TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Men13 Archive

View 4 posts and 557 comments by Men13 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
7

But then they'll get to complain that they were right all along! And we all know that complaining is an end in itself for SJWs
/r/MensRights29/08/15 03:05 PM
8

But "murder" is a legal label. Killing is a description of the act, murder is a description of the act + legal consideration From the dictionary: Murder - noun: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. If you remove the legal label, it's just killing.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:43 PM
8

Not if she only says "the truth": here is a list of men who were accused of sexual harassment, went in front of the disciplinary board, were found not guilty. If that's all she says about them - it isn't libel, it's just facts.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:36 PM
3

Let's talk about what people tend to not talk about: Most of the men on Ashley Madison didn't cheat. Why do I say that? Because most women on Ashley Madison was shown to be fake profiles - either men pretending to be women for "fun" or actual Ashley Madison employees trying to get men to pay for more messages. I'm not saying men in general don't cheat - both men and women cheat. I'm saying that the men on Ashley Madison most likely never actually met anyone from that site. Oh, they looked at a l…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:34 PM
5

Yea - "here's a lot of research I did showing the baseless nature of rape culture and other statistics parroted by contemporary feminism" *crickets* "I'm tired of people not believing me outright" *applause*
/r/MensRights28/08/15 01:39 AM
5

And you can see how she REALLY REALLY cares about the injustices the likes of Valenti - and what she calls "contemporary feminism" - are bringing to the world. She's truly passionate about it. This isn't a "shtick". It's really important to her. It really bothers her how men are being treated and how contemporary feminism is, well, wrong.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 01:38 AM
12

I'm still in the first 10 minutes (only McElroy talked so far) and... just wow. I'm almost weeping. You need to watch it - not just for the "humiliation" (which I didn't see yet, as again only McElroy talked so far), but because she's such a good speaker. Just wow. Edit 15 minutes in now, still only McElroy talked so far. I have yet to see someone with so much empathy for men. You need to watch her talk. I've personally downloaded the video to my computer in case Valenti's lawyers manage to get …
/r/MensRights27/08/15 10:00 PM
2

Maybe they just don't tell you about it. I've heard of it happening 2 times with friends of mine: one where they already had 3 kids and didn't want anymore, the wife had an IUD, but still got pregnant somehow. So they had an abortion. The other where they were in a rocky place as a couple. Talk of separation was in the air (but they would still have sex from time to time apparently). Wife got pregnant. There was a brief talk about "staying together for the kid", but they quickly got to their sen…
/r/MensRights27/08/15 12:56 AM
3

I do get to blame the woman if the woman intentionally misled me. I may be an idiot, but I still get to blame her. Grow up and be a man. Fuck you. Go to hell. Get out of this sub and go back to whatever hole you came from.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:44 AM
3

Yes, the guy is responsible to not get lied to. He is responsible for being duped. He's responsible because he trusted someone else, and as punishment he deserves to be liable for 18 years of alimony. Of course the victim is always the one to blame for their situation.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:29 AM
7

You have no idea what you're talking about. None. You make assumptions and acting as if you know everything about all relationships out there. What if we both agreed we never want kids (or had enough kids) but the woman, once she feels she's approaching her "last chance", decides unilaterally to get pregnant? What if you knew she wanted kids when you got married, and you too, but you just got fired and don't feel like you're in a good financial place right now and want to wait a bit. She argues …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:41 AM
4

Yea, hind sight 20/20. And also blaming the victim etc. You don't always know in advance how a person will act 15 years in the future.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:42 AM
10

can prove its not his. Can leave the country, etc Well, the unwed father can do that as well. Oh, and proving it's not yours doesn't always work if you're married
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:09 AM
323

In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. I'd just add the wed father to that list as well. Otherwise - well said!
/r/MensRights25/08/15 10:48 PM
4

Dating sites mostly sell you the "hope" of a date, not actual dates. They often have fake women's profiles or even bots - so that men think there is a possibility they will find a date there, even though there isn't. The site might be almost 100% men, and as long as they don't know it's the case they'd stay on the site.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 09:39 PM
101

Exactly. A man might be very attracted to a woman and aroused by the situation, and still not want sex. Why? Because he's married and doesn't want to cheat. Or because although he's attracted to her he doesn't like her. Or because he's afraid of STDs. Or because he's afraid of her getting pregnant. Or because his friend is in love with her and he doesn't want to betray his friend. Or he just doesn't want the drama. Or he's saving himself to only have sex out of love (not "just attraction"). Or h…
/r/MensRights23/08/15 05:56 PM
1

Then don't go there. But the whole point of this thread is the /r/escapetheechochamber sub. And escaping the mra echo chamber is talking to people who are not pro-mra. If you don't want to do it - don't. No one is forcing you. But if you do want to do it - /r/femradebates might be a better choice.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 03:38 AM
1

The second one always seemed to me more MRA controlled than Fe, but anyway the whole point is to discuss things with the people you normally disagree with, so what's the problem?
/r/MensRights21/08/15 03:12 AM
1

Isn't there already a (quite established) /r/changemyview - as well as a (quite established as well) /r/FeMRADebates/ specifically for this echo chamber?
/r/MensRights20/08/15 11:43 PM
18

I remember with the whole hobby lobby thing, when feminists complained that "if a company would refuse to pay for male contraception the legal system would have nailed them to the wall, but because it's women contraception they give them exemptions" Completely ignoring that it's actually legal to not give male contraception in the ACA - only women's contraception is mandated. They just invent things and then get outraged by their own inventions.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 10:16 PM
5

Now? It's been like that for years now!
/r/MensRights20/08/15 07:55 PM
6

I don't know why you're being downvoted. I mean, I do think I would be offended and feel humiliated in this guy's place (because they are obviously doing it to make fun of him, not because they are attracted to him) - but fuck that. Being offensive isn't some "sin" you must avoid. So they made fun of him. And similarly - if the genders were reversed - yes, she might feel creeped out. So what? I mean - it isn't a nice thing to do, but so what? The feminist ideal that anything that makes you feel …
/r/MensRights20/08/15 07:34 AM
26

That quote not only erased male soldiers, but men in general. Saying women are the primary victims of war because they lose fathers and sons and have to leave their homes and live in refugee camps, completely erases all the men who lose fathers and sons and have to live in refugee camps. You know - the men who weren't "soldier aged", also called "most of them".
/r/MensRights20/08/15 03:58 AM
3

It's female judges. Female judges see right through the feminist bullshit of "women are just victims - we should cuddle them". God bless female judges.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 04:34 PM
3

"Misogyny at work! Men tend to be less friendly to women, avoiding them at all cost and pointedly ignoring them when they can't be avoided - creating a toxic workplace to women in an attempt to drive them out of the workforce" Cuz you know it'll come after that.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 04:29 PM
1

From the Data Declaration section of the website you linked: This table provides the estimated number of offenses and the rate of crime per 100,000 inhabitants for each state The number of offenses, not the number of reports. The word "report" in that link isn't the report to the police as you suggested (many offenses in a single report), but rather the report BY the police to the FBI. Each year every police jurisdiction sends a report of the number of offences in each category (a single report …
/r/MensRights18/08/15 02:57 AM
1

She knew what could happen to this man Not necessarily. Not everyone is aware to how fucked up our legal system is. She might have legitimately thought that if she lied about her age he couldn't get into trouble (I mean, that's what any reasonable person would think the law should be). She might also not understand the whole "statutory rape" thing - thinking that as long as she doesn't complain or claim he raped her - he's safe. And since they met on tinder, I'm assuming he wasn't her first. She…
/r/MensRights17/08/15 11:44 PM
107

"What if you initiate the date?" "I wouldn't do that". Wow. Fuck her.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 04:07 PM
1

I can't help you much about the data, but I notices you took the number of rape incidents a year and turned it into the number of victims. I know that at least for male victims that's very far from the case - esp. in prison - as men raped in prison tend to be rapes a very large number of times. I don't know how it goes for rape in the general population, but at least for sexual abuse / rape of minors by relatives or friends - each victim suffers many times. I'm sure it's similar in spouse rape a…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 10:58 PM
10

Men look for validation of their worth. Unlike women, who are deemed to have worth simply by existing, men's worth is dependent on women's approval. A woman's worth is basically tied by society to how much her approval is worth (in other words - to how picky she is / can be in giving approval) while a man's worth is tied by society to how many women see him as having worth. Like in "action movies". Unlike what most feminist dogma will tell you - the woman isn't the prize. The prize is acknowledg…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 01:18 AM
5

Almost a decade ago I turned to a (now ex) friend of mine to talk to her about some self-doubts I had regarding sex and consent. I was dating someone at the time that - even though she initiated and verbally told me she was interested in, I had a "wrong" feeling about the situation and wasn't sure she "really" wanted sex (turns out later that I was right :/ but that's a different story) I turned to that friend for advice because she was a life-long feminist and a gender-studies student and talke…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 06:52 AM
3

Well, they are afraid they'll get sued for discrimination - not allowing men to walk with dresses on casual Friday while allowing women... can be seen as discrimination on the basis of sex. So they in fact can't be up front even if they wanted to. Ah - the wonderful world of PC we live in!
/r/MensRights10/08/15 06:30 AM
5

I wore skirts for "Casual Friday" for a while. It was frowned upon, but they couldn't really tell me anything. After a couple of weeks or so they canceled Casual Friday. Technically they never said it was because of the skirts, but my co-workers assumed so nonetheless (and to be honest - so do I)
/r/MensRights09/08/15 11:04 PM
4

But if men can just... pay for sex and get on with their lives with no repercussions, how will women keep their power over them?
/r/MensRights08/08/15 12:19 PM
1

Ah, in GB they pay for your training? Yea, then that would be a problem. But engineers aren't paid by the government to train. So I don't think it's the same thing.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 02:58 AM
2

Would it have been better if they weren't doctors at all? I mean - was this "push of women into medicine" keeping men out - or is it an addition to whatever men would have been doctors? (I really don't know - is there a fixed number of "places" a year for doctors / medical students, and having more women decreased the number of men?) Because if the number of men wasn't artificially decreased - then even part-time doctors is better than no doctors given there's a doctor shortage...
/r/MensRights08/08/15 02:15 AM
1

I really know nothing about any doctor issues in Great Britain.
/r/MensRights08/08/15 01:46 AM
-1

Well, if you assume women are just as capable at being engineers as men (and the only reason there aren't more is that they aren't encouraged enough) then yes - we NEED women engineers. Why? Because we are lacking engineers. Severely lacking. We already "take" as many engineers as we can from the male population (salaries are really high, so most people who can and would enjoy being engineers are probably there) so we're "tapped out" of that resources. But we still need more engineers. Where can…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 06:08 PM
3

Don't forget to have a list of the number of boys who lost their fathers and number of men who lost their sons, and the number of boys and men who were displaced from their home. You know, because even the things she claims does victimise women - are just as victimizing to men (in addition to men actually dying) But yea - I never saw a recording of it :/
/r/MensRights07/08/15 02:55 AM
2

There's the text of the entire full speech in the government national archives website: http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html I don't know if there is a recording of the actual speech though.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 02:24 AM
1

Maybe countries with too much money to spare can afford taking people, training them for 3-6 months only to then reassign them because they don't pass the fitness test. But common-sense wise, that's not a good idea.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 07:04 PM
1

OK you have to pass this physical to get in Well, you do have to pass a "physical" in the medical sense, but not in the fitness sense which is what you probably meant. And you get drafted either way, you just might not be in a role that demands fitness if you're unfit. And no, you don't have to pass a fitness test to get in, but you have to pass a fitness test after basic training or you will have to repeat it. If you don't pass it then either - you probably get reassigned. If you expect that th…
/r/MensRights06/08/15 06:57 PM
1

Well, we all know that women are in fact less physically capable than men. And we often complain when women are given less strict benchmarks to pass to become soldiers / firefighters / cops etc - as lives might depend on their abilities, so why allow people with sub-par abilities? Since men who don't get to pass the requirements aren't taken to combat roles either, I find it OK that the military decided women in general aren't strong enough to be in physically demanding combat roles. Especially …
/r/MensRights06/08/15 06:44 PM
2

Doesn't Israel already have compulsory military for women (even though it's shorter)? Sure, they aren't put into combat units - but still, forced to serve in the army in various roles, no?
/r/MensRights06/08/15 06:05 PM
1

"convicting him in the court of public opinion" is a bit dramatic. Each person can make their own mind. But really - 40 women from different places and different times, all describing basically the same thing, some of them having evidence they voiced complaints decades ago but were shut down, and the leaked deposition transcript that happens to sound very similar to what they describe... I think that's enough. Like if 40 people would come and say that "this person" mugged them at various times -…
/r/MensRights04/08/15 06:42 PM
2

No, that was the point - maybe - of 1st wave feminism. Then they discovered that when women have choices - they tend to choose things that feminists find objectionable. So they decided to move to the whole "privilege" route: basically saying that there's an invisible force that helps one group over another group, and as such you can't judge individuals because this invisible force treats people as groups.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 06:24 PM
1

That poster in KiA is actually... not all there? They think that any place that acknowledges that racism/sexism exists (in any form, against anyone) is a SJW and should be boycotted. https://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3fqbgx/in_light_of_githubs_recentlyannounced/ctrbzko?context=1
/r/MensRights04/08/15 06:05 PM
1

But again - they talk mostly about censoring C+= project. I don't mind if they censor offensive projects. I mind that they explicitly state that being anti-white/male/heterosexual/cis isn't offensive. I don't care about a specific project - that was offensive - being censored. I'm all for not offending people on purpose. I mind that they don't care if you offend some people because they "deserve it" or whatever.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 05:40 PM
1

Why do I "know"? He hasn't been convicted. So it's not the conviction that makes me "know" - it's the evidence which I reviewed myself and make my own specific decision. Sure, Cosby is less "cut and dry" - but it's the same principle. I, as a person, reviewed the evidence and came to my own conclusions and am acting upon them. Just as valid.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 04:24 PM
2

Well, they talk mostly about the C+= project. I don't mind if the remove "offensive" projects - I do mind them being so blatantly one sided though ("we will not consider sexism against men or racism against whites or cisphobia complaints")
/r/MensRights03/08/15 10:35 PM
39

So you're saying we have to move our repositories to bitbucket? :/
/r/MensRights03/08/15 08:05 PM
0

No, I'm not arguing the "justice of the mob" (meaning "the mob takes justice into its own hands"). I'm not saying the "mob" should lynch him or anything similar to that. I'm arguing the right to form my own opinion. Example: your neighbour broke into your house, beat you up and took $400 from your wallet. You call the police, but there's not enough evidence (other than your word) that he did it. So... he is innocent? Legally yes. Do you have to treat him as if he's innocent? Hell no. If you're h…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 08:35 PM
0

So are you saying he didn't do it because the statute of limitation has passed? That's the only thing that is different here. Also - you're talking about proof Nungesser is innocent, as it "creates reasonable doubt". The facebook chats do that. But it isn't enough to convict Emma "beyond a reasonable doubt" of falsely accusing him. If Cosby's accusers wanted I'm sure they could press charges too (except that the statute of limination has passed. But that doesn't mean he is innocent right?). And …
/r/MensRights01/08/15 08:29 PM
0

But you're NOT explaining it to me - you're explaining it to any person who might be reading this thread. If you think I wrote something wrong, then another reader (not me and not you) might read my reply and get convinced of my wrong ideas. What are you going to do about it? Apparently - nothing. A person who hasn't formed an opinion yet, reading my post and then both your low-effort replies, will concludes that no one has a good rebuke to my post, so I must be right. Thanks to you, I'm able to…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 02:47 PM
-1

Ah, yes. Very convincing. Indeed. I now see what I said is completely wrong. Good argument there.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 02:11 PM
0

Well, I'm not a celebrity, but I was falsely accused. Being falsely accused means I know first hand false accusations are a thing, and I know first hand how horribly they can impact my life, even if you're not charged with it. But being falsely accused doesn't mean I think there is no such thing as rape. And in this case - I'm pretty sure he's a rapist. I won't put him in prison (due process and stuff), but I won't defend him either. I won't go out for a drink with him, and I won't put him as a …
/r/MensRights01/08/15 01:59 PM
-2

And rapes also happen all the time. These women are looking for a payday in civil court dude. Do you have proof of that? Because if not - you're not giving them due process or considering them "innocent until proven guilty" now are you.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 01:50 PM
-5

And no one is convicting him. Emma Sulkowitch wasn't proven guilty either, but we don't have a problem pronouncing her as a (very probably) false accuser. So are you supporting "innocent until proven guilty" only for men? Or are we saying that although legally she and Cosby have to be considered innocent until they are convicted, we can look at the evidence ourselves and decide who we want to support and who we don't want to support?
/r/MensRights01/08/15 01:38 PM
1

witness testimony is evidence. Maybe not reliable evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Here we have about 40 witnesses (the victims are witnesses) - I'm not saying you have to believe them, but you obviously are not accepting "literally any evidence". He is innocent in the eyes of the law. No question about that. And that's how it should be. Doesn't mean he's "actually" innocent, and doesn't mean we have to treat hi as if he's innocent. We are not the law, we are not the state. I don't think Neov…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 01:34 PM
3

To be "fair", anything helping exclusively men and children would be considered sexist, and anything helping exclusively women and children would be "empowerment". You know, like DV men's shelters vs. DV women's shelters. At least in this case it's women helping themselves and not asking demanding that men do the "dirty" work. That's progress, I guess?
/r/MensRights01/08/15 12:55 PM
4

That makes sense too. Anyway - the question is: was this lock put in place to fix an actual issue that arose, or was it set in place to prevent theoretical issues from arising.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 06:59 PM
61

And here lies the question: Was there ever an issue with men going into women's bathroom to attack them, that would have needed the keypad as a "solution" to that issue? Because if the keypad was put in after a specific attack, then that's one thing (and understandable), but if it was put in "just in case" or because "better safe than sorry" - then all it does is make women feel unsafe. It makes women feel like the men around them are out to get them, and makes men feel stereotyped as an aggress…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 06:17 PM
22

Well, duh! The sex workers are just women, what do they know? They should be told what's good for them, and then forced to do what they're told. That's the only way to free women! How will you free women if you just let them decide for themselves what they want? We've tried that - they keep deciding they want the wrong things!
/r/MensRights31/07/15 08:28 AM
3

I'm sure google removes things if they are too... "charged". They don't need the bad publicity of adding a definition. The problem is that there's a few conflicting definitions. I'd say that most people, if you ask them, would say that rape is "sex without consent". And I think that's what we also use on this sub. The legal definition however (at least according to the FBI) is a lot less broad - it's only "being penetrated without consent". That's a problem for men's rights, because it completel…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 06:38 AM
2

Duh! Because they're rapists! Are you trying to defend rapists? /s
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:27 AM
3

I want to know how this ended :(
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:15 AM
1

That is extremely interesting, as it almost completely reverses the feminist narrative!
/r/MensRights30/07/15 03:12 AM
1

I just called the mall and they indeed confirmed that they have no such sign on their restrooms, and that family restrooms are open to both men and women.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 10:58 PM
0

Called them - they claim they have no such sign, and that the family restroom if open to both father and mothers.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 10:57 PM
0

No, that's an example of society rather than human nature being responsible. An example is not a strawman. But you don't try to listen. You only try to be right. Lack of mens shelters isn't the reason for higher crime rates Oh, is that a fact too? I though you're all about facts, so... can you prove that fact to me? Or is that... gasp opinion?! And that bullshit about stronger people being more likely to commit crimes... that's not even an opinion. That's a brain-fart. You know what is a fact? T…
/r/MensRights28/07/15 03:06 AM
3

Apparently you don't know how to Occam's razor. And you're intentionally misrepresenting what I said - as if I claimed that a person would go around all the time with a "women only" sticker in case they need it. I think that would be a strawman? Like a textbook case? Anyway, I'm thinking more of a regular mall goer who had enough of arguing with men who "dare to enter" the family room and who keep pointing out the sign to shut her up. So after a few arguments like that - she made a sticker for t…
/r/MensRights28/07/15 03:01 AM
4

Doesn't look that way to me. Looks like vandalism. The main image explicitly has a grown male in it - very clearly saying that it's a place for men as well. I think this is the addition of an over-zealous woman who didn't like the idea of men there, but not of the mall itself. Maybe you should ask them? Can you tell me which mall this is?
/r/MensRights28/07/15 02:30 AM
6

My thoughts is that someone added the bottom sign without "permission". I.e., it isn't an official sign - it's vandalism.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 02:28 AM
0

I am steadfast in believing that facts matter. I see that you disagree. There is no point in arguing with you further. Facts clearly do not matter to you. Facts matter. And I will agree that, for example, blacks commit more crimes than whites. I even wrote so, and then you decided I am turning away from the same fact that I actually voiced. But that's where the facts end. In this example - blacks commit more crimes than whites. That is the fact, but that is ALL the fact. The question of "why" - …
/r/MensRights28/07/15 02:21 AM
2

Almost exactly 6 times more across all races? Even though the crime landscape is so different across races? 6 times more in blacks, where so much of the crime is drug and gang related, and 6 times more in whites where there's much less gang-related crime? And 6 times more with Hispanics, where again the whole crime "landscape" is different? Also, we know that women get a "pass" in many cases where men would be sent to prison. Women getting less jail time on average for the same crimes and men is…
/r/MensRights27/07/15 12:59 PM
1

Wow, either you really suck at reading comprehension, or you know you're wrong so you're derailing. I never claimed men's and women's behaviour was the same. Of course they're different! Black and white behaviour is also different. We both agreed on that to begin with. We both said as much. I asked: "Why do you claim one is a "societal problem" and the other isn't?
/r/MensRights27/07/15 02:09 AM
2

Wow, so no answer? None? I see - basically all I heard (and everyone else who just read your reply) is "I know it's true because I just know it, and if you disagree you're stupid". Yea, sooooo convincing.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 12:05 AM
3

No, they didn't say that and you're intentionally trying to misrepresent what they're saying Why are you doing that? Do you already know you're wrong and have no other argument other than lying about what other people said? All they said is that if women were held to the same standard as men then (they guess) 80% of women would be in jail. At no point did they say that these standards are OK. So they didn't say 80% of women belong in jail. In fact, given the conversation we're having, they are a…
/r/MensRights26/07/15 10:00 PM
3

Men and women are significantly different by nature But white people and black people aren't significantly enough different by nature How do you know that? How do you know that one is true and the other isn't? What measurements / statistics / studies did you use to get the both of these conclusions at the same time?
/r/MensRights26/07/15 09:57 PM
10

Across all race - women are around 6 times less likely to be incarcerated in their lifetime (according to the stats in the infographic). The fact that it's so close to being equal all across the races shows there's a systematic gender bias there. Race-wize - the rate difference between the lowest-incarcerated group (whites) and the highest (blacks) is the same as the rate difference between men and women of all races. That's very clear that although race does play a role, the bigger issue is gen…
/r/MensRights26/07/15 09:53 PM
1

She's an avid poster on both /r/mensrights and /r/theredpill - her username is girlwriteswhat
/r/MensRights26/07/15 01:10 AM
15

That's your opinion, based on what you believe will work. Other people might think that social outreach doesn't work - that it's been tried for many decades and we're only going backwards. That what is needed is exposing feminism. Some people see the progress feminism and SJWs makes in shaping the world according to their goals, and how fast they make it, by just being uncompromisingly one-sided and attacking everyone who disagrees with them... and they might think that this is the best method t…
/r/MensRights24/07/15 05:23 AM
10

There's a large caste of idiot posters everywhere. The question is who do you focus on. You can focus on them, try to fix them, and thus get into arguments with them and keep getting "idiot replies". Or you can ignore them, downvote and move on, and focus on the other comments. Almost any disagreement gets downvoted. I've repeatedly been labeled a feminist as an attempt to smear me. From what I've seen (again, not much, but still) you're mostly downvoted by the person you're arguing with. Your m…
/r/MensRights24/07/15 04:56 AM
29

Since you didn't link to an example, I had to look at your post history to see what you're talking about. I saw a couple of cases you arguing with people, but they individually answering you and you're being downvoted only by them. So you might get the feeling like "a lot of comments here are just shitty" but it's just one person in one argument with you. You see the people replying to you (mostly for disagreeing) more than the other posts. I've also seen you being an ass, where you take a very …
/r/MensRights24/07/15 04:44 AM
1

Yes, it's important to note that if she's using that definition - then women can't be sexist against men, but men can't be sexist against women either (or white racist against blacks). That definition doesn't apply to people at all - it defines sexism / racism as an institutional system of discrimination. A person isn't an institution, and isn't a system. So no person (no matter race or gender) can be racist / sexist by that definition as the definition only applies to society as a whole.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 01:47 PM
21

Oh, a WOMAN is upset? Well, now that a WOMAN has been affected, it deserves media attention!
/r/MensRights19/07/15 11:15 PM
12

Or - the school punishes the establishment for not acting decisively enough in protection of the kids - by boycotting it.
/r/MensRights19/07/15 11:14 PM
2

Yea, I mean - wat!? That's all they say about it! If anything - they invariably say "hardest work in the world" as a wink and a nod to what women keep claiming.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 01:52 AM
8

Well, the bible only condemns men laying with other men. It doesn't mention women laying with each other at all. Since countries that have homosexuality illegal are mostly (only?) doing it for religious reasons - this figure makes sense. I'm actually surprised that 65% of countries that outlawed homosexuality care about female homosexuality.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 05:34 PM
2

You are so wrong about everything you just wrote that it hurts.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 02:42 AM
3

It really is nice that women have more options to work less. I'm quite envious...
/r/MensRights15/07/15 12:11 AM
1

I agree, but note that you are held responsible for your choice (to drive drunk) in the second case. If a woman is passed-out drunk, then obviously it's rape. Even if she's very drunk and passive during the act - it's rape. But if she's active during the act, even initiating part or all of it - how is it not "consent"? She can be held responsible for her choice if she puts herself behind the wheel and drives, even though she's drunk. Why isn't she responsible for her choice to have sex?
/r/MensRights12/07/15 07:18 AM
2

I'm a dude jackass What does that have to do with anything? You think men can't be biased towards women? You specifically talked about corporate interests - and Clinton is one of the worst in that regards.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 01:03 AM
4

who cares if they sell us off to corporate interests at least they have a penis right guys? ehm... Clinton is a corporate shill just as much if not more than any other contender in the next election. But you don't care about that because she... doesn't have a penis, so she can't be bad, right?
/r/MensRights11/07/15 12:06 AM
3

Soldiers choose to go to war No, they really don't. They are shamed and forced to go to war, expected to die to defend women.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 12:05 AM
4

Her full quote goes on to explain why women are the primary victims of war - and it has nothing to do with rapes or anything similar: Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. So:…
/r/MensRights11/07/15 12:02 AM
13

Also, men lose their fathers and sons in combat as well (although traditionally not their husbands). So I don't even get that part.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 11:44 PM
3

Yup, Black men especially feel the brunt of the "shitty American police problems". It's because they're black, yes - but also because they're men. Notice how much worse black men have it compared to black women (in regards to police treatment). Yet no one talks about them being discriminated against for being "men", only for being "black" - even though it's a combination of both.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 06:35 PM
5

Yet "shitty American police problems" tend to disproportionately affect men.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 05:51 PM
3

People can be raped without realizing it - or actually, people can be raped even though they were OK and even wanted the sex to happen. This has been going on for a long time: statutory rape is exactly that (and most people will agree it's "correct" in the extreme cases at least). If one person is 40 and the other is 11, even if the 11 y.o. might claim they wanted and agreed to have sex - it's rape nonetheless. And I think most people will agree with this example. Why? Because we claim this 11 y…
/r/MensRights09/07/15 07:21 AM
27

Which means they aren't asking for this consent contract to prevent false accusations. They are doing it to "prove rape". Now if a woman cries rape and you don't have a signed contract + photo (which no one will have because it's ridiculous - especially in a long-term relationship) they can safely expel.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 04:27 AM
1

Kids already are sheltered from the real world. By your logic - we should force kids to live on their own, have a job (or become homeless), pay for their own food and cook, and try to find their own "work/study balance". But we don't do any of that. They don't get even a taste of the "real world" until they're out of school (out of college for those who go there). "real life" is in no way even similar to "childhood". There virtually nothing comparable between the two. But you don't advocate for …
/r/MensRights08/07/15 03:29 PM
4

He can be there outside of the room. You don't let legal guardians in operating rooms either, even if the other person agrees. On the contrary - even if the father is in the room, once a complication occurs he is asked to step out. Your comment makes no sense.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 04:11 PM
1

Why not learn both at the same time? Because learning them both at the same time means learning at least one of them much much worse? What if research shows that white kids learn better without black kids in the class? What if research shows that black kids learn much much better without white kids in class? What if you show that when black kids learn without white kids, then the chances of them ending up in prison falls by 90%? Will you still force them to learn with white kids, because it's "b…
/r/MensRights07/07/15 04:03 PM
14

Right, I can see it now: "just because someone signed a sex contract doesn't mean you can rape her! She can still change her mind! And the fact that she never told him she changed her mind? The fact you even bring it up shows you're a victim blamer rape culture propagator mansplainer" Ah, and obviously the "she never actually gave meaningful consent to signing the contract. She was afraid he'd leave her if she didn't sign, and maybe she had a cup to drink before she met him. Anyway - rape". Like…
/r/MensRights07/07/15 08:11 AM
5

There is more to "prepare for real life" than working with people. It's part of it - yes, but it's not everything. Knowing how to read better, being able to understand and write reports better, having confidence, having more knowledge etc. is also important. Now, it's possible that "being around people of the opposite gender" is more important than everything else in the "prepare for real world" department. But I'd be surprised if it's true.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 08:06 AM
3

As do girls (although if I recall - boys more so than girls). Might be a gendered environment is actually better for everyone.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 05:14 AM
6

Moreover, the police admitted they knew Black was probably innocent. This is what gets me the most. Mistakes happen, and are more prone to happen when police don't even try to disprove the accusation. It is bad, but somewhat understandable. But this is different. They knew he was probably innocent, but didn't even try to look at the most basic details that could exonerate him. Why? Because releasing a man accused of rape is too politically "charged"? Because they can't handle the criticism and p…
/r/MensRights03/07/15 10:00 PM
1

Unfortunately no :/
/r/MensRights02/07/15 12:58 AM
40

It's actually a very famous case. There's a documentary about it and everything. It's called Dear Zachary, you can check it out - but it's quite gut-wrenching.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 01:58 AM
3

Yea, and anyway - losing sons, brothers or fathers isn't as bad for men. They don't really care. You know - they're men. They have no feelings.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 01:11 AM
6

Or, you know, their sons, brothers, and fathers...
/r/MensRights30/06/15 10:45 PM
8

Yes, but sometimes you pay by other means, and you're still the customer. You can pay with your time, your attention, your presence even. Before selling you they need to buy you. They buy you with their service. In this case, with 23% of drink costs.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 06:49 PM
5

A few generations of omitting facts generations? Look at how fast the culture changed on women's abilities and gays in general. See how the rape discussion changed from "it's rape if she clearly ask him to stop but he didn't" to the current rape culture mentality. A decade of omitting facts is enough. Probably much less than that.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 06:39 PM
10

Although that could be an issue, in reality the actual number of women's studies students is very very small compared to all students. They are a part of "social studies and history" that is, on the whole, 50:50 male/female ratio (so it doesn't affect the total ratio of men/women in academia) 60% of academics are women. This means that women outnumber men in academia by 20% of the total number of students. That's HUGE. If you look here you see that the fields in which women grossly outnumber men…
/r/MensRights30/06/15 06:11 PM
24

And how about feminism somehow "neglecting" to demand adding male-only scholarships and quotas for men at Universities since, you know, men are now outnumbered by women? Yea, I love that too.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 05:09 PM
1

Because presuming him innocent is identical to not presuming anything at all Only if there is no evidence. Once there are witnesses, presuming him innocent is identical to presuming all the witnesses (the alleged victims are also witnesses) are lying. That is not "nothing at all".
/r/MensRights30/06/15 04:08 PM
-2

So you do presume that all the women who accused Cosby are lying. You say you're not presuming anything - but you are. Lying about rape - even though isn't prosecuted - is illegal. This ISN'T like the teapot. There is evidence against Cosby (the accusers are witnesses. A witness to a crime is evidence of that crime). With the teapot - the whole point is that there is no evidence. Choosing not to believe a teapot is orbiting the Sun between Mars and Earth after 32 Astronauts all tell you they saw…
/r/MensRights30/06/15 04:02 PM
-9

"innocent until proven guilty" is only "in the eyes of the law". It isn't in "reality" nor in the eyes of the people. Cosby is "innocent" in the sense that you can't send him to prison. He isn't necessarily innocent in the sense that he hasn't raped these women. The fact that two things share a word (in this case - having not been convicted of doing a deed and actually not having done the deed) doesn't mean things that apply to the one also apply to the other.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 08:04 AM
9

You also forgot - actual rapes, but not perpetrated by the accused (false identification). Being acquitted is the "correct" result of the trial, even though there really was a rape.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 08:03 PM
2

It's simple - rape culture exists everywhere, but people can't see it as bad because of institutionalized bullshit. Like a published, peer reviewed, highly respected, law professor feminist said: the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it. There is rape culture everywhere people have sex! It's just that they can't get anyone to see what's wrong with sex.
/r/MensRights27/06/15 10:06 PM
9

Here's one more: because there is a lack of women in the position, younger women who are very talented and could become qualified - don't choose this career path as they don't see it as a possible option based on their gender. If you artificially add women now (even less talented women), you will create an environment where talented women will choose this career path, creating natural equality in the next generation.
/r/MensRights27/06/15 12:15 PM
12

Internalized MisogynyTM
/r/MensRights26/06/15 08:41 AM
1

Well it's kind of public in that it's open to anyone with kids That's the point - without this sign, people assume it's only open to women with kids. The place was viewed just like a "dressing room" - or more accurately a "breast feeding + diaper changing + kid toilet room"
/r/MensRights25/06/15 10:24 PM
6

Actually - that area is not "in public". It's more like a rest room. Women who go to breast feed there are women who do NOT want to breast feed in public. And feminist do consider breasts to be sexual. Even those who claim they aren't. How can you tell? See the difference between touching someone's shoulder vs. touching their breast. Even those who maintain that breasts are not sexual will still claim that grabbing breasts is sexual assault.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 02:33 PM
1

But consider this: say after a few times he wanted to cut it off. Could he? I mean, you know that some people (including women) get very... unstable when they are dumped. Even if she specifically wouldn't have - he could fear her retaliating if he broke it off. And in prison, with her being a prison guard... she has a LOT of power to negatively affect his life, health, freedom, even sanity. And he knows it. So say he wants to cut it off at some point. Can he? From that point on, the sex really i…
/r/MensRights25/06/15 01:54 AM
27

It should go without saying, but it doesn't. As a stay-at-home dad I love that shopping centre has these. "Family Lounge" is codename for rooms with multiple toilets together (not separated) and diaper change stations and breast feeding areas. Without this "clarification" I can easily get yelled at or chased out (or even "politely asked to leave" as "I'm making them feel uncomfortable" when e.g. breastfeeding. You know, "if I don't mind") So it's sad we live in a society where this sign is neede…
/r/MensRights25/06/15 12:19 AM
3

Exactly. So much for avoiding easy options, right? I bet it's so hard to parrot the feminist pay gap. Not easy at all.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 10:58 PM
4

The daily show is a comedy show - still, people rely on it for political information. People trust the daily show as a news source more than actual news sources So you and John Stewart and John Oliver can insist they are just "comedians" and as such don't have to be held accountable when grossly inaccurate, but the fact is that after they make a section on a subject, that subject - as they presented it - is what many people will know as "true". The fact is that after John Oliver did the FIFA seg…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 06:35 PM
7

I find it so infuriating that they banned cafe for being offensive to some of the participants, but allowed the anti-Israel block to march with them. Disgusting.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 06:14 PM
1

Pharmaceutical companies care about what sells not what feminists think So they might try and change what sells. Say, for example, by explicitly stating that all male contraceptions don't have to be covered by the ACA.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 05:59 PM
4

For the most part the issue of fake accidental pregnancies concerns alpha males, professional athlete types And married men with their wives, if the wife decides she wants another kid but the husband doesn't. You know - "oops! The pill apparently didn't work!" (even Louis C.K. jokes about it in one of his earlier specials - it's apparently very common) Or women who are afraid their partner is going to leave them so they try and "cement" the relationship with a baby. Or women looking for "baby da…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 05:56 PM
2

And indeed I deleted my facebook and twitter a few years ago - because of online harassment. I still don't have any online presence in my name anywhere. I'm not a public figure. But Sarkeesian is. And yet he didn't tell her "maybe facebook and twitter isn't for you" - however he did ignore me as a victim.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 05:10 PM
4

Yes, avoiding easy options, but going after the hard, hard wage pay gap.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 04:11 PM
1

I never saw him making fun of women. I can't prove he doesn't (impossible to prove a negative) - so it isn't "this easy to prove thing". But you can easily prove me wrong by posting a single video of him doing it.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 04:10 PM
7

Because you claim he would "absolutely yes positively" do it. Why do you claim that? When has he ever done something like this? Or do you just believe he will even though you have no evidence that supports you and have some evidence that contradicts you - you know, like feminists do.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 12:24 PM
9

Well, he also mentioned comedians (himself). So it's anyone that's in the public eye.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 12:04 PM
-9

... wow.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 07:21 AM
34

OK, why are you so confident he would do that? Did he ever do anything similar? (i.e. go against the "feminist" grain?)
/r/MensRights23/06/15 06:32 AM
14

I can totally imagine him saying it to Hillary Clinton, Michelle Bachmann, or Sarah Palin OK. I admit I haven't seen everything he's ever done. Did he ever do something similar? What makes you think he would have the courage to basically attack a woman like that? Has he, for example, ever gone against feminist dogma?
/r/MensRights23/06/15 05:20 AM
48

OK, I may be wrong. Show me an instance where John Oliver made jokes or tackled issues that go contrary to feminist dogma. For example, he could have debunked the wage pay gap - explaining how it's wrong and misleading. Instead he endorsed it as if so obviously true it's funny people disagree. For example, in this case he could have mentioned how men get harassed, in some cases more than women. Just mentioned it a little bit, even if he eventually talked more about women being abused. On the con…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 05:17 AM
352

Can you imagine Oliver telling Sarkeesian that "maybe facebook and twitter isn't for you?", that she should "build up a tolerance for personal abuse", that she needs "more abuse" and then encourage his viewers to tweet insults to Sarkeesian? Can you imagine him doing that? Can you imagine him thinking that was OK?
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:38 AM
588

One can say that it's different when the target is a public figure, like a comedian or a politician. And that would be a fair point. But can you imagine him saying it to a female politician that was receiving online harassment?
/r/MensRights23/06/15 01:47 AM
2

Hmm... weird - until this moment I really didn't consider harassment in the non-gaming context :) I guess it's just different states of mind.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 11:01 PM
6

Depends on what you would call rape threat. A person saying "I'm gonna rape you in the ass" over xbox live a rape threat? Is saying "suck my dick" solicitation to perform sexual acts? Better yet - if a person just says "I'm gonna rape you" in an online game - say out of anger after being ganked - to a man and a woman, is it considered "rape threat" to both? Or is it just "harassment" to the man and "rape threat" to the woman? I really don't know. That's the thing. When they compile these statist…
/r/MensRights22/06/15 10:36 PM
5

So calling someone "gay" could be sexual harassment? I completely understand the stalking part. But the sexual harassment part just sounds like taking something both men and women encounter and giving it a different "more severe" name for the women.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 09:46 PM
5

What does sexual harassment mean in an online-harassment context?
/r/MensRights22/06/15 09:25 PM
7

many of the cases were from before DNA testing was a thing to begin with. So there's all this evidence, but since the trial has ended no one tries to use newer tests on the evidence.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 06:18 PM
8

Oh the other hand - rape really is a crime that demands the least amount of proof. So it might be that rape really has much more false convictions.
/r/MensRights22/06/15 06:10 PM
5

"well, he should have thought about it before he chose... to... ehm... have sex?"
/r/MensRights20/06/15 05:47 AM
1

I completely agree. And I really like the "shared pool" idea. The only case I see that might be different is if the woman works but the man doesn't (either unemployed or stay at home dad) - the woman should still be offered a couple of months maternity leave (if she intends to breast feed), even if the other way around (man works, woman stay at home) doesn't afford the man paternity leave.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:47 AM
6

When feminists start advocating for less women-only encouragement to go to college - since they already make 60% of college graduates - then they might start to claim to be egalitarian. But they don't do that. Instead they advocate for more encouragement of women to go to STEM fields (the only fields where men still outnumber women) without ever suggesting there should be more encouragement of men in all other fields.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:39 AM
2

A case can be made that society needs people to have children, and as such should encourage and help people who choose to do so. Having children is a huge economic burden, and if you think that society needs people to do it, then society should share this burden. However, nothing excuses advocating 3 years of paid maternity leave without having the option for similar paternity leave. I do see how in the first few months maternity leave might be more important than paternity leave - but only beca…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:30 AM
7

You can't get a conclusive answer to "is the current MRM anti-feminism" because you can't get a conclusive answer to "what is feminism". Take a look at TERFs. Are they "feminism"? It's in their name. They call themselves feminism, and other feminists call them feminism as well (TERF=trans erasing radical feminism). Is anyone who disagrees with TERFs "anti feminism"? I'm sure you wouldn't say that - especially since a lot of feminist movements are anti TERF themselves. On the other hand - there's…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 04:12 AM
11

By Feminism I did mean equality Then you should have said equality. If you were to ask "is the men's rights movement anti equality" you'd get a resounding "NO". The goals of the men's rights movement is equality. But you asked if the men's rights movement is against feminism. To that you will get mixed answers. How is that possible, if feminism=equality? Well, many here - myself included - believe that feminism is no longer about equality. That feminism has evolved into a movement that tries to …
/r/MensRights20/06/15 03:55 AM
2

who also believe that women should be equal OK, women make 60% of college graduates. Do your friends think we should reduce women-only scholarships and create new men-only scholarships? Do they think we should spend money to encourage more men to go to college? For that matter - are they as annoyed by male contraception not being mandatory in the ACA as they are with the whole hobby-lobby thing?
/r/MensRights19/06/15 03:50 AM
3

The same way a person who wrote the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it. and Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike became a college professor.
/r/MensRights19/06/15 02:53 AM
6

Being equally applied isn't enough for a law to be just. The oft repeated example is: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges" Such a law - even if applied equally, isn't a just law. It only impacts the poor, and as such will still have the rich arguing for draconian punishments as they themselves will be immune to it (even though it's technically applied to all)
/r/MensRights18/06/15 11:05 PM
-1

Worse - men not divulging that they are on the pill will be deemed a criminal offence - rape - as she only consented for the small chance of getting pregnant or something like that. I mean - I understand how a man claiming he's on the pill but actually isn't could be criminal (assault even). But they'll find a way to make the other option criminal too.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 06:41 PM
25

Of course they think that - as they aren't at risk of being falsely convicted of rape.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 06:28 PM
8

Men are disproportionally sent to prison compared to women. The men:women incarceration rate is more than 10:1. So anything that affects trials and convictions affect men 10x more than women. Also, men receives harsher sentences for the same crimes compared to women, so anything that increases false conviction rates - even if equally between sexes - affects men more. If you don't consider this a men's rights issue - what do you consider a men's rights issue other than circumcision and the draft?
/r/MensRights18/06/15 05:57 PM
25

Everybody should have the right to buy and sell women. Normally you'd need a background check to make sure you haven't abused women too much in the past, but you can always just go to a women's show and buy women for cash without a background check. Also, the government will not be allowed to regulate the use of women, as people have a constitutional right to take women into deserted / wooden areas an use them any way they want to, as long as no one else is around or gets hurt. I think that's wh…
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:07 PM
6

In a way she's right. Rape culture is part of what fuels MRA. The real rape culture that is - the culture that minimizes, trivializes and erases rapes against men.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 12:29 PM
5

The point is - the word "my" (or "his" in the 3rd person) has a lot of different uses. It can denote ownership, or it can denote the designer, or it can denote... any affiliation with it that differentiates it from others. For example - the following exchange is completely acceptable: <scene: you're sitting at a bar with your friends. There's a TV in the corner. The TV is showing a news segment with a building on fire. Your other friend Garry is passed out drunk> friend 1: Hey - look there! At t…
/r/MensRights13/06/15 08:07 AM
5

My car was designed and built years before I started running it. It's still my car. Just saying.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 07:38 AM
2

My thoughts is that every single thing you wrote here is a lie.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 02:50 AM
19

When in reality there's a 2:1 hiring preference to women in STEM fields, meaning that a woman who applies to an academic position in STEM field is twice as likely to get it than an equally qualified man. There's just much less women who are interested in STEM. BTW - that removes another item from the list of so called male privileges. The first one at that! My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, t…
/r/MensRights12/06/15 09:33 PM
1

Spoken like a true programmer! :) But in the real world - that's impossible. Why? Because they need to be able to defend themselves in case of errors / claimed errors. Say, a person gets a positive result but later it turns out it's wrong. He sues them. If they have no logs of what they did - how do they defend themselves? For that matter, what if they gave a correct negative result, but then are sued for giving a false positive (the plaintiff lies). Are they now unable to even determine what wa…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 09:18 PM
4

According to this at least: The data obtained from the DNA sample may also be kept in a government database – forever. Also, from the FBI webpage: Agencies submit blood or buccal samples to FDDU. [...] FDDU then produces a DNA profile [...] and uploads it to the NDIS. [...] NDIS participating casework laboratories are able to search [...] samples against the NDIS. here's an explanation about NDIS: NDIS is the acronym for the “National DNA Index System” TL;DR You can digitize a sample, and later …
/r/MensRights10/06/15 01:53 PM
5

I really don't want their DNA on file. Yea, that's a tough one. Because you just know that this DNA will find itself in some police database at some point ("to help catch criminals!"). I really haven't thought of that TBH
/r/MensRights10/06/15 12:05 PM
2

I wasn't inventing a made up subject. This was actually the highest post on 2X at the time I wrote my reply: https://np.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/391z9q/i_pretty_much_got_kicked_out_of_my_mom_fitness/ As you can see - nothing here suggest this happened because of her gender. She's just venting about something that happened to her and troubled her. Much more similar to your "bad luck" example. 2X isn't the same as r feminism. These are actual normal women (as opposed to "academic femi…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 06:33 AM
0

I did watch the procedure. From another thread about anesthetic during circumcision: I remember the one used for my son: Started several hours before with some numbing cream we put on his penis, and wrapped it with plastic sheet (the kind you use in the kitchen to wrap food) Then about an hour before, we gave him some oral baby pain medication (forgot the name, used when babies are sick to make them feel better and reduce temperature) And once at the doctor's - an injection to numb the area Hi d…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 08:39 PM
1

Yes
/r/MensRights09/06/15 08:31 PM
-1

People make decisions all the time about their kids without their kid's consent (because kids - especially babies - can't give consent). Many of these decisions can and do affect the kids for the rest of their lives. And many of these decisions can have bigger effects than circumcision. Even simple things like trying to get him potty trained at the wrong age or using the wrong method can give him insecurities that will last a life time. Or trying to teach him to get to sleep on his own - often d…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 07:33 AM
42

Being kicked out of my a fitness group for losing too much weight is a human issue, not a women's issue. Still - in that sub they will accept a post by a woman complaining about this happening to her but will reject a post by a man. Why? Because it's a sub about women and how things affect women - in general a sub for discussing things that happen in the world from a woman's perspective. You might disagree with the need for such a sub, but that's the point of the sub. And as such - taking a "hum…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 05:34 AM
3

OK, so it's self reported (a survey questionnaire people were asked to fill). So that explains the differences from what I remembered: men will generally under report violence compared to women.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 05:23 AM
3

Is it one in three though? I thought it was more like half
/r/MensRights09/06/15 01:03 AM
6

Most male feminists are so because they know / are around other feminists who don't treat them like this. At least - not as long as they "stay in line". They don't encounter feminism at a "leadership" level, but rather encounter other self-proclaimed feminists who believe feminism is about equality and believe that the patriarchy is a thing. Basically they are egalitarians who believe the feminist statistics, so they base their views on that. Heck - I think a wage gap of 23% for the same work is…
/r/MensRights08/06/15 07:13 PM
5

Exactly, they confuse "hating A woman" with "hating women" Also, if murdering a woman means "being a woman-hater", AND if she says "Woman-haters (many of whom are women)", meaning she counts other women in the woman-hater group, then how can she say that "man-haters are in the minority" - when men are murdered much more than women?! Oh, right - doublethink. That's how.
/r/MensRights08/06/15 07:04 PM
1

and come up with "it's not a reenactment of the event." She clearly states it's not about the events of that night, and she clearly says it's not a reenactment (unless you disregard her words)
/r/MensRights07/06/15 06:18 PM
103

“‘Ceci N’est Pas Un Viol’ is not about one night in August, 2012” – the night Sulkowicz says she was raped by a fellow Columbia student. She instead explains: “It’s about your decisions, starting now. It’s only a reenactment if you disregard my words. It’s about you, not him.” Oh, that is... she knows exactly what she's doing! She's protecting herself from being sued - as she clearly states it's not about that night and clearly says that the piece is making a statement about the viewer and how t…
/r/MensRights07/06/15 02:59 AM
2

Wow, that would actually be a KICKASS art project! Imagine if she and her victim were both in on it - agreeing before hand to make a statement about false rape accusations and how they can destroy lives. And now they're just running out of ideas, as the original goal was to make the accusation seem more and more ridiculous to see at what point the "SJWs" would turn against her - but no matter what they tried they couldn't get there. So now they're like "fuck it - let's go full retard". Next step…
/r/MensRights05/06/15 10:39 PM
4

Seems to be gone now :/
/r/MensRights02/06/15 12:29 AM
8

Very good comments there. Some feminists spreading their bullshit ("it's about sharing and letting everyone have their turn"... :/ ) - but people are seeing right through it and calling them out on it.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 10:44 PM
38

The point of "sex after lying = rape" is very simple: to remove the last line of defense from falsely accused men. Right now, men can theoretically defend themselves by "always be recording", AND being completely passive (since escalating a sexual encounter without "enthusiastic ongoing consent" is rape) to show that the sex was entirely under her control and initiative. They can maybe also show texts from after the encounter saying what's akin to "thanks for all the consensual sex we had last n…
/r/MensRights31/05/15 02:47 PM
21

No one in this industry actively prevents women from working in any positions they want to. That isn't true. The first woman you described actively created a situation that dissuades women from joining the industry. By saying she felt outnumbered by men and she has to have a thick skin she's warning all the women in the audience that they should think twice before joining as the industry isn't as welcoming to them as it should be. A woman in the audience who might have felt interested in such a …
/r/MensRights31/05/15 06:22 AM
5

Ehm... why is "torturing" in quotes? o.O
/r/MensRights29/05/15 12:56 AM
2

I'd wager that the % of male nurses out of all nurses is higher than the % of female physicists out of all physicists. Not that facts matter to these people, as long as they feel that men don't want to change from their traditional roles but women do.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 09:06 PM
1

a bad thing would be that her rapist would turn violent. Isn't all rape an act of violence? Or do you imagine this being a non-violent rape. And if so - what does that even mean? I understand you mean to say "her rapist would become more violent", but that's not what you said, and I suspect you yourself don't see this act being a violent act (so there's only the fear it might become a violent act) as they're not aware of how bad the situation is for the person who wants to leave. Because people …
/r/MensRights25/05/15 07:20 AM
2

How about the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it. does that step over the line?
/r/MensRights25/05/15 01:34 AM
16

But false rape accusations IS a gendered issue, affecting mostly men. You say the more we drag this out the more we hurt real victims talking about (as I understand it) real victims of rape. But that's just part of the picture. There are other victims as well - victims of false rape accusation. The more we drag this out the more we HELP those real victims. You fell into the classic feminist trap of ignoring a whole class of victims, which "surprisingly" are mostly male.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 01:14 AM
65

You are missing the point. Of course you won't pay a woman more if she does the same work as a man. BUT, what if she's better? With the law the way it is - if you have 2 employees, a male and a female, doing the same job, but the male is better and you want to keep him - you can't pay him more as it's "discrimination" (technically they have the same job, you can't pay the woman less). But now if the woman is better, you can pay her more! So imagine the following situation: you have an opening fo…
/r/MensRights24/05/15 02:10 AM
1

It has nothing to do with stupid. People are afraid of what they are told to be afraid of. People can't be expected to become experts in every single field that affects their lives. Instead, they have to listen to trusted professionals that are supposedly experts and tell them the "bottom line". If those experts lie - it's not the fault of the people. It's the fault of the experts. In this case - it's the fault of feminism for filling the heads of women that they are in constant danger, and that…
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:09 AM
17

They feel unsafe because feminism keeps telling them they are victims. In reality - they are far safer than men are. Just look at the statistics: men are far more likely to be victims of violence than women are. They just feel unsafe because they are being lied to.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:13 PM
1

OK, let's see how this work: I am a cop. I don't know what really happened. All I know is that a woman comes to me claiming you raped her. I talk to you, you say: "no, see - she signed this contract, so it's impossible that I raped her". Do you expect me as a cop who doesn't know what really happened to go back to the woman and tell her "sorry mam, you signed that contract, so after that he could do whatever he wants to you and it's not legally rape" "But officer! After I signed that contract I …
/r/MensRights20/05/15 12:02 PM
1

Let's try the specific scenario you mentioned: you get someone to sign this contract you have perfectly normal, consented sex they call rape at a later date ??? <- fill in what you do next and how this contract helped you
/r/MensRights20/05/15 11:28 AM
1

And yet you still haven't said how you will use it?
/r/MensRights20/05/15 11:22 AM
1

And yet you still never answered me - show me a situation where this will help you. Show me how this "negates the possibility of rape" or show me an instance where you could use this contract to save yourself.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 11:03 AM
1

the contract would negate the possibility of rape how? And BTW - how does the contract help you in any way? Show me one instance where you could use this contract to "save" yourself.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:06 AM
1

women's average salaries are less than men's Only if you ignore that they work less - in other words, their hourly salary isn't less than men's (well, it might be 2% less). The only reason to look at global salary and not at salary/work is if you want to skew the statistics (well, not you you, the colloquial you)
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:05 AM
5

A contract is just to ensure that she won't try and call rape at a later date for bullshit reasons the only way it does that is if the contract somehow negates the possibility of rape. Otherwise - how does that "ensure" anything? Also, if she decides to stop, and you comply, it prevents her from saying you were raping her since you have written consent How does it prevent that? All she needs to say is that you didn't stop when she wanted (if you stop, she just has to say you stopped later than y…
/r/MensRights19/05/15 12:01 PM
22

That's rape culture actually. What if she changes her mind after she signed it? Is it suddenly "OK" to rape her? What, because you signed a contract means you're allowed to rape that woman? I know you're just trolling, but still - try to be more intelligent about it.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 11:14 AM
3

I actually tracked down these department of labour statistics. They compare "full time jobs" against each other with monthly / weekly salary. They count anything over 40 hours a week as "full time" and don't differentiate between a person working 40 hours/week and a person working 50 hours/week. So if, for example, men work on average 50 hours/week while women work on average 45 hours / week, you'd expect a pay gap that comes not from discrimination, but rather from women's choice to work less. …
/r/MensRights19/05/15 11:12 AM
1

And calling it insurance is a lazy, low information, way the public, the media, and politicians have taken to describing all health costs, even dental I disagree. It's not "all health costs", and it's not "lazyness". It's a different revenue model that insurance companies use in the US because health insurance here became part of the "job benefits". I think you oversimplify the issue to yourself so much that you lost the issue along the way.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:02 AM
2

But that's not the model in the US. For example - me and my wife get to choose every year if we want orthodontic dental insurance (in addition to our regular dental insurance) Note that orthodontia isn't even a classic "insurable" - as it's something you know you will do years in advance (simple test - do you or your children have crooked teeth?) and plan for it. You know in advance how long it will take and how much it will cost. And it's non "emergency" (as in, you can wait a year if you have …
/r/MensRights18/05/15 04:42 AM
8

Yes, I'm only answering the question "how is it physically possible", I don't know what happens in reality (are there more fathers or mothers)
/r/MensRights18/05/15 02:48 AM
13

And feminists are so oblivious to this - they actually write stuff like this!!! Basically saying "we should create our own company, then not give male employees birth control for religious reasons, then you'll see the heads of all those white male judges explode!"
/r/MensRights18/05/15 02:28 AM
39

No no no. You don't understand. 8/10 women in prison don't pose a threat to society, so ALL women should be released from prison. But men are more violent! Only 7/10 men don't pose a threat to society compared to the 8/10 of women! So ALL men should stay in prison! It's just common sense, isn't it?
/r/MensRights18/05/15 02:12 AM
28

Because the men who are parents, are parents to more kids than the women who are parents. Think of it like this: Imagine you have 10 men and 10 women. All women have kids, but 5 men are still virgins. Is it possible? That's how it's possible.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 02:09 AM
3

I take offence at the word "picky". I am very picky about my movies. I specifically want to see movies with little to no plots, no character development and a lot of fun, silly action.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 04:39 AM
2

My film reviewer buddy said that it has virtually no plot, the characters are paper thin, there's virtually no dialogue, but it's the best action film of the decade! Again - sounds exactly like what I expect when I go to see these kind of movies.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 03:21 AM
2

Already in the comments there's someone basically saying "you're only saying that because you've never been raped. Had you been raped you would have known that this thing is necessary".
/r/MensRights16/05/15 02:39 AM
4

That actually sounds very much in the spirit of the mad-max stories. It's the exact sort of stupid I expect when I go to see these movies
/r/MensRights16/05/15 02:34 AM
2

Think of it not as answering her, but as talking to her audience. The goal isn't to make her change her mind, it's to prevent her from changing other people's minds.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 02:32 AM
-10

Why? At least one of the legal guardians (the mother) knew where the baby was and gave consent to it. Is it kidnapping if you leave the baby with a sitter? Is it kidnapping if you never told the father they were the father? It isn't kidnapping as long as she is a legal guardian. It is wrong, very very wrong, but unfortunately I can't think of what crime has been committed. They say "fraud", so the only thing I can think of is the gay friend signing the birth certificate when they knew he wasn't …
/r/MensRights16/05/15 02:26 AM
1

It isn't true in the general population (I think it's 80% women there - I'll have to recheck my sources), but in the army it might actually be correct as there are just so many more men than women.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 12:58 PM
3

No, no no. These are those "trans women" which are literally men trying to invade women-only spaces that guilt real lesbians into having relationships with them (or be labelled as "transphobic") just so they can abuse them and discredit the whole lesbian movement. /s
/r/MensRights09/05/15 11:31 AM
-49

Except for the changes in her body. Doing the sperm injection thing is assault, as it's an attack on her body (in addition to the money thing). It's like the difference between I stole a lot of your money (which is one crime) and I stole a lot of your money but also beat you to a pulp after which you couldn't function as well for over 1/2 a year while recovering.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 06:26 AM
1

Damn, you're right :/
/r/MensRights08/05/15 03:19 AM
17

Of course they don't - all they need is the state to force servitude on men
/r/MensRights07/05/15 12:23 AM
1

Getting a woman pregnant has a profound effect on her body, not just the maternity issue. It is "assault", not just "stealing".
/r/MensRights04/05/15 08:49 PM
8

No, no - you don't understand. They state it very clearly: "Those behaviors not in the context of violence are not abusive. A reader of this site would recognize that it’s described as one behavior in the context of a pattern of behaviors to maintain power and control over an intimate partner." In other words - sexual violence = withholding sex + power. So if a woman withholds sex from you it's obviously not violence as she isn't doing it in the context of violence / having power. If a MAN withh…
/r/MensRights04/05/15 07:57 PM
46

Well, black women have always been the primary victims of police brutality. Black women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons to police brutality.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 06:34 PM
24

The main reason I don't want Hillary is her infamous "victims of war" speech. A person who can make such a vile speech - this is a person I fear. As far as I am concerned she has no empathy for men or men's issues and if elected I truly fear she will put these opinions into practice.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 12:22 PM
9

YES! That's the one! Edit: http://imgur.com/glXQPXF
/r/MensRights03/05/15 07:27 PM
27

I like the point - but they kind of miss the mark I think. In the comic she's asking him to do it. This isn't my experience of feminism. To be more accurate, she should be telling him to do it. Something like saying "why is this still here? do someting about it!" while still holding the hammer herself. Better - saying "why aren't you doing something about it" while she's holding the hammer or the hammer is on the ground near both of them. I don't know - I'm not really good at these kind of thing…
/r/MensRights03/05/15 08:07 AM
3

I misspoke - I meant preference between different women - like liking brunets or liking darker skins or liking a certain body type, or liking a person that has certain interests (gaming? sports?) etc.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 11:22 PM
5

Then apparently they aren't good guys, are they? Having a preference to women based on things like that? Don't you know that men are not allowed to have preference about women at all, as any preference is just fetishising and objectifying women? /s
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:39 PM
-1

On the contrary - vaccination is the closest thing to circumcision (at the time) that's on that list. Like vaccination - circumcision was (and still is I think?) endorsed by the medical society, and like vaccination - it made (some?) parents feel uncomfortable yet they do it anyway because that's what doctors said was best for the child. Remember - at the time at least doctors recommended circumcision, saying it had medical benefits. So it's very very similar to vaccination.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 05:15 AM
5

Parents can't ask consent from their children, as their children are too young to give consent. Being a parent means making decisions for children as best as you can given the available information at the time. If your parents really believed that a circumcision at a young age had health benefits and were unaware of the downsides (because that's what the medical establishment / society told them at the time) - then you can't really be angry at them for doing it. They did what they thought was be…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 07:00 PM
2

Being bald makes your head easier to clean too. That doesn't mean we should cut off all our hair. Bad example - because (a) hair grows back, so cutting it isn't such a bad thing, and (b) we do cut off all our hair to clean it sometimes, and we do it to kids too: Often a kid with a lice infestation will be required to cut off all their hair before being allowed in a new kindergarten etc. if you have natural dreadlocks (basically dirty hair), you have to cut it to get it clean (my wife had to do i…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 06:48 PM
0

Yes. Conservatives aren't for men's rights - they are for "keep things the way they were". And "the way they were" is a bad place for women, but also very much a bad place for men. They aren't for liberating men, they are just for a different kind of servitude. Although to their credit - the state they aim for has similar servitude for men and women. In a way they are saying "for society to work, everyone needs to give up on freedom in favor of society", which is better than "for society to work…
/r/MensRights28/04/15 09:45 AM
4

while performing a "good rape" on a minor?
/r/MensRights28/04/15 06:37 AM
1

Or even "PiV sex"...
/r/MensRights28/04/15 01:49 AM
1

You only have control of your own actions, not of other's. As such it's your responsibility to act in a way that you believe will result is the least evil (most good) Now, if you think the system is bad, then by all mean - act in a way that will change that system. Revolt, protest, fight. If you choose not to - either because of laziness or a sense of futility - then so something smaller, like vote for the lesser evil. Actually, you should do that even if you revolt, protest and fight. By not vo…
/r/MensRights25/04/15 07:49 PM
0

Yes, but still the lesser of the two.
/r/MensRights25/04/15 02:19 PM
19

But he's not suing her - he's suing the university for presenting her side of the story as fact (at least according to the article) You're not allowed to present it as fact if he hasn't been convicted.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 07:18 AM
1

I don't get the "age standardized" part. Especially what they mean by "per 100,000", as there's just % male vs. female.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 12:56 AM
22

After anger over the move, organisers backed down and overturned ban Yea, you know what? No thanks. You can go to hell with your protest, I'll stay home Can you imagine going to this rally to support them after they wanted to ban you, basically saying that not only don't they appreciate your support, they see your support as an attack. They actively hate you for your support. Can you imagine still trying to go be there "for them"? I know some white male people will show, but for the love of me I…
/r/MensRights23/04/15 07:18 PM
3

But it is an ongoing crime. By that I mean - if you get robbed, each instance counts one robbery that probably lasted less than a day. The victim goes on to live their lives. If you get robbed every single day, that counts as 365 instances of crime a year. Same with assault, and rape. But trafficking - one instance accounts for many many days of "crime". One trafficking instance can be compared to daily rape / assault for years. So the comparison really isn't that fair. It should be compared may…
/r/MensRights22/04/15 02:39 PM
2

What's this #censurewheaton thing about? (can't watch video right now)
/r/MensRights22/04/15 12:52 PM
3

and can legally say "I have never been convicted of a crime." I won't lie - this made me actually tear up. Good for you, OP. Good for you.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 12:42 PM
49

Even without - if we count "forced to penetrate" as rape then it should be much closer to 50% Also, sex trafficking is around 50% boys as well (at least for the US, I don't know about world-wide). Just some source examples: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/CSEC_NYC_Executive_Summary.pdf http://www.ecpatusa.org/statistics Edit Looked at the infographic source for the sex trafficking, two difference between that and my statistics: it includes all ages, while I was only considerin…
/r/MensRights22/04/15 12:02 PM
7

embarrassment isn't the issue - it's forcing people to do this that's the issue The Army openly encouraged participating in April’s “Walk A Mile in Her Shoes” events in 2014, but now it appears as though ROTC candidates at ASU were faced with a volunteer event that became mandatory. No one cares that hey went in heels if they chose to. The issue only started once cadets complained they were pressured and forced to. That makes it completely different, and more importantly it changes the context -…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:38 PM
9

Yes, it's very important that people see what it's like to be forced to wear high heels when you walk And we all know the legal ramification of not wearing high heels, don't we? Just the other day my wife needed to go on a long walk with our (fictional) dog because I was in bed sick, and decided to go in sneakers. Why, right outside our driveway was a cop, writing her a ticket for walking without heels on! He then demanded that she go back inside and change to high heels! Oh, the embarrassment s…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 05:25 PM
7

That's what I'm saying - the question of pain should be irrelevant to the discussion of circumcision. The only question should be need vs. consent.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 04:18 PM
12

I remember the one used for my son: Started several hours before with some numbing cream we put on his penis, and wrapped it with plastic sheet (the kind you use in the kitchen to wrap food) Then about an hour before, we gave him some oral baby pain medication (forgot the name, used when babies are sick to make them feel better and reduce temperature) And once at the doctor's - an injection to numb the area Hi didn't seem to feel anything. Was laughing and playing the entire time. I am confident…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 03:44 PM
3

Maybe add a list of urls at the bottom, while just a reference number under each graph. Most people (Especially the ones that need to be educated by this infograph) will not follow any link. They'll see tinyurl and think this is a spam post. You can followup each long link at the bottom with a shorter tinyurl for convenience though.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 01:42 PM
6

While the women of the losing side suffer do they suffer more than the men of the losing side who aren't of fighting age? A minority of the population is of fighting age. The rest are 50% men. Notice how she ignores those men as well.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:53 AM
1

Ah, I see - and civilians are just women, right? No men? If a man isn't of fighting age he doesn't exist? Men don't lose their fathers and sons? Just women do?
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:51 AM
1

If it was the life of the loved one - then it would affect men too (men also lose fathers / sons in combat). So it's not that one, or she couldn't say women are the primary victims. So apparently it's the other one...
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:50 AM
3

1998, at the First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence Full quote: Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Note how she completely ignores that most men aren't of fighting age, and that as much as women, these men also "lose their fathers, their sons …
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:49 AM
2

This quote is from very long time ago. It was way before "pandering to your base" made sense. This was said while her husband was still in the white house.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:44 AM
33

Notice you fell into her trap. You completely ignore the fact that men lose fathers and sons to war too So even if you somehow agree that losing a loved one is worse than dieing (say, cuz the dead don't care) it still doesn't make women the primary victims. For every woman who lost a son, there's a man who lost a son. For every woman who lost a father, there is a man who lost a father. She ignores the men who aren't fighters, dividing the world into "fighting men (who die), women (who lose loved…
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:42 AM
28

What she actually said is worse. From the partial quote here you might think her point is that more women die than men, or raped, that she has some surpirsing statistics that show that women are actually the primary victims of war (get hurt more) and we just never knew it. Nope. Women are the primary victims of war because they are sad the men died. Literally. Women are the primary victims of war because they lose husbands, fathers, sons to war. That's her full quote. Wait - don't men also lose …
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:35 AM
4

More important than that - other than the "husbands" - all the rest are actually gender neutral! Just as many men lose their fathers as women do. Just as many men lose their sons as women do. Or is she saying that soldiers don't have fathers, only mothers, and don't have sons, only daughters? No, she isn't saying that. She just ignores the exact same pain when a man suffers it. And the sad thing is? Most people do. Most people, when hearing about this quote, forget about the non-fighting men. Mo…
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:30 AM
1

Women don't decide to crash into the Twin Towers and fight American ISAF forces. The men do, the men choose to fight, and the women are dragged along in this situation Oh, all the men decided to crash into the twin towers and all the men decided to fight? None of them were forces / shamed into fighting? And none of the women ever chose to fight? Ever? Or are you holding all men responsible for the decisions of a few? Stereotyping all men as the "fighters" (including, apparently, the children and…
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:21 AM
6

There are freaking charities that lend unemployed people (men) suites to take to a job interview, because they understand that can be a huge barrier to getting a job (not having a suite to wear). How can she... I mean, what does she... I mean, what?!
/r/MensRights17/04/15 06:36 PM
7

Is the robot sentient just "for fun"? You know - "let's make it sentient even though it has nothing to do with its function, just for rape"? Or is the robot sentient and able to express itself - because if it can express itself and is sentient then it can say "no", right? Or is she saying it's sentient, can express itself, but was programmed to always enjoy sex and always want it - and it's rape because it was built to want sex without anyone asking it (asking how it wanted to be built) so its c…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 03:56 PM
7

until the person is under 18 He was 13 when she got pregnant. 12 when they started "dating". And she was his teacher. Trying to make it seem like "until the person is under 18" is disingenuous. This is one of the clearer cases where the person should be in the sex offender registry. She had sex with a 12 y.o., who was her student. And then, she couldn't resist having sex with him again even though she knew it meant she'll spend years in prison. She obviously cannot control herself. She is the po…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 12:07 AM
4

That's often the case with statutory rapes. Many women (girls?) will adamantly insist they weren't raped, but are considered rape victims because of their age at the time. An article about a 34 y.o. male having sex with a 13 y.o. girl would call it "rape" even if the girl insists it was consensual. His realizing it was rape has nothing to do with the article calling it rape.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 12:00 AM
-3

One that can actually get elected, you know, realistically speaking. If you're not in a swing state - then sure, vote for whomever. But if you're in a swing state and vote for Rand Paul, then you're just giving (half) a vote to the (realistic) candidate you like the least.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 01:29 AM
5

It might be an admission of guilt, but it isn't an admission the child isn't yours. She might not know.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 09:48 AM
10

It is domestic violence against a man. Something our society tries to pretend doesn't exist or at least isn't serious. Is this the first time she went crazy? Was she a model partner then one day snapped? Probably not. Probably she abused him at least verbally if not physically in the past, but he had no recourse to do anything about it nor even the understanding that he should do something about it other than "accept it" Just like male on female DV is a feminist issue, trying to both teach women…
/r/MensRights06/04/15 12:32 AM
0

Do I really need to write in the post itself that I completely disagree with anything this so called "scholar" said? Wow, I mean - really? Is it so hard to tell?
/r/MensRights02/04/15 02:36 PM
-10

No, since the woman didn't give meaningful consent. Under Patriarchy, meaningful consent isn't possible since women are indoctrinated since birth that sex is a good thing when it's actually rape - and no woman would agree to sex without this indoctrination. Even here she explicitly says that the only reason she had sex was Patriarchy indoctrinated her that she had to act this way to get the reaction she wanted from the other guy, not because she wanted sex for its own sake. As a feminist scholar…
/r/MensRights02/04/15 01:44 PM
9

The thing is - the 2% statistic itself, even IF it is true, is only about complaints done to the police. It has nothing to do with complaints to friends / facebook / media that didn't go to the police. When confronted with false rape accusations - feminists will also say very fast "oh, but she didn't complain to the police, so that doesn't count" (see here for a feminist answering this exact thing when I told her about my false accusation). But suddenly, with Jackie and others, they cite this (f…
/r/MensRights31/03/15 09:53 PM
1

They actually stopped I guess? It's now exceedingly hard to get google as the default search engine in firefox - and they tell you multiple times that it's because google won't pay them anymore.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 02:16 PM
22

Well, she did say: Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike.7 and the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it. and Male sexuality is apparently activated by violence against women and expresses itself in violence against women to a significant extent. so although she may not have said the words "all sex is rape", she did clearly say th…
/r/MensRights30/03/15 11:00 PM
51

But these are NOT considered extremists! These are feminist intellectuals that are published in major peer-reviewed journals, and are actively taught in gender studies courses all over the world. Young women (and sometimes men) are forced to read and discuss these views, and although they aren't taught as "truth", they are taught as "legitimate" views.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 10:59 PM
1

The quote is from 1998, so way before pandering to voters was relevant.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 06:16 PM
1

And you know - even if you claim dieing is better - men still lose fathers and sons just as much as women. Really there's no interpretation where that makes sense. I mean, the men who die at war because of their gender are "only" the ~15-30 years of age. More likely 17-22. That's a small % of men. The other men face the exact same things as women (actually face more, as they are expected to still "protect" the women)
/r/MensRights30/03/15 12:48 AM
2

And never mind the men who lose fathers and sons. Men can't experience love anyway, so it isn't as bad for them.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 12:47 AM
7

Not only that, but even if somehow you don't consider dieing to be enough of a "victim", it still doesn't make sense! "Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat" - what, these men that dies in combat have only mothers / daughters? Don't men lose their fathers and their sons in combat? I mean, really - what?!
/r/MensRights30/03/15 12:46 AM
1

I think a lot of women’s heterosexual sex is or has been characterized by negotiating their own lack of "enthusiastic consent". Again with the female-centric. How many married men had less-than-enthusiastic consent with their SO? Cases where you didn't really want sex, or a particular sex act, but decided (WITH YOUR MIND!!!) to ignore it for the benefit of your SO, or just to prevent the drama that you know will result from it down the line? I know this happens to me a lot, in all my relationshi…
/r/MensRights27/03/15 12:34 PM
3

I think if someone has the athletic capability of the top 1% of society, they should bear that responsibility in mind in any violent confrontation I think the law already agrees with you. If you're a professional fighter for example (boxing, MMA, any hand to hand combat) you are considered more responsible if your actions result in harm as it's assumed that you knew just how much harm you were doing.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 05:23 AM
7

Ehm... actually now that you mention it - apparently yes. At least if you're black or a woman. I mean, the courts will side with the cop (they virtually always do no matter what), but there would be a public outcry from a lot of people.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 05:20 AM
2

You mean romance novels where the woman falls for the "handsome mysterious stranger"? Who has no past and no real personality, she had no prior interaction with and most of what he is - is "mysterious"? While men love stories where women they knew all their lives, grew up with, hang out with, talk to every day, suddenly become sexual partners? Women stereotypically like the outsider / stranger they just met and who doesn't talk about himself, men stereotypically like the "girl next door" who the…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 03:43 PM
16

Women are not reduced to "sexual objects". That is a feminist lie. Women are "reduced" to "sexual people". Women in porn, in TV, in fantasy books etc. are NOT treated as objects. They are treated as people, each one distinct, each one with their own personality, who are also highly sexual. That is why porn magazines have basic biography, including likes / dislikes, when doing a centerfold. That's why people like porn actresses based not only on looks but on personality as well. That's why it's s…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 06:27 AM
2

Similar, a different side of the "men who sex a lot are studs, women are sluts": in our society, a woman's self worth is determined by her decisions / actions. Yes, slut shaming is bad, but it still punished a woman based on her actions. It puts a woman's sense of worth in her own hands. A woman who wants to feel good about herself has a very simple set of instructions ("don't have sex with people at random"). It's a horrible message, but it's simple and depends only on her. Men are praised / sh…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 01:09 PM
91

That is actually so much worse. Just... so much worse.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 06:26 AM
7

The water is going to ultimately wind up in the hands of everyone in their family. What if I don't have women in my family? What if I'm single? What if I'm a single dad? I don't have a right to drink then? What am I supposed to do if I don't have "access" to a woman?
/r/MensRights21/03/15 06:35 PM
95

Women can decide to get piercing, and it's their right and their bodies. BUT a piercer that actually does the piercing is guilty of genital mutilation. You know, just like the sex negative feminists who would never say a woman isn't allowed to have piv sex, but will still claim any piv sex is rape?
/r/MensRights17/03/15 11:31 PM
9

Find me one single mother that will say she regrets not dying (say in child birth), because her life after becoming a single mother wasn't worth living. Anyway - dying is always an option for those who want it. So the fact that so few single mothers kill themselves "because being dead would be better than this" is proof enough you are full of shit.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 08:31 PM
2

Not according to some poor under-privileged women
/r/MensRights15/03/15 04:07 PM
1

Unfortunately, masturbation is also rape. Of women that is. Because of reasons. Reasons being "it acts to simulates the rape and subjugation of women" etc. etc.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 10:31 PM
2

But there is an acknowledgement of that! If the raped person is male that is. Go and discuss men being raped by women (for example when they are drunk, or just don't want sex but are afraid their wife will leave them if they refuse sex too much) and people will tell you that "you can't compare that to a person attacking you in a dark alley tearing your cloths and raping you at knife point". Which to be fair - is a good point. But try to make the same distinction when they count the amount of rap…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 10:28 PM
3

I had something like this happen to me. I wrote about it here. Basically, a woman I was dating (but not sleeping with) came to my house by surprise one evening with the clearly stated goal of spending the night. She drove 2 hours just to come to my place, and had to drive 2 hours back in the morning to get to work. Long story short, I asked several times for her to be clear about what she wanted (if she wanted sex or whatever) and never got a reply (not yes and not no). We ended up not having se…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 12:34 AM
6

That's what happens with the affirmative consent standard. You can get silly things like he only stopped raping me when I said "wait, I'm a bit sore" Think how a real rape victim feels reading about these rapes! Oh, he only stopped raping you when you said you wanted a drink / needed to go? But it was rape because you didn't explicitly say yes at any point? You poor thing!
/r/MensRights04/03/15 11:13 PM
109

I really REALLY hate how they appropriated the "rape culture" term. Finally there was a term to describe the horrible state where prison rape is funny and almost encouraged in popular culture, so they decided to take over the term to prevent the message from spreading. Just disgusting.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 09:05 PM
9

That's a huuuuuge problem that all feminist groups fight to change Really? Nice. Can you show me some examples of that? All I see is feminism appropriating any manifestation of male rape and turn it into female rape to continue and erase male rape from public consciousness. Example being the term "rape culture", which was originally used as a term to describe prison rape and the culture of making light and even encouraging it in society and popular media - which feminism decided to appropriate a…
/r/MensRights27/02/15 08:23 AM
5

More importantly - hammering the "boys shouldn't hit girls" pretty much tells people that hitting boys is OK (because specifically hitting GIRLS is wrong) Similarly, but not the same, with the "end violence against women". The difference being that we also are quite clear that violence against men is also wrong and would get you in prison.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 07:24 AM
17

Most of the claims against priests aren't guilty verdicts as well, no?
/r/MensRights27/02/15 07:20 AM
4

I'm not sure what you mean. Rape by non "physically forced" lack of consent (i.e. rape without a person's consent when the victim was either too intoxicated to give consent, was pressured / blackmailed, doesn't have the mental capacity to give consent etc.) happens almost exactly the same rate for men and women victims, and for male victimes women are by far the most common aggressors (80% of rapes of males involve a woman aggressor). The problem with the discussion of male rape victimes is that…
/r/MensRights27/02/15 07:16 AM
3

Well, they have a very sheltered life. Very shock free thus far.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 11:43 PM
9

Here's a copy of the last time I posted about it: (note that these posters are about raping people while they are drunk, by them not having the ability to consent rather than using physical force to overpower them. So these numbers are even more appropriate than usual) CDC report: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf Unfortunately they decided not to count "forced to penetrate" as rape (where a person - either by use of alcohol, threats, dependence or any other way - …
/r/MensRights22/02/15 08:53 PM
2

Unless someone claims they faked those texts. Faking evidence is always a possibility. The point is that the person said AFTER the fact that they were OK with what went on. Saying they are OK BEFORE isn't enough, cuz they could change their minds. Saying they are OK AFTER is an indication that everything was OK. Faking what people say is a different matter all together. It might work or might not (as lying often does), but has nothing to do with the principle.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 05:44 PM
1

I'm not sure about that - maybe it's jurisdiction dependent. I remember 2 minors being charged with child porn for filming themselves, but IIRC they were only charged because as adults they showed the tapes to others. I am not an expert by any stretch, but from this link it seems like if you photograph yourself - only the distribution part (sending it to someone else) is illegal. But they don't say it explicitly...
/r/MensRights21/02/15 05:41 PM
1

These are two different issues. The thing is this: no one cares what happens to men. These laws should be scrapped, because they hurt people for no reason. But as long as the people they hurt are "men", no one would care enough to do anything about it. The only way anyone would do anything against these laws is if they were applied to women. Then suddenly people would care enough to change them. So yes, either these laws should be scrapped OR they should be applied to her as well. But saying we …
/r/MensRights21/02/15 04:04 PM
3

The crime was that they took the tape they made of them having sex with a 15 y.o., and shared it with other people. The sex itself wasn't a crime. It was perfectly legal. But showing a sex tape of a 15 y.o. to their friends - that was a crime. From the article: Smith and Thomas Ryan Carey, 19, of Moorhead, are charged with three felonies in connection with the sex videos, the most serious of which is using a minor in a sexual performance. Child porn is illegal even if the sex was legal and even …
/r/MensRights21/02/15 03:55 PM
19

i think her sexting over 30 guys with the intent of sleeping with men on 17 different teams would basically nullify any rape claim. Nope. Nor should it. The fact that she wanted to sleep with them at one point doesn't mean she can't be raped by them at another point. For example, say she sexed someone that she wanted to sleep with them, and even met up with them with the explicit intent to sleep with them. But then while at their place talking she find out he's a raging racist neo nazi. Or he sm…
/r/MensRights21/02/15 03:50 PM
18

If you teach something that someone else "invented", then sure. If a math teacher goes bankrupt because they couldn't calculate the interest on their credit card correctly that doesn't invalidate all they taught as they taught from a book and their students were tested on standardized exams. But if you teach something that you "invented", and it turns out you don't live by it yourself then you should rethink it. It's like a person who wrote a book about how to raise children better, and then it …
/r/MensRights21/02/15 02:56 PM
10

Yes, yes I was. It's like all these "rules" feminists teach men, about how they should act and what interpretations of female actions are "ok" and which aren't are just... wishful thinking among feminists, but then when we actually act as they teach us they see how unappealing it is. It's like the "affermative consent" thing. You need to get verbal consent for every escalation of a sexual encounter! Put that into practice with even the most hard-core feminist (that's actually interested in you, …
/r/MensRights21/02/15 02:28 PM
2

It's not derailing the conversation. It's taking words that have grown to earn an emotional impact and redefining them so that their own agenda will have that emotional impact without earning it. It's "everyone know that sexism is wrong, so let's redefine sexism to be X so everyone will know X is wrong" It isn't derailing the conversation, it's hijacking the emotional response that one concept earned to use it for their own different concepts. "We know terrorism is wrong, let's call an author th…
/r/MensRights20/02/15 05:27 PM
10

Actually, I looked at the thread in 2xc, and it was overwhelmingly supportive of the boyfriend and critical of the woman.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 10:21 PM
1

We should have that in the US :( Actually, I would say in the US we should have food, and maybe even lodging (and certainly daycare) as tax deductible. If a person is an "entity with one employee that makes money, has expenses and pays tax on the profit" (similar to a company or corporation) then anything that you need to take care of your "employee" so they can work should be part of your "expenses". If a large corporation can provide lunches and hygiene products (toilet paper?) and use that as…
/r/MensRights19/02/15 06:43 PM
1

I would start with food products though.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 05:41 PM
4

Exactly. You can agree with the theory of a movement and against the people who use the ideal of the movement to actually gain power for themselves. You can be Catholic but against priests molesting kids. You can be pro-government but against corruption. You can want to be a cop when you grow up but be against the "blue wall of silence" and corrupt cops. You can be pro-prostitution but against human trafficking.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 03:47 AM
4

No, it's like saying I'm a communist but don't want to kill 30 million people. Or that I'm a capitalist but don't like the lobbying of big companies.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 03:29 AM
3

I agree, I see nothing inherently wrong with this. The only thing is that feminism vilifies men for doing this, or even when they are just (falsely) suspected of doing this (see the drone kid being beat-up, and how people called him pervert for it) The only thing of interest here is showing the hypocrisy of many feminist voices.
/r/MensRights12/02/15 07:41 PM
0

It isn't required, but it certainly helps.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 02:53 PM
1

Only it really doesn't. It leaves everybody cautious.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 01:01 PM
3

Children can't legally give consent to anything. Not true. You don't call it "theft" if a kid buys something / gives money to charity / tips a waiter. Kids as young as 6 and even 4 can give consent to a monetary transaction. A 16 y.o. can consent to buying / selling a car. And obviously if they join others in doing illegal activities they are considered to have consented to it rather than being forced into it. They can't sign contracts, can't get into legal obligations, but they can consent to v…
/r/MensRights08/02/15 04:16 PM
2

When I was on t-mobile I was paying $30/month per phone (unlimited text+data, 100 min talk). I had to leave them too, but am now paying significantly more. How much were you paying? How much are you paying now?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 11:54 PM
2

I don't get it - is this an actual example from the article? Or just something you invented?
/r/MensRights07/02/15 04:20 PM
3

Yes, and if you read his full post he actually puts both these things one after the other. He shows a real problem (giving consent while drunk then regretting it while sober => rape accusation), but proposes a ridiculous solution (so any drunk person should be assumed to give implicit consent) And couple that with his other remarks - about clothing and bad behavior - I would say that's what he believes: if she was drunk in public, that implicitly means she consented to sex. Otherwise she should …
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:41 PM
3

Right. Feminism has gone WAAAAY to far, but we can't go too far in the other direction. Drunk consent is legal consent - but drunk consent requires actual (active) consent, not just the lack of "no". Yes, and a drunk woman who reaches out and masturbates a guy's penis is capable of consent too Is that the example for the article? No. This barrister goes WAY too far in the other direction: 'I have a very simple solution which I hope you will agree is fair. If the complainant (I do not refer to he…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:32 PM
2

Yes, but in your purse example the buyer was able to, well, buy. The buyer was able to communicate a desire to buy, able to take money out of their wallet in the correct amount and give it to the seller. The buyer was active enough to communicate consent. Although many feminists would consider it rape no matter how slightly a woman is drunk, I would hardly call the buyer in your example as "blind drunk". Let take another example: Say you are blind drunk. Like lying on the floor moaning drunk. An…
/r/MensRights07/02/15 03:10 PM
13

Imagine if a utility worker during his work dropped a high voltage power line on someones home burning it down..Can the the utility company throw up it hands and say it wasn't us, sue the lineman instead? No, but if that utility worker took the high voltage power line and intentionally used it to burn down the house of a person they disliked, it shouldn't be the utility's company responsibility (unless they knew the worker was unstable)
/r/MensRights05/02/15 10:24 PM
5

Yes, but he got free room and board all this time! You have to add that to the total. 100k/year + rent, heating, utilities, food etc. Totally worth it! /s
/r/MensRights05/02/15 08:33 PM
13

Oh, I love that. That's just so... telling of feminism as a whole. Not the trans thing, that's TERF specific, but this: TERF is a slur created by liberal straight feminists [...] Use of it marks you as an anti-gay MRA Riiiight. Feminists invented it, so it's the fault of the MRA. In other words, "here's something women did. This is all men's fault!"
/r/MensRights05/02/15 01:00 PM
3

You're right. I should have said "some accusations were made without apparent knowledge of each other". Some only came public after there the original accusations surfaced and obviously were aware of the existing accusations. The other might appear unrelated - but we can never disprove a conspiracy.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 09:59 PM
2

Proven by whom? By which standards? The state considered a court of law to be the only avenue for such proof. Do you? Or would you consider proof even if it isn't accepted in a court of law? (been thrown out on a technicality, or whatever other reason) Let's consider a hypothetical. Say Cosby comes on TV tomorrow and says he actually did rape these women. After that he published a book about how he raped them and even includes photographs he took during the act. He can't be tried because the sta…
/r/MensRights02/02/15 07:35 PM
3

Not being found guilty is a matter for the state. The STATE has to treat him as if he's innocent. People can do whatever they want. And since he CAN'T be tried, people have to form their own opinion as no one can look at the evidence for them. Say your neighbor killed your brother. You saw him do it with your own eyes on a video recording of the event. But because some cop screwed up the video is inadmissible, and there isn't enough other evidence to try him. The STATE has to treat him as innoce…
/r/MensRights02/02/15 06:48 PM
2

But in this case - letting the courts sort this out isn't an option as the statute of limitation has passed (as far as I understand on all the accusations). And before we start again with the "why didn't they come forward sooner" argument - many did but were ignored. So given that there isn't an option to let the courts sort this out, what do you expect people to do? Just ignore it because of a technicality?
/r/MensRights02/02/15 06:19 PM
7

It depends what kind of study. A study that looks at statistics of paternity test clinics will have very high "false" results - as people who send their DNA to these clinics are those who have reason to believe they aren't the father. In other words - what it actually means is "if you have enough reason to believe you aren't the father that you will spend hundreds of $ to test it - you are 40% likely to indeed not be the father". But obviously that means nothing for the general population...
/r/MensRights22/01/15 08:42 AM
2

It's important to quantify just how many mens' and boys' lives are ruined each year by lies. You must remember that mens' and boys' lives are ruined not only by formal false rape reports (made formally to the police) but also by false rape accusations made publicly but never formally reported. A complaint to HR that gets someone fired. An accusation made to friends / family for whatever reason (I've seen an actual case where a girl accused a boy of raping her because she got a bad grade on a mat…
/r/MensRights18/01/15 03:40 PM
1

I've never encountered any problems having access to diaper changing stations here in CT/NY/NJ, nor on any trip we took. There's always either a station in the men's room, a gender-neutral "family room" or, unfortunately, no station at all (not in the men nor the women's restroom) If this isn't already the standard in most places in the US, it's a real travesty.
/r/MensRights13/01/15 06:20 PM
13

And that the one and only point of this so called "rape culture". Feminists took a concept that was important but something they didn't want in the public conscious - and changed its meaning. Didn't matter to what. The point is to remove the concept as it originally was. They needed to remove the existence of any sort of "male victimization" from discourse, so they took the words and rebranded them. Cuz you control the language, you control what people think. Like you - even you on this sub forg…
/r/MensRights10/01/15 09:43 PM
17

And smaller head. I think that's also very important. He photoshoped him to have a smaller head.
/r/MensRights10/01/15 09:20 PM
1

Although it doesn't report 80%. Can I have the sources on that claim? It reports 79.2%. If that's not 80%, then I don't know what is.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 09:09 PM
2

I agree. Without a gender breakdown of the data we cannot assume anything. luckily in this case the data exists (partially), but it's obvious they tried to hide it (by their definition of "rape" - where the rapist has to penetrate - almost only men can rape. For example there's no way to find the rates of female-on-female rapes here) Unfortunately I see this "hiding" of evidence in a lot of studies - where any attempt to see if the data actually doesn't support "men are bad" is just hidden or ju…
/r/MensRights09/01/15 08:32 PM
7

I wrote about it here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2r8i8i/facebook_on_rape/cndob6u Here are the relevant parts: Now, in the link I gave you can look at pages 18,19, tables 2.1 (women) and 2.2 (men) you can see that the "number of women raped in the past 12 month" is 1,270,000, while the number of men "forced to penetrate in the past 12 months" is a very similar 1,267,000 and But who is the rapist in "made to penetrate"? Is it men raping men or women raping men? On page 24 you can…
/r/MensRights09/01/15 07:29 PM
10

This isn't gender based! It's privilege based, just like whitey isn't race based but privilege based! /s
/r/MensRights09/01/15 02:34 AM
4

Yes, and if I point at a white man and say "he looks like a person who likes apples" that won't get you called racist, while if I point at a black man and say "he looks like a person who likes fried chicken" it probably would. Your point?
/r/MensRights09/01/15 01:13 AM
3

As far as I remember he wasn't even filming women at all. He as a website with fly-by shots of the cliffs and whatever around the area. He takes pictures of the beach from high-up. Sort of nature shots I guess.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 05:55 PM
3

Women are people - not just more expensive objects.
/r/MensRights05/01/15 12:15 AM
22

We view women as "resources" that need to be protected and can't go to waste Ehh, not buying it. Women aren't treated as resources. Had you been right, then just the life of women would be protected, but even in this case: the homelessness of women doesn't prevent their use as a "resource". If anything it facilitates it. So why are as a society outraged more by women being homeless? And if women are just viewed as a "child-creating/raising resource", why aren't just aspect of child-creating/rais…
/r/MensRights04/01/15 06:22 PM
38

We live in a society where women are valued more just for being women, thats patriarchy. Isn't that Matriarchy though?
/r/MensRights04/01/15 05:56 PM
2

See my other reply here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2r8i8i/facebook_on_rape/cndob6u
/r/MensRights04/01/15 08:15 AM
5

No... I'm saying that giving a lot of examples doesn't help convince anyone since no one denies these examples exist. You need to show people statistics and studies - rather than a list of examples - if you want to convince people.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 08:07 AM
2

Even the most hardcore feminist I found would give the 2% number ("just like every other crime") I have yet to meet anyone who claims there is 0% false rape accusation, so no matter how many examples you give that won't convince anyone.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 05:49 AM
1

Sorry, confusing language. Wasn't trying to say you agreed with that. I meant I agree with the "feminist" declaration that most rapes aren't about sex, they are about control However, I just want to make clear I mean rapes where the rapist knows they are committing rapes, which is very different than rapes of "we were both drunk" or similar
/r/MensRights04/01/15 03:59 AM
1

That study used an incredibly loose definition of "rape" and "made to penetrate" which included having sex while drunk OK, but that's the feminist definition isn't it? But yea, that's shitty. If all sex while drunk is rape then, well... you know drinking is the first part of any of the very rare "us" time I have with my wife since the kids were born. the "need" to go through the whole rape process isn't there for women like it is for men. I would agree to that. But I also agree with the declarat…
/r/MensRights04/01/15 02:32 AM
3

How do you get 3:2 ratio, given: I'm looking at the 12 month numbers rather than the lifetime, because I care about "now" more than "decades ago". If we assume that feminism is working and the world is changing to treat women better, then we should also assume that women were raped much more often decades ago than they are now, especially since rape is taken much more seriously now in law enforcement (we also see that in 3rd world countries where rapes are taken much less seriously) So comparing…
/r/MensRights04/01/15 02:19 AM
3

A lot of people asked for this :) See my comment here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2r8i8i/facebook_on_rape/cndob6u
/r/MensRights04/01/15 02:02 AM
4

CDC report: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf Unfortunately they decided not to count "forced to penetrate" as rape (where a person - either by use of alcohol, threats, dependence or any other way - forced a man to penetrate them against the man's will), although the FBI does count it as rape. The data is there, but you have to add it yourself to see comparisons as their "rape" summaries don't include "forced to penetrate" which is the main way women rape men. Now,…
/r/MensRights04/01/15 02:01 AM
6

Or to put it in more academic terms: Some have argued that lesbian sexuality-meaning here simply women having sex with women not men-solves the problem of gender by eliminating men from women's voluntary sexual encounters.51 Yet women's sexuality remains constructed under conditions of male supremacy; women remain socially defined as women in relation to men; the definition of women as men' s inferiors remains sexual even if not heterosexual, whether men are present at the time or not MacKinnon
/r/MensRights02/01/15 05:42 AM
1

I was replying about a post about how the lowest paying jobs were overwhelmingly staffed by women. They gave good references though, which was nice :) but I really couldn't find any hourly rates only weekly / yearly salary
/r/MensRights01/01/15 07:33 PM
1

I know, that's why I wanted the per-hour rate and not the yearly rate, but couldn't find it in the bureau of labor statistic's website. However, I did find the overall average weekly work hours of full-time employed workers - which were 41 for women vs. 43 for men, so a difference of 5%. But that's over all jobs, not just low-paying jobs. It was really annoying how that information just isn't there.
/r/MensRights01/01/15 03:10 PM
1

That already exists! No need for "magical fairy" :) You can choose not to be an organ donor, which will only affect your body after death, even though by not donating you very likely will cause the death or suffering of another person (there are more people on the donor lists than there are donated organs) Actually, you don't even have to opt-out of organ donation - you have to actively agree to be an organ donor! So yea, not only a tattoo fairy for your (living) body, but actual autonomy over y…
/r/MensRights01/01/15 06:23 AM
5

What quote did she fabricate?
/r/MensRights01/01/15 06:14 AM
1

:( I took the time to look at the sources and do some analysis, but then everything was deleted :( Very sad. Since I already took the time to actually calculate it, I'll give the bottom line here: of all full-time jobs with less than $20k/year salary, women make up 59% vs men at 41%. We are talking about 5 million people. However, I couldn't find any hourly rate comparison (or hours worked comparison either), only statistics for full-time yearly income, which is defined as anything 35 or more ho…
/r/MensRights01/01/15 05:41 AM
2

I fixed it. I skim bullshit because I'd rather not spend that much time soaking up nonsense. Oh, I see, so your thought about productive discussion is assume the person you're talking to has bullshit opinions, then assume you already know these opinions without actually listening to them, then reply to the imagined arguments you cocked up and just feel smug about yourself. For some reason the words "pigeon" and "chess" come to mind. You regard it as a privilege that men are unaware of this fact …
/r/MensRights21/12/14 10:41 PM
4

Wow, it's as if you read my post then asked me if I knew all the things I actually wrote in my post. Like every single thing I wrote - you repeated here asking if I knew it. I guess some thing you learned from feminism is how to lie and manipulate your way in a discussion if you don't have anything real to say.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 10:26 PM
6

Except I actually gave an example? Or is reading too hard for you?
/r/MensRights21/12/14 10:20 PM
10

Yes there is. I'm not saying everything is better for men. But every person and group has their own set of privileges they are mostly blind to. Males have a lot of privileges. A lot of things we think everyone experiences but actually only males do. Yes, you can always flip each of these things around, and you can claim for each that maybe some other burden overshadows this particular privilege, or that this privilege is something you'd give up not to have some other burden set on you. But all p…
/r/MensRights21/12/14 10:17 PM
9

I dated a radical feminist for a couple of years. I hung around her and her (also radical feminist) friends and learned a LOT from them. I learned to see things I was completely blind to before - real things that actually exist but I just didn't see. The thing is - once my eyes were open, I was able to see the same things from a male perspective as well. I still consider myself a feminist. Most of the issues I saw then - I still see now, and I would fight to fix them. But I also see how feminist…
/r/MensRights21/12/14 09:06 PM
1

It really bothers me that it isn't a "cycle". I mean, it doesn't even pretend to be (no arrow between last element back to first element), it's just listed in a circular pattern. But for some reason the author called it a cycle.
/r/MensRights14/12/14 12:49 AM
1

Took me a while to find the origin of your quote. Unfortunately it's a bad quote: it comes from a section about Comparing the NCVS and other surveys that measure rape and sexual assault in a college-age population and NOT from how they did their own study. While looking for your quote I also tried to see how they did their study: From the introduction The findings are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) so NOT from the NISVS (which you quoted a…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 03:05 PM
1

When discussing the "too drunk to consent" you are giving examples of when the drunk people instigate the actions. And I know a lot of "everything is rape" people will consider "she was drunk and came to your room and started touching you and convinced you to have sex with her" as rape However, there is a "too drunk to consent" where what we are really talking about is consenting, as in not instigating the actions, but being a passive participant when someone else does because you're too drunk t…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 02:31 PM
1

"coercion" has a very specific meaning. Tricking someone doesn't fall under coercion. Drugging someone might be considered assault or use of force even, but here they specifically add the "physical" qualifier suggesting that other, non-physical, kind of forces were not considered. So what is the difference between general use of force and use of physical force? Let's say I told you I was able to break this diamond using only physical force, and when you ask how I show you that I place it in a ch…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 02:17 PM
1

I'm not trying to discuss the merits of "drunk = rape", nor when it should or shouldn't apply. I am saying that the "too drunk to consent" is according to the 1:5 proponents a big part of campus rape, so not including it is a way for them to discredit these findings.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 02:13 PM
7

Wait, that definition is very weird to me: Rape is the unlawful penetration of a person against the will of the victim, with use or threatened use of force, or attempting such an act. Rape includes psychological coercion and physical force, and forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender. (my emphasis) Note the lack of talk about consent. I mean - of course the use of force / threats implies non-consent. But there are a lot of non-consent which don't involv…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 07:54 AM
5

If the rape or sexual assault isn't legally defined as such, then you know in advance that the police wouldn't and couldn't help. For example, before the law was changed it used to be that you couldn't legally rape your wife. So a married woman who was raped by her husband wouldn't report it to the police and still knew that they wouldn't / couldn't help. There may be a lot of similar cases now too - where people feel they have been sexually assaulted / raped by actions they know are actually st…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 02:01 AM
3

Well, I didn't understand it either. On reddit there is a difference between "post" (which is text) and "links" (which links to outside text / websites) I understand what you mean NOW, but since it's obvious that the language in your original post isn't clear to many people maybe you could edit the post to specifically say "this includes links to other sources who state the identity"? You know, just to be perfectly clear...
/r/MensRights10/12/14 08:10 PM
7

If people actually stopped to think about it, they'd realize just how absurd the whole 1 in 5 statistic really is. No, no. People KNOW the 1 in 5 statistic isn't real. But they also believe it is real. It's the famous "double-think". Same thing about the Rolling stone article. Of course people believed her, but at the same time they didn't actually think it happened. How do I know? Look at the reactions. To the Rolling stone article: a brutal and premeditated and institutionalized and probably r…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 04:17 PM
48

She was freed at Cardiff Crown Court today after serving 23 days of a 16-week jail sentence that was handed to her last month. 16 weeks too harsh? Wat? Judge David Wyn Morgan replaced the sentence with an order to go on a 'thinking skills' programme after Wilson appealed that the sentence was too harsh. Thinking skills programme? Wat? The judge hoped that it would give Wilson time to better understand how her crime had affected the Griffiths family. WAT?!
/r/MensRights01/12/14 09:31 PM
3

otherwise she would have been sad That sounds like a good enough reason to me
/r/MensRights29/11/14 11:41 PM
16

The ring was originally designed from the sexist standpoint that the man owns the women Agree that it is sexist, but that isn't the original reason for rings. Rings (not diamond back then, just gold) were given to women so they'd have some resources of their own if they needed to escape from / were thrown out of the marital home. Back then a woman would often have to leave her entire family and clan to go to another clan, surrounded by people she didn't know in a place far from her anywhere she …
/r/MensRights29/11/14 11:39 PM
111

Women in general also have absolutely no interest in male spaces. These are NOT women in general, these are "feminist activists"
/r/MensRights28/11/14 05:01 PM
3

I would guess that either (a) it's a recent problem / people only started noticing it recently (b) the numbers are actually much higher, but most people don't consider "forced to penetrate" to be a thing (they think it's their fault, and assume they wanted it because they were hard). So many men who were asked if they were "forced to penetrate" would have said no even though it happened to them because they don't understand they were forced (think it's their fault). For example, if only 5.5 mill…
/r/MensRights27/11/14 03:43 PM
2

By that logic he doesn't have to worry about it either - our system declared any actions which might or might not have happened to be past the statute of limitation. So your point is that none of this matters (either his guilt of rape or their guilt of lying) - simply because none of this will go to trial? Well, it appears it does matter to a lot of people non-the-less. It's as if there is more to people's opinion than the official declaration of the system
/r/MensRights26/11/14 10:19 PM
3

Because the fact is, Cosby is innocent of rape. No, Cosby is LEGALLY innocent. That doesn't mean he's actually innocent. Confusing the two concepts is dangerous. We don't know if Cosby is innocent or guilty. The LAW/STATE has to treat him as if he's innocent. No one else has to. Don't forget that by the same logic saying Cosby is innocent of rape (because he hasn't been convicted in court), you can say that his accusers are innocent of false accusation / defamation (because they haven't been con…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 08:14 AM
2

And this is bad news, because the double standard is being taken out from the wrong side (unless there's more to the story)
/r/MensRights26/11/14 08:01 AM
1

I agree. No one should go to jail for a slap. This is ridiculous. So ridiculous that I suspect there's more there. Like maybe she has a history of hitting him, maybe he complained in the past as well or something. Otherwise I just can't see how this got to jail time.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 07:59 AM
4

Well, I disagree with you. If she had said "the only difference between intercourse and rape is that intercourse isn't illegal" would you have said she makes the statement that "sex=rape, but the legal system is bad"? Because that what the (fictional) sentence says: "sex is rape but law doesn't see it". Same here, she says "the difference between intercourse and rape is that people don't understand how bad intercourse is". This IS equating sex with rape, and ALSO bashing people's understanding. …
/r/MensRights26/11/14 05:55 AM
3

But they are actually making it - at least MacKinnon is. Not "word for word", but yes, that sentence is the same as "all intercourse is rape". The only difference is "(it's rape but most people don't see it)" the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it The major difference it that it happens so often. That's the difference. The amount. So "it's not rape because it happens more …
/r/MensRights26/11/14 05:36 AM
8

Here's a quote from MacKinnon: the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it. And another: Male sexuality is apparently activated by violence against women and expresses itself in violence against women to a significant extent. And about lesbian sex: Some have argued that lesbian sexuality-meaning here simply women having sex with women not men-solves the problem of gender by eli…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 05:26 AM
1

WTF is going on with all this "You people on this sub"?! You are getting similar upvotes/downvotes and the people you are talking to, but you choose to see it as "everyone here is against me" in spite of this evidence to the contrary. Why do you even go to this ad-hominem? You think that makes you argument better? You write stupid stuff like "You refuse to believe that a male could actually be guilty of rape" when no one is saying that here ever. Why do you need this strawman if you believe in y…
/r/MensRights25/11/14 03:44 PM
4

I was with you up until that "You people on this sub are pathetic". Shows you came here with an agenda, trying to "out us". The original comment suggesting he is probably guilty is upvoted, the subsequent comment explaining the details that many didn't know (that accusations started in the 90s, and thus probably not fake) is upvoted. You choose to ignore that just because you already have your opinion about this sub set. Maybe if YOU'd keep as much of an open mind as "the people on this pathetic…
/r/MensRights25/11/14 03:35 PM
1

Yes (unless they choose not to do so because they don't think they can convict). You can ask for a retrial (sometimes) if new evidence appears - but only if the person was convicted. If he's been aquited (or the case was dismissed with prejudice) then no matter how much new evidence appears you can't ask for a new trial (that's the double jeopardy)
/r/MensRights24/11/14 09:17 PM
0

But then she'd have even less incentive to come forward. She was 11 at the time - it's hard to fault her for that, it's really the justice system's fault. You can fault her for not coming forward sooner, but in that case you should suggest something that will help the situation by increasing incentive to recant rather than decreasing incentive. Before you jump on this, there is a difference between an 11 y.o. inventing a story and a 20 y.o. doing the same. Kids are much more impressionable and h…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 06:28 PM
2

No, because he was found guilty last trial.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 06:23 PM
2

No! you don't understand! She didn't "rape" them, she "had sex" with them! Completely different. She drugged kids 14-15 year old, and then had sex with them. Read it for yourself. /s
/r/MensRights23/11/14 02:44 PM
5

If 20 different people pointed all claimed the same person mugged them (on different occasions), would you believe them? Would you arrest that person? Would you consider it acceptable that person is convicted based only on 20 different people who all claim to have been mugged?
/r/MensRights23/11/14 03:05 AM
16

I remember when a feminist "friend" posted this of FB. Right, I didn't know you were forced to walk around like that in the west, or risk being burned to death if you didn't. Sorry, I never realized the patriarchy was requiring you to dress like this, especially since I've never ever seen her wear anything even remotely similar. The nerve of western feminists to even compare themselves to Islam's women is really appalling. Edit: see this - the nerve to write "if I had a choice I'm not sure which…
/r/MensRights21/11/14 04:29 AM
3

Unless he's in STEM and extremely intelligent. At some point up nothing matters other than your ability to solve problems no one else can.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 12:46 AM
7

Yes, that's about the leaders. But the thing to notice is that most people today would call themselves feminists (because most people today do think that equality is good etc.). I mean - even most people here in /r/MensRights probably called themselves "feminists" before they found out what feminism was truly about. The leaders shout the loudest, that's true. But I can't think of a group where the leaders are as disconnected from the people who identify in the group as it is in feminism.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 03:55 PM
58

The problem is the disconnect between the "feminist people", who really want equality, and "feminist leadership" who want power. "Feminist people" I call the "general population". The "you and me" kind of girls/guys. They don't study gender issues at the university, they have regular jobs and take part in the real world. They are people who call themselves feminist because they believe discrimination is wrong, but also take responsibility for themselves. They think that "getting ongoing verbal c…
/r/MensRights20/11/14 03:24 PM
4

I disagree with the designer's choice as much as Dr. Taylor's decision to wear it. Why don't you disagree with her choice MORE than with his decision? He doesn't know. We've established that. Of course the "woman you are listening to is not always right", but I'm sure no one ever came to him and told him they found the shirt offensive. It might be because of lack of women around him (which is a different but very real problem he isn't directly responsible for), or it might be because the women a…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 04:12 PM
10

If a coworker would come and tell him they found the shirt offensive, then I'm sure he would have removed it. And remember, this shirt was made and given to him by a female friend - which means he might have legitimately thought that wearing it is encouraging and empowering for at least one woman. Feminism often tells men that on women's issues they have to listen to women's opinion as they can't understand it themselves. He wore this shirt after a woman thought it was appropriate (and actually …
/r/MensRights15/11/14 03:39 PM
18

"This time the system worked," attorney Cary London told the Post. "Thank God for smartphones because the DA’s office was able to have all of the information in front of them at an early stage to show that our client did nothing wrong and acted in self-defense." The system worked? He spent 4 days in jail, meaning he lost money from not working / missed classes / just been 4 days in shitty jail, when the videos were available for anyone to see he was attacked first. He probably still has to pay t…
/r/MensRights13/11/14 06:38 AM
4

DongleGate Now I googled DongleGate. And now I'm sad.
/r/MensRights08/11/14 04:38 PM
3

Feminism is about EQUALITY! Look it up! /s
/r/MensRights08/11/14 04:26 PM
7

Already out of print, and not available for kindle :(
/r/MensRights08/11/14 04:24 PM
0

You're thinking of the legal definition, which is different than the "day to day" definition and CERTAINLY different than the "college" definition. Not to mention, if you look at the definition of "rape" in some of the women's studies text books you will see people advocating (and their opinion being taught) that any PiV sex is rape, even if both sides consent (or "think they consent"). But that might just be "crazy people" So it's nice that you go around explaining that you shouldn't be convict…
/r/MensRights29/10/14 01:17 AM
8

It's "virtually voluntary" if you're willing to have a kid at 18, which virtually no one does in Israel. Also the "religious reasons" isn't as easy as that since it isn't just a statement - it's actually checked. I have yet to meet a single woman in Israel who "got off" using these methods. I have met several who didn't do the army for "health reasons" (usually mental health) which are easier to fake, but that applies to men as well (and I have met several men who "got off" the army using the sa…
/r/MensRights27/10/14 12:27 PM
1

I don't know - I'm circumcised and I never use lube. On the contrary, if I'm wet from something I need to dry off before I can masturbate. Maybe it's just me though - I have been told I do it weird.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 01:04 AM
4

I think men are actually objectified by society much more than women - although in a "job" kind of way rather than a "sex" kind of way. That's why it's much more "taboo" for men to show their individuality, that's why we care less if men die, that's why we don't mind making men pay / putting them away etc. But I agree that the feminist definition of "objectify" is moronic. That definition is "used as the object of a sentence". As in "he had sex with her" - "he" is the subject - "he" acts - while…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 11:45 AM
16

I don't think men objectify women. They sexualize women, but don't objectify them. What I mean is - it's abundantly clear to me that most men women to be a sexual person with interests, personality etc. Treating a person as an object means looking at them only as a tool, disregarding difference between them, ignoring / not caring about their likes / dislikes, not caring what their personality is. Men want women to be people that like sex as much as they do. But still be people. That's why the "s…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 04:08 AM
4

How many of these Harvard profs are male? Because any male will be dismissed without second thought.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 03:55 AM
1

Unlike murder, sexual assault / rape is ONLY a crime if one party didn't explicitly consent before hand AND didn't want it in retrospect (or if the person is a minor etc.). That's why kissing a person on a first date without asking for permission first isn't sexual assault. Murder, on the other hand, is a crime no matter whether a person consents or not.
/r/MensRights12/10/14 11:24 PM
1

It was coined to exclude trans men - saying that "transphobia" was wrongly including trans-men in the discussion of trans-oppression. Thus saying that "transphobia" is misleading / inaccurate because it suggests that a person transitioning from woman to man might still become more oppressed rather than more privileged. In other words - transphobia, which applies to FtM as well as MtF - implies that going from more feminine to more masculine qualities might result in systematic oppression. This g…
/r/MensRights08/10/14 10:42 PM
2

Ehm... transmisogyny only applies to trans women (MtF). I think you had them confused :)
/r/MensRights07/10/14 02:35 AM
13

Good for you - you don't have the "wrong kind of people" in your life :)
/r/MensRights06/10/14 11:31 PM
5

"transphobia" and "cissexism" are different. "homophobia" and "heterosexism" are also different. the "Xphobia" includes the "(not)Xsexism", but is a broader term. They are not interchangable. "Transmisogyny" specifically comes to replace "transphobia" - under the assumption that since FtM transexuals put themselves in the "oppressor" camp they can no longer be "oppressed", only "discriminated against".
/r/MensRights06/10/14 11:01 PM
24

Once feminism decided to change the word "transphobia" to "transmisogyny" they basically told trans-men loud and clear that they don't care about them and don't acknowledge they face any hardship (other than growing up as a female with all the hardship that entails)
/r/MensRights06/10/14 09:49 PM
2

Well: (a) I did say it was less. Saying the difference isn't significant isn't the same as saying it isn't an issue. It is an issue, but not as significant as, say, the black/white pay difference or the 77c/$ difference. If a robber stole 2$ from me, but stole 2000$ from you, I wouldn't be happy, but it would be dishonest of me to say to you "yes, I also lost a significant amount of money". (b) Well, no one "takes" these 2%, so your example of "if someone took 2% of my paycheck" is wrong. The 2%…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:44 AM
3

You claimed 77c/$ as the relevant number for this claim. You were wrong. No point being a dick about it.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:33 AM
4

Are there any other crimes where the act in itself isn't illegal, if both parties agree to it, but is illegal if one doesn't? Well, there kind of is: Say you were robbed at gunpoint in a dark alley. And the person took your watch. Now say that person is caught - but claims you gave him the watch (or sold it to him for cash). He has the watch, so no question that the watch exchanged hands. But it's only illegal if it was taken against your will - which can't be proved beyond your word. Is this pe…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:30 AM
3

No. That number is average salary over all women vs. all men. It takes into account both non-working people, retired etc, and ignores different jobs, or difference in working hours. The test OP supplied on the other hand specifically states less money for similar work which ISN'T the 77c/$ figure, and is actually shown to be more like 98c/$. Still less, but hardly "significantly less".
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:17 AM
-1

Your first part has nothing to do with this and just shows you have an agenda.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 06:41 AM
18

But "the woman isn't getting paid, the child is", and the child didn't steal anything. :(
/r/MensRights02/10/14 05:46 AM
2

The point is - killing yourself when you really want to is easy. Jump off a building/bridge. I knew a guy who killed himself by jumping from the 4th floor of the local mall. If you happen to have a gun around then it's even easier, but you don't really need it. I had a good family friend (female, for the record) that was very depressed and suicidal and really wanted to die. She was under care, managed to run away, was being chased by her family and caretakers who pleaded with her to come and "no…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 07:19 PM
80

That reminds me of a case in Israel not so long ago: An adult woman had intoxicated public sex with a bunch of teenage males (also intoxicated), on the beach, in front of many people just walking by. When some people tried to intervene to stop it, that woman attacked them and yelled at them to mind their own business. She even hit a woman who tried to "save her". Obviously the police was called (public sex and stuff) and stopped it, but after that the main discorse around the country was how thi…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 06:58 PM
19

Actually, the response I heard from radical feminists is that "women attempt suicide more than men, and attempted suicide is what counts, not actual suicide". When I suggested that women attempt suicide more but succeed less because those aren't real attempts but "cries for help", this just proved the point for her: "see? Women are so worse off that they need to cry for help in such a horrible manner! Men don't cry for help, they just kill themselves because they don't want to live. But women ac…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 09:12 AM
2

Well, I went there and read around a bit - and it seems that actual words from transgender people kind of contradict you. I admit that I haven't read a lot - but I did read about 6-8 descriptions I found about "what is different now that you are seen as the other gender?" For the record, the vast majority of trans people report exactly the opposite From what I saw about 1/2 seem to agree with this testimony (saying people were nicer to them as female, that they had more options etc.), while the …
/r/MensRights23/09/14 06:46 PM
19

from my own experience that I have spoken to someone who [...] felt bringing the issue to the university would be pointless So you call "talking to someone who decided not to go through it" personal experience? More than that - you call "talking to someone else who didn't actually bring the issue to the university" as "personal experience that the university handles cases poorly"? I would call that second hand experience of a perception rather than personal experience of prejudice. But that's ju…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 01:53 PM
45

No, 8 years later he has a 6 year old. From the article: The state two years ago served Nick Olivas [...] to support a then-6-year-old daughter So you ask how in 8 years you get a 6 year old? Well, remember when someone says "6 year old" they don't mean "6 to the day" - it's anywhere between 6 and 7. Also when you say he was 14, he might have been anywhere between 14 and 15 - and now he's 24 again might be anywhere between 24 and 25. And also when they say "two years ago" they again don't mean "…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 01:36 AM
10

How exactly would these feminists like underwear/nightwear for women to be modelled and advertised They wouldn't. The way underwear / nightwear looks is only important for the benefit of men, so any marketing of underwear / nightwear based on how they look is misogyny rape culture. /s
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:57 PM
1

Or, you know - you can create a pink assembly car. You know.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:35 PM
1

that they should not say no again with the strawman! No one is saying women shouldn't use the nail polish either, but they are criticising the people who MAKE the nail polish. No one is telling women "don't say no". but YOU are telling women "saying no won't help so there's no point. You can if you want to, but it won't help". YOU said that. And now you're saying again that people don't have a responsibility to let their partners know if they changed their minds. FFS you KNOW how hard it is to k…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:10 PM
0

Maybe get a thicker skin That's not a good response...
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:05 PM
1

Oh, so it didn't happen to YOU thus it doesn't happen to anyone? Also, wasn't talking about gaming (in the "computer" sense). Wasn't talking about "geekdom". Was talking about being the girl who plays with construction toys. That builds stuff. That is dirty from grease and oil from working on the family car. A girl that's into engineering that would be mocked by "popular girly-girls" for being too "man-like". Edit: sorry, that was uncalled for. I'm just extremely angry at someone else right now,…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 02:55 PM
1

You are a disgusting person. "Lol". Right. You find rape funny? What if the person really wanted sex, communicated they really wanted sex, gave enthusiastic consent, and in the middle changed their mind? Will you tell them they need to say something to let their partner know they changed their mind? NO, YOU'RE TELLING PEOPLE THEY DON'T NEED TO SAY ANYTHING. YOU're telling people their partner already knows that they changed their minds. That they don't need to say anything. That if they have to …
/r/MensRights28/08/14 02:38 PM
1

resists clearly enough COMMUNICATES THAT THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS? Is that resisting in your world view?! Even YOU say that saying what you what is too much to ask of women? Do you really think it is that hard to tell if someone is into what you are doing or not? YES! People are NOT mind readers! Look at most books about sex and you'll see the universal advice is "communicate what you want and don't want as your partner can't read your mind". Have you never had an experience where something didn…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 02:12 PM
0

Really? You think there are colors, like blue, that girls and women aren't allowed to play with? Aren't"allowed"? No. Will be mocked for playing? Yes. But you're right that color is less important in this case. However, this isn't about color - girls will be mocked for doing anything too "man"-like (like playing an engineering/construction game, or playing with motorcycles, or cars). Making it pink will reduce the ridicule from other girls even though the ridicule wasn't about color but about "m…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:37 PM
1

saying that women should not say no Strawman. No one will tell a WOMAN what to do. I never claimed that feminists tell women what to do. They control what tools women have available to them - what tools they are taught. So in that case - yes, there are feminists that advocate NOT to teach women to say "no" (they can do if they want, but don't you dare teach it to them) because that's victim blaming. Like no feminist will tell a woman not to defend herself, they will just close down places that t…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:54 AM
1

But I am normally lead to understand that median is a much better measure than mean exactly because it removes the disparity of top earners. In this case - maybe the very top earners are male, but if what you're saying is correct - then the "average person" (the median person) is much worse off than the "average woman". Meaning the problem isn't that men make more than women, it's that women make more than men except for the very very elite.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:48 AM
1

Here is one example In that example was the woman drugged? No. So it is IRRELEVANT to a product that is meant to detect drugs in drinks. YOU YOURSELF SAID This thread isn't about rape prevention in general, it is about a specific product that is being put forward as a solution So if it "isn't about rape prevention in general" but rather "about a specific product" why do you bring up cases that have nothing to do with this product but rather are about rape in general? You again can't back up your…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:46 AM
1

Is it plain to see? Show me. Show me the upvoated comments that make fun of women who are afraid of being raped.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:40 AM
1

The graph just bellow the "Ok, let’s get back to wages" text. The title of the graph is "since the 1970s women's earnings have grown more quickly than men's" It's a graph with 3 lines: Per Gapita GDP, men's median weekly earnings, women's median weekly earnings. At the end of the graph, women's median weekly earnings is at 250 while men's is under 200. However like I said - I'm not sure I get that graph. It kind of contradicts what they later claim, so I obviously am missing something.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:22 AM
1

have you actually heard people speak badly about things like avoiding walking home alone, not accepting drinks from strangers, letting friends know where you are, etc etc etc? I'll even go further than that: How about the simplest advice: "If you are conscious and able to talk, and you don't want sex, and someone is trying to have sex with you - say NO" How is that for advice? Would that be OK? No - that's not OK, apparently that's victim blaming. Because "it implies that if a woman was able to …
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:13 AM
1

Smart guns are not intended to prevent any sort of crime? They're intended to prevent ACCIDENTS. Which I wrote about. But you don't read anything you don't like, right? They actually make preventing crimes HARDER. Yes, that's part of the outrage: if you actually need the gun to prevent crime, smart guns make it HARDER. Do you even read what I write? Why focus only on things that women have to do to protect themselves? ONLY on things? Many things are done to prevent rape - including arresting rap…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 05:22 AM
1

You realize you are posting this in a thread specifically created to mock people's concerns about women being raped? LIAR LIAR LIAR. How can you lie that much!? Where do these lies come from? This thread NEVER WAS about "mock people's concerns about women being raped". This thread is about the attempts of modern feminism to deny women access to tools that might aid their safety. This thread is about being angry at FEMINISM for actually helping perpetuate rape instead of fighting to stop it. The …
/r/MensRights28/08/14 05:02 AM
1

So your whole "name a crime" makes no sense It is about a product that is used to prevent a crime. This isn't about a product that detects drug-X for general use, it's about a RAPE PREVENTION product. There IS a crime in the discussion - rape - and your attempt to pretend like this is about a product with no connection to a crime is laughable. Especially since the product is CALLED a "rape prevention product" in the headline. Nobody is against rape prevention in general Really? Show me a SINGLE …
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:55 AM
2

I did. I got "disillusioned" from feminism following a false accusation. Actually, TBH, I got disillusioned only many years later, but the seeds probably started then. I came to MensRights as a lurker for a long time - mostly to see other people who went through the same thing / saw the same things I saw, as a way to convince myself I wasn't crazy (in the "how can no one else see that this is bullshit?" kind of way). Started posting my story on a "throwaway" - have been using that "throwaway" as…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:43 AM
1

BTW - your disregard to the very real concerns of gun owners about smart guns shows just how little empathy you have to anything that doesn't concern you specifically. "on it's only one state and it will be overturned anyway, why are they bitching?". Can you IMAGINE if it was about something you cared about? Let me give you an example that you might relate to: Lets say in ONLY ONE STATE, a law existed saying "once a safe dropzone for babies exists that's completely anonymous ANYWHERE in the US, …
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:06 AM
1

(a) It doesn't MATTER if it's overturned! It shows a willingness to actually infringe on people's rights. No "imaginary maybe future infringement" but actual infringement. They have shown they are willing to do so. (b) This example is irrelevant anyway. I asked: Show me one example of people being worried about the thing they are worried here - but in other crimes. You answered "smart guns". That isn't a crime. What is the CRIME? Show me ANY example of people being worried about the thing they a…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 04:00 AM
1

People are up in arms about smart guns because they worry that if they are accepted they will be expected to use them No, people are up in arms about smart guns because there are already laws in place forcing people to use them once they are invented. Small difference, no? Had those laws not existd - no one would have cared about smart guns. Edit: in case you don't believe me: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/24/325178305/a-new-jersey-law-thats-kept-smart-guns-off-shelves-natio…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 03:28 AM
2

If you consider cases where the rapist really didn't know that they raped - then yes, you SHOULD invest in teaching people not to rape (or at least teaching them what constitutes rape). So in that case you agree with them - according to you in 98% of cases you shouldn't just teach women how to avoid rape - you SHOULD teach men how to not rape. So yes [98% of rape] is very comparable to wearing a seat belt or locking your door then it's also comparable to having to go to driver's ed and do campai…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 03:27 AM
0

that works just as well with girls and "blue" - I can imagine girl being mocked by peers for being "boyish" because she plays with "boy toys". So according to you - it is very important to have pink toys because all girls are excluded from "technical toys" by the mocking of their peers. Thus pink isn't about excluding boys but rather including girls. Unless your argument only works when it agrees with you...
/r/MensRights28/08/14 03:24 AM
1

Thought about it. Sounds stupid. Really. My boy has pink toys. I have some pink stuff. Some of my bed sheets are pink. "No boys allowed"? Who will prevent a boy from owning this pink toy? Other than his parents (but that works with blue for girls as well, or for that matter - technical toys and girls. Shitty parents are shitty) I never saw anyone prevent a boy from playing with a pink toy in group play, or in kindergarten (or anywhere where there are a lot of shared toys). Not allowed? When, whe…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 03:08 AM
1

I think we have some confusion here: any party continuing without clear consent What is clear consent? I ask because this seems to contradict the next thing you wrote: If both parties are drunk then obviously there can't be a rape Why? I would say the opposite: if both are drunk and none of them gave clear consent (or was able to give clear consent) than it's - by how I understand you previous definition - rape from both sides. If I get drunk but I'm aware and a sober woman has sex with me again…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 02:16 AM
1

From your original post: OF COURSE rape happens to men as well this line - although not clearly stating it - clearly communicates that rape is a thing that happens to women, and men "as well". Instead of "mostly". But I can give you that. Second, after asking for the statistics: If not counting prison rape, then women clearly get raped much more than men to which you replied: This. Not "OK, you were right, men do get raped more" but instead agreeing with the previous line of If not counting pris…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 02:07 AM
1

I can do "neutral" engineering, thank you. So if you can, then everyone else should too? And many girls who would have been into engineering get turned off by pink in their shit They have more than enough non-pink options. These girls never had a problem to begin with if that's all their parents get them Shitty parents are shitty. Parents should know their kids. If your kid doesn't like pink, doesn't have pink it their rooms, and doesn't play with pink things - it's the parent's fault for buying…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 01:58 AM
1

Aesthetics is extremely important in civil engineering and architecture. Often as much as - or even more so - than function. An extremely efficient building design that looks bad and makes people feel unsafe is a bad building. An extremely efficient overpass that look horrible and will reduce the value of the houses around it (just for having such an ugly sight from their windows) is a BAD overpass design. Edit: Also, as history has shown us many times, an extremely good car that's ugly won't se…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 01:53 AM
1

Also - about consent while intoxicated Why is it that if both parties are intoxicated it's considered that the woman was raped? If you count your statistics like that - obviously you will find that more women are "drunk raped" than men, as you simply don't consider drunk-sex as rape if the drunk party was a man.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 01:49 AM
1

Talking about inter gender rape so you don't count men-on-men date rape? Or women-on-women for that matter? The debate around anti rape nail polish and consent while intoxicated Which has NOTHING to do with finding someone Walking home at night and raping them which you brought up! Any rape is equally as abhorrent as the next, Then why do YOU count all rapes together OTHER THAN PRISON RAPE? Why are the statistics about GENERAL RAPES (not specifically date rape) completely excluding prison rapes?…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 01:48 AM
7

Look, I don't want to be too harsh on you. We are here to raise awareness and to educate. You are obviously here with good intentions and you seem to be listening. Unfortunately you do touch some very sore nerves for many people here. It's not your fault - you were taught some things over the years that are wrong, and it's natural to have a hard time wrapping your head around it. I was a very active feminist myself for a long time. I actually dated a radical feminist for a long time and learned …
/r/MensRights28/08/14 01:37 AM
2

So why don't you count them in rape statistics? They are rapes, are they not? Why not count them? To combat them we need to use different strategies And to combat date rape you need different strategies than spousal rape, and both need different strategies than "finding someone Walking home at night and raping them". So why do you bunch these 3 very different rapes together but exclude prison rape? =============== No matter how you try to excuse it - the fact remains that YOU count all sorts of …
/r/MensRights28/08/14 01:07 AM
4

So do you also not count date rapes? What about spousal rape? Choose a metric and stick by it to both men and women. BTW - prison rape is MUCH worse than most rapes. (a) you are there against your will. You cannot run away, you cannot defend yourself, you cannot prevent it in any way. (b) you are forced to still be beside your attackers for years, interacting with them daily and probably being raped by them again. (c) society treats your rape as a joke. Society threatens you with rape. (d) peopl…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:55 AM
2

I don't get it - do they actually show how the per-week wage of women is significantly higher (mire than 25% higher now) than that of men, yet still claim women need to be helped to earn more?
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:47 AM
2

Yes. They can. Good thing they have too much integrity to actually do that though. /s
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:37 AM
6

Many girls just like girly things. It may be nature, it may be nurture. It may be "the patriarchy" trying to "keep women down" by "pink" (or something? I don't know anymore when the Patriarchy is concerned) What ever it is - many girls like pink. Many girls will want something if it's pink and will not want it if it isn't pink. You can ignore that / "wait until the pink issue is solved" before trying to solve other problems. OR - you can tackle each problem individually. Girls don't have enough …
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:26 AM
3

Is anyone claiming smart guns will cause more accidental shootings? No? Then no. (a) Smart guns aren't marketed as a solution to prevent theft / attack / whatever. They are marketed as a solution to accidental shooting, at the cost of making it harder to actually use the gun when needed. So the criticism is that this harder is too hard (b) the criticism comes from the LEGISLATION: There are people who actually legislated that once smart guns are being sold, you can't sell non-smart guns anymore.…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:15 AM
7

Car seats are bad examples. (a) accidents are often your fault, you are the one who did something wrong, no one else might have even be involved. (b) Even if they are someone else's fault - they didn't mean to cause an accident. Rapists mean to rape. (c) you do teach people how not to cause accidents. You do have nation-wide campaigns to teach people not to drink and drive. You do send people to "drive better schools". So please - stop with the "looking both ways on the street / car accidents" e…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 12:06 AM
8

No I'm not. Show me one example of people being worried about the thing they are worried here - but in other crimes. Show me one example of that.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 11:47 PM
7

Show me one example of that. You claim that if break ins were that bad and the most prominent solution put forward was simply buying better locks, you would most certainly get push back on that show me one example of the lock-company or the home security company being accused of perpetuating break-ins. There are places, even in the US, where break-ins are extremely bad. Show me where car alarms makers are accused of perpetuating car theft, even in the most theft-ridden neighborhoods. Show me whe…
/r/MensRights27/08/14 11:35 PM
20

Yes, you would, but you know what you wouldn't do? You wouldn't accuse someone who invented a better lock of perpetuating break-ins. Show me any other crime where people inventing tools to help prevent that crime get accused of perpetuating the crime.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 11:06 PM
1

That's not how sample sizes work. They don't depend on the total population. And in this case - from the sample size it seems the range would be 40-44%
/r/MensRights25/08/14 11:27 PM
1

Sample sizes aren't relative to population size. The same sample size would work for 2.5 million people just as well as for 300 million or even 7 billion. Assuming the sample was completely random, sample size correlated to the % error of the results compared to the total population. In this case (size of 5000), the error of the result is 0.7% (that's one sigma - usually we take 2 or 3 sigmas, so the error is less than 2% with very high probability)
/r/MensRights25/08/14 11:26 PM
2

People don't only lie on surveys - they lie to themselves. A woman who had multiple consensual children with a man she loves might truly believe that she would never have tricked a man into fatherhood - but might have done so if her partner didn't want kids.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 11:21 PM
3

the error is how a (well done) survey relates to the entire population is 0.5/sqrt(sample size). So the error in a sample size of 5000 women, assuming the women were chosen randomly (at least among That's Life!'s subscribers) is 0.5/sqrt(5000) =~ 0.5/70 =~ 0.007 = 0.7% So if this survey was done well (and I have no information about that), then the 42% value is quite exact - it might be 41% or maybe 40% (or 44%) but not much different than that.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 11:18 PM
28

From experience - you don't know she's crazy until it's too late.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 12:26 AM
15

Actually in this case "your opinion doesn't matter even if you agree with us", because penis.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 06:50 PM
4

Or - here's a thought - people who support equality and don't really follow feminism enough to understand it isn't about equality. Many people - men and women - support feminism from afar without knowing the gory details. I wouldn't call them "ball-less, ultra chivalrous, self hating douchebags" for not knowing everything we know.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 06:49 PM
-2

In previous times, we called this infanticide Any source for that? I don't think abortion was ever called "infanticide", or murder, in "previous times" (unless you consider the 20th century "previous times")
/r/MensRights21/08/14 06:46 PM
1

Oh, I see what you mean. I remember from a while ago a post on this sub where a guy was taking the same bus from the same station as some other girl every day. One day he casually said "hi", to which she answered something like "don't talk to me". She then complained to the bus driver that he was stalking her, and he wasn't let on the bus from that the on (had to take an earlier or later bus). Although it didn't get to the police, it's still similar. Can't find the story though - I'll keep looki…
/r/MensRights13/08/14 03:45 AM
1

How would you know though? if someone was successfully accused of stalking - you'd just know that "a guy was accused of stalking". You wouldn't know that the woman was paranoid and he's just taking the same bus to work as her every day.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 02:24 AM
2

Yes, and maybe we should prevent women from going out to bars so they don't get raped. That's what a feminist would say to the advice that they don't accept drinks from strangers. Way to becoming just as bad as fundamental feminists.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 01:16 AM
1

True. But on the flip side - it's shows how important due process / "innocent until proven guilty" is. Sure - in this case anyone would recognize that the USPS driver isn't stalking her just because he drives by her house every day - but the same condition can result in a completely innocent person being accused of stalking because they takes the same bus to work every day. She isn't a men's rights issue. She just illustrates (by exaggeration) a different men's right issue - namely the presumpti…
/r/MensRights12/08/14 11:47 PM
1

I did the survey, but I really didn't like it. I felt the questions were bad and the example was bad too. Also, as much as you may have tried not to, the general feeling I got is that you assume male rape was perpetrated mostly by males. Yes, I know the example was by a female, but you have questions like this: Male rape is more serious when the victim is heterosexual than when the victim is homosexual which can only be a consideration if male rape is done by another male. About the example - it…
/r/MensRights12/08/14 02:41 PM
5

I like this sign. This sign personally helped me (even if only psychologically). I don't really see the problem here (other than this sign being a, well, sign of a larger problem in society). There is a problem men face, this sign helps reduce that problem. Why would we be against it? Are we stooping to the "feminist level" of saying "you're trying to solve a problem that exist in a realistic way instead of completely reinventing society on the spot - that means you hate us"? This sign is good. …
/r/MensRights12/08/14 02:16 PM
6

Not a widowed dad, but I am a "stay at home dad" who often takes my toddler son to the mall by myself. I LOVE these signs. They really make me feel more comfortable - I know that should I get any grief for being there, the sign is on my side. The first time I went to the mall and had to change diapers I dreaded going into the "family lounge" because I was afraid I'd be looked-at or even "pushed" out and yelled at. But then I saw the sign and immediately felt better. The sign is important and sho…
/r/MensRights12/08/14 02:10 PM
5

They are corrected, that's what the sign does.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 02:05 PM
23

Yes, both are fake and it's been pointed out in the comments. But that's not the point - the point is about the reader's reaction to each, and as such the experiment was very successful. Many redditors actually commented about how disturbed they were at their own different reaction to both cases. It's similar to that "domestic violence in public" experiment where actors act the exact same scene of domestic abuse, comparing the response of the crowd. So these posts are fake, but the reaction of t…
/r/MensRights12/08/14 02:04 AM
18

Yes, women literally objectify men - reduce them to a personality-less object consisting entirely of their sex organ. Men sexualize women, but don't objectify them as much. For men it's important that the sexual "thing" in front of them is an actual person, with a personality. That's why playboy has a short bio of personal history, likes, dislikes, dreams of the future for their centerfolds. That's why people follow specific porn stars and enjoy their films more if that start happens to have a n…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 10:50 PM
2

From the article, there is a problem that she filed in NJ which doesn't recognize surrogacy - I assume it doesn't recognize it for both men and women. So she might get out of it simply because of the state. But this is a very interesting case: normally if a woman wants to to avoid child-responsibility before the baby is born she can have an abortion. In this case, the right for an abortion isn't hers which is a new twist on things. Nice catch.
/r/MensRights03/08/14 09:02 AM
24

This is for the UK http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
/r/MensRights03/08/14 04:20 AM
1

If mostly men are killed, it is more plausible to people that those killed were millitants - since if the killing was indiscriminate, then both men and women would be killed in equal amount. The public perception is still that "soldiers are men", and that is especially so in "non-western countries". So any man killed in a war is automatically counted, at least in people's heads, as a soldier dying and thus "not as bad as a civilian".
/r/MensRights01/08/14 06:13 PM
8

Especially when one was just drunk in his room, privately, and the other is the one who (drunkingly) came to his place and suggested they have sex. Yet he's the rapist.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 07:19 PM
1

Are there any numbers available as to how many were tested and how many exonerated?
/r/MensRights26/07/14 02:42 PM
2

they're just brainwashed by the patriarchy That's actually the mild version. I've seen TERF claim that m2f transgenders are "agents of the patriarchy sent to infiltrate women-only spaces", or "invented by men to claim that cis-women have priviledges over (some) men" or even "used to render the male/female distinction meaningless so patriarchy can still oppress women without being able to be called out for doing so" (for an example of the last point - say a feminist issue arises that, for example…
/r/MensRights26/07/14 02:36 PM
4

Na, this is just the Patriarchy using rape culture to oppress black people. This way white cishet males TM win twice! Black people were oppressed, AND rape culture is propagated by giving credit to the "myth" of false rape accusations! Win-win for white cishet malesTM ! (from past experience - better add a /s...)
/r/MensRights25/07/14 09:54 PM
1

I just received a reply from missminneapolis, which I took the time to answer only to find it deleted when I submitted it. If this is censuring - I'd like to think we don't stoop to that level (unless threats or doxxing is involved), and as such I'm posting the comment verbatim here. If this is was deleted by them, then I'm sorry - please leave a comment here and I'll delete the text. I'm not building any fucking strawman. You compared blaming kids for being raped for going into vans with strang…
/r/MensRights24/07/14 07:58 PM
2

Edit Apparently comment I was replying to was deleted. If it was censuring - I'd like to think we're above such tactics (unless doxxing or threats are involved). So I'm bringing the original post here verbatim. If it was deleted by the poster - then I apologize. Leave me a message and I'll delete the text. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're comparing things that don't even make sense. No one asks a kid "well, were you wearing a really revealing outfit? It's partly your fault f…
/r/MensRights24/07/14 04:20 PM
6

That'll teach me to think a "/s" is unnecessary...
/r/MensRights24/07/14 02:00 PM
13

They're right though. Just like we blame kids for being raped if they went into vans with strangers, or we blame kids for eating a razor blade on Halloween if they didn't check the candy was wrapped. For that matter - if you go to complain to the police about identity theft, the first thing they ask is "do you shred your documents?" and if you don't they automatically close the case as they found the person who's to blame: you.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 02:31 AM
1

Maybe she's trying to say something completely different than what she actually says, yes. But if the only way to redeem a person's words is to disregard their words and invent new ones for them - then maybe you're trying too hard?
/r/MensRights21/07/14 11:46 AM
5

Isn't the wife a "willing spouse" of the soldier? Or were you referring to cases where the marriage is forced? If she willingly married a soldier / stayed married when he enlisted then the same logic that makes the soldier "not a victim" also makes her "not a victim". Lets analyze the quote in its entirety - keeping in mind you are now talking about "willing participants" in war and NOT compulsory waras: Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers,…
/r/MensRights21/07/14 02:43 AM
6

You might be surprised. I don't know specifically about her, but MacKinnon for example claims that even women on women sex is problematic since the sexual identity of women was shaped by Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights16/07/14 07:09 PM
-1

Here's what happened to me: I was walking back home with a girl on our first date. Middle of the night. On the way, we see a guy mercilessly beating up a woman. Yelling, punching, kicking her on the ground. We immediately call the police but wait from afar (he was a scary guy... :/ we didn't want him to see us) A police car approached. The woman gets up and starts hugging the guy. Police talk to them (we couldn't hear, we were far away) and after a while we just left and went on home. A few minu…
/r/MensRights10/07/14 05:26 PM
2

? It's a private sub...
/r/MensRights10/07/14 04:44 PM
1

We're not all against it. We're not a hive-mind here. But it is an issue that is raised a lot.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 10:47 PM
23

But they did find one that would. Here too - it might take a few hospitals before they find someone who will do it - but they will find someone.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 10:46 PM
8

The basic tenet of modern feminism is that all violence is an attempt to control, and all control is driven by the Patriarchy. Basically, all forms of violence are direct result of Patriarchy, i.e., stem from men attempting to control those they consider weaker. The "weaker party" (women, minority etc.) are only ever violent when in desperate self defense. Showing that there exist instances of women acting violently against men not in self defense, but in an attempt to control them... breaks the…
/r/MensRights06/07/14 07:17 AM
1

Being a right, and having someone else pay for it, is two different things. Having access to food is more of a right than contraception is - and yet you don't get to force other people to pay for your food. Free speech is a right but you can't expect anyone to pay to take you to a place you can preach. Bearing arms is a right but you can't expect anyone to pay for your guns. Men have a right to contraception - and no one is infringing those rights - they just expect you to pay for it yourself. I…
/r/MensRights05/07/14 01:15 PM
1

And yet when I show you that BC pills are the best way to manage period PAIN, you tell me there are alternatives (which are much worse) and that BC pills still shouldn't be covered. So you don't want BC pills to be covered, even though for real medical conditions they are the best and cheapest option.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 05:46 PM
-1

If pain is the issue the ACA likely covers midol and other pain releivers This - just this shows how anti sex / irrationally anti BC you are. BC pills work BETTER than these other pain relievers in most cases, and have much fewer side effects. But you don't care about that - you're still adamantly against BC pills wanting them to be replaced with WORSE solutions to treat real medical conditions. Why are you so much against BC pills? Other than their connection with sex?
/r/MensRights03/07/14 05:05 PM
-1

but they don't so It's discriminatory Now you've completely changed your argument. Your original argument was Why do we have to subsidize BC at all? It's not an necessity. This is just like medicaid covering grandpa's viagra. If you wanna go out and get laid regularly that should be your perogative and your problem. Why should I foot the bill? And now you're turning it into Why only women and not men? I'm against it because discrimination Please. Be honest. Don't twist my words I'm not twisting …
/r/MensRights03/07/14 04:50 PM
0

That can kill you So you're advocating for a system where you go to a doctor with a broken arm, and if he decides it's not life threatening, he just sends you home? Fine, but be honest about it - fight against "unnecessary broken limb treatment" as much as you fight against BC. They will get out faster than if they had a broken hip So again, you're advocating for a system where you only do hip replacements if it's shown it might affect the survival chances of the patient? Fair enough, just be ho…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 04:28 PM
0

I beleive sex is a luxury OK, I can get that. What other "normal" activities healthy people can do - other than sex - do you consider as luxuries that shouldn't be treated under the ACA? but also to walk/run out of a burning building ... really? An 80 y.o. person with a cane will run out of a burning building? My dad got a hip replacement. He can't run anywhere. Sure there are health benefits to bc, but there are health benefits to alcohol and coffee too Wat?! Are you trolling me now?! medical n…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 03:48 PM
0

Why do we have to subsidize BC at all The pill, at least, has medical benefits other than BC. Condoms help prevent diseases - thus reducing the total cost of healthcare. Viagra, BTW, is used to treat a real medical condition (why is "wanting to be able to have sex" different that "wanting to be able to walk on the beach"? Why do you sneer at viagra for old people but don't sneer at hip replacement?) Many medical conditions aren't life threatening - they just prevent you from doing things you wan…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 03:28 PM
1

And had the ACA mandate been only for birth control pills, you'd be right. But it isn't - it's for ALL female contraceptive, including diaphragms and sterilization. But not condoms and vasectomies. Also, I'm not really debating if the ACA is fair to men - I'm more concerned with the attitude I saw on troll2X that "they'd never remove the mandate from men's contraceptives, like vasectomies, because they'd never try to regulate men's bodies" while in reality it's the opposite - they can't remove t…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 12:57 PM
8

Here's the thing: REAL rape survivors go through so much hell after they formally file a complain against their rapist, that no one can imagine someone going through all that if they weren't raped. I mean, even people who WERE raped mostly don't want to pursue things because it's so hellish. So if you haven't been raped, why would you put yourself through this? The thing these people don't understand - is that all this hell is only "hell" because of the rape. Going and "reliving" and answering q…
/r/MensRights26/06/14 06:21 AM
1

Well, if she accuses you of rape, obviously the consent wasn't enthusiastic enough, right? /s What will happen is this: Some men accused of rape will have videotapes showing that there was enthusiastic consent These rape charges would be dropped This will cause outrage among "some feminists" Feminism will raise standard of consent even more YAY! Now we can classify these cases as rape as well!
/r/MensRights14/06/14 03:29 PM
2

I think there's a different undertone to this. It isn't that women don't have agency - it's that subconciously, feminist see sex as so degrading, so harmful to women that "wanting to have sex" is seen as extreme behavior. And as always when a person wants to participate in extreme and harmful behavior - you are expected to make sure "everything is OK with them". You can see it in other rhetoric: All men are rapists, because all men want sex - and sex is inherently violent against and hurtful tow…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 03:20 PM
2

That's why "yes" isn't enough anymore. Now it's "enthusiastic consent" - so if she said "yes" but didn't really want to, it's the man's fault for not recognizing that the "yes" wasn't heartfelt.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 03:15 PM
1

What was that movie, a futuristic movie where at some point the protagonist goes to a bar and we see how there are lawyers there a to create custom "sex contracts" between people (detailing all the acts that they both agree to) before they go have sex?
/r/MensRights14/06/14 03:12 PM
1

Actually - that's really cool :) Sounds much better than a frontal lecture.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 02:12 AM
2

where the "victim" says yes and no at different times If the victim (why the quotes?!) said yes, and then changed her mind and said no, and you continued - you raped her. No means no - no matter what she did or said before. I hope you'll agree with that. At any rate have feminists ever said that? I'm sure at least one feminist said that at least once. Is that what you mean? No it isn't. So this makes changing your mind problematic doesn't it? I don't see how. Why does saying what you mean make y…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 12:41 AM
2

Did you present the bad work as such? Did you tell them you were showing bad work, and did so before/after teaching them what good work is? Did you put that work in negative light? Or did you show them several works and let them decide for themselves (and discuss) the merits of each - so they can decide for themselves how to perform their future work, with no comment or conclusion on your part?
/r/MensRights13/06/14 12:34 AM
1

Indeed without a man present how can rape take place? It's funny, because she points out how others claim the same thing as you, and then explains why it's wrong: Some have argued that lesbian sexuality-meaning here simply women having sex with women not men-solves the problem of gender by eliminating men from women's voluntary sexual encounters.51 Yet women's sexuality remains constructed under conditions of male supremacy; women remain socially defined as women in relation to men; the definiti…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 12:32 AM
1

It's just an attack on men. explain yourself. Convince me. I've given arguments, give counter arguments. Have you ever heard a feminist criticise a rape victim for not clearly verbalising "no"? No, but I've heard many times feminists asking victims if they said no. You can claim it's "to further convince themselves that the man was wrong", but asking if she said no is in itself a criticism if she didn't say no. Also - when rape victims are on the stand, the question "why didn't you say no" will …
/r/MensRights12/06/14 11:50 PM
2

I'd go further and say they aren't really against her ideas. I disagree strongly. The idea that all intercourse is rape is very offensive to women who like intercourse. And many many many feminists like intercourse. It isn't that they are uncomfortable admitting it, they are truly livid at the claim. But... BUT - there are some very intelligent ideas leading up to these conclusions. That is the bad part. Because these ideas even convinced me when I read them. As much as I despise her work, I can…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 11:36 PM
2

Extreme views by definition are not the ones winning at any time It's a nice thought, but it doesn't work like that. Extreme views are always seen as extreme, but unfortunately they work very well at dragging the "average" in their direction. I'd like to see your source for her saying that lesbian sex is bad too Same article: Some have argued that lesbian sexuality-meaning here simply women having sex with women not men-solves the problem of gender by eliminating men from women's voluntary sexua…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 11:23 PM
3

Even when you teach an opinion to "spark controversy and catalyze discussion", you're still giving that opinion legitimacy and helping spread it. It will convince people, and worse, it will pull everyone's opinion in that direction. That's how discussion works - the conclusion of the audience is always "well, the truth is probably somewhere in between". Would you see teaching the works of a white-supremacist leader as legitimate to "catalyze discussion"? I'm not talking about teaching Nazi ideal…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 11:13 PM
2

Yea, MacKinnon all but calls all men rapists in that article as well: Male sexuality is apparently activated by violence against women and expresses itself in violence against women to a significant extent So male sexuality is basically rape at its very core - thus the only way a man isn't a rapist is if he completely disregards is basic instincts. This gives legitimacy to all the "teach men not to rape" campaign, doesn't it? :/ Sorry anti-woman???? not anti-man? Oh, sorry - of course she agreed…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 10:51 PM
2

Like I said - MacKinnon's ideas have leaked into the sex-positive discourse as well. In a way it's "winning" (extreme views always "win" over moderate - because moderates will listen to other opinions - that's why extreme Christian discourse is taking over Christian ideas, for example) But remember the "No means No" example - that was how sex-positive tackled rape: saying it's a legitimate assumption that women want sex! And all they ask is that you listen if she tells you she doesn't. This is a…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 10:43 PM
10

Hmm... am I missing something? How is this not enthusiastic consent? She seems pretty enthusiastic to me, no?
/r/MensRights12/06/14 02:37 PM
3

want to be accepted in a "man's world?" But that's the point. They don't want to make it in a "man's world", they want to change the world to not be a man's world. That's the root of the term "radical feminism". Radical as in "from the root" - they claim that the world is a man's world, built for men, and they want to change it to be (either "everyone's world" or "women's world", depending on who you ask). If we accept that the world is built for men (as in "men's world"), then we can't fault th…
/r/MensRights08/06/14 01:42 AM
5

Not if you're their teacher. Many places have additional conditions on "legal minors". So a teacher-student relationship might be legal if their both over 18<sup>*</sup> but not if the student is a minor (even if a minor of legal age) <sup>*</sup> legal, but probably against the policy of the institution
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:22 AM
11

Oh, I agree with feminists about a whole lot of things. I've learned a lot from feminists and feminism - things I never saw / never thought about on my own. I fully agree that women are discriminated against in many ways. I fully agree that it's better (on average) to be a man than a women (at least historically. I'm not so sure about "now"). I fully agree that I have a lot of privileges I was (and still am) not even aware of that made (and still make) me blind to the plights of women. I agree t…
/r/MensRights02/06/14 03:02 AM
1

Really? I don't think you actually looked at the posters I did look at the posters. I think you misunderstand them. How does someone not know sleeping with someone who's passed out isn't rape? Some people don't know that. They might VERY WRONGLY think that if a woman went to a party at a house and decided to drink until she passes out - that she did it hoping something would happen. It's the "She obviously wanted it - why else would she...?". It's like the "No means No" campaign - which I love a…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 05:48 AM
1

I agree OP's example is very bad, I'm talking about my examples. Don't act effeminately in public. Don't get too drunk You again compare wrong things together. I'd be dead against a campaign saying "don't dress provocatively" for example. This isn't that campaign. It doesn't tell people not to do things - it tells people to be careful when doing it. I understand what you're saying - and you're responding to a DIFFERENT ad than the one in this context. The ads that correspond to your examples (su…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 05:31 AM
1

I wrote a whole post, and only the read your last sentence, because frankly all your examples are so wrong I had to. But then I saw they don't police the clothes women wear or how much they drink Now I just think maybe you're here arguing without even opening the original image. Is that possible? Are you just taking without even knowing what we're talking about? Please click the link, and read it, please. It's like 2 sentences. If you think I'm defending telling women "not to dress slutty" as th…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 03:41 AM
1

I understand your sentiment, "teach people how to be careful," but this is already widely done. But that's the WHOLE point they are trying to make! That "teach people how to be careful" is misogyny! I think you completely misunderstand the whole issue. they're not saying, "never cover your drink," They will never say "never cover your drink". But how will a person know about covering their drink? Are they expected to just "think of it on their own"? Or should someone tell them that's an option t…
/r/MensRights30/05/14 02:22 PM
1

Because: then you get into the discussion that "but women abusing men is negligable compared with...", which is false, but a different discussion then you claim that the "correct" language you would approve on is "instead of teaching people to be careful what they drink, teach people not to rape" (rather than "women" vs. "men"). This isn't what I think is right. What I think is right is "teach people how to be careful". Are you trying to say that the main thing that bothers you is the fact that …
/r/MensRights29/05/14 08:08 PM
11

You're right. My bad. They really have it the worse. I actually saw a lot of transfobia around the "vegan feminist pansexual" people. I once tried to understand it. Most people in the group were actually pretty open about it being a fault in them that they are trying to work on - which I found very cool. However, I distinctly remember one very... "crazy"? voice. It threw me back so hard I can't keep it out of my mind almost a decade later. I'm not exagerating - that person didn't want MtF transg…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 04:00 PM
6

If you need convincing your arguments don't work, try using rape or assault of men as an analogy for rape and assault of women, instead of property theft and other things that are not rape and assault How is that "convincing me" of anything? how they cover up female perpetrated rape or are eroding the presumption of innocence But that's not what they're doing here! All they're doing here is saying that "teaching women how to defend themselves is victim blaming, blaming the rape victim for not be…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 03:54 PM
4

You didn't convince me my arguments don't work. I still think my arguments are MUCH better than yours as they are things that people actually say / think. I think this is much more convincing than your argument, and I think your argument only causes divide and "preaches to the quire" rather than explain what is wrong with the original message. Oh well, that's how it is.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 03:33 PM
3

I am in the US, it is habitual to check for bombs here. There are signs everywhere in the subways. If you are in an environment where its expected you always be on the look out for people poisoning you, I'm in the US, and I am always expected to be on the look out for people poisoning my (esp. on Halloween, but also in the supermarket) There are special containers exactly for this! Almost every container in the supermarket is built so you can tell if it has been tampered with. Make the analogy w…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 02:51 PM
4

Why assult and not poison? Why is bombing a person not assult? I understand why the "run into traffic" doesn't work - you're completely right, it's a wrong and stupid analogy. It puts the blame on the victim (running into traffic) and makes the "aggressor" actually innocent. But why are the other wrong? What makes them not like the original?
/r/MensRights29/05/14 02:20 PM
6

First of all, women not being children is a point in favor - women have more power than children and more ability to understand and react. Asking a child to react is much less "right" than asking a woman. But OK - how about terrorism? We are taught to look for suspicious things around us, and report them - rather than not bomb people How about locking your house door, rather than not stealing? How about looking out for suspicious email rather than not scamming? There isn't a lack of examples whe…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 02:15 PM
26

I remember one of my awakening moments some years back - when I started realizing all the lies and half-truths I've been fed over time. One was about the LBGT struggle. Now I understand and accept the special challenges and hardships LBGT people face, and understand why they actually have it harder than heterosexual people. BUT... But - one of the biggest "evidence" of that, I was always told, was how "LBGT individuals attempt suicide like 3x more than heterosexuals". So obviously they were real…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 01:57 PM
8

So like "Instead of teaching kids not to take candy from strangers, teach people not to kidnap children"? :)
/r/MensRights29/05/14 01:15 PM
12

We're also taught "don't take candy from strangers", "don't talk to strangers" instead of "don't kidnap children". We're also taught "see something say something", "be suspicious of anything unattended" instead of "don't be a terrorist" We're also told to "lock your doors" rather than "don't steal stuff" (well, in this case we're taught both) We're also told to "install a car alarm" rather than "don't steal cars" We're also advised to "make sure halloween candy is store bought and still wrapped"…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 01:12 PM
6

a) I'm probably older than you. Unless you are 40. Which you aren't. b) You still didn't answer - are you advocating denying reproductive rights from poor people?
/r/MensRights16/05/14 04:10 PM
6

Nothing about men vs. women. You are plainly saying we, as a society, should forcefully prevent poor people from reproducing. Is that what you're saying? Personal responsibility is just that - PERSONAL. He shouldn't have more children. I agree. BUT having the state enforce him not having children?! Does that sound right to you?!
/r/MensRights16/05/14 04:02 PM
3

So we're at a place where we prohibit idiots, imbeciles, cretins, losers or tools from reproducing? Is that the point we are in right now? Can you show me any other example of a person being told by the state they are not allowed to reproduce? Note - they aren't saying he isn't allowed to raise the child (that can happen - a person with history of child abuse can be denied the right of raising and caring for a child). They are saying he isn't allowed to have any more children. What's worse - it'…
/r/MensRights16/05/14 03:52 PM
5

Reminds me of this (Rob Portman reversing his gay-marriage stance following his son's coming out as gay) I also remember all the talk about how republicans "only consider the consequences when it affects them or their family" when this broke out. Well.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 09:02 PM
3

What about when they're doing dishes? Doing laundry? Helping the kids with homework? Getting up in the middle of the night for bottle feeding? Holding a crying baby while watching TV? There's no reason to claim that men don't do house-work, other than the preconceived notion that women do house-work while men go to jobs. But I can't explain the figure of women working twice as much as men without this, so I'm guessing that's what they did.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 12:59 PM
10

My guess would be that they are counting "house work" in their "work hours" calculations - which actually makes sense. Remember this is a chart about global state of women, not specifically for the US or the "Western world". Most (?) women around the world are still living in areas where women don't have jobs but rather work as housewives, meaning they don't get payed at all (adding to the "10% of income" part). And if you count women housewives / mothers as "working all the time while awake", t…
/r/MensRights29/11/13 08:39 AM
5

Sure it happens. On the other hand one morning I got to my car and found the battery dead. All I needed was someone to help me jump-start it. I even had cables and shit. I was parked on a busy town road. Literally thousands of cars moving there every hour and no one helped me. I waited there for 3 hours (!) - even the few that stopped when I signaled wouldn't help me jump-start. I had to call a friend to get off work and come help me out. Let that sink in - I had to call a friend who lived by to…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 07:07 AM
3

The whole point was leaving before I got their reaction. "cute girls" are used to this kind of think, so they react fast. Many may even assume you're about to do something when you approach and decide their reaction in advance. "Ugly guys" will be confused and not know how to react for quite some time. Especially if you linger around. I just found a couple of guys that looked the part, asked them if they needed tickets. Gave them ours and walked away immediately. So I don't really know how they …
/r/MensRights31/10/13 07:01 AM
1

We were all taught from an early age to fear men. Sure crime happens and I'm sure picking up hikers has resulted in violence against the drivers. But what are the chances of something like that happening? Well, it was hard finding statistics. I easily found that around 500 people died in hitchhiking-related murders since 1974, most (90%) of them the passengers. That's a low number for 30+ years of statistics. But for the rate you'd need to know how many hikers there were during that time. This I…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:58 AM
4

When I was with the "women's studies" crowd one of the things I heard from them early on was, obviously, about male privilege. They love that, as we know. And you know what? It's really an eye opening idea. One of the privileges that stuck with me was how males weren't taught to be afraid when walking alone, or in a dark street etc. I thought about it - and it's true. I may be afraid of dangerous-looking places/times - but I wasn't taught by society / movies / etc. from an early age that I shoul…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:40 AM
1

Well, I put "ugly" in quotes, as I just mean "not considered attractive by current standards". In the tickets story I imagine awkward scrawny teens with zits. But in the hitchhiking context for some reason I imagine fat guys - because who stops for a fat guy trying to hitchhike? As for stopping for a guy stuck on the side of the road - that's just relevant to every guy. But that's just my perception of stuff. Like my preconception of "those that no one help"
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:14 AM
10

Well, yea. Two guys. Looked like friends that came together I guess. I don't know much. I just came up to them. Said hey. Asked if they needed tickets. When they said yea just gave them ours, said here you go, and left. The whole point of this "feel good" thing is to not stay around to see the reaction. It's just to make someone's day so that your day is less crappy. I guess they said thanks or something. They were too weirded out I guess to react that fast. Again - "cute girls" are more ready f…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 01:14 AM
5

Or beautiful guys for that matter.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 12:58 AM
12

It's more complicated than that ("No it isn't!!!" just listen for a sec, will you?) Those couple of years between the breakup and apology were the worse in my life. I was a mess. It was bad. But. But after we talked and she apologized - she actually went and talked to every person she told that story to and told them it wasn't true. She didn't have to do that (well, morally she did - but a lot of women wouldn't have). I was actually able to completely put it behind me in a couple of weeks after …
/r/MensRights31/10/13 12:56 AM
12

Once, when I was feeling down, I saw a pretty woman on the street. She had that "metal" look - and I was into metal at the time - so on a whim I took the CD I was listening to (was a while ago :/) and just gave it to her. Like - "hey - this is a good band. Thought you might like them". Her reply was "I have a boyfriend". I completely understand that response. As an attractive woman she's used to men doing "nice" things for her trying to impress her / get her number / get her attention. I put "ni…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 12:34 AM
13

I know :) And beautiful guys also get away with too much shit...
/r/MensRights31/10/13 12:03 AM
8

Well, all I can do is keep out of her way. She never complained to the police - not about me nor about any of the others. After reading some of the stories from this sub - I'd say that's mighty responsible of her. She just uses it to get her way / shut down criticism - but since her former friends are on to her now - she's pretty much left alone. Honestly - I wouldn't know what to do. I can't think of any action that would help in this case - other than just leaving her alone.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 12:01 AM
21

You're right of course. I'd ask "how did you know", but it really is obvious. I said we were "kind of friends". We actually started hanging out together for a while after that, but like you said - she's toxic. She's a published "women's right" academic, and very well known in her circle. She also has a blog about, you know - oppression and equality and stuff. The things I see there are so bat-shit insane I can't fathom a person actually thinks them. Right now we're more "friendly when we meet ea…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:24 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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