TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

FeierInMeinHose Archive

View 0 posts and 907 comments by FeierInMeinHose on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

Courts can be wrong in both guilty and acquittal verdicts. Watch the video of when he wrests control from the officer and tell me he didn’t try to shoot her twice. Him being an incompetent shooter doesn’t mean he didn’t intend to kill the fleeing officer.
/r/MensRights12/06/23 12:54 AM
-2

Firing at an unarmed fleeing person you just bludgeoned being “probably illegal” in your mind is all I need to know. Don’t break your back trying to bend over backwards for violent criminals who would murder you at the drop of a hat.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 06:44 PM
-2

Yeah, no. It's incredibly rare that an officer shoots an unarmed fleeing suspect. 99% of "unarmed black man shot" are incidents like this, and we see why lethal force is justified as when he wrested control of the gun away from the officer he tried to kill her with it.
/r/MensRights11/06/23 02:07 PM
-4

Here's how it really happened: Officer tries to detain Ari (probably illegal) -> Ari resists (legal) -> Officer draws her firearm (legal) -> Ari holds onto the officer's arm as he pummels her (illegal) -> Officer fires at Ari (legal) -> Ari disarms the officer (illegal) -> Ari points the weapon at the officer (illegal) but has a jam-> The officer flees -> Ari clears the jam and fires the firearm in the direction the officer is fleeing (illegal). This is far more heinous than I remembered. Here's…
/r/MensRights11/06/23 12:20 PM
0

Yeah, idk about that one, chief. Even if you are within your rights to resist an unlawful arrest, that doesn’t give you the right to beat the officer severely, steal their firearm, and fire it (i remember it being in the direction the officer was fleeing, but I may be wrong). He committed several heinous crimes regardless of the legitimacy of the attempted arrest. Both him and the officer not being found guilty (with the latter not being tried) of the serious crimes they committed is a complete …
/r/MensRights11/06/23 03:32 AM
10

Only if you include bejeweled and candy crush. So women like mindless time wasters, men like a challenge, when looking at video game preferences.
/r/MensRights10/05/23 11:15 AM
-7

“Lost”
/r/MensRights29/04/23 12:16 PM
3

It’s really not. It’s feels easy to them because men of low moral standards will sleep with whoever, but to get a guy to wife you is another story.
/r/MensRights20/03/23 09:28 PM
0

Right, someone with the opinion that homicide is good is being forced by others to conform to the opinion that homicide is bad via the judicial system.
/r/MensRights15/03/23 09:31 PM
1

What about those whose opinion it is that homicide isn’t wrong? Do we respect their opinion and let them go around killing people?
/r/MensRights15/03/23 04:11 PM
14

There’s a difference between someone being “your kid” and someone being “a kid”. You know this, just admit that you thought she was younger than 25.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 04:06 PM
12

That’s fine, but you said she was a kid. Nowhere on the face of the earth is a 25 year old considered a kid.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 03:35 PM
19

His girlfriend is 25 years old, she’s not a kid by any stretch of the imagination.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 01:48 PM
0

Mental illness is the reason.
/r/MensRights03/03/23 12:57 PM
35

Women aren’t more in tune with Mother Nature, that’s just bullshit they tell themselves because they want to be Disney princesses. Men are the survivalists, men are the farmers, men are the hunters. Most modern women barely interact with nature at all, and of those that do it’s usually superficial like going on hikes or growing house plants.
/r/MensRights12/02/23 07:09 PM
7

Not just in DV situations, but in general. If women weren’t raised to believe there won’t be a violent response to their violence then they wouldn’t jump to it as quickly.
/r/MensRights03/02/23 12:16 PM
32

She’s either got impossible standards or, more likely, is lying in the article. You don’t go on dates nearly every day for two years and not find someone.
/r/MensRights25/01/23 12:40 PM
9

Story based questions are ones where if you get it wrong you can still get partial points by lying about not understanding the question.
/r/MensRights13/12/22 12:49 PM
0

People shouldn’t be forced to give their money to the less fortunate just so they can afford a child. Having children isn’t forced upon people by the government and it’s therefore not the purview of the government to provide for the children.
/r/MensRights27/11/22 01:03 AM
0

How about “I should get the choice whether I want to pay for a preschool” mentality?
/r/MensRights26/11/22 09:49 PM
16

They’re never free, you’re just forced to pay for them whether you use them or not.
/r/MensRights26/11/22 03:34 PM
38

Spending money on sending kids to preschool when one parent stays at home is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights26/11/22 03:25 PM
4

Modern women.
/r/MensRights24/09/22 12:15 PM
17

99% of them aren’t being killed.
/r/MensRights15/09/22 10:07 AM
14

That day won’t come. We’re already seeming swaths of single, childless 35 year olds bitching about not being able to find a man but still not “settling” for tradesmen. These women will die alone.
/r/MensRights03/09/22 01:40 PM
22

Nah, single mothers are rare and belittled in conservative cultures.
/r/MensRights27/08/22 11:41 AM
5

Regulating whether you can have a medical procedure is not the same as mandating that you do.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:06 PM
15

Her brain needs percussive maintenance.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 11:41 AM
5

Even if she doesn’t seem the type, why would you not have your own condom? Never trust that someone else has the same care about contraception as you do.
/r/MensRights21/06/22 09:30 PM
1

By the time I'm drunk enough to find her attractive the whiskey dick will have kicked in.
/r/MensRights20/05/22 04:54 PM
3

Even without protection you're looking at ~36% chance of a pregnancy on a woman's most fertile day, so with two forms of protection it's at most ~1 in 28k. Taking into account the other days in a woman's cycle this drops to ~15% so it's really closer to 1 in 67k. People that use birth control failing as an argument for abortion are just using it as part of a motte and bailey tactic.
/r/MensRights11/05/22 11:40 PM
21

The great thing is, overturning Roe v. Wade is rescinding an entirely male court's opinion on the subject.
/r/MensRights11/05/22 11:28 PM
0

As a society, we shouldn't support being a single parent. Single parent households produce a massively disproportionate number of criminals.
/r/MensRights09/05/22 05:02 PM
-10

The appendix hasn't been bred out of us despite it causing infections and death. The human body isn't perfect.
/r/MensRights02/05/22 05:34 PM
59

That’s how it first came about. It actually makes a little sense when you’re bathing once a month, but cleanliness has been the same for both intact and circumcised penises for a while. The reason it’s so popular in modern times is because the king of cereal decided he would do anything to get little boys not to touch themselves, even mutilating their penises.
/r/MensRights02/05/22 03:07 PM
13

Because even a biological woman who is 6’1”, an exceedingly rare trait, won’t have anywhere near the biological advantage a man has. Your argument is like saying “well, if you let off someone going 5 mph over the speed limit with a warning, why shouldn’t you let someone going 20 over?”.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:28 PM
13

Prison guards aren’t cops.
/r/MensRights29/03/22 08:39 AM
1

They said the same thing about the other two, excepting the 80% part.
/r/MensRights16/03/22 11:29 PM
1

I am arguing. What I'm not doing is trying to assume you're a fool, which is what you said even if you didn't mean to.
/r/MensRights26/02/22 08:23 PM
1

No.
/r/MensRights26/02/22 06:55 PM
4

Only an idiot would take their assumption of what two people look like from a distance to be truth.
/r/MensRights26/02/22 06:36 PM
2

Sometimes other people are your enemies.
/r/MensRights26/02/22 05:52 PM
21

You're given a choice, men are not. You're not seen as inferior, because you're not refused the ability to serve. If women were forced to leave, I'd agree with you. Accept that women are being valued over men, or not. Either way, the reality is that women are valued more than men.
/r/MensRights26/02/22 04:51 AM
22

You're saying that women are still devalued when they are explicitly given preferential treatment when it comes to saving their lives, which implicitly means they are valued more. That's the issue I have.
/r/MensRights26/02/22 04:36 AM
33

You're given freedom that men don't have an you still see it as oppression. If all men were slaves you'd say that it's devaluing women by saying they're not good enough to do the manual labor.
/r/MensRights26/02/22 04:05 AM
29

Giving women priority over men on trains is implicitly saying that women's lives are more valuable, not less. Women aren't being forced to leave,they're just given priority on any transport leaving.
/r/MensRights26/02/22 03:32 AM
1

Doesn't he talk about cheating in Runaway?
/r/MensRights18/02/22 08:39 PM
29

Especially since his family cleaned it up. It's ridiculous that this is a $100 fine in the first place, it should only come to a fine if the issue is not addressed, like a broken taillight.
/r/MensRights14/01/22 12:29 AM
4

It's a collaborative effort between men and women. Men did the physical and metaphorical building of it, while women maintained the support structure for those men. Both are absolutely necessary, and neither is a greater feat than the other. The poison with feminism is that it tells women the supporting role is lesser than the main, when that is far from true.
/r/MensRights13/01/22 08:16 PM
68

It’s more that they’ve been conditioned to assume there will be zero retaliation for their violence, whereas men know there will be consequences for their actions.
/r/MensRights03/01/22 10:05 PM
5

An even more salient question is: how are there prerequisites to a right? Either it is a privilege which can have prerequisites or it is a right which can only be taken away after some crime has been committed. If a man is not given the chance to exercise his right before declaring he has committed a crime, then there is no objective distinction between the law broken by the man and a prerequisite to the, now, privilege for the man.
/r/MensRights10/12/21 11:46 PM
15

Lock you up against your will and bill you for the privilege. Aussies shit their backbones out a long time ago given that there’s been little uproar in response to these camps.
/r/MensRights07/12/21 06:51 PM
1

Pointing your gun at someone and shooting them are different things.
/r/MensRights29/11/21 12:56 AM
1

I can't imagine twisting someone's words to such an extent.
/r/MensRights28/11/21 10:14 PM
1

Either back up or actually point the gun at him. A man who allows someone to get within striking distance doesn’t fear that person will strike him.
/r/MensRights28/11/21 08:02 PM
1

Sorry, other way around. When. Chad approached Kyle. If you have a reasonable fear that someone will enact violence on you and you brandish a firearm in order to protect yourself from this violence, then you do not allow that person to approach you.
/r/MensRights28/11/21 07:55 PM
1

Nope, you cannot use your weapon for an unlawful purpose even if it is on your own property. What you can do lawfully on your own property is broader, but you still don’t get to brandish the firearm as a deterrent for simple trespass. Had he started with the gun out it could reasonably be argued that he feared a greater crime, like assault, were about to be committed, but even that would go away when Kyle approached Chad.
/r/MensRights28/11/21 07:21 AM
1

Having a gun on your person and brandishing are two different things. You’re just being ridiculous at this point, it is very clear that Kyle drew is weapon as a nonverbal threat to get Chad to leave, he didn’t just go grab his gun on a whim.
/r/MensRights27/11/21 11:20 PM
1

Up until the gun was brought out Chad had not displayed or threatened any violent behavior so there was no reason to brandish the firearm other than to threaten its use in defending Kyle’s property against trespass, which is not a legal use of deadly force and thus the threat of its use is also not legal.
/r/MensRights27/11/21 10:51 PM
2

No, you’re not allowed to use deadly force against simple trespass. If he fired with the intent to hit Chad you could have an argument, but as it stands he fired not with the intent to do more than threaten, which is a reckless discharge and is a crime in the state of Texas. If you look just before Kyle steps off of the porch you can see Chad’s hand still on the butt of the stock, while Kyle is in front of the bench. This coincides with where Chad ends up after he is shot. Also, again, look at t…
/r/MensRights27/11/21 07:07 PM
1

When I pause the video I see his arm come dislodged from the butt of the stock right around the front of the window to the right of the door, right where he went down. If you look at the blurry video you can easily see Chad's body, the big neon green blob, and once the two separate it does not once move towards Kyle. If he were moving towards Kyle you'd expect him to collapse forward onto the dirt, not backward onto the porch. There is everything unlawful about the first shot, by the way. Warnin…
/r/MensRights27/11/21 06:39 PM
3

Still steps towards him, my ass. The events are as follows: Kyle emerges from the house with his rifle. Chad walks up to Kyle in an aggressive, although not threatening, manner. Kyle shoots at Chad's feet (unlawful discharge of a firearm). Chad attempts to disarm the person now committing felony assault with a deadly weapon against him (Kyle). Kyle, not able to wrest control back from Chad, starts swinging the two of them in a circular motion to try and break Chad's grip. Kyle pushes Chad with h…
/r/MensRights27/11/21 05:30 PM
1

When he shoved Chad to the ground and ran ~5 feet away.
/r/MensRights27/11/21 05:04 PM
2

I never argued that chad’s use of force was lawful, as it doesn’t matter at all in this case. Notice that the law explicitly outlines cases where use of force is not lawful even to resist unlawful force. Note also that these restrictions are on all uses of force, and the restrictions on deadly force are even greater. The argument for self defense could have been made had Kyle shot before retreating, but after he retreated and Chad did not continue his unlawful use of force any claim of self defe…
/r/MensRights27/11/21 04:55 PM
3

Even grabbing the gun wouldn't make it self defense unless he had a reason to believe if he were disarmed that the gun would be used against him. Chad wasn't justified in any use of force , let alone deadly force, as he provoked the encounter and didn't attempt to abandon the encounter (Texas Penal Code § 9.31(b)(4)). https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.31
/r/MensRights27/11/21 11:44 AM
5

No way in hell that's justified anywhere in the United States. Specifically for Texas, the use of force is outlined in the Texas Penal Code § 9.31, in which it specifically says (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (4) if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other neverth…
/r/MensRights27/11/21 11:23 AM
57

Every part of her face is drawn on. She’s a 4 trying to be an 8.
/r/MensRights21/11/21 04:40 PM
10

There are still 5 available, it’s just that the filling order is to leave a urinal between another occupant until that is no longer possible.
/r/MensRights09/11/21 07:46 PM
11

He should've 100% used the taser and had his partner cover with lethal in case it didn't work, as often happens, and the knife wielding party was still an imminent deadly threat. Firing twice, however, is not an issue as once you use deadly force you use it until the threat is eliminated and the person they used it on was getting up after the first shot. There's also the issue of the cop completely ignoring the information given and operating on his own prejudices. They knew that the father told…
/r/MensRights04/11/21 08:40 PM
4

I sort of agree. At the same time, the adult shouldn’t be held responsible, either, as it is a reasonable assumption that anyone in a club or bar where they card at the door will be over the age of majority.
/r/MensRights03/11/21 03:49 AM
26

The key difference is that with traditionalism men also get the power in any relationship, so while they are the ones responsible for everything they are also the ones who reap the rewards for everything. With progressive feminism men are essentially seen as a slave class.
/r/MensRights31/10/21 10:57 AM
1

That’s judging them on different criteria. Men maintain a higher level of muscle mass than women at the same activity level. Women could reach a level of strength that men can, but it’d require more time every week to maintain than a man would which would mean that they aren’t sharing the same opportunities which goes against what you said previously.
/r/MensRights28/10/21 04:08 AM
0

You said the average person given the average opportunities will be able to do the same things regardless of gender. That is completely false. If you took the average man and had him strength train for 10 hours a weak he’d be able to lift more than even the highest strength potential woman given the same amount of hours to train and diet. The difference in strength between men and women is enormous. It’s why coed sports are sparse and dominated by men.
/r/MensRights28/10/21 03:40 AM
1

That is completely false. The average man is far, far stronger than the average woman. I rarely exercise, and that’s including things like yard work as exercise, and I can lift more than women I know who regularly exercise including toning lifts. Men naturally maintain a higher muscle mass than women.
/r/MensRights28/10/21 02:39 AM
9

It seals not just around the mouth, but around the entire face. Rather than having some kid accidentally form an incomplete seal by having his bangs forward or catching some hair around the sideburns, better to just mandate all combat personnel have short hair.
/r/MensRights22/10/21 07:51 AM
8

How about watching someone in their home while they’re naked and posting nude photos of them online.
/r/MensRights08/10/21 04:41 AM
1

Something being an accident does not prevent you from being responsible for those consequences. Ending a life to rid yourself of the consequences is completely unjust for the life you’ve ended. You also completely neglect that the vast majority of abortions are not from accidents. This motte and Bailey you have going is extremely intellectually corrupt.
/r/MensRights08/10/21 03:52 AM
1

By being irresponsible you force someone to live in your body. By having unprotected sex you consent to being pregnant. The chances of protected sex leading to a pregnancy are so slim as to be negligible. Vasectomies soon after the procedure don’t count as birth control, as they regularly fail, and any doctor performing the procedure would tell their patient such.
/r/MensRights08/10/21 01:36 AM
2

Then wrap it up, take the pill, or don’t have sex. The chances of multiple forms of birth control failing on a day where a woman is fertile are extremely low, maybe 1 in 100000. The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are from women who have excessive amounts of unprotected sex and don’t take plan B. You shouldn’t be able to be insanely irresponsible and then shove the consequences onto an innocent child.
/r/MensRights07/10/21 02:14 AM
5

Then wrap it up, take the pill, or don’t have sex. The chances of multiple forms of birth control failing on a day where a woman is fertile are extremely low, maybe 1 in 100000. The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are from women who have excessive amounts of unprotected sex and don’t take plan B. You shouldn’t be able to be insanely irresponsible and then shove the consequences onto an innocent child.
/r/MensRights07/10/21 02:14 AM
5

You wouldn't know what most men do, considering you aren't one. It just goes to show how little you give men credit for, and how much you take for granted, providing a great example of my point.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 02:29 AM
3

You got a source for that statistic? I’d believe it for couples in general, but for married couples I have my doubts. You also don’t necessarily lose the housework that the men do just because you rent. Sure, a landlord is responsible for the upkeep of his or her property, but that doesn’t mean he or she drops everything to fix a leaky faucet.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 11:16 PM
3

None of that refutes what I’ve stated. It’s all about how women feel they do less or feel their relationship is worsening. A woman can be completely oblivious to the work her husband puts in to maintain the house and it would still be reported as her feeling he doesn’t do enough.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 11:13 PM
4

Because they take for granted that the lawn gets mowed, any little electrical or plumbing problem gets fixed, and any heavy lifting gets done. The problem isn’t that men don’t do enough, it’s that modern women don’t appreciate what men do.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 10:16 PM
28

It’s important only if there is a disproportionate effect on one group, as that could point to a higher risk of serious symptoms. This is the case for men, as men make up a significantly lower proportion of elderly people than women do yet they are a significantly larger proportion of covid hospitalizations.
/r/MensRights23/09/21 04:33 AM
22

Or if she ever can’t wear makeup. The makeup industry has a big chunk of the blame in modern women’s inflated egos.
/r/MensRights14/09/21 03:04 AM
4

I won’t play with your moved goalposts. Go soak your head, commie.
/r/MensRights31/08/21 11:55 PM
4

The atrocities committed by communist regimes far outweigh those committed by fascist regimes.
/r/MensRights31/08/21 11:52 PM
15

No, but you sure as hell will find plenty of hammers and sickles, which are just as bad.
/r/MensRights31/08/21 05:30 PM
-1

It specifies that not only is the phenomenon only occurring when a liquid and nonliquid touch, but it also uses adheres, not sticks, and as such water cohering to itself is not included. It’s wrong only in that something absorbent can be permeated by water without being wet and something covered in oil is greased. The property of wetness is solely defined by the amount of aqueous solution of low viscosity which adheres to a surface.
/r/MensRights24/08/21 09:27 PM
1

And the size of the business.
/r/MensRights16/08/21 10:39 PM
1

If you believe that it is worse than the previous strain you’ve just listened uncritically to the propaganda being peddled. Hospitilazations are not high, they’re just higher than the tail end of the previous strain, which makes sense because we’d basically reached herd immunity.
/r/MensRights19/07/21 05:10 PM
1

Delta variant is less dangerous than the first strain. It makes even less sense to get the jab because of that.
/r/MensRights19/07/21 04:09 AM
4

Here’s one: the disease isn’t very dangerous to the general population and the vaccine has not had significant testing done on it and we’re seeing serious side effects from it. The risk from getting the virus is low for me and the risk from the vaccine is unknown but possibly much higher than from the virus.
/r/MensRights19/07/21 01:37 AM
6

Yea, as the second screenshot indicates. You can be completely the same as a cis guy but say you’re not and it’s enough for this vapid woman.
/r/MensRights12/07/21 06:29 PM
0

Cheating is a breach of contract, obviously. Falling out of love is analogous to buyers remorse, which doesn’t absolve you of your duties.
/r/MensRights17/04/21 09:42 PM
11

Hard disagree. If the man initiates the divorce he’s breached the contract the two had where he would provide for her, so he owes her the chance to provide for herself on a similar level. This means a payment plan for X number of years where at the end it is her problem if she still can’t provide for herself. If the woman initiates the divorce without reasons pertaining to her husband’s criminal actions, this rule shouldn’t apply as she is the one in breach of contract.
/r/MensRights17/04/21 05:53 PM
2

That’d work if men weren’t the ones that have to ask women out 95% of the time. However, the societal onus is on men to ask the question so really you’re just taking advantage of that.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/21 12:17 AM
1

One dinner isn’t expensive, but men aren’t expected to pay for just one dinner. First dates with strangers usually end up going nowhere, so if men are expected to pay for that then men are the ones taking all of the risk when dating strangers.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/21 09:55 PM
-7

I disagree. Generally, people need structure to their lives. Most people cannot be the source of their own structure. By removing this societal mold into which they can put themselves you create an aimless population. The roles shouldn’t be strict, but they should still exist.
/r/MensRights19/09/20 05:34 PM
3

I forgot that I could read minds, my bad. Also, stop thinking about diddling kids.
/r/MensRights17/09/20 04:15 PM
3

Depends on whether you know or not.
/r/MensRights17/09/20 03:48 PM
7

Inappropriate and childish, but not something worth dwelling on for 15 years.
/r/MensRights01/08/20 05:08 PM
9

Pocket prince.
/r/MensRights29/07/20 07:49 PM
36

The majority of circumcisions in the US are done on non-Jewish males. Jews are definitely a factor in preventing its ban, but the practice is definitely cultural more than religious in the US.
/r/MensRights12/07/20 02:58 AM
17

Planning a crime is definitely illegal, it’s one of the few exceptions to freedom of speech. The tricky part is proving intent.
/r/MensRights08/07/20 12:57 AM
17

How is it not a good reason? Black people lead in the majority of violent crimes when adjusted for population size. They have a majority share of the murders, not just a plurality but an actual majority. Those are very valid explanations for why black people would be disproportionately involved in police shootings. If you're a violent criminal, you're much more likely to resist authority violently.
/r/MensRights23/06/20 10:57 PM
1

Do you really think it'd be good for the person to say that their delusions are reality, though? It might make you feel good, but that doesn't make it healthy.
/r/MensRights11/06/20 01:43 AM
2

And you could dress like Caesar and talk like Caesar, it doesn’t make you Caesar.
/r/MensRights11/06/20 01:29 AM
1

That’s a whole lot of words to say nothing. Either they’re trying to get people to say something which they know is untrue, that a woman is a man, or are actually delusional enough to think that something which is untrue is true, again that a woman is a man. If you have not had surgery then there is no distinguishing you from any other woman, and therefore you cannot be anything but no matter what you may think, much like someone cannot be a bird or a historical figure born again with all of the…
/r/MensRights11/06/20 01:09 AM
2

Then they’re either delusional or using the modern acceptance movement to try and force doublethink.
/r/MensRights10/06/20 11:49 PM
7

It's only offensive to crazies. She said that "people who menstruate" are called women. Fun fact, literally only women menstruate; males don't menstruate, MtF trans people don't menstruate, and FtM trans people have had their ovaries and uterus removed and therefore do not menstruate.
/r/MensRights10/06/20 07:29 PM
5

You know what black and latino people also have a higher rate of than white people? Gang involvement. Crime commitment. Poverty. It's not about race, it's just a statistics game. If you're poor you're more likely to be involved in some sort of blue-collar crime. If you're involved in blue-collar crime you're more likely to be involved with police in a confrontational manner. If you're involved with police in a confrontational manner you're more likely to be shot by them. Yes, there are racist po…
/r/MensRights02/06/20 02:49 PM
6

Was Floyd's killer not fired? not arrested? What more do you want? Justice is being served, Floyd's life is being treated as worth at least the same as Tony Timpa's life. At what point is the fight won?
/r/MensRights02/06/20 02:38 PM
1

She's not murderous, she's just a cunt. People shouldn't be punished by the government for being cunts, there needs to be actual harm done.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 08:07 PM
1

That's objectively untrue. Being larger means you can have more muscle, which means a greater ability to lift. There's a reason 0 classless weight lifting records are held by pocket princes. That's not the main issue with having no height requirement, though. The shorter you are the greater the proportion of the population you can not safely carry. If you can't fireman carry the majority of the population without their legs dragging, you should not be allowed to be a fireman.
/r/MensRights23/05/20 02:01 AM
1

The point of what? What is your point? That rape is rape? Good job, Aristotle, real hard thinker that one.
/r/MensRights18/05/20 01:17 AM
2

It is exactly what I've described, the third party perspective is the only one of importance in this discussion, as the other two already know what actually happened. It's ridiculous to talk about whether rape is rape if you pay someone after the fact, as again the conclusion is already presupposed in the argument.
/r/MensRights18/05/20 01:10 AM
1

It really is begging the question, as it assumes the conclusion in the premise. Unknown level of consent means unknown level of consent, the presumption is not that of no consent given. A man saying that consent was given while the woman says it wasn’t describes an unknown level of consent, for instance. There are many reasons someone might want to keep their sexual relations a secret which have nothing to do with rape. For instance, being unfaithful. I didn’t make mention of whether it was a go…
/r/MensRights17/05/20 10:07 PM
1

That's begging the question. If a man has sex with a woman with an unknown level of consent, then pays her to not talk about their sex, we cannot say whether that was rape or not.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 03:43 PM
16

Assault rifle is an actual legally defined term, at least in the US. However, I don’t think it’s too far fetched to say that this is using that fact and a term similar to it with no legal definition to try and confuse people, as they do with semiautomatic and automatic.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 03:14 PM
43

That’s just an excuse they use. There are plenty of highly upvoted threads on there that didn’t get removed. The rule is only ever applied to topics that the mods disagree with.
/r/MensRights10/05/20 03:21 PM
12

I’d agree if other subreddits weren’t already banned or quarantined for less.
/r/MensRights10/05/20 10:29 AM
8

No inner monologue, no introspection, literally an npc.
/r/MensRights19/04/20 07:44 AM
1

Hoes mad.
/r/MensRights15/04/20 05:38 AM
1

This is an important distinction, which do you mean?
/r/MensRights01/04/20 02:24 PM
1

Conception isn't a medical term, do you mean implantation or fertilization?
/r/MensRights27/03/20 08:21 AM
3

Smegma is a perfectly natural and healthy production of the penis, you're probably thinking of phimosis. Pathological phimosis, however, does not occur in a statistically significant proportion of uncircumcised adult males, I believe the numbers have it occurring at a rate of about 1%.
/r/MensRights26/03/20 09:52 PM
0

Should the Plan B pill be illegal?
/r/MensRights26/03/20 09:38 PM
5

All you really need to do is send an email to one that is hers but off by one letter or number, one close to the proper letter on the keyboard. Very easy to form plausible deniability, and knowing the kind of cunt that will try and stab you in the back for giving them an honest review she'll take it personally even if it actually were an honest mistake.
/r/MensRights11/03/20 03:08 AM
1

Go back and reread my comments, and get back to me on where I've argued anything that you're trying to argue against.
/r/MensRights09/03/20 08:58 PM
5

A fetus is not a human life, but we shouldn’t be handing out abortions left and right, because it teaches people that their actions have zero consequences. We should be promoting safe sex, which unlimited free abortions does the opposite of.
/r/MensRights09/03/20 05:38 PM
10

Abortions should be free up to a limit. You get like 2 free per 5 year window.
/r/MensRights09/03/20 04:01 PM
117

An ugly female has the same advantages as the average male, it just seems like they’re SOL because the average female has it so much easier than the average male.
/r/MensRights27/02/20 03:04 AM
42

Was she not involved in his life since birth? I guarantee she didn't just develop her hatred towards him after the divorce.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 05:19 AM
8

Do you have a link, or is that against sitewide rules?
/r/MensRights09/01/20 03:40 PM
3

Like a JoJo villain?
/r/MensRights06/01/20 07:31 PM
2

That's if it happened, this sounds completely made up to me.
/r/MensRights05/01/20 09:36 PM
6

It is illegal federally, and has been since 1996 as per the Female Genital Mutilation section of the US code. It doesn't matter whether the states outlaw it, as it's already outlawed in every state because of the above.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 07:10 PM
8

Female circumcision is illegal to perform on a minor in the US, as well as most other western countries.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 06:26 PM
5

I stay home if I have an actual fever, because it’s far better to ride that out than to suppress it and take a lot longer to recover. Usually means a day in hell at home vs a week of being miserable at work.
/r/MensRights15/12/19 03:55 PM
9

Aren’t you the one making the claim contrary to historical data? The onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claim, not me to go out and find it for you.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 02:40 PM
15

Yes, yes you do do math that way. If men are the majority of inventors, as you accept, then any given inventor will be more likely to be a man than a woman, even for modern inventors.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 02:05 PM
24

Nah, men are the majority of inventors, even today. Inventing goes hand in hand with being in a STEM field, and men are the pretty vast majority in pretty much any given STEM field.
/r/MensRights06/12/19 12:14 PM
10

They cover the same amount as boxers, though. If what matters is the classification and not the amount of coverage, then someone could sell a transparent burqa and it would be acceptable to walk around with your nude body on display through it.
/r/MensRights10/11/19 02:20 PM
2

It really won’t be any better, though. Yours isn’t even really a pasta sauce, it’s tomato paste in water. If you mean you add the concoction to a jar of sauce then sure I’ll retract that, but what you’ve outlined by itself won’t have any semblance of a pasta sauce.
/r/MensRights08/11/19 02:27 PM
2

Beef and tomato paste isn’t pasta sauce. You need crushed tomatoes, and actual pasta sauce takes at least an hour to make, because you have to simmer the shit out of it.
/r/MensRights08/11/19 01:54 PM
15

Or thinking that a triangle wouldn't be able to fit through a circular hole. The problem is that the other shapes are too big, not that the hole is the wrong shape. The analogy is good, because all these other shapes want their own special thing when the best thing is to make it available to everyone, which just means expanding the previous system.
/r/MensRights25/10/19 11:35 PM
1

There was no mention of general religious demand, only specifically muslim theocracies. As for the US, yes the vast majority are done for non-religious reasons.
/r/MensRights22/10/19 12:10 AM
1

Thought you meant in terms of countries in which it was still common.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 10:11 PM
1

Israel, my dude.
/r/MensRights21/10/19 04:39 PM
2

It depends. Some are just evil and don’t care that they’re hurting the kids, but some delude themselves into thinking the kids enjoy it and want it. The latter can be rehabilitated, the former cannot.
/r/MensRights11/10/19 01:29 PM
2

You really don't, and you've proven it in your first sentence. It's okay if you're too dumb to understand it, but I don't want to repeat something when you clearly either lack the ability or desire to understand.
/r/MensRights04/10/19 12:26 AM
2

A stretched hymen does not block as much of the vaginal canal. Yes, yes, some unstretched hymens also do not, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the statement. You need to understand some basic logic being used here. An implication is a one way logical statement, if A is true and A implies B then B is true, but if B is true and A implies B then A is not necessarily true. In this case the A statement is "person has a noticeable hymen" and B is "person is a virgin".
/r/MensRights04/10/19 12:00 AM
13

You don’t seem to understand the basic logic being applied here. There are certain criteria which when met say a specific thing, but those criteria not being met does not say the opposite of that thing. If I say that all boxes are squares that does not say that square shaped objects are boxes, it only goes one way. If a human remains unstretched we can say with certainty that the owner of said hymen has not had sex, but stretching of the hymen does not indicate that the owner has had sex. In oth…
/r/MensRights03/10/19 10:25 PM
11

The vast, vast majority are giving him good advice and are very supportive. There are always a few shitty people, don't let it taint your viewpoint.
/r/MensRights29/09/19 09:33 PM
3

Disagreeing isn't waffling, if he holds the same or similar position throughout he's not waffling.
/r/MensRights23/09/19 12:49 AM
6

Does he waffle or does he just have his own opinions that don't entirely line up with every major men's rights positions?
/r/MensRights22/09/19 11:11 PM
3

Bullshit, if the alcohol was strong enough to cause him to blackout on his first glass he’d know it’s alcohol from the second it hit his lips. If he was drinking stuff weak enough to be mistaken for water, he wouldn’t be able to get blackout drunk period, his liver would process the alcohol faster than he could consume it.
/r/MensRights15/09/19 05:10 AM
2

Add the context, then.
/r/MensRights10/09/19 02:47 AM
5

I'm not saying all blacks are criminals, there are obviously exceptions, but... You see how your thinking is incredibly flawed?
/r/MensRights10/09/19 02:23 AM
6

I would agree if she weren't trying to brush off a failure using incorrect terminology. If you're going to make excuses, at least double check your tweet.
/r/MensRights08/09/19 09:03 PM
11

Or claim that he's a better teacher because of it.
/r/MensRights22/08/19 11:37 PM
4

That's really only true for business or business casual, for every-day clothes mens are much cheaper, but that's because they're super cheap to manufacture compared to womens.
/r/MensRights17/08/19 06:46 PM
2

It’s good to have an expanded perspective, the problem is that they’ve bastardized the concept to the point where you either full heartedly agree or say what you have to to get through the requisite socjus classes. The goal is now to enforce dogma instead of to promote interdisciplinary understanding.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 10:54 PM
4

I'm guessing that's the point, to show how ridiculous it is to censor something because someone somewhere got offended. It's too on the nose to not be, what with the use of "trigger" and "advertiser friendly"; even the extremely censorious subs like to hide it behind a thin veneer of loose, unassailable justification.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 08:26 PM
173

An incestuous pedophile rapist. She's admitted to being one of the worst things a human can be, and she's fucking proud of it. In a sane world she'd at best be working a dead-end job for admitting what she did.
/r/MensRights02/08/19 09:37 PM
13

I did read the article, and from that I cannot say whether or not she herself told them their pictures would be published. The article only says she tells them in her bio, whether or not she actually outlines it in the correspondence is up in the air. That, however, is not the point. The person I was replying to was saying that the bio should be enough to publish the pictures, which is definitely not true.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 04:00 PM
28

That does not constitute informed consent. If I had a poster in my bathroom that says "All goings-on filmed and broadcasted to the internet" that does not allow me to show the nudity of a girl I brought home to the world. The publishing of the material must be made clear in the agreement they make.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 02:58 PM
6

Exercise does the exact opposite of weakening your immune system, unless you're doing extremely rigorous exercise and even then it's a temporary susceptibility that overall works out to still being better than a sedentary lifestyle.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 04:39 AM
-58

For the second, even if he is a grower that still will be a small dick. Nothing wrong with it, but there's only so much skin you've got to work with.
/r/MensRights27/06/19 02:04 AM
5

Not really, there's a very significant line between creeping on someone and sexually assaulting them.
/r/MensRights26/06/19 06:20 PM
7

So is it not disingenuous to group violent sexual crimes with this behavior? I know you want to skirt around the question, but I won't allow it.
/r/MensRights26/06/19 05:13 PM
9

Begging the question. It's assuming that there's already a problem with men. It's all too common.
/r/MensRights26/06/19 05:06 PM
6

Isn't that a little disingenuous grouping something that is creepy but not illegal with accusations of violent sexual crimes?
/r/MensRights26/06/19 05:01 PM
4

I REJECT MY HUMANITY, JOJO!
/r/MensRights26/06/19 04:44 PM
7

Without evidence, none of those should be taken at face value. We have due process for a reason.
/r/MensRights26/06/19 04:40 PM
2

Here's my sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/02/16/the-male-female-ratio-in-college/ https://www.aauw.org/research/deeper-in-debt/
/r/MensRights25/06/19 04:35 PM
1

Why do you assume that all children crossing the border are with their parents?
/r/MensRights25/06/19 04:25 PM
3

It's not, the ratio of male:female college students is ~43:57, whereas the ratio of debt held is 37:63. While not as insane as the people touting it are making it seem, it is a significant difference. On a side note, I hate how being off by about 4% is seen as not a big deal. The actual report this number comes from never states anything but the raw numbers and the oft repeated "nearly two thirds" proportion. To find the actual proportion I had to do the math myself, which while not hard should …
/r/MensRights25/06/19 04:21 PM
5

I honestly believe he'd still be trying to address it, although he wouldn't be able to spin it like this for brownie points.
/r/MensRights25/06/19 04:09 PM
1

Citation needed.
/r/MensRights10/06/19 10:41 PM
16

No, she isn't. She's a terrible politician. She believes she has way more political sway than she does, even if she keeps getting reelected she'll do nothing with her political career because she's got no idea how little political capital she has.
/r/MensRights10/06/19 10:33 PM
3

No u.
/r/MensRights10/06/19 10:30 PM
20

You don’t have to cut women out of your life, just stop letting them control how your money’s spent. It’s pretty simple, really, just don’t pool assets.
/r/MensRights02/06/19 02:41 PM
3

OP's just trying to farm karma.
/r/MensRights23/05/19 02:21 PM
13

If they had the right to kill men on a whim, it'd be a joyous occasion if they lost it. Some things that are talked about as rights are actually just privileges, abortion is such a case.
/r/MensRights22/05/19 06:38 PM
3

Sure, bud. Just know that lying to yourself isn't healthy.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:13 PM
4

That makes no sense, you're just pushing it off because you can see that it will turn your worldview on its head. Don't push things away just because they're unsightly, deal with them. I know you can see that your definition of what a human is puts you in a terribly precarious situation, which should mean you reevaluate that definition rather than sticking your head in the sand.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:02 PM
5

Not really, if what makes it immoral to kill a human is that it's of a different DNA than yourself, then it isn't immoral to kill a clone. If a clone is a separate human, but skin cells aren't, then the difference is that one is of multiple cells whereas the other is a singular cell, which would mean that a zygote isn't a human. You either have to accept all the conclusions your definitions bring about or change your definitions to better fit your world view.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 05:32 PM
4

I'm not arguing that it is, but if a zygote is not a baby, then there has to be some cutoff point where it finally is a human. If it is a baby, then there are a whole host of other logical consequences of that.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 05:11 PM
0

So it'd be okay, in your view, to kill off any number of clones so long as the one doing the killing is of the same clone stock?
/r/MensRights16/05/19 05:06 PM
3

So a skin cell is a human, why should it not be illegal to scratch an itch?
/r/MensRights16/05/19 04:59 PM
20

Is a zygote a human?
/r/MensRights16/05/19 04:56 PM
22

Is a zygote a baby?
/r/MensRights16/05/19 04:52 PM
19

Not my joke. Just because you don’t find it funny doesn’t mean others can or should not. I’d rather have a bunch of immature people around than holier-than-thou moral grandstanders.
/r/MensRights19/04/19 02:49 AM
16

It's not really sexist in message, though. The entire joke is that it's wrong to say women are property. I know you don't think dead baby jokes are actually advocating infanticide, this is no different.
/r/MensRights18/04/19 11:02 PM
1

It’s because of your presentation, not the content.
/r/MensRights30/03/19 04:24 PM
16

Because it's never been about cleanliness, that's just an obfuscation tactic. It started as an antimasturbation procedure in the US, which clearly didn't work, and now it's about being pleasing to the eyes of women. It's absolutely disgusting.
/r/MensRights29/03/19 02:52 AM
-1

Even if you consider it to be killing a human life to abort a fetus at any time, it’s still not murder. Murder is an illegal killing by definition, and that means abortion isn’t murder since it is legal.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 02:33 PM
2

Preference is different from requirement, but keep thinking it's not. You'll grow out of this, most likely.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 08:09 AM
4

Not for his taste in women, for his stringent requirements for his wife. There's a big difference. Saying "I'd prefer a busty wife" is different from saying "My wife must be busty". If he's so hardline on something so shallow, then either he thinks he deserves his perfect woman and anything less is worthless to him, which is very conceited, or he's so shallow as to not even think about his partner as anything more than a body in which to sow his seed.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:54 AM
8

"every decade" doesn't usually mean "every 10 years", but once within a certain decade. You could have sex twice in two years and have it be once every decade, since having sex in 2019 and then in 2020 would still constitute "every decade" so long as you hadn't had sex since before 2010 and would proceed not to have sex until after 2030. I'm not putting it past this cunt of a woman to cheat, she clearly has no problem taking advantage of her husband, just pointing out that her words aren't contr…
/r/MensRights27/02/19 11:26 PM
22

Perfect height is probably 5’8” or 5’9”, everything’s designed for people around that height.
/r/MensRights18/02/19 04:06 AM
28

Is slandering her employer not a fireable offense in bongistan?
/r/PussyPassDenied08/02/19 01:06 PM
3

90% is too large to be a truly meritocratic result for an entire school system, but it's not that far off of what one would look like. 97% of degrees in early childhood education, 94% of degrees in school student counselling, 91% of degrees in elementary education, and 88% of degrees in special needs education are held by women. So we'd expect to see women making up around 90% of primary school positions. This number obviously gets skewed more toward 50% when taking into account secondary educat…
/r/MensRights07/02/19 10:28 PM
1

That's not really true, it just makes it a more precarious situation. It's not a bad thing for a director to have an actress appear topless or nude, even though there's just as big of a power dynamic and it's a direct order rather than a passive action. It all depends on the context; the possibility of the abuse of power is not evidence of it.
/r/MensRights05/02/19 02:22 AM
3

Not if they’re okay with it. The act itself is completely devoid of any moral value without context, which isn’t given by this question.
/r/MensRights04/02/19 09:47 PM
1

Where she waits for them to get changed doesn't matter at all. If she is creating a hostile work environment through a breach of privacy then that's a separate issue. The question is worthless because any direct answer will give no pertinent information. If this were an interview I could see it leading into other questions about the comfort of her players with her actions, but it wasn't so the question is shit.
/r/MensRights04/02/19 06:23 PM
-8

Because it doesn't matter in the slightest.
/r/MensRights04/02/19 05:41 PM
-1

Which chromosome it's on is relevant, though. The Y chromosome carries the SRY gene, and though it can be translocated and thus appear on an X or appear on a Y those cases are not only exceedingly rare but also almost always have other negative side effects thus making it a genetic disorder and not something you take into account when talking about the general population. You're being incredibly nitpicky for no reason other than to sound smart. For 99.9% of the cases the SRY gene and Y chromosom…
/r/MensRights29/01/19 03:29 PM
1

To be completely fair, single mothers includes widows.
/r/MensRights29/01/19 03:18 PM
2

Is this a woosh here or did you mean comeuppance?
/r/MensRights26/01/19 02:59 AM
3

It wasn't real attempted rape, but that doesn't mean everyone was in on it. I doubt they got a whole train car to themselves to film this, so we still saw people just stand by while they saw what they thought was an attempted rape.
/r/MensRights23/01/19 12:37 AM
1

It's not a bad thing to not want to cry in front of other people; crying isn't the only way to express sadness.
/r/MensRights22/01/19 05:15 PM
19

He had a comic explicitly denying the holocaust as a planned action, instead arguing that it happened because of supply chain deterioration. Dude is off his rocker, but a broken clock is right twice a day.
/r/MensRights18/01/19 09:51 PM
50

It’s ridiculous that it only takes one parents permission to permanently alter their child’s body, especially in this case where the other parent gave explicit nonconsent.
/r/MensRights18/01/19 09:49 PM
7

Man, you guys must live around some real assholes, no one has ever commented on my appearance negatively since I left high school.
/r/MensRights18/01/19 06:36 PM
2

Not through twitter without indication that it's roleplay.
/r/MensRights14/01/19 05:27 PM
25

That’s such a weird thing, too, because you know fishing with your dad was pretty common back in their day. I don’t get why there’s been such a shift away from it being good to have dads doing things outdoors with their kids even in the older generations.
/r/MensRights11/01/19 02:45 PM
5

I’d agree if the man had possession of the child, at least a little, but it makes no sense to go attacking someone who isn’t brandishing a weapon and who does not have possession of the supposed stolen person/goods. You stop both people and sort it out, you don’t just attack whoever the woman says is in the wrong.
/r/MensRights11/01/19 02:41 PM
-1

If you’re so concerned about them, why are you shooting a gun at them?
/r/MensRights11/01/19 02:38 PM
6

If 40% is female then 60% is male, mate.
/r/MensRights01/01/19 04:03 PM
5

I don’t believe him, but that’s a character attack, not an argument.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 09:48 PM
40

Or the prosecution is being very lenient. Seduction of a child does not sound like a legal standard involving parties above the age of majority.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 03:14 PM
3

If the default position is belief, then in the absence of evidence the accused would be guilty, ergo, the accused is guilty until proven innocent.
/r/MensRights29/12/18 10:21 AM
6

That’s begging the question, there are no victims or perpetrators prior to a conviction, only accusers and accused.
/r/MensRights29/12/18 10:18 AM
6

How do you know they didn’t have proof? All we have is that they made a complaint, not what the complaint was or what evidence they provided or could provide. This is a tragedy regardless of his innocence or guilt, but assuming one or the other without knowledge of the evidence is wrong.
/r/MensRights27/12/18 04:53 PM
25

The suffragettes weren’t feminists.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 03:13 PM
15

Circumcision can be voluntary or medically necessary. There’s nothing wrong with a circumcised penis, there’s everything wrong with circumcising children without medical necessity.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 08:04 AM
27

The cons of not circumcising are heavily exaggerated. If you live in a place with running water, the cons are pretty much nonexistent. Phimosis happens, but rarely. The US is the only western country that circumcises most of its male populace, because it’s rooted in antimasturbatory propaganda from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Think about it like this: the appendix can be safely removed, and without it you don’t have a chance of appendicitis later in life, but we still wait until ther…
/r/MensRights26/12/18 08:02 AM
1

What good are these licenses for if you get arrested for using them anyway?
/r/MensRights22/12/18 01:48 AM
0

That’s not proof of a push for race mixing, though. Saying it’s okay to have a partner of a different race is not the same thing as saying that you should. The first is giving people the freedom to choose without social pressures, the latter is just shifting social pressures.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 07:06 PM
7

I'm not gonna go as far as to say it's true, there's a lot more plausible explanations than conspiracy to commit genocide. There really isn't that big of a push for race mixing, just a push against strict racial homogeneity in relationships.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 08:38 AM
19

I can see where he's coming from with that. He's basically arguing that by pushing white men out of higher education the ominous "they" are reducing their capacity to attract a mate or provide for offspring. It's still very much an unproven claim that takes vast logical leaps to come to, but it's not as crazy as forced castration. At least, that's my most generous take on it.
/r/MensRights21/12/18 07:43 AM
56

Depending on how much they knew about the situation, of course. Being ignorant doesn’t make you a bad person unless you are willfully so.
/r/MensRights20/12/18 04:10 PM
29

He can definitely assert it as factual, because the parameter is all that he’s talking about, not the implications of said parameter. Just like the wage gap is a reality insofar as men in aggregate earn more than women per year, the myth is that it is discriminatory or has anything to do with systemic sexism.
/r/MensRights16/12/18 05:48 PM
8

Better that than living in a home full of violent criminals.
/r/MensRights13/12/18 05:40 PM
4

Harvard researchers anally rape feminazis with science and facts
/r/MensRights12/12/18 01:56 PM
1

That says that equity is essentially equality of outcome, because the only reasonable way to measure the differences in need is the differences in general outcomes. It uses flowery words to make it seem more appealing, but it's still the same concept.
/r/MensRights11/12/18 10:44 PM
10

Colloquially, but it's more apt to call them shower poufs, because the name loofah derives from the plant from which some sponges come while those shower poufs are made from plastics. Still, call it what you want, people will know what you mean.
/r/MensRights05/12/18 04:04 AM
10

It’s the same reasoning why hooters can solely hire women as waitresses, because the characteristics they’re looking for are found solely in women and said characteristics are reasonable criteria for the position.
/r/MensRights04/12/18 08:46 AM
13

Circumcision in the US largely has roots in the antimasturbation campaigns of the religious in the mid-1800s. It’s somewhat religious, but not in the way you’re implying.
/r/MensRights26/11/18 09:38 AM
20

That's only for the worst cases of degenerates, it's like saying our ears are pustule covered cesspools of wax and oil. Washing your dick while having foreskin takes maybe an extra second over washing your dick while lacking it, you're saving all of about 5 oz of water, good job.
/r/MensRights10/11/18 02:21 PM
4

Hey hey, they only want to kill 45% of all humans. They’re not dumb enough to think we can go on without propagating the species.
/r/MensRights02/11/18 06:19 PM
12

... that we can talk facts and make sarcastic jokes at the same time?
/r/MensRights30/10/18 05:45 PM
15

You’re assuming the pool of candidates is of the same composition as the general population. That’s not the case, as we see far fewer women go into highly stressful and competitive fields than men.
/r/MensRights28/10/18 02:09 PM
9

It's not cowardice to accept the reality of your situation and act accordingly, nor does it stop you from trying to change the legal system that causes such actions to be warranted.
/r/MensRights23/10/18 03:25 PM
16

Usually I'd say this isn't justice and she should go through the system, but when the system actively prevents justice this is the closest thing we can get.
/r/MensRights19/10/18 04:04 AM
63

Even if he didn’t start the confrontation, it’d still be ridiculous for her to get tried for this. She’d be an absolute cunt for sending that message, but she’d have no reasonable expectation for him to go commit a crime because of it.
/r/MensRights17/10/18 03:42 PM
1

Because they're uncomfortable as fuck, and men typically don't care much about style if it's gotten at the sacrifice of comfort or utility.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 09:41 PM
-1

Kavanaugh wasn't named by Ford until he was up for the supreme court nomination, her account of being sexually assaulted at couple's therapy had no mention of Kavanaugh's name except by the accounts of biased parties (Ford and her spouse).
/r/MensRights28/09/18 01:52 AM
41

Unresolved accusations that come from decades past with very vague details and which just so happen to come at a time where it'd help a political party. Honestly, the accusations against Kavanaugh do not seem credible in the slightest. Kavanaugh even has witnesses backing him up, which is more than the accusers have. It's crazy that you guys are accepting those accusations as true without any critical thought.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 05:09 PM
1

Man, that’s some shit straight out of the Crucible.
/r/MensRights21/09/18 03:27 PM
13

Hell, the entire Salem witch trials was allowed to happen because we believed women, well girls really, without question. It’s a pretty common trend in history that when you start uncritically believing accusations you end up with a lot of dead innocents.
/r/MensRights18/09/18 04:47 AM
9

Or maybe he would, the problem is that possibility and choice was taken away from him for no good reason.
/r/MensRights06/09/18 10:56 PM
1

It's fine if he's cool with it, and I mean actually cool with it and not just "cool with it" because he's got such bad self esteem that he thinks he has to stay with the one person in the world who would be with him.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 03:08 PM
4

It's a really dastardly way of twisting words and statistics to suit a narrative. See, men may kill themselves a whole lot more than women, but because of that the increase in suicide among women is a larger increase when taken as a proportion of their previous suicide rate, thus "particularly for women".
/r/MensRights03/09/18 03:10 AM
1

They interact more with their female teachers than their female upperclassmen. So you’re arguing for the firing of all female teachers, whether you meant to or not.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 02:02 PM
3

I can't tell if you're serious, but having grown women around children is a given unless you isolate them, which is abuse.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 12:53 AM
2

Of course others are free to assault you for it. No, they aren't. They have the option of breaking the law, but that doesn't make them free to do so, because having the freedom to do something requires that you aren't punished for it. Take, for example, if you said people had freedom of speech, they could just go to jail for exercising that freedom. Doesn't makes sense, right?
/r/MensRights02/09/18 12:04 AM
3

I knew some kids whose parents opted to keep them home an extra year before kindergarten, it's really not that unusual for a person to be a senior in high school at age 19.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 11:57 PM
24

He was barely 17, unfortunately for her they had sex in California, where the age of consent is 18. Even without his claims of sexual assault, which must be at least partially true for her to settle out of court to the tune of $380 000, what she did was still statutory rape. This is not including an important tid-bit of information: that she had had ongoing contact with him since he was a child, during which she acted as a mentor and mother figure. She even references that relationship in a twee…
/r/MensRights27/08/18 04:41 AM
1

The issue with this one is the dudes filming reflect society's view on female-on-male domestic abuse, that it's funny and assumed to be justified until proven otherwise, hence the "what did he do" comment.
/r/MensRights26/08/18 04:06 PM
7

A little surprising, since gay male relationships have the lowest domestic violence numbers out of the three types of relationships, gay, straight, and lesbian. I guess it’s because it’s talking about aggression rather than violence, though.
/r/MensRights24/08/18 12:54 PM
5

I don’t think it’s bullshit that pretty much everyone has the propensity to commit terrible acts given the right circumstances, but the vast majority of people will never be in those circumstances and even if they find themselves in those circumstances they should still receive punishment for their wrongdoings.
/r/MensRights19/08/18 02:45 PM
0

That’s not true at all.
/r/MensRights18/08/18 10:29 PM
9

Nah, you’re being ridiculous. There is no reason to believe that she’s lying about being such a coward that she waits until another cop puts him- or her-self in danger and needs backup. That’s probably worse for her career than if she said she didn’t find DV calls where men are the victims a priority. No department wants a cop who’s so selfish they put their colleagues in danger.
/r/MensRights30/07/18 04:38 PM
4

He doesn’t give a shit.
/r/MensRights26/07/18 05:00 AM
6

So I can peel the skin off your nose so long as I don't chop it off, right?
/r/MensRights21/07/18 08:27 AM
1

It explicitly was brought up for that reason. Notice how it’s prefaced with “historically”.
/r/MensRights16/07/18 01:58 PM
-5

Referencing a religious text in reference to the culture at the time it was written is perfectly acceptable.
/r/MensRights16/07/18 01:19 PM
25

Seriously, shouting, sulking, glaring, making you feel ugly, not doing his "share" of housework, controlling money, and blaming you are all things that are completely context based. There are times when it's perfectly acceptable to do all of those things, even the making you feel ugly one although that has to do with you taking things he said the wrong way. Honorable mention to the cheating one, cheating isn't abusive in and of itself. It's scummy as fuck, but it's not abusive.
/r/MensRights05/07/18 02:50 AM
1

Where are they getting the statistic that only 14% of men are 6' or taller? From what I remember the mean is 70"(5' 10") and the standard deviation is 3", so that would put roughly 25% of men at or above 72"(6'). The lowest mean height and standard deviation I've found on a cursory google search is 69.3" and 2.8", respectively, which still puts the percentage at around 16%.
/r/MensRights28/06/18 04:34 PM
5

IIRC the study was a random sampling of OKCupid ratings, which skews the data towards the left because a 1 is an automatic block on the site. So it's more that the average woman thinks she deserves the top 20% of men, not that she thinks the bottom 80% are below average.
/r/MensRights28/06/18 04:23 PM
2

Not really, you're making the false assumption that this is a random sample. You cannot apply probability to this, because these are non-randomly selected individuals.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 10:48 PM
6

Yeah, alimony was made in a time where women couldn’t really work, there were a few jobs they could do but they never paid well and were either dangerous or not in demand. Now, when women can work in any industry, alimony doesn’t make sense.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 03:50 PM
5

That, much like everything to do with reasonable expectations of privacy, is to be determined on a case by case basis. You can't make an extremely specific rule for these kinds of things because they vary so greatly given different contexts.
/r/MensRights19/06/18 03:24 PM
5

Even if he were a woman we should still show support and skepticism. Too often people will lie for their own gain or another’s loss.
/r/MensRights19/06/18 05:25 AM
21

Those are acts of god and are generally exceptions to legal liability. Every single law has exceptions based on circumstances, so what you’re presenting is a false dichotomy. If you are fine with someone hugging you, why can’t they fondle your balls? The difference is in the level of privacy/intimacy. People go out in clothes expecting others to see their outer layers, not their undergarments.
/r/MensRights19/06/18 05:04 AM
28

Do you have an expectation of privacy in public? You do for things that are hidden from view, so should she be wearing a very short skirt there is none, but a normal length skirt does bring with it a reasonable expectation of privacy insofar as no one seeing your panties.
/r/MensRights19/06/18 03:36 AM
1

I... did? I even cited the specific law which makes it illegal.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:21 PM
1

Yeah, but generally your crazometer starts going on the fritz after a couple of drinks, and by the time you're drunk it's so inaccurate that it might as well be nonexistent. The "not even drunk, drugged" part thus implies that she's also ugly, which she isn't.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 02:07 AM
52

Really? She’s pretty average looking. Not hot or anything, but not ugly.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 12:47 AM
12

It’s constitutional, but it is illegal under title 7 of the civil rights act of 1964. So yeah, even if they pass the law it will get shot down the first time it’s used, every lawyer in the US will be clamoring to take the case.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 01:56 PM
24

Nah, boys may go to school for a couple weeks in total but generally they work to help provide for the family, similar to boys in rural US prior to mandatory schooling.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 08:32 PM
20

Yeah, but they don't feel that way so fuck you go away.
/r/MensRights01/06/18 08:07 PM
1

So we just have some database called reality that we can check to see if something’s true? How do you think it is that humans discover the truth if not through trials, whether legal or scientific?
/r/MensRights20/05/18 03:18 PM
1

If trials aren’t for determining if some crime took place, what are they for? If you can’t point to a not guilty verdict and say “this means he didn’t commit the crime” what does it mean? If I claim you murdered someone does you showing evidence to the contrary mean nothing, because verdicts don’t determine the truth of a situation. There’s obviously the possibility of a mistrial or evidence being uncovered, but you can’t judge the truthfulness of a statement based on the innumerable possibiliti…
/r/MensRights19/05/18 09:20 PM
-4

A false allegation does not require the accuser to be lying. They could be ignorant of what their allegation entails or misremember events. If we’re to keep to the standard of a presumption of innocence, then him being found not guilty requires that the allegations against him are false.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 04:07 PM
8

Except the rate of suicide for women is much higher. k.
/r/MensRights17/05/18 10:04 PM
4

If you kill yourself you attempted suicide and succeeded, if you attempt suicide you just attempted suicide so if you try again and succeed you've attempted suicide twice as many times as the other person who got it in one.
/r/MensRights17/05/18 08:59 PM
7

If you had the same number of men and women killing themselves, but women used ways that worked only half of the time then you'd end up with twice as many attempted suicides for women. It's not surprising that there are more attempts when women rarely use definitively lethal means, while men usually blow their brains out.
/r/MensRights17/05/18 07:44 PM
8

I don’t think that’s true. Think about the amount of time you spend eating at a fancy place versus some diner. Sure, you make less per check on tips, but you also serve 2-3x the number of people. I’d also be willing to bet that women working at those fancy restaurants make more on tips than their male counterparts on average. That’s how it is in regular restaurants, at least.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 04:51 PM
0

So, the comment that's getting replied to has 430 excess upvotes, meaning that for the next one to be so much lower it either needs to be rarely seen or the sub needs to be at about a 50/50 split on that opinion, (215+18)/430=.54 which is being generous considering the 430 is the number of positive votes in excess so the actual voting population is larger. Either way it's not indicative of 95% of the sub's opinion.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 03:41 PM
84

If that happens it means you're a really bad waitress, women make fucking bank as waitstaff/bartenders.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 03:31 PM
11

Useful idiots definitely does imply that they don’t know the people using them have ulterior motives. Useful idiots are people who firmly believe something because they’re told it’s correct by someone else who has an ulterior motive. If you know that they’re using you, you’re not a useful idiot.
/r/MensRights06/05/18 02:52 AM
2

Hey, I think you were trying to spell calf instead of cafe. The lower part of the leg, yeah?
/r/MensRights01/05/18 02:09 PM
44

Which was denied by the person accused of giving the confession.
/r/MensRights30/04/18 08:26 PM
8

How the fuck do they have the gall to try and spin being encouraged to be successful as a negative trait?
/r/MensRights29/04/18 07:08 AM
4

It's probably moreso that black on black murder happens at a much greater rate than cop on black murder, but for some reason people only talk about the cops.
/r/MensRights27/04/18 10:36 PM
14

Man, I can't help but feel that the 2 in 3 figure is grossly inflated. IIRC, it's taken from a self reported survey, so there's a ton of variance in the definition of groping, not to mention potential for misrememberance, misinterpretation, and lying. Like, take for instance a girl riding home during rush hour, some guy gets crammed up next to her and his hand brushes her butt, this could be considered groping by the study even though it's a complete accident and lasted less than a second. It co…
/r/MensRights26/04/18 07:41 AM
1

It isn’t common knowledge material, though, that’s why I was asking for a source.
/r/MensRights21/04/18 05:59 PM
2

Nah, if you make a claim it’s your duty to support it with evidence, not the other person. It’s not a fallacy to ask for proof or examples.
/r/MensRights21/04/18 10:01 AM
3

Okay, so if it took so little time why are you acting like I was pulling a tooth to get you to provide links? I was never arguing against it happening, I was trying to get you to provide proof of your claims. It's ridiculous that you're in such a huff about me not taking you on your word that these things happen and expecting you to do the footwork for your claims.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 06:59 PM
8

I mean, it’s kind of ridiculous that you expect other people to do research to back up your claims. I’m not asking for peer reviewed sources or piles of corroborating evidence, all I want is a specific example because I haven’t heard of cops turning off their body cameras before the shooting, only after when they’re discussing what happened with other officers.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 06:21 PM
5

So no specific example you were thinking of?
/r/MensRights20/04/18 03:33 PM
4

When did that happen?
/r/MensRights20/04/18 01:50 PM
6

Well, yeah, because they have to buy their drinks and the women’s drinks. Women barely spend any money going out to bars unless they really want to.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 03:40 PM
3

How they were killed? There's no mention of how they were killed, only that they were and their killers were convicted of manslaughter. The only story in the article is that of someone who suffered domestic abuse, it makes no sense to claim that she was killed because the story is coming directly from her. Even if you take them as all being murders, it still doesn't follow that a man murdering a woman would get off with a lesser sentence than this woman, because the article only compares sentenc…
/r/MensRights17/04/18 08:27 PM
7

That's... not what that article says. It says that men who kill their partners, note not murder but manslaughter, face less time than men who kill a stranger. It makes sense when you think about it, though, because it's much easier to argue temporary insanity when emotionally invested in someone than when not.
/r/MensRights17/04/18 03:09 PM
1

In that instance I'm saying that if you agreed with the position that a generally unattractive man has far more trouble getting laid than a generally attractive man, then by definition society has to value the attractive man more on a sexual level because society is just a mass of people. If you disagreed with the generally unattractive man having more trouble getting laid, then that would be fine, but you said that the general populace valuing one man over another for sex is not society valuing…
/r/MensRights13/04/18 06:52 PM
1

Telling you my position, I never claimed that what I said is objective truth. You could, and did, disagree with me and I'd accept that we have differing opinions on the outcome of a hypothetical, but saying that your opinion is the one and only truth is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights13/04/18 06:36 PM
4

You're delusional if you think physical attractiveness doesn't play a huge role in whether you can get laid. It might not play a large role in whether you can sustain a relationship, but just going out and getting laid is almost completely based on superficial shit.
/r/MensRights13/04/18 06:27 PM
1

Good rebuttal, I'm sure that claiming your subjective opinion is objective fact will win over your opponents.
/r/MensRights13/04/18 06:24 PM
1

Yeah I don’t buy that. I know that I’ve been shocked by extreme ugliness both male and female. I also don’t think you understand how society works if you can accept that pretty much everyone will deny someone sex but then say society still values them on a sexual level.
/r/MensRights13/04/18 04:13 PM
4

If you’re a short obese dude with an unkempt, scraggly beard, there is no way you’re getting laid without spending a lot of money. If it were true that no one judged worth based on that, then he’d have the same ability to get laid as a 6’ fit, chiseled jaw having stud, which is not the case at all.
/r/MensRights13/04/18 03:55 PM
2

I wouldn’t be so sure that the reactions are real, unless you mean the reactions in the comments. These guys are known to fake pretty much everything in their videos.
/r/MensRights07/04/18 04:41 PM
17

More likely he’s ignorant, it sounds like he’s having his worldview shifted massively and right now he’s in denial.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 03:02 PM
1

I agree that we should fight it, but I disagree with the tactic of appealing to emotion rather than appealing to logic or morality. If even one child dies from circumcision it's terrible, but I don't think trying to use numbers out of context as some sort of shock factor is useful in the slightest. All bringing up those numbers does is add a point which is not based in reason, and therefore is harder to defend. Just stick to the unignorable truths: children die from the procedure, the procedure …
/r/MensRights03/04/18 11:32 PM
1

If it has any chance of death then the surgery shouldn't be done without a medical need or consent from the party risking death. The problem is when people say things like "there were 100 dead babies from circumcision" they're trying to make it sound like a lot, when it's less than 1% of 1% of children that undergo circumcision. They're not trying to argue that dead children from an unneeded procedure is bad and therefore circumcision is bad, they're trying to argue that a lot of children die fr…
/r/MensRights03/04/18 08:37 PM
1

You’re arguing against a position I’ve not taken. I’ve not said that circumcision should be common practice, nor have I said that it doesn’t have long term effects. All I’ve been saying is that the long term physical effects of circumcision are being exaggerated.
/r/MensRights03/04/18 02:42 PM
1

What a dogmatic way of thinking. Just because I dispute the extent to which some people claim circumcision affects men I must be defending it?
/r/MensRights03/04/18 01:48 AM
1

You made sure not to use labels, but you do consistently misrepresent my position and make me out to believe similar things to feminists. Whether or not you explicitly use labels doesn't matter when you clearly group people based on disagreement with your beliefs. You've done it again right in this comment, I disagreed with the physical severity of circumcision, therefore I must be advocating for it. In other words, I disagree with you on some minor issue within a larger issue therefore I must d…
/r/MensRights02/04/18 09:45 PM
1

I'd say it does diminish it significantly, yes, insofar as to say that there is a measurable effect on the sexual pleasure experienced before and after the circumcision. I wouldn't say that it's a large loss in sexual pleasure, but it's diminished all the same.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 07:22 PM
2

The activists fighting against female circumcision are also exaggerating the effects, yes. It's not relevant to this discussion, but yes I do agree with that. You're being very dogmatic about this. I've disagreed slightly with you, and now you're attempting to label me the "other", in this case some sort of feminist. I never said that circumcision was fine to perform on boys, in fact I clearly said I wasn't arguing for circumcision at all, male or female.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 07:21 PM
-1

Huh, I was under the impression that the pinky toe was essentially vestigial, you learn something new every day. From what I've read it's not the toe so much as the bone connecting to the toe that bears the brunt of balancing, so removal of the toe itself is not an issue so long as the metatarsal connecting to it doesn't lose its range of motion. People dying due to surgery does not make whatever the surgery was on more or less important. You can die during an appendectomy, but the appendix isn'…
/r/MensRights02/04/18 05:10 PM
2

I'll grant that a proper circumcision may, in some cases, completely remove sexual pleasure. However, when talking about the foreskin being required for sexual pleasure you have to use a generalization, so these unusual cases still wouldn't mean that a foreskin is generally required for sexual pleasure, much like both kidneys aren't generally required to live but there are still cases where people cannot live with a single kidney.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 04:55 PM
-3

There are few that that happen to, and it can be chalked up to a poorly done circumcision, not the removal of the foreskin. It is not required for sexual pleasure, otherwise the vast majority of men in the US would not experience sexual pleasure. I doubt you would say that removal of the foreskin causes death, yet it happens rarely from the surgery. Using examples of fringe cases to try and describe the norm is disingenuous.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 04:18 PM
-9

Definitely not necessary for pleasure. It most likely increases pleasure, but it isn't necessary. Looking back, yeah it's more important than the pinky toe, it's probably a little less important than ears, ie, you can still hear without them but to a lesser extent than if you still had them and it could be argued that it's more sanitary to not have all those folds that can get shit clogged up in if you don't clean them.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 03:23 PM
-4

The foreskin isn’t as necessary as the thumb, I’d say it’s more akin to removing the pinky toe or your toenails.
/r/MensRights02/04/18 02:34 PM
33

You’re ignoring the difference in class between the average eunuch and the average man. Eunuchs weren’t typically lower peasants. It’s not a fair comparison at all.
/r/MensRights30/03/18 09:55 PM
2

Acknowledging that they have the ability to do something is not the same as saying that they all, or even most, do.
/r/MensRights23/03/18 03:09 AM
2

Because it’s shitty tone policing. It adds nothing to the conversation and attempts to derail it.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 02:03 PM
1

It may exist between some individuals, but that’s not the common trend and it’s also illegal in most western countries, unless the discrepancy is due to one of the individuals not asking for a raise while the other does.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 01:55 PM
1

If you have no proof that the act of scarring, or simply wounds healing for that matter, increase risk of cancer, then you can't say that it increases risk for cancer. There is proof, however, that having more skin cells increases your risk for skin cancer, which makes sense when you think about what cancer is and how it comes about. Therefore it would follow that removing a portion of your skin would decrease your risk for cancer, if only be a minuscule amount.
/r/MensRights09/03/18 04:24 AM
1

Comparing between species isn't really fair, a larger whale will be at a higher risk for cancer than a smaller whale as will a larger rat vs a smaller rat. As for scarring increasing one's risk for cancer, I've been unable to find any proof of that.
/r/MensRights09/03/18 03:51 AM
10

That's what feminism is theoretically, but if you look at the actions of feminist organizations you see only a push for more women's rights, even though men are lacking rights that women currently have. If it were for equal rights there would be feminist institutions pushing for things like outlawing infant circumcision, the ability for men to give up parental responsibilities and rights, and getting rid of selective service.
/r/MensRights08/03/18 05:00 PM
3

Which is a good thing, because if it were all a people of one mind any discussion would be useless.
/r/MensRights08/03/18 04:56 PM
3

I'm trying to think of some hardship that women face that men don't that isn't based in biology, but I can't come up with anything. Can you give me some examples of problems faced by women in relation to their gender?
/r/MensRights08/03/18 04:50 PM
2

I accept that evolution is a thing that happens, yes. Not sure how that pertains to circumcision.
/r/MensRights08/03/18 04:40 PM
4

It definitely increases your risk for cancer, simply due to the fact that having more cells dividing means having more chances for one to become cancerous. However, that's not justification for cutting it off, just like it's not justification for cutting off the pinky toe of newborns, which arguably has less function than the foreskin.
/r/MensRights08/03/18 08:01 AM
2

I mean, legal abortion by definition can't be murder. You can argue that it's killing an innocent human, but since it's legal it isn't murder, regardless of your moral stance on the issue.
/r/MensRights21/02/18 07:27 PM
63

I would say that this argument is like asking "how do you know which man is a rapist", but unlike rapists women who make false accusations have no repercussions for their heinous actions.
/r/MensRights16/02/18 07:19 PM
12

Mankind isn't referring to modern usage of man, though. It comes from a time when "man" referred to all humans, and the gendered versions were wifman and wereman, being female and male respectively.
/r/MensRights13/02/18 03:28 AM
15

So abortions should be illegal, right?
/r/MensRights11/02/18 07:12 AM
5

Only would work in single party consent states.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 10:11 PM
3

Come on Terry if you don't have tits Man, his tits stick out further than a lot of girls, they're just all muscle instead of fat.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 04:30 AM
2

It's not a binary, though, completely cutting off any romantic options isn't really healthy, but neither is needing outside validation. You can be self reliant while still being romantically involved with a partner, it will actually make you more likely to get a good partner because manipulative ones won't stick around if they can't find a way to manipulate you.
/r/MensRights04/02/18 07:40 PM
23

Pretty sure even back then groping someone out of the blue was sexual assault.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 11:12 PM
4

My biggest pet peeve is women who bitch about pocket size. No one is stopping them from buying men's/boys' jeans, yet it's some big conspiracy to keep women's pockets smaller, and definitely not anything to do with what women in general value in clothes.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 08:09 AM
1

Donald Trump is many things, a rapist isn’t one of them. As for Moore, the people that supported him generally believed the allegations to be false.
/r/MensRights21/01/18 04:45 PM
1

... yes? I don't see your reasoning for saying no. You can think something is bad without thinking it makes one unfit for office.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 06:06 PM
6

Supporting an alleged rapist and agreeing with rape are two very different things.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 05:34 PM
6

It’s never sparked discussion in mainstream media, because it goes against their agenda, but I’m an optimist and think that it’s like a bunch of smaller little sparks that start an explosion. The people who knew the kid are going to start thinking about what an accusation really is. Eventually it’s going to spread as this happens more and more, which means that the general consensus on the subject will change without it ever being brought up on a mainstream media network.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 05:03 PM
12

Honestly, putting a mic that can hear your words clearly across the room in your own home is something I’d never do on purpose. Sure you can argue that phones can do that, but the difference there is that it isn’t their purpose nor inherent to their design. Alexa is basically a partial version of the telescreen. We inch closer and closer to a real dystopia and the worst part is people do it of their own volition.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 04:54 PM
5

Not really, the difference is that the Democratic politicians, on the federal level at least, use the useful idiots to push for a more authoritative government. Republicans don’t act like they agree with rape to try and gain more influence.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 04:39 PM
2

You should be able to cry, even in public, but at the same time we shouldn't encourage crying for mundane problems.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 04:27 AM
24

Nah, female orcs would be dtf.
/r/MensRights13/01/18 06:39 PM
1

What if they're cells from foreskin that had cancer? Do cells lose any resemblance of their original form when they become cancerous?
/r/MensRights12/01/18 06:24 AM
53

No, it’s like our law except the accused is assumed guilty. Disgusting.
/r/MensRights03/01/18 07:04 PM
1

Oh, yeah, it was someone else. Cheers.
/r/MensRights30/12/17 06:44 PM
1

Right, but you said post-pubescent in your original post.
/r/MensRights30/12/17 06:05 PM
1

Maturing means that they’re pubescent, not post-pubescent.
/r/MensRights30/12/17 05:37 PM
0

If you start banning speech because some lunatics might use it as a justification for their actions, then you're going to eventually end up with newspeak. It's not right for people to get arrested for cussing at feminists, don't act as if that makes it okay to ban ideologies, that's a nonsequitur. Now that I think about it, you've actually proven your cognitive dissonance with that. Why, exactly, is it bad that those people are getting arrested? Under your logic banning an ideology is fine, so w…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 07:41 AM
4

I'm fine with people with prejudices being in positions of power so long as they can be held responsible if they let their prejudgement get in the way of their duty to be as unbiased as possible towards those that they have power over. I don't care if Hitler himself was resurrected and put in charge of a prison, so long as he's not actually harming people. Yes, it sucks that we have to wait until something goes wrong, but that's the only way to give people the freedom to hold beliefs that go aga…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 10:55 PM
1

The problem is you're defining "acting on those thoughts" as even speaking them. Have you ever read 1984?
/r/MensRights28/12/17 10:50 PM
2

So you're for thought policing, got it.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 07:37 PM
0

Do you? I didn't say you couldn't hold the belief that certain ideologies should be banned, I said that you can't ban them. It's just like the difference between making it illegal to commit genocide and making it illegal to believe that genocide should happen.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 06:45 PM
9

By making it illegal to ban ideologies? This is not a hard concept to grasp.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 06:36 PM
28

No ideology should be banned, that’s absurd.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 06:01 PM
19

Yeah, but that means it can also be dismissed offhand. Many times human intuition is wrong, so you can’t base an argument on it.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 05:59 PM
3

No, I'm pretty sure it's just because we hit /r/all, where there's a heavy bias in favor of feminism and criticizing it is sacrilege.
/r/MensRights27/12/17 10:19 PM
6

How about the notion that women shouldn't go to prison at all?
/r/MensRights27/12/17 10:14 PM
5

God, condescension and zero explanation for why you think I'm wrong, you sure your SJW meter isn't on the fritz?
/r/MensRights27/12/17 06:59 PM
-1

Who is it that's actually doing anything, other than just writing things on the internet? It's these crazy, intersectional types, not your moderate "feminist" that complacently adds power to the crazies by inflating the numbers they can claim.
/r/MensRights27/12/17 05:56 PM
18

Not really, that's a grouping by race while this is a grouping by ideology. You can hold as many beliefs as you want, but if you let others speak for you then it doesn't matter what goes on in your head because you're giving the task of externalizing those thoughts to someone else who espouses different beliefs. By continuing to use the label and only holding the beliefs in your head while activists and advocates under the same label exert power in ways you don't agree with you are essentially s…
/r/MensRights27/12/17 05:54 PM
18

Does it matter what the many believe if they let the few speak for them?
/r/MensRights27/12/17 05:38 PM
15

Along the same line of reasoning, there’s then nothing wrong with accepting their payment. I agree, but if you claim one you have to accept the other and it really throws a wrench in most of these “revelations” being had in Hollywood.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 05:39 PM
17

Hence the phrase “they’ve got me by the balls”.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 03:15 PM
25

Is it even playing by their rules when the fact that she has racist/sexist opinions obviously affects her job? I’d be just as fine with a white male police chief being fired over talking about “black thuggery” while acting in his official position.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 01:39 PM
59

There’s dumb shit posted to every sub. Misogyny is not the main point, nor the main tone, of this sub. There’s fringe users, yes, but allowing them to speak and agreeing with them are two separate things.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 02:19 PM
9

Most poly relationships are anything but healthy and stable, especially if they involve children.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 09:57 PM
17

They can report on crime in general, the names of the accused don’t factor into statistics. What they couldn’t do is try people in the court of public opinion before they even stepped foot in a court room.
/r/MensRights13/11/17 05:05 AM
7

Or rather let women get away with shit that men of the same social standing can't.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 05:23 AM
15

So standard college shit.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 05:03 AM
4

Which part of the constitution is punching Nazis protecting?
/r/MensRights27/10/17 05:16 AM
44

Splitting the bill.
/r/MensRights25/10/17 05:32 AM
1

How exactly do you propose that the means of production be seized without some authority doing it?
/r/MensRights22/10/17 08:03 PM
3

Both fascism and communism are inherently authoritarian, it’s not the extremists that make them so.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 04:02 PM
1

Dude, there’s like 45% of both the house and senate that are Democrats.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 03:58 PM
8

And just general skeletal structure. You can't force curves onto a male frame.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/10/17 06:44 AM
2

Do you honestly believe they don't already have their mind made up about this sub?
/r/MensRights14/10/17 05:50 AM
3

They are being pretty cuntish, you have to admit.
/r/MensRights14/10/17 05:44 AM
1

Are they here as immigrants by circumventing the immigration process illegally? If so, they are illegal immigrants. It's a pretty cut-and-dry term, if you can't admit that they're breaking the law by either entering or staying in the country then you're the one with the bias clouding their judgement.
/r/MensRights14/10/17 05:42 AM
1

Including groups that haven't historically drank unfermented milk is unfair. Lactose intolerance in European countries, especially Northern European countries, is much more unlikely than in Eastern Asian countries, for example. I was wrong in attributing it to gut microbials, though. Lactase is actually produced by humans in the small intestine. Source: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance#statistics
/r/MensRights08/10/17 05:58 PM
3

Yes, are you aware of how tiny a change it is to have gut microbials that produce lactase?
/r/MensRights08/10/17 04:26 PM
2

We have evidence of us humans drinking dairy back to the Neolithic revolution. We’ve been drinking milk for close to a dozen millennia.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 04:03 PM
2

Yeah, I don't think I'm close enough to my dad for that not to feel weird.
/r/MensRights07/10/17 05:05 PM
9

Is it normal to be taught how to shave by someone? I just kind of had to figure it out on my own so that I didn’t have a weird pedo mustache. I guess I picked it up from movies.
/r/MensRights07/10/17 02:43 PM
2

Yeah, and it's totally your fault /s Women are entitled to not only sex but also orgasms in these people's minds. Men have to serve it up hot on a silver platter for them and if they don't then it's the guy's fault.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 02:55 AM
5

This woman is a psychopath, I wouldn't be surprised if she is abusive.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 09:23 PM
38

The social status shouldn't, but it definitely does.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 10:22 PM
10

That could be moving a few blocks away, which means that two people who used to live together now instantly give up 50/50 custody rights just because one can't buy the house next door. I'd say moving to another town or if within the same city/town moving more than 2 miles away.
/r/MensRights19/09/17 03:19 PM
13

You're also divorcing half your stuff, or more.
/r/MensRights17/09/17 07:26 AM
4

There's also the very real possibility that he's got battered wife/person syndrome or some form of Stockholm syndrome.
/r/MensRights14/09/17 03:04 AM
7

It's possible that they both go to the same bathroom that just loops around.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 03:20 PM
27

Crying in front of your woman isn't something that should be discouraged, if you can't cry in front of your wife or girlfriend, then you really shouldn't be with them because that means you don't feel completely safe around them. That person should be the person you can be closest to. This obviously only applies for crying in warranted situations. I would put wife or long-term girlfriend at the same level of closeness as your parents, you should be able to tell them almost anything without fear.…
/r/MensRights08/09/17 09:13 PM
5

Normal people, quite literally 99% of the population.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 05:37 AM
8

To have 3/4 of the impoverished population be women, excluding children since there's no discriminatory factors in that so no way for there to be a significant difference in population between girls and boys, there'd have to be a poverty rate of 30% in women, since the poverty rate in men is 10%. That's more than double what it is. The actual number is around 58%.
/r/MensRights04/09/17 12:29 AM
10

Wrong.
/r/MensRights04/09/17 12:15 AM
46

Men are not the ones in poverty. 3/4 of all homeless people in the US are men.
/r/MensRights03/09/17 10:09 PM
3

Taking a penis and chopping it down the middle, then shoving it back inside the person's body is in the upper end of what I would consider mutilation.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 04:49 PM
1

Then it's about a violation of his human rights, not his unhappiness about it. He had an almost irreversible procedure done on him without his knowledge or consent. He can rightfully be angry, but arguing that that anger justifies anything isn't logical. What justifies retribution is the same thing that justifies his anger, not the anger itself.
/r/MensRights30/08/17 06:14 AM
-6

To be honest, I don't think the second point is really a good one. In my opinion most if not all of the men unhappy about their circumcision are so because they already have problems with their parents. I would separate unhappiness due to discomfort or complications from unhappiness just from the fact that it happened, ergo unhappy even though there is no physical discomfort or displeasure from it. I bring this up not to discredit you in any way, the other two points have far more weight, but to…
/r/MensRights29/08/17 09:34 PM
4

You say that, but delaying puberty is a pretty drastic thing to do. We don't know if it's a bad thing, but my gut feeling is that it will cause problems in the child's physical and mental development.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 12:51 PM
3

Literally impossible, we live in an imperfect world.
/r/MensRights26/08/17 12:33 AM
13

Do you mean diminishing?
/r/MensRights22/08/17 08:02 PM
50

Arms and collar bones are things that aren't easily hidden. Collar bones work especially well, since they either crop the picture so much that it's ridiculous or they take it from below, which shows their double chin.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/08/17 07:05 PM
8

Even the weapon alone would be an issue with the distances they might have to walk.
/r/MensRights11/08/17 05:32 PM
1

So a scientific consensus can never be wrong. Well then, let me just pull out my skull measuring devices to show you how the Negroid is dumber than the Caucasoid.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 04:15 AM
1

So are paranoid schizophrenics really being chased by the government? Who are you to question their being? How about people with depression? They really are worthless, aren't they? After all, who are you to question their being? Even mentally healthy people can delude themselves, you're not always the best judge of yourself. In fact, most times your gut judgement is skewed from reality. Children generally act on their gut judgement, this is why they often seem irrational and impulsive. This is w…
/r/MensRights09/08/17 04:14 AM
3

It definitely does, but considering that other hated/oppressed groups, such as homosexuals, have never had the same suicide rate as transgender people there has to be another factor.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 03:51 AM
4

Truth isn't defined by consensus.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 03:44 AM
3

I don't think you know what the clitoral hood is if you think it's "a huge chunk of flesh". A labiaplasty is far closer to male circumcision in what it does to the look of the genitalia than female circumcision is.
/r/MensRights03/08/17 06:23 PM
2

It's similar anatomically speaking, but not aesthetically speaking. Since we're talking about sexual preference, an aesthetic analog is more relevant.
/r/MensRights03/08/17 06:02 PM
1

I think any sexual preference is acceptable so long as it has to do with consenting adult humans. However, the analogy isn't an apt one since the vast majority of cases of female circumcision/FGM do not drastically change the look of the vagina. A more apt analog would be men preferring women who have smaller labia minora or have undergone labiaplasty.
/r/MensRights03/08/17 05:35 PM
12

It's the opposite, really. Women get a huge leg up in the hiring process for high-paying professions, most of which happen to be in STEM. Technical jobs don't usually require degrees, they're more based around what knowledge you have so if you can demonstrate that without a degree it doesn't matter. That's the more likely explanation as to why you're different from your peers.
/r/MensRights31/07/17 03:06 PM
3

Not being fat is not hard, depending on your definition, but being cut is.
/r/MensRights29/07/17 12:23 AM
6

It's not that women are a monolith, it's that they have so much power in the legal system that it's a risk to be with them. I don't really agree with the extreme action MGTOWs take, but you do have to be careful when romantically involved with women. One sadistic bitch can ruin your life if she knows how to abuse the power our current legal system gives her.
/r/MensRights28/07/17 05:36 AM
2

No one always tells the truth, does that mean everyone is always lying? Even if he usually lies, it's not intellectually honest to assume he is lying without evidence.
/r/MensRights26/07/17 10:10 PM
3

In his tweet he explicitly states that this came about "after consultation with my Generals and military experts".
/r/MensRights26/07/17 09:25 PM
27

That depends on her socioeconomic status.
/r/MensRights25/07/17 03:54 PM
2

Is that the mean or the median? Early onset menopause could drive the mean down while the median is still mid 50s. It doesn't really matter, I'm just curious now. Even so, my point still stands, I was using the most generous interpretation of what he said, age 55 and 15 years of "dried-up" eggs, and it is still an absurd statement.
/r/MensRights23/07/17 04:18 PM
1

Cooking in the nude is just asking for trouble. Exposed flesh and hot surfaces/flames do not mix well. Not to mention sharp blades. Fully clothed and close-toed footwear, nudity can wait.
/r/MensRights23/07/17 08:59 AM
13

Menopause doesn't start until the mid 50s for most women, it's an extreme rarity to find one starting it in their early 40s.
/r/MensRights23/07/17 08:39 AM
1

From your own links he's "in the middle of what it costs" to raise a child, but those numbers are for a whole family. By your own numbers he's providing all of the money to raise that child.
/r/MensRights22/07/17 10:46 PM
3

Why should he have to provide all of the money for the child to live at his socioeconomic level? There are two parents that should be providing for the child, after all.
/r/MensRights22/07/17 10:18 PM
23

Did they not choose to forego a career and instead be a stay-at-home parent? You seem to be arguing for all the financial freedom that a career gives without any of the sacrifice it entails, which is what's known as entitlement.
/r/MensRights19/07/17 02:40 PM
0

So it's totally not okay to force women to alter their lives for 9 months, but forcing men to alter their lives forever is fine. I'm not actually advocating for forcing women to have babies, much like Swift wasn't advocating for cannibalism, I was using it to draw a parallel.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 04:05 PM
0

Reproduction selection, as in selecting women at random to be forced to bear a child. It's the female equivalent to the service selection that men go through, referred to as the draft.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 03:26 PM
2

So why not have a reproduction selection? Men get pulled to die, women to birth. That is, after all, the responsibilities of each respective gender in wartime.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 06:32 AM
19

How about signing up for selective service? Literally pledging to go to your death should a war break out. Same thing in any disaster, first out are women and children, men have to be prepared to give their own lives.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 04:21 PM
1

Life isn't fair. There's always going to be people that use the anonymity that the internet provides to get away with being a dick, so giving them another tool in their dick-being arsenal is a risk you take when putting personal information out there.
/r/MensRights12/07/17 02:34 PM
1

More so when you're in direct competition with them, eg, women in relation to other women.
/r/MensRights12/07/17 02:29 PM
14

She's also an asshole because instead of attempting to take some of the burden off of him by also getting a second job, or just flat out telling him that he doesn't need to give the family a destination vacation every year, she just lets him work himself to death while getting mad that he's never around but still sucking on the teet of his labor. Completely self-centered and oblivious to the source of her lifestyle all the while. I'm probably just making logical leaps that aren't supported, thou…
/r/MensRights11/07/17 07:46 PM
8

Did you actually explicitly tell your girlfriend that you took extra hours so you had more money for your trip? It seems like if she still acts that way even when she knows you're busting your ass for her then you need to drop her because she doesn't actually respect you as a person, you're just a means to the end that is her material happiness.
/r/MensRights11/07/17 07:42 PM
11

So it's okay to have an inordinate punishment because you told them about it beforehand? You'd be fine with a new law that said if you scuffed someone else's shoes you have to pay them 200 grand?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/17 10:31 PM
109

Can we stop for a moment and notice that not only does she still get to be the guardian of a child, but she gets to live with said child. This is the most ass-backwards thing I've ever seen, she shouldn't be allowed within 200 feet of an area where children congregate, let alone be the live-in caregiver for one. Like, the no jail sentence for child porn is one thing, but this judge is off his rocker for letting her keep her kid.
/r/MensRights05/07/17 02:39 PM
1

I completely agree. Still easier than drastically changing your diet, imo.
/r/MensRights04/07/17 04:56 PM
9

The best way to fix the exercise part is to find some friends and get an exercise schedule going with them. It's a lot easier to stay motivated to work out when you're doing it with people you like and/or respect. Diet is much harder to change, imo, but big burly guys are "in" right now so as long as you put on some muscle you're good to go.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 11:27 PM
2

There were definitely Jews in ancient Egypt. They weren't slaves, but they were there.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 07:15 PM
1

He didn't make it up, men do have a larger standard deviation in IQ, thus more men at the extremes than women. He's a moron and a lunatic, but he's not wrong in this instance. There's a source posted in another reply to the parent comment.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 07:13 PM
1

It wasn't religious in ancient Egypt, it was cultural but not religious. It's just telling that you only bring up the Jews, other people that do it are in the back of your mind.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 07:08 PM
1

And they adopted it from the Egyptians, so really it's their fault, right?
/r/MensRights02/07/17 06:25 PM
5

Your views are way off course. Men aren't the only ones defending circumcision, and Jews weren't the ones who pushed for the revival of circumcision in the early 20th century but "medical professionals" who viewed masturbation as a sin. Your vitriolic, ill-conceived opinions won't win you any points with people that don't already share your beliefs.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 06:23 PM
4

I don't think it is, it's always been a problem that false accusations are taken at face value by people that are either too lazy or lack the time to research the accusation. Just look at To Kill a Mocking Bird, this is not a purely modern phenomenon, it likely is part of our lizard brains. There's a reason we've had to outline the presumption of innocence in laws since Roman times. Now, it would be apt to say that "fake news" exacerbates the situation, though.
/r/MensRights27/06/17 04:57 PM
1

I meant the findings of it are accepted as truth, so it doesn't matter if, for instance, you're found innocent of a rape you were accused of in the actual courts system.
/r/MensRights27/06/17 04:49 PM
63

Which is really too bad, because we preemptively tried to counteract that mentality with things like Good Samaritan laws. The problem is that the court of public opinion has no laws, no oversight, and no predictability, but is still somehow accepted.
/r/MensRights27/06/17 03:18 PM
1

I can't believe you're actually arguing for sex with young teenagers, do you not understand how absolutely abhorrent that is? I can understand an age of consent of 16, maybe 15, but "far earlier than 18" suggests 14 years of age at most.
/r/MensRights27/06/17 01:00 AM
1

It's not illogical to say that people mature as they age, thus there needs to be some point at which we say "you're mature enough to know the consequences of having sex". So we pick an arbitrary age around the time when puberty ends, because before that not only is the person not sexually mature but the hormones that are produced during puberty hinder ones abilities to make informed decisions. It doesn't have to be 18, but it does have to be somewhere around that age.
/r/MensRights26/06/17 11:54 PM
3

I guess it depends on who you mean by "they"; I'll bet you and the other other dude are using it to describe two different groups.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 02:14 PM
0

Don't frame it as people not having complications being lucky, that's the norm. It's still wrong to do it to children, but don't act as if it ruins their life, it makes you seem obsessed.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 11:50 AM
29

Cuntfusing or Vagsplaining are my two favorites.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 10:39 PM
2

There's definitely such a thing as implicit consent. If you go up to someone's room to be alone with them after a night of drinking there's implicit consent there. Here we see the guy claiming he didn't want to touch her and she touch him, but he did so anyway. He didn't resist, and was active in the sexual contact, so consent is implied as he would've resisted either verbally or physically otherwise. I'm only seeing one point on the original quora post which might be misconstrued as disproving …
/r/MensRights30/05/17 02:57 PM
-7

Well, one: there was no mention of threatening to falsely accuse him, so that's out right there, and two: it was his home that she willingly went to, which would counter any claim of rape and thus clears any implied threat. The whole "touch a woman at all and it's assault on her" is blown out of proportion, you can definitely resist physically without leaving in handcuffs, especially because it was his house and they didn't live together. This wouldn't even fall under the Duluth model because it…
/r/MensRights30/05/17 12:55 AM
-2

I agree, I don't see any threat of violence or consequence, nor any actual force mentioned, so while it may have been uncomfortable for him because he didn't want it, by not doing anything when it is safe to stop the other person he was giving implicit consent. Feel bad for him, but he should take it as a learning experience that when you bend to others will all the time you will be used in ways you don't like. Some of the commenters are terrible people, though, and that should be more of the fo…
/r/MensRights29/05/17 10:49 PM
21

Don't stoop to his level, just downvote him and move on rather than be a prick.
/r/MensRights27/05/17 02:42 PM
3

Jack is kind of disgusting even when mixed, I'll stick to Evan Williams for my mixers. It's so weird to me that Jack has become the whiskey that everyone knows, because it's so subpar.
/r/MensRights27/05/17 12:30 AM
8

I do too, but my experience with other men liking it is very sparse, a few out of a couple dozen of people I've drank with. I mean, most people will drink it to get drunk, but they'll take shots so they don't have to taste it.
/r/MensRights26/05/17 03:43 PM
79

It's still a stereotype, even if it's true.
/r/MensRights26/05/17 02:02 PM
12

I don't think most dudes like straight whiskey, maybe that's just only my personal experience, though. I'd go with the beer before whiskey, a crowd pleaser like a pilsner or brown ale, not an IPA like 2/3 of microbreweries produce as their sole product.
/r/MensRights26/05/17 02:01 PM
9

Prenups aren't always upheld, they may save your ass but at the same time it's not a guarantee.
/r/MensRights24/05/17 05:34 PM
3

The safest path isn't always the most rewarding, in fact it is usually the least rewarding.
/r/MensRights24/05/17 05:29 PM
6

Judge jury and executioner, out to hurt with a vengeance, based on TV goddess worship.
/r/MensRights24/05/17 05:22 PM
1

I may be wrong on this, despite the upvotes. From what I remember I had to register with selective service for something after I turned 18, I thought it was for voting but it seems to have been something else. While it is technically a felony, and thus grounds to temporarily revoke voting rights in most states, according to some replies I got it is one that isn't enforced. I know that I had to enroll in selective service to do something other than just avoid a felony, but it's been long enough t…
/r/MensRights20/05/17 03:01 AM
54

Women have the right to vote by default, men get the privilege to vote after they register for selective service.
/r/MensRights18/05/17 07:23 PM
1

You can most definitely say that it's not a part of human nature. Similar to a breed of dog's disposition there are certain things that are generally true for humans, and that's known as human nature. For instance, empathy is a part of human nature, even though there are varying levels of it.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 02:34 AM
1

I guess it depends on how you're defining natural. If you mean that it occurs in nature, then that's such a broad term that it essentially becomes meaningless, but yes rape would be natural in that sense. A more apt definition is something that is in the nature of the subject, so for something to be natural for humans it has to be inherent in human nature and thus would be normal.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 01:00 AM
9

If that's what you want to do, man, I don't care as long as it isn't illegal. I was just pointing out that in all likelihood your "baby making machine" won't ever stop being able to make babies.
/r/MensRights12/05/17 11:40 PM
11

Most men don't deal with ED ever in their lives, and sperm is produced until death excepting any disease or hormonal imbalance.
/r/MensRights12/05/17 11:24 PM
8

Rape isn't natural for humans, or else you'd see human vaginas similar to duck vaginas. When rape is a norm in a species you see the raped sex develop sexual characteristics to better stop impregnation in the case of rape.
/r/MensRights12/05/17 11:18 PM
28

Only if you think that you can't be racist against white people. Otherwise you'd be hard pressed to say whether Donald supporters or BLM activists contain a higher chunk of the racist population.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/05/17 01:40 AM
16

Well, cats are greasy and tough, for one.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 03:13 AM
2

To be honest, you're jumping the gun on supporting it. Think about why those people are forced to sign up for a union, and therefore pay dues. They're receiving the benefits of the union's collective bargaining, but they would be even if they had not signed up for it. Essentially, the unionized employers force people to sign up and pay dues because they're receiving benefits simply by existing in the field. It's a weird gray area, where unions act as monopolies, since employers all signed contra…
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:31 PM
1

Right-to-work means that you can't be forced to sign up for a union to be in a specific profession.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:05 PM
3

That's called at-will employment, it has nothing to do with right-to-work states.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 02:37 PM
2

My question is how does she not know it's going to be explosive diarrhea? Like is it such a common occurrence with her that she can't differentiate normal shits and diarrhea?
/r/MensRights26/04/17 02:33 PM
1

I've never had it be so pitch black that I couldn't see the starkly white porcelain. Maybe you shouldn't have your bathroom be a sensory deprivation chamber.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 02:28 PM
1

You sit further back if it's a short bowl and you're only peeing.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 02:22 PM
4

I sit down to pee regardless, only in my own home though. It's more relaxing and I don't have to clean the rim as often, plus if I find out I have to shit I can just do it.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 02:18 PM
1

Even outside of the bathroom it will still get plenty of shit particles on it. There's really no use worrying about it, our bodies can obviously handle that level of exposure.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 02:16 PM
2

Monarchies usually work on lineage, not merit.
/r/MensRights21/04/17 03:17 PM
4

k
/r/MensRights31/03/17 01:48 AM
4

lol
/r/MensRights31/03/17 01:38 AM
5

I honestly can't tell if you're this stupid or just attempting to troll. Either way, I'm disappointed in you.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 01:32 AM
6

Not sure how you're going to argue that I'm illiterate, considering I've read your comments, but I'd love to hear it anyway.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 01:18 AM
5

Ah, the classic "If you disagree with me you're just circlejerking" comment. I don't mean to be condescending, but I can't help it when you're so hostile.
/r/MensRights31/03/17 01:10 AM
11

So you have 3 comments and are calling it a circlejerk? That's a pretty lax definition, in my eyes.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 10:26 PM
10

I'm pretty sure a circlejerk requires more than a few comments making comedic references, but maybe my definition is more stringent than yours.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 09:11 PM
3

Did you ask them how makeup plays into that system?
/r/MensRights30/03/17 01:54 PM
9

They actually have more rights than men under the law, not even including things like sentencing rates which aren't de jure but de facto rules. Two prominent ones are that men have no equivalent to abortion and men have to sign their life away in case of a war to get political representation.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/03/17 02:09 AM
50

Think about this. A man taking off a condom when having sex is considered abhorrent and tantamount to rape if the woman wants him to keep wearing it, yet this is applauded on live TV. Taking off a condom can be argued to be from the heat of the moment, this cold, calculated paternal fraud is worse yet you have people applauding because the man is the victim.
/r/MensRights25/03/17 07:29 PM
10

No, it's just that one kid's day, not the other wretches.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 03:44 PM
3

If men account for 80% of suicides, but white men account for 70%, then white men account for 87.5% of male suicides while being 70% of the male population. There's obviously something pushing white men to commit suicide at a higher rate than other races, given that the 7/10 figure is correct and talking about total suicides and not just male suicides.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 04:50 PM
3

I've never seen native Americans classified as white, and I can't even comprehend anyone even implying that Indians are white.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 04:42 PM
4

If this isn't the place for satire, then surely a bill is not the place, either.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 11:31 PM
1

There are plenty of people who legitimately believe that biological sex is a social construct, and thus isn't real.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 04:00 PM
12

The pain may increase, although I've heard that they use local anesthetic so it may not be too bad, but the chance for serious complication drastically decreases, because of a much larger blood supply and a mature patient can tell when something doesn't feel right with the healing process and voice those concerns.
/r/MensRights04/03/17 06:51 PM
10

Same result, so why should it matter the reasoning? The problem is the effects of taking testosterone, not the reasoning behind it.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 07:32 PM
1

I'm not sure how they got 79.3 percent, since their numbers only add up with 64.8 percent. There's 14.5 percent that got lost somewhere.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 05:52 PM
4

How does that even make sense? I've never heard of PTSD influencing someone in that way.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 12:33 AM
0

I would if her parents were ignorant of the consequences and faced societal pressure to do so. Calling your mom a cunt for doing something she has been told is the right thing to do since she was young is being a completely unempathetic brat. She's completely in the wrong, but there's a wide swath of metaphorical land between the city of righteousness and cuntsville.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 12:08 AM
1

So you're willing to ignore your morals to further your cause. That's not something I'd admit to, honestly.
/r/MensRights26/02/17 11:30 PM
-1

Yeah, no, the only reason your father is a moron is for not seeing that his son is a brat before it was too late to change it.
/r/MensRights26/02/17 11:09 PM
3

That sounds terrible, I'm circumcised but masturbation is pleasurable. It sounds like they botched it, because that is definitely not the standard experience for circumcised men, not that it changes the ethics of permanently removing a part of a baby for a non-medical reason.
/r/MensRights26/02/17 11:00 PM
1

Okay, but why do you think it's okay for us to say "women are lying and manipulative" but it's not okay for them to say "men are rapists". Hold yourself to the same or higher standards as others, not lower.
/r/MensRights26/02/17 10:46 PM
2

The fact that you're assuming "they" means "women" and not "people who defend this" shows you're just looking for something to blame on the sub. You're not neutral in your inferences.
/r/MensRights24/02/17 04:11 PM
10

Eh, he shouldn't have to take it. I'm not talking about fighting her like she is a man, but shoving her to the ground and walking away after she starts hitting you is a very reasonable response.
/r/MensRights24/02/17 04:06 PM
4

In the second line it clearly states that it's also in criminal courts, and was before this change to the family court system was put into play.
/r/MensRights23/02/17 06:36 PM
0

Not sure why you think she should be shamed, attraction is not something you can control. It also takes quite a bit of courage to admit what she did, even if it's anonymously.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 05:27 PM
0

I agree, and I'm not arguing that what she did was even remotely acceptable, but I don't think the faculty knew she was going to do this before it was already happening, so there wasn't this complacency you're alleging, as the article does say that the teachers tried to clothe him. I feel like there might be some policy in place stopping them from taking the boy away from her, because it seems kind of weird for them to try and clothe him but not to try and take him away from an obviously abusive…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 09:34 PM
5

Probably because she had him do it after they left the meeting, not in the office after the meeting was over. I guess we don't really have an exact breakdown of where events transpired so we both took what the article wrote differently. I thought it was the mom leaving the office with her son after the meeting and forcing him to strip down out of view of the faculty. I can't imagine anyone with a righteous bone in their body would let her get away with forcefully stripping him down in front of t…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 08:54 PM
7

None that I know of, but that's not the point I was arguing. He was arguing against having to see a doctor at all, not against the wait time. I think the wait time is completely arbitrary and is meant to deter women wanting abortions, but the doctor visit itself is medically necessary.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 08:53 PM
1

Alright then, I'm sure you're fine with mining companies dumping all of their wastes in the river, then, seeing as not doing that costs extra money and is only stopped because it's safer for people and the environment.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 08:49 PM
11

I don't think they need to be charged with anything, but they do need to have new policies in place that tell them to take custody of the child and call police in events like this. The article clearly states they tried to help him by giving him clothes, so it's not that they were totally complacent, but they shouldn't have let him go home with someone who is clearly abusive.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 07:36 PM
19

Abortion is an invasive procedure, seeing a doctor before having it performed on you is very reasonable. Medically induced abortions use prescription drugs so having to see a doctor is a pretty obvious requisite. Even for birth control pills seeing a doctor is important because they can make sure you're not showing any symptoms that may interfere with or be exacerbated by the hormonal treatment. There's a reason they're prescription drugs, and it's not so that poor people can't afford them. It's…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 07:31 PM
1

I don't think it would be the fault of the father if the child suffers, given that he told the mother he wasn't going to support the child. It was her decision to give birth and keep him or her, even though she knew she'd have to raise it on solely her income. The child shouldn't have to suffer, but he or she also shouldn't be able to force someone to financially support them so they don't suffer. That's not to say that once you start financially supporting a child you can just stop and throw th…
/r/MensRights20/02/17 06:34 PM
3

It is that women "win" and men "lose" if women have abortion rights but men are still given zero choices once the egg has been fertilized. You're essentially saying that women have the right to choose whether or not they have a baby and they have a right to choose whether or not men have to financially support their decision. It's not about imperfect or perfect worlds, it's about not robbing people of their freedom. Abortion rights are all about bodily autonomy, right? How is it not taking away …
/r/MensRights20/02/17 04:15 AM
2

The mother already has custody of the child in this case so the father isn't depriving her of the child by giving up responsibility for it. The end result is the same for both, so the amount of time it's possible to do so should be the same, as well. Namely, if the father hasn't signed the birth certificate then he should still be able to relinquish his parental duties and rights, and then the mother decides if she wants to put the baby up for adoption or raise it alone, just like the father wou…
/r/MensRights19/02/17 10:41 PM
2

I'd say for the same amount of time as a mother has to put the child up for adoption without the father's consent.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 09:56 PM
8

What? Next you're going to tell me that Swift didn't actually want to eat poor children.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 08:02 PM
20

How about giving men the right to rid themselves of any privileges and responsibilities associated with a child? I'd argue that that's the same thing abortion is in principle. Both are means of ridding yourself of responsibility for a child, and neither infringes upon a person's bodily autonomy.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 08:00 PM
0

You need to pull it back, that was unnecessarily hostile. You're right, but there's no need to be an asshole about it.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 07:56 PM
35

Okay? If you attempt suicide you can get help, if you commit suicide you can get no help. It's obvious that women attempting suicide get the help they need, otherwise their suicide rates would be higher than men's, so why does that need to be a focus?
/r/MensRights18/02/17 10:47 PM
94

Male suicide rates are already triple that of female's, if they don't care now they'll never care.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 10:04 PM
5

You can be a stupid jackass and still be within your rights.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/02/17 06:01 PM
3

Yeah, the government keeps fines. They do have universal healthcare in Australia, though, so it's basically like her covering his medical bills, unless he has private health insurance which I kind of doubt.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 05:09 PM
4

You have to pay for school in Australia? Also, luxury items are not something that really hurts you to go without, same with alcohol unless you're an alcoholic at which point you should be getting help instead of blowing your paycheck on booze, again it's an annoyance at most. Not to mention that it's $1000 or more, and if you look at the figures it's usually more. The data is possibly skewed by people who didn't answer, but we can't say it is or which way it's skewed by that so it's better to i…
/r/MensRights17/02/17 05:00 PM
16

Unless I'm taking this the wrong way, less than 1/3 of the households of Perth have less than $1000 a week in income, so it wouldn't really hurt most people much to have to shell out $3000 over a few months, even after taxes. It's an annoyance at worst. http://profile.id.com.au/perth/household-income
/r/MensRights17/02/17 04:31 PM
150

I don't get how you plead guilty to something like this and don't at least get some community service along with a fine. $3000 AUD isn't even that much, considering the average income in Australia.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 03:23 PM
10

Too early for them to remember, at that age babies can't even process basic vision, let alone form coherent memories we can recall later.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 08:40 PM
107

That's a given, you can't preside over a case that you have personal connections to, it's highly unethical.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 08:06 PM
23

There's no such thing as an innocent verdict. By getting the not guilty verdict you retain your presumption of innocence. You don't lose the presumption of innocence until the guilty verdict is handed down, and therefore you can't be given an innocent verdict because that's already the presumption. You can sue if you think you were charged in bad faith, as your link states, but that's a whole different case that isn't dealt with during the criminal proceedings.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 04:17 AM
8

No, it's definitely her fault for taking advantage of such an obviously unfair system. She's not doing anything illegal, but it's definitely immoral.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 07:13 PM
-1

proof n. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement
/r/MensRights07/02/17 03:40 PM
-2

There's proof, but it's not conclusive.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 03:19 PM
2

Lactic acid corroding the entire clit and clit hood? Mutilation of the vagina. But the vagina still works, it still performs its function of sexual reproduction.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:53 PM
2

So female genital mutilation is not mutilation, by your definition.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:46 PM
2

It's not about destruction of the entire organ, how are you not understanding this? Again with the female genital mutilation example, the vagina still works fine afterward, it's not completely gone, so by your definition it's not mutilation.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:44 PM
4

Yeah and delaying puberty makes sense because you're more passing if you're transgender. It's unethical, plain and simple.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:17 PM
2

So the foreskin being cut off and dead is not permanent removal of it? Are you even listening to yourself right now?
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:17 PM
8

So? That doesn't change anything about the procedure being an unneeded permanent alteration of the body that the person had no choice in.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:10 PM
2

That makes no sense, you don't have to completely remove something for it to be mutilation. By your definition you can never mutilate the vagina because you're not excising it. The foreskin is part of the penis, and permanent removal of part of the penis is mutilation of the penis.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:08 PM
9

It is a human right's violation, it's not about whether or not it makes sex pleasurable, it's about doing a permanent procedure on a child for purely cosmetic reasons. It's like getting a tummy tuck for your toddler because they have yet to lose their baby fat. It shouldn't be outright banned, because once the man is an adult he should be able to decide for himself what he wants, but it should be banned from being done on children and infants.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:01 PM
5

A scrape isn't permanently removing part of the skin, and removing cancer isn't mutilation because it's not causing damage, it's preventing it.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:00 PM
1

It can be, but it's not always going to work. A vasectomy should never be used as a temporary birth control solution.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 09:08 PM
18

I'm making one assumption, that the woman wants the relationship to no longer have the possibility of children. I consider that to be a reasonable assumption; I can't see any other reason she'd want him to get a vasectomy.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 03:24 PM
75

Okay, but it's obvious the guy doesn't want to be infertile, but the woman wants someone to be infertile, so the obvious course of action is for her not to try and force him into something he doesn't want and therefore either get over it or get her tubes tied.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 06:29 AM
4

I disagree, the name and information should be taken and verified but not released because otherwise you are incentivizing false reporting through shielding them with anonymity. If you report someone for a crime and it's found that not only is there no evidence of it taking place, but there is also evidence showing that it did not take place then you should face some sort of punishment for it.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 06:34 PM
9

Jon was doing his videos before Game Grumps, too, in fact his videos were much more focused on video games, especially top 10s, than they are now. I'm pretty sure Jon was on the Cooptional podcast at least once, maybe a few times.
/r/MensRights30/01/17 03:48 PM
36

So in France men are starting the slow decline to second class citizens already. That's absolutely insane, how can they argue that a person has any right to deny another person their bodily autonomy, especially when it has nothing to do with abortion where there may or may not be another life at play, depending on your views. That's actual oppression.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:27 PM
19

Yeah, they know what they're getting into so women shouldn't be able to have an abortion, because she knew the risks of having sex, the damn sinner.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:24 PM
9

Brags about being able to grope beautiful women, I don't really think he was bragging about being able to get away with sexually assaulting them. What I took from that tiny soundbite is that he was saying that they're attracted to him because he's rich and famous and thus they let him grope them, not that they let him grope them because he's so rich and famous that he would ruin them. It really is completely up to the listener how they take it, though, because we have no further context.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 07:17 PM
7

A group of cells containing DNA that would be consider human, yes. Fetuses lack personhood, though, so calling it a human is a bit disingenuous. Late term abortions are usually only allowed if the pregnancy is life threatening, so by the time the fetus is a person it's already not going to get aborted.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 04:25 AM
0

That's the assumption you're making, you have no idea what he meant by it. Seeing how egotistical he is, I'd argue that it's more in character for him to be saying that because he's rich and powerful women are attracted to him and thus let him grope them.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 04:20 PM
9

Well, it could also be because it's illegal to pay men and women different wages based off of their sex.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 04:08 PM
2

Well, it doesn't really fit reality. The whole "wage gap" myth has been debunked so many times that if you're on the internet and haven't come by it you're being willfully ignorant. Seriously, just think of it on the basis of economics, if a company could get away hiring only women and paying them 77% of what they would pay men, you think they would still hire men? Some might, but the ones that hired only women and paid 77% of the wages their competitors were paying would be making a much larger…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 04:06 PM
8

You could always just go braless and buy reusable menstrual cups. You act as if those are not only necessities, but the only products in the market of feminine hygiene. Menstrual cups are like 30 or 40 bucks every five years, a completely insignificant cost, 3-4/10 of a cent per hour worked assuming 2000 hours worked per year. Oh, and men pay higher premiums on car insurance, so I'd argue that balances out any extra doctors visits women have to make. Really, the entire argument is asinine, thoug…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 02:23 AM
31

A claim she never took to criminal court, where she could present evidence, and made suspiciously at the time when she'd have something to gain from it, during divorce proceedings. What makes it even more suspicious is that when asked about it she back pedaled and said she wasn't actually raped and just felt sexually violated, because you can't disprove what people feel. I'm not saying he did or didn't, but the whole thing is very suspect.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 04:58 PM
2

From how I understand consent, the ability to consent to anything is not taken away, only to legally binding contracts and things of a sexual nature, similar to children. Basic things like consenting to a car ride, so them taking a cab isn't kidnapping just because they're drunk, and consenting to video being recorded, note that's not it being distributed only the recording, is still possible.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 03:53 AM
7

The consent should still count, because you'll have the consent on camera and even though she can't sign legal documents or consent to sex, like a child, she'll still be able to consent to video recording.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 03:41 AM
9

Depending on the state, that's not admissible if she doesn't know she's being recorded or doesn't consent to the recording.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 03:18 AM
18

In this case, it was the government that decided it was a civil matter, even though it's clearly criminal. The judge should've thrown it out the minute she walked in the court. Civil courts don't decide if something criminal happened, they decide who is liable, yet the judge stated that they had done something criminal. She wasn't trying to claim emotional distress, she was suing them for rape, which you can't sue someone for because it's a criminal matter not a civil one.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 03:17 AM
2

How, exactly? If men are going around just groping the fuck out of random women and no one is stopping them, I'm not seeing how putting them a little further away, not far enough to be unreachable mind you, will do anything. Are they going to have security detail that makes sure men don't pass through there? Can men not use the bathrooms around that area at all?
/r/MensRights17/01/17 04:40 AM
1

Is he arrogant? From the picture he's got above average looks, if he's tall that's another plus, and if he's actually making "well into 6 figures", I'm guessing like 300k+, then he's not going to have a problem attracting girls. Knowing your worth is not arrogant, he's not saying he's so good looking he deserves those girls, or that he's super rich and better than other guys, he just knows what his value is and knows he can get away with having a more specific selection for dating. We also don't…
/r/MensRights16/01/17 08:49 PM
2

Sounds to me more like you just like a specific brand of crazy, rather than you're weeding out "dipshits". Everyone's allowed their own preference, but the tenacity with which you describe things, especially bringing political parties and leanings into it, is very off-putting for most people, even if they aren't "dipshits".
/r/MensRights15/01/17 04:50 PM
16

If soccer is anything to go by, I'd put it at several thousand men, considering the best female soccer players still lose to varsity high school boys teams.
/r/MensRights27/12/16 10:18 PM
1

Psychiatry is a relatively new discipline, emerging as we know it in the 70s. Psychology wasn't really studied scientifically until the early 1900s.
/r/MensRights27/12/16 09:39 PM
0

It's not the same argument at all, people in the past did not have easy, quick access to information. At most they had libraries, which weren't always well stocked.
/r/MensRights27/12/16 08:52 PM
4

We're living in a different time, now, things are easily verified to be legitimate or not, at least things as well studied as psychology. While it's possible to cherry pick specific information to suit your interests, most people will just be looking to see if something is a hoax or not and will be researching in good faith.
/r/MensRights27/12/16 08:02 PM
7

If it was so obvious the person I was replying to wouldn't think crazy is permanent. Also, how is the statement that if something didn't work people wouldn't widely accept it as a treatment false? Not to mention you, in the same metaphorical breath, go on to say that psychologists do have tools at their disposal that work. You say that psychologists being able to "fix crazy" is blatantly untrue, but then go on to say that psychologists have tools to fix crazy, even if it's like hammering a nail …
/r/MensRights27/12/16 06:10 PM
9

Okay, I never said that wasn't true. I didn't say that people with mental illness always get cured the first time they see a mental health professional. I didn't say that all mental health professionals uphold their Hippocratic oath. I said that only those who want to be "fixed" can be fixed, not that those that want to be fixed will be fixed.
/r/MensRights27/12/16 05:16 PM
12

You can definitely fix crazy, otherwise clinical psychologists and psychiatrists would be out of a job, but only if the crazy person wants to be "fixed". Feminists, at least the extreme misandrist versions we see online and in academia a lot, create their own craziness and then tell each other it's the right way to think, so it makes it hard for them to actually realize they have a problem.
/r/MensRights27/12/16 02:58 PM
5

Playing devils advocate requires actually putting forth a logical, intellectually honest argument, yours was terrible and not put forth in good faith and he ripped it to shreds anyway. It's also telling that before anyone can actually have a discussion you call the entirety of this sub bigoted and close-minded.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 02:47 AM
5

It's bullshit to the degree that it isn't normal or healthy behavior, but gender dysphoria is a real mental illness.
/r/MensRights10/12/16 09:25 PM
2

Most colleges of that size have their own police department, why can't they just send any accusations of crimes to them?
/r/MensRights05/12/16 07:51 PM
-7

Don't make it a pissing contest, especially not when the most atrocious free speech violations have happened in far left states like China and the USSR, where they killed large swaths of their population for criticizing the state. Hindering free speech is always terrible, regardless of who does it.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 07:00 PM
20

Don't worry, man, I can tell you were being sarcastic.
/r/MensRights28/11/16 04:15 PM
11

Why, exactly? If I go into both knowing that the scenario is fake, then I do things I wouldn't normally do, because it has no negative impact on anyone else. Keep telling yourself that without ever actually thinking about the topic, though.
/r/MensRights25/11/16 04:45 PM
12

Those sexual deviancies have always been there, it's just more easily seen because of the internet. You didn't explain how it would lead to harm of anyone, though. Even for childlike ones, how does it lead to harm. I think you're trying to make the argument that he already refuted, the one with the same base assumptions as the argument that violent video games lead to more violent people, without actually stating it, because you know it's false.
/r/MensRights25/11/16 04:12 PM
18

Or, and hear me out on this, normal people can differentiate between pretend and reality. Even if they're acting out the actions they still know that it's all fake. If I go to the shooting range and shoot a mannequin I'm not more likely to go out and shoot actual people. There's no basis to your argument, no reason to accept the assumption that it hinges on, that pretending to do something makes you more likely to do it in reality. If your argument is that these robots will be so lifelike that t…
/r/MensRights25/11/16 04:08 PM
12

Also, being drafted sends you away for a lot longer than 9 months.
/r/MensRights22/11/16 04:03 PM
5

So never buy a freezer that can store a body.
/r/MensRights11/11/16 06:40 PM
6

I remember watching one of his standup things, maybe like one of those comedy central ones that's 10 minutes long, and thought it was pretty funny, not great but still funny.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 05:56 PM
5

I'm pretty sure he's joking about your use of prophet instead of profit.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 02:40 PM
23

I'd give them a Jerry rating, Morty is too high for this type of bullshit.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 10:19 PM
1

Those are a little different, seeing as they're smaller subs, /r/politics was always left leaning but it wasn't always infected with this radical regressive left viewpoint. /r/europe seems large, with 1 million subs, but the interaction rate is extremely low, with things getting more than 1000 points only once in a blue moon and posts regularly getting fewer than 100 comments. They're also not default, so people not subscribed are less likely to join in a discussion and that breeds homogeneity. …
/r/MensRights02/11/16 04:52 PM
6

They weren't as bad before this election, but CTR has really forced out anyone with a different opinion over the months. They're not a large portion of the people there, but the votes are enough to get people to instantly dislike or like something, because they're too stupid to look at a comment without taking its score into account.
/r/MensRights02/11/16 04:33 PM
0

It's funny because it's just so absurd, men can't be raped, everyone knows that.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 06:30 PM
7

"symptoms related to eating disorders" and "unhealthy thoughts or feelings" are very ambiguous terms used to inflate the numbers. No doubt in my mind that the study is heavily biased.
/r/MensRights24/10/16 04:58 PM
8

I think so, so long as they aren't forcing it on their daughters. It's still genital mutilation, but the problem is with consent not the mutilation itself.
/r/MensRights12/10/16 04:16 AM
1

To reproduce, and in the case of the penis to pee.
/r/MensRights10/10/16 07:43 AM
138

Men already know this, for the most part, though. They learn this from a very early age, women don't. Women are actually conditioned to think, subconsciously, that they can hit men without repercussions because "real men never hit women".
/r/MensRights09/10/16 11:33 PM
1

No, and neither do you. That's a bad point, anyway, because sexual pleasure is further down on my priorities than the ability to properly use the sexual organ.
/r/MensRights09/10/16 11:23 PM
8

Not even close, the glans clitoris, the small nub often referred to as the clitoris, is only around 5-10% of the clitoris, which wraps around the entire vagina. Also note that the glans penis is much more vital in its role for reproduction than the glans clitoris, and is used in peeing. Not to mention the size and blood flow differences.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 05:18 PM
0

Only because FGM is typically practiced in places without easy access to sterile hospital environments and MGM is. Where FGM is practiced, MGM is also brutal and often leads to complications. The most common type of FGM is type 2 where part of the labia minora and clitoris glans are removed, which is very comparable to MGM.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 05:12 PM
-8

It is very few who can, and I'd argue that because they're more prone to work related injuries, due in large part to weaker tendons, that hiring them would take on excess risk that hiring men wouldn't. Also note that most women who are physically fit enough to be soldiers require a ton of supplements and specific workout routines, something that will not be available in actual combat roles. I think that things like being firefighters and cops are fine because they can maintain the level of physi…
/r/MensRights29/09/16 03:49 PM
33

Then again, women are allowed to act like that even if they aren't drunk.
/r/MensRights24/09/16 05:52 AM
-2

The flaw in that thought experiment is that it's not giving the analogous mother any responsibility in being pregnant. It's basically only relevant for cases of rape, where the pregnancy was forcefully induced. In cases of unprotected, consensual sex, or even birth control failure, it is completely different. I get why it works to convince people, though, since society loves making women free from the consequences of their actions.
/r/MensRights17/09/16 07:26 AM
2

Why should he "tone it down"? What he's said is not anything extreme, and any intellectually honest person would be able to look at what feminism has done and see that he's right. The people that he would have to tone it down for are already so set in their beliefs that it's not worth the time explaining things to them.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 09:02 PM
3

My argument that both a parent and teacher spend time with a child so both have a right to ask to talk to the other? That's nothing to do with optimal conditions, it's about whether a teacher should call in a parent about a problem their student is having. You bringing politics into an apolitical discussion is a big red flag to stay away from this discussion, though, so I'm done.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 07:07 PM
2

I don't see how homeschooling has anything to do with what we're talking about. You seem to have some chip on your shoulder when it comes to teachers.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 06:52 PM
2

Why should it be? The teachers are the ones that would be bringing up issues a student has, the parent isn't at the school so they can't bring up an issue that they don't know exists. Both parents and teachers can ask the other to come have a talk, because neither is around the child 24/7 so both have to collaborate to make sure he/she has a good, healthy upbringing.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 06:37 PM
22

How about "sex detection kit", because it pretty accurately detects when a woman has had sex.
/r/MensRights05/09/16 10:09 PM
3

I think it's more akin to anti-abortion protestors holding up signs with aborted fetuses on them. Not as gruesome, but definitely closer to that than firemen wearing yellow.
/r/MensRights28/08/16 03:26 PM
1

Okay, but those are still just two aspects of mankind that change at different rates. Again, you're separating mankind from its creations, and that's inherently wrong because our creations are a large aspect of what makes us human.
/r/MensRights24/08/16 06:10 PM
2

See, the part where you're wrong is separating what humans are from what society is. Society is an intrinsic part of humanity. If society is advancing at a certain pace it's purely because that's the pace that humans are driving it. It's like saying the fire is burning faster than the flames, it just doesn't make sense. We as a species change all the time because of how extremely adaptive our brains are, you're being too simplistic by thinking the only way for a species to change is through gene…
/r/MensRights23/08/16 06:07 AM
1

I don't get how that could be, since society being completely comprised of humans inherently means that it only changes at the speed at which humans do.
/r/MensRights23/08/16 03:35 AM
2

Newsflash, society is 100% comprised of humans.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 10:28 PM
7

That's at least a little disingenuous, since our "evolutionary hardwiring" is for small familial groups, not for large societies like we have now. The great thing about our brains is that they are extremely adaptive, basically allowing us to evolve different responses to similar stimuli given different contexts. Humans are so successful as a species because of how well we adapt to changes.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 06:44 PM
23

13 year olds are definitely distinguishable from 8 year olds, though. Also, the vast majority of 13 year olds are in the middle of puberty, girls start around 10 or 11 and boys 11 or 12.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 06:40 PM
6

Well it's definitely a daily occurrence; according to the FBI between 200 and 300 thousand people are raped each year (pg 2), huge variance I know but even the lower number has someone being raped every couple of minutes on average. The problem here is that what you define as frequent is not the same as what he defines as frequent. I think that frequency should be based on per capita numbers, rather than raw numbers, since it puts it into more perspective. There's an average of about .1% of the …
/r/MensRights13/08/16 06:19 PM
6

Because they want you to display the superior length and balance of your halberd, obviously.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 03:14 AM
6

Didn't know that being in denial is "breaking up the circle jerk". I don't actually think you're in denial, of course, I think you're trying to cover up the truth because you don't care about people seeing political opinions that differ from your own. The phrase "no wrong tactics, only wrong targets" comes to mind. If you actually are being serious, then I'll break down why you're wrong. 1.You and I both know this is bullshit, this video wasn't political at all, and people making it political in…
/r/MensRights13/08/16 02:31 AM
17

Yet somehow the earnings gap will persist. It turns out that uneducated, unsafe labor pays higher than a lot of educated, safe labor, especially when working longer hours. Who would've guessed that risk taking has rewards?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 12:54 AM
5

Yup, the tightness of the pants makes it so that your balls can't naturally regulate their temperature, and sperm use proteins that are very temperature sensitive. It's why your scrotum scrunches up when it's cold and sags really low when it's hot. Not sure about the whole epidemic part, but tight jeans are very bad for men to wear.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 03:55 PM
27

Idk man, all the kilts I've seen, so like 2, have been pretty thick. Maybe they're just winter kilts, though.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 03:51 PM
0

A yes, anecdotal evidence that goes in the face of actual statistics, always great to see that. If deadly force was the first option police used there'd be a lot more shootings. Fact of the matter is, you take a few examples that illicit an emotional response and try to paint the entirety of the population with that brush. What you're saying is simply false, and the statistics show that. You act as if police should be completely fine with people just rummaging around. This is not the case in any…
/r/MensRights21/07/16 03:17 PM
3

IF they can make ice cream that doesn't melt at room temperature, they can make it piping hot. Or just add hot chocolate sauce to it or similar. Bad example. Not really, just because I can divide by 1 doesn't mean I can divide by 0. You're making a hasty generalization. Ice. Is generally accepted as being wet, and also isn't considered water. If you gave someone a cup of ice when they asked for a cup of water they'd be pissed. Obviously you've never tried to set fire on fire. Doesn't work. Bad e…
/r/MensRights20/07/16 09:01 PM
2

ANY person shot down unarmed regardless of context is wrong Here's where your reasoning falls apart. Unarmed does not mean noncombatitive. An unarmed person still has the propensity to cause severe bodily harm, and even death. Look at the Eric Garner case for proof of this. It was 100% police brutality and it was done without using a single weapon. I know you don't actually care about black lives because the number of black lives lost to police is minuscule in comparison to the amount of black l…
/r/MensRights20/07/16 03:22 PM
5

"Disproved" because the facts agree with it? I'm not arguing that blacks are somehow genetically predisposed to be aggressive, I'm saying that blacks are far more likely to be impoverished and in single-income households, which increases the likelihood of violent crime being perpetrated by a member of the household. Blacks are also not GETTING MURDERED by police in droves, like you imply. The heinous cases that we sometimes see on TV are outliers meant to stir up people to garner more viewership…
/r/MensRights20/07/16 06:33 AM
5

No, it's called a crime problem. Black people are more likely to be part of single parent homes in impoverished areas, and thus are more likely to commit violent crimes. They have more interaction with police because the areas that are predominately black are also high crime areas and thus more policed. You're putting the cart before the horse with your assumption that all the police everywhere are just magically racist instead of seeing that the high crime rate is the cause, not the effect.
/r/MensRights20/07/16 12:01 AM
4

Neither are blacks. The fact of the matter is that black people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, so it'd follow that they would be shot a disproportionate amount of time. It's not because they're black, but it is a fact that black people commit more crime per capita than any other race, especially violent crime.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 10:54 PM
6

What's sad is that you assume everyone else is as borderline sociopathic as you.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 04:59 PM
25

Same with BLM and successful black people. The people in these movements want to be oppressed because if they weren't they would lose their meal ticket.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 04:58 PM
4

To be fair, you can be very intelligent in some areas without being intelligent in others. The guy tricked into doing chores could be a wiz kid in IT but so socially retarded that he assigns context where there is none. The same could be said for the asshole that is so socially retarded that he can't empathize with a fellow human.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 03:32 AM
2

I'm pretty sure that parents can't force their kids to get braces, the kids have to also consent to getting braces. The kids are still the consenting party, but their consent needs to be backed by the consent of a parent or guardian, as well, since they are not mentally mature enough to make life altering decisions.
/r/MensRights05/07/16 07:13 PM
5

Or they could be looking to find out the truth and reveal it to the public, to clear the air of the politicized bullshit. No, it must be that they're pushing an agenda by releasing a study that directly contradicts said agenda. I don't remember which talk it was on, but he specifically said that university professors in hard sciences are the bottom of the barrel because if they weren't they'd be in some applied science field. Milo has a serious anti-university bias, which I'm pretty sure stems f…
/r/MensRights02/07/16 05:07 PM
10

It's amazing that you can read the researchers' minds, considering their actions show them to be intellectually honest. If they wanted nothing but to push an agenda they would've flushed the project and all its data and no one would have known anything happened. Milo has a real problem with academics, I don't know why, but he seems to despise anyone in an academic field, even those in the hard sciences.
/r/MensRights02/07/16 04:41 PM
2

Is it really victim blaming if it's true? Say you're arguing with someone and get punched in the face, you're the victim, yes, but nothing would've happened if you didn't argue with the person. You can almost never tell if something is victim blaming from a single sentence.
/r/MensRights27/06/16 09:14 PM
1

Not true, there's been studies on this and HRT for estrogen and progestin have increased the incidence of Alzheimer's among older women, although early postmenopausal women have seen a reduction in it(although this may be due to confounding data like healthier lifestyles). There's no doubt that female sex hormones play a role in the increased risk for Alzheimer's among women. http://www.alz.org/dsw/documents/hrt.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3667708/
/r/MensRights27/06/16 03:17 PM
3

Doubtful, she picked the movies with female directors because she wants to push an agenda.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 03:30 PM
2

Women also are the majority of Alzheimer's patients.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 01:37 AM
0

You're the one with their panties in a wad. It seems like there's some projection going on here.
/r/MensRights25/06/16 02:10 AM
-8

Right, but blond as an adjective is different from blonde as a noun. A blonde is a woman who has blond hair, a blond is a man who has blond hair.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 07:57 PM
10

It still is, though, you don't get to decide what words are and aren't used.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 07:20 PM
129

Blonde is female, Blond is male.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 06:27 PM
1028

Especially funny because the blonde joke is the only one that isn't sexist, it's only talking about a subset of one sex not the entire sex.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 06:02 PM
2

I'm fine with abortion as long as it's before the baby had functioning organs, but once it's developed all its organs it's a no go for me. It's also wrong because of her intent, she didn't want to abort because she couldn't afford to take care of a baby, she wanted to abort because the baby didn't have the traits she wanted. This isn't pokemon, you don't just get to release any kids with bad IVs.
/r/MensRights23/06/16 03:29 PM
48

Which should've been promptly taken away from her and sent to a proper home while her mother rots in prison for attempted infanticide.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 11:51 PM
20

Depends, do you have a penis?
/r/MensRights17/06/16 10:13 PM
1

It's kind of crazy how detached from reality these people are that they think anyone with half a brain wouldn't see them for what they are.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 09:35 PM
1

I agree that having sex without birth control while your partner is under the assumption that you are on birth control is terrible, it's the same thing as a guy telling you he has a condom on but he really took it off. I'd actually consider that rape, because the consent is given based on certain criteria, and the person didn't adhere to one of the criteria so the consent wasn't actually given for what happened.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 08:16 PM
1

A person does not have the right to be a parent, so just because he wants something doesn't mean the woman has to give him it. If you want a parallel, what if the woman wants a baby but the man doesn't, does she get to force him to have unprotected sex with her? No, obviously not.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 06:17 PM
1

It's not fair, though, because that forces responsibility and risk of pregnancy on the woman when if the woman aborts it does not force anything onto the man. Alimony has nothing to do with children, so I'm going to assume you meant child support and agree that a man shouldn't be forced to pay child support. We shouldn't fight for equal ability to infringe upon eachother's autonomy, we should fight for equal ability to not have our autonomy infringed upon.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 04:12 PM
0

Right, he has no say, because he's not the one that has to go through the pregnancy. He shouldn't be forced to support the child, but he also shouldn't be able to force her to go through with the pregnancy.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 05:15 AM
1

This argument falls apart when you realize that a fetus or embryo is not a child yet. Abortion of a viable fetus shouldn't be allowed unless it's life-threatening, but for the first 27 weeks the fetus isn't even a viable offspring, so it can't really be considered a whole human until about the 27th week, pull it back to 25th for anomalies. The argument also completely changes the goal posts, because before it was about a man's right to have a child, which is an insane position to hold, but now i…
/r/MensRights15/06/16 05:04 AM
0

You're making a false assumption that a fetus or embryo is always an unborn human and not an amalgamation of cells. After a certain point I agree that she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion, but it has nothing to do with the father's wishes and everything to do with the fetus actually becoming its own human being and thus has its own rights that cannot be infringed. The reason we incarcerate people is because they've infringed upon another's autonomy, victimless crimes should not exist.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 04:57 AM
2

That's absolutely ridiculous, you're suggesting that a man has a say over a woman's bodily autonomy. There are physical side effects of being pregnant, one of which is death. What you're suggesting uses the same assumptions as child support, men shouldn't force a woman to live in poverty for having a child. It completely neglects one person's well being because the other person wants something from them. If a woman doesn't want to carry a baby she should have the right to abort it just like if a…
/r/MensRights15/06/16 02:18 AM
2

A man should not force a woman to carry his child. You know pregnancy entails the woman doing something, right?
/r/MensRights15/06/16 12:57 AM
3

No doubt, banning people that aren't vote manipulating seems kind of ridiculous to me.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 10:40 PM
1

I said all that already, neither party should be able to force the other party to do something they don't and have never wanted to do, the last part is in reference to contractual obligations.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 08:47 PM
24

I think that the woman should tell a man from a moral standpoint, but your comments did imply that the man should have the ability to somehow force her to carry the baby to term, which he should not have. Men should be able to "abort" just like women by giving up all paternal responsibilities and consequences, which would obviously mean leaving the woman, but if he wants a child and she doesn't she should also be able to give up all maternal responsibilities and consequences, which would include…
/r/MensRights14/06/16 04:02 PM
6

Every state can because it's federal law under the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 07:41 PM
4

See, there's your problem, you've got a little extra skin and muscle hanging down from your groin.
/r/MensRights11/06/16 03:16 AM
13

Don't forget that the charges might be expunged, so if she goes and stabs another baby while high on meth she'll receive a similar sentence rather than a harsher one like a repeat offender should receive.
/r/MensRights08/06/16 05:46 PM
1

How is that even legal? I thought the least you had to serve was half of your sentence before you even got a probation hearing. She at least has to register as a sex offender, I guess, so there's a very slight silver lining.
/r/MensRights08/06/16 03:02 PM
2

That's like saying everything is physiological, then. Every single drug in existence causes a reaction in the body or brain, otherwise it wouldn't do anything. The distinction between physiological, those affecting the body, and psychological, those affecting the brain, drugs is an important one.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 08:50 PM
1

People have and still do undergo SRS without going through hormone therapy, so you're patently wrong. People also start hormone therapy without undergoing SRS and see the same improvements as those who undergo SRS with hormone therapy. Transgenderism is, therefore, a purely mental disorder that can be cured without satisfying the disorder, much like other body dysphoric disorders.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 08:20 PM
1

Right, but the hormone therapy is the only thing that's really helping transgender people. Mutilating the genitals, as that's what SRS is, has no effect on suicide or depression rates.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:43 PM
-2

Hormone therapy is very effective at treating people with transgenderism, what are you talking about? In fact, the SRS itself does nothing to treat the illness, rates of suicide and depression don't decline until hormone therapy is introduced.
/r/MensRights07/06/16 04:28 PM
2

Not true, if a group's goal was treating people equally then they couldn't go too far, but equality of outcome by definition requires treating people differently but is still a form of equality.
/r/MensRights05/06/16 03:45 PM
13

You sure? All the sources I'm finding are him saying it in 2006, when she was 25.
/r/MensRights04/06/16 04:12 PM
11

His daughter isn't 15, though.
/r/MensRights04/06/16 04:00 PM
-1

You're getting so worked up over a clarification to your point. You seem kind of self-centered, actually, because everything absolutely has to relate to your current situation, even if it's not relevant. Yes, I've already said that 43k a month is absolutely ridiculous, that's not the point of contention.
/r/MensRights03/06/16 01:20 AM
2

I never said it was, I was just pointing out that 43000 in LA is a lot different from 43000 in, say, the midwest. The cost of living in cities is in on a whole other level compared to the cost of living in more rural areas.
/r/MensRights03/06/16 12:55 AM
5

To be fair, 43 a year is poverty levels in LA, so comparing different areas is obviously going to inflate the difference. 43 a month is absolutely insane, though, especially because she has contributed nothing to his success so shouldn't be entitled to any of his money.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 11:56 PM
1

Caviar is just a class of food, with a pretty wide range in prices. The more common types, like salmon caviar, are relatively inexpensive. The super expensive stuff is from much rarer animals, like the beluga sturgeon. Whether you want to admit it or not, supply and demand is king in this market, and as such the much rarer caviar will be much more expensive because of its smaller supply.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 11:53 PM
3

They should be more than disbarred, they should be thrown in prison. This is without a doubt perjury, and I'm pretty sure that's a felony.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 11:44 PM
5

They're likely able to expel you if they want to since you lied on your application. Don't lie about race or anything, but gender is fluid yada yada so you can definitely put transwoman lesbian and they can't argue against that without claiming to know what goes on in your head, which wouldn't hold up in court.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 11:09 PM
1

They're relatively similar, cults are basically just extremist religions with a small following.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 07:23 PM
12

So you're saying if I get a 10 year old girl to ride me it's okay because she's the one doing the fucking?
/r/MensRights01/06/16 04:35 PM
4

Privilege and disadvantage are two sides of the same coin. If one group is privileged, then all other groups are disadvantaged in that area, if one group is disadvantaged then all other groups are privileged in that area. People will choose how they think is best to remedy the situation differently, but looking at it one way or the other doesn't really change how what they'll choose to think.
/r/MensRights22/05/16 03:38 PM
9

Generalizations are useful, the only problem with them is when you take them and apply them to everyone equally instead of treating them as what they are, averages. White women are by far the most privileged people in the Western World, they have every advantage given to them, from things like diversity quotas to having the school system basically designed for them. It is neither sexist nor incorrect to point that out. If, however, you then went and used that to shout down a white woman because …
/r/MensRights22/05/16 03:11 PM
12

Rules for thee, not for we.
/r/MensRights22/05/16 03:05 PM
1

Ah yes, the classic dictionary definition argument. I judge movements by what they do, not the dictionary definition of what it is. The most vocal feminists have argued against paternity leave, against 50/50 custody, and against requiring women to enter the draft, all inequalities but favoring women instead of disadvantaging them. I do agree that women and men aren't equal, women have far more power and privilege than men. 90% of the UN talks are aimed at the Middle East, but how much money spen…
/r/MensRights12/05/16 09:48 PM
2

Feminism has never been about equality, equality was just a byproduct of its goal of getting women more rights because they used to be unequal. It's also noteworthy to point out that the vast majority of feminist talking points are not about the middle east or third world countries, but they always fall back on their few, halfheartedly pushed narratives about it when questioned about the abhorrently sexist stances their figureheads hold.
/r/MensRights12/05/16 12:30 AM
4

Sanders is pretty starkly feminist, so I think from the viewpoint of someone advocating for men's rights he's a bad pick. I still like him for being honest and having some agreeable ideals, but personally I'm not so sure I'd vote for him over Trump if it came down to it because of his radical ideals when it comes to social issues.
/r/MensRights08/05/16 04:37 PM
1

Definitely needs more information, but he didn't give any exceptions to his rule, so I wanted to make sure that the most glaring one was said.
/r/MensRights08/05/16 04:08 PM
9

I do think it's a little different when you're the guardian of the person, though. It may have been purely spur of the moment and completely consensual, but it could also be the culmination of years of psychological conditioning by the guardian.
/r/MensRights08/05/16 03:38 PM
14

You do realize scholarly feminists have argued for reducing the male population to 10% and keeping them in camps, right? This isn't from some random feminist with no power.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 03:35 PM
6

I disagree on that, as well. Yes we should rehabilitate them, but they should still be punished for their crimes. There would be no justice if it were solely meant to take people who committed crimes and rehabilitate them.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 04:08 AM
15

I disagree when it comes to violent crimes, especially domestic abuse.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 03:50 AM
4

No, she wanted to have sex, it's just that she won't without a condom. It's nowhere near the same as your stupid example where the two are complete strangers. You're acting as if a mostly emotional act is somehow supposed to be 100% rational. People don't divulge every single thing about themselves, so it's up to both partners in the relationship to get to know each other. Sometimes a partner will protest to something but what they really want is for you to take charge and override their will. A…
/r/MensRights27/04/16 04:39 PM
0

Seriously, the ultimate reason for doing something that doesn't benefit you in some way is that it's the right thing to do. Every argument boils down to a moral reasoning, which means it's the right thing to do.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 03:33 PM
4

It should be impossible to argue self defense in this case. There's a huge slew of precedence where if you could walk away from the situation but didn't and killed someone that it is no longer self defense, at least in the US so I'm assuming it's the same in New Zealand.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 03:03 PM
8

People abuse their power all the time, it's not surprising that when you give one of the sexes more power than the other that the one with more power will abuse it.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 04:47 PM
3

How could she possibly hold that belief? If a majority of men are rapists, then that means that at least like 40% of women are rape victims, even the most ridiculously biased statistics don't go that far.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 02:29 PM
6

Well, trans people don't usually look that convincing, to be completely honest.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 08:51 PM
14

Not medically, no. Transmen still have the DNA of women, and thus have the same risk factors. Trans people can't change their genetic makeup, no matter how many drugs and surgeries they take/have.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 07:48 PM
8

Just like how paramedics are required to stop and administer first aid if they notice someone in medical distress, officers should be required to report suspicious activity to their department immediately.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 02:17 AM
0

While that may be true, isn't the percentage of convictions cited as something like 4%? That just means even that 4% is vastly inflated.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 03:32 PM
3

It's possible, but I don't think so, outside of Canada/Sweden at least. There's a reason feminists froth over the percentage of convictions being so low, because the standard of evidence for a criminal trial is far too high for hearsay to be a major piece of evidence and the trial to end with a conviction. The problem is how the media handles the information, essentially finding the accused guilty before the trial even starts. Also, side note, people convicted of criminal charges typically go to…
/r/MensRights12/04/16 02:43 PM
2

I'm even willing to stick my dick in crazy, but people like this is as far from your typical crazy girl as your typical crazy girl is from normal people.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 02:49 PM
5

Don't forget that only 6% of reported rapes end up in a prison sentence, therefore all those that didn't end up with a prison sentence are 100% true and that damn rapist just got away with it.
/r/MensRights09/04/16 06:19 PM
1

So you're just that dumb, got it. Here's my point, laid out in simple words. Even if you use protection your whole life, there's a chance, however small, that the protection will fail and you'll still be left with a pregnant woman who has the power to force you to pay for that child. I think that power should be taken away from women.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 01:37 PM
1

Are you just being purposefully obtuse or are you that dumb?
/r/MensRights05/04/16 03:42 AM
1

I'd rather my life not be ruined even if it fails, but that's just me.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 02:14 AM
1

All of the things you listed have a chance of failure even when done perfectly.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 11:00 PM
4

What exactly is wrong with incest, though? I get that it's a taboo, and that it causes genetic deficiencies to be more common in those familial lines, but anything that is abusive in an incestual relationship is already illegal.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 10:54 PM
1

I really think there should be a distinction between being attracted to pubescent minors and prepubescent minors, there's definitely a difference. You wouldn't mistake a 10 year old for a 14 year old but you could easily mistake a 14 year old for 16 and a 7 for 10.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 11:17 PM
2

I didn't know what he was saying, actually. There's quite a few ways that could be interpreted. If it's about revenue variance, ie, the yearly revenue change, then it says absolutely nothing about the amount of revenue actually generated by each team.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 06:26 AM
6

That makes no sense, you by definition cannot lose revenue, the lowest possible amount is bringing in no money.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 04:27 AM
3

Also professional victims and their Patreons.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 04:58 PM
1

It's an African country, yes, but culturally it's much more tied to the Middle East, hence why it's included in that grouping.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 06:21 AM
1

The chances that she wanted to touch yours, as well, are higher, then.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 06:13 AM
1

"They can't be racist because racism is bigotry + power" Okay, then they're bigots, it's just as bad as being racist.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 06:09 AM
1

Russian is a nationality.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 02:49 AM
1

What goes better with whiskey than a nice, hot Reuben, though?
/r/MensRights23/03/16 05:05 PM
3

To be fair, sexes do evolve. It's the reason male cardinals are red and female cardinals are brown, for example. Men are also much less likely to be of average intelligence than women, but we still have the same average iq as women; this is because over many generations men have been breed to either be exceedingly smart or exceedingly strong, average men aren't chosen. Women, on the other hand, haven't had any evolutionary stress put on their intelligence, so it's a normal distribution.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 06:43 AM
11

Giving equal rights and opportunities isn't the same as having an equal outcome. Men are simply better at being soldiers, regardless of what your opinion is. Men are stronger, less likely to sustain injuries, and have a higher endurance. There's a reason men have been pretty much the sole combatants in human history, and it isn't "muh patriarchy".
/r/MensRights22/03/16 06:36 AM
2

Men definitely aren't allowed to compete in the women's division, otherwise there wouldn't be a women's division. Women might be able to compete in the men's but it doesn't matter because they know they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning against a man who is similarly skilled, or even slightly inferior in skill, and is in the same weight class.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 08:35 PM
3

No it isn't, it has distinct divisions for men and women, because otherwise women just wouldn't be able to compete.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 07:32 PM
-3

Yeah, I actually see that. I've never seen or heard of anything about it outside of a few TL;DR videos, so I hadn't really looked into it. That subreddit is really bad, almost as bad as TRP.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 04:05 PM
20

Isn't MGTOW the position that women have the tools to ruin your life, and the propensity to use them, so it's safer to not deal with them at all? I don't see any flaw in that argument, personally.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 03:53 PM
2

Not really, feminists flock to Islam because the majority of that religion are brown skinned and thus have a bonus oppression point multiplier. There are plenty of other groups that provide just as many rules, the military for starters, but feminists don't flock to them or in its aid against criticism because the majority skin color is too light.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 07:14 PM
14

Everyone expects the feminist inquisition.
/r/MensRights16/03/16 09:01 PM
26

No, no, you see, violence against men is expected and is just violence, violence against women is abnormal and should be fought against. It's not sexist towards men, though, because they're just expendable drones.
/r/MensRights16/03/16 05:39 PM
20

Go find a lawyer and explain your case, many times lawyers are willing to do a case like that pro bono, meaning for cheaper/free.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 08:15 PM
5

418/342 = 1.222... The number of reported male abuses is 22% higher than the number of reported female abuses in this study.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 04:10 AM
1

Even if he's overly litigious and makes the same song over and over again, what makes you think he's capable of something as heinous as drugging and raping someone over and over again? There's "asshole who sues everyone" and then there's "rapist" level, and I'm not seeing the jump that makes you think it's plausible he's at the rapist level of piece of shit.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 06:04 PM
8

You also have to remember that the student body isn't present for the whole 365 days of the year. Classes for Fall start around the end of August, so let's say they're there a week beforehand, and classes end around the middle of December, so let's give a week on the end of that just to be conservative. That's about 123 days for the first semester. Classes for Spring start mid January, and I'd assume no one will be there before then because they'd be just getting back, and end mid May. That's ab…
/r/MensRights16/02/16 05:03 PM
4

Yup, because "Everyone can do it" implies that anyone can just abandon their morality at the drop of a hat.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 09:55 PM
3

I don't agree that "everyone can do it"; most people don't have the propensity to rape or sexually abuse others.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 08:57 PM
5

Clerical errors don't take 21 months to rectify. She is hiding something, and if she wasn't even willing to give it to the agency controlled by her own party I'm 90% sure that she did something highly illegal.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 08:46 PM
13

That's not the problem, the problem is that she was legally required to preserve her emails, which she didn't, and hand them over at the end of her term, which she also didn't. She should be in federal prison for fucking treason.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 06:10 PM
12

It would also put it on the fast track to being gotten rid of, because the general public cares more about women's issues.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 06:55 PM
1

It's not a truth, though. Both men and women use logic and emotion to govern how they act, not just one or the other.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 05:03 PM
5

Men, even the ones who align themselves with feminism, speak logic (they're still men). Women don't communicate through logic, they use emotion. https://www.unreddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/43gwpn/woman_who_recorded_herself_raping_1yearold_son/
/r/MensRights31/01/16 03:43 PM
1

But gay rights isn't exclusively male, so how can it be a men's issue? It affects women in the same ways and at the same rate as it affects men.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 04:06 PM
3

Fine, he was a drill instructor.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 09:59 PM
5

Actually he was a drill sergeant.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 09:28 PM
2

That's how it is largely in the US, aside from the pressure to quit after getting pregnant. Husband is still supposed to do all the work in the relationship, people are looked down upon for being on welfare, if you're not making enough to survive you're expected to make your whole life work, etc etc.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 03:46 PM
1

I would agree if the actual legal system would do something about this, but it won't because there's a bias against men in the US judicial system.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 11:45 AM
1

Depending on the university/college the hard sciences can either be in the engineering school or the liberal arts school, so no the courses wouldn't necessarily be different.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 12:32 AM
5

You do realize that all the sciences and math are part of the school of Liberal Arts, right? If you shut down those schools then you shut down any pathway to other schools, as well.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 11:37 PM
2

In fact the father would lose his ability to ever see his kids again.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 02:08 PM
3

It takes much longer to unholster a gun and shoot than to run up and stab you in the gut, even if they assailant isn't expecting it.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 01:43 AM
1

When used properly condoms have a failure rate of about 5%, a very unusual occurrence. That's also regular use within a year, so it's much lower than that on a per use basis. Condoms also don't make you a eunuch in the slightest, that's like saying a guy having a wider stance is sexism and sexual harassment.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 12:00 AM
1

Why would that negate it? Does men diddling little boys not count as rape because they happen to have the same genitals?
/r/MensRights10/01/16 04:14 AM
2

When talking about how women are raped more than men, no. The number of men raped in prison dwarfs the number of rapes that happen outside of prison, including both men and women.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 03:34 AM
13

Even if you don't include forced insertion, all you have to do is include prisons and men are raped at a much higher rate than women.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 02:07 AM
2

This guy is literally the Uncle Ruckus of sex.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 04:35 PM
15

The problem is that there is a source, right at the bottom of the picture. It's definitely ignorant, if not derailing.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 10:45 PM
3

Are you sure? I've argued that point multiple times there and never been banned. How did you word it?
/r/MensRights01/01/16 09:44 PM
35

Banning men with ADHD is a bit much, though, because normal male behaviors can be seen as signs of ADHD simply because the scale is based on a woman's normal response. It's why men are diagnosed with ADD and ADHD far more than women, by 5:1 on average.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 08:36 PM
20

But muh wage gap
/r/MensRights25/12/15 05:09 PM
18

Or if certain eating establishments barred colored people from eating there. The parallels are insane here, yet it goes over these people's heads.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 07:23 PM
10

People seem to forget the little word 'pursuit' that goes in front of 'of happiness'. You don't have a right to just get shit handed to you.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 09:22 AM
2

I still don't think you understand that I don't give a fuck what people think when pretty much the only people actually doing anything under the label of feminism are radicals. The people lobbying under feminism or trying to enact change using the feminist label are by and large not fighting for gender equality, but gender supremacy where men are some kind of pariah and transgendered PoCs are the rulers.
/r/MensRights17/12/15 03:16 AM
5

I don't care how pissed off they are if they don't do anything about the first group controlling the political agenda behind the feminist label. People who call themselves feminists but don't actually do anything may as well not be feminists, because actions and outcomes are what matter, not what goes on in your head.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 05:44 PM
8

Except it's not because you don't have a significant amount of feminists decrying the bullshit that feminist activists are pushing, things like "America is a rape culture" and "all men are potential rapists". Again, you're supposed to judge movements on the actions taken by them, not by what they say they are for, ie, talk is cheap.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 07:12 AM
5

I'm judging the lot based on the actions taken by supposed leadership, which happens to be part of the radicals. Judge movements based on their actions, not based on what the people in the movement say they are for.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 06:51 AM
7

are actually shunned by actual feminists who are looking for equality. Maybe in the minds of "actual feminists", but radical feminism is what dominates political and scholastic communities, the places where the most propensity for social and legal change are. If "actual feminists" remain silent, then their views are essentially worthless when defining the movement. I keep saying "actual feminists" because radical feminists are still feminists.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 05:49 AM
8

It's definitely emotional abuse. Not all abuse is done through physical violence, although I'd argue that it is also physical abuse because, you know, it showed them being physically threatening towards their partner.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 09:18 AM
2

Even the explicit wording is "you help him" and "you help her". It's so fucking underhanded to hide sexism under the guise of stopping sexual harassment.
/r/MensRights13/12/15 05:58 AM
5

Because that would be victim blaming, duh. Being a victim is crime+power.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 11:30 PM
9

Hey hey hey, stop appropriating my culture. As police-kin I can't stand how everyone thinks they now have the right to practice one of my most sacred rituals.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 05:58 PM
-4

The amount of times you consent to sex does not diminish how likely you are to be raped. It does, however, call into question the validity of the accusation when it does occur. If you have sex all the time, it makes your claim that this one time it wasn't consensual a little more suspect than someone who has sex sparsely. It doesn't disprove anything, but it is circumstantial evidence against the accusation. Say, for example, a boyfriend and girlfriend are very sexually active with, and only wit…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 05:56 PM
1

So he's saying rape should be a civil infraction, then.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:51 AM
1

I use 95% because there are obviously going to be outliers, so basically I'm saying that all scholastic and political feminists are radical feminists, save for the outliers which I accounted.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 03:54 PM
14

Because the MRM doesn't let its radicals run the movement. Scholastic and Political feminism is 95% radical feminists. Moderates that don't do anything about radicals or voice their opinions might as well not exist.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 04:31 AM
6

Which will be more likely to happen if women have to register for selective service.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 08:40 PM
2

False accusations aren't subjective, they're very real and objectively verifiable. I worded my statement carefully because I figured you'd try to pull something like that.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 05:51 PM
3

Not really, no. I don't expect to be coddled, I'd actually hate it if there was a movement trying to police the subjective actions of other people on my behalf.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 05:36 PM
4

Its not a big ask to not be intimidated and leered at on public transport. Youd be pissed if it was happening frequently too. I'd be pissed, but there's a gigantic difference between that and calling the fucking cops and trying to get someone arrested over it. You're being ridiculous.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 05:18 PM
8

What if he was leering at your crotch and looking like he wanted to devour you sexually, and had 40lbs on you> Most men would feel uncomfortable but realize that sexual assault happens to less than 1% of 1% of people. Women get more safety advice than men. because we coddle women to a ridiculous degree. That's what it boils down to, men are expected to feel uncomfortable and just deal with it while women are not, we have to stop everything in its tracks and make sure the women feel comfortable.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 05:08 PM
5

I can already tell this will fall on deaf ears by your claim that someone is a rapist before a trial is even through, but I'll say it anyway. A person's history is good evidence, humans are creatures of habit. If someone has done something multiple times before they're likely to do it again. If someone goes to a bar multiple times and always picks up someone else and has consensual sex, then the likelihood that they will do it again is very high.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 08:15 PM
5

I guess I should've stated that it is always a jury unless the defendant waives their right to a trial by jury, which really should be implied. It's always a trial by jury unless the defendant explicitly doesn't want it to be and the government and court approve. It's very very rare for that to happen with serious crimes like murder and rape.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:52 PM
4

Which is completely bonkers, because if there's a pattern of sexual activity that coincides with the accused then that definitely calls into doubt the veracity of the accusation.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:45 PM
0

Um, no. In non-petty criminal cases it is always a jury. In cases like rape the trier of fact is the jury and the judge just makes sure the court room is civil and then decides on the severity of the punishment.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:42 PM
5

You don't watch much porn, do you?
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:35 PM
5

because that'd just be irrational to be upset about. Yeah, pretty much, which is why it's so insane that it's even talked about.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 01:56 AM
7

The supply is much greater and the demand for humanities majors is much, much lower.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 01:52 AM
1

8% vs 4% is the same relative difference as 30% and 60%, its a very large, statistically relevant amount. The point is, the numbers don't lie, women are more likely to abuse an intimate partner when said intimate partner can't or won't fight back.
/r/MensRights29/11/15 11:04 PM
0

According to the study I linked, ~24% of relationships are violent, and half of those are nonreciprocal. I wouldn't call 10% a tiny number.
/r/MensRights29/11/15 06:45 PM
20

Very slightly as in 70% of the cases of nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Whitaker/publication/51379171_Differences_in_frequency_of_violence_and_reported_injury_between_relationships_with_reciprocal_and_nonreciprocal_intimate_partner_violence/links/02e7e53ba8e5d0d11f000000.pdf
/r/MensRights29/11/15 05:24 PM
2

No, I think it behooves us to not give them any ammunition to try and sway the general public.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 12:14 AM
1

Is it really? TIL, I figured it was like the metal of a blade or something, like testing your metal for sharpness.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 12:09 AM
5

Yeah, I thought all but 1 were actually good, and even 1 was kind of okay if you just completely isolate it from the rest of the series.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 10:47 PM
2

soalone disagrees with him. He'd do really well in McCarthy era USA.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 10:42 PM
2

Not really. It's like this, we shouldn't generalize, but anti-MRAs will and so any outlier like this will still be used to try and hurt the MRM. We have to be cognizant of the extremist opinions in the movement and be sure to show the majority's disagreement with those opinions.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 10:40 PM
2

Yup, the way you measure the metal of a movement is partly how they deal with the extremists. See what we did here? We let him say his spiel, and explained how he was wrong. Feminists just let the extremists say what they want and never critically evaluate the claims, and thus we get into the mess we have now.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 10:30 PM
1

I like to think he put that in on purpose, rather than being stupid.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 10:26 PM
9

No one was named, so no one is being smeared. At the same time, I give all accusers the benefit of the doubt and feel sympathy for them, but I don't feel anger or anything towards the accused, and I wouldn't say the accuser is telling the truth without evidence. You can be sympathetic with the person based on them feeling powerless and slighted without instantly believing every word they say.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 06:11 PM
-4

Yeah, that's what happens when you start getting redpillers coming into your sub. Luckily it seems like we do a much better job of voicing sane opinions along with the radical, and calling out the radical opinions, than feminists do.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 05:58 PM
4

And he has no say in the matter from a legal standpoint, so that argument doesn't work. That's what's wrong here, that he's legally obligated to financially support a child, but he has no legal say in the child's upbringing.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 03:51 AM
7

It means he has no rights as a father, the mother is the only person with rights to the child in Utah, it seems. This means that the father has a financial obligation to support something which he has no say in. Sounds familiar to the stated reason for the founding of our country.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 03:41 AM
1

If someone doesn't agree with me it's because they're circlejerking, it can't possibly be because I'm wrong, that'd require me to think critically about my opinions.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 03:29 AM
26

But the man can still be forced to pay child support, somehow.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 01:40 AM
3

I don't really think it's conducive to a mentally healthy child. If you're neutrally masculine/feminine then you can't really be a role model for a kid for either, so the kid will look elsewhere for a role model for the masculine side of him/her and the feminine side. This means they will either not feel close at all to their father/mother, which means they won't be as fit to be a parent later on , and/or they will find a bad role model. Obviously this is an opinion, so I can't say that's how it…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 11:08 PM
-2

They kind of do, but not really too much of the core masculine/feminine defining traits have been changed over the years. Women have almost always been seen as more social, more vocal, less physically active members of society while men are less social, more nonverbal, and much more physically active members of society. Gender roles, the core of them, come from physiological/hormonal differences between the sexes, they aren't arbitrarily chosen by each society.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 10:14 PM
3

I'd replace that with "father figure" and "mother figure", because gay couples can still fill those roles without being an actual "mother"/"father", although I completely agree with the sentiment that there needs to be a masculine and feminine guardian.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 10:11 PM
5

So, say hypothetically that I'm a man but I really want to go kill a bunch of people. All I have to do is get sex reassignment surgery, for free because that's covered under the NHS, and then I'll just be able to murder as many people as I want a never have to face anything more than community service?
/r/MensRights21/11/15 08:33 PM
20

Men suffer nonreciprocal domestic violence at more than two times the rate of women.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 07:00 PM
2

But your numbers show that capital punishment is cheaper than lifetime incarceration if the average inmate in for life is imprisoned for 10+9/5*[number of months on death row] years. Right now the average is 15 years, so that's 37 years. In other words, the average person sentenced to life without parole would have to be 41 years old or younger when they go in for it to be cheaper to kill them than to keep them incarcerated. Seeing as the average age of a prisoner is around 36 years old, and the…
/r/MensRights14/11/15 12:37 AM
3

You're the one who brought up one was more expensive than the other.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 11:17 PM
2

By your numbers if the death penalty was exacted within a year of imprisonment, then it'd only take 12 years to be saving money excluding the drugs. If they housed them for 10 years on death row the person sentenced would have to survive 28 years years in normal incarceration for it to cost the same. In other words, it does depend on the age of the person being incarcerated, as well as time on death row.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 10:08 PM
3

Doesn't that depend on the age of the person being imprisoned, though? There's no way the chemicals and bureaucratic fees associated with capital punishment can be more expensive than the meals, electricity, guards, etc. that goes into putting someone in prison for, say, 70 years. I'm still not persuaded that capital punishment should ever be used, but at the same time I know I'd rather die than rot in a cell and I'd like to give people that option if they so desire.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 09:34 PM
4

Has capital punishment ever been used against a woman? You know, even with how despicable her crimes are, that the feminist base would try and make it about institutional sexism or something.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 06:57 PM
15

Life in Prison, but it didn't say anything about the possibility of parole in the article.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 04:13 PM
8

It sounds to me like he's for everyone learning on their own terms, rather than having to grind out a certain curriculum just to get a piece of paper. To me that seems more open to all forms of intelligence rather than just the ones supported by universities.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:07 PM
1

Well, you can be stupid, but if you're in the top 10% of your class, given you aren't in BFE, then you at least have good work ethic.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:05 PM
6

That sounds too cliche to be true, even for Missouri.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:03 PM
4

The sad thing is he's not, he genuinely believes what he's saying.
/r/MensRights31/10/15 03:18 AM
1

The mentality that TRP shows has been around since men have been denied their advances, so literally since the dawn of civilization.
/r/MensRights31/10/15 02:54 AM
26

I'm just going to bang dudes from now on, this stuff is getting way too dangerous.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 06:57 PM
6

She berates him for giving her a 0 calorie 0 caffeine drink because artificial sweeteners still "act like sugar" and then tell him to give her milk or juice. This lady definitely doesn't read nutrition labels.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 06:33 PM
3

Same reason the most equal countries are those with the highest female:male ratio of college students.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 06:03 PM
3

Because the feminist groups at that school congregated and flocked to the presentation in hopes of shutting her down during the Q&A, you can see that when multiple people consistently interrupt her answers.
/r/MensRights23/10/15 07:01 PM
4

I don't disagree with you on the women hating part, but hating the feminist movement is almost a logical step for a self respecting man at this point. Whether or not the majority of people who identify as feminists believe one thing doesn't matter when the actions of the group are so completely different. A moderate feminist cares about the strife a young boy faces going through a school system designed to stifle him, the actions of feminism as a whole aim to make the school system even more gea…
/r/MensRights23/10/15 05:23 AM
18

From a single post? Yeah, this is a shitpost, but it's a pretty isolated case, man.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 07:41 PM
6

What, you can't do a 10 second mile? Amateur.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 07:39 PM
7

Basically as long as it supports their agenda it's 100% nurture.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 10:57 PM
1

Not in this instance, but many times before the turks have lied to support an agenda.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 04:23 AM
1

That's an extremely small sample size. Using it to predict the outcome of a random trial would be way outside the scope of the study. Not to mention it's neither peer reviewed nor sources its data. I don't trust anything produced by the young turks. They've been known to blatantly lie to push an agenda, which these stats happen to coincide with.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 03:55 AM
4

Gonna need a source on that.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 02:51 AM
12

It's all the men's fault, damn patriarchy.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 02:24 AM
2

The thing is, though, that the gold digging behavior would be instantly noticeable, then, to the independent spouse, and thus would allow them to end it early on and not have to pay alimony by stipulation number 3.
/r/MensRights14/10/15 01:42 AM
2

Another stipulation should be that if the spouse is working that alimony doesn't need to be paid. It should only be for those that either have no marketable skills because of the marriage or who were out of work because of it.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 08:43 PM
2

Some women do, some women don't. I'd venture to say that most women don't want to be in constant emotional distress from abuse. There's a lot more to it than abusive asshole and overly-feely "nice guy".
/r/MensRights13/10/15 12:28 AM
1

Well, not really from a DNA standpoint, but from a physiological standpoint we all actually start as pretty neutral things. I was actually wrong about the penis splitting, although it does retract and form the clitoris.
/r/MensRights11/10/15 03:40 AM
-2

Technically speaking, don't all humans start off as male, and then the penis splits and becomes the vagina?
/r/MensRights11/10/15 01:29 AM
4

Yeah, but no porn? Cmon, I need my hentai.
/r/MensRights10/10/15 12:29 AM
-1

Isn't that basically liberal, then?
/r/MensRights08/10/15 07:38 AM
0

Isn't that basically liberal, then?
/r/MensRights08/10/15 07:38 AM
3

I think that's a bit of a stretch. People who do so with the intent to mislead are criminals, but it's possible to make a false or unsubstantiated claim without the intent to mislead.
/r/MensRights05/10/15 03:24 AM
41

Think about it, Calc was made by men to keep women subservient, just like arithmetic and physics.
/r/MensRights04/10/15 05:18 PM
2

No, it means that the person trying to apply them to things outside of their scope are trying to misinform people. Statistics aren't bullshit unless they're falsified or the conclusions drawn by the study are not supported by the data.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 10:48 PM
1

The statistics are true, the problem is that most of the population may be outside the scope of the study. They pulled from people receiving general health evaluations, and the mean age was 56, this calls their sampling into suspect. It doesn't seem random, and it's definitely not indicative of the entire US population, whose mean age is 37.
/r/MensRights30/09/15 10:32 PM
-2

Let's be real, that notion is tied directly to the anonymous nature of the internet. No one in their right mind would espouse those ideals without the comfort of anonymity.
/r/MensRights26/09/15 03:45 AM
2

He's wrong, because he's assuming outward appearnce = sexuality, but feminism has been pro LGBT, and has been adding letters to that, for decades.
/r/MensRights26/09/15 01:34 AM
0

It's the way you worded it that I have a problem with. Education has a correlative relationship with IQ test scores, but that doesn't mean it's a causative relationship.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:08 PM
0

Not necessarily, an oral IQ test is possible.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 08:49 PM
15

You're literally retarded, because another section talks about opportunity, all of a sudden the Equity section must mean the opposite? You need to see a doctor about your mental disability, it's obviously affecting your critical thinking skills.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:55 PM
5

You're saying that because you didn't read it, right? "That is, in order to maximize opportunities for access experienced by certain groups, a good society commits resources in order to level the playing field. When libraries offer literacy programs, when schools offer courses in English as a second language, and when foundations target scholarships to students from poor families, they operationalize a belief in equity of access as fairness and as justice." That's equality of opportunity, not ou…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:41 PM
4

The problem is that Oxbridge already has household name recognition, so a cutting of funding wouldn't deter the applicants.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:37 PM
0

Who there, man. Level of education may be a decent predictor for IQ, but it's hard to say whether or not it is influential on someone's IQ. There are far too many variables to say what exactly influences a person's IQ.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:31 PM
13

The problem is that Oxbridge has, as she stated, a self-selecting group of applicants. People know that the schools are extremely picky about their students, so many people who would like to go there don't apply because they know they don't have a chance at acceptance. If we removed that deterrent, we'd surely see a huge influx in people applying to go to Oxbridge and Ivy league schools alike.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:28 PM
27

You're using a picture as some sort of proof? It's a fucking drawing, the words up top could be reversed and it still wouldn't make it any more or less right on its own.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:23 PM
2

That... isn't likely to happen. Feminist dogma is pretty heavily against MRAs. Also, a movement called Egalitarianism is already like that, and Feminist proponents have been pretty hostile towards anyone taking that title, as well. It'd take a serious shift in tone for Feminist rhetoric for the active portion to ever ally themselves with MRAs.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 12:25 AM
6

I would argue that it isn't necessary anymore, and that is why radicals can take over the movement so easily. Since it isn't necessary, the moderates don't actually need to be active about any cause and thus only radicals remain as the active portion of the movement.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 07:51 PM
4

Actually, the ratio between women and men in teaching positions is around 90% if you include all teaching positions. The ratio starts favoring men in grad school, and some undergrad schools. The ratio is even greater than 90% for childhood education.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:19 PM
2

No it isn't. Violence only leads to more violence, and hatred leads to more hatred. Even if it is a long and arduous process, the peaceful solution is almost always the right one.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:12 PM
3

It's still emitting far fewer pollutants per watt produced than a gas or diesel engine would emit. Those huge towers on coal burning plants are there specifically so that they can remove a ton of the pollutants being released by the coal being burned. It's not perfect, but it's much more efficient than the catalytic converter you'd find in a car. Mind you, it's also possible that the tram could truly be producing 0 greenhouse gas emissions in the future because the city's electricity could come …
/r/MensRights23/08/15 08:20 AM
0

At the same time, you have to realize that at that point it's just conjecture and you very well could be wrong.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:31 PM
3

Also, "For as long as history has been recorded" is redundant, because history is literally the recording of things that have happened. If things weren't being recorded in some form, then it's prehistory.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 01:54 PM
0

The problem is that women only receive custody of children because it's assumed that they're inherently the best caretaker until a ton of evidence shows otherwise. It's still favoring women.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 02:12 PM
5

But he's be fully financially responsible for the child and would likely still have to pay for the mortgage on the home. The legal system surrounding divorces is extremely heavily skewed in favor of women.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 05:04 AM
12

Very much so.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 10:51 PM
0

How about a nice quick rape?
/r/MensRights01/08/15 01:38 AM
4

He's posted here, he's likely already on the instant-ban list for /r/feminism.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 01:32 AM
3

The articles of confederation was superseded by the ratifying of the Constitution in 1791 See, that's what I don't get about these people. They know enough history to know that the articles of confederation existed, but they are either too stupid, or are in willful denial, to know that fact that the US constitution replaced the articles of confederation.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 01:13 AM
7

No, the teacher was just old as fuck and waited until the kid already was backing off. I know I'm not risking breaking bones for some little shit that started a fight when I'm that old.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/15 07:12 PM
3

That says nothing about to whom the 1.5 million is being paid.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/01/15 10:49 PM
3

Like, a warrant that is active for an indeterminate amount of time for any extenuating circumstances. I just am stupid, it seems.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/12/14 12:04 AM
6

I thought shit like that was covered under a general warrant.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/12/14 11:56 PM
-11

The only time they can enter a home are either with consent from an occupant or with a warrant, and they can only seize items related to what they are searching for.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/12/14 10:34 PM
7

Like trying to pin the accident on him when it was obviously her fault.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/14 12:06 AM
2

PTSD tends to be triggered by generalized feelings, as well, rather than specific words. It's also a relatively rare disease.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 06:43 AM
-1

You go to the unisex because "man up, faggot" /s.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 04:48 AM
1

a minute is the top side of what I've ever peed.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 04:05 AM
-4

Or... just use the bathroom because it's the only one you're allowed to. If a woman feels uncomfortable using the unisex bathroom, then use the other one.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 02:28 AM
0

It's actually not that much faster to pee standing up, maybe a few seconds. If it takes you more than a minute to pee, then you're either holding it in way too long or are just really bad at doing basic bodily functions. Putting paper down doesn't make any sense, either, because if you're in a place that is that dirty you probably should just... not go to the bathroom there. If the toilet seats are disgusting, that means that plenty of those people that are making the toilets like that aren't wa…
/r/MensRights04/11/14 02:23 AM
4

I just hate ignorant ass people that are assholes for no reason. Race doesn't factor into it, and they can be poor or rich as well.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/10/14 02:41 AM
3

It does have to do with the way you were brought up. Plenty of ghetto white trash act just like this, as well as latinos and every other race. It just happens that in America, the largest low economic class demographic in urban areas is African Americans.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/10/14 02:33 AM
3

Nope. Women tend to have finer motor controls, and men tend to have more endurance and strength.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/10/14 02:28 AM
-2

I couldn't care less. Still feels good when stimulated, and I'm not so sure the difference is that large anyway.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 11:20 PM
2

If someone is too drunk to know what they're doing, they can't legally give consent and are therefore being raped. That is how this chart flows. It's not correct, but that is the outcome if the logic in this chart is followed.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 11:13 PM
1

That is very much thriving in a culture that does not have an abundance of food.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:37 PM
1

I don't feel threatened at all. Having a new set of games geared at demographics other than mine don't effect me at all. You just keep making up these things about me which aren't true. Another example would be cleaning products, which are almost exclusively marketed towards women. How about Hair care products, there being at least twice as many to choose from for women. All I'm saying is that they make things and market those things for demographics they know will buy them.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 12:07 AM
1

You're the only one shouting oppression. I just realize that certain things are marketed towards certain demographics. I don't care that no makeup is marketed towards me, for instance.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:32 PM
1

Except we've found a great multitude of these figurines. Its actually kind of funny you're positing that anthropology and archaeology are pseudoscientific.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:30 PM
0

Throughout the middle ages, some of the Renaissance, and prior to the industrial revolution, being overweight/obese was seen as a status symbol and was actually admired and deemed attractive. It was the same in prehistory, for women at least, see: venus figurines. What humans are attracted to is other humans who are healthy and thriving. It used to be that food was scarcer, so being large meant you were doing very well. Now that high calorie food is very cheap, we see a fit physique and well gro…
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:31 AM
6

So you agree that things can be tailored to different demographics for increased sales? Then why is the fact that women are portrayed with unrealistic beauty a bad thing in games/comics again?
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:26 AM
4

Not necessarily. See: venis figurines "Hot" is a culturally/socially defined word, there isn't a ton that is biologically encoded into us. Generally, humans are attracted to other humans that are healthy and thriving, which is about all that is genetically encoded into us.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:24 AM
0

Right, but that's not the point of dating specifically. If you're claiming that dating is for reproduction, then our birth rates would be a hell of a lot higher than they are. Dating, courting in general really, is to find a long term partner that is also a mate.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 09:31 PM
3

Yet it's not entirely truthful, to say the least. Dating isn't, or shouldn't, be about getting laid, it has been and is now about courting someone that you actually want to spend time with. Sex is there, but it isn't/shouldn't be the main goal.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 08:34 PM
1

I've never heard of anyone who thinks males can't be raped by males, which is what was implied.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 06:11 AM
6

Did you read about how someone hoped that he'd get "poked in the rear", aka raped? Yeah, it's totally not okay to put equal responsibility on intoxicated parties, but joking about male rape is hilarious.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 12:58 AM
16

Just reading their rules, /r/askwomen seems to be much more strict, yet has very ambiguous rules(what counts as "pot stirring, what is defined as an agenda? Is a personal attack just when someone gets offended?) and extremely based around gender. In theory the rules in /r/askwomen aren't bad at all, and would actually quell any circlejerking, but in practice I'm guessing the ambiguity and subjective nature of certain rules lead to only one viewpoint being expressed.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 12:53 AM
9

Something about gender roles being imposed by the patriarchy, and shitlords, I'd assume.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 11:29 PM
1

Neither of your statements pertain to who should be addressing the person who asked the question. Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 05:17 PM
3

With regards to. I also agree completely that this should've been purely handled by the speaker. Just shouting at a person to silence them is one of the things she lectured about being a problem with trying to talk about Men's Rights issues.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 07:11 AM
-1

Yes, but they do not put the laws into effect. Sorry to burst your bubble, but lawyers and judges have no true power to make laws, they only have the power to lobby and hope congress will listen to them.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 01:15 AM
-1

lawyers and judges don't make laws, they only exist in the discerning process for the bounds of the laws.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:24 AM
6

Long sentences are meant to keep dangerous people from hurting anyone else, not to rehabilitate them. The problem is that many courts and people don't see it this way and see any sentence as a form of punishment, so long sentences are thought to be good.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:14 AM
2

Correct, in this case it's supposed to be rehabilitation. In more serious cases it's supposed to protect society via isolation. I'd say the fringe cases are the ones where it would be considered a deterrent, in that the person wouldn't want to be isolated from society but the ultimate goal would be to rehabilitate the person for reinstatement into society.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:11 AM
20

Exactly, the fact that it's not just dismissed as an impossibility is a start.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:04 AM
8

Technically, sentencing is supposed to change the behaviors that caused the crime, therefore preventing the person from committing more crimes. That's not how it's viewed in most cases, though, and in this case specifically the sentence makes no sense for rehabilitation, as it is not very life changing.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:03 AM
1

You'd be drowned out by the shouts of "misogynist" by the time you finished saying kitchen.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 10:08 PM
5

If the bigot still has influence over the movement, then you are obviously the minority.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 10:05 PM
2

I'd say that if the man can produce evidence of effort to stop pregnancy, condom and/or birth control purchasing, and evidence to show that he wanted to have the fetus aborted or the child put up for adoption, through texts, phone records, or a written agreement, then that man should not be responsible for the baby. The law could be put in place, but it'd have to be somewhat strict.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:55 PM
9

I don't think you should really be using the word "most", as that requires a majority. Many is more appropriate, as we have nothing to show that 50%+1 people are willing to sue whenever they can get money from it, but we do have at least two instances of people suing whenever they can get money from it.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 09:51 PM
3

It's not even like it was violent or anything. To that baby, its dad was just rolling it around and making noises and generally showing affection to it.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 06:25 AM
2

This has nothing to do with men's rights. It was a terrible person faking an illness so that he/she could profit from it.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 04:10 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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