TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

LordIntrepid Archive

View 0 posts and 285 comments by LordIntrepid 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)
3

Even if it doesn't get passed, it should at least get some media coverage or garner more conversation about it in more main stream mediums than its had, ever. Even if its all hit pieces, it will bring it attention.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 06:58 AM
1

Except you don't know who's watching/reading in a text forum. So you can actually tell if what someone says directly to you is consistent with what they say when they aren't speaking toward/with you/everyone else.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 01:34 AM
2

I wouldn't doubt it. Interpretation is a cornerstone in translations and peoples opinions of it.
/r/PussyPass09/06/15 10:54 PM
2

A lot of English legal language is based on Latin words.
/r/PussyPass09/06/15 10:24 PM
4

Sodomy = non-vaginal intercourse. Sodomy = a criminal offense you can be charged with. The word Sodomy comes from Sodom and Gomorrah, a story in the bible about homosexual sex being a sin. That, and the bible pretty much has a passage for any kind of sex that isn't vaginal, and how its bad. Even vaginal is bad if its out of wedlock. 1+1=2 I like turtles.
/r/PussyPass09/06/15 07:28 PM
4

So, it's illegal to do anything that the bible doesn't say is ok?
/r/PussyPass09/06/15 06:48 PM
6

Wait... he was charged with "Sodomy and/or bestiality" because of sex with a girl... Question-mark.
/r/PussyPass09/06/15 02:58 PM
10

but the costume looks like something a 7 year old boy gets for his birthday. Which makes it so much easier to sell a cheap version to a 7 year old for its birthday.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 11:06 PM
4

So they're both wrong, for making a false assumption. He assumed/perceived that he wasn't getting any negative responses during the act, and she assumed that what she was doing was enough to get her message across. A failure to communicate or interpret on both sides. The first comment talks about a situation, where a woman, with Anxiety issues strong enough to make them lock up during a fearful moment, couldn't say no. That isn't normal. Expecting women to be incapable of saying no is not normal…
/r/MensRights07/05/15 03:20 PM
3

Good! Great! That's important! Those are important and good things! Which things? Grammatically, your statement implies both Patriarchy Theory, and its effect, as good things. You are referencing a list of "bad" and shouting "Good! Great!". You will get misunderstood, if that is not what you actually mean. So is what I was ficking trying to point out but couldn't due to all this knee jerk bullshit Which makes this ^ look like you are trying to preach how good they are.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 03:08 PM
3

False pretenses? Their official listing on the catalog of booths is listed as "honeybadger brigade". The same as their badges, and door passes. All of which had to be told directly to the event organizers when she asked them to change who they would be coming and representing as. The organizers had to know it was the brigade well before hand, to print all of that, and register them under the name, in time for the event. They received no word of complaints, wile their booth and GG imagery was on …
/r/MensRights22/04/15 12:32 AM
3

Also, women are less risk prone, so they're less likely to "jump the gun" on the shot, as it where. They're more prone to take their time to line up the best shot, instead of risking one that seemed close enough.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 09:40 PM
1

Abuse is not the focus of this post. It's entirely about, complaining about, specific women who won't have sex with OP's dick size.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 08:32 PM
6

There's nothing wrong with having preferences. Skin deep preferences are only shallow because saying so is a persons only known defense against the feelings of not meeting them. Whats that? My cloven hooves don't meet your beauty preferences? SHALLOW! It might seem petty, but you can't force someone to like chocolate over vanilla. Shaming them for the preference gets no where either.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 09:02 AM
2

Why is this here? It's just fiction. Its not real. Also, your title is very different from the listed plot: "While imprisoned in a Confederate girls boarding school, a Union soldier cons his way into each of the lonely women's hearts." Have you seen the move, to be able to make the claim that the plot is actually about: "A Civil War soldier is wounded and recuperates in a girl's boarding school, where he is seduced, assaulted, and murdered" ? Or are you just lying to us, bold faced?
/r/MensRights18/04/15 06:17 PM
1

Having been through depression my self, for decades, know that you never get "cured" of depression. You just get over it and learn to deal with it, despite it being there, to a point where it has no hold on you anymore. The biggest thing with depression and doing anything, is taking the first step to actually DO w/e thing you want to. A big help, if you can manage it, is to not think about doing the thing. I don't mean "don't make plans/plan it out", I mean, don't RUMINATE on it. Once you have t…
/r/askTRP04/04/15 07:21 PM
2

Almost all posts clearly point a finger at one source of evil. edit: It's a link, not just an image (RES thinks its just an image for me)-> Well, if every time you try to deal with an issue, and you find both the source of it and whats stopping you from fixing it, are one and the same. It makes it hard to point at other things if other things aren't causing problems. We don't have a problem with feminists who read the dictionary once or heard it second hand and just agreed with the name as defin…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 06:26 PM
1

So basically, its "threats", with a more flowery wording. "I felt threatened, and there was context/words that where sexual."
/r/MensRights24/03/15 06:28 PM
4

How is "Unwanted non-contact sexual violence" a category. How is it violent if they aren't making any contact.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 01:59 AM
0

Outsiders/visitors don't need to be told the difference because they don't even know it exists, unless you point it out, let alone that it is a possible reference possibility when being said.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 07:10 AM
1

Reddit is the only place where "red pill" has more possible meanings, outside of showing someone the truth. Unless you are insinuating that people who have never been on reddit enough to know it, would still magically use that form of it, without the requisite knowledge.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 04:13 AM
2

Girlwriteswhat was my gateway out of feminism, in part. It was also the way everything was spoken about in feminist spaces, and how people would froth at the mention of biology that counters their feelings/opinions on a subject. Mostly, it was just all the negative talk about MRA's that made me check it out for my self.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 11:45 PM
1

Can we please stop insinuating that the phrase "red pill" is a reference to a subreddit, rather than its intended meaning (which is why said subreddit used it for their name sake). Anyone who is unaware of the subreddit will NEVER mistake it for that. And those who are should know better.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 11:41 PM
6

I often hear "Don't you want better for yourself?" Being a great partner is self improvement (unless it comes completely natural to you, like some prodigy), just not improvement toward the ideals they tout as proper. Improvement should be what makes you happy, not a social agenda.
/r/RedPillWomen06/03/15 01:50 AM
1

It's not a rights issue. It's a social inequality/double standard, that is a result of biology and social conditioning from the culture we grew up in. edit: wile the above can lead to rights issues, using them to provide contrast/fight the issues will not, as it brings awareness to it, rather than just exploiting it
/r/MensRights03/03/15 08:21 AM
1

Why not make use of the special attention for a good cause?
/r/MensRights03/03/15 07:42 AM
6

feminism isn't just the protection of womens rights, that would be a womans rights advocate of some kind. Feminism does way more than that. Also, the fact that feminism is w/e each feminist says it is, means its anything and nothing at the same time, its essentially just each individuals own views that they've slapped the word feminism on. Reasons why tend to vary, but its usually an attatchment to the word, other people who use the word (association feelings), or a feeling that it implies you a…
/r/MensRights02/02/15 09:15 AM
0

If a single swear word is enough to turn you off of something, you are too sensitive to keep a level head in a discussion, in the first place.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 12:37 AM
0

Don't say bad things about a horrible person, that's misogyny. If they end up with that line of thought, they where already hopelessly repellant to the idea of the MRM before they came here.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 09:01 PM
0

That woman doesn't have the depth or warmth of a cunt. It's more insulting to the word.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 12:31 PM
1

My mistake, Most of the English speaking countries in the world, and Isreal. And only 9 US states recognize it apparently, 11 if you count DC and Oklahoma.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 10:39 PM
1

Yes, I realized I didn't spell it properly right after posting. But dem rolls are tasty.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 10:31 PM
2

"Feminists" are bitching about gender rolls, not "women". That's like saying all women are feminists, or vise versa.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 12:04 PM
4

It favors women simply because of how divorce works, and that women are almost always on the receiving end. But that's only because most women prefer not to work, given the choice (I'm sure many men would as well (specifically 1/4 of men), but that's another discussion), or that men almost always earn more, even in dual income homes. The SO who makes the most loses the most. The amount awarded becomes more and more egregious, the shorter they are together/married legally, as when they separate, …
/r/MensRights25/01/15 12:01 PM
2

Why do I need to get the government to tell you I enjoy being with you, if we already enjoy being together? Does a legal declaration affect how you feel about me, rather than me as a person? Why is it important enough to be infuriated about? Do you not trust me enough, that its needed? If you believe it is a sign I really love you, then you don't believe that I actually love you without it. "Why should I?" <--- edit: reworded If she agrees with any of these, thats a red flag to gtfo. If she does…
/r/MensRights25/01/15 11:22 AM
1

This is how all mentally healthy people assertively deal with another person. Instead of this "I have a problem with a thing, so I'll yell about it from the safety of my computer and the support of my head-mate Railroadcrossinggard-kun, instead of actually dealing with the issue in the moment.".
/r/MensRights23/01/15 11:02 AM
1

Not at all, you keep trying to prove something I already agree with. If you already agreed with it, you would not have said this in response to me saying that some traditional values have reasons that are still relevant (because of biology): A reason that isn't relevant in todays affluent societies, and hasn't been for some time. In the distant past it made sense for a man to go out and gather resources while the woman cared for the children. It just isn't relevant today when most jobs are not p…
/r/MensRights18/01/15 11:57 PM
1

Even brand new reasons where "relevant once". It just happened to be more recently. A reason that isn't relevant in todays affluent societies, and hasn't been for some time. You're assuming every reason is purely social. No I'm not, I'm just not defending the support for it simply because it was relevant once. You must be talking about purely social reasons, because a non social (biological or environmental) reason does not lose relevancy without biology or the physical environment changing. Env…
/r/MensRights09/01/15 06:00 AM
1

A reason that isn't relevant in todays affluent societies You're assuming every reason is purely social. The alpha/beta dynamic is based on biological reasons. Ones that have been true since before we where human, and before that, etc, etc. (and applies to almost every other animal on the planet, and its predecessors) They may be traditional, but they hold true to this day. Not all traditional reasons for a tradition are based entirely on a social perception.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 01:07 AM
1

But that's not my problem with it. I do not like traditionalism just as I dislike feminism and to me this perpetuates traditionalism Traditional isn't always wrong. It simply means it was tradition, for a reason, so we kept doing it that way. That reason can be right or wrong. Being traditional isn't ideal (its dearth of progressiveness/willingness to change), but outright denouncing anything it might represent is akin to ignoring history on any other subject.
/r/MensRights03/01/15 09:26 AM
1

That's why "alpha" is reserved for the top 10-20%, when referencing the group. Once your 30% or more, your closer to average than the top, so your not alpha by social standards, anymore.
/r/MensRights03/01/15 09:21 AM
1

I should have put the link in my original comment: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites
/r/MensRights01/01/15 12:13 AM
2

The SPLC didn't define MRA's as a hate group, that was a misleading rumor. The site just put /r/mensrights and other MR sites on a list of internet "misogynist" websites. It's still there if you feel like lol-ing. edit: As much as the rumor is touted as truth by many people who are against MR, this is where MR is listed on the SPLC http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites
/r/MensRights31/12/14 11:49 AM
2

There are so many things that could be at play. When it comes to his behavior towards/around women, that's obviously changed, but I don't know in what way, based on your description. Doing something considered "artistic" will both put you in situations where you are around more women, as those fields have much higher female representation than normal male hobbies, and give women something to brag about in their mind/to friends ("Well I dated a __!"). It has inherent social value.
/r/askTRP21/11/14 12:14 AM
1

Ah, I see what you mean. Still, my point was more towards the idea that the US school system breeds too many of these bullies, to make a dent in the problem, on a one on one basis (the higher the education, the more teachers preach their "preferred" political stance to a class, feminism being one of them, especially in gender/race study courses, but really anywhere that feminist leaning people are in charge). But I agree that showing a person the double standard in their thinking/treatment of ot…
/r/RedPillWomen18/11/14 07:48 PM
5

lesson learned: don't target feminism: target feminist bullies. everyone hates bullies. The problem with that, is that feminism teaches these bullies (and new ones) that they're in the right. Once you read up more on Feminism, beyond the dictionary or a feminist's opinion of what it is, all the literature (popular or academic) teach word usage and a perspective of the world that alters ones perception of whats actually happening. It started as a form of Cultural Marxism (a spin off of Marxism) a…
/r/RedPillWomen18/11/14 09:28 AM
3

Here's the link in case anyone else is interested: There are 7 parts. Brainwashing: Part 1: The Gender Equality Paradox -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs part 2: The Parental Effect - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41ryusHlrgw part 3: Gay/Strait - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5iEnZt2t7k part 4: Violence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2pRbPydPjA part 5: Sex - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m951x1-nbNs part 6: Race - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve6uK00AvNo part 7: Nature V…
/r/RedPillWomen07/11/14 12:12 AM
2

or 6 year olds cast in horror flicks/scary movies. Most cases where young kids are cast in movies, that they themselves are to young to view, will not be given any context (or a fake context) for what they are acting. They're pretty good at shielding them from knowing whats actually happening in the movie they're in.
/r/RedPillWomen23/10/14 05:08 AM
1

"Game" implies you play something. The only input required of the player is that once in a wile you have to choose a text option, to answer a question, but only one option is ever click-able.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 04:53 PM
1

Funny jokes are always funny, rape or not. Jokes for the sake of some perceived injustice, that needs to be avenged/equalized, is just spite and vengeance (revenge? it's late and I don't want to dictionary).
/r/MensRights03/10/14 09:28 AM
2

That would have been an amazing argument to watch her answer. :P
/r/MensRights16/09/14 02:51 AM
1

Okay, see this? See this thing you just said? This is the exact opposite of what TRP stands for. Ask a TRPer about AWALT sometime. They say that because its easier to just say AWALT, than count out minority behaviors and list each exception that are there, but you will rarely run into. Go find any thread where they discuss the fact that they say AWALT, knowing its not literally true, instead of a single random's opinion (such as your own). They are aware, they just don't care about being PC or i…
/r/MensRights27/08/14 07:33 PM
3

Sweet Gentle Sir. When talking about biology, never think in absolutes. Even if its written in a way, that doesn't go out of its way, to clarify average/majority/curve/predisposition/ w/e. On average, women are more X than men. Or, on average, men are more X than women. But these are averages, which means there are men above and below the male average. Which also means that there are plenty of men below other females, depending on the cognitive function or behavior you are looking at. Thanks to …
/r/MensRights27/08/14 07:58 AM
2

The problem is that the decision of who to arrest is left up to the officers personal opinion. There are no consequences for picking wrong (they are granted legal immunity on this decision), so there is no reason to be correct, unless you personally care about being correct. Then, a combination of social attitudes of "just grab the guy and call it a day" right next to "the guy probably started it/deserved it anyway", compounding the incredibly one sided arrest rate. RCW 10.31.100 Arrest without …
/r/MensRights23/08/14 08:52 PM
1

Not so much cultural, that would imply culture has an effect on it ("it" specifically being a woman going back on a mutual expectation of a child, even after previously agreeing to it) . You can't legally punish someone for retracting their consent. Same as you can't punish a woman for aborting a child, even if the man was expecting it with a deep emotional attachment. The Consent to Fatherhood can never be more than that, consent. So long as the woman bears the physical risk and responsibility,…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 09:11 PM
1

What your talking about is moving away from legal autonomy and body autonomy, and into the dynamics of the relationship it self. If both parties are so distraught by a failed pregnancy, or the man feels betrayed/distraught by the last minute change to have it aborted. Then that is a discussions to be had between the two adults and how they feel. Whether something like that counts towards a "fault", for divorce reasons, is another discussion entirely.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 08:42 PM
2

Unless you want to start having all children produced in the artificial wombs, wile under lock and key, its still the womans body. So she still gets the last say, if it lives, or gets aborted. There's no way to protect men from possible emotional loss outside of removing the need for women to carry children in their bodies. All we can do is fix the life crushing laws around the exchange.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 05:03 AM
6

Easy. Consent to Fatherhood: Gain legal consent that the father did intend to get the woman pregnant and that he want's to be the father of the child to be. Must be obtained within the acceptable abortion time window (to allow the mother to back out of the pregnancy if she finds out he doesn't actually want it) and received by the local government office that handles them. Assume "no" by default, in cases where father is not contacted, or has not provided the signed piece of paper, within the ap…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 12:57 AM
1

I don't understand the bottom response "I'm cancelling Fez 2" (at least, that's what I think is says).
/r/MensRights20/08/14 10:45 PM
10

Seriously??? I haven't seen any of her more recent video(s), but that is a new level of crazy.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 10:13 PM
2

He's bigger than me. Which means he has the advantage of not being allowed to hit me.
/r/MensRights30/07/14 08:05 AM
1

The act of objectifying, it self. Everyone is objectified in one way or another. Usually, the most identifiable trait is whats used. All things made of atoms and molecules that you see with your eye's are objects until you learn something more about them.
/r/RedPillWomen29/07/14 11:17 PM
2

Except its only ever used in a situation where its impossible to have known that person, on that level.
/r/RedPillWomen29/07/14 11:03 PM
3

But, saying it out loud would be anti-feminist/woman!
/r/RedPillWomen27/07/14 09:06 PM
1

One easy way to tell if it is the hard drive or not, is if you start the computer up, and it tries to start for a little wile and then fails. As opposed to immediately shutting off, or not turning on at all. If it starts up and takes a little bit to do nothing, its the drive (most likely, anything else causing the same behavior is super rare, by comparison). So if its something else, you might be in the clear for an easy DYI recovery.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 01:19 AM
1

Was it the hard drive that died? If it wasn't, you can take that out and put it into another computer, and then back things up.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 07:27 PM
1

Then it's even worse, this means that a very large group of representatives, thinks most men who seek custody are abusers That's the thing, they don't act on what they think, they act on what their supporters (the women who pay to be a member of NOW and have NOW represent them as a group)ask for. Doing so assures their paycheck. The women who benefit from the laws/policies NOW supports, are the ones being selfish/sexist. NOW does what benefits women, at the exclusion of men, because its what tho…
/r/MensRights16/07/14 09:40 PM
1

How about the leader of NOW? Decisions aren't made by a single person. They are made by a very large group of representatives who vote on a decision, based on what is wanted or is perceived as the best interest for their subscribers (the women what pay them moneys to be members). The Duluth Model was instituted by liberal feminists? Doesn't mean they lead any amount of people. Sure, those kinds of feminists are the ones that actually matter, when it comes to opposing feminism. Having political w…
/r/MensRights16/07/14 05:57 PM
1

It's never been about who "news organizations" focus on. News organizations are still the best way to gain public support (or at the very least, interest/awareness) of something. It's never been about the loudest, most extreme voices taking focus and obscuring "reasonable" feminists. Obscuring would mean that the reasonable feminists did something that garnered attention in the first place, but everyone was to busy paying attention to the more entertaining or emotion provoking ones. Being modera…
/r/MensRights16/07/14 07:49 AM
1

These aren't really my size... I just buy smaller ones, so that I can re-use them more, before they get too stretched out... yea... that's it...
/r/MensRights15/07/14 08:50 AM
6

If a news organization has a choice between a ton of people saying something moderate, and a bunch of people saying something deemed "extreme", who will get the attention? Ratings! If a politician has to choose between moderate opinions, or something that will make them popular with a demographic they pander to, what will they choose? (men aren't a voting block anyone panders to). If the random general public hears an argument about an issue they know next to nothing about, how do most decide? O…
/r/MensRights14/07/14 06:21 AM
5

Wouldn't that require being as loud/extreme as the current dominant voice? As admirable as the idea is, anything less would fall short.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 05:00 AM
2

Re-education camps? Those are human rights violations. They don't even get due process, a lawyer, or even a phone call.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 04:07 AM
2

It would be nice if they did any actual "correction" in said facilities.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 10:37 PM
3

If only we treated all violent criminals with that kind of understanding. We would have rehab/therapy centers, instead of prisons.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 10:24 PM
3

Reminds me of this: http://mr-cappadocia.tumblr.com/post/89570609437/electricawesomeness-shpencification edit: the link is more than just an image, in case people with RES are just expanding, instead of clicking.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 07:06 AM
6

Is he equating "making death and rape threats" with "being an extremist MRA"? Pretty sure the gaming community/INTERNET community, was doing those things, before anyone even heard of MRA's.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 09:01 AM
6

WTF The judge also denied a petition to list both men — or either — on the children's birth certificates. The judge did not elaborate on her reasoning for denying the men's request to be listed as the fathers of their biological children, and neither man has seen his son's birth certificate, GLAAD notes Both of them are the biological fathers of one of the kids, yet they can't even be named as so, on the appropriate birth certificate, for the kid. Literally your child? Too bad. Religious morals …
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:27 AM
15

You can't test how people react to a "cunt" without pretending to be one.
/r/PussyPass15/06/14 04:02 PM
3

A shared base is implies shared values Implying interest and or interaction is the same as sharing values. By that definition, you posting here means you share our values.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 09:39 PM
0

I wonder how all those numbers overlap with r/feminism. edit: actually, nvm, that sub is so ban-happy the data wouldn't show anything.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 04:29 PM
7

For those who can't read the cut off words: Stay Put, Reginald. "Mister Socially Sensitive" isn't through shaming his parents into enlightenment.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 02:22 AM
2

When AVFM uses the words "The Red Pill", they aren't referencing its use by a specific group on reddit. They are making a reference to the original source, the movie "The Matrix".
/r/MensRights13/05/14 01:57 AM
2

Lol, leadership. If it had a leadership, there would be individuals to hold accountable, rather than the group as a whole.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 11:58 PM
2

I don't think its just men who hate nagging. Everyone does. Being nagged at simply means that the nagger does not believe you are a responsible enough person/adult to get something done. It's demeaning. When you aren't actually doing something, that would normally warrant the start of nagging, that's when the potential nagger should do the adult thing (instead of nagging) and have a face to face conversation about why its not being done. This is only after they have failed a few times to complet…
/r/RedPillWomen10/05/14 07:40 PM
2

A guy does not need to be turned on to get a hard-on. If for some reason you need strong emotional arousal, to get hard, that's usually a sign that you have erectile dysfunction, or the onset/warning signs you are susceptible of getting it. There are men that have always needed the emotional part, but they are not that common (but they exist). In most cases, its the former. tldr: It's not normal, to not get hard from physical stimulation. To the point that saying otherwise sounds like a lie at f…
/r/MensRights05/05/14 06:14 AM
1

Oh it goes on. Just use your imagination!
/r/MensRights02/05/14 08:51 PM
3

Don't forget to sprinkle lies in with real problems (even though the real problems affect both genders). We need to make as many people believe them as possible. Finally, we can approach this topic normatively in order to figure out what is fair and just in such a situation. Let’s start with some statistics. A woman makes 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A woman is 6 times more likely to be raped and 20 times more likely to suffer from an eating disorder. Over 60% of those living in povert…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 05:06 PM
-2

I disagree. In the last few generations, women have been able to pretty much overcome all gender policing when it comes to clothing. It's not that hard when the clothing, that you where "adding" to your acceptable dress line, was originally created because it suited a purpose. There are practical reasons for pants, outside fashion/comfort. They may not be as visually appealing, but they are more protective, they don't get caught on things as easily, and wild movements wont make them expose you t…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 08:07 PM
-5

This is not gender shaming. This is just the current nature of gender fashions. Something that is constantly in flux, with every generation. This is not a Mens Rights issue, it is an issue with with people making fun of ANYONE (man or woman) who dress's wildly outside what is normally seen within a specific society. There are countries still today, where men wear dress-like clothing. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issues of "men".
/r/MensRights23/04/14 05:22 PM
1

but I do like that they are not concerned with appearances or other people's feelings. Do they get everything right? Probably not. But at least they're willing to speak plainly and give voice to taboo topics. I think the biggest problem, with peoples impressions, are the almost circle jerky "sayings" that often get parroted in response to things. Taking them for face value, sure, many might sound off putting. But, understanding the specific context its actually referring to (and that they are al…
/r/MensRights20/04/14 12:23 AM
2

Ah, phantom limb syndrome. Nah, that's normal. /rimshot
/r/MensRights11/04/14 06:44 PM
2

Being wrong is just another opportunity to learn something you didn't know before. Embracing that, is embracing self change/growth, and a willingness to understand and learn things It is a powerful tool/personality trait in life. Be proud, about your willingness to change your opinion and stop focusing on the fact that you had to change it in the first place. No one knows, or is aware of, everything. :)
/r/RedPillWomen22/03/14 07:49 PM
1

I'm saying its impossible to not objectify someone you do not know. Passing a person in the street, what do you know about them? You know what they are wearing, and the condition of those things. You know that they have this visible body part and that part. This one part stands out to you and so does this other part, as you have an interest in those parts of those people. You take notice of those interesting parts very quickly and enjoy spending time looking at them. Men have always needed to ju…
/r/RedPillWomen11/03/14 05:58 PM
1

Seeing women treated as objects all over billboards/magazines/commercials etc. causes men to treat all women that way Then what caused men to act that way, before the advent of modern media?
/r/RedPillWomen11/03/14 12:29 AM
6

Reckless driving, regardless of being drunk, is an arrestable offense. Still, the officer didn't perform his duties properly.
/r/PussyPass04/03/14 07:32 PM
6

They where using "the red pill" with its original metaphor usage. They where not actually referencing the red pill subreddit/culture.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 05:41 PM
11

She isn't a feminist, she has just written a book that feminists claim as a "feminist classic/favorite". From her wiki: Lessing's novel The Golden Notebook is considered a feminist classic by some scholars,[44] but notably not by the author herself, who later wrote that its theme of mental breakdowns as a means of healing and freeing one's self from illusions had been overlooked by critics. She also regretted that critics failed to appreciate the exceptional structure of the novel.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 09:16 PM
4

You wont get an acquittal if they can't prove it was false though. It's a direct correlation. There are plenty of false reports and real reports in the middle ground of inconclusive. Those cases get thrown out/dropped as he said she said (usually because he said/she said is all the evidence it was based on, although I don't know how many of those still ended up with men labeled guilty regardless), and in those cases the accused wont be given an acquittal, but they wont be found guilty either (we…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 07:09 PM
12

Acquittal rate sharply increased. A senior woman lawyer, who did not wish to be named, said, "It's sad but true. Registration of false cases is rampant and hence, the alarming acquittal rate. The new law is being misused because of the widened definition of rape." A person will not get an "acquittal" if there is not enough evidence to prove they are not guilty. Legal experts say the high acquittal rates are because of a spurt in the number of false rape cases being filed. The observations of jud…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:21 PM
2

Person explains how the media only focused on the female suffering and ignored the male suffering. Suddenly, its minimizing rape for women, for pointing out that male rape, mutilation, harm, death, wasn't even given the time of day, next to just one(rape) of those problems existing, for the women in the same place/situation? Women have problems? WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TOO! LOOK AT THIS!!! Ask for equal attention for men/point out the one sided social empathy for one groups problems? STOP MINIM…
/r/MensRights15/02/14 12:04 PM
8

Just an FYI, this is 6 months old. The official youtube channel this video came from only has 42 subscribers and almost 10k total views, of all of its videos combined. Guess nobody noticed it/didn't feel like paying attention.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 01:16 PM
5

And that's why we down-vote them, instead of banning them for the sake of feels.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 01:26 PM
1

Jebus. Those people should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qFojO8WkpA It's only painful if your doing it wrong.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 06:35 AM
2

positive inclusive terminology is how we can bring about change in our culture for the better. That requires making an effort to make sure you are using enough qualifiers to properly articulate your point. Creating specific positive words for everything would be like rewriting half a language. Instead, we live in an age of 140 character limits and texting/internet shorthand. It's hard enough to get people to use qualifiers in formal debate/conversation/writings. And then there are the people who…
/r/MensRights29/12/13 10:48 AM
1

Thats the thing, people always see the words and think they BELONG to a gender. They are just most commonly expressed by one gender or the other, not exclusive. When talking biology, nothing is ever "all of them". There are always exceptions. edit2: Peoples use of language and their perception of it, by them selves, can warp an understanding of something in a positive or negative way. That's usually why "qualifiers" (like including the word "some" next to men or women to not sound like you mean …
/r/MensRights29/12/13 10:11 AM
2

The problem is that it isn't just a stereo type (which is the most warped use of it). Its also useable as a descriptor/catch all for genetic/social qualities that men most commonly express.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 09:55 AM
1

Exactly, imo its a healthy mix of both, but with a majority leaning toward biology. If a brain/body has an easier time processing information or performing in a way that makes one specific task easier/enjoyable, the person is obviously going to gravitate toward those kinds of activities. Also, I find the best identity to label ones self as, is none/"I identify with/as my personal opinions.", because any common label used as an easy or quick way to tell someone your position, is still way to open…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:10 AM
1

Whenever I see heroic and erotica together in some way, it always makes me think about Boris Vallejo art.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 06:29 AM
2

I can't speak for her, but she's linked this documentary before. This section specifically deals with your question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afAvI1jrjRs edit: she also said this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-m98xmCng0&t=5m22s This is all pretty old stuff, so I can't say if covers 100% of her opinion nuances still.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 10:24 AM
3

Reminds me of this video, from yesterday. http://np.reddit.com/r/PussyPass/comments/1spvv2/princess_is_too_good_for_handcuffs/
/r/MensRights14/12/13 06:51 AM
3

I think it would really depend on how separate they kept their finances I think this should be the crux of the discussion. This thread shouldn't even exist until we know if they kept it separate.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:41 PM
2

Last time I checked, feminism was a bunch of women and men*
/r/MensRights05/11/13 08:40 PM
1

That's awesome. In an ideal educational setting, all the teachers should be well paid professionals held to bringing such a standard. edit: a letter was missing from "ideal"
/r/MensRights28/10/13 06:50 PM
1

Now that's education. Making people think for them selves, rather than telling them what to think.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:49 AM
1

There is also Reddits anti vote gaming system. It will add extra upvotes and downvotes from no one to make it harder for 3rd parties to monitor trends and other meta information they might gleen from watching votes. This is my explanation of the system, but I'm pretty sure I didn't do it justice.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 08:52 PM
2

This is true.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 06:36 PM
2

David Gaider wrote a pretty epic takedown of straight white dudes a single strait white dude* who was homophobic.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 06:27 PM
1

Exactly. The street goes both ways. Painting it as something that can only happen to women is just another way of controlling the narrative to always point to the idea that these are exclusively female problems that must be dealt with from that perspective.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 06:06 PM
4

You're misreading it. According to English grammar, the word "those", in the first quote, are the people applying said sexism upon the referenced target of "women". those who see women as Which means that this first example cannot apply to men and women. Men exist only as a source, and not a target. The same is true for the second quote, as "men and women" are the ones acting upon, and not the ones being acted upon. In neither case, men are not the target of any forms of those types of sexism. T…
/r/MensRights23/10/13 08:37 AM
1

Their growth is normally parallel with puberty?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 03:38 PM
2

I'm pretty sure /u/Captaincastle was being sarcastic. But yes, "equal" is near impossible in all aspects of life save for things that can be reduced to hard math. IMO, gender is best described as a gradient, but one that is contrasted on each side, as the middle ground is not the genetic norm. edit: the argument that gender is meaningless/ boys and girls are equal/can do all the same things equally is something you will see from feminists (who can post here without restriction), not MRA's.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 08:26 PM
5

The most up-voted comment on that page: Mae K • 2 days ago I was raped. Twice, before I was even 17 years old. Each experience was horrific, terrifying, dehumanizing and remains in my memory and nightmares eight years later. I was raped. And I still didn't have a problem with the Dickwolves because the point of the Dickwolves "raping" the little dude was to evoke that horror and revulsion even in people who have never experienced it. It did so. If other people who have been raped cannot even loo…
/r/MensRights07/09/13 09:22 AM
1

Exactly. Don't know why you're getting down voted. It's not about what someone likes, it's how they act on those urges. There are positive ways and negative ways to do anything in life. Having a fetish to break expensive pieces of art doesn't make it wrong for existing. But actually breaking someone else's art would be.
/r/MensRights06/09/13 10:11 PM
1

I'm failing to see the value in campaigning for this right Here's where you're missing something. In Canada, women already have the "right" to do it, as the reporter even said. She was questioning why it wasn't socially accepted behavior.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 07:00 AM
1

So, this article is pathetic and sad and silly. Your "argument" is indicative of a desperate grab for anything to keep you from having to admit that. I don't have any more energy to keep explaining vocabulary to you. Good luck, and please remember not to rape anybody. I feel like saying the same thing to your arguments, except without the false accusation/assumptions that you'll rape someone. Have a nice day. (tagged you as "please remember not to rape anybody)
/r/MensRights26/08/13 06:25 AM
1

Continued: The only situations where this actually happens, is in societies/groups, that are run/influenced by religions/religious beliefs/texts that outline a treatment of women. You have proof for this? Women are only oppressed in religious societies? Watch/read the news? What secular group of people has tried to ban abortion, criminalize supposed immoralities, or add restrictions to basic rights? ALso, it's interesting that you say they are "run/influenced" by these beliefs. Can't you underst…
/r/MensRights24/08/13 09:46 PM
1

Yes. I'm not going to list identifying characteristics here, but I went to school for this. Can I claim that every single instance of abuse was consciously motivated by patriarchy? No. But I'm not claiming that. I'm saying they happen in that context. Lots of things happen in context to other things. It does not mean there is a correlation between them. I can just as easily say taking a shit in a toilet happens in the context of global warming. You are trying to draw a line where there is none. …
/r/MensRights24/08/13 09:45 PM
3

For telling us it happened....? I hate to hear what you think of tv news reporters.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 05:20 AM
1

I am not saying any of that. I am saying, and have been saying, that individual acts of abuse are done in an environment soaked in patriarchy and oppression. Those acts of abuse are encouraged and protected by that environment, and thus the two are related. That is not at all a claim that the two words mean the same thing, or because I thought of them in my head at the same time they have become indistinguishable. Do you have proof that all those individual acts of abuse are encouraged specifica…
/r/MensRights24/08/13 04:35 AM
1

I responded by saying they're not nearly so separated, saying that men who abuse individually are taking cues from larger systemic oppression. You may disagree with that, but it's hard for me to believe you couldn't understand what I was saying, and needed clarification on parts of speech. Do you know what the word concept means? By implying you where talking about the concepts, you are talking about the IDEA of oppression and abuse (meaning in your head). Which is why my "you can think what you…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 04:22 PM
1

I didn't say the words meant the same thing. I said the concepts of oppression and abuse are tied together, which I elucidated in my next sentence, when I said: "...men, taking cues from the oppressive nature of patriarchy, could also abuse their wives." Well, next time you mean "concepts" of [noun], please at least imply the word concept, or even use it out right (as in, use the word "concept" in the actual sentence, when you mean "concept"), as I have. It is difficult to mind read intent and p…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:40 AM
1

I got that; my argument was that this is invalid, since men do both all the time. Lots of men who abuse buy flowers later... Appeasement for a past transgression is not equivalent to going out of ones way to do something to fulfill a unnecessary desire. That is simply an abusive partner who does not know how to properly express emotions, trying to make up for it through a simple gesture. That person needs therapy to learn how to properly express him self in a non-violent way, as his upbringing a…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:54 AM
3

??? This is hilarious. Lots of men work hard to provide for their families so widespread oppression doesn't exist? Does not follow. The subject was not "that they work hard", it is that they do it because they care for their families enough to go out of their way and do extra work for them, that they did not need to do. The argument is that a group of people oppressing another would not do such a thing, as it is at odds with the core concept of oppression. Further, it's worth noting that many me…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:16 PM
1

As for Dawkins, I'm talking about his recent tweets about Muslims in science and his older "dear Muslima" letter. If you want to say it's bigotry and not racism, I guess that's fine. Seems like thinking that hating African Americans isn't racism because white African Americans exist. How are you comparing a religion to someones biological parents passing them specific genes that denotes them a race? Making a comparison doesn't work like that. The things being compared have to have at the very le…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 06:44 PM
5

5112 pages isn't very much. On my tablet, connected to the internet, it has 3.71 billion pages. Technology is magic! And this is just reading material on everything in existence. And it certainly doesn't exhaust the field. There is a lot of work to understand a body of intellectual thought. That's what happens when very smart people spend decades pushing the boundary of human knowledge. 5112 pages of an introductory-level textbook is not a lot. Your complaint is blatantly anti-intellectual. Wait…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 02:42 AM
1

and females more weighted toward empathizing (detecting and predicting patterns in human behavior). I wonder if that has a correlation with why there are so many female "psychics". I don't mean the ones who are blatantly just pretending, but the ones who actually have notoriety for guessing correctly, at an abnormally higher rate than the average person.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 06:54 AM
1

Reading what I wrote again seems very poor to get my point across. I was trying to include people who aren't strictly in politics but still follow that behavior.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 03:41 PM
1

I understand there are uses for the public smear campaigns. But we don't even know if she is going to divorce him. We don't know if they talked it out. All we know is how she reacted to her husband watching porn. Full stop. Until she actually does something like that, it is not an issue for this sub. All it is, is jumping to conclusions about what could happen.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 06:06 AM
2

I would say yours is more accurate. But maybe further amendments? Those who's careers depend on feminist world views (patriarchy?) being true, only care about facts that support it.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 05:55 AM
3

It's impossible to tell every single possible behavioral reaction to situations that have not been experienced yet. The person could be just like you in every way for decades and then BAM, something new came up and crazy happens. There is a limit to how cautious someone can be before the cautious behavior starts to bog down or ruin every single relationship.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 03:34 AM
8

"Don't worry, we'll keep your identity safe. We will only show them what you look like and where you live. They wont know who you are!" Sincerely, to many news organizations.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 09:09 PM
21

I like how the news channel says they wont use the mothers name to keep her privacy, but then show a copy of the police report with her full address dead center.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 04:51 PM
3

I dunno, I think there's a bit more to it. A threat is usually made emotionally as a means to satisfy ones self by projecting punishment on someone/thing else. "This is the magnitude of event that needs to take place upon you, to satisfy my feelings.". So, knowing that a threat of sexual nature would be more easily ignored than the death(display of weakness?), killing a man would be a more personally gratifying threat as you feel he is lesser than you to have died (exerting complete and final do…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 09:43 PM
6

No. It would lower it, but doing that would cause companies that don't want to deal with maternity absences leaving a position unfilled, would screen employee's through questions or contracts about their intent on having children.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 07:50 PM
2

And religion!
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:41 PM
2

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, IT BURNS!!!!!!!
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:25 AM
5

You mean, Pro drama?
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:16 AM
1

I think the problem is that it was more of an in joke, as it makes use of the fact that most public organizations/groups/whatever, that come to be as a result of feminism, make use of the word Women in their name either to imply it is only for women or that it is run/backed by/for only women, or even if it's just a name for a group of feminists in some place, to reinforce the idea that women are a specific group that needs special attention (Because equality!). Kind of like when something is dir…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:54 PM
1

I was thinking about it from the perspective that most homo- and bi-sexual people are male. Sorry, but the words you used meant exactly that. Hence my response. The sheer fact you brought it up, means you consider it a factor worth stating.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 07:38 AM
2

Even if that was true, most != all people. Just because there are more men or less men effected by a subject, does not dictate whether it's an issue for the MRM.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 05:53 PM
2

THat's a rather egocentric statement. Do you think yourself free of fault? How about a little context? No insult is correct. The moment an insult is "correct" it becomes a fact that does not carry an insulting connotation. . So who gets to be the arbiter? You? I bet you think you qualify. The words do....? Did you even read my entire comment? The last sentence, from a sea of 4 sentences, answers your questions and accusations. The implications of the words and the manner and intent in which they…
/r/MensRights21/07/13 06:00 AM
2

No insult is correct. The moment an insult is "correct" it becomes a fact that does not carry an insulting connotation. Mixing in "incorrect" insults with the "correct" ones does not justify the "incorrect" ones. Just to be clear, whether someone takes offense to something does not dictate whether something said is an insult. The implications of the words and the manner and intent in which they are said, do that inherently.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 03:39 AM
2

That's like a weaponized aural fetish. Except without the sex.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 03:32 AM
2

You do not run the risk of being censored if you don't have a tirade of insults strung throughout your posts. As those will get you banned, not your ideas/discussion points. If you want to blow off steam and insult people, there are subreddits for that. Or 4chan.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 03:27 AM
2

By people who share the opinion.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 05:34 PM
1

Starting to think you ladies feminists don't give a shit about this problem and your issue isn't with the MR approach but with the fact that they're discussing it at all. (there are both female and male feminists)
/r/MensRights20/07/13 05:23 PM
1

One thing though (just to be clear, is that MGTOW is as much part of the MRM as being an Alcoholic's Anonymous member makes Alcoholic's Anonymous a part of the MRM. I do agree that the content and opinions displayed on the website can be extreme. But most of them are reactions to lived experiences/feelings or being over aware of the dangers/women who will exploit the systems. Kind of like a place to vent about something that makes you angry. One thing is, you wont see them out protesting ,gettin…
/r/MensRights19/07/13 12:18 AM
2

That's one reason that I removed my threshold for hiding down-voted comments. It saves me from having to open them to see what all the fuss is about.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 12:00 AM
1

Wow, that made me feel like a stalker.... So much greeeeeen.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 11:56 PM
1

It was a better time....
/r/MensRights16/07/13 05:45 PM
12

Doesn't really matter if he did or didn't. As far as the courts where concerned, the blood test was true but he still had to pay, which is the problem. Also, I would question the validity of the womans claim considering; she was institutionalized at Patton State Hospital after being found walking the streets barefoot, carrying a pair of baby sandals and a child's ring, and murmuring: "This is magic".
/r/MensRights15/07/13 11:22 PM
1

I was saying it in agreeance with the comment (hence the word "yes" signifying a positive answer) I replied to. My response was just a rephrasing for clarity. Wile pointing out that the fact that men take more dangerous jobs shouldn't be a consideration in the discussion. Just using less words.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 05:37 PM
6

Men are more willing to take physically strenuous or dangerous occupations, yes. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't put an emphasis on increasing their safety. I mean, we do it for women. Why not both?
/r/MensRights05/07/13 12:51 AM
2

Anyone who want's a credit card must prove they have sufficient credit (via a credit check) and an appropriate income to support owning the card. Just as anyone applying for a large sum of money, they will need someone to sign for it that has the sufficient credit and income to cover the return of the money/credit used if the person with no income/poor credit fails to pay. Financial institutions don't just give out free money/credit without covering their butts. <--
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:03 PM
9

For anyone who somehow reads reddit regularly and hasn't seen the Amy's Baking Company video that /u/giegerwasright is mentioning: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uPOGxUtZvk&hd=1
/r/MensRights03/07/13 08:57 PM
10

Sadly, not everyone can be perfectly critical and aware of every situation in their life. Most people get by, by being half ignorant of things lest they spend all their time pondering. In a perfect world full of people with perfect cognitive genetics this would be reasonable, but most of the time people need to be taught how or what to be critical of, as the default is of nothing. edit: grammar
/r/MensRights30/06/13 03:53 AM
3

It probably has a basis in the biological differences of the genders. Males being more likely to attempt something risky (risky meaning there being a deterrent risk (result of failure:anything from financial to social or life threatening/pain) involved) behaviors/tasks/idea's increases the likely-hood of men in a more influential (power/information/discovery) areas, taking said leap and having it pay off for that one person. If it was left to the female traits for discovery or risk of self harm …
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:01 AM
1

Okay... well as a feminist who is also a man I guess I take exception to the insinuation that I am equivalent to a member of the KKK. Well, the point of it was not to compare you to a KKK member, but to imply that simply associating with something or believing it to be right does not make it right. And that behavior is possible in even the most mind blowing of situations. Just because you don't gain the things they do, doesn't mean you don't gain something. My religion is the true religion, woul…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:03 PM
1

How do you take account for feminist men? How do you take account for blacks who are KKK members? Their sheer existence does not = they made the right choice. People are allowed to be wrong and do things for the wrong reasons.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:55 PM
1

That there are some women at an unknown % that marry because of hypergamy, get divorced from the resulting boredom or motivation of financial gains. This is one of many reasons that tilts the divorce initiation ratio towards women based on average evolved+socialized female behaviors. People supporting messages like "women want a wedding not a marriage" are contributing to why people think MRA's are "misogynist" .
/r/MensRights23/06/13 11:23 PM
1

I don't doubt it is. Bordom != hypergamy 100% (0%-100% is an unknown) of the time though.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 08:57 PM
1

Then people will hopefully stop using generalizations worded toward an entire gender.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:57 AM
1

1 reason only means that it is used the most. Not even taking into account their reason for boredom (so making the assumption that is hypergamy 100% of the time is unfounded, even if your considering evolutionary behavioral biology) could be equally a sign of a dwindling relationship as it is hypergamy. 1 reason could literally be 10%, of the women gave that reason, and no other reason is used that often. People need to start using the word "some", "those", or other more specific modifiers when …
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:35 AM
1

I'm arguing that there are more reasons to break up a relationship than hypergamy. Most of them are to do with feelings, which women are more invested in on average. I'm not saying hypergamy isn't there, I'm just saying every one is acting like is the ONLY reason.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:09 AM
39

You didn't include a field for a safe-word, or a fine-print "Regret" clause with the power to void the entire contract at will.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:04 PM
1

Only 32% of divorces happen within the first 10 years. It goes up to 43% within 15 years. Those aren't short stints. You don't know any ones motivation for getting married, or the dynamics in each of those relations ships that cause it to become boring. You don't know what % of them are actual hypergamy. Saying "This is just another aspect of hypergamy." is like saying women aren't allowed to become bored with a relationship and end it. Being bored doesn't mean "he stopped entertaining me". It a…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:40 AM
1

Sure http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1gnj0t/survey_of_101_divorce_lawyers_show_the_1_reason/cam0255 Is probably the most in your face example. And incredibly upvoted and supported by comments below.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 02:43 AM
1

Marriage "used" to be a public declaration of a wealthy couples joining and a way to show off their affluence. A majority of the poor would never bother with it, as they stayed together because they both relied on each other. Only in places where religion was a motivating factor to get married, did marriage really take off in a majority of the people. Religion is also the source of the moral contracts that get declared at their alters. In some religions, it literally is a contract, and the woman…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:37 AM
1

Divorce law and mens rights within them, not relationships that didn't turn out and the potential, potential, that any of those could have been an example of hypergamy. Since we don't actually know what % are, we need to stop making assumptions based on what something might be, or how long those relationships lasted before the divorce even happened. We aren't SJW's on tumbler. Regardless, people are acting as if its 70% of all relationships with the way they are wording their comments. "Women on…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:29 AM
-1

Any relationship is voided if they lose interest in each other. That's how relationships work. If they have no desire to continue it, then there is no relationship to speak of. Just because someone said some words that represent perseverance, doesn't mean those people will love each other enough to put in that effort because of those words. You don't own your SO, and they don't ow you a relationship just because you both signed some papers saying you're a couple.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 04:20 AM
1

There is so much over generalizing in this thread. This is 70% of "failed" marriages, not 70% of all relationships everywhere. This is a subset of a subset of half the population. People in this sub have to stop using the word "women" or "men" by it self. Most people see the words by them selves and assume you mean all (regardless of your intentions), that's how language works. So what if women are bored with their relationships. That's not a Men's Rights Issue, that's a relationship issue. Also…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 04:06 AM
0

Those* Let's try not to out the reasonable women.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 11:10 PM
2

Oh god I remember seeing those (or something similar) waaaaaay back when I was a teen. My older sister use to have some chat-room game that had avatars just like that. She played it quite a bit since she won her own windows98 machine in a contest. The entire basis was to just hang out, talk to random people, make your avatar look how ever you wanted.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:25 AM
3

He's building his statements off the fact feminism/patriarchy theory states that women are an oppressed class, so they should be listened to by their male oppressors.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:27 PM
1

Conscription isn't something new though. It was around well before those age of consent law changes.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 08:07 AM
1

You where still considered an adult at 18, which is why that was the age for conscription.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 12:03 AM
2

In the USA in the 1890s, several states had an age of consent as low as 10. In 1895, the age of consent in Delaware was 7, according to an article in The New York Times.[27] However, feminists and children's rights activists began advocating raising the age of consent to 16 wanting to ultimately raise it to 18 and by 1920 almost all states had raised their age of consent to 16 or 18 Age of consent raised to 18 in some states? WTF is the point? By 18 consent becomes meaningless/the law becomes us…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 11:13 PM
14

The problem is, when you choose to rally under any banner, it is assumed you are in agreement with most of the people or at least what the banner stands for. Feminism is unique as it is the ONLY banner in existence that has no core set of rules/guidelines or beliefs/purpose. "Well what I think feminism is, isnt that, so don't treat us all the same." "Well I didn't build my Reuben sandwich with any of that nasty sauerkraut , so don't clump me in with those other Reubens." "Ok, but then it's not a…
/r/MensRights13/06/13 06:22 PM
2

Why do you need to make a statement? Why do you even need the word? It's just a word, used by many for the wrong reasons. Why would you want to associate with those kind of people? If the MRM suddenly filled with crazies and rape apologists, reasonable people would drop it like a hat, because it is not a statement about our lives. It is simply an identifying banner to say we are all together in agreement on an issue(something feminism cannot attest too). Are you in agreement with all of feminism…
/r/MensRights13/06/13 05:51 PM
2

Your over simplifying what endurance hunting needs. Wile women are just as capable of the endurance aspect of it, tribes have little/no reason to risk the lives of women during a hunt. If every hunt involved nothing but tracking a herbivore till it collapses, I'm sure there would have been more opportunity for safe female participation. animals may turn and fight, endangering, wounding, or even killing a party member (can't risk losing females, the tribe would dwindle). This also means other pre…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 10:54 AM
-22

I wanna up-vote your comment, but my vote weight for you is 665. If I give you one more, it might signal the coming of the beast. On second thought, up-vote. edit:and here i thought it was a silly biblical reference making use of her notoriety. Tough crowd.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:00 PM
3

I made a biology comment in /r/feminism in response to what someone said, I literally just said what they said but with biology words. In an hour their comment (which was heavily upvoted, almost no downs) and mine (which was half and half) was deleted, and I was banned from r/feminism, meta, and ask. It's hard to have a conversation, when someone that says something a mod doesn't personally approve, is banned rather than debated/talked to for the sake of understanding. Silence the decenter! Some…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 07:19 PM
3

All I have to do is point to a female bodybuilder, and your entire argument fall apart. And all we have to do is point at the fact there where no body builders in those situations/era's? There where no gyms or weight rooms. There was no free time to spend all day pumping iron (or even the knowledge that such a feat is possible), just so they could get closer to the males who didn't even have to try, to get that same muscle. I'll even use your own words: You forget, "primitive" peoples don't have…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 06:51 PM
1

It applies to most things really. A lack of understanding leads to a poor argument, regardless of the side of the fence your on. Unless you want to take each person aside, hand them a dunce cap, show them why they messed up on their judgement call until they can actually understand their own folly, there will always be those poor arguments you speak of. It can be an issue of a single minute perspective/belief on a small facet of the study that causes them to be bias of whats presented. But a stu…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 07:52 PM
1

I also see it with actual studies though, and that's a problem. *One of the biggest issues with feminism is the extent to which statistical evidence is ignored or manipulated to fit an agenda You answered why you see it right after stating it. If it's a legitimate source then either it's overzealous skepticism/paranoia/ or a bias to never trust statistics . It could even be a feminist commenter who just doesn't "agree" with it. There will always be people who don't understand how to actually cri…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 07:32 PM
1

The guy wouldn't be watching the lesbian porn if he was gay. Is it that hard to understand? At the very least, even if he was watching it, he would get no arousal/enjoyment from it. Just being near or looking at something doesn't prove your sexual orientation. Your feelings and desire do. what if you're letting a guy fuck you in the ass (homosexual act) while you watch a porno of 2 girls(heterosexual interest) going at it? is that heterosexual? (Considering you example has both homo and hetero, …
/r/MensRights28/05/13 09:34 PM
2

Wow, I knew it's been a wile. But, 30+ years? That's some decades right there. Pretty much.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 07:28 PM
3

Mandatory maternity+paternity leave time must be offered by all companies. And then force the employee's to use it. Also, it's always paid time. I could see every company from then on only hiring single people. Or at least a heavy preference.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 03:16 AM
3

Actually, that's called having a "team". A bunch of people who you either manage or work with to complete the things your responsible for. Leadership positions will have them if the work load is big enough to warrant the extra wages spent (if one person cannot possibly do it alone). And since there are many positions where people step up to the plate and manage to do it, that is how the work environment for that position will stay. You right about there being nothing "wrong" about it, as long as…
/r/MensRights27/05/13 09:02 PM
1

See, this is why men have the privilege of not being afraid of assault. Totally safer to be a big stronk man if you want to walk down the street and feel safe.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 12:26 PM
1

? Your kind of answering your own questions. Has sex with, or gets aroused by watching (sometimes its just this but isn't oriented), means they are sexually oriented to them. Being within vicinity to somethign naked (a man, a dog, a cat, a lizard, w/e) does not make you sexually oriented to it. it just means your standing next to one. You have to actually have desire to have sex with said thing.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 06:29 AM
1

That would be bi-sexual.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 07:16 PM
3

So its gay when you watch a porno clip of a guy fucking a girl? Or does it only magically become gay because there are other males near you enjoying the same sight?
/r/MensRights24/05/13 07:15 AM
6

Having an erection from there being a woman doesn't make you gay just because there are other men near you. It doesn't mean you suddenly have fantasies about the guy next to you pounding on your prostate. You still only enjoy the sex with the female if your strait. Sharing a woman doesn't mean your gay if its with one other guy or 50.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 06:04 PM
12

It's only gay if the men are screwing each other and not the women. Else your argument almost feels homophobic. "Lots of nakid men near each other, must be gay."
/r/MensRights23/05/13 03:30 PM
1

My assumption is directed at the people making the reactions that you are reacting to, not the voiceless people who happened to up-vote. Sorry for not being incredibly specific to leave you no nit picks.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 01:26 PM
1

Let me re-phrase what I was saying. People are assuming your complaining, because most people don't consider this worth attention, so they assume complaint as the only motivation to post it. /kneejerk
/r/MensRights18/05/13 01:02 PM
2

It's assumed by simple association and known patterns that content posted in MR has a common theme of displaying an injustice or inequality. It's more knee jerk reactions by people assuming there is a complaint simply because it was posted, even though it is trivial. That, and if it was truely only posted because it was a "TIL", and not related to mens rights, then it should be in the /r/todayilearned subreddit.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 11:40 AM
5

I think if women *political feminists You know, the ones who actually effect laws/rights. Super wide generalizations are a bad habit. :P
/r/MensRights15/05/13 09:36 PM
1

I remember that as a book title for an awesome book. So I'm just going to assume it's in reference to that.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 06:25 AM
2

I don't get that reference. :(
/r/MensRights04/05/13 05:26 PM
7

Where is the hypocrisy? Are people saying that men never have body image issues? Did you read what this threads OP is even about? That womyn stated specifically that men she personally knows who ruin their bodies in the name of attractiveness DON'T have body image issues BECAUSE they are men. That is the definition of a hypocrisy. I don't understand what your not reading. This is an internet forum. If you're looking for people who actually make a difference in a way you think would be better , y…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 09:13 PM
5

What is there to discuss? It happened. We pointed out the hypocrasy in a very short and concise manner (satirical even?). End of story. We don't need to ramble for 3 hours in every single thread and throw up trigger warnings, when the same subjects come up over and over again. If someone actually does not understand the very simple concepts that don't need at length discussions, they can ask a question, or even try and debate it with someone. If someone has something new to add that is great, bu…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 08:36 PM
1

Ya, its a bit of a balancing act. But better to have someone actually try and balance it, than let it fall off the cliff all together, imo.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 07:32 PM
1

there are some of them that can engage in a fair and rational dialogue. I don't think that's what is being questioned. It's more about them pushing the belief of oppression(or patriarchy, or w/e aspect they might be selling at the time), than the way they communicate in a discussion. But this line of commenting is based on the majority, or at least, the visible majority.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 07:15 PM
9

I agree, but: It's up to the kids to be smart enough to see a con-person when they see one. Most experienced adults are bad at that. Let alone high schoolers, imo. It's not like there are "how to criticize thigns 101" or critical thinking coarses that are available at or before that level.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 07:13 PM
6

Hard to really say she "snapped" considering she had the mental clarity to actually plan the assault. Prosecutors said in their closing arguments that Kieu was driven by jealous anger, not trauma, and showed her intentions by her thorough planning before the attack.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 06:57 PM
2

RES - reddit enhancement suite, has a feature that auto saves everything you recently/last entered into a comment box. So in-case something catastrophic happens when your mid type, you won't lose your Epic of Ulysses. It records them based on the thread you where typing in, so it won't show up anywhere else. This creates problems when working in multiple tabs, as the tabs don't speak to each other until the specific tab is refreshed. So s/he could have accidentally posted it if s/he had a commen…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 07:43 PM
1

Primary? Does that imply I'm doing something else with the secondary? :p
/r/MensRights28/04/13 06:53 PM
1

I do want to clarify that I meant that the physical body is female in shape during the first 6 weeks, even if its going to become male. The genetic gender is decided at conception though.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 10:13 PM
1

The XY or XX chromosome is already determined, but the body does not physically start to change until about 6 weeks. Being XY is what triggers the increase in the testosterone, which results in the bodily changes. edit:when I said the "default" is female, I meant it only in the physical shape of the body, not the actual gender. The tubing is all there, but the ovaries/or soon to be testicles haven't been told what to be yet, and are still in all the places a female would have them. I should have…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 08:36 PM
1

The introduction of large amounts of testosterone causes the shift from female to male. The uterus will start to drop to form the testicles and scrotum, as well as other neurological and muscular(which testosterone is a key deciding factor in how much and how easy muscle is developed) changes that result from higher testosterone (men have roughly 10x as much as women).
/r/MensRights27/04/13 07:50 PM
1

And if anyone doesn't, they should get it.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 07:20 PM
4

Ah. Still, that's not very acceptable behavior. Those kind of people need some re-edumacation. Or at least a slap up side the head and a sit in the time out corner.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 11:29 AM
7

O.o the hell? How can you desert a gender? Did you have a responsibility to the gender that you could no longer fulfill? >.> Allllll of the down-votes for those idiots. Also, if anyone wants to get technical, our bodies all start out female in the womb. So, all men would be gender traitors if simply changing your gender is enough to be labeled a traitor.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 11:00 AM
1

Well, from the wording: A MAN could be convicted of rape even if the woman agreed to have sex, judges ruled yesterday. Pretty sure this is as one sided as it gets.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 02:01 AM
1

O.O How do these people get jobs?!
/r/MensRights18/04/13 01:07 PM
1

Honestly, the problem for hooters could be solved by not advertising the job as waitress/waiter (they title it "Hooters Girl" with the definition of a waiter/waitress under it). The definition of the position implies you only need to be competent at serving food/taking orders, and customer interaction. If they changed the job requirement to something other than waitress, they could avoid this problem. They need it to have job requirements that imply a need for a specific gender to fulfill the re…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 01:04 AM
1

This is a situation where it betters your public image, to be out of the loop. +1
/r/MensRights16/04/13 10:50 AM
1

With some googling, apparently its happened a few times. The very first time, an entire group of men sued, but settled for a payout and Hooters creating male non-waitress positions (which still wasn't enough to protect them from later lawsuits of the exact same kind).
/r/MensRights15/04/13 11:00 PM
3

They were forced to hire him. Since hooters couldn't argue that the job exclusively required females to perform. But that was years ago. Who knows what legislation has been passed since then.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 04:52 AM
9

Even Hooters was forced to hire a man that sued.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 01:55 AM
0

She seemed oblivious, to the contradiction of claiming a phenomenon feminists insist is invisible to those to whom it applies didn't apply to her because she couldn't see it. But, but, no. My brain.... WHY U NO USE FRONTAL LOBE? Eugenics seems like a better idea every day.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 08:45 AM
2

Unreliable, unless the person being banned has a static address and does not know how to use proxies.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 10:36 PM
6

Problem with banning throw away accounts, is that they can just make more.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:44 PM
1

You make a great point about not communicating (I'm assuming "with feminists"), but I believe the "A" is simply not being used properly (or even paid attention to by most people). IMO, Activism, in reference to educating people (without pushing it on them) and supporting others in need, is how I see activism, when I actually pay attention to it. Any form of activism where it is speaking for the sake of speaking (whether your going out of your way to try and correct some one/thing, or just plain …
/r/MensRights30/03/13 08:25 AM
1

Also, /r/tumblrInaction can be great for some laughs, or even facepalms.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 01:16 PM
1

Sadly, there is no "reason why you voted" box as a requirement to voting. I agree with the fact that it is both biological and reinforced/amplified by the social behavior caused by our biology. And I think /u/oneiorosgrip also has a point with: I agree with you on the biological aspect of female nature, that the sensitivity exists, but with women letting their response to that sensitivity dictate their behavior, I think the issue is much more nurture than nature. My thoughts, are that much of th…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 01:55 AM
5

His life is trashed, and so is he emotionally. Yet he just keeps his chin up and and keeps looking forward. No wonder that girl wanted to hook back up with him. He's a keeper, for whoever gets him.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 09:20 AM
1

the rape of women is a pervasive theme in the myths and legends of early Rome. . traditional stories as the "rape" of the Sabine women, . the Epicurean poet Lucretius condemned rape Myths, stories, and the opinion of a noted poet. I'm sure the rape of women was more talked and sung about. Human males care for the safety of women, even at their own expense. So I can see why stories of that nature where more prominent. edit: It also leads me to believe that men, even back then, did not like the id…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 02:39 AM
1

Ah, I see what you mean. But the bible is still a shaky example, as it has been re-translated and re-written so many times. Even if the original language of the bible was of the same manner and stance, I would still be hesitant to take the bible as a clear definition of the public opinion of things. Specifically as many of the stories about events, that happened hundreds of years before the lives of the writers (from what I understand), would not have been accurate to opinions of the time, from …
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:48 PM
1

You're neglecting the fact that even the bible had female on male rape. Genesis 19 verses 30 to 38, the second story describes how Lot's two daughters got their father drunk on wine, engaged in sexual intercourse with him on two successive nights, became pregnant, and eventually gave birth to two sons Moab and Benammi.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 07:52 AM
21

Your the one who is imposing a context that does not exist. The image is only half of what is presented, and the message it self is in the text. The poster clearly states "it does not matter what she did". Meaning anything, not just the cliche burnt dinner. It includes battering, assault, violence of any kind. The things that are included by the definition of those words yet are not the intent, ever, of the people who say them. Its the equivalent of saying it doesn't happen. And this is the reas…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 09:59 AM
1

Really? I've never heard of that mechanism. Good idea though. To bad it would have to land on their skin and be indelible, or else they could just remove the offending clothes.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 02:52 AM
2

Obligatory Crime cops! Zoom and enhance!
/r/MensRights11/03/13 10:14 PM
2

Wile there is a potential for that, most security camera's are kept to hallways and gathering spaces (not counting the external ones). So if they pulled an alarm that wasn't near a camera, there would be no evidence. Also, if they so much as wore a scarf or face covering, there would be no way to tell who it is. And even then, if they didn't, most security camera's do not have the optical clarity to be used as evidence without a witness saying you where in the area at the time (unless you get cl…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:55 PM
1

As someone who is not familiar with the Z.F.C. set theory, or its existence, saying ABC set theory has the same meaning to me. The "why it's so hard" is that it was not immediately apparent that it was an acronym. A set within a theory can just as easily be " A,B all intersect at C". So the ABC set of variables within the theory being expressed could be justifiably seen as simply that, ABC. Once again, I am not deeply familiar with all of the many theories created through set theory (such as ZFC…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:17 PM
1

I mistook your abbreviation of 3 letters for a variable set of random letters, yes. But your still implying set theory can ONLY be mathematical. I would recommend spelling out abbreviations, as not doing so assumes everyone you expect to read it already has the same mindset/persepective and is educated or at least a functioning knowledge to pull from, of the subject presented, to give a frame of reference for the non descriptive letter string. Yes it is the most common use, but it is not limited…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:52 PM
1

This is a bad metaphor and you should feel bad. Are you really comparing complex ideas and theories about how society is structured to a fucking bicycle? Your metaphor about pies is also rather bad Yes, that's how metaphors work. You use unrelated things, so long as their use can depict the point being compared. A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object. . Further, "intersection" …
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:24 PM
3

What does this even mean, at what point does the introduction of intersectionality change that definition? The moment it alters the view/approach/causes/definition or a selective/exclusionary meaning of the words to fit the users specific beliefs. If I add an 3rd wheel to a bicycle and keep calling it a bicycle, that is no longer a bicycle by the definition of the word. It is a tricycle. Sure, there are similarities, but that is still something different. If we were required to stick to that def…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:44 PM
4

You don't understand what feminism is. Is feminism a religion? Because in that case, you just have stopped taking feminist seriously, and if you aren't taking the content seriously, why even talk about it? As much as this perpetuates the slap fight, you are missing the context of what was being said and just taking it as an attack of ignorance. I never said that feminism "was" a religion, nor did I use it in a manner that implies it (that only happened in your mind). My example, when "taken in c…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 08:55 PM
-1

Isn't anyone slightly bothered by the strategy deployed within this argument on behalf of GWW For example, in one comment she states: Feminism's paradigm of gender as historical, class-based oppression--essentially a Marxist paradigm where women are the proletariate and men the bourgeoisie, women the oppressed and men the privileged oppressors, is a kindergartener's model of society. I_love_bees replies: [This] is not how many feminists, Marxists, and Marxist-feminists conceptualize inequality. …
/r/MensRights09/03/13 08:15 PM
1

This. There are way to many "This is what I think feminism means!" self identifiers who are basically just displaying a form of inter-sectionalism, rather than being a full fledged feminist. Like someone who says their Christian just because they like the idea of some of the popular morals from that group. Either you know what feminism stands for, or your creating your own meaning for the word, in which case your NOT actually a feminist. your just using the name for popularity/attention/fellowsh…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 07:30 PM
1

Ah. Language error. Thank you. I fixed it.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:42 AM
2

I actually spent most of a night looking this stuff up to back up what i was saying in another thread. But yes, patriarchy is Feminism's "...because Satan did it to sow disbelief" answer.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:21 AM
2

She also claims that: "The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth." at 21:37 in her video. I could have sworn men had 10x the testosterone(helps build muscle/strength easier plus stronger vascular system to fuel it) and 40-50% innately more muscle mass on average.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 07:56 AM
1

Huh. TIL. Fuzzing. And now that you mention it, I think I've heard about that somewhere before (the not linking to gawkerdom).
/r/MensRights08/03/13 04:37 PM
0

Oh, well my point still stands, as there are a plethora of people who are literally to lazy to open links if they can't use the R.E.S. to open it in page. Hosting image content on imgur alone increases the amount of views something gets.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 04:05 PM
1

Why do you have a down-vote? You where thanking someone for making the content accessible to all the lazy Reddit Enhancement Suit people. Have an up-vote, sorry for the poor form.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 02:36 PM
2

This is why I don't like studies that "suggest" things. This is one of the many studies that does not adjust for life style choices, as you mention. But even without adjusting for life style choices (picking lower pay for more enjoyable location/hours), the difference is only 15% for women. I was expecting it to actually be bigger.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 11:45 AM
3

The problem is, that the name alone has a big effect on peoples perception of it. Even a supreme court justice recently admitted that they have a fear of saying negative/reviewing things about bills with "popular" titles.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 08:54 AM
-1

How bout this Fixed version. It's not perfect but it seems to fix some of the arguments.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 07:42 AM
3

For some reason I pictured a girl wearing a master chief helmet, walking up to a group of girls, and staring silently/awkwardly at who ever talks. Like some intrigued alien watching the local wild life. tldr - i loled from my broken imagination
/r/MensRights06/03/13 12:19 PM
60

The potential psychological damage that could happen when a child is treated as if guilty when trying to defend ones self from harm can be pretty bad. Glad the principal had the common sense to treat kids equally.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 04:07 AM
1

As funny as it would be to watch her try and play a violin at the same time, it's still a rendition of the music with its own touches and style. So its not just "plays Donkey Kong 64 music". I can tell that all you see when you watch her video's is "girls cos-plays to music and gets lots of attention". But people genuinely enjoy the sound of the music she makes. The costumes and sets are just extras. It's not like YOU HAVE TO LIKE IT, just because people around you do, or that you don't understa…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 06:08 PM
6

That's what makes it awesome (the extra things). The effort to cos-play, the skill it takes to play AND dance at the same time (even though she does record the audio separate from the video, she has proven she's able to do both, and it shows) , and great visual environments that fit the feeling of whats being represented. They videos also get to play off of each persons own mental nostalgia, once they reach/pass that point of audio/visual representation of the subject matter. So wile you might n…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 06:50 AM
1

I wasn't saying digital or handwritten evidence doesn't exist, or can't be found. WHEN it exists, its easy to get. I'm talking about situations where the perpetrator was not stupid enough to text about their falsifying exploits, or hand write what amounts to a confession on paper. If everyone did this, there would never be a question of whether it was false or not. But it would also call into question how bright those types of people are.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 05:55 PM
1

That depends on the perspective of the person your turning away from. They are more likely to believe that they have won the argument, because you are "running away" from them. It's easier to assume you won than think of a more complicated way that you lost. Especially if it goes against your beliefs.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 05:43 PM
2

But that's the point of evolution. The stresses of suffering, we experience now, cause us to evolve in a way to overcome that suffering. And that goes for every new "suffer" we must experience. Once we evolve a way to deal with that suffering, it becomes less of a problem (or non-existent). When medicine evolves, problems we currently have medically start to go away. The same can happen socially, economically, or anything else. Being alive is not defined by the fact that you suffer. Suffering is…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:49 PM
1

Ya, in the case of a text (which I find amazing still happens in this tech savvy era) its clear cut. But when yo have to rely on someone close to the accuser, that person could equally lie about it to help/protect the accusers false allegations.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 07:11 PM
1

Not saying it should be easy, just saying that in rape situations, when there isn't any obvious hard evidence, it is one persons word verses another , so proving "intention" is even harder than proving if it happened.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 06:42 PM
2

I agree with this as well. There is a lot more to it than just "black and white" verdicts. And everyone should be kept out of the public until decisions have been made, since there are such powerful public repercussions. The only problem I can see happening, is , "evidence proving the accusations were deliberately false" requires knowing the accusers motivations and personality. So many of the motivations can be things that aren't provable unless the accuser confesses to them, or someone close t…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 05:53 PM
6

I don't know where your reading all that, but the "attitude" of people being unjustly treated seems completely normal, so I don't know what you don't like (mens feelings?). They're all complaining that all it takes is a few words from a woman to destroy their lives, with no repercussions or legal accountability when making such a damning false claim. And thats on top of the fact that there are no measures to protect the "victim" of false accusations AND many women's only organizations that will …
/r/MensRights26/02/13 05:38 PM
1

Apparently this happened in Indiana, so my point isn't valid. Age of consent there is 16. So the "Age Gap Provision" wouldn't be in effect.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 03:38 PM
1

But that requires consent of the parents.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 10:58 PM
7

Look MRM blinders! Unable to reason: check Double standards: check Loving victimhood: check Why are you upvoting a nonsense poster that claims violence is reading your text messages? Would you give the same free pass to feminist propaganda? I forgot that the liberals here love nonsense propaganda and don't have the intellectual integrity confront it. I believe this is in reference to stalking. Remember, this is a "literal" translation, so many social nuances and colloquialisms will get lost, if …
/r/MensRights22/02/13 02:07 PM
3

I wish I had the cognitive ability to articulate and express facts/ideas/thoughts as well as you. I also admire how much time and effort you put into what you say(I just recently started watching your youtube videos). I personally like to describe, what your saying, in a generalized way. I see it as a cognitive and behavioral issue in relation to how people perceive things or express things, them selves. "There are people who use words for what they mean, and there are people who use words for w…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 07:45 AM
20

We still have to take into consideration the context of the results: The survey did not cover the use of knives, guns, choking, or burning, and it was not concerned with the kind of situation that can drive a woman to seek shelter outside the home. But I will say, that adding the above things would cause a problem, as male victims of such things go mostly un-reported and most males will not admit to it happening. Especially the "seek shelter outside the home", as most men just end up on the stre…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:04 PM
17

How so? MRA is the only thing, short of long-standing and self identifying hate groups, that identifying with, will cause social recourse equal to being identified as a pedophile/rapist on the run (in terms of action taken against you socially and vocationally). ^ This is subjective to different degree's of situations, in relation to how(or not) indoctrinated the people near you are, with feminist ideals and or propaganda/falsehoods.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:51 AM
5

I can see it now, swap the genders and everyone would be in outrage that the guy got off so easy. They would be calling for the mans dick be removed and him sent to jail for life so that he could get beaten by other men daily. Apparently it wasn't just the one time under the desk. He told deputy district attorney that in total, he had sexual intercourse with Delrosario three times — once in the classroom and two times at Cowles Mountain. But don't worry, she probably won't even have to register …
/r/MensRights15/02/13 12:03 PM
1

I feel compelled to donate money to her, just for the sheer amount of time and effort she puts into all her video's. All of the citation's and research linked in the low bar and described in the videos. She backs up everything she says, and when she doesn't, she says she can't, says its opinion, or at least supports it with a logical comparison/example. She doesn't just give her view point, she teaches it with proof.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 11:50 AM
2

Just ignore that person. Either its a troll, and should be ignored even more, or they are so lost in their own world that any explanation you could give to make them understand would be lost in the bias and misinformation they have built their beliefs and ideas upon. Still, you made some good counter points that are usually ignored. We need to stop saying, this gender or that gender, and teach both kids to be good people. All this focused -ism stuff is poisonous (including theism's).
/r/MensRights12/02/13 01:07 AM
6

This is the problem with popularity based discussion forms. People who don't think critically enough will turn to what they believe rather than listen to opinion or spend energy to consider the contrary to their belief. example story: I remember posting an opinion on an /r/feminism post about a judge telling a rape victim she "let her self down". Needless to say, anything that even explores the hazy intention of the words and how they might have been directed (she heavily abused drugs and alcoho…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:47 PM
1

You make it seem like that is a weird thing? It's not a boys club, its a place for discussion of issues and open debate (which I hear only some men and women are able to do with critical thought). FYI, there are men in the femenist subreddit as well.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 01:18 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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