TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

PIG_CUNT Archive

View 12 posts and 1,879 comments by PIG_CUNT on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,879 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

No, the interview doesn’t reveal the curator’s beliefs. It reveals Elam’s beliefs, firsthand. And If you check out any of his work you’ll see that is the case. Anything else you need cleared up?
/r/MensRights14/07/18 02:02 AM
1

Two short sentences isn’t a rant. What a rich fantasy life you have! And you DID say you were done. Liar
/r/MensRights14/07/18 01:41 AM
1

Translation, “Nuh uh!!!!!!” And this from the guy who repeatedly claimed “I’m done here,” LOL
/r/MensRights14/07/18 12:17 AM
1

Haha, this is like inserting whites into an American slavery era film
/r/MensRights14/07/18 12:14 AM
1

I'm only looking for first hand sources and primary documents. For example, I'd prefer something from Elam himself Something from Elam himself is in there. versus Cassie Jaye's interpretation of the most important parts of his interview. First hand information - which you claim you want - and "something from Elam himself" - which you also claim you want - are not Cassie Jaye's interpretation.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 11:00 AM
1

There's plenty from Elam himself in the movie. If you've seen it then why are you denying this fact? If you haven't seen it then why are you spreading false assumptions about it?
/r/MensRights13/07/18 10:53 AM
1

Of course you did. Sorry to burst your fragile bubble born of desperation but if you make a statement and I mention it, I don’t have to use the exact characters of our statement. That is why you can’t complain “I didn’t say I agreed to this!” after you say “Yes” to something, then use the excuse “I said the word ‘Yes,’ I didn’t say ‘I agree.’” Your little pedantry doesn’t even hold up in court, where accuracy is paramount. It’s amazing how pathetic you are.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:54 AM
1

WOW, are you triggered!!! Sorry, you’re DEAD wrong. It’s false to say “Unreported rapes are measured in all western countries by surveys sampling the whole population. They are not MEASURED by doing that. What IS measured is ALLEGATIONS. Surveys as you describe do not measure rapes just like surveys asking people how good they are at driving do not measure driving ability. Jesus Christ are you dumb.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:51 AM
1

Rape and DV statistics from Australia, UK and the US do not show any major inconsistencies that I'm aware of, given that different classification and recording methods will always produce apparent differences. Bullshit. Let’s see your proof. Or are you going to continue to be a giant pusswad and play a childish game of “nuh uh!!! I require you to provide sources but I don’t have to because of reasons!!!!! Reasons that are all you!!!!”? LOLLLLL
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:48 AM
1

Look at you trying to twist words and put word in my mouth. Shame on you! We do not know how many rapes go unreported. So don’t claim otherwise.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:42 AM
1

Sorry for the delay! Please share your multitude of sources that say otherwise. Please share where the BOP, DOJ, and FBI all say I’m wrong.
/r/MensRights13/07/18 07:41 AM
1

Chapter 2, where /u/tenchineuro stoops to donning his El Grande Pedante cape! I used quotation marks to show that you made that statement, not character for character but the statement itself.c Me: "you said 'Yes, I do.'" You: "No I didn't. Those aren't my words." Narrator: /u/tenchineuro had earlier said "Yeah, I do,” and was seizing the opportunity to be a pedant and even more of a giant pussy. “I’m done here too.” HAHAHAHAHAHA
/r/MensRights09/07/18 11:29 PM
0

Of course I have a source - multiple sources: the BOP, DOJ, and FBI. I’m also not a he, but check out your sexist assumptions. I asked a valid question: how are you cowards going to apologize and admit I’m right, after I post my sources? And explain how and why you’re not going to claim “but muh unreported rapes!!!!! Muh rapes that didn’t end in convictions!!!!”
/r/MensRights09/07/18 11:12 PM
0

Ok!!!!! ;D ;D ;D And answer the question, or are you an incel retard and a coward too? When I post the source, explain how you’re going to grovel and apologize. And explain how you’re NOT going to just try to weasel out of it by claiming “er, uh, unreported rapes!!!! And rapes that don’t end in conviction!!!!”
/r/MensRights09/07/18 11:10 PM
0

Holy wall of unsupported claims! Please prove that only a tiny amount of rapes and 2-3% of reported rapes end up in a conviction. Monkeying with numbers indeed. If they're unreported then we don't know how many unreported ones there are. LOL The irony, HAHA
/r/MensRights09/07/18 11:09 PM
0

Nice shitpost where you try (but fail) to justify NOT saying anything by attacking me personally rather than actually proving anything at all, LMAO
/r/MensRights09/07/18 11:04 PM
-1

I’m not unable at all. Nor did I say the FBI “backs up my stats." I said I got THE stat FROM the FBI, BOP, DOJ, and Aussie gov't. LOL indeed
/r/MensRights09/07/18 11:03 PM
32

It's also how all babies act. Not just males. How dare they!
/r/MensRights09/07/18 10:46 AM
1

Says the guy completely sidestepping the fact that he lied his ass off about what I said. LOL, pathetic. Truly pathetic.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 10:45 AM
0

So if I link to the studies, then what will you say? Please let me know how your groveling will look, or are you going to claim "Well, there are a whole bunch of unreported rapes which I won't back up or link to OTHER than a PDF by some far-left organization or college student's research paper interpretation of heavily skewed data"? THANK youuuuu! LOL
/r/MensRights09/07/18 10:45 AM
-1

Of course I will. What then? I have to run through the math because the stats don't prove it? Then I have to prove that there weren't a whole bunch of unreported rapes because that supposedly happens all the time even though you won't and CAN'T back that claim up? Thought so. LOL I like that your argument is so flimsy you stoop to trying to say that using all caps for emphasis means I'm wrong, LOLLLLLL
/r/MensRights09/07/18 10:43 AM
1

No, I'm not. More lies from you. I stated the fact that according to the DOJ, BOP, and FBI, and the gov't in AU, the stat is something like 99.9995 of all men DON'T commit rape or murder. LOL I love that you quoted DV stats in England to refute the facts I provided about rape and murder in the US and AU. Then you called ME stupid. BAHAHAHAHAHA
/r/MensRights09/07/18 10:41 AM
1

LMAO, so “you can google my claim for urself!!” You at least admit you’re petty. So you have about half of one testicle.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 08:24 AM
0

Where does it say there are no multiple offenders?? Where does it say “rape”, and “murder,”, WHICH IS WHAT I SAID. BAHAHAHAHA, look at you posting domestic violence stats to refute facts I gave about RAPE and MURDER you are stupid Mmmmm, no, you just showed us how stupid you really are. you stupid cunt LMAO, the irony!!!
/r/MensRights09/07/18 08:17 AM
1

That’s not what I said. Why are you lying? Is your ego THAT fragile?? You’re working really hard to show us how much you can’t accept admitting you lied.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 08:16 AM
3

Did you even read? I did cite where I got it, Einstein. LOL And there's enough domestic violence cases per year to prove that a much higher proportion of men than that do shitty things. HAHAHAHAHA Cite your source, just like you said. HAHA but claiming that many men are just innocent is stupid. That many men ARE just innocent. LMAO I LOVE when stupid people say stupid shit without giving any proof, while calling people who cite facts, stupid. The irony is delicious!
/r/MensRights09/07/18 08:01 AM
1

Translation, “shit, pig_cunt DIDN’T claim people should stay home. I’m embarrassed so I’ll just give a cliche, overused retort to try to save face.” LMAO, you failed SPECTACULARLY here. HAHA Run along, liar.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 07:58 AM
4

your 99.5% number That’s not MY number so don’t misquote me, ma’am. I said 99.9995%. Big difference between 1 in 200 (99.5%) and one in 200,000. Pretty shitty of you to inflate it by ONE THOUSAND TIMES. 50% of men do grope, grab, forcibly kiss Considering how dishonest you were with my number, please cite your source for that 50%. My number came from FBI, DOJ, and BOP stats, plus more from AU. Just about the same % in both countries.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 07:23 AM
1

Wow, lots of emotion, lol So your solution is just that women, or actually anyone who's not an experienced fighter, should just stop leaving the house at night. Look at the lying sack! I said no such thing. Tsk, tsk. You know a person has a weak-ass argument when they attack you for things you didn’t even do or say, LOL Have you given any thought into the actual logistics of something like that happening? No, because I never said no one should leave the house, Einstein. Hypothetically let's say …
/r/MensRights09/07/18 07:13 AM
5

If that were true then muh victim identity wouldn’t hold up and I love muh victim identity.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 03:01 AM
1

I can easily compare it because I wouldn’t want any girl or woman I care about to be walking around North Carlton at night if she wasn’t street wise, tough, and an experienced fighter. It’s just as stupid. You know how we know I’m right? Because the Eurydice Dixon case proves it. The crimes-against-the-person rate in North Carlton is over 1 in 100. That’s bad enough for a person who can’t defend herself to not walk around alone at night. If you were offered a bowl of 100 jelly beans and 1 was po…
/r/MensRights09/07/18 02:31 AM
4

Echo chamber? Nobody’s saying men don’t sexually harass women, rape women and girls, murder women, or beat up women. There’s no risk of an echo chamber repeating those falsehoods. People here ARE pointing out that 99.9995% of men (I think that’s the real number) don’t do those things. And people here are pointing out that women ALSO do those things to boys and men.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 02:10 AM
25

Echo chamber? Nobody’s saying men don’t sexually harass women, rape women and girls, murder women, or beat up women. There’s no risk of an echo chamber repeating those falsehoods. People here ARE pointing out that 99.9995% of men (I think that’s the real number) don’t do those things. And people here are pointing out that women ALSO do those things to boys and men.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 02:09 AM
1

If he left his car unlocked in a shitty neighborhood you’d think that? What if he left 5,000 dollars or pounds cash on the front seat and left it unlocked? You’d still think first of what a shitty person that was, and not “WHY THE FUCK DID YOU DO THAT?!”
/r/MensRights09/07/18 02:02 AM
1

I didn't falsely quote another commenter. I also didn't generalize. I was very specific. It's bad form to keep lying about my statements. It's also bad form to keep insisting "Fuck this, I'm done!" and then NOT leave, LOL It's ok, /u/tenchineuro. I understand I got under your skin.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 01:59 AM
1

By the way: Leave your car unlocked and it gets stolen: "Dumbass! You shouldn't have done that." Man walks down the street in a bad neighborhood and gets robbed: "You should have known better!" Go hiking and get injured: "You should have used the buddy system. Never go alone; it's not safe." Meet a woman online and go to her hotel room; get rolled and robbed by her boyfriend/pimp: "You should have known better! You need to change how you're meeting strangers!" Sell something on Craigslist and le…
/r/MensRights08/07/18 02:36 PM
3

In the aftermath of this brutal crime we have seen calls to action from Malcolm Turnbull to “change the hearts of men”, from Bill Shorten to “change the attitudes of men”, and from Adam Bandt that “we (men) must change the way we act”, as if there were some kind of unspoken bond between the person who committed this crime and the politicians who govern the nation. When Victoria Police Superintendent David Clayton said people “should be aware of (their) surroundings” and take precautions to prote…
/r/MensRights08/07/18 02:28 PM
15

The men's names, which are in the court record, have not been publicized. However, Yovino is all over the internet. Well, yeah. They were found innocent of rape and she confessed to a crime AND was found guilty of it because of evidence. What part of it aren’t you getting, Buzzfeed?
/r/MensRights08/07/18 03:53 AM
2

Wrong. You are not the arbiter of desert. By insulting her you caused people to shut their ears and minds to the facts preceding your juvenile little tirade. Anyone who was a fan of hers, now shifted from “Hmm, these facts are making me rethink my position. I think I’m not being fair here.” to “This fucking hateful misogynist MRA incel!! Maybe if he wasn’t so hateful toward women he could get a girlfriend!” Imagine a mediator who has calmed down two people in a fight. The mediator is pointing ou…
/r/MensRights08/07/18 02:34 AM
1

Currently I hope to complete the acquisition of a vendor we’re buying so we can more vertically integrate while getting the benefits of consolidation. Then flip the whole thing for however far into the eight figures range I can. I long ago amassed “fuck you” money by my lifestyle’s standards, but this is still fun. Also to continue to expose lying, cowardly feminist-style people like you when I come across you. “TELL US THE FIGHTS YOUVE WON OR ANYTHING YOU SAY IS INVALID!!!! Also you’re making a…
/r/MensRights08/07/18 02:27 AM
2

No, I agree with your politics. The fact that you conclude that I don’t, shows how foolish you are. Maybe you’re really young...? Stating facts without insults is UNARGUABLE. It’s impossible to have a rational objection to FACTS.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 11:12 PM
1

Yes, same old /u/tenchineuro bullshit. “I’m so amused!!!”
/r/MensRights07/07/18 11:03 PM
1

I did comment on it. You stated that you were incapable of understanding what I wrote. What I wrote wasn’t abstract at all. This is about your failure; don’t try to portray my simple statements as abstract. That would be lying, and you’re not THAT big a coward, are you?
/r/MensRights07/07/18 11:03 PM
2

What you did was state some facts, then fuck it up by attacking/insulting her personally. Next time just put the truth out there and then DON’T start name calling or saltily hashtagging.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 09:41 AM
1

Yeah: expose their (your) lies and ask them (you) to back them up with proof, while pointing out the cowardly fallacy of their (your) ad hominem attacks. Remember, you’re the person who insists a dead person can have an opinion, LOL And the person who has claimed multiple times to be done. What a pussy.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 07:16 AM
1

Yeah: expose their (your) lies and ask them (you) to back them up with proof, while pointing out the cowardly fallacy of their (your) ad hominem attacks. Remember, you’re the person who insists a dead person can have an opinion, LOL And the person who has claimed multiple times to be done. What a pussy.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 07:15 AM
1

You lie, try to invalidate arguments based on the other person’s accomplishments, repeatedly claim you’re done, and don’t back up your claims. I don’t. Plus I have a spine and integrity.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 12:13 AM
1

You lie, try to invalidate arguments based on the other person’s accomplishments, repeatedly claim you’re done, and don’t back up your claims. I don’t. Plus I have a spine and integrity.
/r/MensRights07/07/18 12:13 AM
1

And here’s yet another lie from /u/tenchineuro. Those two sides are in no way the same, which is why I can copy and paste where you made attempts to invalidate my statements ad hominem, while you cannot. Also why I can copy and paste where you lied and you cannot do the same with my statements. 😂 “I’m done here too” HAHAHAHHA
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:59 PM
1

Another lie from /u/tenchineuro! I haven’t lied once which is why you can’t copy and paste any proof of it.
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:57 PM
1

You’re done with lying and then failing to back up your lies? I don’t believe you.
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:52 PM
1

Let’s see: Me: points out that there are fights men can engage in, but the problem is that they’re opting out. You: NAME THE FIGHTS U HAVE WON OR YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID!!!!!!!!! Me: I’m not wrong, and you’re making a fallacious ad hominem argument. You: YOURE MAKING AD HIMINEM ATTACKS!!!!! AND LYING!!!! AND YOUR BEHAVING LIKE A FEMINIST!!!! Me: I find it hilarious that you’re guilty of all those things, and I’m not . You: “My proof is, well, look it up!!! I’m laughing at u!!!!!! To answer your…
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:51 PM
1

Says the guy who keeps claiming he’s done, LMAO
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:48 PM
1

Says the guy who keeps responding. “Too” means you’re out of some other discussion with me, which is another of your cowardly lies. You keep responding (and making false claims and then pussying out of backing up your bullshit) day after day in the only other thread we’re talking in, LMAO
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:18 PM
2

Haha, great point. Her, Meryl Streep, etc
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:16 PM
1

Haha, that is true
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:15 PM
3

Booyaaaaa, you said it. In fact: whites are incarcerated 2.92 times more often than Asians per capita, and killed by police 2.4 times more often. Of people over age 35, more than half of all Asians have bachelors’ degrees, but only 1/3 of whites do. In California, Asians make up about 40% of public university students although they account for only 13% of residents. There are 30% more whites per capita living below the poverty line than Asians. And homeownership among Asian Americans has increas…
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:14 PM
1

Says the guy who makes dumb, false claims and can’t back them up. Pretty sure you’re the biggest pussy of this sub, congrats!
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:08 PM
1

Don’t try to change the subject with your shitty logic. I never said “You’ve never seen lots of documentaries” nor did I say that everything in the movie was wrong. I said it’s hilarious (and it is) that you view a highly fictionalized movie as a potential good source of facts, LOL
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:06 PM
3

Some do, some don’t. Saying “But people do anyway” is just as stupid and one sided as saying “But nobody discriminated against men.” Some do, and some don’t.
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:02 PM
1

If you couldn’t follow what I said then I pity you. It was a really simple concept and I used simple English.
/r/MensRights06/07/18 11:01 PM
6

If you’re going to assemble a team now, it’s not going to be six Oxbridge white blokes. It’s going to be a diverse range of people who reflect the modern world. Sorry, there are places in the modern world where teams of six white men exist. Just as there are places in the world where teams of various ethnicities and sexes exist. And if you assembled a team of all black actors, nobody would scream "If you’re going to assemble a team now, it’s not going to be six black blokes. It’s going to be a d…
/r/MensRights06/07/18 01:49 PM
2

The problem with what he says is that wanting to no longer be a white male as a way to escape persecution, is exactly the wrong way to look at it. It's giving up! He should have no problem with his whiteness or maleness. He should ONLY have a problem with being blamed. THAT is the real injustice, not his whiteness or maleness. To want to do away with one's own innate traits is to wish to be their bitch to get the abuse to stop, rather than wishing for them to stop being bullies.
/r/MensRights06/07/18 01:40 PM
1

Who did he lose them or sell them to?
/r/MensRights06/07/18 01:38 PM
10

"Oho! But we've changed the definition of racism from "an ideology or distinction based on on race," to "racial oppression." Thus it's impossible to commit any act of racism against whites. Gotcha!" What about not hiring a person because he's white? How is that not oppressing him? "Because in GENERAL whites are doing better." But what about him personally? You've oppressed HIM, not all whites, because of his RACE. "Nah, he has white privilege. It's impossible to oppress him." The beauty of doubl…
/r/MensRights06/07/18 01:35 PM
6

bullshit slinging by a bunch of winning wimps I think you meant "whining," but unfortunately, at the moment your typo was correct: they have been winning their war on men and whites for several years now.
/r/MensRights06/07/18 01:33 PM
1

You forgot 'disabled.' Oh, sorry, that's ableist. I meant 'differently abled.'
/r/MensRights06/07/18 01:31 PM
18

A "very important film"? Why, because it has female leads? Notice how they try to frame things as if movies lacked female leads before now. Sorry, movies have had female leads for decades. Female leads doesn't make a modern movie important. Also... regardless of the sex of the performers it's a dumb, fictional comedy, not an important film.
/r/MensRights06/07/18 01:27 PM
1

Well, women receive special privileges in most countries in regards to the draft. Are you aware of this? You seem to be and you seem to oppose it. Thus, you are contradicting yourself. A few moments ago you said that women don’t receive any special privileges. But of course, they do and you know it. You seem to think that the incorrect definition of “Privileged” That you mentioned a moment ago, somehow means that privilege does not equal privilege. Or that being privileged does not equal being p…
/r/MensRights06/07/18 04:45 AM
1

In English, that is not correct.
/r/MensRights06/07/18 04:41 AM
1

Oh boy. In your mind, what is the difference between having privileges and being privileged?
/r/MensRights06/07/18 04:01 AM
1

So you’re saying women in most countries receive special privileges. What happened to you saying the opposite?
/r/MensRights06/07/18 04:01 AM
2

Here we go. First off, you have the right to converse about anything. You have the right to converse about the moon, for Christ’s sake. Second, since you’re refusing to discuss the United States, which women are you referring to when you say “women don’t receive special privileges”?
/r/MensRights06/07/18 03:45 AM
1

That’s a pretty flabby response. Do you think women should have to register for the draft or should they continue to receive the privilege of not having to?
/r/MensRights06/07/18 03:43 AM
1

How do you see women as not more privileged when the government itself states that it gives them special privileges regarding not having to register for the draft? The government states that women are also privileged by the Violence Against Women Act. How do you see “women shall receive the following privileges on the basis of their sex” as not being given special privileges? You’re positing that a fact isn’t a fact. Please hamster, I mean explain, these
/r/MensRights06/07/18 03:36 AM
1

You pick some. Especially the ones where you differ from most in the MRM
/r/MensRights06/07/18 03:30 AM
1

STDs? Well, where could a man get an STD if not from a woman Oh, you sweet summer child
/r/MensRights06/07/18 02:20 AM
1

Which ones? And which ones don’t you?
/r/MensRights06/07/18 02:19 AM
1

It’s hilarious to know you give non-documentary movies possible credence, LOL Regardless of whether a big Hollywood movie is accurate or not, the fact that you’re saying “Hay, dis theatrical performance showed dis. Maybe is true!!” is perpetually funny. LOL
/r/MensRights06/07/18 02:18 AM
1

More of your lies you can’t back up. 1) you clearly weren’t and aren’t amused. That’s your first lie in that comment. 2) A lie is a falsehood with intent to deceive, so go ahead and copy and paste where I did that - or are you going to continue to be perhaps the biggest pusswad of this sub?
/r/MensRights06/07/18 02:13 AM
1

That’s ableist
/r/MensRights05/07/18 12:29 AM
1

There were multiple other guys. :):):):):):):):):):):):)
/r/MensRights04/07/18 09:11 PM
1

I’m marshmallowphobic and there are no safe-enough spaces, so I don’t want to be triggered.
/r/MensRights04/07/18 09:01 PM
1

Thanks for proving my point, which was that it’s entirely possible there may be a draft. I am glad we agree on that.
/r/MensRights04/07/18 09:00 PM
20

Haha
/r/MensRights04/07/18 08:58 PM
2

Ok, I’ll address your words directly then. “Our military brags about its capabilities” has no relevance. Whether the armed forces brag or not doesn’t change the likelihood that there may be a draft.
/r/MensRights04/07/18 10:48 AM
1

Sure, there are folks still alive who remember what it was like, but that doesn't mean it's coming back. It also doesn’t mean it’s not coming back. And Jim Crow laws were abolished. Draft laws haven’t been , yet you insist the draft isn’t coming back.
/r/MensRights04/07/18 08:58 AM
1

Translation, “HURR DURR! I’ll cast you as upset in a condescending way to try to seem superior and unaffected!” I find it hilarious that you keep claiming to be oh so amused when all I keep doing is showing what a coward and hypocrite you are. You:” TELL US WHAT FIGHTS U HAVE 1 OR UR ARGUMENT MEANS ZEROE!!!!” Also you: “U R MAKING AD HOMINY ATTACKS!! YOU ARGUE LIKE A FEMINIS!!” And also you: [can’t back up anything he says] Haha, I do this for a living so it’s always very telling when I drill so…
/r/MensRights04/07/18 07:22 AM
2

Word to yo momma
/r/MensRights04/07/18 07:20 AM
2

“We haven’t drafted people lately” does not prove “we will never draft anyone.” Sheesh
/r/MensRights04/07/18 07:16 AM
1

No, now you’re pathetically insisting you’re amused while being so spineless as to make accusations, then not provide ANY supporting evidence, let alone proof. “You’re honor, he’s guilty. My evidence? Check his behavior for yourself!” 😂 You’re as bad at making a cogent argument as you are at having a spine. I am disgusted by you, and you’re a parent too. : shudder :
/r/MensRights03/07/18 08:21 PM
11

More biased “reporting.” Working more hours hasn’t been shown to increase the risk of diabetes any more than living in a crime-ridden neighborhood increases the risk you’ll commit a crime. Working more hours is correlated with an increase in diabetes diagnoses. Just like living in a high crime area is correlated with crime, and living in a predominantly gay area is correlated with people who engage in homosexual sex. But working long hours doesn’t increase your RISK. Just as living in a high cri…
/r/MensRights03/07/18 07:58 PM
1

You just did insist it. LOL You also tried yet again to avoid the fact that you claim my comment history shows similarities to feminism yet you can’t show examples. “It’s there.” LMAO
/r/MensRights03/07/18 07:54 PM
1

LOL, the more you keep insisting you’re responding because you’re amused, the more you try to be dismissive, and the more you keep squirming and failing to give ANY evidence of your claims, the worse you look. Show your children this thread so they can see how little character daddy has.
/r/MensRights03/07/18 07:48 PM
2

The problem with the very naive “I have nothing to hide so who cares if they see. it is a bullshit argument. if you have nothing to hide then they have no reason to spy on you.” thought is that it does not address mistakes, nor does it address the need of various organizations and individuals in the entire justice system, to close a case. An easy example that totally destroys your claim that “it is a bullshit argument” or that if you have nothing to hide then no problem, is any of the COUNTLESS …
/r/MensRights03/07/18 07:38 PM
1

Whoosh! You missed the reference.
/r/MensRights03/07/18 02:37 PM
1

Either you’re lying and don’t want to face the fact that you made a dumb claim and can’t back it up, or you’re so delusional that you think not copying and pasting proof, doesn’t reveal you to be a huge pussy. “I swear I’m amused!!!!!” LOL, you protest too much.
/r/MensRights03/07/18 02:21 PM
1

Translation: “HURR DURR!!! I’ll just claim to be amused while sidestepping the fact that I can’t even back up my dumb claims! THAT’ll save face.” 😂
/r/MensRights03/07/18 02:03 PM
1

Oh but you are “of that conversation.” You claimed I resemble a feminist in my alleged denials and ad hominem arguments about the topic yet you can’t back up your claims. That’s even worse than that which you falsely accuse me of. LOL
/r/MensRights03/07/18 01:51 PM
1

So you pussied out. I was right! LOL “I can’t back up my claim which is why I didn’t copy and paste proof, but I’ll just insist I’m right.” 😂. Feminist /u/tenchineuro in action!
/r/MensRights03/07/18 01:19 PM
4

So what college was it?
/r/MensRights03/07/18 07:24 AM
1

Oh this will be good. Show me where I am in denial here. LOL And show me where I show anything in common with feminism. I’ll wait. If you slink off or don’t back up your dumb claims there, you’re clearly an even bigger blowhard and wuss than you seemed. On the other hand if you do try to back up your silly assertions you’ll humiliate yourself. You’re the feminist who: claimed dead people can have present tense observations, opinions or beliefs. Lol tried to defend the above by saying you don’t a…
/r/MensRights03/07/18 07:21 AM
14

How can I justify it? How am I gonna solve it? Did you even read what I wrote before projecting your own meaning onto it? LOL I never said you’re in favor of it so don’t respond as if I did. I also never justified anything nor said I’m going to solve military conscription. What I CLEARLY said was that “It’s unlikely to happen” is an irrelevant point, and I said that your reasons that you claimed render conscription unlikely are not valid reasons. And by the way, “They’re doing it with drones” is…
/r/MensRights03/07/18 07:12 AM
54

“it’s unlikely” is an irrelevant point. Imagine if only all Jews or blacks were required to register. Would “It’s unlikely that you’ll be drafted” matter at all? Of course not. By the way, the idea you promote is ludicrous. It sounds like a child’s idea of the military: “we don’t need to draft military personnel unless the US homeland is attacked and no one would do that because we have nukes and drones.” We fight wars all across the world, or haven’t you noticed? We have soldiers dying RIGHT NO…
/r/MensRights03/07/18 06:21 AM
1

Amy Yeung https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6958/Yeung_Amy.pdf https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/13207/Yeung_Amy.pdf?sequence=3 Interesting work. nb: These are not the same paper as each other.
/r/MensRights02/07/18 07:31 AM
5

Great point. Beating, killing, and raping slaves wasn't as serious of a crime as it was against free people, you say? That reminds me of another two groups of people in our society today; can't quite remember which ones...
/r/MensRights02/07/18 07:27 AM
1

It sounds like it, but I wouldn't know because I found what little I saw of it unwatchable.
/r/MensRights02/07/18 07:12 AM
2

Black people, if a white person in your life retweeted this pls just take a moment to really reflect on the unfortunate reality that he/she is genuinely frightened of blacks. If you're truly a good black person then that should upset you and make you want to help fix it.
/r/MensRights02/07/18 07:12 AM
7

Let us know tomorrow! Thanks in advance if you do
/r/MensRights02/07/18 07:05 AM
1

No, but attacking me personally is. ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. You: Again, tell us of all the fights you've won. If none, you are just blowing hot air. LOL I love how hard you force your mind into denial. I'm tagging you as a feminist troll here.
/r/MensRights02/07/18 06:56 AM
11

What college was that?
/r/MensRights02/07/18 04:42 AM
1

There’s no disagreement. You know full well that you can’t say “She has had that belief for a long time” about a dead person, just like you can’t say “She has had a stutter for a year” about a dead person or “She has had a dim view of /u/tenchineuro’s denial of facts,” about a dead person. You CAN say “She had that belief for a long time,” though. Or “She had a stutter for a year.” Or “She had a dim view of /u/tenchineuro.” It’s hilarious that you claim I argue like a feminist and resort to as h…
/r/MensRights01/07/18 06:55 AM
-5

Could you please use more JPEG compression? I can still sorta tell what it says. I prefer a challenge.
/r/MensRights01/07/18 12:50 AM
2

Do a lot of men really butt in when they see a man and a woman talking in order to hit on the woman? Yes, if they think she's hot enough.
/r/MensRights01/07/18 12:45 AM
1

It isn't going anywhere because it already ended when I proved you wrong. You said that "she HAS had." Right now she doesn't HAVE any observations or opinions. I have had some for a while now, but she hasn't had ANY ever since she died. you have descended into pure ad hominem Says the person descending pure ad hominem after being proven wrong. LOL this is pointless No, the point of your blathering is to prove me wrong. Which you can't, since I clearly proved you are wrong. you argue like a femin…
/r/MensRights01/07/18 12:45 AM
1

From the other thread it looks like your technique is a combination of personal attack Says the person trying to shift the discussion from his false claim that there is NOTHING and NO WAY that men can fight (LOL, false), to a personal attack on me. The irony is delicious!! Your claim is that if I have won a fight, then there's something men can do to fight for specific rights. And your claim is that if I haven't won a fight, then there's NOTHING men can do to fight for specific rights. Haha, tha…
/r/MensRights01/07/18 12:42 AM
1

The Kracken has been unleashed and it will destroy everything in its path which will not yield. There are times when one must embrace Muad'dib and bend like a reed in the wind. I wasn't aware Dune included Norwegian mythology, or reeds for that matter. Sometimes accepting that you are utterly powerless is the only way to regain your power. No. It is never the ONLY way to.
/r/MensRights01/07/18 12:40 AM
1

Same here. In 2001 were you consciously aware of what she called out? I sure wasn't. I bet none of us had any idea what was brewing, or where we'd be today.
/r/MensRights01/07/18 12:37 AM
-2

This only happens to males. False. the vast majority of police brutality victims are male. But you said it ONLY happens to males. LOL
/r/MensRights01/07/18 12:37 AM
-1

Wrong. You must rely on the top stories of MSM for your world view.
/r/MensRights30/06/18 05:56 AM
1

Post history! LOL Nobody has ever posed as someone else or “asked for a friend,” right?
/r/MensRights30/06/18 05:54 AM
1

Translation, your feelings are hurt. It’s ok, I understand why.
/r/MensRights30/06/18 05:54 AM
1

No one said men are a hive mind. But a group choosing action en masse, is a way people have gotten things done. You clearly prefer a totally untrue “there are no fights to be had!” victim narrative to go with your lie that men would be fighting if they had the chance. You sure are dishonest! Edit: almost forgot your last sentence. In a discussion about men not joining up and fighting for specific changes, my personal life and history has no bearing on the matter. It says a lot about you that you…
/r/MensRights30/06/18 04:27 AM
1

LOL, you should have just shut up instead of responding to show how butthurt you were about being proven wrong in your attempt to prove someone else wrong.
/r/MensRights30/06/18 04:24 AM
0

This doesn't belong in /r/MensRights.
/r/MensRights30/06/18 02:05 AM
1

The defense that she rooked him out of 10K or more pretending that maybe one day she would be his girlfriend? She didn't pretend, or can you prove that she did?? Saying she "rooked him out of $10k" means she defrauded him or cheated him out of it. Please prove that. You can't. What i see here is a typical person (your friend) who tried to buy the woman into being interested, when she just plain wasn't. That's his fault. Between you and me and the internet, I represent the real victim here. I rep…
/r/MensRights30/06/18 02:03 AM
1

I am a damn good looking woman and random men at bars do not make a play for me when I am with another man. You would have to send out a special signal for that. Contrary to popular belief, men will wait for a signal. They don't just randomly storm the barriers.) MMMMmmmm no. Not so. That sounds like you have trouble with the fact that you don't get hit on; thus you reassure yourself that any woman who does, must have given a signal.
/r/MensRights30/06/18 01:59 AM
2

like only the wife is entitled to happiness in a marriage, wtf? No, it doesn't say that only a wife is entitled to happiness. It says that a happy wife = a happy life, with the implication that they will both be happy if she is happy. It IS one sided but it doesn't say that only she is entitled to happiness. It doesn't say anyone is entitled to it.
/r/MensRights30/06/18 01:56 AM
1

Those are people, not examples where men fought to gain equal rights, and got worse results than women putting in the same effort on it. Cassie made a documentary about the MRM. She didn't try to change men's right or right on an issue or issues, just documented the MRM. Paul has a website and Youtube channel. He hasn't tried to fight a particular issue to change men's rights, he just provides editorial. As for "the average woman can advocate for men's rights without the same risk to their caree…
/r/MensRights30/06/18 01:53 AM
3

Yes, they'd be hate speech. But against men she's "just stating the facts."
/r/MensRights30/06/18 12:59 AM
1

Yeah, no man has ever tried, they all just gave up. That's a dishonest distortion of what I said. I never said NO MAN has never tried. Nor did I say they all gave up. As you acknowledged by copying and pasting my own words, "MANY choose to [opt out and not fight]" and "they aren't choosing en masse to attack." Choosing en masse is a term from French that means "in a group; all together" Thank you for proving I'm right. LOL, not sure why you hoped doing so would somehow work out
/r/MensRights30/06/18 12:51 AM
1

I disagree. Since you think so, please show examples of where men fought back and got worse results than women putting in the same effort on it. I'll wait! Lol
/r/MensRights30/06/18 12:49 AM
1

LOL. Hackop said "She HAS had." Rather than "She had." TIL you have little grasp of English yet attempt to correct others who know more about it than you.
/r/MensRights30/06/18 12:44 AM
1

While true, that has nothing to do with what I said to the guy I'm responding to.
/r/MensRights30/06/18 12:43 AM
3

OK, can you give a link to a Title IX complaint about hate speech by a professor? Not all Title IX complaints are the same so a dismissal of another Title IX complaint means little or nothing.
/r/MensRights29/06/18 08:25 AM
6

Perry suggested that Northeastern should prevent Walters from teaching male students, What?! But Professor Perry is ok with Walters teaching women?? Walters should be allowed to teach NO ONE her hateful sexism.
/r/MensRights29/06/18 08:23 AM
8

Had. She died five years ago.
/r/MensRights29/06/18 08:11 AM
0

Of course they can. Your message is not only wrong but counterproductive and spreads that same awful victim mentality that feminism does. There ARE battles available to men, right now. The problem is not that men would fight, if only they could. The problem is that men CAN fight, but AREN'T. Men are becoming MGTOW, grass eaters, soy boys and everywhere in between. College men no longer have relationships with college women, Men CHOOSE to abstain from relationships with women. They choose to eat …
/r/MensRights29/06/18 08:07 AM
6

Guess when she said that. 2001!
/r/MensRights29/06/18 08:06 AM
1

Sounds like your emotions are really upset!
/r/MensRights28/06/18 11:49 PM
-1

I fucking hate people like you. The type of person who takes an online IQ test and scores a 136, rounds it up to 140 and subtly slips into conversation that they're technically a genius. The type of person who took one introductory logic course at a community college and acts like they are a master of debate. Fuck you. There’s where your neurotic mind makes yet another mistake. I’m not the type of person who takes an online IQ test and scores a 136, rounds it up to 140 and subtly slips into conv…
/r/MensRights28/06/18 11:48 PM
-1

I already posted a response to this. I love that you think I give so much of a shit about reddit that any period of being away from reddit means I have no response, LOL
/r/MensRights28/06/18 11:37 PM
1

Nope. I didn’t even touch on the paradigm of coercion of another person to commit a crime upon a third party. You failed. My interpretation isn’t an interpretation. It’s stating the law. LOL And the law very clearly does NOT specify that the rapist has to be the penetrator, only that the rapist must criminally cause there to be penetration between the rapist and the victim. To commit a crime you actually have to --- shocking --- commit the crime. Your grasp of the obvious, and your lack of digni…
/r/MensRights28/06/18 10:57 PM
-1

No, you didn’t answer my question. Give me examples of women who were given full custody after being convicted in a murder trial, And show me evidence why it’s probable that these two women will be given full custody. As you know - hence your emotional rant above - you can’t. As you can see, my neutral and valid question doesn’t mean people like me always want to create a formal argument. Way to externalize your own failure. You should have said “Pig_Cunt, I misspoke. I was talking out my ass be…
/r/MensRights28/06/18 10:48 PM
0

Correct. Genius fails to answer my question and gives no examples of either cases where women were granted full custody after being convicted in a murder trial (LOL) or any evidence that it’s probable.
/r/MensRights28/06/18 10:43 PM
1

I didn’t. Though it’s funny that you are not only unable to grasp the point, but that you’re pompous about your mistake, LOL A rapist can be charged with causing penetration to happen regardless of whether the rapist did the penetration or received it. It’s gender neutral. Just as thievery law is gender neutral. LOL
/r/MensRights28/06/18 10:38 PM
1

I hope there are credible indications that they may indeed go down ASAP.
/r/MensRights28/06/18 10:37 PM
0

Apparently I do or you’d have backed up your moronic claim. I’d LOVE to see your examples of women in prison who have full custody, but even more than that I’d love to see how it’s probable that the women in question will get full custody of their kids, LOL You sound like a feminazi. “A man approached me. He PROBABLY wanted to rape me.”
/r/MensRights28/06/18 07:30 AM
-1

Wrong. The language is gender neutral and we don’t need to believe anything. It is self-evident. Also, your analogy is wrong too. “The removal of property with the intent not to return it” does not “logically mean that the person who has their stuff stolen also fits the definition of a thief.” That’s because the person whose stuff was stolen did not remove property win the intent not to return it. Removal is an act. Complainant in a theft didn’t commit that act and has not been charged with it. …
/r/MensRights28/06/18 07:14 AM
7

Translation, “No, I can’t back up my moronic claim.” LOL
/r/MensRights28/06/18 07:04 AM
2

Both founders do work for Google, aka Alphabet.
/r/MensRights28/06/18 07:03 AM
6

Can you give me an example of that? And can you show evidence to support your claim that it is probable?
/r/MensRights28/06/18 06:51 AM
1

No, no the summary paper I linked isn't an example of only mutual combat. Show me where it says that. LOL I'm the only one posting evidence at all. You didn’t post evidence that police often arrest men who were nonreciprocally assaulted by women. What you did post was a link to an article claiming someone else did a study, with a broken link. Sorry (that’s a figure of speech; I’m not sorry), you are mistaken and you’re lying when you assert that *a study * - a study which you haven’t posted - cl…
/r/MensRights28/06/18 06:45 AM
1

How so? Please, be specific.
/r/MensRights28/06/18 06:32 AM
1

Of course I did. Just because I didn’t post it doesn’t mean I didn’t. Your logic there is so asinine that YOU didn’t even do your own work by posting any proof. What you posted was a piece that has others giving examples of mutual combat, not data or methodology, nor ANYthing on unidirectional abuse by women after which the man called LE. It’s not silly to blame it on REALITY. Your own link and the non-working link in it, when you go to the cached version, BOTH fail to mention stats on men being…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 02:16 AM
1

“HURR DURR!! Can’t form a cogent argument and can’t think of an insult so I’ll just be cringy!”
/r/MensRights27/06/18 02:11 AM
1

“HURR DURR!! Can’t form a cogent argument and can’t think of an insult so I’ll just be cringy!”
/r/MensRights27/06/18 02:11 AM
1

Ohoho AH yes, the sign of someone who gleefully thinks they can point out the failings of another. Alas, you are mistaken. As you wish: you really haven't been here long, here ya go: Haha, sorry to burst your bubble (that's a figure of speech. I enjoy bursting the little ego-driven bubbles of people like you who try to take others down in some petty way) but neither disagreeing with you nor knowing that you are mistaken mean I haven't been here long. With logic like that, are you a feminist trol…
/r/MensRights26/06/18 10:04 PM
-1

Haha, where did I apologize for her? Copy and paste. Don’t avoid the question; I know you will. And where did I defend her? Paste that too. This should be good.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 05:21 PM
1

Yes, because they only get paid 77 jeon on the won for doing the exact same job as Korean men.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 05:06 PM
1

It doesn’t matter whether I’m here Long. This is not an ideology. This is a sub Reddit about wanting meant to have equal rights as women. The fact that you think being here for long makes you end up all thinking the same thing as other people here, shows me what a sheep you are. My background includes law-enforcement. Most of you guys have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to DV and are completely talking out your asses. You’ve convinced yourself that if you call the police after b…
/r/MensRights26/06/18 04:46 PM
2

This chart doesn’t show much. All it shows is the last two presidential elections. In 2012 there wasn’t even a woman in the presidential election so to let that affect the curve by 25% is complete and utter horseshit. Furthermore, voting or not voting for Hillary is not the same as “voting or not voting for a woman.” You need lots and lots of women presidential candidates in order to show how people vote on the basis of the candidate being female. Otherwise you’re just charting Hillary popularit…
/r/MensRights26/06/18 10:54 AM
2

Perhaps the worst part of the TV show the author mentions is the fact that it shows us have a normalized sexism against men is. Change men/women to black/white: It’s time for all blacks to change. Blacks, you have to talk to your mates. They must understand that violence against whites is unacceptable. All blacks?? And violence against blacks is ok?!
/r/MensRights26/06/18 10:51 AM
2

Guys…you have to talk to your mates. They must understand that violence against women is unacceptable. Correct answer would have been: “No. We don’t have to talk to our mates. Because they already understand that violence against anyone is unacceptable. But you need to talk to your gals. They must understand that attributing violence to all men is unacceptable.”
/r/MensRights26/06/18 10:44 AM
3

Why are we asking car owners to lock their cars instead of telling thieves to stop stealing? It’s time for all thieves to change. Right. You’re not accountable for self-protection. Got it.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 10:43 AM
-5

You said “No it isn’t.” Thanks for proving my point. The earth is not spherical. It is tilted towards oval shaped slightly.... you are made of fail. I didn’t realize I was talking to a 13-year-old. I apologize for treating you like an adult.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 09:58 AM
-7

Sorry, saying “not true” and failing to back it up isn’t an argument and proves nothing. “The Earth is spherical.” “No it’s not.” LOL, sorry, no. That doesn’t work.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 08:58 AM
7

They also have gonads conveniently located inside their bodies instead of between their legs...
/r/MensRights26/06/18 08:21 AM
3

The problem with your argument is that it presumes all men are stronger than all women. You know that’s not true. It also means that if a weaker man hits a woman, it should be taken less seriously than a stronger woman hitting him. Totally unfair and unacceptable. The way the law deals with the problem you’re trying to solve with your little double standard, is that there are different types of offenses depending on how much damage one party did to the other, regardless of sex. There’s assault, …
/r/MensRights26/06/18 08:10 AM
2

She’s right about one thing: never hit a woman who hits you first. Call the cops on her for assault. If you’re in a relationship with her it’s domestic violence, and the repercussions for her will be more severe. STOP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. It applies to you too, Selena. Ain’t that a bitch!
/r/MensRights26/06/18 08:04 AM
3

She might not be an abuser. She may have never had a relationship with a man. Does she strike you as girlfriend material? The kind of girl who thinks there are lots of good men left?
/r/MensRights26/06/18 08:01 AM
7

No. You are looking at this as if a logical man wrote it. The problem with that, is that Selena wrote it.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 08:00 AM
2

That last sentence is a huge excuse, justification, and rationalization. Some good deeds go unpunished. You should have ended with the previous sentence: “why risk taking the blame?“ To which the answer for most people is, “because I care about other people and I’m willing to take risks to ensure the health and safety of others around me. I would want someone to help me or someone I care about, so I will do the same for others.” That’s what being in a civil society is all about. And that’s why p…
/r/MensRights26/06/18 07:54 AM
1

M’cringe
/r/MensRights25/06/18 10:24 PM
2

My guess is that he hears an imaginary “d” in “glans,” and fucks it up from there.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 10:55 AM
1

Thank you.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 10:35 AM
1

Thank you
/r/MensRights25/06/18 10:35 AM
7

Why? Please explain.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 06:18 AM
2

You are exactly correct, just as a person who breaks into your home isn’t a resident, just a criminal interloper. However, lately many people think stating facts like that is racist or hateful.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 04:38 AM
1

It’s odd because they tweeted essentially that same story repeatedly with different headlines, photos, and captions multiple times throughout the day. I suppose it’s like running a commercial repeatedly but it seems they’re making a big deal about the girls, as if that mattered
/r/MensRights25/06/18 02:32 AM
2

Schlomo beanlet beaners That’s in the first paragraph. Does it also include the words “nigger” and “gook” later?
/r/MensRights25/06/18 01:03 AM
1

He may. In some States he absolutely has the right to know. I don't know of any that prevent a parent from knowing as a basic aspect of all DVRO's.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 12:28 AM
5

She doesn't want to be looked at by MOST men, not ALL men. Would you? Lol
/r/MensRights25/06/18 12:05 AM
4

He writes "gland" about 50 times. It's GLANS. A gland is something entirely different.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:58 PM
10

"How so?"
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:51 PM
1

mam "Ma'am." Short for "Madam."
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:48 PM
1

Bullshit. No deciphering is necessary. It’s a clear question in simple language. What’s really happening is you’re trying to save face. I understand so I will let you slink off.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:39 PM
1

Can you find it online? Check that twitter account for that post. It doesn’t seem to exist. Edit: just found it. Hadn’t scrolled back far enough
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:37 PM
1

Why is the other one up? It appears to be fabricated.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:21 PM
2

It ended with a question mark and it was a very clear question. Shall I rephrase it in simpler English?
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:20 PM
2

I’m not insinuating anything. I asked a question. Nor am I being any more condescending than you are. So as long as even one girl is being held, that’s a crisis for all? Interesting take. Kinda like how workplace fatalities are a crisis for all. Gotcha
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:09 PM
2

That’s not the same picture, obviously. And the one you linked me to appears falsified. That tweet doesn’t exist on their twitter. So what gives? Lying is ok as long as it’s not me doing it?
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:05 PM
1

Where? Please show me. I saw a different tweet with a different caption that I can’t verify online - appears to be falsified. So please clear this up
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:03 PM
1

1) it’s “affecting,” not “effecting.” 2) No. All minors held at Tornillo thus far -and today alone there are over 300 there - have been boys. What is so difficult for wto understand about that? And do you think it’s a big coincidence that there have been thousands of boys through that facility, but not girls, and that there’s been a big percentage of girls at other facilities? LOL That’s why it’s been a crisis for boys.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 10:53 PM
7

The lawmakers were not provided an updated headcount for the tents in Tornillo, but O’Rourke said more children are arriving every day. The tents are housing more than 300 children, with the majority of them classified as unaccompanied minors. Federal officials told the group that at least seven girls arrived at Tornillo on Saturday morning, the first time the tent shelter outside El Paso County has received minors other than boys between 13 and 17 years old. So, 270+ boys at Tornillo, called “c…
/r/MensRights24/06/18 10:29 PM
3

So in other words it’s been an immigrant boy crisis until Saturday. Which they confirmed: all kids at that facility until Saturday have been 13-17 year old boys.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 10:25 PM
11

Which they weren’t. Every kid at that facility until Saturday has been a boy between 13-17.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 10:24 PM
3

Never seen a transsexual woman get treated better than a biological woman.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 08:51 PM
-11

Hurr durr You said “guilty parties.” Now having been shown one, you’re saying “but her.”
/r/MensRights24/06/18 06:38 PM
12

Takes drugs, loses custody as a result... blames husband for stealing child.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 06:32 PM
16

Did you even read it? Doe raised credible evidence that Prof. Donald Lavanty, the Title IX adjudicator, held “certain gendered beliefs” against men in sexual-misconduct disputes, suggesting they “always enjoy sexual contact even when that contact is not consensual.” That’s the guilty party at the University.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 06:28 PM
2

Yup!
/r/MensRights24/06/18 06:12 AM
3

No, because larger penises are generally glorified and regarded as “better.” More able to be pleasurable for one’s partner. Just like tight pussies. Similarly, a small penis is widely regarded as undesirable and is widely treated with scorn, amusement, derision, and something to be ashamed of. Just like a loose vagina. The point is not the visual differences. It’s desirability.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 04:57 AM
1

Yes, every linguistics professor thinks that a novel word or novel definition that becomes widely used is a new word or definition. LOL What’s really funny is your mental runaway and raging verbal tirade about your incorrect and asinine presumption that I don’t care about rules and care about nothing. It’s also pitiful and funny that you associate good cheer with immaturity. LOL
/r/MensRights24/06/18 01:56 AM
1

No, but I wish I had
/r/MensRights23/06/18 09:53 AM
0

I completely agree with your second point. LOL However, to answer your first point: all of them.
/r/MensRights23/06/18 09:52 AM
1

In order to have any veridical worth, a hypothesis must be falsifiable. That's Popper's contention. Not everyone agrees with that, and those that sometimes agree don't agree in all cases. Look at criticisms of falsifiability if you want to see some examples.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 10:05 PM
4

That's true, but still a discussion worth having. Occasionally you find a person whose mind isn't firmly closed and who can be won over with reason. Cassie Jaye is one example. And she wasn't just a person discussing something; she was on a feminist mission to attack and "out" people she thought were misogynists.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 09:59 PM
4

Yes: the dictionary. "A form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe." A patriarchy would be a society where a ruler's son becomes the next ruler because he's 1) the child of the patriarch and 2) a male. We do live in a male-run society, but it's not a patriarchy. And it's not set up by men for the benefit of men at the expense of women. No…
/r/MensRights22/06/18 09:47 PM
0

Not at all. That’s why all linguistics researchers and professors agree, same reason dictionaries get updated, LOL
/r/MensRights22/06/18 08:38 PM
1

No shit! But guess what: eggs can travel down to and through the cervix. So yes, it’s a jerk move to laugh when you’re wrong.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 08:37 PM
1

Yeah, skipping taxes for 40 years doesn’t constitute “the government threatening teenagers with jail for not being able to pay.” Do you have ANY links that support your claim that the government ROUTINELY threatens teenagers who are unable to pay, with jail for that?? And if so, how often? If not more than once a year, how often?
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:22 PM
1

That doesn’t answer my question. Why are you avoiding the question?
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:19 PM
0

Of course it is. Evidence: widespread use. Do you think pidgin isn’t a language too? Lol
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:18 PM
-1

LOL, r/thathappened
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:17 PM
1

Just helping, not bagging on ya
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:17 PM
3

A diaphragm is a birth control device that blocks sperm on the vaginal side, from meeting an egg on the cervical side. Funny that you, who is laughing at me for a supposed lack of knowledge, didn’t know this. Oh, the irony.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:14 PM
-2

No, a diaphragm is a cervical birth control device that blocks sperm from meeting egg.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:13 PM
1

Wikipedia has its own archive right there. All changes are logged.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:11 PM
3

Or Bad Boys.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 08:09 AM
1

They can, but they opt not to. Just like you opt not to abstain from saying "fuck." There's no difference.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 08:09 AM
1

15-16 year olds get routinely threatened with jail if they cant pay their owed taxes for buying sneakers and reselling them on ebay for profit. What do you mean by routinely? Once a year? If not, please provide a source to back that up. And please back up that they get threatened with jail if they can't pay. When I've seen people not be able to pay, they got "threatened" with a flexible payment plan, not jail.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 08:07 AM
3

-snip- Unintentional pun
/r/MensRights22/06/18 08:05 AM
1

Married women have tried to sleep with me, had one that was willing to leave her husband for me. If a married woman has reached the point where she has stated a desire or willingness to leave her husband for you, you were having an affair with her. There is no way a woman would express that sentiment if you weren't involved with her like that.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 08:04 AM
2

catiness You generally double the consonant before adding -ing, -y, or -iness. "Catty;" "cattiness." Cheers
/r/MensRights22/06/18 08:02 AM
6

Oh yeah, can you imagine if there was a Violence Against Whites Act? The outrage would be monumental. "Yeah, because that would be racist!" Yes, just like the Violence Against Women Act is sexist. "No, because women are the only real victims of DV!" That's still sexism. Sexism means making a discernment based on sex. "But women are the ones who need the help!" So you're saying it IS sexism, just sexism against men and in favor of women. "That's not sexism. Sexism is when you oppress someone." Ye…
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:58 AM
13

Clinton's Violence Against Women Act. The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes, but only if they are against women. It imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted - but only if their victim is a woman. It allows women to go after perpetrators in civil court even in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted! Even the Supreme Court has held that part of the VAWA is illegal. But no matter. Individual organizations have not been suc…
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:49 AM
2

Why are you making an archive.is to Wikipedia?
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:35 AM
29

Imagine if a man stole an egg from a woman’s diaphragm, inseminated it and did a transport into a surrogate. It would be considered rape or some sort of horrible wrongdoing.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 07:24 AM
3

Wait a sec. Did Claire NOT write that on LinkedIn? It looks like she posted that text and the link to the indeed.com listing, onto LinkedIn.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 05:43 AM
4

Yep.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 05:38 AM
1

Those lines above and below the letters make it hard to read.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 05:34 AM
1

As always!
/r/MensRights22/06/18 03:30 AM
3

Those aren’t privileges, by definition.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 03:28 AM
7

It’s not different than other scholarships that discriminate racially or sexually. But our laws prohibit discriminating on any basis like that. It IS different than scholarships that target other groups.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 10:35 PM
3

I’m not talking about you at all. I’m talking about the white women who do publicly denigrate white men as you correctly pointed out.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 10:17 PM
10

Everybody misses the point: Privilege isn’t something you HAVE. A privilege is something others give to you. If a person receives special privileges from a teacher, cop, judge, college admissions employee, grant administrator, or hiring manager on the basis of race, that recipient of special treatment has RECEIVED privilege. And black people receive PLENTY of privileges for being black. Women receive PLENTY of privileges for being women. Nobody walks around with “an invisible knapsack of privile…
/r/MensRights21/06/18 10:08 PM
8

https://pics.me.me/how-white-people-see-themselves-when-they-post-anti-white-28983088.png
/r/MensRights21/06/18 10:04 PM
1

You just did reply.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 10:03 PM
1

The rest of your diatribe does make generalizations. Sorry, the guy you’re responding to is not wrong.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 10:03 PM
3

There's all this talk about how a mother's love knows no bounds? Really? Are you sure about that? Men love just as strongly AND they keep their honor. While you make many true points, this sweeping generalization is just as false as “blacks don’t pursue work.” SOME men molest their children. Many don’t. They don't play head games with innocent children. Again, SOME do. Many don’t. It’s not accurate to say “Women never kill people” just as it’s not accurate to say “Men don’t do _____.”
/r/MensRights21/06/18 07:10 PM
1

I wish more people here were aware of that sub. It casts discrimination in stark light when you switch it to Jews and Aryans or Blacks and Whites.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 06:12 PM
0

People do not like talking about violence by women, Yes, nor do people like talking about violence against men. People don’t demand less violence against men and women. They only demand less violence against women. In fact there’s a US law - the Violence Against Women Act - that denies men equal rights under the law.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 06:10 PM
2

inciteful Insightful FTFY
/r/MensRights21/06/18 09:12 AM
72

“My response is simply #YesAllBlacks. Blacks must accept that violence against Whites is a Blacks’ issue. The fact is that Blacks are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence against Whites. Around 95 per cent of all survivors of violence report experiencing threats or physical and sexual assault from a Black perpetrator.” Etc.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 08:30 AM
0

I like how rather than educating oneself, it’s de rigeur to just downvote and say “ur the one who said it so back up yr claim because I’ll type 360 characters attacking you but won’t type 12 characters into google to find anything out.” combined with “spoon feed some ELI5 info to me or I hate you”
/r/MensRights21/06/18 08:26 AM
1

I just did. Actually, you just did: I claimed you were being petty because you had a bone to pick over failing to understand something I said in another thread, and you not only confirmed it, but went scrolling back to find it and count downvotes, LOL Now you’re proving it even more by harping on your point that the BMI calls her obese and that’s unfair.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 12:31 AM
1

I find it hilarious that you’re so obsessed with me that you not only went back to count my downvotes on a comment, but also pretend to be worried about how I perceive things. LOL
/r/MensRights20/06/18 07:18 PM
2

He didn’t say “tend to be.”
/r/MensRights20/06/18 05:32 AM
6

Dear Daily Wire, Amanda Prestigiacomo, and Ben Shapiro To Romanians, saying she “gypped” him out of his scholarship is like telling Jews she “jewed” him out of it.
/r/MensRights20/06/18 05:32 AM
1

More of your baseless lies. I wasn’t wondering why people were downvoting me, and in fact I was being upvoted. You and your silly narrative, LOL And you did inadvertently admit to being insulting. You’d never talk to your grandmother that way if you disagreed because you know she’d be insulted. Oops!
/r/MensRights20/06/18 04:51 AM
1

Sorry, I did prove mine: I proved you were trying to be insulting - actually I got you to inadvertently admit it, LOL!! “You haven’t proven your claims” says the guy who hasn’t proven his dumb claim that the fat girl in question isn’t obese according to some photos he supposedly found. Same guy who has an axe to grind because he tried talking shit elsewhere because something went over his head. HAHA
/r/MensRights20/06/18 03:45 AM
1

That doesn't answer my question: You said "This thread has been removed because it links to OP's comments in another subreddit. This can be taken as an attempt to encourage brigading, which is against reddit rules and may result in shadowbans. In instances such as this, a screenshot should be used instead of a direct link." And yet another person didn't do that and you let it stand. Why are you not upholding the same rules?
/r/MensRights19/06/18 11:03 PM
1

Not at all. You’re trying to use pedantry to weasel out of the fact that your goal in saying “I’m calling U out or Ur pulling it out of your ass!!!!!!” was intended to be insulting. Which is why you would never disagree with your grandmother that way. “No, YR disingenuous!!!!!’l Uh huh
/r/MensRights19/06/18 09:30 PM
1

Look at your lack of integrity. More lies and disingenuousness. You didn’t mean it as truthful and not insulting, because it didn’t TRUTHFULLY come out of my ass and it IS an insulting way to say “making things up.” Your lack of spine turns my stomach.
/r/MensRights19/06/18 06:28 PM
1

So you meant to be respectful rather than insulting when you said I’m just pulling things out of my ass. Just like you’d tell your grandmother if you thought she was making things up, right? Oh, lack of integrity. Thy name is /u/frakkinreddit
/r/MensRights19/06/18 06:16 PM
1

I’m not having trouble at all; I asked a question. Answer the question! You didn’t intend to be insulting?
/r/MensRights19/06/18 05:35 PM
1

Ohhhhh, so you didn’t intend to be insulting?
/r/MensRights19/06/18 04:31 PM
1

Calling someone insults isn’t a feeling. Lol
/r/MensRights19/06/18 03:56 PM
1

Right, you were peaceful as a Buddhist monk when you were angrily calling me insults, LOL
/r/MensRights19/06/18 06:44 AM
2

misandric Misandrist. Same as how "feminist" isn't "feminic."
/r/MensRights19/06/18 04:40 AM
1

Of course I see the irony. I asked you for examples because I knew you’d get torqued up like this, seeing as you didn’t simply make an argument; you’re so emotionally invested in winning an argument online to try to get some validation, that you got all insulting. LOL
/r/MensRights19/06/18 02:42 AM
1

You should link to some examples, so that I can laugh at your pathological attempt to win an argument so you can finally (try to) feel validated.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 11:55 PM
1

Oh really! LOL, what did you use for her height and weight?
/r/MensRights18/06/18 11:17 PM
1

“I have watched the faces of individuals as they have come into Bornstein,’’ Nabel explained. “I have watched them look at the walls. I read on their faces ‘Interesting, but I am not represented here.’ No, you’re not a mind reader Anybody who thinks another person of their race or sex represents them because of it, is racist or sexist. If a black guy commits a crime is it ok for me to say he represents blacks?
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:50 PM
3

But blaming all women for the words and actions of some of them is no different.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:45 PM
7

And the KKK was created by Democrats. So what? It doesn’t matter who created child support. A person or party’s position on the matter today is what matters now.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:42 PM
2

Haha, savage last sentence
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:38 PM
1

Absolutely. It's called Googling three letters: BMI
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:34 PM
0

I didn't insult her at all. I stated a fact : according to the BMI chart she’s obese. Sadly for you, you got all reactive over that. Touchy subject, I see! ;) And that’s legit advice. Those observations aren’t insults.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 12:27 PM
0

According to the BMI index she is.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 12:22 PM
1

Says the guy who keeps talking to me, LOL. You're not bothering me, look at how hard I try to prove it!!!!!"
/r/MensRights18/06/18 12:21 PM
1

Still going with the juvenile insults! I really triggered you, wow. All with my pesky facts about BMI. What’s interesting is how you reveal so much. Not just getting all butthurt over the fact that obese people are obese, but also that your insults are things YOU think would be hurtful, since your intentional is to bully (while calling ME a bully for discussing BMI, LOL) The most telling “insult” is “nobody likes you.” That tells me NOOOOOObody like or likes you, and you depend on other people’s…
/r/MensRights18/06/18 12:02 PM
1

Here we go again with the insults and denial. Sorry, consult a BMI chart. Then wait for your chubby cheeks to stop blazing with shame and embarrassment.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 11:57 AM
1

Again with the emotional reactivity. I really touched a nerve with the guesses about your age, weight and the bullying you received. Don’t feel bad. You haven’t perpetuated the cycle of abuse, because your bullying merely amused me. I’m sorry you failed so spectacularly!
/r/MensRights18/06/18 11:56 AM
1

not because I’m wrong Protip: when you’re wrong about something objective and you’re a teenager, shut your fat yap and stop making it worse by insisting you’re not wrong, when there are grownups talking. You may learn something. Honestly wish I’d never said anything Let this be a lesson to you. Check your facts before you jump in and tell someone they’re wrong. LOL
/r/MensRights18/06/18 07:50 AM
1

human piece of garbage cunt retarded asshole You’re a bully! Ahh yes, it’s so clear to me now. “BMI index “ is bullying. Insults are not. Thank you for educating me, mister teenager!
/r/MensRights18/06/18 07:47 AM
1

Sorry, me correctly stating that she’s obese according to BMI isn’t being an asshole. I realize you hate hearing that word because of the negative associations you have about fatness, due to being bullied at school and probably elsewhere. But an emotional outburst at hearing facts that you personally are triggered by, doesn’t excuse name calling or bullying. The fact that I guessed you’re a teenager means you’re acting juvenile. I invite you to ponder that and change your behavior accordingly. B…
/r/MensRights18/06/18 07:46 AM
1

Just noticed these gems: "Are you fat?" Not important I just fucking hate bullies. Found the guy who got bullied for being fat. Trying to bully me doesn't make you NOT a bully just because you think I'm wrong (and I'm not: look at the BMI yourself. LOL)
/r/MensRights18/06/18 07:24 AM
1

That’s the thing: the BMI index is not something I pulled out of my ass. And "I don't have to be nice because reasons" doesn't excuse the fact that you are the one attempting to be a bully, not I. I merely stayed a fact. I realize you're probably a teenager but you should learn that facts like BMI are based on numbers, not how you feel about it.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 07:22 AM
1

you’re a bully Says the person calling me a cunt, a retard, etc. LOL And for what? For pointing out the fact that according to the BMI index she is obese. You sure get butthurt over the BMI index!! Are you fat? Try exercise instead of Fortnight and fix your diet. Hope this helps.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 07:09 AM
0

Can you give me an example the courts begging fathers to be involved?
/r/MensRights18/06/18 07:00 AM
0

Found the sovereign citizen! “Actually, officer, I never agreed to exchange tax dollars for your salary, therefore I am not obligated to abide by your unlawful order, therefore my breasts are perfectly legal to - hey, stop writing, I do not recognize your currency! I do not recognize your authority and I will not be obligated to any financial bond herewith!! “
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:59 AM
1

I’m not mocking your intelligence. I’m pointing out the irony that your lack of intelligence caused you to look like a moron for taking a stubborn position on something you’re completely wrong about.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:55 AM
1

Of course they count as genitals under this law, which is why women have been cited for it before. LOL
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:54 AM
1

/r/justneckbeardthings Great argument, by the way: you get proven wrong and instead of being an adult about it, it’s “you’re a cunt”!” You being wrong doesn’t make the other person a cunt. It makes you a fool for opening your yap.
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:53 AM
5

TY BB
/r/MensRights18/06/18 06:35 AM
-1

Of course I can. Look at her proportions. It doesn't matter how tall she is; she cannot have that much meat on her bones and NOT be obese. Clearly you have never been around the fitness spectrum much.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:41 PM
1

Look how butthurt you are at being wrong, and taking your embarrassment out at me. I realized it was an example. An incorrect example, LOL She does look overweight and according to the BMI index she is obese, as I said. You've just got an addiction to porn LOLLLLL and don't understand what a "normal" woman looks like. I do. At present time a normal woman is overweight like her. Being fit is no longer normal. Look up US and UK health stats. LOL Go get a girlfriend who works a job that doesn't req…
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:40 PM
1

Says the person ignoring the fact that an ex cop in the UK confirmed you’re wrong and I’m right. LOL
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:31 PM
1

Yeah, it doesn't mean it doesn't apply to women, as multiple people and an ex UK cop confirmed.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:31 PM
1

Says the person ignoring the fact that an ex cop in the UK confirmed you’re wrong and I’m right. LOL
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:29 PM
1

Says the person ignoring the fact that an ex cop in the UK confirmed you’re wrong and I’m right. LOL
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:29 PM
0

Says the person ignoring the fact that an ex cop in the UK confirmed you’re wrong and I’m right. LOL So groping a woman's breasts isn't sexual assault because they're not genitals, huh? You're a genius.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:28 PM
3

“I forgave my mum’s affair Writer wishes to remain anonymous 17 June 2018 Last week, I stood in front of a wall of Mother’s Day cards, trying to pick one out for my mum. They were filled with emotional messages like, “You’re the No 1 mum!”, and, “Thank you for everything you’ve done for me". But I could never pick a “Best Mum EVER” card for my mum because, well, she isn’t. My mum is hard to talk to. She’s self-centred, and spending time with me is not her priority. Oh, and she also had an affair…
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:25 PM
0

misandric Misandrist. Just as “feminic” isn’t a word, “misandric” isn’t a word.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:07 PM
16

If the statement “Jews are trash” makes you angry, you’re one of the trash Jews. Sympathize with the Aryans in your life because their frustrations are too common.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:06 PM
3

When did courts BEG fathers to be involved with their children? How do courts seem to want to incite divorce? And how do courts cry in the media about the sad state of children? And how do courts use science to justify all manner of murder?? I’m not attacking you, just wondering whether you really mean “women.” Also wondering whether you mean “abortion,” not “all manner of murder.” Yes?
/r/MensRights17/06/18 06:03 PM
-2

LOL, funniest gotcha - maybe funniest comment - I’ve seen in a while.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 05:58 PM
0

The ex-cop from the UK who commented above you just proved you wrong, but don’t let that stop you if you want to insist you’re right and he’s wrong, lol
/r/MensRights17/06/18 07:20 AM
1

Thank you.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 07:18 AM
1

I haven’t looked into it but I’m willing to bet that in Canada you cannot go topless at any time and place and have it be legal.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 07:18 AM
-1

Yes, she is obese based on the BMI index. In your book she may not be obese, but so what? That’s just your opinion. The BMI index is not opinion.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 07:17 AM
1

No, if the BMI chart says she’s obese, then she’s obese.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 07:17 AM
-1

It’s not a question of what anyone considers. As I said, it’s right on the BMI chart that I mentioned.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 07:16 AM
-2

Because no matter what her height is, a person cannot look like that and not be obese according to BMI index. She could be 4’6” tall, 5 feet, 5’6”, or 6 feet. Those proportions in the photo equal obese on the BMI chart.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 07:16 AM
1

Exactly. 40 years is not enough time for human genetics to make a big fundamental change. She is genetically no different than people who lived much more than 40 years before her. But she is much fatter because of her diet. Hope that clears things up for you
/r/MensRights17/06/18 07:13 AM
1

You keep proving that you don’t understand. Saying “I am not! YOU are!” doesn’t change that. I said that people shouldn’t be treated differently based on gender. You called that “pretending gender doesn’t exist.” That’s incorrect. For example, I’m well aware that race exists. But I don’t treat people differently based on race. That doesn’t mean I am pretending race does not exist. If you still can’t understand, I may be able to come up with an even more simple explanation. Please let me know.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 07:11 AM
-1

It IS illegal, if the officer decides she intended it to shock or dismay anyone. I didn't say she WOULD be arrested for this. I correctly said she COULD be found to be breaking the law if the officer believes her intention was to shock or cause someone dismay. You can ask a solicitor but you're better off asking a cop, or better yet, more than one. If you think you've found some way to win an internet argument so you can get some good emotions from it, please let me know, so I can pity you.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 04:10 AM
1

It's England. That means soon enough something much more misandrist will replace it.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 04:08 AM
3

Doesn't matter. It applies to women too there. Ask a cop in the UK if you think a woman can't break the law by exposing her crotch or her breasts.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 03:48 AM
1

Tell it to law enforcement in the UK. They regard them as genitals under these laws.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 03:47 AM
1

No, Google never sought to eradicate evil. That was their lie. https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/
/r/MensRights17/06/18 03:35 AM
4

One might guess he's talking about the potential for rape accusation.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 03:33 AM
-8

Not perfectly healthy. You're just accustomed to it. She's obese by a BMI chart for example. Look at videos from the 1980's and earlier before all the HFCS and such (or just go to a non-Westernized-diet country, like so many used to be, LOL). People were THIN compared to now. Back then we called that "average."
/r/MensRights17/06/18 03:32 AM
122

She's a Fellow in Economics at Cambridge. It was some dinner for the end of the year.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 03:29 AM
16

It is illegal there in a case like this. At the beach there, where the intent isn't to shock anyone or cause dismay, it's legal.
/r/MensRights17/06/18 03:28 AM
11

This is against the law there, specifically the Sexual Offences Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf Exposure (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and (b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or…
/r/MensRights17/06/18 03:24 AM
1

That doesn't answer my question: You said "This thread has been removed because it links to OP's comments in another subreddit. This can be taken as an attempt to encourage brigading, which is against reddit rules and may result in shadowbans. In instances such as this, a screenshot should be used instead of a direct link." And yet another person didn't do that and you let it stand. Why are you not upholding the same rules?
/r/MensRights17/06/18 02:59 AM
2

Please explain about movie bailouts
/r/MensRights16/06/18 09:29 PM
1

It wasn’t that White people were ok with the KKK. It was that Southerners (Democrats) were. People from the North found it appalling and barbaric (consider who WOULDN’T find lynchings and cross-burnings appalling).
/r/MensRights16/06/18 09:20 PM
3

You seem to deeply misunderstand. Not treating people differently based on sex is NOT the same as pretending our genders don’t exist.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 09:12 PM
4

You know what? That is exactly right. Good call.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 01:41 PM
22

Congrats. And no need to give disclaimers. Most people here have been through a similar "Holy shit!" moment (or more than one).
/r/MensRights16/06/18 01:32 PM
22

Yes! It seems like many people don't realize just how mean feminism and feminists are, because it's become so normalized. "Male tears" mugs are seen as fun and funny. Think about how sick and sadistic that is; it has NOTHING to do with anything good or healthy, or women's rights.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 01:30 PM
36

Ok. In under 20 seconds it already starts with lies: It's hard to say the importance that 'The Red Pill' has to men's rights activism at large. Hard to say the purpose the film has within that community or how widely it's been embraced. It is?! If you have a hard time observing the importance the film has to men's rights activism (easy), the purpose the film has within that community (easy), or how widely it's been embraced (easy), you have a hard time observing reality. I would say the movie se…
/r/MensRights16/06/18 01:15 PM
24

In feminist spaces men are expected to shut up and listen, Yes, which says everything about how feminists are NOT after equality. They're after special treatment for women, and totally fine if men have fewer social or legal rights. and male feminists are criticized for “using the ideology to get laid”. Yes, feminist double standard as usual. If a man isn't a feminist he's in the wrong. If he IS a feminist he's in the wrong.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 01:01 PM
13

Are you aware that first wave feminism pushed for giving the vote only to women who were property owners? Even after first wave feminism came into being, over half the adult population was excluded from voting when the new nation moved into the nineteenth century: property-less men, women, the enslaved, most free blacks, apprentices, indentured laborers, felons, and those "mentally incompetent." (from The History of the Supreme Court) The fact that first wave feminists originally pushed for voti…
/r/MensRights16/06/18 12:59 PM
96

I guess I’m just so used to feminism that I can’t even comprehend an ideology that isn’t so exclusionary! This is the most self-aware and NOT defensive insight I have seen from any person in a LONG time. Huge props to you.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 12:53 PM
2

I love (read: can only shake my head in disbelief) that this cancer has spread SO far that many people believe that even women who make the same wage per hour as men, believe that those women make less, because patriarchy. You can literally ask this kind of person, "If a man makes $10 per hour and a woman makes $10 per hour, do they both end up with the same amount money or does the woman end up with 77 cents on the dollar compared to the man?" and they will reply THE LATTER
/r/MensRights16/06/18 12:51 PM
162

Congratulations for having the integrity to not just plug your ears and shut out everything that doesn't feel good about it or causes you to realize you were mistaken. Truth is no one gives a fuck about men Not so. A small subset of people do, mostly men. Even just this sub, has some women. Like, how am I supposed to act as a woman in MRA spaces? Why do you think you should act any different than men do in MRA spaces?? Wanting men and women to have equal rights doesn't mean MRA spaces are non-fe…
/r/MensRights16/06/18 12:38 PM
8

Not at all. Guys generally don't key women's cars, and no "nice guy" would claim that killing her is a sign of liking her. The point is that women keying guys' cars is a thing, and that they do joke about being abusive and violent like that. Jezebel's article about beating up boyfriends is a great example.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 12:11 PM
1

Yup!
/r/MensRights16/06/18 11:42 AM
18

Speaking to Yahoo Movies, Mindy Kaling called the dominance of white male reviewers “unfair”. Thus the dominance of female preschool and kindergarten teachers is unfair. Thus the dominance of female Victoria’s Secret employees is unfair. Thus the dominance of male garbage men is unfair. Thus the dominance of blacks in the NBA is unfair. ... And thus the dominance of women in colleges, and people who are not homeless, or who are not killed at work, is unfair. “If I had to base my career on what w…
/r/MensRights16/06/18 11:32 AM
1

Great point!
/r/MensRights16/06/18 11:27 AM
15

That's what the Equal Rights Amendment would have done. Most people don't know it never passed! Ironic that it was blocked by women. They openly said that they didn't want our daughters to be killed in war.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 11:13 AM
0

Well said. Thank you for sharing your insights.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 11:12 AM
1

I hear you!
/r/MensRights16/06/18 05:08 AM
9

Getting abused by one person doesn't make it ok to have a chip on your shoulder toward all other individuals with the same group traits (all men, all blacks, etc.)
/r/MensRights16/06/18 02:05 AM
1

I got drugged in another country and I never left my drink alone. It was drugged in the kitchen by the waitress, who was in cahoots with some thugs who tried to rob me. Sorry, it’s not a gendered issue.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 10:25 PM
1

“Yes, all women” what? Yes, all women get drugged? That’s not true. Yes, all women get taught not to leave their drinks alone? That’s not true, either. It takes a special kind of stupidity to apply the #YesAllWomen tag where it doesn’t belong.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 10:22 PM
0

You did.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 09:25 PM
1

Then I misunderstood.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 08:52 PM
1

Thank god
/r/MensRights15/06/18 08:19 PM
1

Exactly: walking away isn’t the only option. Which is all I’ve been saying all along.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 08:16 PM
1

I understand what you’re saying but what you said was that we should do away with Father’s Day because men aren’t fathers because they’re not there. I think that is a reason TO have Father’s Day, to not brush it all under the rug. Hopefully you see what I mean
/r/MensRights15/06/18 08:13 PM
1

Brain fade! No big deal :)
/r/MensRights15/06/18 08:10 PM
0

I’m not. Saying they’re not fathers because they aren’t there, and that we shouldn’t have a Father’s Day on that basis(!!!!) is VERY different than acknowledging that they ARE fathers and we should NOT just declare them NOT FATHERS and pretend they don’t exist, and since they don’t exist, let’s get rid of Father’s Day.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 07:53 PM
1

When you say men who aren’t around aren’t fathers, I’m not splitting hairs. Not only is that an argument, it’s provably wrong.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 07:48 PM
1

That’s all irrelevant to my point. My point is that it is another option. It’s untrue to say the ONLY thing you can do is to walk away.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 07:47 PM
0

You said they don’t get to be fathers. That’s minimizing. They DO get to be fathers. “Not being present” doesn’t make them not fathers. It makes them fathers who are denied access.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 07:35 PM
5

That’s minimizing their plight. They ARE fathers. Fathers who are denied custody. Just because they are denied custody doesn’t make them not fathers!! Sheesh
/r/MensRights15/06/18 07:19 PM
1

Makeup isn’t a requirement. The level of entitlement there is stunning.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 07:15 PM
1

My point is that it IS another option, and many people engage in it.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 06:42 PM
27

The difference is that women didn’t let them continue; they fought against it. Why on Earth are you suggesting NOT doing anything about it??
/r/MensRights15/06/18 06:38 PM
-7

Your third reason is that Father’s day is less relevant because the legal system is hugely biased. That argument doesn’t hold water.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 06:37 PM
1

The word is not “misandric” just like the corresponding word is not “misogynic.”
/r/MensRights15/06/18 06:35 PM
0

Why do you conflate “a nice gesture to” with “necessary”?
/r/MensRights15/06/18 06:33 PM
19

No, the prosecutor wasn't a white knight. He did everything he could to jam her up, including getting her successfully prosecuted for felony murder even though she didn't kill anyone. And just so you know, the prosecutor doesn't sentence her. The prosecutor tries to get the jury to find her guilty. It is the judge does the sentencing. And he wasn't a white knight either. Two of the guys who pulled the trigger got 15 and 20 years (the third guy's trial is ongoing). She got 20. The prosecutor and …
/r/MensRights15/06/18 07:26 AM
22

It's worse than that. She was a 23 year old woman who drove a 16 year old boy, an 18 year old guy, and a 19 year old guy to the victim's house, gave them a gun, and pointed out where his bedroom was. Then after the killing - and the victim's uncle and cousins were home, by the way, and the kids had to walk past his body - she drove them out to a lake to get rid of the guns. She also changed her story several times, so it's not like she's a credible victim who simply did something dumb and retali…
/r/MensRights15/06/18 07:19 AM
2

And when doing it for medical necessity then the patient should be thoroughly anaesthetized, like any other surgery.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:37 AM
4

She said a man took $460 and attempted to sexually assault her, but she fought him off. “GIMME FOUR HUNNID SIXTY! FOUR HUNNID SIXTY!! NOT FIVE HUNNERD!! Put those two twenties away! PUT THE FUCKING TWENTIES AWAY!!!! I SAID FOUR SIXTY!!!!!!”
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:32 AM
1

Have you looked around reddit? There’s definitely a second option... www.trolino.com/image?id=108767
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:19 AM
5

What did you do with the dildos? Asking for a friend
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:16 AM
-3

Whoa, you’re off base there. Feminists certainly seem to love to claim victimhood. But to attribute that to women is the height of sexism. Most women don’t see themselves as victims nor do they see men as oppressors. A very small but vocal minority of women see ALL women, not just themselves, as victims, and ALL (#YesAllMen) as oppressors. Please don’t mistake the two. That’s misogynistic and unwelcome here.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:14 AM
4

You must be an outlier. Feminists, SPLC, and the MSM all claim MRA’s are misogynists and male supremacists.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:07 AM
631

“Only women get special treatment, because that’s equality.” - Feminism today
/r/MensRights15/06/18 01:35 AM
1

Sadly, that’s not entirely true. Social justice and feminism sell VERY well at the movies. Black Panther, Mad Max, even Spike Lee’s racist hate. Incredibles II will do just fine with its Doofus Dad / Victim Mom Heroine narrative.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 12:33 AM
2

Haha!
/r/MensRights14/06/18 11:46 PM
1

You and me both
/r/MensRights14/06/18 10:34 PM
10

Gay pride = ok Straight pride = hate and intolerance Brown pride = positive. “We’re beautiful.” White pride = Nazism and racist oppression. Saying white people are beautiful is hateful and openly racist. Female pride = positive Male pride = patriarchal sexism I forgot, Christianity: Repressive, backward. All other religions: beautiful with a rich history
/r/MensRights14/06/18 10:22 PM
3

This isn’t even white males. It’s just males.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 10:19 PM
3

This
/r/MensRights14/06/18 10:19 PM
9

Great point. What changes are MRA’s calling for that are male supremacist? Anyone??
/r/MensRights14/06/18 10:17 PM
3

Under-upvoted comment of the thread.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 10:16 PM
7

“chock full.” Not slamming you, just letting you know.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 10:15 PM
1

How much of the labor involved in tea mining is done by men vs. women?
/r/MensRights14/06/18 10:05 PM
1

The point that the center of the Earth is superheated tea?
/r/MensRights14/06/18 09:39 PM
1

Sure. Google TERF as the easiest example of it.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:37 PM
1

Your answers do matter in the end. Why do you think they don’t?
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:37 PM
1

But you’re not exaggerating or anything
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:29 PM
1

They didn’t start it. That’s like saying “Some men’s rights activists committed some crimes so men’s rights activists should be ok with being put in jail.” Some women who call themselves feminists are pro- “I can identify as whatever gender I want.” Other women who call themselves feminists disagree vehemently.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:28 PM
2

I’ll be happy to answer yours. Would you please scroll up and answer mine?
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:26 PM
10

Exactly. According to the people you and I are talking about, yes, their skin color granted them special privileges back in the Jim Crow era and so on. That’s why those people don’t talk about Asians. Asians were put in concentration camps in this country in the 1940’s. They lost everything. My friend’s parents were born here in California, spoke only English, and were pro-USA but that didn’t matter. On the basis of race they had to sell what they could in a very short time and abandon the rest …
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:25 PM
2

I’m not trying to appeal to you emotionally. I’m asking for answers. Any answer would suffice. You’re not a mind reader so don’t accuse me of not accepting your answer. But you didn’t answer my questions. You responded to something I didn’t ask. Please answer the questions I asked. And you seem to mean “let’s join together to help men but not help them have the right to not having their genitals painfully and needlessly mutilated.” Isn’t that so?
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:10 PM
1

I’m not looking for an answer I like. Answer the questions, please. Don’t be dismissive and essentially say “La la la i can’t hear you.” Thank you
/r/MensRights14/06/18 06:43 PM
21

The excuse is that people are still suffering the effects of historical oppression. For example, ”women or blacks would be doing much better today if they had had equality back then.” Worse, it’s “women or blacks would be doing much better today if YOUR ancestors hadn’t done this. You’re receiving the benefits of the oppression while we’re still recovering. Therefore it’s ok to discriminate against you and discriminate in favor of women or blacks, to even things out.”
/r/MensRights14/06/18 05:21 PM
25

Exactly how much does he imply it happens? You see, you are putting your own interpretation onto his words while telling him he’s mistaken.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 05:16 PM
1

I like the fact that the police investigation is “ongoing.• Kinda like this: https://youtu.be/v7acD4q0lp0
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:40 AM
3

What’s the statute of limitations in CA? Asking for a friend...
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:37 AM
6

Spoken like a true online warrior who has never actually broken a rear window.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:34 AM
3

Came here to say this. Ever broken a car window out on purpose? Not just broken the glass but did what is shown in the picture. It is NOT easy even with something that’s a fair bit harder than your hand.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:34 AM
1

How is this relevant to the article?
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:07 AM
1

Unfortunately, Warren isn’t a superstar. Peterson is, but Farrell isn’t. He’s mostly unknown. Sadly.
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:05 AM
1

Insightful comment. Thank you
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:04 AM
3

Why do you have no problem with it? It’s agonizing and has been proven to kill a pretty significant number of babies, cause others to lose their penises, cause most to suffer lifelong increased pain response, decreased sexual pleasure... How can you be ok with doing those things? And have you ever seen a video of a circumcision?
/r/MensRights14/06/18 07:03 AM
2

And white people trying to be black (Shaun King, that woman, etc.)
/r/MensRights14/06/18 06:52 AM
1

Source?
/r/MensRights14/06/18 06:51 AM
1

Or use race. “Black people are stupid; throw rocks at them.” It would be an outrage. But “boys”? “LOL!!!!!”
/r/MensRights14/06/18 06:48 AM
0

LOL, it's not pointless and off-topic considering I stayed on topic, a topic about cisgender and a guy saying dick and balls = male. LOL!!!! No need to get bent out of shape when I point out how very on-topic I was. OOPS! HAHA
/r/MensRights13/06/18 09:01 PM
0

It's worth mentioning because many people seem to think it's worth mentioning? No, that's not what makes something worth mentioning. Something is worth mentioning if it contributes something to what's being discussed (in this case, "dick and balls = male"), which my comment did. Thanks for playing, though. Your insecurity-driven defensiveness is delicious.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:22 PM
-2

In some ways, some men have tried to make life easier on some women but DEFINITELY not all men trying to make life "as easy as possible for women." For example, I'm guessing you have never read accounts of first contacts with isolated civilizations.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:20 PM
4

Compare with the outrage when it's found that company this or that pays certain people 5% more than it pays other people who work fewer hours and have less time served at the company. FTFY
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:18 PM
1

He didn't say "I only have these parts." He said "I have these so I am male." An intersex person can have those too. AND other parts.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 07:57 PM
1

Yes, it is worth mentioning because not only are chromosomal disorders much more common than polydactyly or missing digits, genitals and sex identity are very topical right now.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 07:57 PM
1

I disagree. And who decides what the archetype is? That's a rhetorical question to show that you're wrong, lol
/r/MensRights13/06/18 07:56 PM
1

No, I might point out that some humans don't. And I'm not trying to push spectrum nonsense so it's nonsense for you to think it, and unfortunately say it. Spectrum nonsense is nonsense, but biological facts about having a dick and balls AND a vagina is just science. LOL
/r/MensRights13/06/18 07:18 PM
1

/u/mdoddr: Humans have ten fingers. Some don't but that doesn't mean that we say fingers exist on a spectrum I never said gender or sex exist on a spectrum. I said ball sack and penis don't mean you're male, because you may have female genitals in addition to male genitals. It's a genetic syndrome, just like the genetic abnormalities that cause people to have more or less than 10 fingers. Educate yourself before you look even more incredibly stupid.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:45 PM
1

You think I give a shit about your opinion of me, good or bad? That's as delusional and self-important an idea as the people at the rally we're discussing. And I was serious. I wasn't making an insult. You're uneducated about many things. That's a learning point.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:39 PM
3

The author is saying there never was the wholeness that the people who are activists against circumcision say was there. That is false. Activists against circumcision are not protesting a metaphorical prelapsarian wholeness that was never there. They are protesting a very real non-wholeness.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:36 PM
1

PLENTY.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:34 PM
1

That's just it. Those things AREN'T on your CV and I never said they were.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:28 PM
2

That's a false equivalency argument. The author didn't say foreskins are "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." The author said wholeness never existed. It did. The person was indeed whole. And you sidestepped my comment proving you did misquote the author. You said that the author is saying that the pain IS real and that it hits a deeper nerve and gets …
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:24 PM
1

That's a false equivalency argument. You missed Logic class too. And you avoided my question. Would you attempt to make these same arguments if A person's arms were removed and someone wrote that the person wanted to restore a wholeness that never existed?
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:22 PM
6

Opposition to circumcision today is symptomatic of the profound anxiety brought on by the particular configuration of authority experienced under late capitalism. WOWWWWW. How insane to say that, when the fact is that opposition to circumcision today is symptomatic of people wanting to not physically modify the genitals of infant males.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:21 PM
0

No, it's a fact. You should also understand the difference between a lie and something incorrect that someone believes to be true. You aren't very well-informed! LOL
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:18 PM
1

Right, but I'm responding to how having a ball sack and penis doesn't make you a biological male. If you have a chromosomal disorder you may have those body parts AND some female body parts.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:16 PM
2

Excellent point. That's an issue that's VERY vexing for many men -- and for women! Very often women don't want to hear how to solve a problem; they want empathy.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:15 PM
1

If it's so important to them to talk about how circumcision does not remove a part of a boy's body, then what do you think their stance on circumcision is? First off, we can't infer their position. They may have the position that they are not actively PRO circumcision but that anyone who complains about it is whining. Second, their positions on things don't make it a pro-circumcision rally. It is very clearly an anti-male rally. For example, if you take a group of blacks who are pro- school vouc…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:14 PM
2

No, everyone does not long for a wholeness they never had. Clearly you've never taken a psych class. People are whole (unless they're missing a body part...). People seek to get their needs met. And you are misquoting as well as claiming to be a mindreader when you say the author is talking about a subset of people for whom circumcision hits a metaphorical nerve. The author states "a wholeness that never existed." Yet the simple fact is that before a body part was removed, the person was whole. …
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:03 PM
2

Now you're misquoting the author. The author referenced a body part that the author says was NEVER there.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:59 PM
-1

Connecticut. You should click. It's not like withholding your fraction of a cent is going to shoot them out of the saddle. The quotes from various parties are great. You know what the woman in charge says of the wins of the trans students? "Fully agree it doesn't feel good." LOL, I wish one or both the students would sue the living fuck out of the school for that. Think about it. Imagine a black student gets into college on the basis of affirmative action, but manages to win an academic competit…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 10:18 AM
2

"Junot Diaz has made his behavior the burden of young women — particularly women of color — for far too long, enabled by his team and the institutions that employ him," Clemmons wrote in a statement to the AP. "It is time for the burden of his bad behavior to be laid squarely at his feet, and for him to deal with the consequences of his actions." Why is it time for the burden of his allegedly bad behavior to be laid squarely at his feet? Why was it not time yet until now?? If he has made his beh…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 10:03 AM
2

Absolutely.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 10:01 AM
1

I didn't realize you were an expert in the science and data of sexual assault lighting and facial expression. Oh, it's you, the nutter. That explains it
/r/MensRights13/06/18 10:00 AM
6

Easy. When you reduce yourself to a group label - bigotry no different than seeing people of one race as being all the same rather than unique individuals - and see yourself as that label rather than an individual, it makes you deny accountability for your own individuality. So instead of wondering "Was my question stupid? He did laugh, after all," it's "I'm a woman and he laughed, therefore he hates women!" How sad to see oneself as just the label rather than a totally unique being.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 09:58 AM
3

Here's how awesome the accuser is: Clemmons said she believes she is far from the only woman he has "exploited" and told The Associated Press that she cannot bear to think of the others. doesn't know whether there are any victims of assault by him, other than allegedly herself. despite a lack of evidence, thinks there are multiple victims claims she can't bear to think about them Yep: she "can't bear" to think about people that she THOUGHT up.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 09:26 AM
3

Fuck these people for keeping him aboard for the wrong reasons instead of the right reasons. The editors in chief of the Boston Review, Deborah Chasman and Joshua Cohen, wrote a public letter last Tuesday detailing their reasons for keeping Díaz on staff at the magazine, which focuses mainly on politics and literature. They said they did not believe that the accusations revealed a “larger pattern of abusing power.” Additionally, they argued, “the objectionable conduct described in the public rep…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 09:20 AM
1

No, "a community that insists that" is not a generalization. It is specific, not general. A generalization would be "Generally, members of this community insist that". The community doesn't insist that men are superior at tech. The community DOES insist that men deserve equal rights as women. Furthermore, claiming the existence of exceptions proves neither stupidity nor a strong aversion to the content of the generalization. A generalization about a group refers to a majority of members of the g…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 09:13 AM
14

This is GREAT stuff, lol The letter, with signatories including prominent American gender theorist Judith Butler and Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, suggests that any kind of investigation in this case is unfair. Though, as the letter concedes, its writers “have no access to the confidential dossier” that presumably contains the reasoning for the enquiry. Yep, you read that right. They're saying "We don't actually know why there's an investigation, but any investigation is unfair!" Imagine t…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 09:01 AM
3

Why can't it investigate the issues of human rights violation? Why not the effects of extreme pain during early infancy, which victims of male genital mutilation are exposed to? Why not investigate the effect of being forced to have your genitalia cut on the quality of relationship with you parents and other social interactions? Does bodily integrity mean nothing? Why do they feel the need to point fingers at these issues and say, well, it's masculinity, therefore what? Is it then less of a vali…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:52 AM
8

The difference is that circumcised people ARE missing a wholeness that DID exist, whereas the author claims the wholeness NEVER existed. Furthermore, you mentioned people saying "If only I had ______ my life would feel complete." First off, those people are fantasizing about something they never had. Circumcised people DID have a foreskin. Second, I have never seen a circumcised person fantasize "If only I had a foreskin my life would feel complete." I have heard them say "I wish I had my foresk…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:49 AM
4

It's not that weird an idea that a person missing a body part "wants to restore a wholeness that never existed"? Yes, it is a weird idea, as you inadvertently admitted in your comment, because the wholeness did exist before the body part was missing.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:46 AM
13

Very true. Also: [The] 'intactness' psychoanalysis alleges to be a defensive fantasy against the subject’s foundational fracture No, psychoanalysis doesn't allege that. And you don't speak for psychoanalysts. That's like saying geology alleges that the Earth is flat.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:44 AM
16

Incorrect title. The event isn't pro-circumcision. The event is anti-male. And the summary about the speaker who will discuss circumcision, doesn't say he (she?) is pro-circumcision. It does say the speaker is anti-reality, i.e. s/he dismisses claims that a person missing a part of their body, is not missing a part of their body.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:42 AM
2

Font is sized for easy legibility... from across the room
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:38 AM
7

What nobody here has mentioned: > The lawsuit accused the university of failing to adequately respond and investigate, and then retaliating against the student when he reported the sexual assault.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:36 AM
1

No, because "a person who has strong, **unreasonable** ideas and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong" perfectly describes you and doesn't apply to sports at all. Physical sports recognize that men and women have different biology. That's not an unreasonable idea. Furthermore sports has nothing to do with prejudice. It has to do with who wins. That's not PRE-judged. LOL And sports doesn't involve treating members of a racial or ethnic group with intolerance or hatred. Fi…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:26 AM
-1

I laughed, but also, “born with a ball sack and penis” doesn’t always mean “male” since you may have both male AND female genitals if you have a chromosomal disorder(!!!) Look up “intersex” syndrome and some of the similar chromosomal abnormalities. It’s stunning! (No offense intended to any intersex peeps reading this)
/r/MensRights13/06/18 07:05 AM
1

This exactly
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:59 AM
1

Okey doke. Cambridge Dictionary says "a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, especially about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong." Merriam-Webster says "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." Yep, that's you. Thanks, bigot!
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:57 AM
1

Have some downvotes, bigot! I can think of plenty of ways women are different than men. In some ways superior, some inferior. Generally speaking, women are/have: Less upper body strength Greater capacity for nurturing More agreeable (good in some situations) Less disagreeable (bad in some situations) More neurotic Less criminal More likely to not be below average intelligence (= good) Less likely to be above average intelligence (= bad) And so on.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:08 AM
31

Some attempt ‘foreskin restoration’ to retrieve, or regrow, the part of their penis they feel to have traumatically lost. They FEEL they lost it?? No. They did lose it, and the procedure, by medical definition, caused trauma.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:04 AM
45

What happened to "my body, my choice”?! What happened to “genital cutting is a violation of human rights”?! Ohhhh, because double standards are ok, because of reasons.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 06:01 AM
8

"Everyone" "whites only" But that's not bigotry because of reasons.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:58 AM
4

Haha, accurate
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:56 AM
3

He has been indoctrinated into an ideology that includes the delusion that men are trying to get "emotional labor" from women. LOL!!!!! It's much more accurate that men seek sexual labor from women. I love that these are the same people who condemn men as being too stoic and not wanting emotionality from women. LOLLLL
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:55 AM
2

She's already doing just fine in the real world. Unfortunately she's using her fame to spread misandry.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:51 AM
1

That's not why Chad is abusive. It's the other way around. Women are attracted to dark triad traits, especially when they want to reproduce. Google it and please only read scientific evidence, not any red pill interpretations of it.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:50 AM
1

What's a roastie and where is that term used? Am in California, never heard of it.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:48 AM
1

Haha, it does!
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:48 AM
4

"So I started interviewing men and asking questions. And what I learned is this: You show me a woman who can actually sit with a man in real vulnerability and fear, I'll show you a woman who's done incredible work." What a crock of shit. You show me a woman who can actually sit with a man in real vulnerability and fear, I'll show you a woman who is doing the bare minimum to be a decent human being. Sorry, but NOT treating a man like shit doesn't earn you a medal.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:47 AM
3

I got a bunch of Orchard Supply Hardware and Home Depot yard work "gift ideas" ads and imagined the backlash if Walmart promoted housework "gift ideas" for mothers' day. "Give her the dishwashing gloves/sponge/soap combo she'll love! Or a new vacuum cleaner!"
/r/MensRights13/06/18 05:43 AM
0

Hurr durr!!!!!! Sick burn!!!!!! I bet you get all the chicks!!!!
/r/MensRights13/06/18 04:37 AM
2

Exactly: SOME people here believe it. SOME don’t. Contrary to what /u/contexistential said, it is not ”a community that insists that.”
/r/MensRights13/06/18 04:35 AM
3

I have every right to reference bigots like you who come onto this sub with opposition and dishonesty.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 04:33 AM
6

"The current volunteers and board members stepped into and took over a space that was founded on white, cis feminism (read: white supremacy). It’s really difficult, actually, impossible, for us to disentangle from that foundational ideology,” the statement said. You don't have to disentangle anything. Buy books that people want Sell books at more than you paid = PROFIT "This isn’t sustainable, especially emotionally, for the people who come here and work to provide this space as a resource to Po…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 01:30 AM
0

Haha, no, if someone makes several truthful statements about Google and one incorrect one, it doesn’t invalidate all the ways Google does awful shit. For that reason, when someone who doesn't know about the men's rights movement visits our subreddit for the first time, I'd rather they not read what you have to say and leave because they believe we are all completely irrational, ineloquent jerks. I should have just paid attention to my RES label for you, downvoted, and moved on without comment. A…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 01:22 AM
1

Holy wall of text. I stopped reading at “in case you're still pissy." I was never pissy and my comment shows it. And accountability is accountability, not misogyny. Noteworthy that you misrepresent me so severely.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 01:16 AM
1

Holy triggered tirade!! I don’t know who “Riker” is but that’s a good example of normalized bigotry. Around here we don’t stand for that. Hence the downvotes I mentioned. Thank you for pointing out how misandrist bigotry is so socially acceptable at this time.
/r/MensRights13/06/18 01:14 AM
0

No, you're making a claim. You should back it up, or disagree with me and keep your yap shut. Re: your link- Oh, ok. That must be so, then. Because Google never lies, right? Wait https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/13/google_click_fraud_lawsuit/
/r/MensRights12/06/18 09:15 PM
1

If you think VCs care about feelings more than exits, you are naive. If things are as you claim, then men are not receiving any preferential treatment on the basis of being men. And women deserve no help on the basis of being women, because according to you there's no sexism, only meritocracy.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 09:10 PM
-1

Please back up that claim. Meanwhile, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/reporter-google-successfully-pressured-me-to-take-down-critical-story/
/r/MensRights12/06/18 08:56 PM
9

There are many correlations between SIDS and circumcision. These are NOT from the link. This information is out there in the medical community. There is a male SIDS gender bias. . groups that practice high male circumcision rates, such as USA whites, will have higher SIDS rates compared to groups with lower circumcision rates. . SIDS rates will also be higher in USA states where Medicaid covers circumcision and lower among people that do not practice neonatal circumcision and/or cannot afford to…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 08:53 PM
11

Mods, please leave this comment. The immediate torrent of downvotes on it are a great example of how this community doesn't tolerate the things so many people like /u/contexistential claim it does. "But people who want men to have the same rights as women, are misogynists!" Riiight.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 08:35 PM
2

All races bathroom on one side, Whites only on the other. Oh but it's not discrimination.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 08:30 PM
5

I'll give my time and effort to support someone who will coordinate or lead an action to get her removed.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 08:29 PM
3

I'll give my time and effort to support someone who will coordinate or lead an action to get her removed.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 08:29 PM
0

Not so. They have lots of incentives. That is why they charge big companies lots of money for high ranking search results and that is why they suppress political views that differ from their own. They are incentivized to do so. Google does it politically and rationally as well, just like HuffPo. It IS planned. You should look into how and why they do it because you're sorely mistaken.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 08:16 PM
1

HAHA, spending money IS how you treat people. If you were going to invest in a firm but declined to invest because you found out the founder was a man, that is the very definition of sexual discrimination.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 08:14 PM
1

If I think women are extremely important to the future of AI (which I do) and I choose to put my money on them, that is an investment strategy. Yet... If you think a white man has any disadvantage whatsoever in getting funded, it’s because your idea isn’t good enough. LOL, if you discriminate in favor of women, then you can't tell the men you turn down that the reason was their idea wasn't good enough, because you already admitted you're choosing to put money on WOMEN. Gotcha
/r/MensRights12/06/18 08:11 PM
1

If I have a niche interest and see untapped potential in robotics and your company is a co-working space, I am not discriminating against you by choosing not to invest. Yes, if you make the choice not to invest on the basis of me being a male or a white male, then yes, by definition, you are discriminating against me. If I think women are extremely important to the future of AI (which I do) and I choose to put my money on them, that is an investment strategy. Yes, an openly sexist anti-male inve…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:59 PM
7

I forgot to address the fact that you're mistaken: Google makes no secret of the fact that it does not "give the results that they try to provide the best results the customers are likely to look for." Research the journalists whose employers (such as newspapers and news companies) have been threatened with being pushed down or even off the first page of results, because that journalist published a piece that Google opposes politically. Also, Google freely admits to the biggest advertisers that …
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:58 PM
5

No, because you're conflating "political" with "openly discriminates against white men." There are plenty of companies that are very political, that DON'T practice sexism and bigotry,
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:49 PM
1

Forgot to mention: It's pretty awful that you think "a demographic" is complaining. The demographic isn't complaining. Individuals are. So you think it's laughable that individuals speak up because they are discriminated against. Thus by your logic if many black men commit crimes, it's laughable that innocent black men complain about being treated as one of the guilty parties, because the demographic commits so much crime? Absolutely disgusting and hypocritical
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:36 PM
1

Please explain to me how: If a bunch of white men hold 98% representation... ... and another white men comes along and wants to pursue that same thing, but is discriminated against on the basis of being a white man.... How is that NOT white men being discriminated against? Or do you have the guts to admit you're wrong?
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:28 PM
0

I'm not offended at all and my comment shows no offense taken, but it's interesting that you try to frame me that way. Says a lot about your bias. And, no, it's not true that you were responding to "The context of the post." You specifically said that The idea that the risk of being raped is so high it would be necessary to carry a weapon inside my body at all times is just as ridiculous as the idea of asking my rapist to pause for just a sec while I locate and insert a claw into my vagina. It i…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:22 PM
1

It depends on how far above average. At the extreme highs and lows of intelligence, for example, then, yes, there are 2 women for every 98 men. Closer to the mean, there are 20 women for every 98 men. Even closer to the mean, there are 50 women for every 98 men. And AT the mean, there are MORE THAN 98 women for every 98 men. It all depends how far you measure from the mean (the average). So, yes, a person can "really think that there are 2 above average women for every 98 men," and they would be…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:17 PM
1

LOL, I love the fact that you view disparity as "discrimination against." By that logic, the NBA discriminates against white players. By that logic, preschools discriminate against men. Otherwise there would be gender parity, right? Just as many women are trying to start dot-coms and get funded as men, right? Just like just as many men are trying to become preschool teachers? Disparity doesn't prove discrimination, either in favor of one "group" (white men) or against another "group" (non-white …
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:11 PM
1

You're being hypocritical. When you discuss the topic you say that you're challenging, but when others discuss it here you say that "everyone else is whining," and you say that "everyone" is "crying about how white men are being discriminated against." Most noteworthy is the fact that white men are being discriminated against. For example, anywhere that people are chosen for a position on the basis of NOT being a white male. Any man who didn't get the position on that basis, has been discriminat…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:09 PM
1

Interesting that you think Dr. Sonette Ehlers is so ridiculous. But that's because you know SO much more about rape stats in her region than she or anyone else does, right? http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/20/south.africa.female.condom/
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:03 PM
21

/u/contexistential says: For a community who insists that men are superior in tech and rejects emotion over data, this trend of wounded souls failing to grasp the concept of an algorithm is highly amusing. Show me where the community insists that men are superior in tech. You can't. To all: Let that sad person's comment stay here as an example of how dishonest and biased certain people can be toward men, and the fact that such people come here to harass with lies.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 06:59 PM
37

You didn't mention the fact that Google has a company culture that openly wants to see men sidelined. Edit: I realized I toned down how Google actually is. I should have said Google has a company culture that openly derides people on the basis of being white and male. For example, condoning calling white men inherently bad or "cheesy" (I'm quoting).
/r/MensRights12/06/18 06:57 PM
1

LOL, pathetic. The dictionaries are wrong, but you're right. Oh, ok!
/r/MensRights12/06/18 06:54 PM
0

I don't. I'm not really sure why you bother to mention "I'm allowed to!!!" It's weird.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:56 AM
1

HAHA, no, you clearly do. This is quite obviously an anonymous account. But dumbass /u/robyncat thinks I'd bother to mention this to my girlfriend. LOL Here's how that would go: "Hey, babe, I talk to dipshits online, with a crass name." "Uh.... and?" "No, nothing. One of them named "Robyn Cat" thought I would have told you that." "Huh. Uh, ok." LOL
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:54 AM
1

No, because you're wrong. Look it up. Egalitarianism doesn't mean welfare, or equal outcomes. It ONLY means what I said it means.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 07:47 AM
1

My question clearly was about WHY you chose to spend time with an unknown who might be a dud, rather than with your boyfriend who you know isn't one. My question clearly was NOT about whether it was allowed.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 04:07 AM
9

Women by in large are treated like meat more often than men are. I disagree. Gorgeous women are treated like goddesses (unless what they do or say cancels out that response in others). Gorgeous men get treated like pieces of meat that women and gay men are entitled to. Women are the sexual selectors in societal boundaries. Men are the competitors for that selection. It's social biology. No, not always. When a man is very attractive (this doesn't necessarily mean looks), often he is the one choos…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 04:00 AM
1

Why are you bringing up that it's allowed? I never said a word about that and you already said you're both "poly," so why mention that you're allowed?
/r/MensRights12/06/18 03:59 AM
2

If you aren't a hypocrite, then yes. But women like Hillary Clinton don't want women to have to register yet don't oppose men having to do so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UflGUYWasPQ ANDERSON COOPER: I want to follow up the — yesterday on Capitol Hill the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Commander of the Marine Corps said that he thinks, and I quote, "all eligible and qualified men and women should register for the draft," talking about Selective Service. Do you think women should also h…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 03:56 AM
4

That doesn't answer my question. A "possibly cool, possibly not" date to get to know someone new and find out how they are, is more appealing to you than spending time with the boyfriend you already have??
/r/MensRights12/06/18 03:48 AM
5

Why did you go on a date a week ago? Boyfriend isn't all that interesting, or... ?
/r/MensRights12/06/18 03:43 AM
4

Since when?
/r/MensRights12/06/18 03:39 AM
9

Calling BS on this, no offense. : Woman hits on /u/rrood23x : u/rrood23x: "Back off!" LOL Take it easy; I can already hear you typing furiously.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 03:34 AM
6

I think if you WERE being chased you'd get sick of it. Ever hung around a super attractive guy? It gets OLD for them to have women treat them like a piece of meat. "Give me all your attention! Validate me by dropping what you're doing to pay attention to me and show me that you find me attractive! Let me hang all over you!" etc.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 03:32 AM
32

Or you're not that attractive. My girlfriend is gorgeous, and she's had women do it. I've seen it several times anywhere from bars to clubs to festivals to parties. Smacking her ass, kissing her, draping themselves all over her, tugging her hand to pull her to come meet their friends, etc., even after she's said no. I think the bigger issue is not that lesbians are BETTER people, it's that so far, they have behaved differently *toward you.* Furthermore, the most important point here is that it's…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 03:27 AM
1

Haha, thank you, I'll use that too.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 03:22 AM
1

Egalitarianism is traditional feminism No, traditional feminism is "we want women to the same rights as men." That's different than "we want everyone to have the same rights, period." And no, equal rights for all won't destroy any community it touches, LOL. When you give mothers the opportunity to eject their partners and/or essentially marry the state and live on alimony, child support and/or tax subsidy, you wind up with excessive tax burdens and expenses on payers, lower quality adults raised…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 02:22 AM
6

This is the correct answer. The history of circumcision in the US is STAGGERING.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 02:20 AM
4

What about the fact that women can now take any job without social criticism and if they are competent they will be regarded as such, whereas men are social pariahs and/or regarded as "bad," weird, deviant, or dangerous if they pursue certain jobs, for example: male babysitter male preschool teacher male stay-at-home dad Whereas a female mechanical engineer, firefighter, or lumberjack (lumberjill?) who can perform just as well as any man around, her, WILL be seen as competent. EXCEPTION THAT REV…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 02:07 AM
1

That one always gets me lol. Subsidized child care. Paying one woman minimum with tax revenue so another woman can have her low paying job and neglect her kids for a zero net gain, if not a drag on economic movement GDP -wise. I was talking about equal rights under the law. Not about how subsidized child care always bugs you. Furthermore: Egalitarianism causes economic and familial chaos. No. You are conflating. Being an egalitarian doesn't mean you're in favor of equal outcomes. It means you be…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 01:49 AM
10

I never considered that. I think you’re right. “Who else could be to blame but the patriarchy?” Oh? So you’re anti circumcision? Will you leave your son intact? “No way, uncircumcised dicks are gross!”
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:24 PM
1

LOL, exactly: illegal coercion is already defined and codified into law. When two consenting adults with a big power imbalance engage in consensual sex without coercion, it’s not illegal. Thus we don’t need to question our right to our freedom to associate.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:00 PM
3

It’s not exploitation. It’s two consenting adults with no coercion.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:53 PM
1

That’s true. I was talking about legal rights.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:52 PM
1

LOL
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:51 PM
1

Problem is that many of these "anti-feminists" are heavily invested in defending "Western civilization" (in case of conservatives) or "free-market capitalism" (in case of libertarians) or "White rac"e (AltRight). Whoa, easy on the bias there!! It’s a PROBLEM that many anti-feminists are heavily invested in defending Western civilization? Problem is that many of these "anti-feminists" are heavily invested in defending "Western civilization" (in case of conservatives) or "free-market capitalism" (…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 01:40 PM
1

It’s like this and like that and like this, and, uh
/r/MensRights11/06/18 01:32 PM
3

No, we shouldn’t question it for similar reasons as we do adults and teenagers below the age of consent. That is because teenagers are not yet legal adults. Monica was one. But you believe in questioning whether we should take away interns’ and/or Presidents’ rights and freedoms, because of the power differential between them. Sorry, we absolutely should not question freedom of association. Or whether to protect interns because you think we know better than they do and can make better decisions …
/r/MensRights11/06/18 01:32 PM
6

I said the word “egalitarian” and you immediately veered into a totally different topic. You misunderstand egalitarianism. Egalitarianism means we have equal rights under the law, nothing more.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 01:27 PM
1

I wonder whether female inmates brutalize chomos the way male inmates do in men’s penal colonies. Hard to come by examples because so few women do time and so few of those, do time for sex crimes!
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:27 AM
3

You misunderstand. This isn’t a hit piece on her. This piece is praising her because Monica has changed her statement from a firm 20 years of “It was totally consensual” (she literally said that) to just now saying that she thinks her consent didn’t count and that her consent was basically nonconsent.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:24 AM
1

THIS
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:20 AM
1

Everybody is talking about the wrong part. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. Ahhh, so it’s ok to blame all men for the actions of some? Thus it’s ok to blame all blacks or Jews for the actions of some, right? All women too...
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:20 AM
2

No, the red pill (not the movie) and incels were NOT created you widespread hate of men. The red pill is a self-described strategy for getting sex. That’s not created by hate for men. Guys who haven’t been able to get laid aren’t celibate because of hate for men. What you said about normalizing and making hate acceptable is dead on, though.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:16 AM
3

Please upvote the above comment!
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:13 AM
5

No he didn’t. The female cop pushed her.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:10 AM
0

A cop who has a tendency to get angry and react violently against citizens is immediately fired, because he's a useless cop. Not true. He’s a less useful cop.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:10 AM
2

No, it was not good for equal rights in the 1970’s. It may have helped women in the same way that locking up all blacks would be “good for reducing crime.”: it includes being VERY unfair to some in order to allegedly help others.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:05 AM
1

This.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:03 AM
1

But he’s not guilty. To verify the claim, Extra Credits hired an independent HR firm to investigate the matter, and was ready to abide by all findings, including firing anyone found responsible of committing misconduct. The contracted HR firm assigned a female HR manager to lead the investigation. The HR investigator conducted interviews with Extra Credits staff members and reviewed written correspondence. After investigating, the HR firm found no evidence of improprieties with regards to the cl…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 07:02 AM
1

What are some examples of toxic femininity?
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:58 AM
3

1) Lawyer up BUT, do not tell her. 2) use a mediator - NOT attorneys - to draw up a settlement, support, and custodial agreement, and offer to pay for having it drawn up and filed. DO NOT DISREGARD THIS. A mediator is trained to get as much of a win/win as possible. LAWYERS ARE INCENTIVIZED TO THROW GASOLINE ON THE FIRE. Understand that if your wife hears that you got an attorney, she’ll get one and that attorney will lick his or her chops and get your wife salivating at the idea of a big payday…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:56 AM
13

Two adults have consensual sex: r/twoxchromosomes: “Pedophile!!”
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:49 AM
10

Key point not emphasized: ** All G7 nations have majority women in higher education.**
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:47 AM
25

Are you sure you consider yourself a feminist? You sound like an egalitarian to me. You know, equality for all. What a concept!
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:45 AM
15

We support efforts to promote and protect white people’s health and well-being through evidence-based healthcare and health information. What? That’s racist? Yes, and it is equally sexist to say “We support efforts to promote and protect women’s health and well-being through evidence-based healthcare and health information.” Also... God forbid you simply say “We support efforts to promote and protect everyone’s health and well-being through evidence-based healthcare and health information.” Espe…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:39 AM
2

Shame on you, OP. The title of the article isn’t “Germany set to make.” It’s “Germany TO CONSIDER MAKING” Daily Mail admits the idea may or may not go ahead. Their little “set to make” caption under a photo is click bait, not fact.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:30 AM
105

TL;DR: Circumcision appears to cause PTSD and permanent increased pain response. Even the use of anaesthetic doesn’t do away with all the persistent increase in pain response. We looked at the foundation for the belief that the effects of circumcision pain are short-lived by examining infant behaviour several months after surgery. [D]uring routine vaccination at 4 or 6 months, male infants who had been circumcised exhibited a greater pain response than those who had not been circumcised. This in…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:16 AM
16

How about something much more productive like getting her fired by flooding her employer with complaints, getting coverage, and protesting? She really should not be allowed to work there. Would anyone be allowed to work there after “Why can’t we hate blacks?”?! Hell no.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 06:14 AM
1

That’s not what I said. There you go again with falsehoods. I pointed out that according to you, the BLS unemployment stat can dictate a good economy if it’s lower than the nation (false) and you said the BLS unemployment stat can dictate a good economy if it, using your crazy math, there are more jobs than job seekers. But of course, your logic is ridiculously flawed. According to you, people who stop looking for work aren’t a sign of a bad economy. You didn’t say “_____ percentage of people no…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 03:14 AM
3

Yes, but My point is they are not liberal. They are illiberal. Look up the definition of “liberal" and you will see it no longer applies. Same with so-called progressives. They are now deeply regressive.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 09:18 PM
1

There aren’t enough jobs to support the amount of people not working. By your crazy math, they’re only unemployed if they seek work, LOL Sorry, misinterpreting BLS stats because of the word “unemployed” even though the BLS states that the rate ONLY count those not at all employed and seeking full time work, makes anyone who does that a loser, as in, lost the argument and lost in life. You: “90% of the population out of work doesn’t mean they’re not employed! They’re only unemployed if they resum…
/r/MensRights10/06/18 09:16 PM
1

Wow, triggered much? I like how you go into a giant blowhard rant insisting I’m ignoring the half truths you mentioned. Your lack of integrity and dishonesty are self evident. I didn’t ignore the non sequiturs you mentioned. Detroit unemployment rate vs national unemployment rate doesn’t prove a healthy economy in Detroit. A healthy economy in Detroit is healthy regardless of the rest of the country. The person who DID ignore something is you: I repeatedly educated you that the BLS unemployment …
/r/MensRights10/06/18 09:13 PM
0

You haven’t supported your claim. But I did: Detroit’s expanded unemployment rate is so high that it proves the economy is shit there. According to your crazy math, as long as those people aren’t looking for work, the economy is great, no matter how many people aren’t employed. LOL It’s truly amazing how neurotic you are. Your ego has driven you to shameful denial of facts.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 06:20 PM
1

That’s the second time you said you were leaving and couldn’t. LOL Now you’re planting your feet again and dismissing facts. According to you, economists are all wrong when they say that it’s a problem to have a high percentage of people who are not employed. According to you, it’s a good economy as long as those people aren’t looking for work, LOL
/r/MensRights10/06/18 06:18 PM
1

Once again you avoid the question AND move the goalpost AND falsely claim I made an ad hominem attack when I made a factual statement. Truly pathetic. Expanded unemployment is a totally valid metric for how shitty an economy is. When a huge percentage of the population is unemployed whether looking or not, and there aren’t enough jobs for them, the economy sucks. But you finally understand that I’m right about that, and out of embarrassment and lack of spine, you’re slinking off while claiming y…
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:59 PM
0

Exactly, they’re unemployed but according to you - and you’re wrong, LOL - they’re not unemployed because you’re stooping to the same reasoning as people who say that racism against whites is impossible. Sorry, BLS stats on “those who are not at all employed and are looking for full time work” doesn’t cover all people who are not employed full time. We call it “unemployment” for shorthand and stupid people* think it means “all people who need work.” LOL You know.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:56 PM
1

Of course they count as unemployed and economists do count them. You clearly know nothing about economists because economists coined the term “expanded unemployment rate” and made the distinction between unemployed as actively looking for full time work, and unemployed but not looking. That’s not at all sound. Employment stats DO include expanded unemployment but that’s not available for Detroit, which is why economists study it there: it’s a HUGE problem that a big percentage of the population …
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:51 PM
1

Don’t move the goalpost, LOL. Pathetic! I didn’t throw out official employment stats. What YOU’RE trying to do is throw out the very real expanded unemployment rate. That’s truly disgusting that you have so little integrity.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:47 PM
1

I was so disgusted by how low you stooped with your “I never said that!” that I forgot to destroy your dumbass argument. By your own reckoning, if an area has FAR more unemployed people than jobs then yes, it’s a shit economy. And unemployed people who gave up are still unemployed. Best estimates put 20% real unemployment at “as good as it gets” for Detroit.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:35 PM
1

You and your poor reading comprehension again. I said “Like,” and that you are using the same reasoning as that. THAT’s how low you’ll stoop?? Pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:32 PM
1

LOL, right, they’re not employed but they don’t count as unemployed because of reasons. Kinda like how it’s impossible to racist against white people because of reasons? Same reasoning. LOL
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:24 PM
2

I’m not moving goalposts at all. But you’re either being disingenuous or dense if you think an area with a huge number of people who are unemployed and no longer even looking, constitutes low unemployment, just because the BLS number of people LOOKING for jobs is lower than before.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:23 PM
1

HAHA, no, because you fail to realize that Detroit has a HUGE expanded unemployment rate, including people who have given up looking for work.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:15 PM
2

But you said that not being the moderator in a debate means not being able to ask anything of the other person, LOL Regardless, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about because BLS unemployment stats don’t include people who’ve given up looking for work or people who have a part-time job, but want to be working full-time. Those two groups are included in another unemployment rate, the expanded unemployment rate. And among people FAR more credible than you (seeing as you have abdicated …
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:13 PM
1

That doesn’t answer the question of HOW MANY JOBS constitutes a non shit economy.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:56 PM
1

You haven’t given ANY numbers to answer my question as to how many jobs constitutes a shit vs a non shit economy.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:55 PM
2

BLS stats don’t state what is and isn’t a shit economy. Relative from baseline doesn’t constitute a non shit economy. So answer the question. I’ve repeated it six times but you keep squirming around.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:54 PM
1

I didn’t say that at all. I asked for numbers and you keep avoiding it while insulting me. Hmm!!
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:53 PM
1

I didn’t avoid the content. I stayed on topic and asked three times for numbers and you avoided answering three times, then - HAHA - said I don’t get to pick the questions, HAHAHAHAA You made personal insults the entire time too. Sorry, you failed here.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:52 PM
2

You haven’t answered the question: what number of jobs constitutes a shit or non shit economy and who decides? What you DID do though is make personal insults and assumptions.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:49 PM
1

Haha, “you don’t get to pick the questions!!” BAHAHAHAHA But there’s more! “More than before,” “thousands” and “better than a country’s economy” don’t constitute “non shit.” And you once again resort to ad hominem attacks. But you’re anti leftist. Sorry, you’re demonstrating the epitome of the leftist strategy with lots of post modern influence: Get emotional and hostile Attack personally Call out the other person for doing it Avoid the question Declare a simple demand for hard data to be an inv…
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:47 PM
2

Says the guy claiming I devolved into vagueness and ambiguosity and that I don’t want to talk numbers, LOL
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:28 PM
2

You still didn’t answer the questions. You gave “3,000” as proof the Detroit economy isn’t shit. What number would constitute a shit economy in Detroit and who decides? Even funnier, “less bad than the country” doesn’t constitute a non shit economy. LMAO
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:24 PM
1

You: leads with ad hominem attack, THEN says I’m doing it Me: asks for specific numbers You: Claims I don’t know want to talk numbers Me: asks for specific numbers again You: Insists I haven’t given any numbers and claims I’m moving the goalposts, LOL Third time: how many available jobs constitutes a non shit economy? Stop avoiding the question.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:03 PM
2

Wrong again. Surgeons who are employed by hospitals are employees. The Labor Board and IRS back me up on this, LOL Of course I never defined what makes Detroit shit because I never said Detroit is shit. Detroit is a city, not shit. There you go with your reading comprehension again! And you clumsily avoided answering my question. But I love your unfounded argument “available jobs = not a shit economy!” Again: How many jobs constitutes a non shit economy? And who decides? Me: Give numbers. Be spe…
/r/MensRights10/06/18 03:45 PM
2

How are you not a capitalist? Do you earn or spend no money at all? How are capitalists hypocrites?
/r/MensRights10/06/18 03:39 PM
2

No, I’m talking to a very triggered person who got all riled up and made stupid assumptions because he’s certain he’s right. I didn’t devolve into vague ambiguous arguments because a person can’t devolve. A person’s ARGUMENT can devolve, but my argument didn’t devolve into vagaries nor ambiguosity. Science: “Generally speaking, giraffes have long necks.” You: “You devolved into vague and ambiguous claims!!!” And it’s funny that you call discussing things vague and ambiguous since you jumped all …
/r/MensRights10/06/18 03:28 PM
1

LOL, no, your reading comprehension must suck because I wasn’t talking about existing hospitals. I clearly talked about people not building enough hospitals. Furthermore, no, they don’t always hire every single worker, including higher tier worker. For example, sometimes there’s not enough demand from the market, and sometimes there are not enough beds. Surgeons more often than not don’t bring their patients with them. The majority of surgical business is not repeat business for the same diagnos…
/r/MensRights10/06/18 02:54 PM
1

Ooh, look how triggered you got. Unemployment being less bad doesn’t mean it’s not still a shit economy, LOL And me using a hypothetical doesn’t mean I chose that field. And your reading comprehension sucks because hospitals don’t always make room for every worker, not even every higher-tier worker. You failed spectacularly here. LOL
/r/MensRights10/06/18 02:27 PM
4

liberal Not any more. Now they are illiberal voices shunning conservatives, whites, and men.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 02:00 PM
2

You’re deranged. Angry at someone who is upset at how, and explaining why, others are being shitty? Yeah, you’re a lunatic.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 01:58 PM
11

UN Whites is the UN organization dedicated to race equality and the empowerment of white people. A global champion for white people, UN Whites was established to accelerate progress on meeting the needs of white people worldwide. What's that? It's bigoted and not-at-all about equality, to favor one group instead of treating all people equally who need help? Yes. Yes, it is.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 06:20 AM
2

I can't understand how men even live in this society and avoid being crushed under the pressure. When you don't have excuses like racism and sexism to blame your problems on, you have no choice but to persevere.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:48 AM
4

No, nobody gave a shit that you rounded.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:04 AM
1

It depends on the circumstances. But you don't have to worry about that because you appear to be incapable of being anything other than passive aggressive, as evidenced by that very comment, LOL
/r/MensRights10/06/18 05:00 AM
5

Found the guy who has never been to a place with a shit economy. Yes, in a niche job in high demand you may have opportunities. The problem is, in a shit economy, there is no economic demand. If you're a specialized surgeon, yes, people around you do have need for your services. But when nobody's building hospitals you can't get that job. Visit Detroit and then you'll understand.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:58 AM
1

It's only 28% because only 72% of white males in MI are adults.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:55 AM
8

HUGE error in your “math.” 79/100 people in Michigan are white... Half men and half women. 39% of the population are white males. And only 72% of those males are adults, leaving 28% of the state's population committing 70% of suicides.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:53 AM
1

I didn’t see that you did. Mobile app sucks. I thank you kindly, The Hawk Seventy One.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:44 AM
1

No, it’s not. If you were right then adopted children of the bourgeoisie wouldn’t have the same socioeconomic outcomes as their genetic siblings. But they do. That is because it’s about choices, not genes.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:42 AM
1

No, I’m being directly confrontational. Your little hinty snide remarks are passive aggressive.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:41 AM
1

Thank you
/r/MensRights09/06/18 11:32 PM
1

No, they’re all bad. And they all do it.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 11:31 PM
1

I didn’t come up with any convoluted conclusion at all. I pointed out some facts, which is that your genetics or not what dictate being bourgeoisie. LOL
/r/MensRights09/06/18 11:28 PM
2

No, you can’t see those things that you have asserted. You only think you can. That’s typical for people with neurotic grandiosity and self-righteousness. So is a stubborn refusal to give me the fact that they can’t diagnose a woman like her by sight. Of course it’s very noteworthy that you gave a bunch of information that you can’t see. LOL
/r/MensRights09/06/18 11:26 PM
1

Wishful thinking caused by your insecurities and petty passive aggression
/r/MensRights09/06/18 11:24 PM
1

Sure. An insecure person would project onto others such things as a monogamous commitment (note correct spelling), and being madly in love as being “a distinct possibility” between two strangers he knows nothing about, after a year of dating in a way that insecure person knows nothing about.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 01:39 PM
2

No, she doesn’t look right in your mind. You already explained that you have deep seated mommy issues and that you have self diagnosed your mother as a psychopath. You need to learn that your own issues make it impossible for you to give an accurate assessment of women, and you need to learn that your perceptions are not necessarily reality.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 01:34 PM
2

Ohhh, NOW we see why you have it in for this young woman, and why you are projecting your own neurotic need to see a relatively normal person as a psychopath: You have deep-seated mommy issues.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 01:31 PM
2

You completely miss the point. Some people who have been diagnosed with psychopathy, look crazed. Many don’t, such as Dahmer. On the other hand, she doesn't look crazed, nor has she been diagnosed with psychopathy. LOL, you should accept the fact that you are nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 01:29 PM
1

Uh no. “Stock” means someone’s genetic ancestry. Nobody sane thinks the bourgeoisie are different genetically.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 06:38 AM
2

LOL, actually the population has. It’s one of the basic tenets of medicine: you can’t diagnose someone you haven’t even clinically evaluated.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 06:34 AM
2

I do know you can’t. Just like I know you can’t diagnose cancer by a photograph of a non-presenting person.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 06:31 AM
2

LOL, keep telling yourself that. The world population of psychologists can’t diagnose her from a photo, but /u/mikesteane can. HAHA
/r/MensRights09/06/18 04:47 AM
5

Then why are you babbling and insulting me about your incorrect assumptions about my positions on things? Sheesh
/r/MensRights09/06/18 03:01 AM
-1

You’ve gotten yourself way off track on a mental runaway, LOL I said nothing about Trump or Israel. Read what I wrote and attempt to not be so scatterbrained.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:54 AM
-2

Look at your ad hominem insults and your incorrect assumptions. LOL You also got yourself WAY off track. You keep harping on Trump. I said you’re wrong that all leaders don’t spread their cheeks for those who bring them money.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:53 AM
1

Weak attempt at saving face while slinking off. You failed here.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:51 AM
-7

Right, right. LOL The fantasy images you create exist because of your ignorance and naïveté, not because the world works the way you think it does.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:28 AM
1

Ahhh, you’ve stooped to the usual new low that most everyone does: “You didn’t troll me (even though I got all butthurt at what you said)!!! I’m the one trolling YOU!!!!!” LOL, uh huh
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:25 AM
6

“CRS”?
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:24 AM
3

he spreads his cheeks for his donors. Unlike everyone else? LOL! Puh-leaze.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:15 AM
1

Thank you for proving my point. A series of butthurt, snarky comments shows you give a shit. If you didn’t care you wouldn’t keep following me around insisting you don’t care. LOL
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:11 AM
2

Insightful comment of the thread. Kudos.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 02:02 AM
2

Of course you see yourself that way. But the fact remains that you cannot identify all people with mental disorders. You certainly can’t identify the woman in question as one.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 01:59 AM
1

That’s true!
/r/MensRights09/06/18 01:55 AM
2

No, I’ve seen her on video. There’s nothing unusual about her, unlike people who are clearly mentally disturbed.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 01:54 AM
0

LOL, no, pointing out facts doesn’t indicate any insecurity. But getting hostile at me doing it, and then attacking me for it, does strongly indicate that you’re deeply affected by my words. HMMMMMmmm
/r/MensRights09/06/18 01:02 AM
2

Lol, no, you don’t know. You believe. A psychologist can’t diagnose her from what little you have read. Presuming you know better than a psychologist is another form of magical thinking.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 12:57 AM
1

Her name is Asia. You don’t know anything about her and how she is?
/r/MensRights09/06/18 12:56 AM
-4

Haha, no, pointing out those facts doesn’t make my username apply. But it DOES make snarky little guys like you bristle. HMMMM!
/r/MensRights09/06/18 12:54 AM
2

Exactly. You’re making proclamations without knowing a damn thing about their relationship.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 12:53 AM
2

LOL, that’s a flawed statement. That’s exactly like saying it’s not hard to learn to identify cancer patients on sight. Some you can. Some you cannot. When the woman in this story gets on the bus nobody thinks she’s loony.
/r/MensRights09/06/18 12:52 AM
2

viscous You mean "vicious." "Viscous" means something entirely different.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 06:05 PM
5

She attributes the hate for the remake of Ghostbusters to sexism and white male entitlement. By her logic, if 'Hidden Figures' was remade with white male actors, any outcry would be because of anti-male sexism and black female entitlement.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 06:03 PM
20

No, most feminists would never want to see a dog imprisoned.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 05:54 PM
6

Jay Mohr has a similar bit about how black comics portray all white people as shit-their-pants retarded at all times. "THAT'S the guy who's holding you back?"
/r/MensRights08/06/18 05:53 PM
-2

That's my point. You can't identify her supposed mental illness by sight. You're engaging in what is called "magical thinking."
/r/MensRights08/06/18 05:49 PM
-2

You can tell she’s a psycho by looking at her? You should offer your magical services to the government.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 05:26 PM
6

Manson didn’t stab anyone.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 05:25 PM
-67

She’s not his wife, she’s his girlfriend of just a year and some-odd months. Nor do you know anything about their relationship nor her relationship with their journalist friend. Asia isn’t exactly known for conformity in intimate matters. Projecting your own insecurities much?
/r/MensRights08/06/18 05:07 PM
1

Sure, presidents and senators may be of a different stock but that's hearsay to begin with. wat lol
/r/MensRights08/06/18 08:19 AM
1

Why are you conflating "minimum wage" with "a healthier, more educated populace"? And why are you conflating a disinterest in "universal education, healthcare, and a respectable minimum wage" as being NOT committed to a generational rift? Not everyone is bad at math.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 08:18 AM
1

You said that if I answered your question you'd answer mine, and I did so. But since I'm feeling charitable I'll let you break our deal and I'll answer yet another one of yours. There is no such thing as an "appropriate" effort. "Appropriate" means "suitable" or "proper." And there is no right nor wrong amount of effort to put into having a healthy relationship. The choice to try to have a healthy relationship is yours. If you wish to have a rewarding, enjoyable life, ESPECIALLY in your later ye…
/r/MensRights08/06/18 01:19 AM
1

What would you call an example of a calorie of effort? a good career? health? or ostentation? No. One calorie of effort is 4.1868 joules. So, relatively speaking, a small amount of effort. Things that are not an amount of effort: A good career is a thing, not an amount of effort. Being healthy is a condition, not an amount of effort. Ostentation is a display, not an amount of effort.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 12:23 AM
3

Yes, although I think you mean the absolute hubris, not lack of it.
/r/MensRights08/06/18 12:19 AM
1

That is a totally warped, unhealthy, and incorrect view. It’s also a sweeping generalization. There’s no such thing as “the modern relationship.” You can have any sort of relationship you want. You get to set all the rules about how you are treated and how you treat the other person. Yet you are so neurotic and mixed up that you think everyone is stuck with no choice but to have relationships consisting of “gathering their possesions in a little pile, standing on top of it, and performing a path…
/r/MensRights07/06/18 10:08 PM
2

OK, I did. Sorry, but you're still wrong. Rich and powerful men make social structures (laws, foundations, etc) that protect and favor women at women's request. No. Some do and some CLEARLY don't. They have families and seem to love their wives. No. Some do and some CLEARLY don't. Rich and powerful women seem to deliberately remove all men from their lives and spend their time dropping rocks on the men below them. No. Some do and some CLEARLY don't. It implies that the average woman would live a…
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:28 PM
1

Exactly: It is not an established reasonable belief that all couples have engaged in premarital sex.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:23 PM
15

Many states are now choosing to make their parental right laws more gender neutral because the decline of the patriarchy has changed the traditional home structure. As the patriarchy continues to crumble What patriarchy? We don't live in one. Try looking up the word before penning an article. It also means that women have to pay child support as part of recent equality developments — another feminist win/lose situation. No, that's not another feminist win/lose situation. That's a feminist win/wi…
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:21 PM
3

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian psychologist, best-selling author, and wildly popular YouTube star promulgating backward and deeply unoriginal biological determinism with certainty, zeal, and a lot of Jungian mumbo jumbo. No. Peterson doesn't preach biological determinism. In fact he preaches the opposite: that people CAN overcome their innate traits. It's always very telling when someone condemns someone else for something that person hasn't even done. Confronting Peterson’s repellent ideas, if y…
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:13 PM
1

Wrong again. That's a false dichotomy. The alternative to being alone isn't much, much worse. Are toxic relationships possible? Of course. Healthy, rewarding relationships are also very possible. But not for people like you who do your best to make sure you prevent it from happening and don't put one calorie of effort into making it happen.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:08 PM
16

"Mr. Wright has shown great dignity throughout this process, and I hope this resolution assists him and his family after what they have been through," he said in a statement. What a crock of shit. Sorry, but Mr. Wright wouldn't be the slightest bit in the wrong whether or not he showed dignity throughout the hell he went through. How belittling and unremorseful the Mayor is by basically saying "He took our abuse like a good boy so we'll acknowledge that down onto him from on high."
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:06 PM
2

LOL, no, you’re not a victim if you can’t get laid or can’t manage your relationships.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 04:42 PM
0

Exactly. You don’t know, so don’t say they did. Say “I’m pretty sure they did.” That is why “_____ is a pedophile” is libel or slander (depending whether written or oral) and “Pretty sure ________ is a pedophile” is not. It’s also why newspapers and DECENT PEOPLE don’t call people things without proof. They have the backbone to say “I’m pretty sure.”
/r/MensRights07/06/18 04:40 PM
2

Yep. And the irony is that the Left are very much NOT compassionate toward whites and men, because racism and sexism is ok with them, because of reasons.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 04:39 PM
1

It's like this and like that and like this, and, uh
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:34 AM
1

There's no "should" about it. They aren't obligated by law to hit the emergency button. You and I would LIKE them to. But they aren't obligated to. There's no "should" about it.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:33 AM
1

I will if I care enough about them, and they would do the same for me. It's good to have relationships like that.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:31 AM
1

This.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:30 AM
2

It was intimidating, he was a big guy and I am only size eight.' humblebrag The fashion CEO is keen to stress she does not blame this man, who she describes as being 6ft tall and asian. 'I remain more angry with those white middle class men who left me to it. As fathers, husbands and sons they should be ashamed of themselves.' The guilty party is not the guilty party, it's the innocent people who chose to treat her as equal. Oh, ok. Bringing their race and her guess at their socioeconomic status…
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:25 AM
1

I'll remember that next time I'm a male vervet monkey and some sexy little female vervet monkey I'm courting mouths off to another vervet monkey in a black vervet monkey movie theater.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:19 AM
7

No. Men implementing the Pence Rule is no different than women treating all men as potential rapists. The Pence rule isn't treating women as false accusers. It's treating them as potential false accusers, which of course they potentially are. Just like men are potentially false accusers too. It's ok to treat people as potentially this or that. It's your legal right to do so, as long as you don't infringe on their legal rights.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:16 AM
4

No, they should be outside playing.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:11 AM
2

they are being trialed for they are being tried for
/r/MensRights07/06/18 06:10 AM
2

Did Bill ever say he fucked her before they married? It's one thing to point out that she married a billionaire. It's another to assume that you know jack shit about his or her private lives. Take the high road; stick to what you do know.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:58 AM
2

No, what she and people of her ilk think is that it's NOT that women and certain racial minorities are inferior or make different choices. They think it's that the white man is holding them back. So if we only ENcourage instead of DISCourage women to pursue STEM and very demanding, high paying jobs that don't permit work/life or work/family balance, and if we "PUSH BACK" against the oppression by making damn sure we hire women, then women will choose those jobs because the only reason they haven…
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:56 AM
5

In 2015, Forbes named Holmes as the youngest self-made female billionaire in the world due to a $9 billion valuation of Theranos. The next year Forbes revised her net value to zero dollars, given an updated $800 million valuation of Theranos and the fact that many of Theranos' investors hold preferred shares and so would be paid before Holmes (who holds common stock) in a liquidation event. "Tee hee!"
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:51 AM
7

She's not crazy. She's a bigot. There's a huge difference. And by failing to understand her mindset you will keep yourself in the dark.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:46 AM
4

Oh please. You're sounding like an incel. Improve your chick management skills and learn how to create happiness and peace for yourself and a woman. If you can.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:44 AM
4

Is that the basis of female/male relationships? Women pretending to like men until they get enough stuff? No. You complain about apex fallacy; similarly don't assume all women are just like Melinda Gates. Or keep telling yourself that and end up bitter and alone, perhaps an incel or a TeRPer.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:43 AM
1

Millennials are still young and desperate to make ends meet The thing is, they're not desperate to make ends meet. Some are, but some aren't, and the latter is a growing problem.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:42 AM
3

but since my parents come from a country of people who look like someone who wronged them, I'm still shit on by society. You mean, your parents come from a country of people who look like some men past and present who these people BELIEVE wronged them. Do you really think women and blacks today have been wronged by a bunch of white men who have been here since before the Civil war?? Those men would be 150+ years old. And do you think all pre-Civil War white men oppressed women and blacks? Even t…
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:41 AM
7

They're basically just choosing to help broke women only to punish young men of today for the sins of their fathers. It's worse than that. They're punishing young men of today for the IMAGINED sins of their fathers. The vast majority of fathers of the young men of today, tried to eke out a living and weren't oppressing women.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:33 AM
0

Like others, if they cared, these "leftist" billionaires would spend their ungodly sums of money supporting liberal politics. No, he cares. He's making choices he believes will help. And they would push universal education, healthcare, and a respectable minimum wage. Now you're REALLY off base. "Caring" does not equal "universal education, healthcare, and a respectable minimum wage." Millions of people who care a heck of a lot about their fellow man, are ANTI minimum wage for the very reason tha…
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:30 AM
10

any wealthy “leftist” is not ideologically a leftist, they’re just covering their own asses from a PR standpoint because they don’t want the proletariat to rise up. No. The proletariat isn't going to rise up if he doesn't cover his own ass. We have already shown that we won't rise up even in response to FAR more egregious things than him being an unapologetic capitalist. And he's not doing it for PR. Yes, good PR is a benefit but that's absolutely not the reason he's doing these things. One majo…
/r/MensRights07/06/18 05:01 AM
3

Middle school girls who are encouraged to study CS are more likely to do so in high school. Yes, but that doesn't mean girls are being discouraged from CS or STEM. Because middle school girls who are encouraged to party are more likely to do so in high school. Middle school girls who are encouraged to play sports are more likely to do so in high school. And so on. Turns out people are impressionable. Just because people respond to encouragement doesn't mean they were previously being DIScouraged…
/r/MensRights07/06/18 04:47 AM
4

When asked to “define diversity,” she responds, “I define diversity as when you have a mix of people seated at the table who look representative of our whole society.” Our WHOLE society? So she'd like the people seated at the table to be mostly poor and not have college degrees. She'd like a large number of small children and elderly. And a sizable amount of criminals. Riiiiight.
/r/MensRights07/06/18 04:43 AM
1

So you're saying it's ok to apply a generality to all members of a group. What a piece of shit you are. Get out of my sub.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 11:04 PM
1

No. That’s a false dichotomy. There are many women who support equal rights for all, who haven’t read hundreds of studies on men’s rights and don’t “identify with men more than women,” whatever that nonsense means. Furthermore please show me where Karen has said she has read hundreds of studies on the subject.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 07:27 PM
6

You miss the point yet again. If governance were 50% women and those women were all man-hating misandrists things would get worse. If it were 50% women and those women were a big mix of women with differing perspectives things would stay the same. If it were 50% women like Karen Straughan, things would change for the better. Your misunderstanding is based on forgetting that groups are made up of individuals, many of whom are quite different than one another. You’re attributing traits that exist …
/r/MensRights06/06/18 07:15 PM
8

It wouldn’t just be an affirmative action surgeon or engineer. It would be a surgeon or engineer whose 4.0 grade was “earned” with fewer correct test answers than other students who earned an actual 4.0. But your comment that a 50% female political body won’t affect women’s/men’s rights is ludicrous. It would certainly affect men’s and women’s rights depending on the individuals who were elected.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 03:30 PM
11

This. Underrated insightful comment of the thread.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 03:29 PM
14

Yes, because they’re not science. They’re ideological. In hard science, an answer to an objective question is either right or wrong. In ideologies, the professor decides what grade to give you.
/r/MensRights06/06/18 03:28 PM
1

“I’m bored” translation, “I give up but I’m trying to play it off!” LOL
/r/MensRights05/06/18 11:14 PM
-1

Good boy. I’ve made you my bitch.
/r/MensRights05/06/18 10:04 PM
-1

Again with the pathetic clinging to feeble assertions, LOL. Fury? Set off? Haha Meanwhile the fact that I have my hooks in you says it all. Obey your massa!
/r/MensRights05/06/18 08:38 PM
0

Look at you with all these hopeful assertions. “You base your self worth on internet interactions!” asserts the guy desperately trying to win. “I’m causing you a lot of grief!” asserts the guy hoping he’s causing me grief, LOL “You’re done!” asserts the guy hoping I’ll let him win his goofy little war of recriminations. haha
/r/MensRights05/06/18 06:47 AM
0

Now I’ve driven you to BOTH the “make baseless assertions” stage and the “I’m only doing this because of reasons, and I enjoy it, YOURE NOT BOTHERING ME, I SWEAR” coverup. LOL, pathetic
/r/MensRights05/06/18 04:20 AM
0

I love turning out insecure people like you by playing with your pathological need to not admit you fucked up. You’re anyone’s dog who will hunt you. Obey your massa!
/r/MensRights05/06/18 04:02 AM
1

Exactly
/r/MensRights05/06/18 12:35 AM
0

You’re lost. Left of republican doesn’t necessarily mean politically Left. A republican is less Right than a far-right person. That doesn’t make a Republican a leftist because they’re still on the right of center. Similarly, a democrat isn’t in the center. Dems are on the left. Good god are you whacked out!
/r/MensRights04/06/18 11:03 PM
0

So you’re saying that the rules aren’t often followed because in some places they are followed. Sweet logic, brah
/r/MensRights04/06/18 11:01 PM
0

That’s a pathetic attempt to save face. You should be ashamed of yourself.
/r/MensRights04/06/18 11:00 PM
-1

LOL So Democrats are pretty Republican? Are anarcho-capitalists pretty socialist too? What about Nazis, are they pretty egalitarian?
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:26 PM
0

Ego-driven cringe level: maximum. You should have stopped posting when I pointed out that both my earlier comments went over your head.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:20 PM
-1

has been shown to only apply in the case of the man except in very limited circumstances. HAHAHAhaahahahaha, NO. There are many cases where the man receives support and the support obligation of his wife is reduced when he receives additional income. A support modification is a support modification and the Disso Master isn't a gendered formula. You haven't been around family law much.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:19 PM
1

Of course it is, and I never said otherwise. What I correctly pointed out was that the judge didn't get her a pass because she was female. The judge stated that he gave her a pass because she was female AND a parent. Not just a parent. Not just a female. A female parent.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:16 PM
1

Many young people are ignorant enough that they think the campus police is the right branch of LE to go to.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:16 PM
1

The issue isn't "why not write this?". The issue is, why didn't the author write "John Doe MAY HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED"
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:15 PM
1

You actually believe that a woman who was a stay-at-home mom, and then was awarded full custody and child support, will go to jail for contempt of court because she didn't show a good-faith effort to find a job? Like, in the United States of America, in actual reality? Has that ever happened, even once? Absolutely. More than once. You sure haven't been around the courtroom much, have you?
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:13 PM
-1

LOL, good god are you stupid. https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+left
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:12 PM
1

Of course they work on things like this article. They work everywhere. I never said it was misandrist to ask questions like these. I clearly said that author would never ask the same question of a woman.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:12 PM
2

An echo chamber is a place where people agree. There is lots of disagreement in here. Just like you and me right now. Duh
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:11 PM
1

You're saying it's ok if all innocent people of a group suffer because of the actions of some other members of that group? Is it ok if all blacks suffer because some other blacks commit crimes? Is it ok if all women suffer because other women commit crimes? That's the problem with treating people on the basis of sex or race: it doesn't treat them as individuals. It treats them as all the same, which is the very definition of sexism and racism.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 10:10 PM
3

Whoosh! Hahahaha
/r/MensRights03/06/18 02:25 AM
6

No, it's just money True because most women are just greedy, controlling whores. WHOA! Bigoted much? You don't belong here.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 02:25 AM
1

Nah, the goal is that in the event a, for example, woman leaves her job (and career) for X number of years to raise a kid and the man divorces her, she HAS been providing for the well-being of the child(ren) and has a pretty big handicap as far as getting back into the job force. Imagine the tables are turned. You're a house-husband and your wife divorces you, after you both agreed to have a child and both agreed that you'd leave your career to care for the baby. Now you're suddenly supposed to …
/r/MensRights03/06/18 02:20 AM
3

They also never put any shame on any of the deadbeat mothers or the mothers who are present but horrible to the child(ren).
/r/MensRights03/06/18 02:10 AM
1

LOL, top comment of the thread.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 02:09 AM
1

The point of the distinction is that she's a female with a CHILD is the judge's stated reason for giving her a pass. He didn't say "You're a woman so I'm giving you a pass because of womanhood." He clearly stated that his goal was the best interests of the CHILD, not the woman. Try to see the forest for the trees. Sheesh LOL
/r/MensRights03/06/18 02:08 AM
2

You'd be surprised if John Doe filed a sexual assault claim for ANY other reason than to head off a similar claim? You're accusing the man of filing a false sexual assault claim. That's awfully self-righteous and pig-headed, especially considering you merely read one biased article about the case. Shame on you.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 02:06 AM
2

This sub isn't an echo chamber, which is why you see people disagreeing so much. You're also wrong that "nobody buys that shit" that the Left is different than Centrist. The entire point of the name "Centrist" is that it is in the CENTER. The LEFT is... wait for it.... LEFT of CENTER. Man, you are a piece of work. LOL
/r/MensRights03/06/18 02:05 AM
7

See? Mansplainer right there.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 02:04 AM
4

Yes, it does. In a discussion about a study done by the US gov't on US workers, /u/awadafuk is like "But my non sequitur about some OTHER group of countries proves you wrong!" And, /u/awadafuk, nurses aren't overworked. Nor are they underpaid. Nobody puts a gun to their heads. They accept job offers at companies that want employees to work X number of hours at Y compensation. Again, the nurses accept the job. They're free not to work that job and the employer uses no coercion or force.
/r/MensRights03/06/18 02:02 AM
7

And notice this: she (the author) doesn't say "Why, exactly, did John Doe make his report? It is possible, of course, that he legitimately WAS VIOLATED by a sexual predator." She says "Oh, it's POSSIBLE that MAYBE he MIGHT have FELT himself to have been legitimately violated by a sexual predator." How fucked up is that!
/r/MensRights02/06/18 09:50 PM
1

True dat!!
/r/MensRights02/06/18 09:48 PM
11

There's something big all commenters have missed which I'll show by making much simpler and easier: I'll change the genders. Then you can see how awful this article is. The author would NEVER pose this question of a woman. We are left with one central question: Why, exactly, did Jane Doe make her report? It is possible, of course, that she legitimately felt herself to have been violated by a sexual predator. Alternatively, she may have been motivated either by self-preservation or revenge. Whate…
/r/MensRights02/06/18 07:54 PM
20

There's something big you've missed which I'll show by making much simpler and easier: I'll change the genders. Then you can see how awful this article is. The author would NEVER pose this question of a woman. We are left with one central question: Why, exactly, did Jane Doe make her report? It is possible, of course, that she legitimately felt herself to have been violated by a sexual predator. Alternatively, she may have been motivated either by self-preservation or revenge. Whatever inspired …
/r/MensRights02/06/18 07:53 PM
-5

centrist liberals. No such animal if you mean "liberal" in the current sense (meaning "Democrat" or "politically Left"), which is Left, not centrist.
/r/MensRights02/06/18 07:51 PM
6

Those are BLS figures and the BLS says that all figures in the chart above, whether retail or otherwise, are a total of ALL hours worked by ALL workers in that field, whether part time or full. Yes, you work 6 days and a lot of hours. Many other retail workers work far fewer hours. In fact, so many retail workers work less than you, that the average number for all retail workers is low. You are just an exception. That doesn't mean retail work is generally very long hours. Generally, it's not, un…
/r/MensRights02/06/18 07:46 PM
6

It's completely hypothetical for feminists to say men can't form their own group to talk about their own male specific issues. I think you meant "hypocritical." "Hypothetical" means something else and isn't the right word here since it's real, not hypothetical.
/r/MensRights02/06/18 07:44 PM
3

This guy jokes
/r/MensRights02/06/18 07:43 PM
20

No. The norm is for hospitals to have enough nursing staff that everyone works three 12-hour shifts per week, and to forbid unapproved overtime. One reason is to eliminate or reduce overtime costs. Another is to save money on employer contributions, for example the difference in employer cost for health care for workers that work 40+ hours per week or 2,080 hours per year, vs. workers who work less than those numbers.
/r/MensRights02/06/18 07:42 PM
9

Nah, they're closely related but definitely different. That is why the law makes a complete and total differentiation. For example being a machinist brings a much higher chance of being maimed than many other jobs, with very little chance of death. Whereas being a fisherman (or woman) carries a much higher chance of being killed than any other profession other than logging, but a much lower chance of being maimed.
/r/MensRights02/06/18 07:30 PM
29

Yes, women want to be loggers, miners, bricklayers (99% male), construction workers, and roughnecks, but patriarchal oppression keeps them out of those professions. Furthermore, if any women don't want to go into those professions, or STEM, then it's because of internalized societal pressure about "female" and "male" professions. Dismantle the patriarchy so women can freely enter these shitty jobs that they really do want to have a career in! Down with toxic masculinity!
/r/MensRights02/06/18 07:20 PM
1

And men with children are never spared, so I don't think your argument has any legs to stand on. LOL, I didn't make an argument. I stated a fact. Did you even read the story or are you just horrible at reading comprehension? The judge stated that she was spared because she's a woman with a child. Sorry to see that you got so butthurt over me pointing it out, LOL. You failed. Miserably.
/r/MensRights02/06/18 06:59 PM
1

Just saw your dumbass comment, sorry! Its misleading to present the case that women are charged more at any level remotely close to men; Perhaps you suck at reading. At any level? Ok, here's one level: perfect driving records and 40 and 60 years old. "However, studies conducted by the CFA found that 40- and 60-year-old women with perfect driving records nearly twice as often pay more for basic coverage than men who have the same driving history." There you go. You might want to better check your…
/r/MensRights02/06/18 08:33 AM
1

Judging people by their sex or race is bigotry. Yet you're saying we should treat individuals based on group identity. "Men tend to harass women and not the other way around, therefore restrict men on certain days." is ok by you. Therefore you should be ok with "Blacks tend to commit violent crimes and rape against whites and not the other way around, therefore restrict blacks on certain days" is also ok by you. So we should treat all blacks as criminals, eh? It's not different than treating all…
/r/MensRights02/06/18 08:25 AM
7

Not "because she is a woman." She was spared because she's a woman with a child. The judge says that the fact that she is a woman with a child is why he spared her. Not because she's a parent, but a female parent.
/r/MensRights02/06/18 08:16 AM
7

"There are enough white guy sharks out there": acceptable "There are enough black guy sharks out there": racist Welcome to the modern Left.
/r/MensRights02/06/18 08:13 AM
3

It IS considered sexist and racist, by anyone with integrity. You ask "How is it acceptable?" It's not. Just because some people accept it and just because some people consider it not sexist nor racist doesn't make it so.
/r/MensRights02/06/18 08:11 AM
1

No, from the male perspective, female wardrobe does NOT constitute female conduct of a sexual nature. It's definitely sexual garb, but not sexual conduct. Just like how a ski mask in a bank is criminal garb, but not criminal conduct. Your assertion that a person's passive appearance is sexual conduct is EXACTLY the same as how pedophiles think prepubescent children are flirting with them just because the child passively exists and is visible.
/r/MensRights01/06/18 06:56 PM
8

Yes. Sadly funny how those same people use the word “nuance” to excuse anti-male sexism (basically, "It's OK to discriminate against men because nuance.") and anti-white racism (Example: Google internal memos) because nuance makes it ok... And yet the same people refuse to acknowledge that when he was a child who wasn’t old enough to consent, he used a common slang term to make a statement about Windows 10, NOT about homosexuals. What happened to “nuance”? The most ridiculous thing about it is t…
/r/MensRights01/06/18 01:19 AM
8

3 years ago? And he’s 20 now? So they’re attacking him for something he said when he was a child.
/r/MensRights01/06/18 01:00 AM
0

Hurr durr!!! LOL, you should be ashamed of such a weak comment. THAT’s your idea of acerbic wit? Good god are you feeble.
/r/MensRights01/06/18 12:53 AM
1

Haha, clearly you have problems if you interpret "the system allows for racial discrimination of state and federal funds provided the recipient isn't white" as 1. Me pushing a white identarianism (LOL!) or 2. Not systemic racism against whites. What’s really funny is that if we were to change the labels from “white” to “male” then you’d call it sexism. Again, hypocrisy is a really bad look on you. So is bitterness and your feeble and baseless personal attacks (“you haven’t strung an argument tog…
/r/MensRights01/06/18 12:52 AM
2

LOL, show me where I got upset. Copy and paste. And no, the system isn’t biased in favor of whites. Affirmative action may be, but that is not the entirety of the system. And yes, bias in favor of non-whites IS bias against whites. LOL, logic and lack of defensiveness do not appear to be your long suits online. Pro tip: engaging in “I got u upset!!” followed by “Nuh uh!! U r!!!” shows everyone that you've lost.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 07:50 AM
5

Says the guy who went off on a giant offtopic rant from ad hominem insults to Stormfront to projecting to global realities. Triggered much? And what I said was correct: the system DOES permit anti-white discrimination. Thanks for embarrassing yourself while helping prove my point. LOL
/r/MensRights31/05/18 07:30 AM
4

No, affirmative action does. NOT the system. And I thought you were referring to the original discussion which was that the system isn’t biased against whites. Oops! You forgot that. It’s really pathetic how important it is to you to cling to any excuse to insist you’re not wrong.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 06:48 AM
4

... and when I included examples that prove the system does support racism against whites, you ignored them. Bzzzzzt, you lose.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 06:39 AM
5

What about race based grants and scholarships? Do those include more than just race based grants and scholarships? No. And the system supports that. Sorry, try again.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 06:36 AM
6

Not race based affirmative action, grants, and scholarships. Sorry, try again.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 06:24 AM
9

LOL, a 17 year old boy isn’t the same as an adult teacher. Congratulations! You failed spectacularly, LOL
/r/MensRights31/05/18 06:08 AM
5

Who, male feminists? Seems so. That’s the point of the post.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 06:06 AM
9

So the system isn’t biased against whites? Then what’s affirmative action for nonwhites? Please explain.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 06:03 AM
1

So equal rights for a group are unnecessary if the majority of people of that label decide so? Sorry, no. And you wouldn’t agree if you were part of a group that had majority representation but voted against equal rights for you that you valued. Hypocrisy is really ugly on you.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 05:36 AM
6

So that makes it ok? Please explain. Sounds like you think it would be ok for women to vote against women’s rights because they’d be doing it to other women. What a warped person you seem to be.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 04:44 AM
2

“/s” would come in handy. :) There are actual weirdos in here and we don’t need them giving us a bad name.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 04:43 AM
6

Nice sweeping generalization. Most people who advocate for equal rights for men - aka MRA’s - are ANTI sexism. But look at you being bigoted!
/r/MensRights31/05/18 04:33 AM
12

No. A 13 year old is mentally very different than an elementary school child. And, no, I’m not saying that minimizes what she did. I’m responding to a weirdo who thinks a 13 year old isn’t an adolescent.
/r/MensRights31/05/18 04:31 AM
1

How so? Please explain.
/r/MensRights30/05/18 05:52 PM
6

I offered to help and was told by Harry (whose work I’m a fan of) that he was really glad I called and he was very interested in my help, BUT that I had to donate $55 or whatever it was to become a member before I could help.
/r/MensRights30/05/18 05:50 PM
15

This author (a woman)'s take is just as bad as “toxic masculinity!” She thinks we should have CONDITIONAL masculinity. Her example was that you’re only a man if you can be superior to someone else or achieve something extraordinary in sports. Sounds like hardcore man-hating feminism to me. “You’re only a man if you meet my criteria.” Sorry, what makes someone a man is an X and a Y chromosome. He can have erectile dysfunction or a small penis, he can be bald, short, ugly, poor, unemployed, homele…
/r/MensRights30/05/18 01:02 AM
3

rouge “Rouge” means red. You mean “rogue.”
/r/MensRights25/05/18 04:39 AM
0

He didn’t bump their grades. He issued a statement saying he might.
/r/MensRights25/05/18 04:39 AM
1

Okay so me drawing conclusions from my own experience makes me naive and obtuse but you drawing conclusions from my experiences and making assumptions about the inner workings of the women we've dated or taken out is completely fine and makes sense to you? Yes. Example: You: “Doctor, my ear hurts. I think my cousin put a hex on me because it started after we had an argument.” Me: “No, you have an ear infection.”
/r/MensRights25/05/18 04:30 AM
1

What were you saying again? Women would have no interest in female sexbots or VR technology that could approximate or even exceed the typical male/female sexual/romantic encounter? No, i was not saying that at all. You failed spectacularly by being arrogant. The irony is delicious, LOL
/r/MensRights25/05/18 04:27 AM
4

Thank you for pointing out the giant gaping holes in your argument. There's no lack of opportunity for women in cycling either. The opportunities to ride, or ride in a club, is the same for both sexes. The problem is not the presence of the men. The problem is women deselecting themselves because of their feelings. It's not ok to exclude people based on sex or race just because one sex or one race feels uncomfortable with the other.
/r/MensRights24/05/18 10:38 AM
3

new technology could enable women to recombine their genes with one another, making men enamored with sex robots (or men generally) totally redundant. She has the position that men's only purpose is to fertilize women. If she saw things differently, she wouldn't think "men are redundant if women can reproduce on their own." For example, men being able to adopt a baby doesn't render women redundant. She's also wrong here: The technologies developed to satisfy sexual urges will always cater to mas…
/r/MensRights24/05/18 01:48 AM
2

My god does she need a copy editor. It was full of goofs like “Sometimes they get cues that they have nothing to lose you have everything to gain from taking risks".
/r/MensRights24/05/18 01:25 AM
-1

You contradict yourself. Women are not pursuing men in Japan despite the massive "grass-eater" phenomenon. Instead, when sexbots become sufficiently advanced, women will do everything in their power to criminalize them. You have no evidence of that. What you do have is the preceding sentence disproving your claim. Women aren’t doing everything in their power to criminalize what exists today (porn, fleshlight type toys, etc.) even in places like Japan that have a lot of grasseaters going their ow…
/r/MensRights24/05/18 01:13 AM
1

No, your comment wasn’t on topic. The comment you responded to wasn’t attacked by anyone as being anti-men. You’re over there on a mental runaway complaining that “saying anything pro-family is perceived as anti-men” yet that comment you’re replying to WASN’T attacked at all.
/r/MensRights23/05/18 01:21 AM
1

Well, OP?
/r/MensRights23/05/18 01:19 AM
0

No, the women you and /u/Jareh-Ashur took on dates, did expect you to pay. That’s what you guys are missing. They pretended otherwise and were disappointed when you took them up on it. Ask ANY candid woman, especially a good looking one.
/r/MensRights23/05/18 01:18 AM
1

That’s like assuming he’s a pro bowler because he says “I’m a bowler” to convey that he enjoys doing it as a pastime. He gets introduced as a professor, not a preacher.
/r/MensRights23/05/18 01:14 AM
11

A taught behavior?? In all societies including primitive ones, males behave like this. Same for the animal kingdom. Yet you think it’s learned?! Do you think male bowerbirds build the biggest and fanciest bowers as a learned strategy? Secondly, masturbation with porn is nothing like sex with a woman. Staggering that you think porn should be such a replacement for sex that it would take away men’s drive to fuck women. The fact that you think you’ve met a few men who were highly motivated by sex s…
/r/MensRights23/05/18 01:07 AM
2

I never thought I'd see Alfie mentioned here. He is a character; have you ever talked with him?
/r/MensRights23/05/18 01:01 AM
7

women simply do not apply for patents in anything close to the rate that men do. This is an easy one for the opposition to write off as the result of oppression. "Fewer women apply to STEM majors, but that's just because they've been discouraged."
/r/MensRights23/05/18 12:54 AM
-9

She's not a feminist. Feminists are not a monolith any more than women are. Saying "I thought feminists wanted that" is as silly as saying you thought women were in favor of abortion rights. Some are, some aren't.
/r/MensRights23/05/18 12:47 AM
-1

You say that some women want to be considered full women. Uh, I don't think any woman thinks that. Because nobody considers a woman NOT a full woman.
/r/MensRights23/05/18 12:38 AM
1

Lesbian woman at upper left is there to show: "Women are such victims of domestic violence, they even get victimized by women!"
/r/MensRights23/05/18 12:34 AM
1

I like how they intentionally chose: black woman Hispanic woman elderly and white woman lesbian-looking woman Of course, if you say someone looks like a lesbian you’re being a bigot, yet “We need someone who looks like a lesbian” was ok in this case because it casts them as a victim.
/r/MensRights23/05/18 12:33 AM
1

per say Per se. It’s Latin.
/r/MensRights23/05/18 12:28 AM
-11

this article is fucking stupid and irresponsible because it assumes there's some sort of misogyny involved in something as literally impartial as the concept of probability. No, it doesn’t. To say that it does, is just as nutty and just as much of a projection as a feminist hearing “Men are having ____ problem” and thinking the speaker is being misogynistic. The article is discussing an issue and does it in a sexist way by choosing to discuss only one sex of innocent people. Nowhere does it even…
/r/MensRights22/05/18 11:22 PM
61

This. Most insightful observation of the thread.
/r/MensRights22/05/18 02:38 PM
-2

No, not if they’re not of British royal blood. Look how arrogant you are. You’re sure, yet didn’t bother to google.
/r/MensRights22/05/18 04:31 AM
4

Yes and no. She’s a princess in rank but not title (her title is Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex). But she IS a princess in rank.
/r/MensRights22/05/18 04:30 AM
2

LPS Are you being sexist and viewing LPS brand industrial lubricants and penetrants as being only for men? Tsk, tsk
/r/MensRights22/05/18 04:18 AM
2

The guy you mention is not a black preacher. The guy is a university professor at Georgetown.
/r/MensRights22/05/18 04:15 AM
2

You’re horribly misinformed. The majority of women in the US are against abortion whatsoever.
/r/MensRights22/05/18 04:14 AM
3

as a woman of color in STEM I felt especially marginalized. Why? You fell victim to the narrative that women and non white people are marginalized in STEM, which they’re not. “Marginalized” means “treated (a person, group, or concept) as insignificant or peripheral.” That’s generally just not done in STEM; it’s a meritocracy. NOBODY sidelines a badass engineer because they’re a woman, or - even more ridiculous- because they’re not white. (LOL!) The reason you fell for that “I’m a woman, therefor…
/r/MensRights22/05/18 04:00 AM
17

You came to possibly the stupidest conclusion possible. Because of YOUR limited experiences with the women YOU dated, most everyone who complains about this must not have ever taken a woman out? Jesus Christ are you naïve and obtuse.
/r/MensRights21/05/18 04:16 PM
6

Do you like how she greatly expands the group by adding the large number of women who have been harassed (which is now a vague term meaning “A guy hit on me and I didn't like it, but it wasn’t illegal”) to the very small % of women who have been raped? Like saying “if we accept that the vast majority of men have been victims of having a job, sexual assault or rape, almost overwhelmingly at the hands of women,” Yeah, you add that other group in that are “victims” of something NOT illegal and sudd…
/r/MensRights21/05/18 06:41 AM
1

If they train everybody on what, from the male perspective, constitutes female "conduct of a sexual nature," they and most other employers will be driven out Like what? Please give examples I approached him to note the legal aspect of this that everybody ignores: the pervasive harassment of men by women as defined by the case of Ellison v. Brady. Again, give examples.
/r/MensRights20/05/18 09:43 PM
1

So in other words, the 9th circuit ruling violates Title VII?
/r/MensRights20/05/18 09:41 PM
3

Hold on. Where in the comment you’re responding to is there anything anti-family? And where does it discuss anything anti-men? You’re taking an innocent comment and claiming it says things it clearly doesn’t. Shame on you
/r/MensRights20/05/18 09:31 PM
11

I too call BS. Where does a marriage less than 10 years produce alimony and where does alimony persist after another marriage? BS flag has been hoisted
/r/MensRights20/05/18 09:28 PM
1

like chattels Like chattel. “Chattels” refers to different types. Multiple women in that’s situation would be chattel. Women and houses, for example, would be chattels.
/r/MensRights20/05/18 09:27 PM
3

Shame on Jordan for claiming pair bonded marriages are a human universal (they’re not), and for linking to list alleging that list says pair-bonded marriages are universal (it doesn’t! Look at the list!) Many societies practice polygamous marriages (which is what the creator of the list means to include by calling it “marriage” rather than “monogamous marriage”). And Peterson admits this by citing data on polygamous societies. He says a lot of things that are true but this one thing is not one o…
/r/MensRights20/05/18 09:24 PM
1

An odd mix of laughter and rage. Primarily the former "Oh, whiny white men haha". So in other words, racist bigots. t. a guy who agrees with Bernie on ~90% of things So in other words, a racist bigot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6IlGoeDIUQ
/r/MensRights19/05/18 04:28 PM
0

also, the people who attacked me were white knights and manginas FTFY
/r/MensRights19/05/18 12:40 AM
-1

OP, how do you reconcile being a leftie with your desires for freedom and equality? The left isn’t about either. Equality means no one gets treated differently on the basis of their race or sex. The left is openly against that. Freedom means not having people force you to do things or take your money. The left is strongly in favor of using force to take your money and not only that, using it to discriminate against whites and males (taxes for things like sexist or racist grants and scholarships;…
/r/MensRights19/05/18 12:38 AM
3

Better than what? How is it better? Do you work? If so, what do you do such that you don’t have human interaction? If not, how do you get by?
/r/MensRights16/05/18 05:48 AM
0

OP, by commenting on his looks you undermine your position. By doing it in your first sentence you also show that your intention is not to show unbiased facts about his actions but instead to attack him personally in any way possible and do so with bias. If he was a champion of men’s rights would you say he looked creepy? No. Thus you’re using bias. Appealing to emotion in order to make people hate the man himself is a typically female tactic. Think about what that reveals about you.
/r/MensRights15/05/18 03:46 PM
-1

Ahhhh, so when a feminist misrepresents a clearly written statement they’re lying, but when an anti-feminist does it, it might just be a mistake! LOL The hamstering is strong in here. You’re arguing that Bettina misunderstood a crystal clear statement in simple language. So you’re saying she’s stupid. Great argument!
/r/MensRights15/05/18 03:42 PM
1

Men of different racial backgrounds don't make considerably different choices with their careers in the same way that men and women do. Many do. If you're in the US, how many black or Indian/Pakistani landscapers or pool cleaners do you know of? Yeah, none. Black lumberjacks? None. How many black programmers have you seen? Not very many at all, one of the reasons Google tries so hard to pounce on any black programmer no matter how bad his skills. Diversity over merit. How many black CEO's or CFO…
/r/MensRights14/05/18 05:23 PM
0

Bettina Arndt is a liar in this article. She says: This government-funded organisation promotes a feminist framework on domestic violence which, contrary to the international evidence, denies women’s role in family violence and sees men as the only perpetrators. See the RAWA Domestic Violence Policy That's a lie, and if you click that very link she gives, RAWA's document says: Violent and controlling behaviour can occur from females to males in intimate relationships That is not a denial.
/r/MensRights14/05/18 12:26 AM
0

You are truly blue pilled. Women aren’t sexually attracted to income. Women are sexually attracted to dominant men. Weak men usually fail to achieve relatively high income and the weakness is what fails to attract women sexually. Even a rich guy has a hard time getting laid if he’s weak. Dominant men typically earn more as a result of that trait. It is the dominance that sexually attracts women, NOT the money. This is why broke Chads get laid. Stop bullshitting yourself with your victim mentalit…
/r/MensRights11/05/18 07:11 PM
8

They’re not “literally being excluded from society.” They’re included in society but don’t have children. With bullshit emotionally charged falsehoods like that, you belong in /r/twoxchromosomes Furthermore, wanting freedom is NOT the same as not caring. You can care that others aren’t getting what they want, and you can be in favor of FREELY CHOOSING to help them, but government mandated help is tyranny.
/r/MensRights11/05/18 07:05 PM
1

So you openly admit that /u/nforne is right. LOL
/r/MensRights11/05/18 07:01 PM
4

Are you living in a basement? Some societies do owe women those things. Apparently you conflate a moral debt - which by the way is arbitrary - with a true debt. When the government owes you welfare or a tuition check/cash grant/stipend/etc., it owes it. You are a fool for failing to understand that.
/r/MensRights11/05/18 06:59 PM
-1

LOL, I find it darkly humorous that you openly admit you resort to looking for one of the few women you think you can attract and who you think will let you dominate them. As you are cringeworthily unaware, a man who has the ability to dominate others wouldn’t need to stoop to that - he wouldn’t be worried about women dominating him, nor would he be searching for women he thinks he could dominate; women would instead bend to his desires.
/r/MensRights11/05/18 06:57 PM
0

LOL, you should be ashamed of yourself. Not only do you fail to make a cogent argument, you did literally the same thing as feminists who respond to the wage gap with “Excuses, excuses.” You are truly a fool - and sheltered and naive - if you think wealth is sexually attractive to women and there’s a HUGE amount of scientific data proving it — not dumbass platitudes like that moronic sentence of yours, but real data. Notice I said “sexually.” What IS generally sexually attractive to women is a m…
/r/MensRights11/05/18 06:49 PM
20

More baseless platitudes with no evidence. Please spare us
/r/MensRights10/05/18 05:54 PM
1

So income seems to be a key driver of men's lower chances of reproducing in our modern egalitarian world NO. Big logical fallacy there. That’s like saying a key driver of the wage gap is sexism. Women are attracted to men who are high in the male dominance hierarchy, AND to men who CAN rise high. High income is commonly a byproduct of high status in the male dominance hierarchy, but the income is NOT what attracts women. The status is. This is why a high status male with low income is MUCH more …
/r/MensRights10/05/18 05:50 PM
5

So they deserve to have their appearances attacked rather than the ways in which you disagree with them? Riiiiight
/r/MensRights09/05/18 10:16 AM
3

Like what?
/r/MensRights09/05/18 10:15 AM
5

Ah yes, the nurturing young black mother bathed in bright light vs. the unshaven white man holding a liquor bottle against a black background. The programming and virtue signaling are strong here.
/r/MensRights09/05/18 09:59 AM
-11

It’ll pass? What’s your evidence for that staggering claim? Sheesh!! How incredibly arrogant. The Overton window has shifted very far to the left but you’re over here saying something no different than “Oh, sure, eating junk food is bad, but it’ll pass as an unenlightened and nonsensical practice. I can see the future. All of you should stop worrying because of my amazing knowledge of the future.”
/r/MensRights09/05/18 09:30 AM
7

Any source for that wild claim?
/r/MensRights09/05/18 02:13 AM
2

most animals on earth have unrestrained masculinity, yet humans are the only ones able to construct civilization. Not at all true. For example, countless mammals have societies that have complex and highly specific social orders. Easiest example is apes.
/r/MensRights09/05/18 02:11 AM
2

You mean like how MLK achieved change? That’ll never work! Oh wait...
/r/MensRights08/05/18 02:39 PM
1

Making this a fun forum to spend one’s afternoon at is not a concern of this sub.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 02:33 PM
2

OP didn’t suggest getting them through softly. Furthermore, Cassie Jaye’s movie has gotten through. Red Pill Black’s videos have gotten through. Oops, there goes your narrative.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 02:33 PM
1

Found the guy who wants ONLY to bitch, not focus on making change. Not all tone policing is wrong. Duh. Example: this sub’s rules.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 02:31 PM
5

Women used to work the fields Still do. Mexican field workers in USA for example. And many women worldwide. That’s an important thing to keep in mind. The weak women are Western, leftist women. Typically middle class. Blue collar women (typically not middle class) aren't like that. Any woman of any culture (Mexican immigrant, white American, whatever) who works in a warehouse may feel annoyed, irritated, disgusted or offended by gross or sexual humor but they are NOT shaken up by it. The idea is…
/r/MensRights08/05/18 03:13 AM
3

From the study: Effects are 40% greater for boys Which lines up with the fact that boys are also much more negatively impacted by fatherlessness than girls, when it comes to criminality, poverty, education, lifetime income, health, and lifespan. All children need fathers. Boys especially so.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 01:18 AM
2

No, there’s a fuck ton of evidence that embodying “black culture” causes a hard life. NOT being black.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 12:53 AM
4

Bullshit. There is no pipeline. That’s a myth that’s been disproven just like “the pay gap is the result of discrimination against women.”
/r/MensRights08/05/18 12:49 AM
-2

Duquan is discriminated against ONLY if he behaves like a ghetto person of ANY race. Who would get the job, a black man named Duquan who dresses professionally and looks and sounds like Wayne Brady? Or a white “wigger” named Charles who acts and talks like a ghetto black person, wears sagging pants and a sideways hat? Most “racism” is actually culturalism and has nothing to do with race... but LOTS of black people are steeped in that culture.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 12:48 AM
5

No, you wouldn't. You wouldn’t dare risk going back.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 12:40 AM
4

the article could have Why are you wasting readers’ time by speculating on what the article could say? It’s quite easy to check out the article and of course it is extremely biased. It takes the VERY small number of young women who commit suicide and says that a 5% increase in the total number of those suicides is actually huge because it was a really small number that “DOUBLED!!!!” Example: let’s say 80,000 men die of a certain disease in 2017 and 120,000 die of it in 2018. But you have another…
/r/MensRights06/05/18 10:27 PM
1

A couple of articles prove it by existing. Furthermore it’s easy to prove the problem by looking at HuffPo itself. It engages in anti-male and anti-white sexism daily, even though Suicide continues to be a mostly white male phenomenon in the U.S.; white men made up 83 percent of the 33,113 male suicide deaths in 2014. Because of white male privilege, right?
/r/MensRights06/05/18 10:21 PM
3

You make a persuasive but completely incorrect argument. In fact your argument makes the ludicrous claim that deception makes rape ok. Example: if you’re blindfolded and having sex with your partner and they get up to get condoms from the car, and a stranger enters your unlocked house and fucks you, you didn’t consent to have sex with that person. That’s criminal. It’s straight up rape. But your argument is that the stranger should get off the hook if they pretend to be your partner, such as whi…
/r/MensRights06/05/18 05:33 PM
1

You still don't know about it. See my comment above.
/r/MensRights04/05/18 04:56 AM
3

Whoa, hold up. Big misinformation there. This is not an attack, just correcting something you are WAY off on. A red pill of sorts. You're quoting Bellah's THEORY as if it is fact. Notice there are no sources for those dogmatic claims you and he makes. Bellah was responding to Boehm's argument which used FACT and EVIDENCE as its basis. But Bellah responded with "Seemingly," not "here's hard evidence that indicates." The evidence we do have shows that men were NOT egalitarian prehistorically. Not …
/r/MensRights04/05/18 04:55 AM
2

I gotta disagree that that's a big part of it. Quite a lot of average women (not SJW's and not interested in politics) land a man they're initially crazy about and end up pretty much content with. SJW's and militant feminists on the other hand are miserable and remain that way. I have seen it long term. I don't know how old you are but this SJW and feminist craziness is NOT new. It just got more publicized and caught on and spread like a virus among the gullible, the weak, the fearful, and those…
/r/MensRights04/05/18 04:46 AM
1

Minority of men? Wrong. 20%? LOL If any of you think only 1 in 5 men reproduce, open your eyes. Almost 9/10 women reproduce and around 8/10 of men reproduce. Source: http://www.aaup.org/report/statement-principles-family-responsibilities-and-academic-work
/r/MensRights04/05/18 04:35 AM
4

But the point of The Coven — and most women-centered coworking spaces — isn't to exclude men. It is to create a place that's specifically for women. And many men get that, Steinman says. is no different than But the point of The Coven — and most white-centered coworking spaces — isn't to exclude blacks. It is to create a place that's specifically for whites. And many blacks get that, Steinman says.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 06:18 AM
2

This guy has no chick handling skills. He buys a $200 lunch for a woman who acts like that?? And talks to him like that? That’s just dumb. It’s absolutely his fault. They’ve been fucking for a year yet he hasn’t made it clear that she won’t be getting any of his time, attention, validation, or $200 lunches, if she behaves like that. Instead he keeps dating her. That’s his fault.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 05:05 AM
3

Also, when a parent fails to appear at a at the right time and place (generally no more than 15 minutes late), the court generally considers that parent to have forfeited their custodial period that time. You don’t have to accomodate her at all, yet you are choosing to.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 04:58 AM
2

Whoa whoa whoa, Why the HELL do you say “okay.”???? What you say is “We need to stick to the custody order.” THE END. You’re AGREEING to do all the driving. WTF?! You created the problem. If she said “I need you to pay me $100 at every kid exchange,” you’d say no. SO SAY NO TO ANY CHANGES SHE WANTS TO THE CUSTODY ORDER ISSUED BY THE JUDGE.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 04:52 AM
1

Spoke like a man who has never even visited a prison, LOL.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 03:34 AM
0

The issue is whether prisons work. And they’ve been proven to not.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 03:33 AM
2

You’re making a false dichotomy because you miss the point. Prisons as we know them generally don’t work. They temporarily get people out of the public population but increase recidivism, aka crime. Google it. What does work to reduce recidivism and crime, is (for most inmates) rehabilitation/treatment/education. But we don’t do that here.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 03:32 AM
1

Yes, it is, incorrectly so. Just because other people sound stupid doesn’t mean you have to sound dumb too.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 03:22 AM
3

There have been precedents. Men have successfully sued penal institutions for failing to keep them safe. The problems are that: Most inmates don’t know their rights, nor their options. Most inmates lack the mindset to persist in a legal battle against either the system or an individual CO in court. Prison deeply wounds your mind and spirit. The situation makes it extremely difficult to persevere down an already-difficult path even for a free person.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 03:21 AM
1

The institution does, but not all the officers do.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 03:16 AM
0

Oh so now your original comment was pointing out the injustice! Then why did you claim you were only kidding? LOL, to save face, that’s why. Look at you flip flopping. Clearly you are the one whose feelings got hurt when you got schooled for being a blowhard. “if I were in prison here’s what’s i would do!” LOLLLL
/r/MensRights20/04/18 03:15 AM
-1

WOW, I sure hit a nerve by pointing out the fact you were trying to save face! First you make a serious comment. Then when you feel stupid you claim you were kidding. Now you’re angry and defending a comment you now claim was serious after all. Insecurity level: maximum Sorry to add to your feelings of inadequacy burn the UK penal system is no different in its obligation to protect inmates, smarty pants. They even have a SHU.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 03:12 AM
7

Wrong term. "Transphobic" means “has an irrational fear of trans people.” That’s not an opinion, that’s a fear.
/r/MensRights19/04/18 02:26 PM
0

They do if you know your rights and options, but the problem is most don't. If they are getting raped, threatened, or exploited, most people aren't aware that instead of falling into the trap that 99% of inmates do, they would be better off reporting it. They'd get sent to the SHU, but at least it would give them a basis for future possible action if the institution failed to protect them after that. Most people don't know that and end up in the meat grinder.
/r/MensRights19/04/18 02:23 PM
-19

Bullshit. You're trying to save face. Sorry about your ego, bro.
/r/MensRights19/04/18 02:20 PM
-15

Oh is that what you'd do? Then why haven't a significant number of people done that already? Do you really imagine that you're that much smarter, stronger, and persistent than pretty much ALL other men, and that's why you'd manage to do what you claim? Since you clearly have no idea what the real problem with people's plight in prison is like - and therefore the real problem - I will offer a limited insight to help you understand why your "If I were there here's what I'd do" is so ludicrous. The…
/r/MensRights19/04/18 02:17 PM
1

You guys all missed the point. This would have been a non-event and we’d never have heard of it if she had a real attorney. A real attorney would have preempted this by bringing it up first and using it as an example of how powerful Cosby is and how terrified she allegedly was after the alleged rape. She could have grandstanded about how she covered it up and perpetuated a lie out of self protection exactly like Weinstein’s victims did. Instead her dumbass attorney casually lobbed the ball to th…
/r/MensRights15/04/18 06:38 AM
1

Wrong. That’s you seeing things incorrectly through your non-white, victim filter. An easy example from that same time is James Franco getting the same treatment WITHOUT a smear article written about him, for asking his own girlfriend for a blowjob.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 06:23 AM
0

The person you’re referring to is a gay Venezuelan...
/r/MensRights04/04/18 08:57 PM
1

Right here we have both false logic, and a falsehood. Only testosterone levels that can cause more muscle mass, a higher sex drive and a mild impairment of prefrontal cortex's function of impulse control. This differences alone cannot explain complex constructs like assertiveness, aggression, empathy (this one is a rabbit hole for neuroscientists) and care behavior. No shit. But testosterone is not the only thing different between men and women, LOL These traits have been found to be distributed…
/r/MensRights04/04/18 08:46 PM
4

Completely wrong. It is not “100% a fact” that men are more violent. Women commit more acts of domestic violence than men. Men do more damage. Look up the actual facts before you start popping your mouth off incorrectly.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 08:37 PM
1

OP, your username resembles the author’s name. Are you him? If so I’d like to comment.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 03:04 PM
3

Sargent argues that the ‘traditionally male’ work (strong lifting, dangerous, risk) has an unfair economic value attached to it. Why should work, in a profoundly conceptual manner, that lends itself to traditionally ‘male’ attributes be regarded with such economic value? We may even make the case that although the work is objectively more valuable (on account of risk and hardship), why should this come at the expense of women’s work (in her words; ‘caring’). Holy shit is this delusional and naïv…
/r/MensRights04/04/18 05:17 AM
10

The implication is that boys will ogle girls but that girls wouldn’t ogle boys if the boys dressed sexually inappropriately. It also unwitting acknowledges that the group that tends to not follow dress code is the girls, not the boys
/r/MensRights03/04/18 03:21 PM
6

Our understanding that sexual assault and sexual harassment are bad things is a direct result of the work women have done No, it’s been understood since at least the earliest recorded societal texts. to show how men’s power is systemic No, it’s not. and how their violence is normalized No, which is why violence by men is prosecuted (violence by women is far less so. Oops!) because women are constructed as less-than-human No, they’re not “constructed as less-than-human.” under patriarchy No. We d…
/r/MensRights01/04/18 03:20 PM
6

Sad how he states his perspective and experiences, then feels the need to say “Please, don’t hit me!!” He says it like this: I apologize if anyone takes issue with what I've written above. Please understand that I'm describing an emotional world, and don't take any particular word or phrase too literally. Also, please remember that I'm only describing my experience as a man, and none of the above is meant to reflect what it's like to be a woman.
/r/MensRights18/03/18 06:47 AM
5

Even though most experts agree that men have significantly higher chances of being involved in car accidents, studies show that women are, in fact, being charged higher auto insurance rates. The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) released a statement last week explaining how auto insurance rates depend more on gender than they do on driving history. “These days insurance companies are charging women more for auto insurance than they charge men,” says Doug Heller, an insurance analyst with CFA.…
/r/MensRights10/02/18 10:02 PM
2

LOL, thanks for proving my point, HAHA The ASPCA isn’t a scientific organization, they’re a charity. They say that in their opinion it’s LIKELY. They don’t say “this is a fact.” So don’t tell me it’s a fact. Even if their belief is true, that doesn’t mean most pit bulls are two random breeds unrelated to pit bulls, like golden retriever and chihuahua. They’d still be PIT BULLS. Breeding patterns today doesn’t change he fact that pit bulls were bred for fighting long ago. Pit bulls do demonstrate…
/r/MensRights10/02/18 07:30 PM
1

Yes, it is. If you think otherwise you’re either uninformed or have been in an echo chamber of “all breeds behave identically!”
/r/MensRights09/02/18 04:33 AM
1

Exactly. Bush used it correctly (to mean “old-fashioned”) while also sarcastically. You misused it. There’s nothing old-fashioned about the subject of your sentence.
/r/MensRights08/02/18 04:28 PM
1

I think you misunderstand the definition of “quaint”
/r/MensRights02/02/18 08:16 PM
1

Either you misunderstood me or you are out of your mind and out of touch with reality. I am referring to you having said “lives. I don't know about sexual preferences generally, everyone has their boundaries, but one thing I'm absolutely terrified of is the idea of getting into a sexless relationship. Seen it way too many times, you've got these people desperate to stay in their relationships and be with someone or they grow old together and just do absolutely fuck all interesting.” There is no …
/r/MensRights02/02/18 08:13 PM
1

Why are you terrified over something you have total control over? If your relationship at any time includes dealbreakers for you such as sexlessness, getting punched in the face, etc., you can end it.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 05:08 AM
1

Wrong. Context doesn’t matter when it comes to hypocrisy. You’re saying that it doesn’t matter that society and feminists are largely silent because of their hypocrisy, but that it’s ok because Way is in your uninformed opinion only doing it to get a rise out of people. Sorry, a perpetrator’s motives any which way don’t make it ok that society and feminists are hypocritical. Your whole premise is ludicrous. It’s ok that hypocrites give Way a pass because Way MAY have been stirring shit up to get…
/r/MensRights26/01/18 04:43 AM
1

It’s very relevant. And doesn’t conform to the logical fallacy you mention. Thumbs down
/r/MensRights19/01/18 12:22 AM
3

The guy you’re responding to, was making the point that saying “____ is wrong,” is different than saying “Do ___.” For example, saying “It’s wrong to teach boys they’re bad” is different than telling boys “You are good.”
/r/MensRights17/01/18 09:45 PM
-6

Wow, lots of downvotes for this very insightful and accurate point.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 09:43 PM
6

As a hetero white male I hope to someday have the same privileges you do, so I too want to be a part of it.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 09:43 PM
2

HAHA, "No?" is not a rhetorical question. Is using a dictionary to learn what a rhetorical question actually is, too complicated for you? Good God. Making a statement with incorrect usage of a question mark is NOT a rhetorical question. LMAO
/r/MensRights07/12/17 07:43 PM
1

What kind of dark, twisted world do you live in where you think a question mark should be used in place of a period or exclamation mark? Question marks are only used to ask a question. Jesus Christ, get your shit together before you try to spout your bullshit.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 07:38 PM
1

Do you think it's an injustice? By you even asking that question I'm guessing you have zero experience in family court. I'm guessing you have no idea for the basis on which a judge detemines which side pays the other's attorney fees. Educate yourself before you make assumptions.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 07:32 PM
3

Check you out. You took someone saying it's ok to be something and you projected onto it that OP is conflicted and that OP says he's under constant attack. Yet OP never said those things. You are the one in the echo chamber.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 07:27 PM
5

At times I pity poor wretches like her. She fails to realize that she is valuing herself as a sex object — and her value as such will go down over time. Meanwhile a man’s income usually increases over time. If a woman builds a relationship on “money in exchange for sexual value” rather than emotional connection and mutual pleasure, she is going to be really sad when she no longer has anything valuable in that economic equation for which she advocates. Oops!
/r/MensRights06/12/17 10:25 PM
2

I like how she believes a gift of a 1 carat diamond is disrespectful.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 10:18 PM
2

Man says he is falsely accused of rape. Says university told him to destroy evidence. FTFY
/r/MensRights06/12/17 10:13 PM
4

This. Those are not privileges. Look up the definition of “privilege.”
/r/MensRights06/12/17 10:06 PM
7

Men are privileged by institutions Give proof
/r/MensRights06/12/17 10:05 PM
1

You made some valid points that weren’t relevant to OP’s post. He’s asking about privileges people confer upon men on the basis of sex, not advantages of being a man.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 10:03 PM
16

Male athletes earning more isn't male privilege. Male privilege is privilege given to males, whereas only the .000000001% of men in the USA (that’s the percentage of our population who are athletes in the NFL, NBA, and MLB; I did the math) who are good enough to compete against the top athletes in those sports, can earn the pay. Similarly female models earn more than male ones on average, especially the top paid ones. That’s not female privilege since way over 99% of females don’t receive that p…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 10:01 PM
1

Draw it and I’ll give you gold
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:37 AM
1

Yes, they are interested in justice. He is not. He walked away when he was held in contempt.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:36 AM
1

You missed some things. He was not jailed for the support issue. He was found in contempt because he was taking the child when it was not his custodial time. Furthermore, you said he walked out when court was in session. That’s not accurate. He walked out when the judge found him in contempt! That’s basically the same as walking away from a cop who is just told you he’s placing you under arrest. That is a huge, stupid move. His attorney and employer are not the problem. The defendant himself is.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:35 AM
1

What’s your evidence for that wild claim?
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:33 AM
1

What’s your data for that wild claim? Are you going to claim that correlation implies causation?
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:33 AM
1

Wrong. This title is complete bullshit and the way the news led into the story was a “tv clickbait” lie designed to make you want to watch. This IS NOT a men’s rights issue and race is not a factor. He was NOT jailed for overpaying. He was NOT jailed for overvisiting. He was found in contempt of court for more than one thing including taking the child during the mother’s custodial time, and when he was found in contempt he - astonishingly - disobeyed the judge and walked out of the courtroom. Sh…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:32 AM
3

Sorry, this title is complete bullshit and the way the news led into the story was a “tv clickbait” lie designed to make you want to watch. This IS NOT a men’s rights issue. He was NOT jailed for overpaying. He was NOT jailed for overvisiting. He was found in contempt of court for more than one thing including taking the child during the mother’s custodial time, and when he was found in contempt he - astonishingly - disobeyed the judge and walked out of the courtroom. She absolutely had every ri…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:30 AM
19

There's also this huge misconception that women don't care about men. There are no fiercer opponents of college kangaroo courts then mothers of sons. You’re right and you’re also very wrong. Those women opposing kangaroo courts are not defending men. They are defending their boy. There’s a lot of data out there proving that women react very positively and protectively toward their sons yet negatively toward adult males who are not their sons, in the same scenarios. Dr. Warren Farrell makes this …
/r/MensRights02/12/17 10:52 PM
2

Holy cow. You completely misunderstand the very definition. The definition does not mention a third-party, for Christ’s sake! When you have a nation of people who are engaging in free market trade of capital, that’s free market capitalism.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:57 PM
1

Translation, you can’t give any proof to back up your argument so you’re going to slink away in a cowardly fashion claiming “I see no need to educate the ignorant.” LOLLLLLL I’ve seen a lot of pussies in my time but you are right up there
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:56 PM
2

You absolutely admitted it. You said it flat out. You claimed it’s impossible to prove, but also that you could prove it but refused to. And here you are cleaning I’m the one having cognitive difficulties, LOL
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:54 PM
1

I have an ability to generalize concepts. You, on the other hand, have an inability to make a coherent, cogent argument on topic, which is a very common trait autistic people. You cannot make 2+2 equal anything other than four. That is why statistics are statistics. Facts are facts. Your stupid comment about making 2+2 equal something else by switching to base 3 showed your complete lack of common sense thinking and a total lack of social skills, As far as how to make a point or how to have a di…
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:54 PM
1

I like how you try to make all tribes monolith. Way to be racist. And tribes did not necessarily want to regulate “the mass destruction of leave alone, personal profit before all else capitalism”. They had a system that worked. In it, people were free to exchange labor or their own personal property. Because it was free market capitalism, by definition.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:51 PM
1

Trade absolutely is capitalism. Capitalism is the exchange of goods and services. You know, capital. When people agree to work in exchange for something, whether it’s money or real property, they are not automatically getting exploited.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:50 PM
2

No, rejecting the suggestion is different than rejecting a sentence. Nobody handed down a sentence.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:49 PM
6

177 comments and nobody proposed any action. This is the reason why the MRM has so little traction. The “article” has the author’s name at the top:Justin Caffier. Instead of griping on here, how about spending that same effort opening his eyes and changing his mind? He has a public twitter account he uses for Vice. Look him up and SAY SOMETHING. Or you can bitch and do nothing, rather than take constructive action. Let Justin know what’s up.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:48 PM
1

You’re all talk but never back anything up. Quite literally the lowest form of human life possible. Disgusting.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:31 PM
3

LOL, “You’re right but I have no comeback and ‘whatever’ is the best I can do.” Now THAT is sad.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:30 PM
4

Translation, “You got me but I’ll try to save face.” And THAT is your attempt to save face? “Whatever”?? HAHA, pathetic
/r/MensRights01/12/17 08:30 PM
6

That’s what can happen when you sell a company and give up control.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 04:55 PM
13

If it’s there then show where it is. All you’re doing is showing what a coward you are. “I swear there’s proof everywhere, but I won’t show it but that’s not my fault.”
/r/MensRights01/12/17 04:52 PM
13

Translation, “I make claims but can’t back them up, but I blame you for it.” Cowardly.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 04:50 PM
14

I like how you mock his comment as if that’s the only option, while not offering up an alternative option. You’re just as bad as you make him out to be.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 04:50 PM
7

Example, please
/r/MensRights01/12/17 04:49 PM
2

Because there’s no backlash against Twitter for misandry. There IS backlash for the company for misogyny - or even alleged or incorrectly perceived misogyny.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:23 AM
1

Or all feminists are _____. Which is said by many around here.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:19 AM
3

No, we don’t have to label them or see them as “The Mortal Enemy.” Jesus Christ, you’re so off base. If you engage in that kind of thinking, you’ll start seeing MGTOW as a good solution.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:15 AM
25

The judge didn’t reject a one year sentence. The judge rejected a suggestion that she receive a year, then sentenced her to, and I quote, “the standard sentence.”
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:12 AM
2

No, it’s not.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:10 AM
1

Yes, when a country is populated by native Americans for example, and they control their own property as I described, that’s capitalism. Bartering IS capitalism: exchange of goods and services.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:36 PM
1

Wrong again, many times over. But first I’ll address your lie: You keep harping about two tribes trading but I clearly said “When individuals of different tribes traded.” If someone found or made something, it was his, not the tribe’s. They did have the concept of private property and individuals did trade with other individuals, both inside and outside the tribe. Stop lying and trying to put words in my mouth. You’re also wrong about the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is simply “ : an eco…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:35 PM
6

"If the last few weeks has taught us anything, it's that we need more women in positions of power, not less." Nessel says. Holy sexist misandry. She said flat out that women won’t commit sexual misconduct. “So when you're choosing Michigan's next attorney general, ask yourself this: Who can you trust most not to show you their penis in a professional setting? Is it the candidate who doesn't have a penis? I'd say so." And here she asserts that the only sexual misconduct possible is the display of…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:27 PM
2

Holy shit. You’re like one of those people who is only read books and has no concept of the real world. Worth is determined by each person! It is truly capitalism by definition when two people trade goods or services. Look it up before you type anything else that’s that incredibly stupid
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:23 PM
2

That’s a pretty pathetic attempt. The simple fact is that you admitted you can’t even prove a rational basis to call Baileys a piece of shit. You admitted that you have no evidence she’s a piece of shit or that she’s disingenuous. Then you claimed you COULD prove it but wouldn’t. Then you flipped back and said it was impossible to prove any of your bullshit assertions. So, no, it’s not that I’m not interesting. It’s that you are an emotional feminist piece of shit and you failed here. Keep diggi…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:22 PM
1

Wrong again. It was still free market capitalism when two individuals traded. And that happened since long before any colonists landed.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:21 PM
1

Now you’re just lying. I never said that free market capitalism includes an individual taking someone else’s resources. That’s theft. Don’t try to make it like free market capitalism is a complete crime free-for-all
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:20 PM
1

You have no idea what you’re talking about. In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. Trade between two individuals absolutely can be, and generally is, free market capitalism.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:51 PM
2

Translation, “I don’t have the balls or the integrity to try to back up my paranoid claims so I’m resorting to the lowest form of internet cowardice by repeating a stupid phrase over and over. TAKE CARE, HURR DURR!” Meanwhile you showed yourself to be the only POS here. Accusations without backing them up? Identity politics? You’re not a man, you’re just a feminist troll. Get the fuck out of my sub.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:49 PM
2

Being disgusted isn’t a verb one DOES, genius. It’s something one IS. And I’m understandably disgusted at how cowardly, irrational, insecure, and malicious you are. Take care Translation, “I’m slinking off without backing up my claims like a real person.”
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:43 PM
1

I’m “actually back”? Your feminist-style identity politics never stop. There’s no reason I shouldn’t continue putting your cowardice on display so don’t imply that it’s somehow over-the-top for me to respond. Furthermore we’re all well aware you can’t give ANY proof whatsoever that Baileys is a POS or disingenuous. So don’t frame it as “a debate,” LOL Don’t try to hide your cowardice by saying I didn’t “take the hint.” What you mean is “stop showing what a pussy you are for talking shit unfairly…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:41 PM
2

Hurr durr! Pig_Cunt proved what an emotional, irrational and insecure blow hard I am, so I’ll stoop to the lamest retort ever! Pathetic. If you had ANY righteousness at all - and any balls - you’d just have given some evidence of your scaredy-cat shit talking about Baileys. I’m disgusted.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:34 PM
1

Of course you are. You’re nothing but empty accusations and an inability to prove anything. That’s because you form beliefs based on your bad emotions. “I’m scared of her even though i have no proof.” Third and Fourth Wave Feminism 101
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:32 PM
1

Yes, you are, because when two individuals let market forces rule their interaction and transaction, that’s free market capitalism. See: the days of trappers trading with natives, Europeans, and colonists.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:31 PM
1

Translation, “I was proven wrong but will talk shit to try to save face.” Sorry, you failed again. Smart!
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:30 PM
1

No, free market capitalism in a tribe is also “I’ll trade you my knife for your pipe.” Sorry, not all transactions are as pat as your example.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:29 PM
1

Easily. You admitted yourself that individuals between different tribes did trade. That was free market capitalism, by definition. Now you give your evidence that someone being a capitalist meant a death sentence, LOL
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:27 PM
0

That’s because you know I didn’t make racist statements so you can’t back up your dumb accusations. Pussy. Get the fuck out of my sub.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 08:25 PM
1

Don’t feel pain. It’s Takei, not Sulu.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 01:19 PM
1

He already took it someplace.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 01:17 PM
5

Why do you put “claim” in quotes? Are you implying they didn’t actually claim it?
/r/MensRights30/11/17 01:14 PM
0

otherwise they’ll otherwise they MAY FTFY
/r/MensRights30/11/17 01:13 PM
1

Cute argument but you can't switch to base 3 when saying "11% of respondents claim to spend less than 2 hours per week with their child. Sorry, you failed.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:02 PM
2

I said that it was impossible to prove I gave no evidence, because you are unimportant to me and I have no desire to try to convince you that your opinion about her is right or wrong. HAHA, no, you said it's impossible to prove. Then you contradict yourself and claim you COULD give evidence, but won't. HAHA Your pathetically fragile ego is making you contradict yourself. We got ourselves a badass in here! You claim she has cancerous ideas but won't say what they are and prove she holds them. You…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:01 PM
2

What do you think I'm wrong about? Copy and paste what I said that you think I'm wrong about, don't do your usual disingenuous and dishonest bullshit of making claims without backing them up, and then dancing around the topic and redirecting to other stuff. Like a typical 4th wave feminist.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:58 AM
1

HAHAHA, "I can't prove it; it's impossible. But I still think it, for no rational reason." "Ok, I CAN prove it, but I won't." SUUUUUuuuUUURE. LOLLLLLLL Admit it: you think something totally irrational. You have NO basis to think it, but you're still prejudiced. You even made a truly wimpy attempt - which was disingenuous, by the way: the same criticism you leveled at Baileys - to imply that there was evidence by saying "I saw that she commented a lot in here!" Yeah, comments in here don't mean a…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:56 AM
1

No, I don't know how to make 2+2 = anything but 4. Enlighten me, since you're so much smarter than I am. Thanks! Good luck I don't need luck. I'm not trying to do anything. I'm sharing facts and luck isn't required for that. Hope you'll understand that once and for all.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:49 AM
2

I love it. I point out the ways you behave like a feminist and you pull the elementary school "Nuh uh, you are!" Difference is, I gave examples of how you are like one. You gave nothing but more of your unsubstantiated claims. Final notes before I go I knew you'd slink off like a little bitch instead of backing up your claims like an person with backbone. Your cancerous ideology I like how you avoid giving ANY proof whatsoever of your claims - the easiest thing in the world to do, haha - yet you…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:45 AM
1

Your claims ARE your conclusion, LOL Yes, you've made this conversation quite dumb while claiming innocence. Serious feminist tactic once again. You could easily link to a comment or two of hers but you won't. You even admitted you have no proof, and you admit you can't read minds, yet you claim to be able to read hers and magically "know" that she's up to no good. LOLLLLLL Snowflake alert
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:34 AM
2

I went through her post history and have seen her commenting a number of times on MRA threads. That's not proof of cancerous ideas nor disingenuousness, LOL. You and I both have commented a number of times on MRA threads. That's not proof or even a rational basis to think she or we are disingenuous or spreading cancerous ideas. You should really watch it with statements like "Man you're dumb" when you continually - literally, every time you comment, haha - prove yourself MUCH dumber than I am. I…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:32 AM
1

The real name of this is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" No shit. Cute attempt to save face and make yourself look knowledgeable, but obviously I knew what the fuck I was talking about seeing as I was the one who corrected YOU, not the other way around. We see examples of misrepresented statistics everywhere, correlation/causation fallacies, omitted informations, loaded and biased content... No shit. But that doesn't mean the stats were made to say whatever one wanted. It means the stats said one thi…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:28 AM
2

Your failure is to assume anyone who identifies as a feminist, is on board with all the third- and/or fourth-wave crap. Not so. All "feminist" means is "advocate for equal rights for women." But you and your prejudice really fuck yourself up. Look at how rabid and foaming at the mouth you got when she posted a valid comment, all because she identifies as a feminist! Haha Do you support women having equal rights? If so then you too are a feminist. Wake the fuck up and stop being so simpleminded a…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:25 AM
1

No, my comment was about the fact that numbers and data are facts, but people misrepresent them and/or make assumptions. For example, it is a fact that X% of people self-report to spend ___ amount of hours with their children. It is NOT a proven fact that they DO spend that much time. you can make statistics say anything you want No, you can't. You may be able to convince people to think something, but you can't make the stats say anything you want. And "correlation does not imply causation" is …
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:19 AM
3

No, you made no arguments. You made a bunch of claims but those aren't arguments. Use a dictionary, LOL Speaking of which, "snide" means "derogatory or mocking." That IS a insult. LOL Check your dictionary before you try to tell others to use one, smarty pants. HAHA
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:18 AM
2

And more lies from you. The posts you wrote her do NOT show any proof she's being disingenuous nor do they show any cancerous ideas or intent to sow dissent or doubt.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:17 AM
1

Sorry, just saw this silly comment of yours. I'm fully aware that the same embryonic cells that become the skin of the scrotal sac in males become the labia minora in females. Get back with me when ovaries start dropping into those labia and are removed during FGM. Sorry, testes are not removed as part of penile circumcision. Get back with me after you learn about what you're talking about. Claiming that we're all bigots or Trump voters will not serve you in the end. I made no such claim. Wow, i…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:16 AM
3

Wow, triggered much? I'm happy to admit that it's generally good practice to provide sources in the OP.... But this sub is not the evening news; I don't feel bound by the same journalistic standards Excuses, excuses. Almost nobody else here makes that excuse because they show their source. LOL It is virtually impossible to prove that someone is being disingenuous, especially over the damned internet. Bullshit. If you're condemning her for being disingenuous and saying cancerous shit yet you have…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:12 AM
2

Where's your proof? Last post of hers I see in TrollXChromosomes is What the fuck? I'm a feminist and find that the most fake feminist stance ever. Feminism is about equality right? So compassion for both sexes. You should work on your compassion for men! Just because there are men who rape women, and women who rape men, has nothing to do with the other, normal men and women. They deserve to be protected against sexism. So far, the only one who looks to be a piece of shit is you, so please show …
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:03 AM
3

She's pointing out insults rather than dealing with the pertinent arguments? That's exactly what you're doing: insulting her instead of proving you're right. And you say "snide comments are unlikely to get you anywhere" immediately after YOU made some including calling her a piece of shit! The hypocrisy, denial, and rationalization are strong in this one
/r/MensRights30/11/17 11:00 AM
1

No, you re-read mine. As I clearly said, I communicate facts. I do not care about controlling or manipulating the reader nor do I care what they think or how they interpret the facts I cite. You keep talking about "it's wrong to expect others to" - Yeah, that's why you should re-read my post. I DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING. I don't try to control people. I state facts. Since you bring it up even though I clearly said otherwise, I also don't care whether people attribute their own biases to me. I don't…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:47 AM
1

Here, I'll be more specific about how wrong you are: Things like feminism were born of middle class women who lived positivly lavish effort free lifestyles until WW1. You're wrong because they did not have "positivly" lavish "effort free" lifestyles until "WW1." So you're wrong about both feminism's origins and the quality of life women had at that time. If you want to keep claiming women had that kind of lifestyle at that time, show your proof.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:28 AM
1

Don't backtrack. You said "free market," period. You claimed there was never free market capitalism before recently. That's false.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:26 AM
1

You should be smarter than you are: There was no cultural hate in my comment. I said nothing about inferiority. Of course I have something to back my belief: multiple studies. Thanks! LOL "Assimilate" is the wrong word. You mean "conflate." LOL The way I express myself doesn't matter, if my goal is to communicate the truth. If my goal is to control or manipulate the reader then the way I express myself DOES matter. But I don't do that. I state facts, the end. Sorry you weren't smart enough to se…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:25 AM
3

Really? I came up with this garbage whole cloth just to make feminists look bad? Really? For what gain? Yes, really. People do that shit all day for reasons you're well aware of. There are arguments and there are disingenuous arguments and this person has a history of the latter. Sorry that I'm not interested in pandering to them. See how you are? You claim you're not interested in pandering to a disingenuous argument yet you have no proof. By calling her guilty without any proof that her commen…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:01 AM
1

EXACTLY. Thank you for proving my point that a movement advocating for smaller government does not mean it is advocating for a big government coupled with unregulated corporate tyranny. You said that it does mean that. It doesn't. A movement advocating for smaller government MAY be advocating for a big government coupled with unregulated corporate tyranny. But contrary to what you incorrectly claimed, a movement advocating for smaller government does not mean it IS advocating for a big governmen…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 10:01 AM
1

Yes, I'm getting it. What you fail to understand is that you are wrong when you say there was no free market capitalism before recently. And you're wrong when you say all tribes practice communism and/or collectivism.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:59 AM
1

Exactly. You're off on a weird rant that is totally off-topic. OP didn't say "The American neo-right libertarian movement." He said "THE RIGHT" Sheesh!
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:59 AM
2

I do think we can cultivate an atmosphere where the emphasis on men having high incomes is less stringent. I think there are two components to it. One is innate. I absolutely understand why women are drawn to men with high social status, ambition, money, and/or the boldness/knowhow/ability to go after and obtain what they want. On the flip side, clearly there is a BIG societal component, and it varies by culture and subculture too. Thanks for your insightful and reflective response.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:48 AM
1

What racist ideas are those? Be specific. And you completely missed the point. Nobody said class isn't important. But when the vast majority of members of a given race are in a certain socioeconomic class (i.e. blacks), it's easy for a not-very-bright person to completely misunderstand and think someone is talking about class. Furthermore you completely miss the point that people of certain races and classes are under a lot of pressure to self-report lots of time spent with their kids. Poor whit…
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:45 AM
1

I hear you, but "I'll be impressed when a feminist comes out and says the genders should enjoy each other sexually regardless of how much a man earns" means that you'd be impressed by that. Rather than you being impressed by them saying something FAR better, which is "Yeah, women generally like men with power and ambition, and men like beautiful women, especially beautiful young ones."
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:35 AM
3

Yep! Those who go around looking for racism where there's not, will scream "RACIS!" Those who share the perspective of Chris Rock, for example, will think "Yeah, that's true." And those who can do math, will simply look at the numbers and think "Even if they're being 100% accurate, there is still a huge crisis in that community." Pick how honest with yourself you want to be. ;)
/r/MensRights30/11/17 09:32 AM
1

Being a MGTOW is a shitty strategy. Just because some women are godawful doesn’t mean you have to fall on your sword. Many jobs suck. Is it a good strategy to become broke and homeless instead? Work hard to avoid problems and bad risks as you pursue happiness. Make your life about getting a life you’d enjoy, NOT about avoiding problems by opting out of the happiness that can come from handling your business.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 05:59 AM
1

Demarkation Demarcation
/r/MensRights30/11/17 03:13 AM
3

Yep, hence the “even a poor homeless white person - especially a male - is privileged over blacks”
/r/MensRights30/11/17 03:13 AM
1

effected by In this case you mean “affected by.”
/r/MensRights30/11/17 03:12 AM
6

NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack said in a memo to employees on Nov. 29 that the complaint, which was made by a colleague of Lauer's, prompted a serious review and represented a "clear violation of our company's standards." WRONG! The complaint DOES NOT represent a clear violation of the company’s standards. The complaint is an ALLEGATION that there was a violation of the company’s standards. I hope he sues their asses off.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 02:13 AM
1

Wow. I think you don’t realize your wrongness here. Nobody is ENTITLED to have you enjoy their company. And nobody is wrong for not enjoying someone’s company for ANY reason, be it your income, your looks, hairstyle, behavior, beliefs, etc. It is THEIR CHOICE. It’s the height of tyranny to dictate what people should or shouldn’t enjoy in terms of preferences between consenting adults. /u/secondclassguy, I hope what you really mean is that you’ll be impressed when feminists come out and say that …
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:19 AM
2

Whoa, way to be triggered. The point that there’s no source given and thus the image could be this or that, is valid. Valid points are valid even from your worst enemy. Don’t behave like a feminist. Furthermore you’re making personal insults rather than attacking her argument. Again, don’t behave like a feminist.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:05 AM
2

Whoa, way to be triggered. The point that there’s no source given and thus the image could be this or that, is valid. Valid points are valid even from your worst enemy. Don’t behave like a third wave feminist. Furthermore you’re making personal insults rather than attacking her argument. Again, don’t behave like a third wave feminist.
/r/MensRights30/11/17 12:03 AM
3

Irrelevant. The study was done by UPenn. Squawker is merely talking about UPenn’s study.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 11:56 PM
7

Thank you for your logic and healthy skepticism. Believing a narrative without checking it is dangerous, whether it’s “sexual misconduct allegations are probably true” or “because of the recent allegations, men have become afraid to perform CPR on women.” And ESPECIALLY check any narrative that seems to confirm your beliefs, position, or your preference.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 11:50 PM
7

This, though I don’t agree he should suffer if he’s innocent. But the irony is there.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 11:43 PM
1

This.
/r/MensRights29/11/17 11:42 PM
3

I can tell you and u/Eastuss why. It’s because you are reading an interpretation of the data. You are not reading the research itself. Take a look the research itself to understand what the researchers are counting as “child care.” And understand their source: is it measured? Or is it the parents’ claims? Because there can be a BIG difference between what people report, and what really happened. A great example of this is the claims about how much time men report they spend with their children. …
/r/MensRights29/11/17 11:40 PM
1

No, small government does not mean that. Small government means "less governmental controls." Good God. You probably think "breakfast" means eating one specific thing and doing so in order to control others. “By consuming this particular grain it enables you to have the energy to go oppress others.” And no, communism is not normal in ALL tribes. You really don’t care about honesty, accuracy, or reality, do you?
/r/MensRights28/11/17 11:07 PM
1

Wrong again. A movement advocating for smaller government does not mean it is advocating for a big government coupled with unregulated corporate tyranny. It is advocating for smaller government, period. Not zero government . But of course because you are a fetishist who is obsessed with corporate power and capitalism, you take any single thing the government does that involved corporations or capitalism, and scream “That means big government!!”
/r/MensRights28/11/17 09:10 PM
1

No, you are discussing that. The rest are discussing the thread started by OP. You veered off in another direction by talking about how things used to be long ago, or, how things are in other countries. Neither of those is relevant
/r/MensRights28/11/17 09:06 PM
1

Again with the logical fallacies. Many free market economist would agree with the sharing of communally own resources that is normal in some tribes, and shame on you for being so dishonest once again by claiming that all tribes engage in that. That is because the sharing is no different than the sharing within a family.... and it is free market capitalism. People are acting in their own best interests and the sharing is an effective strategy to maximize personal benefit in that situation. But I …
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:56 PM
1

Oh really! Show me where I said I support any of those ideologies. Go ahead, smarty-pants. Looks like you’re the one who should pay attention when you’re reading. Furthermore, the discussion is about modern day America. Just because I want to stay on topic does not mean I am not familiar with history nor does it mean I undervalue it. It means I’m not veering off and talking about some other thing like a whack job, which is what you’re doing. Finally, you show your smallmindedness by insisting th…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:49 PM
1

Wrong. So you’re saying a very small minority of the right, favors big government. First off, that proves my point: The right is against big government. Second, Even your premise is flawed because corporate welfare is not big government. It is one aspect of government. You can have the smallest possible federal government while still undertaking corporate welfare. Corporate welfare does not require big government. Your argument is nonsense because according to you, if the right is in favor of an…
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:49 PM
1

Wrong. The left now pushes for more open borders. Even your source agrees with me and disproves you, LOL You sure like to talk about history rather than the topic at hand which is how things ARE. We are discussing how the left IS, in America. Everyone but you. You’re over there discussing how the left WAS, and you’re discussing how the left is and was in places other than America. Get some reading comprehension and stay on topic
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:44 PM
2

Once again your reading comprehension or your honesty or both, are for shit, because as has been clear all along, we are discussing the political right in America, not elsewhere. At times here you take a few individuals and try to portray them as representative of the entire right. Tsk, tsk. If you had a real argument you wouldn’t be so dishonest.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:41 PM
1

That was my second favorite part, because of the hypocrisy. “He stared at our genitals, and we stared at his.”
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:38 PM
1

Low technology lifestyles doesn’t mean they live identically to any or especially all prehistoric civilizations. Complain all you want but plenty of absolutely free market capitalism went on in every continent long before the modern era. Even collectivist tribes engaged in free market, NON collectivist trade with other tribes. And that’s a matter of historical record from thousands of years ago. Oops!
/r/MensRights28/11/17 09:05 AM
1

No, open borders refers to immigrants, period. You have an obvious fetish for projecting things onto other people’s words and actions, but that doesn’t make it so. You also like to make up goofy examples talking about the past and talking about other countries when the topic at hand is the present day United States. Get a grip.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 09:02 AM
2

There you go again. The right in america - not the pinochet bullshit or hong kong - is anti big government. And you are anti reading comprehension, with your inane and ridiculous assertions like claiming I want big government to regulate the labor market with immigration laws.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 09:01 AM
2

Ask what proof they have that we live in a society that gives men advantages or privileges over women. They will cite the disparities between men and women in average pay per capita (wage gap myth) or number of female CEO’s or engineers, etc. Point out that disparity does not prove discrimination. If they think it does then by that logic society is matriarchal because there is a huge disparity between men and women in terms of homelessness, unemployment, lack of education, incarceration, prison …
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:55 AM
3

Sorry for your woes and thank you for sharing this. I love the complaint about the coffee stirrer stick. “It’s a phallic symbol!” “Sooo... you’re saying he was implying he would suck a dick? How is that sexually harassing YOU, ma’am?”
/r/MensRights28/11/17 08:46 AM
2

Savagely accurate
/r/MensRights28/11/17 12:09 AM
1

Current lifestyles are not proof of prehistoric conditions. And we have plenty of proof, not just evidence but proof, of laissez-faire capitalism even thousands of years ago. Oops!
/r/MensRights27/11/17 09:09 PM
1

No, open borders refers to immigration. And it's untrue that free markets are bullshit just because many people agree we should have some constraints. You: "free markets are bullshit because people don't want lawless anarchy!!!!" Lol
/r/MensRights27/11/17 09:06 PM
1

Yes, you're wrong and it's easy to prove it. The statement I refuted made incorrect claims about the origins of feminism and the quality of life women lived in the 1800's. Whether or not I would trade spots in am theoretical question is irrelevant! Because the statement I refuted is wrong regardless of what I would choose. The statement made a false claim about how feminism started. It's easy to prove that it's false. You or whatever person also made a false claim about the quality of life women…
/r/MensRights27/11/17 09:04 PM
1

Again you miss the point. We are talking about how the right wing is today, not how it may have been in the Pinochet dictatorship. And big government is the hallmark of the left, not the right.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 09:01 PM
1

So in other words you have no data to support your claim denying the existence of free trade in prehistoric times, or your claim that free trade was a scheme that originated in England somewhat recently. Meanwhile there's proof people traded in a free market thousands of years ago.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 08:53 PM
0

Hurr durr! Translation, “Pig_cunt pointed out accurately that I’m wrong so instead of having the balls to say I stand corrected, I’ll just assert that he’s upset.” LOL, pathetic
/r/MensRights27/11/17 10:19 AM
1

Once again you miss the point. I’m sorry to break this news to you but either your reading comprehension is for shit or you are delusional. Read my comment. Then stay on topic instead of talking some completely other thing I didn’t say. The fact remains that you or whoever it was, is wrong about what he said about 1) the origins of feminism and 2) the quality of life for women in the 1800’s.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 10:16 AM
1

What’s your data on those fanciful claims? Please tell me all about the “data” on prehistoric free markets. Sorry, we have proof they existed. We DON’T have proof anyone put the tribe ahead of personal gain.
/r/MensRights27/11/17 10:14 AM
1

You still don’t get it!!! Holy shit! When England deregulated, IT WAS NOT THE FIRST FREE MARKET IN HISTORY. Jesus CHRIST!!!!! Free markets existed in prehistoric times! God, you really don’t get it, do you?
/r/MensRights27/11/17 05:01 AM
1

No, genius. I never said anything of the sort. If you took the chip off your shoulder and merely read my words you’d see it says that a BETTER, meaning a MORE EFFECTIVE strategy would be to do as I described. I didn’t say “a 100% guaranteed successful strategy.” God are you pathetic. You’d fit in better at twoxchromosomes with that logic.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 09:19 PM
1

Haha, glad it did! :)
/r/MensRights26/11/17 09:17 PM
2

Thank you!
/r/MensRights26/11/17 08:48 PM
2

This article is so dumb, and racist. Rather, I didn’t see myself as part of a movement where no one looked like me. Whoa! And she pegs the racist meter right out of the gate! Then proceeds to keep the needle pinned throughout the rest of her bullshit. She also makes incorrect assertions, from the either ignorant or malicious lies about Reagan With the election of the Reagan administration in 1980, the stigmatized welfare mother evolved into the more pernicious image of the welfare queen. to the …
/r/MensRights26/11/17 08:47 PM
13

OP went about it in a futile way. A better way would’ve been to ask: “Is it fair to judge a group by the differing behaviors of the individuals at the top or bottom .000001%? For example, only 0.00000002% of US women are active serial killers at any given time, so is it fair to regard all women as serial killers and discuss the supposed problem of how women are serial killers, all based on a VERY small minority of women who are? No? Then it’s not fair to discuss or view most men as having anythi…
/r/MensRights26/11/17 07:59 AM
0

You just proved the other guy's point for him. They didn't need it, and when they take responsibility for their own actions, then they will rise. Until that time, the simple fact is that they increasingly choose to engage in risky premarital sex (see: Black STI rates and out-of-wedlock pregnancy rates compared to all other races) and have babies out of wedlock with the men not being present in the household or the child’s life. You can’t blame welfare or government intervention for people’s pers…
/r/MensRights26/11/17 04:16 AM
1

The kind you put your PIN number into?
/r/MensRights26/11/17 04:09 AM
3

Thank you. It's crazy that the "It's systemic racism holding them back! Inner city blacks behave the same as first generation Asian immigrant kids!" myth reaches even THIS sub.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 04:05 AM
1

I consider that all the time. There's a subreddit dedicated to showing examples of exactly what you mentioned: Welcome to /r/menkampf! Men Kampf: A journey into hypocrazy. In the post you're about to make, replace cis/white/hetero/male people with the Jews and if the result sounds like something that could be right out of Mein Kampf, you should probably reconsider your social justice blogging habits.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 03:59 AM
4

Formatted and copy edited that wall of text for you: Regarding the feminist myth of privilege/oppression theory: I think you mean cultural marxist theory, the thought process that society cannot progress, without deconstructing everything and constantly changing, is part of it. What does "progressivism" even mean? Where are we progressing to? The world is divided between people who are very conservative, like things the way they are and don't want them to change and those who are very liberal an…
/r/MensRights26/11/17 02:17 AM
1

Due process isn't credible? Ok, tell that to all the black men who got lynched without due process because of accusations.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 02:09 AM
4

You mean real victims, not other victims.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 02:08 AM
1

Brilliant insight here. Wish I had more than one upvote
/r/MensRights26/11/17 02:08 AM
9

Underrated and under-upvoted comment of the thread.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 02:07 AM
1

Would it be politically correct if I said I wanted to help colored people? What if I'm white and say "nigga"? That's politically correct? You're sure about that? (Gwyneth Paltrow link)
/r/MensRights26/11/17 01:24 AM
2

Risky position to take up, nowadays. Crazy, huh?
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:55 PM
1

I’m not too snotty to read something nor did I run away. You lie constantly, and you clearly have poor reading comprehension. Or you’re deranged. An example is how i accurately point out that Apple didn’t always have an army of Chinese workers (they were much smaller than they are now, for many years) and you somehow misinterpret it as me being in favor of Apple, in favor of Steve Jobs, and in favor of wage slavery. So, no, I didn’t read your wall of text just like I didn’t read anything past th…
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:38 PM
1

No, free market capitalism was not. Free market capitalism has existed since the prehistoric times. People exchanged goods and services in a free market. Good GOD, you’re killing me
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:35 PM
1

No, you have no idea what you read. Open borders refers to immigration, not trade. LOL sheesh Also... don’t put a question mark on the end of a sentence. GOD
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:34 PM
1

This dog gets it
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:33 PM
3

We’re talking about the United States. You seem to have ADHD and forget that this thread is about Denzel’s comments on American blacks. The only things you keep shooting are 1) your mouth off foolishly and 2) yourself in the foot
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:22 PM
1

You’re using a logical fallacy. Are you that low? Or can you make a point while being honest? My preceding statement was factual and correct: your (or whoever made that comment) statements are wrong about the origins of feminism and the quality of life women had in the 1800’s. Rather than stooping to “would you want to be a woman in the 1800’s?” you should have some character and backbone, and research it instead of shitposting and making yourself look bad.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:21 PM
3

Look at you all touchy! I proved you wrong with your other shit post and now you have a little hard on for me. Pathetic.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:17 PM
3

More lies. No, you didnt say that. you said a Nixon advisor said that. When you put “Nixon advisor:” and make a statement it means you’re attributing the statement to him. Tsk, tsk. Shouldn’t call people dumbass when you’re the one being the dumbass. Haha
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:16 PM
2

No, what you fail to understand - and I can’t blame you as you’re not looking at the study data; you’re reading someone’s perception of it - is that the reason the link is there at all is that some Asians who live in the ghetto have adopted some of that culture. This is why immigrant blacks from other countries generally don’t have the same issues that so many people falsely attribute to racism. They have good study habits and are well-behaved. STI’s are much lower, criminality is much lower, gr…
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:10 PM
1

My opening claim isn’t insulting. It’s factual. My views are that facts are facts. But, boy, do you get all butthurt! You can find people as unethical as you’ve shown yourself to be, in r/AgainstMensRights. You won’t be missed here.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 11:05 PM
1

You can’t call them Negroes any more. Unless you’re the United Negro College Fund, in which case the hypocrisy is just fine!
/r/MensRights25/11/17 08:19 PM
4

More of your bullshit. Aside from your laughably false premises, the simple fact is that if you work hard at work that has a lot of value, the hard work does pay off.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 08:18 PM
2

WRONG. Stop lying. An author CLAIMS a Nixon advisor said that. Jesus Christ. Get some integrity.
/r/MensRights25/11/17 08:16 PM
2

poverty No. Poor Asians don’t have this problem. It is cultural, not a matter of economics
/r/MensRights25/11/17 08:13 PM
1

You suspect he knows something you just happen to believe? Really! I suspect you know that the world is actually flat. See how that works?
/r/MensRights25/11/17 08:12 PM
1

The Vox poll itself is one source. 18% is of all respondents. Half those respondents were men and we know that men identify as feminist far less than do women. Thus the real number of women is much closer to 50%, especially when including the inaccuracies and variability the researchers admit is present (several percent at least). Here’s a more credible test of a better demographic, and it shows 6 in 10 women identify as feminist. https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/national/washington-po…
/r/MensRights25/11/17 09:02 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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