TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Oishiio42 Archive

View 4 posts and 235 comments by Oishiio42 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)
11

GeneralOishiio42/r/MensRights15/11/20 02:43 AM
9

Marriage/ChildrenOishiio42/r/MensRights05/11/20 01:21 AM
6

GeneralOishiio42/r/MensRights19/10/20 07:35 PM
1

GeneralOishiio42/r/MensRights14/11/20 06:44 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

No, but it might benefit you to be aware of putative registries. https://adoptionart.org/adoption/birth-expectant-parents/putative-father-registries/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/07/21 10:14 PM
21

This reminds me of a healthcare app that gave people advice based on symptoms. With the same set of symptoms and ages, it told men they might be having a heart attack and to call 911, and told women that they were probably experiencing an anxiety attack and to lie down. I believe they fixed it, because obviously that could cost lives. The reason it strikes me as similar is because abuse victims are rarely passively submitting to their abuse. Many symptoms of being a victim of domestic violence -…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/21 05:08 PM
2

Sure. You can't refute something so "tHaTs BrAiNwAsHiNg". No, there is a difference and you are just refusing to recognize it. There's zero difference between objectifying a man or a woman because no matter who you do it to, if it's done without consent, it's degrading. There is a difference in perceived acceptability in media is from social consequences. Seems like you are intent on thinking that all ways in which men might desire women are equal forms of sexualization and it's not the case. Ob…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/21 11:26 PM
1

First, you would have to understand that there is no such thing as being a sex object, so sexualization is an equivalent term. The entire concept of sexual objectification is that women are portrayed as sexually attractive/desirable, and then it assumed that this demeans them do to the natural course of biology. It is sexist because men are not depicted in such a way, as only gay men and some select women are looking at men in that type of way Literally all of this is wrong. Sexualization is whe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/21 10:50 PM
7

I was going to say - she talked about how it's not appropriate because she's her husband's wife, not his mother. But it's in appropriate for mothers too. Treating kids the same way is still abuse and teaches the exact same thing. This was my mother as well, and my father, my first husband, and me for a time. Takes a long time to recognize as abuse specifically because entire circles will consider it perfectly normal and you have to exit those social circles to see it's not. A lot of psychologica…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/21 08:32 PM
1

women acting sexually online to make money is of course not the same as women doing the inviting or initiating. True, I imagine this fosters a whole other type of resentment.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/21 05:55 PM
1

I don't think the men upvoting this post really will advocate asking an unknown woman to suck their dick I sincerely doubt they would either. It's rare men that engage in this type of behavior. My shock comes from OP's phrases such as these: they are victims of being dehumanized and treated inferiorly because of it, and yet they will proudly have an OnlyFans account, and insist that this is an entirely different outcome because they are choosing to be sexualized, as opposed to having sexuality p…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/21 05:24 PM
3

If your talking about scientifically no, men are not scientifically wired to commit crime, i’m sure there are lots of women who don’t get caught for there crimes however i don’t think if all of them were caught i would compare near the amount of crime committed by men. There are only two options here: Either men are biologically wired to be more violent than women and they are therefore being unfairly punished for biological realities they cannot help and there is a social duty to modify the und…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/21 04:52 PM
9

Forgiveness > Severity. An analysis of the effectiveness of justice and prison systems around the world shows fairly conclusively that this is the way to go.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/21 04:47 PM
6

I kind of agree with most of their premises, just not in a gendered way. hence do not engender community fear. Kind of agree with this - unless someone has committed a violent crime and poses an active threat to other people, there are other ways to fix social wrongdoings and they shouldn't be sent to prison. And they do end with that: Implementing these changes will not prejudice male offenders. In fact, it is likely that the opposite will occur. It will encourage a normatively sound and empiri…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/21 04:45 PM
1

> In the UK they get fined for portraying women as sex objects in lingerie advertisements, something that it would literally be appropriate to be sexualized in Do you have an example of such an advertisement? Because "portraying as sex objects" is different from being sexualized - however, the fact that you consider them one and the same is already telling. What, exactly, do you think objectification is? There is a problem with depicting female sexuality as objects of presumable male desire rath…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/21 04:36 PM
1

> They managed, but then started messing it up by comparing any interaction between men and women that had to do with sex and might give somebody an unpleasant feeling to rape. When someone doesn't understand the difference between something done with consent and something being done without consent, it is apropo. The amount of men on this thread that have no real understanding of consent is worrisome. > Your interpretation of consent is weird. As far as I know it is about openness, about making…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/03/21 04:06 PM
2

A lot of problems could be fixed if people who are full-time employees (or the equivalent thereof) were granted the benefit of excluding income from other labour-related sources for most things. Not just child support. This would also help eliminate the welfare cliff in regards to eligibility for most social programming and would greatly decrease poverty.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/21 10:56 PM
0

feminists at large support women that are openly sexual, they genuinely believe that as long as the woman chooses it, then that should somehow eliminate all the shame and sexism they claim exists when men are responsible for sexualizing them, even when that is just in fictional capacities. Yep. Because when women actually do it themselves, invite men to objectify them (I mean literally asking, not by simply wearing something you find sexy), or consent to being objectified, it's entirely differen…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/21 10:38 PM
3

The double standard comes in when feminists get upset at men expressing attraction for or fantasizing about, say, female celebrities, but don't for a moment refrain from doing the same regarding male celebrities. Yes. Exactly this This is the actual double standard. There's absolutely nothing wrong or hypocritical about only wanting to be objectified in situations where you've consented to be objectified. There is something wrong though, with saying it's ok for women to do to men without consent…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/21 08:59 PM
1

If a man "thinks you sexy". Sure, ok but "thinking" is something you do with yourself. There is no action for her to respond to. When you act on those thoughts - either by speaking or with physical actions, you have moved past the realm of just "thinking" she's sexy. And while there is room for error, if you act on that without considering if it's welcome or not, it is disrespectful. Sure, I have to accept that any particular person may have thoughts about me; and I can't control that. But you a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/21 08:32 PM
-2

I'm genuinely surprised this has such a high upvote ratio, however, I probably shouldn't be. This thread shows a shocking disregard for what consent is and what it means for sexual interactions. I could have written a very similar paragraph complaining that first feminists are complaining about being sexually assaulted and raped but then they want to go ahead and participate in rough sex and be groped on their own terms. I mean, what is that even? You can't just claim it's dehumanizing, and then…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/21 07:05 PM
-3

I like how you ramble off all way ways in which men work more than women and then conveniently skip the the parts of the study that shows the part you don't like. Guess it doesn't feed into the "only men are valuable" rhetoric the so-called egalitarians here are perpetuating. The point was was not some "women do more than men" competitive nonsense. It was rebuking the claim that women essentially don't contribute and therefore it's actually men that pay taxes and fund everything. Don't try to ma…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/21 02:27 AM
3

women pay taxes too but the quote already recognizes women's taxes are funding it and fails to recognize that men's taxes do as well.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/21 12:06 AM
0

Your own study shows that men and women do, in fact, perform approximately equal amounts of work - and that women are the ones who do the most significant chunk of unpaid labor. I also like how you recognize that a single parent would have to hire childcare and/or cleaning services, but you don't seem to recognize that a couple where one person works fewer hours but does more housework is literally the same thing economically. Both partners have obligations to the household and to children (if t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/03/21 12:05 AM
4

It's more ideal than the system I propose, but less possible in the immediate future, depending on where you live. That system absolutely requires social umbrellas to the extent of ensuring single parenthood does not throw anyone into poverty. If we improve that first, then an opt-in system is more ideal. But currently, due to nature of costs, it's impossible to make an informed decision on wanted/unwanted parenthood without knowing if you'll be doing it alone.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/21 03:16 PM
2

Currently, it pretty much only includes child support. Courts won't force a parent to share parental time or any of the labour, as this would obviously do far more harm than good.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/21 03:03 PM
3

This obviously doesn't encompass all views, keep in mind this is just anecdotal. Male advocates tend to view abortion access as the free pass women get to opt out of parenthood, and want to consider pregnancy as the period in which either party can change their mind. The view I tend to hear is that men should get exactly however long women get in order to change their mind. I have a few problems with that view, one is it looks at a female experience through the lens of how it affects men. Pregna…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/21 02:56 PM
8

I'm both pro-choice and I also am for the option of parental surrender. I'm a woman as well and despite being supportive of the right to opt out of parenthood, my views are almost never in agreement with male advocates because of issues conflating it with bodily autonomy & integrity, especially in a way that undermines those rights for women. But just so you know, we do exist. There are many prochoice people who also want reproductive autonomy for men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/21 08:08 AM
2

Well that you are probably right about. Thankfully, she got called out on it, so this kind of stuff is becoming more rare.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/01/21 07:06 AM
3

Anyone who wants to take whatever steps they need to control their reproduction how they want to should be able to do so. You shouldn't lie about it, and if you are committed to someone it's advisable to have a conversation, but ultimately up to the individual having the procedure. You also have to accept that may be a deal breaker with your partner (and if it is, you probably shouldn't be with them anyways)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/01/21 01:03 AM
2

One of the questions my doctor had to ask in order for me to get a tubal ligation was to ask my husband if he was comfortable not having more kids. And that was the second visit. The first consult on that - alone - he told me the process and advised me to discuss it with my husband. So yes, it would be. Trust me, it's a huge problem across the board, not just for men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/01/21 01:00 AM
2

We are all on the same page about that. It shouldn't happen, but I'm not sure how we'd go about resolving it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/21 04:17 AM
-5

Let me put it this way. For a male parent, from the moment of conception, there will never be a moment where his offspring reside in his body, and therefore require his consent to do so. "My body, my choice" is referring to a person's right to own their own body. It doesn't make sense when talking about male reproductive rights and coercion, and it confuses the issue by using it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/01/21 04:04 AM
-4

Reproductive coercion and bodily autonomy are separate, albeit related issues. I don't have the stats but I'd be willing to bet most of the instances of reproductive coercion with male victims are cases of women saying they are on birth control when they are not. There are issues with that and it's a glaring lack of consent, but "my body, my choice" is not one of those issues. Sperm is the impregnating agent, it leaves your body and goes somewhere else. As long as you consented to ejaculating, y…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/01/21 09:06 PM
3

Just mean it might be easier to get them to stop offering in the meantime while attempting to make the procedure itself illegal.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/12/20 04:20 PM
2

That actually means before a longer fight for it to be illegal, the number still drops drastic if healthcare providers simply stop offering it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/12/20 04:08 PM
3

Society should have more sympathy for criminals in general, considering how ineffective punishment-based prison systems are. But I'd take this to the extent of better living conditions, more opportunity for rehabilitation, and more lenient sentencing where it's applicable (sexual violence has a much lower recidivism rate than other crimes). I wouldn't say that people need to be offered any sort of social leniency whatsoever. Almost all rapists never see the inside of a prison, social consequence…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/20 01:02 AM
1

A zygote is only a zygote for a couple days. Between day 2 of several weeks later, well into the first trimester, it hasn't even started developing the nervous system. You said general anesthesia should be required before it's even started developing the nervous system. Yeah, it feels sometime before 26 weeks but it absolutely doesn't feel anything before 7 weeks and a zygote stops being a zygote well before that. It's measured in weeks from LMP to estimate due date, the humans life starts at co…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/12/20 12:31 AM
4

I think the window for men should be shorter, not equal to. A man can make his decision independent of hers, since he cannot force her to gestate if he wants but she doesn't. A woman, however, cannot make an informed decision until he has made his, because deciding to be a parent and deciding to be a single parent with no support are different things. So making them the same is not right, in my opinion, as it forces her to make a decision before having all the relevant information
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/12/20 12:23 AM
1

Pregnancy starts at implantation. Life starts at conception, and that's fine. But pregnancy starts at implantation, and so does abortion because abortion is ending a pregnancy. This is publicly available information, you can literally just Google it. And what I'm saying regarding feeling pain is that "needing anaesthesia" for anything past a zygote is ridiculous because they don't even have the nervous system required to feel pain for at least a few months Edit: and while 'none' might be your id…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/12/20 12:02 AM
-4

Abortion has nothing to do with the woman and everything to do with the foetus I understand your position is prochoice, but the pro-life position you describe is inherently misogynistic because it's taking a position on an issue for interests in one party without considering the needs, lived experience, or agency of the exact people they need to use to secure it. Just like it's misandrist to center the entire childrearing conversation of the needs of women and children without considering men wh…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/20 11:32 PM
1

Misconceptions. Most abortions occur before 8 weeks but almost all are done before 12. The ones after that are all the complicated cases. Think about it - for what possible reason would women gestate for longer than they had to considering the risks to personal health and being able to access abortion go up each day that passes? There are also no abortions with zygotes. A pregnancy doesn't start until implantation - and at that time the initial zygote has already become a blastocyst. So when it'…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/20 11:25 PM
-2

First one is fair. Second one is not - to the extent of not paying child support. He shouldn't be able to force her to abort though
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/20 11:14 PM
2

If a man wants to opt out of parenthood and she agrees and wants the same, why would the cost of the abortion not fall to both of them? Ideally, there'd just be universal healthcare and abortions would be covered under that. But until then, I see no reason why men should be financially exempt from something they take part in causing a need for.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/20 11:12 PM
3

Did you just ignore the several sentences before where I explain pregnancy itself is enough to motivate early abortions as well as the next two sentences where I literally explained the relevance of late term abortions?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/20 09:04 PM
1

Abortion after the water breaks is literally just a cesarean section. Abortion as a medical term means the premature termination of a pregnancy, not the termination of a fetus. That's why it's called spontaneous abortion when a woman miscarries. Yes, 100% legal. Because the time, energy, and effort required to gestate a full pregnancy are far more effective at incentivizing early abortions than any law could ever be. 65% of abortions are before 8 weeks 91% of all abortions are before 12 weeks. 1…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/20 08:34 PM
0

My viewpoint (I'm a woman) is that reproductive rights and bodily autonomy are two separate and related concerns. I think it's important to remember that male concerns is only about reproductive rights and female concerns includes both. Which is why I absolutely hate the term 'paper abortion', because it implies it's the male equivalent, which it isn't. Women have to worry about parenthood and pregnancy, men just have to worry about parenthood. And yes, by securing abortion rights, we've (tried)…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/12/20 08:21 PM
2

Yes, ok. We can discuss all that in a meaningful way without comparing it to segregation though, which is what my criticism was. You also didn't talk about all these things in your OP (most of the stuff you introduce now is just straight sexism, not chilvary) you talked about how the unreasonable social expectation some (not even most) women have to have seats given up for them and doors opened for them is comparable to segregation, which it really isn't. Let's be honest - if a feminist wrote a …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/11/20 11:38 PM
6

Expectations of chivalry are dying, it's mostly in traditional spheres where women expect those types of things. Also, even if I agree with you that chivalry is sexist - and yes, it's sexist against men. It's still a bad take to compare social expectations to actual segregation that was written into law. No matter how oppressive you think the expectation to hold the door open is (which, again, we can agree is sexist), it doesn't remotely reach the level of Jim Crow. Edit: I agree that the author…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/11/20 10:31 PM
1

These are accepted as true based on the evidence within anthropology and archaeology spheres. I'm not a god, it's just what I'm studying. Here's a nice article though that explains it fairly well. It's a rather complex topic, but the terms matriarchy and patriarchy are kind of anthropological terms, so feel free to continue looking on your own to whatever extent you like. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831740-400-the-origins-of-sexism-how-men-came-to-rule-12000-years-ago/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 08:49 PM
1

For tens of thousands of years before the formation of state-run societies, humans formed almost exclusively egalitarian bands and tribes. Natural chance and environment and even sexual differences that resulted in different roles in those tribal societies never resulted in power differences. I'm not even sure if 'sexism' didn't exist, because it still likely did, but it didn't exist to the extent of saying that women couldn't have a say because they just raised the gathered food instead of hunt…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 08:35 PM
1

If there were mostly female politicians and mostly men managing households - especially if society views the management of a household as less valuable than employment, and therefore deserving of less social and economic power, I'd say it's impossible for random chance to result in that. There would have to be cultural narratives that uphold ideologies that women are inherently better at managing societies that would result in society purposely choosing women over men to represent them. However,…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 08:20 PM
1

For example, men being excluded from childrearing and custody - this is sexist no? Or is it not sexist if we just say women are more nurturing as the justification? And that could actually exist in either patriarchy or matriarchy because both have pretty strict gender roles. If we got rid of all sexism, women would still likely be primary caregivers most of the time, right? Maybe not sexist, right? Women dominating there could be an aspect of an egalitarian society too, so long as it isn't resul…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 07:55 PM
1

The definition of those systems is the source. One gender cannot have more power in realms that matter - ie. Political, economic, social, without being sexist - literally look at any society that's ever existed since the dawn of civilization. You are aware that matriarchy is defined by high sexism against men, so please find me an example of patriarchy that isn't including high amounts of sexism. I'll wait.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 07:47 PM
1

That's a ridiculously broad and vague question and you are drastically oversimplifying things. Sexism is always going to exist because humans are a species that has sexual dimorphism. The degree to which it exists is what matters and the nature of it matters. Explicit sexism? Implicit sexism? Sexism by outcome? Deciding that the roles men tend towards are more valuable to society and the roles women tend towards is less valuable therefore is a type of sexism. In a family unit raising children, i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 07:33 PM
0

You know it doesn't magically happen on its own, right? It happens by barring women from doing those things through social, political, or economic means. It's not something that just happens. Jeff Bezos, or any of the super wealthy isn't applicable in this conversation. I honestly wouldn't say he's earned his money, but that has way more to do with oligarchy and unchecked capitalism than it has to do with gender norms. If you don't apply gender as a qualifier for political power, moral authority…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 07:02 PM
0

Patriarchy and matriarchy are terms that apply to power dynamics overlaid over whole systems, not individuals. In patriarchal societies, opportunity is exclusively or preferentially given to men and in matriarchal societies, it's to women. If someone like you holds a position of authority and also hold the belief that men work harder than women do, you will almost always perceive the man as working harder no matter what's actually happening. It's confirmation bias. However, in patriarchal societ…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 05:46 PM
-5

Oh I get you now. You aren't against sexism as a whole, you are only against sexism towards men. Sexism towards women is totally fine.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 05:22 PM
13

Finding a random justification for it doesn't make it not sexist. Matriarchal societies justify the same - women hold a lot more power because they are the ones most crucial to a family and the children, for example. Both systems are defined literally by giving more power and opportunities to one gender specifically. They are inherently sexist.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 04:16 PM
19

What do you mean 'leads to'. The words matriarchy and patriarchy are literally describing systems defined by sexism. You can't have either one without high amounts of sexism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/20 03:56 PM
14

The logic doesn't even make sense. If women raping men isn't a problem, then it will make no difference to women that they could be held accountable for rape.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/20 03:53 PM
2

I think you misunderstand what I mean by communal childcare. I mean things like publicly-funded or heavily subsidized childcare, or state-funded monthly payments for each child paid through taxes. I don't mean, like, force people to babysit that would be ridiculous.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/20 03:19 PM
3

OnlyFans, specifically, can be female privilege because it's safe, autonomous, and profitable. Prostitution in a more broad sense is not, and can't be compared to CEOs. I don't see much logic in applying the word 'privilege' to something that's heavily associated with things like human trafficking, assault, rape, etc. Nor do I see logic of saying a job which many people will look down on you for and shame you for could be considered privilege.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/20 03:15 PM
1

Unfortunately deeply ingrained cultural narratives rarely are overcome with pure technology. Also, men are frequently held accountable for children that are not theirs, and even more frequently voluntarily care for children not theirs, so I'm not sure existence of the tech is as significant as you think
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/20 03:01 PM
-2

I think it's a mixture, and the other factor is resentment. Anthropologically speaking, female sexuality is viewed as a commodity in patrilineal societies primarily because controlling reproduction serves male interests in providing resources for their own offspring exclusively. For the longest time, female reproduction was controlled by arranged marriages and the like and women who were not socially valuable enough to be married or refused to be controlled in that way were a different commodity…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/20 02:02 AM
1

Honestly, it's not exactly an area of female privilege. Of course it's an area with mostly female involvement and men are mostly barred from financially profiting but it is much too complex to simply call it a privilege or, likewise, to simply call it oppression. There are pros of course, but there's also a lot of cons. If we look on systemic level, women are more likely to go into prostitution than become homeless, for example, right? That could be considered a privilege because in extreme pove…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/11/20 01:39 AM
1

That's interesting that it's controversial. It got a lot of traffic but net 5 upvotes. So yeah, out of people that interacted, in simplest summation - half agree that it's not worth being resentful and to focus on men's issues and the other half at least think resentment is valid and so is focusing on anti-feminism. however, just because they disagree with me and consider it valid doesn't mean they consider it priority, so I think overall, net win on priorities. But yeah, I've moved on to a few …
/r/MensRights26/11/20 12:47 AM
3

I agree with you. Ive only ever had 1 female teacher I've disliked and most have been female. However, male teachers occupy both positions of best and worst I've ever had, so there's that.
/r/MensRights24/11/20 02:37 AM
1

It's deleted, but unless they were actually playing paintball I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 02:08 AM
3

General rule of thumb is that any qualifier on a compliment is going to make it sound more like an insult. If you had said that to the actual player, I could see how she's be mad but it's not something your girlfriend should be upset about, shes probably reading more into it than it means.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 01:48 AM
46

Well that's fucking disgusting. Edit: the article reads that society views it as gross and unacceptable rather than empowering. It would probably be viewed in much harsher light if the roles were reversed, but it's evident views on this sort of thing are shifting.
/r/MensRights22/11/20 09:31 AM
2

Yeah, I didn't say "there's no such thing as court bias". What I said was that there are other factors that men need to be aware of since it's not always the courts causing the problem.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/20 10:59 AM
1

If you go swimming, you can wear a shirt or you can go without a shirt. If I go swimming, I have to wear a shirt. If your parents or swim instructors are telling you that you HAVE to be shirtless, it's the exact same level of oppression as telling women they HAVE to wear a shirt.
/r/MensRights21/11/20 09:29 AM
1

https://www.internations.org/expat-insider/2018/best-places-for-expat-men-vs-women-39585
/r/MensRights21/11/20 08:25 AM
83

This feels like a very confused tweet.
/r/MensRights21/11/20 07:40 AM
2

Have a significant amount of first hand knowledge that it's not the case. I'll share with you my first hand experience of family court in Canada, ok. Make that broke and unable to continue legal support. On the other hand the mother is represented by the state! We BOTH had and used access to a free family court counsellor so long as one of us was low income it seems impossible because the mother has inevitably poisoned the child's relationship with their father. This is blatant misogyny. I'm sur…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/11/20 07:25 AM
1

https://www.divorcemag.com/articles/child-custody-gender-bias-family-court-system Here's a podcast on the issue. It references a study by pew research but I can't seem to find it. I can think of a couple misconceptions from the men's rights side fathers should be aware of: Be open to the notion that lack of fathers having custody is not always because of court bias or feminism. It doesn't have to be either men's fault or feminist's fault. There are systemic reasons in which a man might not have …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/20 09:00 PM
1

These are inexact things though and a poor comparison. One of these metrics is far better than the other. How someone treats others or what ideologies they uphold are actually pretty good metrics. The parallel to women would be how she treats men and what her stance is on men's rights. And those are pretty reasonable metrics for quality of character. Someone who believes the only metric of a woman's character is subservience is more comparable to someone who believes the only metric of a man's c…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/11/20 08:01 PM
-1

I don't care about downvotes or upvotes, so don't worry about it. The comparison isn't in the actions that occurred at the time. It's the fact that in both instances, how we talk about it today, we'd be glorifying the slaughter of men. I'm not sure your personal views on the subject, but I don't think the average soldier deserved to die - lots of (imo) innocent men were slaughtered during any given war. And I disagree. I mean, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's right - I don't think anyone dese…
/r/MensRights19/11/20 07:51 AM
0

I agree that war stories are not wholesome - however, growing up there were many men who had served in various wars, were willing to talk about it and around remembrance day people would listen to their stories - my question was if people responding to this positively and considering it whole is misandry. The entire post posited that women escaping their abusive husbands was murder. I mean -for women: rape was considered legal, domestic violence shelters didn't show up until the 70s, they had to…
/r/MensRights19/11/20 06:58 AM
0

Yes, I'm comparing one situation where "murdering men is wholesome to talk about" because a soldier did it to "murdering men is terrible and misandrist to talk about" because domestic abuse victims did it. I'm not comparing the actions, I'm comparing how we, today, are discussing it. OP said murder is never justified. Well, that's probably not true. I mean, we are talking about elders here. "Excused" is a bit of a weird concept - we don't know what justice they faced, it's likely they already di…
/r/MensRights19/11/20 06:15 AM
1

You know I was being sarcastic, right? I'm also not a feminist, it's kind of silly to assume anyone who disagrees is automatically a feminist. You don't feel as bad for victims of abuse because you found out some other people who happen to share their gender were murderers. Seems like you validate one with the other - it's a little weird. Wasn't so serious. I was just mocking the take you had.
/r/MensRights19/11/20 01:18 AM
-2

You are totally right. At no place in history ever were women forced legally, socially, or economically to stay with abusive husbands. No fault-divorce was legalised in 1969. Before that, people had to prove fault to get divorced.
/r/MensRights19/11/20 01:01 AM
3

So do you actually care about men's rights or are you just here to validate your hatred of women? If I said it's not wrong to murder men because the men should have been smart enough not to marry murderous women, how gross would that be? Pretty gross, right? Divorce rates are not the be-all end-all indicator of a healthy society you think they are.
/r/MensRights18/11/20 11:55 PM
2

Sure, I'll give it a shot. So if all the people who call themselves feminist and DON'T hate men teamed up with all the men's rights activists who DON'T hate women, we could get a lot done. But it's very difficult to do. It's normal on an evolutionary basis to pay the most attention to what is a threat - so hateful speech gets far more traction and is then responded to. What we end up with two sides that both view themselves as the victims, both view the other side as the oppressors, and both thi…
/r/MensRights18/11/20 10:58 PM
-1

Honest questions: If a little old man was telling you war stories of all the men he killed in combat during a long-ago war, would that be considered misandry? In a time when women weren't allowed to divorce their husbands and men were legally allowed to rape their wives - what exactly is a reasonable approach for a woman or child to take? If the choices are "continue being abused", "abandon your children and be homeless", "kidnap your children and go to prison", or *murder your abusive husband a…
/r/MensRights18/11/20 10:16 PM
-1

Ah yes, exactly. Well now that I know some members of my gender were victims I fully support the victimisation of other genders.
/r/MensRights18/11/20 10:02 PM
3

I'm curious of the statistics here and what they represent. Either way is indicative of a problem but it would be nice to know which. Data on missing persons usually just means the person was reported missing without any reason as to why. If we adjust the numbers for only cases that were suspected kidnapping by police - it will show if the discrepancy is media bias. If we adjust the numbers for were confirmed kidnappings or murders, regardless of how police initially responded, it will show poli…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/11/20 06:36 PM
2

Ya in Canada it's 6 weeks maternity leave - that's for the biological mother only + 1 year parental leave which any/either parent can take and they can split it how they like. I used around 2 months of it, and he used 10
/r/MensRights18/11/20 08:12 AM
2

Living (and raised) in conservative Alberta. My views are significantly more progressive than my background would suggest.
/r/MensRights17/11/20 07:55 PM
2

Yes, I agree. That was the point of my OP. Take the discussions on activism and leave the rest)
/r/MensRights17/11/20 07:53 PM
2

Irish isn't the worst thing to be called)) but I'm actually Canadian.
/r/MensRights17/11/20 07:49 PM
1

Guess my OP regarding men just wanting to express their resentment towards women struck a chord with you and you decided to prove me right. And no. I made general observations, I didn't attempt to isolate a stranger on the internet and pretend I know them better than they do. You are welcome to provide valid criticisms or comments to my post and I'll respond to those. I'm not taking an interview for my life story.
/r/MensRights17/11/20 07:41 PM
2

You are totally right. Thank you for the deep analysis. I never noticed this before, but thanks to you, I can now see that I AM indeed a woman. Genius. However can I repay you for that invaluable insight?
/r/MensRights17/11/20 07:37 PM
0

Thanks for the condescending psychological analysis no one asked for. "You are a woman so you must be indoctrinated and you only care about men's rights because you have a son". You can fuck right off with that.
/r/MensRights17/11/20 07:32 PM
4

When my kids were born, I took maternity leave for a couple months and then their father took parental leave for almost a year. It was a constant barrage of questions and judgment for him. But later when we switched and I was a stay at home mom to toddlers, I also got a barrage of questions and judgement. I think we just live in a time where being a stay at home parent is socially unacceptable.
/r/MensRights17/11/20 04:48 PM
3

You understand that is literally saying that to be a man, you must be brave and/or tough, right? And it's also saying the burden of dealing with difficult or unpleasant situations is on men alone.
/r/MensRights17/11/20 07:30 AM
12

Sure. If you want to use it the way you are currently describing, it doesn't have to be sexist. But that's not how you came in. You came in saying I am wrong - that it isn't used to dismiss men's problems (when it is), told me it's the same as some non-existent colloquialism about women, and told me to 'find better friends'. However, I can simply use other phrases that don't imply those characteristics of perseverance and courage are dependent on how masculine they are instead of being obstinate…
/r/MensRights17/11/20 07:27 AM
12

Never once in my 30 years of being female has anyone ever told me to "woman up". My friends use descriptive labels, not prescriptive ones. Men don't need to be more 'masculine' to be better people - especially not what you deem masculinity to be.
/r/MensRights17/11/20 07:13 AM
33

"Man up" absolutely is sexist. "Man-up" means "because you are a man your problems are trivial, and it's fair to expect you to solve them independent of support" It's used to dismiss problems that are not trivial and often require community support - such as unplanned fatherhood, single fatherhood, financial struggles, mental health, relationship problems, being ill, or showing emotion. If the problem truly is trivial and the man in question is acting immature, the correct phrase is "grow up" no…
/r/MensRights17/11/20 07:01 AM
16

Wild idea. If we want to have compassion for women who commit crimes because of circumstances like poverty, violence, abuse, lack of education etc. Maybe.... Just maybe .... We should do the same thing for men?
/r/MensRights17/11/20 02:10 AM
1

The only one I take issue with is #12. A better wording would probably be something along the lines of: be mindful of and avoid stereotypes that villify men because they already make us feel like monsters and practice assertive communication to solve problems instead of placing blame. I've experienced enough abuse to know that abusers will reject criticism and gaslight their victims with accusations. They perceive valid criticisms and emotions from the victim as an attack on the abuser because i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 09:30 PM
1

They don't have to conspire to oppress. Most patriarchies didn't care about oppressing women, they cared about protecting & managing them. A patriarchy is a system in men have the political and economic power that women don't, are considered the moral authorities, and usually are patrilineal societies as well (male family lines of heritage and identity). There are patriarchal societies today, but I would classify most western democracies as one of them.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 09:08 PM
18

"It is estimated that women make up 53 per cent of directly affected industries" So .... half. It's not a gendered issue at all, how can it possibly warrant a gendered response?
/r/MensRights16/11/20 11:07 AM
-1

Bye Felicia.
/r/MensRights16/11/20 01:45 AM
-3

If I don't want a discussion, I'm not obligated to engage in it. I'm not discussing racial violence atm. Suck it up buttercup. If you want to discuss the dismissal of male rape and sexual assault, which is what this post is actually about, I'll happily discuss that.
/r/MensRights16/11/20 01:40 AM
-5

So you see how this is a post about men sharing their experience about rape or domestic violence, and being subsequently dismissed? OP made the comparison with BLM and ALM. It's fucking rude to go off on a tangent about how ALM is supposedly a good thing on a post about male rape/abuse victims. Time and place buddy.
/r/MensRights16/11/20 12:59 AM
-4

Yeah, the only way these two would be remotely comparable is if a woman was talking about her experience of being raped and a man came in and told her not to make it all about her because men get raped sometimes too. That would be like saying "all lives matter". So when a man is talking about his experience and a woman says not to make it all about him because women get raped too, she's the one who's acting the same way "all lives matter" crowd does.
/r/MensRights16/11/20 12:49 AM
0

Yes, you did miss the point. I didn't lump MRAs MGTOWs and incels together. I'm saying that lumping all feminism together is no better than doing the same by lumping anything male-oriented together. The comment previous said that we don't view feminism as a monolith, it's just that nuance between different feminism is irrelevant. My counter was this - If you agree that it would be a bad attitude towards male advocacy groups, I'm not sure why it's acceptable to have that attitude toward female ad…
/r/MensRights16/11/20 12:27 AM
0

Think you missed the point. The point was it's hypocritical to go "all feminism bad" and then want people to recognize differences in of mens rights activism. The point wasn't what men are/aren't allowed to feel. Also resentment and anger are different things.
/r/MensRights16/11/20 12:14 AM
1

That's a really good personal philosophy and one I can definitely agree to. But it's inherently men's rights, not anti-feminism. I could do that, but it would be inadvisable. Because opposition to a movement where it fails or causes harm is warranted. Just opposing altogether is a bit juvenile imo. Going to use a metaphor. Let's say you are planting a garden to sustain everyone. And I come along and say the fertiliser you use is running into my water and poisoning me and also I'm allergic to a l…
/r/MensRights15/11/20 11:13 PM
-1

What is mens rights movement predicated on? A cursory examination from my view shows that MRAs, Mgtow, and incels are all motivated by resentment towards women or just reacting to feminism rather than having their own ideology. If different types of feminism and different types of feminist activism aren't relevant, why shouldn't I take the same attitude and just lump all the male-oriented groups together?
/r/MensRights15/11/20 08:03 PM
0

So then, why do we criticize feminist subs who vent, commiserate, or are bitter about their experiences? It's conducive to "us vs them" - ie. Men vs women to recognize that how men are talked about is relevant to how they are treated/accepted in society and then go on to disparage women. Your tactic of "letting them express themselves" would work for anger. But there's a big difference between anger and resentment - a lot of what I'm talking about is resentment.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 07:45 PM
0

If the primary motivation is "I hate feminism", then it's not pro-mens rights, it's just anti-feminism. Similar to the difference between people who advocate social umbrellas - like those who want medicare for all - being much easier to take seriously than people who just hate capitalism and say things like "eat the rich".
/r/MensRights15/11/20 07:37 PM
-1

If you think I'm taking issue with posts on domestic violence or criticisms of feminism that fail that area, I think you've misunderstood my post.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 07:31 PM
1

Yeah that's because there's a whole lot of people who think abortion should be legal, but they call themselves pro-life anyways. Most people want abortion legal https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions
/r/MensRights15/11/20 07:28 PM
1

I don't - I'm just suggesting people to pay attention to important issues and disregard the inflammatory ones.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 07:17 AM
0

You should probably read what's actually being talked about instead of reacting to random words you deem offensive. I was literally discussing how changing thehe narrative around male rape victims would actually benefit women too and therefore doing so shouldn't be perceived as a threat to feminism. But you don't read that, you just see the words "rape culture" and get defensive. Rape culture is just anything that normalizes rape and sexual assault. That's it. That's how I used it. The wage gap …
/r/MensRights15/11/20 07:04 AM
-2

Why should I do any of that? A) I'm not a feminist - no idea what's made you think it's my job to answer feminism to you. B) I've literally stated in my post itself that its better to focus on men's rights than it is to just criticise feminism just for the sake of it. You are delusional if you think I'm going to indulge what I literally just said is a useless distraction. C) the ones that are ACTUALLY relevant are: intimate partner violence, gendered terms, 'the patriarchy', #killallmen, discrim…
/r/MensRights15/11/20 06:34 AM
6

You aren't the minority. Most people believe in equality. But to play devils' advocate - even though most people aren't radical feminists, that doesn't necessarily mean a lot. Most people are pro-choice too, but pro-life radicals have managed to severely threaten abortion access. Most people aren't racist except some implicit bias buried deep down, but racism still has managed to do a major number of equality for people of color. It doesn't really matter what % of women are "normal, non-radical …
/r/MensRights15/11/20 06:23 AM
-1

That's really too bad. If I was the only one finding issues, men's rights would already be an accepted narrative. I'm not sure "lots of people have problems with us" really is a point in favor here. But you do you.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 06:14 AM
0

Yeah, it has to be reactionary to a degree because a lot of mens rights problems were caused by feminism over-shooting. But those criticisms are better limited to ways in which it actually harms men rather than just bashing feminism for the sake of it.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 06:10 AM
-5

Statistics on both of those issues prove otherwise. Or are you one of those "not believing in science" type of people?
/r/MensRights15/11/20 06:05 AM
-1

You are just being purposely combative, aren't you? No problem. Obviously it is about the hardship of staying middle class these days Yeah, the original post is. The reactionary post in this sub is obviously not. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jua1pf/women_represented_in_the_workforce_more_is_now_a/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=shar To who? Not to me, or I would think to most people who come here, since we very rarely have posts complaining about them. Obviously to people who …
/r/MensRights15/11/20 06:04 AM
0

Unfortunately social change always feels like that. It is very much like hitting a wall. Progress does happen, it's just excruciatingly slow, and when setbacks happen it feels debilitating. Children are always going to be the priority. I dont think that should change. But unless we are anywhere close to endangered, it's possible to change the value of women vs men. In terms of reproduction and survival of a species, women are inherently more valuable (women can only have about a dozen kids maxim…
/r/MensRights15/11/20 05:51 AM
1

You understand that I'm not saying these things are representative of the sub as a whole, just that they are easily distracting & counterproductive to engage in? I'm giving my opinion on how/what to take seriously in this sub - which largely means ignoring stuff like that - and why other subs react to this one with hostility. We are agreeing I think, it just doesn't seem like it. Calling a whole country cuckold because a woman didn't get arrested from a severe mental health problem is.... Idk, n…
/r/MensRights15/11/20 05:38 AM
-2

Just reading your comments - the issues you are talking about and how - this is what I'd consider normal, productive & relevant conversation. Just so you know, this isn't the kind of stuff I am saying is off-putting, or against women, or toxic. This stuff is basically all good. And the lack of action on a lot of those things from feminism is why I'm not a feminist. I don't see much point in looking for rights for one gender when everyone needs protected rights for society to function and differe…
/r/MensRights15/11/20 05:25 AM
7

You are not overthinking it. Regardless of what happened the guy needed help. Even if he was just highly intoxicated and obnoxious, there (should be) a duty of care to make sure they get home safe, you can't just kick them out. But if a man is, in public, yelling that he'd just been raped it's EXTREMELY unlikely that he's lying - they should have tried to calm him down and called ambulance/police for help.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 05:10 AM
1

Ok, my main point is to ignore crap like this, but I guess people want examples, so, I'll just quote some. On catcalling: You can't stop men from being men, it's our evolutionary trait to look at women and be attracted to physical features This is degrading to women (we should tolerate harassment), degrading to men (they just can't help themselves) and ignores the reality that men are victims of catcalling too. Can anybody explain to me that why always The Unfuckable Females whine about catcalli…
/r/MensRights15/11/20 04:58 AM
-12

I think most people in this sub will agree that feminism that is primarily motivated in resentment is inherently toxic, so I don't see why there should be a different standard for men's rights. I said I understood the resentment. But that doesn't mean I have to accept it. Empathy and tolerance are not the same thing and I do not have to find everything damaging tolerable. Resentment, like vengeance, is one of those emotions that doesn't get processed - it feeds into itself and continues demandin…
/r/MensRights15/11/20 04:30 AM
-5

You know what though? A lot of those issues don't just not compete with women's issues, they are actually connected. Definitely more in favor of abolishing the draft altogether so I'll just skip that one. But the rest 50/50 custody & child support based on income Solves men's fatherhood rights problems AND women's pay gap problems in one fell swoop. It also makes it much less likely that children will be abused if neither parent has total control Social awareness of male victims of abuse Since a…
/r/MensRights15/11/20 04:16 AM
-6

1) they should, but my advice to ignore certain ones still stands 2) I didn't imply it is, I am talking about this sub 3) I really don't want to - I think you know the kind I'm referring to. I don't want to needlessly draw attention to what I consider irrelevant. I'm not suggesting to do anything about them except ignore them. 4) some of that is relevant and some is not. Highlighting certain stories to illustrate how women are inherently flawed, or reacting to posts on feminism - especially ones…
/r/MensRights15/11/20 04:02 AM
-2

It's just the way it's written feels more like what someone would think a kid forced to be trans would say. Too on the nose, as others said. I take it back though about the articles. Looked at some of the other articles and they are all pretty much the same/worse or actually this one after clicking a link. It's very common for social services to receive endless calls regarding actual trans kids - and they have to investigate. The younger they are the more this is true because so many people beli…
/r/MensRights15/11/20 03:00 AM
3

There are a number of articles on this boy. Perhaps you could share one that highlights more of the child abuse factor and less of the transphobia. I agree with the previous commenter. This particular article seems to have a bias of "look how sick trans is, it's hurting kids" rather than "this is a case of child abuse and he needs help". It's a fine line for sure.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 02:09 AM
3

I don't consider it bad that women are in the workforce more. I consider it bad that in the average 2-parent household, both of them have to work full time just to get by. Bad for quality of life. When a couple has kids, a full time job for one of the parents or part-time for both should be enough to at live off of.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 01:58 AM
116

Everyone laughing in the comments is gross. No idea why sexual assault of a minor is remotely funny.
/r/MensRights15/11/20 01:50 AM
3

How is this a men's rights issue?
/r/MensRights15/11/20 01:49 AM
4

I don't see the problem with making men-only areas of gyms too. Or do men not want/need areas where they feel safe from women harassing or ogling them?
/r/MensRights14/11/20 06:05 PM
5

Do you agree that female genital mutilation is bad? Do women need to all experience what it's like having their clitoris cut off to provide knowledge of both experiences?
/r/MensRights14/11/20 06:01 AM
0

Comparing suffering tends to be counterproductive and ultimately divisive. Socioeconomic class is a much better indicator of how hard a person's life is than is gender. There are many problems that uniquely affect men, and many problems that uniquely affect women, and many times they are tied together. Is it worse to be pushed into poverty as a single mother from lack of availability to work or is it worse to be forced to work 2 jobs to keep up with child support? Most importantly, do we gain an…
/r/MensRights14/11/20 02:13 AM
1

No idea why you used '/s'. In FGM, it's usually cut off with a knife rather than burned.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/20 02:56 PM
1

Yeah, full cavity searches should not be legal. I wouldn't include false imprisonment as bodily autonomy violation - it doesn't need to be, since it's its own human rights violation. But I think unchecked police brutality should count. I think that disproportionately affects Black men in particular, but I'm assuming it affects white men more than white women as well. Adultery and marriage laws like that still existing on the books is a tad bit funny. I'm sure they'll eventually be removed but so…
/r/MensRights13/11/20 05:42 AM
1

Ok, so how to fix that? Both parties choose/push for their candidates based on appeal to voters. For years and years and years ONLY men were chosen because it was deemed unlikely that people would vote for a female candidate. But we'd never say the men elected as a result just had their positions handed to them - they still had to compete with other men. What we could complain about is that women were actively discrimated against. I'd agree that potential male candidates were actively discrimate…
/r/MensRights13/11/20 05:16 AM
-5

The surgery one is pretty explicit. If a hospital requires partner's consent to perform a medical procedure, that's an extremely clearly violation of bodily autonomy. The other ones - Its certainly a violation of human rights, I'm just not quite sure how to categorize it. Forcing a financial obligation is certainly wrong, it's just not a autonomy violation. Maybe a forced labour violation? But then again, punishing a victim who experienced a bodily autonomy violation is basically a gold stamp of…
/r/MensRights13/11/20 04:32 AM
5

Wow, your reading comprehension is really good eh? Let's try again, see if you can get it this time: Since the children were made victims by their parents, how does a harsher punishment for this man in any way benefit those kids? Get it now? Didn't think it was a difficult question, but I guess maybe for you. You are confusing empathy with vengeange. Lacking the drive to seek revenge on the perpetrator is not the same as lacking empathy for the victim. Maybe you should learn the difference betwe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/20 04:16 AM
2

I agree, with a slight modification. I don't think alimony should be the market rate for similar services. When a couple is together, their actions which help each other succeed financially aren't services rendered, it's investing in the person. Just like we take into account the working partner's ability to pay (basically if that investment failed), we should also take into account if that investment succeeded and what losses occurred for the other partner.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 04:12 AM
2

Well there's plenty of examples. For example, let's say I was not a good student but you got into a good university. If we were both working, I could do a night school and get an ok-paying job at around 40k in a two years. But you are the smart one and so, as a couple, we feel it's better to invest in you. So I take on 2 jobs earning 30k between the two and become the sole breadwinner for 4-6 years while you are attending school. The fact that I am supporting you prevents me from furthering my o…
/r/MensRights13/11/20 04:05 AM
3

Empathy for who? The children involved undoubtedly have parents that requested that service. How does a harsher punishment for the criminal in this case benefit the victims in any way? "I've worked as a lawyer". Ok, sure, I'll pretend. I'll also pretend that someone going around calling people they disagree with sociopaths and sick in the head has any idea what empathy actually is.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/20 03:03 AM
6

Yeah, I kinda figured the draft - which I can agree with since it ends in death/mutilation/trauma. Struck me as odd though because it said 'military' - I was wondering if they meant things that happen in the military all the time. Like restricting or requiring any medications/surgeries, stuff like that. But yeah, the marriage one I find confusing. Not sure how that grants government control over male bodies. Edit: thanks for actually answering like a normal person.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 02:57 AM
-1

What I'll take from that is that you are incapable of providing an example.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 02:32 AM
-1

I can think of other violations to human rights for military, but I'm curious what you consider to be a violation bodily autonomy, especially for marriage.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 02:25 AM
-19

Can you elaborate on what you mean by the military or marriage constituting bodily autonomy violations? Edit: apparently no one can provide an answer. Yeah, don't worry about it. Much more fun to jump on outrage bandwagons than it is to provide coherent reasoning. Keep downvoting instead of answering a simple question.
/r/MensRights13/11/20 02:08 AM
7

Well there was a case a few years ago where an entire school class of girls was found to have been the victims of female genital mutilation. None of the parents were arrested, they just focused on support for the victims. I'm just saying, it's not indicative of sexism against boys. The justice system acts much the same when it is girls.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 11:53 PM
5

You are an idiot. Do you understand what the word recidivism means? It means the rate at which offenders re-offend. It's a word that applies to literally all crime.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 11:44 PM
4

Well I'm sorry for irritating you. I didn't mean to, you actually seem like a very reasonable fellow. Have a good night)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:56 PM
2

I'd be willing to bet that he won't. He was doing at parents request for money. Legal problems as a result of illegal employment tend to act as deterrent unless the income from that activity is so great as to make it worth it. Parents are more likely to reoffend than he is.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:54 PM
3

Because nuance is too difficult for this audience to understand. When there are comments saying "he should have his dick cut off", he deserves life in prison, they don't care about the victims, they have already jumped to extremes. So I use most extreme relevant example to show why they are wrong. Because those are extremes they are advocating for.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:52 PM
0

He didn't get nothing. He was arrested, convicted and he has probation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:50 PM
1

You can have punishments and rehab. You can't have harsh punishments and rehab. The OP is wanting harshest punishment possible - life sentence.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:48 PM
8

Maybe there is. But you won't find it in harsher punishments for offenders - all evidence shows it does not deter.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:46 PM
6

It serves as a good example of why the attitude of "this fucker deserves the harshest punishment we can throw at him" simply does not work.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:45 PM
3

No, I'm not. This guy came in saying this was unjust and biased against boys. I pointed out it's not a gender bias, it's just the outcome of a rehabilitation focused prison system. But he is having a hard time understanding that, probably because of a very revenge-based attitude towards justice, which is highly American. You defended that attitude and called me an "America hater" for pointing out that cultural attitude simply doesn't work. So you agree with the priority of harsh punishments or w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:44 PM
2

I am a native English speaker. Why would you think otherwise, I've literally ONLY spoke English on this thread.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:41 PM
1

Of course not. Sweden's prison system doesn't encourage recidivism. How am I advocating violence towards children? He's not more likely to reoffend by getting a light sentence.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:40 PM
2

Well most of the genital mutilation problem in Sweden is cultural one. Immigrants from countries where it's considered normal do it and simply don't consider it a human rights violation. That doesn't mean it isn't one, it's just you can't really solve cultural problems with harsh punishment. Think what would happen if the USA suddenly banned circumcision, threw all guilty parents in prison AND removed children from their care. There'd be an uprising of religious people thinking the government wa…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:38 PM
5

So you are a Swedish citizen agreeing that American style human rights violations prisons are better? Oh the irony. There's high quality of life in Sweden. Much higher than US. Something is being done right. I would be careful advocating to go backwards because vengeance feels good.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:33 PM
0

"America hater". Lmfao Says (probably) an American who's literally hating on how another country does things. Sure, I'm an America hater because I'm against uneducated Americans criticising other countries on handling crime better than the USA does.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:28 PM
7

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35813470 You tell me. Norwegian prisons are basically that. Rare instances where a person cannot be rehabilitated doesn't justify an overall prison system needs to be vengeance based. This is literally how they do things there. And it works. It's just some American mentality that it doesn't and that every country should do the American way despite all evidence.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 09:26 PM
5

Polls on victim opinions show overwhelming support for rehabilitation and prevention. Maybe you should care more about what they think since you claim to care about them. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/what-do-victims-want-criminal-justice-reform
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 08:15 PM
11

You are making a purely emotional argument. All the evidence disagrees with your assertion. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world (literally 20% of all prisoners globally are in the US), some of the worst treatment for prisoners in the developed world, and has extremely high recidivism rates. And this prison system disproportionately affects men and strips them of their rights. There was a problem a few years ago where 60 girls in one school had all been mutilated by their paren…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 07:16 PM
23

Countries like Sweden focus on rehabilitation not vengeance with their prison systems and recidivism is far better than the US. They aren't letting him off easy because they don't care about boys, their focus is making sure people who commit crimes have the best shot at being reintegrated into society. Considering the American-style prison system heavily impacts men compared to women, I'm not sure the mindset of wanting to punish as hard as possible because the victims were male is in the best i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 06:59 PM
-4

You know Trump is a man, right? It's not anti-men to compare a man to... Other men. Wtf.
/r/MensRights12/11/20 05:17 PM
245

Support for what? Makes no sense.
/r/MensRights12/11/20 06:06 AM
5

Was she the person in charge of hiring? If not, it might be worth calling the manager or owner to complain about this. Especially if she's misinformed or maliciously using her position there to discriminate. I say this because I had a situation almost exactly like that when I was managing a restaurant. Almost all applicants for waitresses were women so at points our whole foh staff was women. One of our waitresses specifically told a young man he could apply as a cook, not a waiter. He did, he c…
/r/MensRights09/11/20 02:02 AM
2

I mean, that's good. Unlike what the USA tends to believe, life imprisonment is rarely ever a good thing for society - very high costs and most people can be rehabilitated and then productive in society. Why not do the same for men though? Just doesn't make sense. If you can see that keeping women in prison for a long time is bad for your country, how is it possible to not also see that it's bad for men too? Seems like they almost stumbled on something useful but somehow managed to only get half…
/r/MensRights07/11/20 10:01 PM
8

I agree with you. Yes fixing the child support issue to be more fair also important, along with fixing the bias isssue for custody. Yes and no to the last part. I'm sure the rates of men walking away from kids & obligations would drop drastically. I live in a country that does automatically grant 50/50 custody and does calculate child support for both parents. That's rather new, so we'll see how it plays out, but I know personally several men who never contributed much at home, always prioritize…
/r/MensRights06/11/20 02:05 PM
1

They are both sacrifices - they both got towards building up a life for the children. I meant "cutting slack" when the person making the money views it as theft to pay alimony when there's a clear reason to.
/r/MensRights06/11/20 01:51 PM
3

I don't agree with abolishing alimony. Having 2 working parents is not right for every family and since having a parent at home is ideal for children, I'd rather not actively discourage that. What I would like to do, is get rid of the bias in how it is granted. If one parent makes major sacrifices to their career and earning potential to do the brunt of child rearing, they deserve to be helped financially from the parent who got cut slack at home to invest that time in careers. If you get rid of…
/r/MensRights06/11/20 05:38 AM
53

Yeah, which points to the real reason there aren't as many women working as men - because of childrearing. Even in 2 parent homes, it's typically the woman who will do things like stay home when the kid is sick, not work evenings so she can be home after they are done school, she's the one most likely to stay at home during formative years etc. And then of course, in divorce court, this discrepancy in parenting gets exacerbated to the point of making dad's weekend babysitters. So obviously, fix …
/r/MensRights06/11/20 05:25 AM
2

Are you are referring to the 3rd frame, rather than the bottom frame?
/r/MensRights05/11/20 10:33 PM
2

I understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, I'm just disagreeing that the bottom frame is outcome. In the bottom frame, they have the same tools and the same access to resources - they still have to do the exact same amount of work to fill a bucket of apples
/r/MensRights05/11/20 10:19 PM
0

How? Now these individuals have to do the same amount of work to achieve the same things. No one has to climb a higher ladder or work harder to reach apples. How is this not equality of opportunity? They still have to pick the apples. Equality of outcome would be if we gave one a machine to pick apples for them instead of fixing the tree
/r/MensRights05/11/20 09:51 PM
1

It works the other way as well. If we were to view women on the left and men on the right, "just move over" would be things that amount to emasculation. It wouldn't be fair of me, as a woman who has access to things like a domestic violence shelter, to tell a male victim that he just needs to "do the work" in appearing less threatening and more like the victim by acting more feminine to be eligible for help, or something. Should people not have equal access to opportunity and resources? I believ…
/r/MensRights05/11/20 09:46 PM
1

This is a metaphor that's obviously being misunderstood here. The tree is society, the ladders, etc are tools we have in society to help people achieve success, the benefits are apples, and the people & their location represents identifiable groups, and the act of picking apples is the labour involved in achieving success. In terms of gender ideology, if we view the one on the left as men and the one on the left as women, that's exactly what was done. Women moved to the left and started "acting …
/r/MensRights05/11/20 09:38 PM
6

I agree with you about the ties to legality with women's abortion. It would be insane to have a situation where men can impregnate women, walk away, and the women are forced to birth those babies without support. What I don't agree with is the last part. Bodily autonomy is more important than your right to have a baby - no one is stopping you from attempting to reproduce with anyone else. No one has the right to use someone else's body against their will, why should a man be granted any time fra…
/r/MensRights05/11/20 05:07 PM
7

I think this is a good point you touched on here. In a lot of ways, men's and women's rights, although we are affected by different things, are intimately connected in a way where helping one helps both. There's a lot of nuance there, but as a general rule, empowering either group tends to have positive effects on society overall - we just have to not overdo it and grant rights to oppress others.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 04:56 PM
89

Imagine telling someone from North Korea that they don't know what oppression looks like.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 03:26 PM
5

Not really equal rights - the woman has to deal with the problem regardless of what he agreed to. Also presents the problem of couples simply don't get married - they still try to start a family regardless. And even couples that DO get married - not all of them want kids. Marriage is different things to different people. But it's not a contract for a child. And unless we are going back in time 80 years to when premarital sex was a shunable offense, this is just forcing women to bear entire respo…
/r/MensRights05/11/20 02:38 PM
1

I think we can reasonably say it wouldn't be a major problem to enforce a level of proof - either a conviction, or if he's admitted to it.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 02:26 PM
7

Ok, we can both agree that making male rape victims pay for children they had no part in creating is insane, but I was meaning for male perpetrators - either convicted rape, if he's admitted to it, or if he admitted to tampering with contraceptives.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 02:18 PM
21

Exactly. Meanwhile, men would hunt by just telling a mammoth jokes until it died of laughter, thus securing food for their offspring.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 06:46 AM
6

What if he agrees early on to an unexpected pregnancy and then later changes his mind still within that time period? As a woman, I don't think anyone should be forced into parenthood so I do support this right for men, but i am concerned about women spending significant time pregnant under false pretenses and are faced with decisions later they did not agree to.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 05:26 AM
5

Your comment doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the question. Why would paternity have to be established for a man to have a right to opt out of parenthood?
/r/MensRights05/11/20 05:21 AM
2

Does this time limit change for you in areas where women's rights to abortion has term limits?
/r/MensRights05/11/20 05:16 AM
23

What. And I cannot stress this enough. The fuck. "I want less rape, less violence, better educated men" Right, yes, me too. "So we should castrate them" What? Seriously, what?
/r/MensRights04/11/20 07:09 PM
3

Yeah, this is wrong. So first of all, this is perpetuating the narrative that men are inherently dangerous and that women should avoid angering them for fear of retribution. Women shouldn't hit because it's inherently wrong, not because men might do whatever. This saying is toxic as a whole because it can be used to justify any amount of abuse. A woman "teaching him a lesson" for cheating by destroying is property; A man "teaching her a lessons" for arguing by beating his wife. If you didn't do …
/r/MensRights03/11/20 03:08 PM
2

No. I am meaning get away. I mean, we should try to de-escalate but I don't think there can be a legal obligation to. People are just assuming I mean before an assault happens, i think. You are being assaulted. You hit back to stop the assault, this is self defense. The assault stops, you now have the opportunity to remove yourself from this situation. If you do not, and instead choose to continue fighting when it was not necessary, it is no longer self defense.
/r/MensRights03/11/20 09:03 AM
1

I'm assuming parenting was voluntary and paternity is established if it needed to be. There are two major resources for parenting - time and money. We have to look at both. Assume that both caregiving have been & will be 50/50. Calculate child support based off income for both parents and have them each "pay" the other. Ie. Any situation where one parent earns at least 75% of the other parent, this will cause them to have approximately equal income and can therefore split costs also 50/50. Ex. M…
/r/MensRights03/11/20 08:57 AM
2

The problem is that people won't necessarily even consider having kids or account for that. The thing with child custody and child support - it should not be about the parents, it should be about the kids. If it's not accounted for, or is accounted for by past situations that no longer apply, one parent is automatically going to be bearing the brunt of responsibility when the child is entitled to both parents that took on that responsibility in the first place.
/r/MensRights03/11/20 07:52 AM
1

The main issue here that I see is that of child support. If the parents had children without marrying either by planning to have kids or by agreeing to continue an unexpected pregnancy, what is supposed to happen? No child support isn't an option here, both parents took on a responsibility to their children. There has to be a default way to measure it without nuptials because the reality is that not everyone is going to sign a contract before having kids. Also, this doesn't account for income ch…
/r/MensRights03/11/20 07:13 AM
1

I think you misunderstood the question. I meant the child having access to the other parent, not the other parent having access to the father. I live in Canada. Full custody isn't really a thing here unless someone is dead, in prison, moved far away, or if abuse is a factor. I was just kind of wondering what happened or if it means something different there.
/r/MensRights03/11/20 04:41 AM
1

Does "full custody" in the USA mean the other parent has no access?
/r/MensRights03/11/20 01:49 AM
4

Right. I know there's bias in law and policing, i was just answering the question with my opinion of should or not. No one should be forced to take abuse.
/r/MensRights03/11/20 01:32 AM
23

Right, I took the comment above to mean that after you've presumably hit back (or whatever force was necessary to stop the attack) that you'd need to flee to avoid trouble. Which is always the correct action anyways.
/r/MensRights03/11/20 01:11 AM
2

Hacking her phone, recording her calls, forcing her into "unnatural sex", whatever that is, and his family harassing her for money. No no, I'm sure he's going to jail on account of baldness. This article makes it sound like the baldness is the worst part, like wtf.
/r/MensRights03/11/20 01:02 AM
-58

Ok, but all self defense should be a matter of trying to flee. If you have the opportunity to leave and choose to stay to engage in violence, it's not defending yourself.
/r/MensRights03/11/20 12:45 AM
12

Yes, because anyone has the right to defend themselves against assault. It's to be noted that use of force has to be appropriate. (Vivid memories of a woman slapping my father in the face and he slapped her right back - it was enough). The strength difference between men and women is enough that without weapons, it unlikely he will need to do severe damage in order to defend himself. Self defense applies - least amount of force necessary. The general expectation when a woman is attacked by a man…
/r/MensRights03/11/20 12:44 AM
17

I'm not British. Here in Canada, there isn't a legal "rape", it's all just sexual assault regardless.
/r/MensRights02/11/20 11:02 PM
3

So you aren't even talking about inebriation and consent. You are just using reductio ad absurdum to defend rape. By the way if you showed up to your appointment completely intoxicated, they wouldn't have done the checkup anyways. Doesn't work like this. If he was so drunk he lost memory, it was probably rape. Depends on how intoxicated she was as well, but considering they woke at her house, sounds like she initiated it. Drunk people can't consent. They can't sign forms, or give confessions. An…
/r/MensRights01/11/20 03:26 AM
5

No... You consented to treatment before the treatment happened. Last I checked, you literally have to sign to get treatment that incapacitates you - like anesthesia. Once you are under, they only do what you already consented to - otherwise you can sue them. This is incorrect. If he was drunk, especially black out and she was not in some equal inebriation, she 100% raped him. You can't consent if you are drunk.
/r/MensRights01/11/20 03:16 AM
1

Yeah, it could be. But, call me crazy, I'm in favor of NOT ignoring obvious symptoms of health problems on the misandrist expectation that men are always fine. What's the worst that happens? He goes for an assessment and if his wife is exaggerating, it turns out he's fine. If not, he needs some help.
/r/MensRights28/10/20 07:25 PM
16

I second concerns over mental health. If someone develops an interest in anything over the course of a few months and becomes that obsessive that they are spending most of their time, energy and money on it, it's generally a symptom of other things. Interests are fine, obsessive behaviours are not. At the level of causing fights, it's probably indicative of a problem. Believe it or not, brain tumor is possible. Depending on where it is, a tumor can cause obsessive behaviour. But more likely it's…
/r/MensRights27/10/20 08:47 PM
2

That's not even genocide, it's more like eugenocide.
/r/MensRights26/10/20 02:55 AM
1

My opinion is that gender-based groups are fine so long as there is equal access to resources. If there's a group that has a lot of notoriety and resources compared to others, excluding based on gender discriminates against them by providing an unfair advantage to the other gender. However, if the primary focus is comfort or safety and the group doesn't enjoy privileges being denied to other groups, it's fine to have exclusive groups.
/r/MensRights24/10/20 11:30 PM
3

No no. I said unrelated. Was just a fun factoid.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 09:47 PM
14

Fun fact that's totally unrelated. Lunch breaks in Italy are two hours long. It's the main meal of the day it's it's better for workers to go home and eat a nice meal with family.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 08:31 PM
1

It is how natural selection works in the species she was describing - Bonobos and chimps. In humans, we actually started out more sexually dimorphic and when males started helping care for young and being monogomous, our sexual dimorphism decreased. And it's a bit starting with conclusions and working backwards. You can't extrapolate from primates how humans are or should be. Human women are just as aggressive as human men.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 01:12 AM
2

I was trying to ask opinion not on the words itself but of the narrative of those groups that identify that way, so I didn't mean to offend you. I don't think people should be shamed for sex or lack thereof.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 09:31 PM
1

The incel thing has confused me, there are groups of men that have self-identified this way. That's actually how I found about about them in the first place, a video I'm an incel, ask me anything. He identified himself in this manner.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 09:24 PM
1

Thanks for the response. That is exactly what I meant though, that the average person saying they are a feminist gives literally no information as to what their views are. You are right, it's more clear with organizations.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 08:53 PM
1

I like this attitude. Very well done.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 08:52 PM
1

I'm curious to hear possible solutions to false claims. As I understand it the vast majority of all sexual assault victims never report to police, and even when they do, most cases are dismissed. It's not uncommon for victims reputations to be destroyed in the process as well. I'm interested to hear solutions but finding one that doesn't result in making it even harder on victims.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 08:50 PM
1

Thanks for the response. I can see how those issues disproportionately affect men. I wouldn't agree that society puts women's welfare above men in general, that seems to be the same kind of attitude as the one that perpetuates male privilege. But I'll agree that both genders have certain privileges in some areas and certain disadvantages in others and it's not correct to focus only on correcting those inequalities for one gender. I didn't mean "incel" as an insult, I meant it as the way certain …
/r/MensRights20/10/20 08:39 PM
1

It's not scaring away.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 08:32 PM
1

I didn't make a point, I was literally just asking for personal opinions on those groups.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 08:31 PM
1

These are certainly concerning, thanks for all the info. Haven't had time to read through them all yet, but I'll be doing so.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 03:44 PM
1

Well historically in the last hundred years or so, yes. It's not relevant to gender equality today at all, but prior to that, the word "rape" was referring actually to property rather than anything to do with consent. Again, not relevant to current times, just interesting stuff if you like history. Rape is definitely a problem that should be addressed. I agree with you in terms of identification & helping victims, and with redefining rape if that's a problem. I live in Canada, so it's all just "…
/r/MensRights20/10/20 03:38 PM
3

I looked them up. I regret the decision to do so, it has absolutely ruined my day. I thought there's no way, must be a conspiracy this poor guy fell victim to, and now I'm just thoroughly disgusted.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 03:27 PM
4

It just means they don't get divorce. I specified that it doesn't mean anything about their quality of life or happiness.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 04:57 AM
29

I noticed both extremes being downvoted. People saying she shouldn't have aborted because it hurt him and people saying he has not right to be mad both got downvoted. We can simultaneously believe she gets control over her body and that he has every right to be hurt and upset by that betrayal. Right to an abortion doesn't magically mean you have the right to a relationship with any man who disagrees. Edit: thanks for award :)
/r/MensRights20/10/20 02:25 AM
4

You keep correlating different things. That is not how evolution has worked. Sexual dimorphism is selected for when species are not monogomous. This is true for pretty much all mammals. The way that males get to be larger and more aggressive in the first place is because females started selecting for it. In most species, females are choosier about their mates than males. They are the driving force between most natural selection from random mating
/r/MensRights20/10/20 02:21 AM
3

Oh yes, this is certainly a weird custom, I don't understand why it's still allowed.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 02:15 AM
3

It is a "naturally selected trait" by females. As a result of females of almost multimale species allowing mating privileges with the most aggressive male. You are removing females from the equation with your narrative. And literally in chimps - females will illicit sex from males, it's not all the other way around, both sexes "woo" the others - they just are much more obvious about it than humans. If we start talking about humans - women exhibit aggression in different ways than men. We are les…
/r/MensRights20/10/20 02:14 AM
4

Men do not generally need to be wooed. Our respective reproductive systems are always going to mean that women have much more invested in a singular mating chance than men do. So women are always going to be much choosier than men. When women are left to make these choices though, interesting things happen https://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/2007/on_african_island_only_women_are_allowed This is a culture where women select men - no wooing at all, men just always have to say yes. The r…
/r/MensRights20/10/20 02:03 AM
7

You seem to be indulging in anthropomorphism with applying gender stereotypes to animals. The idea that aggression is a male-only thing is just categorically false. Aggression is an evolved trait for almost all species and it's a result of competition - and in species where males are particularly aggressive, the females literally select for the aggressive mates. You are vastly oversimplifying a lot of animal behaviours to apply to humans out of context. And the question wasn't "what if females w…
/r/MensRights20/10/20 01:47 AM
5

You are kind of oversimplifying things. Chimps are more aggressive and more territorial than bonobos, but this idea that bonobos are never violent because the females are in charge is not exactly accurate. It's also not really a good idea to compare two species when we are actually trying to compare genders in a different species altogether. Like I said - primates are only useful in comparing our ancestors too, not modern humans
/r/MensRights20/10/20 01:32 AM
2

It's weird. If you know the teacher in question, report it to the school board. It's probably just being inappropriate, but he could actually be in danger tbh.
/r/MensRights20/10/20 01:17 AM
5

This is only partially true. Both chimpanzees and bonobos will defend their territory from rival groups. The difference isn't in intergroup competition, Bonobos have less competition inside the group, where as male chimps will compete with one another to a degree. But neither of those things are indicative of humans. Humans are not chimpanzees or Bonobos. We split from chimps 7 million years ago and bonobos even longer. Apes are generally useful only to figure out how our ancestors back then wer…
/r/MensRights20/10/20 01:16 AM
15

There's lot of people sympathizing with him that aren't getting downvoted though?
/r/MensRights20/10/20 01:07 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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