TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Itsdickyv Archive

View 1 posts and 620 comments by Itsdickyv on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

Itsdickyv/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/21 11:03 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

RLHF is a big part of the process though - and people who are involved in it are given guidance frameworks to work within. It’s an extension of social attitudes, in that what is considered acceptable today is being trained into AI models…
/r/MensRights26/07/26 03:45 PM
2

“I am not going to judge anyone just from reading a headline” Reasonable stance. Where it gets unreasonable is fabricating “reasons” for a false report on the basis of less than a headline. Were those examples you gave from China by the way? You know, the most heavily surveilled population on earth, that China? If you’re going to make comparisons, it’s only reasonable that they’re comparable after all.
/r/MensRights19/07/26 05:31 PM
4

Taking that at face value, how would you explain the decision on her part to report rape when verifiable evidence of beatings exists?
/r/MensRights19/07/26 04:01 PM
1

Right, so “the vast proportion of men don’t pay child support” does at some level hold true. Now consider that no man, ever, has committed maternity fraud, and a larger proportion of men pay alimony and child support than women. “Headline” statistic mean fuck all when viewed in proper context.
/r/MensRights18/07/26 07:22 PM
2

And what proportion of divorcees does that 10% account for? It’s not a gotcha to suggest that married men don’t pay alimony…
/r/MensRights18/07/26 03:20 PM
2

Aside from the sizable amount of unverifiable ‘context’ you provide here, are you seriously telling me the you believe the sentence to be in any way appropriate?!?
/r/MensRights14/07/26 04:03 AM
5

Yet no inclusion of psychiatric treatment in the sentence? Just two years of “stay out of trouble” and 10 weekends of telling people “drugs are bad, mmm’kay”. And that’s presuming “cannabis induce psychosis” (sic) was a factor here, which is as dubious as the sentence she received…
/r/MensRights14/07/26 02:02 AM
4

Taking everything you’ve said at face value, why do you think no mandated psychiatric treatment was included in the sentence? Also, in the “many examples of men killing family members during psychotic breaks and being sentence only to psychiatric care”, how many were sentenced to outpatient psychiatric care, and for what timeframe? Put differently - how can you justify 100 hours of community service and two years probation as anywhere near an appropriate sentence for involuntary manslaughter?
/r/MensRights14/07/26 01:55 AM
28

There’s a whole load wrong here. The last line in the article has thoroughly boiled my piss though - “A judge has not determined if the school district will be able to countersue the family.” The school district have the burden of proof to show that due process was followed here; if they can’t meet that, no amount of “not on school property” bullshit warrants any legal action against a grieving family. And the lawyer who’s saying the email was “taken out of context” is clearly someone with absol…
/r/MensRights14/07/26 01:39 AM
20

The article OP has posted was published on the 10th of July, and updated on the 11th. You either need to dial back those expectations for timely updates, or complain to the Daily Mail directly. Now if you want to give your comment some “purpose”, at least link anything about the Federal case…
/r/MensRights14/07/26 01:28 AM
9

“What percentage of venture capital applicants are female owned businesses?” Start with that - and demand sources. From there, question what “male owned” means; is it male founded? Entirely male stockholding? Ran solely by men? The statistic alone does not tell the full story. Besides, VC scale funding implies a business has already achieved a scale of operation where traditional financing methods (such as bank loans, or use of the owners’ personal financing via mortgages, etc) have been superce…
/r/MensRights14/07/26 01:16 AM
0

Intriguing take with the “sexist attempt” - I’ve got no idea what gender you are, and it’s irrelevant to my point. Weren’t you saying something about taking words at face value and moaning about making up grievances earlier? And please explain how I’ve even suggested, let alone supported, “equality for me but not for thee”? It’s all in black and white, so it’s no problem to quote right? Using the term “victim” without evidence beyond allegation is an assumption in and of itself. I’m unsure why y…
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:29 PM
0

Oh dear. You’re not doing the greatest job of controlling your emotions here. Nevertheless, using your explicit words, as it seems implicit language and nuance are a challenge, “If you automatically assume all victims are lying” automatically assumes anyone who makes an allegation IS a victim, with absolutely no burden of proof. Something you only correct (“She is an alleged victim sure”) after this is pointed out to you.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 02:45 PM
3

Ah buddy, you both somehow nearly got it and entirely missed the point, and still tried to patronise me at the end. You’d do well to learn what “implication” means, because you don’t need to “explicitly” say she’s a victim, it’s abundantly clear that’s how you view her. Which of course implies that he’s a perpetrator. Well, based on how “we” use words anyway.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 10:35 AM
4

There also wasn’t enough evidence to prove that she is a “victim”, yet you seem perfectly comfortable in automatically assuming she was one. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:15 AM
12

Not worrying about the “equal work” side of it? Women’s matches are still shorter than men’s, but there’s no clamour to sort that…
/r/MensRights10/07/26 08:06 PM
15

Had a similar scenario when working for the largest healthcare provider on earth. Turned up one day in shorts and a vest, changed into clothing that met the female requirements of the dress code policy, explaining to management that having to wearing trousers was too hot. Miraculously, an email went round ten minutes later suggesting “tailored shorts” were acceptable. It’s bullshit…
/r/MensRights09/07/26 04:16 PM
1

What in the shuddering fuck are you talking about? Most people didn’t know about a Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s had a federal holiday for the last 40 years until a movie came out in 2014… A quarter of a million attended the March on Washington. Over 100k attended his funeral. And then what, no one talked about him at all from 1968? Come on dude, you can’t possibly believe that…
/r/MensRights09/07/26 12:39 AM
13

And? They’ve received the biggest slice of prize money in the competitions they are eligible for. Why should they get paid for a competition they didn’t compete in?
/r/MensRights09/07/26 12:32 AM
10

And their pay has been relative to their league. They’ve been paid for their success, it’s just a bigger slice of a smaller pie.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 12:29 AM
1

That’s objectively inaccurate, and arguably incredibly disrespectful to a number of activist movements who have affected change… Mr Rogers sharing a pool with Officer Clemens is lauded as changing perceptions of racial segregation, and is arguably the strongest example of entertainment as activism out there. It was in 1969. MLK organised the March on Washington in 1963. If you truly believe your point about entertainment as “the most powerful” activism, you should be able to easily present a cas…
/r/MensRights09/07/26 12:18 AM
2

I’d disagree with that hugely - to the extent, I can’t think of a single example where the entertainment resulted in anything beyond entertaining…
/r/MensRights08/07/26 11:11 PM
5

Lin Watchorn as well. The thing is, this stuff is all in the sphere of “entertainment”, not activism. View it accordingly I guess.
/r/MensRights08/07/26 10:17 PM
3

I thought you were against ad hominem attacks?
/r/MensRights04/07/26 11:37 PM
1

Ok, I’m going to address both your responses in this one… “fuck Erin Pizzey” - without whom, domestic abuse shelters wouldn’t have existed as soon as they did in the UK. Gotcha. And seeing as there’s no clear definition of what a “real feminist” is, I’m going to have to view that as a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. And this is where the issue lies - “most actual feminists” who are allegedly fighting to address those inequalities are either being very quiet (and therefore ineffective) about it, or a…
/r/MensRights02/07/26 03:31 PM
2

Evidence of feminism fighting against alimony? Any source? Source for the claim “most men don’t fucking pay it”? As for DNA, that’s a matter of social perception - if paternity screening were a mandatory standard (like the legal presumption of paternity is), the issue is moot. But here’s the rub with feminism - the systemic presumption of paternity benefits women, and any suggestion of a systemic change is treated as a personal insult. Of course, there’s no risk to women in being able to commit …
/r/MensRights02/07/26 02:20 PM
1

I’m going to treat that as a massively uninformed ‘good faith’ question, even if it is an obvious attempt to avoid giving an answer to the question… Educational outcomes favouring women, unequal sentencing for the same crime, alimony / divorce settlements favouring women, homelessness, workplace injury / death, parental leave rights, and voting rights without draft requirement (for the USA) are the “headline” inequalities. Meanwhile, there are documented examples of feminist “activism” against p…
/r/MensRights02/07/26 02:14 PM
2

Can you show me a feminist advocating to address an inequality that benefits women?
/r/MensRights02/07/26 10:41 AM
13

Erin Pizzey’s dog was murdered because she had the temerity to suggest men’s shelters. So much for “equality” eh?
/r/MensRights29/06/26 08:06 PM
4

Personally I don’t think the MRA or Feminist label can be applied entirely as a binary, much the same as “anti-trans” is a very broad brush to paint with. Nuance matters, and is what I was alluding to when discussing how things seem to be round here. Incidentally, I never said you were trans either - it’s far less relevant to me what genitalia you do or do not have, given we’re just discussing on a public forum 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights23/06/26 01:17 PM
11

There are women who participate in this sub. And it’s Reddit anyway - “welcome” is such a fuzzy metric. Your experience here will be determined more by your attitude and perspectives than by your gender identity. That’s not to say you have to “toe the party line”, more to highlight that if you take a hardline pro-feminist stance, you’ll likely be given short shrift. If you engage in good faith and have reasoned views, the experience will be more pleasant. Time will tell.
/r/MensRights23/06/26 12:53 PM
1

Attentiveness issues again. You initially claimed “let’s base UK law on some random, unproven moral framework” two days ago - the burden of proof is with you. Sorry, you allow people online to impose things on you? It must be awfully sad living a life where social media comments dictate anything to you. It’s not “obvious’, because people online can’t impose anything on me, but you clearly struggle. The challenges of you being stupid again. “Feeling sad watching someone tell you your entire world…
/r/MensRights19/06/26 12:19 PM
1

Show me the proof of any moral framework. And again, you’re not paying attention - UK law is based in Christianity. Oh, and who are “you guys”? I’m not a lawmaker, and every country expects people to follow its laws. Funny take about expecting people to follow a religious doctrine, given your whole point is about maintaining legal protections for religious “moral tradition”. “Show me where I said that”. Oh, so you aren’t saying “Islamic or Jewish moral traditions” should be followed? Do you even…
/r/MensRights18/06/26 12:42 PM
1

The obvious (and joking) response is to say the American greens definitely can’t win a UK election 😉 And don’t rule out the spectre of a Tory-Reform coalition. The greens don’t have enough to win a general election without a coalition imo, and second isn’t guaranteed.
/r/MensRights17/06/26 08:23 PM
1

Right, but isn’t all of that indicative of how small a shot the Greens have at the next election? Sadly, I suspect “middle England” will end up getting Reform in, at which point we’ll be utterly fucked.
/r/MensRights17/06/26 01:05 PM
1

Law is based on morality. Islam and Judaism are also entirely unproven moral frameworks - it’s why they require faith for starters. And on the note of paying attention, why would a legally secular, predominantly Christian country base anything on “Islamic or Jewish moral traditions”? You proposing Islamic or Jewish law in the UK and calling anyone hypocritical for challenging it is beyond stupidity. Religious zealotry is infamous for its lack of intellect, and you’re just being another example.
/r/MensRights17/06/26 01:02 PM
2

What prohibits anyone is law. The UK is a secular country ostensibly, but majority Christian if you really have to bring religion into it. Suggesting Judaism or Islam should be any basis for a “worldview and moral framework” in the UK is a massive lack of self and socio-political awareness, and the height of hypocritical dogma. If the UK prohibits circumcision, it very much prohibits “you” in the UK.
/r/MensRights17/06/26 02:11 AM
1

At a certain level, it’s almost impressive they had enough mental capacity to totally misread your point and think about breathing at the same time…
/r/MensRights05/06/26 11:19 AM
2

Which would mean the entire point of menstrual leave is moot, as you state. The argument isn’t that “birth control should make it all better” - it that it does in some cases. What consideration is there for edge cases like that? Same query through a different lens - when does a woman “age out” of receiving menstrual leave (given that menopause occurs at varying ages)? The point isn’t about discussing whether this leave is necessary - we both seem to agree it’s redundant - it’s a question of wher…
/r/MensRights01/06/26 08:32 PM
3

Sure, but the question I’d raise in response to the devil there would be, does that cycle still include menstrual cramping bad enough to require time off work if there’s no menstruation? PMS symptoms may well still be present, but to the extent of necessitating time off? I’m not convinced.
/r/MensRights01/06/26 07:53 PM
1

There was a time where men and women came together to create dependents, but now it seems women are far more keen to simply be the dependents themselves.
/r/MensRights01/06/26 06:36 PM
1

The entire point of this sub is to decry sexism, and calling out the inequalities that feminism wilfully ignores isn’t “the opposite of feminism”.
/r/MensRights01/06/26 06:33 PM
1

Why bother though? You’re still here defending a meaningless point. At any point over the last two hours, you could have just posted about the issues you say you want to see discussed, but it seems it’s more important to spend your time explaining this nothing burger of a post. Ignoring this reply and going and making a meaningful post about something you actually want to discuss will be a far better use of your time, but I highly suspect you just won’t bother to do that.
/r/MensRights01/06/26 06:29 PM
2

It is “literally a sub where you can discuss anything related to men’s rights”, so discuss mens rights. It is not a sub to discuss your opinion on the volume of content on any given topic…
/r/MensRights01/06/26 06:24 PM
6

I’ve tried being delicate, but that’s clearly missing the mark. You’re not raising any “subject matter” here, it’s just a moan, and doesn’t drive any meaningful conversation (well, other than a few comments disagreeing with your take). Post the topics you want to discuss, it will be far more productive than posting about what you don’t want to talk about.
/r/MensRights01/06/26 05:19 PM
2

So share them? Be the change you want to see and all that…
/r/MensRights01/06/26 04:56 PM
3

So why not start conversation threads on those rather broad topics? Surely more productive than bemoaning conversations you don’t find valuable taking place. One of your preferred talking points (mental health) is one of the symptoms of another one (gender expectations), and one isn’t a rights issue at all (unless there’s a systemic or legal reason preventing men from visiting the doctor?) Meanwhile, SA statistics that have come to light in the last year or so demonstrate that men are roughly as…
/r/MensRights01/06/26 04:53 PM
19

And women on birth control that stops their period, what happens then? This makes an argument that women can’t work equally to men, and therefore don’t deserve equal pay (not my opinion, just a thought). The answer is increased sick days across the board, not a gendered solution in my opinion. There’s no guarantee that one day a month will be sufficient, or necessary every month, so a blanket policy isn’t likely to work…
/r/MensRights01/06/26 01:46 PM
19

This message is bought to you by Drakes’ hot sauce - for a spicy night without a costly aftermath! For fucks sake…
/r/MensRights30/05/26 08:57 AM
6

The scenarios proposed would offer a serious test of force doctrine if attempted…
/r/MensRights17/05/26 04:40 PM
3

So, can’t make a cogent point, can’t understand any alternative perspective to your own, resort to insult when challenged. Even a 12 year old would see that the reasoning is being questioned and be able to respond like an adult. You can’t, which is why you find this insufferable and are being a complete prick about it.
/r/MensRights17/05/26 09:29 AM
4

So, you’ve found an element you disagree with, and decided to disengage? If there is misinterpretation, it would make sense to clarify your point, rather than leap to bad faith suggestions like “hallucination”. Let’s look at yet another assumption - “the intended use of the dowry”. You made no statement on its intended use. If you truly believe that relationships are formed on the basis of a hierarchy of needs, then there isn’t a fundamental difference in our perspectives, it’s a fundamental fla…
/r/MensRights16/05/26 10:55 AM
10

Hmm… In the opening, you provide some well-reasoned points about the limitations of evolutionary psychology. In the middle, you give some loaded perspectives (which I’ll revisit in a bit), and your conclusions in the end all require the view of hypergamy to be rooted in evolutionary psychology, and for evolutionary psychology to be entirely wrong. Your point about studies primarily being undertaken in WEIRD countries could well be a byproduct of the EIRD elements of the acronym, and speaks more …
/r/MensRights14/05/26 11:13 PM
1

Damn, needless (and weak) attempt at condescension. Further bad faith… “I obviously did acknowledge said feelings could be due to violence” - without ever actually having said it. And again, those statistics don’t prove likelihood of being a victim for one, and show that the majority of women don’t become victims. It’s a stretch to use that as proof of rationality. Oh, OK, so the entirety of your point is based on a statistically improbable, unquantifiable “feeling”, which is debatably irrationa…
/r/MensRights12/05/26 07:44 PM
3

You also didn’t acknowledge, then or in any of your replies to me, what the feelings relate to - which, glaringly obviously is violence (as mentioned by the other commenter, not me). You provided statistics that show who the perpetrator is in the event of violence - what you can’t provide is a statistical likelihood of violence occurring in any given situation (assumption 3). You’re also using a statistical likelihood of a man being larger as a “proof” that the man will be larger erroneously (as…
/r/MensRights12/05/26 05:28 PM
3

So, using a fuckton of inaccurate words there to conclude exactly what the previous poster said - considering violence isn’t “disingenuous” in the least. You’ll note I didn’t question whether violence exists in the world (and quite why you felt the need to address points I didn’t make is inexplicable). And indeed, fearing violence isn’t irrational - in the same way raising it as the feared element isn’t “disingenuous”. What is disingenuous is completely avoiding answering the question and using …
/r/MensRights12/05/26 05:04 PM
2

What is the “larger threat” the unknown individual poses? Feeling “intimidated and/ or fearful” of what? And what fear does “being approached by a larger, stronger individual” invoke though? Likelihood is any example you can give is a form of violence, in which case, it’s not disingenuous at all…
/r/MensRights12/05/26 02:50 PM
3

Relationships offer risk to both parties. Marriage only increases risk to one party. Put differently, what additional risk comes to women in marriage (for clarity, that’s risk that isn’t present in a relationship)?
/r/MensRights11/05/26 10:02 PM
7

Never heard of hypergamy eh?
/r/MensRights11/05/26 09:55 PM
1

Yes, thought occurs in humans... It seems you’ve missed the critical point though - “thought conditioning” (more simply, conditioning) also occurs - the “other constraints that manipulate the thought process” bring us straight back to my earlier point about the hierarchical nature of source validity. By your earlier point of view “opinion then becomes simply thought provoking rather than any indication of a truth”, the entirety of the “soft sciences” (such as psychology, philosophy, ethics, law,…
/r/MensRights11/05/26 02:28 AM
8

Dude, this is the example you pick to make the point?
/r/MensRights10/05/26 10:08 PM
1

Sure - women selecting for height, IQ, and genetic fitness has nothing to do with the beauty standards they complain about being held to though. Even then, you can see that 5’8” to 6’6” is a range, not a clear standard, which is the point you seem to be debating. My point is that there is no clear standard - there’s certainly a very broad preferable range though. For example, there’s a bell curve of preference for breast size, which gives rise to the ‘need’ for expensive boob jobs - entirely opt…
/r/MensRights10/05/26 03:02 PM
1

Indeed - but where is the threshold between “thought provoking” and ‘thought conditioning’? (For want of a better term).
/r/MensRights10/05/26 01:00 PM
3

Exactly the type of response I was hoping to see - “lived experience” (the seeming common parlance to describe an anecdote) absolutely should be questioned, in every sphere. Notably the legal sphere; “believe all women” is a flawed concept, as it eschews critical analysis, to give an example. And there is definitely a hierarchy of information. There is also a hierarchy of scholar - peer review is still wide open to bias, and the source material used by a scholar should also be questioned.
/r/MensRights10/05/26 12:58 PM
2

Your comment is incomplete. Where does height, eye colour, or hair colour factor into that? There are broad strokes, but no one defining standard to achieve.
/r/MensRights10/05/26 12:54 PM
2

Of course, we truly can’t take anything said on Reddit as indicative of any form of social trend or view, unless it’s been directly espoused by a scholar, author, or - the usual vanguards of truth - content creators… By all means question the claims made, that’s reasonable. Diminishing the validity of the source before any has been provided reeks of a bad faith counterpoint brewing though.
/r/MensRights10/05/26 01:04 AM
58

“Female beauty standards are rooted in pedophilia” “The beauty industry is $700 billion a year, why spend so much to try and look like a child?” Both takes are equally ridiculous. There is no one defining standard; attractiveness is entirely subjective, and at an individual level, irrelevant.
/r/MensRights09/05/26 08:46 PM
0

The scale of exposure to feminism should have no impact on being able to ask questions. For example, if asking “what an ideal world looks like to a MRA” in terms of understanding the issues you’d like to see fixed, it’s better to ask “what issues does men’s rights seek to fix?” instead of “what does an ideal world for men and women look like?) You demonstrated this ability with questions like “are you pro-life or pro-choice?” and “do you believe in the draft?” - not “should abortion be illegal?”…
/r/MensRights09/05/26 01:29 PM
2

Taking these very loaded questions at face value… 1.) Women aren’t oppressing men in society. They do however have privileges that men do not. The use of the term oppression is misleading, as it was never a universal experience, nor a total binary. Throughout history, men have been responsible for women’s safety and wellbeing (which is why we still have divorce settlements favouring women and expectations on what engagement and wedding rings should cost). 2.) I don’t believe in either, in that t…
/r/MensRights09/05/26 11:48 AM
4

HR don’t choose who to hire or who to fire, they gatekeep the process of who can be hired, and who can be fired. HR doesn’t just “follow policies”, they are the biggest influence in writing policies. It’s literally how HR came to exist as a separate discipline from payroll, legal, and line management…
/r/MensRights08/05/26 01:08 PM
4

Well well… I also have over a decade in HR, and you’re posting a rather limited view here. Show me the organisation that has a hiring policy that is written entirely without HR providing the bulk of the input. Gender-based hiring initiatives that positively discriminate towards female hires all have to pass HR at some point. And that’s just skipping over the point about “C-Suite executives” who in the bulk of organisations address senior hires - which are limited by their nature. Of course, ther…
/r/MensRights08/05/26 01:04 PM
3

Whilst you’ve got bogged down in the example, you’ve missed the broader principle being demonstrated - equality and hypergamy are incompatible aims for the majority. For clarity, when the gap between the average and the exception is slimmer, the exceptional have greater choice - and the exceptional don’t select average in the main.
/r/MensRights08/05/26 12:51 PM
3

Just had a look back over the original post there, and something has sprung to mind - the “gay” for not pursuing / being interested… It’s quite the self own to suggest that any man would be a more desirable option to a straight man than the woman herself 😂 (Yes, I’m ignoring the homophobia of it deliberately there - I just think the appropriate response to the “are you gay or something” should be “I’d rather fuck a man than you”)…
/r/MensRights07/05/26 03:53 PM
4

I disagree hugely - “the aspect of marriage” isn’t the downside, it’s a failed marriage that is a massive downside. The increasing rate of marital failure is a massive concern, and is a reflection of far more than ‘yeah, but are you already banging?’ as a motivator for entering a marriage or otherwise, certainly in the western world. What’s more likely to be a causal factor in declining marriage rates since the late 60s is reform in divorce law.
/r/MensRights05/05/26 01:38 AM
14

As is ever the case, there’s way more nuance in play than you’ve considered - you’re presenting the benefits as existing in a binary (no marriage = getting sex, getting married = no sex for him). Unless there’s another read on “benefits of” there? Are they living together? What is her contribution financially? - put differently, is she already getting the “benefits of marriage” without the ‘opportunity’ to cause him financial damage (assuming nonsense like “common law marriage” doesn’t exist whe…
/r/MensRights04/05/26 10:48 PM
1

I’m not versant with Scottish legislation enough to say, but isn’t the legislation the judges written by act of parliament? (Genuine question - I’ve no idea where the line is between judges ‘enacting’ punishment within the law v. establishing legislation itself?) But yeah, neither the UK as a whole, or Scotland specifically is particularly great for men, legally speaking…
/r/MensRights04/05/26 10:40 PM
1

I’ve not seen the ads yet myself - how pernicious are they though? If it’s the usual NordVPN / Brilliant.com / Manscaped kinda stuff, who cares, it’s all over YouTube…
/r/MensRights04/05/26 02:01 PM
1

Didn’t those “funny laws” helpfully intervene when Scottish courts were advocating for rape trials without a jury though?
/r/MensRights04/05/26 01:58 PM
17

And this is just the ‘inception’ - if we take 75% of men who “believe” someone will fall in love with them, and assume that 1.) they’re all straight men, and 2.) they all get married, there’s only a 50% chance that someone will stay in love with them. 37.5% chance being very, very loose with figures there. The best case scenario looks pretty bad.
/r/MensRights03/05/26 01:05 PM
4

Awesome, I just learned it’s not misogyny if no one died. And if it is, it only hurts feelings, so it doesn’t matter, right? Christ…
/r/MensRights02/05/26 12:05 PM
6

Exactly my thoughts - if the answer to the “sexism” is agency, then it’s not sexist. Now watch it create a workforce shortage in warehouse staffing, or a group discrimination case when men aren’t hired to run the tills… The whole thing is stupid.
/r/MensRights30/04/26 03:59 PM
13

It’s also an ongoing court case in the UK - employees of a supermarket have taken their employer to court because the warehouse staff get paid more than cashier staff at the tills.
/r/MensRights30/04/26 10:01 AM
1

Well, I respect the apology, and nothing wrong with getting a little heated… As for the “you did say “any feminist””, I’ll once again refer to the chain of conversation - I referenced the feminist movement as a whole, you then replied addressing feminists as individuals. I responded to that point (“I’ve not seen any feminists”), and reiterated that I was referencing the movement as a whole. You can stand by it as much as you want, it’s all there in black and white. 🤷🏼‍♂️ Nevertheless, the femini…
/r/MensRights30/04/26 03:32 AM
1

I figured that would be the case… I have a screenshot of the notification, which I can’t post in here, or seemingly DM you. And as much as you may disagree that “the feminist movement has never done anything to help men”, that’s not something I’ve said anywhere. Seeing as we’re on the topic though, the only thing I can think of that feminism has done that does help men is parental leave (although huge inequity still persists). And here’s one simple question - if you truly believe in equality bet…
/r/MensRights29/04/26 11:24 PM
1

Intriguing - I can see a notification, but not the comment. Nevertheless, I’ll work with what I could see… “Dawg, you’ve literally just said any feminist” - yes, it is entirely possible to make a new reference in a sentence, then clarify a prior reference. “You’re dumb and you…” And that’s where the notification drops. If you’re going to resort to ad hominems, at least be accurate. You know, like understanding what tense is being used, not that that would make your point meaningful. So, let’s go…
/r/MensRights29/04/26 11:12 PM
17

Representation isn’t the argument - there has been no reason why a woman couldn’t start and run a successful company for over 50 years now. When the argument about CEOs springs up, I question what happened to Elaine Musk, Jane Bezos, and Stephanie Jobs. 🤔
/r/MensRights29/04/26 08:03 PM
1

How exactly do you generalise an individual? I’m yet to see any feminist speak out about violence perpetrated by women - and even then, you’ll note I very specifically used the phrase “the feminist movement” to speak about the feminist movement. Equally, I’m yet to see the feminist movement (again, not the elusive individuals, the movement) speak out about sentencing inequity, custody inequity, homelessness affecting men by a massive margin, or make any move to address misandry in any form. It’s…
/r/MensRights29/04/26 08:00 PM
1

Right, so equal rights would begin with recognising the issues faced by both sides. You’ve leapt to hyperbole rather than addressing any of the points raised - or recognising the pattern you yourself displayed. If it were taken seriously, we’d see greater numbers of women being jailed for violence against men (per recent statistics in the US and UK), and receiving equivalent sentences for it - we don’t, nor do we see the feminist movement looking to address that inequality (or any other that fav…
/r/MensRights29/04/26 07:20 PM
7

Sexism against men isn’t taken seriously at all - in fact, your point specifically highlights exactly how sexism against men is used to create systemic sexism against men. This exact mentality is what created things like the Duluth model, resulted in Erin Pizzey receiving death threats for suggesting men should have domestic violence shelters, and western governments burying male victims in statistic of female victims of IPV and DA. Another edge to your point here is that your immediate justific…
/r/MensRights29/04/26 06:59 PM
5

The key difference being how the “bad apples” are treated, within and beyond the confines of Reddit. Misandry is tolerated by authority, misogyny isn’t - it’s why any counterpoint to the Tea app gets banned or buried instantly, and why “Are we dating the same guy?” is allowed to continue to be a hive of libellous accusation. Try reporting any misandry you see, nothing will change. Report misogyny (valid or otherwise), and the ban hammer comes out instantly. Hell, you’ll be banned from entirely u…
/r/MensRights29/04/26 04:28 PM
2

Egalitarianism is what we should strive for if it’s about men and women helping each other. Feminism only addresses one half of the equation.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 02:15 PM
2

The problem with your points is they are entirely unsupported by any evidence - you’ve presented opinion as being “academic”. Whilst there needs to be a longitudinal study of this age group to give a meaningful series of trends, it doesn’t render anything you’ve said meaningful here. 1.) Economic factors would lend themselves to an increase in relationships - a shared financial burden is easier to carry. Of course, it flies in the face of hypergamy, and whilst social media isn’t the greatest bar…
/r/MensRights24/04/26 12:46 PM
3

This only addresses the relationship element of both feminism and men’s rights - and there are a lot of issues that fall far outside of relationships that are unresolved. No amount of happy marriages address the education gap, the empathy gap, or how criminal behaviour is unequally treated across genders. And it’s not a zero sum game - feminism has made some significant gains in addressing legislative inequality in a range of areas (voting, employment rights, and financial self-determination mos…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 09:39 PM
16

Even the claim of “equity” is dubious when you consider who is defining it…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 04:38 PM
3

There’s a fundamental issue in that any financial contribution (say, buying food if the man pays rent and bills) is perceived as a suppression of “women’s freedom financially”, which is ridiculous (given that removing rent and bills increases the financial freedom).
/r/MensRights15/04/26 08:56 AM
4

If they do this in the UK, the consequences would immediately be catastrophic - 76% of the NHS workforce are women. There are approximately 1.5m employees, so that’s the public pocket paying a huge amount of wage bill for time off… It’s also a solid argument against equal pay, given the ‘requirement’ of “for equal work”. There is potentially something to address here, but it needs to be better than a blanket “have uterus, get time off” policy (for example, is there a blanket age cut-off where me…
/r/MensRights13/04/26 07:55 PM
2

Not in the least. And if you can’t see how dating without marriage in mind isn’t dating with genuine intention, then there’s nothing left to be said. Still, good luck out there. You’ve got a 50/50 chance of any future marriage lasting, but hey, you’ll come out of it just fine. After all, you’ve already admitted that finances are a factor for you, and the laws favour you. Dating as a whole is way less risky for you - you don’t need to go far in here for a litany of examples.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 02:23 PM
2

Nope, I’m sticking to the topic of discussion - that being the financial risk of divorce to men. So no need to worry about “feeding into that”, because you’ve erroneously assumed that a limited discussion demonstrates the totality of my views. To address the further points - yes, guaranteeing divorce never occurs is impossible. Making the process either more equitable, or require a higher bar to access would dramatically mitigate the risk though. And the OP only “suggests” standard by your inter…
/r/MensRights11/04/26 01:06 PM
3

It’s not confirmation bias, it’s feedback, and also a shame that you can’t see the male perspective here - despite it being very clearly presented. Sadly, it’s not “cherry pick things out of context”, it’s a viewpoint that undermines the rest of your point. Your point certainly isn’t “posing men v women”, but it does entirely absolve women from any agency. There again, divorce is a problem that more negatively affects men than women, so where would be the incentive I guess. And the claim that wo…
/r/MensRights11/04/26 10:51 AM
6

“That’s actually the point of marriage: To get men to commit to providing for women” - nearly, but not quite - it’s about transferring the responsibility for providing for a woman from father to husband. It’s why the tradition of the father “giving away” his daughter exists, or why it is encouraged to seek the father’s permission to propose. It’s also the root of practices like dowry payments and arranged marriages outside of Judeo-Christian cultures (although both have featured in the past). Di…
/r/MensRights10/04/26 11:54 PM
3

“Please help me to understand why I would be driven to make myself known with flashing lights that I am not after your money just to get you to become available to get to know.” Because men also don’t like the feeling of having “an empty cup being held out” at them either, and judging by your desire to have potential partners presenting themselves and what they “wish to offer and contribute”, sure looks that way - especially if it’s “qualities more than assets at first” (heavily implying a poten…
/r/MensRights10/04/26 11:47 PM
6

If you think you’ve met a Unicorn, odds are it’s a Rhino with incredible filters…
/r/MensRights10/04/26 11:40 PM
2

Yet. The missing piece there is yet.
/r/MensRights10/04/26 07:19 PM
12

“The court had previously heard that IF the dates were correct in her diary, the final three days before she died LOOKED as if they had been removed.” That “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. And note they can’t conclusively state the dates were accurate, or that the days had definitively been removed. It’s also skipping over one very obvious issue as well - if there is material that could be considered evidentiary of prolonged abuse (which it seems the diary is), why specifically remove the l…
/r/MensRights08/04/26 10:51 PM
9

The giant factor comes in not giving them the same expectations. Wasn’t it about “equality”? If so, why is it unequal?
/r/MensRights05/04/26 12:24 PM
214

The heteronormative presumption doesn’t bother me at all, and the delegation of responsibility is something of an annoyance. What does leap out at me is how many commenters want to jump straight to the “she asked him to fix it” point instead of recognising how fucking easy it is to call a plumber or handyman and actually get it fixed. It’s counter-weaponised incompetence at this stage.
/r/MensRights28/03/26 11:20 PM
4

And that’s after a long swim across an ocean to fling those goalposts further afield… 🙄
/r/MensRights05/03/26 03:30 PM
4

Ah, “but they started it”. A timeless defence of the unacceptable.
/r/MensRights05/03/26 03:27 PM
2

This. Threads is a hive of misandry.
/r/MensRights04/03/26 12:54 PM
15

“Equality” was a move on from “Equal Rights” too…
/r/MensRights02/03/26 10:33 AM
1

I’m not an American, but that’s irrelevant. And I’m unsure as to why you’re pushing so hard against this one? The position is that women aren’t war-like - Queen Victoria isn’t proof of that point at all.
/r/MensRights20/02/26 01:50 AM
1

Right, so let’s get this straight - Queen Victoria isn’t a valid example to counter the position that “War and fascism are, I think, boys games” because no Monarch since Queen Anne has exercised royal veto? Being a constitutional monarch doesn’t remove the veto power, nor does it remove Victoria as the head of the biggest colonial empire seen in history - prime circumstances in which a less war-like and peaceful leader would veto expensive colonial land grabs perhaps?
/r/MensRights20/02/26 01:11 AM
1

Indeed. She only had veto power of every law in the land and commanded the military. Prime Ministers are just elected representatives of Her Majesty’s Government…
/r/MensRights19/02/26 04:21 PM
2

How does being a constitutional monarch dismiss her or invalidate the proposition though?
/r/MensRights19/02/26 12:57 PM
3

Queen Victoria is an obvious omission…
/r/MensRights18/02/26 03:27 PM
7

Queen Victoria oversaw the creation of the largest colonial empire in history. The most celebrated day on earth (local variations of Independence Day) are the direct result of it.
/r/MensRights18/02/26 03:25 PM
7

Well, there’s two perspectives surrounding the percentage leading to jail time - either it means the standard of proof required is too high, or that it is provided with sufficient doubt to impart a guilty verdict from a jury. “Do the victims ever truly get justice?” The core presumption required by the question is that all allegations are true. I’m well aware that there are no names mentioned in the given examples. Can you explain how that would make libel on social media impossible as a concept…
/r/MensRights16/02/26 10:22 PM
3

Can you see how adopting “provisional belief” and suggesting that innocent until proven guilty in case of sexual abuse after seems like an incredibly bad faith argument? By the same token, can you also point out where I have denied “that the abuse ever occurred”? “Should we also deny the validity of their own experiences?” Absolutely, until further details are in place - at the very least, ‘trust but verify’; an element that is completely lacking in your thoughts. It seems that questioning the c…
/r/MensRights16/02/26 10:14 PM
10

I would much rather see genuine victims receive justice through the legal process - and there are a lot of issues in the legal system - rather than a string of unquantifiable vague accusations. And whilst there are no criminal convictions in the “court of social media”, there is ample opportunity to commit libel. It’s not about silencing victims, it’s about finding truth. And that’s the core of what I’m saying (which you appear to have completely missed) - we should support victims, through the …
/r/MensRights16/02/26 09:59 PM
10

“Stories” - a word you yourself use to describe the allegations made in the comments. That’s the rub - without any evidence, they are just stories. Not truth, not facts, stories. It’s like you are purposely accepting every one of these allegations as fact. How disingenuous and disgusting. See how that works? When you respond to OP suggesting they have no evidence of the accused’s innocence, you completely disregard that the core foundation of law is the presumption of innocence absent evidence o…
/r/MensRights16/02/26 11:10 AM
34

By the same token, it’s interesting that you seem to require nothing beyond an allegation for abuse and harassment to have actually happened. The court of social media doesn’t need proof, rational thought does.
/r/MensRights16/02/26 10:56 AM
2

It may not be what you meant, but “we as males need to fix” is very much saying just that. And using the term “community” is a dramatic understatement of the ‘group’ size here; it’s literally half the world’s population.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 06:23 AM
14

Right, but there’s a huge difference between calling out unacceptable behaviour (which everyone should be doing, and isn’t an outright “fix”), and stating it’s one genders’ responsibility to fix it.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 01:18 AM
25

“I agree that it is a collective issue that we as males need to fix” That’s the bit that’s garnering the downvotes I think. I can’t speak for the group, but there is no way I’m being held responsible for the actions of an individual, or being considered accountable for their behaviour because I happen to have the same genitals. It can’t be reasonable to suggest I’m the only person who holds that view. You know, much like you wouldn’t advise judging an entire ethnic group by the actions of one of…
/r/MensRights14/02/26 12:51 AM
14

You can only die once, but one can make multiple suicide attempts. Something tricky to pick up in anonymised stats.
/r/MensRights12/02/26 07:12 PM
1

Right, so it is the “larger reasons” that are the key determinant as to whether a crime occurs or not, rather than the gender. Wouldn’t this therefore make femicide a statistical “anomaly” presented as gender based crime?
/r/MensRights11/02/26 07:27 AM
2

This doesn’t need the scale of compartmentalisation that it’s being given though. An entire school is overkill when selective segregation across time (ie lesson planning across days) rather than space (an entire school) could achieve the same result. And a note on location - this is in a rural area, where I can’t imagine the budget for educational provision is high. In which case, every peso needs to achieve maximum benefit for the entire populous. As you’ve said, the genders have different need…
/r/MensRights11/02/26 07:09 AM
1

The issue surrounding femicide is not its existence or otherwise, it’s that it’s overly weighted socially and politically. If we follow the logic that a gendered reason for victimhood can be applied, femicide should receive far less attention than androcide, based on the statistics - addressing androcide first would statistically save more lives after all. We’re discussing criminality - already a vast minority of any nations population - and the solution to societal scale criminality needs to co…
/r/MensRights11/02/26 07:03 AM
2

With the exception of “menstrual health”, there’s nothing offered that is solely for girls though, which is the point - why have a feminiteca, when all it’s describing is a good school? Boy not being excluded here doesn’t mean they are going to be well catered for, or will have any interest in a female focussed education (where educational really isn’t a gendered exercise). And why bother having a “boys version of a feminiteca”? Surely just a higher standard of education across the board is a be…
/r/MensRights11/02/26 05:17 AM
14

From the opening of the article, translated to English: “A safe space that promotes equality, violence prevention and the empowerment of girls and adolescents”. If these are seen as desirable educational outcomes for a society, why gender them? This is the issue; why not “A safe space that promotes equality, violence prevention and empowerment of students”? I’m unsure of any example of societal problems being solved by exclusion or isolation across history. And if these problem is societal in na…
/r/MensRights11/02/26 05:00 AM
3

This is where you’ve given an example that clarifies the inference / induction point raised earlier. To infer that femicide occurs solely because a woman is a woman, you have to ignore other factors, such as race, locality, age, etc at induction. By reducing the causal factors from a range to the single variable of gender, you’re only inducting one variable, and inferring it to be the sole cause.
/r/MensRights11/02/26 04:51 AM
2

“There’s a read that indicates you wanted…” is not a direct accusation, but comprehension seems to be a massive issue for you - which is why you don’t understand how massively problematic your whole take is. Anyway, I’m done wasting my time here, you’re clearly offering nothing of value.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 03:47 AM
1

Well, your response has officially been pushed off of what’s visible on mobile, and I sure as shit aren’t going to log on desktop to read the entirety of it… From what I have seen, you’re calling me a “bad actor” for “degrading your character”? You added a qualifier to an act of rape, this isn’t about disagreeing with your point of view, it’s about recognise and calling out shit takes, and “they probably enjoyed it” or whatever your current analogue of it is is one of the shittiest takes out the…
/r/MensRights08/02/26 09:19 PM
3

Your initial take was pretty delusional, but you excusing rape and calling anyone else the problem is borderline Trumpian. And “bad faith actor”? Just because your dogshit take has been called out (by more than just me), doesn’t make any of it bad faith. Take a moment to self-reflect here kid, you’ve hugely diluted what I can only presume to be an accidentally good point (regarding the legality) with a hugely tone deaf perspective (they “pushed for the sexual encounter”). Why stop there - after …
/r/MensRights08/02/26 03:07 PM
2

Talks like a rape apologist, calls others disgusting. You don’t even belong on Reddit. Your entire point is a hugely inappropriate red herring.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 01:34 PM
4

There’s someone in this thread dropping the whole “they probably enjoyed it” bullshit. It’s a ridiculous take.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 01:38 AM
4

I was also a boy once, and unlike you it seems, I wasn’t a complete moron… Firstly, boys aren’t a monolith, and secondly, there’s a read in what you’ve said that indicates you wanted sex with someone who’s allegedly got the IQ of a child as a teen - something you’d know if you’d bothered to read the content. And this line of thought “on what boys naturally desire” is exactly what makes the law “less powerful”. Honestly, it’s a staggering lack of awareness to come onto a post about how inappropri…
/r/MensRights08/02/26 01:36 AM
3

Let’s run with all the mental health stuff (and weigh in the “underdeveloped frontal cortex” shit for funsies) - even if true, why hasn’t he got her in a controlled environment to address it all? It’s plainly bullshit on his part, but if there’s even a gram of truth to it, he’s culpable too.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 12:35 AM
5

“It’s likely these boys pushed for the sexual encounter”. Eh? Clearly states in the article the woman created fake online personas… So, riddle me this - if that woman is such an object of lust to fucking 12 year olds, why did she choose to hide her identity? Ever stop to consider it’s got fuck all to do with boys being “culturally taught” anything and everything to do with her being a sexual predator?
/r/MensRights08/02/26 12:32 AM
4

I stand corrected - I’d misread her early involvement in the WLM somewhat. Cheers for the details.
/r/MensRights24/01/26 04:41 AM
1

These a reason for every issue feminism addresses, and all but one of them are because they aren’t men (the sole exception being abortion, and even that affects men).
/r/MensRights24/01/26 12:18 AM
5

Erin Pizzey was a feminist, and the founder of the first domestic abuse shelter for women in the UK. When she attempted to open a shelter for male victims of domestic abuse, she received so many death threats and bomb threats that the Police had to open her mail. She emigrated when feminist activists murdered her dog. I’ve seen no trace of feminist activism to address educational inequalities, divorce law reform, child custody reform, or sentencing inequity, to pick just a handful of issues. Thi…
/r/MensRights24/01/26 12:14 AM
9

The ideology that is feminism inherently seeks to avoid inequalities that primarily affect men - and has even taken extreme measures to ensure inequalities affecting men and neglected; just ask Erin Pizzey.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 08:37 PM
4

There is no valid reason for this to happen. If it’s about getting pregnant outside of an active sexual relationship, sperm donors are a thing. If it’s about getting pregnant outright, dating apps are a thing. If it’s about being a parent, adoption is a thing. There are no barriers to becoming a parent that would require “a trusted male friend”, let alone any that would warrant the significant financial and personal risk to said friend.
/r/MensRights07/01/26 12:53 AM
1

I respect that - your recovery is more important than anything else in the immediate. I’d still suggest making some noise down the line though - whatever medical regulator, the hospital board, and local media all copied into a written complaint should cause them enough inconvenience that they’ll maybe have some introspection about not being a wanker publicly at least. Mind you, that’s probably more my annoyance speaking than solid advice. Get well soon.
/r/MensRights20/11/25 11:29 PM
1

Sounds like grounds for a formal complaint to whatever medical board oversees that hospital. Absolutely atrocious behaviour that. Hopefully the post surgical recovery goes well.
/r/MensRights20/11/25 09:53 PM
6

We’ve been letting the Mesopotamians off lightly for way too long!
/r/MensRights22/09/25 01:08 PM
5

Or, even more simply, question what they mean by “protected groups”, because “women” aren’t a “protected group”. Gender is legally viewed as a protected category, and that includes everyone…
/r/MensRights16/09/25 03:14 PM
1

And yet, for all that knowledge of social media, you know fuck all about empathy. Your brother tried to kill himself for the content you haven’t taken down you absolute ghoul…
/r/MensRights12/09/25 02:32 AM
14

“Still one of the biggest”… Doesn’t your brothers’ attempt on his life give you sufficient reason to take down all your channels and step down from modding? Either the post is utter bullshit, or you’ve got absolutely no conviction.
/r/MensRights12/09/25 01:23 AM
10

It doesn’t matter if they’re too short by an inch or a mile, pants are pants.
/r/MensRights19/08/25 10:24 AM
7

Username doesn’t check out…
/r/MensRights30/07/25 07:52 PM
1

Ah, the auto mod would be why there’s no posts about the hack then… NBC report here. Plenty of other sources out there with a quick Google search.
/r/MensRights27/07/25 12:02 AM
-1

Thanks. With education and employment failing men and boys, marriage laws as they are, paternity fraud, sentencing inequity, and a raft of other issues, women being able to limit their options for getting a taxi really doesn’t seem like the hill to die on to me. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights24/07/25 08:50 PM
24

Guilty women though? Where to discuss that? 🤔
/r/MensRights24/07/25 02:58 PM
-11

Sound rhetoric, with highly limited tangible impact. For drivers of either gender, they can actively discriminate already - which can adversely effect wait times for both riders and drivers. The adverse impact on male drivers incomes is impossible to quantify; if a female rider does not want a male driver, she can cancel rides until she gets a female driver anyway. The whole thing is a microcosm of economics; it is merely offering the customer more choice. It does not guarantee the selected choi…
/r/MensRights24/07/25 03:56 AM
-12

There’s two faces two this - the customer (who is merely being offered the option to select a preference), and the driver (who already have the ability to reject a pickup without qualification in the app). Whilst I see the argument that it discriminates against men, what is the functional harm caused (given that drivers can refuse a pickup without the need for the policy)?
/r/MensRights24/07/25 03:21 AM
1

Hmm. Not entirely in agreement there - the nature of Ubers employment model is such that there’s no guarantee of work at a contractual level, so there’s no “job” to be eliminated. The likely cover is offering user choice, which I suspect is robust enough to survive legal challenge in and of itself - provided the option to only request male drivers is also offered, to address gender based discrimination. This is the grey area; gender is a legally protected category in most territories Uber operat…
/r/MensRights24/07/25 03:09 AM
1

The fundamental flaw in that position is that nobody is forced to transact at all. It’s like suggesting KFC should be forced to sell burgers, because people shouldn’t be forced to eat chicken…
/r/MensRights24/07/25 12:02 AM
3

This is where there is a seemingly this-far undiscussed concern - market forces. If demand outstrips supply, will Uber incentivise female drivers? If so, would that not be de facto gender based discrimination (and therefore questionably legal)? There is a potential legal Pandora’s box here for Uber - or some difficult operational considerations.
/r/MensRights23/07/25 11:53 PM
1

The replies to this also show why it’s important to analyse how the statistics are collated and interpreted - without doing so, it becomes very easy to attempt to rebuke any point with the ironically convenient statement made around “biased” data sources (without any effort to qualify if bias is present or otherwise), passing this off as some form of “critical thinking”. Moving on with this, there’s a burden of proof issue in your second point - “most modern legal systems have gender-neutral def…
/r/MensRights23/07/25 11:40 PM
15

So the natural first step is to download an app and take unverifiable “advice” from random strangers? Can you suggest any other situation where the primary steps to ensure security involve use of a gossip app?
/r/MensRights23/07/25 11:16 PM
7

Alternate take - if you view this equal treatment without a gendered lens, you’re an egalitarian.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 07:20 AM
9

I can tell you’ve not read it - they were fined £1600 (about $2000), which will go to the man. The amount is hugely insufficient, as he also lost his possessions when requesting help with storage costs (£500 upfront needed). Ridiculous outcome - the minimum wage for under 20 is £10 an hour, so this isn’t even five weeks of full time pay…
/r/MensRights06/07/25 10:32 AM
3

The only one of those that doesn’t apply to all men is 4a, and that’s a technicality (a number of countries don’t have voting rights tied to selective service; they just have gendered conscription instead).
/r/MensRights06/07/25 12:48 AM
4

“If you truly believe that to be the case, it appears to me that you will be more of a pain than a partner, and more of a burden than a benefit” 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights03/07/25 04:33 AM
3

Sounds like we have similar tastes… I can recommend Renovation East (German guy single-handedly refurbishes a small house), Get Hands Dirty (Portuguese carpenter building out a small apartment), Never Too Small (architecture in small spaces), and Living Big In a Tiny Home for building / renovating stuff. For cars, Autoalex, Top Dead Centre, and Mighty Car Mods should all be up your street. Aside from random recommendations that YouTube might well have already thrown your way, it’s a solid point …
/r/MensRights30/06/25 09:07 PM
2

And since I’m dealing with someone who’s borderline illiterate, let’s recap… Let’s start with the basic logic; your issue is with the establishment applying their rules, because permission wasn’t sought. The basic logic would follow that, in order to also breach said rules, the kid with cancer would also have to seek permission for a non-regulation haircut - rather than “forgiveness BS” after the fact. This is the position you present, which renders your poor “explanation” of projection totally …
/r/MensRights22/05/25 03:55 PM
6

Intrigued to see what you think I’m projecting, but that’s a total aside… And seeing as we’re falling into ad hominems, what kind of idiot are you to conflate telling the school about a breach of a rule making any difference to its application? You trying to say the rule doesn’t matter if the school is told about a breach in advance?
/r/MensRights22/05/25 12:45 PM
22

Ah yes, school rules can’t possibly have any nuanced application can they? I presume you’d advocate for the school to ban the kid with cancer from the prom and put him in isolation if he loses his hair to chemo treatments, because, you know, rules are rules…
/r/MensRights22/05/25 02:41 AM
1

Right, so we can move the goalposts for the first element to suit, but we can’t consider nuance on receiving affirmation? “I don’t think this is an anomaly” =/= “demonstrably false”. Again, your whole argument is “that isn’t happening to me, therefore it’s wrong”.
/r/MensRights13/05/25 11:33 PM
1

At the most literal level, sure - however, “demonstrably false” by your terms is nowhere near sufficient, which is “the point”. Hence why I said you having had a hug a fortnight ago is a weak rebuttal. Especially given you’ve demonstrably proved one of the elements (never had flowers), and can’t disprove another (arguably “not recently” can be seen as supporting the point). Either way, your counterpoint is essentially “it happened to me, so it can’t be true”.
/r/MensRights13/05/25 11:21 PM
2

“The last few months” is an awfully low bar, and a really weak rebuttal of the point…
/r/MensRights13/05/25 10:04 PM
7

It’s even easier to make arguments by cherrypicking the bad examples, which is what modern feminism seems to do to cover a lack of objectivity. Every gendered argument requires far more nuance than it’s usually given…
/r/MensRights11/05/25 11:20 PM
3

It’s an irrelevant statement every time - it’s only ever used as a very weak counterpoint to issues they don’t directly affect women. The response to it is simply “men did, why don’t you want to address (this issue) as part of the societal change you want?” The reasoning behind it is incredibly facile too - without an “enemy” to blame (‘the patriarchy’), claims have to face scrutiny. It’s a bullshit argument; men also set up the system to benefit women, so I guess all that should be torn down to…
/r/MensRights05/05/25 05:48 PM
3

One thing that leaps out to me is the concept of “anti-feminism”, and I think it is something to be cautious about (as indeed is “feminism” itself, but more to come on that). The idea of anti-feminism is odd - any disagreement or reasoned critique of feminism is seen as being against the whole concept of equality, which is clearly untrue. From what you’ve written, you’re clearly far more off an egalitarian than a feminist; the points you raise have an objective fairness about them, even where th…
/r/MensRights02/05/25 09:38 AM
23

It is a nadir fallacy, plain and simple - the verbiage here is used to justify it. For example, the US had 1.8m prisoners in 2022, and a male population of 165.13m. Even if every prisoner were male, this equates to 1.09% of men in the US - and it doesn’t mean all of these prisoners are there for crimes against women either. “A tiny proportion of men, but always a man” doesn’t have the same ring to it does it?
/r/MensRights16/04/25 12:47 AM
1

Nope. Equal is objective, “just” is subjective. To exemplify; I employ two people of different genders and pay them exactly the same. It is impossible to argue that this is not equal, yet it is possible to question if it is “just”.
/r/MensRights11/04/25 02:15 PM
1

Let’s use the UK as an example, given it fits that example perfectly… What you describe is “equity” in action, compounded by inherent bias. It’s important to account for circumstance in any sentencing - which is why sentencing guidelines are set in the UK (or “mandatory minimums” in the US). The solution to this is more conclusive guidelines within a tighter scope of sentencing options, much like the US categorises crimes by degrees. Equality isn’t subjective; the scale and nature of a crime is …
/r/MensRights11/04/25 02:02 PM
27

I think your next (ie last) conversation with this woman should go along the lines of “your accusations that I am speaking with other women are all the motivation I need to start talking with other women. I believed you had relationship potential, you believed anonymous people on the internet, and sadly we were both wrong. Please don’t contact me again.”
/r/MensRights10/04/25 08:38 PM
3

Sure, as long as there’s no underlying idea of what treating people equally is. You are equating unequal outcomes with unequal treatment here - which is the only way in which “reward” could occur. If anything, egalitarianism puts the onus on the individual - if you have had the same opportunities as everyone else, the reason for your success or failure is on you, not society. As an aside, this logic would explain why feminism ensures it is separate from egalitarianism; no need for accountability…
/r/MensRights10/04/25 08:22 PM
6

If egalitarianism is treating everyone equally, why would it favour victims (real or self-perceived)? By the same token, why is the counterpoint to egalitarianism patriarchy? The measure of equality is in opportunity, and the groupings it measures are more diverse than man or woman. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that everyone in their given society should have the same opportunities - and crucially, the same responsibilities.
/r/MensRights10/04/25 08:10 PM
24

As much as there is a huge amount of discussion to be had around all this, all I want to highlight is a former professional footballer blaming gaming for anything can fuck right off…
/r/MensRights23/03/25 04:35 PM
7

Hmm… Unless one views social Darwinism as a form of survival mechanism against the absence of the rights this group is seeking to obtain (or the inequalities it seeks to redress). Whilst it is not an axiomatic truth to say “this society doesn’t care about you” or “nobody is going to help you”, it’s not detrimental to act as if both statements are true - this can be done whilst being empathetic. Equally, the point itself is reductionist; no individual can be solely describe by a single belief str…
/r/MensRights12/03/25 05:50 AM
1

No, thank you - your stuff is excellent. I’ve dropped you a DM about some AI stuff, and I’m looking forward to seeing phase two come to life.
/r/MensRights11/03/25 10:43 AM
14

The Tin Men appear to have a channel - if it’s the same guys who post here, it should be good (only just found it now).
/r/MensRights10/03/25 12:56 AM
2

“And we can address that once we’ve dealt with the issues that cause men to do it successfully”.
/r/MensRights09/03/25 06:00 PM
14

Sure thing, it’s usually more than one without punishment and called conscription though…
/r/MensRights08/03/25 07:14 PM
13

“Misandry annoys, misogyny kills” - so, unless the result is death, it is not misogyny; by extension, no feminist issues can be deemed misogynistic, unless they directly result in death. If shitty logic is the name of the game, then use shitty logic 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights07/03/25 08:23 PM
2

Fair.
/r/MensRights07/03/25 10:31 AM
3

Indeed - but it’s highly likely the med board would have some knowledge of who’s in med school, and this kind of behaviour is the type of thing that means they shouldn’t be registered with a med board.
/r/MensRights06/03/25 11:09 PM
-5

…which is entirely what my final sentence is about… I’ve not seen an example of anyone doing this before, and anyone who does this kind of stuff should face consequences. Until I’m aware of a woman getting away with it entirely and a man being censured for it, it’s not about gender. It’s just shit behaviour.
/r/MensRights06/03/25 07:48 PM
4

Doesn’t matter if it’s offensive at all. Does matter if it’s viewed as unprofessional or unethical. Holding any individual accountable for their own actions does not “ruin a life”, the actions do. Since we don’t have all the info, best left to those who can gain all the info and - crucially - have the proper authority to act upon the info. Maybe we do that?
/r/MensRights06/03/25 06:55 PM
51

OP should have a solid idea of what state they’re in, and has her name in the photo anyway (it’s censored here).
/r/MensRights06/03/25 06:49 PM
259

Report to the state medical board, they’ll do the rest.
/r/MensRights06/03/25 04:21 PM
18

Report it anyway - let the medical professionals who licence other medical professionals make an informed decision about what to do.
/r/MensRights06/03/25 04:20 PM
20

It’s not gendered - if a male med student did this with a pair of testicles, he should also forgo the career opportunity. The issue is the action, not the gender of the protagonists (the hope here is that the consequences are fair, regardless of the gender).
/r/MensRights06/03/25 04:18 PM
8

This isn’t a singular lapse in judgement, it’s multiple. Posing with testicles of the deceased. Asking someone to photograph it. Posting the photograph. That’s three opportunities to recognise poor judgement and three “lapses”? We’re not considering the person taking the photo either, as an aside. Medical professionals make life or death judgement calls throughout their career - I’m not sure any amount of remorse can instill confidence in this woman’s decision making given the circumstances. Her…
/r/MensRights06/03/25 04:12 PM
16

You could just read the new guidance Have a little look at Section 3 regarding requirements for a “Pre-sentencing report” (which is used to help the court determine what sentence would be appropriate), which explicitly state “female” as a cohort for which a report is deemed necessary.
/r/MensRights06/03/25 04:02 PM
2

“So, if you can’t be sexist towards men, you also can’t be biased towards men either?”
/r/MensRights04/03/25 03:56 PM
1

Whenever I look back at the management I’ve worked for in the past, I remember competence and personality. I’ve had useless bosses at a variety of heights.
/r/MensRights04/03/25 01:47 PM
9

Sure, we joke about testicles. We also joke about breasts. We don’t joke about cancer though - might want to tell her that’s the offensive bit, in case she missed it…
/r/MensRights02/03/25 06:40 PM
1

I’m not a young guy. Obviously it’s all down to the individual, and scale matters - involved isn’t the issue for me, it’s the drama potential (needs a risk assessment, but there’s enough going on in that list to make it a no anyway).
/r/MensRights02/03/25 12:46 PM
3

You made it past number 3?
/r/MensRights02/03/25 11:43 AM
3

“Cool, can you email me the breakdown of work division for the project?” Follow this up with an email to the group requesting clarification. If they won’t email it, contact professor with your concern about unclear roles. If they do email it, contact professor with your concern about division of work. 🤷🏼‍♂️ Edit to add - not really a rights issue, I’d be giving the same advice if it was a bunch of guys doing the same thing.
/r/MensRights28/02/25 06:03 PM
18

Yes, MRA’s can be considered to be a “counterbalance to a feminist movement”. I’ve commented here previously that my interest in men’s rights stems from the inequalities that feminism has not addressed. If the aim is equality (as presented by feminism), then all inequalities need to be considered.
/r/MensRights28/02/25 04:45 PM
1

My first thought too…
/r/MensRights27/02/25 10:28 PM
2

Tell me you don’t understand tax without telling me you don’t understand tax… Master that, then we can talk about budgeting, life expenses, and what constitutes value for money.
/r/EverydayMisandry26/02/25 06:00 PM
1

Ah, a bad faith argument. Well, I’m done wasting my time, hopefully you heal and learn to see past your hate. All the best.
/r/MensRights26/02/25 01:32 PM
3

We all do already, it’s called society.
/r/MensRights26/02/25 01:12 PM
2

What do they expect men to think about when masturbating, if not a human being? 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/EverydayMisandry24/02/25 06:18 PM
12

It’s a nadir fallacy - the vast majority of men are not violent criminals.
/r/MensRights24/02/25 02:00 PM
15

There is a series called “The Dropout” on Disney+. Haven’t watched it though. Oh, and she got sentenced to 11 years 3 months, which is a joke.
/r/MensRights23/02/25 10:27 AM
71

The false accuser was an 11-year-old neighbour. The bigger outrage for me goes to the officer who deliberately failed to pass on the medical details to the prosecutor - seemingly no punishment for that.
/r/MensRights21/02/25 11:16 AM
57

Firstly, lesbians exist. Secondly, I thought women didn’t dress “for men”. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/EverydayMisandry19/02/25 08:36 PM
5

Yep - the Fundraising Regulator whose logo is on your screenshot. Do a search for them on www.gov.uk, should find it from there…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 07:26 PM
8

Sounds like something to raise with the Fundraising Regulator - demeaning the proposed recipients of your ‘charitable’ work is unacceptable.
/r/MensRights18/02/25 05:59 PM
5

Of course, the “equality” sought by feminism (by both types suggested by OP) is highly conditional - if it doesn’t directly benefit women, there’s no consideration of addressing it. Previous waves of feminism had clearly defined, objective goals (right to vote, right to birth control, right to work / financial independence). Modern feminism lacks this, and needs men and the patriarchy as a scapegoat to call for ill-defined goals and to hide the lack of objectivity. That OP has met some people wh…
/r/MensRights18/02/25 05:38 PM
4

The comments there don’t inspire hope for anything productive…
/r/MensRights17/02/25 05:41 PM
2

Might want to point out that just like her take on the education statistics being Western focused, the human trafficking and forced marriage stats are not representative of the Western world. Can’t just cherry pick context…
/r/MensRights16/02/25 02:49 PM
3

…and when we’re not at the metaphorical pool, what then?
/r/EverydayMisandry18/01/25 10:17 AM
25

This is a matter of ‘training’ for the AIs themselves - there’s minor differences across different ones, but they’re all given guidelines as to what is and isn’t deemed acceptable conduct, most of which is a microcosm of prevailing social attitudes. Another element to it is that this is compounded by what is in the public domain for the AI to reference. Think of it like a librarian in this respect - if you ask for all the books on “men’s studies” and “women’s studies”, and the bulk of what you’r…
/r/MensRights15/01/25 02:15 PM
28

“The greatest trick the Devil pulled was convincing feminists the patriarchy exists”
/r/MensRights12/01/25 01:10 AM
27

An incredibly loose definition of patriarchy there… Are you talking the apex fallacy of applying “patriarchy” to men as a monolith on the basis of the minority in the upper echelons of society - most of whom disadvantage men of lower influence? Or are you talking about patriarchy in familial structures that are defined around the male taking both accountability and responsibility for the female that still very much exists in the marriage contracts in the west based on precepts from - checking my…
/r/MensRights12/01/25 01:05 AM
9

Mens rights exists to discuss the inequalities feminism doesn’t address. Looking your listed “benefits”, in order; • Hasn’t happened • Has happened in 1 of 196 countries • References one example, still blames men (“patriarchy”) • Fluffy rhetoric that isn’t grounded in reality Tangibly, feminism - either moderate or radical - exists to benefit women. Historically, there were objective goals former waves achieved (rights to vote, work, own property, birth control). The current wave of feminism has…
/r/MensRights07/01/25 11:55 AM
2

It’s pretty meaningless from the “just grab them by the pussy” guy 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/EverydayMisandry04/01/25 11:53 AM
5

What, surely you’re not questioning the journalistic integrity of such an esteemed periodical as the Daily Mail? 😂 (/s for those who need it). Honestly, the whole thing reads like a column The Sun turned down for “Dear Deidre”.
/r/MensRights03/01/25 08:21 PM
9

All of that stands if we hold your assumptions about the content of an entirely hypothetical book with only a title hold true… Absolutism is a very limited way of looking at things.
/r/MensRights03/01/25 08:04 PM
20

At some level, sure - but UK police under this government? Unless you’re the hubby, nothing will come of it, and even if you are, probably nothing will come of it. Your call though…
/r/MensRights03/01/25 07:52 PM
77

There’s a side of me that wants to see her husband take action over this. It would be hilarious to see a legal team try and defend an admission published in the national press 😂
/r/MensRights03/01/25 07:40 PM
1

I mean, that’s functionally a yes these days…
/r/MensRights23/12/24 12:56 PM
1

Why not just pick the bear? 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights23/12/24 12:54 PM
3

It’s also four years old. Easier to just ignore her than waste time on this…
/r/MensRights17/12/24 01:26 PM
6

Erin Pizzey, who opened the world’s first domestic violence shelter received so much harassment, including numerous death threats, that she had to leave the UK - all for suggesting opening a domestic violence shelter for men. The search for spaces shut down by women is taking a reductionist approach - male spaces of any note get co-opted by women primarily, and efforts to provide male spaces for those truly in need get kneecapped before they can be created.
/r/MensRights12/12/24 05:42 PM
0

Fair point - still feels like this post is rather arbitrary mind you.
/r/MensRights03/12/24 04:38 PM
9

There is access to birth control for men, but in very limited forms (pretty much condoms or sterilisation). The push should be for alternative / additional forms of birth control. Either way, sexual health goes beyond pregnancy - it would be nice to have a “condoms + X” option, we just need to solve for X.
/r/MensRights03/12/24 04:34 PM
11

I suspect that 90% may be in reference to hormonal birth control pills, rather than temporary gels.
/r/MensRights03/12/24 04:29 PM
0

Absolutely, although that level of common sense is a reasonable expectation that doesn’t really warrant its own post.
/r/MensRights03/12/24 04:27 PM
2

Ok, I’ll take the onus here - like I did in my first reply. You’ve clearly missed the huge irony in suggesting that feminist = misandrist whilst espousing that mens rights =/= misogynist; there is an overlap in both movements between advocating rights for your gender and hate for the other (which, it appears is what prompted you to post in the first instance). Is it possible to be a feminist without hating men? If your answer to that is no, please refer back to my earlier point about requiring c…
/r/MensRights03/12/24 04:22 PM
3

What is feminism? And does that definition consistently meet its usage? What is misandry? And does that definition consistently meet its usage? And if this “is not what you’re talking about”, please restate your point, clearly and logically.
/r/MensRights03/12/24 04:00 PM
7

Your entire point hinges on there being clear definitions around “misogynist” and “feminist”, which there simply aren’t - and unless it’s your first day online, you’ll have seen examples of contradictions and inaccuracies in both terms, or at the very least how they’re used. If we take the “M&M theory” (100 in a bowl, 5 are poisonous, how many do you eat?), is it considered misogynist to be cautious around women (for example, not interacting with a woman alone in a workplace)?
/r/MensRights03/12/24 03:47 PM
1

As ever, the devil is in the details. Or, in this case, the lack of them… The government “planning” to do anything is usually fraught with pitfalls, but what is key here is that these ill-defined plans aren’t a standalone initiative - they are part of the “10 Year Health plan”, aimed at addressing the NHS. Given the Chancellor is already on record as saying there’s no additional funding for the NHS, Streeting (Health secretary) has suggested the use of private sector healthcare, and that this an…
/r/MensRights30/11/24 02:26 AM
26

World class solipsism. Where did he suggest women owe him their presence?
/r/MensRights29/11/24 07:11 PM
3

I suspect the impact of that would be a mixed bag, given the proportion of men who aren’t sexually active anyway. What would really stir shit up would be a multi-national movement for a men’s strike day (like the women’s strike days) - 24 hours of no men going to work would be utter chaos for everyone, but it would certainly hammer home a point…
/r/MensRights24/11/24 02:56 AM
2

Pretty sure if you want to get someone talking, cocaine hydrochloride is far more functional than Tetrahydrocannibinol…
/r/MensRights23/11/24 12:35 AM
3

That’s one facet, sure. Another angle - how does a man know if he “makes the grade”; given the effort required to engage in a successful relationship, why should the top tier of men engage anyway? (Bearing in mind Chinese social attitudes towards promiscuity and the general sense of ‘honour’). Note one of the examples given was of a tall man with a strong career. Another take - this is solipsism in action; “why can’t I attract the man I want?” as a question being answered by it being a lack on t…
/r/MensRights23/11/24 12:30 AM
6

With the men outnumbering the women, the bar for “lower-income, lower-status” is artificially inflated. The expectation of hypergamy has outstripped the opportunity to be hypergamous.
/r/MensRights22/11/24 09:46 PM
1

Laughs in Queen Victoria and Queen Isabella…
/r/MensRights16/11/24 10:59 PM
0

Sigh. Well, bring the downvotes I guess… One of the first things I do round here is check the OPs post history, see if I can get an idea of gender or location (helps understand their perspective, and what countries laws they may be referencing, etc). In the past fortnight, you’ve posted about the UK government giving visas to tech workers from overseas, numerous questions about learning JavaScript, and this post pops up today about women “being handed the IT… roles”. Given the lack of sources, a…
/r/MensRights15/11/24 02:30 AM
2

Both of those examples require holding a B1 licence for a car before you can take the D/D1 licence test. This law would absolutely impact those jobs. The issue isn’t men under 26 driving, it’s illegal street racing - funnily enough, that’s already illegal, so what would changing the driving age do to affect it in any way?
/r/MensRights14/11/24 07:40 PM
5

See, the problem is you present the two things (voting and empathy) as being mutually inclusive, which they aren’t. Equally, you present a scenario that isn’t analogous to pregnancy (last I checked, no one has much agency or has to provide consent to get kidney stones, whereas pregnancy is entirely avoidable). And there’s the rub - being empathetic to a woman who is pregnant as a victim or r*pe is entirely sensible, regardless of one’s view on abortion. Being empathetic to a woman who just wants…
/r/MensRights10/11/24 04:13 PM
22

Huh? Really? You can’t be that naive to think people would vote against their self-interest on grounds of empathy for someone else’s rights (and it’s debatable as to whether access to abortions can be considered a right in the truest sense of the term), especially when the risk to those rights is hypothetical.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 11:35 PM
1

Sure, but as is ever the case with these kinds of things, there’s a lot more at play than if viewed solely at face value… Which brings to the next paragraph - if one assumes your takes to be reasonable, what mechanism can be put in place to ensure responsibility or accountability are appropriately attributed. In the instances we’re discussing, paper abortion would be the path of least resistance. And I suspect you’ve misread my take on the availability of abortion - I’m not against the possibili…
/r/MensRights31/10/24 04:27 PM
4

Well, I’d dispute that definition of fair, as it’s driven by outcome. If a woman knowingly wants to be a single mother and support a child on her own, it is a matter of choice, not an issue of fairness. This is less about the concept of paper abortion, and more about what limitations should be instituted on when it can be applied - an entirely different discussion. Here’s a solid argument for the unfairness of child support where sole custody is granted - paternity fraud. In the event that a man…
/r/MensRights31/10/24 03:41 PM
6

You’d still need legal change though - even with paternity testing. I don’t see the unfairness in giving equal choice to both parents. You mention the burdens, yet overlook the woman’s unilateral choice to carry those burdens or otherwise. Accountability should be inherent, not based on consequence.
/r/MensRights31/10/24 03:10 PM
6

Paper abortions would be a relatively swift solution to paternity fraud though. You mention in a comment that the burden of birthing a child is asymmetric, but overlook that the choice to bear that burden or not is unilateral. My view is that paper abortions should be like physical ones - available, but used as rarely as possible.
/r/MensRights31/10/24 02:41 PM
3

Exactly - and that’s the key issue with the wording of the law. Incidentally, “sexual assault” is the broader category of crime, rape and causing sexual activity without consent are subcategories of that under the Sexual Offence Act.
/r/EverydayMisandry21/10/24 02:01 PM
0

No, the reference to penetration is not putting the onus on men - and the reference to that being a male onus is an example of a broader problem; that being an inability or unwillingness to consider that penetration doesn’t require a penis to occur. Put a different way, sex toys exist, and that’s what this law covers - it’s entirely redundant to suggest the onus is on men, because men would be charged for rape instead. Again, the statistics surrounding rape are ‘manipulated’ to a degree by legis…
/r/EverydayMisandry21/10/24 01:57 PM
0

“Maximum: Life imprisonment (if penetration involved), otherwise 10 years’ custody”
/r/EverydayMisandry21/10/24 11:22 AM
18

Nope - the commenter is right in that regard, sadly. A woman can (for example), penetrate a man with a sex toy without his consent, and it’s not legally considered rape…
/r/EverydayMisandry21/10/24 12:59 AM
17

UK law doesn’t presume women can’t commit rape though - it charges women for “causing sexual activity without consent” under Section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. To state that women can’t commit rape because UK law doesn’t recognise it as “rape” is a semantic argument, not a logical one.
/r/EverydayMisandry21/10/24 12:55 AM
6

You’ll probably find it’s the same with ChatGPT, Claude, LLaMa, or any of them, because of how AI is ‘trained’ - all of them are given the data to work from, and then they are tested to see if they breach policies set by whoever made it. This is fine for making sure you can’t use an AI to do anything illegal, although it overshoots on avoiding sexism, because of how policies are written. It’s like software companies build stuff, then let HR determine what it can do, which is where stuff like thi…
/r/MensRights18/10/24 10:45 AM
3

Hmm… I largely agree with the sentiment, although I view the details differently - naturally, there’s way too much to go point by point, so I’ll stick to the headlines… I didn’t read OPs points as putting the blame solely with women; I saw it more as suggesting areas where women could help solve some issues. The other commenter appeared solely to deny any responsibility whilst omitting any suggestions as to what is in the gift of men to do. The element of the “social contract” being ‘ripped up’ …
/r/MensRights17/10/24 11:14 PM
30

Something something M&Ms, something something poisoned, something something would you eat them?
/r/MensRights16/10/24 10:44 AM
5

No lawyer either - what would you advise if there aren’t special protections for life saving attempts?
/r/MensRights16/10/24 10:43 AM
16

It is rather easy to overlook how Homo sapiens have been around for 40,000 years - the bulk of which without makeup, grooming, or plastic surgery - just fine. It’s a self created arms race.
/r/EverydayMisandry15/10/24 07:29 PM
1

Age of consent in Ireland is 17, it’s not statutory rape. As much as I find it distasteful that a 27 year old would have anything to do with a 17 year old, it’s not illegal.
/r/MensRights13/09/24 09:52 PM
10

Do women need a voice in countries where rights are unequal - yes. Why does this have to be feminism? Is there not the possibility of an alternative form of advocacy (such as egalitarianism)? No. The outperformance of women over men in academia isn’t offensive in and of itself - the fact that this inequality has existed throughout my lifespan completely unaddressed (and as has been seen in Ireland, actively maintained) is where the frustration builds. I do not believe one gender “has it harder”,…
/r/MensRights27/08/24 01:01 PM
135

“Since much of the world is still patriarchal, women’s lived experiences are vastly different than men’s. These different experiences can make it feel nearly impossible to understand what it feels like to move through the world as the opposite gender.” Then later: “So so so many things we do for our safety that most men don’t even think about, ever.” So, men have no idea of women’s lived experience, and women apparently know mens thoughts? Intriguing…
/r/MensRights26/08/24 10:38 AM
1

Have you got a source for that? I ask because the second result is evidence for the VAWG strategy from 2021, and states that “We recognise that men and boys do suffer interpersonal violence, sexual violence and other forms of ‘VAWG’ abuses, as such government should ensure that they are catered for outside of this VAWG framework.”
/r/MensRights23/08/24 09:23 PM
6

Where is there any reference to “support boys and men” though? On mobile, so my search wasn’t entirely accurate (couldn’t check back quickly, so the term used was “policy to support men and boys”). The site returned two articles - the first was from 2022, stating that “men and boys are an ‘afterthought’ in Home Office policy”, the second an article on VAWG (Violence Against Women and Girls). I’m hoping I’m wrong here, but lacking evidence. Got any better sources?
/r/MensRights23/08/24 10:28 AM
0

Why does that matter? It’s relevant to the conversation - society is far more nuanced than you’re implying it to be; see my responses to your thoughts on increasing male influence as educators for example.
/r/MensRights18/08/24 12:35 PM
2

Nope, and that’s a hugely disingenuous point - unless you genuinely think that a society is solely measured as a country. Seeing as the implication wasn’t clear enough, societies have subsections, which MGTOW is.
/r/MensRights18/08/24 11:40 AM
2

Exactly, the separation of one nation from another creates new societal elements.
/r/MensRights18/08/24 11:37 AM
2

The existence of more than one nation is proof positive that leaving society creates new societies. It is not a monolith.
/r/MensRights18/08/24 09:35 AM
0

And yet, it can be scaled… Would I encourage men to enter higher education? Not as much as I would encourage men to educate themselves. The humanities specifically? Also long as education is overseen and steered by political will, I’d advocate for politics as a more effective path to societal change. A career spent in law more actively involved in the consequences of morality in action would also be more effective. Journalism would also be a more impactful method of shaping the societal narrativ…
/r/MensRights18/08/24 09:33 AM
2

So societal change can’t be affected by disengagement? Strike action has a long history of effecting societal change, how is MGTOW any different?
/r/MensRights18/08/24 09:01 AM
2

What happens to a society with an insufficient number of constituent participants?
/r/MensRights18/08/24 08:26 AM
18

Sounds like something that The Tin Men could have some useful stuff for.
/r/MensRights18/08/24 08:21 AM
28

It gets worse - the wording of UK law means this would never have been viewed as rape anyway (the equivalent crime she would have been charged with is “Causing Sexual Activity without Consent”, which is a lot of words to avoid saying rape). Gives an interesting take on the usual argument of “x% of rape is committed by men”…
/r/MensRights16/08/24 05:31 PM
-1

No, he implies that he has little trust in women, she takes it personally. It’s the M&Ms theory, applied through a male lens. Not all women lie about paternity, but how can we know which don’t? As for the concept of having a “just in case” bag, I’m all for it - it shows foresight and an ability to plan after all. I’d personally stipulate that I be made aware of its’ existence (not location), solely so that if it is used (ie, an unexpected absence occurs), I can change the locks to the property t…
/r/MensRights12/08/24 10:28 PM
11

I’ve often thought there should be a catchphrase - “Mens Rights - for the inequalities you missed”.
/r/MensRights11/08/24 11:36 AM
7

Wasn’t even an expectation as I read it - “I suggest you share them with a man” doesn’t seem too demanding (and credit where it’s due, the woman says she’ll share them with her Dad, nice touch).
/r/MensRights02/08/24 08:56 PM
3

“Explain again why MGTOW is a threat to you”. The most simple retort.
/r/MensRights06/07/24 06:50 PM
2

Indeed, which is why it was lower down the list for my response. For a range of reasons, I’d say that starting a family outside of marriage is generally a bad idea, although that perspective is heavily caveated with the point that you shouldn’t be starting a family with anyone you aren’t prepared to have some form of lifelong commitment with anyway. Well, having the right to marriage isn’t directly proportional to the desire to get married. It’s funny you mention gays here, as they have the most…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 04:20 PM
3

First off, I will say you’ve clearly taken some time to put together your point, so I respect that we’re debating in good faith. Reading over your points, there is indeed an argument to suggest that women re financially worse off single than either married or divorced- and given the overarching topic of discussion on this thread is around mens thoughts on marriage, I think it best we continue to discuss on the basis of childless couples (which, at this point is more germane to the discussion of …
/r/MensRights25/06/24 09:19 AM
2

Well, let’s address the speculation there - I didn’t say the rest of the world “doesn’t have any legal benefits to marriage” for one, and for two larger swathes of the world already provide related benefits outside of marriage - for example, the “few thousand $ a year” savings you mention are irrelevant to those in countries with healthcare that isn’t insurance backed (and if you’re paying thousands on your car insurance, there’s probably a gecko you could chat with). Moving on from that, the le…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 03:00 AM
3

From the top, definitely not you for the source point, apologies… Ok, so for the other 7.7 billion people on the planet, the legal benefits and financial benefits are negligible. Viewing it through the lens of the vast majority of people being outside the USA, you can see how these points are not selling points for the concept of marriage.
/r/MensRights25/06/24 02:50 AM
8

As someone who doesn’t live in the USA, those benefits are a limited argument for marriage on the whole, for either gender… As for the ability to make medical decisions on behalf of another individual, these can be instated through legal agreements outside of marriage too. So far, the argument for marriage is security (which is purely psychological, as divorce is a rising risk), FMLA (which has no impact at all for 7.7 billion people), and being able to make healthcare decisions on behalf of you…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 01:42 AM
15

I’m sure you’ll understand when I say it seems odd to suggest that marriage gives security, to then speak about divorce - before making any consideration about who generally files for divorce, statistically speaking. As for women “usually being financially worse off” following a divorce, it’s not a take I’ve heard - do you have any sources to verify that / further information? If it’s a matter of me being uninformed, so be it, but that is impossible to take at face value.
/r/MensRights24/06/24 11:27 PM
19

Marriage without financial coercion isn’t worth it for most people - for women, it’s simply viewed as “marrying up”, and benefitting from divorce is a common expectation. But, for an actual discussion here, tell me, if a couple are happy in their relationship, what benefits does marriage provide that aren’t already part of the relationship?
/r/MensRights24/06/24 11:04 PM
8

I’d say it’s worth noting the historical significance of marriage, which is in essence defining a transfer of responsibility from father to husband - and historically, that functioned well in practice. In modernity, where economic factors (amongst others) have had a marked impact on what each party can bring to their marriage, the terms of the contract are unfavourable to men in the main. The argument for making a successful relationship into a legal arrangement does not stack up for the bulk of…
/r/MensRights24/06/24 10:26 PM
8

And my point is you like to come here and claim everything is irrational, and that it is all due to some inherent and ingrained sexism - I note you have yet to reference any of the rampant and well documented misogyny that exists in various areas of society, which is why I stated yesterday your points are clearly not made in good faith. Again, as evidenced here by your total lack of willingness to consider that there are no barriers to women starting and growing their own companies and achieving…
/r/MensRights20/06/24 12:32 AM
7

I don’t have a definitive answer - I can speculate if you really need me to. It is interesting that beyond using non sequiturs, you don’t seem to even have a guess though. Honestly, beyond coming here and implying everything is sexism against women, have you got anything approaching a cogent point?
/r/MensRights20/06/24 12:14 AM
15

Not at all - the CEO position should be filled by the most suitable candidate, regardless of gender. Which was the point about noting how two of the richest people on the planet that managed to create companies from the ground up were men. Take a look at the richest women on earth - their sources of wealth are divorce or inheritance in the main. Why? If women are capable of being CEOs, they are also capable of creating and growing businesses. The question is, why aren’t they?
/r/MensRights19/06/24 10:15 PM
15

CEOs? Why would women suddenly need to be CEOs of companies created and built by men in the modern age? Note how, despite there being no legal impediment, we don’t have a Jane Bezos or Elaine Musk. Why?
/r/MensRights19/06/24 10:04 PM
29

It is absurd to pretend the entirety of this sub is irrational at all times, yet here you are - best evidenced by your wildly irrational speculation in your final sentence. Every one of your comments shows you aren’t here to discuss anything in good faith, so feel free to waste your time with a response here, but I’ve given you more than enough troll food.
/r/MensRights18/06/24 10:03 PM
52

Well, except for most of the posters on r/feminism of course…
/r/MensRights18/06/24 09:15 PM
2

Dude, I’ve read all the comments here, and it strikes to me that compartmentalising would help you a bunch… Is Threads awful? Yes. Can you advertise on it (and other forms of social media) without consuming its content? Also yes. Does a discussion around men’s rights need to be presented through the frame of political leanings? No. Arguably it’s better when personal politics is left completely out of it and the subject at hand is discussed - an example; you made a post about Threads being shit w…
/r/MensRights17/06/24 12:44 AM
1

So it’s a choice between ‘fast’ and ‘correct’?
/r/MensRights14/06/24 05:30 PM
1

Ah, Reddit is far easier to curate than Threads, as is Twitter. Threads just fires utter shit at your feed, regardless of follows / blocks / engagement. For example, my Facebook use is mainly memes and occasional communications with old friends. My Insta is mainly coffee stuff and football (or soccer for clarity). My Threads is permanent gender war rhetoric, which is madness.
/r/MensRights13/06/24 09:44 PM
1

Yep. If you’ve got an Insta account, it’s just a matter of installing, and you’re set with an account. This was what drove my curiosity, and I regret joining, the place is both a hive of misandry and (at a much smaller scale) misogyny. Hugely divisive and full of shit takes - probably more like old school Twitter, but with added Zuccing of content.
/r/MensRights13/06/24 09:40 PM
2

Before I checked it out, I’d have echoed your question. Now, not so much… I mean, you can take my word for it or not, but you do know how to check it out, entirely your choice. I’d advise avoiding it, along with the bulk of social media these days.
/r/MensRights13/06/24 09:36 PM
7

If that’s the case, I cannot advise staying away from Threads strongly enough. Even more miserable than Reddit.
/r/MensRights13/06/24 09:33 PM
16

“If you were given 100 M&Ms and told one was poisonous, would you eat any of them? That’s how it is with men” Or words to that effect. The irony being is that the analogy works exactly the same if you swap genders, as does the bear situation. Shitty people exist, and it’s not gendered.
/r/MensRights21/05/24 03:41 PM
2

OK, so oldest would be 14. Not sure it fundamentally changes much. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights18/05/24 04:54 PM
3

Gen Alpha began c.2013. So oldest would be 11…
/r/MensRights18/05/24 01:25 AM
2

Dude, there’s far too little info to be able to properly empathise here - how old is your son for starters… There’s a saying that I see some relevance in here - “children don’t listen, they watch”. Whilst you may not be physically present, you can still show him who you are; the father who loves his son. If you exit stage left, you won’t be able to build for his future - no first car or college fund from dad. You also won’t be able to create something tangible to give him at key milestones. Sure…
/r/MensRights13/05/24 10:20 PM
1

It isn’t. Whilst there isn’t a key, which would be helpful, my read is that the 100% figure was the peak number of searches relating to suicide, everything else is a measure against that peak…
/r/MensRights13/05/24 09:37 PM
4

Oh, no doubt - and that isn’t fundamentally an issue, so long as any law isn’t written in gendered language and there’s a robust process in place to uphold its terms. That is likely a pipe dream though, sadly.
/r/MensRights12/05/24 10:18 PM
5

There is a very pernicious subtext to this - that being that the parent who should have to “earn” access to their child should be the father. That is the fundamental flaw in all of this; if one parent should not be given presumption of contact, neither should. If there are grounds to restrict access to a child, there are other laws in place to address that, and they should be utilised. Should this pass into law, we’ll simply see another reason to avoid marriage and childbirth spring up, conseque…
/r/MensRights12/05/24 07:40 PM
3

I see, so it’s doing the work that’s the issue, because of course, there’s absolutely nothing that needs to be revamped to allow women in is there? Still haven’t explained why having women only spaces is devastating to women - seems that learning to canoe (or hiring women who can teach it) falls into the “too hard” box eh?
/r/MensRights11/05/24 04:48 PM
16

Girl Scouts of the USA, not that it’s relevant - being able to learn how to canoe doesn’t mean a male-only space has to be invaded to do it. The option of expanding programs within the women-only space existed anyway. Care to take a crack at that explanation now you’ve got no excuses?
/r/MensRights11/05/24 01:23 PM
19

Please explain how not being able to learn how to canoe next to a man was so devastating for women.
/r/MensRights11/05/24 01:11 PM
8

Sure, although that perspective overlooks efforts made to shut down men’s spaces and invalidate male experiences. Even by posting in here, you’ll have been banned from numerous unrelated subs, and that’s just Reddit - look at this effect in broader society, and the beginnings of an alarming trend are evident.
/r/MensRights10/05/24 09:15 PM
8

The phrase has, unsurprisingly, been hugely manipulated - it’s gone from “Believe all women” (in the context that there was an allegation to be investigated) to “Believe all women” (in the context that investigation that doesn’t corroborate the allegation should be viewed as flawed). Due process and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven exists for a reason.
/r/MensRights09/05/24 05:44 PM
1

How odd that the macro environment, interest rates, ‘layoffs’ (that OP didn’t mention), and the pandemic bubble bursting (which is antithetical to what actually happened in the UK economy) ALL happened at the exact same time there was a dramatic shift in staff gender balance. Nope, must be sexism. Christ.
/r/MensRights07/05/24 08:06 PM
29

Document everything. Document it again. Go over the head of the Head of HR - she has actively dismissed a workplace bullying complaint, which is doubtlessly in breach of company policy, and arguably purely on the grounds of your gender. If you’re a union member, contact your rep. If you aren’t a union member, become one immediately, and contact your rep. Start preparing evidence for your constructive dismissal tribunal. Contact the legal team and advise them that you are considering taking actio…
/r/MensRights06/05/24 01:32 PM
2

Was that really the link you meant to share?
/r/MensRights04/05/24 02:51 AM
4

There was one, until it got banned. Speaks volumes.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 01:06 AM
3

The figures given are for the UK. Which has 34.5m women, according to the 2022 census. So, 102 per annum. 102/34,500,000 = 0.00000295652 That’s right 0.00000295652% of UK women, per year.
/r/MensRights03/05/24 12:47 AM
6

As I’ve commented on similar posts - cool. Now explain why MGTOW is bad.
/r/MensRights02/05/24 01:03 PM
13

Cool. Now explain why MGTOW is a problem.
/r/MensRights02/05/24 10:55 AM
7

His contract would need to stipulate exact working hours, whereas most UK contracts stipulate a number of hours to be worked during the week, not how they are distributed. Given he raised a grievance prior to disciplinary proceedings being raised, and will presumably be able to evidence “positive discrimination” in the hiring practices, he’s likely got a good case. The fact that the employer attempted to have the case thrown out speaks volumes - the judge stating that he needs to assess the evid…
/r/MensRights17/04/24 09:05 PM
9

Yes, feminists fought for maternal leave, which is why it’s still imbalanced, and still a discussion… And again, closing the gender pay gap (equal pay for equal work) WHILST advocating for paid period leave (time off for being incapable of performing equal work) is where the fallacy lies. Rather than throwing accusations about my beliefs, please read what I’m writing. And consider your biases - feminists did not advocate for paternal leave, and still rarely do, if at all. Edit to add - feminists…
/r/MensRights16/04/24 08:54 PM
4

No, I’m genuinely asking the question. The issue with these scenarios is in the definition. Should creating deepfakes for nefarious purposes be illegal? Yes. How do we then define what constitutes a deepfake, what constitutes nefarious purposes, and so on. The same lack of scrutiny led to gendered rape laws in the UK for example.
/r/MensRights16/04/24 08:42 PM
7

I’m in Europe too - in my country, it’s 2 weeks for men, unless the woman is prepared to “share” her parental leave. As for the “assumption”, more an educated guess, given that even you must see you’re in the minority of women who hold that view - let alone having acted upon it. Either way, my point still stands. If it’s equality, then it cannot come with conditions, which is what seems to be the general rhetoric from modern feminism (another example - advocating for closing the gender pay gap a…
/r/MensRights16/04/24 08:40 PM
2

Indeed there are differences in the intended purpose of CCTV v deepfake. That’s not the point. Deepfakes are exactly that - fake. If you were to superimpose my face on the body of a more physically attractive man, how has my privacy been breached? The image in question isn’t of me. How can it be considered a violation, when no part of me is in the image, beyond what is in public anyway? Seriously, separate your perspective out here (my read is that your read is ‘why should this being illegal be …
/r/MensRights16/04/24 08:27 PM
7

Context matters. Women and men do deserve different rights, based on a number of factors. To give you an example - if you truly believe in complete equality of rights, let me know when I can join you in campaigning for expanding paternity leave. This is the rub; equality either needs to be equal, or differences need to be considered and accounted for.
/r/MensRights16/04/24 08:18 PM
1

That point only holds if you think I’m also running CCTV on every street corner, which would be weird… I’m not arguing for any kind of “right” to deepfake anyone by the way, just confused by why you find one form of image capture begrudgingly acceptable, and use of captured images unacceptable in another format… In any case, I’m intrigued as to what the boundary conditions are for a deepfake here. Manipulation of images for marketing purposes (say, a lingerie advert) for example - where does tha…
/r/MensRights16/04/24 08:13 PM
4

I’m presume you’re not cool with the amount of CCTV you get captured on daily then?
/r/MensRights16/04/24 08:00 PM
3

Well established psychiatric conditions… Diagnoses come from professionals, not internet commenters speculating with no investigation.
/r/MensRights14/04/24 01:00 AM
1

Nothing to apologise for. This is a place for weighty topics after all.
/r/MensRights10/04/24 11:09 AM
2

There’s nothing I disagree with in any of that beyond the scale and application - we’re on a post about women in this sub, not the general day-to-day. My point is simply that if a woman comes in here to post, I’ll engage as long as the discussion is in good faith. I don’t modify my views to make them more palatable to anyone, I just to try to discuss them like an adult. The moment that is impacted by the other party, I end the discussion (for example, I ended a discussion with a woman here when …
/r/MensRights10/04/24 10:30 AM
2

It’s impossible to progress anything if you don’t “engage with the enemy”, unless you’re willing to stoically opt-out entirely (in which case, why discuss anything?). That’s the rub here - it’s a social scale negotiation of sorts.
/r/MensRights10/04/24 10:12 AM
1

In all fairness, I don’t think NoReaction was suggesting moderation of tone or self-policing discussion, although I take your point. To my mind, it’s a matter of personal choice here - I’ll happily engage with a woman in this space, provided she’s not a ‘bad actor’. That doesn’t require me to adapt any of my discussion, which ends very swiftly if I feel I’m not having a discussion with someone who is acting in good faith.
/r/MensRights10/04/24 09:32 AM
9

“Abortions are a refusal to take personal responsibility of one’s actions. If the woman didn’t want the child, they shouldn’t have had a penis in their vagina. Condoms and the pill aren’t 100% effective and we all know that.” It’s the same argument.
/r/MensRights02/04/24 03:24 AM
4

And if it is your child, mandatory 50/50 custody with it.
/r/MensRights02/04/24 02:46 AM
14

Welcome. So, there you go - reasonably solid proof that “suing for fraud” pretty much isn’t a thing here at all. By “pretty hard to prove”, you have to also recognise that also means ‘very easy to dismiss’ - the same argument that kept marital rape legal for a very long time. That litmus test is definitely not good - it’s pretty fucking awful as it goes, as the consequence of her not passing last a lifetime, if she so chooses. You also recognise by your statement on rape that agency is important…
/r/MensRights02/04/24 12:00 AM
7

I do, don’t worry.
/r/MensRights01/04/24 10:49 PM
16

A lot to unpack there. Let’s start with a quick counter question - why is it so hard to find anyone who’s successfully sued for tampering with birth control? Let’s not conveniently overlook that… Onwards. A lot of mental gymnastics there to say either ‘I’ve never had a woman on top’ or ‘I can’t make a guy cum when I’m on top’ (not going to assume your gender). Or to overlook that a woman might prefer her partner to ejaculate ‘in’ her whilst using birth control that is known to be 99% effective, …
/r/MensRights01/04/24 10:47 PM
39

“Suing for fraud is a thing.” Sure, just find one example of any case where a man has successfully sued for a woman tampering with his birth control. Just one will do. Seriously, one. The concept that using birth control still means consent to be a parent, with no say, it what is perpetuating the status quo, and the status quo is fucked.
/r/MensRights01/04/24 09:07 PM
54

What if you ejaculate in a condom that has been tampered with? What happens when that “say” (as you appear to recognise it) is taken away? This entire mentality of removing all accountability from women for their role in reproduction is exactly why Drake is bumping up sales of Franks Red Hot…
/r/MensRights01/04/24 08:52 PM
2

Oh, I’ve got a relatively solid idea. I just think it’s ridiculous to suggest that the app is struggling because women have to message first when there’s clearly a massive hole in the boat (financially speaking) anyway…
/r/MensRights23/03/24 01:38 PM
7

Ignoring the functionality point being discussed, how the fuck does a company manage to make a net loss on over $1bn turnover!?!
/r/MensRights23/03/24 12:11 PM
41

What rights are missing? What is the objective aim of modern feminism? What about addressing ‘benevolent sexism’ based on existing rights? It’s very, very easy to produce rhetoric, harder to have an actual point…
/r/MensRights20/03/24 12:17 PM
1

You’ve just given the example - except you’ve overlooked or omitted direction of travel. Which is my point; as there’s no centre, the discussion only functions in extremes. For clarity - in your example, proposing a reduction in foreign aid is only considered right wing extremism by the furthest left. Those further to the right wouldn’t consider that viewpoint centrist (or right wing extremism for that matter), it’s leftist wokism. It has nothing to do with relation to the establishment, and eve…
/r/MensRights15/03/24 10:39 PM
3

Slightly left of an extreme right wing position gets you cast as an overly woke communist. Neither is accurate.
/r/MensRights15/03/24 02:31 AM
6

Indeed, which merely serves to make posts like yours carry weight. There is, objectively, merit to positions held by both sides; this is obscured by creating the ‘us v them’ politics we have now, globally. TLDR: it’s all fucked.
/r/MensRights14/03/24 10:28 PM
19

Pretty much the same. There is no central position that is politically served anymore, it is extremes or nothing.
/r/MensRights14/03/24 09:04 PM
1

That ‘perfect world’ you propose is entirely rhetorical. The decision to attempt having a child is a two party decision in the main (both parties agree to cease use of birth control). In the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the decision to continue a pregnancy or otherwise is a one party decision (the woman). The issue OP has raised is that the man is legally compelled to carry the consequences of that decision, with no enforceable input. This is the issue with the ‘our bodies are being controlle…
/r/MensRights14/03/24 02:57 AM
1

There’s two different discussions at play here though. One is how to protect yourself in the event of divorce, the other is how to get your partner a Visa. The first part is easy - don’t marry. The second has a lot of nuance to it, and would require legal advice, but why not consider setting up a company, employee her, and sponsor a work visa?
/r/MensRights08/03/24 07:46 PM
4

So things have likely got worse. Letter to the head of the administration, followed up with name and shame media pieces (based on what you can document).
/r/MensRights06/03/24 08:10 PM
9

Solid grounds for a legal challenge there…
/r/MensRights06/03/24 07:19 PM
4

The woman’s body suffers the consequences of the act of giving birth, at which stage the man is legally obligated to pick up the consequences of being a parent with no say in the decision. No comparator exists for women here, which is why the second part of your post “makes sense” to you. Why should it be possible for one parent to make a unilateral decision on behalf of both? The closest equivalent to give as an example would be if a man could legally place a child into adoption without the mot…
/r/MensRights06/03/24 01:46 AM
6

Legal advice is definitely needed here. You might also want to consider contacting the Information Commissioners Office to see if the posts would be subject to a Data Subject Access Request made to Facebook under the Data Protection Act - this should then give you all the evidence you need of defamation at the very least, and may also build up a history of what is essentially stalking. A cease and desist from a lawyer armed with this info could be useful for any future legal action you may need …
/r/MensRights01/03/24 02:54 PM
10

Adding to the recommendation of who to speak here, u/thetinmenblog also produce some very interesting, well informed and ell researched perspectives.
/r/MensRights01/03/24 11:44 AM
8

Well, it’s time for a few things here. First up, new job. Followed by a review of discrimination laws in your country. This is directly discriminating on the basis of gender, which is a protected category under most law. Potential for a tribunal, arbitration, or legal case depending on outcomes. If you’ve got examples of being passed up for promotions in place of a female hire, or anything along those lines, you might have a constructive dismissal case against the company. (UK based, former HR e…
/r/MensRights29/02/24 12:02 PM
1

I see the point your aiming at there, but it’s highly unlikely that they’d ever spring up in the answer from the AI given the prompt. If the prompt were asking for criticisms of feminist points rather than the movement as a whole, I’d wholeheartedly agree with what I think you’re trying to say. Further clarity - you could argue that Solinas or the Duluth model should be mentioned in the third point. You aren’t wrong, just a step ahead of what is being asked of the AI here.
/r/MensRights28/02/24 03:30 AM
5

Agreed, it is a well-balanced response. And whilst I agree with the second point, I don’t see that as problematic per se - judging a movement of any kind by its more extreme or fringe elements damages proper discourse.
/r/MensRights28/02/24 12:17 AM
17

This. Talking about the problems can help, but isn’t a silver bullet panacea to the issues themselves.
/r/MensRights25/02/24 01:52 PM
15

This is the kind of stuff that makes it super easy to disregard mens rights dude… What is the rights issue here? And why limit your thinking to those particular categories of porn - if it’s driven by any feminist thinking, arguing that feminists advocate rape and incest would hold water; patently untrue. And you’re using American sites / stats; ever consider a boob binder, a strapon, and an androgynous haircut would be more viable for an FTM than the cost of surgery. It’s as ridiculous a suggest…
/r/MensRights25/02/24 04:24 AM
2

You haven’t considered that these set of numbers could be being used to present a lower gap in earnings. The report is based upon the workforce, it could be far worse at divisional level. Or departmental. Or within individual teams… If you’re going to say less than 1% is acceptable without investigating the data, you can’t really hold a point against anyone who questions the inequity shown in the data you accept. I’d say it’s safe to presume MS have painted themselves in the best light here too.
/r/MensRights24/02/24 10:02 PM
6

It’s not that title and experience dictate salary that is the issue here - it’s that comparable title and experience don’t reflect the same earnings. The other levers shouldn’t be germane to salary, especially race and gender, by law.
/r/MensRights24/02/24 09:57 PM
2

What’s the significance of being “rewards eligible” to these figures? If those figures account for bonus related pay structures, it might not be outright sexism. The fact it’s published in an annual report, and is illegal under employment law does leave them open to a class action suit in the US though. I’d be surprised if Microsoft were dumb enough to put themselves at that scale of legal risk. Mind you, they thought the fucking paper clip was a good idea, so who knows? End of the day, my take …
/r/MensRights24/02/24 09:55 PM
6

“Usually”? Correlation isn’t causation, and possible isn’t probable. Also, are you suggesting men shouldn’t have access to domestic violence support because it happens to women as well? That’s awfully sexist…
/r/MensRights24/02/24 09:34 PM
2

Absolutely - one of those ‘just because you can, doesn’t mean you should’ scenarios. I mentioned it only because it’s where I see the likely cause of OPs concern. And it is a very legitimate concern, and the Israeli element adds a layer to that - adding the religion element of Israel to the science here has some glaring concerns. At best, it’s an interesting capability, at worst, it’s eugenics on steroids.
/r/MensRights23/02/24 02:57 PM
5

Intentions and outcomes don’t always align. Run it forward, and this gets into some very ethically sketchy areas regarding genetic engineering / cloning. That’s where there’s ground for concern.
/r/MensRights23/02/24 02:45 PM
2

So do adoption or surrogacy. Having children isn’t the issue when it comes to fertility treatment, it’s having your children that’s the root of it, and I’m not sure that’s possible (yet). It’s right on the brink of a major ethical discussion around genetic engineering and cloning I’d say…
/r/MensRights23/02/24 02:42 PM
0

Boredom chiefly. I’m not expecting change here, but it’s vaguely more interesting than YouTube to watch the mental gymnastics. No matter, it’s late enough for sleep here now anyway 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights20/02/24 11:15 PM
0

No, not forgot - omitted, because it doesn’t fundamentally change the structure of the sentence… In fact, it’s exactly the point that makes your comment appear that you support feminism yet see flaws in it… Go figure, lol
/r/MensRights20/02/24 09:45 PM
0

And most women do sexist things. Unconscious bias is ungendered. I agree we live in a harmful society. I don’t see that it is entirely one sided, hence why I take issue with feminism, preferring egalitarianism. Your points are clear, yet debatable. Your reticence to discuss where there may be any fault in your points is where the discussion is failing; evidenced by virtue of you viewing this as an argument. Conceptually, women’s oppression disregards women’s privileges that went hand in hand wit…
/r/MensRights20/02/24 09:43 PM
2

You didn’t read what I wrote did you - “most women who do this” is not “most women do this”. It’s there in black and white; not a direct statement about ‘all women’ at all. Accuracy matters. Saying most men do sexist and harmful things is also wrong, but we’ll just blow past that shall we? If you’re going to call someone out, incorrectly, for making blanket statements about an entire gender, don’t be a hypocrite. The ‘patriarchy’ also enshrines legals protections for women on the perception of t…
/r/MensRights20/02/24 09:24 PM
1

You did! - in the comment I was replying to. Unless “me supporting feminism and stating how feminism should look like” means something entirely different to the words you used? Forget “are you new to the sub”, are you new to English?
/r/MensRights20/02/24 08:40 PM
2

Wait, so you support a movement you knowingly feel needs change? Odd take.
/r/MensRights20/02/24 08:36 PM
3

…and ignore the social effects sexism has had against men though, right? I mean your wonderful man should be looking at you and concerning himself with the risk of paternity fraud or an inequitable divorce. After all, most women that do this do so from a sexist perspective as well. The fact that you can comment so proves you are also privileged. Sexism exists, and it is decidedly not a one-way street - and you’re right, it isn’t just legal, although legal would help. It’s an intriguing take; you…
/r/MensRights20/02/24 08:31 PM
4

A self-proclaimed feminist, on the grounds of “so many men’s behaviour and attitudes” advising someone to not view women as a monolith? Heed your own words, renounce the conditional equality sought by feminism, advocate for true equality as an egalitarian. Practice what you preach.
/r/MensRights20/02/24 02:20 AM
6

Let’s see something beyond anecdote on that “most men who consider themselves feminists haven’t been forced or pushed into feeling that way”. Largely because you yourself fail to recognise your position on feminism is driven by social conditioning - “I try to put myself in women’s shoes, imagining how I’d feel being talked to or treated that way”. Is the experience of being a woman entirely, uniformly analogous? Is it conceivable that the vast majority of male to female interactions are entirely…
/r/MensRights20/02/24 02:16 AM
7

Assuming you are male, “as a man, it’s obviously safer for you if we cease any and all engagement from here on, have a nice life”. On a tangential note; why no WGTOW movement? Strong, empowered women who self-proclaim to not need men? Go right ahead then…
/r/MensRights19/02/24 10:06 PM
9

Every scenario you’ve mentioned has an easy solution - man doesn’t want to take mandatory paternity test? Sign a waiver accepting full parental rights. No need for jail, like a litany of other offences out there - not that failing to prove paternity has any ‘victim’ other than the man anyway. Mother doesn’t want to? No legal responsibility is assumed to be applicable to the unproven father. Both refuse? Child stays with the known parent, the mother, no legal responsibility to the unproven father…
/r/MensRights17/02/24 09:09 AM
1

Seeing as it’s on you to prove your shout here, get some numbers on “plenty”, it might give you point some weight. Especially after the weak efforts at linking cherry picked examples. And leave the poor attempts at being condescending, chief, it adds nothing to your already weak point. Take it to the next layer by the way; see how much jail time women serve when compared to men. By all means, feel free to then apply that to sexual crimes, Then have a look into how many articles there are that mi…
/r/MensRights15/02/24 06:03 AM
1

What in the shit search term gives you results like that? It’s no wonder you feel it’s disproved; you seemingly can’t Google “arrested for rape” and swap man and woman at the start of the term, and you’ve failed to recognise the issue is that women are rarely accused of rape in comparison to men.
/r/MensRights15/02/24 05:53 AM
34

Can you find any articles where a woman is labelled a rapist? Start there, because you’ve massively missed the point…
/r/MensRights14/02/24 11:18 AM
4

Allowed, yes. Welcome, I’d hope so for the most part. There will always be negativity on any online forum, so the usual rules apply - don’t take it personally, and know when to log off. There’s also a note of caution here - just like the feminist subs, you’ll see a lot of posts that are debatable as to whether they’re rights issues or not (dating stuff or comments on prevailing social attitudes). It’s a great space for beginning to understand what are perceived as issues, and you will find posts…
/r/MensRights12/02/24 12:27 AM
23

An egalitarian per definition is somebody who believes in equal rights. Feminism has associated itself as a subset of egalitarianism, but fundamentally fails to address inequities that primarily affect men, undermining its core tenet of seeking equality. Feminism seeks conditional equality; that condition being that resolving the inequality must benefit women primarily (and debatably solely if possible). This is where men’s rights groups have risen from - the inequalities feminism has ‘missed’ (…
/r/MensRights12/02/24 12:05 AM
2

I’d still question whether ‘women can’t rape men’ is a prevalent myth. Sadly, it’s law, so I’m not sure if that pushes it one way or another…
/r/MensRights05/02/24 01:31 AM
15

Getting?
/r/MensRights04/02/24 08:19 PM
1

Yeah, that’s fair. I’d challenge “staggeringly high” mind you. The situation is ridiculous; it’s essentially legally-sanctioned libel (or slander, depending on the medium used).
/r/MensRights04/02/24 03:33 PM
1

I’m English, but I’d say we can shelve the Auld rivalry for this… It’s a ridiculous state of play that the judiciary itself didn’t push back harder, jury trials are a fundamental right in UK law.
/r/MensRights04/02/24 03:32 PM
6

So that’s a 9 year old source in the media, based upon the claims of a campaign group… And even if we take everything in the article as fact, 109 convictions (over the five years mentioned in the article) for perverting the course of justice is 22 convictions per year. There were 3962 convictions for rape in the year preceding the article. Now, it depends on where you set the bar for “staggering” here, but it seems to me like there’s a far higher chance of conviction on grounds of a false allega…
/r/MensRights04/02/24 11:51 AM
23

Source for that “staggeringly high number”? I live in the UK, and I’m aware of zero. Don’t forget, Scotland (part of the UK with devolved legal powers) wanted to have rape trials without a jury recently, so I’m sceptical…
/r/MensRights04/02/24 10:44 AM
4

What in the shitty justification has that got to do with anything? “Can” does not equal “will”, and until it does, the practice of circumcision is ethically incredibly dubious, at best.
/r/MensRights03/02/24 12:48 PM
7

…and you’d think wrong. Mind you, it does appear that anecdote forms the basis of your talking points, so I’m not entirely surprised. The statement “misandry is caused by misogyny” is closed minded; it doesn’t give any consideration for any other ‘reason’ for misandry. And the DICTIONARY definition of anything is mutable, as seen in the feminist movement. The words on the page say gender equality, the actions online and in the real world show it’s only on the condition that the resolution benefi…
/r/MensRights02/02/24 10:23 AM
14

If the fight is against sexism in all its forms, why identify as a feminist over an egalitarian? If there’s no competition between misogyny and misandry, why close anti-misandrist subs uniquely? The issue that I believe many take with modern-day feminism is that there is a lack of an objective goal (compared to previous waves pushing for the vote, sexual liberation / birth control options, right to bank accounts / work, etc.) This is also coupled with the “patriarchy” needing to be the root caus…
/r/MensRights01/02/24 11:28 PM
9

Feel sorry for lonely people, sure. Temper that sorrow against the individual choices that led to loneliness though.
/r/MensRights29/01/24 02:03 PM
3

You’ve overcomplicated things. Therapy often doesn’t work for men because the societal expectation was that ‘men don’t have mental health problems’.
/r/MensRights29/01/24 12:31 AM
4

Interesting take on a post about women playing the world on versus mode…
/r/MensRights27/01/24 04:23 PM
15

Maybe so, and perhaps why it got banned. Now, on the note of unacceptable sexism and gender based hate, have you been reporting posts on FDS or 2X - or is that acceptable to you? This is not to support misogyny or misandry, merely to highlight that one form of hate seems socially acceptable, it’s diametric opposite doesn’t. Neither position is reasonable, yet accepting one is totally untenable.
/r/MensRights27/01/24 11:35 AM
4

Well, remember, YouTube is an entertainment platform. It’s very easy to find individual examples of inequity in action to package for entertainment, harder to present a balanced debate.
/r/MensRights14/01/24 10:17 AM
31

There are influencers, and there are activists. One group care about clout and cash, the other about informing. I find the giveaway to be how informative they are, and how credible their points are. The work of The Tin Men and people like Title IX for All will teach you way more in one or two posts than Romas entire body of ‘work’.
/r/MensRights14/01/24 10:05 AM
2

Depends where he is - where I am, there’s a solid case for unfair dismissal there, which would be an employment tribunal at the very least.
/r/MensRights12/01/24 02:48 PM
1

I’d call it initial resistance rather than pushback - sounds very similar, but there’s a subtle difference. To my mind, resistance is against changing the status quo, pushback is an effort to reverse a change to the status quo. Put differently - there was ‘pushback’ against allowing girls to join initially, but since there’s been next to nothing. It’s practically accepted that the Boy Scouts isn’t allowed to be a male space.
/r/MensRights12/01/24 01:30 PM
6

No idea why, but I’m surprised no-one has mentioned the Boy Scouts here yet. Women entering make spaces is less alarming to me than how we seemingly adjust to it and accept it so quickly. I think there’s something in that - the lack of pushback is arguably as concerning as it happening in the first place.
/r/MensRights12/01/24 10:50 AM
6

“Oh that’s nice; can he help me with these reports I came to talk to you about?” Sarcasm aside, I wouldn’t read too much into it. Just stay polite and keep it professional. You’re at work to, you know, work 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights11/01/24 10:13 PM
2

Words v actions. First off, deal with the individual in front of you, not the broad cohort they may belong to. Then watch more than you listen, by which I mean assess if their actions line up with their words. Account for nuance here too; there’s feminism as an ideological belief, feminism as an activist lifestyle, and women in general. It’s entirely possible for a woman to be all three, and still be perfectly agreeable (likelihood of that is a different debate, and not relevant at this point). …
/r/MensRights07/01/24 04:32 AM
6

Wrong question; you should be asking ‘how can I influence them?’. It would add weight to what you’ve posted, and make it look less like posturing.
/r/MensRights06/01/24 02:52 AM
14

Just matching yours. You completely forgot that we don’t dress or style ourselves for women, we do it for ourselves, hypocrite. Oh, and for an obvious troll account, you’re not very good at it.
/r/MensRights05/01/24 03:51 PM
5

Doesn’t sound like you will, but if you do go for a chop at any point, donate it to a cancer charity if there’s one in your country. Gives you a better reason than ‘my wife prefers it short’, and it’s pretty much bulletproof when it comes to growing it out anyway - hard to argue against a wig for a kid going through chemo.
/r/MensRights05/01/24 03:35 PM
19

Leave the whataboutery to the politicians…
/r/MensRights05/01/24 03:30 PM
3

Thanks for the info; yet to work my way through the source content, so I’m responding at face value (not that I have any reason to suspect inaccuracy in what you’re saying here). I’d say it’s also quite insidious above and beyond minimising male victims / trivialising female perpetrators - it also inflates the numbers. It’s far easier to politicise a misrepresented statistic and warp public perception (“£800m a week” being a prime example). Makes me wonder what the real numbers are. It’s hard to…
/r/MensRights04/01/24 12:09 AM
3

Just quick, you got a source for that? Not disputing, I’d just never heard of that and want to know more (or if not a source, a pointer on where to start looking into it further?)
/r/MensRights03/01/24 10:29 PM
4

Agreed, this is just nonsense; worse, it’s bringing out some pretty shitty comments. Not a good look for a sub I’d wager Reddit is just itching to ban…
/r/MensRights02/01/24 02:25 AM
5

Huh? Obtuse? Did you mean precise? The phrase “we don’t need men” is a complete sentence. Expecting anyone to make an interpretation beyond that is madness. If what you mean is “society doesn’t need men like you”, say that. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights02/01/24 01:13 AM
5

Indeed; you call for others to stop posting their opinions, or disregarding scientific facts. I think you’re a massive hypocrite; that last sentence is what you’d call defamation, inaccurate, and doesn’t give your plea any weight or viability. In short, if after all our discussion, you arrive at the inaccurate conclusion that I “can’t tell the difference between an article and an opinion”, you can simply go fuck yourself and your bullshit opinion. Clearly a discussion held in bad faith to gain a…
/r/MensRights30/12/23 06:24 PM
6

So how is one to interpret “we talk to little to the other side and to much in our ingroup”? A group by the loosest definition, sure; there’s no membership requirement, no meetings, and no real world activism occurring through here (take a look at r/womensstrike for a better example of an active group). And here’s the rub; what implications are there to posts on this sub? What real world impact does it actually have? To my mind, it provides a lot of useful information in terms of countering the …
/r/MensRights30/12/23 02:44 PM
8

Ok; it dramatically weakens your position, I hope you understand that. Link for that please - if you’ve going to cite a source, do it properly. And one for the ICD-11’s views on sexuality and mental health disorders to qualify your original disagreement. Ok, so what is it you’re trying to achieve here then? Bear in mind that most users don’t actively read every post on here, so there’s a proportion who won’t even see this anyway. Like I’ve said; look at your behaviours here. It seriously undermi…
/r/MensRights30/12/23 02:33 PM
7

And I made no claim that you did, so it’s odd you’d remark upon it. Would you not say that for there to be open discussion, all parties need to leave their ingroups? This was my point - the suggestion of open discussion is reasonable; the implication that it is not happening because of one side of the debate is not. The Men’s Rights Movement, like feminism, is an ill defined “group”. If anything it’s more of a concept; the idea that a concept can become a hate group is a non sequitur. I take the…
/r/MensRights30/12/23 02:24 PM
8

Well, another user has shown a link to high body counts being correlatory with mental illness, according to the DSM-V. You’ve stated this isn’t a source you view as reliable, referencing the ICD-11, but not quoting a source. If you have an objective source that disproves the DSM-V, please share it, otherwise there’s no weight to your statement that a high body count isn’t “objectively bad” 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights30/12/23 02:16 PM
10

I read the comments, you made no effort to provide a source or clarify your belief with any reasoning - it’s all here in black and white. It’s the first time you’ve referenced it being “more refined” than the DSM-V, and again you’ve failed to quantify why you think that to be the case. So being a mod is too time consuming, that’s reasonable. The suggestion you’re too time poor to report a post you’ve taken the time to read is not. If you don’t have the time to visit the sub and read the content,…
/r/MensRights30/12/23 02:12 PM
12

https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/s/YxOOc9Glid Have a look there. I’m not sure you’ll find the balanced discussion you seem to be seeking though. As for talking “to much in our little ingroup”, the same could be said of feminists, merely at a much higher scale. Are you off posting about misandry in 2X, FDS, Feminism, etc etc?
/r/MensRights30/12/23 01:57 PM
6

The concepts of good and bad are subjective; just because you don’t see a high volume of casual sex as bad, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Nothing wrong with enjoying anything, but expecting everyone to conform to your personally held standards around whatever behaviour it is. An example - it could readily be said that Germans drink too much, being the fifth highest alcohol consuming nation on earth; I’d imagine most Germans have no issue with it. Who is “right” in that debate?
/r/MensRights30/12/23 01:50 PM
15

Ok, so let’s look at actions. From what I’ve seen round here, users are pretty quick to call out anything too extreme, for one. For two, you can report any posts you see as unsavoury. For three, putting a post up expressing your personal concerns won’t change what anyone chooses to post round here. Fourthly, if you want to influence the content here, why not apply to be a moderator? I don’t see the issue you highlight in effect here. I am noticing a rise in posts about personal experience over g…
/r/MensRights30/12/23 01:44 PM
9

“I don’t like that source” is not an effective counter position here. What does the ICD-11 say on the topic? Does it differ wildly from the DSM-V?
/r/MensRights30/12/23 01:19 PM
4

You literally gave five. And again, is dating ever “100% in your control” for anyone? There are other options to help, yes; for some, those options are insufficient. You gave some suggestions as to why older women may be lonely. Please cite those “acedemic studies” by the way, I’d be intrigued as to what slant has been put on their source data. As for my view, let’s start with the obvious - mate selection lies with the female of the species. Let’s put it through your lens as well - it’s 100% in …
/r/MensRights21/12/23 09:38 PM
3

Where did I say you were? And I’m all for personal accountability, yet cognisant that this only takes you so far. Your position could be simply summarised as “man up”, which has historically been a part of the issue. Different, yet not mutually exclusive. A lonely woman has most likely become so because of her choices. Perhaps self improvement and a reduction in standards? 🤷🏼‍♂️ At some stage, there has to be a view of a broader societal issue as a factor. I’d contend it’s instant communication …
/r/MensRights21/12/23 09:07 PM
5

You see the issue though right; your suggestion implies that men have to have no standards (“swiping right on everyone”), or simply be lonely? Now I’ll qualify that I don’t believe anyone is entitled to a relationship, which makes it tricky to suggest a solution, but the existence of both male and female loneliness does lead to the conclusion that it’s not simply a case of men’s standards having to be lowered to reach any kind of solution…
/r/MensRights21/12/23 08:55 PM
10

The thing is, as far as I’m aware (can’t remember / be arsed to dig up the sources), women are swiping right at a far lower proportion than men. OLD is a shitshow. The likelihood is one of timing as well; I wouldn’t be surprised to see a loneliness epidemic occurring in 50+ women within a generation (or less). 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights21/12/23 08:09 PM
5

Reframe it for them - ‘marriage should be about fighting with you, not for you; if you’re talking divorce, I’d presumed it’s because you’re not in my corner anymore’
/r/MensRights18/12/23 01:26 AM
2

The Equality Act 2010 makes it very much illegal to discriminate against anyone for their sex or race. As it can be evidenced that this policy only applies to white males, it is indirect discrimination, and in breach of UK law.
/r/MensRights15/12/23 04:11 PM
1

Oh, so you didn’t read the article correctly, started a dispute about said failure to read the article correctly, and ultimately had no point to make. I see.
/r/MensRights14/12/23 05:07 PM
5

By “helped me out”, you mean did the legwork for you by the look of things. Anyway, now you’ve got what you need, anything to say, or were you just looking to close down discussion on the article?
/r/MensRights14/12/23 02:02 PM
2

Again, for there to be a consideration of “more and less feminist”, it would impart that the cohort was questioned, although it may not have been reported in the conclusions… This is the study under reference. As you can see, there are plenty of external studies cited as part of the paper, and contact information for the researchers. By all means, feel free to contact them and ask for the source data they used, I suspect they’ll have the answer that you, seemingly, so desperately need to engage …
/r/MensRights14/12/23 01:57 PM
8

“More AND less feminist”. That very heavily implies that whilst it may not be shown as a variable in the results, some level of investigation as to ‘how feminist’ the respondents are occurred. Given the amount of “no true Scotsman” fallacies exist within the feminist movement itself, before considering subdivisions within the group (‘progressive’, TERFs, etc), using the term “feminist” would likely be fallacious in itself. But sure, let’s ignore the outcomes in favour of an inaccurate semantic d…
/r/MensRights14/12/23 12:05 PM
3

Simply put, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. I’ve got enough going on without the added arseache of dating as it is…
/r/MensRights12/12/23 08:15 PM
19

They’re waiting at what they think is the finish line; we decide when the ‘race is run’…
/r/MensRights10/12/23 04:13 PM
5

It’s a weak argument when you’ve got to try semantics. Rich is a description, yes. A characteristic? If you think it is, never give a eulogy.
/r/MensRights17/11/23 08:54 PM
4

You define rich as a personal characteristic? Explains everything.
/r/MensRights17/11/23 08:47 PM
8

Because of how comparisons work??? “Dogs like to play with a ball, whereas cats eat fish; this is because they’re both animals” - conclusion is accurate, but the comparison is a non-sequitur. Do you see? And sure, no one is obligated to date outside of the scope of their preferences. And when social attitudes match your beliefs, the world will be a better place. Remember when the body positivity movement was about under-representation of disabled people in the public eye (more specifically women…
/r/MensRights17/11/23 08:35 PM
9

Not a direct equivalence though is it? If these were the only two parameters in dating, it would be a fair point. Men will date an attractive, but poor woman, whereas women won’t stick around for an attractive, but poor man (in the main; I’m sure there are outlying examples on the fringes for both genders), just to stick with the two parameters given.
/r/MensRights17/11/23 07:48 PM
5

Years ago? There was one this year! Speaks volumes that no one noticed.
/r/MensRights16/11/23 11:50 PM
6

Potentially, but to give a meaningful answer requires quantifying what “inspiration” means. Inspired to engage more in sports in general? That could come from either gender. Inspired to strive for the highest levels of sporting achievement? Most likely to be coming from a man (although there’s further nuance depending on the sport in question). A brief comparison of records across the genders answers why. For example; Usain Bolts’ 100m record (9.58s) is objectively more inspiring than Florence G…
/r/MensRights16/11/23 06:33 PM
12

For clarity, I used “their” meaning the random internet feminist OP is referring to, not feminists in general. That one is a way longer discussion…
/r/MensRights16/11/23 01:55 AM
93

“You are not those women, I am not those men” From there, just test the logic. Would they argue that Jews should be allowed to kill Germans today? Should Japan be allowed two nuclear strikes at the USA? Maybe the Indians should invade the UK? Highlight that the rhetoric from feminism is for equality, yet their proposal is retribution.
/r/MensRights15/11/23 11:32 PM
2

Men’s teams have been subsidising women’s league football since 1992 at least (at least in terms of direct affiliation with women’s teams - FA funding for women’s football has been in place since 1971, subsidised from the men’s game). This is where I take issue at a “lack of funding” being viewed through the lens of sexism. Men are not obligated to finance women’s football, or attend. This is an issue of sporting enjoyment by the fans, and one that can be solved with agency - encourage more wome…
/r/MensRights10/11/23 01:59 PM
3

Western women, not just North American…
/r/MensRights02/11/23 02:23 PM
300

No one else notice that only 34% of women under 30 are single? Of course there’s dating outside the age cohort, but at face value, the numbers appear to show 37% of men are in relationships with 64% of women. Something bigger than porn is at play here.
/r/MensRights30/10/23 10:44 PM
5

Well, that whole perspective requires a clear, commonly-accepted definition of what “toxic masculinity” is; can you provide evidence of what that is? There’s the rub, there’s no commonly accepted boundaries as to what crosses the line into toxic. Notice how your response presumes a clear definition, and still doesn’t consider any input from or impact of femininity, if there’s any element of toxic femininity, or indeed if there could be any valuable outcomes to be gained from adaptation of modern…
/r/MensRights28/10/23 01:00 PM
6

Maybe men need more help, but approaching from the negative perspective is where the resentment lies and anger builds. When addressing any issue, assuming the subject of the point of concern is at fault with no consideration of outside factors is a hideous way to address it. And that’s what’s happening here - men are lonely or socially isolated, and the entirety of the solution lies with men? Neither men nor women exist in a vacuum, so how does creating a solution requiring men and women to live…
/r/MensRights28/10/23 12:40 PM
6

Do you feel there would equally be a benefit in addressing the harmful social media messaging that impacts girls? Is the harmful element masculinity, toxic or otherwise, or social media here? Does this not seem entirely too one-sided a discussion to you?
/r/MensRights28/10/23 12:33 PM
8

I’d venture to suggest that was pretty much the point of the post; to question why women who have an interest rarely initiate the approach. I’m not sure that needed the explicit qualifier of “is interested”. Why do you think women infrequently initiate relationships?
/r/MensRights28/10/23 11:35 AM
3

…and when they are looking for “interactions with strangers”, what then? It’s not pointing out the obvious here, it’s pointing out the tangential…
/r/MensRights28/10/23 11:31 AM
7

If they aren’t looking to date, there’s no rejection to be concerned about… Now, can you envision a circumstance where a woman could be looking to date; ever thought of that? 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights28/10/23 11:29 AM
17

“Men’s Rights - for the inequalities you’ve missed”.
/r/MensRights25/10/23 07:16 PM
6

How does that justify defending the sexual assaults of Justin Beiber or David Beckham? Didn’t you call another commenter out for doing just that?
/r/MensRights11/09/23 05:49 PM
16

Today I learned women are apparently not a part of society…
/r/MensRights09/08/23 11:41 PM
2

Not entirely the case… Fourth paragraph covers it…
/r/MensRights07/08/23 11:41 PM
10

Any sources for any of your points? 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights05/08/23 05:49 PM
7

Possible does not equal probable though. Any source for the claim?
/r/MensRights04/08/23 12:34 PM
25

Do you want to qualify any of your “points”, or is ‘probably’ the entirety of your reasoning? Oh, and if it’s propaganda, you’ll have a litany of independently verifiable sources that disprove the points? What? You don’t? Quelle surprise…
/r/MensRights20/07/23 11:11 AM
28

Source? 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/PussyPassDenied28/06/23 09:38 PM
9

The fuzzy line exists in the interpretation of the woman; the bar for what can be considered sexual harassment has been consistently lowered over time…
/r/MensRights26/06/23 07:50 PM
1

In response: Nothing changes without political reform; the current systems of pandering to voting blocks lead to nothing but political success for the protagonists. I agree. Sure, as long as the application of those safety nets is egalitarian by design. As per previous statements, I am in the UK, where safety nets exist and largely prioritise women. I disagree; having ungendered laws is mutually exclusive to gender roles, and always should be (to exemplify, UK again; rape laws should encompass w…
/r/MensRights25/06/23 10:27 PM
1

I note you have no examples of a man enacting the same behaviour without consequence. I wonder why? “But that wouldn’t always happen” - can you provide even a single example of where it didn’t happen? Social experiments have been run that show the most likely outcome is that the woman will be ignored, and any effort by the man to defend himself will be met with aggression. Your point is entirely to defend women, given that it does not reflect reality (pending sources, in all fairness). Not only …
/r/MensRights25/06/23 08:11 PM
3

No, you’ve missed the point; everyone else completely tolerates her behaviour. By all means, pull examples of a man beating a woman in public, with witnesses within three feet that do nothing to assist. Does that makes things any clearer? 🤦🏻
/r/MensRights25/06/23 07:43 PM
2

So your immediate response isn’t that the behaviour displayed is unacceptable? Interesting take that the first response is to use some whataboutery rather than address what you’ve just seen. It’s not about volume, it’s about consequence. The general social view still abounds that women are weak, and therefore things like “she couldn’t have hurt him that much” become the stock riposte. Innately sexist, no?
/r/MensRights25/06/23 07:22 PM
3

And yet this kind of behaviour is tolerated from women… 🤷🏼‍♂️ You really don’t need to go far to find further examples. Note how the physical strength imbalance mattered nought.
/r/MensRights25/06/23 07:15 PM
1

Sure, but there’s a couple of points I feel it’s important to recognise here; I am not a politician, and have no meaningful influence to affect the changes I would propose. Secondly, this line of discussion could very easily be viewed as trolling by the mods (who I will leave to judge themselves); I have recently received a temporary ban from r/feminismuncensored for exactly the same line of inquiry. I would also ask you provide your answers to the same questions, before you address any of my po…
/r/MensRights25/06/23 07:06 PM
1

Yes, so have I - it doesn’t mean everyone here, or even a majority mock or deny the existence of women’s issues though does it? And nope, nothing to do with being insulted by a man being mocked - take Piers Morgan as an example; call him whatever you like, I don’t care. However, you can review information and see an imbalance - here’s an example for just four days ago, stating that 44m women have been displaced - you’d have to be an imbecile to not realise that there will also be a significant a…
/r/MensRights25/06/23 11:19 AM
1

I wouldn’t agree that womens issues are unilaterally mocked or said to not exist here; this sub is far more moderate than that. And one thing I entirely disagree with you about is that last paragraph; men’s issues are glaringly obvious in the media alone, let alone within social media and general discourse. They are wilfully ignored, and usually pushed aside in favour of discussion of women’s issues. Go to AskFeminists, and ask what they’re views are on inequalities that benefit women, I think y…
/r/MensRights25/06/23 10:12 AM
1

In exactly the same way mens issues are invisible or dismissed by 2X, AskFeminists, FeminismUncensored, or WitchesvPatriarchy, just off the top of my head. And whilst this sub does have some negative elements, it is far more egalitarian than any of the examples I listed above.
/r/MensRights25/06/23 10:08 AM
12

So unless everyone agrees with a piece of media, it doesn’t exist? You’ve not been here particularly long if you’ve missed all of the posts about @UNWomens and other examples… It’s also easy to be dismissive when something is patently inaccurate, regardless of experience.
/r/MensRights24/06/23 03:41 PM
59

Women’s issues aren’t invisible to anyone; unless you’ve been living under a rock, you can see it in the media the globe over. Ask (yes), believe (you mean confirm or validate here right?)
/r/MensRights24/06/23 01:51 PM
20

Chop off a finger (which is full of nerve endings), then tell us the sensation of holding something is no different. And cite your sources…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:46 PM
9

That same standard of right and wrong also transcends religious opinions…
/r/MensRights10/06/23 02:44 PM
10

He’s still going sort of… He does have something of a point though - the inequities faced on either side (without suggesting any prioritisation of ‘issue x’ over ‘issue y’) need both sides of the debate to resolve. I suspect this may be downvoted mind you. Just my two cents 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights31/05/23 08:30 AM
5

…and we should all live in peace, in harmony with nature, and well fed. Nothing wrong in your message, just sad that the loudest point you make in it is that you have a bias towards where you spread it. As I said, if the situation were reversed, you’d be calling it misogyny (and probably rightly). Yet here, you don’t use this as an example in any feminist-led subreddit as a rallying cry for balance and cooperation. Why is that? 🤔
/r/MensRights26/05/23 09:15 PM
6

Reverse the genders here, and you’d be posting it in blatantmisogyny. Unsurprising to see you calling for misandry to be viewed as ‘a cross to carry’ in place of considering the merit of the point…
/r/MensRights26/05/23 09:03 PM
22

Obviously the Police totally fucked this, but I can’t be the only one wondering where the wife went and why she said / did nothing?
/r/MensRights16/05/23 05:15 PM
15

It’s currently extremism. The reason for the pushback is it’s an idea that is gaining more and more traction with “moderate feminists”. What amplifies that is a prominent feminist promoting the idea directly to millions, and way further with press coverage. Equally, it’s simply a ridiculous idea, and serves only to remove individual responsibility from women. The whole argument is akin to saying that if the driver is wearing a seatbelt, the passenger doesn’t need to.
/r/MensRights11/05/23 07:16 AM
16

I have longish hair, and do the same. Sadly, that logic won’t fly for this clown - “Ally said that she does not want to use the hand-held showerhead because it reminded her of a hose.” Quite how she expects to have a fixed shower head and dry hair without using a hose is beyond me…
/r/MensRights10/05/23 01:52 AM
2

“Doesn’t that go against…” Impossible to say without knowing the age - if you’re 20 it does, if you’re 40+ it doesn’t. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights06/05/23 12:05 PM
1

To be fair, you shouldn’t be pooing with the seat up in the first place 😂
/r/MensRights29/04/23 11:23 AM
9

That would all stand some form of analysis if “hate” were a crime in place of it being a motive. Or, put differently, please give us an example of a hate crime where no other law is broken.
/r/MensRights26/04/23 02:02 PM
0

Fair enough; so she had the choice to pick hours that worked around not incurring childcare costs, because your salary would cover everything. You were the safety net, as you would be in the event of divorce - being stoic and objective. Either way, I referenced your circumstances specifically because you’d have a more visceral experience to refer to. Ironically, my point still objectively stands. Now, the stoic and emotionless consideration of “the other side” in divorce question, thoughts?
/r/MensRights21/04/23 09:43 PM
0

Well, you state that the perception is archaic (which has driven the legal attitude towards divorce), then advise a stoic consideration that “there are two sides”. What logical and stoic reasoning could you put towards an inequitable split of assets (as is the majority case in divorce proceedings)? The argument that women need alimony because of a lack of career development bought on by having children completely overlooks that they have benefitted from an opportunity cost - not having to consid…
/r/MensRights21/04/23 09:16 PM
1

Well, that’s the issue isn’t it - the concept of “communal wealth”, when in the majority of cases, the bulk of that wealth is generated by the man. Divorce laws are just another facet of what the feminists call ‘oppression’ - the historic perception that women are a liability that need to be financially accounted for (it’s why dowry existed, it’s why the father of the bride finds the wedding, and the concept of ‘keeping a woman in the manner to which she is accustomed’ comes from when considerin…
/r/MensRights21/04/23 08:01 PM
2

Is it the same reason though? What do you think the reasoning is for women? I’ll elucidate on why I think men prioritise financial protection once you give an answer to a question over a “well, we all know” non-sequitur…
/r/MensRights21/04/23 04:01 PM
1

Intriguing take; have you considered why the first response is around protection of assets for men? 🤔
/r/MensRights21/04/23 03:21 PM
11

Never really affected me, because I’ve never heard it from anyone who’s opinion I value. It’s never helpful anyway, so best ignored in my opinion.
/r/MensRights13/04/23 09:22 PM
4

And you seem to conflate employment with tips, which are very clearly separate. I see; bit difficult to ascertain you’re responding to someone else when you reply to my comment though. “How would you feel if the same were said about men?” I’d be perfectly fine with the suggestion that a woman shouldn’t tell me how to think or feel. I’m unsure as to what you see as problematic with that, or why you had to use a partial quote to presumably try and create an issue. Also, from personal experience, y…
/r/MensRights12/04/23 02:29 PM
3

Well, let’s just correct the fact that I am not the OP here. Ok; what’s your point? Attractive people are treated better than unattractive people. That’s not a gendered issue. And please don’t attempt to mind read, especially when it contradicts what I’ve clearly stated - I don’t “seem to think” she was hired solely on the basis of looks, I raised the question of if it is a factor in her being employed in place of someone less attractive. I’d presumed there must be a basic level of competency fo…
/r/MensRights12/04/23 01:09 PM
3

“but when the use that to influence how they compensate workers in society” - how does “the male gaze” from customers have any impact on how their employer sets a wage? Is it possible that the same ‘influence’ you present as a negative could also be part of a hiring decision in the first place (which negates your point around meritocracy)? And that’s the presumption underpinning your point - that she was hired on merit, rather than looks; we can only speculate on this. Oh, and if “OP is missing …
/r/MensRights12/04/23 12:13 PM
7

Lot of it about these days, I’m getting a few as well…
/r/MensRights11/04/23 05:59 PM
30

Ok, cool… More of this then.
/r/MensRights05/04/23 11:08 AM
4

their ideal man is a world apart from the ideal man. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights04/04/23 04:51 PM
0

Arrogant? Check the attitude you gave me in your initial response…
/r/MensRights04/04/23 08:20 AM
-2

I see there’s not much point in discussing much of anything further with you, but thanks for the attitude. FYI, my view isn’t “both sides are bad”, it’s that protagonists from both sides display huge negativity. No matter, I’m done with you anyway.
/r/MensRights04/04/23 08:18 AM
-7

No defense offered here. Something that found it’s way through my algorithms is this TED talk by a documentary film maker (who is a feminist) about Mens Rights, and what she learned in the process of creating a documentary (“The Red Pill” - I’ve not seen it though). My view is that it’s very easy for both sides of the gender debate to get into positions driven by vitriol and emotion, and it all comes at the cost of productive discourse. In my opinion, the whole situation is like a societal Cold …
/r/MensRights04/04/23 02:12 AM
-5

You need to share sources - no point in offering a critique with no suggestion of how to improve… I’m not entirely sure your summary on egalitarian progress within society is entirely on the money - sure, at the sharp end of the stick, action was achieved by men and women, but it’s a hard argument to suggest that previous feminist movements weren’t the primary catalyst for starting the process. After all, those “men and women with little to no association with feminism” didn’t decide to address …
/r/MensRights04/04/23 01:59 AM
-8

Feminists quite regularly say the same kind of things about Mens Rights - and that kills discussion too. As an FYI, seeing as this is an anti-brigading post, I’m male, and I don’t identify as a feminist. I think the feminist movement historically has had some fair points; now, that is highly debatable. Bottom line on my point here - no progress is made for anyone by simply pointing out the negatives (perceived or real) in either men’s rights or feminism, as much as I can empathise with your pers…
/r/MensRights04/04/23 01:22 AM
1

Came here to suggest there’s an element of conditioning at play here in my view - I’ve not experienced things to that scale, and I’ve not had to process as you suggest; genuine question, would you say therapy would also help as a companion to your suggestions (assuming a good therapist is in play)? Also, thanks - I’ll be looking into a couple of bits there myself…
/r/MensRights03/04/23 11:47 PM
6

Well, the last three sentences hold muster, but the rest? Not so much - the “small (but loud) minority” are a significant detriment to the aims of the movement. Surely the majority would be keen to distance themselves from the extremes, or would consider forming a new movement (like MGTOW did to separate from Incels)? There’s very little evidence of this happening; why doesn’t action line up with rhetoric here?
/r/MensRights03/04/23 11:41 PM
3

Likewise, which is why I called out your comment in the first place. Objectively, reversing the gender of your comment is sexist, which makes the original version sexist, no? Also, objectively, I have not “dismissed sexism from men”, merely commented on the sexism in your comment about men. Equally, for one who is seeking objectivity, you appear to have set a very low bar for discourse - before offering discussion in a private forum, I had my doubts about your ability to be objective and preconc…
/r/MensRights03/04/23 11:04 AM
5

Well, I can’t be responsible for what anyone else says, here or otherwise. In this instance, I would question whether you raised this post for insight or debate. The comment at the top of the post indicates it’s a simple question, yet your comment responses look more like you want to debate your position in place of understanding someone else’s. And sure, calling out sexism either way is important - as is recognising when you may have been sexist (inadvertently or otherwise) and adjusting behavi…
/r/MensRights03/04/23 10:42 AM
5

That comment fits better in your usual haunt of TwoX, it’s both incredibly condescending and a massive generalisation. I mean, I’d challenge you to post the following comment in TwoX and see how much pushback you get there: “If a woman is kind, confident and good company, she’ll be able to find a man who wants to be with her. But the allure of blaming men for not being successful or good looking enough is clearly hard to resist. A woman who blames men for the worlds issues is not attractive to m…
/r/MensRights03/04/23 07:39 AM
3

Well, usage is an entirely different factor. So, you’d support separate androcide laws with matching penalties for femicide laws - that’s homicide law as it stands.
/r/MensRights02/04/23 08:47 PM
8

Everything you’ve mentioned is why there are sentencing guidelines in the first place. Judges consider the circumstances when issuing a sentence if a guilty verdict is given by the jury. Longer prison sentences are already issued when there is evidence of a radical motive, partially or completely. It’s this very facet of the legal system that sees women serve less time for the same crime. Simply put - what you propose already exists.
/r/MensRights02/04/23 08:44 PM
12

So you’d support a law specifically for androcide with the same extensive sentencing? If your answer to that is yes, congratulations, that’s homicide. If it’s no, why should there be separation by gender at all?
/r/MensRights02/04/23 08:39 PM
2

The whole “pick me” thing is an odd one - if having a set of views makes you a “pick me”, surely having an opposing / different opinion makes them a “don’t pick me”
/r/MensRights23/03/23 12:24 PM
2

Indeed; my point was more about the principle at play rather than the scale of options - if anything your biggest point, in terms of effecting change, is on the permanence of internet content regarding a legally based approach. Still leaves the difficulty of establishing legal precedent - if individuals are successfully sued, it will only make taking action against individuals easier, not directly stop such groups existing. My gut feeling is that there must be some breach of Facebooks terms by t…
/r/MensRights15/03/23 11:53 PM
10

I wonder how long it will be until there’s a class action style lawsuit against either Facebook, or the founders of these groups - I suspect that will be the only thing that stops them. Realistically though, I’d say there’s a line of thought that this is just a digitised version of ‘bathroom gossip’, and won’t be going away anytime soon.
/r/MensRights15/03/23 07:07 PM
0

We can, but what benefit is there in exploring the hypothetical in one example? I’m not sure considering what could have happened or any potential implications, etc furthers men’s rights in any productive way - or, put differently, there’s enough actual events to worry about as is, no need to seek further issues, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights14/03/23 02:21 PM
1

I mostly agree - I’d add a small footnote to publicising cases; it shouldn’t happen whilst the case is ongoing. I think this should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty; anything else is merely speculation really. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights13/03/23 09:52 PM
2

It goes beyond a false accusation into full blown perjury once it hits court. Should be further legal ramifications for the accuser there, as well as compensation to the accused - half a million in legal fees where there’s evidence of a botched investigation? That doesn’t seem right at all…
/r/MensRights13/03/23 08:35 AM
4

It’s a legal wording thing - under UK law, rape is only performed “with a penis”. Women are charged with “Causing sexual activity without consent”. It carries the same max sentence as rape, but leaves a nice loophole for the media to not call a rapist a rapist.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/03/23 03:28 PM
2

So you wouldn’t have any truck with your partner for the cheating and lying? As others have commented, it’s a highly nuanced situation; your comments show that you might not be considering all the angles here. For example, you’ve referenced people “abandoning” a child, or being worried about “their precious bloodline”. You’re a father yourself - you know how much of a financial, emotional, and physical (time) strain that puts on both parents, individually and collectively. Isn’t being appropriat…
/r/MensRights11/03/23 03:26 PM
1

I’m presuming there’s no issue with paternity in your case, but that process sounds pretty fucking scary.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 03:16 PM
6

The crime women get charged for is “causing sexual activity without consent”, as the wording of the rape law requires penetration “with a penis”. Carries the same maximum penalty, but four years seems lenient in my opinion.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 02:07 PM
6

Funnily enough, I got into a long discussion with a Redittor who claimed to be a Police officer in the UK (no smoking gun that they weren’t to be fair, but it’s online, so who really knows 🤷🏼‍♂️). The wording of rape laws in the UK require a penis to be a rapist; for women, the relevant law is “Causing sexual activity without consent”, which carries the same maximum sentence. My issue is this - the existing of separate, gendered laws affects the social narrative. The media never refer to female …
/r/MensRights10/03/23 10:15 AM
1

Some speed Googling could have saved you there - Slovenia averages 40 murders per year; of the two years in question, those 14 are the only instances of femicide, the rest were androcide.
/r/MensRights10/03/23 09:28 AM
2

Whilst I can’t speak for OP, I’d venture it would need to be proportionally higher than those numbers. Slovenia averages 40 murders a year; 14/80 of those being women indicates a far higher concern around androcide. Something I note you have no concern about in your post. As it stands, with a murder rate averaging around 0.5% per 100k, and a population of 2.1m, it’s probably best to not gender the core issue of murder here, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights10/03/23 09:25 AM
3

Ah, keep copies of the search results showing no articles, and flag with HR that there appears to be an awful amount of sexism - the kind that wouldn’t play well at any tribunal or in the media. Well, keep it in pocket anyway, you never knew when it could be useful info.
/r/MensRights09/03/23 04:55 PM
3

Oh great, that outcome now sets a precedent in case law…
/r/MensRights09/03/23 02:58 PM
5

Oddly, the same applies when reversing the genders there - just look at how MRAs are perceived as an example.
/r/MensRights09/03/23 02:33 PM
1

I’ve just tried to start a chat, let’s see how it goes.
/r/MensRights06/03/23 09:44 PM
3

My apologies - tiredness earlier on. Yes, it does show a drop, although my read is more 22 dropping to 18 (needs better scaling). Even then, we’re currently looking at an anomaly rather than the overall trend of increasing numbers of men (and latterly women) having less sex.
/r/MensRights06/03/23 09:36 PM
1

Can you send that PM over to me as well please?
/r/MensRights06/03/23 04:15 PM
3

You do realise that graph is showing an increase in the number of men who aren’t having sex right? Your evidence totally contradicts your point, as it shows that less men have been having sex, with a marked rise in the 2018-21 period.
/r/MensRights06/03/23 04:14 PM
1

Do you penetrate your mouth every time you eat? I mean, you can’t genuinely believe that would be an arrestable offence (let alone prosecutable). Or do you see it as perfectly acceptable that a woman can never commit rape in the UK? Seriously, reply with something less obviously bait, it’ll keep the discussion flowing. Small edit to add - following your logic, yes, it would carry a maximum sentence of 25 years. Let’s not fall into the trap of assuming every sentence would be at the maximum.
/r/MensRights06/03/23 10:39 AM
1

Huh? I’d just remove it, it doesn’t need replacing… https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rsa/rape-and-sexual-assault/what-is-rape-and-sexual-assault/#:~:text=The%20legal%20definition%20of%20rape,without%20the%20other%20person's%20consent. Just remove the wording “with a penis”.
/r/MensRights06/03/23 10:22 AM
1

I’d remove the reference to “with a penis”. Laws shouldn’t be gendered, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights06/03/23 10:08 AM
1

Indeed; but it would go a way to changing the narrative / language used around female offenders. Notice the media very rarely refers to female offenders as rapists, and generally terms anything sexual assault? 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights06/03/23 09:13 AM
3

Two posts about two separate subreddits…
/r/MensRights03/03/23 09:34 AM
2

Well, my point is some reform is needed. Like you say, she’s a professional celebrity these days - which means people sort of listen and conversations get started. In this instance, legal reform is a discussion worth having, even if you don’t agree with why she suggests it. FYI, I think the approach to DV needs addressing too - the presumption that the man is the aggressor prior to investigation is a clear bias that needs to be eradicated.
/r/MensRights02/03/23 09:02 AM
3

Reading to much into it - her point that there is a need for legal reform is objectively fair, with the definition of rape being an example of why I think so. Put differently, I agree with her legal reform point in principle, but not in detail (presumed or stated).
/r/MensRights01/03/23 11:55 PM
2

I’d chuck in a very specific rewording of current rape laws in the UK; it’s is legally impossible for a woman to commit rape under UK law, and sexual assault carries a maximum sentence ten years shorter than rape. That is definitely sexist.
/r/MensRights01/03/23 04:06 PM
30

Well, to an extent she has a point about the legal system - although I note she’s not calling for UK law to be reworded so women can be convicted of rape. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights01/03/23 03:53 PM
5

If you’ve got the post, link it. Discussion goes much further when everyone has the same info, and is far more productive than disputing the resulting opinion…
/r/MensRights01/03/23 02:21 PM
5

It’s interesting that your answer makes no comment on the financial expectations put on men, implying you believe it’s is an entitlement for women in relationships. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights01/03/23 08:14 AM
1

Ok, quite a bit to unpack, so bear with me. First off, I’d question if you’ve checked if there’s anything medically going on that could be causing the weight loss / feeling weak. Irritability and anxiety could be side effects. Moving on, what have you tried to remedy the problems? Are you exercising? Is what you eat generally healthy? Have you tried meditation or yoga? I’m asking this mostly because if you stating it’s an “undiagnosed depressive disorder”. It may prove to be the case that you do…
/r/MensRights28/02/23 12:21 AM
1

So you admit there’s an assumption, but don’t see that as a lack of due process? Going to your example, and heading straight to the separation part. If you suspect your partner of infidelity and separate, you’ve still got to pay child support, or disprove paternity - which in some states in the USA and some EU countries requires the mothers permission. The potential pitfalls there are self-evident. Oh, and you’re talking to an adoptee. The examples you give are incomparable - the one common them…
/r/MensRights26/02/23 10:20 AM
1

It’s pretty much the case across the EU and UK, where the law is the same for unwed mothers, sadly. Did you think I’m annoyed about nothing?
/r/MensRights25/02/23 10:10 AM
1

Here’s why I said marital status has nothing to do with it - unmarried people have children; the father is still presumed to be whoever the mother names on the birth certificate. Does that clarify why I’m questioning the need for evidence? Just take a moment and try to give an answer without it relying on marriage; if you’ve had 3 or more sexual partners, the majority of them weren’t your marriage partner, so it shouldn’t be difficult to imagine an unwed couple procreating. The law doesn’t chang…
/r/MensRights25/02/23 09:57 AM
1

What defines legitimacy? I may be wrong here, but I’d always thought that was determined by the parents marital status - and if so, it very much does permit the existence of bastards at the very least by allowing the mother to opt out of naming a father. By any rate, even if your description of the laws function is entirely accurate, you’ve just detailed the problem - a judgment is made without due process, and allows one party to restrict the determination of key evidence.
/r/MensRights25/02/23 09:42 AM
2

Marital status has absolutely nothing to do with this at all, and that argument is applying total accountability to men and removing any from the woman. One other purpose marriage serves is a guarantee of fidelity in a relationship - and you’d have to be an idiot if you believe all marriages are. It’s a side note to the discussion anyway. Put differently; can you name a single other law when a man is accountable without proof?
/r/MensRights25/02/23 09:26 AM
1

So you see the conundrum here - the legal system is geared to presume legal status as a father without confirmation, and the ability to provide confirmation can be vetoed by the other party. Pretty much as close to “guilty until proven innocent” as I can imagine.
/r/MensRights24/02/23 02:38 PM
5

If the premise is on the consent of the “legal guardian”, that being the mother, would that not automatically presume the supposed father is not the legal guardian? 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights24/02/23 01:02 PM
1

Ok, I’m going to presume it’s weekend beers or a language barrier at play here, but what? The first half makes no sense at all. The Police investigate allegations of crime - so when they determine there’s “non-existent criminals”, they don’t continue looking for them, they close the case (or, under certain circumstances, take action against the accuser). I’ve no idea why you’re mentioning that… As for government spending, we’re talking about the UK here - you know, that little island that spends…
/r/MensRights19/02/23 01:32 AM
2

Well, it’s a matter of context - I mean, to be eligible for compensation as a victim of crime in the UK, you’re going to be at the lower income levels by the nature of the scheme. Working with that, you’d be fine with someone poor defrauding the government for a false claim? I mean, direction of travel of the funds doesn’t make much difference anyway; taking money from the government is taking from everyone who pays tax in the country. The money is with the government for a reason.
/r/MensRights18/02/23 10:15 PM
1

Well, I’ve not dig further into the law to see what protection from abuse there is, so I can’t entirely agree that it will cause more false reports, only that it could. Besides, it’s a government process; it’ll take a bit to actually receive the funds - and that’s assuming there’s absolutely no due diligence in investigating. It’s not some kind of ‘bonus’ payment, it’s restitution. As for your point on defrauding the government, that’s a very simplified view- you mean you’re fine with defrauding…
/r/MensRights18/02/23 07:00 PM
1

https://www.gov.uk/browse/justice/compensation-victim-support The scheme is to cover loss of income incurred as a result of being a victim of crime, and it looks like there’s some eligibility requirements beyond that. Alarmingly, an arrest or conviction doesn’t seem to be one of them. That said, I’d imagine there would be some additional consequences if someone were found to have falsified an offence and defrauded the government.
/r/MensRights18/02/23 06:10 PM
4

😂😂😂😂😂 “Factually wrong”?!? I suspected you weren’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but that’s confirmation you’re an idiot. 😂😂😂😂😂
/r/MensRights18/02/23 03:30 PM
3

See, that’s where I think you’re getting the downvotes - why would it be sensible to propose before cohabitating? Taking out a lease should only require the payment of a deposit, not a deposit and an engagement ring…
/r/MensRights18/02/23 02:54 PM
3

The line between preference and expectation is where things get fuzzy though. Preference for not living with a boyfriend? Fine. Expectation to marry someone without living with them first? I don’t see many guys who’d go for that. And that’s the rub - relationships are about compromise, and she doesn’t seem to be willing to make any concession. I can’t see how she hopes to find a man who’s willing to sign into a legally binding agreement and risk half his stuff without having lived with her for a…
/r/MensRights18/02/23 12:47 PM
2

In principle, yes - in practice, no, sadly. And the level of intervention is relevant; again, use of the Bradford factor is rife in long term / excessive sickness cases across Europe. Disability protections would need to be amended in law as well - having a period isn’t viewed as a disability (rightly so), but there are women who can’t work due to exacerbating factors (such as PMDD, for example). And make no mistake; this is as much about gaining political capital as it is about protecting emplo…
/r/MensRights17/02/23 03:26 PM
9

Well, it’s the “in practice” part that muddies the waters, in exactly the same way it does with using standard sick leave - are you aware of the “Bradford factor” for determining if an employee has excessive sick leave? (If not, check it out). It’s a fine line to tread - if a woman has significant enough issues with her period (and there are a range of medical conditions that impact this, such as PMDD), it’s possible that using standard sick leave would result in a sacking for excessive sickness…
/r/MensRights17/02/23 03:12 PM
60

In principle, fine. In practice, I suspect this will result in a number of legal actions for wrongful dismissal - hard to address long term or excessive sick leave without it potentially getting into gender discrimination.
/r/MensRights17/02/23 01:08 PM
18

How the fuck is this not considered attempted murder?!?
/r/MensRights16/02/23 04:11 PM
2

Yes, the dictionary definition says “someone perceived as vulnerable” - it doesn’t say Leo though, so quite how you’ve got to that when the topic is how the model has closed her socials… Less a lunatic, more that you’re lacking basic comprehension. Also, as has been pointed out, wealth doesn’t equal invulnerability anyway. Somehow wrong on both your point, and the subject of discussion. Impressively inaccurate, in a way.
/r/MensRights09/02/23 04:29 PM
2

Ah, there it is - you’ve missed the point, which is very clearly stated in the text. In this case the “someone perceived as vulnerable” is the model. Try and keep up.
/r/MensRights09/02/23 04:20 PM
2

😂 So; Bullying - seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable). Harassment - aggressive pressure or intimidation Yes, wildly different forms of intimidation. Your entire argument is semantic, and going for the “Google it” approach was proof to me that you simply don’t have a grasp on the definition. Honestly, I’m undecided if you’re a really bad troll or just cognitively impaired at this point, but I am sure done. Enjoy the last, meaningless, word though.
/r/MensRights09/02/23 04:03 PM
0

How?
/r/MensRights09/02/23 03:45 PM
5

Nice catch. I was thinking it was an odd to try and disprove the statement by using ungendered figures to disprove a gendered statement. Absolutely nothing to say the cases without conviction were all female (or male) offenders, to clarify how meaningless the numbers are. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights02/02/23 06:49 PM
7

She probably isn’t wrong on saying that it’s mostly women handling what’s left “behind those lines”, but she is definitively wrong to say it’s worse than handling what’s happening at the front lines. Oh, and sure, the front line is “defended by men and women”, although it doesn’t take much to recognise that cohort is heavily skewed towards one gender.
/r/MensRights01/02/23 08:40 AM
1

I’ve read over all your comments here, and there’s both an oversimplification (in that the core assumption is withholding help is on the basis of a single factor - “punishment”), and a projection (that withholding help is punishment). The only way withholding help, which you admit is not obligated in any way, could be deemed spiteful is if the protagonists have pre-existing issues. Otherwise, what you’re describing is a man not offering help he has no obligation to offer, and speculating as to h…
/r/MensRights30/01/23 07:55 PM
2

I agree with pretty much everything there, barring the final paragraph. If a woman is dating in her 40s, her views on relationships don’t hold much weight - and if she’s in a relationship, her views on dating don’t carry much weight. The reasons why (the wall, hypergamy, whatever) don’t really matter if you can define the opinion as irrelevant. Besides, like you say, why would anyone in a their 40s entertain appearing on a dating podcast?!?
/r/PussyPassDenied19/11/22 12:41 AM
18

It never was, until the W Series was created to make “pathways” to F1 and the feeder series (F2, etc) specifically for women. There’s no need for a “women bad drivers” joke when the utter dearth of good female racers makes that point in a way…
/r/PussyPassDenied11/10/22 10:41 AM
1

I saw that and thought she’s writing that based on her assumptions, even though she doesn’t know her…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/10/22 08:39 PM
1

That’s a bunch of redacted photos though…
/r/PussyPassDenied28/09/22 08:09 PM
6

“It basically stopping them from speaking up about sexual harassment” - by removing the possibility of sexual harassment, you’d expect this to be an outcome. Also, you’ve taken an article about tenure-tracked researchers and arrived at hindered career progression there, I’m not sure that’s an appropriate read of the situation.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/09/22 12:10 PM
5

The post is as stupid as presuming that removing the possibility of future trauma is somehow equivalent to “getting shafted”. Especially after reading an article that evidences this isn’t a problem where policies around sexual harassment are clear. Lovely spot of mental gymnastics to frame not being abusive as a problem though.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/09/22 12:07 PM
41

There’s an acronym that might apply (based on a British TV program) - BOBFOC; Body off Baywatch, Face off Crimewatch…
/r/PussyPassDenied17/09/22 09:34 AM
2

Here you go dude…
/r/PussyPassDenied15/09/22 07:53 AM
8

“Assistant night manager”? Sounds a bit over-promoted there, even hypothetically…
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen06/08/22 11:30 AM
1

Came to say exactly that - “no one wants a broke…” You bought 17 broke-ass fools with you!?!
/r/PussyPassDenied17/07/22 04:00 PM
1

Ah, yes, context - something you’ve completely disregarded throughout everything you’ve said; the context being a mandatory minimum exists, and has been applied. In the end, the assumption that I live in the USA says a lot about your mental capacity; also the fact that you’ve still failed to recognise I’m neither supporting or defending the existence of a mandatory minimum, only it’s even application, speaks further to low comprehension. I’m not “insisting” you contact your representatives, mere…
/r/PussyPassDenied14/07/22 09:39 AM
1

Again, that should be a letter to an appropriate authority. Your response would be relevant if I were arguing that laws can’t be changed at all, and completely disregard that fact they can’t be changed on the fly in court. And whilst you’re attempting to be holier-than-thou here, wasn’t there something about “judge not lest ye be judged”; the entire legal system itself is fallacious in light of that. Oh, and quoting a book which instructs you on how to treat your slaves really doesn’t hold any w…
/r/PussyPassDenied13/07/22 11:02 PM
1

Ok, so the wall of text is going to take a while here, on mobile, so bear with me… How do I “presume to understand” anyones psychological and emotional state? I don’t, can’t, and wouldn’t - as you say, that’s why we have mental hospitals; like any form of mental health treatment, the aim is still emotional / behavioural ‘control’. Equally, no presumption from me that all crimes are directly equivalent; there is in mandatory minimums though - isn’t that what we’re discussing? Or are you presuming…
/r/PussyPassDenied13/07/22 08:54 PM
3

So concocting a definition makes it right? Yeah, cool - I mean, that definition of proportion doesn’t fit any dictionary definition, but sure, let’s take it as fact. 👍🏼 If it’s about the relationship between the crime and it’s damages, please explain how it wound eh J U S T (as in fair) to give a longer sentence to a man than a woman for the same offence? FYI, I’m not an American, but that’s another assumption it’s easy to make eh? This conversation never began, off you fuck…
/r/PussyPassDenied13/07/22 01:14 PM
2

Your comment is framed in relation to crime and punishment of said crime, and presents as if you’re suggesting compassion and therapy as an alternative to criminal proceedings. Hence the comment about direction of compassion and therapy. To convict for a crime, we first have to be able to identify a perpetrator; hard to issue any form of punishment without one… And where did I suggest that supporting victims isn’t the case? If compassion and therapy are to have any effect in breaking the cycle, …
/r/PussyPassDenied13/07/22 09:01 AM
5

You’ve said you’d give a harsher sentence to a man than a woman for the same crime, you clearly haven’t grasped proportion or justice, let alone be in a position to be explaining it to anyone…
/r/PussyPassDenied13/07/22 12:03 AM
1

Isn’t “let the punishment fit the crime” and “constitutional protection” a case against the mandatory minimum sentence in place? It’s certainly not a valid defence for the crime itself…
/r/PussyPassDenied12/07/22 11:59 PM
3

The requirement for compassion and therapy should occur before an abuse victim becomes a perpetrator, not as an alternative to punishment for commission of an offence. Why not direct the compassion and therapy at the victim to break the cycle? Look at the case in the video - what’s better, sentence the perpetrator in line with the mandatory sentencing and offer therapy and compassion to the 13 year old, or therapy and compassion without punishment to her?
/r/PussyPassDenied12/07/22 11:55 PM
1

her brain?
/r/PussyPassDenied12/07/22 11:50 PM
5

Nope - case still going through the courts apparently. She’s since been arrested for identity theft though. Oh, and she’s got a former arrest for filming herself driving at 122mph…
/r/PussyPassDenied17/06/22 05:14 PM
1

Ah yes, because of course he had complete control of how the divorce court would assign custody. It’s all so clearly his fault right?
/r/PussyPassDenied26/04/22 04:35 PM
2

Some of it for time, sure, but a 20 year old in a juvenile prison is rather suspect…
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/22 02:52 PM
13

Something like that, yeah…
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen13/03/22 04:46 PM
36

Looks like content from a feed giving “relationship techniques” to a specific gender. You know, the place where you absolutely must know what the other gender is earning. 🤦🏻
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen13/03/22 02:58 PM
1

Not sure I agree with that one. They divorced in 1992 for starters, and whilst I’ve no doubt her life was dramatically inconvenienced, it pales in comparison to incarceration - she had agency to amend or improve her circumstances. I’ve done some digging round though, and there’s a quote from the guy which is simply epic - when asked if he holds any ill will towards his ex, he responded with “when the cheese is on the table, the rats come out”.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/02/22 09:28 PM
24

Ok, fair enough. Now write the laws that view obtaining a dinner on the promise of sex fraud and it’s all in balance…
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen22/02/22 12:05 AM
2

Nah, cunt.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/12/21 12:38 AM
1

It’s impossible to accurately determine the age of a lobster. I hope that’s surprising to you, because you appear to have given up on discussing the matter at hand.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/12/21 12:25 AM
1

I’m unsure as to what surprise you’d be looking for. It made headlines because of the nature of the case - do you think that’s the worst violence that can occur in prison? And are you basing that opinion on the existence of a segregation policy you’ve no idea is being applied to this prisoner?
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/21 11:52 PM
2

Is she on segregation though? You’ve proved prisoners can be segregated, not that she is safe from harm. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/21 09:54 PM
1

Surprise me then 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/21 12:38 PM
1

Pretty much how it worked back in the day, just at a different stage of proceedings. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/21 02:52 AM
1

You’d be surprised, from what I’ve heard…
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/21 02:47 AM
3

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/ It’s the bullshit laws here in the UK - to make it all the more ridiculous, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving (which the article states she plead guilty to) is 14 years.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/21 02:35 AM
2

Never mind only 7.5 years on the driving ban, how is it a longer “punishment” than she got for killing someone? That just doesn’t make any sense to me at all - and I’ll bet they found her jail time in that too. So that’s five years for killing someone, and 2.5 years of using taxis for the same offence. How the shuddering fuck does that make any sense?
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/21 02:29 AM
1

Found that delete. Again, genuine error.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/10/21 02:56 PM
1

I’m sure it is, but that wasn’t an attempt at karma farming, simply noobiness. How to delete?
/r/PussyPassDenied31/10/21 02:55 PM
1

Tried standard oysters once, not a fan. What’s the Rocky Mountain bit about?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/21 10:43 PM
1

Ah, fair enough. It doesn’t answer the question though dude, have you tried them?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/21 10:01 PM
1

Dude, but have you tried beans on toast though? Oh, and sloppy Joe’s? We’ve all got our weird shit 😂
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/21 09:31 PM
1

Wait, so you saw a video where someone says “hopefully it’s not attempted” when told they were being arrested for attempted murder, who freely admitted she’d stabbed him, and casually asked for her coat, and arrived at the conclusion that she’s “not all there”?!? So, without any actual evidence of him being abusive in any way, you felt sorry for someone who’s response to hearing “get the ambulance, you may need to administer CPR” was “oh, please don’t”. Did you still feel sorrow for her when she…
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/21 09:29 PM
1

Doh! Sorry about that…
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/21 03:13 PM
1

A matter of perspective; clearly I’m not the only one here who disagrees with yours. You can finish your wank now.
/r/MensRights17/10/21 06:49 PM
3

If the world exists solely in absolutes, sure. Seeing as it doesn’t though, what is the point in any of them, if not to deflect or diminish his point?
/r/MensRights17/10/21 05:43 PM
2

…and literally none of them respect the request itself.
/r/MensRights17/10/21 04:50 PM
3

Either your English is terrible, or you genuinely believe Jonah Hill to be “the source of all these problems”. Odd take. Stranger still to suggest that rather than address an issue beyond his control he just “man the fuck up”. Tell me, why shouldn’t women just “woman the fuck up” when dealing with the same situation? All those commenters are doing is bitching about men who they don’t sympathise with very well because they haven’t been listening to them. As a general rule, if the argument you pre…
/r/MensRights17/10/21 04:49 PM
2

Wait, so you don’t see those comments as being competitive? Is whataboutery compassion in your world?
/r/MensRights17/10/21 04:44 PM
1

Lovely false equivalence there, just like the argument made by the commenters.
/r/MensRights17/10/21 04:42 PM
1

My dating life has been a relatively spectacular series of failures, so I’m in no position to offer any meaningful advice here, but one thing does resonate - “I’ve been going to the gym because, frankly, I feel unattractive to the opposite sex”. All I’d say is go to the gym for yourself, no one else - build up that self esteem some, and learn to be happy alone; ask yourself one question - if your world appears “miserable” (or pick your own strength of negative here), why should anyone want to sh…
/r/MensRights13/10/21 06:49 PM
1

Well, until it is - divorce being a prime example. The practice itself isn’t problematic, the expectation is becoming so though…
/r/MensRights12/10/21 12:54 PM
3

Same, but it has to clear the bar of being funny. This doesn’t at any level really.
/r/MensRights11/10/21 07:23 PM
1

Words and deeds though. Easy to say one thing and act totally differently. 🤷🏼‍♂️
/r/MensRights11/10/21 07:22 PM
2

Oh absolutely - historically, things have worked because of gender co-operation. I’m still not 100% that the “provider / protector” role doesn’t fall primarily on men though - I’m sure there’s a study of five out there (I’m moving house at the moment though, so one for later that)…
/r/MensRights11/10/21 07:20 PM
0

In the majority of cases, women do provide more resources though; maybe you’re the exception that proves the rule?
/r/MensRights11/10/21 12:08 PM
1

I find the whole discussion to be incredibly bizarre in Western societies, where generally women have plenty of agency to rectify a problem that is highly debatable, both in terms of existence and scale. One simple counterpoint for me would be to agree, and suggest everyone should be given equal pay terms - notably including equal paternity leave entitilement. There are several examples of where employment terms are equal, at least at the level of salary; government jobs. Whilst I don’t have sup…
/r/PussyPassDenied03/07/21 01:09 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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