TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Marty-the-monkey Archive

View 0 posts and 2,830 comments by Marty-the-monkey 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)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,830 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

Cool. Then, have them do the job and stop whining about needing affirmation for simply taking care of your own living space.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/26 02:01 PM
8

I don't know where you got that from. Simply, I got the idea from your words of needing affirmation to do simple tasks that are frankly something you should do regardless if being a functioning adult able to live by yourself. Let me ask you this: would you not clean the house if you didnt live with a partner? Would you not wash the clothes, clean the dishes, take care of things?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/26 12:59 PM
9

1) do you value her 'contributions'? 2) Are you a five year old child in constant need of affirmation when talking care of yourself?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/26 11:41 AM
22

You see, keeping your own living space clean as a contribution? Buddy, you need better personal hygiene.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/02/26 10:11 AM
1

The traditional/chilvarous treatment that a lot of women expect is paying for dates and gifts Women give gifts as well (in my experience, even better ones - but thats a different topic). It goes beyond merely just showing up with your “masculine presence” Being nice and polite (which is what opening doors and so on) is going beyond your masculinity? You might want to set the bar a tad higher..
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/25 05:50 PM
6

So its labor when you have to act like a man, but not when she has to act like a woman? Also why is acting like a man costly for you?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/25 02:28 PM
4

What is traidtional/chivalrous treatment if not simply your masculine presence in return?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/25 01:48 PM
1

selling it immediately would be impractical or detrimental to the children's well-being. So not forced at all, but simply waiting to have the house sold. Glad we cleared that up.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 06:55 PM
1

You can resell it for sure, or it will be agreed that she has to take over. The cases you refer to are instances where people agree that one parent will stay in the house. You can see it seems strange that you can be forced to keep a house if divorced, but people can easily be thrown out in every other instances. Is the suggestion that you are screwed if you have children because you should get to abandon them when you get divorced?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 12:04 PM
2

Living is the home or not doesn't make it so you are no longer liable for the mortgage. I never said it was. But you arent forced if you decide to sell your part.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 10:17 AM
1

The lovely kingdom of Denmark. So let's hear how all the different things somehow doesnt count as proof that the help and unity of a country is for the betterment of the people. I'm sure there's a Charlie Kirk or Candince Owen podcast you can get some talking points from to feel the overwhelming proof that the betterment of others is in the interest of all, is somehow wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 10:16 AM
1

I do live in as close to a communist country as can be, where we pay "high" taxes and the community helps one another to make sure we move forward as a country and people instead of leaving people in financial destitute when their children gets cancer or want an education 😆 Our unions are so strong that the government doesn't even have to make laws of minimum wages as the agreed upon pay is liveable for even unskilled labor. The education system has free access for everyone and without co-pay, w…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 06:53 AM
1

For the survival of the pack and the betterment of the community, every single tribe exactly shared resources. That's how every single group animal works, except humans whom are more than happy to see its own die because it means they get to hord more then.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 05:27 AM
1

Oh so you are the type thats okay inequality as long as it doesnt happen to you. Gotcha.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 05:23 AM
1

You said you like inequality between people. That means you dont care if someone steps on you. Or were you talking about the other one where you get to treat people like dirt, but somehow, people have to treat you well?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 07:15 PM
1

Good for you liking to be treated like dirt ❤️
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 06:11 PM
12

The wife of the wealthy woman doesn't deserve more, and in itself, we can discuss wealth inequality if you want to. Is it fair that someone makes 200$ an hour while others barely crack 10$/hour? They are both spending an hour of their life working... But if the assumption of the relationship is that its equal, then the assets are split equally.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 12:00 PM
8

It is. They can make an agreement of being bought out of the house, but if you end up paying the mortgage still, its because you want to for some reason, not because you are forced to.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 11:51 AM
15

So the woman can magicially afford the house on her income? He isn't liable to pay mortgage when splitting the assesses 50/50. Some people choose to, but it's not something you are forced to. Hell, some even get bought out. If you pay mortgage on a house you still own it (even if partly). In this story, the man gets to abandon his children completely?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 11:50 AM
44

It is kind of an interesting perspective. If you and your partner are truly equal, then getting half the accumulated stuff should be what you are entitled to, so from direct look at the number it should be fair. If you find it unfair, then I would seem to suggest an imbalance in the relationship if you feel entitled to more than the half you paid for.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 08:51 AM
1

The analogy doesn't quite encapsulate the hypocrisy. This would be more like being very much against the 1% while also selling seminars on how to become one of them.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/24 04:59 PM
3

It makes you a hypocrite if you are then also earning money telling others they aren't allowed to speed...
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/24 08:52 AM
2

I don't know what that is...
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/24 06:24 PM
0

Gotta disagree with your there buddy. They all say more or less the exact same thing, and it's only a bit of difference between what they specific focus on, while the overarching message, theme, and politics remains the exact same. What's more fun is the fact red pill is from a movie made by two trans women and their experience as trans, but that's a different conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/24 03:06 PM
14

If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, then I can't help you.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/24 12:23 PM
27

They are against women having casual sex. They very much support men being allowed to and even encourage them doing so.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/03/24 06:03 AM
2

Argh, det passer så på ingen måde at vi er så kapitalistiske som man kan være. Staten betaler og støtter en myriade af forskellige erhverv og yder støtte til mange af borgerne. Arbejdstiderne og reglerne herom er ret så fastlagte og langt størstedelen af befolk ingen er i fagforeningen. Grunden til vores marked er godt for en start-up er præcist fordi vi tilbyder så meget støtte og fratræk som vi gør. Så vi er næsten så langt fra et frit marked som man kan komme, og den nordiske velfærdsstat er …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/24 06:41 AM
1

So what changed? Other than the predatory way corporations are currently taking advantages of the population?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/24 06:27 AM
4

Japan is (to an extent) more capitalistic than the west when looking at work culture, which is far less regulated by 'evil government mandates of workers rights'. Corporations get to run the next generation absolutely into the ground, and they have zero things to complain about having 100 hour work weeks for terrible wages.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/24 05:44 PM
2

All the other usual factors being blamed aren't pressent in Japan, and it's a very well documented fact that their work culture are erosive at best. So you tell me what other systemic reason correlates to this trend?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/24 03:57 PM
15

Sexwork is very traditional in Japan. Japan also have some of the most conservative views when it comes to family, immigration and social structure. So basically what Japan shows is how capitalism is the absolute killer of society more so than anything else
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/24 01:41 PM
-1

And you then take the vindictive position that instead of helping men, we should ensure that women die just as much. Because your initial comment wasn't about abolishing conscription nor the draft, it was about pulling down anyone around you instead of trying to lift up your own team. That's the core part of vindictive attitude. If I have to suffer, everyone has to suffer. You could talk about the asinine aspect of conscription and the outdated mode that is the draft without ever mentioning anyo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/24 05:40 PM
-2

And that's exactly a vindictive axiom. Instead of having the attitude that society shouldn't expect anyone to do that, you've chosen to base your attitude on the suggestion that everyone should suffer instead. That's close to the definition of vindictive
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/01/24 07:57 AM
-2

Its an extremely vindictive attitude give its build on the axiom that everyone should have an equal shitty time being forced into an outdated mode of living. That's close to the definition of vindictive. And the ones who are gonna fight are gonna be the professional soldiers every country currently have. Don't be a moron.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/01/24 06:30 AM
-2

Why? How about we don't draft anyone instead and try to abolish outdated systems? Why the vindictive attitude instead of one that makes more people happy?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/01/24 06:21 PM
1

Have you read or ever looked at the old Playboy interviews they did back in the day? Because let me tell you; I'm pretty sure a lot of those facts about the models are also completely made up to make it sound more sexy, which is the same appeal to lonely men. Not to mention phone sex used to be a thing way before onlyfans as well.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/24 08:59 PM
1

Im not disagreeing with you, but underlining the fact it's an old saying, illustrating the current attitude towards pushing men into education is perpetuated by a traditionalist view.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/24 04:19 PM
1

Do you know why it's only for men? Because we insist on having our cake and eating it too. If we men insist on wanting to be considered physically superior, it stands to reason that we are the preferred candidates for a standing army. Personally, I think technology has made most of the previous physical advantages more or less superfluous, but if we insist on wanting to be considered physically better, it comes with a price.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/24 03:13 PM
20

Sure. We also need to force all nurses, teachers, and secretaries to be 60% men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/24 10:45 AM
1

What considerable difference are you under the impression that distinction makes to your point?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/24 09:23 AM
3

Is the alcohol industry exploiting alcoholics Is the tobacco industry exploiting smokers Is the gaming industry exploiting gamblers Is the fast food industry exploiting fat people Is the candy industry exploiting kids Is the mobile app industry exploiting youth And so on and so on. Etcetera Etcetera. I don't think there's a single industry in existence where I can find a demographic that's isn't exploited. People overindulgence in something is something we can address, but sensationalizing it li…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/01/24 09:22 AM
1

'Those who can't do, teach' is a far older saying than calling it a meme. It's from an over 100 year old George Benard Shaw play.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/24 06:50 PM
1

And this general understanding of the jobmarked comes from an older generation who grew up with the singular aspiration that they themselves and their offspring should go to college. There's so many societal issues that can be addressed if looking at the conservative/traditionalists' attitude prevalent in society. However, whenever brought up, it gets you absolutely crucified.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/24 06:31 PM
1

I mentioned the disparity within the genders who choose education. However, as I also pointed out, there is little to no push to support men getting into that field, made even more pronounced when compared to campaigns like girls in STEM. The scholarships are only unequal when deciding to only focus on academia as the only educations of merrit, which I find kind of insulting to the vocations. Saying it's unfair that there's NGOs with mission statements to push girls into STEM fields is kind of m…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/24 01:17 PM
-2

This is where it gets interesting. Overall, generalization when discussing educational reforms are of course, impossible as each state and nation treats education differently. However, from a sociological and anthropological perspective, a couple of trends seem to be more prevalent when comparing the latent issue of men within education. Firstly,it's important to recognize that boys far outperform girls in vocational education IE learning a trade. A lot of the debates when it comes to education …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/24 09:13 AM
-1

Now what would be interesting is if all of these male advocacy groups would make something similar to Women in STEM and try to push men into education, but we seldom (I have never seen it, but I'll conceive that it could be a thing). Because it's undoubtedly a factor that the primary educational authority most kids meet throughout their formative years being women only. However, we don't see any sort of group supporting, encouraging, or pushing men into educational vocations.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/24 08:32 AM
0

At the moment, the most prevalent suggestion I can find points out the fundamental issue that the current system cater to a specific kind of student that traditional understanding of gender politics would suggest being advantageous. That is to say, the quiet, attentive, and memorizing student. Which even if we pretend to go complete gender political on this only account for a subset of female students. The central suggestion and what most research and experts are pointing towards is to make the …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/24 08:22 AM
-8

That's because you aren't looking at all the work and research within the fields, because it's a giant issue that boys aren't finishing school at the same levees, and something that's been a focus area within pedagogy and didactic for a while. But it kind of centers the problem that the interest people like you have in the educational field is surface level so when it comes to suggesting solutions you have already moved away from this conversation
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/24 06:26 AM
-3

Welcome to the world of the traditionalists' attitude towards men. Progressives aren't your enemy, it's conservatives who want to lock you into traditional roles.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/24 09:13 PM
1

Outperform and underperform are two very different words you seem to use a bit interchangeable there...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/24 09:12 PM
0

In what way?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/01/24 09:10 PM
1

I'm gonna be very unpopular for asking this: Where do you want the help to come from? Or where do you imagine the help other groups receive comes from?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/01/24 08:27 AM
1

I agree, with the further issue that any willingness to engage in the problems on any deeper level or with anymore introspection is considered 'woke liberal agenda trying to feminize men'...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/01/24 08:25 AM
0

"That sounds like leftist woke thinking to me" Is a sentiment I've seen throw around anytime anyone want to have the conversation you are hitting the absolute head of. Right now the political spectrum is so divided that any suggestion of doing anything different rings like radical leftist politics to some ears, especially in cases of asking men to embrace emotions and getting help.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/01/24 07:42 PM
1

I saw a weird argument from a podcast at one point. Men are most likely to be violent offenders Therefor men are the only ones who should be allowed to be police officers.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/24 03:07 PM
1

You are picking from the paraphrased parts of the article. But you do you buddy if it helps you feel better pretending it's only about one specific kind of activism :)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/12/23 10:31 AM
1

I don't care about the editorialsing of some rag.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/12/23 12:22 AM
0

Go read the study, not the paraphrased version from the article.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/23 11:32 PM
-2

I did. The study talks about activism
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/23 10:18 AM
4

Mostly because the study is question talks about activism in general, so pinning feminist activism is somewhat a misappropriation of the findings.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/12/23 06:48 AM
4

The quickest way to archive it would be by really start questioning the conservative and traditionalist whom perpetuate the status quo of requiring men to act in ways which creates structures where these things happen. All the things mentioned were things way before feminism became a thing, so it's latent issues embedded in society far prior
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/12/23 10:33 PM
1

How so?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/23 07:21 PM
1

We are told to respect and appreciate it for all people, but seldom do for anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 09:34 PM
1

Then I recommend you go to the library or Google Scholar to expand the notion of self esteem a bit, as the one you are currently using is the one that the people like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson prey upon to sell you seminars that really isn't designed to help you understand you own self worth, but just make you feel that everyone else get to tell you what you are worth.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 09:07 PM
1

The litteral two first citations explains how it's an internal aspect of your Psychology and not aspects of your external value. I've send you the two sources, which I recommend to read for a broader understanding as self esteem is a defacto internal valuation of yourself and not external in any sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 09:02 PM
1

You can read about the fact that self esteem are internal: Hewitt, John P. (2009). "The Social Construction of Self-Esteem". In Lopez, Shane J.; Snyder, C.R. (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press. pp. 217–224. ISBN 978-0195187243. "The self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem, is the positive or negative evaluations of the self, as in how we feel about it (see self)." Smith, Eliot R.; Mackie, Diane M. (2007). Social Psychology (3rd ed.). Hove: P…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 09:00 PM
3

Self-esteem is, by definition, internal. So I'm not asking for any change of basic properties, but pronounce the fact that external sources of self-esteem is by and large corrosive as it can't be a resopocal exchange.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 08:57 PM
1

No one cares about the work you put in, and that's the point that you shouldn't be looking for external validation from others to make the work seem worthwhile.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 08:42 PM
1

Self confidence and self esteem aren't the same as confidence in itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 08:20 PM
4

Being lonely ie craving companionship is very different aspect than getting your self esteem from how others evaluate you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 08:19 PM
7

Being social creatures doesn't mean you should derive your sense of value through codependency. Your self-esteem and sense of self worth should come from yourself and not through how others pay attention to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 07:50 PM
3

If that is the case, then I find the writing exceptionally sharp given how well it also comments on toxic masculinity as requiring women to see and imbue you with value instead of finding value in yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 07:47 PM
2

Then, I think it's a testament to the brilliance of the writing that it positions toxic masculinity as an extension of illustrating women's grievances (as you called it). Because the points and lessons Ken learn are the exact insecurities the podcast "bros" are preying on constantly.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 05:54 PM
7

I know, which was why I found the movie kind of bold for a mainstream movie to make this message part of its central story, especially when it also was as heavy invested in its feminists points.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 05:34 PM
2

There were aspects of the movie which gender reversed how men and women are treated to make a point. However, the suggestion of only finding validation through external factors is the exact type of 'toxic masculinity' the Andrew Tates of the world are selling you. The suggestion that your bank account, or how women sees you being the only metric of your worth, instead of your own feelings on the matter is a very male centric story point.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 05:27 PM
87

Honest to God, this is one of the reasons I found the motif of the Barbie movie to be so interesting, and a message that most who critized it as 'anti men' seemed to not get. Ken was constantly trying to find value through how Barbie was treating, seeing and feeling about him. He had at no point the ability to just be happy with himself as an independent entity That's why the 'I am Kennough' is such a great message, and extremely "pro man" - he has learned to not find value through the external …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/23 12:34 PM
-5

Afghanistan is a piss poor country, so it's a rather obvious reasoning that their schooling is as poor as their country. The talibans aren't failing the boys in education out of an agenda like with girls, but fail them because their can't afford anything else. If they could afford more or better, they would, but they can't.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/23 06:13 PM
1

It's fun that you are throwing this hissyfit when being presented with an argument like this :) Rules for thee but not for me.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/23 07:34 AM
1

How did that undermine my point? Not sure you have had the capacity to get the point yet, but I'll help you get there little friend :)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/12/23 07:32 AM
1

It's the same romanticism of abuse, however in one instance they are playing it for laughs, and in the other they say dehumanizing women is totally okay. So when asked the question: how would people react if the opposite to the commercial happened, the answer is that it already did and people back then seemed to be able to handle the sincere version better than you are able to handle a joke 🤔
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/23 10:41 AM
1

I'm not comparing satire, you absolute idiot. I'm comparing two examples of media portraying dehumanizing attitudes towards men and women, respectively.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/23 10:33 AM
1

So because twilight is dead serious in its portrayal of romanticized abuse and the commercial isn't, all of the sudden they aren't comparable?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/23 10:30 AM
1

How are you under the impression they aren't comparable? Are tough dumb enough to think simply due to my examples not being commercials they are totally different?? Tell me why you are under the impression they totally aren't comparable..
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/23 10:29 AM
8

It's a narrative that's perpetuated by conservatives and traditionalists due to its implications of men somehow being more prone to violence for both good and evil. Violence for good: 1) Men shouldn't be refugees because they should stay and fight for their countries' freedom Violence for evil: 2) The men who come here are looters, rapists and killers (paraphrasing from a speech by a famous politician) If you want to get rid of this narrative of women and children first, you need to challenge th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/12/23 08:14 AM
4

I see far more conservatives defend the notion of women and children, the reasoning being somewhat the same though.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/12/23 07:33 AM
0

Exactly, they weren't satire. The commercial is satire, meaning it's meant to invoke outrage. Also aimed at men I might add Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey aren't satire, meaning they are sincere in their messages, which is far more sinister.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/12/23 06:38 AM
1

I showed you movies, books and franchises. Are you dumb enough to think the fact it's a commercial makes the media so different from the others?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/12/23 06:35 AM
0

Thank you for getting my point that the people reacting on this post is comparable and equivalent to feminists. I'm glad you understood what my 'hilariously ironic' statement on my initial comment was refering to 😆
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/12/23 06:34 AM
0

How did you reach the conclusion that twilight snd fifty shades are ironic, or that I was implying that? As to showing, I just gave you two billion dollar examples.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/12/23 06:31 AM
-4

And yet made several billion dollars, so let's not pretend that this commercial is somehow a new phenomenon or that it's never been done against women. Being tounge in cheek about a femdom fetish is far more innocent than romanticized abuse, so people on this post clutching their pearls and pretending it's a one-sided occurrence really need to look a bit wider at the media landscape.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/23 03:43 PM
-1

I don't really agree they are equal, given one is a tounge in cheek (no matter how tasteless) commercial for a gin, while the other were billion dollar industries where the message wasn't even meant as a joke but sincerely in its subjugation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/23 03:06 PM
1

Just mentioned that billions of dollars have been made on the exact opposite and you just dismiss it by pretending the opposite wouldn't be allowed when I just pointed out it not only was, but made a lot of money Also are you fucking kidding me asking how it's obvious it's a fucking joke??
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/23 03:00 PM
-5

I lived through the hight of both Twilight and the Fifty Shades of Grey Era. I've seen the reaction when the media is similarly degrading (in way worse ways) to women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/23 02:30 PM
0

Because with this commercial they are making a joke with undertones of a femdom fetish - to sell gin by being a bit extra (code for triggering the way they have) In twilight the main core of the message is subservience to your partner, even if he is a violent abuser, and to constantly allow him to control your life. This message or morality isn't played for laugh or to he crass, but is a foundation the story sees as admirable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/23 02:24 PM
1

Are you joking? They are waaay worse in what they are saying/showing. The twilight Saga especially, which (let me remind you) is young adult literature, while the Blake Lively commercial is for a Gin
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/23 02:12 PM
0

Like the whole Fifty Shades of Grey aspect? (A movie series which made over a billion dollars with the books selling almost 50 million copies) Which in itself was based on the entire Twilight Saga? All those books, stories, and media that are based on the brooding loaner with domination undertones (something that has made the likes of Danielle Steel a multitude millionaire). All those things wouldn't be okay?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/23 12:33 PM
-6

It does, which makes people in the comments outcry hilariously ironic 😆
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/23 10:27 AM
1

I find these posts demanding nuances when it comes to the description, depiction, and conversations about men to be super hilarious, when they then immediately turn around and paint with the biggest possible brushes and stereotypes when it comes to women, or feminists. 'We demand to be seen as different individuals, but will see you guys as a singular entity'. Just cracks me up :)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/11/23 11:07 PM
0

Masculine men vs. feminine men?? Is a man not a man based on biology? Or is the implication that gender is on a spectrum?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/11/23 08:33 PM
3

Either that or it will be forgotten as it doest seem anyone has cared about it. I'm usually pretty up to date with new releases and I havnt heard about this one. That's only anecdotal of course, but to me it shows that it isn't gearing up to be anything memorable.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/23 07:56 PM
1

While not in 7th grade, the very acclaimed movie 'American Beauty' contains similar elements (elder man having an affair with a high school student). It's not to say it's in any way okay, but to say the opposite has been made (to an extended). More to the point of the movie, while having not watched it, what I've gathered by reading about it, it seems to be more about the media coverage than the case itself, which is a choice for certain.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/10/23 12:05 PM
2

If it hits the same reflex as those horid words; it would benefit to look at the etymology of those to see from what they have derived. You even seem yourself to understand non of these words came from anything akin to similar starting points, so declaring them as equal is about as meaningful as people trying to treat Karen as a slur on that level.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/10/23 09:35 AM
6

I don't disagree with your points. Where it gets harder to address and 'solve' is when the issues intermingle with other societal trends, such as the attitude towards traditional gender roles. You have a sleu of people online trying to sell you the idea that masculinity has devolved over the last years, saying men aren't being men anymore. Unfortunately, the attitudes that allow for gender based violence towards men grew in the traditional masculine environment these people want to return to. So…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/10/23 05:25 AM
0

Plenty of people are rejected the draft due to excuses like that, so that isn't true.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/23 06:06 AM
8

The problem is less a population collapse and more an exasperated illustration of the inserted flaws of the capitalistic system. We have the means and resources to help the people who need helping, but have set up a system where the caring of people is seen as secondary to making the grand industry going on; instead of these working in tandem.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/23 07:53 PM
-7

The irony is in feminists' narcissistic prayer: "Societies are patriarchal and favor men. But even if they don't, it's men's fault for supporting the patriarchy instead of supporting feminism which seeks to liberate men from traditional gender norms." So you support the notion that men and women are, on average, physically equal. Let me underline that I don't think anyone should be drafted. It's an extremely outdated mode of running a military and should be abolished everywhere. My inquiry is to…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/10/23 01:02 PM
1

It's inky contradictory when you are unable to understand that multiple answers and preferences exists within statistics. Some like one thing, and others like something else. That isn't contradictory, that's how quntative studies work. Were you under the impression that statistics gives a 100% clear-cut answer? It's also kind of naive of you to set up a multifaceted word like dominate as if it's a singular ontology.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/23 05:26 AM
2

I think the amount I found was around 150$, however timed by the number of kids born, and you have a substantial amount of money, which would be better served for prenatal care or tests. This is especially wasteful when, as mentioned, we are talking about less than 3% relevance of these births being of parents not already involved. So its simply just wasteful to want to do this in lieu of what money of that size could be used for elsewhere.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/10/23 03:39 PM
3

I saw a post like this a while ago, and the problem with the suggestion of making it mandatory is the fact it would be incredibly expensive for something that is relevant for around 3% of the people involved. All this while not wanting to instead paying for free prenatal scans and care to ensure kids are healthy seems like an incredible inappropriate way of prioritizing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/09/23 09:49 AM
0

Not 'simply looking at a problem', but using the problem as a prop to suggest that the struggle of men is in competition with the struggle of women. Plainly evident by how the comments are far more interested in making the explicit claim of how this shows men are also being oppressed or discriminated against, instead of at any point suggesting solutions or even focusing on the issue by itself.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/09/23 04:38 PM
-1

Exactly by 'only point them out'. Zero suggestion or look at the problem in it self, but only an argument of 'look, men have it worse'.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/09/23 12:28 PM
1

No, it becomes a dick measuring contest when the point of pointing them out is to say "see men have it worse" while adding zero points to the conversation of how to solve the issue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/09/23 12:27 PM
0

So the poor treatment isn't allowed by codified by law? What a relief...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/09/23 12:27 PM
-3

It's all bad, but there are also bad laws against women. However, that's my point of why people feel the need to make it a race to the bottom and dick measuring of misery?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/23 07:23 PM
12

Oh yea, because the women aren't treated that way as well. India in general has human rights issues.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/23 04:50 PM
1

Even with a modifier, it your oponion is rooted in the suggestion that men are naturally better, you don't get to complain about domestic abuse against men at the hands of women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/23 05:52 AM
1

Niche fundies??
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/09/23 06:15 PM
-5

I'm gonna play devils advocate a bit here to illustrate how this particular issue shows some latent hypocrisy. If you are of the oponion that men are naturally supposed to be leaders/head of house, are naturally physically (and some even say mentally) superior, and that women are inferior emotional creatures. Then you can't complain about female of male violence. I would like to underline that *I'm not dismissing the fact some women commit domestic abuse** but saying that the people who see wome…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/09/23 07:02 AM
2

A perfect worldview for someone who only interact with the world through the internet.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/09/23 01:56 PM
0

With a lot of these stereotypes, you are only on the surface and not asking the axioms or latent truths as to where they come from, which is an important aspect to understand. Of the ones you mention only one is rooted in a completely different area than gender, and that's the one about black people. Black people (men and women) have been oversexualized as a way of dehumanizing their race for a long time. With with women I think it's called the Jezibel trope and men it's mandango or something to…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/23 09:27 AM
2

Which is why I put in a preface of stating the comment is based on broad generalizations. To that end I would still hold on to the statistical probability of assigning more traditional gendered roles in the household being a descriptor of the conservative.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/23 05:36 PM
7

Be mindful that the following is based on broad generalization of the ideologies at play The liberal man and the conservative woman. Because for the liberal man, it's fine that the woman has her own thing and believes in what she wants to. There isn't ownership or forced genderroles. You do you. I would, however, be more surprised if a conservative woman would ever fall for a liberal man, given most of them have very strong oponions on what a 'real man' is. Conversely, we have ample evidence tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/23 03:19 PM
1

I think cases like the tragedy of Chris Benoit illustrate that people who commit murder suicide are met with similar feelings of horror and sympathy (i don't know if that's the right word to use) regardless of gender. In general I think we have come a long way (but in no way far enough) in how we look at depression and it seems (to me) to be an area where there is sympathy towards people regardless of gender.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/08/23 12:49 PM
-2

I have and have mentioned it in a different thread. I've also mentioned to you that you can seek that out yourself since you seemed so gung-ho on commenting on these because frankly it's clear you aren't interested in a genuine conversation about this so I'm not gonna put effort into anything other than stringing you along.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/23 07:24 AM
-2

Not necessarily the posts, the comments.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/23 12:41 AM
-2

Hopefully, people aren't. But that unfortunately doesn't change how all these posts have comments filled with people blaming women and feminism for all their problems (the other person didn't quote my entire sentence, which I already mentioned, but seemingly to no effect)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/23 12:33 AM
-2

I mentioned it in a different comment, and given you are this many deep and still deciding to comment on multiple of my replies, I'll let you find it yourself. The ALL CAPS tells me it ain't going to be anything but you already having been triggered, so I don't really care to put much effort other than wasting your time into these replies (as in specifically the ones for you. Other users have shown to be quite nice even if we disagree)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/23 12:30 AM
-6

Sure, if that extremely disingenuous and not at all what I said outline is what you understood and took away from my comments, then let that be it. No, you didn't get it straight, but it seems to matter little since you have already gotten fired up and gotten ready to be angry. So sure. If that's your takeaway, then that's your takeaway.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/23 12:27 AM
-7

Not talking about you specifically with the next of what I'm saying. Feminism isn't really doing that as much as certain segments within the men's rights community themselves are making it very hard to empathize with the cause. I had to disengage myself from it because it (actually like what the post talks about) became very clear that an extremely loud section of the people who claim to be for men's rights aren't and are only anti women and anti feminists. There is a very loud subset of people …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/23 12:24 AM
-6

No, it will be the ones that are centered on a desire to blame women or feminism on whatever problem some people don't want to deal with. But even if we pretend what you're saying is true, then it's no worse than what the people who find the Barbie movie to be in bad taste is doing, so level playing field right ;)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/23 12:03 AM
-1

1, 2, 7, 8, 9. You also cut off half of my sentence in what you are quoting their buddy. Please refrain from that to fit your argument by recontextuazing what in saying.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/07/23 12:00 AM
-7

If I'm counting correctly it's just like I said a bit of half being about how terrible women are and how feminism is destroying the world. But thank you for doing the legwork on making my point :)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/07/23 11:46 PM
-5

I can't tell if you are being facetious with that comment or genuinely believe that such a test is a thing... I also didn't call you a misogynist. I pointed out that you aren't really good at spotting it other places. I'm bad at spotting it, so for you to be worse than me is really bad.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/07/23 10:57 PM
-4

Thank you for that comment. It illustrated my point perfectly.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/07/23 10:40 PM
-21

Cool. Thank you for making my point about how seemingly are blind to how and where the misogyny seeps in. Do me a favor. Describe what you are under the impression feminism is about. Extra points if you do it before you look it up ;)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/07/23 10:14 PM
-18

Then I'm in disagreement with the quality of his job because that sub is still filled to the brim with users just going to town about how women are the bane of the world's existence and how anything feminist is horrific. Hell, you kind of make my point as to how the misogyny just seeps through by simply declaring that feminism is toxic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/07/23 10:07 PM
-20

Really? Go to the subpage, and of the first 10 popular posts, over half of them are about the topic of why women are terrible or that feminism is destroying the world.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/07/23 09:56 PM
2

That's a matter of age I would say.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/23 02:29 PM
6

Are they dating men due to success, or are they dating men who possess the qualities of turning successful. Seem like theses an overlap in abilities you aren't addressing
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/23 01:14 PM
3

No you didn't answer my question. You answered how you treat strangers, and said that you treat your friends and people you want to be in a relationship with differently. So I'm asking you which of these groups (which you have said you treat differently) aren't being treated with kindness, respect, support, and courtesy? You have stated these groups aren't treated the same by you, so I'm asking which you don't believe should get these things from you...
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/23 03:10 PM
4

So , me being able to interact with people simply by treating them like other humans is me having a lack of social experience... Could you run me by how you've reached that asinine conclusion?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/23 03:08 PM
3

That didn't answer any of the questions. I didn't aks about strangers. I asked about friends and people you want to be in relationships with. No need to move the goalpost as to what you were asked. Which group do you not treat with kindness, courtesy, respect, or support? Friends or potential partners?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/23 02:17 PM
6

So which group do you not treat with respect or courtesy when interacting with them? Your friends or the ones you want to be in a relationship with? Because that's how you would treat any other person or human. Which group do you not treat with kindness, friendless, or support? Your friends or ones you want to be in a relationship with. Because that's how you would treat any other person or human... I don't see how treating human normally as if they are people is a controversial statement. But e…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/23 01:23 PM
0

How socially inept can a person be that they need to make arguments like this. Everybody got different brain builds, but that doesn't mean they are any different to talk to.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/23 01:04 PM
2

That sounds more like you being inept at talking to anyone different than you.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/23 01:02 PM
7

I don't kiss my friends, but I kiss my children. I don't kiss my friends, but I can give my mom a kiss. Just because you treat people differently based on your current relationship with them doesn't make them less of a person or a human. If you are inable to understand that you are still interacting with another human, then I hope you aren't dating anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/23 01:00 PM
10

I've always found it weird whenever people treat or talk about women like they are different spieces on the planet. You don't know how to treat women? How about like you would any other person or human. I don't think it's a controversial statement to say all humans have similar likes and dislikes as to how they want to be treated, so let's start with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/23 07:27 AM
1

And the majority I've met didn't and have never considered it. So statistically, we just canceled each other out, making your anecdote meaningless.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/06/23 06:05 AM
2

That's not the issue. That's your issue. It also neither deflects from my point nor makes it a strawman, both things you accused me of.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 08:42 PM
2

It directly addresses it in a facetious manner But nice attempt to deflect from the answer.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 07:43 PM
2

Your absolutely right about that
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 07:12 PM
2

If that's what makes you tick buddy. I don't care either way.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 07:05 PM
3

Yes and no man under 6 foot has ever gotten a woman before. All have immediately left them the second they see a man tall enough for their need. The woman mind being too infeeble to control itself when seeing these tall men.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 07:03 PM
4

You life sounds like a very poorly written internet post.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 07:01 PM
14

In general, a lot of people online need to touch grass and meet real people. The whole debate of 'women only want 6ft tall guys' thing is stupid, as if you've met any real people, you'll quickly notice and realize the online version of a personality isn't real. It's kind of like how you can find 'finance bros' saying they wouldn't be able to live kn 200k$ a month, which even in a yearly salary would put you close to the 1%. It's ridiculous how distorted the worldview becomes if online discourse …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/23 10:57 AM
3

I find it extremely weird that the political discourse has come to a point that they are trying to claim gender roles as part of their selling point.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/23 04:29 AM
1

Most don't have to be average by definition at all. That's in no way what an average is. If I had two women, one is a 1 and the other a 10, the average would be 5.5, which neither of them are anywhere close to.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/23 01:44 PM
1

If you didn't catch the rebuttal, then it's on you, not me. I have no inclination to handhold you through understanding your own asinine position.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/23 05:45 AM
3

There isn't any argument against what you said when it's so absolute devoid of any understanding of human interaction. You're idiocy speaks for itself as an argument against it.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/05/23 06:02 AM
3

What an absolutely moronic take.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/23 02:13 PM
2

Of all the multi billionaires in the world, Jeff Bezos is about the only one I kind of respect. Let me be clear: Amazon has horid horrible workplace policies and should be penalized accordingly. They have a mountain of things to make up for. But Bezos did (as one of the very few) grow to be on top without any help from his parents or family. His mom and dad were 17 and 19, respectively, when he was born. He came from a broken home and kind of crummy conditions and created an empire with little m…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/23 08:41 AM
1

And the ones who don't, don't get Chad's either.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 02:48 PM
28

I think the closer one of the partners is to the legal age at the inception of the relationship is the determining factor to how (in)appropriate people find it. 7 year different isn't much in itself, but when one of them only just turned 18, it starts to look a bit more iffy. Only making a postulate based on absolutely nothing: I think people get a bit more disagreeable when one is below 20 and the other is mid to late 20. Again, just speculating; it's kind of how we are tricked to thinking 19.9…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 08:03 AM
1

If the Chad is what she wanted and what she got, I would call that pretty well negotiated.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 04:27 AM
1

I believe there's a dynamic of what one is willing to "settle" for.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/05/23 04:04 AM
1

People are able to negotiate better wage or better partners. Are the women in the top 10% or 50%? Doesn't matter when they can negotiate as if they were.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/23 04:24 PM
0

Negotiation would be negotiation regardless of what's being negotiated about.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/23 03:11 PM
3

Whenever the pay gap has been talked about, one of the things people point towards is the fact women, on average, are worse at negotiating wages, so 2 people doing the same job might be paid differently due to this tendency. The result is to point to women and say it's their own fault the pay gap exists. However, using the same approach to the situation of dating, women seem more than capable to 'negotiate' their way into dating "above their standards" (don't like that expression, but using it f…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/23 02:58 PM
1

I find it more interesting as how men on one side will kind of chastise and point at statistics of how women are themselves to blame for being paid less due to not being able to barging well enough, and then also chastise women for doing that exact thing when it comes to dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/23 02:46 PM
8

I think you are putting too much value into the ontological aspect of intelligence, as it isn't an agreed upon entity, neither colloquial nor academically. So your argument of intelligence vs. perceived intelligence falls a bit flat since it's centered on the implied argument of a collective agreed upon metric, which we don't have. While IQ is the most known and popular, it isn't undisputed by any means If we play around with your premise that it's a code for something, the more obvious characte…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/23 11:37 AM
1

Father has considerably less time for the kids when he is the only provider, and the amount of time will be mismatched regardless when a stay at home mom gets the most of the time anyway. Women being the primary segment within education is an issue, but not one that has come about all of the sudden, and I see very few pushes from this segment in trying to get more men into teaching positions (not to mention that career path doesn't really allow for enough income to be the sole provider, making i…
/r/MensRights15/04/23 11:19 PM
0

Why wouldn't that work for a stable society? And if you want the relationship where 'you lead - woman follow', you are perpetuating the exact gender stereotypes which has lead to men's debilitating mental health by forcing them to be providers while women get to take care of the home, furthering the distance between men and their children simple due to the fact they can't be around them as much (due to work). You also generate a scenario where men's only value is by what they can provide and off…
/r/MensRights15/04/23 10:55 PM
-1

You didn't show any data either, but only an article that didn't really support your claim other than saying the Muslim vote was important. On the other hand, you can find countless hours of 'new' on Fox condemning Muslims or Trump doing the same, so I still havnt seen any evidence that conservatives are in fact trying to court the Muslims. Hell there's even stories of the one Muslim congress women should be thrown out for the act of being Muslim.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 08:43 PM
-2

My comment also said that I have seen the opposite happen quite a lot, so thank you for pick and choosing aspects, since the two statements go together. So indeed I can say that it seems hard to believe it existing when the opposite is observed in abundance. It's not just an absence, but the opposite. Despite this, the Liberals still hold an edge on claims to deliver Muslims equal rights and more inclusive participation in Canadian society. This perception that Liberals are generally good for Mu…
/r/MensRights15/04/23 07:56 PM
-6

I havnt seen any conservatives trying to court a single Muslim. Quite the opposite I've seen in spades, wanting to outlaw them and throw all Muslims "back to where they came"... Personally, I dont see how its a bad thing to condemn a colonialist ideology that glorifies violent oppression though. 🤷‍♂️ That's where the dilemma of the post comes into play and makes the issue more complex than what the OP is presenting as simple anti-men
/r/MensRights15/04/23 07:30 PM
-7

In what world has conservatives expressed being more friendly to Muslims in the Western world? I have seen neither of the groups you mentioned wanting anything to do with Muslims or their culture. I've seen plenty of them condemn Muslims though. Also, I said a segment of the sub, specifically.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 06:21 PM
-14

It's also extremely anti-Muslim, but that seems to never be the focus either. If one were a gambling man, it almost seems like the absence of the Muslim focus is due to how a segment of the men's rights sphere are also ultra conservative (which is its own issue, but that's a different issu), and they don't want to he reminded that they in fact have more in common with liberals than not.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 03:48 PM
0

Based on what? Saying people should be allowed to live how they want to live? Yea, what horid perspective. You have some issues there little friend.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 02:36 PM
1

You seem to care quite a bit, even so far as throwing insults at me, which is kind of disgusting.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 02:04 PM
1

And if they don't want to be in a relationship, how is that a problem? Why is how other people want to live somehow an issue for you? If you want to be in traditional relationships, you find people who want to do that, just like if you want to live in a commune, you find people who want to do that. Or if you want to live the vegan lifestyle, you find people who want to do that. But getting angry that other people don't want to join you in how you want to live is kind of erosive in terms of attit…
/r/MensRights15/04/23 01:39 PM
1

So you are saying traditional relationships is the natural way of living, or how am I to understand your comment?
/r/MensRights15/04/23 01:34 PM
1

You haven't listed any consequences for me, so that would be nice for you to do so.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 01:33 PM
1

So when talking about traditional relationships, you are demanding specific gender roles and behaviors that others have to live under? I mean some people also want to live like the Amish, but most have realized that we have moved past that as a society. Refering to traditional relationships being dead seems to me a bit like Amish people complaining about how new cars are ruining transportation
/r/MensRights15/04/23 12:38 PM
0

So why must the dynamic of these two halves be locked into forced behaviors? And what long time consequences? That people should be forced into cohabitation?
/r/MensRights15/04/23 12:35 PM
-1

How are they better if they have resulted in the issue we have at the moment. If something truly worked for everyone involved it wouldn't change as drastically.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 12:33 PM
-10

I didn't say it was good either. I'm asking why the video is being posted and presented like an issue: "It's time we face it..." implying it's a problem that relationship dynamics changing with the times is somehow bad.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 09:26 AM
-25

And why is that bad? In terms of traditional relationships being dead?
/r/MensRights15/04/23 07:36 AM
1

Asking you to show me what you are postulating exists is trolling? If this is something you encounter every day it should be easy to show me examples.
/r/MensRights01/04/23 01:26 PM
1

I have never heard that no, and I even asked specifically whom you've been talking to, implying you tell me, which you then proceeded to not do. Why?
/r/MensRights01/04/23 09:47 AM
1

So you are criticizing a group for not acknowledging the issues of a group they themselves aren't part of? Isn't that akin to blame gay men for not caring about the issues of lesbians? Both are gay groups and we group them with the LGBTQ+ sign, so obviously they should acknowledge everything about each other right?
/r/MensRights31/03/23 10:03 PM
1

Highly disagree that apathy towards something is the same as active support.
/r/MensRights31/03/23 10:02 PM
-1

I think you have a overly rosy eyed view of conservatives my friend. Difference is that conservatives are explicit in their demand that you should lay down your life for your country, should be forced to be provider and shouldn't be emotionally vulnerable, yet you still seem to support them. It's conservatives voices who taut the mantra of 'where have all the men gone' where the above written things are stuff they want to return. If that's your idea of men having equal rights, we see things very…
/r/MensRights31/03/23 08:18 PM
1

When your stance is based on being against something and you will show support for anything that is also against it, even when being directly detrimental to your own interests, it becomes hard to bother 1) know what you then actually stand for 2) see it as anything other than toxic rage. It's also a very strange stance to take that feminism is the evil one by not giving attention, and traditionalist is the good one despite the latter working explicitly against wanting to let men be themselves ou…
/r/MensRights31/03/23 08:14 PM
-3

Never heard a feminist say that. Whom do you talk to?
/r/MensRights31/03/23 07:08 PM
-2

My interjection to that stance is that, in this case, they aren't your friend, but are actively trying to perpetuate everything you stand against. By giving your support to the conservative and traditionalist views, you are helping the side whose stated and intended goal is to keep you from archiving your goals. For all intents and purposes, the enemy of your enemy is feminism, as that ideology at least tries to change the set gender roles, allowing (or even demanding) men to be a more active pa…
/r/MensRights31/03/23 08:47 AM
-8

So you would rather be in favor of (or leaning towards) and ideology which claims to support you, despite doing everything in its power to not support you, over leaning towards an ideology in which at least the people who disagree with you face you directly? I don't think it's neither constructive nor healthy to take your stances on the premise of who you are against instead of who you are in support of. You support conservatives who perpetuate an extremely corrosive view of men and their health…
/r/MensRights31/03/23 08:24 AM
-8

I've never encountered any "liberal feminists" who outright support it. Being indifferent to it seems plausible, given it's not really an issue they seem interested in. I don't see it as hypothetical either, given a demand that feminist should be interested in the draft is like saying Gay Men should be interested in the issues of Lesbians just because we decided to group all the LGBTQ+ people for convenience. Honestly, I find the blatant disregard of men's mental and physical health displayed by…
/r/MensRights31/03/23 07:44 AM
6

One thing the question of whether Ukrainian men should be allowed to leave, coupled with the draft issue, always seems to unearth is how the conservative side seems far more hostile towards men, and demand they should sacrifice everything for 'the greater cause'. Yet bafflingly, you see a rather large segment of people here who also identify as conservatives despite it being the ideology who seems most dead set on systemically removing men's rights to choose their life themselves.
/r/MensRights31/03/23 06:48 AM
4

I agree that there's a fundamental issue in attempting to make everything into a comparison competition and framing everything as 'who has it worse - men or women' when looking at the issues separate seems more constructive.
/r/MensRights13/03/23 02:03 PM
0

You calling it incorrect doesn't make it incorrect. Read it again, slowly. Which again was my point of people like you trying to claim truth while not being able to distinguish between oponion and fact. Try and notice how often people like you will claim all their oponions are hard fact while everyone who disagree gets accused of being full of BS? And dedicating any memory to comments online isn't a flex no. It's not about the function, but about the fact you've decided to actually give thoughts…
/r/MensRights08/03/23 05:00 AM
-2

I've never complained about downvotes. Don't put any merits into them, so why you've decided to attempt to project that on here is your issue. However, it once again illustrates that you have a hard time separating your opinions from what can be considered an actual fact. You might interpret something as if the votes mean something, yet that is your opinion, not a fact. Similar to how you insist on how I must be a troll for simply not sharing your point of view. No way other oponions can exist, …
/r/MensRights07/03/23 10:17 PM
-2

Again, simply disagreeing with you doesn't make me all the things you accuse me of, but it was rather my point that people like you exists on this subreddit and erode it from within making it seem far less legitimate. So I'll once again thank you for underlining my point with your comments and evident obsessive behavior over my comment history. And no, obsession is the only description to make about someone who have decided to go that deep into my comment history in an effort to "expose me". Bud…
/r/MensRights07/03/23 09:50 PM
-10

Thank you for making my point. And Thank you for investing so much interest in (what is to you) some random user online ;)
/r/MensRights07/03/23 06:35 PM
14

On one hand, it's a relatively small and a rather inactive subreddit, so what difference does it make. Even the people part of it doesn't seem to care. On the other hand, it just seems like it was made on the basis of disagreeing with this particular subreddit and not because it is against the concept of men also being treated fairly. Thirdly, this is the hot take/unpopular one. There are genuine bobbles of extremely hateful individuals on this subreddit who spew very violent and erosive message…
/r/MensRights07/03/23 10:53 AM
1

See your reaction here is kind of why it seems like you are searching for a deeper reason for your resentment, when everything you describe points towards you simply encountered a therapist where you guys weren't on any kind of wavelength. I tried multiple times to underline that your experience was valid. My comments were to gauge that perhaps there need not be these nefarious underlining reasons for something not working. It also directs your anger in the wrong directions, which isn't healthy …
/r/MensRights06/03/23 07:04 AM
0

This seems very much like an unfortunate encounter you had with a therapist (and good if you get another one) over trying to lay it at the feet of some ideological difference. Shitty people exist. People who are bad at their job exist. Don't know why people always try and make it into some grand scheme of ideology attempting to subvert or suppress others. It is perfectly fine to just call someone out for being shitty without needing some ideology to justify it.
/r/MensRights06/03/23 06:47 AM
1

What on earth does the fact you encountered a shitty therapist have to do with feminism?
/r/MensRights06/03/23 06:40 AM
0

And I could say the exact same to you. I did find the post, and it is exactly what I'm saying of the post telling fathers to also remember to love their children instead of only scolding them. How you've gotten offended by a child committing suicide is beyond horid.
/r/MensRights01/03/23 01:47 PM
-5

You are saying shitting on Father's, but nothing you've described or presented points towards that being the case of the post. 'Hey, remember to love your kids, it's okay for guys to cry' doesn't seem like shitting on fathers at all. And given you can't seem to link to the post (coincidentally), it seems far more the case that you have decided to get triggered over something that isn't there.
/r/MensRights01/03/23 01:44 PM
-16

So a post about fathers isn't good enough in your opinion to be about guys?
/r/MensRights01/03/23 01:40 PM
-24

So farthers feeling bad doesn't count as guys crying? What part of the fathers become not guys when having a daughter?
/r/MensRights01/03/23 01:22 PM
-24

Maybe the parts about fathers not feeling bad about it. But I suppose being the father of a girl should exclude you from discussions on fatherhood?
/r/MensRights01/03/23 01:00 PM
8

I've encountered those groups as well... very explicit people.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 06:29 PM
0

I did preface my comment with 'I think', so I don't have an article to throw back immediately, other than the general cultural zeitgeist there is around mental health within current societal discourse. That point is also more meant to point out that the findings might be influenced by how more are willing to speak up now, whereas the number back 40 years ago could be colored by the resistance to admit unhappiness. The decline of the blue collar job is part of my argument that what was enough to …
/r/MensRights27/02/23 11:40 AM
3

I think it has more to do with the opening up of it being more societal acceptable for men to express being unhappy. The whole gig and hustle economy is so freaking erosive to the mental state of any person, and we have figured out that it's okay to not feel good within a society which is increasingly asking for everyone to always be performing at peak capacity. That's the main difference between now and the 80s, where the predatory nature of always trying to be hustling was seen as a source of …
/r/MensRights27/02/23 10:29 AM
0

When you are arguing that men don't have the ability to put together a convention and need a woman to step in and take charge, you become the patronizing one. You are arguing like a child demanding the adults do their homework for them.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 07:12 AM
-1

Wouldn't that imply the culture being too incompetent to make their own case if needing someone outside it's own parameters to do the work for them?
/r/MensRights27/02/23 07:10 AM
0

So you are still making the argument that men are too inept to take care of the things themselves, needing women to spearhead and do all the legwork to achieve something. I'm not criticizing her. She is a tremendous force. I'm criticizing you for making the explicit case that men aren't able to do this.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 07:08 AM
0

Because that's not really what's happening here. You are putting a woman to spearhead something for a group she isn't part of. Support isn't the same as doing it for you.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 07:05 AM
0

So should other races be the principal voices in matters of a race? Should a white man be the principle voice for the matters of black women for instance?
/r/MensRights27/02/23 05:33 AM
0

You are making the case that men shouldn't even be the principal agent of their own cause, but have women do that part to.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 05:31 AM
0

Nobody. Just pointing out the irony of a subreddit who want to talk about men's rights and then being too ineffective to being able to archive that themselves demanding a woman to do it for them. Just like I don't blame the parents for helping their children when they are too underdeveloped to make something, I don't blame her for taking charge. I do blame the men here for with one side blame all the issues on women and then turn around and needing a women to solve it, effectingly sidelining men…
/r/MensRights27/02/23 05:30 AM
2

Goodness no. More power to the woman. Glad she is doing what she does. And if what you read of my comments were a critique of her, then you misunderstood it. It's not her that's the problem. It's the fact she needs to do it because men themselves evidently need a strong woman to do anything.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 05:27 AM
1

It make as much sense as thinking a billionaire should be the representation of the working class. Having them support is one thing, but when it tips over into them doing the work, it makes the group they are now in charge over seem inept. But looking at your other arguments and comments that seems to be the goal. Just have women do it for us.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 05:25 AM
0

If she has the skills men don't, then you just made my point, but without realizing the kind of sad irony of it.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 05:23 AM
0

You just kind of underlined my point then.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 05:23 AM
0

Always love how people like you ask if someone is trolling simply for not following the prescribed oponion.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 05:22 AM
1

Just like the white man needs to be the one representing blacks. Or the billionaire being the one representing the working class man living pay check to paycheck. Or the other way around, even the man who needs to be the voice for women. But you are right in one thing. The problem isn't her, but people like you letting or even requiring someone else handling your issues. Her supporting men is fine. Her wanting to help is also great. Having reached a point where you are so incompetent that her ta…
/r/MensRights26/02/23 10:19 PM
0

Part of the problem? You are asking women to solve a men problem for them, saying it's because women are the main issue of men's problem. Ironically, you've just managed to cut men out of their own struggle and suggest that women are the ones who need to solve it instead. You have gone so far beyond the realm of hating feminism that men's rights done even get to he about men anymore. It's fascinating to see.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 09:36 PM
-16

I know. Just like how the most prominent voices in the fight for racial equality were all white guys.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 09:33 PM
-5

There's a difference between support and doing it for you. This one is the latter.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 06:52 PM
-30

I know. What the men's rights need is for women to take charge and do the actual work. Men are too inept to do it ourselves, so we need the strong women feminism has produced. In the grand scheme of history, it's nice to hear you conserder men mere spectators.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 06:26 PM
0

Evidently, taking any charge more tiresome than bellyaching online seems to be too strainious. But good thing we then have women to do the hard part of organizing a convention given we evidently are too incompetent to do so.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 06:24 PM
1

I'm just in awe of an organization wielding the power you say they are and would wish some other political parties could do the same to their institutions. It's just absolutely amazing how much power the organization you describe have. How they are in charge of all feminism, even just in Britain. The power one would have then.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 06:22 PM
1

Wow. I wish other political ideologies and parties could learn to wield such massive overencompassing and omnipotent control over their entire base and ideology. Hell, if any political party were able to do just half the influencing you accuse this organization of, we could get rid of democracy all together since that party would just be the always defacto winner.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 02:57 PM
-34

"Don't worry, boys, mommy is here now to help you with all them pesky girls who have been teasing you."
/r/MensRights26/02/23 02:54 PM
-8

Wouldn't that just be a misanthrope? My distaste for some of this doesn't mean I don't have the self awareness to know it.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 02:53 PM
-58

So is this considered a win around here? That men are so inept at speaking with our own voice that we need a woman to take charge of getting something done? Don't worry boys, mommy is here now to help you with all them pesky girls who has been teasing you.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 12:16 PM
-13

So the DV is the international headquarters for all feminism and have final say on all thing related to feminism? Wow. Wish other ideologies would have such organizational overview.
/r/MensRights24/02/23 03:58 PM
-12

There is a pay wall, so I can't see the full article. However, to answer the question: she isn't written out. Feminism is an ideology without any organizational overview or deciding council as to who, what, or how something is talked about. Pairing that with the internets extreme short-term memory where, if something isn't at the forefront constantly, it might as well be considered forgotten (or written out or whatever you want to call it). It's an annoying click-bait way of journalism where any…
/r/MensRights24/02/23 01:15 PM
1

So we eventually link it to confidence, specifically during developmental years. So we circle back to my initial comment of the height not being a root cause but a catalytic factor in the development of confidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/23 09:50 AM
1

But you can't correlate it as a singular factor like that since it disregards the myriad of factors inherent in social dynamics of why people are able to negotiate a higher wage.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/23 09:31 AM
1

Which was one of the reasons I made my initial comment. Correlating height with wage is too big of a leap.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/23 09:09 AM
1

They as the article or as the user? I only speed read the article so I might have missed parts
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/23 08:51 AM
1

I think you are misunderstanding my point. You seem to correlate the height directly with the treatment or income of an individual. That's too simplistic as a way of understanding the social dynamics at play. In social science, you can't jump over the middle parts of the equation and then say the 1 leads to 3 (as you can in math). You need the entire chain to explore or understand how something arises within causality. Tall people aren't treated differently by default. Tall people statistically …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/23 08:48 AM
1

I do believe it's only confidence. However, I also acknowledge that height is a great factor in getting confidence. How others treat you is also a large part of self-esteem (being that from primary or secondary groups), but both of those are factors into the structure and not strict singularly causal effects. So, I'm still skeptical towards your interpretation of the article of directly correlating height with wages, as it's more about confidence, which can arises with myriad of factors (one of …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/23 08:02 AM
2

I think this is more an issue of attempting to find a causality over a causality actually being there. I could just as easily find studies correlating height to confidence. Confidence is a good catalyst in negotiating wager, resulting in higher earnings. However, you can't just cut out the middleman in the equation of: - Height=confidence=higher wage And then say: Height=higher wages Within social science, you need the middle parts of the chain to make a coloration. I'm simplyfing to be brief, a…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/23 07:41 AM
-1

No I don't know that it isn't. If masculinity and femininity don't operate on two opposite ends of a spectrum or scale then what is the opposite of acting in a masculine way, or feminine for that matter? If masculinity exists independent of femininity, then what is a lack of masculinity?
/r/MensRights11/02/23 08:35 PM
1

acquisition of responsibility as an imperative of the masculine Please elaborate as to what the think you are saying here because the implications of this is kind of very inappropriate.
/r/MensRights11/02/23 08:33 PM
1

So you want to rob the agency of adults to have others decide on their behalf without their consent? That's kind of the litteral definition of oppression. Infantalizing those same people I saying they are like children who need others to make decisions on their behalf just underlies that very inappropriate line of thinking. If you believe you deserve agency as a man and a human, saying you then get to rob others of this for any reason is inappropriate at best.
/r/MensRights11/02/23 08:04 PM
0

How is a system designed to serve one part of the population and to directly be opposed to the other half not to be seen as oppressive? If one side is, as you claim, wholely reactive, their influence on the system cannot be in compliance with their wishes and instead be in opposition to them
/r/MensRights11/02/23 07:44 PM
0

That would imply there truly is a patriarchal system, given: Masculine takes action. Building systems across time. So I suppose you give that point to the feminists.
/r/MensRights11/02/23 07:05 PM
0

How are responsibility and agency masculine? If the opposite or inverse of masculinity is femininity, that would imply it's feminine to be irresponsible and to have little to no agency. I don't disagree with the importance of having agency, but claiming that as a masculine trait over simply being a trait all humans should have is where I stop agreeing with what you say.
/r/MensRights11/02/23 06:52 PM
-1

Which part of my question confused you bro?
/r/MensRights11/02/23 04:06 PM
-2

But I'll ask again then. With feminity being the inverse of masculinity, does that mean it's feminine to be destructive and to be the worst version of yourself?
/r/MensRights11/02/23 03:51 PM
-2

If pushing yourself is masculine, does that mean it's feminine to give up?
/r/MensRights11/02/23 02:49 PM
7

How did you reach the conclusion that exercising is somehow a masculine endeavor, and by working out you are embracing masculinity?
/r/MensRights11/02/23 01:00 PM
17

So a 28 year old dating a 32 year old would fall outside the surveys categorization, yet wouldn't turn any heads in terms of someone saying they are dating someone from their own age group. I also disagree with your interpretation of the data. Blaming women who are in relationships for men not being able to get in a relationship us absolutely insane on any level.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/23 07:37 AM
1

The article litteraly didn't say there was a publication ban, but was talking about the evidence, not the story itself. So you are inferring the same issue of the ban the other user tried to do, which is the exact issue I'm taking with the misrepresentation. At no point is there a publication ban of the story, but a ban on publishing the evidence, as is your constitutional right as a defendant.
/r/MensRights03/02/23 04:47 PM
0

Then what was your point with the quote in response to where the story had been banned to cover? Because it hadn't- evidence had been kept secret, as is the right of any citizen in a functioning judicial society.
/r/MensRights03/02/23 03:06 PM
-2

The phrasing is perfectly fine. What I'm extremely offended by is your complete and utter misappropriation of what it means, especially since the exact rules in play is what keeps thousands of men's names to be released to the public when accused of crimes, when not convicted. Because the accusation alone is more than enough to destroy someone's life, so you now arguing that it's wrong for the courts to ensure the anonymity of the people involved is absolutely destructive!
/r/MensRights03/02/23 01:20 PM
2

Saying you can't cover the evidence isn't the same as banning covering the story at all. It's to provide protection to the defendents, as is a given right in any functioning judicial state. Comparing the way the Canadian justice system have handled this case with the US justice systems handling of the Idaho College Murders and you get an exact and precise example as to why these mechanism are in place. And in case you are wondering: those peoples lives are ruined because they were named as suspe…
/r/MensRights03/02/23 11:21 AM
1

How is there a publication ban on covering it when cbc, one of Canada's biggest news outlets, are covering it?
/r/MensRights03/02/23 10:45 AM
2

And good for her if her skin color wasn't a problem before she started dating harry. It should never be an issue whatever skin color you have. The fact it then turned into an issue is a fucking issue nevertheless.
/r/MensRights07/01/23 07:18 PM
-5

Sure. Let's pretend nobody has commented on her race or made any comment to the effect.
/r/MensRights07/01/23 06:58 PM
-5

So you are accusing her of not being black enough, when then defending that she is the one claiming to be the victim?
/r/MensRights07/01/23 06:41 PM
-8

As any public figure (and you seem to be a great example of this) - the assumptions of the inner lives, emotional status, and opinions of people you don't rightfully know, nor base in anything in the text other than what you believe the texts imply - I imagine is the factual taxing part of their lives. Both Harry and Megan removed themselves from the royal family, and all subsequent statements have been people presuming shit on their behalf. So you can complain about how articles about her make …
/r/MensRights07/01/23 03:57 PM
0

If you believe fake and poorly executed are synonymous, you really need to expand your understanding of both terms.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 10:43 AM
1

It's only oponions when feminists do it. Everyone else, it's objective fact. you do know I'm being facetious right?
/r/MensRights06/01/23 10:32 AM
1

I know it doesn't solve anything. That was my point. The study wasn't fake btw. It was questioned if the methodology could be considered representative for a global audience. The data/sample size was criticized for not being large enough that's far from being fake, since no data was manipulated.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 10:32 AM
1

Examples? It is just a given fact, and you are a mysandrist for suggesting otherwise.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 09:12 AM
1

If we are dealing in hypotheticals, then it wouldn't seem far off to have a title saying: How not to be a Karen. So I don't see a lot of outrage happening. It's more a matter of verbiage.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 09:09 AM
0

Not really relevant to my comment. The fact that it's considered one of the worst for women while the OP is suggesting that simply because women can take the bus for free it can't possible be oppressive. That's the point, regardless of whether India I #1, #5 or even #20.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 06:34 AM
-1

Ahh yes, so non of the things in India takes place, and it is I fact a utopia for women. My mind is at ease now.
/r/MensRights05/01/23 10:32 PM
-2

Right...
/r/MensRights05/01/23 01:03 PM
3

What you are totally getting wrong is that women totally aren't disadvantaged in India. They get to ride the bus for free.
/r/MensRights05/01/23 11:31 AM
0

So the title of the post isn't suggesting that it's dumb India is called patriarchal because women get free busfare? What is the title then saying?
/r/MensRights05/01/23 11:29 AM
-4

It's whataboutism to point out the ridiculous complaint of the post? Cool. So whenever any issue about men's rights gets brought forward, the response should just be to point at the smallest most pedantic thing and say, "You get this, so all is copasetic?" But you are right. India isn't the most dangerous country for women in the world. The women get free bus rides. How can a country that give them that be dangerous...
/r/MensRights05/01/23 10:57 AM
-12

Then you missed my point entirely. Complaining that women get free bus fare as a grave injustice towards men, while done in a country deemed most dangerous to women (ahead of Afghanistan, Iran and so on), seems to very much neglect the bigger issue. What could women living in the most hostile country towards them have to be upset about. After all, they get to ride the bus for free.
/r/MensRights05/01/23 10:48 AM
-11

Yes, the whataboutism.
/r/MensRights05/01/23 10:37 AM
-24

Yea, what is being named the most dangerous place in the word by Reuters mean when you get free bus fare. All it is forgiven as long as you get to ride the bus for free...
/r/MensRights05/01/23 07:13 AM
1

No more than people saying Heard was domestically abusive without any conviction either. My point is: If people were so happy to jump on that bandwagon back then, but now want to say 'guilty until tried in court', it rings a bit hollow. and remember, the Heard Deep case was a civil deformation case, not a criminal trial of domestic abuse
/r/MensRights30/12/22 11:00 AM
0

I mean, people did that in the Amber Heard case, so I don't know why Tate should be treated with any more respect.
/r/MensRights30/12/22 10:45 AM
4

Because you have conservative voices still demanding more traditional male and female roles being enforced in society, meaning it's the man's "job" to protect family and country. Conservatism isn't the friend of men who are against the idea that it's the man's primary job to go to war.
/r/MensRights27/12/22 06:38 PM
5

And again, like you said, the methodology is based on studies conducted by primarily male researchers, where the approach is based on 'the standard' participant (usually middle class men) unless specifically stated as part of the research otherwise. Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it means the methods usually have to be adapted to fit the client if they aren't part of the researched "vanilla" group.
/r/MensRights06/12/22 01:12 PM
2

If nothing else. Most people can usually rattle off a couple of big names within psychology (sociology less so, but probable) whom would most likely all be guys. let me preface that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but to underline my agreement with yojr the argument that psychology isn't based on a woman's perspective but designed by men
/r/MensRights06/12/22 12:57 PM
2

Not what I said, but thank you for underlining my point.
/r/MensRights06/12/22 06:39 AM
-3

I think it's a wrong portrayal to say a woman's voice is seen as worth more in society. It's just more novel. I do think your final point of the whole finite system, because that's an approach I see being thrown around very much on both sides.
/r/MensRights05/12/22 05:46 PM
3

Personally (and I know this is an unpopular one to say), I think another major issue is that most of what MRA does is point of issues and then kind of imply it's others job to fix it. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people doing work. But if this subreddit can be seen as any kind of indicator and anything; it is baffling how many times I've seen peoples directly or indirectly demand that it's other people's, institutions or organizations job to correct things without wanting to do any adv…
/r/MensRights05/12/22 01:23 PM
1

To what I've understood. Girls and boys are the same but girl pretty so they have advantage which is okay...
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/22 10:37 AM
1

Depends on who you want to see you as attractive (and how you want to be seen as attractive). Sure there are some things which are more niche than others in terms of appeal, but it honestly come down to who you want to see you.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/22 10:33 AM
6

While I think the axiom of what you say (that all a man has to offer in a relationship is his socioeconomic status) is fundamentally wrong, the answer remains the same. You have to offer something. Not in a commerce way of exchanging tit for tat, but bringing something to a relationship in terms of the person you are. Ambition doesn't have to express itself solely through chasing a career, but can be as simple as an interest/passion about anything. And if you don't have any interest in anything,…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/22 06:52 AM
1

I don't agree with the fundamental setup of your argument, however to answer the question in a bit broader terms: it's a matter of intimacy. Now full disclaimer, I'm not a woman, nor do I identify as one. Cisgender straight man here. However the 'concept' (even if I disagree with how you describe it) is a somewhat universal one in terms of human relationships. Sex and intermacy, while related, aren't interchangeable. What your question boils down to is the exact difference between wanting to hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/22 07:30 AM
3

It's an interesting piece of history in terms of showing how ingrained gender roles can be set in our understanding of societal expectations within only a hundred years or so. With the tender years doctrine, the family dynamic more or less got locked into the understanding which (to some still prevails today), screwing over both men and women in what they should do in terms of family roles.
/r/MensRights21/11/22 11:04 AM
1

You changed your own position surprisingly and alarmingly much just so you could remain angry at what you wanted, instead of being angry at the real system underlying reason. That's really amazing, even if rarher sad to see.
/r/MensRights17/11/22 09:54 PM
1

Cool and good for you. Thats not what even the least contextual understanding of the expression refers to, but good for you to not understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 03:52 PM
1

Nope. Because I don't believe in the transactional element of relationships as you have implied you do by subscribing to the 50's mentality
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 01:45 PM
1

I'm sorry to hear you believe that to be healthy. For either of those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 01:16 PM
1

Sounds like both you and your friend have am extremely unhealthy relationship wirh how people should treat each other in romantic relationships. There's also the major issue of your argument that it's based on your own seemingly crippled understanding of thinking relationships are transactional, where the link you show doesn't underline your point, but just show that people are indeed fat (which is rather superfluous in terms of supporting your claim about why people get or don't get a divorce).
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 12:42 PM
1

So you agree that it's totally acceptable to demand a woman looking a certain way, if the man earns more, or even just has a job? Seems like the 50's truly are alive and well.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 12:12 PM
1

Which is a different debate and not comparable to someone in a relationship getting fat.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 07:57 AM
4

If you aren't able to trust your partner, then you shouldn't be in a relationship. Trust is the fundamental aspect of any relationship. If you need constant affirmation of that, it says more about you as a person than anything else. How messed up do you have to be to demand that kind of overview. Moreover, are you expecting a partner to test you the same way? Constantly having aspects of you being tested as if you were under constant review? You might think your test of getting fat is something …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 07:53 AM
1

And I agree completely that self sabotage and tests are a horid way of having a relationship, and if you feel you should or are entitled to do so the relationship is over. However I just found the comparison and example you decided on to be rather jarring. It paints a rather grim picture of both men and women if your suggestion of bringing stability in the form of a job is comparable to bringing looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 07:48 AM
4

The idea that you need to manipulate and generate tests for another person to check on their commitment is kind of messed up in terms of relationship dynamics. I would get offended to know you were this devious in a relationship over any reason that you have gained weight. It also illustrates a fundamental distrust, that you are halfway out the relationship and yourself not committed if you need to device tests before you can believe someone loves you. I wouldn't care if you got fat, but I would…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 07:43 AM
6

While your basic argument I can see the point of. Why are you equating having a job as a man with the looks of a woman? The true comparison would be for the man to similarly let himself go the same way the woman would. Saying a man loosing his job is the same as a women becoming fat has some really weird implications in terms of relationship dynamics.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/22 07:35 AM
1

Several schools hold the purity balls, and you still have many districts teaching abstinence instead of actual sex Ed. And again, you are going too far back when you say 1800. These are 1950 and 1960s values. Which us held by people still alive born in those decades. Also, it's a weird hill you've decided to die on. I'm agreeing with your core argument, but I try to tell you that your anger is directed in a wrong direction, yet you seem dead set on wanting to be angry at feminism that you are wi…
/r/MensRights16/11/22 05:50 PM
-1

There are plenty who still have that mentality (you can go look up Purity Balls and how thats very much still a thing), and even if we say the marriage barrier is seen as less of an issue within US conservatism, the dynamics of how men should be experienced "alpha" and women should be pure and inexperienced is still a prevailing mentality. Point of the matter remains that within the more conservative leaning people the axiom of: Men do Women don't With an equal and inverse line of percieved valu…
/r/MensRights16/11/22 08:12 AM
-3

So you disagree that there is a large section of people who want and actively ask for the traditional values and virtues being reinforced onto both men and women, illustrated by your post? The US election rather showed that the 50's conservative values still have a large imprint and value amoung the votes, but if you want to blame a different group for the illness you've pointed out, be my guess. I'm just sorry to tell you that blaming feminism for something conservatism is upholding isn't going…
/r/MensRights15/11/22 04:35 PM
-9

Well you have people like Andrew Tate who say it's women's own fault they get raped when dressing sexy, so the slut shaming is still a thing.. And you can go on the "nice guy" subreddit and it's many variations and see a lot of people believing that the virtues of the 1950's is still something to admire in regards to sex, especially when it comes to women. fun tangent; you shoot way to far back for the virtues of virgin women to still be a fundamental approach. Hell one can argue you can go even…
/r/MensRights15/11/22 03:54 PM
-12

The point is more that sexual experience as an insult is weird in terms of the male-female dichotomy. We still live within a structure where traditions and understanding of male sexuality is that they need to basically fuck everything that moves, while women are (in a lot of conservative views) supposed to be as inexperienced as possible (or dare being called a slut or worse).
/r/MensRights15/11/22 03:16 PM
10

I don't think that can be tied onto an ideology in general. The usage of sexual experience as an insult in general is kind of weird in this day and age, but it's nevertheless insults I've seen been thrown around by everyone. If one want to go a bit further; Given Incel is a portmanteau of Involuntary Celibate, the designation is a literal reference to sexual history as an insult.
/r/MensRights15/11/22 01:59 PM
1

I'm very interested in it, however you seem to not want to adress that before it can be discussed, it's extremely important to map out which understandings (axioms) are at play, otherwise it becomes a futile effort. Unless it becomes clear what understanding of accessibility you have in terms of affirmative action or work of special interest groups and associations, it's frankly meaningless to have any discussion, because you will just talk from a point which isn't agreed upon.
/r/MensRights11/11/22 07:48 AM
1

No we aren't talking about this case yet, because my very first comment (which you are welcome to go back and look at) expressly said that before any argument can be had about any case like this, it's necessary to map out the axioms at play, to not talk past each other. And you have quite valiantly attempted to not adress this inherent issue of being explicit about which axioms you have on the matter, and deflected every time I try to make you express them. So I'll ask again: would any action wh…
/r/MensRights11/11/22 07:40 AM
1

So we agree that accessibility isn't equal to all due to multifarious factors? Or is geography the only one you believe is relevant?
/r/MensRights11/11/22 05:16 AM
1

You completely deflected from my question. Is any action taken in the interest of a group defacto discrimination towards anyone not in that group?
/r/MensRights11/11/22 05:15 AM
1

Why? Because everybody does, or everybody doesn't? Again, important axioms which need to be clarified in order to have any conversation on the matter.
/r/MensRights10/11/22 08:19 PM
1

It's not answering my question. Isn't all and any attempt to help marginalized groups then always defacto discrimination towards everyone else not in said group? Ergo we can't and shouldn't do anything about inequality because that's giving an unfair legup others aren't given? Any action taken to help any group can by the way you present it be described as discrimination, since it provides opportunities to only some and not all? If I provide financial aid to homeless people I'm discriminating ag…
/r/MensRights10/11/22 08:12 PM
1

So all people in the world have equal access?
/r/MensRights10/11/22 08:03 PM
1

You aren't answering my question. Doesn't your reasoning mean that all and every support of any group is defacto discrimination, since it give a helping hand to some but not others, especially in a finite space.
/r/MensRights10/11/22 07:54 PM
1

So all action is defacto discrimination, as all actions will scewer the outcome? And if not, then it's meaningless action.
/r/MensRights10/11/22 06:19 PM
1

And here we return to what my initial comment also addressed: Are all promotion a defacto disadvantage of others? In terms of education where there are only a finite of class seats, is it then always discrimination and putting people in an disadvantage to promote and help others to some of the seats?
/r/MensRights10/11/22 06:42 AM
1

And here we return to what my initial comment also addressed: Are all promotion a defacto disadvantage of others? In terms of education where there are only a finite of class seats, is it then always discrimination and putting people in an disadvantage to promote and help others to some of the seats?
/r/MensRights10/11/22 06:42 AM
1

And here we return to what my initial comment also addressed: Are all promotion a defacto disadvantage of others? In terms of education where there are only a finite of class seats, is it then always discrimination and putting people in an disadvantage to promote and help others to some of the seats?
/r/MensRights10/11/22 06:41 AM
1

And here we return to what my initial comment also addressed: Are all promotion a defacto disadvantage of others? In terms of education where there are only a finite of class seats, is it then always discrimination and putting people in an disadvantage to promote and help others to some of the seats?
/r/MensRights10/11/22 06:41 AM
1

So are we then back to you supporting the axiom that meritocracy naturally occur or that promoting special interest groups are bad? Because you don't really seem to want to promote men (as you have now said) but just fight against other people's interests groups, which is very much not the same, and kind of the issue of why it's extremely ineffective at archiving anything.
/r/MensRights09/11/22 07:42 PM
1

It's in your post, so that's what you do.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/22 04:13 PM
3

It's kind of more than a stretch, since if you attribute something like self improvement to testosterone, it implies that women wouldn't be able to self improve... The issue here is way more systemic and environmental than a belief of simple testosterone levels.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/22 03:33 PM
1

Who do you think is responsible for making those efforts? I've already said multiple times that the push for women have been archived through associations and special interest groups who's goal have been this. But where are the associations for the men? Why have they not been formed? You are asking for everyone else to push an agenda without wanting to put in the legwork which associations, charities and NGOs work hard to get done. These things happen because people organized themselves with a m…
/r/MensRights09/11/22 03:31 PM
15

Are you attributing all the things in your post to testosterone levels? Meaning that people with low or no testosterone are unable to do these things?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/22 02:08 PM
1

Like I said in my very first comment. It depends on which axioms you have. Are the attempts to promote and support any interest group pr demographic defacto discrimination, given its an attempt to focus and specifically help only one, and not the others?
/r/MensRights09/11/22 01:40 PM
1

However you do implicitly object to it, as you see the promotion of one group as the demotion of another. Or that seem to be the center of your argument. The number of people who can attend any given engineering class is finite, so in trying to get more females in, some places must be occupied, which seems to be the issue you take with these groups.
/r/MensRights09/11/22 09:32 AM
1

They are moved by those groups. That's the point of those interests groups. It's inherent of the democratic process that people are able to form groups and have their oponion to effect the government.
/r/MensRights09/11/22 09:29 AM
1

And that's a thing which is the issue. The meritocracy doesn't just happen and you've even admitted that it's not a thing in the reality of for instance job interviews
/r/MensRights09/11/22 09:28 AM
1

Didn't defend it, so I'm not answering a question to a position I don't have.
/r/MensRights09/11/22 09:27 AM
1

That the true ideal meritocracy doesn't occur naturally, but what does occur naturally is presumptions and prejudices.
/r/MensRights09/11/22 09:27 AM
1

It because superfluous at that point. Again, is the goal you want to reach to just have preferential treatment? Affirmative action at its core has been about giving marginalized groups a boost, driven by special interest groups. When that goal is attained and the boost aren't necessary anymore, the action is removed, as seen in Sweden.
/r/MensRights09/11/22 05:08 AM
1

Depends on your axioms regarding lobbyist and special interests groups. If you believe it shouldn't be allowed to have such associations and people aren't allowed to try and reach a goal they set forward and find important, I can see why you find it bad.
/r/MensRights09/11/22 05:06 AM
1

Not what I said, but I appreciate you are underlining my point of having the exact same line of thinking as the feminist you detest so much with your comment here. There is something rarher ironically poetic about that.
/r/MensRights09/11/22 05:03 AM
1

Exactly. The meritocracy doesn't occur naturally, as the other user whos thread you jumped into stated.
/r/MensRights09/11/22 05:01 AM
1

Sure, but that solutions effectiveness is dependent on the employers preference of how they want the solution to be. Ergo it's not the actual merit, but preferential towards what the person want the behavior of the worker to be. You might find how a employee solve a problem to be the worst kind, where I find it to be the best, meaning we have to give preferential treatment or subtraction based on our oponion of the person.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 08:55 PM
1

That's a rather big presumption. They removed it when it because superfluous. Isn't that exactly how things should work?
/r/MensRights08/11/22 08:50 PM
0

So because lobbying for your cause works, it's somehow unfair?
/r/MensRights08/11/22 08:48 PM
0

And evidently listening to your argument neither do you, so I'm failing to see how that's any different.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 08:47 PM
1

So they are to verify trust. That's not merit then.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 07:35 PM
1

Oddly enough, I've been part of many hiring processes both as a board member and as a representative of the other workers (called a worker environment representative in Denmark) And whats on the CV are indeed your merits as it describes where you've worked, your degree and experiences. All of that is right in the paper before the application and interview. In the complete meritocracy world, that should be all we would require. Yet we still do interviews because the merits alone aren't what we hi…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 07:09 PM
1

So when they reached the meritocracy which was the point, and subsequently removed the practice, that is also an issue? It kind of seems the ideal of the meritocracy isn't the goal you are striving for, but to be positioned better regardless. And I mean it's admirable enough to want to be privileged instead. I don't think anyone wouldn't want that. But then don't say it's about equality when it's in fact about getting as favorable conditions for yourself as you can.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 06:20 PM
0

So if they are not, why do you then insists that it should be their responsibility to lift men? I genuinely get so confused about this argument which keeps popping up where people seem to demand that irs everyone else's job to organize and reach the goal they want to. Which association do you know which try to boost men's pressence within education degrees? Why is it associations who focus on a different field and genders job to all of the sudden encompass different areas and demographics? These…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 06:17 PM
1

So questions which can be answered by just looking at your CV? I'll ask you again, what do you think they measure when having an interview?
/r/MensRights08/11/22 06:01 PM
1

So when Sweden does the exact thing of meritocracy, you see that as taking something away from men? It doesn't seem you've understood what they did there in Sweden buddy. And just you are more than welcome to send the whole paragraph you say contain a law making it illegal for men to start and association for advocacy of men in the educational field. I will read it. Just link and say which exact paragraph you believe it to be.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 04:33 PM
1

Could you point to the exact law you are referencing. Nothing of what you describe comes up when I'm trying to look it up. And which affirmative action laws of Sweden are you talking about which got scrapped when they started to help boys?
/r/MensRights08/11/22 03:34 PM
1

Why would it be interviewed by the FBI? Plenty of groups advocating for men exists. You have entire associations dedicated to helping fathers getting to see their children. So NGO for men exists and do some good work. Which laws are you under the impression that an association helping men getting into the educational and pedagogical fields would be breaking?
/r/MensRights08/11/22 01:33 PM
2

Which research have you found? I'll admit that my statement is based on having been part of the educational field and research to an extend where I (despite it not being done systemically) have observed that men have little issue finding jobs within teaching. The OECD doesn't divide their data of unemployment based on specific vocation, so I'm curious as to which research you've found. I was unable to find anyone having methodically looked into whether men have a harder time finding a job within…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 01:22 PM
2

Which laws prohibits an NGO to form to help get men into the educational field? Which NGOs exists wanting to attempt to do this? Nobody is stopping anybody from starting a group who tries to get men into education programs, the same way that groups wanting to push women into STEM. The problem is that Noone is doing it, and whether there's a demographic to help (that is men being rejected from attending). We can even go softer: which groups exists who just try to convince men to apply to begin wi…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 01:16 PM
2

That seems to be geografically determined then. All the places I've seen and had to look into within education in Scandinavia and Texas it has always been easy for men to get a job within teaching, because it's simply just such a scarce ressourcer they more or less gets hired on the spot.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 01:03 PM
1

What part of what I write do you see as trolling?
/r/MensRights08/11/22 12:49 PM
2

Which merits do you think are being measured during an interview?
/r/MensRights08/11/22 12:48 PM
1

But how would that system work then? We can't pretend the existing reality and history all of the sudden disappears, so whatever new structure you suggest needs to conform to the system we already have. Also, who is the "They" in this version? And how do we account for, that whatever system you come up with will potentially disagree with whatever the "They" you are talking about are interested in? If the aim is meritocracy, then you need to find a model which cater equally to all groups perceive…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 12:22 PM
-1

And that's why I prefaced my initial comment with the notion that such axioms needs to be addressed firstly before any argument can be had. I very much disagree that meritocracy occur naturally in any society, given there are too many circumstantial factors to account for, to believe anyone gets anywhere on merit alone. If merit was truly the only metric, we wouldn't need job interviews or applications at all. The CV itself would be enough.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 12:19 PM
-6

I agree that there is little done to encourage men to go into education, and that's an issue. But why is that the responsibility of the groups who try to get girls into stem? Those groups have their demographic they serve to get into a specific field. I don't see how it's an argument that one group with one goal isn't focusing on the group and goal you want them to. Seems like there should be a different group attempting to get men into education, but there isn't, and I agree it's an issue. But …
/r/MensRights08/11/22 12:16 PM
1

Is that to be understood as you believing meritocracy occurs naturally in society, if nothing is done?
/r/MensRights08/11/22 11:49 AM
1

Aha a postmodernist/post structualist I see. You are right that the inherent understandings of the terms and metrics indeed need to be clarified to map out the landscape intented to be shown, which in itself have an issue of disagreement within their respective fields when discussing a interdisciplinary exploration. Psychology would have one perspective, education and pedagogy another and sociology a third with anthropology an entire forth one. All of it leading back to how the perceived subtrac…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 11:37 AM
1

An excellent point. Is it ever possible to reach the ideal meritocracy? Or what would be a close enough aproximation? Your comment also addresses the inherent issue of the perceived subtraction. I specifically used perceived, since it doesn't matter how objective or well meaning the actual initiative is, if it's perceived as removing something from another group. Even if we made an objective metric to see whether an action is effective, the subjective percievement would supercede that, and make …
/r/MensRights08/11/22 10:54 AM
-7

Indeed they are, meaning they don't apply to these fields. It is also a great example of the inherent biases and prejudices which inhabit our thinking, from which we need to do what we can to move away from. As mentioned, the solution here isn't a matter of incentive towards boosting grades, but a much different action. incidentally, I see a lot of posts here about the issue of women getting into programs, but have yet to see any posts addressing or having any attempt of solving the issue of men…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 10:47 AM
-2

So you disagree with the axiom that presumptions about other people occur naturally?
/r/MensRights08/11/22 10:25 AM
0

I think you missed my point. The models and actions to get to the ideal meritocracy are, at the moment, not ideal. However it's the "best" we have come up with at the moment. If you or anyone can come up with a way to make progress towards the meritocracy, which is the goal, without making it seem like any group has something subtracted from them, I'm certain any organization would listen to it intensively. The unfortunate reality is that we havnt found proper way to reach the point where merit …
/r/MensRights08/11/22 09:40 AM
-16

I would argue it only indirectly removed spots from men. It does give the artificial boost, but as implied in my first comment: what other action can be done to get to the meritocracy? The golden way of getting to the point of bias, presumptions and prejudices not being an issue hasn't been found, without the perceived subtraction. I'm certain that if you had a model to get to that point all institutions and organizations would be all ears as to how they should do it. As it is, the initiatives i…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 09:29 AM
-26

To have a fair argument about this, it's necessary to first lay and agree on the axioms at play. That is: Would and will bias towards any group occur naturally within the real (not ideal) world, if we remove any and all efforts to combat it? - Is the presumption that a pure meritocracy will naturally happen if we leave the world and society to it's own devices? I personally don't believe it will, as all of history has show that we naturally gravitate to make presumptions about people within diff…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 07:41 AM
1

It's not a point you can disagree about when you are misrepresenting what an article is exploring to pretend it's saying something it isn't.
/r/MensRights03/11/22 06:29 AM
1

It's kind of amazing that you can reference an entire article so confidently and at no point mention that it explores the factor of educational level in relation to the whole pairing up. Not mentioning a rather major factor of an articles entire foundation seems kind of missed....
/r/MensRights02/11/22 09:48 PM
1

I did in fact end up marrying one :)
/r/MensRights01/11/22 10:26 AM
0

But you said she should have, not they. You are removing the guy from the conversation, not me.
/r/MensRights01/11/22 05:01 AM
2

Even when I did my time in the US (and where I ended up finding my wife after having lived there for a couple of years) i never had this issue. I can assure you it's not my looks which compensates for the income lack, if that was on your mind (and thank you if it was) ;) So maybe you need to move to Texas instead, because I never had any issues of which you speak of there...
/r/MensRights31/10/22 07:38 PM
3

I'm very much disagreeing with the dichotomy you are presenting and would even go as far as saying your attitude is exactly why men feel they can only do one.
/r/MensRights31/10/22 07:33 PM
-3

Well she should have known better and she shouldnt have had premarital sex in a country where that could get her in trouble. She messed up by doing that and she is messing up by not telling the father. Seems you are placing the whole blame on her here...
/r/MensRights31/10/22 07:29 PM
-2

So all the responsibility is laid upon her, but she doesn't get all the power of making the decision regarding that responsibility? Seems rather disjointed.
/r/MensRights31/10/22 05:25 PM
-4

Are we just going to absolutely ignore the cultural component and pretend this is all a gender aspect? Cool.
/r/MensRights31/10/22 05:14 PM
2

Denmark. But my experiences in Sweden and Norway are similar.
/r/MensRights31/10/22 04:51 PM
2

We don't socialize with the same women it seems, because that's never been a thing where I come from.
/r/MensRights31/10/22 03:37 PM
-4

It depends on how pedantic one wants to be in what is ascribed to capitalism... For some it seems the concept of commerce is only allowed within capitalism, so it really depends on what you define as capitalism before one can say so.
/r/MensRights31/10/22 03:12 PM
7

Why does men have to do most of the earning?
/r/MensRights31/10/22 10:40 AM
0

But how can you attribute the dip in current happiness to the mere agreement of feminism? I see plenty of issues pertaining multifarious groups and demographics and how unhappy they are, which few of them having anything to do with feminism. So affiliation with feminism can't be seen as a gange of happiness. To me attempting to make a causation between feminism and happiness is an attempt to point at a 'quick fix' scapegoat to deflect attention from a much larger factor of the current situation.…
/r/MensRights31/10/22 09:21 AM
-7

If that's the case, then the issue is that capitalism hasn't made women (or men happier), not that feminism hasn't.
/r/MensRights31/10/22 09:10 AM
2

This works in general for all and eny people involved, men and women.
/r/AntiFeminists24/10/22 11:12 AM
1

So we have masculine and feminine behaviors which we agree exists. Okay. So do you believe any behavior which can be described as very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way exists?
/r/AntiFeminists23/10/22 05:29 PM
-7

So we aren't in agreement that there exists behaviors which are very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way?
/r/AntiFeminists23/10/22 05:15 PM
-2

I'm trying to get to the bottom of what you are saying. So what's your answer to what I asked?
/r/AntiFeminists23/10/22 04:57 PM
-4

So we agree that there are behaviors thar are masculine and some feminine... Do we also agree that there exists behaviors which are very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way?
/r/AntiFeminists23/10/22 04:56 PM
-2

You didn't answer my question. So are there no behaviors or traits which are inherently masculine or feminine? Because if there isn't, then the whole concept of gender stops to exists.
/r/AntiFeminists23/10/22 04:07 PM
-6

So there are nothing which is inherently masculine or feminine, meaning genders don't exists?
/r/AntiFeminists23/10/22 02:53 PM
3

Based on what data? If you can find some conparative numbers which illustrates this being the case that would be nice. We also used to beat children more, so by a similar model we can ascribe kids being less happy today because they aren't beaten as much.
/r/AntiFeminists23/10/22 02:52 PM
2

What are you basing the statement that women had it better 50 years ago on? Or that they were happier?
/r/AntiFeminists23/10/22 11:41 AM
0

How dis you reach the suggestion that I'm talking about the patriarchy all of the sudden? And how is suggesting that equating dignity and ego being wrong somehow making leaps of logic? Are you under the impression that your dignity and your ego is the excat same thing with zero variation?
/r/MensRights19/10/22 05:47 AM
1

For what? You started the comments also eluding to something you believe is wrong with me. So what about me is so offensive to you?
/r/MensRights19/10/22 05:44 AM
-4

Are you okay buddy? You seem to be working through something here. How can I help you?
/r/MensRights18/10/22 11:42 AM
5

Not really a convincing argument when thats all you can muster. Also not really illustrating any counterpoint to my initial comment, no matter how disagreeable it seems to you.
/r/MensRights18/10/22 09:34 AM
-2

Trying too hard at what?
/r/MensRights18/10/22 08:30 AM
-26

I think you are simplifying some very complex behavioral and psychological concepts and equating what is just overlaps between pride, dignity, ego, self worth and self righteousness.
/r/MensRights18/10/22 05:43 AM
9

What is also important to remember is the fact that a lot of conservative voices aren't interested in the reforms you suggest either. The reason I say this is important is because there (occasionally) seem to be a more right leaning attitude within men's rights and a belief that conservatives are allies simply by also disagreeing with aspects of the left. This is (in my oponion) why the men's mental health aspect have moved so slow.
/r/MensRights06/10/22 05:10 PM
39

If you think Megyn Kelly is in any way on your side in the pursuit of advocating for men's rights you are sorely mistaken. This isn't even the enemy of my enemy is my friend. She is directly opposed to most of the ideals and goals attempted to be reached by any men's group. The absolute only reason you could ever agree with Kelly is if you don't really care about men's rights and only really care about opposing anything disagreeing with Christian values.
/r/MensRights05/10/22 02:32 PM
12

In terms of whether whataboutism is ever not going to be a thing people resort to? No, that thing has been around for a while and will always be something people resort to. What is a far more important aspect is the realization that a whataboutism isn't a trumph card, nor does it have any inherent merit as an argument. Conversely, whataboutism have been called out as the derogative "tactic" (used in the widest possible sense) it is. It's a way to highjack the conversation and steer it into an ar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/10/22 09:20 AM
-2

I don't see much different logic within people who accuse things of being woke.
/r/MensRights30/09/22 07:09 PM
17

At this stage, it would be like asking if movies or books are sexist. While games with sexism exists (as do movies and books), it seems extreme to declare it upon an entire medium.
/r/MensRights30/09/22 02:21 PM
7

Truthfully? Because it happens in countries where people care very little about what happens. Atrocious things happen in South America and Africa, and gets little to no report because people don't care about people from those countries. If taking it a step even further; People almost despises people from those countries, at least when it comes to helping them as evident by how refugees and immigrants are treated (compounded when looking at how male refugees are treated). How many conservative pu…
/r/MensRights27/09/22 11:34 AM
17

There are aspects and facets which lean more towards a conservative mindset, but in terms of the pragmatic issues MRA want to change; The Riggt is decisively not your friend or sympathetic.
/r/MensRights24/09/22 01:25 PM
-1

Looking at the vote counter, my previous comment seemed to have come true ;)
/r/MensRights23/09/22 10:35 AM
-12

You dare like the Rings of Power? When the internet has deemed it unwatchable? What fit of maniactic herracy have come over you?
/r/MensRights22/09/22 05:30 PM
1

It's a matter of perceived power dynamic in society. The concept of women being "submissive" (not the right word I'm looking for, but underdanig from danish doesn't translate well) within the power dynamics and exchanges between men and women positions women as the defacto more vulnerable. My following analogy might not be completely air tight, but I hope it gets the idea across. It's kind of like how we have little sympathy towards rich people when treated bad by poor people.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/22 05:16 PM
6

You don't change that until you no longer have a system based on capital/monetary worth as a status symbol.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/09/22 09:39 AM
1

A nice communist sentiment.
/r/MensRights02/09/22 06:29 AM
0

You are aware it requires qualifications to get those jobs right? Male teachers don't have issues finding jobs, what's hard is to find qualified candidates.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/08/22 10:04 AM
0

Are you under the impression that it's because it's hard for male teachers to get a job, which us what affirmative action us supposed to combat? Because the problem isn't getting hired once you are a teacher, it's to get men to want to become teachers in the first place.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/08/22 06:10 AM
1

When they do, they usually are much less pedantic about it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 06:22 PM
1

I'm sorry, but if you are being pedantic over the exact phrasing not being the exact amount of nuanced for your liking in a reddit post, then that points more to a you issue than any points I've made. If you want to focus on the semantics of my point, then more power to you. I don't have anymore to add then, and you should spare yourself the bother to respond.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 06:00 PM
1

Were you under the impression that just because a factor is mentioned that means someone is claiming that's the only one? Sorry if you have been given that understanding of matters.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 05:39 PM
2

So by that extention non of your presumptions are to be taken serious either as to why men in lesser numbers are represented within education and child care. Pairing the female heavy jobs (like teacher, nurse or child care provider) with the societal perception of being seen as less of a man is still an assumption I'm standing by based on my experience. You are disagreeing with it, which is fine, but that also mean non of your presumptions have any merit, given they aren't based in studies eithe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 05:09 PM
0

I already said I'm basing my generalization on more than 10 years of experience within the field. Suppose that doesn't mean anything. You were the one bringing femininity into the picture, so I just attempted to follow your vernacular.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 04:45 PM
4

Having been part of the educational spheres for more than a decade I can assure you that being perceived as "more feminine of a man" (in Condensed terms) is something every single male teacher (myself included) has to deal with in their personal life at some point.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 04:18 PM
4

I wasn't talking about money as a power factor but as a motivation factor for getting more men into the field. When saying 'taught not to' (which isn't a phrase I used, but I digress) it was in terms of societal pressure for men to not enter female heavy sectors like teacher or nurse out of fear of the stigma of being seen as less men by others (this apply to both men and women perceiving it as such).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 03:35 PM
5

There is a much bigger representation in terms of women within education. However it's also a field which is paid poorly in most western countries, which means it's not a sector which attracts very many men who have been taught to strive for higher payment and "man jobs", so it becomes perpetuating societal factor. Unless you werer to do systemic reforms to target getting more men into education, you aren't solving it. However my experience is that anyone who points out the issue of the lack of …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/08/22 02:42 PM
1

It was actually quite the contrary I fact. How exactly was a rude towards you? I've stated multiple times that some people who associate themselves with MRA is bad for it, and you are calling me rude and making quite a lot of bad assumptions about me? Not to mention, you have shown no kindness nor patience. You have been very disrespectful and accusatory. So don't fool yourself into thinking you have been anything but unpleasant.
/r/MensRights27/08/22 03:15 PM
1

I'm not the one linking them together. I'm saying that is what happens when people like Andrew Tate says things like that. But why is it you get so absolutely defensive when I dare suggest that there are some people who's association or self proclaimed MRA status is bad? Do you not agree that the fact Andrew Tate us associated with MRA is a net negative?
/r/MensRights27/08/22 02:53 PM
1

So the other user who said "litteraly every scholarship ever" when I asked which programs excluded men, were wrong (as per your link)? Then why am I the one being downvoted and people upvoting him? Not that the count means anything, but if he is factually wrong, then why are people directing anger at my question?
/r/MensRights25/08/22 07:56 PM
1

The post is about US debt forgiveness, so it's US centric by default. And I asked for examples where the law/program in its word targeted all (students for example) but excluded men. So a specific gendered scholarship isn't an example of that since it didn't target all, but were specific.
/r/MensRights25/08/22 07:53 PM
1

There's a couple of factors which could come into play in terms of why the numbers look as they do. Two biggest ones I would suggest being that there is still a tendency for single house income in the US (or where the man in primary earner while women take care of the children, which itself is kind of an issue, but that's a separate one). Second one being that if the numbers only represent a static monetary number, then it would suggest that women in general earn less, if we assume everyone pay …
/r/MensRights25/08/22 07:47 PM
1

I would say that there needs to be a big difference between 'worse off' and 'living in poverty'. There are people all over the US who have to work up towards 60-80 hours a week and still can make ends meet, and that isn't okay (to my belief at any rate). If someone wants to go the extra mile and work more they should be able to do so (at extra wages let me make that crystal clear). Where I see this as an issue is when the defacto expectation is turned towards people having to work the many hours…
/r/MensRights25/08/22 03:30 PM
1

How is that a bad thing to strive for? Setting aside all and any gender parts of this; Why would it ever be considered a bad thing for any worker to want and openly admit to want better work life balance? Correct me if I'm wrong, but why do you state it with ridicule (I might have misinterpreted that but that was the vibe) that someone don't want to have a miserable existence of working themselves to death in a horrible job? How did we get the attitude that there's anything noble in slaving away…
/r/MensRights25/08/22 03:10 PM
1

We live in a society we want to function the best. It seems we are politically in disagreement whether contribution to our collective.
/r/MensRights25/08/22 12:46 PM
0

And that's really interesting as well. Flexibility over pay. Though that discussion might be more a worker question over a gender one.
/r/MensRights25/08/22 12:44 PM
-1

If only implied before, I'm from Europe, so my interaction with scholarships is only through my wife and stint as a teacher in Texas. But how are they excluding men? I saw plenty if sports scholarships which were almost exclusive for guys.
/r/MensRights25/08/22 12:36 PM
1

Then you need to give me some examples where it's directed at people (students can be both), but excludes men.
/r/MensRights25/08/22 08:59 AM
-3

I rather disagree that education doesn't generate money to maintain a higher pay, but that's a different discussion. But the narrative you are presenting with the current numbers you are using to say men are indirectly oppressed for being the one contributing most, while getting the least, so saying the numbers doesn't take that into account for the exact opposite reason seems wrong. I agree that calculating contribution towards society as static monetary is unfair, but that would mean someone w…
/r/MensRights25/08/22 08:57 AM
2

The student debt example doesn't exclude men, but just have a larger segment of women involved.
/r/MensRights25/08/22 08:35 AM
-8

If most of the part time workers are women, it still feeds into the observation that we havnt moved too far away from the single income house. Steps have been taken, but evidently and given your statement of 'men work more hours' still suggest that men are (due to multifarious factors) primary breadwinners, which leads to the question of why. There is also the fact you point towards of women heavy sectors (like education and welfare positions) are lesser paid than the "Dirty work that is well pa…
/r/MensRights25/08/22 08:30 AM
10

Which begs the question as to why? It could suggest that single income households are still a widespread thing in the US (which in itself is kind of jarring). It also imply that men on average earn, in general, more money (so to pay a higher sum in taxes) leading to the question as to how that constilation exists. Lastly, there is also the fact that some of the riches people in the US are men, which mean even a procentage of their taxes will significantly twist the numbers; This can lead to a wr…
/r/MensRights25/08/22 07:53 AM
4

It seems like a bit pedantic way of wanting to finance programs. If we should consider all programs based on who it benefits weighed against that specific groups tax contribution, weighed against everyone else's, then it would become virtually impossible to ever do anything. Homeless people contribute a very small amount to the taxes, but I wouldn't want them to have their programs cut.
/r/MensRights25/08/22 07:44 AM
0

Holy shit, you are even trying to turn your own gaslighting on me. That's some advanced shit you are attempting there. Even twisting it further by your associating the term within abuse, when I never claim that. It's still hilarious how you've decided to give massive benefit of the doubt to the other users intention of message, while being supremely pedantic about mine. Really illustrative about your character. The screen between us have zero influence onto how and what I tell you. How you've de…
/r/MensRights24/08/22 09:46 AM
0

That's not what was said either. He implied women either due to biology or tradition, be the ones to get the leave. At no point was the fact it's a year any part of the discussion. There is also no time where I've, in any way, suggested he claimed women didn't need the time. The very opposite is the core of my objection. So once again you attempt to gaslight by saying one thing happened when the exact opposite is the case, and trying to lay it at my feet. Is this pathological with you? Because y…
/r/MensRights24/08/22 05:44 AM
1

You most likely were. I just didn't catch your point, or whether or not it was in favor or disagreeing. Chalk it up to a wonderment as to whether you are being sarcastic or not.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 09:26 PM
0

I didn't misread anything. The implication of the other users comment is either that women need or women need to take maternity leave, which is (as my comment stated) bullshit as that viewpoint utterly negates the importance of fathers too requiring to be with their children (a point you also have decided to ignore, despite me pointing you to it several times now; Handwaving it away by saying it bad gramma). He said that women do need to take time off work. They need to take time off work in ord…
/r/MensRights23/08/22 09:22 PM
0

Are you denying what was said when directly quoted to you? That's some mighty strong gaslighting you try there buddy And what part of the second half of my sentence you left out was hard for you to understand? Was it the explicit statement that fathers should be on leave as well? It's hilarious how you've inferred meaning with his sentence, but decided to be pedantic with mine. Really illustrate the hypocrisy you embody there ;)
/r/MensRights23/08/22 05:49 PM
2

They need to take time off work in order to look after children, for at least a year and probably more. Strongly disagree that wasn't what he said. You also forgot the rest of my sentence, but you do you buddy.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 12:32 PM
2

Less leniency have been given to bigger claims, but that's your prerogative.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 09:02 AM
2

You find him rejecting depression as a legitimate mental illness to speaking truth to power? Or his position that sexual assault victims carry part of the blame themselves?
/r/MensRights23/08/22 05:30 AM
-1

Not completely sure what you are trying to say, insofar as whether you agree or disagree with my comment.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 05:28 AM
0

The other user said it very well.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 04:20 AM
0

The whataboutism of how other groups are treated in regards to this is rather meaningless in the context of self realization of what should be done to be taken more serious. As for what can be done. It's a hard one. For now the mere suggestion that there might be an issue gets people into a frenzy, so seemingly the time isn't ready for any self reflection. Evidently anything other than absolute devotion and almost militant hate of any disagreement is treated as a personal attack.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 04:18 AM
1

And congrats to you for that, but that doesn't really change how association works. Application of hermeneutics in therfore contextually useless, as the singular subjects perspective on the matter isn't what's being explored, but the collectives relationship with the terminology. So from a epistemological side it becomes meaningless to look at the current issue applying a hermeneutic perspective. If you want to apply anything here, the discourse analysis of Michael Foucault would be much more us…
/r/MensRights22/08/22 08:58 PM
2

Not really, because you seem to have misunderstood what the point of all of this is, if you believe talking about either of those things is at the core here.
/r/MensRights22/08/22 08:21 PM
2

What difference does my educational background have to do with how people (his own followers included) associate what Andrew Tate says with men's rights?
/r/MensRights22/08/22 08:14 PM
1

Tate is a named example. All of his considerable followers who believes in his words calls themselves the same. Andrew Tate isn't some random user on reddit. He has a sizeable following of people who agrees with his version of what MRA us. Also; This sub exactly does what yoh say it doesnt. Every other post here is some user trying to extrapolate from one person and laying that onto the entire group. They find Twitter posts from some random nobody saying some weird shit, and then claim "This is …
/r/MensRights22/08/22 08:03 PM
5

I think you are missing the point. It doesn't really matter whether or not he actually alines with any position anyone else who calls themselves a men's rights advocate have. Matter of fact is that Andrew Tate was a self proclaimed men's rights advocate, which means his views gets to be associated with men's rights. MRA isn't an organization with a coherent voice to say anything. You see people commenting on this very post talking loudly about what all feminists believe based on few who claim to…
/r/MensRights22/08/22 07:50 PM
4

And that's kind of a problem what you say here. If genuine about just waving away people like Andrew Tate as a "plant", then I'm not sure you grasp the severity of how damaging people like him are to otherwise well-meaning ideas of men's rights. We can call him a lunatic all day long, but nevertheless is Tate the one who self identify as a men's rights activist, so he gets to poison by association.
/r/MensRights22/08/22 07:31 PM
2

So your answer to something you are irritable about, is to behave in the exact same manner? I believe that's what's called asinine behavior.
/r/MensRights22/08/22 07:06 PM
-4

He has been vocal about his views on mental health (saying depression doesn't exists paired wirh some statements about being a real man - cant remember the exact phrasing) plus ideas on sexual assault (the latter I think was the straw that broke the camels back in terms of Facebook and Instagram). Supposedly Tate has made several appearances on InfoWars (Alex Jones' show), so that's the ballpark.
/r/MensRights22/08/22 07:04 PM
1

Oh yes, because disagreeing with the ways, views or manner of venting people like you do can only be described as those two categories. No fucking way someone can just disagree with your ass, oh no they must be a troll.
/r/MensRights22/08/22 06:58 PM
3

You can argue that all day. Ask the Muslims how well it's been for them to just repeatedly saying the extremist in their group aren't part of the group. yes that's an extreme, maybe even inappropriate comparison, the point is that saying someone isn't part of a group, when they themselves claim to be, isn't a very good tactic
/r/MensRights22/08/22 06:56 PM
-1

The reason people tend to group those different segments together is because people from those segments tend to claim themselves to belong to all of the above. You and I might disagree with Tate refering to himself as being part of men's rights, but that doesn't stop him from doing it. So I don't think it's dishonest to group them per say, since so many of the participants decide to claim their involvement themselves. And that's why I suggested a house cleaning, since distancing from those group…
/r/MensRights22/08/22 06:52 PM
-15

Andrew Tate (if memory seve). He was kicked off Facebook and Instagram for promoting some very unhealthy views, preaching to young men about the 'men's rights' he found to be the important ones. And right there is the issue I'm trying to get to. Anyone and all can call themselves men's rights, and the ones who do, while yelling the loudest, tend to promote some rather bad views. So I'm not disagreeing with the topics you mention as the core elements. I'm stating that there are people who claim t…
/r/MensRights22/08/22 06:48 PM
0

And the differing factor might be the internets ability to magnify fringe groups more. But nevertheless, there are some extremely violent and destructive views to find rather easily within men's rights. Hell you can find a couple even within this post.
/r/MensRights22/08/22 06:44 PM
-1

Why am I a troll? For saying there are bad elements amoung the men's rights people? Are you under the impression that only the best of the best support men's rights and no unhealthy views have leeched onto the movement, so to be associated?
/r/MensRights22/08/22 06:43 PM
10

I would very much ask you to do the same, as your outlook is in direct opposition as to what the men's rights is all about! Your fucking archaic views is what is wrong and directly responsible for why men aren't doing well, and you have the audacity to then pretend to be about men's rights, when clearly all you want to do is to make other systemic issues into a gender debate? You can piss all the way off with your corrosive mindset!
/r/MensRights22/08/22 05:59 PM
-15

Looking at the additions you did to the initial comment I replied to, I'm not surprised you got offended by my suggestion. The fact you then proceed to complain about my post history over replying to what I commented accusing me of some sort of organized derailing rather illustrated my comments sentiment.
/r/MensRights22/08/22 05:51 PM
-5

An outlook like that is exactly why men loose custody battles and their children. It is utter bullshit that women neither need to take time off to look after the children anymore than any father should do the same. And even bigger bullshit on the suggestion of a single house income in 2022.
/r/MensRights22/08/22 05:48 PM
-42

I think I'm being extremely direct, straightforward and explicit. But each to their own. As the order user mentions the Tate guy isn't a good representation of what men's rights are or should be about. Quickly within even this sub, every conversation devolves into fear and hate mongering against other groups who are to blame for everything not going well, with zero interest or suggestions as to how anything can be improved. It took feminism 3 generations to reach a point where the extremist took…
/r/MensRights22/08/22 05:45 PM
1

How is the average wages not keeping up wirh inflation a gendered problem? I agree it's a huge problem in general, but I'm not seeing how it's a specific gender problem.
/r/MensRights22/08/22 05:25 PM
-59

I think you are having a bit rose tinted classes on if you can't see the problematic elements which have infiltrated the otherwise good concept of men's rights, because there are plenty of people who claim to be about men's rights, whom I would distance myself from as well. There is a substantial need of a internal housekeeping within the Men's rights sphere.
/r/MensRights22/08/22 05:05 PM
1

I already answered you, to which you didn't like the answer, then I asked you how you felt it didn't satisfy your question. So at the moment you've been given two questions you refuse to answer, which is kind of telling about your abilities on the matter. how both dominant and subordinate masculinities are represented and experienced... Illustrated is my exact answer as to why. So I've answered twice, yet it's something you've been too inept to return
/r/MensRights13/08/22 03:52 PM
1

So you are under the impression that it's a totally legitimate practice to judge something based on your own personal bias and feelings disregard the litteral words of something (despite those going directly against your assumptions) generalize without including any of the context of a situation because you don't feel like it. You know what buddy. You are the perfect feminist. Congratulations :) I'm sorry that reading a description of something have offended you so much that you continously feel…
/r/MensRights12/08/22 11:01 PM
0

How are you feeling it doesn't answer your question? Unless you are being litteral, to which I'll congratulate you on having lost your marbles. And you aren't even attempting to answer my question, so I'll take that as the answer.
/r/MensRights12/08/22 09:30 PM
1

how both dominant and subordinate masculinities are represented and experienced... An answer I have given several times before, now you answer the question I've asked several times but you have done everything in your power to deflect from. What in the description of the course is making you so angry and offended that you feel to talk about everything else under the sun when criticizing it?
/r/MensRights12/08/22 08:40 PM
1

Then tell me exactly what in the course description that makes you so offended that you can't refer to it when describing why you get mad at it? You keep on diverging onto other areas, broadening the scope We aren't talking about all of academia but this specific course which has a specific description you refuse to acknowledge, for God knows why. If we are going to pretend that statistical track record is a justifiable reason to preemptively judge something and disregard any context despite bei…
/r/MensRights12/08/22 07:43 PM
0

Not a lie, because the context is the course description. How you have decided to generalize, removed from context, would mean all gun owners should be charged with murder, because that's statically correct. I posted the description of the course in the very first comment here, both showing exactly why, since it positions the men at the center of the exploration over being an influence on the other parts. But instead of reading what they wrote about it, you seem steadfast on dismissing the actua…
/r/MensRights12/08/22 06:17 PM
0

How does any of these statements refute that the issue is supply and demand? Other than you wanting it on principle, what incentive are there for women to change their behavior on the dating front? Seemingly, according to the article, it's their marked. And how does regulation based on gender of the romantic marked differ from regulation of the job marked based on gender (something seen as rather bad usually on this subreddit)? Demanding equality of outcome is usually rather frowned upon here.
/r/MensRights12/08/22 06:12 PM
0

Why should the onus not be on the guys? The dating marked isn't artificially twisted in any way. It's a clear representation of the three most prevalent aspects of capitalism: Supply, demand and incentive. Neither of those suggest women need to change anything, so your demand for it is a principal one akin to women demanding to get hired in high position jobs. This is the capitalis model perfectly transfered into the sphere of romance. Whether it works is a different matter
/r/MensRights12/08/22 05:09 PM
1

Pointing out the rarher asinine hypocrisy you display while isn't pointless. You first say that you "listen to all sides" and "acknowledge opposing position" to then declare something as bigotry with zero sense of irony might be the one of the most poetic moments if it wasn't for how far it seemingly go over your own head.
/r/MensRights12/08/22 03:35 PM
1

No it doesn't. Your disagreement isn't in any way a constitution to fulfilling any of the definition parts, no matter how hard you feel about it. Just the same for people who call your views bigotry. But if you are under the impression that it makes it bigotry just because people feel that way about it, then just remember that every time you see any feminist or "woke people" using the term; That you agree with them. And for future reference, you don't have to say you are going to stop replying. …
/r/MensRights12/08/22 02:30 PM
1

But you aren't contextualizing any information, but deliberately deciding to ignore the avaliable information about the course to draw a presumption not rooted in reality. We have a word for that too. Ignorance According to your way of reasoning, it becomes more tha fair to generalize everything which falls under similar categories, disregarding any context.
/r/MensRights12/08/22 02:27 PM
0

You are calling me disingenuous while leaving out half the sentence which describes a rather important distinction to what you are attempting to be angry about. How about you quote the entire sentence instead instead of cherry picking parts disconnected from the whole?
/r/MensRights12/08/22 01:37 PM
7

That's not an unusual businessmodel for any killer, which is weird regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights12/08/22 10:53 AM
0

Just remember the sentiment of you finding it okay to call something bigotry simply for disagreeing with it. Evidently the way you see some feminist refering to men is (with your attitude) totally acceptable.
/r/MensRights12/08/22 10:43 AM
1

But what part of what is written is written is wrong? Almost every day a post on this sub pops up with the exact sentiment being talked about here, and still it's not good enough? So when the issues people on this sub are talking about, it's still wrong? How?
/r/MensRights12/08/22 08:43 AM
0

There is a very large leap between acknowledgement of differing positions and a declaration of refering to something as bigotry.
/r/MensRights12/08/22 05:18 AM
0

Which contarian sources have you used to challenge your assumptions? Because the previous ones you referred to was a pretty one sided endeavor.
/r/MensRights12/08/22 04:08 AM
1

It still doesn't really answer my question. Other than this personal bias and belief that everything about men always gets dumped on when discussed, what about this particular course gives you pause to think it's the same? On this subreddit there's always a lot of talk about how it's bad for to generalize and a lot of grandstanding on how it's ever so bad when any other group engages in assumptions like the way you do here. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems those positions are mor…
/r/MensRights12/08/22 04:05 AM
1

As in you didn't catch the facetious attempt, or?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 07:59 PM
0

Could you link to the description you've read, since you're indicating it diverges massively from the one used in the article? Because you still aren't using any of the terms (despite me asking you to) to explain what exactly makes you hesitant about this couse. You still mostly argue from your personal bias of distrust against anyone seemingly daring to potentially (since neither of us have attended the course) disagree with some of the underlying answers.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 06:06 PM
2

I frankly found it extremely interesting that the initial description seems to center strictly on the male/masculine perspective in terms of rapid changes of society. Not as an influence, but centering the experience. That's something I havnt seen before.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 05:58 PM
-1

Like I said. The two guys have been prove innocent and absolved of all guilt. Racism isn't even about race but also a gender issue. Racism doesn't even exists actually.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 05:37 PM
0

So when presented with what the course is going to be about, you decide to completely disregard that, invent your own feelings on what it's going to be about, pretend that's the new reality, and then be angry about this. If you can't base your views in what is being reported (by fox no less, so you know they wanted outrage from this) but have to disregard all of that to invent a situation where your feelings are validated, and you ask me why I expect a zebra? Though I suppose that illustrates a …
/r/MensRights11/08/22 04:39 PM
0

Love how you call something you disagree with bigotry, while (and I'm gonna go out on a limb here) you get rather angry when people says that about your beliefs? I mean, just the potential of perhaps and maybe a course where you didn't like the name perchance saying something less than completely flattering about white men, and you immediately referred to it as bigotry. But if people called something you say or believe bigotry, I'm sure you would get rather angry.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 04:20 PM
2

So in lew of saying others aren't willing to discuss ideas, you have decided in absolute terms that the "them" and "their" in the world do the exact same practice of you right now, but call it wrong when others do it.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 04:09 PM
-3

Nothing to bite here. I was under the impression the case was a blatant example of how racism existed in Mississippi, but as illustrated by the other user, I was totally wrong and this was just an example of women manipulating men to do their bidding. I'm just glad that we could clear Tills killers of both the murders and them being racist, when clearly they were the victims of a woman pulling the strings all along.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 03:37 PM
1

No I mentioned the curriculum. Why is it people like you always think the only people's words one can talk about in a comment section is their own? And yes, that bias exactly. The mere posting of what questions the course would interact with threw you into this spiral of a hissyfit where suggesting they can have interesting perspectives somehow makes you this pissy. And per usual, simply disagreeing somehow is a twisting of your words. It's baffling how responding makes you feel this insecure.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 03:33 PM
0

Which one of the questions from the course gives you that feeling? All the ones I see offer all the opportunity for multifarious viewpoints from both a sociological and historical content.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 03:30 PM
-1

All of the questions as I seem them provide rich opportunity to make comparative and discourse based explorations into the current gender political climate. But seemingly people on this sub prefer to make assumptions about the doom and gloom of everything, when then complaining when that behavior is done by others.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 01:15 PM
-1

Just disagreeing with you on the curriculum and its context of the class have still made you devolve into this kind of behavior. You can try and be facetious about it all you want to, it's still right there in the comments that not adhering to your specific bias have made you result into mockery.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 01:13 PM
-1

It took you less than 10 comments to devolve into this when just mentioning the curriculum of a class with a headline grabbing title.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 11:32 AM
1

Which you've also done here, meaning the all of the questions and discussion points are meaningless?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 11:30 AM
0

The study as presented in the link doesn't say conservative views are being censored, so attributing implied isn't quite okay. This leads to the issue of Self censorship being a bit of a dangerous term to use since that can be a rather wide term. You can find people on this subreddit who feel they have to self censor their views and oponions. One can acknowledge the feeling of the students with that position, but it can mean quite a lot of things. You most likely also have to self censor at work…
/r/MensRights11/08/22 11:29 AM
-3

Seems like you need to take your own advice there buddy. You did in fact get preemptively offended about what a college class would be about, that you grouped your own oponion with another user to legitimize how you both have already made up your minds as to what any discussion on the subject could possible be about, despite those being rather open ended from the course description. And I do find that behavior rather disingenuous.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 11:22 AM
-2

Which evidence do we have? All I'm able to find are people telling stories about how they feel about the subject, and nothing substantial about the matter.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 10:47 AM
-4

That's what I said. Totally only a gender thing. No racism at all
/r/MensRights11/08/22 10:10 AM
1

And that person's comment also seem very disingenuous. If having a discussion about these subjects and questions, that even the idea makes you so offended, then it becomes impossible for the area to ever be taken serious.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 10:05 AM
-9

No racism anywhere. The injustice is purely gender based...
/r/MensRights11/08/22 10:03 AM
1

Seems rather disingenuous to dismiss any attempt to have discussion about the subjects with any nuances, and instead just having already decided on answers
/r/MensRights11/08/22 09:59 AM
-11

That seems more like you coming into a class biased towards what you want to hear over whatever gets discussed. And it rings especially hollow for you to call something an echo chamber, when you're already decided what something is about.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 09:55 AM
1

Skeptical about what? Aren't those the exact things discussed and talked about here? Havnt there been countless asks on this sub about wanting these exact questions looked into?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 09:53 AM
13

Famously well, the two guys who killed Till (Roy Bryant and J.W.Milam) also got away with no punishment. Seems like Mississippi has more of a race problem.
/r/MensRights11/08/22 05:50 AM
-14

Based on what the article writes the course is about, this sounds really super interesting. The name is a tad headline grabby, but other than that is frankly sounds really fascinating... The course description explains that students will be "employing interdisciplinary perspectives" to examine "how both dominant and subordinate masculinities are represented and experienced in cultures undergoing periods of rapid change connected to modernity as well as to rights-based movements of women, people …
/r/MensRights11/08/22 05:30 AM
1

You've never heard or 'no shave November' or Movember? Never wondered about all the guys having/growing mustaches in November?
/r/MensRights11/08/22 04:06 AM
0

Why so angry buddy. No need for all this impotent rage. I had no need to ask for the other user to elaborate on his comment since it only had one of two implications: 1) He agrees with what the taliban did Or 2) He believes the "gyrocentric cesspool" is a great thing (which seems weird He didn't address it being referred to as cesspool then - seldom do people call something they support a cesspool) So all you've proven is that either I'm right, and that he attempted to find a way to back out of …
/r/MensRights10/08/22 05:40 PM
0

How did I have the reading skill of a rotten egg when you yourself needed the other user to explain what they meant? Not to mention, the context of him going from 'everywhere is a gyrocentric cesspool' to 'not Afghanistan' with the explanation that he doesn't like what Afghanistan has done to their women, would then imply that either the "gyrocentric cesspool" is the better option, or he is making a rather poor retraction of his very terrible position. You make the call buddy, regardless of eith…
/r/MensRights10/08/22 05:30 PM
0

Well I showed it to you didn't I. So no need to be all sour now buddy.
/r/MensRights10/08/22 03:36 PM
0

With that attitude of the simplemindeness of men (all we need are food and sex), then it rather rings hollow to then attempt to dissern any depth or meaness against men from the other saying. You can't be offended with the implied portrayal of men in one saying and then agree with it on another. Either men are simpleminded creatures who's emotions don't matter, and only need their most basic instincts meet, or we aren't. You don't get it both ways.
/r/MensRights10/08/22 03:35 PM
1

You didn't ask for the link, and honestly sounded like you've found it yourself. But here it is Someone replying to another one saying everywhere is a gyrocentric cesspool.
/r/MensRights10/08/22 03:29 PM
1

You have some expressions about men as well. 'The way to a man's heart is through his stomach' Which similarly to 'Happy wife, happy life' can be interpreted in both ways to make either side sound terrible. Honestly I think it's just more important to reties those old expressions since we have moved on from relationship dynamics which reflect relevance of these.
/r/MensRights10/08/22 03:18 PM
3

What have you been told the whole 'no shave November' is about? Because here it's always been about men's health awareness, more specific prostate and testicular cancer.
/r/MensRights10/08/22 03:05 PM
48

I find there's a couple of wrong basic assumptions as to what the saying is refering to. It's not that 'happy wife, happy wife' is a barometer of anything. It's refering to how having an unhappy/angry/pissy wife will turn your life into a miserable experience. If anything it portrays women as spiteful beings who will make your existence a living hell if not keeps contempt, and that you as a man have a much easier time if you just make her happy.
/r/MensRights10/08/22 02:58 PM
0

I'm not twisting or extrapolating anything you are saying or meaning. I'm replying to your comment with a position that calling something edgy doesn't excuse its inherent volatility. I'm disagreeing with your dismissal of some of the comments when you just refer to them as 'edgy'. Don't know why you believe me writing a contrasting oponion on your reply somehow is twisting your words.
/r/MensRights10/08/22 05:29 AM
0

As mentioned, one person referred to the taliban to be preferable to Australian government. And calling it 'edgy jokes' doesn't excuse some of the other comments from their implied message.
/r/MensRights09/08/22 04:12 AM
1

I completely agree with that sentiment. Problem is, in this context, you can see just how fast some people from this particular segment devolve into very horid speech. The thread here was about how #MenToo would be banned for hatespeech, and looking at how quickly this post already contained multiple elements which are going in that direction, it seems like it's something we do to ourself.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 09:51 AM
1

If you read some of the comments on this post alone, it becomes rather evident just why and how fast hashtags like these gets taken down. Another user made the claim that Afghanistan was a better place (specifically than Australia) for men because the taliban took over.
/r/MensRights08/08/22 08:06 AM
4

I think the conversation is moving in the direction of men being accepted as trying to better themselves to not be seen as a threat. I do also think we could move faster as a group towards that goal, but have elements which suppresses the moving speed.
/r/MensRights19/07/22 10:08 AM
7

The question was how it would change the dating, and it hasn't really changed the dating anyway significantly, or what OP is hypothesizing.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/22 06:42 PM
11

Prostitution is legal in a lot of countries. Why would the results be different in the US?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/22 05:05 PM
1

Is that healthy though?
/r/MensRights13/07/22 08:12 PM
12

This kind of pisses me off om multiple levels, because "the men should stay behind and fight" is the exact sentiment spewed by a lot of conservative politicians in my country, feeding into anti immigration rhetoric of how refugee men are either cowards or the direct reason behind [insert societal issue here].
/r/MensRights13/07/22 06:46 PM
0

Let's try something different. Let's pretend you said we shouldn't wear shoes because that's "more natural". I would also say that's a bad argument because what's natural include the above mentioned actions. I'm not against not wearing shoes, but invoking what's "natural" as if it's the end all argument is really short sighted.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 06:14 PM
0

No I don't know that, which is why I asked. I never equated hetrosexuality with necrophelia. I said if you argue that something is better because it's "natural", then you are also arguing in favor of those things. If you aren't argumenting that hetrosexuality is better because it's natural, then we aren't in disagreement.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 06:09 PM
1

Even if we stay within mammals, you still have a rather broad amount of behaviors which are 'normal' but not something which would be condoned in normal society. Even if we reduce it further to apes or primates you have same issues. My point was simply that "because it's natural" is a really poor argument when one consider what that means.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 06:06 PM
0

Didn't say they were better either. I said the argument of "it's good because it's natural" is a bad one.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 06:01 PM
1

So you are under the oponion that if it happens in nature, it's okay and justifiable as the better way of doing something?
/r/MensRights13/07/22 05:34 PM
1

That's only true if you are under the impression thar simply because something is natural its moral. If you make the logic chain of: Hetrosexuality is right/better because it's natural; you are the one grouping yourself with all these other parts which are also natural. If you have another position or argument as to why hetrosexuality is right/better other than 'because it's natural', then that's the better argument. You seem to be under the impression I'm saying something against hetrosexuality…
/r/MensRights13/07/22 05:14 PM
-7

Only if you are under the belief that saying something is natural makes it somehow better or justified. If you want to bat for hetrosexuality because it's "natural", more the power to you. Just remember these other parts are also just as "natural". If on the other hand you have another argument which doesn't need to group your activity with that of incest and rape, then I would say that's the better argument.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 05:00 PM
-10

Not linking it, just saying that the argument "natural way" is a tad hollow when looking at how reproduction happens in nature.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 04:52 PM
-11

Well for most of those 2 billion years we acted on more like instinct rather than the morality we have now. One can argue "the natural way" is superior, but one also don't have to look long into nature before incest, necrophilia, rape and so on become more "normal". So the question remains of why it's bad to reexamine some of the dynamics of relationships from time to time..
/r/MensRights13/07/22 02:33 PM
0

No, but it's rather fitting that you now again are attempting to force your reality onto others, demanding your experiences and how you see things to be the defacto real one. You have attempted to make your hypothetical about my behavior into the real one, only to have to pushed back. And now you try again to create a narrative of abundance of a phenomenon that I havnt been privy to, yet you attempt to use as a gotcha.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 06:30 PM
0

Non of what I run into. But you've already attempted to dictate how my reality is through how you feel it should be, so you doing it again seems rather fitting for your whole argument
/r/MensRights12/07/22 06:25 PM
0

Frankly I don't see many people demanding others to be offended on their behalf, so prior to this whole thread, I can't say the context for last I had to call people for this weird behavior. If you run into people constantly demanding others to be offended on their behalf, with the groups you circulate, then maybe that should tell you what you need about those groups.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 06:23 PM
1

I've done it to anyone demanding others to complain or be offended on their behalf yes.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 06:15 PM
1

If I come across anyone demanding others should be offended on their behalf I call them on that. Already made that comment, yet you've steadfastly refused to take that as true, because you seemingly believe your own hypotheticals have more merit despite being baseless Made it just three hours ago
/r/MensRights12/07/22 06:03 PM
0

Your hypothetical doesn't constitute anything of merit, and is useless in terms of determining hypocrisy. Though it is ironic you want to treat such baseless outcries as having merit, when thats not something you extend to others.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 05:24 PM
0

A hypocrisy you are accusing me of with zero evidence of anything. Buddy if you are in need of projecting, that's your issue.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 05:15 PM
0

But that's not what you are complaining about, or what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against people like you complaining that other groups aren't offended by something you are offended about.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 05:03 PM
0

I tell anyone who complain and demand that others be angry on their behalf to pick it up themselves. Crying and stamping your feet over how everyone else aren't as outraged as you over a situation is not only super juvenile, it also illustrates the situation is secondary to you over the reaction of others. To that end, I would call that against anyone.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 02:12 PM
0

Who is everyone here? And who are the them I'm supposed to go off on? You can be as presumptions you want to be buddy. Doesn't change the central issue here.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 12:45 PM
3

A novel notion to some I'm sure, evident by how some will immediately jump into categorizing an entire group based on one experience or interaction with a singular individual.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 07:16 AM
0

It isn't, and I didn't suggest that to be the case either.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 07:14 AM
36

If you take the accusations of every and all individuals as having merit or being correct you are going to have a hard time. I've been called damn near everything on every conceivable side of every spectrum throughout my life and especially on reddit, and frankly it means nothing. What is way more important is whether or not you are then going to counter these accusations by saying it's somehow an entire groups fault or mo and then generalize as a means of you letting off steam, or are you going…
/r/MensRights11/07/22 08:13 PM
21

If everyone in the relationship is in on the premise and the rules, then it's fine. It's an issue if only one is aware of the game being played.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/22 08:37 PM
1

You have to elaborate on that.
/r/MensRights09/07/22 05:57 PM
1

If it's that easy to find, it should be easy enough for you to post some references, because I'm unable to.
/r/MensRights09/07/22 10:30 AM
2

I don't know if it's a winning strategy either.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 07:59 PM
2

I'm still not sure you are getting what's (at least to what I can gather) the point here. The bill is a protest to illustrate the inherent injustice with the removal of abortion rights I.e. removing the means to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. And insofar as to show how unfair it is to force women to "pay" for unwanted pregnancies, the bill would put consequences on the men to. All of that can be removed rather easily by allowing abortion again, since that removes unwanted pregnancies in gener…
/r/MensRights08/07/22 07:35 PM
1

Then I'm not sure you're understanding the supposed point trying to be made. It's not to punish men (or anyone) for being fertile, but to illustrate that Noone should have a choice in the matter of whether they want to become pregnant. If you remove that option from women, it should be in some way equal to men.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 07:11 PM
3

I'm trying to understand what you are attempting to say without presuming something wrong, because it both vague and weird what you seemingly are trying to say.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 05:34 PM
1

I don't understand what you are driving at.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 05:33 PM
0

Not what I asked. I asked who the Our you refer to is.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:42 PM
2

I have to ask again: who is our in all of this?
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:42 PM
1

Who is our in 'our political position'?
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:18 PM
1

And you've illustrated my point with your sycophantic behavior here. So thanks for proving me right.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:08 PM
1

Oh you speak on behalf of humanity? What a deal ;)
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:08 PM
3

If being that pedantic is what you seemingly are taking so gravely offense by, I feel bad for your small ability to comprehend text. There's obtuse, but you've just taken the cake. Congrats.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:07 PM
0

Thank you for illustrating;)
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:00 PM
2

Me twisting by litteralt using the same phrasing of western men? You have a fun understanding of twisting
/r/MensRights08/07/22 03:59 PM
1

Who's we?
/r/MensRights08/07/22 03:59 PM
2

How did I bring him in to deflect blame, when I'm using him as an example?
/r/MensRights08/07/22 03:58 PM
0

You don't have to. It just underline my point of people like you having very little idea of what you are both saying and talking about.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 03:50 PM
4

No he didn't. He shifted my question (the question of similarities) into him wanting to discuss pedantic aspects of whether we are talking subset of groups.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 03:49 PM
1

Thank you for proving my point about all this.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 03:48 PM
2

It seems the mere act of saying anything negative about Peterson have an extremely negative effect around here, so call it a preemptive self strike. You yourself acknowledge there to be an 'obvious negative response' despite (as you mentioned) I didn't even say anything negative, just the mere idea of me potentially doing so brought you out to call me an idiot.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 03:47 PM
2

I agree, however part of me kind of see the point in what's being done here. If this is the measures necessary to "level the playing field" so to have an honest debate about abortion, then that's what it takes.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 03:45 PM
0

Like I said; I'm aware of the other aspects and facets this comes into contact with, but trying to parce out the reasoning behind of trying to get men just as interested in making abortion legal as some women do..
/r/MensRights08/07/22 12:57 PM
0

I might, but I'm asking you to explain it, as I'm doubting you have the abilities to.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 12:56 PM
10

Honestly, I can kind of see this as the extention of the removal of abortions. To me it's seems like a protest bill, to illustrate a point (whether or not you agree or disagree with the point is a different matter), and not as a bill intented to be passed (I'll bite my tounge if they get it through). If women are to be forced to live with the consequences of getting pregnant, I can see the reasoning behind such a protest bill (that not the same as agreeing with it, just that I can see what point…
/r/MensRights08/07/22 11:57 AM
-1

I believe Peterson talks into and indirectly acknowledge a very unhealthy attitude amoung some of his young audience which can result in an uptake in inceldom. I don't believe it's Petersons intention, but it's nevertheless the result of his views.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 11:44 AM
-1

I disagree that "femcels" are given any more of a free pass than incels, evident by the popularity of people like Peterson and Carlson who's big following consist amoung other by male incels.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 11:00 AM
1

The society you say we see now.. and how stability and birth control have been the downfall of precious society.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 10:22 AM
1

What society exactly is that?
/r/MensRights08/07/22 10:08 AM
1

What society do you believe lead to this response from women?
/r/MensRights08/07/22 10:01 AM
0

You didn't answer what I asked, but nice deflection of the core issue.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 10:00 AM
1

Why? Though honestly that kind of weird manifest I could not care less about, though it's going to be a good comment to reference to when people say no guys believe these things.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 09:44 AM
1

Yea?
/r/MensRights08/07/22 09:43 AM
2

I don't agree with that premise. You have big names like Jordan Peterson or Tucker Carlson who speak (though more elegantly) into similar mentalities of the incels, and both have big platforms to speak from and a giant following. which most likely is now going to get me down voted to absolute hell for daring to disagree with Peterson.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 09:30 AM
-5

I said most western men as well. The classifier were present from the get go, so I twisted nothing. And I asked if you were under the impression that if you could make unilateral statements about most western women, why would that be different from doing the same to most western men. So your accusations are frankly not existing and seeming an attempt to not answer what I inquired...
/r/MensRights08/07/22 08:49 AM
-9

Are you under the impression that most western men have some of the same mindset as incels? Or let's go a bit softer: The Nice Guy mentality (from which there is also a subreddit)? If the attitude here is that all women should be grouped with and considered same as the women in the post. Then the opposite of all men being grouped with and considered same as incels and 'nice guys' should also apply. And frankly I think such attitudes (that we can and should group all men and women like this) is e…
/r/MensRights08/07/22 07:54 AM
-11

How are they punished harsher? Being ostracized from social media groups which doesn't agree with their views isn't a harsh punishment in my book, and similar to these asinine "femcels" most incels just find their own little nooks of the internet they can spew their weird hateful rhetoric. In my most facetious setting I would joke that's basically what 4Chan has turned into.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 06:08 AM
22

Saying this represents what women think of men is about as genuine as saying what incels think about women represents men. In the post, the initial comment even refer to themselves as 'femcels' so clearly this is a group about as representative in position as incels. And we might disagree here, with some having the oponion that incels in fact do represent men's views and thoughts. But personally, I don't find incels to represent any ideas or positions of mine.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 05:49 AM
1

Which i would suggest is where the men's rights are at a disadvantage compared to many other activist groups where such events do occur. But maybe that just speaks into my initial gripe of this subreddit consisting of people wishing to bellyache instead of interest in doing any actual changes.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:24 AM
1

A fair enough position as well. However then it becomes of matter of how this post is relevant to the men's rights subreddit in general?
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:07 AM
1

You've never seen that? I think it was either HBO or Netflix which recently made a docu-series about the orthodox Jews and their method of doing this. But nevertheless; Did you just defend the practices of those groups on either side? Personally I'm against people having to submit themselves to a partner based on gender and principle, but it seems we differ on that account.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:05 AM
0

Not true at all. If you can't explain sarcasm, then you aren't using sarcasm.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:03 AM
1

And saying that doesn't constitute an insult in your book? Well then I'm sorry to have insulted you, you condescending prick You also didn't explain fuck all and just made an off hand remark which only implied insult, so once again... fuck off with all of that!
/r/MensRights07/07/22 07:33 PM
1

Buddy, you started the insult game, so fuck off with that! Who's stance, and what fucking difference does it make when seemingly you can't be asked to deal with it yourself? This is the typical bitching of people like you that everybody else must solve the issues you are interested in. Because I can almost guarantee you that whichever group you are talking about, don't talk about conscription, but since you are interested in it, all of the sudden everyone else must drop what they do, because the…
/r/MensRights07/07/22 07:15 PM
0

How am I digging myself deeper? What parts of my comments have been wrong? Not a single fucking comment have any of you asshats made suggesting that something should be done about this. All people like you seemingly want to do is bitch over a group not part of the fucking issue, instead of solving it.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 06:37 PM
0

Then maybe you can elaborate on the supposed sarcasm.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 06:07 PM
1

Appreciate the support you show here. Seriously, was getting a bit nervous, but you've dragged me back.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 05:58 PM
-3

In a lot of religions like Mormons, jehovas witnesses, orthodox Jews and conservative Christians denominations, the woman is expected to submit to the husband, and in some even be apologetic towards the 'original sin' (eves seduction of Adam to bite the apple). So this is effectively a gender inverse of what the post shows, but with little to zero backlash.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 05:09 PM
1

Which hypocrisy would that be? So far all you've attempted is to throw around terms tou evidently don't know what actually mean
/r/MensRights07/07/22 04:03 PM
2

Same reasons the Mormons, orthodox Jewish, jehovas witnesses and conservative Christians groups. You have religious settings where the woman is to submit to the will of the man, and apologize for the original sin.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 04:02 PM
1

Still not an answer for either thing. How was what you initially wrote to be considered sarcasm, and how is me calling you in it me being a troll?
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:51 PM
1

Islam would also work perfectly well here, but given that religion is mostly prevalent in the middle east, while this event seems to having taken place in the west, I made the comparisons more western orientated to illustrate a point.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:50 PM
1

That didn't answer the question. Plus you still havnt explained how it's sarcasm...
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:40 PM
1

And a mirror of leftism would be conservatism. An ideology rather inherent with both Mormons, orthodox Jewish and Jehovas Witnesses.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:39 PM
1

What part of me calling you on your asinine comment is me being a troll? Elaborate on that.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:37 PM
1

Why? I would be doing the exact inverse of what's being shown in the post, and having little to zero backlash come from it, thus proving my point. Plus, in the name of doing it inversely, it seems only proper that the channel of which to do it would be through conservative religious means.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:35 PM
1

Calling people out for being a complaining douch usually works gangbusters at parties ;)
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:33 PM
1

I could join the mormon faith and have it done as part of that. Would that count to you? Or jehovas witnesses.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:30 PM
1

Any conservative Christian groups, orthodox Jewish groups, Mormons, Amish society and so on. However for most of those, it's part of everyday life, so they seldom post about it (you can find documentaries about it though). And that kind of speaks into how mundane the inverse is, since doing it the way of the post generates material to put in reddit, but doing what the Mormons do all the time, barely register as anything.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:28 PM
0

You seemed rather keen on complaining about where the equality people were.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:24 PM
1

First of all: all religious gatherings are people showing up to apologize for sins they havnt done, in many of the more conservative Christian groups women especially have to apologize for "original sin" (eve seducing adam). So I'll again point out this practice isn't uncommon with inverse genders. Secondly, same conservative Christians, a lot of orthodox Jewish groups and Mormons also demand the woman to submit to the will of the husband. So this whole thing is a widely accepted practice to do …
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:21 PM
0

No please. I'm asking you to explain how what you said can be seen as sarcasm over you being angry others aren't angry on your behalf? All I see is someone complaining noone is doing their outrage for them, while utterly sidelining the actual injustice. Instead of being pissed at the government making this law, you immediately attempt to diverge the outrage towards a group which has fuck all to do with this. How is any of that sarcasm?
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:11 PM
2

So now you just ignore what something is about because it's convenient for your position? Again, this behavior is litteralt so normal with genders reversed that most don't even notice it anymore, while here the inverse have gotten you all fired up, though you also had to make up what's going on just to justify it.. What strange values to have..
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:09 PM
-5

No, because that's still just you asking others to be angry on your behalf. How is that sarcasm?
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:06 PM
0

Why are you mixing bdsm into it? The title of the post doesn't reflect what the picture shows (evident by reading the text on the pic), so why you think that's part of the scenario, I can't say.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:49 PM
-7

What part was sarcasm? I'm too dumb to understand what you are being sarcastic about here, so help me out.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:47 PM
-6

Why are you saying others should be crying it? Whats stopping you from crying it? I will never understand the attitude displayed here of people requiring others to be angry on their behalf whenever injustice happen. Don't get me wrong, the Latvian law is bullshit, but saying it's everyone else's job to be outraged is silly. Be angry about the injustice instead of being angry at the reaction and utterly sidelining the actual issue.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:46 PM
4

What does that have to do with the fact this setup wouldn't create any backlash had the genders been reversed, since a lot of religious groups already do it, and very little backlash exists...
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:30 PM
2

What are you talking about? I've already mentioned several large groups who does this as part of their everyday life.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:14 PM
-20

And I'm talking about the fact the premise of "if the genders had been reversed there would be backlash/outcry" not being true, evident by how we have a lot of groups whom already practice the things from the article, but with inverse genders.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:04 PM
-69

Like how the Mormons have a ginormous backlash? Or a lot of other orthodox Jewish and Christian denominations practice? I'm not saying either or any of these aren't issues. Just pointing out the practice is rather commonplace enough for people to seemingly have forgotten they exists, so saying a backlash would be big is kind of wrong. And that's before we even start going into the actual cults where the praising of a man usually are the starting point. Remember the volleyball guy?
/r/MensRights07/07/22 11:29 AM
-107

But you have that in a lot of religious groups and cultlike circles (similar to this one), so the fact that has become so normalized to a degree where you didn't even consider it, suggest the "backlash if the genders were reversed" would be extremely mild.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 08:17 AM
1

It might be a bit dangerous to go into nation specific rights or issues, since the opens up the whole middle east where women's rights aren't too well off.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 10:46 AM
-7

I've never understood this mentality of thinking injustice or misery is some kind of tradable token to exchange. "We get to subtract 1 right because one right is missing in our camp." It's the mentality of how small children divide things.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 05:07 PM
1

Care to share any backup on that. My search came up empty.
/r/MensRights04/07/22 04:02 PM
1

You still don't answer the question as to why what a subreddit on feminism should be taken as an authority on anything for an entire ideology. I can find self proclaimed people within anything, and to then subsequently hear their opinion on something doesn't transfer to the ideology. What self proclaimed people think about something is useless, so when you say that feminist are saying something, you are lying. What you have found are singular individuals oponion on something, which is about as c…
/r/MensRights30/06/22 04:16 AM
1

You havnt given me a single reason why the word of a subreddit should be taken as any kind of authority over random people on the street. On the contrary, you have dismissed a professor who wrote a book litteraly titled History of Feminism, because it disproved your argument. Buddy, it's time you need to bring some actual proof to the table. If you aren't able to find anyone of just a bit note who can back you up on your assumptions, then frankly you've talked out your ass. And no, I do not cons…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 07:02 PM
1

Did you just use the 'beta phrasing? Oh my God. That is just... so pathetic.
/r/MensRights29/06/22 06:55 PM
-1

Learn women's nature? Wow. You really showed something about yourself with that phrasing there didn't you ;)
/r/MensRights29/06/22 04:45 PM
1

How does a professor on the matters word weigh more than random people on a subreddit? Did you seriously just ask that?
/r/MensRights29/06/22 03:01 PM
1

Where have they openly protested about retirement ages?
/r/MensRights29/06/22 08:22 AM
1

But Hitler was the leader of his party. That's why he had authority to speak on behalf of what it meant to be part if his party. Tucker Carlson isn't the leader or anything of note other than a commentator, and saying he then gets ultimate authority on what an entire ideology means is ridiculous. You don't get to proclaim him as pope of conservatism based on popularity. That's not what defines an ideology. So I'm still left with having Noone to ask, other than random asshats who can believe what…
/r/MensRights29/06/22 05:54 AM
1

I need you to point out exactly where I'm saying a man should be legally obligated to pay for child.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 08:49 PM
1

Non of those things have been part of my argument at any point. All I've said is that the medical trauma disproportionately positioned on one side is a factor which should be considered when having the conversation about reproductive rights. And it is also a factor which makes said conversations incredibly complex to have. If you are in disagreement that the big toll a pregnancy and birth has on a body, should be considered a factor in the conversation, then that's your prerogative.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 08:48 PM
1

You insisted on dragging in military service as an argument, so you were the one wanting to make it about something else like an injustice exchange. So if you are okay with staying on the same issue instead of trying to whatabiutism around, thats super with me. And while it does take two to make a child, are you under the impression that the medical trauma of the pregnancy and subsequent birth is equally distributed between the participants?
/r/MensRights28/06/22 08:23 PM
1

You are kind of missing the point by being pedantic. I did change the example of neo nazies with Tucker Carlson to soften the question, which you didn't comment on, so I'll ask again: does he get to dictate what it means to he conservative simply for having a large follow group? Same with the Joe Rogan example. It's not about sex or ideology, it's a matter of who gets to define what either entail for the entire group. Who has the mandate to dictate what either an ideology or to behave as a certa…
/r/MensRights28/06/22 08:18 PM
1

How is that different than saying Neo Nazies get to define what it means to be a conservative? Or to soften it a bit Tucker Carlson? He has many followers, but he doesn't get to define what it means to be a conservative just because of that. Does Joe Rogan get to define what it means to be a man for you? He also have a ton of people who echo his words, but does that mean he gets to speak on behalf of men as to what we define us selves as?
/r/MensRights28/06/22 07:33 PM
1

That doesn't really change the second part of my comment. I can also go to a Trump rally and get some rather interesting perspectives as to what it means to be a conservative, but that doesn't really give them any authority to speak on anything other than on a personal level.. What gives the random people who can join a subreddit (one which anyone can join) mandate to speak on behalf of an entire ideological movement close to a century old?
/r/MensRights28/06/22 07:17 PM
1

Firstly, I've never seen anyone there making that claim. Secondly, what makes anyone there an authority on what feminism is about, anymore than either of us can claim what being a man is all about?
/r/MensRights28/06/22 07:08 PM
1

Again, all I'm getting are vague platitudes as to what these supposed feminists are all supposedly saying without having found anyone of note actually saying it.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:55 PM
1

Did you read the rest of the article? Because you seem to be under the impression that gossip is a different thing than how the article uses it... "I like him..." is litteraltly an example of what they classify as gossip.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:53 PM
1

It's not complicated in any way. It's a philosophical bankrupt mindset to excuse appalling attitudes towards others. Blaming your genes as an excuse for not being able to navigate society is a cowards way of attempting to make sense. If we were to pretend we could blame our genes programming for all decisions we make (thereby reducing all of the human brain to simple behaviorist instinct), the world would be a rather different. Problem is, we don't live in a world guided by instinct.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:50 PM
1

They are the litteral opposite. Morally and philosophically.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:41 PM
1

Most don't do that. so I'm not certain what point you think you are making in talking about bad friendship dynamics.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:39 PM
1

There's a vast difference between that and your initial argument that relationships are done as a returnment of an investment.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:36 PM
1

If that's how you see your friends and love ones, then I truly feel sorry for them. Personally I don't find it a healthy attitude to be expecting returns in matters of personal relationships, as if they were investments, but I suppose we are different like that.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:36 PM
1

I'm not sure you did. You talked about the sensations the different aspects gave you, but still rooted it in a transactional perspective even going as far as suggesting your friendships were about an instinct of survival. So I'll ask again; Do you believe relationships and friendships are always simply transactional, or whether they can transcend?
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:29 PM
1

I've heard that one tossed around a lot, but have never been able to ever confirm who's supposedly said that.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:26 PM
1

So for you, friendships and relationships are at all times only to be seen as transactional, and never as able to transcend into anything other?
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:18 PM
0

It's so fascinating when people like you seem to be under the idea that injustice is a commodity one can trade between issues. Do you think there's a token system where men and women get to trade between issues?
/r/MensRights28/06/22 06:02 PM
1

I'm certain all the gay people, people who can't conceive, childless couples and all the others who either don't want or can't have children are super in agreement with your perspective on relationships there. Let me ask you a follow-up though. Are your other friendships also based on simple transactional value over the more normative notion of 'liking to be with each other' (dare one say you care or even love your friends as well).
/r/MensRights28/06/22 05:58 PM
1

So when providing for your partner, you aren't doing it out of love, but as compensation for her later having to go through the medical trauma of returning the investment to you in form of a child? I'm still a bit confused as to what point you are making.. are relationships, in your mind, just a matter of commerce, where women are paid in order to provide suitable heirs? Or what about your suggestion am I not getting...
/r/MensRights28/06/22 05:34 PM
1

Like I said. If the baker say all trades should be paid equally, would you still believe he is fighting for the butchers? Because if you do, I have very sad news for you about union and labor fights around the world, despite having that exact rhetoric.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 05:06 PM
1

I'm saying that society already compensates women for all the extra risk and effort they do. That's why men provide for them, buy drinks and dinners, and do most of the courtship. Then I'm more than happy to hear what the intented meaning of that statement is... because I'm failing to read it otherwise.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 03:45 PM
1

I've repreat the analogy already made in my comment: Why do you believe it's the bakers task to fight for the wages of the butcher, despite the baker saying he's for equal wages in trade? Every time I see people like you talk about this issue, it's always seems to be the attempt that others should do the fighting for you. Yes feminism is larger, but it's an old movement which has fought for their influence, and you want to throw your hand up and complain that it's unfair they get to be that size…
/r/MensRights28/06/22 03:44 PM
0

Wow. That is an extremely disturbing outlook you have there. And an extremely wrong-headed understanding of politics. You exactly do divide issues into areas, and thinking you get to transfer hardship from one area to another to win 'good guy points' is such a weird sentiment I can't even start to understand what went wrong for you to end at that point. Instead of wanting to make a pissing contest of keeping a scorecard to whom has the words, maybe be bit more constructive. It took you around tw…
/r/MensRights28/06/22 03:39 PM
1

Oh. I was under the impression that merturnity leave wasn't provided in the US. Glad they changed that. Other than that, saying you paid for dinner is equal to having your genitals split open is a rather lousy compensation.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 03:29 PM
1

You are saying I'm moving the goalposts while treating hardship within different areas as a transferable commodity to be used to bargin at a later stage. I mean it's fascinating to see someone under the belief that you get to treat injustice in one area into an argument within a different area. I'm sorry to burst your bubble buddy, but you don't get hardship tokens you can spend on other areas as an argument. So while men do die earlier of heart problems, and that is something we should have mor…
/r/MensRights28/06/22 03:05 PM
1

To what end am I looking at said data? I suggest you study the data of how children are used as soldiers in Africa to have a better understanding of how men's hardship in Western military isn't as bad. do you see how that kind of moronic comparison is mixing whatever intent you are trying to say. According to you I can pick a different area, apply said hardship to an unrelated area and pretend it's somehow comparable. So given children in Africa are able to do military service, it's not an issue…
/r/MensRights28/06/22 02:44 PM
1

Are you saying war atrocities are a natural part of life? And yes, we should be more mindful about the fact heart problems hit men harder. Plenty of countries in fact do have many campaigns about this very thing. But I'm in absolute disagreement with your believing a pregnancy is a small matter which has been overestimated.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 02:40 PM
0

What a simplistic way of understanding the world.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 02:19 PM
-1

It doesn't have to entail that at all. You just have part of the population which can retire sooner than other. Other countries have tried to implement something similar, but based on lines of work, since construction workers get used up a lot faster than someone in an office. Surprisingly, the construction workers refused that option, whereas the office workers were more than willing to offer the extra years to compensate.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 02:09 PM
-2

So you believe the whole medical trauma of the pregnancy and giving birth should play no factor in any of this discussion, simply for being the way it is?
/r/MensRights28/06/22 01:59 PM
1

Then I'm not sure what you are saying with your comment.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 01:58 PM
-5

There are issues which are male centric, to which we should be the pole holders, and stuff where we aren't. Male pension age is something we should fight for, not ask women to do it for us.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 01:57 PM
1

Not sure where that fits within the analogy...
/r/MensRights28/06/22 01:47 PM
-2

You are comparing apple and oranges here. Military service and reproductive rights aren't equivalent in any sense of their issues, so pretending they are is a rather disingenuous proposition.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 01:46 PM
0

But are you under the oponion that a pregnancy and child labor are simple and easy things to do and live with/under?
/r/MensRights28/06/22 01:45 PM
-3

Which also should be a thing we should talk about. But why are you interested in feminists taking that battle, when it's our to take? Why is it a group focused on a different demographics task to fight for something outside of their intented group? I don't ask bakers to fight for equal pay for butchers, despite the bakers saying all trades should be equal.
/r/MensRights28/06/22 10:54 AM
0

The thing is, there isn't a scenario where the man has to endure the same strain on the body as the woman, which is where I find there is a skewing of the demand. Regardless of any want or not; I'm not in danger of getting diabetes, having massive hormonal changes, putting on a ton on weight, bleeding out or having my genitals split open during those 9 months and subsequent birth. I'll underline that it's not me saying that men should be removed from the equation, nor that we shouldn't have any …
/r/MensRights28/06/22 10:44 AM
2

I'm not completely in agreement that it's a double standard when the labor involved (pun only kind of intented) is as skewed at it is. It's not that I'm in disagreement with fathers also being involved and having rights within the reproductive debate. However when giant medical trauma that is a pregnancy and subsequent birth is laid exclusively at the feet of women, it makes the discussion a bit more complex in my view. For it to be a double standard, it would require a setting in which the bodi…
/r/MensRights28/06/22 09:43 AM
2

If you meant it as a joke, it fell extremely flat. Furthermore, despite your perspective and your intention having been in a facetious manner; Matter of fact is still there being a notably amount of very vocal people for whom this wouldn't be meant as a joke. So you saying it's a joke, what's the punchline?
/r/MensRights27/06/22 11:04 AM
-1

What difference does that make if the sum total is that people have a better and more healthy relationship with sex because of the education?
/r/MensRights27/06/22 09:50 AM
1

Interfere with what? Am I in any way wrong when saying the case was a deformation civil law suit and not a criminal charge? Am I in any way wrong when saying neither side were charged with domestic abuse by the court of law? Am I in any way wrong when saying your oponion on whether domestic abuse have happened is meaningless in terms of a libel law suit?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/22 03:31 PM
1

What difference does that make to the effect if what case it is? Are you under the impression it magically becomes less of a deformation law suit in proportion with the amount of streaming I've seen?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/22 11:20 AM
2

I do, and I also know it was a civil suit about deformation and nobody was charged with domestic abuse. Something you've decided this was all of the sudden about, and further more drawn conclusions outside the court, making you fall right into the trap that you don't have to prove anything, you just have to make the narrative about it. The very thing Heard was guilty of, you yourself are falling into. Good job buddy;)
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/22 08:51 AM
1

Evidently you are when you are confused what the case was about. You can have watched it all day long, but given you seem very unsure of what it was actually about, it matters little you've seen it.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/22 06:59 AM
2

Are you confused about the difference between a civil law suit and a criminal charge.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/22 04:23 PM
2

And yet, not what she is being charged with. Which leads back to my initial comment of this case showing nothing but the fact public oponion is the only thing that counts. Despite not being charged, or the case being a domestic violence case (remember it's a libel civil law suit), you have now jumped onto a narrative that this is about a woman beating a man, and not the fact he's suing her over an article she wrote. Depp havnt at any time sued Heard over being beaten, yet you have twisted it int…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/22 03:03 PM
1

It matters extremely, since it ultimately changes what a case is about.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/22 09:29 AM
1

That isn't the same as you accusing her if being guilty if domestic violence. It's also in stark contrast to the British lawsuit, where 12 of 14 counts were deemed plausible.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/22 09:28 AM
1

Evidently they didn't agree on the wording of the article.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/22 07:34 PM
1

How? It's a ginormous and wide field within academia
/r/MensRights24/06/22 07:33 PM
3

So you are unsure what the difference is between a criminal case and a civil lawsuit? Or what either side were charged with?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/22 07:33 PM
1

Sure. But it wasn't what any side were charged with.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/22 07:32 PM
2

So you are under the impression it's a criminal case?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/22 01:42 PM
6

You are claiming she abused him, yet that's not what the trial is about, so you fall into the trap of the public oponion. This wasn't a case about domestic violence, because those are criminal cases. This was Depp suing Heard for libel and saying his career had been hurt by being called a wife beater. She isn't and wasn't accused of domestic abuse. That's your interpretation, which is kind of the exact same issue you have with her interpretation of their relationship. So you've created a self op…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/22 12:08 PM
7

I disagree. If this has shown anything, it's that public oponion is the singular only thing you should worry about. The entire case has been completely forgotten is a libel case in civil court and not a criminal case. Non of the people involved were charged with domestic abuse, but the charges were whether or not saying it had hurt Deeps career.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/22 09:30 AM
0

Which is where you need to be extremely vigilant as to what conclusions are being attributed to Oliver, since academics (especially within philosophy) uses terminology much stricter than colloquial. So when Oliver talks about power, it's not to be understood the same way we use it in everyday usage.
/r/MensRights24/06/22 07:04 AM
1

Those statements are also extremely misappropriations of Kelly Oliver's journal article they have used. The source of Oliver's statements are taken from an article she wrote in response to a different researchers article (Evelyn Fox Keller). The source is also published in an academic philosophical journal, which means the terminology Oliver uses differ a bit from colloquial understandings. The field Oliver is writing about is Philosophy of Science, where declarations of Truth-theories are a ont…
/r/MensRights24/06/22 07:01 AM
1

So you are complaining that guys aren't instinctively in tune with what you want, or your needs, while also complaining that you have to communicate this being the case? Jesus, that's might be the most obtuse attitude I've ever heard. You have demands (which is fine), but complaining that you have to put in efforts for your partner to reach these demands, is kind of stupid. Not to mention your post makes it sound like this is a general issue, while it turns out it's just you who feel both entitl…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/22 06:00 PM
1

Actually scratch all I've said so far, because a rather important questions just occurred to me. Are these guys asking you before or after you have sex with them? Are these guys you are tired of asking you to teach them unprompted, or after you have already given it a go-around?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/22 04:31 PM
1

Obviously you don't play many games if that's how you think. When everyone plays it differently and have multifarious house rules, you most definitely have to. Shit there are a ton of memes about the fact people can't even agree on monopoly. Your aggression about this is your entire post, so evidently you are angry that people dare to ask how to play better. Hell to keep with the board game analogy, you are aggressive that people ask for help playing chekers when you think they should be able to…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/22 04:19 PM
1

Which again, I equate with being angry at telling people how to play a board game when inviting them over to play. Which is a really passively aggressive thing to get worked up over.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/22 03:26 PM
2

So you are friends with these people who ask for help in a situation you both are partaking in? I mean do you get angry at teaching people how to play boardgames as well?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/22 02:02 PM
3

How many dudes do you have sex with where the conversation of you 'teaching them' comes up in conversation, where you aren't familiar with the person as a friend? In one night's stands there are seldom a conversation of 'hey could you teach me sex', so it stands to reason that scenarios where this comes up are with people you consider friends to an extent.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/22 01:55 PM
4

And good for you on that. I hope you guys are both extremely happy about it. I also hope you never ask for his help with anything, nor ever ask his questions about anything. I mean you could just learn it yourself instead of relying on something as silly as having a partner help you. It's not like helping each other's when partners is one of the most fundamental aspects. Naaa. Better tell anyone who ask for help with something to piss off and learn it by themselves. Surely teaching people anythi…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/22 01:19 PM
19

But you are a partner in this whole sex thing right? Because how you describe this would make me rather apathetic towards your needs and wants. If you aren't willing to tell what you want or how you want it, then you get what you get, and that's it. Hell if you have the same mindset about other aspects of people asking you for pointers, then you sound like a kind of horid person.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/22 12:02 PM
46

Why be obtuse about helping a partner with their issues? Tell what you want; both explicitly and specifically. What works for you might be a help to the next one as well (always nice to pass it on), but at the very least it helps you getting more from the situation. What you suggest amounts to playing baseball where you only give vague general directions to a teammate who struggles.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/22 11:29 AM
0

Not to mention during the trial the innocent men are still under suspension by the public, so this could exhortate them faster.
/r/MensRights16/06/22 10:33 AM
0

I know I'm going to get flag for this, but firstly: Insisting on making these issues into a pissing contest of who gets to feel the most oppressed is stupid. Secondly: wanting to boil the persecution of ethnic groups into being a matter of gender is also stupid, but moreover disingenuous towards the group who was targeted. Attempting to coopt the reason why a certain group has been genocide into an argument of a different group is a kind of shitty move, regardless of who does it.
/r/MensRights15/06/22 10:08 PM
0

And your attitude here is also part of the problem, where instead of looking at the issues men are under, you want to make it into a pissing contest of 'who can blame the other side of being less oppressed'.
/r/MensRights14/06/22 12:40 PM
18

We live in a system which has successfully created a story where the inherent systemic problems have been branded as the individuals themselves being faulty. But suggestion to try solutions fitting other systems will get you branded as a "woke libtard". And even more morbid is that we have the example of women standing up against this propaganda narrative of blaming the individual and being able to create active systemic change to the system.
/r/MensRights13/06/22 07:01 PM
1

Not really what I said. Though I'm not surprised you are attempting to bend over backwards to say one is totally acceptable, since anything else would just make the understanding of the case more complex than the Saturday morning cartoon version people like you seem to cling on to.
/r/MensRights10/06/22 05:48 AM
1

Not according to the court and jury. Evidently they believed he made the statement on behalf of Depp, since why would the lawyer make the statement otherwise.
/r/MensRights07/06/22 09:21 PM
1

Not really the point. Defamatory statements were made and ruled as Libal in both cases. Just seems arbitrary which sides you are willing to die on the hill for. Doesn't really matter that Heards statement were ruled to be more defaming. Matter of fact is the civil suit ended in them both having to pay for defaming one another.
/r/MensRights07/06/22 07:46 PM
1

So when he did something defaming on behalf of deep, it's the lawyers fault. But when the ACLU does it on behalf of Heard it's only her fault?
/r/MensRights07/06/22 07:44 PM
0

And I'm not questioning that. But if you give Depp a pass for making a statement through his lawyer, then Heard by the same logic should get a pass for having the ACLU ghostwrite her story.
/r/MensRights07/06/22 06:19 PM
0

By that metric, amber heard didn't do anything defamatory either, since the ACLU ghostwrote the OP ED the case is based on.
/r/MensRights07/06/22 05:54 PM
0

So I can just make up statements and others are liable for them? What a system...
/r/MensRights07/06/22 05:47 PM
0

Look up fatty arbuckle and yellow journalism. Cancle culture isn't a new thing, it's just gotten a new name.
/r/MensRights07/06/22 02:41 PM
-11

Technically so was he on one account to the tune of 2 million dollars. So they were both found liable in court, her just more so than him. However he is also a bigger star, so his losses would automatically be bigger, resulting in a larger payout. Their dispute wasn't a criminal case nor a case about whether either should be put in prison for having abused the other. It was a case about deformation.
/r/MensRights07/06/22 02:39 PM
1

You have to prove malice if memory serves.
/r/MensRights05/06/22 05:38 PM
1

It's a deformation case. So Depp has to prove the Sun printed the article with malicious intent to hurt his career and without the knowledge as to whether he had been violent, which if memory serve he was found to have been on 12 of 14 counts according to the suit.
/r/MensRights05/06/22 05:00 PM
0

A civil case not being open for everybody to go gawk at the proceedings? Yea, your rights to go stick your nose in private (which is what a civil suit is) affairs sure is being disgustingly violated here, huh?
/r/MensRights05/06/22 04:45 PM
17

In general I find if weird when people want to make this subject into a competition of misery.
/r/MensRights05/06/22 07:16 AM
1

Because the laws aren't about teaching in a neutral way, but to enforce a moral view down the throat of people. You have been attempting to champion moral absence in school, but supporting something that's the apex of dictating morals in school.
/r/MensRights04/06/22 05:39 PM
1

And that's the exact problem here. By insisting on censoring, you are trying to force your moral stance down others, since you are offended about a made up scenario where teachers do something they don't in their classroom. So your insistence on making a law is a hypothetical attempt to stand against a fantasy.
/r/MensRights04/06/22 04:25 PM
1

School being a neutral place of learning was already a thing before the 'Don't say Gay' bill, so that's frankly a useless sentiment. And we can't have rules at the school without it being centered on what's perceived as proper behavior, which is a moral decision, meaning I can't have any rules at school. Especially when I have to define bullying, which is even more so a moral decision. And we havnt even gotten anywhere close to how any verbal abuse is now acceptable. The fact you want to make a …
/r/MensRights04/06/22 04:13 PM
1

Rules are based on the values of the specific institution, so we can't have those anymore either. You telling one kid what he can and can't do is your morality. So according to your suggestion, we can't have that as part of the education system. Even further. Your understanding of bullying might differ from mine, so now we have to allow teachers to make judgment calls? According to your suggestion, we can't allow that to happen.
/r/MensRights04/06/22 03:52 PM
1

Something can be a crime in one place, but not in a other. So what is a crime is up to understanding the morale value behind said law. Something which should be illegal (ironically) using your logic. And it frankly doesn't matter whether you are okay with it or not. Basic human interaction will always have values embedded it it. That's very basic knowledge. People also have different oponions on the facts and reasoning behind World War 2, so should we not teach it? The foundation as to what the …
/r/MensRights04/06/22 03:39 PM
1

By mentioning a crime you have already made it into a moral aspect, as laws are made to reflect the moral attitude of the people behind it. The second you start talking about reasoning being something you have made it into a moral aspect, as reasoning is based on people's moral value. And Noone have at any point said it shouldn't be in a neutral tone. You are the one whom assume it's not going to be, since not understanding education seems to be a strength of yours.
/r/MensRights04/06/22 03:04 PM
1

GoP representative ban it for the same reasons as you: you are extremely uninformed about what teaching means and get scared about a topic over understanding that teaching things in a neutral manner as has been the practice since forever. Why do teachers complain about it? The principle of the matter. Censoring (which it is, due to it being an enforceable law made by the government) what can be taught is a matter of principle. CRT and LGTBQ+ have been around for decades, with Noone caring, but i…
/r/MensRights04/06/22 03:02 PM
1

But you still don't seem to understand that science also have an entire area of moral and philosophical underpinnings attached to it. And that's before we even get to teaching still like literature, history or social studies. I've had meet plenty of conservative teachers throughout my time, so I'm not sure why you keep throwing that word around like it's some boogeyman. But frankly that doesn't matter, because like I've stated multiple times, you can't interact with someone, especially when teac…
/r/MensRights04/06/22 02:53 PM
1

Ahhh now we are getting somewhere. In a neutral manner. Nobody have ever stated their intent to teach anything other than in a neutral manner. Yet you have gotten yourself all offended about the mere topic that you have triggered yourself into putting an agenda on a neutral fact of teaching about a subject. You said that it was bad to have a singular focus on memorizing facts as education goes. And if facts can't be contextualized, all that is left of them is to be memorized. I'm all for context…
/r/MensRights04/06/22 02:22 PM
1

You are taught morals and ethics by every interaction you have buddy. That the most fundamental aspect of education and basic knowledge of communication. Whether you understand that or are explicitly aware of this, it's impossible to have any kind of interaction, let alone of of educational value, which doesn't have a moral or ethical aspect to it. Though you've kind of brought up your own misinformation here, although admittingly unintentional. All of what you are ever so scared of happening, i…
/r/MensRights04/06/22 02:17 PM
1

Are you under the belief that there is no ethic, moral or philosophy in science? Hell there's an entire field litteralt called philosophy of science dedicated to the understanding of how science is to be understood and approached from a methodological perspective. And that's before the ethics and moral comes into play. And I didn't call you stupid. I called you uninformed in the area of education. I also have implied you are pretentious, pathetic and sad for having an ego clearly not backed up b…
/r/MensRights04/06/22 01:56 PM
1

No your comment explained an weak observation about the wage differences between private and public workplace, which weren't asked about. So telling children that gay people exists is grooming? You seem under the belief that teachers all fall under some evil narrative of forcing children into a mindset other than: be nice to each other. If you're offended by the notion of children being taught to be good people, then that's your issue. Finally, how little understanding do you have of what both b…
/r/MensRights04/06/22 01:45 PM
1

Oh okay. You are one of those people. Well that explains a lot. Though I would love to read your research then oh grand Master of ontology and epistemology
/r/MensRights04/06/22 01:24 PM
1

Other than your observation that public jobs are usually lower in wage (which I never opposed or even argued were not the caee), non of your claims have been backed nor have you debunked anything. What you have done is demonstrate a demonstrably poor understanding of governance and education.
/r/MensRights04/06/22 12:00 PM
1

Did... did you just do an 'I'm really smart' argument? Wow. That is really really sad and pathetic
/r/MensRights04/06/22 11:58 AM
1

Given your responses and positions here, it does indeed seem special education would have been the better option for someone like you. You still havnt backed up your postulates with anything.
/r/MensRights04/06/22 07:12 AM
1

Or too to uninformed to understand what the field of education, pedagogy and didactic are about. Which given your positions isn't something I hold against you, because obviously you havnt been exposed to education much. To which I feel sad for you.
/r/MensRights04/06/22 07:07 AM
1

Not true either, but again, given your position on education I'm not surprised you would think that.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 06:33 PM
1

Yea, actually answering the question you were asked regarding backing up your statement of Teachers literally complainn that they cannot groom, teach whatever fake crt history and that their fellow teachers can excercise their constitutional right to a gun 🤡 Also everything you've said are demonstrably untrue, especially in European Context where an understanding of pedagogy is taken serious. Hell the teachers part on the upbringing of children is a centuries old fundemental aspect of the entire…
/r/MensRights03/06/22 06:30 PM
1

Not true, but your lack of knowing that isn't something I hold against you for obvious reasons.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 04:51 PM
1

Non of what you say have the faintest root in reality. But please, back up the so-called facts you are postulating.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 04:51 PM
1

Not what they are complaining about, but given your view on education, it's rather evident it wasn't something you received very much of.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 04:01 PM
1

Then I am sad on behalf on whatever country you are from.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 04:00 PM
1

Wow. The insight into how the US have reached the horid state it has in one foul comment.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 03:39 PM
1

Given how you treat teachers and how you've illustrated view them, it seems rather evident why Noone wants to work in that field. Paired that with an extremely underfunded educational sector, and you basically have the answer as to why the US are so far behind every other developed nation regarding almost every aspect of life quality for a population.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 03:39 PM
1

That view only goes against the most basic principles of didactic and pedagogy employed by the entire world, but I'm not surprised the US lacking behind in that aspect as well.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 10:35 AM
1

That might be one of the most condescending views on teachers I've heard in a while.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 10:33 AM
1

Then explain, using the law you seem so very intimate with, how it differs from what I asked.. I'll wait for your review of how the law isn't infringing on the teachers competencies within their own class room.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 09:30 AM
1

That was my point. Mutual abuse.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 07:54 AM
1

Doesn't change what I asked.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 07:53 AM
1

If you believe it easy to prove malice, then I wish you the absolute best in your legal career, because you are going places.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 05:58 AM
1

But that's not what I'm saying at all. These people were terrible to each other. Both of them being awful and toxic towards each other's mental health. But the story that have been created is that only one side can be abusive, while the other side, no matter what, is to be considered a Saint in all aspects. Thats what I'm saying is damaging in all of this.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 05:57 AM
0

So teachers are banned from saying that gay people exists, having to pretend it's not a thing in the world we live in?
/r/MensRights03/06/22 05:05 AM
0

This isn't making a curriculum, but making talking about something defined extremely broad illegal. For all intents and purposes, that's much closer to censorship than anything other that's happened (as in the government goes in an punish you wirh potential jail time for saying something).
/r/MensRights03/06/22 03:49 AM
1

So teachers aren't competent to teach? Also owning a gun is in the constitution, forcing others to have guns aren't.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 03:44 AM
0

That's not what I asked. And I'll ask again: Are teachers to incompetent to teach?
/r/MensRights03/06/22 03:43 AM
2

So teaching children to be nice to each other, being inclusive or how to behave so to not be an asshole to others isn't part of teachers job?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:59 PM
1

But your comment about neither of us changing our mind is also interesting. The jury in this case wasn't closed off from being influenced by media or anything (I can't remember the word for it). So the public oponion of this entire case played an undoubtedly huge role, which again, credit to depps team. Also they choose a state where the entire preceeding gets televised while not having an isolated jury, and running a PR campaign. It's really quite brilliantly done.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:58 PM
1

Depp had the better PR firm here that's for sure. Evident by how he made a deformation case sound like it was about whether he was abused or not.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:52 PM
1

Which is also interesting from a different perspective since the court of London found that he had been abusive in 12 of 14 counts. But that's not really my point here. To the point though. She wasn't found guilty of abuse, but to the fact that she was liable in defaming him.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:51 PM
0

You are implying it's a criminal case when you say it's about Depp being abused and not about how he was defamed. This case wasn't about Depp being abused. He didn't charge her with that. He charged her with defaming him for calling him a wife beater, which there isn't evidence of in the court of Virginia (The London Court ruled in favor of The Sun). That's also the issue with how people have and are treating this case. It's not a criminal case where either have accused the other of abuse. It's …
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:38 PM
1

Which part aren't you understanding?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:33 PM
1

How is my question a straw man? Was this a criminal case or a deformation case?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:20 PM
1

I absolutely agree. Whoever creates the narrative first gets to walk free. Depp had the better team here.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:20 PM
0

Yet didn't grant the entire 50 million as asked. But I'm sure Depp have been an angel in all regards. Not like anyone have said he's hard (being generous) to work with on sets of movies. These two were not good to each other in any way, sense or form. But to fights so hard to defend Depp as if he is a boy scout in their relationship is kind of asinine.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:19 PM
0

So when did this deformation case turn into a criminal case? The case that was just finished was about deformation, and not Depp saying he was abused. What the Jury found in favor of wasn't that he was abused, but that Heard had defaimed him. A jury which hadn't been closed off from media like in other cases like this, but that's a different matter.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:14 PM
-1

So this turned from a deformation case into a criminal case just like that? Cool.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:12 PM
0

So me saying two people in a relationship have been super bad for each other is saying either or anyone deserves it? This is the problem with this case.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:11 PM
1

Frankly this entire thing shouldn't have been as public as it was, but Depp played it well, choosing a state where everything in a court case being televised. Him an his team have done some great work not seen since the OJ trial.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:09 PM
-1

You really believe Depp didn't do anything toxic in that relationship? That he was a pure snow driven angel?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 05:51 PM
0

I have no doubt she abused him too. And that was the point. And it was meant the other way around, which I think you knew
/r/MensRights02/06/22 05:44 PM
0

And right there we have the perfect example of my point. Doesn't matter what Depp did or didn't now. The narrative that he is a boy scout has been created.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 05:42 PM
-1

Not what I'm asking buddy. Also, no she isn't a proven abuser. She was proven to have defamed Depp. That is not the same as one is criminal and the other is a civil suit. To follow your analogy, it would be you getting money from your rapist after you've been fucked.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 05:40 PM
0

You are still using an analogy in which only one can be the aggressor and one the victim. Is it your understanding that only one side in a relationship can be abusive while the other is innocent of all transgressions?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 05:26 PM
-1

So abuse can only be physical?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 05:23 PM
-1

My point wasn't that women were the victim. She is a terrible person and have just as much blame in this whole problem. What I'm getting at is that this entire case is kind of messing up the understanding of what it means to be an abuse victim, and not for the better. This case has shown that the side which can make the best narrative is the one that wins, regardless of whether both sides have been toxic to each other.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 05:21 PM
3

So little boys and girls aren't aware that boys and girls exists?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 05:18 PM
-1

By that analogy only one side can by an abuser. So as long as you keep it under 50% of the abuse, you are golden?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 04:58 PM
-3

So you are also under the belief that Johnny was a boy scout in the relationship? Okay.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 04:49 PM
2

So you do believe teachers aren't competent enough to teach a subject to children?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 04:41 PM
1

Exactly. But you've decided on Disney being bad for supporting teachers in teaching, so evidently that's the impass.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 04:25 PM
2

No more so than you did with me.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 03:33 PM
-6

Don't worry I'll fill you in. You aren't willing to trust teachers to do what is their litteral fucking job. But you trust they will know what to do in case of a school shooter because they have a gun. So the argument you and desantis have in common is that you both have all and no trust in teachers, and you call others insane.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 03:14 PM
-7

And right there we have the potential damaging imitations of the case as well.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 03:12 PM
-2

So you are under the belief that Depp did nothing abusive towards amber Heard at all and that she was 100% to blame and the only abuser in the case?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 02:37 PM
-4

So we don't trust teachers to develop curriculums for children, but want to arm them. And Disney is the 'non-same' ones to you in that scenario.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 02:30 PM
-10

No they accusations have to be done with malice, that doesn't make them necessarily untrue.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 02:23 PM
-3

Except the first part question part. Exactly my point.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 02:19 PM
-9

That's not quite true. The case showed Depp had been defamed, not that he hadn't also been abusive.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 02:18 PM
-30

That's not what I asked. In a relationship, does it only count as abuse if only one side abuses, or can two people both be abusive towards each other?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 02:06 PM
-16

That would be the case if Depp hadn't done anything whatsoever.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 02:04 PM
-50

So abuse can only be one-sided?
/r/MensRights02/06/22 01:59 PM
-58

I think this entire case has been nothing but damaging to any abuse victims. Firstly, it was a deformation case, not a trial as to whether domestic abuse had happened, but just if it had hurt Depps carreer to be accused of it (seemingly Noone cared to take this to criminal court - and that goes for either side). So initially the case is about what it means to be called abusive over whether abuse have taken place. Or since it's a deformation case, whether it has hurt Depps career, not whether he …
/r/MensRights02/06/22 12:48 PM
1

Isnt this the same guy who believe Disney are Satanist and grooming children? Not sure he's the best pillar of advice.
/r/MensRights02/06/22 06:19 AM
1

Thats why you have a preliminary hearing where you figure out what the bail should be set at. If they figure there's little risk of you leaving, the bail is small.
/r/MensRights23/05/22 05:44 AM
11

They don't pay for their freedom. They put out bail until their court date, to ensure they remember to show up on the day. When they do, you get the money back. Think of it as collateral to make sure you don't just fuck off to another state or country.
/r/MensRights22/05/22 09:38 PM
0

Which you would think a lawsuit about slander would be enough. But as we can see, the strategy is to create a narrative of one clear good side and one clear bedside. I'm not saying either is in the right (both Depp and Heard seem to have been extremely bad for each other in every way possible) but Depp with much deeper pockets have decided on a much different strategy in this case (as opposed to the case in the UK over the same issue), and this time the PR have paid dividends. To what I can see,…
/r/MensRights22/05/22 09:31 PM
-6

I think this will also show that for high profile cases, what happens in the courtroom isn't enough and that the court of public opponion is way more important that actual facts or judgment.
/r/MensRights22/05/22 09:21 PM
-20

And isn't it wonderful we have reached a point where enough money can let you get away with that behavior. I mean you said it yourself: Depp isn't a Saint, but now he gets to he treated like he is by the hoades ready to sacrifice everything to the guy with the better PR company.
/r/MensRights22/05/22 06:43 PM
-20

And the reason Depp gets a voice is because he hired PR people to create this giant narrative where the outcome of a squabble between two toxic people somehow has become a cornerstone of modern civilization.
/r/MensRights22/05/22 03:47 PM
1

The reason behind the article is due to said outrage.
/r/MensRights11/05/22 07:55 AM
1

But there's a lot of outrage of the woman in the article as well. So we are back to the conclusion that had the roles been reversed, the reaction wouldn't be different.
/r/MensRights11/05/22 07:30 AM
1

But you disagree that the outcry would be different?
/r/MensRights11/05/22 07:18 AM
1

So when the article writes that what she used is a root supplement, we agree that this isn't a case of using drugs? And I'm not disagreeing with the dishonest nature of all of this, I'm trying to find out whether or not what OP postulates in the title (that this would be seen as much worse and even involve police had a man done it) is true. My initial question was to figure out the best scenario for comparison because a supplement is not a drug, so comparing it to such is a bad comparison. So fa…
/r/MensRights11/05/22 07:14 AM
1

But if I slipped in vitamins into someone's food or drink without them knowing, would that be as bad as this? Ginger, turmeric, garlic and magnesium are all supplements which can improve performance by improving blood circulation. If a person snuck a supplement pill into someone's food with these things, would that result in the same outrage?
/r/MensRights11/05/22 06:43 AM
0

So if a person had added a vitamin supplement to someone's food you would be just as outraged?
/r/MensRights11/05/22 04:37 AM
1

The article says slipping a supplement, the other user says drugs. Are these words interchangeable?
/r/MensRights11/05/22 04:32 AM
2

Cool. So the outrage had the roles been reversed would have been the same and not different as OP say it would in the title. Glad we agree.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 08:31 PM
2

I didn't see OP make it either, but it's what spurred me to first figure out what an apt comparison of the inverse would be to make a judgement as to whether the outrage would be different.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 08:29 PM
0

In terms of what outrage is going to happen and whether or not the police is getting involved (as is claimed by OP), then the kind of drug have pretty big importance. If you think it's a gender thing that a guy slips a woman uncut heroin gets more outrage as opposed to a woman slipping a guy an herb supplements, then there are some real messed up priorities.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 07:17 PM
1

There is a very wide spectrum of substances to be given which are in no way equivalent when trying to compare which outrage is generated. If you are angry that a drug rape gets more outrage than a longevity supplement slipping, then we have an very different discussion to have first.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 07:09 PM
2

And that's why I needed for specifics as to what an inverse would mean exactly, because according to thus thread it has been everything from supplements to straight up drug rape, which I find to not really be an apt comparison in terms of comparing outrage of the inverse.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 07:07 PM
2

Op specifically say it would result in police action, to which I needed clarification, since I don't think the reaction would be different from the one seen both in the article and on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 07:06 PM
-1

Buddy you decided that simple questions into how this would work inverse to determine the postulate of the OP constitutes trolling or mouth breathing. Evidently just asking for clarification got you into a triggered hissyfit of name-calling.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 06:53 PM
2

So according to the OP and the post title the reaction to this would be much more extreme.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 06:41 PM
0

Jesus christ you get triggered by a simple question. Hilarious to see half the posts on this subreddit are people complaining about the very attitude you exhibit.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 06:40 PM
2

So vitamin supplements are equal to roofies in your world? I hope you work for the FDA with that attitude ;)
/r/MensRights10/05/22 06:39 PM
2

Yet the OP is under the impression this isn't the case.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 06:38 PM
1

It's a rather big step to from supplements to drugs. If we follow the word of the article supplements were used, which can be a great many rather benine things like what some podcast hosts peddle.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 05:47 PM
1

So we have reached the consensus that a supplement is the exact same as a drug?
/r/MensRights10/05/22 05:05 PM
2

Not what I was doing. I was trying to find a comparison in terms of action to determine whether OPs postulate that this would have played out differently with roles reversed.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 05:04 PM
1

Jesus christ you get triggered easily. Simply asking a question and you jump to it being a troll.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 03:37 PM
1

Like giving then a supplement of vitamins?
/r/MensRights10/05/22 03:36 PM
-5

Okay. Seems the feminist and men's rights have found some common ground in terms of relationships.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 03:35 PM
1

Never said that. I was just trying to figure out the inverse. But my goodness some of you people take quick offense.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 03:34 PM
-1

Never heard of the latter. But it kind of got into my point. The sex don't necessarily stop if the woman orgasm, but it kind of does with the guy. So what would be a good comparison?
/r/MensRights10/05/22 01:14 PM
-31

When did boyfriend stop meaning consensual partner? And why is asking the question of what the inverse would be trolling? OP is postulater that there would be an uproar had the roles been reversed, and I'm trying to figure out what that situation would be exactly. If a snuck in vitamins in my wife's diet I would be in principle be doing the same as here, but I don't think it would make it to the news.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 01:04 PM
0

I'm trying to gauge what the actually "turned tables" would be.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 12:54 PM
-11

No the thing I got hung up on was the attempt of comparison her wanted her partner to last longer in bed, and that totally being an uprising if a man did, but I'm hard pressed to see in which way the tables could be turned. His mental state hasn't been altered and he isn't being had sex with against his will.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 12:53 PM
-43

On one hand yes, but this was with a consensual partner, which I think needs to be taken into consideration when making a comparison.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 12:49 PM
-27

But that doesn't make her last longer in bed.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 10:46 AM
-37

Being hard or generating longevity for a man isn't the same as making him excited. If anything that would just make the endeavor shorter.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 10:45 AM
16

What would be a comparable thing for a man to do here? Because women don't really go flacid in term of longevity in bed.
/r/MensRights10/05/22 09:18 AM
3

That's why I added the current to the capitalist. It's not that capitalism in itself can't work or have merit, just that the current one have created a system where social mobility in the US is extremely hard. This compared to more socialist leaning countries like the models seen in Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway and I would also add Findland). It's not that we can't get capitalism to work well enough, just that it doesn't at the moment, which also leads into my other points of implying so…
/r/MensRights09/05/22 05:13 PM
2

How is it we can on one side have honest debates about how we: - are becoming over populated and are too many people to sustain with the current technology - know for a fact that children are born into poverty and that the current capitalist system allow for very little social mobility - have a rapid growing demographic which are undereducated and have little to no access to Healthcare - provide next to zero social security net for people who get pregnant, forcing them to foot giant hospital bil…
/r/MensRights09/05/22 03:16 PM
0

Love the irony of what you are doing here. 'Just because a bunch of people say it, doesn't make it true. We are a lot of people here which agree on that' (which is actually doubly ironic when considering you then, with a straight face, call academia biased - fucking hilarious ;) ) But if you'll take the word of random people of reddit over academia, then that's your prerogative. There are also people here who don't believe in vaccines or that the earth is flat.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 12:40 PM
0

I agree that it's way more, I'm not saying you blame women. My entire point isn't to place blame on a group, but on a system which perpetuates a toxic masculine viewpoint.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 05:57 AM
1

And that's horrible, but like you said yourself, it's most likely based on them having a toxic view of what masculinity means.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 05:56 AM
0

Sure but if the toxic gender norms specific to masculinity.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 05:55 AM
1

Why? For saying toxic masculinity is bad for men's mental health? For saying toxic masculinity isn't just this weird idea people seem to have of describing behavior, but an entire societal attitude towards men which is pushing them towards suicide? Because if that's not appropriate to sag here, then I don't know where it is. I'll say it again: fuck toxic masculinity and fuck that society seemingly have pushed it on you so hard you have internalize it the way you have
/r/MensRights06/05/22 04:43 AM
1

So if associated with being tough, the expression 'toughen up' is according to you the nature of being masculine? I'm not saying it's a manly thing to do, but your previous comment stated it has nothing to do with masculinity, and I am illustrating that unfortunately it did. That we have now realize that section of masculinity is toxic and corrosive is the first step towards a better view.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 04:40 AM
1

No, because starting to change the terminology to colloquial understanding leaves out the center of the problem. By insisting on addressing this by any other name than what it is, you shift the issue away from the core problem and don't get anything helped at all. You are the one telling people their experiences are invalid when they are constantly bombarded with society telling them that a 'toughen it out' attitude isn't just correct, but aspirational. It becomes even worse when people like you…
/r/MensRights06/05/22 04:37 AM
0

So you consider gender and race to be under the same category? Because you base than on the dictionary definition of two of the words, then pretend blackness is a word and just lump it in with the two others. So again I'll restate that the premise of your entire argument is disagreeable. And if you believe race and gender function under the same dynamics, then good on you. I've stated demonstrably from the start that I disagree wirh that. Everything gender related fall under either masculine or …
/r/MensRights06/05/22 04:29 AM
0

Masculinity and femininity are much wider terms of (amoung other things) societal expectations, structures and dynamics between two opposite understandings of gender. Within this dynamic you can't place race as it doesn't have a relation to neither gender pole. If you then instead assume a different set of opposing races separate from the gender one, who do you position as opposite? Race doesn't have the same societal dynamics interacting within two opposite ends the same way gender does. So you…
/r/MensRights05/05/22 09:53 PM
0

Now you try again to say normal words are somehow grandiose or a testament to intelligence, while then attempting to belittle the position made. Worse yet is you now start to make the argument of me believing myself smart simply for using normal words. I did explain why in the exact excerpt you posted, so if you need more handholding you need to start getting more specific as to what is so confusing for you. Which words are evidently hurting your brain so much belive it to be a conspiracy to mak…
/r/MensRights05/05/22 09:35 PM
0

You litteraly just pasted in my explanation, so it seems strange you are waiting while also providing the answer.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 09:25 PM
0

Never called it big brain. That's something you keep on insisting my normal word usage is. You are the one that "made fun" of me by implying its somehow hard thesaurus words I'm using. And since you've now evidently tucked tail and degraded yourself to the lowest of critique levels (the correction of grammar), I'll simply reiterate from before: If this is how you react to people explaining things to you, then maybe the concept of masculinity and femininity are too advanced.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 09:13 PM
0

But your "making fun of me" hinges on the premise that the vernacular I'm using is somehow more than normal everyday usage. Your other reply attempted to make fun by saying I'm using "SAT" words, when simply using normal conversation. So either your own vocabulary is actually baffling small if you think my verbiage constitutes anything other than normal, or you don't know how your supposed jokes portrays yourself as such.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 09:04 PM
0

Buddy, if you're too flabbergasted by someone explaining their position to you using normal words, then maybe discussing concepts like masculinity and femininity is a tad too advanced for you.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 08:58 PM
0

Sure, plenty. But given you believe anything over a monosyllabic rendition is somehow "wordplay" it seems futile.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 08:53 PM
0

Your ineptitude isn't my problem.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 08:47 PM
0

Masculinity and femininity aren't words which simply describe behavior, which is the confinement you seem most comfortable understanding them as. Your restrictive view as to the applicability of terms like Masculinity and femininity is the core difference as to why they are different from a term like blackness.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 08:45 PM
1

So being masculine have never been associated with being tough, stoic or never showing emotional vulnerability?
/r/MensRights05/05/22 08:43 PM
0

Because you seem to insist these words only be used as behavioral descriptors, which I disagree with.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 08:37 PM
0

I never said I used the term to belittle men. You are the one who keep thinking me using the term toxic masculinity is an assignment of either blame or intentionality, which is absolutely untrue. Wither you are able to understand that evidently is a different matter.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 08:33 PM
-2

Nope. Your colloquial understanding of masculinity frankly is secondary to how I'm using it, and non of the things you believe is being implied have been said, and have in several comment also been directly addressed as wildly inappropriate ways of understanding my argument. But your second part here does make me curious once again. Are you under the impression that the "toughen up" attitude is anything but toxic masculinity? Because here you once again seem to come down on the side that it'd a …
/r/MensRights05/05/22 08:31 PM
-2

I use terms as they are appropriate. Any misunderstanding that comes from that I don't care about.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 08:00 PM
1

How does me saying I disagree with part of your premise constitute 'wordplay'? Are you so far down the rabbit hole that simple disagreement somehow is novel?
/r/MensRights05/05/22 07:55 PM
1

It doesn't say anything about what you just said it did...
/r/MensRights05/05/22 07:53 PM
0

Don't really give a crap about that either. I know what I said and what my position about this is. Honestly if people want to discuss those parts, then I welcome it, since it might change some people's understanding of just how deeply rooted and corrosive toxic masculinity is towards men, and particularly men's mental health. Take the conservatives who continue to hammer young men in the head with the notion they are inadequate for simply having emotions. It's the worst kind of toxic masculine a…
/r/MensRights05/05/22 07:52 PM
0

Which feminist theory is that exactly?
/r/MensRights05/05/22 07:46 PM
1

No I simply disagree with half your implicit rationale of any of these terms being confined into behavioral descriptiors. But since you were under the impression of 'word games' being afoot, I choose to deliberately only answer in the affirmative to the parts I agreed upon. Which seemed like the better option since you now evidently are all loaded up with throwing around calling me both racist and sexist simply for disagreeing with your understanding of what it means to be masculine.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 07:45 PM
-2

Don't really give a crap about how others have decided to misuse the terminology, or how some seem to think it's a terms restricted to only describe intentional behavior.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 07:42 PM
2

I don't have any issue doing either. There are toxic femininity the same way there is toxic masculinity. Which one that is applicable within a give issue is a different matter. And in this case of how men are expected to behave as it relates to emotional vulnerable situations, being asked to "toughen up", I put that on the shoulders of toxic masculinity with society asking men to always just 'toughen it out, because that's what men does'. Also what fucking word games are you talking about? Me as…
/r/MensRights05/05/22 07:25 PM
0

The post is referring to that, so I didn't bring that up. You called it "the nature of masculinity" So I simply asked if you were under the impression that these two things belonged together. Because I'm not. So you aren't holding up anything, but rather extremely trying not to answer the question I made. If you agree that the "grow balls" or "toughen up" aren't 'the nature of masculinity', then we are in agreement. If you believe these are part of 'the nature of masculinity' then we are in cate…
/r/MensRights05/05/22 07:12 PM
0

"Oh so are you saying that violent crime and fatherless homes are the nature of blackness? That's not normal blackness, that's Toxic Blackness! I'm only against the toxic blackness, so I'm totally not racist. " Are you saying those things are the nature of being black? Because when reading this, you are still the one coming off as having rather unhealthy attitudes. Just like I said about masculinity, I'll easily say the same about "blackness". Being violent criminals or fatherless is not the nat…
/r/MensRights05/05/22 07:00 PM
0

It doesn't imply men cause it at all. It imply it's the toxic (which means corrosive, corruptive, destructive and Slowly degrading) aspects of the masculine attitude and perception of such that is the root cause of men's mental health issues. What you suggest only apply if we pretend masculinity is only applicable towards intended interactions or a term which only describe certain behaviors, and that's not true Masculinity is a much wider term also describing stuff like societal/gender coding, e…
/r/MensRights05/05/22 06:56 PM
1

So you are under the impression that telling people to "get tougher" or "grow balls" whenever they exhibit vulnerable emotions is "the nature of masculinity itself"? Have to once again categorically disagree with your idea of what "the nature of masculinity" means, and will even add that your version sounds extremely mentally unhealthy.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 06:32 PM
-2

Absolutely and categorically disagree that it's either of those things in any way of the word. Unless you believe a section of the population is inherently toxic masculine, then it can in no way, shape or form be a term which blame a victim. To go even further. Who exactly do you see as the victim being blamed when saying toxic masculinity is the bane to male mental health?
/r/MensRights05/05/22 06:14 PM
1

Because toxic masculinity is also how men are being seen as having to 'toughen up'. Toxic masculinity is the entire attitude and both have someone act but also how we interact with each other. The notion that men need to "grow balls" is regardless of who says it a facet and relec of toxic masculinity when in relation to something like having to opress emotions.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 04:49 PM
-6

Yea, because it is. The other comment litteraly points out the points of ridicule society will make when saying you are depressed, which all are responses from the toxic masculinity stance.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 03:02 PM
1

I know exactly what point I made and what it said. But the suggestion of societal structures not having a clear defined boogeyman whom we can place both intentionality and agency of our issues is a somewhat hard pill to swallow.
/r/MensRights03/05/22 06:34 PM
0

When someone so clearly didn't understand what the fuck was being said and then decide to reply to my comment with such blatant disregard, I feel no regret in telling them they didn't understand snot of what was going on. And more to the worse you then coming in to play white knight while not even the courtesy to even pretend to reply to my initial comment, while having the balls to call me a "de-railer" is just icing on the cake. Well done there buddy. You just took stupidity and turned it into…
/r/MensRights03/05/22 04:58 PM
-1

I'm not shape-shifting anything, but applying an extremely common theory of understanding societal structures and terms used in any level of social science academia. But glad to see my comment evidently shot completely over your head if "smash the patriarchy" is what you gathered were said.
/r/MensRights03/05/22 04:38 PM
-4

To some extend it is. Firstly and most importantly, it's central to any discussion to understand what is meant when throwing around abstract concepts like patriarchy, and through what lense one reads this term. To this end, a post structuralist (or to be more specific Foucaultian) approach to the term would net a better understanding of how patriarchy isn't just the structures of how we can model society but also a reciprocal term which inadvertently creates societal structures which perpetuates…
/r/MensRights03/05/22 09:54 AM
-2

Not what I was saying, but thank you for illustrating how little of my point you understood. Seems you have about as good a grasp of what patriarchal means as feminists do, so I suppose you can give yourself a golf clap for that achievement.
/r/MensRights02/05/22 07:58 PM
0

Then you missed the part where I explicitly stated that this wasn't about placing agency on any individual, which means I'm not blaming or assigning intentionality onto anyone.
/r/MensRights02/05/22 07:31 PM
-5

It's not completely wrong. The other user gets around some good points of the idea that patriarchy isn't as much about agency of the individual, and more the mindset and setup of societal expectations. To exemplify it a bit: what would the general physical description of a man be if using patriarchal glasses? If you ask people, I would make the bet that a tall, stoic muscular man is what people would describe. The tall 'father knows best' who can be physical intimidating in order to protect the …
/r/MensRights02/05/22 09:24 AM
-1

Patriarchy is kind of an abstract concept in terms of references. Because I'm not completely in disagreement with the fact this can be laid at the feet of "the patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity" in the sense that those two concepts both reinforce the notion that a man must be a tall muscular dude in order to be seen as a true man. Patriarchy and toxic masculinity isn't solely the external attitude towards others outside the groups, but also contain its own internal identity of what it means to …
/r/MensRights02/05/22 08:07 AM
-7

You want a clinex for that snotnose sweety? Or are you not done bitching about all the mean SJW's who totally cancle you? How about you grow a fucking pair?!?
/r/MensRights30/04/22 12:51 PM
4

Yea but that isn't as fun or provoking of a headline.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 12:36 PM
0

I said I talked to people. You want me to record my conversation I have with people to prove things to random people online? My God you are a dumbass.
/r/MensRights15/04/22 05:21 PM
0

The Musk quote was an example of the stupidity you are asking for. You are extremely asking for virtue signaling of people to always and all the time having to explicitly state that they are against or for whatever is 'the thing'. I have never seen you make a statement about being against circumcision, so according to yourself, that means you agree with it. And I can continue down such a list of demanding you having made a statement about it or then accuse you of endorsing said thing. And given …
/r/MensRights15/04/22 03:43 PM
0

I can make hundreds of other examples of things you can't find parties or organizations never having addressed several issues, and they all mean the exact same. Just because you haven't made a statement condemning something, doest mean you condone it. I've never found anything on the red cross about how they find eugenics wrong, so according to your logic, this means they are in favor of the practice.
/r/MensRights15/04/22 08:26 AM
-1

So all governments are feminist? Cool.
/r/MensRights15/04/22 08:23 AM
0

I said I have talked to multiple politicians who condemned it in conversation. But similar to how these same people I talk condem the practice of rape to be appalling, they don't go out to make public statements about every little thing, because if they they, they would do nothing but that. As much as I dislike him, what you are asking for is exactly why Elon Musk made the tweet he did. If you demand that someone must go out and make public comments about everything, one might as well just make …
/r/MensRights15/04/22 07:39 AM
0

And why would the Danish national woman society make statements about international relations? And that being relevant on a transnational level? Socialdemokratiet don't condone the mistreatment of people, so why do you insist that they make that explicit in a statement anymore than them saying pedophilia is bad. So I have stated multiple times, the statement you demand to be made are rather meaningless gestures to demand being made. I havnt seen you make a statement about being against it either…
/r/MensRights14/04/22 01:41 PM
0

Which organization or what person is it you think can make an absolute statement on behalf of feminism ?
/r/MensRights14/04/22 01:17 PM
1

I totes know several who has said it. However, and this might be a shocker to you, not the entire world is on reddit, and people interact in conversation which isn't a recorded article to be used as a reference after. But let's pretend I gave you an article (which would be nothing more than an oponion piece) from one journalist (or random columnist) who wrote that the draft is bad. What then? Does that mean all of feminism falls under this one person's view? People on this subreddit have called …
/r/MensRights14/04/22 06:06 AM
1

I said I talked to feminists. People who identify as feminists. But saying they decided what 'feminism' is saying is like suggesting Ted Cruise is an authority on Conservatism.
/r/MensRights13/04/22 07:29 PM
0

Not irrelevant, because you are wanting someone to make a statement on behalf of a group with zero centralizing or overview. You might as well ask me to find data for white people saying it and it would mean just as much. I've havnt seen conservatism or liberalism come out and condemn the rape of a toddler by Russian soldiers. Weird how silence these ideologies have been about this. Unless of course you remember that an ideology and an organization isn't the same and using vocabulary as if they …
/r/MensRights13/04/22 05:11 PM
1

You are still talking about an ideology like it's a specific entity where I could go visit the main office. There isn't a place or any person who is in charge or have any specific say about what feminism is, anymore than liberalism or conservatism. Men's rights are in a lot of areas more organized, and there aren't even any person here that can claim to make a statement on behalf of the group. Following the logic of wanting 'feminism' to make a statement I could also say every other -ism have be…
/r/MensRights13/04/22 05:07 PM
0

So in your mind subreddits are the ones who dictates what feminism believes in? Does that mean the moderators are the superior authority on all these matters? That's wonderful and so much easier. I mean we can get rid of all politics and just ask subreddits what a specific ideology believes as a whole and then it's law! Perfect.
/r/MensRights13/04/22 01:34 PM
1

Which entity? There seem to be this idea that if the daily mail or whatever outlet makes a comment on something it somehow becomes an entire ideologys ironclad stance. For whatever reason we have decided that feminism is an ideology not only with agency and an ability to make statements, but some figurehead able to make principles which all follow like a hivemind. We would never consider this same attitude towards any other ideology. The things you point to are specific movements sharing an ideo…
/r/MensRights13/04/22 08:58 AM
0

So whom exactly do you want to make a statement about this? The red cross, unicef, OECD?
/r/MensRights13/04/22 05:40 AM
1

Of course you can. Because that's what seems to be the prevailing thought. "My specific area havnt been addressed, thusly all is void until"
/r/MensRights13/04/22 05:39 AM
1

Okay. Whom? Saying feminists is akin to saying that a singular conservative or liberal voice and authority exists. So who would any of those three be?
/r/MensRights13/04/22 05:38 AM
0

You almost get the point. So close.
/r/MensRights13/04/22 05:37 AM
1

Feminism as a whole doesn't have an organization, so the entity you want to come out and say something doesn't exists, making it rather hard to make a statement. And that's rather the problem with the entire attitude of people on this matter. They want a statement on behalf of an entire ideology with no centralized structure. How could that ever even be possible?
/r/MensRights13/04/22 05:22 AM
2

But then they would do nothing but make statements of condemning without ever being able to change anything because they have to go out and make statements about everything and ever nuance on every issue.
/r/MensRights12/04/22 06:01 PM
1

But which specific organization is it you believe should make these statements. It always seem to end up being a hand wavey statement of 'a feminist group' but any group have a goal and something they focus on. So which group would this be? My solution/attitude is more to fight to get the draft removed over getting angry others aren't doing the job for you/us. There aren't an argument as to why feminists shouldn't be fighting it, however there are also thousands of other areas to pick, so why in…
/r/MensRights12/04/22 05:59 PM
2

So every leader in the west is a feminist?
/r/MensRights12/04/22 05:07 PM
2

Cool. And who exactly do you want to make these statements?
/r/MensRights12/04/22 04:34 PM
-1

That doesn't matter. Since we havnt heard any party condemn it explicitly, they must be condoning it seems to be the general logic at play. You can't be demanding explicit statements as only proof of condemning in some areas and not others.
/r/MensRights12/04/22 03:39 PM
2

But whom then? Which specific organization do you want to comment on the issue? I can find organization which all falls within the realm of conservatism which in no way shape or form agree or speak on the behalf of each other on both principle and due to focus area. Saying that an entire ideology should make a statement with a singular unified voice is nice and all, but also somewhat wishful thinking. I mean who would you say is the only absolute authorities voice of: - conservatism - liberalism…
/r/MensRights12/04/22 03:35 PM
1

If you approach it as only an ideology then we can say everything is in everyone's focus area and thusly should comment on everything. The problem here is that the usage of feminism to describe an abstract ideology/philosophy is used interchangeable with concrete organizations working within a specific focus area. An organization who would want to promote more girls going into STEM is a feminist organization. But having them comment or make a statement about the draft seems strange. Conversely, …
/r/MensRights12/04/22 01:35 PM
1

There's also a somewhat disjointed attitude that organizations focused on one aspect, not addressing something which isn't really inside their focus area, is somehow a point of criticism.
/r/MensRights12/04/22 01:24 PM
-1

As a reference point, same parties havnt been out condemning the rape of a toddler by Russian soldiers either. That doesn't mean they endorce it or find it okay all of the sudden.
/r/MensRights12/04/22 12:31 PM
-4

I think besides Enhdslisten they have all condemned the behavior of mistreating Ukrainians. It's fun though the attitude that unless a specific thing isn't explicitly stated, then it seemingly doesn't count. Seriously though, is the demand that politicians need to make statements about every last specified issue? Other than maybe Ny Borgerlig and Dansk Folkeparti, no danish party have ever condoned that men should be shamed for protecting their family. Non of the politicians or organizations I'v…
/r/MensRights12/04/22 12:27 PM
3

Exactly. If we are going to say that attitude is dumb and asinine, it seems jarring we can, without irony, turn around and pretend the inverse is true
/r/MensRights12/04/22 12:06 PM
-5

Plenty of parties and politicians I've talked to on Denmark and Sweden have found it quite appalling. Though looking at the vote ratio daring to say you've seen and heard something is akin to tretory.
/r/MensRights12/04/22 12:05 PM
-16

And liberal and all the other things it's required to be for whomever to make a point.
/r/MensRights12/04/22 12:02 PM
-18

About as useful as thinking Ted cruise represent all of Republicans.
/r/MensRights12/04/22 11:07 AM
-39

I've heard and talked to plenty of feminists who find it appalling. But let me ask you a follow up: Are you under the impression that there's a mainstream channel or magazine for the feminists where they all come together to make statements?
/r/MensRights12/04/22 08:10 AM
4

You can be progressive on one side while still hold on to traditions with dear life. I also very much disagree the military as an institution have been in any way doing a good job in terms of speaking out against (sexual) harassment, or more specifically doing anything but to pay lipservice to how they don't condone it anymore.
/r/MensRights11/04/22 12:07 PM
0

And I questioned the logic of arguing that a monetary incentive is valid as a defense in favor of discrimination.
/r/MensRights11/04/22 12:03 PM
0

The "problem" with circumcision insofar as making it illegal is that it positions itself squarely into a really bad placement of 'religious practice'. Let me be clear: I don't support the practice at all, and I am simply putting into words the arguments against making it illegal, without condoning said argument. Circumcision of boys is considered as much smaller invasive surgery compared to female circumcision. The effects of male circumcision is seen as being of such relatively small significan…
/r/MensRights11/04/22 12:01 PM
0

So if something is justified through monetary gains it automatically eliminates it as discrimination?
/r/MensRights11/04/22 11:49 AM
1

The very short and Condensed answer is: tradition. The military as an institution might be one of, if not the most, filled with tradition of how 'things used to be done'.
/r/MensRights11/04/22 11:47 AM
1

Yea, no they didn't. But thank you for illustrating my point.
/r/MensRights06/04/22 06:26 PM
1

I've had many very constructive conversations with many different people who call themselves feminist. And I'll restate that this way of looking at others almost like subhuman based on disagreement with ideology is a super unhealthy way of looking at others. I don't see this behavior as any more reasonable than the insane people you find on Facebook touting about how Q will save them and everyone else are sheep.
/r/MensRights06/04/22 05:30 PM
2

Hell no. Let me preface with the fact I'm not religious in any way, but there's a fuckton difference between Westboro Baptist and Disciples of Christ (just to name two denominations). I doubt you would be seen as very Christian in most of Europe for being a Snake handler (or what that denomination is called), or seen as normal when speaking in tounges, but all call themselves Christians.
/r/MensRights06/04/22 12:40 PM
2

If your attitude towards an opposing group is that they de facto are impossible to have a conversation with, then I'm not sure who I think are the less constructive side. It's no different than saying the same about people of a different political belief somehow makes then unworthy of having agency of own thought.
/r/MensRights06/04/22 12:37 PM
2

Hot take: I think I a distinction needs to be made in terms of feminism, the same way that we don't say that incels represent male rights. If any constructive conversation is ever to be had we can't lump in the extremists with the rest of an activism group and say they represent the norm. The people you describe in your last paragraph is an extremely vocal and radical part of the internet sphere, but so are people on 4chan and I wouldn't say they represent men's rights advocacy. I might be alone…
/r/MensRights06/04/22 05:18 AM
1

Whether you believe I talk like this to people in real life is frankly superfluous. Why the fuck should my goal be to come to an understanding with people who are so obviously not only in disagreement with me, but also act like how you do? I have no obligation to being the bigger person here.
/r/MensRights03/04/22 08:14 AM
2

Be that as it may, I was still trying to illustrate that it's a systemic issue and not something we can assign blame to. Though it is an interesting observation to see from a lot of people that pointing out an issue usually result in a knee jerk reaction in thinking blame must be places on someone, when it's seldom a singular force one can ever point to.
/r/MensRights31/03/22 10:46 AM
2

It is the staff numbers. And the numbers and colors clearly show that women in some institutes are majority and in others represent the half, which is fine. I'm still not sure why you are getting this pedantic over this particular detail, when it's the least important aspect of my initial comment. You can be obtuse all you want to friend, but matter of fact is that this hill you've decided to die on is superfluous within the context of the point I was initially making.
/r/MensRights30/03/22 06:15 PM
2

it's all in the link Which specific numbers are you interested in? It's divided into institutes of the university, so just mention a specific and I'll translate it, but you can just as easily go check them out yourself. The yellow side are women, Grey are men. As I already mentioned, women are far majority within education and pedagogy witch is the first graph (the one with DPU written over it). Almost 80% graduateproduction and about 65% PhDs.
/r/MensRights30/03/22 06:04 PM
2

I know it's in Danish, but the numbers are still the same, and the graphs are rather self explanatory. Yellow are for women, Grey is for men. It's pretty much majority women, except for the hard-core science ones (though not pathology, which is kind of interesting).
/r/MensRights30/03/22 05:29 PM
2

I frankly don't care if you trust what I say. I gave you a link to a site which states the litteral numbers of faculty staff at one of the Denmark biggest universities showing that in a lot of areas women are the majority.
/r/MensRights30/03/22 04:53 PM
2

No it wasn't. Overall closer to 50/50 split as you can see in Århus, but more specifically a vast majority within the academics of education and pedagogy itself, which was the point (though looking back, not explicitly stated enough).
/r/MensRights30/03/22 04:47 PM
2

Your reference is litteraly the university of Copenhagens newsletter. I just send you the numbers from Århus. They even have graphs and subdivided them into faculties. And if a bit hyperbole of area makes you this angry, then you seem rather disingenuous in your critique.
/r/MensRights30/03/22 04:13 PM
2

Interesting. Problem is when thats one university, where when you look at another one the numbers get a bit different. I know it's in Danish, but it's the source from the university themselves So there are no lies about women, and which silly claims have I made you seem so angry about?
/r/MensRights30/03/22 04:08 PM
2

Where did you get that number? Also I have articulated my point several times, but when you want details I need specifics to answer them.
/r/MensRights30/03/22 04:00 PM
2

All of our universities have faculty lists, and Denmark is a fairly small country, so they are all avaliable there. I did articulate the systemic issues in my first comment, so you need to be far more specific if you want any more details as to which systemic issues you want, because (as mentioned in the first comment, since you seem to have not caught it) I condensed about a centuries worth of educational history and simplified it for expediency, meaning individual countries aren't taken into a…
/r/MensRights30/03/22 03:53 PM
2

Yes I have indeed been to both undergrad and grad school, and there might be a difference in countries, but in Scandinavia the universities have a very large amount of women in the faculties. Which again leave me with my second statement of there might be a national differences, but they don't have to teach both. Especially when tenured. There are minimum requirements, but they can be very low dependent on a professors research. You seem to fail my initial point of pointing out the central syste…
/r/MensRights30/03/22 03:11 PM
1

This has created a perpetuating issue of primarily women being in charge of education (from kindergarten till grad school) This is patently untrue. At the university level, most professors are men. Which is why I wrote grad school, as professors is a tenure position, whom don't necessarily have to deal with the educational side, more likely focusing on research (varying from university to university) The values we normally attribute to boys (and tomgirls) were cast aside and devalued in an educa…
/r/MensRights30/03/22 02:02 PM
1

What seems to disappear in the discourse is the extremely important qualifier of what exactly masculinity and its subdivisions (being it traditional, toxic or whatever) exactly is. For instance: what exactly are you calling "behaving like a traditional man"?
/r/MensRights30/03/22 08:11 AM
3

And I agree to an extend. Having also lived in the US, I can tell you their pay is borderline criminal. It's not a universal issue, but some countries severely underpay their teachers on top of underappriciating them. seriously, it is not uncommon in US public schools that teachers have to provide their own material e.g. pencils, paper, erasers and so on. Not just for themselves, but the students as well. Paid out of own pocket. That is just appalling The argument of a monetary incentive could g…
/r/MensRights30/03/22 06:58 AM
1

Despite the massive gender imbalance, there certainly doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in incentivising men to go into education, especially compared to, eg. the amount of focus on incentivising women to go into STEM fields. Absolutely agree, and that was the point I was trying to convey in my initial comment. I was also where my usage of prestige were intented to come into play. The STEM fields are considered the most precious fields to be in (because math is hard, right) whereas education …
/r/MensRights30/03/22 06:23 AM
1

It wasn't always seen as a female vocation, since the church used to teach people. I do believe I pointed out it was the current iteration that had been more female centric and that's the one I was referring to. In terms of prestige; I'm using it as a somewhat condensed shorthand which consists of, amoung other things, payment. Jobs with low prestige tend to be not only paid less, but also seen as undeserving og higher pay (justified or not). That teachers in some countries should be paid more i…
/r/MensRights30/03/22 04:49 AM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights29/03/22 08:00 PM
1

I can see someone in the picture of the post calling it nonsense, but other than that idiot, who exactly are saying this study isn't worth it?
/r/MensRights29/03/22 04:55 PM
18

Yes, and the problem is that it's a very inherent and systematic discrimination, which has come about over decades (maybe even centuries) of developments within the educational institutions. Condensed and simplified for expediency: Education, pedagogy and didactic have gotten a reputation for being primarily fields for women. Taking care of children and educating youth is something women do, and men who want a career doing that are, in extreme situation, seen as lesser or sometimes creepy. The p…
/r/MensRights29/03/22 09:35 AM
2

I think it's more hilarious that even this subreddit seems more interested in the Will Smith ordeal over how Josh Brolin was spread and groped on stage, or how a sleuw of guys were paraded onstage with the words "the covid test is going to be my tounge in the back of your mouth". All of that seeming have been thrown to the sideline immediately.
/r/MensRights28/03/22 10:06 AM
1

I'm sure you think that. And the fact most of your arguments are just rooted in your empty little head is a relief since that means your attempts at helping men are meet with absolute silence, since you are unable to formulate anything concrete other than yelling misandrist and trying to gaslight that you totally had a cool argument ;)
/r/MensRights24/03/22 02:20 PM
1

Will do you useless coward ;) I am just happy you are this bad at articulating your own oponions, so at least you are ineffective on top of your incompetence when attempting to defend men's rights.
/r/MensRights24/03/22 02:18 PM
1

Keep crying little honey. The fact you have such a hard time answering basic questions about what you even mean just illustrates the coward that is you ;)
/r/MensRights24/03/22 02:17 PM
1

And how was I a misandrist? You like yo throw around accusations and empty platitudes but you have disturbingly little depth to your own words or abilities to explain even the simplest questions.
/r/MensRights24/03/22 02:16 PM
0

Then elaborate and show that mighty brain oh wise one. Wait, I forgot. You aren't able to, because.... who knows.
/r/MensRights24/03/22 02:13 PM
0

And there we have it. The deflect just as predicted! Holy shit you are one basic moron! But sure you did sweetheart. Of course you already explained it. After all, you said you did something, so it must be true;)
/r/MensRights24/03/22 02:12 PM
0

And just as foretold, you stuck your tail between your legs and tried to deflect. My God you are a coward ;)
/r/MensRights24/03/22 02:10 PM
1

So what are you imagining you are shutting me down about if not men's rights? What are you thinking started this while freakout from you? And be specific, because you really seem to have zero clue as to what has started this entire whining session from you at this point.
/r/MensRights24/03/22 02:09 PM
1

Honestly I think it's more an adjustment of attitude. If you treat people around you like normal human beings, instead of invesemts waiting for the dividend, you'll be treated like a normal human being in return.
/r/MensRights23/03/22 11:26 AM
1

And I fundamentally disagree that you have to be stepped on to have a relationship, or be walked over. Thinking that's how relationship dynamics happe is super unhealthy. And spinning that into the attitude that you should accept that as a given just compounds the really mentally bad perspective you've build your understanding of interaction with others on. It seems you would have an easier time getting in a relationship if you treat the other side as a person over some oppressive force.
/r/MensRights23/03/22 08:09 AM
1

I disagree wirh most all of what you say here, wanting to again point out that this is only applicable if you approach human interaction and relationships as an exchange of services. Honestly it's a really unhealthy attitude you seem to allude to here in relation to interaction.
/r/MensRights23/03/22 07:54 AM
1

How exactly do you think a discussion works little friend?
/r/MensRights23/03/22 06:47 AM
0

No you havnt, but I'm not surprised you deflect once again. Always hard for the incompetent to explain their own words when pushed on the matter. You see it all the time online with people like yourself. Ask any followup question and you instead try to deflect like your life depended on it, because your fragile little ego can't handle being shown just how shallow your own understanding is. So let's go buddy. Deflect again. Let's hear the "no you" once again because I hurt your little self esteem…
/r/MensRights23/03/22 06:46 AM
0

Nope. You are welcome to attempt to explain it, but we both know you are too incompetent to do so, so now you are going to tuck your little tail and try to deflect. What is it going to be this time little buddy? Telling me that it's totally everyone else who just can't understand the genius that is you? Awww that's so sweet.
/r/MensRights23/03/22 06:42 AM
0

How are those two different things? And what topic? Once again, it seems to hard for you to be concrete about anything you say.
/r/MensRights23/03/22 06:41 AM
0

So if you think you are replying to me being a misandrist (an accusation you seem to throw at everybody you disagree with), how does that make "men's rights is about men" irrelevant to the discussion? And one of what? You keep being to incompetent to state in any clear what you try to say. Just spit it out honey bunny.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 04:03 PM
0

That's not an expression you tried to make there buddy. Your formulation doesn't work.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 04:01 PM
1

Lacking what? What the hell is it you think you are replying to?
/r/MensRights22/03/22 04:00 PM
0

How is "men's rights is about men" irrelevant? What exactly do you think this is all about?
/r/MensRights22/03/22 03:59 PM
0

What exactly do you think this thread is about then, if not men's rights?
/r/MensRights22/03/22 03:40 PM
1

Not how piss poor you choose to formulate yourself, that's true.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 03:39 PM
1

How in the world do to interact with other people if you have reached that perspective? You seem to be under the impression that relationships is somekind of exchange or commerce.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 03:33 PM
0

How is what men's rights is about, discussed on a subreddit dedicated to men's rights irrelevant or a different topic? What topic exactly do you think this is about? Because you seem to have lost it.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 10:05 AM
0

So my ability to formulate myself relates to whether or not a fact is a fact? How does that work?
/r/MensRights22/03/22 10:04 AM
1

That in no way relates to the comment I just made. What point do you think you are making?
/r/MensRights22/03/22 10:03 AM
0

Can't make heads or tails as to what you are referring to, and you continue to refuse to clarify it, so it seems more likely you have suffered some sort of trauma.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 10:02 AM
0

Did you have a stroke? Are you okay sweetheart?
/r/MensRights22/03/22 05:43 AM
0

How do you suggest one goes about doing that? Your abilities to be succinct rather makes it hard to understand any points you attempt to make. succinct means to be clear and to the point in one's expression
/r/MensRights22/03/22 05:42 AM
0

It kind of is since your incompetence just makes you come of as having no clue or ability to formulate yourself.
/r/MensRights22/03/22 05:40 AM
1

How is it not relevant, and what exactly is it you are accusing me of?
/r/MensRights22/03/22 05:39 AM
0

Whether men's rights is about men is the absolute center of the argument here. You claim to expose my misandry with wild accusation, but refuse to acknowledge the fact of men's rights is and should be about men. But please, clarify and elaborate if you disagree with that statement, regardless of whether you believe I am of that oponion.
/r/MensRights21/03/22 02:26 PM
0

Yes, you do. Because whatever you think you are saying are buried in so many layers of incomprehensible and vague bs that you end up just skirting around your own points, which you then complete abandon whenever pushed to clarify.
/r/MensRights21/03/22 02:24 PM
0

That very well might be, but given you skip and refuse to clarify anything of substance, it falls on you to make yourself comprehensive, which you seem set on not being, just making vague comments of nothing.
/r/MensRights21/03/22 02:23 PM
1

And what exactly is it you think that comment is, because you seem to want to make a point about it, but are way too poor at saying anything of meaning to articulate anything.
/r/MensRights21/03/22 02:22 PM
1

How is intimacy a degradation of yourself? What seems to have become more outspoken in all of this is a decent into looking at intimacy and relationships as purely an exchange of services. That we no longer wish to be with people to be with people we love, like or are fond of, but instead treat it like commerce.
/r/MensRights21/03/22 12:58 PM
0

Which comment would that be? You're too inconsistent for any requests to mean anything.
/r/MensRights21/03/22 05:13 AM
1

So asking you to be specific and clarify register as wanting to restrict your speech? Are your arguments so bad that the simple act of wanting you to elaborate is seen as oppression to you?
/r/MensRights21/03/22 05:11 AM
0

It is when you are this vague and bad at communicating.
/r/MensRights21/03/22 05:09 AM
1

How is it irrelevant? And now you double down and say again that you do disagree about the fact!
/r/MensRights21/03/22 05:08 AM
0

How is the fact that men's rights should be about men irrelevant to a subreddit about men's rights, or to the conversation where you repeatedly want to assert what you believe to be the proper way of promoting men's rights? Especially since you've now stated you don't believe men's rights are about men at all...
/r/MensRights20/03/22 09:14 PM
0

Which harsh truth do you think you are talking about? You change your position so much, so I just want to know which one you are on at the moment...
/r/MensRights20/03/22 09:12 PM
1

Evidently I did forget. So do show me which comment you are referring to.
/r/MensRights20/03/22 09:11 PM
0

How am I restricting your speech when asking questions little buddy?
/r/MensRights20/03/22 09:10 PM
2

I kind of disagree with the entire premise of your post. Unless men not having sex is somehow also going to be turned into a virtue and the male viginity being treated the same way as the female one has for centuries (and in some places still are), all that is going to happen is that both sides of the aisle will become more open about sexuality.
/r/MensRights20/03/22 05:54 PM
0

So you now disagree that men's rights is about men? Well that rather explains a lot.
/r/MensRights20/03/22 05:42 PM
0

Why would I want to figure yours out when asking gives the direct answer?
/r/MensRights20/03/22 05:41 PM
0

Undoubtly I could, but I'm asking for your answer.
/r/MensRights20/03/22 09:56 AM
0

Is men's rights is about men an irrelevant fact?
/r/MensRights20/03/22 09:55 AM
0

So me allowing you to talk and giving you a platform yo elaborate on your points, is me being hurt? You have a very strange relationship with politeness.
/r/MensRights20/03/22 09:55 AM
0

Reddit doesn't let me go back that far. You'll have to be more specific since you claim to see something I can't.
/r/MensRights20/03/22 09:54 AM
0

Which comment are you referring to here, given I've written quite many comments describing either of us.
/r/MensRights19/03/22 02:08 PM
0

I'm just allowing you to explain your own words, which turns out you are extremely poor at, given you never do and (just like now) you jump away from every time asked to elaborate.
/r/MensRights19/03/22 02:08 PM
0

So me stating a fact is you shutting my clownry down? How does that work?
/r/MensRights19/03/22 02:07 PM
1

That doesn't answer the question of how. So exactly how am I whatever you are claiming that I am?
/r/MensRights19/03/22 02:06 PM
7

I'm going to preface my comments with the clear and absolute statement: I'm not in favor of men, or anyone being forced into war against their will. It is an archaic way of treating humans and should be banned immediately. Whatever comments is being said subsequently serves as answering the question of the post so to have a conversation about this. Explaining why, is not the same as condoning the reasons or practice War as a concept has been around for a long time, and back before bullets were n…
/r/MensRights19/03/22 09:09 AM
0

That doesn't answer the question. You are terrible at communicating clearly little friend. When asked how, saying just because is super poor communication.
/r/MensRights19/03/22 08:59 AM
0

How is that relevant to whether stating a fact is a joke? You really are extremely bad at any consistency or clear message buddy. Try to keep on topic this time when asked.
/r/MensRights19/03/22 08:58 AM
0

What does that have to do with role play? You really just stumble around here buddy.
/r/MensRights19/03/22 08:57 AM
1

How did I do that? I have yo ask the same question multiple times because you don't communicate the answer to what is being asked.
/r/MensRights19/03/22 08:56 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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