TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Jess_than_three Archive

View 1 post and 478 comments by Jess_than_three 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)
0

Jess_than_three/r/MensRights30/09/12 06:22 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
–

It has to do with this sub's hate-on for feminists. <3
/r/MensRights13/06/17 01:00 AM
–

You spoke of "getting" her specifically to take a position that she has long since taken. I'm surprised that the illiteracy problem extended to your own posts!
/r/MensRights13/06/17 12:59 AM
–

You're right. What was the queer community thinking when we celebrated marriage equality victories, or the end of DADT? Can't let celebration of progress get in the way of a good circlejerk!
/r/MensRights13/06/17 12:11 AM
–

"Finally"? I'm sorry you're illiterate. Ginsburg has been fighting for this for a long time. Which is actually not surprising, because, you know, feminism isn't what you think it is.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 12:10 AM
–

No, it's not clear what direction the new rules will go.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 11:41 PM
1

Deal. :)
/r/MensRights12/06/17 09:57 PM
–

Weird way to phrase it. The fact that this is only at +16 shows pretty strongly how you guys aren't actually about the shit you say you are. This is potentially a huge victory for human rights, but it's not complaining about how terrible feminists are, so who cares, right? Also, how about a round of applause for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself a feminist, who (no surprise) has been fighting for this for a long-ass time?
/r/MensRights12/06/17 09:18 PM
-1

How the fuck exactly would you like me to do that? You want me to hold a fucking rally?
/r/MensRights21/05/17 05:31 AM
-2

I mean, I'm right here calling her a dumb asshole, surely that's at least one peep. Whatever, you go ahead and believe what you want, okay? We're all bad people, yup, you got it. Have a great night.
/r/MensRights21/05/17 05:19 AM
6

No it's not, you dumb motherfuckers. Just because one dumb asshole who is a feminist said a dumb asshole thing, that does not in any way entail that "that is what feminism looks like". Are you this fucking desperate to find things to feel outraged about?
/r/MensRights20/05/17 09:40 PM
1

You're arguing with shit I haven't said, brah. I think it's important that if you're going to talk about it, you at least know the facts, rather than just circlejerking around the distorted version being passed around the right-wing blagosphere.
/r/MensRights28/01/17 12:01 AM
1

Sorry, I'll try to bring peer-reviewed citations next time I want to remark on something I've noticed (and others have noticed) over years.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 10:54 PM
1

👌 It's totally impossible to talk about the aggregate tendencies of a group without referring to each individual specific member? Got it. Sorry.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 10:26 PM
1

Actually, I think Warren Ellis is a reasonable apples-to-oranges-but-still-both-fruit comparison, as a guy who at one point advocated incest and kiddie-fiddling. He was big news for a little while on reddit and other parts of the blagoblag, but did the "mainstream media" give a shit about him? No, they did not.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 10:16 PM
1

I mean, that's not what I was saying. The garbage right-wing news sites are spreading a story as though she, personally and individually, did these things; but in reality, she was part (and from the sound of it a much lesser player in) a larger group. I can't find anything detailing her specific actions, beyond functioning as a driver - can you?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 10:01 PM
1

Well, first you'd have to have a man that was involved in the torture and murder of a woman. Did she participate? All I got from that article was that she acted as the driver, but idk. Secondly, was he gay? One woman claimed that "he was a homo" - but the basis for that claim was an assertion that "he wiggled" when she shoved a metal bar up his ass; given the context, I'm going to guess that she didn't, you know, use lube, and that it probably wasn't a pleasant experience (irrespective of whethe…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 08:31 PM
3

It's really fascinating, but also terrifying, how virtually all you can find searching for this woman is from right-wing shitpeddlers. No Wikipedia article, no modern articles or sources at all - except for the aforementioned conservative rags. The Psychology Today article has the benefit of not having the agenda that the other alternatives have... But it's the content of those articles (all cribbing from each other, in an ecosystem of propaganda) that everyone here is repeating back and forth t…
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:56 PM
-1

But remember: MRAs are totally not super conservative!
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:43 PM
1

Do you know what actually happened, or do you just know "murder", "rape", "torture", "captive", and "weeks"? https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199507/crime-and-punishment I'm not going to tell you what to think. But do read a little more on her case, because it's not as simple as it's being presented to be. And, if nothing else, it's a good read.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:42 PM
1

To say that she held someone captive for weeks badly oversimplifies what occurred. Have a read, and form your own opinion: https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199507/crime-and-punishment I'm not going to tell you what to think. But do read a little more on her case, because it's not as simple as it's being presented to be. And, if nothing else, it's a good read.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:41 PM
3

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199507/crime-and-punishment I'm not going to tell you what to think. But do read a little more on her case, because it's not as simple as it's being presented to be. And, if nothing else, it's a good read.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:39 PM
1

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199507/crime-and-punishment I'm not going to tell you what to think. But do read a little more on her case, because it's not as simple as it's being presented to be. And, if nothing else, it's a good read.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:39 PM
2

Maybe just a little bit. That was a pretty funny response.
/r/MensRights06/06/15 12:50 PM
2

You know, there was a time when I really respected you.
/r/MensRights05/06/15 12:24 PM
-1

Oh okay thanks for clarifying
/r/MensRights04/06/15 09:48 PM
-2

Because I was attributing that view to him.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 09:48 PM
-4

Then I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 09:48 PM
-2

Very straightforward possible answers: he was paying some but not all of the time; he was paying, but less than the ordered amount; he had been found to have withheld information about his finances that meant that the amount he should have been paying was higher than what it was. None of which are without question The Answer, because as pointed out the article is very light on actual details. But any of them is approximately a million times more plausible than "the courts demanded he pay an extr…
/r/MensRights04/06/15 07:41 PM
-17

Vindictive women Which is to say, "women", right?
/r/MensRights04/06/15 07:03 PM
-10

Look, I can quote, too! he normally "laid back" 45-year-old had been upset by a demand that he pay the money back within two years. He received the letter from the Child Support Agency, requesting back-payments for his son on November 11 last year. As in, he hadn't been paying. Or do you think debts should just magically fucking disappear?
/r/MensRights04/06/15 06:54 PM
-20

Nope, but you sure are an asshole. Can't say I'm surprised!
/r/MensRights04/06/15 06:52 PM
-19

Was your mom afraid of going to jail for not paying? My mother had the benefit of being fucking crazy, like, as in, diagnosed as such, and therefore didn't so much end up in jail as institutionalized. Hooray for her. No? Thanks for not being presumptuous! Do you imagine nobody was sympathetic to your mother's plight? Even when she said she may kill herself? Do you imagine for a fucking moment that nobody was sympathetic to this dude? Do you imagine after actually having killed herself that there…
/r/MensRights04/06/15 06:31 PM
-56

Not at all. It's tragic, and doubly so with regard to the impact on his son (also a man, right?). But maybe he shouldn't have been a fucking deadbeat? Source: had a parent who wouldn't pay child support. Oh, oops, it was my mother.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 05:42 PM
-2

But if you had any reading comprehension abilities to speak of, you'd realize that at no point have I complained about labels, or about any specific label. :)
/r/MensRights30/05/15 03:34 PM
-4

No, that isn't what that means. A shibboleth is a term that members of a group use to identify themselves to other members of the group. "SJW" is a great term because it allows members of a group (reactionary idiots) to identify themselves as members of that group to non-members. It's awesome because it's a way for you to identify yourself to me as someone whose opinions are not worth bothering to consider.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 03:15 PM
-4

Oh man, "SJWs". That term is the best reverse shibboleth I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 10:23 AM
-13

Uh, yeah, I know that reading comprehension is like really hard, but what I said was that while I do post in their gaming subreddit (which is awesomely free from low-effort may may posts, shit ad nauseum about the Big Popular Games, and the word "faggot" every third comment), I am not part of what can in any way reasonably be considered "the SRS community". Hurr de durr! Let me skip ahead. This is where you say, "well I said 'and their ilk'", and then I say, "What exactly is that meant to me, be…
/r/MensRights30/05/15 01:57 AM
-12

How about the fact that I'm not part of SRS?
/r/MensRights30/05/15 01:39 AM
-15

Oh man, the Peewee Herman rebuttal! Classic!
/r/MensRights30/05/15 01:31 AM
-17

Would you care to cite some? because AFAIK, I'm not the one in here making shit up about people and then rambling on about it in the face of them explicitly noting that it's counterfactual. :)
/r/MensRights30/05/15 01:18 AM
-26

LOL, ignoring reality in favor of narrative. Typical. :)
/r/MensRights30/05/15 12:56 AM
-26

LOL, what? TBP is racist now? To be honest with you I mostly forget that there's a subreddit attached to that modmail As for SRS - I love that as the catch-all "I don't like you and your opinions" accusation - but I'm afraid that aside from their gaming subreddit, I'm I'm no way a part of that community. Keep the circlejerk bullshit coming, though! :)
/r/MensRights30/05/15 12:32 AM
-43

LMFAO
/r/MensRights29/05/15 10:08 PM
-2

Can't go back to somewhere I'm not from, sorry. :(
/r/MensRights06/04/15 11:58 PM
-9

Cool.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 04:53 PM
0

Do what you want. Have a great night.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/15 02:09 AM
1

It wasn't personal information. For use, we thought it was personal information. But it wasn't. Something either is, or isn't. It wasn't. To say "it met our higher standards of doxxing" is also pretty dishonest (or at least it badly misses the point). Doxxing is what it is, and this wasn't anything like doxxing. The disagreement is clearly over what defines "personal information." We're free to interpret "personal information" in a way that serves us best. We also have a liberal definition of "c…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/15 02:08 AM
1

OK, so I went back and edited my comments to clarify. We're not going to change our definition of "personal information" because you want us to. Reddit has their rules. We have our own stricter rules. That's fine, but it seems pretty, I don't know, shaky, to use the word "doxxing" to refer to something that doesn't fit the definition of that word used by basically the entire rest of the internet (for example, bear in mind that the term originated with 4chan idiots collecting "doxx" - documents o…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/15 12:55 AM
1

It wasn't personal information. And while the user in question certainly feel intimidated (and understandably so), to say "there was an element of intimidation" seems very disingenuous to me, inasmuch as it strongly suggests that intimidation was the user's goal, which it absolutely was not. To say "it met our higher standards of doxxing" is also pretty dishonest (or at least it badly misses the point). Doxxing is what it is, and this wasn't anything like doxxing. It was another completely unrel…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/15 12:44 AM
3

I mean, no, you're an absolute liar. Nobody was doxxed (as stated by Harriet, someone knew IRL the user who got spooked and posted completely not-identifying, non-googlable material from her husband's Facebook - which is very much not cool but is not doxxing by any stretch of the imagination) and in fact we took steps we didn't have to take to ensure that the damage done by the user at fault was mitigated to the best of our ability (by removing the offending material and having a word with that …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/02/15 10:12 PM
1

I've never been a regular SRS poster. I post in their gaming subreddit, but that's about it.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 12:17 PM
1

Okay. I certainly don't agree with your assertions, but I take your point, and have an upvote for actually responding in a civil, constructive manner. That said, the entire point of my posts in this thread has been that the comparisons being drawn ("look it's hate speech imagine if it said 'jews'") are ridiculous and terrible, for reasons very like the ones you list. I mean, actually, I think mostly you're agreeing with me?
/r/MensRights26/01/15 06:49 PM
0

SJW Thanks, I always appreciate when someone lets me know their opinions are worthless. :)
/r/MensRights26/01/15 03:39 PM
0

I've never watched it, I'm afraid.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 03:38 PM
0

I'm glad you love it. I could take the time to explain, but I suspect you don't actually care. Have a good one!
/r/MensRights26/01/15 03:38 PM
-4

So you agree with me that your argument was terrible. Cool. :)
/r/MensRights26/01/15 01:21 PM
-2

I was just assuming normal people look at their own front page. I sure as hell wouldn't subject myself to your cliques postings on my front page. Btw the upvotes you had on other posts make it pretty freaking clear this was organized to some degree. Normally someone can't even criticise MRA silliness without getting downvoted, but somehow you got 5 upvoted for your over the top criticism? You're welcome to believe whatever you want, of course, and I'm nowhere near stupid enough to think that I c…
/r/MensRights26/01/15 12:10 PM
-2

What a bizarre comment. I haven't said anything whatsoever about Ms. Sarkeesian.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 12:07 PM
-2

Man, that was a whole lot of words to say "I don't get why what I'm saying is bullshit".
/r/MensRights26/01/15 12:06 PM
-8

LOL, wow. Like I said: delusional.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 12:05 PM
-2

Oh snap! You sure told me!
/r/MensRights26/01/15 12:05 PM
0

Good to know, although I think you responded to the wrong person. :)
/r/MensRights26/01/15 12:04 PM
-3

Huh. Who is it who's doing that killing? Oh, right. Men. Gosh, do you think it's not that they hate men, but rather that it's about the whole "you're not part of my social/ethnic group" thing? Except that they don't kill the women. So it's not, it's because they are men. Not so much that they hate men, but fear an uprising from them. Women are more likely to adapt to the situation for survival. Except that they don't kill their own men. So it's definitely not because they're men. Hint: it's beca…
/r/MensRights26/01/15 12:04 PM
-6

Which subreddit is that? Maybe /r/ainbow, the largest one I moderate? Let me give you the unabridged list of every person we've ever banned from the sub: An individual who repeatedly went on doxxing sprees and actively threatened multiple moderators Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions about the people you're talking to.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:58 AM
-13

On the contrary, it has been commonplace throughout history for conquering tribes and nations to systematically exterminate the men and boys of the defeated group. Huh. Who is it who's doing that killing? Oh, right. Men. Gosh, do you think it's not that they hate men, but rather that it's about the whole "you're not part of my social/ethnic group" thing? Other examples of institutionalised discrimination against men include far higher conviction and imprisonment rates, and the systematic bias ag…
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:46 AM
-5

Sorry I don't have your subreddit filtered out of /r/all and object to people saying incredibly stupid things no matter where they're saying them?
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:32 AM
-10

Literally everything you just said amounts to "context doesn't matter". Let's try this with another example. What if I said this? White people are a privileged group and racism against white people doesn't exist in any meaningful way. And then you say, "What if she replaced it with 'gay people'? See? Gay people are a privileged group and homophobia doesn't exist in any meaningful way. Hate speech! Hate speech!" No, that just shows that it's a bad comparison that misses the point. You claim that …
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:22 AM
-9

Which is to say, it doesn't work, because those are examples of the systemic dehumanization those groups have faced as a result of hatred that still persists to this day. Whereas - and this is sort of a big part of the point - no such thing has ever targeted men as a group.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 03:29 AM
-18

Except that that misses the point entirely, which is that men are the privileged gender in Western society and have been throughout its history - whereas there is a long and storied history of hatred and oppression against Jewish people. Replace "men" with "Christians" and you'll be closer to the mark.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 03:05 AM
1

>mfw responding to a very intentional username ping is "stalking and harassing" someone who has been messaging you and messaging you across three subreddits for days
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 03:16 AM
2

>intentionally ping me by /u/sername >accuse me of "stalking" when I respond >le master trole 2014 >mfw
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 02:39 AM
1

I'd say I'm more gnarly than radical, TBH. Maybe a little bit tubular.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/14 02:05 AM
0

Aw, AL, ilu. <3
/r/MensRights03/11/14 04:00 PM
-1

It isn't, but I was just talking. Terribly sorry for conversing, as people do.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 03:59 PM
-1

We do have cojoco there. And he's very, very not SRS. Don't quite know what to tell you.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 05:50 AM
-4

LOL
/r/MensRights03/11/14 02:13 AM
-4

No, hon, literally zero of that. Sorry. <3
/r/MensRights03/11/14 02:10 AM
-5

LOL
/r/MensRights03/11/14 01:32 AM
-2

The vast majority of those subreddits are tiny to the point of being defunct... It's not my fault you don't mod better subs, but when you do mod you almost always make sure to surround yourself with fellow SRSters. "Fellow"? I'm not one myself, sooooo... And again, this is an hilarious accusation when the largest subreddit I moderate is one that was created as a splinter off if a sub that was being moderated in more of the style that SRS does! So 2X is an SRS sub, and /r/politics is an SRS sub, …
/r/MensRights02/11/14 11:58 PM
-7

Riiiiiiiiight.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 10:16 PM
-5

Considering that misogyny is an social force that people are raised in, there's a liiiiittle bit of a difference there....
/r/MensRights02/11/14 10:07 PM
-1

LOL.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 04:31 PM
-4

Man is that hilariously disingenuous. The vast majority of those subreddits are tiny to the point of being defunct, and several are straight-up vanity subs. Literally the only one you could make even a vague argument for is TBP - and like the srdbroke subs it grew out of, it's got a bunch of people from antisrs as mods, too. But in an ideological purity witch hunt, facts like that don't matter, of course. /r/FaithInHumanity is an especially funny example for you to bring up. You know who "contro…
/r/MensRights02/11/14 03:55 PM
-1

Wait, what? Because I mod a sub that makes fun of people who think that women are nothing more than sexthings? Really now?
/r/MensRights02/11/14 03:37 PM
-5

Wow is that a big old "citation needed"! The best part is how the largest sub I moderate is pretty much the exact opposite of SRS.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 05:32 AM
-2

Okay? That doesn't really speak to the context here: Is this going to be applied evenly to feminist and MRA generalizations? I really don't understand why, again, context seems to be so very difficult with all of this.
/r/MensRights01/11/14 03:45 AM
-3

Mmmmmhm. Cool story, sib.
/r/MensRights01/11/14 03:40 AM
-6

LOL
/r/MensRights01/11/14 03:20 AM
-5

Again, no, that very definitely is not how that works.
/r/MensRights01/11/14 03:20 AM
-3

In response, let's be clear, to very negative generalizations about feminists, and for the purpose of demonstrating that both things were unconstructive. But hey, who cares about context - especially if it gets in the way of rhetoric?
/r/MensRights01/11/14 03:19 AM
-2

Those are some nice cherries!
/r/MensRights01/11/14 03:14 AM
-4

the SRSter. Whiiiiich I'm not either, but hey, enjoy accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being part of The Big Bad Enemy. <3
/r/MensRights01/11/14 03:13 AM
-7

Why, given your apparent dislike for men, He's a dude, soooooooo.....
/r/MensRights01/11/14 02:45 AM
-5

Doesn't change your guilt, SRSter. I love when people say things like this in complete earnest.
/r/MensRights01/11/14 02:42 AM
-8

Well, no, fundamentally the onus is on the party making the accusation. It's pretty impossible to prove conclusively that it isn't true, whereas the opposite should be fairly trivial.
/r/MensRights01/11/14 02:26 AM
-3

So, when you refer to "my track record", by which you seem to seem to be referring to my track record as a moderator (because that's what you're criticizing, is me as a mod), you actually only mean one specific line in one specific dismissive comment in a subreddit I don't moderate made in irritation while talking to someone who's been a total dickhead to me on more than one occasion in the past and who has an ideological grudge to flog which results in a hugely warped view of the situation to b…
/r/MensRights01/11/14 02:01 AM
-5

"My track record"? Care to elaborate?
/r/MensRights01/11/14 01:50 AM
-6

We know how shit has been discussed, and we know we're going to try to minimize "OMG FEMINISTS HATE MEN" as well as "OMG MRAS ARE MISOGYNISTS". The end!
/r/MensRights31/10/14 11:40 PM
-5

thoughtfully thoughtfully thoughtfully thoughtfully thoughtfully I know reading comprehension isn't this hard.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 10:36 PM
-3

As a moderator of /r/ainbow, which is moderated (or not) on that basis, I can tell you exactly how well that works out for contentious issues. But it's really not more complex than the analogy drawn between scuba and swimming subs. Subreddits already exist for complaining about gender politics factions. OneY doesn't need to be yet another rehash of that.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 04:17 PM
-5

This isn't my policy. Take it up with the rest of the mod team.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 03:39 PM
-8

What?
/r/MensRights31/10/14 03:56 AM
-14

Thanks, I'm glad somebody gets it. It's so frustrating when people decide in their heads that it's going to be a one-sided affair. The core issue is really that we want the subreddit to not be /r/rantaboutthegenderpoliticsgroupyoudontagreewith.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 03:24 AM
-6

But that's not as inflammatory.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 03:22 AM
2

Mallard's politics are very close, if not one and the same, to cartoonist Bruce Tinsley's; as Tinsley told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that "Mallard really is about as close to me as you can get," in an October 2005 interview. Tinsley has used the considerable power of Mallard in personal matters. For instance, after he was arrested for DUI, he attacked the judge in his cartoon and influenced the judge's election defeat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallard_Fillmore
/r/MensRights03/10/14 12:46 AM
4

It's actually a crosspost from /r/ainbow, and thanks for turning an issue of transphobia into an opportunity for what-about-the-menz.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 12:45 AM
2

Because god forbid you act in a straightforward and honest manner, right? Making up intriguing-sounding bullshit to excuse your crappy behavior is totally the basis of a healthy relationship.
/r/askTRP18/09/14 06:05 AM
-1

Alfalfas don't "fuck up", obviously. Come on, now.
/r/askTRP18/09/14 04:16 AM
1

No u
/r/trpGAME17/08/14 05:19 PM
-9

Wow.
/r/trpGAME10/08/14 03:32 AM
-12

/r/all/new/.
/r/trpGAME09/08/14 07:45 PM
-16

You what, now?
/r/trpGAME09/08/14 07:42 PM
-14

Nope, I'm completely serious. It's mind-boggling to me that someone would approach human interaction like this.
/r/trpGAME09/08/14 07:38 PM
-35

Maybe you'd have better relationships if you communicated honestly instead of treating them like an adult dating sim where if you give all the "right" responses you get to see boobs.
/r/trpGAME09/08/14 07:30 PM
-2

Yes, I'm sure that's what she's getting out of this debacle that's ruining her boyfriend's life and most likely hers as well. DAE feeeeemales are evil soulless manipulative monsters?
/r/MensRights10/07/14 03:53 AM
3

"Calling it" as in making a prediction...
/r/MensRights10/07/14 03:51 AM
1

It's okay to photograph minors' genitals if you're the police. It's not okay to photograph minors' genitals if you're a minor and the genitals in question actually belong to you. Makes perfect sense.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 03:50 AM
1

What in the actual fuck?
/r/MensRights10/07/14 03:49 AM
0

Cool story, psycho.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 09:03 PM
-1

I didn't do any such thing, you delusional piece of shit.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 04:13 PM
-1

But you do support radical thought. Like? Give me an example. You do support witch hunts. No. I don't. You do support the fact that the sub used to be a parody and now it nothing but a place for anti-TRP extremist soundboards. There's a subreddit attached to that modmail? You're the equivalent of Alex Cross, letting people whip themselves up into a fervor while you sit back. As a mod, you should be ashamed. As a sub, it should be banned. I don't know who the hell that is, to be honest with you, …
/r/MensRights25/06/14 03:32 PM
-2

Actually - you lying fuck - one person posted a quote from her husband's Facebook; and prior to posting it, that user made certain to check that doing a Google search for that quotation didnt lead to either her personal information or her husband's. No "doxx" were posted and neither was anything leading to "doxx". Regardless, because it's still pretty fucko to do that, that user was warned and temporarily banned, and we removed witch-hunt-y comments from other users because we don't support that…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 04:12 AM
1

Keep dreaming, creeper.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 01:57 AM
1

I have no idea WTF you're talking about, but you seriously need to find a hobby.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 12:40 AM
2

Which is?
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:46 AM
2

That aside, you do, definitely, have some goal in A) pretending I am or was a mod of a subreddit I haven't ever set foot in, and B) apparently trying to smear them (in part by trying to associate them with me).
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:40 AM
2

I mean, that's silly. I'd be entertained to consider where you get this "extremist" label from: what views do I hold that you consider "extremist"?
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:39 AM
1

I don't even know who that is (not Jodie Foster, she's amazing - I mean the other one), but it's funny you should mention that. If you do look at my post history (and for anyone reading along, feel free!), you'll see incredibly few posts about TRP. In fact, far from hating them, for the record, here are my feelings about them pretty much in full: I think they're ridiculous (much like yourself) I think they're pretty sad (ditto) I worry that their toxic ideology causes harm in the real world (unl…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:35 AM
2

Then why do you give a shit?
/r/MensRights24/06/14 04:18 AM
3

He's stalking me - but if you have reddit gold, you get a PM any time someone mentions you by /u/sername. So I mean, yeah, in a thread libeling me, I'm going to show up and clarify what's going on. Edit: here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/28x3la/beware_of_fauxmens_rights_subreddits_like_the_new/cifgz1y?context=2
/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:51 AM
2

I mean, it's sort of like - two parts hilarious, three parts sad, and two parts creepy? Something like that.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:31 AM
5

What... "damage" do you think exists for me to be worried about, exactly?
/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:30 AM
0

You're doing this shit at work? You need to get a grip on yourself, dude, seriously.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:05 AM
3

While I'm sure your photoshop (or straight Google Chrome "inspect element") skill are great, not only have I never been a mod there, I haven't ever received an invitation to mod that subreddit (nor would I accept if I did - not because I have a problem with the sub (I definitely don't), but because it doesn't really seem like a space where it would be appropriate to have a woman as a moderator), and I don't know and haven't ever talked to their mods. You're welcome to post your fabricated screen…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 03:04 AM
1

I'm not a mod there at all, you psycho.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:58 AM
2

It didn't happen. If you look at his profile, you'll see his dumb concern troll post there, to the effect of "I hope this subreddit doesn't have shitty feminist moderators like /u/jess_than_three, like /r/OneY does", because he's a creepy weirdo who's been obsessed with me since he was banned from /r/TheBluePill (by someone else!). I literally haven't had any interactions with /r/MaleSupportNetwork beyond their mod telling me he'd removed said post - I guess he also banned OP, I would assume bec…
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:57 AM
3

Are you still trying to raise a brigade from here? Haven't your last two failed threads made it clear that nobody cares? For anyone else reading this, here's some context: http://www.reddit.com/r/OneY/comments/27f6q9/z/ci1rlik
/r/MensRights24/06/14 02:51 AM
3

You're silly.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 05:09 PM
2

I haven't deleted a single comment in days, and certainly nothing of any relevance to you. Moreover, since you're the one slinging accusations, I'm pretty sure the onus is on you to support them.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 04:26 PM
1

Well no, those are - what's the word? Lies. Those are lies.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 02:35 AM
1

I actually don't think I've ever seen someone care this little about something.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 12:59 AM
0

He went and found a three-month-old post about us to whine on. But remember: He doesn't live on reddit; He's not mad.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 12:48 AM
1

That's still in no sense equivalent to the claim that people "get a bullet in the head for being male" (emphasis mine).
/r/MensRights09/03/14 09:30 PM
0

All things that have nothing to do with anything I said. But hey, keep on keeping on - you're making your little movement look just great, you know?
/r/MensRights08/03/14 08:05 PM
0

Riiiiight. I'm the one. Absolutely.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 08:04 PM
1

No, it very definitely isn't. I mean, I'm not a historian - maybe we could post a thread on /r/askhistorians? - but even leaving aside the existence of women in militaries around the world, I'm pretty sure that literally every military casualty throughout history has been for a reason other than "that person was a man".
/r/MensRights08/03/14 09:16 AM
1

Right, totally. That's how that works. People get shot for being men. Absolutely.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 08:54 AM
0

Like I said: the dude's a hell of a lot likelier to be able to successfully resist, for a whole host of reasons.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 02:25 AM
0

I don't think "a war" is really what's being talked about here. The poster of that comment said that authoritarian populist regimes were wildly dangerous for vulnerable populations.
/r/MensRights08/03/14 01:08 AM
2

To be honest, his point is terrible. What was said was this: Which is why having a federal government far removed from any regional or local tensions like this is important. Crimea currently has a populist authoritarian regime, they are wildly dangerous to minorities and vulnerable populations like women and children. The phrase at issue is this: vulnerable populations like women and children If this was happening in Texas, then maybe it would have been more unrealistic to refer to "women and ch…
/r/MensRights08/03/14 12:46 AM
1

Wow, this is a bizarre comment on a five-month-old post. For bonus hilarity, you clearly didn't actually read what you're responding to, as I acknowledged that "men are dumb, lol" really did seem to be the point of literally the first thing in the list.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 11:18 PM
1

Hey, how do you like the computer you're using? Better thank Rear Admiral Grace Hopper.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 11:52 PM
1

So, that's about what I thought. Glad I took the time to write a lengthy post citing numerous sources coming at the issue from a variety of angles - since you don't care to actually learn anything in the first place. Have a good one.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 07:19 PM
0

Did you somehow miss the multiple sources I linked you? If so, my apologies for assuming you had seen it.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:46 PM
0

I had this weird hope of interacting with a non-disingenuous person who was both capable of and interested in carrying on a not-intellectually-dishonest conversation - since you claimed to be interested in citations. I'm disappointed, but I can't say I'm completely surprised.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:06 PM
-2

And your crass insults weren't anywhere on the "wit" scale at all, so where does that leave us?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 08:27 PM
2

*crickets*
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:57 PM
5

Cool. Not knowing a heck of a lot about Swedish culture or politics or about your language, that seems perfectly reasonable. But your statement that the word "means absolutely nothing to you" underscores how absurd the "but it refers to chickens in another language!!1" argument is.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:56 PM
5

Singular "they" has been used for over 500 years.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:35 PM
6

It's a perfectly proper word for it. It's been used that way for over half a millennium (see "usage"). Sib, do you even descriptivist linguistics?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 05:33 PM
4

Well... thanks, I think! :)
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:23 PM
1

The word "werewolf", despite its gendered origin, is used incredibly commonly to refer to women who turn into wolves as well. Checkmate, atheists.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:22 PM
2

Aw, thanks! :)
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:21 PM
2

I don't believe so. I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that the term "werewolf" derives from "wer" (male human being) + "wolf" (or some older cognate). Here's etymonline on "werewolf"... I'm just guessing, but given "wife"'s uses (not just by itself, but also eg as in "midwife", "spearwife", etc), I think you've got the relationship between "wer" and "wyf" backwards?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:21 PM
-1

Daaaang, guess I got told! What a cogent and well-articulated rebuttal.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:15 PM
1

Oh, well shit. What's worse, I didn't catch the article - I read it as "if English wasn't so lazy", thinking you were talking about the language generally (and presumably all of its speakers, I guess?).
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:14 PM
8

There still is. It's "they".
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:13 PM
1

I get that, but she isn't gender-neutral: like I said, she's a woman. I completely get and actively support the use of "they" for subjects of unknown gender, but her gender wasn't unknown, so at least the way it comes across is that you're not willing to accept her identity as valid. If that's not how you meant it I apologize, and I guess in retrospect it's possible you weren't sure if the phrase "trans woman" referred to a person who was assigned male at birth but identified as female-gendered,…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 07:40 AM
2

Like this, because shit's not as simple as your high school biology teacher told you it was. You were given an approximation that was useful for the purposes and your level of knowledge, but which doesn't encompass the entire truth. Kind of like what you were probably taught about eye color. BTW, the pronoun you want is "she", because she is, as I said, a woman.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 07:25 AM
8

Cool. Let me quote Dr. Alice Domurat Dreger, who teaches things like bioethics and whose degree is in History and Philosophy of Science: So, if we want to sort, what should we employ as the necessary and/or sufficient traits of malehood and femalehood? What makes a person a male or a female or a hermaphrodite? This is the problem. Today my own students, college students in history classes, sometimes in exasperation ask these questions of me at the end of a discussion of the history of sex, as if…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 07:22 AM
-4

You are completely, totally, entirely mistaken. And the reason for that is that actual, real biologists have taken more than high-school level bio (unlike most of the self-proclaimed experts in this thread), and recognize that "sex" is far more complex than either genitals or chromosomes, and that there is no one set of magic criteria that cleanly divide all humans into the categories they seem like they "ought" to be in. Beyond that, I'd imagine that most biologists are smart enough to recogniz…
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:35 AM
3

I know a trans woman with two X chromosomes. What now, Professor?
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:27 AM
-3

Neat. The term "woman" refers to gender - not genitals, not chromosomes, not anything else. Gender. Which is based in neurology. So, you know, GFY.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:27 AM
3

"So many"? No, they're an incredibly loud tiny minority.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:25 AM
6

I totally agree. That's why I call people of African descent "negros" (among other, less-accepted terms). It isn't about being disrespectful, but I'll be damned if someone else tries to tell me I shouldn't engage in inherently prejudicial speech.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:24 AM
32

"Laziness" has nothing to do with it: languages always change over time. The fact that we no longer use the word "wer" to refer to male human beings has nothing to do with laziness. God, this whole thread is like an /r/badlinguistics goldmine.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:22 AM
18

Singular "they" has been used in English for centuries. I don't feel like digging up the Wikipedia article right now, but it goes back at least through Shakespeare, and IIRC even Chaucer. "'They' is always plural!" is a silly objection.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:20 AM
34

"They" has been used as a singular gender-neutral pronoun for centuries. "It" inherently refers to non-people. And schizophrenia involves delusions and hallucinations - you're thinking of dissociative identity disorder. In short, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:15 AM
40

a nation of chickens Are you fucking kidding me? Do you complain about how "han" is problematic because you're not Chinese or a Star Wars scoundrel, or how "hon" is bullshit because it's a mildly affectionate form of address? Of course you fucking don't because that's not what those words mean in Swedish. This is by far the stupidest complaint I've seen here, and I've seen a lot of very stupid complaints.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 06:14 AM
1

What? To the extent that I can understand your little paragraph of angst, are you accusing me of having called in some sort of brigade? I assure you I've done nothing of the sort - you'd think you'd be smart enough to note the votes on my other comments - going as low as negative fifty? Pretty counterproductive brigade, I guess! Nice little "if you don't believe what I believe you must be my hated enemy" ideological purity thing, though. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communis…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 12:35 AM
5

To find, what, two posts in SRSGaming? Oh no! I clearly am a member of the SRS community. It couldn't possibly just be that I like the fact that there's a gaming subreddit that isn't full of toxic bullshit, right?
/r/MensRights11/09/13 10:19 PM
0

Nope. Sorry to disappoint?
/r/MensRights11/09/13 08:33 PM
3

Thanks for making it abundantly clear, as I hadn't previously realized, that you're just a shitty impersonation account trying to make /u/Epistaxis look bad. Here I thought you were a completely separate individual who just spelled the word wrong.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 08:26 PM
2

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 08:26 PM
-3

Thanks. However, I think it's worth pointing out that the preceding post wasn't part of any "the argument"... someone asked for my opinion, so I gave it. /shrug
/r/MensRights11/09/13 07:34 PM
-4

You too.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 06:07 AM
2

I didn't, especially, no. But that has zero bearing on your claim that you were looking for a discussion in good faith, rat than a fight (which you clearly weren't). Remember when I said I had zero interest in protracted bullshit with you? Bye.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 04:18 AM
-5

The hell you were. You came at me with accusations right out of the gate.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 03:54 AM
-30

Cool story, kid.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 02:08 AM
-25

LOL, yeah, no.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 01:46 AM
-40

Yup. I think your position is absurd and right this second I have zero interest in a protracted "argument" with a belligerent dogmatic person like yourself. Not much point in investing much effort, then. I'm sorry, I'm sure that's probably disappointing, given you're clearly spoiling for a fight. Oh well.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 12:24 AM
-57

Okay.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 12:12 AM
16

Hey thanks! In general, I think I disagree with the OP (to the extent that I'm sure what he actually is saying). I think he believes that broad social misandry is a real thing, for example, and I definitely don't agree with that. And if he is indeed trying to show that modern mass media advertising devalues, objectifies, and/or dehumanizes men in a way or to an extent that's even vaguely comparable to the examples his mother's email cited, I couldn't disagree much more strongly. His claim downth…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 11:30 PM
-1

feminists completely deny that any progress has been made You understand that the OP's mother's words were literally "We've come a long way" - right? Sorry, I know, it sucks when reality interferes with your self-righteous ranting. :(
/r/MensRights10/09/13 10:37 PM
92

I decided giving myself a bit of leeway to get the point across wouldn't hurt. I just, I can't. What you're calling "leeway to get the point across" could more accurately be described as "using things that are actually the exact opposite of what I'm talking about to try to prove my point because my audience isn't familiar with them and will take it at face value". Or, to put it a lot more bluntly, "bullshit". It's incredibly dishonest to pretend that examples you cite support your point when (as…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:53 PM
1

Yeah, that's all cool, except that you explicitly said "those jobs should pay less". Maybe you meant "less than other jobs", although it sounded like "less than they pay now". I am not fine with the argument that female-dominated jobs should pay more on the justification that women earn less than men (because they choose easier jobs). Wait, speaking of straw men.......
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:34 AM
-1

PPS: this is the problem with the "death gap" idea, and what's sort of funny about you dudes saying that. If you were truly only concerned about the number of people dying, you'd use a phrase like "deaths in the workplace" - if indeed the gap isn't the issue at all. By contrast, the reason feminists talk about the wage gap is because the issue isn't about the raw wage values but rather the gender disparity.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:14 AM
2

Cool story, right-wing bro. I always love it when people try to tell me that Mister doesn't have a strong conservative bent. Bottom line: if you choose, freely and without being coerced, a dangerous line of work, that's nobody's fault but yours.. Oh, and for bonus points: in a hypothetical feminist utopia, no such "death gap" would exist - you get rid of the conception that careers historically associated with women are beneath men, and the idea that women aren't cut out for traditionally male-d…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:06 AM
0

No, I mean, I did - lots of it - but all you wanted to do was spout dogmatic bullshit. Have a good one!
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:42 PM
2

That is simply a fact. I know you like denying facts. It certainly isn't. Women choosing easier jobs, such as pediatrician over cardiac surgeon Cuuuuuute. Because that's a valid representation of the jobs men have vs. the jobs women have, overall! However...dangerous jobs killing men is not how it should be - we should work to reduce the death rate. That's not a "men's rights issue". That's a worker's rights issue. The fact that men are dying more is irrelevant: to say otherwise entails that you…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:17 PM
-1

I understand perrfectly. it's bullshit, that's all. It's a bunch of whuiny vagina hypoagency. Sweet! I'm done reading your post. Sorry, I thought this was a discussion. :)
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:12 PM
-1

I love how you enfolded that little "easier jobs" bit in there. No, sir, the word for that is "bullshit". Again, we're back to the basic double standard: the consequences of jobs chosen by women (per your own worldview) are women's own fault and responsibility; but the consequences of jobs chosen by men are not men's fault or responsibility.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:40 AM
-2

Ahahaha, I don't even know where to start with this.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:39 AM
-1

I loooove your putting words in my mouth. Hallmark of not being a disingenuous prick, really. I'll try one more time, then I'm done. And I'll be very, very specific, since you seem to have a penchant for creative misinterpretation. You consider the fact that men are far likelier to die in the workplace (not the absolute number of workplace deaths, very tellingly: it's always about the "gap" - suggesting that if as many women took those same dangerous jobs (or different jobs with an equal death r…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:36 AM
-1

Who doesn't consider workplace safety an issue? You know we've got an entire governmental department - OSHA - dedicated to it, right? As far as your claim about "male privilege" - no, that wasn't what I said, and is in fact a complete misunderstanding of what the word "patriarchy" refers to. I can't say I'm surprised: for as much as reddit's MRAs talk about feminism and some of its core concepts, actual understanding of the subject matter in question seems to be pretty rare. It's especially lame…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 05:01 AM
-2

No, look, answer this simply. Yes or no: is the wage gap a women's rights issue?
/r/MensRights13/08/13 04:11 AM
-4

You are quite disgusting for thinking that the exponentially higher rate of death for men is amusing. I don't. I find the term amusing, because it implies that there is some sort of active discrimination going on. It is a men's rights issue...in the sense that it needs to be addressed. No, it isn't. It's a worker's rights issue. Can you actually point to MRAs claiming that discrimination is the cause of the death gap? I doubt you can. In order for it to be a "men's rights issue" and not an issue…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 04:06 AM
-1

Dangerous doesn't mean "signing up for death". You know, it does and it doesn't? You know the risks that a job entails. I mean, if you work construction, just to pick one example, you know there's a danger of being injured or killed. You sign up to work in a mine, you know the fucker could collapse on your head. Somehow that's women's fault, right? But look, that's not a "men's rights issue": men aren't being discriminated against. It's not like the jobs that are dangerous are more dangerous for…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 04:04 AM
-5

But do you see MRAs claiming that the death gap is due to discrimination? Yes, I absolutely do. The idea that the (heh) "death gap" is somehow a men's rights issue implies that there is discrimination taking place, and an injustice that should be rectified.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 03:54 AM
-4

Uh, no, it isn't "called" that at all. Let me explain this slowly, using small words. People from this subreddit say that the reason women tend to make less money on average is that women choose to go into professions that pay less (and that those things are unrelated). However, when men choose to go into professions that are more dangerous, it isn't accepted that that is the reason that men are more likely to die in the workplace. Do you understand what I'm saying? It's like "the consequences o…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 01:29 AM
-6

When women are more frequently in careers that pay lower than those that are dominated by men - that's women's fault. When men are more frequently in careers that are more dangerous than those that are dominated by women - that's women's fault. Clever little system you've got here, OP.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 05:43 PM
6

Another newspeak subscriber... I'm going to stop you right there. That isn't what the word "newspeak" means. It doesn't mean sarcasm.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 06:57 PM
18

Look up scare quotes on Wikipedia. These quotation marks don't indicate quotation - they indicate sarcasm.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 06:11 PM
7

Leaving aside any analysis of Sessler's views, Holy fucking shit, the point in question starts at about 27 minutes in. How fucking lazy are you that you couldn't go back and check that? I mean, it's okay, I got to listen to some generally hilarious commentary, including a discussion of Freddie Kreuger offering a handjob, but like... wow, seriously?
/r/MensRights07/07/13 06:04 AM
2

As to your second paragraph, all I'm going to say is that you're repeating a trope that gets passed around here which has little basis in reality. The fact that people keep saying it doesn't make it true.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 05:15 PM
-2

Exactly (though it's funny that someone upvoted you for saying the exact same thing I did). Rather, she was complaining about a specific type of problem she had had with a specific type of feminist men. But everyone here - and I guess I'm not sure why I'm surprised by this - wants to ignore the crucial words "a type of" in order to pretend that she's bemoaning her disinterest in all feminist men; and that , presumably, that she couldn't or wouldn't want to get with non-feminist men. While she pr…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 02:35 AM
-3

None of that is "bitching about the lack of men". HTH. <3 Edit: And you know I haven't talked to GirlWritesPoop in literally months, right? I think you're confusing me with some other evil misandering feminazi.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:44 AM
-7

Too bitter for SRS? Is that a thing? Do I like get a medal of some kind for that?
/r/MensRights03/06/13 10:51 PM
-8

Except that that wasn't what she was doing at all. Neat, huh?
/r/MensRights03/06/13 10:50 PM
-3

TIL a handful of people on the internet represent a broad and diverse movement, and that it's okay to just make up statistics and assert that they're valid.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 10:29 PM
-3

"These guys" as in feminist guys broadly.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 10:28 PM
-8

Oh geez, I'm sorry. Did I break the 'jerk? :(
/r/MensRights03/06/13 09:12 PM
-15

Well, no, it certainly isn't. And you can know that Jacky Friedman considers that there are other types of feminist guys because she uses the following words: There is a type of feminist guy who instead of something like this: JF: Oh God. Feminist guys are so eager to fall over themselves to be deferential to women and to prove their feminist bona fides and flagellate themselves in front of you, to the point that it really turns me off. Again: You have terrible reading comprehension. Or, more li…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 08:28 PM
-17

Article totes says that, right? "All the other feminist guys dump me. Sad face." Oh wait, no, it doesn't say anything like that at all.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 08:21 PM
-16

JF: Oh God. There is a type of feminist guy who is so eager to fall over himself to be deferential to women and to prove his feminist bona fides and flagellate himself in front of you, to the point that it really turns me off. There is a type of feminist guy who a type of feminist guy I.e., not all feminist guys, but rather a subset of feminist guys who engage in a specific type of behavior. You folks have terrible reading comprehension.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 07:55 PM
4

You're still evading the rather specific questions I've posed. I'll ask another, bluntly, and phrased specifically to prevent your jerkoff word-games where you pretend not to recognize that for example "what is currently defined as marital rape" refers to a behavior, a thing that happens, and not a legal definition of that circumstance. Do you or do you not have a problem with a man forcing himself on his wife, as long as his doing so is not legally prohibited? Do you think that it should be the…
/r/askTRP01/06/13 05:22 PM
0

Nope, you've continued to miss choose to pretend you don't understand the point. I asked some very concrete questions, and the upshot of them is to discern things like whether you have a problem with what's currently legally defined as marital rape in contexts where it isn't defined as rape, and whether you would prefer that it was defined that way (ie,as not-rape) here and now in the Western world. Your evasiveness and clumsy attempts to reframe the issue as though I'm asking you about what you…
/r/askTRP01/06/13 04:36 PM
1

You can't be "on the list twice". It doesn't work that way. And no, I'm fairly certain you banned me before that. Regardless, this is what I know: the first time I opened up this subreddit, I was preemptively banned. But whether I'm misrembering the exact timeline of events isn't the point, is it? The point is that you complained about being censored, as a person who preemptively bans people who have never posted in your subreddit. Little hypocritical, don't you think? What happened to "If I'm w…
/r/askTRP01/06/13 04:20 PM
1

X isn't necessarily true because completely unrelated thing? This is your argument? Uh, I guess?
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:30 PM
1

Neat. So you decided to be a rude dickhead (big surprise) rather than have a discussion. Color me shocked. You haven't as yet presented any arguments as to why you think I was wrong to dismiss those media and to consider "the media", as commonly discussed, to largely refer to TV and perhaps movies. Is that an invalid assumption? Maybe, idk. But you haven't as yet decided to try to demonstrate that. As far as "discretionary spending"? Cool story, sib. That has nothing to do with the claim that wa…
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:29 PM
0

Oh fuck! That sucks! My problem is always shit like accidentally closing a tab (and then ctrl-shift-t not bringing it back up), or hitting "back", or similar. Argh. So much hate for that.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 03:42 PM
-2

Yeah, how terrible for me to note that the things being repeated were blatantly counterfactual. I am so awful. Thanks for clarifying that. The claim, BTW, was "nearly all media caters to women, who are its primary consumers". Put the goalposts back, please. Edit: PS: as far as "self-reporting" - do you believe there's probably a systemic effect whereby men report higher-than-accurate amounts of TV-watching (while women don't), or one whereby women report lower-than-accurate amounts of TV watchin…
/r/MensRights09/05/13 03:14 PM
-2

Uh... Noooo, that's blatantly false. It showed that: More men watch TV daily than women; Men who watch TV watch more TV than women who watch TV; Men go to movies more than women. Learn to read, maybe? Yes, I brushed off a handful of media that weren't realistically the ones being discussed - and which likely aren't consumed significantly more by women, either. If you disagree with my doing that, please, feel free to rebut. As far as "gender stereotypes" (by which you're referring not to a "stere…
/r/MensRights09/05/13 03:10 PM
-3

If men are the majority of the producers of popular media, and men are the majority of consumers of popular media, how could you possibly believe that it wouldn't be constructed to cater to men?
/r/MensRights09/05/13 08:23 AM
-7

Fascinating. Per Nielsen, who ought to know what they're talking about, women watch an average of six minutes more of TV than men do per day - at least as of a year ago. On the other hand, per the (evil, feminist-controlled) gummint, in 2011, --On an average day, nearly everyone age 15 and over engaged in some sort of leisure activity (95 percent), such as watching TV, socializing, or exercising. Of those who engaged in leisure activities, men spent more time in these activities (5.8 hours) than…
/r/MensRights09/05/13 08:18 AM
1

Pushing thirty. You?
/r/MensRights23/03/13 08:06 AM
1

This was the main article I'm referring to. There's also this, too. Note that while both frame things as "self-defense", there is zero pretense of proportionality. Per Paul Elam, if a woman slaps a guy, he's fully justified in hauling off and breaking her fucking face. At least, if they're married. Of course, I have to assume this is all very hypothetical and academic for him, because I can't imagine any woman ever wanting to get anywhere near that guy, much less marry the fuck.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 04:49 AM
0

"Leading voices", LOL. Cherry pickiiiiing~ Do you support Paul Elam when he advocates for the beating of women? Do you support Warren Farrell's statements to the effect that the main reason incestuous relationships between fathers and daughters aren't a good idea is because the latter are taught that it's something they should be ashamed of and the former, while intellectually understanding how not to fuck it up, probably would anyway?
/r/MensRights23/03/13 03:23 AM
1

Okay, BTW, I'll touch on this too (in addition to what I said to someone else): support the movement which attacks men associating yourself with the movement By associating yourself with feminist ideology (which is sexist) and feminist groups (who are attacking men) you make yourself responsible for that. Your subreddit links the hate-speech-filled site A Voice For Men in the sidebar. The guy who runs it advocates in favor of domestic abuse against women. Enjoy that guilt-by-association argument…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:43 AM
0

No, I like.. look, it's like this. You can only call that "being schooled" from a really wacky crazypants divorced-from-reality perspective, that ignores the shit-tons of feminists who do nothing to "attack men" and indeed support plenty of "men's rights" causes (there are several issues I agree with y'all on myself!), and that with a straight face calls feminism things like "hate speech"... as well as putting the term in scare quotes. At which point, talking to someone that entrenched in batshi…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:33 AM
-1

LOL!
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:09 AM
0

Really? You sincerely believe that not once ever has anyone gone "Here look, here's a feminist who isn't about 'attacking men'"? How thick is that bubble you're living in? Look, here, let me do it myself. I'm a feminist, and I have zero interest in" attacking men". QED, dude.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:59 PM
-3

I think it's neat that (some of) you guys get to concoct these cool little narratives and flatly state them as true, and then when people cite countless dozens of examples that contradict them, you get to go "lololol NAFALT amirite?!" as if that was an actual argument. +15/-4, for a comment claiming that not only are feminists (all feminists!) interested in attacking men, but that that's literally the first of our only two priorities. Keep bein' awesome, /r/MensRights!
/r/MensRights22/03/13 07:45 AM
3

Well that doesn't say anything about feminism at all. I'm a little bit disappointed - I was really hoping for some juicy paranoid fantasies.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:58 AM
-7

Oh! I understand what you mean. I started messing around on the site a bit before that, and was really impressed with the quality of the submissions - which were like, frequently lots of articles about things on the front page, and not just imgur link after imgur link! - and of the comments - which weren't just mindless circlejerk joke shit. (Sorting by "best" helps that a little, but...) Now it's like... you'll be lucky if you get a good conversation about much of anything on the front pages, w…
/r/MensRights21/02/13 04:29 AM
-9

Yeah, no. Did you use reddit a few years ago? It sure as hell isn't "nothing at all"...
/r/MensRights21/02/13 03:47 AM
5

Once again - not at all; I assume you don't give fuck one - but others might care about your terrible shit.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 12:12 AM
4

No, I think you're a disingenuous, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest prick. But others seeing this thread may very well be interested in the shitty way you do business.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 11:53 PM
0

And I'd like to note again that you removed not one but four of my comments that didn't contain links to SRS - two of which didn't contain any links at all.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 11:30 PM
1

It doesn't show up as a report. It shows up as a spam filter comment. That is a separate thing. No, it shows up in the modqueue. It just says "[removed]" instead of "reports: 1" or whatever. I've seen plenty of spam-filtered shit: it goes straight into the mod queue. Anyways, your comments are returned. I verified no links to SRS, and removed another comment (not yours) that linked to SRS. That's nice and all, but it doesn't in any sense change your "I'm training the spam filter to remove your c…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 11:16 PM
5

We get enough reports about your comments. Then remove any comments I leave that break the subreddit's rules (i.e. none of them). If it is in the spam filter, then we can approve all the ones that don't violate the rules, and prevent future reports on them. You can also prevent future reports by clicking the button labeled something like "ignore future reports". But you don't want to acknowledge that, do you? Interferes with the bullshit little narrative you're constructing. Nothing I posted vio…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 10:52 PM
5

The community's view of me? Surely they can express that via downvotes - and reporting my comments, if need be? Surely if they have enough of a problem with what I have to say, I'll end up on a post cooldown and that'll largely rid you of my comments? Here's the part you're not catching, sib. "The community" of reddit at large considers anyone who yells at bigoted shit or ever argues with MRAs, ever to be a "commonly known SRSer". But here's the catch: that's true whether or not they're part of …
/r/MensRights20/02/13 10:46 PM
5

we don't restrict opinions /u/sillymod, 2/19/2013
/r/MensRights20/02/13 09:42 PM
7

Wow. Wow. Again, the irony is staggering. May I humbly inquire as to why you feel the need to train the spam filter to remove my comments? It couldn't be because you want to silence dissent, right? Because I'm in here contributing in an on-topic and respectful manner (to people who aren't being outright asshats, you understand - I do tend to respond to disrespect in kind)... BTW, I love that you refer to me as a "commonly known SRSer" in a thread where I've no less than three times pointed out t…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 07:56 PM
7

Hey, well done removing polite, thorough, articulate responses to the OP's questions in a thread criticizing another community for disallowing dissent! The irony is hilarious. <3
/r/MensRights20/02/13 05:34 PM
6

Hey, since I looked at your comment history real quick and don't feel like digging through dude's whole AMA, lemme ask you a quick question, if that's all right. You said, Given the pattern of replies and the refusal of r_f to admit that even WF himself gave a clear answer regarding the "incest quote" Notwithstanding that there are several quotes in question - what was that answer? Do you have a link? I don't wanna be all "Dude said gross shit and hasn't disowned it" if that's not actually true.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 04:35 PM
9

BTW, you dudes downvoting me for answering DrRam's questions really emphasizes this point: Well, no groups really appreciate being challenged on their views. You're just as bad regarding dissenting views as they are (in non-SRSPrime subreddits), as far as I can tell. Edit: hah, bonus points for removing the comments. LMAO!
/r/MensRights20/02/13 04:32 PM
4

This is Poe-ing me so hard.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 04:26 PM
2

That's a fair question! Again, noting that I'm not really a member of their community (though I'm friends with some folks who are) and therefore can't fully adequately answer... Thing one is, they don't not allow dissent at all; but I think it has to be a bit more nuanced than "wow, generalizations are fun". For example, if you posted in SRSDiscussion about how unfair or unreasonable it was to generalize the views expressed by Warren Farrell (40 years ago - although ostensibly he hasn't disowned…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 06:36 AM
-17

That latter doesn't surprise me. It's Eternal September all over the place...
/r/MensRights20/02/13 05:54 AM
-26

That's fair enough, and I apologize. Yeah, so... okay, here's the thing. And bear in mind that I'm a non-SRS person, explaining this, but "SRS" refers to a broad community of a lot of subreddits. What you posted in was \/r/ShitRedditSays, which has as its first and foremost rule the one quoted by ViniTheHat, above. The rest of the SRS subreddits are also pretty insular, and generally disinterested in outsiders antagonistic to their views coming in and posting one-line "rebuttals" - but they're a…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 05:53 AM
-18

...Really...?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 05:45 AM
-31

Like... seriously, OP. Do you not know how to read? (Hey, Vini! You browsing /r/all/new/ too?)
/r/MensRights20/02/13 05:43 AM
1

No, I'm definitely arguing "ought".
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:40 AM
0

Yeah, no.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 03:14 AM
0

misandry Literally wat. Yes, if she'd had an obviously female username, I probably would've said "lady" instead of "duder". Sorry if that upsets you.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 09:08 PM
1

Most of the things you said I don't think anyone believes women are entitled to friendships from men who just want to date and/or fuck them. I also wanted to comment on the fact that you just called a woman "duder", because I feel it was a very serious display of bias. You seem to have preconceived notions of why people are posting here that are both inaccurate and negative. I mean no disrespect but you should try to be more open-minded toward their experiences. I feel like I apologized to her a…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 08:11 AM
1

Eh, nobody's perfect.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:30 PM
0

Wow, you sure told me!
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:30 AM
0

LMAO, no.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:30 AM
0

Nope. If a man gets pregnant (you know trans people exist, right?), he has control over his uterus. If a woman gets someone pregnant, the uterus-owner has control over their uterus.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:10 AM
0

It is called equality. You have just as much control over the contents of your body as I do over mine and as anyone else does over theirs. The fact that you don't happen to have a uterus is immaterial. If you did, it would be your right to choose what happened to it. And wow, you sure are helping to not make your community not look like a bunch of misogynist shitheads when you call women "bitches".
/r/MensRights24/01/13 07:44 AM
2

I'm not a dude. I'm an older woman and a former feminist. Sorry for calling you "duder"; most MRAs are men. Regardless, that changes nothing I said in my previous post. ad hom Do you mean ad hominem? In normal relationships reciprocity is necessary Neat. You're implying that reciprocity entails a relationship. Sorry. Doesn't fly. Someone flirts with you, male or female, older or younger, feminist or MRA (former or current), cis or trans, gay straight bi pan or anything else, rich or poor, regard…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 07:39 AM
1

murder murder murder You can only murder people, sib. First-trimester fetuses aren't people. 20ish-week-old fetuses aren't people. Sorry. And by the way? Don't try to play the "think of the poor children" card when you're the empathyless fuck who doesn't care to support the ones he makes. Deadbeat. Don't even try comparing it to a tax, you jackass. Why? Because it's more directed? Because the government expects you to give up a certain portion of your money for the benefit of ONE person, rather …
/r/MensRights24/01/13 07:36 AM
0

Duh. He made a passing comparison of financial rape of men in family courts to the "no means no" campaign. No, he was talking about literal male victims of actual rape. Sorry you can't read, sib. Hallelujah! You finally got it! That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Punish the rapist for his crime. But don't force anyone into financial slavery just because they produced offspring. ROFL my fucking AO Hey retard, what the hell is a woman doing with a kid in the first place if she can't afford to take car…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 07:13 AM
1

Oh, so you're one of those ideological zealots who cannot see beyond the narrow scope of your pre-programmed talking points? Oh wow. Oh wow. Irony! Doesn't the cognitive dissonance hurt you? Men are human beings with rights like everyone else. Yeah, absolutely! Where have I disagreed with this? It is immoral to trample on a human being's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Fuck yeah! Absolutely! And can you believe that people expect me to pay TAXES to support the local SCHOOL…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 06:59 AM
1

Yeah, but see, no. If you treat me nicely, that doesn't entitle you to even one date. End of story. And actually, despite the very nice words you put in my mouth, the same holds in reverse! Maybe what I consider to be "nice" you actually view as me being very, very creepy, and you'd rather I left you alone, but you've been socialized to be too polite to say that, and so you simply tolerate it instead - and here's me whining on the internet about how you're obligated to give me your time, because…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 06:48 AM
1

Hey, dumbshit. Did you note the part where I cited that as an easy fix? It is an easy fix. I didn't say that was the law as it's on the books - I said it was an easy fix. And are you so obtuse that you're ignoring the context where duder above you was talking about rape victims, which has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage dynamics? Let me guess: you're probably in favor of rapists being legally allowed to walk away from their children if they so choose, too, right? Because hey, it's the twe…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 06:13 AM
-1

So? What the hell is your point? A woman can abort the child if it's inconvenient for her. A man should have the option to walk away scott free. Fair is fair. Fair is fair, and it works like this: "And it's no person's right to tell someone else what they must do with their body." exactly right. Oh wait, those were my words, so... right. Women who get pregnant are the owners of their bodies, including their uteruses. Men who get pregnant are the owners of their bodies, including their uteruses. …
/r/MensRights24/01/13 06:10 AM
-1

You're being ridiculous. The discussion was explicitly about feminists' view of men's interactions with women. So now you want to pull "what about the menz" bullshit. Guess what? I AGREE WITH YOU! It isn't irrelevant to the BROADER discussion, but I was responding SPECIFICALLY to the SPECIFIC issue at hand! My not bringing men up out of nowhere was NOT a fucking slight, for fuck's fucking sake.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 02:50 AM
-8

This is discussion about relationships between men and women, care to explain men are irrelevant to the discussion and that the same cannot be applied to them? If this was about lesbian or women reproductive rights, then i could see how men are not included in the discussion, not the case though. Sigh.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 02:08 AM
1

And not man? Well, no, not "not men". But this discussion was about women, yes? I was responding to that. And seriously the priorities of feminism issues makes me laugh, what gets more attention, the rapes in Congo? the atrocities woman faces in the middle East? the sex slave trade? No, the Nice Guy is on top of their priorities, truly the ultimate enemy of the feminists. Nah, that's more Internet Feminists. But yeah, people do tend to focus more energy on things that are more directly pertinent…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 01:55 AM
2

I don't think most feminists think that men are inherently looking for sex. I would rebut that no matter how nice you are (or believe yourself to be) and no matter how politely and considerately you interact, not every woman is interested in even a relationship.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 01:34 AM
-3

The above quoted is a form of victim blaming. No, it isn't, although that's hilarious that you'd say so. There's no "victim" here - aside from, you know, the child you don't want to support. No one should be forced to have a child without their consent. No one. Cool. Don't have sex - or at least, don't put your penis in cis women's vaginas. Or do, but have an orchiectomy first. Aside from that, you're accepting the risk that the result might be a child. You're also accepting the risk, by the way…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 01:22 AM
-1

Consenting to sex is consenting to the possibility that there might be a child as a result. And it's no person's right to tell someone else what they must do with their body.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 01:05 AM
-6

No, you aren't obligated to fuck but I think you obligated to give him what he has given you: his time. LMFAO. So when you give something voluntarily, that creates an obligation? Sure must be an interesting world you live in!
/r/MensRights24/01/13 12:55 AM
4

I think it's pretty obvious that "Are women obligated to do anything?" was intended in the sense of "Are women obligated to do anything as a result of being women?". If you believe that women are obligated to do anything on the basis of being women, no, I'm pretty sure you're not a nice guy.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 12:53 AM
4

No, I'm pretty sure they're completely serious. Edit: And for whatever reason I've been banned for making this conjecture. Your moderators don't want you to know about /r/TheBluePill.
/r/TheRedPill09/01/13 06:21 PM
3

Oh fuck some idiot said something on Facebook (maybe), better pretend it represents feminism broadly
/r/MensRights01/01/13 05:46 AM
2

Not at all, but it's hilarious to me that you would characterize my posts that way when you had no legitimate response. :)
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:16 PM
1

LOL
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:11 PM
1

I said the claim you're defending, not the claim you made. The title of this thread is, Why are feminist [sic] against a male birth control pill? Which entails the claim, Feminists are against a male birth control pill. I guess alternatively you could try to support OThomson's i've seen multiple Feminists argue against it because 'Women should control reproduction' argument.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:58 PM
3

Betty Friedan has been dead for six years. The conference in question was nearly a decade and a half ago. The claim you're defending is that "feminists" (as in, feminists broadly, feminists in general) are "against a male birth control pill", so you're going to have to do better than that...
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:47 PM
5

LOL. No, dude, here's what you said: Of course you realize you will have to lie to them anyway, bitches will not do you if they know they can't impregnate themselves. Them. "You will have to lie to them anyway". Who's "them"? Well, the previous sentence was this: The male pill removes women's ability to extort, it is only about power. It's pretty clear that the "them" you were referring to was "women". "Of course you realize you will have to lie to women anyway", was what you were saying. As to …
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:34 PM
3

One woman. "Feminist"? No clue. Against male birth control pills? No, just wouldn't want to replace her hormonal birth control with them in her relationships. Care to try again?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:31 PM
3

the women who are intent on using pregnancy as a ploy to either force marriage or get onto the single-mother welfare gravy train I find it pretty entertaining that you've backed down from "women" ("Of course you realize you will have to lie to them [women; any women] anyway") to "the women who". :) (Edit: Also, LMAO @ the concept of the "single-mother welfare gravy train" - because being a single mother is a super-easy and enviable thing!)
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:07 PM
6

I do. You're right: I'm not a regular commenter in /r/mensrights, and in fact I disagree with a lot of what people here have to say. I'm a dirty evil feminist (oh no!), and yes, I agree with quite a lot of SRS's ideas. However, no, I didn't get here via any "brigades"; I found it via /r/mensrights/new/, wondering if anyone had posted a thread about something else entirely. I found it and thought "Wow, this is hilariously stupid, being a complex question founded on a faulty premise". Seriously, "…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:05 PM
1

Oh wow, I missed this part last night, 'cause I mostly kinda skimmed your comment: Of course you realize you will have to lie to them anyway, bitches will not do you if they know they can't impregnate themselves. ROFLMFAO. "Bitches will not do you if they know they can't impregnate themselves"... and people wonder why /r/mensrights is considered to be full of misogynists. :)
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:43 PM
5

This is just silly. A male birth control pill wouldn't preclude the use of female hormonal birth control. A woman who was worried about her partner not taking his pill would have every opportunity to continue taking birth control herself. At which point you've got two layers of prevention, and a correspondingly ridiculously low failure rate.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:21 PM
5

Just because I don't agree with the things others are flatly stating without providing any evidence, that doesn't make me a "troll", dude. Genuinely sorry if there's an external community fucking with your votes (as a moderator of /r/ainbow, a subreddit whose votes routinely get fucked with by an external subreddit) - and if anyone from /r/againstmensrights is reading this, I'd like to point out to you that voting on shit here is counterproductive to your goals - if MR doesn't support reasonable…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:18 PM
6

Want to cite some? All I've ever seen is people here claiming feminists are against the idea.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:13 PM
9

LOL, totally. Want to cite me some feminists actually arguing against male birth control, pls? Much less support for the idea that women at large are against it?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 05:47 AM
9

mandatory paternity tests at birth get the lawyers and politicians out of everyone's underwear LOL, wat. These things are completely at odds with each other. I suspect that most births that occur don't have either party even wanting a paternity test - certainly many don't. And who pays for this, BTW? This is a dumb and honestly very silly idea. And the idea that having the government mandate paternity tests at birth would get politicians out of your underwear is, well, absurd.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 05:32 AM
19

Surprise! They're - we're - not.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:41 AM
7

I probably shouldn't bother touching two-day-old poop, but Good! Even though the study has low n and was done on brain scans of dead people, maybe it identifies the brain area causing a male to believe they're female and vice versa. Rather: maybe it identifies the brain area causing people to believe they're a woman or a man (or otherwise) It's the same brain area in cis men, cis women, trans men, and trans women. And there's a phrase that covers "belief that you are a woman" and "belief that yo…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 08:57 PM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 06:22 AM
1

Honestly? I think most cis feminists don't really think about us, for the most part. I do think that's better by far than the Cathy Brennans of the world.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:21 AM
1

Fair enough. :) I would say this, though: ... liberals seek to punish those who break society's laws. Conservatives, however seek to uphold that which is good in man, even the offender. I personally identify far more with the latter than the former. Speaking about actual criminal justice systems, for example, I think rehabilitation is hugely important, and while deterrence is good too, punishment-simply-for-punishment's-sake doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think a structuralist view of soci…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 12:54 AM
1

More accurately, American conservatives seem to worship the 1890s, when worker's rights were weak, concentration of wealth was high, and progress on inter-group equality had just been pushed back significantly by the 'redeemers.' Are you kidding me? Most of America isn't aware that there was history back that far, much less do they know what it is. ;) (You're certainly right on the things they value, though!) I'm a classical conservative, which means I view society as an organism, one which evol…
/r/MensRights22/10/12 04:56 AM
1

The phrase "left-wing [] conservative" is fascinating to me. :) I guess what I meant, and I was mostly just being a snarky pain in the butt, was that typical American conservatives - and I guess by this I largely mean Republicans and, you know, neocons - view the '50s or so as a fabulous golden age and want to go back there... socially. The mentality seems to be, let's do everything we can to turn back the clock on everything that's changed since then - and actually, to erase any differences bet…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 01:44 AM
1

Yeah, well, the problem with conservatives is that they think the 1950s were some kind of golden age, and all they want to do is figure out how they can get back there. =P
/r/MensRights20/10/12 07:27 PM
1

While that's fucked up, the Reagan administration was sort of three decades ago...
/r/MensRights20/10/12 04:17 AM
1

My thing is, what is Feminism with capital F? I don't think it's a thing that actually exists. There isn't a monolithic establishment. Otherwise, you make fair points.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:14 PM
1

I didn't mean it, was the point. I don't hold modern Americans responsible for those things, any more than I hold all modern feminists responsible for the views of their forebears. That was sort of what I was saying.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:12 AM
1

Well, to be sure. And I guess that was my point - that the idea of Feminism, with capital F, being The Enemy of the MRAs, and of men, is ridiculous. The idea of branches of feminism being enemies of the MRAs, and of men, certainly less so. PS, I am kind of amused by you commenting on a more-than-a-week-old thread. :)
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:11 AM
1

They're kinda unwieldy, aren't they? And when you consider that "gender"=="sex", doesn't that make the terms, you know, sort of redundant? I still consider that "sex" is perfectly valid, and best conceived of as more or less the set of one's sexually dimorphic traits (including neurology, including sex hormones, including both primary and secondary sex characteristics).
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:42 AM
1

We've disagreed on this before, but either way, I think we can agree: sex is not any single one of: Genitalia Gonads Hormones Chromosomes I do think it's valuable to have a word that describes the state of one's body, and I think "sex" fills that role well; and you know my feelings on that. /shrug
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:28 AM
1

LOL, well played. That sounds kinda awkward.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 01:40 AM
1

LMAO, I didn't admit any such thing, nor will I, because I'm not, and you are. In closing, something something rubber, something something glue. I'm going to bed, and we'll see if I feel like responding to whatever shit in the morning. Enjoy <3
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:44 AM
1

I was actually really impressed by the level of support for transgender people I saw on a recent thread here that you may or may not have seen, about a couple of dumbass high school kids (and their even dumbasser parents) who went into a sauna at a college where their school was leasing access to the pool for their swim team (not the sauna: just the pool), and (gasp!) saw a trans woman there, presumably with a weiner and stuff. Lots of good and positive comments. I'm not too proud to admit it: t…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:39 AM
1

I'm not. They exist, but you can't has. Besides, I suspect I'm not really your type. You MRAs tend to be pretty transphobic, don't you?
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:33 AM
1

Those who like to pretend that women have it worse than men in 2012 generally are, yes. My words, those were exactly them. Well done! Whatever turns you on... And we continue with the saga of Bartab, the disingenuous derailing sack of crap. Good job. :)
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:27 AM
0

Because women are deceitful, lying, manipulative bitches, right? I mean, that's what you're saying, isn't it? Let me be clear: I mean "cute" in the sense of "like a particularly dumb yappy chihuahua that thinks it's a much bigger dog than it actually is".
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:24 AM
0

You're cute.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:19 AM
0

You don't take hints well, do you?
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:17 AM
1

In the VP debate, Paul Ryan said they'd make abortion illegal, except in cases of rape. Isn't this dangerous because women are all emotionally bankrupt sociopathic liars who are willing to destroy men's lives to get what they want? Pretty sure that's what your title says, in a nutshell. No, it wouldn't result in some sort of crazy epidemic of women doing that, because women by and large aren't emotionally bankrupt sociopathic liars who are willing to destroy men's lives to get what they want.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:16 AM
0

There's no other reason to pay a woman for the simple act of being a woman. Which you don't do. Being owned by her I think you need to take a social studies class, if you think that that's what the word "slavery" means - you know, paying someone money. Watch your language. You're in our safe space, not yours. Mm-hm. Yeah, calling you a disingenuous prick sure is "an extreme case", worthy of moderation. Shit, though, I dunno, maybe if the shoe didn't fit so damn well - I mean, you guys are the on…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:11 AM
0

It's either slavery or prostitution. It's great that you want to Flatly assert that, without supporting it! Ignore all of the rest of what I had to say! Didn't you want a discussion, sir? Now who's derailing, you disingenuous prick? Be all misogynist! Like I said: you have fun with your bad self. I'll be doing something better with my time than talking to you.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 09:01 AM
0

There's no question to answer, here. You're trying to claim that alimony is literally slavery. There's not a conversation to be had. That's dogma, and it's fucked-up dogma. It's very clear that you're not trying to have a discussion in the first place, and that there's nothing here to derail. But look. Dude said, and let me quote here - To be a white man in America today is to be a slave. So here are some things that are problems with this. You seem to want to equivocate "being a [white] man [in…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 08:42 AM
0

Like say, alimony... ROFL. U R LITRLY A SLAEV Ooh, ooh! Can you tell me the one about how taxes constitute slavery, next? I LOVE that one!
/r/MensRights13/10/12 08:07 AM
-1

Oh, I certainly do. It's like this: Comparing the condition of white men in America to slavery isn't just absurd, it's downright racist. Mmmm, feel that truth. Delightful, isn't it?
/r/MensRights13/10/12 08:04 AM
-1

One wouldn't know it. :)
/r/MensRights13/10/12 07:59 AM
-1

This is all total horseshit, actually. But okay, enjoy!
/r/MensRights13/10/12 07:22 AM
-1

But you're not. You're here for no such thing. You're here to spout rhetoric. I'm just not interested in it.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 06:05 AM
-1

What's to debate? You've got your ideology, I've got, you know, reality. You go on and have fun without me. :) Ninja-edit: PS: That wasn't ad hominem. Ad hominem is, like, "You're stupid, therefore you're wrong". That was "You're stupid and you're wrong". The difference, although I'm not expecting you to grasp it, is that the latter isn't an argument, and doesn't purport to prove anything.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:40 AM
-1

You keep telling yourself that, Mr. Faux-Libertarian Whack-Job. :)
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:21 AM
-1

To be a white man in America today is to be a slave. ROFL My fucking AO
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:51 AM
1

Well thank you! :)
/r/MensRights11/10/12 03:46 AM
0

So, look. You're wrong. If you had exactly the same life and situation that you had now, but were black, your life would be harder. If you had exactly the same life and situation that you had now, but were a woman, your life would be harder. If you had exactly the same life and situation that you had now, but were gay (assuming you're not to begin with), your life would be harder. (If you are gay, but weren't, your life would be easier.) If you had exactly the same life and situation that you ha…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 06:59 AM
1

This is way too big a wall of text for me for right now. That's probably not entirely fair, and I apologize. Be mad at me if you want. And feel free, since I'm being a little bit hypocritical, to not really read much of what I'm about to say - although I hope you will. I will say this, though, because it caught my eye: I certainly never had any leg up by being white nor a man. My parents were poor. In my teens I decided I didnt want to be poor any longer, so I got a job paying minimum wage sweep…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 05:18 AM
0

Cool. I hope you consider all modern Americans to be horribly racist and misogynist, then, because all Americans today stand on the shoulders and enjoy the fruits of all Americans in the past who supported slavery and considered wives to be the property of their husbands. This game, two can play at it.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:12 PM
2

It's okay! I didn't think you were like trying to be a jerk. And as far as the "fucktwit" thing goes, well, apparently I caused offense to you, so I certainly can't fault you for responding to it. OMG NO HARD FEELINGS OKAY ;)
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:09 PM
0

No, I mean, fair enough. And that wasn't intended as any sort of ad hominem: that really is an accusation that's constantly thrown out at people who for example have the gall to call someone out on being homophobic or misogynist, or whatever. It's like reddit's favorite go-to: "go back to SRS".
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:42 PM
1

I'm not a guy, pal. =/
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:41 PM
1

Important, as in, being gendered correctly matters a lot to some people.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:40 PM
0

the same rotten feminism. Sigh. And again with this shit. Feminism's not your enemy, dude.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:22 PM
1

The important thing to remember is that while it may be all the same to you, it isn't all the same to the person you're talking about. :)
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:22 PM
1

but since atheismplus is moderated by SRS Is it? Well, TIL. All I know is that from my limited experience it seems pretty good. and tends to block MRAs Interesting. By contrast, /r/feminism is moderated by MRAs and blocks any mention of SRS... It's pretty much gendertrender but with a different viewpoint. LOL, no. Edit: per nosrs.tk, the following people are not SRSers: /u/kylev /u/jennifurret /u/Elphaba_Is_Green /u/AtomicUnobtanium /u/dancingwiththestars /u/vitreia has one post in SRS, ever. /u…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:54 PM
0

Title IX is enabling that prejudice due to it's execution of exclusivity. Wrong. In the absence of Title IX they would have attacked Ms. Francis regardless; they simply wouldn't have used that exact argument.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:49 PM
1

Yeah, they sure did. I inquired as to why here, but given what I've heard about /r/feminism's moderation, I'm not sure I expect a response. Last night, most of the comments were along the lines of "Wow, this is transphobic as hell. Why is this posted here?".
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:41 PM
1

Wow, you're right. I inquired as to why here, but given what I've heard about /r/feminism's moderation, I'm not sure I expect a response. Last night, most of the comments were along the lines of "Wow, this is transphobic as hell. Why is this posted here?".
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:41 PM
1

They are the ones leading the debate and influencing law-makers. I don't agree with this at all. At least in the US, I've never seen anyone like a radfem anywhere near public office; and our nation's laws have been (gradually, inexorably) moving towards, not away from, acceptance of transgender people.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:40 PM
4

Oh. Derp, sorry.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:39 PM
0

It's also interesting to note that this discussion cannot be had on /r/feminism - it's been purged there Which is fucking bizarre - prior to the comments being removed, they were mostly along the lines of "Why did you link this transphobic shit?". and it seems mostly muted at /r/lgbt who can't discuss it because gendertrender is a hate site. (Which is pretty true.) Well, exactly. My point in linking both of these subreddits was to show how feminist people in pro-feminist spaces were decrying the…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:39 PM
0

In point of fact it's totally irrelevant, but I totally get how you want to twist this into an opportunity to bitch about something that provides equal access to sports for girls. (I'm not biting, BTW. Troll someone else.)
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:33 PM
1

You're conflating sex and gender. Pronouns fall into the "gender" category, as do the terms "man" and "woman". She is a woman - specifically, she is a transsexual woman. Maybe this will help.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:32 PM
0

Yes, I think - I know - that most of the people commenting were radfems because most of the people that frequent that site are radfems because it's a radfem site. And no, I don't think most of us think it's particularly funny to be shat on, misgendered, and attacked.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:24 PM
0

Then why do non radfems support it? Support what? Transphobic shit? Well, by and large I don't think most feminists do support transphobic shit. I would really like to see you cite some support for the idea that they do, if you think that's the case. I really would like to see where average feminists tear down radfems for their stupid beliefs. Show me. Well, nearly every post from me you see in this thread is an example of an average feminist attacking radfems. Beyond that, how's this for a star…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:22 PM
1

*she
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:14 PM
0

It was the mustache, really.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:12 PM
2

And just out of curiosity, how would you feel if that list was instead “drawing, cooking, transgender issues,polyamory, witchcraft, nature, fishing, art, poetry, ocean, women, sex, sexuality, emotions, magic, magick, goddess, reading, erotica, pornography, nudity, crafting, leatherwork, firearms, knives, swords, paganism, wicca, LGBT issues, beauty, gender issues, kink, spirituality, guns, makeup, shoes, boots, corsets, selkies” and if she was a cisgender, rather than a transgender, woman (i.e. …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:14 AM
2

But it's not, is the thing. It's really not. This is a tiny corner of feminism, and the pretense taking place here is that it represents feminism broadly. It doesn't. They call themselves radical feminists for a reason, and in general they have a huge problem with trans women.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:12 AM
1

She's a woman, not a man. Those girls had no business being there - their school had contracted with the college for use of the pool, not the sauna. There are "very sexual" cisgender women who prefer women, too.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:11 AM
3

She went to "extreme lengths" by... using the sauna at the college where she was enrolled, and where a couple of high school kids who had no business being there (their school having contracted for use of the pool, not the sauna) wandered in? Yeah, those are pretty fucking "extreme lengths" all right. She's not a guy of any kind, BTW.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:11 AM
1

The radical feminists. Not "the feminists". The radfems. Most feminists have zero problem recognizing trans women as women. As far as "doing their homework", though, do you mean to say that you think that schools should inquire as to whether a given school has any transgender students before contracting, and avoid doing so if so? Seems a little much to me.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:08 AM
2

Yeah, that's gendertrender for you. They're filled with radfem asshats. =/
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:07 AM
1

While the quotes are diligent in grabbing how this individual describes herself in every other way, if an individual has a penis and is attracted to women they are a heterosexual man. Are you stating this as something you agree with, or just calling it out as a premise of the article? If it's the latter, please feel free to skip the next paragraph. Genitals don't determine whether someone is a man or a woman. Some ways you can know that: 1. you don't check any given person's pants before referri…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:06 AM
1

Far simpler: GSRM: Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities. Inherently inclusive, and much shorter. :)
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:59 AM
2

I do have to wonder how much of this represents blundering on the part of the facility, and attention seeking behavior on the part of the individual involved. Zero, and zero. The girls had no business being in the sauna - that wasn't what their high school was leasing access to. Ms. Francis had every right to be in the sauna, as - I believe - a student of the college.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:59 AM
2

That's ridiculous. The incident actually had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Title IX. The only people bringing up Title IX are radfem shitheads wanting to claim that the college was somehow taking away these girls' rights by allowing them an alternative option that wouldn't offend them, rather than discriminating against a woman (who the radfem shitheads consider to be a man in the first place) on the basis of her trans status. Which is to say, they're bringing it up in the context of …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:56 AM
5

No, it's because if you still have a penis you aren't a woman quite yet In the same way that if a man lost his penis in an accident he wouldn't be a man anymore, right?
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:55 AM
4

/r/SubredditDrama loves to shit on trans people, misgender, talk about how trans women are really men, and spew disclosure arguments. Their moderators have recently begun enforcing a "stop willfully misgendering people or we'll ban you" policy, but the community itself is horrible. /r/SRSsucks I can't speak to, but if they're anything like /r/antisrs, I sure wouldn't expect them to be good. I saw some pretty transphobic shit on the latter, before the shut down. Always surprised me how terrible t…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:54 AM
4

Okay, so, my question is this: Did you read any of the comments in the three threads that I linked? Because this kind of transphobia does unfortunately exist "in feminism", but specifically it's mostly relegated to a subset of radical feminists - who seem to believe that gender relations are some kind of war, where sides are determined by one's genitals at birth, and that trans women represent a threat as apparently we're trying to like undermine and spy on their glorious revolution. Seriously, …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:51 AM
2

I really think you've got some serious cognitive bias going on here. It would be far more accurate to say that the feminists who are like that are very loud and public - but there are tons of people, I guarantee you, who both are feminists and express their views publicly but who aren't anything like fucking radscum. As far as being called out on it - I mean, like, would you know? The conversations about this (you can find them by going to "other discussions", above, on this thread) on feminist …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:34 AM
3

Fair enough all around. :) Particularly, I meant more that they were like annoying parasites and every group of progressive people seems to have at least one self-appointed language cop who tries to make sure everything is ultra-PC. Oh god, I was interacting with one of those on ainbow just last night. She was trying to tell me (as, herself, a trans woman) that because I'm not a cis woman it wasn't appropriate for me to say that something was "all up in this bitch" - and that it was doubly unacc…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:50 AM
3

The "radical" Feminists that passed VAWA and Title IX? No? The self-identified radical feminists like the ones on that shitty gendertrender site, radfems like Cathy Brennan and her ilk, radfems who view gender relations as an outright war with sides determined by what genitalia you were born with, and who love to shit on transgender people, especially trans women, who they consider some sort of spies or moles trying to undermine their glorious cause. It really sounds a lot like you're responding…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:40 AM
0

Really? You haven't seen SRS constantly use "cis-male" as a term of disparagement? Okay, so, this is probably too much to unpack, and I may not be 100% accurate in this as not-an-SRSer. But SRS - the main subreddit, /r/ShitRedditSays itself - is a circlejerk subreddit that has as its goal reversing the normal order of things in reddit: shitting on white, cis, straight, atheist males in the same way that reddit at large does to people who don't fall into that group on any given axis. But that asi…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:29 AM
5

Yes, you're absolutely right, not all feminists are transphobic douchebags. In fact, most aren't. And I suspect that it's true in the same way that not all MRAs are transphobic douchebags, although certainly some are. Radfems are actually, it may shock you to learn, in the minority of feminists - which may be why they use the term "radical" to describe their dissent from the rest of feminism! Like, seriously, if a group of MRAs broke off and started calling themselves Radical Men's Rights Activi…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:14 AM
4

Yet those people infest "progressive" groups. Well, no, that's patently false. I'm a progressive myself, very much so, as well as a moderator of /r/ainbow - which is an apolitical subreddit by and large, but which is pretty liberal overall in the same way that /r/mensrights tends pretty strongly towards conservativism. And I've virtually never seen anyone take that position - I've heard it ascribed to /r/lgbt, and to SRS, but I haven't personally seen it happen. So... if you could provide some e…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:03 AM
1

Very funny example of feminist anti-trans hate. But it is hard to say how commonplace the anti-trans hate is in the feminist movement these days. It's a source of considerable humiliation for them as a movement. I suspect if you ran this past /r/AskFeminists[1] they would be all over the trans rights side of it. Uh, no. It's an example (and fuck you, it sure isn't very funny to transgender people) of radfem anti-trans hate. It's pretty easy to say how commonplace it is in feminism broadly: it's …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:53 AM
9

Here is the feminist response. Correction: Here is the response on one blog hosted by a radical feminist who has a problem with transgender people and especially trans women Here's some more feminist response: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheismplus/comments/116e7e/tw_trans_slurs_atheism_im_lost_obviously_this/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/115ltp/title_ix_and_gender_identity/ http://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/1169hf/thoughts_lgbt_on_the_situation_described/
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:42 AM
1

Either femaleness is genetically determined and we say trans-women are women out of politeness, or everyone is a biological woman. You're conflating sex and gender. Have a this thing, and be sure to click on the buttons and read the text below (especially on the "biological sex" section). :) I don't like it because using it all the time makes as much sense as always stipulating that someone is a non-Christian\non-Vegan\non-black\non-Jew\non-Neal Patrick Harris fan etc. That's silly. I say that i…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:32 AM
6

I'm just going to copy-paste my take on this from elsewhere. Hope you guys don't mind. :) As far as I can tell, it's the rhetoric like "stripped them of their Title IX rights" and "forced them into a separate facility" that make a relatively straightforward situation sound murky. If I'm understanding the situation correctly, they still had those rights and access to the same facility as before, they just chose not to use those rights or that facility (or their parents chose that for them) - and …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:22 AM
39

You're missing a point here. Gendertrender is full of transphobic radfem assholes. They're the ones using male pronouns and wanting to call Ms. Francis a man. However, they quoted a source that correctly identifies her as a woman, and uses the appropriate pronouns. There isn't a "competition" here so much as multiple factions - feminism being broad and diverse. Most of feminism recognizes trans women as being women, and is inclusive of trans women as female. A lot of radfem shitheads, however, v…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:10 AM
2

I'm not certain what you consider ad hominem about "I'm pretty sure you didn't read this because it's actually about something completely different from what you're talking about".
/r/MensRights30/09/12 07:31 PM
1

That's adorable. It's like you didn't even read the study, which wasn't about the actual pay of actual people, but rather about recommendations for people whose applications literally only differed in their first name - as well as various other assessments of those hypothetical individuals. :)
/r/MensRights30/09/12 07:21 PM
1

Gosh, I'm so very sorry. I didn't see it here and was curious as to what Mister would have to say. Frankly every conversation I've seen an MRA have about the wage gap has centered on how it's totally not a real thing and how any disparity in pay between men and women owes to things that are completely choices women make. I was interested to see what you folks would have to say about data that was entirely independent of that. So sorry to have disturbed you.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 03:31 PM
1

Yes, I'm aware that the salary graph appears misleading as a result of starting not at $0 but rather at $25,000, making the "male student" bar three times as large and therefore visually exaggerating the difference. That aside, the data that it presents is still the data that it presents.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 06:29 AM
2

I may in fact be mistaken. Someone else informed me that I was wrong and that it's actually about having negative comment karma in a given subreddit.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 08:38 PM
0

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that asking you to support your arguments, by doing things like citing concrete harms (not vague assertions like "this hurts reddit's reputation" - really? how?), and asking after the consistency of your positions (again, you're agitating for the closure of /r/beatingwomen, right?), was "hurring and durring". Cool story, sib. You have fun with that.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 08:24 AM
1

Look, you're some person that refuses to acknowledge that gaming Reddit to takeover subreddits with clearly hostile, bad faith requests is a bad thing. Look, you're some person that refuses to enumerate any actual specific harms that would result from AlyoshaV gaining control of /r/brosrights in order to create a joke subreddit. There is probably no point in discussing anything with you, but I've been holding out hope that you're not entirely intellectually dishonest and that you might actually …
/r/MensRights24/09/12 07:57 AM
1

Once again, I don't actually have anything of substance to say so I'm going to deflect. Well played, dumbguy. Well played. (Ninja edit: Points for cleverness, however.)
/r/MensRights24/09/12 07:37 AM
1

I posted some questions for AlyoshaV and her response to them indicates to me she would not be a good moderator -- she expressed no real interest or understanding of "bros rights" in a college context. That's cool. That doesn't explain actual, concrete harms. Advancing false arguments in a discussion is straw manning and concern trolling. Doing this under the guise of a moderator damages Reddit's reputation and so damages all of reddit. Hardly. But if you agree with that, surely you're actively …
/r/MensRights24/09/12 07:26 AM
3

That's cute. I'm honestly not sure what AlyoshaV's gender is; all I know for sure is that AlyoshaV hates people telling others what pronouns to use in reference to AlyoshaV - and of course the fact that vowel ending aside, "Alyosha" is a male name.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 09:57 PM
4

I'm not going to answer any of your questions because I have a crap to poop. (No offense....) "I'm not going to answer any of your questions because I don't actually have an answer." Why do you think this was due to a "report" and not just reddit functionality? That's something that affects new accounts, yes. My account is far from new, however. In most (read: basically all) subreddits I can post freely, as can anyone else. In this subreddit, I need to wait 9 minutes between comments. This is so…
/r/MensRights23/09/12 09:42 PM
-1

I don't see how being insincere equates to "maliciousness" and an intent to "break reddit". What actual, concrete harms do you see arising from this request being granted? Edit: LOL, thanks, whoever reported me. Love that 9-minute lockout. So, on your other comment: Why should her many requests be seen as anything other than gaming reddit and trying to break it? Because it doesn't "break" anything? And if that is the case, how is that not malicious? Because maliciousness requires intent to harm,…
/r/MensRights23/09/12 09:32 PM
-6

Okay, cool. Now can you please explain to me how requesting a banned, inactive subreddit a private, inactive subreddit with one subscriber is "trying to break reddit"? And would you also like to support your "malicious"ness claim?
/r/MensRights23/09/12 09:08 PM
1

Of course. Certainly making and supporting requests is ban-worthy.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 08:32 PM
1

He spammed it everywhere he thought might be vaguely sympathetic.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 04:24 AM
3

Hey. Let me explain a little bit. There is a thing. It's called gender dysphoria. It's actually in the DSM-V. What it is, at a really basic level, is intense distress caused by an incongruence between your gender identity and A) your physical body, and/or B) the gender you have been assigned. Which is to say, there's both physical dysphoria, which a trans woman might feel as a result of feeling like she looks like a man; and there's social dysphoria, which a trans man might feel as a result of h…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 06:22 AM
0

I responded in the context of a larger discussion. Learn to not be dumb.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:43 AM
0

r/LGBT is run by SRS-types so that's not going to happen. You should check out /r/ainbow for something more up your alley. Holy fuck, what the hell is "context"?
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:33 AM
2

YSK that most if not all of us ainbow mods are political liberals. (Feminists, too!)
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:11 AM
1

Uh-huh. Good luck with your dogma, sib.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 06:58 PM
2

The things that you said, in the part of your comment that I quoted. Those are lies. You're attacking a made-up straw feminism based on a handful of batshit crazy extremist radfems. It's like if I said "Real MRAs think that women should be beaten to keep them in line." There are MRAs who have said things that are similar to that, but to try to claim that that's the position of the men's rights movement broadly - that would be a bald-faced lie. Just like what you said was a bald-faced lie.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 06:31 PM
-1

No real feminist would even give a crap about any of that stuff. In fact real feminists say those experiences are good for men to have. So she's having something of a crisis of faith on the whole feminism thing and that's part of why she wants to ask folks for help, but mostly it's this: Nope, those are... shit, I forgot the word. What's the term for this? Lies. Those are lies.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 05:36 AM
1

What about gay women? Gay men benefit from all of the things in that link, as well as some HIV screening stuff they're doing. They also get lower premiums and lower taxes, relative to if the bill didn't exist, just like everyone else does - because the program saves both the government and the insurance companies a ton of money over time. And I would also argue that there are society-wide benefits to a decrease in the number of unwanted children - gay men see those benefits too, the same as ever…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:04 PM
1

Sure. :)
/r/MensRights03/08/12 05:38 PM
7

Okay, just for shits and giggles. In the United States: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/13/us/marital-rape-drive-for-tougher-laws-is-pressed.html (that's right, as recently as 1982 a rape conviction was overturned on the basis that a dude by definition couldn't rape his wife!) http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701 - North Carolina exempted husbands from being prosecuted for rape of their wives in 1997! http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/US_History_of_Marita…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 03:31 AM
4

"My trail of breadcrumbs". Okay. No, listen, you're being unreasonable here. "Wikipedia is not a valid source" is a tired and a dumb argument. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is full of experts jealously guarding their articles, reverting problematic edits pretty quickly after they occur. Is it a scholarly resource? No. Is it a good enough resource for establishing things like "Was it ever legal for men to rape their wives"? Yes.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:54 AM
1

You're too lazy to look at the references for the article? I guess that's not really my problem.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:39 AM
1

Is it easier for men to notice the STIs that they are screened for? Yeah, they're way more obviously symptomatic in guys. In fact men are being forced to pay more to cover all the new things that women will be getting Well, yes and no, but mostly no. The ACA saves a whole ton of money. In fact, not only is it likely to be good for your tax burden (at least relative to if it didn't exist - they probably won't lower taxes as a result of the money it saves, but had they not saved it they might have…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:23 AM
2

And this same reasoning applies to women who don't have sex with men, and who don't want to be on birth control for its other effects. Not all men see a benefit from women getting free birth control, but not all women see a benefit from the possibility of getting free birth control, either. For the majority of women who do see a benefit from access to free birth control, there are also men who benefit from it.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:13 AM
1

STI screening for men is limited to high risk men. STI screening for women is for all sexually active women. The STIs that are screened for all sexually active women but only high risk men are more difficult for women to self-diagnose - i.e. they'll show up as a discharge, but there's discharge going on pretty regularly, so one might not notice; and in addition, there's a cost factor, because these screenings can be done as part of a normal gyno exam, whereas for men it requires an entire separa…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:02 AM
1

In complete seriousness, millions of women gaining access to free birth control is a benefit for men - at least assuming for any given woman that either A) she wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise, or B) she's in a committed relationship such that she shares finances with her male partner (which is to say, it saves them money, rather than simply saving her money). There are also an ass-ton of preventive screenings covered for men. Edit: Also, all of this stuff.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 01:42 AM
1

Several countries in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia made spousal rape illegal before 1970, but other countries in Western Europe and the English-speaking Western World outlawed it much later, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. Most developing countries outlawed it in the 1990s and 2000s. In the United States, "the nineteenth-century woman's rights movement fought against a husband's right to control marital intercourse in a campaign that was remarkably developed, prolific, and insistent, given ninet…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 01:31 AM
1

Completely grammatical, although it could perhaps have been improved with the addition of a comma between "the thing that you made up" and "because you made it up". Please, however, by all means, continue to demonstrate the fact that you can't actually cite any support for your (baseless) assertion.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 02:35 AM
1

Well, I wasn't trolling at all. It's not my fault that you don't have any reasons to cite for the thing that you made up because you made it up and it doesn't have any basis in reality. That said, I don't like to make assumptions about people's genders.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 04:57 AM
2

Wow. Empathy fail. No, there were plenty of people being very empathetic. What I take issue with is the implied claim that ainbow is full of assholes who have no empathy for the dude getting groped, who just want to dogpile on him and bitch at him for daring to complain about something that certainly women have to deal with all the time. That implication is very inaccurate.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 02:38 AM
0

Right, and that's lovely and all, except that what you consider "the underlying premises of feminism" are actually "the underlying premises of the beliefs of radical feminists". They're not the same thing.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 11:50 PM
0

Nope, that's bullshit. Feminism has never been about hating men, and isn't today. There are lots of Christians who don't care for or agree with Jerry Falwell, or Fred Phelps, or the the Pope, and who are nonetheless Christians. There are lots of feminists who don't care for or agree with radical feminists, and who are nonetheless feminists.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 11:37 PM
1

I've already said that there were people from /r/ainbow who were supportive of the OP. My point is that when I reported the thread to you, the majority of the 80-something comments were dismissive of the sexual assault. I don't know that I believe that the majority were being dismissive. There were four or five primary threads that that happened on. Most of them are heavily downvoted now, although I'll readily acknowledge that that doesn't say anything about where they were sitting prior to MR's…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 11:24 PM
4

Wow. Reading comprehension fail. There were a whole bunch of comments supporting the OP and calling out people that were shitting on him before this thread was posted. Seriously, you guys are as bad as fucking Aerik with the cherrypicking. It's like you're selectively blind or something.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 10:49 PM
3

Here's a list of some comments that were one or both of A) supportive to the OP, or B) yelling at jackasses who were shitting on him, posted prior to this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/ainbow/comments/wcseq/i_had_a_pretty_bad_experience_at_a_gay_bar_the/c5cddrw http://www.reddit.com/r/ainbow/comments/wcseq/i_had_a_pretty_bad_experience_at_a_gay_bar_the/c5cezp7 http://www.reddit.com/r/ainbow/comments/wcseq/i_had_a_pretty_bad_experience_at_a_gay_bar_the/c5cf02r http://www.reddit.com/r/ainbow/com…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 10:39 PM
0

Oh, so the suffix "ism"=="superiority". Got it. No, this is still a stupid argument.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 10:05 PM
1

You're right, I actually have zero basis for my claim that you're "rabidly anti-male" beyond my preexisting prejudice that feminists are inherently "rabidly anti-male", coupled with your self-identification with that group. Cool story.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 09:48 PM
0

Looking at the timestamps, there were quite a few comments empathizing with the OP and plenty of people calling out those trying to minimize the shittiness of his experience - prior to this thread being posted.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 06:21 PM
1

This kind of sensible analysis is not welcome here in /r/angrybittercirclejerkmensrights.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 05:49 PM
0

I have no idea who that is. Sorry to disappoint?
/r/MensRights12/07/12 02:10 PM
0

Hard to think someone's awesome when you hate a fundamental part of who they are, isn't it? Believe what you like. You made up this idea about me in your head, and since it isn't based on any actual evidence I'm sure you won't be dissuade. The simple fact is, I don't hate men: I know plenty of fantastic men. I do hate assholes - regardless of gender - and you definitely seem to be part of that group.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 01:20 PM
-4

http://i.imgur.com/UzTta.gif
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:51 AM
0

I see. So, you reject a male identity, preferring instead the female sex, to the point where you undergo surgery to alter yourself into becoming a woman....and I'm supposed to believe you don't hate men or masculinity? You can see the potential conflict here, right? Oh please, tell me more of your transphobic, cissexist wisdom. I'm certain you know more about my motivations and thoughts and feelings than I do. Are they like your 'black friends' and your 'Jewish friends'? Merit badges to show you…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:51 AM
0

Wat
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:46 AM
-3

No. I think you'll find that the women I mentioned are not considered feminist by any feminists but themselves. [citation needed] Nope. I have a problem with 'mainstream feminism'. At least the feminism that's influencing government policy, social attitudes and being quoted in Scientific American as experts on men's thoughts. That's nice. Lots of people are quoted as "experts" in lots of fields who don't actually know what the fuck they're talking about. http://www.genderratic.com/p/933/why-i-do…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:46 AM
0

Aww, poor feminist doesnt like being treated like a man... I sure don't. But then, most trans chicks don't, so there's that, I guess. ....mmmmm....nope, pretty sure you hate men. Sure don't. I have numerous male friends.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:43 AM
-4

Nope, it's actually a load of steaming horseshit.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:41 AM
-2

Nope, that wasn't the claim. Actually I'm Canadian. Selective Service is nothing more than a shining example of sexist double standards and male second class citizenship to me. 'K.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:41 AM
-1

So, if I went down the street, with a banner that said : "Stop murdering people", murderers would stop murdering ? Totally. Murder and rape are exactly the same crime and are committed with exactly the same motivations for exactly the same reasons. This is not at all a false equivalence. Possible reasons would be : being antisocial, mentally ill or retarded. I'm sure that's what accounts for, e.g., date rape. Absolutely. Feel free to continue to be oblivious to the fact that many people - not ju…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:41 AM
-4

Cool story, sib. I'll be happy to address your completely different thing. Lots of the things that feminism addresses are issues that get in the way of women's agency, which, arguably, women have historically been "victims of".
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:39 AM
-4

Yeah, like I'm going to read a post by someone who calls me "scum". Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit. By the way, let me clarify: I don't hate men: I hate you.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:38 AM
-2

Here's a nuance that you apparently missed. There is no such thing as "excommunication" of feminists, because there is nothing to excommunicate anyone from. Radfems are called feminists by.. themselves. Each other. They self-identify as feminist but other feminists do not consider them feminist. I believe that what you mean is some other feminists do not consider them feminist. Specifically, radfems do not consider them feminists. And that continues to work with my analogy, inasmuch as moderate …
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:36 AM
-9

It's not a right if it's predicated on a sex selective expectation. Oh, okay. So there aren't marriage rights in the US? I didn't actually. Because I'm a woman. Me too, but try telling them that when your birth certificate says "M". As far as I'm concerned I'll trust the majority of my experience with feminism. Essentially feminists promote the idea that women are victims. Promoting victim-consciousness uncritically leads to women viewing themselves primarily as acted-upon instead of actors. Thi…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:31 AM
2

the movement and the philosophy originated in a time when I may, yes, have phrased what I said poorly.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:29 AM
-5

Nope, this is pretty much horseshit. Sorry you're too far up your own ass to see the real world. Feminism isn't hateful, sib. I'm a feminist, and I sure don't hate you, although I think what you're saying is pretty stupid. And I'd like to point out that for as much as you want to paint me as being hateful, you're the one who called me an "insipid little fuck". Edit to clarify: Following some additional verbal abuse from you, yes, I do in fact hate you. But not because you're a man - because you'…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:26 AM
-7

If so, I'm not the one moving them. The claim was that there was no such thing as a "right to vote" prior to women's suffrage, which extended it only to women. That claim is false. You want to take issue with men being required to sign up for the draft? Cool, so do I. So does feminism in general.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:24 AM
-10

She was considered an expert in her field. Considered by who? excommunicated There's no such thing, you pompous, disingenuous windbag. There is no central organization that can excommunicate anyone. Personally, I consider myself to be a feminist and I think Andrea Dworkin and Mary Daly can DIAF - or could, in principle. Valerie Solanas is someone I've frankly never heard of, but upon looking her up? Not someone I would personally associate with! What's fucking ridiculous about this is your absol…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:23 AM
-6

Framing issue. It's still a right.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:15 AM
-1

So, since you're there, what is it they actually want to accomplish, with this "aim"(that may or may not be a promise) ? As little rape as possible, same as with murder and robbery. Do they believe that men want to keep murdering and raping people for the hell of it, and that's why they need a reminder ? Some men, absolutely. Why do you think some men people commit rape, if it's for reasons you would classify differently from "for the hell of it"? Hum, actually even more misandric than my versio…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:15 AM
-4

Nope, it's still a right. Sorry that you had to register for the draft - I did too. Sucks, huh? Still doesn't make it okay for you to shit on feminism, which does a lot of good (and, BTW, is against the draft generally). The idea that men people exchange the privileges of citizenship for the obligations of service to the state is old and has not truly been challenged as a cultural expectation. Pretty sure that if you go to prison for tax fraud you don't get to vote either, so there's that.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:13 AM
-2

Nope, that's actually false.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:12 AM
-3

ever ... in any context Yes.. that's definitely exactly what I was saying. I look forward to more people ignoring 100% of the rest of my post to focus on the first sentence of the third paragraph, though. Kinda not sure why I bothered to type out the rest of it.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:11 AM
-2

What assumptions are those, please?
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:01 AM
-2

One woman, who called herself a feminist, said that. That does not entail that feminism in general supports that view. It does not. That view is entirely silly.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:01 AM
-3

Feminism isn't biased because of the name. It's biased because its central premise is kindergarten-level simplistic and faulty. Um, disagree.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 03:52 AM
-2

Their aim is a promise. False. Oh, I am serious, but please don't ever call me Shirley. Then you're batshit crazy or deeply deluded by your ideology, because feminism isn't actually about that Fox News bullshit you just spouted - but I'll give you partial credit for the Airplane reference.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 03:47 AM
-3

Yeah, she was a pretty big bitch in that respect! And AFAIK Planned Parenthood itself was a eugenicist organization to begin with - the whole idea was "if we help poor people avoid having babies, poor people won't have babies, and that's awesome". I think they may have targeted poor black people in particular. That's for sure fucked up! But hey - you know the thing about that? Margaret Sanger died in 1966. Do you realize that that's over half a century ago? Her work on birth control was in the 1…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 03:45 AM
-7

I'm addressing the idea that citizens were not considered to have a right to vote, granted by the Constitution, prior to women's suffrage - which is patently false.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 03:39 AM
-2

Cool. Guilt by association, I like it. I sure hope there aren't any MRAs that have done anything you don't like!
/r/MensRights12/07/12 03:03 AM
-6

Nope. The moment women got the suffrage they created a completely separate and superior class of citizen with a right to vote, rather then a vote in exchange for service to the state. Really? That's interesting, because the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says differently: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. In fact,…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 03:01 AM
0

If feminism is about "superiority" because it has the word "femin[ine]" in it, then the men's rights movement is about "superiority" because it has the word "men" in it. You don't believe that, do you? I don't. I'd assume that few if any of the people in this subreddit would agree that their goal is for men to be in a superior position to women. The term is "feminism" because the movement and the philosophy originated in a time when society's gender balance was so far out of whack that the only …
/r/MensRights12/07/12 02:57 AM
-2

I mean, look at what they say about rape : That we should aim for no rape at all, that anyone who says different wants to rape women. What kind of delusional idiot would promise people a world without murder, or robbery ? And in the meantime, points at a specific group as being solely responsible ? You serious with this shit? "Aim for" != " promise". Are you sincerely saying you don't think that we should aim for a world without murder or robbery? Do you not think that that's a good number to sh…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 02:53 AM
6

Okay, well, first, please stop being a jackass. It's not necessary. Secondly, yes, it was a joke. I think I'd know, since I'm the person who said it. You know how you can tell that it was a joke? BTW, what about genderqueer, agender, bigender, or third-gender folks? They don't get any cholesterol screenings, you guys. For serious. Sometimes people say things to tag what they're saying as obviously intended in a non-serious light. Another good clue is that I use phrases like "men and women" and "…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 05:49 AM
6

Oh, that's cool. Regardless, even accepting that claim (and I don't), it doesn't say "males" and "females" - it says "men" and "women", which refer to gender, not biology. Genderqueer and agender and bigender and third-gender people are generally, definitionally, not men or women. Double regardless, I was making... shit, what are those things called? Where you say something, but you don't really mean it, with the hope that others might find it humorous? Oh yeah: a joke. That's the one.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 05:30 AM
4

Absolutely! :) Thing two I think is worth pointing out is that if there are lady-things getting covered with corresponding dude equivalents that aren't (prostate cancer might be a good example of this!), the best answer isn't to be mad about the former, but rather about the latter. If you think that prostate cancer screenings should mandatorily be covered as required by that group - figure out how to agitate for that! It's better to fight for equality by bringing the bottom up, rather than by br…
/r/MensRights29/06/12 12:31 AM
22

#1 on the list: The USPSTF recommends one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm by ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 who have ever smoked. FOR MEN BUT NOT FOR WOMEN WHAT THE FUCK Smoking cessation: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all adults about tobacco use and provide tobacco cessation interventions for those who use tobacco products. But wait oh hold on a second The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all pregnant women about tobacco use and provide augmented, pregnancy-…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 09:29 PM
1

So it has.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 01:11 AM
2

*She (Sorry, shouldn't point out in MR how silly it is that everyone assumes everyone else on the internet is male, that's probably trying to police people's speech and silence others) I guess "shut the fuck up" (aggressive, hostile) != "be quiet and let the adults talk" (more civil, but condescending), though.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 11:09 PM
2

Ah, okay. Fair enough.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 10:54 PM
-1

(PS, I assumed bad faith on your part regarding your edit to the thread. That was unreasonable of me, and I apologize.)
/r/MensRights22/06/12 10:47 PM
7

Obviously I can't speak to any PMs you received, but the reason you got so much static probably has something to do with the fact that you made some pretty broad generalizations without supporting them via evidence or argumentation, then got mad when people (sarcastically, as reddit will do) pointed it out..
/r/MensRights22/06/12 10:38 PM
7

It's not a matter of "blatantly mak[ing] up lies" - if you look, you'll see that what people do is to make ridiculous sweeping generalizations without any supporting evidence or argumentation, in order to point out how the OP consists of sweeping generalizations without any supporting evidence or argumentation. They're extra-absurd, of course, but that's sort of how satire works.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 10:36 PM
7

You didn't get censored. Your post wasn't removed. None of your comments were deleted. Also, LOL: Feminists usually use whatever means are at their disposal to keep people quiet BUT SUDDENLY, If you don't want to be a part of a meaningful discussion, then please leave. Edit: hah, nice try with editing your post. Sorry, too slow on that one. Double edit: here's the current version of the post, in case it mysteriously changes again.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 10:23 PM
6

Women have shitty taste in entertainment... Women are naturally more prone to follow emotion over reason, so when they pay to go see 27 Dresses, it's not because they have bad taste; it's because they have no interest in reasonably judging it as a film, so taste isn't even a factor. All they want is a romance story full of clichés that will have a predictably happy outcome so that they can then imagine themselves in such an emotionally fulfilling situation. In short, chick flicks are a form of e…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 06:13 AM
0

Murder apologists from radical feminism haven't ruined feminism (?). Really? Because it seems like a lot of the comments that I see in this subreddit equate radical feminists with feminism broadly.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 01:43 AM
1

It was the Moops!
/r/MensRights19/05/12 01:30 AM
5

Wait wait wait, hold the phone, 2X isn't some sort of monolithic man-hating cult where everyone holds the same opinions all the time? You don't say.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 05:19 AM
2

Is not even a leap, but rather a rephrasing: I like how you want to pretend that rephrasing and reframing something isn't a leap, but okay. that's still mostly a matter of opinion, being falsely attributed to males, LOL. It's a matter of opinion... and false? That sure is interesting. If you disagree with the claim, address the claim (not to me; to them). But don't paint your opponent as arguing something else entirely. Go ahead and downvote me Oh, fuck off with your martyr complex already. Like…
/r/MensRights07/05/12 06:09 AM
9

Part of the problem is the equivocation between what was being said (to paraphrase): "Some [perhaps many] men pat each other on the backs for successful rapes, because [and this is a crucial part of the dialogue] neither the back-patter nor the back-pattee recognize the act in question as having fundamentally been rape" and what was being responded to: "All men, everywhere, consciously support rape and rapists" At worst, the people in that thread were for the most part saying that some (perhaps …
/r/MensRights07/05/12 04:50 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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