TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Nicksvibes Archive

View 15 posts and 356 comments by Nicksvibes 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)
1439

IntactivismNicksvibes/r/MensRights13/12/20 01:37 PM
321

DiscriminationNicksvibes/r/MensRights21/11/20 03:03 PM
217

Anti-MRMNicksvibes/r/MensRights25/07/20 07:12 AM
156

FeminismNicksvibes/r/MensRights18/12/20 09:16 AM
58

Social IssuesNicksvibes/r/MensRights19/11/20 09:44 PM
53

Social IssuesNicksvibes/r/MensRights02/12/20 08:19 AM
44

FeminismNicksvibes/r/MensRights18/12/20 11:18 AM
28

Social IssuesNicksvibes/r/MensRights21/07/20 07:59 PM
24

Social IssuesNicksvibes/r/MensRights05/08/20 02:30 PM
23

Activism/SupportNicksvibes/r/MensRights03/02/21 02:12 PM
11

Activism/SupportNicksvibes/r/MensRights12/01/21 08:39 AM
4

GeneralNicksvibes/r/MensRights08/08/20 02:47 PM
2

Legal RightsNicksvibes/r/MensRights29/11/20 08:54 AM
1

Social IssuesNicksvibes/r/MensRights19/11/20 05:28 PM
1

Social IssuesNicksvibes/r/MensRights19/11/20 05:26 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Does this control for the fact women spend more time with their children as the primary or sole caregivers?
/r/Male_Studies05/05/23 07:19 AM
2

but I wonder to what extent downplaying the negative consequences does in fact reduce how often you think about it and translates to real differences in how much you suffer from it. Maybe it does have some mild effect, but sometimes it might amount to suppression of a real problem that you end up bottling up and which could resurface overtime. The question is why is this relevant? If men are better able to work around their emotions, the problem is women's lack of emotional regulation skills. A …
/r/Male_Studies25/02/23 05:19 PM
2

Translation: women are sensitive and men under-report the negative consequences of their victimization
/r/Male_Studies25/02/23 09:51 AM
3

Their profile also shows them posting the same study in r/pickup, because.. um.. yeah.. I guess we both love to exploit women? Pick up artists embrace gendered dating culture, while people here more or less reject it. I don't see any similarity outside of them both being primarily male occupied spaces Pick up artists exploit women? I think that's a very one-sided take, considering the fact they rely on exploiting the sex dynamics which disadvantage men in order to get their money by promising to…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/22 10:18 AM
17

Yes, there is. You have clearly not read the book. I even covered it in a tweet of mine not so long ago.
/r/MensRights16/11/22 10:34 AM
30

The claim is absolutely based in facts lmao. See Collins (2019).
/r/MensRights16/11/22 10:22 AM
2

I think you missed the point. I'm not sure what you mean. How does the observation that two groups have a different set of standards for physical attractiveness challenge the observation that both groups prioritize physical attractiveness? Of course one does not negate the other but the argument men care about looks "more" can be and is frequently used to suggest this somehow implies "looks" is a harsher standard for women when it isn't at all. Even if men care somehow about looks more, it is st…
/r/Male_Studies11/11/22 01:35 PM
11

The problem with saying "men prioritize physical appearance" is that men's standards of what constitutes attractive are lower than women's. More men than women say the opposite sex is attractive and women are known for going after men who don't rank average, at least on dating sites/apps. Additionally, due to the sex differences in sex drive, you will expect to see lower male dating standards at least in short term dating and especially casual sex. Results indicate that men and women value simil…
/r/Male_Studies10/11/22 04:26 PM
0

I wasn't questioning you at all here. I was just pointing out his problem is with how he worded his post, not with his inability to read.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 01:17 PM
0

Gee I wonder why I called you a prick. Maybe because you are actually acting like one, with your snarky, fake kindness, and dismissiveness of what I say that you try to justify by falsely assuming I am trying to pick a fight for the sake of fighting when you can clearly see I am trying to be engaging and have a back and forth conversation where I can understand your point.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 01:15 PM
2

Kind of weird to tell him to learn to read considering the fact he wrote the post. He could have worded it better if that's not what he meant since I am not the only one it seems who interpreted it that way.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 01:09 PM
-1

No, I am not. I am trying to have an actual discussion, you utter prick. Do you know how to have an actual conversation or are you always this socially inept? I asked you an actual question.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 01:00 PM
0

Why would you point out the fact you wouldn't get in a relationship with or sleep with a specific subset of presumably attractive women if you were not making the point porn instills unrealistic standards/preferences in men? People like you that put the smiley face in their comment and push this snarky, fake kindness are incredibly insufferable.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 12:53 PM
1

My post is specifically pointing to the point that men have unrealistic expectations due to porn being so easily accessible. You reference about women's expectation and then circle back in a later paragraph as an 'aha', but seem to have forgotten that was actually my main point? I don't see how you're pointing out I misrepresented your post here. "Men have unrealistic expectations due to porn being so easily accessible" is precisely the point I am addressing. They don't. This is just your conjec…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 12:44 PM
1

I really don't think it is that one-sided. Most men's porn consumption is not pathological. It isn't purely at the expense of men as it gives men sexual content that as Peterson pointed out even the most powerful men throughout history did not have, nor are most female porn performers enriched from it.
/r/MensRights08/11/22 12:31 PM
6

I think that people talk about human trafficking when saying that it exploits women. No, because that would imply they acknowledge sex work is usually not coercive which they don't. They think sex work is always or mostly coercive and make similar arguments Marxists do to rationalize this false narrative, e.g "but oh they are poor and need money".
/r/MensRights08/11/22 12:17 PM
0

On one click, we can access the most beautiful women in the world, doing pretty much whatever we want to see. It provides unrealistic expectations around women. No, it doesn't. There is no evidence men's expectations of women are harsh, at all. It is more commonly women's expectations that are found to be unrealistic, particularly on dating websites where women are much less likely to swipe on men, let alone superlike male profiles. So you're just wrong. While most men would love to sleep with a…
/r/MensRights08/11/22 12:16 PM
8

First they need to present a legitimate argument to refute. Deliberately lying about what the data they are opposing shows ain't an argument.
/r/MensRights04/11/22 04:53 PM
1

No, they got everything wrong, including the data they were responding to lmao, you moron. Not just that all of their claims come from a place of hate rather than understanding. I’m not writing an essay on how hard you just took an L Sums up the fact you are the loser. "Trust me bro".
/r/MensRights04/11/22 04:40 PM
2

Why is this called a reverse of sexual double standard when it first predictions of double standards?
/r/Male_Studies29/10/22 09:47 AM
6

All the answers here are incredibly simplistic. But honestly the real answer lies within him, ask him how he feels or whether he believes you are doing anything wrong and how both of you can work things out. For instance, in response to question 3, it is really subjective. Many men would feel very stressed providing for a woman (which is a man's role in a traditional relationship) but your boyfriend might be okay with covering most of the bills so long as you reciprocate in your own way. The key…
/r/MensRights16/10/22 10:27 AM
0

I was thinking the other day. Catcalled women and women who experience lesser forms of sexual assault such as groping receive more attention and compassion than literal mutilated boys. It is baffling. This isn't to say sexual assault, even in its non-severe form isn't bad, it is to suggest people's moral compass is fairly broken. The sheer number of people who make petty excuses for male circumcision (MGM): e.g "it is a religious practice though; muh religious freedom" or who even mock men who c…
/r/MensRights15/10/22 09:58 AM
4

It is also the case that the majority of women feel entitled to not receive backlash for hitting their partners. The majority of relationships have more female authority than male authority (men are more likely to give in in discussions about each partner's topic). These findings are in stark contrast to the society radical feminists describe, wherein men feel it is acceptable or are raised in an environment that tells them it is acceptable to be belligerent to women, hit women, control them & d…
/r/Male_Studies04/10/22 09:46 AM
2

So I think it is an interesting question to ask whether anti-femininity bias motivates anti-homosexual bias Yes, I think it is the former, or to put it more accurately anti-deviant males bias. You should check out Steve Moxon's the falsity of identity politics paper. Covered in this piece: https://stevemoxon.co.uk/hate-crime-consultation-response-to-the-law-commission/
/r/Male_Studies24/09/22 08:12 AM
1

So I think it is an interesting question to ask whether anti-femininity bias motivates anti-homosexual bias, the reverse, or if they motivate each other, and what role gender plays in this. Anti-femininity bias = anti-men expressing femininity bias. Anti-homosexuality bias = anti-male homosexuality, this is also observed in the fact an act is viewed as homosexual when it is expressed by men (which indicates this is about controlling socially undesirable male behaviour rather than homophobia itse…
/r/Male_Studies24/09/22 08:08 AM
7

Surprisingly many men (37%) and women (41%) also reported exposure to controlling behaviours. How is it even surprising? What's actually surprising is that the percentage is lower for men. That's the only surprising thing. Studies find women to be more controlling than men on aggregate & they also find that women show high control more. There is a reason women are the ones depicted as holding the chains and not men in relationships. It is because it is true. That IPV by women is only recently ga…
/r/Male_Studies19/09/22 01:38 PM
1

Yeah sure, I agree
/r/MensRights09/09/22 11:49 AM
1

What I am saying is that while it is true women have issues, I am not convinced women have a reason to resort to viewing man-hating content in order to combat the "misogynistic" content. These women are already the norm, the default. The "misogynistic" content is largely a reaction to the status quo. So in the case of these women resorting to misandrist content, it is in my opinion more often caused by solipsism.
/r/MensRights09/09/22 11:22 AM
1

Denying the hardahips of women is the exact thing we here hate on the femenists for doing to men. When did I do that? Can you show me where I denied women can have issues? That's not what I said. It is undeniable feminist content is more widespread and or accepted and institutionalized in media so women have no proper reason to resort to feminist content in order to combat misogyny. They are the status quo. If anything this subreddit has thought me that women may not always be able to understand…
/r/MensRights09/09/22 11:12 AM
4

Yep, true. And let's not forget that women who have admitted to literal rape and or sexual assault and domestic violence and said misandric things are still online. Sienna Mae, Amber Heard, Amy Schumer. Feminist, the biggest feminist account I know of on Instagram, is still up and running in spite of numerous misandric posts.
/r/MensRights09/09/22 10:55 AM
2

I am not fully convinced that these women have a valid reason to resort to feminist hate content today. I don't doubt some women might see these alleged "anti-woman" content creators and resort to feminist content as a means of combating the perceived misogyny but honestly in their case it is more so solipsism. Not to mention many of those alleged anti-woman creators also say fucked up and sexist stuff about men but these women never appear to notice it because they only see their side which is …
/r/MensRights09/09/22 10:54 AM
6

The problem is Tate is NOT misogynistic. All the paranoia surrounding Tate, that he is encouraging violent misogyny, is a hoax. There isn't a single video where Tate unironically encourages violence against non-aggressing women specifically because they are women. Tate has in fact, on multiple occasions, justified and encouraged male disposability. He said to a streamer (Xqc) that it is his masculine imperative to protect his woman, as a man that's his duty. He's justified women and children fir…
/r/MensRights09/09/22 10:12 AM
2

One has to wonder how many outlets will report this as 1 in 4 women think men enjoy being assaulted. You constantly see outlets report this narrative men think women deserve to be raped or other nonsense like that
/r/Male_Studies05/09/22 01:18 PM
1

Does this mean that "manly men" are more likely to hold traditional views because of their genes? I remember seeing somewhere that injecting democrats with testosterone makes them hold more conservative views (which would be perhaps a temporary effect but nevertheless an effect).
/r/Male_Studies31/08/22 09:57 AM
2

In my attempt to reduce my hindsight and confirmation bias, I reject "common wisdom" as evidence and instead see it as a tool to generate hypotheses which can then be confirmed or rejected with the scientific method. I do too but considering the skew in favour of women in terms of empathy, on average, I trust this one, but then again whether it is common wisdom is questionable too (I don't have polls). severe domestic violence, which we know to be untrue. Minor nit pick? Severe? Maybe. Dv in gen…
/r/Male_Studies18/08/22 06:38 PM
2

Agreed, but imp it would still not be of relevance to me, honestly. It could be because women are generally more accustomed to receiving attention and expanding their social network. Also, I find it interesting how even when women report being sensitive, men end up taking the more drastic measures, like suicide. I'd presume more men than women kill themselves due to lack of social support especially if being isolated signals loss of status.
/r/Male_Studies18/08/22 06:12 PM
1

are more sensitive to lack of social support than men (Hackett et al., 2012; Kendler et al., 2005; Seeman et al., 2002). Okay this is funny, women are more sensitive in general, more women report they will cry when they receive criticism. You wouldn't say criticism is worse when given to a female because of female wheeping over it, right? I am not saying you've argued such a point, I am just arguing, women's sensitivity is just not of importance to me.
/r/Male_Studies18/08/22 06:00 PM
1

I really don't care about feels though. That's the thing feels, especially female wheeping is utterly irrelevant for completely valid social reasons. Just see what happens when men become self aware, they start following Andrew Tate, being filled with rage. Most men remain blissfully ignorant of their lonely status in society.
/r/Male_Studies18/08/22 05:58 PM
1

We can't just selectively ignore research because we don't like the results. We need a good reason to do so. Well, I can ignore self-reports since they lack objectivity. I also gave multiple examples of how self-reports can lead to over/under reporting by one party. If you were to ask people about sexism, you'd assume sexism is against women when the real research finds hostile sexism to be a mostly male experienced phenomenon. Women are more neurotic than men so you should expect women to exagg…
/r/Male_Studies18/08/22 05:41 PM
1

If you were to rely on self-reports, you'd think being female predicts being sexless & being female predicts experiencing more discrimination. None of which is true.
/r/Male_Studies18/08/22 05:22 PM
1

I don't wanna be mean but this is dogshit disguised in scientific veneer. None of the female loneliness is to be taken seriously, as women exaggerate it more and perceive loneliness when it isn't there like harassment and sexism wherein they mischaracterise men's actions as sexist or harassing when they aren't. I also don't see why the pandemic matters since it is artificially created loneliness unrelated to gender as an independent variable, in other words women weren't any more restricted in m…
/r/Male_Studies18/08/22 05:18 PM
3

I don't see why we should take self reports seriously at all. It is common wisdom men are lonelier and women fake loneliness
/r/Male_Studies18/08/22 04:58 PM
3

I've always been skeptical of this idea sex differences are not statistically significant. Do you have any research on how men and women might process loneliness differently? I'd be willing to speculate women would be more prone to exaggerating loneliness or seeing loneliness when it isn't there (kind of like sexism). Kind of like the meme "I'm so lonely" and in the background you have tons of men wanting to be with the woman.
/r/Male_Studies16/08/22 01:04 PM
2

I'm sorry I am a bit stupid. What exactly is the meaning of this and what do they mean by formidability?
/r/Male_Studies02/03/22 04:42 PM
4

a) more controlling than men. Data dating back decades ago demonstrates it. Mm. No, you're wrong. I'd like to see the report you base that on, and if there is any factual basis to it I can almost guarantee that data covers your country, it doesn't represent the global picture. Hundreds of millions of women live in oppression. Your ignorance is facepalm worthy. You're incredibly illiterate as expected. I linked you a paper which links to multiple studies that have tested controlling behavior in w…
/r/MensRights26/02/22 04:42 PM
5

This is far from one sided, and these are usually minor little requests for assistance with chores and such, men have high expectations of women when it comes to housework, even though many of us work full time too. FYI Women are far more likely to be the victim of a controlling relationship. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Women are a) more controlling than men. Data dating back decades ago demonstrates it, b) no, women aren't more likely to be a victim of a controlling relationship, they employ …
/r/MensRights26/02/22 02:09 PM
1

Nobody has told the right libertarians that a big government is good for economies. No. There is no such evidence, only in your imaginary world. Tell me again what the big corporations feed off if not on big government.. who would otherwise grant them subsidies, bail outs, minimum wage mandates only they can pay and various other restrictions that only seem to benefit the few businesses and screw competition? And then turn to the literature on economic freedom - aka decentralization of the econo…
/r/MensRights22/02/22 09:00 AM
1

Men naturally don't want to invest anything in women. Men, if they could, would play a numbers game and drop women. Men commit to women because of necessity and because it has been demanded of them.
/r/Male_Studies06/02/22 09:11 PM
1

But one could hypothesize that this is not the case in Sweden anymore as women have ample access to financial resources without men (the study refutes this position). The only way you can argue this is if you make the case hypergamy is not evolved and isn't cross-cultural. When in reality it is evolved and has even existed in socialist countries.
/r/Male_Studies06/02/22 09:06 PM
1

It is irrelevant in this specific context. I get you, but the point is that you would expect women to care less about money from an individual partner if they already have it under the EPP. The point is not to say that men don't subsidize women (they arguably do). Except they are saying since women are subsidized by the state one could assume hypergamy would either decline or vanish. I argue precisely that what drives this subsidization is women voting to expand government in order to be subsidi…
/r/Male_Studies06/02/22 08:47 PM
1

They don't account for relevant variables. They don't account for personality traits like agreeableness, they don't account for IQ (for every additional point wages increase). Men's IQ is higher than women's by 2-5 points. And a remaining gap =/= discrimination. That's assumptions. Lastly, the pay scale statistics don't even find a gap of 4-8. That's a statistic you've cherry picked. The 2019 report found a gap of 2% and even that has been addressed in subsequent Forbes articles on the subject. …
/r/MensRights06/02/22 08:38 PM
1

There is nothing to elaborate on. I am not going through a video that repeats the same nonsense, say about unpaid and paid labour. Edit: the pay gap is extensively covered in the Woman Racket by Steve Moxon. And it's been covered by u/problem_redditor
/r/MensRights06/02/22 08:28 PM
1

Proves nothing literally.
/r/MensRights06/02/22 07:40 PM
2

Sure, but this is irrelevant in this context because we are looking at individual men and individual women (which was the goal of this study). It is relevant. They are implying it makes sense to assume even if it isn't empirically supported that in a "gender equal" country (no such thing as gender equality as the very concept is unscientific) with female-friendly safety nets and employment opportunities men would no longer be paying for women. In reality, the very existence of these safety nets …
/r/Male_Studies06/02/22 07:35 PM
3

Even in a society where women have the access to stable finances, higher education, and governmental safety-nets to make the partners’ resources seem irrelevant, They are forgetting who pays for all of that. Considering the fact even gender equal countries have earnings gaps, I've heard even larger, the people paying for that are men. Women either produce/invest little or they are a negative. In other words, the people paying for all these "female-friendly" safety nets, transfers of resources, m…
/r/Male_Studies06/02/22 02:25 PM
0

More concerned with protecting their narrative than with boys being discriminated against... Indeed. Orrrr it could be because they see boys as lazy and rambunctious which seems far more likely since when looking at people's views on IQ they view the sexes as equal (even though evidence suggests men are slightly* more intelligent).
/r/Male_Studies02/02/22 09:13 AM
2

Beaver et al. (2013) controls for self-reported violence and IQ scores and finds no differences in arrest and incarceration frequency between Black and White men. u/UnHope20, what do you make of this? Are there any problems with what they did? It doesn't seem quite right to me, but I don't know why. Do you not have to look at the criminal justice system itself in the analysis (i.e., compare same crimes)? Why do they find that IQ and self-reported violence entirely control for this disparity? Som…
/r/Male_Studies18/01/22 05:02 PM
3

Also, this is confirmed by Beaver 2019 who after adjusting for the seriousness of the offence and a factor I think other studies typically don't adjust for (such as IQ), men continued to be treated more harshly by the system. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333332996_Self-Reported_Male-Female_Differences_in_Criminal_Involvement_Do_Not_Account_for_Criminal_Justice_Processing_Differences Beaver 2021 also found physical attractiveness leads to leniency if you are female, not male: https://…
/r/Male_Studies18/01/22 07:35 AM
1

Not sure that women as a group want to work in STEM or even occupy top economic positions any more than men do. I never said women as a whole want to but that feminists want them to. This is what I meant by "women can get their desired outcomes" - I apologize for not making it any more clear than that and conflating the two group's interests. Sometimes you mix the two up since the majority of vocal people advocating that are women.
/r/Male_Studies12/01/22 02:23 PM
1

It's a valid critique from the standpoint of good scientific writing. Anything that diverts attention away from the argument being presented is something that shouldn't be there if possible. When did he divert attention? The goal should be to provide a cogent understandable argument. An author doesn't want to attach any emotional valence to the article and the reader should rarely (If ever) be put in a position where they are thinking about the author's motivations for writing the article or his…
/r/Male_Studies12/01/22 02:22 PM
1

Moxon has some ok insights and his 2018 paper: Misogyny has no scientific basis of any kind: the evidence is of philogyny I really think most of his insights are good. His review of the literature on partner violence and the flawed analysis of identity politics are some good works, too. Nobody is flawless but by far he is amongst my top favorite academics, though he doesn't describe himself as one so I will call him a cross disciplinary research reviewer.
/r/Male_Studies12/01/22 08:59 AM
1

I don't know what you mean by "which women" - women as a group. The outcomes refer to women in STEM, women in top economic positions, the gender pay gap. Every outcome which is not in women's favour and confers some level of authority and respect.
/r/Male_Studies12/01/22 05:40 AM
2

Well, I didn't say you were disagreeing with me. I am aware of the studies you publish on here. I was arguing against them (the supposed academics). Was alright. He injected a bit too much emotionality into his writing, but the examples and citations were alright. I really don't know why people think this is a valid critique when it is not. The "emotionality" was not the unjustified SJW obnoxious type but rather provocative and to an extent a reaction to the data he was sharing which is almost a…
/r/Male_Studies12/01/22 05:37 AM
1

As much as I dislike most conservatives, it seems rather true that the constant attempt to deconstruct the masculine is to make men weaker so women can get their desired outcome. What is the best way if not through a society wherein the males are passive, without purpose and en masse dropping out of society?
/r/Male_Studies11/01/22 02:08 PM
2

Among the gender studies people, the definition of hegemonic femininity is (like their definition of hegemonic masculinity) societies idealized version of womanhood. There is a caveat here though which I will add below. Yes, but the study doesn't appear to be concerned with it based on what you quoted, nor do I think hegemonic femininity is anywhere near as popularized or treated similarly in its damages and origin. Connell never wrote about it in her popular works. Academia defines hegemonic ma…
/r/Male_Studies11/01/22 02:03 PM
2

Female participants held more adverse attitudes towards IPV when a male assaulted a female. So are we to then term this hegemonic femininity? Further, participant gender role beliefs influenced decision-making. Specifically, males who endorsed higher levels of hegemonic masculinity perceived the crime to be less serious I need to look into the way the concept is defined in academia. However, just looking at Connell's book should be enough to see the misandry in the term. Additionally, women who …
/r/Male_Studies11/01/22 07:43 AM
6

I am referring to comments like this one, which are common complaints for many newcomers to this sub and loaded with sad assumptions: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/rv743b/im_a_feminist/hr3m2tj I really couldn't care less about this comment. You will notice that I denounce misogyny in my own comment above it, but that does not matter for the author Which is exactly why I asked you how is the author misogynistic? People will draw the conclusions they want to draw from the content pu…
/r/MensRights05/01/22 01:00 PM
8

Nobody denied this but it is also not very deniable attractive women get more.
/r/MensRights05/01/22 11:52 AM
5

Define misogyny and define whataboutism. How is this misogyny? Not to mention this sub has denounced misogyny on multiple occasions. If you want to see subs that are breeding grounds for hate, go to feminist subs.
/r/MensRights05/01/22 11:51 AM
1

Okay, I like your content but I honestly don't understand the implications this has for men's rights?
/r/Male_Studies31/12/21 06:29 PM
2

Internal causes are exacerbated by past experiences and influenced by healthcare so I don't buy it. I think women lived less on average (except for among the elites) up until modern healthcare.
/r/Male_Studies31/12/21 01:13 PM
5

What exactly is meant by "they mirror the mortality rate of older women"? As for religious communities having smaller gaps - this could be because they live very restricted lives - hence less violent, risky. I think studies find they are also happier. When there is violence in a specific community, and a lot of it, it is usually what explains male mortality. For instance: Between puberty and the start of their reproductive period, 14% of Turkana men die in warfare, accounting for 45% of mortalit…
/r/Male_Studies31/12/21 11:41 AM
4

Lifestyle choices Ah yes dying of drug overdose, alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, workplace injuries, police violence & homicide, lesser health is just "lifestyle". Anti male cunts will go as far as possible to claim any disparity favoring females is a result of men's own idiocy.
/r/Male_Studies31/12/21 10:59 AM
3

And what exactly does this prove or disprove? Also, they say men age faster????? What? I remember reading somewhere that before the age of 50 women age twice as fast as men and between 50-60 it is 3x (here). And age is irrelevant either way because men seem to die more at roughly all stages of life
/r/Male_Studies31/12/21 10:08 AM
2

Like I said I am making assumptions. Biological differences might result in people perceiving men as angrier but on the whole I believe male faces would be perceived as more adult than angry, the angry perception would be mostly culture.
/r/Male_Studies30/12/21 08:07 AM
2

That it has little to do with sexual dimorphism, but that's just my assumption. Male faces look more adult like, not necessarily angry.
/r/Male_Studies29/12/21 09:32 AM
-1

What is this rubbish...
/r/Male_Studies28/12/21 02:08 PM
1

Really fail to see how this disproves anything. It still is systemic discrimination
/r/Male_Studies14/12/21 08:20 PM
1

I remember that when additional factors are accounted for you get a 63% sentencing gap
/r/Male_Studies14/12/21 08:29 AM
3

I honestly doubt being viewed as a risk doesn't contribute to it. Men are viewed as more predatory when they are around kids. That is a known fact
/r/Male_Studies10/12/21 08:41 AM
1

No it isn’t. A hypothesis also means a theory that is not yet established as probable. The definition of theory, at least in an unscientific context is quite literally an idea that is yet to be tested and substantiated which quite literally means an assumption about how things work so you're not really contradicting what I am saying here. Read Moxon’s jordan peterson level political comments on marxism, critical theory, and socialism which show up in the middle of his papers, presented as fact H…
/r/Male_Studies05/12/21 04:58 PM
1

A hypothesis is just an assumption. What I presented is actual research therefore my claims are no longer just a hypothesis. Would be nice to have more references How many more references do you need? Lol. The dude did a whole review. most people won’t take Moxon very seriously like they would Strauss If scientists genuinely catered to popular vote, they wouldn't be called scientists and be in academia. I love his work but he is a bit editorializing, freewheeling and polemical in it. Moxon is pu…
/r/Male_Studies05/12/21 04:48 PM
3

Young women’s career trajectories can be severely limited as a result of societal and familial expectations that they quit their work after marriage or after the birth of their first child. The disadvantaged position of female youth in the labour market underscores the need for continued efforts towards ensuring equal opportunities and treatment of young women and men in education and in work. Holy shit, yeah because then the burden of providing falls on male shoulders and in places where work i…
/r/Male_Studies05/12/21 09:49 AM
3

They also mention commercial sexual exploitation which has been shown in a multitude of studies to happen either equally to boys or more often to boys (Tamen, 2013 & Tamen, 2016). Girls face challenges to child labour protection? This is literally like pointing a middle finger at the fact they just acknowledged most hazardous and hard work is done by boys whereas girl do mostly light work. Fucking christ...
/r/Male_Studies05/12/21 09:48 AM
5

So I take you like to stare at people…. That's not a rebuttal. But an ad hominem. Try again. Oh dear if only you knew….not even that study categorized staring as a „sex crime“ but as harassment, which it is. Buddy, any harm done to a person sexually is to me a sex crime.
/r/MensRights05/12/21 06:35 AM
2

First things first….the author rides on the Spanish study, that leaves each and any misconduct of a „spouse“ out even though we know that most sexual misconduct is done by people out of the victims close social field, especially the spouse but ok. The author then noted that problem. You didn't read. Then he goes above and beyond to tell us that given the numbers of the meta analysis things can not be calculated because we don’t know overlaps ect. but he obviously is a special kind of great becau…
/r/MensRights05/12/21 06:33 AM
16

Nearly everyone has been stared at at some point in their life (most don't pay much attention to it because it isn't actually harmful and is an easily forgettable experience). Staring is continuous looking at someone. By that logic most men have been harassed by women as well. To say I don't know or won't know is absurd and the fact you're seriously intimidated by staring really does reveal how fragile you are so I am honestly surprised how you haven't killed yourself by now. And I am surprised …
/r/MensRights04/12/21 09:14 PM
23

I legit explained to you in the comment above. How illiterate are you? No, seriously? The original comment that started this thread explains what is taken into account to form the overall statistic. Staring is one of the things that qualifies as harassment as has been outlined here. If you believe this is "harassment", you're just hopeless to deal with. And as we speak the following post was released: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r8wwyw/a_member_asked_here_how_do_we_know_that_the…
/r/MensRights04/12/21 08:43 PM
36

There is a distinction between merely not believing statistics and dismissing statistics because of flawed methodology. Also, cut the "lived experiences" crap. I can hit you back with you don't want to talk to men who have been falsely labeled harassers because of research like this that distorts the definition of harassment and makes it so vague that any interaction can be harassment if it so makes the subject uncomfortable. And, yes, I've talked to actual women. Before you make empty, meaningl…
/r/MensRights04/12/21 08:18 PM
53

You do realize that men do like to trivialize everything, especially in this sub. That's the equivalent of me saying women like to redefine harassment however they see fit. The study in question is just one example of that. Staring is harassment? An unwanted sexual remark is harassment? Basically anything especially if it is unwanted and makes you feel uncomfortable becomes harassment. Then this can potentially be the basis of policy making, to make women feel comfortable. Nevertheless, it is mu…
/r/MensRights04/12/21 07:31 PM
50

I‘m sure you know very well that it’s about behavior that addresses the woman in question. You do realize that's irrelevant to the fact that basically everything is conceptualized as harassment thus inflating the statistics, right?
/r/MensRights04/12/21 07:19 PM
1

Not only is there evidence, but most evidence shows IPV is committed overwhelmingly by women. Your argument in regards to bidirectional IPV falls apart once you realize someone has to initiate the fight, that is usually the woman and that the sexes are violent at different frequencies and that unidirectional violence takes up a very significant portion of all the violence in relationships (this has been shown by the vast majority of studies to be mainly female). In regards to my statement about …
/r/Male_Studies04/12/21 04:33 PM
1

It really isn't significant. There is evidence to show most IPV is by women or that men suffer equally
/r/Male_Studies03/12/21 08:21 AM
1

Looking at the video and how many of the fiddled guys are tense before any movement from her takes place I'd wager a good amount was asked and then they sprinkled some surprise ones in here and there. Blah, blah, an unsubstantiated assumption. Looking at the guys, it could have very well been a spontaneous thing. Women get away with this more easily.
/r/MensRights18/11/21 07:08 AM
2

Wait, you think people do studies on this? Yes, I do. This is also a culture that just takes a shit every few feet on the side of the road against a wall. I can't show you evidence of that either but it's true. If you can't show me evidence the way I did, I can confidently discredit your claims. Your argument boils down to "trust me bro" which is not how serious conversations work. My personal experience with the culture IS EVIDENCE you just choose not to accept it. That's on you If you think th…
/r/MensRights23/08/21 12:22 PM
2

Your personal experiences do not matter to me unless you can actually show me evidence Afghan people think having a girl isn't the same as having a child. This sounds extremely absurd and outright retarded, so the burden of proof is really on you to substantiate your claims. Not to mention, as I said they are a non-sequitur (I know you brainlets probably don't know what this means either but dictionaries are free). Your rhetorical nonsense also goes against what the post stated (most abductions …
/r/MensRights22/08/21 12:27 PM
9

Aha so it is a conversation that you had with some random Afghan people whose names you won't specify and who definitely represent the whole of Afghan society, right? Fucking moron. It is almost like you can't hear the phrase "I'm doing it for my mothers and sisters" 10x more frequently in these cultures.
/r/MensRights22/08/21 02:59 AM
17

That's an unsubstantiated piece of rhetoric you've pulled out of your ass. It also has nothing to do with conflict related violence where most murder victims are almost always universally male. In almost every case of mass murder, the males are murdered selectively, so yes it is disregard for male life when it comes to determining the value of men's vs women's lives in large-scale conflict areas (where repopulating the population is also taken into consideration).
/r/MensRights21/08/21 04:34 PM
42

That's not the only reason men and boys are targeted. Male life is in general more disregarded, even by oppressive groups.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 11:10 AM
5

Honestly I'm confused. The security guard didn't evacuate her because she wanted to stay there, she looked fine the next day and one of the people groping her is her own fiance.
/r/MensRights20/08/21 05:12 PM
7

Apparently the idea that it was a hoax to garner attention has been thrown around to throw shit on the girl She deserves shit
/r/MensRights20/08/21 08:52 AM
7

From what I heard there are anecdotes of people saying "I wanted to help her" and what do people expect when a mob of people starts doing something like that? You can't really help them.
/r/MensRights20/08/21 08:48 AM
2

Absolutely, they are not denying that. Their point is simply that if these things can be influenced by social factors then there is in fact evidence that social factors are the culprit. Agreed. What I was mainly saying/asking is, what psychological tricks were used? If the tricks can only be manipulated in a study environment and used by people who are aware of how to manipulate, then this isn't the best case for social constructivism which argues that the average societal status quo (that being…
/r/Male_Studies17/07/21 02:46 AM
2

Only slightly
/r/Male_Studies16/07/21 04:50 PM
1

Since this social manipulations did have an effect on the competitiveness of both genders we could reasonably say that there is some evidence of a sociocultural influence (As could be expected), but people would have to be pranking me to throw away the idea that there are no biological influences as well. The problem is that these are psychological tricks done on purpose so it is a strictly manipulated environment
/r/Male_Studies16/07/21 04:14 PM
3

Not to mention the utter dishonesty in pretending like laws are entirely gender neutral.
/r/Male_Studies16/07/21 04:01 PM
3

Yeah you have got to be a troll because no one genuinely talks like this unless they have a mental disorder.
/r/MensRights03/07/21 09:36 AM
2

Jesus christ they actually think this is about dominance. Fucking idiots
/r/Male_Studies02/07/21 09:27 AM
1

Lol
/r/MensRights02/07/21 06:57 AM
1

He just Googles a lot of shit. That's it
/r/MensRights02/07/21 06:56 AM
1

Sure, if the point was to show examples of gender-based violence against women, okay so long as there is recognition for the male equivalent.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/21 08:47 AM
3

He doesn't need to address it because it isn't an argument. It is a stupid deflection. You say "men aren't killed because of their sex", he gives you information on how they actually are and your response is to say "muh, what about China". This is such a non-related point that it deserves no response whatsoever. u/Finallyreborn was also being modest. He forgot to mention the myriad of cases where men have been forced into war via shaming and legally enforced conscription. There are multiple inst…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/21 08:42 AM
3

but god knows they are trying. No, they very much aren't and as u/Finallyreborn showed you there is no sign they are. And listen to yourself, if they were trying, they would have already succeeded as most high status positions are held by men...
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 06:31 PM
2

People are desperate to be seen as victims. It has nothing to do with gender though, you get the same reaction from men when women’s issues are bought up. "It has nothing to do with gender" It has absolutely everything to do with gender. Men aren't the ones running a global narrative about how oppressed they are and how everything is against them.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/21 12:11 PM
2

Are all of these going to be linked to men's rights? If so studying the way religion treats men seems better than meta science to be fair
/r/Male_Studies24/06/21 03:41 AM
1

Lower gender equality in political power. I will stop them there. This is such bullshit. To try to link political power with SV.
/r/Male_Studies12/06/21 02:51 PM
1

No, it isn’t. Not at all.
/r/Male_Studies29/05/21 09:33 AM
1

Hey it’d be nice if you covered the role of IQ differences between the sexes in likelihood of success/social status. IQ has been proven to lead to either lower levels of economic success (criminality) or high levels of success. Here’s an article which covers this fact: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/iq-and-socio-economic-status/#comment-4407 And also studies on gender differences in investment and usage of the stock market.
/r/Male_Studies24/05/21 03:32 PM
3

Also historically domestic violence was often handled by a mob of people. So that’s why it’s not very believable that this many people believe abusing someone is okay.
/r/Male_Studies15/05/21 08:54 AM
2

And I’m sure people would be more okay with violence against men even in relationships there Also yes I was talking worldwide and especially in poorer countries. I’ve seen statistics for India which literally say it’s 50% of people which is not believable.
/r/Male_Studies15/05/21 08:52 AM
2

I don’t think they have it on there. Most of the anti feminist books are on lib gen but even they don’t have it.
/r/Male_Studies13/05/21 06:18 AM
1

Maybe MRA’s often turn this into a competition because the people that started it are feminists? We are hitting back because we are sick of being dismissed because we are men. I still agree with the main point but competition is inevitable until they end it.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 01:46 PM
2

If I had to count the amount of times men have been demeaned online, I’d have to kill myself. Why? Because misandry online is rampant. Misogyny is occasional. And I’m sorry if my “women like you” comment offended you. Put your “strong, independent” woman panties and stop whining. And I agree femicide exists (and the post is mocking the idea how it takes only slightly a few more women to be killed for us to talk about gender gaps). I just disagree it’s rampant. I disagree with the way it’s classi…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 01:10 PM
2

You blamed feminist. Yes, because you blamed men and ignored 1) how women equally contribute to the existing problem of the marginalisation of male victims and 2) how feminists themselves perpetuate the same problem and have done so through lobbying. I’m blaming the perpetrators. That doesn’t imply all men. Did I say you blamed all men? You’re showing yet again you can’t fucking read. Here’s a quote from my comment “no one here said you are blaming individual victims” which implies you’re not bl…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 01:05 PM
3

Women like you means nothing. If a man said this, I would have said the same thing. And FOR THE LAST TIME, I NEVER, NOT ONCE, NOT A SINGLE TIME IN THIS THREAD blamed ONLY feminism. Why are you so fucking illiterate? Holy shit... YOU blamed ONLY one group - men. I countered it by saying how it’s NOT just men and how the very same people who target men for perpetuating bias and love blaming everything on them uphold the system. I am blaming this on male perpetrators. Fucking stupid. “Men do this t…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 11:26 AM
1

I didn’t claim femicide isn’t a problem. I dispute the fact it’s that massively common. You can’t determine the intention of the killer by looking at how they killed since that doesn’t tell us WHY they murdered. You also can’t tell whether the crime is a femicide just by looking at who the person who committed it is (partner, stranger, etc). You can only find out if you know what the person was thinking. I said men are killed more in response to how male homicide is dismissed or swept under the …
/r/MensRights12/05/21 11:20 AM
1

Utterly stupid. Hopeless actually. I won’t bother. It’s like I’m arguing with a brick wall.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 10:52 AM
2

Again you’re speaking on something you have no real knowledge on. I’m going by your data and refuting it sweetie so that’s another projection. I’ve lived the culture Women like you need to understand anecdotes are not evidence. They are emotionally driven arguments about personal experiences. Or talk back to their husbands. In every patriarchal society so far which I’ve studied women controlled the private even when their formal power was restricted by laws. Whom aren’t even real feminists. They…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 10:48 AM
2

Dude you’re missing the point so much. This is the last time I will explain myself. Never claimed femicide isn’t real. I explained what I was talking about. Your inability to properly comprehend is your own issue. They should teach you more about literacy in Mexico. But the reason why they are killing is completely different. Yes in some cases. Not on the whole. Your statistical data IS FLAWED so you can’t make proper generalisations about the murder of women and compare it to men. Since men’s Y…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 10:32 AM
3

Your exact words are... Almost as if you just casually brushed over my explanation. And please keep the insults out of the conversation You’re a dipshit. I am merely giving a description of you. If there is no statistic... And here’s how you’re a dipshit. No it’s because of sexism and misandry. The rape of men has been swept under the rug by feminist lobby groups such as those in India and Israel who argued including men in the definition and women as perpetrators is wrong. Mary P Koss, a pronou…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 10:00 AM
1

Women and LGBTQ folk are. Your own source states the opposite.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 09:54 AM
2

Which is not femicide unless the person killed the woman because women are supposed to stay home and serve them because they have dicks. I can kill you for opposing me but that can be done purely because of my mental instability and me seeing you as a possession not because you’re a woman but because you as an individual are supposed to be one. I also didn’t say it assumes solely based on one criteria. I quoted two of them. One about close relationships and the other about sexual violence. In ad…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 09:47 AM
3

I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately obtuse or you’re naturally obtuse. No one said men are murdered for being men. Again you’re shifting the goalpost. I said your data lacks an equivalent vague criteria for men. Nowhere did I talk about men being killed because they are men but based on a similar vague criteria you can pull out statistics on how the murder of men is malecide. I am not sure what them being killed mostly by men has to do with anything. You people don’t seem to realise how fu…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 09:32 AM
5

You’re an actual dipshit. No, I didn’t say they were mad for absolutely no reason. If the outrage is over women being killed, then, yes, that’s a problem. If the outrage is applied mainly to women while male victims are more likely to be ignored because of heavily exaggerated data based on an inherently flawed criteria, yes, they are mad for no reason. Again, you keep repeating unsubstantiated claims about gender-based violence affecting women more. The majority of victims of sexual violence are…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 08:55 AM
2

I mean truly with all respect please do not talk about something you have no idea about. It’s not my problem you don’t see how your very own comment owns itself as it lacks nuance in the documentation of the problem. What you’re doing now just amounts to gaslighting and projections. I find it extremely disrespectful to say that the 13% of those who were murdered don’t deserve justice for their gender hate crime. Again 1. Hate crime here means practically nothing and 2. Nobody, not a single soul …
/r/MensRights12/05/21 08:47 AM
4

Wow 11% is still a large portion of the population. But it in no way shows any signs of women being targeted because of their gender and it shows how the massive outrage over femicide neglects the much larger problem of men being killed. It’s one thing to talk about the murder of women. It’s another thing to put excessive focus on crime against women and sweep the vast majority of victims (men) under the rug. A total of 1,006 killings were officially classified as femicides based on a variety of…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 08:36 AM
6

The summary of this person’s comment “when women are killed more in very insignificant numbers compared to men it’s likely misogyny but men constituting 70 to 80 percent of homicide victims is just normal shit, not due to bias or anything”. Also, the whole point of OP’s post is to highlight how we usually normalise the murder of men but immediately jump and point out how women are murdered while ignoring how men are the majority of victims until women’s murder is brought up like in the U.K. rece…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 07:24 AM
5

You’re so full of shit holy fuck. It is because the man sees the woman as his possession. This has to do with her having a vagina and XX chromosomes, how? It is an individual thinking another individual is his possession. It’s YOU and the vagueness of the law which assumes this man is thinking to himself “oh, yes, I see her as my possession because she’s a woman, not because I want my partner to be my possession”. If you look at male victims, only in about 6% of the cases it was their romantic p…
/r/MensRights12/05/21 07:15 AM
4

According to some reports women are not in fact murdered more and the data which shows women to be murdered more in Austria shows that it’s 1-2 more women. This is negligible.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 07:03 AM
8

Feminists have absolutely no reason to be mad. Their framing of the problem is wrong. It’s mostly cherry-picked cases of women being murdered and this is framed as “femicide” - meanwhile men die on the streets every day with little to no news coverage. It also wasn’t long ago in Ethiopia when boys and men were targeted on the basis of their sex and brutally murdered. The same happened in Boko Haram where male infants were snatched from their parents and slaughtered. Tons of boys were kidnapped, …
/r/MensRights12/05/21 07:00 AM
4

No it’s not. In Mexico roughly 89% of murder victims are men. The femicide framing of the problem is feminist propaganda.
/r/MensRights12/05/21 06:56 AM
2

Stay tuned on these ones Nice. I’ve seen feminists argue 44% of people think wife beating is okay. It’d be nice if you published studies which refute this as well.
/r/Male_Studies11/05/21 01:32 PM
3

Why the interest if I ask Well because it’s quite interesting. Wouldn’t you expect poorer countries to have fewer women in politics or biological factors to be pushing men to strive for status there? The only developed countries I can think of that have a high number of women in politics are Finland and Sweden (maybe some other country too). What explains this difference in representation
/r/Male_Studies11/05/21 01:31 PM
2

Thanks for the reply I’m aware of Steven Goldberg’s book. However I can’t access it for free and it’s quite expensive so I don’t want to order it. Also, I think Amazon doesn’t deliver products to Bulgaria and if it does, the delivery tax would be quite expensive. Another thing I have to say in regards to what you said about sex differences is that while it’s true women select for men who are higher in status than other men, under feudalism there was practically little to no competition between m…
/r/Male_Studies11/05/21 01:28 PM
3

Okay you have posted about this but I’d still ask do you have more studies which explain the differences in wealth between men and women and why men are also more likely to be rich/involved in politics? What role does sexual selection play in this? Why are women represented well in politics in South Africa and Cuba but not the US? How acceptable is it for women to assault and beat their partners (men) and lastly how many men are out of school worldwide compared to girls?
/r/Male_Studies09/05/21 06:55 PM
4

God I’ve never seen such a perfect example of toxic femininity (actually I have but I’m exaggerating). All of her comments are her screeching about how women are the bigger victims and rely on nothing more than hysterical claims with no sources to back them up or sources which literally say “yes all men are potential rapists”. It’s so ridiculous and especially when feminists in general talk about rape culture being a product of patriarchy but then participate in the usual female contest on which…
/r/MensRights07/05/21 07:28 AM
1

More often than not gender in fact plays a larger role than race especially in today's slightly more progressive society where women and black people are put in the same category on the oppression spectrum, with black people being seen as significantly more oppressed.
/r/Male_Studies26/02/21 08:29 PM
1

I don't think people see white men as more brilliant than white women.
/r/Male_Studies26/02/21 08:28 PM
1

The results suggested two main conclusions: First, children learn to associate White men (vs. women), I largely call bullshit
/r/Male_Studies26/02/21 05:56 PM
1

Victim race rather than victim gender appears to be the factor most strongly influencing jury decision making in capital cases. Faulty conclusion. Female victims on all sides together contributed to this. Also, it is BLACK MEN, not BLACK WOMEN
/r/Male_Studies26/02/21 05:40 PM
1

Heard of all of them and Hoff Sommers is anti mra, not mra friendly. She only advocates for men's rights to shit on present day feminism. And Farrell is not the founder of the men's movement. He's a major influence, not the founder. There is no clear founder. Men's rights activism literally dates back to Bax.
/r/MensRights04/02/21 05:11 AM
4

Nice. I've seen this article but I didn't know he also wrote about early forms of feminism and their connection to fascism as well.... That's pretty interesting.
/r/MensRights03/02/21 05:39 PM
3

Oh I have checked his website out.... Thanks tho
/r/MensRights03/02/21 02:29 PM
1

So far best reply ngl
/r/MensRights12/01/21 11:25 AM
1

Oh yeah but even when I look, I typically don't find anything and end up getting sources from mras, typically friends. Or maybe I am just bad at looking up key words. I dunno.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 09:05 AM
3

Like okay but this has nothing to do with the question... Lol
/r/MensRights12/01/21 08:54 AM
1

I said skinny looking men get the shorter end of the stick. Are you addressing my point on beauty standards?
/r/MensRights06/01/21 08:38 AM
5

Has the book been translated to English?
/r/MensRights31/12/20 11:03 AM
1

all you did was write 'conservative women bad' Because that's LITERALLY the comment thread. Jesus Christ 😂😂😂.
/r/MensRights31/12/20 10:44 AM
1

Are you dumb? This entire thing is about conservative women. You jump in here, derail and make it about the liberals who were never the topic of the convo just to remove the spotlight away from conservative women. I don't need to challenge your arguments as they are totally irrelavent. I never made arguments as to who is worse, but you came here and made it about the libs rather than addressing the actual subject.
/r/MensRights31/12/20 10:42 AM
1

Thanks for pulling out a whataboutism and not challenging anything I said about conservative women.
/r/MensRights31/12/20 09:19 AM
6

Subservient to men. The myth of female subservience keeps being perpetuated even by MRA's. No they are not. Most aren't. In fact conservative women exert more control over the financial budget of the household as well as the kids. Let's suppose they are subservient to men, so? How does this disprove what I said? Conservative women expect men to fight, provide and die for them. They impose gender roles on men while simultaneously knowing they hold the upper ground at home and in family court as w…
/r/MensRights30/12/20 01:10 PM
-8

She is a conservative, so no I don't think she is "pro-men"
/r/MensRights30/12/20 09:50 AM
36

Because women largely control sex. That statement is empirically supported as well. This article goes over how women are the ones who control sex and sexuality - promiscuity, clothing, porn, etc: https://greenpill.net/sex-war/
/r/MensRights26/12/20 12:20 PM
6

Check again. 30 upvotes
/r/MensRights26/12/20 12:18 PM
85

Speaking of women's power in these Islamic countries, this reddit article covers a study which explores women's power in the middle east: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g3l1d1/public_and_private_politics_women_in_the_middle
/r/MensRights26/12/20 09:16 AM
2

FBI data is limited.
/r/MensRights19/12/20 08:35 AM
2

Can you stop doing this? I will literally try to cover something from my own perspective, cite different sources, etc and you will just come here and try to derail.
/r/MensRights19/12/20 08:23 AM
4

That's a nice way of saying "any and every source here cited is invalid because I FEEL like you are just trying to be a victim and I'd rather tell you to man up and be dismissive instead".
/r/MensRights19/12/20 08:22 AM
1

Your reasoning: "men are more likely to be oil plumbers therefore that is an explanation for why we are not taken seriously and men are less articulate which is an assumption I made and am yet to support it and also prove it explains anything, but muh biology". Your explanation is entirely unfounded and a hella of a laughable explanation.
/r/MensRights18/12/20 05:20 PM
1

Are you forgetting the fact that most men aren't plumbers? Are you forgetting that men are also the majority of scientists, doctors and people in prestigious positions in general? You are cherry picking those at the bottom and describing a general trend among men. Your explanation also defies common wisdom, that men are generally more articulate and less emotionally driven (which I am not saying is true, but it is likely that this is more true than your cherry picked examples and personal experi…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 04:43 PM
9

But when you read a post on this sub, ask yourself this, are they trying to get people to care more about men or less about women. I've been on this sub for over a year and I confirm it is actually more about making people care more about men. Given the fact you vastly misinterpret posts because of your biases, I am not surprised you've done the same about the entire subreddit. You take one post correcting a checklist and scream "you don't care about women". You were responsible enough to correc…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 03:37 PM
2

Well, of course MRA often are able to articulate themselves well, what I meant was on a broader spectrum in society, like since men tend to do more manual stuff etc., they are not as used to balance words and sentenced like people with an education/ studies,who are more used to formulate their thoughts and feelings into relatable sentences. That's nonsense
/r/MensRights18/12/20 03:31 PM
9

Its honestly kind of sad. You: look at those 100 studies I won't name. They show discrimination against women. Reee, how dare you challenge them. Me: oh look, here's newer data which shows the reverse. Perhaps we should pay attention to discrimination against men too and stop promoting the male privilege narrative so viciously. You: Are you trying to be a victim you low life? Just say you don't care about women. I know I said men face discrimination, but ya, know, you just showed me something wh…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 02:09 PM
7

If you saw a feminist say 'we should care less about men' you would probably be raging out right now. I'm sure even you can see that hypocrisy. Yes, I would. You know why? Because we already care less about men and we care more about women than men. Wishing we cared less about women than we do now is essentially making things even. But, since I came off quite a bit aggressive and bigoted, let me rephrase it "I wish we cared about men more than we do now to make things even". What's also quite hy…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 02:05 PM
5

What are you talking about?
/r/MensRights18/12/20 01:48 PM
6

You seem really concerned with proving that women don't face any discrimination. That's your interpretation and newsflash it is a strawman. Can you point me to where I said that? Judging by your post history, you are a feminist concern troll who comments in men's rights and acts concerned for men, but actively dismisses or minimises men's issues or makes everything about women - like you just did and ignored the context of the research that was cited and that of the post in the first place. ;) B…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 01:45 PM
5

The hiring and promoting practices regarding women are still not at even, that's for sure "The hiring practices are not even." Correct, women are hired more often in many circumstances. "Promotion" Correct, women are less likely to be promoted, but that's likely because men work longer hours, are more assertive and more likely to ask, though bias could explain some of the disparities.
/r/MensRights18/12/20 01:32 PM
7

One article you posted highlights discrimination against women in hiring practices depending on family situation. The hiring and promoting practices regarding women are still not at even, that's for sure. I love how you focused on that, but not on the fact that in spite of the fact childless women are preferred and that's actually reasonable - childless women on average take less time off work, are more likely to be work oriented than mothers and are less likely to drop out and take on part time…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 01:19 PM
5

I agree but I have an issue with what one thing you said. the main reasons, feminism is so much more popular, is the fact that men in general are less articulate than women, so such texts always give a good basis for discussions, writing them actively helps men standing up against feminism. I actually think it is the opposite, men tend to be more sourced or articulate. Can I support it now? No, not necessarily but the argument women are more articulate is not supported either. The reason feminis…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 01:08 PM
8

less likely to receive stranger violence -less likely to commit suicide -less likely to be prosecuted for sexual crimes (institutional) -in general, less harsh sentences for same crimes (institutional) -has all the reproductive rights and decisions(institutional) -enjoys entire global instituations exclusively campaigning for Womans rights (institutional) -more likely to receive sympathy/help by stranger -more likely to be hired for the same qualification in a prestige job (inst.) Me and u/Final…
/r/MensRights18/12/20 11:58 AM
18

Yeah I am on it
/r/MensRights18/12/20 10:59 AM
11

That assumes they were fined merely because women are achieving. That's not why they are being fined. So your argument is just funny.
/r/MensRights16/12/20 04:32 PM
2

Thank you. You know I was just thinking the same about you. Only an idiot parrots the same talking points which have been addressed plenty of times. Only an idiot thinks empiricism explains everything and sweeps any potential logical explanation under the rug. Go off. You rhetoric is comedy to me.
/r/MensRights15/12/20 01:56 PM
2

What a great comment. Yes, I am ;)
/r/MensRights14/12/20 07:45 PM
1

Like for instance "Correlation /=/ causation" Point me to where I said otherwise. This is what I mean when I say you talk about stuff I already covered. I said several times the study didn't find a causal link, but that does not logically prevent us from speculating about it as the assumption there might be one is logically coherent as the conclusion is supported by the premises. Please, try to come up with something fresh, stop repeating yourself and come back to me ;).
/r/MensRights14/12/20 07:41 PM
2

You are a parrot.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 07:39 PM
3

What I am saying is we’re taking an article that simply states a woman’s account of what happened and it’s being turned into some men’s issue when it isn’t A quick google search proves you wrong. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Jones47/amp Boko Haram wasn't an exception, this is common in most genocides and conflicts. I linked you to a comment which was left by the original author who explains this as well. You keep moving the goal post again. You went from "women …
/r/MensRights14/12/20 07:33 PM
4

Not a troll and I am discussing it. A concern troll is somebody who acts falsely concerned for people's issues. You fit the definition of a concern troll. You selectively choose which issues to be outraged about, if you are even outraged by any male issues to begin with. Why do you think they targeted boys??? Because people usually have less empathy for the slaughter of men and boys than girls and women. That's a well-documented phenomenon in the scientific community . Responses to the genocides…
/r/MensRights14/12/20 04:03 PM
3

Don't put words nor ideas in my mouth. I am heartbroken for the victims. My loved ones, men, have almost fallen victim to tragedies like these. I have feared for their lives. Do you think I am on this subreddit to be a feminist? Why do you think that, if? My very intention is to not use the same argumentative practices as feminism. I never put words in your mouth. I derived a logical conclusion from what you said. If these men were murdered because Islam simply sees women as so worthless that th…
/r/MensRights14/12/20 03:30 PM
1

Feel free to reenter the conversation when you understand the statistical difference between correlation and causation Jesus fuck you are actually still on that... You are entertaining.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 03:05 PM
10

This is islamism at play, rooted in the belief that woman are so worthless that they are not even worth killing. This is such a ridiculous, stupid and false interpretation that it hurts my brain and it should hurt any reasonable person's brain. I fully agree with you that the male victims deserve to be heard and acknowledged fully and without gender bias Translation "I agree male victims should be addressed but I will also derail the conversation and assume any and every attack on men by ideolog…
/r/MensRights14/12/20 02:39 PM
2

Agreed. Thanks for the explanation. Finally a good reply (though, if I have to be honest A was caused by B, that is SIDS can be and is sometimes caused by circumcision seems like the more logical explanation to me, but you are right, there could be other potential explanations that can be taken into consideration).
/r/MensRights14/12/20 02:35 PM
4

There's also an intriguing reply by the author of this post.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 02:07 PM
10

Do you all realize why they kill the men? Yes because they fight and grow up to be fighters. Which is not misandry in the slightest, of course.... However they do that to try to wipe out that tribe and have the women for the themselves. Actually, no, the conflict targeted boys systematically while the girls were either spared or told to go home. This wasn't to "steal and rape the women". The kidnappings happened after no attention was paid to the systematic extermination and burning of boys. I m…
/r/MensRights14/12/20 02:06 PM
2

You nor other comments have “addressed” anything. Read again. Your entire response to my paragraph is you repeating yourself (correlation /=/ causation which I DID NOT deny) and being a dogmatic empiricist. (which was also addressed). Your beliefs are soundly defeated by statistics here. My beliefs have not been defeated by the statistics put forward by the study.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 01:09 PM
1

You could have taken that time to learn a little bit about statistics, like what correlation and causation means. You’re free to continue to speculate on causation, but it’s not scientifically valid. Your entire statement was just addressed. Thank you for confirming my hypothesis that you can't read or comprehend what is being said to you.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 01:05 PM
1

Alright since you want an actual reply. I addressed what you stated multiple times. You are probably the 100th guy that tries to act like a smartass and repeat what has already been stated by other commentors. I didn't post the study to claim IT found a causal link. I posted it to say there is a correlational link and that could perhaps mean a potential causal link. The authors (so did I) argued that this could potentially mean there is a causal link, but do not say it factually does. That's bec…
/r/MensRights14/12/20 12:57 PM
1

The aren’t any comments that “address” the fact. Learn to read ;).
/r/MensRights14/12/20 12:48 PM
1

Read the comments which address this viewpoint ;)
/r/MensRights14/12/20 07:23 AM
1

Like your entire existence and lack of empathy? Yeah I thought so too
/r/MensRights14/12/20 07:22 AM
2

Off you go misandrist. This is no place for retardation, and ignorance of something that hurts and kills boys.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 07:19 AM
2

Read the comments below. Causation does not need to be proven for us to speculate a logical causal link.
/r/MensRights14/12/20 07:18 AM
4

This study was correlational. To make causal inferences, you need to do more experiments. Who declared a casual link? Do you guys not fucking understand that by "link" I mean "correlation"? Deriving an actual causal link would be very hard and to be fair anybody who knows a bit about the practice would say it makes perfect sense for something like this to actually happen to some male genital mutilation victims. The practice is extremely stressful and painful and babies experience pain in a simil…
/r/MensRights13/12/20 05:21 PM
8

Same
/r/MensRights13/12/20 05:18 PM
9

No it is basic logic. One premise follows after another and reaches a logical conclusion.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 05:13 PM
8

No, shit, nobody said otherwise. What do you think the word "links" means? Also, I am fairly sure you can logically derive a causal link as the practice is extremely traumatic and stresses out the child (I already explained down below).
/r/MensRights13/12/20 05:07 PM
17

Even if it isn't too strong (I am not good with statistics either way), there is still a correlation and due to the limitations of empiricism we might not be able to come to a straightforward conclusion, though the conclusion of the paper is logically coherent. Stress can kill, genital mutilation causes stress and suffering, therefore genital mutilation can kill and SIDS is positively correlated with the practice.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 03:08 PM
10

Okay?
/r/MensRights13/12/20 03:07 PM
12

Still wanted to clarify.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 02:57 PM
60

Neither am I. I mean it is a logical conclusion to arrive at. Genital mutilation causes immense pain and suffering to the child. Babies are sensitive and in fact they experience pain the way adults do. If baby boys experience stress in a more pronounced way than girls and the practice causes pain/stress, then it makes sense for it to cause death and if not death, long-lasting psychological issues to the child who then internalises them because of the environment he is raised in where genital mut…
/r/MensRights13/12/20 02:09 PM
1

I downvoted your comment due to its unreasonableness. That does not logically translate to me not being willing to discuss unreasonableness. Learn the difference. You downvoted my comment so shut up.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/20 04:02 PM
1

I explicitly said the draft is a worse act of sexism ny orders of magnitude. Do you not understand what that means, or did you intentionally ignore that sentence so you could go on a self-righteous rsnt about a bunch of shit i never said? I don't think you know how to read your own text buddy. Which is why you got downvoted by 5 points, not counting mine. Because you are fucking dumb. Your entire comment was a pile of shit that tried to portray one practice as more reasonable than another even t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/20 03:59 PM
0

The draft is very obviously wrong in general. It might be an ugly necessity in some unfortunate future I hope never happens, and if it does happen, it must OBVIOUSLY be gender neutral. This paragraph alone literally makes the rest of what you said irrelevant. If the draft should be gender neutral and it is unreasonable, then the point of the post stands. I am surprised you are incapable of seeing this. I am not even sure if I should address the rest of your factual inaccuracy. The gendered natur…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/20 03:49 PM
8

Which is a pattern you can find for a lot of things in society. Which honestly says a lot about gender dynamics and who really holds the cards. This!!! I've been thinking about this. How is it men who are in charge in actuality if men are struggling to have a conference meeting where they can discuss their problems without it being disrupted because of loud feminists who go as far as to use illegal force to achieve their goal? How is it men who are in charge when they can't get shared parenting …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/20 03:12 PM
28

Also, to note men barely have standards. Most men find most women relatively attractive. Women, on the other hand, rate men worse than men rate women. And men on average get far fewer swipes on tinder than women. Yet men are assumed to hold unrealistic standards meanwhile women are assumed to barely hold any standards? It is mind boggling really. Also, issues like weight, acne are easier to solve in women as women have better access to cosmetics and weight is generally a solvable issue whereas h…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/12/20 10:26 AM
2

Yes, I disagree with affirmative action for any group. It should not be a thing. I actually don't agree. If it has been proven a group is disadvantaged in society, then a push wouldn't be an inherently immoral thing. For instance, black people are more likely to live in poverty, they are more likely to be fatherless, they are more likely to be incarcerated and they are more likely to get a worse education because of the first few factors I mentioned which are connected. Giving black people a pus…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/20 10:17 AM
2

I can just as easily point you to this one school shooting in the 1980's where a man was targeting the female students. He told the male students to leave or stay and die, too. I keep seeing posts which shame these men for being "cowards" and not risking their life to save the women who were the target, as if it is a man's obligation to risk his life for women. People like Christina Hoff Sommers constantly praise the disposable side of masculinity, that is men sacrificing and building for women …
/r/MensRights04/12/20 08:47 AM
2

Are you seriously assuming that my defence of incels means I am craving romantic relationships? Wow. You're a real idiot. No seriously mate. Begone at this point.
/r/MensRights28/11/20 06:20 AM
1

No, I hate continuing conversations with morons for days. But since you crave a reply, I will give it to you. Your first study disproves what I said, how? The study also notes that the gap is vastly due to exaggerations and afer accounting for other factors it almost narrows down to the point of disappearing. I will further look into it later, but either way, it doesn't really challenge what I stated. The data on orgasm doesn't matter as I stated it is a petty whataboutism to derail from the iss…
/r/MensRights28/11/20 05:56 AM
1

I said I won't bother with you
/r/MensRights28/11/20 05:36 AM
1

Already have tons of it. Do you?
/r/MensRights28/11/20 05:35 AM
1

Lmao she still believes women are disadvantaged outside family courts so rule 1 stands
/r/MensRights26/11/20 08:17 PM
1

Ok, but your earlier comments came off as men being entitled to female validation and desire. Actually no, I said it that they are not, below....
/r/MensRights26/11/20 02:15 PM
1

I understand the need for deprogramming for men and boys You said it yourself. That's what I am advocating for. I can't force women to date men but I can advocate for male independence and compassion for men.
/r/MensRights26/11/20 10:36 AM
1

Has it ever occured to you to do without the girl? That maybe you'd be better off? Spending time in the Pink pill or FDS subreddits might do you some good on curing your delusions that getting a woman into your life will improve your existence. I love how with each response you demonstrate your fucking inability to read. Go back to effing kindergarten mate. I didn't say the life of a man is better off with a female in it. It isn't. Subreddits like FDM only literally support my argument as I didn…
/r/MensRights26/11/20 10:32 AM
1

This is real fucking petty coming from somebody who is a literal follower of the PMC subreddit. Most men are from day one raised to compete so they can get a girl otherwise they are going to be lonely. So most men have no choice but to compete.
/r/MensRights26/11/20 10:20 AM
1

one more point that I forgot to reply to above. If your male friendships are bothering you and you find you're not getting emotional support from your male friends. That is not the fault of women Fucking repetitive shit which I won't bother addressing.
/r/MensRights26/11/20 10:11 AM
1

Actually for those nine experiences there is no sexual gratification only frustration, which is exactly why women don't sleep around. Bullshit and you also need to define sleeping around. Women are having far more sex than men. And please shut the fuck up with your anecdotes. Jesus fuck. You're the definition of a walking talking fallacy as you won't stop treating anecdotes like facts. And literally the entire thing about your shit orgasms is a fucking whataboutism. Ps please stop with the insul…
/r/MensRights26/11/20 10:11 AM
0

What women do with themselves is their business unless it involves turning others into slaves or victims of their abuse. Also, newsflash dipshit, women demanding men to be providers, and high status turns men into slaves to women.
/r/MensRights26/11/20 10:08 AM
1

No one is going force women to be good mothers or lovers for anyone. You'd best get that through your head. What women do with themselves is their business unless it involves turning others into slaves or victims of their abuse. You're stupid and can't read. Beyond that, it's not an issue for the PMC or MRAs. Nobody said it is. Male liberation and combating standards for men is. All that said, this is actually a good reddit post, but bringing relationship problems and lack of intimacy as a human…
/r/MensRights26/11/20 10:06 AM
17

There's a reason why we are men. It's our duty to protect and defend even if society doesn't treat us fairly. We are men and that what makes us strong. Says who? You?
/r/MensRights25/11/20 05:46 PM
1

Read the other comments you blind fuck. Literally why would I continue the convo with somebody who thinks connections/long lasting relationships are not a thing - this is an outright pathetic thing to say
/r/MensRights25/11/20 05:49 AM
1

Lmao you made me laugh at that nonsensical complaint." This is interesting. you expect me to show sympathy for your issues yet you feel the need to laugh at my issues. Because your issue is not a fucking issue. It is one thing to not be able to get connection. It is another thing to fuck 10 guys, and not entirely extract the full pleasure of sex, but still have your basic sexual needs met and then move to the next guy. Jesus fuck.
/r/MensRights24/11/20 07:04 PM
1

In cells also argue using anecdotes. How come you are more likely to believe their's than mine? Probably because their anecdotes are more empirically supported. Did you ignore the hypergamy part? Yours are the story of one woman who commented under my post. also if men are finding that it's difficult to get the emotional support they need from their male friendships that's not the fault or responsibility of women. Ah yes, male friendships only. Yes women are more likely to be attracted to people…
/r/MensRights24/11/20 06:54 PM
1

My point is simply that it's not women's fault that in cells exist. It often but not entirely is. However I can't force women to change their preferences. but when I go on in cell forums I see a lot of female hating talk. sadly the majority of the talk appears to be anti-female. As usual all you see are incels being angry at the fact they can't find connection, not beyond it. They don't hate women. Yes Its easier for us to get sex. but we have our own issues we're facing as well. For example the…
/r/MensRights24/11/20 06:47 PM
1

but if you look above I didn't use the term incell as an insult. Nobody said you did. I was simply pointing out that their focus on sexual inequality has no solution besides their own personalities changing. And the coldness society displays for them. The rest of what you said is anecdote after anecdote that I can casually dismiss all of it. 1) It is not verifiable. You can't verify your experiences. You could just as easily be twisting stuff in your favour and it is a psychological fact people …
/r/MensRights24/11/20 06:41 PM
1

some sort of law forcing women to have sex with men they don't want Nobody here is proposing that.
/r/MensRights24/11/20 06:01 PM
1

There's a big difference between those two issues one of them is being caused by society the other is being caused by the very incels that like to complain about women. It's easy to say this coming from a woman who can only get laid or have a partner if she is moderately attractive and has a vagina. Have you ever looked at the issue from a more nuanced perspective? I assume you haven't because your argument is plain ignorance of these people's experiences. Inceldom isn't caused by incels simply …
/r/MensRights24/11/20 05:57 PM
0

😂😂😂😂
/r/MensRights24/11/20 02:15 PM
0

Are you delusional? Connections, long lasting relationships both exist. Nobody is moving the goalposts. You just have no idea what you are talking about
/r/MensRights24/11/20 01:50 PM
0

Involuntary celibacy is not really much of a thing. You realise sex is more than just fucking, right? Many of these people prefer long lasting intimate relationships or sexual relationships where they can feel connection. Fucking a hooker who might give you STD's is not the same thing - you're spending money on a one time cheap intercourse and that might not seem like much of a benefit to you, especially if you're poor.
/r/MensRights24/11/20 11:40 AM
2

Except loneliness and involuntary celibacy are actual issues facing men. If you're going to undermine these issues just because there are more serious, systemic ones, then you are not welcome here.
/r/MensRights24/11/20 08:25 AM
1

No problem and I apologise.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 04:18 PM
1

If you want an argument, look elsewhere. I'm not looking for an argument, shitface. I was talking about homelessness in general as I mentioned it depends on where you live and what data source you are quoting so I brought up the UK as an example. Your twisted version of me trying to have an argument is a petty projection as demonstrated by the rest of what you said.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 04:01 PM
1

It's closer to 70%, since the definition of "homeless" changes every time the government wants to count us, and not everyone fills out the census, but yeah. Depends on which country you are looking at. It is between 70 and 80 percent. In the UK, looking at rough sleepers alone, means roughly 90 percent of them are men. But sure.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 02:51 PM
1

Not to mention things like homelessness. Roughly 80 percent of the homeless are men, surely they need support too, don't they?
/r/MensRights22/11/20 02:07 PM
3

Okay, dude I didn't call you a feminist. All I said was you are deflecting. Did you see the tag of the post? It says discrimination. I am focusing on the discrimination component of this and that's what the video is about, so you jumping in here and saying "but many women were left out, so this wasn't meant to be fair to them either" is practically irrelavent to the point I was conveying. Plus, it kinda does allow feminists to come in and start making it about how women didn't benefit much.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 07:33 AM
5

It is still a deflection.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 07:24 AM
5

There is only 10 million allocated for this money splash so only 2,000 women get the $5,000 meanwhile over 130,000 unemployed women in NSW miss out. It was never meant to be fair even for women let alone men. Yea buddy, 2k women get 5k meanwhile how many men really get 5k? Not even 1. You sound like that one feminist I talked to once who complained about women having fewer shelters than dogs meanwhile men get fewer shelters than dogs, women and children. Fuck off and don't derail the conversatio…
/r/MensRights22/11/20 07:19 AM
13

A lot of things. That's one of them 😂
/r/MensRights21/11/20 07:18 PM
1

How is it squares and rectangles when molestation amounts to assault? Can you define the two words because even the dictionary definitions disagree with you? Molestation is defined as abuse and assault.
/r/MensRights02/09/20 08:58 PM
13

That's good. What's really stopping them from changing it now?
/r/MensRights12/08/20 04:30 PM
164

The pension age has been equalized for young people But it remains the same for older people? Also, you typically retire at an older age.
/r/MensRights12/08/20 01:54 PM
1

I remember reading a study which found that kids raised by single dads tend to do better in life than kids raised by single moms, I assume that's in part because fathers tend to rely less on external sources of financial support (like the welfare state) and have a higher amount of income, so kids are less likely to live in poverty because of that. As for nurturance, I'm not quite sure. If we say the statistic is true without a doubt, that wouldn't disprove the idea mothers are more nurturing (wh…
/r/MensRights08/08/20 06:06 PM
3

Тhe idea "women are better at multi tasking" is pseudo science.
/r/MensRights06/08/20 08:20 AM
4

Honestly I am of the perspective that "cushiony" positions should be reserved based on individual qualifications rather than averages. So for instance, not every man is stronger and more suited for combat than every woman. There are women who are better. So such women shouldn't be let off the hook. Also, I argued conscription should only apply to women as well if we keep conscription for men.
/r/MensRights06/08/20 12:21 AM
2

That's literally the article I cite as a source for a lot of my claims (about abuse, and the countries which have conscription). Did you read the post?
/r/MensRights06/08/20 12:16 AM
2

Who the fuck said women are our worst enemies? Are you strawmanning the MRM again? Quite unsurprising. Also, I'm not sure if you've heard of this, but while yes crimines such as murder are perpetrated against men by other men more often, things like domestic violence and sexual violence, false allegations, abuse-related suicides and even murder (women murder differently than men therefore it is logical to assume the statistics are distorted to a particular degree, even if we argue men murder mor…
/r/MensRights03/08/20 04:41 PM
2

Wow, you double down on saying women are only useful as breeding material? That is what tells me you are an incel. Also, I made that definition up on the fly, no dictionary needed. Oh you didn't answer and you continued with the incel insults. That's not what an incel is. What makes you think I'm saying that out of SEXUAL frustration rather than something else? Are you assuming things about my life and using that to further the validity of your retarded anti male shaming tactics whose definition…
/r/MensRights27/07/20 07:25 AM
2

OK, where do we start? I'm not manipulating anyone by saying I fear for the men in my life, it is the reason I am an egalitarian. I dont need anyone to feel any way towards me for your inane attacks on nearly everyone in this comment thread. Yada, yada. Yes, you are. I don't care what you personally feel towards the men in your life. That's pure manipulation, as it's irrelavent in this situation. I didn't say you don't care about men. So bringing that up only appears as manipulating people into …
/r/MensRights26/07/20 11:25 PM
2

I resent you saying "you idiots". I resent you associating sb like him with us. I fear for my sons and all the men in my life. You assume that because I point out a wack-job zealot as such, that I myself am anti-men. Please stop bringing up your personal feelings about your sons and men to manipulate people into feeling bad for calling you out. Also, when did I say you are anti male? but from looking at your post history, you look like an angry incel Ah here we go with the shaming of men's sexua…
/r/MensRights26/07/20 01:50 PM
1

Hollander?
/r/MensRights26/07/20 04:56 AM
1

Sb means somebody.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 07:41 PM
3

Do you not realize so far you've only been making unsubstantiated accusations? How do you know I'm angry? Because I am more confrontational? If anything the only thing that angers me is your shitty reductionism of my comments to me only being angry. Do you want me to get you a pillow, a Starbucks hot chocolate, if you see anything confrontational as a person just having anger issues, maybe the only person with problems is you.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 02:57 PM
5

If people don’t understand your explanation, then you’re the one not explaining it correctly. That's such flawed reasoning. 😂😂😂 Lmao you are a special kid of snowflake.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 02:51 PM
4

How is he all three at once? I literally explained. Is all you could come up with an accusation of me throwing a "tantrum" even though I wasn't and the nitpicking of a few mean words rather my response to the question?
/r/MensRights25/07/20 02:45 PM
10

He called us wimps and was blatantly anti-male. It's not just "kill female judges". He called us feminists and girls, and asserted "we just swap the genders". He detested us for being too peaceful and not real men. I just love when you idiots come here and try everything possible to frame him as one of us even though we rejected him.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 01:52 PM
9

Read down the comments. We discuss this. Wikipedia and the media in general try everything they can to slander us.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 01:51 PM
8

And that part is actually the opposite of your average MRA talking point. MRA's say any violence committed by women in relationships is wrong, even a single slap. He was OK with a woman going against him with a knife and a gun which is considered severe violence and is way more than a slap.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 01:41 PM
3

Agreed
/r/MensRights25/07/20 01:02 PM
10

while it is accurate to say that Hollander did not label himself a MRA, Hollander had two websites, filled with men's rights talking points. He has anti MRA talking points, as well as traditionalist - anti-male talking points. That's enough to discredit sb as a a non MRA especially if they hated the movement with a passion and were hated by the movement itself. Denouncing an entire movement, calling them girls, wimps, pussies, etc makes one anti-MRA by definition. It's wrong to associate him wit…
/r/MensRights25/07/20 01:01 PM
7

Hollander was against Feminism himself.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 12:59 PM
8

He was
/r/MensRights25/07/20 12:59 PM
4

It's hard to believe there is sb with a username that says poopoofoopoo, but such people exist. All of these labels suit him, familiarise yourself with what he has said, and you can start with his manifesto where he expresses his contempt for the MRM, the post is for his murderous behavior and his misandry is expressed in his views of men, particularly, as I've already noted, his toleration of violence against men by women. And he is an anti-feminist for the simple reason he opposes Feminsim.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 10:56 AM
2

There is no reason to punish women differently. That's excusing systemic sexism against men.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 10:38 AM
14

He was a misogynist, not an MRA. A misandrist/misogynist. He's made misandrist statements and his own toleration of violence against men by women is anti male as it perpetuates the tough guy, man up nonsense.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 10:34 AM
16

He wasn't an MRA. He condemned the MRM in his manifesto calling them girls and even excusing domestic violence against men. He was also slandered by the MRM and murdered a prominent MRA. What a true MRA he was, slandered the MRM, was slandered by the MRM and killed an MRA for political reasons possibly. Stop spreading bullshit misinformation perpetuated by those who try to slander the movement.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 10:25 AM
3

Possibly. But I highly doubt so as Hollander was captured. If it is, it's not going to happen any time soon.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 10:17 AM
2

What do you mean?
/r/MensRights25/07/20 10:14 AM
20

Yeah it was obviously suspicious and the murder was obviously planned as we learned Marc was murdered for political reasons, we just weren't sure Hollander was responsible.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 10:11 AM
0

About 40% of babies are born out of wedlock and of those 40%, only 35% are cohabitating. Meaning, about 25% of babies are born to a single mother where the man isn't significantly in the picture. Meaning the overwhelming majority have both mothers and fathers. Also, there could be plenty of reasons for this, divorce, abusive relationships, lack of consent to parenthood, etc. Although, yes you have a point, this is a contributing factor as to why mothers in general are more involved in their chil…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/07/20 09:25 AM
1

It can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that women are forced to grow the baby inside them for 9 months while men are free to bounce? Making the decision to bring pregnancy to term is not being forced you misandrist idiot. I see you everywhere with your biological reductionism and blatant misandry. Just fuck off and stop coming here shitface.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/07/20 09:11 AM
1

Yeah, I think that's a stretch. When dads are changing as many diapers, making meals, and are actively involved in their kids lives, there is no reason that a mother would be a better parent overall just because she had heavy doses of oxytocin in the first six months of breastfeeding. There's a cultural myth that mothers are more important than fathers. It's best if a child has two parents, and if they only have one there is no benefit of one over the other besides at an individual level. 👏
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/07/20 09:09 AM
2

Feminists who think that's acceptable are not feminists, they're misandrists masquerading as feminists. They are very much feminists. 😉
/r/MensRights25/07/20 07:34 AM
5

Other pages did a survey and the results were between 60% and 70%. It also depends on the sample size.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 07:21 AM
3

I agree. But it's not even just being forced to cum.
/r/MensRights25/07/20 04:31 AM
16

I assume they mean things like pregnancy. But that often ignores things like child support which boys are subject to - if the rapist gets pregnant and gives birth she can possibly extract financial support from the victim and we have cases like that. Then the other thing would probably be psychologically related. If the boy and the girl were in the same circumstance, with the same age and had the same (what rape apologists call) desires, likely the consequences wouldn't be any different for both…
/r/MensRights24/07/20 05:42 PM
1

Sorry for intervening so late, but on the domestic violence thing it seems so unrealistic. From what I also heard they are combining countries with less equality to countries which are more gender egalitarian than not, in said countries hatred for domestic violence against women has been universally found to exist, whereas the reverse for men isn't true. One Australian study even found that girls and women hitting men was tolerated, but the reverse was universally condemned. Even in less egalita…
/r/MensRights24/07/20 04:28 PM
1

Also, another reason is they were ruined in divorces or due to false allegations. Those are some of the main reasons men go mgtow and begin to have resentment for women. But women don't see that because they don't care about men.
/r/MensRights22/07/20 08:31 AM
8

It would. There are plenty of factors that go into the equation. There is no single factor that is singled out. So whoever tells you, its all men or its all society is wrong. It's a mix of both.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/20 12:52 PM
2

I agree that its not uncommon for men, a lot of my guy friends have had similar experiences. I don't know who asked if you think it's uncommon for men? Sadly, feminists would disagree.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/07/20 02:18 PM
9

You say "we can force them", but how are you going to do that? In what way are you going to "force" them, a word which has a very strong connotation to it? I never said all feminists are 100% ideological, but the influential and academic ones are mostly ideological. They are the ones who hold the upper hand in determining discourse.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/07/20 09:30 PM
22

Feminists will allow us into their movement so long as our issues are addressed from their own theoretical perspective. Discourse is not allowed unless they hold a monopoly on it. Feminism cannot be reformed, only mild corrections can be made as culture changes and people are more aware of the struggles of men than before and because Feminism is forced to be more inclusive.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/07/20 09:13 PM
1

Children have too little, which is good for them to be protected and cared about when they are vulnerable, but diminishes their freedom. And they still enjoy entitlements without the obligations adults are subject to. And actually I'd still argue kids have some level of freedom to make their own choices or even purchases, etc (it also depends on the parent and the household you live in) Women seem to have the happy medium with regard to being seen as capable of both great agency and great vulner…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/07/20 08:53 PM
1

I didn't know she was in academia. But I have to ask how influential was she? Or how many publications and even citations did her works get? Either way my point stands, your claims are anecdotes.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/07/20 08:49 PM
1

This just depends on how you interpret it. Feminism isn't consistent with itself all the time. I agree. Although I'd argue the objection, "women are seen as people without agency" is usually made in an attempt to perpetuate the status quo and the status of women as victims - not out of genuine concern for a woman's privilege (if you look at some influential feminists, they have perpetuated that lack of agency, rather than actively fought against it). I can't help it if some feminists make these …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/07/20 01:05 PM
1

True.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/07/20 11:55 AM
1

One of my biggest gripes with feminists is that they don't always follow through with their ideological beliefs. They get applied differently depending on if they're talking about men or women. Elaborate more throughly. We might agree on this one. Feminist ideology is not about putting an emphasis on women's choices, it is about denying them as much as possible (it starts with how they describe history - women were victims of it, men were the perpetrators who upheld an oppressive system that kep…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/07/20 11:52 AM
1

Warren Farrell has spoken about the kinds of feminists he used to know back in the 70s and 80s. Including published authors that verify that some feminists back then really weren't all that terrible. I agree. I didn't say all were horrible. But generally, they were no nicer than 3rd wavers if not worse. As Karen Straughan argues 2nd wave is also largely responsible for feminist theory and the man-hating rhetoric being brought to light which was what would later lead to discriminatory policies ag…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/07/20 07:21 AM
1

Of course but your mum isn't "feminists", your mum was a feminist, I'd assume mostly a coffee shop one
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/07/20 07:05 AM
2

Few would deny that kids are advantaged over adults or more advantaged than adults even if they do not publicly say it. (or that being denied agency and having your actions excused or blamed on somebody else is not a privilege).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/07/20 06:59 AM
3

I can't give you a particular example of somebody saying kids are privileged over adults (like for example an article, a post) as of now, but we do think kids do have it easy compared to adults which is the definition of privilege (based on what I have heard) because while they do not enjoy the same autonomy as adults, they enjoy preferential treatment whilst they have few of the responsibilities adults are subject to. (one of them is having their actions excused - an adult would be held account…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/07/20 06:57 AM
2

I'd argue most second wavers are radicalised misandrists. In fact it is rare to find one boomer who isn't. 3rd wave on the other hand are similar, but at least they have started to question some previous beliefs held by the radicals of second wave.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/07/20 11:56 PM
3

You mean the man hating 2nd wavers?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/07/20 11:39 PM
13

Another thing I'd like to add is that this is called "trickle-down equality" which feminists use to perpetuate the idea of female victimhood and vulnerability and male privilege even when women are the ones in a privileged position. This article explains it well and gives examples of how this concept and the concept of benevolent sexism which are linked can be used to explain female disadvantages or at least the things feminists complain about and call female disadvantages. (for instance a commo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/07/20 10:12 PM
10

It's funny because you can just as easily account for other factors and argue that female stereotypes accompany male stereotypes. Benevolent sexism against women is often synonymous with hostile sexism against men. For instance, we could argue that women's perceived nurturing and kind/less criminally oriented behavior is synonymous with men's socially perceived criminally oriented, violent/aggressive behavior which is the definition of hostile sexism as these are hostile sexist stereotypes that …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/07/20 09:55 PM
2

No, no thank you. Go spread your trollish misandry somewhere else. You are next level misandrist and disgusting.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 11:18 AM
4

Yeah you are a misandrist troll. Fuck off
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 11:13 AM
3

I suggest the following. accepting men don't matter less, but rather are culturally exploited in such a manner and that is based on centuries of environmental pressure which has led to ingrained tendencies to devalue men's lives. combating gender roles most of which are unnecessary and simply restrictive and as I said rely on an ought vs is distinction. Eg - men ought to serve their wives, protect women and children, serve their country, etc... With legal policies (such as the ones in Finland, a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 10:44 AM
1

How do you propose we combat it then?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 10:31 AM
3

some cultural norms are malleable. and as I have repeatedly said, this is a deep biological insincts anyway. No culture in general is malleable. And not to mention cultural, environmental pressure is what leads to evolution. So learning and evolution go hand in hand. Or if we accept the idea only some cultural norms are malleable, such norms can be reduced, which is happening in more egalitarian oriented societies. what you are proposing is as ridiculous as suggesting we should try to live in a …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 09:27 AM
2

point is it doesnt matter if the population is in the billions, these are deep rooted instincts which don't magically disappear after a couple hundred years of popuation growth God the retardation. Do you realize the concept of "ought vs is". You can argue something is a certain way, but it doesn't mean it ought to be. Women no longer need to be at home raising children, in fact culture is malleable and we've made it so women have access to jobs and are no longer stuck at home, as well as in Fin…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 09:08 AM
2

I mean, sure... But the term literally implies positive sexism and it is used by feminists to talk about how women are favoured but at the same time they are still oppressed by their own privilege. So really it is just another word for female privilege, or sexism against men, or misandry. But if you wanna use it that way, I don't mind but make sure you clarify so people don't misinterpret you. And yeah you are right believe women and deny men civil rights like due process (which is getting repla…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 07:35 AM
5

Benevolent sexism against women is just another term for hostile sexism against men. You don't call it benevolent sexism when men are favoured, because it just doesn't fit the narrative, instead we say it is hostile sexism against women, misogyny, systemic discriminaton against women or male privilege. So really benevolent sexism is just female privilege and a reversed term for hostile sexism against men. You would be benevolently sexist to assume women are nice, but that means you assume men ar…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 06:42 AM
4

males are disposable in the vast majority of species if you have 10 males and 1 female you have only 1 offspring 1 male and 10 females you have 10 offspring in other words every extra female gives a whole extra offspring, but the male number basically makes no difference What you are currently arguing doesn't apply to the world as it is overpopulating with over 7 billion people, so reproduction for even the majority of people in a country with millions in it is not even necessary. Therefore the …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 06:14 AM
2

That's self defeatist and really no
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 02:50 AM
1

Overall the representation was pretty balanced but it did lean right more than left. I need to find the survey and cite it here. Another factor is I think only 300 people took it which isn't a huge sample size, but it isn't very small either.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/07/20 02:49 AM
1

I agree. I thought you were adopting a tradcon mentality. My bad for the misinterpretation
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/20 10:31 PM
4

Is, as in widely enforced by hypergamy in our modern day society. It doesn't need to be. Men's worth doesn't just come from their ability to provide. It's an outdated evaluation of men's worth. It's like arguing a woman's worth comes from her looks or her having to be a baby factory machine. Class didn't exist in hunter gatherer societies. For most of human history we lived in an egalitarian, communal society. This instinct only exists in men insomuch as it has been biologically (or socially) pr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/20 10:15 PM
3

The same very much applies to social conservatism. Two sides of the same coin. The MRM should be centrist, not conservative because conservative and MRA don't go hand in hand.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/20 08:52 PM
3

There was a survey on the men's rights subreddit which showed men's activists lean more right wing than left wing. On top if they continue to tolerate tradcon ideology, I wouldn't be surprised if it soon becomes a full on conservative movement.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/20 08:07 PM
8

Encourage women to do more and work as hard as men? We have been doing that for decades, encouraging women to be successful and be equal to men. Women have been joining the workforce at a high enough rate that outnumbers the rate of men who are joining the workforce and women in their 20's are already outearning men in urban areas. The reason men even exist in this system is because womem judge them based on where they fall in it. Men are expected to provide for women. And the more a man can pro…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/20 07:48 PM
1

Well you have many factors, age, conceptualisation of abuse, memory, etc. In a lot of cases you have memory bias, men are less likely to remember and conceptualise their victimisation. Then you have past abuse and maybe that's experienced more by women. But 12 month data is typically preferable as it gives you information on what is currently going on.
/r/MensRights19/06/20 05:37 AM
36

In other words, if our findings contradict what we hoped to find, and instead we find female privilege rather than female disadvantage and male privilege, it's also because of gender stereotypes and female disadvantage. Women being praised more couldn't be because of anything else, no, we are instead going to assume it's because of gender stereotypes and people holding these negative stereotypes will more positively reward women. They are a joke, a pure laughable joke.
/r/MensRights17/05/20 06:18 PM
1

I really don't know why you go around spewing out the statistic as if it changes the fact that those boys are still disproportionately affected there, many of whom without their consent and it is still disgusting to be in a condition like that when you are a child.
/r/MensRights27/04/20 07:56 AM
1

Oh oK
/r/MensRights27/04/20 05:11 AM
2

Can you tell me how exactly that's a major MRM position, that you can't be pro-male and married because frankly I have never heard a single MRA say that unironically. In fact, I even remember Paul Elam saying that married men can be MGTOW. What you seem to be doing is conflating MGTOW's with MRA's who aren't the same but both tend to be in the monosphere. Also, even a lot of MGTOW's would find that statement absurd. I can't say much about the second one - I personally don't equate the two but un…
/r/MensRights26/04/20 08:47 PM
5

Being an anti-feminist doesn't make you right wing by default because there's more to being on the right than just opposing an ideology which has a certain set of frameworks, etc... For instance, I'm an anti-feminist, but I tend to be more left wing and liberal as well as progressive, I also sometimes tend to get "socialist" on tests which measure your political views and I'd in fact argue they seem to align with my views very well. So, by your definition of being right wing, I'd have to be righ…
/r/MensRights26/04/20 08:39 PM
1

If your husband led your mother to the point of depression which can result in suicide and if she killed herself, he would be largely to blame for her situation. If a man or a woman humiliates you, physically abuses you, controls and manipulates you, and you end up taking your own life as a result of the abuse, the perpetrator of the crime is largely to blame for what prompted you to kill yourself. Also, stop making it all about yourself - all I see in your comments is not you productively engag…
/r/MensRights26/04/20 07:41 PM
1

"Context does matter" Yes, it does. Women's use of self-defense accounts for a minority of their perpetration. A meta-analysis on hundreds of studies which was published by PASK found few differences between men's and women's usage of self-defense - some studies found higher rates of women's usage of self-defense which outnumbered the ones which showed the reverse - that men use self-defense more often. Then you have the others men's higher rates of their usage of self-defense, but neither men, …
/r/MensRights26/04/20 07:30 PM
1

When Erin Pizzey opened up her first refuge she found that the first 60 women out of the 100 were just as violent as their husbands and even violent to their children, so I wouldn't be surprised if these women there were themselves violent.
/r/MensRights26/04/20 07:15 PM
1

Setting the plenty of misinterpretarions of the CTS scale and the citation of Feminist researchers such as Kimmel who have been criticised aside, you said "coercive control is almost exclusively perpetrated by men", but that's not necessarily true. Several studies have replicated Johnson's scale in community sample sizes which are not limited to the criminal justice system and shelters which operate in favour of women due to the lack of support for men and found that women's use of violence is i…
/r/MensRights26/04/20 07:05 PM
1

Cts studies being misleading is a fraudulent claim made by the feminist lobby which hasn't been substantiated throughly. The whole the cts doesn't account for context or severe violence claims are total bullcrap which have been debunked countless of times.
/r/MensRights26/04/20 06:16 PM
1

The fact that Feminism continues to assert men abuse women and women only account for a minority of perpetrators and men for a minority of victims. The fact that patriarchy is the central reason for men's abuse which is the presumption which agencies and shelters operate under, which leads to men being stripped of equal resources and protections ; the fact that men use violence to control a partner and women to defend themselves from abuse and retaliate. Feminism has concealed any sort of data t…
/r/MensRights21/04/20 04:06 PM
2

"I do think it's a gendered issue - but not in the sense that only men are guilty. Rather women do it, too, but I do believe their ways of being violent are different as well as their motives." You'd need to tell us how exactly it is a "gendered issue". Gendered in effect, that is severe injuries and homicides? Or gendered in overall perpetration regardless of severity? Which one is it? Because frankly gendered means "perpetrated by one gender" or "predominantly perpetrated by one gender almost …
/r/MensRights21/04/20 03:57 PM
1

The data is not outdated. It is very much relevant until newer findings are released. The 2015 data shows more female victims but not to a large scale.
/r/MensRights21/04/20 03:32 PM
10

Second wave feminism is what wrote the theory on rape, domestic violence, power structures, and of course their favourite - patriarchy theory. Their entire assumptions about domestic violence and rape and gender relations were one sided and overall incorrect. The feminist assumption about voting rights is that men had them by default of being men and that was somehow a privilege for them when it was not, neither could the majority of men vote, yet they were still subject to conscription regardle…
/r/MensRights05/02/20 03:39 PM
7

You love No True Scotsman fallacies, don't you? Male taxes have been proposed by other feminists as well, or other methods to end the "gender pay gap". Since you asked for a definition of what constitutes a feminist, a feminist is anyone who subscribes to the ideology of feminism, its frameworks, theories about gender issues, or the presumption that men have been privileged all through history and women have been subordinated and oppressed. Even if you hate men, as long as you subscribe to Femin…
/r/MensRights05/02/20 03:26 PM
3

You're pretty much advocating for men not to express their emotions and act tough instead which statistically speaking leads to more men committing suicide because society shames them instead of giving them the support they need. But ok.
/r/MensRights27/07/19 07:33 PM
2

Let's look at them - you've been making the same points which are about the feminization of men and I was responding to them. Your arguments are just insults, not criticism.
/r/MensRights27/07/19 07:15 PM
2

What a good argument
/r/MensRights27/07/19 07:10 PM
3

Buddy, all this post is saying is that men shouldn't be shamed when they express their emotions. It's true that the feminist movement is trying to feminize men and it constantly comes up with new ideas of what toxic masculinity is and should be, but telling men to cry when they want to and show their emotions is not the same as making them weak and emotional.
/r/MensRights27/07/19 06:40 PM
1

The point isn't that Thor is traumatized, it's the fact that you can objectify men and no one will take it seriously, it's the fact that you can treat them like objects and still no one will care. You don't need to be traumatized to have someone objectify you just to make some money. If Chris was a woman, the entire internet would blow up calling Taika a misogynistic white male who objectifies women. That's exactly what society is promoting especially if you look at how often feminists complain …
/r/MensRights24/07/19 08:15 AM
1

"There hasn't been a single female president in the US" - and somehow that's a patriarchy ? More men run for these positions, more people vote for them not on the basis of sex, but because of qualification, independence and leadership skills. Women make up half of all voters. We have women in every branch of the government, female governors and senators - the AOC who makes absurd claims and is listened by millions of Democrats and liberals, the Alabama governor who passed the abortion bill, and …
/r/MensRights19/07/19 07:07 PM
0

What people usually do is they compare men and women despite the fact that they are different. Women compete against other women. While men compete at a much higher and more difficult level. Since people love to compare them, I'm going to use the same analogy and say - the women's national soccer team got defeated by a bunch of 15 year old Dallas boys who don't even play on professional level. The Australian national team was also defeated by a 16yo team. So, no they are not better. Put them on …
/r/MensRights13/07/19 05:59 AM
1

No they don't deserve more money. Lol.
/r/MensRights12/07/19 12:03 PM
4

Mate they are paid more in terms of revenue. If women earned 4 billion, they would be paid 5% more than men. And if men's sport earns more as shown in the picture of course they are gonna be paid more but the point is women are paid more than they deserve and 5% more than men but they earn less because their sport makes less money. It's basic common sense.
/r/MensRights12/07/19 11:41 AM
0

You are comparing just the revenue from the games. There's revenue from the amount of views and fans men and women have. Men get twice the amount of views women get and that's why they get more recognition. Not only that but we also have sponsorships which also bring in more revenue. And merch as well which the men's soccer team sells. What people do is they compare how many wins women and men have which doesn't even matter since women compete against other women and men compete against other me…
/r/MensRights12/07/19 11:28 AM
1

Their team got beat by a bunch of male high school students who are not even professionals. Also, of course there's a huge difference. Biologically speaking men and women are different. Especially when it comes to playing sports. If men had to compete against women, they'd definitely win and these teens prove that point.
/r/MensRights12/07/19 11:18 AM
1

Mate you are using CNN as your main source which is completely inaccurate. Men overall bring in more revenue compared to women which comes not only from their games, but also from views, sponsorships, etc. Men in general get more views compared to women and more sponsorships so they are paid more money. Their sport has made way more money over the years - statistically speaking it's 2:1. Men also bring in more viewers, more excitement, etc and attendance which is - 24k for men and 14k for women.…
/r/MensRights12/07/19 11:16 AM
3

None of that stuff is offensive. I didn't insult him, I didn't make fun of him. All I did was make an assumption and I apologized for that. He didn't want to have a productive discussion with me and so he decided to insult me. Learn the definition of the word.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 07:20 PM
6

Also you took the argument : "so basically you are saying" out of context. I was quoting what he said. And in that case he was referring to the fact that I'm stupid. You took my words out of context and I have no idea why you posted that comment. To prove that I'm a hypocrite ? Well, if that's the case, you have no idea what you are talking about because I didn't insult him at all. There's a huge difference between making assumptions which is what I did in my first comment and making fun of some…
/r/MensRights11/07/19 07:17 PM
8

So basically you're saying that I lack logic but you can't articulate your points and you called me a dipshit which shows a lack of intelligence. Doesn't that make you a bit hypocritical 🤔. Isn't it funny how people like you rely on personal attacks rather than rational and critical thinking. I'm going to be honest, I made an assumption and I'd like to apologize for that.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 04:02 PM
4

You knew this was such a case ? Ok, so basically, you think that women can't be equal perpetrators ? I'm assuming that's the case. Because oh boy they can be worse and they almost never get called out.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 03:52 PM
1

Actually, no. They sometimes do. Just like the feminist movement which has proven itself to be toxic and hypocritical. The campaigns they create, the Duluth model and police training, the propaganda they promote and you love talking about how men's rights activists promote false statistics, this is the exact same thing the feminist movement does and it only cares when women are the victims. You always see the narratives women are oppressed, men are privileged - they recently started a campaign w…
/r/MensRights10/07/19 09:57 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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