TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Okymyo Archive

View 3 posts and 313 comments by Okymyo on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
13

Wasn't that long ago that Reddit was looking for a new person to join the board of directors (I think? Or was it a new C-level) and they had it as a requirement that the person had be a POC.
/r/MensRights26/08/21 09:39 AM
1

It's not awful but it's not that great either. I donate to the Cure Alzheimer's Fund and the ALS Therapy Development Institute and their expenditures are over 92% and 86% on programs respectively.
/r/MensRights21/07/21 04:25 PM
5

Uh huh. Read? Yeah, read. Learn to fucking read, it literally states in all of those laws that they are protecting EMPLOYEES from EMPLOYERS, they do NOT protect EMPLOYERS from EMPLOYEES. Here's some sources that make that ABUNDANTLY clear: https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964 https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/discrimination-because-of-race-religion-or-belief/discrimination-because-of-race/#race_discrimination_in_employment_and_training https…
/r/MensRights29/04/21 12:46 AM
1

"The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment." That's protecting EMPLOYEES, not EMPLOYERS. Did you even read the links you post? It literally opens with: "Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex." It even states that it applies to employers with 15 or more…
/r/MensRights29/04/21 12:23 AM
2

It is illegal to discriminate baised on gender in the USA and Canada. Full stop, no exceptions. No, it isn't. You have a right not to work for anyone for any reason whatsoever. You seriously think companies have a right to force people to work for them against the person's will because they deem that the person doesn't have a valid enough reason to not want to work for them? What? You didn't say "want" you said "refused". Huge difference. The latter is illegal. Again, it isn't. Provide a single …
/r/MensRights29/04/21 12:05 AM
4

It's not illegal to not want to work for someone based on any characteristic. It's illegal for someone to refuse to hire women. It's not illegal for someone to not want to work for a female boss. (EDIT) Sources: (US) https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964 (UK) https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/discrimination-because-of-race-religion-or-belief/discrimination-because-of-race/#race_discrimination_in_employment_and_training (Canada) https://laws-l…
/r/MensRights28/04/21 11:42 PM
14

In Spain once an accusation is filed you may be sentenced without even being allowed to step into the "courtroom" (it's actually a special court that hands out decisions within hours, only prosecution testifies), and punishments includes things such as the deed of your house, car, etc, being transferred to the "victim", along with the more typical ones of fines, jail sentences, etc. If you do manage to testify, you're only allowed to speak when the judge asks you a question, and the judges are, …
/r/MensRights04/02/21 03:58 PM
75

Minecraft teaching survival skills
/r/MensRights15/12/20 12:26 PM
5

That would imply losing the independence they have over their own curricula, because now they require another accredited university with accredited professors that they consider qualified enough to be evaluating their own examinations. In addition to that, an important part of any evaluation is the ability to appeal or a review, and if the evaluator was from another institution, that makes the process much more difficult. If the appeal is handled by faculty at the student's university, then it's…
/r/MensRights17/08/20 07:09 PM
7

That's very difficult to do. Most lecturers aren't accompanied by a number of qualified evaluators that aren't part of the faculty for the course in the first place. Most often, assistant or associate professors will be part of the faculty, even if they aren't the lecturers, and will have contact with students. In fact, more often than not, other members of the faculty had more direct contact with students than the senior lecturer, because the senior lecturer would only partake in the lectures, …
/r/MensRights17/08/20 04:48 PM
51

Gaslighting. "So, what did you do wrong to make her do these things to you?", to immediately make the victim the one who's responsible for what happened, not the abuser.
/r/MensRights03/05/20 03:45 PM
20

HoW DaRE yOu TeLL wOMeN wHaT tO WeAR
/r/MensRights27/01/20 03:44 PM
47

A friend of mine has split custody but still pays child support equal to half his salary... to his ex-wife who makes almost twice what he makes. He makes 75k/year, pays 35k/year in child support, his ex-wife makes 120k/year. Poor ex-wife, still drives last year's mercedes, should probably increase child support payments - the judge, probably
/r/MensRights27/12/19 04:58 PM
5

Let me guess, you think nothing should've happened to him, because stealing people's property and setting it on fire is apparently a-ok. He would've gotten 7 years even without it being aggravated for being a hate crime. Him specifically claiming in court that he did it because he wanted to send a message to LGBT people is what got him screwed, because you have to be freaking retarded to claim that in court, yet he still did. Not my fault he's retarded and doesn't use his 5th ammendment rights.
/r/PussyPass21/12/19 02:43 AM
1

He was found guilty of harassment. Regardless, that was irrelevant (30 days) when it comes to the total jail time, so I'm not sure how do you claim that it "conveniently allows them to proceed with their kangaroo court". He still stole a flag from a church then set it on fire within the bar's property. That's arson, plain and simple. You can burn a flag if it's your flag, you can't steal someone else's flag and burn it, and especially not if you're also gonna burn it on someone else's property. …
/r/PussyPass21/12/19 02:00 AM
77

It's more complex than the title says. He threatened to burn down a bar, then proceeded to steal the flag from a church, take it to the bar, and set it on fire. So he got charged with arson, harassment, and reckless use of fire. The arson charge was aggravated by being considered a hate crime... since the guy decided to state in court that he chose the LGBT flag to send a specific message to those groups... which I'm sure made his lawyer facepalm. He would've gotten 5 years, but it was his 3rd o…
/r/PussyPass21/12/19 01:17 AM
1

It was specifically outlawed (for women). It is illegal to charge women more for healthcare than you'd charge men. But perfectly legal to charge men more than you'd charge women, in lots of other scenarios.
/r/MensRights02/10/19 04:20 PM
3

Sometimes it's just penetration. Specifically, being forcefully penetrated. So being forced to penetrate is only considered "sexual assault". It's bullshit, and there are even instances of large organizations of a certain movement successfully opposing the criminalization of female-on-male rape, but they're totally for equality.
/r/PussyPass27/07/19 02:07 PM
5

I think someone admitting it is pretty hard evidence. If some dude went around claiming she had raped him, yeah, basically no evidence. If she goes around claiming she raped a 13 year old, and how he didn't want her to do it, then I don't think you need much more evidence.
/r/MensRights27/01/19 01:31 PM
84

You'll die earlier, which looking at the fucked up future it looks like we're headed to won't be a bad thing.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 03:11 AM
153

Those results are so fucking biased it's ridiculous. 38.3% of women being university students compared to 27.7% of men? That's equality. 40.5% of women being in school compared to 28.3% of men? That's equality. 53.4% of women in university being in education, health, welfare, humanities and arts, compared to 29.2% of men, due to their choices? That's inequality! Nothing more to be expected from the country that creates affirmative action programs to get women into STEM, but abolished them everyw…
/r/MensRights18/12/18 09:34 PM
1

You're ignoring the fact that the differences in gender confer differences in phenotype. No, I'm not. I'm not denying any biological differences in interest or even skill in certain areas. I am however denying that discriminating based on gender and not based on skill is wrong. Men are on average stronger than women. Doesn't mean strong women should be kept out of jobs that require strength, despite them being stronger than necessary. Rather, strength should be the factor when deciding who's fit…
/r/MensRights15/11/18 04:49 PM
1

Then they're influencing you because of skill, not because of gender. If you're being influenced down a certain path because of your gender, that's negative. If you're being influenced down a certain path because you're skilled, that's generally positive. External influences based on gender, race, etc, and not based on your skill for a given job are negative, yes. Quoting myself again: What isn't fine is if others are influencing you or pushing you to a certain path, or keeping you out of others…
/r/MensRights15/11/18 03:53 PM
1

It's not an external influence. External influences, as I explicitly said before, are the ones that are negative and shouldn't occur, and you said they were fine for some reason. Influencing people towards certain careers or paths because of their gender is discriminatory and wrong. Them influencing themselves is irrelevant, and I made that distinction clear. Only outside influences are a problem.
/r/MensRights15/11/18 03:30 PM
1

I criticized people being pushed down a certain path not by their own choice but by pressure of others, and you argued that was fine. What isn't fine is if others are influencing you or pushing you to a certain path, or keeping you out of others, because of your gender. Why isn't that fine? You don't consider you're being forced down a given path if people are pushing you to do so, solely because of your gender and regardless of your skill? Because that's what happens when you're forced by other…
/r/MensRights15/11/18 12:05 PM
1

Are you asking me why isn't it fine to force people on to jobs they don't like solely because of their gender? People should be free to go into the fields they like the most, provided they are skilled in it. You shouldn't be forced to go into engineering even if you prefer nursing, and you shouldn't be forced to go into nursing even if you prefer engineering, because of your gender. If you yourself have a preference towards a job because of biological influences, that's one thing. If you're bein…
/r/MensRights15/11/18 09:59 AM
1

If their gender or some biological factor influences them, that's perfectly fine. They're influencing themselves, after all. What isn't fine is if others are influencing you or pushing you to a certain path, or keeping you out of others, because of your gender.
/r/MensRights15/11/18 03:12 AM
2

I don't think there needs to be an intervention about it. As long as people are gravitating towards those jobs because it's a choice they make themselves, nothing is wrong with it. What we should do is not push people towards jobs or areas based on their gender, but that's not nearly as prevalent as it was some time ago. And we should also increase the contact that high school students have with different areas, so that they get a glimpse of a wider range of possibilities. As an example (anecdot…
/r/MensRights15/11/18 01:07 AM
5

If 90% of the candidates for a subset of jobs are men, or women, it's likely that 90% of the workforce in those same jobs would be men, or women. Any expectation otherwise is obvious discrimination and bias.
/r/MensRights14/11/18 11:28 AM
7

Also actor/actress, obviously!
/r/MensRights14/11/18 11:26 AM
9

Exactly, it's not binary: it's not like either the accused or the accuser go to jail. If the accused is found guilty of the crime, they should go to jail. If the accuser is found guilty of making up the accusation, they should go to jail. If neither is found guilty of anything, neither goes to jail.
/r/MensRights02/10/18 01:28 PM
53

Even if it weren't filtered, a therapist's goal isn't to make you a nice person, it's to suggest what's best for you, even if that makes you an asshole.
/r/MensRights19/04/18 07:37 PM
18

Meritocracy is equality. How can equality be anything other than "the merit of what you do is the only deciding factor"?
/r/MensRights21/03/18 11:19 AM
6

I guess it goes more like how false accusations can destroy a family. Or how they can end up with two people dead. Whether it was his mom or his dad committing suicide doesn't matter, only that someone in his family also did.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 10:59 AM
17

If he wanted to be a football player, there certainly are.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 06:06 PM
9

I had to register for selective service because I'm a man. Isn't that a pretty simple example of institutional sexism towards men?
/r/MensRights13/05/17 09:11 PM
5

Sorry, I don't need validation from strangers on the internet. I really don't care what you call me. Could call me a pajama-wearing basket-face slipper-wielding clype-dreep-bachle gether-uping-blate-maw bleathering gomeril jessie oaf-looking scooner nyaff plookie shan milk-drinking soy-faced shilpit mim-moothed sniveling worm-eyed hotten-blaugh vile-stoochie cally-breek-tattie for all I care.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 07:41 PM
7

Oh no, someone on the internet who doesn't provide sources on their claims and vehemently defends that claims/quotes don't need sources is calling me pathetic!? What will I do!? Plus, you're the epitome of /r/iamverysmart, so you gave me a few good laughs.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 07:23 PM
4

My claim is definitely verifiable, you just need to find the right sources. Even a child can find it on google!
/r/MensRights03/05/17 07:10 PM
4

You still haven't realized why "true by default" is incorrect? You still haven't realized that you are wrong in saying that it shouldn't be up to the person making a claim to prove it's right, rather than on the other person to prove it's wrong? Keep searching for cows in space, I'll keep saying it's true and you're the one who needs to find my source and then disprove it. I have my article, you simply haven't found it yet. Keep googling. Perhaps by page 1000 you'll have found something.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 06:35 PM
5

You just haven't looked deep enough. It's definitely there because I cited it, and found it easily.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 04:04 PM
6

Have you tried googling for the source? Then you'd see I'm right.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 03:37 PM
7

So? My statement about the cow is still true. You just need to find the source, but it's definitely true.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 02:21 PM
5

Maybe you should learn to read. And this is especially true for people on mobile who aren't willing to spend time googling on a small screen trying to find something specific. Combined with bad reception, could literally take minutes to find a source based only on a topic and some apparent quotes. Also, here, a cow is orbiting the sun. True by default according to you. Scientists observed late afternoon on April 27th a cow in orbit of the sun, seemingly alive and well. I quoted a private academi…
/r/MensRights03/05/17 01:24 PM
6

It's foolish to believe I'm lying when you have no evidence of it. If there's no source and nothing to back up the claims, they're assumed to be false. The default state is "false", not "true". If I say I spotted a cow flying in space I'm not right by default, putting the [ridiculous] burden of proving there isn't a cow in space on you. I'm wrong by default, and if I can't prove there's a cow in space, then I'm wrong/lying. And this is especially true for people on mobile who aren't willing to s…
/r/MensRights03/05/17 01:14 PM
2

If it can't be proven false then it's true in the eyes of the law. What... No, it's the other way around... If you can't prove someone's a murderer then they're not a murderer. It isn't "guilty until proven innocent", it's "innocent until proven guilty". If it can't be proven true, then it's false.
/r/MensRights19/03/17 11:37 PM
22

Chuckled at "communist units"
/r/MensRights13/03/17 05:58 PM
6

The absolute absurdity comes when you consider a counseling session during the surgery. At what precise moment does federal law no longer require insurance to pay for the session? Like, the second the last thread of tissue from the testes is severed the counselor has to punch the clock? It's probably whenever there's a sex change from the legal perspective, that is, whenever whatever documents make the sex change official are signed. So tbh I don't think there's much of a legal problem there as …
/r/MensRights03/02/17 01:24 AM
22

Anything you write is protected by copyright to protect you. Otherwise, had you forgotten to put a copyright notice in every single document, it was public domain. Like, imagine if you had died and all of the things you've ever written, including personal logs/diaries/notes, they'd all be public domain whether or not you liked it, and nothing your family could do about it. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot about a special part that made it even worse: any photo or video you ever took of yourself, or friend…
/r/MensRights30/12/16 12:42 PM
35

Won't The Patriarchy™ just send them their monthly male bonus payments to cover for it?
/r/MensRights26/11/16 11:42 AM
20

I'm yet to see you cite how they don't vaccinate boys because they don't have the money, rather than because they don't want to spend money, or don't want to bother redirecting funds from elsewhere. You simply claim over and over again that this is done to save people and that it's the most cost-effective way to save the most people, but you've yet to cite anything related to this, as if vaccinating boys is the worst cost-effective treatment you can possibly do, everywhere. I'm almost sure that …
/r/MensRights13/09/16 07:24 PM
1

So? You don't see recommendations to never drive because people inevitably have accidents, you teach people how to drive instead so that they drive safely, and avoid those accidents. Why is your approach to tell people not to have sex rather than explaining to people how they can safely have sex? Even the greatest of drivers can get into an accident, and even the safest of contraceptives can lead to pregnancy.
/r/MensRights31/08/16 07:40 PM
2

If you do not wish to have children, you should completely abstain from one of life's greatest pleasures? Abstinence isn't the way forward. Proper birth control has extremely low failure rates, and it should be advocated for. Sure, abstinence has 100% success rate, but so does staying home and avoiding all human contact when it comes to most diseases, still not a reason I'd advocate to "stay home and avoid all human contact" rather than proper vaccination and medical care.
/r/MensRights31/08/16 01:17 AM
4

It's shitty to tell everyone who doesn't want kids that they can't have sex. Giving a kid up for adoption isn't a drain on the national systems. If there are way more kids than those that are adopted, sure, but the act of giving a child up for adoption isn't inherently bad. Lots of couples want kids but are infertile or can't reproduce for any other reason, and adoptions are needed for those. And lots of people are unfit to be parents. I'd rather see a child being given up for adoption than bein…
/r/MensRights30/08/16 11:31 PM
22

she can choose to support the baby on her own or to get an abortion. Or give it up for adoption, if you don't want to raise it but don't want to abort it. Or even abandon it under safe-haven laws.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 11:12 PM
8

It's called court dress and it's the clothing British judges wear (and some other Commonwealth countries too). Same thing for the robe. Depending on your rank (e.g. judge, lord justices of appeal, high court judge, etc) you wear a different wig style and/or different robe.
/r/PussyPass23/08/16 01:25 PM
76

So... prostitution app..? Just go to the whore over there on the street corner, $50 for a 30-min """date""", $70 for a 1-hour date.
/r/PussyPass14/07/16 06:25 PM
11

No, it's racist to not be racist against white people, and sexist to not be sexist against men. Wait a second...
/r/PussyPass27/04/16 02:56 PM
1

There has never been a right to freedom of speech on Facebook Not really. Likes on Facebook, for example, are protected as free speech. The article is talking about likes, but it also mentions the posts: "Other courts have ruled that posts on the social network are protected as free speech", although it doesn't offer source or a link to those rulings. Considering the court rulings, there is a right to freedom of speech on Facebook, at least, and it applies not only to posts but also to likes.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 03:29 AM
1

Dailymail may be shit but there is TONS of articles and movies on the internet about animals being badly treated. Why didn't you use any of those as a source? I know they exist, and you should've used a better source. I just felt like people went way to hard on the first comment, that is now deleted. Even though he maybe didnt express himself in the best way, he did have a point. What the poster had said was that this was what happens at farms. The poster complained how people care about this ha…
/r/PussyPass17/02/16 11:08 PM
1

What they do at pig farms is very far from torture. Torture implies intention to hurt, and more than that, that the pain or suffering is the primary objective. It isn't. You're comparing a couple who mutilated, injured and killed animals for their enjoyment, and who liked to watch the animals cry in pain and fear, and are comparing that to what happens at farmhouses. They're nothing alike. You have to be seriously delusional to think that people at pig farms, or any other farm, do what they do i…
/r/PussyPass17/02/16 09:48 PM
9

Comparing that to people torturing animals for fun is far-fetched at best.
/r/PussyPass17/02/16 01:48 PM
54

Oh yeah I forgot how in animal farms they torture animals for fun, and leave them to die while laughing at their demise. They chop them up while they scream in pain, and try and prolong their torture for as long as possible. Or maybe it's just something that you think happens, but doesn't.
/r/PussyPass16/02/16 11:20 PM
12

In this context, being "like that" is essentially being someone who, after a divorce, would try and get the best possible outcome for themselves after they no longer love and possibly hate their ex-partner. It's not an anti-woman argument, but rather an anti-marriage argument, at least as I see it. One goes out to assume all men are the worst, treating everyone as a small sliver of the population. The other goes out to assume that a breakup is possible (and perhaps even likely) sometime in the f…
/r/MensRights06/02/16 10:56 PM
13

Doesn't have to be the woman starting the divorce, court is still gonna fuck you over.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 10:49 PM
146

If he thinks innocent people should be imprisoned to make up for criminals who get away, he should start with himself and confess to a crime he didn't commit. If only idiots decided to lead by example...
/r/MensRights06/12/15 02:06 AM
3

In my old school's PE class, you had to complete a mile in 8:30 (9:00 for women) to get the minimum score in endurance, below 7:00 (men and women) to get the highest.
/r/PussyPass28/11/15 09:19 AM
7

Oddly reminiscent of ASOIAF, either join the Night's Watch or face your punishment...
/r/MensRights08/08/15 10:25 PM
36

Yup, he has no issues pointing out problems with the MRM as well, and the way he speaks about it makes it seem as though he's NOT an MRA, just someone with some sanity to realize the MRM makes valid points (but that he's no activist)
/r/MensRights05/08/15 02:51 PM
4

You don't even need to go that far: men have to follow strict clothing (dark suit, generally) and women can wear skirts or even shorts.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 11:28 PM
3

If you take the possibility of divorce out of the equation, marriage ends up being beneficial in general, with tax benefits, having more responsibility over the other person should they be sick, etc. Divorce laws are what fucks everything up, and are personally the only reason I don't want to get married. If only things were fair, rather than "if you get fired you're gonna end up in jail because you can't pay wife-support" (splitting the kid's expenses is something I'd expect and fully support, …
/r/MensRights27/06/15 10:55 AM
16

I think it was being satirical.
/r/MensRights20/06/15 02:11 PM
1

One of the problems of the law, but if it weren't like that I think it'd be prone to abuse: how will you determine whether the person lied about their age? What if they had lied about their age in the past, but told the truth before the act and the act carried on regardless? I think it's more of a "kids might do wrong shit, make sure the person you're with isn't a kid". It's messed up, sure, but you get into an area full of loopholes if it weren't so. It's a way of going "all sex with children i…
/r/MensRights18/06/15 11:46 AM
3

The "without access to internet" part of the punishment, just what? What the heck kind of punishment is limiting someone's access to the internet? Essentially, that person is mostly not allowed to use smartphones, non-specialized computers, and cannot work in any position that requires internet access, or uses any sort of internet-based communication (i.e. emails). And the crown jewel: "You went online, to use a fisherman’s expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. [...] Totally …
/r/MensRights17/06/15 09:04 PM
15

I got banned for saying, right after the mattress girl shit started, that we should wait for more information to come public before we start going after the guy's life and branding him a rapist.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 05:34 PM
1

You must've been really confused if you didn't know what FPH was. "WHAT ARE YOU ALL TALKING ABOUT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND A THING!"
/r/MensRights11/06/15 04:26 PM
4

FatPeopleHate, the main subreddit this censorship is about.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:59 PM
14

I'm kinda neutral in regards to the subreddits being banned: as long as they don't break any laws, and aren't directly causing harm (or inciting it) I couldn't care less about whether they exist or not. What I do care, however, is about their right to exist according to the policies reddit USED to have, and reddit being a website I visit frequently, how these policies changing will affect reddit as a whole. Reddit's stance, however, can't be that of neutrality anymore. Either they adopt a "hands…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 11:48 PM
67

They've stepped into a pool of quicksand. If they don't backtrack their bans within 24 hours, or something of the sort, then consider this the official beginning of the end of reddit. Not only will they be taking in blows from every direction: people who approve of the bans who dislike other subs (arguably more damaging subs) not being banned, people who disapprove of the bans, and trolls who just want to create a bigger mess. If this is the way it's headed, I'll probably be making a couple of r…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 11:21 PM
3

Sort of. When it comes to people accused of rape, society treats that accusation as proof that they are guilty in and of itself, and regardless of what the courts decide they are still considered rapists.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 12:32 PM
3

I know, I was just pointing how what they were doing was not just lumping MRAs and TRPs together, but that they were even making stuff up to make us look even worse.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 12:03 AM
12

Red Pill doesn't even defend the use of drugs to rape women.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 11:04 PM
4

Some animals are more equal than others.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 11:05 PM
10

I meant in regards to what was prosecuted, the law is what decides what someone should be prosecuted for. Now, whether we agree about the law or not is a different thing, but I meant in regards to what was being prosecuted.
/r/PussyPass06/02/15 02:55 AM
41

According to the legal system, he's a victim. Whether he felt victimized or not is irrelevant, the law states he's a victim, so it should be prosecuted as such.
/r/PussyPass06/02/15 02:46 AM
1

If someone is serious about what they're defending, laughing at their argument is only going to get you farther away from your objective. It's mocking them, making them unlikely to listen to you because they'll treat you're attacking them for being stupid, and not their argument. Because lets be honest, if I said your argument is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it's pretty much implied that I'm calling you dumb.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:02 PM
2

Whenever someone is making a argument that seems poor, your objective isn't to counter-argument their poor arguments (because that'll only be met by other poor arguments): your objective is to show them their argument is wrong, and why it's wrong. Usually this should be done by questioning the nature of their argument, or questioning the points you see it fails at. In the case of drafts, question why is bodily autonomy a right that belongs solely to women, and question why should men be sentence…
/r/MensRights24/12/14 11:16 AM
50

Whenever there's an argument about drafts, the same thing is always brought up: "but there'll never be a draft". This essentially shuts down the discussion rather than assessing its value. This is especially brought up when it's argued that women should also have to sign up (if the draft isn't abolished in its entirety). Of course, "it'll never happen, stop whining" is the recurrent counter-argument. Which is why I always like to bring up my extreme hypothetical situation which, according to the…
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:50 AM
2

Also of note, the pull-out method is actually 95% effective when properly practiced. Compare that to condom's 97%. If "properly practiced" is a standard for the pull-out method, then it should also be a standard for condoms: it's extremely difficult for a condom to rip unless it was improperly worn (or otherwise damaged).
/r/MensRights23/12/14 07:40 PM
6

Men are so oppressive they're a majority even when they're not. (0.99 men per each woman in NZ, 1.00 for Australia)
/r/MensRights09/10/14 02:20 PM
3

Even if the baby was born on November 6th 2001, it'd still be "1 year-old" on August 18th 2003. One year and 9 months.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 09:50 AM
6

There is a large pool of tumblrfeminists who think that if you're being criticized it's because you're onto something great. Hitler? Stalin? Frieza? WHAT WERE YOU UP TO, WHAT DID YOU DISCOVER.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 09:48 AM
1

Talking about how it currently is: discriminating against women in medical insurance being illegal. Since the opposite isn't illegal, and the arguments in favor of discriminating against women being based on their expenses are "ignored", then those arguments can't apply to one situation and be denied in other. That's what I was going at.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 07:53 PM
1

Based myself on /u/MastaBlasta925 's quote: "13% of rape victims commit suicide"
/r/MensRights17/09/14 03:37 PM
1

I was assuming they had a 100% success rate. That is, even if they didn't succeed at first, someone who attempted to suicide once WILL succeed later on. I don't have any statistics to back anything else, but if for example only 30% of women who attempt suicide actually die (either in that attempt or another one), then we'd have possibly something as high as a 10% attempted suicide rate for women.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 03:35 PM
2

Either outlaw it all, or don't outlaw any. I prefer outlawing it all, because otherwise you might end up with entirely legal but quite sexist and/or racist policies, such as charging black people more for riding the bus. The current state is that it's illegal to discriminate against women, but perfectly legal to discriminate against men, since the fields in which women would be negatively discriminated against have it illegal to discriminate, but the others don't.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 03:29 PM
1

Your stance leads to absurdities like obese people should pay less for food because they eat more. It doesn't. People aren't forced to pay based on eating, but on how much they eat. An analogy would be putting an extra food tax ($200) on fat people for being fat, regardless of whether they eat a lot or not. If it's discovered that men generally ride the bus for 10 stops a day, while women drive on average for 8 stops a day, is it now fair to charge men 25% more for riding the bus? This isn't cha…
/r/MensRights17/09/14 03:14 PM
4

I'm not a lawyer, so, I'll give only two suggestions (first of which is an opinion, second is more like an order): Get a contract in which the support you had previously agreed to becomes contractual and bound by law. Get a lawyer. They know the sea better than you do (unless they're a state-appointed lawyer, they have a bad reputation for sometimes not siding with their client, especially in child support, so don't get a state-appointed one).
/r/MensRights16/09/14 10:08 PM
8

It becomes even stranger when you mix it with other stats. So, 13% of all rape victims commit suicide. 1 in 5 women (sometimes 1 in 4 but I'll use 1 in 5) are raped. Therefore, 13% of 20% of all women commit suicide. Almost 3% of all women commit suicide. Since men commit suicide at a rate of 3:1 (although according to Wikipedia some sources state up to 10:1, but I'll go with 3:1 which is the most used one), then approximately 8% of all men commit suicide. Seems legit.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 10:00 PM
1

There are many situations in which extreme caution can be dangerous. Not only can it put you in danger (e.g. you slowed down when you didn't have to, and when it was unexpected, and someone didn't take that possibility into account, miscalculating distances or whatnot) as well as others (e.g. your slow ass caused someone to overtake in a road where they aren't allowed to, causing a wreck). The dangers on the road have less to do with following the rules, but with conforming. It doesn't matter wh…
/r/MensRights16/09/14 09:53 PM
2

Which goes straight to the point: it was outlawed because it's unfair to charge women more, but charging men more isn't outlawed? Gender and racial discrimination should simply be illegal, regardless of the insurance. (Not saying discrimination as a whole, because there are plenty of situations in which charging more makes sense, such as pre-existing conditions, age, risk factors...).
/r/MensRights16/09/14 09:41 PM
8

Being lied to about being on the pill or having your condoms punctured, but still your fault? Yet somehow male BC isn't needed? Thanks for proving that male BC is needed with your blue-pill reasoning.
/r/TheRedPill10/09/14 08:04 PM
0

Whining? I'm presenting facts to you: reasons for why male BC is needed. Grow up, seriously. Let me know when you decide to unplug yourself, because for now women are so far up your ass I can't even see them anymore. The fact that complete abstinence, or sterilization, are the only ways to avoid being forcefully made a father is disgusting. But you don't seem to think so, women should be able to control our fates, for some reason. Bring on the male BC.
/r/TheRedPill10/09/14 07:51 PM
6

Sure. Then I also ask you that you never use condoms. Trust that your partner doesn't have STDs. Trust that your partner is responsible. Trust that your partner isn't lying to you about contraception. That's a lot of trust I'm unwilling to put on a chick I might've met just a few hours ago. But I already know your answer: "keep it in your pants". It's always the man's fault. Woman lied? Man's fault for not keeping it in his pants. But since you seem to believe women are never like that, and that…
/r/TheRedPill10/09/14 07:24 PM
1

Although they did say they accept condoms if used to stop STDs from spreading, but they reject it as a contraception method. I think that was a good move.
/r/TheRedPill10/09/14 05:40 PM
10

Trashy women exist everywhere. Even if it's just 1 in 100, it's still one that can easily ruin your life. Also, trashy or not, you'll find millions of women who'd be willing to have a successful man's baby and call it a deal. Steady income for 18 years for taking care of a kid? Hard to turn that down, especially since that "steady income" can be several times above the average income if the guy is rich. But if with you it's okay to have women grab you by the balls and have total control of you, …
/r/TheRedPill10/09/14 03:23 PM
2

(I'm curious to see if what the Catholic Church has to say. They are pretty pro-male but anti-contraception.) My guess will be they're against it on the same grounds as before, but they will probably mention something along the lines of "but if women have it, men should have it too, but we still condemn it".
/r/TheRedPill10/09/14 03:01 PM
12

You do, but how is complete and total abstinence a "power"? It's the only way a man can, with 100% certainty, avoid the liars who are willing to do anything to get pregnant nowadays, but it's a pretty fucked up way. Women also have the power to not be fucked, doesn't mean BC shouldn't exist. Same for condoms and STDs.
/r/TheRedPill10/09/14 02:59 PM
12

Off-topic but Napoleon was actually above the average height for his time. He was roughly 1.7m, or 5'7". The 5'2" figure (1.57m) comes from improper conversions from french inches to english inches.
/r/PussyPass05/09/14 10:44 AM
1

I don't really mind spending 10 seconds writing that I think it's bullshit, PLUS downvoting.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 10:36 PM
1

Exactly why I didn't reply anymore. Left the remark, because I'm expecting AMR or SRS to pick it up and say "HEY, LOOK AT WHAT THE MRAs ARE SAYING!".
/r/MensRights04/09/14 09:34 PM
3

Except misandry. Because misandry don't realz.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 08:15 PM
2

Yeah, I'm not agreeing with that. That's dumb as shit.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 08:11 PM
5

But what about their mothers, wives, sisters, daughters!? /s
/r/MensRights04/09/14 06:52 PM
5

Does that really matter? Are women incapable of committing suicide? No, women simply pick, generally, methods which do not guarantee success, and this is because men are taught not to ask for help, while women are taught to do so, which clearly reflects in the suicides. Or, as /u/baskandpurr says: Women tend to use methods which allow for second chances. Their suicide attempts are a 'cry for help' because they know they will get help. Men are taught that they should not ask for or need help. Nob…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 06:51 PM
2

Yeah, trying to convince an "idiot" that people threatening to falsely accuse men, and it having a shot at working because even if they're not convicted their lives are ruined by the media, isn't a men's rights issue. Nice to know that. So basically, false accusations are a men's rights issue, BUT threatening people with false accusations isn't.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 06:44 PM
2

there isnt anyone hunting men and accusing them of rape you idiot. Whenever someone isn't right, they always resort to insults. Keep it civil, or otherwise you've already lost your entire argument. what this is really like is a white guy robbing a black guy and then everyone yelling racism. No, it'd be like that if the system was designed in such a way that threatening black guys with weapons wasn't seen as problematic. Then, once someone threats a black guy with a weapon AND asks him for money …
/r/MensRights04/09/14 04:21 PM
2

If he's been charged so many times, and already has a felony conviction from before 1994, went to prison again on a gun charge, it is reasonable to conclude this man is a repeat offender with a pattern of violence. Since he's been charged so many times, despite only being convicted twice, he's a repeat offender with a pattern of violence. And how is saying someone is a repeat offender with a pattern of violence not saying someone's guilty? Furthermore, if he were falsely accused of, for example,…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:48 PM
2

I see "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really strike you as correct. Your criminal record doesn't impact your constitutional rights. Just because you were convicted before doesn't mean an accusation is synonymous with guilt.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 01:12 PM
2

People use false accusations as a way to rob people, not an issue? Why? Because they were punished? That's like saying it's not a racial issue if there are lynch mobs hunting people of color, since the people in those mobs are being arrested.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 01:07 PM
1

It's still on the topic. If I sense a serious threat to my safety, and the threat is a false rape accusation or anything of the sort, I'll fight back with the same weapon even if I stand against it. I don't approve of murder, but if I'm certain someone's going to murder me, I'll try and survive even if it means I'll have to kill them.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 06:37 PM
1

Am I not allowed to voice my own opinion?
/r/MensRights02/09/14 05:25 PM
2

If someone is ready to ruin my life with a false rape accusation, I'd have no issue accusing them first, even if falsely. I wouldn't pursue it into court or anything, I'd just make their false rape accusation invalid, and problem solved. This is basically self-defense, and false rape accusations are their weapon, sometimes lethal.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 01:11 AM
2

That's a poor reasoning right there. Correct argument would be "statistically, men are more likely to commit a violence crime or a crime in general" therefore it makes more sense to picture criminals as male from the ground up, although I still disagree with that until I see studies that show an overwhelming majority of criminals being men, not just a 60-40 or 70-30 thing. Picturing males as criminals is an incorrect assumption. It's like saying, statistically speaking, more women work in the ad…
/r/MensRights02/09/14 12:06 AM
2

If the ratio were around 70/30, assuming no girl had left school, then almost 60% of boys would've left school? (Assuming school was 50/50 to begin with, with 70G and 70M, to make it 70/30 then 40M would need to leave school, and those 40M would represent approximately 57% of all men) And this, without even considering the possibility of girls leaving school. So there was either a pretty messed up entry regulation which was prioritizing girls, and boys were going elsewhere, or the demographic fo…
/r/MensRights01/09/14 10:50 AM
1

Still doesn't explain in any way your rationale between "most people get lung cancer from smoking" and, in the event of having lung cancer, "not going to support you because it's your fault", which is what you went at before. To quote: I can't get too excited about donating my hard-earned money to save the life of some sorry ass who clearly didn't give a shit about his in the first place. So, to create an analogy: I can't get too excited about donating my hard-earned money to save the life of lu…
/r/MensRights27/08/14 04:32 PM
1

Then I simply bring up lung cancer. Estimates go from 85 to 95% of all lung cancer being a result of smoking habits. Does that mean we should go "well, screw people with lung cancer, they simply shouldn't have smoked"? Even if only 5% of the people with heart disease have it from genetic factors, it's still a LOT of people, taking into account heart disease is the no. 1 killer in many, many countries.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 12:13 PM
0

Most people with lung cancer got their lung cancer from smoking, estimates going from 85 to 95% (there's no way to pinpoint exactly what caused it, only risk factors). That's still no reason to tell everyone with lung cancer "maybe you shouldn't have smoked". You can openly say "don't smoke, it causes cancer", but going "well, it's your fault because you smoked", even if they didn't smoke, is plain bullshit.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 12:10 PM
0

I pretty damn well understood his point, but his way of saying it is what I'm critiquing. He should've found a better way to say that people should try and lead healthier lifestyles to lower their risks of said diseases, but not gone "you have that disease just because you're fat, LOL". That's simply uncivil, offensive, and gets you nowhere, not to mention it misrepresents quite a few people, such as myself.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 10:57 AM
0

Considering everyone in my family leads a healthy lifestyle, apart from one specific person (who, ironically, doesn't have the heart conditions we all do), it propagates genetically. Not exactly the "we're super-fit people" kind of deal, because we cannot for example go under extensive physical exercise (no gyms, sprinting, sports that are "spiky" rather than constant, etc), but we are all with weights that are the recommended ones by our doctors, and lead a lifestyle to keep it that way. Wasn't…
/r/MensRights27/08/14 10:54 AM
0

I was born with Stage two (or Type two, whatever you consider it) hypertension, and arrhythmia, and serious possibility of developing further complications (need to get my heart checked frequently). Basically, due to the higher BP, the blood vessels' walls thicken, causing an effect that is the same as accumulated fat, but irreversible. The walls thickening reduces their elasticity, so in the event of a hypertensive crisis they can rupture. My stage two hypertension was hinted at considering bot…
/r/MensRights27/08/14 10:45 AM
22

You can get heart disease genetically as well, it's not all due to lifestyle. COPD is extremely common among miners, too. Your level of ignorance is astonishing. But thanks for letting me know you don't give a shit about me or anyone else born with chronic heart disease!
/r/MensRights27/08/14 01:54 AM
3

No True Scotsman fallacies don't apply to this sort of thing. Guilt by Association trumps No True Scotsman, since NTC only applies when someone is actually part of the group. If you're applying Guilt by Association fallacy, saying "those aren't really members of the group" isn't NTC, because they actually aren't, they're just wrongly associated. Might be a bit confusing, but the bottom line is: guilt by association is when criticism is given to the wrong group (e.g. criticizing MRAs because of H…
/r/MensRights26/08/14 09:20 PM
76

57k notes. Buh feminism no doxx.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 12:37 PM
2

I retract my statements then. Still, if the sample is going to be used to extrapolate data from the entire western society, bigger margins are needed. I don't see any usefulness in limiting data only to the Scottish population. It's much better to go for higher-margin claims that pertain to the entire western society, than for a pinpoint-accuracy claim that pertains to 1.2 million women. But that's just me. I'd rather be able to say "32-52% of women" than "40-44% of Scottish women".
/r/MensRights25/08/14 08:32 PM
-9

You'd still need more. When you're grabbing massive claims such as that, your sample needs to be more than 0.002% of the population (0.004% of all women, if assuming 50-50). For massive claims, the bigger your sample the stronger your claim becomes. A 5000 sample is by no means small, but it's not a sample you can derive universal data from. You can for example claim that a significant portion of women would lie about contraception to get pregnant, but you can't state "42%". You'll need some mar…
/r/MensRights25/08/14 07:58 PM
4

It's a sample far too small to derive universal claims that 42% of ALL women are like this. However, the fact that one randomly acquired sample turned out to be this skewed is enough to show that the problem exists. It cannot say "the problem affects 42% of the population definitely!", but it CAN say "our sample was pretty messed up, so a problem exists, but a bigger sample is necessary to say exactly how big it is". A 5000-people sample isn't small, though. It's medium-sized.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 06:19 PM
2

Here's the key aspect of your answer "if asked". If asked, feminists would say they don't support it. In fact, they'd end up redirecting the criticism. But they ONLY criticize it if they feel they are in "danger" of being associated with these types of feminists. In all other scenarios, they're okay with it. They're not going to oppose it. They either sit down, quietly, and when someone asks them directly about it, "NAFALT!", or they support them. Also, haven't seen it endorsed, ever? Then you'v…
/r/MensRights25/08/14 01:58 PM
9

Tumblr feminists have been upvoting eachother in Urban Dictionary. I remember reading the post, had like 50k shares when I read it, which had links to certain definitions (one of which was MRA) for them to change to the worst thing they could, and they'd upvote eachother. Urban Dictionary fixed some of them, but others are still there ("Man" was at one point defined as something along the lines of "Privileged scum rapist who thinks that he is entitled to women", but that has been fixed [checked …
/r/MensRights25/08/14 11:03 AM
2

"There needs to be a cultural shift that gets nations to see zero nuclear detonations as a bad thing, instead of something to be proud of." - Because if there are no reported nuclear detonations, it means nuclear detonations are rampant in society. End ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) Culture!
/r/MensRights24/08/14 07:34 PM
46

This sort of thing is pure bullshit. The worst sort of crimes against humanity, when against men, is somehow acceptable and not a problem: forcing the disappearance or severe reduction of a group of people through any means whatsoever (genocide); genetic manipulation (illegal on humans); kidnapping; torturing; raping; enslaving. All acceptable, that is, if the victims are men. And yet, feminists like this aren't criticized by other feminists. Nope, they're supported.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 07:23 PM
1

I stand corrected then. I had assumed that they were being backed by examples in previous situations, in which they had given food to different people and watched the results, or something of the sort.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 11:19 AM
2

No no I meant in regards to the broken windows. Sorry for the confusion. Also, with over 40% of DV victims being male (if counting only adult DV victims, otherwise it goes to something like 46%), I don't think going for statistical data is the best way to behave. "Statistically speaking, 6 out of 10 aggressors are male. So, we're from now on arresting all men in DV scenarios". Change that to any other crime and you realize how dumb it is: "Men are approximately 70% of all murderers, so we're now…
/r/MensRights23/08/14 11:53 PM
5

"He had it coming" was something the cops would say, I'd imagine.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 08:41 PM
3

White knights aren't as bad as AMR.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 08:05 PM
4

Your feelings don't constitute an argument in favor of default circumcision because they'd actually be overturning the wishes of those who don't want to be circumcised, whereas the feelings of those who don't want to be circumcised do not make you unable to get one yourself. If babies aren't circumcised by default and you still want to be circumcised, you can. If babies are circumcised by default and you don't want to, you can't (already done, nothing you can do). Basically, your personal story …
/r/MensRights13/08/14 09:43 PM
1

I do, but he's tech support. I'll send him the link tho, maybe he can get it to the right people. An internal report is bound to get more traction than some email from some random guy.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 03:16 PM
6

There's not enough statistical data to say where the drop comes from for sure, unfortunately, but the feminist views definitely had something to do with it, I would say. I stopped reading the guardian completely, two years or so ago, when I came across anti-male speech on a freaking tech article, talking about development in phones and mobile processing power (wasn't a good article at that either, it was 'acceptable', but talking about how men are evil in that scenario did it for me).
/r/MensRights11/08/14 03:00 PM
1

Then shouldn't they be fighting those restrictions? The time restriction exists for pretty much every procedure: it's not something unique to abortions. Why not focus on something that is in place solely for abortions, rather than attacking a mechanism put into place everywhere?
/r/MensRights11/08/14 02:06 PM
12

I'm an atheist but seriously, shut up. Making him a nonbeliever doesn't make his life any better. Let him believe what he wants to. Unless he's making the world a worse place because of his religion, no reason to 'convert' him. Faith gives people hope, and more often than not, a reason to be good. Believe whatever you want to believe, as long as you're not an asshole about it. For all I care, you can worship a pink unicorn.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 12:27 AM
8

Doesn't pretty much every surgery or procedure that is not 100% necessary and is irreversible force you to wait at the very least 24h for you to think about it? Wait, now that I think about it, there's one exception: circumcising a boy (if it's an adult, he DOES have to wait 24h). It's the only procedure I can remember that is irreversible, not 100% necessary, yet does not have the 24h waiting period required by law for all other procedures that fit the same criteria.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 07:24 PM
170

Still waiting for that federal program that gets women into coal mining... Or any male-dominated industry that isn't a nice cozy office job.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 07:52 PM
1

TIL things like due process are an "advantage", not a right.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 02:32 PM
2

Made me chuckle
/r/MensRights08/08/14 02:26 PM
4

It's legally considered "sexual assault" if a woman rapes a man. Which goes in line with groping and catcalling, for a comparison. And yes they're aware of it: a significant portion of the vocal ones will straight-up dismiss any claims that men can even be raped. You will definitely find some that do agree that male rape exists, but even then, it's unlikely that they will care. If they're fully involved with feminism, accepting that male rape exists AND is a serious issue (with a significant por…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 06:46 PM
2

The main reason is redeployment. You can be redeployed to a different task if it is needed. Everyone has to be ready for "any" job they're given, basically.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 05:12 PM
5

Airforce may deploy ground forces to assist as well. Every branch (Army, Navy, Airforce) is fit for all three major combat scenarios (ground, water, air), but have their particular focus. For example, it's unfeasible to have an airbase going "Shit, they have ground troops. Oh well, surrender guys, we only do air!", or a warship without jet interceptors being blown to pieces.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 05:11 PM
3

TIL that men are able to voluntarily control their erections, at all times, and that having an erection is a sign of sexual consent to any female present, regardless of anything the man might say or do which would say otherwise. /s I wonder if "yo, dat bitch was wet" will hold up in court for male-on-female rape? Since being "wet" is the female equivalent to an erection, I can rape any woman, provided they are wet, since if being hard is irrevocable consent from a man, being wet should be irrevo…
/r/MensRights04/08/14 09:17 PM
1

Quite a few feminists started endorsing Nivea, and telling people to buy their products to make up for the male boycotting as a result of their male shaming. Example: http://evolve-today.tumblr.com/tagged/Nivea
/r/MensRights03/08/14 07:04 PM
2

Poe's Law, now in real life...
/r/MensRights02/08/14 07:53 AM
11

"Lucky kid" would be society's response.
/r/MensRights01/08/14 09:13 PM
3

Legal foreplay?
/r/MensRights01/08/14 07:15 PM
6

Good luck showing them their hypocrisy, beware of NAFALT.
/r/MensRights29/07/14 09:56 AM
5

It's not attempting to pass any laws, but as a way of countering the feminist narrative. It's not something we go to the streets and fight over, but it's simply a way to counter the attacks of those who do, so to speak.
/r/MensRights28/07/14 04:57 PM
16

I wonder if any man in this world would be sentenced to $80 and 24-hours community service for something that could've easily turned out to be fatal (6 feet fall and head first) and was clearly intentional.
/r/MensRights27/07/14 04:39 PM
1

The point of my WBC example was to show how an organization can call out on its more extreme members and/or associates (whether they share the same goals or not), something feminism as a whole does not do. The "extreme feminists" aren't, by the definition the "moderate feminists" use, real feminists, just like WBC isn't treated as a normal Christian church by other churches. However, those churches called out WBC, whereas the feminists did not call out on those extremists. In fact, the only situ…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 12:58 AM
2

That's a point you're free to make, "NAFALT", but placing all the blame on the loudest while basically excluding yourself from the group is not exactly a great move. It's also a fallacy, the "No true scotsman" one. Wikipedia's example of it: Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge." Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." And, switching that up to feminism... Person A: "No feminist supports misandry." Per…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 12:08 AM
1

Only point I can agree with you on is number 2. Pretty much everything else is a large number two, though, as shown by empirical evidence. The second feminists advocate for clearly misandrist laws, and other feminists stand behind their back, it's impossible to claim that feminism fights for equality. Feminism doesn't want equality, it wants preferential treatment. Hell, if it wants equality, how come feminism has never once touched on the subject of the selective services? EVER? Because that's …
/r/MensRights18/07/14 11:24 PM
1

100% of all rape victims on Mars are women, so you're safe.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 11:07 PM
4

Yeah like, the right of signing up for selective services and being sent to war against their will. Feminists have been fighting for that right for YEARS! /s
/r/MensRights18/07/14 06:43 PM
2

100% of all people in Canada guilty of infanticide are women, so, we should send all women to jail pre-emptively. (NOTE: Infanticide, in legal terms, is a crime in Canada that can only be perpetrated by women. It's basically manslaughter, but with less time spent in jail, because apparently women can't be guilty of murdering their children [the post-childbirth hormones are the guilty ones])
/r/MensRights18/07/14 04:47 PM
2

Anyone should treat him as innocent until he's proven guilty. That's like, how the law works (or how it should work)...
/r/MensRights15/07/14 01:13 AM
2

Teachers are in a really strong position, because disagreeing with them means if you are evaluated in what regards to that, you'll be negatively affected, even if they are in fact wrong. The school system sets it so that what the teacher says IS the "truth", and anything else is inherently wrong since it is that same teacher who will be evaluating you. That being said, anything in which OPINION is relevant, students shouldn't be taught, or evaluated.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 04:20 PM
6

I am no longer under 18, but I can definitely speak about it, since it wasn't that long ago. Do you frequently visit this sub (and other Men's Rights resources)? I frequently visit this sub; Do you find the message in this sub effectively counteracts feminist-backed messages received from your school, society and the government? I find that the message counteracts most of what was taught to all of the students (and rejecting it got me penalized, but on to that later); Do you find yourself making…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 02:16 AM
9

You can literally see, on her own footage, the points being deducted when she kills the women. And that was a pretty big hit on the score.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 01:43 AM
16

"Lets not forget how it objectifies women by portraying them as pieces on a playboard that you're supposed to just order to do the things you want." "Err, everyone is a piece, that's how the ga--" "STOP DERAILING!"
/r/MensRights12/07/14 01:39 AM
1

And I have no doubt they'll find a way to make this a problem about women. I mean, if Hillary Clinton manages to say that women, because they lose their husbands/sons/fathers, are the primary victims of war and not the men who die, I have no doubt men being unemployed or with lower incomes can be turned into a problem (for women).
/r/MensRights12/07/14 12:48 AM
5

I know, I know, was just pointing that if smothering because of mental issues is discarded, I don't see any way in which "accidental smothering" can actually be held up in court.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 01:02 AM
19

Mental issues sounds like a much better defense than "accidental smothering" (although personally I find that "mental problems" is basically a catch-all...)
/r/MensRights07/07/14 10:52 PM
15

I also learned that if a woman gets pregnant it's the man's fault for being unable to keep it in his pants.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 09:54 PM
20

Do not sign absolutely ANYTHING that states you raped her unless YOUR LAWYER, not the mother's, not the adoption service's, YOUR LAWYER, the one that only benefits from protecting YOU, says you should. Signing that is legally equivalent to a confession: you'll be confessing to a crime you never committed.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 02:47 PM
6

And it being illegal, and as such having absolutely no records of who is actually prostituting themselves, and as such being unable to investigate those people to make sure they're not being coerced, make it easier to police the industry how? I can absolutely guarantee you that there will be more people coerced into crime than there will be people coerced into a legal job, in which they'll have legal rights and be protected by the government.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 10:33 AM
3

Difference is, you can't leave. What will we do, complain to admins? They'll dismiss our claims, like they dismissed our previous claims when AMR was doxxing, and even with significant proof nothing was done. Hell, they were literally asking people to contact police departments with false claims, and still the admins did nothing. What we should really do is spread out: more forums and groups. And independent forum, similar to reddit but completely separate (where we could do whatever we wanted) …
/r/MensRights20/06/14 01:11 AM
1

You would say to someone who's been roofied they, "messed up," by not having their drink covered? Would I tell them? No. Would I think it? Probably. They could've made themselves a harder target, but it's not their fault nonetheless. Serves no point, other than hurting their self-esteem or whatever, to bring up the obvious: that they COULD have kept an eye on their drink. Being able to do something to make yourself a harder target, but failing to do so, doesn't mean it's your fault. Again, just …
/r/MensRights13/06/14 01:20 AM
3

Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. Then you should learn what cognitive dissonance is. Saying someone messed up isn't a directly implication that it's their fault for what was done. This means that there's no contradiction, and, as such, no cognitive dissonance. Not covering your drink != running out into open traffic. Pretty simple there. If someone ran out into to open traffic and got hit, no one would defend their choice or consider them a victim. Agreeing with me so nothing to say. Neve…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 02:26 PM
1

His name is Poperiarchy, with an unverified 1-day-old account. It's a troll.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 01:50 PM
3

So, I'll go over them one by one. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26r4x2/because_were_taught_dont_run_into_open_traffic/ Quite simply, this fits into the previous thing I've said. If you run into open traffic you're directly endangering yourself and you know it. It's an 100% certain thing that it's a terrible idea. Everyone knows that, which is why nobody does it. And a very simple thing: it doesn't say it's the fault of who got drugged. People are told "don't leave your drink alone"…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 01:21 PM
2

Then link those comments? And again, they'll have to directly say "it's the victim's fault" or "it's the victims responsibility" or something of the sort. Pretty sure you're distorting what was said, because I am yet to see an upvoted comment in here that defends it being the victim's fault. Only situation in which I can see a crime being a victim's fault is if they're aware of the direct consequences. It's, for example, someone telling you "if you go into that alley I'll murder you", and you st…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 12:02 PM
2

Except you're taking it further than anyone else I've seen here. You're directly saying it's the victim's fault (first definition of responsibility found in google: "the state of being the person who caused something to happen"). I've never seen anyone here that wasn't immediately downvoted for saying "it's the person's fault for being raped/mugged/murdered". What people say is "people should take precautions", but you're directly saying that failure to take said precautions is an implication of…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 11:41 AM
1

No you didn't. All you did was say that it's men's responsibility to ensure their safety. If it's their responsibility to ensure their safety, and said safety then gets destroyed, it's pretty much implied it's their fault because they failed to ensure their safety, since that's the definition of responsibility: if it goes wrong, it's your fault. EDIT: First definition of "responsibility" according to Merriam Webster: "the state of being the person who caused something to happen".
/r/MensRights12/06/14 11:22 AM
5

And again, how does that equate into it being the men's fault? Mass murderers don't have a responsibility for ensuring my safety either, is it my fault if I get killed by a mass murderer?
/r/MensRights12/06/14 11:10 AM
7

these men are clearly responsible for what happened to them There. "These men are clearly responsible for being drugged and stolen a load of cash", because, what happened to them was exactly that: being drugged and stolen a load of cash. And when were we talking about rape? /u/Edgeinsthelead simply said he tells his SO to stay in lighted areas, not be on the phone, etc. That in no way equates to rape or being afraid of rape or whatnot. It's freaking. Common. Sense. Should I go into dark alleys a…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 10:12 AM
5

I'll intervene in here to give you my two cents. Telling people to watch themselves isn't to perpetuate rape culture. There's no such thing as a rape culture. A rape culture is defined as a culture that deems rape as acceptable, and makes no attempt to punish the offenders [although male rape is seen as acceptable, so maybe there really is a rape culture, but I digress]. Saying "hey honey, avoid going through dark alleys" isn't in any way perpetuating rape culture. Plus, why is it specifically r…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 09:38 AM
8

Personally I've reported the sub. The moment they begin asking people to contact police departments, news outlets, general attorneys, and, well, PayPal, pretty sure that can be considered slander/libel/defamation, and it's a crime.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 12:28 PM
1

Yeah, I completely agree that age is irrelevant, but I can't help but feel that people might just open it and ignore because of its age.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 02:36 PM
1

Oh, thought mods had power over titles. Thanks though!
/r/MensRights10/06/14 02:35 PM
1

Should've added "OLD" or something in the title, feel some of the downvotes are because of that. EDIT: If any mod reads this, feel free to do it yourself. Add [OLD] somewhere in the title, I guess, since I can't edit it myself.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 02:27 PM
1

Even if the body is ready, and the person wants it, the teacher is in a position of power. It's illegal. It's to avoid things like being coerced, or being biased because of the relationship.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 08:36 PM
1

Of course it is. It's less stable. Try cutting a cardboard Y and getting it to stand up, much harder than getting an X to stand up! The Y chromosome is simply corrupt! /s
/r/MensRights06/06/14 07:32 PM
1

It's a teacher having sex with a student. Regardless of whether the student wants it or not, it's still against the law, since the teacher is in a position of power.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 07:17 PM
1

Can the policemen who issue on the spot AVOs be sued if these AVOs turn out to have been issued incorrectly? Or the person who lied to them, can they be sued? These on the spot AVOs seem to be a bad idea. For one, they protect real victims, that's good, but they give a strong immediate punishment, and, since this isn't in a court of law, having them issued under false claims isn't a crime (please correct me if I'm wrong). Being able to get your partner thrown out with a lie seems pretty harsh. I…
/r/MensRights03/06/14 12:44 PM
5

100% of all female victims of inter-gender murder were killed by men, how can you not see that's a major problem!? Misogynist pig!
/r/MensRights01/06/14 12:45 PM
2

And how is that relevant, again? And also, it wouldn't, not necessarily. Might reduce, but not get rid of them entirely. I've read stories about people being falsely accused by their girlfriends after years-long relationships. And again, it doesn't really matter. Getting to know people better shouldn't ever have to be a replacement for proper law. It's quite literally blaming the victim for not knowing the abuser would be an abuser.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:58 PM
3

Because people are idiots, that's the answer then. Because they realized they dated someone who would ultimately make them be mocked, because they were actually cheating, because you two broke up and that was a revenge... There are plenty of reasons to falsely accuse someone.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:42 PM
3

To me, that sounded incredibly ignorant. Basically, "it's your fault for having sex with someone who was willing to use a legal loophole". The law is the issue, not peoples' attitudes. And seriously, why are you shifting the blame from the person who would falsely accuse onto the person who would be falsely accused? You're turning it into his fault for dating someone who is willing to falsely accuse, how is that remotely fair. It's like blaming domestic violence victims for dating abusers.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 10:29 PM
27

Where the current law stands, this would be correct. There is literally no penalization for falsely accusing provided you don't actually take it to court (since you'd be committing perjury), yet the falsely accused can be expelled without any evidence. Thank you Title IX! This is probably the worst of times to be a male in higher education.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 07:09 PM
6

So, basically, a radio station broadcast designed to publicly bully people (men only? dunno) who attempt to hit on other people (women only? dunno). How nice it must be to hit on a girl who you don't realize isn't interested, and then hear your own voice on the radio. If as much as a single person entered in any sort of depression because of that, the radio station should be sued for every penny. Publicly shame people who hit on you, then "oh my god why doesn't anyone hit on me!?".
/r/MensRights30/05/14 06:38 PM
3

Haven't we all been taught that as children? "Don't trust strangers", that was a thing my parents always told me when I started being in public places. Whether you're a child or an adult, a man or a woman, you shouldn't trust strangers.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 02:44 PM
1

Get, for, example, the raw CDC data, then look at the categories "forcibly penetrated" and "forced to penetrate". The difference is of 3000 cases, which, in over a million, is negligible. Also, the CDC clearly states that the definition of rape they use is "forced penetration of the victim", which rules out female on male rapes. I will reply to this when I get home and have the link, if nobody does that before I get home.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 12:29 PM
1

I think it's more common when you're talking about the so-called "nice guys". They treat women like princesses, and feel that they're entitled to get said women because they've treated them nicely. And if you look at things like every single fairy tale, you'll see why they might be conditioned to think like this: white knight in shiny armor saves princess from demise, and they live happily ever after; nice guy treats woman like princess, and they live happily ever after (not?) I think it's ridic…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 12:16 PM
16

There are some people I know who act that way. Basically, it's a direct consequence of the "man up" and things alike. "If you don't do X you'll never get a girlfriend" -> "I did X, where's the girlfriend?" Personally, I think that it's a culmination of all the things society expects of men, and for which the reward is usually, well, "women". I kind of understand those types of men: they fell exactly into their gender role of being the provider, but women don't find them attractive or simply aren…
/r/MensRights28/05/14 08:43 PM
1

Wow check your privilege. NAFALT, misogynistic neckbeard virgin. signs petition /s
/r/MensRights27/05/14 04:11 PM
1

Yeah, exactly, and since the police couldn't fill every area with cameras due to low population density, insurance companies force people to use dash cameras. (Also, the way to do it is if you jump on top of the car rather than getting hit. So, if you're ever about to get hit by a car, just jump)
/r/MensRights26/05/14 01:48 PM
1

Feminists would have no issue saying it was because of MRAs as well. The other day I tripped and broke a vase, I blame the MRAs. /s
/r/MensRights26/05/14 12:45 PM
4

I thought that in Russia it was because insurance companies required it? Russia has a low population density so setting up surveillance or manning the streets would be extremely expensive in terms of price/return.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 12:43 PM
1

Feminists talk about rape culture: I can't find a bigger example of rape culture than a boy being raped and society calling him lucky for being victim of a hideous crime.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 12:49 PM
3

I've stored it for reading, although I'm doing it more for the "what goes through the mind of a killer" rather than "is he part of the MRM".
/r/MensRights25/05/14 12:25 AM
5

It's going through a far-fetched connection. Basically, having certain subscriptions on YouTube was "linked" to him being misoginistic and wanting to be alpha, which for some reason lead to TRP, and, as usual, it is assumed that TRP = MRM, and so he is assumed to be an MRA. I really don't see what's the point of these bullshit comparisons or talking about what group he belongs to, as if his wrongdoings are in any way fault of the group he was in. Hell, he might've not even be in the group, they'…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 12:18 AM
2

Yes. Lots of conclusions can be drawn, but saying MRM = TRP is wrong, because most people here don't identify themselves as TRP, and most TRP don't identify themselves as MRM. We're two different groups with similar topics of interest, but different manifestations of that very interest. Any attempt to associate us because of a minority that overlaps is ridiculous, the same way you can't associate MRM to TumblrInAction... And guilt by association is inherently bad, and hilarious. Feminists attemp…
/r/MensRights21/05/14 12:46 PM
15

AMR are already concluding that all MRM are TRP, even though they're less than 10%. Who would've guessed? sigh
/r/MensRights20/05/14 08:50 PM
1

If it's a "truth" and a "fact", then you should have absolutely no issue providing reputable sources and peer-reviewed papers.
/r/MensRights20/05/14 01:01 PM
3

This is brilliant. I don't really have much of a commentary to make other than that. Reading through it all shows how some arguments really are stupid.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 07:24 PM
0

Main disadvantage I'd see with this would be certain courses being made man-only or woman-only. For example, if [insert course here] didn't have enough males interested, it wouldn't be available for any man, even if lots of women were interested in it. By limiting colleges to gender, you'd also indirectly limit certain courses to gender: "I'm sorry, you can't become a professional [something] because not enough men like that." But fighting for gender segregation would reveal their true skin, so …
/r/MensRights19/05/14 06:13 PM
21

It'd count as who built them, I guess? I'm starting to realize how many things would say "built by men", and already expecting a "stop oppressing us with your inventions" response...
/r/MensRights19/05/14 03:41 PM
41

Am I the only one who started imagining how ridiculous society would be if things contained the gender that harvested/built it?
/r/MensRights19/05/14 02:57 PM
2

I agree with children being first. They're vulnerable and, should everything go wrong (e.g. major catastrophe) the next generation NEEDS to survive. About women: well, personally I think it's simply because of historical reasons. For tribes women were inherently more valuable. Having one woman and 10 men meant you could have around one baby a year. Having 10 women and one men meant 10, and thus the survival of the tribe. So basically, by making sure women are saved they will be able to produce o…
/r/MensRights18/05/14 10:58 AM
1

"All these horrible men falsely accusing these poor girls just because they were successful and intelligent!"
/r/MensRights17/05/14 10:20 AM
254

This is the kind of thing that pisses me off the most. Seriously, how hard would it have been to simply say "RESPECT OUR PASSENGERS"? Why the need to say specifically women?
/r/MensRights17/05/14 10:15 AM
1

But wouldn't saying "that's stupid because you're crazy" be ad hominem? It's, I think, what people are doing: since it's Katie Hopkins saying it, they're deeming the point as invalid.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 08:54 PM
3

Although attacking the 'argument' based on who speaks it is a fallacy (ad hominem), but yes, if it had come from a source with a better 'reputation' it would've had a better impact, or at least not put aside because "she's crazy, she says crazy things, so this is also crazy".
/r/MensRights16/05/14 11:36 AM
1

Haven't heard of subreddit-only shadowbanning, I think it's global, and since we're reading his posts he isn't shadowbanned. He can probably see it because they're his posts, I can always see my comments on a thread even if it has been deleted.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 11:23 AM
5

By "anti-discrimination" they most likely mean "anti-discrimination against women".
/r/MensRights16/05/14 11:12 AM
1

Comes directly from the UN. http://www.unfpa.org/rights/rights.htm as linked previously by /u/vax0r976
/r/MensRights16/05/14 07:54 AM
1

It is a violation of human rights. "Reproductive decision-making, including voluntary choice in marriage, family formation and determination of the number, timing and spacing of one's children [...]"
/r/MensRights15/05/14 02:39 PM
2

What exactly is the line? Considering we can't watch it unless we're from the UK, a quote would be great
/r/MensRights15/05/14 02:31 PM
-2

And even after the period is over, we should wait. We shouldn't use these deaths as a political tool EDIT: Apparently, screw having respect for the dead. How can we be better than feminists if we step down to their level?
/r/MensRights15/05/14 01:45 PM
2

Just to correct you: the girls were taken because they were being educated, not because they were girls. Boko Haram targets western education. They weren't targeted for being women, they were targeted for being schoolchildren: just like the boys before them who were killed were also attacked because they were in school.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 01:19 PM
1

Makes sense. Either way, breast cancer affects, most commonly, women. Having such an enormous effort put into it while basically neglecting the other forms of cancer, seems pretty wrong. Only other form of cancer I know that gets attention that could be put close with breast cancer would be lung cancer, but even then, not entirely sure on what the funding on it is. It's probably bigger than breast cancer, though, but I don't have any figures.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 06:41 AM
2

Jobs aren't the only things that factor into life expectancy. Things like healthcare, social assistance, etc, is mainly directed towards women. Women have a fund 8x larger directed at them in healthcare alone: and this isn't even taking into account research or campaigns in that field. For example, prostate cancer gets less than 1% of the funding that breast cancer does. How many people does it kill? 92% of what breast cancer does. But, back into jobs. Women won't take up the jobs in mining, so …
/r/MensRights14/05/14 09:44 PM
14

I think turning the fact that men die, on average, 6-8 years earlier, into a problem which puts women as victims is pretty god damn awful.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 07:32 PM
20

Whether they entered retirement single or end up outliving their spouse, many elderly women end up facing the higher living costs associated with living on their own. In fact, only 45% of women 65 years and older were married in 2013, compared to 71% of men, according to Census data. I really enjoy the fact that men dying is turned into a problem for women. Poor women for having their husbands die earlier!
/r/MensRights14/05/14 03:38 PM
2

As a temporary solution, until the actual problem is found, considering setting up a cron (if on linux, if on windows something of the sort) that periodically checks whether or not it is running, and, if it isn't, restarts. Or, if it has no negative impact, actually forces a restart regardless of whether anything went wrong or not. I don't know much about python but if I find anything that might be wrong I'll let you know.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 02:19 PM
9

If it's a man being raped, it's a false accusation, apparently. Have you not heard? Men can't be raped! Hurr durrr rape culture! Patriarchy!
/r/MensRights13/05/14 05:20 PM
7

Went to check out their "programming language", "C Plus Equality", it's hilarious. I think it's a joke, guys... "'y's are strictly prohibited when naming variables; only 'x's are allowed"
/r/MensRights04/05/14 03:32 PM
5

Have you guys seen the actual changes they made? They're hilarious: "Also note that we fuck up the result ordering" -> "Fuck" changed to "Mess" because it is a rape culture comment. Every CSS color changed from "black" to "gray" because saying "black" is racist Replaced remarks to functions as "he" with "xe" (why not "it"?) I'm wondering if this is all a joke or what.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 03:29 PM
1

I think they'll only prevent equality if you let them. I mean, women being physically weaker on average won't stop equality from being possible, if what you assume by equality is equality of opportunity. They're simply at a disadvantage that cannot be "fixed". Personally I do not find that having unfixable disadvantage stops equality, although I guess this is where we differ. I think that equality will only be impossible if you ignore these differences and start forcing equality of outcome. I be…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 01:47 PM
5

She's one of the few self-proclaimed feminists who I actually like: argues with facts, not with feelings; is always calm; goes straight to the point and is able to criticize bogus statistics even if they benefit her "movement", among other things.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:14 AM
1

He could have worded it better, but it's easy to understand what he meant. I think you have to try to be offended to actually be offended by what he said.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:09 AM
1

It doesn't stop, in any way, potential equality between men and women. [What does stop potential equality is people denying these differences exist, because that way they're never taken into account.] As long as people accept we're biologically different and take that into account, equality is always possible. Women having less muscular mass on average doesn't stop equality, the same way men being more easily distracted shouldn't either. Simply, if you must, any rules applied to one side to "fix…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 10:03 AM
8

People always lose their minds when biological advantages/disadvantages are brought up. People need to start realizing men and women have more biological differences than their sex organs, and how this affects us all.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 10:10 PM
3

Because punching a woman doesn't make her feminine. Making her have a child does. And impregnating a woman against her consent while she's under anesthetics should be considered rape. You're literally arguing over how an argument is put rather than arguing against the argument itself, which shows you have nothing in your favor that is worth saying.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 03:01 PM
3

Just so that I could use dejour's example. But sure, gun in rectum followed by rape/impregnation to make her a woman. Doesn't make much of a difference.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 01:42 PM
5

Probably wouldn't be a divorce for me because of the first kid, who I would probably be unable to get custody of.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 11:14 AM
7

Be careful, you might get PTSD from the insults for saying that.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 11:03 AM
3

This isn't an individual case. There are assholes everywhere, both men and women, but there was no public outrage regarding this. If it had been a man threatening to, just as /u/dejour said, punch his female patient and shove a gun up her vagina, do you think there would be no public outrage? That 1/3rd of the people would find that funny? I think the answer is pretty obvious. And if society doesn't care about something happening to a man, but reacts if that same thing happens to a woman, how ca…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 11:01 AM
7

I'm criticizing your last line: Sexual harassment is a serious issue in the US, right now, but clearly your hypothetical is more pressing- after all, call for a draft is totally imminent! And I was defending that just because sexual harassment is an issue, that doesn't mean drafts should be belittled in any way, which is exactly what you did. You belittled the concerns of hundreds of millions of people worldwide because of sexual harassment. I'm not saying sexual harassment isn't important, beca…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 01:06 AM
12

It's hilarious, really. First off, they're really, really bad. When they made their team they were in Platinum 4 or something (Season 3). So, they were as far high up the ranks as a group of people who were "good" so they decided to make a ranked team for fun. Platinum is the top 10% if I'm not mistaken: that comprises approximately 5 million people/accounts. They were dismissed for being awful, and fought it back as being dismissed for being women. Their Platinum 4 team should've gotten a lot o…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:54 AM
9

Have you heard of the Sirens? A league of legends competitive team... Oh god, why, just why. Just search for them on YouTube... Not only are they awful, they're proud of being women and act as if being women somehow made them important...
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:33 AM
13

We should make a "draft" for women: if the number of newborns isn't high enough, women are to be gathered and fertilized against their own will (just as men are gathered to war against their own will). Why are you complaining about it? It's not like it's imminent. And why would an important issue, such as sexual harassment, mean that nothing else can be discussed or even brought up? You sound like the typical feminist, if an issue that regards men is brought up "STOP WORRYING ABOUT MEN, WOMEN AR…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:30 AM
24

Clear sexual harassment from a woman == harmless flirting sigh
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:24 AM
16

I can't claim that every time I go to the street as a man I get insulted and people throw tomatoes at me, and when you say that's not true I just scream "YOU'RE NOT A MAN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MY LIFE IS LIKE".
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:22 AM
5

Sure, it's the majority, but you're ignoring that ONE THIRD of the population found it funny. Just because it isn't majority doesn't mean it isn't worrisome. If it were a post about a male doctor doing the same (but about raping the female patient to make her a woman), if one third of the population had said it was funny, in how many newspapers would it make headline?
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:15 AM
2

I might begin referring to the policing feminists as "Big Sister", fits them perfectly.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 01:28 PM
2

No only means no if you're a female. Actually, if you're a female, not saying yes means no (or at least, that's what they're fighting for), but as a male saying whatever you say is still "yes" (and they fight to keep it that way, by fighting criminalization of rape if the victim is male).
/r/MensRights24/04/14 01:26 PM
16

I'd place my bets on him having seen the posts elsewhere, but no longer finding them, possibly after SRS brigaded them.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 01:14 PM
1

And a different comment since it's a different thing: regarding your suggestion, that's interesting but extremely difficult to implement, and it could potentially increase corruption. For example, should the judge learn the name of the defendant through unofficial channels he could sentence him to a longer period. If he were accused of being biased, as long as there was no evidence of him learning who it was before the verdict, the accusations had nothing to base themselves on.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 05:54 PM
1

First awareness has to be raised: for any problem to be solved, people need to realize there's a problem. Unfortunately it might be several years (hopefully not decades) until this happens. Feminism directly opposes and stops any attempts to raise awareness towards unfairness in court rooms (see the boycotts on Canadian universities, on the talks of Janice Fiamengo, among others). After that is done, a change of mentality is needed. People need to start realizing that men aren't evil, that women…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 05:35 PM
7

There's a paragraph in there that shows how messed up the system really is: There is a case that deals with this. It's not exactly like Kris' case, but similar. It involves a 34-year-old man from Alabama who passed out at a party. A woman had sex with him while he was unconscious and she got pregnant. The court ordered him to pay child support. REALLY? And that's acceptable? Did this kind of thing even make the news? And if it did, wasn't there any public outrage? This is really, really fucked u…
/r/MensRights22/04/14 12:56 PM
5

I'd say it has something to do with women behaving as they should and getting help, but men being "taught" to cope with things since they're supposed to be "men", and real "men" don't need help.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 02:27 PM
2

And even if you're proven innocent, that's not "news material". Only being unlawfully accused is.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 11:44 AM
2

You'd probably have to look at the law itself. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were ambiguities that would lead to things like both male lovers being sent to jail for having sex, or a woman being allowed to have sex with an 8-year-old girl without being punished.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 12:34 AM
1

Probably because they were written at a time when women raping would be unthinkable. At a time when women were thought to be the fragile and weaker sex, and as such there wasn't even any point in considering they could commit something like rape. These "laws", several centuries old, carried on and were probably never changed. Attempts to change these laws have been met with feminist uproars. And then feminists claim they're fighting for men's rights. Yeah, sure.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 12:29 AM
17

Simple "flowchart" for heterosexual relationships: 1) How old is the female? a) Under 13 - The boy is getting sent to jail (for life?) b) Under 16 - The boy is getting sent to jail (for two years?) c) 16 or over - Go to question 2 2) How old is the male? a) Under 16 - Female charged with indecent assault (no jail time?) b) 16 or over - You can legally have sex! If this isn't representative of a clear sexism in the law, I have no idea what is.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 12:16 AM
25

"When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say." - George R. R. Martin It wasn't in regards to any equity debate, but applies beautifully.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 11:28 PM
1

Unfortunately it's not like that. In most of the cases women are never accused of rape because they are always seen as victims, and as such, aren't seen as the offenders. The problem the poster was raising is that if having sex with a drunk person is considered rape (which according to many feminists, it is), then a drunk person having sex with an underage teen would get the teen in trouble (for rape), instead of the actual person committing a crime being the one in trouble. He was arguing again…
/r/MensRights20/04/14 06:59 PM
1

I don't see any reason not to risk 121. 120 would make it a draw if both got it right, and anything less would make you lose if they got it right (regardless of whether you got it right or not). But yeah, women will frequently pull the gender card, and if they're feminists, the more disgusting it becomes.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 06:22 PM
1

According to the law, no advantage is conferred by the gender, but everyone as well as their dogs know that it isn't like that.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 06:17 PM
3

Neither of them go to jail because women can't rape, but both of them go to jail for raping a woman, but none of them can go to jail because women can't rape, but both--- ERROR, COULD NOT COMPUTE
/r/MensRights20/04/14 06:16 PM
3

The claim of PTSD is simply ridiculous. I could also claim I've developed PTSD from drinking orange juice, because it reminded me of all the suffering the orange had to endure. The claim is still ridiculous, and most likely a lie.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 02:42 PM
1

It was most likely a mix of different things. But some things are out of control by society (sibling rivalry), while others are/should be in control, such as school bullying. There's nothing we can do, as society, that stops people from having broken families. But we can put an end to bullying, at the very least in schools.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 12:28 PM
12

The causes themselves go a long way explaining the severity of the illness. If someone claims they had their friends die in front of them in war and developed PTSD, with flashbacks of those moments, they have PTSD, and probably a severe case. If someone claims they had mean things called on Twitter, and as such developed PTSD to the level of those veterans... What do you think that person has? And this "PTSD" doesn't even make her stop using Twitter, no, no... I would assume that someone with PT…
/r/MensRights17/04/14 10:55 AM
2

This is also a very insightful article/study for anyone who wishes to make a more in-depth read: http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/
/r/MensRights17/04/14 10:39 AM
1

It was planned, and most people know it, but I think what most people are complaining about is, well, the lack of complaints. If it were a woman who had her shirt ripped off (even if she had a bra), it'd be one hell of a public spectacle, and whoever did it would be burnt at stake...
/r/MensRights17/04/14 12:59 AM
2

Amir..?
/r/MensRights17/04/14 12:54 AM
14

Major problem with bullying, at least towards boys, is that they're told they're supposed to be men and grow up. If they complain about bullying, they may even be told things like "man up". To a certain extent, patriarchy is what causes the issue. But feminism isn't the solution, that's for sure. These boys need to know that people care about them and that nothing is wrong if they ask for help against bullies. This sort of crap needs to end. A 11 year old having suicidal thoughts is alarming, to…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 11:25 PM
1

Hence the idea that I'm criticizing. I'm not building any laws, but there should definitely be regulations when it comes to how far you can take sexism, but that's my opinion. Things that are morally wrong usually end up becoming illegal: racism is a recent and strong example. Sexism should be next in line. It's not an issue I have with this hostel in particular (which I'll never visit, personally) but with society and businesses in general. As far as I know, there's no law stopping sexism, no m…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:38 PM
2

"Please don't eat off the ground lady, this is a formal company meeting, and the floors might even be contamin---" "STOP OPPRESSING ME YOU MISOGYNISTIC PIG!"
/r/MensRights16/04/14 01:18 AM
1

That's not what I've been saying, so please do not distort my words. I'm simply saying that discriminating customers based on their gender shouldn't be accepted in general, especially if they make remarks such as the ones they did. If a business were refusing customers because of their race, it wouldn't be accepted by anyone. But a business refusing customers because they're male seems to be accepted for some reason? They can run their business the way they'd like provided they don't break any l…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:50 AM
1

If it's a business that is selling something and turning a profit, I'd probably say no. If it's just a place paid for by the people who "hang out" there, there shouldn't be any laws dictating who you are allowed to hang out with. But even then, a country club is very different from a hostel. The country club is basically a social gathering: a big group of friends. A hostel resembles a shop more than it resembles a country club.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:24 AM
1

Sure, they can, but being able to doesn't make it acceptable. They could make it so that the room was for white people only: I'd love to see the public outrage on that... Denying business to people because of their gender should be as accepted as denying people business because of their race.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:09 AM
1

Last statistic I remember seeing, which showed US only, was 35k deaths a year from prostate cancer, and 40k deaths a year from breast cancer.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:02 AM
1

Any organization for awareness about male clinical problems? Never see anything about, for example, prostate cancer, which kills only 15% less than breast cancer does, yet is completely ignored.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 09:28 PM
1

Even after posting that second quote, you still talked about inefficiency in allocating resources, so I don't get what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:41 PM
1

Do they lose anything from renting those to men as well? Those obviously refers to the "female-only rooms" It's not about making a men's only floor, it's about not making a women's only floor. Keep it for both genders [...] Can it get more explicit than that?
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:10 PM
2

How is it inefficiently allocating resources. How does NOT refusing male customers suddenly make it inefficient? I never said they should make a male-only dorm, but that instead of having their female-only dorms, they make those gender neutral. I have no idea where are they would be inefficiently allocating resources by allowing a potential customer to rent a certain room instead of saying "no, sorry, you're male". I'm not saying they should say "no, sorry, you're female", I'm saying they should…
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:00 PM
2

It's not about making a men's only floor, it's about not making a women's only floor. Keep it for both genders and problem solved.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 05:54 PM
6

Even if there wasn't a demand, there's no need in making "girls only" rooms. That's simply sexist, because even if there is no demand, even ONE group of males who'd want it in the entire world, they wouldn't be able to get it because of their gender. And that's sexist. Do they lose anything from renting those to men as well? No, unless they're being sexist, which they are. Any business that refuses clients because of their genders is sexist.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 05:48 PM
1

Or those who are simply forgotten? Unless a bot was built. Even then, it's probably harder to do than adding simple authentication measure (like other people are discussing!)
/r/MensRights15/04/14 05:42 PM
8

Or maybe because you're bringing up that point in a completely irrelevant scenario. We're discussing false statistics being spread by feminists, and you decide to bring up that we're spreading on hate and advocating for male supremacy. Even if it were true, which it isn't, it'd still be completely irrelevant for this specific discussion.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 05:29 PM
11

Blatantly insulting a movement because of statistics which were brigaded is acceptable for you? We can't show any sort of outrage from being insulted publicly, by a person who can be considered a public figure with some influence? I guess it's because we're MRA, and not feminists. If it were feminism getting insulted even Saudi Arabia would've stepped in to defend it.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 05:24 PM
8

Good luck trying to get a reply on that website. She's notorious for censoring anyone who disagrees with her, making it seem like everyone actually agrees.
/r/MensRights14/04/14 05:17 PM
1

Because the so called third sector (sorry if that isn't the name anymore), the one that is basically about services, has a larger percentage of women than of men. And that sector is growing, while others are either remaining the same or shrinking. That being said, assuming that both men and women are entrepreneurs, there will be more businesses created by women than men. And quotas are an attempt to distort reality by searching for equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity. I've oppose…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 03:39 PM
5

Unless you're a woman.
/r/MensRights14/04/14 03:30 PM
1

The "study" was about the willingness to get married, not actual marriages, as far as I understood. Actual marriages would always be inconclusive as long as heterosexual marriages comprise a huge portion of all marriages (not an actual statistic, but they're probably like 99%?).
/r/MensRights14/04/14 09:37 AM
1

If the purpose is to keep trials moderated by the community, then keep names of the involved secret until the trial. There is absolutely no point in making the names public before formal accusations are even made, or while investigations are being conducted. When it goes to trial, sure, names are put out, but why should someone be publicly shamed even if it ends up not going to trial for lack of evidence? Or if the accused is cleared? The current system, with absolutely no secrecy, only promotes…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 01:19 AM
13

And there's nothing that you can do about it right now. You can only attempt to change the mindset. If you, as a woman, do not get your promotion (even if you DON'T deserve it), society will immediately go for "Oh yeah she didn't get promoted because she's a woman! Oppressors! Bigots! Patriarchy! Boo!". If you, as a male, do not get a promotion (even if you deserve it), society will bash you if you complain: "Oh you just think that because you're a man you should've gotten the promotion instead …
/r/MensRights14/04/14 01:06 AM
17

Feminists simply ignore the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. Everyone should have equal opportunity, but forcing an equality on outcome is ridiculous. Not only does it fail at "equality", it skews statistics, reduces overall performance, and increases possible abuses of the system. Why would I, as an employer, promote my best employees if I could then be taken to court for not giving "equal pay"? And why would I, as an employee, give my best if I couldn't be rewarded for i…
/r/MensRights14/04/14 12:51 AM
12

Women inherently prefer certain jobs, and same thing for men. A portion of it definitely has to do with education, but it cannot be ignored that we ARE different and that men and women do have different "tastes".
/r/MensRights13/04/14 11:09 PM
3

Individuals define a group when the group itself does not condemn and/or even endorses said individuals, which is what is happening with radical feminists and feminism.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 10:42 AM
2

So if there are insufficient women with knowledge in the area who want to take the job, they start getting random women with no knowledge about it whatsoever? This is going to be great, I hope they apply this to coal mining as well.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 11:36 AM
1

Forgot to mention something: they need to pass the physical tests though, and there might be a higher percentage of women who fail them than of men.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 02:19 PM
2

It's self-defense. It would've been aggression if she were defenseless and he attacked. In this case, he simply forced her to stop attacking him by showing her she'll be in trouble if he fights back.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 01:56 PM
1

In most civilized countries they are allowed to, they just don't want to. And drafts are mandatory for males only, even in countries where women are allowed to join the military. And it doesn't have to be soldiers only: compare male civilian deaths during time of war with female civilian deaths.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 01:23 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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