TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Kravego Archive

View 0 posts and 841 comments by Kravego 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
25

Age of consent for military members is 18, regardless of the state or nation you're currently in.
/r/MensRights17/01/25 05:52 AM
5

She wasn't complaining, OP is just an idiot. She was stating as a matter of fact that she has been affected by her status as a convict. The conversation was about how convicted individuals often times have difficulty finding employment and end up being a burden to the state. Of course, a male teacher would have had much more severe punishment, but she's not wrong in her statement.
/r/MensRights04/10/24 03:39 PM
24

The US is guilty of literal war crimes though. Like, I'm not trying to say that Russia and the US are the same or anything, but we just wrapped up over a decade of unjust, unprovoked war in which literally hundreds of thousands of civilians died. Not all of these were directly caused by the US itself, but still.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/08/24 04:59 PM
4

Dgaf what the age of consent is, 15 is too goddamned young. He's not innocent.
/r/MensRights17/05/24 03:46 AM
1

It's stacked against you slightly at first, true. But the benefit of being in the group that is expected to approach the other is that you will on average 'date/marry up'. If a couple has a gap in the 'league' / attractiveness / whatever, it's more often in the man's favor.
/r/MensRights18/03/24 06:15 PM
-12

I still have to provide my registration number in order to work and I am pushing 40 Where the hell are you working that you have to provide a 'registration number' to work? Are you working in a government position? That makes no sense otherwise.
/r/MensRights14/03/24 02:45 PM
13

If OP maintains personal control, yes.
/r/MensRights12/03/24 07:41 PM
7

No, it says their equality in the west paved the way for equal treatment elsewhere. Which is generally true. Women in the west were much closer to parity with men due to a variety of reasons, and as another person pointed out the first female governor was the governor of Wyoming. The list of states and territories which allowed women to vote before the passage of the 19th amendment is almost entirely 'western' by the standards of that era (Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, California, …
/r/MensRights28/02/24 01:22 AM
-8

This has literally nothing to do with men's issues.
/r/MensRights03/01/24 01:49 AM
11

You first have to show that legalizing it will increase human trafficking. Case in point: New Zealand. Logically, it should do the same thing as marijuana legalization did - decrease illicit trade.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/10/22 04:35 AM
1

True, but that's not the phrasing being discussed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/09/22 05:46 AM
1

The main reason is that "pussy" and "bitch" are gendered words used to insult members of the opposite gender. When you call a man a pussy or a bitch you're describing him as female which is intended as an insult. I've never seen someone actually refer to a woman as a dick or bastard, so in that regard masculinity isn't being attributed to a woman as a form of insult. Obviously, "bitch" is used to refer to women as well. There isn't a single answer to the question, but I think the answer above ge…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/09/22 04:27 AM
6

Not always. A strong majority of the time though, yes.
/r/MensRights07/02/22 09:02 PM
1

All are welcomed here, but only to discuss men's issues. You're bringing up PP for no fucking reason at all, because dumbass conservatives like you can't go a fucking hour without bitching about it. And i don't give a flying FUCK about "how many abortions" they perform versus adoption. So what if they perform more abortions. That's a good thing. Abortion is a necessary medical procedure, as literal decades of medical and sociological evidence shows. And in any other circumstance you would agree …
/r/MensRights14/01/22 05:55 PM
0

Oh fuck outta here with that right wing anti-Planned Parenthood bullshit. /r/Conservative is over that-a-way if you want to circlejerk about Planned Parenthood and abortion. This is not the sub.
/r/MensRights14/01/22 05:01 AM
3

I don't know of any plan that doesn't cover vasectomies, especially for a 48 year old 🤣 And even if you do pay out of pocket, it's cheap af
/r/MensRights24/11/21 09:04 PM
1

I was referring to the op, not you. Apologies for the miscommunication.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/09/20 04:35 AM
1

This idiot constantly posts shit like this all over here and related subs.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/09/20 12:28 AM
5

I just say I'm an egalitarian. If someone has a problem with that then they literally have a mental disorder and aren't worth considering.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/20 06:34 AM
16

No that's not an accurate depiction of that sub's mods. They insta-delete any comments criticizing feminism, and ban anyone who comments about it more than once. /r/menslib is a fucking shitstain.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/04/20 09:51 PM
1

It's not cherry picking when you mention it multiple times.
/r/MensRights14/04/20 09:49 PM
1

Wait, so are you mad about people being against white nationalism?
/r/MensRights14/04/20 09:46 PM
1

Most 15 year olds know what they are doing and what they are risking if they have sex. Lol, 15 year olds don't understand anything. They definitely don't understand the facts behind safe sex. And even if they did, once again hormones are going to overrule logic, nearly every time. If you're going to sit there and honestly say that teenagers don't know that having sex even protected is a risk, then honestly you're a fool. I'm not saying that. I'm saying, that it doesn't matter. Teenagers are goin…
/r/MensRights28/03/20 01:29 AM
0

The fact that you're just blatantly asserting that 15 year old can't / shouldn't be having sex just goes to show how absolutely ill-informed you are. As a rule, we don't hold children accountable for life-altering decisions due to the fact that they can't truly understand the possible consequences. This is why kids aren't tried as adults except in rare circumstances. This is why kids can't sign contracts. This is why kids can't get tattoos. The list goes on. You're picking one thing and saying "…
/r/MensRights27/03/20 10:47 PM
2

Ah yes, because holding underage teenagers accountable for completely life-changing decisions that they cannot be expected to make rationally due to intense hormonal changes they're undergoing makes total logical sense. Sorry, holding a 15 year old girl responsible and forcing her to change her entire life due to one lapse in judgement is fucking asinine.
/r/MensRights27/03/20 09:01 PM
0

there is a definate chance that the fetus will go into a child. And? Once again, body autonomy is the ruling factor here. Someone's body autonomy > someone else's right to life. You cannot be forced to donate anything to save someone's life, therefore you cannot force a woman to donate 9 months of her life and irrevocably change her biological makeup - not to mention undergo a traumatic medical procedure - to ensure the survival of a bundle of cells. Period. Unless you're also going to advocate …
/r/MensRights27/03/20 12:30 AM
1

Idgaf if it's "stopping life". Choosing to wrap your dick is stopping possible life. A girl being on the pill is stopping life. Nutting on the floor is stopping the potential life that those sperm could have created. That is such an ignorant, illogical stance to take. Worse than murder? Wtf.
/r/MensRights26/03/20 10:08 PM
10

All genitals smell, and if yours is particularly nasty, cut or not, it's because you either have a condition (which wouldn't matter if you were cut or not), or you're just a nasty motherfucker who doesn't know how to clean himself or doesn't care to.
/r/MensRights26/03/20 10:05 PM
3

Of course he fucking doesn't lol Too many syllables.
/r/MensRights26/03/20 10:02 PM
3

In fact, one could argue it should be prohibited Not "could be", it definitely is prohibited. But people are dumb.
/r/MensRights26/03/20 10:00 PM
1

It's not murder if it's not born yet. Body autonomy, for both men and women, is paramount. Until birth (or at the very least, viability), a fetus is not a child. It's a squatter. If we can't take organs from the deceased and you can't force a mother to donate blood or even milk to her newborn, you can't force a pregnant woman to continue to play host to a bundle of cells.
/r/MensRights26/03/20 09:58 PM
6

This is why in cases of false charges the courts should pay the victim directly, and then they can handle the process of recovering that amount from the accuser. There's no reason to limit the restitution gained by the victim on account of the accuser's financial situation.
/r/MensRights25/02/20 04:29 PM
9

Yes to the time served. No, to the men's prison. You're fucking insane if you honestly think that.
/r/MensRights25/02/20 04:27 PM
-9

Dems support socialism while Republicans support patriotism? LOL You're so far off your rocker that it's hilarious. I don't even want to engage you on the other bullshit, you've demonstrated that any attempt at conversation would be a non-starter. Enjoy delusionality.
/r/MensRights25/02/20 04:26 PM
5

If you're looking for an even more chill pro-male space, check out /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates. It may or may not agree with your political stance, but it's generally less toxic and still pro-equality.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 04:51 PM
5

Luckily, most of the comments seem to be making fun of it.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 03:35 PM
5

...which is 100% on the men. I don't like playing oppression olympics, but it's pretty clear that Japanese men are kinda screwed.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 03:34 PM
4

Since the 2016 election IMO. The far-right has inserted itself even further into the MRM.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 03:32 PM
5

A woman-hating incel who can't get laid to save his life, because "women are bitches" and he's "such a nice guy". ie, an MGTOW.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 03:31 PM
3

But... the user he's replying to is actually a MGTOW... It's not using 'retarded labels' to call a MGTOW a MGTOW.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 03:30 PM
2

It's been around less than a year. Chances are it just hasn't garnered enough attention to be added. I'm fairly active in the equality space and I had never heard of it until just now.
/r/MensRights18/02/20 04:46 PM
4

Straight pride is still dumb IMO. Not homophobic, just dumb. The whole gay pride thing isn't just a simple pride in liking people of the same gender. That's rather simplistic. It's a recognition of the distance the gay community has come, all the struggles they've dealt with over the years, and celebrating in the opportunity to be who they are without being oppressed. Straight people aren't oppressed on account of them being straight. No straight person has been killed for their sexual preferenc…
/r/MensRights18/02/20 04:44 PM
17

The idea of mens' rights should absolutely be universally agreed upon. Just as the idea of women's rights ('real' feminism). Or, in actuality, egalitarianism should be universally agreed upon, with the mrm and 'real' feminism as constituent parts. What won't be universally agreed upon is the health of the communities surrounding those ideas. It's completely understandable for this subreddit to be listed as controversial. We have a lot of good content, and a healthy dose of far-right, woman-hatin…
/r/MensRights18/02/20 04:39 PM
35

That's not a left / right thing. That's a human thing. The right creates the same monsters, they just have different titles. Whether the yoke is made by a corporation or by the government doesn't matter to those who struggle under it.
/r/MensRights10/02/20 04:10 PM
1

Full-on feminist attack mode, it's kinda awesome in a way. No, those are actual issues with this movement. It's full of patehtic incels and misogynists which make it hard for anyone outside the movement to take it seriously, and it's shifted hard to right ever since President Fucksticks was elected. But you sure ain't an MRA. No shit sherlock. I literally already said that. You're not too bright.
/r/MensRights09/02/20 10:49 PM
1

So show me your source for this. Show me your source that it's a thing. There's no such thing as proving a negative, dumbass. The fact that you relentlessly attack anyone who objects to the app remains. Once again, I'm pointing out the fact that the idiots in this sub blow everything out of proportion. This included. You want to cry and claim that every man ever is going to get fired without an investigation then go ahead, I'm going to continue calling you out on your bullshit. You sure argue li…
/r/MensRights09/02/20 08:23 AM
1

So anonymous accusations are not enough to get someone fired, and also anonymous accusations are enough to get someone fired. You really want to consider celebrities and Hollywood insiders to be the average Joe American? Lol, go ahead if you want. Have fun in your fairytale land. A normal person working for a normal company is not going to get fired based solely on an anonymous accusation. Implying anything to the contrary displays an extreme divorce from reality. I was talking about #metoo here…
/r/MensRights08/02/20 07:13 AM
0

None of those reports are substantiated as a fire that occurred WITHOUT investigate and from an ANONYMOUS report, like the dumbass doomsday sayers above. Additionally, these are prominent people. Prominent people have always lived or died by their reputations, and accusations have literally always been sufficient to cause issues for them. A new app doesn't change that. You're conflating the issues of reporting and public opinion in general, with the specific issue these idiots have with this app…
/r/MensRights07/02/20 09:20 PM
-2

Show me some facts demonstrating the number of companies firing people based solely on an anonymous report - ie, no follow up investigation - is statistically significant. It's not. Hell, you might find one or two individual companies in a country of over 5.5 million companies. But it's not significant, and not worthy of the doom and gloom from the person I responded to. This sub always knee-jerks and overestimates shit. The app sucks, but it's not going to spawn instant firing of all the ugly m…
/r/MensRights07/02/20 05:23 PM
-6

If they delete it then the company is on the hook for slander since they can't prove they didn't make it up. That's not how that works. You can't file a suit against a company for slander because they fired you. Plus, how the fuck would that lawsuit work? Technically, and legally, a company could just straight up fire someone based on the anonymous report without any investigation whatsoever. That's the joy of at-will employment. And in any case, regardless of how shitty the app is, no company i…
/r/MensRights07/02/20 04:52 PM
2

This is from 2018, lawsuits have already been filed to halt it.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 09:45 PM
-6

It's a women's federation. A non-profit org that gets some funding - a minuscule amount all things considered) - from the government. Fucking anyone who can file a 501(c)(3) and fill out a grant request can get money in the US. It's not any different in Canada. The government has no part in this, except the part where, you know, they're threatening to pull the funding they give them. You know, the action that this sub should supposedly support? Goddamn, it's not that hard to understand. Fucking …
/r/MensRights30/01/20 03:47 PM
-7

Because, generally, CANADA = LIBURAL = BAD.
/r/MensRights30/01/20 03:44 PM
1

I did. The government isn't saying any of that shit. Read the article.
/r/MensRights30/01/20 03:43 PM
-14

No, it's not the government and no the government isn't making any claims to that end. Did you even read the article?
/r/MensRights30/01/20 02:46 PM
3

So, not related really to the issue at hand, but wtf is this: In 2006, Gallese was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 15 years after he killed his 32-year-old partner, Chantale Deschenes, by beating her with a hammer before repeatedly stabbing her. The parole board initially concluded Gallese posed a “high risk” of committing violence against a partner. But the board later revised its evaluation to “moderate” and by 2016 had allowed him out of prison on supervised …
/r/MensRights30/01/20 02:44 PM
1

You're right, I should have mentioned that.
/r/MensRights29/01/20 02:51 AM
-1

None of your points have anything to do with the passing of Title IX requirements - which is what that comment was about - and everything to do with how the schools enact those requirements. Then you throw out conspiracy theories about mass indoctrination? Seriously?
/r/MensRights28/01/20 11:33 PM
2

If they did that, they'd have to offer the same for victims of soooo many false accusations. Not necessarily. In this hypothetical, the university is under no obligation to provide services for any victim. Spinning up a victim advocacy program specifically for sexual assault and rape victims wouldn't create that obligation either. Such help doesn't really exist for men. Obviously, the service would have to be gender neutral. Otherwise you're going to run in to discrimination laws. That is also c…
/r/MensRights28/01/20 11:28 PM
6

Yeah. And ironic. By pushing something that ostensibly is supposed to help victims you actually do the opposite. Want to help victims? Help them access legal and health resources required to deal with the situation the way they want. Provide victims advocates. Don't sweep their shit under a rug.
/r/MensRights28/01/20 10:14 PM
13

This is true, and is one of the reasons institutions lobby for Title IX. A smaller Campus Crime Report looks good for them and helps their reputation.
/r/MensRights28/01/20 10:09 PM
0

Ostensibly, the point was to provide sexual assault victims a method by which they could continue their education without having to deal with the dichotomy of either: (A) Dealing with / seeing the accused on a regular basis as a part of schooling; or (B) Dealing with the stress of a court case which can often re-traumatize victims by forcing them to relive their experiences, often multiple times. Whether or not the creators of Title IX actually believed this, or if they intended - as others in t…
/r/MensRights28/01/20 10:07 PM
-22

Man, you just can't take the idea that a women's group could be right about something can you? There's always gotta be an ulterior motive.
/r/MensRights28/01/20 05:45 PM
52

a case that can be considered as criminal The legal interpretation of this, and the basis for Title IX, is the exact opposite. The only reason campuses have this authority is because it can never be considered criminal. No crime being tried = no rights for the accused. But in this day and age, where names can easily be googled and a "conviction" here could easily ruin someone's life, title ix is completely inappropriate.
/r/MensRights28/01/20 05:42 PM
16

This is some serious foil-hat level crazy shit.
/r/MensRights28/01/20 02:14 PM
8

Look at it this way, 200k people were going to hate your guts based on the way your were born no matter what (be it race, gender, religion, whatever). These 200k idiots just identified themselves as such.
/r/MensRights28/01/20 02:13 PM
0

It has been shown numerous times throughout history that when you reduce workload and work times, happiness and performance increase. House work is just more, regular work. If the SAHP didn't do the work, the working spouse would do it, contributing to a decline in work performance and happiness. Not to mention a decline in the relationship which may lead to divorce and thus an unstable home for any children, perpetuating the issue. Thus yes, house work does lead to actual financially-advantageo…
/r/MensRights27/01/20 06:29 PM
2

Around the 2016 time frame. The worst side of the GOP came to the forefront. This sub has always leaned heavily right, so it was swept up in the Trumpist bullshit just as much as other conservative subs. There were some bad posters before 2016, but they were often enough downvoted to oblivion.
/r/MensRights27/01/20 04:01 PM
2

It is definitely reasonable. They're not making a value judgement here, just calling out the article for being logically incorrect. SAHP's don't contribute financially to the household, but that doesn't mean they aren't contributing. Incidentally, it's this reason that GDP is a horrible measure of a country's wealth. Even the creator of GDP as a measurement didn't want it to be used in the way that it's used, because it completely disregards many things and presents an incorrect picture.
/r/MensRights27/01/20 03:52 PM
1

You're doing the same thing the feminists do and trying to attribute privilege to someone. Knock it off. If anything, that case is a case of diplomatic privilege enjoyed by everyone in similar positions.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 03:09 PM
2

The issue with privilege as a concept is the way that it has been co-opted by various groups. Privilege is a sociological theory used in studying large groups of people. It's a demographic-level effect. It was never meant to be used on an individual level. The phrase "white, cis males have inherent privilege" is a truth, but only when viewed from a Western-only, demographic perspective. You can't say "Bob from Accounting is privileged", for the very reasons this post lays out.
/r/MensRights20/01/20 06:19 PM
1

Way to color an entire group off of the actions of a subset of that group. And I suppose the rest of the world should judge MRAs by the subset here that are misogynistic pricks as well?
/r/MensRights17/01/20 09:16 PM
9

At the very least they aren't banned, unlike the other subs.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 05:06 PM
2

American liberal politicians definitely are on the right side of the spectrum as a group, but there are notable outliers that are actually liberal.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 04:37 PM
0

To guarantee equality, you must control and dictate decisions that individuals make. That's authoritarian, whether you like it or not. Having authority and being authoritarian are not the same thing. Literally no political scientist believes that Equal Opportunity laws are authoritarian. You're literally making shit up because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. For instance, if government takes over health care, there will only approved treatments available. Want that treatment t…
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:47 PM
1

Lol, so any time the government does anything it's authoritarianism? Thank you for confirming that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You need to read some Juan Linz.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:38 PM
1

Sorry, but the main contention that conservatives (and libertarians) have with liberalism is that it requires and leads to authoritarianism. When you expect the government to solve your problems, what do you think's going to happen when people view beliefs as a problem? They expect the government to solve that too... it's literally the core of liberalism. It's not automatically authoritarianism whenever the government does anything. Liberal views expect the government to maintain and guarantee e…
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:30 PM
2

You're focusing on individuals. Liberal views are not authoritarian views because the two adjectives are unrelated. People can be both liberal and authoritarian. They can also be liberal and libertarian.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:26 PM
1

It doesn't matter what an individual believes in regards to political views. The two axes are completely separate. They are narrowly, explicitly defined. Saying that liberalism = authoritarianism is like saying up = blue. It's not just wrong, it doesn't even make sense.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:25 PM
-1

Those are authoritarian views, not liberal views. A single person can be both liberal and authoritarian. Or liberal and libertarian. Or conservative and either authoritarian or libertarian. The fact that you have idiots who are both liberal and authoritarian does not mean all of liberalism is authoritarian in nature. Just as not all conservatives are authoritarian dipshits who want to enforce their religion on everyone else.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:23 PM
0

I call out idiots when i see them. Don't be an idiot and I won't call it out. No, it's not a No True Scotsman. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. In your eyes, anyone could claim anything about any group, defending with HURR DURR NO TRUE SCOTSMAN DURR when anyone objected. Authoritarianism is not the core of liberalism. Educate yourself.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:20 PM
-1

That's not a No True Scotsman. Don't use terms you don't understand, it makes you look idiotic. I didn't say that liberals didn't espouse authoritarian views. Both liberals and conservatives are equally likely to espouse authoritarian views. I said that those views you listed were not liberal in nature. Learn to read.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:13 PM
1

I'm very familiar with American politics. Liberalism and authoritarianism are completely separate things. Same with conservatism and authoritarianism. They're completely different axes.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:11 PM
-1

That's not liberalism. Nice try though!
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:09 PM
-10

Yes, and the Liberal - Conservative axis is completely separate from the Authoritarian - Libertarian axis. They're unrelated.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:09 PM
28

I personally would agree that that would be better, but to say that this sub isn't hostile to opposing views would be disingenuous. Any comments that go against the hivemind are insta-downvoted to oblivion. Even comments that are just people asking questions. It's honestly sad.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 02:25 PM
-32

Liberals are authoritarian?? LOL. "Liberal" is on a completely different axis from "authoritarian". They're not even related. Go spread bullshit elsewhere.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 02:21 PM
3

True, but women already have the capability to surrender their child. LPS is only an issue that people argue over when it's the men doing it.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 04:36 AM
2

Then you owe it all the use of your body. Except, you literally don't. If you didn't want that, don't have the child. You get over it. #mywalletmychoice Idk where you idiot motherfuckers are getting the idea that I don't support LPS.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 04:35 AM
4

If the pregnancy were caused by rape, I could understand. Or if by a leaky condom, that too. But, regret sex? Yeah, maybe they should have been more fucking careful. Ah yes, because holding people - typically young teenagers with no way to support a child - responsible for a life-affecting accident makes perfect sense. Or maybe they should abort in the first trimester. Otherwise it transcends into becoming murder. So you've just decided, in your omniscience, that life begins in the second trimes…
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:29 AM
1

Did I support the opposite? LPS is perfectly fair and needs to happen ASAP.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 03:23 AM
3

No, I'm not missing the point. You never owe anyone the use of your body, period. There are no exceptions. Get over it.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 02:34 AM
-1

Then maybe that woman shouldn't be having a fucking baby if they cannot compromise some! Lol, that's the point of abortion, to prevent that from happening. Once pregnant, and the fetus has grown to a stage that it can actually survive outside of the body, premature or mature, then it become murder to abort it. Once again, no it's not. You could cause the death of your newborn infant by simply refusing to give it a blood transfusion and it would not be murder. There is never any circumstance in w…
/r/MensRights17/01/20 02:31 AM
-2

It doesn't matter what a fetus "is". No person, born or not, has a claim to the body of any other person. If a mother were to give birth and the baby needed a blood transfusion, the mother could not be compelled to give her blood. Even if there were some rare condition in their blood that made her the only match. You cannot compel someone to give of their body, and if that infant were to die there would be no consequences - and rightly so. There's no difference then, in refusing to give use of y…
/r/MensRights17/01/20 01:23 AM
14

He's referring to legal paternal surrender. Whereby a man, having found out a woman is pregnant with this child, signs a paper forfeiting all paternal rights to the child and in return owes no child support. If a man isn't ready (personally, financially, mentally, whatever) to be a father there shouldn't be a way to force him to be one.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 12:14 AM
-26

Yes it is. A brand fucking newborn infant is nearly just as reliable on its mothers body as a fetus. And yet, you can't force a woman to give that infant anything, not even milk. You can't even take organs from carcasses unless the person signed off on it while they were alive. It's still your body. The fetus is a temporary rider that the woman is under no obligation to continue carrying. Body autonomy is the basis of every single right we have, and your squeamishness about abortion doesn't chan…
/r/MensRights17/01/20 12:13 AM
3

This absolutely would not work.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 12:10 AM
2

if she thought it was too bad she wouldn’t have continued having sex with him. We don't have anywhere near the level of information to make that call. What, were you there with a stopwatch to make sure she didn't spend too much time with him afterwards? Hurting someone without consent is assault. Especially after that person tells you to stop and you continue doing so.
/r/MensRights14/01/20 04:55 PM
1

... I literally said that in my comment. Sexual / indecent assault doesn't make sense. Actual assault does.
/r/MensRights14/01/20 04:39 PM
2

Yes. Did you read the article? He was causing her pain. Pain she didn't consent to and that she told him to stop. Regardless of the situation, that's assault. Once again, it wasn't him just fondling her breasts. It's not sexual assault, because she consented to the sex.
/r/MensRights14/01/20 04:00 PM
0

Did you read that though? He was causing her pain. It's not like he was fondling her breasts during missionary or anything vanilla like that. It sounds like they didn't communicate what they meant when they said "rough" sex, and he failed to stop and respect boundaries during the act when she told him to stop. I agree with his defense though, sexual assault was the incorrect charge, it should have been regular assault they charged him with.
/r/MensRights14/01/20 03:47 PM
-1

Going to need a source on that one.
/r/MensRights14/01/20 03:25 PM
1

Yeah, and nearly every politician ever makes it hard not to be racist against white people and misandrist. That doesn't excuse the bullshit.
/r/MensRights14/01/20 03:19 PM
1

If you think that disliking anti-semitism and white supremacy is an 'ideological shit pool', then you're probably one of those pieces of human garbage I mentioned lol even if it's a good, great, or wonderful idea, or fact, truth, or provable point. You simply don't care, "because reasons. I literally said "can hold a small amount of correct views". I can accept that a literal nazi may have a point about MGM. That doesn't make that nazi a good person. That has no bearing on whether or not that pe…
/r/MensRights11/01/20 04:49 AM
-2

Please point to where in my comment I called him a nazi Holding anti-semitic, white supremacist views does a nazi make Learn to read.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 02:49 PM
-3

A rational person can recognize that a piece of garbage can hold a small amount of correct views and still decide that posts things by that person is a net negative because it draws more attention to them and their mostly shitty views. It's also a hugely bad optic for the MRM to be associated with this trash.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 02:23 PM
-5

Oh I forgot the rule that if someone claims they're not a piece of shit, that makes them totally not a piece of shit.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 02:21 PM
-2

So it still has to be dependant on SOMEONE's body just not the mother No. Formula exists for a reason.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 02:17 PM
1

Apologies, coming off of the person that I responded to I was under the impression that you agreed with them.
/r/MensRights08/01/20 02:15 PM
1

Once again "men have it worse" is completely subjective and you've not provided a single source to back up your claim of who wins the oppression olympics. Sure, there are less resources for male DVs, and the courts are biased. On the other hand, there's a significantly lower chance that the male DIES or sustains permanent physical injury from the DV inflicted on him by his female partner. Stop playing oppression olympics. SJWs do that like they're comparing dick sizes and it's embarrassing. DV s…
/r/MensRights08/01/20 02:57 AM
11

Try defining that and providing sources instead of just making claims.
/r/MensRights07/01/20 06:33 PM
12

Depends on how you define "primary". DV sucks and both sides get shit on in different ways.
/r/MensRights07/01/20 06:30 PM
14

A couple good things to point out about this shitty situation: The article didn't identify the defendant. As opposed to the typical crucifixion by the public, the defendant may actually have his life back once this is all over. I'm not sure if that was by policy, law, or luck. The judge who excluded the evidence only did so because the law required it and he was bound to uphold the law. He called the fact that he had to exclude it an "affront to justice", and has personally called on parliament …
/r/MensRights26/12/19 05:06 PM
2

Do we know what definitions they went with? I'm aware of the FBI's outdated definition of rape.
/r/MensRights20/12/19 12:20 AM
2

OP's title is completely misleading. Women are just as likely to commit sexual violence of any type as men are. Men, according to the studies and blatantly stated in the article, are still the gender predominantly responsible for coercive sex, attempted rape, and completed rape. So women are more likely to assault you, but among perps that actually rape, men are more common.
/r/MensRights19/12/19 08:15 PM
10

Lol, ok
/r/MensRights12/12/19 09:16 PM
13

When the entire scientific community agrees that something is a thing and you're the one saying it isn't, that doesn't mean it's a hoax. It means you're basically a flat earther.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 07:39 PM
-2

Oh, so you're just batshit insane then. Gotcha. Go masturbate to your Libertarian fantasies elsewhere.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 07:25 PM
0

I'm not a fan of his Title IX stance. But I flat out will not vote for anyone who supports the PATRIOT Act or voted for it. Nor the other pieces of bullshit legislation surrounding the early 2000s shitstorm of a political climate.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 06:46 PM
1

save the campaign ads for someone else. socialism is immoral. Period. Whether it's a little bit, or a lot. Sure, lets just dissolve the federal government then, since it's the largest socialist jobs program in America. The military too. And kick veterans off of medical care. And end every single benefit program in the country. Oh and lets stop building/maintaining roads. Let's stop manning police and fire stations. Your arguments are bad and you should feel bad.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 06:45 PM
8

I think we can all agree that /r/femaledatingstrategy is a cesspool. Even my diehard feminist friends don't agree with THAT bullshit. It's the /r/pua for the XX side of the house.
/r/MensRights04/12/19 08:00 PM
1

Oh I'm not even trans myself, I'm just a supporter. I shouldn't have been surprised at the reaction, considering how hard right this sub leads.
/r/MensRights21/11/19 05:33 AM
0

you are a scum for agreeing on allowing doctors to use hormone blockers on children and ruining their lives. TIL that using medicine to address a medically diagnosed issue is "ruining their lives". Just because you lack the mental capacity to comprehend the fact that maybe, just maybe, you don't know medicine as well as actual fucking doctors, doesn't make the treatment a life-ruining experience. It's not like jack and jill are taking their 3 year old to the doctor and saying "yep, she's totally…
/r/MensRights20/11/19 10:24 PM
-2

I dont care what public bathroom people use, but a woman shouldnt feel unsafe when a dude with a wig enters a females toilet Why should I or anyone else care how using a bathroom makes other people feel? Not only that, if a woman is unhinged enough to feel "unsafe" because someone entered the bathroom that didn't fit their expectations, FtM transgendered individuals would probably cause their fragile minds even more agitation and fear. No there's the UK as well who has hate crime laws where you …
/r/MensRights20/11/19 08:28 PM
-4

It's the tradcons complaining about bathrooms. Why tf do you care what bathroom someone else uses? Seems like you should mind your own business lol. dictating how to use language and pronouns with laws? Canada is the only country I'm aware of that has a law like that on the books. And I don't think that amounts to an "agenda". Teaching children that gender is a social construct and can be changed by taking pills? Considering the fact that this is the way gender is understood in science and medic…
/r/MensRights20/11/19 08:12 PM
-8

"Tranny agenda" omalawd that's probably the most retarded thing I've read today. LOL the tranny agenda. You're a special kind of stupid.
/r/MensRights20/11/19 07:56 PM
17

"More likely accurate" says random internet stranger! No thanks, I'll take studies done with at least some scientific rigor over some rando's WAG.
/r/MensRights15/11/19 02:46 PM
2

Just look at how taxpayers subsidization the difference out, disabled men have to pay double the taxpayer of that of able bodied men, but disabled women almost live a life eternally free. This doesn't make sense. I'm not even sure it's English. Wtf are you talking about? "Pay double the taxpayer"?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/11/19 10:02 PM
-4

There is punishment for false accusers. But: You have to prove intent, which is the hardest thing to do in a case The crime they committed is perjury and/or making a false report. There is no "false rape accusation" law
/r/MensRights31/10/19 06:07 PM
3

There's a word for that, called "egalitarian". Feminists claim egalitarianism through advancement of women. Obviously, that's not good enough. You can be an egalitarian and be an MRA (and therefore, NOT a feminist). You can be an egalitarian and be neither.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 11:42 PM
3

It's not a technicality. I commented on your post. That's how Reddit works. Get some anger management, you need it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 11:33 PM
3

No, that may have been what your post was about. The thread that I started was specifically about how the methods employed by therapists are almost always uncomfortable. And if that therapist had used the same or similar language in reference to men, then the reason was not some form of sexism, but because that's just how therapy can be. If they only used this language in regards to women and not men, then yeah it's sexism straight up.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 11:24 PM
2

Implying that mental health professionals are rapists? Cool. Have a nice day.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 11:17 PM
1

I talking about the fact that I've been mostly levelheaded for this conversation and you've had nothing but completely out of place, angry reactions to anything I've had to say. You have some serious anger problems and you should seek help for it. That's what I'm talking about.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 11:16 PM
3

That's an unhealthy view to have.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 11:15 PM
1

It's almost as if REPRESENTATION MATTERS and feminists have been actively fighting to prevent female-dominated professions from being held to that standard. I never stated otherwise. Also, why the FUCK does my gender matter?! It... doesn't?... Idk what your problem is, but you need to chill tf out. I specifically stated, if you could kindly use some reading comprehension skills, that I DIDN'T take gender in to account. My opinion in regards to therapy and therapists is regardless of gender.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 11:14 PM
1

It sounds like you really do need some more therapy. everyone like you. What, tall, dark, and handsome? Or do you mean "people who advocate for mental health and try to get people to look at things from different perspectives?" You've got some serious anger problems that I recommend you seek help for. Good luck, hope you find a better place in life.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 09:35 PM
1

I meant if it was a (cis) woman talking about a male therapist. Oh. To be honest, I didn't even take into account OP's gender and didn't know it until you mentioned it. When I posted my comment I hadn't even read OP's username either. There just seems to be an entrenched disdain for female-dominated health professions in mens rights affiliated subs (less so this one, but still). Whether it's therapists or psychologists or others. I try to be the voice of reason in these instances, because mental…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 09:31 PM
-3

I absolutely wouldn't react the same. But, the only reason I reacted this way is because this person specifically is a therapist. Their job is to ask uncomfortable questions, and if you're not a good place sometimes those questions can come across as sexism or an attack. If it were their dad, teacher, coworker, or whatever I probably wouldn't have even commented. As someone who has been through therapy (tons) myself, I know how uncomfortable it can be. I also know people who specifically won't g…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 09:15 PM
2

It's a frustrating knee-jerk from people who should know better. They just want to believe that the ONLY reason OP's therapist could have framed those encounters is due to sexism. We don't have nearly enough information to make that conclusion, and to jump to it is foolish and childish. This sub is getting to be just as bad as /r/mensrights I really hope it doesn't. People like /u/Lady_Coraline2 can go back there if they want low effort, knee jerky crap.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 08:19 PM
–

No. All images can be linked within the body of a text post. Image posts lead to nothing but low-effort content.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 07:03 PM
4

who see women as more deserving of compassion and empathy than men, I'm not going to claim that you're full of shit or anything like that, you had therapy with this woman and we only have a few lines here. But I would ask you, as a mental exercise, could you think back to a time where you described issues you had with a male individual? What was her response then? Was it similar to her responses regarding women? Therapists, contrary to popular belief are not there to be your friend, or nod their…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/19 06:29 PM
7

It's much easier to access, you don't need to know the person's name. It also requires them to inform neighbors and brings restrictions on where they can live.
/r/MensRights18/10/19 05:52 PM
1

they also split entertainment and leisure for... reasons? Not gonna lie, working 93% of your male pop working 6-7 days a week is crazy. But the poster is just weird.
/r/MensRights16/10/19 09:29 PM
1

60% of women are essentially Nazis. And deserve to be "painted" with that brush Sure. 60% of women. Not all women, as this meme accuses. I'm not white knighting, I'm using facts. Sounds like someone is just upset the world doesn't conform to their preconceived notions. Try growing up before joining the big boy conversations.
/r/MensRights01/10/19 03:29 AM
1

No, he absolutely does not have the "right" to call out women as a whole. You're painting millions of women in a picture that does not accurately represent them. GTFO of here with that bullshit.
/r/MensRights01/10/19 02:57 AM
0

Right that's why in the real world less than 1 in 5 women would identity themselves as a feminist Wtf are you talking about? The study literally asked "are you a feminist". This is "real world", albeit limited to the US. There are lies, damned lies and statistics Is a saying for a reason. This can barely be called statistics. X out of Y respondents reported being feminist. X/Y = 60%.
/r/MensRights01/10/19 01:41 AM
1

The issue is that many outsiders don't make a distinction between /r/mensrights and the other men-centric subs. /r/mgtow, /r/theredpill, /r/incel and many others are all grouped together with this sub into the term "manosphere", and viewed as a collective. The other subs are a trash heap. I'd rather not be associated with them, and linking memes like this from other subs, in which some serious misogynistic shit is going down just makes it that much harder.
/r/MensRights01/10/19 01:35 AM
0

Their method was literally "are you a feminist", as shown in the documents, as opposed to other methods used in other polls which asked the participants a series of questions and then inferred from there. And no, I don't think that the GKFF was lying. They're a nonprofit philanthropy organization, there is no motive there.
/r/MensRights01/10/19 01:30 AM
3

I don't think it's a joke, considering the comments in the original subreddit. If /r/feminism posted something similar shaming men, this sub would lose it's goddamned mind over the misandry. It'd be great if we could refrain from stooping to their levels.
/r/MensRights30/09/19 08:48 PM
3

That figure is US specific and is from the George Kaiser Family Foundation. Link here It may in fact be incorrect. It was the first study available on a quick Google. But even if the figure is incorrect, my point still stands that the meme is incorrect and reflects badly upon the MRM.
/r/MensRights30/09/19 08:46 PM
2

The George Kaiser Family Foundation poll in 2016 placed 60% of women as having self-identified as either "feminist" or "strong feminist". Regardless, the point still stands. OP is a chode who decided to demonize women and give a pass to men, rather than calling out the group that's actually the problem.
/r/MensRights30/09/19 08:43 PM
5

The rest are decent, but isn't the counter to this... that if women have the power, we are in a matriarch, and who believes we are in that kind of society? No one fucking believes that. How about: "Life sucks for everyone, regardless of what's between your legs. Trying to claim that one half is systemically oppressing the other just clouds the fact that everyone has it pretty shitty."
/r/MensRights30/09/19 07:48 PM
25

Replace "women" with "feminists". Only 60% of women identify as feminist, and you're giving a pass to the 33% of men who do. This is an example of anti-woman shit that this sub gets called out for. Call out the real issue: feminism. EDIT: And holy shit, what kind of cesspool is THAT sub??
/r/MensRights30/09/19 07:45 PM
1

Sure they do, not denying that. I'm saying that, in the context of what /u/large_pp_gang is saying, it's not a NTS fallacy. I happen to think his premise is incorrect, but he didn't make a logical error.
/r/MensRights26/09/19 08:52 PM
-2

Whether or not you agree with the poster's statement, the NTS fallacy doesn't apply. A claim that a group of people don't meet an specific definition isn't a NTS fallacy. He's stating that the definition of feminism is a belief in equality, therefore feminazis aren't actual feminists because they don't meet that definition. You may very well disagree with his assertion of what the definition of feminism is, but it's not a fallacy.
/r/MensRights26/09/19 01:23 PM
2

At the same time though, the top responses to that post all call it out as being incorrect.
/r/MensRights26/09/19 01:15 PM
1

Asking someone to date you should not require a huge emotional cost. If it does, then you're in need of therapy. Proposing marriage only occurs (typically, in the west) after dating for some time. It's not like you're popping the question with no clue if the person will say yes or not. And since almost all western marriages emerge from previous dating relationships, then the determining factor is who is asking who to date. Men can and do ask whoever they want to date them, regardless of league /…
/r/MensRights25/09/19 03:26 PM
0

Stewardesses won't.
/r/MensRights25/09/19 03:23 PM
0

Males need to weigh cost-benefit analysis. Asking someone out takes on a huge emotional cost. In order to minimize failiure, men will aim for a loosing deal. The emotional cost is not huge, at all, to most men. And once again, men are way more risk tolerant than women on average, why would this risk be any different? Women may have the freedom to do so, but they don't have the impetus. They can generally expect to be asked out by men. And since the results (male-preferential pairing) are on a la…
/r/MensRights25/09/19 02:56 PM
-1

It's derived from the Stable Marriage Problem. SMP results in an extremely proposer-favored result due to way the actors in the scenario behave. Real life people don't behave the same way but the result is similar. TL;DR of the wiki: In any case involving two groups of actors (people, companies, whatever), in which there can only be one pairing for any individual (polygamy doesn't exist), then the results will always favor the group that proposes and disfavor the group that is proposed to. Your …
/r/MensRights25/09/19 02:33 PM
-6

There are many things women have easier than men. "Romance" isn't one of them. I mean sure, nearly any woman could get laid any day of the week if she wanted. Sex comes easier for them, but you mentioned romance specifically, which is not the case. The only "advantage" women have over men in the romance game is that men are expected to "take the risk" as you put it, by being the proposer and not the proposee. However, mathematically this ends up favoring the men anyway (in that, men get matched …
/r/MensRights25/09/19 02:23 PM
-1

And you're expecting the stewardess' to know who is who's parent? Or are you ok with them demanding that information, which isn't any of their fucking business?
/r/MensRights25/09/19 02:11 PM
-51

You're right, but that's also not at all what he said.
/r/MensRights19/09/19 02:37 PM
13

MensLib hosting a misandrist? Color me surprised. Don't link that cesspool plz
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/09/19 03:35 AM
2

I stated, specifically, in their current state. Many of these groups wouldn't be nearly as powerful were it not for America arming them in the first place. Because Soviets bad.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 03:36 PM
1

Those threats exist in their current state because of American interference. You don't get to cause an issue and then expect praise when you resolve said issue lol
/r/MensRights17/09/19 03:05 PM
2

Depends on what you mean by deployment. Our presence prevents some countries from getting roflstomped. But I wouldn't consider being stationed in Korea or Kuwait a deployment anyway.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 03:02 PM
2

Actually we don't. Most of us get hella uncomfortable when we're thanked. It's the super-conservative military-worshipping sect of the country that thinks we're saving the world.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 03:01 PM
1

The demonization of American servicemembers is bullshit. By that same token, the deification of them is also bullshit. No, you don't have to "thank" servicemembers. The majority of us just wanted a day job that paid well and had good benefits. We're not 'defending the country' or any bullshit like that. Don't be an idiot like /u/boredstardust, but also don't thank us. It's fucking weird. Just ensure that Congress doesn't fuck us over.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 02:58 PM
-2

So was I. #yanggang2020 for me now though
/r/MensRights16/09/19 01:53 PM
10

Ah yes, because we all know that women are required to sign a blank cashable for a value up to and including their lives, just to be able to exercise the most basic of rights.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/09/19 02:13 PM
-1

/r/legaladvice insta-deletes literally every comment that is not directly related to legal advice. I'm 100% sure that there were plenty of people on there posting things that weren't related to legal advice, and it went off in that direction. The mod's comment probably wasn't warranted, but threads get locked all the time for derailing, so this isn't a surprise.
/r/MensRights07/09/19 04:50 AM
1

The transistor (and thus computers) didn't replace many people. They enabled people to work faster and more accurately. I'm not aware of there being anyone the printing press put out of business. AI literally eliminates or severely cuts into entire job categories. Any driving job, especially long-range cross country ones Every single cashier job. Bank tellers, loan officers, underwriters Entire billing departments, most types of generic accounting Even jobs as advanced as oncologists. AI can det…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/09/19 05:54 PM
1

You don't have to have full fledged AI for the revolution in labor to occur. Millions and millions of Americans are working jobs which are on the chopping block. We haven't had similar conditions in the history of the world.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/09/19 01:05 PM
1

It's also going to be the first career devastated by the 4th industrial revolution. I wouldn't want to be someone going into truck driving right now.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/19 01:17 PM
2

This have been happening "any day now" for several decades. That is some serious head in the sand attitude there. We're on the cusp of the 4th industrial revolution. Automation and robotics are more advanced than they ever have. The largest job categories in many states - trucking and retail - are going to be the first to feel the hurt. That means millions and millions of jobs gone in a very short amount of time.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/19 01:12 PM
0

Duh. Hence the second sentence in my post. This sub is not white supremacist, but there are plenty of comments and reactions here which, taken out of context and added together, could lead someone to conclude that this is a racist subreddit. Also, this sub doesn't like to get called on its bullshit, hence the downvotes. Instead of downvoting, it would probably be a better use of energy to call out people engaging in the type of behavior we're talking about.
/r/MensRights29/08/19 08:53 PM
3

Yeah, if she had accused a white guy the reaction would not have been the same at all.
/r/MensRights29/08/19 01:14 PM
-8

Dude, look at literally any post mentioning affirmative action and you'll see plenty of butthurt white dudes. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this sub is white supremacist overall, but it would be easy to construct a picture of this sub that supports that view.
/r/MensRights29/08/19 01:11 PM
-1

it is inarguable that universities in the US absolutely are under the thumb of the state No, they are not. The only way you can remotely believe this is by considering student loan determinations a tactic to keep schools "under thumb". Accreditation doesn't make them under their thumb. Regional accreditation is accomplished via non-profit organizations, not the government. The fact that the government recognizes regional accreditation doesn't mean anything. And you can't link NSF and expect that…
/r/MensRights26/08/19 07:27 PM
1

Accusing universities en masse of brainwashing the public is not criticizing academia. It's conspiracy bullshit. If someone takes issue with the content of university education being too left leaning or lacking in some area that that person believes is important then fine. THAT is a criticism. You can be open to criticism while still deriding open hostility and conspiracy.
/r/MensRights26/08/19 05:36 PM
-2

The right likes to use it as one.
/r/MensRights26/08/19 01:38 PM
4

Your anti-intellectualism is off-base. All a PhD is is the recognition of mastery in a specific area. It's only lay people who seem to associate PhD with general intelligence. There's nothing preventing someone from being a master of a very specific niche of information while being a total idiot in other areas or just being generally a terrible person all around. Colleges and universities aren't under the "thumb of the state" and don't "brainwash and deceive the public". Go sell your tin foil ha…
/r/MensRights26/08/19 01:36 PM
1

So, while I have to agree that there are some feminists that really are about equality and are good, they are not the ones controlling or guiding the movement. They definitely aren't the ones guiding the movement, but I feel pretty secure in saying that they're the vast majority of them. It may be anecdotal, but I've literally never met a stereotypical red-haired angry radfem. Every feminist I know just want equality. And they always agree when I bring up male issues that those are indeed issues…
/r/MensRights19/08/19 05:58 PM
2

Well I can't necessarily assume that. The vast majority of people who call themselves feminists really do just want equality, and haven't taken a look at their own movement with a critical eye. I must admit that I was a feminist at one point before realizing the injustices that men face. There are even some high-profile feminists who aren't anti-man (CHS being the main one).
/r/MensRights19/08/19 05:44 PM
6

Exactly. These idiots cheer for vigilantism when if that were the way of things waaaaaaay more men would be getting beat and/or killed for false accusations. Fucking idiots.
/r/MensRights19/08/19 04:08 PM
5

This sub would consider a 10/10 woman ugly looking if it came out that she was a feminist or committed some crime against men and got away with it. Yeah, she's hot. Doesn't stop her from being a grade-A cunt though.
/r/MensRights19/08/19 04:06 PM
9

Considering the fact that he plainly said: That being said, it IS unfair that men often don’t get this treatment. I think it's safe to assume he would hold the same opinion if the genders were flipped.
/r/MensRights19/08/19 04:05 PM
0

It was a merchant ship and thus not a valid target. It was unarmed. It doesn't matter that it was carrying munitions. Also, I find it incredible that you're defending Nazis. You can't actually be American lol
/r/MensRights07/08/19 06:09 PM
0

illicitly Doesn't necessarily mean illegal. Slavery was legal and yet we would consider it illicit kidnapping of free people and forced subjugation. Even if you could make a case for WWII, which I think is a stretch given the way the US goaded Japan into attacking first The US did not "goad" the Japanese into war. The Japanese were at war with the US' closest ally by way of allying with Germany. Economic sanctions against someone attacking your ally aren't exactly new. And sure there's a case fo…
/r/MensRights07/08/19 05:35 PM
1

Only two wars in which it was used illicitly - Vietnam and Korea. One of which we shouldn't have been in in the first place, and the other we would have done fine without conscription.
/r/MensRights07/08/19 05:07 PM
0

So what? A country that cannot enlist sufficient willing citizens to defend it when its very existence is at risk is a country not worth defending. Your (lack of) logic here is astounding. If the country is in a need of a draft and then fails to do so, then the way of life for everyone in that country ceases to exist. It's not like the citizens are just Americans one day and Chinese the next. You can get arrogant all you want about a country that's "not worth defending" in your opinion, but the …
/r/MensRights07/08/19 01:27 PM
0

Ordering an unwilling civilian to go die is at direct odds with that purpose. Uh huh, and when no one wants to go to war to protect the country from an existential threat, the country ceases to exist. Ordering civilians into the military during dire situations is just the reality of the situation, no matter what your sensibilities say.
/r/MensRights07/08/19 04:18 AM
-4

Many people have issue with the fact it exists Then those people are illogical and should be disregarded. The number one job of government is the protection of the state. If it takes a draft to do so then so be it. And yeah, the chances of anyone actually being called into a draft are slim to none. Any real war with a country sufficiently large and powerful enough to warrant a draft will end in nuclear strikes anyway.
/r/MensRights06/08/19 07:36 PM
3

To be fair, those claiming "women can't serve in combat" and those claiming "Look at all these women who served in combat" are two different groups. The bar on women serving in combat was a holdover from hundreds of years ago when there was actual systemic, legal discrimination.
/r/MensRights06/08/19 06:30 PM
12

The draft as a concept makes sense for situations of dire need. The fact that it's only applied to men is the issue, not the fact that it exists at all.
/r/MensRights06/08/19 06:27 PM
-7

It's obvious that you have done literally 0 research if you honestly believe that the nazi part and Democratic Socialists are at all alike. As /u/tickerbug stated, the nationalism inherent in the Nazis is nowhere to be found within the Democratic Socialists. On the contrary, nationalistic bullshit dressed up as patriotism is the hallmark of Trumptards. The parties are nowhere near similar in platform, and the economic and political situation is nowhere near the same. Get your fucking head out of…
/r/MensRights05/08/19 04:13 PM
2

#yangang for me, but I get you. Shit is crazy man
/r/MensRights05/08/19 03:02 PM
-11

Holy shit every single one of your comments is just fucking insane. No, the platforms of the Nazis and the Democratic Socialists are not identical. For one, "Democratic Socialist" != "modern leftist" or "man hating liberal". Democratic Socialist" == "maybe everyone should pitch in to help out everyone else, because it's the right thing to do". Fuck, do you just get all your fucking comments from The Blaze or Fox News? Get out more.
/r/MensRights05/08/19 02:58 PM
-13

No, it's really not. Are there comparatively more there than in bumfuck Kansas? I would assume so. Does the average person in a huge metropolitan city just walk around accusing people of being fucking terrorists? No. This is just more "hurr durr liberuls" bullshit that has no basis in reality.
/r/MensRights05/08/19 02:55 PM
1

That's a true statement. But it doesn't negate anything I've said. I don't think the USSF should fill in the difference, it's a separate matter entirely.
/r/MensRights01/08/19 02:44 AM
1

If it does then so be it. But what you're quoting is the bonus payout from FIFA, which has nothing to do with the salaries granted by USSF. WE have control over what the players get from the World Cup. They would get the same percentages they get now.
/r/MensRights01/08/19 01:30 AM
1

If I had my way, it would be a strict percentage revenue share. Each team gets 20, 30, 40% or whatever is decided of the total net revenue for the previous year and that is split amongst the team members according to position, seniority, etc. This is 100% equitable and fair. If the teams do well and get more revenue, they're paid more. If they do poorly and revenue drops, they're paid less. Simple. This is the system originally proposed by the USWNT and rejected by the USSF.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 09:52 PM
0

Why do you and others keep bringing up the World Cup? The World Cup has literally 0 to do with the USSF pay and bonus structure. People are already calling for FIFA to change their practices, but the lawsuit involving the USWNT is specifically against the USSF.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 09:49 PM
1

It's not even part of the equation. The lawsuit is with the USSF over the USSF's salary practices. It has nothing to do with FIFA. They're completely different organizations. You wouldn't accept a lower salary at your job based on the fact that you work a second job. Neither should they.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 09:05 PM
-5

The men's income is higher. Significantly higher, even with the new CBA that went into effect in 2016. And if we're taking the idea of a woman being kept on the team despite not doing anything, then I'm going with the idea of a man showing up to each game and warming the bench. Very little difference in effort, significantly increased earnings for the men.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 08:10 PM
0

You said they make less money per game than the men's team. I directly refuted that with evidence and that's "not addressing" your argument? Lol ok child.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:58 PM
-1

So: you're wrong I provide evidence that you're wrong you refuse to believe the evidence because "it's wikipedia" I provide evidence straight from the source You still refuse to put forth the simplest of effort Ok.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:50 PM
0

I see someone doesn't understand how to click a fucking link or expand a graphic on a page LOL Each of the games has a link to the game report. Or you could pull up the schedule from USSF yourself and verify it. The only difference is that USSF only shows one match vs Japan and didn't report the rematch. But removing that match would just make the numbers even more in my favor, so we'll just let that one slide.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:34 PM
1

They're only "invalid" if you're completely fucking retarded and don't want to accept facts.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:25 PM
0

HAHAHAHAHAHA, this isn't a valid source but the fucking DAILY WIRE is? You're out of your fucking mind you insolent shit. Please, show men how this source is invalid but the Daily Wire isn't.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:24 PM
0

I understand how math works better than you, as demonstrated in my other comment. You apparently can't even do simple division (yikes...)
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:20 PM
0

The USSF doesn't disagree with me, we've never had a conversation. The USSF thinks that NWSL salaries should be included when calculating USWNT salaries, which is a stance not shared by anyone in the sport, including the men's team. It must be frustrating to carry around that extra chromosome with you all the time.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:20 PM
0

They earned more per game. Let me lay this out for you since math seems to be your weak point: Men's earnings in 2016: $2.7 million Women's earning in 2016: $8 million Source for the above. Men's number of games: 7 friendlies Women's number of games: 13 friendlies Source Men's 2016 per-game revenue: $381,714.29 Women's 2016 per-game revenue: $615,384.62 The women's team earns almost double the men's team in years where neither are in the World Cup.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:18 PM
0

Oh man, the childish little cuntbucket decided to comment twice again! So furious! You're trying to make an argument regarding two completely different organizations. If you're not even capable of logic then I guess this is over. Go bitch and moan to someone else about FIFA, they aren't the subject of the lawsuit, the USSF is. You're a complete and total fucking dumbass, with no logical faculties to speak of.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:11 PM
1

FIFA has nothing to do with the current issue. It's USSF that the USWNT are suing, not FIFA
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:07 PM
0

It's not relevant because that's not what the fucking team is arguing about you ignorant piece of human garbage. Goddamn, it's like if an NBA player were to complain about wages from their team and then everyone was like "but you got paid for participating in the American Olympic team hurr durr". Also, I'm not a feminist at all. I'm an egalitarian. Which means that I'm not fucking retarded like the people on either end of this particular spectrum.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 07:00 PM
1

They also EARN much less revenue per game. This is incorrect. The women's team has earned more in revenue than the men's team for the past few years. They earn more and are paid less. Perhaps you should read more
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:56 PM
0

And I noticed again that no one gives a shit about what you have to say. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:51 PM
1

"no u"
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:50 PM
1

FIFA is an international organization. I don't know if you know this, but the US doesn't have jurisdiction over international organizations. The WNT is suing USSF, not FIFA. They're completely separate entities with separate issues. On the FIFA side at least, the total prize pool is commensurate with the national viewing rates of men vs women soccer, even if their portioning of the winnings is weird.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:49 PM
0

And the women already make more ...no they don't. Their income per game is waaaaaay smaller This is correct. I'm confused as to how you can say both of those lines with a straight face. The women earn less per game. Period. End of story. We don't need to get into how many games the women play vs the men, because schedules can change and the men could just as easily schedule more games if they wanted to. The women earn less per game. Apparently you understand that but you don't see the fact that …
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:47 PM
0

They make a greater percentage of their total revenue No they don't. FIFA hands them a greater percentage of FIFA winnings pools, but we're not talking FIFA, we're talking USSF.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:44 PM
-2

Man, you're just a straight childish little cunt aren't ya?
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:43 PM
-11

Those are facts, the mens team makes only bonuses. But, and here's the kicker, the bonuses apply regardless of performance. It's not a "bonus" if you get paid just to warm the bench. Regardless of what USSF calls it. Both teams playing the same number of games and winning the same amount will net the men's team more money. That's the issue the women are fighting.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:43 PM
1

Physical ability differences between the mens and womens teams are completely beside the point. The only point worth bringing up is the revenue that each team generates - which is more for the women than for the men.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:41 PM
0

FIFA has nothing to do with the arugment. FIFA is an international organization that deals out cash bonuses according to their OWN system. USSF is an AMERICAN organization that pays US Soccer players for the other 95% of games that they play. The lawsuit is against USSF, not FIFA. Learn how to read. But tell you what. If you don't like it, why don't you encourage the women to go on strike? Go ahead. Let's see how much they get paid then. If you knew history or had paid literally any attention to…
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:40 PM
0

I've posted sources multiple times on this thread and others going over this exact same issue, since /r/mensrights has a fucking stick up their asses about the women's team wanting better pay. At this point, repeating the same thing has as much or more integrity than blatantly accepting what some piece of shit rag like the Daily Wire has to say about literally anything.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:36 PM
-1

Get out of here with your tone policing bullshit. You're on every goddamn thread and no one cares.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:33 PM
-13

The man can just show up to the game, warm the bench, and get paid the same amount. That's a salary for all intents and purposes. Try not to mix in your political bullshit when talking about completely separate issues, it does nothing for your argument.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:32 PM
-5

I'll take salary any day, especially if it means I get to just take days off because woman. Which just proves a lack of financial sense on your part, but go ahead.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:30 PM
0

This isn't just a "United States" thing. To only limit this to domestic viewership is dumb. No you dumb piece of shit, this is an AMERICAN issue regarding AMERICAN pay to AMERICAN teams. I don't give a flying fuck about what other countries do with their team pay. This is entirely about an AMERICAN organization and how they pay the AMERICAN teams. Get that FIFA shit out of this conversation because it's completely, 100% beside the matter. And the "evidence" that the NWT lost money is just USSF's…
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:28 PM
-5

You considering a single article by a dirt rag news website as the definitive all-inclusive infodump regarding anything, much less a complex national organization, is proof that you are in fact stupid as fuck. The women make $4,950 per game. The mens team makes $13,166 per game. Try again dumbfuck.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:25 PM
-1

Wow, the angry child decided he needed to make TWO replies to the same comment, saying the same thing! The women make more money because they play more games. That's the only reason.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:19 PM
-6

Because the article is from a piece of shit rag without any journalistic integrity. They're using aggregate data from the last decade. Women's soccer has greatly increased in revenue over the past few years.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:14 PM
-3

They only make more than the men's team when they play more games. I guess you never finished grade school math.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 06:12 PM
-23

I mean, you can call bullshit all you want, but the fact remains that the NWT offered a revenue-sharing system for pay for both teams. The women's team earns more revenue than the men's team. This is something that has been repeated over and over if you knew how to read. It's been that way for the past few years. But the USSF wouldn't like any program that paid the men less than the women, so it was refused.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:55 PM
-3

However, the women are salaried, meaning if they don't show up they get paid... So not only are the men under paid compared to the women, they have to work harder for it. The men get paid just for showing up and sitting on the bench. That's basically a salary for all intents and purposes. And the salary they make is $5,000 per game regardless of outcome. If both teams play 20 friendlies and lose all of them, all players will come out with $100k. The numbers you're using include NWSL numbers whic…
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:30 PM
-13

No they weren't. You can't include NWSL salaries like the USSF did when they came out with that number.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:27 PM
0

OK
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:25 PM
2

Yeah, everyone on this sub likes to bitch and moan about the WNT, but they've repeatedly offered a gender neutral, performance-dependent approach and the USSF keeps refusing.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 05:25 PM
0

I did read the article. You just seem to lack logical faculties. You're quoting the claim by the defendant as proof for the defendant... Lol, do you have any idea how any of this works? The last few years the women have brought in more money. As women's team viewership increases and men's team viewership decreases, that will continue to happen more often. It's 100% understandable for the women to want equal pay after a consecutive 3 years of outperforming the men's team in both game performance …
/r/MensRights31/07/19 03:44 PM
1

I'm simply demonstrating how men's soccer is much more popular than women's soccer. No, you've demonstrated that the FIFA men's tournament has more viewers worldwide than the FIFA women's tournament... which everyone knew already. The WNT brings in millions of dollars more than the men's team in the US. $8 and $1 million for 2016 and 2017 respectively, compared to the Men's $350,000 and $2.7 million. Source Stop using international numbers when talking about an American issue. It just makes you …
/r/MensRights31/07/19 02:22 PM
0

You're using FIFA numbers, which shows that you're wrong. We're talking purely American revenue, as it's the American women's team that is suing the American soccer federation over American team salaries. Get your shit right you dumbfuck.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 01:33 PM
-1

No, they do not. They generate more money than the men's team. This has been the truth for the past few years. Read a little.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 12:22 AM
1

In general yes, men's sports generate more money. In the US though, the women's soccer team generates more revenue than the men's team. And yet, they get paid less.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 12:21 AM
1

No, it's money paid to NWSL players that they're including. Sometimes NWT members participate in the NWSL. But they're separate entities.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 11:51 PM
1

I don't think there is one honestly.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 11:46 PM
0

I just realized I have no leg to stand on and am actually just retarded, therefore I'm not going to address the issue /u/TheBelowIsFalse
/r/MensRights30/07/19 06:49 PM
-1

It's crazy that if any corporation were to come out and say "We're doing the right thing, totally trust us", everyone would shit down their throats but since it's the USSF talking about the WNT, everyone just accepts it as gospel? Fucking ridiculous. They do not make an apples to apples comparison in their "fact sheet", including adding NWSL salaries to the NWT salary in calculating money paid.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 01:50 PM
-5

The men generate more wealth. That is why they earn more money. No, they don't generate more wealth. I don't know why you idiots can't seem to get that point. In the US, the women's team brings in more money than the men's team. They've done so for a few years now. This is not an economics problem.
/r/MensRights30/07/19 01:48 PM
0

Look, you ignorant, pathetic piece of shit: This took place in Estonia, a country much more open to nudity than your backwards area of America. Where coed saunas are a normal part of life participated in by people of all ages. Because, you know, they're fucking adults about the subject and don't get their fucking panties in a wad when someone's naked. Not only that, but are you going to ride in on your bullshit holier-than-thou horse and arrest every art instructor who does a natural art class? …
/r/MensRights30/07/19 12:13 AM
1

Context is important. The context is, this is an art exhibit. This is in a country where nudity is common, distigmatized, and not sexual (Estonia). Whether the kids went there voluntarily or not is immaterial, but I suspect they did so voluntarily. I don't know of many schools that take field trips to art galleries.
/r/MensRights29/07/19 01:27 PM
2

You're right, calling something "art" isn't a get out of jail free card (literally and figuratively). But this is an art exhibit. It's also in the country of Estonia, where nudity is common and not sexualized. Trying to make this into some sort of traumatizing experience like many people in the comments are doing is just juvenile. Nudity isn't bad, isn't always sexual, and is certainly not traumatizing. The American view of nudity is childish and regressive. People just want to bitch and complai…
/r/MensRights29/07/19 01:25 PM
2

So if we had a masculine “exhibit” with a white guy w/his dick out Emphasis mine. Not showing any colors, just calling out bullshit.
/r/MensRights29/07/19 01:19 PM
0

...and now you've gone into a completely unrelated topic injected with a healthy amount of typical American ignorance and arrogance. Very well, we're done here. Kindly go fuck yourself.
/r/MensRights29/07/19 02:37 AM
1

...and? All you're doing is proving that this display is anything but sexual. Your laughably conservative view on nudity is not my nor anyone else's problem. This display took place in Estonia, a place were nudity is common and unsexualized and your childish sensibilities are absolutely not the norm.
/r/MensRights29/07/19 01:51 AM
2

Only people with the IQ of a cheese sandwhich are able to be this goddamn retarded. It's a requirement.
/r/MensRights29/07/19 12:46 AM
0

I made no claim as to whether I think it's good art. That's completely beside the point. You just don't like it because... boobs? Idk. But maybe you should seek counseling.
/r/MensRights29/07/19 12:46 AM
0

It's obviously not at a school There's art on the walls and a display in the middle of the room The post specifically said it was an art exhibit Fucking get over it. If someone were to make a masculine art exhibit then yes, it would still be an exhibit regardless of who saw it. I don't know any elementary school that takes field trips to art galleries anyway. Fucking get over yourself and stop trying to make this a gender / race thing. It's not. Grow the fuck up.
/r/MensRights29/07/19 12:44 AM
2

You're right, it was for artistic purposes. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not art nor does it mean that it's abusive in nature. Grow up.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 08:28 PM
2

Your harddon isn't an art exhibit, and this woman didn't stroll though a kindergarten. Try again.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 08:27 PM
1

Then that's your problem and no one else's. It's an art exhibit.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 08:26 PM
0

An art exhibit is not indecent exposure.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 08:25 PM
1

In the context of an art exhibit? Literally nothing would happen. Because it's not sexualization. If you flash your junk at a kid on the street, yeah that's a crime. For men or women.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 08:25 PM
35

Seeing the human body is not sexualization of children. The human body is a fact of life.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 04:00 AM
29

I don't think it's abuse in either case. Seeing the human body isn't abusive. Still a double standard though.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 02:52 AM
2

Don't downplay the prevalence of military sexual trauma
/r/MensRights26/07/19 01:56 PM
-2

... I don't get it. The person you're replying to never said that it's ok if men get laughed at because "women get laughed at too.". They were replying to the person who stated: Imagine if a woman was laughed at? Both groups do get laughed at. Victims aren't taken seriously regardless of gender, and I think that's what /u/jessicaannpin was saying.
/r/MensRights26/07/19 01:51 PM
-1

Dat whataboutism tho
/r/MensRights24/07/19 01:34 AM
-1

I've seen a summary. The reality is that the money directly generated from the teams via games only makes up a part of the overall revenue generated by USSF as a whole (somewhere between 1/4th and 1/3rd). The rest of it is things like direct sale of merchandise and advertisements / sponsorships. The women outearn the men in game revenue and have every year since 2016. The women are now outearning the men in team-specific direct merchandise sales. But the majority of USSF revenue (like 60% or som…
/r/MensRights11/07/19 03:12 PM
-4

I've already said this on this sub once, but I'll say it again. The women's team brings in more money than the men's team when it comes to soccer. If soccer player salaries were determined by revenue generation, the women's pay would be higher than the men's. This is not the case.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 01:22 PM
1

You don't seem to understand. They offered that plan during the salary negotiation process, before the current system was put in place. USSF rejected that idea because they didn't like sharing profits despite the fact that it makes sense and encourages performance. It's not like they made this deal and got sour on it and offered the revenue sharing plan afterwards.
/r/MensRights10/07/19 06:40 PM
1

If that is true, then doesn't that mean women are underpaid for USSF but overpaid bigly by FIFA? So perhaps in the name of fairness their world cup FIFA pay needs to be brought down to 7% like the men if they want equal pay by the USSF. Or is it the typical feminist bullshit of only wanting equality when its in their favor? The USSF and FIFA salaries are completely separate and unrelated to one another. USSF does not base any of its salary decisions on FIFA, and neither should they. FIFA only pa…
/r/MensRights10/07/19 05:14 PM
1

with games being more profitable for men than women, simply because there is usually more interest and money spent on/in those games Once again, this is incorrect. Women pull in more game revenue than men do. That makes this whole debacle even further against them, does it not? Not really. There is simply more money in men's games than women's games, with them winning/losing just deciding how much of it they get (and if the gold cup this year being anything to talk about, the US men win quite a …
/r/MensRights09/07/19 02:24 AM
1

With every sport that I know of (football (American and normal), baseball, basketball, hockey, etc) performance does not negatively impact the amount you have already agreed to be paid. That's not the case with soccer, and in fact is one of the reasons why this is such a complicated issue. The women are paid a salary, and then a (comparatively) small bonus for each game according to win/loss and opponents rank. The men get no salary. Instead they get a very hefty bonus for each game played. $5,0…
/r/MensRights09/07/19 01:31 AM
2

I don't follow. Say it's 10% net revenue share. The league makes $10 million in a given year, the teams each get $1 million to split between team members. The league still made $8 million. Obviously the real numbers and percentages would change, but I don't understand how a revenue share plan would result in a negative profit. In fact, that would be impossible mathematically unless there was some sort of minimum salary enforced.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 08:52 PM
5

The men's league is quite literally far out of the women's league, men across the board (at varying levels) are paid amounts that reflect the level of competitiveness, skill, and players at that level. This may be true from a physical standpoint, but it's irrelevant from a financial one. Regardless of the skill of the respective teams, the revenue they bring in is what matters. If the men would make more money playing for an organization that acknowledged that, they would go play for that organi…
/r/MensRights08/07/19 08:27 PM
-1

they should use that money to sign up for econ 101 classes Or USSF should, as the women bring in more money each year than the men do.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 08:14 PM
1

The actual net profit of each team in 2015 and 2016 is in that article, You're right. Mens: $350,000 and $2.7 million respectively (2015, 2016) Womens: $8 million and $1 million respectively (2016, 2017) And yet, in most years the men earn more. Especially so if they play halfway decently, due to their bonus structure. And as indicated by the article, men's "revenue" includes fees paid by foreign teams, whereas the womens does not. It's telling that, as mentioned in their lawsuit, the WNT offere…
/r/MensRights08/07/19 08:12 PM
0

The women's team earns more net revenue for the USSF than the men's does. Paying them the same as the men's current pay would be more sustainable than the current male pay situation. The women bring in more money for the USSF, play more games than the men, and yet are paid less. And once again, I'm talking purely USSF pay and bonuses, not the FIFA pay structure.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 07:57 PM
0

I don't think you can read all that well. Once again: You have conflated FIFA earnings with USSF earnings, which are two completely separate issues. The 9% and 13% figures have literally nothing to do with the pay disparity in the USSF. The USSF is the defendant in the lawsuit.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 07:25 PM
1

Most people don't because it doesn't really come up. I mean, who could tell you off the top of their head how the US National basketball team is paid? Or the Rugby team? Or any other team for that matter? It's a complicated mess. The fact that it's that complicated and involved just makes statements like the one made in the OP aggravate me to no end.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 07:09 PM
0

The Federalist isn't a reference for anything worthwhile, and you (and the Federalist) have conflated FIFA earnings with USSF earnings, which are completely separate. The women's team isn't suing FIFA, they're suing the USSF.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 07:06 PM
3

No, that statistic has held true for every year for the past 3 years. World Cup years always end up bringing more money to the team that's participating, but non-world cup years recently have seen the women's team ahead of the men's.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 07:03 PM
14

This is completely missing the point and, I think, purposefully so. The pay of athletes in the USSF is a combination of salary and bonuses. The FIFA World Cup is an entirely SEPARATE bonus structure altogether. Yes, the USWNT makes 13% ($4 million) of the total Women's World Cup prize money ($30 million), while the USMNT makes 9% ($38 million) from the Mens' prize money ($400 million). But that's not the point. FIFA is not an American organization, it's an international organization. Pay from FI…
/r/MensRights08/07/19 06:01 PM
2

My responsibility is also to avoid risking my life for ungrateful people. Which is not AT ALL how police, firefighters, EMS, or the military view it. We do the job because that's what we signed up to do, and because we believe in something greater than your petty bullshit political nonsense. Feminists like you Motherfucker, who said I was a feminist? I'm an egalitarian, get it right shithead. Where is the respect for the guys that are saving lives. Fucking everywhere, where have you been? The ve…
/r/MensRights28/06/19 07:16 PM
2

Because the fact that black people are consistently harassed and assaulted by police means that obviously there can't be any police officers with PTSD. Or some other bullshit reasoning.
/r/MensRights28/06/19 06:36 PM
10

If I was a fireman I would say in a fire situation who is a feminist , remain here, we will come back .At the moment we will take out only children and men. Then I'm glad you're not a fireman. Or anyone with any responsibility to save lives. Because your opinions make you woefully inadequate for the position.
/r/MensRights28/06/19 06:35 PM
1

The passiveness vs the activeness doesn't matter. Your rights don't change based on whether you're passively or actively exercising them. They only diminish when they start to infringe upon the rights of others (eg the typical "yelling fire in a crowded building"). The death of the fetus is an unfortunate side effect of the woman exercising her right to body autonomy, but is not the main goal. I'm sure most women would opt for a safe fetal removal with the fetus surviving if that were possible. …
/r/MensRights18/06/19 05:11 PM
1

I said "nowhere in any other case" as referring to any situation other than pregnancy. No one can force themselves on another person's body in any case but pregnancy. It's literally the only exception.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 05:06 PM
1

Yes you're right, I'm talking about a normal abortive situation, not a life threatening one. the problem with that is that by the mother exercising her right for bodily autonimy for 3 months the baby loses his right to body autonomy for all his life. It doesn't matter though. I'm going to keep bringing up the same example: If the baby had already been born but needed a blood transfusion from the mother, the mother could exercise her body autonomy rights and deny the donation thus dooming the bab…
/r/MensRights18/06/19 04:28 PM
2

you cant kill it it would be murder, It's not murder, it's refusing to continue to donate your body. It results in the death of the fetus, but that's not the same as murder. when the baby becomes a human its right to exist trumps the mother right to be free. But it doesn't. Nowhere, in any other case in the US at least, does a persons right to live supersede the body autonomy of another person. You cannot mandate that someone give blood to another person to save their life. You shouldn't be able…
/r/MensRights18/06/19 04:20 PM
1

He may have his right to body autonomy, but his right to body autonomy does not supersede the mothers. At no point does someone's rights supersede the rights of another person. The fetus requires the mother's body. If she wants to exercise her right to autonomy by rejecting the fetus she should have that right. Without restrictions.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 04:16 PM
1

"Bodily autonomy", doesn't apply cleanly (at least morally) in situations where you have the option to save someone and deliberately don't. But it does. You have a duty to save certain people from preventable death or injury (namely, your child or children in your care if you're in certain positions). But that duty never includes giving of your body. If it were as simple as reaching out and pulling someone from a ledge it's one thing. But organ usage is definitely out of the picture. Depending o…
/r/MensRights18/06/19 02:59 PM
3

I'm a major pro-choice advocate and I'm fully aware that it has nothing to do with men. That's just a ploy used by feminist groups to stir up voters with outrage. The reality is that a third of women and a third of men are pro-life. The difference between pro-life men and women is literally just 1%. For comparison, the difference between pro-choice men and women is only 3%.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 02:06 PM
1

I also think that if you're responsible for someone needing blood, like if you hit them with your car or something, you should be required to give blood or anything else that's harmless to you if it could help them. I'm vehemently against any action that overrides my sovereignty over my body. And I'm not even the subject of these bills since I'm a guy. it's not a simple right-or-wrong, black and white question, like many people want to pretend the abortion issue is. You're right, it's not right …
/r/MensRights18/06/19 01:54 PM
1

So all the embriology textbooks i read when i was at med school was false then. You do have a primitive heart and heartbeat at approx. 25 to 30 days There is no cardiovascular system. There is no heart. All that there is are electric pulses that will eventually become a heartbeat. It's a fucking emotional ploy to get dumbass voters to favor it by using the term "heartbeat". Blood and another human being is completely different subjects. Absolutely correct, as I've already stated. I doubt you act…
/r/MensRights18/06/19 01:49 PM
0

This doesn't work. You're not being asked to give a part of yourself in this scenario. Getting your nails dirty isn't the same as donating a part of your body. And technically, yeah you're not obligated to help anyone. Especially if it would bring danger upon yourself. The circumstance isnt that something happened and she just happened to be there, she is directly the cause of what happened. She had unprotected sex and because of that the baby is there. Women dont just spontaneously get pregnant…
/r/MensRights18/06/19 01:39 PM
1

That's kind of a bad analogy, because in most cases there's no connection between the two people here, no reason the potential donor should have any responsibility. It would be a bad analogy, but the exact same thing holds true for mothers and children. A mother can't be forced to give blood to her babies. She can't even be forced to give milk, either by breastfeeding or pumping. And yet for some reason the exact opposite is true just a week, a day, or even an hour beforehand? This is the illogi…
/r/MensRights18/06/19 01:33 PM
-2

That is literally the entire issue. I know it is, and that's why pro-lifers don't have a leg to stand on. No but she is still responsible for being the baby's mother. Neglect is a thing. Sure. But neglect charges can never be leveled at someone for refusing to give part of their body. if you think that's immaterial then why not broaden it from "no obligation to give anything from their body" to "no obligation to give anything." If a woman doesn't want to be a parent 6 months after the baby is bo…
/r/MensRights18/06/19 01:28 PM
0

The person who carries the child created the child. Blood donor didn't start the persons need for blood. Both of these are immaterial. If a mother injured her child through some sort of accident and caused them to need blood, she would meet both of these criteria and yet still couldn't be forced to provide anything. Blood is not a human being on itself. Blood will not become an infant after 9 months. Red blood cell doesn't have a heartbeat at 25 26 days of its existence. Rbc doesn't have its gon…
/r/MensRights18/06/19 01:25 PM
-3

When do you think that a human should gain their right to be a human? IMO, it's immaterial to the question at hand. What happens after that point? Should a woman still not be forced to have the baby if she doesn't want it? It's like I just said. No one can be forced to give anything to another. 5 minutes after birth the mother can't be forced to give blood, plasma, hell even milk, to the baby. Why should that change just because it hasn't been born yet? I'm not saying that it's a joyful occasion…
/r/MensRights18/06/19 07:40 AM
14

The debate has always been about when a human gains their human rights. True. But at the same time, it really shouldn't matter. You can't be forced to give blood to save someone's life so why should a woman be forced to give her body for 9 months? It is important though to understand the other side's movement. I just can't understand why they think the situation is different for a pregnant woman compared to literally every other life or death situation on the planet.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 06:10 AM
1

The child has a right to money but not a right to life. No, the child doesn't have a "right to money". Are you like 12 or something? Because you seem to lack basic life knowledge. The state doesn't want to pay for the child's upbringing. Therefore, the parents have to provide for the child. NO PERSON, regardless of whether they're a child or not, has a right to someone else's body. Otherwise you could force people to give blood / donate organs. You still didn't answer the question I asked (I'll …
/r/MensRights15/06/19 04:25 AM
1

What would be the alternative, allow any rando to claim fatherhood of any kid? No, I think putting the husband down as the father on the birth certificate as a default is fine. Honestly, blood tests (to include paternity) should be done at every birth anyway, but good luck convincing anyone of that idea.
/r/MensRights15/06/19 04:21 AM
1

unless support is requested. Or they file. It's not like they don't have any rights whatsoever. But yes, the husband is presumed the father.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 11:48 PM
0

Oh, you see forced labor as slavery? Surely slavery is a violation of bodily autonomy? No, hence why I labeled it as "bullshit". Reading comprehension is key. The well being of the child? The same child that could be killed by the mother? Well being...LOL Keep the shit straight dumbass. Child support and abortion are two completely separate things. I just want to pin this down: You do think that sex should equal consent to parenthood for men but not for women? No you ignorate, thick headed, bord…
/r/MensRights14/06/19 11:44 PM
1

What would you call forced labor? Oh please, don't get started on the "child support = slavery" bullshit. I already covered this, the difference is that child support is IMPOSED by the government and your mortgage is a something you agreed to when you took out the loan. It's imposed by the government to ensure the well being of the child. That doesn't make it a body autonomy issue. And if you're going to take an anti-choice stance, you should welcome the "You agreed to the risk when you agreed t…
/r/MensRights14/06/19 09:44 PM
1

It's not gated by the mother, it's determined by the state. It's not like the mother can say "No, this man isn't the father" and then that's the end of it.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 09:40 PM
0

The labor needed to pay for it is your body though. You know most men aren't rich. It doesn't matter. It's immaterial. You know what WOULD be a violation of body autonomy? Forcing you to give blood. Forcing you to donate a kidney. That sort of shit. Requiring you to pay a debt is not a violation of body autonomy. Period. If it was, then having a mortgage would be a violation of your basic human rights. That's fucking retarded. Would you like to talk about how years of labor affects mens bodies o…
/r/MensRights14/06/19 09:25 PM
0

Using a woman's body for 10 months to bring a baby to term that she doesn't want is a violation of bodily autonomy BUT using a mans body (his labor) for 18 years to pay for a kid he didn't want is not? Debt. Is. Not. Your. Body. How more clear do you need it? It's not touching you. It's not affecting your body. If you, for example, had savings enough to cover it it wouldn't even require you to get out of your chair. Pregnancy on the other hand requires a woman give up the usage of her organs to …
/r/MensRights14/06/19 08:39 PM
0

It doesn't matter who they're imposed by, if one is a violation of body autonomy then they all are. You know what's apparently not necessary? Having a brain and being able to reason and use logic. The amount of self delusion required to make the claims you're making is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 08:22 PM
-1

That has nothing to do with body autonomy. You're fucking mental. In that case, then ALL debt in all cases would be a violation of body autonomy. Being required to work to pay a debt is not a violation of body autonomy. Jesus fucking christ. God you have got to be the saltiest incel motherfucker I've ever encountered on this sub.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 08:18 PM
-1

I don't get why you think that rights are transactionary. They're not. They just exist. The right to body autonomy is the grandfather of all rights, and women are having theirs infringed in those specific states. It's got nothing to do with me giving away something. It's righting a currently existing imbalance. (Adult) Men have full 100% body autonomy, women do not. A corpse has more body autonomy than a woman in those states. A more apt parallel is the fact that neither men nor women can sign a…
/r/MensRights14/06/19 07:43 PM
2

In the US, if it is likely that the man is the father, he can get a paternity test court ordered. Once that occurs, he is placed on the birth certificate and can interrupt or reverse an adoption process. Actually, this is one of the very few instances where an adoption can be reversed.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 06:32 PM
-1

"they", "their"? What, do you think that women are a monolith or something? This is obviously not the case considering the gender distribution in Congress. The fact is that until now it's never really been championed as a cause for equality on the national scale. Abortion is a fight that's been waged for decades. I refuse to compromise my integrity for a minuscule chance at political gain.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 06:04 PM
-1

That's not how this works. You don't magically get LPS passed by removing reproductive rights. Your reasoning is regressive and woefully lacking.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 05:56 PM
-3

I will never not give my support for reproductive rights, both male and female. To do otherwise would reflect badly on me as a person and on Egalitarianism as a movement.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 05:45 PM
21

Yeah, France is a nasty outlier in this regard.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 05:37 PM
20

hey can't have the child take a DNA test to prove it is actually theirs They definitely can. As long as the mother wasn't married at the time of birth, the kid is 5 years or younger, and there's a probable chance that he's the father, a man can file to have paternity tests conducted.
/r/MensRights14/06/19 04:12 PM
7

Important to note that this "key right" is being eroded in certain states. It needs to be a resounding NO for both men and women. Also important to note is that IF a woman continues with the pregnancy and then surrenders the child, the father is going to get sole custody. She cannot just give the kid up for adoption without the consent of the father. In that case, the father can get child support from the mother. The rights are nowhere near equal, but that's not to say that women have everything…
/r/MensRights14/06/19 04:08 PM
7

There it is. I knew this joke was going to happen lol
/r/MensRights13/06/19 09:06 PM
6

Did they really? I've never heard of someone in 69 complaining. I've seen plenty of modern people looking back and complaining though.
/r/MensRights13/06/19 07:50 PM
1

And generation Z watches and becomes more and more conservative. I keep seeing this on this sub, and I keep having to repeat myself. On social issues, Gen Z is liberal. They have always been liberal and continue moving left, compared to millennials and Gen X. Fiscally, I don't think we have much data, and the generation is too young to say anything definitive.
/r/MensRights11/06/19 02:02 AM
15

Considering they led with "this is vulgar", I think not.
/r/MensRights31/05/19 02:54 PM
1

I really have no desire to walk a mile in the shoes of an anti-military misogynistic asshole. His reasoning for holding his views has no bearing whatsoever on me.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 06:29 PM
2

Your bullshit anti-military stance aside, you're completely missing the point. Those traits are considered "manly" and they're what I embrace in my identification as a "man". The fact that you place importance on working on cars (out of everything else? really?) doesn't detract from the "manliness" of others who aren't car savvy. Literally the definition of "fragile masculinity". You're a fucking moron.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 06:17 PM
3

Success is measured by representation in areas of life perceived as successful. Like high income brackets, illustrious careers, etc. So yes, when you talk about success you're literally talking about representation.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 06:14 PM
1

That won't work until LPS becomes a thing.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 06:13 PM
2

Of course. You can't shake off literally hundreds of years of actual oppression in a single generation. There's a reason that African Americans for instance are over represented in low income families. There's a reason that women are under represented in the highest paid careers (despite being over represented in educational attainment).
/r/MensRights29/05/19 06:11 PM
3

Idk but it's fucking annoying. It's either stay here an deal with literal incel fuckheads like /u/JohnPerera or go to /r/menslib and be forced to buy into feminist propaganda or get banned by piece of shit mods.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 06:09 PM
2

Also feminists: Get your newborn circumcised. Honestly, I've only seen anti-MGM talk from feminist circles.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 06:03 PM
2

You know that toxic masculinity bs that feminists push all the time? Your attitude is an example of actual toxicity. You don't get to decide what makes a man. I'm a veteran, I do woodworking on the side, I'm analytical, I'm a provider. All of these things that are generally considered "manly", and yet you want to discredit it all because I don't have any desire to work on cars? Go get fucked you sexist, braindead piece of shit.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 06:00 PM
2

Especially if your military is that heavily stacked in your work force. The military isn't heavily stacked in our work force, the military is just a large organization. That being said, less than 1% of the population are military, slightly more are veterans. 4 years of employment would also show this quite easily. Not in the same ways 4 years of military experience would show. Nothing says "perform under pressure in inhospitable environments" like a deployment to fuckistan. I would be more likel…
/r/MensRights29/05/19 05:34 PM
3

The United States military is the largest organization in the US and the 4th largest organization in the entire world. Jobs within the military range from the "grunt" you mentioned to medical staff (including doctors, nurses, lab techs, and others), engineers, IT, mechanics, police, cooks, pilots (rotary and fixed wing), and even lawyers. I spent 7 years in the USAF, 4 as a system administrator and 3 in cyber warfare. Any of these positions, and mine personally, translate 100% to their civilian …
/r/MensRights29/05/19 04:15 PM
1

My views aren't feminist, they're egalitarian. You know, unlike your misogynistic ass. The ability to fix a car isn't an inherent quality of manhood. I'm a security engineer and can do a lot of shit on a computer, but I can't fix a car to save my life. For anything other than dumb labor, people can do only the jobs they're trained to do, no more. Stating anything contrary to that requires a sever lack of intelligence and rational thought.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 04:03 PM
1

How many women can fix a power line and not kill themselves? Just as few as the number of men who could do so without training. Honestly, having a fucking penis doesn't make me able to fix the goddamned power lines. It takes training to do so. And women are just as able to go through that training as men. Especially since there's so many tools available today to make it less physically demanding. Get over yourself and your male superiority bullshit.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 01:52 PM
5

I don't really understand why men join it either tbh. Because as long as you're smart about it (ie, don't join the Army or Marines) you'll come out of your contract with hella benefits, a great work history, and a marketable skill. And you most likely won't be injured. Plus, for the vast majority of military members it's not a "career path". It's 4 years from the time they're 18 until they're 22 when they have no damn clue what they want to do with their lives and the military gives them a way t…
/r/MensRights29/05/19 01:49 PM
0

Yes it is.
/r/MensRights28/05/19 03:57 PM
3

The highest-rated comments on this post are pro-choice. There are plenty of tradcon asshats in this sub, but they are the vocal minority.
/r/MensRights23/05/19 06:34 PM
17

I'd be curious how you would implement this "choice" of not wanting to be a parent? Simple. Legal Paternal Surrender (LPS) When notified that the woman is pregnant with his (supposed) child, the man can sign away any rights as the father an in return cannot be held liable for child support. Knowing that there will be no child support, the future mother can make a fund financial decision. Obviously there will need to be clauses for certain situations, such as the man knowing about a pregnancy fro…
/r/MensRights23/05/19 06:26 PM
1

Ah, I don't know the Canadian law. That sucks man.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 08:05 PM
2

Men in general? Because every citizen has the same representation regardless of sex (sorry territories). This sub? Well, this sub is extremely political. Especially the minority that actually comment.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 07:10 PM
-1

Exactly. With the exception of the discussion of Legal Paternal Abandonment (or, "Paternal Abortion"), the entire abortion discussion needs to not be here.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:47 PM
-2

This is literally the only situation (reproductive rights) in US legislation where the word "oppress" is warranted. It sucks that the word has been so overused, but it belongs here.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:45 PM
9

Idiots like this just want to believe "hurr durr libuhruls bad" and don't actually care about facts.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:40 PM
1

If she makes more money than you then you need to get a child support re-evaluation done. Assuming you're in the US, that's not at all how child support is supposed to be divided.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:31 PM
1

That's exactly how it works. Sexist judges (and therefore inequal custody) exist, punitive child support really doesn't.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:27 PM
1

This is correct.
/r/MensRights16/05/19 06:25 PM
2

They are two different groups, but the groups inhabit the exact same areas. MGTOW, TRP, PUA, and Incels are the breeding ground for the actual woman-hating that the MRA is accused of.
/r/MensRights15/05/19 06:32 PM
18

Not at all accurate. Gen Z (apparently the new name) is just as, if not more, liberal as the millennial generation. And things which to older generations would be an issue (gay rights for instance) don't really exist for this generation. The assumption is that gay people have the same marital rights as heterosexual people. Now, this is mostly social liberalism. I think it's a little early to make any sort of prediction of what the economic stances of the newest generation are.
/r/MensRights15/05/19 06:28 PM
2

You need some serious help buddy. One quick look at your post history shows nothing but a sad, pathetic, angry little man. You are not owed an engagement on your rambling, incoherent rants that you seem to spout off on a daily basis. Your facts are incorrect, you stoop to ad hominem immediately (and then, hilariously, get offended when you believe I did the same), and your comment reads like some Libertarian wet dream. Learn how to converse as an adult, and maybe you'll find people more willing …
/r/MensRights15/05/19 01:23 PM
0

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
/r/MensRights15/05/19 04:47 AM
1

Are... are you ok?
/r/MensRights15/05/19 12:31 AM
-2

While i think the sex strike is utterly ridiculous, National Review gets it completely wrong (not surprised, we seriously need a ban on Fox, National Review, etc in this sub). Withholding sex does not promote the narrative that women only have sex as a concession. Not even in the slightest. It says nothing about the fact that women enjoy sex just as much as men. Looking at it purely logically, sex is a transaction in which both parties give and receive intimacy and pleasure. It's something they …
/r/MensRights14/05/19 09:06 PM
29

Agreed. Reading the bill, the phrase repeated is "He or she willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent..." So it seems like the state would have to prove malicious intent on the part of the accuser, as well as prove that the accuser knew that the accusation was false. Pretty stiff requirements, but pretty close to the difficulty of securing a rape conviction.
/r/MensRights09/05/19 01:20 PM
1

They are now
/r/MensRights08/05/19 11:10 PM
1

...you do realize E4 is a time-based promotion and not contingent upon anything but not fucking up? And you get it at like 3 years? I mean come on, at least put some Google-fu into your bullshiting. You're not convincing anyone. It's pretty funny seeing comments from you about "battle rattle" since you don't know jack about TTP and have zero tactical training. Says the cum swallowing squid You did the best job with that coffee And I bet you were the best cocksucker on your floating shitcan.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 07:03 PM
0

C'mon admit it you were an E3 weren't you? Who finishes 7 years as an E3? You just keep building up the case that you never actually joined lol. I'm sure it was so stressful being in Texas sitting on your ass or getting coffee. Probably not as stressful as getting spitroasted by your seniors on a nightly basis
/r/MensRights08/05/19 06:42 PM
0

nonrate So you're either a cock-gurgling squid or a pansy ass puddle jumper lol Now I KNOW you have no clue how the world works. E4 was totally involved in non meniel tasks Says the dipshit who used the term "nonrate" IRT the USAF And it's 'menial', you incompetent fuck You know some of us actually have medals. You keep telling yourself that little NDSM means something lol
/r/MensRights08/05/19 06:26 PM
0

Um medical? SILO? The fact that I will be activated in the reserves and finish 20 due to rare quals? The fact that my wife is active duty and upwardly mobile and I could drill anywhere so there is no point trying to COLO and restrict her career? All dumb af reasons. I've said it before, you're a fucking space cadet. Fuck you are a dumb TED. Better than being a snot nose little bitch of a 14 year old with no clue how the world actually works. make coffee for the officers and manage MWR. Ah yes, t…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 04:04 PM
2

Seriously disagree. How someone presents themselves absolutely can inform your interaction with them. I'm not claiming to be "better" than anyone. I'm claiming that you absolutely can refrain from extending the benefit of the doubt to someone sporting an idiotic / offensive / ignorant / whatever username.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 02:07 PM
11

Aparently it's not about 'equality of the sexes.' It's not. And they recognize that. If you look at their most upvoted posts of all time, you'll see them stating plainly that feminism is for women specifically, and if it helps men in the process then that's fine too. We know that it doesn't help men at all, and in fact hurts them. But the whole "feminism = equality of the sexes" thing only comes from uninformed, armchair feminists.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:45 PM
2

Yeah, he's a proponent of UBI.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:41 PM
1

I gave you an up vote because you are (I assume) expressing your political opinion and don't deserve to get downvotes from it. His username is "CuckedIndianAmerican". He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt lol
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:36 PM
0

rank and discipline/obedience to direction/orders isn't the military at all. Customs and courtesies aren't a big part of that Not what I said at all. It seems reading comprehension isn't your strong suite. That's ok, there's nothing wrong with being a little slow. Think really hard and maybe you'll get there. I must just be imagining a service Academy and 17 years LOL yeah sure. You were in 17 years and still talk like a fucking 14 year old. Sure thing. No one's buying your shit lol And who the …
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:27 PM
0

Customs and courtesies the building block of the military? LOL you're a fucking space cadet. And hmmm, 1) has literally no idea what they're talking about IRT military anything and 2) thinks that insulting a branch gets you any points whatsoever. There's no fucking way you actually served. You're just some basement dwelling fuckwad who "totally would have joined" lol. Go play airsoft and imagine you actually did something with your life.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 02:09 AM
0

You would be the type of person to demand customs and courtesies LOL God you must be a man child. Go bang your sisterwife and bother someone else you lockjawed fuck.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:34 AM
0

Yep. Certified dipshit lol.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:13 AM
0

I'm glad I never had to serve under you, because you're a genuine fucking dipshit.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 01:08 AM
0

You are wrong. This is going to be fun Officers are always in the IRR, and there is no "enlistment period" Wrong. Officers are a clusterfuck of regulations, with multiple options as to their leaving the military. In all cases, they are only subject to recall within a number of years dictated by their service. Officers have an MSO just like enlisted, and their service cannot be involuntarily extended past that date. And even then, they can only be recalled if they don't resign their commission. I…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 09:50 PM
1

The IRR does not last for life. The contract you signed when you enlisted was for a specific amount of time, and after that time the government has no claim to you apart from an actual draft. If some reserve personnel troop is telling you otherwise, you need to escalate it. The government doesn't get to extend contracts just because it feels like it.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 05:47 PM
6

What's even worse is when moronic traditionalist nonsense like what sometimes crops up in this sub aids that line of feminist thought. Like come on. Whether or not you have a dick has no bearing on your ability to perform a task. Your physical fitness does. Hell, I was in the Air Force and I knew plenty of males that would not be able to do half the shit you're expected to do in combat MOS'. That's what training is for.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 02:14 PM
4

There are plenty of scrawny ass men that can't drag a fully grown man in battle rattle either. Or ruck 12+ miles in full gear. And yet we don't use bullshit gender restrictions on them. How about we leave it to the physical fitness requirements to determine if someone can do a job, rather than using bullshit restrictions that have literally 0 credibility?
/r/MensRights07/05/19 02:11 PM
6

They simply aren't physically capable. Please. Maybe in the days when the draft was actually used this would be accurate. Women are plenty capable of modern combat. It's not like anyone aside from SOF is getting in hand to hand combat lol
/r/MensRights07/05/19 01:28 PM
6

While I don't doubt that the military is large enough to deal with any modern threat (weapons of WWIII and all that), I would like to point out that the veteran community is absolutely not subject to recall. Only retirees, which make up a ridiculously small percentage of vets, are subject to recall. I, a vet, am the exact same as any non-affiliated citizen in regards to the draft.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 01:26 PM
2

Not to mention the fact that more women than men have been getting doctorate level degress for a long time now. This is just a specific doctorate that has now tipped to the female majority.
/r/MensRights06/05/19 02:56 PM
1

It will look at her zero income and your substantial income and then you will have to pay her maintenance. No, potential income is also included. If you quit your job and then divorce your spouse, the court sees right through that shit. The same as if you sell a bunch of things and then "lose" the money or some shit. Women and men get away with that shit when they get a better lawyer.
/r/MensRights02/05/19 02:25 PM
3

If you honestly think that "forcing" women to stay home is what he's talking about then you're fucking loony. Couples come to agreements on how the family is oriented all time. My wife and I decided that if we have kids, whoever is making the least amount of money at the time would become a stay at home parent. Right now, that'd be her. That's not me forcing her. That's us as a couple coming to an agreement. You know, like fucking adults. If your partner just decides in a vacuum that they don't …
/r/MensRights02/05/19 01:32 PM
-1

Lol the militant anti-gun control comments every time a thread goes anywhere near the subject beg to differ. As well as a the pro-life comments.
/r/MensRights01/05/19 01:20 PM
-2

I don't keep a log of all the shittastic comments I see on this sub. But this sub leans heavily right, mostly due to backlash against a perceived feminist-sympathetic left IMO.
/r/MensRights01/05/19 04:33 AM
-1

What reputable news source uses the term "Pro-Abortion?" None. Lifenews is a shithole "publication". But since this sub leans heavily right, and is generally pro-life, this shit gets upvoted like crazy.
/r/MensRights30/04/19 01:58 PM
7

No, if there were a credible source then it would stay up. But "lifenews" is not a credible source in any meaning of the word.
/r/MensRights30/04/19 01:54 PM
-1

Do we really need to do this? The guy was charged with "4th degree" sexual assault, which is a misdemeanor and not equivalent to a typical sexual assault charge. The guy had prior arrest history for other 4th degree SA charges. There's a trend with this shithead. He literally had cocaine on him. A single instance (or a few isolated cases, cause I know you're gonna get pissy and find another one or maybe two) don't equal a national trend. Please stop acting like grabbing a butt is the same as gra…
/r/MensRights17/04/19 03:13 PM
-2

It is different. If you grabbed 5 of them then you're probably still getting a sexual assault charge. But no one is getting SA charges off of grabbing a single butt. Single breast? Damn straight.
/r/MensRights17/04/19 01:48 PM
6

Honestly not very many of them though. And I get the door held open for me (a man) by women all the time.
/r/MensRights16/04/19 08:01 PM
14

It implied multiple factual errors, and choosing to chime in on only one of those is the source of your downvotes right now. You don't need to do anything, this is the internet. But don't be surprised when you get mass downvoted because you didn't adequately state your position.
/r/MensRights08/04/19 07:20 PM
19

No you didn't, but pointing out that she has not been found guilty implies a contrast with the other examples given. If you don't mean that, just specify.
/r/MensRights08/04/19 07:05 PM
1

Well that's fine then. It's important to agree on definitions before any real discussion takes place. We'll have to agree to disagree.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 02:25 PM
2

Surprisingly enough, the Catholic faith is more progressive and forgiving than most protestant denominations, and includes the salvation of other denominations as well as Jews and (possibly) Muslims. The Church is much different from the Crusades or Inquisition time periods.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 02:17 PM
-1

Your examples don't work. Pagan isn't the opposite of Christian, and no one thinks it is. Infidel is the opposite of Muslim (according to Islam), so that's actually contextually accurate. And of course the feminist line isn't even supported by most actual feminists (going by the comments on /r/feminism)
/r/MensRights04/04/19 02:15 PM
-1

Maise Williams is a 20 year old actor with little world experience. But the fact is, Feminism is an equal rights movement the same as the MRM. The focus is different, as is quite obvious to pretty much everyone. But just because they focus on women's issues doesn't mean that they aren't an egalitarian movement. Excepting of course various types of radical feminism, they obviously aren't for equality
/r/MensRights04/04/19 02:12 PM
2

A lot of people don't seem to get that simple concept. Along those same lines: If you don't support the core message of feminism: that women are equal, then yeah you're probably sexist. But supporting that message is far and away different from being and considering yourself a feminist.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 02:10 PM
1

Feminism developed as a type of egalitarianism specifically focused on women's issues. Much like the MRM developed as a type of egalitarianism specifically focused on men's issues.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 02:04 PM
2

That phrase was only one of many used during the French revolution. Egalitarianism comes from before that.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 02:02 PM
32

There are comments to that effect all over that post. /r/feminism as a whole is aware that their movement doesn't apply to men's issues and is aware that just because someone doesn't consider themselves a "feminist" doesn't mean that they don't believe in equal rights for women.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 02:00 PM
2

Sure, but the most upvoted comment is: I have no idea if what I'm about to write will be controversial or not, but here it goes: I'm not going to fault Maisie Williams for voicing an opinion which seems a little half-baked (she's a 20 year old actor, not a professor of philosophy, after all), but it's still worth pointing out that you can share the basic tenets of a movement without considering yourself part of that movement. You can agree with movement's mission statement, but disagree with it'…
/r/MensRights04/04/19 01:48 PM
1

Your entire profile is a pit of sad incel bullshit. Like, seriously cringeworthy. You should probably seek out a therapist, and stat.
/r/MensRights29/03/19 06:21 PM
1

State law now requires that viable embryos from a divorced couple be awarded to the parent who will allow a child to be born. It also states the other parent has no rights or obligations. Well that's a relief. But it also doesn't apply to this couple, which sucks for the guy. I hope he appeals to the Arizona Supreme Court.
/r/MensRights29/03/19 02:51 PM
2

Based on the description of these and others in this thread, it seems to simply be "boys and girls are equal". Which is the point of the OG feminism and fine. I'd have to actually read the books to see if they snuck in some BS worth complaining about. But at the surface it actually looks fine. I hope I'm not proven wrong by their content.
/r/MensRights29/03/19 02:47 PM
1

You can fuck off with your homophobic shit
/r/MensRights29/03/19 02:45 PM
2

I already responded to your other comment, but yes she did
/r/MensRights29/03/19 02:28 PM
5

It did.
/r/MensRights29/03/19 02:27 PM
2

Your post is locked
/r/MensRights28/03/19 09:32 PM
3

Dude you are always on here trying to police people's language. Online. In a discussion forum. Just fuck off. Saying "fuck you" to a rape apologist is not only allowed, but should be encouraged. There isn't a "beautiful human being" on the other side of the internet. There's a rape apologist. This is not a mere difference in opinion.
/r/MensRights28/03/19 09:18 PM
1

Then what were you talking about? Disarmament .......... > Genocide/Democide. That's the timeline. Time and time again. How do you propose to avoid it without arms? When did I ever mention disarmament? Not once. Once again, you're taking something I said and spinning it into something completely different. You could be the next president. | The AR-15 is much better at staving off tyranny. Wow you have a super high opinion of yourself. I wonder what it's like going through life with delusions of …
/r/MensRights14/03/19 09:11 PM
1

Arson doesn't meet the "effortless" portion of my statement. And it's still apples to oranges. Are you arguing that governments, who murdered 250+ Million of their own citizens in the 20th century are trustworthy while citizens aren't? Servile indeed. No? Fuck outta here with your bullshit. Early American settlers carried firearms. Not sure what you're talking about. So were you born retarded or did you have to work to get here? Comparing settlers, who were faced with dangerous wildlife and atta…
/r/MensRights14/03/19 08:41 PM
0

It's not created in and from a socialistic perspective, bud. It has nothing to do with it. Neoliberal sure, but not socialist. When you use terms you don't know incorrectly, it makes you look like a moron.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 08:26 PM
1

Are you saying that self-defense from all forms of oppression and tyranny isn't ingrained in your DNA? Don't be dense. I'm saying that wielding the power to effortlessly end the life of everyone around you in a short amount of time has only been around for a little bit (circa ww2), and the expectation that you should be able to carry that ability with you everywhere you go has only been around for 50 years (the length of the current bullshit gun debate, although I should revise that to 70 years,…
/r/MensRights14/03/19 08:25 PM
1

I don't know anyone like that. But, okay. You know shitty people. Then you must be new here. There's no mandate that people be trained how to provide for and rear their child. Should there be? Do you need a "daddy" for everything you do? Or...do you just think "those people over there" need a "daddy" for "their own good"? As if the concepts of child rearing and carrying a weapon are synonymous. One has been ingrained in our dna over millions of years while the other, in its current form, has onl…
/r/MensRights14/03/19 08:18 PM
1

First, "Conservatives" is a shit label. Elevate yourself above oversimplified, false dichotomies. I would if those same Conservatives didn't resort to the over used and pathetic "libtard" and "snowflake" insults. Individuals that shortsighted don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Second, how do you come by the knowledge that they didn't do research and go to the range with knowledgeable friends and/or family? I literally know zero gun owners who fit either description. at least 25% of the peop…
/r/MensRights14/03/19 07:56 PM
1

What shithead doesn't seek education and instruction? From my experience? Most Conservatives.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 07:03 PM
1

Not a twist, just facts. And representative of how you - meaning gun stroking conservatives - really shouldn't press too hard on the "founding fathers' intentions" point, else you may end up in a situation you don't want. Nothing the founding fathers put out remotely resembled the current environment of "buy a semi-automatic weapon, take absolutely no training, and feel free to carry it around in public whenever and wherever you want".
/r/MensRights14/03/19 06:09 PM
0

If you want to go into what the language in the 18th century meant you're just going to get pissed off. Because "To Bear Arms" in the 18th century meant, specifically, to bear arms in a militia or military for a country. It had nothing to do with carrying your own weapons or whatever other fantasy the right jacks off to at night. This is not in doubt or controversial among people who actually study 18th century linguistics. So don't come to me bitching about what "arms" meant to the founding fat…
/r/MensRights14/03/19 04:00 PM
0

Hurr durr the 2A is the only thing standing between me and China hurr durr. Get a fucking life.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 03:14 PM
1

Sounds like you didn't read his proposal.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 02:10 PM
0

It's not socialism. Not even close. It's so fucking annoying to see anything coming from "the government" labeled as socialist.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 02:10 PM
3

The accountants and lawyers are going to pay more in the new VAT than they receive in UBI, so it's a non-issue.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 02:09 PM
1

Are not willing to find work because now their losing benefits and aren't receiving extra? That's the current issue with our welfare system. There are cliffs where, if you make more money from a job you lose overall because of the loss of benefits. Under Yang's UBI, those benefits are replaced by a $1000/month no-strings-attached benefit. They don't get the welfare they're currently getting, they just get the $1,000. And that $1,000 isn't impacted by income whatsoever, so they aren't disincentiv…
/r/MensRights14/03/19 02:06 PM
-6

Neither is your fucking peeshooter. The defense against tyranny argument hasn't been valid since the end of the first world war.
/r/MensRights14/03/19 02:01 PM
-8

That's fucking rich. I'm a gun owner and lover, but the "last line of defense against tyranny" bullshit has got to go. Please tell me what your AR15 is going to do against a TOW missile lol
/r/MensRights14/03/19 01:59 PM
1

Oh fuck off with your incel bullshit.
/r/MensRights13/03/19 05:39 PM
1

I was merely stating that iv seen this happen "This" meaning OP's situation? No you haven't. And if you aren't talking about OP's situation, then gtfo. Your comment isn't relevant. it's a thing in Canada. If by "It" you're referring to non-continuation of contract employment, then no fucking shit it's a thing in Canada. It's a thing literally everywhere. That's the entire fucking purpose of contract employment, there's no commitment from any party aside from the terms of the contract. And additi…
/r/MensRights12/03/19 03:19 PM
0

And that has literally no bearing on the discussion at hand. OP was not a contract employee. So you're not wrong. You're just retarded.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 02:23 PM
1

Dude, yes it fucking is. It's a violation of the CHRA, plain and simple. You can keep spouting your bullshit "it's legal" until the fucking sun sets, but that doesn't mean anything. Show me a law that says you can fire a white man in order to hire a minority. Until you can, shut the fuck up.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 02:19 PM
0

Nobody is arguing that it happens. Sexual discrimination against men and women happens on a daily basis. It's still illegal.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 02:13 PM
4

No, you're full of shit. Affirmative action does not grant employers the right to fire white people just so they can hire more women, they're still protected by the CHRA. The EEA only applies to the hiring process and the reasonable accommodations process.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 02:07 PM
4

Either you're full of shit or you went with a bottom of the barrel lawyer. Or he just didn't want to take your case and fed you bullshit instead. In any case, you're wrong.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 01:30 PM
16

No, it's not.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 01:26 PM
5

Once again, affirmative action has nothing to do with this situation. Affirmative action can help in the hiring phase. Once you're hired, being fired because you're a white male isn't affirmative action. It's gender discrimination, and it's illegal.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 01:26 PM
3

Not that I disagree with you, but you can't claim "research" and then link from blogspot. Link the study that included the graphic.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 01:17 PM
2

And the right doesn't care about men's rights either, they've bought into the disposable man ideology hook, line, and sinker. All of the traditional bullshit they push is anti-male.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 01:15 PM
4

At work to, perfectly safe
/r/MensRights08/03/19 02:11 PM
11

Giving up control over, presumably, most of the family choices to someone else is just insane. It reeks of actual patriarchy circa 1920s. Even if you were a SAHM, that doesn't mean he should get final say in everything. Just as if he were a SAHD, you shouldn't get the final say in everything. A marriage is a partnership and having it be so glaringly one-sided isn't healthy.
/r/MensRights06/03/19 02:36 PM
3

Bad bot.
/r/MensRights06/03/19 02:33 PM
11

his word being ultimate law in the household Yikes.
/r/MensRights06/03/19 02:25 PM
3

Exactly. The pay is dogshit for what you're putting up with and risking.
/r/MensRights05/03/19 03:10 PM
0

It was downvoted because it was anti-trump, and (presumably) pro-transgender in the military. Neither of which are popular stances on this sub.
/r/MensRights05/03/19 03:09 PM
0

Wut. No. This sub is conservative. Always has been. It may be less conservative than the rest of the MRM, on account of being on Reddit. But it's not left, not by a long shot.
/r/MensRights20/02/19 11:29 PM
2

but they should be organized democratically like a worker cooperative. Again, not at all accurate. He believes that the middle and working classes should have decent wages that increase, as well as a decent standard of living. He's definitely pro-union. He's a solid proponent of worker's rights. But no, he doesn't believe that private companies should be worker cooperatives, although I'm sure he believes that those are better than traditional companies. Market socialism is a thing, but it's not …
/r/MensRights20/02/19 04:01 PM
0

7 years here. Sucks when your bullshit assumptions are wrong huh? That article you linked disproved your own bullshit stance LOL, and that's from a rag like that Kos. It's been over 30 years since he pushed those stances. He's tempered his views with age, as many people do. The article that you linked proves that with the quote: I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production. Come on. At least read your OWN articles you link.
/r/MensRights20/02/19 03:22 PM
-2

You're right. Not socialist. He's not advocating for community ownership of all means of production. By your definition of "socialist", the military is socialist lol
/r/MensRights20/02/19 03:05 PM
0

Yes, yes you can. There are many liberals who are not feminists - myself included. The fact that you can't distinguish between the two says more about you than the movement.
/r/MensRights20/02/19 02:35 PM
2

MR (the sub) heavily leans right. So I'm not surprised comments like this are popping up. Thankfully, outright partisan bs like this usually gets downvoted to oblivion.
/r/MensRights20/02/19 02:34 PM
0

How thick skulled do you have to be to actually consider Sanders a socialist? You have no idea what socialism is if you think that. Sanders himself seems to not understand the term either as he styles himself one despite NOT holding socialist views. He's a social democrat. A type of politician that exists in literally every western government on Earth. He's not a socialist.
/r/MensRights20/02/19 02:32 PM
0

They don't have one because they're talking out of their ass.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 04:32 AM
2

Yeah it's a shame that some people stoop that low. It really muddies the waters and makes it hard to have honest discussions when you have people like that running around.
/r/MensRights24/01/19 03:04 AM
1

As much as I detest HuffPo, they did publish a guest article written by a legit source: Dr. David Theo Goldberg, Director of the University of California Humanities Research Institute. Article here. Obama also clarified the difference between the two movements: “I know that there’s some who have criticized even the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ as if the notion is as if other lives don’t matter. We get ‘All Lives Matter’ or ‘Blue Lives Matter.’ I understand the point they’re trying to make. I thin…
/r/MensRights23/01/19 07:19 PM
30

While I hate the Gillette ad as much as the next guy, it's 100% wrong to attribute the success of this ad to "selling positivity". The only reason it's done as well as it has is due to the backlash from Gillettes ad. If the Gillette ad had never aired, this most likely wouldn't have even been found and posted to this sub, much less have gained anywhere near this much attention.
/r/MensRights21/01/19 02:37 AM
2

Because ALM is a counter-protest to BLM. It's not taken at its face value otherwise there wouldn't be an argument. ALM was created by people who wanted blacks in the US to shut up and stop complaining.
/r/MensRights18/01/19 07:05 PM
-3

Black nationalism != BLM, and conflating the two even casually does your argument no good. BLM, quite simply, is a movement bringing attention to the innocent black lives taken by police, because the general news outlets haven't cared. The BLM, and the backlash they're creating towards criminal cops, are the only reason these power-tripping sadists face any sort of repercussions for their actions. BLM != "black lives are more important than white lives", "cops lives don't matter at all", or any …
/r/MensRights18/01/19 04:24 PM
-2

Point = proven
/r/MensRights18/01/19 04:08 PM
0

Because they can't see past their bullshit dichotomy. Just ignore them.
/r/MensRights18/01/19 03:07 PM
-5

This sub is too conservative for there to be any sort of rational discourse over BLM, so you might as well stop.
/r/MensRights18/01/19 03:04 PM
3

You do realize that P&G is in pretty much everything right? You probably couldn't even list everything in your house that included P&G somewhere lol
/r/MensRights18/01/19 12:36 AM
11

boycott Proctor and Gamble Good luck lol
/r/MensRights17/01/19 05:19 PM
2

Feminists rarely (if ever) talk about toxic femininity, and use “toxic masculity” to mean “maleness is bad” more often than the rarified definition they (and you) insist on. I don't care how feminists use it, I'm not going to allow feminists to dictate the definitions of words. Just like I refuse to let them redefine racism. As terms go, that one is intended to be provocative and to be misused. And as often as I see people jump in to defend the term in communities like this sub, I never see anyo…
/r/MensRights15/01/19 07:31 PM
1

Not my fault that you play into the stereotype. How low testosterone. More stereotypical bullshit lol.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 07:28 PM
1

I'm not, actually. Crazy how you need to resort to ad-hominem when I simply asked you to prove what you said. I'm just saying you sound like them. Different types of bullshit all sound similar to me. Seriously, that smug assholery is incredibly irksome. Sorry not sorry. The burden of proof is on the one saying the claim, period. I don't understand how hard it is for you to understand that. The burden of proof is only on the one making the claim if the claim isn't common knowledge, period. If I m…
/r/MensRights15/01/19 07:25 PM
1

Man, you sound JUST like a Trump supporter. Got all butthurt because your daddy got called a sexist and a racist? Aww shucks. I don't understand how this is hard. It's not like instances of his bullshitery are hard to find. It's like you're asking me to provide proof that black people were enslaved, or that Facebook doesn't care about your privacy. Come on.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 07:08 PM
0

If you need proof that a community built to support a proven racist and misogynist is not racist and misogynist itself, then yes you are retarded. This isn't even a left vs right thing. This is a decent fucking human beings vs Trump cult thing. You can keep denying all day long, but the vast majority of the US and the world all see Trump and his cult for what it is.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 07:01 PM
3

NP!
/r/MensRights15/01/19 06:57 PM
-1

So you're actually retarded, got it.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 06:54 PM
-1

Proof of what? Autism? That's a colorfully worded expression of how retarded I consider that sub. Racism and sexism? If you need proof of that then I really don't care to continue this conversation. You can have the opposite opinion of him and his cultists followers, but I don't really think anything productive will come from our conversation.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 06:52 PM
2

I'm just commenting on the frequency those words come out of the mouths of people on those subreddits. It's pretty sad actually.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 06:49 PM
2

Pick Up Artists. Basically a sub dedicated to teaching guys how to pick up one night stands.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 06:47 PM
-4

Ah yes, someone who frequents /r/cringeanarchy, /r/shitpoliticssays, and /r/shitliberalssay calling someone a "tumblr commie feminist". How quaint.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 05:17 PM
0

...you have no idea what toxic masculinity refers to. It's not that men are inherently aggressive and dominant. It refers to a specific subset of emotions and behaviors that men can experience/portray. Toxic femininity also exists and is a subset of the emotions and behavior that women can experience/portray.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 04:32 PM
3

More tech and border agents for one. A healthy budget increase for the department that processes visas to combat the months-long visa process. Additional budget increases to speed up green card applications. Make it easy to live here legally. The biggest issue with the wall is that it is an expensive solution to a nearly nonexistent problem. Most illegal aliens get here legally on a visa and then just never leave. Most of them do so by air. The wall is nothing more than expensive campaign and eg…
/r/MensRights15/01/19 04:21 PM
-3

You're right. TRP, MGTOW, and PUA are all steaming piles of shit and should be avoided at all costs. They're toxic, highly misogynistic, and don't actually care about men's issues. T_D is just autism expressed in subreddit form, with a heavy dose of racism and sexism.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 04:18 PM
1

Making people in Wyoming worth 3.6 Californians is the very definition of inequality. And quite with the fear mongering on tyranny of majority. That has literally nothing to do with the election of the President. We do not have a direct democracy, the people do not vote on the laws, and changing the Presidential election to popular vote would not change that. The electoral college does not provide protection from anything. It's no more than an antiquated tool of inequality. Period.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 07:08 AM
1

Why should the urbanites count for 1/3 of a rural person? Sorry that equality bugs you so much.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 07:02 AM
1

I don't know how to lay this out for you more plainly: The states as organizational bodies don't fucking matter. The people in those states would have their voices heard the same as everyone else. As it should be.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 06:45 AM
0

So only people who live in America would get a say in what happens in America? Sounds good.
/r/MensRights04/01/19 02:24 PM
1

You say that, but your boy would have lost the election if that had been the case.
/r/MensRights04/01/19 02:23 PM
0

The whole point of the Electoral college is to give smaller states a voice as well. Fuck the "states" as a organizational body. I don't remember giving tracts of land the right to vote. We give people the right to vote, and one American is not worth more than another. One person, one vote, period. That, and cities are often left leaning, which sadly go hand in hand with voter fraud as we saw in the last election. HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh man. Bullshit "states rights" argument? Check. Random "What about H…
/r/MensRights04/01/19 04:59 AM
2

The way it currently is, yes.
/r/MensRights04/01/19 04:55 AM
1

So tyranny of the minority is better? Ok.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 11:18 PM
1

Sorry that I care more about 100+ million disenfranchised American voters than I do about some scare tactic about CHINURR. Please, get over yourself.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 11:17 PM
0

This is tin foil hat level crazy. Just because the orangutan in chief lost the popular vote doesn't mean the opposing votes were controlled by the UK. Just as his votes weren't controlled by Russia.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 11:09 PM
0

Racism, nice. The Asian continent has literally no bearing on this conversation, but it's nice that you've proven how fucking retarded you are.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 11:07 PM
0

Thank god though. otherwise all the big cities would decide everything for America. Patently false. The parties are very close to 50/50, regardless of location of the voters. The national popular vote would result in very similar results in the Presidential races, but would have resulted in over 100 million Americans not being disenfranchised and a few times throughout history the race would have gone the other way.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 11:07 PM
1

I'm saying the inability of states to split their electoral college votes is the root of the problem. If you're already splitting the electoral votes then you're not fulfilling the purpose of the electoral college. At that point you're just doing popular vote with an extra step. electoral votes = House seats + Senate seats Yeah, I'm aware. That doesn't take away from what i'm saying. So your solution is to give them less of a voice? My solution wouldn't give the "states" as intangible objects a …
/r/MensRights03/01/19 11:03 PM
-1

Man, you're fucking retarded. Counties =/= people. You cannot enforce total subjugation of 95% of the population with only 5% of the population. Even in the 1700s slaves only accounted for 18% of the population.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 10:05 PM
1

It's not just slavery, it's total subjugation of 95% of the country to 5% of it. Not gonna happen unless you remove the ability of the people to vote... which would remove the democracy. Trying to draw a similarity between the 1700s and some dystopian future is hilariously misguided, but please go ahead.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 09:22 PM
1

Considering the fact that they interviewed dozens of the professors, some of which were not her allies, and they resoundingly refuted the claim, I'd say it's much more than just the official story.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 09:19 PM
0

If it were a republican that claimed it, then you'd have someone on the left saying (less overtly racist) shit the same as Drumpf is doing now. My point is that it doesn't matter. Everyone has stories from their family way back that may or may not pan out to be true. She was raised to believe she was part Cherokee, so what?
/r/MensRights03/01/19 09:18 PM
-1

Why should the 49% of Democratic voters in Florida get zero say and have their electoral votes go to the 51% of Republican voters. That's what happens now, not sure what you're saying with this With a National Popular Vote, the 49% of voters actually get their voice heard on the national stage The real problem is that very few states (iirc only Colorado and Nebraska) split their electoral votes so it's winner take all even if the winner barely wins. In a popular vote system, the electoral votes …
/r/MensRights03/01/19 09:10 PM
2

Oh please, as if anything close to resembling that could form in a democratic society.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 07:05 PM
-2

So your assertion is based purely off your own bullshit and has no backing in reality, got it.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 05:06 PM
2

The number of counties doesn't matter. States select electors based on State-wide popular vote of candidates. Why should the voters in buttfuck Kansas matter more per vote than the voters in large cities?
/r/MensRights03/01/19 05:05 PM
-4

Did you even read the articles I cited? Her race was never considered by the hiring committee of over 60 Harvard professors.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 04:11 PM
-2

We're 64% of the way there.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 03:58 PM
0

Her claim to heritage had absolutely no bearing on her hire at Harvard. It didn't even come up.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 03:48 PM
-2

No she was not. She was never a diversity hire and it's honestly sad that you people keep clinging to that.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 03:45 PM
16

Counties are useless as a measure, and pasting them on a map and saying "look at all the red" means nothing. "Most" of the country can only mean the popular vote, in which case no, most of the country certainly is not behind him. He won most of the electoral votes despite handily losing the popular vote, which is an issue with the electoral college system and not indicative of his national support.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 03:38 PM
11

It's a nothing statement, bud. He didn't lay out any actionable items, didn't state what was done wrong last time or what will be "better" next time. It's a politician's response, pure and simple.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 03:26 PM
-4

It's been proven pretty handily that at no point in Warren's career has her claim of native ancestry proven to be a boon. She's never applied for or been granted tribal rights and she wasn't a "diversity hire". She simply claimed that it was a family history thing. She's already announced that she's running, so yes I'm sure it'll come up again. And it'll get put down again. And neither side will see the truth and instead only see what they want to see depending on what they want to believe of he…
/r/MensRights03/01/19 03:24 PM
-12

Not irrelevant to the comment I was replying to. It's evidence to Trump's unpopularity even on election day when his personality cult was in full swing.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 03:20 PM
-25

Why? Because a voter in buttfuck Wyoming shouldn't be more valuable than a voter in every other state in the union. Not to mention the fact that it completely disenfranchises off-party voters in heavy red or blue states. Conservatives in California (millions of them) and liberals in Texas (millions of them) are just shit outta luck in the current system. Any voting system that allows the election of a President with less than a quarter of the popular vote is an inherently flawed system, period. …
/r/MensRights03/01/19 03:17 PM
15

What? No. Did you read the article? He stated: I certainly apologize to any woman who felt she was not treated appropriately, and of course if I run we will do better the next time Basically, "I'm not admitting to shit, here's a canned apology in case something did happen. [insert general platitude about doing better]". It's a perfect response.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 02:35 PM
123

Trump got elected because the DNC shoved Hillary down our throats and the American people bucked at it. And he STILL lost the popular vote.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 02:27 PM
0

What? They have nothing that will hurt Warren, aside from policy disagreements. The Native American thing was blown out of proportion as everything is in the news, and there hasn't been any other embarrassment or issue with her to date. Hate on her positions all you want, but so far she's the cleanest candidate we've had in a while.
/r/MensRights03/01/19 02:26 PM
9

I like this bot. I wonder if you could set it to auto-downvote as well? Or if that's against the TOS.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 05:11 PM
1

TBH, I don't really know any men-only slut shaming myths. Even talking with my very feminist friends, it's always seemed to be a mostly women problem.
/r/MensRights27/12/18 02:01 PM
1

I think I'll take multiple verses over a single one, thanks. I'm not advocating for it obviously. But saying that you're damned if you seek circumcision, especially based off of one passage by Paul when he contradicts himself in Romans, is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 03:38 PM
-1

It says, very specifically and in multiple places, that circumcision (the existence or nonexistence thereof) doesn't matter.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 03:18 PM
-5

No, it does not condemn it. It's pretty clear that it's not required in Christianity, but it's not the same as condemning.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 01:47 PM
1

He's a conservative, so probably.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 01:38 PM
5

countries that have banned circumcision There are no such countries. Some old examples regarding anti-religious orders in soviet/communist countries exist, but that's not what you're looking for. There is nowhere on Earth that circumcision for non-medical reasons has been banned. Iceland tried it just recently and got blocked on religious grounds by the (250) Jewish people living there.
/r/MensRights26/12/18 01:35 PM
1

And unless it's joint custody, that's bullshit Considering the fact that joint custody is 45% of custody decisions, that's a pretty damn good bet. just like alimony being set to allow the recipient to maintain their pre-divorce lifestyle is bullshit Alimony is only awarded in 15% of cases, and in any case is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. isn't it convenient that forcing a "comparable lifestyle in the two households" also vastly improves the recipient parent's lifestyle, Cry me…
/r/MensRights19/12/18 03:49 AM
1

You don't understand math. Or taxes. Maybe both. The $120K is after tax. I even explained it in the comment. After you account for taxes, support, etc., etc. it's more like 33% of income. He's a millionaire. I'd be surprised if he pays any taxes, much less all the taxes on that $120k. The kid doesn't get to decide who they spend time with, that's determined by the court. Says someone who has no idea what divorce/custody is like. Once the kid is over they definitely have a large say in who they s…
/r/MensRights18/12/18 04:24 AM
2

but I don't think that's what "numerous" means. Shove your subjective definitions up your pedantic asshole. The income share model is becoming increasingly popular (now used by 40 states) and includes a chart that judges, as a practical matter, aren't likely to deviate from. Immaterial to the discussion at hand. And I don't think you understand (actually, I know you don't understand) the net effect of the $120K. After support, taxes, mandatory retirement, healthcare, expenses, etc., you're talki…
/r/MensRights18/12/18 03:52 AM
0

Apparently you missed the part where I said that it's not just specifically for the child's needs. It's to support a lifestyle somewhat comparable in both households. And at $120k/year, I'm sure that that's happening.
/r/MensRights18/12/18 03:42 AM
5

There are numerous ways to calculate child support. Income share, income percentage, and the melson model are all separate ways to calculate child support. And of course the court has the discretion in most (all?) states to diverge from the state-sanctioned model. And if he's making high-six low-seven figures, then no, $120k isn't an imposition and he can cry his way to the bank. The purpose of child support isn't specifically to support the child's needs. It's to provide a quality of life somew…
/r/MensRights17/12/18 10:22 PM
-1

Of course he doesn't, he's full of shit.
/r/MensRights17/12/18 08:47 PM
7

There are numerous ways to calculate child support, and in any of them the only way a grant of $10k/month is happening is if your "coworker" is filthy rich. That's $120k/yr. Either he's full of shit, you're full of shit, or your ex-coworker is Deion Sanders
/r/MensRights17/12/18 08:44 PM
2

There's a huge difference between offering female characters and putting in fucking dragons. There is zero reason to be upset that a series of games that lets you eject from a helicopter in mid air, snipe the pilot out of a fighter jet, and then board the jet and take off in the pilots chair, allows female characters on the front lines of WWII. The game is not realism. At best, it's semi-realism, and even that's not accurate. Get the fuck over it and find another, more relevant reason to bitch a…
/r/MensRights17/12/18 06:28 AM
0

If women make less and produce the same, companies in a capitalist society would only hire women. This assumes that all actors in the system act perfectly logically, which is a fallacy. People being assholes is what accounts for the single-digit percent difference that still remains in the "gender pay gap" when you control for industry, experience, and company.
/r/MensRights30/11/18 10:23 PM
1

Once again, completely different. When you do business with the public, you must obey equal opportunity laws. In the cake case you're mentioning, the state of Colorado included sexual orientation in those laws. The act of giving money to someone for free is not regulated anywhere except for tax purposes.
/r/MensRights29/11/18 03:25 PM
2

Please don't try to compare freely giving someone money and operating a public business. They are not anywhere close to the same thing.
/r/MensRights29/11/18 05:15 AM
11

It IS sexist and racist. It's also perfectly legal, because people can give money to any class or demographic of person that they want.
/r/MensRights29/11/18 02:34 AM
2

I'll take your refusal to answer as acknowledgement that you don't have an answer.
/r/MensRights21/11/18 09:33 PM
2

They advised me as such: Suuuuuure they did. And don't think I haven't noticed how you've avoided the MGM statement every time I've made it. Which is it gonna be? Either doctors' advice is always right or it's not always right.
/r/MensRights21/11/18 09:03 PM
2

I TRIED THEIR ADVICE AND IT WORKED YOU FUCKING RETAREDEDEDEDED. ITS REAL LIVE SCIENCE JESUS FUCK You wanna know who discovered that science? Scientists. And you wanna know how that science got out to the doctors? Publication in peer reviewed journals. The same ones you're dismissing. Dipshits like you aren't worth the time. The study will have zero impact on me and frankly I'm not cutting fish or chicken out of my diet (and probably not cows or pigs because they taste amazing). If you don't read…
/r/MensRights21/11/18 08:39 PM
2

So somehow you believe that claiming that Dr Buttfuck claimed X, and that's good enough without evidence, isn't an appeal to authority? Interesting. I've never met someone as retarded as you. The trustworthiness of the source matters. Of course. But how do you know what the source is? You didn't even read the abstracts lol. I don't give a fuck if the study says one thing: if my licensed doctor and licensed dietitian disagree, and I try their advice, and the advice works, guess what? You're just …
/r/MensRights21/11/18 08:28 PM
1

Oh god you are serious aren't you? Yes. Science > rando doctors' opinion. If you're so butthurt about it, find studies that back your doctors' stance. Show me your medical degree now. If you having short of a MD–PhD then you can shut the fuck up. Nice appeal to authority!
/r/MensRights21/11/18 08:15 PM
2

my doctor and nutritionists are "anecdotes" Yes. That's literally the definition of anecdotal. And btw, THAT is an appeal to authority. while some moron on reddit is trustworthy just because he knows how to Google medical studies from a government website. They may not be trustworthy. I don't really give a fuck about them. The studies however, are. Great, we should all stop seeing our normal doctors and just search medical research sites and disregard EVERYTHING our local doctors have told us. N…
/r/MensRights21/11/18 08:12 PM
1

You should believe peer reviewed studies. Considering that doctors aren't scientists and a major part of their training is 'do whatever the lead doctor tells you to do, regardless of what you may have learned in medical school', I would trust scientists first. Doctors are technicians that use scientific advancements to deliver medical therapies to patients, but they are much more susceptible to being wrong and for doing something because of 'tradition'. Unless you think that circumcision is tota…
/r/MensRights21/11/18 08:06 PM
2

In every single person? No you fuckhead. No reputable study is going to use a sample size of 1. But large enough sample sizes are going to be consistent for every group. And this study has had that peer review? So if I showed this all to my doctors and nutritionists they'd tell me to stop eating fish? Studies, and yes. That's part of the peer review process. Disagreeing is a part of science. Science is never fixed and is always changing, always being updated, and is always being challenged. Insu…
/r/MensRights21/11/18 07:59 PM
2

...that's what a study is. He's not saying "Doctor Smith said X therefore X is correct". A study does not need additional supporting evidence because they are evidence in the first place. What makes them evidence is that they are published, verifiable, and repeatable. So that other scientists around the world in any country can repeat the same study and come to the same results. This is the foundation of scientific advancement in the modern world. If you disagree, then you're disagreeing with li…
/r/MensRights21/11/18 07:39 PM
2

It seems you lake reading comprehension fuckwad: without any other supporting evidence offered Guess what a study is? Supporting evidence.
/r/MensRights21/11/18 07:34 PM
2

lmao he says not to listen to medical experts You mean... like the ones publishing those studies that you're deriding?
/r/MensRights21/11/18 07:33 PM
2

Citing a source is not an appeal to authority. You don't even know what those words mean an yet you're using them as if they support your argument LOL. An appeal to authority is "My name is Dragonfireheart, and I'm the king of autism, therefore what I say has more merit that anyone else", not "The data from this verifiable, repeatable study shows X" Which is all the more reason to not assume they are true or correct. What? No. That does not in any way follow logically.
/r/MensRights21/11/18 07:32 PM
2

Please show me where an appeal to authority was made. Let me know when we can compress the thoughts of medical experts and convert them into a link to spoon feed you then I'll share my doctors/nutritionists thoughts. Ah yes, the "I don't have to source my arguments, I'm special" bullshit. Just about as bad as the middle school kid whose girlfriend "goes to another school". You know what doesn't matter? Thoughts. Of anyone. You know what does matter? Data from verifiable, repeatable experiments, …
/r/MensRights21/11/18 07:25 PM
2

I haven't appealed to any authority and neither has anyone on this thread. That's something that idiots - ie you - don't understand. Just because a study is published on a government website does not mean that the government conducted the research. The National Library of Medicine collects all sorts of publications related to medicine. Literally millions of publications. You saying "hurr durr, it's a .gov link" is just as fucking autistic as someone saying "Wait, you read a book in the library?!…
/r/MensRights21/11/18 07:23 PM
1

Nope, just stating a fact.
/r/MensRights21/11/18 07:14 PM
4

You're an idiot and have no idea how scientific research is conducted and published.
/r/MensRights21/11/18 02:43 PM
2

YEC and the like are overall hugely conservative. Conservatives don't believe in the patriarchy (at least, not to the extent that feminists do). So the above quote would rarely leave someone's mouth unironically.
/r/MensRights14/11/18 03:38 PM
8

No, they wouldn't?
/r/MensRights14/11/18 03:33 PM
4

Nah, it's just lame ass politicizing of non-political bullshit. He's perpetuating the dumbass "Us vs Them" shit that's tearing this country apart. He's a fucking idiot.
/r/MensRights09/11/18 08:04 PM
12

Obviously a fragile conservative
/r/MensRights09/11/18 03:06 PM
6

DAE EMOJIS ARE FOR LIBTARDS?!?! Lol, fuck off
/r/MensRights09/11/18 03:05 PM
12

my state has some rather bs gate keeping laws Like being educated apparently.
/r/MensRights01/11/18 04:55 PM
-1

Because enforcing the clearly laid out rules = liberalism?
/r/MensRights12/10/18 04:29 PM
11

So "rape" requires penetration, but "sexual assault" does not? According to the FBI definition, yes. It seems pretty obvious that "non consensual sex" would be considered rape regardless of perp/victim gender. Agreed, and according to some states that's the case. The federal government is behind the times.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 03:49 PM
8

so it excludes females as the perpetrators This is incorrect. Females can and are perpetrators of rape under this definition if they penetrate a man using an object. Obviously, that's not as common as "made to penetrate", but it is there.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 02:47 PM
26

The definition given to you by the other user is only partially correct. "Rape" and "Sexual Assault" do have federal definitions, and those federal definitions put "made to penetrate" in the "sexual assault" category. These laws were revised in 2012 to include male victims of penetrative rape (prior to that, only women could be "raped"), but they still have some work to do. But every State also makes their own definitions, and in some states "made to penetrate" is considered rape.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 02:44 PM
1

Did you seriously think this would get deleted, in this sub? Come on man. On the subject of Kavanaugh, I think he should be investigated as Congress asked him repeatedly. If he wants due process, that process is going to include an investigation. He repeatedly refused, and now an investigation is going to happen anyway. I normally don't go for the "If you have nothing to hide, then just agree to the investigation" tripe, because I'm a huge privacy advocate. In this instance though, he's trying t…
/r/MensRights30/09/18 05:43 AM
9

Either way. Like I said, he's not losing his job. He may be blocked from picking up a new one, but you have no rights aside from equal opportunity when it comes to new employment. And character is 100% a valid concern for a position of public trust.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 05:38 PM
42

If this is about Kavanaugh, it's important to note that he's not losing his job. He may just not be picked up for a new one. If I were in the process of hiring someone and there were sexual assault or rape charges in process against them, I'm probably not hiring them. And that's not even taking into account the fact that this isn't just a job, it's a lifetime appointment in the highest judicial seat in the country.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 04:32 PM
2

Nice moving the goalposts there shithead. This conversation is over. If you can't even play by the rules you establish then you're right, this conversation isn't going to go anywhere. And that's without even getting into the fact that your goalposts were bullshit to begin with lol.
/r/MensRights24/09/18 11:22 PM
1

I mean, sure? And of course, your requirements are bullshit. Because you know damn good and well how the justice system works, where defense lawyers will haggle for a lesser charge if the defendant agrees to plead guilty. Happens all the time. Plus, false accusations cover not only accusations of RAPE but also of SEXUAL ASSAULT, the latter of which is horribly under-sentenced.
/r/MensRights24/09/18 08:31 PM
9

They're typically referred to as "baseless" accusations, and the percentage is much higher than that of reported false rape accusations.
/r/MensRights24/09/18 11:47 AM
-4

So, a few months then? Because if you're really going to complain about the prison sentence length for false rape accusations, you really shouldn't compare it to actual rape accusations, because as a society we're horrible at punishing that behavior.
/r/MensRights24/09/18 11:45 AM
3

No idea what acronym "LPS" literally stands for, but it seems to be about paternal abortion.
/r/MensRights18/09/18 07:40 PM
-5

It's only that number right now because the cheeto fuck thinks that that's a success and said so on national television.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 02:25 AM
14

Completely unrelated, but is "major" really a term for an adult (ie, non minor)? Not judging, I've just never heard it used that way before.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 04:39 AM
2

Both of them lol. I've literally never encountered anyone this fucking autistic who actually spent time in the military. They all get booted during training or 'medically' discharged soon after.
/r/MensRights03/09/18 04:07 PM
0

No you autistic fuck nugget. I brought up that the only time it's relevant is when discussing the military. And I brought up the fact that I'm a vet because I was discussing the military - in that military members and only military members can call each other boots.
/r/MensRights03/09/18 02:47 AM
1

Dude, a civilian calling a military member or vet a boot is like a white person using a derogatory term for a black man. It doesn't work. You have no clue wtf you're talking about kid.
/r/MensRights03/09/18 02:46 AM
2

Hey dumbass, in this guy's case, it's actually relevant to mention his service. Only vets or military members can call other vets or military members boots. Because we, having been through the same shit, can tell when someone's being a goddamned boot.
/r/MensRights03/09/18 02:02 AM
1

So do windows taste better in the morning or the evening?
/r/MensRights03/09/18 01:55 AM
1

Funny how you're claiming I'm butthurt, while you've got enough sand in your vagina to build a fucking castle out of. Both I and /u/Ragnrok are vets. As vets (once again, I'm only saying this because it's relevant and not virtue signalling like that window licking fuckwad) we see enough fucking boots making the rest of us look bad and using their status as evidence in an argument. /u/AnotherDAM is just another dumbass fucking boot who never grew up despite the efforts of his superiors.
/r/MensRights03/09/18 01:53 AM
2

Boots gonna boot. STFU and go lick a window somewhere.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 04:55 PM
1

It's not a relevant fact. You know when someone's military service is relevant? In a discussion about the military. That's about it. Only idiot fucking boots use the "As a military member" or "As a veteran" bullshit lines.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 04:54 PM
0

For real lol. Complains about virtue signaling and then proceeds to do the same damn thing lol
/r/MensRights02/09/18 03:26 AM
2

Lol you haven't "savaged" anyone. All you're doing is repeating the same bullshit that's been refuted time and again. Once again, I'm just laughing at your incompetence.
/r/MensRights28/08/18 12:55 PM
2

I'm not seeking to refute your "claims". I've had this discussion enough times on this sub to know that people with these opinions are pants-on-head retarded and not worth my time. If you wanna go against fact then go right ahead. I'll just stand here laughing.
/r/MensRights28/08/18 01:56 AM
2

Oh look, there's another one.
/r/MensRights28/08/18 12:22 AM
-2

The ability to marry who they wanted for one.
/r/MensRights27/08/18 06:04 PM
2

I'd say it's true based on the complete lack of self determination for women. Men didn't have much in the way of self determination for most of history, but they had more than women did.
/r/MensRights27/08/18 06:00 PM
3

Don't even bother man. There are numerous people in this sub, idiots like this guy and /u/MythofFeminism (or however you spell his dumbass name), who absolutely refuse to believe that women were ever disenfranchised or treated like property. According to these idiots, life has been just swell for women for the entire history of the world lol.
/r/MensRights27/08/18 05:22 PM
5

Love is bullshit. She's just disappointed that she isn't getting your paycheck any more. Anyone who says they love you is trying to get something from you, and if you believe them, then you are a bit of a rube. This is not /r/MGTOW. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights23/08/18 01:06 PM
2

I wouldn't put too much effort in to these idiots. They can't tell the difference between the MRA and MGTOW.
/r/MensRights14/08/18 09:07 PM
-4

This isn't /r/MGTOW, fuck off dude
/r/MensRights14/08/18 09:05 PM
2

LOL why would I present proof, when you've already stated that the history books are just fiction? And the idea that women "planned" the sinking of the titanic, when it was men who designed it, men who built it, and men at the helm, is just plain retarded.
/r/MensRights12/08/18 07:17 PM
3

Once again, the entirety of the female side of our species did not collectively decide to forgo dictating their own lives. Women in less modern societies don't decide that they want to be traded like property. These things did and do occur, and denying them is idiotic.
/r/MensRights12/08/18 07:41 AM
3

LOL, yes. Women, collectively, over centuries of history, all decided that being able to dictate their own lives was somehow overrated and just collectively decided to work through their husbands via sex. Dude, you're a fucking space cadet. Take that shit back to /r/incels or /r/mgtow. This is not one of those subs.
/r/MensRights12/08/18 07:35 AM
3

So your stance is... women somehow... controlled everything? For all of history? And chose to be disenfranchised for almost the entirety of human history? Lol, ok kid.
/r/MensRights12/08/18 07:16 AM
3

What? What the fuck are you even talking about? How does that have any bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand?
/r/MensRights12/08/18 06:26 AM
3

Yes it is. I can't believe you actually have to have this spelled out for you. The government actually had the ability to do that. Women had 0 power in government. They literally could do nothing. To believe otherwise isn't just plain misogyny, it's blatant dismissal of history.
/r/MensRights12/08/18 06:17 AM
2

No, there is no conspiracy. The entire line of thought is completely and totally idiotic, and sounds like something Alex Jones would say.
/r/MensRights12/08/18 06:09 AM
4

And? It's completely ludicrous to imply that women as a whole had anything to do with wars up until very recently. Men had complete control over the government and the military. Women didn't "make" their husbands and sons go off and die, and I'm 100% certain they would have preferred they not leave at all.
/r/MensRights12/08/18 06:06 AM
3

It's a sub with 185k subscribers. Low effort shit like this will always get voted to the top.
/r/MensRights12/08/18 05:55 AM
3

Lol you can't actually be serious
/r/MensRights12/08/18 05:54 AM
6

I'm saving this comment. Not because I agree. I think you're fucking batshit insane. I'm saving it because your batshit insane comment, and the appropriate response it received, is a perfect example to show to people when they claim that "/r/mensrights is a misogynist shithole" or something similar. To answer your comment directly: what you consider to be "appropriate" for a woman to work doesn't mean jack shit. A family can decide on its own what works for them. If that means the man stays home…
/r/MensRights31/07/18 01:33 PM
4

I don't know anyone personally that actually defends the 76% bullshit anymore. It's pretty well and truly proven false. And that includes feminist friends of mine lol
/r/MensRights31/07/18 01:26 PM
-4

Definitely
/r/MensRights28/07/18 04:47 AM
1

That's what you would like to think. But if left up to the French government, that's not the case.
/r/MensRights18/07/18 03:08 PM
-1

Hence, children will not fall into an impoverished state such as homelessness, the way adults will HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh MAN that was good. You had me going for a while there. Tell me, did you make that shit up yourself? You're good. Man, how fucking ignorant do you have to be to actually believe that? In case you weren't aware, the courts are very unwilling to separate a child from a willing parent (assuming that parent is female). Unless there is some reason they are deemed unfit (ie, drug…
/r/MensRights18/07/18 05:16 AM
-1

So you're saying that because kids don't own property, they can't possibly live in run down shitholes, be malnourished, or generally be in poverty? Man, it takes some fucking serious levels of willful ignorance to really believe that.
/r/MensRights18/07/18 04:50 AM
3

If parenthood is determined "by society" and not by biology, then it wouldn't matter if you were shooting blanks or not. You'd still be on the hook.
/r/MensRights18/07/18 04:43 AM
-1

Wait, are you seriously saying that kids aren't impoverished? What weird fantasy land do you live in? If the adults are in poverty, the fucking kids are in poverty. And divorce impoverishes adults, many times. You can disagree with the studies about where child support goes, but at the end of the day you can't disagree that impoverished parents = impoverished kids.
/r/MensRights18/07/18 04:41 AM
1

Definitely. And from the perspective of "erasing men's coerced sacrifice", there's no real difference between the two. We can get into discussion about differences in game mechanics sure. But that's unrelated to the discussion at hand.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 06:30 PM
-7

Because there are soooo many differences between CoD and BF.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 03:35 PM
-14

Totally against MGM. But really, "the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis"? Lol come on. I'm 150% positive that distinction belongs to the glans. Movements are weakened when parts of their arguments are bullshit.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 03:56 PM
2

Yes they do, and yes her actions qualify as it. But she still was not charged with it.
/r/MensRights03/07/18 02:19 AM
0

Dude, the vast majority of what the Navy does: Can be done by another branch Is a relic of the past, or Can be done with a much smaller force I get it, you don't want to give up your toys. But we shouldn't have to keep paying for an old, outdated force just because it's the way it used to be done.
/r/MensRights02/07/18 10:19 PM
0

You lack some serious reading comprehension. The USAF is better equipped to protect our interests and, if another D-Day-like event were to occur, would be there much faster than any other branch and could eliminate 95% of the enemy with ease. But once again, D-Day will never happen in modern times. Much of the Navy is a relic of conventional warfare, which is nearly obsolete.
/r/MensRights02/07/18 09:24 PM
0

lol I'm a sailor bud. And? The goal for the Navy isn't simply protecting our coasts, it's protecting our interests. That means we have to police and control all of the oceans and be ready for another D-day at a moments notice. A job that is done much easier - and cheaper - by the USAF. And that's of course completely disregarding the fact that there will never again be another conventional war with a nation on par with us. Especially none of the nuclear powers. D-Day will never happen again, bec…
/r/MensRights02/07/18 08:39 PM
0

Lol, triple the strength of the next country's Navy and we're 'struggling'. Get out of here with that bullshit. You have no fucking clue what you're on about. Not only is our Navy larger than any other country by sheer size, our effectiveness is an even larger gap. AND the US Navy is the second strongest air force in the world. We could do with some downsizing. Maybe get over your 'murica boner and look at things from a logical perspective?
/r/MensRights02/07/18 08:17 PM
0

All 3 of the major branches are oversized. Not the marines, they're already running on spit and hope. If the military reduced the Army, Air Force, and Navy by half but stood up a small, elite cyber warfare branch, we would be better off both in a financial sense as well as a security sense.
/r/MensRights02/07/18 06:40 PM
-1

Our nations defense is a priority. Defending against outside attacks is a priority. Doing everything we can to make sure enemy combatants do not enter our border is a priority. A) Duh B) We are still way overspending on these activities You can fund the military (at a reduced size) and still guarantee our nation's safety without spending the ludicrous amount of money that we do.
/r/MensRights02/07/18 06:10 PM
1

Lol, deflecting the points and going on about someone completely unrelated to the discussion at hand (not to mention completely wrong), because you realize you're losing this argument. Classic. A) You're still incorrect. According to Montana, that was rape. B) The fact that I'm "barely active" on this sub comes from being an Egalitarian, and not a woman-hating man child like many here. I have a very strict view on egalitarianism, so much so that I'm not really at home in either MRA or Feminist c…
/r/MensRights29/06/18 07:12 PM
0

Then why isn't she being charged with rape? Because the DA doesn't have the balls to do it? Because the DA doesn't think he'll get the conviction for that? Other reasons that neither you nor I have any clue about? if it was rape, she'd be charged with rape. Lol, sure. And I'm sure every single person who's ever committed a crime was charged with exactly the crime that they committed. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Are you just a blue-piller trying to convince people there's …
/r/MensRights29/06/18 06:47 PM
0

"Intercourse" isn't defined as a legal term in Montana law. Even if it was, and even if your definition of "penis or object in the mouth, anus, or vagina" was included in Montana law, 45-5-503 would still classify her act as rape. Because the definition of "intercourse" has nothing to do with consent. The law, as written, says that she committed rape. Period.
/r/MensRights29/06/18 06:38 PM
0

No, that is incorrect. Montana law says very plainly, if a person has intercourse with someone without their consent, it's rape. Nowhere in section 45-5-503 does it say penetrate.
/r/MensRights29/06/18 06:30 PM
1

Montana or Minnesota? Either way, defining intercourse as "penis or object in mouth, anus, or vagina" is the correct definition. What's important is that the definition of rape in Montana doesn't specify that the act of penetration without consent is rape, merely the intercourse itself. This definition allows men to be victims as well.
/r/MensRights29/06/18 02:00 PM
4

Yeah, according to Montana law that was definitely rape. But of course the people here don't want to hear about that.
/r/MensRights28/06/18 08:52 PM
113

This is nearly 100% incorrect. The laws for what defines rape vary by state. The FBI can't unilaterally tell every 'sub-law-enforcement agency' what is or is not rape. In the case of Montana, this very much is rape. Montana code 45-5-503: (1) A person who knowingly has sexual intercourse without consent with another person commits the offense of sexual intercourse without consent. If the DA doesn't charge her with Rape, it's not because the FBI defined it differently. ADDITIONALLY: the link you …
/r/MensRights28/06/18 08:46 PM
1

I mean, I'm not banned, so that's objectively false. There's probably a crusading mod or 3 in that sub that's doing all the banning.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 09:11 PM
1

So she does one good thing and that makes her "fucking awesome" (their words, not yours obviously)? Credit where it's due, but she's still a fucking idiot lol
/r/MensRights20/05/18 05:38 PM
3

Oh man. Let me guess, he was born in Kenya too? Dude, Infowars hasn't done you any favors lol. You look like a complete and total idiot.
/r/MensRights20/05/18 05:34 PM
2

A) the fact that you have to use his middle name in order to find something to discredit him with says a lot. B) Betsy Devos is, objectively, a terrible human being as well as generally a fucking idiot.
/r/MensRights20/05/18 05:52 AM
2

That is so incredibly incorrect that I'm astounded someone actually believes it.
/r/MensRights20/05/18 02:20 AM
1

You purposefully blind yourself to what's right in front of you. Nearly every woman you see would probably consider herself in some way a feminist. Do you see every single woman out there screaming hate speech at men? Picketing men's health clinics (where you can find them)? No. And that's because the vast majority of feminists just want equality for women, in very much the same way that you want equality for men.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 10:44 PM
2

The fact that members of the MRM can express themselves freely is the price to pay for not going down the road of feminist communities, where anyone not following the narrative very closely gets attacked and censored. 100% agreed. There is some serious hivemind bullshit going on in feminism. So I believe in men's rights, I support equality for men and women, but I won't join a movement of any kind. I'm also of this same mindset. I consider myself a strict egalitarian and leave it at that.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 10:41 PM
1

It's not an issue of opinion. Legally, you only have freedom from government censorship. We may believe that freedom of speech should be extended further, but that's a different conversation altogether. Then you get in to the realm of the government forcing a company to give someone a platform.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 03:29 PM
3

More than you apparently. You don't have right to free speech on a company's platform. The only right you have to free speech is freedom from government censorship.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 02:18 AM
1

how many examples can you show in which more feminists fought for mens rights than against? They don't, and I never said that they should or do. Why should they, when the purpose of the movement is to fight for women's rights?
/r/MensRights18/05/18 08:34 PM
3

Nice straw man. I never once defended the cartoon maker. But go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe shithead.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 06:00 PM
-3

And there's another issue with the MRM. Politicizing it and making it a Left vs Right issue. It's not a Left/Right issue, it's a human issue. There are many MRA's who wouldn't piss on Trump if he was on fire, and trying to act like you have to have an (R) next to your name in order to be a Real Men's Right's ActivistTM is bullshit.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 03:02 PM
7

1) You obviously have no idea what the MRM is about. 2) Why come here if you don't understand it and are just going to talk shit? Your life must be quite empty if this is what you do on Fridays.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 01:51 PM
10

Sounds like you don't know what free speech is.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 01:47 PM
7

It's really not. This sub posts a LOT of the worst of feminism, in part because many who are driven to this sub have suffered greatly at the hands of some shit women. But sexism exists, and having a movement to combat that isn't opposed to mens rights. Nothing about feminism is diametrically opposed to things like banning circumcision, eliminating/gender neutralizing the draft, tackling men's health issues (especially mental health), and most other men's rights issues. This is one of the biggest…
/r/MensRights18/05/18 01:46 PM
-2

The only place where it's that simple is in low-skill labor pools.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 05:50 PM
3

Well, there's no doubt that Trump needs to go. I'll be interested in seeing which candidates go for the Democratic nomination. Hopefully Clinton just stays out this time.
/r/MensRights01/05/18 09:54 PM
0

So, I'm not saying that any of those points are wrong per se, but do you just go around pasting shit in unrelated posts?
/r/MensRights01/05/18 09:52 PM
3

It's a group (the shooter) killing something, and then blaming a scapegoat for the result of that thing being dead. A good one I saw which expanded on the meme a bit, was the democratic party shooting the bernie sanders campaign, and then blaming America when Trump won the election.
/r/MensRights01/05/18 09:51 PM
2

I actually wonder how people in this sub would consider my point. Considering that the majority of this sub is conservative, I bet that it wouldn't go over well. Maybe in this thread, since there seems to be a liberal rally going on. FWIW, I completely agree with you. Although I'm also pretty pessimistic about true technological anarchistic communism ever actually happening.
/r/MensRights01/05/18 09:49 PM
0

We don't need to distance ourselves because we aren't close to them in the first place. That's where ideal situations and reality part ways. It doesn't matter that we aren't them. If you want major political support for mens rights issues, you must separate yourselves from the alt right, because the media will continue to lump you together.
/r/MensRights01/05/18 09:41 PM
1

I mean, considering that FDR wanted to draft women during WWII, I don't think that your comment is entirely fair. In any case, it's not a balanced scale with draft on one side and the right to vote on the other. That's a completely illogical association.
/r/MensRights19/04/18 10:34 PM
3

No problem. I actually don't consider myself an MRA at all. I'm an egalitarian, so I read from both sides. Its telling that my positions would be unwelcome in both Fem and MRA circles lol
/r/MensRights19/04/18 01:00 AM
3

Most socialists are feminists in the classical feminist sense, not the modern/third wave bullshit feminism that exists today.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 11:24 PM
7

The word you're looking for is "egalitarian". Humanism is a different philosophical position which includes, among other things, secularism as one of its defining pillars.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 11:22 PM
10

Where in the OP's post did you find anything, at all, related to your rant here?
/r/MensRights17/04/18 02:43 PM
2

As wrong as the 20% cheaper figure is, it's also wrong to say that corporations would hire women if it were true.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 07:05 PM
-2

Or it could be that YOU'RE so far to the right that Trump actually looks reasonable?
/r/MensRights11/04/18 05:04 PM
1

A modern liberal will put more stock in a persons race, or sexual orientation then they will for the ability, skill and merit of a person. Yeah no, you're completely incorrect. A modern liberal will recognize that minority groups are historically and at times systematically disadvantaged, and that those groups may need a push in the right direction or a helping had at times. But that person wouldn't make, say, a hiring decision based on if a person is black or not. That makes a person a racist, …
/r/MensRights11/04/18 05:02 PM
0

It's an insult. The same as "libtard SJW pussy" and various other super intelligent comments I've seen on this sub.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 03:58 AM
2

I would describe myself as a Social Democrat. I don't believe that the government should own the means of production (Socialism) in most instances, but I do believe that those means should be regulated where appropriate. Also, Social Security would be awesome if Congress would stop stealing from it to fund other things.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 03:31 AM
-2

Says someone who obviously has no idea what it means to actually be a liberal. Modern Liberalism has nothing to do with identity politics, despite what grandstanding individuals like to portray. Social Justice is a laughable subject so long as you're not in a group that needs it, or have never experienced it yourself. Which doesn't mean shit because you're on /r/MensRights, and according to the views of this sub men need social justice as much as any other group. When you campaign for fathers' r…
/r/MensRights11/04/18 03:27 AM
-2

Please, just look at nearly any thread with actual traction. It's almost all right-leaning. This sub is a surrogate for /r/The_Donald at times.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 03:22 AM
54

You can be an MRA and still be liberal and left-leaning. The two are not mutually exclusive, despite the consensus on this sub.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 08:34 PM
-25

What you're looking for is like 20% of the content here. The rest is a combination of women hating, bitching, and redpill/incel neckbeards. It's an echo chamber, pure and simple.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 08:30 PM
1

If by "they" you mean the group, well of course not. It's a women and minorities group. If by "they" you mean UVM, well UVM has nothing to do with it so I'm not sure how they would forbid it. I'm sure they'd bitch about it though. Either way, this isn't the university infringing on men's rights as the (hilariously biased and horribly written) "article" implies.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 07:41 PM
1

I mean, by the book yeah. But in reality (almost) every professional league out there is men only by default.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 07:02 PM
1

I'm getting downvoted because I dared speak out against the hivemind. But once again, I didn't say anything contradictory. It wasn't UVM who organized the tournament. It was a group of people at UVM. If a fraternity wanted to organize a men's competition, they would be able to do so and it wouldn't be the university infringing upon women's rights. This is the same thing here. Men AND women are allowed to have gender-specific groups/clubs/competitions. EDIT: Unless you're commenting about me sepa…
/r/MensRights04/04/18 06:56 PM
1

Please tell me how informing people that a separate group organized a debate tournament is in any way "debunking" myself. I'm dying to know.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 04:58 PM
-6

Really? How so? Please enlighten me.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 12:32 AM
-9

Oh great. More bullshit knee-jerk "reporting" from biased sources. There's no way that this could be in any form incorrect, right? ...ugh A UVM group organized a debate tournament specifically for women and minority groups. It is not UVM saying "No men are allowed to debate". It's not the UVM collegiate debate team setting gender based acceptance rules. It's not a real debate organization limiting men's access to tournaments. It's a club that organized a separate debate tournament, and it got a …
/r/MensRights03/04/18 09:47 PM
0

To be honest, I've seen more complaints about feminists complaining about the movie, than I've seen feminists actually complaining about it. It's the starbucks fiasco all over again. It's not an issue.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 07:28 PM
1

It's more likely that there are other, more institutionalized reasons for the gap. Flexible hours being the key one.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 11:28 PM
1

I'm not calling you a Nazi. I'm saying that claiming inherent, genetic advantages was a well known and publicized Nazi propaganda. Maybe think a bit more about your views.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 10:48 PM
1

There are plentiful physical and behavioural differences between men and women Which is not enough evidence to even suggest that any of those make men significantly better employees than women. you claim the paygap is down to discrimination Actually I never did. F- on reading comprehension. You're literally pulling a page out of the religious person playbook and say "can't explain that God did it" without even looking at the plentiful possible explanations. There is nothing even remotely related…
/r/MensRights16/03/18 10:12 PM
1

Do MRAs or do they not dispute the existence of pay disparity - regardless of what term you use for it? Yes or no answer. Pay disparity isn't an issue for MRAs at all that I'm aware of. Aside of course for routinely shooting down the 73% figure. And whether or not they dispute it is entirely beside the point. No it's not According to some random website. But according to economists, whom actually deal with data related to wages and labor, it is. And once again numbnuts, I never said that gender …
/r/MensRights16/03/18 10:06 PM
1

That's not how that works. The fact that there are physical differences between the genders does not mean that one makes a better employee. That's an unfounded logical leap that you need to account for.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 09:52 PM
0

Yeah no. Just because men are typically bigger doesn't mean that men make better employees. There's nothing inherently different about men that makes them better employees and thus more deserving of raises/promotions.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 08:27 PM
1

You don't have a beef with me, you have a beef with economists. Just because you disagree with the use of the term doesn't make the term incorrect.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 08:19 PM
0

That's what's called a disparity and nobody is disputing its existence so don't even try to teleport these goalposts. Not according to economists. But that doesn't fit your bullshit narrative does it? What's left is not automatically discrimination as I said above. It's a leap of faith to assume that. But you have no response to that. Man, you have got to be the most fucking dense shitsucker I've ever had the displeasure of talking to. Once again, wage discrimination is the goddamned term used t…
/r/MensRights16/03/18 08:17 PM
0

Uh, no. If you're making the claim that there's an inherent difference in the genders when it comes to work performance, then it's YOU that needs to provide a reference because that shit is completely ludicrous and so outside the realm of reality that it's actually amusing.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 08:13 PM
1

No, all people who work the same job are not exactly the same. But if it were straight meritocracy then there wouldn't be a gap according to gender. It would be according to hours worked or some other valid reason.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 04:13 PM
1

No, I'm saying quite bluntly that overall it's men that are paid more than women in nearly every single category of work. If it were merely meritocracy, then it would even out. The chances of a man being very good at their job are the exact same as a woman being very good at their job when all other factors are controlled for.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 04:10 PM
1

I've made a statement that's in line with economics and facts. This sub likes to ignore facts when it's convenient for them, and jump to conclusions based on a word. Here is a study showing plainly the difference between what men and women make at similar positions. Be sure to select "controlled" on the graphics so you get the real picture.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 04:07 PM
1

One of the few people in this thread who is actually open minded. Here is a study that was done regarding wage differences between the genders. Make sure you select "Controlled" to see the real gap instead of the inflated one. As a side note, it's funny how many people in this sub jump to conclusions about the term "wage discrimination" and automatically assume I'm white knighting and accusing all hiring managers of being sexist or something. The term "wage discrimination" contains no accusation…
/r/MensRights16/03/18 04:03 PM
0

Man, you people just do not know how to use a dictionary do you? Wage discrimination is the term used to describe the difference between earnings when sorted by gender. It does not, under any circumstance, attribute that difference solely to gender. Wage discrimination exists, period. Until you show us evidence that the unexplained wage gap is indeed due to discrimination, it is indeed fake news. Until you fucking educate yourself or at least learn how to use a search engine, I really don't see …
/r/MensRights16/03/18 03:48 PM
0

mostly based on women being on average more agreeable and not negotiating their salary as much as men. As I said in an earlier reply, this is a common misconception. If the wage gap were due mainly to differences in negotiating capability, then the wage gap would be obvious among college grads and early career workers. In actuality, the wage gap is nearly nonexistent among that population and increases as the career continues.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 03:45 PM
1

Maybe you should look up what "wage discrimination" means before jumping to conclusions. It means that there exists a very obvious difference between men and women in similar job roles, and very specifically does not attribute that to sexual discrimination.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 03:41 PM
1

That's a common misconception. We know this because the wage gap is nearly nonexistent among college grads, while increasingly existent latter on. If it were simply about women being bad negotiators, the gap would be much more prominent in the early career.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 03:40 PM
1

Sorry that I'm too busy being a productive member of society to sit here and spoon feed you limpdick fucks. Here's a source for you. Just make sure you select "Controlled" on the graphics to sort the data by people in similar positions.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 03:38 PM
2

I know not everyone on this sub is sexist. I come here all the time and have conversations with plenty of level headed people.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 04:30 AM
-4

Or, you know, I can continue speaking the truth wherever the fuck I want and incel pricks like you can fuck off and die?
/r/MensRights16/03/18 03:11 AM
2

Hospital pay scales are not governed by a central body, so I'm not sure how you can make that assertion. People in a field generally make more than noobs, so you could use that same logic and apply it to literally every field. You might work in or know a hospital that has an open, regulated pay scale but that is not typical.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 10:57 PM
2

You're a special kind of retarded aren't you?
/r/MensRights15/03/18 09:51 PM
-5

True, it was a sarcastic remark. I make them all the time and I use it to blow off frustration. But it still didn't add to the conversation.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 08:40 PM
-1

Hmmm, downvoted for making a blanket statement and providing no sources, while the individual I was responding to made a nonsense remark that doesn't add anything to the argument. And yet I'm downvoted while he's upvoted. It's not about whether or not the comment adds to the discussion. It's the disgustingly predictable hive mind here that's exactly like the /r/feminism hive mind.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 08:19 PM
-9

I subscribe to both. Menslib tends to be a little too passive for me, and this sub can be downright sexist.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 08:17 PM
-20

I'm well aware of the difference between high paying jobs and low paying jobs. I'm not talking about the difference between all men and all women, or all white people and all minorities. That created the bullshit 73% figure that feminists go crazy about. I'm saying that wage discrimination between people in the same field, same position, and same seniority has been shown to exist. And it varies by industry you're talking about, with some going the opposite way (nursing for example pays women mor…
/r/MensRights15/03/18 06:31 PM
-52

Circlejerk aside, wage discrimination does exist. Just not at the level most assert. Edit: sure, down vote brigade all you want. You're just proving yourselves as bad as /r/feminism. Congratulations.
/r/MensRights15/03/18 04:07 PM
15

Communication is a healthy thing everyone needs to sustain any sort of relationship, romantic or otherwise. Knee-jerk somewhere else please, just because you don't like it doesn't automatically mean it's feminism.
/r/MensRights12/03/18 04:49 AM
3

No, they're not.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 06:33 AM
1

Not directly related to the article linked, but I fucking love CHS. Old school feminism (read: intelligent, level-headed, fair) at its best.
/r/MensRights27/02/18 02:34 PM
3

Yeah, that's one of those "bullshit guesses" that I wasn't going to throw out there because there's little to no evidence backing that up.
/r/MensRights26/02/18 06:04 PM
32

I think this is a result of men always being taught not to seek help or rely on others or else seem weak. There are studies shown that the reason men complete suicide more often is because men typically choose methods for which there is a very small chance of survival, ie swallowing the end of a shotgun a la Kurt Cobain. Women are more likely to attempt suicide by overdose and other methods that have a higher survival chance. What this says about the genders I have no idea and I'm not about to b…
/r/MensRights26/02/18 02:51 PM
2

Women have NOT had agency for the vast majority of our history. Stories of husbands "not being able to sell property without his wifes agreement" are laughable at best. The women did what the men wanted. I think it's rather telling that a large portion of this sub denies the shitty position women were in for the majority of history. Sure the pendulum may have swing too far in the other direction in recent times, but that doesn't negate the bullshit they've had to put up with so far.
/r/MensRights26/02/18 02:22 PM
3

Wait, your position is that women didn't have agency because... they chose to be property?
/r/MensRights26/02/18 03:23 AM
1

Discussions about gun control, taxes etc don't belong here because this is a men's rights subreddit, not a general politics subreddit. 100% agreed, but discussions in one political area inevitably bleed into other areas. By affirmative action I mean any program that seeks to bring up disadvantaged groups by giving them a leg up. I do NOT mean things like enforced gender/race quotas. I'm not looking for a reason to hate anyone, I was given a reason not to participate in this community very often …
/r/MensRights21/02/18 08:42 PM
1

Lol ok, it must be nice to live in whatever fantasy land you live in. Any conversation about gun control, affirmative action, taxes, or any other politicized subject is always skewed heavily to the right. Every now and then you'll get a nice conversation with people who don't fucking worship the ground that Reagan walked on, but that's a rarity.
/r/MensRights21/02/18 06:01 PM
1

And conservatives have lost sight of everything but their interpretation of the Bible.
/r/MensRights21/02/18 05:58 PM
-1

Yeah I can definitely say that. Most of the time if you say anything against Trump or conservative talking points, you get downvoted into oblivion. This sub is very heavily conservative.
/r/MensRights21/02/18 05:05 AM
0

There are people who don't feel they are getting the "men's rights" support from one community nor the other. You mean, anyone who believes in gender equality and also hates Donald Trump. Because that's the, rather large, population of people who are ostracized by this sub.
/r/MensRights21/02/18 04:01 AM
3

At that point Looney Toons would be deep
/r/MensRights15/02/18 10:01 PM
1

I hardly think an article from dailywire could ever be considered "deep" reading lol
/r/MensRights15/02/18 05:06 AM
1

It is a collection of small countries that have made an agreement to work together Yeah no. It is NOT a collection of small countries, IE the EU. If it were, then leaving would be an option. And as much as Texans like to say they could, they can't secede and neither can any other state. Like it or not, since the resolution of the Civil War we are a federal government, not a group of countries in close association.
/r/MensRights06/02/18 02:55 AM
1

"California" wouldn't steamroll any election, because "California" wouldn't vote. The voters in California would vote. In any case you could think of, this would actually lessen the liberal power of California by giving voice to all the Republicans that live there. In every state that is considered a sure-in for one side or another every 4 years, you have a very large portion of the population that isn't getting heard: There are 18 million registered voters in the state of California, 30% of tho…
/r/MensRights06/02/18 12:25 AM
0

But if he wins, that's the precedent that will be set. That you can't fire someone for differences of political opinion.
/r/MensRights04/02/18 08:51 PM
5

Political views should never enter the workplace. So the guy should have been fired then? For the record, I agree. There are 2 things I refuse to discuss with coworkers: politics and religion.
/r/MensRights04/02/18 08:35 PM
0

So you want a precedent created that makes political stance a protected class? I don't buy it. Google may have made the wrong move, but I'm completely against making political parties a protected class.
/r/MensRights04/02/18 08:34 PM
2

Single payer and ACA are not socialization of healthcare. Please learn wtf you're talking about before speaking. Dreamers didn't have a choice and shouldn't suffer for the choices of their parents, especially if they've become productive members of society (without a social safety net mind you, since they couldn't get a SSN until just recently) Why the fuck would you increase military spending? We don't need it. At all. Speaking as a military member here. The internet was not "taken from the peo…
/r/MensRights04/02/18 08:29 PM
0

He won the election because of a bullshit, archaic, non-democratic process that needs to be fucking torn from the Constitution. The Electoral College is a relic from an old era and is completely antithetical to the principles this nation was founded on. If a system allows a President to be theoretically elected with only 25% of the population voting for them, then the system needs to be abolished. Luckily, the NPVIC is getting closer and closer to making the EC completely irrelevant.
/r/MensRights04/02/18 08:20 PM
-3

They have no training or relation to the subject matter. The memo is bullshit, but so is this part of your tirade. There are plenty of minorities in all areas of study. The chances that an event organizer is going to risk their reputation by booking susan off of the street just because she has tits or devon just because he's black is more than a little disingenuous.
/r/MensRights04/02/18 08:12 PM
2

Agreed. I hardly come to this sub anymore because it seems like every other post has a shitton of people virtually blowing Trump like he's some goddamn saint.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 07:19 PM
21

That's what people don't understrand. HR doesn't give af about your problems. They only care if your bullshit is going to affect the company.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 08:01 PM
-4

Considering I live in a shithole conservative state, you'd be wrong. His statement was that womens clubs and scholarships somehow automatically make them more successful. Scholarships give opportunity so there's a small amount of truth to that, but men have had fraternities for literally centuries that are present in every single industry and level of society specifically to help men succeed. I know, I'm part of one.
/r/MensRights15/01/18 07:24 AM
-4

that make them more successful Citation needed. Men have fraternities (including the Freemasons, possibly the most wide-spread social organization on the planet) that result in job placements and influence, and women are excluded from those. Scholarships are the only example you give that are a legitimate advantage over men. I will say however that most of them are for fields in which there is very little female representation.
/r/MensRights15/01/18 05:18 AM
4

Everything this guy says is pathetic. He's always on here bitching about one thing or another. In his eyes, literally nothing anyone with tits has ever done has been good for men.
/r/MensRights15/01/18 05:12 AM
1

It's not my 2.4 percent, it's payscale's. And it's an extra .24 hourly.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 07:52 PM
-2

If they actually made a business decision to hire only women (for whatever reason, money or not), then that would be illegal. The truth is, these differences often slip through. And when confronted about the differences, assuming the female worker even gets up the courage TO confront them, managers are often either apathetic to the situation or outright hostile because it's seen as an attack on their authority. Personally, I'm a fan of 100% public salary information to combat these issues, becau…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 05:52 AM
-3

This is a flawed argument used over and over again to no effect. The individuals who make these decisions don't do so logically. No one is sitting in a board room somewhere going "Huh, I guess we should just hire women and drop our labor costs by X%." Differences in wages are typically minuscule, and the decision to pay a woman lower than a man oftentimes may not even be a conscious one. Nevertheless, the pay gap does exist, although like I said before, it's rather low. Across all jobs and indus…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 05:31 AM
-8

If by shrewd you mean disgusting. You don't look at an example of actual misogyny and say "shrewd". Tommy may be the protagonist in the series, but he's actually a shitty human being.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 04:19 AM
-6

Well they are. It's just that the amounts are grossly overstated. EDIT: Typical /r/mensrights, downvote anything however factual that doesn't fit your narrative. Go ahead and ignore the facts if you want, you're just making yourselves look like idiots.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 04:17 AM
-11

No, but it's a favorite insult of right wingers which rule this sub, so I'm not that surprised to see it.
/r/MensRights22/12/17 11:52 PM
2

Maybe I'm misreading your comment, maybe not. Combat related ptsd and physical wounds are actually rare. Considering the huge size of the military and how few actually are afflicted with anything, the chances of a random servicemember suffering anything other than mild discomfort in the military are rather low.
/r/MensRights13/12/17 06:02 PM
0

You're being dishonest! Fake news!
/r/MensRights22/11/17 01:29 AM
1

Women haven't ever been oppressed in the manner described by feminists. Oh, TIL. Women have never been forbidden the right to own property, marry who they choose, vote in elections, decide their own destiny, go to school, have a decent job, or literally anything else! The suffrage movement was a hoax, fake news.
/r/MensRights22/11/17 01:28 AM
0

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. For the majority of human civilization we've been an agrarian society. And women worked right alongside men in the fields. Becauae there wasn't any choice. This idea that women have somehow not worked for the entirety of civilization is hilariously wrong.
/r/MensRights22/11/17 01:25 AM
-2

No, suffering is a bullshit, impossible to measure stat. Women HAVE specifically been denied agency for thousands of years because of men though.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 06:58 PM
0

You do realize that for the majority of civilization women worked alongside men in the fields? They had to put up with the same shit men did, but with less rights. The idea that women could somehow havw it better despite possessing not a shred of agency is laughable.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 06:53 PM
-2

So your stance is "Women had it better than men, because wars"?
/r/MensRights21/11/17 01:57 PM
-5

Like when we used to be forced to die into wars? While the reply was pretty shitty, let's not act like haven't had it great for the majority of history lol
/r/MensRights21/11/17 01:28 PM
4

Especially in this sub unfortunately.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 01:25 PM
3

Pushing hard just gives those on the fence people more of what they've come to expect from feminism: combativeness and aggression. We can hold a respectful conversation like adults.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 07:20 PM
81

I feel like highlighting and repeating the word "Men" makes it come off as overly antagonistic and combative. Maybe instead put Because Men: at the top and then list all the stats Constitutes 76% of suicides Constitutes 85% of the homeless population Are the victims of 70% of all homicides Are the victims of 40% of domestic abuse Are the victims of most violent crime Serve 64% longer prison sentences Are 3.4x more likely to be imprisoned than a woman for the same crime Just a thought. It's impor…
/r/MensRights19/11/17 07:03 AM
0

I like how you completely derailed into a conversation about gun rights. Nice job staying on subject. And you're completely missing the point. The point is, the statement "guns in the home are correlated to homicides in the home" is a fact, pure and simple. At least, it was a fact in the 90s when the CDC published the report with this in it and got their dick punched. No "conclusions" were drawn from it, at least none of a political nature. They just did the research and published. It is a fact …
/r/MensRights08/11/17 01:39 PM
0

"Guns in the home are correlated with a higher rate of homicide in the home." Does that sentence seem "biased" to you? Well, it doesn't matter. It's a fact. It's a fact that the CDC published in the 90s, and was one of the reasons the dickbags up in Congress passed that amendment. You see, they don't care about unbiased information. They care about anything that attacks their personal opinions. They're not putting their "shitty agenda" into their reporting. They're reporting the facts, and preci…
/r/MensRights07/11/17 06:26 PM
0

For all intents and purposes, they are prohibited from studying gun violence. They've been able to do a total of 1 study for the past 20 years, and that was only because Obama specifically told them to. Holding a group's funding hostage against any "perceived" advocating of gun control is fucking ridiculous. Not to mention that they derailed all the funding that WAS being used for gun violence research and forced them to use it for other subjects.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 07:54 PM
1

Probably due to the massive evangelical protestant movement in the US. They seem to be the source of a lot of religious bullshit here. I don't have any numbers on it though.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 05:00 PM
1

Chill with the proselytizing bruh, I literally don't give a fuck. You're passing off your interpretation as the absolute truth (like most religious individuals) and missing the point entirely.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:34 PM
0

Because your one example in one denomination has any value whatsoever aside from anecdotal?
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:03 PM
1

But I can't think of a good reason for CDC to be doing so. The connection to mental health puts it under their purview. It'd be disingenuous to say that all or even most gun violence is the result of mental health issues, but I don't think it'd be wrong to say that the majority of mass shootings are.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 04:01 PM
1

All you did was expand the acronym that makes up their name and then spout "it's not their job" as if that explains it. For someone complaining about how I'm not making an argument, you didn't make one either. FWIW, they do research into occupational safety and health, disaster and recovery planning, and pretty much anything that affects the health of Americans.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 03:12 PM
5

The CDC does research into a variety of things, including diseases, occupational safety and health, disaster and emergency planning, and so on. Their mandate is NOT to "study and contain outbreaks of disease in this country", but to improve the health of Americans in general. Mental health, gun violence, and the relationship between the two are absolutely within their area of study. The fact that you might feel threatened by someone looking in to gun violence doesn't mean that it's not in their …
/r/MensRights06/11/17 02:35 PM
-5

Just because you don't understand what the CDC does doesn't make it bullshit. Learn a bit before commenting.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 02:31 PM
1

I mean, I shouldn't generalize considering how varied denominations can be. But I can say that in the US at least, circumcision is considered good for religious (ie Christian) reasons.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 02:11 PM
-8

Yup. The same as Congress forbidding the CDC to study gun violence. When you refuse to accept people doing research into the bad side of your stance, you admit the fact that your stance is untenable.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 02:04 PM
-3

Christianity definitely advocates for circumcision.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 02:01 PM
1

Only then you proceed to list three points all of which differ greatly from the claim that people don't think black lives matter. You're so obtuse it's astounding. Those three points build on each other. Did I make it up that you said that? Are you really going to try and go down that road? Well, if you want to get all semantically correct, yes you did. I said that's what the BLM movement stands for, I never actually claimed to believe that people had forgotten completely that black lives matter…
/r/MensRights19/10/17 02:13 AM
1

Actually, the only comments of yours I've downvoted were the original one and your cunty other reply to this one. If other people find your idiocy distasteful it's not my problem.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 09:41 PM
1

You were caught making shit up I didn't make anything up. Black people are treated unfairly. Fact. The BLM movement was created to address this. Fact. The All Lives Matter countermovement is nothing more than a hush campaign. Fact. The "real issues" I'm referring to are the above mentioned facts, the fake bullshit ones are the ones you're contriving based off of semantics. What I do is important, but no more than what anyone who actually addresses important social issues does, including all the …
/r/MensRights18/10/17 09:39 PM
0

OH I get it, so instead of talking about the real issues, you're gonna be a cunt about semantics? Gotcha. So while you're over here beating yourself off about word choice and avoiding the actual conversation, I'm gonna continue addressing the real issues.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 08:32 PM
0

It's a different statement. No, it's not. The statements literally mean the same thing. "People have forgotten black lives matter" = "society has not cared as much about black lives". The statements are the same, worded differently, and are the driving force behind the creation of the BLM movement. A lack of reading comprehension on your part =/= a logical fallacy on mine.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 07:54 PM
1

You seem to have issues with reading comprehension. Yes, dumbass, all lives matter. Black people are a subset of people, therefore all lives matter includes black people. However, in practice, society has not cared as much about black lives. Re: the numerous murders by racist cops all over the country, the hugely disproportionate sentencing between white and black people, and the 0 fucks given by many white people. Therefore, the BLM movement was created to remind everyone that they, too, are pe…
/r/MensRights18/10/17 05:18 PM
2

The fact that someone is saying "all lives matter" proves the fact that they don't understand what the "black lives matter" movement is about.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 12:02 PM
0

Incarceration rates for black people are 5.1 times that of white people, despite only making up 13% of the population.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 01:42 AM
-1

The phrase implies that non-blacks don't care about blacks. Because all evidence points to the truth of that statement.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 01:13 AM
1

I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that what I said was victim blaming? lol
/r/MensRights18/10/17 01:13 AM
0

Ugh, since you insist on continuing on this path even though - once again - you're completely missing the point: No shit they commit more crimes per captia than white people. But that's not on account of their skin. That's fucking racist. Crime tendency is strongly linked to socioeconomic standing, nothing else. And since the percentage of the black population living in poverty is MUCH higher than that of white people OF COURSE a higher percentage of them are going to tend towards criminal activ…
/r/MensRights17/10/17 11:00 PM
1

I don't know about Birmingham, it's location probably lends to differences from the US average as a whole, but overall white and black people commit the same number of homicides. So since we're talking about the US as a whole and not some random city in the south (which I'm gonna need some sources on btw), your point is still moot.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 09:26 PM
0

It's the general "you", meaning US society and government in general. But to answer your question bluntly: police departments all over the country, everyone with a fucking "blue lives matter" sticker, anyone who refuses to denounce the white nationalists in South Carolina and other places (and this includes our mandarin in chief), the vast majority of the white south, our justice system which sees black men incarcerated for the same crimes that white men walk away from, etc etc etc.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 09:18 PM
-2

Because /r/MensRights is extremely close to /r/the_donald politically, so ANY mention of social justice of any kind in an agreeable light is going to be met with anger. It's hard to be both liberal and a men's rights activist when the latter tells you impossible to be both.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 09:14 PM
-1

Who has forgotten that black lives matter? Everyone underreporting homicides in black communities, everyone explaining away every time a cop murders a black person, the government in general, white (majority) society. Are you referring to the blacks who make up 90% of the perpetrators of blacks homicides? Black people may be responsible for 90% of black homicides, but white people are responsible for 81.3% of white homicides. We kill ourselves, rarely each other, so your point is completely usel…
/r/MensRights17/10/17 09:12 PM
1

"concentrated government sponsored efforts against us" is just so much more difficult to put on a tshirt though.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 04:45 PM
-6

That's ok, /r/mensrights is basically a second /r/the_donald the vast majority of the time.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 04:44 PM
13

Of course all lives matter. Black lives matter isn't Only black lives matter. It's Hey, since you seem to have forgotten black lives matter too. Saying all lives matter repeats something we already know and detracts from the point that the BLM movement is trying to make.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 04:43 PM
-3

I find it ironic that you ask a pointed question about why men don't start these campaigns, and then answer it yourself by perpetrating the bullshit "Real men don't complain" stigma. And by ironic, I mean disgusting.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 04:41 PM
0

What was that about ad hominem? "My argument sucks so I'm just going to point at this guy and whine about how 'intolerant' he is!" - /u/Islam-Delenda-Est Oh and for what it's worth, you're right. I am intolerant. I'm intolerant of shitstains like you who discriminate against an entire religion based on nothing. Your stance is indefensible and quite frankly makes you a worthless human being. So yeah, I'm intolerant of you and I'm proud of it.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 12:42 PM
-6

The juxtaposition of the two phrases "They don't compare" and "She deserved jail time" heavily implies that he DIDN'T deserve jail time.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 12:39 PM
-20

Wait, you don't think he deserved jail time? Lol you're out of your mind kid
/r/MensRights13/10/17 04:59 AM
0

I worry a lot more about a religion that is doing terrible things today Yep, your neighborhood mosque is doing terrible, TERRIBLE things literally every day. That's all they do is talk about jihad and the infidels. There's no way that Muslims could EVER be productive members of your community, own businesses, pay taxes, volunteer for the Red Cross on the weekends, or anything else like that. Only good God-fearing Christian men can do that. I sincerely hope you get hit by a train or something. An…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 04:43 AM
1

So as long as it's your religion that does the expanding and killing it's ok? Got it.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 12:27 AM
1

Once again you completely disregard the second part of the point: You cannot say anything about Islam that you cannot say about any large religion, to include Christianity. And Christianity actually did take over the western world for a long period of time. But you don't seem to have a problem with THAT. And not having a problem with that leads me to think that your worldview is like something out of The Handmaid's Tale.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 11:28 PM
1

Complaining about vulgar insults when your very username is an insult to the Constitution and plain human decency? That's cute. Case in point: The actions of a theocratic state or militarized group do not represent a religion. If you can't separate the actions of a theocratic state or militarized group from the actions and beliefs of normal, everyday individuals then you cannot seriously condone nearly any large religion. Or you can just accept that you're a fucking unamerican hypocrite.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 10:08 PM
1

"I can't actually argue my worldview so I'll just shut down" - /u/Islam-Delenda-Est
/r/MensRights12/10/17 09:59 PM
-1

"The Jews are hell bent on world domination and are the cause of all our problems" - Hitler or /u/Islam-Delenda-Est ? I can't tell. Change "past two decades" to "entire history of humanity in the common era" and your comment equally applies to Christianity. Except Christianity actually did conquer Europe. "But it says here: 'freedom of religion' - that means if their religion preaches world domination we have to let them win" That's not at all what I said you limpdicked neanderthal. Freedom of r…
/r/MensRights12/10/17 09:41 PM
-4

the most dangerous enemy of western civilization HA HA HA. Oh man, that's rich. "Hey, I know that this country that I love so deeply was founded on the basis of religious freedom. But what if we, and just hear me out on this, what if we ignored that, and persecuted people who believe differently than us anyway?" Seriously, the fuck outta here with your discriminatory bullshit.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 08:50 PM
-5

Anyone with a username like yours can't be expected to have any empathy for anyone, so there's that.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 07:40 PM
-10

What he said specifically mentioned women's ability (or lack thereof) to empathize. Omitting mens inability to empathize with women is an issue, and implies the opposite. So yeah, there is a difference.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 07:39 PM
-16

Women People fundamentally lack the ability to empathize with men others not of their own gender. FTFY
/r/MensRights12/10/17 06:26 PM
-1

You're right, making fun of feminists =/= making fun of women. I'm saying both of those things happen here very often. It's a crime in the eye of the hivemind to be a woman with an opinion. This sub is overrun with toxic incels who are mad about their lot in life (or anti-mra's who want to tarnish the sub's reputation) and have changed the focus from mens rights to shit like this post. Seriously, there's more immature angst here than in a high school.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 04:19 PM
-9

Welcome to /r/mensrights, I see you're new here. Rule #1: Make fun of women / feminists Rule #2: Sources are not required unless you're quoting something against the hivemind Rule #3: Memes > Orderly discussion
/r/MensRights27/09/17 02:26 PM
1

No, it's not incorrect if you read it how it's meant: the horses represent all of their respective gender and the carrots represent their average wages.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 02:24 PM
14

I wholeheartedly support the opposite: Absolutely no personal information whatsoever should be released until there's a ruling.
/r/MensRights20/09/17 05:01 PM
2

And the shard decline in crime from the mid/late 90s and on is directly related to the legalization of abortion decades earlier. It's crazy how effects today can have their roots so far back.
/r/MensRights18/09/17 11:26 AM
0

I agree with you, but you should know that to this sub, circumcision is on par with if not more important than male suicide rates, sexism in family court, unfounded sexual assault allegations, and literally everything else impacting men today. My $0.02: Circumcision is important, although the least of the issues men face. Additionally, circumcision is falling out of favor all over the globe (even in the US), and many western countries are in the single digits percentage-wise. It needs to be ille…
/r/MensRights10/09/17 05:23 AM
1

Good job linking that part of the interview without context, I'm sure Fox News would love to hire you. 1) He said "You're a citizen yourself", meaning that the person voting is a citizen, not an illegal alien 2) He specifically mentioned that "If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.", straight out implying that the person actually voting is not undocumented 3) He goes on to say, after the video YOU linked ended that "You’re speaking fo…
/r/MensRights29/08/17 01:09 AM
1

Dude, literally everyone aside from that walking basket case of a fucktard president agrees that voter fraud is insignificant. Drumpf is the only person claiming that millions of voter fraud cases exist, YOU are the one taking shit on blind faith. Ryan, Graham, McCain, all those old fucks up in Washington on Donald "The Rapist" Trump's own party all agree that voter fraud, voter impersonation, and all that other shit is insignificant. And NO, Obama did NOT encourage illegals to vote. He encourag…
/r/MensRights28/08/17 10:33 PM
2

It's not symbolism. You equated Women with Islam you fucking brain case. And the only cheating the DNC did was between their own members.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 09:44 PM
2

Wait wait wait, you seriously believe that nearly 3 MILLION votes were "illegals", multi-state voters, and voter fraud? Despite there being 0 evidence of any of those in significant number? Fucking admit it dude, she got more legitimate votes than the walking sexual assault case. I don't even like her and I can admit that. And you can wag on about what the country's voting system is or ought to be, that's beside the fucking point. You said "that's why Trump won" as if more people wanted him in t…
/r/MensRights28/08/17 06:17 PM
0

So you're equating the actions of one female officer with the state of all female officers across every police and military force in the entire country? That's pretty much the definition of sexism. HER actions do not speak for the countless actions of other female officers. HIS actions do not speak for the many fat, out of shape, worthless wastes of space male police officers. The differences in the sexes are not important. What's important is for there to be an objective test with a single stan…
/r/MensRights28/08/17 05:43 PM
2

1) You equated women with the moon, a chalice, and a lock. That's not opinion and slander, you're downright fucking crazy. 2) Trump won because of a technicality. The majority of the country voted for Clinton.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 05:37 PM
-1

Not being posted to this sub as propaganda? There are plenty of female members of the Houston PD and the Texas National Guard. Please don't act like they don't exist. OP is just a sexist, nutjob fuck.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 03:16 PM
3

Dude the guy is 100% fucking wacko.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 03:07 PM
3

Why do you insist on cursing and attacking me personally Because you're exhibiting extreme lack of logic and bordering on schizophrenic symptoms. I mean really, equating Women with Islam and the moon? Are you fucking high or something. Nothing in your post has any root in reality. It's all pseudo-"science" conspiracy bullshit.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 03:07 PM
5

entire subs and legions LEGIONS I TELL YOU! LEGIONS!!!
/r/MensRights28/08/17 03:00 PM
3

I'll attack you personally: I think you're a idiotic, shitty little snowflake who cries when he doesn't get his way.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 02:59 PM
7

white men, are quite often portrayed to look like idiots in movies and television, and enemies by the media Wut. White men have a huge percentage as protagonists compared to literally every other demographic. Men have rights issues, but representation in media is not one of them.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 02:56 PM
1

To add to the shock factor. The HBO series relies on shock (or, at least the writers / producers believe it does), so they change things to be more shocking than the already horrifically shocking source material.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 01:44 AM
0

No, GoT is pretty fucking legit for both genders.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 01:37 AM
3

It may have not meant to be a big deal to the characters involved, but it was a big fucking deal to the viewers.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 01:34 AM
0

Eh, I don't really see it. As a married man, if I say "I can't go to X or eat at Z because my wife won't let me", people assume my wife is a bitch. Or at least, that she doesn't trust me. Likewise, if a woman says "I can't go to X or eat at Z because my husband won't let me" I would assume he's a dick or doesn't trust her. In any case, calling out your SO for having insecurities that may limit what you're "allowed" to do is dumb and indicative of a bad relationship. If your SO doesn't really fee…
/r/MensRights24/07/17 04:52 PM
10

Well, I HAVE seen the movie and while the focus was on small groups there were plenty of panorama shots of the hundreds of thousands on the beach waiting to be rescued. There weren't any minorities easily visible in the shots. Now, I'm not saying that that's a bad thing or a good thing. It's just a fact.
/r/MensRights24/07/17 04:38 PM
0

You can't get in the tech industry by being just a beggar
/r/MensRights07/07/17 07:59 PM
15

I'm just confused here. What exactly does she do? Like, how does she pay her bills? Is she actually in the tech industry in some form or fashion?
/r/MensRights07/07/17 07:15 PM
1

I feel like their merits are more than taken into account in a truly egalitarian worldview.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 01:47 PM
1

Or instead, we throw BOTH feminism and MRA out the door because they're both cesspools of angry people who only want to shout down the opposite ends, and replace them with 100% egalitarianism.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 12:45 PM
1

Maybe if you didn't capitalize every other word in your sentence you wouldn't miscommunicate. The issue is with you, not with everyone else. Maybe if you got over your "woe is me, I'm disabled" bullshit you'd see that.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 02:08 PM
1

Learn how to communicate effectively?
/r/MensRights31/05/17 01:25 AM
1

You said you had "Rheumatological Disease". Pretty straightforward. You didn't say "I have several rheumatic diseases which collectively cause considerable strain on my ability to communicate." Plus, the aforementioned capitalization issue makes it seem even more as if you're referring to a specific disease.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 01:10 AM
2

I asked the same question and it spawned a hilarious conversation.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 01:03 AM
2

Lol watch out, he'll pull the ableist card on you!
/r/MensRights31/05/17 01:02 AM
2

There are more than 100 rheumatic diseases, including degenerative conditions such as osteoarthritis, inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune diseases such as lupus. Literally from Rheumatology.org. Once again, "Rheumatological Disease" doesn't exist. Only diseases that are rheumatic in some form or fashion.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 01:01 AM
5

And yet you still didn't address my point: there is no such thing as "Rheumatological Disease" in and of itself. It's a category and you made it sound like it was its own disease lol You can keep saying fuck off if you want, I'm having fun here and I'll stay as long as I want.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 11:25 PM
4

I find it hilarious that you assume you having a "disability" somehow makes me judge your posts differently. On the contrary, you're posting on this forum so I'm going to judge your posts under the exact same formula I would any other post. (And in case you missed it, that's the exact OPPOSITE of ableism, so try again shithead) You do not have a full medical history or even full disclosure of impairment and how Idiots like you make them disabling. Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Us…
/r/MensRights30/05/17 10:27 PM
4

So it's trolling now to post legitimate issues with someone's post? That sort of shit belongs over in /r/Feminism lol
/r/MensRights30/05/17 10:08 PM
6

Yeah, your comment still reeks of bullshit, regardless of your "disabilities". 1) Pulling bullshit "estimates" about 1 in 50 women being psychopathic, without any regard to the broad range of disorders that go in to the statistic, does nothing whatsoever to establish your credibility. 2) Playing the "poor disabled me" card wins you nothing. 3) Calling someone "darling" makes you sound like a complete and total asshole from the get-go. 4) As someone who works in and around IT every day of my life…
/r/MensRights30/05/17 08:49 PM
3

Uh, no they're not feminist focused. There are plenty of feminist users everywhere on reddit, but /r/legaladvice isn't inundated with them.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 08:32 PM
3

Try not capitalizing every other word. It distracts from your point and makes me not want to read anything you have to say. It also makes you read like I would expect a SovCit to write.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 08:21 PM
0

Considering the fact that here are very few women CEOs at all (comparatively), and also the possibility of companies paying women CEOs higher for cheap PR points, the linked figure is practically worthless.
/r/MensRights26/05/17 03:12 AM
1

Attempted kidnapping? Lol are you serious? That is so far away from reality that it's hilarious.
/r/MensRights20/05/17 04:41 PM
2

Wait what, this post on /r/MensRights earned you a ban in another sub? That's hilarious. Can you post the message?
/r/MensRights19/05/17 09:11 PM
4

I'm definitely behind increasing the penalty if the victim is actually convicted / spent time behind bars. However, it's still not rape and shouldn't be treated as such. Perjury carries a maximum sentence of 5 years, which should be enough IMO. But this is definitely something with a lot of nuance and should be handled on a case by case basis.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 04:18 PM
-3

So we should stop prosecuting rapes altogether because of lack of evidence? That's completely ridiculous.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 03:28 PM
16

And yet people still get convicted What you're referring to is an issue with how we prosecute rape cases, not how we should be prosecuting false accusers.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 03:17 PM
9

No, you should stand to befall the criminal sentence for the crime YOU committed, which is perjury or something similar. Concessions can be made based on how heinous the crime you alleged was, but at the end of the day you didn't ACTUALLY rape someone so you shouldn't be tried as a rapist.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 02:43 PM
31

to the same extent as actual rape I disagree. 100% it should be punished, no doubt there. But the idea of punishing a false accuser at the same level as the crime they are claiming happened has no foundation anywhere in our system of law.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 02:09 PM
2

if not then yeah you're missing out Uh, no I'm doing just fine thank you.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 10:33 PM
2

You really don't seem to get it. Nerve endings =/= sexual pleasure. Physical sensitivity =/= sexual pleasure. Does removing 20,000 nerve endings have some effect as to the level of pleasure experienced? Possibly, but we have no way of objectively measuring that, and it's also possible that circumcision increases sexual pleasure through increased exposure. Other than in extreme examples, circumcision isn't going to render sex impossible, unpleasurable, or seriously detract from it as everyone in …
/r/MensRights09/05/17 09:12 PM
0

Just because you're still capable of receiving pleasure does not mean that it okay to do. I never said it was. In fact, I said on multiple occasions that it's still NOT okay to do. Don't confuse my refuting of its impact with acquiescence to it happening.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 08:33 PM
-2

Once again, nerve endings =/= sexual pleasure. These are all anecdotal accounts or based entirely on nerve endings. Watching a man get off by rubbing his dick is not in any way evidence. I'm not going to slog through a shitton of citations on biased places such as the "Circumcision Information and Resource Pages" or the "The Whole Network". The stated alleged effects of circumcision (reduced sensitivity, difficulty in achieving orgasm, ED) just don't hold up. That doesn't mean there isn't SOME c…
/r/MensRights09/05/17 08:11 PM
-5

Dude, it's 20,000 or so nerve endings. Of course it does. There is zero real evidence that circumcision actually detracts from sexual pleasure. Nerve endings =/= pleasure, you're going to have to work harder than that masturbating without lube is uncomfortable. If it's uncomfortable for you, perhaps you have a skin condition or you just death grip your shit. I'm circumcised and masturbate frequently without discomfort. This sub is literally the only place I see people complaining about that.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 07:08 PM
-7

So basically, your perspective is the exact same as that of a man without his foreskin? Seriously, this idea that circumcision somehow detracts from sexual pleasure needs to die. EDIT: But that doesn't mean it should be done without consent.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 05:18 PM
0

instead of supporting putting the attention on the real threat. Oh how so? And just how was a woman of that time period supposed to do that? Considering all the nursing and auxiliary corps were full to bursting? Are you expecting them to have just grabbed the family hunting rifle, hitched a ride across the channel, and fought in their dresses?
/r/MensRights08/05/17 11:21 PM
0

I don't understand why you would view those who wouldn't fight as the enemy. They are not. Now who's putting words in whose mouth? I never said that. I said that those who won't fight are literally the only people those that can't fight can focus their energies on. That doesn't mean that they're the enemy. I am specifically mentioning it from the side that literally can't. Uh, no you're not. "Who deserves more immediate and direct attention?" Remember that line? You're coming at it from the posi…
/r/MensRights08/05/17 11:10 PM
0

See now you're putting words in my mouth and making assumptions. No not really. You're showing the ideal example of someone with a total lack of historical perspective. Who is the enemy? A useless question. Who deserves more immediate and direct attention? From someone who literally can't participate in war (ie the women in this example)? Those who CAN but WON'T fight. You're coming at this from the perspective of someone who has agency enough to be able to enlist and defend their country. That …
/r/MensRights08/05/17 10:57 PM
1

You don't seem to understand what was at stake in WWI or really ANY war of that magnitude. You don't get the luxury of saying "Oh, you don't want to fight? That's ok, here's some hot cocoa." Everyone of fighting ability had/has to fight. Because otherwise it'd be the end of life as they knew it. At that point, your debt to society includes fighting and possibly dying. Because there's no other choice. That's the entire point of the draft in the first place. The fact that you can't possibly compre…
/r/MensRights08/05/17 10:42 PM
0

no matter what the circumstances. Oh? So there's a world war brewing and China is literally about to come across the pond to kill/enslave/rape/maim everyone you know and love, and yet that's just not enough to convince you to goad someone else into fighting? ESPECIALLY if you personally don't have the power to fight yourself? If you would just sit by and let that happen, you're a fucking coward and a disgraceful human being. Have some goddamned backbone.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 10:11 PM
0

but the same movement was also in favor of shaming men and viewing them as disgusting sub-humans And where did you find that out? Some article on the Blaze? If you're going to spout something as ridiculous as that, you're going to need to provide sources. And no, a Blaze article isn't good enough. Also, you're going to need to provide a source showing that it was feminism as a whole, not an offshoot of it, that espoused those beliefs. that doesn't give them a right to shame men who wouldn't enli…
/r/MensRights08/05/17 09:36 PM
-2

They advocate the destruction of traditional family Good. The "traditional family" mindset reeks of bullshit. gender as a social construct Disagree. They advocate gender as a product of your brain chemistry as opposed to your physical characteristics. I can go either way on this, but tend to side with the "gender exists in the brain, sex exists on the body" line of reasoning. all men are rapists Says the radfems. I have literally never met a single feminist who actually believed this. And I went…
/r/MensRights08/05/17 08:37 PM
0

Feminism never stood for equality. Wrong. Feminism for a long period of time was about women attaining the same legal status as men. IE, being able to own property, work for themselves, get access to medical care, etc etc. Don't confuse today's radfems with the feminists of yesterday. US ... white feather in males' coats Also wrong. The white feather was a symbol of cowardice in the UK, and was used in WWI. You know, the war that took place at a time where women weren't allowed to enlist in the …
/r/MensRights08/05/17 08:26 PM
1

I'm 99% sure this is probably in reference to something specific, like abortion or birth control access. They can't seriously apply this unilaterally.
/r/MensRights05/05/17 02:33 PM
1

That doesn't logically follow, unless you're talking about a specific 12 month time period, in which case that piece of data may be correct but would also be useless.
/r/MensRights04/04/17 09:30 PM
-2

Uh, no that's incorrect. Including "made to penetrate" in rape (as it should be) still leaves women the larger victim of rape by sheer numbers. EDIT: You can downvote facts if you want, it just makes you look like an idiot.
/r/MensRights04/04/17 03:06 PM
5

Are you in the US? On private lots police officers can only enforce handicap spaces and fire lanes.
/r/MensRights04/04/17 03:01 PM
1

at men? No at the sub as a whole? Yes, because a large portion of this sub is just as he described. It's basically /r/feminism for men.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 02:42 PM
2

The text reads as if taking the children is a burden and not necessarily the goal. That would explain why it shows men having the better deal (because they're not "forced" to take the kids) without attributing a sexist bias in the author. But realistically, they're probably just sexist.
/r/MensRights17/03/17 10:09 PM
1

Ah. I queued in on the similarity between 'pussy' and 'vagina-man' and made an assumption, my bad.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 08:16 PM
1

The "vagina-man" comment was him referring to trans men, not a weird way of calling someone a pussy.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 08:10 PM
1

I have no sources and honestly I'm not really interested in Googling for a specific link right now, just thought I'd throw this out - There was a headline recently (as dependable as headlines are...) that Trump has rolled back LGBTQ protections insofar as the restroom debacle.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 08:07 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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