TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MechPlasma Archive

View 5 posts and 1,958 comments by MechPlasma on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,958 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Honestly, I'm not going to say that the guy who's been warring his entire presidency in a non-coalition war, and is still fighting in two others, is a peaceful leader. less nukes Only 500 less nukes. Between 2005 and 2013, anyway. In comparison, Russia decommissioned 8,000 nukes in the same period. Obama simply isn't as anti-nuke as you might have been led to believe.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 10:30 AM
-1

No, look, I'll quote the first line from the article: "[Irish] National guidelines advising hospitals to circumcise male infants, if requested for cultural reasons, will soon be issued." See? No penis-sucking involved. Now if you'll kindly stop talking about what them crazy New Yorkers do in their free time, that'd be great.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 06:23 PM
-1

Trying to change the subject eh? The subject is, quite literally, what the Irish hospital guidelines contains. So no, I'm not.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 06:09 PM
0

You... do know that New York City is not a part of Ireland, right? And that the Irish government haven't outlined the proper method of accomplishing a Metzitzah B'peh in their hospital guidelines?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 06:00 PM
-1

Man sucks infant's penis = child sex abuser. Man takes knife and amputates large part of infant's penis = not a child sex abuser. Should I be worried about your love life if you can't tell the difference between "Sucking" and "Amputating"? Because I really, really don't think the latter is sexual.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 05:42 PM
3

No, other way around. 14 describes just about every group there is. Feminism, egalitarianism, MRA, Republican, Democratic, Buddhism, Holocaust Denialism... hell, even terrorists kill everyone equally (usually). Trying to restrict it to one group, as if to say "If you're not a feminist/egalitarian, then you're sexist, because only feminists/egalitarians believe in equality", is the wrong move.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 03:04 PM
0

Erm... I think it has to be sexual for it to be sexual abuse. I mean, circumcision is definitely wrong, but not everything that involves a penis is about sex.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 02:58 PM
-13

I dunno. GamerGhazi isn't really known for brigading.
/r/PussyPass21/03/15 01:46 PM
3

Eh, depends on the ad. The "She'd love an iron for Christmas" are usually genuine, but the ones that actually look hilariously over the top really are hilariously over the top.
/r/MensRights03/02/15 07:21 PM
5

No, that's not odd at all. Not for The Daily Dot. That's pretty standard for them.
/r/MensRights03/02/15 07:09 PM
15

And they're not excited about having a sexy male character to drool over. They're happy because a company finally made a male character who wears "sexy armor" that doesn't cover anything and makes no sense, because it has gotten male gamers to talk about the stupid character design and how ridiculous it is to have a half-naked character fighting in combat... which is exactly the point that the GirlGamers have been trying to make for years about the half-naked female characters. Which is pretty s…
/r/MensRights03/01/15 09:09 PM
0

When people talk about Anita et al. receiving death threats, it usually refers to ones that might actually be serious. Ones that know personal information that they shouldn't. In Anita's case, her address and her parents' address.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 08:13 AM
2

Nonsense, this is just proof that people were so sexist back 40 years ago that the rate of rape was 5 times higher than our current 1 in 4 rate. It's proof that the old fogeys running our country are only disagreeing with me because they're from a more sexist time.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 07:50 PM
1

and pedophiles are not more likely to have sex with children. Umm... I think you meant "Pedophiles are not more likely to be rapists". Because they're certainly more likely to have sex with children than non-pedophiles.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 11:12 PM
7

I don't know which I love more: that the author thinks "Porn is bad" is the uncontroversial objectively-right stance, or that the author uses Wikipedia as a source. They're both equally stupid! And yes, it's an all-around rubbish article.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 10:41 AM
7

[Women] felt their partner didn't hold similar sexual beliefs. For men, the biggest factor was sexual excitement. ...what's the difference?
/r/MensRights17/08/14 10:24 AM
2

I think this is the point where you learn to stop screwing people over.
/r/MensRights16/08/14 07:35 PM
1

It would be if she got his name right. But she didn't. She didn't pronounce the underscore OR the capital letters! How insulting!
/r/MensRights16/08/14 07:33 PM
-2

Well it is, because I'm pretty sure the last one was about 30 years ago. Which is very relevant, since that makes it a dead law. Still on the books, but never going into effect. Kind of like the Alabama law that makes it illegal to wrestle a bear.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 07:02 PM
2

I was about to say the same thing. "You can't vote without registering to die" seems to have become the biggest myth here.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 02:24 PM
0

Yep, but you have to register. If you don't do it within 30 days of your 18th birthday then you face $250k in fines and 5 years in prison. When was the last time anyone was ever charged with that?
/r/MensRights14/08/14 02:23 PM
7

I wouldn't call that feminism. You know what I call that? The aristocrats!
/r/MensRights06/08/14 08:36 PM
2

Goddamnit.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 12:23 PM
2

Alright, so it doesn't remove non-NP links to MensRights, but it still removes copy-pastes of it's own post. Well, good enough I suppose.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 10:36 AM
2

http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FMensRights
/r/MensRights06/08/14 10:34 AM
6

Because Patriarchy! You know, how men made all men have to sign up to go to war, and not women, to discriminate against the female gender. Anything to get away from the misses, right lads?
/r/MensRights05/08/14 03:16 PM
8

right to vote People keep saying that, but I know of no place where you can't vote without applying for Selective Service.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:47 PM
1

Wait, seriously? That's the first time I've been hearing about that. Source? Even a link to the study would help, I can't find it myself.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 05:24 PM
2

For the record, the UK has the same, but not as bad. It counts as sexual assault, which has the same maximum punishment, but they can't charge someone with rape itself. Which, I believe, also means that newspapers can't say a man was raped either.
/r/MensRights03/08/14 01:41 PM
2

I... don't think you need to prove to us that women can, in fact, commit crimes.
/r/MensRights03/08/14 01:35 PM
2

I can believe it. India has a huge, HUGE problem of people trying to get people arrested because they don't like them. For example, here's an article showing the breakdown of rape cases in India: http://www.thehindu.com/data/the-many-shades-of-rape-cases-in-delhi/article6261042.ece If you want a long story short, there were 583 rape cases in 2013 that went to trial. In one-fifth of them, the accuser either never showed up or turned hostile in court. Out of the rest of them, a whopping two-thirds…
/r/MensRights03/08/14 01:25 PM
11

We're mad because people made really stupid, and very likely sexist, decisions with their money. That is a perfectly valid thing to get mad about.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 06:32 PM
1

So wait, everyone seeing "women raped in public" as okay is more likely than everyone seeing this situation as bad?
/r/MensRights25/07/14 12:24 AM
30

Okay, while I fully acknowledge that it is entirely discriminatory against male gorillas to not be able to recognise their sex, I think we have bigger sexism issues to tackle than that.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 10:47 AM
1

To be fair, if she was found to have been acting in self defence - even if it's through a law I personally find absolutely horrible - then she should be found not guilty of using a weapon too. That doesn't make any sense. Of course, it's really more of a problem with the law than this particular case, but still.
/r/MensRights21/07/14 11:11 AM
-1

Listen, I wouldn't go about saying that in public. Because it's a big sign of a lack of self-awareness in a political debate. "Oh, you know, my statistics are all true and honest, but their statistics are deliberate lies. Because unlike my side, they don't care about the people, they only care about winning".
/r/MensRights21/07/14 10:45 AM
6

Oh man, this article. I mean, "Is /r/MensRights controversial" aside, because it most certainly is, the next question is inevitably "Why is there so much on /r/MensRights? Where's X, or Y?" Basically, it's because Wikipedia only allows stuff from news sites and such. And the only news sites who talk about something as insignificant to the outside world as individual Subreddits are the journalists who have some sort of personal investment or vendetta against specific ones. And it's the same here …
/r/MensRights17/07/14 07:19 PM
2

But... but I thought what we had was special!
/r/MensRights14/07/14 12:28 AM
8

Okay, smarmy answers aside, we're calling it vandalism because the page about uprisings by women has very few actual uprisings by women. It's 90% "Things that aren't the topic but that makes Feminism look good".
/r/MensRights14/06/14 12:42 PM
5

Updated: As a reader pointed out, the Times did run a comic this weekend on the same issue by regular contributor Brian McFadden. The mystery deepens! One of them mocks a political group to make a joke. The other abandons a joke to mock a political group. Pretty big difference here. Or... this is what I would be saying, but I don't see how they're "similar issues" at all. men on the Internet tried to co-opt a Twitter conversation about violence against women by threatening women with violence. G…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 05:18 PM
3

Englishmen are quite proud of their worldliness, that they know so much about both the queen of Canada and the queen of Australia! They're very worldly people, they assure you, very interested in world politics!
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:55 PM
9

They want to destroy both. On one side, you have fat, neckbearded, fedora-wearing Nice Guys, and we all know how popular they are in feminist circles. On the other side, you have... well, anything and everything to do with "toxic masculinity".
/r/MensRights04/06/14 08:09 PM
6

Hah! Europe united in anything! Seriously, half of the countries couldn't even agree on whether or not we should put a stop to that holocaust thingy*. The only thing all of Europe shares is that every country has its own way of saying "Everything was better until the English got involved". But we share that with 95% of the world too. Obviously, England is an exception. To an average Englishman, the word "oppression" refers to that thing that Americans did with their negro fellows, and their unde…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 07:55 PM
46

Right now I live in 3 countries LOSE SOME WEIGHT, FATASS!
/r/MensRights04/06/14 07:34 PM
0

Why bother? Pretty much everyone but Nixon has already been given the label of "COMMUNIST" at some point or another. Can't top that.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 03:29 PM
3

It's sad that /r/subredditdrama has become so resentful of men It used to be that SRD mocked everyone equally. It's where the whole "daily shilling schedule" joke came from, because the majority opinion really did change from topic to topic. But eventually, it just became a plain ol' SJW haven. Edit: actually, missed that: they object to men's rights activism, not men themselves. They're not literally SRS.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 02:33 PM
2

Probably not, but I don't like using speculation as proof of sexism either.
/r/MensRights17/05/14 07:58 PM
0

Yes. That has absolutely nothing to do with what people are saying about the rape itself. It's praising a rapist for something else. That's perfectly fine, saying something nice about a rapist isn't proof that they're condoning rape. And the top comment now by an order of several hundred upvotes. It's at +30. You're off by an order of several hundred upvotes.
/r/MensRights17/05/14 02:39 AM
4

I'd disagree, actually. The 'support' she's getting generally hasn't been in her favour. The top comment right now is "both of you need counselling". There's a lot of posts saying she should go to the police herself. This isn't "oh it's not so bad" support, this is "you screwed up big-time and this is what you need to do" support. They're not murdering her for revealing she raped someone, but... well, that's how it should be, just saying "you're a horrible person" isn't going to help anyone.
/r/MensRights17/05/14 01:10 AM
0

AMAs are generally exempt from "no brigading" rules because they want as many people from other subs participating in them as possible. If you made it that only people from AMA can ask or vote, every topic would be sparse as hell.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 06:24 PM
0

This really complicates things. When someone gets as close to your face as possible, like an inch from your face, yelling as loud as they can, at what point is that assault? In the US? Not at all, that I know of. Some countries do count 'sound abuse' as assault (and they should), but I don't believe any US state does.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 09:37 AM
7

Fun fact: before TiA became popular, MensRights had many, many more posts like this. It was... really bad, actually.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 09:26 AM
10

Disagree. I mean, it definitely does depend on the sub, but overall Reddit tends to be a lot more pro-men's rights than... well, a heck-load of other places.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 10:25 AM
5

Only nobodies expect the Spanish inquisition!
/r/MensRights29/04/14 03:22 PM
11

I... think you're overreacting. The "if you don't have a beard you're a nobody" isn't serious, it's just a bad attempt at a joke. As for the legs and wizards stuff, that's pretty average conversation. It's not like they're saying "These men are awful people" like some parts of the internet are, it's just them saying how weird it is. I don't think we're in the business of censoring people because their ordinary conversations are a little bit offensive. like the previously mentioned parts of the i…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 06:23 PM
11

Conservative ones aren't covering it much either.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 10:33 AM
2

I don't like what you're trying to say here. *pulls fire alarm*
/r/MensRights22/04/14 02:03 PM
2

then women complain about having to be working single mothers. Okay, I'm confused here. Which part are you saying is because of sexism: 1: Women are expected to work. 2: Women are often single. 3: Women are often mothers. Or is it that the jail/combat/custody thing is making more single mothers. Because jail I can understand, but I haven't met any time-travelling mothers who's husbands have been drafted into World War 3, nor have I heard of any complaining that they won their court case for sole…
/r/MensRights22/04/14 01:52 PM
6

Oh what, so there's a specific way that women act, huh? God, I've had it up to here with your gender role nonsense!
/r/MensRights22/04/14 01:47 PM
0

Are they also listening to your pop music?
/r/MensRights21/04/14 08:46 AM
1

To add to MWigg's response: some countries do have life imprisonment a lot more. I know Ireland has it as a mandatory sentence for murder. But the point is that, because of parole, it's not so much "life imprisonment" as "imprisonment until we've decided you're sane enough to be let out".
/r/MensRights21/04/14 08:41 AM
5

I don’t know why it costs more for Michelle’s blouse than my shirt. Someday, the president will start acting like the president and not keep pretending he's a common folk guy who doesn't want to bother anyone with questions. Seriously, I do like Obama (which I wouldn't be saying if I thought he was actually serious with his 77c stuff), but his "I'm an ordinary guy just like you" is so... namby pamby compared to Clinton and Bush's "I'm the boss of the country, now let's get stuff done!"
/r/MensRights15/04/14 05:59 PM
5

What state/country is that?
/r/MensRights15/04/14 03:30 PM
-2

I prefer to sum it up to just two: 1: Attraction to me. 2: Abnormal.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 01:42 PM
1

Yeah, I always found that part of her description strange. Largely because I haven't seen her actually explain what she meant.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 01:39 PM
1

It's theoretically possible that the Daily Mail could get sued for saying "rape", since the women was indeed charged with "forced someone to have sex with another person". It has the same sentence as rape, but... well... let's just say I always hate how British feminists never object to their laws.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 10:03 AM
1

How bad must her lawyer have been that the best defense they could come up with was "Who is the real monster here?"
/r/MensRights10/04/14 09:57 AM
1

Curious, how I never see an MRA responding every time a male rapist gets away with the crime. Well what are we supposed to say? "New York rapist escaped from crime scene and nobody could identify him, this is an outrage"? That's just not worth commenting on.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 09:56 AM
25

Yeah, r/LGBT is one of those "hijacked by SRS" subreddits. Which is to say, not actually hijacked by SRS, but full of the same kind of people who post in it. /r/ainbow is the actually open subreddit.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 08:00 PM
3

Well, /r/feminism isn't controversial. Nothing happens there, nobody outside talks about it, whenever someone mentions "feminism on Reddit" they're always referring to an SRS-type sub (which, of course, is much more controversial). I can't think of a single thing they did that generated controversy.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 08:35 AM
5

First, wikipedia was just re-edited by a bunch of women's studies students. Actually, I wouldn't say that's why the article looks biased. Wikipedia has always held the stance that a social conflict/drama is only important enough to be featured if news sources are covering it. The problem is that the only news sites that cover a single subreddit are the ones that are distinctly biased against the MRA. Which is why when we doxxed, it's marked as one of the most controversial things on Reddit, but …
/r/MensRights08/04/14 08:24 AM
1

Bit shocking that a GOP politician is coming out for men as often not they hold to traditionalist views and that agenda and care less about gender issues and more about keeping traditionalism. Why would "Companies are being encouraged to choose women over better-skilled men" be an anti-traditionalist stance?
/r/MensRights05/04/14 07:50 PM
1

biased, not bias. Bias is using only one point of view. Biased is demonstrating a singular point of view. You explain that badly. What you should say is that 'bias' is a noun while 'biased' is the adjective form.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 07:47 PM
3

To clarify some of these things: He sponsored legislation that repealed the state's Equal Pay Enforcement Act That's true. Apparently, he started the motion to repealed the act since it "incentivized trial lawyers to sue job creators". I don't know enough about the act to comment on it. fought for a seven-day work week Misleading. He fought for employees to be able to choose themselves to keep working for a seventh day, instead of being forced by law to always take the seventh day off. Or really…
/r/MensRights05/04/14 07:42 PM
4

Well that's good... I think. Really, it all depends on what the end law looks like. As long as it sets a defined limit on when ignoring someone becomes criminal, it should be pretty great. It's only if they let the case workers decide how far is too far that it would become completely horrible.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 02:04 PM
-2

I think that in cases where you can prove that someone knowingly made a false claim of any crime, the false accuser should receive the same sentence as the person they are accusing would have received if found guilty. Hah, no. That would be awful in practice. It'd be absurd to punish someone caught lying with the same sentencing as someone caught, I dunno, raping a child. It does not take 30 years in prison to convince someone not to lie again. Not to mention that it'd be highly unfair to give e…
/r/MensRights01/04/14 01:32 PM
12

It's a big problem I have with Canada's consent law, actually. It really does say that consent obtained through fraud is invalid, but it doesn't specify what is considered fraud. Which gives the courts the ability to just make up rules themselves, even retroactively like in this case. I mean, I do think that poking holes in condoms should be illegal as long as it's provable, but this is absolutely not how the law is supposed to work. To give you an example: it's illegal in Canada to have sex whe…
/r/MensRights01/04/14 01:18 PM
1

Prohibiting abortion is, in essence, interfering with someone's body. No, even though actually interfering and banning abortion both have the effect of making it that a person can't have their own body be the way they want, the latter still doesn't count as interfering with bodily integrity. Otherwise, you'd have situations where not donating an organ counts as interference, because the person who wants the organ would really like if their body included a different kidney. It seems to boil down …
/r/MensRights28/03/14 05:35 PM
1

This is a stance I've heard, yes. However, it doesn't have much applicability overall. Ultimately, the state cannot force a person to give up their bodily autonomy, even if it is to save the life of another person. You can voluntarily donate your kidney, for example, to help someone. But, the state can't force you to do that. You're thinking of bodily integrity, which is the right to not have your body interfered with without permission by the state. Bodily autonomy is the right to do what you w…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 04:55 PM
1

Practically speaking, fewer unwanted pregnancies means a lesser burden on both men and women. We focus on discrimination, not on "things that make life better for men". Hence why we don't talk about curing diseases or protecting the environment. Edit: actually, the better argument here would be "You can't prove that it's actually better for men without proving fetuses aren't living". That makes me seem less like I'm in favour of bad stuff for everyone. Also, it clears the way for LPS - a man who…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 04:17 PM
2

I disagree. I mean, I literally disagree that it's funny. If it actually was, I'd be with you saying that "it's just a joke". It always annoys me when people get offended at genuine jokes that mock them - they're not intentionally picking on them, they just don't work if they're about anyone else. But... there's no humour here. "Builders catcall a lot, so an atypical builder is one that compliments a lot"? That's not funny, that's just a statement. I can't defend something as being just a joke i…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 04:03 PM
1

Do construction workers still cat call from sites? Nope. PR is so important to pretty much any company nowadays that construction companies really would fire people over practically any kind of harassment.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 03:47 PM
3

When you should be allowed to have an opinion How did you not feel spectacularly silly writing that? Anyway, I don't get how it's Men's Rights related.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 02:58 PM
2

because I wrote "Look the comment" And what's the actual context of this post?
/r/MensRights24/03/14 11:30 AM
1

Yeah, this is an often reported thing. Just to summarise: somebody made a bot to upvote feminism-based definitions that they agree with. That's pretty much it. Which is why you have things like the Feminism definition, where the 7th and 8th definition were made in 2009 and 2010, have the same number of downvotes, yet the latter has 26,000 more upvotes. Which is still more than common terms like Football, America and Internet combined.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 11:27 AM
1

Yeah, but I don't remember them doing anything controversial. Like, ever. Other than the whole "SRS says their moderator sux" thing, which isn't exactly newsworthy.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 01:08 PM
2

To give an actual answer, any controversy needs to be featured in a third-party news article - in other words, it has to be controversial to people outside of Reddit. And since there's far more journalists who hate this sub with a passion than, say, /r/PCMasterRace, our doxxing incident gets featured on Wikipedia while theirs does not.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 01:00 PM
0

Wait, what controversy is there about /r/feminism?
/r/MensRights16/03/14 12:50 PM
13

The problem I always have with the "Women are pressured into unrealistic beauty standards" argument is that the proposed solution always seems to be "create realistic beauty standards" or "Teach women to always see themselves as beautiful somehow", and not "Figure out why the hell so many people are basing their self-esteem on their looks".
/r/MensRights16/03/14 12:43 PM
3

Other people have explained how that statistic actually came about, but just to hammer in the point: Do you really think women are somehow naturally predisposed to constantly mess up their suicide attempts?
/r/MensRights16/03/14 12:26 PM
1

Outside of America, I'm always sceptical around discussions on the effectiveness of harsh prisons. Nobody ever seems to have statistics saying one way or the other. So as much as I'd like to have an opinion, anything I believe will basically just be an educated guess. Or, at least outside of America. The US's prison system, on the other hand, is notoriously bad and are more incarceration-happy than pretty much every other Western country. Even allegations of corruption aren't uncommon!
/r/MensRights06/03/14 12:41 AM
4

It speaks to me that degrees and education are a game to a lot of women. You misspelled "people". A lot of people, of both genders, go to college without any plans for what to do with their degree. Pretty much because everyone else is going to college, so it's become "the thing to do".
/r/MensRights01/03/14 09:23 PM
0

Meh. It's a very small number of people making trollish comments, and being run by... The Ides Of Light. Yeah. I wouldn't pay any attention to it.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 10:38 AM
1

Not really: "The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that abortion was permissible when risk was present, but the government never passed a law to that effect. " Okay then, there's no law. There's just a legal right backed by law enforcement. Which is basically the same thing. The fact of the matter is that in 2012, in a country in Western Europe, a woman died for no reason other than the religious beliefs of others. We just went over this. It was a pure malpra- ...you're not talking about the doctors, …
/r/MensRights11/02/14 09:28 PM
1

So the chance of possibly getting pregnant and having to abort or give it up for adoption justifies the gigantic gap between 7 years and life in prison in their minds? No, although it's a bit confusing. The actual reason probably goes along the lines of "Women are fragile creatures" or something like that (Ireland was VERY traditional back 20-30 years ago). What the court said is basically that it isn't technically unconstitutional, meaning they can't remove the law themselves, and that it'd hav…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 08:40 PM
2

Like hell! Wikipedia has a short summary of what the report actually found, but to sum it up: it was a medical malpractice! It's technically an "overemphasis on her unviable foetus" the same way that a casualty of an untreated brain tumor was because of an "over-reliance on x-ray results". What actually happened, and this is why I drew a parallel to the Zimmerman case, is that the media kept reporting that it was (as the husband said) because doctors refused to give her an operation. And then it…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 07:23 PM
6

Gender discrimination directives don't apply where the sexes are actually different. And since only one can get pregnant... http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0223/313813-court/ [When challenged that a law was unconstitutional,] The High Court ruled that while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not disproportionate because the risk of pregnancy is born by girls only.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 11:33 AM
9

In 2012 a woman died because abortion is 100% illegal in all situations in Ireland, and the hospital would not perform an abortion to save her life. What the hell kind of Daily Mail nonsense reporting is this? Abortion is most certainly legal, even mandatory, when it would save a person's life! The investigation into the case you're thinking of found that it was a pure miscommunication malpractice, with no evidence whatsoever of anyone thinking she should die. Bloody hell, this is right up there…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 11:24 AM
8

I'd like to say that the worst part is how it implies women are regularly raped at knifepoint in broad daylight is the worst, or maybe that police regularly harass rape victims and make sexist comments while listening to them. But no, because I still can't get over that it tries to portray the hijab as forced on the guy by his wife. Like, if I were to make anti-Islam propaganda rubbish, it'd start right off with "Muslims will make women cover themselves from head to toe". And yet that's what the…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:51 AM
4

In terms of actual laws in Western countries, there's... not many. I can only think of three: First is rape laws. You've got laws like in the UK where women can't rape, but they can at least still go to prison for the same amount of time by some technicality. Then you've got laws in Ireland where equally underage kids having sex is male-on-female rape which is more serious because at least one guy got a prison sentence for it. Then, back in the US, there's the one every guy experiences: having t…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:32 PM
32

The definition of rape does not include men being raped by women, although this is arguable, and its only a recent development that men can be raped. In the US. In places like the UK, the definition is very clear that it's not rape if it's by a woman.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:18 PM
8

Well what if the criteria wasn't "Being a woman"? What if it was that you had to be a certain weight, or look good enough, or have a certain accent, or not have ginger hair? Do you think they'd go "Oh, what a pity" and get on with their lives as if nothing happened? Or do you think being told "you could've donated $100 to your school if only you weren't... you" might give rise to some serious self-esteem issues?
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:14 PM
1

My definition is the same one as yours. The law says that rape is "Sexual assault that involves penetration", but it doesn't say "By the offender" or anything like that. At least, that's my understanding of it. I haven't talked to a lawyer or anything.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 09:46 PM
2

I therefore recommend that everyone unite and take action against this vile misappropriation of the justice system. The funny thing is that they did! I mean, this was national news, practically the whole country was in outrage when the problem first appeared! Politicians were coming up with excuses why it was just an oversight and rushed because they needed a new law! And then... nothing. It was 7 years ago, and nothing changed. Everyone just kinda forgot that it still existed. Which was really …
/r/MensRights16/01/14 05:35 PM
1

That said, this was in February 2012, so it might very well be that it already was. I could not find anything on this when Googleing this quickly. Nope, it still exists.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 05:35 PM
1

And women still have to pay for the child too. This isn't like the US, where the mother can just decide not to have the baby. Abortion isn't legal here. Or, at least theoretically. Going to England and having one there is still... mostly fine. It's a little iffy. I think it's fine if you don't get caught or something?
/r/MensRights16/01/14 05:35 PM
1

(although, of course, males can't be "raped" by women in Ireland) Nope, you misread it. The law says that rape is "Sexual assault that involves penetration", but it doesn't say "By the offender" or anything like that. Women can be arrested for rape as normal. Except for... um, what's the female equivalent of a blowjob again? Northern Ireland specifically says that women can't rape though. Like the rest of the UK.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 05:32 PM
1

Ah. Then yeah, that's exactly what we have, and it's all we have. The reason I'm asking all this is because I don't see where it's possible to discriminate this way.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:22 PM
2

I have... absolutely no idea what that is.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:04 PM
3

On the plus side, we'd be really good at understanding the physics of liquids! (I wonder how many people will actually get this reference?)
/r/MensRights04/01/14 08:02 PM
9

a private organization funded by private donors should be free to run its business however it sees fit to. ...Except when it involves discrimination. There's all kinds of laws like that when it comes to private employment and publicly-funded education, it doesn't make sense not to have the same for privately-funded education too.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:52 PM
2

To be honest, I agree with Hugolp. We complain all the time about artificial quotas in favour of women in situations where they are "disadvantaged" (read: less likely to apply). It wouldn't make sense to turn around and support the same in favour of men. At least, not without some concrete proof of discrimination.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:48 PM
2

Actually, can you run through what acceptances are based on? Because in Ireland, it's a simple case of "There are no 'applications', the highest scoring student in their secondary school exams gets in, everyone has to pay the same (€2,000/year) fee". The only exceptions are basically immigrants or seniors. And I thought the UK would've had the same system.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:45 PM
8

To sum it up, two firefighters were caught shagging on the job. We asked Mayor Kaler if she was worried this could've happened with other fire fighters or that this could have happened in the future. "They're men. Is this the kind of interview that you wanted? Don't ask me questions like that, don't ask me those kinds of questions," Kaler answered. Honestly... I don't know. I don't know whether this is just an off-colour joke she was trying for and failing, in which case it's pretty stupid but n…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:31 PM
1

I'm gonna go ahead and point out: a psychopath (supposedly) focuses all on you, flatters you, makes you feel great, and has amazing sex. The downside is that, before breaking up, he'll seem distant and eventually stop flattering you. And then he'll go back to loving you again. And dating a psychopath is supposed to be a bad thing?
/r/MensRights09/12/13 05:07 PM
1

Utah adoption law, one of the worst for denying paternal rights, has four steps that biological fathers must take in order to intervene before the birth mother places the child for adoption: File a paternity petition in court; Fair. file a sworn affidavit in court stating he is able and willing to have full custody of the child Fair. detailing child care plans A little excessive, but I'm not gonna say it's a bad thing. and agreeing to a court order of support and payment of pregnancy and birth-r…
/r/MensRights18/11/13 03:23 PM
2

Yeah, last time I checked, 95% of prisoners are male. And that's not because men are 20 times more likely to be criminals.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 03:10 PM
2

Depends. How does the system work if they don't know who the father is? Does the mother get paid by the state, or does she not get paid at all?
/r/MensRights18/11/13 03:08 PM
5

Irish here: too bad! Ireland's the one with the reputation for stealing European companies!
/r/MensRights18/11/13 02:47 PM
15

...and replacing them with rich, less qualified bastards who want affirmative action everywhere since it got them their job. It's not an improvement.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 02:42 PM
3

Put it this way: feminists made VAWA. Not "radfems", not "feminists but not like the usual ones", just regular feminists. VAWA, at the time, was all about women's shelters and helping female victims of abuse. VAWA was specifically worded that funding could not go towards helping men whatsoever. When people say "feminism isn't for equality", they really do mean it that way.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 04:48 PM
1

You don't have to have mental problems to be a horrible parent.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 01:07 PM
5

Well yes, there's a bit of a difference between being offended by something that someone else does because you just don't like it, and being offended by an actual insult. ...well, I suppose there's offensively bad too, like Twilight, or Gone Home, or the phrase "Oh the irony lol". I dunno where that fits into things. But on the grounds that I like ranting, I'm going to say it's perfectly acceptable to be angry about that kind of thing. Seriously. Don't use 'lol'.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 08:31 PM
10

Say that... to who?
/r/MensRights04/11/13 10:01 PM
4

If by "you", unkleman meant "feminists in general" and not you personally: 'Domestic violence shelters and funding' springs to mind. People talk about the Violence Against Women Act a lot here, and I believe the 2013 amendment tried to actually make it more equal, but do remember that in the original version male shelters weren't allowed to receive any funding whatsoever! That is most certainly at men's expense!
/r/MensRights04/11/13 09:46 PM
16

I feel that mr should accept that not all feminists are nazis and say to them "hey we don't really see eye to eye on some issues, ie Patriarchy theory," but let's work together on this simple issue" Oh no no no, I think nearly everyone here tried that before! The best answer I got was "Sure, those are issues, but Feminist movements don't have infinite resources. We have to focus on the big issues first". That was in regards to incarceration rates. That that was the best is really saying somethin…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 09:38 PM
29

I swear this sub focuses more on feminism then men's rights. That's partly intentional. A lot of people here see feminism as the biggest thing holding men's rights back. That by telling everyone "Hey, we're the anti-sexism squad, and we're here to highlight all the sexism that needs to be fixed", and then just so happen to not mention men's issues, they're making it look like there are none! And that's before you get into when they actually try push men's rights back, like by portraying crime or…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 09:34 PM
42

Someone who 'wants to stay young forever'. The implication being that getting married is a man's duty to get married and have children. As Fox News put it, "they just never grow up – or man up for that matter".
/r/MensRights04/11/13 12:16 PM
2

Ah...heh. I was going to, but they actually confirmed it 5 hours after I posted. http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads I guess they were just really slow.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:33 AM
0

EDIT: disregard this post. It was made shortly before UN Women actually confirmed that, yes, they really did commission those ads. ... This is the absolute worst case of journalism I've seen since the Trayvon Martin case. Maybe even worse. Why? Because UN Women has nothing to do with it! As far as I can tell, this is nothing but a fake campaign! UN Women's posters nearly always involve inspirational quotes, always involve hashtags, and deal with actual oppression and not "Google search suggestio…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 03:20 PM
5

When a 50-50 partnership is dissolved in business, where one partner buys out the other partner, the business assets are divided and the other partner is paid half the value of the business. Hold on, hold on. Divorce is... selling the rights to your existence? With the full consent of the other person? What the hell? Newsflash, Writer, when you choose to leave a business yourself, without anyone making you an offer to leave, you get nothing! You're done! The other person is not legally obligated…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 02:31 PM
3

Wait, if it's not stress caused by being too poor, and it's not stress from certain kinds of jobs... then what stress are you talking about? The only other thing the article listed was subtle racism... and I don't think subtle racism is more stressful than being bankrupt.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 01:57 PM
12

To the dudes that think "stress" just refers to everyday stress that we talk about while going about our day and venting to people ...nobody said this?
/r/MensRights18/10/13 09:15 AM
1

without any question or acquisition of consent You just made that up.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 09:01 AM
0

This, very much. While it's true that "one sex act does not count as consent to a different one", that's only in the same way that staying silent counts as a no - specifically, in the case where the 'victim' isn't actually given a chance to respond. So while pretending to use the "wrong hole" can count as rape (not that I know of anyone getting charged for it)... it really doesn't look like that's what happening here.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 08:48 AM
2

I was thinking the exact same thing... because I read that exact situation on a sexist university "Is this rape" question. Specifically, that it's rape to assume that a person just consents to one sex act right after initiating a different one. ...but phrased in a way that makes it clear the girl didn't ask for consent in the first place.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 08:41 AM
0

Even if they did happen, which there isn't any proof for... there's not really a point to them. We already know these things happened to someone, somewhere. Unless they're from actual people who want advice or support, or come paired with statistics, quotes like this are basically useless.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 01:23 PM
14

Every social or political group as understood by their own members summed up by Dilbert.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 09:00 AM
1

It seems to me the groups that have enacted the most social change in modern times were not very self critical. Yes... but at the same time, that usually doesn't result in a good system. For example, feminism or communism. In other words, it's still better to be self-critical even if it loses you popularity. AVFM are fine because, although they think Feminism is basically the devil and where every second article is intentionally provoking, what they advocate isn't actually as extreme as their at…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 09:26 PM
2

Oh, and y'know what's the worst? When Feminists say they're supporting male issues by 'fighting the root cause, the Patriarchy'. It's the worst goddam double standard they have! They never say "We don't need to fight attitudes about slut-shaming, we just have to tackle the cause", no, it's only men's issues that have a head to cut off! And they will never ever actually explain what "fighting the Patriarchy" means in this context! It's the worst!
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:43 AM
3

+1 to "It's just an excuse". If it just meant "anything to do with men being in charge and women being housewives", then I would've said "sure, I'm okay with that". I wouldn't quite agree, but I would at least respect it. But no, instead it means pretty much any instance of sexism. Whatsoever. This is the top comment in an r/AskFeminists topic I made that was asking about how the Patriarchy was responsible for a buncha traits (way back before I really found this subreddit): It was patriarchy tha…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:40 AM
1

...what's the problem here? Is it that there are people who disagree with the MRM's stance on gender issues, or is it that someone might call other people 'fuckwits' for having distinctly different opinions on social politics? Because neither of those things are strange or unusual.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 08:17 PM
16

I... don't see a problem here. What's the problem here?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 10:23 AM
6

Standpoint epistemologies require stronger standards for objectivity in the analysis of knowledge. The conventional standard of objectivity is considered too weak to act as a tool for feminism and other social movements. The subject of knowledge must therefore be considered an object of knowledge from the perspective of scientific method. Knowledge and the biases affecting it must be equally judged by the scientific community and located in social history. What does this even mean? I have absolu…
/r/MensRights25/09/13 10:21 AM
3

Are you saying it's not a feminism-related article?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 10:20 AM
26

Of course they wouldn't rape a woman! They'd just threaten to rape a woman, which makes it hilarious! Because the most horrifying thing that can happen to a woman isn't a real issue, it's just a game, it was a joke, don't take it so serious, and now you understand rape culture. So which is worse: Saying rape is worse than murder and every other serious crime and trauma? Saying rape is only the most horrific thing for women? Implying portraying anything horrific in the media as anything but horri…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 03:57 PM
8

Depends on the statistics. If there are a significant number of women complaining about being groped on the train, then it's an unfortunate necessity and I have no problem with it. Except with possible overcrowding complications (y'know, men not getting spaces), but that's unlikely. If it's because of a significant number of women complaining about being afraid of being groped on the train, then it's pure segregation. The old "Back of the bus" style too. So yeah. Depends entirely on the figures.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:42 PM
3

For those wondering, about half of all US states considers it homicide or murder, a quarter consider it just an assault on the woman, and the rest either "depends on the age" or consider it somewhere in between. And for the record, I support it being somewhere in between. Just having it assault ignores the trauma associated with it, but considering it outright murder on a "The mother believes it's human" basis (which is the most common reason - keep in mind that there's no actual consensus on wh…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:06 PM
2

I hear he's secretly been meeting with ttumblrbot behind the spam filter.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:46 PM
11

I was gonna say that, but I also noticed that the first image in her list wasn't actually about beating your wife. So I thought it was pretty fair.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:28 PM
5

If ever you're glad about something that happened in the past, thank someone who wasn't a part of it. Incidentally, I just wanna thank all you straight white men for being Abraham Lincoln.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 10:38 AM
-5

For the record, no, linking to the place where the information is given out is still considered doxxing, even if all you did was link it. Even if the info is already there. Unless it's very easy to just find online, it's considered doxxing. ThePigman got shadowbanned for linking to an article that mentioned the real name of a well-known radfem. That was already revealed a year ago.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 10:13 AM
14

The trouble is that waiting to perform a circumcision makes the procedure much riskier and much more likely to carry damaging side effects. [Citation Needed] I'm sure plenty of people here are in favor of childhood circumcision for understandable reasons. The closest 'understandable' reason there is is to prevent HIV, and that's so badly studied that it's still an awful reason. Edit: I love the part where you pull a statement of health risks completely out of your ass and say there's perfectly r…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 12:11 AM
4

I dunno, by the sounds of it Harvard has realised it's only making things worse.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 12:02 AM
-4

Dawkins has a messed up view of circumcision, but I still consider him a great scientist and this one opinion does not change my respect for him to any measurable degree. I'm just saying, because a lot of people in these kinda cases are way too quick to go "Oh he doesn't agree with me on something I hate him now".
/r/MensRights07/09/13 08:03 PM
5

I actually commented earlier before I saw that it was linked from here. Now it looks like I'm brigading. What rotten luck.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 07:46 PM
6

If it was the ad alone, I would've said "No, it doesn't, but I don't care because it's still a great ad". But the linked article talks about it from an MR perspective. So... yeah, it actually does.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 07:43 PM
1

Fox News is biased out the wazoo, and can never be trusted around the words "Studies", "Polls" and "Science", but they are actually a reliable source of news. There's nothing wrong with this.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 03:30 PM
42

Headline: Rapist dies after victim's family members burn him alive First line: Katni: An alleged rapist succumbed to his injuries on Friday morning True and honest reporting.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 01:06 AM
10

I like how your first thought here is "It musta been fun".
/r/MensRights07/09/13 01:05 AM
4

Is... is that too little? I'm not familiar on what the bond should be.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 12:58 AM
2

Source? I mean for doxxing at least. As for brigading, the admins' response is "If they are, we don't know about it". Collect proof of brigading as you see it.
/r/MensRights06/09/13 09:53 PM
1

I believe it was /u/thepigman
/r/MensRights06/09/13 05:15 PM
8

Oh, and for anyone wondering what the whole Nice Guys wear fedoras thing is about: One Tumblr blog, Nice Guys Of OKcupid, was all about laughing at OKcupid profiles where the guy emphasised that they're a very nice person and, a few lines down, reveal themselves to be a massive asshole (usually by saying "Everyone but me is a jerk"). Well the blog also noticed that the people who do this have an unusually high chance of wearing a fedora in the profile picture. So it caught on that Nice Guys wear…
/r/MensRights05/09/13 06:14 PM
11

Here's a summary: People wear fedoras. That's cool. But it's also part of a stereotype of a kind of person (nice guys). That kind of person is not cool. I would not date someone with a fedora or a neckbeard. Trigger warning. Reddit may also be involved somehow. If that sounded very random and all over the place, that roughly describes the article. It's completely pointless. Buuut it doesn't involve the MRA at all except for one line about how "brony-MRA-redditors" don't get laid.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 05:59 PM
10

It's pretty great when it comes to actually handling the serious multinational issues, but yeah, it's smaller policies like this are usually rubbish. It treats itself as a wannabe King Government, telling all the other governments how to do their jobs. Which is really bad, because it's not run by consensus, but at least nobody actually takes them seriously. It's particularly sad when compared to the EU, which actually knows how to get stuff done, and its policies have made massive improvements t…
/r/MensRights04/09/13 07:03 PM
10

Well... it depends. If it's an actual proper study they did, and these factors showed up as proper correlations, then it would be dishonest to leave out that men appeared as being more likely to commit domestic abuse. But if it's like a collection of 'probablies' or a buncha supposedly-random studies they found online, then- A wide range of studies agrees on several factors at each of these levels that increase the likelihood that a man will abuse his partner. ...then it can pretty much be dismi…
/r/MensRights04/09/13 06:55 PM
2

It did. It happened once. That makes it a useless metric. That's the point.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 12:21 PM
1

I still support capitalism, on the grounds that it's the best system that works. But I'd totally prefer a pure meritocracy if it was possible. And in this tennis tournament, it is!
/r/MensRights04/09/13 12:18 PM
3

I do not see the same quality of children being spit out today. I see a much different and more negative civilization, society and local communities. Kind of makes me wonder why these laws are in place at all when kids did so much better back when parents were deflowered and started families younger... you know, back when it was lawful for families to decide these things. Wasn't crime, xenophobia, and child abuse far more rampant back then? And I distinctly remember something about threats of nu…
/r/MensRights04/09/13 12:11 PM
1

Should male porn stars get paid the same as female ones? Yes. Yes they should. Which I think nicely explains why I disagree with your point.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 11:55 AM
1

I disagree, on the grounds that it's not fair to women to pay them less just because people aren't as interested in watching them. It's not like they're not trying as hard or doing anything differently. In other words, they should be paid by their merits, not by their popularity. 'Course, that actually assumes they're performing for the same amount of time, which with 3 sets, they aren't.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 11:47 AM
2

You mean the RPG where the only defining trait is that the hero starts as a prisoner (totally unique idea guys)? Well, that, and it's about a princess trying to dethrone herself. Yeah, I don't see it getting off the ground.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 09:34 AM
2

I... don't know about this. false reports are certainly bad, but giving first-time offenders a super-long prison sentence for something that - let's be frank, a lot of people don't even see as a crime. Remember that the justice system is meant to reflect society's morals, and not the real life consequences of their actions. This isn't like rape, where you know it's incredibly harmful and you have to be beyond depraved to do it. This is the kind of crime narcissistic idiots do because they didn't…
/r/MensRights29/08/13 07:50 PM
4

Yeah, fat chance of the woman also being sent to jail for 3 months. I... think you messed up there. You can't be charged with conspiring to harm yourself. ...wait. Can you? Like, I'm actually wondering now. If everyone that's part of a conspiracy is responsible for the crimes of one of the conspirators, and if one of them hurts another, what happens then?
/r/MensRights29/08/13 03:04 PM
2

15 times? That's nuts Yup! I mean, if it was once, he could certainly be charged with something - it was consent to be choked, but not to the point of unconsciousness. But when it's happened 15 times before, she can't claim she wasn't expecting it to happen again.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 03:02 PM
1

She assumes the baby doesn't feel anything since he is numbed so it's perfectly acceptable. Why not just... show her a video of a baby crying during circumcision? It's a very easy counter, isn't it?
/r/MensRights29/08/13 10:26 AM
2

Oh. Look. A bot. MensRights can ban bots, right?
/r/MensRights29/08/13 10:21 AM
2

I agree, but for a different reason. The line "those guys" could just as easily refer to Chelsea himself. In other words, he could be saying "Chelsea won't be out in a position where the public can see him for a long time". It's possible he did mean it as a rape joke, but... I don't like assuming the worst in people.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 10:19 AM
2

Y'know, I would just said "Men do a lot better when there's attractive ladyfolk watching them", but sure, your theory works too. Also, reminds me of this.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 07:13 PM
5

Well, I suppose lesbians don't...
/r/MensRights25/08/13 09:13 AM
3

Yeah... Yeah, pretty much. Although you could argue technicalities like "It's the way it should be and something else is inflating girls' scores instead".
/r/MensRights25/08/13 09:10 AM
6

"I saw some frat houses with rude jokes about sex with women. I was so angry that I wanted to graffiti their houses with 'We're rapists'. But I didn't. Instead, I made a post on Facebook! Grr!"
/r/MensRights24/08/13 09:14 PM
10

That has never happened before in the history of superpower nations.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 08:37 PM
11

Yeah. It wasn't clear, since it's not a meme, but the girl in the same kind of hat is also meant to be the same kind of scumbag. It's still normally true, but most of the Redditors are indeed pointing out that they're both (roughly) as bad. ...although for some, it's for a different reason. Oh well.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 08:31 PM
2

Yup, I was thinking exactly the same thing! If you're interested in Computer Science, you're not going to be the superficial type who bases their judgement on stereotypes. You're not going to give up on your greatest career choice because the career stereotype is Aspergers incarnate. Hell, if people did, then nobody would ever be a layer! The only kind of people the stereotype would put off is the more... superficial kind, without a propensity towards engineering. And CS is not an easy subject, …
/r/MensRights24/08/13 12:19 PM
4

And now I'm starting Java, should I switch to C++? C++ is better because it's a bit more efficient (doesn't run in an environment), is more common, and is more useful for things like .dlls. From a perspective of not being a goddam ass of a language to program in, you should stick with Java. New people don't like C++ at all. And then spend the whole five minutes it takes to learn C# after Java, since the syntax is pretty much the same.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 11:45 AM
1

I was thinking exactly this. You don't get to complain about people disrespecting your privacy if you're doing it in public.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 12:02 AM
9

New Nova Scotia "rape awareness" adds assume all men are rapists Other way around. They assume all rapists are men. That's still bad though. They've also, yet again, assumed that if you just mention something about rejecting sex, it'll reduce rape. Like, the whole teach rapists not to rape concept is bad enough, but this isn't even a "No Means No" ad. It's just a "No".
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:46 PM
1

I... I don't get what you mean. They didn't go "Oh, women are sucking, let's change everything in their favour"*, but it could certainly be an effect of the ever-changing syllabus. Well, except maybe in the beginning. I've heard they had to change things like the maths syllabus when women were first allowed to do it, because it wasn't working out for them. But I haven't been able to find a source about what it was like back then...
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:40 PM
1

The gender gap now has been widening each year for the last few years that I've checked. Either it's not because "boys don't care", or something has been making boys be progressively apathetic. Either way, it's a problem.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:26 PM
1

exam results are the end product of how much effort people have put into their own education. Three problems: 1: If there's sexism in the way teachers treat their students, that's going to have an effect on the students' education. 2: Boys and girls do think differently in academic subjects. It's an uncomfortable fact. If the subjects are heavily biased in favour of female brains, that's a problem. 3: Even if the other two aren't true, if boys are putting less effort into their own education, th…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:22 PM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1kw8y3/girls_get_61_of_a_marks_at_gcse_no_one_seems_to/cbtqb5o Bamf. I am linking this pretty much everywhere now! I hope it doesn't count as spam. People just keep asking.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:19 PM
1

For A*-grades. But if you include A-grades too, they're actually slightly lower. But yes, compared to the GCSE's "70 percents to the educational dollar" (yes, that's how big the gap is) the A Level results really don't have a gender gap.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:18 PM
1

That's true, if you're looking at how many people take each subject. If you're looking for how well each gender did on average, http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1kw8y3/girls_get_61_of_a_marks_at_gcse_no_one_seems_to/cbtqb5o
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:17 PM
2

BREAKDOWN OF SUBJECTS BY GENDER: http://www.jcq.org.uk/examination-results/gcses/gcse-and-entry-level-certificate-results-summer-2013 If we take it that "significantly better" means being 50% more likely to get an A or A*, then girls did significantly better in: Art, Business, Citizen Studies, Construction, Design & Technology, Drama, Engineering, English, English Literature, Geography, Health & Social Science (Over 200% better), Home Economics, Hospitality, Leisure & Tourism, Media & Film, Prep…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:14 PM
6

Eeeexcept in this case, because saying "I'm wearing this expensive diamond ring to challenge social norms" gets you figuratively punched in the face.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 01:42 PM
6

Yeah, I was really wondering what she was on about here. The only people who complain about someone buying themselves expensive diamond rings are just people who think it's a horribly irresponsible use of money. And sometimes Africans.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 01:39 PM
3

Particularly being both bisexual and homosexual. How she pulled that off, we'll never know.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:27 PM
0

Poetry in the Kitchen I'm not gonna lie, I never thought I'd ever see a feminist magazine put "In the kitchen" on their front page! (I know it's not a strictly feminist magazine, but it's pretty obviously one from those sub-headings, if the image alone isn't enough). (Incidentally, just by this incident, sub-headings, and the knowledge that they once made up a story about a fire in the university killing 16 people, I already deeply hate it.)
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:10 PM
1

They are trying to break those rules surrounding the frenzy that is created when we discuss or see actual genitalia. "Breaking the rules" does nothing. That just makes more of a frenzy. Those rules are not there because some random person in the media department of The Patriarchy decided that genitalia shall be forever forbidden. They exist because that's the way a lot of (maybe most?) people want. If you want to change the rules, you have to convince those people otherwise - not try force them …
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:01 PM
4

First of all, we as a society have decided that stuff like that is not appropriate for people under 18. You may disagree with this, but that's what the standard is. Plastering it on the front page of a magazine where kids might see it is just in really bad taste, and I think does a lot to show the sense of entitlement that many feminists have (and you just KNOW this was some feminist doing this). Exactly this. There's a good reason any nude images in generally public spaces (other than museums) …
/r/MensRights22/08/13 07:52 PM
1

Well... with exceptions. I mean, if I said "Nedra, is it true that you once had gay sex with your own mother because you're too ugly to get a girlfriend?", that's always an insult. Or an unfortunate truth.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 07:46 PM
1

Yes... and no. They may be just acting out because they're ignorant and afraid, but fear and ignorance are still vices, and if someone's a scumbag because of them then they're still a scumbag. If it's because of something beyond their control, like not even knowing that they could be wrong or being genuinely paranoid because of a traumatic event, that's different. But these people presumably aren't. These people should be able to look after themselves. They should know better!
/r/MensRights22/08/13 07:40 PM
2

(Some women protested against Abbey Bartlet by turning up to one of her speeches in aprons and with rolling pins) SAM: Why were there rolling pins? C.J.: "At this moment, you're not licensed to practice medicine, correct?" "At this moment, I'm just a wife and mother." SAM: I don't see it. C.J.: Well, you got to want it. SAM: Oh, I see it.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 07:25 PM
8

There was an infamous tumblr called thisisblackprivilege.tumblr.com, which was ignorant of actual African-American experience. Eh... the point on that Tumblr was to mock the concept that only white men have any special advantages, and everyone else has nothing. It just wasn't that smart about it.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 02:09 PM
48

Is Dr Phil personally a rapist because <allegedly someone on his staff> made the infamous tweet? As someone who clearly has a brand, can he be assumed to be personally typing in each of his tweets? Does it matter? There wasn't actually anything wrong with the tweet to begin with.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 12:50 PM
9

The woman probably didn't need to hit him, but if your child ever gets decked by some idiot not paying attention you bet your ass you'd defend them. If by "defend", you mean "needlessly assault", then no, I would not. Because that is illegal. And stupid. Don't do it. Also, article says it's a skatepark.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 11:57 AM
7

The skater was at fault. For the accident, both the skater and the kid were at fault. They ran into each other nearly straight-on, judging by what we see. That being said, the skater wasn't even remotely at fault for what happened afterwards. It was also NOT a harmless incident! I agree this is a bit of a circlejerk, since it's just about a single jerk being a jerk rather than, say, the police refusing to arrest her, but punching someone in the face is far from harmless.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 11:55 AM
7

It kinda turned into a Lord of the Flies type scenario sometimes Tip: if you want to convince someone of something, don't compare your side to Lord Of The Flies. How are you going to deal with losing jobs/dealing with assholes/dealing with pain and disappointment in life without any practice? It's also not a good idea to say you want to cause pain and disappointment to people who you admit aren't prepared to deal with it. Turns out that the best way to prepare someone for the bad things in life …
/r/MensRights22/08/13 11:52 AM
17

Wait, isn't this a reverse of how it was the last few years? I distinctly remember an achievement gap in the favour of girls, and not an insignificant one either. Am I just mistaken or something, or has it really improved? Edit: HAH! Oh wow, I was not mistaken at all, and while it did indeed improve, it's still (very slightly) in favour of girls! As the Daily Mail says: Boys also narrowed the gap in combined A* and As with a 0.2 per cent improvement to 26 per cent, while girls slipped half a per…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 11:35 AM
1

Laws don't usually say "no one under 16 can have sex at all". Well, "Usually". In any case, it's not what I was talking about. I meant that 18-14 relationship is only questionably wrong, but breaking a court order to have sex, with someone the court specifically said not to, most definitely is. That's the attitude of a genuine rapist!
/r/MensRights22/08/13 11:20 AM
2

Being in jail and on the SOR in a flash. Whatever about having sex with a 14-year-old with a more than three year age difference, having sex with someone when it is very specifically illegal to have sex with that exact person is... it's not rape, but it's very much a rapist's attitude. You can't let that kind of person go free.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:53 AM
0

It's only relevant because Hunt's parents said it was allll about the gay! People ate it up, as they normally do when you mention an excuse for a female rapist.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 08:42 PM
2

Her parents lied about pretty much everything during a media campaign. Oh, totally. Even the line "They feel like my daughter 'made' their daughter gay" is a complete lie!
/r/MensRights21/08/13 08:39 PM
3

her mother would try ANYTHING to make her father look bad and lose custody Are you sure about this? I mean, it would certainly be a fit explanation, but it could also just as easily be someone who hates her mother starting a horrible rumour. Don't just go with the simplest solution, and whatnot.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 08:25 PM
2

Incidentally, as far as I can tell, 'consent' is never legally defined. Which is good, because it avoids the whole nonsense of having to pick whether drunken sex is always or never rape! Also, sexual assault involving serious violence has the same punishment as rape. Just thought that one was nifty.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 08:17 AM
3

Republic Of Ireland's is nice and short. 2.—(1) The offence of indecent assault upon any male person and the offence of indecent assault upon any female person shall be known as sexual assault. 4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes— (a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or (b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person. Summary: Gender Neutral (although oddly worded) ...is …
/r/MensRights21/08/13 08:15 AM
2

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20130531.gif
/r/MensRights21/08/13 07:56 AM
3

Look at all this Patriarchy! The men in power are only giving women all this power so that women don't have power... wait, no. It's because they think women are too bad at being politicians, so they gave them this special privilege... No, hold on, I can get this. Thanks to advances in feminism, people are starting to see the imbalance of power in government, so the old white men in charge made this shortlist to even out jobs, while men will still always have the respectable, properly earned posi…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:08 AM
1

haha the jokes on u because i saw ur computer. i KNO u r the girl i was talking about. hahahahahahhahaha!!!!!!1
/r/MensRights18/08/13 12:06 PM
3

Tell it anyway!
/r/MensRights18/08/13 12:02 PM
1

god i kno right? i mean yes2rday i was talking 2 this hot baby 9 in a pubb while enjoing a smoth duff beer (and not bud lite lol im such a nerd) but it turned out tat she was rly an evil feminazi cunf who was all oh womyn need mor rights and men cant get rapd and whatever i dunno it was stupid anyway lol. so i try to let her down easy becuz im a nice guy like that and im going like hey lets just be friends but not serious cuz she ugly. but shes all "oh purazuma-kun ur so kewl okay lets be frinds…
/r/MensRights18/08/13 11:31 AM
2

Well it involved zero original retro animations! How are you supposed to justify a huge budget without at least one? Even if it's completely pointless and still manages to make a massive plothole in it's 30 second life? Anitear knew how to do it!
/r/MensRights18/08/13 11:21 AM
1

The one thing I disagree with is that it's David Willis's opinion. Joe (the black guy) has *never been any kind of author stand-in. He's always just been the character that thinks there's no such thing as bad sex. Those commentators' responses are still real though. Kinda surprised to see Plasma Mongoose though. I don't remember her falling for that nonsense before. *Er, grey guy. Why... why is he grey?
/r/MensRights15/08/13 09:52 AM
15

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Brookllyn_College_Logo.gif $107,000 well spent.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 11:54 AM
12

Equality before the law means that women can’t go around making false rape or false abuse charges and expect to get away with it. That's like saying "Winning the lottery is good because winning a competition makes you feel better". It's technically true, but I think "Less discrimination in sentencing" might be a bigger benefit.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 12:29 PM
6

Nah, it's probably real. He's been having something of a breakdown outside of Twitter too.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 10:14 AM
13

It's hard to hate a guy that's genuinely crazy.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 10:13 AM
4

Sounds like a very reputable person!
/r/MensRights10/08/13 10:05 AM
1

By "compete in all events", I mean that there's a woman-only version of every man-only sport (I can't think of a better way to say that, you know what I mean), but there's not a man-only version of every woman-only sport. Not that women can race against men.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 11:23 AM
5

Fun fact: in the Olympics, thanks to big equality pushes, women are now allowed to compete in all events. The same does not apply for men.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 08:47 AM
14

Cartoonish cover, simple English, non-sophisticated board game. Ages: 14+ I... think... they might have missed their target demographic.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 10:39 PM
15

That's what the "fine, whatever" is for. The issue here is the hypocrisy of taking advantage of how cute people are treated right after complaining about how they're treated so differently.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 10:38 PM
7

As well as what everyone else said, it gets more ridiculous when you think of it like this: either 1/4 of all managers are paying women nothing, or every manager in the country is paying women 75%, or somewhere in between. And now keep in mind that you've probably never even met someone who thought sexism at all is a good thing, let alone someone that supports paying them over 25% less. Short of just saying something something glass ceiling, it just doesn't work out.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 03:01 PM
5

Someone mind explaining this? It'd hard to argue against it when you don't know if it's actually true or not.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 12:58 PM
2

I'll add to that by saying that games are usually very masculine. The sheer majority of games are about strict competition or fighting, and very often revolves around a "might makes right" story. When you're complaining about how Shooty MonsterTruck McMuscles is usually a guy, you're really missing out on who that's supposed to appeal to. I'm not saying that men inherently prefer these kind of games, I don't mean that kind of masculine, just that they appeal far more to the average guy than the …
/r/MensRights06/08/13 11:38 AM
5

This is why, despite leaning to the left, I cannot stand most media aimed at liberals. Pretty much any news media with an agenda is rubbish. It has to be! It's always going to be more concerned with making people think X than with actually reporting the truth.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 08:04 PM
3

I agree with this! Well, with the exception of "Watch how you dress". That's just bad advice. But it's also advice I've never heard a person actually say that wasn't someone unimportant on the internet. So this is probably pointless. Really, I just wanted to keep this Cake Day comment train going!
/r/MensRights05/08/13 07:57 PM
2

No bills regulating men's bodies? Man, I can't even swing my arm sometimes without getting arrested for it! "No regulation" my ass! Like, the only way this would work is if it referred to regulation that could not in any way impact another person. And if fetuses were universally declared to be "not another person". So... yeah, there's no way this works.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 07:51 PM
1

But a lot of people think that milk chocolate manufacturers have taken over the rest of the media and are only showing protagonists enjoying milk chocolate and how dark chocolate is usually just turned into a prop. I don't agree with it, but a lot of people do, and a lot of people don't agree with what you said. They're just both too controversial to add, really.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 01:04 PM
5

http://img.buzznet.com/assets/imgx/7/5/1/1/5/0/1/orig-7511501.jpg For the men in the audience. Obviously.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 12:30 PM
2

I wouldn't quite agree with that, simply because I've never seen Hugo try to excuse his actions, I don't think he's in denial about what he did. But I would say that what he did definitely had an impact. My guess is that it's more of a karma thing, that he's trying to do something good to balance his past. And that he just chose feminism because... well, he's not very bright.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 05:27 PM
14

Oh christ, that game idea. It's a rather well-made animation, but all it says is "Instead of a hero rescuing a damsel, the damsel escapes on her own. And emphasises a change of outfit, because Feminism". Look! I did it in 5 seconds! For free! The worst part is that it comes right after talking about Monkey Island 2, which was a brilliantly written take on the damsel rescuing herself already! (Bonus points: She "abolish the monarchy forever". She's the princess. She just dethroned herself! Excell…
/r/MensRights02/08/13 12:51 PM
33

[On Spelunky:] Setting aside the fact that if a female character is easily interchangeable with a dog, then it's probably a pretty good indication that something is wrong. ...except that since you can pick gender, it's also a male character being easily interchangeable with a dog. But that's not a problem, apparently. Double standards at its finest! She later went on to say that a Chip 'n' Dale [whoops] style hunk is a perfectly normal model of a man but a big-boobed lady is sexism.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 12:18 PM
1

Same here! I couldn't imagine what it'd be like to have discriminatory teachers, or students.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 12:47 PM
0

Firstly, whether you think women should be able to go topless is unimportant: It's not what they're protesting against here. They're very obviously doing it to get attention. Secondly, it basically comes down to "It's only slightly more nonsensical than covering up genitalia. But nobody complains, because there's nothing actually wrong with it".
/r/MensRights29/07/13 11:07 AM
6

I can add to that by saying that doing it topless is about one step removed from doing it in a clown costume.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 04:07 PM
8

Sure. But we don't call it rape culture, because we're not tools.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 04:06 PM
2

Yyyyyeah. Somehow, I don't think it's because of sexism. Y'know. I just have a hunch that he's not taking it seriously enough.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 10:06 AM
3

According to a study of IQ tests from around the world, women have higher IQs than men. This is the most annoying statistic I see over and over again. Because that's not how IQ tests work. They're supposed to be designed to be fair to both sexes, because they DO think differently. If the average for either sex isn't 100, the test is BAD!
/r/MensRights25/07/13 11:08 AM
1

Whose the dumbass? Still you. I mean, you took someone called "lefunnytroll" seriously. There's no excuse for that.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 10:21 AM
2

They think /r/rapingwomen is "partially responsible" for people not reporting sexual assaults to the police. Like, I get how we might be involved in people not reporting rapes - we're constantly saying things like "Drunk sex on its own isn't rape", which is going to look bad to someone who thinks drunk sex on its own is always rape. But thinking that RW is actually so popular and taken so seriously that rape victims aren't coming out... well, that's a new one.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:57 PM
4

We can finally stop the unhelpful whining about our white guilt. Hugo, it's a bad sign when the white people you know whine about white guilt. It means you're in a place that doesn't respect white people. Although you probably already knew that.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:49 PM
7

God, the amount of times I've heard "The Patriarchy hurts men too". Y'know, how a system that's completely unfairly biased in men's favour is a disadvantage for men.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:45 PM
2

Argh! You both painted a basically random guy as a murderous monster AND you told other people what to do! I don't know how to handle this!
/r/MensRights23/07/13 06:11 PM
8

The Democrat equivalent is to tell men who tell men what to do what to do, and painting random people as monsters. Stupid Zimmerman case.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:59 PM
15

Mmm... I dunno. "Guy" has become something of a term for people of unknown genders now too. I kinda want to give them the benefit of the doubt here. That being said, the guideline is rubbish. Apart from trolls (who break rules anyway), people are not intentionally creepy*. Creepy people do not know what they're doing wrong, or they wouldn't be. And that's aside from the usual "'creepy' is the new 'freak'" problems. *Plague Of Grapes excluded.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:49 PM
6

...Republicans?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:42 PM
9

It was always like that. We just had hopes for it in the beginning, but they never came to pass.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:41 PM
1

And how many cases have you heard of? Quite a lot. Even here, we get one about once a month. Nobody ever mentions trauma.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:39 PM
1

I have literally never heard of a single person getting trauma from finding out that their kid wasn't actually accidental. So yes. Really.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 09:12 AM
7

No. Aside from that sex doesn't become rape if they lie about something, there's no point not thinking of it as a whole new category of crime. Rape is mostly about trauma, and this isn't.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 10:35 AM
6

Like other forms of sexual assault, acquaintance assault is motivated by a need to control, to humiliate, and to harm. I still love how these kind of people keep saying that rape has nothing to do with sex.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 02:00 PM
16

Oh geez. People used to call her a con for taking so a ridiculously long time to make the videos. But now she's a con in the plain ol' ordinary sense too!
/r/MensRights20/07/13 12:10 PM
27

Can't. They didn't know they were helping a criminal get away. But yes, they're totally liable for assault.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 07:59 AM
-1

Relatedly, there is UNACCEPTABLE victim blaming (she went into a dark alley) and ACCEPTABLE victim blaming (Zimmerman got out of the car). At least, the media thinks so anyway.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 07:36 PM
11

Women? Of course not. While I do think SRS is a good representation of the average feminist activist, most women are not feminist activists.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 12:31 PM
9

after following you to provoke a confrontation That's the most Social Justice Warrior thing I've read this thread. I can see it now: "But officer, how can he claim self-defense? He was following me! I was totally justified in beating him up! I mean, he could've been murdering me with his eyes, or... oh god, he could've been about to ask me out! What do you mean walking up to someone isn't illegal?!"
/r/MensRights17/07/13 09:35 AM
2

Wait, which way is it rape again? Because 40-year-old hairy men usually aren't very powerful - they tend to be homeless a lot - but children pretty much always get special privileges by... everyone.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 09:36 AM
3

Right. Riiight. Women can't have sex without it being rape. Gotcha. Hey guys, guess we were wrong about FGM. Turns out it totally DOES lower rape rates, quite dramatically! We've learned something new today.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 09:32 AM
5

There's a huge petition started by the NAACP that wants him to be charged with breaching civil rights. But it's complete nonsense. It's basically asking for a double-jeopardy.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 09:27 AM
3

Sure. Because he's a black male. The serious bodily injuries just... happened to be there. Materialised out of nothing. Body's natural response to stress. Sure.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 09:25 AM
3

I don't believe we have evidence pointing out who approached who first. But in any case, assault is still illegal.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 09:24 AM
5

If anyone hurts me or mine, I'm not going to rely on the law to do shit after this. You are literally complaining about the law that lets you do that.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 09:23 AM
0

...and moving around slowly. Out at night. In the rain. With skittles and iced tea. In a hoodie. And you're telling me that's not suspicious? That's not even remotely normal behaviour.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 09:19 AM
8

Yes. And if Martin had gone out an hour earlier, nobody would've been hurt either. And if a third person had coincidentally distracted Zimmerman at the time, nobody would've been hurt. And if Zimmerman fainted as he was getting out of the car, nobody would've been hurt. And if- you get the point here, right? It doesn't matter that Zimmerman had followed him, because following someone does not necessitate what Martin did. The onus rests ENTIRELY on Martin trying to bust his head in. To blame it o…
/r/MensRights15/07/13 09:13 AM
3

There's nothing to suggest that Martin was attacked. And even then, self defence laws are very clear that you can't use more force than what's used, or expected to be used, against you.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 09:12 AM
16

As far as I can tell, both sides were removing male jurors until there were only females left, and neither side objected. I guess they both thought having more women on the jury would help their case more. So no, I don't have anything to say on it. At most, it's a case of sexism by the lawyers, but I don't see anything you could extrapolate from that.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 03:06 PM
1

I think the difference was the "92% fresh" in the heading. Without it, it comes off as just a B-movie.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 12:01 PM
14

...What's that meant to be a satire of of?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 02:46 PM
2

grand wizard Oh god, that's an actual term?! Goddamnit, you've ruined my childhood! ...well no, I'm still going to use it to refer to actual magical badasses. But still.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 09:53 AM
1

I meant are people actually saying that, or is that just a journalist being sensational?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:38 PM
1

There's more mature ways to handle discrimination than refusing to buy the product. That's not going to help at all.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 11:05 AM
3

Is she mute? Because this would be understandable if she was mute. Or didn't speak English. I hope the latter, because if she's mute I don't think all the Liams at anime-con could keep their hands off her. Let's just say she shouldn't wear blue hair. On the other hand, if she has no problem talking, then you should probably tell her to STOP BEING SUCH A WUSS AND USE YOUR WORDS, LADY! IT'S WHAT YOU HAVE VOCAL CORDS FOR! Anyone remember this shit? http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Creeper_Move_ca…
/r/MensRights09/07/13 07:41 PM
2

I know what you actually mean, but you still made it look like you just said all minorities are criminals! Which is hilariously unfortunate!
/r/MensRights09/07/13 07:28 PM
2

You're hitting on a good question there, and that's "When does the pros of racial profiling outweigh the cons". It makes it easier to solve crimes (presumably), but it also makes people feel less welcome and more cheated. I've seen first-hand how distressed people become when they're suspected by the police of a crime, but I don't know how effective discriminatory profiling actually is. Anyone got any statistics? ...and, of course, this only applies to cases where it's just being more likely to …
/r/MensRights09/07/13 06:38 PM
2

Meh. "She wasn't fired" could just mean that the officials didn't know about it. And the police haven't decided whether to arrest her yet.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 06:07 PM
6

It's totally sexist! See, it assumed that those two people are a man and a woman respectively. The author doesn't know that, they never asked them for their preferred pronouns! For all we know, that guy could be an oppressed trans-transgender lion-kin! How sexist!
/r/MensRights09/07/13 02:34 PM
4

...Is he being accused of sexism? I've been looking at the Twitter comments for that hashtag, and from what I saw only a few people were calling him sexist for it. Most people just... kept it vague, and said it was bad without explaining how.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 12:41 PM
1

Mmm... I get what you're saying, that judging a guy by something that's not "Was he in enough danger to warrant lethal assault" very analogous to judging a girl by something that's not "Was she raped". But... I wouldn't say it's sexist - or, at least, there's not enough proof of it. I'd say that that attitude to rape is the sole exception, and every other crime is basically treated the same "Did they deserve it" way by the general public. Regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 10:35 AM
5

Because as we all know, the more household chores you do, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. I mean, it's so obvious that there's no point checking if there's any other reason for it.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 11:42 PM
7

Because people will complain if you don't hire fat people.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 11:00 PM
8

How many people followed you, expecting merry foliage? I don't think they should count.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 10:56 PM
13

Typos. *skilled *paid *split
/r/MensRights08/07/13 10:54 PM
10

I still don't know how they do it. I mean, the MRM has very simple and reasonable positions. We're against "giving women a leg up" because we believe that all female workers should be killed. We think men should get laid as much as women. And for separated couples, we think time spent looking after the children should be shit. I just don't get how anyone could be confused about them.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 10:54 PM
11

Even Tycho in the article said 'we’ve adopted this “be terrified of young men” stance'. So yeah. Relevant. Probably.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 10:37 PM
7

Well no, her trying and getting caught is probably the best outcome. That arduous process goes by a lot smoother when the spouse is guilty of attempted murder.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 09:30 PM
3

I'm not surprised at the guy wanting her let go. People do crazy things for love. Although "murder is easier than divorce" is a new one. People do... crazy things out of laziness?
/r/MensRights08/07/13 09:27 PM
2

That is the second time I made that mistake. Goddam.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 09:23 PM
18

I urge those of you who are for legal abortion to speak up. Claim it as a men's issue, because it is. If we don't claim it, feminism owns it Here's a better idea: don't make it be a women's issue. Make it be a philosophical issue. Problem solved! At least, unless you think a significant number of pro-life people don't believe [human] life begins at contraception. In which case, I'm going to need a source, because that sounds real stupid.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 04:36 PM
1

So... how many places for boys are left? Because I'm not going to complain if it's only 20 or something.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 11:39 AM
5

That is... literally the dumbest phrasing of "teach rapists not to rape" I have ever heard. "The guy who raped you is in charge of your health and safety"? That's seriously what it means! Bloody hell!
/r/MensRights07/07/13 05:31 PM
2

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” It comes up a lot, but basically, it's a really vague definition. Because it doesn't actually specify it, but is worded to look like it, you can't tell whether it actually means the victim must be the one being penetrated. I really, really wish the FBI had clarified that. 'Course, this is all aside from that we're no…
/r/MensRights07/07/13 02:44 AM
-37

In all honesty... yeah, I agree, it's sexist. Normally I absolutely wouldn't - the concept of beauty is sexual but handsomeness is wish fulfilment is complete rubbish - but Mortal Kombat is different. Out of all playable characters in Mortal Kombat 9 (the game in question), every female character is extremely skimpily dressed. All but one of them has some variation of the phrase "battle thong". No real fighter would ever ever have a reason to wear something like that. Plus, they have a tendency …
/r/MensRights06/07/13 02:52 PM
5

I wouldn't. "Everyone else is doing it" won't excuse yourself from doing it too. You might raise the issue, but you'll still be regarded as a troublemaker. There are safer ways of pointing it out. ...well actually, it depends on the manager in question and how open they are to 'creative' ways of pointing out problems. But if they were, they'd probably be smart enough to spot their own double standards.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:41 PM
3

Christ. They keep going on about how just reports of abuse isn't enough, it has to actually be about "coercive control", and how services and the police need to make sure there's an actually abusive relationship. NO. IT. DOESN'T. We are FAR beyond the notion that there's such a thing as "acceptable brutality". If your spouse hits you, and hits you to hurt, that's bloody domestic violence! There's no way to "nicely hurt someone" (sports etc. discluded), it's ALWAYS malicious! This concept that so…
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:36 PM
1

Should be in /r/mensrants
/r/MensRights05/07/13 09:40 AM
3

Good thing we're talking about a legal case in a specific country then.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 10:44 PM
1

Judging by what she said... I'm guessing that having male privilege prevents you from reading minds. It's the only reason I can think of why she'd say "check your privilege".
/r/MensRights04/07/13 03:16 PM
1

It touches on it, yes. But it's a topic that you either already know about, or this just looks like one crazy admittedly-misandrist person saying something while drunk.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 03:13 PM
5

No, statuory "rape" does not count. It totally counts. Regardless of what your own opinion is on whether it should be or not, it's still legally and officially rape.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 03:09 PM
2

I pretty much stopped listening to people trying to decide the age of consent without referencing an actual study of some sort. It always comes down to pretty much guesswork.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 03:06 PM
2

The most recent post is about a dad who was charged with, but not yet found guilty of, intentionally shaking a baby too much. Whatever about the point of a blog devoted to just pointing out cases of a common crime but only when they're by a person of X demographic, it gets especially bad when they point out people who're only suspected of a cause of death that's usually not intentional. There's no purpose in that other than sensationalism. And by sensationalism, I mean sexism.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 03:01 PM
3

Hmm... Yeah, actually. I didn't think about it from a cost perspective. It is pretty frivolous. (I don't have an opinion on a government forcing language. It's got pros and cons.)
/r/MensRights04/07/13 02:51 PM
5

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that without a reliable source.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 02:44 PM
0

The problem is that the "man" in all of these words is short for human and has nothing to do with gender Nope! Or at least, not for how most people use it. Which is, to refer to an actual man (again: policewoman). Unless you meant historical origin, where there's no evidence that, when it was first used for job titles, it wasn't used to refer to men specifically. And also this is about updating
/r/MensRights04/07/13 11:10 AM
4

They're talking about how dramatically it has increased in women Not... really, no. Only four or five paragraphs are related to an increase. Most of the rest would be more at place in an article about how bad painkiller overdosing is for women. Mind you, it's also a pretty poor article, full of filler and nothing to say beyond "people are dying from this thing more". They're not even sure why.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 10:31 AM
7

I think it raises the calibre of candidates standing They literally said women are better at the job than an equally qualified man. Goddam.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 09:10 AM
4

Mind explaining the problem with this? Most of it is removing the "man" part of official job titles in favour of gender-neutral ones. Which is good, because not only is it unnecessarily gendered, but people weren't using the standard title as... standard. When was the last time you called a woman a fisherman or a policeman?
/r/MensRights04/07/13 09:06 AM
2

In 2014, the law will block some tax breaks that abortion clinics enjoy as health care providers and prevent women from deducting abortion expenses from their state income taxes, the Associated Press reported. I'm not sure about this one. There's still the big issue of "No tax money can be used to fund abortion", and tax breaks and tax deductions just seems like a loophole for that... but at the same time, the US tends to rely on tax breaks for its companies an awful lot. It's a bit of a dilemma…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 08:03 PM
-2

Feminist. And at 0 points right now. Sorry, but you need an example of more than just one single person saying this. Like a very-upvoted comment, or a bunch of posts agreeing. Otherwise, it's extrapolating an entire sub based on one person alone.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 07:40 PM
3

When you preface something with "the fact that", it kind of implies that the 'fact' isn't the part you're wondering about.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 07:08 PM
3

women are more likely to be "single-issue voters". Source?
/r/MensRights03/07/13 05:34 PM
6

Leave the politics to the people who know what they're talking about. The only people who always know what they're talking about are mutes and babies.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 05:32 PM
3

When I saw that topic title, my first thought was to make a joke about how women obviously aren't as interested in news because a girl can't watch anything without girls in it, so it must be men's fault! It's awful when you go to mock someone, and it's still not as stupid as what they actually say. (What does 'reality is being distorted' even mean? Is the news reporting female CEOs and world leaders as men?)
/r/MensRights03/07/13 05:27 PM
8

Yup, this is all true. After hiring a hit-man to kill her husband, a woman claimed she was abused, without proof or evidence, and the supreme court of the... district, I think, permanently stayed the case. To be more specific, what happened is that she claimed that as her husband was abusive to her, she acted under duress. The prosecution's case was that Battered Woman Syndrome (ugh) is a separate defence that isn't even close to the definition of duress, so they didn't focus on proving he wasn'…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:17 PM
2

It's that they depicted violence against children. As comedy. It's not bad because it depicts violence against children as comedy. Loads of media do that - particularly South Park. Making a joke about something offensive isn't offensive in itself. It's bad because telling kids to commit violence is the 'joke' here. A joke aimed at kids. And hoping that kids, being especially impressionable and normally quite sexist, never think of it as more than a joke. And that other kids, who have been excess…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:22 PM
6

This is a non-argument: female tennis players don't train longer or harder than male ones. No, they train about the same amount. So they deserve the same pay. When you take actual training into account, the time difference in matches barely makes a difference. They also earn the tournament less by drawing less attention and less advertising for less time. In other words, they demand a larger share of what they actually earn the company than men do, which is discrimination. Paying two people the …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 12:52 PM
2

Consenting refers to actually giving permission (or sometimes not specifically denying permission). So it doesn't matter what they felt, consent is the actual actions she took. At least, that's how it's supposed to be anyway.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:48 AM
12

Saying female tennis players get more per hour than men is incredibly... dishonest, really, because you know well that that doesn't matter. It's the equivalent of saying being an Olympic runner is the easiest job in the world because you only have to run once every four years.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:23 AM
2

Eh, in this case it's pretty clearly trying to (and succeeding at) teaching her a lesson. It's different from regular revenge, which usually is just "He was mean to be this one time so I'll be mean to her".
/r/MensRights02/07/13 11:03 AM
6

/r/PettyRevenge works fine.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 10:56 AM
3

So you haven't been having sex with penguins... Really though, I'd disagree. That's a pretty arbitrary indicator of a made-up story, I can't think of any reason why people would do it while lying. It's not necessarily false, but I don't see the logic behind it and haven't noticed it myself.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 10:55 AM
25

Of course, the reason men should have an opinion on the matter is because abortion is a morality issue. You can't just decide what constitutes human life by what only a certain group of humans think. To bring up the obvious genocide (or Buddhism) comparison, thi- Wait. Did she seriously just say that women are forced to raise their child? ...Goddamnit.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 12:45 AM
2

He isnt being screwed over, he has a steady paycheck for the rest of his life It does not count as "the state giving you a hefty paycheck" if the state then takes most of it away.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 12:51 PM
2

Him getting permanently crippled in the military is not immaterial at all! The point on disabled veteran welfare is that people who suffer crippling injuries in the service of their country should not be screwed over by the country for it!
/r/MensRights27/06/13 12:13 PM
3

Agreed. This is a problem with the US justice system not abolishing debtor's prison. The only thing feminism is in any way to blame here is for not supporting getting rid of (one-person-gets-screwed) child support payments... which I don't see as a big fault, since it's still debatable if it should be abolished.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 12:09 PM
1

Sarcasm, Bodertz. I don't actually think CannotFindWMD did anything wrong, I'm just mocking Synbios's ridiculous overreaction.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 01:54 AM
2

Bonus lesson: don't have sex on a perfectly white couch. The stains will never come off. (Actually the whole room looks extremely plain. Depressingly so. Third lesson: don't get a perfectly rectangular sofa in a perfectly white room with perfectly colourless curtains with the grayest wooden flooring possible. And don't make ads where 80% of the ad is literal whitespace.)
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:39 PM
2

Lesson of the day: have sex with people who sleep around a lot, they've got ten times the hands.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:39 PM
2

And one Slenderman, judging by the top hand. That looks preeeetty inhuman.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:38 PM
1

I would honestly support some of those ads!
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:37 PM
1

A US defence lawyer has spoken of lives ruined by alleged police entrapment Huh? The police convinced complete strangers to hire a prostitute? How do you even do that? Anyway, I'm completely against any kind of state organisation (legal section or otherwise) trying to punish people by publicly shaming them. It's encouraging people to disregard the law and make their own judgements, which they shouldn't at all, and it's unfairly punishing the socialites over the recluses, even though it's the lat…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:31 PM
19

Go out on a date with someone you're not interested in for a free meal? Isn't that a kind of... Mormon prostitute?
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:26 PM
12

If MRs fail to change people's opinions, it's because CannotFind thinks people who take pride in pointlessly killing certain animals are bad people. Gotcha. CantFind, you're apparently ruining existence. You are personally responsible for male-only conscription. Cut that out.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 10:24 PM
2

Well they did bow to pressure! Just... pressure from the people controlling their revenue. Interestingly, they do actually ban articles/mentions of certain things. Specifically, anything that's pretty much just porn anything that involves any kind of pandering to pedophiles. (The latter of which I'm actually against, because... y'know, dating sims and variants. "Pandering to everyone" is what they do.)
/r/MensRights25/06/13 01:42 PM
4

TVtropes agrees that it's ridiculous. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil (Actually, it does exist, but it was wiped [along with a lot of other Rape Tropes] about a year ago because of the infamous "Google Ads stopped advertising on their site because of their content" episode. The page is up again, but it's lacking examples. Point is, it's nothing to do with real people actually getting offended.)
/r/MensRights25/06/13 09:53 AM
10

I'm just glad that Salon is actually acknowledging male rape victims, in a full article, without making it about women! That's not something you see everyday!
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:21 AM
2

What, you mean a prostitute? Ba-dum-tish!
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:16 AM
9

But she pleaded not guilty, claiming she had been under duress at the time of the offence. God! Ugh! That's not duress! That's not even remotely duress! Duress is where you're instructed to commit a crime, backed by a very real, serious (worse than the crime itself), and time specific threat (by 'time specific', I mean that something vague like "I'll get you when you least expect it" usually doesn't quality). So unless the ex-husband actually said "Hire a hitman against me or I'll shoot you. And…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 07:53 PM
24

The Canadian Legal System's comprehensive guide to escaping from an abusive relationship: Step 1: Murder your partner. Congratulations on your new-found freedom!
/r/MensRights22/06/13 07:41 PM
1

Oh, and the story's made up anyway. The age of consent in Michigan (as the OP said in a comment) is 16, not 18. There ARE places that have no-age-difference laws like that - my own country, Ireland, sure does - but even then, it's extremely unlikely he'd get 8 years for that (in the Irish case, he didn't even get a prison sentence).
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:35 AM
1

That's... not really a happy ending. I'm all for just punishment in the name of making sure it doesn't happen again, but that sure seems like resentment to me. Not putting the past behind them, and whatnot. Unless you meant the marriage and children part. That's... cool, I guess.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:24 AM
1

No, it's true. In fact, I have the definition right here: Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. Notice how it does not, at any point, specify who is doing the penetrating. As far as this definition is concerned, rape is any sex where someone doesn't consent. And no, that's not just "my interpretation" or whatever, that's the official meaning.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 08:36 PM
-1

It's a good thing that the FBI's current definition doesn't restrict it to just that then.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 06:56 PM
1

Yup, I was gonna say that: they changed the definition at the start of this year. I guess the FBI never updated that FAQ page. Either that, or they just didn't because I believe they haven't had a UCR report since.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 06:51 PM
1

The FBI and the CDC use different definitions. The FBI definition is perfectly fine, aside from being strangely worded (at a glance, it looks like it says the offender has to be the one penetrating).
/r/MensRights21/06/13 06:50 PM
6

In her books, she repeatedly asserts that, in over 30,000 cases she surveyed, not a single verbally abusive women has ever changed to become non-abusive. That's not anecdotal.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 06:41 PM
1

Yes. An app that can only be logged in by people with facebook profiles that say they're female can be accessed by setting your facebook profile to female. This is very, very, very obvious.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 04:04 PM
4

And Ishkibble said "Let there be upvotes". And Ishkibble saw the points count, and it was good.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 11:15 AM
2

What were the other possible answers?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:34 PM
6

Er... yes, that too.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:24 PM
1

It's actually not. By specifying that it's for human rights that men are denied, it clarifies that the movement isn't about getting men unjust rights or exclusive privileges. Now, if you noticed that the MRM isn't actually specifically about human rights, or that nobody correlates the name "X's Rights Movement" with "Lebensraum", then I agree - the "H" is just plain stupid.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:11 PM
62

UrbanDictionary is pretty susceptible to votebots, and as you can tell by the Misandry page, there's definitely feminist votebots around.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 09:55 AM
3

Second, you do the same thing with masculism and MRA's. Yes, I was going to say that. Masculinism is not a widely-accepted term for MRAs.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:39 AM
19

Summary: wife looks after son and house while husband's in jail, but divorces him after 9 (of the 24) years in jail. She's now looking for compensation for raising the child alone. And to clarify, she IS asking for compensation for that, not that she just wants a retroactive divorce alimony. You may notice that having to raise a child alone is not normally considered an injustice. Why you shouldn't care: because she, and her lawyers, are the only ones who seem to think she IS entitled to it. Som…
/r/MensRights16/06/13 05:00 PM
-36

What? The entire article is about how she "entered a legal battle" for it. In fact, it explicitly says: His ex-wife, now Traci Tucker, is arguing that she is entitled to a portion of that [compensation] money. You're crazy, Anto.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 04:51 PM
20

The offending statement in particular: Regardless, you don’t have to agree with radical feminists to see that they have a worthwhile viewpoint. Unless you are a “Mens Rights Advocate”. Then you have to petition the city council or whatever it is they have in a country where they don’t know how to spell center to shut down their conference so your ears won’t burn while they say nasty things about you among themselves. Keep in mind that Radfem 2013 was kicked out of their original venue... for bei…
/r/MensRights16/06/13 04:43 PM
1

Maybe. If condoms were some all-powerful protective force that prevented STDs 100% of the time, and never break. But since it IS possible to contract an STD while wearing a condom, I completely disagree.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 03:46 PM
2

It's not an attack, but it does seem somewhat wrong to me. Using Father's Day to praise mothers instead. Mind you, that's just my opinion. There's enough people that disagree, so I wouldn't say it's actually malicious.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 03:42 PM
3

It's such a brilliant opportunity that they made it mandatory, just so that you don't miss out! The Patriarchy really looks after the guys!
/r/MensRights16/06/13 11:24 AM
1

Normally yes, most of us don't have a problem with sexual objectification of fictional characters or not-playing-themselves actors/models. But in a case like this, where it's objectification for no reason other than "People like porn, so let's make our ad basically be just porn", it's pretty awful. Or I think so anyway. But still, this is really about the hypocrisy of the situation rather than our own opinions.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 01:00 AM
1

I certainly agree that not all anti-male sexists are feminists... but I can't protest against saying all feminist are anti-male sexists. Or rather, I can, but only by saying that a lot of feminists aren't sexist, they're just ignorant. Because... I haven't seen a single feminist complain about the US only executing men, or UK laws saying women can't rape, or things like that. Things that are unquestionably sexist. Not a single one.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 11:52 PM
3

Pretty much. There's certainly a point to talking about it and using it as proof of social attitudes or whatever, but if you don't try changing it it's going to stay wrong. Or, in other words: it IS your job to educate them. Handsomelords.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:42 PM
2

feminist minimization Can't see any proof of feminist involvement here. It could just be plain old sexists. That's not to say it wasn't most likely feminists, I just don't like automatically blaming a group without proof. It's what a lot of people do to MRAs every time an anonymous person says something sexist in favour of men, and it's really goddam annoying.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:39 PM
7

Examples of verbal pressure are: ...Let's have beautiful babies together. This was absolutely insane, and I've removed it now. It's source was an article about a guy who said "Let's have beautiful babies together"... but was also very physically violent and made it clear he'd hurt her if she refused.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:37 PM
2

Hmm... ...yeah, I guess you're right. Nevermind then.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:24 PM
-5

Well it's definitely sexual harassment for her to be topless anyway.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 04:03 PM
4

Better idea: use women as cannonfodder. Then say so on the internet. Your army will grow ten times the size from all the men trying to protect them.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:57 PM
7

The government has "wisely" concluded that it's best to use the small professional part of the army for this, not the large conscripted part. Makes sense though. Minimalises casualties as much as possible.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:54 PM
11

It's bizarre to have it stated so bluntly though. Usually they come up with a different excuse* for being against it, or don't explain it at all. *Case in point: if feminists (not women's-rights-only organisations though) started protesting it on the grounds that nobody should be conscripted, that's an excuse, because they weren't protesting it before.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:51 PM
0

...What's the problem here?
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:33 PM
1

The former. Those two guys have very tall heads.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:32 PM
-2

Any kind of sexual harassment relating to visual sights. So it could mean things like putting posters of naked men up in your workplace, or it could mean deliberately staring down a coworker's blouse when she's talking to you. Hey, don't look at me, I didn't make the term up.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:23 PM
-2

As far as that goes, arresting and restraining criminals is a way of taking away the rights of an individual to be autonomous only because they infringed on the rights of other first. Hmm... I suppose that's right. You don't have a right to have a particular job, but the employer is completely in the right to fire you. Wait, why did you not think the image is about sexual harassment in the workplace? The image is very clearly set in a workplace. Maybe you can point to me how they are linked, bec…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 11:17 AM
3

"We offer this human sacrifice in the name of Capitales, the god of the meritocracy, so that we may experience more years of high income and promotions! May it be shared with Tinia Probabilitie, the god of maternal death, so that I myself do not die."
/r/MensRights14/06/13 11:01 AM
5

I'll add to that with a picture of my two balls and my long hard snake.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:56 AM
4

He looks like someone who resents men who get women. ...Explain.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:48 AM
-8

Um... yes. It is indeed visual harassment. I mean, in the real world they might not actually be leering, but this picture sure as hell gets the notion across that this is totally a firing offense. ...What's the problem here?
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:46 AM
8

Trying to control another person's body is exactly what the Constitution protects against. Really? Last time I checked, US Law relied on arresting and restraining criminals, and giving your boss the middle finger is still a firing offense.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:43 AM
3

The first says no such thing, and the fifth is actually pointing out that men and women aren't different. There's a reason I asked. Namely, that there's a difference between "There is an article that is offensive to me" and "They upload 1,000 articles a year and one of them is offensive to me, therefore the entire site is against me".
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:36 AM
1

Post three articles saying as much and I'll believe you.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 02:18 AM
17

Yup. That's Cosmopolitan for you. http://www.cracked.com/article_19066_7-psychotic-pieces-relationship-advice-from-cosmo.html
/r/MensRights13/06/13 11:44 PM
2

Yup. It's why politicians kept saying the 2005 amendment was so "gender neutral" even though it didn't forbid discrimination - because it sure was gender neutral, compared to the previous version. The name didn't always just refer to women being the primary victims (which is false anyway), it was originally a lot more literal.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 11:41 PM
5

I thought it was satire. A parody of how feminism's "Sexual objectification is the devil" stance. Is... is it not?
/r/MensRights13/06/13 05:26 PM
1

Kinda. It doesn't fit into reproductive rights, but it's not really about parental rights since it's not about being an actual parent. So people just call it 'reproductive rights' or 'male abortion' for the comparison to the choices women have, since if men had the choice not to pay to support the child it would really have to be declared long before birth. And no, it's not just a term we made up ourselves. It is the most common name for it.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 03:09 PM
4

It's actually been that way for as long as I remember. Basically, it's all perfectly rational until it deals with an issue related to feminism. Then it goes completely insane. And I don't mean "The majority consensus is in favour of feminist theory", I mean the related articles are horribly written barely-rational 'propaganda' pieces. Just for example, the Pro-Life article calls them hypocritical racist terrorists (with no sources) and uses 'conservative' as an insult. It picks up when it talks …
/r/MensRights13/06/13 03:00 PM
5

That's what feminists do. It's also what we really, really hate when feminists do. Don't do it. If you can't convince someone in an argument, it just means you have to get more convincing. Not this "Well if they think I'm wrong I'm going to make them regret it" bullcrap.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 02:39 PM
2

Child support. Women can do something about it. Men never can. Edit: oh, yeah, and there's the actual male reproduction-related rights issues too. Like what Sillymod said.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 02:37 PM
13

It was never intended to help men. The worst part is that that's not even an exaggeration. Up until 2005, VAWA banned giving funding to DV organisations that helped men more than women.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 02:34 PM
6

I can think of zero mental illnesses that make you have sex with a kid, and nothing more.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 02:30 PM
1

"generic feminism" The article is about the generic feminine. That is a horrible typo you made there and now the whole title is misleading.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 11:36 AM
1

I approve of it in theory. It sounds silly to make profession names single-gendered, but it's actually really common nowadays. Gendered words are pointless, there's no reason not to. The problem is that, rather than going with whatever's the most popular word, or the shortest or the basest form, they go with the feminine. So that people are forced to think about women. Which is nonsense. So we end up with this: First we have to bring women into the language with a generic feminine, but the goal …
/r/MensRights13/06/13 11:36 AM
2

"I don't hate men, I just think they're all responsible for all this negative behaviour we encounter so much. So don't call me sexist!" Edit: oh god, this blog. Right, so there's a heading - a main button - that links to posts that list trigger warnings for popular romance/erotica works with problematic themes. No, it doesn't say "posts about problems in popular romantic media". There is an actual button that shows nothing BUT the Trigger Warning posts. That is... that is so completely missing t…
/r/MensRights13/06/13 01:55 AM
4

"Wow, you like this," the man continues The author said this directly under the video that shows he never said this. Did... did she not actually bother to watch it or something?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 11:00 AM
7

Are you going to actually explain why a statement that's been said many times to refer to things that have nothing to do with sex is now a rape joke? Or are you just going to say everyone who disagrees is a cunt. Source: google search
/r/MensRights12/06/13 10:58 AM
1

Gillard is way worse. Hillary brought up her gender a lot, but never something so outrageous as this.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 10:40 AM
-1

Hello, time traveller from the year 1960. You'll be glad to know that in this strange amazing futuristic world we call home, we do not use such primitive technologies like "laugh tracks". They stopped being seriously used back in the 80s or so. (It seriously doesn't. In fact, chances are, The Muppet Show is the only show you've watched that regularly used a laugh track.)
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:22 PM
6

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/03/26/20090326teen-porn0326-ON.html Here's one. There's a couple more. Distributing child porn of yourself, I can understand being illegal. But to be specifically charged with "possession of child pornography" of yourself...
/r/MensRights11/06/13 01:29 PM
1

Apparently the solution to being sexually harassed... is to sexually harass someone else. Obviously.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 01:12 PM
1

What, are you saying you never liked America? You communist!
/r/MensRights11/06/13 01:04 PM
0

That hasn't been my experience.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 11:38 AM
2

Yeah. God is an all-knowing being, and he still doesn't see evidence in his claim!
/r/MensRights11/06/13 11:06 AM
1

If it wasn't a rape joke then it was still a joke because people laughed right after. What was funny about saying that? Right. So if people laugh at something, it must be an uproariously funny joke. I mean, it's not like people have a tendency to laugh at anything when they're in an audience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNiMHxu8xw Nope. Never. "Poorly coded emulators" is just comedy gold!
/r/MensRights11/06/13 11:03 AM
1

Ahem. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1g2ary/feminists_are_accusing_microsoft_for_making_a/ It's already on the front page.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 10:49 AM
1

Before I would've said there wasn't a point, since we're not popular enough to warrant one, and that people can just ask questions here. But since then, we actually have got quite a bit more... well known. So yeah, I'm in favour of one!
/r/MensRights11/06/13 10:48 AM
-2

Well, yeah. There's a difference between someone who's evil and doing something purely for their own sake, and someone who's just crazy. Anyone who's plans involve killing themselves can't be doing it out of selfishness. 'Cept suicide bombers. Sometimes. But point is: you punish the evil people and help the crazy people, even if they do the same thing.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 10:44 AM
8

Haaaaahahah, talk about a misleading title! Okay, yes, it's entirely possible for someone to be charged with a DUI before doing a Breathalyzer test. Funny how that whole concept of time works. Here's what actually happened: Man was pulled over while driving for a surprise test. Despite passing the makeshift sobriety tests (y'know, the "walk in a straight line" or "spell the alphabet backwards while shifting feet" kind), he was arrested with a DUI anyway because he had bloodshot eyes. Possibly ot…
/r/MensRights11/06/13 10:15 AM
1

And homophobia was a lot more rampant. In some ways it's better. In other ways it's a lot worse.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 10:01 AM
6

There was that one really well-known case of a child getting arrested for having child porn of herself.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:58 AM
5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P75YQHFnyKY He definitely says "those".
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:38 AM
15

Even if it is inappropriate, it's absolutely not so inappropriate that they should go to jail for it. This is something that wouldn't even get you kicked out of the White House.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:10 AM
14

and racist in nature. Intolerant. When it doesn't actually involve a person's race itself, just the culture they were raised in, it's just called intolerance.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:09 AM
3

Alright, how about this: there's three main reasons why some people want prostitution illegal. 1: It's not so victimless for the prostitute. People in general really, really don't like any case where someone is pressured into sex - let alone that they could lose their jobs for not having sex with someone. Additionally, prostitution is a very short term career; as in, after a certain age, it stops becoming generally feasible and the former prostitute is now left without any valuable skills (unles…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 10:42 PM
19

That... Is an awful lot of people. Goddamnit.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 08:38 PM
2

However, if a woman was drunk and a guy knocked her up, this subreddit would say it wasn't rape. Generally, yes, being under the influence on it's own doesn't make it rape. But from the sounds of it, it wasn't just innocent drunken sex.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 01:41 PM
0

I did. There was a single downvoted comment who took it seriously. Well, "seriously", since they weren't from in the subreddit so they were probably trolling.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:22 AM
-1

Seriously? ...seriously? No. Somehow, I do not think a joke on ImGoingToHellForThis is going to be taken as an honest opinion. Y'know, just a hunch.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:18 AM
14

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that people wearing shirts saying "Save the boobies" are not considered respectable by most people.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:05 AM
11

If I had to guess, it might have something to do with that she doesn't like the thought of them breaking up.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 06:17 PM
8

Would you be surprised to know that black people are as strong, capable, energetic, creative, etc. as white people? You could ask "If women were always the one primarily looking after the children and were the more social of the two genders, then how were men deciding the social rules? (before national broadcasting, anyway)", which is a much better question. Edit: to clarify, I'm not the one saying men decided the social rules. I meant that as a question to feminists.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 01:18 PM
1

You can tell a feminist site by how they say Anita Sarkeesian or Aradia Richards are victims of society into completely unrelated things. Twitter and Facebook are developing informal mores and codes of conduct, just like trains and other public places in the real world. No. No they're not. They're the exact same codes of conduct as everywhere else.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 12:43 PM
1

The VAWA actually got a butt-load better for men with the 2013 version! Even SAVE approve of it now!
/r/MensRights09/06/13 10:38 AM
3

If it wasn't one of the top posts, I'd have said you're overthinking it. ... Nah, I'll still say you're overthinking it. Most people really don't see that level of timidness as a good thing.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 10:29 AM
2

A lot of people don't believe they used to be a fetus any more than they believe they used to be the meat that feeds them. As in, they technically had the same cells, but they weren't living back then. And this is completely not the right place to debate when they start being alive.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 09:03 AM
1

Do you have the right to unplug me? Personal autonomy says you do. Hah, no! You lose your right to personal autonomy as soon as it involves killing people (or, more accurately, their right to life is [way] more important than your right to personal autonomy). Which is why it's not legal in any country to pull the plug after a certain point. The correct response is "When does a fetus start being alive". And you're not going to get an answer. Edit: and by "answer", I mean undeniable explanation.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 08:59 AM
10

However, I think there should be some recourse to men so they too have the choice to become parents or not. If a woman decides to carry the baby to term against the wishes of the father, then the man should be able to waive his rights to parenthood and not be forced to pay child support for a child carried to term against his will. Yup, that's pretty much the common opinion here.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 08:50 PM
17

Legally, it's the best solution. Having the man be able to veto an abortion leaves it too open to abuse - for example, a man can ruin (to a limited extent) his ex-girlfriend's life out of nothing but spite by lying about wanting to keep the child. But socially, you're totally right. It's not something the woman alone should choose. The partner may well see it as literally murdering his child, and that's not something you just ignore because you disagree.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 07:28 PM
-2

Yeah, I've seen it before. Normally, just having a woman on one side and a man on the other isn't sexism. But then it has distinctly feminine but useless points like "never criticize" and "keep a journal", and lack distinctly masculine important things like "exercise a lot" and "be competitive", and that really gives me the impression it wasn't unintentional. ...mind you, I'm not sure it's fair for me to say that, considering I'm particularly in favour of masculine traits in general. I wouldn't …
/r/MensRights08/06/13 05:25 PM
3

I disagree. Two reasons: 1: As always, feminism is about "equality", not "women's rights". It's supposed to be their job to get equal healthcare for everyone, not just more for women. 2: Just like with domestic violence, they got these services by portraying it as women needing them more than men. ...or, at least, the services that feminism is responsible for. I don't really blame/give credit to feminists for most services, I think that was just politicians appealing to women.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 12:13 PM
6

Can't call it criminal since it's not actually illegal. Just call it "healthcare discrimination" and trust that people know the implications of healthcare discrimination.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 12:10 PM
2

To add to that: It's a little unclear, since 'self-posession' is a buzzword, but basically, if it can't be compared to torture (using force) or slavery (using significant threats), it shouldn't be rape. With exceptions for unconsciousness and statutory rape.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 12:01 PM
6

tl;dr of the journal, as I understand it: Rather than defining rape in terms of the standard laws of consent, which should really include "He pretended he was X (for example, wanted to marry me) to have sex" as rape and avoids the "You should ask permission first every time before doing anything" thing that some feminists want and that "no always means no" even if everything else they did implied they wanted it, it should instead be defined as sex involving the use of force or serious threats of…
/r/MensRights08/06/13 11:59 AM
0

My annual well-woman checkups I still get angry every time I remember that that's an actual thing. Women get free healthcare checkups and men don't. So the ACA coined the term "well-woman" so men don't make the mistake of thinking they get the same service that women do. I am not making that up.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 11:02 PM
8

Part of the problem is that the young black man's body language was distinctly more shifty then the young white man. I noticed that as well, actually. The white guy's actual crouching was a lot more... professional, I suppose. Plus, they're not really evenly dressed - the black guy has a red shirt and baggy white pants, while the white guy is more 'respectfully' dressed and fully blue, and answers more like a guy who's job it is to actually get rid of left-behind bikes. As in, more easily mistak…
/r/MensRights07/06/13 10:51 PM
2

Yes they did. Despite having an only 33% approval rating, AMR has once again decided that this is an accurate representation of the community as a whole. As usual.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 02:19 PM
1

So you'd prefer a society where you could be an absolutely violent asshole with no repercussions?
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:46 PM
2

That and age of consent in Scotland is 16. There's extra restrictions for teacher/student sex. It is indeed illegal.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 10:32 AM
3

In England, to avoid power abuse, the age of consent is two years higher for teacher/student relationships. It's very much against the law.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 10:26 AM
4

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Chances are that the 'pre-menstrual syndrome' didn't affect the actual decision, especially since the judge said it was "no excuse". Considering the judge called it "anti-social" and not "domestic abuse", my bets are that he just didn't think assaulting your husband was a big deal.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 10:24 AM
3

Yeah, if the charge was dropped, it's far more likely they just didn't have enough proof or the incident wasn't really assault.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 10:23 AM
17

This is basically the same "No drawings of child porn" law redone, and goes hand in hand with "Violent videogames causes violence" theme. Which is to say, it's goddam nuts!
/r/MensRights07/06/13 10:13 AM
0

I think so. But it's still not about "denying a man his male {rape} privilege".
/r/MensRights07/06/13 08:56 AM
1

Oh. Oh yeah, the OP didn't actually mention that part. I thought they did.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 09:18 PM
13

Feminism is undefinable. Er... no, feminism is very easily definable. The only thing that's hard to define is what positions third-wave feminism actually has.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 06:02 PM
2

Yeah, the current anti-feminism page is a mess because they decided that "anti-feminism" does not mean "against feminism". But it looks like they plan on merging it soon, so that should probably fix it.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:58 PM
1

Next time, use Google Cache in your original post. Problem solved.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 04:08 PM
1

I meant disclose it specifically just before having sex. They can totally lie about it every other time. Basically, it should be basically the same as standard laws: harming another person, without their consent, is a crime. The difference being that consent, in this case, must require that the person is actually aware of the risks involved.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 04:03 PM
2

The screenshot does not match the article. As the OP said, it's extracts from the article. And yes, you could claim "But that means it could've taken things out of context"... but you should really check if other people have mentioned if it is or not first. In particular, I had already said it's accurate myself. Mind you, it was a bit silly for the OP to be so adamant about not linking it in the original post too. Or, at the very least, the Google Cache version.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 03:39 PM
2

What I'd much prefer is that anyone with any kind of STD must disclose it with someone before having sex. And then mandatory yearly screenings or something. I mean, it wouldn't get the boyfriend in this situation arrested, but it would (most likely) have stopped him from getting the STD in the first place.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 02:12 PM
2

On top of that, I just want to say: there's really no point on reading the rest of the article. It's really long, whiny, pointless, and can be summed up to "I had a boyfriend. He cheated on me."
/r/MensRights06/06/13 02:01 PM
2

On that note, does anyone have any statistics on the gender ratios of people who call helplines?
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:26 AM
0

Well there's always the ol' "The ACA doesn't cover mental healthcare" point. But otherwise, yeah, there's nothing specifically male-exclusive about this.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:22 AM
2

For it is only a matter of time before the stars align, and all is devoured!
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:06 AM
2

So what part of that, exactly, is "This is discrimination against women"?
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:04 AM
7

Well it IS hate. This isn't some petty Tumblr blog, this is an actual news article. And, with the exception of pretty much that one line, it's not fair criticism - it's nearly all "She had multiple husbands? What a loser! No common sense at all!". It's hateful, and it's clearly intended to be hateful. Heck, it even has the line: but changed his name by deed poll, which probably says all we need to know about him. "Your husband changed his surname to something abnormal? Why did you even marry him…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 10:55 AM
3

Yup. It was a pretty big deal when they changed that! ... Pity the crime of rape by a woman still doesn't exist in English law, or it might have had more of an effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape#United_Kingdom
/r/MensRights06/06/13 08:59 AM
3

Decriminalize prostitution Oh no, they don't want to do that at all. They want it to be totally criminal, but where half of the people involved can get off scott-free no matter what they do. Incidentally, these half-of-the-people-involved just so happen to be women.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 10:43 PM
5

where going after the prostitutes (the supply) doesn't so much. Other way around. In... pretty much everything, going after the supply is the most efficient way of stopping anything. In any case, what you just said is completely wrong to begin with because they already do go after the dealers! And, y'know, they're not going to arrest people who're forced into it! For the most part, prostitution is illegal to protect the prostitutes. From human trafficking to pressuring someone into sex to just b…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 10:43 PM
6

Dress codes can indeed be gender-specific. It might be iffy if it's not part of the written dress code, but if it is, you're completely out of luck.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 07:19 PM
4

So this is less a men's right's issue than a conventional civil rights issue. Would you also then say it's not a racial issue?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:34 PM
6

This has been CMM's weekly joke-everyone's-already-heard. Join us next week as he makes an interesting observation about glass drums!
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:15 PM
51

It came up recently already, but it's worth reiterating again: America's "Strict liability" (no defense allowed, even if it was an accident) laws are absolutely awful! In my own country, Ireland, it's against the very constitution itself to make laws like this!
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:12 PM
12

If all one had to do to get out of punishment for statutory rape was claim, "she told me she was 18yrs-old" all the adults seeking sex with teens would say it. A teen-seeking adult would have to have some indication that the person isn't a teen beforehand. And that gets used against them in court. We do not have to sentence every single person who says they didn't know. While this girl could possibly look 18yrs-old, there is no way she looks old enough to have been married and divorced. Despite …
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:07 PM
12

RationalWiki God, the feminist hijack of that is so bad. So bad. Not because it's just biased towards feminism or whatever, but because any articles relating to any opposition of feminist ideals are horribly-written un-sourced garbage! As far away from 'rational' as you can get! Seriously, the pro-life page includes such headings as "Racism?" (no sources), "My abortion is ethical, all the others aren't" (purely anecdotal sources), "Direction action" [read: terrorism] (no sources, doesn't even ex…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:00 PM
19

BBB is useless, but this is exactly the kind of thing radio stations absolutely love! Just make sure you have actually talked to a manager first, and not just an employee.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 05:44 PM
9

Of course not! ...if you don't want student financial aid, will never need additional state-funded job training, and have absolutely no intention to ever have a federal job. Otherwise, yes, you have to sign up. Or, if you're over 25... change country, since you're now permanently banned from those three things. It's pretty much the ultimate counterpoint for "Gender-specific selective service doesn't matter, because the US will never institute the draft". If the government really believed they ne…
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:00 PM
14

I'm gonna be frank: both of you are acting childish here. This person for going with "Oh if you disagree with a feminist video you obviously have women problems", and you for telling them to 'go take a fuck' and calling them brainwashed. There are proper ways to handle petty insults, and responding with your own petty insults isn't one of them. Because it makes you look too lame to think of something cool to say.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:33 PM
1

There's a very good reason he pretty much refuses to say what the law is: Because the UK law on rape is absolutely rubbish! That being said... but helpfully at the same time, completely refuses to clarify ambiguous situations when males will actually be be accused as rapists. Didn't see this in the video.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:05 AM
1

In theory, it's to keep rapists off the campus until they're actually sentenced. Since it's not a criminal case and they can't do full investigations, and since being temporarily suspended isn't a big punishment, they don't use quite the same level of burden of proof, but they can't just kick any old person who's accused. In theory. But the system is so badly designed that it's not even close. Y'know how I said "temporary"? It's rarely temporary, campuses will permanently ban people even if they…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 11:58 PM
4

I did not hear about that Yeah, nobody was talking about what actually went into the Act for some reason. Heck, even here, I bet most people don't know the 2013 version removed the ability for fundees to discriminate on the basis of gender - which is bloody huge! SAVE turned from hating it to loving it overnight!
/r/MensRights03/06/13 10:37 PM
43

Well it's true. Millions of women get AIDS from individuals like him. "Like him" being humans. Humans ruin it for everyone.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 10:08 PM
9

What the heck is with the "Don't use condoms" part for a pro-abstinence ad? I mean, if you wanted to make a pro-abstinence AIDS ad, you say something like: Condoms are the perfect protection against AIDS. Sexual partners who lie to you about AIDS are also the kind of people to have sex with you when you're too drunk to remember about condoms. Simple. Both encourages condoms and abstinence at the same time. Instead it reads like a pro-condom ad. "You could have abstinence... or you could just use…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 10:07 PM
2

Doubt it. Unless there's relevant information missing (like him protesting or whatever), it was consensual. "She pulled off the bandage too fast" isn't a prison sentence. Well, it could be negligence if waxing materials specifically warn against that. I dunno, I've never used them. No points for guessing why.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 09:40 PM
5

Better start regulating what people eat It's already completely illegal to take non-prescribed dangerous drugs. So yes, yes they have. Edit: oh, wait, that might not actually be true. It's illegal to share them, yes, but I'm not sure about laws that make it illegal to use them.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 06:49 PM
1

Actually, on that note, is it illegal for someone to hire/promote/fire someone else if they do/don't have sex with them? And if so, in what way? I kinda always assumed it is (which would let me make a witty point about how those health/labour laws already criminalise prostitution anyway), but I've looked it up and I can't find anything on the matter.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 06:46 PM
1

I get why they'd want to make it illegal for pimping but not illegal for actual prostituting - although really, that's just standard legal prostitution - but I simply cannot comprehend how it's supposed to work to only criminalise half the people involved. I mean, that'd mean prostitutes could put out public advertisements asking people to commit a crime without any risk or problem, and all the police could do is keep a watch on them and arrest anyone that goes for it! That's the exact opposite …
/r/MensRights03/06/13 06:37 PM
1

a victimless crime ...can very easily become a traumatic crime, when it involves sex. We know particularly bad sex can be traumatic. There's a very good reason the state hates any instance of serious pressure (as in, them losing their job at least) when it comes to sex. And they then make it illegal for prostitutes to stop them putting themselves in that position. On the grounds that "The state must also protect you from yourself" - it's a lot more debatable if it should, but that's a different …
/r/MensRights03/06/13 06:16 PM
0

Where do you draw the line between a man paying for sex, and a man leaving a cash 'gift' after sex. The line is when the gift was agreed on beforehand. Aside from that only a pretty damn stupid prostitute would agree to be paid after having sex.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 06:06 PM
1

That's deception. Coercion is the use of serious threats, or something similar, to make someone do something they wouldn't have done otherwise.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 05:03 PM
0

First one is rape because it was an unwilling sex act made possible through coercion. Coercion? Explain.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 04:30 PM
14

Without specifically focusing on England: 1) Depends on the law. Nearly every state/country has laws saying sex is rape if the other person is pretending to be someone the victim personally knows, but not every state/country thinks oral sex on a man is sex. And I don't know if sexual assault laws generally have that imitation person clause. If it's illegal, everyone else involved may also gets charged too if they planned it beforehand (making it a conspiracy, making everyone in the group respons…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 04:29 PM
2

'Course not. If we knew, then they'd be already stopped for it.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 11:11 AM
1

I posted this because this type of stuff happens much more frequently to boys than girls. A foregone conclusion. Boys generally do have a tougher time in schools, but it's usually because of what's considered socially acceptable (femininity, discrimination against boys) and what isn't (masculinity). This is something that has nothing to do with the standard social mores. So yes, you do need to prove it happens much more towards boys. *A simplified explanation, of course. It's a bit more complex …
/r/MensRights03/06/13 11:07 AM
1

socio-political positions of r/MensRights regarding these "traps"? Marxist doggy-style?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 07:45 PM
28

WHEREAS the objectives of these groups are to increase restrictions and limits on custodial parents' rights and to decrease child support obligations of non-custodial parents by using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers; and Wait... this is a bit hard to read, but did they just say that political activism against them is akin to domestic violence? What?! by working for the adoption of legislation such as presumption of joint custody There's a lot of genuine…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 11:49 AM
14

Man, Prudence's response was pretty rubbish. The actual response should've been: Even if you could marry a rich, successful man because of your looks, it won't be a fulfilling relationship because he only married you for your looks. You should only break up with your man if you think you could still get a better one if you were only average looking.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 08:51 PM
2

Man, what the hell? They're supposed to only have one sexist article or so a year. But now there's been two in one week! It's really hard to say they're getting better when they do stuff like this. Mind, there's a good chance they didn't reject it simply because Rowntree is one of their resident artists, and can't write factual stuff for squat. So the staff probably didn't want to point out that their comic artist and writer is actually really bad at writing (writing informational stuff, that is…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 12:42 AM
1

I think PUAs are the furthest thing from 'in the closet' possible.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 12:36 AM
3

Happy cakeday and/or cakeday-related products or services!
/r/MensRights01/06/13 12:35 AM
3

God, don't be so syxist. The 'Y' differentiates it from sex, because I like sex and I don't want it associated with syxism. (/s)
/r/MensRights01/06/13 12:32 AM
5

The 'Friend Zone' is a term I don't like, simply because it's too vague and has too many possible meanings. But god damn does it piss me off when some people just go with whatever definition they want and pretend that every single person complaining about the Friend Zone used that definition.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 12:30 AM
7

You also missed: -Accuses anyone who hates feminism of hating women. Which actually does mean the author is a feminist.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 12:20 AM
32

Allow me to summarise: College boys are more interested in sex and flings than they are in dating. I find this personally offensive, and also sexist somehow. Also, they're (nearly?) all frat-boy stereotypes, because apparently I live in a badly-written movie. Oh, and if women have any personality flaws, it's because of men.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 10:07 AM
2

You mean that it's basically based entirely on Hollywood movies and such and that most men do not ask each other about the size of their genitals? Kinda.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 11:30 PM
1

It's obviously a parody... But I don't get what it's a parody of.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 11:09 PM
1

IF i am the only one in this entire subreddit who's seen the show (which i highly doubt) then that makes my post even more important because it would mean that i'm informing people who normally wouldn't know this type of content is being aired. Hm, alright. I'd still disagree that that's helpful, but I suppose that's more of a subjective opinion than something I'm certain of.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 11:00 PM
10

It appears to us that to criminalise in a serious way a person who is mentally innocent is indeed “to inflict a grave injury on that person’s dignity and sense of worth” and to treat him as “little more than a means to an end”, in the words of Wilson J. It appears to us that this, in turn, constitutes a failure by the State in its laws to respect, defend and vindicate the rights to liberty and to good name of the person so treated, contrary to the State’s obligations under Article 40 of the Cons…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 10:18 PM
37

Yes we do. In particular, we're all in favour of censoring Manhood Academy stuff from this subreddit.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 06:34 PM
1

The best part is that the actual topic itself - whether it's sexism to sexually harass only one gender specifically because you're sexually attracted to that gender - is debatable, and I'd be willing to bet more people do think it's not sexism (or, at least, not any more than not being bisexual). In other words, I think she actually got into an online debate on the matter, and her opinion wasn't as popular, so she made a comic about how all these real, intelligent people who disagreed with her a…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 06:14 PM
0

There are still issues that affect women and need to be fixed, y'know. The problem with modern feminism isn't that there's no need for modern feminism, it's that modern feminism is goddam crazy now.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:34 AM
26

Everybody else is talking about all kinds of genital mutilation when they talk about female circumcision. I have literally never heard a single politician talk about how bad FGM is and say "Except for the not-so-bad kinds, they're okay" - let alone an actual law. The UN resolution sure as hell doesn't mention any exceptions!
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:30 AM
3

For the record, the actual current law in the state says if there's less than a four year difference, the person doesn't have to register as a sex offender.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:19 AM
6

Ireland. Ireland's "Women under 17 can't be charged with statutory rape" law is one of the two laws in the country (the other being circumcision) that's an outright double standard. I don't know why it's still there though, considering there was national outrage over it the first time it actually had an effect.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:17 AM
13

She likely did take advantage of you since you were drunk and depressed but you can't know if she raped you based on what you've said. Perhaps you can ask around to find out more from people who were there. Agreed. It could be "You were unconscious and the girl decided to take advantage of that". It could also be "You were both extremely drunk, and awake, and you just couldn't remember it."
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:15 AM
-7

Your story a good example of why the men's rights movement, and its fight against SRS-type feminism Not necessarily feminism. It's important to differentiate actual feminist activists with people who just act like them in certain situations. Just like how everyone who's anti-feminist isn't an MRA.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:05 AM
24

Except we're talking about having the clitoral hood removed, which is still treated as outrageous even though it is on the same level.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 08:50 AM
6

Absolutely. The reverse is also equal: most men do want to look like Superman, so in that sense, it's a male power fantasy. Buuut most women want to look like Wonder Woman. Effectively, the only difference between the two common fictional characters is that a very strong woman will have unrealistically small muscles, and that *sometimes women wear 'sexier' clothing. But only sometimes - Superman wears skin-tight latex that clearly highlights his crotch. I find that half of the people who believe…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 09:19 PM
0

Mmmnnnnnearly. But the difference here is that it's not just an excuse, it's an actual explanation of why anti-feminists do make these kind of mistakes and why feminists don't do what they should to prevent them.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 09:07 PM
1

Those are maggots wiggling around...not the horse moving itself. Whatever about this horse, this metaphor really isn't going anywhere.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 08:59 PM
2

By all means, if I thought there was something to be gained from talking about it, I'd have no problem. But the difference between the Samsung ad and this is that a lot of people have actually seen the Samsung ad. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the only one in this entire subreddit who's seen this show. And the people who do watch it, and enjoy it, are either too young or too... stupid, frankly, to really care about the implications it has on men.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 08:52 PM
3

namely: it's not like radical feminists have a history of codified, clearly-defined, easily-accessible beliefs that anyone can refer to if they have internet access. This is the most important point, I think. With Men's Rights, if they need convincing that X isn't normal, I direct them to this subreddit. Posts are sorted by actual popularity, so the non-standard opinions get pushed down. It's a great indicator of what the MRM in general thinks of things. With Feminism... there's nothing like tha…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:44 PM
2

Drawing far-reaching conclusions from dubious, old and small sample-sized studies is what feminists do. Why can't I too? Because drawing far-reaching conclusions from dubious, old and small sample-sized studies is what feminists do.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 02:49 PM
14

Yup. As the article pointed out, there's even a 16,000 'likes' group that's pretty much nothing but "Beat up your man lol" that remains un-censored. Oh. Oh. But they've already accounted for that! You see, they've demanded that Facebook moderators be trained to see it differently if it's against a woman! Because "of the pandemic of violence against women"! Seriously!
/r/MensRights29/05/13 02:41 PM
-3

On the topic of "What's acceptable humour and what's not", there's a simple rule I follow for any attempt at controversial jokes: Anything that's intended as an insult is bad, no matter what it is. An attempt to offend is, itself, offensive. Similarly, taking any stereotype as actually true is also insulting. The rest of these are going to be about what're subjectively jokes and what crosses the line. Anything that's just plain insulting, like saying "Beat up black people", is bad. Even as a jok…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 02:39 PM
5

They haven't actually said what their plan is, they haven't actually agreed with the feminists, they just said they don't like how it is right now. So it could go either way.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:50 PM
1

Is my math wrong Horribly wrong. If 75% of households are married women with children, then that's 40% - (25*0.75)% = 21%. Which is a lot closer to 25%. (The article says 1 in 4 are single moms, so I'm going with 25% and 75%).
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:36 PM
7

Men now don't dare approach intelligent women for courting because they fear, and rightly so, they'll use their cunning and advantaged position legally for maximum hurt. Most people aren't even aware of the bias in the court system, let alone avoid getting married because of it. And hardly anyone would say women with a higher IQ are significantly more likely to screw you over in court. This is still ignoring, of course, that we're talking about people who married between the 30s and 70s! Modern …
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:20 PM
3

I wouldn't blame Facebook for anything yet, since they haven't done anything wrong. It's only the feminist advocacy groups that are making the bullcarp demands, Facebook only said they'll do a better job stopping hate speech. But it's certainly something to keep an eye out for.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:08 PM
19

"Effectively train moderators to understand how online harassment differently affects women and men, in part due to the real-world pandemic of violence against women." Now they're not even pretending they don't have a double standard!
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:05 PM
2

MTV endorses gender stereotypes? Why I never! And here I was thinking that MTV was quality, wholesome entertainment that never tried to get more views by pandering to idiots. Really, it's MTV. They do this kind of thing all the time. They're always about one step away from actually endorsing drugs. Complaining about one specific show on MTV is like [insert witty simile here]. The best you can do is teach people not to watch MTV.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 11:09 AM
3

Simple: it is true that most men want to look like Superman. It's also true that most women want to look like Wonder Woman. The only - the only - difference in these kind of characters is that one has realistic muscles. Even the "skimpy costumes" part isn't right, since Superman wears skin-tight fabric that puts a huge emphasis on his crotch. I personally don't like fanservice characters in Whatever because they usually take away from the character. It's hard to take a warrior woman seriously wh…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 10:43 AM
2

It's very easy for a company to work around an unfair dismissal for things like this. Racism and sexism and such are a lot harder, since they can be spotted by a pattern, but this wouldn't.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 09:53 AM
0

Yes, indicating to HR that you love sexual harassing other people. Can't see how that could possibly go wrong.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 09:49 AM
5

And I'm guessing it's not actually RobotAnna, since nobody makes an Alt account and still share their details. It defeats the entire point of an Alt.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 09:48 AM
6

People who throw around the words "sue" and "lawyer" get put on the fast track to getting fired. Companies don't want a lawyer-happy person anywhere near their premises.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 09:46 AM
2

Convictions based on he said/she said (in other words, zero evidence) are routine. Source?
/r/MensRights29/05/13 09:42 AM
3

Not as much of a black mark as getting fired over a sexual harassment claim. By all means, protest it as much as possible, and don't ever let anyone actually accuse you of harassment, but if you can't convince HR otherwise, do take the course.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 09:24 AM
1

In the Kate case, it was 18 and 14 in the police report. Specifically It was between 36 and 48 months difference. It's possible that this guy was over 48 months older, which would make him eligible for being put on the sex offender registry. But I think it's safe to say that that possibility isn't what's making people not want to support him.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 08:22 AM
0

here it's pretty hard to escape the evidence of privilege and a double standard in myself Fix it.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 08:20 AM
4

Oh christ. Okay, I've only read one point, but this is so bad that I'm going to critique the entire thing. First point: A lot of women are shallow and vain, care too much about looking attractive and what other people think of them. Which is certainly true, unfortunately (hey hey, the article says it's 60%, you can't call me sexist for it). Her advice here is... specifically to not tell those women to stop being so superficial, and instead tell men to stop judging people's appearances. ...Right.…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 09:39 PM
5

And that, if the selective service doesn't change, it'll be all-male next time too.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 08:33 PM
5

For firefighters and such, yes. For the military though, you do get varying opinions on whether women should have lower standards. 'Sides, the draft is a male-only thing anyway. And it'll be male-only again if we get into another massive war, unless the government changes their policy.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 08:31 PM
0

I think it's not unfair to say NAFALT in this case though.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 01:23 PM
1

I like how Yahoo deliberately left out the actual reason they're doing it - because porn makes people sexist and violent. Apparently. "Lads' mags dehumanise and objectify women, promoting harmful attitudes that underpin discrimination and violence against women and girls. Reducing women to sex objects sends out an incredibly dangerous message that women are constantly sexually available and displaying these publications in everyday spaces normalises this sexism."
/r/MensRights28/05/13 12:21 PM
1

female *feminist
/r/MensRights28/05/13 12:02 PM
4

You'll have to wait until next week. Tomorrow's subject is "Women: are they really from Venus? How to spot and foil alien conspiracies!"
/r/MensRights28/05/13 12:00 PM
2

I have a golden rule about news articles: if the headline is phrased as a question, the answer is always "no".
/r/MensRights28/05/13 09:59 AM
3

But you're also all ignorant and childishly selfish if you think that you've got it so much worse than everyone else. Good news: I never said that. In fact, there's actually very few (but still some) statements here saying anyone has it worse than anyone else at life in general. Mainly because, if it's not immediately obvious (like old-timey sexism), it's going to be very subjective and pointless. Every one of the points made in the article is spot on Would you like to explain how these points a…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 09:47 AM
1

And then it's pictured next to Wonder Woman, the superhero of infinite compassion. Compassion! Wonder Woman is not just a strong female character, goddamnit! (Well, except in the 2011 Live Action show. God, that was hilariously bad. Go watch the Linkara review of it!) It's like a picture of Jesus, and next to it is "If you don't put your faith in my abilities, I'll put my foot in your ass!"
/r/MensRights27/05/13 09:37 PM
8

Cracked uses satire as jokes, but it rarely makes actual satirical articles - and if it does, it's blatant. It's not The Onion, or anything close. There's nothing to suggest that the opinions in this article are satirical.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 08:28 PM
3

WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO READ WHAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TO READ. Read? What, you buy them for the articles?
/r/MensRights27/05/13 02:21 PM
14

I'd propose a compromise - all lads mags should tone down their front covers massively. I'd accept that as a compromise if someone actually gave a good reason to. The group's accusations that they encourage sexism and violence is... not.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 02:20 PM
5

For half of them. The other half think porn is basically the best thing ever and it's sexist to have negative opinions on porn. Unless it's in an ad or something. Then it's totally discriminatory and encouraging sexism. Duh.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 02:17 PM
9

That's just unreasonable. Like the group said, store managers shouldn't have to handle these kind of magazines. This comment is discriminatory against people born with x-ray based mutations in their fingers!
/r/MensRights27/05/13 02:15 PM
4

I'm... not sure what to think about that. To have barely-censored porn on front covers sold clearly in shops - which is essentially the same as a poster of the same. It's vaguely sexual harassment, but I can't tell if it's actually bad or if it's just a made-up standard. (Although actually putting up posters of your own personal sexual interests IS sexual harassment, and for good reason) Either way, there's a difference between "No softcore porn on front covers" and "No softcore porn magazines w…
/r/MensRights27/05/13 01:01 PM
2

I wouldn't be surprised if there's more people angry at the "Want to go shopping?" line than the rest of it.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 11:02 AM
7

do you think this is a necessary precaution to protect the women from being violently molested by sex-fiendish males? Depends on the figures. It could be. It could also be just another "Crossing the road to avoid the black guy" thing. Well, except for: Seeing as how this is a place far away from home, men away from their wives and girlfriends and so on You say that about men, but not about women. That's just a straight-out double standard.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 10:53 AM
2

Oh okay. What's that got to do with false rape accusations?
/r/MensRights27/05/13 10:36 AM
1

False rape accusations Huh?
/r/MensRights27/05/13 10:33 AM
-4

Probably. She's pretty unreliable, but it could still have happened. Either way, so what? There's nothing notable about a single crazy person lying or a single crazy person getting assaulted.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 10:32 AM
1

Firstly, "the victim is drunk or high" isn't rape in the UK. Not unless they were actually drugged against their will. Buuuuut given that it also isn't rape in the UK if it's by a woman, I'm going to assume he didn't know that either and is just going from what the common definition is. Other fun fact: as far as I can tell (and I looked profusely), Ireland gets around this issue by not legally defining consent! They use the word in laws, but they don't give it an actual meaning. As crazy as it s…
/r/MensRights26/05/13 12:30 PM
9

Summary: The author likes GoneWild. But some other people do not. That is proof of misogyny. Someone pointed out that a picture taken was in UCF's bathrooms. That's totally doxxing and they deserved to be banned. The fact that they aren't is proof of misogyny. "Her pictures [that she uploaded] were downloaded and saved without her consent". Redditors care more about naked pictures if the girl doesn't want them to. Even the the girl in question uploaded them herself. Blames it on the "fetishizati…
/r/MensRights26/05/13 10:51 AM
9

Yes, oddly enough. It had a .6m starting investment and hires 25 editors. And yes, it's pretty rubbish.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 10:27 AM
1

I... ...do not, actually. Weird. Considering it seemed so common-knowledge, I would've sworn it'd be pretty easy to find online. Welp, guess I'm gonna have to forget that one!
/r/MensRights25/05/13 05:12 PM
2

No, I'm serious. Either you've been looking at completely different topics and comments than I have, or you're mistaking people who think 18-on-14 isn't okay for... what you said.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 01:49 PM
2

The third reason this pisses me off is the significant number of dumbass MRAs who think that the way to help males in Hunt’s situation is to let the state crucify their female equivalent! I've been in a few topics here about it, and I literally haven't found a single person like that.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 11:25 AM
2

Yeah, Ireland back in 1970 pretty much sucked for everyone! Around the end of the 60s, the Republic of Ireland was in pretty much the worst state it had been since... ever, I suppose. It was the end of over 100 years of depopulation, the GDP was just 1/4 what it is now in this recession, and the culture had ridiculously strict religious rules (that, thankfully, have gone away entirely now). Oh yeah, and the whole terrorism and the massive religious discrimination issues too (Catholics only got e…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 12:05 AM
8

MTV as usual then, eh?
/r/MensRights24/05/13 02:25 PM
1

Yeah, that... that's not even remotely true.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 10:29 AM
3

It's specifically 18 and 14 on the police report. Since it's between a 3 and 4 year difference, all the other articles have been saying either 17 and 14 or 18 and 15 because that makes her look more innocent.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 10:29 AM
4

Jezebel's actual take on the matter is... a little stupid. Basically, they do point out that the writers were just really lazy than that they were actually sexist - which is presumably true. But also uses it as an excuse for why it shouldn't be a problem. Culminating in this line: If anything, this ad should be considered offensive for its grotesque sound effects. In other words, Jezebel found something that's actually, and by their own admission, sexist. But since it's against men, they won't a…
/r/MensRights24/05/13 09:57 AM
3

It's not that it's about an inhuman grunting slob. That's a little sexist, but hardly more than a joke. It's the whole thing about an evolved man... being a woman's slave. And having the two of those in the same ad is just way over the line.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 09:44 AM
4

Fun fact: during the Apartheid, there were quite a lot of black police officers who'd beat other innocent black people half to death. But I guess that's a-ok now, because black people can't be racist! Apparently.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 09:36 AM
3

Coming up in the comments: people who don't understand that the problem with a he-says/she-says case is that you need proof before saying which one is lying, and pick a side to believe in anyway.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 11:42 PM
0

Thought so. Which is why I said in the comment that started this chain: I'm just asking, because the only people I've found saying that is the criminal's family. And I don't trust them not to lie.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 11:37 PM
3

Just to clarify three things here: 1: The age difference is between 36 and 48 months. 2: If you actually think it's because the parents are homophobic, you're really gullible. Possibly right, but still really gullible. 3: Flordia's Romeo & Juliet law does cover this (victim is 14 years old or over and less than 4 years age difference between the two), but it only removes the requirement to register as a sex offender, and not the rest of the crime's punishment. Or "crime", if you prefer. (As far …
/r/MensRights23/05/13 11:12 PM
1

You know what, you're right! I mean, if Obama ever achieves his prime directive of banning all guns and carbon dioxide-emitting vehicles, then assasinates... himself and takes over the country, we're going to need a hero! A 13th century Mongolian war hero!
/r/MensRights23/05/13 04:51 PM
1

It's a good thing he wasn't badly hurt. Knife wounds are usually a lot more... serious. http://i.imgur.com/WgLv4.png [nsfw]
/r/MensRights23/05/13 04:42 PM
1

What, you think 13th Century Mongolian War Studies is useful? Because that's what we're talking about. 13th Century Mongolian War Studies.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 10:23 AM
1

I guess it depends on where you live. In Ireland, everyone always says the same thing: Computer Science gets you jobs! There are an absolute load of well-paid jobs available right now. In my year, everyone in the class had a full-time job nailed down they even graduated! ...if you can actually get a degree, of course. Programming isn't easy.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 10:17 AM
1

Computer Science is the exception. Simply because you can find pretty much always find a use for informatics in any subject. Even with Women's Studies, you could probably do a thesis on something like a program to create an analysis how often women face abuse on the internet, or something like that.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 09:59 AM
10

Feeling violated and being violated can be two different things. Oooooh. You haven't heard yet then, I take it. http://www.cotwa.info/2013/05/most-shocking-federal-policy-yet-sexual.html
/r/MensRights23/05/13 09:39 AM
3

Actually I was thinking of people in stable relationships too. I know way too many loving and even married couples on contraception who still get unplanned pregnancies for one reason or another. Whether it's that she forgot to take the pill, they decided one kind of contraception was enough, or whether they were just really drunk at one point.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 09:26 AM
0

I... er, yes. She is indeed gay. But I'm objecting more to the part where you said her parents were deeply homophobic. I thought that was obvious.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 09:24 AM
0

I can't see it. Quote it for me.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 10:40 PM
3

Oh right, forgot to say: Is it illegal? I wouldn't think something like this would actually be against the law.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 05:05 PM
3

I cannot emphasise vasectomies enough if you're having sex but don't want to have kids in the next... 5 years, let's say. I say 5 years because even if you do want kids in the future, you're better off just adopting than risking an unplanned pregnancy.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 05:03 PM
4

Because if any of them had treated her right, then she wouldn't be available for you! Yes, that's how relationships work. Totally. Women have no concept of 'preference' or 'ideal partner' whatsoever - anyone who doesn't lie to her is just as good a boyfriend as anyone else. No way would a woman end a relationship with an honest guy! Point 3 is pretty obvious. Point 2... is shallow. Really shallow. But I'm not allowed to say that, because people say "But I like when my partner does that for me. D…
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:59 PM
0

You three make the dumbest love triangle.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:43 PM
-18

Listen, trust me on this: you do not want to know.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:39 PM
-1

I hope for your sake that's not a serious question. Or else I think I'll have to explain how heterosexual sex works.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:35 PM
7

Try again, then threaten litigation and to the press. The press? Come on, the press don't even care that less than 1% of domestic violence shelter funding helps men! No way they're going to care about a single university giving funds for a women's group but not for a men's. Especially when the men's group side are arguing for segregation.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:33 PM
1

Does that count as attempted incest?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:18 PM
2

The truth of the matter is, the 15 year old's mother doesn't approve of her daughter lifestyle and called the police as soon as the 18 y/o was no longer a minor. And what do you base that 'truth' on?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:18 PM
2

I think the bigger issue is regarding LGBT rights and how this event was influenced on the sexual orientation of this girl. Sooooource? And no, the criminal's parents are not a reliable source.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:15 PM
4

You can't be charged for turning somebody gay though?! Soulcake means that the victim's parents supposedly only called the police about the crime because of their homophobia. 'Supposedly', in this case, meaning 'according to the accused's family'.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:14 PM
2

I hate this sub's tendency to try to extrapolate societal reactions from things like this and image it as part of an anti-man crusade. This sub should be about actual infringement against men's right, not imagined slights. [...] I'm also pleasantly surprised there's been such an outpouring of support considering it's a lesbian couple, especially in a southern state. A-hem.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:11 PM
2

because the parents of the "victim" in this situation are filing because they think the older girl tried to turn their daughter gay. I've asked about three people in this thread so far: what's your proof of this?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:08 PM
3

Teens fucking teens should never be prosecuted 13 and 19 is still fine?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:06 PM
2

Well, considering the "victim"'s parents only pressed charges because they basically blame the older girl for trying to turn their daughter gay. Proof?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:00 PM
2

It's only a big deal because she is gay. Ah, yes. Say, would you mind providing the proof of this accusation? I'm just asking, because the only people I've found saying that is the criminal's family. And I don't trust them not to lie.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:59 PM
1

...Dorkrock said, talking to someone who could be 14 or 40.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:55 PM
2

Don't like it. It turns it from a law that's always illegal into a law that's only illegal if you're unlucky. The same crimes should have the same punishment. It shouldn't depend on whether the kid actually feels like the person should go to jail or not. Especially since it'd result in the kind of situation we have now with countries that don't have the "if they're close enough in age it's fine" laws, where everyone still has underage sex, even though it's totally illegal, because it's not likel…
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:52 PM
3

That is a large gap, but it's overkill to go all the way to sex offender registration with them. Nah, seems fair to me. Just probation is just another way of saying "You're always allowed to do it once", and sex offender registration is farer than the alternative: time in prison.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:36 PM
2

I'd agree. Or, I'd agree that it shouldn't be measured in base years. But a 36-month difference is still too big, I say.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:19 PM
0

Yeah, I do say. I also say that murdering puppies is illegal, even though I am not one of the puppies and that the puppies never asked for my help.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:19 PM
1

A lot of people here are under 14. A lot of people here are over 40. They're peers.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:12 PM
1

They'll end up getting work that is no better than a dish washer and living under a bridge, if they are lucky. What punishment, exactly, are you talking about here?
/r/MensRights22/05/13 03:11 PM
3

The police report says 14.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 08:46 PM
1

When confornted about what can a guy do to avoid parenthood, he simply says, "don't have sex" That, and "wear protection", are the only things I can think of for a guy to avoid parenthood too. It's not how I'd like it to be, but it's the way it is. Well, and criminal actions. They work too.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 04:50 PM
2

Did you just ask me to take naked pictures for you?
/r/MensRights21/05/13 04:39 PM
8

Yes. As it turns out, saying something on the internet using a throw-away account with a picture that'd be impossible to identify the person with... isn't grounds for a call to the police. It'd probably be removed by the mods at least... if there was any actual reason to believe she was actually serious. Incidentally, I once raped a bear.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 04:33 PM
44

Not to stop an 18 year old from getting with a 16 year old or whatever this is. It's 18 and 14. That's too much of a gap for Romeo And Juliet laws, I say. And just to clarify, in terms of months that's somewhere between 36 and 48, for those wondering how the change in ages works into it. But since it's still measured in years (for whatever reason), she's still being charged as 18 and 14.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 04:24 PM
2

I like those comments. Those are great comments!
/r/MensRights21/05/13 04:21 PM
1

Yes, he does. What's wrong with that?
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:13 PM
2

So basically, you're asking "How would you feel if you looked androgynous"? I imagine that'd be kinda cool. In a "You're different in a way that has no actual effect on anything". I like standing out!
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:13 AM
10

Yeah, that's always my response when someone brings this up. You can't believe in equality while at the same time believe that men are massively more violent than women.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:29 PM
15

And the British legal definition of rape too.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:28 PM
1

I found out actually: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=high%20femme "High femme" is just another buzzword too.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:06 PM
-1

Is it? I've never heard it before in my life myself.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:05 PM
6

I did guess as much (although I still frown on this kind of register - the point on using "big words" is to convey a meaning that would take much longer to explain in simpler terms, but this is the opposite), but there's one key point: within her social network She's not talking to her social network, she's talking to ordinary people.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 05:05 PM
70

I swear, this article is 50% buzzwords! I mean, the message aside, it's utterly hilarious how badly written this article is. I'm doing a PhD and I still think this article is too hard to read! I'm going to quote some key parts and try to simplify them without losing their meaning whatsoever. Many derided the group for elevating traditional masculine traits and thus perpetuating misogyny among gay men, but as a queer woman, I see that this form of masculine privilege doesn't just operate in the g…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:02 PM
1

You may be surprised to know that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" isn't an actual law.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 12:27 PM
0

I completely agree it's a problem, but I really hate how he intends to fix it. Rather than actually finding out why certain people are so against being a father, or making incentives for them to look after their children, or making a rousing speech about how even though it's stressful now, most grandparents don't regret having children and explaining the reasons why... ...he instead gives a speech that basically goes "Y'know who sucks? You, if you don't look after this kid."
/r/MensRights20/05/13 11:22 AM
1

I don't like his way of trying to fix it though. Rather than actually finding out why people don't want to look after their children, or why they still have so much unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sex, or how to actually make an incentive for families to stick together, he instead makes a speech that does nothing but try to shame men into doing something they simply do not want to do. It's why we all hate the phrase "man up". Because it always means "man up and do what I want you to do…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 10:47 AM
0

It reeks of the assumption that sex is just something everyone does from puberty onward, and that unwanted pregnancies are just something that can happen to a person Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Buuut somehow I don't think that speech would be as popular.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 10:43 AM
4

Don't dump her for having a theory that just sounds crazy, if they have a reason. But I asked what led her to this belief, and she said that nobody has proved her otherwise. Do dump her for this. Believing something because it's possible is the mark of a true idiot. It is the second worst reason possible to believe something, right before "Because my emotions say so" (don't date anyone with arachnophobia, guys). And it's not going to be limited to a single thing - someone who believes that's rea…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 10:15 AM
3

Thanks for the heads up. I haven't seen anyone use it yet myself, but I'm sure I'll find one sooner or later.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 08:01 PM
2

"Mermaids"? Where does she say anything about mermaids? At all?
/r/MensRights17/05/13 11:43 AM
2

by wading into the water for safety (and carrying her child in her arms), she would naturally walk upright Man first learned to walk by... walking? That's not right. And is pants anyway because, y'know, nearly every predator knows how to swim.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 11:42 AM
1

/r/india goes crazy about how men are all perverts Not seeing it. I'm seeing a lot of comments about how common this is in India... from Indians, so I'm going to presume it's their actual experiences and not some made-up story that might have happened to someone they knew, like how normal sexism starts. I'm also seeing a good lot of comments about how awful these guys are, and about the same number of comments pointing out that these guys aren't visibly doing anything. That's... sadly, a better …
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:26 PM
10

Well alright, I suppose I might as well explain the problem here. Also, ignore Bohica69, they're certainly not a normal member. Or, really, there's two problems. The first is that you somehow got it into your mind that the strength difference between men and women is significant. It's really not. If a weak person wants to hurt you, they use a weapon. And if I've learned anything from Buffy, it's that everything can be used as a weapon! You can look up the assault statistics for your country, but…
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:14 PM
14

Please. From all of us here at /r/MensRights. Shut up.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 07:55 PM
15

So I just want to make this clear: intentionally killing someone else's fetus, without their permission, should most definitely be illegal. That being said, it is definitely not murder and should never be charged as murder! Even in a pro-life country that considers unborn life as important as a post-birth one, it still shouldn't be charged as a first-degree murder like this. Title is obviously misleading, unless Tampa allows a woman to kill another woman's fetus.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 05:29 PM
0

Actually, that was Mattel saying it about the feminist protestors. After all, they just want to let Bartletbie be Barbie.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 11:34 PM
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie%27s_careers
/r/MensRights14/05/13 11:30 PM
4

Headline: Another Men’s Rights Activist Suicide Exploited by Ideologues First sentence: Last spring, I wrote an article for the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) Intelligence Report that ran online under the headline, “Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement." Good job, SPLC. Top notch hypocrisy. Couldn't have done it better myself.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 11:17 PM
2

Oh, right, that's a questionmark. Now I just feel silly.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 08:52 PM
1

We have problems as men, but most of them are our own doing. The images provided to us by media are provided by a media controlled primarily by men. Any laws that detrimentally impact us were passed by a legislature consisting primarily of men and signed by one of forty-four men that has been President. Men still control the world. Oh sure, and police brutality during the Apartheid totally wasn't as bad when it was by a black police man. I mean, I feel a lot better with having less rights becaus…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 06:52 PM
1

I had a pointlessly angry comment here. Apparently, I cannot read.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 06:49 PM
3

Trigger warnings can be good if they're used right. But they're pretty much never used right, and end up being a useless annoyance instead. For example, in your case, you used a trigger warning for "discussion of rape" despite that that's already implied by the title of your post.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 04:55 PM
27

The central problem is that of paternal uncertainty; women are always 100% sure that the child they are carrying is their own, whilst for men there is always some degree of uncertainty. Indeed, they are right to be uncertain; whilst the level of misattributed paternity varies across societies, the average rate is said to be around 10%. As such, the prevalence of male proprietariness is at least partially explained by the evolutionary process of sexual selection. The Cleveland kidnappings are an …
/r/MensRights12/05/13 02:01 PM
2

There's been a surprising amount of these posts lately, actually. It's really weird. Mind, they rarely reach the Hot Page because everyone else hates them too. So no, I wouldn't say it's as bad as /r/atheism
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:44 PM
2

Technically, even if you never divorce, there's a 50% chance you'll end up alone anyway.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 07:22 PM
2

School says: "Don't be an ass man."
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:11 PM
0

Question: has he actually done anything sexist? I mean, he's talked on end about how unfair life is to women and about how there's a huge gender gap and how much his politics helps women and women women women... but when I actually looked into what he's done, I couldn't find anything actually unfair. Even the 2013's VAWA introduced more things for men than it did for women, even though nobody was mentioning that.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 12:26 PM
6

Quietly put it away and just say "The study could not find a way the government could narrow the pay gap through the General Schedule classification system. The only way we can is if we encourage our fellow Americans to stop discrimination"... or something like that.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 12:20 PM
3

Nah, an America under Romney could go either way. Romney has a reputation as the ultimate republic politician - he bases his positions on the people's representation, not on what his party thinks is right. Which means how well he would've run depends on who he would've taken advice from. (And before you say he wouldn't go feminist, I'd like to point out that he never actually dismissed the pay gap myth.)
/r/MensRights11/05/13 12:15 PM
0

A man is more than a name. A man is more than a number. But a man is not more than a complex mathematical equation.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 12:11 PM
1

Yes, I was going to say that. It's self-defence if fighting back is your best option. It's (provoked) assault if it's not.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 12:07 PM
3

I hate to see this reactionary tendency infect the MRM. I think it's a lot less of a reactionary tendency and much more of that some people don't agree with your definition of rape.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 11:39 PM
0

Reverse the genders, and we'd be rightly calling this out as a woman being coy before giving consent. Hell no we wouldn't! Well, except for the people who already say that about this case.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:30 PM
2

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/theodore-roosevelt/state-of-the-union-1906.php It's the 1906 one, if you can't view that right now. You should be able to find it again on Google.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:23 PM
3

So he changed his mind after and retroactively withdrew consent? You've got the future and past mixed up again. In the past, he didn't give consent. Later, he gave consent (after she started). The only issue is if it's possible to retroactively give consent.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:20 PM
3

Yes. When asked (or indicated). You might notice that didn't happen.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:17 PM
2

It is hereby declared that in relation to an offence that consists of or includes the doing of an act to a person without the consent of that person any failure or omission by that person to offer resistance to the act does not of itself constitute consent to the act. That's the actual law on the matter in my country. It's only so explicitly declared because it's an amendment to an earlier act. In actuality, every country I'm aware of does not say "Not objecting means you consent". Now to make t…
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:07 PM
1

During sex, yes, he did. He wasn't doing that when she started though.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:04 PM
1

which is why so much "rape" is accidental or a misunderstanding. Eh, depends on the country/state in question. Some do, some don't. The UK, for example, has "must not believe they have consent" in its definition. But they do have to actually give consent, of some sort, for it to be rape. Give. It's not a state of mind, it's an actual indication.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 05:55 PM
4

Consent. Doesn't mean 'enjoyed'. Doesn't mean 'played along'. Yes, there's non-verbal indications of consent, but he didn't do any such thing before she jumped him. And I do agree, he might have consented beforehand. It might have been staged. I'm really talking about the people who say he definitely consented because he put his hand on her head and didn't complain. That's not consent. Edit: wait, there's a definition issue here. Consent is permission. There has to be an actual indication, of so…
/r/MensRights09/05/13 05:54 PM
4

I'm also just going to say, before we get a lot of comments saying it wasn't rape because of what he did afterwards: No, that the victim enjoyed it does not mean it wasn't rape. That's now how crimes work. Edit: I would also like to remind people that being content isn't consent. Consent is actual permission - an indication of some sort that it's okay to have sex.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 02:49 PM
0

Is this a normal thought for anyone else? Normal? Yes, I've seen quite a few people feel the same way over it, suicidal thoughts and all. That being said, I'd really discourage you from hating your parents over it. It's never right to hate someone over something they did unintentionally or something they thought was a good thing.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 12:32 PM
1

The US used to do that. Lynch people (nearly always black people, or so I'm told) that were accused of rape. It was so bad that the president at the time, Theodore Roosevelt, actually told everyone to cut that out in his State Of The Union!
/r/MensRights09/05/13 09:54 AM
5

Umm... ...I don't get it. I don't just mean I don't see why it's funny, I mean I don't even remotely understand what it's trying to do. I can't tell if it's pro-sexism or against sexism. I can't tell if it's mocking the people who do think like that, or who don't think like that. But most of all, whichever way I look at it, I don't understand why this article even exists in the first place - I simply can't derive any humour from this satire.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 10:02 PM
16

When it's so easy to lose your job for it, yes. He doesn't want to lose any more seamen through sex! ...sorry.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 08:35 AM
1

I'm sure people would say the same thing about forcing people to get insurance through the threat of violence.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 12:51 AM
3

By this logic it should/could be argued that people should pay the same for insurance regardless of age. I am in favour of that. What, have the poorest people pay the highest costs for mandatory car insurance? That's not something I approve of. I can't see this going down well with insurance companies. Well yes, why do you think it has to be a law?
/r/MensRights08/05/13 12:45 AM
6

Oh of course. Health insurance, car insurance, there's an entire noun of a difference! They're just incomparable!
/r/MensRights08/05/13 12:39 AM
18

Allegedly?
/r/MensRights07/05/13 10:18 PM
1

Alright, I suppose I didn't give a proper answer when you first asked: The problem with one very big political group saying they're fighting for equality is that then everyone assumes they're on the ball when it comes to equality. That they're the go-to people when it comes to sexism. That if it's not a feminist issue, it's not a gendered problem. So when feminists then act like men hardly face sexism, or when they do it's not a problem, everyone believes them! They're not going to actually look…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:54 PM
1

Okay, let me put it clearly: if you went to pretty much any feminist group and asked them "Are you, completely and intentionally, ignoring men's issues", they would say "no". People balk at this as if it is somehow wrong, so they claim that they're really fighting for both genders. We don't. Individually, maybe, but not as a group. We very specifically do not! I don't know who told you we do, but they were most definitely lying. And if you disagree with either point, you'll have to give a link e…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:29 PM
16

it vilifies us unnecessarily Yup. The first thought I had reading it was "Why does she keep saying all these people are MRA's?" Rhetorically, of course. This is Salon. Their definition of an MRA is "anyone who believes in something different to us".
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:13 PM
12

So I raised the issue mentioned as the answer to your first question with some feminists. When I did that, it was nearly always met with "But they're not important. They're so unimportant that they're not worth spending time on. Activists have limited time, they can't do everything". It was the absolute most common response, even though it was also complete rubbish (I literally had one very popular feminist group say they wouldn't talk about the 100:1 gender ratio in the death penalty without fi…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 08:24 PM
1

I... what? I'm sorry, how did you not know that feminism is (supposed to be) about aiming for equality? I've seen feminists accidentally imply it, but you're the first person I've ever met to actually say feminism actually isn't intended to be about equality! I mean, outside of people who think feminism itself is a conspiracy. Edit: To clarify, Men's Rights can only be said to be about equality with the clause of "on the condition that enough is already being done to help women's issues". When I…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 08:01 PM
4

So are scat fetishes. That's not a reason to get mad and offended at them.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 06:42 PM
2

Not an NRA vendor.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 06:40 PM
0

The heading is "NRA Vendor Sells Ex-Girlfriend Target That Bleeds When You Shoot It". The article starts with a picture of the target with blood already on its mouth. Text starts with: Trigger warning God. Damnit. ... Oh, and if you think that's bad, it's actually worse: the trigger warning is actually for discussing... domestic violence. How you're expected to know that is beyond me.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 06:36 PM
0

feminism What? Where does feminism come into this?
/r/MensRights07/05/13 11:08 AM
10

To be fair, you're talking about the same people who thought a single camouflage pattern work work for every situation. The people behind the US uniforms are... not the smartest lot.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 11:07 AM
3

The proof is that in their scans show women's brains with more blood activity. Which is about as valid as men being smarter because their brains are bigger. The whole thing's bogus anyway. How much of a person's brain is active is not a measure of how smart they are. It's why people with mental disabilities are (by definition) 'stupid' even though they use every part of their brain, and it's why people who've had parts of their brain removed don't (usually) get dumber.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:38 AM
2

SRS sub Is it? I didn't know /r/Drama was an SRS sub.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:04 AM
5

The former.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 09:00 AM
7

Yes, absolutely! If third-wave feminism suddenly started treating men's issues seriously, and advocated for them properly without excuses, I'd even quit being an MRA! But I really doubt that's ever going to happen.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 12:24 AM
0

Hey, you said the average man. The average man in the Vatican is 1/500ths Pope.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 12:21 AM
7

Well that's good. It's really not the kind of thing a children's toy should have.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 10:40 PM
3

Are these the same women who are calling MRA's "Rape Apologists"? Doubt it. There's no reason to think they are, anyway.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 10:32 PM
1

How is the average woman treated worse than the average man in Vatican City? Well, if we assume there's about 500 men living in Vatican City, and one of them happens to be regarded as Really Goddam Important by 1.2 billion people, then... the average man in Vatican City is considered Really Goddam Important by about 2,400,000 people. Which is a bit more than the average Vatican City female's zero, or so. And what about you? Oh, that's simple. Being... pretty much the most impressive, awesome, bo…
/r/MensRights06/05/13 10:25 PM
1

Yeah, we've kinda already talked on end about it. It's sexist, it's awful even if it wasn't sexist, and there's nothing else to really say about it.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 10:19 PM
10

I support this, or some variation thereof. I do think /r/MensRights should stay anti-feminist, but I never liked the concept of blaming all of feminism by what one blog/site does, and I don't think we really need more proof that the big places like Jezebel or Feministing aren't the smartest of sites. /r/MensRants moved a lot of out that out of here though, which was nice. (And yes, I'm aware of how pro-censorship this sounds.)
/r/MensRights06/05/13 08:46 PM
0

Anyone living in the country of The Vatican. Also, people who are me.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 08:09 PM
7

Nonsense! Wide-brimmed hats are where it's at!
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:05 PM
5

I seriously suggest editing your post anyway. "A woman who knows their place" has... connotations, regardless of what you intended it to mean.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:02 PM
4

Do you think spermjacking is real? Yes. There's been news articles of that exact thing. I mean, it's not nearly as common as just having sex with someone and lying about protection, but... yes, it's a thing.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 07:47 PM
1

/r/mensrants is closer to the mark. But it's still barely MRM-related. I think everyone here already knows r/LGBT can't be trusted we don't need any more proof.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 07:46 PM
10

Pretty sure it started with OKcupid, where a lot of people who called themselves "nice guys" also wore fedoras. Probably because the people who aren't socially aware enough to realise why calling yourself a "nice guy" isn't a good thing aren't socially aware enough to realise fedoras are not generally fashionable. Then it became a stereotype on par with black people and friend chicken.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 07:42 PM
2

If Traditionalist marriage is a contract and one partner does not keep to the terms of it what do you call that? You're getting crazier by the minute. Marriage is a declaration of partnership. Yes, you can sign a contract for how the marriage should be handled (y'know, a prenup), but the marriage itself is not. It's why being a bad spouse isn't illegal, if you didn't notice. ...except in this case, apparently. The reason it's not a contract is because that'd be a forced relationship! I am saying…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 07:20 PM
10

People can die from heartbreak as well, caused by different reasons. It is called broken heart syndrome Are you seriously suggesting that sex deprivation is fatal?! Actually, worse. Are you seriously advocating for forced relationships? Because that's what it sounds like! If you don't get married and live happily, you're depriving someone else of happiness!
/r/MensRights05/05/13 11:22 AM
0

I like how she went the entire article without once mentioning adoption. Good job, author, great work considering all the options.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:56 AM
7

Eh, it could just as easily be mocking the perception as it could be supporting it.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:36 AM
3

The context is a little loose with that one link. It's referring to a couple that were both drunk.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 04:57 PM
2

The other issue is there is generally a lack of support for female protagonist games. Generally funding for advertising and support is around 50% less for such games. Whether this is a supply and demand issue (People don't buy games with girls in them) or a demand issue (people don't buy games with girls in them because they don't exist/not supported as well) is currently unknown. But it is an issue (That is being combated by plenty of games in the last 3-4 years) Source?
/r/MensRights04/05/13 01:21 PM
3

Not at all, the studies I have show that as much as 99% of all domestic abuse is caused by men! But only under a definition that says it's not abuse if it's by a female.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 11:25 PM
22

Ah yes. Probably well-intentioned, doesn't work out that way. See, when one group wants to make one poster about abuse, and they have to choose one single person, they always go for the white male. White, because it's the majority group so it doesn't look like it's singling out a race, and male, because they're "supposedly" the most likely to commit abuse and people are a little (sometimes a lot) less inclined to see women as villains. The problem is that then, every other group does the same th…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 08:10 PM
1

Don't quote me on that, it's just what I've heard. If they have underage children, if identifying them would identify their alleged victims, or, in SA, if they haven't been indicted yet, then their identity may not be published. The details vary from state to state, but the rules are fairly consistent.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 07:55 PM
1

Did you mix up your genders? I'm talking about the adult here, not the child. You can't charge someone with statutory rape if they were forced to do it, and that's why they had to ask.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 07:54 PM
3

an underage person cannot rape someone not underage Really? That can't be right. I'm not just talking about statutory rape, I'm talking about unconsensual rape.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 11:54 AM
1

Because it's illegal to in Australia.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 11:14 AM
0

I have literally never heard of it not working for men in any country where it works for women. That'd be ridiculous! The OP only says "if you're a woman" because they don't understand Australian law.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 11:08 AM
0

Yes. It isn't rape if the accused was forced to do it, after all. It's a pretty important thing to ask.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 10:42 AM
1

Spearhead made basically the same point once. I was discussing it on CivFanatics at the time. In actuality, it's a lot simpler: for any society where women become liberated, both genders feel considerably less pressured into getting married, which can easily result in a declining population. Back in Ye Olden Days, that would ruin a country! So yes, I do think equality ruined Rome! Or, partly anyway. But I don't think it could happen today. The countries most liberated also happen to be the count…
/r/MensRights02/05/13 10:20 PM
8

killing at least 50 people including women and children, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. So... who emphasised women? Reuters, or the Syrian Observatory?
/r/MensRights02/05/13 09:47 PM
18

As opposed to what? A village populated entirely by gunmen? 'Sides, if that's what they meant, they would've said "including innocent civilians". There's no way around it, the only reason Reuters (or was it the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights?) put in the women part is for extra sympathy.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 09:46 PM
-5

I'm doing a PhD. I'll probably become a lecturer. Please excuse me while I laugh at you people with jobs requiring more than 20 hours a week!
/r/MensRights02/05/13 01:09 PM
7

Nobody's really explaining it properly, so I will: Yes, it is indeed rape as she describes it. If Danny had actually intended it to happen, or there's something else she's neglecting to mention, that'd be a different story, but let's assume not. Oral sex counts as rape for most legal definitions. That's the definition I'm going with here. Yes, Danny probably enjoyed it. It means there's no harm done, which is certainly a good thing, but it's still rape. She didn't get consent when she started. I…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 10:34 PM
-1

That wouldn't count as coercion for the sake of the law. A much better argument is that retroactive consent isn't a thing - that he was fine with it after she started doesn't mean it wasn't illegal. Crimes are punished for the intention, not for the result. Or, supposed to be. It gets a lot harder to punish someone when the 'victim' doesn't want you to. I expect the woman to go off scott-free, but I'm not really complaining about it.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 10:17 PM
4

Did you know this girl? Like, did you two ever meet before in your life, or did you just run through a massive crowd to kiss her? Because then yes, that's sexual assault. Sometimes. Depends on the law. Just like it depends on the law whether unconsensual oral sex counts as rape.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 10:10 PM
-1

Nah, I'm all for good health, but doing it so you look like Wonder Woman is way too... narcissistic, actually. The simple fact is that body shapes are a thing. Thin people don't cosplay as burly characters, burly people don't cosplay as thin characters, men don't cosplay as Sailor Moon. Or at least, not if you want to look good - if you're doing it because you feel like it's important to yourself to show that much dedication to a character, that's different, but then you should really expect ins…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 09:27 PM
-1

You mean a cosplay of Tony Stark? ZING!
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:26 PM
0

I'm sure there's some rational there about men making women that way. I'm not even kidding. I've heard that argument way too many times.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:24 PM
2

But that's a male power fantasy! Male superheroes are about what men want to be, but female superheroes are about what men want women to be! Y'know, despite that this comic is all about a woman wanting to be like Wonder Woman. (/s)
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:23 PM
2

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/a-dose-of-stupid-v86/ ToySoldier's analysis of the article in question is the closest I can get to linking it without breaking a r/MR rule (no linking to Jezebel directly).
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:06 PM
1

Nothing more... than feelings...
/r/MensRights30/04/13 08:01 PM
2

http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1147 This is the report in question. The gender breakdown is on page 7. The definitions for each, as far as I can tell, were taken from the FBI's definitions. Which, as I said, have been completely changed since then.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 07:57 PM
0

Not going so far as to say men should be forced to cough up, but they'd never acknowledge that it's an issue at all. They prefer the "sexism is always against women" approach.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 05:57 PM
1

Needs context.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 10:54 AM
3

It teaches them to make decisions on their own No, these camps are designed around teaching kids to not make decisions on their own. They discipline children who make too many decisions themselves. You could say it's their entire purpose! Are you, by any chance, thinking of something completely different?
/r/MensRights30/04/13 10:43 AM
9

It's the 2000 study, and it's for all ages, not just children. And it's reported cases, and from a time when the FBI decided female rapists weren't a thing (which, funnily enough, the Bureau of Justice Statistics itself still has that as it's definition of rape). So it's hardly accurate.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 09:55 AM
6

And, at the same time, say that it's wrong to accuse feminism of making people think women need shelters more than men.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:20 PM
8

Okay, for you commenters saying it's just stand-up comedy, I'm going to point out: the part where he says men are the number one cause of injury to women and "are the worst thing that ever happens to them"? That part wasn't a joke. He even said so in the video. That was a premise, and it is very sexist!
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:16 PM
2

Record it. Somehow. Also, record talking with her family about it. Once you have something, go to the police. As much as the police have a reputation for believing rape accusations too much, they're not going to side with a rape accuser with no evidence over a domestic violence accuser with definite evidence.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 11:29 AM
6

Yup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape#United_Kingdom That's the UK for ya.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:47 AM
3

A postmodernist, feminist group that's anti-science? Why, I've never heard of such a thing!
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:32 AM
2

Then you phrased it badly, because it looked like you were trying to say you won't hire any women because they have the potential to get pregnant. If you're talking about actually pregnant women, then yes, you can refuse to hire them for it. ...I think. Don't quote me on that.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 11:16 PM
4

I know it's hard to prove, but: proof?
/r/MensRights26/04/13 01:53 PM
3

I'm not against it, as long as it stays separated from /r/MensRights.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 01:49 PM
0

I... don't get it. As in, I don't even get what it's trying to say, let alone what the joke is.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 11:48 AM
13

Yes, that's the general consensus when this pops up.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:06 AM
2

Not really. He posted the information, on a "Let's get her fired" mentality, before it was then revealed that the woman never actually worked for that university in the first place and that the blog was fake. He then removed the info and made an article apologising, basically pointing out that not actually investigating it enough was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:00 AM
-1

'Censorship' is used to refer to covering or silencing someone/something because they don't approve of or don't want others to hear of their opinions/subject/etc. Although it is technically censoring, nobody calls deleting spam or contentless posts censorship.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 10:46 PM
2

Yeah, I noticed that recently too when searching for SAFE. Good show! (Although I should point out, the subcategories they have for Violence Against Men... aren't quite right. Not professional enough, I mean. Probably because there's not enough subcategories yet. Remember, if you have anything you think should be put there, Wikipedia is editable by anyone!)
/r/MensRights25/04/13 10:37 PM
1

Use a condom Just to point out, since it comes up a lot: A 95% chance of failure is 1 out of every 20, which is still very high. Never rely on one form of birth control. Edit: Okay, turns out that might not be right. At all. That's per year if you use them consistently and properly. For 'typical use', as they call it, it's between 10-18% per year. That's still not good.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 09:56 AM
7

There's two points in this comic: 1: The best way to get funding is to make it be against someone. We don't get funding. 2: The best way to make someone look evil is to say you can't debate with them. We don't censor.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 09:41 AM
-2

Trigger Warnings in theory are a good thing. But in practice, it's very rare for them to be properly used. And this isn't an exception: they don't say what the Trigger Warning is. And if you're already thinking it, no, only about half of these Trigger Warnings are for assault.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 09:39 AM
14

I'm sure the Patriarchy is responsible for this too somehow.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 10:27 PM
19

Eh, I think you're taking it too far. While I do agree that they should be sent to /r/rapecounseling than having a second subreddit for no reason, the biggest responses to those two examples aren't what you sa- .... They.... They use Trigger Warnings in their titles. In their subreddit where everyone talks about rape. CHRIST!
/r/MensRights24/04/13 08:13 AM
0

Nnnnaah, probably not. It's more likely that they just believe it because other people told them to believe it (because others told them, etc). In actuality, if they really did believe it themselves, then they wouldn't want to look pretty in the first place. The other reason I've found is pretty much "it's just a social faux-pas, it's insulting because it's an insult, it's like forgetting someone's name". Which... makes them as stupid as people who get insulted by someone forgetting their name.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 11:07 AM
14

The correct answer was "If these problems are so prevalent, then why aren't there any studies or surveys showing them? That feminist sure didn't give a source for anything, and I'm not going to trust someone who's very job depends on people being afraid! How do you know that they're actual problems, and not just things other people told you to be afraid of in a case of circular paranoia?" Y'know, not "Well girls are privileged in this unrelated situation, therefore everything you know must be wr…
/r/MensRights22/04/13 04:15 PM
0

I have a better idea: Define rape by definitions of rape, of varying severity. Class 1 rape can be for where there was no consent at all, class 2 for cases where a person was given 'consent' but under false premises (date rape, impersonation), class 3 for cases involving intoxication or being mentally unsound (alcohol/drugs without permission is still class 2), and class 4 where the victim wasn't really clear but never protested - which is stupid and shouldn't be considered rape ever, but I don'…
/r/MensRights22/04/13 01:52 PM
2

I'm interested in seeing how many would pick A over B, considering that the correct answer is B unless you have a reason to believe it's not just a coincidence. But I still don't get what the OP is aiming for here. Especially with the last two, which only genuine supremacists and idiots trying to be witty would pick.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 01:31 PM
1

So how is this relevant?
/r/MensRights22/04/13 01:26 PM
1

Two reasons: 1: Minor crimes (and non-criminal breaches of policy) can be tried by the college itself rather than slowing down the justice system. 2: For major crimes, like rape, having someone sentenced in a court trial can take a long time, and until then the college has a duty to prevent criminals from still being able to continue around campus as normal. ...in theory. But for that to work, that would mean that for any case reported to the police the college should only be able to issue a sus…
/r/MensRights22/04/13 11:36 AM
1

I should probably make a Venn Diagram with MRA on the right, Feminist on the left, and GE in the middle. That would make this infographic make more sense. Then it's just the same linear choice again, this time with circles. (And if it hasn't been pointed out yet, you're mixing up MRAs, who are individuals and certainly care about women's rights, with the MRM, which is a set of aims and ideals that isn't concerned with women's rights.)
/r/MensRights22/04/13 09:27 AM
9

So... ...someone mind explaining what the last panel is about?
/r/MensRights22/04/13 09:20 AM
2

it's worth noting that less murders are committed by women than men in the first place Maybe, but men certainly aren't committing 100 times more murders. In addition, putting all that aside, I find the suggestion that they're killing lots of men therefore we should kill women too is kind of repugnant from a human rights perspective. Yes, so does everyone else here. I didn't say we should, I just pointed out the massive imbalance.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 09:14 AM
6

Yeah, all four countries in the UK have it. New Zealand too. The Republic of Ireland has it for girls under 17 committing statutory rape. There's lots of others that I just can't remember off the top of my head. Others here might fill you in. Incidentally, while we're on the matter of actual rights: the US hasn't executed a woman in the last 3 years.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 11:22 PM
9

Viral Blacklisting I approve of this one. I completely disapprove of the other 4 you picked out and I hate you forever for even putting them up, they're that bad.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 03:42 PM
9

Hold on. Before we go any further on this, exactly what influence has feminism had on Japanese society? The article says the attitude has a lot to do with feminism, but it's all very vague and doesn't really explain how.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 10:36 AM
0

It'd be more accurate to say "Intelligent people don't talk about social politics on Twitter".
/r/MensRights21/04/13 12:04 AM
2

What argument? The only thing I talked about was the argument some people make that MRAs don't include other demographics, in which case you really do need to wave a demographic in front of their face.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 06:44 PM
13

This is not needed. We don't need poster boys and girls to fill a demographic. Poster people, no. But with an MRA group, you really do need to specify that. Way, way too many people just assume they're men-only clubs. The others... Iunno, I guess it's like an early disclaimer for when feminists start saying they're all hetero white men?
/r/MensRights20/04/13 06:29 PM
4

I just realised when you said that, but I don't actually know a single survey on false accusations. Anyone here care to remedy that?
/r/MensRights20/04/13 06:26 PM
1

Hint that she wants me to "give it my all and make everything better again." Do you mean that in the context of getting a better job, or in the context of rekindling lost love? Because if it's the latter, there's no point - "Working something out" only applies if there's a specific problem in the relationship, like affairs just for the sake of sex. It doesn't work whatsoever if the problem is that you two aren't in love or don't work well together.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 02:27 PM
14

Haha nooope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars "Science is a social construct" is a very common postmodernist line of thought. In fact: https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~l38613dw/website_spring_03/readings/ScienceSocialConstruct.html
/r/MensRights20/04/13 10:06 AM
3

Even stranger is how it specifies that they have to be married, when every other law like it only requires that the imposter must be impersonating someone the victim knows personally.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 09:51 AM
95

but refuse to offer the equivalent option of male-only sessions. This is the big thing that makes me hate it. IF you think shame around the opposite sex is a big enough problem to introduce mono-gender swimming times (which I'm not against), you can't then say that it's only a problem for a single demographic! You ESPECIALLY can't give that one side in a now-segregated system an absolute advantage over the other!
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:41 PM
2

A person who uses violence by proxy (by which I presume you mean having someone else commit the act, or just standing aside when you could've done something).
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:28 PM
2

I like how people's opinions of Michael Moore switch between "Woman-hating asshole" and "Man-hating moron" pretty much every month, just for having unpopular logical (although usually conspiracy-based) opinions. ...normally. But in this case, I really don't see the logic behind this one at all. He just went "Oh yup, they were men. How predictable."
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:26 PM
2

'Cowardly'... is a pretty tame insult for that kind of person. Most people would've said 'an awful person' or 'just as violent'. I mean, when someone's arrested for hiring an assassin, they aren't charged with the crime of being a wuss.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:19 PM
1

Inaction can't be wrong What.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:16 PM
4

Alternatively, we could be decent human beings.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 05:18 PM
1

Yes, the police at the time for notorious for questioning and arresting people accused of a crime, rather than killing them.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 05:14 PM
1

I'm talking about people who say pressuring someone to have sex is, or should be, illegal.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 04:34 PM
2

The Nazi government was actually pretty good at running their country. The standard of living went up quite a lot, an emphasis on transport allowed a lot of people to afford cars (which was unthinkable before), the crime rate went down as the police were much more disciplined and properly trained... ...and they killed Jews. It turns out that, yes, you can totally reduce any movement to the advocacy of one specific cause if that cause completely overshadows anything else they do.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 08:38 AM
1

and this is the bias of one uninformed male writer. Pretty much the best thing you can do when reading Cracked. Cracked make... nearly 1,000 articles a day, I think. While they're mostly about objective things, the crappier writers like to write about subjective topics. Occasionally (like, once a year), this includes mocking people for sexist reasons. That shouldn't mean you should call the rest of the 999 articles sexist too.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 08:32 AM
1

That's like accusing a person who dislikes the Republican party hates capitalism. You can bloody well say you disagree with someone without meaning you're a cartoonish opposite to them.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 08:22 AM
2

I usually use: Feminist: How can you say that youre not a feminist? Me: No, im not a feminist but i believe in equality for everyone Feminist: Then you have just misunderstood feminism. Me: No, its you that have missunderstood feminism and if you were interested in learning about the logical flaws in it you would have looked them up for yourself. That's pretty bad, actually. What I would've said there is "There's two definitions to feminism. One is the desire for equality between genders. The ot…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 10:45 PM
5

or with words Oh god, I know what that means. That means that if you make someone feel guilty or socially pressured to have sex, it's psychological coercion (it's not), and therefore rape. Which presents the ridiculous case where someone will say that asking to have sex counts as invalidating consent, if you ask it a lot!
/r/MensRights17/04/13 10:35 PM
1

What are your thoughts on solving third world problems through female exclusive advocacy? Pretty rubbish. A factoid that gets tossed around a lot is that a lot of developing countries and societies deny women access to education. There's... very little truth to that, I believe.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 10:16 PM
4

She then went on to say that drunk sex and guilt sex are against the law. I even looked up the laws in my state to see where the line is drawn as far as non-consent goes and found that she was spreading misinformation. Feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong. Drunk sex varies by state/country but guilt sex is never illegal. She's probably one of those people who heard 'consent under coercion isn't valid', and didn't understand that coercion has a very strict legal definition.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 10:11 PM
1

Ahem. Let me just take the time to say one thing: Duh. I'm more surprised that it took her this long to notice! I mean, the company that sells beauty products to people that care about beauty and then makes ads about beauty and how important beauty is and that it's important to see themselves as beautiful... is not exactly interested in making everyone stop caring about their looks. Especially if you know about business ethics, and realise it's actually immoral for them to make ads that stop peo…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 10:01 PM
1

Before someone points it out: Yes, charging women pittance encourages more male customers, and yes, in a predominantly male group that can make enough of a profit than having both pay equally. That still doesn't mean it's not discrimination.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 08:57 PM
0

Just to clarify for everyone else: English law does not define mental incapacitation short of unconsciousness as being unable to consent. The exception is if the perpetrator spikes/drugs the victim without their consent. Edit: actually, that's got me wondering now: does anyone know what Ireland's consent law is? I can't find it anywhere.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 08:15 PM
6

we shouldn't have to fear Good news: you don't!
/r/MensRights17/04/13 08:00 PM
19

Coming up next: feminists accuse the group of being misogynistic for saying women live better lives. (God, the worst part is that that's not even an exaggeration - way too many feminists actually say that kinda thing)
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:54 PM
1

Asian as. ... Just for the sake of being just as offensive.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:40 PM
2

edit edit: The quote that Manginas used from Red also shows that she has no remorse, not an iota of recognition that her behavior was uncivil and disrespectful and most importantly hypocritical. Why are you surprised? It's not even a feminist victims thing, most people wouldn't change their minds in that short a timespan. She's not going to change her entire view of how to conduct yourself in society in just a few weeks normally, and she certainly isn't going to decide she did something wrong be…
/r/MensRights16/04/13 11:34 PM
6

Personal anecdote: I'm a scientist, and I like being a scientist, so I wear a labcoat all the time. All the time. Around the university, out shopping, going for a walk, pretty much everytime except when I'm at home. I have never, not once, been criticised for dressing abnormally, and there's never been any indication that people treated me differently - aside from being better at remembering me, and knowing that I loved science. The one exception was an informatician who didn't think being an in…
/r/MensRights16/04/13 11:11 PM
1

Men: shave and get drunk! Because you're already brilliant!
/r/MensRights16/04/13 10:56 PM
1

I literally would not believe you at all there... if I hadn't read one of Theodore Roosevelt's speeches telling people to stop lynching black people accused of rape!
/r/MensRights16/04/13 08:04 AM
3

feminist claims that they are helping men by "fighting patriarchy" Here's another one: feminists never say this about women's issues. When it concerns women they fight against the actual issue, when it's about men they fight "the cause". It's the biggest giveaway that it's an excuse.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 07:59 AM
3

I can tell you are being sarcastic I, er, wasn't. It's a genuinely good answer. I guess I coulda phrased my response better.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 11:56 PM
3

Would a police report bring things to a head and get this nightmare over with? Nope. I'd say it's unlikely it'll get far enough that you need a lawyer, unless she actually starts outright lying. "I was only pretending to enjoy it" won't make it to court.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:58 PM
1

I agree with all of this. I'll also add, never have sex with someone who's cheating on their partner either. Those are the people who have every reason to claim they were raped! Unless you were under the influence of alcohol, of course. But if you were so drunk that you were doing stupid stuff like this, it means you're doing something wrong. I don't care what the "cool kids" say, you should never be that drunk.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:56 PM
14

Naah, probably not. In actuality, he probably won't think rape's a big deal at all until someone points out what rape actually means, and what he's been telling everyone. Let's hope he won't remember when that happens when he grows up. I'm way concerned about just how quick his father took to gendering the issue. I couldn't care if the ratio was 100:1, you do not teach your children to treat genders fundamentally differently! Because that is the kind of thing that would end up with a kid who is …
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:53 PM
-1

Yeah... that's a good answer. Edit: not sarcasm.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:35 PM
5

The better question is how someone installing this extension 'ruthlessly misgenders' someone else entirely. Crap guys, someone changed his browser so that now it looks like you're being called a girl on their monitor! THIS IS OPPRESSION!
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:27 PM
4

EDIT: I don't think I would put this under the banner of a Men's Rights issue, as I saw plenty of both males and females in boot camp handle these kinds of situations badly like this. Yes, I'd agree. This isn't proof of anything, and there's no point just presuming men do it less, or get punished worse for it. That just leads to an unfounded bias.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 07:13 PM
4

Man, the worst ones are the ones where authorities know, but don't care. In particular, http://www.amen.ie/victims_letters/victims_letter16.html (Also, the Gardaí are the Irish police, if anyone's wondering. At least they seem to be caring and considerate about this, from what I've read, which is way more than what I can say about other countries'.)
/r/MensRights15/04/13 05:12 PM
11

It's the Huffington Post. Just because they reported on Men's Rights with far less bias than normal doesn't mean they're going to go easy on their other biases too.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 04:46 PM
-4

Explain. Specifically, explain why current drug dealers would stop making drugs.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 04:41 PM
1

I know what you're trying to say, that traditionally a kingdom is handed down to the next man in the family, that it was a lot harder for a woman to get the respect to rule a country, etc. But your wording is just way too bad. But in any case, it doesn't matter. Patriarchy theory isn't just about that a ruler is usually male, it's about how something something all men have power. Or sometimes men don't have power, but something something society caters to them anyway.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 04:31 PM
4

There is no greater threat to women than a McDonalds? (Actually, to be specific, murder is a very unlikely probability. You're 10 times more likely to kill yourself than be killed by someone else.)
/r/MensRights15/04/13 10:35 AM
2

Source?
/r/MensRights15/04/13 10:33 AM
1

Menstruationism. It's a movement that thinks all sexes should have to menstruate. Therefore ensuring true equality!
/r/MensRights15/04/13 10:06 AM
1

Not really comparable. "Patriarchy", "Rape Culture", and "Toxic Masculinity" are not only buzzwords, and exceptionally vague buzzwords, but mostly unfounded and nothing more than theories that 'feel' right. "Disposability", however, is neither a buzzword nor a theory. When we say "Men are seen as more disposable", we mean it in the sense that "It's more acceptable for a man to die than a woman", or sometimes just to refer to hurting men not as bad. The literal meaning of disposability. And we ca…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 02:14 AM
2

These are taken completely out of context. By which I mean, I have no idea what they're about.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 12:38 AM
17

Is there not a way to report sexism to the government in your country? As in, without having to go to court about it?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 06:48 PM
39

Partly unrelatedly, but I'd be careful about calling Patriachy theory an apex fallacy. "The Patriarchy" means different things to different people - for some, it describes how all men have power (which is indeed an apex fallacy), for others it's about how only a few men have power, but that those people in power are responsible for pretty much all sexism (which isn't an apex fallacy, it's just a conspiracy theory). Also, yes, it's pretty much never a good thing when the word 'mansplaining' comes…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 01:40 PM
2

The only foreskin Opera should be rubbing on her face belongs to a consenting adult. Goddamnit, that's not something I ever wanted to imagine.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:57 AM
6

Convinced a lot of ordinary people. Which is far more important than the things you mentioned.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:33 AM
6

...that isn't equality. 10 + 5 =/= 20 + 5 You keep saying 'equality' when you mean 'extreme socialism'. Stop that. So women's bodies are "something." That is objectification and dehumanization of half the population at its core. I don't think you're qualified to tell anyone about equality. But people are 'something's. There is nothing offensive about pointing out that people are, in fact, physical objects. It's not what objectification means, it's not what dehumanisation means. But your biggest …
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:28 AM
2

To expand on that further, the SPLC was a huge deal in America back in the time of the KKK. Heroes of the country, basically. But since then, they've declined massively, and they now spend their time labelling anyone they disagree with as a hate group, for the flimsiest reasons. Just for example, the article that condemns MRA groups basically starts with "A man committed suicide because he felt that modern society was too discriminatory against him as a man. But his note encouraged violence, so …
/r/MensRights13/04/13 06:21 PM
1

In a similar vein, feminists who think sexual objectification of fictional characters is bad will complain on end about 'sexist' ads... but never about fanfiction, which has a butt-load more of it!
/r/MensRights13/04/13 12:48 PM
1

Oh. I didn't know that.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 12:07 PM
1

In all fairness, that sounds a bit too paranoid.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 11:26 AM
17

They... don't, collectively. Opinion across all of Reddit is actually somewhat evenly mixed, from what I've noticed, and it depends on what sub-reddit you're in. SubRedditOfTheDay thinks we're the best thing to ever come out of Reddit. SRS does... not, to put it lightly. Most of the time, it pretty much comes down to "Because other people told them to hate us". Especially if they ever mention the SPLC. Nobody else takes the SPLC seriously.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 09:35 PM
4

Jesus CHRIST! This is at least a hundred murders, according to the trial! And they seriously only got discovered now? Or, sometime starting in 2011 really, I guess. Christ. I mean, it's not MR related, and I really wouldn't turn this into a political issue against pro-choice people, but... Jesus, I'm really glad you actually pointed this out.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 09:05 PM
2

Because a lot of people don't think rape by envelopment is rape. People like the CDC, some feminists, and... all UK governments.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 08:17 PM
3

it has actively worsened when compared to earlier generations. Source?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:03 PM
3

I... what?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 06:58 PM
4

What's your basis for that? Because this act specifically says it applies for both genders.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 06:45 PM
1

Agreed. There are times when it's not-so-bad to post someone's personal details (for example, I do like the way Agent Orange did it), but this isn't one of them. Targeting a person in particular does nothing but encourage harassment. And nobody deserves harassment.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 04:42 PM
18

Do you love quotas? Because Norway loooves quotas! Now, all public bodies must have been 40% and 50% of each gender on their committee. I cannot emphasise enough how goddam stupid that is.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 04:37 PM
2

Eh... Ehhh..... I dunno. It's a good job of swapping Link with Zelda - rather than just being an ordinary gender swap, it uses Zelda's full OoT backstory to make a somewhat different character. He says it was "inspired by Tropes Vs Women", but... 'inspired' is very vague. It could mean he was listening to it and decided 'Hey, what if Zelda was the protagonist this time?', which is cool, or it could mean 'Legend Of Zelda is too discriminatory, we need a female protagonist', which is decidedly unc…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 04:10 PM
1

Like she's doing this great girls sticking up for each other thing, but behind the scenes she's probably a corrupt crook selling good ratings to the biggest psychopaths on there. Well her previous job was in marketing, so... must be the latter! /dilbert
/r/MensRights12/04/13 12:58 AM
1

On that note, I cannot emphasise enough how condoms alone aren't a good enough way to prevent pregnancy/STD. A 95% chance is once every 20 times.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 10:23 PM
3

It gets worse once you realise that their definition is also wrong. It's entirely possible for someone to be prejudiced against their own kind.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:26 PM
19

Hawaii, too. Although probably not as bad.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 08:47 PM
11

I guess it's an unpopular opinion, but I strongly disagree that this is a bad thing. Given that there are corresponding times for no-women sessions, it's not giving either gender an unfair advantage. And there is reason to have segregated timeslots, religion being one of them (supposedly - I'm not familiar enough with Islam), the other being people with extreme social anxiety. That's assuming that there's no dickery involved here, though. If the female timeslots are significantly bigger than the…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 06:44 PM
1

According to the Huffington Post, yes.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 06:28 PM
6

For once, I actually agree that "because boys can't control themselves" is a good reason. If we could just teach people to not be distracted by anything ever, we wouldn't need ADHD medication. But still, Jezebel pointed out that teenage boys will get distracted by girls wearing just about anything Jezebel offers its professional advice about how teenage boys are in a constant state of inattentiveness, and that they couldn't be more distracted than they already are. Well done, Jezebel.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 09:03 AM
0

I don't understand right now why I'm having such a strong reaction to this What's there not to understand? It's incredibly offensive! The ad treats men the same way employers treated black people back in the day. Sure, telling people that unconsciousness isn't consent is a good thing, but so is checking if someone's a kleptomaniac. It stops being a good thing when you only apply it to one set of people. Also: This ad helped reduce the rates of sexual assault in Vancouver by almost 10% after it w…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 08:43 AM
8

Normally I'd agree, that just having 2 people in the picture isn't enough to accuse them of being sexist... ...but I also noticed that a couple of these points are decidedly feminine*. "Don't criticise"? You don't get anywhere in life if you don't get criticism, or learn how to handle criticism, or just hate criticism. "Keep a journal"? "Have a to-be list"? I mean, yes, constantly re-evaluating yourself and not letting yourself just be Whatever is very important, but that's still a very feminine…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:34 PM
15

Just to explain it: the CDC has two 'forced to penetrate' figures. One for the surveyed that were raped in the last year only (in which men and women suffered it about equally), and one for those that were raped at any point in their lives. The latter was only about 3 times higher than the former - in what is more than likely just probability. It's why you want to be really careful about using the CDC report as a figure for male rape estimates.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:13 PM
3

I have a golden rule: if you're doing a PhD to become a lecturer, you're doing something very very wrong.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 10:18 AM
1

Ahem. So, this is how I would be if I were male and channelling Heidi Victoria, the women who is the new Minister for Women in the Victorian state government. I don't know who Victoria is, and I highly suspect she's not as bad as the author's portraying her as, but this is still very much satire. ...unless she added this an hour after uploading it or something.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 09:07 AM
6

Man... even without the threat, that's ridiculously harsh! Aren't police supposed to be polite and professional?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:05 PM
3

Hah, I hadn't actually realised that! NOW it makes sense!
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:49 PM
3

I hope you're not implying that you shouldn't be a commander if you haven't killed anybody.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:46 PM
1

If we just continue to bicker about who has more problems like 9 year olds, instead of accepting that both groups have legitimate, yet separate causes, then both groups are hindered. Agreed. Both genders have big problems, and there's no objective way to say one's problems are worse than the other's. And you just can't trust that someone who does isn't just trying to excuse their own double standards. Even if you hate Feminism (probably misinformed), it's just not reasonable to think that you co…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:27 AM
-4

Againstmensrights is accusing us of being part of storefront, a white supremacist group. Yes, they do that. A lot. I don't think you really need to demonstrate how to anyone here, we've all just kinda accepted that that's the kind of thing they do. You should really be taking /r/AgainstMensRights as seriously as YouTube comments.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:35 PM
2

Oh of course. In any culture, people should take the utmost effort to reduce violence and injustice. But blaming Islam itself is completely the wrong thing to do.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:27 PM
10

Hoooooly crap, that poll. Roughly 50% of Huffington Post readers, and people linked to the article, are siding with FEMEN and their crazy "They say they like Islam, but really we know they're all liars" logic!
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:24 PM
10

http://xkcd.com/322/ The primest example.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 05:47 PM
2

Yet another reason there needs to be a punishment for a false rape claim.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:53 PM
31

Yes. Now, on the other hand, if you were to point out how XKCD hardly ever portrays women as less than perfect, and its horrible tendency to white-knight now and again, that would be a good reason to tell Randall to go I'm-too-polite-for-this-phrase himself.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 03:54 PM
61

Agreed. The only difference anyone ever mentions between men and women in the Department of IT in my university is that women are more likely to get themselves an internship.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 03:49 PM
2

Don't bother posting in it. Or even caring about it. It's not so much about disagreeing with MensRights as it is cherrypicking stupid statements and misinterpreting smart ones.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:44 PM
4

Damnit, I just looked up Intersectionality on Wikipedia. Where the article has such sub-headings as "Interlocking matrix of oppression" and "Standpoint epistemology and the outsider within". I fear that if I look up what those are supposed to mean, I'll just end up here forever.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:40 PM
41

(that one was my own doing...I was being purposefully antagonistic) There's no honour in that. Being censored is only something to be proud of if you're speaking up for what you think is right, and are doing it in a polite and constructive way. If you're intentionally being a jerk, you deserve to be kicked out.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:14 PM
-27

You said "women", but I think you meant "stupid". I know, I know, it's a very common typo to make. I mean, the keys are like right next to each other! Edit: wait, how did this get -23 points?! Did... did people not realise I wasn't saying anything about women whatsoever?
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:04 PM
3

Yes, I'd agree. Mostly. I mean, I don't have a problem with him liking sex, but I do to that he calls certain women "fuckmuffins". Not that I'm against labels, or that I don't think men can think certain women are particularly attractive, I just don't want to hear about how his word for a beautiful lady is "fuckmuffin". Nor do I want to hear about what qualities women must possess for him to get a boner. I'm only saying this because I also do not want to hear about what qualities Paul Elam must …
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:18 PM
2

I'm not against this. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't approve of their reason. I don't see anything wrong with fanservice itself. I haven't found any kind of proof that objectification of fictional characters is bad, and amn't convinced that the people who say it is didn't just come to the conclusion because everyone else says it is (feel free to butt in if you think you have proof). But I do have objections to when the fanservice gets in the way of what would be realistic. The kind of thing…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 05:11 PM
12

Set a limit then: if you can't get her to feel genuinely remorseful about what she did, break up with her. I'm not against second chances, but if they're practically outright saying they're going to do it again...
/r/MensRights06/04/13 04:08 PM
18

Depends on the definition of rape in your country or state. But just as a standard, by the FBI's definition it was definitely rape. For pretty much everywhere that doesn't consider it rape, it's still a severe form of sexual assault. Edit: You're in New Zealand, right? That's one of the countries that says it's not rape if it's not man-on-woman. You should probably take the FBI's definition.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 04:06 PM
1

It is, and it's not just about that one infamous MRA post either. Huffington Post and Gawker have like a monthly quota of articles about how he's a worse version of Hitler because of (completely unoffensive) things he writes in his blog.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 01:04 PM
2

In case any of you thought "Well maybe it'll give a proper, intellectual look at the matter", here's what they have to say about Japan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEorRIkEWFw It's the only exert I could find. I'm going to presume the entire movie is as stupid as this.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 01:01 PM
6

A somewhat different response to Thunderf00t's great "Feminism Vs Facts", this one's more focused on the general case - whether a Damsel In Distress character is a bad thing or not. Well worth checking out.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 12:30 PM
2

Yeah, but it's certainly a good discussion topic for r/MensRights.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 11:07 AM
2

I don't have reason to believe most feminists agree with those.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 10:30 AM
0

Unfortunately not. I consider myself somewhat 'optimistic about feminists compared to a lot of other people here - I really don't believe most feminists have anything against men, or are removing their rights - but I really can't say anything close to a majority of feminists are open-minded about other people's opinions. Far too many feminists don't realise normal people see "the patriarchy" as a conspiracy theory, or don't understand why some people don't think opposing abortion means denying w…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 01:10 AM
31

Imagine a in a female feminists face and telling her to . Something tells me they wouldn't be so accepting of it in the feminist circles. I removed the unnecessary words in your statement. You could put anything there and feminists would outrage over it. Allow me to demonstrate using real examples: Imagine a youtube commenter in a female feminists face and telling her to stop making videos. Imagine a gentleman in a female feminists face and telling her to be more polite. Imagine a famous cartoon…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 12:42 AM
1

I.N.R.I.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 07:25 PM
-2

Alright, I expected someone else to have done so in a separate post by now. Basically, two reasons: 1: It's very insulting to all the other Attorney Generals - or, at least, the ones that care about their appearance. When the president says "you're not the best" at something so subjective, it's such a massive slap in the face. 2: And more importantly, saying something like this is encouraging people to judge professionals by their appearance. I normally wouldn't make a big deal of it because it'…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 07:22 PM
-3

For the same reason that someone telling you "your ideas are... different" isn't a compliment, even though having different ideas is usually a good thing. It certainly is possible to compliment someone on their looks, but not how he did it. ...or, for some people, anyway. I generally object to things like this because only some people find those kind of comments insulting. (It's still an awful thing for a president to say anyway)
/r/MensRights05/04/13 05:05 PM
2

Agreed - that is an astoundingly bad thing to say. I wouldn't call it sexual harassment*, but it's still bad for multiple reasons: 1: How good you look does have advantages, but how good someone is at their job shouldn't be one. The president should never encourage that kind of thinking, ever! 2: It's a massive insult to every other Attorney General in the country - or, at least to the ones that care about their appearance. 3: And, of course, it's possibly an insult to Harris herself, that the p…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 05:01 PM
3

I disagree. It's not hard to address female-on-male violence in your anti-domestic violence poster. The group could undoubtedly do it without a "how to" guide. It's pretty obvious that the only reason they aren't is because they didn't think it was necessary.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 10:25 AM
12

I agree. These feminists are nothing but hot air.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 10:01 AM
8

Stupid sexy chatings!
/r/MensRights05/04/13 10:00 AM
5

Haha yessss! That's amazing! They're actually suing the US government for not making everyone sign up for the draft. And the best part is, they'll probably win!
/r/MensRights05/04/13 12:37 AM
3

And by 'experience', how many women are we talking about here?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 06:41 PM
0

"Its considered a form of psychological abuse," LaViolette said of chronic infidelity. Apparently, having sex with someone counts as domestic abuse... against someone else completely! But otherwiiise, I'm not sure how LaViolette is an idiot. She hasn't actually mentioned any abuse yet, still just fluff about how they had an up-and-down relationship, but she's only said one stupid thing so far. At least, not from the by-the-minute HuffPost updates. Am I missing something?
/r/MensRights04/04/13 05:17 PM
28

Hold on... Is their icon a version of the symbol of chaos? ...wow. That's just uncanny.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:09 PM
56

When Teresa Lewis, the last woman to be executed in the US (2010 - Kimberly McCarthy's execution has been postponed again), hired assassins to murder her husband and stepson for insurance money, a lot of people - enough that nearly every news reports included a "but some supporters say" - were saying that she was probably manipulated by the assassins and shouldn't have been executed. No proof, of course, just the accusation that it's probably a man's fault.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:04 PM
1

Man, this is awful. Like, really awful. There's a frankly ridiculous amount of comments advocating murder! And there's two things fundamentally wrong with what they're all saying: 1: This wasn't vigilante justice. This was not a country where they don't have rape laws. This was pure revenge. I don't care what someone did, murdering someone as revenge is never an acceptable answer! 2: There is absolutely no proof that she's telling the truth. The only reasoning people are giving is that, since ra…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 11:25 AM
13

Okay, nobody's asked it yet, so: How, exactly, does one promote a topic? Also, how do we know it wasn't just an attempt at an April Fools ruined by it sticking around long after the day?
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:21 PM
3

Okay, question for everyone: Has anyone ever, ever heard anyone here say they support anarcho-capitalism? That they don't just dislike government policies, they actually hate the concept of a government to begin with? Because I bloody well haven't! (Also, I firmly believe pure Libertarianism doesn't work, but this is also the absolute dumbest argument against it I've ever heard.) ... Edit: okay, instead of everyone replying, I only get the people who have. This is completely not the point I was …
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:35 AM
23

[insert Hillary Clinton reference here]
/r/MensRights31/03/13 08:57 PM
11

none (lolwtf) Hey, don't joke about that! You'll hurt RightsBot's feelings!
/r/MensRights31/03/13 05:30 PM
7

so mostly its just white knights who cant get laid trying to pretend they are on the other team. I don't like that logic. It's like the flipped version of "MRAs are just whiners who want their privilege back". Unless you have an actual reason to think they're only in it for sex, you really shouldn't assume anything.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 05:29 PM
1

Not only sexist, but they actively prevent women from pursuing a related career too!
/r/MensRights31/03/13 12:36 AM
21

Okay, here's a spoiler for anyone who was going to take this seriously at all: It's taken from an article from Jezebel. The entire rest of the article is about how misandry doesn't exist, and if anyone thinks misandry exists then they're blaming women for imaginary problems. They include this big list of things feminists are against, but it's all spectacularly hollow coming from Jezebel, which doesn't actually talk about these issues. Except when the message is "We care about your problems a lot…
/r/MensRights30/03/13 12:33 PM
4

I'm too angry that they're so god damn sure of.themselves to say anything. Then you've got anger problems. If two people being very adamant in a stupid opinion is actually making you "Too angry to fight back", that's a much bigger problem than their stupid opinions.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 01:03 AM
0

the country Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 12:09 AM
1

Alternatively: financial abortion is an MR issue while abortion is not, since both would solve this problem but only one is actually about discrimination. And the MRM is only about discrimination. Anything else would defeat its purpose.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 11:57 PM
2

Abortion is hardly an MRA issue. Financial abortion is, but that's because it's a matter of actual discrimination.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 11:32 PM
3

The US doesn't have a country-wide law. Each state has their own. A lot of states don't actually have laws specifically for rape, instead calling it sexual assault... which is regarded as the best way to make a rape law.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 03:24 PM
2

I know a lot of feminist organisations ignore or marginalise male rape, but what ones say it doesn't exist?
/r/MensRights29/03/13 03:20 PM
9

How awful! That woman deserves to be fired! I mean, if they find proof, of course.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 02:15 PM
153

Summary: -MRAs are creating trolls. -Misandry doesn't exist. Links to SPLC as proof. -Blames harassment on the "growing belief in 'misandry'". I wasn't exaggerating about that she thinks misandry doesn't exist. -There aren't as many women in tech fields because men in tech fields are discouraging them. Offers no proof. -There'd be more women in tech fields if people stopped making penis jokes. -Uses the word "Microagressions" seriously. -What Richards actually did doesn't matter. What matters is…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:44 PM
22

The same people who think men only get erections when they're aroused do not think women only get orgasms when they're aroused. I'm guessing it's because of one-sided rape teachings. I'm guessing.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:24 PM
19

This sounds a lot like... those stereotypical sorority girl opinions. "Men should marry women younger than them, and women should marry men older than them. Men marry dumber women all the time, but a woman shouldn't marry a man dumber than her. Anyone that does gets shunned. That's like the worst!"
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:19 PM
4

Actually, the only study done in the US (to my knowledge) also says it doesn't help any. It's American doctors using non-American statistics.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:11 PM
55

Since men get erections when they're aroused, therefore any man who has an erection must be consenting, and since an erection is a requirement for (normal) sex, therefore men can't have unconsentual (normal) sex. That's the most common reasoning anyway. There's also the typical "I didn't think about it" too. Edit: Also, not to be confused with people recognising men can be raped, but pretty much ignoring it. That's closer to actual feminism.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:01 PM
5

I'm 6'2" and 250, so I'm probably never going to feel threatened by a woman, but are you guys serious when you say that the physical differences between the genders should be dismissed. If you didn't notice, most men are not 6'2" and 250. One of the physical differences between the genders is not that one of them is always 6'2" and 250. Incidentally, that men are in any way more protected from weapons is also not one of the differences. Non-threatening harassment is always going to be mostly fem…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 11:05 AM
1

I think the MRA movement should start advocating for gay rights. There's two reasons why MRA groups (not MRAs themselves) shouldn't have opinions on topics other than sexual discrimination: 1: It means someone who thinks male sexual discrimination is a big problem, but doesn't agree with the non-sexual discrimination topic (for example, guy who hates the imbalance in divorce, but wants marriage to have strict heterosexual limits) isn't allowed in. This is a big problem with feminism, since anyon…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:52 PM
3

I usually never buy into the whole "Number of Google results says something about society", but I'd make an exception for THIS much of a difference!
/r/MensRights28/03/13 03:13 PM
17

I certainly hope you don't plan on marrying her!
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:09 PM
6

Who's Tom Martin, and why is this question relevant to r/MR?
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:26 PM
4

Ehh... I dunno, 5 years kinda sounds like long enough for someone to properly realise torturing is wrong. I don't like holding people back for things they do in the past.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:19 PM
19

Source?
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:16 PM
1

Honestly... this isn't really helpful. Feminists aren't usually man-hating, they just think men shouldn't be helped. And I wouldn't generalise all feminists as being like the feminists you met- at least, not unless you have some kind of proof showing SRSers are like that.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:10 PM
4

NOW has always been adamantly in favour of affirmative action. They say as much on their own website.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 10:57 PM
2

Breaking two rules, actually: She's breaking the Kickstarter Spamming rule Rule in question: http://i.imgur.com/yefoxge.png Evidence of Spam: http://i.imgur.com/b4l2fI2.png taken from here
/r/MensRights24/03/13 04:50 PM
20

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1awr1n/millionaire_using_kickstarter_to_send_her/ Here's a much better discussion on the matter.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 04:48 PM
2

Aaaactually, it might be a technicality, but she is indeed attempting to make a game out of this. I still hate it though. This whole "Women aren't as interested in tech jobs because women are told to not be so interested in tech jobs" is complete rubbish! It's actually damaging, because it's hiding what the actual problem is! The reason why kids, especially girls, aren't interested in programming is because most of them don't even know what programming is. There's absolutely loads of books and m…
/r/MensRights24/03/13 01:46 PM
0

You... haven't explained why what PlayHaven did was okay here. You really should. Edit: Ignore this post, I forgot what 'dev' meant.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 12:35 PM
-2

The US can't even come to a consensus on what counts as consent. It's really not in a position to teach it to others.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 12:09 AM
4

God, I know what you mean! Seriously, it's like they're all Lyra or something!
/r/MensRights24/03/13 12:02 AM
16

I was really hoping that it was the 'other' kind of eating meat. And the 'other' kind of sexual politics. ...actually no, I take that back. This is too hilarious to be angry about!
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:54 PM
2

What I don't get is why there's so many up-votes on that. Normally, when someone on Reddit says "Men's Rights is just like feminism, because feminism is all about equality and definitely doesn't have a woman bias" it gets massively down-voted. Especially on r/politics. Was this linked to from somewhere else? Either that, or I'm just remembering things badly.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:09 PM
5

I'm sure someone probably has a well-documented list of male issues feminists don't care about, but there's a much simpler way of doing this: UK law says women can't be charged with rape. The US hasn't executed a woman in years. How many feminists, exactly, have you ever met that complained about those issues?
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:57 AM
7

If by "attack", you mean "a failed attempt at a South Park 'mock using absurdity' joke", then yes.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 07:03 PM
1

Sexual harassment? No, I wouldn't say so. Just asking about how your marriage is, even if it's with the worst of intentions, isn't enough to count as sexual harassment. However, it was quite definitely the ordinary kind of harassment!
/r/MensRights22/03/13 02:14 AM
1

Regarding the rate of false rape reports: http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-enlivens-2-false-accusation-figure-part-1-noh/ It's a bad sign when they're taking their info from Enliven. (I can't see where the 50% figure comes from, I can't find it in their citation)
/r/MensRights21/03/13 08:25 PM
-11

I can tell you that never-ending flame wars with feminists do little to advance your cause. I disagree completely. Pretty much the ENTIRE reason men's rights aren't taken seriously is because people still think men don't face even nearly the amount of discrimination that women face... because that's what feminists have been telling everybody. Even mocking feminists makes it clear that there is something about feminism to be mocked.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 05:42 PM
2

Fuck these misandrist laws. "Fuck" is a sexual word. One year in prison for you!
/r/MensRights19/03/13 11:57 AM
10

I wouldn't sign it. There's a couple of things I really, really don't like about this: For A1, 2, and 4, it's just saying "Don't sentence men harsher than women". Which doesn't help without a system to actually enforce that. A5 (drunk sex): Awful. What it SHOULD be is that there needs to be a specific line where someone is too mentally incapacitated to consent. For example, if a person is too drunk to walk then they can't consent. At the moment, it's far too vague and someone can be charged with…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 05:45 PM
0

Yes, that's what everyone does when their annual bills go up. I'd hardly call that sexist.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 02:32 PM
1

Oh. Well now I've learned something today.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 02:27 PM
2

Isn't there anything I can do about this? There's always the option of moving country. (Also, I feel obligated to point out that, if you live less than about 10km away from wherever you need to go, you could always just cycle instead. Exercise is important, after all.)
/r/MensRights16/03/13 05:42 PM
8

I hear that argument a lot, but there's one flaw in it: People who like the colour red are more likely to crash than people who like the colour pink. Would you support increasing insurance rates based on a person's favourite colour? With disabilities, people get compensation from the government. With age, everyone goes through the same thing so it's not discrimination. Everything else is something that's reasonably changeable... except for gender. There's no excuse for categorising gender, it's …
/r/MensRights16/03/13 05:39 PM
8

Kiiiinda. I mean, the part about Double Dragon? The only difference the context makes is that, instead of her saying the character is weak, she's strongly implying the character is weak. For the second point, the context only matters if you think she didn't mean "weaker" when she said "weaker". And finally, the last point isn't a strawman fallacy. It's hyperbole for comedic effect. Nobody thinks Anita actually hates the concept of helping people in real life - rather, the point was to show that …
/r/MensRights16/03/13 05:30 PM
153

Oh wow! When I saw the title, I thought it'd be just two unrelated pictures/comments/discussions where the joke about the man was just a lot funnier. But no, it's genuinely a case of an exactly equal situation, where the only difference is the gender! I seriously didn't think the gendered perceptions of fat people was that bad.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 05:18 PM
1

Here's a (very incomplete) list of big ones Also, some more: The US hasn't executed a single woman since 2010, and only 12 since Capital Punishment was re-introduced 40 years ago - compared to over 1,300 men. The UK has laws saying women cannot be charged with rape. Yes, really.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 04:33 PM
2

This just in: leg-revealing clothes are sexier if the legs are shaved. More at 11. Coming up next: un-erect penises not considered sexy!
/r/MensRights16/03/13 03:52 PM
1

The thing I don't like about Tumblr is that Liking a reply saying "Men are raped, also, you're crazy" counts as Liking the original post. In other words, it's hard to say how many people actually agree.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 11:34 AM
0

The only things in the law that single out women differently than men is regarding contraception, pre and post natal care, and abortion. There is nothing that says men have to pay for things that women do not. That is simply untrue. http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/womensprevention08012011a.html The government itself agrees with him. In fact, He still left out a big one - domestic violence screening. But yes, as far as I can tell they even invented the term "well-women visits" f…
/r/MensRights16/03/13 11:26 AM
2

Feminspire doesn't know what coercion means. No big surprise.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 02:16 AM
4

I think the better part was where she completely went against exactly what her Masters thesis was about.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 10:07 PM
1

I like this article! I remember having mixed feelings about the blog itself, but this is a very well-written article!
/r/MensRights15/03/13 08:40 PM
3

I have to ask: did you actually read the article, or did you just read the heading? (Spoiler: it's not about "manning up" and looking after women, it's about "manning up" and not being too cowardly to criticize people)
/r/MensRights15/03/13 08:35 PM
1

it's silly that she's not the contestant Is that before or after you realise that the male character is also wearing the deodorant? It is also advertising a Deodorant For Men as well. ....which makes the ad even dumber.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:01 PM
1

Apparently, it's because it's a man doing the quiz instead of a woman. No, most people don't find it sexist.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:00 PM
1

Hang on... ...you expected people in r/WTF to take things seriously? As in, without joking at all? What a silly thing to do.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 03:44 AM
19

Geeeez that's bad. I mean, that's really bad. Throughout the entire speech, it was near-entirely about women, with one single line about children. this is the only thing I saw that really talked about men: I love those men who would say when we started this about why don't they just leave. I feel like I should have some witty comment poking fun at this, but I don't. This is just downright inexcusable!
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:06 PM
3

Does it? There's a lot of generalisations, but nothing that I'd find to be actually discriminatory.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 10:23 AM
5

Actually, he kinda was - he hasn't written anything after that article. Assuming you're talking about David Wong, and not the OP.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 03:04 PM
8

The part I liked most was where you decided reading an article by David Wong was a good idea. What a silly thing to do.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 02:44 PM
2

I was bullied mercilessly Discipline is the most important thing for a Man to learn. I'm gonna go ahead and say that being bullied is not discipline.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 02:40 PM
1

What we didn't have was Ritalin etc but strangely enough we had well disciplined, respectful classes. Didn't a lot less people graduate from university back then?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 02:11 PM
2

Hmm... I'd say no, in that I recognise there are good reasons to have a children's social thing like this to be one gender only. Normally, I'd be noting the lack of a male equivalent... but from the sounds of it, the Boy Scouts of America seems to have a similar enough purpose. ...or, at least, that's what I would be saying but - truth be told - this website isn't very convincing that this isn't rubbish.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:50 PM
1

I didn't, I compared genders with races. "Men more likely to be interested in younger people" with "Black people more likely to- Oh, I think I just realised the incredible stupidity of my post.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 07:58 PM
-1

Because it is men who look down the age pyramid, not women. That's pretty horrid logic. That's like saying, since black people are statistically more likely to commit petty theft, increasing the minimum sentencing for petty theft is racist.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:11 PM
1

Most people are from the US. Where, overall, women definitely get custody most of the time. men get custody about 75% of the time I don't know where you live, but what's your source on this one anyway?
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:55 PM
1

Yeah, that's completely messed up. Even if you could make an argument about the difference between just sex and spreading pictures online, the difference should not be 15 years in prison! Edit: Hah, he wasn't even giving out the pictures, was he? Buuut as someone else said, that's not an MR issue.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:31 PM
2

Tag it on to the end of every RightsBot post: Your post has been copied here. PS: Lawyer up!
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:57 AM
63

Lawyer. If there's no evidence of rape beyond "She said so", you won't get arrested, so you shouldn't beware the police. Also, if she IS trying to extort you, you might be able to meet with her (or have someone else meet with her), record the conversation, and get proof that she's extorting you. Might. It's just an idea. But absolutely do not try that without consulting with a lawyer first!
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:56 PM
3

There's only two types of feminist sub-reddits on Reddit: The kind that's extremely pro-censorship, and won't allow any opposing opinion, and doesn't have the right rules to be a safe spot or just a place to discuss feminism with feminists. And then there's r/feminism. Which just isn't a good sub-reddit.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 11:55 AM
2

What? We already have a term for this: it's manslaughter. Doing something that would kill a person, but with no intention of killing anyone and barely a reason to think anyone would die. Why is she not being charged for it, and why are people arguing whether it should be a crime?
/r/MensRights09/03/13 03:17 PM
1

I'd say yes... and no. Yes, in that he's clearly picking on something to fight about - Anita has always been pro-censorship, as has lots of other feminists; if it was just an ordinary issue, he'd be complaining about how some people censor their comments, rather than picking on one person in particular. But I'd say no in that your accusations that he's pandering to the audience, or just getting attention, really comes off as nothing more than conjecture. You haven't said anything to back it up. …
/r/MensRights09/03/13 04:38 AM
5

I... what? Really? I'd like to hear more about this!
/r/MensRights09/03/13 03:36 AM
2

The US has been only executing men for years, and the UK has laws saying women can't rape. And normal people don't know about this at all. Men make up the sheer majority of prisoners, and single male fathers are allowed to become poor basically at random. And normal people don't seem to care. And that's not even the start of it. I support the MRM because it tries to fix these problems. And I want to fix as many problems in society as I can.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 03:35 AM
6

I've only ever seen it used in two ways: 1: A man significantly overestimating the intelligence of the women he's talking to. Normally, it requires a sign that he's only doing this because the person is a woman, but it's routinely used to just mean "A man being unjustly superior". 2: By a feminist who thinks men shouldn't be allowed to object to feminism. I've never heard of anyone using it to refer to explaining something to men.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 03:25 AM
2

Okay? What were you expecting us to say? This is a very rare case where a claimed rape victim (remember, not the same thing as an abuse victim) decided going out with her rapist was a good idea. We have no idea what made her change her mind. There's simply no way you can derive any meaningful social commentary from this whatsoever.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 03:11 AM
3

12% of rape and sexual assault cases (or claims) lead to an arrest, they says. This includes cases not actually reported, they says. Well here's a question: why are the unreported cases still considered awful if the 'victim' decided it wasn't something worth calling the police for? Sure, there's the few people who do have it bad, will tell an anonymous study, but won't tell the police - but the majority of those 'cases' simply weren't thought of as either harmful or a crime to begin with! It's s…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 05:42 PM
8

Nnnno, she's not stereotyping in this case. There is indeed a difference between saying that a lot of people in a certain group act a certain way, and saying that people of a certain group tend to act a certain way. For example, saying "I get leered at a lot" isn't stereotyping, but saying "Why do men always leer at me" is.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 05:22 PM
1

Anita Sarkeesian has made an entire career out of endorsing censorship. Why is this one instance of it is such a big deal?
/r/MensRights08/03/13 03:54 PM
1

There is no way this will ever get enough votes. Not a chance! It's completely insane!
/r/MensRights08/03/13 03:51 PM
3

You're right, they didn't. They did, however, say that "they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express". But no, they did not use the phrase 'hate sites' in describing how the sites were completely full of hatred.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 03:24 PM
-2

Wait, she actually made arguments in this video? Like what?
/r/MensRights08/03/13 10:35 AM
5

Maybe it was just me, but it felt like the end of the video was a hairs breadth away from the "violence in video games makes people violent" argument, but with sexism instead. I wouldn't have a problem with that, IF she actually showed how the trope makes people sexist. But she really doesn't, she just mentions what is basically a hypothesis without following up on it.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 12:55 AM
2

It's already been linked just a short while before your topic. Sorry. For my own opinion? 1 minute of content, 23 minutes of filler explaining what the trope is and how prevalent it is... in older games/franchises. And no, that 1 minute is not good content - it's mostly theories about why the trope is bad, backed up by nothing whatsoever.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 12:12 AM
6

TL;DR: The video is chock full of filler. Absolutely loads of it! There's about 1 minute of content, and 23 minutes of explaining the trope - and that's not even an exaggeration! She only mentions about three points in how the trope is actually bad, and doesn't back them up with any proof or studies or such. She spends ages on Peach, after showing why Peach is a bad example. The entire video is awful. I explain why as I watch. Okay instead of waiting for the end, I'm going to say what I'm thinki…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 12:04 AM
3

About how Dinosaur Planet became Star Fox Adventures: basically, Dinosaur Planet was cancelled but was bought back to life afterwards as Star Fox Adventures. The female hero with a male (equally playable) sidekick turned into a Nintendo hero saving a female damsel in distress. The problem with that is, if you noticed by the trailer, the game as it was and the game as it became are ONLY alike in gameplay and that there is two foxes. Saying that Krystal was demoted to a damsel is... technically tr…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 11:25 PM
2

Mmm... It's like it can't decide whether or not it wants to be serious. Most of the first half sounds like it's supposed to be proper advice, and most of the second half is very joke-y reasons. Either way, it fails at being either good advice OR funny.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 07:07 PM
7

I'd say that most people either rather like us or really hate us (not counting the ones that are ban-happy against us), and there's no consensus across Reddit. It depends a lot on the sub-reddit. For example, r/SubRedditOfTheDay thinks we are the best damn thing on Reddit. r/Communism, meanwhile, hates us.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 05:56 PM
3

That's a confusing way of saying... why does the teacher object to #5 but not to #7? ... But frankly, I'm much more concerned with how the exam uses the term "emotional terrorism" with a straight face.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 05:47 PM
2

HOW TO GET MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER TO ADMIT TO BEATING ME UP You don't. You can't. Hide a camera or audio recorder (or webcam?) and try catch them on film. Once you do, go straight to the police with it. If the police think it's minor, they'll make them go get advice. If they think it's major, then they'll charge her for assault. A divorce should be a last resort, only if you can't ever catch them on camera or the police in your area are astoundingly awful and just do not give a damn (I've heard of…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:47 PM
-11

Actually, I know it's adding to an already dead issue, but I just noticed: Y'know how all the bans from here are because this counts as a down-vote brigade? And that they really hate down-vote brigades? ... One of the moderators linked back here in the same topic.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:25 PM
1

Yeah, for a while I was thinking "Man, Republicans really aren't buying into that whole 'women deserve special privileges in law and the workplace' stuff like Democrats do, maybe they're actually the progressive ones when it comes to sexism". That was up until polls came in about if women should have to sign up for the draft, and significantly more Republicans were against it than Democrats. Now I just settle with "They're both equally sexist, just in different ways".
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:17 PM
-12

That link only applies to subs smaller than <30k subscribers, which this isn't. Although I do vaguely remember that rule being for all subs at one time. Was that an old rule, or am I just mis-remembering things?
/r/MensRights07/03/13 02:52 PM
-15

In theory there's a point behind having a place exclusive to talking with like-minded people. As in, without constant distractions with questions about "why do you believe X in the first place" or just objectors. Just as long as you don't become a shut-in who doesn't ever talk to people who disagree with you, and you don't use the "safe spot" as a circle-jerk. But that doesn't work so well in practice. In practice, a lot of people really don't like criticism, so they'll never seek out an opposit…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 02:41 PM
-46

I have a golden rule: if they name-drop someone/some group, then they're an imposter. Otherwise, you might as well assume it's real simply because there's no real reason not to.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 01:51 PM
-25

Don't bother. You see that one with the "Proud Feminist" tag with the whole load of ridiculous anti-MRA accusations? They're a Moderator. Edit: yup, banned instantly just for saying "this got linked on MensRights". That was fast. Anyone from this subreddit is banned instantly. Edit again: a PMer has pointed out that they don't normally ban MRAs, just down-vote brigaders. Where down-vote brigaders includes commenting, not just voting down. Which isn't so bad... maybe? I have personal objections t…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 01:32 PM
-16

It's not the OP that's the problem, it's everyone else's comments.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 01:30 PM
1

And you have a shitty attitude, man. What gives? I do? That's certainly not intentional.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 01:12 PM
1

Actually, Chypria, Spain, Portugal and Poland are in this case (rape or medical reasons). Spain and Portugal have no such restrictions on early pregnancy, and... I don't know what Chypria is. A typo? Malta bans it altogether Oh yeah, I forgot Malta is a Western country now.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 10:59 AM
1

Why are you saying we're the hateful ones? The top posts are all saying what you're saying - that she shouldn't be apologising, and that it's not right to group people together like that - but all of them are significantly nicer and more polite than how you said it. That it's so up-voted doesn't mean we want women to apologise for other women. We really don't. We're just suckers for "You guys made me realise the huge problems men face, and I want to try make things right in my own way" posts.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 12:32 AM
4

Wouldn't that mean she was only accused of said stabbing? It's possible that the journalist just reported it wrong, but what the article said was that the jury was told she stabbed him before.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 12:07 AM
1

I mean, what other Western countries restrict abortion like that? Edit: also, why do you say that as if Ireland or Poland don't?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 10:05 PM
1

"We would expect to see an increase in accidental deaths and from occupational diseases as women gain work equality in dangerous fields previously exclusive to men."
/r/MensRights06/03/13 10:01 PM
1

A few other only allow it for medical reasons or in cases of rape. Such as?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 05:58 PM
1

There's been a recent issue discovered with the current abortion laws . Specifically, that the doctors have to decide if an abortion is medically necessary, and therefore legal, and in a worst case scenario could result in doctors intentionally letting a pregnant woman die. So there's a debate about what should the new law cover (eg: suicide threats)? Anyway, the Irish majority AND government, being vehemently pro-life, wants to keep the issue entirely pro-life. They're treating pro-choice campa…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 05:06 PM
0

Basically: between 1996 and 2006, nearly half of all US Counties had a growing mortality rate for women, compared to only 3.4% of Counties for men. There's a couple of guesses why - workplace equality, less men dying in wars, etc. Most of the guesses are that it's a sign of equality.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:57 PM
7

Man, siding with kidnappers is bad enough, but they go out of their way to say "they're mothers mothers mothers they're women you guys they need protection".
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:44 PM
1

There's two ways this joke can be taken: 1: Men control the world, and only cater to their own desires. 2: Libertarian businesses control... well, their businesses, but only cater to men. The first one is a sexist attempt at a dumb joke. The second one is not-so-sexist attempt at a dumber joke. But it's still important to make sure you know which joke the friend thinks this is about.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:40 PM
1

I don't think Poland is a Western country. It's pretty far East in Europe and it was part of the communist Eastern Bloc, and it's still classed as a developing country.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:30 PM
2

Given that I do live in the only Western country that's anti-abortion (Ireland), I have to say... no, I really don't. It's like with the modern SPLC. Even if they do get it right some times, and actually identify hate groups, it doesn't make up for all the times that they identify perfectly good organisations as being hate groups. ...or, that's what I would be saying if I had any opinion on whether abortion should be illegal. So no anyway. (Of course, now I also need to point out that this is al…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 10:51 AM
1

She said it would be at the end of February at the start of the month, but... this is close enough. So, anyone wanna take bets? I mean, whether it'll actually seem like it took several thousand dollars to make, or whether it'll look like a video version of TVtropes?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:56 AM
1

But... Who's rights are you talking about? I mean, no matter what position they decide on, they're taking away rights.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:45 AM
1

Keep a man from paying child support for a kid he never wanted and keep a woman from having to bear a rapists child. Shit, keep yourself from having to pay welfare or keep your car from being broken into by some punk kid who was never wanted in the first place(after roe v wade crime dropped). You are astoundingly awful at arguing this. Here's a tip: don't use an argument that would say killing unwanted infants is a good thing.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:43 AM
6

Yeah yeah, seen it before. Take note: feminists never say "Those problems will go away if we fight the Patriarchy" for women's issues. When have you ever heard a feminist say "We don't need a Lilly Ledbetter Act, we need to fight the cause". Simply put, whenever a feminist mentions "fighting the Patriarchy", it's always as an excuse for why they're not actively fighting for equality.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 03:09 PM
6

A large number of feminist sub-reddits (called the "SRS Fempire). In other words, the biggest feminist group on Reddit. Basically, think of all the negative stereotypes of feminism short of actually hating men. Censorship, ignoring sexism against men, constantly insulting, etc etc. SRS embodies them. That's all you need to know. An before you ask: no, that's not exaggeration. If you asked them, they'd actually agree with the first and third examples I gave, and for the second they'd just say "th…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 02:06 PM
6

Fuck that. If my wife let me know she was cooking meth I would have noped the fuck out of there too. I think most people complain about how she didn't do that. More specifically, how she kept saying she would, but never did.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 09:16 AM
3

Ah, sorry, I probably should've said that when the thread came up. I had already looked into it from before. But yeah, you're totally right - it counts as sexual assault instead of rape, but has the same potential sentencing. Interestingly, they actually could have changed the current definition to say women can rape. The latest UK rape law was in Scotland in 2009, to allow male-on-male to be rape. That they didn't think female-on-male rape could count as rape, only 4 years ago, is extremely tel…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 07:15 PM
0

Nearly right. It's an old article, and the law has since been replaced. The new law says that a man can be raped... but only by another man. It's very, very specific about that a woman cannot be charged with rape.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 12:56 PM
5

Well... ...the good news is that now you can start living properly again! I mean, sure, it'd take a bit of effort to get back on your feet again, but it'll be easy knowing how worth it it is.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 01:38 AM
2

By Jove, I... I think he's right! And might I be so daring to say that men are ALSO responsible for this problem? I THINK I MIGHT! Stupid humans, ruining it for everybody.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 01:53 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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