TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Halfcocked_Jack Archive

View 1 posts and 298 comments by Halfcocked_Jack on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

If you don’t register. Which means exactly nothing if you do.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 11:34 PM
0

Wow. That’s certainly not an extremist’s position.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 11:34 PM
0

What part of “Suicide, imprisonment, healthcare, violence against men, mental health issues” are you having trouble reading? Admittedly, some men would swap out “violence against men” for “divorce and custody laws”, but I disagree with that.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 08:52 PM
1

I read the text, but it was a while back. IIRC, it’s damned open to interpretation.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 08:37 PM
1

Contraception fails all the time. The last time the U.S. had a draft was almost a half century ago.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 08:36 PM
0

I even listed the big five in my comment. Did you even bother to read it?
/r/MensRights20/08/22 08:35 PM
1

That study literally does not contain “neoteny” anywhere in it. Also? “Participants were 59 white women from the student undergraduate population at the University of St Andrews.” Respondents were also 29 St Andrews undergrads. This is a very, very limited study for any major purpose beyond saying that estrogen levels may affect attractiveness.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 08:34 PM
-3

That’s a nice theory, but what you’re describing isn’t third wave feminism. Third wave feminism is a whole slew of different positions ranging from SWERF ‘n TERF radfems over to puta theorists. All “third generation” means is “the feminisms that have come after feminism has managed to conquer most of its early demands”.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 07:58 PM
1

That’s not how the law was written, no. Whether or not they are pursuing that way is another question. The point being, if anything remotely similar were happening to men, MRAs — libertarian bois they seem to be — would be frothing at the mouth.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 07:52 PM
-2

Got a study showing THAT.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 07:51 PM
1

Omg, the oppression. Again, wake me when there’s actually a draft. Until then… zzzzzzz. This is a nothingburger.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 07:33 PM
1

What would you call giving bonuses to your neighbors to turn you in to the cops?
/r/MensRights20/08/22 07:24 PM
1

It’s a theoretical treatment. Women being denied bodily autonomy is real skin and bones oppression. Men being told to ignore their health and work themselves to death is real skin and bones oppression. Signing up for a theoretical draft? Thinking that is somehow oppressing you is petty-ass bullshit. Wake me on that one when you actually have to go and fight.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 06:52 PM
-2

I would love to see a cross cultural, high-n study showing that women are more neotenous. Got one?
/r/MensRights20/08/22 06:46 PM
1

Oh, I don’t know. I think MRAs and feminists have an interest in allying regarding reproductive laws.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 04:10 PM
1

Probably your mom, neh?
/r/MensRights20/08/22 04:09 PM
4

1) Massive government funding for quality sex education for everyone, everywhere. 2) Massive government subsidies for new reproductive technologies, including male birth control pills, reliably reversible sterilizations, and — the biggie — artificial wombs. We get these three, and human reproduction is effectively voluntary and free. A whole shitload of gender related issues disappear if these things come in and it’s technology that is eminently achievable in our lifetimes. 3) Abortion free and …
/r/MensRights20/08/22 03:36 PM
1

I’m not even going to bother. Look up the etymology of “bigot”: it’s someone who claims their views are right “by god” rather than by any appeal to reason. And I have learned not to play chess with pigeons. Enjoy your biologically mandated heart attack, prostate cancer, suicide rate, and eight year average lower life span!
/r/MensRights20/08/22 03:25 PM
0

Which problems cited above as the big five have been caused or perpetuated by feminism? Bias in divorce may be perpetuated by feminism, but it has certainly been caused by the view that women are “naturally” passive and better mothers. Which is not a feminist position. Suicide, imprisonment, healthcare, violence against men, mental health issues, and even the goddamned draft are not things cause by or perpetuated by women. In fact, feminists have been fighting like hell for equal treatment in th…
/r/MensRights20/08/22 03:23 PM
0

I agree with you in moral terms: there is no need, per se, to discriminate and, indeed, liberal capitalism works better WITHOUT discrimination, which is why you see it pushing diversity. Indeed, how many geniuses were stuck plucking cotton or scrubbing toilets simply because they weren’t white, upper class men? But the sad fact of the matter is that there is PLENTY of political capital to be made in discrimination and, as far as those things go, white, middle class men are really not in much of …
/r/MensRights20/08/22 03:18 PM
1

Women who get abortions out of state are literally going to be secret policed in Texas and you’re upset because you had to sign a piece of paper that might be applied to you in a totally hypothetical situation? For the record, hell yeah, women should be drafted. But dude, don’t you think that’s some rather minor and whiny shit when you look at male suicide rates?
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:38 PM
0

I’m saying that men in the U.S. have much bigger fish to fry. The OP’s point is that U.S. feminists are overly focused on the small stuff, a point I agree with in many ways. And you, here, are obsessing over exactly that sort of penny ante bullshit.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:35 PM
-1

I get far more hate and discredit from men than women for wanting to deal with men’s issues. Right on this sub, I recently said we need to talk about male on male violence, only to be met with some bullshit about how I obviously wasn’t manly enough to defend myself from an overweight American divorcee. Feminism’s main job is to address issues that impact upon women. It’s our job, as men, to address issues that impact upon men. Most of the posts I see here, though, just want to whinge about how i…
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:34 PM
1

Thank you! Now THAT’S a scientific rebuttal. I challenge you, however, to describe what a Poisson model is. ;) Just kidding. The reason I am poking you is that much shittier research than this, with really obvious sampling problems — or even research which does not say what its proponents presume it says — routinely gets cited here. You really went out into the scientific weeds with this one to find why its conclusions are perhaps off.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:30 PM
-1

Funny tou should mention homelessness and suicide here. I agree with you there, wholeheartedly, but I also note that one of the big top three talking points here is almost always “draft and warfare”… by a male population experiencing neither.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:25 PM
1

Yes, but why is any of that feminism’s problem? They have enough on their plate as it is. Mommy isn’t going to help us boys. Time to put on the big boy pants.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:23 PM
2

Well, something’s obviously triggered you, my man. That’s usually when people begin to,spout stale memes as non sequiturs. And nothing says “salty dumbfuck” more than responding with yet another stale meme and then blocking the person who’s triggering you. Bye-bye, Francis.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:22 PM
0

Given the very low bar set on this sub for “feminist”, I think you’d be surprised, yes.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:21 PM
-6

“Biologically driven” arguments are generally bullshit in explaining human behavior because cultural overlays take those general drives and push them any which way — presuming said biological drives even exist. I think an argument can be made that women are perhaps better at the politics of sociability and reconciliation than men, but that’s a biiiiiiiig generalization. I think it’s probably better to say that humans tend to be bullies towards humans that are perceived as weaker and weakness, in…
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:11 PM
-3

I’m with you, man. Those are issues that really face men, as well as male-on-male violence. But most of the guys posting here are more into blaming women than looking at the systemic roots of why this shit goes on which — newsflash — isn’t because society as a whole is gynocentric. We’d be better off if fewer men were trying to copy the worst aspects of feminism, only with the sexes exchanged.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 01:41 PM
-16

Feminism doesn’t claim shit. It’s an entire grab bag of conflicting ideologies, in case you haven’t noticed. Some feminists say feminism is for men, too. Others say men can never be feminists. Kinda stupid to try to claim that “feminism” has one single position regarding men. What I am saying is that we, as men, cannot expect feminism to deal with our issues, and rightly so. And one of the biggest issues is male violence against men.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 03:29 AM
-1

Oh, yeah. So, like, 40% of the human race?
/r/MensRights20/08/22 03:26 AM
-18

Yeah. Like MRAs in the U.S. experiencing so much misandry and one of their MAIN complaints is the draft. Now THAT’s some hardcore oppression for you!
/r/MensRights20/08/22 03:10 AM
1

You know why this is utter bullshit? Because you began this entire discussion complaining about biases towards women in traditionally women-dominated work that were less than this. And yes, the situation is more complicated than most people think…. Which is entirely the fucking point of this second study, which you’re whining about now. Fuck, man. It’s guys like you that make me think the worst sorts of feminists have a point.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 03:09 AM
1

What is the difference between 12 and 15, Mr. Math? Y’know, you’re a living embodiment of the old, tired feminist trope that privileged people think they are losing something if others gain even a little. If these numbers were reversed, you’d be screaming bloody murder about how women have it so good. Not only are shit at science and statistics, you’re a whiny-ass hypocrite.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 02:28 AM
1

No one is talking about understanding and love. And lifting weights isn’t going to help you against a bullet, is it? What I love about guys like you is that you’ve never faced real violence, but you’re full of confidence that you can defend yourself from it. But you’re right: the world DOES owe you nothing. So why does the OP seem to think something is owed to him by women?
/r/MensRights20/08/22 01:36 AM
1

12 women are hired and 15 men. That is a 20% difference between the two sexes and it is damned significant. Learn math.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 01:34 AM
1

And I responded. If you think a 20% difference is insignificant, you are innumerate.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 01:33 AM
0

Oh. I thought you meant the Vietnam War, the multiple wars in Afghanistan, or the “silent wars” in Latin America.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 01:32 AM
-42

It’s really not feminism’s job to recognize men’s issues. Women organized and that’s how feminism happened. So you want women to organize for us, too? Particularly when most of the issues I face, as a man, are caused by men? Don’t get me wrong: women have done some nasty shit to me. They aren’t innocent angels. But that is nothing compared to the shit men have done to me. And good luck at getting men to even look at these issues. Let’s start with male-on-male violence.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 01:09 AM
1

Which war?
/r/MensRights20/08/22 01:03 AM
1

No, it would exit. Learn to do math, please.
/r/MensRights20/08/22 01:02 AM
1

First of all, that difference is not slight. It’s twenty percent. Jesus Christ, do you know anything about science? Like, the difference between percentages and absolute numbers? How the hell did you manage to get out of secondary school?
/r/MensRights20/08/22 01:02 AM
1

It would still exist because of callback rates. It would not be as big. But, again, we don’t know why fewer women apply.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 08:37 PM
2

It didn’t oppose extremism in any of its non-white colonies, did it? Oops. I forgot that we don’t talk about that.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 07:11 PM
0

I’m sure you don’t.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 07:09 PM
-1

I am sure you do.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 06:55 PM
1

I’m avoiding learning about him, for the present, because I am at peak asshole overload.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 05:18 PM
-1

You, on the other hand, are great at rhetoric, slow on wit.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 05:14 PM
-4

“Don’t let social media algorithms poison your mind”, says the guy who’s making a rant on social media, the purpose of which is to buffalo people into taking a political position on sex and gender. Right.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 03:23 PM
1

Nope. When I was 13, I took my FIRST biology and chemistry classes. Imagine what I would think of the world if I stopped there (which, to be honest, is ‘round about where most people who are pissed off about trans folks ended their STEM educations).
/r/MensRights19/08/22 03:21 PM
1

To answer your end question, it’s very simple: because identities are socially constructed and not individually constructed, no one can simply say they are ANYTHING and have done with it. What other people say they are is also, equally as important.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 03:19 PM
1

No, that is not the reason it is called a “social construct”. Again, I get it that most people know sweet fuck all about the social sciences, but your ignorance isn’t an excuse to just make shit up. Let me reiterate: LANGUAGE is a social construct. There is nothing in your DNA that makes you speak English. It is entirely made up, by society — not by individuals. And that concept of a social construct has been around in one form or another since the 19th century. This is hardly “French post-moder…
/r/MensRights19/08/22 03:08 PM
1

And dodging a highly politicized question is a wise thing to do, especially when it is a complicated one, it’s not your area of expertise, and whatever answer you give will outrage someone. This is a very wise move, indeed. Nope. I took all my undergrad science creds in biology and chemistry and, in grad school, I spent two years on the physical anthropological track, learning more. I am not qualified to teach biochem, but I know enough about it where it touches on human biology and evolution to…
/r/MensRights19/08/22 02:46 PM
1

You didn’t speak a word of it until you went to school?
/r/MensRights19/08/22 02:41 PM
-1

I really can’t be arsed to deal with theories whose literal starting point is that there is some sort of vague “them” whom we must fight against with all our strength. That’s just bullshit.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 12:24 PM
1

So why do you know English?
/r/MensRights19/08/22 12:23 PM
1

English: do you write it, motherfucker?
/r/MensRights19/08/22 12:22 PM
1

Why is it a “mere gender”, first of all? Gender determines a hell of a lot more of your daily experiences than sex. I think this is one of the big problems of this sort of debate: people think “socially constructed” means “made up at a whim by anyone who wants to”. That’s not how social constructions work. Look. Language is a social construction. It is real as fuck. And while it’s changing all the time and you might even make up a word or two, you cannot just decide to speak whatever gibberish y…
/r/MensRights19/08/22 12:22 PM
1

Took a shitload of biology and chemistry WHILE studying anthropology and before studying anthropology. Like I said, there’s this thing called “physical anthropology”. For awhile, I was on that track. And, of course, I haven’t stopped learning. See, this is the key thing: I know that stuff I though was canon 30 years ago is getting modified on a daily basis and that’s why I continue reading and talking to my colleagues in the biosciences. Unlike some folks, I don’t presume that what I learned whe…
/r/MensRights19/08/22 12:19 PM
1

Like her or hate her, Greta is a household name. Anything similar in the MRM?
/r/MensRights19/08/22 12:12 PM
3

Yeah, you’re right. I must know at least a dozen men who have sacrificed their lives for their girlfriends, defending them from mass murder and NONE of them have been noticed.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 01:59 AM
-4

Naw. My mum is Angela Davis.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 11:46 PM
-1

So, point to me how many false rape cases there are on record over the last ten years in, say, the U.S.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 11:45 PM
0

Except that anthropologists do indeed study chemistry, particularly those who teach human evolution. So what you’re showing there is the basic ignorance and prejudice that you have of the field. This is, of course, the same basic ignorance and prejudice a lot of reactionaries have towards the field which is why the wise judge is not going to talk about anthropology, is she? About identity, I meant exactly what I said. Social identity is composed of two parts: what you say; what the others around…
/r/MensRights18/08/22 11:11 PM
1

MRM has rock stars…?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 11:07 PM
1

That shows that’s one factor. A big factor, however, is not getting called back.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 10:32 PM
-5

Really? Doesn’t seem to happen nearly as often as powerful guys getting away with sexual assault, does it?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 10:31 PM
1

So you’d say some things are a matter of luck?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 10:30 PM
-5

Yeah. You Emmet Till?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 10:28 PM
0

This is hardly news.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 09:54 PM
0

Yep. Why? Because look at the shit you’re giving me for being an anthropologist. Far right folks think anything that is not directly STEM is useless and non-scientific. So the wise judge anchors her decision based on the field that is most likely to be seen as politically neutral. Duh. Imagine the shitfit conservatives would pitch if she said “gender studies” or the LGBQT+ community would pitch if she said “psychology”. Dude, doesn’t it bother you just a bit that your fairly uninformed notions o…
/r/MensRights18/08/22 08:45 PM
1

Just curious what your “choices” were and how and why they came about. I mean, you’re the one claiming everything is a choice, right? So we can assume you chose to learn all three languages?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 08:42 PM
1

We have no idea why these women desist, but I am pretty sure a good hypothesis is that they are not any lazier than men. So what would your hypothesis be?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 08:40 PM
-9

Why would you be falsely accused of rape?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 08:37 PM
1

English and which other two?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 06:24 PM
1

No shit. Reading difficulties again?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 06:21 PM
1

Because more men called and more men were called back. Do the math. You are surprisingly innumerate for someone who loves to cite scientific studies, so let me do the basic work for you. We have 100 job candidates, half men, half women (so that’s 50 each). 20% of the women autoexclude themselves from asking for the job for reasons we can only guess at. So now we have a pool of 40 female and 50 male candidates. 60% of the men are called back versus 40% of the women. The pool is now 30 men and 16 …
/r/MensRights18/08/22 04:28 PM
1

Yes and no. For example, how many languages do you speak fluently? (And just to be clear here, I have often and in print accused certain forms of feminism of denying agency to certain types of women.)
/r/MensRights18/08/22 03:33 PM
1

That’s not how the math works, no.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 02:51 PM
1

How did you get “you agree women don’t have agency” out of my comment that agency and free will aren’t the same thing?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 02:39 PM
1

It’s a bit more complicated than that. First of all, “agency” isn’t a synonym for “free will”.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 01:52 PM
1

Can’t hire them if you don’t even bother to call them back.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 01:50 PM
1

Google the concept of “agency”.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 01:03 PM
1

Plenty of evidence out there, actually. That one study you published shows that just in the callback rates.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 01:00 PM
3

Who’s being uncivil? You’re the one postulating that folks can change gender pretty much at will, right? So why not show everyone how right you are and try it yourself? It’s easy, right? Or perhaps I am hitting to close to home now?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 01:47 AM
3

Why don’t you spend a week as a woman and see how “easy” it is? Scared?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 01:16 AM
1

Here you are with “most people” again. And yes, women do face discrimination. Where and how much is the question.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 01:16 AM
1

This report suggests that yes, there might be a slight amount of discrimination against men that have historically slightly favored women. And that is all it says.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 12:26 AM
1

You can’t read a simple scientific text for content but you know what “most people do”? Sure thing, king. You do you.
/r/MensRights18/08/22 12:25 AM
3

I have heard a lot of guys like you, neh?
/r/MensRights18/08/22 12:24 AM
1

Oooh! Such a burn! Dude!
/r/MensRights17/08/22 11:55 PM
1

“Everyone” does not argue that. You are making a straw man because you have difficulties reading scientific data which shows what scientists are actually saying. If you are scientifically illiterate, that isn’t women’s fault, dude. By your own admission, you chose to be that.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 11:54 PM
1

Slight bias in favor of women in a selection of professions that are slightly considered to be “women’s work”, yes. How does this support the hypothesis that men are prejudiced against, in general, in the work place?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 11:52 PM
0

Yes. That is exactly what I said, several times. Sex is biological. Gender is socially constructed. Took you a while to understand it, but there it is. Because to be a man or a woman references biology, culture, sociology, and psychology, the wise judge would ask those fields and not feel they have a pat answer at the tip of their tongue, like you do. And she said that to stay on the right side if everyone. Imagine if she had said “gender is constructed” what ignorant and prejudiced people would…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 11:51 PM
3

Nice straw man, but no. I am saying I have perspective because I actually know, in real life, plenty of trans people. You, on the other hand? Not so much, neh? It’s easy to talk bullshit about people you don’t know. And very satisfying, I should imagine, too. Gives you a group to despise, right?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 11:45 PM
1

Ahn, yeah. Entirely your choice, I’m sure.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 10:12 PM
2

So OK. The activists you “heard” are what? Anonymous voices on the internet, right?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 10:12 PM
3

So OK. The activists you “heard” are what? Anonymous voices on the internet, right?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 09:57 PM
2

I really doubt you have much rl contact with trans activists. I would lay dollars to donuts that you are hearing people on social media or what not. Want to prove me wrong? Easy. Tell me the name of a trans activist that you’ve actually talked to in RL who says this. There is indeed a wild-assed fringe, but that position you say you’re hearing? Doesn’t fly in court, in hospitals, in psychology, or among the vast majority of folks who are in the trans movement and actually trying to change laws.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 09:56 PM
3

If you as a man decided to identify as a woman, I am sure there would be plenty of things that would surprise you, too. Maybe you should try it? Learn something new.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 09:54 PM
1

Again, did you read that data? Women are more selective when it comes to applying. Even so, recruiters are more likely to look at men. IF the woman gets to the interview stage, she is more likely to be hired. The picture presented here shows a complex pattern of gender bias. It certainly doesn’t show that men are losing out.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 09:53 PM
1

In MOST, there was no bias, IIRC. Also, again, given that most of the professions they chose are professions that are slightly biased in favor of women, these results are to be suspected. There are two or three things on that list that are MASSIVELY biased and the rest of the list is unbiased, slightly biased towards women or, in a few cases, slightly biased to men. When you average all that out you get a grand total of “slightly biased towards women”. But that’s an artifact of the 1) the way th…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 09:50 PM
1

This will be state law, for sure, not U.S. law. Lawyer up, first of all. Maybe back off from the divorce until you are lawyered up? She can tell the divorce court you have abused her, but depending on the state you are in, that may or may not have serious consequences. Consult a lawyer.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 07:01 PM
1

Actually, in a couple they did. Cooks in Germany, for example, iirc. Maybe actually read the study?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 06:57 PM
1

Not at all. See my other reply. Two components go into any identitary social construction: 1) What you say you are; 2) What others say you are. When these two things combine, there is no problem. When they conflict, that’s when things get complicated. And that is true with EVERY socially constructed identity, not just gender. That is as simple as it gets and it most certainly isn’t “you are what you say you are”.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 06:57 PM
1

Actually, they DO mention several cases where women get less call backs than men. Maybe you should actually try reading the study? Just a thought.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 06:54 PM
2

“Be protected by the trans community”? You realize that the so-called trans community can’t even adequately protect themselves, but you think they are going to waste time and energy on a cis grifter? What? Do you think some sort of trans militia is going to show up to protect you “as a trans person” if you beat a woman? Jesus. People like you don’t actually know a damned thing about trans people, do you?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 06:53 PM
1

Nope. Not simply a person who identifies as such: they must also be socially recognized as such. I made that point abundantly clear and you somehow didn’t get it. You DO understand what I mean by “socially recognized as such”? That is how social constructs work, my friend: you can’t individually will them into existence. So, to recap, as simple as I can make it: 1) A man or a woman who says they are such and has always done so and is treated as such by others (society) is unquestionably a man or…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 06:50 PM
1

How much money do you make a year at your job and why aren’t you a billionaire?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 05:26 PM
1

First of all, you don’t get a free pass to engage in violence, no matter what you are. If you are significantly larger or more dangerous than your opponent and you go beyond the violence you need to keep you safe, you are at legal risk. If you’re claiming you’re gender fluid and bopping back and forth pretty much at will, you’re liable to lose any sympathy you might possibly get as a female victim of violence and the court will exclusively be looking at you and your history. They will almost cer…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 05:15 PM
3

Really doubt you have actually discussed this with activists, to tell the truth.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 05:11 PM
2

Sorry, no. I know many trans people — particularly trans women — and it does not “unlock easy mode”. That said, the trans men I know are often quite shocked at how much male violence they have to deal with. That was something they definitely did not expect. They also report feeling more emotionally isolated in social terms. But, by and large, no trans woman I know thinks her life is in “easy mode” whereas most trans men I know report having much greater access to a whole wealth of things they di…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 05:10 PM
8

Why is that definition so important to you? Serious question.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 05:06 PM
1

Again, saying that they are taking steps to affirmatively hire women and social minorities is not the same thing as saying there are quotas or they won’t hire men. Get over it. Unless, of course, it’s your dream to be a receptionist in Barcelona.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 03:49 PM
2

Nope. Sorry. That is not how gender identity works. That is how reactionary pundits THINK it works and they’re obviously taking up some space in your mind, rent free. You do that, first of all, and being a woman makes no difference in terms of formal law. Secondly, you’ll look like a transphobic idiot who’s trying to make the court look like a fool, which isn’t going to gain you any points with the judge. Third, even if you were legitimately a transwoman and punched a woman, you’d now be dealing…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 03:46 PM
0

Of the six jobs they picked, one is typically male, which they admit, and of the other five, at least three — payroll clerk, receptionist, and store salesperson — swing slightly female. Cook is definitely traditionally (“chef” is traditionally male). Sales representative is neutral. So given that four out of five of their chosen professions swing female in tradition versus one that swings male, is it any surprise that they found a small amount of profemale bias in their study? No, it is not. Bro…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 02:58 PM
1

They only mentioned it as a passing comment because the study was DESIGNED to look at women-biased professions from the get-go. So they found exactly what they thought they’d find in that respect. It’s not scientific news to say “we chose women-biased professions for our study and, wouldn’t you know it, they are biased toward women.” Bro, do you even science?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 02:52 PM
1

All employers these days say they respect diversity and what not. Including non-airconditioned jobs. And, unless it is the government itself that is doing the hiring, quotas are illegal. The reason why we do studies like these is to see precisely if, when, and where affirmative action has had any effect. Just because a job mentions that they are “committed to diversity” doesn’t mean they are. It CERTAINLY doesn’t mean there are hiring quotas or that you’ll face prejudice as a man.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 02:47 PM
1

Jesus. You are really bad at reading scientific studies, aren’t you? “We applied to secretarial and accounting jobs, because clerical jobs cover a large fraction of female employees in the country investigated and are therefore empirically relevant. … “These sex differences in callback rates resonate with other studies surveyed in Riach and Rich (2006) and Rich (2014) concerning discrimination of men in female dominated jobs, and of women in male dominated activities.” In other words, they were …
/r/MensRights17/08/22 01:29 PM
0

“The selected occupations have different levels of customer contact and different educational requirements. We were looking for occupations that were available on job search platforms within each country, and for which there were sufficient numbers of vacant jobs within a time limit of maximum 2 years. To decide which occupations we should chose [sic — and I should note that there are A LOT of similar grammatical errors here, which shouldn’t make it through peer review, let alone editing, so in …
/r/MensRights17/08/22 01:20 PM
1

But here is the most basic version for people whose attention span doesn’t go beyond a paragraph. Male and female are born probably 95-99% of the time. Men, women, and occasionally other gender categories are socially made. And that means through a complex feedback system between individual desires and societal pressures, very probably with some biochem thrown in. In cases of doubt, whether someone is man or woman can be ascertained based on the history of what they say they are versus what soci…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 01:05 PM
1

I have my suspicions as to what you think I’ll say, too, because I have already laid out the basics, above. The problem is, your understanding probably doesn’t go beyond a very conservative meme re: the topic. So here goes: Sex is biologically determined (although, as I said, there is increasingly reason to believe that it is not a simple binary “one flip of the switch and that’s it” deal). Gender is socially and culturally determined. The metaphor to help you understand this is color. Human eye…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 12:58 PM
1

“And what are you? A programming engineer?” I didn’t ask? There are literally two question marks there. Count ‘em. I am not quite sure what your second paragraph means?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 12:10 PM
1

Citation needed.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 12:08 PM
0

It takes real guts to come out and double down on not getting a reference, but damned if homeboy didn’t so it!
/r/MensRights17/08/22 12:05 PM
1

They don’t face hiring discrimination in these particular cherry-picked fields, five out of six of which are traditionally gender neutral or have a pro-female bias. I guess women run the world seeing as how they are more likely to be picked as receptionists, neh? Whomever did this study is a deeply cynical person.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 05:15 AM
2

“Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.” It should be noted, however, that the jobs they studied are pretty much all service economy jobs, with the exception of “softwear developer”. Here are the fields researched: Cook, payroll clerk, receptionist, s…
/r/MensRights17/08/22 02:16 AM
0

Actually, the article does mention that they avoided public positions, which are the most affected by those rules, and temporary positions, which are the least affected.
/r/MensRights17/08/22 02:15 AM
1

Yes, your comment “glad I’m being lectured to about biology and chemistry by an anthropologist” WAS patronizing. That is why I asked you what you do that makes you feel you are well informed about this field. If you’re going to piss on someone, you shouldn’t get upset if a few drops fall on you. Mutual respect is nice and I like it. Now, to return to the original question: do you want me to give you my professional opinion as to what is a man or a woman?
/r/MensRights17/08/22 01:45 AM
0

"There is no pause in Royal Air Force recruitment and no new policy with regards to meeting in-year recruitment requirements," the spokesperson said. Right now, it looks like an internal pissing match. Also? Hiring is what is at odds here, not recruitment. The headline seems a bit dishonest, as if the RAF was putting a freeze on recruiting pilots. Looks a bit click-baity to me.
/r/MensRights16/08/22 11:46 PM
0

And you know this because you read her emotions on your emotometer?
/r/MensRights16/08/22 09:44 PM
1

You realize that physical anthropology is a thing, right? And that I teach human evolution? In a biology department? In other words, I am pretty damned up-to-speed on human biodiversity. And you’re what, exactly? A programming engineer? As for the answer, yeah, it is pretty simple. Do you want to know what a man or a woman is (as opposed to a male or female)?
/r/MensRights16/08/22 09:41 PM
1

Nope. Like I said, MRAs denying Peterson’s influence is a bit like liberal feminists denying that someone like Dworkin had any influence on their movement. But, again, I am happy to exclude Peterson. I only included him because he seems to be the only halfway serious theorist in the manosphere. Leastwise, I don’t know of any other one. Again, if you disagree, feel free to point one out. Right now, all you seem to be doing is writing a lot of words that basically agree with me when I say there ai…
/r/MensRights16/08/22 06:54 PM
1

If there is greater demand for it, the price will fall. Also? I had a DNA test done DECADES ago to prove a kid wasn’t mine and it certainly didn’t cost 3000 USD, even adjusted for inflation. IIRC, it was a couple hundred. So color me unconvinced that, in a world where artificial wombs exist, DNA testing will cost 3000 USD. Shit, you can send a kid’s DNA to twentythreeandme now for, what, a hundred bucks? If artificial wombs exist, I really don’t think prenatal DNA testing will be much more of a …
/r/MensRights16/08/22 05:01 PM
1

I have explained this, ad nauseaum, elsewhere. While Peterson himself isn’t an MRA, his theories are widely bandied about in the movement. I am being GENEROUS giving him to the movement as a theorist. My point is there are some very respectable feminist theorists, whether you agree with them or not. I can’t name one first-rate MRA theorist. Farrel comes to mind except a) theoretically, he’s riffing off of feminism and b) nothing he’s said so far is theoretically very compelling. I’ll remind you,…
/r/MensRights16/08/22 04:46 PM
1

Hmmm. With you on everything, generally, but there are indeed medical reasons to use hormone blockers. The people who most use them are girls with severe menstrual problems.
/r/MensRights16/08/22 04:17 PM
1

An anthropologist who teaches human evolution (among other things) in a biology department, yes. I probably wouldn’t be the best expert for a judge to call on, but I have definitely read the primary literature on this topic, know its pitfalls, and could give a reasonable, empirically sustainable, answer to their questions on sex and gender, yes. Some of my colleagues might be better on the biological side of things, but here’s a newsflash: none of them would say that gender is determined by biol…
/r/MensRights16/08/22 04:02 PM
0

Real life. Right. Which is why Amber Heard is your go-to example.
/r/MensRights16/08/22 03:54 PM
0

You seem to miss the presumption that, if we have artificial womb technology, DNA testing will be trivial.
/r/MensRights16/08/22 12:17 AM
-4

It is an equally dumb concept. Most of MRA thought is simply taking the worst ideas of feminism and flipping them and this is one. Patriarchies exist, but not in the way 20 year old feminists think they do. And instead of trying to understand how power is gendered in society in various ways, most MRAs I talk to take that freshman feminist notion of patriarchy and just say “what if we flipped the sexes and copy the rhetoric?”
/r/MensRights15/08/22 11:51 PM
0

First of all, check the DNA of the kid.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 09:55 PM
0

The dad needs to show that they can do this, through kinship and friends, or via buying the necessary services.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 03:58 PM
1

So you believe that your sister is faking her emotions?
/r/MensRights15/08/22 03:57 PM
1

I said it is easy for me. I happen to be an expert in that particular field. :)
/r/MensRights15/08/22 03:56 PM
1

I would say that as the guy’s presumed legal partner, she would have to let him make that choice. Besides, I’m pretty sure we could do DNA testing of in utero babies right now. I am very sure that it wouldn’t be an issue if we had artificial womb technology. In fact, it is probably a prerequisite. So it should be no trouble for the man to show he generated that fetus. If he is willing to put the kid in a womb and raise him himself, that should be an option. Also? There’s no good causal evidence …
/r/MensRights15/08/22 02:46 PM
0

Funny you think I am a woman. As for your advice, it’s not so much sexist as simply stupid. And unintelligible. The first sentences of your last paragraph are incredibly strange.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 02:41 PM
1

Good thing we aren’t talking it, then. One thing’s for certain: if the OP spoke feminist, he’d understand why his argument here is bullshit.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 10:24 AM
1

Again, I think you have to squint REALLLLLLLLY hard to read that as the author saying we should literally worship women instead of reconstructing a feminine divine. But you do you, king. However, even if you make that very forced reading, it has nothing to do with the OP’s belief that feminism is some sort of pagan fertility cult. In fact, if you want to attack this article right in its intellectual weak point, I have two words for you: Virgin Mary. Maternal symbolism and maternity goddesses are…
/r/MensRights15/08/22 09:59 AM
0

Hmmm. Someone doesn’t read Stephenson, I take it. :)
/r/MensRights15/08/22 09:55 AM
1

How? Give an example.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 09:54 AM
1

Maybe you should start hanging out with a different sort of person? Or, I dunno, stop getting your views on how people work from watching TMC?
/r/MensRights15/08/22 09:49 AM
1

We’ve talked about Farrell upstream. First of all, he’s not much of a theorist. Secondly, his analysis is based on feminism. But OK, let’s take Farrell. What theoretical contribution has he brought to the table?
/r/MensRights15/08/22 09:47 AM
-1

Why?
/r/MensRights15/08/22 09:45 AM
-1

Rape culture? Where the hell did you get that? Artificial wombs solve this problem. That’s what I am saying. Also? Marriage doesn’t give you an equal say in what your partner does with their body. There’s a big difference between donating a sperm and carrying a kid to term. And, also, maybe the other person isn’t interested in raising another child.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 09:45 AM
1

If the man can’t be arsed to write legible English, he deserves to get roasted. And as for “bitchy”, how about your little whiney “I can’t handle criticism” bit?
/r/MensRights15/08/22 09:42 AM
1

There is definitely one guy discussing things here — Neonotneo — who is writing as if he were drunk. I told him as much. If you have another instance of me making anything like an ad hominem, please, bring it up. Also, I don’t think ad hominem means what you think it does. I am explaining why the OP’s ideas are bad: I am not saying they are bad because the OP is an odious person. I DO think, however, that he should have the common courtesy to write intelligibly. Here is the last paragraph of tha…
/r/MensRights15/08/22 03:36 AM
1

Well, this is why we need artificial wombs as soon as possible. At that point, the child is yours when you don’t have to force another human to bear it to term.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 02:42 AM
1

What’s there to debate? The OP says this article is somehow linked to today’s young women becoming pagans. It is nothing of the sort. And if you’re going to debate, have the common courtesy to write coherent sentences. Pointing out that a poster is writing as if they were drunk is not an ad hominem when they are indeed, empirically, writing as if they were drunk. Wow. So figures of big, pregnant women have been created throughout history? What a revelation! What does that have to do with the OP’…
/r/MensRights15/08/22 02:28 AM
0

Again, read what I wrote initially: no intellectual is going to be a perfect intellectual. Everyone says stupid shit. And, in case you missed it, I happen to think Dworkin is ridiculous and I notice you’ve quoted her twice. So let’s take her. Can you point to any MRA theorist who’s made any contribution to the debate on the level she has? Again, “contribution to the debate” doesn’t mean “I agree with them”. I mean “a thought out and reasonably well-presented and defended hypothesis”? Dworkin is …
/r/MensRights15/08/22 02:19 AM
1

Peterson has done quite a lot of what he thinks is advocacy for men and boys, yes. And, like I said, he gets pointed to a lot by MRAs as someone who has something useful to say. But hell, if you don’t like him, fine. Can you point to an MRA intellectual that’s done half as much intellectual heavy lifting as even the average feminist intellectual? That’s the original question here, not whether or not you, personally, like Dr. Balthazar.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 02:11 AM
-37

Good luck. Prepare to have no interest at all shown in your club by anyone outside of your already existing circle of friends. And even they probably won’t go more than once or twice. I mean, if I want a sausage fest, I can just start playing Warhammer 40k.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 12:40 AM
-1

More like this: MRAs: “Feminism is intellectually vapid!” Me: “OK. What great thinkers have the MRM produced?” MRAs: “Uh…. Not Jordan Peterson…?” Bax? Seriously? You’re going to claim as a great MRA thinker a man who’s contribution to global thought was the idea that women were politically and socially dominant back when they didn’t even have the right to vote or to autonomy over their bodies? A man who, in 1896, claimed the vote for women would quickly lead to the downfall of English-speaking c…
/r/MensRights15/08/22 12:30 AM
-1

Peterson is claimed by many MRAs as some sort of masculinity guru. Recall that Simone DeBeauvoir never once mentioned feminism in her seminal work. But hey, if you have better MRA theorists to point to, please: the stage is yours.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 12:19 AM
-1

First of all, I didn’t watch Amber Heard, but I am sure celebrities of all kinds are ace when it comes to manipulating people’s emotions. Secondly, to answer your question, no I haven’t seen women use tears to successfully get their way.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 12:15 AM
-4

“Weaponized tears”? This is some snowflake level bullshit reasoning right here.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 11:26 PM
2

Ooh, advice? Yeah, you sound like a guy who understands women very well. You realize that your last paragraph is pretty much unintelligible? Sober up and try again, please.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 11:21 PM
1

I repeat again: this is pretty much the ONLY sub you post on, period. Yeah, you’re gay, alright, and you’ve been so heavily prejudiced against by women. Boo hoo. You sound like a made up character to me, kiddo. You sound like a young virgin who thought he could get laid by pretending to be bi and it backfired on him. Let me suggest that you stop playing gay on reddit and go out and try sex with another man if it attracts you so much. If you’re gay, you’re in the envious position of men really go…
/r/MensRights14/08/22 10:54 PM
1

Agreed.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 10:52 PM
-4

Feminism has abandoned debating or you have abandoned debating? Sounds more like the second, to be honest. But all of that is of secondary concern, given that this article has nothing at all to do with the young women of today and their religious or spiritual practices. Did you even bother to read it? We don’t even know if those old “venus” statues represented fertility cults or something different. And yeah, given how dangerous childbirth has historically been, it’s no wonder a bunch of human c…
/r/MensRights14/08/22 10:26 PM
1

Yeah. You’re so “openly gay” on reddit that this is pretty much the only sub you participate in. You do you, king.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 07:02 PM
-7

Jordan isn’t a charlatan. He’s just a wannabe cult leader who is very out of his academic depth. And he’s an intellectual many, many MRAs point to as one of their own. The fact that you disclaim him when he’s criticized ironically reminds me of what many feminists do when someone brings up problems with a more fringeworthy feminist thinker like Dworkin. “Oh, she’s not a [a real feminist; a typical feminist; a good theorist;… take your pick of any of a wide range of excuses]”). But I’ll bite: wha…
/r/MensRights14/08/22 07:00 PM
-10

There are some very respectable feminist theorists. People who say feminism is drivel have typically not read any of it. Note: you don’t have to AGREE with something to recognize it is well-argued. The same thing just can’t be said of MRA theorists. I can’t think of one whom I have read that isn’t a clown. Jordan “Baltazar” Peterson comes to mind, immediately.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 05:00 PM
1

Funny how a person who is so prickly about being categorized so readily categorizes other people. Look at your posts here: every single one begins with an assumption as to who and what I am. I mean, holy ad hominem, Batman! :) “Our kind of queer man”…? Good luck with that one, Ken. Y’know, the only reason you can fool yourself into thinking you are an “acceptable gay” is because people like me took it on the nose for guys like you forty years ago. Back then, you were all closet cases, deathly af…
/r/MensRights14/08/22 04:45 PM
0

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, because it is a positive good that the Republic’s elite institutions — in this case a university — reflect the Republic’s population, as long as that is not the only or overweening concern in selection. Seems like a pretty good idea to me.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 04:42 PM
0

How do you figure that? The law is that, all other things being equal, one is completely justified to try to hire people from categories that are underrepresented. And I’m pretty sure we are safe in saying this is the case here.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 04:04 PM
1

Dude (presuming you are), you’re a rando on reddit who pretty much exclusively posts on this sub but who claims to be some sort of queer activist. Perhaps you are. I dunno. But every queer activist I know — including myself — doesn’t believe women are primarily to blame for homophobia. No woman has ever fag-bashed me. At worst, a few have watched while other men have done it. In fact, I think you’d have to google long and hard to find a violent homophobic attack on a man being undertaken by a wo…
/r/MensRights14/08/22 03:49 PM
-4

Lol, wut? Let me get this straight: a simple article about the long lineage of female goddesses is somehow proof of something something feminists? You realize a precisely analogous article could be written about sky father gods, right? And that’s just for starters. Saying that this is proof of the “gynocentrism” of society is nuts when Astarte was literally banned from the pages of the Old Testament and women were burned at the stake for being witches in the late middle ages. What this article s…
/r/MensRights14/08/22 03:13 PM
-9

Agreed. MRAs need to get used to doing some intellectual heavy lifting if they want to be treated as seriously as feminists.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 02:43 PM
0

Woman loving man? Kkkkkkkkkkkk! :) Please, tell that to my feminist associates. I am a woman appreciative man, at best. As for you being openly gay… look, maybe you are, maybe you aren’t. You’ve just made some huge presumptions about both my gender and sexual preferences, bucko, and all you are is an anonymous voice on reddit who mostly hangs out on this very sub. So no, you don’t get the “everything I say about women and homophobia is gold because I am gay” pass from me. Nice try, though. Now, …
/r/MensRights14/08/22 02:37 PM
0

And before you ask if I am a feminist, I position myself here the same way I position myself between Christians and Atheists, as agnostic. I consider myself to be the bastard child of feminism and feminist thought has been very useful to me. But it has severe limitations and it tends towards the censorious, even in the best communities. MRAs are intellectually useful, to me, because they occasionally hit upon pure gold. The understanding that men were also a prime target for sexual violence in B…
/r/MensRights14/08/22 02:20 PM
-1

As far as I know, no. In theory, some are in favor of it. In practice? Not so much. If you bring up the very well-documented fact that men are mostly the victims of male violence and that most of the time this violence is not mutual, you tend to get dead silence in both feminist and MRA circles. Feminists don’t want to hear it because it implies they need to rethink a few things about the nature of male violence and what it’s primary goal is. MRAs don’t want to hear it because it implies that th…
/r/MensRights14/08/22 02:06 PM
0

The right to not be physically attacked by other men and then told it’s a case of “boys will be boys” would be nice.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 03:09 AM
1

Did you see the comment I was responding to? Where HeelFaceSonny said “there has never been a society where women were treated as disposable even a little but”? That is why I mentioned China. Hello? English, motherfucker. Do you read it?
/r/MensRights14/08/22 03:07 AM
1

What the hell is a WLM? I love how this goes from “women are the main driving force behind homophobia” to “I actually overheard a girl say a stupid thing once” and yet somehow my experience is anecdotal and yours is proof of female oppression.
/r/MensRights14/08/22 12:43 AM
1

You’re not seeing “males are disposable” in the very second sentence? As opposed to females somehow having escaped this disposability? Nor HeelFaceSonny’s immediate response to my comment that males are disposable due to biology, as opposed to females? Where he says “There has never been a society where women were treated as disposable even a little bit”? Which is why I brought up China in the first place, directly quoting him? None of this os visible to you?
/r/MensRights14/08/22 12:32 AM
1

The op certainly argues that. C’mon, man. Discuss in good faith or piss off.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 11:50 PM
1

If only you knew…. :D
/r/MensRights13/08/22 11:49 PM
1

Look at the comments and tell me what you see.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 10:15 PM
1

Cherry pick? The largest society in the history of Earth? That’s a big fucking cherry, man. But it is not the only society that has practiced infanticide of female babies. Again, this is a glaring example of why you assertion that only men are disposable and women never so is wrong.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 10:14 PM
1

Again, you claimed no society on earth has ever valued the lives of men more than the lives of women. In fact, the largest human society that has ever existed has given us an excellent example of why your claim is just not true.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 09:13 PM
1

Kind of hard to be enthused about discussing things with a guy who just makes shit up as he goes along. To get back on track, why do you think this would necessarily be a bad class? Do you have access to its curriculum? Because if this r/ shows us one thing, it is that there are a lot of angry white males out there. Why would it be inappropriate to study them?
/r/MensRights13/08/22 09:12 PM
1

Can’t be arsed. Sorry. If you want to recap them, I’ll address them. Otherwise, I can’t really be bothered.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 08:12 PM
0

Exactly. And I am saying in this case — remember, the largest society in human history — women were clearly considered to be disposable, not men. Do I have to spell it out any simpler for you? For a guy who’s nannering about reading comprehension, you seem to be having a hard time.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 08:11 PM
0

You are being intentionally ignorant. Let me say it again: EVEN IF THERE WERE VIOLENCE, it wouldn’t make a difference, would it? People could have one kid and they MASSIVELY chose to abort female fetuses rather than have a girl. The Chinese government did not tell them to have boys: they chose that. Thus, the largest human society in history contradicts your view that women are never disposable.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 07:27 PM
1

I don’t know if you understand how much of a pain in the ass it is to scroll up and down on reddit, using a phone, on a large thread like this. Resume the two points, please.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 07:25 PM
1

Bren Cameron form CJ Cherryh’s “Foreigner” series.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 06:42 PM
1

The main reason is that you can damage the nerves and sensitivity of the penis for no real gain in terms of health or anything else.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 06:40 PM
-20

Why not?
/r/MensRights13/08/22 06:03 PM
-1

Right. So it’s women who are being killed by men. Even were that the case (spoiler, it isn’t) that isn’t what 63daddy is claiming. He’s saying it’s polygamy and women partnered with women that causes the imbalance. It isn’t that, either. There are more adult women than men because women live longer. Period. You look at the 18-25 age bracket, you don’t see much, if any, gender imbalance. It’s noticeable as hell in the 60+ age bracket. Which, remember, is where the boomers are now: the largest age…
/r/MensRights13/08/22 03:18 PM
1

Right. So what were those two points I didn’t address again?
/r/MensRights13/08/22 03:13 PM
0

They weren’t threatened with violence. They simply lost privileges if they had more than one kid. But that’s neither here nor there, because if your hypothesis was true, billions of Chinese would have chosen daughters, not sons. The existence of a threat or lack of it had no bearing on that choice.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 03:13 PM
-1

Yeah. Except for the fact that women live longer than men. How does that figure into your math?
/r/MensRights13/08/22 04:59 AM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_China
/r/MensRights13/08/22 04:52 AM
1

“Non sequitur”. Google is your friend.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 04:49 AM
1

Some asshole here was. Given your erroneous use of “non sequitur”, I presumed it was you. What were the two points you wanted me to address,again?
/r/MensRights13/08/22 01:32 AM
1

Really? If that’s the case, how do you explain the notorious gender imbalance?
/r/MensRights13/08/22 01:31 AM
1

Odd. I have never said that to a woman in 40 years of daring them. Are you sure you’re not just projecting your own particulars here?
/r/MensRights13/08/22 12:32 AM
0

A man sacrificing himself to save others is not toxic. Let me give you the definition of “cavalier”, as you don’t seem to be aware of its adverbial form: “marked by or given to offhand and often disdainful dismissal of important matters”. A person who treats his life in a cavalier fashion is, by definition, probably not doing it so save others.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 12:30 AM
1

Girls being killed en masse indicates pretty fucking disposable, wouldn’t you say?
/r/MensRights13/08/22 12:26 AM
1

I am talking about something said in this same discussion earlier today or late yesterday. I can’t be arsed to dig it up, but you can look around for it. Knock yourself out.
/r/MensRights13/08/22 12:25 AM
1

You don’t have the competence to outline any of it. I mean, aren’t you the same poster who doesn’t even know what “to prove a negative” means? Now you’re using “non sequitur” in a way that doesn’t make sense. Be honest, man: you’re just a salty, callow boy who’s upset with women.
/r/MensRights12/08/22 09:54 PM
0

Who’s saying it’s only men who need to change?
/r/MensRights12/08/22 09:52 PM
2

Uhm…. I know a shitload of feminists and I have NEVER heard that “ having a family is anti-feminist”. I wouldn’t even know where you’d get that from among radfems, to be honest.
/r/MensRights12/08/22 09:52 PM
2

Dawkins selfish gene doesn’t explain it, no. How do you figure? I mean, it seems to me that people who cite this book have rarely read it, let alone its MANY critics. “There has never been a society where women were treated as disposable even a little bit”. Uhm, modern China? Where girl daughters were killed during the “one child per family policy” to a degree where it created a serious gender imbalance? And that’s just off the top of my head. I am sure I can find plenty more if I crack open my …
/r/MensRights12/08/22 03:00 PM
1

Yeah. I know I am in snowflake territory when the ad hominems start to fly rather than any substantive thought or criticism. Again, your presumption is that women don’t work as hard as men. I, a man who has mentored literally hundreds of professional women, find the opposite to be true. The fact that no professional field decreased in competency with the entry of women indicates your sentiment is not true. All you have shown so far to support your beliefs is the fact that you believe them. And i…
/r/MensRights12/08/22 02:04 PM
2

“Social progress” is to blame for me not being able to buy a house? Or speculative capitalism?
/r/MensRights12/08/22 02:00 PM
-1

First of all, the “men are disposable” stuff is not necessarily anchored in biology. Humans do not make decisions based on evolutionary logic. There is probably a certain truth that females are seen more often as prizes than as threats in human conflict, but that is a tendency, not a hard and fast rule. Women get slaughtered all the time in warfare. One of our earliest evidences of a warcrime had pregnant women tied up, beaten, and killed. So again, what we have here is a general TENDENCY in hum…
/r/MensRights12/08/22 01:38 PM
0

Look… if women are getting along fine without men and men are complaining that they can’t date — both topics which come up daily on this thread — how is this women’s problem?
/r/MensRights12/08/22 01:21 PM
1

Yeah, I am a nine day old account. No, there is no contradiction in those statements. When an issue is controversial, judges often ask for expert advice. Take homosexuality, for example. Judges needed advice on whether or not that was a disease, a perversion, or a danger. “Common sense” people like yourself held it was all three, back in the day. People who actually studied homosexuality could show it wasn’t. Once that was clear, the law also became clear: you cannot make laws to punish people j…
/r/MensRights12/08/22 01:19 PM
1

I think you are blind to what women give for free. That’s neither here nor there, however. My question is why would you presume that professional women don’t sacrifice as much as men for these positions? That’s not trolling, son: it’s an honest question. If it makes you react so harshly, maybe you need to think about why?
/r/MensRights12/08/22 01:12 PM
0

No, you can know you’re a woman and you can advocate for women’s rights. Both of those things are within the competency of a female judge. Deciding what the term “woman” encompasses in terms of rights is indeed something that should receive input from professionals who deal with sex and gender.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 11:33 PM
1

How do you know that they don’t need to make the same sacrifices? Speaking here as someone who has mentored many women. It sounds very much to me like you don’t actually listen to many women in real life when they talk about their careers. I have a good friend right now who has a shot at being the first female rector of her university - an institution which has more than 100 years of history. To not lose that chance, she’s not taking a single day off from work even as she undergoes chemotherapy.…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 11:31 PM
0

Actually, I’d say “woman” is not something decided by biology in the first place. But given the politicization of the concept of gender, they were wise to say it’s not their field of expertise. What they are saying — and this is the correct response — is this: “If that ever comes up in a case, I will turn to the relevant professionals”. Seems like a good answer to me.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 10:33 PM
0

And that is a bad response because….?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 10:01 PM
1

I just did. Same-o, same-o, with feminine performance.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 10:01 PM
-1

Same thing, but with a socially acceptable “feminine” performance. I am mystified why people consider this to be some sort of radical communist reimagining of humanity.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 10:00 PM
1

Why would you presume that women haven’t made the same sacrifices to get them?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 09:59 PM
2

Well, one thing is to not get upset, censorious and hurt when other men question common beliefs in the manosphere.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 08:43 PM
1

Well, to begin with, patriarchy is not simply male dominance, but dominance by fathers: old males. Men can still suffer systemic discrimination under patriarchy: young men, unfree men, foreign men… In fact, more men are dominated under patriarchy than dominators. At every level, however, women OF THAT LEVEL are dominated by all the levels above them (both sexes) and that level’s older men. So you can very much be a member of a patriarchy and dominated by a woman. You’re just not likely to be dom…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 08:42 PM
-2

What bullshit, exactly?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 08:13 PM
-7

Uhm…. What do you think is wrong here? People on this sub are complaining every day about how hard it is to date.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 08:12 PM
0

What was their definition and why was it bad?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 08:02 PM
1

Uhm…. Did I say I taught gender studies? I teach anthropology and one of the topics we occasionally touch upon is gender… but I don’t recall teaching gender studies. As for men being under more pressure to provide… It’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both sexes get pressured to provide but, historically, only men’s work is understood as “work” and thus deserving of pay. The things women typically get pressured to do are not considered to be work, even though they are often as difficult a…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 08:02 PM
1

Yeah. I wish someone would post the curriculum. It sounds like it could be interesting.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 06:19 PM
1

As you can see, folks “all know the answers”. It’s the feminists that are dogmatic, neh?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 05:25 PM
1

I did. Please check out the other comments I made on this thread.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 05:24 PM
-1

Please look up “non sequitur”. What the hell are you talking about and why is it relevant to this discussion?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 05:22 PM
-10

Asking for a copy of a curriculum of this course before deciding whether it’s sexist or not is trolling? If that’s the case, certain people here are really easily triggered and in need of a safe space.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 02:55 PM
-10

I think man and woman are also pretty easy to define. What they aren’t easy is to absolutely and deterministically define. But every culture I have been in and know of finds it pretty easy to define men and women, even though they do this in different ways. “Man” tends to be people who enact a socially acceptable “manly” performance in any given social context. Of course, what is manly in one place and time might be different than in another, but give me a culture and a place and time and I can …
/r/MensRights11/08/22 02:54 PM
1

Most of the girls I know in university — speaking as a professor here — are in health and law. By the way, I have taught gender studies and in 30 years of teaching, I have never met someone who has “graduated in it”. I have met some folks who have taken women’s studies majors, typically as an adjunct to law, medicine or what have you. You know what I love about this sub? It’s absolute lack of consistency. Just a few weeks ago, I was talking to some guys here who thought men were doomed because w…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 02:51 PM
-16

Define anyone of those terms, please. They are a lot harder to define than “man”. But don’t you think that’s a bit of a non-sequitur? All I said is that man is pretty easy to define and here you are ranting about something called “woke culture”.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 02:44 PM
1

How has the military decreased in its efficiency because of the incorporation of women? Let’s start there. I find this particularly interesting given the number of times I hear complaints that the draft discriminates against men (which is something I believe).
/r/MensRights11/08/22 01:41 PM
1

Huh. That simple, is it? No history at all of prejudice against women in those high paying fields? No history of massive increase of women in those fields once said prejudice became illegal…? Is that seriously your argument? By the way, law is a high-paying field, correct?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 01:40 PM
1

Look, if your argument is “women are unqualified for these jobs”, then you should be able to show a case where women’s entry into a field decreased the quality of work in that field. That is not “proving a negative”. Very much the contrary. For someone who’s started their argument by claiming I am stupid, it’s pretty ironic that you think I am asking you to prove a negative when I am asking you to show that something did indeed occur. It’s almost as if you think “negative” in this case means “ne…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 01:36 PM
1

Explain why, please.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 01:34 PM
1

One person? Do you even read history, bro?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 01:34 PM
-21

Just a question: most people posting here seem to be angry, white, and male, correct? I am curious as to why a class like this is racist or sexist. Does anyone have a copy of its curriculum?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 01:26 PM
-26

As a professor, I think that’s pretty easy to respond to, actually.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 01:24 PM
1

It’s not my position that the quality of the work has improved, is it? My position is that I don’t think you can show me a profession where the quality of work has worsened due to affirmative action. Can you? Not talking about anecdotals here, because I know a whole SLEW of companies where the owners were all men and they went straight down the shitter in less than a year. I am talking empirical evidence that a profession has gotten worse because affirmative action laws forced it to show some so…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 04:18 AM
1

Here’s the position: if 60% of the positions are for men, you should have no trouble getting one, presuming you’re good enough.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 04:16 AM
1

Riiiiiiight. So THAT’S why my aunt couldn’t get into law school without affirmative action. Because she wasn’t capable of doing the job. That’s what you are saying? Funny. Because once affirmative action occurred in universities, all of a sudden a lot of women were revealed as being capable of being engineers, doctors, lawyers, and a whole slew of other things where they “just weren’t good enough” before. And those women turned out to be as good as the men. How do you explain that?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 04:15 AM
0

Huh. Funny how all this “Women aren’t good enough to make the cut on their own” stuff has been said every single time women have entered into a new field and yet I can’t think of a single field where the quality of work has gone down due to affirmative action laws. Can you?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 03:43 AM
1

If that were the case then about fifty percent of almost all positions would be men and women, wouldn’t it? But somehow, that’s not the case.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 03:40 AM
-2

Yeah. People usually result to ad hominems straight off when they have nothing substantial to say, so you’re right.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 03:39 AM
-13

Oh, no! 40%? There won’t hardly be any positions left for men!
/r/MensRights11/08/22 02:12 AM
2

Well, maybe if one of your posts wasn’t about how your girlfriend passed away after the birth of your first child… I mean, maybe you are lesbian or trans? I get it.
/r/MensRights10/08/22 06:42 PM
1

“Why is it that ALL of X people think I’m making a judgement about all of X people?”
/r/MensRights10/08/22 01:02 PM
1

Technically, it’s when anyone seeks to partner with someone of higher socio-economic status than them. It’s been a long-standing trend in human civilizations since the Bronze Age. However, that said, you are always higher socio-economic status than someone, first of all. So no, this doesn’t mean “Only men who make 90k+ a year can get laid.” Secondly, the social distance of hypergamy is usually small to non-existent. While it is true that many women won’t date men of lower socio-economic status, …
/r/MensRights10/08/22 12:57 PM
4

Well, good for them! I mean, no female contact, right? Who are they hurting then?
/r/MensRights09/08/22 12:59 PM
0

“Help, help! I am being oppressed!”
/r/MensRights08/08/22 08:23 PM
8

Exactly.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 05:07 PM
0

So let’s see: Something that doesn’t have a prayer in hell of getting through Congress is being talked about by black people. Even if it were to somehow become law, it wouldn’t negatively affect you. But you seem to think you are not only oppressed by this but “effectively criminalized by it”? It is this sort of victim-mongering shit that makes it nigh impossible to talk about real men’s issues in anything but the MRA echo chamber. Good show, man!
/r/MensRights08/08/22 05:02 PM
1

Racism, per se, is based on biology. There are other forms of prejudice — cultural supremacism, for example — which are not properly racist, although they are generally linked to it. Also? I know and am related to a HELL of a lot of black people and live in a majority black country. I haven’t ever met a single person who hates me because of “white privilege”. I very much doubt you know more than a handful of black people or you’d know this, too. Again, aside from a tiny number of hoteps, there j…
/r/MensRights08/08/22 04:05 PM
1

Yes, people are assholes. It becomes discrimination when society DOES NOT protect you from it. This is why you can’t sue for discrimination: you incurred no damages. Suck it up, buttercup.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 04:01 PM
15

This is, however, based on hospitalizations. We are thus not talking about some goth chick putting out a cigarette on her forearm for attention, are we? This also begs two questions: 1) Are the stats being cited above using this manual for diagnostics? The first study cited comes from the WHO mortality database, which isn’t using “self harm” as a criteria for reporting. 2) Given that self harm only shows up in this surveillance system when one enters into a hospital, and given men’s quite well d…
/r/MensRights08/08/22 03:49 PM
0

“Reparations thing”… Excuse me, but are you having to pay reparations? I didn’t even know there was a bill in front of Congress regarding that! Are you sure you’re not just looking for some issue to be outraged over?
/r/MensRights08/08/22 03:42 PM
1

Good question and not as simple to answer as you think. I think black people can discriminate against white people. I think black people can be prejudiced against white people. I think black people can be racist. I also think there are a handful of examples I am aware of where black people have tried (largely unsuccessfully) to be racist against white people. But my understanding of racism is a bit different from the general pop understanding of it. I understand racism as necessarily needing two…
/r/MensRights08/08/22 02:52 PM
1

Really? Then why don’t you take the case to court on the grounds of discrimination? There’s money to be made there, my man. Oh. Because there wasn’t any discrimination? The system worked exactly as it should and it protected you so you suffered no damages at all? Oh.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 02:41 PM
1

“It may as well be a crime” is only something someone who has never had to face the criminal justice system simply for existing would say. There are a lot of good reasons why white men are getting hate these days. Wake me when we actually start getting systematically criminalized or shot over it. Because, dude, speaking here as a straight white man, throughout my life, 90% of the hate and violence I have faced has been at the hands of… straight white men. And I live in a country that is majority…
/r/MensRights08/08/22 02:31 PM
1

You think I am an idiot? I think you want to feel discriminated against by a society that — by your own admission — has done all it could to protect you against hate crimes. You poor thing. Here. Have a chocolate.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 02:29 PM
1

You can be targeted for a hate crime because you are white. It isn’t discrimination unless the police tell you to fuck off or don’t take it seriously because “you deserved it”. Is that clearer now? Being the target of a hate crime doesn’t make you discriminated against if society treats the crime with all due seriousness.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 02:09 PM
12

Any source for that? I am seriously interested.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 02:05 PM
0

Well, here’s my answer to one of her points: About the only issue here that I think is real is the engendered murder issue. Yes, men are committing most murders (although that 90% is hella high and it certainly isn’t the case in place like the U.S. — or even Brazil, which is hardly a feminist paradise). But a lot of the men being killed are being killed because they aren’t “manly” by whatever local standards apply. The logic that it’s “90% of the men doing the killing so it’s not a gender issue”…
/r/MensRights08/08/22 02:04 PM
-1

Well, the latest post here by the guy claiming that white heterosexual men are now criminalized doesn’t help, neh?
/r/MensRights08/08/22 01:53 PM
0

You can be targeted for a mugging because you look rich. It ain’t discrimination. It IS discrimination if, when you go to the police station, they say “You deserved to get mugged because you are X. Get the fuck out.”
/r/MensRights08/08/22 12:14 PM
1

And your treatment was unjust, how? Seems to me it was almost perfectly just.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 01:46 AM
0

No, that’s not the textbook version of discrimination. If YOU were punished simply for being what you are, then it would be the textbook version of discrimination. My mom, who was threatened with firing from her student teaching job back in the 1960s if it were found out she was pregnant cries bitter tears of sorrow at the institutional barriers you have faced.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 01:00 AM
1

So, the people who falsely accused you were fired, not you? Doesn’t sound like you’ve been made illegal, my friend.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 12:47 AM
4

Kinda odd, if straight white males are “illegal”, how is it that black and brown men make up such a ridiculously disproportionate part of the American prison system? Interested in hearing how this can occur.
/r/MensRights07/08/22 11:33 PM
2

To begin with, yes, I have lived as a straight white male in American society. And guess what? I didn’t go to jail for it, did I?
/r/MensRights07/08/22 11:31 PM
2

Riiiiiiight. And how has this “blame” negatively impacted on your life, personally?
/r/MensRights07/08/22 11:30 PM
12

Uhm, excuse me. Where is it a crime to be those things?
/r/MensRights07/08/22 09:52 PM
3

Oh, yes. In fact, I jokingly consider Titanic to be soft core snuff porn.
/r/MensRights07/08/22 08:03 AM
3

Kind of confused as to why this enrages you.
/r/MensRights06/08/22 04:52 AM
5

Why would you, indeed? You should definitely NOT marry someone who earns much less than you do. Period.
/r/MensRights04/08/22 10:19 PM
0

Sorry, that’s fake news. I was in hospitals during the crisis. It was not just “some old people”. No one was or is getting saline injections. If you believe this sort of shit, you are a fool.
/r/MensRights04/08/22 08:07 PM
1

Wow! In Texas! Who’d’a thunk that such a sexually progressive state might do such a thing?
/r/MensRights04/08/22 02:10 PM
1

Where would you suggest I look for unmasked women? I looked in beauty salons (all closed), fitness centers (all closed), bars (normally very well frequented by women)… I quartered downtown several times. Brothels were open and, even in the brothels, women were wearing masks (fat lot of good it did them, but still). So while lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack, I think in this case application of Occam’s Razor would indicate you need to supply some sort of reasonable hypothesis as to where al…
/r/MensRights04/08/22 01:43 PM
1

I am a social scientist attached to a medical college. I DID the peer-reviewed research. And yeah, “toxic masculinity” is a hypothesis for why some of this shit was going on that seems pretty well-sustained in some cases. However, men who saw themselves as being in a clearly PROTECTIVE role seem to have masked up quite consistently: fathers with their kids, first responders, almost all taxi and public transport drivers. When I asked them “why?” they’d almost always respond that they had other pe…
/r/MensRights04/08/22 12:22 AM
2

Yeah, actually. It was a peer-reviewed article.
/r/MensRights03/08/22 11:17 PM
-8

But can you back that up with empirical, peer-reviewed data? And yeah, I’d say Karens are a thing. What’s your point?
/r/MensRights03/08/22 08:05 PM
0

First of all, “patriarchy” doesn’t mean “rule of men” but “rule of fathers”. Also, what issue is it that you think women could help men with that men couldn’t help men with better?
/r/MensRights03/08/22 07:38 PM
-1

Except I live in a crowded tropical city in the developing world. “Open air”, here, means “a meter or less away from another person, almost constantly”. Furthermore, a lot of these guys were hanging out in bars and lanchonettes (which here are “open air” in the sense that they are open on one or two sides. If you’re eating and drinking sitting next to three other people in a crowded bar, “open air” doesn’t mean much.
/r/MensRights03/08/22 06:32 PM
-14

If 80% of the people I see unmasked in the streets during a mandatory masking and distancing event are men and most of those men are just hanging out… what other reason would you suggest for this behavior aside from views on masculinity?
/r/MensRights03/08/22 06:29 PM
-2

Wellllll… Let me tell you, I have done some pretty serious research on this and woman get harassed pretty much everywhere except a) gay bars, and (ironically) b) brothels.
/r/MensRights03/08/22 06:28 PM
-21

Well, it certainly doesn’t help. I agree with the study’s main point: masculinity is being used as a reductionist argument as to why men die more from COVID. However, there’s also a lot of very observable masculine behaviors that are directly linked to higher Covid rates and higher Covid deaths. I have done some research into this myself. In mid 2020, I did 20 bike arounds of my city’s center, counting mask wearers and non-mask wearers. Men comprised 80% of the later. Even the city’s brothels we…
/r/MensRights03/08/22 12:24 PM
0

I get straight women going to gay bars w/o their boyfriends, simply because they don’t want to be harassed. But I, too, have seen straight women at gay bars who the flirt with every guy in there.
/r/MensRights03/08/22 12:16 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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