TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MittenMagick Archive

View 9 posts and 522 comments by MittenMagick 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

Tell that to everyone who keeps posting literally the same exact stuff to /r/MurderedByWords and /r/clevercomebacks.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/04/21 03:27 PM
1

This is basically all special college funds to attract new talent - by college, practically everyone knows if they want to be a doctor or a businessman or a programmer. Most people who change their major still stay in the same wheelhouse (e.g. Electrical Engineering to IT, Pre-med to Exercise Science). If they won't stay in the program without the help, then "forcing" them to stay by making their ability to fund their education dependent on staying is just going to create stress and regret. True…
/r/MensRights20/06/20 01:22 PM
11

And thus the discussion for abolishing the draft comes up yet again. Remember, nothing happens until it happens to a woman.
/r/MensRights29/03/20 03:30 PM
35

"If men have power every day, how many men use that power to advocate for men? Find me a politician who has pushed any men's issues, let alone succeeded in doing so."
/r/MensRights25/03/20 05:34 PM
2

50 or so billion the USA will need to find I'll tell you exactly where they'll find it - by holding you at gunpoint and rummaging through your pockets.
/r/MensRights09/03/20 03:36 PM
3

You're hoping for logic in the law.
/r/MensRights02/03/20 02:24 AM
1

If you mean "they would've acted in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop", maybe. If you mean "there wouldn't have been a religious discrimination case", I'm not sure I agree. A big part of the cakeshop's argument was that they weren't refused to do business with them, just that he wouldn't do a custom cake because of religious reasons.
/r/MensRights17/02/20 08:48 PM
10

No, Colorado lost because the Supreme Court ruled that the CRC of Colorado was, in every way, shape, and form, completely biased against the cakeshop owner's religion. The SCotUS made no ruling on whether the law itself was unconstitutional. In fact, the opinion noted that Kennedy would have likely ruled in favor of Colorado had they acted with neutrality.
/r/MensRights17/02/20 03:50 PM
3

I mean, they do talk about handling balls and "scoring" a lot, so....
/r/MensRights28/01/20 12:46 AM
13

It was about his show Afterlife. "It's about a guy whose wife dies of cancer and contemplates suicide, which is still more fun than this. It got renewed for season 2, so spoiler, he didn't kill himself, just like Epstein."
/r/MensRights06/01/20 04:34 PM
28

Have you ever seen a woman get ready for a date? [sitcom laugh track]
/r/MensRights24/11/19 04:46 PM
6

Bail isn't "This is your punishment". Bail is "This is us not holding you in prison until your trial so we can ensure you don't try to skip town."
/r/MensRights23/11/19 01:01 AM
6

The short answer is the Fifth Amendment - requiring all evidence be turned over to the prosecution will inevitably ask someone to provide evidence that proves their guilt. It's especially bad if the defendant actually isn't guilty, but they have some evidence that makes it seem such. The longer answer answer is because the prosecution should already have their story, and requiring that any and all evidence be turned over to them just allows them to change the story before the trial. However, if …
/r/MensRights29/10/19 07:31 PM
7

The problem is that you're referring to disclosing evidence against the accused / defense, while the comment is about disclosing evidence against the prosecution / plaintiff.
/r/MensRights29/10/19 06:57 PM
6

The problem is that, outside the law, "bad behavior" is purely subjective and based on a ton of assumptions.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/09/19 12:59 AM
1

Reason number 1 why people should just mind their damn business and quit trying to police each other. If it's illegal, cite the law and/or call the cops. Until then, butt out.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/09/19 10:20 PM
1

Crazy high property taxes, a state government that is currently implementing things that their constituents have already voted against, and huge water bills.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 02:55 PM
1

Unfortunately, not necessarily. Oregon, for example, allows nudity so long as it isn't for sexual purposes.
/r/MensRights28/07/19 04:04 AM
–

That sounds like a poll tax. How is that not a poll tax?
/r/MensRights27/05/19 04:41 AM
1

Nah, any comment that isn't either funny or discussion-contributing usually gets downvoted.
/r/MensRights24/05/19 04:09 PM
1

Because it brings nothing to the conversation.
/r/MensRights24/05/19 03:13 PM
1

10/10, you actually got some serious replies to this tripe.
/r/MensRights18/05/19 03:53 AM
1

10/10, you actually got some serious replies to this tripe.
/r/MensRights18/05/19 03:51 AM
1

10/10, you actually got some serious replies to this tripe.
/r/MensRights18/05/19 03:49 AM
1

10/10, you actually got some serious replies to this tripe.
/r/MensRights18/05/19 03:48 AM
5

She and Sophie (who plays her sister on Game of Thrones) are a pair of loons, that's for sure.
/r/MensRights04/04/19 06:37 AM
4

Right. In the vast majority of abortions, no one forced anyone to have sex.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 07:57 PM
1

Not quite. There's an extra layer here: action vs inaction. If no one does anything, in a donor situation the person needing the donation dies, but in a pregnancy the baby (probably) lives. You can't force someone to take action or punish them for non-action in these scenarios unless the person is in some kind of position of responsibility over the others' situation (e.g. a parachute packer and the injured person went skydiving). Just knowing of someone's existence and plight doesn't make you re…
/r/MensRights24/03/19 07:07 PM
5

You're acting like knowing the accusations were false would stop feminists from acting on them.
/r/MensRights23/03/19 05:24 PM
6

I view it as more of a tactic. Once you get a bunch of people earnestly defending Amber saying nothing should happen until a court case, then you can prove once and for all that feminism is about sexism. "They rush to attack the accused when it's a man, even without any evidence, but now are saying to wait when the accused is a woman, even though Johnny Depp has a mountain of evidence."
/r/MensRights23/03/19 05:23 PM
9

Tell me, anyone who uses and believes in toxic masculinity, what exactly in REAL TERMS are you doing to reduce men killing themselves? So you've coined a term and you use it... now what? Now make razor ads telling them what horrible people they are as a whole because they are men. That will convince them, right?
/r/MensRights28/02/19 06:07 PM
12

The debate has shifted beyond this: now the reasons women choose those choices are based on sexism. It's become like the flat-earth post near the top of r/all where the flat-earthers tried to justify why, other than a round earth, their experiment wasn't proving them right.
/r/MensRights26/02/19 03:54 AM
13

The specific term you're looking for that's from those studies is "in-group bias".
/r/MensRights17/02/19 01:29 AM
12

I saw it on Twitter from Titania McGrath, a known satire account.
/r/MensRights16/02/19 09:43 PM
10

Whoa now. Capitalism is a patriarchal tool to keep women down. You mean the communization of Real Feminist.
/r/MensRights31/01/19 09:45 PM
1

With the current barriers in place to and from the market Established by the government, no less. This is why the government setting barriers to entry through expensive legislation consolidates power into the large-and-in-charge hands that already exist out there. To be honest, I don't think I can name a current big name company today that didn't exist about 20 years ago. I think Riot Games kind of qualifies, but they were bought by Chinese conglomerate Tencent barely a year after their only pro…
/r/MensRights22/01/19 07:46 AM
2

Yet another example of "Get woke, go broke."
/r/MensRights15/01/19 07:54 AM
3

This actually changed around 2017. California, seeing the injustice being done to women, responded quickly by banning taking gender into consideration when women were the ones paying more.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 05:51 PM
3

It's no longer in the preface of their statement, but rather in the last paragraph.
/r/MensRights24/12/18 04:48 AM
3

I must've been in the wrong troop.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 02:13 AM
4

Clearly it's because a system that's dependent on your capability disadvantages women. It's why the Venn Diagram for feminists and socialists is almost a circle.
/r/MensRights11/12/18 06:48 PM
2

That would be fair. Except that's now how it works. No need to repeat yourself.
/r/MensRights07/12/18 04:22 AM
1

This guy is absolute scum, but if this woman gets a $2 million a year salary purely for saying "I do", then her new full time job is accounting for where all that money goes. If they it doesn't go towards purely necessities, then he should be able to take her back to court and have it reduced. Marrying someone does not give you an unconditional right to their property for life. It should always be conditional on staying married.
/r/MensRights06/12/18 06:22 PM
24

There is an earnings gap. If Tom and Sally are both paid $10/hr, Tom chose to work 42 hours that week and Sally chose to work 36, why is it their employer's fault (or society's for that matter) that Tom is paid $430 and Sally is paid $360?
/r/MensRights25/11/18 09:37 AM
–

Here's another double standard to keep in your pocket. When talking about Trump and racists, how often do we hear about "Even if Trump is not a racist, his rhetoric emboldens racists to act out so he's bad"? So why can't we say "Even if feminism is not sexist, feminist rhetoric emboldens sexists to act out so it's bad"?
/r/MensRights20/11/18 12:34 AM
1

Study? Because we have a real-world example of Australia implementing blind hiring and stopping it because more men were getting hired. We also have the APA showing a direct correlation between "a strong desire to help others" and career choices while also showing that more girls had that desire. This study also found that women were not any less likely to receive an offer from a company, which goes against the "men conspiring" conspiracy, but instead found that women just choose different jobs.…
/r/MensRights14/11/18 05:22 PM
1

That is not attacking women. That's attacking the mindset of "Men have conspired to keep women out of particular jobs".
/r/MensRights14/11/18 10:48 AM
1

Where do you get "Let's hate women" out of "Men and women are different"?
/r/MensRights14/11/18 09:45 AM
2

You mean Harry Potter.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 09:40 PM
15

Not to mention Obama drank beer as part of a political stunt and no one cared.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 05:56 PM
2

You mean "people guards" from being around the "people inlife-partners" you bigot. "Mates" implies an ability to reproduce which is homophobic and transphobic. Get on the right side of history.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 08:44 PM
14

Polygraphs don't say whether or not something happened. They say someone believes something happened, and are easy to cheat. For that reason, polygraphs are not admissible in court as proof. Those multiple friends that said she told them about the incident were none of the friends she said were at the party. Those friends said it never happened. I don't know why Ford believes Kavanaugh has done this, but she does. No one was able to corroborate Ford's story, and perhaps that's because it was eve…
/r/MensRights06/10/18 04:50 PM
1

This was pretty much my response to some cartoon that was getting passed around the other day of two suits with GOP cufflinks holding down and covering the mouth of Lady Justice. The only assault on justice going on right now is the left's insistence that either they get their kangaroo court or you're a rape apologist.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 08:28 AM
1

I honestly don't think so. It was just the number I pulled from RAINN because that's the source feminists like to use. Right away, I know the real number of valid rape reports ending in conviction is going to be higher because, as someone else said, they assume all rape reports to be valid. Another problem that prevents rape reports from being able to be convicted is that victims often shower right afterwards because they feel disgusting, but that washes off a ton of evidence. I don't doubt that…
/r/MensRights01/10/18 05:10 PM
1

That would be .6% of rapes ending in conviction. I took only the number of reported rapes, which RAINN says is 310 in 1000.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 05:06 PM
4

To phrase what you said differently, that is 5.5% are proven false. This doesn't mean that 94.5% of claims are true though, any more than the 2% of rape reports ending in conviction number means that 98% of reports are false. We just don't know.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 10:08 AM
2

Or why not spring them when the Democrats first heard about them back when his name was first put forth? I can tell you why: For Feinstein/Booker et al, it's not about the sexual assault. It's about stalling until midterms to hopefully get the reins back and replace the swing vote Kennedy with a more liberal judge instead of letting Trump appoint two
/r/MensRights01/10/18 09:57 AM
9

'You are wrong, the term is fine' and not, 'Oh shit, I didn't realise, I'll think of a better way to say what I mean'. Ironically, the proponents of the term "toxic masculinity" are also the biggest advocates of "If someone tells you your language is problematic, don't defend it, just apologize and ask how to be better." As expected, though, "someone" excludes "men".
/r/MensRights26/09/18 02:09 AM
13

This. There's a difference between "I was raped" and "Person X raped me." The first is a cry for help and support, and the person deserves some unless they're the type of pond scum that will lie about something like that. The second is an accusation, and Person X is innocent until proven guilty.
/r/MensRights24/08/18 05:07 PM
1

"People will do it anyway" is not a good reason to legalize (or keep legal) something. People still murder, people still steal, etc. Unfair discrimination against religions? Sure, there's a case to be made there. As far as I understand it, however, Jews have someone who is not a doctor who performs it already, it's only tradition and not religiously required by Muslims, and it's definitely not required by any other religion. With that, you can make an exception to the law saying that it is allow…
/r/MensRights14/08/18 05:42 AM
10

/r/jesuschristreddit
/r/MensRights08/08/18 07:50 AM
3

It's a real shame what that too many people have cried wolf too many times in the name of scoring victim points. It hurts those that actually hurt, such as yourself. Good job getting out though, and good luck in the proceedings.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 11:07 PM
4

There's a fantastic video by a lawyer about never ever talking to the police specifically for this reason, and that the fifth wasn't created to protect criminals, but to protect citizens from a corrupt justice system.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 11:05 PM
3

Purely in the context of the article, so don't read too much into it.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 11:02 PM
13

Right, but claims of "He hits me" and then pictures of bruises gives some kind of story. Claims of "She tells me I'm worthless" is hard to corroborate.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 06:06 PM
5

That's illegal in many states. A lot have laws saying that, in a setting with a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. your own home), all recorded parties have to consent to being recorded.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 05:51 PM
34

I think there are reasons that don't have to do with "avoiding women". "Emotional abuse" is subjective, just like we're seeing with snowflake culture taking hold. Disagree with me? YOU'RE ATTACKING ME! I NEED COLORING BOOKS AND PUPPIES NOW! The evidence of emotional abuse isn't as apparent as physical. It's easy to collect evidence of being choked, hit, or raped. Just take pictures. How do you capture evidence of emotional abuse? Only expert testimony, and it has to come from a psychiatrist that…
/r/MensRights21/07/18 03:46 PM
13

Didn't you hear? Letting men choose for themselves is patriarchy.
/r/MensRights17/07/18 11:33 PM
6

You realize you're equating gathering evidence of someone potentially cheating on you to going out and actually cheating on your partner, right?
/r/MensRights17/07/18 11:32 PM
3

Because clearly women and minorities are inferior to white males. That's the only rationale behind giving preference based on skin color rather than merit. EDIT: Someone needs to learn some reading comprehension. I don't think that women and minorities are inferior. I'm saying that the only reason to believe that white men need to be disadvantaged like this is because you think this.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 01:51 AM
1

Psycho Mantis?!
/r/MensRights03/05/18 04:07 AM
4

Si todos tienen privilegios especiales menos una clase de personas, ¿qué dice esto en cuanto al valor de los de esa clase? If everybody has special privileges except one class of people, what does that say about the worth of those of that class?
/r/MensRights31/03/18 05:03 PM
3

I'd be interested to see how many of these mass shooters come from fatherless homes.
/r/MensRights23/02/18 12:32 AM
1

Again, guys, you should all learn that when they say "gender specific" they only are referring to "male". Also, "humankind" still has "man" in it, so it should be "huperson". Wait, "son" is gender specfic. "Huperchildkind".
/r/MensRights13/02/18 03:06 PM
3

Stupid sexy Flanders....
/r/MensRights11/02/18 08:55 AM
10

Hey, as long as everyone decides on that before sex, sure. Gender equality for the win. If only one gender has to decide on that before sex, then that's sexism.
/r/MensRights11/02/18 08:50 AM
2

Academics, such as professors (especially social science professors), believe that everything they study is actually how it is in the real world, whereas people who are out doing stuff know that there's studying something, and then there's what actually happens. It's kind of like the difference between a guy who has read up a whole bunch on how to do a flip and a gymnast. The gymnast may not be able to tell you the exact physics behind what he does like the guy who read a bunch, but the guy who …
/r/MensRights24/01/18 07:27 AM
5

I've recently invented a new word, and I'm pretty sure it will catch on: plagiarism.
/r/MensRights24/01/18 04:55 AM
1

To academics, there is only reality. To everyone else, there is reality and there is academia.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 08:41 PM
1

Does Oxford think women are less capable at such things than men?
/r/MensRights21/01/18 06:34 PM
15

Could've fooled me.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 04:14 PM
1

Comedy Central is quickly turning into /r/ComedyCemetary
/r/MensRights20/01/18 04:14 PM
2

We need to band together and tell the world why we are needed. Make sure we include a decent break halfway through. Like maybe a nap.
/r/MensRights10/01/18 07:18 AM
4

Admittedly, my wife tells me that "perfect but lengthy" is a huge problem I have. I recently was talking with someone online about some techy concept. At one point I chuckled to myself and she asked what I was doing. So, knowing she is not a techy person, I explained the concept and why I thought the person I was talking to was wrong about their viewpoint. At the end, she just groaned and said, "Why do I ask..." My dad was like this all while I was growing up, so I'm pretty sure I picked it up f…
/r/MensRights10/01/18 05:30 AM
2

In theory, you are correct, however in practice that hardly ends up being the case. Grutter v. Bollinger and Fisher v. University of Texas are two Supreme Court cases that say that racism against white people is okay.
/r/MensRights10/01/18 02:18 AM
7

Let's say you live in a town with a middle street called Main Street. Everyone who lives north of Main Street just happens to be white, and everyone who lives south of Main Street happens to be black. No law was written to force housing like that, it just happened that way. In this town, there are two elementary schools, North Elementary and South Elementary. The school district drew the borders based on the only big street on town because it just made sense for some reason, Main Street. Everyon…
/r/MensRights10/01/18 02:12 AM
6

More of a rhetorical question not asking for the who of protected classes, but the principle, along the lines of "if everyone is super, no one is" but with one person not being "super". The answer being it's not that everyone else is protected, but rather that the unprotected are second-class.
/r/MensRights09/01/18 10:57 PM
4

Here's a question: If everyone but one class of people is a protected class, what does that actually say about that one class?
/r/MensRights09/01/18 05:28 PM
1

If it shames people who fail to meet the goals, that makes it sound more de jure than de facto.
/r/MensRights09/01/18 05:26 PM
5

No, this movement is not like feminism. Not everything is about men, and shoehorning makes it worse. We don't look for victimization where there isn't any.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 08:27 PM
7

No, I think that we should argue against all abuse. Shoehorning in "men are the REAL victims here!" when there is no empirical data presented to suggest such a conclusion is wrong.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 07:14 PM
10

Hey, so, this is borderline what the feminists do. The legislation affects all elderly, and elderly men don't make up a majority of those who face abuse (according to your second article). Instead, you're using an anecdotal article to bolster your point, which is usually what we have to keep fighting against with feminists.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 06:08 PM
1

Luckily private schools don't require government funding. As far as charter schools, there definitely is enough money (we already spend more money per student than any other country and get worse results), it's just getting wasted on failed programs like Social Security.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 04:11 PM
2

'we need more Mexican teachers for Mexican kids' You know what? We really just need a whole Mexican school filled with only Mexican kids so that race can never be a problem for them. And we can do the same with Asian kids, black kids, and white kids. Just help them feel comfortable in their environment so they can learn better. Think of the children!
/r/MensRights29/12/17 06:35 AM
2

Which is why we need private and charter school options.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 06:31 AM
5

Zero to creepy REAL fast.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 06:27 AM
6

Even then, you'll probably have to go through a legal battle where you argue about if the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their workplace.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 07:07 PM
1

Be very careful with this. Some states are two-party states, meaning everyone being recorded has to give their permission to do so.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:00 PM
5

Transgender is a mental illness, so whatever percentage of homeless men have a mental illness, it's less than the 100% of transgender who do.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:57 AM
7

Hey wait, I thought we weren't worrying about men molesting girls in the bathroom. That's what the whole bathroom bill was about.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 12:25 AM
2

No, they fire anybody who dares reject the Collective.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 02:36 PM
1

You can not be doing anything while not being creepy. Are you saying you're having trouble in that department?
/r/MensRights09/10/17 12:35 AM
1

Most people have a gym at work they can go to as well.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 08:32 PM
1

Also, Terry Crews has some advice that I thought was fantastic: when you start going to the gym, don't do anything. Just read a magazine, play games on your phone, socialize, etc. But don't work out. Keep doing this until you look forward to gym time. Then start hitting the weights. The reason for doing this is if you go your first time and you walk out all sore and hurting, you're going to have a negative experience and it'll be hard to get the motivation to go again. Instead, build the routine…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 03:43 PM
7

try having a relationship WITH a woman Happily married, but thanks for the concern. crybaby shit Yeah! They're just drinking fountains and seats on a bus! Why are the black people complaining? listen to the stories I have. Most the women I've heard talk about the stories got management involved like the adults they are and the situation was remedied. lunk heads If you're advocating for a chalk zone, sure, I'm right there with you. Chalk is a choice. Being a man or woman isn't.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 02:02 PM
7

You want to defend this piece of shit Holy strawman, my dude! No one said anything of the kind, but because it makes it easier for you to defend your stance, you are pretending someone did! what are you so upset about that they would have a 200 square foot area of the gym The same thing that caused the women to be so upset that they needed it: uncomfortable around the opposite sex when working out. How about we just get rid of men's and women's bathroom altogether See, this also has nothing to d…
/r/MensRights02/10/17 01:38 PM
14

Probably NSFL. NSFW is like sex/nudity. NSFL is gore.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 08:03 PM
1

I like this part: "Be resume blind - remove any indications of the applicants sex or race...(three lines down)...Make sure you have one woman and one minority race in the interview process for each position." Okay, so are we supposed to be resume blind or not?
/r/MensRights15/06/17 10:34 PM
–

What's this about "fragile masculinity" again?
/r/MensRights14/06/17 02:25 PM
–

Clearly this means we have a stab-culture on our hands and we need to spend money on university campaigns to straight-faced remind women to not stab their boyfriends.
/r/MensRights18/05/17 08:53 PM
1

Just like how we're hard-wired rapists. Makes sense to me.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 03:22 PM
7

"Unexpected".
/r/MensRights06/05/17 09:37 PM
-2

What I love is the equating of "helping a man stay hard" with "killing a child".
/r/MensRights21/02/17 01:36 AM
1

No, it is nitpicking. I'm not "changing partway through the analogy" anything. The company was not part of the original analogy. I never said who the sex "release form" was with. You are the one declaring what things in the analogy mean. Even if there is no perceived life threat for the rape case, yes. There are times when there is a clash of individual rights, yes, but a child's right to live trumps others' rights to not be inconvenienced. A child's right to live doesn't trump a parent's right …
/r/MensRights26/01/17 11:00 PM
1

Again, nitpicking the analogy in order to purposefully miss the point. Actually, there can be multiple reasons for something to happen. Regardless, when you choose to have sex, you are saying you weighed the risks against the benefits and decided the risks were worth it. Sucks that you played Russian Roulette and didn't like the outcome, but that's the outcome. How is ensuring the freedom of a society not beneficial to society? Is freedom not beneficial? Is that what you're trying to say? Why do…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 09:21 PM
1

No, but it makes it so you can't take action against the company. Consenting to sex makes it so you can't take action against any resulting baby. Again, not that hard to understand. Because she came forward about the rape when it happened or, in the case of getting drugged and not knowing about getting raped, she reported getting drugged and it fits the timeline. Who said anything about "think[ing], for no reason, that it's going to harm [me]"? You threw in the "no reason" after I answered. Can …
/r/MensRights26/01/17 07:53 PM
1

Again, completely missing the point of the analogy. When you sign a release form, you aren't doing it because you want to get hurt, but you understand that there is a risk you are accepting because of it and, as such, you are waiving your right to be free from whatever happens in favor of something else. There are other ways to show that someone was raped, even without a criminal trial to try to prove who the rapist is. If you honestly believe that the child is going to do harm, yes. At no point…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 03:52 AM
1

It makes a lot of sense. Ever heard of a release form? It wouldn't matter who raped her, just that it gets determined that she was raped. If we make abortions such that it can only be allowed in the cases of rape, why wouldn't that encourage women to come forward if they've been raped? It does have a right to life, just like everyone has a right to life. However, sometimes there are conflicts of rights, and in that case preference has to be decided. In the case of breaking and entering, the burg…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 10:08 PM
1

I never said I'm expecting everyone to only have sex when they want a baby. You asked how you would determine if someone had been raped in order to process with the abortion. I've answered that question probably around 10 times already. If you don't get it by now there's no helping you.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 08:02 PM
1

I didn't say the child deserves to die.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 07:58 PM
1

Giving someone medical care due to a car accident doesn't involve killing someone, and the biological function of driving isn't to crash. Or, you know, rape kits. "Any other medical procedure" doesn't kill someone. There have to be special circumstances.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 02:46 PM
1

Yes, there is. A baby conceived in consensual sex was given consent to form. A baby conceived in rape was not. That's why a woman has more leeway. It's really not this hard to understand.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 03:06 AM
1

You keep missing the point of the analogy. The point is, no one was let into the house, ergo the property owner has more options when it comes to protecting what is his or hers. I wouldn't be fine with it, no, but it is preferable to the current situation.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 08:38 PM
1

No, not at all. That's like saying because I think you should be able to kill someone who breaks into your house that I don't care about murder. The two situations are different. I writing say yes as well. However, in the name of equality, I say that if we're going to allow women to abort, men should have the option to "abort" as well. If we force men to stick to a child they may not want, we should do the same for women.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 05:36 PM
1

Yep. In that case the mother didn't consent to her body being used. In that case it's up to her to decide. I'm not saying every child conceived of rape should or has to be killed, I'm just saying that the mother has a little more leeway in that situation.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 04:49 PM
1

There is an exception in the case of rape and in that case it is up to the victim to determine if they want to abort or not. A person does not have the right to murder their child just because their child is a mooch. Don't worry, I'm not wavering. I appreciate the concern though.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 03:06 PM
1

That's for the mother to determine. I've refuted it many times. When it comes to parents, there are special rules when it comes to taking care of them. One of the "not special" rules is you are not allowed to kill anyone except in self-defense. Unless you can prove that the mother's life is in reasonable danger because of the pregnancy, her (or his, when it comes to providing financially) convenience does not trump the child's rights. You have yet to refute that. Donating organs or not is a pass…
/r/MensRights24/01/17 03:11 AM
1

Yep. If that child poses a danger to me and I am not responsible for the situation I am in, sure. A lot better than thinking it okay to murder children in all situations, don't you think? Because birth control is not 100% effective, and everyone knows it. They decided to take the risk, however small. I'm not expecting that of anyone. Giving up for adoption is also an option. Sad that those women would rather die than be pregnant.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 12:52 AM
1

If she believes the baby poses some kind of threat, if she really wants to. She never consented to it being there. No, abortion is not necessary. If your family planning involves murdering your children, then you are one psychopathic individual. You should be responsible for your choices. Government should not allow murder.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 11:52 PM
1

Because at that point she never consented for the child to use her body. Makes sense to me. I'm not telling people if they should or shouldn't. I'm saying that, given their desires to not have children, then it would be in their best interest to not risk it. If they do decide to risk it, oh well. That's not the child's fault and as such the child doesn't deserve to be killed. It is a false dichotomy.You said either we legalize abortions or we have a bunch of kids in the welfare system. How about…
/r/MensRights23/01/17 11:14 PM
1

Sorry, I don't see that anywhere in any definition.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 11:04 PM
1

Because it is not there by consent of anyone except the rapist. Akin to "breaking and entering", if you will. You can't let someone in your front door and then shoot them for trespassing. It's considered a person with rights in 38 states where murdering a pregnant woman at any stage of pregnancy is considered "double homicide". That includes far-left California. No one is punishing women for having sex. If anyone considers it a punishment, then maybe they shouldn't be risking children. I don't w…
/r/MensRights23/01/17 10:33 PM
1

You're saying it's not a child. In no way does it not fit the definition of "child" unless you can prove it's not human.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 10:23 PM
1

Is a fetus a human? Is it below the legal age of majority or below the age of puberty? Well, the last criteria is undeniably true. You'll have to prove it's not human.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 08:06 PM
1

It should be blanket banned except in cases of rape or the mother's life is in danger. Unless you can prove on a case-by-case basis that the child can survive outside the womb (which was your original criteria), then you cannot ban it at any point. That is the issue, actually. The child is already receiving care, and then the parent tries to come along and kill their child while care is being given. No, you knew regardless that sex results in children and that there's always a chance that it can…
/r/MensRights23/01/17 08:05 PM
1

You can't kill a child when you don't want it anymore. "That is the end of the discussion".
/r/MensRights23/01/17 03:08 PM
1

And some babies have survived as early as 21 weeks, so again, unless you can prove with 100% accuracy that a baby will not survive, the condition is arbitrary. And yes, I did. I'm sorry that you may have missed it. When it comes to being a parent, you cannot legally deny your child medical care. If your kid is already hooked up the the dialysis machine, you can't unplug the machine. Also, everyone involved already consented to the potential outcome of a child when they had sex. Otherwise that's …
/r/MensRights23/01/17 03:07 PM
1

Okay, so how do you determine if a child is able to live outside the womb? It's not the same for every fetus. Unless you can 100% pinpoint when an unborn child will be able to survive outside the womb, you are drawing arbitrary lines. No one forced the person to have sex (in 99.5% of abortion cases, that is).
/r/MensRights23/01/17 04:54 AM
1

The source said that 4% had their primary concern be for the mother's health, .5% were because of rape. If you can't afford it, you will be severely inconvenienced with either needing to fill out government paperwork to receive aid or another job to support the kid. That's just inconvenience.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 04:53 AM
1

It is arbitrary. Why does passing through a vaginal canal suddenly make you deserving of rights? In 95% of cases it is a matter of convenience, and only in .018% of cases in the US is it fatal to the mother, and we don't even know how many of those are completely unexpected. The risk of death is too small to justify killing the child. You are not killing people when you take Nyquil or Penicillin.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 04:38 AM
1

So you're going to arbitrarily deny humans their human rights in favor of someone else's convenience. That sounds awfully familiar. No one is forcing anyone to do anything with their body they do not want to do. If they really had no intention of having kids, they should not have had sex. When you have sex, you also consent to the biological consequences of your actions. That's like saying you consent to getting shot in the face but you're not consenting to dying because of it.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 03:36 AM
1

I wouldn't call the right to life a legal right, but rather a human one. It's not granted to you by government but by the fact that you are human. You can't deny them the transplant, either.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 11:05 PM
1

Oh? Then what species is it? It is alive and has a full set of human DNA, but it's not human? The law is different when it comes to parents and children. I can kick a bum of a relative out of my house. I can't kick my kid out of the house. I can refuse to medically support my own brother. I can't refuse to medically support my child.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 07:35 PM
4

While pregnancy is a medical condition, the "cure" involves killing a human life. I don't agree with that.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 08:09 AM
–

Don't know about the second part, but I will not fight for abortion rights unless a man's right to an "abortion" (e.g. sign away all parental rights within a certain timeframe and not have to pay child support) is included in whatever legislation they write up.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 03:36 AM
4

Well, to respond to 153, "Did you not close your legs because you were afraid?" is a terribly leading question that, while I don't know about Canada, would not be allowed in the US courts. As far as 154, that explains when he was performing oral on her, not when he was penetrating her, which is the event they were discussing when the question in question was asked.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 04:27 PM
3

That's how judges do in Canada.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 04:22 PM
1

Nah, don't feel stupid. I don't think the joke got crazy popular, I just happened to see it on imgur as I was browsing dank memes.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 11:24 PM
–

Its a joke that Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau's father based on a picture of his mom with Fidel, the claim that "she was quite promiscuous" (though no evidence of that is given), and a series of pictures comparing their facial features to explain why the very left-leaning Trudeau wrote a nice eulogy for a man who tortured and killed gays and political opponents.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 07:45 AM
–

I don't know why you were heavily down voted, if my assumption of your "suck it up" statement being the societal attitudes towards men in such a situation.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 05:10 PM
1

There are bigger things to worry about than what a dramatic man says to get a rise out of people. Also, you're pro-Clinton and post regularly on 2XC and /r/HillaryClinton. You're not here for a serious discussion, but rather to "gotcha!" us. Have a nice stay.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 11:04 PM
1

Not really. Traditionally, "Jew" refers to a descendant of Judah, which was one of the sons of Israel, who was also known as Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. Nowadays, it refers to any descendant of one of Israel's twelve sons. More traditional Jews use only matriarchal descent, meaning one is only a Jew if their mother was a Jew (as the mother was the only parent of a child they could determine with 100% accuracy). More modern Jews say that someone whose mother or father is a Jew would be c…
/r/MensRights21/09/16 04:01 PM
15

Well, because according to feminism that is the dichotomy of the sexes: men are adults, women are children. Men need to always be able to judge how drunk a woman is before even asking to engage in sex. Failure to do so can result in sexual assault charges. The woman is also incapable of defending herself and any request that she learn how to do so is absolutely offensive because it mocks her powerlessness. A woman cannot earn things on her own merits and must be given special consideration due t…
/r/MensRights31/08/16 07:39 AM
4

No one disagrees with that. What we are "celebrating", for lack of a better term, is that it did happen to a woman, so maybe feminists will start caring.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 03:24 PM
2

Do you have links to each of those emails? This sounds like awesome ammo.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 04:26 PM
5

If it's not a race, why include race in your descriptors? It's a way to be racist without admitting racism. Seriously, you can't be so blind as to not see it.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 04:19 PM
2

Its the same statement and uses the same sources. Again, what about the training that Syrian rebels received in 2013?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 08:15 PM
3

Sorry, I meant the fact of whether or not he is a Muslim. It doesn't matter, really. Your linked article investigates the one memo that Trump used to make the claim and then quotes from the government's PR department. Forgive me for not taking the PR department's word at face value. Sure, the memo doesn't state exactly what Trump claimed, but it doesn't go into the training that Syrian rebels, who eventually became ISIS, received. Someone else could get away with it as much as Trump has, yes.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 08:05 PM
3

Mind linking him making that claim? I mean, the fact that Obama is a Muslim is of little importance, but supporting ISIS could come from the idea that Obama gave ISIS weapons and training to fight Assad. Trump has said multiple things that would destroyed any other camp So more speculation.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:49 PM
3

Ah, so speculation. Potentially because what he lies about vs what she lies about aren't the same. For example, she lied multiple times in her claims about her email server and then deleted thousands of those emails in order to avoid being found out. Mind pointing out a similar perjurious claim from Trump?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:46 PM
5

I've never denied that he's a liar. I've only asked for sources for your claim that he gets away with lying more than Hillary does. And you've provided nothing. So, by failing to produce anything of worth, you've admitted to speculating. Is it time to punch that timecard yet?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:41 PM
4

So the link you posted pulls from one guy's subjective observations, and unless he is constantly with both Trump and Clinton and hearing every claim they make, he is also getting his observations filtered through the media. He also includes things from Politifact. So, here's my standard list of questions for anyone pulling metadata such as this from Politifact (I don't expect you to have these answers, as no one I've asked does): What is Politifact's methodology for selecting which statements to…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:37 PM
3

According to what source has he lied more than Clinton?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:27 PM
1

For the fiftieth time, that's not the claim we've been talking about. It's the claim that he gets away with it more than Hillary does. So again, are you going to try again, or have you put in your hours for the day?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:25 PM
2

Speculation is all you've done in this thread, so that's a lie. Want to try again, or are you going to clock out?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:21 PM
2

We have gone over this, so that's why I find your lack of response to the idea that it just so happens to be a list of her donors so fascinating.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:18 PM
2

Plural? Oh man, what are you going to do with your last one?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:16 PM
2

It's not even unethical first of all, because they didn't do anything. It's not unethical to sell political seats? Weird, because I thought corporate cronyism was everyone's major complaint with the current system. Apparently you have no problem with it. Ah, yes, the Russia claim, one based on nothing except a small shred of evidence from a company paid for by the DNC in order to deflect from their own corruption.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:15 PM
2

It's one thing to claim a shill when there is no evidence that shills for that person exist. It's another to claim a shill when there is. Like the super PAC admitting it has shills for Hillary. No, you said I said there was no evidence they were conspiring, that's a lie. Please bold the word "conspire" in that quote of mine. I can't seem to find it. Yeah, no. You threw out shill before the insults pal. "Shill" isn't so much an insult as it is a logical conclusion based on several factors that ha…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:12 PM
3

Who said anything about claiming it as illegal? I'm just saying it's highly, highly unethical.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:07 PM
2

No, it just isn't relevant. Maybe if you repeat it enough it'll become true. If that doesn't work, try getting louder and more aggressive. No, what I said is there no evidence it was put into practice, but nice try. ...That's exactly what I said you had said. Who's the one lacking reading comprehension again? Lmao, you come out of the gates accusing me of being a shill and have the nerve to say this. What a world. That's not entirely accurate. I "came out of the gates" asking you for evidence fo…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:04 PM
3

You're right, you don't, it's just a happens to be a list of some of her biggest donors.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 07:03 PM
2

This is 0% relevant dude, it's easy to spot shills and anyone throwing shill accusations out in the fashion you are just doesn't know what you're talking about. Just because you can't see how its relevant doesn't mean it isn't. Again, you're a liar. I didn't say they were not real. No, you've just said that there's no evidence that they stifled Bernie's campaign. And then you end it all with senseless name-calling! Man, is this what third-graders do during the summer? Can't wait for school to st…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:50 PM
3

Okay, okay, you got me. They aren't literally selling the seats. They're just taking taking their list of donors and figuring out which donor should go to which board.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:45 PM
2

Uh, it takes a really fucking stupid person to throw shill accusations out dude. According to whom? Especially when her super PAC has admitted to paying people to defend her on social media? simply saying I'm a shill doesn't refute any arguments I've made. Hey, you've managed to say something that's actually true. You're right, just because you're a shill doesn't mean that your arguments are wrong. However, it does mean that there's no use talking to you since you can see the contents of the DNC…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:32 PM
4

Except it isn't indefensible, not even slightly. To call the DNC a corrupt organization that subverts the democratic process and sells federal positions to the highest bidder? Yeah, that's way indefensible to argue against that. We have it all right in their emails, plain as day. Saying anything else is an extreme case of denial. I doubt you even have the mental ability to make it to the polls based on what I've seen here. If anyone who is able to back their claims up with evidence and logical c…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:27 PM
2

Ah, so more anecdotal evidence to make a hasty generalization in order to attack with an association fallacy. Now remember that your mock trial section back in elementary school doesn't apply here, so calling someone doo-doo head isn't the next step you're supposed to take here.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:24 PM
4

No, I'm calling you a shill because you are taking an indefensible position and have been for over 24 hours straight, apparently finding any instance of "Hillary" on Reddit and defending her to the tune of around 20 downvotes per post, sometimes getting as high as 111 downvotes. Now you continue on with senseless name-calling. Tell your boss that I'm still not voting for her, especially not so after her intern has treated me the way you have. Good day!
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:21 PM
13

Hey look! Baseless name-calling! Welp, looks like you've lost. Good day.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:16 PM
2

And you are basing this claim on....?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:16 PM
–

That's great, but there is evidence that you are, in fact, a social media account owned by multiple people. Multiple people only form one social media account when there is something to be gained from having a constant presence online. Now, judging from your post history, that goal is to protect the DNC image at any cost, even if it means throwing around accusations against your own political enemies, just as you complain that others are doing to you. So, assume all you want, you've been found o…
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:10 PM
2

Again, never said Trump wasn't getting away with it. Clearly, by the standard you've just set up, Clinton also gets away with it or she wouldn't have made it out of the DNC primary. But again, your claim is not that Trump gets away with lying, it's that he gets away with lying more than Hillary does. And again, you've failed to provide any facts, just a bunch of smoke and mirrors to avoid being found out for the paid HRC Campaign intern that you are. Protip: If you don't want to be found out to …
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:10 PM
–

No, the idea that you're a shill has to do with the incessant defending of the DNC you've done over at least 24 hours without seeming to take a break. About 300 posts over 24 straight hours. That's 1 post every 5 minutes on average, all of it defending the corruption in the DNC and making wild and baseless claims such as "Every 'neverclinton' I've run into was secretly a Trumper disguised as a liberal."
/r/MensRights25/07/16 06:03 PM
2

I don't call it anything. Yeah, nobody is hounding him for anything. And even then, the claim is who gets away with it more. You have no numbers for this claim and therefore it's biased anecdotal evidence, which is worth nothing. Until you can come up with those numbers from a credible source, we're done here.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 04:49 PM
2

Again, not saying he doesn't lie. The question is if he "gets away with it".
/r/MensRights25/07/16 04:29 PM
4

Eh, even then the fact-checking websites are very unscientific and therefore hardly anything to base an informed opinion on anything as meta as "who lies more". Sounds like the claim of Trump getting away with lies is unable to be proven, meaning it has no place in a proper debate.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 04:27 PM
6

But again, show us hard numbers. Sure, Trump gets away with lying. Hillary does too (every step of the email scandal was lie after lie after lie). The question is how much do they get away with it? And that's what the hard numbers are for.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 03:50 PM
–

Oh, you're basing your conclusions on what you perceive to be true? That's called anecdotal evidence, sweetie. Show us some hard numbers about who the media gives more attention to for lying.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 03:29 PM
5

Just going to point out that economists actually get many things on the macro level horribly wrong. Its a terrible guessing game in macroeconomics, so purely because they say something doesn't necessarily mean its going to happen. Economists are great at microeconomics, and that's primarily why the field exists.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 03:27 PM
1

Well, its comparable if the cult/monastery chemically castrated you.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 06:22 PM
1

Except not if we're saying that he got banned for implying that the fake tweets were real by replying to her tweets about the fake tweets. That would be getting banned because idiots don't realize the fake tweets are fake, which is what I was referring to.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 04:58 AM
–

So it sounds like Milo is being punished because other people are gullible idiots. Those fake tweets are really obviously fake.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 01:30 AM
1

....How does that imply that they are real?
/r/MensRights22/07/16 01:05 AM
2

She's like that aunt you have that's just getting into chatspeak.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 01:01 AM
–

What we do know is that suicide rates go up 10 years post-operation.
/r/MensRights14/07/16 11:21 PM
1

That makes much more sense. Thanks.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 05:02 PM
7

....Doesn't that make the urine test not voluntary if the options are "Consent to the urine test or we'll shove a catheter up your urethra and get your urine to test anyway"?
/r/MensRights12/07/16 08:59 AM
6

I agree wholeheartedly. It's an unlikable movie because they are entirely rewriting the "history" of Ghostbusters, when in reality this could feasibly have been done as an actual sequel.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 04:17 PM
3

Sorry, with the "except one of them being black" comment, I thought we were talking about physical appearance. Yeah, their personalities are nothing like the original.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 03:50 PM
–

I agree with you, except on the first point. Kate McKinnon looks pretty much exactly like Egon, especially if you look at the original movie's Egon, then the cartoon's, and then Kate McKinnon's portrayal.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 03:24 PM
–

Actually, this one time I used anecdotal evidence in an argument and it turned out I was right, so anecdotal evidence is obviously the best way to support an argument.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 06:23 AM
5

Imperialist homophobia When you are being hateful, it helps to spew the longest string of pseudo-intellectual bullshit to make yourself sound like you aren't being a hateful piece of trash.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 07:02 PM
5

I could've sworn they were going to release a teaser trailer for a new Batman movie.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 11:06 PM
1

Even then, if you're a successful but butt-ugly guy, that still won't be considered "dating down", just expected. Granted, a really attractive woman wouldn't be "dating down" to you, but you would definitely be considered "dating up".
/r/MensRights08/06/16 02:39 PM
1

Because there's no such thing as "dating down" for men because we're lucky that a woman would grace us with her constant companionship. /s
/r/MensRights08/06/16 03:00 AM
3

Maybe the men in Denver should start "dating down" and going for fat women. I have a friend in a mixed-weight relationship and he loves it!
/r/MensRights07/06/16 06:45 PM
–

Translation: "I love that I don't have to compromise on anything, because that would classify us as a healthy relationship."
/r/MensRights07/06/16 04:36 PM
1

In a case with two adults, I agree with you. However, we're talking about an adult and a child.
/r/MensRights06/06/16 12:03 AM
4

Power dynamic refers to social power, so possibly, but we trust the adult woman to come forward about it or, if someone else notices something and reports it, to at least tell the truth about it if confronted. Because she's an adult and not a 13-year-old child. Would you say you wanted to bang an adult more than you wanted to bang someone your own age back then? That there was something more alluring about it being an adult than someone in your own age group? That is why we have laws about sex w…
/r/MensRights04/06/16 03:48 PM
2

If we are going to say that someone under duress isn't able to make well-informed decisions enough to be held accountable for them (which is the reasoning behind entrapment, for example), then we have a situation where a student did not have the capability to give a well-informed decision when it came to whether or not to have sex with their teacher. Being coerced under threat, whether explicit or implicit, to have sex with someone is rape.
/r/MensRights04/06/16 09:58 AM
–

But you can ask the student about it: "Did (s)he threaten you or force you in any way?" It's a simple yes or no question. Then, the student, being in a distraught state and not thinking rationally, lies and says "No", fearing whatever consequence the teacher threatened if they had told the truth. This "power dynamic" is mostly a myth since, as I have stated about a dozen times now, if anyone threatens or forces someone to have sex it's clearly rape regardless of their age or social standing That…
/r/MensRights04/06/16 09:54 AM
–

Yes, a teenager can, but what happens when the teacher does threaten the 13-year-old with something? How would you prove it? He-said-she-said? Yeah, we all know how that works out for the "he" in those cases. I am much more okay with telling teachers to keep it in their pants for 5 years than telling the rape victim, male or female, that it wasn't actually rape. Which is quite silly and is a result of puritanical anti-male sentiments saying "teh evil menz corrupt our daughters!" No, it comes fro…
/r/MensRights04/06/16 09:20 AM
–

They can give consent just fine if their partner is about their age, but not if their partner is older? How's that logical? There's a power dynamic. You cannot be held accountable for anything you do when someone is essentially forcing you to do something. Since there is no readily-apparent threat to the person in the weaker position in this case (such as a gun being held to their head), the law just blanket-statements all sex with a minor as non-consensual (with, in most cases, the exception of…
/r/MensRights04/06/16 08:56 AM
1

You know, I've gotten to the point with feminists where I say, "You know how you have those sexist programs that are there to 'help' women, justified by 'Women have been taken advantage of all these years'? Well, I get paid more because I have to be willing, at a moment's notice, to go die for my country should they call upon me. I have to never be around a park without a significant other otherwise I get branded a pedophile. I have to always be the arrested one in domestic violence. I have to h…
/r/MensRights25/05/16 03:06 PM
–

....You realize /u/cuteman is being sarcastic when he says that women are paid $.77 to the dollar, right?
/r/MensRights22/05/16 07:37 AM
15

You haven't heard? Failing a female student is academic rape.
/r/MensRights12/05/16 03:50 AM
1

Wow, I didn't realize I-84 was that long... it goes all the way to Portland, OR.
/r/MensRights11/05/16 05:05 PM
3

For all those that want to better understand feminist logic, download the XKCD extension "Clouds to butts", add your own filter, and have it translate "a social construct" or "socially constructed" to "beyond my understanding".
/r/MensRights08/05/16 07:09 AM
2

I don't want to get to Scotland before anyone, though....
/r/MensRights13/04/16 02:58 PM
13

It's a sad state when talking about men getting better resources for things like getting raped is declared "anti-feminist". Draw conclusions from that statement as you will.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 03:01 AM
9

....NAFALT? Is that an acronym for something? EDIT: Googled it. Heh.
/r/MensRights09/04/16 12:14 AM
7

Because men are superior, therefore we have the higher standard. I wish I could put a /s on this, but this is what feminism leads me to believe with all the focus being put on men protecting women's feelings, men taking responsibility for any sexual encounter even if he's drunk, men getting harsher sentencing for a physical altercation with a woman, even if she started it, because "he's stronger and therefore should restrain himself."
/r/MensRights30/03/16 10:19 PM
10

Have you ever been in an abusive relationship? I mean, I don't disagree with your final point of reporting all violence by women immediately, but it's a terrifying thing when the one who supposedly cares about you the most treats you that way. Not only is it personally and emotionally degrading, but you think "Well, this is the woman that loves me the most and this is how she treats me, how would someone else treat me?" It becomes a trap, where you convince yourself that the good does outweigh t…
/r/MensRights30/03/16 07:36 PM
7

As a man who has gone through depression to the point of contemplating suicide (twice) and not feeling like I could actually talk to anybody about it, the line "Keeping men alive by talking" brought a tear to my eye. I wish more places could be focused on helping men like this.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 07:25 PM
6

INSTAMAN adj./ The fantasy photographic life you create online with all the realities edited out. #ManDictionary Campaign Against Living Miserably CALM Keeping men alive by talking To donate, text CALM15 £3 or £5 to 70070 www.thecalmzone.net
/r/MensRights30/03/16 07:23 PM
1

It seems like we're getting into the minutia of the point, but do you have a source for this?
/r/MensRights30/03/16 02:17 AM
1

I should've clarified that I was working under her definition of appropriation.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 02:16 AM
9

I stand corrected on the "nowhere" part. Now she just has to prove that she's Moroccan to stay, otherwise she's still appropriating.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 11:22 PM
–

Yeah, universities aren't part of the culture anywhere in Africa until they appropriated it from the Greeks. If she's so concerned about other people not taking "her culture" (I doubt she's even been outside of the US, let alone lived in Africa for a significant amount of time), she shouldn't take from others'.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 04:55 PM
1

While this will never get off the ground, it's really easy to frame the debate in a pro-male way: You're either pro-choice or pro-money.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 09:01 AM
-3

Let's be real here: a fertilized, developing egg is much more of a baby than a sperm is. For starters, the aforementioned egg has a complete set of human DNA that it is splitting and building a fully functional body off of. Your sperm, on the other hand, loses its flagella after 72 hours.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 08:38 AM
5

My favorite irony is that Bernie Panders recently got a bunch of praise for refuting the idea of trickle-down economics, with those praising him saying "Can't believe anyone still believes in the that after so many economists have disproved it." My response: ...You mean like the wage gap?
/r/MensRights08/03/16 06:00 PM
10

Criminalize false accusations and you can put someone away regardless.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 05:56 PM
7

Voyager*. My favorite one of all the Star Trek TV series.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 01:00 PM
26

Maybe if she died, too, feminists would actually care.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 12:58 PM
1

Irritable Male Syndrome is something that is being looked at in humans.
/r/MensRights02/03/16 03:20 AM
–

Men are given a week each month of sick-leave that doesn't rollover month to month then, too, right?
/r/MensRights01/03/16 07:23 PM
1

Before anybody jumps on the fact that she isn't being charged with any kind of rape: This is the UK. Their child rape laws only call it rape if the child is 13 or under (although, yes, only allows men to be convicted of the crime). Sex with children that are still underage but older than 13 are all classified exactly how she was charged, no deviations in regard to her gender.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 10:57 AM
2

But that's just it: that's textbook cognitive dissonance. How do we break it?
/r/MensRights25/02/16 06:17 PM
2

Sorry, the grammar of my post was a little weird. I'm referring to things like the draft, alimony, etc. not being cared for when it happens to men but the second a woman has to pay alimony everyone is up in arms about the whole system, and why feminists don't take that as evidence of who really is the one with privilege.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 06:17 PM
–

The part that just gets by proverbial goat is this bit: Ramirez, whose teaching license was revoked, says the damage is done. "I am taking legal action against both Tristan and his mother for invasion of privacy, videotaping the sexual encounter without my knowledge and then distributing it to his friends, and for emotional distress," she says. "I'm suing the mom because I feel it's not right to call out someone in the media. Now people look at me as a sexual predator...." Excuse me? You mean li…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 12:14 PM
8

As a frequent sarcastic commentator, for me personally, it's because we live in a culture of using comedy to make points instead of being able to rationally debate it out, so I'll play to the culture instead of trying to be rational, since it's apparent rationality has gone out the window. Also personal opinion, no phrasing of an issue, proper or "whining" (which I don't see sarcasm as whining, but that's a different story) arising out of this subreddit will give it the traction it needs to actu…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 08:27 PM
6

Two rapes cancel each other out. It's why women can't rape each other. Duh.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 06:08 PM
6

I'll kind of agree with you, it makes it kind of fishy. What was the relationship between the two? Was she a babysitter? Teacher? Some other kind of professional/family member that made it so she couldn't get away from him? If she really is afraid of him, why would she keep driving back to meet up with him unless she was one of those professions that can't get away from kids like this?
/r/MensRights24/02/16 06:06 PM
–

That was always something I thought was hilarious when my female friends would complain about a guy not asking them out. Me: "Well, you should ask him out then." Her: "No way! I'm way too nervous. What if he says no? What if he's not interested in me?" Me: "Welcome to the life of men."
/r/MensRights10/02/16 06:27 PM
2

Wait, so what happens if I hit Level 7 sex? Should I put all my skill points into Breast-Fondling or Clitoris-Finding? I'm a level 24 Technologist if that changes things.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 05:01 PM
0

There should still be consequences for her actions against her father. Filing a false police report, perjury, and libel are all crimes.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 11:39 PM
1

The two concepts, mercy (compassion) and justice are always at odds with each other. If we pardon someone, then justice is not satisfied. If we punish them, mercy was not extended. Don't get me wrong, it's always nice when someone can learn from their actions without the need for punishment, but in this case, letting her slide would further the narrative that men are second-class citizens. Consider flipping the genders. Would we still be calling for compassion on a male perpetrator of such an ac…
/r/MensRights21/01/16 05:08 AM
6

Hopefully the down votes clued you in enough on this, but just because someone is making bad choice after bad choice doesn't mean they get to ruin someone's life scot-free. If I get addicted to drugs, blow my life savings on hookers and blackjack, then feel really bad about all of that, it doesn't mean I get to now just go off and kill someone with no threat of judicial action.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 08:54 AM
6

It's called "paranoia".
/r/MensRights18/01/16 07:38 PM
8

So... only men can be potential friends or family with their abusers? Being attacked by a man gives justifiable reason to be sexist? Well, that's good news! See, I own a restaurant in Detroit, and most of my customers have been victims of violent crime at the hands of black people, so I'm just going to bar black people from my restaurant in order to protect my customers.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 07:44 PM
1

You know, if any woman actually tried that, an easy response would be, "Well, I didn't think you were the kind of person to levy stupid rape claims, yet here you are, so you raped me."
/r/MensRights06/12/15 05:10 PM
3

Then it just becomes prostitution!
/r/MensRights04/12/15 04:34 PM
2

Well, not entirely. Right off the bat, spousal support is unfair to men because, regardless of who actually was the breadwinner or if the both people in the marriage had decent jobs, it is typically the man paying the woman. I mean, I agree that the "for infinity" clause is ridiculous, and it definitely shouldn't be half, but I think there are ways that it is unfair for men that don't also make it unfair for women.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 06:47 AM
1

I think it's great that the time when the word "equality" hit its peak, "feminism" reached its low-point.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 05:03 PM
2

What display? Not everyone here follows MMA press conferences.
/r/MensRights15/11/15 08:39 AM
4

So... what about Rousey being baited to talk about income inequality (which, as far as I've seen, she's got a reasonable view on it) has you hoping her opponent gets paid twice as much...?
/r/MensRights15/11/15 08:26 AM
1

Except so many of his motions are captured from Mark Ruffalo's performance.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 11:54 PM
1

I thought that was saying that it also can't be called a kidnapping if the father is there. I'm talking about either parent running off with a child and having it called a kidnapping.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 04:04 PM
1

Chris Evans -- Human Torch in Fantastic Four, main character in Push, a main character in Sunshine, Lucas Lee (2nd Ex) in Scott Pilgrim vs The World, main character in Not Another Teen Movie, main character in The Losers. Jeremy Renner -- main character in Hurt Locker, main character in Bourne Legacy, main character in 28 Weeks Later, a main character in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol Chris Hemsworth -- main character in Ca$h, main character in A Perfect Getaway, George Kirk in the new Star …
/r/MensRights11/11/15 04:02 PM
3

Are you sure? I've heard several cases of one of the parents suddenly running off with a child or children and being called a kidnapper.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 03:31 PM
13

I always love this excuse, because: Isn't the patriarchy 'the system'? Should we just not care when a group of people does things "to themselves"? Meaning we shouldn't care that black people have a high rate of getting murdered because it's other black people that murder them?
/r/MensRights11/11/15 03:27 PM
10

And she makes no attempt to hide it either. It's all in the same breath.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 03:28 PM
4

I think it's also disgusting how they blurred her face at the start, but I guarantee you his face went unblurred in the news from the second she pointed the finger at him.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 02:58 AM
1

Uh... what's domestic violence about this? She's swinging the gavel in an exaggerated manner of how a judge would. Don't go horseshoe on us here.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 06:58 PM
–

Oh? And how are they fighting rape? By creating policies that increase the number of false rape claims! Feminist logic abounds....
/r/MensRights21/10/15 05:49 PM
5

You know, there should be a sub, kind of like /r/MRRefs, that's dedicated to be a collection of these kind of double standards. Like, not one for people to comment on and poke fun of (let's face it, it makes fun of itself), but so that way if we ever need to pull out examples of how much men are discriminated against in a double-standard kind of way.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 05:24 PM
0

I... don't think replacement rates work like that. I guess I don't fully understand where the replacement rate number comes from. Is is the number of successful births (children that live to age of reproduction) required per woman in order to maintain a stable population? Or is it just the number of children a woman needs to birth at all, meaning it includes children that are born and die in childhood? Because the 2.1 number makes sense because, for most of typical reproduction age, men slightly…
/r/MensRights19/10/15 04:30 AM
–

Feminists: "Men should be able to open up more about things that are bothering them!" Man: "Look, this is really bothering me." Feminists: ...salty male tears. Seriously though, what a cry baby.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 03:57 PM
-1

I like this Coleen lady.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 08:44 PM
1

Yes, barring a shift in women to change that tendency.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 08:41 PM
3

Considering I saw a statistic here about 4 months ago that showed that when women get power they are more likely to abuse (more so than men, which is ironic considering what society teaches...), I wouldn't doubt that a lot of those are increased incidents.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 02:53 PM
2

"Diane Smith-Gander posits that women can't survive in a meritocracy"
/r/MensRights14/10/15 04:39 PM
2

I think any place that offers help to anyone suffering from domestic violence closing down is negative. I don't view it as negative if they are closing down because they couldn't not be sexist, but I would still consider it negative. I would hope she does as well.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 07:39 PM
14

For those confused, this furthers the vilification of men because we still have the societal standard that men make the first move. This means that more often than not he will be accused of rape if the "yes means yes" standard is applied. He is the one that is doing things to her, typically, and if she never says yes then he technically raped, under these laws.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 06:02 PM
–

Many charities have been told that they must extend their counselling and outreach services to men because of new equality laws which require local authorities to ensure that services do not discriminate on grounds of sex. Fiona Mactaggart, the former Home Office minister, said an "unintended consequence" of the law has meant some domestic violence services have lost grants or contracts for refusing to do so. "I can't believe that a law intended to bring about equality is being used to bring abo…
/r/MensRights13/10/15 05:55 PM
6

This is definitely a leap in the right direction.
/r/MensRights13/10/15 05:49 PM
–

I love watching the brunette's facial expressions the whole video. Could she get more childish? EDIT: "We really need to talk about where you get these figures from, Mike... oh, you women are going to just throw out statistics? Cool!" EDIT2: Favorite line from this whole thing: "Why do women always need to be incentivized? Why do women need role models? For God's sake, are they adults or are they sheep?"
/r/MensRights13/10/15 07:45 AM
1

Ooh, that might be a way to attack it. Say that feminists promote rape culture by appropriating the original "rape culture", referring to men in prison getting raped, to only refer to things about women and erasing the male victims. It's a double whammy. Not only are they against rape culture, they are also against appropriating things and yet have promoted both in their insistence of a rape culture.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 08:14 AM
1

And at the same time, prenups are so finicky that they often provide no protection at all.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 08:10 AM
4

I think if Alice's words put Bob's life in danger, Alice should be held responsible, much like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not free speech because it puts the lives of everyone around at risk.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 08:07 AM
3

@3:30, is that Zooey Deschanel playing her New Girl character? There is no one anyone is that awkward in real life.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 07:16 AM
3

Yep. It's the extremely unscientific and dishonest concept of "internalized misogyny". A woman is saying something anti-feminist? Internalized misogyny!
/r/MensRights05/10/15 01:42 AM
12

Expect an apology from Rob Lowe for offending the feminists in at most a week.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 02:52 PM
–

“also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.” BREAKING NEWS: Liars are called out for lying, especially when their lies hurt people!
/r/MensRights26/09/15 06:05 PM
1

Engineers = Social ineptitude to even go near a girl.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 12:53 AM
1

I think the most hilarious part of this is we all know the feminist logic here: when a woman is denied something, then tries again under a man's name and gets it, that is proof that the system hates women. When a white guy is denied something, then tries again under a non-white name and gets it, that is proof that the system hates non-white people.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 08:04 PM
6

Because feminists believe that if you are focusing on one group's issues, you are discriminating against the other group. However, if questioned about the discrimination of focusing only on women's issues instead of men's, they will tell you the exact opposite. It's part of what makes feminism so laughable.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 06:00 PM
–

I can't beLIEVE that man would dare get within 50 yards of a child! Doesn't he know he could lose control of the rape urges that all men have? He must be stopped with his brazen disregard for children!
/r/MensRights05/09/15 08:39 AM
3

You know, it's interesting: He never seemed to mention any kind of harassment in particular, like a type that is typically associated with women victims, yet they all said, "When a man ______ " in their original definitions.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 12:13 AM
2

Anyone else notice that the author was freely willing to expose the supporters of the petition to mockery and ridicule by using their names while only referring to the opposers as "man" or "woman"?
/r/MensRights27/08/15 03:01 PM
7

Heaven forbid a concern for equality gets in the way of jailing those nasty menses!
/r/MensRights23/08/15 02:30 PM
1

Something very telling about feminism from this article: while the study itself did not mention feminism or anti-feminism at all, they kept mentioning "This isn't about attacking feminism."
/r/MensRights22/08/15 06:53 AM
1

If they're so common, please reference 3 female rape jokes in popular culture, not including George Carlin because he explicitly did so to say that society was wrong to say rape jokes are never funny.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 03:56 PM
5

Not even, really. She is only spending 96 days in jail. Just over three months for raping a 15 year old.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 03:54 PM
–

No. To everything you just said. Just no. Apparently you need it spelled out for you as clearly as possible: I do not care that rape jokes exist for either gender. I care that society gets upset over rape jokes about one gender and not the other. If society didn't care about rape jokes for one gender, I wouldn't care about rape jokes for the other. Seriously, I don't know how idiotic you could possibly get.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 05:48 AM
0

It isn't about stopping the jokes, either. It's about doing the same thing for male rape jokes as you would female rape jokes. It's about treating men and women equally. It's not the joke itself, it's the hypocrisy that I, at least, am mad at.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 04:58 AM
8

I think the fact that your post has been automatically deleted from the /r/AskFeminist board purely because you have posted here speaks volumes as to what feminism is: It is a cult that shuns any and all outsiders who may believe differently. It is the snake-oil of thoughts. A bait-and-switch of moral intentions, if you will. Everyone who has caught the feminism bug swears by it, whereas everybody outside sees what a total scam it is. You only actually believe it when proselyted to by a sworn-in…
/r/MensRights21/08/15 04:21 AM
–

Well, as other comments have pointed out: We aren't offended because there's a rape joke. We're offended because a similar rape joke about a woman would've been nowhere near a cover of any kind of publication. It speaks to the special status of women in society vs the lack of care for men.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 04:10 AM
1

Well, that's just it: while a woman's purpose in life isn't to keep something safe, the way society approaches sex, a woman is supposed to safeguard sex and use it as a reward for men, while men are always trying to get sex (remember, according to society). This is why a girl with a vibrator is seen as awesome and a guy with a fleshlight is seen as a lonely creep. It ties into the "guys are always wanting sex" and "girls who have too much sex are worth less" tropes. It's an idea that needs to di…
/r/MensRights21/08/15 03:47 AM
2

Locks have a purpose besides "being opened". They keep stuff safe. If you lock something up and then throw away the key, whatever it is that you want to keep safe will be safe forever (barring bolt-cutters). A lock without a key still serves a purpose. A key without a lock, on the other hand, is a bit of scrap metal.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 02:41 AM
2

You're right, denying someone's hypothesis doesn't make something go away. However, that is not what I did nor what I was trying to accomplish. Your self-importance can leave if you want to have an actual discussion on this, but otherwise I see no point in talking to you.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 02:38 AM
6

It's called feminism. Right there in the dictionary between "double-standards" and "hypocrisy".
/r/MensRights17/08/15 10:03 AM
9

The whole point is why there is the "lock and key" comparison in the first place. Frankly, considering women to be the "lock" is partially putting them on a pedestal and therefore contributing to the idea of male disposability.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 10:02 AM
1

Ooh. The Koch Brothers is a fantastic example that I hadn't thought of before. Good thinking.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 03:31 PM
3

It's one thing to market a product to a gender, but prohibiting services to a gender is what's wrong here.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 02:54 PM
1

Guys, I think you're all failing to see the upside to this. Unknowingly married a feminist? Tired of her, but don't want to get screwed over by the divorce? Just go out, get drunk, and have sex with all the women you want. You can't be considered cheating on her because you're drunk! Who cares that you said yes to all that sex? I mean, come on, considering it cheating would be holding you responsible for your actions while drunk, and that's just not possible.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 05:58 AM
2

Not with that kind of misogynistic thinking. You just thought-raped me and all women everywhere.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 05:50 AM
5

I also love how the movie portrayed the cycle that he was stuck in: Couldn't get a job because he was in prison. Because he couldn't get a job, he couldn't pay child support. Because he couldn't pay child support, he was going to wind up in prison. And, as also evidenced by the different living situations, he was the one in more need of help economically than she was.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 10:42 PM
–

While its tactics may be true, it still can be considered misogynistic if it treats women as trophies to be won. Regardless of the existence of women who treat themselves like that, treating a woman as a prize is misogynistic.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 04:38 PM
0

Yeah, sorry, progress will only be made if this was turned into "Don't be that girl". Until then, "males are always the rapists!"
/r/MensRights06/08/15 03:14 AM
1

Well, if he did something to deserve her attempting to murder him, I wouldn't enforce the custody agreement! Those kids should never see their father again because she tried to murder him. I mean, what woman would want to murder her husband without a valid reason?
/r/MensRights05/08/15 04:36 PM
–

Don't you understand? Clearly he did something to deserve it.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 04:57 AM
1

"Hey Becky, before we have sex, I'm going to need two forms of identification, one of them having photo to go with it, proof of address, your social security card, and then initial here, here, here, and sign and date here on this line. It's your basic Terms and Conditions for sex, saying that you were not coerced or drunk and that you -- Hey where are you going?"
/r/MensRights02/08/15 02:46 PM
1

Yeah... currently crawling through for me so I can get more personal with my laughing at whoever runs this blog. Anyone have an idea for how many posts there are there? EDIT: /u/_pluto_ is on there a couple times though.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 07:00 PM
4

My favorite was the Taylor Swift one. Taylor swift said something we don't like? Let's insult her! Irony to the max! And clearly insulting her is way worse than harassing her to the point of forcing her to resign, stripping her of titles and until she tearfully apologizes for whatever it was she said.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 06:55 PM
2

I dunno, your average feminist doesn't seem like she'd be interested in those kinds of shows.
/r/MensRights23/07/15 03:22 PM
9

Well, yes, but that's the one relevant in the article, though I included rape because that is something that feminists complain about and wanted to make sure any lurking feminists don't think that we think police not believing about domestic abuse is worse than not being believed about being raped.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 03:56 PM
–

Sweet, sweet "Police don't believe that you can be raped or a victim of domestic abuse" privilege.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 03:02 PM
–

You know that one bit Jon Stewart had on Caitlyn Jenner where he showed a bunch of clips of people talking about just her looks and ended it with "Welcome to being a woman in America"? Well, to KD I say, "Welcome to being a man in America".
/r/MensRights22/07/15 02:14 PM
2

Whoa whoa whoa. Don't bring your facts and logic to muh feels. That's misogyny.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 01:55 PM
3

Of course it's sexist. Men then only watch the sport to feed their predatory male sexuality. Of course, if you aren't attracted to women athletes that is also sexist because it means you hate strong women and want them to always be weak.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 02:23 AM
2

"I may discriminate against someone based on their sex/race, but at least I'm not a sexist/racist!"
/r/MensRights22/07/15 02:18 AM
3

I just love the sheer lack of knowledge about memes presented here, never mind the terrible attempt at ebonics (clearly this article is racist as it is making fun of stereotypes of "black-speak", but since it is promoting feminism you won't see any of them complain about that). For example: Being called a "female comedian" instead of just a comedian is a Success Kid? When "your girl" isn't "your girl" that makes her a Scumbag Steve? Since when is Grumpy Cat a MFW?
/r/MensRights18/07/15 07:16 AM
1

In your situation the immediate consequences are readily apparent. I don't know how much managers know the nuances of corporate policy off the top of their head in situations such as the one this guy was in, especially when they are directly involved. A more comparable situation, using yours as an example, would be how smart is it for me to pop out with my own rifle and shoot my would-be murderer? Pretty smart, otherwise he would keep shooting at me, further increasing my risk of harm.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 07:14 PM
1

Maybe. I haven't seen the thread on the video you're referencing so I will refrain from commenting on it. I mainly frequent this sub to get the other side of a lot of stories that the gynocentric media won't tell you and to provide reason where I can. You're right in that I haven't checked into this story any further than basicaly this headline, but that's mainly because it doesn't interest me any further than that nor do I care to spread it. I'll agree with us appearing fairly horshoe at times.…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 05:52 PM
1

What does that matter? She was assaulting him. He has the right to defend himself.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 05:45 PM
10

Stupid? That's hindsight. It was a totally justifiable thing to do and "zero-tolerance policies" are a problematic cop-out. It saves a company (or school, another common ZTP place) from having to actually figure out who was doing the attacking and who was defending, but it screws over those that have no problem defending themselves. It teaches people that taking crap from others is okay or that defending yourself is just as bad as attacking someone when neither idea is true. As far as risking ar…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 04:06 PM
–

Personally, I would react the same way. If any parent is poisoning the children against the other, that is just horrible. That being said, I don't think the sub would react the same way because we would see what we normally see of a court siding with a mother. It just wouldn't be newsworthy to us because it happens every day.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:50 PM
6

Yes, but you got downvoted for calling what he did idiotic, and /u/osufan765 was merely defending against that point.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:09 PM
7

It's a slight issue with anyone who has a grad degree in anything: suddenly all the world's problems can be fixed by your degree. Fortunately, how the Computer Science degree tries to solve a problem doesn't really affect anybody else's life. Unfortunately, those who get degrees in "Cater to me, I'm a Woman" (also known as "Gender/Womens Studies"), suddenly every problem is because we aren't falling over ourselves to make sure women don't have any problems in life.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 02:27 PM
1

Never watched the show, but from what I understood she's narrating the whole thing Grays Anatomy style and the show tends to focus on her character's issues, but the show still gives semi-equal screen time to all of her friend-group.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 05:15 PM
1

Wait a second. I thought anything that black people do to "get back at" white people was okay because oppression. Or is that only when a woman does something terrible to man that it's okay? Feminists need to get their dogma straight.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 01:43 PM
7

I got to "Doctor-Who-themed bar" and just stopped. I knew there was a reason I hate Doctor Who.
/r/MensRights05/07/15 04:27 PM
1

Mod posting without the mod tag? I feel like I just saw Commissioner Gordon without his glasses on.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 02:27 PM
8

I just feel bad for whomever's wife he just described.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 01:40 AM
–

Hey, you just described my ex.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 08:05 PM
5

Cat-eye glasses? Check Nose ring? Check. Nasal, irritating voice? Check. Ignores actual problems with feminism? Check. Yep, this is a feminist all right.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 07:37 PM
3

Gee willigers! I'm so glad we passed Net Neutrality so that the internet could remain a free and open platform of discussion*! * of government-approved topics where everybody expresses approved ideas!
/r/MensRights01/07/15 03:46 PM
1

I don't know if "offended" is the right term for what is happening to him. I think he's saying that recognizing these things but then doing nothing when you are reaping the benefits of such things is hypocritical. I don't agree that it's the case here, but the point he's making is true.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 06:44 PM
25

My favorite response to "Men are bringing it upon themselves" is: "If I were to tell you that currently, a black man is six times more likely to be a victim of homicide than a white man, what does that say about our society?" (The response is always that we have a huge racism problem) "Ah, but see, according to you we shouldn't care because 90% of homicides where a black man is a victim, a black man is the perpetrator. They are just killing each other and bringing this high murder rate upon them…
/r/MensRights29/06/15 02:43 PM
1

A core tenet of feminism is that women are inherently unequal to men and therefore cannot do everything a man can do so therefore qualifications need to be lowered or special consideration needs to be given to women because women are inferior and need all the help they can get. Feminism hates meritocracy because they believe women can't compete.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:10 AM
2

I wouldn't say that I'm a feminist after the 100% pro-equality thing. Just don't go into any details at all. "I'm 100% pro-equality." "So you're a feminist?" "No." "So you aren't pro-equality?" "No, I am." "Well, that makes you a feminist." "No, me calling myself a feminist would make me a feminist. I'm not a feminist, but I'm for equality. Hey look, a squirrel!"
/r/MensRights26/06/15 07:25 PM
1

I think there's some equivocation going on here. While common usage says that "political activity" means anything involving current politics, such as issues, measures, ballots, elections, etc. it seems the IRS only says that endorsing candidates counts as "political activity", due to this part: The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. This to me basica…
/r/MensRights20/06/15 03:01 PM
1

I'm assuming it's the 501(c)(4) that is doing the Hillary campaigning, otherwise that would be such blatant infringement on the rules of their organization. I mean, yeah, they're feminists and we joke sometimes, but they aren't that stupid. I didn't see anything on NOWs website about a PAC. Did they just not call it such, or is it something referenced in the above letter?
/r/MensRights20/06/15 02:57 PM
1

Well, for reasons that are similar to this one, yes. Genuine question: Why else would they investigate the LDS church? Only thing I've heard Mormon bishops doing politically is that one that criticized Harry Reid and then the church came out and said "Yeah, that bishop is kind of an idiot." EDIT: I should also point out that when people usually talk about the LDS church losing its tax exempt status, they point to the church's involvement in Prop 8, which is why I thought you were referring to th…
/r/MensRights19/06/15 07:47 PM
1

So then I'm confused as to why you brought up "They won't even investigate the LDS church" if there is nothing to investigate. What bishop are you referring to that endorsed Romney from the pulpit? I'm assuming this made the news somewhere if the church made an official statement.
/r/MensRights19/06/15 07:30 PM
6

Allowing everyone to have the same opportunity to succeed should be the goal of every business and every industry. Same opportunity != Giving hiring preference to women. That's unequal opportunity.
/r/MensRights19/06/15 07:24 PM
1

Who did they endorse?
/r/MensRights19/06/15 07:22 PM
1

Prop 8? You mean the thing that is an issue and not a candidate?
/r/MensRights19/06/15 07:12 PM
1

So.... why would they investigate the LDS church?
/r/MensRights19/06/15 07:07 PM
3

Considering the wording here NOW’s activists will change our lives for the next 16 months, organizing on the ground and online, to make Hillary Clinton the first feminist woman elected to the White House That seems like it will be its primary activity.
/r/MensRights19/06/15 06:57 PM
1

Sorry, going to pipe in on this one: 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations (such as the LDS church) cannot endorse candidates. They can endorse voting a certain way on a measure, just not voting a certain way in an election. Source
/r/MensRights19/06/15 06:42 PM
4

You miss the point of the post. It's to point out the logical conclusions given feminism's idea that all women need to be feminists to show how ridiculous the given premise is.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:33 PM
6

Woman: "Women can't handle the pressures of the competitive environment." Milo: "So you're saying women generally aren't competitive?" Woman: "No." Repeat x16. That's this video clip. She is so dense it's almost hilarious if she didn't take herself so seriously.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 06:13 AM
1

Also not what I said. It's not about you being able to identify rapists, its about you not looking like what they look for in a victim.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 05:53 PM
1

Well, its not even about being more physically able to fight off an attempting rapist. It has to do with learning what rapists look for in a victim and doing everything that don't want in a victim, either while interacting with them or just passively in how a woman presents herself.
/r/MensRights12/06/15 08:42 AM
3

That's actually what the linked study shows. Those that take a self-defense class aren't not getting raped because they fight off the potential rapist, just overall there are fewer rape attempts against women who take self-defense classes.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 09:01 PM
3

They are only reasonable since being made a default sub. There are still some remnants of crazy feminist thought that stick around from prior to being a default, but the opinion about their sub is still lingering since the change was only about a year ago.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 06:34 PM
2

It's pretty hard to top majority vicitms of violent crime, majority of prisoners, majority of the homeless, drug addicts, suicides, majority victims of state sanctioned violence, etc. But dude, women have to put up with manspreading and shirts with thin, scantily clad women on them. Check your privilege, shitlord.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 02:32 PM
0

Okay, as someone who has lived in Argentina I would like to say something here about the need for feminism over there. I can't speak to Buenos Aires, but where I was (Chaco/Corrientes/Formosa) had a giant, giant culture against the women. Many women that I talked to were abused in some form or another by their boyfriends/husbands. That is a society that I can look to and say, "Okay, feminism would have a lot of merit here," much like we point out women getting acid thrown on them when first-worl…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:48 AM
0

There was an interesting article I read recently that talked about the complaint of women always being asked how they balance family and a job and men not being asked that question. The common phrasing of said complaint boils down to "Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I have to be involved in the home". The article pointed out that the question is less a forcing of stereotypes or gender roles onto women than it is an admission of lower standards for men. We aren't expected to work and help t…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:22 AM
1

Uh... There isn't anything about gay marriage that fights against men's rights unless there is something outlawing only gay marriage and not lesbian marriage. tl;dr: Same-sex marriage is not an MRA issue. Believe what you want and it doesn't conflict with being MRA.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 08:25 AM
1

It's interesting to see how many of the downvoted posts here are from very new accounts. Ones that appear to have been created to spew crap or false flag, incidentally.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 11:59 PM
–

No one is making fun of her because she's a woman and fat. She's being made fun of because she's the damn Health Minister and she's fat. Anyone who can't find a hilarious irony in that is humorless, and anyone who tries to make this a women's issue is an idiot.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 06:56 PM
1

I mean "petty" like "can breastfeed uncovered in public if facing a solid, non-transparent wall". The amount of conditionals and details involved involved in determining if this law was broken is what is petty.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 05:25 AM
1

Not all the time. Babies are, surprise surprise, fickle and picky creatures, and each one is different. Some babies don't take under a hot blanket. Now, yes, you can say something to the effect of a mom could turn away and face towards the wall of the booth or something, but: Not all mothers will be in a booth table. What then? This is an idiotic and petty thing to legislate on the same level as "man spreading".
/r/MensRights31/05/15 11:14 PM
2

As much as I appreciate making things more equal (if you force maternity leave and don't want to eliminate it, force paternity leave), I would much rather prefer not to force any kind of leave. This is, in the same vein as Title IX, not actually equality by increasing opportunities for women but rather equality by decreasing opportunities for men. What if I don't want to take the leave? Yes, some men might prefer taking some time off to spend time with their newborn and to help his wife with the…
/r/MensRights31/05/15 11:09 PM
1

There is one.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:47 PM
9

Okay guys! Let's get a law passed saying no woman with a BMI over 24 is allowed to wear a bikini! That will totally fly.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:28 PM
1

I...what? What are you even trying to say here?
/r/MensRights27/05/15 08:29 AM
4

The best thing is that this isn't even a "replace 'men' with 'Jews'" thing, which is the point of /r/menkampf. It's just a "This is a harsh reality of what you are saying".
/r/MensRights26/05/15 08:43 PM
2

I actually recently got banned because I pointed out that it wasn't MRAs that were mad over Mad Max, though if people saw a gutting of Mad Max's character in order to support Charlize Theron's that I would see why people would be upset. Basically, I broke the anti-MRA circlejerk (in a respectful way, mind you), and they banned me for it.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 08:31 PM
–

Well, basically it boils down to what we have known for a long, long time: Men, in general, treat people fairly equally, while women have strong in-group bias. This means that men will typically view men's issues on an equal level as women's issues, whereas women will give strong preference to women's issues. This means that overall, women's issues get more focus. As long as feminists can keep coming up with issues, no matter how completely idiotic they are ("manspreading"), they will take prece…
/r/MensRights24/05/15 08:28 PM
6

Yeah, going to slightly echo what /u/PeterPorky said here though as its own comment. They say that only 50% (1,287) were proven true. That doesn't say that the others were false, merely that there wasn't enough evidence to determine one way or the other. Now, we can factor in the 900 that they say are false, we still have about 15% where we don't know. I am also willing to say that, while a good portion of those 900 are verifiably false, we shouldn't say that everyone who redacts a charge must'v…
/r/MensRights23/05/15 03:45 PM
2

Well, while we would not be able to fight whatever censorship she does of us with legal action, we would be able to show our disapproval through frequenting other websites such as that voat one people are throwing around.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 06:04 AM
3

Sorry, thought I made it clear that I don't believe that it is a hate group. I'm just saying that being a hate group and harassing people are two different things. While a lot of times they go hand in hand, just because a group might be a hate group doesn't mean you can just assume they harass people. You still have to look at the actions of the group, not just their beliefs to determine a harassment allegation.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 01:18 AM
2

Honestly, that is something that I feel is a problem today: We are so uncomfortable with someone thinking a certain way, even if they don't act on it.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:47 AM
0

Nope.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 12:37 AM
3

Haha, I know. I was mainly lightening the mood around here because things got heated.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 09:34 PM
0

Goodness you're still talking.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 08:02 PM
0

If you can't see how that's not the same at all, then there's no point in talking to you either.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 08:01 PM
0

Then go research what legally constitutes harassment. Here's a very basic start to your studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment Now stop bugging me.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 07:11 PM
1

lol. No.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 06:46 PM
2

Considering they already have it in their rules to not do so, yes, it does. I'm done talking to you about this. You clearly don't know what constitutes harassment and what doesn't.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 06:09 PM
4

Um, no, that would be what harassment would constitute. Raiding, which is what I'm describing, could be considered harassment.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 05:43 PM
5

...Do you even reading comprehension? I never said an unpopular viewpoint is harassment. In fact, I said pretty much what you said.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 05:16 PM
2

omg sillymod replied to me.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:52 PM
8

Being a hate group and harassing people are two different claims. While yes, hate groups do tend to harass people (WBC, for example), you can be a hate group even when you don't do anything outside the confines of your meeting place. Gathering together on the basis of "Yeah, we hate those people" is all it takes to be a hate group, but going out and interacting with them is what it takes to be considered harassment. Not agreeing that we are a hate group, mind you, just stating that the two charg…
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:43 PM
–

Unfortunately, my trust of Pao doesn't go that far.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:25 PM
–

/r/mensrights? Nope. I mean, willfully coming to the subreddits and seeing a bunch of articles attacking your political view doesn't count as harassment. If we went to /r/feminism and attacked them there, then yes, a case could be made.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:12 PM
3

It was broadly touched on above, but basically both orthopedic surgeons ($519,000 a year, 90% male) and pediatricians ($189,000 a year, 56% female) are both considered "doctors". They say they control for education, but that has to do with things like what level of a degree they got from which university, not what the degree was in.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 03:05 PM
1

Ah yes, the subtle misogyny of looking at a case objectively. That's not misogyny, and treating it as such is actually misogyny. Its claiming that women can't look at something objectively, either through not being able to see facts because of all the emotion, or because they are too stupid to. I, for one, believe women to be capable of being human beings and not whatever this author wants women to be.
/r/MensRights18/05/15 07:58 PM
1

Because he's a man, therefore he would've been less-drunk than her, duh! /s
/r/MensRights15/05/15 03:17 PM
2

That's actually my point. I was referring to the soldiers and firemen in that original post of mine.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:17 PM
3

There aren't rules against women being in STEM fields, but even people I looked up to such as Bill Nye have pushed for 50/50 men/women in tech jobs. Point being, I don't care if feminists want to show that women are just as capable as men. I care when their version of equality only involves doing everything they can to push women up while not allowing them to fall down, mainly because their reasoning behind pushing women up usually involves lowered standards, preferential treatment, and/or activ…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:55 AM
2

The idea behind that sentence is what I said. Basically, situations in which feminists see some kind of gain. Why can't women show they care just as much as men do about keeping the city clean by becoming garbagemen? Or rather, why don't feminists care about that?
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:35 AM
3

I would say the reason is relevant. If they were doing it for equality of dangerous jobs, then okay. If they're doing it because they also want glory from the uniform, then they don't actually care about equality unless it's in situations that they see as desirable, which is the whole idea behind "They only want equality when its a cushy office job".
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:23 AM
1

Devils advocate: Feminists pushed for those things so women could get the glory and honor from others that comes from working those jobs.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:12 AM
1

While I see the importance for differentiating between "I'm defending myself" vs "We both beat each other up because that's what we do", I think the original study is a great commentary on how much male DV goes unpunished socially. Whether or not it is legally unpunished is a different study to do.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 01:05 AM
2

As well as the part about following easier rules and complaining about it anyway.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:54 PM
8

I'm not saying the death threats are excusable. In fact, I'm saying the same thing you are, just flipped around: just because she received death threats does not mean that accusing this man of being a pedophile and smearing it all over Facebook is okay.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 08:52 AM
6

Death threats or not, what she did is inexcusable and she should be dragged through the legal mud for it. It also speaks volumes as to what society thinks the default state of "male" is.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 08:19 AM
3

Because he actually realized the statistic was crap, or because he doesn't want people "realizing" that he "pays his women less"?
/r/MensRights11/05/15 07:36 PM
7

A) Do I think it's a good idea for a company to do that? Yes. Do I think it's a good idea for the government to force companies to do that? No. I believe that because companies would be forced to pay people for not working (while you are on leave, you don't work), they would reduce average salaries of everybody to compensate on the chance that the person has a baby to take care of. Now, if we assume a situation in which the government has to force either paid maternity, paternity, or both leaves…
/r/MensRights11/05/15 04:46 PM
7

That's what I'm hoping. Though even if this happens, with knowing the kind of statistical analysis that's done under political pressure, it's going to be the same, half-assed "statistic" that got us the $.77 one in the first place.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 04:31 PM
1

Make the screen a button that works like a dead-man switch. As long as the button is held down, the phone shouts out "YOU HAVE CONSENT. YOU HAVE CONSENT. YOU HAVE CONSENT." When the button is released, until the app is closed or "tabbed out" (or whatever the hell we're calling it when you switch out of an app without actually closing it), it shouts out "YOU DO NOT HAVE CONSENT. YOU DO NOT HAVE CONSENT." The real key is to make this as loud and obnoxious as possible if your idea is to satirize th…
/r/MensRights07/05/15 10:36 PM
7

Obvious troll is obvious.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 07:18 PM
14

Well, it's a feminist trying to use statistics. What did everybody expect?
/r/MensRights07/05/15 07:16 PM
1

I just think it was absolutely insulting that the only thing Hawkeye could think about while driving that Audi around Sokovia with Black Widow in it was what DIY project he was going to do at home while the city was flying and the fate of the world was resting on his shoulders. Like, omg, men are more than DIY house remodellers. (Note: This is sarcasm based on what SJWs would believe if in such a dire moment a female character thought about what household chore she was going to do like cook for …
/r/MensRights06/05/15 07:36 PM
–

Still sounds like its a conditional "right".
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:17 AM
7

That is one thing that people misinterpret so badly. It doesn't hurt her because she can't have children, it hurts her because the forced sterilization was a symbol of and was part of signing her life away to being nothing more than a killing machine.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 08:24 AM
–

Well, except there is no actual codification for some of these things, they are just arbitrary decisions that judges make. I'm referring to numbers 1, 2, and 7.
/r/MensRights03/05/15 08:56 PM
8

I wouldn't doubt that they encourage Red Pill behavior because it gives them a sense of legitimacy, what with TRP behavior being more readily accepted as sexist.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 11:14 PM
2

This just in: Women treated equally and they hate it.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 08:05 PM
2

Galbrush Threepwood theory. Good stuff.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 02:36 AM
2

I like the use of past subjunctive for talking about the possibility of men being on the council. For those that don't know the nuances of the Spanish language, you use past subjunctive for the present when talking about conditional statements where the conditions are already the opposite of reality or super hypotheticals, e.g. "If Obama runs for president again..." would translate to "Si Obama se postulara como candidato a Presidente otra vez..."
/r/MensRights29/04/15 02:30 AM
3

I thought it pretty hilarious that the first thing out of the Norwegian people's mouths after watching the clip is "OMG WHY ARE THEY SO CONCERNED WITH FINDING THIS??" Well, Sherlock, it's because you have an entire social theory banking on the opposite, so they want to find out how true it really is. Are you worried that they'll prove you wrong?
/r/MensRights27/04/15 03:25 PM
3

It's just our internalized misandry judging our own worth by our penis size because the matriarchy tells us big penises are what women want.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 04:43 PM
12

That's not why this article was posted. It's to point out the double-standards and which gender, if any, is the one that gets the short stick by society. If society really was anti-woman, then THIS would be getting all the attention and the times that women are sent death threats would be hidden away in /r/feminism or /r/TwoXChromosomes.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 04:33 PM
7

I originally viewed this as a sarcastic "Surprisingly", like if someone said, "Feminist displays her double standard. Shocker." It's not actually shocking, and the sarcastic "shocker" calls attention to it.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 08:23 AM
3

I don't know if that one girl realized what she said... Guy: "Do you think it's sexist for man to support a man, just because he's a man?" Girl: "Well, I don't think it is because there already have been male presidents." Wait wait wait. She just said that its only sexist to support a woman on the basis of sex because there hasn't been a woman president.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 09:01 AM
1

I actually don't identify as feminist. And goodness, do you actively try sounding like you have the intellectual debating skills of Chanty Binx, or are you ignorant as to how you treat someone who may not have all the facts as you?
/r/MensRights19/04/15 06:00 PM
-12

Welp, I know we don't like the term "man child" around here, but that right there is exactly where the term comes from and why people hate MRAs. I hadn't looked too deeply into the issue because I know that we like to sensationalize things as well, so I just saw some news articles that went into more detail and decided that was it, but then did some more after posting that.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 08:27 AM
-8

Eh... I've seen other news reports about this incident saying that... EDIT: Just did some more research. Never mind. EDIT2: You know how I know someone just has some kind of petty vendetta against me in this thread? I've gotten more downvotes after the initial edit where I redacted my original statement.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 07:45 AM
1

Grammar is a funny thing.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 03:06 AM
2

She honestly used "I don't get as much sex now" as a legitimate reason to hate on the MRM. Damn, girl. That's some advanced stupid right there.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 05:51 PM
2

... women who hold less traditional social roles are more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse and forced sex against their male dating partners (Anderson, 1998). The current study empirically evaluated this theory by investigating whether men reported higher rates of victimization from sexual coercion in societies in which women are gaining social, political, and economic power.... “Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 05:23 PM
1

I think the fact that she took pictures while having sex and showed them to get daughter kinda goes against the whole rape story. It does seem like there might be something off with the story in order to make her a victim.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 05:07 PM
5

"When he said...[women] aren't interested in getting into these higher paying jobs -- what an appalling statement!" "If that were the case then women wouldn't even go to university..." Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh sorry, just because you have a degree doesn't mean you get a high-paying job. Sure, you get paid a lot more on average than not having a college degree, but still a lot of really low paying jobs do still require college degrees. Rec management? Psychology? Film? History? Music? "If you claim ever…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 08:02 PM
2

Well, and it brings up the question: Does "The Patriarchy™" punish women or punish femininity? That's something that they seem to flip flop on when it suits them best.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 07:56 PM
6

You heard it here first, folks: It's not rape if the accused is attractive.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 02:18 AM
1

I've seen this enough that I'm starting to think that those that put them up don't realize it's satire... and I mean the people in real life, not those that post them here on Reddit.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 05:03 PM
2

I thought the term we used to describe what you're talking about was "earnings gap". A pay gap brings to mind a man getting paid $10/hr for a job and a woman getting paid $7/hr for the job. An earnings gap says "Both get paid $10/hr, but the man worked more hours, so he ends up earning $10,000 compared to the woman's $8,000".
/r/MensRights03/04/15 05:17 PM
8

I still think its absolutely stupid that they still claim "We don't want to suggest that there's no pay gap". Why not? If there's no wage gap, why would you want to suggest otherwise? Or is it just policy from these guys to only state the truthfulness of "facts" that politicians use?
/r/MensRights03/04/15 08:49 AM
0

"Nothing poisoned about it, or if it was poisoned, it was poisoned by the actions of modern women." Yeah, that's not talking about women at all. EDIT: and looking through your comment history, you have a past of complaining about women when you should be referring to feminists.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 04:38 PM
-1

You weren't talking about feminism. You were talking about women.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 12:55 AM
-1

The original comment, yeah, could be interpreted to be as such, but the comments sure couldn't.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 12:29 AM
-2

Not at all. Men's rights is not about woman-bashing. No part of it is about woman-bashing. At the worst, it's feminist-bashing.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 12:26 AM
-3

No, this is actually pretty sexist, nothing white-knight about it. But hey, if you don't believe in not being sexist, go to /r/feminism. Seriously, I'm just saying you can't generalize things about all women, just like we don't like when feminists generalize things about all men.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 07:39 PM
-4

"Nothing poisoned about the M&M analogy being used to say that men are rapists, or if it was poisoned, it was poisoned by the actions of modern men." Do you see the comparison? This is starting to sound not much better than feminism's treatment of men.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 06:38 PM
–

Right, but it over-generalizes women to the point of the poisoned M&M analogy, which I thought we hated.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 06:00 PM
7

You forgot to mention "We can do more of the physical labor tasks the job requires, like physically restrain patients if necessary"
/r/MensRights24/03/15 05:46 PM
–

Goodness, I mean, I get that there is overlap between the MRM and MGTOW, but dang if this seems very pessimistic about women.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 05:37 PM
3

Heh. Uniform. Police officers. Get it? ... I'll just show myself out.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 03:45 PM
1

Just in case this video pisses you off, be you a member of the MRM or a visitor, it's a gender-reversal of this article.
/r/MensRights19/03/15 01:07 AM
1

It's not entirely that he's saying women are capable of that, because in the same vein of logic, someone could go off on a rant about how almost everything men do is wrapped up in rape and putting women down and we would get up in arms about it. It has to do with his wording. It seems like he is talking about every single women being a liar. That's not true. Every single woman is capable of being a liar, yes, but not every woman is.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 06:08 PM
1

Both care about men's issues, however, which is what you were asking for. But anyway, you're being pretty sexist here, so I'll leave it at this: Sexism is not tolerated in the MRM. I get that you probably have been burned by women in the past, but it doesn't give you leeway to generalize them like you are doing. Doing such a thing is no better than "10% of M&M's are poison" or any of the other generalizations of men that feminists do. We are above that. Don't stoop to their level.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 07:17 PM
1

Just saying that it's definitely possible you're a feminist trying to false-flag the MRM.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 07:16 PM
1

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Christina Hoff Sommers. My girlfriend. girlwriteswhat. Every woman in the /r/FeMRA board. We cannot alienate people based on their gender from the movement. It makes us no better than the feminists.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 06:57 PM
2

But again, that's an issue with ideology, not with people. Saying we have problems with women is an issue with people based on their sex and that is sexist, something that we are very much against. We have issues with ideologies, not groups of people.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 06:39 PM
0

No. Not women. Feminists. We need to be careful that we don't confuse the two. Feminism is not women, and women aren't feminism. We do not have anything against women. We have a lot of things against feminism. The existence of women does not hurt men. The existence of modern-day feminism and feminist ideologies are what hurt men, and it's a portion of what we fight and why.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 06:30 PM
3

For all those new to this post: The poster's account was created a little over a month ago, not very active, and has a reputation of posting either conspiracies or superbly unpopular views. The extremity of this post should be seen as just that: extreme, and not at all representative of what the MRM stands for or what a typical MRA believes.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 06:27 PM
4

Nah, they just don't expect the women and children to be able to do the math or logic to realize that the difference between the X and Y + Z is the number of men. Really, its misogynistic of them.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 04:15 PM
6

Everybody just needs to stop with this "I don't like what this person said so I'm going to ruin his life!" culture that's been started.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 10:15 AM
3

Eh, I was pretty much the same as this kid, but as soon as I came out against gay marriage they were ready to throw me out. Of course, this was a Portland, OR high school and after I got some lawyers involved they denied every part of what happened, but by golly they were ready to.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 10:12 AM
6

Well, to be 100% fair here, that's not the case. The article states that this isn't a reboot of MacGyver. I think they only called it "The Next MacGuyver Project" because MacGyver is very much what they're going for: a fictional character that pieces together bits of their environment with some technological and mechanical know-how in order to solve a problem that will save the world. Frankly, I have no problem with this as long as they don't start trying to shut down shows with men in the same …
/r/MensRights08/03/15 08:24 PM
1

The Twitter account first disgraced the world at the end of 2014 with a guy in desperate need of a shave and a sign referencing the film "Magic Mike." Hey, whatever happened to not judging people based on their appearances? Stop enforcing social norms on my appearance! The sign reads, “I need meninism because the movie ‘Magic Mike’ promotes an unrealistic expectation of how men’s bodies should look.” This is one of the more mild examples of the atrocity Whoa whoa whoa. "Atrocity"? It's an "atroc…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 12:06 AM
1

Economic Left/Right: 2.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33
/r/MensRights04/03/15 08:19 PM
8

Having to put up with feminists a lot more than we do when they decide that they aren't feminist. But in seriousness, I work in IT and I see sometimes that some of my female coworkers don't really get talked to in meetings. Even when one of them asks a question, the guy answering will look at another man. How widespread of a problem this is, I don't know, but I can see how this would discourage women from working tech jobs if it is a widespread problem. If you're looking for legal problems, you'…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:47 PM
10

Fantastic point. The only reason why there is no diversity in villains is because you can't have Captain America punching a black villain or a gay villain because that's racist and homophobic, respectively. It's reminiscent of what I had said in a debate with someone about "patriarchy" and what "smashing the patriarchy" means. Basically, a lot of this push for "equality" is about putting "under-represented" people into the good positions while doing everything possible to keep them out of the ba…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 05:21 PM
–

So, just as I thought, Thor being a woman wasn't because it was somehow relevant. It was to appease feminists. Yay. Well, time to only buy Iron Man comics now.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 04:04 PM
1

Well, the basic idea I had behind them is. #1 is an intentional act, #2 is accidental. Either they are paying their women less on purpose or there is some kind of conglomeration of factors that end in this being the case. The way I presented it wasn't communicating that original idea clearly enough.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 09:13 AM
2

That's exactly my point, I'm just framing it in such a way that feminists have a no-"win" situation with their constant lies and half-truths regarding this issue.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 02:03 AM
–

So now we have one of two conclusions that we're forced to accept as a result of all of this data coming out about earnings gaps in leftist political offices: They are hypocrites who don't actually care about any kind of feminist policies, saying such things only to garner votes and an image. Or, much more likely: There is something more at play than just "Women are inherently paid less."
/r/MensRights23/02/15 10:36 PM
4

Medians don't give as much weight to outliers as the average does. For example, if 20 women work there and 19 of them make $10,000 a year, while the remaining woman makes $1,000,000 a year, the average salary would be $59,500, which doesn't portray the more common experience of a woman in that workplace making $10,000 as well as the median, which would be $10,000.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 10:31 PM
0

Oh look. More feminist double standards. I'm just shocked.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 04:13 PM
3

"Everything lobbied at men is based in misogyny" Yeah, men being 93% of workplace deaths is because the world hates women. Men getting arrested more in DV cases even when the woman was the perpetrator is because women are considered the scum of the earth. So glad we've finally nailed these down.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 09:43 PM
1

I would say that's because Komen is like the Disney of "charities", in that it has a lot of money to get whatever it wants advertised, well, advertised.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 09:37 PM
1

The best part is the study that the second poster links actually says, "Its 77¢ to the dollar! Well, okay, if we actually take an honest look its 93¢ to the dollar and even then there might be something we're missing but ITS 77¢ TO THE DOLLAR!!"
/r/MensRights02/02/15 08:16 AM
2

Holy bajeebers! The rate of rape has climbed to 1 in 3! That only took, what, 5 years? By 2025 ALL women will be victims of sexual assault!
/r/MensRights02/02/15 08:11 AM
6

Ah, but you see, that is the misogynistic stance of a woman not being entitled to her ex-husband's money and way of life that she didn't earn or probably take part in at all. Don't get me wrong, in a marriage everything becomes "ours", but the second you split up you should be allowed a basic living amount and that's it. To hell with this "standard of living" nonsense.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 08:04 AM
1

I like how in the beginning she uses "virginal" as a type of insult and then at the end tries to say that women's bodies aren't trophies. The last paragraph is also very applicable when flipped around, where "every victory for men is not a loss for women, and the sooner these angry feminists realize that the better." Here's where we pretend that these are arguments made against feminist talking points and see how a feminist would react: Regarding divorce, reliable stats are tricky to pin down. W…
/r/MensRights31/01/15 07:58 PM
1

"These things are only good when they benefit me. If it benefits anybody else, it's bad and oppressive." -- Feminism 101.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 09:07 PM
1

I don’t think women who hit their partners are monsters, or rather, if they are, they are of an everyday sort. The attitudes expressed by women on the DVPPs are not so different to those expressed by women at universities, on social media, in football stadiums, in boardrooms, around the dinner table, in the pub. The risk of seeing violent women as something different, an unchangeable, ever-present evil, is that men will always have to accept diminished lives, coping with that fear that all of us…
/r/MensRights23/01/15 03:58 PM
1

For kicks and giggles, I've taken the time to do it to this article. Women in the MRM: how do we preach to the unconverted? We live in a world in which most women neither notice nor care about the broader context in which men’s voices are suppressed. Can anything be done? by Glosswitch Published Spend enough time staring misandry in the face and you’ll probably end up wanting to flee to a man-only island, as far away as possible from female “civilisation”. Certainly it’s a scenario I’ve consider…
/r/MensRights23/01/15 03:58 PM
1

Fun little experiment: download the xkcd Clouds to Butts extension, and have it switch genders for everything: "men" to "women" and vice versa, "he" to "she" and vice versa, etc. and see how uncomfortable it makes feminists.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 03:40 PM
6

The patriarchy only pays those jobs less because they are "pink collar" womyn's jobs! If a man were working them, they'd be paid the full dollar!!!!!!!! EDIT: /s, guys. Didn't think I'd need to point that out.
/r/MensRights23/01/15 02:49 PM
0

Your biggest mistake was believing a Tumblr post dealing at all with the MRM. The post I saw linked here just solidified in my mind that it was some feminist with an axe to grind, specifically the focus on "white" and "cis" in the verbage.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 04:18 PM
2

Who wants to go on NY subways with me and spread out as much as possible to protest these? Bonus points for those of us who can ride the subway while doing the splits.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 03:57 PM
2

Except he's not doing it because it's a woman only school. He's doing it because it has the best program for the field he wants to be in. Having public, single-sex universities is wrong. If it were private, that'd be a different matter, but the government is not allowed to discriminate something as essential as schooling on the basis of sex.
/r/MensRights20/01/15 04:39 PM
3

Okay, now I'm confused. It seemed like you were saying that this guy suing was sign of the pendulum swinging back too far to support men.
/r/MensRights20/01/15 02:17 AM
1

"Stop using women's bodies as trophies!" Five minutes later.... "Haha those MRAs probably don't know what a boob feels like. Worthless!"
/r/MensRights20/01/15 02:15 AM
3

Pendulum gone too far? Equality is too far? Did I post this in /r/TwoXChromosomes by mistake?
/r/MensRights20/01/15 01:31 AM
7

It's finally fighting sexism against men, something that is very rarely done and published in a major news outlet.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 06:00 PM
2

I would say theres a big difference between lower education and higher. Considering which university you go to can very largely determine your future, the only thing that keeps you out of one should be your aptitude, not your penis.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 05:57 PM
9

It's very reminiscent of the idea that someone abusing you tries to convince you it isn't abuse.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 05:54 PM
1

If you look at the dictionary definition of MRA, it's "one who believes that men shouldn't be punished simply for being male," so if you believe that like that 10% of feminism, you're already an MRA! /s
/r/MensRights17/01/15 05:25 PM
1

Okay, I think I figured out how to phrase it. If #1 is the case, and these are not legal adults, why not just go after the person who created the picture in the first place? What you are suggesting would be like prosecuting bullies that "cause" kids to go on shooting sprees. Considering that except in cases where the child is directly responsible for a heinous act (e.g. murder, rape), minors often go unprosecuted or are charged as children. I haven't been able to find a case of a under-aged teen…
/r/MensRights16/01/15 09:01 PM
0

Just as school's "zero-tolerance policies" cause a lot of damage, so too can a CP "zero-tolerance policy". Yes, I realize that sounds horrible out of context. These are teenagers with naked photos of a classmate. It's completely wrong to register a 17-year-old male as a sex offender for having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend (didn't happen in this case, but it has happened) because neither one of them is of a legal age of consent to begin with. Similarly, it's not right for these …
/r/MensRights16/01/15 05:37 PM
3

A couple of points in response to this: What would it take to get concrete proof on the other students with the picture? It seems like they would have to subpoena phones/hard-drives and go through a bunch of individual cases in order to ruin kids' lives. I can see why they wouldn't press charges for that on anyone except the person who took the picture and was in the picture to begin with. Do we know if in the course of investigation, those that the cops came into contact with didn't strike any …
/r/MensRights16/01/15 05:13 PM
–

Eh, the verdict is distribution of child porn. Techincally any pictures of minors lacking clothing is child porn, doesn't matter who took the pictures or who has them. I will say, it was pretty awesome of him to say “I will not live with the guilt of someone passing away, but I will live with the guilt of sending the picture.” That kid has a real understanding of what is and isn't his fault. I do wonder, though, if police say they estimate the boy had 11 shots and her 8 and by the feminist idea …
/r/MensRights16/01/15 03:35 PM
–

No no no, comrade. Look in The Feminist's Dictionary. sex·ism noun \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\ : Prejudice from someone in power against us poor womyns. This is preferential treatment on the basis of sex, but because womyn have no power, it can't be sexist. It's impossible to be sexist against womyn.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 03:20 PM
24

He said the female staff member told him, "You could have just left her ... If I were a man in your shoes, I would have definitely called 911." So, did the hotline operator start "womansplaining"?
/r/MensRights15/01/15 05:36 PM
0

Technically, a parent can make whatever decision they want for their child. Just to throw a semi-crazy example out there, if the child signs a DNR but when something happens to the child, the parent says "Resuscitate my child." The whole point of government is not to tell people how to be good people. It's to get everybody else out of the way so people can be the best they can.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 06:31 AM
0

You know, I haven't ever thought of it because personally, circumcision is not an issue I have an issue with. Just like with government, I'm sure the MRM has an exception for closely-held religious beliefs.
/r/MensRights26/12/14 11:44 PM
1

To be 100% fair here, I think the point of this is to take common tips given to women to avoid getting raped and flip it around onto the guy to say how ridiculous they are. The whistle one especially is kind of what gave me that impression.
/r/MensRights22/12/14 06:27 AM
10

A couple things to keep in mind here: LuLu isn't a cultural phenomenon like other apps such as Tinder or Candy Crush. "Feminist" and "feminism" does not mean "woman" or "women". It's not hypocrisy if it's not the same person/group doing the contradictory action. "We need to be able to protect ourselves from potentially abusive men" is going to be a common justification you'll get from a feminist. They'll ignore the fact that it's not the point of the app and they could very easily make their own…
/r/MensRights22/12/14 06:23 AM
2

Actually, feminism is about the equality of women and men. /s
/r/MensRights12/12/14 01:17 AM
2

Uh.... how is this relevant to the article?
/r/MensRights04/12/14 05:12 AM
2

"Ah, so you're a sexist bigot. My bad. Talk to you later."
/r/MensRights20/11/14 11:19 PM
-3

While that is completely right, the problem is that there is very little actual evidence. The only thing that they can hope for is a confession, which you don't get out of someone unless you bully them. Bill Cosby is probably the last celebrity that should be bullied.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 12:49 PM
1

Hooray for Marxist ideals!
/r/MensRights20/11/14 09:10 AM
1

"Sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex. Man: an adult human male Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. Male is a sex. You can discriminate against someone based on the fact they are male. Check your privilege."
/r/MensRights18/11/14 11:19 AM
7

Can anyone find what exact law this is? I want to be able to use this.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 09:31 AM
1

Except I explicitly state that we think it's wrong to generalize, even if facts back you up, and yet the feminists somehow justify their generalizations because "patriarchy". The wording I give especially states that we know that it is a minority of black people that steal, just like it's a minority of men that rape, even though, based on the stats we have, there are more men that rape than women. EDIT: Though if it really bothers you, I can try a different wording.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 08:48 AM
1

That's exactly my point. Feminists very much love their poisoned M&M analogy when all it's condoning is sweeping generalizations of a group. I bring race into it because people are a lot more sensitive to that issue and are a lot less blind to what is wrong about that.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 12:37 AM
2

Not at all. It'd be like if she did her acceptance speech wearing a t-shirt with muscular men wearing speedos and flexing on it. It's tacky, yes, but nothing to get up in arms about.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 01:37 AM
3

Ah HA! You've admitted that the green frog things are MALE! PATRIARCHY! HELP! I'M BEING OPPRESSED BY GREEN FROG MALES IN KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM!
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:40 PM
3

Because feminism is popular and MRAs are seen as "anti-feminist", purely because we see and combat the damage that feminism has done to men that the majority of feminists don't see or ignore because "men are less important".
/r/MensRights13/11/14 09:45 AM
2

That was something I saw, I think here on /r/mensrights, where it turns out that it's not an issue of one's sex that makes one more likely to call out to people on the street but rather one's economic class. The poorer people tend to be the ones that call out (cultural upbringing aside).
/r/MensRights09/11/14 09:14 AM
1

Garner more attention? Yeah. I guess my deal is that the attention, even though an attractive person wearing attractive clothing may garner a lot of it, doesn't need to be vocalized. That's where it crosses the line. Not into "harassment", mind you, but can be considered rude. Intermingling simple greetings, however, as was done in the original, in no way is rude or harassing.
/r/MensRights09/11/14 09:04 AM
2

The South is a lot warmer (heh) than the rest of the states. This was New York, probably the most emotionally distant place. I'm with you on the not harassment bit, though.
/r/MensRights08/11/14 09:54 PM
3

Guys, the question he's asking is what "-ism" would be "a focus on men's rights" like how feminism is (supposed to be) "a focus on women's rights." It's "masculism".
/r/MensRights08/11/14 08:46 PM
4

1: Fine. 2: Eh. Annoying. 3: Borderline, only because of the "beautiful" part. 4: Started out fine. Got kind of rude. 5: Questionable. 6: Questionable. 7: Questionable. 8: Fine 9: Fine. 10: Questionable. 11: Questionable. 12: Questionable. 13: No. 14: Would've been fine had he not walked beside her. 15: Drop the "Damn" and it's fine. 16: Drop the "Sweetie" and it's fine. 17: Questionable. 18: Questionable. 19: Harassing. 20: Fine. 21: Drop the "darling". Basically, while not actual "harassment",…
/r/MensRights08/11/14 08:35 PM
1

The mispronunciation one was a joke. The points may be true, but it's such a skewed view of said points that I can't give them much credence. So because I don't agree with a lot of Red Pill's crap. I'm a purple poodle? Well I'll be damned.
/r/MensRights08/11/14 08:12 PM
1

A very common tactic in any persuasive scene is to adopt the language (language, not tactics, which is important) of your opponent and use it against them. Look at the buzzwords or themes of their arguments and turn it around. For example, "privilege" is a common one. To start you off, there's a macro that I've seen circle here about how it's male "privilege" to be more likely to be a victim of murder, face a longer jail time for the same crime, etc. but there is no outcry to that from the femin…
/r/MensRights08/11/14 12:27 PM
2

Ehm, the youtube channel is called "Red Pill Philosophy", so I'm cautious. Good Points: Greeting people considered "harassment"? Attractiveness of person doing something is taken into consideration when the recipient of such action is determining if something was good or bad. "Have a nice day" is turned into an excuse to be a victim Points that cause me to pause: "She wore tight jeans, she was asking for it" "Fat girls wish they had this attention" "Victim of too many men wanting to feed you, pl…
/r/MensRights08/11/14 12:02 PM
2

Well, yeah, that's a given. Jennifer Lawrence was completely wrong in that regard. And that's what the point of the article is.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 10:23 PM
1

Well, it's Live Action News. A cursory glance will tell you it's going to be conservative and preachy. That being said, I think the wording is very careful in the article. It says a real man does not expect sexting/nude pictures/etc. and I would say, while they don't ever really classify what they mean by "real", it's a perfectly valid point. Couple that with "a real man can wait until marriage" and it means that he's perfectly able to (which goes back to "doesn't expect anything"), but doesn't …
/r/MensRights28/10/14 03:32 PM
3

As one who has lived in Argentina for a couple years, I just am appalled at what feminism in the United States focuses on (I can't speak to other countries as I haven't lived in others). I hate third-wave feminism with a passion, because it's not about equality at all. It's a contest of who can claim to be the most hurt by men.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 10:01 AM
2

Care to explain how? I really appreciate the fact that it comes out and says that men aren't sex-crazed lunatics who can't control themselves. That's the image that feminists like to portray and the article rejects it.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 09:56 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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