TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Gregorian_Tree Archive

View 0 posts and 364 comments by Gregorian_Tree on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Let's see ... 21 karma, new account made on the 24th, every post is on one theme, started a MGTOW related subreddit the day he made his account ... I'm calling it. It's a troll.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 04:58 AM
-3

Top Google response: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/canada-syrian-refugee-resettlement-plan-no-single-men So, in about 10s, I found out that this was a 2 year old policy. Like I told the OP, I really don't care if he posts older material in here, because as long as it's still an ongoing problem, and it concerns men's rights, it's fair game. I was mostly trying to explain to him why the mods in the Canadian subreddit likely considered it trolling. From their perspective, this is so…
/r/MensRights26/12/17 05:01 AM
-1

It has, but I'm really talking about /r/Canada and their response. Go ahead and post it here. It's pertinent to why our subreddit exists and even if it's old, it's ongoing, and it's a great topic to nail on Trudeau for, even if /r/Canada likely considers it trolling because of its age and the fact it's kind of coming out of nowhere for them.
/r/MensRights26/12/17 04:54 AM
-5

As much as I 100% agree with your stance about the sexist nature of this policy, and was righteously angry when this first occurred, the fact this is really old news that was discussed at length over a year ago inclines me to the mod's stance. Resurrecting old grievances to spark new outrage is a kind of trolling.
/r/MensRights26/12/17 04:45 AM
6

Oh God ... seriously, talk to a lawyer. Unless we're all up on your local jurisdiction and what the laws and standards are there, we cannot hope to give you reasonable advice. Surely, though, your government services have some tables or a tool where you can look up your likely CS, so you can go in somewhat informed.
/r/MensRights25/12/17 02:52 PM
5

Generally speaking, when women cheat it's after months of mulling it over, getting ducks in a row, letting the seed plant and take root, etc. so they are far better planned and organized to get away with it. For men it's generally more spontaneous.
/r/MensRights25/12/17 05:54 AM
2

That seems rather likely to be fake. Sure, people like that exist and they make their decisions around economic stability and just use people to get it, but how many of them spill their entire thought process like this on the Internet? Seriously, the guy just welcomed her back and turned around and bought her diamond jewelry? That's fiction, not reality. Even the most naïve people don't just bounce back from being left in this fashion.
/r/MensRights24/12/17 04:47 PM
2

The problem with the pay gap argument is that there's virtually no study based off of government statistics that is going to do what's necessary to truly isolate out whether men and women get paid different amounts for the same work, because government statistics don't even remotely get down to the granularity you need to truly compare people at the same job. Think about how difficult that would be. Within an industry there's companies that pay more and companies that pay less for the same posit…
/r/MensRights24/12/17 04:29 PM
16

I know, right? Ashoka Tano becomes a bona fide cult hit and is the star of the entire series, to the point where she gets resurrected for a later installment, and there's no female Jedi? I really do think part of the issue for modern, Millennial feminists is that they have such a short attention span and such a narrow realm of experience that they only see the last 20 minutes and the next 5 minutes in their window of perspective.
/r/MensRights24/12/17 04:22 PM
8

Never underestimate the power of selling people what they want to hear. All you need to do is give them the first few steps down the road, and they give you the rest of the journey in their heads.
/r/MensRights24/12/17 04:07 PM
12

In the year my son chose to try and live with me, my ex-wife and I were on the phone to chat about what was going to happen with Christmas, and she insisted that I fly him out to her place so that she could have Christmas with him, because they had some special traditions. I asked her how many more years she was going to get him all to herself for Christmas before I even got one. Silence. She was so self-absorbed that she hadn't even thought that I was spending every Christmas without him, year …
/r/MensRights24/12/17 03:06 PM
5

I've been heavily involved over there, but I'm now banned from /r/Canada for a week for insulting language. I guess telling a guy who intentionally drives stoned and brags about it that he's a waste of skin was too much to take. A lot of people in that discussion regularly post here, like me.
/r/MensRights24/12/17 05:56 AM
11

New account, two posts, one trying to make the MRM look like a bunch of bigots and the other making fun of the Honey Badgers. And the irony is that you nail on the Honey Badgers for being slacktivists from your freshly fabricated alt you're using to troll /r/mensrights. Nothing screams courage or determination or real world effort more than that! You're so freaking pathetic it's actually funny.
/r/MensRights23/12/17 06:10 PM
1

I hope he keeps it up. All it will take is one concerted Hollywood star that has enough money that he never needs to work for a living, and thus has the freedom to say what he means, and the house of cards will collapse.
/r/MensRights23/12/17 04:50 AM
8

Agreed. Measuring ethic and sex splits in screen time or 'centrality' for ethnicities or sexes is about as ridiculously asinine as I think it can get. Let's put Bollywood movies or Korean movies through that software and see how extremely popular and profitable movies from either region do with that measuring stick? If you want more women in movies and more female centric stories, you need to stop going to male production companies and asking for money. Whoever holds the purse strings controls w…
/r/MensRights22/12/17 10:48 PM
1

Maybe in the old Soviet Bloc, but compare their per capita GDP to the rest of Europe and they don't fare well. Latvia's figure (14.5K) is less than half of France's (36K), about 1/3 of Germany's (41K) and is even significantly lower than nations struggling at the moment, like Spain (26K), or Italy (30k). In fact, even lowly Portugal (19K) and Greece (18K), both swimming with employment issues and debt, still top Latvia.
/r/MensRights22/12/17 07:17 PM
1

Hmmm, if we try the old reversal ... A man takes the plug out of his fiancé's kayak before they head out onto the water. She drowns. Was it intentional, or a prank gone wrong? Murder or Manslaughter? Either one should typically see you in jail, so on the surface the pussy pass seems intact. But then again, she's getting deported back to Latvia ... a fate worse than death?
/r/MensRights22/12/17 01:46 PM
12

"But we want to make sure people understand this is not a vehicle of intolerance or hate. We are not trying to get people to hate white guys. We need people to have good coping mechanisms.” If your coping mechanisms include race-wide generalizations and sexist/racist concepts like privilege, which you think 'are a thing', then it's most definitely a vehicle for intolerance and hate. This fails the Dr. King test because individual character isn't even considered in those statements or in the rati…
/r/MensRights22/12/17 12:09 PM
3

Because they can? Humanity is like water. We'll typically flow to the lowest common denominator once emotion gets roped in. Even educated, rational, reasonable people can devolve into irrational, reactive people once emotion shows up. The fairest system is the system built to minimize the damage that two emotionally charged people can do to each other, because often both sides will be looking to do damage. Unfortunately, our system doesn't see it like that, and so pretty much opens the door to o…
/r/MensRights22/12/17 11:55 AM
26

Welcome to the daily ass-fucking we call child support. Everyone involved knows what the actual costs are, and everyone knows that you'll pay more than your share of the costs to 'equalize' the incomes between the two homes, for 'reasons', and everyone knows that she'll pocket the difference. Most jurisdictions, with 50% primary care, would either a) forego child support altogether, or b) calculate the CS for both people's incomes, and take the net. I'm assuming that b) is your situation, and wi…
/r/MensRights22/12/17 11:29 AM
3

In reading that piece, it seemed to be far less about 'college women are safer that non-college women' than 'the 1 in 5 stat isn't as nutty as it sounds and has been repeated several times', largely by repeating the flawed methodology. As long as unwanted kissing and drunk sex are part of your statistic, you're padding it quite high, and all of these studies have those two things (and more), wrong with them. This is touched upon in the couple of paragraphs about different definitions, but not in…
/r/MensRights22/12/17 04:56 AM
3

Well, I know 11 divorced men, and before last weekend, 8 of them had experienced parental alienation for a period of their children's youth. As of last weekend, one of the remaining three told me he missed seeing my posts on Facebook, because he at least felt like someone understood what he was going through with his son. So, that number became 9 of 11. My sample isn't random, of course, and is all people roughly my age and known to me, but that kind of split shows you prevalent it can be.
/r/MensRights22/12/17 03:21 AM
14

Holdo? Oh, you mean "should have been Admiral Ackbar, who was killed off camera with a hand wave so that they could insert a female Vice Admiral" Yes, she looked positively fierce and commanding with her purple hair.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 02:01 PM
2

It just wasn't as exposed. My French teacher had at me when I was 15, and from what I learned, I wasn't the first kid by any means. That was 1985.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 12:06 AM
1

He can self rep and use small claims. He doesn't need a lawyer to sue one of his co-workers for defamation.
/r/MensRights20/12/17 11:04 PM
11

Your only defense against character assassination is a lawsuit. What allows these idiots to get away with it is most people won't sue. It's actually rather cheap to sue, and the vast majority of them never make it to court. The minute they get served, the first thing their lawyer is going to say is to settle so that it never makes to a judge. So, sue literally everyone who said or implied you were a pedophile. It will cost you a couple hundred bucks to file each suit, but you should get more tha…
/r/MensRights20/12/17 03:44 PM
23

Sue. You worked with these people, so you know roughly their ages, and you know who called you a pedophile and who didn't. Start slapping down lawsuits and name your employer and name some of those people who spread the rumours or maligned your reputation. Find out what the defamation laws are in your state and start working them. Start with an affidavit from your sex partner, so that you have something on paper, legally, that says she was of age. Let's face it, most of them have no money to get…
/r/MensRights20/12/17 03:33 PM
20

I just sold my business to my partners, but in my last business meeting, we had a discussion about who to replace me with, and what to do about our shared administrator, who is retiring. The general consensus was to go with men for both positions, just to avoid potential issues.
/r/MensRights20/12/17 01:12 AM
1

If it's your Reddit account, why not just make another one? I rotate through an account every six months or so, sometimes every 3-4 months. Facebook you have to harden up, but Reddit accounts are like water because they are honestly anonymous. You instantly become another person if you create a new account. Highly recommended.
/r/MensRights20/12/17 01:09 AM
1

So, let me get this straight ... it's your Reddit account they compromised? Or is it Facebook or Instagram or some other social media?
/r/MensRights19/12/17 09:43 PM
7

Sounds like someone set out to troll you, and succeeded. That account you're referring to ... how did HS 'buddies' get into it and get information they could use against you? Harden that fucker up so it doesn't happen again, turf anyone that's even remotely involved or you suspect of being involved, and call it a day. And, honestly, if you're leaving work because some people trolled you, then perhaps it's time to get offline for a bit. If you let this shit wreck your employment, you're giving th…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 08:35 PM
1

and an Olympian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_weightlifting Do please keep your horrific ignorance to a dull roar. I didn't at any point claim to have gone to the Olympics as an Olympian. You are killing people. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Keep carpin' son. The truth is that I didn't in any way discourage him from seeking therapy or medication. That's your invention. But RAAAAAAGE, my son, RAAAAAAAAGE. I'm sure that straw man you're pounding on needs another couple of torches to be well and…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 07:11 PM
1

The deception angle definitely crosses the line, in my opinion. But, I've given that kind of advice. I told a buddy of mine to put his stuff in storage rather than sell it, because you never know when things will go sour ... and they did. I've also recommended the 'emergency bachelor kit' where you have Ikea plates, pots, shower curtain, towels and silverware, still in the packages, so that you can bolt if you have to and still reasonably exist. So ... am I like this woman? A bit, sure.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 05:22 AM
1

Pssssst. I'm a family psychologist. I do this for a living. Maybe before you decided to jump in and be a dick, you should have read a bit of my back posts so you didn't embarrass yourself with your own willful ignorance? You'd find lots of mentions of my business, my partners, my patients. Hell, you'd even find the odd mention of my 30+ years doing martial arts, or even the odd mention of the provincial records I set in Olympic Weightlifting, or my time on the national team here in Canada. Hell,…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 05:13 AM
3

For the most part, the author just encourages financial independence, which is good advice for anyone, male or female.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 04:37 AM
0

Oohhhh look the excersize guy.... The University of Toronto just finished a meta study on exercise and mental health. It both insulates against the onset of depression and also ameliorates a significant swath of symptoms, in addition to helping with stress management and sleep. I recommend it because it works, and given the revelations in the anti-depressant industry around cherry picked studies and overstated efficacy of SSRIs and similar medications for depression, it's a safe recommendation t…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 04:28 AM
1

Absolutely. The writing is frankly ridiculously bad.
/r/MensRights17/12/17 07:11 PM
3

What about when we had Luke suddenly become a fucking legendary jedi after spending 7 days training in a desert? If that's what you think happened with Luke, then we definitely didn't watch the same versions of IV, V and VI. Edit: I've had this debate often, online, but I'll summarize it here ... put yourself out, literally alone, where you're collecting junk all day, every day, and then selling it at the end of the day for food. At the end of say, a decade of this life, from roughly age 7 to yo…
/r/MensRights17/12/17 06:35 PM
4

Here's my advice ... Get into an exercise routine, because a lot of the issues with your affect will be exacerbated by an irregular sleep pattern. Exercise helps normalize your circadian rhythm. It also burns off stress and the positives you'll see in your body will help give you a sense of forward motion. Of course, you should try to go to sleep at the same time very night, to help this process along. The second thing I can suggest is to do what you're doing - reach out and discuss this and the…
/r/MensRights17/12/17 06:07 PM
1

I'm 100% sure that if you're an ideologue bought and sold on a raving hatred of the US, you can twist just about anything into some plot by 'American Interests', given enough time. Like I said, don't ever change. This is comedy gold.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 10:18 PM
3

The grandparents acted as guardians for a period of time Holy hell, what a mischaracterization. You're leaving the part out about how they were the temporary EMERGENCY guardians in the immediate aftermath of their son's wholly unexpected death in an automobile accident, for 8-9 months while the fallout got handled. After which, Mom took over, which was all but guaranteed to happen. You know that their son WON his custody case, so the children were living with him and saw the grandparents almost …
/r/MensRights16/12/17 10:05 PM
4

Please don't ever change. You're simply way too entertaining. Yes, the Americans created the madrassas in Saudi, founded the Salafist and Wahhabist sects that run them, and are using those extremist Sunni schools to educate a pool of radical Islamists all over Africa, like Mohammed Yusuf, the founder of Boko Haram. And at the same time as funding and educating the Islamists, they are also fund the other side, so that when the Islamists eventually get defeated, they can slide in the westernized i…
/r/MensRights16/12/17 09:44 PM
9

You are such an ideologue.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 03:35 PM
8

“Society is constructed to favor the interests of men, isn’t it?” he asked his class. “Yes,” responded a chorus of 150 young men and women. “The man is trying to dominate,” he said. “Are you following me?” “Yes,” the students chanted. “Women are marginalized, oppressed and abused,” he continued. “Men have taken the part of domination and force in relations in the family. This is a big problem in society and we need to do something about it.”
/r/MensRights16/12/17 03:29 PM
3

Yeah ... no. There's not a single western democracy where there isn't vastly more funding for female medical and mental issues than there is for male issues. There's some angles they could leverage this argument, such as the fact a lot of research misses on sex differences in incidence rate or effectiveness in the medication because so few women are involved in the research pool, but that's largely a function of female engagement. The studies are opt in.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 03:26 PM
8

And, in the end, we're talking about a guy who drunkenly fingered an even drunker girl at a party, a guy with no history of violence or criminality in his past and who was a first time offender. His sentence wasn't out of line at all with the facts of the case, but because it became a cause celebre, nothing short of hanging the guy will satisfy some people, this professor included.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 05:07 AM
-1

Women over 85 were born in 1932 or earlier, and were married in the 1950s. Take the same mindset that has women filing most of our divorces, and add on that extra lawyer of normal inculturated dependence from that era. We're perceived as just an obstacle, and to a greater degree by women of that era, so if fate removes the obstacle, they are happier.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 03:56 PM
8

That minimizes but doesn't eliminate the issue. Regret becomes rape, all too often.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 05:37 AM
8

My French teacher, my best friend's Mom, about three women I worked in retail with, a gay hairdresser that mistook me for gay and wouldn't take no for an answer, a bunch that kissed me without permission or jumped into my arms, or sat on my lap ... I'd say a good 20 or so, all told.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 05:36 AM
4

From his perspective, I think he's trying to get out ahead of this so that he can take some of the steam off of a potential outing that he wouldn't control. That being said, if his description of those events is accurate, I would be VERY loathe to call that rape.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 02:52 AM
5

Not to the same extent. You really cannot compare a world with Tinder with the 1940s. Back then, men always wore hats, and there were all sorts of social strictures like that everyone abided by. It was a lot more controlled, at least on the surface.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 07:28 PM
9

It was written in 1944. Women were expected to safeguard their virtue. Men were expected to cajole and convince women to drop their barriers. This was the public face, but if you read novels from that time by certain authors, you know that people were fucking all over the place, just like they do now. Perhaps not QUITE as heavily, given they had no effective birth control other than condoms, but pretty heavily. A lot of the chastity and purity baloney was a veneer for women. So, I've always take…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:09 PM
2

If "humans" (or at least the space equivalent) exist on almost every planet we've seen whats to stop Wookies from existing near or on Jakku? Jakku, which used to be a forest planet. Yes, the forest that used to be on Jakku is relevant, centuries prior. <eyeroll>. The point is that the wookies are xenophobic and don't teach their language to anybody, a fact you keep glossing over, as if being next to them at a space port makes you fluent. Han only learns because Chewie owes him a life debt. Why w…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 04:45 PM
2

Not even that. The vast majority of studies don't compare like with like. They get down to a federal job classification, which is a pretty broad category, or they get down to the industry, but even within an industry there's variation in position and different companies pay different rates for the same job. To truly compare like for like, you have to compare people working the same job at the same company. The cream of the crop for studies is the Korn Ferry Hay Group study where they got directl…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 02:41 PM
4

Exactly. Companies routinely let go older staff that make more to bring in younger staff that are more junior, but cost less ... but apparently they never extend that rationale to firing men and hiring women to save the 20-30%?
/r/MensRights14/12/17 02:39 PM
2

You say that like someone with a giant metal attacking stick shouldn't be able to fight off a few people. I've been doing martial arts for over 30 years, now. You have no freaking clue what you're talking about. Fighting two people at once is HARD. Fighting six people at once, all of whom are male and outweigh you by at least 50lbs and who actively want to hurt you, even with a stick? You're getting a beat down. She knows Plutt and the 2 thefts before it (presumably learning that info from Plutt…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 01:56 PM
2

She's still a Mary Sue. She outfought several men with a stick. She knew the entire sales history of the Millennium Falcon by heart, including the thefts. She walked into the ship and could fly it, despite no piloting experience besides her speeder. She knew the mechanicals well enough to finish Han Solo's sentences, despite him having owned the ship for a couple of decades. She taught herself how to use the force to manipulate people. She can speak both Kashyyk and Droid, one an extremely insul…
/r/MensRights14/12/17 06:20 AM
7

I really don't think that's a nonsense argument. CS is punitive. It is, in most jurisdictions, well above 50% of that child's actual real world costs, and that's largely because the system assumes that if you have a fiscal advantage, you'll leverage it and use the extra money to solicit the kids away from Mom. As a result, they try to equalize incomes between the two homes for the duration of the child's minority. I have been making pretty decent money in the last 18 or so years, because I own m…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 09:23 PM
6

Oddly enough, flipping the pendulum didn't fix the issue, it just changed how it manifested. Who would have thunk, huh? I am extremely heartened to see these changes coming, even though they arrive too late to help my own personal parenting situation. For years, now, what's stuck in the back of my head was a case up here in Canada where a man had children with two different women, and each woman resided in a different province with the kids. Each province treated his CS independently, and refuse…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 04:16 PM
7

Yes, how DARE he throw out a mild compliment via a digital medium, such that it takes her all of 1-2s and a calorie of energy to delete. She had far more important things to deal with in that 1-2s than some unsolicited, vague compliment from a senior partner at a law firm. At her normal billing rate, that arrogant fucker just cost her ... well ... pennies.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 04:02 PM
9

Absolutely. The basic argument has been that men need to pick up their socks, but when one house becomes two, and changes are inevitable with both parties, the state decides to enshrine the unequal distribution of child care in the home at the time of the dissolution as gospel. There's so many incentives for that woman to maintain that unequal split, both social and financial, and a goodly number of women aren't really interested in a 50/50 split because it's not in their best interest in both a…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 03:56 PM
4

The fact is that it's not satire. She's not using humour or exaggeration or juxtaposition to show up someone's personal failings in a new light. She doesn't even list his characteristics at all, it's purely a list of negative events she wishes would happen to him. And, to be blunt, it's lousy verse. The first thing I thought of when I read it was ... how old is this person? She comes off like some 14 year old, edgy, wannabe activist and not some legal professor at a major US university.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 03:41 PM
5

Because compliments are a key component to how humans interact? Take compliments out of the world and it's a pretty cold, hard place in short order. There's an entire sub-field in discourse analysis that deals solely with compliments and compliment response, examining patterns cross culturally, between the sexes, etc. Every culture does it, and it's part of ordinary discourse.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 02:53 PM
3

No kiddin? It's almost as if I wrote what I wrote because there was some people in here taking it seriously ... or something.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 01:26 PM
33

300ft? Come on ... this has to be fake. It's an office environment.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 05:44 AM
2

This is more than half put on. When you're recording your arguments with your wife (and he has many) for your podcasts, it's a schtick.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 02:53 AM
42

The sheer volume of ridiculous rationales for justifying a false accusation is extremely informative. Can't get into a club and you're mad? Accuse the bouncer. Drunk as a nut and getting ushered out, and you're angry and embarrassed? Accuse the bouncer. It's petty revenge, now. Totally petty revenge.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 02:52 AM
2

I don't hate feminists, actually. I even kind of understand them. If you're staring back into history and there's generations of women with reduced opportunities as second class citizens, as far as the eye can see, you'd get pretty discouraged, too, and you might even get mad on their behalf. It's ridiculously easy to forget that you were born into a different world, with access to everything men have, and pretend that you're heir apparent to all of that suffering and servitude. It's even appeal…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 02:47 AM
25

Absolutely. I've had at least a half dozen women that I've flirted with, mutually, in my various work situations, mostly in my youth. All of them were 100% consensual and generally a lot of fun, but some of those women were stepping out on boyfriends they were bored of, doing it less because they liked me and more because they liked the attention, etc. At any point, those could be retroactively 'reimagined' to turn me into a so-called predator. With that kind of possibility, where there's no suc…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 02:38 AM
1

Right libertarianism is class warfare, them against us. Yeah, then you really don't understand what that term means. Again, you're just chucking buzzwords around to see what sticks.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 12:20 AM
1

Yeah, you're confusing dictatorship with fascism. They aren't the same thing. You can have a dictator at the head of any economic system, but to have fascism, you have to have that collectivization and centralized control over the economy. It's mutually exclusive with free markets. You cite Chile, but Pinochet de-nationalized hundreds of companies that had been nationalized under Allende, and he opened up every industry but copper to private and foreign investment. He took off most if not all go…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 12:01 AM
1

You're just making shit up at this point, chucking buzzwords around to see what sticks. How do you have a free market that's heavily controlled by a nationalistic government? How do you blend diametric opposites? How do you reconcile right libertarians hate on for the modern welfare state and the fascist's need for government control of the economy? You can't. Individualist, reductionist stances like free markets and libertarianism are fundamentally opposed to central control schemes. That's the…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 11:55 PM
1

Yeah, you've just redefined free market ideology as fascism, clearly, because you know the first thing about actual fascist economies. Fascist economies are heavily controlled, almost as controlled as socialist economies. They are heavily nationalistic, with strong preference to national corporations vs. foreign, reduced or even eliminated foreign investment, strong monopolies in cooperation with government (some say collusion), limited avenues for economic freedom and what freedoms there are te…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 11:47 PM
6

Good lord, you don't ask for much, do you? Example study where male victimization was recategorized using US data. Hint: forced to penetrate is hidden in another category other than sexual assault. See if you can find it! All my incidence rate data is Canadians (I'm a Canuck), so I use the UCR for police stats and the General Social Survey (GSS) for polling into the public. You can see relative incidence rates for all the crimes we measure in Canada to get an idea of where sexual assault sits. B…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 10:47 PM
1

You're getting ahead of yourself. We're at the point where the IMF and World Bank are putting restrictions in thier loans, and requiring nations that want those loans to revamp their economic policies along free market lines to get them. What's the next step? Are all free market advocates Nazis in your head, or fascists, and so anyone who holds to those doctrines is somehow a Nazi or fascist? Get me from those IMF and World Bank loans to fascism and Nazism. Like I said, walk me in. Don't just le…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 08:50 PM
13

Ok, I'll bite. First off, rape culture is a misnomer. 'Culture' is society wide, and gets inculcated in everyone that's born in that society, or who enters into it via immigration. It's very clearly illegal and frowned upon by a huge majority of our population. None of our major institutions teach that it's acceptable, whether we're talking educational institutions, governments institutions or private companies. It's pretty universally panned. If you look at program spending for the police force…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 08:41 PM
1

Keep going, you're on a roll! So, we've made the leap from 1950s era academics teaching economics in Chicago to despotism in Chile, as if Friedman personally trained hit squads and not economists, and free market principles are somehow interchangeable with fascism, despite being ideological opposites. And now it's the IMF, World Bank and the US Treasury department spreading fiscal restraint and open market principles ... ooops, I mean fascism ... around the world as conditions for loaning failin…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 07:44 PM
1

You are freaking hilarious. I'm busy doing laundry, and every time I come back you pop up something even more insane. Yes, regale me with the florid tale of how 1950s era economists in Chicago who won the Nobel Prize for economics, inspiring multiple economists to follow suit around the world, was really some vast US conspiracy to spread fascism around the globe. You get that libertarianism and free market ideologies are the near direct antithesis of fascism, right? That the Chileans that took t…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 06:56 PM
1

HAHAHAHA. Yes, I'm sure you read the Buzzfeed article like a champ, Mr. Genius.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 06:16 PM
1

You're goddamned crazy, man. Crazy.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 05:45 PM
1

Good lord that is pathetic. Fascists, Fascists EVERYWHERE! I'm done talking. You're a total zealot.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 05:41 PM
2

What's going to happen is all male schools.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 04:58 PM
1

HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, it's 'true' because you say it is, despite all the evidence pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Man, you're a lost cause. Have a good day and try and read more.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 02:56 PM
3

It's contextual. Are you a front line emergency response worker? Assume it happened and engage in all the normal protocols to collect evidence, to support the victim. That's your job. Are you a judge? Assume innocence until you see enough evidence that indicates the accused is actually guilty. That's your job. The entire notion of some 'all or nothing' debate is juvenile. Who thinks like this, in such ridiculously binary fashion? Little kids is who. And, well, apparently most of the people in th…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 02:24 PM
20

I am strongly advocating the following tactic: The Martin Luther King Test Ask the person if they've judged someone by the content of their character, or by the colour of their skin/visible sex/sexuality. If they can't pass that test, they are bigots. Done.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 02:11 PM
1

Blah, blah, blah, blah. All I hear is the bleating of a sheep.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 02:08 PM
3

Yes, but that isn't a comparable situation unless you're claiming that men have historically been treated comparably to racial minorities as a group (and if you are claiming that...yeah, no). What an asinine argument. You were born with all the same rights, freedoms and opportunities men have, because you're a modern woman, not someone from the 18th century who couldn't own property or an early 20th century suffragette who couldn't vote. YOU don't get some fucked up compensation package because …
/r/MensRights11/12/17 02:07 PM
2

Come on, the poster was clearly trolling.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 01:59 PM
2

Yep, sure is. You ignore the actual content of the article, ignore the actual result of the article, ignore all the characteristics he has that neo-Nazis typically loathe ... we all know who the ideologue is in this discussion, buddy. You're like the cult member who can't see past the cult. Hopefully, one day, you'll make your way out of that ideology and into normality, but you're a new recruit, obviously, and thus in that first flush of zealotry. I don't even like Milo, but you didn't even bot…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 01:42 PM
2

You keep selling yourself your own shit, sunshine. You clearly like the taste.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 01:36 PM
36

A friend of mine was quite good looking in his youth, and ended up working as stand in for several actors on projects filming in Alberta. He worked with Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall when it was filming around Calgary, for example. In between movies, he waited tables, and the stories he'd tell about female patrons leaving him their room keys, writing open invitations on napkins with their numbers, groping him overtly in the restaurant, etc. were numerous. I always took them with a grain of sa…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 01:35 PM
2

Milo was caught using a neo nazi and a white supremasist to help word his introduction to the alt right article. He was 'caught' allowing the people he was writing about to provide comment on an article that was essentially already written, which is something journalists have been doing for decades, as I've mentioned. One of the respondents decided to provide point by point commentary, rather than the general response most did, and you're misconstruing that as 'collaboration'. Of course, the fac…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 01:15 PM
2

The article is citing a guy who was caught using neo-nazi leaders to help with the wording of an article No he didn't. Jeeeesus. When a journalist writes an article about someone, and the entire article was about the alt-right's many factions, it's 100% perfectly normal to send the draft to all the stakeholders so that you can get their comments before you publish. It gives them a chance to retort or to plan their response to the publication. It's a journalistic courtesy that's been going on for…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 02:08 AM
11

My advice for those in this situation is always the same. a) Document everything. Record every phone call, capture every email, capture every text message, every IM, etc. You won't win tomorrow, because the deck is stacked against you, but you can win over time with a case that's carefully built, so start building. If you've got any pictures of her also doing drugs, it's a good idea to put those aside so you can use them in court. b) Get a lawyer. It's expensive, I know, but you need someone who…
/r/MensRights10/12/17 03:58 PM
1

The problem you'll face is that most jurisdictions OVER collect child support, so it's not just a matter of making sure the kid(s) get taken care of, but a substantial transfer of wealth from the man to the woman. A goodly number of jurisdictions believe that income between the two houses should be roughly equalized for the entire time the kids are minors, because if any one household has more money, they have the ability to leverage that to attract the kids. Given that this is usually going to …
/r/MensRights10/12/17 05:10 AM
6

Intersectional Feminism is fine and makes sense from it's theoretical and written meaning. Intersectional feminism falls into the same general bracket that Communism falls into. If the only place your theory can live and breathe and produce reasonable discourse is in some artificial intellectual utopia where humanity and its foibles and human variability don't exist, then it's high time to rethink the theory. Any theory that cannot survive that transition into the real world without getting perv…
/r/MensRights09/12/17 11:17 PM
0

But damnit all... I wish that Peterson wasn't anti-transgender or anti-childfree females or anti-unmarried females. But is he? If you are against the notion of personally chosen pronouns, against the invention of new pronouns out of thin air, and really against the state mandating the usage of pronouns under threat of a fine or worse ... does that make you anti-trans? We've never had a group in Canadian society, not ANY group, that's had the power to personally choose their pronouns and fob thos…
/r/MensRights09/12/17 07:58 PM
6

Of course it's upsetting. They've built their entire world view and personal view around those statistics being correct. If you challenge the statistics, you're threatening to topple their entire invented edifice. It's like cult members being told that their cult is a sham. Do they ever respond well?
/r/MensRights09/12/17 06:55 PM
13

Ugh. It's about 95% full of anecdotes, not statistics, deals with only three nations (Uganda, Colombia, Spain) and doesn't demonstrate in any fashion that foreign aid spending that's specifically targeted for women and girls benefits men as well. If this was the sole study I'd be asked to base my opinion on, I'd have to conclude that we're engaging in heavily ideological foreign aid spending and it seems our goal is to use it to contradict or counter sexist practice in other nations, and the sal…
/r/MensRights09/12/17 06:50 PM
3

So we should use 'simp' or 'weasel' or 'suck up', or 'boot licker' or 'quisling' or any of a number of other nouns that all imply the same behaviour, but aren't associated in your head with the alt-right? The behaviour is what the behaviour is, regardless of who describes it and what term is used.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 06:13 PM
5

What protected class is it discriminating against? The right to equality before the law isn't restricted to those protected classes. It's for ALL Canadian citizens, and we simply mention those classes specifically so that everyone knows that it even applies to those classes that have typically seen discrimination. All you have to prove is that other Canadians in your situation are treated differently, and that this negatively impacts your ability to obtain justice, relative to your peers. You do…
/r/MensRights09/12/17 05:02 PM
4

That's very clearly not what this discussion has been about. I included it as an example of how expert witnesses are typically handled at other points in the process, to show that the defendant is typically given every opportunity to defend himself. If a case is going to be re-opened, and he cannot rebut the rationale for reopening that case, he's not given every opportunity to defend himself, is he? Surely you can how see a defense lawyer would have some serious misgivings if their client's cas…
/r/MensRights09/12/17 04:57 PM
7

Experts in victim services, in which you accept that a person is a victim outright (because you have to) but horribly inexpert at determining guilt or innocence to a legal degree.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 06:45 AM
5

They implemented this model to figure it out. No, to fix what they have already determined in their heads exists. This isn't investigatory or exploratory, this is an implemented solution.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 06:38 AM
3

Remember, the additional scrutiny you mentioned doesn't come from any portion of the government. Nah, it's not the government that's handing over the case files, created the case files, and will be taking the flagged files and doing something with them. Civilian bodies that are acting at the behest of government are still government for the purposes of charter and HR violations. Do you think civilian contractors that work with the DND are somehow exempt from the charter because they are civilian…
/r/MensRights09/12/17 06:37 AM
5

They have 'done something'. They've taken a case that's already been dealt with and flagged it to be reopened. They engaged in second order vetting that's not done with any other cases at the moment. If you are an accused in this type of case, this will increase the likelihood of charge and conviction over any other accused in the docket. That's discriminatory practice.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 06:36 AM
6

Experts are called in to consult and provide their expertise to the court, yes, but that's in court, and their expertise can be challenged, and countered with other experts on the defense, and is normally established and accepted by both the crown and the defense in advance. The court setting allows for that. These are 'experts' you can't challenge, or likely will ever even know affected your case, you cannot counter with your own experts, and who will determine your case deserves a second go ro…
/r/MensRights09/12/17 06:33 AM
4

They aren't doing their own investigation, they're reviewing the police's investigation. That's irrelevant. Surely you can see that if you inserted a second order of scrutiny on a pool of cases, you're virtually guaranteed to up the charge rate and conviction rate for that pool of cases, right? So, how can you justify inserting that second layer of scrutiny for just one charge? Either do it for everything, or do it for nothing. The minute you start playing favourites on which accused get this se…
/r/MensRights09/12/17 03:09 AM
5

Because of the nature of sexual assault as a crime that is difficult to find conclusive evidence of guilt for and Not to mention the significantly higher rates of dismissed cases as compared to other crimes. Seem connected in some fashion ...
/r/MensRights09/12/17 02:59 AM
9

I'm Canadian. When legislation is drafted, it typically goes to at least one round for examination on constitutionality before it becomes law. Contentious laws might actually be brought before federal counsel for review, or even have a judge brought in to provide his or her legal opinion. We've had the SCC review legislation in some extreme cases. That this kind of legislation, which is clearly singling out certain accused for selective additional scrutiny on their cases, surely can not have sur…
/r/MensRights09/12/17 02:57 AM
11

It's still an administrative review that's not done with any other charge. We're all equal before the law, but this submits anyone charged with this crime to a second layer of scrutiny on their cases that no other accused faces. It's virtually impossible this would survive a charter challenge.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 02:55 AM
-1

If she even notices. I'm not advocating that act, but the odds that she'd even know are pretty slim.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 02:03 AM
5

Exactly. It's supposition, at best. And, of course, just checking how many people filed assault complaints last year (219 000) and how many made it to a courtroom (54198) for 24.86% shows that sexual assault isn't really all that far off of normal assault. Given that sexual assault is typically harder to prove, are these numbers for sexual assault really 'low', or are they actually 'accurate'?
/r/MensRights09/12/17 01:59 AM
14

It is and it isn't. We don't do this second layer of vetting with any other crime, do we? I'm sure a second set of 'helpful civilian eyes' would ramp up the conviction rate of virtually every crime, so why is it only being done with sexual assault?
/r/MensRights09/12/17 01:54 AM
3

What's this 'Twitter' thing? I seem to remember it from several years ago when it was relevant, but as soon as it demonstrated it's clear bias in enforcement, I left. Is it still around? It doesn't make money. If you don't like what's going on at Twitter, just quit. The quicker people do this, the quicker it will die.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 03:37 PM
64

And that's ultimately going to be what sinks this. The very first time x shelter decides that charges are warranted where the police have decided they are not, there should be a lawsuit, and it should name the police that handed the file over, and the shelter. The minute their own money stands to be lost because they decided they wanted to be a second tier of enforcement, those shelters will back away from this as fast as they can back away.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 03:34 PM
215

This can't be true. It's almost farcical. We're one constitutional challenge away from this practice ending, because it would be treating the accused in sexual assault cases much more grievously than those in other cases, and wouldn't survive any sort of challenge around equality before the law. What legislature would pass something like this, knowing it's an almost guaranteed lawsuit against the government, and virtually a guarantee to be repealed?
/r/MensRights08/12/17 03:28 PM
3

That's why this story is so often chosen for required reading. The more you read it, and the more you understand the old Dutch Puritan mindset, the more sense it makes. Let me ask you this ... what is the source of the horseman? a) Truly supernatural. b) Someone local is playing the role to scare Ichabod away from Katrina because while he's upjumping, she would be down jumping, and anyone in her family (including herself) would have a vested interest in driving him out of town. c) Ichabod's maki…
/r/MensRights08/12/17 01:30 PM
4

Hard to put down those issues to sex because we're talking about an era where class meant everything, and Ichabod is trying to upjump his class with Katrina. Katrina knows she's a higher social class than a mere teacher, and while she's generally nice to Ichabod, her disdain leaks through from time to time.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 05:23 AM
3

I had never heard of this story. What unimaginable cruelty.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 08:16 PM
28

Why are nerds perceived as so dangerous? Because we follow data, we read, we analyze, we understand, and that makes us VERY dangerous to anyone selling an ideology via ultimately unsupportable rhetoric. So they lash out, hard, because using our generally perceived lack of social skills and status against us is the quickest and most effective way to silence us.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 08:07 PM
7

What an idiot. He can conceive of a competitor across the road using their employees as moles, getting them hired on your staff, and running your business into the ground - and thus the owner would need the power of immediate dismissal to defend his business from the moles - but he cannot see how this power can be abused in other ways? What's to stop a woman that wants your job from leveling an accusation? Nothing. What's to stop a rival in the firm that just wants you gone to do the same? Nothi…
/r/MensRights07/12/17 07:08 PM
1

I honestly cannot wait and it's honestly not happening fast enough.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 06:46 PM
6

That's always been a spurious comparison, though. In the General Social Survey in Canada, as of the 2014 edition, 760 000 Canadians had reported being hit or abused as part of their family situation in the past five years, or roughly 152 000 annually, on average. Of those, a shade over 45 000 will go to our shelter system each year for help. As per our Uniform Crime Report for 2014, only 83 people died in 2014 at the hands of their intimate partner. So, sure, 4/5 of those 83 were women, or rough…
/r/MensRights07/12/17 04:33 PM
6

If this is a business, then someone needs a pretty big refresher on how business partnerships work, because any partnership where one party is throwing down $3500 on a share, and the other partner isn't throwing down squat, is no partnership.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 01:14 AM
1

Nonverbal communication is always happening, yes. The entire time you're engaged in communication your facial expressions, vocalizations and body language are all working to communicate to the person you're engaged with. To give you an example, think of a speech at a training seminar at work. It's an hour long, and it's on a topic you've covered before and you're only in 5 minutes before you figure out that this is all stuff you know. In that hour, how many non-verbal cues are you going to give …
/r/MensRights06/12/17 08:31 PM
5

While I responded to it in the other thread, I actually agree. What modern university is going to give a student only 24 hours to destroy a recording that they've only ever heard about through hearsay? They have no idea it even exists, and they are already directing him to destroy it? What competent, ethical lawyer representing that institution (and every university has ongoing representation) is going to advise the administration to direct him to destroy evidence in what could be a criminal cas…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 07:25 PM
2

I think they were working from sheer incidence rates. Monitor a conversation and you'll measure multiple looks, touches, shifts in posture, facial expressions, etc. for every actual utterance. Edit: That kind of analysis doesn't deal with information density, in any capacity. 1 minute of talking can impart vastly more information than a bunch of body language, given that body language can only provide context.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 07:21 PM
2

I'll give you that, it's better than most, but that's basically arguing that editorial bias isn't quite as bad as cherry picking. It's technically true, but both are examples of intentional filtering of results to create a narrative, just differing in degree. I don't think it was a mistake, for example, that male modes of communication were pilloried throughout. The arrow was strung and pointed before those questions were even drafted.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 06:59 PM
2

What's fucked up is that this kind of thinking would have had a lynch mob on the front cover of Time during much of the 1930s.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 06:21 PM
3

Explicitly stated, perhaps, but there's many points of confound on each of these questions, and the answers have distilled a lot of complexity down to a single answer that typically doesn't even begin to represent that complexity. Look at the question on interruptions ... where's the detail on how men's behaviour varies considerably depending upon whether there's a perceived high-status person in the room, so that interruptions and domination of the discourse go way up when there's someone to pl…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 06:09 PM
5

I love how their example study caters specifically to male modes of thinking (visual, descriptive) and not to female modes of thinking (emotional, narrative) and comes to a pre-set conclusion. Ask women to describe the relationships in an Emily Bronte novel, and then ask men. Let me know which group gives you the longer, more detailed responses.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 05:55 PM
5

They were always there. Now it's just more acceptable to admit it.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 05:27 PM
16

I'm just going to comment on one of her ridiculous claims, because it's actually pretty funny. "According to a recent study, women cope far better than men under pressure." The study looked at competitive tennis and compared the male and female results. They used first serve success rate as a metric for pressure, and performance drop off over the course of the match as a measure of collapsing under pressure, etc. Of course, anyone who follows tennis knows that the male serve is 30mph faster than…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 05:07 PM
4

The part that infuriates me is that this is likely directed. Get this woman away from her party whip, her leader, and the party apparatus and you'd likely find out that she didn't consider this to be particularly noxious. But, it can be played for points in parliament, and clearly was. When five apologies aren't good enough, you know the party is mining it and trying to stretch it out for some cheap political points. Sending her home to ostensibly lick her wounds and have her not talk to the pre…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 03:48 PM
5

And the other 60 injuries that were found on or in the body? He just walked into your knife and your fists 60 odd times over the last few years? What a hag to even waste the court's time with this kind of ridiculous appeal angle.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 03:38 PM
5

I am really learning to loathe Oliver. What a pompous pile of sanctimony that a-hole is.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 04:52 AM
2

Where I grew up, it was the slang term for when a bunch of people surrounded you and kicked you from all sides while you were on the ground. Like the phrase, "Put the boots to him". I used it as a metaphor. A Canadian girl 'leaked' an interview he'd done on Bill Maher where he talked about the common phenomenon of younger teen gays seeking out older men for affairs, because they had few options their own age. That was spun as pedophilia, and he lost his book deal and stepped away from Breitbart …
/r/MensRights06/12/17 04:45 AM
8

Anyone can bring a defamation suit, against any accuser, after being accused of any crime. It's not some legal retaliation solely available for those facing sexual assault accusations. And, honestly, how the hell could they possibly generate any kind of statistical basis for this claim? This is clearly someone talking out of their ass because ferreting through all the people who don't file a complaint, specifically to track down the individuals who were chilled away from it with a defamation cas…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 03:02 AM
2

Up here in Canada, I can add all the provincial jails and remand centers together, and top it up with all the federal prisons, and we'll be talking about 140 000 people. Even if every last person in those institutions is male, we're still talking about 0.8% of all the males in the country. Antisocial and criminal behaviour has always been forwarded by a tiny majority of the population. The more orderly your nation is, the lower that percentage gets. When you live in one of the safest nations on …
/r/MensRights05/12/17 05:10 PM
2

Wouldn't carbs be? Most of the energy in meat ends up in the toilet. That's why keto and Atkins diets are so heavy on protein, because the body really struggles to metabolize it.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 04:16 PM
3

I am absolutely loving that he's recovering from the kick down he received last year.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 04:11 PM
3

It's really not quite that simple, though, is it? How many unwanted kisses end up in a complaint being filed with the police, out of all of them that occur, do you think? Just in my life alone I've been kissed by total random strangers about five times, and I've been kissed by girls making moves on me that I wasn't interested in probably double that amount. I didn't file charges on a single woman. And vice versa. I think back and there were definitely girls whose body language said that they wer…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 03:58 PM
1

What do you think about the 50/50?! Life being life, it's an ideal not a reality and divorced parents have to be ready to be flexible. When kids are really young, that may be tough to achieve, but the older they get, the closer people should be able to get to that ideal over time. Sure, it means Dad has to ramp down work a bit and Mom has to ramp up work a bit so that a meeting in the middle happens, but everyone has to contribute, and you can't split the child care unevenly in two houses like y…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 03:54 PM
1

My experience is partly driven by my profession. Because I'm a family psychologist, I get a lot of work from people going through divorces, and those are rarely the smooth variety, or they wouldn't be knocking on my door, would they? Glad to hear it went smoothly in your house.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 01:42 PM
1

Jesus, that's like the dream divorce.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 01:35 PM
2

My point was that daily harassment or something close to it, is something only a small minority experience. Whether we're talking about 5-6% of the total population or 5-6% of those affected, so a subset of the overall population, we're still talking a small minority. So, you're right, it's actually 5% of 25% and 6% of 65%, so 1.25% and 3.9% of the overall population, respectively. That's an even smaller minority, and my point is even more ably made. What's actually portrayed in a deceptive mann…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 01:33 PM
2

I'm jealous. My divorce was ... intense. Custody battles over my son, accusations of abuse, parental alienation, the whole gamut. He turned 18 last year, so it's all effectively done, but what a ride. You two should be proud of yourself for being so pragmatic about it all. It's really difficult to do when people's egos are bruised and sore.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 05:40 AM
5

My wife's first husband owned a lot of land with his family, and they used her name on the title to dodge some fee or some taxes, or something, so she could have walked out with half the land's value AND half his pension AND spousal support. She turned it all down, and the judge specifically had the two lawyers draft a document indicating she'd turned down all this wealth, signed by both of them, before he'd let the divorce go through. Weird that being fair has to be pushed, huh? Such a screwy t…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 05:22 AM
2

Well, we're not facing pogroms, so we have that going for us!
/r/MensRights05/12/17 04:58 AM
2

That's one of my friends, unfortunately. Falls all over himself being obsequious to women, thinking that it's actually selling them on his kindness and generosity, but he just comes off as simpering. My wife caught him the other day, though. He was talking about his ex-wife and how she said she was quitting her job because it was his role to take care of her, and he told her she'd work or he'd walk. My wife says, "Just when I think you're a lost cause, you give me a tiny factoid like that to mak…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 04:57 AM
6

I'm 50 and an MRA. I think it's less his age and more that he's been somewhat insulated from the negatives, as you've mentioned above. He probably doesn't know how rare a full 50/50 custody divorce is, so there's no child support. That's as rare as hen's teeth. Your Mom needs a pat on the back for being fair. It shouldn't be something that's rewarded, but rather should be expected, but all the same ...
/r/MensRights05/12/17 04:54 AM
0

It's a rhetorical war you cannot win, because on the other side of that war is zealotry without reason. I read today a series of posts by people fixated about the dirt, bits of leaves and odd pine needle they found in her vagina, and the clear implication they were making was that he intentionally jammed all that stuff in there, or that it was some marker of how violently he degraded her that this stuff ended up there. The first take away from that series of posts was that none of these people h…
/r/MensRights05/12/17 04:38 AM
5

The hug was just a conversation starter. Would you have a closed door meeting with a female underling or coworker if she wanted advice from you? Take lunch with a female coworker for company? Mentor a female underling that showed some promise? Go to a distant conference with a female co-worker, even in separate rooms? Attend a training seminar with a female co-worker? A lot of these things are going to die on the vine because of #metoo. Who would risk a career to be collegial?
/r/MensRights05/12/17 04:22 AM
10

I'm sure we'll all take your abundant wisdom to heart. Have a nice stay.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 04:12 AM
3

That's really interesting stuff. I use the Reform Act of 1830 as a marker when I discuss this stuff all the time, but I wasn't aware that there were a half dozen Reform Acts after that that widened the franchise a bit each time. Thanks!
/r/MensRights04/12/17 11:40 PM
6

Don't tell Brazil that. And don't tell the female guards in juvenile detention centers that make up 90%+ of the offenders when staff sexually assault their charges. It's not a sex issue, it's an 'access to power' issue. You can't abuse power unless you hold it, and men hold more of those positions.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 09:39 PM
5

I'm with you, man. My older brother is somewhat 'challenged' and he's got the emotional maturity of about a 13 year old. I've been called into his work to deal with HR issues for my entire adult life. I've lost count of how many times women he works with cause him grief because they don't like how he looks at them. He doesn't touch them. Barely speaks to anyone, too. The guy just shows up, does his job, and goes home. But they can't help punching down, and he's overweight, unattractive, and ment…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 09:11 PM
5

It's in the midst of redefining the Overton Window for sexual assault and sexual harassment in the workplace. We've already got affirmative action being spread around North America at the moment, and this will probably result in a lot of sex sensitivity courses to go with the diversity courses. Maybe you should, given that all these are likely coming to a workplace near you?
/r/MensRights04/12/17 09:08 PM
16

Yeah, you need a lawyer, stat. An actual lawyer will file suit, and as part of the normal disclosure round, will request copies of any tapes, cell phone records, copies of all the documents (so you can see discussions made about your case and all the files in the investigation), etc. I would be VERY surprised if you went more than a month or two into that process before they were folding and making you an offer. But it all starts with that lawyer.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 08:36 PM
11

More like the other way around. Women use more sick days, more family days, more flex days, more sabbaticals, more short term and long term disability, leave work more often in the middle of a shift, turn down more o/t, take more stress leave, take maternity, use more health benefits, use more mental health benefits, etc. So, before we even get into sexual harassment or sexual assault in the office, they are a pretty significant cost driver for a company. Then you get into the issues that the wo…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 08:28 PM
3

There's the fantasy in your head, and what would actually happen with real world charges, real world police officers, and real world courts. As I said, you're delusional if you think any criminal justice system in the western world would consider these women legally complicit in an extortion scheme. You can pretend otherwise, but you're just fooling yourself.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 08:15 PM
3

Weinstein extorted people. He's an extortionist. The people that gave in debased themselves, and can arguably be called pathetic for having done so, but it's not a crime to give in to an extortion scheme. This notion that you have that they are almost aiding and abetting in the crime is ridiculous. That's your own head spiraling off into fantasies. I just sold my business, but I've been a psychologist for 18 years. If a parent came to me and told me they were desperate to get their kid into my c…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 07:45 PM
2

Many women have a system with their buddy whereby if a date is going sour, they have a code they send via text so that they can get a rescue. How is this different? They clearly don't hope their date turns out so badly that they will need it, and would LOVE for it to go so well that it's not even necessary, but they still set that schema up to protect themselves against the worst possible outcome, don't they? And they sure don't reveal that schema to their date, do they? This is exactly the same…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 07:21 PM
2

So you think it's 50/50 culpability, here? The architect of the whole scheme, the one that puts the proposal on the table, sets the terms and holds access to the industry in hand, is held equally responsible to the people he forces the moral quandary onto? The ones that chose to turn themselves into whores for fame are guilty of self-interest but their act generates no victim but themselves. Weinstein is guilty of manipulating and using people and his power for sex, and like all extortionists, h…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 07:17 PM
7

I'm not familiar with the US male franchise, but if it was anything like the male franchise in Canada, the income and property restrictions meant that something close to 85% of all men couldn't vote. The very same bill that gave women the franchise up here, also gave that 85% of men the franchise, too. To let women vote, they had to get rid of the property and income restrictions altogether, which freed up those men by default. So, most Canadian men and women got the franchise on exactly the sam…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 07:04 PM
3

So, if I'm the gatekeeper on a project, and you want in on that project because it will be good for your career, and I make it clear that you're only getting on that project if you suck my dick for me, putting you in the position where you have to choose between a) debasing yourself for the job, or b) not debasing yourself and losing the job ... you think opting for a) amounts to you 'using' me? I think it's a shitty, no-win moral choice that forces me to pick between income and integrity. That …
/r/MensRights04/12/17 06:12 PM
18

Witness the CEO of Yahoo facing a lawsuit for moving into that top chair, and almost immediately working to run men out, run women up, and build herself a little fempire. Whether she actually did will be revealed in the lawsuit, but I think your comment is more accurate than inaccurate.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 06:04 PM
3

50 years from now, when we look back at the rise of social media and its influence on public life, one of the things we're going to see a lot written about is the power of anonymity to truly bring out the worst in people. It used to be that 'the ends justifies the means' was something only the worst people believed in, but with so little needed to create a complete alternate persona, the means is a few minutes of time and a few calories, so why not? Why not fabricate a user and act like a douche…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 05:35 PM
2

Absolutely. Once we've established who the victim is, the ball should be handed over to the victim for a decision. Any decision the court forces, either way, could be directly in contradiction to the victim's wishes, and could victimize them a second time, this time at the hands of the state. It's not a remedy if you don't want it, and it's being forced on you, it's a punishment.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 05:27 PM
8

I don't think any statement that's so broad that it ropes in an entire sex is 'benign'. If you want to call out slugs like Weinstein by name, or callout predators as a sub-class within the Hollywood community, by all means, but the minute you start roping in ALL MEN, you bet your ass you're a sexist and a bigot.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 05:12 PM
1

It's an acknowledgement that people lie, people with even egregious issues can appear normal for a short period, that alcohol and drugs cloud judgement, that perception often changes post hoc, that there's organizations on campus and in off campus life all but devoted to widening the definition of sexual assault to some pretty ludicrous levels, that sexual assault has been pretty much turned into a moral panic, that all sorts of people and organizations are openly misrepresenting stats to scare …
/r/MensRights04/12/17 05:02 PM
3

I absolutely do, but try to remember that this subreddit is getting gamed 20 ways from Sunday. Every post of ours that manages to reach the front page generates an onslaught of people who pile in to tell us what horrible human beings we are, how we're all misogynists, blah, blah, blah. A small number of our posters in here aren't even MRAs, they just play one on TV, if you get my drift. So, have a look at your opponent's posting history and let me know what you see. What I see is someone who has…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 04:43 PM
25

Yes, 'many' women know what it's like to be sexually harassed daily ... This is like when street harassment was a major talking point, and 'every' woman knew what it was like to be street harassed. Well, when that came out, I found this study and if you look at page 17, you'll see that about 5% (6% for women, 5% for men) said they experienced it 'often or daily'. The rest said it was either never, once, or rarely. You cannot get through a life without experiencing some harassment, sexual or othe…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 03:56 PM
2

That's not at all how it happened and you know it. They were all on the same card for a comedy show, CK was the headliner, and after the show, in the wee hours, they went up to his room for drinks. They'd already been drinking, prior. It wasn't a business meeting, because they weren't in the same agency, didn't have the same managers, and weren't even the people running the comedy event. What 'business meetings' do you think comedians have? Their agents get their bookings. They got drunk and sto…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 03:36 PM
1

He could have killed the very child he was attempting to see with this reckless and dangerous behavior. Sure he could have, but we're just getting a snapshot of the very end of a process. Many perfectly reasonable people get driven by frustration to lengths they didn't even think were possible for them. And, again, we're only hearing the 'official story' and not the story from both of those parents, too. Did she goad him by telling him he was never going to see his son again, or that she'd work …
/r/MensRights04/12/17 02:34 PM
29

I'd argue it's too late. We've already lumped Louis CK, who asked up front if the adult women involved were OK with what he was going to do, who had no direct reporting or business relationship with either one, who wasn't threatening their employment, either directly or implicitly, and who didn't detain them in any fashion ... with Harvey Weinstein. Al Franken putting his hands on a woman's chest OVER BODY ARMOUR, and as a joke, becomes a #metoo moment, but the woman in question blatantly gropin…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 03:21 AM
4

Absolutely agreed. Her prose is tight, her argument is sound and easy to follow.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 03:15 AM
3

LOL. Well, your personal opinion of their value really doesn't change their legal weight.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 02:50 AM
6

You don't need to actually retaliate, though. Most jurisdictions allow that as long as the fear of reprisal is reasonable, and some threat or implication is made, that it's still sexual harassment. He was a movie producer, after all. He directly controlled who did and didn't get into his movies. That's not really like Louis CK's situation where he was just a more successful comic.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 02:44 AM
32

To an extent, I agree. Grown, adult women know precisely what's being suggested if they're invited up to a man's hotel room for drinks or a spliff or a nitecap (and vice versa). The women that went up to Louis CK's room, for example, would have to be naïve in the extreme if they didn't think something was going to get proposed, at the very least. But ... Louis CK wasn't a gatekeeper to his industry like Weinstein was. Weinstein made or killed careers.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 12:14 AM
1

it's that we are the same when it comes to behavior, but different when it comes to reception of that behavior. And that comes down the notion that men are dangerous and women are not, ultimately, does it not? If a man wanted it, and a woman didn't, could he force the issue? Most of the time ... yes. What about the reverse? While it's certainly not impossible, it's less likely. If you look at the behaviour of male and female sex predators, they go about their business very differently. There's l…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 12:10 AM
3

It's no different than 'wrap that sucker' or 'look both ways' or 'wear your seatbelt' or 'cover the keypad with your hand when entering a PIN'. None of those are done by the malfeasant, but the potential victim. Edit: think of it from the perspective of, say, street begging. You can run around town asking the scammers to knock it off so your kid doesn't get victimized, or you can teach your kid to recognizing the scams and how to respond forcefully so he gets left alone. The former is going nowh…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 11:33 PM
3

So, the 99% of students that played no role in voting for this center or even care about it enough to show up for any kind of debate on the topic will now pay for it. Greaaaaat.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 11:27 PM
3

Yeah, but expecting unethical people to police their behaviour is like asking lions not to eat meat. It's just not gonna happen. Sure, let's call it out for what it is, but I wouldn't expect much in the way of actual results.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 11:24 PM
7

It's unseemly, definitely, but in the world where people build 66M dollar companies from nothing selling real estate, I suspect that 'ethics' falls a dim, dim, dim second place behind profits. Maybe I'm cynical, but sexuality will always be just a tool to be used to some people. I feel the onus is on us to teach our sons to think with their big heads so they don't get bamboozled by this technique.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 09:29 PM
14

What's been weird is seeing this entire gestalt revisited on the Internet, as a bunch of women film themselves exposing themselves, masturbating, or even engaging in sex acts with delivery people on camera, as a lark. I keep thinking about what a female UPS driver or pizza delivery person would do if some male opened the door completely naked and started masturbating in front of her. We have such double standards in our culture.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 06:49 PM
13

Scian noted the plan is not to "march in there with our feminist flags" and evaluate a business, but instead create a tool that will help the company self-reflect on things they could do better. I fail to see how you can achieve the latter without doing the former. You're clearly assuming the company needs the tool at the outset, and the only way you can reach that conclusion prior to actually engaging with the company is if you're acting in heavily ideological fashion, ie. you're waving your fe…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 06:45 PM
3

What possible scientific context was there for a Native Rights talk at a scientific conference?
/r/MensRights03/12/17 06:33 PM
5

So I'm unsure what you mean by paper routes no longer being a thing. Well, maybe it's a Canadian thing, but paper routes largely stopped being done by children somewhere in the 90s, and adults took them over with vehicles and got much larger routes. With the decline of newspapers altogether in Canada, there's hardly any actual subscribers, anymore, and a lot of people have switched to digital delivery or no delivery at all, so daily newspapers as a whole have really declined on the national stag…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 06:19 PM
9

I've always liked her. She tells it like it is, and doesn't pull her punches. She may not be saying what feminists want to hear, necessarily, but she's essentially just stating what women have known for centuries: that female power has been manifested differently and exercised differently than male power has in history. That women are powerless, altogether, or were? That's always been a myth.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 06:09 PM
8

It was roughly 1982, give or take, but it was a while ago, because paper routes were still a thing, and kids were still doing them, not adults in vans. I'm not sure you're right, though. Virtually every instance where a female teacher sexually assaults one of her charges, there's a chorus of people claiming that this would have made their early life, or asking why weren't teachers this hot when they was young, or claiming that the victims were lucky bastards. That kind of talk might have been mo…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:59 PM
2

You really think you're the first person to take one of your alts and use it to snipe in here? Every last one sings the same tune ... I WAS one ... yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't buy it for a second.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:55 PM
12

I told my Dad, who paid a visit to the house and told them to knock that shit off (you know, 1980s Dad talk) and it was never an issue again.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:54 PM
7

Yes, in an ever more interconnected world, where knowing how to code might mean the difference between meaningful employment and make work, we should replace a computer lab with a social justice centre. Where do I pick up my arm patch, my mandatory socjus flag, the regulation cap, and my handbook of handy socjus phrases so that I can fit into the new world more effectively? DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH. EQUITY IS LAW.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:14 PM
2

He was never in. Look at his posting history. It's clearly a troll account he uses to come in here and snipe at men's rights. Almost all his other posts are one liners in popular subreddts, and then he comes in here intermittently to bitch.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 04:54 PM
44

When I was a teenager, I helped my younger brother handle his paper route, because he had just started doing it. In that era, you went to your customer's door to get payment for the paper and gave them a chit that was their receipt of payment. You did this every couple of weeks or so. Well, some dude had his wife dress up in lingerie and had her come to the door to answer it. I'm 13, my brother is 10. It's totally see through, so we can see everything, and the guy yells from the other room, aski…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 04:44 PM
9

Here's a few things to think about ... a) There's men and then there's men. I'm 5'6" and my younger brother is 6'2". Guess whose legs stick out into the aisle more on the train when we're riding to watch a hockey game, or who has to angle his legs out more to even fit into one of the cramped seats at the game? Does he become a manspreader by default if seats at venues and on transit aren't designed for someone his size ... at all? b) hip angles on men are not the same as hip angles on women. It …
/r/MensRights03/12/17 12:07 AM
1

I feel sunk. It can truly be overwhelming, especially at the beginning. My advice is to treat this like you'd treat a death in the family, because that's pretty much what it is. It's like having your entire family get wiped in a car accident, because they are just as gone to you (at this point) as they are if they passed away. What happens when people die? We all grieve. So ... give yourself that time and freedom to grieve their loss. The grieving process is kind of mandatory, so just let it hap…
/r/MensRights02/12/17 10:46 PM
7

Sure, but we're not talking about whether there's crazy men and crazy women, here, we're talking about whether she holds any responsibility for her actions. Whether you hold that society caused this (your first argument) or that she's crazy (your second argument), you clearly think this isn't her fault. The fault is nameless, faceless 'society' or some mental illness she suffers from that was imposed on her by fate, but in neither case is she responsible for her decisions. But I'd bet that if we…
/r/MensRights02/12/17 03:43 PM
5

You're exhibiting a classic case of sex-variated attribution of control. With women, our tendency is to site the locus of control externally, so we assume society works on them, other people work on them, fate works on them, and they are like leaves on the wind, getting tossed around. We don't see them as in control of their own faculties, with autonomy and responsibility, so we see them as constantly not responsible for the decisions that get made. With men, we tend to site the locus of control…
/r/MensRights02/12/17 02:57 PM
6

I agree, but the solution is to down vote and move on. All that being said ... Jesus, this woman is a piece of work. She's got a Masters in Forensic Psychology and she's had multiple miscarriages this year alone, uses the morning after pill rather than a proactive solution, and blithely considers murdering her child like another miscarriage. It isn't the child that's going to ruin her career, it's her clear mental health issues.
/r/MensRights02/12/17 02:50 PM
5

Record everything. Every email. Every phone call. Every interaction where you physically meet. Literally everything. Learn how to use your phone to record audio or video and get the necessary apps. Learn what the laws are for recording in your state, and follow them as best you can, but make sure you err on the side of cataloguing everything. If it's a choice between going down for some story about violence or sexual predation and getting a fine for recording someone without their consent, take …
/r/MensRights02/12/17 02:37 PM
4

"Making fun of girls for simply liking the same things even though they’re totally normal things to like and everyone actually likes them is a basic component of patriarchy." For the love of God, use a fucking comma once in a while.
/r/MensRights02/12/17 05:17 AM
10

I'll give you the advice I wish someone had given me when I was younger. Get into a business where you own your own shop. Doesn't matter if it's some professional corporation like a dentist or a doctor or a psychologist, or it's some coffee shop, etc. When you own the place, you create the culture, and that puts you in the driver's seat for everything. If you work for someone else, and social justice moves into your industry, you're pretty much immediately working in a hostile environment where …
/r/MensRights02/12/17 05:13 AM
3

To me, this appears pretty blatantly fake.
/r/MensRights02/12/17 12:30 AM
11

Sure, but I'd be calling her out for her focus on men only, too. Even if 'some men' is the implication, she's not talking about some people, but some men, right?
/r/MensRights02/12/17 12:01 AM
2

Obesity is largely self inflicted, and yet look at all the regulation around food, the response to HFCS as an additive, the campaigns to get soda companies out of schools, etc. There's national level programs out there to combat childhood obesity in most western nations that are a direct result of that friction. Now take that and apply it to an issue where it's not caused by yourself, for the most part, but by some institution or someone else other than yourself. The drive to reduce that frictio…
/r/MensRights01/12/17 07:03 PM
1

You say that just the ugly truth of single parenthood is enough to shift future to the better side. I say, you have to show a better example as an alternative in order to shift sides. It's hard to give this topic the sort of shrift it needs without a fully blown essay, but there's simply so many friction points that family law is generating, and will expand on, that it's not tenable long term. Even if we accept that the male side of the issues are going to be neglected or ignored, there's still …
/r/MensRights01/12/17 06:18 PM
12

In a lot of ways, this is a self-solving problem, but we're half way into the lifespan of the issue, so we're not really seeing the end state at this point. Take what's happening today, with a year on year decline of men at university vs. females, and hold it up against hypergamy. One of them has to give, right? University educated women will be forced to date down, for the first time in centuries, because dating up will mean a large percentage being alone. Whether the solution is that they date…
/r/MensRights01/12/17 05:29 PM
3

Breasts are a secondary sex characteristic while pectoral muscles are not. I think you should rethink that statement. You know where that muscle mass comes from, right? There's a reason 10 year old boys don't get pecs like that and they only become possible after puberty.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 04:17 PM
2

But that's kind of the point, isn't it? The double standard is that we consider a women's chest like we do genitals, but we don't put men's chests in the same category. Part of the rationalization for why this was OK to happen on air revolves around that double standard, intimately.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 04:07 PM
4

If you're going to make hyperbolic claims, you really should provide some source. The minute I heard the panic button under the desk claim, I had to laugh. I've yet to see anyone provide a viable source for that one, for example, and it just beggars belief. Clearly, the people making the claim don't know how much work on that office would have to happen to make that a reality, and how hard that would be to slip past everyone else in the office. Maybe it happened, there's some pretty nutty people…
/r/MensRights01/12/17 04:04 PM
6

If you need a source for the 78 cent argument, the best one available is the Korn Ferry Hay Group study, where they compared wages in 33 nations, 8.5M people, and made sure they only compared people at a) the same company, and b) the same position title. They found an average of only 1.6% difference between male and female pay over the 33 nation sample. Korn Ferry Hay Group Study
/r/MensRights01/12/17 03:23 PM
3

Don't know why you got downvoted for the implication, but the desire for the school to cater to an EX student is clearly lower than a current student. It's not an insignificant factor, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 03:16 PM
1

I was firing those up while I was reading to my wife while she rowed. I was a bit distracted!
/r/MensRights01/12/17 03:59 AM
10

You don't have Jenny McCarthy mauling Bieber. The woman that accused Al Franken groped the lead singer/guitarist's ass on stage during one of the military events they both attended. It's on film if you search. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJlJYysWPnE Paul Rudd getting groped at the Spirit Awards Florence Henderson groping a dancer Miley Cyrus has all sorts of images of her going well past the line with fans at some convention. Dame Helen Mirren Grabbing Breasts Katy Perry has so many pictures…
/r/MensRights01/12/17 02:39 AM
2

What I find interesting is that this article essentially just shifts the goal posts. It's not that men seek out higher paying jobs, it's that male dominated industries pay more. It's not that women seek out jobs with fewer responsibilities, more flexible schedules, and more local work, it's that female dominated industries pay less. It's not that male dominated industries actively discriminate, but women don't apply to those industries because of language cues that indicate that it's a high pres…
/r/MensRights01/12/17 01:58 AM
6

Good looking asses in view can help me get through that workout, actually. It's a distraction from the pain. Sometimes I play around with the thought that I can take modern social justice weenies back in time to other eras, so they can see how ridiculous their enforced prudishness would look to our forebears.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:32 PM
3

When I run that through the Bitch to English translator, it comes out as 'Don't look at me. Only I get to look at me. You don't have the proper clearance to look at me, peon, so look down until you have achieved enough status to check me out." I think my translator is busted. That can't be right, can it?
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:31 PM
3

Yeah, say the women on a male-founded, developed and run show, on a male-founded, developed and run television network, getting filmed and recorded by a crew that's overwhelmingly men, using equipment also overwhelmingly developed by men, in a studio almost completely built and maintained by men. Sure, honey, if someone else does all the hard work and builds the infrastructure and keeps it running for you, you can slide in at the very end on the visible part of the program and pretend you don't …
/r/MensRights30/11/17 04:45 PM
18

The tone is subtle, but it almost seems like they are celebrating the fact that we have this 'get out of jail free card' that we can pull out of our back pocket when women kill their infants. This is just one more plank in the edifice where there's a second justice system for women than there is for men. You abandon a child as a father, you're a deadbeat and a cad. You abandon your baby as a mother, there's drop off locations or surrender options or adoption and no one will think the worse of yo…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 04:27 PM
8

Hands up every married or long cohabiting couples who have woken up their spouse or partner for the day with a kiss. While humorous, the idea that you need overt permission for every single kiss, especially when you're in a committed relationship, is totally asinine. I've been kissed by multiple women who were strangers. The notion of charging them with something didn't even begin to cross my mind. Good lord, how petty would you have to be to charge someone over a kiss?
/r/MensRights30/11/17 03:18 PM
23

Wikipedia Check the Basile version, which predates Perrault's version where she's awakened by a kiss. In the older version recounted by Basile, he gives her the 'first fruits of love' and comes back later to find out she has given birth to twins that are his children. It's clear he didn't just kiss her.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 03:15 PM
10

There's some truth to it, yes. In fact, I literally just had to deal with this shit last week. A friend of mine has been divorced for 7 years, now, and he's still obsessed with his ex. His ex treated his kid like garbage, so he walked, and he's been regretting it ever since. So, my wife and I go to a local bookstore with him for coffee, just to catch up. I've got an allergy to cold (cold uticaria), so my wife drops me off, then goes to park the car so that I don't get too much of a reaction. It'…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 05:56 AM
7

One of my favourite things to do when I run into a belligerent feminist is to point out all the stuff in the immediate area that wouldn't exist without male input. Doesn't matter where they are, there's a sidewalk, a road, buildings, a park, a bench, traffic lights, garbage bins and pickup, sewer, electrical grid, phones, computers, cars, buses, trucks ... Yep, male masculine crap is pretty useful.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 05:52 AM
7

Some people are like that. Most people, though, would love to hear that their partner finds them attractive, or that they are sexy enough to warrant a second look, or that they drive someone to distraction. It's not like men don't have egos or need validation. We're just less motivated by those parts of life, not completely unmotivated by them. I see more women than men in my practice, like most psychologists, but a growing part of my practice is post divorce counselling for men. Their outcomes …
/r/MensRights30/11/17 05:48 AM
2

Thanks, I appreciate the confidence. He needs to live elsewhere, and that's the cold, hard fact. Until he does, he'll never get past the web of ideologies. One quick story before bed. He loves oranges, particularly mandarins or other varieties that are easy to peel and sweet. My wife and I always have a fruit bowl out, and keep it stocked, and the first week he lived with us, I watched him in our kitchen, reaching for an orange, but pulling his hand back, over and over. I just sat and watched hi…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 05:23 AM
6

If by cringe worthy, you mean 'clearly made up'. It's a bloody straw man convention in there.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 04:50 AM
13

There was a youtube video a few years ago where someone walked around asking men when the last time they got flowers was, or the last time someone told them they were sexy, or when the last time someone told them they loved them was. That was honestly one of the most heartbreaking videos I think I've ever seen. Remember those Romanian orphans that were a bit of an adoption craze several years ago, and they all ended up with pretty severe emotional problems because they were never held and had no…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 04:45 AM
4

I've argued long and hard in here that risk mitigation is NOT blaming the victim, and one of the key aspects of mitigating risk for sexual assault is to ensure you're only getting stoned or drunk around people that you know well enough to trust. She clearly doesn't feel she can trust these people she calls friends, especially while 'greening up' and in a vulnerable position. So, on one hand, good on her for recognizing that getting stoned puts you in a compromised position, and you should probab…
/r/MensRights29/11/17 10:56 PM
7

That's honestly irrelevant. The second she works to hide the body, she's proving she's no longer temporarily insane. Insanity might cover the actual killing itself, but now she's into obstructing justice territory, which she did twice, both by the attempts to dispose and hide the body from authorities AND by consciously lying to the authorities to throw off their inquiry. Want to write off the actual killing to depression? Go ahead. It's the cover up afterward I'm talking about.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 10:03 PM
9

She didn't plead insanity, though. As per the article, she pled guilty to Infanticide, which was a downgraded charge from the Murder she was originally charged with. We're simply discussing whether prison was the best place for her, or whether she actually should have been in treatment. I'm suggesting the prison route, given that she clearly grasped the moral and legal implications of her actions, depressed or not.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 09:45 PM
24

If she's out of control of her faculties, then why did she lie? To lie requires two things: a) knowledge of the morality of the situation, such that you know you've done something horrible enough that you should hide it, and b) enough cognitive wherewithal to come up with an alternative story to attempt the deception. And, why did she consciously dispose of the body? Same rationale applies to this one, too. She knew she needed to hide that body to avoid being found out. That's someone who is not…
/r/MensRights29/11/17 07:19 PM
2

At the moment, we're estranged. He actually came to live with me for six months at 15, and during his time here, I made available to him all the emails between his Mom and I, the separation and divorce agreements, and all the provincial and federal legislation that applied. I suggested to him to get educated and become part of the process. Of course, I told him my side of the story. But ... after 15 years of indoctrination, he really didn't want to hear my side. He didn't touch those materials, …
/r/MensRights29/11/17 06:35 PM
3

LOL. I like a good rant, too, and the actual amount of CS is the subject of many of my rants. In Canada (and most US states), CS is set at a level that roughly equalizes income between the two households, and really doesn't take into account actual costs, so not only do most men go from a situation where their 'costs' for their kids skyrocket out into the stratosphere, relative to the actual incurred costs, but what this actually means in a de facto sense - that men are actively subsidizing thei…
/r/MensRights29/11/17 06:00 PM
3

Depending on your state laws, if your son had gone to college CS could have continued for up to another seven years. Tell me about it! My son having his issues means he's not likely headed to college or university, but if he had gone, there'd be one more legal war in the tank. In my province (Alberta), CS ends after the first degree/diploma or age 22, whichever comes first. In their province (Ontario), there's no upper limit. As long as that kid is in full time school, I'm paying CS. So, with a …
/r/MensRights29/11/17 05:33 PM
7

To play Devil's Advocate ... are we spending so much time with our kids that we're effectively stifling them? Along with the rise of parental involvement came helicopter parenting, after all, and the general rise of social bureaucracy policing parenting such that kids need to be supervised at all times. NPD is on the rise, all across the west, mental health programs at universities are stretched to the max with every indication that the generation currently in school is pretty poorly equipped to…
/r/MensRights29/11/17 05:03 PM
7

How has it impacted my relationship? Well, financially it worked out to $322 000 in child support, and about $48 000 in legal bills, but all that ended last year when my son turned 18. He still lives with my ex-wife, but they live in this weird existence where her Mom supplies her CP and OAS, my ex-wife supplies her meagre salary she gets from her church, and my son supplies his meagre salary he gets from being a part time lifeguard, and all three live in a subsidized apartment provided by a fam…
/r/MensRights29/11/17 01:07 PM
23

My son almost rolled off the change table, because he'd learned to roll overnight, my wife didn't bother to tell me. She'd moved the diapers away from the change table to clean, and as I reached for one, he rolled. I jammed my stomach against the front of the table to keep him from rolling off and grabbed his arm and leg to be safe. The wife heard the noise and rushed in, literally a second later. Well, our visit to the pediatrician was the very next day, and lo and behold, he sees a very clear …
/r/MensRights29/11/17 02:02 AM
1

My point was one about perception. Whether you outright state that you prefer women to be thinner than she is, or you leave that up in the air for her to figure out, you don't control how she's going to parse that information or that event. And whether it's dictionary fat shaming or not, it might very well (and likely will) be called fat shaming. A rejection is a rejection, and rejected people have all sorts of rationalizations they do to salve their wounded ego, including fob off the blame on y…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 11:25 PM
2

My bias is that I go where the evidence points me. Seeing as you haven't supplied a single figure, and instead are just griping about the quality of the data presented, it sure looks like your bias is "I'm going to shit on any stat that doesn't tell the story I think should be told, and I'm going to do without offering any superior stats up, or any stats at all." Any old chimp can throw shit and scream. If you think you've got a more accurate set of numbers, for the US or Canada, by all means co…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 11:17 PM
8

Jesus H Christ. Back when I was in university for my BA, there were a couple of kids two years younger than I was on the same floor in residence that were totally head over heels for each other. They spent every waking minute with each other, but both of them were so shy that they couldn't take that next step and just make it romantic, rather than platonic. I spent two hours one night, shuttling from her room to his room, essentially brokering their relationship. I had to convince both of them t…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 09:40 PM
6

Dunham's five minutes in the sun are fading, back to the general obscurity that her abundant lack of talent, abundant dishonesty, and abundant hypocrisy would normally warrant. The author is happy this is happening.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 09:30 PM
1

Yeah, I've seen sites that let you filter by race, and my same general complaint comes forward. If I'm white and I'm only comfortable dating white people, I may call that a preference to myself, but anyone viewing that from the outside is going to see it for what it is - racism. If I'm ruling out sexy, smart, sophisticated, beautiful women because of the colour of their skin, I'm an asshole. Age is a bit of a different bird, though. I'm generally on the same stance, because May-December romances…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:49 PM
1

That's why I put it like this: "If you FILTER your dating partners ..." I wasn't talking about preferences, right? Think of all the women on dating sites that use minimum height filters and who would literally never see my profile because I'm 5'6" ... that's not preference, anymore.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:25 PM
3

I'm of the opinion that this is no big deal. Unless we're talking really small children, they generally get the divide between TV and reality, Cartoons and reality, CGI shows and reality, etc. Parents have to be reasonable and phase in shows that feature events like this once the child is old enough to provably make that distinction, but that's the same general process that you follow with scary movies and TV shows, too. If the kid has nightmares because what they saw on TV was too real for them…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:21 PM
0

And people should be able to look at the metrics in play, rule them as unreasonable or frivolous or petty, and call the person an asshole for being that ridiculously small minded, too. I don't care if you have a preference for red heads. If you utterly rule out anyone BUT red heads, however, it's gone to a degree beyond simple preference, and you're that special variety of idiot that consciously hampers his own chances of dating or romantic success on a ridiculously trite and superficial charact…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:07 PM
1

That happens the other way, too, though. I know you're trying to minimize the number as best you can, probably because you're working from an agenda of some sort, but anyone in the business (like I am) already accepts that self-reporting stats are never going to be truly accurate, because they are heavily influenced by perception in both directions. And, they are already really low, so I'm really not sure why you feel the need to make an argument that's largely already made, in a sense. There wi…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 07:53 PM
0

I think you're missing the difference in degree, here. A PREFERENCE doesn't rule out alternatives. You might prefer the combination of black hair and green eyes, and such women might have an advantage if they want to attract your attention, but you won't turn down someone if they don't have that combination. A FILTER means you're ruling them out. You're taking them utterly out of contention if they don't fit the criteria.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 07:26 PM
1

Because they aren't as separate as you think they are. A large woman asks you out on a date. You're really not interested, because you're not attracted to overweight women, at all. Do you tell her the truth? If you reject her because of her weight, you know she's going to reach the conclusion that you're fat shaming her, right? That's she's not good enough to be loved, to be wanted and desired, and all that malarkey. It certainly won't be pitched as your perfectly reasonable personal preference.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 07:23 PM
2

a degree in physics then a degree in education Now that's a segue!
/r/MensRights28/11/17 06:24 PM
4

The GSS goes a long way to minimize that, though. They are given the actual criminal code violation to use as their reference, for example, not some made up definition that increases the wiggle room, like we saw with the survey of the schools in the US that generated that 1 in 5 stat. We'll never be 100% accurate with self-reporting, so we shouldn't take those numbers as gospel, but it's a rough starting point for discussion about the 'unseen sexual assault' that at least gives us a ballpark to …
/r/MensRights28/11/17 06:21 PM
2

I think someone needs to take a trip to Montreal to walk around the downtown core and ogle the simply amazingly beautiful women in that city.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 06:18 PM
14

Up here in Canuck land, we have two government supplied pools of statistics to use, the actual reported complaints to the police (Uniform Crime Report) done annually, and the survey of the public on a number of issues that gets done every five years (General Social Survey). In the UCR, there were 21500 sexual assaults reported in 2015, for a rate of 58/100K. In the GSS, during the five years running from 2011 to 2016, there was 22/1000 reported in the survey. Convert to /100K (2200/100K) and ave…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 06:13 PM
3

Because the clientele of homeless shelters is filled with chronic, low grade criminals, alcohol and drug addicts and the mentally ill. Unless you build the shelter to keep the sexes separate, there's a not insignificant problem with sexual victimization right in the shelter.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 05:27 PM
2

Where do you live? Homeless shelters in Canada are overwhelmingly male. Domestic violence shelters, on the other hand, are almost universally female. So, depending upon what you need at the moment, you could be screwed if you're a woman on the street, or screwed if you're a man fleeing his abusive partner.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 05:25 PM
5

So, they are mutually exclusive? Victim services are front end. Justice is back end. You make the front end as welcoming and open and believing and supportive and protective as you want it to be. The goal is that there should be no institutional barriers to walking in that door and filing a report, obtaining support services, or the collection of statements and evidence. But that obligates nothing on the back end at all. No one is guaranteed a result in a court room. No one. The minute we start …
/r/MensRights28/11/17 05:23 PM
2

Well, seeing as I'm a psychologist that specifically works with families ... ;-)
/r/MensRights28/11/17 05:11 PM
1

Exactly the point. There's really only two categories: a) Characteristics one can control b) Characteristics one cannot control If you filter your dating partners based on a), then you're simply selecting for people with willpower and discipline. If you filter your dating partners based on b), you're an asshole.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 02:06 PM
2

One good thing is some women deciding that it's ok to be the breadwinner. That's a timely comment. My older brother just lost his job a couple of weeks ago, and at a dinner for my niece's birthday yesterday, my sister (who tends to speak first and think second) decided to make some off-hand comment about unemployed bums living in their Mom's basement, right in front of my brother. My wife leaped in and said that there's nothing wrong with not having a job, and that with three kids, there was pro…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 02:03 PM
4

There's millions of feminists. You'll find the odd reasonable comment if you dig hard enough, simply because of the sheer volume of comments. Proving that they aren't universally twats, or aren't universally making twat comments is really easy, but it doesn't really change the fact there's a significant volume of twattish comments coming from feminists these days. I'm sure if we scratch the average feminist, we'll find she still loves her brother, or her Dad, or respects some male coworker or me…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 01:53 PM
1

This exact system has already been proposed and it generally met with significant mockery.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 01:40 PM
3

It's a natural progression of our cognitive style. I've said it many times, but humans are category thinking creatures. We sort, we label, we group, we categorize, etc. That means we have a rapid sort mechanism that we employ first, putting people into broad categories that direct our initial reactions, and then we flesh people in from that framework as we learn more about them. That mode of approaching reality drives tribal thinking, it drives generalization, it drives bigotry - all of it. So, …
/r/MensRights28/11/17 01:32 PM
5

The thing is he fit the stereotype perfectly, so he gave them their so-called perfect perpetrator. White college athlete, frat, rich family ... if he wasn't strung up from the nearest tree, it wasn't going to be good enough. I'm with you, man. That would have been a summary sexual assault up here in Canada, the lightest version of sexual assault, and the guy would have been lucky to do any jail time, given he was a first time offender and there was no actual intercourse.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 03:44 AM
22

You've left out the legal argument. Regardless of how one feels about the level of intrusiveness of both of those procedures, the fact remains that they are done without the consent of the patient. While one might argue that greater damage merits a greater sentence for that crime, no one should be arguing that one is a crime and the other is not. Both are clearly a violation of consent and a right to bodily integrity without a true medical need to justify the procedure.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 08:26 PM
1

The federal government has been preferentially hiring women and minorities for a couple of years, now. If the Feds can hire in sexist and racist fashion, then it's pretty much a guarantee that private organizations can do so.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 07:58 PM
41

Yes, shooting a sleeping man in the back of the head so you can steal his shit is exactly like stumbling out of a party, drunk, with a drunk girl on your arm, and getting caught with your fingers inside her. Jesus Titty Fucking Christ, this is inane. When fingering a girl is considered comparable to murder, we're out in la-la-land.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 04:53 PM
6

I love how you generalized to all females from the non-specific example, even thought the context as established by the Twitter posts should have led you to interpret his non-specific example to mean the two women above. Says more about your own mindset than his, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 04:49 PM
2

Maybe economically, but socially? Legal pot in multiple states, legal gay marriage nation wide, major declines in religiosity across the nation, substantial improvements in women's workforce engagement, DV shelters, divorces, etc. all point to a much more socially progressive direction than what was around in the 1950s.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 07:38 PM
4

He touched her knee about five times? Good fucking lord, this is getting to the point of sheer lunacy. What kind of ridiculous prudes are running that show that a man touching her knee is now sexual harassment? ALL humans touch each other as part of the normal courting process, and while it's women that typically initiate the touching - on an arm, on a leg - occasionally men do so as well. It's not automatically sexual harassment if a co-worker or even a boss seeks out a relationship or sex with…
/r/MensRights26/11/17 02:54 PM
14

What generation did they poll? My father's generation is full of women who haven't managed a bill or earned a paycheque in decades, and when their husband dies, these women are absolutely lost, like babes in the woods lost, because he's been essentially running their lives. And he dies before she does, largely because of the extra stressors he takes on, on their behalf. Edit: alimony is overwhelmingly paid from man to woman precisely because men take on more of the stresses for funding that hous…
/r/MensRights26/11/17 02:48 PM
4

All of it. What are the odds that street harassment will be enforced equally, for all people who experience it? The 2014 SSH study on street harassment showed that men saw street harassment nearly as often as women did. There's literally no reason for a sex-based program to combat it at all. Reporting sexual assault online is just going to exacerbate nuisance accusations. Feminists will carp until the cows come home saying that false or exaggerated or misremembered or misconstrued events don't h…
/r/MensRights26/11/17 05:19 AM
7

It's not so much creepy as forced. People have a tendency to create spectacles to try and offset essentially ignoring people for months on end, as if the grander the spectacle is, the more you're expected to forget that they haven't called you in three months. If we're moving into that with our children, we've lost sight of the end goal. You shouldn't have to schedule a date and turn it into an event to spend some one on one time with your daughter.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 02:23 PM
4

Absolutely. Never underestimate the power of social forces in dragging along the lemmings looking for a little shine from that 5 minutes in the sun. Add in money, which Piven clearly has, and there's a couple of pretty big motivators to misconstrue events from decades before. Where's the potential negative for these women? It's not like someone's going to put them in jail for a false accusation when the events are years or decades old, and society is clearly aligned with them. The only possible …
/r/MensRights25/11/17 02:04 PM
2

Well, my ex wife worked for weeks behind my back to get herself a condo, with her mother's help, and get it all furnished and ready before she decided to walk out the door. The day she pulled the trigger, she consciously tried to goad me into hitting her so that she'd have some measure of justification. It didn't work, and I told her to he face that she'd always have to sleep with the fact she tried to rig domestic violence to justify leaving. Intelligent manipulators most definitely attempt to …
/r/MensRights25/11/17 06:31 AM
1

Absolutely, but those relative clauses ... three in one sentence?
/r/MensRights24/11/17 10:13 PM
3

I love how they call him her 'captor', almost certainly conflating the John with the boyfriend/thug that put her out on the street turning tricks in the minds of most readers, who stop at the headline, and how they leave the actual prosecutor until last, and don't actually let him refute anything.
/r/MensRights24/11/17 09:50 PM
3

Absolutely. Family Law is rotten to the core, in my opinion. I finished child support at the end of last year, and I bought myself a very expensive bottle of scotch to celebrate the day I stopped sending my ex-wife thousands of dollars a month to put my kid in public school and pocket the rest.
/r/MensRights24/11/17 07:50 PM
10

It's not a flat rate because women successfully argued in multiple jurisdictions that if the man, who typically made more money, was allowed to leverage that greater income, he'd just woo the kids with goodies until he had de facto custody. As a result, these jurisdictions 'even out' the family income as best they can so that there's no financial incentive either way for those kids, and keep it that way for the duration of minority. Back when I was paying child support, I'd send my support chequ…
/r/MensRights24/11/17 02:10 PM
12

This will keep going until people get sued for ruining lives. Once those parents have to shell out to pay for Little Miss Bitch's behaviour, we'd see a major drop off in incidence rate, I guarantee you.
/r/MensRights24/11/17 01:25 PM
56

Just for additional information ... Harvard tuition is 45 000 a year, so her child support alone was enough to put all 4 kids through Harvard for the year AND still have roughly 60K left over for Mom to dick around with.
/r/MensRights24/11/17 01:43 AM
3

Agreed. This is a particularly noxious form of virtue signaling, especially when you read the initial thread and it's really just an argument over a hypothetical. Who gets riled up enough over a hypothetical that they self post to 'expose' the supposedly toxic mindset of their debating partner?
/r/MensRights24/11/17 01:21 AM
1

I generally support trans rights on the pronoun issue. I support their right to call themselves whatever the heck they want. It's their life and their body. I reserve the right to decline the use of fabricated pronouns like xir or xe, however. Their right to call themselves what they want doesn't extend to putting words in my mouth. I don't think, for example, if a person knows another is trans, they should be totally free to use their "biological" pronoun instead of their preferred one, purely …
/r/MensRights23/11/17 10:00 PM
1

I wasn't really talking about you, specifically, just people in general. A lot of people I talk to and deal with in a given week really don't understand that aggregate statistics are descriptive of the aggregate as a whole, not the individuals within it, and they make atrocious generalizations or engage in horrific stereotypes because they seemingly take the aggregate statistics as law. You really didn't seem like that kind of person, though, so if you took it as a personal stab at you, that hon…
/r/MensRights23/11/17 08:53 PM
151

So a man marries a single mother, with a daughter that's 9 years old at the time of the marriage. He helps raise the girl, and at some indeterminate point he starts having sex with her. They get caught when she's 16 because Mom puts up hidden cameras and catches them in the act. What are the odds that the stepfather would get away with 6 months in jail? Zero.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 08:26 PM
1

But if you walk up to a guy and see he's good at math and think " well yea because he's a guy", that's not right. The gap between the most intelligent woman and the dumbest woman is several orders of magnitude larger than the gap between the intelligence of the average man and the average woman. When we choose to discuss statistics about sex and gender, most of us consciously choose to ignore the very salient gap in individual performance and ability in favour of the small, largely non-salient, …
/r/MensRights23/11/17 07:06 PM
1

Is it? Politicians have been hypocrites since the dawn of politics. That the hypocrisy has gotten so endemic that it involves who does and doesn't drink water merely means we've moved into the theater of the ultra-absurd from the theater of the absurd. I still don't consider that news.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 01:14 PM
1

Significant upboats (well, at least one), for the use of an accurate, if novel word.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 01:12 PM
3

I'm pretty confident that anyone who stays here for any reasonable period of time sees the value of the sub. The only people I've ever seen in here say that we've got a misogyny problem are people coming in because they've seen a post on the main page and who have decided to make sure we knew how horrible we were as human beings. I've lost count of how many people tell us what we think and tell us how we feel, but if you go into their posting history, they've never posted here prior to that day.
/r/MensRights22/11/17 12:41 AM
3

My study buddy (Hi Candy! Yes, that was her name.) during my BA in Psychology slept with multiple professors to boost her grades. She ended up getting her PhD, too, from a totally different university than I did, and when we bumped into each other years later she revealed to me that she'd been disciplined by the PAA and was on probation for sexual contact with her clients. She wanted in on my partner situation and we respectfully declined. Bonus is that at a mini reunion for High School, I ran i…
/r/MensRights22/11/17 12:19 AM
3

I'm with you, man. Back in my 30s, I was running into a steady stream of co-workers who were really unhappy with their marriages and out looking for another option. The number of affairs and trysts and romances and even relationships that were engaged in and started at work (in most workplaces of any size, for that matter) was simply astounding. We used to joke all the time about how busy HR was kept just tracking all the sex. Well, those days are done, boys. Treat office romances like cancer, b…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 02:47 PM
13

So, normal small talk, mild posturing, vague flirting ... and the problem is, where, precisely?
/r/MensRights21/11/17 02:43 PM
13

We no longer believe in the supremacy of traditional male values. More than that, we’re beginning to understand that greed, competition and the desire for power are at the root of many of the problems in society. To a great extent, I believe in the premise of the article, but in the end it comes down to this passage, which lays the feet again at a version of toxic masculinity. It's not named, clearly, but just like it always is when the topic of men comes up, we're not talking systemically. We'r…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 02:36 PM
16

Rolls in? People are getting fired on mere accusation ... it's here.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 01:19 PM
29

I had a female patient last week ask me, in the wake of these accusations, if that was why I recorded all my sessions. I told her that the primary focus of the recordings was for me to have audio and video of a session for therapeutic purposes, because when I'm actively listening to someone, I catch a lot of cues, but not all of them. Reviewing post hoc allows me to catch these cues more reliably. But ... I had to admit that since the implosion, that I slept a little better at night knowing that…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 01:18 PM
21

"Others are struggling to reconcile how these behaviors could happen even among men who believe in equal rights." Good lord, what's to reconcile? One party has the power to define the narrative, post hoc, and the other party has to largely just accept the definition that's handed to him because it's going to be accepted by employers and co-workers, regardless. None of these people has gotten their day in court, but careers are imploding all over the map, just on the accusation. With that kind of…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 01:06 PM
3

When the subject of Weinstein and all the other accused came up at family dinner this past week at my wife's parent's house, I pointed out that who has power and what type was subject to interpretation, and that it was VERY clear that the accusers had power, and had it all along. The proof of it was that they could implode multiple careers overnight. So, it wasn't that they had no power, it's that they convinced themselves they were powerless, or allowed themselves to be convinced. When someone …
/r/MensRights21/11/17 12:55 PM
14

The Elam's of the world get a raw deal, in my opinion, for little more reason than they have given up on catering to female communication styles. If you listen to how women express opinions, they throw out a considerably higher volume of ameliorative language, largely because they don't want to overstep their bounds, insult those at the table, appear arrogant, etc. It's VERY clear that what they are expressing is an opinion, and not 'fact', as a result. They work to make that very clear. But men…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 12:51 PM
12

I think there's a bit of difference between not acknowledging male problems and going out of your way to specifically praise women on IMD AND to state that women are the better sex. You have to be a special kind of sycophant to engage in that kind of bullshit.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 02:56 AM
10

In my family right now, we're dealing with my older brother's job loss. He's 50, with no appreciable skills, with about an 85 IQ because of a dozen heavily impactful seizures in his infancy from his epilepsy. He has, or had, two employers. The first recognized that he would likely not be employed without the kindness of strangers, and so has kept him on all these years, despite his clear issues, and the family has worked with them to smooth it as best we can. We see what they do, and so send the…
/r/MensRights20/11/17 08:06 PM
8

And what will happen is what happened in Norway when they forced this through - the 'golden skirt' phenomenon, where the few women who actually have the experience most boards look for get shared around across multiple companies, sometimes serving on as many as 7-8 boards at a time, and companies shift around their board meeting dates to accommodate these other responsibilities. Rather than promote women without the necessary experience as a sop, they'll just re-use the ones that have it. So, th…
/r/MensRights20/11/17 04:00 PM
2

It's so difficult that we allow people as young as 12 years old to take over the job, temporarily, for pay! It's got hard elements, but nothing like a job.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 05:53 AM
1

Yes, we do need to do better. We need to identify sycophantic little fucks that would sell an entire gender up the river for accolades and attention and cut them out of the herd. We need to do it before they get famous, so that the Ben Afflecks of the world don't end up rich, too.
/r/MensRights18/11/17 04:52 AM
1

"And your iPhone has no charge or something?"
/r/MensRights18/11/17 04:49 AM
5

Amen, brother. Our local sports organization redid our arena to jam in more seats, which meant most of us sat with our legs forced together because we had no other options. In between periods, all the men would be getting up to stretch and grouse about the seating. By the end of the game, my inner thighs were so sore from the low-grade, 1.5 hr exertion, I could hardly get up the stairs to get out.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 07:58 PM
3

So, they make up 51% of the growers in the nation, 51% of the military, police, and fire services, 51% of civic, state and federal infrastructure, 51% of construction, 51% of power generation, etc.?
/r/MensRights17/11/17 04:18 PM
9

And before you come at us with “But that’s generalizing,” it’s actually not. Because it is true that all men are socialized under and benefit, to some degree, from patriarchy. So they've redefined generalization so it's not generalization. It's not generalization if it's true! Who says it's true? US! Yep, all 17.5M men in Canada, all 150M men in the US, from the youngest male infant literally just born, to the oldest nonagenarian, we're all complicit ... but that's not generalization ... at all.
/r/MensRights16/11/17 03:41 PM
2

The term started in psychology, right from day one, as 'neurosis', but how it's been handled has changed over time. Up until the DSM III (1980), it was a stand-alone pool of symptoms by that name, so the implication was that it was binary, you either had them or you didn't. From the DSM IV on, it's been changed into one of the five core personality traits, instead, so the focus has shifted to acknowledge that we all have some neuroticism, to one degree or another, and it's only the extreme cases…
/r/MensRights16/11/17 02:37 PM
5

When I was 15 years old, I had two. The first was in the waning days of grade 10 when my French teacher told my parents at a parent teacher interview that with some personal tutoring, I could become fluent. It was something I wanted, so my parents made it happen. The first lesson, she stuck her hands down my pants while I was playing her piano. My Mom saw that something happened and said I would never go back again. Then, later that year, I was invited to US Thanksgiving by my friend's family, b…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 04:33 AM
6

I have been posting here since it was created, with one account or another. The pattern I've seen is that as soon as a post in here makes the front page, that post is swarmed with people like you, saying the things you're saying, and it's been like that for years, now. We pop up beyond the event horizon, and a small army of white knights descend like holy warriors, making sure they do 'good work'. And tomorrow we'll be back to normal, the brigaders will go back to whatever it is they do when the…
/r/MensRights13/11/17 10:07 PM
21

When my wife and I divorced, she was assumed by default to have custody of my son. I was not. Knowing that this legal discrepancy was in place was a contributing factor to her walking out the door. She had literally nothing to lose. It's not totally without merit, in other words. When women file most divorces, it's clear that the structure of Family Law in most jurisdictions contributes.
/r/MensRights13/11/17 06:41 PM
2

Yeah, that might work, but I'm not at all a fan of leveraging the mob. While they occasionally have their uses, you either essentially live in a world where people can leverage the mob and accept that sometimes that works for you and sometimes that works against you ... or we don't leverage the mob at all. How many times has the mob been wrong? The price of having that power at your beck and call is accepting that we're going to ruin people's lives, by accident, on occasion. I'm not OK with that…
/r/MensRights13/11/17 04:40 PM
6

Nah, it's just picking your battles. You aren't winning hearts and changing minds in that kind of class, you're just bashing your skull against a wall. That's not progress.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 09:59 PM
6

This is the academic equivalent of 'pissing in the wind'. Yeah, you're right, and she's right, and we here all know that you're right, but in the end ... why the fuck would you do it? It's an ideological premise being taught by an ideological instructor to a student body of willful adherents. It's like walking into a church and defying Christianity. You truly cannot expect that to end well. If she really wants to fight, she can fight on technical grounds around the sheer quality of her writing, …
/r/MensRights12/11/17 07:51 PM
5

Some points ... we have significant differences in how we measure responsibility, culpability, internal vs. external locus of control, and perceived victim status between men and women. Until we treat them the same at outset, at that very moment that someone calls the cops, and manage to do so right out the very end, to parole and pardons, we quite frankly have no clue what the actual rate of violence by women is. We know we're only capturing a percentage, but with so many steps in the chain, an…
/r/MensRights12/11/17 07:38 PM
4

Come on, we don't need a special term like 'chivalry' and a list of a dozen items to use as a base point for being kind and generous to people. Once the list is pared down, it's just being a decent human being and the code and term are both irrelevant and don't need to be kept. It's like arguing that we need to keep the Augustinian Code because there's a few items in that rather large list that might arguably be useful to people who aren't monks in a monastery in the 10th century.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 04:26 PM
3

The moment the government says "We're going to punish you for telling people you were raped by [name]", there'll be a national outrage. But that's not at all how it would get set up. The obligation would be on the STATE to keep both parties anonymous during criminal trials, and as the state already keeps the victims anonymous in many western jurisdictions, it would be trivial for them to enact similar legislation to keep the accused from being named as part of that trial. You're right that indiv…
/r/MensRights12/11/17 04:22 PM
5

Yeah, you could do that, but we're talking about a moral code you're supposed to adopt or not adopt. If we're going to leave half the list off, why do we need the list?
/r/MensRights12/11/17 04:05 PM
3

Be vocal about promoting talent and hard work so that it's audible what your foci are. When you praise someone, make sure you're doing it to male mentees as often as you'd do it to female mentees. We all tend to rhetorically rub bums more often when it's a female we're praising. Hold all your mentees to the same standards, regardless of sex, and if you'd call one out for poor work, do it fairly but religiously, so there's no chance at perceived favouritism. In other words, live by example. You c…
/r/MensRights12/11/17 04:04 PM
3

If you're an atheist and not particularly nationalist, that list cuts literally in half.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 03:59 PM
7

I know 5 divorced men personally. Every last one had Mom poison the kids against them in some capacity. Two ended up with custody because Mom was so virulent, but the other 3 managed to turn the kids against Dad successfully and the kids haven't seen their fathers in years.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 01:38 PM
3

How do they stop it with the victim, now? Lots of jurisdictions keep the identity of the supposed victim secret to hopefully avoid negative stigma.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 01:33 PM
4

There's so many possible drivers for this that it would be tough to pin down. Poverty would be the largest one, I would think, given that this is the number one reason men don't pay court ordered child support. I'd add mental health issues and substance abuse issues and incarceration to the pile, too. Dig into the instances, though, and I think you'd find some truly nutty stuff. I know of one woman, for example, who told all the people around her that her ex-husband was a deadbeat father, but th…
/r/MensRights12/11/17 01:13 PM
2

You know that over 40% of US adults say they've had sex or a relationship at work, right? And he wasn't any of these women's boss.
/r/MensRights11/11/17 05:15 AM
3

Should men feel comfortable asking women they don't know "Do you mind if I jerk off in front of you?"? No. If you've previously asked them up to your room in your hotel, in the wee hours, after all of you have performed in a comedy show together, you can't assume that sex might be in the air and put it on the table like that? I guess the 3-4 times I've been asked up to a hotel room and it's turned into sex it was wildly inappropriate? The prudishness that underpins the response to Louis CK's beh…
/r/MensRights10/11/17 10:30 PM
3

If he's got sole custody at the moment, does he have an application in with the court for a child support order? He should. Secondly, if she's defaming him, once that child support order is in place, suggest he file a case to hold her to account for the defamation. The dual whammy of having to pay child support for the next 15 or so years for that cutie and having to pay a settlement to your friend for defaming his reputation in public should go a long way to shutting her up. Good luck, random d…
/r/MensRights10/11/17 10:18 PM
6

There's nothing that galls me more than this notion that if you're famous or rich, suddenly you have 'power' over people. The world is chock freaking full of relationships and sexual encounters where the two parties are not 100% equal in status or money. In fact, with hypergamy being what is, having a financial and status differential between one party and the next is more of a norm than the exception. If they don't report to you and you are not directly responsible for their positions, you are …
/r/MensRights10/11/17 10:08 PM
3

Exactly. In a world where every industry is firmly 51-49 because the government has forced that parity is a world with a significant reduction in personal freedom. People will work at x job not because they choose to, but because that one is the furthest from that parity and holds the best prospect of hiring them. It's almost, but not quite, the antithesis of freedom.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 12:03 PM
2

I've seen the first one, but that second one went completely on a different tangent than I thought it would. I honestly thought it was going to be some commercial about how she wasn't going to become a head chef because someone was going to see she was getting married, assume she would get pregnant, and give it to some schlep behind her. The reality was ... disturbing.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 04:21 AM
3

Good lord. I'd never seen that. I'm going to think on that one for a nanosecond and go ... no. A thousand times, no.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 04:09 AM
3

A lot will depend upon your jurisdiction and the local laws, but hear me out. Divorce actions are a lot like ordinary civil suits, and virtually all the activity happens before you hit court, in that 'discovery' phase where everyone's financials get brought out and exposed, etc. The point is to have those recordings specifically for that phase, so that your lawyer, as a normal part of the discovery process, sends over copies of the recordings and makes them available to your wife's lawyer. Any r…
/r/MensRights09/11/17 12:39 AM
35

I like this one. She good.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 12:22 AM
1

The latter.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 11:25 PM
3

Record, record, record. You have the power to show the world what your ex is like, first hand, right in your hand. Do not have a single minute's interaction with her that isn't recorded or witnessed. That usually keeps the nonsense down to a dull roar, but if she's dumb and acts out even though you're recording, then you can give yourself a massive leg up in that divorce.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 11:13 PM
14

The professor made sure to clarify in the lecture that this was primarily due to men simply being stronger than women, generally speaking. I more or less figured that was her angle of attack on that entry. Mostly, I responded based on the 'by far' bit. It seemed like she wanted to draw attention to that stat. Consider my data just supplemental data, not a refutation.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 09:19 PM
7

Yeah, there's no defense of their stance that doesn't get really ugly, really quickly, when you start to pick it apart. Even if we just confine our argument to just those that died ... we're seriously not going to do anything to try and help those 20 odd men who were killed by their partners last year, for no other reason than they have the wrong sex? Jesus, that's cold. But then you widen it to the larger context, where 99.9% of all DV victims don't die, and using those relative figures in the …
/r/MensRights08/11/17 09:07 PM
2

Well, she still needs to be called out. Part of why they reframe the stat as a 'per day' stat is because they want to take it out of its normal statistical context and make it seem larger than it is. It's the same rationale that's used in the '1 in 5 women are raped, lifetime' kind of stat. They know that if someone showed them 0.36/100K and put it into context with other mortality rates, no one would care, so they reframe it and take it out of that context. Who would give a shit if they could s…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 08:55 PM
21

without needing to overgeneralize and say that the entire system is out to get you/men. Well, historically speaking, the alimony and child support system only came into existence because the sole breadwinner in a divorce was leaving behind a full dependent(s) and the state wanted to ensure those full dependents got paid for. While that's not necessarily a system that's 'out to get men', it's most definitely a system that shifted wealth from men to women, habitually, even universally. Think about…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 08:49 PM
2

Well, we had 83 people killed due to DV last year in Canada, and roughly 66 of those were women, for a rate of 0.18/100K. The rate above isn't all that out of line with what we're seeing up here, especially seeing as the US murder rate overall (4.9/100K) is over double the Canadian rate (1.7/100K). The fact the US rate for women dying in DV is double ours kind of falls right into line with the relative rates overall between the two countries. I guess my point is that even if she's right, that ra…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 08:37 PM
2

37461 in 2016, or 102/day. That's all deaths, though, not just women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year Edit: found this that breaks down rates by sex and age, and roughly speaking, there's 2.5 men who die for every female who dies, at least according to that data. So, of that 102, roughly 30 were women.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 08:23 PM
1

Three women a day nationally? In Texas? If it's nationally, we're talking about 1100 people in a nation of 315M people, or a rate of 0.35/100K. Considering the US national murder rate is 4.9/100K, this isn't really all that noteworthy.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 08:21 PM
130

Men do more damage (by far) Here in Canada, 4 of every 5 people killed by a domestic partner are women. Virtually every shelter system website lists this statistic as one of their rationales for why they don't admit men, with the implied assumption being that it's so much worse for women that they are kind of in triage mode, and only dealing with the worst cases. Of course, there's over 100 000 people who report DV issues or are affected by them in any given year, and 40-45 000 people that use o…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 08:12 PM
3

The state can pass legislature that make it easier for you to become happy. Arguably, but I'd say that their power to do so is heavily limited. Look at alimony now ... how happy does it make people? It makes Mom, who is overwhelmingly the one that sacrifices her career to raise kids, overwhelmingly happy. On the other hand, it ropes in Dad to paying for his EX-WIFE for a set number of years, perhaps even permanently, and in a lot of cases he's paying more money than she could have ever earned in…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:54 PM
15

Essentially. A lot of Norwegian businesswomen made out like bandits. But, to be fair, they paid the price. They started businesses, ran them until they were large enough that they had the big business experience boards look for in big corporations, and put in the time. Board members on big corps are older people, who have sold off their own businesses, for the most part. It's kind a quasi-retirement position where you enjoy your board stipend and meet once a month, but you're essentially retired…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:34 PM
7

Not unless they start to change their majors. Humanities and Arts BAs don't pay shit.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:26 PM
1

I think that when you marry you agree to maximize your joy in life as if you were one. Pretty much everyone enters into a marriage with this in mind. Unfortunately, women initiate 75-80% of all divorces, so it's quite often the men in those marriages finding out that their relationship is no longer life-long, as they supposed, but some shorter version. If you're forced to think about your own life after divorce then you might not be able to become as happy. So? The state's role isn't to ensure t…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:22 PM
33

A great example is Norway and their imposed quota on female board membership in their companies. The driver for the legislation was the relatively low representation of women on boards, in the single digits, and the federal government decided that if companies wouldn't hire women for board positions, they'd force the issue. Of course, that entire mindset is predicated on the belief that the reason behind the dearth of female board members was discrimination. In the end, that wasn't the actual re…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:14 PM
11

It's heavily dependent upon jurisdiction. Several European nations and the odd state (see Quebec in Canada) have provisions for comiture where the marriage produces an independent entity that holds property, and doesn't necessarily dissolve to property split upon the divorce, so prenups aren't necessarily used in those civil law jurisdictions. And pre-nups that are considered predatory or unfair have been set aside, in most nations or states that offer them, so the fact they might be legally ten…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:06 PM
8

There's 9 states that still have common law statutes on the books, but that's precisely why I say 'some provisions' up above. There's lots of ways that the state uses to re-allocate wealth, and common law provisions are only one tool in the toolbox for them. The US also has palimony, and most states that don't have common law provisions have palimony in place. You don't have to be officially married, as per the state, to have the state re-allocate wealth via palimony.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:35 PM
1

Yeah, common law is just one of the methods by which property gets re-allocated. Whether the state does it by palimony or via some common law provision, the end result is the same. That's why I said 'some provisions' above. The method and name matters less than the end result.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:22 PM
17

Virtually every jurisdiction in North America and Europe has some provisions for civil partnerships, common law relationships, etc. that will make the most onerous issues with marriage apply, even if you're not married. The exact time you need to live together before those apply varies by jurisdiction. So, for example, in my province here in Canada, the standard is a) live together for 2+ years, b) have a kid together and live together for any duration. The only way to avoid the state lumping in…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 03:57 PM
8

We all spin our stories to our benefit, male or female, but women generally pound on their exes harder, in my opinion. Some of that's because of opportunity, such as the fact having the kids in your domicile opens up avenues to poison them against the other spouse. With the big majority of women having those kids the bulk of the time, they clearly have more angles to exploit in this regard ... and do. Same thing goes with no-kids divorces. With women making most of the divorce decisions, they al…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 03:49 PM
15

Better not cohabit.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 03:35 PM
4

Why should the state be involved? It's clearly a private dispute. If your spouse violated a contract between the two of you, small claims or civil court await. There's no need for a formalized, state-sanctioned system of wealth re-allocation for this to be handled.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 03:34 PM
3

Why Oh Canada? It's Suffolk in the UK, from the article. He's an NHS doctor.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 02:50 PM
2

What a long-winded way to ultimately say that the end user of the funds should pay the taxes on them! I agree, but then again, I think spousal support in all its forms should vanish altogether. When the marriage ends, the money should end, too. THAT would be a true disincentive to divorce.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 12:46 PM
1

Perhaps, but it's usually found in the provincial or state policy documents that operate as guidelines for enforcement by the state, provincial or civil police forces. Those are written by the state or provincial government/civil service, and they typically show a lot of influence by the principles in the Duluth method.
/r/MensRights05/11/17 05:04 PM
5

He left Twitter? Good. The more stars that bolt from that cesspool, the quicker it dies and the mob loses their number one tool for manipulating and pressuring behaviour.
/r/MensRights05/11/17 03:50 PM
2

I just read a copy of the Metro paper, which is a quasi local paper here in Edmonton, AB, Canada, and they had an opinion piece around the Weinstein affair where the author was positively exulting that men were getting their comeuppance, and she cited the 1 in 4 statistic for university students getting sexually assaulted. It's the first time I've seen that stat live in a publication for several months, in fact.
/r/MensRights04/11/17 02:50 PM
10

Grammar got utterly hosed in the original divorce action, too, so the fact he's giving her half his retirement when she walked away with millions to begin with is just salt in the wound. Of course, he's on marriage four, so I really don't have any sympathy for the guy. If you don't learn the first time, second time, and the third time, I guess the fourth time is the charm?
/r/MensRights03/11/17 07:35 PM
29

Several years ago, I proposed that we use a new unit for child support/spousal support for wealthy wallets like Tyrese: the Harvard. Nominally, Harvard tuition for the year is around 45000 USD. So, at 13K a month, he's paying his ex-wife enough to put three kids through Harvard, each year, or three Harvards. Seeing as he's just got the one child, she gets put into the top private school in the country, using up one Harvard, and Mommy pockets the other two Harvards.
/r/MensRights02/11/17 09:00 PM
1

Of course, all of these things correlate with higher education, so the fact more women have degrees would boost virtually all of these metrics.
/r/MensRights02/11/17 04:32 PM
1

I was just going to lurk on this account, to save time for actual writing, but ... There's two broad swath issues that you're glossing over, here. The first is the only socialization process under scrutiny, being picked over for flaws, and seeing these kinds of classes ... is masculinity. It's pretty tough to argue that only masculinity has negative aspects to it or that socialization occurs in a vacuum, such that males and females in a society don't collaboratively engage in it. The very fact a…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 04:27 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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