TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Ooshkii Archive

View 2 posts and 269 comments by Ooshkii on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Cool. So by your logic, if someone forced you to kill another you should be held accountable for first degree murder? If you have sex with someone who is drunk, even if you are too, you should be held accountable for rape? If you ignore traffic laws to get a mortally wounded person to the hospital, you should have to pay every fine/go to jail? This is the bullshit absolutism you are advocating.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 02:56 AM
1

You seem to have not read my comment. Responsibility for one's actions always has mitigating factors based on bias in the system. The issue here is not responsibility, but rather attempting to remove bias in the system that is unduly pushing decisions. If that is not what you are talking about, then you are not addressing my posts or the article in an honest manner.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 02:09 AM
1

All because some feminist girl wanting attention, or sympathy , or social status among her activist friends... all because she decided months/years later that the consent she gave... somehow didn't count. ~DarthCerebroX I have to disagree based on her own words: But missing from this dichotomy are the scores of “not rape” violations, and acts that might best be described as “sexual microaggressions”—small acts of boundary-pushing and coercion that might be easy enough to brush off in isolation, …
/r/MensRights22/09/17 01:32 AM
1

God forbid you attempt to add to the conversation in a substantive way.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 01:20 AM
1

And there is certainly an argument that rings true here. However I do think that we cannot ignore when someone says that they feel unduly pressured to make a decision that they do not like. We can recognize that people have responsibility for their actions while still working to better remove biasing factors in their decisions. To pose an example, consider this: You find a beautiful (insert body type here) person on some dating site and you chat them up. They live a few hours away and drive up s…
/r/MensRights22/09/17 01:16 AM
1

There is a bunch of nuance that you are throwing out the window here and we have, at least in most of western philosophy/jurisprudence, recognized that responsibility can have mitigating factors.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 01:03 AM
-4

No, the words I am looking for are social pressure and emotional manipulation... but nice try though.
/r/MensRights20/09/17 07:20 PM
-2

That is both unfair and uncharitable. If you somehow have secret evidence about her thoughts, feel free to share. Otherwise you are making shit up.
/r/MensRights20/09/17 04:01 PM
3

The specific point made here concerns the psychological pressure applied to turn a maybe or "i dont know" into a yes. I get it too, because the article mostly concerns manipulation based on social norms and the normalization of the idea that sex is given in exchange for something. I have a hard time criticizing these observations when I myself also hate that norm. Maybe the article is unfairly targeted solely at men, but the author is clearly writing from the perspective of a hetero woman. Furth…
/r/MensRights20/09/17 02:35 PM
7

Can we not do this? IMO, this sub should not be about complaining about feminism, and this post has nothing else to do with men's rights otherwise.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 11:20 PM
8

It is entertainment, and turns out people can change their views and what they buy. This is a bullshit argument even assuming your premises are correct.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 07:48 PM
3

I dont think it is meant to point towards a general trend of usage, but rather a commentary on the idea that society accepts male rapists as a matter of course and nature. Not that I agree with the position. Far more so, I would be interested in seeing how these issues break down along class or economic lines.
/r/MensRights26/05/17 05:33 AM
6

Facebook has the right to filter speech on their platform. So long as they are even on how they apply their anti-hate speech rules, I'm savvy.
/r/MensRights16/05/17 07:55 PM
11

I could just as easily propose that it is due to the fact that only an aggressive female would be able to bring together a country under their banner, and therefore have a predisposition to aggressive actions. (in fact, this is not the first time I have seen studies like this and what I have presented is usually the more accepted theory behind the behavioral pattern)
/r/MensRights28/04/17 06:59 PM
45

Who in the mainstream is supporting her? I can't find anything.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 03:05 AM
4

That is funny, but can we stop trying to use sexist language? We can't call people on this and do it ourselves.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 01:11 AM
1

Oddly enough, the American public education system seemed to work for me. Maybe that was because I payed paid attention.
/r/MensRights17/02/17 12:29 AM
1

indefinite articles
/r/MensRights16/02/17 09:49 PM
1

That is some fucked up logic. Nobody gets rights if somebody doesn't get rights... because then everyone will get rights...
/r/MensRights16/02/17 07:09 AM
1

"An eye for an eye" makes everyone blind.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 01:37 AM
2

Either your driving philosophy is that men do not have the right of bodily autonomy(which is a nonsense statement in a gramatical sense), or you dont seem to understand what you are talking about.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 02:59 PM
6

I wasnt speaking to actualities, but driving philosophies.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 02:48 PM
18

I hope this dumb shit gets tossed out. Bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental rights i think we need to protect.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 01:36 PM
6

But of course the quote from an aggrieved parent is given by a mother.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 01:30 PM
116

Story is from Nigeria as reported on Gossipmill.com, which credits itself as a source for gossip. I'll wait for independent confirmation.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 06:26 PM
1

Tu quoque gets you nothing in this. Perhaps be the change in the system for good instead of accepting the bad as a matter of course.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 10:40 PM
14

It is an odd title, but you clearly didnt read the article.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 07:50 PM
0

This seems to be a clear violation of TIL's rule against posts on police misconduct.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 04:20 PM
1

Because people have different standards for beauty. Why is that held as a cultural construct within the community? I have no clue, and I am not currently convinced that it is either a majority view or that the black American community significantly varies from other communities. I do have some hypothesis in this area, but have not taken the time to look at the information out there.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 05:03 AM
5

I think i have it figured out. They are saying that white people (i think men specifically) prefer a thinner body type, and that view is culturally crushing the more traditional view that PoC have (that being thin is not best). I think there is also an implicit premise that PoC cannot be thin... only white people... and therefore liking thin people is akin to liking only white people. This is increadibly racist, sexist, and a bunch of other bad things.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:55 PM
18

If we are going to call out the media when they use soft language to describe rape, then we need to call this article out for its egregious use of "snuggling" During the time they dated, the female student alleges that during several nights when they slept together, the male student groped and fondled the woman while she was sleeping, without her consent. The complaint also states that he “chased her down a hallway” threatening to taser her. Regardless of the actual facts of the case, this artic…
/r/MensRights29/01/17 11:33 PM
1

Not true, women shave too. Some even shave every day.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 07:37 PM
-2

Is toilet paper a gender specific good?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 12:54 AM
2

I feel like pointing to the extremes and saying "we are not that" is a bad strategy. The argument as it presents itself only ever leads to "hey it could be worse" which is not compelling when talking to an activist. The activist isnt looking backward but rather forwards and so a more useful appeal would be to throw to what forward progression from our current point is. Additionally, i dont think all of the ducks are in a row on this one. The sanitary tax is a gender biased tax on essential goods…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 07:39 PM
1

Well, I know that he has had an intactivist on and well as spent a whole episode discussing where he differs with the common feminist movement. He also has been no stranger to pointing out when he disagrees with the rhetoric for certain feminists. If anything, I would be inclined to believe that he is a hard egalitarian who was spooked from MRA by the worst in us (like so many others unfortunately).
/r/MensRights21/01/17 08:04 PM
1

You are more than welcome to think that, but I believe otherwise. He has on numerous occasions talked about men's rights issues... even if he generally falls under the same misapprehension that most people do about the movement.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 07:53 PM
-1

That is actually not true in its entirety. It is just more prone to such as the formulation of theory stage can be easier to drive with ideology. Granted, the same is also true in high level mathematics, physics, and the other sciences.... but much less visible because it is harder to relate for the common man. Also understand that a lot of the most trafficked ideas coming from them tend to be based on conclusions in search of evidence or, at least, consensus. is more or less true everywhere. Ev…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 12:11 PM
-2

You are utterly and inconsolably stupid, and worse yet by your own choice. Feel free to drop me a line when you are able to debate me on the merits of my arguments instead your feels.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 07:51 AM
0

That the genders are different leads to gender roles. That's hardly a logical leap. Yes it is because you have no data to back this claim. I don't need to show you anything as you have yet to prove the second premise in your argument... you just assume it to be true. What you have is that 11 male rhesus babies on average liked wheeled toys more than plushy ones and that 23 female rhesus babies on average liked wheeled toys more than plushy ones, but with the female's average preference being les…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 07:46 AM
1

If social science had any rigor to it, it would build upon traditions rather than assume they were automatically wrong. This statement alone shows that you know nothing of the scientific method. You almost always assume your hypothesis is wrong. To not know that is to display your clear misunderstanding of how scientific inquiry works. Additionally, the argument you make is more formally know as the informal fallacy of the argument from tradition. As I have already pointed out, it fails as it at…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 07:25 AM
0

Gender roles are biologically based. is not what the article describes. Until you actually read the article, we cant have a proper discussion. In point of fact, the study only looked at choices between wheeled and plush toys. It does observe a difference in these between male and female rhesus babies, but you have a damn long way if you are going to harangue this into confirming inherent gender roles. Go read the article, seek expert opinion.... you are the one making the shit argument.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 06:28 AM
-4

Once again, that article does not go where you think it does. I would encourage you to listen to this show where an expert discusses the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary psychology. http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/?powerpress_pinw=1407-podcast http://atheisticallyspeaking.com/?powerpress_pinw=1414-podcast
/r/MensRights20/01/17 10:43 PM
-1

Actually, you appealed to something as being the best way because it happened. You don't get to through out alternatives because they didn't happen. If you are willing to provide evidence that gender roles helped better advance our society, then your argument would work. Otherwise you are just appealing to tradition.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 10:40 PM
1

In all seriousness, that article doesn't point to what you are using it for. It is in fact making a much weaker claim. You may want to seek an expert opinion on the subject.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 07:12 PM
2

I know what it means. Intersex humans, of which there are a number of ways for this to occur, are distinct from male and female. They are not categorized as both male and female, but as something different.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 05:00 AM
3

A futanari would in fact be neither sex by definition.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 12:29 AM
2

There are rumors that someone on the comittee caught a trap last year and acted unilaterally this year.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 08:59 PM
0

I feel bad that you are so improperly informed on this subject. First of all, this is a question of linguistics and culture as opposed to biology. There are other languages that do not use gendered pronouns and gendered pronouns are not required within a language. Second, you are using some incredibly inflammatory and unsympathetic language when talking to people who don't conform to your immediate cultural concepts. (The reduced ability to empathize being a marked trait of autism) Third, a pers…
/r/MensRights15/12/16 05:12 AM
1

So, you gave a video where the producers searched for an edge case and a kink. How is that "happening in a meaningful way"? Furthermore, please point out where there is a call by the people in these communities where they do not want to be identified as a person. Also, what is the crimes against humanity part about? You understand that in charging someone with a crime, you are implicitly acknowledging their personhood right? Do you even know what you are talking about?
/r/MensRights14/12/16 05:38 PM
0

I thought OP's point was that they renounced to their humanity to become freaks or "things", it seems appropriate when used pejoratively. If you identify as furniture Back way the fuck up. Please show me where this is happening in any meaningful way.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 01:45 PM
0

Not really. in the broader context of this discussion, "it" is definitionally inappropriate as the word should only be used on something that would not have personhood. The whole thing is a category error. Neutrality expresses a middle position in a conversation, but in this case "it" isnt even in the same room. The whole thing is similar to how if I asked you for a plate, you wouldnt say "He is over there".
/r/MensRights13/12/16 06:36 PM
-5

Wrong. It is used to refer to a category of things that do not have personhood and thus would not be recognized as having a gender.
/r/MensRights13/12/16 04:42 PM
29

I mean, they would just throw you off a building in Dubai
/r/MensRights22/11/16 07:11 PM
3

The Skeptics With a K podcast also did a good rundown on their latest episode. That is a solid podcast for sniffing out bullshit.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 06:51 PM
3

Sorry.... you are wrong. Go actually try to study the social sciences some time. There is clear falsifiability within most studies as most studies make predictions about numbers. Furthermore, you will also find that the social sciences often have much more external applicability than the more traditional phys, chem, & bio. Most of the broad fields have underlying theories based on proven correlative or causal links. The actual problem they suffer from is the difficulty in endogeneity due to ethi…
/r/MensRights09/10/16 11:27 PM
1

Using something as an example once is heavy reliance now? Also, i am not assuming i am right on this. I have had two years of formal education on the law so far and continue to put a huge amount of time into studying it in both formal academic and informal settings.
/r/MensRights09/10/16 06:40 PM
-6

That phrase relates to how the law treats you, it has no truth function.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 08:26 PM
-4

The problem here is that the question of innocence and guilt are seperate in this case. If your example you are missing the point. When the jury aquits person B of the charge, they are not saying the person is or is not a murderer. The question before them is "is there enough evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that B commited murder?" That is quite literally the only question before that jury. The problem with your response is that it is not in the power of a jury to find someone…
/r/MensRights08/10/16 08:24 PM
4

Your reasoning is that he got away with it so will always be a rapist. This is not close to being true. The actual position is that the law does not have sufficient reason or cause to hold this person as having commited this crime. It speaks nothing of an innocence proposition. My reasoning is the woman was crazy and lied about or invented the whole thing. What is your evidence? That the court could not find this person guilty? In that case your evidence does not support your conclusion. No woma…
/r/MensRights08/10/16 08:05 PM
5

That's feminism talking. Please explain how so. If a court says there was not enough evidence, the court means that he probably didn't do it. No, at best a criminal court can find that there is not enough evidence to prove the person did something beyond a reasonable doubt... Which is a high bar. For example, the court of the O.J. Trial did not find that he probably didnt do it.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 07:57 PM
-9

No, you are presumed innocent as a matter of law until your trial. However, a court cannot find someone innocent, it can only find them not guilty given the case presented. These are rather basic legal concepts, and i would encourage you to go look this up independently if you dont believe me.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 05:34 PM
16

Point of order, a court cannot say someone did not rape someone else. They can only say that their was or was not enough evidence to convict.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 05:27 PM
3

Maybe he has a lower level of discomfort with the idea? To a certain degree, having a child with my genetics is important to me and i could see a net decision in that direction. I guess what i am more curious about is it seems he had a SO. I wonder if the SO's situation affected his decision.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 05:11 PM
2

Not being rude, this would be better said as either "a female having a baby" or more accuratly "a trans-man having a baby". The proper parlance holds 'woman' as a gender identification.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 05:06 PM
2

I have to agree. I will say that i do disagree with the quasi-naturalistic appeal with that line about wanting to avoid drugs and a c-section. I also wonder if making the process more medically involved might help to assuade the dysphoria.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 05:03 PM
2

No.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 12:29 PM
1

Eh, sometime men are mindlessly sexist. It is all about trying to break out of the 3rd grade boy/girl tribalism divide
/r/MensRights24/08/16 02:53 PM
1

So you are saying that 60% of the time, I am right every time?
/r/MensRights29/06/16 11:29 PM
4

I believe it is a bastardized version of the 1:4 campus rape statistic which has its own problems due to the study that comes from. I could easily be wrong though.
/r/MensRights29/06/16 02:18 PM
9

Remember that the side making the claim has the burden of proof. While you did make a counter-point which you did back with data, the burden is on the other person for providing academic studies proving their point. IMO, next time ask them to source their claims from a study. If they say something like "common sense" then you hit them with "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
/r/MensRights29/06/16 06:00 AM
17

A: She can't fit....
/r/MensRights24/06/16 06:40 PM
2

If I am reading this correctly, yes to the shipping the actors. Basically, some fans were being super creepy... Confusing actors with the characters they play. They said creepy things, got called on it, tried to crybully their way out of the situation, and were called on that as well.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 06:19 PM
8

Shipping means building non-canon relationships between characters by the community. Sometimes it is a practice based around predicting future relationships within a continuum, but most of the time it is "playing dolls/house" with characters.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 04:20 PM
-12

Agreed
/r/MensRights31/05/16 09:51 PM
7

No, they just tax people with a penis. It is fair because the tax would apply equally to all people.
/r/MensRights15/05/16 05:25 PM
6

No women likes equality Bullshit. You are the same as the "All men ..." people.
/r/MensRights12/05/16 03:10 AM
1

They are not. Just only ever look for feminists' hate quotes and they will represent the majority of what you see from that side. FIFY
/r/MensRights12/05/16 02:31 AM
11

True Facts. Honestly I feel like these posts, screenshots of social media stuff, might need to be banned or limited. They are all low effort, generally only ever represent rather outside views, are easily faked, and are almost all ragebate. Maybe we should have a vote or something.
/r/MensRights10/05/16 02:33 PM
3

I still think not.
/r/MensRights05/05/16 02:45 AM
9

It is not a religion. You can make arguements about people being fanatical, but it does not meet the definition of a religion. Saying it is so is disingenuous.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 11:27 PM
2

There is research on the subject. I'm going to pull the classic rude move of not linking to anything (because I don't have access right now) but I am sure if you are interested you can find it. You also have to consider that many sports are inherently more dominated by men, and therefore it would make more sense to see men in the higher echelons as there is a greater pool of people to pull from.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 05:27 AM
4

You are trying to extrapolate, based on one small aspect of sports, something that cannot based on the info presented.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 05:04 AM
10

The spacial awareness thing goes away with training, it just refers to the base average.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 03:59 AM
3

He can have a say, but not a legal right over someone else's body.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 04:29 AM
3

Your point seems to have nothing to do with mine. Here I am saying that I believe that women should not be forced into pregnancy just because a man desires a child.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 04:28 AM
11

I am with you, I just think that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy or parenthood.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 11:03 PM
84

I am against forcing pregnancy against someone's will. That unfortunately means that Men will have to wait for science so they don't have to rely on a woman, but I think that bodily autonomy should trump desire for children.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 09:06 PM
1

You don't get to run a Tu Croque fallacy to justify your desire for this to be a worthwhile study. Just because someone else messes up, doesn't mean you can justify your own mess up.
/r/MensRights03/03/16 05:30 PM
-3

And nobody ever does anything illegal. I do hate this arguement because it makes no sense.
/r/MensRights03/03/16 03:39 PM
2

Basically this. For the movement's purposes, this does nothing since we have no access to methodology or data. For all we know, the statistical data might not be significant, thereby meaning that the chances of a false positive are unacceptable. This is actually a common method for PR now anyways. You can look up Michael Marshall of the Liverpool Skeptics, but he has more or less built a career based on pointing out when this happens. With a little bit of work, a company can release the results …
/r/MensRights03/03/16 03:23 PM
11

Please Note: This is not academic research. This is actually PR in the guise of a story about research. Notice the name drop of a company related to job searching despite any information about an actual published paper. I saw six instances of their name on that web page, including a link, but nothing relating to a published paper.
/r/MensRights03/03/16 04:50 AM
3

Didn't you know? Only women can ~woman~ just as only men can ~man~. This is what happens when gender equality means you are only free to act within your gender norms and that you can never understand anything outside of those norms.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 04:20 AM
7

I was both surprised and gladdened to see the [drag-queen]? community get mentioned. Great advert all around.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 07:19 AM
2

Painted one way, I agree this is a problem. However, I do somewhat think that this might be a useful distinction in regards to arguing over suicide statistics. Sure there are more woman who attempt suicide, but they don't seem to have an actual interest in causing themselves harm. Men, on the other hand, more often commit suicide specifically to harm or eliminate themselves. I know that this was the reason for me.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 07:07 AM
1

Is it pandering though? Tell me where it is specified that the Mantle of Thor requires a penis. Sure that has been a traditional aspect, but maybe the writers wanted to mix things up like they do when a franchise goes stale. Like almost every other time a "new" Thor has been reveled.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 07:57 AM
0

So, the powers of Thor are more of a mantle than anything else. It is actually very common to see mantling being the common way for new characters to be added into existing roles and this is not the first time that the Mantle of Thor has been worn by someone other than Thor (Beta Ray Bill became hugely popular despite being a Thor copy). This new female Thor is just a lady who gained the mantle of Thor and began to act under the title. Just like literally every other character who has ever taken…
/r/MensRights31/01/16 07:54 AM
2

Why do people choose to ask jack-offs on a sub-reddit if they can sue? Aside from those of us who have studied law (and would therefore prob not be inclined to answer), nobody has a clue what the actual/best answer is. Go talk to a real lawyer. If you are military, I am sure there are resources just for you in that regard.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 07:32 AM
-2

They also are born, and do not require a specific person to take care of them.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 02:21 PM
0

In any battle, it is important to know when to feign, to put up a token defense, and when to attempt to defend something at all costs in order to pave the way for future battles.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 02:13 PM
-4

The fallacy here is that you currently have the capacity to have that opinion and are not trying to feed off of someone else's body.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 02:11 PM
5

I think it is a bit of column A, bit of column B. I think that there are women out there who get hurt by a man/men and then decide that all men are bad in this way. I think that there is a tendency to, for the sake of justice, highlight these cases due to the perceived imbalance of power in these situations. I also think that this perceived power imbalance tends to create a cultural environment where men dont speak up because they know that nobody will care/want to hear. Thus, you get two tangen…
/r/MensRights08/12/15 03:19 PM
0

I guess it is interesting... He makes some good points but he is kind of a jerk about it. Why steamroll someone like this when the other person is being amicable. Also, some weird outright assertions like the fashion thing. Sources would be nice. Edit: also this guy has no fucking idea how to government or economy.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 12:29 PM
2

but wholesale copying, screenshotting, and sharing of a website definitely is, according to three separate copyright fair use attorneys I spoke with. Come at me bro... but seriously. Anyways, these pages are being hosted on Archive.is right? As I understand it the onus is on the person hosting the data, so send your DMCA's to them.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 11:50 AM
5

Most people wont give a shit. A few people will worry right up until talk to them. One or two people might decide to launch a crusade against you. Get yourself the ACLU recording app (if it still exists) and be sure to record any conversations with those people. Be open with your group's goals, hide nothing. Try to interact with people who rally against you in order to calmly educate them as to your goals.
/r/MensRights02/11/15 09:57 PM
-6

I will let this hedge pass for libel reasons.
/r/MensRights30/10/15 01:12 AM
1

But... We don't avoid that plague because it doesn't exist in human populations anymore. Are you saying that we should not avoid women? /s
/r/MensRights17/10/15 05:24 PM
15

I think it comes from an internal split between the old system where women were expected to not have that many partners and the new system where it isn't viewed as bad. Even though they consciously are thinking that it is ok, the ingrained societal pressures from those of the old order begin to nag on these women. So, some resort to this kind of behavior to alleviate their guilt as they are able to "cross these guys off their list". So, by making this lady a hookup, the guy triggered her learned…
/r/MensRights11/08/15 04:11 AM
0

Something something exploring sexuality... something something penetration is different...
/r/MensRights04/08/15 07:23 AM
5

But then there is that whole languages and word definitions change over time based on popular use. For more, please see the vast majority of colloquialisms for good
/r/MensRights04/08/15 07:20 AM
2

While I am not saying to stop playing football, I love the sport, I find that intellectual or semi-intellectual podcasts can help with running and can also turn exercise time into learning time as well.
/r/MensRights27/06/15 04:55 PM
3

Round 2. Fight! The penis is part of the reproductive organ system and is an organ. Circumcision removes 33-50% of total penile skin which is definitely both disfiguring injury and a severe wound. These wounds also often become infected while healing causing further issues. You may not want to be referred to as having a mutilated penis, but you still do. Your feels do not get to override reality. I would further encourage you to read the linked article as it will tell you exactly what you have b…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 05:48 AM
21

We don't... mutilation involves cutting or damaging something in a way that removes function. Earlobes are largely without function and piercing the ear does not damage the ear's ability to hear.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 03:40 AM
-9

No. Please go learn to English before you try to post again.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 03:38 AM
-4

But do we really have to always have a "but what about the men" comment thrown in on every issue? Obviously something is creating a huge problem for women in this context, and equality doesn't mean we always have to look at both genders at the same time. Much in the same way that I am not a reporter of or firebrand for women's rights issues, I don't expect everyone to be the same for men's rights.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 02:27 AM
2

Eh, I'm not down for firing someone for a one time offense of this nature. I would rather attribute something like this to incompetence over malice until there is more evidence showing a pattern.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 02:21 AM
3

The argument as I understand it is supposed to be an incredibly academic argument that redefines racism and sexism to include privilege theory. The long and short of it is that women and minorities have no ability to discriminate against men/whites and thus do not have the typical power structure that is attributed to sexism/racism. In the proper form, this argument does not claim that women/minorities can't be bigoted, just that the "-ism's" only work on a top-down power structure. Of course, t…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 02:14 AM
3

Put down the keyboard and cool off for a bit. You sound crazy and just plain rude. OP just wanted to share that she empathizes with the movement. There is no reason to get mad at that.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 02:00 AM
17

Now, granted you are a mod and get to see a lot more of the shitty side of this subreddit, but I think that there are plenty of people here who agree with feminists on certain issues. The problem here is that there are plenty of people who want to use a shotgun instead of a scalpel to try to fix our societal issues. There are also plenty of feminists out there who just plain don't care about the male condition and are not afraid to shit all over it to get what they want.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 01:47 AM
45

Cool... it is still definitionally mutilation and most likely cosmetic at that.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 01:41 AM
1

To be fair, before Row V. Wade men could have been cited with getting an abortion in the various places it was illegal as well. Also, there was a time when whites were equally banned from interracial marriage.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 04:00 AM
1

Not necessarily. Not every relationship requires monogamy, and if all people involved consent, you can have polyamory without cheating.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 03:31 PM
0

It's almost like I never said anything about the reason being statistical significance. But I guess you are too lazy to even use Google fu.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 03:28 PM
0

Go take a course in statistics, the math is too complex to just give you a short blurb, and I honestly don't care enough to do so anyways.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 03:42 AM
0

Yeah... You still don't know how to statistics... So maybe stop while you are ahead.
/r/MensRights09/05/15 02:15 PM
0

Were the results statistically significant? Don't play the statistics game if you don't know the rules.
/r/MensRights09/05/15 06:09 AM
0

1) this is a bullshit post for the /r/mensrights that assumes a motive never expressly given 2) what the fuck did that lady hope to accomplish?
/r/MensRights16/04/15 12:39 AM
1

Statutory rape laws are based on the fact that under aged kids are both not fully emotionally developed and easy to manipulate. Sure the kids might think that they want this, and they may never see a problem with it for the rest of their lives, but this is still an obvious case where an adult abused a position of power over someone, and it is more than possible that it was done so using the manipulatory powers that come with having a position of authority.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 04:37 PM
2

See here for why you are wrong.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 04:36 PM
2

No, I would say that someone falls off the crazy train when they go full aggro on a baseless assertion only to end up looking like an asshole.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 03:56 AM
2

if MRA don't vocally support transsexuals, they are 'bad people'? Converesely, if mras support transsexuals, they are 'good people'? Not only are you missing the point, but you are also seemingly following the flawed logical structure that I am seeking to fight. There was a charge leveled against MRM that we are bad people who do bad things. There was also an implication that part of this is evidenced by "MRA's not showing support for trans people." This is obviously flawed logic in that one sho…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 01:27 AM
1

I am curious... What makes you think I am trolling? I think I am making a legitimate ask for help showing MRA's are not all bad people like is commonly claimed. (And specifically in this case)
/r/MensRights06/04/15 07:05 PM
0

This is a fair point, but I would argue that peer-review can also be done post-publishing. As an example, what would you call the process by which that one vaccines-autism causation study was evaluated by after it was published if not peer review.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 11:56 PM
-1

You were justifying your arguement based on your ad hominem, I was describing my reaction to your arguements after I had already destroyed them. There is a difference.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 08:44 PM
0

You are so intellectually dishonest it hurts.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 07:39 AM
-1

No, he cited the professor's current work (which is medical anyways). Additionally, the guy has masters degree in the field of analyzing what makes for good medical science. I also would definitely call it an ad hominem when you start your counter-argument by choosing to use words that imply a lacking of academic credibility ("blog" "guy"). The post was not just a blog made by just a guy, and the lack of reverence for these facts shows that /u/Porso9 is trying to take objective points of view an…
/r/MensRights11/03/15 07:35 AM
3

Wow.... are you serious? I never claimed that you were expressing an opinion because it doesn't matter anyways. The argument is about the flawed nature of the studies cited in support of circumcision. Further, your argument against this PROFESSOR is just a cheap attempt at disparagement. This isn't just some blog post, he isn't just some guy who researches a thing. I'm fairly certain that as someone who uses statistical and normative methods to study medical issues, he has more than enough acade…
/r/MensRights11/03/15 06:52 AM
6

Well... you are ignoring the fact that the doctor could be making the suggestion from a personal bias based on 100 years of cultural dogma. Maybe not, but there is that possibility as well
/r/MensRights11/03/15 04:50 AM
16

It really hasn't. Here is some peer review about how those studies were flawed to the point of being useless.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 04:46 AM
6

Cis white male femsplains and argues against strawpersons while showing behavior that most vocal Fems would decry.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 05:33 PM
8

If you do not show favoritism toward a woman, because you do not want to date her or be friends, that is hostile sexism. If you were friendly, you were benevolently sexist. Jesus Fuck.... you can't be serious. I don't even know where to begin with how wrong this statement is.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 06:54 AM
23

We need to swing with heavy hands. Do be careful with witch hunts based on the statements of a 2 day old account.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 10:10 AM
3

Just saying, but the side of caution should be disbelief. You have no evidence that this happened other than some dude on the internet saying so.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 10:07 AM
11

People on reddit really need to cut the crap and stop acting like they know better than other people what happened in those people's live Because nobody lies on the internet.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 10:04 AM
1

I don't see any reason why that would be accurate. That's my point. Making blanket generalizations based on "Muh Intuition" is the same bullshit that most MRA's hate about feminists. Plenty of people around here ready to make backhanded comments that could be interpreted as disparaging towards women without a shred of evidence.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 09:55 PM
-2

I'm not arguing that this is not a marketing strategy, I am arguing against the logic that: That women are targeted by advertisements more than men means that they're more easily swayed by such tactics. What it is, why it is, and what that means, are different issues.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 06:36 PM
-2

You have the burden of proof, kiddo. Fulfill it.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 06:31 PM
-3

I would think otherwise because there is a difference between "conventional wisdom" and actual truth. You can't just drop something like that and back it up with anecdote, or else you are doing the same bullshit making up of facts without evidence that we criticize feminists for.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 04:45 PM
-2

That women are targeted by advertisements more than men means that they're more easily swayed by such tactics. No. And before you challenge me on that, remember that you have the burden of proof.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 03:55 PM
18

I would take out the portion on female CEO's making more than men... the title was click bait and the article's conclusion does not follow its data.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 09:01 AM
8

This study does not appear to have been published in a reputable journal. It seems nice, but wait until it gets reviewed before you accept it.
/r/MensRights15/01/15 05:25 AM
3

Everyone is entitled to have their issue, even if it seems pedantic.
/r/MensRights06/01/15 06:59 PM
0

No
/r/MensRights06/01/15 06:56 PM
1

It is being used for awareness. Excluding the sadists out there, I doubt there are people watching this for entertainment.
/r/MensRights31/12/14 01:12 AM
1

I have no rational idea why, but this comment had me actually laughing out loud. Sorry for the trouble you go through, but somehow that comment was funny.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 02:15 AM
-12

Downvote for stupidity. The issue isn't gender based, it is based on her extensive tattoos.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 01:18 PM
1

fair enough on that point, but my argument still stands regardless of that.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 08:18 PM
48

Please go ahead and kill it. Not only is it low effort, but it is based on incredibly faulty logic. Someone displaying the naked bodies of others (even if they are just drawings) is entirely different from someone displaying their own body. This is classic shit-posting.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 06:22 AM
3

Patriarchy: *Patriarchy *Patriarchy *Patriarchy The only thing you need to know
/r/MensRights13/11/14 03:31 PM
30

We are disheartened at the way the professors blurred the line between constitutionally protected due process rights critical to criminal prosecution by the state and the right to consistent and fair processes enjoyed in disciplinary proceedings by private educational institutions. "We want kangaroo courts because the constitution only gets in the way when we want to presume guilt." Also.... "constitutionally protected due process rights" != "consistent and fair processes"? The authors are law g…
/r/MensRights24/10/14 03:11 PM
0

Both of these things are true. Men can be (and frequently are) the victims of violence. And women are certainly capable of perpetrating sexual violence. But the dual existence of these statements of fact shouldn't preclude the specific discussion of either one of them. That is to say, we should be having robust discussions about men's experience of violence. But we should be talking about how men's victimisation so frequently occurs at the hands of other men, in response to the same impulses and…
/r/MensRights14/10/14 08:11 PM
1

The statement I made was a statement about the inner workings of human consciousness. And? You have provided no evidence that backs up your model of human thought. This isn't really an empirically verifiable statement, unless we go on self-reports. You know... except for all of the psychology and neurology that is well established though peer review processes. Except for that, there is nothing to go on. And the problem is that in today's society, if you confess to thinking about sex from a cost-…
/r/MensRights10/10/14 10:08 AM
1

You made a declarative statement with no evidence to back it up. If Arakln disagrees based on personal feelings, then they have disproved your statement and it becomes stupid.
/r/MensRights10/10/14 08:56 AM
1

A small thing, given that this is a Uni website, it prob is more towards non-married couples. But I agree with you.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 10:05 AM
7

spokesman for OnePoll.com said If it came from OnePoll, it is most likely not accurate. Looks like The Blaze put up another shitty click-bait/bate article citing a shitty source. Move along.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 06:57 PM
11

Good. We hear horrible stories about men being screwed by family codes across the world. I am happy to hear about this case wherein not only the men were able to have a happy ending, but this victory should be able to benefit the LGBQ community as well. This is something good all around.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 02:05 AM
-3

You might not want to say that you "porked this stupid chick." I am going to call troll on this one, but in the event that you are being real, you should probably take a good look at your life and your general being to see if you are an asshole. Misogyny isn't cool. Also, try not to talk to the cops, and talk to an actual lawyer. Sucks to suck, but if you really are in trouble, that's the only thing that will really help.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 10:25 AM
1

this is horrid, but still gave me a laugh
/r/MensRights27/08/14 05:04 AM
2

skipped over or haven't gotten to yet? Could also have slipped their minds.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 05:02 AM
3

The sad thing for me is my favorite style of architecture is post-modern. Just to think that these two things share the same name is saddening.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 02:58 AM
1

That was fucking excellent.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 08:37 PM
1

First, I believe that you are improperly conflating vascular with involuntary when you are describing what you call the "vascular erection." It is important to note that vascular only means something pertaining to the circulation of blood, and that all erections are vascular regardless of anything physiological or social. You say: and vascular erections, unlike muscular or skeletal erections, are a reaction rather than an action. However, the penis neither has muscles or bones. What I believe yo…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 03:03 AM
1

I am not questioning the fact that men are not always in control of their erections, but the conclusion you deduce as to the social implications is off and seems sexist. Specifically: for many women this acceptance of responsibility is repulsive. You seem to want to conclude that the part of the opposition to this view point is due to an inherent lack of moral strength in women rather than a misconception perpetuated by populat culture and general ignorance. Regardless of the universality of dis…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 11:38 PM
7

Whoa... slow down there friend. What kind of logic is this and where is any kind of back-up to your claim. What you have proposed is a non-sequitur that seems heavily biased against women for no given reason.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 02:15 AM
2

Wow... really? First, I never claimed that these men were sluts, just that they were promiscuous (two different things, go look it up), and second, where is your reasoning behind the no such thing as a male slut bit?
/r/MensRights01/06/14 03:32 AM
2

Then go do a study. I'll even help you out and tell you the most probable results. All humans regardless of gender have varying tastes and preferences.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 12:43 AM
6

Not necessarily, just as with men, not all women are promiscuous. The biggest problem in gender conflicts is when someone tries to nail down all of gender X as being Y. There are plenty of women and men who are promiscuous, just as there are plenty of women and men who are not. Further, there are plenty of promiscuous women and men who prefer virgins over experienced and vice-versa. So... no, that's not what that means.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 02:01 PM
19

I think it is more about the expectation of monogamy in a relationship. If someone is known to enjoy having multiple sex partners, or to move through relationships quickly, then it becomes harder to see them as good monogamous relationship material. Also, notice that Roddy said they were incompatible for him (her?). I would have no problems being in a relationship with someone who had a very sexually active background provided they maintained monogamous, or we discussed things.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 01:30 PM
29

Responsible parent option: Don't send your child unaccompanied on a plane you complete fucking moron. Why not send your child on a plane unaccompanied? I have flown on airplanes unaccompanied since I was 9 years old because my parents are split and my father is well off enough to have me come see him many times a year. In all of those flights, I have never had an issue, and while I was still a minor, my mother would walk me to the terminal and my father would be at the arriving gate waiting for …
/r/MensRights20/05/14 04:39 PM
0

Read the article (at least once), and stop being the idiot with a victim complex. The OP did not use the original title, and the title of the post by OP is very far from what the author is talking about. If you had attempted to read into the article, you would know that she is not talking about all men... not even some men... just those few that are inclined to become overly obsessed with food prep.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 05:59 PM
0

Just because you do not like something does not make it untrue. There are in fact a lot of circle jerk "da woman keepin' us down" posts that appear here, and if we do not try to keep ourselves out of that downward spiral, then we may very well become exactly what our critics accuse us of being. This thread has no relevance to men's rights or to the MRM. This is a woman complaining about her relationship. She is not claiming that men can not cook, or that men have no place in the kitchen, but rat…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 05:38 PM
0

Who is "that guy"?
/r/MensRights08/05/14 12:24 PM
-2

Well, let's not try to paint the guy in a perfect light. Granted, we are not getting the story from him, but if he is regularly making everything the exact same, that would get a bit boring. Even worse, if the cooking is taking a very long time, I too would be put out. She should not have made this a public issue until she tried to talk it through with her significant other, but I would be willing to bet that there is something to her complaint.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 07:24 AM
1

I agree. Especially in this age where communication is not only near instant, but you have access to all of your friends' gripes (social media), I think that the ability to start a circle jerk within a select group of people who all agree with your stance on an issue is too damn easy. I was a bit confused by the "horror of it all still fresh in her voice, "he wanted to have sex."" part. Perhaps as a man who is a meat and potatoes kind of guy (although the dinner described seems a bit heavy for m…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 07:16 AM
1

I don't really think that this is a men's rights issue. I do think that the author and the other people anecdotally cited in this need to have a proper sit down with their significant others to explain that their near neurotic food preparing habits are bad. However, this mostly reads like someone who just wants to complain about their relationship rather than fix it, and is then going around to find that AMIRITE circle jerk to justify their actions. Also, I would contend with the link title pick…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 04:40 AM
6

Obvious troll is obvious. She is just trying to ruffle feathers for clicks, ignore and move along.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:06 PM
-3

We don't ignore science because it disagrees with our politics. You are putting words in my mouth. All I have said is that the common layman should not worry about this study as the sample size is too small to reliably scale up to the total population. The study could be very close to the population mean, but we have no way to know this. You seem to be conflating my views of the study's scientific significance and its significance to the non-scientific community, so I will say it again. I have n…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 07:02 AM
-3

In point of fact, I am following the scientific review process perfectly. If you really are who you claim to be, you would know that with these kinds of study, you have an initial study with N < 100 to show a possible thing, and then more studies with a much higher N in order to more accurately represent a population. In terms of clinical testing, this would be analogous to a phase 1 trial. And I said So, unless you are part of the field, ignore this until a more comprehensive study is completed…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 02:39 AM
-2

I am not trying to say that their results are not valid. In fact, I specifically stated elsewhere in the comments that this study is fine for people who are in this field. However, I know enough about statistics that you can not say that this study can accurately model the population mean with a high degree of confidence, and that's what the op wanted to imply. Here amongst laymen, this study should mean nothing. However because the title is in keeping with the normal group think, and most peopl…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 02:27 AM
-1

What you do is ignore the study. The sample size was too small for the average layman to be able to draw anything from it. The sample size was 80 women and they barely made a token attempt to represent US women demographics. For example, approx 96% had completed college, uni, or technical school and approx 19% were without religion. So, unless you are part of the field, ignore this until a more comprehensive study is completed.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 08:21 PM
40

As someone who has studied college level statistics, I am wary of this study. It had a sample group of 80 women in total, with 77 of them having completed education past high school. This seems like too small of a sample group to represent the female population at large. Maybe a good opening study to warrant more study, but nobody should draw any more from this than it requires further study.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 08:14 PM
12

That's the national average for the US
/r/MensRights28/03/14 12:50 AM
1

I would like to point out that you were the one who made the claim that women are statistically more likely to be victims of abuse. Thus, you have the burden of proof, not them. While you were provided evidence contrary to your claim, all of this talk about you asking for evidence is beyond the point. You made an evidentiary claim, and had no data to back up said point. (this of course does not excuse stin00b for being an internet asshole though)
/r/MensRights20/03/14 06:26 PM
11

The problem is that while she has no problem with a person being male, she has a problem with a person being a man. It is a subtle argument based on nuances that do not exist for a majority of the target population. She is saying to not hate the person, but rather to hate the behavior that is biologically inherent to them. So, she is in fact blaming men for all practical reasons.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 11:13 PM
1

Excluding #25, which I am assuming is 100% a light hearted joke, I am fine with this. It is not like the majority of this stuff is unreasonable. This one even helped me to understand the whole pay on the first date thing (its not about not wanting to pay and more about how many women are stimulated by romance and someone treating them special). I could care less about this.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 06:28 AM
2

I would not say that it is a serious issue, but one indicative of the overall problem we seek to fix. While the lady in this story may not be a feminist, she definitely suffers from the perception that all men want nothing more than to fuck all the time. She is also showing the classic "why are my desires not being met" attitude that seems to pervade urban female culture. Perhaps not a serious thing, but still something worth noting.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 06:22 AM
4

Why are all of these cute boys not interested in me? Said the woman at least 5 years older than every other man in the unusually male dense, trendy night club in San Francisco.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 06:15 AM
2

I have to agree. The video and most of the comments here are tackling this from a backwards position IMO. You can't take this approach and say that if you are discouraged from doing a thing for being stigmatized, you shouldn't do it. This argument assumes that the individual should be emotionally stable and not impressionable, which is an incredibly rare trait in children and teenagers.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 04:01 AM
2

Because I can't see this in the comments to your comment so far, it is not numbers2357 onus to prove if feminists do or do not support this kind of thing. They are questioning if Beyond has the evidence to back up their claim. Trying to put the responsibility of evidence on numbers doesn't make sense as beyond has yet to establish if their implied claim is true.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:59 AM
5

Nah, it's those bullshit "middle of the road" types that are trying to slow the movement. /s
/r/MensRights09/03/14 08:06 AM
2

Kind of like what my dad always told me. "Don't look into getting a liberal arts degree. All you can do is teach liberal arts, and thus the cycle continues." Maybe not all liberal arts, but a good portion.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 03:04 AM
2

Though that may be subjective, being an MRA isn't exactly uncommon. I don't mean to be rude, but you did make an evidentiary claim that "being an MRA isn't exactly uncommon." The onus is on you to prove your claim.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 10:57 AM
0

a few things. a foot is not a person, but rather attached to a person. I can legally chop my own foot off if i see fit, but people might think I am mentally unstable as a foot is important. I cannot chop your foot off because that is assault of a person. Human cells have a gender regardless of their legal status. While people can legally change their legal gender, they cannot change their genetic gender if you are still confused, go find a middle school textbook on biology and read the part abou…
/r/MensRights27/02/14 03:36 PM
2

Living thing and living person are two different things. All living human cells have gender chromosomes (except for the ones without nucleus like RBC).
/r/MensRights27/02/14 08:35 AM
6

I would say that given that, in the US (I don't know stats for other places), female humans are on average 5'4" (1.62m) and male humans are on average 5'10"(1.77m), and that the US is one of the best fed (as in number of people who meet full dietary requirements) countries, I would think that any issue with height altering environmental factors is not food related.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 06:59 AM
0

Except that I have: see all of the parts where I, and the guy who originally posted the NHS link, talk about how the theripy is offered. The stuff that the guy who posted the NHS link showing the subject of the story did this against the advice of his medical doctors, and the source that I have provided that show how bad the daily mail is. Please keep up if you want to argue against me. Also, thank you for continuing to downvote me because you do not like my arguments.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 10:19 PM
0

Calling my argument a genetic fallacy in this context only works if the Daily Mail does not have a long tradition of obscuring, or actively lying about, the truth (which they did in this case). It is safe to dismiss a source if they are known to incessantly use dishonest practices. Also, saying "A broken clock is right twice a day." is a vast oversimplification. The only reason that such a thing could occur is because our system of time measurement loops indefinitely and is in itself a very simp…
/r/MensRights25/02/14 09:52 PM
0

I don't have a vendetta. I, along with many people, believe that they are a click bait rag that tries to publish rage inducing stories with little research, as evidenced by the fact that not only does the NHS fund this type of therapy, but they also will fund it in three out of country clinics if the person really wanted to get it out of country. I would be fine with them if they actually tried to b respectable.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 07:14 PM
0

But seriously, they are very well known for being a click bait rag (not journal) that publishes stories with little actual research but big nasty titles. So, educate yourself, other wise fuck off. edit: Also, if you look at the NHS link provided, they offer funding for the treatment, and they even offer planning and money to have the treatment done out of country. Once again, the daily fail manages to not even do a few seconds of research before they post their clicksterbation.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 07:09 PM
-2

Please don't cite the daily fail as a source. edit: it is know to be alarmist and incredibly dishonest.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 04:00 PM
2

Already got it. Thanks mate.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 11:05 AM
2

Daily Fail, please ignore anything on this website.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 01:12 AM
13

"It's like we're walking around with a bull's-eye," said Michelle Martin, who has stopped carrying a purse and now keeps her money and identification tucked in her back pocket. The best part is she isn't even trying to be ironic.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 07:52 PM
2

So you have the time to read and type up responses on reddit, but have no time to educate yourself on the topic you blindly posit. There is literally no defense or excuse for for this kind of brash behavior when instead of getting "dat righteous fury" and white knighting something you know nothing about, you could have spent 2 minutes on Wikipedia or just done a google search. Ignorance is never an excuse when you are on the internet, and commenting on things you know nothing about will only get…
/r/MensRights18/02/14 02:15 AM
3

No. You have misunderstood everything. Before you look at side effects, you have to prove efficacy. Efficacy can be altered by the hormonal cycle. So wiki Phase I trials use men to see if it is safe for men/humans. Phase II trials use men to prove efficacy of the drug for its given use Phase III trials use people of both genders, numerous races, and people with various conditions/medications that might cause complications to establish its public safety, full range of side effects, and efficacy f…
/r/MensRights18/02/14 01:28 AM
8

when women are easily distracted by shiny things. Let's not sound like a bunch of dicks and just say "when women are told to expect shiny things"
/r/MensRights16/02/14 05:12 AM
2

All in all, this seems like a non-issue. Let them have their girls day out, they are not hurting anyone. Maybe they say no boys allowed, but who cares. I wouldn't want to go anyways.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 04:05 PM
2

At the most, some hormones might get mixed in with the red blood cells, and there may possibly be low but detectable level of genetic material. Other than that, sounds like the doctor was BS'ing
/r/MensRights13/02/14 09:44 AM
1

Universities have had self-governing policies going back to the foundation of the institution. Now, it is important to understand that their trials have no bearing on legal matters, but they serve as a way for universities to police themselves and that which is in their domain. As for why they seem to focus on rape, there are plenty of low level things that go through university justice departments all of the time, but rape is a huge hot button issue and thus gets a spotlight. With the huge vict…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 12:55 PM
10

I can point out that a not guilty verdict does not mean that he was found innocent. It means that the jury were unable to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. And a not guilty verdict does not mean that the victim lied. I can point out the fundamental lack of knowledge about how our system of law works. It means that someone is considered innocent of the law until they are proven to have committed it. And a not guilty verdict means the prosecution did not have a strong enough case.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 07:03 PM
-3

But that is not a MRM issue.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 06:38 PM
0

But nobody accused him of a sexual offense. Also, there were questions asked even though he was a man, how do you think he was exonerated.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 06:38 PM
-2

Assault is not sexual assault. The girls never made a false sex crime accusation.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 04:06 PM
-8

I'm going to say that without any further information, this isn't an MRM thing. This is a story of two children (same thing would have happened if it were boys) who decided to try to get a person (same thing would have happened if he was a woman) in trouble by saying he assaulted them. There is no real gender discrimination going on here, just two little shits trying to hurt someone because they could.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 09:19 AM
2

She begging the question pure and simple.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 10:49 AM
2

Ah, sorry. That was not immediately apparent. Too many layers of sarcasm.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 06:07 AM
9

I know you are making a joke, but that's an incorrect way to interpret the data. More apt would be 4% of deaths on the job are women, if the data is to be believed.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 05:27 AM
96

It's weird. It seems like the liberal movement in the US is as much about punishing men for having sex as the conservative movement is about punishing women for having sex.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 05:39 PM
2

I never claimed it was right, just that it makes sense.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 06:27 AM
3

It makes sense though. In many animal species, the female is predisposed to selective mating as a means to keep her young, and the species, strong. It sucks, but evolution doesn't care about egalitarianism.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 11:43 PM
1

Even with evidence, she can dismiss your claims with the same flawed arguments she has already put forth. A better approach would be to study up on your logical fallacies, and word definitions, and attempt to work her through why she thinks men can't be discriminated against. Just make sure to explain each fallacy as it appears and not just say, "Nuh-uh, you can't beg the question, that's a fallacy so you are wrong."
/r/MensRights27/12/13 08:58 PM
9

"I don't think you should leave your husband because he doesn't tick all the boxes," I said. "But I do think you should strive to make your lives together the best they can be." I'm not seeing a problem. The author's friend had a momentary lapse of judgement (over a prolonged period of time), and the author advised that no marriage is so perfect that you don't have to work to maintain it. The friend, seemingly wanting to take the easy road, decided to keep going with the affair, but stopped shor…
/r/MensRights27/12/13 05:11 AM
1

I still don't even know what the problem she perceived was.
/r/MensRights25/12/13 06:29 AM
1

Granted, I haven't tried, but it is unfortunately not as hard as you think.
/r/MensRights25/12/13 05:58 AM
32

I always find that one of the hallmarks of an asshole is they expect special treatment when they are hungover. It's like they think that being hungover is something out of their control and they should be given all the extra consideration you would give someone who was sick.
/r/MensRights25/12/13 05:42 AM
3

You know if any action was taken against them?
/r/MensRights22/12/13 02:47 AM
6

no, the two are separate things, i.e. I cared about equal gender treatment long before I knew about the MRM.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 06:21 PM
1

I didn't suggest it was bad, I merely pointed out we don't know what, if anything, was said.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 01:12 PM
20

Could be he said something incredibly off putting about women. We don't have the context to determine if the writing on the board is contextually relevant.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 03:44 PM
11

If you take the traditional sense of the word, they are actually just a land owner.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 08:12 AM
18

<s> But if she keeps him from everything female and every female in the world, the kid will have to be a boy, its the only choice </s>
/r/MensRights22/11/13 05:18 AM
1

But calling her a shill would imply that she doesn't believe her own propaganda?
/r/MensRights12/11/13 12:44 AM
2

She makes an effort to make an educated argument No. She is attempting to do two things at the same time and failing at both. First, she is attempting research to discover if there is a bias in games, but she has framed her research in such a way that she begs the question (a logical fallacy). For example, in her analysis of Zelda, she attempts to look at if Zelda is a negative female trope, but says that since Zelda is a female who needs to be rescued, then she must be a negative female cultura…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 08:01 PM
1

She may not be a "Trollicus Lulzicus" but she is still part of the same genus. She gets the same satisfaction from this as a troll would, and with any troll, feeding her only makes her stronger.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 07:40 PM
13

Stop talking about her. Don't feed the trolls.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 01:58 PM
2

I think the true problem is that many of these "everyone has to be equal" people think that the principle should apply throughout life. To them, they think that if someone of gender A can do something, then gender B should be able to do it as well. That is not to say that, in this case, females are not good in tech roles, but it seems that many females decide that because men can be in the EE, CE, or CS markets, they should automatically be given pass into those markets as well. The point being,…
/r/MensRights17/10/13 03:25 PM
4

It is a commentary on how some feminists tend to reach for rights/privileges blindly and without thought for the sake of "equality". Thus, the supposed feminist counterpoint to men getting breast exams (a real thing) would be to demand prostate exams as "men don't have breasts." In all, the joke is a play on feminist overreach and anti-intellectualism.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 06:54 AM
8

At least 5 people seem to have not gotten the joke. Don't worry... I got it.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:43 PM
18

The answer is Zero. The Statute of Limitations ran out after 5 years.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 03:21 PM
3

This is true
/r/MensRights25/08/13 03:09 AM
2

How does this relate to what OP said?
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:46 AM
7

I want to look sexy, but only for guys who I may be into I have literally gotten this answer when asking a female friend about why she complained about guys looking at her when she dressed in low cut tops.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:40 AM
2

Having worked in a few tire stores, and knowing many more, I have yet to see a female employee. So many of them are already male run. Edit: i am confused, are you saying she cant be serious about her job if she intends to be a dentist, because I am doing the same job to put myself through college.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:25 AM
4

Dear sweet lord. I will say that I work in a tire store as a tech and the only reason I wear shorts is because it gets so damn hot... but mine go down to at or below knee level. My shins have been destroyed though, many times. I cant imagine these ladies will be having a good time without at least SOMETHING covering their knees, because trust me, it is nessisary. Going a bit further, I hope they know to hire ladies with a strong core and upper body. It takes a lot to handle tires, esp if your co…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:23 AM
1

I am going to say that unless the study has any data to show that on average, the party at fault in any car accident is more likely to be female as a direct representation of the driving population, then no. From the data presented in the article, it would seem that men are still more likely to be involved in a crash, although not as much as hypothesized. Further, the article (and by extension I am guessing the study) didn't even try to show what percentage of male and female crashes showed eith…
/r/MensRights24/08/13 07:25 PM
3

IMO, while we have our problems in America, I don't think we have too many problems of this nature because our laws concerning this kind of stuff allows for people hiring to have clear cut physical requirements if they are reasonably nessisary for the job. Honestly, I believe that the only reason this got through is due to the "fact" that she was told she wouldn't have to do it.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 06:13 AM
10

No advice animals, rage comics, or other low-effort image posts. Mods may remove these at their discretion. Further, this does nothing to create discussion. It is a very simple and easy observation to make that does absolutely nothing, says absolutely nothing, and is just cause to inflame neutral people against us due to its whiny nature. This sub is about intelligent conversation about real issues affecting men today, not facebook posts.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 06:50 PM
1

What does this have to do with men's rights? In point of fact, the commentary specifically tries to put these things aside.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:51 AM
78

DON'T CLICK THE LINK. There are many good comments, but I fear that Cosmo's classic anger baiting strategy is working. If you want to know what it says, look in the comments. There is a reason it takes at least 7 page views to read the whole article, and giving them those views only makes them stronger.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 08:07 PM
0

But I think it is a bit much to say feminism has blood on its hands because of its stance on the draft. Say many things, they may support horrid, despicable things, but let us never make sweeping accusations mired in hyperbole and falsehood.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:21 AM
1

I would be reluctant to call the draft a product of feminism. Perhaps there is something there that I don't know, but men have been the warriors going back for millennia. That is nothing to say of a women's efforts should she desire to be a soldier, nor that women could just as easily be drafted like in South Korea or Israel (I think), but do not lay this one at the steps of feminism. Also, I think that male disposability comes from men as well. Feminism may try to oil that machine, but they are…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 06:53 AM
1

These types of comments do not help the cause. Even if it is true, ad hominem arguments only serve those against us.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 06:44 AM
2

At least by my interpretation of your response to Mauna, you seem to be very aggressive with making your point. As to the second part, motivation does account for something. I agree with neither groups actions, but I can understand that WBC has a motivation for their actions. The other group seems to be acting because not only have they failed to grasp the situation, but because they have had a reflexive knee-jerk reaction. At the end of the day, I would take a con over a vindictive, easy to ins…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:34 PM
2

Calm down. If anything, Mauna was furthering your argument by saying that not only are they "no better" but in fact worse. edit: I meant Mauna not jimmy
/r/MensRights05/04/13 04:17 PM
11

I would like to believe that no one is so far intellectually inept as to believe that they are being "Raped" from being in the presence of a man.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 08:06 PM
17

I'm going to guess it has something to do with emotional trauma.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:42 PM
1

So basically, it is so because they say it is so, instead of providing any reasoning?
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:38 PM
3

Not trying to be argumentative, but with your logic, the following argument is valid as well: Do you know one of the worst parts? Women make up only about 18% of the PhDs in Physics. Equality, right?
/r/MensRights27/03/13 10:18 AM
1

But feminists would just say the only way to solve sexism against men is via feminism I am genuinely curious, are you just attempting to be funny or are you posing a real concern? I don't see how any logical or pseudo-logical argument could be spun to support this statement (the feminist's spinning that is). How would such a thing go?
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:50 AM
10

First, the "more hardcore than thou" is dumb. The post you refer to never attempted to make that argument, and nobody cares about your gaming history (esp. on the internet where lies come cheaper than dirt). Also, you posted a reply to him, not the other way around. Further, I agree what the first part of that, but you are missing (presumably) his argument. He doesn't care that there are people other than white males in games, just that someone is making a scene that the average sample of charac…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:44 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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