TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

HettGutt_MRMarxist Archive

View 4 posts and 101 comments by HettGutt_MRMarxist 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)
-7

Read a few of the comments here: Has anyone ever suggested circumcision should be prohibited even in case of legitimate medical need? The problem is "medical need" is basically a bullshit catchall excuse for any doctor or parent who feels circumcision is their decision rather than the penis owner. Actual medically necessary circumcision is extremely rare The only legit medical circumcision I'm aware of was done on a 22 year old. I've never heard of a medical reason to perform one on a child. Onl…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:47 PM
2

Makes me feel gross... Physically disgusted. Almost bad enough to quit Men's Rights advocacy. When you get slimy, blatantly-biased, corporate-bought conservative cunts - the Canadian version of Bill O'Reilly on your side, you know something's wrong.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 04:57 AM
3

And god forbid you're a socialist or a Marxist.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 05:47 AM
1

deny biology playing any role No, I deny biology playing a more significant role than socialization. "disassembling gender roles" is forced and futile, as it is going against nature. Only if one accepts your incorrect assumptions that biology is the primary factor in determining human behavior and that socialization cannot override it. the answer isn't to pretend that "gender roles" sprung up out of nowhere They didn't spring up out of nowhere, they are the result of cultural evolution. Aspects …
/r/MensRights04/12/12 03:27 AM
2

You're missing the point. Society is constructed around the expectations we have of people. Those who don't conform to the approved gender roles are shamed and discriminated against, whether explicit or implicit. We should be disassembling gender roles, not restating them as truths about human nature. Behavior is not entirely determined by genetics and free choice. Even preferences are not determined by genetics and free choice. By assuming it does, you create a culture where deviations are assu…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 06:55 PM
1

Bullshit. It is not true that "boys like sports." I am male, I do not like sports. QED. It's not being a "blank slatist" to say that people's supposedly-innate preferences & talents are mostly determined by society's expectations of them. It's being honest. The libertarian / "evolutionary" psychology narrative that outcomes are justified because that's what people wanted - and you can't change what they want because it's biologically-determined - is a useful talking point for those who want to j…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 12:30 AM
1

Sure, practicing medicine without a license is only a misdemeanor in some cases.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 07:31 PM
1

I would not want it back for two reasons: My parents made an informed decision about a preventative health procedure. I know they had my best interests in mind, and after I became old enough to reason, I realized, "Oh, so that's what they were thinking. That was the right thing to do." It would be infinitely selfish of me to assert some vague, nebulous right to "bodily autonomy," and say "NO! You should have left me alone! How do you know what I would have done? How dare you make a decision for …
/r/MensRights30/11/12 03:45 AM
-2

the "obligation" is manufactured Can you please read my comment before blathering on in absent-minded opposition? The obligation is real - the child is there - and he is willing to contribute toward raising it, as evidenced by his signing a fucking contract. Once you sign a contract that states you are willing to pay a specified amount of money to someone given certain conditions, that's it, end of story. Once the conditions are met - the child is born and is proven to be yours - you either pay …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 11:13 PM
-2

The point is that the mother should have a right to make an fully-informed decision about whether she wants to abort. (Just as a man has a right to a fully-informed decision about supporting a child.) Most women who abort do so because they expect they cannot afford to raise a child. Why not tell them ahead of time, "You're not getting child support, so choose wisely."? I'd expand the "waiting period" out to a specified date, unique to each case, (no later than 2 weeks before the woman would be …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:56 PM
1

If you voluntarily contract with a bank to pay them, and you refuse, can't they file a lawsuit and pursue criminal changes of fraud? You can't complain about not being able to pick and choose which government programs your taxes fund, just as you can't complain about a car company not offering the exact set of options you want for the price you paid. Public good does have a specific meaning, and you clearly do not know what it is. Pure public goods are nonexcludable and nonrival, but that defini…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:59 AM
0

I agree. I examined charities' overhead as part of an undergraduate research project a while ago, and they get to be pretty awful. It's not uncommon for very reputable charities to be spending well over 20% just on fundraising, and paying their executives millions. The worst part is that it's all technically public record, but the media doesn't care and donors aren't privy to it. It's the just-world fallacy: people assume that well-known charities are the most efficient ones because free market,…
/r/MensRights24/11/12 12:23 AM
1

The government doesn't "collect money at the point of a gun." It collects your voluntary payment or you can shirk on your voluntary payment, running the risk of the people charging you with a crime for violating your legal obligation. In the free market, people give too little to highly-efficient works with widespread benefits (public good problem) and base their giving on their personal biases, morality, what their neighbors are doing, etc. Paying for public goods (and getting the most societal…
/r/MensRights24/11/12 12:13 AM
3

The free market would also cause the poor to die more quickly. Lack of public health expenditure, rationing of health care, and depressed wages would kill off those un-"willing" (there's your "free choice") to pay. And don't forget that workplace safety regulations disproportionately improve men's longevity because men are more likely to work and more likely to work dangerous jobs. The government does not "create inequality with everything it does." The market creates vast inequality. People can…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 11:53 PM
0

Oh, yeah, I'm not saying they have no recourse. The thing about schools being able to punish kids without respect to the law is that they can also be stopped much more easily. Threaten a lawsuit, call the local CBS affiliate, whatever.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 12:01 AM
0

Schools (even public schools) don't have to prove within a reasonable doubt you did anything to punish you, short of expulsion (or maybe expulsion, too, I'm not sure how the public option interacts with the government mandate of truancy laws). No courts, so the usual standards of law don't apply.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 05:58 PM
0

It's hardly anonymous, given that he'd just had a run-in with the teacher. They'd have to be total morons to not know it was him.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 03:11 AM
8

Oh, thanks god. I thought, "Surely, not even feminists are this unreasonable."
/r/MensRights20/11/12 01:43 PM
2

That newsletter idea will probably get him expelled. You can't personally identify a teacher for criticism without everybody interpreting it as a threat. I was permanently suspended from school pending a psychiatric evaluation (that the school didn't pay for, of course) for roughly the exact same thing.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 12:26 PM
1

The breadwinner gender role is worse, in my opinion. Let's look at things from a Marxist perspective. Let's say the man is the only member of the household who works, the wife is a homemaker, and the children go to school. The man has to earn the "value of labor power," enough money to maintain the current standard of living for his household. Of course, he produces more value for his employer than he gets paid; what employer would be stupid enough to hire someone who isn't profitable? This diff…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 11:20 PM
2

You're missing the point. A large number of recent anime are "ecchi" (H ga Dekinai, Haganai, ToLoveRu Darkness, Highschool DxD, Horizon, Oniai, Nakaimo) or otherwise have large amounts of fanservice targeted toward males (Medaka Box, Papakiki, Kore wa Zombie Desu ka?, Dog Days, Amagami). But I'm not the one arguing this is misogynist; I'm saying the argument is made. People who argue this don't recognize that's just what's in demand.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:27 AM
1

But then anime gets called sexist because half of it is girls taking their clothes off. Can't win.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 08:36 PM
0

Damn straight. I reconcile my socialist, redistributionary, & affirmative-action views and my MRA-ness with the mantra "Workers' rights are Men's Rights."
/r/MensRights16/11/12 11:09 PM
-1

The problem is when we have de facto classes, separated by property and in-group privilege on one hand, and by community and racial discrimination on the other, and the only institution with the power and legitimacy to do anything about sits on their hands because "personal liberty," "free market," "on-paper equality," and "it's their choice/fault they're poor."
/r/MensRights16/11/12 10:59 PM
0

I'm a proud statist-socialist. My political beliefs are closer to Lenin, Stalin, and Qaddafi than Trotsky and Chomsky. The only reason I don't exactly consider myself a Marxist is because I don't agree with the Labour Theory of Value. I consider myself a cultural Marxist and proudly use class theory to describe why, in modern marriage, men are of a lower social class. I love Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, Thom Hartmann, David Harvey, Noam Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Cenk Uygur, & David Pakm…
/r/MensRights16/11/12 10:49 PM
1

The point is that white people are not seen as stereotypically lazy, bad with money, and voluntarily unemployed. The reality is that when a black person is late, short on cash, or not working hard, much of society (whites especially) see that thinking, "Of course. Lazy black man. He chose to be this way," or "It's in his nature to do this." White people are given the benefit of the doubt, "Well, there must have been traffic. The ATM was out. He's having a tough week. I'll let him off easy." It's…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 11:59 AM
1

Miss Davis has yet to have produced anything remotely academic that isn’t entirely Marxist in over four decades as an “educator.” The very fact that the author thinks this is an argument in his favor is illustrative of his lack of critical thinking skills. It's as nonsensical as if I were to say "John Stuart Mill has yet to have produced anything remotely academic that isn’t entirely Utilitarian, therefore, he is not a legitimate philosopher." God forbid educated people can talk about Marxism wi…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 11:40 AM
2

Misandry is absolutely rampant in song lyrics. Grrrl power & male-hating feminism has always been one of the most popular "messages" or "themes" that massive corporate record labels can safely get behind. As for movies, a very recent example is Sucker Punch. It's tough to explain why, other than me telling you that the basic theme is that "All men are evil and all evil is male; male evil oppresses female goodness, therefore, anything women say or do to resist is justified."
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:21 AM
6

I enjoy both /r/socialism and /r/marxism.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 11:33 PM
1

Thanks for that article! Also, an observation: if liberals on the mainstream so-called liberal media started calling Republicans something similar (Rethuglicans? Republican'ts?), it would be the end of the world "How could you!?! They're a respected political party! The Party of Lincoln/Reagan! I'm sorry, Republicans, did the mean Democrat hurt your feelings? Etc, etc."
/r/MensRights30/10/12 03:23 PM
2

People who can't bother to even name their opponents correctly don't have anything interesting to say.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:39 AM
3

Democrat Party Immediately untrustworthy.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:29 AM
0

How exactly does the government get even a penny of it? The check from him to his ex-wife was $80, now it's $1200. I call bullshit.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:59 AM
1

First, Marxism is not an economic system, it's a methodology. Second, what are these supposed flaws? I admit I disagree with a few parts of Marxist theory, but I'd like to hear what you think. I don't think you actually know anything about dialectical materialism, class analysis, the Labor Theory of Value, crisis theory, cultural Marxism, etc.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 10:31 PM
2

That's perhaps the most ignorant, pointless statement I've ever heard in my life. The icing on the cake is that you got 3 upvotes. People actually think you're contributing to the discussion. What a pathetic world.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 02:12 AM
-11

Oh yes, please tell me more how the fanciful Libertopian free market and all its sunshine, rainbows, and lollipops will magically rain down prosperity upon us all once we're wage-slaves to transnational corporate leeches. You know, it's the 8-hour workday, child labor laws, OSHA, Medicaid, Social Security, public pensions, the post office, fire departments, PBS, and those lazy unemployed nig- (oopsie~ almost said too much~) that are really holding this country back, not the Wall Street profiteer…
/r/MensRights23/10/12 02:02 AM
5

There are a ton of truthful attacks on Romney he could go with. No abortion, not even in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life, contraception, including the morning-after pill, defunding Planned Parenthood, appointing Supreme Court and other federal judges to overturn Roe v Wade, etc. It's just that the wage gap is a concise, cute little talking point to cater to the feminists.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 01:52 AM
-33

Actually, I hope Libertards throw their votes away on Gary Johnson. Romney won't win, taxes on the rich won't plummet, and the economy might actually stand the chance of surviving.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 01:42 AM
2

From when I was a toddler, I was specifically encouraged by my parents & family to go into math. Watching Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune after dinner was a family ritual, and the math and reading skills come in practically by osmosis. I was always a straight A+ student in every subject except English, (until I got to AP Language, which is based on argument and logic rather than literature), so naturally, all of my high school teachers expected me to major in the subject they taught, and were shoc…
/r/MensRights22/10/12 02:44 PM
-6

Full disclosure: Every single person on this subreddit is going to give you nothing but propaganda. For example, the so-called "documentary" typhonblue posted was created by a group (one man, actually, Matt Hess) that wants to unilaterally ban all circumcision, and also created anti-semitic "Foreskin Man" superhero comic cooks. They all want fewer circumcisions to happen for the sake of having fewer circumcisions, the medical costs be damned. If you want unbiased information, ask your pediatrici…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 05:51 AM
1

That's exactly what the propertied classes want you to think. ;)
/r/MensRights20/10/12 12:02 AM
4

In other words, like every hegemony in history, 'patriarchy theory' is a way the ruling class pins blame on the people who can't fight back. Like the "tyranny of the majority," the "lazy black," the "union thug," "voluntary unemployment," drug tests for welfare eligibility, "bureaugamy," and the "potential earnings" standard or child support.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 08:25 PM
-5

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231533/ http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/health-of-the-public/20120828aap-circumcision.html http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-risk-factors http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20048246 Some might argue you ought to leave him intact and give him the choice when he grows up. That's a false choice, a pseudo-choice. Adult circumcision is: - more costly - more dangerous - a much harder decision…
/r/MensRights16/10/12 08:18 PM
2

Same. It can be done. And society needs to be more receptive of males breaking out of their traditional gender roles, as it is for women who do so.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 02:51 AM
2

Because they might be better at it than people who are going into STEM. You're not born with all of your preferences, talents, and personality intact. What people think they want is largely defined by their environment, upbringing, and societal norms. Imagine it like this: You've got 100 people, and you want to find the 10 best at, say, football. Person A decides the best way is to take all the women and put them aside, and let all the men compete. Person B's plan is to let all 100 compete. What…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 10:13 AM
1

Democracy is coersion [sic] by the majority and the oppression of the minority. Not under a constitution, where specific rights are protected. If 75 percent of people support a policy that would use force against 25 percent of people, that policy is bad. Oh? What if the 25% used massive amounts of force against the 75%? Claiming, as the perpetrator/beneficiary of past coercion, that future coercion against you - which would correct the inequality you caused or willingly perpetuate - is illegitim…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 02:17 AM
11

Voyeurism involves breaking a public-private boundary. In public, you can freely record so long as it does not constitute stalking or harassment, which have requirements of repeat incidence or following, and does not violate their immediate personal privacy.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 08:09 PM
1

Higher income taxes come directly out of their paychecks, which causes them to push for higher wages, which cuts into profits, which causes prices to rise, which causes workers to push for higher wages, etc. in a cycle. In the end, employers & employees each pay part of any sales or income tax based on their relative bargaining power. But the rich don't pay income tax because they don't work. The rich pay capital gains tax (except when they don't feel like paying). The rich don't "provide" goods…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 09:11 AM
0

You pretty much captured why I posted this. Thank you.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:23 AM
3

Try actually reading my comment next time. No one is "broken" or "in need of repair." People's preferences and talents are a product of the society in which they live. Right now, society actively encourages boys to become scientists, and by the most remarkable of coincidences, boys just so happen to tend to "pursue their own interest" in science.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 03:53 AM
-1

His analysis is totally superficial, uninformed, and intentionally one-sided. "Individual choice" is largely an illusion. Individuals are a product of the society in which they live. We can get women to be better-represented in science, engineering, and tech, but these changes aren't going to happen simply by offering scholarships to women entering STEM fields, as feminists seem to think. We need to raise girls to have an interest in math and science. Furthermore, there's no such thing as a "use…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 03:40 AM
-1

They do when access to well-funded high schools with good reputations and resources is barred to both the poor and blacks & latinos (who themselves are already disproportionately poor, compounding the effect). Even if racism didn't still exist today, which it does undeniably, the cross-generational effects of past racism, from slavery to redlining, need to be mitigated. Put simply, we don't have the best kids, because institutional effects essentially guarantee the rich, white man a spot before …
/r/MensRights06/10/12 09:33 PM
1

I always thought the central message of Occupy was income inequality? That's not the important point, though. The media did a fucking terrible job of reporting the core message(s) of the protestors. Occupy spokespeople were rarely sought out and brought on the big cable or network news shows (MSNBC was the exception). Footage of cogent, articulate speakers was tossed out, and interviews with the loudest wackos with the biggest signs were common. And then, of course, were Fox News' ambush intervi…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 09:03 AM
2

So I did a little more guess work. You know that "cyclical M-shape" curve? It's duplicated for these: "men('s) rights" "women('s) rights" "feminism" "karl marx" "socialism" "communism" "fascism" "stalin" "lenin" "adam smith" "capitalism" "trotsky" "gun control" maybe replicated: "gay marriage" "abortion" (The problem with these 2 is that news events cause too many spikes. I suspect the underlying trend is also a cyclical M-curve.) not replicated: "liberal" "conservative" "libertarian" "politics"…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 08:26 AM
2

No.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 10:44 AM
-19

"Going Galt" is like a self-absorbed child having a hissy fit and holding his breath because his mother won't buy him the toy he want. http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif In the real world, such a situation never turns out very well for the greedy Galts. See, workers can effectively strike because they can withhold something, their labor, that the capitalist simply does not have. The division of labor here is such that workers can force capitalists to realize the true value of their employee's…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:56 AM
0

Well, you're talking about men "going Galt," right? I'd guess the same thing that would happen if business owners were to "go Galt." That is, the Galts come crying back to society when they realize in hindsight they had profited off of the social division of labor and they can't get along without it.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:30 AM
1

I took nothing "to its extreme." I don't even know how you decided you would claim that, based on what I actually did say. risk-aversion is how to do the same thing that's already been done. What? Try English. In any case, risk-aversion is defined as greater marginal returns, in terms of utility, to smaller gains. Evolutionarily, risk-aversion is a very good strategy for individuals for obvious reasons, and is also a good strategy to maximize an individual line-of-descent's chances of continuing…
/r/MensRights25/09/12 08:36 AM
4

Ok, I could throw this out immediately, and any respectable scientist would, because n=1. That, in scientific terms, is the worst possible study, even if the sample (the one baby) were somehow random. (It isn't.) But let's not throw it out, for just a minute. Conveniently for their case, "Not only could [they] not publish the results of [their] research, but [they] also had to destroy all of [their] results." This is not even anecdotal evidence. It is eyewitness testimony, the lowest form of evi…
/r/MensRights25/09/12 08:00 AM
3

Collective82's debit account idea gets around the problem with receipts/returned items. Limit it to items actually for the child, too, like food, clothing, bedding, a small percentage of housing costs, a few toys, school supplies, etc. No more debtor's prisons. Straightforward enough. Holding annual child support reviews would also help keep the award to a minimum. If, at any point, the parent receiving child support can be shown to be cohabiting with or in a serious romantic relationship with a…
/r/MensRights24/09/12 09:20 AM
1

I disagree. How I see it, cooperation, contemplation, and risk-aversion are "how stuff gets done." Wasting resources on zero-sum competition and taking high-risk, low-expected-return options are ideas that traditionalist societies sell to men to keep them expendable and profitable for their wealthier, powerful survivors.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 08:13 AM
2

It's rare to find someone around these parts who agrees with me on the contraception coverage mandate.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 11:10 PM
-4

Shh! This is Men's Rights. You're not allowed to think (well, know, really) that Cultural Marxism is a technique that MRAs apply all the time, and that political correctness is really just the proposition, "Let's not be douches to other people in our choice of words."
/r/MensRights14/09/12 07:12 AM
-11

Yes, which is why I don't like her. I despise the idea of arbitration. It's a way for people & corporations to sneak around the law (unless they're women, who already have family courts, of course.)
/r/MensRights14/09/12 04:41 AM
16

That's how I think of her, too. If she ran an actual court the way she ran her TV set, she'd be disbarred. Also, she's not a judge. She used to be one.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 12:56 AM
-1

It's a natural reaction from opponents to circumcision. All prohibitionist beliefs are inherently bullyish. Here's something I wrote (on Twitter) a while ago about the circumcision debate: "May I propose a hypothesis about the psychology of intactivists? All prohibitionists are inherently bullies. The end goal of banning a practice, such as circumcision, abortion, gay marriage, etc. is to eliminate its very existence. Therefore, the need to overwhelm the debate immediately comes first in their m…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:14 PM
-14

Medical studies show beyond a reasonable doubt that circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, various STDs, and penile cancer. Whether routine circumcision is cost-effective is less clear, since those diseases are rare, but national medical groups have been consistently moving in favor of circumcision for a while. Some claim that since the foreskin has a lot of nerve endings that it reduces sexual pleasure, but sexual pleasure is such an unmeasurable, subjective experience that you can't honestly c…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:15 AM
1

Well, evpsy serves 2 complimentary purposes: 1. Justification of the current power dynamic in modern American society by co-opting a proven scientific theory. 2. Attempting to strangle ideas of social change (whether instigated by governments' or private organizations' policies or developing from gradual shifts in the zeitgeist) by asserting such attempts are futile because human nature. Number 2 is the "practical consequence" the blogger here desires. Note that even if there is an immutable hum…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 05:26 AM
1

Gasp! You're on r/Men's Rights! No rigorous social science research allowed! We use a poor understanding of evolutionary theory to lead to predetermined conclusions about an immutable human nature around here!
/r/MensRights11/09/12 04:56 AM
5

He suffers from the same self-justifying, reactionary mindset that bourgeois economists do, assuming that the social interactions of one specific group of people in one specific society are dictated by laws of nature. Once you venture outside the bubble of contemporary, Western culture, evpsy comes tumbling down like a house of cards. Literally his only "argument" is to call feminists ugly, which he does in every single paragraph. When asked for evidence supporting any of evpsy's claims, he wave…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 05:47 AM
4

But people do say that, or, at least, things like it. Todd Akin and Victoria Jackson come to mind right away. People (pretty much exclusively conservatives and libertarians) are constantly trying to deny abortion to rape victims, piling on the blame, or harassing and stigmatizing victims who were raped by people with status. And, for good measure, claiming rape of men is either not rape or still not rape but also hilarious.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 10:32 AM
7

They don't discuss the self-defense classes, carrying mace, etc. because those things are reasonable and uncontroversial. Expecting people to take self-defense and carry mace, and then claiming, after they do get raped, "Well, you should have done X," is victim-blaming. The clip is about the "dress like a whore" claim because that's the claim worth talking about.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 09:51 AM
0

Also, people don't realize that when you buy a stock outside of an IPO, $0.00 of your "investing" actually goes to a business. When the trickle down slimeballs you see on Fox News and CNBC claim low taxes foster investment, what they're really saying is that low taxes allow poor people to give rich people more money for pieces of paper.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 05:31 PM
1

Men are socialized to take more risk. Absolutely. I suspect he might be pointing that out humorously Didn't think about it that way. I shouldn't have assumed.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 04:45 AM
5

Like giving billions each year to incredibly profitable oil and insurance corporations, making sure Fortune 500 companies pay negative tax rates, and keeping the capital(ist) gains tax at an appallingly low 15%. Honestly, the US has the money to pay for far more health care (including abortion, contraception, etc.) than we actually get. We just aren't accessing the money though taxes. Also, just a reminder, a woman who "fucks freely" uses exactly as much birth control as a married woman who does…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 03:43 AM
1

You say I'm "advocating that a woman can just point at any new guy and say, 'He's the new father!' and the guy shakes his head yes." I said nothing of the sort. You are verifiably detached from reality. If the mother is already married or in a committed relationship, that man gets the first say. I want children to grow up in the most stable homes possible. If the man refuses to take care of a child that isn't his, then the biological father gets a say. Take away the caring father's rights just b…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:05 AM
1

I don't want a "biological father" to come in and take away a man's son or daughter simply because it was his sperm. Stop obsessing over who the biological father is. That's the very same "biological imperative" / "spreading one's seed" thinking I was talking about. If a woman has sex with man A and asks man B to be the father, and man B is willing and capable of being the father of a child that he knows is not biologically "his," I see no reason to give man A special privileges.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:35 AM
3

But being raped is not a risk inherent to being drunk; there is still another person involved. If the other person is not drunk, he/she has the responsibility to make sure his/her partner is capable of giving consent. All I hear about on r/MR is "agency, agency, agency," and always only applied to women. What about the non-drunk partner? Does he not still have agency? One might argue that drinking and driving or committing some other crime while under the influence are not "inherent to being dru…
/r/MensRights28/08/12 12:45 AM
2

But what about: men who want to be considered fathers of their wives' previous children and men who effectively acted as fathers of children who weren't theirs? For 1, there certainly are men who are willing to become the effective father of children who are not biologically theirs. Men always have the option of simply NOT marrying a woman who already has children, because this information is certainly available to the man before marriage. For 2, I don't want women to be left fending for childre…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:55 PM
2

Only an intactivist can't tell the difference between breasts and the foreskin. EDIT: Clarification: I'm questioning the OP's analogy of circumcision to mastectomy and his understanding of cancer.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:40 PM
10

I suppose the case where both partners are drunk also goes in the middle category? The funny thing is that a feminist is liable to even interpret "drunk man, sober woman" as rape by the man. The "logic" would probably go something like this: When a man is drunk, his inhibitions are unleashed. He becomes so obsessed with getting sexual gratification, he is unable to recognize whether the woman is giving consent. So in any case when the man is drunk, he has sex with the woman without caring whethe…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:21 AM
6

I think there's still a problem with that system. I'm going to assume abortion is preferential to adoption for all parties involved, which is not unreasonable so long as you accept that a sufficiently young fetus is not a person. Imagine a system in which, in order to claim child support, the woman must file a "claim of paternity" to one man. The man is then given 3 options, which are the same regardless of whether the man and woman are married: accept legal paternity, with all the rights (share…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 07:13 PM
-3

Sommers is essentially a sell-out who is paid by actual misogynist conservative and libertarian men (through speaking fees, think-tanks, book deals, etc.) to defend their world view and play essentially the "Uncle Tom of women." She deserves no respect from truly honest equalists and men's right advocates. It only just so happens that in defending real misogyny, she sounds like she's fighting real misandry.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:22 PM
1

You did not show "the biggest factor affecting whether a boy becomes a gangster is a father figure in the home" with evidence, so let's look at your argument. It falls apart once one realizes there are more male role models in one's life than fathers. Fatherless middle-class or wealthy, white, suburban boys living in thriving communities, well-funded schools, and local youth programs, with contact and assistance from local relatives seem to be doing just fine. But the term "bureaugamy" was inven…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 12:05 AM
1

You're right in that children from fatherless (or, if you want to be intellectually honest, single-parent) homes are disadvantaged in all the ways you list. But those statistics are not controlled for complicating social issues issues: lack of family and neighborhood cohesion, racism, household income, and the "code of the streets" that attracts many young black boys toward gangs and criminal activity. It is obvious to me you've got causality backwards: the "destruction of the family unit" is no…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 09:30 PM
1

How so? Failure to pay child support? I suppose the facts that 22% of all inmates are on drug offenses and that 28% of all black males will be imprisoned at some point in their lives has nothing to do with it?
/r/MensRights20/08/12 08:08 PM
1

U mad?
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:49 PM
-3

The economic pseudo-theory is that it provides an "incentive" toward [insert whatever social ill the conservative is having a hissy fit about at the time]. Divorce, illegitimate children, unemployment, immigration, having "too many" children, crime. The economic orthodoxy hired by the wealthy in order to propagandize on the their behalf has been invoking this same talking point for centuries; they make it sound very good with all the practice they've got with it. This ignores the irrationality (…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 01:28 AM
1

The only inherent flaws I see in Wikipedia are: Its content gravitates toward a selection that appeases/supports the majority opinion of the editors. If there is debate between 2 sides of equal size & persistence, the equilibrium is a long chain of "Yes, buts." When the editors are mostly unified, the sources are typically not well-vetted and biased sources and quotes are allowed to pass, and intellectual honesty in abandoned. This is just the trend I've seen; it may be a result of confirmation …
/r/MensRights15/08/12 04:36 AM
0

It's not mine. Mine should be obvious.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:20 AM
1

I could say the same to you.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:01 PM
0

I'm not saying it again. [same line about @AHealthyChoice]
/r/MensRights13/08/12 08:00 PM
0

You quite obviously did not even read my post, or you have the reading comprehension skills of a 10 year old.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:59 PM
1

Actually, redistribution by the state is not a bad thing when a specific type of labor is systematically under-valued: child-rearing. Stay at home parents currently receive no compensation aside from any they might get from child support, which is collected in the worst possible method imaginable (from the "father," without a DNA test, through no-fault divorce, etc.) and the child tax credit, which isn't nearly enough. Of course, it's not a zero-sum game, since there are mutual advantages reaped…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 02:13 PM
1

That's not quite how cancer works... "Toe" is a fairly arbitrary designation, especially when you're considering cancer, not corns.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:53 AM
-1

Also, thank you for being much more civil and respectful than the other commenters.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:48 AM
-5

I always thought AIDS was pretty debilitating. If I found out I had sexually-transmitted HIV, I would be unimaginably upset with my parents for denying me a preventative treatment that I barely would have noticed otherwise (aside from the aesthetic appearance of my penis). As for "growing up without either," I think you misunderstood what I was saying; people with 4 digits, whether by accident or by birth, have to actively adapt, undergo PT, and still have worse dexterity/grip or balance on aver…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:14 AM
-2

Look at the history/timeline/thing for @AHealthyChoice on Twitter. He regularly posts links to peer-reviewed journals, popular media articles, science magazine/blog articles, and raw statistics. I'm very sorry I can't give you the citations myself.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 06:45 AM
1

I would argue a more accurate proposition would be "Girls are socialized to properly have self-worth, command others' respect, and respect others because they also have inherent value. Boys are socialized to inappropriately devalue their own humanity and believe a man's value is only equal to what he achieves." Is this more agreeable?
/r/MensRights10/08/12 01:50 AM
1

Wealth and power are a function of achievement, not birthright? Could have fooled me.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 01:34 AM
9

Same for me.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 01:22 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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