TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

NebulousASK Archive

View 3 posts and 460 comments by NebulousASK on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
54

GeneralNebulousASK/r/MensRights18/06/23 12:45 PM
17

Social IssuesNebulousASK/r/MensRights16/11/17 03:52 PM
15

NebulousASK/r/RedPillWives30/04/18 04:39 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

Yes, I know what you all are thinking, "your an idiot for not getting your own attorney" No need for this thread, really. You stepped into a boxing ring with a processional boxer rather than hiring your own. Totally your fault, dude. I hope you make a smarter decision next time.
/r/MensRights08/07/23 12:22 PM
133

How do they explain the message you made in the group announcing that you were going to move the laundry?
/r/MensRights08/07/23 11:54 AM
9

The counselors point of view was that my concern about her cheating was causing her to continue to cheat. The very concept of "continue to cheat" baffles the mind. Once someone is caught cheating, how is there still a relationship?
/r/MensRights08/07/23 11:10 AM
1

So, according to some progressive (clear progress in the wrong direction) therapists, Specific examples and quotes, please. It comes off as straw-manning when you describe beliefs you oppose in general without providing a source.
/r/MensRights08/07/23 11:08 AM
2

Maybe it's industry-specific or regional? I've been part of several offices, but all have been in the Midwest and most have been law firms.
/r/MensRights06/07/23 06:00 PM
-3

I've never encountered this. Every office environment I have been a part of has expected women to wear a shirt or blouse that covers the neck down (long or short sleeves) and long pants or ankle length or longer skirts. Knee length skirts, shorts, an exposed midriff, a sleeveless top, or anything of the like would have gotten a discussion about wardrobe.
/r/MensRights06/07/23 05:52 PM
3

Second this question. I think it might have been autocorrect, but I can't figure out what for.
/r/MensRights06/07/23 02:45 PM
2

Second this question. I think it might have been autocorrect, but I can't figure out what for.
/r/MensRights06/07/23 02:45 PM
9

You can read the info here without a thousand ads.
/r/MensRights06/07/23 01:33 AM
46

The axe is coming down very soon. I'm really looking forward to seeing the shift as the money dries up on all the liberal university boondoggles.
/r/MensRights05/07/23 07:42 PM
10

Additionally, most of what men call "misandry" is criticism, not hate speech. So it really is getting used just like the word "misogyny" then.
/r/MensRights05/07/23 07:39 PM
1

I butt heads with a few folks in college because I was up front about my more conservative views. In the end it worked out for the better, because it filtered out people who weren't tolerant of that. I would rethink any idea of hiding your beliefs; that never goes well when you're "found out."
/r/MensRights05/07/23 05:18 PM
2

MGTOW is more like men who have had their gender bias removed through life experience. Aren't MGTOW pretty serious about staying away from women? That seems a lot further than just eliminating gender bias.
/r/MensRights03/07/23 02:12 PM
1

I met my wife on eHarmony 15 years ago. Unlike other dating apps, it cost hundreds of dollars to even join, and then they would only match me with women who indicated a high priority on marriage, family, and religion like me. I dated several women through the site that were serious about marriage and treated me with respect. I'd recommend a website like this that really makes you jump through hoops early on, so you only have high compatibility matches to begin with.
/r/MensRights01/07/23 08:47 PM
9

For inheritance purposes, you're probably not his son. Sorry. Men, this is why it's so important to have a will.
/r/MensRights01/07/23 08:36 PM
8

I'm skeptical how much effect laws like this can really have. Family court judges have such broad discretion.
/r/MensRights01/07/23 07:45 PM
20

Weird because when he was married he got to have regular sex with her. Tell me you've not been married without telling me.
/r/MensRights01/07/23 07:23 PM
70

Yeah, alimony has a ton of problems. That's why reforms like these are important, and many states are doing away with it altogether.
/r/MensRights01/07/23 06:24 PM
121

Alimony is based on the idea that if one party worked more than the other and they split, they should both be able to live how they were accustomed. The one that makes more pays to the one that makes less. Alimony can be modified if the payee's situation changes, so it actually incentivizes her not to work more or remarry.
/r/MensRights01/07/23 06:18 PM
5

One of my students' moms asked me if I thought he was old enough to enjoy Scientific American. I said he would understand it, but considering its descent into politics over science, I wouldn't recommend it.
/r/MensRights30/06/23 07:52 PM
6

Is he still going to find ways to visit and support his dad?
/r/MensRights30/06/23 07:21 PM
23

Very much so. I wouldn't assume ill intent. I would be polite and not scowl.
/r/MensRights30/06/23 07:16 PM
52

If I see a woman approach a kid she doesn't know, I hang out until their interaction is over for the same reason. But I'd be nice about it. I don't think it's bad for adults to look out for unattended kids in public spaces.
/r/MensRights30/06/23 07:08 PM
-9

The present feminist-bureaucratic regime is propped up mainly by the continued willingness of the hated 'heterosexual white males' to keep paying taxes, obeying the law, and fathering children. I do so happily, thank you.
/r/MensRights30/06/23 04:36 PM
5

I don't disagree, but I'd suggest being less direct before someone reports the comment and nukes your account.
/r/MensRights27/06/23 08:18 PM
135

In the past, the family of the victims would do much worse to her. And she'd deserve it.
/r/MensRights27/06/23 05:18 AM
15

Which is crap - 7 is already too short.
/r/MensRights26/06/23 12:42 PM
4

The women complaining about the wage gap are also the ones who try to shame women for staying home and claim that working women are better.
/r/MensRights26/06/23 12:04 PM
19

For seven and a half years.
/r/MensRights26/06/23 09:57 AM
2

Thanks. I found a woman 15 years ago that is very happy with me being the man and father that I am. I think it works much better to find a partner that fits you, rather than trying to change yourself for a partner.
/r/MensRights25/06/23 04:40 PM
3

While I think there is some good in this bill, a man who has been defrauded hundreds of thousands of dollars through paternity fraud doesn’t need the woman to be charged with a minor misdemeanor offense. To the contrary: the conviction for fraud would be strong evidence in any lawsuit to recover for the fraud. That's actually the main purpose of a bill like this. Making it a crime is prima facie evidence that a duty of care was willfully breached; it does a lot of the heavy lifting in a lawsuit.
/r/MensRights25/06/23 02:27 PM
8

Stop walking the tightrope, and stop worrying about rejection. Choose your lane: be sensitive or be masculine. However you prefer to be. Many women will reject you, they would have made you miserable anyway. Pursue one that likes the way you act already.
/r/MensRights25/06/23 01:06 PM
12

Wait for a literal decade plus to start a family, despite most high quality eggs being made available prior to your 30th birthday. Discover this isn't possible due to testicular cancer in your guy, which didn't exist in your early years. This isn't accurate. She married him at age 22 and the cancer diagnosis was 3 months into their marriage.
/r/MensRights24/06/23 12:13 AM
66

Not defending her at all but you cant charge her with anything above aggravated assault such as murder until the guy is actually dead. That's not the case. You can charge someone with attempted homicide whether or not the victim dies.
/r/MensRights22/06/23 04:47 PM
0

Here's the real kicker: She tells the judge that her husband had promised her he would get rid of the prenup after they had children. That's what she says, that he made an oral agreement with her. She has no proof of this promise or this oral agreement, its just his word against hers. Not accurate at all. There was corroborating evidence of the oral agreement, and under oath Peter refused to outright deny that he had said he'd tear up the prenup.
/r/MensRights16/06/23 02:03 PM
8

Most states have something like that, but there's a thin line you have to walk because of First Amendment protection.
/r/MensRights14/06/23 11:03 PM
3

You can get the report here. Almost 90% of those surveyed gave at least one answer that was considered biased. Example, on a scale of 0 to 10, how much do you agree with, "Men make better political leaders than women do?" If you answered 7 or above, you're biased.
/r/MensRights14/06/23 06:45 PM
2

Hey Jane, how would emissions look if everyone else had the same carbon footprint as you? Yeah, shut up.
/r/MensRights03/06/23 03:14 PM
2

*role Yeah, it's completely nuts, isn't it?
/r/MensRights18/05/23 01:15 PM
1

How can you justify property damage? Would you wanna come home one day to see your house being trashed? I bet not. And I'd never cheat. I assume neither would you.
/r/EverydayMisandry16/05/23 03:27 AM
1

I don’t believe any atrocities committed by a person deserve literal torture or stooping to their level. This makes us as bad as them. Perhaps it does, which is why I wouldn't do it. But that doesn't mean I would go out of my way to prevent it from happening at someone else's hands. I like the old idea that Heaven and Hell are structurally the same, but in both places you are surrounded by other people as kind or as cruel as you are.
/r/EverydayMisandry15/05/23 11:08 PM
1

I don't mean it in any mystical sense. Just the idea that "there need be no moral outcry when someone's evil results in equivalent or lesser evil happening to them."
/r/EverydayMisandry15/05/23 09:53 PM
-1

So one ill deserves another? Yes. That's typically how karma works. Ever hear of being the bigger person? Sure, which is why I wouldn't destroy property if I were cheated on, or help someone else do it. But I won't lose any sleep over it. Neither should you. Is it ok people get raped in prison? It's okay when actual rapists and child molesters get raped in prison. But there are a lot of innocent people in prison, as well, so I would prefer we keep our inmates safe as a general principle.
/r/EverydayMisandry15/05/23 09:49 PM
0

where a woman can threaten a guy that he should never betray her least she burn all of his stuff without that being picked out as a red flag In what universe wouldn't this be a red flag?
/r/EverydayMisandry15/05/23 07:21 PM
-2

Women celebrate one another physically attacking men when men give certain “looks” or say things they don’t appreciate. Some women do, and those women are evil. If you actually cheat - all the gloves are off and anything is fair game; namely, here (as you showcased) destruction of property. That's hardly "anything." But, yeah, I really don't have an issue with a cheater's stuff being harmed. It's the lack of the inverse being acceptable that I take issue with.
/r/EverydayMisandry15/05/23 02:51 PM
-9

Why do you care? If a man or woman cheats on their spouse, and the spouse's response is property damage, I don't see any reason to get up in arms about it. Cheating makes you trash. I don't particularly care what happens to your things if you harm your spouse like that. But it does suck that it's a double standard. I don't care if a man destroys his cheating wife's property any more than I do the other way around.
/r/EverydayMisandry15/05/23 12:42 PM
2

That's terrible. I'm so sorry you endured that. My Dad taught me to respond to bullies with direct and unequivocal violence. I put three in the hospital while in school. I'm teaching my sons the same.
/r/EverydayMisandry21/04/23 04:07 AM
3

I entirely agree with you on that. In fact, since so much of male victimization is dominated by gang violence, there is probably an even stronger correlation with education.
/r/EverydayMisandry21/04/23 04:01 AM
1

Since school shootings aren't one of the prevalent sources of violence, though, it's not particularly relevant whether education changes your risk of being a school shooting victim. What are the primary sources of violence for women? Stranger violence, which is much more likely if you're poor, and domestic violence, which is much more likely if you're married. Since education makes you less likely to be poor or married, it makes sense that, for women, education would be inversely correlated with…
/r/EverydayMisandry21/04/23 03:30 AM
5

No to mention how frequently school shootings occur. .008 per 100,000 students. In other words, incredibly infrequent. But with over 100,000 schools in the US, if there's even one school shooting a month, they can constantly dominate the news cycle. When the population is big enough, even a statistically small problem can seem large.
/r/EverydayMisandry21/04/23 02:44 AM
-1

A behavior that happens once a week needs far more time and attention than one that happens once a century. I have championed reform of child support laws to take these factors into account. Even in the absence of rape, a partner that uses deception to get a child without the others' consent (stealthing, lying about birth control) should have no claim against the nonconsenting "parent." And if we properly dealt with that much more common situation, it would also fix this one.
/r/AntiFeminists07/04/23 06:38 PM
-5

We see about one of these cases per decade. It's terrible that it happens at all, but it's also vanishingly rare.
/r/AntiFeminists07/04/23 05:05 PM
1

How much?
/r/MensRights30/03/23 06:34 AM
0

Morals were very different back then.
/r/MensRights24/03/23 12:33 PM
14

2008
/r/MensRights24/03/23 02:37 AM
23

I met my wife on eHarmony. I also dated several excellent matches before I met my wife. That makes it hard for me to accept the idea that dating sites are universally bad.
/r/MensRights24/03/23 02:06 AM
2

From the Buzzfeed article: Even if the authorities strongly suspect an allegation is false, there are many reasons not to charge the accuser with a crime. The prosecutors in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse gang rape case – one of the most infamous false accusations in US history – seemed to understand this. They took no action against the accuser because they said she was not of sound mind and might have believed “the many different stories that she has been telling” They are holding up the co…
/r/MensRights19/02/23 03:35 AM
3

No. She is guilty of sexual assault. It's just not classified as "rape."
/r/MensRights19/02/23 03:33 AM
3

It's not man vs women; it's "true love" vs anything else in the movies. A lot of romance movies and books have the man "cheat" as well... usually breaking off an engagement or leaving a loveless relationship. If he's the male lead and he's getting with the female lead, it's hardly ever mentioned or the woman he leaves is painted as the bad guy.
/r/MensRights13/02/23 03:12 AM
1

This post is a decade old.
/r/MensRights11/02/23 02:19 AM
-7

Honestly, no. For one thing, the "gym creep" videos I've seen don't catch guys looking over for a second. They show guys following girls to multiple gym locations, or actually making comments and approaching the girls. So I'm jot concerned that looking over at one will matter. For another thing, I have my set routine in the gym and don't really notice anyone else. If someone tried to record me, they'd get kicked out and that would be the end of it.
/r/MensRights04/02/23 11:12 PM
2

You're right - the two crimes aren't sentenced the same. Ideally that's due to the difference in range of activity between the two crimes, but I think we both know that's not the case.
/r/MensRights02/02/23 11:32 PM
6

When a woman rapes a man, the offense is "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent," and the statutory penalty is the same (imprisonment for life). I'd be very surprised if the sentence is carried out fairly in the courts, but the statutes don't make a distinction in the level of punishment.
/r/MensRights02/02/23 06:19 PM
1

How do you get used to it? Asking as a well-groomed man who is usually treated well in public.
/r/MensRights29/01/23 02:54 AM
23

My preferences are different. I typically dated women older than me, and I suspect I would again if my wife died. The truth is, women in their 20s are often quite emotionally immature. Until they've spent some time in the real world, many of them have been coddled and validated from a young age with little requirement for self-reflection or self-control. But none of that is justification for trying to dictate whom other men should or shouldn't date. It's a simple marketing tactic: try to invalid…
/r/MensRights27/01/23 09:27 PM
10

The first and only time I sought therapy was when I was being falsely accused of SA in college. I got a man who preceded to tell me that the reason I was uncomfortable with therapy is that he was black, and as a white man I was uncomfortable having a black man in a position of privilege over me. I hadn't realized just how bigoted the profession had become. We'd be better off if the whole business ceased to exist.
/r/MensRights21/01/23 04:07 AM
1

My view is this: well-raised kids don't bully anyone. The bullying itself is the parenting failure. Rhetoric against whatever group, only helps them pick a target.
/r/MensRights19/01/23 09:47 PM
2

Yes, if you watch shows that put a negative spin on that then this as well will be learned by them. We don't. If you don't comment negatively on LGBTQ people, don't watch anti-LGBTQ shows and tell them that bullying people is bad, then they're extremely more likely to not bully them. I agree.
/r/MensRights19/01/23 09:40 PM
1

I'm not sure what you're asking evidence of? Are you unsure if memes can be used in an emotionally damaging manner? Yes. More particularly, I'm unsure that memes and other anonymous media messages significantly contribute to youth depression and suicide, rather than personal/targeted behavior and messages. This kid killed himself because of what other kids said to him, personally - not because he watched YouTube videos or read edgy Reddit posts. I am skeptical that the latter is ever a root caus…
/r/MensRights19/01/23 09:36 PM
1

I can't be certain that won't happen, but that seems more like fearmongering than anything fact-based. My kids are going to pick up on an expression of an opinion about gay marriage on TV and use that to bully a kid at school... but they're not going to pay attention to the fact that we have gay friends in our lives and don't treat them differently? Or the many, many things we've said both directly and indirectly through example about treating everyone with respect and care, and how awful bullie…
/r/MensRights19/01/23 09:17 PM
2

Any evidence for that? I'm not a fan of hateful messages generally, but my understanding is that it's personal and social animosity that causes this sort of thing, not spreading memes on the internet.
/r/MensRights19/01/23 09:03 PM
1

What behavior do you mean? I can't think of any behavior we have that is "anti-LGBT;" about the only way our kids (or anyone else) would know our view would be when we express it. This can eventuate in another article like the OP. No, I don't agree that political, cultural, or religious opinions leads to viscious bullying. The pipeline there involves parents and teachers who are failing in other ways.
/r/MensRights19/01/23 08:59 PM
1

The bullies are taught by their parents, who display hate against LGBTQ & trans people, which the kid picks up. Maybe. I'm anti-LGBTQ myself, but I also have gay and lesbian friends who have spent time around my sons and who my sons are always happy to see. You have no idea what sort of punishment one of my boys would get if I ever caught wind that they were bullying a kid like this. Disagreement is not justification for mistreatment. So far, the most trouble my boys have been in at school, has …
/r/MensRights19/01/23 08:45 PM
3

the suicide of a gay boy who was probably treated like that by other boys May I ask why you are here?
/r/MensRights19/01/23 08:37 PM
1

It's not the "woke" who bullied this person to suicide, it was people like you. "You may have never bullied anyone, but you probably shared some views with the kids who did, so it's clearly your fault." It is actually possible to dislike or oppose something - like Christianity or feminism - without mistreating or bullying the people who believe in it. That's true for homosexuality as well. You don't have to agree with people to be nice to them.
/r/MensRights19/01/23 08:35 PM
3

He's not screwed no matter what, but liars can do a lot of damage to innocent people before the truth and the law catch up to them. Record everything, keep records, make police reports when appropriate.
/r/MensRights19/01/23 12:45 AM
3

I've been married for more than a decade, and I would definitely do it again. It's an amazing emotional relief to have someone that is dedicated to you and will always support you, and it provides excellent motivation and emotional rewards to have someone you're dedicated to and will always support. Also being a dad is awesome.
/r/MensRights18/01/23 11:09 PM
2

Thanks. I wrote characters for an RPG that had all sorts of neuroses, so it's an area where I happen to know more words than normal.
/r/MensRights18/01/23 11:06 PM
12

As to your post: androphobia (the fear of men) should be a real thing. Men have the ability to use lethal physical force to solve their conflicts. Many women instinctively have androphobia. I would wager that most men do too, if they were really honest about it. This may be splitting semantic hairs. A rational caution that heeds danger isn't a phobia. Being cautious of the dangers of snakes or spiders doesn't make you ophidiophobic or arachnophobic. Similarly, a reasonable caution among stranger…
/r/MensRights18/01/23 10:37 PM
171

First off, I'm (F) not sure how much I'm welcome here You're certainly welcome here. Thank you for sharing and providing your persepective. I have androphobia (fear of men). Recognizing that a fear you have is irrational, and that the fear is your problem rather than someone else's fault, is a big step. It feels awful to be mistrusted and feared for just being yourself.
/r/MensRights18/01/23 10:33 PM
21

The sad thing is its made me skeptical of almost all rape accusations. Skepticism of all criminal accusations is a good thing.
/r/MensRights14/01/23 12:25 PM
5

Most of the women are also same. Fortunately, not the case. Women are being groomed by an anti-family and anti-male ideology, especially on the left, but it's not "most." Even in the video, it's clear most women in that room think what she's saying is toxic. Plenty of women are our allies; let's not make the mistake of painting them with the feminist brush.
/r/MensRights11/01/23 03:26 PM
6

I'm asking if you think the fact that women go through pregnancy and men don't could be the reason why women get to decide whether they are going to go through pregnancy or not, and men don't. He's not talking about the right to abortion; he's talking about the obligation to pay child support. IE, the "child rearing" part of "consent to pregnancy and child rearing." The same people will say that having sex does not create an obligation to the child for women, but having sex does create an obliga…
/r/MensRights10/01/23 06:55 PM
0

I'm aware there are some bad fact patterns out there, but this doesn't fit any of those.
/r/MensRights04/01/23 04:08 PM
3

Why would he have to pay child support for a child that wasn't his?
/r/MensRights04/01/23 09:32 AM
69

I wonder how much that paternity fraud cost Stallone over the years. Not much, I suspect, since he found out when the baby was only six weeks old.
/r/MensRights03/01/23 07:05 PM
0

They've indoctrinated some mainstream church groups. But every church I've attended has respected and taught traditional values.
/r/MensRights31/12/22 04:53 PM
0

Oh, you're not OP: you're a random anti-Christian troll. My mistake.
/r/MensRights31/12/22 03:35 PM
-1

I wonder where you are that this is true. I've always found church (and the women who attend church) to be the most supportive of traditional values.
/r/MensRights31/12/22 03:06 PM
-2

When was the last time you went to church?
/r/MensRights31/12/22 01:51 PM
2

You don't need a passport. Get out of the cities and get to red America. There are plenty of women who know how to keep house and are grateful for a good provider. I'm married to one.
/r/MensRights31/12/22 01:49 PM
1

Then the public, politicians, celebrities, media, and pretty much everyone is silent about it, I think the big problem here is the conflation of those having a big audience (politicians, celebrities, and media) with everyone else. When these things happen to men, both the men and women I interact with personally (at church, at work, at social events) talk about it. There's a lot more interest and concern than you think. It just doesn't match the media narrative, so you don't see it discussed by …
/r/MensRights30/12/22 02:13 PM
7

This was a response to Engineering is hard. Mistakes can kill people. Thorough exams make sense. Source: Engineering graduate. So I believe the comment was meant as: "It must be infuriating to be an engineering graduate and see them dumbing down the test for political reasons."
/r/MensRights30/12/22 02:09 PM
-2

But is a thorough exam the best way to filter for mistakes? I'm an attorney, and I feel like the bar exam is a lot less important than good time as a junior associate or clerk. I would think apprenticeships or the like (time on the job under more experienced engineers) would be more important than a grueling exam to assure engineering quality.
/r/MensRights30/12/22 02:07 PM
0

I would upvote this too. Nobody is "owed" your time, affection, or attention, however badly they need it.
/r/EverydayMisandry24/12/22 06:51 PM
6

Why are we still responding to stuff from 5 years ago that was widely covered and condemned back when it was said? https://www.ajc.com/news/national/writer-emily-lindin-closes-her-twitter-after-sexist-tweets/iBlrMp8KTQx6Zd1R8M3gZL/
/r/EverydayMisandry15/12/22 08:40 PM
3

How to stop him hassling you. 1) Tell him you don't want him to grope you anymore. 2) He leaves. 3) Surprise pikachu face.
/r/MensRights15/09/22 12:47 AM
3

If it really were a patriarchy, they wouldn't even know to protest it.
/r/MensRights06/09/22 03:53 PM
7

It's true; look at how few Amish CEOs there are. Not a single Amish American on the Forbes 500.
/r/MensRights06/09/22 03:52 PM
1

The United States was historically patriarchal because authority, control, and resources were allocated to men only. The US would still have been patriarchal even if every President had been female, just as England was still patriarchal when it had a Queen. The US ceased to be patriarchal when we stopped doing that. Today, authority, control, and resources are not allocated to you based on your gender. And even if Americans continue to elect Presidents who are men, who are white, who are Christi…
/r/MensRights06/09/22 03:48 PM
8

he should’ve been granted the same anonymity as the accuser Yes, absolutely he should have. I am forever grateful that my own university hearing, when I was falsely accused of rape, was fully confidential.
/r/MensRights05/09/22 07:18 PM
-11

Can’t prove a negative, but meanwhile this guy’s life was wrecked because she had a bad dream and projected it with no evidence either. Wrecked how? Seems like his wife believes him. Did he lose a job?
/r/MensRights05/09/22 07:12 PM
5

You're missing the certainty aspect. In a case like this where there is no evidence of any kind, there is no certainty that he is guilty. There also is no certainty that she is guilty, either. Neither conclusion can be known beyond a reasonable doubt. The proper result is not to convict anyone.
/r/MensRights05/09/22 07:11 PM
2

I would probably not recommend you wait, because more women who actually like and respect men tend to look for and find a husband early. Not true in every case - I met mine at 28 - but true enough of the time that your odds may be better if you don't wait until they've gone through the indoctrination camp of modern college.
/r/MensRights28/07/22 06:24 PM
10

It's really the contempt/disrespect that is the problem. My aunt has asked me to do some things for her, but she's always been super-appreciative and respectful about it, "I know you're doing me a favor, thank you so much," etc. In my family we have gender roles but it would be seen as extremely uncouth for a woman to talk down to a man. Yes, we do the lifting and the mechanical stuff, but they're expected to at least provide a snack and a cold drink when we're helping out. The same with women a…
/r/MensRights28/07/22 06:21 PM
187

Under the current bill, the mother can block a paternity test from being performed. That's garbage.
/r/MensRights27/07/22 02:31 AM
3

Alabama: "engages in sexual intercourse," gender neutral Alaska: "engages in sexual penetration," gender neutral Arizona: "engages in sexual intercourse," gender neutral Arkansas: "engages in sexual intercourse," gender neutral etc In most states, it's rape (or sexual assault) if there's penetration by force, even if the victim is made to penetrate the assailant.
/r/MensRights27/07/22 12:08 AM
1

Most cases of female on male rape are "made to penetrate," and most state laws include that under the definition. What state law were you quoting?
/r/MensRights26/07/22 11:59 PM
-2

its not just the UK btw. its almost everywhere. Most US laws are not this way. Either "rape" isn't the name of the crime at all, or it's gender neutral.
/r/MensRights26/07/22 06:00 PM
11

Women just lack the required skills to be self righteous arrogant pricks that don't care about anyone but their own power and wealth. The Speaker of the US House of Representatives would like to have a word.
/r/MensRights26/07/22 04:42 PM
7

On an unrelated note, it's a pity there's no death penalty in the UK anymore.
/r/MensRights26/07/22 03:22 AM
0

Only if it has a lock. I'm reading it. You're apparently not. If you have some example of a third party confirming your reading, or being ordered to add a lock to a toilet-and-urinal bathroom that was previously marked for multiple occupancy, I'm willing to be shown wrong. But you're misreading the statute, and if that's all the evidence we have, you're wrong.
/r/MensRights22/07/22 09:01 PM
4

Neither is a defense under the law. Either one is sometimes a defense in the eyes of the public.
/r/MensRights22/07/22 08:15 PM
4

Many people still believe that if a man is hard, if a woman is wet, or if the victim orgasms, then the encounter was consensual. When I was falsely accused of rape in college, the fact that the she had an orgasm was a major point for the "peer council" that tried the case and almost certainly part of the reason I was acquitted. That wasn't my argument, but it seemed to matter a lot to them when they questioned her about it.
/r/MensRights22/07/22 08:06 PM
0

A toilet stall and a urinal that does not have a latch is considered a single occupancy bathroom under the law. No. Look again. According to the new law, a single-occupancy bathroom is defined as “a toilet facility with no more than one water closet and one urinal with a locking mechanism controlled by the user.” To be a single-occupancy bathroom, it has to have an internal lock. If they don't put a lock on the door, it's not a single occupancy bathroom. Nowhere in the law does it require adding…
/r/MensRights22/07/22 07:59 PM
0

Do you have any links backing up your interpretation? Because what I'm seeing with a little Google searching doesn't match this. The law doesn't require putting a lock on a bathroom. Instead, if the bathroom has a lock on it, and has no more than one toilet and one urinal, then it has to be marked unisex. If there's no lock on the door then it can be a men's restroom. So, even if these companies just have one urinal and one stall in the men's restroom, they're fine as long as the restroom isn't …
/r/MensRights22/07/22 04:38 PM
2

Saw a live Tiktok yesterday where a girl was ranting about this "violent group" called "incels" that "shouldn't be allowed to exist." Whatever the term originally meant, it's a scapegoat now.
/r/MensRights17/07/22 08:04 PM
0

How about you take your own advice and fuck off? Especially given I've done nothing but mirror your own idiocy, which, surprise surprise, you failed to catch. My response to you was to explain, quite clearly, why replying to a thread on Reddit is not the same as disturbing someone at the gym. So I not only understood your mirroring, but picked apart why it was wrong. And they say gym rats are clever people. Literally no one says that. The gym rat stereotype does not include intelligence. People …
/r/MensRights14/07/22 09:42 PM
1

How about you take your own advice and fuck off? I just hate getting talked up on the internet. Hi, welcome to a thread on Reddit where I'm literally replying to you replying to me. People are expected to talk to each other here, and if you don't want to respond anymore, you can stop. Do you know where people aren't expected to talk to each other? The gym, the library, the cinema, and public transit, to name a few. You're not entitled to speak to people in these places, and if your attention is …
/r/MensRights13/07/22 11:34 PM
-3

How about at the gym we all mind our own business? Nobody's entitled to interrupt someone else's workout. I hate getting talked up at the gym, whether I think I'm getting hit on or not.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 09:59 PM
-7

If you mind your own business and don't creep on others in the gym, there's no action to be judged as welcome or unwelcome. Yes, attractive men and women can get away with things that unattractive people can't. But if you mind your own business, it doesn't matter whether you're attractive or not.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 08:37 PM
14

(assuming it happened as reported, since we only have her account) He shouldn't have said anything. People can be creeped out for whatever reason they want. She didn't say anything to him or report him to anyone; she removed herself from the situation. Totally her right. He confronted her about her personal behavior not directed toward him.
/r/MensRights13/07/22 08:34 PM
2

Don't give your time to a bigot. Anyone who hates an entire race, class, or sex of people is not worth your time.
/r/MensRights12/07/22 11:44 PM
2

That's marriage. The implicit agreement in marriage is that you live together and hold your property in common (my wife and I certainly do). And so when a couple divorces, they split everything equally, including sources of income. There's still quite a bit of unfairness against men that pops up in the family court system, but this isn't part of it. If she's not worth sharing all your stuff with - and losing half if you separate from her - don't marry her. Simple as.
/r/MensRights11/07/22 09:58 PM
21

If we truly believe in human rights, we must protect the lives of our most vulnerable.
/r/MensRights24/06/22 10:12 PM
17

Not that the law was actually a problem. This is in California. Just have a randomly chosen board member identify as a woman each meeting.
/r/MensRights16/05/22 11:35 PM
-3

I don't believe it's mutilation because I personally consulted with men who had it done as an adult and attested to no difference in function or sensation. But you're welcome to read a bunch of other motives into my opinion.
/r/MensRights16/05/22 02:56 PM
1

Um, how are we NOT talking about female vs male victims when we are specifically talking about the use of a penis? Go back to my first response.
/r/MensRights15/05/22 12:35 AM
-1

With doors being slammed in his face on both sides of the world, Galbraith considered going to Japan to track down the children himself, but said he knew his wife too well. 'It would be a locked door and police being called,' he said. Fucking idiot. Goddamn limp-dicked self-indulgent fucking idiot. A locked door and police being called? Fine, but then you know where they are. Then you can demand your rights as their father. Fuck her for destroying his life. Fuck him for not going after them. Thi…
/r/MensRights15/05/22 12:28 AM
1

But I’m struggling to see how someone in the mrm movement could use the term “uniquely violative” in relation to the idea that male victims of rape aren’t the same as female victims, based on a narrow definition of rape, which I thought was what we were arguing. Except that, for the third time, we're not talking about male vs female victims. We're talking about the penis vs other implements used to penetrate. Some state laws also make this distinction, but usually they include the victim's penis…
/r/MensRights15/05/22 12:08 AM
1

You first accused me of "really" caring about the identities of the perpetrator/victim rather than the act. Now you're accusing me of using violence and indecency to win a cultural battle... apparently ignoring the fact that I'm on the side of men's rights and not the feminists. When you stopped discussing ideas and instead starting characterizing my motives, this stopped being productive. Please be well.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 11:26 PM
1

It's clear that you're arguing with some straw misandrist you have in your head and not me. Feel free, but I don't feel the need to reply anymore. Be well.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 11:16 PM
1

What was "uniquely violative" wasn't a man raping a woman; it was the use of the penis (normally used in sex; can result in pregnancy). As we have already established, a man raping a woman with some other impliment doesn't meet English law's extremely narrow definition of "rape", either. More centrally, I'm not making any argument that there should be lesser punishment or that the crime should be considered less severe when a woman rapes a man, or when the rape occurs with some other implement. …
/r/MensRights14/05/22 10:34 PM
1

I think you're reading a lot into my comments that I didn't say.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 10:07 PM
0

Attitude is the only difference between a gift and larceny as well.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 03:23 PM
1

If you're really fine with me using my penis the same as any other tool, I can give you a great discount on some housework. Most people, even today, still understand that there's something uniquely violative about the traditionally defined act of "rape," which uses a penis. I agree that other crimes should have the same punishments, and they do. Most laws don't make this distinction. But don't act like the distinction isn't at least understandable in terms of historical and traditional meanings.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 02:57 PM
2

It only makes sense in the context of "rape" having a very specific meaning, and these other crimes being punished under "sexual assault" instead.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 01:45 PM
2

In most states in the US, it's rape or sexual assault to force sex, regardless of who penetrates whom.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 10:53 AM
8

If a man ties a woman up and penetrates her with foreign objects, he can't be charged with rape either. The crime of rape is defined to require using the criminal's penis.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 10:51 AM
1

Sexual assault includes a broader range of conduct than rape. However, when the sexual assault is actually rape, the sentencing guidelines are the same. Look at the basis for categorizing the sexual assault - a rape will automatically be a category 1.
/r/MensRights14/05/22 10:49 AM
1

The scope of enumerated powers will determine what the federal legislature can and can't do. Outside of federal territories, criminal law is generally a state matter. It is unlikely that Congress could pass a law that criminalizes all abortions or that stops the states from making abortion a crime. A lot of this will be left to the states.
/r/MensRights03/05/22 05:52 PM
1

States can permit abortion; the federal government likely cannot.
/r/MensRights03/05/22 01:26 PM
3

Reading the article, I don't think her point was that she's innocent because she's female as opposed to male. This appears to be "sovereign citizen" or "freeman on the land" silliness. Just as they usually say "I'm a man, not a person or a defendant," I suspect that was her point of saying "I'm a woman."
/r/MensRights03/05/22 12:44 AM
2

Breach of contract isn't a crime and can't send you to jail.
/r/MensRights04/02/22 02:31 PM
11

What data do you have as to a gender bias in academia, or lack of one? What data do you have that shows women objectively out-performing men in academia? Please share.
/r/MensRights11/01/22 12:23 AM
0

Looks like there was a big scare a decade ago, before teen pregnancy rates plummeted even further.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 06:54 PM
2

"This is MGTOW country now!" pours bleach
/r/MensRights03/04/19 06:30 PM
0

Just because the MO is "infamous" doesn't mean it's actually happening in significant numbers. Let's be honest: most teens aren't organized or dedicated enough to PLAN to get pregnant. It happens because they're dumb and horny.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 06:27 PM
3

That's fine if you and she are both in a similar situation w.r.t. funds, like dating in college. But when I got a job and was really serious about dating, most of the girls I dated made a fifth or less of what I made. This was a feature, not a bug; the women I dated were interested in having a family and had chosen occupations that gave them that flexibility. If you believe that it's okay to have gender roles, and one partner is gearing up to support a family while the other partner is gearing u…
/r/MensRights19/03/19 12:34 PM
1

The article notes that sex wasn't a protected class in the Washington statute when the case was decided more than 35 years ago.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 03:33 AM
1

Do you have a citation to the Washington case?
/r/MensRights15/06/18 03:23 AM
1

Looking at the Washington law, it explicitly covers surcharges. I'm surprised it's been construed to allow discounts, but if I understand it correctly, this would mean you can get away with an 18% discount for ladies but not an 18% man tax.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 03:17 AM
2

45 states, plus Washington DC, plus many local jurisdictions in the other five states include gender in their public accommodations laws. When you decided to claim it was "very few states," did you bother to check?
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:54 AM
2

Sane men aren't eating there. Feminists are.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 02:00 AM
20

I still don't understand why this is considered a good argument. If most employers value the work of women less than the work of men (which is the premise of the wage gap argument), then the question answers itself. These "misgynists" are paying women less because they believe that's what they're worth, and they still hire men because they "overvalue" their work. To put it another way - the argument isn't that employers know the value of women and deliberately underpay them. Rather, it's that em…
/r/MensRights14/06/18 01:57 AM
1

It's legal because it's voluntary. They don't make you pay it; you pay the bill and then they tell you what your man tax would be and you can choose to put that much in the jar.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 01:46 AM
1

At least they didn't make a basic math mistake like the Aussies did.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 01:14 AM
1

Their Facebook page has a picture of the man tax jar from less than a month ago.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 01:04 AM
2

That's incorrect on two levels. First, the case was about the Constitutionality of a state law requiring the Jaycees to allow women as voting members. SCOTUS ruling in Minessota's favor only means that such laws are allowed - it doesn't have the effect of promulgating such laws across all fifty states. Second, the ruling was that the Jaycees organization could be considered public rather than private, and therefore did not enjoy the same First Amendment protection as a private club with selectiv…
/r/MensRights14/06/18 12:58 AM
2

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).
/r/MensRights13/06/18 10:19 PM
4

The acts only cover public places, not private clubs. If you're under the impression that these antidiscrimination laws cover private clubs, and the literally hundreds of such clubs that still exist today are all breaking the law, all I can say is that you are mistaken.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 10:15 PM
4

Can you elucidate in what way Augusta National Golf Club is an example? They are a well-known example of a private club that was whites-only for many years, and then men-only for decades after that. And to my knowledge, they were never required by the law to correct either of these things. Maybe you're talking about something else?
/r/MensRights13/06/18 09:41 PM
2

They are bad at math. An 18% surcharge isn't equivalent to an 18% deficit. 100 * 82% * 118% != 100
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:02 PM
26

Plenty of places like that exist and have for decades. Not only dining clubs but fraternal organizations, sports clubs, and the like. There is nothing new about male-only private groups.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 07:27 PM
5

Because you don't have to pay it. Many restaurants do the same with tips for large parties. The tip is automatically added on the bill but you can still adjust it up or down.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 07:07 PM
7

That's fair enough. The problem, I think, it that there are a lot of SJWs who think gender is just a matter of clothing and pronoun choice. This, and not actual dysphoria, is what the post is suggesting we imitate.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:06 PM
17

Can you elaborate? Are you saying that actual trans people (that is, those with diagnosed gender dysphoria who choose transition) are hated because SJWs insist that gender is arbitrary and socially constructed?
/r/MensRights13/06/18 04:48 PM
4

Because it's a charity thing and it's (supposedly) voluntary. If people aren't comfortable paying it — if men aren't going to pay it — we're not going to kick them out the door. It's just a good opportunity to do some good. Quote from here.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 04:45 PM
59

All states have public accommodations laws so that restaurants that are open to people walking in off the streets have to allow people of all sexes, races, etc to come in and eat. Other organizations get away with being female-only by being private, members-only facilities. A "dining club" could be men only or women only; a restaurant cannot.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 04:42 PM
9

It's actually a "suggested donation" that they add to the bill rather than a mandatory charge, so they might be able to get away with it.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 04:41 PM
10

I do think that everyone should be taught to respect people and not rape, regardless of their gender. Is there a reason that you don't think people are taught this now? Saying "but we lock doors" as a form of victim-blaming is cruel, because rape is an offense against human life. (As opposed to theft, which is an offense against property.) Rape is not an offense against human life; it is offense against the human person. Homicides are the only crimes against human life. But more generally, I don…
/r/MensRights08/05/18 12:43 PM
3

That has turned out to be the case. The five of us are out at a public park right now, throwing around balls and running and climbing on equipment. Turns out most of the time they're just kids playing.
/r/RedPillWives05/05/18 03:03 PM
8

I genuinely don't understand how I can wrestle with her without hurting her. She looks so fragile. Won't she just cry? Sorry if this sounds ignorant.
/r/RedPillWives01/05/18 04:49 PM
5

Or you could just point out that if "the quoted gap (...) is actually the difference for women in the same job, with the same skills and working the same hours" was even remotely close to being true with females being over 20% cheaper to hire, male unemployment would be huge and females would have replaced them in all fields long ago. I have heard this argument before, but I'm not sure it's true. "Intangibles" make up a significant component of any assessment of value, particularly on something …
/r/MensRights11/04/18 06:49 PM
2

It's admissible to post on the internet.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 08:24 PM
1

Oh. Good, thanks. I was confused.
/r/RedPillWives04/04/18 09:24 PM
6

I was always taught that hitting was just something that husbands and wives don't do. Eight years of marriage, so far, and I've never hit or been hit. My parents just celebrated 40 years of marriage and the same is true; my grandparents are approaching 60 years of marriage and they practice the same. I'm perplexed by the idea that a slap would actually be a positive thing in the relationship. I can understand it happening in a moment of thoughtlessness or passion and being forgiven, but the idea…
/r/RedPillWives04/04/18 08:16 PM
9

It appears to be Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia. I haven't found any "accused should resign" quotes yet. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article199198249.html
/r/MensRights07/03/18 12:25 PM
1

I've heard this myth before, but my wife and I talk to our parents and grandparents pretty much daily and visit them at least a couple of times a week. If you like your family, I don't understand why they wouldn't end up as some of your closest friends.
/r/MensRights23/02/18 03:09 PM
1

If I got married and had children, there's something close to a 50% chance I'd end up divorced and never see my kids again, but still have to pay out money for them. The chance is much lower if it's your first marriage, you're over 25 (not high school or college age), and the kids come after the marriage. At that point the odds of divorce are closer to 20%.
/r/MensRights23/02/18 03:06 PM
16

I would much rather share the planet with someone who believes it is flat than someone who believes that half her fellow humans are incapable of being traumatized.
/r/MensRights24/01/18 09:27 PM
4

Not true... you just need a penis to legally rape someone. And in the UK, a woman can have a penis. So had she taken steps to affirmatively prove she didn't penetrate this man with her penis?
/r/MensRights19/01/18 01:48 PM
2

She appeared to be talking about how women take bad things done by a specific man and generalize that to the behavior of all men. So the first wrong would be "man does something bad." The second wrong is then "woman attacks all men for it."
/r/MensRights15/01/18 04:18 PM
1

Some state laws are saner than others.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 09:18 PM
2

Very interesting. In the case you linked to, it looks like the court's decision to make the Dad keep paying has something to do with a previous divorce order. A link in that article to another article showed that parents trying to cut ties with their adult children are usually able to do so legally.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 01:43 PM
8

Italian law is weird. Under US law (in most jurisdictions), the parent would own the copyright of the photographs, and the parent would also have the right to post stuff that the child actually did own the copyright for since the parent controls the child's stuff.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 01:23 PM
10

This is good! Strict liability crimes are BS. How old you reasonably thought the person was should definitely make a difference.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 11:58 AM
3

The Court is to say that. And they will, and you'll have to pay the black women a bunch of money.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 05:23 PM
2

No, I genuinely was unaware of the sliding promotion points for PT scores and I do think it makes a difference. The points are one-for-one above passing, so 270 vs 300 is a 30 point spread. I recognize that matters.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 04:05 PM
29

France: 1946 Nope. While the 1946 Constitution mentions equal rights for men and women in the preamble, a statute requiring equal pay for women wasn't actually enacted until 1972 (Labor Code article L 140-2). Germany: 1949 Nope. Again, this is just a statement in the Basic Law that men and women are equal, but separate pay scales for men and women were upheld in the West German courts after this. West Germany passed an Equal Pay Act in 1955 requiring "equal pay for equal work," but then the Cour…
/r/MensRights05/01/18 03:59 PM
14

With a passing score at only 180, and a spread of 120 promotion points on the line as your PT score improves, this really does seem like a genuine situation where differing standards changes ability to advance. Thanks for pointing this out.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 03:42 PM
40

Military pay isn't based on the things measured by the PT requirements; it's based on grade and hours worked. A dude who can manage twice as many push ups as you or run twice as far doesn't get paid twice as much. If you both put in your time you'll be paid the same. Having lower test requirements for female soldiers is BS, but if we understand the requirements as being a proxy for someone who is in good physical condition and is actively training, it makes sense that this wouldn't have a direct…
/r/MensRights05/01/18 02:10 PM
10

There are a lot of employment benefits even in the private sector that disproportionately help families over single adults. Health care is the most obvious.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 02:06 PM
5

I don't know of any law that requires employers to treat individuals in the workplace fairly. Statutes typically require that employees aren't treated unfairly due to being in some specific group. So I can overpay the dozen employees that I like and underpay the dozen that I dislike, so long as the two groups aren't disproportionately of one sex or race or any other characteristic the law protects.
/r/MensRights05/01/18 02:05 PM
18

Or the overworked detective who already misses 90% of her children's lives decides to not even bother spending another 80 overtime hours away from her family to read through 40,000 messages. A refusal for law enforcement to review 40,000 message isn't negligent. A refusal to release those 40,000 messages for review by the defense, is.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 07:49 PM
6

Did you check out the links in the sidebar? They discuss the MRM and what issues they are focusing on.
/r/MensRights13/12/17 12:24 PM
4

Pro tip: When posting an article from 2014, make sure there haven't been any updates on the case.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 08:34 PM
1

Providing healthy meals every day to people, whether they can afford them or not, is an obligation our communities should take seriously.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 07:30 PM
4

An apparent contradiction is called a paradox, even if we have an explation for it. Other examples: the twin paradox, Simpson's paradox.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 06:43 PM
1

Sociologists call it "the poverty-obesity paradox."
/r/MensRights12/12/17 06:19 PM
1

Why are you getting downvoted for this comment?
/r/MensRights12/12/17 05:30 PM
13

The statistics back you up. This study found that more than half of chronically homeless adults are also overweight. There is a strong link between obesity and food insecurity.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 05:26 PM
2

I'm not understanding what this has to do with the OP link. Could you clarify?
/r/MensRights12/12/17 03:05 PM
3

Italy doesn't have the death penalty, do they? Too bad. A parent that kills their own kid deserves to die.
/r/MensRights12/12/17 02:06 PM
2

Please do
/r/MensRights09/12/17 03:35 PM
33

“Ah,” I hear some men cry over the sound of scraping at the bottom of a barrel, “We are better at DIY than you are!” But even men’s practical skills are diminishing, as they get lazier and more complacent. A survey carried out by a bathroom firm found that women are increasingly likely to get on with tasks such as fixing a leaky tap, fixing the toilet, hanging wallpaper, and sealing windows rather than hanging around waiting for the “man of the house” to drain his lager, switch off the football,…
/r/MensRights08/12/17 09:23 PM
1

The comments on the two threads are pretty similar. I guess the main difference is that more people seem to think the cheap boy is funny, whereas people just think the cheap girl is sad. I'm not seeing the big double standard here. Maybe I missed some specific cringeworthy comments?
/r/MensRights08/12/17 07:56 PM
1

I've continued to subscribe to their Youtube channel, even as I have to make more and more of an effort to identify and skip their preachy feminist videos.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 10:21 PM
4

You haven't posted anywhere to contribute. Only to argue vehemently against. I've posted many times to contribute. Look harder. And you quickly jumped in here too, again, without facts, or even reading the proof. I read your claim and the link you gave. It's not my fault that you don't know what a headline is.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 10:09 PM
9

So it's not the headline that's the problem, but the front page link text? Doesn't seem buried to me. Seems like you're trying to make a conspiracy out of nothing.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 10:03 PM
13

The headline reads: Melanie Martinez: Woman who appeared on The Voice denies accusations of rape made by former friend The accused is female; the accuser is male. It mentions that the accused is female right there in the title. I think you misread it.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 09:54 PM
1

Yes, I agree - it's clear that there were already particular studies the authors wanted to highlight, and that the questions were asked with those studies in mind.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 07:11 PM
3

Hasty generalization, not non sequitur.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 06:55 PM
1

Yes, certainly it's possible to take the presented studies and draw different conclusions, or to claim other studies not presented here would give a more balanced or complete view of gender. The point is that when there is broad agreement that the evidence matters and an indication to discuss what it shows rather than relying on ideology or anecdote, there is a useful conversation to be had. This is head and shoulders above the fact-free anecdote-driven claims we see so often among modern femini…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 06:53 PM
2

This doesn't seem like indoctrination to me. The phrasing seems very careful, and the evidentiary basis for each conclusion is explicitly stated. This quiz was apparently written in 1984, and it looks like it takes a rational second-wave rather than irrational third-wave feminist tone in its outlook. These are the sort of claims I would want to engage with and discuss in a gender studies course.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 04:10 PM
15

It doesn't look like anyone believed her automatically. It looks like they have a process in place that if an accusation is made, and not formally retracted, they have to investigate. That's actually a good policy, but such investigations should be done in confidence: no publicity and all names kept confidential until the investigation determines there's reason to go to trial. That would strike a balance of both taking accusations seriously and not ruining the life of the accused.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 03:07 PM
2

We're not feminists - this isn't tribalism. When a man or a woman gets abused, you don't make excuses for it. You condemn it. I'm honestly disgusted by your post, as I think most decent people would be.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 02:14 PM
4

BELIEVE OR SCRUTINSE THE VICTIM? He was convicted in court and sent to jail for 13 years. Any reason to doubt the accusations? Can you be violently raped beside a baby and not have it wake? Yes. Many babies sleep very soundly. Is it unreasonable for the father of your child to ask you not to dress provocatively? I might be. It's not reasonable to lock her in the house, make her delete her social media accounts, or refuse her a phone. She's an adult. What did you do for him to change his behaviou…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 12:53 PM
28

It's wrong for men to hit women, but perfectly ok for women to hit men? Except that's not what she said. She said it's wrong for men to physically abuse women, and it would be good if those men got hit in public. Wanting physical abusers to, themselves, get hit as punishment is not hypocritical.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:25 PM
2

What do you advise your girls?
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:44 PM
2

Married with three kids. My best friend, also a vocal MRA, is a stay-at-home dad. He's experienced a lot of the societal stigma for that first-hand. We both found intelligent women who are supportive of strong men and genuine gender equality. They really are out there, so don't lose hope.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:19 PM
4

Definitely is. Lack of consistency at least.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 12:50 PM
10

Wow, that's a really broad law. I, in fact, cannot provide an explanation as to why it would not apply.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 03:40 AM
9

It's difficult to directly prove a negative. But if you provide me a particular law that you think this is violating, I'll explain why it likely doesn't apply.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 02:41 AM
1

Likely not since they are no longer a business serving customers, but instead providing a free service. You can typically discriminate however you want when doling out charity.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 12:50 AM
33

It is not illegal for private companies to discriminate against women and girls in this fashion. Oh hey, it's still true. Quelle surprise.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 12:49 AM
8

No need to bother with an overpriced subscription plan anyway. Just go online to Dorco (the brand that Dollar Shave Club buys from and repackages) and buy a box of razors at a lot lower price.
/r/MensRights22/11/17 02:36 PM
3

To prove they're real life people. You don't think robots are real life people? Speciesist?
/r/MensRights21/11/17 09:04 PM
12

Citation needed.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 07:43 PM
47

This isn't anything uniquely "male." Every one of my female relatives expects the men to fix the computer, configure the TV, repair the car, etc. They choose not to learn how to do it, and expect someone to do it for them. And we do, because nobody can be good at everything. It's good to specialize. It's not "emotional labor." It's called being in a relationship.
/r/MensRights20/11/17 05:29 PM
0

She made the unambiguously wrong call. And followed it up with years of ridiculously wrong calls.
/r/MensRights18/11/17 01:30 AM
6

Just some actor who has starred in some terrible action movies recently.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 03:32 PM
3

It's a private organization. If they want to exclude the gayz or let in the grrlz, that's their business.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 02:39 PM
6

Yeah, they're discriminating by sex, obviously. But often this is allowed. The question is whether or not the discrimination is reasonable. One of the things that's looked at is whether or not both sexes are being accommodated. Having both boys and girls softball, for instance, is less likely to be an issue than having only boys softball. Another thing that's looked at, particularly if you don't have a program for both sexes but sometimes even if you do, is whether or not the segregation is reas…
/r/MensRights17/11/17 02:34 PM
1

The point being made is that detailed accounting isn't necessary. The amounts of child support payments are modest enough that as long as CPS is doing sufficient monitoring to assure the child is not neglected, then the parent is spending more than the payments on the child. Is the child going to school in clothes and shoes that fit, healthy and well-fed? Then there is more than $800 a month being spent on the child. No further accounting needed.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 01:23 PM
19

You don't have to understand. They have rules in place. We do have to understand. Their rules have to comply with federal nondiscrimination law, which explicitly requires school sports to accommodate both sexes. Unless they have a good reason for not allowing him to compete, this is illegal. Discrimination isn't okay just because "it's the rules." The rules are likely wrong.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 01:13 PM
14

He's being kicked out because the MSHSL only allows girls to compete in dance, tennis, synchronized swimming, gymastics, and volleyball. The league also only allows boys to compete in baseball. Tennis and volleyball, I can understand. Performance activities, in which there is no head-to-head competition, there is no justification to exclude based on gender.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 01:05 PM
0

Yes, the ridiculous improbability of a Kazon* raiding party being able to locate and disarm timed demolitions that could be set to go off mere seconds after Voyager activates the alien technology is definitely worth inexorably stranding her crew on the other side of the galaxy. Because Janeway is the least competent captain in all of Trek. *Let's remember that this incredibly advanced and dangerous race is highly motivated because they apparently can't find water - one of the most plentiful mole…
/r/MensRights17/11/17 12:05 PM
1

"We have to destroy the device rather than using it to go home, because apparently timed demolitions don't exist."
/r/MensRights17/11/17 11:31 AM
1

I agree that killing T'Kuvma made no sense. Which makes it 5 for 5 in Trek series introducing a serial plot arc in the first episode with a ridiculous plot hole. This one wasn't quite as bad as Voyager's, though.
/r/MensRights16/11/17 10:17 PM
5

The fact that they showed the actual PTSD flashbacks the character was getting makes me think it's unlikely to be a ruse. I could see a "brainwashed assassin" plotline though.
/r/MensRights16/11/17 06:44 PM
1

No, but always ask an SO's permission before taking off a stranger's pants. Answering for a "friend".
/r/MensRights16/11/17 05:23 PM
24

This should be a capital offense. Seriously - take her to court, convict her, lethally inject her. No adult that would do this to a three-year-old is worth breathing air on this planet.
/r/MensRights16/11/17 03:22 PM
2

If a woman forces a man to penetrate her, that's rape. That is the most common way that women rape men. Yes, if you ignore the majority of rapes by women by ignoring that category, there is nowhere near as many. Don't do that.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 08:31 PM
9

Her tone is very much sex-positive second wave, though - not the third wave insane bigotry that wants to criminalize tone-deaf flirting. I see that there's a double standard in that she won't catch nearly as much flak as a man would, but I don't think she herself is displaying any hypocrisy here.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 01:28 PM
15

Tracey Cox is a "feminist journalist"? I checked her article history and they seem like sex-positive relationship articles, not anti-male rant pieces.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 12:30 PM
7

The photographer is clearly not a parent herself - at least not of any kids that age.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 08:48 PM
14

In the 90s, the CDC was publishing stuff that looked to a lot of people like politically advocating gun control. So Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, which prohibits the CDC from promoting gun control, and sent clear budget signals that CDC studies directed to firearms would not be funded.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 02:17 PM
11

I'm struggling to see how ethics can be used here... Lots of possibilities. For example, maybe they didn't get consent from a review board at the hospital - or worse, didn't get consent from the parents to study the baby's reactions. Without any record of the hospital's actions, there's no way to know. Whatever process the hospital review board used to review the situation... if they didn't keep records, that is clearly unethical.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 02:12 PM
10

Considered? Yes. Because "hate speech" is an ad hoc category used to try to delegitimize opponents.
/r/MensRights03/11/17 04:05 PM
2

They still do the majority of the actual work. Women don't want to change that, but they do want to be compensated like men while working less.
/r/MensRights02/11/17 11:08 PM
5

Marriage is already in decline; I doubt the sex bots will make that big a difference. There's already porn, and casual sex is easy to come by, so sex is already not the major motivator of long-term relationships. Legit companionship is.
/r/MensRights02/11/17 08:48 PM
37

The irony is that the data is right there, and they acknowledge it, but refuse to accept it. They note that women tend to leave the company right in the middle of their seniority, presumably to have a family. Their response is not, "Okay, they are making different choices and therefore getting a different result." Instead it's, "Why aren't men doing this as much as women? Sexism!?!?!?" They note that higher levels of the job require increasingly more dedicated employees and higher workloads. Aga…
/r/MensRights02/11/17 06:54 PM
2

Right. Instead they say "women and visible minorities are encouraged to apply."
/r/MensRights02/11/17 03:58 PM
5

I haven't found an equivalent law in Canada. There are "employment equity" laws to encourage hiring minorities, but no provision for advertising a position just to a minority.
/r/MensRights02/11/17 03:41 PM
24

Correct. This sort of affirmative action only makes sense if you think women are worse at their jobs.
/r/MensRights02/11/17 02:02 PM
50

Apparently in Australia it is. There are particular regulations allowing it for people that "experience disadvantage;" all women are considered such people.
/r/MensRights02/11/17 01:15 PM
10

The irony here is that the article they quoted is much more careful about stating the statistics accurately: In 2015, female full-time, year-round workers made only 80 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 20 percent. It then goes on to talk about average pay in different professions that are dominated by men or by women, but it never echoes this dishonesty about "the same job."
/r/MensRights02/11/17 12:56 PM
3

Very soon this idiot will have no friends at all, and it serves him right.
/r/MensRights02/11/17 02:31 AM
3

Smells like a troll to me.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 09:01 PM
12

Well, an unprotected click is always your choice, no matter how different sites resist your use of protection. As long as they don't use force.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 02:36 PM
37

Did they try to pull you into their website before you could put your add blocker on? So many websites today want you to click on links unprotected.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 02:24 PM
3

You feel like these things don't exist... the world does not agree. You have a disappointingly myopic understanding of what "the world" agrees with. There's a reason that the number of women who identify as feminists is a shrinking minority. common knowledge Shorthand for "I have beliefs that I don't want to have to question."
/r/MensRights30/10/17 04:59 PM
31

My friends and coworkers are anything but a small family group. I went to college in California; I know very liberal women living in major cities. Some of them are feminists, but even they don't agree with most of the current demagoguery crap - because unlike the people who make it up, most of them are trained in STEM and know how to read scientific studies. But, yes, you ask how I make value judgements (as opposed to assessing facts), and I refuse to make them without consulting with those I kn…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 12:51 PM
36

Yeah... you're blithely denying a series of well documented, wholly independently accepted social trends. I don't believe I am. I've taken a look at the sociological, economic, and psychological data in these areas, and although I am not an expert, the findings of the experts don't appear support the narrative points I've listed. For example, it is often claimed that 1 in 4 (or 1 in 3) women are raped in college. That is unequivocally contrary to the data we have. As another example, it is often…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 12:27 PM
5

My circle of friends that I met through academia, left and right, all use logic when we discuss these issues. They may understand the facts differently than I do, they may be marginally different values than I do, but they explain why they believe the way they do and back up what they have to say with evidence and analysis. My circles of friends that come from family, hometown, work, and church, left and right, do not generally use logic when we discuss these issues. They make generalizations ba…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 12:05 PM
38

Modern feminism is based on a lot of factual claims that don't have solid evidentiary support. Internalized misogyny, rape culture, patriarchy, endemic workplace sexism, and the university sexual assault epidemic, to name a few. The issue here isn't values or morality; it's facts. Things are not the way they claim them to be; people and institutions are not behaving the way they describe. Until the facts are nailed down and clarified, it's impossible that we will come to a consensus on values.
/r/MensRights30/10/17 11:58 AM
2

A lay webpage that admits it's adapted from a text from two decades ago is not "a respected journal." You don't actually know how scholarship works, do you?
/r/MensRights28/10/17 05:59 PM
2

No. She'd poke me in the arm to get my attention, same as I would to her. She doesn't use "gentle" slaps because we don't argue that way. We're not dysfunctional. Cuck Trust me, she gets all the dick she wants from me. Just because all your boyfriends cheat on you, doesn't mean the rest of us are treated that way. Twink.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 05:57 PM
5

The APA website is still based on a reference set published in 2000 that cites a 1970s projection for this stat. Notice the "40 to 50 percent" claim does not cite any study or survey. This is how broadly erroneous claims perpetuate.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 05:53 PM
5

I'm not leftist, and I'm aware of the facts. Again, the last time marriages had a projected 50% of divorce rate was in the 1980s. Married couples today will last more than 15 years on average and end in death, not divorce, about 70% of the time. Humans don't just use 10% of their brains, 1 in 4 women are not raped, and half of marriages do not end in divorce. Stop believing oft-repeated faerie tales and do some real research.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 05:47 PM
4

Most men I speak to say they never hit their wives and their wives never hit them. My wife never hit me either. I had a girlfriend who hit me upside the head once. I flicked her, hard, in the nose, reminded her that violence isn't acceptable and if she acts like a poorly trained animal she'll be treated like one. She apologized and never hit me again. If you are in a demographic where most women are abusive, I'm sorry, but this is not universal.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 05:43 PM
2

And statistically For goodness sake, quit it with this made up BS. Actually do some research before making these ridiculous claims.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 05:25 PM
2

This is some feminist level delusion. You love her so she must be abusing you? What a joke.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 05:21 PM
1

First of all, the divorce rate hasn't been 50% since the 1980s. Update your facts. Second, your mother should have been arrested. Your hateful attitude to other women based on your own trauma is something you should resolve. You're delusional.
/r/MensRights28/10/17 05:19 PM
8

I take as much "emotional labor" as my wife will let me, but that is very little. She is much happier having her hand on the joystick for family decisions big and small. Except I plan our anniversary trip every year, and she enjoys the surprise.
/r/RedPillWives27/10/17 09:50 PM
20

Aren't we, though? I mean the trending hashtag is RespectHarry, with men and women both broadly condemning the grope as disgusting and wrong. I'm quite heartened by this.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 06:26 PM
3

It has been claimed the sequence is: abusive male partner -> come out as lesbian. I'm not saying that's all, or even the majority of, cases, but I can understand wanting to account for it.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 03:47 PM
2

Facts can be presented in a sexist way.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 02:13 PM
2

That's an example of what he was saying, actually... the stats in that source are entirely about the sexual orientation of the victim and don't give any indication about the gender of the abuser.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 02:10 PM
4

Sorry, you don't get credit for a "scientific reason" when your article cites ZERO scientific sources. This is chauvinism, plain and simple. Here's a somewhat outdated article that at least references several relevant studies on this subject.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 01:08 PM
2

Make a similar slide using "blacks" and "whites" instead of "men" and "women."
/r/MensRights26/10/17 11:29 AM
2

Typically the courts will look to the state that you made the agreement in when ruling on it. So, yes, you do need to pay attention to any limitations when moving to another state, but the state the prenup and marriage were originally in does still matter.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 06:05 PM
3

The biggest thing you need to do is figure out what the laws are for marriage property and prenups in the state where you live. This is an area of the law where each state has significant quirks, and you should pay attention to how things work in your particular state. Don't presume that because something worked or didn't work in Indiana that you can do the same thing in New Jersey. IAALBNYL (I am a lawyer but not your lawyer)
/r/MensRights24/10/17 04:49 PM
11

Did something happen to the Taylor House in Arkansas?
/r/MensRights24/10/17 03:14 PM
3

Here's the local article on it from back in January: https://www.newarkadvocate.com/story/news/local/2017/01/12/dover-woman-given-probation-rape-13-year-old-boy/96492386/
/r/MensRights19/10/17 01:28 PM
13

It's a bit dissonant, but the claim is that "A raped B," I'm willing to treat B as a rape victim without evidence, but I'm not willing to treat A as a rapist without evidence.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 02:45 PM
8

If alleged rape victims come forward, we can believe them enough to offer counselling services and support without changing the legal system that requires proof. I'm pretty sure we already do this. Whatever counseling services are available to you - and just about every university offers them, as well as most health insurance for adults - none of them require you to prove you actually experienced a particular trauma before treating you. The services are there, as they should be.
/r/MensRights18/10/17 02:43 PM
1

Rational observation: "Women destroy themselves and each other by unnecessary and destructive in-fighting." A rational solution would have been: "Tackle and conquer your insecurities so you can be collaborative and self-secure rather than destructive." Instead, this man-hating author's solution is: "Direct your unnecessary and destructive aggression towards men instead of other women." It's telling that this author's most recent book is entitled Bitch Doctrine. Here's some real advice: instead o…
/r/MensRights18/10/17 02:31 PM
7

Room, not book. In other words, "I have contempt for you, because your natural ability to gauge a complicated interpersonal situation is inferior to mine."
/r/MensRights17/10/17 09:28 PM
19

Hey women, what are you planning to do better? Because you need to do better. Here are ideas on how you should treat men better. Talk to your friend who is “kind of a bitch” at work. Don’t talk over men. If you are asked to be on a panel/team and see that it’s all women, say something. Maybe even refuse the spot! When you see another woman talk over a man, say: “Hey, he was saying something.” Learn to read a fucking room. Don’t call men “crazy” in a professional setting. Don’t use your “feminism…
/r/MensRights17/10/17 09:13 PM
15

Medical study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102
/r/MensRights17/10/17 09:00 PM
0

She's saying he might do the same thing to his sister that happened to him. That's a completely reasonable concern. Five-year-olds pretty compulsively repeat what they see their friends do at school.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 01:59 PM
-2

Emily Davison did.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 07:03 PM
1

My wife says I'm straight. My boyfriend disagrees.
/r/MensRights16/10/17 01:20 PM
25

Your offensive use of "retarded" is pretty gay.
/r/MensRights15/10/17 04:24 PM
31

Clearly you're not a "real woman." Don't you love feminist gatekeepers?
/r/MensRights15/10/17 04:22 PM
1

80% of your ancestors are female. Not quite; it's estimated to be about a 2:1 ratio (66% female). The 80% number came from the fact that 80% of females have descendants vs 40% of males.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 08:46 PM
1

The EEOC timing was not changed, but the Equal Pay Act added the ability to directly sue instead of filing an EEOC complaint, and that has the federal two-year lawsuit window instead. That's also explained in the link.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 08:43 PM
1

such as the courts enforcing arbitrary limits on laws intend to protect gender rights, for example the decision that held that women could not sue for discrimination unless they do so within 6 months of the start of the discrimination, even if they were not aware of the discrimination within that time frame; This is a common misconception. An EEOC complaint of discrimination must be filed within 6 months of whatever particular event you are claiming was discriminatory, not within 6 months of whe…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 08:33 PM
2

I don't understand what your asking. Again, when we talk about what "most" of a group do, or what is "common," we need to be clear that we have spelled out which group we're talking about. Most people who steal cars, do so to get money for drugs. Why don't they get a job? It would be better to get a job. Many more people have jobs, than steal cars. So, among all people, drugs is not a common motivation for stealing cars, because most people don't steal cars. But among those who steal cars, drugs…
/r/MensRights10/10/17 09:55 PM
3

Ok then, so that's not a common motive. Among all women who regret sex, most don't respond by lying about rape. So it's not a "common motive" to the group of all women who regret sex. But among women who lie about rape, there is reason to suspect that regretting sex is a common motive. Is the distinction clear?
/r/MensRights10/10/17 09:14 PM
3

I presume that most do.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 09:02 PM
2

There is no statistical evidence that this is the case.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 08:42 PM
2

And why wouldn't they just deny having sex at all if they felt guilty? That would certainly be the more moral thing to do.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 08:38 PM
6

Much riskier than doing nothing, which is what it takes to report a consensual encounter as nonconsensual. And, as I mentioned above, the motive for the false accusation is often deflecting guilt from the sexual encounter. So it's not a situation of "I want him to get blamed for something," as much as it's a situation of "I don't want the guilt/blame associated with the encounter so it has to all be on him."
/r/MensRights10/10/17 07:37 PM
6

Usually a false accusation occurs in conjunction with a sexual encounter. It's far easier and less risky than planting drugs because there's nothing physical to do - the physical evidence of a consensual and nonconsensual sexual encounter can be identical. Also note that many false accusations are deflections of guilt over the encounter. That is, the accuser is "in trouble" with a parent or significant other and doesn't want their share of responsibility for what happened. In a number of cases w…
/r/MensRights10/10/17 07:24 PM
8

So... if we bring them down with us, that's equal? Yes. I don't see why we shouldn't get our rights up to that level instead Sure, that would also be equal. This whole "dragging them into the sludge with us" mentality is toxic It's toxic to point out that equality isn't oppression?
/r/MensRights10/10/17 06:58 PM
3

I really do think that the access to contraceptives is/should be a right If you really believe this, then the obvious thing to do would be to allocate government funds to pay for it. Not mandate that insurance has to pay for it.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 06:56 PM
1

This is a reasonable response. Granting custody is a very sensitive and complicated issue, and it is essential to always keep the best interests of the child in mind. Fair consideration should be given to both mothers and fathers. And, she's right, these are state law issues, not federal issues. She's not the right person to talk to.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 05:28 PM
7

Realize that it took a full 70 years from when birth control became available on the market before a law established that insurers must make that investment. (1960, the pill becomes available. 2010 the ACA mandate is signed) 2010-1960=50. Perhaps one more math class and one less women's studies class?
/r/MensRights10/10/17 05:18 PM
5

Agreement. Fewer, well-planned-for children is better for society.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 02:26 PM
5

This is a good point. BC for women is preventing a serious medical condition. Pregnancy is dangerous.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 01:46 PM
1

I don't know of a single court case that has ever confirmed this to be true. Do you? The RFRA theoretically can be used to allow a religious business to ignore an anti-discrumination law, but if you know a case where this successfully happened, please share.
/r/MensRights08/10/17 09:38 PM
1

I've seen plenty of churches that do, and almost all of the ones that don't have the traditionalist anti-male crap instead. Yes, there's some of that. But it's manageable and treated with irreverence. The main reason I mentioned it to the OP is that it's an environment where the women are socially expected to be supportive of male leadership and men are socially expected to lead. Which could be helpful to the improvements he seems to want to make.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 08:56 PM
1

If you were in the United States I'd recommend you join a Christian church. You can find good emotional support in a social environment that absolutely does not tolerate feminist anti-male crap. Men are expected to take leadership roles and are both supported and encouraged by their wives, sisters, mothers, etc to do so. Mutual love and support instead of mistrust. But, if no such groups exist where you are, then I'd recommend making some male friends who are more confident than you are regardin…
/r/MensRights06/10/17 08:43 PM
2

Have they responded to your request? I'd be surprised if they said no.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 05:47 PM
3

There's nothing wrong with targeting a demographic with advertising and promotions, provided you don't discriminate in who responds to the promotion.
/r/MensRights06/10/17 05:46 PM
1

That would likely work, yes. If a private group wants to hold an event and only invite certain people, in most places it can do that. However: a) If the group advertises the event as open to the public, then the group will be in similar trouble for discriminating; and b) Now the owners have to let all sorts of private organizations rent out the bar or risk a discrimination suit at that level. So the females-only group this week is followed by a whites-only group next week, etc.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 06:37 PM
1

In most states, yes, although a few have a rule that you can't exclude members of the public without a good reason. That's why a known card counter can be banned from casinos in Vegas but not in Atlantic city.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 02:33 PM
7

The basic idea is simple: when you open the doors to your bar (or restaurant, or other "public accommodation" business), if someone walks in and engages you to be a customer, you need to treat them the same as any other customer. If you treat them differently because of their race or sex or religion or where they're from, you're violating the law.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 01:36 PM
3

I get a broken link, but I'll answer the question. Excluding medical issues associated with pregnancy and labor, yes. People should be treated fairly, including whatever accommodations are given to people who want to invest time in their families. On average, women will take off more time than men, but that should be their decision, not dictated by their employers or the government.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 01:30 PM
133

This is UW Madison, by the way, since they don't feel the need to identify themselves anywhere. To me, the issue is an easy one to resolve: demonstrate that those who have taken women's studies courses actually have longer and happier relationships, as this student claims. Of course, since toxic anti-male feminism actually destroys relationships rather than helping them, that evidence will not be forthcoming.
/r/MensRights03/10/17 02:32 PM
3

You're welcome. PM me if more details are needed, just remember I'm not a Texas lawyer. It's illegal for me to pretend to be one.
/r/MensRights02/10/17 04:27 PM
15

(Note: I am a lawyer but not in Texas, so this is not legal advice). A gym has private memberships and so isn't going to trigger federal anti-discrimination laws. So, as is often the case, it's a question of whether Texas state laws - or local laws passed in your city or county - would consider the gym a "public accommodation" that has a requirement not to discriminate based on sex. I'm about 80% certain that Texas doesn't have a law that would apply. So unless you're in somewhere that has passe…
/r/MensRights02/10/17 02:41 PM
11

I remember daddy's hands workin' 'til they bled Sacrificed unselfishly just to keep us all fed If I could do things over, I'd live my life again And never take for granted the love in daddy's hands -Holly Dunn
/r/MensRights28/09/17 12:16 PM
16

I didn't see any indication that she wanted to change laws to be "more biased against fathers." Can you clarify what you're talking about?
/r/MensRights27/09/17 04:57 PM
9

This still acknowledges the wage gap as true. But it isn’t. The earnings gap is true, and that is what this cartoon is showing. The various loads on the stallion's back show the different choices that men make that increase their average income: different career choices, worse working conditions, more overtime, etc. The mare is ignoring that and just focusing on the result of a difference in income, which is exactly what feminists have been doing.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 12:59 PM
1

Not trying to be funny, but what exactly is a better life if not in a house, with a TV? A better life is a house with a TV that won't disappear if you have to take a month off. Security, in other words: having the savings to take a hit if the car breaks down or you get in an accident or you have to transition between jobs.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 09:01 PM
1

Under a lot of US case law, a year is usually too long. 90 days is a common limit. This is in the UK, though, and I don't know how they judge these things.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 08:48 PM
3

Generally, no, unless you can prove that someone acted maliciously. For instance, if you could show your accuser knowingly lied, you could sue that person for the damage done to you.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 06:09 PM
1

I'm a slave to the Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 05:38 PM
0

Freudian slip there.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 05:03 PM
4

As long as that ham sandwich isn't a cop, yeah.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 03:04 PM
21

Me too, but my first question is always "are the kids safe"? Nothing makes me madder than a convicted abuser retaining custody.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 01:23 PM
28

The sentence was appealed by the Crown and eventually increased to 3 years 9 months in jail. More importantly, the grandparents have custody of the boy, and I doubt Krystal Harvey will ever see him again.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 12:47 PM
60

That's why there are protections set up to stop spurious indictments. The DA has to decide to prosecute, and a grand jury has to decide there's enough evidence to have a trial. There's also a bail system, so that most of those accused of crimes can continue going about their lives until trial.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 12:31 PM
89

Nope! Unless you can sue someone for malicious prosecution, you're SoL.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 12:27 PM
159

So for example if a woman accuses a man of assault, or rape, he should not suffer any sort of punishment until it has been established that he is in fact guilty. But again I keep hearing about men being locked up on a mere accusation. What is going on here? That's not punishment; it's detention awaiting trial. For serious violent crimes, where the accused could likely be a danger to society, they will be locked up until trial. That's part of why trial has to be "speedy" - no unnecessarily delays…
/r/MensRights26/09/17 12:02 PM
3

When feminists care about ideology rather than facts, they are wrong. When you do it, it's still wrong. Sorry not sorry that my interest in the truth detracts from furthering your cause at the expense of honesty.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 02:37 AM
3

Yep, those are much closer. The main difference is that he was found to have lied about her accidentally stabbing herself, whereas in the OP case the woman admitted to it and claimed remorse.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 06:09 PM
2

That guy stabbed a bystander in public. To compare apples to apples we need another private domestic stabbing.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 05:34 PM
9

Much like with the gender earnings gap, this isn't due to gender discrimination. When insurance companies take vehicle, accident history, and driving habits into account, men on average pay more. There's nothing nefarious here and the results make sense.
/r/MensRights25/09/17 04:46 PM
1

I brought up a contradiction Except you didn't. There are three categories of crimes; in two of them, men are sentenced more often, and in the third they are sentenced longer. No contradiction, and an excellent example of attempted cherrypicking. "Oh look, there's a type of crime for which as many women as men receive at least some sentence!"
/r/MensRights22/09/17 09:03 PM
1

In the US, state law allows a defendant to plea made by a defendant in court when they do not contest a particular criminal charge against them. This is gibberish. I presume the author means "in Michigan." The whole point of "state law" is that it's different in each state. Talking about "state law" "in the US" is ignorant and lazy reporting.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 08:44 PM
1

Backpedal faster; it's fun to watch.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 08:40 PM
1

But all you guys want to circle jerk over women going to jail. Taking so much glee in others misfortune. You take no pleasure in child-abusing monsters going to jail? Why not?
/r/MensRights22/09/17 08:39 PM
1

It literally says they're jailed at the same rate. It literally says that men are jailed more for two kinds of crimes, and longer for the third kind. There is sentencing inequality for all three categories of crime that were studied.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 04:49 PM
2

Amazing how downvoted I am. I've yet to encounter a sub where people aren't downvoted merely for disagreeing with the majority position. If you know of one, please share.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 12:41 PM
2

"no less likely" doesn't mean "the most likely" "Less likely" means "less likely," and "substantially shorter" means "substantially shorter." So non-violent female criminals walk, and violent female criminals are slapped on the wrist. You don't think this fits the claims?
/r/MensRights22/09/17 12:40 PM
6

I need to get home and hug my kids.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 07:06 PM
30

Post a study or something. Sure; how about this one? Specifically, we find that the effect of gender on sentencing does vary by crime type, but not in a consistent or predicted fashion. For both property and drug offending, females are less likely to be sentenced to prison and also receive shorter sentences if they are sentenced to prison. For violent offending, however, females are no less likely than males to receive prison time, but for those who do, females receive substantially shorter sent…
/r/MensRights21/09/17 07:00 PM
3

I wonder if any of them identified as a human woman and I brought them out for dinner, would insist on picking up the tab? I've had girlfriends do that in the past, but only if they were older than me. They would also not have identified as feminists, I should note. I have consistently steered far away from that.
/r/MensRights19/09/17 07:08 PM
7

Yes, this is exactly what it means. You're not the custodial parent, which is another way of saying that you're not the parent (since "non-custodial parent" is really an oxymoron).
/r/MensRights19/09/17 01:39 PM
2

Canadian stats closely resemble american stats ans should we not study the stats of a culture who is very similar to ours. That may be true, but when the rule is, "this forum is about Canada specifically, not about more general policy issues," it's understandable that they would delete a post discussing an issue using primarily non-Canadian facts.
/r/MensRights14/09/17 07:50 PM
13

I can't really blame them for deleting a post in which most of the cited statistics were US rather than Canadian.
/r/MensRights14/09/17 05:30 PM
4

Can you imagine the outrage if men had made all these blatantly sexual/borderline harassing comments? From the regressives, yes. Most people, including most women, would find the reverse comments just as amusing. Most people are sane.
/r/MensRights13/09/17 01:41 PM
1

What state is this in?
/r/MensRights12/09/17 03:22 PM
1

Okay, so it's not as though they're stopping you from using the gym. They just have one particular area they reserve for particular activities. That's often driven by having a particular club or activity that wants the space. My university fencing club used to take over a particular area of our gym.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 01:30 PM
1

Is this the whole gym? Or just one particular room/area of the gym?
/r/MensRights12/09/17 12:03 PM
0

Apparently you're missing the difference between saying something and showing it. But I'm sure your reading comprehension will improve once you make it to high school.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 11:06 PM
0

I am not calling them crazy. That's what you seem to be missing. I don't object to people who won't be reasonable appearing crazy for that reason. I object to going out of your way to describe and attack them rather than taking on the argument.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 10:42 PM
1

Yes, I'm saying they would look crazy for claiming the evidence and objectivity didn't matter, and I would not look crazy. That's not character assassination; I make my arguments, and if the discussion can't continue because they are unwilling to be reasonable, then the discussion ends. I don't need to go on a rant on how unreasonable they are or write an article about their personality. I address the argument, and when that is over the point is made.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 10:18 PM
1

No, I have already picked apart the argument at this point - in enough detail that, at least when I have done it in the past, there is little question who is coming off as reasonable and who is coming off as crazy.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 09:53 PM
1

Again, if she refuses to acknowledge that evidence and objectivity matters, I would disengage. I have made my point, and I am not the one who looks crazy.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 09:52 PM
3

In each case, I would ask for evidence. If she insists that it's about subjective experience and no evidence is necessary, I would explain why objective evidence is important. If she refused to agree, I would disengage
/r/MensRights11/09/17 09:44 PM
-1

Women can't either. A father who wanted to keep a child being given up by the mother could get child support from her.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 09:35 PM
3

The roles are reversed however, men are held more responsible for pregnancies while women can kill the child if they so wish. Men aren't held responsible for pregnancies; men and women are held equally responsible for born children. If the woman kills the unborn child, the man has no further responsibility. If the woman doesn't kill the child, then both the man and woman are on the hook to support the child - unless they both give up their status as parents.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 08:15 PM
5

The article seems pretty close to a straight ad hominem from beginning to end. I don't see the reason to character-assassinate prominent feminists. We can pick apart their arguments. It doesn't really matter who they are.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 06:55 PM
3

Glad I could help. Don't waste a bunch of money on this; it's their mistake. Work with them to fix it.
/r/MensRights08/09/17 07:19 PM
6

I would recommend determining at what office they are managing the case, and calling to talk to them about it. You can try to find the appropriate person here: https://www.childsupport.ny.gov/DCSE/LocalOffices_input.action
/r/MensRights08/09/17 07:13 PM
9

Have you tried contacting the social workers in NY who administrate this, and getting them to fix their records?
/r/MensRights08/09/17 04:59 PM
30

"The entire population of Florida completed evacuation today in advance of Hurricane Kathy Griffin..."
/r/MensRights06/09/17 07:18 PM
1

I also note that the effect size is always within 1 STD of the mean. So we're talking about data where the male hurricane is rated 4.8 plus or minus 1.1, and the female hurricane is rated 4.1 plus or minus 1.4, and this is seen as enough to affect behavior and death toll.
/r/MensRights06/09/17 07:07 PM
8

The study in question: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8782.full They had three "blinded" independent coders rate the masculinity vs. femininity of hurricane names between 1950 and 2012 on an 11-point scale, then correlated that rating to historical death tolls. There are several issues with this methodology, the most obvious being why they would include data from a period when ALL hurricane names were female. Why not start their analysis at the point when names started alternating?
/r/MensRights06/09/17 07:02 PM
1

And within a decade most lawyers have unlearned all the lies they learned in law school.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 04:20 PM
3

Those are law professors - that is, people with law degrees too delusional to be lawyers. I presumed the lessons here would be by actual practicing attorneys.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 03:59 PM
3

From the article: It teaches young girls that the difference between having sex and being raped is very narrow. Scary if true, but is it true? From what little I've seen, having lawyers explain consent usually has the opposite effect - feminists have this idea that being tipsy means you're incapacitated and can't consent, while lawyers are often the ones contradicting this and explaining that consent is still present in most circumstances.
/r/MensRights05/09/17 03:08 PM
1

Yeah, this one makes no sense at all without its context.
/r/MensRights01/09/17 05:09 PM
1

I wasn't familiar with the case, but a little Googling indicates Jane Doe won her motion and was allowed to stay anonymous in both trials. Did I miss something?
/r/MensRights01/09/17 01:52 AM
1

As far as I can tell, her name was reported by the Tampa newspaper in the very first article after she filed her lawsuit under her own name. So in this case, as in every case I've seen, when a person files a lawsuit under their own name, the newspapers report the name. Unless you have a counterexample, it doesn't look like they're treating the plaintiff any differently here than they've treated other plaintiffs before.
/r/MensRights31/08/17 09:11 PM
6

Fair enough, but I don't think anyone's going to take your word on it. As far as I've been able to find, if a plaintiff sues in his or her own name and the media reports on it, they use the name. But maybe we'll find a counter-example at some point.
/r/MensRights31/08/17 05:36 PM
2

And you remember cases where women who sued using their names were protected by the media... but you can't find any of those cases anymore?
/r/MensRights31/08/17 05:29 PM
6

If you have no examples of this, why do you believe it has "been the case forever"?
/r/MensRights31/08/17 05:23 PM
2

It's been the case forever. Even when she sues. Can you provide an example where the female plaintiff gives her name, but the media coverage withholds it?
/r/MensRights31/08/17 05:12 PM
6

I think that's usually the case for criminal investigations/trails, not so much when a person sues under their real name in a civil case. If the plaintiff/victim wanted anonymity he could have sued as "John Doe" as some have. He didn't choose to do that.
/r/MensRights31/08/17 02:33 PM
11

Next time, don't hire a blatant sexist to talk at your school.
/r/MensRights31/08/17 01:56 PM
7

I have been very happy that most of the public restrooms I've been in, here in the Midwest US, have a changing table in the men's restroom just as they do in the women's. There are still a couple of smaller restaurants we go to that do not, and my wife has to take changing duty in those places. But they are the exception rather than the rule.
/r/MensRights31/08/17 12:43 PM
2

Is your relationship worth having your life ruined by a rape accusation? If not, get out of there. If so, okay.
/r/MensRights30/08/17 05:03 PM
4

I could only get to the abstract. Did you have a link to the full study?
/r/MensRights30/08/17 12:24 PM
3

What study shows that?
/r/MensRights30/08/17 10:39 AM
15

Do you have evidence to back up the contention that poor Hispanics beat their kids up more than poor whites do?
/r/MensRights29/08/17 10:49 PM
0

Both men and women have the option to forego a gender role. Both suffer serious social consequences for doing so. I don't think anyone who has observed women or men in a social context could say otherwise. Lack of conformity absolutely results in loss of social capital; this is not specific to either gender.
/r/MensRights29/08/17 08:51 PM
45

Inaccurate title. An article in the AMA Journal of Ethics argues against the routine circumcision of boys. That's not the same as a position statement from the AMA.
/r/MensRights29/08/17 08:46 PM
5

Heartbreaking.
/r/MensRights29/08/17 06:26 PM
6

Citation?
/r/MensRights29/08/17 05:50 PM
44

Abusive violence against children appears to be a function of poverty in mother-only homes but unrelated to income among single fathers What the study found is that both single-mother and single-father households are more abusive than two-parent households. Single mothers, but not single fathers, get less abusive as their income improves.
/r/MensRights29/08/17 05:49 PM
-1

Neither men nor women have the choice to ignore the roles as much as they should be able to.
/r/MensRights29/08/17 05:41 PM
2

What I mean is, the cultural expectations of gender roles restrict behavior more than actual biological sex does. For example, I might want to express emotion in situations where men aren't supposed to express emotion. Or I might want to speak up in situations where women are supposed to stay quiet.
/r/MensRights29/08/17 03:18 PM
2

Gender is not a spectrum; gender is a social construct defining roles of identity and behavior in society. We have two genders - man and woman. An individual's expression of gender can be anywhere along a spectrum, though - that is, you can decide to what extent you take aspects of the masculine or the feminine as your role and your identity. The two gender roles are rooted in the biological sexes, of which there are again only two. But the gender roles are far more extensive and constraining th…
/r/MensRights29/08/17 01:56 PM
19

This sucks, and it's not just a problem for men that are out of the country. Many men in the country also don't find out about Selective Service until they apply for something that requires it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/16/america-may-never-have-a-draft-again-but-were-still-punishing-low-income-men-for-not-registering/?utm_term=.3a8b9b3c9fbe
/r/MensRights29/08/17 01:46 PM
61

A good (woman) friend of mine was an elementary school principal for many years. She would share with me that they were always very happy to get a qualified male applicant for a position, because it did seem to help the boys in the (troubled, low-income) district, but the female teachers would have it out for them. For example, a male teacher putting his arm on the back of a female student would be remarked upon as questionable behavior, when the female teachers touch and hug their students all …
/r/MensRights28/08/17 01:17 PM
5

The newsletter is pretty clearly a parody. Both the title and the content are satirical.
/r/MensRights25/08/17 04:55 PM
11

That blurb is pretty awful, but other reviews of the book say it's a very dark look at what happens when humans gain power over others. A dystopian novel rather than some sort of naked feminist revenge piece. So, I'll put it on my reading list. We'll see.
/r/MensRights25/08/17 03:06 PM
71

If Clementine Ford were a white supremacist instead of a female supremacist... You know what? Some whites do hate blacks. They have good reason to. They might have been robbed and beaten and assaulted and abused, and they have reached their breaking point. They might have lived a nightmare you can't even conceive of. To these whites, blacks might represent the enemy because the role they have played in these people's lives – a role that might involve abuse, physical violence, threats, and perhap…
/r/MensRights25/08/17 02:51 PM
1

Whichever the people paying the money prefer. Segregate or not, presumably according to which is more interesting.
/r/MensRights24/08/17 08:10 PM
6

Neither blacking out later, nor losing your balance, means you were too drunk to consent. They don't stop you from being convicted of drunk driving either.
/r/MensRights21/08/17 06:19 PM
48

SJW's are broadly misguided about "incapacity," the point at which consent is not possible. Under most state laws, the very fact that the two parties had sex makes it pretty much impossible that they were both incapacitated. If you're walking and talking and taking off your own clothes, you are not too drunk to consent. Two parties getting drunk and hooking up didn't rape each other.
/r/MensRights21/08/17 05:10 PM
-1

A wealthy parent who spends money on live-in child care would have less issue, yes - basically spending money to supplement the parent time.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 08:19 PM
1

A wealthy parent who spends money on live-in child care would have less issue, yes - basically spending money to supplement the parent time.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 08:19 PM
3

For a lot of people it does.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 06:34 PM
6

Please note that gender roles are roles, not straightjackets. The differentiation is good. It is good for people to do what they enjoy and what they excel at, and men and women often enjoy and excel at different things. When you recognize that, along with the fact that any particular couple is going to have some nonconformity and that's good for the child to see, too, then you can hopefully refrain from throwing out the baby with the bathwater. When the role fits how you see yourself and how you…
/r/MensRights15/08/17 05:25 PM
7

No, a victim of abuse should leave their abuser. And, for the benefit of their child as well as their own long-term well-being, they should find a supportive partner who is not an abuser. They should not stay single. Single parenting isn't good for the parent or the child.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 05:20 PM
8

Domestic violence among lesbian partners is five times as frequent as among other couples. Around 1/3 of children in two-mother households have witnessed partner violence.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 05:19 PM
4

Even the very best parents do better with a loving partner. There's only so many hours in the day, only so much emotional and moral burden each person can handle. Heck, this even extends past the two parents: kids who are raised with loving and supportive extended family (grandparents, aunts, etc) do better than kids that aren't. The more active and responsible adults in a child's upbringing, the better.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 05:16 PM
5

The whole SJW movement bothers me only because of the almost militant exclusions and censorship that go on. I can't even seem to have a conversation with anyone. It's frustrating, isn't it? I got banned from /r/larp yesterday because someone had made a blog post about how people of color should not attend larps that don't represent them in advertisements or have enough PoC in leadership, and I said players should attend the games they have fun at and not care about the race of the people they're…
/r/MensRights11/08/17 11:47 AM
6

Yes, but that's "punching up" rather than "punching down." Remember the SJW motto: there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.
/r/MensRights11/08/17 11:45 AM
1

Seeing a brain scan would do very little that a trained medical professional can't do with their senses. So the brain scans correlate very highly with diagnosis by medical professionals?
/r/MensRights09/08/17 03:21 PM
1

Some are, a lot of it depends on the patents.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 03:10 PM
1

Can you supply the studies that show the clear transgender brain scan? I'd be interested in understanding what the scan actually entails.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 03:08 PM
1

Okay, then I'm entirely wrong about that. I thought they were significantly more expensive.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 03:07 PM
1

I don't think there's anything inconsistent in my position. I condemn medicine that applies dangerous or permanent changes without using a clear diagnostic that is available. I applaud medicine that promptly responds to the needs of the patient. This means, for example, that I would want the transgender brain scan done quickly (the last time I needed a CAT scan, I waited about an hour and a half TOTAL from the time I felt dizzy at home to the time they pulled me out of the machine). But the para…
/r/MensRights09/08/17 03:04 PM
1

That's fair, but I can't imagine a brain scan costs anywhere near what hormone treatment does.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 02:57 PM
1

If there's a conclusive test to distinguish a transgender brain, why is that not standard practice for diagnosing gender dysphoria?
/r/MensRights09/08/17 01:28 PM
1

I'm sorry to hear that. I may have to pay for my health care, but at least I get what I pay for.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 01:26 PM
1

An oncologist needs to physically see what needs to be cut out of the brain That's fair; the better analogy would be administering chemo based on the symptoms of a tumor without confirming that a tumor is actually there. It simply makes no sense that if a definitive physical test for gender dysphoria exists, it wouldn't be universally used.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 12:12 PM
1

Have you tried? Because my experience was not "Doc, I'm depressed, okay thanks for the prescription". It took 3 months of diagnosis and assessment. For that time, I had to have a friend basically live with me to make sure I didn't off myself before my doctors and I figured out what to do next. Where do you live that this was the process? My doctor wrote my first antidepressant prescription the day of my appointment. He asked me a couple of questions, concluded I was suffering from anxiety, and p…
/r/MensRights09/08/17 12:05 PM
2

Complex neurological tests are not needed when you have a properly trained psychologist. I would think a neurological scan would be warranted if one could conclusively confirm the condition. An oncologist wouldn't operate on a brain tumor without scanning first; why start a risky and potentially damaging transition process without one?
/r/MensRights09/08/17 12:02 PM
8

My approach: Walk in. Catch the eye and say hello to at least two of the barbers. Sit in a chair and read. When somebody gets up and pays, catch barber's eye. If he gestures for me, go to him. If not, continue to wait. I don't try to keep track of the others customers; I leave it to the barber. And if I or someone else ends up waiting an extra ten minutes because things go out of order, it doesn't kill us.
/r/MensRights07/08/17 06:52 PM
3

But apparently with anything where women pay more, they should be ideologically driven - according to progressives.
/r/MensRights04/08/17 06:48 PM
3

That's lampshaded in the video itself. "You leave Beta Adam alone!" "Actually just 'Adam' is fine."
/r/MensRights04/08/17 01:48 PM
3

I think your problem is with liars, not rape victims. Yes, this is the issue exactly. The problem is not what happens to actual assailants. The problem is that these groups create a process that condemns with no evidence, and that as the group becomes popular, the chance of liars using the process to condemn innocent people approaches 100%.
/r/MensRights03/08/17 07:13 PM
2

Strictly speaking it's defamation even if it IS true. No, it's explicitly not defamation if it is true.
/r/MensRights03/08/17 07:04 PM
10

Modern special ed includes kids with mental disabilities but is significantly broader. A child with anger issues, for example, might be assigned a special ed teacher. Kids with physical or learning disabilities who aren't mentally disabled, but just have problems with some parts of a regular classroom curriculum, will get special ed help as well. We can't come to a judgment on the particular student without knowing more. He might have been mentally delayed, or he might have just had dyslexia or …
/r/MensRights03/08/17 07:01 PM
1

So this post got downvoted as well and no one will respond with an explanation why. Echo chamber indeed.
/r/MensRights03/08/17 03:39 PM
1

No, I don't see the monstrosity in making the decision for them. It's not even on the top ten list of decisions parents make for their children that the children cannot make for themselves. You would have to make a very radical argument strongly limiting the rights of parents in making decisions for their children to argue that a beneficial medical procedure is not within the scope of those decisions. Which means this isn't about parental choice or chidren's rights - it's about whether the proce…
/r/MensRights03/08/17 02:47 PM
1

Why is this post being downvoted? Can someone explain how I have not contributed to the discussion? Did I misunderstand the topic? Did I not explain my position?
/r/MensRights03/08/17 02:42 PM
1

Due to working and living conditions while in the tropics, older male relatives in my family had to be circumcised as adults to fight persistent infection. These relatives passed on to the next generations that, having had sex both before and after circumcision, there was no notable difference. The subsequent two generations of males in my family have been circumcised as infants upon consultation with family physicians who confirm there continue to be benefits to hygiene. When I consulted with m…
/r/MensRights03/08/17 02:29 PM
156

Which women did your wife ask you to choke?
/r/MensRights02/08/17 12:04 PM
1

I hope so.
/r/MensRights31/07/17 08:16 PM
15

So now if the university has a ridiculous definition of sexual assault that includes drunken sex, and a student realizes this and accuses his accuser, that's "bad faith" and "retaliation." What a crock.
/r/MensRights31/07/17 02:10 PM
8

I have told my older boys not to be selfish when demanding they be held rather than the baby. I don't see anything wrong with that.
/r/MensRights31/07/17 12:40 AM
5

Heartbreaking. Clearly someone with a troubled life.
/r/MensRights28/07/17 01:53 PM
12

This is messed up, but it's nothing peculiar to child support payments. Any time there is a default judgment against you, the government will go after you on the basis of that judgment, because the facts have already been decided by a court. The problem in this instance appears to be the rendering of a default judgment without the defendant present in a context where he wasn't given proper notice of the proceeding. And when that is shown to be the case, the judgment will be vacated and he won't …
/r/MensRights28/07/17 11:56 AM
3

But that means you can't just change your gender and see a drop in your premiums. The algorithms don't actually use your gender, and presumably all of the things they do use (driving history, type of job, etc) won't change when you change your gender.
/r/MensRights24/07/17 09:19 PM
6

Yes. Nolan should include soldiers of color, openly genderfluid soldiers, neo-Pagan soldiers, and a long list of others. And they should all be treated with open-mindedness and respect just as they would have in the 1940s.
/r/MensRights24/07/17 02:04 PM
-2

But mental health professionals tend to be hard left and anti-male. They might make the problem worse.
/r/MensRights21/07/17 12:03 PM
1

Keep working; you'll get it.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 05:49 PM
1

By no means.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 05:27 PM
2

Clearly not.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 05:17 PM
1

Certainly not.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 04:17 PM
-2

I can't believe, you are here, completely misunderstanding the concept of "The Principle of the matter." That phrase is usually code for "I don't have any reason to care, but I have the sensibilities of a two-year-old and someone else upset me."
/r/MensRights17/07/17 03:27 PM
-14

They're giving her half the funds in an account that he admits he has never touched and will never touch, because he sees it as dirty money. Why should he care what the court or his ex-wife do with money he doesn't want and won't use? It's completely irrelevant to his life. But I do think the two-year-old analogy is apt, because my two-year-old son sometimes throws a fit if he sees his five-year-old brother playing with one of his toys, even if he hasn't touched it in months and likely would nev…
/r/MensRights17/07/17 03:17 PM
-13

Okay, so this is upsetting because he has the maturity of a two-year-old. Thanks for the clarification.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 03:04 PM
-27

Why does he care? It's blood money to him anyway; he's made it clear he'll never use it.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 02:14 PM
2

(One child, more time) http://www.ksdk.com/mobile/article/news/local/woman-sentenced-to-25-years-for-killing-infant-son/424707862
/r/MensRights15/07/17 12:29 PM
-2

I will trust your clear expertise on the subject.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 06:17 AM
-3

So, to sum up: you have no factual basis for your claim of what a man would receive, and you refuse to acknowledge that due to the circumstances of this particular crime it's unlikely that an easily comparable case to this for a man will exist. There are many clear examples that can be used to show how men are sentenced more harshly than women for similar offenses. It is baffling why you would instead choose to make this claim for one of the very few cases where, due to the nature of the crime b…
/r/MensRights15/07/17 04:34 AM
-1

The sentence was handed down by a judge, not a jury. I have no idea how a man would be sentenced for concealing fetal remains from six babies he personally gestated, as such a thing doesn't seem probable.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 03:44 AM
0

Upon what do you base the claim that a male would get 25 to life? I don't think there has ever been a male convicted of this crime (concealing the body of a full term fetus or newborn). Men who are convicted of assaulting a woman and killing her fetus are given harsher sentences, but it's hard to see how this is the same crime.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 03:19 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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