TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Missing_Links Archive

View 1 posts and 253 comments by Missing_Links 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)
2

we are all malicious in eyes of feminism anyway, so what's the difference, exactly? You misunderstood. You're demanding you be treated as malicious by us, the MRAs, because your stance actively undermines the goal of convincing men to use male-appropriate self-management tools. I'll manage without. Im used to this. I'm not saying this as a critique. You sound like you're young and still developing, and you've taken an extreme stance as a result of having jumped in with both feet and not yet real…
/r/MensRights19/04/20 03:46 PM
2

Jeez, at what level do you want this answered? First, you're demanding that you be judged by this same standard by doing so. And you really don't want this. Second, while you can always manage your own behavior, the actual aim of such an effort is to change the opinions and ultimately the behavior of others. Treating them as evil instead of wrong and in need of guidance is actively counterproductive. Third, to the composition of these points: you, yourself, are advocating for a position in your …
/r/MensRights19/04/20 02:57 PM
1

Although she doesn’t put up much structured content anymore, Karen Straughan’s corpus of videos is definitely the best MRA content available on the web.
/r/MensRights19/04/20 01:27 PM
6

That’s a bit absurd. The very definition of malice is “intent to harm.” Being misguided or wrong doesn’t make a person malicious. Suggesting an unproductive or counterproductive solution isn’t malicious unless the person making the suggestion already knows the solution doesn’t work.
/r/MensRights19/04/20 01:10 PM
4

I’m sure it is annoying. But it is also an attempt to help you. I’m not trying to get you to agree with anything, just to stop and think for a moment. You’re very certain you’re right, and while conviction is good, it’s best when tempered with a bit of willingness to self-assess in a serious manner. Anyway, have a nice day.
/r/MensRights18/04/20 07:55 PM
3

How very reasonable of you. Take a step back. Imagine that what you just wrote was written by an incel, and you were reading it instead of writing it. What would you extrapolate from that? Would the person you’re talking to be displaying a willingness to think about things and l entertaining the possibility that they may have something wrong, or would they be displaying a zealous certitude that only seems warranted to them?
/r/MensRights18/04/20 07:44 PM
4

If you think. Obviously there are differences between each collection, and incels are an entirely separate domain. But I think you’re buying what’s being sold to you by the same people selling the idea that you are also a sexist and a racist for being an MRA.
/r/MensRights18/04/20 07:37 PM
4

I’m not even sure that’s true of mgtows, as the primary contention there is that the marriage system is broken to the degree where the best option for maximizing wellbeing is to completely disengage with it, rather than play a stacked game. The incels are men and boys who, while they are radicalized and personally pathetic, are also an inevitable result of the social environments boys are raised in, which were created in the last 50 years.
/r/MensRights18/04/20 07:31 PM
1

Because people don’t like seeing a mess they made and they’ll look for a way to claim the mess made itself rather than take responsibility?
/r/MensRights18/04/20 07:20 PM
10

One is an organization which currently boasts tens of members, and zero political influence. The other is an organization which boasts thousands upon thousands of supporters and holds a hand full of political death knells. One might be built on more distasteful foundations, and yet be much more concerning.
/r/MensRights03/02/20 04:00 AM
12

By far the biggest difference is the fact that men are not allowed to externalize their problems at all. Your resentments, shortcomings, and your vulnerability are exclusively yours to handle about 99.99% of the time, and displaying them beyond the very narrowest of circumstances will be met with, at best, indifference, and, much more usually, social punishment of varying severity. When you present a problem to the outside world, it had better be in the form of "this is a problem I HAD and here'…
/r/MensRights19/01/20 02:49 AM
2

Well, names carry power, and it serves the interests of all honest actors to reduce the ability of bad actors to use persuasive redefinition to hijack connotations. Fortunately, discussion allows for the resolution of such ambiguous labels by interrogating positions and paradigms, so long as we can make reference to the original sources. I think it's worth making every effort to accurately classify things; if we can't do so, then people can absolve themselves of the need to curtail the bad ideas…
/r/MensRights10/02/19 03:08 PM
25

Wrong way around. You need to distinguish "liberal" from "left." Feminism is absolutely a leftist project and is part of the mainstream platform of effectively every leftist political group in a western nation. Liberalism is a separate political ideology which can exist on either the left or the right, and is best defined in texts like john stuart mill's "on liberty."
/r/MensRights10/02/19 12:00 PM
5

I think one of the problems is less about a slippery slope, and more about masculinity being characterized by self-actualization in a direction that commands respect. Young men, like nearly all young people, have very little independent accomplishment or development to rely on for the purpose of self-actualization, and the first really effective path to do this is physical dominance. It's not a productive or stable path, but it does provide a path to respect through your own efforts and accompli…
/r/MensRights15/01/19 07:48 PM
4

if by "irrelevant" you mean "closely enough mapped that almost every behavioral, physiological, and pharmacological test starts in animals precisely because of their continuity with humans," then sure. Elephants aren't the best behavioral model, but you could do worse than a deeply K selected species with long adolescence, hierarchical social organization, and multiple adult male involvement by choosing almost any other species, including several primates.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 07:40 PM
4

Well, there is a pretty strong self-selection for a particular paradigm on equality issues that comes with commenting on the "mens rights" subreddit.
/r/MensRights12/01/19 05:27 PM
12

Psych research indicates that doing that particular thing, avoiding all men/women following trauma, is actually the worst thing you can do for a victim, but I do see the point. I would note that engaging the service of a doctor does not make you their employer, and thus doing wouldn't be included in this prohibition. Though yes, if sex itself can be demonstrated to be a causal job performance factor, I'm fine with discriminating on that basis.
/r/MensRights12/01/19 05:11 PM
12

I think the appropriate thing to do in these cases would be to provide alternative methods of testing, i.e. a fire station can set up a course to test physical ability, require applicants to run it, and include the results as part of the application. The person in the hiring position just isn't the one who observes, and it's simply illegal for the observer(s) to report. There's gonna be some rule breaking, but that's unavoidable.
/r/MensRights12/01/19 04:41 PM
37

Moreover I think it should be mandatorily blind. No name, no picture, no sex, no sexuality, no country of origin beyond citizen of host nation/not, no ethnicity, no religion. By law, for every publically funded job, scholarship, or other advancement opportunity that uses an application format. Remove the basis on which unjust discrimination could take place at all, and then watch people lose their shit as they adjust to a system which makes them only a "who," and never a "what."
/r/MensRights12/01/19 04:19 PM
65

You know that there's lots of scholarships which do restrict to certain races/skin colors, target gays or lesbians, etc exclusively? Honestly as far as privately funded scholarships go, I'm 100% onboard with the funder setting totally arbitrary requirements. If a klansman wants to fund a scholarship for self-identified eugenicists, well... fine. Distateful, but it's their money. The second one cent of publically funded money goes to any of this, though, absolutely fucking not. Legitimate methods…
/r/MensRights12/01/19 04:14 PM
194

I'm more surprised there was ever a doubt as to whether these violated equal treatment laws. I'd always come away with the impression that the defense of such things was done entirely cynically by their defenders, which I suppose this particular story demonstrates. EDIT: and from the article, one of the former recipients: We [women] have equality of numbers, but what about power? What a concise way to demonstrate that you oughta never be given any control whatsoever.
/r/MensRights12/01/19 03:45 PM
1

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I'm in full agreement: domestic violence is a much larger problem than for women alone, not only because they actually represent only about half of DV victims, but because women who are abused are more likely to abuse children (so are abused men and primary abusers of both sexes) and to experience attachment disorders and postpartum depression and psychosis than non-abused women. People primarily defined by damage and maladjustment are not on the whole helpful for anyo…
/r/MensRights01/03/18 08:42 PM
2

All of these stats are based on reporting, so they all suffer from this issue. It should be noted that women actually form the majority of physical domestic abusers, but the male abusers who do exist are remarkably more prolific. Most (70%) of relationships with any domestic violence have violence from both partners, and of the remainder which are unidirectional, about 70% feature the woman as the abuser. This was the result of Erin Pizzey's research when she opened the first domestic violence c…
/r/MensRights01/03/18 02:56 PM
2

I'm assuming nothing at all about you, other than that you are 20 and male, and are a person who associates himself with sexual failure and an enhanced sense of victimhood, all of which are things you have directly stated. It doesn't have to be you. People who are destroyed are almost always participants in their own destruction. This is especially true in modern, developed countires. Every single person who associates themselves with the term "incel" made a series of choices to make themselves …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/18 06:31 AM
1

You do have to be horrible. But horribleness is most often self-inflicted. Almost exclusively. You can make yourself so horrible that nobody wants anything to do with you, and pretend you aren't and didn't if you want. Every incel does this.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/18 06:04 AM
4

Actually, one would be at 50, but that's not really important. What you're doing is finding an excuse for why you're going to fail, so that you'll be able to externalize blame for failing instead of taking the responsibility for it that's rightfully yours, when you do. You will play the biggest role, and have the largest share of responsibility in almost everything that ever affects you. You can start insulating your psyche with a levy of reasons why everything just happens to you, the helpless,…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/18 05:48 AM
4

Being in a population group describing 14% of anything is definitionally not an outlier. Two standard deviations in a normally distributed population (which age of first sex roughly is) covers 99.7% of the curve. Until you hit 3/1000 people, you do not qualify as an outlier by a reasonable statistical definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/02/18 05:16 AM
25

No, she's absolutely right. It is a test. She just doesn't realize that she's testing herself, failing miserably, and presenting her date with her grade, then is upset that she gets what she earned: not a god damn thing.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/05/17 03:55 PM
1

When you're working with any set of data even peripherally associated with some outcome, if you have some particular outcome in mind, you can get the data to show it if you just force things hard enough. The fine details of how to transform data in ways that do not bias the conclusions and why this is require the better part of a undergrad, but we can use the post you gave as an example of how not to do things. The post you gave makes several mistakes: 1) Lack of control. From the statistical pe…
/r/MensRights17/02/17 06:27 AM
1

And we should take that just as seriously. The link, though, shows a classic misinterpretation of how to apply statistics. This isn't disagreement, more of a professional interest for me. Hunting down a way to transform the data so that it shows the point you wanted to show is a pretty huge misstep, which is what the person did there.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 05:00 AM
-2

You're making a misjudgment because of how well we take care of pregnancies. If you could easily and reliably identify a disease within the first 18th of that disease's lifespan and had a treatment protocol developed over literally thousands of years and billions of cases and responded to it with hospitilization anyway in the modern world and STILL had to track a meaningful mortality rate, how would you describe of the danger of that condition? Pregnancy is as well understood and treated as it i…
/r/MensRights16/02/17 11:09 AM
1

I agree, the situation is unbalanced. It's why I try to keep it balanced by offsetting the physical labor of pregnancy with reasonable counterbalances. Basically paying for the pregnancy and recovery. On the other hand, I don't think you understood what I meant by "life threatening." EVERY pregnancy is life threatening. Few pregnancies result in death anymore in the modern world, but any pregnancy is life threatening. Pregnancy is definitionally a life threatening condition to a potential mother…
/r/MensRights16/02/17 04:54 AM
3

Probably top 2 buttons, almost always where a man's shirt, if intentionally left partially unbuttoned, will be unbuttoned. Don't choose the worst possible interpretation of what someone meant and pretend that's what he/she said. You know, one of the general tenets of debating is that you're supposed to do it in good faith.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 04:04 AM
1

Mm. Not really fair. The woman gets stuck with the pregnancy which is arduous and definitionally life threatening, not to mention recovery post-birth. I think the man should have to cover prenatal and neonatal costs and up to 4 months of post birth care within certain boundaries. Either situation. It's a severance fee if the guy is leaving, but the woman is required to return the money if she aborts, it's a cost of time and service fee if the woman is leaving.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 03:57 AM
1

Yes, you would. You are attributing the observed behavior of society as a whole to a principle that doesn't adequately describe the whole of the behavior. This is not to mention that this principle only applies to one subtype of gender relations, and this cannot actually underwrite an entire society. Also, again, you are mixing description and principle. Am I to assume that society treats violating the bodily autonomy of males with the same fervor it does violating the bodily autonomy of females…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 07:37 PM
2

That's still not a philosophical statement. You might want to change it to "The driving principle is that only women should have the right to bodily autonomy" if you want to make sense. You'll still be wrong, but at least it will be an interpretable statement. Philosophy intrinsically deals with viewing how things should be viewed or what justifies beliefs or what ought to be done or ought to be. If you're just saying how things currently are, all you're doing is description. This is what your p…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 05:29 PM
-4

We're the different country. We're literally the only quirk. We're the only ones who use a non-standard math notation. No programming language, which you seem to be familiar with none of, based on your comment, accepts grouped notation as a standard because the comma and period have different syntactic meaning, and their printouts simply depend on the method used by the implementer, and I am aware of no standard library which defaults to separating numbers, partially because numbers are not alwa…
/r/MensRights07/02/17 05:31 AM
2

America is the only place in the world that uses the comma as the number grouping delineator. Everywhere else uses the . for number separation and the , to denote decimals. That would be twenty three thousand, eight hundred sixty three victims. This represents that there are (assuming children are counted separately from both men and women) 22823 women, 23863 children, and 156411 men among civillians who were "victims," though "victim" is unclear in meaning.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 03:42 AM
5

However, I DO still believe comparing circumcision to the extreme of "full" FGM is going too far. So do we. That's why we don't argue that. We agree, cutting off every external genital and burning the inside of a vagina is physically more bodily harm. That's type III FGM, by the way, and an extreme one at that. It's always the category used in examples, too, even though it's by far the least common type of FGM. It also has a male equivalent(s), if you'd like apples to apples. Look up subincision…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 11:11 PM
9

I agree, we're probably not going to agree on the terminology, though I am always curious how circumcision can fail, in anyone's mind, to meet the definition of mutilation as I just gave you in a dictionary. For reference, the word I would use is "torture," since to me, removing part of someone's genitals under no anesthesia meets that definition in my mind and because torture implies intent. You can be mutilated by a car crash, but torture takes a human who planned the thing causing pain. I'm a…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 08:06 PM
20

I'm one of those people that thinks that male circumcision is the current largest moral evil in terms of scale in America. Maybe I can give my .02. I would do that, call it cosmetic surgery, except it fits the dictionary definition of mutilation. It is permanent damage being done to an appendage, unless you're aware of some way to return the foreskin to pre-removal status. It being mutilation by means of surgery, cosmetic or otherwise, does not mean it is not mutilation. Now, mutilation is a loa…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 07:52 PM
6

As far as I have been able to tell, yes. The argument that I have seen and advance myself is as follows: 1) We (people in western culture) regard non-medically indicated surgical/surgery-like procedures as bad in almost every case, e.g. FGM, tattooing babies, extensive piercing such as nipple piercing, other proceedures, regardless of permanency, but are especially against permanent changes. 2) These things are bad because the person undergoing the procedure has no say in it. There is no convinc…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:12 PM
1

Yes, both parties have to agree to move right (or left). It would be harder to move left because it has to be. Look at current, real-world marriage. It's much easier to get married than get divorced, and this is a good thing, in most cases. Marriage is a commitment, and it ought to be hard to violate a commitment. The "yes kids marriage" I describe is just a bigger commitment than "no kids marriage." A bigger commitment should be harder to get out of than a smaller one. Sorry for repeatedly edit…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 03:58 AM
2

No, you would be able to switch from no kids to yes kids with no hassle, only agreement from both parties, though it would be harder to decommit from the yes to kids version. Like this, basically: 1) dating -> 2) no kids marriage -> 3) yes kids marriage You can jump in at any number, and it's easy to move to the right, but it's hard to go to the left. The incentive to go right is that (2) provides most of the benefits current real-world marriage does, i.e. tax breaks, joint filing, power of atto…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 03:49 AM
2

It's more or less what I'm describing. Just give a premade, separately named and tracked contract so that laws can be written around a generic version of this marriage+reproduction contract.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 03:16 AM
2

Yes, I am familiar with the pre-roe v. wade abortion statistics and the drive to seek them in any event. This will happen, legal or not, to some degree. You are, however, being ridiculous in saying that the possibility of the use of an illegal coercive measure should justify us not taking a moral action. There is nothing right now that stops a man from beating his wife until he causes a miscarriage, or to coerce her into getting an abortion, yet this is a rare occurrence. Why would increasing hi…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 03:14 AM
7

Yes, essentially. Redefine marriage to contain intent to either reproduce, or to at least not try to stop it from happening if a pregnancy occurs. It would be a more specific alternative to a civil partnership that retained essentially the current meaning of marriage, but included additional incentives to stability and especially to child rearing and risks to dissolution, with an end goal of making it substantially more attractive as an environment in which to raise a child, even more than the c…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 12:48 AM
2

I mean realistically, your tax dollars already are, anyway. You pay taxes, some of which go to social services already supporting these exact kids. I'm also not sure that it wouldn't produce a better outcome for you personally to have no individuals paying large sums: after all, your taxes are also paying for the lawyers and bureaucrats that have to pursue those individuals to extract the money, and for the guards and amenities of those individuals imprisoned for failing to pay. It might end up …
/r/MensRights26/01/17 12:40 AM
2

Only in married couples would bidirectional consent be required. I'm saying that in the paradigm I suggest (and only really on the offhand, anyway), marriage is a completely optional opt-in wherein one of the understandings is that you the individual lose some of your individual control in favor of supplying a joint partnership. Partners can't be dictators; if one is, he or she is no longer a partner. If two people haven't done this opt-in, the above paradigm dictates a lack of commitment to any…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 12:30 AM
10

Not right now. I'm saying that it wouldn't be so bad if it were. An understanding that marriage runs you (male or female) the risk of having a child about which you can do nothing in the moment, having already agreed to it at the point of marriage, is as fair as any other agreement willingly entered with informed consent. The bigger part of this is it justifies equality outside of marriage, too. A realignment of marriage to include an understanding and acceptance of children defines implicitly t…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 12:24 AM
52

I dunno, I wouldn't be opposed to a standard whereby marriage changed the rules around sex and kids a bit instead of the other way around. If not married -> Neither party has responsibility to the child, women are free to abort, men are free to engage as a parent or leave, but can't switch choice after the abortion window has passed. No prior agreement: no prior obligation. Married -> Both parties have a responsibility for the child; both have to consent to abort, unless the child is an imminent…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 05:22 PM
11

Whatever, they're targeting a demographic. If that sort of rhetoric convinces you to allow a company to fleece you, you earned it.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 08:04 PM
17

You know, this sort of attitude is disturbing, but this just seems like a collection of really, really dumb people having a really, really dumb conversation. There's no content here.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 03:49 PM
1

Please clearly state the short, medium, or longterm consequences of a picture of a baby giggling in a bubble bath, taken and owned by that person's parents, on the person that baby grows into. Sometimes absolutes are warranted. This is not one of those times.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 02:09 AM
1

Technically it's not legal, but to say that a parent taking a picture of their baby giggling in a bubble bath is intended for sexual purposes is also very dumb. There are multiple reasons to take pictures of someone almost naked or naked at a <10 age. First pool trip? Running through a house refusing clothes? Are you going to try to tell me that those are sexualized photos in almost any case?
/r/MensRights17/01/17 12:40 PM
3

Tests like this usually range from $150-500. Not a substantial increase in the cost of neonatal care. Genetic sequencing should just be standard for both parents and the child at birth as part of building up a genetic bank of hospital records both to avoid issues like this and to make it easier to detect and treat nearly every condition as genomic science continues to make advances in medicine
/r/MensRights13/01/17 05:39 PM
4

Right, so just like the femimist statistics, you've calculated yours extremely poorly. First off, even using your method (which leads to a fundamentally incorrect answer either way), 680k assaults over 4 years (assuming they don't mean start of 2010-end of 2014, which would reduce this number further) means roughly 170k/year, not 680k/year, so your figure would need to be reduced to 170k*20 = 3.4 million, or about 10%. This is assuming that those figures on assault are correct, which I do not bu…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 09:55 PM
8

Any non-neccessary, non-therapeutic proceedure resulting in any permanent effect performed on an individual incapable of consent to or even of interest in said proceedure is wrong and ought to be outlawed. The reasons why such a proceedure is done are entirely irrelevant as are the specific nature, severity, or degree of risk to the person undergoing the proceedure. The threshhold of unacceptability is reached before the details of any given proceedure of this sort even need to be addressed.
/r/MensRights24/12/16 07:03 AM
4

Of course it was good bait. You bit pretty hard.
/r/MensRights21/12/16 07:41 AM
3

EQ is is dumb because it's nearly impossible to measure in a way that corresponds to reality and because no test yet devised even gets close. Unlike mathematical intelligence or verbal intelligence, which can be easily measured through a standardized test in which answers are either clearly right or wrong and you can measure performance against a mean, you cannot measure meaningfully the ability of someone to judge and respond to emotions of others and to maintain and cope with their own emotion…
/r/MensRights17/12/16 02:55 PM
18

Verbal and mathematical IQ are pretty old as ideas. Differentiating measurable aptitudes is not a new concept. The emotional IQ thing is dumb, sure, but try looking up verbal, mathematical, spatial, aptitude tests. It's like nfl combine results. They test speed and strength separately because they are separate skills. Being good at math doesn't necessarily mean you're a great linguist, even though in general, smarter people are smarter in most areas, rather than savantish.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 01:47 AM
2

That I do agree with. I just think that the 'us vs. them' mindset sort of undermines our ability to accurately assess feminists' motivations and beliefs. We're so busy trying to impute ill intent to them that we, somewhat ironically, project our own beliefs onto them and assume it's why they do things. That's all.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 12:42 AM
1

Unaware of the pain men are facing. They're not ignoring it. They are completely unaware it exists at all.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 09:49 PM
1

All that they need to do to be unaware is to be poorly or misinformed, or have a conflicting belief that requires them to rationalize away those figures on violence in order to maintain the belief that they care more about. You're trying to say neither of those are possible?
/r/MensRights16/12/16 09:33 PM
1

Well, thank you for demonstrating my point so well. From your perspective and from mine, yes, they are inflicting harm. But from their perspective, they are completely unaware that any harm is arising from their actions or that the men and boys you're talking about are in pain. They can't be sadistic if they don't know that they're causing pain, or even that pain exists for their unintentional victims. And because they aren't aware that the men and boys are in pain at all, this isn't even a fail…
/r/MensRights16/12/16 09:23 PM
2

No, by definition, it doesn't. If someone isn't deriving pleasure from the knowing infliction of pain or harm, we're not talking about sadism. It's not possible to derive that pleasure without thinking about what you're doing. Children who hurt animals know they're torturing the animals and causing pain, but they find the pain they inflict fun. It's deliberate. If you just happen to inflict pain and don't think about it or even know about it, you can't possibly derive the pleasure from the act. …
/r/MensRights16/12/16 08:52 PM
2

That makes no sense. Sadism requires intent. How can one build intent if one never thinks about an issue?
/r/MensRights16/12/16 08:31 PM
3

I believe it's a very easy to slip into projection. You and and I and most people who visit this sub have thought quite a bit about men's pain and suffering. Being, very likely, morally average as we are, we don't wish pain on others that they have not earned, and so the only plausible explanation we can think of for why someone would be doing things that hurt men and boys is malicious intent. But only because we recognize that those actions actually do hurt someone. If someone has never thought…
/r/MensRights16/12/16 04:23 PM
6

You know, I honestly don't think it's malice on the part of most people, including most feminists. How could someone have any sadistic intent if they have literally never considered the pain that another feels or is forced to endure? I don't think they're deliberately avoiding the issue. I don't think it ever enters their heads in the first place.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 04:03 PM
1

I was just commenting on women in combat roles. I agree, the selective service should include everyone as long as it exists. That's not what I was talking about and what I was discussing is probably irrelevant to this article.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 06:47 PM
2

I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, equality should mean that a position is open to the most qualified individuals and nothing other than their job related qualifications are even considered otherwise. On the other hand, Israel used to have women in combat and had to stop because the presence of women on the battlefield reduced male soldier efficacy and increased squad casualty and mortality rates for Israeli forces. Men just can't seem leave a mortally wounded woman to bleed to dea…
/r/MensRights02/12/16 04:33 PM
4

Yeah. This is a story that maybe argues for mandatory basic gun training at a young age, but other than that, I don't see how this is pertinent.
/r/MensRights16/11/16 01:42 PM
4

Verbal violence is not a thing.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 05:20 AM
1

I was not equivocating. I was making an analogy. The point is that if something is sufficiently reviled by most, regardless of the quality of that thing, it will not bring you much affection by most. Which I exemplified by pointing out that no matter how well constructed [insert universally hated idea's propaganda] is, it will not be well recieved by most people. The MRM is, despite not deserving it, such an idea/set of ideas. Most non-mras who know what it is are not very fond of it.
/r/MensRights05/11/16 12:48 AM
1

You can stop trying to insult me by saying I can't see the obvious or am pursuing a victim complex. I'm not interested in it, but thanks. I don't think you've accurately read the lay of the land, and we're just going to have to disagree on likely near future outcomes. I don't think there's anything that either of us can say that will really convince the other that the future will go some way other than what we each currently anticipate. That said, I'll give it one try: Name 1 single instance of …
/r/MensRights04/11/16 03:00 PM
1

We weren't all that interested in funding this film and we certainly won't be enough to fund say, a documentary about psychologically treating pedophiles.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 02:32 PM
8

It doesn't matter how good of a piece of nazi propaganda you make, it won't land you work in a good place. The MSM sees the mens rights movement as at least that bad. Doesn't matter how good the movie is, it will not get enough exposure for it to not be an easy mark for a smear campaign, one already in progress. I worry she'll be caught in this bind, though she may be able to seek more conservative or perhaps free speech advocate funding.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 02:27 PM
5

I mean this article is talking about the first such incident observed with this kid. How could there possibly be protections in place specifically for this kid? This has nothing to do with title IX. Read the article.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 12:38 PM
175

I can't help but feel that Cassie may have sabotaged her future by making this film. I'm willing to bet that the people who have previously invested in her films won't do so again, no matter what the topic, despite the fact that her willingness to produce such a piece with no mainstream bias would do nothing but recommend her value in a fair world. She did the right thing, but really kicked the beehive on this one. I wish her the best of luck.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 12:26 PM
1

I am not a hater of... Michael Moore... Why not? You and everyone else should be. What is there to respect in his character?
/r/MensRights04/11/16 07:04 AM
2

Any system in which your right to self-determine your course in life is contingent on the decision of someone else is not a system that actually grants you that right in the first place. Where reproduction is concerned, women have every concievable choice and only the responsibility they choose to bear, from none to all. Men have no choice and the level of responsibility they bear depends entirely on the choice of the woman. If self-determination is to be a right of the citizen, it would he hard…
/r/MensRights04/11/16 06:56 AM
1

There's a whole lot of reasons. Men tend to to make up most of those who die really young, like others have said, but so few actually die at super young ages that this doesn't really account for all that much. I don't know for sure either, but I would guess that the biggest factors are stress and preventative treatment. Men visit the doctor less, meaning that an average man is more likely to be in a more advanced stage of any sickness than an average woman when a sickness is discovered. This cou…
/r/MensRights26/10/16 06:57 PM
1

Tell me something how many women would be taking contraception if they had to have a needle jabbed into their ovaries in order to do it? Women have several forms of contraceptive whose insertion methods basically require being fisted by the doctor. That's at least as bad as a shot, and literally millions of women everywhere in the western world get them every single year. And if you knew anything about the process the painful part is when they cut into the tubes going down to your testicles... T…
/r/MensRights23/10/16 02:33 AM
2

I guess I was using drug in terms of a medical treatment to achieve an effect on the functioning of the body, but yes, it does have limited to minimal chemical interaction with the body and maybe drug is the wrong word. The point still stands that if it is as effective as initial tests have shown, has few or no side effects, and is as easy to put in and take out as it is supposed to be, with no other side effects it would be a miracle solution to the problem it addresses. Medical solutions are n…
/r/MensRights22/10/16 09:34 PM
6

I would take it. If vasalgel works, it's a miracle drug. Non-hormonal, effective, quickly applicable birth control that can be reversed with a 5 minute procedure, both of which basically amount to a shot in a tender area. Also it only needs renewed every 3 years or so. It would fulfill literally every single completely idealistic goal for a BC drug of any sort. Which is part of why I think it will fall short somewhere, since it really would be a miracle for any solution to a problem, especially …
/r/MensRights22/10/16 01:05 PM
2

Doesn't have to be depressing. It just means alternate tactics are needed. Never try to sell something by saying it's for the good of men, only ever try to say that the good of men benefits someone else more. It's not that circumcising baby boys hurts the boys, it's that it leads to sexual disfunction later, and that's something that makes it harder for women to stay in marriages. It's not that men deserve to go to colleges because every dollar invested in a man's education ends up paying more i…
/r/MensRights15/10/16 07:33 PM
5

Yes but that problem is insoluble. As a species, our evolutionary history mandated that we could not care about men in this way. There is no possible long term cultural or political solution that could even potentially override that history. It's literally in our genes. Some individuals may be persuaded to see things in a different light, but across all peoples, "it's good for men and doesn't negatively impact anyone" is just never going to be enough. We can't meet with success if we try to appr…
/r/MensRights15/10/16 04:32 PM
18

That's just the sell. Male spaces also help men, but you can't sell anything as "It helps men and doesn't hurt anyone," that's not good enough. So instead, make male spaces with the intent to help men, and sell it to everyone else as "look at how much good it does for [anything not a man]."
/r/MensRights15/10/16 11:49 AM
1

Yes like that guy.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 03:45 PM
8

The man in that podcast is terrified. He agreed with nearly every point made by the movie and is terrified of what his girlfriend will do if he just says so. I wonder if he's picking up that he's in an abusive relationship.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 02:41 PM
6

It was announced like 2 or 3 months ago. It'll hit in 2017. It started filming this week. Daredevil S3 is I think either winter 2017 or 2018. Anyway, I was just trying to point out that the poster I originally responded to was so busy being jaded about mainstream broadcasts that he was busy projecting his own narrative that the feminists completely own everything to notice a case of several related series done just right. More males than females in general, but about as many good men as bad men.…
/r/MensRights07/10/16 02:07 AM
5

So is JJones and everybody in every netflix hero show so far. The're all marvel. Jjones was a little too man-bad/woman-good for me, sure, but the netflix marvel shows have done an extremely excellent job of not painting a gender or ethnic narrative, I think. Still, how about the detective in Jones? He wasn't really a hero, but he certainly wasn't pathetic or evil. And do you feel about the punisher? A hero who is pretty morally bleak at best. Or stick, a complete nihilist?
/r/MensRights06/10/16 11:55 PM
10

Cage also featured in JJones. He was none of those things. In fact, he was both physically and morally the most powerful character in the show.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 11:34 PM
6

lady thinks women are so morally retarded and reprehensible that they need to be told hitting men is wrong. Because this is actually true for many women and most men about male/female violent interactions in western society.. Apples and oranges. Little girls are not brought up learning that hitting a boy is meaningfully wrong. It is not the case that by age 6, a little girl's peers will start restraining and socially or physically punishing her for hitting a boy, as little boys do when a boy hit…
/r/MensRights15/09/16 04:47 AM
8

They should have shown it and it should also have been real. You don't get the jolt of "no that's just wrong" from "well he almost but didn't actually do something."
/r/MensRights15/09/16 12:06 AM
10

When the video/post is how men shouldn't hit women, except in the case of self defense where the argument is that everyone should have the right to defend him/herself from harm, where have you ever seen someone argue that men should be allowed to hit women? There's anger, yes, but it's a reasoned anger. Men in the west are raised from birth to believe a woman should never be hit, especially by a man. It's not a lesson we need repeated to us because we started learning it as literal toddlers. Wou…
/r/MensRights15/09/16 12:02 AM
16

Even if you are, that's a very silly argument to make. There are many, many factors that led to the nazis seizing power, up to and including a healthy dose of luck. Womens' voting proclivities are not among the meaningful ones.
/r/MensRights21/08/16 11:06 AM
2

In an ideal world, everyone would be married. When marriage is functioning properly, it provides the safest, most economically efficient, lowest crime, and most socially and psychologically stable environment for both partners and any children they may or may not have. It is the best of all worlds for society and the marriages that work produce the individual people who rate the highest in nearly every category of wellbeing and health. It is not accidental that very nearly every single successfu…
/r/MensRights17/07/16 07:17 AM
5

Instead of getting their message out there by legitimate methods, these protestors used bully tactics and invaded a show to which they were not invited and caused it to be stopped as a direct and entirely predictable result of their actions. You are being intentionally myopic in claiming that "Oh the show chose to go off air when they were invaded, it's not the invaders fault," and you are doing so because you have ideologically dedicated yourself to your position and are unwilling to recognize …
/r/MensRights15/06/16 06:06 PM
25

This isn't the right way to go about things. We hated it when feminists shut down discussion in the lecture hall in Canada, and we cannot abide the same tactic being used against our opponents by protestors in our camp, even if we agree with the base motives of the protestors.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 02:24 PM
3

Some characters I can see switching genders. I don't get it with bond. How are they going to show a woman being beaten? Imagine a scene analagous to the Casino Royale torture setup, with a woman instead of Craig. It'd never go, and the people pushing this stuff know it.
/r/MensRights24/05/16 12:34 PM
10

It doesn't hold them back, though. If this were a disadvantage, they would stop advocating for it because no one actually wants to be in a position of disavantage. It helps them to look like victims.
/r/MensRights10/05/16 05:05 PM
5

Yeah. The ideal world is one such that every partnership reaching marriage ends in the eventual death of one of the partners. Every societal stat you'd care to look at is in its ideal state when you look at a successful, financially stable marriage. Happiness, health, outcomes for children, life satisfaction, relative rates of violence and other crime, the list is unending. Marriage really is the building block of the successful family unit in any successful society. We just live in a society wh…
/r/MensRights09/05/16 05:17 PM
1

No, no he wouldn't. Not unless that was an ongoing state of being for him that also existed outside of sex. Jesus, look at the BDSM community. Lots of men and women like to pretend that they're being held at gunpoint (with an actual, sometimes loaded, gun I might mention) and raped. They don't ACTUALLY want to be held at gunpoint or raped, it's a kink being expressed in a safe environment. Some people even like being shot for the purposes of sex. Look up 'gunplay' to expand your horizons a littl…
/r/MensRights03/05/16 10:59 PM
2

Yeah, I think you're being ridiculous with this. Gender identity and biological sex are definitely linked, but sexual prefefence and identity? Thinking that just demonstrates that you've never really interacted with any gay or even harder fetish community in a meaningful way. A strapon is a really convenient way for women to use a dildo on someone else. Maybe they don't get much/anything out of it, maybe they do, but being a good partner might mean just attending to your partner's needs first, t…
/r/MensRights03/05/16 02:35 PM
4

An uh... Interesting point of view you've got there. You do know that plenty of gay men don't like being on the recieving end of anal, don't you? And that straight men are, in terms of market share, the leading buyers of prostate toys? Use of a toy in sex doesn't change the basic attraction. The point is, they're using the toy on a person of the sex to which they're attracted. It's not lesbians faults' that they were not born with the equipment to do the most basic action of sex, but we do have …
/r/MensRights02/05/16 11:30 PM
5

I was just explaining the mindset, not saying I agree with it. I think that the MGTOW mindset is remarkably myopic, not to mention unsustainable since it essentially guarantees that any MGTOW man will have little or no opportunity to influence the next generation of men. That said, the current crisis of women who are college educated and 'unable' to find suitable men is almost assuredly the result of some degree of hypergamy. The men are there, the problem is that the college women see the non-c…
/r/MensRights02/05/16 04:20 PM
-5

MGTOW and the PUAs (pick up artists) start from the same groundwork: for whatever reason/reasons, nearly every woman is driven by basic biological motivators to be 1) gynocentric, primarily interested in the concerns and desires of women, 2) hypergamous, always interested in the highest status mate and willing to abandon a mate to whom they have committed for no shortcoming on that mate's part, but rather the presence of a male who can provide more resources or better genetics, and 3) women are …
/r/MensRights02/05/16 02:45 PM
1

Yeah. The whole thing's ridiculous. I've been noticing a recent trend of radicalization on this sub and I'm quite disappointed with it. It's like the reasonable people largely up and vanished and were replaced with people who believe feminists are dark sorcerers who worship double-satan, or at least one would have to think so, seeing how much power they attribute to feminism.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 04:18 PM
6

Yep. Don't worry, we don't need to look at the differences between two groups who waged a literal civil war against one another for 5 years, which concluded with the illegalization of the losing side and mass executions of those who adhered to the losing ideology. I'm sure they were basically the same group. Nazis and communists always got along. It's why Russia and Germany stayed on the same side all through the second world war, which concluded with the transgender Adeline Hitler declaring the…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 03:56 PM
-5

You're right. You aren't comparing scale. And that's a flaw, not a feature, of your argument.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 03:51 PM
5

the Holocaust details U wot m8? Tell me exactly which feminist tactic is a good analogy to the holocaust. There's a point at which a comparison becomes facile. That point is is about 20 orders of magnitude prior to the one you've made there.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 03:48 PM
13

Because you care about honesty and truthfulness in argument. Or at least you do, unless you're okay with being a blatant hypocrite every time you criticize feminists for making such exaggerations, as you are doing right now.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 01:14 PM
19

Oh come on, those two are so wildly different in scale that you almost have to feel bad comparing them. Not to mention that the outcomes are polar opposites: the rolling stone hoax brought a lot people over to our side of the argument, while the reichstag burning was the nazi's master stroke in taking power. Burning down the senate would be on par with 9/11. The RS hoax revealed (or perhaps simply futher highlighted) an enormous and continuing problem that justice and fairness demand be addresse…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 11:35 AM
49

Why does this have so many upvotes? It's unbelievably hyperbolic and cherry picks when it isn't just wrong. I hate feminism, but this is ridiculous. National socialism was not based on Marxism, it was based on a combination of Austrian fascism, a very young political ideology also not based on Marx, and on Hitler's own fairly aimless ramblings in Mein Kampf. Also, when exactly did feminists take 2000 armed soldiers loyal to a single leader and march them to the white house, openly and explicitly…
/r/MensRights28/04/16 10:44 AM
2

This is ridiculous scaremongering, as it would be for any politician. No politician is actually that powerful.
/r/MensRights21/04/16 12:18 PM
44

The real shitstorm is gonna come when a woman, despite what I'm sure will be deployment schedules designed to keep female boots-on-the-ground soldiers as far from combat as possible, is captured alive by ISIS or some such group. How's the media gonna handle it when it's a woman being raped and slowly tortured to death on camera? We've dealt with dozens of men having that exact thing happen to them, but a woman? So many groups will lose their precious little minds. What do you do when someone is …
/r/MensRights21/04/16 10:55 AM
2

It's possible that depression of the high sensitivity areas in the tip of the shaft is accounted for neurologically by the brain redistributing resources to a less naturally sensitive area like the shaft. The brain is actually pretty plastic about damage and hates unused matter. In amputees, extra brain area normally devoted to the missing limb is often found to react with unusual rates of response to stimulus at the edge of the damaged area. Sort of a "find me a purpose" thing. A lot of the sen…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 11:51 PM
1

True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 02:24 PM
9

Summary: The study included 15 rabbits. 2 died from surgical trauma prior to the onset of the experiment as the injection proceedure was being refined. One more died for no discernable reason. 12 went on to be included in the study. The rabbits were grouped into two categories, one with 100% active ingredient, and the other with an 80/20 mix of active ingredient and non-active ingredient. All rabbits included produced normal sperm samples prior to injection. Every rabbit in the 100% group showed…
/r/MensRights30/03/16 02:20 PM
3

That's probably a poor idea. Maybe uncorroborated testimony from an individual should be basically ignored, but if a group of people lacking a common interest who agree on the details seems like a pretty safe bet.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 12:02 PM
4

There may be no official rule prohibiting such a fight; however, it is extremely disingenuous to argue that, because no such rule exists, professional MMA is coed. Similarly, no rule in any of the following professional rulebooks prohibits women from playing in the NFL, NBA, NHL, professional boxing, MLS, MLB, and several others. These sports are all, by your logic, coed. After all, nothing prohibits an all woman team in the NFL. No woman will ever play in any of those leagues because she was th…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 08:50 PM
12

No it isn't. There are male divisions and female divisions. Coed means that there exists some division in which male competitors are put directly into competition with female competitors. I've been involved in combat sports year round since I was 4 years old. I am aware of no point in the history of any combat or even contact sport for that matter in which women were seriously pitted against men at high competitive levels because it would be so laughably unfair. The closest I have ever seen is t…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 07:23 PM
3

A semantic game is not a rebuttal, it's just uncharitable argument. Besides , if you want to play with the semantics, torture isn't usually done for the express purpose of inflicting pain, it's usually done for the purpose of extracting information. Pain is just the method used to get info.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 08:33 PM
1

The corporations want clinton to be president, so she'll be president.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 11:43 AM
4

Progress can only ever be defined with reference to what we should have been doing, but weren't. Progress can only ever be measured by comparing conditions of the present to conditions of the past. Try to give a definition of progress that involves no reference to the past and you'll see why what you said was silly.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 01:51 PM
1

Yes it is. And although it is maybe as cut-and-dried a case of sexism as is possible to present, it is most strongly enforced by the people who claim they're most against sexism.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 05:03 PM
1

Well, if you wanted words... You're like the rest of us. Some punk who would love to talk bigger and tougher than he really is on the internet because he has the dual shields of anonymity and a society that protects him from people who really are the kind of brutal that you and so many others, pretend to be. Myself included, though not on this particular occasion. But you know you aren't. And you'll know, reading these words, that I'm right about you. And you'll have that niggling feeling of dis…
/r/MensRights19/02/16 04:28 PM
1

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P5iqYuFmzqg
/r/MensRights19/02/16 04:12 PM
8

Yeah, and those guys usually go to jail, because we do actually treat these things differently depending on who is doing it. There's plenty of internet tough guys commenting here, but they wouldn't actually hit a woman in real life because they're generally smart enough to realize that if they did, they'd wind up looking through some wrought iron bars for a few years.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 02:49 PM
4

Right, I was having trouble in algebra back in high school until I beat the shit out of the smartest kid in class....boom, he did my homework the rest the year, and I got a B... So you're lazy, a thug, and you lack the necessary moral princicple to correctly judge when violence is an appropriate solution. That is as succinct a way to convey the message that life was wasted on you as I have ever seen. Thanks for sharing.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 02:03 PM
15

The only reason women slap men like this is because they know for a fact, and they're right, that they don't need to be prepared for any consequences of their actions.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 11:43 AM
34

To actually answer your question, due to the alimony/child support following their breakup, the woman is recieving ~15k a month for the job of raising a kid. She's basically a 170k/year nanny, who is also dating/fucking some other guy while continuing to take the father's cash. On top of this, the father is meeting with difficulty seeing his son. So the father is paying a woman tens and hundereds of thousands of dollars as the result of a relationship he had in the past with her, and to her, the…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 03:38 AM
0

Ignorance is one thing, yeah, but I don't think our current society is ignorant of violence, we're very damn well aware that it exists. And I don't think that the person to whom I responded is being myopic in thinking that every natural impulse has to be viewed as acceptable in some sense, either through being channeled or some other means. I also think that there are plenty of impulses that are too subtle or specific for societal rules to actually deal with. I think society can only have rules …
/r/MensRights30/01/16 12:44 AM
5

You're being terrifically hyperbolic. A society isn't flawed because it requires of its members something other than their basic instinct. From a definitional perspective, you would have trouble even describing such a gathering as a society, since the definition includes shared laws and traditions. Violence is maybe the only feature common to every single living creature. Is a society embracing commonplace, meaningless violence a better society in your regard because it doesn't embrace the, by y…
/r/MensRights29/01/16 08:17 PM
2

Interesting how she notes that there's no independent evidence of abuse and implies that judgment of the alledgedly abusive woman should both wait for and be contingent on such evidence. Wish I could see that sort of attitude all the time.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 03:38 AM
3

Not always. We have our own narrative too, which most defend with a decent bit of zeal, and tend to ascribe significantly more malice to our opponents than actually exists. As is demonstrated in your comment. Spreading misinformation that you genuinely believe to be correct isn't evil. This is what most people do in general. It's rare that people, including feminists, deliberately spread information and conclusions that are knowingly false.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 12:07 AM
39

Pretty much perfect. There's very little to criticize or argue against in the way of reporting with those kinds of summaries.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 04:20 PM
321

I like the charts; however, it's a bit dishonest to choose specifically the lowest and highest years in the reporting of false/baseless claims, while also reporting all of those false/baseless claims as specifically false. If you're willing to cherry pick dates like that, you could report a drop in false/baseless claims in the 2006-09 period and act like that summarized the chart. You should be picking an average from some span of years and comparing it to the average of some equal length span o…
/r/MensRights31/12/15 03:17 PM
5

This isn't just feminists, but yeah, that would also be an example. Really anything that is tried more in the court of public opinion than in the court of law is a battle decided by the media and whatever opinion is most popular at the time, usually some midpoint between moderate and far left, politically, will be the 'correct' opinion of the day. It's just that where rape cases are concerned, the feminist standard is the prevailing media darling. If we want to make progress for the MRM, picking…
/r/MensRights30/12/15 10:02 PM
19

If he's found guilty, this case will be used as an example that women couldn't possibly he lying about rape when they come out of the woodwork a quarter century after the events they claim to have happened occurred, regardless of how weak or strong the evidence is. If he's found not guilty, this case will be used as an example of how women aren't listened to and how men, especially rich ones, can get away with any crime, especially when that crime is rape. This is a no-win situation for us. It i…
/r/MensRights30/12/15 06:55 PM
1

And it also regards women's voices as worth literally half of a man's in court. It also requires female rape victims be stoned to death alongside their rapists. You've just chosen to accept an alternate narrative. I'm not attacking you for viewing things in an arguably correct, but not very popular manner. I'm criticizing you for deliberately cherry picking to support your viewpoint, in much the same manner that the mainstream narrative you seem to hate cherry picks to support their side. It may…
/r/MensRights21/12/15 07:11 PM
2

Yeah, sexism clearly does exist against women too. Look at the muslim world. Look at the sharia courts in britain. Hyperbole doesn't help us.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 04:53 PM
1

No, but that's a deliberately misleading view. Look at the difference in treatment for blacks in the northern and southern halves of America immediately following the civil war. Groupthink is usually pretty parochial, and on the scales small enough to see really big behavior deviations, any group or person can get fucked over.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 01:09 PM
4

Don't get trapped in by this. People of all stripes complaing about the damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. It's just a result of people with different standards about sexual conduct making judgments. We shouldn't pay this kind of thing much attention.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 04:20 PM
1

Conferred is a normal word. People earn degrees, universities confer/grant them. A university can't "earn a degree" to anyone, but they can certainly confer, award, grant, give, etc. one. The author was writing from the perspective of the universities granting degrees, not from the perspective of the people earning them. Nothing fishy. And yeah, some fields are dominated by either men or women. If you have issues with math because you think accounting represents almost every job women do in the …
/r/MensRights02/12/15 07:38 PM
1

Your first claim is a conspiracy theory- not that conspiracy theories are always wrong- but you are suggesting a planned, coordinated effort to push boys out of education through changing the topics taught in classes. I notice you aren't trying to describe what is taught in classes any more, which I suspect is becaue you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Maybe I'm wrong, but you're gonna need to give some pretty solid evidence to support your claims. And onto evidence, the …
/r/MensRights02/12/15 06:29 PM
2

I think you went overboard there, captain. I also don't think you have an accurate picture of what school is like. Actual topics are studied in classes, even if some of it does have an ideological nature. The problem isn't so much what's being taught, it's how what is taught is being taught. It's the expectation for everyone to sit in nice rows and patiently wait to be called on and not criticize others that's the issue, since boys, especially young ones, just don't operate that way in all but a…
/r/MensRights02/12/15 05:07 PM
3

I think the fact that modern teaching paradigms are geared so strongly against boys probably has more to do with boys not suceeding in school than unconcious bias in grading does.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 04:18 PM
6

Oh that's ridiculous. That's some collectivist bullshit. Not only have some women been significant in advancing medical science (Marie Curie), but even if it were true that it were only men advancing science, unless you're one of those specific men, they'd owe you, me, and anyone else not personally responsible, jack fucking nothing for accomplishments we were not involved in. It's as ridiculous to claim oppression on the basis of the history of other people as it is to claim credit. You're doin…
/r/MensRights01/12/15 02:56 PM
2

Well, due to the commonality of heterosexuality, an otherwise random sample of only one gender will, very nearly by definition, reduce the rate at which sexual relations occur. As for the rest of it, maybe my personal example provides a possible solution. I've wrestled most of my life, since I was about 4 years old, an age at which I had no concept of sexuality. If you don't know much about wrestling, it is an environment where you spend lots of time in close contact with the people on your team…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 06:04 PM
8

So, I'm bisexual. Should I be barred from being a teacher? Hell, should all classrooms be single gender so that you never tempt a teacher? Should I just never be allowed around kids? If that's the case, which ankle am I supposed to wear my monitor on? What color of star would you like me to wear when I go out so you can identify me and herd me away from children? Sind die Schwule deine Juden? Most of the catholic priests in Ireland were straight, but sex starved enough that they did start raping…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 02:10 PM
1

As long as we're talking about the "loss of those people" in the sense of "they were in my life and now they aren't," yeah, you're finally getting it. Assuming you did not personally know those people, You did not lose them. You may wish those people had lived. You may sympathize with their families. You may even recall a loss you had in your life and proxy that feeling of loss experienced by those who did actually lose people and empathize. But you yourself did not experience an actual loss.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 07:54 PM
1

Except I and most circumcised men in the west have no actual recollection of having a foreskin. As far as I am concerned, my memory starts at about age 3. Before then, I was stung by more than a hundred wasps in a day, had my head run over with a bicycle, and was circumcised, among other things. I do not actively remember these. I have no experience I can recall, and neither do you, if you're circumcised, of ever having a foreskin. In my lived experience, I began to exist around age 3. The time …
/r/MensRights20/11/15 07:34 PM
2

To be fair, almost all of the money saving suggestions they put forward are so retarded that I almost expect that their spokespeople are under doctor's orders to wear bicycle helmets at all times. Also, the article shows a picture of a cochlear implant when talking about hearing aids. Neat. Competence all around.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 07:04 PM
1

Neat resources. Completely irrelevant to the (admittedly semantic) point. I'm not arguing about circumcision, circumcision is just the example under discussion. I'm talking about the definition of the word "loss." Loss conceptually requires possession. That is the argument I am advancing. Nothing else. You may (and I do) envy the intact. I still can't have experienced loss of my foreskin unless I knew what it was like to have a foreskin first. Ergo, although I envy, I have not lost.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 06:44 PM
2

I think you are confusing loss and desire/envy. That 18 year old desires the car he was supposed to have had, but he never lost it. He may envy others for having cars while he doesn't, but he never lost a car. If I've never been married, I couldn't accurately say "I miss my wife." I could say "I wish I had a wife," or even "I'm angry I don't have a wife," but I couldn't be telling the truth if I said "I lost my wife" or "I miss my wife" if I have never had one at all. Most western circumcised me…
/r/MensRights20/11/15 05:19 PM
7

You can't miss what you've never had. At the same time, you are missing a functional part of your body. Your sexual function, like mine and every other circumcised guy, is objectively impaired when compared what it could have been. Someone born without a foot never misses the foot they never had. At the same time, they are objectively disfunctional with regards to their ability to walk. Luckily, we can make prosthetic feet. We can't (hopefully yet) make artificial nerves. Circumcision is a great…
/r/MensRights20/11/15 02:44 PM
4

It's interesting to see an article about men that's so emotionally driven. It seems the underlying uniqueness to the contact the author had with men was through the (almost) uniquely male traits. I wonder what a program that would occasionally involve men going to do work with a stable, persistent group of other male peers would do for men as a whole. Sort of like the civilian conservation corps, but among people also in your field, in a group that is drawn from as local an area as possible whos…
/r/MensRights16/11/15 03:25 PM
3

There's also the other side of things: men's attemps may be much more hidden than women's. If a man takes out a gun, loads it, and stares at it while deciding whether or not he's going to blow his brains out, I would argue that he's made an attempt. It's certainly as much of an attempt as swallowing some pills, then calling a friend or the hospital. But when he unloads the gun, puts it back in his closet, and doesn't talk about it, that attempt may as well have never happened. No one hears about…
/r/MensRights16/11/15 03:05 AM
3

Actually harassment is a crime... although criminal harassment usually requires that there is a legitimate threat, either by action or word, of the harasser. But writing a love note doesn't qualify in the least.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 01:57 AM
3

Mutilation of the bodies of babies and the potential to take people from their homes and families to die for political purposes on the other side of the planet are not examples of inhumane, perfectly legal, treatment? Yeah, sure, maybe not every issue we talk about is worthy of the term 'human rights,' but we have a decent selection of ones that you or anyone else would be hard pressed to convince me aren't human rights issues. And they're also clearly legal issues. Those abuses exist because th…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 03:39 PM
1

The idea that legal failure to protect groups equally is not a human rights issue on its face wrong. What was slavery, more specifically the abolition thereof, if not a human rights issue?
/r/MensRights10/11/15 02:14 PM
14

Well, we don't exactly turn a blind eye, we find it either hilarious or justified, almost without regards to circumstance. I think that's probably worse.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:24 PM
2

This doesn't actually seem like the best argument. It would be very possible for abuses to be highly common, but very covert. Look at circumcision: it affects (with reference to america) more than 1 of every 2 men. But it's essentially invisible, poorly understood, and not cared about, so its commonality remains covert. The overall point is right, but it's not well argued in this article.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 04:21 PM
1

Fair enough. I felt and feel that not fitting in with the current far left and opposing certain leftist ideologies like the SJW brand of feminism has given us the appearance of being a right leaning group, even though I think you're correct, that in reality we're currently so progressive that we don't register on the radar. You're probably right, the 'left' will eventually be the ones picking up the mens rights movement and bringing it really into the light, but that future 'left' is not, in my …
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:22 PM
4

I think that the political body of this subreddit is kind of bipolar. Some of us are the tradcons you're describing. As far as the current political spectrum is concerned, the average user of this subreddit certainly seems to be more right leaning than the average reddit user (it would be hard not to be, as reddit in general is extremely left of center). You could be not entirely inaccurate in describing MRAs as frequently 'right-leaning.' However, I think that this understanding of MRAs is flaw…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 08:52 AM
5

Well he might have to rape up next to you and rape you in the eyes, first.
/r/MensRights07/11/15 01:47 PM
2

Ah yes, the terrible, oppressive life of the MP. Truly, none could wish the fate of upper governmental office on their worst enemy.
/r/MensRights02/11/15 02:51 PM
-2

Okay, buddy. Since you seem to be lost, r/theredpill is right over here.
/r/MensRights28/10/15 05:20 PM
1

The person needs to have been able to reasonably know that the person with whom they are having sex was not consenting. If they say yes and you weren't holding a gun or a knife to them or blackmailing them, and they weren't doing things like shaking their head and pushing you away, then they failed to be an adult and communicate properly. And although they may he hurt due to their failure to communicate clearly their actual position, that is not the fault of their partner. You can't reasonably p…
/r/MensRights23/10/15 01:33 PM
2

That's why you have the separate offense bit. The rape charge in my system only cares about whether the person with whom the accused had sex was consenting or not. A 30 year old having sex with a 14 year old, gross as it is, may not be violating anyone's consent at all. If no one is being forced unconsenting into sex, they aren't raped under my setup. Maybe another crime, but not rape. Sentences can thus be harsh to discourage this specific act. Next would be the underage sex thing. Basically se…
/r/MensRights23/10/15 04:47 AM
3

If using the definition of statutory rape, that one guy that has sex with the 14 year old who said she was at least at the age of consent where they were accidentally raped somebody, even though she was a willing and enthusiastic partner. So I guess it's possible, but only on a technicality. The definition of rape should probably be shrunk to a reasonable size. There should be a separate offense for 'sex with a person under the age of consent,' with rape being defined essentially as sex with an …
/r/MensRights22/10/15 05:30 PM
4

Well, the article softballs how disproportionately alimony is paid to women from men, but this kind of situation, with women paying men is probably the in-road to the elimination or reform, likely the latter, of alimony. Celebrity news is kind of garbage and that's really all this article is, but it's nice to see the concept of alimony going the other way being talked about.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 01:29 PM
3

The controls on both men and women have been pretty tight historically. Men and women both had expectations they were rigidly expected to fill: in a survivalist setting (where most of human history occurred and where our expectations about gender roles began to be ingrained amd ritualized), you the individual are a utility to your group. If you are a good utility, you contribute enough to justify the costs of keeping you alive. For women, much of that utility lies in simply staying alive. Women …
/r/MensRights21/10/15 12:25 PM
0

Your proposal is terrible. It is as unbalanced in favor of fathers as the current setup is unbalanced in favor of mothers. In your suggestion, the mother can only ever get an abortion if the father allows her to. She can't abort if she doesn't want the kid but dad does. Win for dad, but she loses 9 months of her life carrying a kid she doesn't want to carry, restricting her freedoms (drinking and smoking, etc.) and has to go to the hospital for what is a potentially life threatening proceedure. …
/r/MensRights19/10/15 07:04 PM
18

Executions are legally prescribed punishments for breaking laws and can only be ordered and carried out by a government. Killing in other ways is murder. Infanticide is a specific form of murder. There is no place in the world where women are executed, not murdered, but executed, for the crime of being women. Their inborn state of existence as women is not ever the reason for which they are killed by a governing body as a legal punishment. Women may in places be murdered for being women, but not…
/r/MensRights11/10/15 05:06 AM
6

What this guy said. Rape happens when one person unambiguously announces that they do not want sex and some other person/people attempt to and succeed in having sex with that non-consenting person. She doesn't sound like she was being a good partner, she should have been a bit better at reading your mood, but you failed to explicitly tell her that you didn't want sex, during sex, after you initially agreed, even if you agreed relentingly. This is bad communication, before, during, and after sex.…
/r/MensRights10/10/15 01:06 PM
2

The video isn't worth your time. The TL;DW is: She spends essentially the whole time claiming that society values women less than men based on the one observation that since people tend to value things that are worth money (and apparently we don't value anything else at all, on either a personal or societal scale), and since men and prototypically masculine behaviors have the tendency to make more money, we must therefore value men and masculinity more and women and femininity less. At the end s…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 09:44 PM
2

Actually you can pick up acid like that in most hardware stores. It's used in tile and concrete cleaning products. If you buy solid, it's concentrated, with the expectation that you'll mix it before use. Usually that's still made safer by storage in some sort of housing crystal, so it's kind of hard to extract without a lot of water. You can also buy concentrated liquid acid over the internet from science supply stores. here's some 18 molar, as an example. At your house for under $50. Also, yes,…
/r/MensRights05/10/15 01:50 PM
0

Well, unlike you, I'm not trying to be insulting, but I don't think you actually know what the rhythm method is, since you don't seem to be able to identify it. avoids inter- course on cycle days 8 through 19. From Mayoclinic on the rhythm method: The rhythm method, also called the calendar method or the calendar rhythm method, is a form of natural family planning. To use the rhythm method, you track your menstrual history to predict when you'll ovulate. This helps you determine when you're most…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 01:08 PM
0

Right, that's the rhythm method, and the last variant, the only one rated as more effective as the condom, is a technology aided rhythm method. The Ovulation and TwoDay methods are based on evaluation of cervical mucus. The Standard Days method avoids inter- course on cycle days 8 through 19. The Symptothermal method is a double-check method based on evaluation of cervical mucus to determine the first fertile day and evaluation of cervical mucus and temperature to determine the last fertile day.…
/r/MensRights29/09/15 12:26 PM
8

You ever heard the word for people who practice the rhythm method of birth control? Parents.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 03:17 AM
0

I don't actually have a reference. You caught me. At the same time, a rate of 33% after 10 years implies nothing about rates at later times. It may be that if a couple remains married for a decade on their first marriage, then they are effectively inseparable and the rate after 30 years may be something insignificantly different, like 34%. It might also go up towards 50%. I don't have any better numbers, sorry.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 03:15 PM
0

Well, it's only about 33% of first marriages. The numbers are inflated by serial divorcers, who tend to get remarried and divorced several times each. Your point's still right though.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 11:57 AM
2

To some degree. For example, in human males in western cultures, around puberty, men tend to start artificially lowering their voices to the floor of their vocal ranges, beyond the deepening in voice caused by the descent of the larynx. This is what is meant by performing gender. It's an act, although it is almost universally an unconscious one which can be consciously fought against (although you'll be made fun of if you do). Women essentially never lower their voices like this. They tend to sp…
/r/MensRights15/09/15 04:02 AM
0

Implicitly, he already is. He's arguing for his specific group, especially since it's mostly men, to not be seen as evil because they are associating with other men and not tripping over themselves to accomodate women.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:52 PM
2

Again: tell me which you would rather defend yourself from in court. Do you want to be defending yourself against an accusation of rape, or do you want to be defending yourself against an accusation of recording without consent?
/r/MensRights08/09/15 01:22 PM
2

Option a: get burned at the stake. Option b: 3 lashes with a whip. Pick one. Are you gonna spend 15 years in prison, the next decade after that as a registered sex offender, and never get a serious job for your remaining lifetime because you were convicted of a rape you didn't commit, or are you going to accept a year or so in jail because you recorded a woman without her permission? Besides, it would be easier to change laws about recording in general than it would be to change laws about rape …
/r/MensRights08/09/15 04:36 AM
7

Also, what fucking kind of blood catchers is she buying? I do the shopping at my house, so I buy my girlfriend's sanitary stuff. I can get 72 tampons and 48 liners for 10 bucks, buying brand name. They're almost always the single cheapest non-vegetable item on a shopping list, even when buying bulk.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 02:21 PM
9

The record consent condom is far and away the best design. Some of the other ones, particularly #6, are too cutesy and wordy to be clear.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 05:43 AM
-3

It seems you're right. My statement is unchanged: adultery should not be a crime; it should cease being a crime where it currently is, and it should not become a crime where it is not.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 03:10 PM
-5

Yeah, maybe if she knowingly goes after him for child support with a kid that isn't his, then yeah, sure, fraud. Otherwise, you're trying to support a law that would affect both men and women, but whoops, it just happens to only directly affect women ever. Look, let's say we have a situation. Mom and dad are married. As it happens, both are cheaters. Both started cheating at the same time and go out to cheat every monday evening. Neither knows that the other is cheating. On the same specific eve…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 12:16 PM
-2

No, making it a sex offense to have cheated is too much. Adultery is a dick thing to do, but it shouldn't be a crime. That would be unfair to women, too, in a meaningful way. About as many men as women cheat, but this sort if law only punishes the women who do. Unless we have a way to know for sure if men are cheating too, making doing so illegal would be discriminatory. Look, we should test kids and inform the parents of paternity as early as possible, and it should happen with every single kid…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 11:51 AM
1

From my understanding of things, fertility testing is an expected followup to a vasectomy to ensure it worked. And yeah, typical vasectomy fact sheets usually note that there's a possibility that the part of the vas defrens that is snipped can either fail to close up properly or may heal back together.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 08:50 PM
4

Fool proof. As in unable to be screwed up, even by a fool. But you are right, the failure rate on vasectomies is not zero; however, it is about 1 in 2000, according to the brits.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 02:25 PM
1

It is less common and is in reality very probably not the typical state of humans throughout our pre-civilized history. Pretty much all apes, a group which includes humans, use the tournament model of reproduction and tend to have significantly less than half of their males at reproductive age ever reproduce. Almost every female in every species reproduces, for comparison, including in apes. Genetically speaking, humans are also descended from about twice as many women as men: this is indicative…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 09:29 PM
1

Monogamy partially occurs in nature, but you are very much wrong that it is the norm in sexually reproducing species. It's a highly unusual state in nature and it is essentially never complete. The most common model of reproduction in large, terrestrial, sexually reproducing species is the tournament model: (typically) males fight each other and the winners mate with all of the available females.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 06:20 PM
61

Of course there's a dating imbalance with more women in college than men. Women try to date and marry up in social status and won't consider alternatives, men tend to date/marry for beauty without really considering status. This is hypergamy backfiring hard.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 01:13 PM
4

Abortion is never forced on a potential mother at all in any situation I've presented. It's not even coerced. You can continue to misrepresent my position as you would like, as I am pretty confident at this point that you are responding to what you're hearing rather than what I'm saying. She has no pressure that she does not put on herself to get an abortion, and the pressure she does experience would be out of her own concern for her own future. And that's fine to me. Everyone will always have …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 08:24 PM
3

Give it time. You're the new conservative. Sooner or later society will give men equal dignity under the law in this and other areas. You're getting a sneak peek at the future. Insult us, call us names, whatever. You'll lose in the end.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 07:50 PM
5

This is a deeply flawed argument for two reasons: 1) The nuclear option is still an option. It doesn't make sense that only women get the benefits of this option, even if you regard it as extreme. As an aside, it's also the topic of our discussion. Of course I'm talking about it. Don't try to change the subject. 2) By your logic, that men are responsible for children as a consequence of the choice to have sex, let's be fair: women should also be responsible for having children if they have sex b…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:21 PM
4

Again, you're right, but you missed the substance of the argument, which was made clear in that paragraph. It obviously costs mych less to have an abortion than a kid, but the man's payment in LPS is not to raise the kid, the man's payment is to wash his hands of the situation. He takes his way out and he provides her with the means to access her way out at no extra cost to her. She doesn't have to take that way out, but if she turns down that way out, she accepts that she's going it alone. She …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:30 PM
94

Stop Taking Our Privileges: the actual slogan of anti-ERA women.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:13 PM
4

Who said it was mandatory? She doesn't have to have an abortion, and she's no more locked in to having a particular medical proceedure than she was before, with regard to birth. She needed medical attention at some point either way, as the pregnancy will end in abortion, miscarriage, or birth no matter what. She can keep the child if she wants to, and, in my proposed law, she even keeps the money. That's the man's equalizing payment. He pays for the abortion that she can then choose to have or n…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:48 PM
4

With regard to reproductive responsibility, I would like two laws and two addemdums to be passed: 1) A woman who becomes pregnant must tell or genuinely attempt to tell any and all of her current or recent (8 weeks ish) partners that she has learned that she is pregnant within 96 hours of learning so, unless incapacitated by extenuating circumstance. These people are the potential fathers. 2) Any potential father has a time span lasting until 2 weeks short of the deadline by which the woman may …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:22 PM
5

Sure, sure. You're perfectly right on all counts there. It's just that that's completely not the issue addressed here, by me or anyone else I've seen. Whether or not women have a greater natural burden, we have extended them greater legal rights and autonomy over the direction of their own lives. These rights, while important and I believe to be fair and probably necessary, are artificial. We supply those rights as a society. One needs only to look to societies in which women do not have these r…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:21 PM
5

Which specific natural differences are you alluding to? Please be specific. Remember that civil liberties are not natural differences.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:54 PM
4

Reasoned and balanced discussion that fails to conform to popular cultural standards?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:38 PM
7

Then to be fair, she should have no right to force a man to be dad by any means either, and we're back at square 1.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 11:39 AM
2

Unless you assume a default position of "no," that's both unworkable as a solution and almost identical to the current situation. Also, wouldn't a corollary be that the mother couldn't change her position without the father's consent? If she controls his ability to change his mind, surely he should control her ability to change her mind as well? So she couldn't have an abortion if they both agreed to "yes, let's make a baby" earlier, unless dad agreed, right?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:13 AM
3

I do appreciate that you've stuck to your guns and completely ignored the actual argument being made, one which had absolutely nothing to do with post-birth arrangements and never even mentioned them, in order to instead continue stabbing your straw filled mannequin. Have a very pleasant remainder of your morning/day/evening/night, as is appropriate.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:09 AM
6

They are exactly the same thing. Avoiding being a parent is exactly what an elective abortion is for. An abortion is for terminating a fetus so that it does not become a human to which the aborting party is a parent. It aborts the process of parenthood. It is making the choice to not carry a child to term, which is exactly the process by which a woman becomes a parent. I hope this clarifies things for you. Keep trying, though. I know you don't have a good argument (which is part of why I'm guess…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:52 AM
4

What do you do when it breaks? Simple question. Tough answer.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:24 AM
13

If a woman doesn't want to have a child, she should protect herself against having a child. She has a number of options. This is inherent in her role in the reproductive practice. Inherent? Ah, I see, modern medicine must have nothing to do with a woman's post-conception options to avoid parenthood. Her doctors and medical staff are truly a part of her, inherently a piece of her being, allowing her to decide to have an abortion, as is fitting. She was born with those doctors and all of their kno…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:15 AM
18

Clever and awfully convenient loophole you've found there about babies not being people when an abortion happens. And what a fabulous strawman you've erected to stand in the place of an actual MRA. Excellent work, really. Since you seem to be abused with a false notion of what MRAs seek in the parental rights issue, let me use your own loophole to explain. MRAs seek to make it possible from men to step away from parenthood at the same time(s) women can: before the baby has any rights. Men should…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:59 AM
3

Perfectly true. But Mcinness is not both. He's a traditionalist and an anti feminist, but not really an MRA.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 04:12 PM
5

Mcinness sometimes makes good points, but he's much more of a traditionalist than an MRA.
/r/MensRights23/08/15 05:46 AM
3

Revolutionaries always start out as criminals.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 07:23 AM
3

And Columbus Ohio. Unless, and I'm not joking here, a woman is trying to use her toplessness to aid her in starting a riot. Now, considering that trying to start a riot is illegal anyway...
/r/MensRights17/08/15 07:30 PM
50

Well, if anyone ever wanted to know what culturally accepted entitlement looks like...
/r/MensRights17/08/15 03:59 AM
3

I'm paraphrasing here, but I've heard a statement that answers this kind of thinking: As a woman, you deserve to be treated like a princess by the men in your life only when you treat your men like kings.
/r/MensRights15/08/15 08:41 AM
2

That's the trick: you're supposed to not get a job or sign up if you don't agree to be drafted when the head of your country demands it. Although not signing up for the draft is almost never prosecuted, you are automatically signed up when you get or renew a state ID card of any kind when male and 18+. You cannot be anything but a disenfranchised citizen or an expat if you do not "agree" to military service if called upon. It's an offer you cannot refuse.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 10:38 PM
1

This isn't exactly a new problem, like the article is making it out to be. People have been tried, convicted, and executed in the court of public opinion for years and years. Zimmerman and OJ Simpson, and all of the fake campus rape allegations are the most prominent cases I can think of, but eesh, every legal story that hits the news ends up like this. Nothing's new.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 03:42 PM
12

That's a boy, though, isn't it? Still a child, and thus under the 'children' section of "women and children." Not a man. You can feel sorry for a child, but not for a man.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 09:44 PM
18

The 80/20 thing comes from a different study, although it is accurate to at least online dating. You can look for yourself here. There's lots more in the study that's interesting, but the 80/20 thing comes from there. Oddly, the behavior of aiming high is universal in online dating, where everyone goes after the top candidates, although there are two marked differences in men and women: 1) men are much better and fairer judges of appearance/looks, and 2) men still aim high in their potential par…
/r/MensRights27/07/15 12:26 PM
30

Hey there. I'm bisexual. Much of what the mrm has to offer is confined to the area of male-female relations, because it is most often there where men lose out in western society. When a man goes up against a woman, whether he is in the right or not, almost regardless of the circumstances or venue, socially and legally, he is at a moderate to huge disadvantage. What it has to offer you as an individual varies. It seeks to make it possible for men to actually step outside of traditional gender bou…
/r/MensRights24/07/15 09:52 PM
6

We already knew and have known for several years that long term gay male couplings had the highest average income, highest average education, and lowest average rates of abuse when looking at long term partnerships along only gender and sexuality lines. Doesn't seem to have affected the image of women in America. It's not going to do anything different now that we can get married. Hell, even the fact that lesbian couplings have the highest rates of abuse among any demograpchic division hasn't im…
/r/MensRights22/07/15 12:35 PM
2

To come at this from a different angle, consider the following: Monogamy is not in fact a feature of every modern society. Some cultures, particularly those in the middle east and northern africa, allow for men to have multiple spouses. Historically, this is closer to the natural order in human development: we are descended genetically from many more women than men. Almost every woman historically reproduced, but far fewer men were able to pass on their genes. In a dog-eat-dog world, some men ha…
/r/MensRights18/07/15 04:09 PM
5

Depends on what you're looking for in a game. 4.0 is much more robustly designed in that it's simpler for all involved to start but doesn't lose a lot of significant complexity in actual gameplay. It's also harder to break the game in 4.0. The downside is that the higher your level gets, the less complexity the system has to offer, even though it avoids the crippling downside of high level 3.5 play in that turns take approximately a decade to complete. If you want a world in which things are slo…
/r/MensRights29/06/15 03:36 AM
19

Actually read the article first. It states that she was actually raped, but not by the man she helped frame. The framing was done after she was coerced by her actual abuser, who beat her into testifying against the framed guy. Get your facts straight first. She should have said something sooner, but come on, this is rage bait. Everyone but the bad guy lost in this story.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 01:17 AM
1

First, do you know what a cumulative distribution is? And what it represents? Second, did you notice that "income," "earnings," "wealth," "money," "cash," "economic," and anything else closely related to any of those appear exactly zero times anywhere in the article? You currently have presented no data, no analysis, and no argument about the relation between wealth and number of messages recieved on dating sites.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 01:21 PM
0

That would be very neat. I would like to see those data or their resultant analysis. As you may notice, the linked article has no such data or analysis. And as you seem to have either not noticed or chosen to ignore, my arguments had exactly nothing to do with wealth, but rather physical attractiveness.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 01:10 PM
-3

Thank you for the discussion and especially for saving my time by stating outright that you are unwilling to be reasoned with.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 12:56 PM
0

No, men saw attractiveness accurately, but sought almost exclusively the most attractive. The seeking behavior of a given person on a site like okcupid is clearly best explained by his or her messaging behavior. You are clearly seeking who you contact. Finding someone attractive does not imply seeking. I think hugh jackman is as attractive or more attractive than any other man on the planet right now. I have never contacted him. I have no plans to contact him. I am displaying zero seeking behavi…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 12:46 PM
1

Except that the women still messaged most, in terms of their cumulative total, the men who they didn't find ideally attractive. This provides evidence that women don't appraise men's physical attractiveness fairly, not that they actually reject those they don't find attractive. That last bit actually applied to men, here. Did you read the graphs?
/r/MensRights13/05/15 12:42 PM
0

It's not like the men in this really behaved differently in terms of who they sought after. The big difference is that women didn't accurately (or at least fairly) appraise attractiveness, but sent messages in a relatively fair manner according to their inaccurate appraisals, whereas men appraised attractiveness very fairly, but openly sought the highest-attractiveness partners. In both cases, everyone wanted the prettiest people, it's just that women go after the pretty people by finding everyo…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 12:33 PM
6

Delivery is a medical proceedure- and one that is inherently life threatening, by definition. If you don't want someone in the room during a medical proceedure, then that person should either leave or be removed. This is not about mens' rights. This is not about womens' rights. A medical proceedure is a medical proceedure is a medical proceedure. What the exact proceedure is could not possibly be any less relevant to whether a person undergoing said proceedure has the right to say "get out" to s…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 05:30 AM
2

It is a very light punishment, relative to what almost any man would receive, yes, but I feel it's very important that we never lose sight of a whole understanding of the truth in our zeal to punish wrongdoing. She didn't exactly "walk free." She was given a slap on the wrist, considering her crime, but it's important to not do as we have so often criticized: Just as it's not okay to lie about rape because "oh it brings up an important discussion," it's not okay to be disingenuous in achieving o…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 03:49 AM
27

For those of us who don't much like to read, the article concludes: "The judge ordered her to serve 16 months, suspended for two years, with 150 hours unpaid work." She does walk away with no jail time and should have been punished more severely, but she's not walking away entirely free either.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 06:41 PM
2

Emotional (and physical) abuse in relationships is absolutely a real issue that men face. Medium is rarely a barrier to message. Comedy is a great way to make subjects that are otherwise completely unacceptable the center of discussion.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 02:34 PM
1

There's plenty of contracts that include premature termination clauses which require one party to pay another after the dissolution of the contract if the contract is dissolved in certain manners.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 10:27 PM
1

That's precisely what divorce laws are: laws regarding penalties and fees following the rupture of a marriage contract. Also, contracts may be terminated at any time for any reason, so long as all signing parties agree to do so.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 06:21 PM
1

Those were things I tried to account for in my list of restrictions, too.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 05:33 PM
3

Simple: by returning to each party the same proportion of the money left as they each contributed to the overall sum, as could be seen through deposit records. Using Bill and Melinda, let's say Bill contributed 99% and Melinda contributed 1% to the account over its lifetime (in his case, he contributed much more, but let's work with a 99% hypothetical here). If there's $100 left in the account, Bill gets $99 as the 99% contributor, and Melinda gets $1 as the 1% contributor. I still don't like th…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 04:59 PM
1

That's why my first clause in my OP included no alimony when initiating a no-fault divorce. If my system were in place, you literally could not go into a marriage with the expectation of receiving money by divorcing the person you married for no reason other than self interest. By initiating that divorce, you sacrifice any right to alimony. I updated my OP to reflect the other side of the coin.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 04:52 PM
2

I think there's a few problems with no spousal support whatsoever. 1) It will cost more overall, because an unsupported spouse then needs to be supported by the state as anyone who requires welfare is, which requires officials who also must be paid to adjudicate such cases. 2) It allows people to do things like be unfaithful or abandon a dying spouse ala Newt Gingrich with no repercussions if they are independently wealthy. 3) It traps people unnecessarily, if they cannot support themselves, in …
/r/MensRights24/02/15 04:44 PM
1

All marital assets? So lets say Bill Gates gets divorced. Melinda now owns half of microsoft and some uncounted billions of Bill's weath. Is that fair?
/r/MensRights24/02/15 04:38 PM
3

Unless, of course, the pedophiles involved also at any point happened to either have an adult female relation or have purchased sex from a female child as well. Then they wouldn't be gay. Just evil. But realizing that would take thinking, and that really seems to not be your strong suit.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 07:17 AM
3

Ah, I see that my statement about the mirror was pointless. How could you see into it? No light could possibly escape the singularity that is your stupidity.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 07:10 AM
9

Yes, I do Bottom paragraph of page 3 reads as such: "11% of the girls and 40% of the boys said they had served a female client... 13% of boys said they served exclusively female clients." You're probably going to have to look elsewhere to blame the gays as a group, but if you're looking for a place to check out information on the mentally handicapped, I would suggest a mirror.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 06:59 AM
7

Source?
/r/MensRights11/02/15 06:46 AM
3

Source?
/r/MensRights11/02/15 06:46 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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