TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Insula92 Archive

View 4 posts and 481 comments by Insula92 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)
2

Having a 2/3 ratio in favor of men wasn't stepping past good investments based on gender? Correct.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 01:58 PM
2

Video of oral argument, if anyone is interested.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 06:12 AM
2

Women shouldn't be sent in combat because they make bad soldiers. There's other work they can do however.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 05:54 AM
-20

Why is it bullshit? It's the logical endpoint of the liberal crusade against religion in anything the state has the slightest involvement in.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 05:52 AM
5

The MRA-fueled rhetoric is a bizarre amalgamation of sexist slurs paired with carefully calculated and co-opted feminist language surrounding body autonomy and consent. Yea. Feminists invented those concepts and because they own them no one else has the right to demand their consistent application.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 05:08 AM
-2

Female circumcision is none of the wests business.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 05:05 AM
3

There's nothing wrong with big banks if just they were lead by black women.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 06:24 PM
3

That's exactly what you do when you agree for your partner to be a stay at home parent. They're called "partners" for a reason. You share losses and gains just like a business. No not just like a business, if a business split up you aren't obligated to compensate them because their work in the partnership didn't further their career prospects, the split up ends the mutual obligations. When a business partnership is split up each partner gets their share of the build up fortune and they go on the…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 11:12 AM
2

"unpaid housework". Yea well it's not like all that work goes down in the drain, it's provides value for your self or your family. And if you are a stay at home wife or works part-time to have more time for house work and you have a husband working full-time, that certainly isn't uncompensated work since you benefit from the pay the husbands brings home.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 03:26 PM
1

Why are you calling RooshV a rapist?
/r/MensRights03/02/16 05:12 AM
4

Which is exactly what the comic is showing.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 06:19 AM
5

Can't get visitation because he's not biologically the father, has to pay child support because he's legally the father. Absurd.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 12:38 AM
0

No, no assumption.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 01:11 PM
-11

Because it removes the presumption of innocence. No it doesn't. How would you feel if someone said that you did something that you didn't do? You would deny it, right? Yep. By your logic, it would remove your ability to call the accuser a liar. Nope. Only if I actually did it.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 02:47 AM
-1

The difference between 10% doubt and 1% doubt is hardly semantics.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 01:51 AM
-3

If there's a 1% chance someone is not guilty, then they should not be put in prison. If they do get sent to prison, that means the system failed Seems according to the saying it's 10%
/r/MensRights24/01/16 01:22 AM
-5

No it doesn't in any way whatsoever.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 01:09 AM
-4

What's your point?
/r/MensRights24/01/16 01:03 AM
-4

No I don't know that he isn't guilty.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 12:58 AM
-6

We. Do. Not. Know. That. He Is. Guilty. Yet. Okay. Nobody claimed otherwise and it is irrelevant. He probably did rape a lot of the women who accused him, but we don't know that he raped every single person who accused him of rape. No we do not know that. You are right.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 12:56 AM
-4

Every case? no probably not. Some cases? most definately. Of course settled cases are up for discussion.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 12:50 AM
-5

Because the point of court cases and stuff is to allow people to defend themselves- The point is to determine guilt. if it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crimes, they should not be punished, because nobody is guilty until they are proven to be guilty. Sure. But if it can... He's not defending himself against accusations of crimes he did commit, he's defending himself against accusations of crimes he's been accused of having committed, and there is a difference. N…
/r/MensRights24/01/16 12:48 AM
-4

That's not what this trial was for. This trial was allowing him to essentially defend himself. Yes it was. It was a defamation suit against cosby for claiming the accusations were lies. I hope no one here will argue that he is innocent if he is found guilty against the actual charges that he raped someone, which again, was not this trial. Yea, the courts never gets it wrong, except all the times they do. Lol.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 12:43 AM
-17

OK. Well do you know if bill Cosby was lying? No! He is innocent until proven guilty. That would have to be proven at a trial like the one that was dismissed here. An innocent person saying they didn't do it is not lying. Nonsense.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 12:36 AM
-16

People shouldn't be punished for crimes they did not commit. The question is why shoudn't they be punished for defending themselves against accusations that they DID commit.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 12:34 AM
-21

I'd have to have done it to lie about having done it. So the crime still needs to be proven.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 12:21 AM
-40

It is not. But why shouldn't it be?
/r/MensRights24/01/16 12:02 AM
-37

Why?
/r/MensRights23/01/16 11:07 PM
2

The family law in Sweden (Föräldrabalken) still holds a provision that is actually illegal to hold within the EU: ... Germany has been condemned by the EU court of human rights for having the exact same law a few years ago and the German Parliament was forced to change it. However, nobody bothered to criticize Sweden for the same problem. There is no EU court of human rights. European court of human rights is not an EU institution but a Council of Europe institution.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 07:44 AM
1

Can a parent consent to a recording on behalf of his child?
/r/MensRights08/01/16 03:42 PM
2

This is what women think of us? Jesus Don't equate feminists and women.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 12:33 AM
-1

Fault for what?
/r/MensRights02/01/16 04:30 PM
0

Yes it's eugenics and that's a good thing.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 02:45 AM
5

Yes and working less but getting paid the same.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 12:19 AM
2

Not in Arizona.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 03:13 PM
91

Foreskin is gross Things americans hear.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 03:04 PM
0

Doesn't the baby act as proof of guilt? Doesn't prove mens rea.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 02:59 PM
0

"acknowlegde"
/r/PussyPass01/12/15 10:03 AM
1

Why don't they then? Get some testosterone if you think the grass is the much greener on this side lol
/r/MensRights22/11/15 04:04 PM
2

Or maybe it's a conspiracy of evil misogynist economists denying the truth. We need a wage gap denial law, like we have holocaust denial laws.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 01:03 AM
3

learn Oh they know full well. It's willfull disinformation and propaganda, not honest mistakes.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 12:29 AM
6

And another example of why plea deals are terrible.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 06:15 PM
3

Based on the classic
/r/MensRights11/11/15 12:14 PM
6

Maybe he was pro se.
/r/MensRights07/11/15 02:04 AM
2

I swear everytime I see that abbreviation a new fifth letter has been added.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 05:59 AM
1

That's debatable
/r/MensRights05/11/15 03:51 AM
1

Hes just reads our stuff, then presents a video about it, then profits. As opposed to all the other MRA-friendly media and youtubers.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 02:16 AM
7

>Muh childruns.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 02:09 AM
1

"Vanished twin", no more vanished or twin than the rest of him, shit term.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 02:01 AM
0

Øhj. If a single law outlawing a kind of speech is your proof that UK has no right to freedom of speech, then no place on earth has a right to freedom of speech.
/r/MensRights04/11/15 04:33 PM
-1

There is no right to free speech in the UK. Sure there is..
/r/MensRights04/11/15 01:59 AM
1

It's not cool to lie to people Obama
/r/MensRights28/10/15 11:01 PM
3

"Progressives". Regressives more like.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 05:47 PM
1

Women are the SAME as men But they aren't.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 12:31 PM
-4

Gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Every child deserves a mother and a father.
/r/MensRights23/10/15 10:13 AM
3

Haven't seen the documentary but Freedomain Radio is a cult tbh fam. Is this how the media and the establishment are going to silence the MRM? Em yea. By accusing us of being in cults? Or neckbeard virgins, or an army of elliot rodger clones or by classifying disagreeing with a feminist "harrasment", "hate speech" or the newest kid on the block "cyber violence".
/r/MensRights18/10/15 06:50 PM
5

99% of feminists aren't feminists then. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:26 AM
2

That wasn't what was asked and you know what? No but that's what you answered. I think it should be at least close to equal. Women are capable of being great engineers and doing great things for society just like men. Men are capable of being incredible teachers and nurses just like women. How does this lead to the conclusion that we should have close to equal numbers of each sex? We are missing out on some incredible people being great at and really enjoying their work if we let society and gen…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 12:05 AM
3

Shoud there be equal "representation" of both genders in every field? Why?
/r/MensRights18/09/15 11:38 PM
6

Women are under-represented in STEM. No they aren't.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 10:51 PM
1

In the inner jungles of Papua New Guinea
/r/MensRights06/09/15 11:48 AM
3

Both fruits
/r/MensRights04/09/15 07:11 PM
6

Absolutely insane.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:04 PM
3

No it discriminates against common sense and normalcy.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 11:47 AM
4

Yea the free market produces good objective journalism like MSNBC, Fox News. Obviously if they weren't good stations they wouldn't exist. The free market is always right. And when something publicly funded isn't perfect it's always solely because it's publicly funded, the free market would undoubtedly have fixed it if it wasn't.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 12:08 AM
1

"People should be free to voice their opinions anonymously" is not the same as "people should be free to cheat on their partners anonymously". The first is a sentiment enabling free speech the second is a sentiment enabling immorality.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 10:00 AM
1

>Implying robots can consent.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 08:30 AM
2

Donald Trump will make male privilege real. And Mexico is gonna pay for it.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 08:40 PM
0

Australian actress Maggie Kirkpatrick has avoided jail time after being found guilty of sexually abusing a teenage girl in 1984. Comeon this was thirty fucking years ago. Waters under the bridge.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 09:07 AM
3

In the state it didn't happen you mean.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 08:40 PM
1

Nope. Not going to be determined since the alleged crimes are far beyond the statutes of limitation. The allegations are utterly absurd and ridiculous and there's no reason to trust any of them.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 07:26 PM
1

No it's the jews.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 07:14 PM
4

I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I would complete have thought you were a lawyer giving legal advice without that sentence.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 06:47 PM
0

Why did you leave out the word statutory of the title OP?
/r/MensRights09/08/15 12:06 PM
1

Cosby did nothing wrong.
/r/MensRights09/08/15 09:52 AM
1

It exists everywhere where jury acquittals are final and can't be challenged.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 11:04 PM
3

Who'd have thought amputating random body parts weren't a health benefit? Amazing revelations science brings us these days.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 09:08 PM
0

>MUH Roles Daily reminder that combating gender roles is exactly as oppressive as enforcing them.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 08:09 PM
2

Why is it archaic ? If you were offered something equivalent or better, you've wasted the other party's ressouces for an unnecessary trial, that should be dis-encouraged.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 02:47 PM
2

Whatever. I was a Christian and against gay marriage 11 years ago too. People change. So you are no longer a Christian?
/r/MensRights29/06/15 02:01 PM
1

Is it good for society?
/r/MensRights21/06/15 05:56 PM
0

Everyone should
/r/MensRights21/06/15 02:26 PM
7

The Times newspaper contacted various Nobel laureates, eight of whom either condemned UCL’s decision or said the press reaction had been out of proportion, while only two said the college was right to remove him. Two out of ten Nobel laureates don't believe in freedom of speech for scientists. That's saddening.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 07:42 AM
6

Alarmingly low. How can 80% believe that it doesn't occur sometimes?
/r/MensRights17/06/15 07:00 AM
4

It's a women's issue because it affects women, solution, exempt women. It's clear as day when you look through the feminist lens.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 03:24 AM
1

There's no reversing, there has never been a let's boycott all female writers movement.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 02:33 AM
8

It literally is.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 08:05 AM
2

That has to be trolling.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 08:05 AM
2

I'm pretty sure everyone one knows alcohol is not consent. Of course, but feminists need their straw-men.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 05:29 AM
73

Well you aren't an academic if you don't require proof.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 04:36 AM
2

Alcohol is not consent Being drunk is not saying no!
/r/MensRights16/06/15 03:59 AM
1

That's real retarded sir.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 10:59 PM
-15

Except it doens't at the temperatures of a building fire not even with a little jet fuel.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 02:01 AM
1

"survivors"
/r/MensRights13/06/15 07:32 AM
1

It's not that bad. You still have the right to pee standing up in your own home.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 06:58 AM
12

He consented to making the embryos. SO FUCKING WHAT. Just a stupid made up on the fly excuse to let her have her will. HE HAS NOT CONSENTED TO HER BEING PREGNANT WITH HIS SPERM HOW THICK IS YOUR SKULL!? NO ITS NOT FUCKING COMPAREBLE TO A ABORTION BECAUSE SHE IS NOT FUCKING PREGNANT½§"!#!! ITS NOT HER BODY HER CHOICE BECAUSE ITS NOT IN HER FUCKING BODY YET. It's more compareble to marrital rape. "but you set yes in the church you have to do it"
/r/MensRights13/06/15 04:50 AM
25

"After winning a tough battle with cancer, these three embryos represent Dr. Dunston's last chance to have children that share her genetic material," Moore said. SHE HAS NO RIGHT TO FORCE ANOTHER MAN TO BE A FATHER. Goddamn the entitlement. "Mr. Szafranski agreed to create these embryos for one purpose: so that Dr. Dunston could use them to attempt to have children if she survived cancer." WELL he's not agreeing now. Scumbag woman, scumbag judges. At least there was a dissent. Glad he appeals.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 03:43 AM
2

It's Disability Hate Crime. Is that a thing?
/r/MensRights12/06/15 10:40 PM
3

No that's not arguable at all, if you plan to let him breath it's not attempted murder. Or perhaps it's "just" waterboarding... but either way that should be labeled what it is; a severe crime. No disagreement there.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 10:24 PM
1

No it's not, unless, you know, she actually attempted to murder him.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 10:17 PM
-1

It's not language policing. "It'd be great we could all agree to morally condemn this subject everytime we mention it" is language policing. It's policing through language. It's propagandistic and demagogic and it's disgusting. Also it's not (just) an emotional response, it's a rational and principled response which furthers rational discussion and diplomatic dialogue.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 08:41 PM
-9

Female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation are both disgustingly loaded terms.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 11:52 AM
6

So.. What's the mens rights issue?
/r/MensRights08/06/15 03:13 PM
1

Yea there's no european pharmaceutical companies, they don't exist, and they certainly haven't invented anything.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 07:30 PM
1

the "thought crime" consent laws ???
/r/MensRights01/06/15 06:03 PM
2

Then how did the original company make it? (Well often they wouldn't have but for a public investment. But aside from that..) The prospects are different when you can except to be a monopoly than when you can except to be in competition with another company selling the same service, suppose the companies reach a nash equilibrium, at that point the company would only make enough to continue business but not to repay the investment, given such a prospect an investment would not make sense. Also su…
/r/MensRights01/06/15 05:07 PM
6

Tips speculation
/r/MensRights01/06/15 04:09 PM
1

Wages as a portion of GDP. In two of the slides it uses the term Wages/GDP seems illogical for it to suddenly change call GDP "prod".
/r/MensRights01/06/15 03:09 PM
2

The same way the existing sewer service was established: By laying pipes and offering to carry people's waste away. Nobody would make that investment. Alternately they could innovate by installing septic tanks and offering a haulage service (as is common in rural areas) or encouraging people to use separated waste facilities. That would be competing with a different type of good, not competing in offering the same good, the sewer would still hold a monopoly on the sewer service. Real world examp…
/r/MensRights01/06/15 01:26 PM
3

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, I'm being very sarcastic. Do tell me how easy it would be to establish a competitive sewer company challenging an existing sewer service in your libertarian paradise. Also do look up the term natural monopoly. but those are almost always government monopolies or oligarchies protected by regulation and planning ordinance. That's good because otherwise they'd be private monopolies free to set their price in accordance with monopolistic pricing strateg…
/r/MensRights01/06/15 10:44 AM
3

Your right when I open the tap in the kitchen I have a thousand distributers to choose from, or I could have chosen to have my water connected from a number of distibuters with competitive prices and when I go to the train station and want to take a train from A to B, there's I can take five different trains from five different companies with each their own railway line, or at least I would have those choices if it wasn't for those pesky statists protecting monopolies :\<sup>)</sup>
/r/MensRights01/06/15 10:26 AM
2

Railways, phone lines, power lines, internet lines, cabel-tv, water utilities and sewers.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 10:04 AM
1

"LF/Pop"? "Wage/Prod"?
/r/MensRights01/06/15 09:19 AM
11

Bodies are natural, no need to hide them :^) Except erect penes they are unnatural somehow.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 08:32 AM
1

I'd rather they had removed mandatory maternity leave. It should be up to the parents how they want to distribute their parental leave.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 06:34 AM
2

Monopolies are only obtainable by government intervention and preferential treatment. Guess you haven't heard of natural monopolies.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 05:07 AM
2

Now we put them in antiarinckle cream for all races. So progressive.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 02:07 AM
-2

Should have abolished mandatory maternity leave instead.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 01:35 AM
3

t*ts Tats? Gotta have dem tattoos if your gonna make it to the biker final.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 01:01 PM
-1

She is the one in labor, she is the one giving birth, she is the one in the hospital bed and That's the premise. and so has every right to decide who gets to be present. Where's the link between the premise and the conclusion? I see no justification to exclude the father. The father has a great interest in being present which shouldn't be overruled at the whim of the mother. The father should have every right to see his child after the birth however. Glad we can agree on that.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 11:22 AM
0

What's the implication? Why should she have the right to arbitrarily exclude the father from witnessing the birth of his child? Just because? Because muh privacy?
/r/MensRights28/05/15 06:37 AM
-1

If the mother is giving birth she gets to decide who is present or not. Why should she?
/r/MensRights28/05/15 05:36 AM
10

Women have always been the primary victims of war. -Hillary Rodham Clinton, future Commander in Chief.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 05:14 AM
-1

It shouldn't be, The point. but it currently is. Not the point.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 07:14 PM
2

It's a common decision. It's not a medical decision.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 05:27 PM
43

How does it make sense for a court to force you to agree to something instead of ordering it directly?
/r/MensRights23/05/15 01:14 AM
1

What's wrong with animal brothels? The new law is retarded. There's no justification for it.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 12:47 AM
7

Well you are good at deflecting. I hardly see "not worse than feeding your baby motor oil" as a good metric for what we should allow parents to do with their children.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 10:26 PM
5

I'm not sure which is worse. I see no reason to allow either cutting off random body parts nor feed them shit that doesn't belong in stomachs.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 10:18 PM
13

We do. If parents feed their babies motor oil we call it child abuse.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 09:22 PM
13

A kid can't weight the benefits of cutting off his pinky either, that's not a reason to allow the parent to make that choice.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 09:15 PM
3

Why did the judge deny the blind father custody? Because he'd have trouble looking after his kids. slams gavel
/r/MensRights17/05/15 04:53 PM
2

Good idea.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 09:39 AM
3

Only 30% qoutas in Germany Yay!
/r/MensRights16/05/15 08:13 PM
11

They have gender quotas on university admission.. well they did until they started benefiting men.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 07:38 PM
1

I don't see how that assumption is necessary, there are qualified women who sit on boards even without quotas. But are 40% of the top willing and able candidates women? If there were companies should naturally have 40% women on average.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 01:14 PM
2

I don't care how un-PC this is, implanted beasts are NOT natural by definition! ESPECIALLY not when implanted in a body that would not normally grow them. I agree that fake breast are fake breast, but males can and do naturally grow breasts.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 10:30 PM
3

You really don't think blacks have benefited from AA?
/r/MensRights15/05/15 08:15 PM
8

Wombs are social constructs.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 07:43 PM
4

Slavery.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 07:35 PM
1

It's also a Jewish and Muslim thing. And an Australian and South Korean thing apparently.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 07:08 PM
1

The University of Colorado-Boulder paid $825,000 last summer to a student who claimed she was retaliated against after reporting a sexual assault. ridiculous.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 12:44 PM
1

:/
/r/MensRights15/05/15 07:56 AM
14

It's not a no true scotsman fallacy to distinguish between different types of scotsmen.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 06:47 PM
3

NOW's Obama critique is racist
/r/MensRights13/05/15 11:54 PM
1

Define "liberal"
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:22 PM
2

Mandating that someone follows a certain amount of people of a specific gender, and instead of stating this absurd mandate to his face she snickers it about behinds his back on twitter. Passive-aggressive sexism is real.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 08:21 PM
1

How does the conservative ignore science?
/r/MensRights13/05/15 02:27 PM
3

Everything is misogynistic.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 11:18 AM
0

But that usage implies that "regular" racism/sexism per definition has a specific direction which is bullshit. Also, "reverse x" doesn't usually imply that it is a form of "x" just like an antifeminist isn't a feminist dispite feminist being in the name.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 11:14 AM
1

I think we can start by using the word "rape" and "sexual assault" in their correct contexts. What good would that do? It's not rape, and it's not assault. It's an illegal sex act with someone society has deemed unable to decide for himself. Calling it rape is disgusting demagogy, it's only purpose would be to equate those two in every way distinct crimes.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:52 PM
-5

Ctrl-F "force" - no results Ctrl-F "threat" - no results Ctrl-F "unconscious" - no results The absence of rape designation is proper.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 11:19 AM
2

In that case the mother doens't really "live with the child"
/r/MensRights11/05/15 11:13 AM
16

That's true but the invisibility of male victims and the one-sidedness of the public discourse is a men's rights issue which the poster addresses.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 05:01 AM
-1

Gay rights are gay rights. If you don't like it, too bad.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:26 AM
2

In Danish law, parties in family disputes are protected from being named, I suspect English law is the same.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 10:37 PM
0

If you order a car from the manufacturer it's a purchase no matter how specific specifications you provide. If you are having your car repainted, that's a service. There's a line between those two somewhere but it's not razor sharp. Carrying and delivering a child is not a mere service done to a fertilized egg. It's clearly closer to a full scale from scratch production than a service. It's absurd to call it a mere service that when the only difference is that it wasn't her own egg that was used…
/r/MensRights05/05/15 10:31 PM
7

They are paying for someone to produce a child using a set genetic codes, and hand it over, that's purchase.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 10:06 PM
25

Not directly related but there were a study which examined male and female judges sentencing of male and female defendants. http://spokane.wsu.edu/academics/crimj/Brody/class_readings/gruhl.pdf The abstract states: The findings indicate that women judges did not convict and sentence defendants differently than men judges did. However, women judges were condiderable more likely to sentence female defendants to prison than men judges were
/r/MensRights05/05/15 05:52 PM
3

While it's tempting to produce a long list of men who were elected on anything but merit (family ties, party loyalty, parish pump politics), But not for being fucking men you twat. And as if those defects somehow justifies granting privileges to women.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 07:03 AM
5

No but if you are having sex with an arab claiming he's a jew you can cry rape in Israel. http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=255363
/r/MensRights05/05/15 04:06 AM
2

This was rape, by deception. No such thing.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 04:00 AM
2

A Danish hotel tried something similar, but it was shut down by the board of equal treaments and the courts.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 03:47 PM
15

And the fire insurance rates in New York rose.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 07:43 PM
10

The whole point of the article is that the EU-Court has forbidden the use of gender in insurance calculations
/r/MensRights03/05/15 07:18 PM
1

Well proof is relative. If the inconsistency are withheld and only the evidence in favour of the procecution is presented it's easy to reach "beyond reasonable doubt".
/r/MensRights02/05/15 08:14 PM
3

Meaning she will have to come up with $10k as security to be set free pending trial.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/05/15 04:20 AM
3

Law student gets sentenced to community service for for hitting aspiring male model over the head with a bottle of champagne cutting his forehead to the skull Would have been a better title, sure.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 03:52 AM
2

Well the post in legaladvice is ~3 hour older than the two other submissions. It's perfectly normal to use a throwaway account to ask such questions. I agree it's a bit weird for OP of this thread to be a new account. As for how the story is constructed, I don't see? He doesn't come off as "whining" to me. It's a perfectly reasonable question.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 03:22 AM
1

Why do you think so?
/r/MensRights02/05/15 03:03 AM
-6

/r/legaladvice is a feminazi cesspool
/r/MensRights02/05/15 02:11 AM
5

“At times you will not be allowed to retire if the court wants you to continue paying support,” warns Ottawa family lawyer Wade Smith. Slavery
/r/MensRights01/05/15 07:39 PM
2

9/10 could at least have used a different mirror
/r/PussyPassDenied01/05/15 07:37 PM
55

It's hard to imagine a man getting 150 community work hours for maiming the face of a woman.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 06:58 PM
1

I'll follow your advise.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/05/15 03:33 PM
8

Nobody needs research to disregard the observations of others apparently. If you claim /u/thewiredworld observations are contradicted by research, do share it.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/05/15 02:30 AM
2

What research?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/05/15 02:00 AM
1

Excellent marketing. Free advertizement from the feminazis, free advertizement from the counter-sjw circle jerk.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 12:41 AM
24

The all women audience clapping every time she confirms that they are victims. Ugh.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 11:18 PM
3

Tell Hitler to apologize for his anti-semitic actions. I'm sure it would have made a difference.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 10:09 PM
11

U.N. women is such a disgusting institution. Global Female Supremacist Party funded by tax dollars, primarily paid by the men.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 04:50 PM
1

Wow he mad
/r/MensRights29/04/15 03:24 PM
1

You, uh... You've never heard of gender dysphoria? I'll give you the run down. Everyone have heard of gender dysphoria. Gender is a psychological reality based around identification with one sex or another. In most humans, gender and sex match up: you're a man and feel like one or you're a woman and feel like one. Relevant as to whether he's a woman. Some people, however, suffer from gender dysphoria, a psychological condition wherein your gender is aligned with the opposite sex. These people ar…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 01:38 AM
4

There's nothing scientific about inventing new defitions to substitute clearly understood terms.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 12:57 AM
2

Star Trek actress Alice Eve claims that Bruce Jenner is not a "real woman" because he doesn't have a vagina Gee, how unreasonable. Now you have to be a woman to be a woman? Outrageous.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 12:55 AM
2

I don't see how the one diminishes the other.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 12:26 PM
10

scary
/r/MensRights26/04/15 10:05 PM
1

If you make college free, everyone will get a degree. Funny how that doesn't happen in countries with free university education. If everyone has a degree it loses it's value and you get degree saturation. Good. The interest of people with degrees are not something to be protected.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 10:14 AM
1

Equal rights for women is what it is.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 09:45 AM
3

I disagree (not on the law which I wont dispute). If it was "dropped just days before" (which I find unlikely, yea she may have been handed the paper but they no doubt talked about the terms before getting that far.) so what? Unless she is giving up assets I don't see the problem, she's free to seek annulment or divorce if she regrets the deal.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 05:48 AM
-3

just remember that the more intelligent you are and the more moderate your views are the less "soundbitey" they are so this shit doesn't bother me that much. Shit spineless moderates say
/r/MensRights17/04/15 04:02 PM
1

The chairman was very professional, although his ‘random number generator’ had let to the two women among the five candidates being drawn #1 and #2 to speak. What are the chances? Seriously, please let me know. 10%
/r/MensRights17/04/15 12:40 PM
-6

Sexual hysteria. It's just a fucking kiss.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 02:52 AM
1

Yes and some degrees are below the threshold.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 02:52 AM
5

That was one of the main arguments for keeping homos out of the Military
/r/MensRights15/04/15 03:08 AM
1

I've never heard of a "limited time promotion" exception to the discrimination prohibition, on the other hand I have heard of bars being fined for single events with price discrimination. Do cite the support for your claim, I'd appreciate it.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 01:36 AM
14

"Best interest" is codeword for lawless prejudice
/r/MensRights12/04/15 11:54 PM
2

No?
/r/MensRights12/04/15 12:52 PM
1

Cruel and unusual
/r/MensRights11/04/15 10:16 PM
-3

The part I quoted is exactly written for the purposes of stopping this sort of thing. Not really though. It's standard for any equality type of law. Yes it's standard for equality laws to prohibit indirect discrimination. But that's not the question, the question is whether this indeed is indirect discrimination. You need to shut the fuck up when you have no idea what you are talking about. And you need some manners. Also where was that US case forbidding profession based insurance calculation?
/r/MensRights10/04/15 05:44 PM
-2

There's been a case in the US which outlawed insurance calculation based on your profession? Do you have any specific knowledge that the EU law prohibits insurance calculation based on profession? Or are you just blowing smoke up everyone's ass? The EU-directive's definition of indirect discrimination is indirect discrimination: where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons of one sex at a particular disadvantage compared with persons of the other sex, unless tha…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 05:28 PM
-6

It's still illegal. That'll be a very hard case to make. but using a proxy for sex is still breaking the law. They are not using a proxy, they are using a perfectly legal criteria to determine risk, which happens to coincide with gender to some degree.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 04:19 PM
2

Alright, the thing about male sterilization is that it's supposed to kill the offenders sex drive. That'd be castration.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:56 AM
1

They earn more because they work more. True but not the whole story, they also earn more per hour and a large part of the reason is that they work in different professions with different pay. So do you accept that it's fair to pay different professions different even though it results in inequal pay for men and women in the aggregate? If yes why do you oppose profession based charge differentiation? Seems to me the you must either accept or reject both.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 06:11 PM
1

The wage gap is a myth. So you are denying that men in the aggregate earn more than women? The wage gap is exactly as real as the insurance gap.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 05:31 PM
1

If charging different professions different fees because of their difference in risk is discriminatory because men will, by and large, be charged more than they would be if everyone were charged the same - is it then discriminatory to pay different professions different wages because of their difference in value of labour because women, by and large, will be paid less than if everyone were paid the same?
/r/MensRights09/04/15 03:47 PM
1

So the postulated intend is your only qualm with it? What if they just do it because it makes good business sense?
/r/MensRights09/04/15 03:38 PM
0

So you are going by the equality of outcome standard?
/r/MensRights09/04/15 03:14 PM
1

I'm not a lawyer, but I think your terminology is off. De jure = How it's supposed to be according to law. De facto= how it works out in practice. I'm not saying he's right but there's nothing wrong with his terminology.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 01:28 PM
1

The UK law is an implementation of the EU law though
/r/MensRights09/04/15 01:24 PM
1

Still women and men in the same professions will pay the same, so it's a victory for them.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 01:22 PM
14

You forgot your link buddy.
/r/PussyPass02/04/15 12:42 AM
1

Nobody else in the world circumcises their baby boys in hospital. Except all the Moslem and Jews. Well the jews have the rabbis doing it, but w/e. Guess he meant to say the western world?
/r/MensRights01/04/15 06:28 PM
2

Why would you be illogical? No reason at all. And again, is it outside your imagination to think of situations where it would not be obvious?
/r/MensRights30/03/15 06:17 PM
1

A drunk driver runs over a cyclist who runs the red light, but for the drivers intoxication he would have been able to stop in time - The cyclist isn't a victim? surely he is. It's also his own fault.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 06:13 PM
2

It works perfectly otherwise.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 06:04 PM
2

You are so goddamn dense.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:56 PM
1

And I gave you one where you agreed that the victim is at fault. Your logical rule was thus disproved.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:35 PM
1

No I already stated three time that LOGICAL =/= USEFUL. You claim on the other hand that any statement that can ever be said to constitute "victim blaming" is both illogical and useless. Neither is true.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:34 PM
2

Actually. If we co back, you claim that something is a logical fallacy. That is a very broad claim and it's completely false and stupefying.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:31 PM
2

The person who ran the red light, can only learn the connection between running the red light and what happened afterwards. Nobody said that. It's also irrelevant as redundancy isn't inconsistent with logic. 2+2=4 is a logical statement, but not particularly useful. It's also a silly attack. I used a simple obvious example to illustrate a point. In the real world, not everything- including not everything you could have done to prevent your victimization - is obvious.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:29 PM
2

As I said, you can attack particular arguments as fallacious. But you cannot dismiss an argument by labelling it "victim blaming". In your example, their might not be something to learn from it, still there is nothing fallacious about it even if it's not useful. Just because something is logical doesn't mean it's useful.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:25 PM
2

Redundancy is not a logical attack. And it's not redundant if we are to learn from experience.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:20 PM
2

Now you are just making up rules. Why does it make a difference whether is it planned? The question is, is it - in it self - a logical fallacy to point out ways that the victim of something could have prevented that something from occurring? The obvious answer is, of course it bloody isn't.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:17 PM
1

The the victim is at fault?
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:10 PM
2

Who is victimizing when you run the red light and is run over by a drunk driver?
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:08 PM
1

The law is irrelevant. Say it was legal to run a red light. Would it still be stupid? Yes. You can't show that victim blaming is a logical fallacy. Because it isn't. In fact arguing against something by labelling it victim blaming is fallacious, it has nothing what so ever to do with logic. There is nothing that precludes a victim from being at fault. You can argue that some particular arguments are fallacious because they are benefiting from hindsight but you cannot argue that they are fallacio…
/r/MensRights30/03/15 05:05 PM
0

If I run over a red light and is run down by a truck driver who didn't have time to stop. It's perfectly reasonable to say that it was my own fault and not the truck drivers. It's also victim blaming.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:57 PM
0

Victim blaming is not same as the benefit of hind sight. There is no logical fallacy called "victim blaming" just drop it. There is no logical rule precluding a victim from being at fault himself.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:51 PM
-4

Thats a logical fallacy called victim blaming. Victim blaming isn't a fucking logical fallacy.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:44 PM
3

We have consistently argued that women who are raped bear partial responsibility for anything that might have elevated their risk. Have we? If you by "bear partial responsibility" you mean something which diminishes the perpetrators responsibility or dismisses the event as some that shouldn't be taken seriously, I don't think we have? We sided with the cop in Toronto. Who?
/r/MensRights30/03/15 03:25 PM
19

On the contrary, it will either lead to the abandonment of the failed line of reasoning, or an balanced application of it.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 04:15 PM
2

As a confirmation of my original assessment.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 01:55 PM
2

When your answer to "In the end, the boys and men are always the main targets of violence." is "...usually by other men. " then yes, that is what you are doing. Double cunt.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 01:50 PM
3

Even then I am willing to be that any illegal immigrant is working some pretty unskilled labor type of job that nobody wants to do. Why don't "nobody" want to do it? No doubt "nobody" would take the job if he was offered a decent pay. But he isn't because an illegal is cheaper.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 01:34 PM
2

It's not that I'm callous towards men victims. Except that's exactly what you are which you try to justify by victim blaming men as a whole. Fuck you.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 01:08 PM
6

What does the sign underneith the bigender sign say?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 03:09 PM
2

Name a body part which isn't sexually dimorphic.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/03/15 02:36 PM
-17

Baseless accusations.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/03/15 12:14 AM
-17

Why?
/r/PussyPassDenied25/03/15 11:08 PM
1

What do you mean "Only in a higher appellate court"? The courts do not have jurisdiction over cases the parties have agreed to arbitrate.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 12:27 PM
-15

Not really, now he will feel sad and guilty for getting his ladyfriend in prison :/
/r/PussyPassDenied24/03/15 12:25 PM
3

Isn't the Fedora vs. Trilby discussion just an epic meme?
/r/MensRights24/03/15 11:19 AM
-30

"raping"
/r/PussyPassDenied24/03/15 10:26 AM
4

They can't do that. Arbitration agreements are enforceable. The party who won at Judge Judy can have the case dismissed in court.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 10:06 AM
1

People have always cared about what other people wear.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 09:37 PM
1

No I'm not, I'm making a simple point that one group being part of a larger group does not mean advocating for the larger group must include advocating for the subgroup. But let's try an example with sexuality. Is advocating for the rights of male pædosexuals an integral part of the MHRM? (Not equating anything)
/r/MensRights22/03/15 07:48 PM
1

Sweden is just better at marketing I guess.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 07:39 PM
0

Aristocracy rights are human rights. Now unless you are going to argue aristocrats aren't human they by default fall under the preview of that title. Your logic is faulty.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 06:48 PM
1

I said that the guy shouldn't be angry at her. that she can withdraw consent at any time. She could feel sick or whatever. "consent can be withdraw" has to do with whether a rape happened or not. Not wether you should be angry at someone for refusing sex. How he feels about her not living up to her promises has NOTHING to do with consent at all. How can you mix this up?
/r/MensRights22/03/15 01:00 PM
3

It's weird because the wording of the Swedish law is gender neutral and quite broad. In the judgement the lower court seems to reason that since his specific intention was to rape that woman, who wasn't actually a woman, his intended crime was impossible and as such not punishable. That's a broad reading of the impossibility defence but the court didn't rule that men can't be raped. The High Court agreed that the intended crime was impossible but found that the impossibility defence does not cov…
/r/MensRights22/03/15 11:22 AM
4

Didn't claim that. Why are you defending an ad that paints lack of access to water as a women's issue, if that's not what you are claiming?
/r/MensRights21/03/15 03:34 PM
1

but being an asshole, especially about personal experiences from your peers, is not. How was he an asshole? Also people can stick their "personal experiences" up their ass, when they are used as an excuse to silence dissent.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 08:59 AM
7

In most places in Africa, for example, women are the primary gatherers of water for their family. There's a division of labour, so what? That doesn't mean that the problem disproportionately affects women.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 08:27 AM
1

Any use of the word survivor outside lethal contexts makes me want to puke.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 01:46 PM
2

82% answer yes to "Do you believe that men and women should be social, political and economic equals?" 4 times more than who considers themselves feminist. Thus be public opinion feminism isn't about equality.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 04:11 AM
5

It perpetuates the myth that boys are more durable and girls more vulnerable. Which again leads male-chauvinist and misogynist tendencies.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 01:11 AM
1

Beck-Sickinger has since apologized for the email, telling the Huffington Post India that "I apologize if this caused any misunderstanding, but the e-Mail was taken out of the context". LEL
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:14 PM
4

Because she and the father agreed to have him circumcised when they divorced(or broke apart, whatever) and she later changed her mind. The father went to the courts to have the agreement enforced and the courts have ordered her to let the procedure happen. Since she is disobeying the court order she is in contempt.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 07:42 PM
1

It's not newspeak, it's a common outlook in American society. Yes it is. A rapist is someone who does not respect your bodily autonomy. A pedophile sex offender disregards the laws determination that you are too young, but he/she does not by necessity disregard you bodily autonomy. The two crimes have nothing in common except involving sex. If you see a 25 year old trying to pick up 14-15 year olds, most people are alarmed and disturbed by that That doesn't make it rape. Few decades ago most fel…
/r/PussyPass08/03/15 03:03 PM
0

You are splitting hairs because you're pretending like the legal definition has no bearing on average day to day life. I'm not pretending that, I'm asserting that rape has a clear meaning outside of the law, so does consent, so have they for thousands of years. And that meaning does not change because simply because some legislators decides to redefine rape. If a 30 year old has sex with a 14 year old in the US and that becomes public knowledge, calling that rape. Is wrong. The authorities are g…
/r/PussyPass08/03/15 02:44 PM
-3

but when the law legally rules on that type of consent, in our case sexual consent, it defines it. For legal purposes, and for legal purposes only. You're trying to split hairs, and for some reason getting really worked up about it. I'm not splitting hairs. Saying it's rape is just wrong and stupefying.
/r/PussyPass08/03/15 02:17 PM
-3

It's called statuory rape, not 'unlawful sex with a minor' Depends on where you are. Note how it's "statutory rape", that's because it's not actually rape. they are incapable of giving consent. Consent has a meaning outside the law you dumb fuck.
/r/PussyPass08/03/15 08:54 AM
2

Why do you think they would?
/r/MensRights07/03/15 02:12 PM
-4

legal consent I.e. nothing to do with actual consent. no matter how willing and able On the contrary that's what actual consent is all about.
/r/PussyPass06/03/15 02:50 PM
-8

Except it was consensual.
/r/PussyPass06/03/15 08:06 AM
0

And in this case the original jury found her guilty then deadlocked on death penalty. Because guilty verdict from the original jury was final only the sentencing phase was retried with THIS NEW JURY which then deadlocked AGAIN. Thus this juror did not participate in any guilt phase. It's explained in the video which you apparently didn't watch.
/r/PussyPass06/03/15 08:02 AM
1

But if it's a pussy pass, why did she vote guilty? She didn't. It was a mistrial of the sentencing phase only (because the original jury had also deadlocked on the death penalty question).
/r/PussyPass06/03/15 07:10 AM
0

"Scientism" that's a good one.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 01:14 PM
1

If believing in academic freedom and freedom of speech makes me a libertarian then yes. I answered your insult with an insult, maybe that original insult was because of some hurt feelings? Need big daddy government to protect you from hurtful speech?, too stupid fight words with words so you need the violence of the state to shut them up?
/r/MensRights03/03/15 09:02 PM
1

Fuck you too buddy.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 08:24 PM
0

No. I believe the function of academics is to educate, not indoctrinate. And you want the government to decide what constitutes "education" and what constitutes "indoctrination". To the extend the school is directly run by, or the curriculum dictated by, the government they have to and I guess they are the proper recipient of criticism. In any case the criticism should be that the material is incorrect or misleading. Not that it's "sexist". In this instance, it is perpetuating toxic feminist ide…
/r/MensRights03/03/15 10:49 AM
0

They should if they're teaching bullshit. Whether it is bullshit should be for the students, parents, schools and the market to decide not the central government or the courts to decide. Do you think there should be a KKK clan course talking about inferior minorities? I don't say they should. I say they shouldn't be prohibited from doing it. I believe in academic freedom. Do you?
/r/MensRights03/03/15 10:14 AM
1

Agreed. Age of consent is a legal fiction. Has nothing to do with actual rape. Lumping under-age sex with rape is just stupefying.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 09:03 AM
5

Does Title IX apply to views expressed in curriculum? I hope not - schools shouldn't be censored.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 08:29 AM
5

You say no study has been done, then you go on to say what percentages of allegations are true. where did you get YOUR information? Reread his post. He didn't say that no study had been done. He said no legitimate study say that 95% of allegations are likely to be true. Depending on how you define "legitimate study" he's wrong. There is indeed studies from sources generally considered reliable that concludes that 95% of reported rapes are true, but they all rely on the faulty classification of r…
/r/MensRights01/03/15 06:02 AM
-4

I don't really understand the big deal with selective service. You have to registrer, why? I guess it's because U.S. does not have a central person register but aren't you just as eligble for the draft if you haven't registered? Anyway I have no problem the draft except that it only applies to men.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 04:08 AM
2

What an antidemocratic ruling.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 01:10 PM
1

Now you are arguing that telling women to keep silent is not an infringement of free speech and not a norm telling women to keep silent. I'm not going to engage with your ridiculous sophistry.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 04:20 PM
1

Your point? You made a wrong statement which I rebutted - And you respond by starting a completely irrelevant discussion.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 09:02 PM
1

So first you deny any such norm has existed. Then when given an example you justify it?
/r/MensRights22/02/15 07:53 PM
0

Really? Where the hell was that ever a 'rule'? It's the first I've ever heard of it. I've held that related to children, but not women. Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 04:06 PM
7

Can I read the ruling anywhere?
/r/MensRights21/02/15 06:28 PM
2

Plus, unless libel works very differently in Norway to here, he'd have to prove they knowingly lied, which would probably be impossible. In Norwegian law truth is an affirmative defence to libel. It is the sued who will have to defend the truth of their statements. But I doubt that he would be able to sue a public institution such as the compensation board for libel in it's decision.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 04:18 PM
25

He was aggressively mansnoring
/r/MensRights19/02/15 11:03 PM
0

Eugenics is also more than terminating fetuses.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 02:40 PM
1

If by "just as likely" you mean theoretically possible. Then yes.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 06:51 AM
-4

Please, entertain us with you definition of what makes a person a transman or a cisman.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 03:37 PM
1

Why do you consider the term sexist?
/r/MensRights01/02/15 03:37 PM
5

Of course, Sullivan fell for the story hook, line and sinker as well. No she didn't, she used it as an occasion.
/r/MensRights31/01/15 10:17 PM
1

I'm not sure what you are proposing, there are already various incitements in place for cost optimizing school operations. Is government inefficiency a goal for you?
/r/MensRights30/01/15 06:09 PM
2

Well the government should demand value for money and such can be done without discriminating on gender.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:33 PM
4

they really do hate women and want them to be raped. You explain that.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 09:41 AM
1

Second, how is lack of affirmative action a white privilege? Seems to me the privilege goes to racial groups favored by the law. Well with affirmative action in place people will wonder whether you got your degree/job because of your skills or because of your race. See affirmative action is just another innovative step the man has taken to keep the negro down.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 09:54 AM
7

The OP says that a member of the opposite sex initiated a sexual encounter with them, which they did nothing to resist or object to, and then maintained an ongoing, consensual sexual relationship with that person. But because that person was married, the OP feels guilty about that relationship and now believes they were raped. He wasn't. Period.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 05:40 PM
2

Why not? Why should people be forced to associate with people of the opposite sex if they prefer not to? It only becomes a problem when your opportunities are limited because of your sex as in this case.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 03:03 PM
1

Wow I really have pitted myself a intellectual giant who cannot comprehend the difference between fiction and reality and even claims that doctors think people's "gender identities" are more real their biological gender.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 10:21 PM
1

Yea you too retard.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 10:16 PM
-1

Correct, it's going on in their head and has nothing to do with the outside reality. I.E. FICTION.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 12:11 AM
0

as for being bigoted, running transmen out of the "club" because you don't treat them as the men that they are is bigoted. No it's not. I don't have to believe your retarted fantasies about yourself. And that doesn't make me bigoted.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 11:56 PM
0

That's complete bullshit and you know it.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 11:52 PM
-1

"Trans men" aren't men, so yes their identity is fictional. And they have no right to force others to view them as they wish to be viewed. It's a funny that "non-illness" require high tech treatments such as hormonal therapy and surgery. Anyway you still need to defend your statement that I said anything bigoted.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 11:44 PM
0

I didn't ignore anything you dipshit.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 11:43 PM
0

Oh the right side of history fallacy. 10/10 argument there.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 11:36 PM
1

That's ironic with your "I said your a bigot so it must be true" mentality.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 11:18 PM
0

If what I said is either wrong or bigotry, you would be able to make a case showing that.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 11:11 PM
1

Everything is negotiable you intolerable fascist
/r/MensRights21/01/15 10:53 PM
0

Neither bigoted nor rubbish.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 04:48 PM
-13

Which rights? I don't believe that self proclaimed trans persons should have the right to force others to accept their fictional gender identity, if that's what you mean.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 04:10 AM
8

Mother lets daughter 14 move in with pimp bf and staff comment is
/r/MensRights21/01/15 03:30 AM
0

So you're saying I'm not a victim/survivor of DV because my life wasn't at stake VICTIM AND SURVIVOR AREN'T SYNONYMS! And no if your life wasn't at stake you aren't a survivor of anything. and I'm a male? Anita Sarkeesian, is that you? I said no such thing. Stick your sexist projection up your ass.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 03:23 AM
-2

If you can't take criticism, that's your problem.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 03:00 AM
-2

I already told you. You have no indication that he was in danger for his life. The word survivor indicates that you have been in danger of your life. And secondly they didn't mock him for being a victim which "Mocks a Male Abuse Survivor" implies. When a woman endures DV she is referred to as a survivor. The man in this article also suffered DV, so is he not also a survivor? No. He hasn't been stabbed, he haven't been in a plane crash.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 01:45 AM
-1

Lie if you want to Herr Goebbels.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 01:34 AM
0

No. What I am saying is that OP gave his link a misleading click-bait title.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 12:15 AM
-2

Please stop using the word "Survivor" when there isn't any indication that the person you were referring to were in imminent danger of his/her life. They also aren't mocking him being victim of domestic violence. They are mocking his complaint.
/r/MensRights17/01/15 08:29 PM
1

I can't but why shouldn't there be games which depict women being beaten and raped?
/r/MensRights16/01/15 11:44 PM
3

I honestly think over here in Sweden, the bathroom situation is very convenient (at least at university). basically it's a hallway with 10 or so private bathrooms that are unisex. No urinals :/?
/r/MensRights13/01/15 01:28 PM
2

Jewish percecution complex.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 01:01 AM
20

Women have always been the primary victims of work deaths, they lose husbands, their sons...
/r/MensRights01/01/15 05:48 AM
2

Many don't. Often times the police investigate and close the case before the university make their own verdict.
/r/MensRights30/12/14 02:40 PM
3

Thank you. I found a link that works. http://www.vansterpartiet.se/assets/RapportFramkom.pdf
/r/MensRights27/12/14 11:16 PM
3

Here where I live, in Sweden, the far left party (vänsterpartiet, one of the major feminist parties) in one of their older party programs wanted people in their own party to be suspicious of men forming groups and talking to each other. Can you give a link to said program?
/r/MensRights27/12/14 09:27 PM
4

Asshole neighbours
/r/MensRights26/12/14 08:36 PM
3

2/10 too obvious
/r/MensRights26/12/14 03:01 PM
5

Also, what the heck does "WBB" mean? I haven't figured that out for nearly 2 years. Women Behaving Badly, or so I've heard.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 05:38 AM
5

It's like they want people to go mgtow.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 02:32 PM
1

Due process is a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights19/12/14 03:57 AM
2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgNV3FbottE
/r/MensRights18/12/14 10:09 AM
3

I saw a documentary once that claimed 1/5 girls in Norway are raped by a Muslim before they reach voting age. Absolute bullshit
/r/MensRights17/12/14 09:29 AM
1

There are differnces and similarities. Notably ECHR does not gurantee trial by jury and member states may allow aquittals to be appealed.
/r/MensRights15/12/14 11:47 PM
1

Common law is just judge made law it doesn't set aside contradictory statutory law. So it's not comparable to a bill of rights.
/r/MensRights15/12/14 10:55 PM
1

There is no bill of rights in the United Kingdom. There's the European Convention on Human Rights.
/r/MensRights15/12/14 10:19 PM
-3

"harassed"*
/r/MensRights15/12/14 05:15 PM
2

Well it's not like the massacres aren't reported. It makes no sense to say it's sexist to write an article focusing on one aspect of the story, what matters is the general picture.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 02:48 PM
1

And what makes you think /u/pinkturnstoblu wouldn't say the same about that fund?
/r/MensRights13/12/14 02:42 AM
2

Disgusting
/r/MensRights13/12/14 01:50 AM
3

You would never see this in such a publication these days as cultural Marxism has subsumed this demographic. edit: spl. You don't read lot of communist literature do you?
/r/MensRights13/12/14 01:30 AM
1

I agree that #3 is somewhat confusing if you don't know the context already. I think the rest are great. And angry is good, there's reason to be angry.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 02:11 PM
7

I don't see the problem at all. I'd be grateful for a doctor saving my life even though he was just doing his job.
/r/MensRights05/12/14 12:09 PM
1

Women are such quick learners it appears
/r/MensRights02/12/14 08:34 AM
1

b) The presence of a female protagonists does not influence a woman's purchasing decision of a video game It could easily be that it would influence it negatively
/r/MensRights29/11/14 06:44 AM
1

Convicted for false rape-report after audio-recording Woman in Oslo has to pay 350,000 kr to man. Appeals. Wednesday 19. November 2014, 13:55 A woman i her twenties is in Oslo Tingrett (disdrict court) sentenced to eight months prison for giving a false rape-report. The verdict will be appealed. The woman is also convicted for attempting to get violence victim's compensation (from the state) as a consequence of the false report. She will also have to pay the man 350,000 kr in compensation and re…
/r/PussyPassDenied25/11/14 05:24 AM
-4

Well actually what he "defined" was hard-core pornography.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 05:59 PM
4

Don't understand or don't agree?
/r/MensRights16/11/14 12:45 PM
4

It's ridiculous of you to state that we haven't understood that argument since there's plenty of response to that argument.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 12:28 PM
7

What is it we haven't understood about the "core of the argument" and how do we get it wrong? And what have we misunderstood about the feminist reason that the t-shirt was inappropriate?
/r/MensRights16/11/14 12:18 PM
7

We understand them and reject them.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 11:45 AM
1

So is accusing the boy of being a false accuser okay or why did you berate /u/smegnose for pointing out that it was not proven that the accusation was not proven to be false despite the thread being flared as "False Accusations"?
/r/MensRights16/11/14 12:37 AM
1

Pretty clearly is what you are saying, at least when it comes to the accusation of false accusation.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:55 PM
1

If something is legal in the country you are visiting you cannot be prosecuted in your home country. That very much depends.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 09:35 PM
6

Well they are banned in France, so...
/r/MensRights15/11/14 03:28 PM
0

Yep; if the boy was on trial for a false accusation. But he isn't. Oh, so as long as people aren't being formally charged it's OK to spout baseless accusations.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 02:39 PM
1

Exactly which feminists are claiming the "Boys are stupid throw rocks at them"- shirt is empowering?
/r/MensRights15/11/14 12:49 PM
-2

The "gift" that keeps on giving.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 04:47 PM
111

Except, there's no boys only option
/r/MensRights12/11/14 04:42 PM
1

breaking the law (public drunkeness) Land of the free
/r/MensRights12/11/14 12:15 PM
4

Whenever this happens, you can always count on some automaton to drone on about how "she made it harder for women who report legitimate sexual assault". What about the all the shit that the innocent men have to deal with here, hmm? Women have always been the primary victims of false accusations. Women lose their credibility, their boyfriends, their fathers, their sons ...
/r/MensRights11/11/14 11:13 AM
1

Violence against property is usually called "vandalism" and not "violence"
/r/MensRights09/11/14 01:35 AM
1

Only if it's violence.
/r/MensRights09/11/14 12:03 AM
1

Economic Left/Right: -8.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62
/r/MensRights08/11/14 09:50 PM
-5

What is this sub then`? edit: Thanks for the downvotes, how about an argument instead? Which part is wrong? 1) are we not mainly men who think of men as a victimized group? if not what are complaining about? 2) Are we not building an ideology about that fact? 3) And is this not because we feel the need to do so? if not why then? for fun? as an experiment perhaps? A random hobby?
/r/MensRights08/11/14 08:19 PM
1

"supposed" what do you mean by that exactly? Feminism is about equality in it's self-understanding. But that's hardly essential, you can be a racist, misogynist or misandrist without being self-aware of it. If you by Feminism mean gender-egalitarianism, there isn't a male version. If you by Feminism mean gender-egalitarianism plus the factural belief that women has got the short end of the stick for one reason or another, the male version is MRM. A few groups use the term masculinism although it…
/r/MensRights08/11/14 08:18 PM
1

Many of these are very rude things to say (e.g., "smile!", Annoying? maybe. "very rude" or "harrasment"? no.
/r/MensRights08/11/14 07:49 PM
13

It's obviously NOT misogyny How is that obvious? Mainstream feminism today is basicly pure misandry.
/r/MensRights08/11/14 07:45 PM
0

It would definitely be pussypass if the active abuser got the same as the passive enabler.
/r/PussyPass08/11/14 09:25 AM
1

Why not? She's not found guilty yet.
/r/PussyPass08/11/14 09:14 AM
-1

Abusive judge on a power-trip, nothing to do with pussypass.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/11/14 08:46 AM
1

Something being a crime does not exclude it from being a cultural issue as you seem to imply.
/r/MensRights08/11/14 06:59 AM
0

The carousel of non-Asian guys in the past, she did not intend to reproduce with them because they don't have the culture and heritage. She fucked them for fun. sure, that does not imply that she only thinks of him as a provider. He is suppose to provide for the kids and teach them Chinese American heritage. Same question, what makes you conclude that? And it being true would not imply that she saw him only as a provider.
/r/TheRedPill06/11/14 03:58 PM
1

Accidentally reveals that she only thinks of him as a provider. What makes you conclude that?
/r/TheRedPill06/11/14 04:43 AM
1

Why don't we just make the law that anyone even accused of rape has to go to prison for life. Seems reasonable, although there should be room for an affluence defence.
/r/MensRights06/11/14 04:36 AM
0

(I'm not even fucking kidding) was she though?
/r/MensRights05/11/14 10:24 PM
10

It's a myth that Sexual violence does not occur as much as we think. What does that even mean?
/r/MensRights05/11/14 12:33 PM
6

It's quite possible that the texts were just enough to create reasonable doubt. You mean the evidence tampering by the accuser?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/11/14 04:44 AM
56

Photo is unnecessary for that, and they wouldn't need to clear it if they hadn't smeared it to begin with.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/11/14 11:39 PM
197

They publish picture, name and town of victim of false accusation, but not of the false accuser. Yea no pussypass at all.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/11/14 08:51 PM
7

It's just a long rant of insults. What is their to discuss?
/r/MensRights27/10/14 11:22 PM
23

charged with resisting arrest. typical
/r/MensRights26/10/14 09:50 AM
1

Now the only logical reading of your response is that you are referring to the kid I was asking about? Sure, there is no indication of who initiated it, but there is ample indication that was consensual. So no I did not say that he initiated it. And another question. Why are you so worried about what happens to this pervert skank anyway? Why are you so determined to have her punished?
/r/MensRights24/10/14 06:26 PM
1

So your saying that kid is responsible for initiating sex? Got any proof of that? Were you an eye witness of something? I said no such thing. Are you claiming the opposite? Got any proof of that? Were you an eye witness of something? But you seem to be making him responsible (because he's male) and relieving her of her own responsibility in ruing her life (because she's female.) Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game body.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 03:03 PM
0

idiotic comment. It was quite idiotic indeed, that's what I pointed out. We are discussing the difference in treatment when the offender is male vs when the offender is female. What you or I personally believe about a youth's ability to make life decisions is irrelevant to the discussion. No you were not. He said that "At 16 you are old enough to make decisions for yourself". You disputed that by referring to what society decided. Neither of you made reference to the gender of the offender, so i…
/r/MensRights24/10/14 01:52 PM
7

You can add a misleading title tag to this one. It's already been ruled in violation of equality laws. It was a mistake made by the communes during the transition to a new mailing system. It has no legal basis. And it hasn't been fixed so it's not misleading.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 10:05 AM
13

DAS RITE
/r/PussyPassDenied24/10/14 09:17 AM
1

Society, via the law, says no. You can't read the truth in a lawbook, think for yourself.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 08:31 AM
0

Nope, circumcision of boys, not boybabies.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 07:43 AM
1

Ah, so that's what you were trying to get to this entire time! Nope. What we were getting at the entire time was your refusal to acknowledge that often means "sex against someones will" and "sex against some will or with someone who happens to be below the age limit". bla, bla You don't need to explain the justification of age of consent laws, however it is justified it does not make it rape, nor does the simple adoption of a age limit imply that breaking it is rape.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 07:30 PM
0

Doing something with someone knowing that it will have dire consequences for that someone is immoral.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 07:16 PM
1

It'd be silly to think otherwise. It's silly to think having sex with someone underage is the same as having sex with someone against their will.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 05:51 PM
1

You are the one who claimed that the law regards them as the same. Two crimes having the same consequences =/= them being the same crime. I stated long ago that not all jurisdictions regard sex with minors as a type of rape, this can be confirmed reading the criminal statutes which often uses other terms for example "unlawful sexual conduct with minor". If the law does not define it as rape it makes no sense to say that "it's rape according to the law".
/r/MensRights23/10/14 05:33 PM
0

so?
/r/MensRights23/10/14 05:06 PM
26

Well for starters, the mandatory military service is one year shorter for women(2 years) than for men (3 year).
/r/PussyPassDenied23/10/14 04:58 PM
1

and in the eyes of the law, statutory rape = rape. Not if statutory rape is defined as you did.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 04:50 PM
1

Sex with person under age of consent = statutory rape. But what do you mean by it? Is it a definition you are making up?
/r/MensRights23/10/14 04:34 PM
1

What I am saying is that many, including many legal systems do not regard "statutory rape" as a form of rape but a completely separate crime. Because if it's a minor that's under the age of consent in your country, and the difference is larger than, say, a +- 5 year difference from your partner (or whatever is considered acceptable where you're from), then it will, as far as I know, always be statutory rape. No exceptions. I have no Idea what you are saying.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 04:23 PM
1

Then his position was that statutory rape laws should be abolished? There's lots of things in the world that's criminalised without being labelled rape, including sex with minors in many jurisdictions.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 04:06 PM
-1

But he wasn't arguing it wasn't statutory rape he said he finds it hard to say it is rape. Legalese and common parlance often differ considerably, especially when the law redefine words.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 01:09 PM
2

Take for instance his example of selling alcohol to minors, the parents would be perfectly within their right to scold their children. I'm merely rebutting his very sweeping statement that you cannot be a victim and a wrongdoer at the same time.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 12:12 PM
-1

You seem to be having trouble understanding the concept of statutory rape. He did state that he was underage, he seems to have understood the concept quite well. You can argue that the age of consent is too high, but not that the law does not apply. Which he didn't so stop strawmaning.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 12:12 PM
-8

Nor does being a victim nullify your wrongdoing.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 10:41 AM
1

To satisfy the standard they must be denied something women are given. Yea, but aren't they being denied the choice? Women on the other hand aren't denied anything.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 05:18 AM
1

You aren't addressing what I am asking. How can you sue to get treated worse? When you already have the option of signing up voluntarily how could you conceivably claim any harm?. Yea it would not make sense for a man to sue and claim that women are being discriminated against, it would make sense for a man to sue and claim that men are being discriminated against.
/r/MensRights21/10/14 07:50 AM
8

What is there in this ""rape kit""? Also: why is "males" underlined?
/r/MensRights20/10/14 08:42 PM
2

Characterizing the abortion opposition as a war against women is as ridiculously simplistic as characterizing it as characterizing the support of abortion as a war against babies.
/r/MensRights20/10/14 08:41 PM
1

As long as you are not arguing that traditionalism should be institutionalised, I don't see why you cannot be a traditionalist and an MRA at the same time.
/r/MensRights19/10/14 10:03 AM
2

It's not like the Supreme Court never changes it's mind. In Baker v. Nelson (1972) the court unanimously ruled that whether prohibition of gay marriage was unconstitutional wasn't even a question open to debate. Today it's a hot topic and the court has ruled that atleast discrimination between legally married gay couples and legally married heterosexual couples was unconstitutional.
/r/MensRights19/10/14 09:54 AM
1

How about both? And they do not need to happen in a particular order. "I don't support drafting women, I think we should just get rid of it entirely" is an opinion which is misandrist in practise.
/r/MensRights19/10/14 09:40 AM
2

The constitution says men and women are equal. It's completely silent on the matter.
/r/MensRights19/10/14 09:34 AM
2

Someone calling someone a Leninist, for thinking that when the state forces somebody they should at least do it indiscriminately, is telling me to grow. That's nice.
/r/MensRights19/10/14 08:35 AM
0

ah yes, equality achieved by force. No equality achieved by equal force, you goddamn retard. Are you some sort of Radical Femist Liberatian who thinks state action against females are the worst of the worse?
/r/MensRights19/10/14 06:52 AM
1

If women aren't fit for combat roles, theirs other roles they can fill in the military.
/r/MensRights19/10/14 06:49 AM
1

Why would a woman have standing? "Plz force me to do something I could do voluntarily" can you seek such a judgement?
/r/MensRights19/10/14 06:48 AM
2

"Gabriel has stopped working and is content to live off of the child support, and that's an abuse of the system." That's ridiculous. If child supports sole purpose was to pay for cost's of having children, it would not be based on the payers income. Children do not magically become more expensive to feed and clothe just because it's parents are rich.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 06:43 AM
9

The Court went on to conclude that the Court had “little difficulty in finding that income from a support payment is income from property and that as such the expenses incurred in obtaining the payment thereof may be deducted” So men/child support-payers are literally property in Canadian law? Also, is it normal for canadian judges to express concern about the law after having reached their decisions?
/r/MensRights14/10/14 05:33 PM
1

settlement
/r/MensRights14/10/14 06:26 AM
2

Why are men "simply" more successful?
/r/MensRights11/10/14 07:11 AM
0

Rape is forced sex. Saying rape isn't sex is going full retard.
/r/MensRights10/10/14 02:20 PM
1

So you can't film a police film in Canada without committing a federal crime?
/r/MensRights08/10/14 01:35 AM
0

While someone like you, who is to stupid to answer how he reached his conclusion, would be a preferred choice.
/r/MensRights07/10/14 09:11 AM
0

However since a 13 year old can consent illegally, it isn't necessarily rape. That's why it's called statutory rape, it's only rape because the statute defines it as such.
/r/MensRights07/10/14 01:34 AM
0

And how did you reach that conclusion? Legally invalid consent =/= no consent at all, either.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 11:40 PM
0

Legally invalid consent =/= force.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 08:56 PM
0

The law, it's nonsense.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 08:55 PM
2

I don't see a single part of it that isn't garbage.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 11:45 AM
0

I don't really see the problem with telling fathers that their involvement with their kids and their education is beneficial.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 08:22 AM
1

It's not. But what you are saying is like saying a landlord not installing a smoke alarm is setting a house on fire.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 06:33 AM
-2

It also said He is right. People shouldn't be recording their encounters without the other party knowing even though it might save him from a rape charge. How am I to infer which of the two statements weights the heaviest? Be a little less cocky next time.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 07:01 PM
-1

Which does not answer the question.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 06:25 PM
5

You are not violating anyone's privacy until you share it.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 04:45 PM
-1

Why don't you answer the second question?
/r/MensRights30/09/14 04:39 PM
3

"We live in a youth-oriented culture and discrimination is loud and clear almost wherever older people go," he said. Bull- fucking -shit. Completely backwards.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 04:28 PM
5

Well go UKIP.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 02:50 PM
4

He is right. People shouldn't be recording their encounters without the other party knowing. Why not? And is he right about that video evidence should be excluded to remove the incentive to record?
/r/MensRights30/09/14 02:48 PM
2

How much?
/r/MensRights30/09/14 02:09 PM
2

Maybe you disagree? Maybe I don't? Maybe you shouldn't make all sorts of insulting assumptions about a person you disagree with. Thank you.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 02:00 PM
-1

And you think that can be calculated into a compensation?
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:57 PM
2

Considering a woman got 1 million for mistakenly being identified as a porn star on the radio? I would consider that ridiculously high. Considering that in reality, he was awarded 5 years pay for a good job. 75% of the population makes below 50.000$ a year before taxes. 50.000$ after taxes is a "good job". And considering the living expences he would have had in those ten years it's way more than he would have had had he worked instead of being incarcerated.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:38 PM
-2

I don't think that's particularly low.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 11:43 AM
1

Misleading title. Explain how it's misleading. He is literally defending his right to call a man a rapist even if he has been found innocent in court. You can believe that George Zimmerman is a murder, if you are ignorant of the facts, but saying it is slander since it is not backed up by the facts.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 08:57 AM
14

Is joining a "'Rape Factory' Fraternity" asking for it?
/r/MensRights23/09/14 09:42 AM
4

EHRC Article 10 applies in UK.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 09:29 AM
1

How is the ECHR hardcore feminist?
/r/MensRights23/09/14 08:58 AM
1

Still 10% unequality left.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 08:57 AM
1

No it's not. Wanting to hear from a specific group isn't a violation of free speech.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 06:05 AM
1

Council of Europe =/= EU
/r/MensRights23/09/14 06:02 AM
2

What a toxic place.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 03:24 PM
1

How low is the threshold for "rare"?
/r/MensRights19/09/14 03:24 PM
1

All rape is legitimate Literally legitimizing rape
/r/MensRights19/09/14 03:43 AM
3

per mile
/r/MensRights16/09/14 05:52 PM
2

Are both fruits.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 05:41 PM
6

Negroes do more crime. The Police is in the business of preventing crime, any negro taking racial profiling personally, needs to get a grip.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 04:39 PM
1

Trustworthy =/= Neutral. The truth isn't necessary neutral.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 10:47 PM
-14

Calm down.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 10:10 AM
1

That's a huge educational problem considering that 25% have had sex by the time they reach the age of 15.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 08:01 AM
-16

While you do not know the precise legal ramifications at the age of 14 (which most adults do not either) you do know about pregnancy risks and that being a father carries responsibilities.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 09:58 PM
-13

the consequences. Which consequences didn't you understand?
/r/MensRights05/09/14 08:21 PM
6

So where does Male teacher, male student lye?
/r/MensRights05/09/14 08:13 PM
-5

Rape is rape Fucking stop this meaningless politically correct bullshit already.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:05 PM
2

It is fucking already cited in this thread which you claim to have read. But here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2012.pdf Page 58 and 68.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:05 PM
2

Nobody claimed that. What is claimed however is that women and perpetrate more child-murders and acts of violence against children than men and fathers.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 01:12 PM
4

When you keep expanding the category the number keeps increasing. With a definition saying "in other words, if you have sex with someone who has been drinking or using drugs, you may be committing sexual assault!" I'm surprised that it isn't 90%.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 09:57 AM
2

Why did you change "sexual violence" to "violence" in your title? That's like completely different.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 09:52 AM
5

Cite some evidence or fuck off.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 09:45 AM
0

The law did what it should, they were arrested and are being charged, so what's the issue?
/r/MensRights04/09/14 08:20 AM
5

They don't have the support they deserve. Why do they "deserve" anything more than a single mother with an unknown or dead father can give them?
/r/MensRights04/09/14 05:30 AM
2

Not so much pro-male as "maybe we should shit on men a little bit less?" That's pretty pro-male by todays standards.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:14 AM
-2

Reporting the motive of a crime is minimizing it? Oh please.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 09:35 PM
1

Great speech.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 08:48 PM
2

And FYI, it is rape because the child was below the age of consent. Rape is rape, even if it has a varying circumstance attached to it. That may be your and a lot of legislators opinion. I disagree. When whether an act is rape or not can depend on whether you move a few meters to cross the state border, or whether or not you wait a day, the definition of rape becomes somewhat arbitrary and it becomes absurd to say "rape is rape". Rape used to have a clear and precise meaning. And the crime of se…
/r/PussyPass27/08/14 03:27 PM
-4

Statutory rape isn't really rape hence why it's called statutory rape. What's the typical sentence for this crime in NY anyway?
/r/PussyPass27/08/14 02:01 PM
7

She wouldn't have to say otherwise, she could keep silent and avoid lying.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 05:57 AM
2

"increase of sexual violence that is occuring on college campuses in California." Where does she get this from?
/r/MensRights27/08/14 03:10 AM
0

Already posted twice: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2ekjlz/john_oliver_propagates_the_wage_gap_nonsense/ http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2ekkcl/last_week_tonight_with_john_oliver_wage_gap/
/r/MensRights27/08/14 02:32 AM
63

"EAT SHIT AND DIE I REPLY". Can't argue with that.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 11:32 PM
1

I'm aware of the opinion of the medical associations, but that doesn't qualify as anything close to a ban. No legislation etc. to that end have been introduced.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 11:29 PM
1

"Park faces two felony counts of human trafficking and 13 felony counts each of pimping and pandering. Heung Kim faces the same. Miyoun Kim faces six felony counts each of pimping and pandering." Well since the charge isn't the same, it seems reasonable that the bail isn't either.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 08:20 PM
1

A german court did rule it a crime, but Bundestag amended the law. I don't think Denmark has been close to banning circumcision.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 03:45 PM
16

Better than the usual propaganda since he actually addresses the critique but very manipulative as usual. It is incredible that women being the means of child production is somehow made to be an disadvantage. Having an extra option is an advantage and nobody is forcing women to have children. You could make the argument that women's monopoly on child production brings with it a responsibility to bring children to life, and that women shouldn't be disadvantaged for living up to that responsibilit…
/r/MensRights25/08/14 10:34 PM
8

How is cutting a piece of a functional body-part off not mutilation? Isn't that basically the definition? I don't understand your question. If you had done even the 5 minutes of googling you claim, you should have stumbled upon sites explaining the harms of male genital mutilation. You seem to be trolling.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 04:52 PM
2

You are speaking in very general terms. Are you arguing that it can't be that prosecutors choose not to prosecute cases that they could have prosecuted, and that the only reason the prosecution doesn't raise these cases is that they deem the burden of proof isn't met or for an other legitimate reason? That seems to be your argument and it's absurd. Clearly since prosecutors have full discretion whether to prosecute or not, it is a possibility that this discretion is being misused. Whether that i…
/r/MensRights24/08/14 05:38 PM
2

Brilliant letter. https://docs.google.com/file/d/1dEC0PEMVUIwDa3wDz1JlSU3nNMCbsPBztZ3Z_YMH7It4V0XQNumyE_K5x4RB/
/r/MensRights24/08/14 01:24 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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