need as much money as some of these gold diggers that intentionally go after monied men to try get knocked up by them and ride the gravy train collect in order to pay for what a child needs.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:15 AM
1

There are a couple US states that cap the amount that can be collected. That works.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:13 AM
1

That said, I'm having a hard time believing that. She's a millionaire. She presumably had the resources to keep dangerous men away from her son. Why would she let them abuse him in the first place? Because just like any father who would constantly allow such a thing to happen to his child, she too is an abuser. Not a victim of anything.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 10:07 PM
3

Let me ask you this: Does anyone, anyone at all try to make such excuses when men kill their children? This sick scenario where women are excused for all manner of crime simply because of the fact they are women plays out all of the time, but none so telling as when they kill their own children. Sometimes they even have the audacity to point the finger at a man who was forcibly ejected from his children's lives when a woman kills the children.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 10:03 PM
0

Well, yes. Look at the other response to this post.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 07:31 PM
2

Phase 2: Actively discriminate against men.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 07:29 PM
5

You are actually taking trolls who can't offer substantive arguments seriously.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 05:15 AM
10

It's cool how your entire post history is full of milquetoast garbage like what you just posted, and in this subreddit.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 05:14 AM
8

The claim that they support equality is just fluff. When you bring up the actual issues you will get nothing but shrill hysterics.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 05:10 AM
4

That you don't have money doesn't really mean anything if you're male. It just means that you will be that much more in poverty if things end badly.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 02:44 AM
1

Do we make such excuses for men who kill their own children? Do we allow men who kill their own children the leniency that has been seen time and time again? No. We do not. Cases like this or sexual offenses show clearly in their sentencing that in our society, the law is NOT applied equally and justice is not blind.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 02:31 AM
-2

The intolerance to things that aren't echo chambers, blatant bigotry, calls for censorship and incessant attempted smears via misrepresentation we constantly see sure do.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 02:13 AM
3

Or you can objectively examine how the law is put into practice and see that you would effectively be signing your life over to someone else and never get married in the first place.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 02:09 AM
-3

Exhibit A
/r/MensRights02/08/11 02:04 AM
8

Feminists are quite simply totalitarians and are obsessed with this subreddit to the point where they constantly read it and downvote just about everything.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 01:31 AM
8

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800. Wow did you just get egg on your face, idiot troll.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 01:27 AM
2

Not in interpersonal relationships.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 12:56 AM
0

Does anyone really care what that worthless fat sack of shit likes or doesn't like. I'm reminded of that mspaint image about a guy in armor sitting at his computer with writing on the wall that reads: Internet Maidens that I've rescued: (a bunch of scratches) Internet Maidens that have rewarded me with sex: (nothing)
/r/MensRights02/08/11 12:53 AM
1

The article linked from FRS is excellent.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 12:51 AM
1

That was "atkinsonlaw" I believe, who started the mensrightslaw sub.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 12:33 AM
6

This makes no sense. Nobody can see the future nor read another's mind.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 12:31 AM
2

Well, no. There's the issue that there's just generally way more men who use the Internet, especially sites like reddit, and of course the fact that the repeated drilling of the fact that women do it as often as men helps to dispel the feminist inculcated lies and myths about such things.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 12:29 AM
2

Then it's not equality, is it? It's just an obvious apartheid-type system.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 12:24 AM
1

Literally every single thing posted is downvoted.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 01:16 PM
6

It's certainly not the dictionary fantasy-land definition that those who would deny what feminists actually do say it is.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 10:59 AM
2

Also note that many women don't count all of those house maintenance/yardwork type things that men tend to do as actual chores/work.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 12:42 AM
1

A parent not already knowing blood type (it goes on the birth certificate)? Not here in Canada, at least. I have two different birth certificates. One from the month after I was born and one issued 7 years ago. Neither has my blood type on it.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 12:15 AM
8

She was 18 when he was 17. Calling that statutory rape is bullshit and the reason you see so many men on sex offender registries for having sex with their 1 or 2 year younger girlfriends when they were younger. It does give another show that men have no reproductive rights, though.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 10:21 PM
2

Well, she was 18 when he was 17 so I wouldn't even try to say this should even fall under statutory rape. The story does reiterate the fact that men have zero reproductive rights, however, and the author actually tries to excuse 30+ year old women who actually are statutorily raping/grooming boys for sex and the biased court system that actually makes these boys pay child support.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 10:18 PM
6

You are using the same "too bad, you had sex!" line of reasoning used by anti-abortionist fundamentalist fuckholes way back when. If a woman has a living child already born that she doesn't want, get this-- she still has options. She can put it up for adoption, or abandon it at say, a firehouse/station or whatnot. What can a man do when a child is born and he did not want it? Not only does the man even not get a choice as to whether an abortion would take place (not that I think a man should), h…
/r/MensRights31/07/11 06:08 AM
7

It's like I hopped into the Delorean with Doc Brown and went back to the 70s here for the same nonsensical arguments used by anti-abortion idiots.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 05:58 AM
-4

The same way the church kept its claim that the world was flat, I assume.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 05:00 AM
3

Mandatory paternity testing will be the only solution for this widespread deception.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 04:50 AM
2

Of course. It's all in the language used. They're trying to downplay over ONE THIRD of men who requested testing being duped. Futile? I don't think so. I wouldn't gamble with 20 years of my labor with those odds. By the way, although the sample size here is small this figure is pretty close to that reported after hundreds of thousands of tests done by DNA testing laboratories. Imagine if even that 1/4 women raped canard was actually true instead of the reality of that situation that rapes per ca…
/r/MensRights31/07/11 03:40 AM
11

"Both the court of appeals and district court agree that he is guilty of sexual exploitation of children. " He's 15 years old. What the fuck.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 10:28 PM
0

This isn't news at all. This has been around as long as GI Joe toys have existed. Longer than I've been alive.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 07:24 PM
7

This subreddit has blanket downvote trolls for almost every single thing posted.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 04:48 PM
3

Yes, and it changed provincial law. And then no one utilized their new legal freedom afterwards.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 05:57 AM
1

Batman can only get hard for Court TV.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 11:34 PM
4

Righto. We should instead use the feminist standard of "a woman must be believed" coupled with the idea that "he probably just got away with it" I guess. Those Duke boys were totally rapists after all, even though they weren't.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 10:50 PM
2

Where I live it's perfectly legal for women to go topless. I would say no, it was really not a big issue.. It was another one of those diversionary non-issues. Feminists made a stink about it, the laws changed, and then no women actually did go topless after the laws changed.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 10:32 PM
1

How long until a trail of [Deleted] appears there, I wonder.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 10:14 PM
3

literally nobody even here cares about his dumb, dead little subreddit he bans people from. This is a far cry from people who are moderators of several other large subs playing thought police. Good try though
/r/MensRights28/07/11 02:47 PM
2

No, this is garbage peddled by feminists who were too lazy to look into who worked how many hours and instead looked at the total earnings of men and women and started screaming "WAGE GAP" at the top of their lungs. If women could really be paid 30% less for the same quality of work and the same hours of work that men put in, no one would hire men. That's how capitalism works-- employers try to get the best labor they can and for the cheapest price.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 04:00 AM
5

You can google for female sex tourism and come up with a ton of results. The most striking thing is that the women do it are hypocrites and actually believe they aren't like the men who do the same thing.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 08:13 PM
3

It's been a huge failure its intended purpose, though, since we've all seen it for what it is.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:28 PM
4

No they actually can't because of things like debtors prisons, garnishments, etc. A man would literally have to abandon his life and metaphorically "go underground" working under the table in order to effectively walk away. But you aren't interested in any kind of honest discussion, as your posts show.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 01:02 PM
2

Hey, cool meme post. Any other cutting-edge internet comedy to share with us, old chap?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 01:00 PM
3

Oh no I agree with them that men shouldn't have any say in the abortion process but of course men should be able to opt out of paying a cent because after all that is asserting ownership over the man's body and his time spent laboring.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 12:58 PM
1

This is what, the 5th or so association fallacy made because of this incident? That ignores the other 99% of the guy's massive journal/manifesto.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 09:13 AM
1

Sounds more like someone who sees the writing on the walls to me.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:14 AM
3

Did he get a fair shot? Looks like no. He was assumed guilty until the evidence began to appear.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 02:47 AM
-1

Thanks, Batman.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 02:46 AM
3

And yet proven mental retardation has been no defense for men. If it isn't obvious that the system is clearly not impartial and that there is no equal protection under the law, you need to take the blinders off.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 02:42 AM
1

They have plenty of anti-male legislation as well. The "mothers should never be punished for making false accusations" issue is from Australia.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 02:37 AM
1

It appears the site is moving to a new host. Haven't seen the article either.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 11:47 PM
2

It's not paternity results they tend to lie about since really no hospitals do those as a routine procedure as far as I know, it's information that are results from other types of medical testing that clearly shows the man in question is not the father of the child. For example, say the child needed a blood transfusion or bone marrow or something like that and the non-father is one who takes the child in. First, they need to run tests to ensure that they are compatible with one another. He will …
/r/MensRights26/07/11 11:10 PM
4

Their reason for disliking it keeps changing, too. First it was because of some inane bs about it causing rape even though incidence of rape has gone down as both the population has gone UP as has the availability of porn. Of course now we see them saying it's bad because it makes men pay less attention to women.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 01:28 PM
1

This guy is one of the greatest MRAs there is. He keeps having feminist trolls flagging his videos as "hate speech" though.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 10:12 AM
2

It's attacking the style rather than the substance, usually because they can't.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 07:41 AM
8

I guess all feminists pen SCUM manifestos in their spare time then by the logic of Futrelle.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 07:36 AM
2

So why is the punishment for men for the same crimes so much harsher across the board. You seem to be dodging this like a pro. Serious cognitive dissonance here from you. Are you seriously going to say it's coercive when men do it but not when women do it and claim any kind of objectivity or impartiality? Get the fuck out of here with that.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 08:52 PM
3

Facepalm" isn't a stupid internet meme It is when used in the context you used it. A stupid internet meme that started with a picture of a Star Trek:TNG character. The charges brought against them are the exact same fucking charges. You are trying to rationalize this. Feel free to sift through the stories here and you'll be able to easily find women who had mountains of evidence against them such as Mary Kay Letourneau who only served any actual years in prison because she kept violating court o…
/r/MensRights24/07/11 12:37 PM
3

You should "facepalm" your stupid internet memes at yourself and your strawman arguments. They got a slap on the wrist, as was said. 90 days. Compare it to the kinds of punishment for the same crime that males get: http://www.9news.com/news/article/209153/188/Coach-convicted-of-sex-assault-could-serve-life-sentence STILL not seeing it? Take off the blinders.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 10:40 AM
2

Roissy is just being a braggart who toots his own horn.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 08:45 AM
14

No kidding. A man in that position making such a statement would be shitcanned so fast his head would spin.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 07:20 AM
5

Or you could stop being such an incredulous concern troll and just read the news stories posted regularly in this subreddit. http://femalesexoffenders.com/fso/index.php/the-news/333-christine-williams-pleads-guilty http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_17719682?source=commented- I found these within 2 minutes. Do your own work next time.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 07:11 AM
18

Or it could be these women that keep getting busted with 14 year old boys and get a slap on the wrist from the legal system.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 08:52 PM
12

Here is my rationalization for a sexist double standard, folks. Here it is. I just typed it out.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 07:45 PM
3

It's because that statement is fabricated. What really happens is that men work more hours at the same jobs.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 07:39 PM
12

Men make more money. Because men work more hour and in more dangerous jobs. Point here? Are you dredging up the debunked "wage gap" again? Women are twice as likely to be murdered by men than the other way around. Because women tend to manipulate others or hire help. Also, men are far more likely to be the victim of pretty much every type of violence out there than are women. An inconvenient thing you left out, I'm suret Women are twice as likely to suffer from clinical depression. [citation nee…
/r/MensRights23/07/11 05:10 AM
8

Your mode of living has landed us in current predicament, where men are expected to shoulder all sorts of burden and abuse. It's time for change.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:42 AM
1

Why else would I post on reddit than to post here? This is the toilet of the Internet with self-styled "comedians" like yourself that think rage comics are actually funny. "Lol" indeed.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:40 AM
0

Go back to /r/feminisms, moron.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:34 AM
0

I posted something on the Internet in response to an stupid piece of shit: I must be angry. Good conclusions from a stupid piece of shit with nothing better to do with their time than make a billion bad concern troll posts.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:29 AM
2

It probably hits you too close to home since even on the Internet nobody likes you.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:26 AM
1

See also: The tell-tale [Deleted] posts. Ah, femi-fascists.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:24 AM
1

I'm so riled up that I'm posting one-liners calling you what you are--a shitty concern troll. You got me. You're the puppermaster, dangling the string.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:20 AM
5

You probably are one if you have nothing better to do than make predictable "burns" that are little more than aping internet culture from like 10 years ago.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:17 AM
6

It was just an arbitrary number I hammered in to get the point across that you're a shitty poster. Anyone can confirm this by reading the milquetoast garbage you post in this sub.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:11 AM
15

Take your bullshit "man up" rhetoric elsewhere, simp.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:09 AM
-1

Or quite possibly,,,,,,, concern troll post #13512. Thank you and come again.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 04:05 AM
6

They had also covered a story about paternity fraud before in which they took it seriously and the host thought the situation (a man jailed for nonpayment on child support of a child that wasn't even his--worse, because he didn't make enough money to pay) was bullshit.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 02:24 PM
3

Probably nothing.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:59 AM
2

Yes and that is exactly what the need to do since that is the only thing they understand; money. Hit these colleges and universities where it hurts--the wallet.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 09:50 PM
1

There would be no way to differentiate between men who needed a legal way to escape a pregnancy that was forced on them, and dead-beat dads. Sure there is. Any man who decides to never take part in the child's life would be exercising his own option to not be a father if he doesn't want to be. Sort of like how women can all choose to abort or give up for adoption or "safely abandon."
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:05 PM
16

First off, who the fuck are you to tell parents what they can do with their own babies? If they decide that a circumcision is what's best for their kid, so be it. I guess you can apply that to parents who murder their children and all sorts of other bullshit. I mean, who are you to tell them what they can do with their own children? Don't you know, those children don't have any human rights. By the way, an awful lot of Jews out there would like to have a word with you regarding circumcision, too…
/r/MensRights20/07/11 11:58 PM
5

It's the same totalitarian feminist garbage as usual, but doubling down on the same old, same old because as you can guess, more and more people see things from our side. They're back to the 90s style feminism of just making shit up, too.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:21 PM
3

If by "attacks" you mean pointing out the blatant double-speak, hypocrisy and contradictory premises presented by those subreddits which indulge in the magical belief that they somehow cannot be guilty of doing what they claim their hated group is guilty of (while they're actually the ones doing it), sure.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:14 PM
4

Looks like yet more proof that feminism is a house of cards that can't weather the slightest bit of critical thinking.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:10 PM
13

Believe it or not, these kind of bald-faced lies are the kinds of things feminists could get away from creating from whole cloth in the 90s. See the Bobbit scandal for a great example.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:43 AM
8

Real compelling argument there. It's got "payback"/"revenge" for things that never happened in your lifetime PLUS the doublespeak of pretending to be for equality (an Orwellian definition) with feminism. No, the rules aren't any different. At least be internally consistent.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 03:35 AM
6

Edit: Come to think of it, this business with The Talk has been all about policing what could easily be called a female space. Not really since it's on national television.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 02:13 AM
1

The thing is that all of these dunderheads that talk about "sex objectification" and the "pressure to meet up to some unrealistic ideal" tend to forget that this affects men probably even more, objectively speaking. But they don't care to look into this because the sick culture despises men and doesn't care about when men hurt. Look at the "bigorexia" phenomenon, as a good example. The vast majority of those guys are doing steroids and working out obsessively so that they will be seen as sexuall…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 11:03 PM
12

Of course they do but you see most are hypocrites and believe it is alright for them to select for such qualities while it is not alright for men to do the same.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 10:55 PM
2

This is actually a prime display of the manipulative language feminists use and how "patriarchy" (and often, the word "rape") is just a catch-all, nebulous pejorative of sorts used to attempt to shut down political opponents and appeal to emotion. Then again, feminist arguments are almost all built on that same appeal to emotion fallacy without regard to observable reality or any kind of objective standard or evidentiary basis.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 09:46 PM
-1

I have the basis of feminist hypocrisy where there is the sophistry of "objectification" whenever a man pursues a woman for sex, but not the other way around. No one else would use "sexualization" as some sort of pejorative other than a batshit insane feminist. Thank you, and please, come again.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 09:44 PM
6

... because she kept violating the court's orders.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 09:21 PM
3

"This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting hate speech. Sorry about that." I guess you re-hosted it and it was taken down again.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 01:16 AM
7

Femi-fascists have already flagged it and now it's been taken down as "hate speech." Didn't get to see it.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 11:42 PM
11

Do they make this shit up as they go along? They must.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 10:10 PM
-2

In her assessment she trotted out the usual feminist bullshit about rape, and applied it to a man who did not rape her, and did not do anything even resembling rape to her. Did you watch her video? Maybe you should. But then again you're just here to concern troll as your posting history shows.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:52 PM
0

Doesn't matter if you explicitly did. You think this woman is completely reasonable in her assessment and that she's in the right.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:44 PM
0

Rich for you to talk about "empathy" but have none for a man being slandered as a "potential rapist."
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:32 PM
1

No one has to go out of their way to alleviate unreasonable bigoted fears of being raped by random men in an elevator when no such actions took place. The man got turned down, he left. The end. The commonality in stories like this seem to be that the woman in question suffered the horrible indignity of being approached by a man they find unattractive, and think this should somehow be criminal behavior. The special pleading that bigots like you present here is again no different from asking, say,…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 08:11 PM
-7

It's a pretty easy conclusion to reach when you've dealt with the same kind of horrible people with the same horrible opinions for years.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:53 PM
-1

You initially said, "So what, he wanted to get laid"? That is acknowledging that he was asking for sex. Asking to "come back for coffee" is widely coded as a proposition for sex. No, actually, what I was saying that is even if he was, what is wrong with that? Which you of course dodged, because you can't look like anything other than a piece of shit by saying that there's something wrong with it. It's very obvious. How about OUTSIDE of enclosed spaces? How about after you have already talked to …
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:52 PM
-3

What are you talking about, he didn't straight-up ask her to have sex with him? Seems like you're the socially retarded one here. He didn't walk up and ask straight-up if she wanted to fuck or anything. Where is the appropriate time to approach someone might you ask? It would seem never really. I've seen dozens of similar stories posted like this over the years with the location varying but none where the woman makes such a public spectacle out of it as Watson did. You're going for the special p…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:12 PM
-3

I'm sorry, but there's a fine line between merely "feeling uncomfortable" and then going on to drone out a bunch of feminist bullshit that paints the guy as a rapist -- or sorry "potential rapists" (all men are, don't you know?) for what is all in all pretty normal courtship behavior. Here's where it should have ended: She said no. They parted ways. The end. That's actually what happened, but oh no! She had to make a big deal out of it, the feminist bigot that she is. Now we have this appalling …
/r/MensRights18/07/11 07:05 PM
-7

Ah I see, male sexuality = bad. It's "objectifying". Thank you for the bald-faced misandry. It doesn't even matter if the guy's intent was to possibly get laid. What exactly is wrong with that? Nothing. She said no, they parted ways, and that should have been the end of it.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 06:56 PM
-3

And so what if she was. What if the guy's intent was to get laid? What is your point, regular concern troll?
/r/MensRights18/07/11 06:52 PM
1

Again, why are you asking this in a men's rights forum, other than to troll and try to paint people here as bigots? To unravel this mystery, take a look at the OP's posting history in this subreddit. (spoilers: you were right)
/r/MensRights18/07/11 12:06 PM
0

Great, a dilettante turd using latin phrases. Show me the censorship here to qualify for hypocrisy. Ah, you can't...?
/r/MensRights17/07/11 06:36 PM
1

Women tend to not care about "the whole package" until they feel it is time to nest. That is why there is a rising consciousness of the fact that a hell of a lot of women spend their youths with guys they find "hot" and then try to find some chump when they reach middle-age. And even then when they do you find there's often disgusting stories abound like the paternity fraud one shared by feminist ideologue Hugo Schwyzer recently. Feminists and their cronies hate evolutionary theory because thing…
/r/MensRights16/07/11 06:30 PM
7

This makes no sense because women are the majority of voters and vote these men into these positions.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 06:26 PM
8

Yes, just like they censor anything that doesn't make the place look like an echo chamber on every other topic under the sun.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 05:00 PM
74

Jo Anne Phillips is a crime victims advocate and says a man committing the same crime would have gotten a harsher sentence: "It's made out to be a joke with a woman being the stalker or the perpetrator." And she's right.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 04:48 PM
8

The feminist definition of equality is lifted straight from an Orwell novel.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 02:17 AM
10

Feminism is a religion stripped of god-worship. They "know" without any factual or evidentiary basis. Same stupid style of dogma.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 02:16 AM
6

Yes, for feminists the line of thinking that "a father is more than DNA" is only when it is convenient for them to think so. They will still support going after a man for money even though he's never been part of a child's life, and they will still support manipulative women who do everything they can to keep a man's children away from him and all sorts of other abuse. You'll also notice they sidestep the issue of the woman's deception everytime paternity fraud is talked about. The whole thing i…
/r/MensRights16/07/11 02:13 AM
3

The solution to the paternity fraud problem is simply to bring it up with and educate as many men as you can about the facts, about how common it is and how stupid they would be given these facts to blindly trust without verifying. When you have an massive, angry mass of men who are all-too-aware of the problem, things are going to change. We have already seen at least one bill for mandatory paternity testing. More will soon follow as long as the word keeps getting out about this heinous crime.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 02:08 AM
5

Cliffor is a woman.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 10:05 PM
5

Unless you plan on creeping women out, contemplate changing sidewalk, and taking the next elevator, you weirdo. Why should anyone have to go out of their way to do such things just to alleviate unreasonable indoctrinated and bigoted fears inculcated by a culture saturated by feminist bullshit?
/r/MensRights15/07/11 05:19 PM
3

This is all old hat, really.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 05:10 PM
2

Don't you know? Men simply aren't as human as women according to the feminist mode of thought.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 08:50 PM
1

if hes pro feminist, im sure he is. but that isnt the headline He's a "gender studies" professor. That is exactly what he is.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 03:11 PM
1

She would get life without the possibility for parole if we really had a justice system and not a mere legal system that panders to its constituencies at every turn.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 11:47 PM
3

Same as here really. There's a downvote brigade on every single thing posted here.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:29 PM
5

You might have a point if the laws weren't such that men are treated as non-person workhorses who exist to be worked to support other men's children in the event that they later find out children aren't theirs. Yes, that's right. Our legal system says that if a woman is able to trick a man for X months or years depending on jurisdiction, that everything's cool and she should keep getting rewarded with his money even if he wants out because, y'know, he may want to have his own children or somethi…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 08:24 PM
0

Men's Rights and Anti-Feminism are inseparable because of the actions of feminists as well as their antagonist and bigoted rhetoric. To be for men's rights means you by definition have to be anti-feminist due to feminists causing many of the issues and blocking reform wherever they can.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 02:10 PM
5

Thanks for stopping by to take a shit, Cliffor.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 02:08 PM
11

I agree. That man is a piece of garbage but you don't need to talk about that kind of thing here.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 01:18 PM
45

And again being a "good man" now means being a cuckolded chump. More proof that GMP is a feminist shill/appropriation attempt.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 01:08 PM
2

It's a typical feminist response. They accuse you of "misogyny" or say you have a tiny penis/can't get laid/etc or just simply call you a whiner, without addressing anything you said.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 12:22 AM
2

What it really is-- just bullshit and attempt to shut down and silence you.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 10:58 PM
5

The police were fed the same bogus info that feminists have propagated. Police are trained these days with bad info straight from feminist "academia."
/r/MensRights11/07/11 06:01 PM
7

The only real solution is mandatory paternity testing at birth. Curious though why you think a deceived and defrauded man shouldn't be able to walk if he so desires-- and many do because, get this, they either want their own children and/or have intense feelings of hurt and betrayal. Just about any other kind of agreement or contract you enter into is null and void if it is entered into on such terms, I don't see what's different here. Any ill effects on a child because a man who isn't even the …
/r/MensRights11/07/11 05:21 AM
4

And of course it opens with a strawman that we somehow believe that we are "the most oppressed people in the world" and continues with even more misrepresentation from there. His source of course being infamous bigot and embarrassing internet fatass David Futrelle.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 08:27 PM
1

Even though it is a minority problem (there were millions of married couples in the UK for example in 2008. A probe found that there were close to 5,000 cases of paternity fraud that had gone without any prosecution. About the issue of paternity fraud-- you would do well to read into studies conducted and statistics collected from DNA testing laboratories. This issue is much more widespread than you think. Experts that reduce the laboratories reportings of almost 1/3 of all of their testing (sam…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:29 PM
1

No. Just...No. The law was put in place to protect women and it has been abused by a minority of them. Yes. Just yes. One of the most egregious examples of these abuses is paternity fraud. Why do women who fuck around on their boyfriends/husbands and saddle them with another man's child deserve any sort of "protection"? Yet men are routinely forced to pay for children they can prove are not theirs. What irks me the most about all this is that at no point do any of you present any statistics or d…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:34 PM
1

Here is the thing you seem to be missing about all of this. Women's abuse is now enshrined in law. They are actually rewarded for the behavior outlined in letgoofmynose's posts. Yes, rewarded, by our legal system and the violence of the state levied against men who are guilty of no crime. Women cannot do this to other women.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:42 PM
8

Newsflash: OneY is a feminist shill/appropriation attempt where feminists attempt to control the dialogue, and where bigots like David Futrelle posts his garbage articles. GMP is also a feminist shill/appropriation attempt where they allow some of the most disgusting people in the world like Michael Kimmel post his hateful screeds.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:35 PM
1

You are not nice. And unfortunately, that invalidates about 90% of your argument. Hm, no, it doesn't when how valid an argument is happens to be based on things like logic and the facts presented. Take your appeal to emotion logical fallacies elsewhere.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 03:36 PM
6

Ah but men don't get the freedom, that's the thing. Freedom doesn't consist of an ongoing transfer of wealth from you to her under the pain of prison and state violence.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:23 PM
2

Are you placing the perhaps uncomfortably overly friendly acts of a man in the 1960s or 70s on the same level as a gameshow host who literally told a guy she's horny? Way to reach, there.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:06 PM
1

Show me an episode of a game show filmed live like this one was in which the male host does something similar. What's this... you can't? Exactly.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:32 AM
1

Upvoted you. That seems to be the whole idea behind the almost entirely bogus issue of "sexual harassment" doesn't it? The desire to criminalize advances made by those deemed unattractive to you.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:26 AM
3

Great. You're still sidestepping the whole involuntary servitude issue. Here are the solutions without literally enslaving men as we do now: 1) Have it come from the state, as you already demand so many things from. 2) Don't have a fucking child if you can't support it yourself and can't find anyone willing to have one with you. What is wrong with you that you think women should be entitled to make a man pay for 18+ for her own decisions?
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:03 AM
4

So we should treat men as non-persons who should gladly enter into involuntary servitude. That's what you're saying.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 02:54 AM
1

How can you tell if a woman will take advantage of the laws? You cannot. No one can read minds.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 11:03 PM
3

There is no such thing as "married" game and those who think there is are delusional at best. If you are married or in a long-term relationship and "common-law" marriages exist where you live, the woman has you by the balls due to the legal system and that is that.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 08:40 PM
5

Except it's not because women don't have thugs with guns coerce/force them to hand over their earnings in a wealth-distribution scheme. Good go at the "he's just bitter" angle though.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 08:30 PM
5

Of course we're anti-feminist. Feminists have shown their true colors with their actions. They are bigots bent on supremacy. Feminists are enemies of men's rights because they've caused the lion's share of the issues presented here. But of course you're one, or else you wouldn't conflate being an anti-feminist with being "anti-woman."
/r/MensRights09/07/11 07:51 PM
0

Care to expound on your opinion there or is it just a lame appeal to emotion argument with no substance?
/r/MensRights09/07/11 07:36 PM
2

They are the SAME thing.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 07:33 PM
0

I completely disagree having observed the community since about 2004.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 03:44 PM
6

The problem I have with the whole PUA/seduction community is it seems to be a bunch of dudes trying to sell their bullshit to really desperate men who I've observed still have zero success with women after following their their books/DVDs/etc. I'll give some props to some of the bloggers who aren't trying to scam money out of desperate guys with it, like Roissy-- who really seems to understand much of the reason that not supplicating women is a good idea--but even he seems to be deluded. Look at…
/r/MensRights09/07/11 02:34 PM
2

It's a fallacious argument and there is no reasoning with such a zealot but you could just rebut with an ironic quip about how you thought gender to be merely a "social construct" as feminists like to often say despite numerous studies that debunk this piece of feminist cant.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:30 PM
8

I believe that this is the overarching problem in all of the strife between us and feminists today: We see all of the ridiculous things that we do to one another and to ourselves in the name of our movements, and we end up losing sight of each others' beliefs. What exactly have MRAs "done to feminists" if you will. What political power have we wielded, what laws have we changed to intentionally hurt women due to bigoted beliefs as feminists have to men for decades? You think feminists are going …
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:24 PM
5

More predictable sexual trade unionism. Just like with Naomi Wolf-- first, porn leads to rape! Only it doesn't. Curiously enough, the incidence of rape has gone down as the availability of porn has gone up. Now, she says porn is bad because it makes men pay less attention to aging has-beens like herself.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:19 PM
13

Dawkins let his logic get in the way of their religion.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 04:36 PM
1

They are excellent cases to use to show the treatment of men by the system. The guilty until innocent frame of mind when any man is accused. Those accused PROBABLY would have been rotting in prison if it weren't for evidence to prove their innocence.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 01:56 AM
8

Another case of something that hurts men actually hurts women. Case in point with feminist mental gymnastics. And a shocking glimpse into the mind of such women, who view men as workhorses and economic producers.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 01:08 AM
1

The very idea of rape liars is still anathema to feminist ideologues and their fragile narrative.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 12:56 AM
1

His point was that his friend could get him easily convicted without any evidence. No one got convicted in those situations, therefore they are bad examples. Other people have made better suggestions in this thread. Oh? I beg to differ. You can find many cases of men convicted without even any DNA evidence, even within the past 20 years since it became common practice to use it in criminal cases.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 12:53 AM
2

Sure they would, they would show the rush to judgement whenever a man is accused of rape and would show the kind of effect the mere accusation has on a man's life. Then again, you're a known concern troll. If you really wanted to learn more about the reality of false rape accusations, you'd probably go research the issue yourself instead of making bad posts in this sub.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 05:17 PM
3

Just show her the Duke and Hofstra cases.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 01:46 PM
2

They're only coming out now that everyone but the most fanatical of the religious is saying that yeah, we should probably stop cutting up baby boy's dicks. It's pure posturing.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 11:55 PM
4

Never buy a girl a drink, unless you are already on a date with fucking her. Fixed that for you. There are plenty of women out there who use guys for free dinners and drinks under the pretense of "dating".
/r/MensRights30/06/11 07:10 AM
4

Absolutely with how brainwashed some men are to do anything for women no matter how detrimental it can be to themselves or others.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 03:40 AM
2

I guess Charlie Manson should be out of prison by now because he didn't actually kill anyone, someone else did. They had complete free will after all.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:17 AM
2

They "don't take claims at face value" yet are willing to literally break down doors to arrest sleeping men when they have zero actual evidence and before an investigation has begun, as well as set a sky-high amount for bail. Blatant doublespeak.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 02:23 AM
3

This image is years old. I've seen it before.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 09:50 PM
-1

Devlin writes a regular column for the neo-nazi site and you're all "bla di bla don't oppress him bro, hitler is people too" [citation needed] I notice you've sidestepped addressing any of the points that Devlin made in those articles, yet again. Probably because you can't? If you can, then stop the ad hominem and do so.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 07:30 PM
-1

The fact that Devlin's politically uncorrect articles are published by some racist fuckhole who posts on Stormfront doesn't in any way make what he says less valid. It's probably one of the only people he could find willing to actually publish them. You seem to not be attacking the actual points made by Devlin. Is it because you are not able to?
/r/MensRights26/06/11 11:06 AM
1

It's funny because feminists have become the very bigots they claim that all men are.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:26 PM
2

A bogus excuse used to justify the things feminists groups and politicians do.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 05:02 PM
3

Yeah like almost everything from that blog. No idea why it keeps getting linked. It's complete and utter drivel.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 06:23 PM
8

The only thing feminists can do in the face of the overwhelming empirical data, fact and the truth about things is try to subvert. Nothing new here. The whole "Ultimate Men's Summit" recently was a whole heaping load of that, aside from a few names like Warren Farrel and Paul Elam.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:56 PM
2

And way to post pointless bullshit unrelated to the definition of the word you clearly didn't know.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 02:56 AM
1

Can't say; You couldn't pay me to watch that trash or even read the books.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 02:51 AM
8

"Cuckold" comes from the word Cuckoo, a bird which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds. Outside of people and their disgusting fetish porn, that is what the definition of cuckolding is. To deceive a man into raising a child that is not his own.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 06:13 PM
5

Can we chill on the "what if it was reversed" No because we see society and "women's groups" (read: feminist orgs) flip the fuck out and bully people into resigning for far less. You and I both know shit like this wouldn't fly if it were reversed.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:21 PM
1

Of course it doesn't, but this is exactly the motivation of a white knight who will defend a woman no matter how in the wrong wrong she is.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 01:28 AM
0

It's cool how your entire posting history is just a bunch of lukewarm attempts at trolling.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 09:08 PM
0

Thanks for sharing. I'm sure everyone cares about the opinion of a PC drone.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 07:53 PM
2

TL;DR: How much sense does it really make to seek equality as separate movements? The short answer is that feminists are not interested in seeking equality. They basically told men when presented with the issues, many of which they created, to go fuck ourselves.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 06:23 PM
-1

Pretty sure I called r/oney a feminist shill/appropriation attempt when it was created. Big surprise.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 06:22 PM
1

The woman literally believes penis in vagina sex is a social construct, not something that is required to propagate the fucking species. This is how out of touch with reality feminism really is, and lending them the air of legitimacy by giving their religion places in colleges and universities is a huge mistake.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 07:16 PM
3

Feminism is the current regime and orthodoxy in society at large.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 07:12 PM
6

I see that Dominic Raab wasn't cowed into silence by feminists. Very good.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 06:07 PM
2

Considering it's still socially acceptable in many cultures to see women objectively and that a guy can take what he wants (e.g. a woman wants to get laid dressed like that, better give it to her). Name some cultures that this is acceptable in and won't get you thrown in prison for or stoned to death or hung when caught and proven to do have done this. As for "objectification" that is bullshit feminist boilerplate. Women gauge men on physical appearance as often as men do the same. Same so-calle…
/r/MensRights15/06/11 06:02 PM
4

Yeah she was kind of leading him on and touching his dick.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 04:10 PM
-1

Which falls under conspiring to kill someone. You are making a transaction with someone, offering them money or some other compensation to kill someone else.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 03:44 PM
3

Yet they still demand it. The fevered mental gymnastics that feminists attempt to employ in order to try to spin women's obvious advantages in our society into something different than what they are quite humorous, though.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 09:36 AM
8

Urban Dictionary is a cesspool that anyone may edit and add to.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 09:18 AM
-1

I think you should bust out the dictionary and learn the word yourself: Conspire \Conspire"\ (k[o]n*sp[imac]r"), v. i. [imp. & p. p. Conspired (k[o]n*sp[imac]rd"); p. pr. & vb. n. Conspiring.] [F. conspirer, L. conspirare to blow together, harmonize, agree, plot; con- + spirare to breathe, blow. See Spirit.] 1. To make an agreement, esp. a secret agreement, to do some act, as to commit treason or a crime, or to do some unlawful deed; to plot together. [1913 Webster]* Exactly what this woman did.…
/r/MensRights15/06/11 09:01 AM
-1

She also conspired to murder. She should be charged with that on top of soliciting. What we see here is a classic case of the pussy pass.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 05:39 AM
1

There is no culture of sexual violence. IF there were, the number of rape reports wouldn't be going down year after year despite a very, very welcoming environment in which to report them.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 04:27 AM
2

Unless you believe there's some coven of super-sluts that wander the country looking to get as much cock as possible, you can safely say about as many women as men are doing it. After all, it stands to reason that for each man doing it, there has to be close to at least one woman doing it as well. Really what we need is a more sex-positive attitude here in the ol' USA. Somehow I don't think making adultery an acceptable practice is something good for society...
/r/MensRights15/06/11 04:25 AM
2

It's like sexism. You see, you're allowed to say just about anything you want about men, but not women. You're similarly also allowed to say just about anything you want about whites. White men? You can be the most obnoxious bigot there is. Part and parcel of the political correctness value system.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 05:45 PM
1

You ARE aware that if drunk sex is not consensual then that makes a drunk woman who has sex with a drunk man equally guilty of rape, yes? Or do you subscribe to the school of thought that only a man can be held accountable.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 11:07 PM
1

Sounds like another feminist urban myth to me.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 07:01 PM
2

There's a difference between pretending it never happens, acknowledging it happens but is extremely rare and the kind of hysteria about it you see that leads to things like the a caffeinated alcohol drink being banned like one "Four Loco" was recently after a recent false rape scandal.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 05:09 PM
2

Actual drugging (use of things like rohypnol) is extremely rare. The toxicology reports on claims of this almost always turns up saying the woman was simply drunk. In other words, what's usually going on is the woman gets drunk, has some consensual sex with some drunk guy and regrets it or needs an alibi.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:45 PM
3

I agree. Every man should stop signing birth certificates and also we should have mandatory paternity testing. Would fix the problem entirely.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:23 PM
0

It is possible to be self damaging, but in doing so maintaining a superior position to women. So it does make logical sense. It is not a contradiction. It is a contradiction because today's reality shows that this still isn't the case as men make up almost all of the homeless, workplace deaths and occupy most of the lower strata of society with less of the social programs that are supposed to help people in such positions available to them. Men's position and status as a whole is lower than that…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:47 AM
8

It's the problem with feminist "equality" rhetoric. It sounds great on paper to a lot of women, but few women are actually willing to put in the kind of time and effort that it takes to compete with men that even the majority of other men can't even compete with. This is why any question about ending affirmative action and/or lowered standards for women is met with hostility.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 09:59 PM
-2

This isn't the subreddit for petulant children that fling dung when they're clearly outwitted. That's over here ---> http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism
/r/MensRights12/06/11 05:45 PM
2

Maybe you should just go back to /r/anarchism where you pretend to be against "The Man" while supporting a movement that constantly demands more hand-outs and protection from the State. You can make no sense together with your downvote brigade there.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 05:36 PM
0

Well, if the boot fits. It doesn't follow from being a Scotsman that one enjoys haggis. It does follow from being a feminist, however, that one is opposed to discrimination on sexual grounds, and one is for the equal rights of men and women. Tell that to bigoted feminist politicians like Hillary Clinton or Harriet Harman. Oh, I guess they're not real feminists though. No True Feminist would do such things, after all... You denying these people and feminist organizations like the National Organiz…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 05:21 PM
2

I'm consumed by emotionality and illogical thinking? Rich. Your response to me was to call me bitter instead of actually responding to me. Why could you not attack the argument but instead chose to try to attack the person? It's because you are the illogical emotion junkie. I'm not your "son" by the way.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 05:14 PM
0

Patriarchy is the institutionalized dominance of men. Self-contradicting because the common man has never really been in a better position than the common woman in our society, and this is historical fact given how men have been exploited for labor for societies in all recorded history. The Christian God, his Son, almost every one of our historical rulers, nearly every powerful individual in our history, almost every protagonist in our folk stories, were all men. For most of Euro-American histor…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 05:05 PM
2

And I can tell by your lack of presenting anything approaching a coherent argument that you've lost. Good try at an adhom though.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 04:28 PM
-1

I've had my junk grabbed. I've had unwanted sexual advances in public. I guess they don't count though because according to the Holy Scriptures of Women's Studies, owning a penis "erects" (get it?) a force field that protects you from harm, like in Star Trek or some other kinds of science fiction.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 04:05 PM
-1

The last time some I was around some very drunk obese women. Not sure I understand this derail into the subject of rape, though. Probably plays into fanciful feminist dogma that all men are rapists (oh sorry) potential rapists, correct?
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:58 PM
1

Define this "patriarchy." I bet you can't in a way that won't contradict its own premises when compared with real historical data which will show that the common man occupied an even more abysmal position in society than did the common woman, with the common man being used as a disposable workhorse then and today for the most dangerous and criminally under-compensated occupations.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:13 PM
0

And again here we have arrived at yet another invocation of No True Scotsman. Good show.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 02:54 PM
-2

Ah yes. The undefinable, intangible, completely inexplicable "male privilege" that we just can't see (and nobody else with a shred of critical thinking can either)
/r/MensRights12/06/11 11:24 AM
-6

He's getting it from, oh, I don't know... the actions of just about every feminist politician that has ever existed.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 11:19 AM
0

Feminism is institutionalized sexism.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 11:18 AM
2

The use of "patriarchy" is a good example of this. Their definition of it is nebulous and ever-shifting to fit whatever ill-conceived argument comes out of their fevered minds.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 07:35 PM
2

Well, now that you're here.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 07:22 PM
1

The difference is that men aren't indoctrinated by a sick feminist orthodoxy to view such a thing as bad while strangely doing the thing that would cause the opposite sex to look and yell such things at you anyway. The whole "objectification" angle is bullshit. Men AND women both look and both rate each other on physical appearance.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 07:19 PM
3

That's paternity fraud. "BC Fraud" is when a woman says she's on birth control, but oops, she was lying. Usually this is called an "unplanned pregnancy" and I think you'll find quite a large percentage of pregnancies are unplanned.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:35 AM
7

Not much different from any of the many women-only establishments, is it?
/r/MensRights10/06/11 03:35 AM
5

So let me get this straight. You acknowledge you have dedicated troll accounts and then you complain about being banned for obvious trolling.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 05:21 AM
-2

Oh no. Why?
/r/MensRights09/06/11 03:09 AM
4

That thread looks more like someone who deleted their own posts after they were shown to be a complete idiot to me. Much like you, except you don't delete your posts.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 02:57 AM
3

How did you quantify that? He didn't. It's feminist dogma.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 02:38 PM
3

The only reason you don't think one barbaric form of mutilation is as bad as another is because one has been normalized in our culture. In other cultures, they think nothing of fucking with little girl's genitals, either. Why are they wrong but you right? Exactly.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 12:27 AM
1

Well, the difference is that the male chess players were accosted by a SWAT team.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 12:07 AM
0

No, not really. You see in, North Korea, citizens aren't even allowed access to thoughts and ideas outside of what the dictator wants them to see. ... but in North America, you tell men the truth about things like family court, the justice system and you run into some sort of strange resistance. That's real pervasive indoctrination. If you were to allow free exchange of thoughts and ideas in North Korea, it's highly doubtful the citizens would still cling to the shit they've been told. You are c…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 12:04 AM
-4

Yes, really. None of those examples include indoctrination so pervasive that those negatively affected just take it and in some cases come back begging for more. None of them include an entire culture which tells them that they're in the wrong if they even question the orthodoxy, and obviously none of the older examples had the kind of widespread mass-media indoctrination we've seen in the past half century.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 03:44 PM
3

Wasn't it just a couple months ago that Scott Adams was saying "stop being a whiny pussy" and now he writes something like this.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 08:11 AM
5

No group in history has been subject to such pervasive indoctrination since birth, either. A little food for thought there.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 03:50 AM
1

Man blaming for the entire issue of infidelity while barely even dropping any hints that women do it just as often. He of course wouldn't touch issues like paternity fraud with a ten foot pole.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:20 PM
4

This is when circumcisions should be done. When real problems arise. Not to babies without proven medical issues.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 08:23 AM
10

That's right. The state wants some man, any man, to pay. So they don't have to.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 03:33 AM
13

You attempted to present a horrible person's actions as not bad, and so did she just to test the double standard bullshit meter. Looks like a great success.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 02:25 AM
13

Are you mentally challenged or something? This is a case where the man isn't the father of any children at all. Yet the courts would still force this man to pay were he to find out the children are not his and want out.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 02:22 AM
14

Actually we should be able to pass judgement when what you do with your bodies ends up costing us 18+ years of labor to support your bastard children, thanks to this corrupt judicial system.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 01:49 AM
13

Ah yes, ignorance is bliss when it comes to disgusting amoral acts and scummy exploitation I see.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 01:47 AM
13

Unlike webbing between fingers, foreskin is not a birth defect. Keep trying to rationalize that cutting female genitals is barbaric but cutting male genitals is somehow not, though.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 01:07 AM
-1

There are some but unlike with the most extreme feminists being almost ubiquitously lesbians, you won't find a parallel with gay men here.
/r/MensRights05/06/11 04:45 PM
1

All of the grocery stores near me have 100% female cashiers and near 100% male physical labor stocking the shelves and unloading trucks and such and are not called Genuardi's. I doubt they'd donate for prostate cancer!
/r/MensRights05/06/11 03:55 AM
4

A man can't con you into indentured servitude by making the system force you to pay for a child that isn't even yours. It's called paternity fraud, and let me tell you this: It is biologically impossible for a man to do it.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 11:57 PM
6

As do flying purple elephants, I suppose.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 05:37 PM
4

Calling it a "double standard" is an understatement. It is quite clearly a two tiered system. Women are the aristocracy and men the peasants.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 03:25 PM
3

It works for me. Do you run noscript and block youtube.com? Or googleapis.com?
/r/MensRights04/06/11 03:17 PM
2

A precedent for this type of suit has already been set in some countries by actually having women successfully sue men like this. It'll be interesting to see if he wins.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 02:06 PM
5

You could probably be used for something useful too. Like mulch or dog food. Go troll elsewhere.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 02:04 PM
13

Watch the Swedish documentary about feminism titled "Gender War" and you can see these whackos who run the shelters in Sweden also believe in "satantic pedophile networks" and had a feminist running a shelter caught on tape sharing her delightful bigoted views about how she believes men are animals. They also hand out charming pamphlets containing bits from Valerie Solanas' SCUM manifesto. Here's a link for the first part of the documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yta55u2zP2U Predictably…
/r/MensRights04/06/11 01:57 PM
1

Nobody is disputing that. The title is what it's listed as at the article's source.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 12:44 AM
11

Attempted paternity fraud, too. Crazy.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 06:51 PM
22

When men are actually victims of crimes they're told to "stop whining." Can you imagine what the response would be if you told a real female rape victim to "stop playing the victim."
/r/MensRights01/06/11 06:49 PM
0

They sure can be as causing a commotion and having that person either flee or be captured, possibly both-- especially on a train where there's no getting off until it stops. But I guess taking steps to actually ensure you catch these people is too much to ask?
/r/MensRights01/06/11 06:37 PM
6

If a "feminist" refuses to believe demonstrable fact, then isn't the matter more pertinent in r/Feminisms? Would be if feminists didn't dominate public discourse about such things including in the mainstream media and society had not been subjected to decades of feminist indoctrination through the same media.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 05:53 AM
10

How is she not in any sort of legal trouble for forgery? Literally because she's a woman and is using her children who are products of her crime both as human shields and to emotionally manipulate a jury. Same reason no woman has ever been convicted for paternity fraud, same reason most women who have been proven to have made false rape allegations walk free.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 05:16 AM
10

It's sophistry. It's an attempt to use language to obscure what is clearly a criminal action. This woman forged a signature to steal her ex-husband stored sperm. She did not have his permission.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 05:09 AM
12

The fact that she hasn't been prosecuted for her proven act of fraud and was in fact rewarded for it by a court of law should tell you all something very profound about our society. Any lurker who is on the fence should take note here. We don't use hyperbole around here. We can't even make this stuff up.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 11:49 PM
1

Fraudulent behavior not being punished when there's a clear-cut case of fraud is not related to what I linked? My bad. I guess I'm living in bizzarro-world now.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 11:11 PM
-1

The woman at the very least committed fraud. Pretty sure they throw men in prison for that, buddy. Ahh, but not women!. Not women at all
/r/MensRights31/05/11 09:46 PM
21

Society at large refuses to accept that a non-insignificant amount of women are also pedophiles, despite things like this and female teachers being caught all of the time. This is how deeply ingrained feminist political correctness is. Feminist dogma is so entrenched in the public consciousness that they simply won't accept what they see women doing with their own eyes and try to come up with some kind of bizzarro-universe explanation or point the finger at a man.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 09:08 PM
2

Women are free to commit crimes and get away with them. Especially against men. Men would be thrown in prison for a very long time for this type of conduct.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 08:51 PM
1

It's a troll.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 08:46 PM
6

http://angryharry.com/esWhataPieceofShtisMan.htm
/r/MensRights31/05/11 02:53 AM
3

Ah so you believe it is alright to let a criminal who commits serious crimes go free simply because they happened to have children. You have no concept of justice whatsoever.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 01:55 AM
-3

This is just a wad a rationalizations for horrible policies. Furthermore, don't you think that 'speaking up' might actually put the female in greater danger? In a public setting with plenty of other strangers around, no. I would think most of them would probably try to flee when you exposed them to a crowd. You would have to be paranoid and spoonfed the most egregious of feminist women are helpless, men are unstoppable beasts that need other men with guns to drag them away dogma to believe that …
/r/MensRights30/05/11 04:03 PM
28

I don't think it should be completely banned at all. Just on those who can't consent--babies and small children. If the Jewish want to cut up their dicks when they come of age, then they can go right ahead and knock themselves out. All of these bad arguments from the religious useful idiots of the profiteers who want circumcision to continue are of course inevitable.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 03:24 PM
2

No, it really doesn't make sense. How about dealing with them on a case by case basis instead of trying to implement hateful policies that treat about one half of the population as criminals. Could be good. Makes sense I guess? Let me ask you: What exactly did you do when this Spanish guy groped you. Were you in the presence of other people? If so, did you make a scene? You should have. You should out the people who actually do these things rather than treat the rest of us as criminals by defaul…
/r/MensRights30/05/11 03:20 PM
4

The original post in the comment thread was about how the majority are not like this when clearly they statistically are. Non-sequitur.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 01:58 PM
5

Non-sequitur.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 01:50 PM
-2

Justifying discrimination with this all men are potential criminals feminist dogma. Aces.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 01:47 PM
1

Here's what I'm seeing here: "At least we let you in the back of the bus, nigger."
/r/MensRights30/05/11 01:46 PM
3

I think you're missing the obvious here: The criminal justice system is so corrupt, panders to women so much that it is now rewarding women commit all sorts of fraud.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 10:43 AM
8

Divorce stats say you're actually the minority if you're not constantly looking to "upgrade".
/r/MensRights30/05/11 05:17 AM
4

I see, using the children as human shields to avoid any responsibility for crimes committed. Classy.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 04:58 AM
8

This is the real reason you see so much propaganda championing it. The religious are useful idiots to the profiteers.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 12:11 AM
3

How so. The real issues are the lack of consistency within a country on the specifics of the laws and of course the fact that men have the book thrown at them for violating while women are let off with a slap on the wrist for violating.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 12:03 AM
8

That is exactly what they want. Hence the mantra that "a woman must always be believed."
/r/MensRights29/05/11 11:38 PM
4

Almost 3/4 are initiated by women, actually. It's just not worth it.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 07:31 PM
18

Yes, I'm fairly sure I know the law well enough to make that statement. I challenge you to find a current law in the western world which would do something to a woman equivalent to what has been done in this case to this man who was ordered to pay 100,000 British Pounds to a woman who forged a fucking signature to steal his sperm from a sperm bank. I challenge you to find this.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 07:20 PM
10

It actually doesn't because there are literally no laws that apply to women in the way they do men in cases like this.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 07:12 PM
4

The law unfortunately says they are all like that. THE LAW. You would be a fool to give anyone that much power over your life.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 06:52 PM
2

The only feminist blog I've ever seen that appears to allow anyone to post anything that doesn't fit with the feminist narrative is one that is being deceptive and trying to not appear feminist, while strangely allowing feminist ideologues to post articles. That is, goodmenproject, or you can just call it gimp.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 05:15 PM
3

The difference: Courts likely won't appropriate most everything they've worked for and give it to a man.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 05:07 PM
3

I don't know if these men were innocent or guilty. But you do know that there was no evidence and that this could just be another lynch mob reaction.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 05:05 PM
16

Does anyone else see the blatant overuse of "mental issues" excuses every time a woman is found to have committed a crime?
/r/MensRights28/05/11 12:27 AM
2

Do you think a judge would similarly chastise a legitimately raped woman because she put herself in a situation that was high risk? I don't think so.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 11:03 PM
9

No because there is demonstratable evidence otherwise for said groups. There is no such evidence that feminists outside of the Internet cries of not all feminists are like that actually do anything other than what's been well-documented. Good strawman attempt though.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 10:00 PM
8

A movement is defined by what the people in it actually do. Not a dictionary definition nor whatever fanciful personal beliefs you might hold.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 08:24 PM
13

This post pops up every single time to exclaim that, like, not all feminists are like that, maaaaan. Why then are all of the feminists who have any kind of power at all like that, then? Why then do we see no feminists really speaking out against them when they try to enact things like the infamous Sweden Man Tax proposal. Why does this bullshit absolutely pervade feminist academia. Exactly. The silence is deafening.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 07:56 PM
27

Feminists are by and large totalitarians that cannot stand dissent. The only real reason to censor dissent is when you know that you're wrong and your propaganda is laid low by that dissent. You see it here on reddit, you see it in feminist blogs, you see it in real life where those who were going to present the information about domestic violence parity were threatened with bombing and where Erin Pizzey, the founder of domestic violence shelters was given death threats for being "impudent" enou…
/r/MensRights27/05/11 06:29 PM
2

No, because they are increasingly becoming not worth the paper they are written on due to being simply tossed out and ignored. Many lawyers won't even write them anymore.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 08:32 PM
8

Hasn't happened to me and never will. Seen it happen to too many guys growing up and know how the system works and treats men. I will never agree to marry with things as they are. It's not that I don't trust women, it's that I don't trust anyone with that much power of my life and I certainly don't trust a system that enables and rewards that kind of abuse.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 08:48 AM
4

Well you see, they made her do it. Like those over-the-top crazy people who say that someone made them do something or another else. Personal responsibility? Not in my courthouse.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 07:19 PM
1

Which is funny because, especially in the UK, Satoshi Kanazawa himself is a minority. He's an asian man.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 05:44 PM
4

I guess that means that feminists should all be facing dire consequences any day now for all of the shit they've written about men. Any day now. Oh, you approve of those things and simply want to silence this guy because you don't agree with him? Hello, fascist jr.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 05:43 PM
7

Yes, they get paid less because, are you ready for this? ... they work less hours. If you could really get away with paying women who work the same job with the same seniority as a man less for the same hours worked and same quality of work, no one would ever hire men. Why would they? The lower labor costs would help them have an edge on their competitors and make more money. Bring this up and a feminist will either go into "patriarchy" conspiracy theory nut mode where they claim that women are …
/r/MensRights25/05/11 07:27 AM
5

Regardless of whether he did or not, it's not criminal to look at someone.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 07:16 AM
3

It's funny because you spend so much time and effort making these shitty posts all over the place.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 07:14 AM
1

The 4th wave is the feminist establishment regime and all of the corrupt money-sucking industries that have been built up attempting to keep its power base and silence dissent. Basically it's right now.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:57 AM
3

Yes, the poor sucker who got hit with paternity fraud is the legal father. I'd be interested to know if this woman was double-dipping, taking money from both of them.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:52 AM
0

Really? I suggest you take a look at just about every US President in the past sixty years or so since televised mass media took off. Notice something? I think you will. Here's a hint: How many of them are short?
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:07 AM
14

That is exactly what it is. These articles have been increasing in frequency and will continue to do so while more and more men, especially of my generation and younger when they come of age will continue to see marriage for the fraud it's become.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:05 AM
0

No because unlike feminists we don't lie through our teeth and say that we're doing anything for women. You know, like feminists who often come here do. Like feminists who claim that the solution to our problems, mostly created BY feminism, is somehow "more feminism."
/r/MensRights25/05/11 12:11 AM
1

From what I've experienced, it's easier for a male to get by without fitting "beauty standards" because there's often a focus on other areas. Easier how? Not only are men judged on weight and facial beauty but also height.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 12:10 AM
22

This is of course to say nothing of the number of botched surgeries that don't result in death. There's really no good reason to circumcise baby boys at all.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:25 PM
9

It elevates the masculine to the detriment of the feminine. Our current system seems to be doing quite the opposite for about 99% of men. Care to explain how we live with "the patriarchy" there? Let me guess: It will involve extreme solipsism where you say something incredibly ignorant about the top strata of society a higher percentage of men than women while ignoring everything below that.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:10 PM
13

Circular reasoning and self-referencing garbage. This is patriarchy theory for you.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:06 PM
2

Don't you know? It only counts when a man is the one who does something bad. A man's emotional trauma because he say, found out his wife was screwing around on him and that his child isn't really his doesn't matter and he still has to pay and live a life a shitty apartment while most of his money goes towards the woman. Judgements like this make this crystal clear that marriage is completely foolish for any man. I've seen countless examples growing up of where the man was wronged, but the man st…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:02 PM
10

So many contradictions, I don't know where to start. First, patriarchy is elevating men to the detriment of women, but then it's "patriarchy hurts men too" when women are the beneficiaries of this whackjob conspiracy theory. You have tapioca for brains. No amount of mental gymnastics will make "the patriarchy" make any kind of sense.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 10:53 PM
14

It never should have been brought to court in the first place, idiot.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 07:36 PM
35

You're seriously trying to justify criminal charges for looking at someone. What is wrong with you.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 05:45 PM
7

See also: Greer and the creepy book she wrote about boys.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 10:19 PM
3

The bottom line is that just about every woman who has entered the workplace has experienced sexual harassment, but the women who report it face retribution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY In this manner, no doubt. It's a great moment in history. Poor women are empowered to fight against lecherous men, and rich women can finally come out of the sexual harassment closet because of it. Yes, a great moment in history indeed. Make it even easier to ruin a man's life on unfounded charges.…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 09:40 PM
5

You see, they believe it's somehow different when a woman does it. This is literally how most women now think when committing crimes. They believe they're entitled to not be held to the same standards as men, and unfortunately the legal system is actually going along with it.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 11:40 AM
1

There are a lot of men in that position indeed. The labs report around a full 1/3rd of their tests results come back saying the man is not the father. Experts say at least 10% of the general population, and some claim closer to 20%. Then there is of course the fact that the current human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 06:40 AM
2

Actually it's even more ludicrous that he's given a pass by women even after what he did/may have done because of the fact that he's highly attractive to them, but then they use the examples of actions of men like him as a bludgeon to beat down the common man who haven't done any of that don't enjoy his position in life.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 01:29 AM
0

It sounds like a feminist shill appropriation attempt and/or a bunch of fools who've internalized feminist dogma like "patriarchy."
/r/MensRights22/05/11 11:40 PM
6

Yes, it's very common to attempt to deflect or dismiss men's rights issues as "whining." This is either because of ingrained cultural expectations that men shoulder all sorts of injustice and plain ol' bullshit that women simply don't have to put up with, or because the person in question is a feminist and simply can't honestly address what is being said.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 10:06 PM
8

Great, another troll trying to say we're "just whiners."
/r/MensRights22/05/11 08:11 PM
9

Yes, because the short form of the lives of less than 0.1% of all men of their time makes it a "mens studies class". Solipsism and hypergamy, exhibit A.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 11:30 AM
1

The difference between bad men and bad women is that our society and legal system actually holds bad men accountable for their actions, while it enables and even rewards bad women.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:45 PM
1

I don't think you understand what the term "useful idiot" means. Basically by coming here and saying "Not All Feminists Are Like That!" you are being a useful idiot for the feminist majority that see nothing wrong with removing men's due process, see nothing wrong with "Take back the night" and treating all men as "potential rapists." Let me use an analogy here for you. Circumcision is BIG money. The fibroblasts from a single foreskin can generate something like a hundred thousand dollars. To th…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:35 PM
5

Guess they didn't get the memo that outed trolls like Cliffor are actually feminists and women.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 08:58 PM
11

I wouldn't doubt it. The "best interests of the child" mantra is used to justify some seriously bogus bullshit.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 08:57 PM
1

Your post is what we refer to as a Not All Femnists Are Like That! post. The feminists I am talking about are your "everyfeminist" if you will. Just about all of them. In fact, the only ones I see saying they aren't like this show up here to say they aren't like that and then... disappear, never to be heard from again outside of being useful idiots. The silence with each new piece of anti-male legislation is deafening. Yes, I am talking about all of the feminists who actually do things and say t…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 08:53 PM
1

Men basically told early feminists to go fuck themselves when they wanted to vote and get paid decent wages. ... I think you need to crack open those history books and see large amounts of male supporters of both of these. By the way, I bet you didn't know the common man only received the vote mere years before women, and that it came at a terrible price. Here's a hint: it rhymes with raft. Men basically caved and said "yes, dear." Not at all like these feminists who want to remove due process r…
/r/MensRights18/05/11 05:24 PM
4

In reality, though, we need to be positioned as fighters alongside feminists, alongside gay rights advocates, alongside anyone who's fighting for equality for a marginalized position. We need to look at their battles as our own, and give the ground needed to gain the ground we want. Feminists basically told early MRAs to go fuck themselves when presented with these issues, many of which they caused. There's no "fighting alongside feminists." They continue to deny these issues as best they can to…
/r/MensRights18/05/11 05:13 PM
4

More PC bullying and fascism.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 04:52 PM
1

With an orgy of 5 girls? Good luck finding a case like that. There are however plenty of cases where it came out that a male defendant had sex with just one girl and are "facing a minimum of X years" -- usually around 10.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 04:48 PM
3

Not any different from female teachers then.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 04:46 PM
1

That men do. Also that men and ONLY men are subject to all of these penalties if they don't sign up for it.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 07:03 AM
1

I'm terrified that even raising awareness to some of these issues, specifically false-rape, might not actually help the problem, but rather worsen it by giving girls ideas. It may give some women the idea, sure... but the more men that know about the issues and that yes, IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU, the more men will begin to push back against these issues.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 08:49 AM
1

Looks like another man bad, woman good piece where they reference a Chris Rock comedy for the side portraying men. Excellent.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 02:35 AM
2

Yeah, that's fucked up.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 12:53 AM
3

Dude must have a big house.
/r/MensRights14/05/11 01:19 AM
8

You're right that it has nothing to do with feminism. It became popular because it was an ancient way of controlling male sexuality. When religions were born and civilizations were in the early stages I assume that some mystical mumbo-jumbo was attached to keep people from questioning it. I mean, cutting off part of your dick? What kind of civilized behavior is that. Today it is pushed by those who profit from it. The products and services made from foreskins are big money.
/r/MensRights14/05/11 12:32 AM
1

And you know what, what's so wrong about striving for a better world and holding people to a higher standard? That leads to progress, as opposed to the regress that happens when people being terrible is what is expected. That is what the criminal justice system is supposed to be for. No amount of demagoguery in the form of things like yelling into a bullhorn at "Take back the night" rallies where you shout at young men among who exactly zero don't already know rape is illegal and a number close …
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:56 PM
1

And that's the problem. Instead of telling people 'don't steel' we are telling them 'don't be a victim of theft'. It does not matter how open or unlocked your front door is, it still does not excuse the actions of someone steeling from you. You did not make the conscious decision to have things taken from you, they did. Are you fucking kidding me. Just about anyone who mugs or rapes knows it's something you aren't supposed to do. They know it's illegal. Those who do these things simply don't car…
/r/MensRights13/05/11 04:18 PM
7

So in other words you think it's perfectly fine because it's been so normalized in our culture and have no real rhyme or reason to keep cutting baby boy's dicks up.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 03:22 PM
16

False rape claims, paternity fraud, sentencing disparity, and family court bias are a few which are far more pressing.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 05:04 AM
0

Is it really? Take the Rwanda genocide for example. It's called a "genocide" for a reason. Guess who cried about rape occurrences there? Feminists. Guess who didn't care about the enormous amount of men killed? Same people. FAKE EDIT: Take your snide comments back to /r/feminisms.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 11:17 PM
1

What if she does go to jail? You must be joking. Not with our biased legal system.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 03:48 AM
1

Amazing cognitive dissonance. First feminists demand the same pay as men, same right to the same jobs as men but now don't want to work the same amount as men to get the same rewards as men.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 05:48 AM
2

Broken link. http://www.thelocal.se/33698/20110510/ Here's a working one.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 05:38 AM
1

Yes, the thing most miss about these killings for infidelity is that they also kill men, too. A lot of these horrible third world issues are brought up to be one-sided and affect women only, but... it's not so.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 04:39 AM
3

The female sentencing discount is well-documented.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 12:54 AM
6

How about this: I don't want to be forced into one in the first place.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 06:04 PM
1

Feminists actually think that women are less than men with their constant demands for affirmative action.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:32 AM
0

I don't take enjoyment out of denying the existence of rape. I guess some do. . . Enjoy. I see, so you conflate disbelieving the inflated lie statistics and hysterics of feminists and the rent-seeking scum who make money off of falsifying statistics with... not believing rape exists. You're literally putting words in my mouth saying I don't believe rape happens, when really I've said I don't believe it happens anywhere near as often as ideologues like yourself claim. Wonderful. You should go bac…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 08:44 PM
6

I see, so only certain value judgements are valid. Which ones? Why, the ones you approve of, of course. The ones you don't approve of? Well that makes the other person horrible for daring to judge on those qualities.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 08:34 PM
0

Oh no I read it, I can't just take reporting in an impoverished country that actually gives cash rewards for rape reports regardless of their veracity seriously. I bet some Mary Koss-like antics are at play there. But... it's not just Christina Hoff Sommers who's debunked the rape hysteria lies promulgated by the sexual grievance industry. If you had actually read my link instead of skimmed over it (What's that? Reading? That's for chumps right?) you would have seen this. http://communityvoices.…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 07:16 PM
1

I found this out using my psychic powers and feminism. Trust me, dawg.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 05:13 AM
1

It keeps appearing? Well it's a month old, so I'll just repost it. Sure, I'll delete it. In response to "Kaluthir" above, here was the message. MRAs would be (rightfully) pissed off if a man gave consent under the condition that the woman was using birth control, and the woman still had sex knowing she hadn't taken the pill. I don't see how that's any different. And yet no one would consider this rape, would they. They would consider it grounds for a man to pony up 18 years of child support. For…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 05:12 AM
1

Well I'd like to see actual evidence that rape is as common as sexual grievance industry shills and people like you would have me believe, but I don't think you're going to produce that. I'd also like to see evidence that any country in which rape hysteria takes place is somehow a country that, and I quote "provides few to no rights to women." Somehow I don't think you're going to produce that evidence, either, since every country that participates in rape hysteria has not only given women every…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 05:08 AM
5

It's also difficult to imagine the two coming together, but when it comes into trying to nag, manipulate and even force men into doing what you want them to do I guess they can put aside those ideological differences.
/r/MensRights07/05/11 11:28 PM
1

I read it all.
/r/MensRights07/05/11 10:55 PM
1

It's sort of hyperbole. Sort of. I've personally seen claims of up to 90%. But, even with the 90% claim the math still doesn't add up to the other claims that 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 will be raped, so it'd have to be something like 99% or more to even come close. When you present proof that even with a completely unbelievable figure like "90% of rapes are unreported" that the numbers still don't add up, some of these drones will claim the underreporting is higher still while the rest will fall strangel…
/r/MensRights07/05/11 05:12 AM
2

Probably the same scrap heap of made-up junk that the 99% underreported idea comes from.
/r/MensRights07/05/11 05:00 AM
7

So you think that it is just that: When a grown man is caught having sex with a girl below the age of consent, he has the book thrown at him and gets several years and put on a sex offender registry. BUT... When a grown woman is caught having sex with a boy below the age of consent, she gets a slap on the wrist. And you think that there's no double standard there?
/r/MensRights07/05/11 02:16 AM
6

The SEALS inside Abbotabad did what they had to do as it happened. That's what they are trained to do. Someone attacks them, they retailiate until the attacker is dead. Well I would agree if they were being attacked, but supposedly almost every single man they killed was unarmed.
/r/MensRights06/05/11 04:59 AM
0

This hormones excuse has even been used as defense to criminal actions, so I'd say this is a pretty valid post that AnnArchist made.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 10:01 PM
4

But Sweden is the very country in which feminists tried to pass a man tax and in which a very prominent figurehead of the domestic violence industry was caught on tape in a documentary sharing her bigoted belief that "men are animals."
/r/MensRights05/05/11 07:38 AM
4

Really? The mere suggestion that due process should be observed and neither the accuser nor the accused should be believed by default usually ends with shrill hysterics and someone calling me a "rape apologist." The very idea that a woman could lie about it is anathema to them. I am very interested in meeting these fantasy land feminists you speak of. They certainly don't sound like the everyday ones that hold public office, teach at colleges and universities and try to pass (and sometimes succe…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 06:22 AM
2

Women avoid those jobs like a plague. They're almost entirely male populated no matter the culture and you will never see anyone clamoring for any quotas in them.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 06:11 AM
2

I don't think it's so much of willingness of the genders, but in their culture women just 'shouldn't be' working the jobs the men are working. I wouldn't be so sure. In our culture, the bulk of what makes up the so-called "wage gap" is the willingness of men to work more hours than women.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 05:58 AM
5

As an example: We want due process when someone is accused of a crime, feminists want to remove due process because of the dogmatic belief that women wouldn't lie about things like rape, so why bother with the whole weighing of the evidence bit-- just throw the "criminal" away, because after all women don't lie about these things. Oh yes, I can see how this all down to a case of mere semantics.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 01:59 AM
3

It seems you only hate them because their existence and the common reasons they are made (which are nothing of the sort of outlandish scenario you presented here) not only utterly demolish the feminist women-as-eternal-victim of society/"The Patriarchy"/etc. narrative, but also invalidate feminist theory which is built on a house of cards so shaky that one little bit of reality will blow it down.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 11:47 PM
3

India is simply becoming like every other impoverished country that first world county multinational corporations have outsourced shit to. They need workhorses (that is, men) to slave away for the corporate interests of the outsourcers. So they value boys more because men are far more willing to work long hours and produce more. It's an issue rooted in the kind of slash and burn capitalism that's causing our current economic problems.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 11:04 PM
8

Oh yeah, let's let ol' Charlie Manson out too. I mean, he's done his time, right? He's not like he was when he was thrown in at all. Everyone deserves a second chance after all. Wake the fuck up out whatever utopian dream you're in.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 07:57 PM
1

Would this have even made it into a courtroom were the sexes reversed.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 03:46 PM
3

It's mostly in the details. Zero accountability for where or how the money is spent. The women generally spend it on themselves. In most jurisdictions, no cap on the amount that has to be paid. (I think some US states like Texas have actual caps.) Example: Do you really think that Charlie Sheen's ex-wife needs US$55,000 a month for child support? That's more than the average household's yearly net income! The bogus slogan of "Best interests of the child" used to justify involuntary servitude in …
/r/MensRights04/05/11 08:53 AM
1

I'm pretty sure almost everyone will agree that fucking around on someone is a really shitty thing to do. I wouldn't call that "subjective morality." As for whether he should? If it's a friend of his that she's running around on, yes. If it's not a friend of his, it doesn't really matter does it. He can do it for shits and giggles if he feels like it.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 12:06 AM
3

No and if there were you'd likely see a bunch of MSM feminsit "journalists" panning it.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 05:23 PM
3

I can't help but notice the blatant sexual trade unionism from these women who in their youth benefited from the very arrangements they now condemn.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 02:50 PM
11

And earlier this year, a poll by DontDateHimGirl.com Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this that slander site that lets any woman post anything they want about any man. Quite the source.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 02:32 PM
3

So what exactly isn't creepy to this cyber lyncher? Traditional romance is creepy!... but then so is hookup culture as is evidence by her persecution of the innocent Duke lacrosse players. Somehow I don't think anything a man could do could make a feminist like this happy.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 02:26 PM
0

Healing what exactly...? The number of actual rape victims in colleges is quite small, and how does a bunch of demagoguery in the form of taking a proverbial heaping shit all over a bunch of young men of which a number close to zero will ever rape anyone help "heal" anything? Not sure I follow here.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 05:58 AM
1

Can you take your trolling elsewhere? If you are seriously that afraid of men in general then might I suggest therapy for your inculcated fear via feminist indoctrination? The 2009 US rape rate is 29 per 100,000. You're more likely to die in a car crash. Do you hesitate to use automobiles for transportation?
/r/MensRights02/05/11 11:03 PM
1

They already get punishments often worse than what they would have gotten if they had actually murdered someone. The point the officer made before a bunch of emotion junkies burst into histrionics and did a "slut walk" is that there's certain risky behaviors that should be avoided, like walking through a dangerous neighborhood alone at 3AM, or going to a party with a bunch of strangers dressing like a streetwalker and then getting smashed drunk.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 10:56 PM
1

If rapists were all about going after the easiest targets to "exert power/dominance" over them, they'd be going after the very young and the very old almost exclusively. Not those in their physical prime that are most likely to be able to put up a fight.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 10:33 PM
4

Here's something that bothers me: How can you be for anarchy and feminism at the same time? They're pretty much direct opposites. Feminism demands government handouts and preferential treatment to be doled out by the government. It uses the state to enforce its will. Not very anarchy-like...
/r/MensRights02/05/11 10:24 PM
2

The problem is of course that defending yourself physically and sometimes even verbally and putting your foot down in anyway is becoming criminal and classed as "domestic violence". Yes, that's right. Proposed policy and laws changes will make standing up to an abuser if you are male "domestic violence." Won't give her money to burn because she's financially ruining you as-is with her out of control spending? Get in the clink with Bubba.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 10:07 PM
4

No you certainly did not. If you had proved that removal of the entire clitoris is functionally equivalent to the removal of the foreskin, I would still be shocked even today, I'd have walked around for the past however-many weeks with my mouth hanging open. I see, the good old run-around. I don't remember the conversation! Please go dredge up the info for me again including tests done on women who were circumsized, because I'm a lazy turd! This seems to be a very common thread whenever you pop …
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:53 PM
4

Or that there's a difference between removal of the foreskin and either a clitorectomy (more equatable to removal of the glans of the penis) Actually there isn't and I proved this to you last time this was discussed. It has the same sexual effects that circumcision does on men. Yet one is illegal, and the other not. Hmm... I've responded before, but I'll do so again (and give you the benefit of the doubt that you'll listen to the actual points, and not just immediately go to your happy place of …
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:35 PM
1

If it's so worthless, you can easily respond to it. I did. It's a bunch of quotes with zero context. That is literally what you posted. The whole thing was a non-sequitur. How either party can end a marriage without having to prove anything other than "I want out"? God, how awful that both men and women have that right. Typical feminist stance on this subject I see. You assume I care about the woman leaving the marriage. I don't. Sure, they can end the marriage. Nobody deserves the house, custod…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:28 PM
1

You have to prove that discrimination, is the point, and questioning the validity of the dogma that "it just is" either doesn't make me a troll, or makes you as bad as the feminists you decry. Or I would be as bad as the feminists I decried if feminist "theory" hadn't been exposed for the hateful bigoted trash it is where it claims men have some sort of innate inexplicable advantage and feminist lobbying groups weren't the ones constantly putting pressure to keep the status quo as-is and in some…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:15 PM
1

Not only is the state of primary and secondary education discriminatory against boys, but so is the continuance of affirmative action programs for women in postsecondary education despite the fact that women now make up over 60% of all postsecondary students.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 09:02 PM
1

Call me a genocidal maniac again, that at least has a nice ring to it. I did? Link me to my post, please. Thank you. Out of curiosity, how do you accuse someone of "cherry-picking", and use that as a proof of incorrectness, and then only respond to two paragraphs from what was a rather lengthy post? The rest of your post was contextless garbage? Could be why. Furthermore, you missed my point. Proof of the injustice of the legal system is proved (for both sides) by the seeming disparity of result…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:58 PM
4

Here is an idea; Don't allow parents to circumcise their baby boys at all unless it's actually life-threatening. Let the lad make the choice himself as to whether he wants his wang mutilated. I suppose you'll take offense at my calling it mutilation though, even though you and I have had conversations on this very topic in the past where you had no qualms calling female circumcision mutilation. Goes to show bias on your part. The benefits of circumcision have never hinged upon the HIV studies in…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:48 PM
3

USA #!! USA #1! USA #1! For the record, the number of dead female soldiers is very tiny, especially when you take into consideration the percentage of the US military is that female. That is because they are not used as cannon fodder for a corporate-interests war.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:32 PM
6

Of course he does. He also knows how to crack a smile when saying "You are NOT the father!" but then go into full pandering mode for the women shredding crocodile tears in order to help his business.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:30 PM
3

A bunch of contextless cherry-picked quotes? You can do better than that. For the record though, you do have a storied history of trolling here. Anyone who reads your posting history can confirm it. I don't have a link to this, but think about our reactions to female teachers sleeping with male students, and getting relatively light sentences. Think about our reaction all those months ago to a study which "proved" that women get lighter sentences (even though they also had fewer prior conviction…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:27 PM
2

I hesitate to count this again, since it's just a rehash of the same begging the question as above, but since his entire point is less "here, let me actually refute the logic" and instead "we all know their logic fails, so I don't need to address any substantive points". Ironically, attacking the source, rather than the substance, is part and parcel of what he's saying feminists do. Pots, kettles? Both are black, right? Maybe you can read his other articles which are part of the series in which …
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:12 PM
2

Feminist education has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One needs look no further than the recent SaVE act and all of the politically correct thought policing that has been taken place for decades where those who don't walk lock-step with feminist orthodoxy are bullied into resigning. Hypergamy is a bit more shaky as it has roots in evolutionary biology and psychology, but it still stands head and shoulders above any kind of feminist theory. Not sure what you refer to by "The Contract," th…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 07:56 PM
0

You're a strawmanning turd who attempts to misrepresent everyone you disagree with. Those who have to pay or be violently forced into debtors prison by the hand of the state are every bit as much enslaved as those who were 150 years ago. Don't try to say "our" cause because you clearly aren't on the same page as people who care about justice.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 06:40 PM
0

Take your PC bullshit elsewhere. I suggest you look up the definition of the word. The millions upon millions of men who are proven to not be the father and still have to pay are in fact slaves of the system. Involuntary servitude IS slavery.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 06:26 PM
10

And who knows if they're even his.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 06:24 PM
2

Well then he would have to include civilian males in that count, too, which are almost always still higher. You can reference any number of somewhat recent incidents for proof of this this, like the Yugoslav wars, and the Rwanda genocide. Including civilian deaths is a red herring argument here anyway. The point is that women are not contributing equally when it comes to actually being the active participants in war. They often have lowered standards and never even have to see real combat even, …
/r/MensRights02/05/11 04:48 PM
2

A lot of feminist appropriator shills downvoting Paul's comments here.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 04:23 PM
3

This is all old hat to me and most guys who've studied these things. You can scarcely look into the paternity fraud issue without being exposed to these facts. Reproductive strategies can be simplified into two primary strategies for males and two for females: males often either engage in sperm competition or physical competition while females strategize to get resources from males, or to find the best male genes for the offspring. As you can see, the whole paternity fraud/cuckolding thing is an…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 03:25 PM
1

I would certainly hope not for the sake of the astute student of life who actually would read up on the scam that is marriage today.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 03:13 PM
9

More accurately because Title IX never was about creating opportunities for women. If it was then it wouldn't cut men's programs off at all, it would simply offer equal funding for women's programs. But women aren't as interested in sports as are men. So instead of doing an experiment to see if you change this by, say, getting a lot of little girls in elementary school into sports (this makes too much sense), feminists created another bludgeon of sex-apartheid to beat men with and called it Titl…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 02:47 PM
0

We don't seem to live in a real democracy at all. The civil war was sparked by the injustice of slavery-- something which is unarguably back in the form of involuntary servitude for men who are victims of paternity fraud being forced to pay, and they number in the millions. And that's just one of the massive injustices being committed on a daily basis by those who run the show.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 02:41 PM
1

Actually, I do study history. And I've taken plenty of classes on this and similar subjects. No the 'founding fathers' were not enlightened thinkers. They were slave-owning opportunists. They were very good at serving their own interests, and extremely hypocritical. Of course what they did at the time was a step in the right direction from the imperialistic European states governance. But it was in no way what we should refer to as enlightened in the twenty-first century. How very PC of you. If …
/r/MensRights02/05/11 03:14 AM
0

You see, I unlike you am a student of history. As was JFK, and as were the men who wrote the US Constitution. They understood that the people will only stand for so much tyranny. If the powers that be will not acquiesce and fix the problems they created and sustain after peaceful demonstration and protest, well then then they must be ousted by any means necessary by the people. As I said, those who wrote the US constitution were very clear about this. They were students of history as well. I'm n…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 02:27 AM
15

You would do well to read and comprehend all of this as well: http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/viewArticle/jphia.2011.e4/html_9 ... and find that there is no actual benefit to circumcision. This is why circumcision is pushed with such heavy propaganda despite a lack of any provable benefits: $$$ http://www.drmomma.org/2009/10/foreskins-in-oprahs-facecream.html A Doctor may try to fast talk a new parent into doing it so that s/he can get a small amount of money as part …
/r/MensRights02/05/11 02:20 AM
2

You think I'm a tinfoil hat and advocating for violent revolution. Seems you learned how to read and communicate and at Emotion Junkie U. How about you read and comprehend.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 09:48 PM
2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/24/ireland-imf-women-income-tax-cut-inequality Here you are. Notice the feminist columnist doesn't think that it's sexist at all.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 07:51 PM
3

This reads like some pop-positivism bullshit out of book by a self-proclaimed "self-help guru." Hard work alone doesn't change the power structure and hierarchy that perpetuates these problems. You seem to not grasp that it is those who have all of the resources, those who have all of the funding, those who have all of the power that are currently pushing all of the disinformation, all of the anti-male legislation, and creating most of the problems we talk about here. Or it's possible that you a…
/r/MensRights01/05/11 07:19 PM
3

This is real talk from guys that weren't born into money. I can relate.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 07:05 PM
1

What about it? It's almost entirely people trying to get famous and make money out of it. Some have.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 06:46 PM
2

Nobody cares about attention from anonymous Internet people.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 06:32 PM
1

It is this very "niiiice" attitude combined with treating female criminals with the kid gloves that allows things like this to progress this far. What we have here is a woman with a taste for teenage boys who fakes pregnancies and sends death threats. And she did it multiple times before being finally arrested! Do you think a man would have been able to get away with having sex with teenage girls, having their parents complain to authorities about it, threatening the family and not be thrown in …
/r/MensRights01/05/11 06:25 PM
10

Let me wave my magic wand and make poverty, joblessness, corporate exploitation and all of the other socioeconomic ills that are created by and large by the greedy elites of society go away. The point is that propaganda is being exposed here.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 02:30 PM
5

There are exceptions to every rule. If you look into it, you'll find the overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated against the young and attractive. Why would that be? It's primarily about sex.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 02:19 PM
5

I would certainly hope one of the most respected educational institutions in the US would stand up for due process rather than be cowed by a cabal of zealous man-haters looking for yet another way to strip men of rights.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 12:07 PM
1

There are two sides to a story and all but the only thing I can deduce from his story is that he either ignored her and she was upset about it (crazy bitch) or he didn't meet her lofty standards and she felt his mere presence offended her and justified what she did (even crazier). Either way, it doesn't really warrant hitting a guy in the nuts.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 12:05 PM
2

Here are my thoughts: Why is it that the ones who screech loudest about rape are the ones least likely to ever be raped.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 06:31 AM
4

Yes, that was it. And if I'm not mistaken, Ireland had a variation on it suggested recently as well where they were going to make women pay less taxes, their reasoning being that "women spend more money and this helps the economy" basically, although a lot of the money women spend happens to be men's money as well.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 05:09 AM
4

This is a pretty good gimmick but it's a one-trick pony really.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 01:19 AM
8

Did any guy subject you to the dreaded "male gaze"? You could be up to 5 times so far and not even know it.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 11:27 PM
2

Well, he shouldn't really be getting any hate for this. the rights of man is one of the better MRM blogs that almost exclusively reports on things that are actually happening. I have it bookmarked.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 09:52 PM
5

This is of course what will happen when feminists are allowed to run with whackjob theories and affirmative action. Now "equality" means all female. Now "equality" means things like the proposed (and thankfully defeated) man tax.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 09:49 PM
2

Agreed. Upvote.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 09:44 PM
5

Volunteering in a soup kitchen to feed homeless men or any other kind of actual volunteer work I can do that would help men won't help create the kind of change I stand for. That is simply a treatment of the symptoms of the problem, not the cause.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 09:18 PM
5

And you sound like a patronizing douchebag with pie in the sky delusions. There are few to no organizations that help boys and men and as we have seen with domestic violence shelters, getting funding for them is next to impossible. So I will do what I, a mere common man without great means, CAN do. This is the reality on the ground. Deal with it.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 08:46 PM
12

The difference is that almost nobody cares about low-status males, yes. They will rationalize their dehumanization of mistreated, marginalized or ignored low-status males. You see this in primates as well; do you think that in chimp hierarchy that there is much care for the beta males? Of course not. This is one of the many parts of biological imperative/programming that simply hasn't been discarded yet. We are still far from out of the jungle in regards to actually having civilized behavior.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 08:24 PM
6

You ARE Cliffor. Anyone can confirm this by the in the first person posts you made a few pages back on your posting history. Interesting that you're a mod of twox as well. Edit: Actually it looks like another sockpuppet sub you setup. How much time do you spend on this shit, Cliffor?
/r/MensRights30/04/11 08:19 PM
1

I suppose you would characterize it as selfish, Cliffor. After all it would deprive you of the monetary value of the modern-day slave of the system.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 08:14 PM
4

I am doing exactly what I should be doing for men's rights. Stirring shit up by raising awareness. Helping to create a critical mass of men who are armed with the facts and truth of this matter. I dispel feminist indoctrination and misinformation wherever I can. I talk to as many as I can in real life as well. The efforts of myself and those like me are obviously not going unnoticed as feminists are increasingly having to acknowledge the issues and of course are trying desperately to discredit u…
/r/MensRights30/04/11 07:46 PM
2

No, he's saying that they don't actually have to kill someone anymore. Many female psychopaths who would kill a man they claim to love can just use the extremely biased family court system now to achieve basically the same result; ruining the man's life. This has been possible since no fault divorce went in, but in 1975 the feminist infiltration and subversion of the legal system was not as complete as in recent years. They didn't "train" judges to uncritically accept feminist dogma and then put…
/r/MensRights30/04/11 06:56 PM
1

Basically this.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 06:09 PM
6

I can't seem to find anything about her actually going to prison for it so I assume this is another one of those injustice by fiat cases. It seems the government was ready to let her go because, get this: The only witness was dead. Due to what she did, of course, and was proven to have done. Here in Canada we have many cases like this. Woman kills children, point finger at man who didn't have custody because of biased family court system. Canada is one of the most feminist indoctrinated countrie…
/r/MensRights30/04/11 06:00 PM
5

How so. This is one of those manhood101.com guys that aren't even MRAs and just spam links all over the Internet. Good strawman though.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 05:44 PM
22

Yes, male suicide is a huge problem, with men killing themselves 4 to 5 times as often as women. Nobody really seems to care, though...
/r/MensRights30/04/11 04:53 PM
13

Or more accurately women claim they're going to do it to get attention far more often than they are actually serious about it.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 04:51 PM
24

Let's not kid ourselves. Even the religious don't have the kind of zeal and political power and influence to censor and silence those they don't like as feminists do. Look at how mainstream atheism has become for example.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 04:48 PM
1

Hopefully, Susan Rice no longer holds her position due to her spreading of bogus agitprop.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 02:26 PM
2

Right. It's unlikely this will happen to you because rape itself and rape allegations are quite rare, but if it does that is how the system will treat you. We're first and foremost spreading awareness about it and it must be successful enough because what are bringing up is getting increasing amounts of media coverage.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 10:11 AM
1

You can testify as to what you saw and heard as well as her general behavior of getting smashed drunk and doing destructive things on numerous occasions. You at the very least heard her threaten him with a false rape allegation.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 10:08 AM
1

It's more likely that you are Cliffor than anything else.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 12:50 AM
2

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/10/28/david-futrelle-covered-in-pin-feathers-and-clucking/
/r/MensRights29/04/11 10:22 PM
3

Judging by the date it's just one the earlier hit pieces that take some anonymous internet blog comments that could well have been made by feminist trolls like Cliffor and using them to try to fling mud at us. "David Futrelle" has an entire blog based off of this weak premise that s/he really started hammering away after being thoroughly embarrassed in a debate with Paul Elam, but there's quite the difference between cherry-picked anonymous blog comments and the real life quotes of feminist auth…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 10:18 PM
0

No doubt about it, and I'm sure that they'll become the vast majority of cases if the societal prejudices continue and the law doesn't take them as seriously as it should.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 09:05 PM
2

Great post.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 07:25 PM
5

I do think there's a reason that so many guys say "nice" when a women who looks hot is involved. Personally, I think I would have gotten along fine (minus perhaps the stigma that society puts on you) if I had had consensual relationships with an older woman at a fairly young age (sometime in highschool). So I think sometimes no harm is done. However, as I said before, adults should still respect the law because it's too hard to tell the difference between the situations where serious harm is bei…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 06:50 PM
8

WTF. First of all, how attractive someone seems has nothing to do with any of this. Second of all, the girls didn't complain, it was the parents. Finally, there's a reason statutory rape exists. People should respect that law. That was actually a parody of all of these idiots that pop up almost every time a woman or teacher is caught with a young boy where they exclaim "nice" and say that no crime took place. Another contrasting point is that often these men are held on mere accusations with zer…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 06:19 PM
13

It's like we've just traveled back in time to witness some Salem witch trials.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 06:11 PM
1

It seems you recognize that all of the feminists with power and in academia are the ones who are causing these problems. Why still carry the label of "feminist" then? The only ones who "aren't" like that seem to be the ones who show up here every now and then saying they aren't, but are then strangely silent whenever a new piece of anti-male legislation like the new "SaVE act" shows up.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 04:10 PM
7

Yes, because horrible injustice and a jackbooted system which treats you as criminal by default simply because you were born with the wrong anatomy can't possibly drive someone to do this.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 03:29 PM
3

For those who don't know, Erin Pizzey opened up the first women's shelters in the UK and soon found them hijacked by feminists. Worse still, she found out that the women who used her shelters were often as violent as they claimed they men they were escaping were. She wanted to open up shelters for men but was constantly denied funding and feminists began to run her out for doing this, sending her death threats and going as far as to kill her pets.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 03:20 PM
6

I hope men keep invoking Title IX and see how successful they are in doing so. If they are continually denied then it can be shown that Title IX is in practice little more than a tool of sex-apartheid abused by feminists.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 02:28 PM
1

Only one comment straight-up calling him cheap. Not too bad, really.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:53 AM
2

Quite possible given that DNA analysis has shown that we are descended from twice as many women as men. The culture that encourages animal-like virtual harems doesn't help, either.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 11:49 PM
5

It's an article that references almost all of the typical feminist made-up and summarily debunked feminist statistics and distortions as well as a couple of the hoaxes like the child sex trafficking one. The Apex Fallacy is well present as well with the claim that "men run everything" and are therefore doing fine. Because the top ~1% of men are all men, as we all know. The two books being trashed are written by women who are almost also as solipsistic as the article author, however, so make of t…
/r/MensRights28/04/11 11:29 PM
2

Yes. Paternity fraud is an issue that needs far, far, far more coverage than it's getting and needs to be pushed out into the mainstream. Paternity fraud is one of the most serious men's rights issues. The way the courts handle it is so incredibly unjust that exposing the reality of paternity fraud would also be an amazingly easy way to get a lot more men on our side.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 08:15 PM
5

Maybe you should work on your jokes in /r/amateurcomedy or something like that.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 02:54 PM
6

Yes, troll. Some actually do. Like with women, actual rapes are quite rare, though. Probably even rarer amongst men--outside prison, that is. It's undoubtedly more common in prison, but nobody cares about that it seems. What he's trying to ask here is if you broadened and stretched the definition of what rape is as far as Mary Koss did and then gave men the same questionnaire, how many would the loose criteria tag as raped even though very few of them would agree that they were raped?
/r/MensRights28/04/11 02:37 PM
4

Another lame hit piece? Don't say that the movement isn't growing.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 09:34 AM
2

It's not surprising that many people who believe that piece of feminist propaganda (1 in X (single digit) women) since you would have to be the most amoral piece of scum with a blatant disregard for justice to think this won't be majorly abused to the detriment of innocents and that this abuse is ok.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 05:04 AM
1

He actually uses it to show that of the tests that get taken, there are at least as many. Obviously in the general population there is an unknown extra number to add onto that. Experts are pinning the prevalence of this at somewhere between 10 and 20% of all children with the most recent estimates. The most important lesson is the disgustingly unjust way that the legal system is handling this.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 04:08 AM
2

Well, no. It's more related to the fact that there's been decades of feminist propaganda maligning men that makes it very easy to accuse men of horrible things and be believed with little to no evidence.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 03:58 AM
7

"In 2002, former California Gov. Gray Davis admitted that $40 million in federal funds could be jeopardized by widespread paternity challenges." This is exactly why. It's in the best interests of the state to have the wrong man continue to pay. So judges keep making the wrong men pay wherever they can, to this very day. Not like the black-robed charlatans in family court actually have to answer to anyone or anything.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 02:20 PM
5

"The agency would also consider the effect on the welfare of the child of a decision to prosecute.' This kind of thing always irks me about paternity fraud. It's so slimy how women who do this are use their children as human shields to avoid the consequences of their fraudulent actions. This is one of the greatest examples of appeal to emotion fallacy clouding the judgement of people who are supposed to be upholding the law.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 05:41 AM
4

Classic signs that the woman is having sex with someone else. CLASSIC. The repulsed reaction to his touching her! It's all there. I posted in there. I can only hope he listens and divorces now. Sooner is better than later given the legal ramifications. They've only been married for A YEAR AND A HALF and his wife hasn't fucked him for 6 months. I really hope he doesn't listen to the inane vagueness of other posters.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 04:25 AM
2

So a woman who pisses herself and blames it on being pissed upon by someone else b/c she's passed out in a strangers apartment is a worse person than strangers who bring a drunk woman home to fuck before settling on the fact that the woman is too drunk to fuck. Give me a fucking break Well, no. The bad person here is you for saying they're assholes for taking her home even though they didn't take advantage of her and also for saying that it's a bad idea.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 02:48 AM
1

I can't stress this enough. A woman telling a young man she's a feminist is like telling him she has AIDS, Herpes AND Gonorrhea.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 02:39 AM
2

Not seeing the Adam's apple. She does have a sort of half-masculine face, though. The jaw I can see. But her face still looks feminine overall. Sort of like some what people say of Morgan Webb who was one of the hosts on some videogame television channel (G4?). But seriously I don't think masculine-like physical traits are any indicator of intelligence in women. Look at ol' Hillary.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 01:21 AM
2

Anything's better than a feminist.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 01:17 AM
3

Like I said mutilation is in the eye of the beholder. It really isn't. If you're ok with it, whatever. Don't try to say your personal feelings should be policy or makes the practice ok. What is happening when a baby is circumcised is that a child who cannot possibly consent is being mutilated. That is not OK. Why the heck do you have a problem with circumcised people being happy with the way that they are? The fact that you're happy with it is not the issue. What is the issue is that you think i…
/r/MensRights27/04/11 01:14 AM
5

Instead of cutting and hamstringing male sports programs, they should instead divert funds to create more sports programs for females in primary and secondary schools. This makes too much sense and also can't be used as a proverbial bludgeon of sex-apartheid. It would never happen.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 11:43 PM
6

The claim that circumcision reduces STI risks is a completely unscientific piece of propaganda from those who run the foreskin trade racket, using the religious as their useful idiot vanguard. http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/viewArticle/jphia.2011.e4/html_9
/r/MensRights26/04/11 11:39 PM
1

Being white does help, but the largest discrepancy in sentencing is the sex of the offender. Race ranks below sex (#1 discount) and socioeconomic status (#2).
/r/MensRights26/04/11 11:27 PM
4

Wow I would hate to have my genitals mutilated, good thing mine were not. Yes, they were. Circumcision is mutilation. I have never looked at myself and thought for a second that I am mutilated or am missing out on something. My genitals are just fine the way they are and I am perfectly happy with them. Some slaves have been happy to serve their master or mistress who brutally beats them when they don't perform their tasks satisfactorily. Have you ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? Same kind of pr…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 10:23 PM
2

It's not his personal dirty laundry nor did he link the frontpage post so I don't see how he was treating /r/mensrights as his own personal army.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 10:02 PM
2

This isn't necessarily true. I think you'll find that roissy, one of the biggest proponents of game you'll find and author of one of, if not the most successful game blog there is happens to be a very big proponent of men's rights as well. He talks about a variety of men's rights issues in very vivid detail as they relate to men's dealings with women. The paternity fraud issue in particular is one that roissy has covered extensively. He also does serious evolutionary biology and psychology posts…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 09:49 PM
6

You know what's also sort of optional now, thanks to the same human ingenuity that can be used for horrible things like mutilating genitals? Human ingenuity has also done some good things. So you could say that legs are optional. After all, there's all sorts of implements now that let you get around without having legs. ... but I think you'd agree that life is far better and more enjoyable with legs and that nobody should have their legs cut off without their consent unless it is for a dire medi…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 09:37 PM
1

I'd already said he should do it. The problem is there's no guarantee and it depends on whether the judge he gets actually cares about enforcing the laws.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 09:26 PM
3

Game is a faith-based article that makes lofty claims that cannot be verified. I don't understand why so many others who identify as part of the men's rights movement believe in game. It does not allow any man to suddenly up his sexual market value and has little to no actual field experiment data on record to provide evidence proving any of the claims proposed by its theories. That is not to say that all of the knowledge pushed by proponents of game is useless, however I would argue that what i…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 08:26 PM
1

There are plenty of historical as well as recent examples of women in power that disprove this whole ridiculous notion that "If women ruled the world, there would be no war!" Margaret Thatcher is a great example of a recent one.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 08:19 PM
1

I agree that this is the best course of action and he should do it but as it stands, courts rarely enforce men's child custody and visitation rights. So it is an expensive crapshot as to whether doing so will make any kind of difference.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 08:02 PM
1

There would likely be little to no questioning of her and why she did it-- of the questions the interviewer asked, most of them would be very un-PC. There might be unfounded allegations of abuse from an opinionated narrator that is supposed to be giving only the facts, but I can't imagine much else being different. It's interesting to note that her decision to do this came after becoming involved in the early feminist movement, which as you may know was still mostly hatemongering as it is today …
/r/MensRights26/04/11 07:41 PM
3

Is it not apparent that we live in a two-tiered society. Women are simply not held to the same standards men are in much of anything. That includes criminal sentencing.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 07:16 PM
2

I'm sure he will likely get a much harsher sentence, despite her having committed more crimes and being just as guilty as he was for the crime they committed together.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 07:14 PM
2

Then your stance here on this subject is like that of a nihilist. You are utterly defeated emotionally, perhaps? Do you believe that humanity is little better than animals and are slaves to biology? That we are doomed to organize into hierarchies like chimps where the top "alpha" men and almost all women rule over what you might call "beta" males who will be forced as per biology to live a largely miserable exitence, maybe?
/r/MensRights26/04/11 06:59 PM
6

The feminist claim of "Patriarchy" is a nebulous, often self-contradictory concept used in ill-formed arguments to shift blame to men for just about everything conceivable. Its definition is ever-shifting and will be changed on a whim to attempt to support whatever a man, or maybe some men, or all men should be blamed for in the argument. It's worth noting that this concept of patriarchy has no evidence in its support. A good example is paternity fraud. I say that mandatory paternity testing is …
/r/MensRights26/04/11 06:42 PM
1

Why can it not be changed for the better. Elaborate.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 06:24 PM
2

It's not a meaningless distinction at all. You see, most of the dangers associated with sex are due to horrible legal system. You can actually put these dangers associated with sex out of existence. Sure, you can't get rid of STDs or anything like that, but you can get rid of the legal issues as a legal system is not an natural, immutable physical force. You can't do the same about say, work accidents, car crashes or sometimes breathing in hazardous materials. These often can and will be out of …
/r/MensRights26/04/11 02:40 PM
3

Right, but those things aren't safe because of actual physical danger, not as a result of anti-male legislation and an insane judicial system.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 01:18 PM
1

Crazy is hard to detect in anyone. This "don't stick your dick in crazy" meme is stupid.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 12:38 PM
11

Sure there are. They just have an Orwellian view of equality and would actually try to claim that women first is fair, just and equal.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 11:48 AM
5

So how many scientists and other people have been forced to resign this year alone due to femi-fascists' erosion of our free speech rights so that they can silence anyone who doesn't walk lock-step with their narrative?
/r/MensRights26/04/11 11:41 AM
5

They're certainly fascists.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 10:08 AM
21

Why do you think today's militaries needs to literally drill soldiers over and over and over and over again to make them unthinking, conformist followers of commands? Exactly. This is why. Feminist theory about utter bullshit like violence being an innate male trait is not based on reality. How many times does it need to be said?
/r/MensRights26/04/11 09:16 AM
9

Here's a question: Does anyone else really loudly whenever they hear an unironic mention of "The Patriarchy™!" Even UFO conspiracy whackos are more believable than this idea that there's been some massive conspiracy amongst all men since the beginning of time.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 09:04 AM
2

Many powerful feminists are lesbian man-haters. Of course they're offended by heterosexual sex. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKKVb_vJ2Bc#t=4m10s
/r/MensRights26/04/11 09:01 AM
0

You're concern troll who registered this account yesterday. I get it. You can find multitudes of quotes from women's studies "professors" past and present as well as in their material that can constitute nothing other than "hate speech" up to and including gendercide.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 08:45 AM
0

It's one thing to allow people free speech. It's entirely another when a university you pay money to sponsors groups that promote hate speech. Women's Studies Programs?
/r/MensRights26/04/11 01:20 AM
2

1) Data supporting your claim that cab driver is likely to be male. Only about 2 percent of all U.S. taxi drivers--about 225,000 in all--are female, according to a 2006 employment-oriented industry study by consultant Sandra Lowitt. In New York state the figure is even lower--about 1.1 percent--according to the International Transport Workers' Federation, a London-based coalition of transit unions. About a 90-99% chance of a cabbie being a man there. Outside the US there are some places where ma…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 12:30 AM
2

So you would leave them in the hands of a cab driver, who is in all likelyhood a man and according to your bigoted ideology is likely to take advantage of her, rather than just bring her home and let her crash at your place, a now risky choice but only because of the inculcated belief (via feminist propaganda) that men are beasts who must have ulterior sexual motives for doing something like that. What a tangled web you weave.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 08:58 PM
1

You can't have it both ways, but only if you are working under assumption of the feminist dogma that "rape isn't about sex." I know, I know, politically incorrect and all but I fail to see how it can't be primarily about sex given the demographic that makes up the vast majority of female rape victims. Young, attractive women. Women who are at their most fertile stage in life. If it's not primarily about sex, why would the vast majority of victims be in this group...? In fact, look at male rape v…
/r/MensRights25/04/11 08:47 PM
1

That you don't like what's being discussed doesn't make it any less valid or factual.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 08:05 PM
1

Kind of makes me glad I have my network set both to require a password and the proper hardware address.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 07:35 PM
3

Maybe you should get a hobby or something. Even a serious drug addiction would probably be more fulfilling than what you spend so much time doing here. Just a suggestion.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 07:06 PM
5

Yes, I'm sure you really believe in the whole lizard thing, Cliffor. Also, the /r/beatingwomen thing isn't a troll, you really believe in that too. With the amount of time and effort you spend on this you must really dislike the men's rights movement but have no actual way to discredit what we say here other than posing as one of us and posting inane bullshit for hours on end. I can't think of anyone else really putting in that kind of time and effort.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 06:42 PM
3

It took you over 3 months of obvious trolling every day to be banned and here you are trolling again on another account.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 06:15 PM
1

No, Cliffor. Nobody likes you.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 05:47 PM
6

I agree-- they should have just left her stranded out on the street while really intoxicated. That would have been the better solution. This statement is only half ironic, sadly. EDIT: Thanks for stopping by to troll.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 05:46 PM
2

No. Here in Canada, we have just about the same laws. In some cases worse, and I'm sure the authorities will be more than glad to cooperate in garnishing his wages if he moves here.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 05:44 PM
4

Oh, it's Cliffor.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 05:36 PM
7

Who was banned for their beliefs. Link please or you're a concern troll.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 05:20 PM
3

No, it's a term used to describe women who do that. It's not an actual crime, and I don't think it should it be, but I don't think women should be able to collect child support when they do this. Then there is "paternity fraud"-- a real form of fraud which your friend may well be a victim of given that the circumstances here where the woman left him immediately, but unfortunately is also not a crime. This is where a woman says that a man is the father of a child, but she either knows he is not b…
/r/MensRights25/04/11 02:40 PM
1

Politicians pandered to them to get access to their voting bloc.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 01:15 PM
15

What are you even saying here. We don't condone or support the guy at all. He's just a random moron who thinks he's funny.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 11:38 AM
1

Billions of your tax dollars.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 11:09 AM
1

I agree but there is very little of it here and the vast majority of it is from proven feminist trolls like Cliffor who are trying to make us look bad as a substitute for actual debate, probably because when your ideology is built on a house of cards it can't withstand any kind of scrutiny or debate.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 11:05 AM
15

It was cliche and boring.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 11:00 AM
3

Well, this one here I'm replying to IS Cliffor.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 08:57 AM
11

Here's what I don't get: If frathouses and their parties are so well-known for being places where billions of rapes take place, who in their right mind would attend one... uuuunless, it's a bunch of bullshit and an anecdote is being used to demonize all fraternities in yet another attempt to shut down male spaces. What do you think is truth here?
/r/MensRights25/04/11 08:56 AM
7

Not really. Feminists have published authors that say all men are rapists and have somehow become the current regime. I think we can weather some random Internet idiot just fine.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 08:39 AM
7

Almost all of the comments absolutely slammed the delusional and paranoid lens she views of the world from. Why is the Wall Street Journal publishing this kind of garbage, though?
/r/MensRights25/04/11 07:58 AM
2

The "1 in 4" canard has been around a while, and debunked. This article is from 2009.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 06:25 AM
3

I've no idea why this woman even calls herself a feminist. All of the feminists who comment on her blog are true cultist believers of The Patriarchy™ conspiracy theory which does not hold up to even cursory scrutiny, and other nonsense dogma. It's like she bought into this idea that feminism is what the dictionary definition says it is, and likes that idea, but refuses to admit the disconnect in reality that exists where real feminists are nothing of the sort. She disagrees with just about every…
/r/MensRights25/04/11 06:15 AM
18

Exceedingly dumb teenage girls who think it will make them famous and possibly rich.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 04:59 AM
1

Not men in general here, but manginas. These are fans of the "good men project" after all. A publication who's very name betrays its true intent-- that most men are not "good' and you need some sort of "project" to change them to be "good"-- "good" of course being subservient yes-men slaves to feminist whim.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 03:29 AM
5

You've been around for far longer than Cliffor. Anyone who's been around here long enough already knows you're not Cliffor.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 02:09 AM
2

Well, this is pretty much right. No idea why it was at -1. Men have no reproductive rights and are at the mercy of a woman's choice, which is fucking disgusting. That is the reality today.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 01:55 AM
1

You know what's also manipulative? What she and every other woman who has an "Oops" pregnancy does. Unfortunately due to the legal reality where of this situation where men have no power and are at the mercy of a woman's choice, I cannot really fault a man who would do this.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 01:51 AM
6

The problem is that the metric for so-called "misogyny" has been lowered to and includes criticizing an individual woman for unacceptable things she did, or any kind of dialogue which exposes feminist lies by providing proof for that women also perpetrate X crime or that real research shows their latest prop piece is a lie etc., or really in some cases just anything a specific woman simply doesn't like.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 01:40 AM
1

True, there are some exceptions of feminists calling out other feminists. Examples? Only ones I've seen are disgusting old guard hags jumping on Naomi Wolf's back (and even she's got a catalogue of disgusting quotes in her closet) for daring to imply it might be a bad idea to erode or remove due process rights. That's not exactly a positive endorsement of femnists "policing their own."
/r/MensRights25/04/11 01:38 AM
1

tl;dr: "He MUST have done something to deserve it! He's a man!" Disgusting, cliche, common attitudes towards men who are victims of all sorts of abuse. Yes, blame the one who was wronged. Classy.
/r/MensRights25/04/11 01:22 AM
2

As is the case for women right now, men should have the right to have sex without being forced into parenthood or, in the case of men as it often ends up, involuntary servitude by having the fruits of his labor taken from him. Of course because a woman should have full control over her own body and pregnancy, this can be accomplished by what you might call a "financial abortion" whereby a man can simply opt out of any responsibility, by, well, never taking any role in the child's life. ... but s…
/r/MensRights24/04/11 05:41 PM
1

Yes, this is all old information mostly being suppressed by profiteers who make money off of foreskins. The very profiteers who push prop that touts the "benefits" of circumcision without ever, you know, producing any kind of actual proof for these claims.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 01:56 PM
4

Oh, a hyphenated last name. Almost a cliche at this point in time when it comes to crazy women.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 01:36 PM
1

It's more an observation of the fact that feminists have time and time again attempted to appropriate the issues of the gay and transgendered for their own to bolster support. They have attempted to delude these groups into believing they're all in the same boat and can expect the same treatments and ill-gotten perks that women have gotten as a result of feminist lobbying. The entire point of the article is as follows: This gay man has found out that they do not. The ability to get away with or …
/r/MensRights24/04/11 11:39 AM
1

What does this even mean. Elaborate.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 11:26 AM
1

Because they were not born a man or a woman. And many heterosexual people are not OK with having sex with people who were not born as what they are currently trying to represent as. There is nothing really wrong with this, either. Which is exactly why they should be open about it beforehand. I personally have no problem with transexuals and have no problem being good friends with, but I am simply not interested in having sexual relations with a transexual. This is a very common stance on the sub…
/r/MensRights24/04/11 11:17 AM
2

Oh nothing I guess, I was just thinking that it would be rather deceptive and misrepresentative to not disclose such information is all. I thought that transexuals wanted others to accept them for who they are? Why the secrecy and lack of openness. Sounds like some serious cognitive dissonance at play here. Surely they would rather want someone to accept them not because the surgeons did a good enough job to fool someone but because, y'know, the person actually accepts them with full knowledge o…
/r/MensRights24/04/11 11:01 AM
3

It's kind of the default assumption for heterosexual men, I would think.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 09:34 AM
-3

If you're transexual and you're not telling someone that you are to find out if they're cool with that first, it's misrepresenting yourself. I know, I know, I've heard that this is a touchy subject and all, but I'm just going to say it. You should definitely tell someone before anything like sex takes place.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 07:39 AM
3

How so.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 07:27 AM
2

By not telling them that you are in fact a transexual is a good example.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 07:07 AM
2

It took you literally 3 months of constant trolling to get banned. Kind of a false equivalency to being instantly banned for not walking lockstep with ideologues like what happens in /r/feminisms.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 01:48 AM
6

As long as there's no serious side effects, yes, something like this would be welcome. It's still not reproductive rights, though. Which men still don't have. Various types of contraceptives didn't stop women from demanding reproductive rights and I for one will not stop demanding them for men, either.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 12:57 AM
1

She's completely making stuff up. You can tell by her affidavit which doesn't give specific examples, she just wrote "he physically restrained my person". Who talks like that? Obviously she has someone helping her. Scumbag lawyers who advise women to make up false claims, and the morally repugnant women who actually follow that advisement. It's practically an industry at this point-- you would think so because investors are certainly putting money into it.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 12:46 AM
1

Yes, that's one thing that jumped out at me when I read the article, too. The only person named is the guy who shot the video.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 12:43 AM
1

Well, yes. Most straight guys nowadays including myself do not really give a fuck if you are gay, bisexual, lesbian or transgendered as long as you do not try to coerce sex out of us or as long as you don't try to lie or misrepresent yourself in the case of being transexual in hopes of getting sex out of us. It's funny how those who are least tolerant are actually those who claim to be most tolerant, and those claimed to be least tolerant by these same people are being misrepresented. Straight m…
/r/MensRights24/04/11 12:35 AM
5

Also, the writer was so intimidated by the EXISTENCE of Fraternity houses on campus that she withdrew from school? I really can't see the reasoning for that. The feminist indoctrinated are often victims of fearmongering campaigns. They actually believe the things they're told. Look at where the rape stat lies have led to, for another good example. You will see this with any other kind of fearmongering indoctrination that took place including what you might call "old south racists" of decades pas…
/r/MensRights24/04/11 12:26 AM
7

Secret trials and judges who are now above the law. Oh no, we're not headed to an almost world-wide police state here or anything.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 12:08 AM
1

You mean in cases where a woman withholds the child until years later and then claims backsupport even though it's not his? The laws obviously need to be changed.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 12:04 AM
20

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/kiddie_pawn_shock_KnKyQ0JfMITAIqGawRJf8J
/r/MensRights23/04/11 03:20 PM
5

They are lesbian man-haters who take Andrea Dworkin and the like very seriously. It's pretty simple.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 02:42 PM
3

Feminists generally think anyone accused of rape is guilty. Even after the men are proven innocent and the accuser a proven liar. I don't know if you were around when the Duke false rape case went down, but if not, check this stuff out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdIWN7M2FVU Reason contributing editor Cathy Young has described Marcotte as a "leader of the cyber-lynch mob in the Duke University rape hoax". Young has stated that in "Marcotte's eyes, the real crime of the 'independent feminists…
/r/MensRights23/04/11 02:35 PM
2

Well I guess with feminists there's crazy, and then there's crazy like the ones you've been linking to recently.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 02:12 PM
1

It's full of feminist downvote brigades and ideologues who want to control any kind of conversation that takes place.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 11:22 AM
2

Oh no, you just need to swab the baby's mouth when you have a few minutes of free private time where you won't be seen doing it after you take it home if you want to do it all covert-like. Swab yours as well, then send both samples away. All that needs to be tested is the child and the purported father. No sample is needed from the mother. If the DNA matches and the child is yours? Well, no problem really then is there. Doesn't match? Get out right away. Do this before whatever morally indefensi…
/r/MensRights23/04/11 11:03 AM
2

There is nothing interesting about this at all. They're a bunch of buzzword slinging airheads.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 10:58 AM
0

Ah so you would advocate bowing and scraping to the altar of political correctness, a marxist social bullying tool designed for the use of silencing opponents.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 08:33 AM
2

Where feminism is allowed to dominate discussions, men's rights are systematically marginalized, understated, pushed out and then ignored. Fascist dictatorship is more what I observe.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 08:21 AM
1

Oh, that only applies to people who don't toe the feminist line.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 08:13 AM
2

Hey guys, men kill themselves at a rate of over 4 times what women do in our society. Why is this in mensrights?
/r/MensRights23/04/11 08:11 AM
3

What shocks me is how people think it's only something that happens on the Maury Povich show or how non-Americans think "Oh, that only happens in America." If you talk about the reality of it and how the "justice" system handles it with them, they tend to get a serious case of just world fallacy going.
/r/MensRights21/04/11 07:07 AM
1

In the way it treats female criminals. If policies and the judicial system itself treats all women as if they have no accountability, then I'm afraid they are all like that for all intents and purposes.
/r/MensRights21/04/11 12:18 AM
1

I disagree. The law says they are.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 10:22 PM
6

You might have a point if many, many feminists had not in recent history also expressed this sick idea that false rape accusers shouldn't be held accountable for what they've done.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 08:59 PM
2

How many times does it need to be said? Feminists are fascists. They will silence opposing or dissenting voices wherever they can. Political correctness itself is a marxist social bullying tool used to that very end.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 07:32 AM
5

It's funny how feminists are the ones who post this kind of stuff.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 07:07 AM
1

Don't kid yourself. The primary reason they keep dredging up these superbowl myths and other lies is to demonize men and make them feel bad for being born men.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 06:49 AM
1

There's already a solution. Refuse marriage. Refuse cohabitation in states and countries where the state will "common-law" you. As a man, there is currently no good reason to marry.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 06:35 AM
1

Men are held to a higher standard than are women, these women know it and freely admit it yet these women claim "equality." Serious cognitive dissonance.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 06:25 AM
1

The whole Tiger Woods saga disproves this piece of feminist cant.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 06:13 AM
4

Enjoy being a sexless hermit then because you really can't tell what woman would do that to you. In fact, you don't even have to have ever met the woman in your life. They just have to name you. Just like paternity fraud.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 05:55 AM
5

The feminist concept of law & order is dictatorship.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 05:48 AM
2

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/p/about-this-blog.html Hope this helps.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 05:27 AM
4

What agenda. Unlike feminist organizations that get millions in funding to create lies and spread them, there isn't any kind of "obvious agenda" here.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 08:21 PM
8

All of the typical feminist canards and manipulation as well. Huge, unsupported percentage claim of unreporting as well as emotional blackmail in the form of "Don't you CARE for rape survivors?", etc.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 08:12 PM
5

Guilty until proven innocent. Her word vs. yours? Her word is more credible by default. Feminist indoctrination. That is how this happens.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 06:30 PM
22

This is part of why I have to shake my head anytime some feminist pops in here and starts leaking emotional diarrhea in disbelief that we're saying that being falsely accused of rape is objectively worse than being raped. When falsely accused of rape, the following can happen to you: Vigilante white knight shitheads beating you and/or murdering you. (False Rape Society has several cases documented where men were killed due to false allegations) Possibly going to prison for a very long time for a…
/r/MensRights18/04/11 05:17 PM
2

Yeah, he sure looks like a violent kid curling up into the fetal position while he takes a brutal beating. This sick society will believe any lie a woman tells.
/r/MensRights17/04/11 05:55 AM
2

No big surprise that the #1 is paternity. You can even look at the sidebar there for user submitted questions and see that most of them deal with "How do I tell who the father of my baby is?"
/r/MensRights16/04/11 08:08 PM
1

Yes, men need protection but it is often from the system itself which has been twisted by feminist ideologues into a tool to enforce female whim. Sad, really.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 07:21 PM
4

As you can see from the linked image, the term "real man" and its connotations are almost universally nothing more than an attempt to manipulate a man into doing what you want them to.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 03:40 AM
2

In short, the elite. Oligarchs. This is not exactly a new idea. Feminism creates more wealth producers, but more importantly drives down the wages all workers have to be paid.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:10 PM
0

No shit, but the feminist narrative that handwaves away the subject of male victims despite overwhelming evidence that they rival female victims in number would have you believe they don't suffer at all.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:07 PM
4

Good argument. No, really.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 02:23 PM
1

She at least got a proper sentence, but I can't help but think that her crime had to be so egregious and over such a long period of time to secure such a conviction simply because she was a woman. All of these other female pedophiles we hear about almost universally get off with a slap on the wrist compared to men doing the exact same thing. It seems like the crime has to be about 10 times worse than what a man would get the same sentence for before the pussy pass is discarded. It's much like ch…
/r/MensRights12/04/11 07:17 AM
2

GMP is undoubtedly a feminist shill and appropriation attempt.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 07:07 AM
1

Or perhaps the awareness of men's right issues and number of supporters is simply growing to the point where it can't be contained anymore.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 07:03 AM
0

Well that's all it takes apparently. Many women have gotten off on or vastly reduced sentences for murdering their husband by claiming abuse even though he had no proven prior history of it or even any violent offenses on his criminal record.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 10:46 PM
2

Well that's all it takes apparently. Many women have gotten off on or vastly reduced sentences for murdering their husband by claiming abuse even though he had no proven prior history of it or even any violent offenses on his criminal record.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 10:44 PM
0

A man should never base his self-image on what women think of him in any case, because women’s concerns are too materialistic and self-centered. (“He that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife,” as St. Paul put it.) The men who have accomplished the greatest things for our civilization have not, by and large, resembled the heroes of women’s romance fiction; indeed, they have been disproportionately celibate. Once a man realizes what triggers female at…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 04:21 PM
2

But earlier you said there was LITERALLY NO EVIDENCE that women had (or have ever had) it worse than men. And there are plenty of examples where women have had it worse than men, particularly if you are looking at men of equivalent stature. I said common men. Your know, your "average Joe." Not the wealthy power elite that feminists would have you believe is every single man. I know, I know--reading is hard for ideologues who see only what they want to see. Yes, all men only got the right to vote…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 03:59 PM
5

The entire comment thread is tangential and not related to the study.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 08:58 PM
4

Well, only one person keeps using "reptile." You gotta change it up a bit.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 05:51 PM
2

Paternity fraud and getting actual legislation and justice for it is not only one of the major men's rights issues but also a canary in the goldmine that betrays feminists true intent.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 04:04 PM
24

All she did was rob this man of a few months of his life and soil his name. Yeah, no biggie. I'm sure being arrested and charged for rape is going to go over well when he tries to put his life back together by looking for work.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 03:43 PM
4

Thanks, Cliffor alt account.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 03:41 PM
5

Not just something that affects women, really. This affects everyone. It's just that good looking women tend to get such a free ride until they beauty begins to wane that they tend to complain louder when it does. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/19/the-beauty-advantage.html It's interesting especially when it comes to hiring. Since HR is mostly staffed by women, men are discriminated against fiercely while women tend to try to keep "competition" out. http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/…
/r/MensRights10/04/11 03:29 PM
24

It's a common theme with false rape accusations. The actual victim (the man) is pushed out of the picture for a theoretical future victim of rape not being believed as easily-- as if whether a woman is "believed easily" or not should have any relevance to the investigation that needs to take place if we're going to pretend that due process still exists. Serious cognitive dissonance from people who deny the actual victim of false accusations.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 03:02 PM
7

Ever-shifting definitions and subjectivity are hallmarks of feminism. Just look at how "patriarchy" is bandied about to fit whatever ill-conceived argument it's used in. You can't expect any kind of consistency.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 02:56 PM
1

I fail to see how not caring about "being feminine" equals homophobia. Perhaps you'd like to explain this one.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 02:48 PM
2

You failed both with historical and with recent examples to prove that women have or had it worse than the common man. It's a typical problem of those who suffer from solipsism; you don't see those below you. All you see is those men above you in status. So how was I factually incorrect, again? Denying feminist "herstory" which is a faith-based article in the first place isn't factually incorrect, no matter how much it offends you after you've been indoctrinated in women's studies courses.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 02:43 PM
12

Don't think that feminists won't eventually try to stretch the definition of rape to include "He looked at me!" I can see it happening.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 02:16 PM
1

Just because a lot of men look for women who are interested in the same things they are doesn't mean they care about whatever you're implying (is this another crossdressing troll or something?).
/r/MensRights10/04/11 02:14 PM
5

Women didn’t receive the right to vote in the United States until the Nineteenth Amendment passed in 1920. For those of you who are bad at math, that was 91 years ago. There are still plenty of people living who were born before then. That's great, but men who weren't part of the aristocratic elite didn't receive their vote until a bit earlier than that time, and, get this; It came at a price. How many men died in the two World Wars? How many of those really wanted to fight? How many were forced…
/r/MensRights10/04/11 12:29 AM
1

The one with the trolls.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 10:53 PM
4

Feminist acolytes (read: women's studies college students) already equate bringing up the damage feminism has done as well as the societal biases and injustice against men to "misogyny." That word has lost its meaning.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:12 PM
2

This is literally how deep feminist and the accompanying fascism runs. You can't state facts that amount to a statement like "Well, maybe a guy who's arrested for pissing in public shouldn't receive similar punishment to a rapist." without PC zealots demanding your resignation and apology.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 08:38 PM
1

It's not like this is anything new. DNA analysis has shown we (the current human population) are descended from twice as many women as men. "Experts" estimate at least 10% currently are not really the child of the man they think is their father. Of course, the reasoning behind this reeks of PC cowing. The labs that do the tests themselves report around 30%. It's a good thing that DNA testing is available now. If it were widely known about, a hell of a lot less guys would be taken advantage of.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 01:48 PM
2

Yes, and the funny part is the majority is from plant accounts like Cliffor. Who is actually a woman.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:58 AM
8

Oh. No wonder this is so insane. One of the idiots involved in this also did this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arjuna-ardagh/goddess-worship_b_660896.html?ref=fb&src=sp
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:52 AM
14

There's literally no evidence supporting the idea that women had it any worse than the common man. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that they had it better because they didn't have to do much or any of the dangerous shitwork and were often supported by those men who did that work. How gullible and how ignorant of cause and effect do you have to be to buy into feminist "herstory."
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:34 AM
2

It's because men don't have the majority of the fruits of socialism available to them. It's work or be fucking homeless for the most part.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:32 AM
2

Woah! Didn't know you used reddit, Hillary.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 09:31 AM
8

The Bobbit scandal, when I was a boy.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 12:03 PM
6

It's simple really. Feminists over the last 40+ years have cultivated a societal prejudice against men. There are now people who believe that men are the worst everything and people who believe that all men are somehow responsible for the acts of just a tiny fraction of a percentage. Pointing out that they are in fact not dispels these feminist myths.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 10:17 AM
4

It's sort of like "women's studies" being renamed "gender studies" in some place. Same shit, different name.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 06:40 AM
18

What the...? She was just arrested LAST YEAR for setting fire to a boyfriend's clothes in a bathtub and threatening to stab him! (while her kids were around--classy) Of course even though she has a storied history of false rape accusations and other offenses, they let her go. And now she DID stab a man, although this seems to be a different man. Smart on the first one to get out. Here's the story from last year: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/duke_lacrosse_accuser_charged_with_7GS6t3v6EUG…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 02:19 PM
2

It's about time. This turd deserves to spend some serious time behind bars.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 12:11 PM
1

You would think that if he did some big switcheroo that it would have taken longer than the less than 3 minutes or so that it took from his post there to his ban from there. Or that his post would have had an edited tag (that's what an * next to a post means; it's been edited!).
/r/MensRights04/04/11 12:06 PM
1

No, because people aren't pitchsforks-and-torches about false accusations like they are when a woman cries rape. You have to actually prove a woman lied about rape in order for it to be a false accusation, and as of right now it seems so few are willing to actually do anything about false accusations. I fail to see what is wrong with giving proven false rape accusers a sentence in-line with what the crime of rape carries itself.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 08:57 PM
11

Probably because it links to us in the sidebar? The founder walks lockstep with feminist ideology and fascist practices.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 08:15 PM
1

The Social Democrats' rebuttal is to suggest that we should be treating everyone all males as criminals, not just foreign males. Nice.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 07:53 PM
1

How do you fix a system which is itself corrupted by those who are supposed to be upholding it? Nothing short of violent revolution.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 07:48 PM
57

So it's basically another feminist subreddit.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 07:00 PM
2

I've seen several false rape cases where women have lied about it to skip out on paying Taxi fare. That's almost as petty as a hot dog.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 06:54 PM
31

Is it just me or does the notion that feminists and so-called "egalitarians" who are obviously feminist-minded have of equality seem like something that would have given George Orwell a raging hard-on and inspired him to write new books?
/r/MensRights03/04/11 06:48 PM
7

What an insane world.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 02:35 PM
1

If I remember correctly this isn't even the first time you've posted a story about a DUI false rape claim? I've certainly read one before on FRS or a news site.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 02:32 PM
1

Yes and even they can't get away with without being called on it by readers when comments are enabled.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 02:29 PM
1

This is completely different from the paternity issue.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:38 PM
3

Wonder what it'd be if you factor in the paternity fraud angle. This is just multiple men who are known or suspected to be the father .
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:11 PM
2

There are also egalitarian feminists who (at least claim) to work for both genders. Like Christina Hoff Sommers... but can she really be called a feminist given how much establishment feminists slander her and try desperately to discredit her to no avail.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 12:35 PM
1

This kind of statement scares me on two fronts. First, that you're painting with such a broad brush: how do you know that every rape accuser is going to accuse someone else? What ever happened to due process? (It's the same argument I use to support abolishing or significantly changing the sex offender registry.) Second, this presents a classic slippery slope. How long until all of us are on one list or another? No, your argument is a classic slippery slope. Same argument can be made for rapists…
/r/MensRights02/04/11 12:03 PM
2

Besides, a public registry is completely unnecessary! Once the arrest is made the investigation is started (sorry, misstated what I meant to say) and the investigators obtain the necessary background information on all witnesses (including the accuser), it becomes abundantly clear if the accuser is a liar/faker. Without any serious harm being done! In the case of actual rape, the timeframe for harm to occur is far shorter. That is why the public registry exists. Not when you have the Michael Nif…
/r/MensRights02/04/11 11:55 AM
4

Anyone with even the most basic grasp on the concept of capitalism knows the feminist argument for the "wage gap" doesn't hold up unless you are a complete moron who believes that companies are somehow willing to forgo massive profits just to be sexist and keep that mythical "old boys network" going.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 10:35 AM
-1

5 year old article. Has the drugging scare that was popular at the time until it was debunked. No one can really print something like that anymore without being called on it now, which shows progress and awareness growing at the very least.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:45 AM
2

Same place accusations of "Witch" came from. Indoctrination.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 04:28 AM
16

I guess you can literally get away with murdering men now, if you're a woman.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 02:56 AM
1

Oh, I see. It's all about your subjective feelings rather than your actual status.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 12:27 AM
1

Looks alright if she's in her 30s.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 12:06 AM
1

Oh, family court. What injustice won't you do?
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:55 PM
1

The UK Home Office report says the conviction rate for rape is 58%-- in line with a lot of other crimes, really. I suggest you read it yourself. Point was, there is no epidemic of false convictions or guilty until proven innocent. The vast majority of charges laid against men never make it to trial, let alone result in a conviction. The standard of proof is the same for rape as any other crime. Which makes a very difficult crime to prove. I realize there are high profile cases that skew your und…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:37 PM
1

The suspension is questionable. Other than that, I have no idea why this was posted here.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:23 PM
1

Source, and the point in this being? Let me guess: You think it would end up being like the current rape hysteria where innocents would be railroaded. Don't think so given the standard of proof that exists for all other crimes that feminists have sought to scourge from the legal system with feminist jurisprudence when it comes to rape accusations.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:11 PM
-1

Thanks for the downvote but unlike false rape accusations where a man is presumed guilty thanks to our fucked up feminist-indoctrinated culture, you would need to provide proof that it is false. That is how the justice system is supposed to work. Innocent until proven guilty.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 09:39 PM
1

Yeah, that is pretty fucked up. Surely many of them knew exactly why casinos hire women to work those positions, though. To attract clients. No different from strip clubs and the like. In other countries there are places like this that cater to women, like Host Clubs in Japan. Doubt they'd keep men on staff who started balding and packing on the pounds, either.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 09:37 PM
-1

It's a hell of a jump to try to compare minimum sentencing when it's say, someone possessing a little marijuana vs. someone who just tried to ruin someone else's life by perverting the justice system with a malicious lie. I agree it's fucked up for drug offenses. Not so for false rape accusations. False rape accusations aren't some "harmless little mistake."
/r/MensRights01/04/11 09:28 PM
4

We're fighting for the same things! That's why all of the prominent feminist groups oppose things like paternity fraud legislation. Because we're fighting for the same things. Cue someone posting a Not All Feminists Are Like That.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 08:49 PM
8

Yet another spin on the worn and tired old "patriarchy hurts men too" argument, this time the whole patriarchy garbage has been spun into the rich and powerful men, except it'll conveniently revert to all men when it comes to another topic like promoting rape hysteria. Also, big surprise, another denier of the feminist politicians and lobbiers that have created most of the core issues we talk about. Factory sums most of this all up pretty well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuqDV-Jznyg http://w…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 08:20 PM
2

She was shown to be mentally ill in court. We'd no more punish a mentally disabled man. Oh? We certainly would. I'm pretty sure quite a lot of mentally ill men locked up for things less serious than, oh, I don't know, killing their own children have gotten far greater sentences. The whole sentencing discount is well documented.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 08:00 PM
4

Same way people excuse false rape accusers.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 06:30 PM
7

I like the default assumption that a woman is always mentally ill when she kills her children. Andrea Yates, Elaine Campione and the like, and now this woman too. It's sort of like the default assumption that when a woman does something bad to a man, the man must have done something to deserve it... Really sets the tone for the man=bad woman=good thing we've got going.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 06:26 PM
1

I would have been taking some recording devices into that classroom and busted her ass if she was subjecting me to that.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 05:14 PM
5

Name some. Having been born in the 80s all I've seen is rape hysteria lies, domestic violence lies and misinformation and all of the various hoaxes like the superbowl hoax. Feminists have literally been agitating to secure funding using bald-faced lies the entire time I've been alive.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 02:32 PM
2

Yes, the Duke Nukem series has been parodying a lot of things since the second Duke Nukem sidescroller game way back. Duke himself is supposed to be a comical caricature that you don't take seriously.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 12:54 PM
2

I know. I've already seen those statements.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 12:38 PM
4

What do you suggest. A little country club psychiatry and probation for something that heinous? Punishment doesn't fit the crime.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 12:24 PM
6

I see, so they should just be let off for a malicious lie that has probably ruined someone's life and cost him everything dear to him because of the stigma associated with being accused of rape. Thanks for clearing that up.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 12:20 PM
10

How so. Those convicted of rape often get at least that.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 11:53 AM
1

I agree. The more we push these issues into the public eye, the faster feminism will be exposed for what it really is as will the issues.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 11:00 AM
13

Feminists got the idea as a way to further demonize men. Literally, that's it. Anyone who looks at society's opinion of rapists and how convicted rapists are treated in prison will be able to tell you the entire premise of "rape culture" is bullshit. Whenever someone is accused of rape, there is a fucking mob mentality. A witch hunt atmosphere. Feminists know this. They just don't care. Their agenda is the same as any other hate group. We are to feminists what "those niggers" were to the KKK.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 10:44 AM
1

Oh no I think it should be mandatory all of the time. Sort of like how hospitals make sure the mother goes home with the right baby.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 09:23 AM
0

A man should never base his self-image on what women think of him in any case, because women’s concerns are too materialistic and self-centered. (“He that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife,” as St. Paul put it.) The men who have accomplished the greatest things for our civilization have not, by and large, resembled the heroes of women’s romance fiction; indeed, they have been disproportionately celibate. Once a man realizes what triggers female at…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 07:42 AM
-5

Feminists haven't had any legitimate issues for decades.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 07:07 AM
2

What I'm saying, champion of "alternative lifestyles" is that most people are still monogamous and it is still the default assumption.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 06:40 AM
2

This is a Swedish television documentary on the subject of Swedish feminism, aired once and once only, in 2005. After that, the governing authorities sternly forbade it to be shown ever, ever again. Said it before, but feminists are fascists.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 06:36 AM
3

Are you fucking kidding me. What could be offensive about Duke Nukem.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 06:16 AM
4

The reason most won't identify as feminist even if they toe the feminist line is a rather new phenomena. It used to be trendy and hip about 10-15 years ago to identify as one. It isn't now because many men will instantly write off anyone who identifies as one for obvious reasons. One being that now men are actually paying attention to and scrutinizing feminism, we're finding it to be a bundle of contradictions, logical fallacies, double standards, and bigotry that would make a Grand Dragon of th…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 11:28 AM
6

Oh joy. Another article written by world-class mangina and hypocrite Hugo Schwyzer.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 10:31 AM
2

Actually, since the Courts agreed with me, I won the argument. Sick appeal to authority argument, bro. Jim Crow laws must have been just too because the court upheld them.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 10:23 AM
0

Yeah, I guess I'm just not hip and with it if I'm not a bisexual swinger and there must be something wrong with me. Oh no dude? My wife? Yeah, it's cool. It's not like I own her vagina or anything. Yeah yeah, go ahead.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 10:20 AM
9

Of course it doesn't matter to women who can always be assured that the child is theirs. It's self-righteous bullshit.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 10:17 AM
3

And yet this is what it has come to: This is why mandatory DNA testing is absolutely required. Because stories like this are all-too-common.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 10:16 AM
1

The whole exclusivity thing happens to be part of the package unless you're one of those people who have a weird "cuckold" fetish, and that isn't common.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 10:11 AM
3

Solution: Financial abortions for men. You can be damn sure very few women would pull this kind of thing if they knew they would get no guaranteed involuntary servitude in the form taking away the fruits of a man's labor.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 10:07 AM
0

This is all bullshit from the idealistic fantasy world of ought-ta-be where women don't have "oops" pregnancies and paternity fraud and the like don't exist. Financial abortion makes sense and does not in any way contradict the position of father's rights.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 09:39 AM
1

If you haven't, read "Sexual Utopia in Power" and "Rotating Polyandry - and its enforcers".
/r/MensRights31/03/11 08:55 AM
10

Sadly this is how feminists argue. It's either this or the boilerplate "you have a tiny penis"/"can't get laid"/etc (and they say men are obsessed with sex; projection much?)
/r/MensRights31/03/11 07:52 AM
3

F. Roger Devlin is one of my favorite authors on these subjects.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 07:50 AM
3

Sounds like a bad lawyer to me. Bringing up facts about something that were a man doing it, would land him in prison (that is, non-payment of child support) "makes you look like a jerk"? Yeah right.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 10:31 PM
1

Yes, a woman should have to look after a child alone if she chooses to keep it instead of aborting or giving up for adoption and she's the only one who wanted it. It's called reproductive rights for men-- I know, crazy concept that men should have actual rights and not just responsibilities without rights, but it doesn't infringe on a woman's at all. It is her body and choice after all, but since she's the only one who wanted it, she should be the only one with the obligations to support it.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 09:29 PM
10

Feminists and "equal pay" boils down to this: They want to be paid more money for less work (that is, the same pay as him but for less hours worked,) and while working less dangerous and less demanding jobs.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:58 PM
1

Adoption is for kids who's parents can't take care of them, not won't. Perfect choice for an irresponsible woman who decides to have a child by an unwilling man yet is unable to support it herself, I think? Or are you from the Scott Adams school of thought that women are children and can't be held to the same standards men are. You regurgitated the condom/don't have sex shit again even though it is irrelevant to the issue of reproductive rights: Men have none. Men end up paying for women's choic…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:53 PM
5

Ah yes, every man should carry around a bottle of fucking habanero sauce to pour in used condoms and also watch what happens with their sperm extremely carefully. But wait, then you'd call them paranoid and weird? Right.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:09 PM
1

You can be angered all you want, but paying child support for a child you never wanted and never took part in the life of is involuntary servitude, which is slavery. Saying "wear a condom" isn't a "very valid point" at all. Equivalent arguments never held water against women, after all. I guess you just think men should shut the fuck up and be walking wallets, though.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 06:09 PM
4

Bobbit case part two right here. Bet your ass the first thing most people do in this feminist-indoctrinated hell of a society is try to rationalize it by saying he must have done something to deserve it.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 10:00 AM
2

To understand better why all of these hoaxes, myths and outright lies keep popping up even after they've been exposed time and time again, read this. http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/10/the-personal-as-contrasted-to-the-political/
/r/MensRights30/03/11 12:13 AM
3

Whoever wrote that list is kidding themselves. None of that is "privilege" and the first two are actually female privilege if anything (see hiring and affirmative action). Basically "male privilege" is Kafkatrap, and a way to attempt to shut down dialogue because feminism is built on a house of cards and can't stand any scrutiny.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 12:01 AM
3

Cries of "hate speech" have become a way to politically silence opponents. It's political correctness 101. Fascism.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 11:49 PM
8

Of course it is. Many feminists are now trying desperately to smear us with appeal to emotion arguments combined with flat-out lies about us in the mainstream media outlets they have access to publish their garbage in (such as the linked article-- and it's not the first of its kind!), and you even see or hear of people talking about our issues in unlikely places. Just two years ago either of these things have been unheard of! It will continue to grow. Just keep getting the message out wherever y…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 09:47 PM
1

Men in general didn't even have rights like voting until shortly before women did. It was all the up to the rich before that. And, here's something you may not know: The common man getting the vote in say, America, was dependent on that whole "Draft" thing that could happen at any time. Women paid no such price for theirs.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 09:35 PM
1

I'm sorry, do you have an argument that isn't emotive garbage that amounts to a regurgitation of "just use a condom dude lol"?
/r/MensRights29/03/11 09:23 PM
16

The whole thing is insane. Especially the comments.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 03:03 PM
3

Ah, I see. Wanting equal rights = "whiny assholes." Perhaps this is more up your alley.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 05:25 AM
1

I also know this: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women? It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children. Recent research using DNA an…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 03:44 AM
1

"Experts" are the ones who say it's lower than the labs report. Just saying bro. Actual empirical data from those labs isn't anywhere near as dishonest as feminists really making stuff up.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 03:39 AM
7

Is that all you people can do is say the exact same thing over and over as if it's a relevant comment?
/r/MensRights29/03/11 03:37 AM
-1

I was able to glean that you're a feminist with your posting history in this subreddit. Other people can see that, you know. It's not bad science to assume it's at or near the lab's reported numbers at all. I'm using the empirical data. Others are bringing their own subjective opinions into play; that's bad science.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 01:15 AM
1

Testing also happens in many divorces (though, even if proven that it's not his child our un-justice system still makes men keep paying in many jurisdictions...) and many men do them covertly, as I suggested his brother do. The statistic makes no sense to you because it conflicts with your feminism and belief that women are innocent, blameless creatures. "Experts" believe at least 1 in 10 all the way to 1 in 5 children are being raised by a man they believe is the father and thinks he's the fath…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 12:34 AM
1

That's the entire assumption taken by so-called "experts' to reduce this 30%; that those who believe their relationships are rock-solid are actually correct in that assumption. Bad logic. There is no causal relation between whether you think a child is yours and whether it actually is.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 12:30 AM
4

Feel free to do your own research here, but DNA testing laboratories report ~30% of all of their tests over hundreds of thousands of tests come back saying the man is not the father. So-called "experts" reduce this percentage to between 10 and 20% with bad logic.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 12:05 AM
3

Social pressure is not the same as legal coercion.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:53 PM
8

Having sex is no more consent to fatherhood than it is motherhood, as I said. Women get choices, where are mens? Conspicuously absent, it seems. Women got to free themselves from the whole "biology = destiny" bit, but men can't seem to because people like you who think that having sex is consent to parenthood (... but only for men, of course). This isn't an education problem, it's a reproductive rights problem. Here's the problem: Men have none. None at all.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:11 PM
8

Who's post is infantile? Yours. You call me a whiner and crazy and fail to refute a single bit of what I've said-- probably because you can't.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:06 PM
4

Everyone knows sex, protected or not can result in pregnancy. That's not the issue, dunderhead. The issue is that men have zero reproductive rights. Stick to the issue.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:13 PM
14

Again, having sex is not an agreement to fatherhood, much like having sex isn't an agreement to motherhood FOR WOMEN right now. Women can abort when they're pregnant and make the executive decision to adopt or keep when it's born. Men get no such choices. As such, men should get a legal out and be able to opt out financially. Someone has to support the child? How about the woman does it herself. Her body, her choice, her responsibility perhaps? Or do enjoy the current system which enables women …
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:05 PM
16

"That's our justice system"? That's your argument? Were Jim Crow laws "just"? No. This isn't either. Having sex is not an agreement to fatherhood, as I said.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:02 PM
7

Sex is not an agreement to fatherhood, much like sex is not an agreement to motherhood.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:00 PM
15

It's not valid at all. If you believe it's valid then you must believe women should have no options either, otherwise you lack any kind of logic or consistency.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:57 PM
8

Ah yes, her choice, but somehow his responsibility. This is equality, feminist style.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:44 PM
17

Same old tired punish men for having sex argument. This was used by anti-abortionists who told women they just shouldn't have sex. Get a new game. This one's old.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:42 PM
30

It's her body, not his. That is why no man ever will have the same options as a woman. Fail to see what this has to do with child support once the child leaves her body. Really bad argument. Her body and her choice, should be entirely her responsibility if she's the only one who wants it, yeah?
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:36 PM
25

Does he have any reproductive rights? No. Should he have them? Yes, but we live in a world where a man has to pay for a woman's choice. Funny that. Make sure a covert paternity test is done, though. If it's not his (and there's a good 1 in 5 to 1 in 3 chance it isn't) at least he can still get out.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:35 PM
1

That sort of thing was not "just done" in his day. I don't know if you realize this but the whole "you don't hit girls!" social engineering bit has been around a fair bit longer than you've been alive.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 06:45 PM
2

Yes, we make more when we work far more hours at the same job, i.e. work yourself to death, literally. Unfortunately women seem to be making more hourly now for some reason. So much for that whole equal pay idea.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 06:42 PM
1

It's unrealistic if you want some of these things to expect some of the others.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 05:54 PM
4

Everyone knew Cliffor was a troll the day she registered.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 09:24 PM
0

I guess you expected this troll to do more than skim the article.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 03:59 AM
9

Thatcher.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 01:04 AM
2

Well, his username is "TrollicusMaximus," that might clue you in.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 12:01 AM
0

Contrast the sentence he'll get with that of the many 30+ year old women who get caught with 14 year old boys.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 11:47 PM
1

Accepting being cuckolded is a prime example of doormat behavior. It doesn't make him a better man than someone who will not accept it.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 10:58 PM
1

It seems you're too stupid to realize that when you swap out "men" and "women" for various ethnicities, then suddenly the conversation becomes unacceptable. Which should tell you a lot about how things currently are in feminist-indoctrinated countries. Just kidding. You knew this but were posting another shitty troll as you usually do.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 02:04 PM
1

tl;dr: You believe that a child's need to be provided for trumps any notion of fairness, rights, or equality.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 02:01 PM
2

Contraceptives are not reproductive rights and we still won't stop having this conversation.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 01:59 PM
0

Well, isn't that special. You've reduced yourself into functions and voluntary servitude so that she doesn't "run off." Oh, how can I be useful to her? Fuck that.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 01:53 PM
1

http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/the-radical-middle/27667--one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven Here you go. Based on actual statistics that the author was able to query. Even when you factor in the outrageous assertion that 90% of rapes are unreported, it's still not even 1 in 100 on college campuses, the supposed "epicenters of rape". And worse still for the disgusting peddlers for the 1 in 4, 1 in 6 etc. lies, this is all assuming that every single re…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 01:45 PM
1

Well, it's really simple. DNA technology and paternity testing have revealed that quite a large percentage of women like to have other men's babies and then pin it on someone else to pay for.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 01:31 PM
1

Actually, he does. He understands you completely.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 01:28 PM
1

Being a doormat who's willing to take any kind of abuse and injustice doesn't make one a man of "integrity and honor."
/r/MensRights25/03/11 01:19 PM
1

If you think this only happens on Jerry Springer or the Maury Povich show, think again.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 01:14 PM
3

Most women still pick the "sexy female characters" when they play online video games, for example.
/r/MensRights23/03/11 10:01 PM
1

At fifty percent failure rate, it's as good as dead. Would you pretty much gamble away your life with those odds? Of course not, if you were a man. And that's not to say the remaining 50% are even good/happy marriages, either.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 02:51 PM
2

There's an unnerving undertone of eugenicist bullshit in every one of these little rants I see about how "biological fathers aren't important." Women like this believe they should be able to chase their Darwinian instinct but of course, men cannot. If they truly believed biological parentage didn't matter so much, they would not go through expensive and intrusive IVF attempts. They would simply adopt. Their game plan is to play eugenicist at the sperm bank and then try to find someone else to he…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:37 PM
3

Most of reddit is full of sexually starved dudes who try to live vicariously through others. Shocker.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 02:46 PM
10

It's generally used to make men silently accept shitty and/or unjust things being done to them. In other words, shaming language.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 09:15 AM
1

Yes, instead what we now have is heaps of cases that amount to buyers remorse or "oops, my boyfriend/husband caught me fucking around and I need an alibi" subjectivity. Isn't that wonderful.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:46 AM
1

Well, no. You can't objectively define "confidence" as it is bandied about when referring to men and how attractive women gauge them. It's not like looking at someone and being able to tell right away whether they're thin or not.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:38 AM
2

tl;dr -- bullshit claim based off of the fact that lawyers advise divorcing women to manufacture abuse claims. According to feminists like the National Organization for Women, a woman must always be believed so here you see femnist ideology put to play with the claim that in every single time abuse is alleged, it actually happened and therefore these "abusers" are getting at least partial custody! Oh no! It's another one of those feminist distortions.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:32 AM
2

See: Virtual harems.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:15 AM
1

Quite the derail, but let me ask you this: What do women have to do, exactly? Nothing?
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:02 AM
0

Unfortunately, the very laws of say he's right. Objective truth vs. your subjective and empty anecdotal "look at me! I'm a winner!" braggadocio.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 06:35 AM
8

What they are saying is that female soldiers commit suicide at a rate of of 3 times civilian women. Unfortunately, male civilians kill themselves at a rate of 4 to 5 times civilian women. Male soldiers? Far more than even that. But these very real statistics are left out of these sensational articles because then the jig would be up.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 01:21 AM
3

The female soldier suicide rate doesn't even match the male civilian suicide rate. This is just another feminist distortion and attention grab. This "report" was around a couple months ago.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 01:17 AM
1

Actually the biggest problem with hate crime/speech legislation is that it is often abused and almost every time you see it invoked it will be politically in order to silence opponents (i.e. used as a form of fascism) rather than for the actual intended purposes of the legislation. The political correctness issue does come in a close second, though.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 01:10 AM
8

With THAT? Yeah right.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 11:05 PM
2

Of course they do. Prime example is paternity fraud.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 04:39 PM
7

There's been a ton of these assholes who register accounts and start posting in the typical manner you have feminists try to paint and smear us as because they can't stick to the issues.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 03:40 PM
2

More man-blaming, of course.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 03:37 PM
3

I was just about to post about the Roman bachelor tax when I saw the title of this thread.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 03:28 PM
3

You're aware that False Rape Society has covered stories where falsely accused men have actually been murdered as a result of a false accusation, right?
/r/MensRights18/03/11 12:05 PM
1

I would but I don't see any feminists of note that actually agree with us on our core issues of things like paternity testing and the like. Instead all we have is feminists organizations like NOW opposing things like shared parenting, Internet feminist bloggers calling for the end of due process and the like. These are just example of course. Then we have other feminists who try to smear us as "he-man misogynists" because quite honestly, they can't refute what we say and of course they oppose us…
/r/MensRights18/03/11 12:03 PM
1

It's like a new goatse for 2011.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 05:15 AM
0

Did we need feminism in 1981, before I was even born? All the information points to "No."
/r/MensRights18/03/11 05:13 AM
2

Oh, ok. Thanks for throwing some scraps down from your ivory tower and clearing that up.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 05:01 AM
1

Spooky reddit haunting of your inbox.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 03:16 AM
2

I am not the one believing "claims." I am believing empirical data.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 03:15 AM
-1

A better solution is to just give men some actual reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 01:46 AM
1

I think the radio show's percentages are too anecdotal and small of a sample size to work with or quote, really. However, DNA labs that do far more testing have come up with ~30%. Still a very scary high percentage, though.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 01:43 AM
1

I agree it's crazy. If it were actually true there'd be a hell a lot of less guys getting duped.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 01:40 AM
2

Yes, I am making the assumption that those who are uninterested in taking the test are less likely to be duped but only as a corollary to my assumption that those who volunteered to take the test had more doubt about the paternity than those who did not volunteer. I stand by this assumption based on what I read so far in this thread. You have no basis for this assumption. Like I said, it assumes that those who think their relationships are rock-solid are actually correct in this assumption, as i…
/r/MensRights18/03/11 01:38 AM
0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHn4Gjspt74
/r/MensRights18/03/11 12:56 AM
2

This is some plausible deniability bullshit. You seem to imply that only people who doubted had these tests taken, and by extension you make the very dangerous assumption that those who do NOT have the test taken are somehow less likely to be duped. As if those who believe their relationships are rock-solid are always correct in that assumption. After hundreds of thousands of tests, you get a pretty good idea of how common it is. Here's a little something you might find interesting: http://www.p…
/r/MensRights17/03/11 10:05 PM
1

It does as long as all but the Internet sayers of "not all feminists are like that!" continue to oppose us whenever we talk about actual issues or point out things that don't quite jive with that little "equality" mantra.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 09:46 PM
1

The labs themselves after hundreds of thousands of tests are consistently saying around 30%.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 08:51 PM
-1

What you mean is you're performing yet another shit&run since you had nothing of substance to say in the first place.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 03:53 AM
2

The term "femi-fascists" did have its origins after all. In things just like this.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 02:01 AM
-2

What "inequality," you dunce? Feminists have made sure that the mantra of "a woman must always be believed" is drilled into law enforcement everywhere in the developed world. They are loathe to even publicly speak about the false rape problem even when they pussyfoot around the issue by talking about how many man hours and resources they're costing, because to do so would be career suicide in our pre-fascist states. The only inequality is on men's end.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 01:47 AM
1

Wow. I had no idea this guy was so fucked up.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 11:59 PM
1

I love how every time I point out these facts that we have feminists crying "This is not a competition!" "What is this, the oppression olympics?" (irony) or "This is not a zero-sum game!" Well then why bring this shit up in the first place?
/r/MensRights16/03/11 11:46 PM
17

The current system is that a man has to pay money to someone else (his cheating wife) because he caught her fucking his best friend. And you better believe the very tiny amount of women out there like Halle Berry who also had to pay for someone cheating on them also think it's bullshit. Yes, this bill is better than where things currently sit.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 04:36 PM
5

It's better than the current system.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 04:32 PM
7

Far rarer than the assumption of guilt we see every single time a rape accusation hits the mainstream media.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 12:18 PM
3

There's plenty of evidence going back over 40 years. This is just another piece.
/r/MensRights13/03/11 10:56 AM
3

Yes, I was about to post something like this as well. You have to be pretty fucking loathesome for someone to consider a robot better company than you. And yet this is what feminists and those who are feminists by proxy due to their indoctrination and unquestioning belief in hypocritical, self-contradictory feminist "values" have made themselves.
/r/MensRights13/03/11 01:05 AM
8

I guess those kids really needed enough money paid toward them to buy diamond-encrusted silverware to eat with and the like. Massive child support payments like this totally don't go towards the women's personal spending or anything, oh no! A few US states have this right in that they cap the amount of money paid. A woman doesn't need tens of thousands of dollars a month to pay for a child's expenses.
/r/MensRights13/03/11 12:54 AM
2

This is the standard line whenever a man is treated poorly by a woman. "He must have done something to deserve it."
/r/MensRights13/03/11 12:47 AM
7

Did you provide any source for your unsubstantiated claim that feminism is in any way comparable to the civil rights movement? Oh, right, you didn't. That's because you're a troll. You can feel free to use google or just search this subreddit and find innumerable amounts of feminists who believe it is "wrong" for women who lie about rape to be actually held accountable for that, and you can find many "women's groups" (read: feminists) who think that a man should always have to keep paying even w…
/r/MensRights12/03/11 11:04 PM
1

Mommy's baby, Daddy's? Maybe. Pretty simple.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 10:25 PM
1

The mental gymnastics a feminist has to do to even attempt to reframe things as the man's fault are really quite amazing, even if the end product still makes zero sense.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 09:55 PM
4

The guy is a total doormat and probably desperate to hold on to anything. Wonder if he's also paying for all her shit.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 09:27 PM
6

Yes, I'm sure that femnism, defenders of false rape accusers, paternity fraudsters and the like are the same as the civil rights movement. Let me believe you.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 08:56 PM
1

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/01/tale-of-two-kinds-of-voyeurism-bad-kind.html
/r/MensRights12/03/11 01:16 PM
2

Plenty of decent people willing to adopt, so they say. Not that I have anything against abortion.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 12:59 PM
1

And of course, no wealth transfer.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 03:24 AM
1

Serious case of Just World Fallacy right here. I suppose you think that men who are proven to be the father always have their payments cease as well? Not so.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 03:17 AM
1

It's actually a popular tactic with female criminals as at the very least it makes the pussy pass THAT much more effective. To be honest, if a pregnant woman is convicted of a serious crime that should have her sitting behind bars for years the same as a man would, the child should either be given to her immediate family while she sits behind bars or simply given up for adoption. There should be no sentencing discount.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 03:14 AM
6

I like the implication that women themselves always have someone else manipulating them into doing horrible things. As if they have no moral agency or free will of their own. That's classy.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 03:12 AM
2

Political correctness. It would literally be career suicide for a police chief or officer to speak up about false rape accusations in public and on the record. We live in pre-fascist societies.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 03:10 AM
3

The problem itself is that feminism has had a chokehold on discourse in our cultures for decades, really. It's indoctrination. To many people, shit like this might even seem "normal"-- that's how deep the indoctrination runs. Things like this have been normalized. Bringing men's rights issues up with a lot of these people is like trying to have a reasoned talk with racists.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 03:08 AM
1

Personality and compatibility become more important, and this is better for the average male because it results in more incompatibility between the elite and women, and thus a more equitable distribution, which definitely would reduce a lot of bitterness among lower status males. The exact opposite of this happening because women are the choosers and still choose to go for the high status males, of which there are now fewer and innumerably more barriers to becoming one than there were, say, 50 y…
/r/MensRights11/03/11 03:26 PM
3

That's great but I'm not talking about the personal here, hombre. Good derail, though. I'm talking about the factual data concerning women's choices. Feminist arguments about "patriarchy" driving female sexual selection were proven to be bullshit by the very conditions they claimed were creating such selection being eradicated. Women still go for the highest status men they can get regardless of how "dependent" they are on them. You know how women initiate over 70% of all divorces? They initiate…
/r/MensRights11/03/11 02:45 PM
7

Despite more women being employed and more of the "unattached" women now out-earning their peers, women still aren't choosing anything but the highest status men they can get. Even the highest earning women. Feminism's argument is bunk.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 04:04 AM
8

Actual, forcable rapes? I would say no. All of these buyers regrets situations and other lies that feminists have redefined as "rape"? Definitely.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 03:32 AM
1

I already told you what I think. Real, proven rapists should be locked up. Nothing wrong with that. However, nobody's doing any good with the PC witch hunt trials that go on today with presumed guilt nor with the feminist societal attitude of man=bad, woman=good and inflated lies about the prevalence of rape. Feminists aren't "largely unimportant" at all when their own brand of PC has infested the mainstream consciousness and indeed politics themselves.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 01:51 AM
1

Then how about you take that up with the feminists who create these lies, just as we are.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 01:22 AM
5

Political correctness, ya'll. That oppressor class as defined by feminists obviously can't be discriminated against or anything of that nature.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 12:57 AM
9

Apex Fallacy at work right here. A tiny fraction of a percentage of men are on top; therefore all men are. Way to project the successes of a tiny amount of men onto all men and then say everything's fine despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 12:55 AM
1

The "reporting" of low conviction rates is more feminist prop. What did you not understand about that? The conviction rate for rape is in-line with about every other serious crime.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 12:53 AM
5

There's something bigoted in the fact that people always assume a man must have done something to deserve abuse (see John Bobbit case), deserve women's infidelity, etc. No one assumes this when it happens to women.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 11:20 AM
1

"Hanging out with other guys". Right.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 07:19 AM
2

Women need to be subject to the same legal standards men are or the whole system is meaningless. You either stop putting men on these lists for shit like this or you put women who do these things on them as well.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 07:17 AM
1

False rape accusations, feminist fear/hate mongering based on falsified information and treating all men as rapists or rapists-in-waiting as many young men going into college are subject to are in fact issues related men's rights. I have no idea where you conjured "latent misogyny" and "not caring about rape victims" or "feel they deserve it" from, but you aren't arguing from a standpoint of logic, facts, or reason. You are appealing to emotion and attempting to call me some sort of rape apologi…
/r/MensRights10/03/11 07:13 AM
5

Yes... he must have done something to deserve it, right? I love this attitude.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 06:51 AM
2

Why should he apologize. He isn't the one who created the violent situation.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 06:42 AM
1

We do have an idea about how many women are raped: Far fewer than feminists claim, even when you apply the biggest canard in the universe: the 90% unreported claim. The empirical data is there. YOU are the one claiming we "don't know how many" due to "unreported". YOU are the one ignoring empirical data.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 06:32 AM
0

Don't try to shift the goalposts. What I'm talking about is the outright lies about the prevalence of rape and other things that feminists cook up in order to justify more anti-male legislation.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 02:40 AM
2

This is how deep feminist indoctrination runs in society.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 02:34 AM
0

It is an outright lie in the way feminists present it as discrimination and women being paid 20-30% less for the same work and same hours. As for rape, here's a little exercise in looking at the statistics from the supposed epicenters of rape, college campuses. http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/the-radical-middle/27667--one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven
/r/MensRights09/03/11 05:36 PM
0

Well, you can either believe him by checking your facts or you can PC it up. Here's a hint: You actually believed the 75 cents to the dollar lie; what other feminist lies do you believe? 1 in 4 raped perhaps?
/r/MensRights09/03/11 05:24 PM
0

You assume we attack those who believe in "women's rights" but what we really attack are the sexist bigots who believe in female privilege at the expense of men's very rights. One needs only look at the feminist responses to false rape accusations, paternity fraud and the like to see why we cannot get along with such people. When it comes to raising/birthing children, it just makes sense (to me at least) that women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, while men have the rig…
/r/MensRights09/03/11 05:21 PM
3

The author has never read a single MRA piece on male reproductive rights. He's probably read some trash from Futrelle or other hacks trying to smear the MRM and thinks he knows what he's talking about when it comes to men's issues and what MRAs think and say. He doesn't, and it's quite clear.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 05:08 PM
3

This entire comment thread is a strawman, including your own. Here we have a man locked away for 20 years based on nothing more than he said, she said witch trials. I simply responded to a non-sequitur and you decided to throw your peanut gallery comments in.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 04:56 PM
1

"We" haven't allowed a middle-aged shrew who was cast off my more attractive men who is now looking for a chump to pay her way tell us what to do. You might have.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 02:51 PM
8

False claims during divorce are so common and effective some call it "the silver bullet."
/r/MensRights09/03/11 02:49 PM
1

No, it's cool bro, I don't own her vagina or anything. This is 2011 after all. Feel free to knock her up and force me to pay for your bastard childl She has her own desires independent of my own and all.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 02:48 PM
2

So what exactly is the point of marriage? Transfer of property from a man to a woman? That is exactly what it has become. Regardless of the woman's conduct. She can cuckold him and still get it all in the divorce.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 02:46 PM
0

Clearly, the military needs quotas too. Oh but not on the battlefield, because women are special.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 02:58 PM
2

It belongs in men's rights forums as long as disgusting judges, the media and sometimes even the public look for a man to point the finger at when a woman does these things, just as they did here in Canada recently when Elaine Campione killed her two children.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 01:36 PM
2

Wonder how much higher that would be if most men knew about DNA paternity testing and how common it is for a man to not be the father when a woman says he is.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 01:30 PM
1

Another stunning example of the guilty until proven innocent mindset and reminder of the fact that things in reality are the exact opposite of the feminist claims of "rape culture".
/r/MensRights08/03/11 08:52 AM
7

Well, even women who commit crimes that aren't lying about rape now get protected from being named. Isn't our two-tiered social system where men are second class citizens at best great?
/r/MensRights08/03/11 07:07 AM
3

You gotta put more effort into your trolls, Cliffor.
/r/MensRights06/03/11 09:55 PM
9

It's become a buzzword and label for men women find unattractive and you can bet your ass almost any time you hear it, it has nothing to do with behavior.
/r/MensRights06/03/11 09:52 PM
3

Never seen any female gamers really win in competitions, and there are plenty who play FPS and fighting games. It's sort of like poker where they think they need their own league or own tournaments for some reason. You would think, what possible advantage could men have in video games or poker? But there you have it.
/r/MensRights06/03/11 05:05 PM
2

Here's something interesting that popped up in the related articles: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110302/NEWS01/110301089 Carter faces a minimum of 10 years in prison. Sentencing will be July 8 in Davenport. Of course, he's scum for having sex with a 12 year old and all but... haven't we seen cases where the sexes were flipped? What exact punishment did those women receive? It sure as hell wasn't a minimum of 10 years.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 08:16 PM
9

And this is exactly why no fault divorce is bullshit.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 08:06 PM
7

Desperate middle-aged shrew who was cast off by more attractive men trying to convince the rest of the men they need to continue being walking ATMs. Oh man.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 08:03 PM
2

It's both, really. In some areas, the laws have been cleaned up regarding this, allowing certain things like minors within two to four years of each other. So it'd be ok if an 18 year old is with a 15 or 16 year old.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 05:52 PM
44

Meanwhile teenage boys get prison time and on the sex offender list for having sex with a girl 1-2 years younger.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 12:28 PM
0

Feminism has been like it currently is for longer than I've been alive. I hear stories about what it was originally supposedly like, but I've never actually seen anything consistent with that.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:13 AM
12

All that proves is that she can rote memorize a bunch of shit, but can't think for herself.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:11 AM
0

Pretty sure you and I had this discussion before. Female circumcision has the exact same effects on sexual function that male circumcision does. There is also infibulation but that is of course something completely different.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 10:39 AM
1

You know, the place where the law makes men "rapists" if a condom breaks and men are pretty much guilty until proven innocent. That place.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:02 AM
1

Nobody said that it proves all women are false accusers. What all of this false rape news does is help blow the lid off the fact that it isn't rare or a myth at all as the rent-seeking scum who push real myths about the prevalance of rape say.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:52 AM
1

Following your line of logic, errbody getting raped. No? Only if you believe the 1 in 4 and 90% underreported myths from sexual grievance industry shills.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:34 AM
7

You don't fix it as long as women are hypergamous to the extreme, but you seem to be trying to excuse what these women did as if it's all the man's fault. This may be true if women were like trained dogs who didn't understand but just did things, but they aren't. What kind of person doesn't question things when told to molest children. Honestly.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:29 AM
3

Legal adoption is a whole different issue than paternity fraud. Everyone knows what they're getting going in.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 07:21 AM
1

It's been reported that the false paternity rate is 35% but logically if you want a paternity test you must doubt paternity... The representation is always skewed thusly, "When paternity is in doubt the rate of false paternity is 35%." The problem I have with this idea is that it makes the assumption that someone who thinks that their relationship is rock solid is somehow correct in that assumption. It's pure damage control. The worst paternity fraud cases I've heard of are such men who had no r…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 05:36 AM
7

My comments there and on the blog where I talked about the origin of the word "cuckold" as one feminist commenter thought that men could do it too (they can't) were deleted. I also talked about the statistics behind of paternity fraud, how 10% is an estimate based on damage control and that the labs report 30% on hundreds of thousands of completed tests.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 10:38 PM
3

She literally believes women have the right to cuckold men. That is what it amounts to.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 09:37 PM
9

Every time you bring up the paternity fraud issue around feminists and there feminist-minded, there are some really bad arguments from their side. Such as.... "Passing on your genetics/DNA isn't everything!" ... which is exactly why the vast majority, if not all of them demand to squeeze out their own babies, right? If these hypocrites really thought that, they'd adopt. "Men adopt all of the time. I don't see the big deal." A strange argument. Adoption is quite different from paternity fraud. Se…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 09:37 PM
2

Canada is about as bad as Sweden when it comes to things like this. You're not wrong.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 08:03 PM
1

The post did begin with "He doesn't want kids" so I think it's reasonably safe to assume they'd talked about it before and she was told this.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 08:39 AM
6

I don't know. She seems pretty sensible. She doesn't seem like she's trying to get money out of him or force him to do anything, and is respecting that he doesn't want kids. I don't see anything wrong there. Looks like she's just asking whether it'd be ethical or not to tell him about it. This isn't like one of those disgusting "Oops" pregnancy stories or paternity fraud or anything like that.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:39 PM
2

Unless you have some special set of morals that isn't based on the godlen rule, you are 100% wrong. Oh? Where's the reciprocity? The Golden Rule doesn't apply to those who don't follow it. Yes, they did. /r/feminisms is that thattaway, Dworkin Jr. Claiming that men as a group created rape is the same old tired feminist mantra that all men are rapists. Feminists turned you all into whiners? I see. We're whiners for talking about real issues of injustice. You're literally human garbage.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:17 PM
2

No, this does NOT prove that. To prove that you would have to assume that every charity spends the same money and that the same amount of money is spent on healthcare treatment for men and women. Otherwise it's a complete assumption. Even if one is a filibustering turd like yourself who seems to be trying to go with the plausible deniability route by trying to say that although the number of charities for women's specific health concerns dwarf men's that somehow men's "must" be receiving more do…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 06:33 PM
-1

Better than 18 years of child support, and she certainly deserved it for trying to inseminate herself with a used condom.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 11:35 AM
1

This specific incidence of a disgusting woman using a used condom is pretty rare, all things considered, yes. "Oops" pregnancies and paternity fraud aren't that rare, though.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 11:32 AM
3

You are backing away from my original argument, which is that women wanting men to help protect them from rape is perfectly reasonable since the rape of a woman by a man is a problem entirely created by men. And NO, not all men are rapists. But some are. And a woman being raped has no control over those men. But guess who does? Someone that witnesses a rape (male or female). I see, first you say men as a group are rapists. Then we're not! Complete 180. But we still haven't figured out where this…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 10:43 AM
2

What does this have to do with the original point? Nothing. Actually, it does. Not only are there more charities for women which receive more funding, there are actual government health offices specifically for women but not for men. This is proof that women receive more funding. You know...? The original point you were denying. I know, I know--- you're going to throw out another non-sequitur here as a response. Go hog wild. Domestic violence is overwhelmingly male on female, http://www.csulb.ed…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 10:22 AM
3

Paternity fraud AND false rape accusation in one. Classy. Only going to serve a total of six months for it as well. Pussy pass in full effect here. The soldier in 23 Pioneer Regiment, based in Bicester, near Oxford, called police but as detectives delved deeper, they worked out she was lying. Despite the affair, Mr Morley stood by his fiancée and later married her. What a buffoon. I wonder how many of those 4 kids are even his. Probably none. At least one isn't.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:58 AM
2

There are many foundations for testicular cancer. Nice try though. These are GOVERNMENT health offices for men? I'd like to see this. There may be a far and few between independent charities which are dwarfed in number by the ones specifically for women's health, though. Grats on completely dodging all of my points and making a joke. You look real smart tho! Did I? You implied one of two things there, based on the cultural zeitgeist of man=bad, woman=good: That domestic violence is a strictly ma…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:05 AM
4

How many men wouldn't want to know. You must be a woman. Stop concern trolling.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 07:26 AM
2

What are you referring to here? Because giving birth is very expensive Breast cancer research funding, all of those "offices for women's health" (there isn't a single one for men) and so on. This is a practical consideration. You wouldn't allow people dressed as clowns into a shelter for victims of people attacked by clowns. All men are rapists and that's all they are. Am I right guys. When people donate money to a university, they can specify whatever stipulations they want on how the money is …
/r/MensRights01/03/11 07:20 AM
5

It means you have the right to know if a child is yours without any social backlash whatsoever. It also means that those men who are trusting people won't be taken for a ride. It's really win-win here.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 04:50 AM
2

That was a troll from 4chan, I think. Not even a very clever one. It took an internet meme (the "over 9000" thing) and combined it with a pedophilia joke.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 03:34 AM
9

Making it standard procedure does further your rights and it also stops millions upon millions of frauds.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 01:11 AM
3

David Futrelle cherry-picks random comment quotes from MRA blogs that he may have well made himself due to the anonymity of the Internet in his crass attempt to discredit MRAs, and then says this? Oh, irony.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 01:07 AM
2

And those criminals are men. And? As he isn't one of them himself, I don't see what you're getting at here. Legally he doesn't. As a human being, he does. No, he doesn't. The point he made is that because women have done nothing to stem the flow of anti-male legislation and have in fact taken advantage of them, that even morally he has no responsibility. There is no reciprocity at play here. And, I agree with him. Are you trying to equate rape with paternity fraud? No, but are you trying to say …
/r/MensRights01/03/11 12:48 AM
1

If you read the article, he even adjusted for the "90% unreported" canard from the wild-eyed servitors of the sexual grievance industry and came up with about 1 in 188. This is of course less than 1%.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 12:29 AM
3

Feminists still demand men adhere to the old social contract. That's the funny thing.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 12:16 AM
3

Sounds like a lot of rationalizations on your part, actually. In his accounting of violence, he forgets that most violence towards woman is done by men. It is the broken window fallacy. Men create violence towards women, and in response women want protection. Breaking windows and charging for their replacement isn't sound economics, it's extortion. Dangerous argument. "Men" don't. Criminals do. As a man who doesn't create violence against women, what responsibility does he have? None. Men are no…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 12:02 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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