TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

FishKiss Archive

View 0 posts and 95 comments by FishKiss 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)
2

The problem is due to massive feminization and anti-male attitudes, not just in education, but in society in general. Men are rightly wary of becoming teachers because of the anti-male pedo-frenzy. Just being male is enough to have them be suspected. This witch hunt doesn't extend to adult women teachers, even though there are many reports of them statutorily raping boys barely into their teens. So K12 education has become dominated by women, with no male influence as a counterbalance. Added to …
/r/MensRights23/01/11 09:44 AM
1

You're welcome!
/r/MensRights20/09/10 08:03 AM
6

You should be aware that everything you bring up has been set up that way deliberately in full knowledge of the fact that the definition of equality being used is the "Animal Farm" one (all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others). You will be stepping on toes. You might want to consider contacting FIRE. Even if they don't help you directly, they may give you some expert advice on navigating this political minefield.
/r/MensRights18/09/10 08:52 PM
2

Good points.
/r/MensRights18/09/10 08:37 PM
2

Exactly.
/r/MensRights18/09/10 08:22 PM
3

IMO a huge problem with Western analyses of this issue is that they almost always view the situation through a Western feminist lens, which is usually inaccurate. They project onto Japanese women the desire to continue working in a career. It has been my observation that most Japanese women don't want a career (exceptions of course exist). Most Japanese men are driven hard and used as worker drones by their companies--and women know it. It is not an envied lifestyle. The biggest problem IMO is t…
/r/MensRights18/09/10 08:04 PM
7

But you see, someone has to stay to do all the work to generate the income to pay for all of this. You can stand on one leg (for a while, with difficulty), but standing on no legs is not possible.
/r/MensRights17/09/10 04:38 PM
3

I agree with you. I think that sometimes a woman can misinterpret a man ragging on her in this way as the man singling her out and picking on her because she's female, rather than realizing that taking the kid gloves off with her is actually treating her as an equal and is a sign that the man is relaxed with her and willing to treat her like one of the guys. If a woman is ignorant of or doesn't really get how men interact with each other when they aren't minding their behavior around women, then…
/r/MensRights14/09/10 04:42 PM
2

Well, going by the reports, it doesn't sound like the guys are entirely "innocent." But what are they "guilty" of? Firstly there's the sexual element: but she chose to introduce that for her own purposes. To cry foul that the men reacted proportionately to her deliberate sexual provocation hardly seems fair. To the female reporters up in arms I would say: if it's not professional or appropriate for the players to react to a reporter's sexual provocation, it's not professional or appropriate for …
/r/MensRights14/09/10 03:20 PM
3

lets get things straight. Nowhere in that article did it say that she thought seeing a naked man was sexual harassment. I agree with this, but in the interests of getting things straight, I would like to look at the complaints being made, which sound bad when they are categorized as: I think what she was complaining about were the balls thrown at her during practice and the sexually explicit comments some of the players allegedly directed at her. Firstly, the ball throwing, which was not at her,…
/r/MensRights14/09/10 02:27 PM
13

So let's see...this woman deliberately and openly trades on her sexuality to further her career, putting herself right in the faces of these men in a manner of dress designed to heighten the erotic display of her body, yet demands that no men react to her public broadcast of sexuality in any way. She talks about being embarrassed about being in the locker room with naked men and having to hear what they say--but there is no consideration for the fact that the locker room should be a place where …
/r/MensRights14/09/10 07:00 AM
48

Thanks for posting this. It truly is mind-boggling. It's the book 1984 come to life. Equal treatment of men and women = unequal treatment of women, who actually need preferential treatment for things to be "equal." The "Equal Treatment Bench Book" = a manual on justifying treating men and women unequally. The claim that sentencing decisions impact women and men differently = pointing to issues that can affect women (but that can also affect men). All of the issues used to justify leniency for wo…
/r/MensRights11/09/10 05:41 PM
6

I'm not disputing that lying to get hium into trouble was bad. bThat's why mentioned it. You mentioned it to say that it was "nowhere near as offensive" as what the guy did. I disagree. I don't like the way the guy went about it, but he was within his rights. What the women did was far beyond that, and their whole way of talking to him (as if they had some sort of official authority) and the way they seemed to have the accusation of him being "threatening" prepackaged and ready to throw out, sug…
/r/MensRights10/09/10 01:52 PM
9

Making false accusations in a serious attempt to get him in trouble with the law is not as offensive to you as him heckling them with cartoonish, deliberately chauvinistic taunts such as "clean my room"? He was being a dick, but in a controlled way, as a protest, within his rights. You (and I by the way) might not agree with the way he went about it, but I consider what the women did to be truly wrong. These women made a calculated, deliberate attempt to use false accusations as a way to get aro…
/r/MensRights10/09/10 11:03 AM
6

The interesting thing about this to me is how so many women resort to making bogus accusations as weapons so easily and without remorse. You see this again and again, up to making false accusations of rape to avoid paying cab fares. The only thing that saves men in cases like these is recording the incidents.
/r/MensRights10/09/10 10:27 AM
5

The thing is that the spotlight needs to stay on female bad behavior and its peculiarities until they have been fully acknowledged and discussed, instead of the focus being immediately shifted to a genderless perspective.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 06:24 PM
3

Exactly.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 12:47 PM
4

Who says he was ignoring adult company anyway? The OP says "I ended up talking with some of the younger boys"..."they certainly were enjoying themselves and my company, asking me about Uni, all that." Are you claiming that in the context of a neighborhood picnic, an older female teen, who happens to spend some time talking to younger girls she had grown up with, would be viewed with suspicion and seen as a threat to the children? I don't buy it.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 06:28 AM
8

Even accepting your reasoning, I don't think it should be normal for parents to automatically consider any teen to be a bad influence who should stay away from their kids--when the setting is as innocuous as a neighborhood picnic, where people of all ages are going to be socially interacting just as part of the nature of the event. I also don't buy that this is a genderless "teen" thing. I can't see them having the same reaction to a 19 year old young woman. Females of all ages generally get a p…
/r/MensRights07/09/10 06:13 AM
8

Do you honestly believe that a young woman would have engendered the same reaction? I see this as willful blindness on your part. The reaction by the parents was not healthy. There is nothing wrong or age-inappropriate about a young man talking with the younger neighborhood kids he grew up with, especially at a neighborhood picnic. What is wrong and inappropriate is the ridiculous pedo-paranoia that portrays any interaction of an older male with minors as suspicious.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 05:28 AM
1

I don't know your specific situation, but in general even full-time working women do several hours less paid work a week than full-time working men--which means that these women doing several hours more housework and childcare is perfectly fair. As for her complaining that you are "doing it wrong" that's all on her. It's gate-keeping behavior. She doesn't get to unilaterally set the standards unless she does all of the work by herself without complaint. Either that, or you need to assert yoursel…
/r/MensRights06/09/10 05:32 PM
1

I agree that men need to stand their ground and assert themselves with women. My post was meant as an observation regarding one point, not as a comprehensive solution.
/r/MensRights06/09/10 05:13 PM
1

Well, I think that education these days often amounts to an indoctrination into feminism. I agree that a lot of women willingly buy into playing the victim, but I think this has the unforeseen consequence of making them unhappy, as seeing yourself as an eternal victim means that you always have to view your circumstances as unsatisfactory and unfair. This isn't meant as an excuse for these women's choices, or their bigotry. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't really bring them any happiness. I…
/r/MensRights06/09/10 05:10 PM
2

Thanks for the link. I watched all of it and it was quite interesting--particularly the way people can synthesize happiness on the subconscious level, unintentionally. I think it can also work the other way--people can unintentionally synthesize unhappiness. In other words, they can convince themselves either through conscious thought or subconscious belief that their situation is unsatisfactory and that they can't be happy with it, no matter what the objective reality is. I think this is the un…
/r/MensRights06/09/10 04:51 PM
8

I had already seen similar debunking of this on Glenn Sacks's site years ago, but it needs repeating. I really believe that a lot of modern women's unhappiness in marriage comes down to believing feminist lies, which make them resentful--as they believe themselves hard done by. How much different would their attitudes be if they could accept that their husbands were pulling their weight and that their own work was only their fair share.
/r/MensRights05/09/10 03:34 PM
1

...or the majority of women prioritize work/personal life balance over a single-minded devotion to career success and this affects their chances of getting tenure at a college or a promotion in a company.
/r/MensRights05/09/10 12:31 PM
0

I have heard some people of the feminist persuasion claim that "female" is somehow demeaning because it also refers to female human children and female animals, whereas "women" can only refer to female adult humans--I also note that these same people seem to go out of their way to refer to men as "males" even when only male adult humans are being referred to.
/r/MensRights05/09/10 12:06 PM
2

I like the show in general and agree that it's not usually like that, but that said, every now and then some misandrist shit is injected into it--but then again, isn't that true of most American shows? I have a low tolerance for it and if it is woven into the whole show instead of just making an occasional appearance I give the show a miss. I remember another episode where a Christian couple came in and the woman was claiming to be pregnant in spite of being a virgin. House went along with it an…
/r/MensRights30/08/10 08:40 PM
2

the politically correctly enfranchised got to keep their stores open, and the incorrect were tossed out. This is certainly true, but I think it's a mistake to view it as an "us" versus "them" issue. That's just playing right into the hands of those who would love to have this categorized as a case of "privileged white males complaining about getting the short end of the stick for once in their lives." It's a trap they want you to walk into. Focusing on who lost out and who gained rather than on …
/r/MensRights29/08/10 02:32 PM
5

It's not an "us" versus "them" issue. It's an issue of whether explicit, systematic, government-sanctioned racial and sexual discrimination is wrong--or not.
/r/MensRights29/08/10 11:34 AM
3

Hands tied behind your back? That's nonsensical. I meant figuratively, not literally. I thought the next part of the paragraph would make that clear--I guess not. I agree that, under no circumstances should a man lay his hands on a woman. That's Joe Biden's position. My position is that neither men or women should use physical violence against each other except to the extent necessary for self defense. (Ol' Joe thinks that it's OK for women to beat up men with impunity.) But, defending yourself …
/r/MensRights26/08/10 02:55 PM
7

How well can you defend yourself with both hands tied behind your back? Non-abusive men who live by the code "never hit a woman," or who simply don't want to hurt their partner in any way, don't defend themselves. Here's VAWA Joe Biden outlining the one-sided standard only men are meant to live by: "In my house, being raised with a sister and three brothers, there was an absolute - it was a nuclear sanction, if under any circumstances, for any reason, no matter how justified, even self-defense -…
/r/MensRights26/08/10 07:12 AM
3

Good catch!
/r/MensRights25/08/10 12:31 PM
1

Well said.
/r/MensRights24/08/10 06:58 PM
0

What a disappointment: the fingers-in-the-ears "I can't hear you" approach to debate.
/r/MensRights24/08/10 06:05 PM
1

Feminists selectively claiming that a lack of equal numbers of women and men (only) in certain (desirable) jobs equals discrimination that needs to be remedied is a problem in itself.
/r/MensRights24/08/10 06:02 PM
0

[Feminism is] a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands -GK Chesterton While i think it's flippant to summarize feminism with this quote, I do think the point it makes is worthy in itself. When you look at roles you can play in life and compare paid work to work in the home, it is paid work that indisputably puts you under the control of someone else and requires you to be submissive; comparatively, working at home leaves you for …
/r/MensRights24/08/10 05:54 PM
1

Seriously? I find things to object to in that guy's cartoons, but considering that all the characters are animals, I wouldn't have chosen that to focus on.
/r/MensRights24/08/10 05:38 PM
1

Which part of my post are you referring to?
/r/MensRights24/08/10 05:29 PM
0

By smug quote I meant the other topic you didn't fail to notice I posted on... Ah! Sorry, I was focused on this thread and missed the obvious. I'll address that in a separate post. ...if we had real, REAL equality, we'd all have the same hours and work for the same pay. But women freely choose to work less hours (in order to have more family/personal time) and at jobs that are safer, more enjoyable, more comfortable, flexible, etc--but pay less because of that. Besides, I think that real equalit…
/r/MensRights24/08/10 05:09 PM
1

First off, let me start by saying that I don't even like this cartoonist's work. It usually has all the subtlety of a jackhammer and often makes points I disagree with, either in style or substance. That said, the point of this cartoon is readily comprehensible to most MRAs. Even though it is not openly acknowledged, the feminists who lobby for "workplace equality" focus only on increasing the percentage of women in the jobs which are desirable to women. True workplace equality would require wom…
/r/MensRights24/08/10 03:31 PM
1

Oh, and there's one tactic which is part of "1" but deserves its own special mention: that of pointing out that a particular criticism of feminism in general doesn't apply to all brands of feminism--and then stopping there, as if this somehow invalidates the criticism. It doesn't--it's just a dishonest tactic used to avoid addressing the issue. An intellectually honest approach would be to say something like "Well, not all branches of feminism hold that view, but those that do (insert reply that…
/r/MensRights24/08/10 07:30 AM
-1

What I mean is that this is not the first post by you that I have seen that follows the same pattern: 1) Start with feminist rhetoric that distracts from, rather than directly addresses the point that is being made. 2) Question whether the issue under discussion even has anything to do with men's rights. 3) Accuse the posters here of just wanting to attack women because they are angry at them. This isn't unique to you, but having also read this post of yours it struck me as funny that you were p…
/r/MensRights24/08/10 06:56 AM
0

Are you working from a template?
/r/MensRights23/08/10 04:44 PM
7

Exactly. That is the way it should be. Unfortunately, the "battered woman" defense has now been stretched to cover any after-the-fact claim of abuse--just look at the Mary Winkler case. The whole idea of abused=justified killing is dangerous, because any woman who kills her husband would be a moron not to claim some kind of abuse--even if it has to be fabricated. But the bar of what constitutes enough "abuse" to allow you get away with a legal slap on the wrist is already absurdly low--in Mary W…
/r/MensRights23/08/10 08:03 AM
2

I agree with you that affirmative action is (even in a very technical legal sense) "discrimination," This is where I fundamentally disagree. I think it is a common mistake for well-intentioned people to assume that discrimination done with good intentions isn't somehow "real" discrimination--as in, it may meet the technical definition, but in substance it is different. My assertion is that discrimination is what it is--its fundamental nature is the same no matter what the motivation for using it…
/r/MensRights22/08/10 05:03 PM
3

Of course it will distort the market--just on top of the hidden corruption that is already there. The market may not be entirely "free" in practice but that is not due to official government policy. This systematic sexual discrimination is. There is an important distinction between what is overt and sanctioned and what is not. The current illegal corruption is not official government policy--if it were, the situation would have huge ramifications. The government would be saying that graft, insid…
/r/MensRights22/08/10 02:35 PM
2

Of course there is. There are plenty of good arguments for affirmative action. Sorry, I wrote that badly--I meant that MRAs in general aren't against equality of opportunity, in response to: ...they looks a lot less like an equality movement... Sure there are arguments for affirmative action; but I have yet to see one honestly confront the fact that they are indulging in the very evil they claim to be fighting against. Having what you honestly believe is a pure motivation doesn't stop the practi…
/r/MensRights22/08/10 02:15 PM
3

So your argument is that the existence of illegal, hidden corruption practiced in defiance of the government's official policies and laws is justification for overt, legalized, government-sanctioned corruption in the form of systematic sexual discrimination?
/r/MensRights22/08/10 01:18 PM
3

There is no argument against equality of opportunity. Mandating an outcome, no matter what the percentage, is wrong. Deliberate, systematic discrimination is either wrong in principle and in practice or it isn't.
/r/MensRights22/08/10 12:45 PM
3

Keeping the kids from the father is child abuse? Bullshit! Funny how you're willing to think the worst of the father in every way, making negative assumptions not in the article, yet think nothing of the mother ignoring her court ordered obligations. I guess that says nothing about what kind of parent she is.
/r/MensRights21/08/10 07:17 AM
1

He is the one who talks about commitment to co-parenting and jointly making decisions--then contradicts himself. He is the one who makes the contrast between his father... he ceded the funky, dirty aspects of parenting to my mom; his job was to financially support us and to provide occasional discipline. My father was... a traditional dad, who simply took parenting direction from my mother. ...and himself, with his claim to be: a “progressive dad,”...I have been an active participant in the pare…
/r/MensRights20/08/10 07:28 PM
1

Well, that is certainly true in general; but it doesn't apply to this story. It isn't about strictness, but about the writer's claim that: Because I strive to co-parent with my wife, it is incumbent upon me to make sure I consult her, before we jointly make a decision about what is best for our daughters. But as I pointed out in my first post, if his wife is making unilateral decisions about these same issues without feeling any obligation to follow the same policy or even inform him of the deci…
/r/MensRights20/08/10 06:10 PM
2

The funny thing is that even in this made up "perfect" story the guy still messes up by leaving a loophole open. He says that if she pursues any kind of legal action against him for child support that he will insist on a DNA test to prove paternity. So he's leaving the ball in her court, not pro-actively legally proving at the earliest opportunity that he's not the father. DNA tests or voluntarily acknowledgments of paternity are not the most common routes to child support. Default judgments of …
/r/MensRights20/08/10 08:06 AM
3

Along the same lines, I used to get irritated skin when shaving with a razor daily until I started using this. Now I have no problems at all. It's night and day. From your link: By shaving too close, your hair stubs will be cut to close to the skin and more prone to getting stuck inside the hair follicle and viola an ingrown hair is born. A couple of things you can do to avoid shaving too close is first of all not pulling on your skin when you shave. Do not apply too much pressure on the razor b…
/r/MensRights20/08/10 06:29 AM
1

Thanks. Weird how it shows up there as a solid block of text, when I wrote it as it appears here.
/r/MensRights20/08/10 05:51 AM
5

Here's what I tried to post in the comments (it hasn't shown up there yet): What struck me about this story is that the girl asks "How come we always have to ask mommy first, can’t you make a decision?” and “Is mommy the boss of you?” Which makes me wonder: why would she ask this if your wife says the same thing to them--"Go ask your father"? It seems to me they would only think this if it were a one-sided pattern. Otherwise it would be "Why do we always have to ask both of you?" Later you say "…
/r/MensRights19/08/10 08:12 PM
1

I agree that in his reply to you (now deleted) his use of the word "mangina" (aimed at you) was baseless and inaccurate; but I was more interested in whether the word could be used descriptively, or whether you thought it was always name calling. (This is curiosity about the issue, not an attempt to defend the use of the word.) "you are a [x], I think you are a [x]", etc. is labeling someone. Lets use mangina as he would have. "I think hamakua is a mangina" -now my view, my "line" is where if th…
/r/MensRights19/08/10 05:42 PM
1

I agree with everything in this post. Spot on. Thank you for your long and detailed replies. Sorry to respond to your second post first, but it turns out I don't have time to respond to your first one properly today. I'll get back to you tomorrow when I can post a considered reply.
/r/MensRights18/08/10 01:18 PM
1

I agree with your post, but I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on where the dividing line is between name calling and using a term which can cause offense simply because it describes something negative? Oftentimes word can be used either way, which further complicates things. Usually this involves taking a term which is descriptive and misusing it for name calling purposes (for example, calling someone "racist" simply because they disagree with one of President Obama's policies).…
/r/MensRights18/08/10 09:24 AM
1

I wish you had at least bothered to acknowledge his point if you were going to reply at all.
/r/MensRights16/08/10 12:47 PM
4

This fits a common pattern: It's acceptable to openly claim differences between the sexes if they portray women as being better in some way or men as worse in some way. No talk of socialization here. No public condemnation of this view. Yet this would seem to conflict with the view that the differences are all down to socialization: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way Under this view, to claim differences due to sex is cause for heads to roll: http://en.wikipedi…
/r/MensRights16/08/10 12:33 PM
1

Unfortunately, the most extreme of any group are going to have the loudest, most extreme action. You're still missing the point. Are the loud extremists on the fringe, acting apart from the main core of the group (or movement) and those in charge of it, or are they at the center of the group, in control, deciding and implementing the group's systematic approach to its guiding philosophy and policies? (I would argue that the latter is the case in feminism.) You seem to want to hand-wave away the …
/r/MensRights16/08/10 09:03 AM
3

well obviously the quoted idea above won't be happening, and is the type of insanity gets feminism nowhere. Actually, it is already happening in a couple of countries in Europe, although set at 40% at the moment. There are rumors of more to follow. http://www.europeanpwn.net/index.php?article_id=150 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/closing-the-gender-gap-why-women-now-reign-in-spain-809619.html I also don't care if an elected leader is male or female--however, whether it's politics…
/r/MensRights15/08/10 04:27 PM
3

Sorry, I guess I should have put sarcasm tags on my post. See my other post below.
/r/MensRights15/08/10 03:46 PM
3

That would certainly be the result of forcing equality of outcome rather than just providing equality of opportunity; but my post wasn't seriously advocating that. There is this pretense that women don't make up 50% of jobs at all levels simply because of discrimination, ignoring the fact that while most men have no real option but to work full-time for life (few women want to marry a house-husband), most women have options regarding work/life balance and freely exercise them to their liking. Th…
/r/MensRights15/08/10 03:43 PM
6

So how are we going to force women into jobs they don't want? Which women will be forced to do the dirty and dangerous jobs to make up 50% there? Which of the women who freely choose to prioritize time with their children over full-time commitment to career will instead be forced against their wishes to commit to climbing the career ladder to the top, working extremely long hours, sacrificing huge amounts of personal/family time, in order to make up the numbers in the top jobs in business and go…
/r/MensRights15/08/10 02:49 PM
1

Sure there are extremists and moderates in any movement--but saying that doesn't mean all is equal. What is important is where the extremists and moderates are and what they are doing. If the moderates are in charge, actively working to be inclusive and fair, with the extremists kept at the fringes (where they can bluster and hate to little effect) then you have a healthy movement. If the extremists are in charge, successfully working to put their agenda into effect, with the moderates at the fr…
/r/MensRights15/08/10 01:13 PM
8

I see feminists such as the OP as the unwitting "sheepskins" the wolves of the feminist leadership clothe themselves in, in order to maintain some semblance of respectability. What is "real" feminism? Is it the dictionary definition believed by feminists such as the OP, who seem to be bystanders, never involved in setting any feminist group's policies and goals--or the feminism of those who are at the core of lobbying, policy setting and activism?--Whose feminism in practice revolves around advo…
/r/MensRights15/08/10 10:05 AM
-1

I think it's relevant because it contrasts these people's real-world experiences of women in managerial roles against the claims often seen in the mainstream press about women having a host of positive traits that make them better leaders. It is commonplace and acceptable in mainstream society for negative traits to be attributed to men and positive ones to women when comparing the sexes--yet doing the opposite invokes a very emotionally charged response and such claims get shouted down with acc…
/r/MensRights13/08/10 04:36 AM
2

I'm not just talking about single mothers if you read my original post. If a male wants to be a a single parent, then he should be able to. Everything in my post applies with the genders reversed; it's just that with men not being able to give birth, in practice it almost never applies to fathers. If people are allowed to be poor parents, then a single person should be given the chance to be a better one. You talk about being allowed to, given the chance, etc--but it's not about legalities, it's…
/r/MensRights12/08/10 02:29 PM
3

Even in the best of circumstances a single mother by choice cannot provide their child with what a family consisting of a mother and father can. The harm caused to children by fatherless is not just about the conflict of divorce. It is an amazing concept to some people these days, but fathers bring a lot to their children's lives. The position they fill in their children's lives, what they teach, the way they role-model, etc cannot be replaced by an earnest mother or any "father figure" the chil…
/r/MensRights12/08/10 05:45 AM
3

I think these tests aren't about giving an acceptable answer, but about checking whether the man is afraid of female disapproval. By obviously struggling to find an unoffensive answer in order to avoid her wrath the man has already failed. So ironically, the way to "pass" these tests is to see right through them and not take them seriously, thereby demonstrating that you are not afraid of a negative reaction. I don't mean this as advice on successfully jumping through hoops though. primarily a m…
/r/MensRights10/08/10 04:34 PM
1

I don't think so. It seems that being a decent person is increasingly seen as "uncool" or "weak" in some subcultures. You are trying to conflate sub-cultures with the most extreme possible variants and then to conflate these with men in general. That's not valid. This campaign targets young men in general. A successful ex-smoker would feel pride because they resist the compulsive urge to smoke. I assert that the average man does not feel a compulsive urge to rape. The whole idea of being "proud"…
/r/MensRights10/08/10 08:58 AM
4

Sure children can be raised without a father--but that's just saying they can cope with an undesirable situation, getting through it even while suffering its ill effects. There is a huge difference between a mother making the best of a situation not of her creation (e.g. her husband leaves her or dies), trying to make the best life she can for her child--and a woman deliberately seeking to create a child who will never have a father, simply because she wants a child. The former is putting her ch…
/r/MensRights10/08/10 07:04 AM
1

So? I, too, am a potential thief, abuser, rapist and murderer, and my ethics and sense of compassion keep that potential unrealized. That's the point. The idea that the average man doesn't have this and so needs to be educated by a campaign like this that "rape is bad, mmkay" is ludicrous. I think the campaign encourages decent men to take pride in their ethical behaviour, while giving those whose ethics are a little underdeveloped an extra push in the right direction. As others have pointed out…
/r/MensRights09/08/10 06:08 PM
3

Some of them are, yes. So there you go. Any man is a potential rapist. It's not like most men have their own ethics and sense of compassion that would stop them from ever forcefully raping a woman, right? No. We need campaigns like this to point out to the average man on the street that it's wrong to use physical force to hold down and rape a woman who has made it clear she doesn't want sex. He might have gone through life so far thinking that this was OK (sarcasm on my part, a seriously held vi…
/r/MensRights09/08/10 03:12 PM
5

It is directly implying that all men are potential rapists. The campaign is showing normal guys stating "my strength is not for hurting" each with an example of a situation where men should refrain from using their physical strength to overpower and rape someone. As if rapists are just normal guys who wouldn't have done it if they had been educated that a man isn't entitled to force sex on an unwilling person just because he feels horny or paid for dinner. With this campaign--problem solved. "Me…
/r/MensRights09/08/10 08:13 AM
1

Well, I agree that men doing this is a problem too; however, while a man can choose to ignore the opinions of other men and live how he wishes, he cannot force his wife to support him financially so he can take on more of the child-caring role. IMO it is not simply a case of removing the stigma of men being child-carers that is the one-stop solution; that is only part of it and the secondary part. There is no "affirmative action" for men in the home and there can't be. Unless women in large numb…
/r/MensRights05/08/10 03:24 PM
2

I think society accepting men as equally capable care-givers is only part of it. That would make more men comfortable with the option of being the primary care-giver, but the main stumbling block is the need for individual women to agree to take on the main bread-winning role for a very extended period (if not for life) in order to make this possible. There seems to be a lot of women who are eager for women in general to do this in order to promote "equality," but hardly any individual women who…
/r/MensRights05/08/10 02:03 PM
2

From the article: "If I had a wife, I could probably put in a few more hours [at work] too." The thing is, a female doctor can choose to marry down to a man who could be the primary child-carer or a house-husband, providing the at-home support needed to enable the female doctor to devote herself to work like the typical male doctor can. I think this claim of needing a "wife" is a canard. I think these women are still marrying up precisely because they don't want to be stuck in the main/sole brea…
/r/MensRights05/08/10 07:18 AM
6

That doesn't answer my question at all.
/r/MensRights03/08/10 07:20 AM
8

Do you mind if I ask about the thought process you went through when you posted this comment? It's just that your comment so obviously misses the point of the thread (outlined explicitly in the thread title) that I wonder how that was possible. I'll spell it out for you on the off-chance you genuinely misunderstood: The open letter points out that Lohan will most likely get better treatment than women in general at the same facility (which is not the point of this thread); it then goes on to poi…
/r/MensRights03/08/10 07:07 AM
188

Boys and girls teasing each other over who has "cooties" or whatever is one thing. Left to the kids, it's relatively harmless. Adults weighing in heavily only on one side, creating, promoting or buying mean-spirited, insulting material for girls to use against boys (and never the other way around) is another; especially when a boy is likely to get an earful about "respecting girls and women" from an adult for saying anything similar about girls during normal "girls/boys are yucky" playground ban…
/r/MensRights30/07/10 02:27 PM
3

Thanks. More here: "In every case that has addressed the issue, the court has held that a man who was underage at the time of the conception of the child, and was therefore a victim of statutory rape, is nonetheless liable for child support. Typical of the reasoning in these cases is San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J., 50 Cal. App. 4th 842, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996). In that case, the court stated: One who is injured as a result of a criminal act in which he willingly participated is not a…
/r/MensRights28/07/10 08:10 PM
1

Thanks for the clarification! Sorry for misinterpreting the last part of your post. I think that if there ever were a serious push to remove gender bias from sentencing that it would result in a compromise in the middle, in favor of fairer sentencing on both sides. They wouldn't want women to face the harsh sentencing men typically receive, but neither would they want men to get off with the lenient sentencing women usually receive.
/r/MensRights28/07/10 08:01 PM
14

I say that treating men and women equally in the eyes of the law is the answer. For two reasons (beyond the obvious ones, such as fairness): 1) When women know that in practice they are above the law, their actions won't be restrained by it; paired with little/no social stigma, the only thing stopping women from breaking the law is their own morality, which for women inclined to committing crimes is obviously not enough. This leads some women to behave very badly (sex with boys barely into their…
/r/MensRights28/07/10 05:24 PM
9

Here you are: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-for-us/work-experience/sdp http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-for-us/work-experience/summer-placement-scheme http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-for-us/work-experience/partner-university-placement-sch Look, I wish these kind of stories weren't just covered in the tabloids. You do have to be skeptical with tabloid sources, but I have found that they sometimes cover real stories like this which simply wouldn't see the light of da…
/r/MensRights26/07/10 08:51 AM
2

I think for Japanese guys who have fallen (or jumped) off it's hard to work up the motivation to get back on the conveyor belt of societal expectations--get good grades to get into a good high school, in order to get into a good college, so that you can get into a good company--where you will be used by the company as a worker drone for the greater part of your waking life, using the money earned to financially support a wife and kids you hardly get to see, until eventually you are dropped off t…
/r/MensRights20/07/10 07:11 AM
2

saying that female is worse than male in this respect is not making your reasoning more plausible. you think she'll be more stubborn and unwilling to admit she's wrong because she's a woman, eh? No, I think that because the whole system she would turn to for counseling is predicated on her being a victim, not an abuser. The system is resistant to classifying her as an abuser and will have no programs set up for female abusers. (While I would welcome one, I would be very surprised to hear of an e…
/r/MensRights14/07/10 07:46 PM
2

Really? When the abuse has been ongoing and has escalated to his life being threatened? This is not a case of normal marital difficulties--where I would fully support your position. Do you have any experience with abuse like this? Do you really believe it is just a matter of a bit of counseling and then she will see the error of her ways and not kill him, or abuse him on a daily basis? I wish that were true. I really don't think it is though. This isn't a momentary slip of temper from a normally…
/r/MensRights14/07/10 06:33 PM
0

The elephant in the room is that most women don't want to give up the primary hands-on parent role. They don't want a house-husband. They don't want to marry down. They don't want to give up the option to work only as much as is personally satisfying in a job they like, which is what a more successful male bread-winner provides. They don't want to have no choice but to work full-time until retirement age. You can't set up legally-binding gender quotas for who stays home and who must support them…
/r/MensRights14/07/10 06:08 PM
8

I'm sorry, but did you guys miss the part where she regularly abuses him and then escalated to threatening to kill him? I realize that he is emotionally tied to her and feels responsible for her, but surely "for better or worse" doesn't include hanging around waiting to be stabbed to death. I think he needs to get out of the mindset where it's all about his love for and commitment to her. The situation is too serious. And let's get real--how likely is it for a female abuser to turn her mindset a…
/r/MensRights14/07/10 04:22 PM
14

I think deep down you must know the answer. You have to get a divorce. (You don't mention kids, so I'm assuming you don't have any.) You can't go on living like this. You can't. It may seem you are wrapped up in a situation you can't escape from, or you may feel responsible for her for whatever reason, but this situation cuts through all of that. The odds of things getting better are incredibly slim. Once you are free of her abuse I can guarantee you will feel so much better that you will be won…
/r/MensRights14/07/10 02:08 PM
3

All we're getting is % time women spend in jail and % time men spend in jail. Yes, and in this case you are justified in wanting more information as to why men overall are serving more of their sentences than women; it would be interesting to see those figures to compare all the apples to apples. However, the article states that the "sheriff's department began freeing men who were sentenced for non-violent offenses after they served only 50 percent of their time." Presumably this is because the …
/r/MensRights14/07/10 06:51 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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