TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Grapeban Archive

View 0 posts and 3,057 comments by Grapeban 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)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 3,057 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

Yes, themselves and some men, seeing as they campaigned against having the vote. Ah, so because some women campaign against the vote, all women are implicated, but only some men are implicated. Brilliant.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 09:58 AM
-1

Yes, it was because a king or queen or emperor or empress or oligarchy was ruling. What are you talking about? I made the factual statement that men were restricted from voting because of their class. Only 10 years later, with conscription firmly gone at that point, were women given the vote on equal basis for men. Yes, and had none of the responsibilities. There aren't any responsibilities attached to the vote. You're drawing this bizarre line from men's social responsibilities (conveniently ov…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 09:35 AM
-4

Men began to get the vote quicker than women because of conscription in Britain. Straight up incorrect. Voting in Britain was originally based on wealth, true. However, the prohibition against women was informal, because the expectation was that women would never reach those levels of wealth. When women started reaching the requirements to vote, the First Reform Act specifically barred women (as well as doing a lot of other important stuff). The Second and Third Reform Acts then expanded the fra…
/r/MensRights17/09/15 08:50 AM
1

But academics and feminists are terrified and calling for them to be banned. According to Milo. But you click on the article and it's a campaign led by one woman, who is a "robot ethicist". Not quite how accurate sourcing works Milo. Meanwhile, I feel like suggesting that men's only motivation in life is sexual contact and that they have no interest in love or emotional companionship and have no desire to do things intellectually fulfilling and productive if they aren't going to get the sexual s…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 06:51 PM
1

What a surprise I have you tagged as a coontown user. Your comment reeks of racism, conspiracy and ignorance. Always the White people have to give up their identity and save them, never the Muslim sister cultures from their regions. Ridiculous You say that as if Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey haven't received the bulk of refugees from Syria. No, the rich Gulf states aren't doing much - interesting that you would choose them as your moral guides. The world's going to shit and we shouldn't act like we…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 12:51 PM
-3

Bathrooms are segregated on sexes, not genders. Are they really? Because it's pretty difficult to tell people's sex from looking at them. Should we have DNA scanners at the door to every bathroom? Cool, give me your address so I can come over and eat your food and watch your TV. I Identify as part of your family. You don't want to be a bigot and deny me my identity, do you? I mean you do touch on an interesting point regarding the inherent subjectivity of family in the face of a world where fund…
/r/MensRights01/09/15 11:04 PM
-3

When they have a female body, I have no problem with them using the female bathroom. Nor male bodies using the male bathrooms. Once again you are "forcing" this belief on every trans person. But if you want to apply the same logic to transgenders forcing their beliefs over the realities of their bodies, then you have to agree to the stipulation that anyone can use any bathroom. Why? If you believe that trans people are the genders they are (i.e. you aren't a bigot), the logic is "people should b…
/r/MensRights01/09/15 10:53 PM
4

So this is a matter of one individual stating that their beliefs are more important than everyone else's and everyone else must comply with what they believe. How is what you're doing not forcing trans people to comply with your belief that we shouldn't get to use the same bathroom as you? Was the civil rights movement demanding black people get to use the same water fountains as white people "forcing people to accept" their belief? And if so, why's that a bad thing?
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:41 PM
-6

as the event my male peers and I will be unable to attend claims to be its goal If you read the page you'd see an earlier version of the event is open to all men (also note that trans men will be able to go to the second event, so actually potentially "male peers" could go.)
/r/MensRights29/08/15 02:59 PM
-15

Yeah it's such a fucking burden, helping men.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 02:42 PM
-17

Yes, asking you (without making any laws) to consider using gender neutral pronouns (including they if you want) and to remember that someone's appearance may not match their gender identity (as may be the case for trans men) is totally restricting the me.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 01:54 PM
-17

Nor are any of us planning on "making a bold stand in defence of trans men" Right, because /r/mensrights is really/r/cismensrights.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 01:40 PM
1

Huh well when you see sex dolls as being a substitute for a woman, I've no idea why you struggle to attract dates. Uh sorry I mean nobly went MGTOW.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 01:30 PM
1

Oh, by the way, if the price went up for the product in line with an increase in demand, that's not overpriced.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 01:06 PM
-24

Fine, I alter my words, this has as much to do with the (cis) gay community as the (cis) straight community. I'm tired of gay people speaking out on trans issues as if they're authorities, especially when they demonstrate a clear lack of understanding. Meanwhile, glad to see /mr is making a bold stand in defence of trans men! /s
/r/MensRights29/08/15 12:53 PM
-3

Lucky feminism isn't about finding women for you to get your dick wet, huh.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 09:54 AM
-33

I am so embarrassed this has anything to do with gay people. It doesn't, this is a trans rights issue, you are in no position to speak on it.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 09:00 AM
1

I'm not a feminist. So...the few male teachers gravitate towards the hardest roles in teaching, while women congregate in teaching the younger, more pliable and impressionable children in easier areas. Who'd have imagined that? Implying what, that women are seeking to poison young minds and men are all noble heroes? And I wasn't overlooking anything. I was using specific evidence to show how you had made a misleading comment.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:02 PM
1

in secondary schools it's 130,000 women to 28,000 men. Hmm? Page 33 from the first link indicates that in secondary schools its about 130,000 women to 78,000 men.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:38 PM
1

The fact that most boys in the UK go threw there entire young lives without ever seeing a male teacher Untrue. Around 40% of secondary school teachers in England were male in 2010. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182407/DFE-RR151.pdf Meanwhile, most secondary school headteachers are male http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2015/feb/11/lack-of-female-headteachers-gender-diversity-education.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:28 PM
1

Rumney (2006)[1] summarized dozens of controlled studies on false-rape reports given to the police. Averaging these reports shows that in around 1/3 accusations, no rape took place. Poor use of a source here, since one of Rumney's conclusions was that it is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" due to the fact that many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies In particular he specifically c…
/r/MensRights15/08/15 03:36 PM
3

Except in the UK, suffrage was extended to most men prior to conscription being brought in. Conscription was brought in during WW1, and at that time most women ceased campaigning for the vote in order to focus their efforts on the war campaign. These efforts included campaigning for the right to work in factories in order to help the war effort.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 02:19 PM
-1

According to Marxism, communism is an inevitable social development. According to feminists, feminism is an inevitable social development. Do feminists believe that? Or do they simply believe that feminism is a social development that should be worked towards, much as MRAs believe that men's rights are a goal that should be worked towards? It states that Marxists used to have "consciousness-raising" sessions that tried to rid people of what Marxists called "false-consciousness". Which are tradit…
/r/MensRights06/06/15 02:55 PM
2

Or, you know, making a snappy comeback.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 07:03 PM
1

I don't post as frequently as I used to (I moved into a more passive position over at /amr), but I've been hanging around for a while now. Nice to be remembered!
/r/MensRights09/05/15 03:40 PM
-14

Bottom line here, Buchanan is upset that his party's "15 minutes of fame" were spent on the weakest aspect of his manifesto. Just like how the Labour party has had its ass kicked back and forth for its seeming weaknesses with regards to the economy and just like how the Conservative party has had its ass kicked for its unclear cut plans. Welcome to politics Mike. If you can't defend it, don't legislate on it.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 07:24 PM
-20

Did you even read the article. They've already given a load of praise to a fringe party that isn't' even standing yet. Interviewing respected celebrities? What next, asking Russel Brand about his political opinions? Furthermore, it's not really about airtime at all, but fair treatment. Had the BBC given 10 times a more coverage to J4MB than they did but continuing with the same spin and bias then everyone would have exactly the same concerns. So what, fair treatment is making sure that you only …
/r/MensRights06/05/15 07:14 PM
-28

Yes, how dare the BBC not give proper time to a fringe party that will not get any seats. I'm sure Breitbart will next demand that the BBC give air time to the Liberal Party, Left Unity, the BNP and the North East Party. At least those parties have all had some kind of council position. Meanwhile, as the BBC's reply rightly pointed out, Buchanan should have stood up for himself more. His party has an awful lot to say about women in fact. Didn't he want to educate women about how he was going to …
/r/MensRights06/05/15 07:04 PM
0

Perhaps someone should have consulted with anyone with legal know-how before donating ten thousand dollars.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 09:52 PM
2

Therefore it is our belief that the actions taken by the Calgary Expo staff were of a political nature and contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of association. Right, I'm not a lawyer of any sort, but I'm pretty sure you can't sue a private organisation for violating these freedoms - as the wikipedia article says "These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the…
/r/MensRights26/04/15 06:49 PM
0

Yeah, unlike all those unintelligent, illogical women, men know what's up.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 11:19 AM
1

You are correct that Innocent until proven guilty means that we don't punish people we can't prove guilty. You are also correct that any accusations may be true, but in order for the first to be maintained, any accusation is, by default, false. Okay, this is getting tiresome, but let's focus on this. Lets say you are correct and we should assume that the woman is wrong to say Andrew raped her. Do you see the significant jump between that and claiming the woman is lying? I'm guessing not.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 11:38 PM
1

I said he assumed that the woman had committed the crime of making a false accusation. That is failing to apply the principle of innocent until proven guilty as he has straight up assumed she is guilty. Neither party should be assumed guilty here.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 11:28 PM
1

Wow, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Do you see the self-contradiction here? A accuses B of theft. B claims innocence and is thus innocent until proven guilty, therefore A is assumed to be lying. However, false accusation is a crime, and A claims to be innocent. We assume A is innocent until proven guilty, as we do with all crimes. If A is assumed innocent, B is assumed to be lying about the accusation being false. Thanks to your logic, both parties are, simultaneously, assumed to be…
/r/MensRights05/01/15 10:23 PM
1

What I said was that innocent until proven guilty means that until it has been proven in a court we are to consider the accused innocent. When did I ever contradict that? All I've said is that we should also consider the accuser innocent of having falsely accused.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 10:11 PM
-1

What, and therefore we shouldn't investigate a crime? By accusing this woman of lying, you are accusing her of a crime. Why does "innocent until proven guilty" not apply to her? I'm saying this potential crime needs investigating and we should not assume either are lying.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 08:53 PM
1

Kind of, yeah. It's a remarkable event, which makes the accusation seem more remarkable.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 06:57 PM
2

In normal situations yes. But the Royal Family does things oddly.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 06:23 PM
2

I'm no fan of the monarchy but I don't see how someone publicly stating their innocence in a very public case is proof of guilt. It's not proof of guilt, but it is at the very least notable. The monarchy never make statements like this http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/04/prince-andrew-denies-underage-sex-claims-buckingham-palace
/r/MensRights05/01/15 05:46 PM
4

I don't think you understand what "innocent until proven guilty" means. I was under the impression that it meant that we don't automatically declare someone guilty without evidence. This applies to Prince Andrew, we shouldn't declare that he raped a woman, but it also applies to the woman, we shouldn't declare she is guilty of a false accusation. Rather, it should be investigated. You present circumstantial evidence which calls her accusation into question. There is also evidence that calls Prin…
/r/MensRights05/01/15 05:01 PM
-10

So much for innocent until proven guilty, you've no idea this is a false accusation yet you assume it is the case.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 04:03 PM
4

‘If he’s drunk, he can’t legally consent. Sex without consent is rape.’ Okay? Not sure how the principle applying to both genders invalidates it. Both men and women can be raped.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 03:50 PM
0

Clearly you have failed to read the article. Elam never argues that BPD doesn't exist. After all, he constantly refers to "a BPD" or "BPDs". Using it as a noun wouldn't make any sense if it didn't exist. Furthermore, he tells us that those with BPD have an intractable condition that is impervious to treatment of any kind. Clear evidence that he believes it exists. That brings us to the BPD. This individual, typically a female (yes, that is documented) is one whose mental state renders her a sign…
/r/MensRights05/01/15 01:28 PM
0

You find nothing hateful about referring to people with a mental illness as "dangerous asshole that should be avoided like the plague."? Or nothing hateful about him saying that people with BPD should not be treated? You don’t treat borderlines, you ignore them. And that, in the broader sense, is also indirect professional advice when it comes to anyone with the misfortune to find themselves locked in the sights of a BPD. Nothing hateful about, instead of regarding someone as a human being worth…
/r/MensRights05/01/15 01:05 PM
1

You're clearly just trying to push some weird agenda about minor's having abortions which I'm not even clear on what it is. This is pointless.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 02:01 AM
1

I'm not denying that the issue of minor's having abortions is a complex issue, one which should be dealt with separately from that of pedophilia and adult abortion. Yes, it is a very difficult decision for a minor to have an abortion, but it is also very difficult for a minor to decide to have a child. There is no perfect way to approach the problem, no choice here is a nice one for a minor to have to make. This is very different from sex with a minor, where it is clear what the right choice is …
/r/MensRights05/01/15 01:40 AM
1

The point being that they must also be an exception to pro-choice arguments. This is not to say that that means they can't get an abortion. It only means that their must be separate arguments for adults and minors. ...okay? That's fine. As I already pointed out, if this argument is true for sex, then it is true for abortion. In essence, we are saying a minor cannot choose to have an abortion because it must be some adult in their life making the choice for them. Here in the real world we deal wi…
/r/MensRights05/01/15 12:34 AM
1

1) Slogans aren't comprehensive arguments. So even if children not being able to consent to sex invalidates "my body, my choice", have you considered that that principle might be a little more complicated than it's 4 word title? 2) Children are an almost universal exception. Is the UK not a democracy because children can't vote? Is justice not blind because children get special court proceedings? 3) It's still consistent with the logic. The point of "my body, my choice" is that it's no-one else'…
/r/MensRights05/01/15 12:08 AM
1

It's both. They cannot make the choice to have sex, but, as it is "their body, their choice", an adult can't make the decision for them instead. What is your point here, that women shouldn't be allowed to choose not to have sex, or that you should be allowed to have sex with minors?
/r/MensRights04/01/15 11:40 PM
3

Almost like people should do those things out of love and a desire to be with someone, instead of out of a need to survive.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 07:11 PM
-1

but we at least bitch out those who are obvious idiots in the movement instead of shrugging and saying "WELL NO REAL MRA DOT DOT DOT". Oh, so you'll reject A Voice for Men any day now? Because its writers say "mangina" all the time, and also Paul Elam hates the mentally ill.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 05:20 PM
2

For people below the age of consent, they are not old enough to make an informed choice regarding sex. Adults having sex with minors have too much control and influence over the minor, effectively meaning that the adults are the ones making the choice. This argument is entirely consistent with the logic behind "my body, my choice".
/r/MensRights04/01/15 02:49 PM
-1

yet we, as a whole, have no issues shaming white men into submission. Did MRAs not coin the term "mangina" to deride men who didn't oppose feminism?
/r/MensRights04/01/15 02:32 PM
-1

They're the ones who believe that there's a giant conspiracy that oppresses women for men's benefit and that therefore naming a supposed gender equality movement after one particular gender is a perfectly sensible thing to do instead of a crazy one. Say, what do you think the M in MRA stands for?
/r/MensRights03/01/15 11:23 AM
1

As I said, look beyond the name of the law, look at the substance of the law itself. It is gender neutral.
/r/MensRights01/01/15 11:11 PM
1

VAWA, as in the, outside of its effectively meaningless name, entirely gender neutral law? Yes, clearly such a massive source of discrimination.
/r/MensRights01/01/15 09:28 PM
-13

Except no-one was trying to ban SodaStream, they were asking a private institution to consider various reasons why they might not wish to support the company.
/r/MensRights25/12/14 02:05 PM
-21

More recently, radical anti-Israel students tried to get SodaStream products banned from Harvard dining halls, because they were offended by the "micro-aggression" represented by the location of the company's factory beyond Israel’s Green Line. So instead of simply not drinking the product themselves, they tried to prevent everyone else from drinking it or even seeing its name! What a remarkably poor understanding of that event. It wasn't that people were offended by the presence of SodaStream p…
/r/MensRights25/12/14 10:51 AM
3

Be sure to include transgender men, and possibly explicitly state that they are welcome - often with groups like these it can be awkward for trans people who don't know if they are welcome or not but would like to join.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 08:22 PM
1

Except it is certainly not the case that "almost anyone" abuses and coercively controls their partner.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 08:03 PM
-8

What does that even mean? You're delusional.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 11:42 AM
1

Given the female penchant for ..... coercive control, we now have the interesting possibility that a law passed, supposedly to limit male on female emotional aggression, could just as easily be used against a controlling female partner. You act as if the possibility of a female abuser being convicted under this law would be some kind of freak, unexpected occurrence that was totally not planned for. The point of the law is to stop all abuse no matter the gender.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 11:13 AM
7

Why is it abuse if a man yells at a woman but not the other way around? It isn't, this is a misunderstanding of the law. To merely suggest that you don’t like an outfit your spouse is wearing is abusive, is laughable It isn't. What is abuse is using verbal criticism as part of, in Theresa May's words, “a complex pattern of abuse using power and psychological control over another". Suggesting that sustained verbal abuse and criticism done in such a way as to undermine and control your partner is …
/r/MensRights20/12/14 08:48 AM
1

All of those together plus saying nothing when he interprets it as a normal human would does strongly suggest consent. Fuck "strongly suggest". Make certain you have consent by asking. This is rape culture - people assuming consent.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 10:47 PM
1

Flirting, suggesting they fuck, going back to his place. Which of these screams "I don't want to have sex" to you? None of them count as consent! This isn't a matter of body-language, this is a matter of "she has done nothing to indicate consent". Flirting is not consent, being cheeky and suggestive is not consent and going back to someone's place is not consent. Yes, possibly people can consent without physically saying it. However, if they can, that is still not what has happened here.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 08:12 PM
1

He has no reason to believe she wasn't consenting. What part of "She has not indicated she wishes to engage in the act" do you not understand?
/r/MensRights13/12/14 05:43 PM
2

Silence doesn't equal consent. But all that other stuff does strongly imply it. She really ought to have said something if she started feeling uncomfortable. No, the man really should have asked to make sure that he wasn't going to rape someone. This is not an onerous burden.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 03:21 PM
2

Interesting. So if a woman is drunk and an active participant it's possible she's a rapist? Yes. Is this meant to be some kind of gotcha? Women are capable of rape, being drunk doesn't mean you haven't raped someone. He didn't find her unconscious body in a back alley and take that for consent as you think. There are many steps here that are implying consent. Once again, it's strange how MRAs complain about having to be 'mind-readers' in order to determine non-consent, but don't complain about t…
/r/MensRights13/12/14 02:49 PM
2

Do you believe one has to use the words "I consent" to consent? MRAs have no sense of nuance. You act as if the choice is between "Consent is always assumed at all times" or "Consent can only be granted by a form signed in triplicate". Here's a recommendation, how about just asking your partner if they want to have sex? If you can't think of a way to do that in an erotic way, that's your problem. And the evidence he declared his consent is the fact that he raped her. If he hadn't consented, noth…
/r/MensRights13/12/14 02:33 PM
0

Whereas your story about a friend of yours isn't at all biased.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 12:16 AM
0

So anecdotes cancel out facts, good to know.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 12:01 AM
0

Interesting anecdote. The British Home Office found that police massively overestimated the number of false rape accusations and often filed accusations as false when there was no reasonable basis for doing so. http://paladinservice.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/gap-or-chasm-rape-report.pdf
/r/MensRights12/12/14 11:50 PM
-1

Ah yes, because the police are known for being so believing when a woman reports that she was raped while drunk. MRAs really have no connection to reality.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 11:40 PM
0

This is worded as a get out of jail free card for women to withdrawl concent after the fact to get the dude in trouble despite knowing full well what was going to happen prior to and what was happening at the You know what's a great way to make it completely unamigious whether there's consent or not? Asking!
/r/MensRights12/12/14 11:30 PM
0

Flirting and being suggestive is not consent.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 10:55 PM
1

Having sex with someone who hasn't consented most certainly is rape. Read the post: She has not indicated she wishes to engage in the act.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 10:44 PM
-1

If you actually read the post, it is clear that the man in this case is the one pushing sex upon the woman, who has not consented.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 10:34 PM
-1

People being able to lie and illegality being difficult to prove does not mean that something illegal hasn't happened.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 08:52 PM
-2

The gender doesn't matter, what matters is if you consent and if your partner consents. If you have sex with someone who doesn't consent, whether you're drunk or not its rape. If someone has sex with you and you don't consent (either because you don't, or are too intoxicated to consent), then you've been raped.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 08:00 PM
-5

Consent is fluid. NO ONE is a mind reader. Yet through indirect cues you can claim the ability to detect when consent has been "implied"? Why is the responsibility on the victim to have to revoke consent (which they can often feel pressured into not doing because they are scared or because they feel they are obliged too, primarily because people like you suggest that once you've gone back to someone's place with them, that's basically consent), rather than on the other person to make sure they a…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 07:49 PM
-10

Implied consent? Implied consent is what we call it when a rapist either assumes their partner consents or exploits the fact that society will assume their partner had consented. Flirting is not consent.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 07:36 PM
-8

Being raped while drunk is not the same as shooting someone! If someone is little tipsy and consents to sex, that's not rape. And if someone gets very drunk and rapes someone, that's not themselves being raped either. However, the problem with your attitude is that firstly, People claim that someone being drunk invalidates their non-consent. People will defend their actions by acting as if someone being drunk means they cannot be raped. Secondly, when someone is sufficiently drunk they are not c…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 06:52 PM
-9

Except it wasn't consensual because the question made it very clear that she never consented. Secondly, if we're talking about my local law, Scotland, then it really doesn't matter how drunk you are when it comes to drunk driving, effectively any quantity of alcohol will bring charges. Thirdly, do you really deny that if someone is extremely intoxicated, they are not capable of consenting? I point out that this is not a special case with sex - drunk people cannot consent to contracts, or to gett…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 06:27 PM
-12

No, raping someone while drunk is the equivalent of drunk driving - it is a crime no matter your intoxication. Being raped while drunk is not a crime, and does not negate the rape. It is the equivalent of being hit by a car while drunk.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:51 PM
-8

I support trans people as much as the next guy, or woman This is only true if the next person is a transphobe.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 02:15 AM
-3

No, trans women are women who were born with male sex. Not men, nor do they "want" to be women, they simply are.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 02:03 AM
-7

So you’re a man who wants to become a woman. Transphobia, hilarious.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 01:24 AM
-10

No, it was accused of racism because it's earliest trailer portrayed a white man walking through a town full of shady, suspicious black people who mistrust this white saviour. I.e. it used racially charged imagery clumsily.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 11:45 PM
-1

Heaven forbid we expect men to be somewhat responsible for their own actions.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 05:28 PM
-1

No, but she clearly doesn't understand feminist theory. "Toxic masculinity" is not the idea that "violence is a male trait".
/r/MensRights04/11/14 10:51 PM
-3

No, instead you take the explanations that allow you to justify violence and sexual harassment done by men, and to condemn solutions to these problems.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 09:42 PM
0

it’s gonna be inherently more aggressive, more physical, and more sexual in an objectifying way, and more promiscuous. So, the misandrists are the ones arguing that men aren't inherently violent and sexually aggressive?
/r/MensRights04/11/14 09:11 PM
0

Okay, I accept that, that's reasonable.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 09:17 PM
-8

Apologies to whomever I stole this from (I know I read it somewhere), but: Every movement has its assholes. There have been death threats from both sides in the GamerGate issue, possibly to silence opposition. The difference with the fire alarm, however, is that the perpetrators were not condemned by the SJWs, as Sarkeesian's silencer was by the GamerGate crowd. The difference is that those against gamer-gate haven't forced gamergaters out of their houses, which is exactly what people operating …
/r/MensRights31/10/14 04:45 PM
-17

But the people who now stand opposed to free expression in gaming aren’t just against the skimpiest of “armor” and the amplest of bosoms. The current movement consists largely of those known as “social justice warriors,” whose philosophy on free speech was best summarized as, “Your rights end where my feelings begin.” Get over yourself, no-one wants to restrict people's right to express themselves through games. However, that doesn't mean that games can't be criticised. In fact, being allowed to…
/r/MensRights31/10/14 04:19 PM
-7

Feelzzzz from AMR. There's no big objective book on what is a game or not, it's all about what you "feel" is a game. If you have an allergic reaction to that word, how about what you "perceive" to be a game? Media that makes its bread and butter doing Gary's Mod and CS style games is not going to pick up Zork on a whim. I'm not even sure what you mean by this. No, you don't just pick up Depression Quest "on a whim", why does that make it not a game? After so many years of people arguing that gam…
/r/MensRights30/10/14 09:45 PM
-6

Many people feel it is. Text adventures are some of the earliest games.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 09:20 PM
-7

Yes, someone liking a game you didn't is clearly evidence of a conspiracy, as opposed to some people having different tastes than you.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 08:22 PM
-1

Do you think weight classes should be removed from boxing too?
/r/MensRights28/10/14 08:52 PM
1

No we don't. In fact, most of us are husbands, sons, brothers, boyfriends, or even uncles or grandfathers of women. Without women, all our lives would be poorer, because the people that had the largest influence on our lives would be gone, or the people we love the most. By that logic no-one in history has been a misogynist.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 11:07 AM
-2

But, I thought Gamergate was about journalistic ethics. I mean, isn't that what Gamergaters keep telling people?
/r/MensRights24/10/14 02:58 AM
1

Yes, feeling afraid of someone can be unjustified, but that doesn't mean that you should stay with them. It's better to err on the side of caution and not force yourself to stay in a relationship with someone who, rightly or wrongly, intimidates you.
/r/MensRights18/10/14 01:47 PM
1

So what, are you saying that if a woman's partner intimidates her or scares her, she should just ignore those feelings?
/r/MensRights18/10/14 10:03 AM
2

The claim goes that FtM might experience systematic oppression only from their female "origin". They don't "gain" oppression from their transition to male, and any oppression they do experience is a remnant of the oppression all females experience This is completely nonsense and a view only put forward by Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists who are not at all representative of mainstream feminist thought.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 10:59 PM
2

Except transmisogyny is a term coined specifically to describe hatred towards trans women, and was not designed to replace transphobia.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 09:43 PM
1

Yet i agree with that. If I (as a guy) put on a short skirt and mini top then walked around a bad urban neighborhood, am i supposed to be outraged that people will treat me differently. I don't see this as a discrimination thing, this is a norm we have in expecting people to dress in a respectable manner Way to just dismiss the concerns of non-gender conforming people. Guess there's no room for crossdressing men in the MRM.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 04:49 PM
-6

men ... females Would it really kill you to say women?
/r/MensRights21/07/14 07:44 AM
1

Whereas the feminists you criticise did get to choose the name of the >100 year old movement?
/r/MensRights21/07/14 06:15 AM
-2

Says the Men's Rights Activist.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 05:57 AM
0

Vaguely proportional representation of demographics, in my parliament? Dammit David Cameron, you know voters only signed up to be ruled by a core of veteran older, white, male, useless politicians from Eton/Harrow and then Oxbridge. /sarcasm.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 01:14 PM
-1

What does this example prove? This isn't related to trigger warnings at all, this is a case of a university putting up a creepy statue that, I think justifiably, unnerved and concerned many students. Why would trigger warnings let people vocal about their triggers get the triggering things removed? Surely not adding trigger warning is what's likely to lead to people having to remove "things they don't like" (which is a gross oversimplification of the reasons why people have things labelled as tr…
/r/MensRights02/07/14 06:41 PM
-2

How do triggers restrict free speech? Surely they enable unrestricted speech, because once you have warned students that you'll be discussing, say, sexual assault, you have no need to limit your discussion out of concern for student's wellbeing, they've been warned.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 12:29 PM
3

This is all completely baseless speculation that flies in the face of example and evidence, and I can only assume you're willfully ignorant of such example of male aggression such as gangs, domestic violence from men towards wives, prison rape, etc. Edit: Also, needless to say, in the mafia scenario clearly the most "defensive" option is to not partake in organised crime.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 03:19 AM
4

Really? Let's take the example of the mafia, or really any organised crime group, which are famous for holding extremely long grudges. These groups are invariably dominated by men. And if men are so "objective" about who they fight, why do they hit their partners? Why do they fight when drunk? Why do they commit crimes of passion? Why do so many men get drunk then commit crime?
/r/MensRights02/07/14 01:04 AM
8

Yes, men in government have never declared war on other men in government. It's only women who are violent.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 11:47 PM
2

So, what's your point? Men just work better than women, is that what you're saying?
/r/MensRights10/06/14 03:14 PM
-3

What is fun about this? It's just words Nothing misogynist to see here, just the implication that women are idiots who hate reading.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 05:40 PM
1

Rogers was trying to break into a sorority house in order to kill the women inside, the reason so many men ended up dying was because he failed and his plans went awry. Read literally any of his writing and it is steeped in a deep, intense hatred of women.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 03:12 AM
-6

Yeah, God forbid a sober person take some responsibility with regards to who they fuck instead.
/r/MensRights21/05/14 08:38 AM
4

At this point it's probably worth pointing out that Paul Elam has a visceral hatred for people with certain mental illnesses. I wouldn't take him seriously on mental health matters.
/r/MensRights20/05/14 01:18 AM
1

So there are no reasons you can think of why someone in an abusive relationship might stay in it or find it difficult to escape?
/r/MensRights14/05/14 06:44 PM
2

Unlike the Tropes Against Men in Videogames fundraiser which turned to actually be a legit scam.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 11:49 PM
-29

...but women aren't allowed to be soldiers. Like, that's a legitimate thing.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 09:26 PM
5

No-one's expecting you to personally apologise for having privilege, the expectation is that you recognise that you don't have a full picture of life as a result of your privileges. For example, if you are cisgender then you probably haven't put much thought into the problem of what public bathroom to use. If you got annoyed at a trans person who was dithering over which bathroom to go into, then you should 'check your privilege' and realise that when someone is transgender, being hasty with tha…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 02:17 PM
-3

None of this applies to the UK. I mean, it doesn't apply to the US either (hint, conscription is not a requirement for the vote in the constitution), but it definitely doesn't apply to the UK.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 02:43 PM
3

It's almost like both women and poor men/men in low social classes were oppressed.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 04:05 PM
2

I suppose that MRAs will then accept that it's totally fine that men constitute the majority of victims of industrial accidents, because they made the choices to go into those industries?
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:11 PM
2

No, because the problem is that society encourages men and women to act differently, and the way it encourages women to act results in them being disempowered in society.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 06:09 PM
2

No man will ever say, "Sorry, can't do your show tonight, I'm taking care of my kids." The man will find someone to take care of his kids so he can appear on a TV show. Women use that excuse on us all the time. No man will say, "Sorry, can't do your show tonight, my roots are showing." I'm serious. We get that as an excuse for not coming on. But only from women. It's like, and stop me here if you think I'm suggesting something too groundbreaking, it's like women in society had more pressure put …
/r/MensRights19/03/14 12:41 AM
1

You gave up your discussion with him after he asked you a question about your fears that somehow freedom of speech is being shut down by transgender activists.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 08:18 PM
1

It takes a real lack of self-awareness to refuse to start a dialogue by claiming your opponent doesn't want a dialogue.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 07:45 PM
1

Yes, I have no idea how much easier being trans is, I mean, all I've been is threatened with rape, attacked, verbally abused, am constantly suicidal and have an eating disorder. Look, LGBT rights have improved, but using that fact to dismiss the concerns of LGBT people today is complete BS.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 06:45 PM
0

Generally only straight people commit hate crimes against gay people, so only straight people can stop hate crime against gay people. Can we therefore, according to your logic, also say that only straight people should talk about hate crime against gay people?
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:37 PM
-5

You know you're a human rights movement when you state that those who wear clothes you deem to be 'skimpy' can't complain about being objectified!
/r/MensRights04/03/14 09:44 PM
0

...I'm not a feminist but oh well. Also, I never really left.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 09:20 PM
-7

"We're not misogynists, we just think women would be completely incapable without men!"
/r/MensRights02/03/14 09:25 PM
2

No, because patriarchy is more complicated than "Men can do anything and women can't do anything!"
/r/MensRights15/02/14 11:23 PM
1

So why do MRAs support financial abortion, which would further decrease the number of fathers in children's lives?
/r/MensRights15/02/14 09:45 AM
-20

Good thing the law is clear that when it says drunken-ness invalidates consent, it does mean drunken-ness of the level that you're unable to make reasoned decisions. Again, see my example about tattoos to see that this has legal precedence and is not a special situation. Drunken-ness doesn't excuse you from crime, but then again, having sex or being raped aren't crimes, so stop comparing them to crimes.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 08:16 PM
-27

So being raped is the equivalent of driving drunk or beating your children? Here's an actual analogy, can you consent to getting a tattoo when drunk? In the UK, no, it's illegal to give a drunk person a tattoo. Oh look, legal precedent! Turns out, rape doesn't magically become not rape when someone is drunk and therefore less able to consent.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 08:04 PM
2

Sorry, so it's irrelevant to discuss history when responding to a claim that women's laziness can be seen throughout history?
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:50 PM
-1

Yeah, how come so few British PMs were women? I mean, come on, it's not like they weren't allowed to be PM fewer than 100 years ago... oh, wait. I guess maybe there has been some institutional bias against women in history.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 05:17 PM
-9

As far as I can tell, it's perfectly possible to vote without signing up to the draft.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 11:53 PM
-5

It is for women, anyway. And it isn't tied to fighting for men. I would imagine "patriarchal bargaining" and "internalized misogyny" would require some sort of brainwashing, yes. Spectacular, you truly do no nothing about feminism. I'm not even a feminist yet I feel compelled to defend it from your sheer ignorance.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 11:38 PM
-11

And yet they let them vote. Funny how selective "patriarchy" is. That'll be because voting isn't in anyway tied to fighting. Who have women been brainwashed by? ...no-one? Not really clear on what this point is meant to be. You don't think patriarchy theory states that there's a big bad cabal of men manipulating all the women, do you?
/r/MensRights31/01/14 11:14 PM
-10

Sorry, so careers dominated by women such as nursing, primary school teaching, cleaning, catering, caring, are now not among the 'less prestigious'? No, lots of countries don't let women fight. Guess what, it wasn't feminists who pushed for that, I've seen far more MRAs argue that women shouldn't be in the army than feminists. NOW pushed for women to be included in the draft in the 70s (you know back when it was even slightly relevant). So, who has David Cameron been brainwashed by? Don't tell m…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 10:45 PM
-33

Such a slave pool that here in the UK men only represent 77.5% of MPs. People would be able to take you seriously if you would actually just look at reality typhon.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 10:35 PM
1

Judging everyone who seeks equality for women on one woman's writing from the 60s = not legitimate. Judging a website based on something they put on the website = legitimate.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 09:37 AM
-3

I would characterize this [behaviour apparently women engage in more than men] as “herd” behavior, as opposed to more male-oriented “team” behavior (more on that soon). Gee I wonder why some would accuse the spearhead of misogyny.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 01:35 PM
-5

You really think Kratos and Marcus Fenix are meant to be sex symbols for women to slaver over?
/r/MensRights26/01/14 08:48 PM
-4

I regularly see it on this subreddit. For one example http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1p3dc6/ann_coulter_is_yelled_at_by_women_on_the_doctors/
/r/MensRights26/01/14 01:49 PM
-21

No, but we shouldn't force a man to give up thing for a mother. However, we should force a man to give up a certain amount of his wealth for the child he created. Because a child in society requires support, and that support can come from the parents or the state. I'd be happy to substitute the state for the father, but I can tell you have seen many, many MRAs who are vehemently opposed to that idea.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 02:17 AM
-31

Though if she does choose to be a single mother, I'm sure MRAs will be there to remind her that all social ills can be traced by to fatherless children.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 01:43 AM
0

Good thing labour laws don't do that.
/r/MensRights23/01/14 07:41 PM
1

Yes, that would also be an example of sexism.
/r/MensRights23/01/14 01:52 PM
2

I'm saying that possibly the reason employers pay women less is the same reason why they don't hire a lot, the employers don't consider women as valuable employees as men.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 02:46 PM
2

In the UK, you can pay someone who's under 18 much less than you can pay someone who's over 21. So, why don't companies just hire 17 year olds? Hint: Companies feel a certain way about employees under 18. If you can work this one out, possibly you can work out your problem.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 12:04 PM
1

Ah yes, the "Why remove something offensive when the free market will get round to that eventually!" argument.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 11:26 PM
1

Well Britain has been a fully functioning democracy for at least about 100 years, arguably for an awful lot longer. No-one's arguing this is about protecting women from rapists, shockingly, despite what MRAs think, not everything in the world aims to do that. The internet is a public space, treat domain names like shop names, not like private conversations.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 11:04 PM
0

Free speech is first and foremost about ensuring the people can criticise the government and speak out against its actions. The UK has always been willing to curtail free speech in the name of decency or the public good when it is established that curtailing free speech won't harm people's abilities to advocate issues or speak out against the government or aspects of society.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 08:59 PM
-2

It's true, George Washington himself drafted the First Amendment in order to ensure that most sacred of all rights, being able to put terms related to sexual offences in website domain names. What next, not being able to name streets after sex crimes?
/r/MensRights16/01/14 05:23 PM
5

Really? A majority of the pregnancies I know about were "oops" where the female said she was on birth control. Not to mention that something like a third of the cases where a DNA test is given, the presumed father is not. Where do you think the other half of those kids' chromosomes came from? Reproductive deception is a very real issue and much bigger than getting pissy about pronouns. Mmm, yes, 'reproductive deception' certainly is better than a cissexist assumption that is at the basis of a bi…
/r/MensRights12/01/14 10:01 PM
16

Let me guess, this is offensive because it assumes that "she" was at one point a man, which "she" never was despite all the physical evidence to the contrary... Drop the scare-quotes and the "despite all physical evidence" shit, and yes, you have it right. She was never a man, she was merely unfortunate enough to be born with a body that society feels women should not have. Idiots looking for excuses to be offended. As a collective, trans people apologise for being offended at genuinely offensiv…
/r/MensRights12/01/14 05:58 PM
0

I don't see how that isn't the criticism presented. I mean, perhaps it's not presented as politely or with a slightly different focus (primarily on an examination of exactly why those gender roles presented are damaging), but it's the same criticism. I think in a world where a videogame is primarily a commercialised product, no, it isn't the game developers fault, yes, we should vote with our wallets, and yes, create our own games if we wish; though I would point out that criticism and education…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 12:27 AM
-1

Yeah, I got the sense he was one of those people who said controversial things in order to be controversial. I just still don't get what this is a satire of. And no, I don't feel that the video game industry is inherently misogynist, that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to say I think. I'd disagree with saying it's inherently misandric, but at the same times, it definitely has problematic portrayals of traditionally male issues, especially regarding the role of men in warfare. I'm not really …
/r/MensRights11/01/14 12:10 AM
-4

Your explanation I think at least lets me get an idea of what the author was getting at. But. 1) Your right, the delivery is grating. Perhaps it's just his thing to be bigoted. Charming. 2) I'm still not sure of his point. He's saying that women should make more videogames? But he then gives a list of games which women have made (a number of which I actually like a lot). So... women need to make more games? 3) I still don't see the issue with talking to the people in major game studios about the…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 11:42 PM
-9

So this proves... what? Videogames aren't sexist because I hate women? And also I'm a transphobe? But apparently it's satire. I've no real idea what of, but apparently it is satire. Frankly I think all that needs to be said is that this article should be treated with as much respect as you would treat someone who argued that Fight Club isn't a movie, because it breaks the fourth wall, and like, movies just don't do that. Thanks for your high level academic criticism there.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 11:23 PM
-1

We now have a legal system in which the accused gain a presumption of guilt, proportionate to the strength of the uncorroborated "evidence" of the accusations leveled against them. In which case every other legal system in the world apparently does this, because Scotland is the only country with this requirement.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 09:44 PM
-3

Your idea of justice--your "social justice"--is abominable. Throwing someone in prison for a he-said, she-said shitshow farce of a trial based on nothing more than appealing to emotion and taking the word of the accuser as more credible than that of the accused is against everything that modern, civilized justice systems were built upon. You say that as if that's what I support or what this reform is about.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 06:34 PM
2

I don't see the problem here. I know it's fashionable on Reddit to pretend everything not STEM isn't a real subject, but seriously, do we just consider everything to do with art or language, or anything that mentions gender at all, to be a fake subject?
/r/MensRights07/01/14 03:16 PM
-14

denying some accusers a day in court Yeah, that sounds like justice isn't being done to me. Scotland has one of the lowest rape conviction rates in the industrialised world. This reform is not "We'd jail all men accused of rape", it's just recognising that demanding two sources of evidence for certain crimes is an unreasonable standard that results in those crimes being mostly unpunishable.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 01:13 PM
-17

Why? It's a legal requirement only present in Scotland that is recognised by Rape Crisis Scotland, the police, the Crown Office and a High Court judge as preventing justice being done. And other reforms are being proposed to ensure that miscarriages don't occur.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 11:43 AM
-1

It's a real privilege being expected to do all the grocery shopping in a family. Hint hint.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 08:58 PM
1

I dunno, it's the old name traditionally used. I prefer kyriarchy because I do think it better describes the situation.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 03:20 AM
2

Well, yeah, kyriarchy is a third/fourth wave feminist theory, part of intersectionality.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 11:22 PM
-19

Lastly, I would like to add that most of the persons in power in our country is now, in fact, women. Our prime minister is a woman, our minister of finance is a woman, the NHO-leader is a woman, the leader of the national labour-organization is a woman, and the list goes on. It only took this for our society to realize. Sounds like feminism in Norway's been pretty successful! Well done Norway!
/r/MensRights04/01/14 04:27 PM
0

Who do you think has the advantage when it comes to becoming rich? Saying it's 'only' about rich and poor is like saying it's only about who has power and who doesn't have power. Yes, but who do you think finds it easier to get that power?
/r/MensRights04/01/14 04:12 PM
-1

if patriarchy is a system designed to benefit all men at the cost of all women. That's not what patriarchy is. Edit: This deserves a little elaboration. Patriarchy is a part of a wider system in society that creates power structures of various kinds. Rich over poor, men over women, straight over non-straight, white over black, etc. etc.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 03:23 PM
-2

And then when you find someone gender-neutral and all-inclusive, you just dismiss the possibility they are a feminist.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 05:31 PM
-3

Therefore not feminist? I see why you guys dislike feminism now, you've inherently defined feminism as bad.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 01:58 PM
-3

Isn't she? I've only ever seen her referred to as a feminist. Has she ever denied that?
/r/MensRights03/01/14 01:22 AM
-2

It touches on the remarkable achievements of women this year (none of them feminists) Sorry, Malala Yousafzai isn't a feminist?
/r/MensRights02/01/14 10:18 PM
-4

One of the nine values of this site is evidence-based inquiries and solutions. Ah, that'll be why AVfM posted an article that was entirely speculative and entirely without supporting evidence on why people are transgender. http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/malefemale-discrepancies-in-transsexualism/
/r/MensRights31/12/13 11:41 PM
-1

Don't worry, if we all work together maybe men will be the ones expected to forever care for their wives and do all the housework, not for pay, but rather because that's their duty. I had no idea MRAs wanted men's lives to be just like women's in the 1950s!
/r/MensRights31/12/13 06:48 PM
6

Well gee, it's not like feminists have been fighting for more women in engineering positions and to be able to serve in the military, it's not like feminists have fought for women's right to drive in Saudi, it's not like feminists have fought to let women get into positions like landowning farmers.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 10:02 PM
-8

Has your dictionary been vandalised by someone who's put in fake definitions? Because you know all these words, but it's like you don't know what they mean.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 01:21 PM
-13

The example I used are women who see every problem in their life as some evil conspiracy against them by all men and want to fight back by declaring themselves superior to men in every possible way. Yes, those women probably would struggle to survive on their own, because they aren't real and only exist in MRA imagination.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 01:10 PM
-9

I think the kind of women who want to get rid of men to prove how powerful womyn are would be the kinds who are absolutely inept at creating a society. Sooooo, MGTOWs would be wiped out right?
/r/MensRights29/12/13 01:00 PM
-12

But you're definitely not misogynists, you just think women are completely incapable without men!
/r/MensRights29/12/13 11:54 AM
-12

Honestly depends on the size of the store. If, say, Amazon fired all of its male or female employees, I'd be pretty suspicious (surely all of them couldn't be shitty?) On the other hand, if there was just one or two employees of a gender, and they were both fired, that's not much cause for suspicion.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 09:43 PM
-3

Well who can argue with that? I mean, here we have this soldier informing you that women are not in fact a burden on the armed forces, but you disagree, which means its obviously false.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 06:55 PM
-40

Or possibly all the men were just shitty workers.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 06:24 PM
0

Absolutely not, I'm not reading this. Please reflect on what has happened to Iraq in the past that may have resulted in such extreme violence.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 09:52 PM
0

Yes, Muslims, who have always represented the number one terrorist threat in the UK... Oh, wait, no, that was the IRA, white Catholic Irishmen. Huh. But what about in America, where Muslims waged a campaign of racial terror for years... No, that was the KKK. Shit. But then in Burma, where the Muslims are terrorising the poor Buddhists! Wait, no, that's the other way round. It's almost as if terrorist elements are found in all communities. Y'know, it's almost as if decades of colonialism and neo-…
/r/MensRights26/12/13 09:18 PM
0

Yes, first we remove Islam, then we remove that thing responsible for the deaths of over 80 children, Norwegian nationalism. Because clearly Anders Breivik represents all Norwegian nationalists, and clearly a percentage of a percentage of Muslims represent all beliefs. Go ahead and prove yourself though, have a ball.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 08:59 PM
0

That verse proves Islam commands violence in the same way that quoting George Washington saying "Shoot!" proves he wanted a campaign of gun violence against people. The reality is that commandment was revealed in the context of war.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 08:46 PM
-9

I apologise for not taking the time to cross-examine the motives behind the person threatening me, perhaps next time he tries to intimidate me I'll be sure to get a more detailed picture of why exactly he hates me.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 09:49 PM
-8

Unlike you, I actually contacted the police, you seem to have this false notion that being a protected class means that police instantly come to protect you I didn't expect the police to instantly protect me, in fact I knew that the police would almost certainly not protect me, hence why I didn't go to them.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 06:18 PM
-23

You're right, when that person threatened to rape me for being trans, the police instantly burst in, arrested him and gave me a million pounds! Oh, wait, no, instead I just walked away and felt scared.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 03:21 PM
-34

Welcome to our universe traveller! Clearly you come from an entirely different world, because what you describe in no way reflects reality.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 02:14 PM
-6

I would suggest that the reason people are upset that you've attempted to break a tool for reporting rape is it means that rape victims (especially men who may be too embarrassed to publicly admit they were raped) have less ways of getting help.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 06:19 AM
-7

Because the whole point behind Nice Guys is that they think because they're "nice" they should expect a relationship and sex. And then they get all grumpy when girls have sex with people they actually want to have sex with, rather than fucking the Nice Guy just because he spent £X on her.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 09:14 PM
-6

I understand that a "nice guy" is entitled if he thinks he is owed love or sex. You seem to have answered your own question.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 08:48 PM
-1

a good number of British folks who are in the know have said that this is a foothold law with the intent of eventually prohibiting all "pornographic" material from the UK. Oh I see, you're making a fuss over nothing. Okay, that makes sense.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 08:06 AM
-16

You might take this as evidence that this is not a law designed to oppress men.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 07:27 PM
-3

1) When feminists talk about jobs, they're talking about women's economic power in society. This isn't a squirrel, that's literally what almost all feminist theory about economic opportunity is about. A difficult job is not an economically unpowerful job, but a low paid job generally is. 2) A lot of the "worst" jobs have many women! Journalism, waitering, care assistants and housekeepers.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 05:21 PM
-8

Yeah, look at this list of worst paid jobs Waiter £12,117 -0.7 Hairdresser £12,219 -4.4 Bar staff £12,399 +2.0 Kitchen/catering assistant £12,422 -2.7 Leisure attendant £12,585 -3.9 Florist £13,227 -7.1 Sales assistant £13,449 + 7.7 Launderer/dry cleaner £13,479 +1.3 Cashier £13,542 +3.1 Domestic cleaner £14,144 +0.1 These are definitely not jobs that women are more known for doing than men, and these are definitely not jobs that are female dominated! No, in fact, there are no female domestic cl…
/r/MensRights18/11/13 04:49 PM
2

The first thing there which should make gigantic alarm bells ring is, "we just didn't know". I'm sorry, you didn't know? You didn't notice that someone close to you was in the grip of severe, suicidal depression? What does that say about how much attention you paid to their needs, exactly? Very few people realised I was in trouble when I was suicidal, those in the grip of severe depression often don't talk about.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 12:23 PM
-3

You understand that if she can't prove it, that doesn't necessarily mean she was lying?
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:50 PM
-7

Ah yes, and when it comes to false accusation, guilty before proven innocent, I forgot.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 08:02 PM
-11

And you all know she's lying about the DV charge... how?
/r/MensRights10/11/13 05:55 PM
0

You deny that it's possible for someone to use the threat of cutting off financial aid as a means of getting what they want?
/r/MensRights10/11/13 03:40 PM
1

Yes, fuck those feminists who dare to ensure that legal parental surrender can not be used as a threat by men to pressure women into aborting a baby.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 12:46 PM
-28

Meanwhile, MRAs simply claim that gender is inherent, and then deny transgender people's gender identities in favour of judging based on what they assume their genitals are like.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 04:33 PM
7

I'm not sure this is true, since the graph indicates that in 2010, half of the men getting married were over 28 and a half.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 06:07 PM
0

The situation you describe, egging someone on to drink perhaps, and then having consensual sex with them, even if they would have rejected you when sober, might be a sly or bastard act, but it's clearly not rape. It's rape in the law. This is not a principle we only apply to sex, in the UK, it is illegal for a tattooist to give a drunk person a tattoo. Drunk people can't consent, this is clearly acknowledged in law. Do drunk people have responsibility for their actions? Yes. Do sober people have…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 10:15 PM
-1

The fact that MRAs are incapable of recognising that rapists can and do get victims drunk on purpose, and that "normal people" see it as acceptable to use alcohol to improve chances of having sex, and feel the need to pretend the situation you describe is the only one that ever happens is pathetic.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 09:54 PM
-1

That'd be a problem if someone believed that having sex while drunk was the same as being raped but most reasonable people don't; You say this, but still can't see the point behind posters which tell people that having sex with people too drunk to consent is indeed rape.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 06:30 PM
-4

Well it's also pretty normative behaviour for a large percentage of young men and women. I mean God, if everyone who went out to a party, club or bar, had a few drinks and then slept with someone of the opposite sex who had done the same, was in jail, our college campuses would be pretty quiet! I love this logic. "There can't be an epidemic of drunk people being raped, it happens so often!"
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:20 PM
1

Yes, abolishing the draft is good, and the draft is bad. However, the draft is much more a relic of an old era and old values, rather than a symbol of modern day oppression.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 10:02 PM
1

I have seen many prominent MRAs argue that women in the army just lower standards, or are unreliable, or would just get pregnant, or would be distracting, or would make false accusations. I've seen MRAs argue that we shouldn't recruit women because tampons would take up too much room on cargo planes for heaven's sake. And it annoys me that you're framing this as random chance, or as something that inevitably, or at least in a very long time, will happen again. The draft in the Vietnam War made t…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 07:16 PM
-2

The point is that the draft really isn't a massive burden on you, so stop pretending it is a sign of the ultimate oppression of men. The reason women aren't signed up to it is because of A) paternalism and B) because people don't think women should be in the army, a view shared by many MRAs.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 06:58 PM
-7

Yes, the potential horror of a draft that I and probably the majority of Americans would bet a lot of money on never happening again.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 02:22 PM
1

There's quite a bit of research that suggests a two-parent home (not specifically man-woman, mind you) isn't only better, its imperative for the psychological development of the child. So how does this sync up with MRA desire to allow financial abortion?
/r/MensRights12/10/13 10:28 PM
-10

Uh, except how could he have had those children whilst keeping his job? He could only have a full time job and care properly for his children because of the mother.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:33 PM
-10

I don't see why we accept it when they turn around and say "but I chose to be a mother, you must now compensate me because I earn less money due to my OWN CHOICES" I'll agree to this, if you agree that the partner who earns the money (the father) shouldn't get to see his kids. After all, the marriage was a deal, he earned the money, she raised the kids, if she doesn't get any money, why should he get to see the kids?
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:21 PM
0

Sarkeesian never claimed that recording herself playing videogames would solve anything, and neither did she claim that was the point of the fundraiser. She's a critic, she criticises games and you're apparently are incapable of actually dealing with the criticism and such must focus on petty bullshit.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 12:48 AM
0

I have plenty of budget to throw pennies at crows, but I don't. Therefore I'm in league with the crows and seeking to overthrow Obama right? Deductive reasoning, men are logic!
/r/MensRights22/09/13 12:20 AM
1

Using someone else's footage is not recording that footage. It is plagiarizing that footage. It is a good indicator that it was used because Anita doesn't have her own gameplay to offer footage of. Because she did not play the games. Add to that the cropping that she used to obscure the origin of the footage and something is certainly afoot in the state of denmark. Sorry, why is it totally impossible this was just a time and labour saving move?
/r/MensRights22/09/13 12:10 AM
0

Using someone else's footage of a video game, when you have more than enough budget to record your own play, is a good indicator that you have not played the game. No, it's a good indicator that you wanted an easier way of recording the footage. Film critics watch the movies. Book reviewers read the books. Video game critics should probably play through the games. Sarkeesian has not. Because she is a liar and a fraud. You've completely jumped to that conclusion. I've seen video movie reviews whe…
/r/MensRights21/09/13 11:51 PM
-1

Hmm, well, yes, I suppose it is true that I can only take someone's on games seriously when I'm watching them actually play the game. I am totally incapable of trusting someone knows what they're talking about (even when I can hear that they know what they're talking about) and also incapable of believing someone has played a game if I don't have video proof of that fact. (I'm making fun of you, in case you don't get it)
/r/MensRights21/09/13 11:40 PM
-2

Second, her use of the let's play footage on youtube might not be illegal, but it is very dishonest. Ooooh nooo, she legally took footage from Youtube rather than recording the footage herself. Because of this she A) Saved time B) Saved money C) Didn't alter the quality of her videos at all Clearly she is the worst of the worst! So much worse than the group who actually scammed MRAs by creating a "Tropes vs Men in Videogames" fundraiser and ran away with the money.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 11:10 PM
-3

Britain, 1914-18, who do you think did all the industrial jobs when the men went to war?
/r/MensRights18/09/13 02:42 PM
0

A sizable minority of women for instance say they don’t think a man should pay on a first date, but “if he’s offering” very few women will say no. If you want to renounce prostitution, you have to say no every time no matter what bitches! Feel the burn! Doesn't this then make most men johns?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 05:58 PM
-1

The person in the scenario did neither, he kept going. He raped her.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 12:39 PM
3

You know what the proper reaction is to not knowing what they want you to stop doing? To stop it all, and ask what was wrong. To continue on doing what you were doing anyway is never the correct response.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 12:14 PM
-1

What isn't ambiguous is that both "wait" and "stop" are clearly statements of non-consent.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 11:30 AM
1

What the fuck? So Judgybitch feels that "wait - stop - that hurts" is too ambiguous? I have no idea why people claim MRAs need education about consent, clearly you have such fantastic understanding of it /s
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:50 AM
-1

Welp, I guess I just don't exist. And there I was, sure I was playing videogames in the early 2000s, but apparently I just laughing at boys playing them all along.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 08:31 PM
1

So we can't help women because men face problems too. I understand. And instead of advocating we should help men, you advocate we shouldn't help women.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 04:45 PM
1

Yes, shockingly, legislation designed to prevent the groping of women on trains in specific regions should in fact take into consideration the groping of women on trains in specific regions. Do you also think it's outrageous that speeding legislation focuses on speeding but not, say, drunk driving?
/r/MensRights11/09/13 04:20 PM
-4

Well, this isn't in America and this is specifically about incidents in trains, but whatever.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 10:22 PM
-7

Okay, show me these crime statistics that show that men are more likely to be groped on trains.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:10 PM
-11

Do women really feel that much in danger of being assaulted that they feel this is necessary? Hmmm, interesting use of words there, "feel". What if it isn't about what women feel, but rather it's that women are in that much danger of being assaulted.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:57 PM
-4

So your answer to "Women are better than men" is "NUH-UH MEN ARE SO MUCH BETTER" Way to take the moral high ground. Also, transphobia much?
/r/MensRights01/09/13 05:58 PM
-4

f he hears "do me" how will he...? Maybe the sign is therefore saying that men should listen to women.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 07:31 PM
5

Nah, we don't mind. As long as we get to call women "normal people" and men "male-bodied people" from now on. You are in the minority after all.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 07:04 PM
3

From his own Amazon blurb Donovan concludes that The Way of Men is the way of the primal survival gang. The simple, amoral, tactical virtues of the gang define our most basic conception of manliness. Emphasis mine.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:15 PM
2

Cut the shit. Moral agency is making decisions and taking action based on your moral judgements and then being held responsible with regards to those actions. Donovan argues that masculinity is inherently amoral.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 08:55 PM
2

Hmm, nope, he still seems to be fundamentally refuting your argument. I don't even disagree with what I've read so far, but look at this. What about suicide bombers? I’d say that hijacking a plane with a box knife and flying it into a building takes balls of steel. I don’t have to like it, but if I’m being honest with myself, I can’t call those guys unmanly. Okay, so it's pretty clear here that the suicide bombers are manly because they're tough and they fight for their tribe, which is basically…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 08:22 PM
3

Gangsters are status conscious, aggressive, tactically-oriented, ballsy, brother-bonded men’s men. The loner hitmen are portrayed as capable but careful smooth operators who are masters of their dangerous craft. They are not good men, but they are good at doing the kinds of things that have been demanded of men throughout human history. They are not good men, but they are good at being men. From "The Way of Men". I'm curious as to how that fits into your thinking that "manliness" is fundamentall…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 08:12 PM
8

Perhaps provide some sources that define masculinity in your way then.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:52 PM
6

I'm sarcastically saying that no-one credible has ever defined "manhood" as having "an expectation of moral agency."
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:05 PM
4

I assumed it was more about being tough, saving face and beating the shit out of people who "disgraced" you. I'll just go outside and burn my copy of Fight Club and my guide to "Chivalry" as an idea, as well as basically everything ever written on gender, they're clearly all wrong. Also, I guess women are never, ever expected to be pure matrons of virtue, that's just a made up thing.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:54 PM
13

the standards of manhood. Do tell us hun, what are these standards?
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:59 PM
1

Yeah, that's not true.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:21 PM
8

Interestingly though, factually speaking, they're totally right. The supposedly "pro-Femen" article does indeed end with "Can FEMEN just go away now please?" Perhaps you would like to engage with that and acknowledge that the supposed "hypocrisy" here is non-existent?
/r/MensRights26/08/13 07:09 PM
-1

shrug I've seen it used by y'all, that's all I'm saying with regards to that. However, I will point out that reputable studies show that firstly the rate is roughly similar to the accusation rate for other crimes, and that it's been shown that police are too quick to assume an accusation is false, whereas MRAs claim that police are too quick to assume it's true. Why do you make a bigger deal about false rape accusations than false theft accusations or false assault accusations?
/r/MensRights26/08/13 03:01 PM
-3

/mr tends to use the far more dubious studies that give you numbers in the 50-80% range.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 07:15 AM
3

Uh, yes, obviously. It is not at all reasonable to assume that consent to vaginal sex = consent to anal sex.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 04:05 PM
1

You provided such full, detailed answers, really came to the table with an understand of gender roles, objectification, feminist thought as well as your own well-developed theories, listened to my objections, points and questions, answered them competently and I think we've all learned an awful lot.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:37 AM
1

I'm really glad we had this discussion.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:25 AM
0

Yah, sure, I can see no reason why comparing women to beautiful objects (objectifying them if you will) and acting as if they're just things to be admired and saying that they shouldn't be allowed to do actions that you consider to besmirch their beauty would be at all problematic or misogynistic. Fuckface.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:06 AM
0

Yeah, and if I compared men to an excellent tool, say, a bulldozer, that's a complement too right? After all, bulldozers get shit done!
/r/MensRights25/08/13 01:54 AM
-11

That's why at the same time we've got this new crusade against porn The anti-porn campaign is being driven by the Daily Mail (which /mr loves linking to) as part of a social-con drive on the basis of "save the children!"
/r/MensRights25/08/13 12:50 AM
4

n other words, Delhi probably has fewer rapes than most big American cities. Where’s the outrage? Oh, we already have feminism. Time for another Slutwalk. No, it means Delhi had fewer reported rapes than mots big American cities. This is like when people claim that the low divorce rates of the 1950s showed everyone was happy in their marriage.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 03:50 AM
4

I've seen the exact opposite to your anecdote (girls being excluded by boys, still being accepted by some girls).
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:41 AM
0

The only woman who wasn't the Queen on English bank notes was being replaced, so people suggested that maybe we should let some famous women from history get some air time. The Queen doesn't count because she isn't there by merit, but just by being the Queen by birth.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 04:50 PM
-27

Nah, we just think you're really, really funny. Also disgusting.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 11:34 PM
-5

I don't sell anything in supermarkets. Why are you selling porn in supermarkets? Oh piss off, I don't have time for pedantic BS.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 11:31 AM
-7

Because it's porn, why are we selling porn in supermarkets? Why is porn visible to children, (and in my local store, it's clearly visible to children)? Why should people have to look at porn as they shop? Why do we need to sell porn there anyway? What? What "feminist legislation that censors or criminalises male sexuality"?
/r/MensRights16/08/13 10:55 AM
-5

Look up the blog posts on women's mags vs lad's mags. So fine, put bags over women's mags too. feminist legislation that censors or criminalises male sexuality." Like what?
/r/MensRights16/08/13 10:45 AM
-10

Um, it's not the state doing it, it's the Co-op. And perhaps I should rephrase. I don't see how men not having access to softcore pornography in supermarkets matters. At all. It's not a big deal. Who cares.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 10:33 AM
-20

censors or criminalises male sexuality. I don't see how not having access to softcore pornography in supermarkets is "censoring male sexuality". I think men need to get over their penises if they honestly believe that's the case.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 10:15 AM
-1

As I have pointed out before, a meta-study by Philip Rumney found this the police continue to misapply the "no-crime" or "unfounding" criteria. Studies by Kelly et al. (2005), Lea et al. (2003), HMCPSI/HMIC (2002), Harris and Grace (1999), Smith (1989), and others found that police decisions to no-crime were frequently dubious and based entirely on the officer's personal judgement. Rumney notes that some officers seem to "have fixed views and expectations about how genuine rape victims should re…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:02 AM
-5

No-one said it was illegal. However, there are such things as decency and courtesy and reasonableness that should be taken into account.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 07:11 PM
-5

She wrote a response. It wasn't particularly good imo.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 06:01 PM
-7

Atheism+, Skepchick, FtB feminists going all out in attempt to destroy the skeptic movement No, that's certainty right there in the title, certainty that these are not legitimate accusations, but are actually malicious lies.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 04:49 PM
-13

Accusing people (without evidence, mind you) of crimes in a public forum is an invitation to a slander/libel/defamation suit. And so MRAs have taken the just path and have pre-emptively declared that libel has happened, and that these women are definitely lying?
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:53 PM
-11

I really don't think they did. Rebecca Watson just pointed out that it made her uncomfortable, and that, in terms of human decency, you shouldn't do that. The whole dongle thing was just a tweet. People projected onto them this idea that they considered it the Worst Thing Ever.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:40 PM
-14

I'm sorry but that isn't a big deal. None of it was. It really isn't. I was propositioned for sex in high school (I'm a male) and it weirded me out (go ahead, start judging, you won't be the first). They never claimed it was more than it was, they just said what it was. It's not that sexuality should be shunned, but it shouldn't be done in ways that make people uncomfortable, i.e. propositioning someone late at night in an enclosed space. That is not cool. In the same way that you don't go up to…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:30 PM
-14

BUT. If John keeps crying wolf, and he cried wolf in an elevator, he cried wolf in a tech conference, he cried wolf at an atheist conference, and now he's saying this wolf is doing awful awful things.... It wasn't crying wolf. Rebecca Watson really was proposition in an elevator late at night, they really did make a sexual joke in a public space. Also, those were different people. You really shouldn't be allowed to make up charges of serious heinous crimes (serial rape?) to shame others without …
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:19 PM
-13

Forgive me if you consider this too radical an opinion, but, just maybe, the accusations are correct? I'm not saying they are correct, but isn't this something the police should investigate? Or do we just refuse to look into possible crimes now?
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:37 PM
4

Men, at least those who want to be seen as fitting their expectations, are not given the same options to go easy. Then why would they be forgoing university (and thus potentially far higher paying jobs)?
/r/MensRights09/08/13 12:45 PM
0

I have nothing but contempt for someone who belittles the discrimination and suffering that others face. But you just did that! You totally dismissed any problems that woman faced.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 03:24 PM
-1

Well I admit, I don't live the same kind of hardships most MRAs live, for example, I mean, I'm not paying child support, so I'm basically free compared to most of you noble slaves.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 02:52 PM
-3

Um, no. In the same way that the Arab Spring didn't contradict the notion of those people being oppressed by their dictators.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 02:10 AM
1

Except surely a woman could use legal parental surrender? Example: Father wants child, mother doesn't, mother agrees to give birth to child but she and father agree she will have nothing further to do with the child and only the father will raise it.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:34 PM
-5

Raised awareness with whom? Yourselves? Reddit isn't the real world. Feminists do not say that false accusations aren't a real crime. What we say is that you claiming that they are rampant, and that rape accusations are believed too freely, contributes to a problem which already exists, police are assuming and cataloging accusations as false when they should not be.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 03:56 PM
-7

Hmmm, I suppose so, that sounds pretty legit.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 03:31 PM
-4

What have you guys done that could possibly affect this trial?
/r/MensRights05/08/13 02:55 PM
1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is a false equivalency because one does not have a direct or even indirect effect on the other. Yeah, that wasn't my argument at all. My argument was that specifically GWW isn't pro-woman, because she specifically has argued that the treatment of women in Taliban Afghanistan is "female privilege backfiring". http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/when-female-privilege-backfires-2/
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:38 PM
1

But GWW's claim wasn't that Afghanistan didn't need feminism, it's that in Taliban Afghanistan, women still had privilege, that privilege simply backfired. And it still probably wasn't as bad as it was for men. That was her claim http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/when-female-privilege-backfires-2/
/r/MensRights03/08/13 12:40 PM
-19

Defining words to mean what they most often mean when said? Misandry.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 01:31 AM
-8

And to be an individualist without being an anti-feminist. Good thing collectivism is where the morality's at hey-o! Also, I'd argue it's difficult to be pro-women when you think the treatment of women in Taliban Afghanistan is "female privilege backfiring". Masochism? Mental illness? Both.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 12:51 AM
-14

But truth is, it's not the feminists fault Please, go tell Paul Elam that, it'd be nice if he shut the fuck up.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 11:40 PM
-32

It makes me laugh too. Truly committed MRAs hate feminism with a passion, because that's all it is, an anti-feminist movement cloaked in pro-men rhetoric.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 11:11 PM
-4

You blame feminists for suspecting that maybe men's rights activists aren't acting in best faith towards feminists?
/r/MensRights31/07/13 02:12 AM
1

Not a problem, glad I could provide.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 01:41 AM
-6

Okay, handy that you bring this up now, could have done with being in your video, but who needs context? Anyway, it doesn't change his sign.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 12:14 AM
-14

And what about independence from women and society's opinions? I don't know why you mention that, because this man was clearly not independent from women, his message was about women. Actually, the more accurate analogy is him holding up a sign that says "I love gay people!" You MRAs are exceptionally literal, aren't you? You see absolutely no societal context, no deeper meaning, it's absolutely shocking. I was referring here to how uncontroversial his view was if you want help. Try to find an u…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:58 PM
-11

He said nothing about women better "serving" men by being sluts. Read between the lines please. The whole point of the event is that the people there weren't giving a damn about what men thought. They were saying, I don't care if men and society don't like it if I'm a slut! And then this ass turns up all, "It's okay, I prefer you this way!" No. Just, no. Because that's exactly the same as the people who shame women for being sluts, and tell women not to be sluts, it's just the other way round. A…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:48 PM
-16

SoOoOoOo strutting around in lingerie showing off your female sexuality in a public place that is unwanted is different..... how? 1) They were protesting an actual problem, ie being shamed for their sexuality. What was this dude's problem? He didn't have one, he was just an asshole raining on a parade. Your opinion. Okay, imagine you had some former slaves, and they were having a parade to celebrate that, and then a dude came along, and had a sign saying, "Free people are harder workers!" That s…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:38 PM
-27

No. Look, 1) It's not "male sexuality" in abstract that degrades women. It's publicly voicing your sexual opinions where they are not welcome that degrades women. 2) So we're clear, "I love sluts" (coming from a man) is not an appropriate message to display at a SlutWalk. Why not? Because SlutWalks are about women reclaiming their own sexual identities and refusing judgement. Some dude going along and saying, "Sweet, this gives me a boner!" is basically just reasserting the idea that women act f…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:22 PM
0

What is the precise goal of feminism and can it be achieved? Equality between all genders. And yes. If it's possible for the goal of feminism to be achieved, would it obviate the need for the movement (or would the movement adopt a new set of goals)? By the way, when I ask this question, I'm not asking it in the short term (next 100 years)...I'm asking in the LONG term (the next 10,000)... Yes, the movement would end once there wasn't a problem anymore. If it is possible for feminism to achieve …
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:01 PM
9

Nah, I just assume you're one those Redditors who are all, "Science is infinitely superior to culture!". I got that impression because you think Darwin is infinitely superior to any artist I guess, and think he should never be displaced.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:22 PM
9

The Beatles Um, well, yeah, that sounds like a decent idea. They did have a significant impact on music, and music is very important to a lot of people (yeah, sorry to hurt your STEM feelings, but there's more to life than science, culture and art are actually pretty significant). Yeah, put the Beatles on there. I for one think Boudicca should be on a note. That'd be badass.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:45 AM
16

Nightingale has already been on a note, as have other authors. We regularly cycle the people on the notes. I'm sorry if you don't enjoy Austen's books, but she is one of the most famous writers of her time.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:31 AM
-1

The extreme overuse of the word "homophobic." Don't tell me, now they're using it to describe people who are slightly subtle about their homophobia.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 02:32 PM
1

I'm sorry, is your reading comprehension poor? 40 percent of the pay gap to discrimination Nothing in the article originally linked said that there was no discrimination.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 06:43 AM
0

"Wage gap does not exist" <- fact. Not according to your own source, read it again Many experts say some of the gap is likely caused by discrimination, economists generally attribute about 40 percent of the pay gap to discrimination So it still exists.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 06:32 AM
-7

Faulty title. It is not saying the wage gap does not exist, it is saying that the precise statement made about the nature of the wage gap is mostly false. This article features such lines as Many experts say some of the gap is likely caused by discrimination, economists generally attribute about 40 percent of the pay gap to discrimination and Many experts say some of the gap is likely caused by discrimination, and A 2009 analysis by the nonpartisan CONSAD Research Corp. in Pittsburgh concluded t…
/r/MensRights29/07/13 02:54 AM
2

can continue to promote social marxism and homosexual interests above heterosexual interests. lol wut? Bless your little hetero heart, what oppression are those mean gays forcing on you hun?
/r/MensRights28/07/13 03:30 PM
1

Don't even pretend that she's got two female friends who give a crap about an FPS. I have, hmm, let me count, at least 4 female friends who are interested in Call of Duty. Furthermore , if women are so interested in video games then why aren't they making half of them ? I suppose the reason teaching isn't 50% male is because they aren't interested in teaching then? And because it's just a choice by the men, there are absolutely no issues with that? It's an impossibility anyway which makes it a w…
/r/MensRights27/07/13 05:06 PM
-3

Kirk Sneade has self defined as a woman ever since he realised it gave him legal access to the women's changing rooms at the Bloomsbury gym. Kirk wants to make clear his desire to attend all Women's forums to talk about Important Woman Issues such as hair dressing, shopping and walking sassily away from confrontations with your exes. Kirk understands the need for equality. He wants to campaign to encourage women of UCL to wear leggings, jeggings and summer-time denim hot-pants. Truly him being d…
/r/MensRights27/07/13 12:22 PM
-2

If you want women to have access to the same jobs as men, they need to be just as disposable. Something society does not wish to allow. Why would, say, the President need to be disposable? Or a CEO? Or a general? I would suggest you explicitly don't want them to be disposable, they're probably quite irreplaceable a lot of the time. Actually the Sultan was also a slave, at least his mother usually was a slave. Okay, source about the Sultan being a slave please. And his mother being a slave is som…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 10:56 PM
0

Well, if we extend the analogy, those in that narrow pool are the ones who have the most privilege.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 10:15 PM
-2

They have more access to them because men, in general, are disposable. And thus... get the more important jobs? They had access to all the top positions, but only because they were the children of slaves and could be brainwashed through torture and forced marches to be loyal to the Sultan. This is such an inapplicable comparison. The Janissaries weren't a threat, that's the point. I don't see how they compare to the men of today at all. I mean, it's not like the Sultan himself was a Janissary, b…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 10:02 PM
0

A counter-example helps to make the point. Think of gorillas, where there is a silverback who dominates the other male gorillas. Now, imagine someone claiming that male gorillas as a group are privileged because they have sexual access to all females, get to lounge around all day and have the female gorillas feed him, etc. The obvious problem, as even a 9-year-old could spot, is that the silverback is the exception, not the rule. The norm for male gorillas is one of sexless servitude to the trib…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 08:26 PM
1

There is a pressure on men to look and act a certain way, Most definitely. Yes, and there are different pressures on women. These mean that women and men have different issues. Sometimes they have the same issues, but sometimes they're different. This means help needs to be specialised. MRAs seem to be under the opinion that anything helping women is by definition harming men.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 02:55 PM
1

Different pressures. The pressure on women to look a certain way, the pressure on men not to speak of their emotions, the dismissal of women's desires, the pressure on men to work. Shockingly, sometimes the world is a little more nuanced than "People get sad".
/r/MensRights26/07/13 02:29 PM
1

It's not a zero-sum game. It's an issue for men and for women, because men and women get suicidal for different reasons.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 02:00 PM
-11

Apparently it's the idea that the world can actually be perfect for each individual residing on this planet. It's the idea we should try for that. The point is that if %99 of your customers are male Which they aren't, but let's ignore that. Sarkeesian isn't saying that there aren't women in gaming. Sarkeesian is saying that the women in gaming are invariably cliched, misogynistic, traditional portrayals. And that's how it is for everyone, and the only group who have a little bit more freedom in …
/r/MensRights26/07/13 04:59 AM
-9

I think it most definitely is talking about right now. It puts Leslie Benzies at the top of the list because of the work he has done now for the Xbox 360. Notch is listed. In the grand schemes, are there more important people in gaming? For sure, designers of Atari games, designers of NES games. But right now, Notch is very important. Edit: Look, "most important people in games" is present tense. It implies "The people to watch, or who's works and consequences we should watch".
/r/MensRights26/07/13 04:46 AM
-24

1) If we're talking right now, yeah, possibly Sarkeesian is more important than Carmack. id is starting to wane, and graphics and technology are taking a backseat to discussions about things like social justice and inclusivity. Look at the text in the image. Carmack's is talking exclusively about RAGE, and Sarkeesians is about the Tropes Vs Women in Gaming (their respective current projects). I'd argue the latter got people talking far more. 2) Apparently bitching about other people's work is mo…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 03:52 AM
1

I thought he meant Medical Officer.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 02:46 AM
0

Her MO speaks to you about her? That seems odd.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:09 AM
1

Look, while I agree that it should be rape, let's not overstate and say "therefore it's legal". It's a different crime.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 03:02 PM
3

the fact that rape of men isn't even illegal in many western nations, In which countries isn't it illegal?
/r/MensRights25/07/13 12:56 PM
8

1) Sorry, Jane Austen is "relatively unknown"? She's one of the most famous authors of her times, probably the most famous female author of her time. 2) They cycle the figures on the banknotes all the time, and have had artists and writers on them before. Shocking as it may be to Reddit's STEM fetishists, even Darwin has to move on. 3) The reason the queen doesn't count is because she isn't on there out of merit, but out of just being the queen. 4) Elizabeth Fry (the woman on the £5 note) is bei…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 10:07 AM
-33

Acknowledging that rapists get people drunk in order to have sex with them =/= denying that women get drunk of their own volition.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 05:02 PM
-54

Illuminate me as to the meaning and context I'm missing here. This isn't in the weird sarcastic bit of the article (something Elam loves doing), it's afterwards. And then when referencing the results, he puts "rape victims" in scare quotes. What is he meaning if not that the question doesn't show if you've been raped or not?
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:26 PM
-61

Read the article wherein Elam claims this question “Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?” Doesn't illustrate a rape scenario.. Then see the positive feedback article is getting.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:09 PM
-110

Have you ever deliberately got someone drunk and high in order to fuck them, even though you know they would say no ordinarily? Yeah, that's totally not rape, you're just a swell guy utilising the resources at your disposal. -MRM
/r/MensRights24/07/13 03:52 PM
-1

Why the fuck is this upvoted? "Camel jockeys"? Really? And then /mr says they have no idea why people accuse you guys of racism.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:46 AM
-2

Giving a BPD a chance is like inviting them to inspect your life so they can decide if they want to destroy it. Where is the percentage? Like the whole Marriage thing, the odds of, and effects of, a disatrous outcome are so huge, why take the chance? Do all BPD's have a golden vagina or something? Are they all Heiresses? They're still humans asshole, and shockingly, you might quite like that human who just happens to have a mental illness. You might get to know them, and, Heavens above, figure t…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 01:38 AM
1

You want it to come down to one word against another with the assumption of guilt. No I don't. How can you in good conscience support putting men in jail on a word alone? I don't.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:34 PM
-5

If the legal system is failing to do it's job, achieve justice and protect the innocent, it needs to be re-examined. That is exactly what's happening here.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 06:05 PM
2

I take it you don't appreciate that footage of games from let's plays is fair use.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 01:20 PM
-19

You're clearly very stupid. Sarkeesian said she would do something for 6K. People gave her much more. She did/is doing the thing she said. Those guys stole money.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 07:01 PM
-10

What the fuck? Thank you for so ably representing the men's rights movement, what a lovely ambassador.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 06:45 PM
-10

Because she actually did what she said she would, as opposed to stealing.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 05:59 PM
-12

Yes. And then ran away with the money. That's the important bit.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 04:37 PM
-9

http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/13224/article/the-mystery-and-fraud-of-tropes-vs-men-in-videogames/
/r/MensRights20/07/13 03:47 PM
-31

Which is still better than the MRAs who set up a Tropes Vs Men series on Indiegogo who literally took the money and ran away.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 03:25 PM
1

Don't be dense. People like Elam, people who held Elam's attitude. It's like if a gay person who got beaten up gets angry at, say, Rush Limbaugh for holding and promoting the same values as the thugs who beat them up.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 07:43 AM
3

You know someone who we have no fucking idea if she has BPD or not? Jodi Arias.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 03:27 AM
4

Go to the link. At the very top Definition: Acquaintance assault involves coercive sexual activities that occur against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, or fear of bodily injury. These sexual activities are imposed upon them by someone they know (a friend, date, acquaintance, etc.).
/r/MensRights20/07/13 01:46 AM
-2

Torture for eternity.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 01:35 AM
2

Yes. Because BPD's are positively famous for being unable to run the Long Game, telling people what they want to hear. Maybe if people gave them a chance. Maybe if people would refer to them as human beings as opposed to classifying them entirely by their illnesses. Maybe if people treat them like lepers in the first century. Like Paul, I am not saying it cannot be fixed. But the odds of it are vanishingly small, and you're better off finding greener pastures. If you're family, you can't do that…
/r/MensRights20/07/13 01:21 AM
2

I can only speak from the experience I have had with my mother, but so far, talking therapy and medication (like most mental illnesses I suppose). Her mental health has increased dramatically because of it. It's slow, and hasn't been helped by people like Elam who declared her a lost cause, but it has worked.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 12:42 AM
-12

shrug I figured his favourite lap dog would have a few words to say in his defence, you certainly did on the rape nullification issue.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 12:21 AM
-4

You're avoiding the question, perhaps showing an inability to answer? This particular issue inflames me because my mother has BPD. Defend Elam's hate speech please.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 10:29 PM
1

What is also unethical of Elam is the constant dehumanisation of people with BPD (borderline is not a noun, a person with cancer is not a cancer, nor is someone with depression a depression) and him spinning the narrative that they are evil people totally in control of their actions. And I don't think there's anything wrong with warning people that people with BPD have certain needs, what kind of thing to expect, etc., but to tell people to deprive people with BPD of social contact, to make them…
/r/MensRights19/07/13 10:18 PM
2

I don't know if you know any borderlines My mother has BPD, so I have quite a lot of experience with it, I would wager far more than you, and I have suffered first-hand the consequences of her actions. And it is entirely treatable. My mother's health has improved tremendously through therapy. People like Elam who declared her untreatable and passed her on, made her worse. It is not an exaggeration to say that Elam was one who propagated narratives of the kind that directly made the lives of peop…
/r/MensRights19/07/13 10:07 PM
-8

Hey GWW, care to comment on Elam calling people with BPD "crazy assholes", his false claim that "In short, they have an intractable condition that is impervious to treatment of any kind. They cannot be helped near as much as they can be avoided for the sake of helping others." and his advocating clinical abuse against them "You don’t treat borderlines, you ignore them. And that, in the broader sense, is also indirect professional advice when it comes to anyone with the misfortune to find themsel…
/r/MensRights19/07/13 09:05 PM
-6

Oh, and if she fucks up and can't provide properly for that child, that child has a right to a decent stnadard of living - in some other family. And if the child doesn't want to leave? At what point does it become unreasonable for the father to step up?
/r/MensRights19/07/13 04:45 PM
-15

Because they're not equivalent, like, at all. If you get an abortion, there is no child. If you get an abortion, there is still a child, and then the mother is left on her own to look after that child (and you MRAs just lurv to tell us how single mothers are the cause of all lifes problems).
/r/MensRights19/07/13 12:47 PM
1

But sexism is a word without meaning. Bigotry against someone based on their gender. It literally could not be simpler.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 12:36 PM
1

Unfair or unjust discrimination based on sex. What's your hope here? To prove sexism doesn't exist? But what does that do to misandry? Go argue against women voting again Demonspawn, it's so much easier to dismiss you when you're being semi-intelligible.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 04:21 AM
1

No, obviously not. You're playing along with Demonspawn's weirdass game?
/r/MensRights19/07/13 02:20 AM
2

Easy. The man isn't discriminating based on sex, he's discriminating based on ability to give birth. So I presume he also would not have sex with infertile women, but would have sex with pre-op trans men (who can give birth). Bless your heart Demonspawn, you were convinced you were going to take the social justice world by storm!
/r/MensRights18/07/13 11:14 PM
5

Demonspawn, this is one of the least sensical things you've ever said. Now define "Sexist" in such a way that a man who wants to have a baby discriminates against having sex with other men is not included in the definition. Um, what definition of sexism would ever include a man like that?
/r/MensRights18/07/13 08:04 PM
1

Why are toilets male and female? Because people aren't comfortable shitting in front of the other gender. Why are sports competitions divided by gender? Because the two sexes are too different physically. This is also why we have weight categories in boxing. Why are women only clubs not despised as sexist? Because many were created firstly because women weren't allowed into men's clubs, and secondly because women live in a culture where they are judged whenever they display their bodies (for an …
/r/MensRights18/07/13 12:44 PM
0

Well, the point is that sometimes our society doesn't want to punish rapists. It depends the circumstances of the rape, who got raped, who did the raping, that kind of thing.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 06:57 PM
1

Yeah, but I don't see how it affects what I said.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 02:53 PM
0

...so?
/r/MensRights17/07/13 02:37 PM
-1

But, because rapists don't look like what we think they look like, certain attitudes or practices may be making it easier for them. We can explore these without blaming the majority of men (who aren't rapists-in-waiting), and hopefully make some improvements. You've just literally described rape culture, so you know. No-one claims rape culture is anything near so simplistic as "all men are rapists" or "our society doesn't want to punish rapists"
/r/MensRights17/07/13 12:34 PM
0

That's why people were outraged that Faith, the protagonist of Mirror's Edge was female and could get hurt! Wait, no they didn't. What about Metroid? People hate that a woman can get hurt in that! Wait, no they don't. Ahah! Remember Me! People were outra... No, no they weren't. Mass Effect? Oblivion? Fallout? Hmm, nope, no-one cared about the female protagonist getting hurt... Bayonetta? Dragon Age? Skyrim? Left 4 Dead? Portal? Nope, not in them either... But I'm sure GTA 5 will be the exception…
/r/MensRights17/07/13 01:37 AM
1

What's that? I can't hear you over the massive hypocrisy! You want feminists to band together and criticise the old second-wave feminists? We did! It's called the third wave! When are you gonna criticise Elam for writing this http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/borderline-personality-disorder-sick-or-just-crazy-asshole/?
/r/MensRights16/07/13 10:23 PM
1

They don't represent me specifically, but feel free to cite the people you listen to, I'd be surprised if they weren't covered by the AVfM/Farrell umbrella.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 10:03 PM
1

One dude: literally the entire movement perfectly representing every single MRA who has ever lived. When that one dude is, say, Paul Elam, GWW or Warren Farrel, who lead the movement and who's words are what the movement is based on, yes, they represent a lot of MRAs.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 09:53 PM
-3

It isn't a representative of feminism because it's generally viewed that the moderators are basically just MRAs and the subreddit has been taken over by MRAs and anti-feminists.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 08:49 PM
0

Sorry, toxic masculinity has nothing to do with autism. Furthermore, I actually provided an article in which Elam called people with BPD "crazy assholes".
/r/MensRights15/07/13 10:15 PM
1

Hmmm, I wonder who you're talking about, because as far as I can tell, MRAs complain (but don't do) more than anyone! Yet, they spend their time complaining about things like how unfair it is that someone suggested that people aren't that familiar with consent, and we should teach consent.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 07:18 PM
-3

What? What point are you making? You were complaining that adult pornography is within the reach of children, and cite Twilight, which is neither for adults, nor pornography.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 04:48 PM
-4

So? In my local paper shop, porn magazines are sold a few shelves above childrens magazines. Also, Twilight is written for teenagers.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 04:09 PM
1

No, that's not me.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 03:29 PM
-3

Well, it's nice of you not to claim that trans people have privilege over cis people, I have seen that claimed here before.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 11:40 PM
0

Yes, as a transgender woman, I am shockingly privileged. Men prostrate themselves before me so I need not walk in puddles, as opposed to threaten to rape me. Or is it the other way round.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 11:17 PM
-14

Well, I certainly prefer that to the MRA logic of "their all crazy bitches". Sorry, that's a strawman, I believe Paul Elam's exact words were "crazy asshole"
/r/MensRights14/07/13 09:18 PM
-7

One of these days it might occur to you that the reason we find many reasons to complain is because, wait for it, we have many reasons to complain.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 06:47 PM
-30

Woah, woah, woah, woah, are you saying that in this world strictly governed by gender roles and expectations, women (who are expected to do the household chores) do the shopping? Fetch me the fainting coach, truly we now live in a post-gender society.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 10:29 AM
1

I've seen no figures on the conviction rate for false accusations, you haven't provided any. The fact that you refuse to provide any doesn't make my argument absurd, it makes your fundamentally flawed.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 11:17 AM
1

So much for "mathematically proven". Your comment is the equivalent of me saying, "In the case of getting pricked by a needle you get HIV, and then you're definitely going to die as HIV is incurable. Therefore, getting pricked by a needle is worse than getting stabbed by a knife, since the latter might not kill you." I have made the assumption that a needle will always give you HIV. You have made the assumption that a false accusation will send you to prison. So much for logic and reason.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 11:53 PM
1

So, every false rape claim hase 1/3rd of a rape attached to it! It's a crime that includes rape as punishment when it is carried out. However, since rapists tend to get targeted in prison, that rate is actually much higher! No. First prove to me that every false claim results in being sent to jail, then your statistic is accurate. It might be the case that every false claim that results in prison time gives you a "1/3rd of a rape", but what if only 0.1% of false claims send the person to jail?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 11:23 PM
-3

If a man gets pregnant, he's totally free to get an abortion. I'm not even being sarcastic, since men do get pregnant.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 11:10 PM
1

Thank you for engaging with me with good faith. I admit I haven't spent a lot of time looking at COTWA, but it has always seemed to me to be fairly unobjectionable as MRA sites go. I'm glad we could reach some kind of point in our conversation.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:33 PM
3

http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hors/hors293.pdf (I presume we have a reasonable amount of trust for the British Home Office here) The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurr…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 03:53 PM
3

It is these researches I am asking you to refute Foubert, J.D., Godin, E. E., Tatum, J. L. (2010). In their own words: Sophomore college men describe attitude and behavior changes resulting from a rape prevention program 2 years after their participation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(12), 2237-2257. Lisak, D. & Miller, P. (2002). Repeat rape and multiple offending among undetected rapists. Violence and Victims, 17, 73-84. and Foubert, J. D. et. al. (2010)
/r/MensRights11/07/13 03:36 PM
2

they need to be taught what rape really is, and isn't. This raises an interesting point, and you are the best person to ask. Of the many false accusers you have catalogued and are aware of, how many are motivated by malice, and how many make accusations out of a misguided, but earnest, belief that what they experienced was rape?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 03:26 PM
4

http://www.sparksummit.com/2013/04/10/research-blog-teaching-men-rape-prevention-actually-works/ Read and check the cited studies.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 03:16 PM
1

It is law enforcements job to believe everything is false until they can prove guilt... I think that you are forgetting that is the nature of our justice system, and that no one should have to live under assumption. That's fucking stupid and a total misinterpretation of law enforcements job. No, the police aren't meant to assume every report is false, if that was the case they wouldn't investigate anything and arrest all people reporting crimes. They are meant to not assume the accused is guilty…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 03:05 PM
1

Personally, I completely understand why, when your attempt to raise awareness of false rape accusations (not something I disagree with in principle) undermines and mocks successful rape prevention campaigns and perpetuate myths that contribute to the culture in which police consistently assume that entirely valid accusations are false, people would be angry about the Edmonton posters.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 02:39 PM
-10

Do you really believe that "no" only has one meaning and it's completely isolated from context? Unless there is another safeword in play, yes. Let's talk in a legal context, because that's what Farrell is doing. A person who disregards consent because they assume it's there anyway, and someone who assumes consent because they want consent look identical. If you want to differentiate yourself from a heartless rapist, get verbal consent. If you want to roleplay a rape scenario, negotiate consent b…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 03:59 PM
-26

Warren Farrell was on the board of NOW. I see that as making him a prominent feminist. And is no longer. At best he was a prominent feminist. Now for the rape apologia It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy. (p315 of "The Myth of M…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 02:56 PM
-45

Warren Farrell is not a prominent feminist, he is largely disgraced in feminist circles for his rape and incest apologia.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 01:58 PM
-3

I suppose a transgender person would also be irrational and privileged if they got scared and nervous when someone shouted at them?
/r/MensRights05/07/13 04:18 PM
-48

Reasonable people don't shout abuse at clearly scared people.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 12:58 PM
-65

None of your examples have anything to do with this case. The woman didn't false accuse this guy of rape, she didn't try to kill him, she was just scared. This is a demonstration of the lack of privilege women have, that they are scared when they are approached by strange men in the street.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 12:37 PM
-1

What the fuck is wrong with the men's rights movement. I found my answer. Everything is fucking wrong with the men's rights movement.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 08:36 PM
-34

Like the assertion that all men are guilty of original sin while all women are born sublime and remain that way no matter what decisions they make? Like that? I don't say that. Hate like asserting that no women are altruistic or have tech skills. Hate is when you provide unverifiable and baseless "criticism". E.G. "black people are shady", "Asian people are bad drivers", "gay people are over-sensitive", "men are violent", "women are selfish".
/r/MensRights04/07/13 08:06 PM
2

She's literally arguing that the systems put in place by the Taliban were justified. In Afghanistan today, a woman with a job (a job she doesn’t need because under Islamic law she has an entitlement to be supported by her husband, father or son) is not just taking that job from a man, she’s taking food out of the mouths of that man’s family. If she takes a safe, easy job (as women are wont to do), then the man she displaces will have to take a more dangerous one. If he’s killed, she’s taken the …
/r/MensRights04/07/13 07:55 PM
-64

I'm a she thank you very much. And pardon me for thinking social justice movements might want to excise hate from their ranks.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 07:45 PM
-102

In other news, MRM denies allegations of misogyny.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 07:32 PM
3

Look up the selling of daughters in India typhonblue. Look up women in Saudi not being allowed to leave the house without men. Look up women being killed for having jobs in Taliban Afghanistan (and then go talk to GWW about that, she seems to under the impression that the Taliban were alright for women http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/when-female-privilege-backfires-2/)
/r/MensRights04/07/13 05:41 PM
-3

No, don't be dense. They're saying that a more representative government is better.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 11:33 AM
0

You're right of course. FGM is a violation of a babies bodily integrity to appease ancient notions of religion and beauty that serves no legitimate purpose and cannot be defended. MGM is . . . um . . . widely accepted so it's ok. FGM also causes serious lasting harm in most cases, and can often cause death. I suspect you're misinterpreting this. For the individual it is likely better to be raped once than to be falsely accused successfully and have your life ruined (5-10 years gone, permanent re…
/r/MensRights02/07/13 08:31 PM
0

MGM is wrong: OMG FGM is soooo much worse. Why waste time on MGM while FGM is still a problem? Correction: You claim that MGM is as bad as FGM. I say that while I do think that circumcision should not be carried out on children, comparing it to FGM trivialises FGM. False rape accusations are too common: OMG actual rapes are sooo much worse. Why waste time of false accusations when actual rapes are still a problem? Correction: You claim false rape accusations are a more serious problem than rape …
/r/MensRights02/07/13 08:01 PM
0

What the fuck is Michelle Obama doing? It's well known that you can only focus on one global issue at a time! Geez, we can't help Syria and do this! How selfish you are for highlighting an issue that is less well known! /s.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 07:00 PM
0

a book about a boy who feels feelings So? Boys can only read books about action or what? What would you have boys read?
/r/MensRights02/07/13 03:41 PM
1

The books they get exposed to are the aforementioned boring girl books The books and plays we read in school these past two years - MacBeth, The Crucible, Passing Places, Equus, Of Mice And Men and Lord Of The Flies. Which of those are "boring girl books"?
/r/MensRights02/07/13 03:11 PM
1

Hello there! I had no idea I was actually two people, the things you learn every day.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 11:42 AM
1

I answered that question. No-one deserves less rights. See my post Well, everyone deserves the same human rights
/r/MensRights30/06/13 02:08 AM
0

I skipped the video because seriously JtO can tallllllllllllk, but the question is in the description: Is there any group of people who do not deserve the same human rights as everybody else? If so, who are they? Okay, well, slightly oddly worded question. "Deserve"? Well, everyone deserves the same human rights, however sometimes human rights must be restricted for reasons that have nothing to do with what the person "deserves", but rather for reasons of what is in the best interests of that pe…
/r/MensRights30/06/13 01:03 AM
-13

Yes, but using the very oldest surveys with the smallest sample sizes and least scrutable methods. Scientific! Meanwhile you happily ignore the lovely metastudy I found for you.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 05:45 PM
-13

Yet the link above is happy to cite that study that found a 60% false accusation rate. Hmm, could it be that MRAs pick and choose statistics to suit their pre-conceived beliefs? Besides, even if you can't claim about how many there are, they do show that the police have more of a problem with declaring legitimate, or at least not provably false, claims false, than they do with believing every claim that comes there way, despite MRA rhetoric.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 05:34 PM
-18

Once feminists realize that they can't ignore the data refuting the 2% false rape allegation statistic they'll simply claim that women make false claims because patriarchy. What data refuting it? How about you start presenting the data that refutes it, because I can present the data that upholds it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape Note that the largest studies and most recent studies (the CPS's study, the British Home Office study, the Victoria study) all found a number betw…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 05:24 PM
-8

Maybe I just want to stay in bed with my bf and cuddle or whatever? Maybe we're a couple that shares the same bed? Why do these things invalidate my non-consent?
/r/MensRights27/06/13 01:06 PM
0

That's not what culture of violence means.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 07:13 AM
-4

If you thought that that was my argument here, you're clearly too ignorant and incapable to argue about this. Hint, I don't think you should be allowed to perform circumcision on non-consenting children.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:21 PM
-5

I don't even know what to say to this stupidity or ignorance... Circumcision is perfectly legal and carried out by doctors or sanctioned, experienced professionals, usually people like Rabbis, in a clean and sterile environment. Why would there be a culture of violence? Why would anyone threaten someone with violence to cover up a perfectly legal circumcision. The phoneline is to help people who can't report female genital mutilation to the police because they are scared or trapped in an abusive…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 07:45 PM
-11

Mh... Intersting... Let's spin this around: "There is also a huge pressure within these communities to keep quiet about male genital mutilation, with some people even being threatened with violence if they speak out." Sounds familiar? No, doesn't sound familiar at all, there's no culture of violence and silence around circumcision. Therefore there is no need for a special phoneline for it. GO FUCK YOURSELVES, YOU FUCKING FASCISTS! HELPING LITTLE GIRLS? FASCISM! MISANDRY!
/r/MensRights25/06/13 07:27 PM
-5

manginas I can tell you exactly how privileged you are. Privileged enough that implying people you don't like aren't the same sex as you is a massive insult.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:58 PM
-14

But, those are perfectly reasonable ideas, and I believe Norway had (still has?) a male nursing quota.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 05:38 PM
1

To be perfectly honest with you, maybe you have a mental disorder. Uh, fuck you? "Not happy with your marriage? Must be mentally ill!" Maybe, just maybe, the high rate of divorces that happen out of boredom are indicative of there being something wrong with the current state of women - not necessarily their own fault, but nevertheless they're just not okay. And feminism, our entire Eat Pray Love and Sex and the City culture, is just blithely yelling, "you go girl! Or maybe it's something wrong w…
/r/MensRights21/06/13 02:53 PM
0

You - the woman, the wife - should find something to do with yourself even if you're married to a rock. Why? Why should the man be allowed to just get away with being "a rock" whilst I have to be the quiet, perfect wife, not allowed to complain. What do you think being bored with a relationship means? It doesn't just mean I'm bored whilst also being in a relationship, it's not like, "Man, I've nothing to read, I'm gonna divorce my husband!" it mean "I don't love this person, I don't want to live…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:36 PM
-1

Surely it's just as selfish to insist that the wife does not get a divorce for her sake, because you don't want to get hurt? And do you really think you'll enjoy being a marriage that one party does not want to be in? And don't you think it's as abusive and controlling as fuck to use the children as a guilt trip to prevent someone from leaving? You're worst nightmare is having a wife who wants to be happy, and the thought that you can't just rope someone into a marriage, and then neglect them.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 06:24 PM
0

Okay, ignoring your pseudo-spiritual metaphor bullshit, here's the facts. What is a boring marriage? Well, to answer that, what makes marriage interesting? 1) Love 2) Friendship Okay, if those two things don't exist, then that's a boring marriage. So saying your marriage is boring is really no different than saying your marriage is loveless, or you can't connect to your partner. Why is it bad to stay in that marriage anyway? It's bad for you because you're stuck in a loveless relationship, you'r…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:03 PM
1

Yes, if you're bored, you should do stuff. Such as, stop doing things that make you bored. Such as, leave your boring loveless marriage.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 04:47 PM
3

1) Both MtF and transgendered are considered sub-optimal terms. MtF because, at least for me, it implies I was male, I was never male, and transgendered because words don't work like that, you don't say someone is gayed, or blacked. Transgendered is like something has been done to me, I have been made transgender. 2) You're talking about TERFs, or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, who are considered extremists within the feminist movement (though you could argue they're the least extreme at …
/r/MensRights19/06/13 10:09 PM
-2

Honey, I'll start with "crit·i·cize". Please get it right. I'm in the UK. Criticise. I'm a woman and transgender. I knew it wasn't just you having actually figured that out, you really are a transphobe after all.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 06:56 PM
-2

Point out my illogic and incorrect facts if you're going to criticise.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 06:45 PM
-8

Clearly MRAs not only don't understand what being a housewife/husband entails, they also don't understand raising kids!
/r/MensRights19/06/13 06:29 PM
-13

Dickhead, /r/theredpill is over there.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:53 PM
-13

No, for fuck's sake, I didn't actually support this idea, this was me saying that the idea that marriage is not a two way partnership, and the idea that the two partners do not enable each other to do what they do leads to the kind of thinking where the earner would keep all the money, but the carer would keep the kid.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:41 PM
-10

You don't think men get bored? Yes, and if they do, and they can't fix the marriage, I think they should get divorced, not shut up and just deal with being bored. And you feminists must have no idea about what it's like to work for a living, do you? You think you've got the most difficult job on the planet, being a mother. Well, according to MRAs, you do it because women force you to so that you can marry them so you can be a slave to child support. Who here has the realistic view of reality aga…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:27 PM
-17

Obviously it's not. It's not a "sacrifice" to date relatively older rich men and never bother getting a real job. That's the woman undermining her career herself, by choosing to take an easier way out, to live the good life with lots of leisure time, basking in her kids' love. You MRAs have really no idea what it's like to be a housewife, do you? Look, let's presume the father wanted a child. The only reason he got to have a child as well as a be rich is because someone was willing to sacrifice …
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:17 PM
-20

Of course she is - because courts give her custody in most cases - and she knows this. Because laws give her maternity leave. Because men are forced to hand their money over to women. Even in a cohabiting relationship the woman is usually the primary carer. If kids still need all of that then it should be a mother's responsibility not to divorce out of boredom. Being stuck in an unhappy household is bad for the kid. Bottom line: fathers don't need mothers deciding on their behalf what kind of re…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 04:51 PM
-20

Yeah... because they always get custody. Mothers, even in cohabiting relationships, are usually the primary carers. Then let him take care of them 50% of the time. By default? Obviously expecting the person to continue contributing their half to the marriage, AFTER the marriage is over is absolutely ridiculous... but you apparently only think that when the gender of the person in question starts with an "F". Fine, but the money-earner doesn't get to see the kids anymore. Because he could only ha…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 04:02 PM
-49

<50% custody for no real reason The mother is generally the primary carer. makes him pay child support for having the privilege of not having his kids around Because the kids still need support even if they aren't with him all the time, they are still his children and he still has responsibility. Then there's alimony which is just WTF...paying, because, uh, she's female I guess. Because often in a marriage, one partner (usually a woman) sacrifices a career to support the other partner's (usually…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 03:11 PM
-12

I bet though there will be some feminist explanation for this. Yes, there is. The marriage was no longer emotionally satisfying and she felt neglected, so she divorced so she could move on into a hopefully happier life. It's remarkably simple.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 02:46 PM
1

If we interpret "rich" as "middle class", then it's entirely possible to be both, though I wouldn't use the needlessly misogynistic and male gender role reinforcing language of "pussy".
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:53 PM
1

According to them , everyone here a week whiney loser who cries about sexism that isn't real because they can't get laid. They are also rich white men who hate women and want them to stay in the kitchen so they can keep their privileges. MRAs can't be both?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 06:59 PM
0

Yes, buying a diamond so that you please a woman is exactly like being a slave.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:45 AM
1

The difference between the behavior among men and among women is that the men are getting them for the women. The women lust for them and don't care how they get them or who from or what it costs. So the women want the diamonds and the men are willing to buy the diamonds? I don't understand how the men are morally superior here.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:30 AM
1

I didn't deny that, do you see me denying that? Because I didn't May I suggest that the women who like diamonds aren't going, "I'M DRINKING THE AFRICAN CHILD SOLDIERS TEARS AS I AM GIVEN THIS DIAMOND AND I LOVE IT", most of them, like most people, probably aren't aware of the cost, or don't think about it. Presumably just like the men. Isn't it equally immoral of men to perpetuate the suffering of others so that they can use diamonds to curry favour with women? What's needed is awareness of the …
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:17 AM
1

Jesus Christ, I didn't realise I'd started a conversation with some kind of misogynist hermit. Okay, fine, but a lot of men do eat bananas (and it isn't true about all food, buy fairtrade, buy homegrown, look into where the food is sourced. Or do you just not care enough to do that?), and buy fancy electrical goods made with rare metals from African mines, or buy jewelery, or rugs, or fancy trainers. And what of the parents who buy their kids the toys? Are they immoral scum? You're shockinly mis…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:07 AM
1

Sure, but you don't need to eat bananas, and it's certainly true that banana growers often work in absolutely awful conditions. What about coffee or chocolate? You certainly don't need those things. Kids enjoy toys, do you accuse children of the same immorality as women, considering the conditions toy workers often work in? What about rugs? Do you own a rug or carpet?
/r/MensRights15/06/13 09:50 AM
-1

Ever owned an iPhone? Nice clothes, something from Nike or whatever? Eaten bananas?
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:16 PM
-1

It tells you what? That women enjoy pretty status symbols (much like men do, only men enjoy different kinds of pretty status symbols) that happen to be gained in horrible ways (like many products enjoyed by men and women)?
/r/MensRights14/06/13 05:33 PM
2

Sorry, you clearly have poor reading comprehension The only actual statistics provided have to do with incarceration rates and we all know who has it worst there. You claim, but if you read the article Of that group, 51% of LGB respondents said they had been stopped by police. A third of those stopped say they had also been physically harassed. Of the 69 transgender respondents 59% had ben stopped by police and nearly half reported being physically harassed. 28% of respondents who were not LGBTQ…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 05:16 PM
2

Yes, questioning bullshit claims that the kind of profiling police run on everyone being somehow "worse" for trans people because statistics show trans people are more likely to be stopped by police.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 05:06 PM
6

Do they look real close for the adam's apple or what's the deal? You're clearly incredibly naive if you have no idea how you can tell if a trans person isn't passing. Look at the second link, it's a link to a story about a survey that was done that backs up what I was saying. This is so typical of the MRM, "Wah wah wah, someone who isn't a cis male can't be oppressed, that would undermine our rhetoric of being the biggest victims of everything!"
/r/MensRights14/06/13 04:50 PM
-2

No-one wants to make looking at a woman's butt illegal, but it is fucking rude and not suitable for a workplace, and thus it is entirely appropriate to tell people to not do it.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 04:37 PM
3

They were having a big argument and one of them got arrested for domestic violence. Well, did they commit domestic violence? Like I am going to bother discussing the tiny details of a specific case with a feminist who'll just run away anyway as soon as the conversation gets going. What a massive waste of time that would be. "You feminists call anything rape!" "But this was rape" "That doesn't matter 'cause you'd call it rape anyway!" It's pretty difficult to have a conversation with someone who …
/r/MensRights14/06/13 04:20 PM
2

She was fucking unconscious http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/sports/high-school-football-rape-case-unfolds-online-and-divides-steubenville-ohio.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& She woke up in a strange house, naked, after having blacked out http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/17/justice/ohio-steubenville-case
/r/MensRights14/06/13 03:56 PM
4

This sis not a situation that should be criminalized but because feminists wanted to make an example out of the case and showcase all men as rapists to suit their fucked up hate filled ideology...... You can't see rape culture because you're immersed in it, it oozes out of you. You can't see that society (a society made up of men and women) excuses and dismisses and ignores rape because here you are, excusing, dismissing and ignoring rape.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 03:35 PM
5

claim that all men are rapists or promote rape. Wrong. Totally wrong. The idea is that society promotes, excuses, encourages, dismisses and minimises rape. Perfect example, the reaction to the Steubenville rapes (oh, those poor footballers, their careers will be ruined! etc. etc.).
/r/MensRights14/06/13 03:17 PM
6

Okay, a non-passing trans woman isn't just an "ugly" woman, it's a woman who people can tell was assigned male at birth. http://feministing.com/2013/04/09/for-queer-and-trans-people-of-color-the-nypd-is-the-literal-fashion-police/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/27/1151139/-Targeting-transpeople-with-Stop-and-Frisk Heaven forbid MRAs acknowledge that someone other than men can be oppressed.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:50 PM
5

What? Why am I being attacked for this? I was just explaining a way in which police unfairly target queer people.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:40 PM
2

I assume it's because if police see a trans woman who does not pass, they are more likely to assume she is a prostitute. In the same way that the police are more likely to assume that a black person is carrying drugs.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 07:26 AM
-7

I know that transgender people are far more likely to be stopped by police accusing them of solicitation.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 11:41 PM
-3

What? The article is just the lady's suicide note, in which she accuses him of doing those things. Why would the police suddenly start ignoring accusations?
/r/MensRights13/06/13 05:53 PM
-5

Uh, the charge is abetting suicide, I mean, I don't know the legality in the US, but that's certainly a crime in the UK. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/9-10/60 A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Why shouldn't it be a crime if you encourage someone to commit suicide? What's wrong with that?
/r/MensRights13/06/13 05:28 PM
-12

How do you know he didn't do it? Is /mr now against trying to figure out if men committed crimes?
/r/MensRights13/06/13 05:14 PM
-2

This isn't worth it, you're pathetic. Thank goodness the judge saw sense.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:57 PM
-2

I'm saying that you shouldn't make assumptions like this! You don't care about innocent till proven guilty at all. Yes, I appreciate that there is evidence that he lied, but that doesn't mean he lied, and you have no reason to assume he lied.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:47 PM
-2

Geez, this is exactly why in Scotland we have three verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty and Innocent, because morons like you run away with an innocent verdict and make assumptions based on their own ideological bias (ie validating MRAs fear of false accusations)
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:20 PM
-4

So you were there at the trial and therefore know there was absolutely no evidence? I can't believe that you guys are angry that a judge did their job.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 06:14 PM
-2

Let's take a look at your link. Oh, wow The absence of an observation may be strong evidence of absence or very weak evidence of absence, depending on how likely the cause is to produce the observation The event took place happened 18 years ago, don't you think that might mean that the chances of there being evidence were slim?
/r/MensRights11/06/13 06:00 PM
-5

Pathetic, and MRAs get so upset about assumptions regarding guilt and men, at least in theory.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:39 PM
-2

Why? Do you see no other reason why there might not have been enough evidence for a conviction? Number 1, there literally wasn't enough evidence?
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:28 PM
-2

The difference being, of course, that none of those people are advocating that the accuser be held liable. It's an asymmetric relationship. No, they simply use this as more evidence to pursue their bullshit agenda against the "false accusation epidemic", which simply dissuades people from reporting rape because they are worried that before the trial, and after if the judge can't prove the accused did it, a bunch of assholes will assume they're lying. A little like is happening here.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 04:57 PM
-2

He has the same presumption of innocence as the accused, with the caveat that a jury found the accused not guilty which is evidence, though not proof, that the accuser made a false claim. Yes, thank you for making my point, that the judge simply reminded people that the accuser is innocent of having falsely accused of the crime. Why are you contesting that? I mean, it's clearly reasonable for you to do that, look around this very thread for a number of people assuming the accuser was a liar.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 04:19 PM
-2

So therefore it would have been legitimate for us to assume the accuser was lying, and the judge was wrong to remind us not to? Is it now only innocent before proven guilty when in a trial? But MRAs hate vigilante justice!
/r/MensRights11/06/13 04:05 PM
-1

Uh-huh, why don't you apply that presumption of innocence to the accuser and not assume he was lying? Because that's exactly what the judge was doing.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 03:02 PM
-16

It amazes me that you all can come to the conclusion that somehow Reddit is more feminist than the rest of society, as opposed to a microcosm of all kinds of bigotry.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 02:39 PM
3

Odd, you made the same leap with your comparison.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 07:07 AM
-2

Well, y'know, the coffee's free and there's always something to do.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 02:36 PM
-3

Well, I did think that the point was rather poorly worded. I was more trying to interpret what I thought they were saying. Though, this is like those times when an MRA makes a totally reasonable point, but sarcastically, it's rather baffling.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 06:31 AM
-5

The idea is that the thoughts that drive rape, a need to exert control, to express power and deny autonomy, can and are routinely expressed in ways that are not rape/physical. For examples, creepshots. Verbal sexual harassment. Non-physical domestic abuse.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 06:21 AM
-14

Fine, let's play ball. " Women brutalized or otherwise harmed within violent relationships are marketing material for Duluth Model fundraising. Assertion, some might even call it a false accusation. The remaining greater fraction of dysfunctional, abusive and violent relationships, where those victimized are men, women and children? Okay, well, the Duluth model is firstly about women and children, so this sentence should read The remaining greater fraction of dysfunctional, abusive and violent r…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:32 AM
-15

So, now I suppose you want to fight over the word "many" on the duluth model's site? Yes! See, "many" doesn't mean "all" JtO! It's the little words like that that make all the difference. I know that seems strange to you, since you can't make a point in less than 2000 words, but yeah, that word makes all the difference! Many doesn't even imply most! Or would you like me to explain to everyone else in this thread that by pretending a minor detail of word choice and style is the excuse you are usi…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:16 AM
-14

"Female-initiated violence and abuse does not exist, because all such violence or abuse must, in the framework of the Duthuth model, be either in self defense from a male aggressor, or in response to pre-existing male-initiated abuse and violence." Still wrong! Man, you're bad at this JtO!
/r/MensRights10/06/13 04:56 AM
-26

shatters the fundamental cornerstone of "woman = good" "man = bad". A cornerstone that doesn't exist, because feminists don't believe that.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 02:33 AM
0

I think it's an entirely uncomparable situation. But you always have had a loose grasp on history and context and a penchant for hyperbole, haven't you typhonblue? I remember a while back you suggested a guy promised to his girlfriend that he would commit to her if she got an abortion, and then going back on that promise when you did. Tell me typhonblue, what would you think if that hypothetical women killed that hypothetical abusive and manipulative lover? Is that a comparable situation?
/r/MensRights10/06/13 12:56 AM
-22

That's fucking stupid. Saying that relationships where the man abuses the woman might be different to and thus need to be treated differently than relationships where in women abuse the men is not the same as saying that men are lesser.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 09:41 PM
-17

What a stunningly in depth analysis that addressed all of my points.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 09:29 PM
-28

Let's look at the Wikipedia article on it. First sentence The Duluth Model or Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program developed to reduce domestic violence against women So firstly, it's not meant to address violence against men. That doesn't mean it doesn't think men don't get abused, it's just not designed for that, in the same way that I can set up a winter flu vaccination scheme without claiming that polio doesn't exist. The model focuses solely on the men's use of violence in abusi…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 08:59 PM
-34

Oh, a JtO article, I wonder how long I can read this for before it makes a fundamental mistake and I can dismiss it? Female-initiated violence and abuse does not exist [in the Duluth model] Wrong! 5 paragraphs in it seems. Oh well JtO, you tried!
/r/MensRights09/06/13 08:43 PM
0

How about you address the proof I did provide you with? http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1fxwju/is_feminism_becoming_more_of_a_conservative/caew756
/r/MensRights09/06/13 12:06 PM
0

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1b6hoo/the_native_canadians_ryerson_universitys_student/ 49 upvotes. Edit: Oh, lookie here http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1fnm4d/when_dating_online_ask_for_id_especially_if_youre/ 166 upvotes.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 11:56 AM
-1

And you guys upvote it and whatnot. I don't see your point. How about you address my other examples too?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 12:34 AM
0

What? It's being constantly linked, just go search it.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 10:35 PM
-6

Nope, I don't see that at all. Many leading MRAs are libertarian, and as a whole the MRM is anti-big government ("oh noez, the government is replacing husbands" or whatever). The MRM is very poor on social justice, in particular it's transphobic, while Paul Elam, one of a few unofficial leaders, is disgustingly ableist, the movement as a whole really only represents white men. The MRM is also very traditional, it emphasises the nuclear family with a father and mother. Look at that Native Canadia…
/r/MensRights08/06/13 08:18 PM
1

I dunno, these ones http://www.ffeusa.org/html/statements/statements_prostitution.html This one http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/28/a-feminists-argument-on-how-sex-work-can-benefit-women It's almost as if it's a diverse movement with many different views contained within it! How weird! You might not understand, I mean, the MRM is of course united on every single issue. Anymore than arresting drug users while letting drug sellers go would be the legalization of drugs. Except since most of tho…
/r/MensRights08/06/13 03:45 PM
1

it would serve as fodder for the feminist cannons Many feminists support legalisation of prostitution.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 09:16 PM
-8

Thereby completely erasing the unique power that white women have over the lives of black men(and other marginalized groups of men and, to a lesser extent, "privileged" white men.) You're being obtuse. No, the model is designed to acknowledge that when taken hand in hand with "intersectionality", which is the idea that axis of oppression intersect in weird ways to create specific forms of oppression and to affect people differently. Intersectionality explains that black men face different proble…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 09:42 PM
-8

Why call it "patriarchy" and not "whiteriarchy?" Modern feminism basically does. They use a model called kyriarchy, which factors in that the privileged are not just men, but also white, able, straight, cis, etc. etc.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 09:18 PM
-12

They start with the conclusion. Yeah! But at least they're not as bad as the physicists, you know that when physicists do research, they just assume that atoms exist? I know right! They start with a conclusion! They should have to prove that which has already been proven every time they do experiments!
/r/MensRights06/06/13 09:07 PM
-11

This was a baby boy. Where does it say that? Her body her choice? Abortion is not only legal, but provided by the government to a woman just by requesting it. She could have aborted that baby at any time, but chose to go through with it. What if she doesn't want to have an abortion? Why is the mother being held more responsible for making that baby than the father? I thought father's had responsibility for children, I mean, that's why I don't think it's fair that fathers aren't fairly considered…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:39 PM
-9

Well done, you've totally misunderstood the article. 1) I don't know why you put in the bit about the mother "accidentally" dropping the child, there is nothing in the article about the mother and if the dropping was accidental, suspicious or what. 2) The reason children are so often abandoned in China is misogynistic in nature, the One Child Policy means parents don't want to have baby girls. 3) Where fathers are not being held accountable is in the rulings around a newly announced Chinese laws…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:10 PM
2

Reminded me of manwomanmyths ideas about government sponsoring feminism here in the UK in order to double the workforce. That seems exceptionally unlikely to me, considering how the suffragists had to pressure the government to allow them to work, they were working against the government, and considering that most women who got jobs during WW1 lost them when the war ended.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:33 PM
1

Hey, I'm 16 as of last month!
/r/MensRights03/06/13 03:01 PM
1

Or possibly there is a difference between those unhappy couples that get divorced and those that don't and thus you can't compare them in this way.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:01 PM
1

fully integrated prisons. Do you realise how dangerous this would be?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 01:09 PM
1

Unless you have discovered the exact resonant frequency of transgender people and can make them explode through carefully timed penetration, you don't need to know if there medical history regarding their gender transition, or even if they have that kind of medical history. Don't be obtuse.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 07:05 PM
1

What on earth are you talking about?
/r/MensRights01/06/13 02:30 PM
2

What a shameful position! Luckily no MRAs would ever hold a similar position, for example, I'm sure an MRA would never insist that trans people disclosed their medical history before having sex with their partners...
/r/MensRights01/06/13 12:24 PM
-4

Homophobia! Oh my, I don't even need to be here, you write my posts for me.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 11:15 PM
0

we dont inherently hate women or indulge in white supremacism. Well, not all of you.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 11:05 PM
-4

Well done, now you really understand, you've unlocked the secret to feminism, we all just really, really hate men, well done /mr, you got it, have a dang gold star.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 09:35 PM
-2

They way they have advocated for and received government and public money for initiatives treating violence as one-sided (male on female) knowing that model was wrong tells me why. It's not about the victims. It's about the money. Yeah, everyone knows that state-subsidised domestic violence shelters really bring in the money, those things never face any problems with having enough money to provide services at all /s
/r/MensRights31/05/13 07:44 PM
-1

Yes, because if there is one thing that represents all of feminism, as opposed to being a juvenile list-based humour site that's trying to be socially conscious, it's fucking Cracked.com
/r/MensRights31/05/13 07:29 PM
-12

This is probably the most important article I have ever written Hahaha, oh wow, never has a sentence more completely summed up the uselessness of the MRM.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 10:07 AM
3

I know, it's absolutely awful. Luckily Facebook has agreed to take action.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 10:45 PM
18

1) I'm a girl, just so you know. 2) I browed there Twitter hashtag, they have evidence. Trigger Warning and NSFW on links: http://www.womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2013/05/amexfacebook.jpeg https://twitter.com/laurred/status/339456369948246016/photo/1 And this one for a ton of examples http://www.womenactionmedia.org/examples-of-gender-based-hate-speech-on-facebook/ (note that last one is from the website of the woman who posted the article, so she personally, or at least someone in th…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 07:13 PM
1

It's the way of the world my friend, the wheel of progress will keep turning.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:46 PM
16

Right... um, why do you need that? How does not linking a specific example devalue what she's saying, unless what you are saying is that these images don't exist and she is simply making it all up?
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:29 PM
21

They tried that, as you would know if you read the article: Again and again, we had reported images, participated in petitions, even communicated directly with Facebook itself. And again and again it sent back the message, loud and clear, that it doesn’t consider this kind of content to be a problem, and doesn’t seem to see it as a form of hate speech.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:18 PM
-3

Um, no we don't? This is fucking awful, police brutality must be put to a stop.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 11:46 AM
3

I prefer to think that I came to /amr from /mr, since I was involved with /mr before I found /amr.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 07:14 PM
-2

Women are valued for their bodies which are objectified (I would assume you agree) But surely it's still a gamble? What if you have a daughter who isn't conventionally attractive? As far as I can tell there's no evidence for your theory, and it doesn't stand up to reasoning. You'll dismiss this though because you're so wrapped up in your theory that you find it difficult to conceptualise a different world it seems. How about you read up on Occam's Razor in the meantime? I feel it may help you.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 02:58 PM
-3

No, you make a jump there, you assume the reason they are afraid of the boy is because they are a gamble. In fact, you've taken many leaps. Please explain: How you know the fear of the boy is because the boy is the gamble. Why the boy is a gamble. What the objective non-changing value of the girl is. Why developing countries are more likely to want to gamble. Also, your theory should hold up on an individual level surely? Show me that rich Chinese people are more likely to favour girls if you pl…
/r/MensRights27/05/13 10:58 AM
-2

"Why do so many people prefer girls! The majority seem to feel that a girl is easier to understand and to rear, and they are afraid of a boy." So once again, an explanation at odds with yours that has nothing to do with the socioeconomic value of the various children.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 10:36 AM
-7

Or we could just go with the article's not-ridiculous explanation: Many of the women desperate for girls explain that a yearning for female bonding was behind their decision to use gender selection technology.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 10:03 AM
-8

You couldn't possibly maintain a neutral attitude until some conclusive evidence floats by. You're not a judge, in this scenario you're supposed to be a friend. And as a friend you have a duty to stop playing lawyer and comfort your friend when they seem to need comfort.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 08:44 PM
-6

Feminism promotes the idea that "women never lie." Utter nonsense.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 07:57 PM
-6

So whenever someone tells you they've been raped, you should track down their rapist and comfort them instead? This is the most absurd scenario, it's perverse. I thought the MRM was concerned that male rape victims weren't getting proper support?
/r/MensRights26/05/13 07:03 PM
-7

Flagging the issue in a judgment on Saturday, Justice Kailash Gambhir said rape cases are being used as "a weapon for vengeance and vendetta" to harass and even force a boy to marry. This is feminism's fault. Because it is. we now have to put a doubt on anyone who makes these acusations, whether they are true or not. For fuck's sake. If someone tells you they have been raped, the first thing you do is try to help them, comfort them, see if they need help. You do not go, "Oh, but have you really?…
/r/MensRights26/05/13 04:04 PM
1

Well, it's not really a science channel, more of a, I dunno, pop education channel? Anyway, I thought it was very interesting, and showed how the various liberal movements of the time intersected in various ways. A good series, though as it is really my only exposure to indepth American history I can't be totally sure of its veracity.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 03:25 PM
2

Sorry, since when has there not been a law against false accusations? Of course its illegal.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 02:53 PM
0

Or like, imagine a life where the biggest problem you have is that Google puts a red squiggly line under a word you made up (coughmisandrycough)
/r/MensRights26/05/13 01:35 PM
-5

Toxic Masculinity as a concept is used to shame men in to feeling guilty for enjoying things typically seen as 'masculine', for example, going out drinking beer and looking at girls. That's such a fundamental misunderstanding of what Toxic Masculinity means. Toxic Masculinity is a blanket term for the societal attitudes that ascribe negative characteristics (i.e. violence, unemotional) to masculinity.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 12:33 PM
1

Has anybody else been shot by the police, or how do you mean that they are "using guns" to stop the riot? Um, I never said the police were using guns, I said the use of guns was supported in the blog post. If someone who threatens his wife as well as the police with a machete gets shot, I don't find that at all unreasonable. Well the community didn't think that.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 12:10 PM
-1

Go ask about her in /r/feminisms to see the hate. So you don't have evidence? Okay. Yeah, as much as Erin Pizzey is currently a Feminist. Um, except Rankin never revoked her feminist status, so she is not at all like Pizzey? Nope. Except she's a feminist and a decent women by your own metrics. I'm not going to phrase it as a question this time, this undermines your point. Why is that? If women couldn't vote, how were they supposed to get into politics?
/r/MensRights24/05/13 02:13 AM
8

"The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is The Hand That Rules The World" Uh-huh, I counter with, the hand that literally rules the world (is the vast majority in parliaments in all countries, in many countries is the absolute leader of the family, is best represented in the UN, makes up most people who run businesses) rules the world.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 01:35 AM
-4

Sorry, can you actually show me an example of feminists hating on Jeannette Rankin? Do you not know that she was a feminist, or at least suffragette? Doesn't this undermine your point rather? Clearly feminists can be "decent women". As for Margaret Thatcher, does she not realise she could never have reached that position if not for the work of feminism? But of course /mr worships at the seat of Thatcher, she was extremely conservative, and you can do the same thing with her that the Tory party u…
/r/MensRights24/05/13 01:24 AM
19

Yes, and this demonstrates it, at least in part. The mother here is expected to be the primary caregiver, and thus all caring is directed to her. Even in literal patriarchal families the father wasn't in charge of raising the family.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 01:12 AM
1

Read this part of the article: I didn’t realize he was dry-humping me until after he had to leave to clean himself up. He never asked for my permission. I repeat, he dry humped her without consent.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 07:47 PM
-21

You're reading comprehension is poor. She didn't realise he was dry humping her until he orgasmed. I didn’t realize he was dry-humping me until after he had to leave to clean himself up. The issue is clearly with the dry humping, which she didn't realise was happening, and she felt upset and violated that he had not asked permission, that he used her for his sexual pleasure without her permission. Edit: And oh look, if you read the link, turns out this wasn't the first time he did something like…
/r/MensRights23/05/13 01:56 PM
-36

This is not based on his actions Except yes it clearly is based on his actions, he dry humped her without consent. That's the issue here. Extra extra: /mr defends men's right to dry hump without consent.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 01:22 PM
1

True, sometimes the benefit of the doubt is not deserved, I should really have just stopped there in honesty.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 12:19 AM
1

This is one of the most ludicrous rants I've read from this blog, and that says something. Firstly, the police have been "feminised" apparently in Sweden (I don't know how they've been feminised, it sounds like "feminised" here means being told to not commit brutality?) Secondly, this is connected to feminism because... well it's not clear why. Thirdly, we've got a weird support of the police commiting more brutality and using guns to stop the riot. Since the riots were caused, like so many riot…
/r/MensRights22/05/13 05:21 PM
0

All I want is for males and females to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and for male social issues to be given the same level of attention and federal funding that female social issues are currently given. Sure, that sounds good. I'm not sure how your short-lived campaign of attempting to disgrace me by repeating what I had previously said in replies to me for a long time achieve this, but then I'm not sure how anything the MRM does achieves this. Frankly the way the MRM speaks, I'd thi…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 06:24 PM
0

Yes, sorry, it is a false equivalence, isn't it? I'd be far more honest using the equivalencies put forth by Warren Farrell. Shall I compare rape to unemployment? Or possibly to not getting to have sex after a date? I'm sure you will be happy with these equivalencies, since they were put forward by the good doctor himself.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 04:45 PM
-1

Women thinking that rape will occur at anytime is pure bullshit. Meanwhile it is totally rational to not get married/not have sex/not speak to women out of fear of spermjacking/child support/false accusations, according to MRAs and MGTOWs.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:11 PM
1

Okay, "Mainstream Feminism" isn't a branch of thinking within feminism, unlike Radical, Liberal and Marxist feminism, so... yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm more up on what feminism is than you are CrossHook.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:55 PM
0

pretending Why would I lie about my opinions here? Is it that unthinkable that I don't hate men?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 10:55 PM
0

I'm not telling you to like Radfems, I'm telling you to know a little bit about feminism. Do you know the difference between, say, Marxist Feminism and Radical Feminism?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 10:04 PM
-1

You want the right to be protected at all costs to male lives. I believe all genders should be protected, even at the potential cost of those who are willing to put their lives on the line, thus I support a police force open to all genders, and sometimes an army. You want the right to ladies' nights. No I don't. You want affirmative action. I want it for all genders wherever they are underrepresented. I would support affirmative action for men in teaching and nursing, for example. You want a saf…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 08:22 PM
1

What could that force be other than the one person who has legal and social control over who has access to the child? Fear (e.g. I want to learn to swim, but I'm scared of water, so I don't learn to swim). Poverty (e.g. I want to learn to ride a bike, but I can't afford a bike, so I don't learn). Notice that in none of my reasons given did I imply the father did not want to raise the child, so you telling me that fathers do want to raise the child proves nothing. Is there some reason why you're …
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:24 PM
0

Sorry, that looks like an analogy, not a source. Analogies don't prove anything. But let's entertain your fancy. It depends. It could easily be seen as her responsibility, perhaps she is doing something wrong, doesn't have enough money to enter, or is too young, or whatever. Or maybe it's the bouncer's responsibility, the bouncer is choosing to refuse her access for reasons she can do nothing about. Look, I can make one too. Say that I'm making a cake, and a friend is helping (the friend is the …
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:08 PM
0

It's weird, you seem adamant this is the truth, but can provide nothing to back you up.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 06:57 PM
0

It's weird, you seem adamant this is the truth, but can provide nothing to back you up.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 06:57 PM
0

And this demonstrates that fatherlessness is the mother's choice... how? The article provides this reason What’s missing is an ability to overcome fragile and fractious relationships with their children’s mothers, combined with a lack of economic resources and other challenges such as substance abuse and limited access to stable housing.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 06:30 PM
0

And I assume you have figures to back up Obama's bold insinuation that fatherlessness is the father's choice? I never said that though, that was Obama. I'm not taking any opinion on this issue, I only ask that you provide substantiation for your claims. Or can you not do that?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:41 PM
8

As a result, the Hayden rider would exempt women from any crime that they have committed or will commit. That's a complete nonsense interpretation, I have no idea how you got from A to B but nowhere in that wording does it say women cannot be charged for crimes.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 04:38 PM
-11

Clearly you don't even have an interest in understand feminism. How the MRM can claim to be academic I don't know.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 03:59 PM
-18

I'm not saying these women aren't radical feminists, I'm say that the reason she is a radical feminist isn't just because she's extreme. Learn something about the ideology you criticise.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 02:35 PM
-28

Okay, enough, you guys have no idea what the term Radical Feminist means. It does not mean "extreme feminist" or "crazy feminist", it refers to a very specific set of feminist theories, which can basically be summed up as: 1) Patriarchal gender relations are the cause of the power disbalance between genders. 2) Gender oppression is the most basic form of oppression, you might say it is the "root" oppression.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:44 PM
0

Funny part is the lack of fathers I most likely due to the fathers being in jail for some sort of crime. So you contradict typhonblue's claim that it's caused by the choice of the mother?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 12:30 PM
-1

The vast majority of fatherless homes are so because of the mother's choice. Being a respected spokesperson in the MRM, I assume you have figures to back up this bold claim?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 11:50 AM
-3

Yes. The women are there to be desired by the men, whereas the men are designed that way to fulfil male fantasies to be like that, at least in theory. This is why it's mostly men who are protagonists.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:02 AM
-2

Your people, all of them, live better than 90% of all the other people on the planet. Yes, do you know why? It's because the poorest people in our society cannot fall to the depths of poverty much of the world lives in because of a lovely leftist invention known as the Welfare State. Maybe they should have taken better advantage of that good, free education you offer. Sorry, it sounded like you said free education, but I can't really hear you over the sounds of the Tories raising tuition fees. A…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 10:38 PM
-2

The reason there is still so much hatred towards this woman is because she broke the liberal/unionists in the country and made it impossible for them to ever return. Yeah, and she also devastated the working class and took most of their jobs, and widened the class gap, and was just generally deluded about how life works. But hey, at least she paved the way for an increasingly individualistic society, giving greater freedoms to bankers and all that, creating New Labour, all that worked out great,…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 10:13 PM
-6

1) Margaret Thatcher despised feminism, she was expressly anti-feminist and was largely of the opinion that anyone could get anywhere in life if they tried hard enough, and that the poor and disenfranchised simply didn't try hard enough. 2) Margaret Thatcher was not great, and in fact it can be argued that she is a primary cause of the many social issues facing Britons today. 3) George Bush did not save people by invading Afghanistan and has arguably made Iraq worse. 4) Sarah Palin is very conse…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 08:47 PM
1

Sorry, women being able to choose not to have sex with men is misandry now? You do realise that men also have a "reproductive monopoly", right? Men too can choose not to have sex with women.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 04:25 PM
2

Oh my, Dworkin said that! Clearly what Dworkin says is the literal bible of feminism and cannot ever be overruled or challenged, and feminism has not at all progressed since then. In other news, I'm going to judge all you guys entirely by what, hmm, yes, by what was said on In Mala Fide (a particularly hateful MRA blog) back when that blog still ran. So, how does the manosphere justify this comment from In Mala Fide “Women should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them be…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 11:53 AM
-1

The lack of self awareness, it's positively choking, must not laugh.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 01:22 AM
6

Because of the simple fact that feminists care about women if they can't get access to safe abortions, yet don't care about them if they can't prostitute in a safe way. Just like abortions, prostitution will be around whether it's legal or not, and both of those being illegal has devastating effects on women. Well done, you're having a non-argument, amazing. You realised you couldn't win the point you were originally making, so have jumped to a complete different debate, upon which I don't disag…
/r/MensRights18/05/13 11:24 PM
7

Well here's your chance to educate me. sigh Fine. There is sex-positive feminism and sex-negative feminism. The differences are complicated, but basically sex-positive feminism support women reclaiming their sexuality and think sexuality can be positive and often is positive. Sex-positive feminists support things like porn and prostitution provided they are done ethically. Are you saying if we make prostitution illegal it will disappear, because I have news for you. No, I suppose legalising pros…
/r/MensRights18/05/13 10:10 PM
5

Then again, why don't we talk about all that prostitution and porn feminists have been trying to ban forever. That sex-negative feminists have been trying to ban forever. Please, learn about feminism before you speak on it, many, perhaps most, feminists support porn and the legalisation of prostitution (which would make it far safer). And you're conflating entirely seperate issues. Abortion and prostitution aren't remotely similar, sex bots and artificial wombs aren't particularly similar, porn …
/r/MensRights18/05/13 06:58 PM
5

Oh yes, that story that wasn't true and was in fact entirely made up. Do me a favour and try and find if Canada has a Ministry of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (the organisation that supposedly drove this initiative). Hint, it doesn't. Excellent evidence of what those feminists are planning.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 06:31 PM
12

Feminism would, of course, want to heavily regulate the use of artificial wombs, possibly to prevent men from using them altogether. Why? Surely feminism would celebrate women not being the sole reproductive agents, a further deconstruction of gender roles?
/r/MensRights18/05/13 04:52 PM
0

Sorry, they didn't tell us about that narrative back at feminazi HQ, possibly because that isn't what feminists believe.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 02:25 PM
0

Sorry, okay, let's look at this, you say her claim she was being harassed was false. That's interesting, that implies malice on her part. Have you considered that maybe she was just scared, confused and stressed? Surely harassment is inherently subjective?
/r/MensRights17/05/13 09:34 PM
-6

Except he wasn't attacked. Have you considered that maybe she wasn't making shit up? Possibly she was actually scared of being attacked? She looked lost, was likely confused (she was on the wrong side of the road after all), getting shouted at by an Irish man, how do you know she wasn't scared? Her fear is far more legitimate than your fear that she could have sparked mob violence against this one man.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 09:23 PM
-4

So here's the money paragraph Statistically, there's no question that commissioners tend to side with women in domestic-violence cases. In 2010, of the roughly 1,900 protection-order petitions ruled on after a hearing, commissioners granted 80 percent. I'm not sure how the latter sentence demonstrates the prior sentence. Why does most protection-order petitions being granted show courts are biased against men? I don't get it. But anyway, like I said, you've demonstrated this exists within one ar…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 09:05 PM
-2

Ctrl + F "80%" provides no results.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 08:31 PM
-6

Men aren't all bad idiots, women aren't all perfect angels. Welp, looks like /mr has won, you guys can just pack up and go home now, right? I mean, you've proven to me that something I didn't believe anyway wasn't true.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 08:20 PM
-5

So first you tell me that you can't find evidence for the UK, then you present a statistic which you haven't sourced (the linked article doesn't have that statistic in it, unless I'm misreading). This statistic is related to a problem which, based on the Huff Po article, seems to be unique to divorce proceedings, seemingly the problem is with it be ex parte and the burden of proof at play in these proceedings. You then just claim that this would naturally extend to the situation shown in the vid…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 07:59 PM
-6

I am a feminist.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 07:48 PM
-13

'his word against her's ' situations, in which a guy would likely lose. Stop. MRAs say this all the time, that men will always lose these kinds of situations and its about time you presented evidence to support this claim.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 06:57 PM
0

I wonder why, it's not as if the founder of this subreddit stated that he "believes that there is an international, feminist, antimale conspiracy, and encourages peaceful, but direct, action against it."
/r/MensRights17/05/13 05:28 PM
-46

Thank God we were made aware of this, clearly this was another insidious feminazi, stripping away the rights of men, well done /mr, you have once again preserved men's rights in the face of feminists. After all, you've got to challenge those feminists narratives that... women are all perfect motorists I guess?
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:28 PM
-8

Except they haven't lied before, because the whole point is you're asking people who haven't reported their rape
/r/MensRights15/05/13 06:48 PM
-13

You have no reason to lie about being raped to an anonymous survey. You have many reasons to protest your innocence if you are in prison for rape. It's that obvious.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 05:33 PM
1

I dunno, been doing it so long it feels wrong to stop. I'm an unstoppable train of criticism.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 08:50 PM
1

And most likely the time of everyone on this site could be used more productively by making developments for Africa, probably better than me since I'm not a scientist, I don't do science and have no interest in it. I mean, I try to do what I can, though most of my work is limited to local charities.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 08:33 PM
1

Bitching about it here is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Wait, what? I mean... what? I know that people aren't doing well in rural Africa, I never said that men were doing fantastic. I don't know what warranted this attack on me, this demand that I suddenly go to Africa to help out rather than complain about it, I mean, I was just trying to make a point. And for various reasons I'm not really in a position to go to Africa, I mean, I've done stuff to help out charity organisations, but.…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 08:19 PM
0

It's generally women and children. Point is, it's not men.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 08:00 PM
-3

Yeah, it's mostly carried out on children, obviously. When did I imply it wasn't?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 06:30 PM
-6

But no, the feminist HAVE to blame men for every fucking thing that women do. It's a patriarchal practice designed to limit women's sexual freedom, to preserve their "purity" and all that guff. It's not the case where men have absolutely no idea that this is going on, often its promoted and condoned by religious authorities (who are men) and the patriarchal authorities (so the local leader and the father primarily), if it is the local imam thats skilled, generally its him that carries out the pr…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:53 PM
-16

Well, as /mr's resident 16 year old feminist, I feel the need to weigh in, demand my turf as such. Here's the thing, yes, some feminists insist they will deal with men's issues but then refuse to, that's shitty and hypocritical. However, it is not hypocritical to call out derailing. Look around this subreddit, every time someone on the internet calls out, say, female genital mutiliation, or the objectification of women, this subreddit jumps on it and goes, "What about the men? What about the men…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:26 PM
1

Do you support adding statistics that would help men recognize that may be being abused on the website? Yeah, that'd be good.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:53 AM
-1

The fallacy comes into play when you cite the over representation of men at the highest levels of society in support of the idea that men in general are priviledged over women. Here's why the over-representation of men at the top demonstrates why men are privileged. Imagine society is a beauty pageant, okay? And the ones who have all the qualities the judges want win, and get taken to the top of society. So lets look at the people at the top: Rich White Male Well-educated Intelligent Handsome Ab…
/r/MensRights13/05/13 09:50 PM
-1

Especially when they suggest to call them if your partner "calls you names, put you down, or make you feel worthless. Blames you for arguments or problems in the relationship. Acts jealous" and so on. I don't understand what your point is here? Why is it worthy of mention that they explain that there is such a thing as emotional/mental abuse, and that it can take these forms?
/r/MensRights13/05/13 08:12 PM
0

So you're solution to feminists trying to show women are better (which they don't do), is to prove men are better! Well done, truly you are the moral victors here. Do provide your evidence that I hate men by the way.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 07:32 PM
1

I think you are in the wrong place. The MRM, as a movement looking to achieve gender equality should have no interest in showing that men are superior in the workplace, that would undercut their claim to support equality. Well, they might still help you, but hey, I've learned to be disappointed by this subreddit.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 07:22 PM
-6

The "apex fallacy" isn't a real fallacy. It's not a fallacy to demonstrate that its largely men who hold the positions of power, because that's true.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 05:20 PM
-16

Perhaps, I've always felt there needs to be an aspect on, hmm, dishonesty to trolling. Disingenuousosity, if that's a word. Like, I distinguish myself from trolls because I believe that which I say. Some don't make that distinction.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 09:26 AM
-22

I'm not trying to shut you out or anything, it just seems counter productive to place so much bias within your framework for discussion. I'm bored, tired, have had this argument before and it's not worth bothering with Crosshook, he's proven himself to be both beyond reason and morally reprehensible, so I'm playing around with more meta-commentary, for my own sake and enjoyment.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 09:14 AM
-20

The part where I pointed out that, in fact, the people in charge of Britain are rich old men.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 08:49 AM
-24

Summary of arguing with an MRA: [Feminist makes true claim] [MRA says claim is not true, presents erroneous example] [Explanation that claim is true] [Admittance, justification for this truth, distraction from truth] < This is your part.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 08:23 AM
-39

The man with the actual power is a rich man, and the man in charge of the economy is a rich man. Most judges in the UK? Rich old men. Most CEOs in the UK? Rich men. Most trade union leaders in the UK? Men, not sure if they're rich or old though. Funny you mention the royal family, until recently men's right to inherit the throne to precedent over women's, so even there men had a preference. But well done, you found in a classist, patriarchal society an example of something that is just classism.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 02:10 AM
-3

And if they don't have any evidence...? They should just go forward with the case anyways? Yes, you can only figure out if there isn't a case at all if you have looked at everything in the trial! This isn't even punishing false accusers, this is refusing to represent people who don't have much of a case! Oh I see. So because the justice system would fail either way because there's little evidence, we should waste the money anyways to placate threats of violence? When the justice system stops hel…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 09:58 PM
-3

What exactly would be solved with spending public money to conduct a trial with little evidence? You can clear people's names. Here's an idea, if I'm assaulted, but I can't prove it in a trial, I don't lose my desire to get justice if lawyers all refuse to help me, I get other forms of justice. You get vigilante witchhunts. "let's find out who actually did it" That's because it's not their job to find that out, that's the job of the police, the judge and the jury.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 09:45 PM
-1

If there isn't much evidence, should the prosecutor start a witch hunt or use questionable tactics to achieve the verdict they can't prove? They should do everything within their power, legally, to get the best result for their client. That's the entire point of the lawyer system. You can't have lawyers scared to represent their clients, this means that people who have had crimes committed against them without much evidence being present won't get legal representation. There are already laws aga…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 09:26 PM
0

Let's say I'm raped, but there isn't much evidence of it, and there are factors involved like, say, my rapist was my significant other, and the other night we had had sex consensually that made my claim they had raped me, well, dubious in the eyes of a jury. Thanks to you, I can't get legal representation to try and get justice in court, thank you very much. Shall we start punishing lawyers who defend guilty clients too? The justice system is an anvil, and the lawyers are the hammer and the bell…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 09:09 PM
4

(or their lawyer) Why on earth would you punish the lawyer? Surely this just discourages lawyers from representing people, whether they are innocent or not?
/r/MensRights12/05/13 08:52 PM
-6

It's not a stigma, it's just not a good word, it implies the wrong things. But sure, go ahead, it's not like you might want to actually ask the trans community about this kind of thing...
/r/MensRights12/05/13 05:16 PM
6

Yes, but there is a mild backlash against the term, primarily because of the connection it implies to sexuality, even though there isn't a connection there.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 04:51 PM
1

Here we have The Amazing Atheist arguing that it's wrong to joke about Jerry Sandusky getting raped in prison, or to imply or say he deserves it. Fair enough, I support that statement. However, I am slightly confused. Isn't this the same Amazing Atheist who said he hoped a Redditor got raped? Yes, yes I believe it is http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/08/the-not-so-amazing-atheist-self-immolates/ What's that smell? Might it be, hypocrisy?
/r/MensRights12/05/13 12:14 AM
2

Couples who want out of a marriage because the spouse is abusive or unfaithful would still be able to get a legal divorce. What about couples who are unhappy together? What benefit is there in forcing them to stay together? Why should the state force people together?
/r/MensRights11/05/13 08:14 PM
2

From a medical point of view, there is absolutely no way to say that he has GID, in fact the available information indicates that he probably doesn't. You'll find that the treatment he receives will focus on addressing the two issues above, which the APA demands as part of the assessment of GID. Well shit, go phone the doctors then because apparently you know more about this than them, because they diagnosed Tammy with GID.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:37 PM
4

Of course he wants to be a girl - both his parents are girls. What else could he possibly want to be? She is a girl, doesn't want to be a girl, is a girl. And there are a ton of boys raised by two mothers, or one mother who identify as boys. which is what will happen since no surgeon is going to do this surgery on a boy who is clearly mentally ill and who cannot consent anyway No surgery is going to be done because you don't do it to children, I'm not advocating for surgery to happen. All that's…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:23 PM
3

She couldn't speak FTFY. Look, here's the situation according to the oh-so-reliable Mail. The mothers say that one of the first things Thomas told them when he learned sign language aged three - because of a speech impediment - was, 'I am a girl'. First thing I notice, and I apologise for this oversight of mine, is that it doesn't say it was her first words, or ever her first signed words. But also, notice that's its hardly a complete sentence. Even if all this were true, even if this story abou…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:35 PM
11

Tammy has a speech impediment, so had to learn sign language to talk, hence the late first words.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:22 AM
17

1) She is not an "Eight-Year-Old Boy", she is an eight year old girl, named Tammy. 2) It's not the parents forcing her through it, this is a decision that she, the parents and doctors (having diagnosed Tammy with gender dysphoria) have chosen. 3) "Sex change" makes it sound like surgery, Tammy has simply been put on hormone blockers that delay puberty, the effects of which are non-permanent (so if she changed her mind she can go ahead and have a male puberty). Disgusting transphobia, courtesy of…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:00 AM
1

Why is charging less people good?
/r/MensRights10/05/13 11:41 PM
-1

This is why trials shouldn't be recorded, people just get too invested.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 11:13 AM
0

rampant problem of young women crying rape because they regret having sex and don't want to get labelled a slut. 1) Statistics showing it is rampant please. 2) Isn't the problem here then a society that slut shames women? Doesn't this put women in society today in a position similar to that of Abby from The Crucible, someone who is clearly a villain but is arguably simultaneously a victim of society?
/r/MensRights09/05/13 11:59 PM
-9

It doesn't. That is a logical fallacy. In the face of no evidence that Norway hates men, and remembering how precedent setting court decisions work? Yes, yes it does! Circular reasoning. Yeah, obviously, something that is true is true because its true and plainly to obvious to everyone who isn't a misogynist MRA.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 09:17 PM
-10

One single (i.e. precedent setting legal decision) example of working in favour of equality in Norway negates the claim that Norway hates gender equality. FTFY. Women's oppression is an undisputed fact as long as women are oppressed. FTFY2
/r/MensRights09/05/13 09:06 PM
0

That's why we're gonna make AVfM take all those women of off register-her, right? Because they might be innocent? And we're not going to tolerate Women Behaving Badly posts on /mr anymore, because those women might be innocent, right? I mean, I know that MRAs hate double standards.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:57 PM
-17

Interesting story. Shame it's not a story about a state fucking up and then trying to cover its back and thus is not a parallel to the case in hand.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 05:18 PM
-13

Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, states are typically very quick to admit when they've wronged a woman Are they? I'd like to see an example of this.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 05:03 PM
-15

Oh wowzers, a state attempting to cover its ass, this is a totally new phenomenon unique to states that support feminism.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 04:48 PM
-20

But I thought Scandinavian countries were femiNazi states were men had no rights at all? And that all of their non-discrimination laws only applied to women? This goes against everything /mr has taught me!
/r/MensRights09/05/13 04:38 PM
1

So it looks like the Brits swap out the faces on their currency a lot more frequently than the US. Yeah, we do. In Scotland it even gets more complicated, since each of the different distributing banks puts different faces on their notes. So yeah, why not Jane Austen. Fire up the outrage engine and get on it so the perpetually offended can be appeased. Yeah, because our argument that great women are underrepresented is soooo baseless.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 07:35 PM
1

Oh, and look what I found when I looked it up, who's currently on the £20 note?Not Newton or whoever you claimed it was, Adam Smith. I think founding modern nursing is comparable to founding modern economics? How about Boulton and Watt (NOT Faraday) on the £50? Is making many steam engines comparable to getting women the vote? I'd say so. Edit: The more I look into the more sense it makes. Elgar, Shakespeare, Dickens have all been on a note, why not Jane Austen?
/r/MensRights08/05/13 05:31 PM
1

Acknowledge the challenges they overcame to contribute their achievement but don't overvalue the achievement itself simply because it was accomplished through hardship. Why put the person on the note at all then? Surely if it's all about the specific achievement then we should just have that on there? Put up, I dunno, Newton's laws on it (I know that one of the Turkish lira notes has an equation on it, so it's been done). Because it's not just about the achievements, its about celebrating great …
/r/MensRights08/05/13 04:02 PM
1

So we're not even allowed to acknowledge that some people faced more difficulty in having their achievements recognised than others? So there was nothing impressive about Barack Obama being elected as the first black president?
/r/MensRights08/05/13 03:23 PM
1

it's the person who crosses the finish line first, in yours it's the person who crossed the finish line with the greatest handicap. It's the person who had to do the most to cross the finish line, who worked the hardest. Edit: And the reason it is legitimate to factor in those things is because the notes are not a celebration of what that person discovered, it's a celebration of the person as a whole. That's why it is Darwin up there not just a image of On The Origin Of Species.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 03:08 PM
5

I'm sorry, I was attempting to read what you said, but I was blinded by the sheer lack of empathy you displayed, it was quite staggering, it's almost as if you have no compassion or understanding of mental health at all. Fascinating.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:41 PM
1

I don't disagree that achieving while being a woman was more challenging in the past but I don't think that artificially magnifying the accomplishments of historical women is a good path to women being perceived as equals today. Well hang on there, you agree that being a woman made things more challenging, but then you're unwilling to factor that into their achievements? Because when you have someone like Nightingale, she didn't just create modern nursing, she created in a culture that was biase…
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:31 PM
1

Would you honestly consider an 18th century prison reformer or a person who revolutionized nursing to be on a par with Charles Darwin if they were men rather than women? Yes! Nightingale almost certainly saved hundreds, thousands even, of lives. Possibly you're one of those people who think nurses are less important than doctors, or somehow are not necessary in hospitals? As for Fry, well, before Fry came along women's prisons were appalling. Children were locked up with parents, many women had …
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:14 PM
1

power isn't given, fuckface. It's taken. It sounded better when Attaturk said it, somehow. Go on, show me 20 men more influential than, hmm, I don't know, Queen Victoria.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:00 PM
1

Appropriate, I have a biased agenda, you have a blindness to the achievements of women.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 01:41 PM
1

Yeah, I would put Florence Nightingale on that list, and so would whoever composes the list of who gets put on notes because she's already been put on a note! I don't know why she gets scare quotes around her name, but whatever. If I were in charge of this list I would make it: £5 - Boudicca £10 - Nightingale £20 - Fry £50 - Pankhurst and Fawcett Because yes, I argue that the what these women did was just as great as what the men on the current list (with Churchill) did.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 01:30 PM
1

unsolveable emotional disturbances. It's not unsolveable, my mother has been undergoing talking therapy for many years that has seriously improved her condition. The advice is not "Avoid these people like the plauge" the advice is "Know what you're getting into" because people with BPD are still humans who can love and be loved and who need human contact, geez.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 01:15 PM
1

The fact that you need to struggle to come up with a single name that would fit on that list is telling unless you want to propose putting Margaret Thatcher on the pound in which case the British wil probably burn you at the stake. I came up with three names. The fact that you can only come up with Thatcher just shows you're blindly right wing in my opinion. I don't see why Fry doesn't deserve her place and why, say, Faraday is more deserving (unless you want to do the typical Reddit jerk of sci…
/r/MensRights08/05/13 12:47 PM
5

My mother has Borderline Personality Disorder, she is a person who deserves love, is deeply caring and isn't a monster. Did her BPD cause serious problems? Yes, it did, it really did, but we didn't just abandon her and tell each other stories about how monstrous she was. I suppose I shouldn't expect anything else from the movement whose de facto leader Paul Elam once said "BPD: Sick, or just crazy asshole?" But well done on promoting Men's Rights guys.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:22 AM
0

Some people who clearly have too much free time on their hands are up in arms that Elizabeth Fry is being replaced on the five pound note by Winston Churchill. Now I had to look up one of them in Wikipedia to figure out who they were and why they should be on the five pound note; I'll leave it to you to guess which one. You can go on all you want about patriarchy but I think there's a clear cut decision here on who is the more influential historical figure. Well, we weren't discussing this at al…
/r/MensRights08/05/13 12:54 AM
1

You've also greatly oversimplified the byzantine complexities of precedence and status in European royalty in order to make whatever point you were attempting to make. I wasn't trying to make a point. I was rebutting the point originally made that patriarchy theory meant there could not be a female queen who had inherited power. It was just a strawman of patriarchy theory which I exposed. All I'm trying to say is that patriarchy theory does not mean there could not have been a female queen.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 12:13 AM
1

Sorry, are you just incapable of understanding systems that aren't at the most extreme they can be? It is possible for a system to be patriarchal without completely screwing over women in all situations. Case in point, a monarchy that until very recently, always favoured male heirs over female heirs. Furthermore, and this is introducing some feminist theory here so mind your skin doesn't break out in a rash, I've heard that happens to some MRAs, but there's this thing called intersectionality, t…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 11:17 PM
-1

What kind of patriarchy just hands high status positions to women? One that is also a monarchy. Look at me in awe as I hold two entirely non-contradictory views within my head, that of a patriarchal society that is also a hereditary monarchy which must occasionally deal with the problem of having only a female heir. FYI only very recently were women given equal rights to men in terms of inheriting the British throne, don't tell me the British monarchy was not patriarchal.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:17 PM
1

The queen doesn't count because she didn't work her way to that position and thus her being female proves nothing about the abilities of women to become important people.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 08:48 PM
0

They've been rather focused on the sub lately. Weird that a subreddit specifically set up to be against the /mr subreddit with a title that specifically says it is against the /mr subreddit would be focusing on the /mr subreddit.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 02:53 PM
2

Well gee, no, my situation doesn't make any sense if you apply it to a ludicrous situation! But let's say that this rapist makes it clear to the girl that he would not be happy if she said no, that he expects her to say yes, maybe he's had violent tendencies in the past. Anyway, the fact that she might be scared of saying no isn't the only reason that you always try and get a yes. For example, she may feel obligated to have sex with you (possibly because of people on the internet saying things l…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 01:01 PM
-4

So being raped by a rapist isn't cause to feel you might be at risk of more violence? Thanks for your help CrossHook.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 12:51 PM
0

so shes willing to be raped instead because of what MIGHT happen if she shows unwillingness? Uh, yeah, that's exactly it. If you're scared of being hit, abandoned, being more violently raped, killed, abused, etc. then you do just go along with it, I feel many people would.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 10:19 AM
2

Another androphobic assertion is that the workplace should be asexual. That men should check their gonads at the door (as if women are already asexual or in complete control of their appetites). Give it a rest. Sex and sexual attraction, love, flirting, simple affection between workplace pals are facts of life misanthropes may rage against and try to kill, but never extinguish. Fuck you women! You don't want your workplace to be sexual? You don't want to be the subject of sexual advances whilst …
/r/MensRights04/05/13 03:17 AM
2

Our enemies will close in What enemies are these?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 05:27 PM
-4

If both are of the same economic status then the black, trans, queer person is FAR more privileged. This is the best thing I've ever heard you say. I'm going to write this down in a book as one of the most stupid things ever said. Next time a gay person is refused the right to marry or is thrown out by their family, or a black person is shot for looking "suspicious" or is given the death penalty when a white person would not have been or a trans person is killed by their partner or locked up in …
/r/MensRights30/04/13 06:01 PM
-3

No? That's entirely my point, I'm saying that being queer, black and disabled is actually pretty difficult, and that yes actually, there is such a thing as privilege that isn't just caused by "I have more money".
/r/MensRights30/04/13 03:17 PM
-10

So your average white, cis, straight, able person's life is no more privileged than your average black, trans, queer, disabled person's life? Because neither are super-rich?
/r/MensRights30/04/13 07:36 AM
-7

Meanwhile the majority don't just want superiority, they have it.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 12:17 AM
1

What does "qualified" mean? And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, because I don't think it would harm the Cabinet particularly.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:58 PM
0

Fewer women are in politics because fewer go into it in the first place. Hmm, I wonder why not? Possibly because politics is a male-dominated field, which does several things 1) Create the impression that women aren't suited to it, discouraging women from joining. 2) Creates the impression that women aren't suited to it, discouraging voters from voting for women. 3) Creates the impression that women aren't suited to it, discouraging parties from putting women up for election in seats. 4) Means t…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:14 PM
-2

Fewer women are in politics because fewer go into it in the first place. Hmm, I wonder why not? Possibly because politics is a male-dominated field, which does several things 1) Create the impression that women aren't suited to it, discouraging women from joining. 2) Creates the impression that women aren't suited to it, discouraging voters from voting for women. 3) Creates the impression that women aren't suited to it, discouraging parties from putting women up for election in seats. 4) Means t…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:03 PM
-6

Truly it is a sorry, sorry state that attempts to do something to get more women into politics considering that they are vastly underrepresented. Obviously the only proper, Tory thing to do is nothing. I suppose since we live in a "meritocracy" then the only reason women aren't in politics is because they don't have enough merit, right? Men are just more suited to politics Mr Buchanan? Ah, wait, you address this. Put simply, if the proportion of women in the Cabinet, on major company boards etc …
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:21 PM
0

When can I expect to pay less taxes then them? I suspect, presuming you live in a country with a progressive income tax, right now. Women pay less tax overall because they earn less money overall and therefore pay less income tax.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 07:12 PM
-18

I heard a debate with Mike Buchanan (the UK guy running on a mrm platform) Would that be the debate where he said that women didn't pay as much tax, the host pointed out this was because women didn't earn as much as men, and he went, "Um, well, yeah."?
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:53 AM
-5

Uh, except no it doesn't? What about "Maybe the person just likes looking that way" because, I dunno, they like looking nice, or like the message it says about themselves, or like pretty clothes.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 08:01 PM
-9

I'm arguing that you can't assume that they want to be stared at, and thus it's not at all reasonable to stare at them.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 05:31 PM
2

Why would that be? They like the clothes? They like looking good? It makes them feel better about themselves? I don't know. OR Do they feel better knowing that they look good and will make a better impression on the people around them. I. Don't. Know. Maybe. If they were on a desert island with no people for miles would they want to dress up to feel good considering they will never see another person ever again? Quite possibly! If I had a whole wardrobe on a desert island, I probably would try w…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 05:17 PM
-7

Some men find your best efforts to put on make-up and revealing trendy attire pleasing. Was this not your intention? You don't know. Maybe. Maybe the person just likes looking that way. Maybe they feel particularly good when they dress like that. Maybe they wanted to meet with a particular person. Maybe they wanted to dress up and go out with a friend. But no, ignore all that, assume they want attention, if they don't want your attention it's because their shallow, and stare away.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 04:54 PM
1

I don't hate you because you're heterosexual and male though, and my "obsession" is mainly present because I think you're funny to watch and prod.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 06:39 PM
-3

We've discussed this already. Cis people are not necessarily men and not necessarily heterosexual.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 03:03 PM
-7

The lacking of self-awareness is remarkable. Tell me again about the horrifying threat posed by false rape accusations and ex-wives stealing all your money?
/r/MensRights23/04/13 07:21 AM
-2

The entire controversy is that it's cartoon (fantasy) child porn. It's not illegal for being fantasy, it's illegal because it's cartoon child porn.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 09:33 PM
-6

Damn right you assume, because there's no fucking evidence about that. The guy said he did it out of curiosity, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, sorry, it's absurd to assume that someone who has previously been convicted for indecently assaulting a minor might be watching child porn because he's attracted to children.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 07:55 PM
-18

I know there is no evidence that watching a fake murder makes you more likely to murder. But what if you are watching the fake murder because you want to murder someone and that's how you fulfil that fantasy? That's the appropriate comparison because he was watching cartoon child porn because it fulfilled his desires regarding children (I assume at least).
/r/MensRights21/04/13 02:25 PM
-25

The obvious and old point to be made here, is then surely films involving murder or any sort of criminality will lead to the real thing. History tells us speech, films, books or other media should only be criminalized for extreme and demonstrably dangerous cases. Else, very quickly your world will go mad. If you were watching the murder because you got your jollies from watching murder? Yes, that might very well encourage you to migrate to, say, watching snuff films, and then migrating to actual…
/r/MensRights21/04/13 01:20 PM
1

If only you put this much effort into activism for the rights of, I don't know, men. Fuck, if that's too difficult, try helping animals maybe? Pay some money to a dog shelter? Anything.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 08:53 PM
2

I'm saying that it isn't going, "Here are these people's details, and where they live." So did you read that article? Feel like addressing it?
/r/MensRights20/04/13 05:33 PM
2

Except the SPLC didn't point at individuals. AVfM is a hate site http://manboobz.com/2013/04/18/a-12-step-program-to-help-a-voice-for-men-cure-its-addiction-to-hate/
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:03 PM
-13

What is the point? He broke the law, admitted to doing it and his defence was invalid. Even if you disagree with a law that doesn't enable you to break that law, there are perfectly legal ways to object to a law.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 10:18 AM
3

It's at best vigilante justice, at worst deliberate intimidation of potential political opponents, a sign saying, "We can, and do, reveal personal information on people we don't like." But yes, I suppose that's all secondary to AVfM's true purpose here, "Doing a shitty thing so people will look at us and go, 'That's shitty!'" Brilliant marketing strategy. Hint: If your problem is with websites that do the same thing to men, implicitly condoning them by doing the same thing to women doesn't help.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 09:59 AM
11

"hadn't a clue it was illegal" Ignorance is almost never a valid legal defence.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 09:48 AM
0

Please explain to me Demonspawn how society preventing men from looking how they want saved humanity from extinction?
/r/MensRights16/04/13 05:08 PM
1

Silly, cis people aren't all men.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 03:07 PM
2

This seems legit to me. Guy says, "Bras aren't needed ("false necessity" are the words he uses).", woman says, "Um, actually, I wear one, it's needed."
/r/MensRights15/04/13 02:22 PM
0

You live your life, we'll live ours. We'd love to. Just stop obstructing the campaigns for gaining equality between men and women and abolishing gender roles that constrict men and women first. Also, get JtO to write shorter articles, that always gets on my nerves.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 01:04 AM
0

Geez, that's pretty bad. I'm in the UK, so seeing a doctor isn't a problem. I'll get round to it, and in the meantime probably just try to catch more sleep. I hope your friend is okay now.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 12:41 AM
1

Hmm, I might get it checked out, though I think it's mainly just due to being a teenager nearing exam time, stress and busyness keeping me up. But thanks for alerting me, I'll keep an eye on it and talk to someone.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 12:09 AM
-2

I'm not anti-men's rights, I'm against the "Men's Rights Movement" and I have to say that and sound like a moron because you chose the name not I. If feminism had chosen to name it's the "Women's Rights Movement" I couldn't pull this shit on you and say you were anti-women's rights just based on that.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 10:57 PM
-9

...I was joking, playing off the whole "I can't be [bigot], my best friend is [minority]!" I'm a fan of David Futrelle though, he seems like a cool dude. Remember guys, being anti-MRA doesn't mean you're anti-man, in the same way that anti-feminist isn't anti-women.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 09:35 PM
0

...Are you going through my posts and replying to each one? But yes, that's how I've always used it, which is why I don't see myself as a troll, I think antagonist is a better word.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 09:22 PM
0

Because he makes it sound like whenever women have got into trouble (which they just bumble their way into apparently), they've been protected by men, and they've been a protected class and have developed the idea they can do whatever they want. But that's just not true, not true at all. Not even "Oh, there's isolated cases where it wasn't true.", women's freedoms have been restricted for most of history. He says that women are entitled and lack accountability but also that that has always been …
/r/MensRights14/04/13 09:12 PM
-20

Do you tolerate others who do hate men? Do you speak out against them or do you make excuses for them, ignore them and let them control the agenda while you still claim to be 'good' feminist and support a hate movement. Do you really imagine that you are blameless? I mostly spend my days sleeping, I get tired super easily. Apart from that I spend a lot of time telling you guys what's wrong with yourself, so I'm certainly not supporting this hate movement. I don't have a whole lot of involvement …
/r/MensRights14/04/13 09:01 PM
-16

I can't hate men, I used to see myself as a man! That's like, twice as good as having a male best friend!
/r/MensRights14/04/13 08:51 PM
-12

Do I hate or fear men? Nope. That was easy. Still feminist.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 08:29 PM
0

Grapbeban, will you do me that honor of being my husband. I was gonna say I might find that difficult seeing as I'm female, but hey, this is political MRM/feminism marriage here, let's subvert those gender norms. Anyway, ask me in the morning, what kind of feminist would I be if I accepted the consent of someone doped on sleeping pills as valid. Truly I'm flattered though, hopefully we can set up a glorious dynasty of bickering bickerers.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 06:32 PM
0

Jesus I feel like that man that walked on the. "This is one small step for men and women's rights and one large leap for humanity. Typhonblue already did that I'm afraid, y'know she posted a comment I made on her website once? Not to mock, to trumpet it. But yeah, this doesn't happen a lot.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 06:05 PM
0

I'll be honest I'm gonna have a tough time arguing against you here because I totally agree basically and I do think the British (we are talking about Britain right? Show's how much attention I'm paying, but I've only heard this debate in the context of Britain (I just looked it up, we are talking about Britain, score)) prison system needs a total overhaul. Total as in get men and women out of prison. I've heard of the existence of statistics stating that women have more mental health issues/pri…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 05:33 PM
-6

shrug It's not the place to talk about your views on feminism then. Talk about your beliefs about feminism somewhere else. Let's extrapolate the situation here. You wouldn't go to a meeting about gardening and start discussing model train sets, okay? That's the extrapolated example, where you have two very general but totally different topics. It's the same with /r/feminism but we're dealing with a more specialised discussion, ie discussion from feminists. So this is like if you turned up to a m…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 04:55 PM
-2

Why not respond to my comment about logic and reason being the enemy of female privilege? Because the one I responded to was more fun? you really are just a shitty troll getting kicks by poking fun at idiots. Is that the definition of troll now? I thought trolls had to be insincere, I'm totally sincere, though still getting kicks by poking fun at idiots. It makes me think that you don't even have two marbles to knock around in that head of yours. Who knows! That's the fun of life. To respond to …
/r/MensRights14/04/13 04:39 PM
-2

Doesn't the fact that you've been here for so long say something about this subreddit? Try presenting a dissenting opinion on any of the feminist subreddits and see how long it takes the mods to ban you. Kudos for acting as the opposing viewpoint, but ask yourself why MRA's support freedom of speech but feminists do not. Because not everywhere on the internet needs to be a bastion of free speech? /r/feminism is presumably trying to be a discussion space for feminism (it fails pretty hard at that…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 03:29 PM
-3

Please, I hardly call my tepid comebacks "terrorism". Anyway, I'd go to my local zoo, but the tiger there is femal... sorry, I meant to say, the tiger there is one of the females (hissssss) and thus likely subcontracted out the eating damsels to the man tigers. Edit: And I think I've been on /mr long enough to deserve a little better than "troll". I prefer "annoying fixture of this subreddit". I earned that -500 karma.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 01:57 PM
-14

the female. Ah, yes, that rare, mysterious creature known only as "the female", or perhaps, "the lesser spotted hornbilled female" to give it its full name. but due to culture See, you attribute it to culture, but then start talking about cavemen. So is this a "culture" that has existed for the literal length and breadth of human history? That's a heck of a culture. That title goes to the white knight who by their actions ensure it stays that way by shielding them from life's best teacher; accou…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 01:39 PM
19

If you want to know who rules over you in society, simply find out whom you are not allowed to criticize. ~Voltaire Voltaire never said that. Best we can guess is that some white supremacist guy said it in the 90s and it somehow got attributed to Voltaire. The white supremacist was originally using it to talk about Jewish people, 'cause he was arguing there was a Jewish conspiracy. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire#Misattributed To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not al…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 10:46 AM
2

Not even close. He paid for everything. She could have chosen to work and contribute equally. In that case she wouldn't be due shit. Instead she chose to take care of this kids. THAT WAS THE JOB SHE CHOSE. She still shouldn't be due shit ESPECIALLY NOT FOR THE FUCKIN PRIVILEGE OF STAYIN HOME WITH HER KID. Except the fact that she was staying home looking after the kid enabled the dad to go work. Again, it's almost as if marriage were a partnership, or that raising a kid makes it difficult to sim…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 10:04 AM
-8

In other words , it's the double standard that bothers us , not the fact that anybody wants to make such jokes. Crude and crass as they may be , it's not the subject matter that is at issue. I'm dubious of this claim, at least from the standpoint of how some in the MRM consider it. Katherine Heigl is on register-her as a bigot for making a joke during a campaign to get pets neutered about wanting to castrate males. Now, if her only crime was having taken advantage of a double-standard, but what …
/r/MensRights13/04/13 11:09 AM
-16

/mr - a drama of hypocrisy One day: "Oh dear, me oh my, they made a joke about a penis being cut off, dox them on register-her!" Another day: "How dare you get offended by words, they're just words!"
/r/MensRights13/04/13 10:52 AM
-8

She supported the children while he set up the business presumably. It's almost as if marriage were a partnership, what a quaint notion.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 01:27 AM
2

Ah yes, the old feminist trope to blame the society they call "Patriarchy". But, the "antipluggkultur" (anti-school culture) is bullshit. I'm Swedish, I'm a man, I went to school not long ago. I know perfectly well that boys as a group don't have such a culture, at least not more than girls do. Here's a thought experiment. Which would be considered more masculine: Studying hard and passing an exam OR skipping homework to go play football with your friends?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 11:44 PM
-4

I have just made that my Skype bio and will probably make it my twitter tagline.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 01:43 AM
-12

Have you considered that the fact that some feminists calls for quotas shows that there is a problem with employers not hiring women, not women not applying for the jobs? But also, what MRAs always say is, "You never hear about feminists talking about getting women into the dangerous jobs". Also, here's a fun experiment. Find a feminist, and ask them if they think men should pay for dates. Feminists haven't thought men were walking wallets for a loooong time, if ever.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 01:31 AM
-16

/mr, where they want more women to do dangerous jobs, until feminists actually call for that.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 01:05 AM
0

'Your rights end where my feelings begin' It's nothing to do with rights, it's to do with decency. You have a right to use slurs in common conversation, but the decent thing to do is not to use them. But please, tell me what some of these things that aren't are? That black people are just as human as white people? That the Western world is not de facto supreme? That gay people are less privileged than straight people?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:52 PM
0

Political correctness is saying that you shouldn't use offensive words or do offensive things. Political correctness is the radical concept that you shouldn't be an asshole.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 10:16 PM
0

/mr seems to want its cake and eat it too. I'm getting two messages, one that women should have to sign up for the draft and should have equal numbers of fatalities to men, the other that women have no place on the battlefield. Curious.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:02 AM
-4

So if I say "I think males should have this service to, in case it could save their lives", feminists say I'm a misogynist and I hate women. So because I DON 'T think people should be denied medical care due to their gender, I'm a sexist- according to feminists. Feminists say that if you don't agree with denying men healthcare and letting them die, you are a sexist and hate women. As a feminist, I can confirm that you're talking crap and that most feminists do not think this. Edit: Not denying t…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 04:16 PM
0

Yes, Farrell does say he's been misquoted, though the only thing he'll point to doesn't get any better when he substitutes in what he claims to have actually said. He also says he's been misinterpreted, but he's super coy about telling us what he's been misinterpreted about and what is true. You read the article, you saw what Farrell said (what he said and did not, apart from one word, recede) and you see no problems with it. That says volumes about you, and volumes about the /mr that they're so…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 04:05 PM
1

The fact is, that considering you talk bullshit about the one case I do know about - if Warren Farrell is an incest-apologiser then I'm a banana - I don't really believe any of your other slanderous assertions. I just want you to read the article. Come to your own conclusions based on it. Just read it, your reaction will tell me all I need to know about you. Riiiight. So he was never actually found guilty, but in your eyes he's guilty anyway? Also, bullshit about blogging - no justice system any…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 01:25 PM
0

In Mala Fide, an MRA/anti-feminist blog known for white supremacy. I think the guys name was Eivind Berge, and he sent death threats to a judge and, unsurprisingly, was arrested. He wasn't charged, but that's due to a loophole wherein blogging is not subject to the same laws as other kinds of speech. Demonspawn, advocates killing judges, prominent MRA on here. /redpill mainly just talk a load of misogynistic shit. They're all anti-feminist though, not sure why that makes them probably ok. And fi…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 01:04 PM
0

IfI could find another source for the Penthouse article, I'd use it. But once again, none of this changes the content of the article which had nothing to do with her. This is the equivalent of ignoring a book in the library because the librarian is a convicted criminal. Edit: And as far as I can see, Manboobz only makes you look bad, and do you ever look aroud at your company, lilke /r/redpill or In Mala Fide when it was still around or /u/demonspawn or that guy who was arrested for sending thre…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:46 AM
158

This just isn't true. Go to the website, http://calvet.ca.gov/ There's a link right there at the top, Veteran's Services and at the end, Resources, both of which do not specify that they are for women or minorities, both of which have information for disabled veterans. The categories about minorities and women? Unsurprisingly contain links for things specifically for women and minorities. Please just think /mr, why would a website only offer programmes for disabled vets under the categories of w…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 08:07 PM
-3

No, the Penthouse article was not written by Liz, she just hosts the photo copies. Think before you make accusations. The morals of the person who has the photocopy doesn't affect the photocopy. And contrary to popular belief, I don't think men don't deserve rights! I do see men as human, I just think that the MRM is at best reactionary and ill-informed, at worst dangerous to both men and women. Also, I note the little barb there. It isn't just men who made the world I enjoy, it's all of us, tog…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:49 PM
-4

Notice that the article was not written by Liz, it was written by an interviewer after interviewing Farrel himself.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 04:36 PM
-2

I encourage any MRA or curious bystander to read these photocopies of this magazine article http://www.thelizlibrary.org/warren-farrell/warren-farrell2.htm (a more readable write up here http://www.thelizlibrary.org/warren-farrell/warren-farrell5.htm) to see just what feminists find objectionable about Farrel.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:39 PM
-9

The Men's Rights Movement is the radical notion that we are living in an gynocentric matriarchy.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:29 PM
0

Um, well in Britain no women could vote before 1918. Guess what? Classism and sexism can both exist. The rich had it better than the poor, the men had it better than the women, the rich men had it better than the rich women and the poor men had it better than the poor women. It's called intersectionality, third wave feminism has been going on about it for quite a while now. I suppose black people not being able to vote wasn't a race issue either, because hey, some poor white men couldn't vote ei…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 08:15 PM
0

So what you're really saying is a large number of women used a small number of very powerful men who oppressed men and women alike as justification to enact legislation to favor women over all men. This legislation being... what, universal suffrage? Furthermore, yes, not all men could vote. But no women could vote. If you want to claim that the vote wasn't a gender issue and that men were not privileged, I'm just going to laugh and laugh and laugh. Especially since the husbands of the suffragist…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:42 PM
-1

I don't want the conversation below this article to invalidate my own position so I have shut down the conversation all together. Except he points out there are plenty of other places to talk about this. For instance, here. Or on any of the other articles about feminism on RPS. Or on a forum. Or at a convention. That post right there is a clarification of RPS' position on things, and thus isn't an appropriate place to have a discussion. It's the difference between a lecture and a debate, both ar…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:03 PM
1

In the preindustrial agrarian or artisan home, children saw both their parents working. There was a division of labor (women-domestics, men-farming/crafting) but none of it was occluded from children's view. Both parents were equally authority figures dealt with on a daily basis. I'm not super familiar with pre-industrial rural Britain, but I know enough to tell you that everyone was involved in the farming, including the women. The first women's lib activists were the first children of the indu…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 05:53 PM
2

It's not a media conspiracy, it's just a matter of cultural expectations. Do you think men are worse parents? Because women are generally the active carer for children, is that just because men suck at raising children? What about nursing? Teaching? Are men shitty teachers? I'm gonna put forward a bold opinion. I think Will Wright is a worse game designer than Anna Anthropy, maker of dys4ia! Why? Because I enjoyed dys4ia more than any Sims or Sim City game! Similarly, I prefer Portal to Civilisa…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 04:00 PM
2

I've noticed you've edited some of your posts, I'll do my best to address them now. First to deal with Kim Swift. She designed the levels for Portal. In a puzzle game based around level design? That's significant. She came up with the idea for Quantum Conundrum, she led the design team in that! She isn't just someone standing around going, "Uh, yeah, you do the art stuff." She's coming up with the idea. Now to deal with the stuff you've edited in. Women could have started any number of game stud…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 02:47 PM
2

He was an iconic example of a man who's personality and creative lead of a project made it the gem that it is. I also cited Portal. How about I remind you for the third time that the leader of the Portal team and creator the game Portal was based on was a woman?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 02:33 PM
2

That's just thick. You think games would be good without vision? Would Super Meat Boy be any good without Edmund McMillen handling the art and design? Would Portal be as good without the writing, or the atmosphere? The Walking Dead without the themes or artwork or clever game design. By your standards, a radar is as good game design as Dark Souls, because hey, it's the programming that's the work right? You don't want examples of programmers, you sniffed at that, you don't want examples of team …
/r/MensRights08/04/13 02:15 PM
1

Okay, well, I figured that you weren't looking for actual visionary game design, because I produced examples of that for you, Portal, Naughty Dog, but that wasn't good enough for you. I thought you wanted just examples of programming and only programming.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 01:32 PM
1

Simply put, because the things that make a challenging game aren't seen. Name me a woman who has worked as core lead programmer. Oh I see, so all my examples of female gamer designers weren't proper examples. How about Amanda Wixted, lead programmer for the iPhone version of Pacman and Ms. Pacman? Simply put, because the things that make a challenging game aren't seen. There are a whole bunch of assumptions here. Why is a challenging game good? What do you mean that logical thinking and honesty …
/r/MensRights08/04/13 01:21 PM
1

Abstract logical thinking and intellectual honesty, a difference that was identified centuries ago. Why is abstract logical thinking and intellectual honesty needed to make videogames? There are many famous female artists, what makes videogames as an artform different? And furthermore, why have you evaded my examples of female game designers? Furtherfurthermore, why is your source for this an old poem? An old poem that uses the same arguments used against women's suffrage? Centuries ago it was b…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:56 PM
1

No. It's because they're just not very good at making games. Fucking wow. Roberta Williams, co-founded Sierra. Carol Shaw, produced the Atari game River Raid, big success. Kim Swift, leader of the team that worked on Portal. Amy Henning, creative director of Naughty Dog. Also, there are huge numbers of really good indie games that while not being best selling, are of extremely high quality, produced by women, like Anna Anthropy, maker of Dys4ia http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/591565 Or Cou…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:29 PM
0

Women have no right or high ground to criticize men's biological imperative as long as they continue to practice their own imperative to prefer wealthy, strong high status men. So you have no problem with women in the gaming industry being renowned not for skill at making games but for attractiveness? You don't see how that would put women off gaming, or would send out a message that women's primary value is their attraction even when that seemingly shouldn't matter? And the reason you have no p…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:12 PM
5

I don't get this at all. So feminists/Tumblr are now shouting at, what, starving children? I don't remember that being a thing. I mean, sure, that kid has it worse than all of us, but that doesn't mean that problems faced by, say, gay people (who lack straight privilege, to tie it back to the image) don't exist or aren't an issue, and in fact the issues involved are usually multiplied in countries that aren't first world. Surely I could accuse the people on this subreddit of the same thing? OMG …
/r/MensRights08/04/13 11:58 AM
-2

I just don't see how a stupid video about spanking and a "40 hottest" list is evidence of a hostile and misogynistic culture in the games industry. Really? You don't? You don't see how a culture that considers a video of sexualised violence against women to be fair enough isn't evidence of hostile misogyny? You don't see how even when they're supposedly being ranked according to ability and promise, women are still being judged primarily by attractiveness is a culture of misogyny? Really? Ask yo…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 10:50 AM
-1

Read the article instead of jumping to the comments to join in a righteous flame war. The comments are off on this post. This is a reference post, a place we can point people toward to understand our position. I am not willing to let this post become yet another platform for the people who wish to silence this debate. On this occasion I have no desire to publicly put up with the invasive ignorant spite and fearful anger that will be littered amongst the usual excellent comments from our fantasti…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 10:38 AM
2

Zimmerman wasn't white. Apologies, the news sources I read called him white, but I read now he is Hispanic. But that doesn't change the fact that Martin was killed effectively for being black. I imagine the media would like to make it seem more interesting like that (as they did with Zimmerman). What? I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 02:50 AM
0

Yes, because that was a case of a black boy being killed effectively for being black by a white man. Not the best example for playing down the racism I claim exists.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 01:02 AM
5

http://imgur.com/orX1pk9 signed, your friendly militant rad fem cretinous religious nutcase. Edit: Link to original http://xkcd.com/774/
/r/MensRights07/04/13 11:03 PM
-2

Exactly. This is why when a black person commits a crime, the newspapers say, "Black man stabs two in mugging!" while with a white guy it's just "Man stabs two in mugging!" It's assumed that people are white, male, straight, etc. in most cases.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 10:19 PM
0

For the same reason I control my mouth and don't walk around going, "Wow, what a complete fucking shithead you are" when I go past strangers. It's called decency.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:21 PM
-13

Firstly: Wanting people to look at them is not the same as wanting to be sexually harassed. Secondly: Even if you think they do want to be looked at; if they don't, stop looking at them.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 01:05 PM
-18

But you must admit that there are some girls who take a character like a stormtrooper and totally sex it up. I've got nothing against that but I think it's unreasonable to create a costume specifically designed to attract sexual attention and then get upset that people are showing you sexual attention. And it's a lie to say that there are only sexy female characters and the women have no choice. Some girls even take unattractive male characters and give them a sexy female spin. Have you consider…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 12:22 PM
-4

I'm gonna hedge my bets here. You claim MRAs are doing work, I claim feminists are doing work, neither of us have (apparently) provided sufficient evidence so I'm happy to just leave it at neither group is effectively serving men. Because at the end of the day, that still fucks over your response. (also, what kind of source am I meant to provide for the culture thing? A newspaper going, "Feminists have dismantled gender roles as of today, here is a feminist saying exactly that." Seriously dude, …
/r/MensRights06/04/13 10:03 PM
-7

make it so that men aren't the sole people on the front lines http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21172033 Unless you're claiming that the influential voices arguing for women to be allowed on the front lines were MRAs, I think this one is clear. make sure that women have a presence in mines http://www.womeninmining.net/default.asp http://www.wmc-usa.org/ Oh look, feminist groups fighting to help women in the mining industry. Tell me what MRAs have done in this area please? You are so conc…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:52 PM
-4

"Good, I'm glad you agree that our issues are valid and important. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go actually work on these issues. You're free to join me if you want, or you can just stand there trying to dismantle the work MRAs are doing." Yes, because MRAs have done soooo much work to, say, make it so that men aren't the sole people on the front lines, or make sure that women have a presence in mines, or disassembling the culture that demanded fathers be distant from children. Oh wait…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:34 PM
-11

Soon I'll be an adult that comes here to laugh at a movement of fools.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:44 PM
-5

I'll hold you to that assurance.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:23 PM
-8

The only thing I saw about the MRM on the BBC recently was an interview with the Justice For Men And Boys Party on Women's Hour (they're definitely part of the MRM, they frequently reference AVfM), and they got totally humiliated. Funny that. But yes, I eagerly await the day that AVfM can fulfil it's prophecy and "fuck my shit up".
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:04 PM
-8

Biggest week in the MRMs history! Wow! Not that you'd be able to tell from the BBC news homepage. It's almost as if the world kept spinning without giving a fuck.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:50 PM
-2

It's almost as if the bar wanted its female bar staff to be attractive because it treated their appearance as a commodity to be provided to the patrons! But wait, that sounds almost misogynistic, and we know that that can't happen.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 09:20 PM
-12

Fighting tangible issues requires work. Fighting the patriarchy just requires working yourself into a self-righteous fury whenever you feel the itch to baste in your own brain hormones. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, when was the last time MRAs did "work" Typhonblue?
/r/MensRights05/04/13 09:42 AM
5

It's rape. Even if he doesn't get sentenced in court for it, it's still rape, just difficult to prove rape. He knows she doesn't want to have sex with him and is specifically attempting to undermine this consent by drugging her up. It's so transparently rape that I'm sickened that people would claim it isn't.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 06:53 PM
-4

There's absolutely no evidence substaniating what you've said here. Reports showing that children raised by single parents tend to consider children who are raised without a father acting as a parental figure but don't filter out those who have occasional contact with a father (who may be abusive or something like that) or something disruptive going on like a divorce. When a child is being raised by a single mother with a father out of the picture and nothing like divorce proceedings going on, t…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 09:47 PM
-2

Isn't someone who makes a false rape allegation a dangerous sexual predator, just like any other dangerous sexual predator? How? If I falsely accuse someone of assault, have I commited a violent crime? If I falsely accuse someone of theft, have I stolen? How is falsely accusing someone of rape a sexual crime?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:07 PM
-2

Oh, and you didn't answer my question. Can you explain those results without shitting on the father? Be neutral for a moment? I'm not a child psychologist, but no, I admit that my first assumption as to the reason for those results does in fact "shit on the father". My assumption is that because the incest was statutory rape, the child likely did not enjoy it and probably found it traumatic as rape victims are known to do.. I suggest that the father, being a pedophile in this instance, likely pr…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 10:53 PM
-5

In context... the statements didn't say what the questioner said they did. He stands by his research, he just wont publish it because of the bullshit way people like you interpret it. That's interesting, so the comments make sense in context, but he refuses to publish the full context. Why should he point to specific spots where he was misinterpreted? They are obvious once you read it, and you wouldn't bother to look anyways. Because it's his work and if he doesn't tell me what to look for as an…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 09:03 PM
-1

Okay, firstly I've already addressed his answer to this, because it was just an exercise in dodging the question. But here's the thing, he ignores a huge number of things. Firstly, just because an experience is reported as positive doesn't mean it was positive in terms of being healthy for the child. Secondly, what about other factors? MRAs of all people should be able to recognise the pressure on the son in a mother/son incest situation to report the sexual experience as positive. Thirdly, that…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 08:37 PM
-5

I addressed his answer. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1bdvov/in_response_to_the_latest_heavily_upvoted_idiotic/c965ga7 Suffice to say it was... uninspiring.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 05:59 PM
1

Okay, um, you apparently struggle to read. The whole point is that in many situations no innocent man is being fucked over, because she doesn't accuse anyone specific. And it's not about embarassment, it's a cry for help.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:14 AM
-32

'cause you're funny, funny guys. Not in a good way.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 04:54 AM
-31

It's not the top post, but yes, I remember reading the AMA at the time. Here it is http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/18tv7j/i_am_warren_farrell_author_of_why_men_are_the_way/c8hwxz8 Farrell's response is a clear matter of dodging the question at hand. Remember, the fundamental question asked is, "Do you stand by your previous statements regarding incest?" Farrell replies: i did this research when my research skills as a new Ph.D. were in the foreground (I note here for all those concerned th…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 04:42 AM
-37

Yup, incredibly hateful of cis scum.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 04:03 AM
-5

Once again. He has said. He does not. Condone incest. Clearly though, you are right and he wants to see everyone fucking their daughters I mean there is no other rational answer. Farrell says “Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. … I interpret that Farrell means that often the taboo agains…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 03:36 AM
-6

People know incest is bad, normal, right minded people don't do it, for the same reason you don't smother a baby girl if you want a baby boy. Except Farrell thinks that this attitude deprives families of potentially positive experiences. First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and generally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Clearly this is …
/r/MensRights01/04/13 03:17 AM
-23

Also, I'm pretty sure you are a feminist. If you really stood up for what you believed in in this sub, you would use the same account you post to r/feminism on. I'm quite happy to debate with you, I just feel it is hypocritical you don't have the courage to stand up to your convictions unless you are on a throwaway account. I'm not on a throwaway account. This is my only account, unless you count a throwaway I used a long time ago. I don't post to /feminism and never have I think, I occasionally…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 02:54 AM
-32

Okay, tell me again what, in a "scientific sense", is "positive incest"? After that, tell how you, and he presumably, justify the idea that we only really think incest is bad because of the taboo around it?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 02:19 AM
-43

I stand by it.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:59 AM
-36

Yeah, I know, I had that quote. He recommends against incest because the nature of society prevents it from being carried out properly blah blah blah. However, he recognises that intellectually speaking, most fathers can grasp the theory of "positive incest". What the fuck is the theory right way to go about it when it comes to grown men having sex with children? Because Farrell seems to know.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:43 AM
-23

Also this. That article wasn't even written by Farrell. I'll give you one more chance to come up with something that sticks. So far you haven't convinced me. :) Of course it wasn't written by Farrell, it was an interview with Farrell. You understand how interviews work right? The interviewee isn't the person who writes the article. See where right before the bit where it says "by Philip Nobile" it says "WARREN FARRELL"? And then right after it says "interviewed"? Go to jpg 6, that's where the qu…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:33 AM
-41

Yes, I do. The first link is to photocopies of a magazine which conducted the interview with Farrell. Farrell has confirmed this magazine, though has corrected one word out of it which he claims was mistranscribed. The second one is from his book, The Myth of Male Power. Notice how I put the quotes right there? You should read the whole incest thing, it gets worse. Basically Farrell thinks that incest is only bad because of the cultural taboo around it, and things would be much better for everyo…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:19 AM
-75

One of the most benign incest apologisers of the MRA movement perhaps, who has said: I’m not recommending incest between parent and child, and especially not between father and daughter. The great majority of fathers can grasp the dynamics of positive incest intellectually. But in a society that encourages looking at women in almost purely sexual terms, I don’t believe they can translate this understanding into practice. And millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and g…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:09 AM
-2

What is rarely considered when MRAs cite false rape accusation statistics is that many accusations are made in such a way that no-one is accused. So the person goes, "Oh, I've been raped by a stranger." as a cry for help and attention rather than as an act of malice against someone.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 12:59 AM
0

You said that there are no women specific issues. None at all. Which is just an absurd thing to claim if you want to simultaenously argue that there are male specific issues.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 10:32 PM
1

Getting into the biological mechanics is as irrelevant as saying that access to universal health care is only a woman's issue because they have breasts and men don't(or some other woman-specific body part). Okay, well, why don't you use my other example? But also, let's go back to the child support example, I could argue that the argument over child support is actually an argument about rights and responsibilities regarding children, which is obviously something that affects everyone. And to hav…
/r/MensRights31/03/13 10:01 PM
0

Whereas with abortion there are no statistics showing that it's primarily women who have to deal with this issue! What about single parenthood if you don't like the abortion example? Statistically it affects mothers far more, isn't that a female issue?
/r/MensRights31/03/13 09:47 PM
-1

That story was around long before Disney. Ancient fairytales as adapted by Disney aren't particularly progressive, who knew. Fat bull dykes exist, you know, by any name. Again, just such taste and class and inclusivity. I really see why you guys are civil rights movement and not in fact a hate movement, since only civil rights movements throw around slurs quite like this. I can't think of any male characters on daytime television. Really? I mean, I can't say I'm too familiar with daytime TV, but…
/r/MensRights31/03/13 09:30 PM
-1

I stand by it.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 09:08 PM
2

People would be pro-life if men were capable of pregnancy This sentence brought to you by the baseless claims foundation. if artificial wombs are invented in the future and reproduction isn't dependent on any sex. Well yes, probably, since all pregnancy would be deliberate. It's not a women's issue. Except because it's women who get pregnant and its women's bodies whom we are discussing and women's bodily autonomy which we are discussing, it clearly is a women's issue!
/r/MensRights31/03/13 08:47 PM
10

The heroins are always sexy probably because no one wants to play as a fat bull dyke. Wooo homphobic slurs! First sentence, keep it inclusive /mr. I wonder if the same people hate Sleeping Beauty too. Usually, yes! Turns out, Disney Princesses aren't particularly progressive, who knew. With such harsh elephant-in-the-room realities I find it curious that someone out there is overlooking all of that just to complain about hilariously huge boobs. The same thing goes for movies. It's because men ar…
/r/MensRights31/03/13 08:36 PM
1

All I'm doing is what Typhonblue did. If abortion cannot be defined as a woman's issue, then nothing can be defined as a specific gender's issue.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 07:58 PM
2

Ignoring the obvious implications to the women connected to the men who get discriminated against, an imbalance in the sentencing process means that when justice is applied to women then that justice is trusted less, so guilty women might be treated as innocent and innocent women treated as guilty. Easy.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 07:08 PM
2

So you're just broadening the issues of everything to make it everyones issue. I could do that with every men's issue you raise then, let's take an example. Ummm, how about child support. The issue of whom is liable for a child is one that can theoretically affect both genders, and women are indeed made to pay child support. I wager that there are no "men's issues" when you extrapolate as you do.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 06:48 PM
0

States across America are working to shut down abortion clinics in order to prevent abortions. There, a woman's issue. Took me 3 seconds to think of.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 05:42 PM
-1

Register-her links are not allowed here, or any other AVfM article, as they are doxxers and are banned from this subreddit. Oh, wait, hang on...
/r/MensRights30/03/13 02:29 PM
0

Oh for fuck's sake, once again /mr attacks a harmless concept. Some people get triggered by things. Because you're a supposedly decent human being, you don't want that to happen, so you try to avoid letting it happen by using trigger warnings. It's an exceptionally simple idea.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 10:52 AM
3

Die cis scum
/r/MensRights29/03/13 06:25 PM
3

Because you're the minority. We are the standard (since you don't like the term "normal"). If I'm talking about someone I don't have to tell you that they aren't transexual because the vast majority of people aren't, so it's automatically assumed. So instead of saying straight person and gay person, we should say person and gay person? Instead of woman and man we should have person and male person? Instead of saying white person and black person we should say person and black person? So that ult…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 05:02 PM
4

The trans community has coined the term "cis" in petty attempt to "other" normal people. No, it's an attempt to make you equal to us. So it's no longer a case of talking about "normal men and normal women" and "trans men and trans women", as if being transgender is something that differentiates you from being a man or a woman, as if being trans means you are not a man or a woman but something different entirely, or as if being cisgender is the default. If the term cis others you "normal people" …
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:34 PM
0

So, if you polled the trans community, you would find more demonization of men and men's rights than you would support. Yes, probably. This is mainly because /mr tends to be pretty transphobic though. If you want to know why, try suggesting that we call trans people by their appropriate pronouns to Paul Elam some time!
/r/MensRights29/03/13 12:49 PM
2

Yes, I acknowledged that you can be forced into it. But look at it like this. When you suspect someone is being forced into saying no, you can either ignore them or accept that. Potential harm of ignoring them? They genuinally said no and you raped them. Potential harm of accepting it? They don't have sex. Whereas its the converse when you suspect someone is forced into saying yes.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 02:59 PM
1

Who will build the roads, who will fund the police, who will pay for schools they don't send their kids to,. Taxation is not slavery. Why not? Because taxation is a social contract where you agree to pay taxes in return for the services the state provides, like transport, like security, like the rule of law.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 12:24 PM
1

(I'm not a fan of government, because I think I can decide in my own community what schools or programs I should support) Unfortunately you can also decide whether or not you support those programmes in the first place. It's no good to just to rely on charity because that doesn't mean shit, especially since few are going to fund roads over the homeless.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 08:30 AM
-1

What? No, of course not. You can't be forced into saying no to sex, or I suppose theoretically you can be but in that circumstance your partner is still better off listening to the no, because it's the balance of harms of depriving someone who wants sex from having sex vs potentially raping someone. What is it that /mr has against listening to consent?
/r/MensRights28/03/13 08:14 AM
0

Neither does the sign say that she expects men to read her mind or that she is planning to falsely accuse a shit-ton of men. Look, the sign says yes doesn't always mean yes. I'm backing this up by demonstrating when yes doesn't always mean yes. As long as we accept that my examples are legitimate, then the sign's statement is proved true.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 12:33 AM
-2

All it says is that yes isn't always yes. I presented some circumstances under which yes does not mean yes.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 10:22 PM
-16

Because you can't be forced into signing a contract and can't be forced into agreeing to sex. A yes from a child isn't consent. A yes from someone being blackmailed isn't consent. A yes from a super drunk person isn't consent.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 08:28 PM
25

No part of America thinks it's alright to rape women. Walk up to any person on the street and ask them if they think rape is alright. Steubenville rape case, CNN sympathising with the rapists. That's rape culture.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 01:38 AM
-25

Yah, doing it right! Except, y'know, when you call people out as advised in this placard, do it quietly so no-one notices. Otherwise, those sexist guys might get fired and then it would be ALL YOUR FAULT BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T TAKE A JOKE. So yeah, tell them to fuck off, but quietly.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 08:00 AM
3

kept defending her actions as justified. Well, yeah, but lets remember all she did was report on a sexist joke. She didn't fire the guys.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 08:02 PM
11

Adria Richards didn't get him fired, in fact she expressed remorse that the men were fired. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 06:15 PM
6

Health care--mostly funded for women, and paid for by men. Why should men continue to fund healthcare they don't get? For the same reason I'm happy to pay my national insurance tax despite the fact that most people benefiting from it won't be me. War spending--guys get shipped off to wars started by big-money idiots to get more money. The guys dying don't get that money, nor do the guys coming back torn to shreds emotionally, physically, and spiritually. Why should they support wars fought witho…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 08:03 AM
1

Fun fact: During WWI the suffragettes suspended the campaign to gain the vote and instead campaigned to be allowed to work in the factories that supplied materials for the war effort.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 10:10 PM
2

I'm glad we could come to an agreement at least. Perhaps, society does force us to curtail our expectations of human interaction somewhat.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 08:01 PM
2

So it's mostly to do with how well he knows them? Still not sexism. It's the difference between me slapping a black guy who's a friend on the back and going "Sup darky!" and slapping a random black stranger on the back and saying the same thing. One is camaraderie, one is racism.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 07:01 PM
6

Doctors That's their job. fitness instructors That's their job. parents That's their responsibility. well wishing friends That's done from a place of care as well as common familiarity, trust and respect. This guy is a random stranger, who is telling these random women off for doing something when they have no asked him for his opinion, almost certainly know of the health risks, and the reason he's doing it is entirely motivated by self-interest i.e. he's concerned he might not want to fuck them…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 06:38 PM
4

he thinks he controls that woman He tells them what to do with their bodies "When they asked him what he was going on about he'd lecture them about how smoking was going to "ruin their looks" he believes those women's primary purpose to be his enjoyment See above quote + "would sigh at young women smoking and say "SUCH a waste" doesn't give a shit about reasons that might affect them or indeed their own autonomy. See above quotes + "Nevermind their health and never mind that it was none of his b…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 06:14 PM
4

Except he thinks he controls that woman, the fact that he considers those women smoking to "be a waste" because it ruins her appearance shows that he believes those women's primary purpose to be his enjoyment and doesn't give a shit about reasons that might affect them or indeed their own autonomy. Being heterosexual doesn't mean you feel you get to control the appereance of those you are attracted to.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 06:04 PM
12

The third one where you claim it's not sexism because he's heterosexual, that's just blatantly stupid of you. What, it's okay that he's judging their life decisions based on how it impacts his enjoyment of them (their appearance) because he's attracted to them? Thinking that women's bodies are yours to control demonstrates you feel women are just their to serve men sexually and is most definitely sexism. As for claiming that sexual harassment isn't sexist, the whole point is that it demonstrates…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 05:24 PM
16

Who are these feminists in power? Where can I find them? What have you read that indicates they are terrified of you?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 08:16 AM
0

I identify as inherently superior to you. What's the harm in bowing to me in the street and calling me your master? False comparison. How does treating someone as female harm you anymore than treating them as male? Aaand you just went full retard. I'm being serious, a lot of people have chromosomal disorders that mean they don't have a simple XX or XY chromosome pairing.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 09:53 PM
2

I have nothing but contempt for women. The MRM, not being misogynistic since some theoretical time in the future when they all get their act together! I have been proven correct more than half the time. That could be conformational bias Almost certainly is. Fed up with PC bullshit "PC bullshit" apparently here meaning "facts".
/r/MensRights19/03/13 08:38 PM
1

But the point is most damsels are women and most don't get to be badass. Edit: and women are underrepresented as gaming leads: Looking back at an earlier PA Report, data from video game research and consulting firm EEDAR showed that, from a sample of 669 current-gen games which had protagonists of a specific gender, only 24 of these were exclusively fronted by women. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-19-why-publishers-refuse-games-such-as-remember-me-because-of-their-female-protagonists
/r/MensRights19/03/13 07:50 PM
2

Well, I just checked a British site and found this: Women are more likely to have been treated for a mental health problem than men (29% compared to 17%) This site also provided an explanation This could be because, when asked, women are more likely to report symptoms of common mental health problems http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-statistics/men-women/ What does diagnosable even mean? Because you imply it means crazy, but that's not it at all. You could be talking …
/r/MensRights19/03/13 07:11 PM
5

There are a good percentage of women (47%) & men (29%) who are one fruit loop short of a bowl of cereal. Where did you get those statistics? What the heck do they even mean?
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:43 PM
-1

If you have the XY pair of chromosomes and were born with a dick, then you are a man. Have you had your chromosomes tested? If not, how do you know that you have XY chromosomes? (I'm assuming your sex is male and that you identify as male Robert). I don't worry too much about the feelings of the insane, to be completely honest. Why not? Do you worry about anyone's feelings? If so, why do you worry about their's and not the insane? What about the insane precludes them from recieving your empathy …
/r/MensRights19/03/13 05:19 PM
7

Interesting that all the comparisons you used involved you having to do something difficult/embarrassing to accomodate that person. So basically you're making a false comparison to make it seem like accepting someone's gender identity is a hassle. Furthermore, its accepted medically that gender is a separate construct to sex, that it is possible for your gender and sex to contradict each other (gender dysphoria) and that gender transition is basically the only effective treatment for gender dysp…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:34 PM
0

Considering some of the bigotries aren't bigotries at all (for example, protesting a conference made by an incest-apologiser), yes. Edit: Some of the bigotries on register-her aren't bigotries that is.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:14 AM
26

I dunno. Why is AVFM's register-her.com acceptable, considering it does the same thing? And don't say, "AVFM only points out illegality", they have a "bigot" category. Furthermore, the comments called out are posted to a public page. You don't get to stand in a park and shout slurs without someone calling you out, why should you get to do the equivalent on the internet without being called out?
/r/MensRights17/03/13 07:47 PM
-3

Okay, the translation is too poor to really tell what's going on here. On the one hand we have this: Group wants anti-feminist statements shall be subject to racist speech can. Which is meaningless We believe that the legislation is too weak to counter the wave of anti-feminist threats Which is odd, what is an "anti-feminist threat"? Threat implies some kind of violence is being promised, are perhaps feminists being harassed? But there's also this: “We recommend that the governments of each of t…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 07:30 PM
17

Normally I dont hear men saying this about men, and men in general are the patriarchy That's not what patriarchy means. When did men need approval, can we come out of the garage now? The idea is that society is what enforces gender roles that prop up narratives such as "men are violent".
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:36 PM
0

A) It does not specify gender, it is for anyone who feels they have been raped. B) It's standard BBC protocol to link to that in articles about rape.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 08:05 PM
3

Wow, you really have a low opinion of men, huh? I mean, you clearly don't respect them much if you think they would just give all their money to a woman because she's a woman, and look at none of the extremely obvious stuff on the Kickstarter page saying this is gonna be a video about feminism.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 08:16 AM
2

1.) Why is it wrong when men stare but not wrong when women stare? The common sense solution is it's wrong for everyone or wrong for no one. Yeah, it's wrong for both to stare. 2.) False. I never said a single word to the effect: I'm defending my criticism of the original comment I replied to.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:07 PM
-2

In both cases good manners require restraint. Is that it? Yes She is capable of not getting her tits blown up at great expense to her wallet and some risk to her health. I would settle for a pox on both their houses: the man and the woman. But why pick on one? Why get annoyed only at the leering man? But "getting her tits blown up" doesn't do any harm to people around her? It's a personal decision that doesn't involve anyone else, whereas the pervert is upsetting others and treating their happin…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:50 PM
-4

Doesn't mean we shouldn't complain about them, or that you should justify them with the woman's decisions about her appearance
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:39 PM
-12

It's perfectly reasonable for a woman to get breast augments and get annoyed at men staring at her. This is because men are capable of self-restraint. Also, she probably did not get those augments to be stared at, there are a myriad of other reasons why she might have got them. The argument presented in the comment I quoted is effectively saying the women are "asking to be stared at", which is nonsense. Breast augments don't mean you become public property. Note: I'm not saying men can't stare a…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:23 PM
-24

Because men just can't help themselves, right? And because women only ever augment their appearance to please you right? So it's perfectly fine for you to stare, right? They're asking for it!
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:10 PM
25

Hundreds of men donated money to her, only to find out her videos were about how women are misogynized(sp?) in video games No, the people who donated knew what her videos were going to be about before they donated to her.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:40 AM
0

I'm not saying you have to use them to further feminism, geez. I'm just saying that the oppression faced by gay people is at least partly centred in society's ideas of gender. If a trade unionist says "The workers of this industry get paid low wages", he isn't forcing all those workers who get low wages to support the union.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 11:27 PM
1

I'm not saying that you're trying to further feminist agenda or you're trying to subvert gender norms. I'm just saying that there is a heteronormative gender norm in society (that men like women) and that you subvert it, whether by choice or not!
/r/MensRights10/03/13 09:42 PM
0

As a gay man, I don't "subvert standard gender norms" in order to be an example for your feminist agenda. Sorry, but yes you do. The standard gender norm, as in the one that society expects of people, is that men are attracted to women. There's nothing wrong with subverting gender norms, but we have to recognise that they exist. It's called heteronormativity and it's a pretty big deal in the LGBT movement, lot of talk about how to deal with it. I don't attempt to categorize any one group as norm…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 08:28 PM
-2

Firstly, masculism in its first forms existed as a movement that worked with feminism. The anti-feminist MRM is largely reactionary and created after this trend, so feminism is not trying to "claw at other (your) groups" with the MRM, it was there before you. But isn't the link between the LGBT movement and the feminist one obvious? They're both fundamentally about ideas of gender within society. Let's take the example of gay men, part of the reason they face so much discrimination is because th…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 06:36 PM
1

Because she is a classic example of why "feminism" is a good tag to search for if you're looking for crazy? Google the "sokal hoax" for a wonderful take down of the fraud that is academic feminism I'm not talking about the feminism tag. I'm talking about the genderfluid and genderqueer tags. Defend their listing without referencing the feminism tag. Either way, it doesn't mean that that subreddit thinks all those people are crazy...it just so happens that the tumblr-faction of them happen to be …
/r/MensRights07/03/13 08:55 PM
1

Sandra Harding has said many ignorant, non-sensical (crazy!) things, and that didn't hurt her career, as it would in any serious discipline; instead, it helped it. It's something of a requirement in our post-modern academic world, but that's a huge digression. I don't give a fucking shit about Sandra Harding! Why do you keep bring her up? Yes, because that's what I said. I said all genderqueer and genderfluid folk are crazy. Yup. You have good reading comprehension (No, you don't. You're an idio…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 08:28 PM
1

Not hateful, accurate. I refer, once more, to Sandra Harding calling Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica, one of the most important documents in mathematics (hell, in history) a "rape manual." What is this if not crazy? It certainly isn't logic. And she is far from the exception...in fact, she's a tenured academic and celebrated feminist "thinker." So because of what one feminist said, genderqueer and genderfluid folk are crazy? Interesting. Honestly, it's not worth the bother, /r/tumblrinactio…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 08:07 PM
-4

Which is why Borderline Personality Disorders Mental illnesses are not nouns, they do not define people completely. But anyway, I'm wondering what your reasoning as to why people with antisocial personality disorder are mostly men?
/r/MensRights07/03/13 06:46 PM
1

Are genderqueer people above being mocked? Well, yes, how are they not? People are going, "look, the genderqueers (sic) have their own little inside joke thing, laugh at them!" And if that's not mocking, this definitely is What my boyfriend said upon seeing this, "These people just want to be a pain in everyone else's ass." Yes, expressing my gender identity is just about me being a pain in someone's ass. Don't forget feminism. These things do tend to bring out the crazy in people. Uh-huh, so st…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 05:51 PM
2

Yah, because there's nothing hateful about a subreddit that counts "genderfluid" and "genderqueer" as tags that help you find "the crazy of SJA" And there's nothing hateful about a subreddit that upvotes things that mock genderqueer people! http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/191r4j/the_genderqueers_have_their_own_meme_or_image/ And y'know, there's nothing hateful about mocking people who use non-standard pronouns or anything. And the MRM would never condone a hateful subreddit of th…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 04:43 PM
-1

Yah, only women and feminists want to stop financial abuse. Or do you think that finance can't be used to abuse?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 10:04 PM
-12

There are various reasons for it, the one I like is that it prevents financial abuse of a financially dependant partner (so if one person controls all the money, they can't hit their spouse and say, "What are you gonna do about it, if you leave, I'll keep all our money!")
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:12 AM
1

Well, this is going nowhere, did I really soap up the point or something, because you're struggling very much to grasp it.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 08:37 PM
1

I'm not talking about there not being enough women in power, I used it as an example. I'm not talking about electing women into parliament, I'm saying that this club wants to hear from people who are not cis men. Also, transgender people are probably one of the smallest voting blocs, FYI.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 08:00 PM
1

I... wasn't talking about that? But hey, just think of banning cis men from speaking there as electing non cis men speakers to speak, and we're in happy agreement.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 07:50 PM
2

Hardly, even in the political, when was the last time you saw a huge news story on "Men's Issues"? Okay, that's still within the gender equality discourse, but anyway... I'm not talking about people discussing women's issues, I'm talking about women talking about anything. That's the problem; the trans example is a great one, because in discussion of trans issues, the discourse is so often dominated by non-trans people. It's often the same with women's issues. Go look up government panels on stu…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 07:34 PM
1

Women dominate the gender equality discourse like a pimp dominates a hooker. Which is... sort of what I meant, but again, outside the gender equality discourse, it's a different story. oh don't try to dictate my experience You don't own society, I'm allowed to comment on how it works.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 07:06 PM
3

Transgender people certainly haven't been having our voices heard... ever basically, and while women within feminist circles certainly get their voices heard, outside, well, men still dominate the discourse.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 06:48 PM
-4

There's nothing wrong with having a girls-only event, it's about how they're saying it. It's not a girls-only event, trans men are allowed to speak. It's a chance for groups other than cis men to get a chance to speak.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 01:17 PM
1

British law is usually accepting when it comes to bona fide mistakes, so I'm not convinced if this is a real concern here, at least in British law. However, I acknowledge the benefit in terms of giving victims-who-aren't-sure-about-their-experience a way of reporting without having to say the r-word. That's could be genuinally beneficial.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:51 PM
1

The second (again, IMO) needs some sort of recognition, but should be seperate and acknowledged as a lesser crime. I'm not really sure why this should be the case compared to every other crime. Intent or recklessness is a pretty standard, uh, standard in UK law and is used for pretty much every crime. Recklessness basically means that you committed the crime, and while it was an accident, your behaviour made it clear that you didn't really give a shit if your behaviour might make you commit the …
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:31 PM
2

Men like women. Gay men don't exist. Women like men. Gay women don't exist. Men don't like manly women, and women don't like girly men People with sexual preferences not lined up with CC's view of the world don't exist. while the husband would work. This allowed for not only better families, but better reared children. Father's should not be involved in caring for the child. The thoroughly debunked "wage gap" is getting mighty tiresome. The wage gap, however, does prove something. The wage gap e…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 02:07 PM
-12

Tumblr has a large community of LGBTQ people, feminists and angsty teenagers. Websites change to suit their communities. Reddit is full of racists, Tumblr is full of social justice types. Reddit is racist, Tumblr is all social justicey.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 01:34 AM
-8

Probably not. Edit: And I think that the people who made the parody video probably are feminists.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 09:30 PM
0

So when MRAs start having a tantrum about trigger warnings for absolutely no reason other than "But feminists do it! Waaaaah!" (by the way, you know who suffer from PTSD and thus often have triggers? Soldiers, whose mental health MRAs are supposedly looking out for), and I point out that trigger warnings are actually quite good, I'm "derailing".
/r/MensRights28/02/13 05:47 PM
-2

I remember reading about this on a feminist website. Where they mocked it. Because it was shit. And totally not feminist. Governments tend to suck at feminist stuff. So, yeah, not sure why you "feel sorry for our feminist adversaries" when it's not at all approved by scientists, and was condemned by feminists for its portrayal of women. Sometimes I feel sorry for MRAs, they clearly have no idea what a feminist is.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 05:36 PM
-1

You realise that often an important part of therapy for these kinds of things involves avoiding triggers, that's a major part of treatment for many major mental illnesses. However, isolating yourself from communities (say, a feminist or LGBT community) you are a member of is also very harmful to your health in these situations. How do you balance these two things in a way that harms no-one and only helps people? Trigger warnings.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 04:14 PM
-9

Nope, they used the concept of triggers. (Again, see my allergy warning analogy, allergies can be talked about without also talking about allergy warnings.) And the thing with triggers is, like them or hate them (no-one likes them), you can't get rid of them, just like allergies.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:49 PM
-10

Except this example really has fuck all to do with trigger warnings, trigger warnings would have allowed this woman to make her talk (say, "Hey, trigger warning for date rape discussion" and everyone's happy, at least theoretically). So actually, this argument shows the pros of trigger warnings, they allows you to accommodate people with triggers.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:36 PM
-12

We weren't talking about this case, and a single case can't be used to discredit an entire concept.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:25 PM
-13

Except how are you meant to avoid them if you don't know what the content of the things you're going to be viewing are? If you are triggered by talk about eating disorders, doesn't it give you the agency to avoid it if you are pre-warned? Are you also opposed to allergy warnings? Because that's basically all trigger warnings are, allergy warnings for the brain.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:50 PM
2

if you cannot trust a partner not to cry false rape That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that people sometimes don't want to have sex, and that's fine, but you can only know of that when you ask them. Even people in committed relationships sometimes don't want to have sex, they're grumpy or they're tired or just not in the mood or whatever reason. But they might feel pressured into having sex anyway, they feel they owe it to you, or can't be bothered arguing about it. Asking just makes…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:39 PM
2

Increased awareness is key to improved interactions between the sexes, not arbitrary rules for sexual relationships. Which is why I propose increased awareness of the important of explicit consent between parties.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:30 PM
6

she's too embarrassed to admit that she wants it? This does not sound like someone with sufficient emotional maturity to cope with having sex. And what happens when you get kicked out of her place for ruining the mood by asking a stupid question? Okay, even if this was true (which it so clearly isn't, people are adults and most of us don't communicate like flirty fairy's, winking from behind doorways and showing a little bit of ankle), surely we should be trying to change this? Can't we have a n…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:09 PM
3

Just because your an instigator doesn't mean you can't ask first, I would say that's a form of instigating, "Do you want to have sex?"
/r/MensRights27/02/13 07:58 PM
1

But, to ask for explicit consent every time...? Are you serious?! Um, yes? I think it's perfectly acceptable for a husband and wife to ask, "Want to have sex?" every time. I mean, they probably already do that, they go, "Hey, want to have sex later tonight?" in the same way they might say, "Hey, want to have pasta for dinner?" or "Hey, want to watch that new Coen Brothers film later?" So yeah, they probably already do ask every time, since people like to know what's about to happen. But also, it…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 07:08 PM
7

Unless she verbally says stop, or tries to push him off her, then it is presumed consent Why presumed consent instead of presumed non-consent? Wouldn't presumed non-consent stop situations like this which has clearly disturbed the person in question?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 05:42 PM
2

Wow, what an amazingly disgusting article, first it blames a rape victim for getting raped (describing the rapists as "huge jerks", what happened to men being given full responsibility for their actions?) and then using the fact that men are more likely to "succeed" in suicide as a sign of men's apparent superiority.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 04:24 PM
6

despite what feminists may claim. Rarely do I hear anything like that from feminists, no more often than I hear "We'll just have robot girlfriends!" from MRAs. On a sidenote, why is the Mail pretty much the only news source MRAs ever link?
/r/MensRights26/02/13 07:37 AM
1

(mostly created by men) Now, why did that need to be said?
/r/MensRights26/02/13 07:26 AM
1

Well shit, then hold on while I burn down your house, trash your car, burn your life savings, destroy your family heirlooms, steal the pictures of your kids, shit in your nanna's urn and eat all your food. Because attachment to any inanimate object is pathetic.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:21 PM
1

I don't know what the fuck your talking about. The use of "pathetically" implies that you consider getting excited about shoes to be ridiculous, which just proves my point frankly.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 09:51 PM
1

Feminists just lie and say that it comes from law enforcement. The statistic comes from the British Home Office. There's a lot of political pressure from feminists to convict innocent men of rape. Why? Why would they do that? if any man is actually accused of rape then obviously he's guilty. Which is why men standing trial for rape are always convicted, always, it's incredibly rare that they're not, it just doesn't happen. Right?
/r/MensRights25/02/13 09:28 PM
1

Except no, because I was talking about gender expectations and roles, and I think we can all concede that it is women who are expected to get excited about shoes, not men.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 09:13 PM
-1

Well, you clearly know the full story here and there is no additional information or context that could dispel your belief, sorry, knowledge that this is pure, distilled misandry.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 11:02 PM
2

Rubbish, I'm not talking single parents, I'm talking family's where both parents live together, the mother is most likely to be the primary carer for the child.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 01:37 PM
1

shrug Boredom I guess.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 03:58 AM
-33

But why do they choose different fields? It's called social pressures, society conditions and trains and pressures people towards certain jobs, and then certain jobs get dominated by a particular gender which compounds the problems with gender pressure. D'you wanna know why dads are less likely to be the primary childcarer? Hint, the answer isn't "completely free choice".
/r/MensRights24/02/13 12:44 AM
0

cuntban Huh, "cuntban" aye? I like it, has a certain ring to it.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 09:47 PM
3

No, it's not rape, because he didn't have sex with her without her consent. Good grief. You must be hopeless at science & maths. Well, I do prefer history and English honestly, but then again, I've no idea what science has to do with anything unless you're about to go all STEM-jerk on me.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 08:40 PM
7

By the way, if feminists declared sodomy (i.e penetrating an anus with a penis) to be illegal, would this have anything to do with an attack on male sexuality and men's rights? Yes, but then again, sodomy doesn't necessitate a lack of consent. You know what all these other laws ban? Things that lack consent! Wanting to hump animals is pretty perverse, but as long as the animal isn't harmed I don't see where the victim is. Or is a dog 'in denial' when it is wagging it's tail furiously as some per…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:12 PM
0

Since when has male sexuality involved beastiality In fact, to cover the other issues raised here, since when has male sexuality involved non-violent coercion of women into sex? Since when has male sexuality involved having sex with under 14s? Since when has having sex with an unconscious woman been male sexuality? And why is making those things illegal an attack on male sexuality?
/r/MensRights23/02/13 03:37 PM
2

criminalizing bestiality, ... But despite these extreme advances in misandry Only man haters don't want people to have sex with animals! Isn't this the guy who was arrested for threatening police? Edit: Also, I think I find it justifiably creepy when someone is really angry that it's now illegal to have sex with non-consenting women (which is basically the gist of the article) and that he can't coerce through non-violent means anymore.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 02:17 PM
2

Are you vomitting tranny shit in my post about kids? Fuck you, bigot. As a parent you can guide your child into some cultural norms. Such as boys playing with boy stuff and girl playing with girl stuff. What if they don't want to do that stuff? What if the boy wants to play with the girl stuff? They will most likely take to whatever is offered to them. Its called raising a child. I know children, I know that they'll walk around a toystore, and if something catches their eye, they'll want it. The…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 01:44 PM
11

Or maybe the kid likes the pretty skirt and enjoys playing at tea parties? No, definitely not, she's clearly a "feminazi bitch" who just wants to fuck up her son forever. Have you considered that maybe what fucks up children who may have a gender identity seperate to their sex, or, heck, might just want to express their gender in a way other than what society typically expects is being told that they MUST NOT DO THAT and that IT IS WRONG?
/r/MensRights23/02/13 02:07 AM
4

It wasn't that long ago, and even still now I don't doubt alot of neighborhoods with muslim immigrants in France I believe it was were having issues with threats coming from those immigrants directed at other French citizens, usually death and rape IIRC. Huh, y'know, that's funny, because I remember hearing about the threats from French citizens against Muslim immigrants, threats of vandalism, assault, murder, that type of thing. Almost as if hate speech like "shitlamists" encourage hate crime o…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 01:33 AM
1

Presumably the opposite, the assumption of feminine gender roles (if those gender roles would be different under a matriarchy I'm not sure, perhaps) to be superior to masculine ones.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 01:17 AM
10

It looks like it's true, I find this article by her wherein she says of Gavin Boby He used reliable studies and poll results to show why mosques are different in kind from churches, synagogues, or other places of worship, being not centers of religious contemplation only but command centers of jihadist recruitment where believers are indoctrinated to support and commit violence against non-believers. And quickly descends into complete Islamophobic nonsense Boby spoke of the stages of intimidatio…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 12:26 AM
-1

A damn patriarchy, duh. Or, more accurately, a kyriarchy, since the word "patriarchy" doesn't quite communicate that society is catered to the white, straight, rich, able bodied cis men, not just men in general.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:59 PM
-1

No, because the woman's role is cast as inferior to the man's role. Think about it, jobs are considered more important than homekeeping, getting excited about DIY is more respectable than getting excited about shoes.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:47 PM
-1

Yes, a society which glorifies the man, punishes those who act more womanly and acts to give the man complete control, provided he earns it, is totally a matriarchy, that's what a matriarchy would look like, well done.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:36 PM
2

For some men, that is men perfectly happy to live as the patriarchy's ideal man, white, straight, "manly", likes sport, dominant, stoic. Social justice isn't about benefitting specific groups, it's about equality.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 08:32 PM
-2

If the sum of the whole of "patriarchy" is non-beneficial to the average man, then it isn't a system that benefits men. And therefore one can't cite it as an example and/or source of male privilege. It's not that it's non-beneficial, it's that it stops men from doing certain things. For example, patriarchy is why gay men get shamed, because they're violating gender roles.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:43 PM
-5

You realise that the patriarchy isn't a system set up to make sure no men have problems ever again? And that feminists have never claimed that, ever?
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:48 PM
0

However, "The patriarchy hurts men, too!" Talk about mental gymnastics! How? The idea is that society favours certain kinds of people, and it favours men but more importantly traits that are considered "manly", and the people who uphold those traits. Patriarchy hurts men because under it men are not supposed to overstep into the territory of women, because that makes them less like men.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:31 PM
0

Fun fact, just because they're being tested on a philosophy does not mean they're saying, "This is true, this is true!" Doesn't it seem more likely that they'd teach feminist philosophy the way they teach other philosophies?
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:07 PM
1

pathetic lonely little lesbian feminists I don't know why you had to say lesbian, except, yes I do, homophobia. Probably a reference to how feminists call any intoxicated consensual sex "rape." Here's what he says happened With what I’ve learned as an adult, I’m pretty sure I’m technically a rapist. Technically nothing. One woman told me herself. Our encounter was years before—I’d been in a drinking contest and she’d been drinking and flirting with me (yes, actually flirting) all evening. As blu…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 05:53 PM
-3

This one is ridiculous Claim: "If you don't want to see the play, you don't have to." False: Advertisements, promotional materials, and other events surrounding the play around campus are equally offensive and degrading. Roger Williams University was flooded with signs that read, "My Vagina is Huggable," "My Vagina is Flirty," and "My Vagina is Regal." University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill allowed tee shirts that read "I Heart My Vagina." Boise State University distributed vagina lollipops. F…
/r/MensRights21/02/13 09:21 PM
-12

It's almost as if society had different gender roles that pressured people into certain jobs and hobbies and peer groups. But hey, using your logic there's nothing wrong with men comprising the most workplace death victims, because they just choose the riskier industries!
/r/MensRights21/02/13 06:40 PM
2

Possible... but instead of guessing, it would still be better to just tell him "no". Except she doesn't know if that's socially appropriate because there's all kinds of societal BS saying that women should just put up with that stuff, otherwise she's a "frigid bitch" or a "prude" or a "funkiller". The whole point is that she doesn't know who's being unreasonable in the situation. Both of these could potentially be remedied by simply saying "no". But she doesn't know if it's reasonable to say no.…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 09:34 PM
1

Nobody wants to write up a goddamn waiver everytime they get their freak on. Yeah, of course, because asking "Wanna have sex?" is a total moodkiller, girls only like it if you wink at them, throw them on the bed and start having it away, hoping that you read the non-verbal signs right that she wanted it (non-verbal signs everyone admits are at least unclear in precise meaning). There's other benefits to verbal communication too, for instance, how do are you meant to find out what your partner li…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 09:14 PM
3

I mean, if this is a regular occurrence, then it's quite clear that she at least appears (to him) to respond positively to his actions.... Or maybe he just doesn't give a shit? So instead of simply saying a single two syllable word... you think it makes sense to continue to let yourself become a victim of harassment? I don't know why she hasn't told him, presumably not for shits and giggles, most likely for things like social pressure to just give in, because she'll look prudish if she tells him…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 08:47 PM
-19

Why is it so unreasonable that the guy should ask before he starts groping? Why is the burden on the recipient to say no?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 06:49 PM
0

It's this article http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/id-rather-risk-rape-than-quit-partying/ Title "I'd rather risk rape than quit partying", and hint, he isn't worried that he's going to get raped.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 06:29 PM
-9

No, the issue was not running an article about how sometimes men are confused about consent, the real issue was running an article by an unrepentant rapist who didn't want to stop getting in situations where he might rape (and sometimes did rape) because he didn't want to quite partying.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 05:48 PM
-1

He said it, how is it not his message?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 04:41 PM
-3

I want him to answer directly, yes or no, does he stand by this message, "Incest is like a magnifying glass ... In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of a relationship, and it others it magnifies the trauma."
/r/MensRights20/02/13 01:09 AM
-6

He doesn't, and he barely answers anything in that article at all frankly.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 12:58 AM
0

Nope, just saying he hasn't.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 12:47 AM
-1

As thebeepbopbooper says to Farrell Do you stand by this quote? "Incest is like a magnifying glass," he summarizes. "In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of a relationship, and it others it magnifies the trauma." He has not answered this.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 11:55 PM
1

Further , what really gets my biscuits burning is the idea that somehow , naming an ACCUSED is somehow beneficial to the accuser. The police have consistently supported naming the accused because if that person is a rapist, then naming them allows other victims to come forward (bear in mind that most rapists have raped more than once). This helps combat serial rapists, best example being Jimmy Savile. Perhaps a better way to deal with this would be to put tighter restrictions on the ways in whic…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 05:47 PM
-1

I'm pretty sure I just laugh at you because you're funny. I mean, have you read some of JtO's rants? And then I go talk to my friends about it, because we all think you're funny, it's like when you surf the website of super traditional conservatives, and laugh at their views.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 05:02 PM
-1

Um, you do know that SRS, Manboobz and the occasional feminist blogger who laugh at you don't really represent "feminist's power structure"? And these trolls aren't it either. This is like saying you're protest was super successful in bringing things to the government's attention because it was briefly mentioned and then brushed away by a member of your local council
/r/MensRights18/02/13 11:16 PM
1

they have no place when it comes to issues of human rights because feelings should not override a person's rights or accord privileges above another person. What about inclusivity? Inclusivity is a very important part of rights and things like democracy, it's about making sure voices are heard. But also, isn't it part of a civil rights movements job to try and combat discrimination against minorities in all forms, and doesn't this include things like casual -isms? Doesn't that fall under sensiti…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 08:52 PM
3

I don't know, why don't you go and ask a male feminist, there are quite a few.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 07:05 PM
7

Well shit, if the Ancient Egyptians were alright, then all the rest of society (for example, Georgian Britain where women could not own homes or divorce) where just dandy as well!
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:32 PM
1

the difference is agency, the person accused has no agency regarding their murder, the person who commits suicide is exercising agency. This is an interesting argument. Let's play with a hypothetical. So one person being lynched is worse than one person being raped, traumatised, having severe depression, etc. etc. and then killing themselves because of that. Is one lynching worse than 10 of those suicides? 50?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:22 PM
-11

sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values"; And what's wrong with that?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 07:37 PM
1

In my other posts I try really quite hard to be civil, unfortunately I don't tolerate being called a "cunt". In the same way that a man wouldn't tolerate being called a "fag" or a man wouldn't tolerate being called a "nigger".
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:56 PM
0

1) I SUPPORT ANONYMITY FOR THE ACCUSED I should probably say that again. 1) I SUPPORT ANONYMITY FOR THE ACCUSED Let me say that one more time 1) I SUPPORT ANONYMITY FOR THE ACCUSED But also fuck you, how is trying to make sure that people are protected from rapists "personal gain"? And no, I am not saying that all accused are rapists, I'm saying that some are, and that by allowing the accused's names to be made public, we can ensure a better trial and get the full scope of the issue. I don't thi…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 05:46 AM
-3

Yes, just the men, that's what I've been trying to tell anyone over these many long messages, I want to put all men in prison.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 05:36 AM
2

Large numbers of anonymous accusations in the sense that the police know who the person is, but not the general public.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 04:40 AM
1

It was not uncorroborated word of mouth, it was his autobiography. Written by himself. Add to that, many witness accounts from people ranging from his clubs to care homes, the BBC and hospitals, huge numbers of accusations and large numbers of anonymous accusations.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 04:30 AM
-3

That's what you say. But where's the evidence? In Saville's autobiography he tells us, when asked by the police to help track a missing girl in the 1960s “If she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward,” ... “The lady of the law … was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues, for it was well known that were I to go I would probably take half the station with me.”" But tell me again that Jimmy Saville did not abuse his position as B…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 03:49 AM
0

a lot? yes, but hundreds? no, that is hyperbole. This article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20697738 tells us that 589 people have come forward with allegations of abuse. Even if the majority of those people are lying, that's still hundreds. people have been killed because of false accusations of rape and child abuse, innocent people. are their deaths ok because some people were raped and abused as children....lynching may be an extreme example, but it all leads the same way. I have never heard o…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 03:39 AM
1

Okay, firstly, I draw you back to my first point, I support anonymity for the accused It's called Devil's advocate, it's called seeing both sides of a morally grey issue, it's called living in the real world and debating and arguing in a rational, adult manner, it's called coming to proper moral conclusions by understanding what's at stake. And you can't make the identity public after the conviction, because the whole point is that you want people who may have been raped too to report this BEFOR…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 03:25 AM
1

A proponent of guilty until proven innocent Okay, so you've clearly not read my posts, at all. 1) I support anonymity for the accused, Jesus, I'm just trying to show that the issue is a little complex and that the entire Red Cross isn't full of ignorant man-haters wanting to strike a blow for female supremacy. 2) I am not saying we should lock up the innocent or assume that the innocent are guilty. I'm saying that the argument groups like the Red Cross put forward, is that making the accused's i…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 03:15 AM
0

and on the jimmy saville thing, how many innocents will have their careers ruined by this, of course i'm not saying to not investigate, i'm merely saying that an accusation should not be proof of guilt. How many had their lives ruined by Saville? I'll give you a hint, it's in the hundreds. And I'm not saying that accusations are proofs of guilt, but I'm saying that we need to consider that maybe, if the accusation is true, others have been harmed. And how do we find that out if the identity is k…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 03:05 AM
-5

The motivation is to demonize as many men as possible. So the Red Cross' motivation is to demonise men, rather than protect people. And all those charities for rape victims are just looking to demonise men, rather than protect people. Because the world is black and white and there are no shades of grey. It's the actual rapists you want the protection from. Yes, so they want to be sure that A) they can't keep raping and B) their victims can feel that they are safe. That makes it even less likely …
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:54 AM
-7

It is, because it isn't a case of choosing between 10 guilty going free and one innocent being lynched, the choice is between the guilty going free to rape more people and an innocent being lynched So the choice is, protect people from rape or protect people from being lynched? It's a tough one, and you have oversimplified a complex issue. Explain to me how we would have found out the extent of the Jimmy Saville situation if the accusation was not made public?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:41 AM
-9

I think that's an oversimplification. The motivation is not a burning desire for justice and revenge, but a matter of protecting the innocent from a potential rapist, bearing in mind that studies show most rapists have raped more than once. It's a balance, do we protect the innocent who have been accused, or do we protect potential rape victims and help get closure and peace of mind for victims, by making sure rapists are jailed. I personally do support anonymity for those accused of sex crimes …
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:20 AM
-1

Men understand this, women are still trying to make everybody play nice, then crying to mommy when they get sand in their eyes. Oh, misogyny. Because women just aren't tough and strong, are they? I mean, men hunted the mammoth and made society dammit! Fuck's sake. Anyway, I reject your base assumption that societal pressures are needed for society to work. Why? I would suggest that gender roles in fact stop society from tapping the full potential of our population, why? Because if women are push…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:23 AM
1

this only proves that girls need to be taught from a young age not to fold to societal pressures Why should there be societal pressures in the first place? And based on this, doesn't this invalidate every complaint MRAs have about men comprising the vast majority of workplace deaths, because they work more dangerous careers? I mean, surely all your logic about why it's fine that women don't do men's jobs can also be applied as to why it's fine that men do men's jobs?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 11:59 PM
3

Relevant Yes, there are Marxist feminists, fancy that. Notice how it's a branch of feminism that isn't exactly mainstream. (I've met some communist MRAs in my time too, before you guys purged them all out and became very capitalist) Anyway. Affirmative action is designed to allow equality of opportunity. Why? Because under the status quo, women (or ethnic minorities or whatever) are facing disadvantages in getting into certain industries that originate from their lack of presence in those indust…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 11:37 PM
3

Feminism, or at least internet social justice (I don't think academic feminists have really picked up on Nice Guys), have indeed got slightly, I suppose, misguided in their crusade against Nice Guys, primarily by misidentifying what a Nice Guy is. I think originally there were two groups of people who were called "Nice Guys" (with capital letters) and rightly mocked for it. 1) Those who said they were soooo nice to women, when they were in reality assholes, and complained that women didn't recog…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 11:25 PM
1

Ah, this is that thing where MRAs decide that feminism = socialism/Marxism, isn't it?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 10:53 PM
3

Society is collapsing thanks to how dipshit feminists have ruined our economy. I see, so the recession was feminisms fault, as opposed to, say, bonus-obsessed bankers, naive borrowing practices or naively un-regulated banks. We are destroying our ecosystem and running out of fossil fuels. I see, so when we set ourselves on the road towards fossil fuel dependence in the Victorian era, that was feminism's fault too. You live in a bubble of female privilege. Considering that only my closest friends…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 08:40 PM
0

Stupid cunt. Don't you dare pretend to understand men. Well, since I'm such a "cunt" (MRAs, not misogynistic, they swear!), I'll go ask my male friend what he thinks. Oh, he thinks you're speaking a load of crap too, thought so.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 08:29 PM
0

I'm curious as to what you're trying to prove here. Clearly not that men have it worse, since you deny that you think white men have it worse than people of colour, yet what other point could you be trying to prove?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 07:54 PM
-1

Well, according to Demonspawn this prevents men from being nice. It strikes me that the world would be a far better place if we could work together for mutual accomplishment, and felt satisfied with mutual accomplishment, then attempting to screw each other over for personal gain. To brutally simplify it: Under kindness, both men have stuff and both are happy, and they're working together to improve both their loads Under competition, one man has lots of stuff and the other has less stuff, only …
/r/MensRights16/02/13 06:57 PM
-4

Prepare yourself... the day is fast approaching where women will be held 100% responsible and accountable. I sure hope so! After all, that's what feminism's been working towards all this time! Sure... if you consider enslaving men so women can compete as better. Nah, I consider democracy and abortion rights and rights for LGBTQ minorities and increased democratic representation of minorities of all kinds and a whole bunch of modern technology which makes life pretty freakin' cool and advanced me…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 06:16 PM
-4

shrug Whatever, as I said, this "failure of an experiment" has led to a society that is better than it's ever been, so go team failure.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 05:56 PM
0

Do you want a successful society or do you want to continue this failure of an experiment? Society is more successful today than it has ever been. No. Men are naturally competitive. If this is true (which it isn't), I would suggest that would make men inherently flawed then.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 04:34 PM
1

Men aren't nice to each other. So men are naturally assholes? Maybe you aren't nice to other people Demonspawn, but I've met some perfectly nice men in my time, I'm not convinced by this idea that men aren't nice to each other. But fine, even if we don't have to be nice to each other, why do we have to have prescribed gender roles? Why not just let people do what they like within the law?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 04:15 PM
-11

Men will start being Chivalrous as soon as women remember that they need to be ladies. Until then, fat chance. Perhaps we could all just be nice to each other without having to engage in asinine contracts that shame those who overstep the boundaries set by their gender roles?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 04:04 PM
1

Seven times as much jewelry will be purchased by or for me than by or for men. What a privilege!
/r/MensRights16/02/13 03:17 PM
-3

Hmm, you set down an interesting challenge there. "Hard mode: White man"? So what, you're implying that white men have it worse than people of colour?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 12:08 PM
-14

No, I haven't noticed it. That's because it doesn't exist. A desire for a matriarchy under which men are oppressed is not a common desire. I'm sticking my neck out with this assumption, but I'm pretty confident I'll be honest.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 01:18 AM
-9

I just want gender to not even be a thing people consider anymore. Please explain to me what feminists you've been talking to that want a matriarchy and don't want "gender to not even be a thing people consider anymore".
/r/MensRights16/02/13 01:05 AM
4

But isn't democracy fundamentally undermined when there is a draft? If a country is unable to win a war because it's people do not support that war, and are not willing to enable the country to win, is that not the people expressing a democratic will that they don't want the war?
/r/MensRights15/02/13 05:47 PM
-2

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to speak. But I'm happy to denounce an organisation comparing gay people to pedophiles. You have no right to not be called out on your vile insults.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 08:45 PM
-2

Why are we trying so hard to defend an organisation that calls gay people pedophiles and thinks gay marriage would destroy the country? I thought this placed wanted to support equality, not bigotry. Oh wait, I never thought that, and now I know why I didn't.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 07:47 PM
-1

Why is saying "God hates fags" any worse than saying "gay people are pedophiles" (or at least, saying that in so-many-more-words)? Bearing in mind that the WBC doesn't use physical violence.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 04:40 PM
-2

This is what hate is: "We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men." — Peter Sprigg, "Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views." 2011. “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.” — FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC websit…
/r/MensRights07/02/13 03:51 PM
1

Okay, so, nowhere did I say that I assumed the man was the abuser.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 10:29 PM
-3

Yes, that's a huge part of abusive relationships, the abuser very often makes the victim feel like they are in the wrong. Edit: It's all part of how abusers control their victims and stop them from reporting and escaping the abuse.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 10:16 PM
0

Because we recognise that there are really complicated dynamics in abusive relationships that make it really difficult for the victim to leave the relationship. Do feminists think it would be best for Rihanna to leave Chris Brown? Yes, probably. Do feminists think Chris Brown is a bad person and an abuser? Yes. Do feminists think Rihanna is a bad person for staying with her abuser? No, because we're not fucking awful people.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 09:48 PM
-1

You're saying that you don't get people regularly complaining about the friendzone, or saying that women only date jerks?
/r/MensRights25/01/13 10:38 PM
-6

No, the problem is not with nice guys, it's with "Nice Guys". Y'know, that guy who thinks that by simply becoming best friends with a girl he deserves to get into her pants, the one who complains about being friendzoned, the one who expects sex to just magically happen without him ever mentioning it.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 06:59 PM
-4

Your point is rather undermined by Ayaan Hirsi Ali being and identifying as a feminist herself. Is this the new tactic? "We can make feminism really bad if we get rid of the feminists who do stuff!" Anyway, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is pretty much just a bigot.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:44 PM
3

1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) Yes 5) Yes 6) Presuming all other circumstances are the same, yes 7) Yes 8) Yes 9) Yes 10) Yes 11) Yes 12) Yes 13) Yes But I'm most certainly not a misogynist MRA, I'm a feminist. It's almost as if this test didn't tell the whole story!
/r/MensRights24/01/13 04:30 PM
-1

I didn't fucking say that, the choice is not between, "Assume all women are liars" and "Assume all men are rapists".
/r/MensRights23/01/13 05:59 PM
0

Heaven forbid that an actual rape victim doesn't report her rape, or that her case is thrown out by the police, or that her case is thrown out of court by a jury, or that her friends and family slander her for supposedly lying. That's the tragedy here, that's why MRAs lies are despicable.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:20 PM
-1

shrug I bring up PUAs because I find they're a good if extreme example of the problem. Yes, women's magazines are as bad if not worst, but that wouldn't have ruffled you guys feathers so much. But hey, the important thing is that you managed to shift all blame away from men.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 02:20 PM
1

A British Home Office study found that police had often wrongly labelled accusations as false. So yes , the police label rape as false when it isn't. Why does this affect the conviction rate? Because it means people don't go to the police because they don't want to have their claim dismissed as false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#British_Home_Office_study_.282005.29 And what the MRM represents is a cultural attitude towards rape that lowers reporting and conviction rates…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 03:25 AM
1

No, the reasons conviction rates are so low is because of, partly, MRAs spreading lies about conviction rates and police assuming things are lies when they're not.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 11:38 PM
4

Society has conditioned her (because it's all misogynist y'know?) to think that being attractive is what's most important in being a woman. Meanwhile she knows that attractive female geeks are accused of being fake geek girls. So she feels that since she hasn't been accused, she's obviously not attractive. Bearing in mind point one, that makes her feel shitty. Understandably, self-esteem over their looks is something that affects a huge, huge number of women who are told their looks are all that…
/r/MensRights22/01/13 10:00 PM
2

The reason I trust the men and women in my life is not, "They'd get in trouble if they did me wrong." Like I said, I also trust them not to wrong me in legal ways. Also, look up conviction rates on rape, if my friend raped me, there's quite a good chance he would not in fact face any legal repercussions.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 09:08 PM
1

Women have no assurance that the man they're with isn't going to rape them, or steal their money, or post videos of their sex online without her permission. What you do is, when you get in a relationship with someone, you trust them. That's what relationships are based on. It's why I confess my secrets to friends because I don't worry that they'll tell everyone else. I trust them. MGTOWs seem to think that no women are good, and refuse to trust women or believe any could be found to be trustwort…
/r/MensRights22/01/13 08:46 PM
-1

Please explain how a theory that explicitly calls men avoiding women a form of male privilege ((!), as the Redstockings and their very influential formulation of feminisms does, not inhernetly homophobic, and please expalin what possible spin anyone can put on that to make it less homophobic and less misandrist. Thank you. I've never heard any feminist say avoiding women is a form of male privilege, and I point out that this is not a few held by the majority of feminists today. Because feminism …
/r/MensRights22/01/13 07:42 PM
-2

What is misogynist about MGTOW? How does MGTOW hurt women? MGTOW is basically a movement that goes, "Women are all evil and out to get me, so I'm never gonna touch one ever again!" Isn't it? No hard feelings; sorry, this is just not your area of concern. shrug I could go ask my gay male friends, I don't think they'll be pleased either. and these doctrines were the basis for the Redstockings and larger feminism's hatred of gay men and men in general. Except nowadays feminism has realised that tho…
/r/MensRights22/01/13 07:04 PM
-14

Gay men are not "The ultimate MGTOWs", and frankly it's offensive to tie a sexuality to that misogynist lifestyle. Furthermore, yes, some feminists may very well have been homophobic, that's bad, I consider them bad people (though some MRAs are also homophobic, and that's today). However, I think that as a whole feminism has moved past that, especially with the arrival of the third-wave. Feminism improved as the times improved, MRAs are stuck in the past, whilst also being homophobic in the pres…
/r/MensRights22/01/13 06:14 PM
2

Have you considered that maybe these non-Islamic terrorist attacks maybe aren't in the name of Islam? For example, Anders "I wrote a 3 book long manifesto about how I hate Muslims" Breivik. Oh but wait, we must simply take every opportunity to slander Islam as the religion of terrorists, even when it's clearly nothing to do with Islam.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 05:54 PM
0

Feminism and rape has just about nothing to do with it. The government wants him beyond reason (understandably so), and they're using whatever they have to make it appear like a warranted attack against him. If this weren't there he'd be in the same spot but for charges of jay walking. Why does the Swedish government want him? Of all the European countries, Sweden is one of the least likely to deport Assange to America. It'd be far, far easier to deport Assange from Britain.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 05:04 PM
-1

Also, if it is a slur, then what term do we use to describe the non-trans?
/r/MensRights21/01/13 01:52 AM
-1

It's not a slur, FFS. It's just a term used to describe non-trans people. The only reason cis people think it's a slur is because they don't like having a term used to describe them, that's never happened to them before. Well guess what, that's what trans people deal with constantly. It's only a slur if you think being put on par with trans people is somehow offensive. Words only have slurs when they have a history of being used to oppress someone. Here is the history of the word cis. "We need a…
/r/MensRights21/01/13 01:41 AM
0

Not seeing any "privileged men" here. We work harder, die earlier and get to keep only a fraction of the income we earn. Seems a bit odd that this "privilege" incurs such a heavy burden. Cis men are less likely to be in poverty than trans men, less likely to be a victim of violent abuse, less likely to be raped, less likely to commit suicide, the list goes on. Bitch please. If that's the best you've got then come back when you've got the balls to play with the big boys. You link AVfM in the side…
/r/MensRights21/01/13 01:23 AM
0

He isn't the MRM and we aren't him. He leads /mr. Except that if you want to live in a free society, you have to accept that people are free to make whatever crass jokes they like. Telling people what they can and can't say is what feminists do because feminism can't withstand criticism. I'm not saying that he can't, I'm saying that he shouldn't. I'm saying that he's a transphobic jackass, and that while /mr chooses to let him and his vile website lead /mr, then this is necessarily a transphobic…
/r/MensRights20/01/13 09:13 PM
0

No, it comes from their subscription to patriarchy theory. To them, a trans woman is an infiltrator and a trans male is trying to join an oppressive class. Yeah, but they only consider a trans woman an infiltrator because they think she is actually a man. Basically, they have to make up their own motives for gender transition because they don't accept the given motive. And that is Paul Elam's fault how? He perpetuates cultural narratives. Like I said, in the same way that making jokes about how …
/r/MensRights20/01/13 05:33 PM
1

Every reason RadfemHub has for being transphobic stems from disregarding the identities of trans people, every reason anyone has for abusing trans people comes from refusing to acknowledge their identities. When a trans person is beaten to death because someone feels they have been "tricked" into sleeping with them, the justification for that comes from refusing to acknowledge our identities. And finally, when the government does its best to deny us medical treatment, or refuses to deal with our…
/r/MensRights20/01/13 12:32 PM
-1

Refusing to acknowledge trans people's gender identity is the number 1 most common tactic used to oppress trans people. Pretty much every problem trans people face stems from people refusing to acknowledge our gender identity. The fact that you consider it "language mutilation" shows that you buy into those exact cissexist, oppressive narratives. And Paul Elam's comments poison the whole MRM, or at least the whole of /mr because he's your leader.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 10:53 AM
-6

It's not much different from the woman having an abortion when the man wants the baby. And in that situation the woman should get the abortion.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 03:18 AM
-9

What, so you want the father to be able to make her get an abortion? Do you realise how fucked up that is?
/r/MensRights20/01/13 02:46 AM
-1

I don't like the conflation of women with vagina, since that's just not true. So I would say she's cissexist. But I do get her point, the decision someone makes with regards to their pregnancy should be their own, no-one else's. At least, I think that's her point. I mean, I don't think she really means that only cis women can have opinions on getting an abortion, because that'd imply she doesn't like guys telling her not to get one, but is fine with a woman doing the same, which I doubt.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 02:35 AM
-3

"His right to free speech" - No-ones attacking his right to free speech. When I tell Paul Elam to refer to me as the gender I actually am, I'm not infringing on his free speech, I'm telling him not to be a bigot. In the same way me saying, "Please don't call me a massive fucking asshole" isn't infringing on anyone's free speech. So he's not defending his right to free speech, he's defending his "right" to dismiss people's gender identity. And remember, Moore's original transphobia was a far more…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 10:00 PM
0

But you guys hold Elam up next to people like Farrel (who has his own problems) as the leaders of the damn movement. Your leader is a transphobe, and you wonder why I call you transphobic?
/r/MensRights19/01/13 09:47 PM
-4

I'm not saying there aren't shitty feminists. But it seems that when those shitty feminists spoke up, they were told to shut up by the rest of the feminists. When're you guys gonna shout down Elam? Also, we're in a bit of Catch-22 here. If a feminist is transphobic, not criticising it is a sign that we accept transphobia, criticising it but still being a feminist will be dismissed as "just to make feminists look good".
/r/MensRights19/01/13 09:29 PM
-7

That first one is written by a feminist saying the feminism should be improved. Key quote from that one Most feminists do see it's unbelievably hard being a woman who is driven and compelled to have her body rearranged before society will treat her as the woman she is. And y'know what happened in the aftermath of the Julie Birchill thing? A bunch of actual feminists said, "Shut the fuck up you transphobic bigot."
/r/MensRights19/01/13 09:18 PM
-6

shrug They were old articles, but I did name the articles so I'll find them. But here's the key quotes from Elam himself. Paul Elam - “I signed as a matter of principle. That being said, I don’t think anyone should forget that trans-activists didn’t give fuck all about the vile and murderous rhetoric spewed by radfems until they got uninvited from the bigots little party. John hit the nail on the head with this article. Whatever passes as the voice of the trans movement sounds like a bunch of sh…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 08:59 PM
-10

Sure, here's the comments of some AVfM articles. Note how charmingly bigoted they are. http://www.filehosting.org/file/details/413132/Paul_Elam_is_a_transphobic_asshole_and_so_are_most_of_his_readers.docx
/r/MensRights19/01/13 08:47 PM
-23

Whereas you guys oppose only oppose every group that wants equality for anyone and threatens the status quo. Feminists? Evil, obviously. The LGBT movement? In cahoots with the feminists. (Also, specifically transgender people? Not only in cahoots with feminists (unless today's the day we bring up RadfemHub and suddenly the MRM is the sole defender of transgender people), but hate our free speech by making demands like, "Stop calling us slurs" and "Get my gender right".) The civil rights movement…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 07:33 PM
2

One gender, because of that public view of potential predatory nature, can't even walk down the street behind a member of the other gender without worrying about being the cause of nervousness and fear. Oh for goodness sake. One gender, because they're so used to harassment and violence, can't even walk down the street in front of a member of the other gender without being nervous and scared. Anyway, I like that you just name a bunch of stuff that happens to guys (debatably at least), then nothi…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 06:20 PM
-14

None of those quotes show opposing civil rights for men, they show opposing the MRM. What is you guys always say, "Just because I oppose feminism doesn't mean I oppose rights for women"? Yeah, it's like that.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 06:02 PM
0

So you would have sex with a drunk person? How about a high person? Let's say that in this scenario there is no risk that they will report you to the police (this doesn't mean they wanted you to do it, they just don't report it for some reason). What about an unconcious person?
/r/MensRights19/01/13 04:56 PM
1

Rape laws, they're breaking the law by raping someone. Most courts agree that a sufficient level of intoxication nullifies consent. This is why we don't let drunk people get tattoos.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 04:09 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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