TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Onithyr Archive

View 0 posts and 540 comments by Onithyr on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
12

My god, this is even worse than /r/PeopleLiveInCities
/r/MensRights12/05/24 03:22 AM
4

If this is the case then he should have sufficient material evidence of damages for a defamation lawsuit.
/r/MensRights07/03/24 07:53 PM
6

It’s because women are assumed to be better caregivers. They've conveniently memory-holed the origins of the tender years doctrine.
/r/MensRights27/02/24 04:16 PM
58

to allow Heath to continue to help people via her employment in health and social work So give her easy access to yet more vulnerable people to victimise. Classic.
/r/MensRights12/02/24 03:33 PM
2

Obligatory Dara O'Briain
/r/MensRights15/01/24 07:51 PM
4

It's a biohazard. There's a reason why hospitals have tight controls over it, rather than splashing it over everyone. We have a disgust response largely to prevent the spread of disease. Period blood in particular has been exposed to harmful bacteria and already started rotting that's why the body is expelling it, to prevent infection. To not find potentially infectious materials disgusting is to have a broken disgust response.
/r/MensRights08/11/23 04:54 PM
4

Shit is normal for every body, doesn't mean it's not gross.
/r/MensRights08/11/23 04:42 PM
-1

You should be. Periods happen because they're gross. Specifically, because the human female body is incapable of reabsorbing everything fast enough to stop it from rotting inside her (as most mammals do), hence the discharge to prevent infection.
/r/MensRights08/11/23 03:00 PM
7

I mean male feminists are the type of people who hear all the shit feminists say about men then look at themselves and say "yeah, that describes me accurately". It's why "reset the clock" is a meme
/r/MensRights08/06/23 01:43 PM
7

Feminist != Women
/r/MensRights16/04/23 09:07 PM
6

Not when it comes to male circumcision.
/r/MensRights06/01/23 05:59 PM
24

Are the dads relinquishing all rights to the child? Are they unilaterally able to, like mothers are? No? Then what's the point you're trying to make here?
/r/MensRights12/12/22 03:06 AM
20

Feminists: That doesn't happen! Everyone else: Then can we make it illegal? Feminists: No!
/r/MensRights24/11/22 05:17 PM
6

Never pay the Danegeld.
/r/MensRights24/11/22 05:11 PM
25

Don't forget about safe haven laws. Supporting their existence immediately nullifies any "but there's still a child" arguments.
/r/MensRights09/11/22 04:06 PM
2

No, a lot of white men are not in power. A lot of the people in power are white men, but they make up an extremely small minority of white men.
/r/MensRights24/10/22 06:17 PM
6

Looks like atheism+ finally took over after that debacle a decade ago.
/r/MensRights27/09/22 03:06 PM
22

Do you think it'll be difficult for someone with the means and desire to sue to find someone who does have standing who will allow the suit on their behalf?
/r/MensRights26/09/22 06:19 PM
207

r/mensrights is a rebranded incel pit That's funny considering I've directly spoken against incel behavior (sexual entitlement, claiming that sex refusal is bigotry) here several times, and every time I was up voted for it while the people advocating it were down voted
/r/MensRights21/09/22 01:39 PM
3

You are aware that simply throwing some keywords into Google and copy-pasting the first result you find isn't a convincing form of argument, correct? I see nowhere in those articles where it disagrees with me, and at least one where it directly agrees with my assessment. You would know that if you had read them rather than just copy pasting the links. Of course if you actually had an answer you could have told me that answer rather than passive aggressively pasting links from a quick Google sear…
/r/MensRights16/09/22 10:36 PM
3

i’m not personally worried about the stigma And yet you've been vehemently arguing against it for hours. There's a lot of other words there but not a single one addressing my point that there is no stigma against genital herpes other than "I don't want to get infected, so I won't be having sex with you".
/r/MensRights16/09/22 10:10 PM
5

If "most people really don't care", then why are you worried about a stigma? Also, you never actually addressed my point that there is no stigma other than "I don't want to catch that, so I won't be having sex with you". If you think there's something beyond that, then go ahead and name it. The only reason to worry about a "stigma" regarding genital herpes is if you're afraid it'll hurt your sexual prospects.
/r/MensRights16/09/22 09:07 PM
20

There's only one way the "stigma" affects you, that's by reducing the number of people willing to fuck you. If you're worried about the "stigma" that's the only reason why.
/r/MensRights16/09/22 04:26 PM
24

Because no one is owed sex, stop pretending that you are. People refusing to be infected by you is not oppression.
/r/MensRights16/09/22 04:21 PM
30

This just reads like an incel saying "let me infect you with an incurable disease so I can cooom!"
/r/MensRights16/09/22 04:10 PM
10

The problem with that is that when it happens you either end up in a situation where (like in India) only one sex is held responsible, or the equally ridiculous situation where both people are treated as having raped each other.
/r/MensRights12/09/22 02:59 PM
9

I'd say no, because society doesn't even take provable rapes by women seriously. Even child molesters typically get off with no jail time if they're women. Seriously, look at how many female teachers have been caught raping minors and ended up with slaps on the wrist.
/r/MensRights08/09/22 12:44 AM
34

The bigger point is that ADA violations are much more likely to hit and will hurt much worse than a screaming Karen.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 02:44 PM
5

I believe he's referring to safe-haven laws which allow women to abandon a baby at particular locations such as police stations, hospitals, and fire stations no questions asked and with no consequences. I believe the point is that even if abortion is illegal, if safe-haven laws still exist for women then financial abandonment should still be an option for men.
/r/MensRights15/08/22 02:35 AM
1

Only reason needed
/r/MensRights10/08/22 11:33 AM
1

Wouldn't the fact that it would be in Polish undermine your argument about definitions given that it's an entirely different word in an entirely different language?
/r/MensRights01/08/22 11:45 PM
4

Do you have any notion of how cults work?
/r/MensRights17/06/22 03:47 AM
5

If you want to use the excuse that you shouldn't be held responsible for the things that you do while drunk, then you should be forever banned from consuming alcohol.
/r/MensRights20/05/22 04:26 PM
18

What is this the "businesses should take the less economically viable option out of the goodness of their hearts" defense?
/r/MensRights11/05/22 11:22 PM
28

EVERY SINGLE law in place is designed to protect men Pro abortion laws are designed to protect women from men Yeah, you sure showed him that there's no contradiction in your arguments.
/r/MensRights04/05/22 03:04 PM
-3

Yes it's true I remember this from way back in the day. It's also the reason why she's able to get away with this in Russia without getting the shit kicked out of her.
/r/MensRights22/02/22 12:25 AM
27

For the same reason why feminists claim it's wrong when the shoe is on the other foot.
/r/MensRights27/01/22 03:25 AM
6

It's the exact same kind of mentality that leads people to say that "meritocracy is white supremacist, because white people win under meritocratic systems".
/r/MensRights09/01/22 02:43 PM
3

Spoken like a coping incel.
/r/MensRights06/01/22 01:51 AM
3

You're saying that it's bad for people to have sexual preferences. Whatever reasons people have for not wanting to have sex with you are none of your fucking business. And if you're upset that people choose not to (regardless of the reason) you're an incel
/r/MensRights06/01/22 01:44 AM
2

Nobody owes you sex. Stop acting like an incel.
/r/MensRights06/01/22 01:35 AM
5

Did you know that 1/10 homeless are worth caring about?
/r/MensRights03/12/21 08:39 PM
42

toxic masculinity Ah yes, more intentionally misandristic terminology. Do you know how feminists define that term? It's "the set of harmful behaviors that men are encouraged to perform by society" Do you know what feminists call anything within "the set of harmful behaviors that women are encouraged to perform by society"? Misogyny. Did you ever stop to think why a movement so obsessed with the implications of labels that they want "history" to be "herstory" would make the one label imply that m…
/r/MensRights20/11/21 08:00 PM
17

From what I've seen "equality" for a feminist means that she personally gets the money and power that <1% of men ever see, without ever having to do the work to earn it, or take on any of responsibilities or the accountability that goes with it.
/r/MensRights30/10/21 03:57 PM
23

They want power, but they neither want responsibility nor accountability. The society that gives power to irresponsible people who cannot be held to account inevitably falls.
/r/MensRights24/10/21 03:44 PM
13

Many male serial killers were abused as children, but somehow this excuse never works for them. It's almost like these people think that men have agency and women don't.
/r/MensRights17/10/21 11:46 AM
7

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/187127/number-of-occupational-injury-deaths-in-the-us-by-gender-since-2003/&ved=2ahUKEwiYmIbBqMfzAhVYhXIEHR0cB1MQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3h5UIxs2uH9AsvEfmXYeHI https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/cfoi/CFOI_2019/Fatalities-Report-2013-2019.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiYmIbBqMfzAhVYhXIEHR0cB1MQFnoECD0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1dTgd8M3_6eQ5k4ovyZZGN https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rc…
/r/MensRights13/10/21 11:50 AM
6

You said that the number was made up and then presented the chart as evidence of this claim. That was either a lie or a display of your own stupidity.
/r/MensRights13/10/21 11:45 AM
6

The chart itself is not misleading, your use of it is. Your claim that it disputes what was said is either a lie or a display of your own stupidity.
/r/MensRights13/10/21 11:41 AM
5

Wow, that's a dishonest rebuttal. That chart shows percentages of causes of death among those who died of workplace injuries. In other words, if 24 women died from car accidents (out of 100 total fatalities) and 240 men died from car accidents (out of 1000 total fatalities) they would both show the same 24% rate. Your chart in no way rebuts the fact that men are an order of magnitude more likely to die on the job. Either you were too stupid to see this, or you are deliberately lying.
/r/MensRights13/10/21 11:31 AM
3

Destroying other people's property is "standing up for yourself"?
/r/MensRights05/10/21 01:54 PM
4

Man or woman, someone who tried to kill their own child is fair game for any kind of ridicule. Stop defending murderers.
/r/MensRights02/10/21 09:56 PM
115

The worst part is that there is even more disparity between men and women than between black people and white people in regard to shootings by police and incarceration rates. Black women are less likely to get shot by police or end up in prison than white men by nearly an order of magnitude. So any point he thought he was making only showed how wrong he was.
/r/MensRights19/08/21 02:36 AM
1

All of which also comes in plastic bottles...
/r/MensRights27/07/21 05:46 PM
51

That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, but it is interesting that female leaders are more likely to wage wars of aggression.
/r/MensRights19/07/21 01:06 AM
13

The infantilization of women. You know, the very thing that this judgment reinforces.
/r/MensRights05/07/21 07:07 PM
14

Does anyone here claim women hate men? Nope, just feminists/feminism. Which as we repeatedly point out are a small minority of women.
/r/MensRights03/07/21 01:23 PM
7

The thing that a lot of people don’t realise that when they say ‘black people’ they don’t mean ‘all black people,’ they mean ‘the black people that are thugs/rapists/murderers’
/r/MensRights03/07/21 01:22 PM
14

"Toxic masculinity" is the term feminists use set of harmful behaviors and standards that society enforces on men. Feminists also believe that there is a set of harmful behaviors and standards of society enforces on women, but they don't call that "toxic femininity" they call it "misogyny". Why use completely different terms for the same things when it's applied to different sexes? The answer is obvious, it's wordplay games. The whole thing is meant to reinforce the idea that men are bad and wom…
/r/MensRights07/06/21 04:47 PM
10

Rape victim has the responsibility to pay money to rapist on a regular basis.
/r/MensRights13/05/21 12:20 AM
2

Unless someone was fired or demoted over it there was no appropriate punishment.
/r/MensRights27/04/21 01:06 PM
21

An SJW who understands neither the concept of abstraction, nor adherence to basic principles. How surprising.
/r/MensRights26/03/21 12:32 PM
19

They are accurately using the academic definition of "toxic masculinity". Of course, that it is termed "toxic masculinity" is just feminists playing word-games again. Toxic masculinity is defined as "The set harmful behaviors and standards that society enforces on men". Which may sound all well and good, until you realize that feminists place "The set of harmful behaviors and standards that society enforces on women" directly under the heading of "misogyny". The intention is obvious. "Toxic masc…
/r/MensRights13/03/21 05:35 AM
25

Originally, women didn't want voting rights, because they thought it would have to come with the same stipulation that granted men universal voting rights (requiring signing up for the draft). They only changed their minds when they were convinced that they could in fact have their cake AND eat it too. Women are the only ones with an actual right to vote in the US, men have to earn the privilege by signing away their bodies.
/r/MensRights24/02/21 11:47 PM
1

We're on r/mensrights. More than half the posts here are examples of how legality is divorced from justice. If those aren't extreme enough to demonstrate the case, a more extreme example is of course needed.
/r/MensRights23/02/21 12:13 PM
2

I can see your schtick is trying to berate people into agreeing with you This coming from the guy who interjected proclaiming my moral failings by (wrongly) claiming I'm comparing people to Nazis. your initial comparison At this point I'm just going to write you off as an idiot. I've already demonstrated how this straw man of yours is completely wrong. That you lack the reading comprehension skills to understand this is your own problem.
/r/MensRights23/02/21 06:46 AM
-1

It's not an escalation it's a counterexample. Holy shit, you're still acting like I'm making a moral equivalency when I directly stated that's not what I'm doing. No wonder you lacked the reading comprehension skills to understand the argument in the first place.
/r/MensRights23/02/21 06:36 AM
4

It's a proof by counterexample against the idea that something being "legal" make it "right". It is a go-to because it is an example that everyone can agree upon. It absolutely baffles me that you did not understand this and instead thought I was comparing them to nazis.
/r/MensRights23/02/21 03:03 AM
-17

Right, just like the holocaust wasn't murder because they did it "legally".
/r/MensRights23/02/21 12:13 AM
3

Only if they have standing. And they only have standing if it's a constitutional issue or it goes up against federal law.
/r/MensRights21/02/21 09:21 PM
5

Every time this is reposted the picture quality gets worse.
/r/MensRights14/02/21 05:11 AM
2

So after how many years of continued criminal activity does someone go from "being groomed" to just "being a criminal"?
/r/MensRights17/12/20 04:37 PM
6

I expect them to keep to their own claims. Or at the very least not protest and pull fire alarms when people try to advocate for men.
/r/MensRights30/11/20 03:27 AM
12

Yes, it's standard feminist rhetoric that doing as they want will help men too. It's funny though, that they never actually get around to the "helping men" part.
/r/MensRights30/11/20 01:11 AM
14

Oh, you haven't heard of it, it must not exist then.
/r/MensRights30/11/20 12:38 AM
16

How, exactly, would you describe the feminist push to end prison time for women, even for violent crimes?
/r/MensRights30/11/20 12:18 AM
17

Men are far more competitive and risk-seeking than women. This results in far more men at the upper echelons, as well as far more men failing and reaching rock-bottom. For some reason feminists only want to focus of the few successes and ignore the majority of failures. They then demand that they be HANDED those same successes without being exposed to the same risks.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 10:51 PM
23

The problem is that the feminist reaction to the fact that "due to centuries of coddling, infantilization, and lack of accountability women are taken less seriously in society" is to demand more coddling, infantilization and lack of accountability.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 10:48 PM
3

Objectively yes, in the most literal sense. That's what it means to pay someone to speak.
/r/MensRights23/08/20 12:09 AM
7

When interviewing for software engineers at my company, we get women applying at a lesser rate than me. What we don’t see is anything close to that ratio of men vs women applicants who are hired in that field. You're absolutely right, when they tried this experiment in Australia they had to end it almost immediately because it quickly became apparent that when you can't tell the gender of the applicant women were far less likely to be hired. Oh wait you were trying to imply a bias against women …
/r/MensRights12/08/20 12:30 PM
1

we have too many people Look, I'm pro choice, but unless you're willing to volunteer ending your own life to correct the problem this is a horribly sociopathic argument for killing someone.
/r/MensRights10/08/20 02:22 AM
0

Who does speak for feminism if not the feminist leaders in actual positions of power? (cue the old girlwriteswhat copypasta)
/r/MensRights15/07/20 11:52 PM
0

What rights do men have that women lack?
/r/MensRights15/07/20 11:51 PM
3

I don't think it's so much that the laws themselves are discriminatory, but that they have greater effects on places with more dense populations. High population density has an exacerbating effect on almost all of society's ills. For some reason while the white poor (despite there being more of them) are spread thin throughout America (largely in rural areas), the black poor are concentrated in cities. This would inherently mean that any laws that have the types of knock-on effects we're talking…
/r/MensRights16/06/20 06:00 PM
3

It may very well be, there's a conspiracy theory that the welfare laws that incentivize single-motherhood were made to target black communities and set this problem in motion. Personally, I subscribe to Hanlon's razor and so think that people were simply trying to help single mothers without realizing what the knock-on effects would be.
/r/MensRights16/06/20 05:25 PM
4

Do people really want to live of money from the government? Some do, yes. And it's not just black people, this is the exact same mentality with chav mothers in England. It is a culture where welfare is not just acceptable, but is considered a goal. This is of course only the case for women as men don't have that option. And so you end up with a population of women having multiple children they can't afford producing more and more men without any paternal guidance and with with little in the way …
/r/MensRights16/06/20 04:22 PM
3

A culture that sees having children you can't afford simply to seek money from the government as a goal. A culture that sees Fathers as unnecessary. Perhaps you should ask yourself why the majority of black children grew up without fathers. Whose fault is that, what racism led to that?
/r/MensRights16/06/20 04:10 PM
3

why do you think the rate of poverty is higher? Culture, largely stemming around single mothers living off of welfare and a lack of paternal role models. Again, racism can't be the reason why we're seeing the exact same problem among the chavs. So unless you can explain that you don't have an argument.
/r/MensRights16/06/20 03:59 PM
7

Why do you think that the poor are mostly black? They aren't, there are far more poor white people in america than black people. But the rate of poverty is higher among black people. But again, racism doesn't explain why the chavs are suffering from the exact same problem (given that they're the exact same race as the majority population) so it's off the table until we can come up with a solution for that. Unless you can deal with this counterexample you don't actually have an argument.
/r/MensRights16/06/20 03:54 PM
6

Then aside from that and poverty, what do you think the reasons are? It's not racism because that wouldn't explain why the chavs have the exact same problems despite being english themselves.
/r/MensRights16/06/20 03:48 PM
1

The same reason why the chavs in England have such a high crime rate: fatherlessness.
/r/MensRights16/06/20 03:33 PM
1

Of course some do (apostasy is a thing ;-)). I'm sure that in fact most do. But I've argued with many different ideologies, and only Muslims have ever blindly copy-pasted dogmatic apologia to me that was almost entirely unrelated to the conversational context. Edit: Now don't get me I wrong, some have come close. Ancoms in particular will regularly link to long diatribes that contain horrible arguments. But at least those arguments are relevant not appearing as if they did a simple key word sear…
/r/MensRights13/06/20 03:22 PM
1

The mere fact that he would know everything is only part of the problem. When you combine that with the qualities of omnipotence and being the creator of all things it inevitably means that he has chosen all outcomes. The video you linked me to comes nowhere near to even attempting to deal with this problem. What is it with islamists and copy pasting "answers" that aren't even remotely related to the question at hand (I've had this happen many times before)? Is it some sort of indoctrination tha…
/r/MensRights12/06/20 02:51 PM
1

They can't in the same way they can't create a rock too heavy for them to lift, because doing so contradicts the nature of their abilities. Being both omniscient and omnipotent means that anything said being creates can only ever do what it was created to do, as all its future decisions were made for it at the time of creation. Take the example of Adam and Eve (it doesn't matter if you think it actually happened, it makes for a good analogy). When god decided to make them he knew what the outcom…
/r/MensRights12/06/20 05:09 AM
1

Lets take the Abrahimic Gods as context. Firstly they are not omniscient, Except that they are. Seriously, where are you getting this notion? secondly if man could create 'life' surely an omnipotent being can I never said an omnipotent being couldn't create life. I said a being that is both omnipotent and omniscient cannot create a being that has free will. Free will is not a necessary component of life.
/r/MensRights11/06/20 07:11 PM
1

People are neither omnipotent or omniscient I don't see your point.
/r/MensRights11/06/20 04:02 PM
1

I don't know, but I do know it wasn't an "omnipotent, omniscient being that created beings with free will", because that's as self-contradictory as the classic question about the rock too heavy to lift.
/r/MensRights11/06/20 01:25 PM
1

"I don't know" is a much better answer than "it was a self-contradictory super being that just happens to have all the same beliefs and biases that I do".
/r/MensRights11/06/20 12:23 PM
1

All religions are false. Those that successfully changed with the times are less harmful than those that do not. And Islam only gives women "rights" in the orwellian sense "all are equal, but some are more equal than others".
/r/MensRights11/06/20 11:32 AM
1

Even if I agreed with you that the Quran was more progressive then the other abrahamic religions at the time that it was written that does not change the fact that (unlike the other abrahamic religions) Islam has failed to keep up with the times. I already explained this, and you ignored it.
/r/MensRights11/06/20 10:50 AM
1

Christianity was forced (kicking and screaming) to change along with the moral zeitgeist that came with the enlightenment, (and following movements). Judaism has had to pull a "when in rome" and not rock the boat for centuries just to survive. Only islam gets to ignore modern social mores, because demanding that they treat women as human beings is "racist".
/r/MensRights10/06/20 06:54 PM
2

The other abrahamic religions were kicked in the teeth by the enlightenment. (But it's racist to subject Islam to that same treatment)
/r/MensRights10/06/20 05:45 PM
8

No you see when there's a difference that favors men, that's evidence of the evil patriarchy at work. When there's a difference that favors women that's evidence of the superiority of women. Seriously, it's no wonder they were able to get Mein Kampf through feminist per review by just changing a few key words. The ideology is exactly the same: "We naturally superior people are being oppressed by inferior people who barely qualify as human".
/r/MensRights15/05/20 11:22 PM
1

Yes, ironically despite his complaints and the "bad deal" (that he demanded at the time) the promotion of his series that the video game provided ended making him far more wealthy than he would have been without its existence.
/r/MensRights03/05/20 07:46 PM
6

yep
/r/MensRights02/05/20 08:31 PM
5

Never take a percentage profit deal from Hollywood.
/r/MensRights02/05/20 07:58 PM
10

This reminds me of the story about a certain author who sold the rights to make his book into a video game series for "$9,350 cash up front, I don't want percentage royalties because it's going to fail anyway".
/r/MensRights02/05/20 07:56 PM
3

"mental health" If the state of their mental health is bad enough to cause this then they should be institutionalized. If they're sane enough to avoid that then they should be jailed. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
/r/MensRights17/04/20 08:43 PM
3

The way I'd word it is that the system itself equally exposes all men to this potential abuse, but those who abuse the system are (apparently) more likely to target black men.
/r/MensRights14/04/20 12:31 PM
16

There are a lot of implications in the name that are technically not part of the definition. It's all part of the motte and bailey strategy.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 02:48 AM
48

It makes more sense when you realize what toxic masculinity is: Feminists define "toxic masculinity" as "the harmful behaviors and attitudes that are enforced on men by society". But if you were to ask them "what do you call the harmful behaviors and attitudes that are enforced on women by society" they'll answer "misogyny". It's wordplay to to enforce the narrative of "men bad, women victim" nothing more.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 12:56 AM
1

This is why.
/r/MensRights28/03/20 08:51 PM
19

I don't think these people would agree with any of the philosophy of John Locke.
/r/MensRights17/03/20 06:14 AM
1

Nothing to apologize for, it's just a funny thing that happened.
/r/MensRights13/03/20 02:07 AM
2

Yes, you just said it four posts higher in this thread.
/r/MensRights13/03/20 01:45 AM
8

Not quite. It wasn't "reviews" it was "positive press". Her games got several positive mentions in various articles by people who had undisclosed relationships with her.
/r/MensRights12/03/20 06:21 PM
42

The UK is where they had that scandal where it was revealed that they intentionally hid exculpatory evidence in rape cases in order to boost conviction rates.
/r/MensRights11/03/20 10:37 PM
10

looks like this is something they want set up in public stalls. And if you want shit all over your walls, this is how you get it.
/r/MensRights10/03/20 06:30 PM
1

Op, are you using windows? If so, you should familiarize yourself with the program known as the snipping tool.
/r/MensRights09/03/20 05:16 AM
5

Remember, male feminists are the type of people who hear "all men are rapists" then look at themselves and think "yeah, that sounds accurate".
/r/MensRights08/03/20 07:30 PM
1

Except that it's objectively true that International Woman's Day is laughable. It celebrates the day that women got the right to vote in Soviet Russia. If anything is a laughable concept it's having the right to vote in Soviet Russia.
/r/MensRights08/03/20 04:41 PM
13

I just find it funny that they chose this day because it's the day women obtained suffrage in Soviet Russia. You get to cast your meaningless vote for the one party just like the men do.
/r/MensRights08/03/20 03:54 PM
70

The problem is the "non-radical feminists" were booted out by the radicals a long time ago. The old post by girlwriteswhat is pertinent here: So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom …
/r/MensRights03/03/20 02:40 AM
5

It's the same reason why women complain about leaving the toilet seat up. Somehow, checking the condition of the seat before plopping down onto it is beyond them.
/r/MensRights02/03/20 06:21 PM
6

Google's dictionary Well now we know where the misandrist double standard comes from.
/r/MensRights25/02/20 02:09 AM
13

To society. Societies are made up of people, those that did not value the reproductive powers of women failed to survive to show their difference of opinion.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 02:57 PM
2

I really wish we would, the term doesn't really mean anything beyond "fashion". Now (biological) sex, that's a term that means something.
/r/MensRights14/02/20 01:59 PM
59

I mean, even if I were to agree with one or both of those, it's not the responsibility of the supermarket to subsidize it. Maybe you can argue that the state owes you these things, the supermarket certainly does not.
/r/MensRights08/02/20 11:07 PM
31

They'll take any excuse to remove women of their agency if it benefits them at the time.
/r/MensRights02/02/20 08:59 PM
2

I'm sure they can (but they're all downvoted to oblivion).
/r/MensRights07/01/20 09:15 PM
6

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs. -Charles James Napier
/r/MensRights01/01/20 04:58 AM
15

No, words have meaning. Domestic violence is not done with political intentions in mind. It may be done with the intent of causing psychological impact one or more individuals, but it is not done to coerce a government to take a particular political stance.
/r/MensRights31/12/19 12:51 AM
2

Feminism is not the same as women. Most women aren't feminists. You don't get to claim that criticism of feminism is criticism of women and be taken seriously.
/r/MensRights22/12/19 02:15 PM
5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability#Terminology Read it, maybe you'll learn something.
/r/MensRights11/12/19 02:35 AM
1

There's no such thing as a medication that violates the laws of thermodynamics.
/r/MensRights17/11/19 09:13 PM
3

Reminds me of this.
/r/MensRights10/11/19 10:19 PM
10

It wouldn't be any fun at all if Kazuma was willing to give idiots* a pass just because they're women. *no one in this show fails to be an idiot, aside from through lack of sufficient screen-time.
/r/MensRights14/10/19 08:10 AM
15

I'd say it's less an inherent trait in men or women, and more an inherent trait in everyone to be hypocritically selfish. It's just that society lets women get away with it far more often. We are literally training women to act like this.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/09/19 08:25 PM
13

specifically prohibit wage differences based on gender. They don't need to, that was already illegal in the states since 1963. Most people old enough to have been affected by a lack of this protection are retired.
/r/MensRights18/09/19 03:09 AM
0

At least the Navy has an actual purpose in keeping the trade lanes open, especially in light of recent activity from China and Iran. Aside from helping to keep North Korea out of South Korea, I can't think of any benevolent purpose any overseas deployment from the other military branches has served recently.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 02:51 PM
1

I'm not a MGTOW but from my understanding it isn't a case of all women being bad, as it is a case of society enabling sociopathic behavior from women towards men. They would akin it to placing your head in a guillotine and hoping that the person next to you never pulls the lever, it's just not a risk worth taking. This situation will change if society ever decides to put into place protections for men.
/r/MensRights07/09/19 03:02 PM
5

People like to group together MGTOW, MRA, and PUA. The only similarities they have is a rejection of the obviously false feminist paradigm. The difference is in how they react to this. PUA ask: "How can I use this to my advantage?" MRA ask: "How can we effect society to become more egalitarian?" MGTOW say: "Fuck this shit, I'm out!"
/r/MensRights07/09/19 12:12 AM
15

Each generation wants to rebel against the dogma and self appointed moral guardians of the generation before. Guess who the self appointed moral guardians are today.
/r/MensRights06/09/19 01:33 PM
3

Sorry, no. It doesn't matter one is iota what the local laws are if they run afoul of constitutional protections. This guy's got a major paycheck coming his way.
/r/MensRights06/09/19 03:39 AM
1

Basically: We can't compete meritocratically, so we demand communism.
/r/MensRights11/08/19 01:12 PM
2

Yep that's the point. Feminism is a movement that loves to play word-games. Why do you think it's called "feminism" while its eternal enemy is called "patriarchy"?
/r/MensRights09/08/19 02:12 PM
6

This I can agree with. Marriage is in and of itself a good thing, but I hate the idea of entering a contract with another person, the terms of which are controlled by a third party who can also alter said terms at any time without mine or my partner's consent. Basically marriage as a government-controlled legal institution is bad.
/r/MensRights09/08/19 02:01 PM
1

The harmful standards that society holds men to. Whereas the harmful standard that society holds women to falls under "misogyny".
/r/MensRights09/08/19 03:11 AM
5

You don't have to be that sorry, I was just confused how making a southpark reference seems to be upsetting so many people.
/r/MensRights07/08/19 02:45 AM
12

It's a south-park meme, I even linked the source for it. How are you taking this so seriously?
/r/MensRights07/08/19 02:41 AM
26

Girls are funny, get over it
/r/MensRights07/08/19 12:59 AM
8

Toxic masculinity is the harmful standards that men are held to Okay, but then when women are held to harmful standards, why is it called "misogyny"? Sorta like how everything bad in the world is caused by "patriarchy", and the solution to all the world's ills is "feminism". For a movement so obsessed with language that they want history to be called herstory, you can't tell me that this was unintentional.
/r/MensRights06/08/19 05:48 PM
14

Not Oprah, this is about UK citizens.
/r/MensRights06/08/19 01:22 PM
7

remove the child's hair because it has medical benefits. People without hair have a lower chance of getting lice! It's also so much more hygenic.
/r/MensRights01/08/19 08:51 PM
6

it's sexist to make women go through exactly what every man who ever wanted a partner had to go through.
/r/MensRights31/07/19 04:27 AM
13

That sounds an awful lot like "She was wet, therefore it wasn't rape".
/r/MensRights26/07/19 06:26 PM
2

This is a shop.
/r/MensRights21/07/19 06:43 PM
1

I believe the feminist perspective has a fundamental misunderstanding of history. Feminists believe that the discrepancies between men and women stem from a hatred of women (misogyny), when in reality they stem from a coddling and protection of women. You do not coddle and protect people that you hate, at the same time it's hard to respect people that need coddling and protection. People were slow to give women authority because with authority comes accountability, and holding women to account w…
/r/MensRights21/07/19 04:28 PM
5

The big difference is that it's very difficult to find anyone who condones or excuses the killing of women just for rejecting men, while if you want to find people condoning or excusing most of the behaviors in the followup tweet you just have to look at any feminist group.
/r/MensRights20/07/19 01:55 AM
11

Taking the Dora-the-Explorer approach to crime fighting doesn't help anything, and directing accusations of murder at the general population is offensive at best.
/r/MensRights19/07/19 04:01 PM
3

This was posted less than two days ago.
/r/MensRights13/07/19 04:17 PM
14

It's the Atheism+ effect.
/r/MensRights12/07/19 07:12 PM
3

And then they call men misogynists for following the Billy Graham rule. Telling women to protect themselves from rape? Misogyny. Telling men to protect themselves from false accusations? Misogyny.
/r/MensRights11/07/19 09:24 PM
18

So MEN (as in adult males, not teenagers) have to pretend to be gay to receive the treatment. How is the title false, again?
/r/MensRights11/07/19 02:52 PM
2

You're right, the one who wrote the article is basically a female incel.
/r/MensRights09/07/19 05:19 PM
25

Dude, if someone wants their daughter circumcised... so be it.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 01:18 AM
55

So it turns out when you don't hold actual capability as your primary metric you end up with people who are less capable. I'm shocked.
/r/MensRights05/07/19 05:06 PM
3

There is a significant difference between "blacked out" and "passed out". Alcohol inhibits the formation of long term memories. A person is "blacked out" (can't remember the events when drunk) when these memories fail to form. This can affect varying people to varying degrees and at varying levels of apparent inebriation. A person can appear to be completely cognizant, alert, and responsive while still having said memory formation blocked.
/r/MensRights03/07/19 07:45 PM
1

Redpill and MIGTOW are not the same, just as neither are the same as MRA. While They do share some common beliefs (mostly a rejection of feminist paradigms). The difference between them is how they react to these revelations. MRA's look at the current situation and ask "How can I effect change to produce a more egalitarian society?", Red Pillers ask "How can I exploit the situation to my own advantage?", and MGTOW say "Nope. Fuck this, I'm out.".
/r/MensRights30/06/19 12:09 PM
0

I'm not an advocate of MGTOW, but from what I understand it doesn't come from a hatred of women, but is instead a response to the bias in the laws and courts that allow women way too much power to destroy a man's life. MGTOW believe that with the way society is currently, women simply aren't a risk worth taking. It's basically the Pence rule expanded to one's whole life.
/r/MensRights29/06/19 01:06 PM
4

If they are both describing the same thing, but for different genders, then why are they so differently worded? Why isn't it called misandry? Why isn't it called toxic femininity?
/r/MensRights19/06/19 10:58 AM
18

Well those people are wrong and need to be corrected. They are, we do, and they call us misogynists for it. This is the place where a term such as "toxic femininity" would be expected to popularize. But we aren't talking about here. We're talking about feminist circles, the terms they use, and the ways they act. Even if we use the terms the way you want, that won't change the ways they already already are using them. If we don't make strides to add to the discussion Honest critique isn't adding …
/r/MensRights18/06/19 06:50 PM
27

Misogyny is the act of hating women and doing targeted harm towards women. I agree that's part of it, but feminists also include any gender standards that harm women under the definition of "misogyny". If they instead classified them under "toxic femininity" as an analogue to their "toxic masculinity" you may have had some semblance of a point. Edit: this is an "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" problem.
/r/MensRights18/06/19 06:36 PM
423

In a sense they're correct, but only because feminists like to play word-games. "Toxic masculinity" is their word for "The gendered societal standards and expectations that harm men", while "The gendered societal standards and expectations that harm women" is called "misogyny". Notice that this wordplay follows the standard feminist metric of "men bad, women victim". By these tortured definitions, you could argue that the problem is indeed "toxic masculinity"
/r/MensRights18/06/19 05:27 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law
/r/MensRights15/06/19 06:18 AM
3

Offended at mandatory classes that assume you're by default a rapist?
/r/MensRights09/06/19 11:02 PM
1

Feminists have literally created mandatory classes for men on how not to rape.
/r/MensRights09/06/19 10:59 PM
92

Basic feminism: Society has coddled and infantilized women for millenia, this has put women at a disadvantage as the lack of accountability has caused people to not take them seriously. The obvious solution to this is more coddling, more infantilization, and less accountability.
/r/MensRights09/06/19 11:49 AM
3

So the teacher actually believes that no one reacted negatively to Thor's new look? It had no impact whatsoever in how people think of him?
/r/MensRights04/06/19 12:02 PM
2

"Bu..but when we utilize meritocracy the white men win!" -says the totally not racist SJWs
/r/MensRights30/05/19 05:03 PM
1

Dude, I'm pro-choice but people like you give it a bad name.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 07:23 PM
5

Trump Derangement Syndrome
/r/MensRights26/05/19 09:39 PM
17

The "nuance" being: "it's okay when we do it".
/r/MensRights26/05/19 02:21 PM
7

It says that right in the image.
/r/MensRights25/05/19 07:33 PM
2

There's no conflict here. Men just have to fight for what women want without ever expressing their own opinions on the subject. Feminism demands complete subservience from men.
/r/MensRights13/05/19 05:42 PM
3

So it's either a test to challenge Roe v. Wade, or pointless grandstanding for personal political points.
/r/MensRights12/05/19 01:32 AM
6

you're comparing STD with paternity test? He's only comparing them in terms of demonstrating sampling bias. Specifically, it was an example used to illustrate what sampling bias is.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 11:00 PM
3

There are good and bad people of both genders.
/r/MensRights03/05/19 04:43 PM
2

I'm not usually one for the whole Jewish conspiracy nonsense, but if there's one situation where echo quotes are justified it's this.
/r/MensRights29/04/19 04:32 PM
9

Best choice if you want to discredit the position as an excuse to remove it permanently.
/r/MensRights26/04/19 01:29 AM
3

I mean, it's not like vocal inflections carry through text. It's one of the reasons Poe's Law exists. And lets be honest, a lot of the denizens of the internet (and here in particular) are very much on the autism spectrum and have trouble with non-vocal communication even when it isn't obfuscated by a text filter. That being said, yes it should have been painfully obvious that your comment was meant to be sarcastic.
/r/MensRights29/03/19 02:07 PM
213

If she actually felt like she was in danger, you'd think the last thing she'd do was to provoke retribution.
/r/MensRights26/03/19 11:33 AM
18

There are some legitimate limitations on free-speech. My favorite go-to example is fraud.
/r/MensRights22/03/19 02:10 PM
0

I don't understand the concept of a metaphor therefore you are wrong.
/r/MensRights13/03/19 07:20 PM
4

number at risk Oh would you look at that, it's a population density map
/r/MensRights13/03/19 02:41 PM
0

That's okay, the movie for the original Captain Marvel will soon be in theatres.
/r/MensRights13/03/19 02:34 PM
4

I liked the Stanley Parable...
/r/MensRights09/03/19 08:03 PM
2

If your key selling point for your game is the demographics of your game designers, it's probably not a good game.
/r/MensRights09/03/19 08:02 PM
1

https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html
/r/MensRights04/03/19 04:21 PM
8

Despite the fact that female rulers were more likely to start wars of aggression. Facts don't matter to these people only feelings.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:10 PM
257

There is a feminist movement in the UK to prevent women from ever being jailed.
/r/MensRights25/02/19 07:38 PM
1

This. I've had a lot of medical fuckups in my younger years, but I don't blame my parents for following the advice of 'medical professionals' who were supposed to have known better.
/r/MensRights16/02/19 08:08 PM
20

Can we make a movie when girl makes false accusations and ruin man’s life We can make an anime.
/r/MensRights16/02/19 08:03 PM
5

It may be their motivation, but it sounds a whole lot more like projection. The bad things they do don't matter because everyone else is just as bad or worse (in their mind). It sounds like a horrible person who's trying to rationalize their own behavior.
/r/MensRights15/02/19 06:01 PM
3

You don't know how he spends his time online!
/r/MensRights14/02/19 08:03 PM
28

Including for reason of "she was coerced to sign it, because she couldn't get married otherwise".
/r/MensRights11/02/19 02:57 PM
2

I try to use the phrase "toxic expectations", which makes it clearer that it's not just something men do, but something everyone is perpetrating regardless of gender. I like this as well, it completely solves the problem I've had where behaviors that are largely enforced by women are referred to as toxic masculinity.
/r/MensRights27/01/19 05:43 PM
4

Needs more jpeg
/r/MensRights26/01/19 01:17 AM
5

Companies are growing so big they want to completely change society by brainwashing everyone. No, this is entryism plain and simple. Zealots seek places of possible influence to spread their dogma.
/r/MensRights22/01/19 07:28 PM
1

I believe her point is that by the definition they use she is a feminist, and she has been a feminist since far before the movement shifted, so they have no right to take that away from her. Also the fact that she calls herself one pisses them off to no end.
/r/MensRights21/01/19 04:25 PM
1

Except you said: it's not living You didn't say it's not legally a baby yet.
/r/MensRights12/01/19 03:42 AM
1

Sure, you go ahead and try to find me a biological definition of life that doesn't include everything I mentioned above.
/r/MensRights12/01/19 03:14 AM
1

It is most certainly living. But so are the sperm and egg haploid cells, and so are the billions of bacteria you genocide when you use bleach on a kitchen counter. Whether or not something is "living" isn't the be-all-end-all criteria for whether or not it has value.
/r/MensRights12/01/19 03:00 AM
9

Disney has been actively working to remake female villains into tragic heroines.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 09:55 PM
30

It's white-guilt stemming from overcompensated white-supremacy. Basically they believe that white people literally are superior to anyone else, and thus to be virtuous they have to coddle those poor "lesser races". For people who aren't complete racists none of this makes any sense. It's just the modern-day version of White Man's Burden.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 08:29 PM
1

The problem is unquestionable dogma in any shape or form.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 01:27 PM
1

[deleted] It may not be intentional, but it's a poignant critique of feminism's culture of censorship.
/r/MensRights31/12/18 01:25 PM
9

I think he's asking you to reference where you've stood up against an injustice that someone (probably a feminist) has presented a legitimate concern about. Though given the infrequency with which feminists bring up actual legitimate concerns this isn't really a fair request.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 02:18 PM
26

Reminds me of that statue of a little girl petulantly standing in the way of the bull on wall street (symbolically standing in the way of a good economy), as though her mere sense of self-importance is enough to prevent it from running her down. Somehow feminists thought this a good representation of themselves.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 04:03 PM
1

But there's a little tranny in almost every one.
/r/MensRights25/12/18 09:59 PM
1

And it's gone.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 11:58 PM
28

The other consequence is that by being more selective from a larger talent pool of men while being less selective from a smaller talent pool for women will inevitably result in the men (who are hired) being more competent than the women (who are hired), reinforcing the belief that women can't do the job as well as men. They complain about stereotyping of women while ensuring the conditions that will force said stereotypes to play out.
/r/MensRights15/12/18 05:21 PM
11

Nah, Oscar's can is kinda like a TARDIS (it's bigger on the inside). In one episode he installed an olympic-sized swimming pool inside.
/r/MensRights13/12/18 07:59 PM
2

It's the percentage of people in the occupation that are male, not the percentage of people who died in the occupation that are male. It's showing that the most dangerous occupations are overwhelmingly held by men.
/r/MensRights09/12/18 12:01 PM
2

Even that isn't going far enough. We see a lack of sexism in favor of women as the same thing as sexism against women.
/r/MensRights09/12/18 11:47 AM
2

DAE freedom of speech begins and ends with the first amendment?
/r/MensRights07/12/18 07:11 PM
3

Motte-and-bailey
/r/MensRights03/12/18 01:26 PM
36

This reminds me of the headline where "women are more likely to be murdered at work", when actually raw numbers show that men were more likely to be murdered at work. The issue came up because men were so likely to be killed in other ways that the murders were a relatively insignificant proportion of workplace deaths. While women were so unlikely to be killed in any way that even though they were less likely to be victims of workplace homicide than men, workplace homicide was a much more signifi…
/r/MensRights26/11/18 02:20 AM
5

She could've blacked out and he had sex with her anyway. People really need to learn the difference between blacking out and passing out. Black-out drunk only means that short-term memories aren't being properly transferred to long-term, leaving a hole in your memory (even if you were attentive and cognizant at the time). Passing out (obviously) refers to loss of consciousness. Just because a person "blacked out" doesn't mean they weren't actively consenting, while obviously a passed out person …
/r/MensRights15/11/18 05:26 PM
3

Please tell us your definition of "alt-right" because I think you are extremely confused.
/r/MensRights10/11/18 07:51 PM
10

No more so than being against child marriage is being anti-islamic.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 04:08 AM
49

Honestly anyone claiming that she's being raped by her boyfriend is a total piece of shit. She's obviously suffering from subconscious hangups about sex, and she wants to be rid of them. If she believed the people telling her she's being abused that would only exacerbate the problem.
/r/MensRights01/11/18 05:01 PM
1

Feminism is not equal to liberalism. Of course not, modern feminism is collectivist identitarian, it's directly opposed to actual liberalism. Oh and left != liberal either.
/r/MensRights23/10/18 04:41 AM
1

I think one of the big differences is between groups that tolerate the radicals among them and those that reject them. We have actively rejected the more radical groups.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 07:05 PM
4

"Don't stick your fuck in crazy" is more than enough reason.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 05:29 PM
3

Or the training set shows that female applicants have significantly lower credentials than male applicants, and started using the trait as a predictor. This would make even more sense if hiring was biased in favor of women, creating the unbalanced data set in the first place.
/r/MensRights10/10/18 10:56 PM
5

First google result I found with a keyword search.
/r/MensRights10/10/18 07:23 PM
8

This reminds me of when Australia tried out gender blind job applications resulting in the proportion of female applicants accepted falling through the floor.
/r/MensRights10/10/18 07:11 PM
5

The road to hell is paved in good intentions. The problem is the methodology. Questioning things is very good, but to do so without rigor or intellectual grounding is as useless as navel-gazing. (actual) Scientific fields do question everything, but they do so using the scientific method. It is important to note that the whole purpose of the scientific method is to (as much as is possible) eliminate human bias. The problem with pomo is that its only purpose appears to be as an excuse to reject t…
/r/MensRights03/10/18 02:18 PM
12

Or with things that sound authoritative but are easily faked because they lack any and all rigor.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 01:34 PM
15

The problem with pomo is obviously the lack of rigor. I would compare it to "herbal medicine". The vast majority of "herbal medicine" is complete bunk, but there may be some good remedies among them (even if only by accident). So what you do is test them all and that which works becomes "medicine" and the rest is a salad and some potpori. The same needs to happen with pomo, problem is the central tenants of pomo reject testability.
/r/MensRights03/10/18 01:28 PM
9

Nah. While the wars are a for-profit venture to support the military-industrial complex they long ago figured out that instituting a draft makes wars extremely unpopular very quickly leading to immense pressure to end the war immediately (think vietnam). So now the model is to have small manageable wars where no conscription will be necessary. So long as conscription leads to a loss of profit (due to loss of war-venture) the powers that be will see to it that it doesn't happen.
/r/MensRights07/09/18 05:01 AM
3

Some men's hair grows faster and so needs more frequent shaving. Also, some skin/hair combinations (like black hair on light skin) have higher contrast and thus stand out more requiring requiring more frequent shaving to compensate.
/r/MensRights20/08/18 09:13 PM
3

Not necessarily. A more general rule would be that any individual with an activated SRY gene is male, this would also include XX individuals who happen to have an SRY gene (crossed over from Y during meiosis).
/r/MensRights20/08/18 02:19 PM
3

I can fully see the argument for treating both in either direction. I cannot see any valid argument for treating different genders differently.
/r/MensRights12/08/18 03:08 AM
5

Spite
/r/MensRights08/08/18 12:03 PM
2

Joint custody is an excellent solution. Both parents are supporting the child, but there is no exchange of money between them. The point is that one parent should not be forced by threat of law to pay the other.
/r/MensRights05/08/18 02:43 PM
1

Personally I think we should do away with child support altogether and return to the times of the child going to the parent that can support it. "Oh, you need a stipend from your ex to support the raising of this child, I guess you aren't capable of raising it then."
/r/MensRights04/08/18 06:13 PM
1

Now, try applying this logic to Islam.
/r/MensRights28/07/18 08:48 PM
1

Begin pedantry: That assumes that every woman who was raped was raped by only one man. If we ignore time/health constraints it's technically possible for every single man to be a rapist with only one woman having been raped. End pedantry But yes, the vast majority of men aren't rapists.
/r/MensRights12/07/18 11:01 PM
1

It's just like back when feminists first brought up a huge stink about the game "Rape-Lay" (which portrayed the rapist as an unequivocally evil man), they said nothing about what was at the time that same publisher's latest game "Yuusha kara wa Nigerarenai!" (You can't escape the Heroine). Yuusha featured a protagonist that was designated evil*, and his repeatedly being stalked, beaten, and raped by the female "heroic" NPCs is treated as a subject of comedy. *never shown doing anything evil othe…
/r/MensRights01/07/18 09:31 PM
2

"There isn't any compelling evidence that bigfoot exists" "can you prove that claim?"
/r/MensRights26/06/18 08:45 PM
12

"woman does bad thing" is not a men's rights issue. "Woman does bad thing and has extremely lenient/no legal repercussions because vagina" is a men's rights issue. You're not going to get very far here pretending that gender discrepancy in sentencing isn't a thing.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 05:57 PM
16

The key lesson that needs to be learned is that "Diversity" is not a substitute for talent, effort, or decent writing.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:05 AM
12

This was real several years ago, it was called Atheism+ and it was a shit show.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 08:25 PM
1

It certainly makes more sense than putting someone on there for public urination or failing prevent a minor from using your computer to search for internet porn.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 04:07 PM
0

That doesn't mean it's the train that was given. It means that is the reason that was implied. It was the actual reason, just not the excuse used. You know that if not for the gender of the offenders that excuse would never have worked, so you must know that the only real factor in play here is gender.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 09:51 PM
0

incorrectly stated that the reason cited was gender He didn't say that was the reason cited (that would be illegal), but we all know that's the actual reason. That suggests that gender itself wasn’t the reason they were let off No it doesn't, not unless a male in a similar situation would be just as likely to get off. We also know this is not the case. but the only reason consideration to those circumstances was given was because of their gender. Yes, this was the whole point.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 09:21 PM
-1

An excuse for their sexual discrimination. "yes sex is a factor, but that's not the case here, they clearly cite a completely different reason. No it doesn't matter that that reason would be ignored if the sexes where different"
/r/MensRights16/05/18 09:13 PM
0

The fact that you are using it as an excuse.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 09:09 PM
0

Yes I did, including the part immediately after that: but their gender wasn't the reason cited for the exception
/r/MensRights16/05/18 09:04 PM
5

Are you going to pretend that "difficult childhoods" would have at all been considered if the offenders were male?
/r/MensRights16/05/18 08:38 PM
13

But even then, to say that you have to compare different jobs with different levels of professionalism.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 03:57 PM
2

starting
/r/MensRights25/04/18 10:55 AM
15

when did that change? It changes according to the situation. If the situation is hurting women "what hurts one sex hurts us all", if the situation is hurting men then it's a "zero-sum, my loss is your gain". If you're expecting feminists to be consistent and not be hypocrites you're in for a bad time.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 09:44 PM
1

This was already posted about 5 days ago. In that thread I said this in regard to the bottom half: You have to think about it like a feminist: It obviously only applies when a person has been convicted of rape (as the law wouldn't care otherwise). When a person is convicted of rape they go to jail. When in jail they have no source of income. If they have no source of income they can't be sued for child support. Thus the fact that convicted rapists are jailed is discrimination against women.
/r/MensRights14/04/18 03:50 PM
26

"If a guy sleeps with loads of women, he's cool." When has this ever applied to guys who cheat, rather than single guys who get a lot of hookups? Cheating men have always been seem as scumbags. Why should women be treated any different?
/r/MensRights28/03/18 12:56 AM
4

Pretty sure I've already seen this in countless anime.
/r/MensRights08/03/18 01:44 PM
3

You're being downvoted both for putting words into people's mouths (no one suggested that being white is "normal"), and for making the ridiculous assertion that being comfortable with your biological sex should not be considered normal.
/r/MensRights07/03/18 04:56 AM
1

I don't think it's a matter of not reading. I genuinely think that many of these people are simply to dense to understand that there is a difference between "the differences in the statistical distributions mean that fewer women would qualify for X than men" and "no women would ever qualify for X and all men will".
/r/MensRights25/02/18 03:09 PM
6

"sexism of the gaps"
/r/MensRights18/02/18 06:16 AM
2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy7Akye9sYQ
/r/MensRights11/02/18 11:28 PM
3

He can tell from some of the pixels and from having seen quite a few fakes in his time.
/r/MensRights13/12/17 12:28 AM
2

If anyone, the company they got the donation from should take the hit. It's their responsibility to ensure that their customers are able to financially care for the potential child (checks similar to how one would do a background check for adoption). If people find it a problem that companies will then only give sperm to the well-off then maybe women should be allowed to sign a binding contract waving anyone else of financial responsibility for the child. If courts can invalidate these contracts…
/r/MensRights10/12/17 04:54 PM
1

Insanity doesn't prevent you from being locked up. It changes where you get locked up.
/r/MensRights05/12/17 02:23 PM
1

Simple, those people aren't liberals. they don't even call themselves that, so I have no idea why you insist on doing so. There is a reason why far left subs like late stage capitalism have explicitly banned any support of liberal ideas.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 06:06 PM
2

Feminism != liberalism Feminism is an identitarian collectivist movement. Liberalism promotes individual freedoms and rights. They are mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 01:11 PM
30

I came here to say this. If you're worried about the use of threats of self harm and suicide for emotional manipulation the culprits are mostly women. Men are taught to never expect sympathy for their problems and that any showing of emotional weakness will result in derision. They see suicide only as a means to a literal end.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:17 PM
6

That's the reason I'm against no-platforming. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, the only reason sjw's want to prevent them from speaking is because they fear their opponents have better points.
/r/MensRights11/11/17 09:33 PM
3

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
/r/MensRights09/11/17 08:15 PM
1

So what you're saying is: it's okay if they let you do it?
/r/MensRights31/10/17 12:05 PM
18

Feminists always project.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 08:20 PM
3

I think that the only real similarity in how they view what the current state of society is (in contrast to the feminist narrative of the state of society), the big difference between them being how they react to this information. MRM wants to change the system to make it more fair for everyone, TRP wants to game the system to take advantage of its flaws, and MGTOW want to avoid the system as much as possible.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 01:04 AM
40

Did you mean to reverse that, or did you just effectively say: ”male brains tend to be more like male brains than female brains”?
/r/MensRights10/10/17 10:15 PM
4

I'm pretty sure man-shaped punching-bags have been a thing for a long time, and I have yet to see a single complaint about them on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 08:59 PM
9

Don't accuse business owners of being discriminatory in a world where being discriminatory is a crime "Don't ask for current laws to be enforced when I personally object to those particular laws"
/r/MensRights02/10/17 04:48 PM
2

This was posted a couple of weeks ago
/r/MensRights26/09/17 03:01 PM
10

for it to be libel it has to be provably false Not in the UK.
/r/MensRights20/09/17 10:04 PM
1

I don't think he's saying it's a crime that the police are guilty of, rather one that the accuser is guilty of.
/r/MensRights19/09/17 11:51 AM
6

Criminal conviction requires a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence. The court could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that her accusations of assault were true, so he is found not guilty of those charges. But charges against her were not pressed, presumably (I don't actually know the details of this particular case) because the court would also not be able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she made false accusations.
/r/MensRights16/09/17 01:52 PM
2

Yeah, I didn't think you'd be able to argue your way out of it when your sophistry was laid out plain for all to see.
/r/MensRights14/09/17 04:02 PM
2

I'm talking about you. Your argument was that feminists can't be anti-male because they have pushed for pro-male legislation. When pushed for examples you named male DV-centers. When asked to back up that claim you said that feminists don't push for male DV-centers because they aren't necessary. That last claim completely negates all your previous claims, it's a direct demonstration of your internal inconsistency. Edit: unless, of course, you "changed your opinion" in the middle of this argument…
/r/MensRights14/09/17 03:55 PM
2

Oh wow, so first it "Feminists can't be anti-male because feminists have pushed for male DV-centers", and now it's "Feminists don't push for male DV-centers because female on male DV isn't really a problem" Can you at least try to be internally consistent?
/r/MensRights14/09/17 03:45 PM
3

Yes, except your claim was that it was feminist that pushed for that. Simply stating that it's happened without demonstrating that feminists have indeed pushed for it doesn't do anything to support your claim. The argument I made is that the anti male bias in feminism is demonstrated by the anti male legislation they have pushed for. Your counter argument is that they have also pushed for pro-male legislation, but you have yet to demonstrate any actual example of this ever happening.
/r/MensRights14/09/17 03:36 PM
2

So your answer was to link me to a post that was already debunked by followup posts? Also, you were the one who posted the link to more DV centers which makes no mention of feminists. Why won't you tell me, exactly, which feminist organization you feel is responsible? Is it because you know you're full of crap?
/r/MensRights14/09/17 12:35 PM
1

Can you name, specifically, which feminist organization is responsible for what you linked to? As to the rape definition, you mean the one that excludes envelopment? Because that's what they pushed.
/r/MensRights14/09/17 03:00 AM
10

Feminism is not a monolith. I'm sorry, but saying this doesn't stop or negate the fact that those feminists who are in power demonstratively use their power to exacerbate systematic discrimination against men.
/r/MensRights13/09/17 02:41 PM
2

And here I thought nobility was power achieved and perpetuated through nepotism.
/r/MensRights13/09/17 12:09 PM
10

It's going against the dogma of the day. It's like living in medieval Europe and denying the divinity of Christ. Meanwhile "defending rapists" is their way of describing treating people as "innocent until proven guilty". They can't even fathom the idea that someone accused of rape might not actually be a rapist, so any defense of such a person (even on the grounds that they may be innocent of that which they are accused) is automatically defense of rape and rapists.
/r/MensRights13/09/17 12:05 PM
2

Maybe this is why they associate our side with anime. In eastern entertainment you're far more likely to introduced to the idea that "good" and "bad" are subjective, and that each side has their own motivations and may even see themselves as good.
/r/MensRights13/08/17 12:54 PM
85

So wait are Asians POC or white this week? They were white in the backlash against the argument that affirmative action hurts Asians a couple days ago.
/r/MensRights06/08/17 12:51 PM
10

No, according to the chart there are 44% more female graduates than male graduates in european universities: (.59/.41)-1 = .44 So for every 10 male there are more than 14 female grads Edit: I just realized that this means that for every 100 male students there are a gross of female students.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 01:32 AM
104

The easiest way to see the absurdity of all of this is to simply reverse the genders. When the man is working and the woman is staying at home with the children, she has the hardest job in the world and she's doing it all unpaid. When the woman is working and the man is staying at home with the children, he's a no good layabout and she needs to leave him for someone better. The quality of the housework done doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who is in what role. Either way the woman is a victim a…
/r/MensRights19/07/17 12:57 PM
21

Sure, and when feminists in general start kicking out the those untrue Scotsmen (and stop kicking out people like Kristina Hoff Summers) this distinction may actually matter.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 02:47 AM
2

Where I to be very generous, I think what you're trying to argue is that all these things happened to men who were attempting to enter into computer science, and thus illustrate that the idea that women were more discouraged than men is ridiculous. However, the way you worded it certainly doesn't come off that way.
/r/MensRights03/06/17 12:04 PM
3

For some cops closing the case is more important than seeking justice.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 10:35 PM
0

Between not being allowed to fight, and being forced into a fight where you will likely die, which is being treated as disposable?
/r/MensRights20/05/17 03:13 PM
3

Or in the case of female on male violence, because after calling the police (even if he never touched her) it's likely he'll be arrested and spend time in jail while she gets off scot-free.
/r/MensRights16/04/17 02:16 AM
3

more and more people are qualifying as veterinarians but for some reason the pay keeps going down! How does supply and demand work?
/r/MensRights13/04/17 09:19 PM
18

They're technically correct in both cases. It's technically true that women are paid less, it's also true that this pay discrepancy doesn't hold up when you factor in the work done.
/r/MensRights29/03/17 03:22 PM
9

You should look up the speaker in the video, he is currently in danger of losing his job and facing possible jail time over his refusal to use preferred pronouns.
/r/MensRights28/03/17 02:35 PM
2

Well, the Saudis will crucify people after beheading them.
/r/MensRights24/03/17 01:59 PM
2

But the symbolism is that they're stubborn children standing in the way of charging economic growth.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 12:23 AM
17

So are you saying that she did nothing wrong to him, or do you just have absolutely no understanding of sarcasm?
/r/MensRights07/03/17 03:37 PM
6

And yet if you say the exact same thing about single mothers you'll be called a misogynist.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 01:57 PM
3

Is that with or with out the "chose to engage in sexual activity after drinking a beer" expansion of the definition of sexual assault (like the 1 in 4 for women)?
/r/MensRights25/02/17 12:32 PM
3

r/MensRights is leaking into r/MensRights?
/r/MensRights22/02/17 05:29 PM
4

I agree with what you say, but I'm not sure how it relates to my post. That is, unless you are agreeing with me that it is wrong to say that "double standards" are the result of a "patriarchy".
/r/MensRights15/02/17 05:42 PM
4

Did I say anything even approaching that sentiment? Why do you feel the need to construct and attack a straw-man?
/r/MensRights15/02/17 05:38 PM
17

I think the key issue here is that saying "double standards = patriarchy" is essentially the same as saying that double standards are the fault of men, and that women play no role in their creation or enforcement.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 02:55 PM
7

The point is, if religious reasons can't be used as an excuse for female circumcision, then why can it be used as one for male circumcision? This directly points out the hypocrisy of their arguments.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 03:55 PM
13

I think you forgot the big one to them: most female circumcision is done in the name of religion as well.
/r/MensRights09/02/17 02:35 PM
27

Why does "protecting the child" necessitate victimizing an unrelated person?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 03:33 PM
39

The law can't reasonable protect naive people from evil people. Okay so then why does the law have to enforce continued victimization once it is discovered?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:59 PM
136

In France getting a paternity test without the mother's permission is completely illegal.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:57 PM
17

Maybe the fact that you seem to think his pointing out a double standard makes him a hypocrite somehow?
/r/MensRights20/01/17 10:19 PM
3

Except you were the one who brought up rape statistics in the first place. Did you install a motor to move the goalpost that fast?
/r/MensRights19/01/17 03:48 PM
19

Twice as many women with associates degrees, why aren't they getting the top positions? Because those degrees are in the wrong fields!
/r/MensRights06/01/17 03:45 AM
1

So then I take it you're entirely against safe-haven laws?
/r/MensRights01/01/17 03:17 PM
2

But the original point was that being safe and feeling safe are two different things. That and the fact that fears not correlating with danger directly contradicts your statement: If we ensure people's safety, they will feel safe. It's just a matter of protecting people's rights and letting them no their rights are protected. People can be and often are irrational. Having to deal with irrational fears (especially in the form of anxiety) is a large part of why professional psychologists exist.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 07:07 PM
4

The point is that people's fears don't necessarily correlate with actual danger. Case in point the fear about Satanic cults taking over day care centers.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 06:57 PM
6

https://youtu.be/ZI-Uu94vINg
/r/MensRights18/12/16 06:34 PM
1

The fact that more people entered the workforce (increasing the supply) doesn't explain the drop in pay in those fields (note that men received a drop in pay as well)? Do you care to explain why that is the case? women make less over all Yes, when you ignore all other factors. When you don't ignore them then women receive the same pay (actually they make more for the same work according to some studies).
/r/MensRights12/12/16 05:41 PM
1

Only when you ignore all other variables. There's a reason why economists don't take the wage gap seriously. I mean, seriously, if the evidence was so apparent then why did you link to something that's easily explained by supply and demand?
/r/MensRights12/12/16 05:09 PM
1

Do you have any actual evidence to demonstrate that there is any other?
/r/MensRights12/12/16 04:40 PM
1

Wait, you knew that supply and demand was the reason for the pay drop, but you tried to pretend it was based on sexism anyway?
/r/MensRights12/12/16 04:12 PM
3

You do realize that was the desired outcome when companies made the big push to get more women in the workforce, right? If you increase the supply of workers (without an increase in the demand for those workers) you lower their individual value.
/r/MensRights12/12/16 02:09 PM
1

Knew I'd seen this before. Here's the thread from eight months ago.
/r/MensRights27/10/16 01:04 PM
3

So, according to feminist logic, this means we get to call you an infanticide apologist, right?
/r/MensRights09/10/16 02:45 PM
2

We can't have people thinking that the straw man has a point, now can we?
/r/MensRights07/10/16 01:51 AM
1

"boycotted by a major church" I think you mistake the loudness of christian extremists for volume of population.
/r/MensRights26/09/16 08:25 PM
1

I think you missed the point, which is one of volume. The heavy advertisement meant that there were a lot of people being exposed to it, and the fact that it was remaking a classic means that many of those people were emotionally involved. Put the two together and you're going to get a lot more people motivated to respond than you would otherwise.
/r/MensRights26/09/16 05:19 PM
1

How many of those "Excruciatingly bad movies" have been heavily advertised shitty remakes of beloved classics?
/r/MensRights26/09/16 01:35 PM
29

molested a 14-year old Correction: Molesting a 6-year old, and continuing to molest said child for the next 14 years.
/r/MensRights22/08/16 01:34 PM
2

Not only that, but it's sexist to have activities at which men perform better than women. It's the old adage: An activist wants to add a ramp to a building, an SJW wants to take away the stairs.
/r/MensRights03/08/16 12:39 PM
5

So, kinda like what they did with the "Holy Roman Empire".
/r/MensRights30/07/16 06:27 PM
17

This is why they need a report weighting system where individual reports are given weights according to their account's historical reporting accuracy when checked by an actual person at Facebook. I'd even go so far as to suggest that accounts that have a heavy history of false reporting should have a negative weight wherein they'll actually make it harder for a report brigade to be acknowledged.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 10:30 AM
0

Apparently disagreeing with your baseless assertions = head stuck in sand.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 08:04 PM
0

You just can't get it through your think skull that women are seen as worthless And you can't get it through you're thick skull that this assertion of yours is baseless.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 07:26 PM
1

Not in any of the parts I've read, or in any of the parts you've quoted thus far (as I have already demonstrated). Because of this all I can conclude is that you're tinting the article with your own (already heavily demonstrated) biases.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 07:14 PM
1

Where? Where does the article say any of that?
/r/MensRights25/04/16 06:55 PM
1

Funny, that's almost word for word what you copied from the wiki, just with added unsourced animosity. It's not that they should be looked down on for not marrying. It's that no one should feel sorry for them when they complain that they can't get married. Seriously, if you're a woman in china and can't find a man, it's YOUR FAULT. There are literally millions of Chinese men who will never have a hope of finding a wife (and notice that no one cares about them, either). If a woman couldn't find a…
/r/MensRights25/04/16 11:48 AM
2

A woman's advocacy group embracing that term Have you read the original article, or are you only quoting sensationalist news stories about it? Including you When have I ever said it's okay to shit on women? I just offer no sympathy to people who squander their own resources. Just as I offer no sympathy to a man who comes into a fortune of an inheritance and then become destitute to his own failings, I have no sympathy for a woman who gets what is effectively a free ticket to a relatively easy li…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 11:52 PM
3

shitting all over a woman Apparently not marrying a woman is equivalent to shitting on them. dependency on another person is somehow a privilege It's called a free ride for a reason. rather than a restriction Nothing is stopping women from making their own money (on top of the free money they already get), stop lying about the situation.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 11:33 PM
4

Leftover Women Do Not Deserve Our Sympathy If they expect sympathy for no longer being as eligible for marriage as they once were, then no they don't. Why would they? A. 100% Well, that settles it, you're delusional. Edit: you do realize that another word someone forced against their will to work for the benefit of others is a slave, right?
/r/MensRights24/04/16 11:23 PM
4

The fact that it's true makes it true. [citation needed] No. THEY DO. Where? All I see is a complaint about a lack of marriage eligibility. Nowhere in that quote do they say that marriage eligibility is the only form of value for a woman. That was your claim. And you STILL haven't answered my question. Which is the more privileged position: A) You are legally financially responsible for others B) Others are legally financially responsible for you
/r/MensRights24/04/16 10:30 PM
5

They place almost no value on them AT ALL Repeating this doesn't make it true, nor does it negate the real financial burden that their privileges manifest. Or the fact that these privileges are a result of societies overvaluation of women. values less than women who can marry well Only if your definition of "value" is how well one marries. Oh, and I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Edit: Seriously, look back on what you quoted from Wikipedia, they're complaining that older women aren'…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 10:13 PM
5

they are usually aborted 1) Subtract the "usually", most are not otherwise the ratio of men to women would be much higher than it is. 2) Again, this is because of the very real financial burden placed on the parents because of the privileges women are given due to societies overvaluation of them. Let me ask you this, you are given two scenarios: A) You are legally financially responsible for others B) Others are legally financially responsible for you Which is the more privileged position? Edit:…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 09:56 PM
3

The point is that men have no inherent value, while women do. Men have to earn their value. Women can earn their value, but often don't because they don't have to. The irony here is that you're complaining about some women having less inherent value than others while men have none at all.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 09:34 PM
4

they're past the prime age to marry So whether or not a woman gets married determines her worth to you?
/r/MensRights24/04/16 09:29 PM
5

Women are valued insomuch only in respect to how successfully they can marry. They are also valued inasmuch as they can contribute to society through their work. Men are ONLY valued inasmuch as they can contribute to society through their work. The fact that women can achieve all the same value as men, but have added inherent value that men can never have doesn't magically make women less valuable.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 09:12 PM
1

Funny, ugly women are valued only slightly higher than men of the same wealth, education, and family standing (as opposed to the much higher that pretty women are seen as) and that is seen as oppression.
/r/MensRights24/04/16 08:17 PM
5

For all practical purposes it does How, when she has no requirement to marry at all, and can divorce any time she wants (putting the responsibility for her back on the parents)? Females are seen as There is no "seen as". They objectively ARE financial burdens over males due to their privileges. Edit: less valued by society You couldn't be more wrong. They are much more highly valued by society then men, but that doesn't change the fact that the privileges they are given because of this valuation…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 06:49 PM
6

burden for the parents to care for their children When the only retirement system available is your children, only being able to raise a child that you know will not provide it is in fact a burden. In most cases they already do Wrong. While women do in fact work in china, they are not held financially responsible for their parents. married off early Yes, the parents attempt this so that they no longer have to pay for their child even though she is already working (or could get a job) and could e…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 06:27 PM
6

negligible, considering the lack of females Are you listening to yourself? How is it negligible to the individual families that do have a daughter? How is not being held financially responsible for your family not a privilege over those who are? Are you seriously suggesting that Chinese women would accept with open arms the same financial responsibilities that men have?
/r/MensRights24/04/16 06:12 PM
42

The killing off of female children in China is largely due to the legal privileges that women (and the legal responsibilities that men) have there. Parents are legally required to care for a daughter until she gets married (even if that never happens), whereas a son is required to eventually care for his parents. For a poor Chinese family that can have only one child (was the law until very recently), a daughter is a financial burden (often one that they simply cannot bear) and a son is a financ…
/r/MensRights24/04/16 05:46 PM
4

I'm not sure how it worked for Yahoo, but I'm talking about only adjusting weights according to confirmations/rejections officially made by administrators. Whether or not there are mobs of people in the community who agree/disagree wouldn't be a factor. And if the administrators are so biased that it would result in a feminist takeover, then we never stood a chance in the first place.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 04:24 PM
6

Yes, but I'm just suggesting a method for being competent while minimizing the amount of actual oversight (read: money spend on employees) that is necessary. One possible system is having a report "score" and only taking action when the score passes a particular threshold. This system can be improved by weighting the values of individual reports according to the accuracy of the reporter's previous claims. Basically, a user who reports things that are then verified as correctly reported will be t…
/r/MensRights12/04/16 02:29 PM
37

There should really be a system put into place wherein if an account is repeatedly taken down due to false flagging/DMCA/whatever it is given protection from automatic take downs, requiring an actual administrator to review the claims before any action is taken.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 01:21 PM
1

They were being brought up in response to the claim that some states are trying to completely take away the ability for a woman to abandon motherhood.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 12:17 PM
1

Where did I say otherwise?
/r/MensRights07/03/16 05:46 AM
2

-Canonical-'s full post: The point of the image is to illustrate the blatant double standard of reproductive rights. All parents should have the right to abandon parenthood - not just half of them To which you replied: If you live in a conservative state, women don't really even have that right, and politicians are working hard to take it away completely. What right are you talking about other than the right to abandon parenthood? And if you are talking about the right to abandon parenthood, wou…
/r/MensRights07/03/16 05:45 AM
7

I think you misunderstand. Safe haven laws allow women to abandon their infants.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 05:33 AM
5

Which states are trying to take away safe haven laws?
/r/MensRights07/03/16 05:18 AM
159

'her choice, his responsibility'
/r/MensRights01/03/16 12:55 PM
1

It's a cult when the leaders make up dogma as they go along. It's a religion when the current leaders fight over interpretation of the dogma of long dead leaders.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:19 AM
43

It's entirely possible that this is a conditioned response, rather than female nature. Compare it to the way we treat dogs. There is a stereotype that when keeping pets large dogs tend to be gentle giants, while small dogs are tiny terrors. But really this is an effect of the ways in which they are raised. When a large dog acts aggressive towards its owner, that behavior is seen as dangerous and is thus corrected quickly and consistently. When a small dog does the same is is seen as "cute" and "…
/r/MensRights21/02/16 03:19 PM
5

Because she objectively is a liar. Either she lied about being abused when she denied it under oath, or she is lying about having been abused now. Either way she's a liar.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 02:13 PM
40

Do these signs single out a demographic as being responsible for the shoplifting? Do they, for example, say "Black people, stop shoplifting in this store!"?
/r/MensRights07/01/16 07:16 PM
1

no one tries to get you banned unless you're being a spammy fuck. Cue Manhood Academy complaining about being repeatedly banned while ignoring the end of that sentence.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 07:19 PM
3

The fastest way to get a bad law repealed is to have it applied consistently. Once feminists see that it can equally apply to themselves they'll realize their error. Repeal it yes, but until it is repealed let them reap what they have sown.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 09:41 PM
9

So who was preventing women from voting in primaries?
/r/MensRights16/10/15 12:26 AM
1

You want it both ways If by that you mean I want both parents to have equal ability to decide their responsibility for the child, then yes. You apparently only want one parent to be able to make a decision. The solution is simple, the father has a limited time (usually stated as a month) after being legally informed of his responsibility for the child to officially reject said responsibility. The mother can then act on his decision as she sees fit. If she decides to keep the child without his su…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:19 PM
2

Either both parents care for the child- custodial /non-custodial agreement. Or neither do And as it stands one parent has absolute control over which of those situations exists. This is not equality. Currently, if the mother decides she wants to take care of the child she gets to. If she decides she doesn't want that responsibility then she gets that too. But if the father decides he wants to take care of the child: FUCK YOU THAT'S UP TO THE MOTHER. If he decides he doesn't want to take care of …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:50 PM
2

Are you slow or something? Just because she decided not to take the option doesn't mean she didn't have it. If she decided to keep the child that is her decision and thus the responsibility is on her. BOTH PARENTS HAVE GIVEN UP RESPONSIBILITY Liar! The father in this situation has no say what so ever. fuck off and screw the guy over Either way the guy is screwed over because either way the guy has no decision making power.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:41 PM
4

A man has a right not to lay with a woman who he does not want children Why is it that "you shoulda kept your legs closed" when referring to women who want the option for abortion is extremely sexist, but using the exact same reasoning against men is not?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:38 PM
2

she isn't giving up any responsibility And so you again intentionally ignore the fact that she has the option to but the man does not.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:32 PM
3

AGAIN you miss my initial point. Why do women have the option to negate all responsibility for the child after the fact of birth while men do not? If, as you say, the existence of the child is enough of an excuse to negate this option, then why doesn't it negate the choice when the woman makes it? I don't advocate either way whether or not the state should take full responsibility. What I advocate is equality. If the option to negate responsibility for the child is given to the woman, then it sh…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:25 PM
3

The state bears the cost of rearing And the question of the day is, why is this an option when the mother decides she doesn't want to take responsibility for the child but not when the mother wants to keep the child? Why doesn't the man have the same option to not take responsibility for the child that the mother has? There is no reason for this other than to get the man to pay for the woman. Calling me a liar doesn't change the reality of the situation. The difference that you are intentionally…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:14 PM
2

the child usually becomes a ward of the state But if, as you said, it is necessary to seek funds from the parents because "there is still a child that needs to eat and have diapers", why does this need magically vanish when the mother decides she doesn't want to be responsible for it? My point is that given the difference in outcomes here, it isn't actually about providing for the child so much as forcing a man to provide for a woman.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:40 PM
5

Wait, so you're saying that in the case that a mother anonymously abandons a child at a safe haven the father should be tracked down for financial support but not the mother? The point of my original question is that "the interests of the child" are used as an excuse to force the father to finance it. Why does this suddenly disappear when the mother decides she doesn't want the child?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 12:59 PM
6

What then is your stance on safe haven laws? Why should a father be held responsible but a mother not?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 11:11 AM
13

What I'm wondering is where the "7 to 1 thing" came from in the first place. As far as I can tell that was never the case. A look at demographics across all ages doesn't seem to support any disparity that even comes within an order of magnitude of that.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 08:03 PM
36

1 in 6 females are raped Repeating feminist propagandist lies isn't going to score you any points here. There are seven males to every female in China Got a source for that? Because it smells like bullshit to me. Yes, China has a gender ratio problem but every source I've looked at puts it at far less than 2:1 (edit: wiki puts it at less than 1.2:1).
/r/MensRights24/08/15 07:34 PM
2

If medical information about the baby cannot be disclosed to the "father" because he is not actually the "father" then he should be informed that such medical information cannot be disclosed to him when he asks for it. This should be enough to tell him why.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:46 PM
2

"the rule here is technically the same for any piece of medical information" Only if the baby is considered to be the same person as the mother. Information about the baby should be open to both parents.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 12:50 PM
15

No, this is just selection bias. When men get sick they usually just ignore it if they can and don't complain. For an illness to actually put a man out of condition it has to be really bad. Because of this, women only notice the times that men are very sick, and assume (mostly through projection) that the men are just exaggerating for attention.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 12:16 PM
15

If you agree that the issue is that women aren't choosing to take jobs that make them financially independent, then why are feminists pushing the narrative that women are getting paid less for the same work due to discrimination? No one here is trying to stop women from entering any field. We just think that they need to own the choices that they make.
/r/MensRights15/07/15 06:24 AM
7

No it isn't. Her response to a claim about an actual issue is "your issue shouldn't be discussed because my issue is worse". Our response to her is that her claims are absurdly wrong. Her strategy is to ignore the issue and change the topic. Our strategy is to point out her errors.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 01:10 PM
3

ditto
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:53 PM
3

Keep digging that hole. Edit for hillarity: you can assert you are correct and i am stupid all you like, it merely highlights your own stupidity, but you are too stupid to see it. Projecting so hard you could start your own theater.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:50 PM
3

Keep digging that hole.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:43 PM
2

Just to let you know, your ad-hominem attacks don't affect me either. The fact that you are unable to defend your position and instead resort to these base methods only demonstrates to me just how untenable your position actually is. I also find it hilarious that to discredit this study you apparently have to make an attempt to discredit all of statistical analysis. We seem to be talking past each other, so I'll break this down for you: OP: This study shows X You: This study can't show Y because…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:30 PM
2

"no studies can ever have different results" Are you seriously arguing that because studies can have varying results we should thus throw out this study (and by extension anything involving statistical analysis)?
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:24 PM
2

I can understand how it's important. No one said otherwise. However, the statistics still show what they show. And your ad-hominems don't magically add to your credibility.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:15 PM
2

How is it misleading? The statistics show what they show, that men are harassed more than women. It doesn't say that they are doxxed or sent death threats more often, but then again no one claimed that it did. So the only way you have any kind of a point is to suggest (badly) that somehow the way women are harassed is worse, when you have absolutely no data to back up that assertion.
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:00 PM
3

Okay then. Do you have any actual statistics to show that women are threatened in this way more than men are? Or is this just another feels argument? Edit: The tl;dr of how this argument goes is as follows OP: This study shows X Wargame4life: This study can't show Y because of reasons A B and C Me: But this study isn't trying to show Y, it's demonstrating X. And if you can't show A B and C then there's no reason to bring up Y in the first place. Wargame4life: You're a moron. We have to throw out…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 01:52 PM
1

"Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?" -George Carlin
/r/MensRights15/06/15 03:23 PM
6

I take it then that you are completely opposed to safe-haven laws? By the same logic you give, women should be held accountable for children that they abandon.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 01:05 PM
12

They're called TERFs (Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists). They claim that trans-women are just men that are trying to invade women's spaces, and that trans-men are gender traitors who are trying to appropriate the privileges of men.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:12 AM
1

Next thing you know they'll be going on about how Rosebud was the name of the sled in Citizen Kane, Aerith dies in FFVII, and Jesus comes back to life in The Bible.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 04:29 PM
7

Women are trying to run for political office, they just aren't being permitted to And your evidence for this is?
/r/MensRights23/04/15 10:19 PM
15

If it's a problem that men are under-represented in one debate in one constituency not a problem that women are under-represented throughout the British system? The issue isn't simple lack of representation. In the former, men are banned. In the latter, women have no barriers other than the same barriers men also face.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 08:36 PM
39

I believe she uses the reasoning that she was a feminist before the 3rd wave takeover (and so they have no right to kick her out), along with the fact that calling herself a feminist (which she very much is according to the dictionary definition that feminists like to point to over and over) pisses off the crazies.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 12:33 PM
9

learn to read thread, ty* *Welfare had nothing to do with what you are replying to.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 08:42 AM
1

Yes, it was upvoted, and it acknowledged that men are sometimes violent. How does this not meet your requirement? Swaying opinions Well, if your opinion doesn't change even when evidence to the contrary keeps smacking you in the face, what am I supposed to do to try and change it?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 03:48 PM
2

How about where I acknowledged it earlier in this conversation and it was upvoted?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 03:17 PM
2

Are there any upvoted posts in this sub that say that men commit no violence or that men do no wrong or that men are "saints" as you said?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 03:03 PM
2

What I asked for an example of was something to substantiate your strawman (where we supposedly don't acknowledge that some men are violent, and instead treat all men as if they are saints).
/r/MensRights29/03/15 02:18 PM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3081g1/wowjust_wow/cpq2xob How does this illustrate your point? It's a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that people don't accept the fact women also commit violence. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2a8slo/teen_charged_with_sexting_girlfriend_will_be/cisoamt Again, how does this illustrate your point? This comment is again pointing out that only males are being targeted as violent offenders. At no point does it suggest that men are not …
/r/MensRights29/03/15 02:03 PM
2

Yes, can you provide an example?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 01:24 PM
2

Really? Can you point out a significantly upvoted post in a well-visible thread (necessary to demonstrate community approval) that illustrates the idea that men can do no wrong?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 12:07 PM
3

act like men are saints Yeah, arguing against straw men doesn't really help you. No one here thinks that men do no wrong.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 11:52 AM
3

And what do you expect us to do in response to that? Blame men as a gender for the fact that some are violent? Pretend that because of that men shouldn't be seen as victims of violence? Pretend that women are more prone to being victims despite that being the opposite of the fact?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 11:44 AM
8

So? Does that somehow negate the fact that men are the majority victims of said crimes?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 11:24 AM
11

...usually by other men. Does that make them any less dead? Does that mean they are no longer victims?
/r/MensRights29/03/15 10:24 AM
3

Money is more the reason. War makes money for people in power. Drafts make wars extremely unpopular.
/r/MensRights01/03/15 04:02 PM
2

Do I sound "triggered"? No Do you sound dishonest? Yes. You've repeatedly posted that you think the negatives regarding financial abandonment outweigh the positives, and that thinking it will work makes you an idiot. I'm saying that when you claim to be on the side of financial abandonment you are in fact lying as your own words (even edited after the fact) demonstrate.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:52 PM
1

I'm sure you're aware of the concept of concern trolling.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:46 PM
1

Your post: I fail to see how this in any way makes your point, if anything it makes the opposite point. If financial abandonment was a thing then no one could be forced into fatherhood. Exactly... but we're in a political landscape that is the polar opposite. That's why it isn't a simple, that's what it doesn't pay to drown out any rational critique, especially from people who support it. If we can't discuss rationally, who can? Best I can tell the thing you're saying we're in the opposite lands…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:37 PM
2

You've also asserted that it is not workable. Note also where I said "If". Also note that I have long ago called you out on your continued refusal to illustrate your actual position, which in and of itself demonstrates your lack of good faith.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:12 PM
2

Of course I don't know. You didn't make one. You failed to establish the context of exactly what landscape we're in a polar opposite of. You also failed to demonstrate why even if we were in such a landscape that would be evidence to support your position. Basically your argument boils down to "things are different therefore I'm right!". What things? How does that make you right?
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:10 PM
1

"but we're in a political landscape that is the polar opposite" I fail to see how simply asserting this demonstrates your point.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 05:10 PM
2

Not trying to make them look worse or better But you are succeeding in doing so despite a lack of trying. If your stance is that financial abortion should be illegal but safe havens should be legal, you are a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 05:00 PM
2

"She's already pregnant" And? If she chooses to neither abort, nor give up the child then she is choosing to take responsibility for the child. Just as in the proposed legislation, if the father chooses not to wave his parental duty before the allotted time (usually suggested at 3 months) given after being legally informed of the existence of the child, then he is choosing to take responsibility for the child. well, if you don't opt for the experimental brain surgery, you wanted the turmor! No o…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 04:57 PM
1

A very good point, but sadly one that makes my point - what happens? They get state aid, they cause shitty fucking lazy assholes to chase any random "dad by default". I fail to see how this in any way makes your point, if anything it makes the opposite point. If financial abandonment was a thing then no one could be forced into fatherhood.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 03:47 PM
3

mostly dens of child grooming. I just want to make sure you realize that you're only making safe haven laws look worse than financial abandonment.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 03:17 PM
2

That's completely disingenuous. If she opts not to have an abortion then she is opting to have a child be born. If she opts to not give up the child for adoption or to a safe haven then she is choosing to take responsibility for said child.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 03:16 PM
3

tax payers being cuckolded into raising some guys kid Didn't I already demonstrate that if this were an excuse against male financial abandonment then the exact same argument could be made against safe havens?
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:51 PM
2

Then the woman takes on the responsibility that she chose to accept, why should it be otherwise?
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:45 PM
3

Where do I say that Wow, I directly ask you to be very clear on your stance and your answer is to evade. Thank you for demonstrating a complete lack of good faith. there's also cases where women want the child I don't see how that's relevant. Either male financial abandonment is wrong because it puts a burden on the taxpayer, and thus so too are safe havens for the exact same reason, or neither one is for that reason. you're supposed to give the person a chance to reply I did, two comments ago. …
/r/MensRights25/02/15 01:03 PM
3

Where do I say that Are you saying then that you are against women having the ability to choose not to accept the responsibility of parenthood after the fact of conception? Are you against abortion rights and safe haven laws? Be very clear on your stance. then the woman will get more welfare That's not a moral argument. Also, if the woman decides to abandon the child to a safe haven then taxpayers will still have to fund the child, regardless. So you've failed to accomplish the task set out. Tha…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 12:48 PM
4

Women have the right to choose not to accept the responsibility of parenthood after the fact of conception. They have many ways to go about this (ie abortion, adoption, abandonment). As of this moment men have no such options. Why do you think women should have this right (to refuse to accept the responsibility of parenthood after the fact of conception) and men not? What possible argument can be made against male financial abandonment that cannot equally be made against (for example) safe haven…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 12:08 PM
5

Here's an idea: If you don't want to make drunken decisions that you'll later regret, how about you not get plastered at parties?
/r/MensRights24/02/15 10:17 PM
1

The second link You mean the one where you're talking about the bush misquote that the link never mentions? What it does mention is that he failed to prepare citations for a couple of random anecdotes. Oh my!
/r/MensRights19/02/15 06:09 PM
1

He implied that he met Carl Sagan, and that Sagan was an inspiration to him much as was Issac Newton. But those are things that actually happened. You can't show me where he said Sagan mentored him, because he never did say that.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 06:00 PM
3

Where did he say that Sagan was his mentor?
/r/MensRights19/02/15 12:40 PM
4

The quote is not correct in context. The context does not change what you said away from asserting that being blackout drunk is sufficient for an instance of sex to be considered rape. If it does change this, then please demonstrate how.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 12:21 AM
4

That's not quote mining, that's correcting. It doesn't matter if the rest of your comment is accurate or not. The fact remains that the quoted section is completely wrong. Edit: I just want to make sure we aren't talking around each other. I am saying that it is wrong to say that sex while black out drunk (no recollection) is rape. I am not saying that this particular instance was not rape.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 11:50 PM
5

the victim was unconscious Yes, however you said: If she is so drunk that she could not remember (aka blacked out), then that is rape. Regardless of the actual conditions of the individual case linked, this statement of yours is completely wrong.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 11:06 PM
5

Blackout drunk means you have no memory of the event, not that you are unconscious or unresponsive. Alcohol inhibits the formation of long term memories, so while you may be fully able to make decisions you won't necessarily be able to remember having made them.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 08:49 PM
20

And for much the same reason women terrorize men. Because the environment they live in prevents retaliation from the larger dog. Dog owners tend to punish aggressive behavior in large dogs, but not in smaller ones ("it's cute!"). If the smaller dog never sees the consequences for its actions then there is nothing to stop it from becoming ever-more aggressive. The same thing happens with women: when they act violent towards men no one does anything to stop it. In fact they encourage it. Edit: We …
/r/MensRights02/02/15 11:44 AM
1

Great, I'm all for the laws being repealed. But until they are, they should be enforced equally regardless of gender. Asking for people to be treated equally is about as far from "unbalanced" as you can get.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 06:28 PM
2

As opposed to nothing being done to remove the bad laws and policies, because no one cares about the people they're actually being enforced against.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 05:57 PM
5

The easiest way to get bad laws and policies repealed is to have them enforced eavenly.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 11:24 AM
0

Except no one but idiot bigots thinks that all men are "dicks". Just like no one but idiot bigots thinks that all women are "cunts". These are words that are exclusively used to describe the most egregious of examples, and they aren't limited by gender.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 04:52 PM
2

Why can you only post old low-visibility threads? Do you somehow think posts no one pays attention to show the general attitude of the subreddit?
/r/MensRights27/01/15 12:34 PM
1

8 months ago on a thread with almost no visibility. I'm sure that comment is entirely indicative of the attitude of the whole subreddit. /s
/r/MensRights27/01/15 12:31 PM
0

focused on the quality of her being a woman In that case is it wrong to call a guy a dick if he's acting like one?
/r/MensRights27/01/15 11:49 AM
8

If the woman is more offensive than the term, then how is the term too offensive to refer to her specifically? It's not like Horizal was using it to refer to all women, just this specific and obviously horrible woman.
/r/MensRights27/01/15 02:45 AM
11

Which is more offensive to you? The word cunt, or a woman poisoning her children so she can get attention?
/r/MensRights27/01/15 02:22 AM
2

Hey idiot, dissenting views doesn't get you censored, spamming adverts for your personal website gets you censored as it's against the rules. It says so right in the side bar. If you want to not be censored, try joining the conversation rather than spamming. Of course such a task appears to be beyond your capability.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 11:17 PM
2

Choosing to have sex when you're drunk that you wouldn't otherwise have chosen to have is not the same thing as coercion. Take responsibility for the choices you make.
/r/MensRights31/12/14 02:58 PM
1

Once custody arrangements have been made, I'd assume another legal agreement would have to be made to allow for adoption (outside of exceptions where one party have been removed of all rights to the child, due to abuse or other reasons). I am not certain of this, but do you have any evidence to the contrary? However, before any custody arrangements have been made (so long as the mother was not legally bound by marriage at the time) no such restrictions exist (as the link I already provided shows…
/r/MensRights02/12/14 04:10 AM
2

Mothers are able to do so before custody arrangements are even made, before courts are even involved.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 03:55 AM
2

Because inherent in their design is the ability for a person to give up the responsibility for paying for a child. It is also a choice that the mother has alone (due to its annoymous nature, she can easily hide the existence of the child from the father) just as a single mother can chose to give up a child for adoption without the approval of the father. Women have a multitude of options to get out of the responsibilities of parenthood after the fact of conception, men have none. If the choice i…
/r/MensRights02/12/14 03:16 AM
1

Children need to be paid for Then are you against anonymous safe haven laws?
/r/MensRights02/12/14 01:47 AM
6

Maybe if you didn't spam your shitty copy-pasta all over the place it wouldn't get removed as spam?
/r/MensRights27/11/14 07:08 PM
8

Demographic quotas inevitably result in lowering of qualification standards so that said quotas can be met.
/r/MensRights27/11/14 03:55 AM
1

I'm not suggesting that it's what you're trying to imply, I'm saying that the logic is the same.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 03:27 PM
3

Gay people can't have children, children are an important part of marriage. It's an argument anti-gay-marriage people used constantly.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 03:18 PM
5

That sounds a lot like an argument against gay-marriage.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 03:10 PM
2

(insert sexist joke about men thinking with their penises here)
/r/MensRights20/11/14 03:06 PM
4

4chan was already dead on the inside. Moot got an SJW girlfriend, and started putting SJWs in mod positions. This just made that fact obvious.
/r/MensRights01/11/14 12:34 PM
2

Yes, we make a game of it. /r/StormfrontorSJW/
/r/MensRights30/10/14 03:12 AM
8

Most people don't know how most words came to have their current meaning. That doesn't make it right to rewrite the history of words.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 06:06 PM
1

This is not gender equality, if it were she would also identify as an MRA. Exclusivity wasn't implied, the opposite was.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 06:49 PM
1

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is not the same But apparently it's completely different when it's a woman committing it. She's to get off Scott-free every time. 230 pound halfback cold cocking a 140 pound woman Missing the point again, if he did it to a 140 pound man, we'd all be talking about how stupid the 140 pound man was for attacking the halfback in the first place. And yet you have the gall to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 12:00 PM
3

Exactly, it wasn't a weak but angry guy, and magically this changes everything for some reason. When a guy is in the exact same situation we all blame him for doing something stupid, but when it's a woman we all take her side. This is an obvious double standard. Are you saying that domestic violence is perfectly fine so long as the one initiating it is a woman?
/r/MensRights11/09/14 10:17 AM
3

I don't get why that means he doesn't get to defend himself. If it was a weak but angry guy who attacked him, and the same thing happened, would we be talking about how awful he is for defending himself, or would we be talking about how stupid the other guy is for attacking him in the first place?
/r/MensRights11/09/14 01:39 AM
1

I'm assuming the deleted comment was from xkcd_transcriber, in which case: Lol, bot wars.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 03:00 AM
7

Wait, I want to make sure I have this right: feminists lied about the incident in order to use the tragedy to further their agenda, and when MRAs point that out it's somehow a bad thing? It's perfectly fine for feminists to exploit and lie about her and her family, but it's wrong to expose the lies?
/r/MensRights25/08/14 02:12 AM
5

In terms of the left vs right dynamics, one idea that's been gaining popularity is horseshoe theory. Which is basically the idea that the extreme left and extreme right are more similar to each other than either are to the center. /r/StormfrontorSJW shows many examples.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 04:32 AM
0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag Basically, conspiracy theory stuff.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 08:52 PM
2

So their defense is that what the judge did, while not required by the law, isn't technically illegal either. That doesn't stop the judge from being a jackass.
/r/MensRights28/06/14 07:57 PM
0

Except that it is what the language implies (and is the rhetoric that many feminists spread, hence: "male privilege"), and it appears to be what he was arguing against, as I posted in my first reply. *edit: also given the current dissolving of gender standards for women, but not for men, women are more often in control of their own lives (can make choices outside of the "norm") than men. If you define control of oneself as power, then women more often have "power" than men. Again, it depends on …
/r/MensRights08/06/14 12:52 AM
0

"men are more often in positions of power" Except the opposite is true, more often than not any given man will not be in a position of power. But as the other poster said, this can also depend on how one defines "power".
/r/MensRights07/06/14 09:13 PM
1

No, he's saying that the truth value of the claim changes depending on how one defines power. Edit: that's literally what he's saying. If you define power as X then the statement may be true, but if you define power as Y then the statement is false.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 07:55 PM
1

It points out that there are multiple meanings to the term "power". I was trying to show you how you were equivocating between them.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 07:18 PM
1

"no such thing as power" Not at all, there are multiple definitions of power. I again reference the comment I linked you to earlier.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 07:14 PM
1

I'm saying that in the respect that responsibility=power for most people said responsibility means only one viable option can be taken, and that option is to uphold one's responsibilities.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 07:08 PM
1

I mean it more along the lines of a person standing watch at a guard house has the "power" to allow enemies into the city, but doing so wasn't really a viable option.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 07:02 PM
1

"being in a position of power doesn't give you more ability to change things" I think it's more subtle than that. He referred specifically to responsibility granting power, and yes if one has enough responsibilities failure to perform them can have a great impact (this can be seen as a form of power), however, this does not mean that the one with said responsibility can reasonably exorcise said power (there will be consequences). This post explains the main contention better than anything else I…
/r/MensRights07/06/14 06:07 PM
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy#Feminist_theory Oh look, it's right there. Note that the same term can have different meanings in different contexts. And the OP was specifically talking about the feminist context.
/r/MensRights07/06/14 05:50 PM
1

I agree, your principles don't appear to be gender specific, but you've already established that there's a difference between principle and practice (due to pragmatic concerns and extenuating circumstances). You said that laws should be adjusted such that men can be exempted given specific criteria. What I am asking is given that women can do the same without meeting any such criteria, should the laws be adjusted such that they must meet the same kinds of criteria that men must meet before being…
/r/MensRights06/05/14 04:28 PM
1

just dealing with realities Except the current situation of anonymous no questions asked parental abandonment for women (through safe havens) is reality, and has nothing to do with biology. I can give a couple examples The interesting thing here is that you require men to demonstrate their circumstances, do you think that safe haven laws should be changed such that women have to do the same?
/r/MensRights06/05/14 01:56 AM
1

So then I take it that you are against anonymous safe havens in principle, but not in practice as there may be extenuating circumstances. Are you willing to extend this same leeway to the issue of men who may be in similar circumstances? If so, how would you go about doing so?
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:09 PM
2

should include financial responsibility at the very least - by BOTH parents. Then you have to be against anonymous safe havens, as they inherently absolve the mother of any and all responsibility. I am asking you directly: are you against them? Are you also against the current system of adoption where the parents are no longer financially responsible for the child? Why can you not directly answer these questions? can't be answered with "yes or no" Ah, because you choose to dodge. One hardly has …
/r/MensRights05/05/14 02:58 AM
2

trying to put words into my mouth What words, exactly, did I try to put into your mouth? I did offer a series of dichotomies, all of which were corollaries to your stated positions that you'd have to assume to keep internal consistency (in other words, to not be a hypocrite). I never said that you did hold these positions, nor that you did not. I merely highlighted the fact that if you don't hold them then you are a hypocrite. So which is it? she is responsible for its upkeep Does this include a…
/r/MensRights04/05/14 09:47 PM
3

I didn't put words in your mouth, I offered a dichotomy. Either you are against the right of the mother to put her child up for adoption as well as safe-haven laws, or you are a hypocrite in not offering men the same kinds of options. if that's what's best The woman can abandon the baby for any reason, no questions asked. That's how safe haven laws work. So "what's best" doesn't play into it. Either you are against this, or you are a hypocrite. should retain financial responsibility Does this in…
/r/MensRights04/05/14 09:12 PM
4

If a baby is born, the people responsible for its creation are responsible for its care. I take it then that you are completely against the ability for a woman to give a child up for adoption, or the existence of safe-havens? To think otherwise would make you a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 02:03 PM
1

You do realize that I said from the beginning that bad advice is bad advice, correct? I never said that any particular advice to avoid rape was good. My contention is with the assertion that any such advice is inherently bad. Edit: can you fuck off I'll reply so long as you post your nonsensical arguments. Oh, and I noticed that in this comment you are saying that it's bad to tell people to lock their doors. Just goes to show how nonsensical your argument is.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 06:59 PM
1

"thieves feel more comfortable" Does this lead to the conclusion that one should not give such warnings? Yes or no? If yes then the argument holds (and is absurd), if no then the argument does not hold.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 06:23 PM
1

feeling normalized and finding more rationalization Again, the exact same argument could be made that telling someone to lock their door could do the same thing to a thief. And yet we don't think it's a bad idea to tell people to lock their doors. This is what I meant from the beginning about the inconsistency of the argument. It can't be abstracted to apply to any other case, and when you try it falls apart.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 12:42 PM
1

make it more likely to happen You mean like how we aren't keeping constant tabs on everyone to make sure that no one steps out of line? Face it, the vast majority of rapes are committed by sociopaths. These people don't care about morality and justification, and you can't "teach them not to rape". The only way to remove the treat is to remove these people from society. Problem is, they look just like everyone else and are good at hiding. Thus despite the fact that we want to be rid of them they …
/r/MensRights30/04/14 03:22 AM
1

"the culture is such" And there's the unsubstantiated assertion that crimes exist because the culture allows it. I guess we have a murder culture as well.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 03:32 PM
1

normal everyday things Again, we come back to the fact that either they are justified in being afraid (because the situation calls for it), or they are not. If they are, then your complaints are unwarranted. If they are not then feminist complaints about the prevalence of rape are unwarranted. Asking for both freedom and absolute security is asking to have your cake and eat it too. "back door" justification Is what's known as "rationalizing", and it's something all evil people do to justify what…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 06:40 PM
1

"nobody is arguing that it is" If it's not, then again, why bring it up? If it doesn't cause the problem, then who cares what the level of normalization is? The real issue is the actual danger of the situation. "backdoor justification" Do we say that thieves have justification for robbing a place that didn't lock its doors? Does society accept this scenario? "simplistic answer" I'm not looking for simplicity, I'm looking for CONSISTENCY. I'm looking for a logically cogent argument that fits with…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 12:27 PM
1

But the normalization(edit: of a problem) refers to the perception (edit: of the problem) and behavior caused by said perception. Thus the normalization is the EFFECT, not the CAUSE. Do I have to explain simple causality to you? Normalization of a problem occurs because a problem exists, trying to prevent normalization won't make the problem magically go away. Edit for clarification
/r/MensRights27/04/14 11:14 PM
1

So then where does the problem come in? When your normal behavior is shown to be a risk factor? People habitually smoked, and it was still bad for them regardless of if they knew of the links to cancer. become normal Means perceived to be normal. Normality is inherently a perception, as it is a subjective judgement.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 11:11 PM
1

That one should tie one's shoelaces to prevent one from tripping or having one's shoes fall off is a perception, yes. One that is generally accurate. I don't see how your example here correlates to any of the rape normalization examples.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 09:41 PM
1

"what normalized means" And then changed the meaning to refer to the reality rather than the perception. you said: you don't see how the threat of terrorism and people having to work everyday at not getting their legs blown is an issue and not indicative of a terrorist problem. Suggesting that the terrorists are a problem because of the normalization (perception of the problem), rather than a problem in and of themselves. There is nothing wrong with the perception that there are terrorists and t…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 09:37 PM
1

to a person There it is again, the reference to perception. How was I wrong?
/r/MensRights27/04/14 09:29 PM
1

So it appears to you after my repeating it over and over, that normalization is the process through which a thing becomes seen as normal and part of every day life. See, even between these two posts you can't keep the definition straight. Here you describe it as a perception, but before you berated me for illustrating the difference between perception and the reality of the situation, suggesting that the reality (and not the perception of reality) is the normalization.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 08:08 PM
1

Oh I forgot, it doesn't matter how many times or how many different ways I say it, you will not hear me saying that normalization is something becoming a normal part of everyday life. Oh, so you didn't say: Normalization is the process through which something becomes taken for granted and part of everyday life. or: Its a reaction to, or the normalization of burglary type crime in the culture. (emphasis mine) Should I find more? This is what I'm talking about when I say you're equivocating. You'r…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 08:00 PM
1

you don't see how the threat of terrorism and people having to work everyday at not getting their legs blown is an issue and not indicative of a terrorist problem. Oh, it certainly is a terrorist problem, but that's not what you described by "normalization" which is a perception (things are perceived to be normal), not a reality. The reality is what is bad. I can't see how having a perception that matches reality could be bad. I would think that having a perception that doesn't match reality (su…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 06:38 PM
1

If people have incorporated the effects of terrorism into their every day lives and think its normal, it has become normalized for them and it indicates you live in a war zone. Again, it appears that what you are describing is nothing more than accepting the reality of the situation (or over stating it) and acting accordingly (or overreacting). I can't see how acting in accordance with reality could ever be seen as bad. I can see how overreacting could be bad, but I don't think you'll see many f…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 06:33 PM
1

rape being seen as a normal part of everyday life And if it is seen that way then protections against it should also be seen as normal (same as with thievery and murder). I don't see how this is an issue unless the risks are over or under represented (leading to too much restriction or too little protection respectively). People aren't going to roll over and let things happen to them just because they've become aware of the prevalence of those bad things.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 03:17 PM
1

you want one very simple answer that covers it all No, I want questions answered for clarification, such that I can test my hypotheses of what the term actually means, how it is used, and why it matters. I have ideas for what it is supposed to mean, but I need questions answered directly to test those assumptions. gives rapists more room to operate I don't see how, if normalization includes an increased vigilance against such actions. This is what I mean by having it both ways. An increase in vi…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 02:51 PM
1

Something that just occurred to me, we have two scenarios: 1) fears of rape are warranted, as are precautions against it 2) fears of rape are unwarranted, as are precautions against it If "normalization" of rape is the process through which rape is seen as normal (and thus precaution as necessary), then the former results from under-normalization, and the latter from over-normalization. If rape is under-normalized, then complaints of overemphasis on precaution are unwarranted. If rape is over-no…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 10:39 PM
1

don't match up with what you think they are No, I'm saying that how you're claiming they are defined doesn't match up with how you are using them. In other words you are using equivocation. This is why I've been asking questions to narrow the definition. And yes, you have been actively avoiding directly answering them. If iuds are normal, then watching for idus will eventually be a normal part of your life, and this won't be pleasant for you. Is this lack of pleasantness because you are aware of…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 10:26 PM
1

No, the problem is that how you are using the words and what you claim they mean don't seem to match up. This is what tends to happen when you don't rely on rigorous definitions. This is why I was asking questions that you danced around the answers to (to get said definitions, and ensure their rigor).
/r/MensRights26/04/14 08:08 PM
1

indicative of something bad I've acknowledged this, but it seems to me that normalization in these cases is little more than the acknowledgement that these things exist. And they would exist whether or not they are normalized. As such there seems to be nothing wrong with normalization, as it is an effect and not a cause of anything bad. If anything it's a cause of good actions in response to bad things. Edit: Oh and let me be clear, bad advice is bad advice regardless of normalization. My proble…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 07:05 PM
1

But I asked several times not if normalization of anything is bad, but specifically whether normalization of a bad thing (such as thievery) is bad, and moreover, why. You never answered this. So if you take precautions against thievery, that is bad? And it is indicative of thievery culture?
/r/MensRights26/04/14 06:30 PM
1

still don't know what normalization means I've told you what I saw as the way which you seemed to be using it, and asked for confirmation or correction several times. If I was wrong, why didn't you correct it?
/r/MensRights26/04/14 06:04 PM
1

a person is not a house It is an example of advice to minimize risk in the presence of the unfortunate situation of thievery. In this sense it is a perfect analogy. inaccurate If the advice does not decrease risks, then it is not good advice, regardless of intention. However, you spoke of "normalization" as though it were a bad thing, and this would inherently include any good advice. Perhaps the problem is your wording.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 05:54 PM
1

"out of control rape problem" Perhaps there is in the places where they live, if it is the case, would it not be wise to live accordingly? Does the fact that we remind people to lock their doors mean we have an out of control robbery problem? And if it did, would that make it bad advice?
/r/MensRights26/04/14 05:21 PM
1

Then I don't understand the point. Reality is what it is, and either people should act in accordance with it, or they should not. As far as I can tell, "normalization" means acting in accordance with the reality of the situation. I can't see how this would ever be bad. Yes, the situation may be bad, but acting in accordance with it doesn't cause this to be so. Your edits from before didn't exist when I first replied, so I'll address them here: People may find good advice to be annoying "stop ask…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 04:50 PM
1

Wait so, regardless of the actual risks, people should act like there are no risks, because risk assessment is mentally stressful?
/r/MensRights26/04/14 04:03 PM
1

Locking the door is a form of abstraction, ensuring consistency in modes of thought by removing emotional biases. If the logic works in one mode it should follow just as well in the other. If it is a form of "normalization" of burglary, is this somehow bad? Is it bad that people take precautionary steps? Is it bad that people remind others to do the same? Remember, the point I'm trying to get to is why normalization is even brought up in the first place, why does it matter? As of yet this is the…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:42 AM
1

Does that mean that locking your door every night (an everyday routine of theft prevention) is bad for you because it means that theft is normal enough and an expected thing? How is it not simply a healthy reaction to the realities we live with?
/r/MensRights26/04/14 12:38 AM
1

Normalization isn't itself bad, or normalization of bad things (such as thevery) isn't bad? If normalization of thievery (or any other such criminal action) isn't itself bad, then what does it matter if it happens? In other words, why bring it up?
/r/MensRights25/04/14 11:23 PM
1

"called the normalization of that thing" So locking your door at night is "normalization" of theft? I honestly don't understand what your point is. Does that mean it's bad to lock your door? Does that mean it's bad for people to suggest you lock your door? Is "normalization" bad at all? And if so, why? What should we do to prevent it?
/r/MensRights25/04/14 09:44 PM
1

So wait, acknowledging that we live in a reality where bad things happen and that one should take precautionary steps (like locking your door at night) to mitigate risks is a bad thing now? Is your suggestion that if we all just pretend these things don't happen we'll all be safer?
/r/MensRights25/04/14 05:05 PM
1

So in your world "only actual provisions I've seen" = "only provisions that exist"? I used the language that I did for a reason. This is why I asked you to cite the provisions you find objectionable, you've failed to do so.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 07:44 PM
1

I personally think that there's plenty of reason to prevent companies from being able to censor their employes on the subject of their paychecks. Such a thing helps underpaid employees whether they are men or women. Corporations know this, which is why they don't want it. And again, the article demonstrates nothing. All it does it make speculations without actually demonstrating a point. It makes predictions about things that might happen, but there is know way to actually know that those things…
/r/MensRights12/04/14 11:01 PM
1

The argument GrantNexus made isn't that it's necessarily wrong, it's that the article is just speculation (which the language of the article admits). You don't have to prove speculation to be wrong for it to remain speculation. If you want it to be treated as more than speculation, you have to demonstrate it to be correct. While I agree that the 77% figure is bullshit, that doesn't necessarily mean that the law is bad. It should be judged on its own merits. That being said, I've seen little of w…
/r/MensRights11/04/14 06:47 PM
4

You missed the point, what RIGHTS do they lack that supposedly causes this to happen? Do not expect equal rights to result in equal outcomes, that is often not the case.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 02:40 PM
5

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Hey, look! Words can have multiple meanings! Specifically look at the first part of the condensed definition and the second full definition. edit: And I'm sure that since (according to you) this is an MRA made up definition, you'd never find any feminists using that exact same definition would you? [Oh wait] (http://fempowermentjournal.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/mra-myths-debunked/)
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:30 PM
9

Funny how this is exactly the type of straw man that the analysis talks about. It is important to keep his argument in context. Of course, being drunk while also being forced to have sex by some other element, or being totally wasted and passed out, would be rape. And he never argues that it isn’t. Nowhere is Taranto arguing that “having drunk intercourse” + “having a gun held to your head” is not rape. He’s not arguing that “having drunk intercourse” + “being intimidated by threats of violence …
/r/MensRights13/02/14 08:22 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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