TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ParentheticalClaws Archive

View 2 posts and 83 comments by ParentheticalClaws on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
11

ParentheticalClaws/r/MensRights05/09/14 01:44 AM
4

Raising AwarenessParentheticalClaws/r/MensRights12/11/14 12:40 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

It sounds like maybe they thought that you originally refused to help out because you don't like organizational tasks, so they found another, totally different task that they thought you might prefer, but you refused that one as well. I'm assuming here that these were all people with other primary job responsibilities. The situation would be different if these women are specifically responsible for supply management and you are not. But if, as at many offices, there are some housekeeping tasks t…
/r/MensRights05/04/16 03:03 AM
5

Interesting, but it doesn't seem that meaningful without controlling for amount of time spent on the Internet and types of Internet activity (browsing, commenting, blogging, etc.). As the article notes: Beyond those demographic groups, those whose lives are especially entwined with the internet report experiencing higher rates of harassment online. This includes those who have more information available about them online, those who promote themselves online for their job, and those who work in t…
/r/MensRights25/01/16 01:16 AM
1

That's a good point. I think it's more that, as a woman, it can be hard to look professional without being personally attractive. Of course, ties look uncomfortable and I am sure that some work goes into picking nice-looking ones, but it somehow seems different to be told that, to be professional, you must put colored paints on your face, covering your natural pigmentation, and also reapply these every couple of hours throughout the day, every day. And there can be a very difficult line between …
/r/MensRights06/08/15 11:34 PM
2

There are definitely gendered negatives about business-appropriate attire for women, including how closely tied pretty and professional are, but I'd still take that any day over not having a work-appropriate dress choice other than long pants.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 12:27 AM
2

“I get maybe one to three requests a month to take photos down,” Kirill says. “And if you’re a dick to me about it, I’ll let it linger for a little bit and then I’ll remove it. Because it’s like you don’t need to come at me, you’re the one who did this. I’m just documenting the party.” In general, I don't have an issue with these photographs at all, but it does seem problematic that he says he intentionally delays acting on requests to take down photos to punish people he sees as a rude. If the …
/r/MensRights18/07/15 07:18 PM
1

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I think that the issue is a very particular and pervasive misunderstanding of sex: that sex is something men always want and women never do, and that men therefore must win it from women. This leads to bad sexual encounters, which aren't rape but involve less-than-enthusiastic consent, and also sometimes to rape. While the same basic attitude is at play, it affects men and women differently. Men who buy into this attitude have the idea that no woma…
/r/MensRights10/05/15 05:18 PM
1

What I mean when I say that "having sex is consent to sex" is having sex actively. It's strange to me that the actual motions of sex rarely seem to come up in conversations about consent, when, to my mind, they are very important. If you'll excuse me for getting graphic, say that a man and a woman are engaging in foreplay and are about to move to intercourse. The woman angles her body so that the man can penetrate her, and the man guides his penis in. These actions--in the absence of factors lik…
/r/MensRights30/04/15 02:06 AM
1

I think that we mainly agree. My primary point is that people can sometimes be unclear about what consent means, and so it's important that it be taught in sex ed classes, which you say you agree with. On your point about whether consent needs to be explicitly withdrawn, I think the key point is the one that you end with: "Consent is obviously implied if [the person] is an active participant." Going up to someone's apartment after dinner is not what communicates consent to sex; having sex is. If…
/r/MensRights30/04/15 12:13 AM
1

I'm not saying that these examples are excusable or that the perpetrators wouldn't be rapists, but these are examples where the perpetrators might not identify themselves as rapists after the fact, and where, if they did know that these things would make them rapists, they might have avoided them. I agree that the basic message of consent is pretty straightforward, but I do think some people struggle to internalize it deeply enough that they apply it consistently. I'm not sure why you're putting…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 11:49 PM
1

I'm interested to know what you think about the two "accidental rape/sexual assault" scenarios I posted in response to another comment. I think that these are both scenarios where a rape/sexual assault occurs and the individuals are culpable, but did not set out to commit rape/sexual assault and could have been prevented from doing so with better sexual education. Example One: Person A and Person B have been kissing and drinking while sitting on a bed. They are both getting intoxicated, but Pers…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 02:42 AM
2

I think it just implies that the researchers are only currently interested in getting data about whether people believe that many women do this. There is not much discussion about whether many men who claim that they were raped agreed to have sex and regretted it after the fact, and so it would make sense that the researchers are less interested in finding out what people think on this.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 02:32 AM
3

Regarding the question "Rape and sexual assault can happen unintentionally, especially if alcohol is involved": I think the situation where this applies is something like this: Person A and Person B have been kissing and drinking while sitting on a bed. They are both getting intoxicated, but Person A is fading faster. Person A lies down, still sort of muttering but not really super coherent. Person B removes Person A's clothing and initiates sex. Person A makes some noises that could be objectio…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 02:24 AM
1

I think the point is to help people find books that they would enjoy, but wouldn't otherwise consider, because they are too busy reading a small subset of literature that garners more shelf space and more reviews, etc. That said, I think the challenge would be better if it were for a shorter period of time and suggested reading outside a bigger category of work--for example, read only books not originally written in your own first language for three months.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 08:00 PM
1

Thanks for sharing this. My long-time love of Dear Prudence is justified. I think one of the key points that she gets at here and in her previous article on the topic (linked at end of comment) is how this system of campus tribunals that has popped up is harmful for everyone. For those accused, expulsion is a very serious penalty, especially when it comes with a record that can essentially block someone from getting higher education anywhere. It is unacceptable for that kind of judgement to be m…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 12:54 AM
2

And that, right there, seems to be the psychological hurdle no one can get over. It's based on the idea that sex is something men do to women. Men give out sex, women receive it, and that's just how sex works. So if sex occurred, it must mean I was the one who made it happen. I think this point is really important in terms of understanding how the very same screwed up ideas about sex harm both men and women. Women get their sexual agency denied, and men face this abhorrent idea that they must ha…
/r/MensRights31/01/15 04:54 PM
3

Ah, I see your point. I still worry a little that describing him primarily as a "married man" in the title makes it seem that the incident is more outrageous, because he was married. This could unintentionally reinforce an idea that it would be okay to do this to a single man.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 01:42 AM
5

Specifying that the man was married in the headline seems a bit problematic here, since it creates an implication that the crime was worse due to his marital status.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 12:02 AM
1

There are a number of nice-looking posters here: http://www.internationalmensday.com/posters-and-logos.html
/r/MensRights18/11/14 03:38 AM
2

What do people think about The NYT covering this? On the one hand, it's important to have a conversation about the way a teenager can have his/her image spread through social media without consent, and the impact this can have on the young person's life.... On the other hand, this is a pretty link-filled article and will probably just direct more unsolicited attention to this child.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 03:29 AM
1

This is an old article--from 2013--but I thought it did a good job of explaining how incarceration affects employment prospects long after release. It doesn't get too explicit about the disproportionate effect this has on men, but, in the US, where men are incarcerated at significantly higher rates, this is definitely an issue that has a much higher impact on men.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 12:47 AM
3

I think some of the difficulty maybe comes with trying to say that a sex act is either rape on both sides (rapist and rape victim) or rape on neither side. But then you have, say, a situation where someone with a severe impairment has sex with another person against his/her will. The victim isn't going to feel like any less of a victim or be in any less need of social services because the perpetrator didn't know what he/she was doing. But, at the same time, it doesn't really make sense to call t…
/r/MensRights24/10/14 12:44 AM
4

I think it's less a product of feminism than an issue where old-fashioned gender norms negatively affected both men and women, but feminism has only really addressed the effect on women. It used to be that husbands "let" (or didn't let, as the case may be) their wives do lots of things: "My husband lets me drive"; "my husband is letting me get a part-time job." There were strict ideas about what fell under men's authority and what fell under women's authority, and each gender was assumed to be c…
/r/MensRights09/10/14 01:07 AM
1

On the other hand, though, a lot of what I was taught as a girl (in school and socially in general, not specifically by my mother) was pretty harmful. It was more about how I should guard my precious virginity from the lustful grasp of men rather than about how to pursue a man in a way that made my interest clear while also not being coercive or pressuring him into an unwanted sexual encounter.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 01:29 AM
6

Why only men? I think both genders could benefit from learning more about dating--not in the sense of teaching seduction techniques, but in the sense of talking about how to form an initial connection, how to understand someone else's perspective on sex, etc. Clearly both genders are subject to some pretty harmful media presentations of what courtship is like. Something to counteract that would be great. Unfortunately, when I did get some education on courtship in high school, it wasn't very hel…
/r/MensRights07/10/14 01:16 AM
2

I think it's reasonably well done overall, but I really objected to the panel that has the text "But this doesn't happen...He kicked me in the groin...Why weren't you wearing a cup?" Why would the equivalent of groping be kicking in the groin, not groping. The artist seems to be denying that sexual harassment can happen to men, too. I think it would be better as "Because we blame women for sexual harassment...And ridicule men for being hurt by it." With text like: "She grabbed my crotch...You're…
/r/MensRights07/10/14 01:03 AM
5

I'm so sorry that you're going through that.
/r/MensRights07/10/14 12:50 AM
2

I think the big deal is that the law requires schools to use a "preponderance of evidence" standard (3) in determining whether a complaint is upheld. As per Wikipedia, this standard "is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true." That's a pretty low burden of proof when you're talking about labeling someone as a perpetrator of sexual assault. Particularly given the…
/r/MensRights07/10/14 12:36 AM
1

Yeah, this is why I think the real problem with this law is the use of the standard of "preponderance of evidence," as opposed to the way it defines sexual assault. I do think it makes sense, though, to stipulate that thinking you have consent doesn't make it so if that belief is not reasonable. Otherwise, you could have a case where witnesses heard the complainant screaming "No" and "Stop" but the accused could get off by just saying he/she was so intoxicated that he/she thought consent was giv…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 09:24 PM
2

2A says that if the accused student was intoxicated, his belief that he was granted affirmative consent no longer counts. Not exactly. If the "accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused" that means that the circumstances, as a sober person would have seen them, did not merit the conclusion that there was consent. Say that I am on a powerful hallucinogen and see an attractive unconscious man. I believe he is telling me he wants to have sex. …
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:36 PM
2

I think a lot of it comes down to how you read "incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity." To my mind, that's a very high level of intoxication--I don't think a person in that state would be hitting anyone else up at a party. A person in that state would be wandering around in stumbling confusion or lying somewhere close to comatose. So, the way I see it, two people in that…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:29 PM
2

Yeah, if you're drunk to the point that you might not be able to determine whether someone else is cognizant of their surroundings, you should not be initiating any sexual encounters. If you're someone who knows that you get to the point of drunkenness where you can't think reasonably enough to judge your own level of drunkenness, you should just not initiate sexual encounters when drunk. Similarly, if you know that you get drunk to the point where you can't assess your driving ability, you shou…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:08 PM
1

The bill does say that it's only a problem if the accused "knew or reasonably should have known" that the complainant was incapable of understanding "the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity." So, let's say someone is taking a medication where they appear to converse and act totally normally, but really don't understand the meaning of what they're saying, and they state that they want to have sex. You couldn't justifiably say someone else "reasonably should have known" they actually di…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 07:02 PM
2

I think the assumption of a law like this is that, if both people are incapacitated to the point that they cannot "understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity," which is the standard that is set, then no sex will be able to take place. So the rapist would be the less drunk person--whoever it is who is still alert enough to make a sexual encounter happen.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 06:46 PM
1

I think the issue is mainly with the fact that, under the law, colleges must have: (3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence. That's a lower burden of proof than is used in U.S. criminal cases. But the consequences of having a sexual assault complaint upheld against you are, arguably, as serious as being convicted of a criminal offense, since expelled students may not be…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 06:37 PM
1

Where in the text do you see that? I only see the point that it is considered sexual assault if the complainant could not consent because he or she was incapacitated to the extent that he or she "could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity." Of course, determining after the fact whether someone was capable at a given time of understanding "the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity" is damn near impossible. That's why I think the issue here is less how the law…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 06:32 PM
1

Which part of the bill are you referring to? (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967) I think what it's actually saying is not that being drunk always makes you unable to recognize consent or lack thereof, but rather that, if it does, that's not a valid excuse. So let's say Person A and Person B are both drunk, but Person A is still capable of moving around and doing things, whereas Person B is lying still, near unconscious. Person A asks Person B, "D…
/r/MensRights05/10/14 06:19 PM
1

Well said. Thanks for the thorough response.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 11:01 PM
4

It's generally well-worded, but I'd suggest taking out the "you probably hate me" references. A lot of people don't respond well to having a writer presume their attitudes, especially at the beginning of a piece.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 12:51 AM
1

Most feminists believe that the feminist movement has accomplished significant legal achievements, despite facing obstacles in the form of societal attitudes. Therefore, some actions of the government, including, for example, the passage of women's suffrage and the VAWA, are seen as the accomplishments of feminism, rather than the consequences of patriarchy. Similarly, the actions of the government are heavily influenced by Democrats, and Republicans are against Democrats; but it doesn't follow …
/r/MensRights09/09/14 12:40 AM
4

Really nice piece. I particularly liked this part: The person who hurt me was in the wrong. But so is the education system that never taught her that she too is required to respect another person's body, that she too needs to ask first, needs to stop viewing sex as an act of take and gain and instead start trying to learn the language of conversation between two bodies, the hesitancy of a touch, the way the word yes looks on someone's face. Obviously, it's no excuse, but there's something very s…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 12:33 AM
1

If a woman in a highly physically affectionate relationship (everyone constantly sees them making out in public, she regularly comes onto him, etc.) claims that she was sexually assaulted by her SO, this claim is automatically dubious... how could he have sexually assaulted her when pretty much all forms of contact are OK between them? It is, in fact, entirely possible for one person in a LTR to sexually assault the other, even if they appear affectionate in public. Say, for example, A has seen …
/r/MensRights08/09/14 12:11 AM
2

I haven't read the book, but, in this interview, Sharma says the women she encountered in Sri Lanka faced explicitly gendered issued. The work they had long relied on (piece-work weaving) no longer provided them with sufficient income because of new taxes. But they feared violence, based on gender, if they attempted to pursue better paid work.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 11:35 PM
3

The article specifically talks about women who want to pursue higher paid work, but aren't able to because they would face violence in their communities and because of discrimination in the workforce. It suggests supporting women who are advocating for the ability to work outside the home. I don't see how that equates women with children.
/r/MensRights07/09/14 11:06 PM
9

This part really struck me: Her experience is borne out in a 2004 study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence by McGill professor Myriam S. Denov, “The Long-Term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse by Female Perpetrators,” in which Denov notes that “professionals working in the area of child welfare perceive sexual abuse by women as relatively harmless as compared to sexual abuse by men.” Denov found that this professional minimization and disbelief of patients’ allegations can exacerbate the origi…
/r/MensRights06/09/14 12:20 AM
1

Yeah, it's a difficult situation. I definitely see how, given current discriminatory practices, automatic joint custody seems like a step in the right direction. But I can't shake the feeling that, in some cases, it would result in arrangements that are manifestly bad for the children involved. As I said, it's something I'm ambivalent about, so I'm definitely grateful to you for giving me an opportunity to think about it more.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 11:47 PM
1

I also read and comment on feminist discussions, sometimes to point out things that are offensive to men or counter to the goal of men's rights. But, I've just been more interested, recently, in men's issues, since they receive so much less attention, and, therefore, I think there's more need to raise awareness of them. To reiterate my question above, do you have recommendations for how to comment in a more positive manner? For the most part, if someone posts, say, an article about how abuse of …
/r/MensRights05/09/14 11:40 PM
1

Thanks! Yeah, I also, clearly, have some problems with the "teach men not to rape" line. But I do think "teach people about meaningful consent" is really important. Not to in any excuse the actions of the women you describe, but there's a real gap in the sexual education girls and young women in particular describe where the basic fact that sometimes people won't want to have sex with you is just never discussed. I remember this feeling particularly weird when I was a preteen/early teenager. Lik…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 11:19 PM
0

Yes, I did read the linked action alert; I'm just not attempting to wholeheartedly defend it, because I think it's kind of problematic in not acknowledging that men might also suffer from automatic joint custody for the various reasons it cites. The issue of domestic abuse is, I think, particularly pertinent for men, since there is still such a stigma against men speaking up about abuse and such a prevalent idea that abuse against men doesn't occur. So, it does seem like a real risk that joint c…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 06:56 PM
2

I'm so sorry that happened to you. That's terrible. If you don't mind my asking, and certainly feel free not to answer if it's too painful, do you think that she saw herself as a rapist, or do you think that she actually didn't know that what she was doing was criminal?
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:01 AM
1

I have mixed feelings about automatic joint custody. On the one hand, it would help reduce discrimination against men in custody decisions, which would clearly be huge. On the other, I do agree with that posting that, ultimately, the child's needs should come before our ideas about who is entitled to custody. In many cases, a parent may not be unfit in a way that could be proven in a court of law, but is definitely less fit. Then again, I'm not confident that courts can or should make that sort …
/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:54 AM
3

If this is a U.S. school, the "in loco parentis" role doesn't allow schools to totally disregard students' rights. One of the most famous Supreme Court cases on the topic is Tinker v. Des Moines, in which students were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court famously determined that: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." (http://www.firstamendmentsc…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:38 AM
1

Do you have a link to the article? Also, just to respond to your final point ("An English class should not make someone feel they are in the wrong for being born with only one X chromosome") as someone who has taught college composition, the intention is for you to think about and discuss the articles that are assigned, not necessarily to agree with them. When I taught, I, in fact, intentionally assigned several essays I personally disagreed with, because I wanted my students to examine the way …
/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:21 AM
1

I'd say feminism is most useful to men when it comes to addressing gender stereotypes that are harmful to both sides. For example, the idea that women are the emotional sex is harmful to women, because it can cause people to dismiss their ideas or consider them incapable of rational thought. It's harmful to men because it causes men to be ridiculed as "unmanly" when they show emotion. Feminism has been working for decades on combating many of these stereotypes. I've also found that, in response …
/r/MensRights05/09/14 01:17 AM
0

You're wondering why I, personally, critique MRAs more than feminists? I guess that, while I'm interested in how gender norms and expectations hurt both men and women (and of course trans people), I think that, at the moment, the problems affecting men are more pernicious. So I spend more time reading, and commenting on, MRA stuff, versus feminist stuff. I do tend to mainly comment when I disagree with something, though, and, as a result, my comment record's somewhat one-sided. I'll make an effo…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 12:57 AM
0

What about feminists who also identify as MRAs or otherwise actively support men's rights? I've seen several people on here being told that they're not "real" feminists, because they support men's rights. It seems like the most useful thing to do would be to acknowledge that people with a wide variety of beliefs--some of them harmful, some positive--identify as feminists and to try to combat parts of the feminist movement that are problematic while building bridges with those who see feminism an…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:50 PM
1

A lot of the common male terms also involve having fun and spending money: xbox, ps3, etc. Also, while some terms that could involve saving money appear commonly for men, there's no reason to believe that's actually the context they're used in, as opposed to, say, "New XBox! Totally fucked my budget but this is a democracy, right, man? Fuck taxes." I don't think there's really that much to be gleaned from individual word use.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 01:17 AM
1

I think the issue lies in how terms like "enthusiastic consent" are interpreted and applied. As a standard for how individuals should seek to conduct themselves, enthusiastic consent is incredibly important for men. Given the cultural perception that men always want sex and the stigma surrounding men who express their desire not to have sex, it is extremely important for anyone who has sex with a man to make sure he is consenting enthusiastically, not just not saying no, since he might fear ridi…
/r/MensRights20/08/14 01:40 AM
12

As a woman, I've been both the beneficiary and the victim of sexism in the workplace. I've always been able to easily obtain decently paid administrative jobs, whereas I think men pursuing these jobs would be discriminated against. However, when a higher-paying position opened up at my company with more stereotypically male tasks and I was in charge of coordinating interviews for it (while hoping that I might ultimately get it myself), the hiring manager explicitly told me that he wanted to hire…
/r/MensRights20/08/14 12:03 AM
2

Are you tying to get a position that specifically requires international travel? If the company is requesting it strictly for identification purposes (form I-9) they can't specify which documents they will or will not accept beyond what's on the form.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 11:19 PM
1

Here's The Atlantic's (inconclusive) attempt to find a source: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/women-own-1-of-world-property-a-feminist-myth-that-wont-die/273840/
/r/MensRights11/08/14 11:52 PM
8

This post title's a bit misleading. The author is saying that PR might be "the best possible option" for the women who pursue it--as opposed to saying that women in PR are just doing it because they can't get jobs in journalism. She's not saying it's better for society to have the PR field comprised primarily of women.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 12:53 AM
22

If women are significantly outperforming men in X. Its because woman are inherently better at X, women are better learners, women are smarter, men are inherently worse at X ,etc. This article, though, seems pretty skeptical of the idea that there's an inherent difference in skills between the genders and leans much more heavily toward the idea that the greater number of women in PR is due to socialization.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 12:49 AM
1

Agreed. I don't think all jokes about rape trivialize it or mock victims, but some clearly do, and so I don't think we can grant comedy a privileged status, exempt from political critique.
/r/MensRights02/08/14 06:13 PM
1

Really well-said. Whenever people make the claim that jokes about rape are just jokes, and can't possibly do any harm, I think of this really terrible segment Bill Maher did on male victims of sexual coercion, where he called being a victim of sexual coercion "Lucky Bastard Syndrome." The entire thing was a riff on how male rape victims should be happy they got laid. I think the piece really clearly did all three of the things you outline, causing real, tangible harm.
/r/MensRights01/08/14 11:37 PM
0

He "clarified" after the fact. My point is that, if that's really what he meant, he should have been quite capable of conveying it upfront. Example: "If you hear 'Date rape is bad; stranger rape at knifepoint is bad,' and you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go learn how to think." Perhaps I'm putting too much stock in his writing abilities and Twitter makes incoherent fools of us all. But I just find it hard to believe he would have so poorly communicated his intended meaning if that w…
/r/MensRights01/08/14 12:19 AM
1

I'm not saying the point that something isn't okay just because there's a worse thing out there stops being true if the second example isn't actually worse. I am saying it makes the illustration less clear by detracting from the main point. His contention that we were supposed to read the "X is bad, Y is worse" part of his statements in the voice of a fictional speaker, who isn't necessarily him, seems like a stretch. He's normally an excellent writer. If that's what he'd intended, I think he co…
/r/MensRights31/07/14 07:12 PM
2

Well, for the logical example to work well, the second thing needs to clearly be worse. "Occasionally taking money from the register is bad. Embezzling several millions is worse. That's not an endorsement of taking money from the register." That makes sense. But it comes off as strange if the two things are equally bad, or not immediately comparable. "Stealing an apple is bad. Stealing an orange is worse. That's not an endorsement of stealing apples." Someone reading this is less likely to come …
/r/MensRights31/07/14 01:43 AM
1

I'm not really sure why you would think I think that gender is a social construction. Is there something about my comment that inadvertently implied that? I think there are fairly major biological differences between the genders, but that those differences do not make either gender inherently superior. Also, I think that when it comes to any particular trait, biological differences are more a matter of probability than a way of making accurate judgments about a particular individual. Even if it …
/r/MensRights20/07/14 04:17 PM
10

Being transgendered is a matter of biology (genetics and prenatal hormone exposure). It's not a choice based on the respective amount privilege accorded to each gender.
/r/MensRights20/07/14 01:09 AM
31

Something the NPR article glosses over is that the male respondents also reported experiencing sexual harassment at a pretty high rate: Gender was a significant predictor of having personally experienced sexual harassment, with women respondents 3.5 times more likely to report having experienced sexual harassment than men (70% of women (N = 361/512) and 40% of men (N = 56/138), X2 = 40.8, p = 0.0001, df = 1, OR = 3.5, N = 650). Women were significantly more likely to have experienced sexual assa…
/r/MensRights20/07/14 12:22 AM
1

I'm curious as to what issues you think this could address that wouldn't be better addressed by focusing on the causes of crime, rather than gender. Like, let's say a city wants to better address the needs of gang members, and so they create a special court for 18 to 30 year old men being charged with a first violent offense. That court will probably hear the cases of more gang members than an ordinary court and be able to provide help to those people. But, it's also going to get the case of the…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 03:54 PM
2

I definitely agree with you about the issue of using gender as a proxy. The article says that the idea for the courts came from the discovery that women are more likely to be repeat offenders. So why not have a repeat offender court, rather than a women's court? The repeat offender court would recognize that these are all likely to be people with underlying issues who need some sort of treatment, rather than simply punishment, and would have people who specialize in different factors that contri…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 03:28 PM
2

Interesting. For me, it certainly feels like a conditioned response, rather than a full-on instinctive one, since I never noticed myself reacting to men this way before I moved to a city where catcalling is common. But I can't know for sure. Regardless of the source, I definitely try to be aware of it, and I try to make my response as invisible as possible. It still happens, but I seek to do everything I can to make the 99+% of men who have no intention of catcalling comfortable. I know that, fo…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 12:28 AM
7

But when you show up in my notifications like “Can you explain to me how cultural appropriation is racist?” my response is going to be along the lines of “Let me Google that for you.” This seems pretty problematic to me. Presumably, these questions are being asked in response to things she's said or written. These people are trying to continue a dialogue she has started. I understand the issue some minorities face with being asked to act as educators, as she puts it. It would be a problem if I s…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 12:12 AM
4

As a woman, I am definitely aware of myself tensing when I see men in certain circumstances, particularly if I have to pass a group of men standing on a porch or to the side of a sidewalk. The thing is, though, I'm not afraid exactly. It's more classical conditioning in response to the fact that, often, men positioned like that will say something about my body in a way that makes me uncomfortable. I don't have a lower opinion of any individual man, or of men in general, because of this, since I …
/r/MensRights18/07/14 11:31 PM
1

Men talk about masturbation too, but the average dude doesn't require hardware. Yeah, the article makes it sound as if the subject of male masturbation in general is taboo, when I think it's specific to the use of toys. Men often casually refer to masturbation, and I think male masturbation is, arguably, more accepted than female masturbation. But there's the gender-norm idea that men should constantly be so horny they need no assistance that makes it harder for men to talk about the use of toys…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 01:01 AM
1

I'm really glad to see the Felicia Smith case (the middle school teacher who gave the student a lap dance) mentioned on here. As the Jezebel article mentions, there are a lot of accounts suggesting the student "enjoyed" it or otherwise making it sound like a serious crime was committed. This is one of the worst I found: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/04/25/crime/felicia-smith-photos-stovall-middle-school-teacher-lap-dance-arrest/#1 . But the Jezebel article was the only place I really saw people e…
/r/MensRights29/04/14 03:07 AM
2

I've also heard the theory that, because there's less societal acceptance of close male friendships, men can end up with weaker social support networks outside of their romantic relationships, which makes them more vulnerable to emotional issue following break-up and divorce. I don't know if there's been any research specifically looking at social support, gender and suicide, though.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 02:40 AM
1

This is a place where punctuation makes a big difference. The actual tagline for the campaign is "You Don't Say?"--with a question mark. It's about education. And the posters themselves are people explaining why they personally don't use certain words. Nothing in this campaign is about telling people what not to say; it's about introducing the perspective of those who refrain from using these terms.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 02:29 AM
1

What about "fag," which is mentioned in the article as being included in the campaign, although it's not on that particular poster. The word fag is pretty much exclusively applied to men, and its derogatory use when applied to men who aren't gay involves an inherent claim that a particular form of masculinity shouldn't be valued.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 02:17 AM
5

It seems like the real issue here is a feedback loop. Shelters don't hear from many male victims seeking their services, and so they don't devote their limited funding to services for male victims. Male victims, aware that shelters don't offer many services for them, then respond by not contacting shelters for help. And so the shelters don't hear from male victims, and so they don't add services.
/r/MensRights19/04/14 05:46 PM
1

Asking someone out could violate his/her rights if it's done in a place that's not appropriate for that kind of interaction. Take, for example, public transit in cities. Mass transit riders pay taxes and fares to be able to ride public transit, and so they should have a right to ride comfortably, which might include being absorbed in a song or a book. Interrupting those private activities to ask someone out interferes with that right. For people who are asked out frequently, it may become nearly…
/r/MensRights13/02/14 10:42 PM
5

Once and in an appropriate situation--which is the key thing the OP left out. At a social event, yes. While walking down the street, no. On public transit, no. I think of a creep in this context as someone who isn't observing the social code for the setting, and, as a result is infringing on other people's rights to use those spaces. This would only be the same as a slut if we reserved the term slut for women who make sexual advances in inappropriate settings. But that's not really how the term …
/r/MensRights13/02/14 10:31 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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