TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Qapiojg Archive

View 2 posts and 483 comments by Qapiojg on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

You seem to have taken a hypothetical scenario for a real one. Talking about cars plowing through civilians was moreso a reference to actual terrorists, like the one who used that method to attack civilians on the London bridge
/r/MensRights03/06/20 05:42 PM
2

In the context of charges and legal proceedings it's assault with a deadly weapon. In the context of police reports that his stats draw from they're marked unarmed.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 08:11 AM
8

Also, it's worth mentioning that unarmed doesn't mean someone isn't dangerous. Someone plowing their vehicle through pedestrians is considered unarmed in these stats.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 05:06 AM
11

You could always use the UCR. It hasn't been published for 2019 stats yet, but you could use 2018 Table 43 specifically is the one that breaks down crime by race. It even provides percentages in the right hand section. Total crime vs populations: Crime per 1,000,000 White 22,524.39 Black 50,828.80 In other words, black people are 2.26 times more likely to commit crimes in general. But police rarely have to respond violently to general crimes, so the real number of deaths should logically lie bet…
/r/MensRights03/06/20 05:02 AM
12

Careful with that one, always make sure the dad is already roped in to paying for their kid. Otherwise you could be the new pay pig.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/05/20 04:41 AM
1

then why in the fuck doesn't that work the other way around? Because feminism is a supremacy movement that fights against any kind of custody splitting and advocates solely for women. Men don't have any kind of equivalent group of that size or power to counter their constant lobbying. This is also why there's little to no domestic violence aid for men, why abuse hotlines accuse men of being abusers when they call in for help, why most homeless shelters are either women only or family shelters, e…
/r/PussyPassDenied24/05/20 07:19 PM
1

The wage gap is a joke in and of itself
/r/PussyPassDenied24/05/20 07:12 PM
4

The book you're talking about is Self Made Man by Norah Vincent. Funny enough, she had a completely different view of women when she walked away from it as well. As a lesbian, she realized that women treat her much more differently than a straight man. That women were outright hostile towards a man when it comes to dating than they are towards women, as she ended up talking to all these women afterwards and they were much nicer to her. She ended up feeling suicidal after attempting to date as a …
/r/MensRights11/05/20 09:58 PM
1

Now it's obvious you didn't read the story or watch the video. He was invited to talk because women are complaining about lack of chivalry
/r/PussyPassDenied01/05/20 07:29 PM
1

This is entirely in your head. Look at any example of chivalry. Man throwing his coat on a puddle, inconveniencing himself for woman's benefit. Man pulling out girls seat, inconveniencing himself for her benefit Man opening car door for woman, inconveniencing himself for her benefit Man holding door open for women, inconveniencing himself for their benefit Man steps between source of danger and women, inconveniencing and endangering self for their benefit. Give me one example of chivalry that is…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/05/20 07:06 PM
1

The random comedian isn't the person he's talking about in the story. Her opinion is irrelevant. Fact of the matter chivalry to a lot of women means holding the door open, giving up a seat, and generally men inconveniencing themselves for the sake of women. He's talking about his experiences, some random chick saying "well I wouldn't do that" doesn't mean they didn't happen.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/05/20 06:51 PM
1

Apparently you didn't. These are actual things that have been asked of him.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/05/20 01:55 PM
2

Here you go you ignorant fuck
/r/PussyPassDenied01/05/20 07:22 AM
1

Yeah, I'm of the same stance as him with one exception. If a person thinks they're entitled to my kindness then they lose all access to my kindness. It's like trans people with their pronouns. If you ask me nicely, I'll call you whatever you want within reason. If you act like a dickhole and demand I call you something, then I'm not.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/05/20 07:19 AM
1

Big claim about the UK there. Considering they will award alimony to unmarried ex girlfriends. See David Southwell and the ruling forcing him to pay nearly $36000 USD.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/20 11:46 PM
1

It's natural because it's genetic. How do you not get that? Natural and genetic aren't the same thing. Tool use and societal development are both genetic, but neither are "natural" at least by your standards. Secondly, if it isn't right then your whole point is bullshit. Not at all, my point was that it's logical for people to praise someone who did work vs someone who didn't. The genetic information was just background to show why the relative difficulties are different. Again, you need to work…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 12:54 PM
3

You are. Because I never claimed it was "right" because it's natural. In fact I never said anything was natural, I said it was genetic.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 09:44 AM
3

You should work on your literacy and logic skills. Because you're lacking in both
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 09:08 AM
7

Nope, that can apply to both
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 09:07 AM
5

Yes, frequently
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 08:33 AM
1

Damn, yeah that's a good way to put it as well
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 08:29 AM
0

This is just one of many. I didn't feel like spending my night looking for the original. But this has been replicated across age ranges
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 08:26 AM
2

This was just one of many. The results have been replicated pretty consistently. I didn't want to spend my night digging for the original study when this one had basically the same results
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 08:25 AM
4

People can do what they want without being shamed for it. Irrelevant to the discussion, but also it's a stupid point to make. Everyone should be shamed for bad decisions. An attractive man can have more sex with mpre women than the most active woman, still without being shamed. Is he playing "on easy mode"? Even an attractive man has to put more energy into it than the average woman. This thread really is filled with people who don't respect women, and their choices imo. Their free to do whateve…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 08:23 AM
9

Both are intertwined. But as I stated, the "social status" of it is easily explained by the difficulty level. It's much easier for a woman to sleep with a bunch of guys, that's no accomplishment. It's like beating a game on easy mode. It's much more difficult for a man to sleep with a bunch of women, that's an accomplishment. It's like beating a game on hard mode. And I'm actually downsizing the difference in relative ease there. An average woman could sleep with as many partners as she had time…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 07:28 AM
10

Sure, here's one study that references a number of others as well if you want to go down the rabbit hole.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 07:21 AM
12

There's a lot of reasons behind this, but it would be easiest to go over the two bigger intertwined reasons. First, genetics. It's always been more beneficial for the species for women to be more choosey about their partners. Society may have evolved, but our brains are still the same as they were when we were living in caves. Second, and largely based on the first point, The praise men receive is from men who don't want to date them and the choosey women who do. Meanwhile, women have the opposi…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 07:07 AM
16

statistically, the rate of promiscuity correlates highly to a the rate of infidelity. People with more sexual partners are much more likely to cheat. It also correlates highly with divorce, abusiveness, and sexual dissatisfaction. Yeah, that'll always be a pass.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/20 06:58 AM
1

Yes, all that you want to do is spew mindless bullshit, not to have your bullshit countered. You want to be heard, not to listen. This isn't the sub for you, perhaps you'd be better at TwoXChromosomes
/r/MensRights30/03/20 01:16 AM
1

Feminists want to be heard, not to listen. So it was pretty obvious once it turned into a discussion she'd abruptly make an exit. The only real surprise was that, while childish, it was less childish than usual. Feminists are also averse to facts. Bringing citations and logical reasoning to a discussion is the quickest way to scare them off.
/r/MensRights29/03/20 09:58 PM
1

Then feel free to educate yourself before posting on this sub. I didn't sign up to be a third grade teacher, but you didn't see me complaining about having to teach your ignorant self.
/r/MensRights29/03/20 12:31 AM
3

I never said toxic femininity can’t exist as well. Not relevant. And also can you really not see how rape/sexual harassment is associated with men. Nope. There's nothing inherent about being a man that has anything to do with sexual harassment or sexual assault. I know people on this sub always like to bring up how women can be predators but that is very fucking rare. Both are "very fucking rare." But you're obviously very mislead about the numbers here. Outside of prison, sexual predation by wo…
/r/MensRights28/03/20 07:15 PM
12

Why call it "Toxic Masculinity" thoug?h That has absolutely nothing to do with masculinity, at all. To associate it with masculinity is precisely what OP is talking about here.
/r/MensRights28/03/20 08:03 AM
1

They're expecting the pussy pass. Throughout growing up boys are constantly told "never hit a girl" and women are never told the same. The result is women constantly getting away with violence against boys, so they expect that to be upheld always. So they turn their back after hitting people, because they expect that pussy pass to still be valid. Resulting in situations like this where it's denied and they get slapped from behind.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/03/20 09:51 PM
1

They definitely don't do it "as regularly" as Californians. I take it you've never visited India? In most small areas they throw their refuse out on to the streets
/r/PussyPassDenied26/12/19 01:27 AM
1

100% Dudes are out here gassing up bitches that definitely don't deserve it. Some of these guys need to grow a pair of balls and get some standards
/r/PussyPassDenied04/12/19 03:47 PM
3

Incorrect, it's objectively worse than if they'd done nothing. They held several dozen cars there, all on, all emitting CO2. They no doubt rerouted a few hundred more to take longer routes at a slower pace. The result of their protest was far higher emissions that day from everyone they inconvenienced.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/10/19 10:27 AM
2

Nobody has a problem with it. What they're complaining about is that people won't subsidize their sanitary products.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/09/19 07:23 PM
6

Your wife is a wise woman
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/19 03:23 AM
6

They explained it to me in school. That was like first semester in law classes, but it wasn't really a scheduled thing. Someone had been asking about the Duke lacrosse debacle, our professor basically gave us the same advice and even said we should be careful around any women we don't know even in private. It's absolutely sound advice.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/19 03:15 AM
7

Trying to work out the logistics gives me ptsd. But just imagine a shorter fat woman, front of the pants are pulled over the tits. Back of the pants are pulled up to the crease in her back. Testing the limits of both the waistband and the entirety of the material. Also requiring her to constantly pull them up because her gunt was tugging the other end. It was gross, I have no idea as to the why.
/r/MensRights20/06/19 10:23 PM
16

For real. I was in Walmart and this fat chick had managed to get a pair of yoga pants up over her chest and was wearing them as a backless onesie. No top, no bra, and it was pulled so tight you could tell she wasn't wearing any underwear. She literally only had on yoga pants. I almost threw up.
/r/MensRights20/06/19 09:35 PM
1

It's a subreddit to talk about ethics in gaming journalism, as well as SJW politics in gaming. That in addition to its association with gamergate put it on a list of subreddits that a commonly used ban bot uses. You'll be banned from a lot of subs, any that Saferbot moderates for. They include: offmychest, naturalhair, creepyPMs, longdistance, feminisms, women, blackladies, negareddit, racism, rape, blackhair, and antira And you'll be banned for any participation in: the_Donald, Tumblrinaction, …
/r/MensRights20/06/19 03:56 PM
1

Yeah I've tried to get him to a therapist but he usually ends up finding excuses to not go. Not really much I can do for him at this point. I got him back on Reddit for a bit so he could talk on a sub like /rape. But they had pre-banned his account for posting on /KotakuInAction a single time and refused to lift the ban. He has been on /rapecounseling before though, they did something similar by accident but their mods were human enough to let him post there.
/r/MensRights20/06/19 05:38 AM
1

One of my best friends had something similar happen to him a decade ago. His abusive ex that he'd broken up with the week before came to get her things from his apartment, pulled a gun on him, and forced him to have sex with her. He'd gone to the police twice and I didn't believe that they were sending him away each time, he'd been hesitant to press charges on her abuse before so I assumed it was the same thing. I went the last time with him and they told him they'd lock him in a cell for harass…
/r/MensRights20/06/19 04:10 AM
1

Or, more likely, there was no payment. Because if they were pulling money out of his paycheck, they wouldn't have stopped.
/r/MensRights20/05/19 05:20 AM
1

Because he served in that capacity (a father to the child) for a significant period of time. You mean like This man who not only never met the kid before being told he owed $65,000 in child support, but also had a DNA test proving he wasn't the father, and has 3 kids of his own to take care of his own. You can feel free to peddle that bullshit elsewhere.
/r/MensRights20/05/19 03:55 AM
1

Hall of Justi e
/r/MensRights01/04/19 10:45 PM
1

If that's what you came away with after reading through them then there's nothing I can do for you.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 03:10 PM
0

This is all very fascinating, as I'd never had a look into the UK's suffrage movement, or even that it existed at all. What very tiny amount I was aware of was only in the context of the US' history. The movements happened at roughly the same time and were actually pretty mirrored across the continents. I see some interesting references to disrupting public gatherings and attempts to avoid and even destroy the efforts of the census takers of the time. It all seems discouragingly similar to the t…
/r/MensRights31/03/19 03:08 PM
9

Many schools are lacking when it comes to history these days, far left revisionist history doesn't help either.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 03:33 AM
4

The difference is MRA's don't fight against women or their rights. Feminists quite often shut down men's shelters, or fight against default shared parental custody, or push/create things like the Duluth model (used by many police agencies) that works on the assumption that men are always the abuser and that women are incapable of abuse.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 03:31 AM
11

Aside from primary school level history books, here's a link to a module from the Churchill Archives that has primary sources on the subject.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 03:28 AM
1

How many posts on that sub are for men? The only change to the description should be replacing equality with supremacy.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 03:19 AM
32

Even first wave feminists didn't want equality. They wanted privileges(voting) with none of the responsibilities(draft). Hell, the feminists didn't even get women the right to vote, the suffragettes were terrorists who made the general public turn against the idea of women voting. It was the non-violent and non-feminist suffragists who actually got women the right to vote.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 03:17 AM
10

If feminism were actually a fight for equality, they'd have removed the "for women" from the definition long ago. They also wouldn't rally against Men's shelters, excommunicate feminists who do end up attempting to create men's shelters and threatening their families, quite possibly poisoning their dog (Erin Pizzey). Their largest organization wouldn't be rallying against the court system having a system where the default is shared custody with either parent having to prove the other parent is u…
/r/MensRights31/03/19 03:14 AM
3

Except that's not just having control over her own body, it's having control over the child's body and both of their futures. You can make your exact same argument about her having sole responsibility for the kid, because her body, her choice, her responsibility. What I'm saying is either she doesn't get a choice. Or He does as well. Anything else you're just being inconsistent.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 09:16 PM
0

No. I'm saying that if women have the option to give up their rights and responsibilities as a parent and get an abortion. Men should have a similar option to give up their rights and responsibilities as a parent. Unlike women's abortions it wouldn't be unilateral.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 08:37 PM
1

And it's cool if you hold that view. As long as you also say the same shit to women about abortions. Otherwise you're just being entirely inconsistent. But currently there is a second choice that women have after sex, and men should equally get their own second choice to opt out of parenthood after conception.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 07:50 PM
9

Again, you seem to have missed the point. Only one gender has a choice after conception and that's what matters. The fact that women can have sex, and then dodge the consequences while men have no such second choice is what we're talking about here.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 07:49 PM
1

Sure it is, but men shouldn't be considered the parent if they didn't want the kid and had no say during the pregnancy. If they wanted the kid when it was born, then sure child support is fine. However, men should have every right to drop out during pregnancy and give up all rights and responsibilities the same way women do with abortions.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 07:27 PM
11

You don't get to have it both ways. Either there's a second choice during pregnancy or the only choice is whether or not to have sex. If women are allowed to get a second choice, men should be allowed to have one as well.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 07:23 PM
10

But only one has a choice post conception, while we're forcing the other to take financial responsibility despite having no choice. Lets put it this way. If a woman can't afford a child after conception, she can abort it. This is actually the second most cited reason for abortions (the first being lifestyle changes). If a man can't afford a child after conception, he's at the whims of the woman. He has no say, no choice, but still has the responsibility for a choice he isn't allowed to make. Wom…
/r/MensRights24/03/19 07:20 PM
23

How is all this nonsense getting upvotes? Because not everyone here is as retarded as you are. You use you two incredibly rare cases in order to avoid addresses the overwhelmingly most common one: Men who choose to have sex without a condom. Lets assume this scenario. It takes two to tango, so thanks to the choices of both she is now pregnant. Why is she the only one who can now opt out of parenthood? Why should the men only have that one choice while women have two? A woman should not be able t…
/r/MensRights24/03/19 07:09 PM
10

Men will attack your body, women will attack your existence. Damn, this is the truest thing I've ever read.
/r/MensRights07/03/19 07:48 PM
23

I'm going to call bullshit on this. It took 5 years for my dad to get custody. A disabled veteran working in a factory lifting 100lb parts every day just so he could meet their high income demand, despite the fact that he was already receiving more than enough for his disabled status. During that time my brothers, my mother, and I were living on the street. Literally, living on the street. I was a middle schooler fighting grown men off in the middle of the night to keep what little we had, and t…
/r/MensRights10/02/19 12:33 AM
7

Well that's the funny thing. Supposedly masculinity is fragile, despite it being under attack 24/7 But you call a chick fat and she falls apart.
/r/MensRights07/02/19 10:26 PM
1

Mocking penis size: shattering fragile masculinities Mocking breast size: misogynistic body shaming Yep, that's feminism alright. Also, what the fuck would this have to do with capitalism?
/r/MensRights07/02/19 10:18 PM
1

You are not correct about the common effects of pregnancy, much less the rarer severe effects. I didn't mention the severe effects, but all the common effects I've listed are all present in your links. Stretch marks, weight gain, and morning sickness are all there. Unless your argument is that I listed too few? But I never claimed those were anywhere close to the only side effects. Poo-poohing the effects because you're not at risk for them doesn't make women more sanguine about the possible con…
/r/MensRights02/02/19 09:10 PM
2

Yeah, it'd be hard for them. They'll just avoid it.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 11:47 PM
1

In reverse order: abortion is absolutely about removing an organism that is using you for life support. If it were about ‘becoming a parent,’ women would just put the kid up for adoption. Incorrect. If this were the case, then Virginia wouldn't be trying to pass a bill allowing for post-birth abortion. But moreso, women hate the side effects of pregnancy like morning sickness, weight gain, and the stretch marks they get after birth. Abortion is the means they bypass that and the responsibility o…
/r/MensRights01/02/19 11:47 PM
2

The funniest thing is they're constantly trying to undermine our posts. I've encountered two obvious feminists here this week claiming they were "for men's rights" but the only things they've done on posts is say "this isn't a problem" and shit like "women have it worse" And they never bring facts to anything, they only make brazen claims with nothing to back them up.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 07:31 PM
3

Waiting for all the feminist lurkers who try to undermine every men's issue post on here to explain why it's fine that she sexually assaulted someone.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 07:13 PM
1

Eh to me it's more a sign of how much they care about themselves. Someone willing to put effort into themselves and making themselves healthy is much more likely to be a stable person and much more suited to a relationship.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 07:09 PM
1

There's actually less female victims per year, even without counting prison stats. If you count prison stats women become roughly a third of rape victims. This is usually sweet under the rug because statistical compilations like the NISVS have rape defined so that it is exclusively "being penetrated." And then they throw "made to penetrate" under "other sexual violence" In reality men are "made to penetrate" at higher rates than women are "penetrated by force, against their will, under duress, o…
/r/MensRights01/02/19 07:07 PM
6

It's funny because women judge guys on both their looks and their possessions/money. But it's still less superficial to go with someone based on their looks. At least it says something about them as a person if they put work into how they look and care for themselves.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 06:57 PM
1

That's part of the truth behind Dick Masterson's satire.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 06:52 PM
1

LOL. I want mens’ lives to be better, and you can’t even agree with that. You want men's lives to be what you want. Different people want different things, and you're trying to force what you personally consider better onto others. Many men would rather give up benefits in order to make things better for them or their family, they should have that option. I want equality at a higher level- everyone to have the same benefits; you want equality at the lower level, everyone’s lives to be shit. Inco…
/r/MensRights01/02/19 05:34 AM
1

It’s so funny when people online think that they made a point just because people with real lives have better things to do than wait with bated breath for their response. What are you even talking about? Nothing in my post was doing this, in any way. Please respond to the industry article I posted wrt male driving, before I continue the discussion with you. I already did. It was the last half of the first paragraph which quoted it. Men have more expensive repairs and use the insurance more, that…
/r/MensRights01/02/19 04:36 AM
1

It's not exactly Tinder, it's the internet in general. Women have access to more men, with less social restrictions on their behavior. As a result they just tend to act like scumbags with no way to sort the decent ones from the shitters.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 03:24 AM
2

almost all of the women I know are feminists. Not surprising, given the behavior you've exhibited here. However, less than half of women identify as feminists. 46% of 18-35 year olds, 34% of women over 35. you’re right that it doesn’t bear on private/for profit health care; they’d be happy to see 99% of the world die in a flood, as long as they had their yachts. I don't give a shit about your idiotic socialist argument. We're talking about forcing men to subsidize women's healthcare, because men…
/r/MensRights01/02/19 03:22 AM
1

Most of the women I know want their male partners to use healthcare more, and it can be argued that labor and delivery benefits the population as a whole. 1) Most women aren't feminists 2) That has no bearing on the argument being made. What happened was they forced men to subsidize all of the costs women incur due to their more frequent visits. It actually makes men LESS likely to go to the hospital because now it's even more expensive for men. As for car insurance, if teenage girls are statist…
/r/MensRights01/02/19 01:12 AM
1

All are the same in this regard. Feminists don't want actual equality, they never have. Feminists want to keep the special privileges afforded to women, while taking away any benefits men have. Just look at insurance. Men pay more for car insurance, women used to pay more for health insurance. Both because that group uses the insurance more. Women became outraged and now health insurance has to be equal, so men now pay more than they used to have to. Now women are starting to pass men on car ins…
/r/MensRights01/02/19 12:29 AM
2

What I'm saying though, is when you were dating was it a common occurrence that you'd pay for a date, then never hear from the woman again? Because that's what guys in this generation have to deal with.
/r/MensRights31/01/19 11:01 PM
6

That was probably when I established how I did dating after that. Every date I went on after that, up until my current girlfriend, I would wait and see if they offered to pay anything for it. If it didn't happen, I'd tell the waitress to split the bill, pay it, and leave. If she did offer to pay her part, which is what my girlfriend did, then I'd just pay the whole thing and ask her on a second date. It worked well, cut out a lot of garbage I'd had to put up with before that point.
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:59 PM
1

If you throw out every feminist who doesn't fit the definition, you'd only have like 2 left. Feminism is a political movement, the vast majority of those who follow the political movement don't fit the definition but are still feminists.
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:55 PM
3

She only wants equality where it suits her, not full equality for both genders. So a feminist
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:53 PM
1

That's bumble for you
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:53 PM
1

I know a few girls who use it that way. Of course, they have like 4 and 3 kids to 3 separate dads and work dead-end jobs because they make poor life decisions.
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:51 PM
5

Couldn't be, that's my password. They can't be the same
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:47 PM
2

Shit, this is on point.
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:47 PM
1

Did you ask your co-worker if she realized that guns exist and don't care whether it's a man or woman in front of the barrel or behind the trigger?
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:46 PM
3

My current girlfriend offered to pay, which was really the metric by which i decided on whether I wanted a second date or not. If they offer to pay, then I'll cover it and ask them out again in the future. If they don't offer to pay, I tell the waiter we're on split checks, pay my shit, and leave. I used to be nicer about it, but I stopped giving a shit.
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:43 PM
9

I'm sure it worked fine for when you were dating, or for the age range you're dating. But for the younger generation of men it's a no. Women aren't bound by the same social contract that was around when you were younger. Now a common occurrence is you pay for everything, then she never contacts you again because she just wanted a free meal and didn't give a shit about you to begin with. Women have jobs now, women are actually being paid more than men in our age range. Asking that men also pay fo…
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:39 PM
12

I had a girl who tried to pull this shit. first date and she asks for the most expensive shit on the menu, while I ordered something basic. She gets an expensive bottle of wine, not just a glass she asked for the bottle. So I noped the fuck out of there. Went to the "restroom," paid my shit at the front, and drove off. I'm nobody's piggy bank. Honestly thought about just dipping out and not even paying my portion, but I'm not that big of a douche
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:31 PM
7

The last place any woman wants equality is in dating. If women started getting treated the way men are treated in dating, their suicide rate would probably shoot past ours for a bit. Reminder that the woman who pretended to be a man for a year and a half, Norah Vincent, was suicidal towards the end after dealing with the way that women treat men. Relevant video, be sure to watch to the point where the woman she approaches apologizes once she realizes Norah was a woman.
/r/MensRights31/01/19 10:17 PM
1

Granted, it's possible there's very little room for improvement when ego fills all the gaps. Or, you know, toxic shit isn't as frequent as you'd like to believe and people who call it out when they see it can't magically make more appear to do that more often. What a shame. Your loss then No evidence to back your claims mean all of your claims can be discarded. I assume you sense naivety on the other side of your screen, which would be an assumption. That would be the assumption I started with, …
/r/MensRights30/01/19 10:12 PM
1

Of course they aren't assuming that, because that would be insane and ignorant. 'Room for improvement' doesn't mean if you haven't tried or don't try or won't that you're a bad person, or that you're guilty. Except those are the exact implications of the video. Unless you're arguing that "room for improvement" was the one guy who stopped a man before he even talked to a woman. I can give you random names that mean nothing to you because you don't know them, but they mean something to the communi…
/r/MensRights30/01/19 01:54 PM
1

Lets be real, we all can be a bit better. Even if you're perfect, trying can only do more good than harm. So you've ceded the ground that they are assuming men aren't already doing this. Hyperbole and generalisations? It's neither. I know plenty, but they aren't household names or published notaries, they are honest women trying their best to improve the world for other women. So you have none. Then fuck off, you've brought nothing to back up your claims. I can promise you that very few people w…
/r/MensRights30/01/19 06:46 AM
1

What you're describing here is much more blatantly violent than how commonly encountered toxic masculinity manifests, which is much more insidious but still harmful. Except it's not. The ad isn't claiming if a guy is sexually assaulting a woman in the street that they should step in because they aren't already. That's exactly what it's saying by claiming that men should "be better." Telling someone to "be better" is implying that they can do better. The only way in which that can be interpreted …
/r/MensRights30/01/19 06:00 AM
1

Interpretation of the ad's message aside, I definitely don't agree with the statement 'real men have to defend women from everything'. That's precisely what the ad is saying and attempting to make use of. What do men do when they see a man attacking a woman in public? Think, what happens every single time regardless of who started the incident? He gets attacked and swarmed by every other guy in the area, like this. Hell even criminals hate them, rapists usually get separated from other prisoners…
/r/MensRights30/01/19 05:12 AM
1

I agree that prescribing a definition of masculinity part of the problem for sure, but ultimately the takeaway isn't that only men and all men are responsible for stopping behaviour they don't do. That is exactly the takeway. If that weren't the takeaway then they wouldn't be addressing solely men. The point is that women have been speaking up about this for a very long time, and men with toxic behaviour aren't listening or changing. As have men, which is why this ad is bullshit. These are liter…
/r/MensRights30/01/19 04:36 AM
0

Then men who are, for the most part, the most sexist towards women are surely less likely to listen to them. And that group would be just as unlikely to listen to a man sticking up for them. Did you not read the last half of that paragraph? I'm not sure that follows. Onus is one thing, sole responsibility is another and that's an assumption. Incorrect, it absolutely follows. Placing any responsibility on men to stop something that they themselves aren't doing is engaging in the exact behavior th…
/r/MensRights30/01/19 03:30 AM
1

That's a moronic assumption. "Toxic" men still listen to women, and the ones who don't are going to disregard men saying the same shit. Also, Gillette is perpetuating this toxic behavior by trying to put the onus on men to solve the problem. Go back to whatever hole you crawled out of a week late.
/r/MensRights30/01/19 02:51 AM
6

There wasn't even any negative or shitty comments being posted. No mass deletions or anything along those lines that typically accompany a locked post. They couldn't be more obvious or blatant about their hatred of men.
/r/MensRights17/01/19 11:33 PM
8

It's ridiculous that a thread throwing out such a simple concept would get locked down. "You should compliment men more." I've gotten one compliment my entire life from someone who wasn't family or who wanted sex that night. She complimented my shirt, I still have that shirt, it's full of holes from when my old dryer ate it and I can't really wear it out in public. But I couldn't bring myself to throw it away.
/r/MensRights17/01/19 11:20 PM
7

Not only that, it put the onus on men to police other men. I didn't sign up to police men because I popped out of the womb with a penis. Could you imagine holding ALL women responsible for false rape accusations and murdering children, going so far as to tell them it's their job to stop it? How about we call out shitty behavior when we see it, regardless of gender. And never hold others responsible for actions they didn't take.
/r/MensRights17/01/19 10:16 PM
3

There's something similar in the US called the "batterers hotline." Roughly 70% of phone calls by men to domestic violence hotlines get forwarded there. And roughly 20% are just accused outright of being the abuser.
/r/MensRights11/12/18 08:13 AM
17

Definitely need this higher. I spent several years homeless as a teen while my father fought in court for custody. Fake stories do no good in getting issues solved, we don't need those tactics around here.
/r/MensRights29/03/18 10:32 PM
24

It doesn't fit the far left tilt of Reddit, so it doesn't belong in /r/nottheonion
/r/MensRights04/02/18 11:09 PM
1

Youre wrong but it doesn't even matter. Not at all, I'm correct. No one should be fired because they said something 'offensive' Sure, I agree. But that's not the way this world works. They are already doing this and will continue to do so unhindered because there's nothing we can do at the moment. The solution is to do the same until that approach becomes unusable. Have you been asleep this entire conversation or what?
/r/MensRights08/12/17 10:03 PM
0

Oh his sex and race you say. In other words.. his identity? Yes, because she was utilizing identity politics. You still don't seem to understand what Identity politics are. Identity politics is when you make decisions or justifications based on one's identity. E.G. "that's your white male privilege" This tactic we've been talking about from the start is punishing the use of identity politics. No identity politics are used in the process. It's not because of his identity or her identity, it's bec…
/r/MensRights08/12/17 07:25 PM
1

Nah, I'm done feeding the trolls for now. Something much more interesting has come up. If you are ever interested in a real conversation though, you'll just have to justify your assertion first
/r/MensRights08/12/17 07:20 PM
3

No, you didn't. just because you idiots were too stupid to take advantage of your white privilege and your male privilege Justify it or be a bigot elsewhere.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 07:14 PM
1

It wasn't that she simply used an offensive phrase. It was that she dismissed a colleague based on his sex and race and that the entirety of that act is offensive.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 07:12 PM
3

Again, I'm not going to allow you to shift the scope. Either justify your assertion or we'll keep doing this loop.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 07:09 PM
0

I think you may be retarded bro. We're not talking about using HER tactics, we're talking about using their tactics. Specifically firing them for offensive comments. We're not talking about using the identity politics of her offensive comment, but their process of firing for offense.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 07:00 PM
4

No, you didn't. You attempted to shift scope and I'm not going to allow that. Demonstrate to me where I was "too stupid" to take advantage of "privilege". You made the assertion, now justify it.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 06:56 PM
1

You may need to look up identity politics, because these aren't them. We're simply appropriating their tactic of firing individuals for saying offensive shit.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 06:53 PM
5

Yep, I read your edit, doesn't have any bearing on your assertion though: just because you idiots were too stupid to take advantage of your white privilege and your male privilege Show me where I was "too stupid" to take advantage of my "white privilege" and my "male privilege" You generalized everyone in this thread now pull your head out of your ass and justify it.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 06:41 PM
1

Which is essentially impossible and in the meantime what happens? You're advocating that we just sit and take it, nothing more.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 06:27 PM
4

just because you idiots were too stupid to take advantage of your white privilege and your male privilege Show me where
/r/MensRights08/12/17 06:17 PM
2

If you don't allow them to get their way when they throw a fit, they stop. How do you propose that happens? They've infiltrated most of the places of power over this area. If you made a comment like hers you would 100% be fired, you can't just "not allow" them to do it. The only option now is to use it against them until it's no longer an option on the table.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 06:16 PM
4

Have fun being a bigot elsewhere
/r/MensRights08/12/17 06:13 PM
2

Her "one stupid comment" demonstrated that fact on its own.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 06:05 PM
4

Only one who seems to be brainwashed here is yourself. I've had tons of friends let of for drug offenses, the key is to not be an asshole and to not be in a shitty area of town And apparently you've not been with many women while buying shit, they're the ones treated as the primary buyer. Salesmen like to target the "ball and chain" to push a sale. I know they targeted my girlfriend when I was looking for my new car. Again when your descriptor is inapplicable to many, if not most, cases then it'…
/r/MensRights08/12/17 05:41 PM
2

White privilege and male privilege don't exist. The only true privilege in this country is money. White people make up the majority in underprivileged areas, that's not a nuisance that's a complete defeat of the idea of "white privilege." The same can be said for male privilege. If you're searching a website for a sofa and choose to exclude blue ones with the filter and your search is still 75-90% blue sofas then that's a pretty retarded filter isn't it? And quit trying to back out of your state…
/r/MensRights08/12/17 05:27 PM
3

Your whats called an outlier bro. Some amount of reasonableness is required for this topic, not extemisim. Incorrect, I'm not at all an outlier. Most homeless people are men, most of those are white men. Most victims of violence are men. Most job fatalities are men. Most suicides are men. Most combat deaths are men. Most child support is paid by men. Most custody cases are awarded against men. When you claim that white people are privileged, despite them being the majority of underprivileged peo…
/r/MensRights08/12/17 05:10 PM
1

They're all equally concerning. Individually they show that she is not somebody who can remain objective when interacting with citizens. She's stated her racist and sexist viewpoints brazenly while working in official capacity. She is a massive liability to the citizens and department as a whole. I sure as fuck know my lawyer would have a field day if I were ever arrested by her.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 04:57 PM
3

Sigh...just because you idiots were too stupid to take advantage of your white privilege and your male privilege doesnt mean it isnt real. Ive abused mine plenty. I must have lost my male privilege card when I was homeless living on the street at 15. Maybe I left it in the library where I spent most of my time because it was safe and warm. Maybe I lost it fighting grown men in the middle of the night to keep what was ours. Or maybe it was left behind when my dad finally won custody of me and my …
/r/MensRights08/12/17 04:52 PM
6

If you think that will do anything to make them stop, then I'm sorry but you're retarded.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 03:56 PM
3

Indy is a real shithole filled with the regressive left. It is disgusting and one reason why I don't want to stick around here much longer.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 03:54 PM
3

Also, you're the one who said fighting fire with fire was the way to go, don't blame the cliche on me. Incorrect. I said using their weapons and tactics against them are the best way to have them eliminated. MAD is a totally different thing, doesn't really apply here, and is another cliche. No, it's quite applicable here but we could use anything that has been banned from warfare. Toxic gas, bio weapons, nondetectable fragments, etc.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 03:46 PM
16

Both sides having nukes is the only way to ensure that neither ever use them. Your cliché only works when there aren't any stakes. When stakes are present, having the same weapons makes for a good deterrent.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 03:26 PM
11

Not at all, and she maintained that rank after being caught violating the alcohol policy. Something their own policy says results in firing. Just not if you're a woman.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 03:22 PM
19

She did receive a letter of reprimand on her file and this is only her first offense. No sense in ruining her life over this. This isn't her first offence. This is her third in four months. All of which demonstrate her to be unfit, if not dangerous, to the public and a liability to the station. In September she demonstrated unstable paranoia, something which we definitely don't need in the police force. Stating at the gun range "I need to get out of here fast before one of these fuckers shoots m…
/r/MensRights08/12/17 03:06 PM
8

To some here it is. To me it demonstrates that she is unable to effectively perform her job, as she's openly and explicitly spoken her racist and sexist views while acting in an official capacity.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 02:39 PM
23

You don't win a battle by sitting there and taking it. You use their own tactics against them and strike back. That's how these weapons get eliminated from future battles.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 02:36 PM
7

We're never going to cure then of their delusions. What we can do is make sure those delusions aren't present in a place that has power over the citizens of this country. It's also noteworthy that she's had two other issues in the past 4 months showing she's unsuitable for the position. She expressed delusion and paranoia in September, stating at the gun range "I need to get out of here as soon as possible before one of these fuckers shoots me in the back." She disregarded their alcohol policy i…
/r/MensRights08/12/17 02:34 PM
6

Oh believe me, I will. "Recently one of your officers, Carri Weber, has demonstrated she is unfit to police this city. She has been very vocal and made public her sexist and racist beliefs, something that we should never have in an institution with power over citizens. This is wholly unacceptable, and what's more unacceptable is that you have taken actions against the officer who spoke up about this behavior. Racist and sexist beliefs are unacceptable in a police force, and your actions thus far…
/r/MensRights08/12/17 01:55 PM
38

She was actually reinstated today. I'm going to be going over to the station to state my objection that they would allow someone so blatantly and outspokenly racist and sexist police the community.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 05:06 AM
9

Most of Indianapolis is incredibly retarded that way. I feel sorry for cops like this that have been stuck while the Indy area has expanded through their once small towns.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 05:02 AM
188

This is a tactic I'm quite alright with appropriating. They created this system where offense gets you fired, I'm glad to see it backfiring on them. I'm going to be sure to head over to the station next week express that it would be disgusting to have such a blatantly racist and sexist individual in the community with a badge. A temporary suspension is certainly not enough. Edit: And she's been reinstated, I'll definitely be going over there to say something.
/r/MensRights08/12/17 04:57 AM
1

"The Nordics" are doing the exact opposite of what Bernie said he wanted to do...
/r/MensRights09/11/17 03:12 AM
1

The poor are never taxed more than the rich, even in the US. What I'm saying is Bernie would raise everyone's taxes, and it would have the largest impact on the poor and middle class. And the reason why you don't tax the rich to 80 or 90% the way Bernie proposed, is because they're the only demographic who can leave. You tax the wealthy too much, they'll leave your country and make another country rich instead. France alone lost 12,000 millionaires due to this fact, and as a result Australia, th…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 11:53 PM
1

But, I'm not talking about Venezuela. No, you weren't. But Bernie was... I'm talking about Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Finland. None of which are socialist or "democratic socialist." They're all capitalist with social programs, and to enact their policies they did exactly the opposite of what Bernie says he wants to do. Higher tax rates on the poor and working class, lower tax rate on the corporations. The corporate tax rate in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc. never goes above 28% while in…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 11:08 PM
1

Too retarded to know it's already illegal, he's actually drafting up a bill to do the exact same thing that's already legislated. Although I'm guessing his won't cover male victims, so a little different.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 08:51 PM
4

Why isn't shared custody the default? That way nobody has to pay child support. Lawyers and judges wouldn't get paid though. Because NOW and other large feminist organizations protested default shared custody. They said it makes the woman have to prove the father unfit to have to take custody away and for some reason that's a bad thing. Sounds like the exact fucking way the court system should work to me. But that's feminism for you.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 08:45 PM
1

Meninism is a fake satire movement. The intent was to take feminist talking points and reverse the genders. It was only ever intended to point out the hypocrisy of feminism to the general public. And to your third point, she didn't complain because she caused it. Donna Brazille has been outing them the past week or two. Hillary provided funds to the failing DNC in exchange for being given the election, she didn't get the election so now all the funds are drying out everywhere. I'll just write yo…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 08:27 PM
3

You'd be jailed for simply swabbing the inside of his mouth with a q-tip for DNA... What were you saying about a failing justice system again?
/r/MensRights01/11/17 09:23 PM
1

My appeal to emotion is better than your cop facts. Not at all, your appeal to emotion is nothing but fear mongering. It's the same logic that idiots used to justify lynching gays because they might touch their kids. And oh by the way ... that doesnt mean the facts i presented were wrong. Its just a convienient way to not have to answer them. Nice open discussion. The "facts" presented were wrong, I pointed out out exactly how they were wrong separately. Quit being retarded. Depending on the cal…
/r/MensRights01/11/17 05:54 PM
1

Harassment is literally continued behavior. If it's just aggressive and pushy behavior, it is not harassment. It has to be continued to be called harassment. No, it doesn't. The definition of harassment is: Harassment - Aggressive pressure or intimidation. It's funny, Webster has a great example of this in definition B2: to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct * was being harassed by her classmates * claims that the police…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 08:34 PM
1

Did you know some sex offenders have cant be near children in their probation parole restrictions. So for some guy to be taking pictures of kids ... might actually be breaking a restriction. And being within a certain distance of a school would constitute such restrictions as well ** guess we should stop and harass every person walking within spitting distance of a school**. And, by the way, he has no obligation to present any identifying information to the cop in this situation. You don't have …
/r/MensRights30/10/17 05:53 PM
1

One of the stipulations for something to be harassment is continued behavior. Asking someone once why they are taking pictures of kids is not legally harassment. Hey dumbass, was anybody talking about taking them to jail for calling the police? Did anyone say those cops should be in jail for talking to him. No, nobody is talking about legality we're using the common fucking usage of the word harassment. Which is "aggressive pressure or intimidation." And calling a guy with a gun to talk to someo…
/r/MensRights30/10/17 05:45 PM
7

What does calling the police solve in this situation? They'll never take him away BECAUSE HE'S NOT BREAKING THE LAW, so what does calling them accomplish other than wasting our tax dollars and giving you a big "justice" chubby thinking about stopping a potential kiddy fiddler, even though an actual chomo wouldn't have been deterred in any way by it.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 11:19 PM
8

Here, lets put it this way. What possibly could he have responded to them with for them do have done something? If he was a pedophile, do you ACTUALLY think he would have said "Oh yeah, I'm taking pictures of these kids to abduct them." or anything else that would show an actual crime being committed? If your answer is yes, you're absolutely retarded. Otherwise, the police are just harassing the guy.
/r/MensRights29/10/17 11:13 PM
1

Every time I see that sub and TwoX I'm reminded of a thought expressed by Dick Masterson Racism can be lessened through exposure to another culture. Sexism works in the exact opposite way.
/r/MensRights19/10/17 06:22 PM
3

Gerrymandering. Show me one example of Republicans or Democrats going "You know what, these Black people agree with my politics but they're black so I'm putting them in this county with all the other blacks." Gerrymandering has zero racial aspects to it, it's all politics to get the most votes for your guy. They don't give a fuck what color you are, they just want the votes. Gentrification The most moronic thing I've ever heard. White people are demonized for leaving (white flight), they're demo…
/r/MensRights18/10/17 01:09 AM
1

For us to not be ostracized by feminism, you'd have to destroy feminism. The movement is a supremacist movement best summed up by one of the moderators at r/Feminism that was posted in another thread. That last comment betrays the intent of the movement completely, the same way their actions do. They'll fight for every government dollar to go towards women only programs and leave men like Earl Silverman to fund a male equivalent out of pocket, until he goes bankrupt and kills himself in his gara…
/r/MensRights17/10/17 07:11 PM
6

Who constitutes the majority of criminals? Oh right, we're top dog there too. I wonder if it's related. Black lives matter is basically feminism for black folks. That is to say it's a supremacist movement working under the guise and stated goal of equality. Black people make up 50% of violent crimes and 50% of deaths by police officers. White people make up 25% of violent crimes and 25% of deaths by police officers. How odd that the main complaint of BLM lines up perfectly with the rates of viol…
/r/MensRights17/10/17 06:58 PM
4

And you'd be wrong. All lives do not face concentrated government sponsored efforts against them (be it policing, zoning, voting rights suppression, etc.), nor do they face a daily racist stigma in even the most passive interactions. No lives do.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 06:47 PM
3

"I don't know how, or why, or any information on the subject. But women have it worse. If you want those icky facts and statistics just go to someone who knows more on the topic...who agrees with me" But you're out of luck because everyone who knows more on the topic knows this to be false. So you lose the argument.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 12:04 AM
7

Their sub was being bombarded from other subs yesterday because of that exact thread. Meta threads popped up all over and as a result posts outside the echo chamber were upvoted. Your post being one of them says nothing about the sub. The same way that pro-Trump posts being negative on /r/the_Donald say nothing about the user base, it just gets raided a lot.
/r/MensRights31/08/17 03:19 PM
1

The question is: Would you rather put in minimal effort to protect yourself? Or get railed up the ass by Title IX if someone gets offended?
/r/MensRights31/08/17 03:14 PM
2

Its a high school teacher. He didn't learn economics, he was put into the position because they needed an econ teacher.
/r/MensRights31/08/17 02:45 PM
1

I believe she mentions she teaches statistics. If that's not her profession then I stand corrected. All of her courses are CS courses, none involve statistics, and she states in the very first line of the article she's a lecturer for computer science. The rest of your arguments are simply a dismissal of hers so we have nothing to discuss. Correct, and do you want to know why? Because claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence Your judgment of her writing as moronic carries no mean…
/r/MensRights15/08/17 04:41 PM
2

May I interest you in a take on this by a Stanford statistics professor Computer science, not statistics, she says so in the first sentence. who makes a good case about the irrelevance of data in relationship to the google "manifesto" specifically? She doesn't make a good case at all. Her entire argument is moronic and relies on the "women are always victims everywhere" narrative. I found this poignant and worth my time. I found it to be retarded and a complete waste of mine. She provides no evi…
/r/MensRights15/08/17 12:59 PM
5

Data and methodology is what talks. Interpretations of that data can be morphed to fit whatever you want it to. But so long as the methodology is sound the data will show the truth. If you can't provide data or find a study that shows its data, then your studies are shit.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 05:11 AM
14

He probably thinks "male privilege" is actually a thing and this is his attempt to use it. He hasn't realized you have to put the code in first.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 05:08 AM
3

Facts and logic ist verboten
/r/MensRights11/08/17 04:40 AM
3

The last sentence was a comparable analogy. Please learn how to read and learn basic logic. Is your response when someone says "that's calling the kettle black" to say "I didn't call any kettles black, stop putting words in my mouth"
/r/MensRights13/07/17 10:33 PM
6

I didn't put any words in your mouth. You're claiming he thinks it's okay to have relationships with little boys. That wasn't his statement. His statement was that he didn't feel he'd been raped and that his relationship with an adult was fine for him because he felt it was on his terms. The last sentence was a comparable analogy. You're actually calling a victim of pedophilia a pedophile because he doesn't feel he was a victim.
/r/MensRights13/07/17 10:09 PM
10

Milo's statement, that was taken out of context and used to drag him through the dirt. Was that he didn't feel like he'd been raped when he was having sex with men while he was underage. You're calling a victim a rapist, because he doesn't feel he was raped.
/r/MensRights13/07/17 09:52 PM
3

And was the kid his? Stupid question, I know, but we do have precedents of people being forced to pay despite having tests proving they aren't the father.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 05:50 AM
1

His show made it easy to make him seem that way. But from everything I've seen of him outside that he's a pretty stand-up guy
/r/MensRights07/05/17 04:22 AM
9

Kutcher is actually a really great guy, this wouldn't surprise me at all.
/r/MensRights06/05/17 09:18 PM
1

The real reason I got in to card magic as a kid
/r/MensRights27/04/17 03:41 PM
2

Phillips v. Irons, 883 N.E.2d 1151 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) She is possibly responsible for the crime of rape. He is responsible for supporting the child.
/r/MensRights27/04/17 03:38 PM
1

I concur. Shit, blood, and piss everywhere. Took that job in high school. You ever seen a bloody tampon with shit smears stuck to the ceiling? Like seriously, fuck whoever finds that to be a good option, especially when the trashcans in the damn stalls are empty.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:48 PM
2

Never trust a woman who can sneak her shits.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 07:43 PM
2

Well it's just a shit line. It isn't very good even if they weren't hypocritical about it. It's basically what children do.
/r/MensRights19/04/17 03:09 AM
5

Oh they provide me with endless laughs. Especially when they make assumptions, and even moreso when they took to time to go to my profile to message me but 30 seconds in my post history would reveal this about me. Entertaining during a slow day at work. But to answer your question, no. They want it to define you, but in reverse to what they think it currently is.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 05:59 PM
3

At least until SRS pops in to exorcise the wrongthink. That's about the only thing exercised around there though.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 04:49 PM
4

It's been ask over the place. Probably got linked on a feminist sub. Been up for an hour, saw it at 29 once, -15 soon after, and resting at 4 now. Pretty interesting to observe
/r/MensRights18/04/17 04:46 PM
23

This is misandry and lack of common sense, neither of which feminism actually advocates. But both of which feminism actively engages in on large scale. "Teach men not to rape" ring any bells for you? You may have heard remarks suggestin hatred towards males in general under the name of feminism, but that's just a wrong use of the word. Then the entirety of the movement is just a wrong use of the word. This is what feminism was founded on. Benefits for women, detriments for men. Voting with no se…
/r/MensRights18/04/17 04:43 PM
6

Ummmm, the number of people drop (that's normal) but the gender ratio drops, which is strange phenomenon. No, it's not. Science essentially becomes a completely different subject at that stage. More math based, more abstract, less fun, less group based, less experimentation. Unless you're trying to say that women only want to do silly experiments aren't interested and/or capable of doing serious science. They're less interested in serious science, yes. Same way men are less interested in serious…
/r/MensRights18/04/17 04:35 PM
19

This sounds like a Jezebel or VICE article
/r/MensRights18/04/17 04:29 PM
32

Lol no it is not. It's gender equality. Incorrect. The actions of feminists have never been about equality. Even first wave feminism didn't want equality. Which is why they wanted the ability to vote without the selective service that made up the other side of that contract. All of the benefit, none of the detriment. Equality+, if you will. This is not equality. Correct, and neither is feminism. There are other things I mentioned (encouraging math and science for girls and English and comprehens…
/r/MensRights18/04/17 04:28 PM
57

Good on you bro. Kids need to learn a measured response to authority. Between sheep-like obedience and moronic sheep-like violent contrarianism.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 04:10 PM
8

Hahaha, I can't tell if you're serious or not. Do people actually still use "Drumpf" seriously?
/r/MensRights18/04/17 04:04 PM
8

In other words. As science stays to become more about science than silly experiments, interest drops off. Gee, I wonder why.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 03:48 PM
99

WTF. This is not feminism. This hurts everyone involved. That's where you're wrong. That's exactly what feminism is. Spez: For the three of you who messaged me dictionary definitions. Actions betray speech, post this article on one of your feminist subs and feel free to message me after your thread is deleted. And to the rest of you messaging me, thanks for the laughs. I read each and every message and laugh my ass off. I'll take the time here to quote my favorite. You don't know what feminism r…
/r/MensRights18/04/17 03:33 PM
50

What do you mean future rapists? They become rapists at conception. You think the mother gave them permission to do anything they're doing in there? She didn't even give them permission to be male.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 03:30 PM
5

That was their intention, so don't be too down about it.
/r/MensRights11/04/17 02:27 AM
3

Not really, I can't find any information of priors on him. And if he did, they'd most likely be adding that to the narrative.
/r/MensRights11/04/17 12:36 AM
11

It said he was being charged with felony possession of a firearm. You don't get a felony possession charge if you've never been convicted of something that prevents you from having a firearm. You do, actually. Felony possession of a firearm is a charge you get when you use a firearm to commit a felony. In this case they're charging him with manslaughter (felony) and since it was committed with a firearm that gives the additional charge of felony possession. You're confusing felony possession wit…
/r/MensRights11/04/17 12:28 AM
22

The article doesn't say he's been involved in a lot of violent crime. It says SHE was involved in a lot of violent crime. When they're saying "victim" they're talking about her, because it's a sympathy for the woman piece.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 09:35 PM
2

Edit: God damn it fucking ABC Chicago, reporting on New York, fucking me up. This was in New York, ignore the information below until I update the post with the correct information for New York. Okay, New York does not have stand your ground laws. It does require a retreat before taking appropriate force. He still would have a case if it can be argued that she was already in his house before presenting the knife, or that he was unable to retreat into his apartment while she was attacking him. Bo…
/r/MensRights10/04/17 09:19 PM
1

In fact, I find luke cage to be alright despite the obvious pandering in the show. They'll be fine as long as they make it appealing to both audiences
/r/MensRights05/04/17 08:36 PM
3

Badly written ideological pandering from a character that has been arbitrarily race/gender swapped from a classic hero for the sake of it
/r/MensRights05/04/17 08:28 PM
2

One of many reasons I'm not going to be getting married. Far too many women like this
/r/MensRights23/03/17 06:55 PM
1

She doesn't require his consent because he doesn't require a medical procedure. If an abortion required cutting open the husband, I could understand wanting to ensure he's in the loop. But the kid she's killing in that procedure is apparently partially his responsibility. You're drawing a pretty funny and arbitrary line. Verging on an argument from nature. Okay, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a woman who wants a child - wants to be a mother, but doesn't want to…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 08:10 PM
1

The father of a child is presumed to be partner of the child's mother without a DNA test. That potential "father" can sign an agreement with the mother that he is not the father. A DNA test is not called for to confirm this. If this is done before the baby comes home from the hospital, his name doesn't even go on the baby' birth certificate. The key part of your statement here is "with the mother" he requires her consent to avoid becoming a parent. She doesn't require the same. So what if the mo…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 05:31 PM
1

Let's start here. This is actually untrue. Men can opt out before the baby is born, with certain provisions. Incorrect, there is no way for a man to do this. He can give up parental rights, but that doesn't remove the responsibilities. There is no way for a man to unilaterally opt out of parenthood. Also untrue. A couple can sign a document affirming that the biological mother accepts the responsibility that the biological father is not accepting. Again, it's quite obvious we're talking about un…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 01:59 PM
1

Let's walk through the logic behind his post. Women can opt out of parenthood through abortions. Men have no method of doing the same. If men try to leave, the claim is that it's in the best interest of the child for him to pay. Even if she decided to have the child knowing he wouldn't be there. A woman having a child despite knowing a father won't be there goes against this very logic. So we have two solutions: Ban it, or allow the men a legal way out. His approach here is the former, for shock…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 05:30 AM
1

I don't give a shit either way, but he's making a very valid point about abortion and child support.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 05:18 AM
1

Yep, but it doesn't really matter. She didn't say anything of value or out of the ordinary for feminists. Just claimed that his post was created to try and goad feminists. It was her attempt to double down.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 11:02 PM
3

If feminists were for equality, why would an x-post from a sub on an issue that crosses over goad them into anything? You're prescribing motive where none was presented. On top of that, what you're describing isn't vote manipulation. You could call it any number of other things, but vote manipulation is a specific action that can be documented and pointed to. There was no hot link to that post until long after you'd already removed it, as such there was no vote manipulation. So all you're doing …
/r/MensRights27/02/17 05:00 PM
3

/u/cheesychips removed the post on: Mon Feb 27 04:04:19 2017 UTC for "Vote Manipulation The post was then linked without a .np link by /u/MelissaClick on: Mon Feb 27 07:07:43 2017 UTC Funniest part of the removal to me is it wasn't removed "for" vote manipulation. It was removed "as" vote manipulation. Freudian slip? Regardless, it's just /r/feminism doing their normal routine of removing any content dealing with males being treated unfairly. We have this sub for a reason, because no matter what…
/r/MensRights27/02/17 04:46 PM
4

Drake knew this male had a life long language-based disability, ADHD, and anxiety, which had been accommodated in the classroom. But during the nine hour hearing Drake forced Rossley’s disabled son to be his own advocate and lawyer, while denying disability accommodations. Do you know what a language-based disability is? They're disabilities that fuck around with your listening, reasoning, speaking, reading, writing, and math abilities. Most people with this disability find it hard to communicat…
/r/MensRights27/02/17 04:40 PM
3

It wasn't linked until after the post was removed though. The comment in the post is 12 hours old at the time that I'm posting this. The link on this sub is 9 hours old at the time that I'm posting this. So they removed it a full 3 hours before it was linked to from here.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 04:30 PM
6

But then we couldn't bypass the word of law to decide guilt without evidence.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 04:26 PM
1

You're definitely wrong. The mother is a narcissist and narcissists destroy everyone around them. Time away from her mother and with a father would be amazing for her, even now.
/r/MensRights13/02/17 04:20 AM
2

The mom especially is a loser. A shitty dick of a loser
/r/MensRights13/02/17 04:18 AM
2

France seems to have an increasing population of them. Hence why she's leading in French polls these days. Hard on immigration, hard on feminist, hard on my heart :(
/r/MensRights07/02/17 09:46 PM
5

4.5 hours is what it would take me to clean the entirety of my place. I guarantee they're not doing that every day and have no need to do that every day.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 09:41 PM
18

It doesn't need to exist. We're all grown ups, we can make our own big boy and big girl decisions. If you want to quit your job and become a home maker, you're taking the risk of losing all your marketability. There's no excuse for leeching off of someone else's labor if you're not together.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 09:35 PM
7

If you're a real man, then you should have gotten your card in the mail. It gets you discounts in every major retail chain, an interest free line of credit, and access to the clubhouses spread all over the world. Every other Thursday we have a mass conference call to decide global decisions. Of course, this is all secret. The only reason I'm posting it here is because the idea of coming to this sub sends feminists into autistic screeching fits. So the information is safe here from prying eyes.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 10:03 PM
1

I'm quite careful with my wording and pretty methodical about my approach in conversation. It's one of the pros/cons of OCD. This entire time you've either been projecting or misunderstanding. I'm not sure which, but at this point it looks like it was the latter and you're attempting to make it seem like you were trolling instead.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 08:58 PM
1

Me method is always ELI5 followed by elaboration. If I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't have elaborated. Talk about insecurity, yeesh.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 08:42 PM
1

I didn't insult you, I said your question was stupid.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 08:23 PM
1

Instead, their reaction was to cancel the event and send Milo away. Everything happening on their campus is entirely on that college
/r/MensRights02/02/17 07:20 PM
1

What was insecure about my comment. You asked why you were downvoted, I explained it at a toddler level and then elaborated at an adult level. I didn't interpret it or respond as of it was threatening.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 07:19 PM
27

Well, God The Patriarchy™ works in mysterious ways.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 06:54 PM
8

When these actions are happening on its campus? Yes, and even off campus to an extent, because they are in charge of who is a student. They aren't taking action to expel the students responsible for rioting and they aren't taking action to prevent these students from rioting, thus they are responsible for these actions.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 04:18 PM
108

Philip Davies is the only MP looking out for men. He's outnumbered and outgunned, but I'm glad to see he's still putting up a fight
/r/MensRights02/02/17 03:40 PM
15

Because the argument is that the woman should be able to keep the same lifestyle she had when they were together. That is, she should be able to live as if she has two incomes despite being alone. It's ridiculous and essentially treats women like babies. They're adult enough to make their own decisions, let them have the responsibilities associated with those decisions.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 03:36 PM
1

You were downvoted for stupidity. Male teachers are already under heavy scrutiny, what do you think is going to happen to one with a "possible pedophile" label slapped on him. Even if it's proven false, he's always going to have even more scrutiny on him. Especially from parents, of which the vast majority are already irrational when it comes to their kids. On top of this you neglect the fact that corrections never reach the same number of people as accusations. How many people out there still t…
/r/MensRights02/02/17 03:31 PM
1

Especially for teachers. What do you think a parent's reaction to "he was accused of being a pedophile" is? They don't care about what comes after, that suspicion is now at the front of their mind on a male teacher. Of course they're going to push for a teacher without that accusation, even if it's been proven false.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 03:18 PM
1

As a kid from a small town, one teacher pissed off at you for any reason can put you through so much bullshit.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 03:07 PM
1

What you're talking about is mens rhea, which in criminal cases can be substituted with negligence.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 03:04 PM
1

No, this is stupid. Complete anonymity means nothing comes back to the false accuser, they have far less to investigate with, and it wastes police resources.
/r/MensRights02/02/17 01:48 PM
1

I've debated doing exactly this to get in free on ladies nights. I bet I could make some rest money off of it
/r/MensRights02/02/17 07:11 AM
6

If you watch shark tank, you'll see it all the time and they're constantly criticized for only going after niche markets. It's almost always collectivists and almost always women. For example, a store targeting solely fat women but only to "big fats" not to those filthy "skinny fats" they can go to Walmart
/r/MensRights31/01/17 06:32 PM
1

Is that a false dichotomy? I don't know exactly why, but I doubt it's one or the other. Not at all. You've already answered it in the other post. It has the most funding because people think of it as a women's cancer. It doesn't matter that men have a chance of getting it, because as you've said most people don't realize that. So all this money is flooding in to a cancer that is one of the least dangerous. Cancers that aren't gendered, like lung cancer, which are much more dangerous and essentia…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 07:30 PM
2

You seem to have missed the point. Why does it get so much funding and attention? Is it because it has a slight chance of effecting men, or because it effects women?
/r/MensRights26/01/17 01:45 PM
4

Yes, and he's an asshole for that. But possibility giving someone an STD is not an act of rape
/r/MensRights26/01/17 06:05 AM
4

At 00:45 does the woman say "That was assault" to the police. She's not wrong. Spitting on someone would count. Kind of. It would be battery, people just get the two mixed up very easily. Assault is a threat levied at someone saying that you or someone else will commit battery on them. Battery is physically attacking someone. They usually go hand and hand, because usually a threat is levied and then followed up on. But the act itself would be considered battery.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 06:03 AM
1

Most likely because the answer is so readily available to him. Think of cancer, what's the first kind that most of the population will think of? Breast cancer, it also receives the most funding for research by far. All of this despite it being one of the least deadly cancers.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 05:51 AM
27

Then why is it so expensive and time consuming to get a commercial flight license?
/r/MensRights15/01/17 06:50 PM
1

Of course, because those are positive things. Negative things go to men, positive themes go to women. Anything else is sexism
/r/MensRights09/01/17 06:46 PM
1

Well that was a joke, but I can think of plenty of reasons why I'd break up with a girl for recommending a book she didn't write. For example, if a woman ever recommended Mein Kompf to me as anything other than an insight into how fucked up Hitler's thoughts were, yeah I'd be breaking up with her.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 06:44 PM
1

Well that hasn't been the case in the past. And that's led to a severe anti-male sentiment across college campuses. I really doubt a course at a college already shown to be pushing this bullshit anti-white anti-male narrative is going to switch it up now.
/r/MensRights06/01/17 01:50 AM
1

No, in reference to social justice transformative is "listen to what we say and transform your beliefs to ours" It doesn't meant that it's a fluid or transformative conversation.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 11:08 PM
1

Framing it as social justice will make it so but I dont think this is about social justice but an analysis of men in our current society. Naturally the conversation is gonna delve into issues on the matter, doesnt mean suddenly its social justice. Except this is about social justice. The school itself says that it “operates on a transformative model of social justice allyship.” So your argument is shit, because the school itself says that its framed through social justice.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 10:55 PM
1

I've had them and it largely depends on the subject Reading isn't your strong suit is it? Because this is the third time I'm having to say that classes of this subject are preachy. Any kind of social justice course is.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 03:18 AM
5

I read it just fine. You're dodging my points.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 10:34 PM
3

What are you talking about, theres so many classes meant to engage students without professors giving "answers" like a math class (but even math theory can technically change/added in a classroom). Hmm, I wonder what on Earth I could have been talking about This is how all social justice courses go No, that couldn't have been it. A major point in the article is how mental illness in men is underrepresented, and its true! We cant talk about our feelings without being a bitch/pussy, I think that o…
/r/MensRights04/01/17 10:33 PM
4

So your stance is that men are perfect and there is no value in reflection? Here's one of the bait and switches I was talking about in using the feminist terminology. You've now made the topic not about masculinity, but about men. This is the exact problem I have with the concept, because it never stays constrained to the actual issues present in society's expectations of men. Toxic masculinity should be seen as those societal expectations of men, but as you've demonstrated they leave it so ill …
/r/MensRights04/01/17 10:27 PM
8

No goalposts were moved, you latched on to the tangent like a retard. Go back up two replies, I quoted my main point word for word. Let's walk through it. You: If that's what you believe, go to the class and discuss that. That's what it's for. Me: That's not what it's for. Classes aren't for discussing ideas, they're for being taught ideas. Followed by a tangential rant on social justice courses You: It's a non-credit course that meets once a week for six weeks. Absolutely nothing to do with the…
/r/MensRights04/01/17 07:28 PM
7

Nothing you've said goes against my main point. You've just grabbed the tangential information and acted as if I presented that as the main point. This class isn't for discussion, it's for being taught an idea.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 07:00 PM
14

That's not what it's for. Classes aren't for discussing ideas, they're for being taught ideas. The professor has the content and a position on said content, failure to regurgitate the talking points and a shared or acceptable position on those talking points results in failure of the course. This is how all social justice courses go
/r/MensRights04/01/17 06:30 PM
1

Because it's easy and facile? I always forget facile is an English word. I see easy and fashioned next to each other and my French kicks in thinking "that's redundant" But seriously, archive that shit. If CH is going down this road, let's not give them clicks. CH has been down this road for a long time.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 06:02 PM
17

Toxic masculinity is a term fabricated in order to paint everything men choose to do as bad. It has a loose definition, same as patriarchy and other feminist terms, so that it can easily be shifted from reasonable to unreasonable.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 05:58 PM
2

That was the legal advice. His question was whether or not he could do anything about his neighbor recording him. No, there was a bit more to his question. It seems as if his main concern was with the neighbor only getting his defensive action and not so much him attacking his neighbor. It would be a bad idea to involve the cops, because there is no recording of the girlfriend slapping him. This isn't to say it didn't happen, but with no evidence, the cops would be able to do nothing but arrest …
/r/MensRights03/01/17 09:22 PM
9

Wrong. You have a right to safety, you do not have a right to absolute safety. The mere idea of absolute safety is just silly. Actually, you're wrong. I was quoting the exact wording used in most stand your ground laws. California has theirs included in their castle doctrine, but criminal law section 3470 also covers the exact principle of absolute safety in its first point: That is to say you need only have "Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touch…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 06:36 PM
3

Apparently nobody there knows about law either. California separates battery and assault. One user even fucking links to California assault and calls it assault. It says in the damn link that actual violence is under battery, assault is the threat or incitement of violence. Furthermore there are 3 factors considered for self defense in California: You reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully You reasonably believed that you needed to us…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 06:22 PM
3

Well they didn't provide any legal advice either. His actions are covered under California's self defense laws, he was completely in the right up until he grabbed his neighbor's phone.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 05:58 PM
9

You're obviously not in any way knowledgeable on what constitutes assault. 1) this would be battery, not assault 2) this battery was done in defense of a battery already being done to him 3) his use of force was appropriate and equivalent to the battery he was receiving. 4) completely covered under self defense. In most states you're allowed to defend yourself with escalation and not just equivalent force. But his response to several attacks was a slap. It's perfectly covered under the law.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 05:50 PM
4

Incorrect, a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be. Self defense is appropriate force to prevent someone from infringing on this right. You don't have to be in danger and you have no obligation to flee. By attacking him, she's made the area unsafe and he has a right to defend himself.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 05:46 PM
1

When you have an STD, you are the one that has to call your partners not the other way around. Same if you notice you are impregnated. Yes except if you're unaware of the STD, then this is not legally the case. Likewise, if she's unaware of the pregnancy the same logic should apply. It wouldn't be hard to prove doctor visits, social media posts, large clothing changes, etc.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 06:43 PM
1

The clit if pretty small man, there's a lot of stories of women cutting the clitoral hood and labia minora with women's razors, it's pretty common. Changing the angle of attack on those blades makes it go from a minor cut to partial or full removal. I've heard quite a few horror stories that amount to the same.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 02:15 PM
2

That's an incredibly normal price for a haircut, even for a guy. If you don't like it cut your own hair, that's what I do.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 01:41 AM
2

Careful using that near your genitals, you could easily circumcise yourself. Men's razors have a steeper angle of attack on the blades meant for cutting on faces and not the rest of the body.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 01:13 AM
1

Do they shampoo or do anything special to your hair when they cut it? Do you ask for the basic men's cut? Also where the fuck do you go that you can't find a barber shop with a basic short hair cut? They're everywhere.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 01:11 AM
10

There is a difference. Women's razors are made differently so that they can cut single long strokes without many cuts to the skin. Because they usually shave all over. Men's have a much steeper angle of attack meant for the face, with no contour so it's more prone to cutting. If a woman tries shaving with a men's razor the way she does with a women's she'll circumcise herself and her legs will be torn to shreds. The blades on women's are also made to be used in the tub without rusting as easily …
/r/MensRights02/01/17 01:09 AM
3

Because it is inhabiting her body. This is tautology. Why do you feel this gives her the right to terminate it? Please answer without tautology, give an actual rational reason. I feel there is a big line between property and bodily autonomy. There's not, especially in this circumstance. It isn't solely property that's being stolen. If you choose to make the same choice as the woman here and not be a parent, you will go to jail. Unable to decide what to do with your own body.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 11:13 PM
2

Okay, why do you think that's an issue. Why do you feel she's justified in removing parenthood just because it's inhabiting her body, but the father isn't allowed to do the same and his body should be thrown in jail and his property stolen for making that same choice?
/r/MensRights01/01/17 10:54 PM
2

It doesn't matter who carries it, that's a shit argument. She's choosing whether or not she becomes a parent, so too should he. Otherwise, neither should
/r/MensRights01/01/17 10:10 PM
3

It's no different. She has been given that choice, the same way men should be given a similar choice.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 09:37 PM
6

If the woman didn't want to have the baby, she has a really simple option: don't have the sex. It seems you want the option to back out of the women's side of the agreement that is made when the sex happens. If she didn't like the arrangement, don't have the sex. It seems really cut and dry. You really don't see the hypocrisy, and it's hilarious. All of the arguments you make are pro-life arguments just slightly reworded.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 08:36 PM
4

Because it is her body. Yes, and it's his property that will be taken. Men and women are not equal in this equation, even if you wish they were. Actually, with the creation of abortion we are equal in this equation. Child Support was created because men naturally have the ability to walk away from parenthood, while women did not. Child support was constructed in order to prevent what naturally was a choice for men to make. Now that women have the ability to also walk away from parenthood, you wi…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 07:50 PM
5

Abortion is a moral choice. And so, too, is this. I think a woman has the right to choose since it's her body. And the man has the right to choose whether he's a father at the same juncture, because it's his property that will be confiscated. I feel the man entering into sex should be aware he will need to deal with whatever choice the woman makes in the case of an unintended pregnancy. The woman entering into sex should be aware she will need to deal with whatever choice the man makes in the ca…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 07:32 PM
2

Sure, I'd say so long as it can be proved that it was hidden, rather than not known about.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 06:59 PM
2

If he wasn't ready to accept possible consequences he shouldn't have had sex. This is the pro-life argument. If she wasn't ready to accept possible consequences, she shouldn't have had sex. That's fine if you're pro-life all around, but if you aren't then you should get your hypocrisy sorted out. I'm not here to argue pro-life or pro-choice, I'm here to say if you're going one way or the other you need to be consistent all around.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 06:58 PM
3

Nobody is being encouraged to do anything, I'm mocking her. This is very obviously a hypocritical pro-choice feminist with zero self awareness. So I'm mocking her while pointing out her arguments are pro-life arguments, so that she may gain self awareness.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 05:37 PM
15

It's incredibly easy to legislate. The father gets the same period of time to decide whether he wants to be a father or not as the woman does to decide whether she wants to abort, maybe a bit less so that she can still choose to abort if the man waits until the last minute.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 05:31 PM
3

That's fine if you hold that view for abortion as well and are against it. I don't, so we'll have to disagree there.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 09:47 AM
27

It takes two people to get pregnant, birth is the default not abortion. If you're willing to enjoy the fuck you better be willing to accept the consequences. That doesn't sound "pro-choice as hell." It sounds like the dumbasses holding signs up outside of abortion clinics. So how about you go back to doing that while the able minded adults talk.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 09:25 AM
3

Nobody is entitled to shit. You don't own people, we abolished that shit centuries ago
/r/MensRights01/01/17 09:17 AM
36

In choosing to be a parent, the woman takes on all those responsibilities. She decides to be both the mother and the father. If she can't handle it, that's too bad for both her and the kid. The same way it's too bad if a poor couple chooses to have a kid and they can't financially support it.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 09:14 AM
62

As long as you hold that logic across the board, you're fine. So I take it you hold that stance on abortion as well?
/r/MensRights01/01/17 09:11 AM
36

Yeah yeah. Take that line ans go back to using it to harass women outside the abortion clinics.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 09:07 AM
1

Who do you think was supporting her while she was jobless living with him?
/r/MensRights01/01/17 03:20 AM
1

It said she got a 9-5 job, but I somehow doubt that's netting her six figures. You So you recognized she didn't have a job, but now does
/r/MensRights31/12/16 10:42 PM
3

Didn't know he was supporting her Yeah you did, you commented on it on your top post. Getting a job was one of the "drastic" measures she took. Doesn't take much to connect those dots. This is why men need to stop being chivalrous entirely and force women to start paying their own way. Good luck with that, it's an evolutionary imperative it'll take a lot to breed that out.
/r/MensRights31/12/16 09:34 PM
3

That case is about the enforcement of an oral agreement/implied contract, which has precedence in other case law. I don't agree with the court's decision to enforce support payments, but the division of property isn't unprecedented or unfair by any means. Yes, but your claim was that they were never married and that's the reason there wasn't any alimony. You don't have to have been married for alimony to be rewarded. Also, that's California law—I'd be interested to see if other states have done …
/r/MensRights31/12/16 09:01 PM
3

The US is definitely not Canada. Our taxes aren't nearly as high, and our cost of living isn't nearly as high. You guys are taxed to your chin and the cost of goods has gone up to offset that cost to the wealthy. Your system was created to screw the middle class, we've just delayed that from happening for another four years. Here you can survive comfortably for as low as $25k a year in a lot of places.
/r/MensRights31/12/16 07:26 PM
2

Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660
/r/MensRights31/12/16 07:21 PM
24

Not even $15 million fixes a reputation ruined by false accusations though. She should be behind bars
/r/MensRights23/12/16 10:28 PM
3

Any trans women around here want to get the ACLU involved for keks?
/r/MensRights21/12/16 04:48 PM
1

Yes, but then you don't make any money. One is a net neutral, the other is a net gain
/r/MensRights21/12/16 04:45 PM
9

"No blacks allowed. Our patrons are irrationally afraid of black people because a black person did harm to them." So what you're saying is places should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of traits which can't be changed, if it's on behalf of their customers?
/r/MensRights21/12/16 05:17 AM
1

No and I'll tell you why. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood, that is an entirely different discussion that happens. Sometimes this is after conception, sometimes before, but this is a decision that both should make together. When a couple decides together to have a child, both should be responsible for supporting that child. In these cases child support is fine, at reasonable levels relative to income. Here they both decided to have a child through surrogacy, she received a raise and c…
/r/MensRights14/12/16 07:04 PM
3

Not sure you realize this. But the UK and US aren't the world. There exist other countries out there where this isn't a thing, like Canada or in this case Australia, where this young woman may be from.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 04:54 PM
4

They don't exist in Canada. One did once, but it was funded out of pocket because the feminists running the rest of the DV shelters fought to keep any funding from going there. The owner killed himself after he lost everything to debt, trying to help as many male victims as he could. In the US they are sparse, incredibly so. And the hotlines have close to an 85% chance to forward you to a batterers hotline or accuse the man of being the abuser, while only 5% of the time they actually help the me…
/r/MensRights14/12/16 04:45 PM
1

Yes
/r/MensRights12/12/16 05:53 PM
2

Document all of her noncompliances here. He needs to document the court to death with instance after instance of these issues happening. If the kids coming over hungry when he can see him, document it. Be very careful using the kid's statements as evidence though, some mother's take it out on the kids if the dad doesn't win full custody
/r/MensRights12/12/16 05:52 PM
1

Is he able to get a good lawyer? He needs to be able to prove that she is unfit, otherwise she's almost guaranteed to win custody. Drugs are an okay start to that, but he'll need financial proof, character proof, and whatever else he can get ahold of. If CPS has been involved while under her care he'll have a much better chance My dad spent 5 years trying to get my brother's and I. While we were living on the street with my mom. He's fighting an uphill battle here, and it's definitely going to b…
/r/MensRights12/12/16 05:48 PM
1

It's a figure of speech, Trevor Noah. He's saying at what age do you become responsible for the actions and agreements you make?
/r/MensRights05/12/16 05:59 PM
1

If we argue that men should have the right to a financial abortion, then so should women. If we opt to keep that child, they shouldn't get hit with a 20+ year tab they didn't want or volunteer for. We also want to get rid of the draft, but neither of these things will happen anytime soon. So it's better to have it equally shitty in the meantime.
/r/MensRights05/12/16 05:52 PM
3

Islam isn't a men's rights group, it's a bronze age religion. You'd have to be a moron to think it's an MRA group
/r/MensRights02/12/16 03:34 PM
4

Women's rights =\= feminism There can be overlap, abortion is an example of this, but feminism itself is a supremacy movement. It only seeks to better the position of women, even at the detriment of men. I have no problem supporting individual women's issues, but I'll never support a supremacist hate group.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 03:30 PM
2

The thing is most schools choose which art pieces do out in the halls. Whether it's the teacher who chooses or several other staff. My old high school, I never saw one piece of my art up on the wall. Mostly because I was a shit artist, but if they're choosing to display this then they're endorsing it.
/r/MensRights18/10/16 04:19 PM
1

Nontheless, it is a LEGAL right that women have and men don't. It fits the bill. So damn vague, so I'll respond to either "it" you could be talking about. The right to vote? I've already shown that to be false. The right to not sign your life away? No duh, I've already said that in this comment chain. Reread the first reply off my main post.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 01:31 PM
2

Actually, they do have to worry. It's still breaking the law. Just because it's not policed heavily in Amsterdam, purchasing marijuana is illegal in the Netherlands. A dormant law is still a law. No, they don't. Just like people driving in Pennsylvania at night don't have to pull over every mile and fire a rocket into the air. And playing with marbles and Yo-yos on Sunday is banned in several states as well. But you're a moron if you're worried about these being enforced. There are so many outda…
/r/MensRights29/08/16 04:41 AM
2

It very much matters, both of these facts undermine your whole point. It hasn't been prosecuted in a long time, nobody that has to sign up for it today has to worry about being convicted. And even if they did many states DO let convicted felons vote. So not only is it oversimplified to the point of absurdity, it's not even half right. The number of people who won't be able to vote for not signing up is currently zero. Which makes it a lie. If you don't like selective service, good. Point out the…
/r/MensRights29/08/16 04:11 AM
1

Simplified to the point that it's no longer truthful, may as well be a feminist talking about the "wage gap". There are many men out there who haven't signed up for SS, but are registered to vote. The two are in no way tied together.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 04:01 AM
1

Yes, but the point is number 2 is a lie. Leave the lies and half truths for the feminists
/r/MensRights28/08/16 11:23 PM
12

2 is false. Voting and selective service are not intertwined. You can register to vote without registering for the draft. Just make it a standalone that we can be jailed if we don't sign up. It's literally illegal for us to not sign up
/r/MensRights28/08/16 04:50 PM
3

Vaccines don't permanently alter your body.
/r/MensRights28/08/16 04:42 PM
1

It's untrue for this particular story, sure. But to be fair, this is a common thing that happens to muscular guys all the time.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 10:02 PM
1

"You attack on her for what reason?" He just fucking told you. She stole shit and then resisted arrest "I don't even know what's going on" That's why you should shut the fuck up you moron.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/07/16 11:17 PM
94

That's the stat for death by gays
/r/MensRights17/07/16 08:10 PM
14

Tumblr pic Muslims bomb specifically because they think it's right. Many black people steal because they think it's the right thing to do, check out the shoplifting Tumblr circle. edit: you guys have downvoted me so bad i can't actually reply to you all in a reasonable time frame so here you go. Well, what did you expect. You came in like a hypocritical idiot, defending a hypocritical idiot. Shit you haven't even completely responded to my post and you want to reply to others' posts? One thing a…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 04:52 PM
3

Graduated 2 years ago. They took down my club's posters on male rape statistics to put up their "Teach Men not to rape" posters. It's still ongoing because I keep in touch with that club and I went back recently, still have these posters up. We figured it was either faculty or the extremely feminist Women In Technology club doing it, because not many people have access to the locked poster cases around campus. I was in Madison, Wisconsin a bit ago, they seem to have similar posters on their camp…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 03:51 PM
11

Not all Muslims know that bombing is wrong and not all blacks know stealing is wrong. So your argument is bullshit, you just want to maintain your sexist perspective. Amy Schumer raped a guy while he was passed out drunk, talked about how it helped her feel empowered and successful at a conference for women. She obviously didn't think it was rape or wrong in any sense of the word, so again using your logic we should be teaching women not to rape. Fuck most women think men can't even be raped bec…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 03:40 PM
7

Have you never seen those posters? They're all over campuses.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 03:30 PM
25

That would get you labeled a rapist by the media. Just like that kid who refused to take a consent course.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 03:28 PM
13

It goes on for two minutes before the police officers feel they have enough evidence to make an arrest And that right there tells you the state of things. They were ready to arrest him on the spot without any evidence what-so-ever. Then, after being presented video it still took them two minutes of watching the video before deciding "Eh, yeah we should probably arrest her."
/r/MensRights10/07/16 04:25 AM
5

Someone has never seen M*A*S*H
/r/MensRights24/06/16 01:45 PM
8

Females are actually exempted from part of it. If you're male and a member of these groups you're banned from being a part of campus leadership. If you're female and part of one of these groups, you aren't. So they're complaining about not have enough of a free pass.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 08:33 PM
1

Didn't take two hours to write, it took a while but I was also scrolling through the rest of the page before I got down to your post. Reddit doesn't update posts in real time, so the only way I'd have seen your edits would have been to refresh and ctrl + f my way back to your comments. Going by your first four bullet points, it sounds like their including sexual harassment and any kind of sexual advancement alongside rape and sexual abuse? If that's the case then this study can't in any way be u…
/r/MensRights17/04/16 02:59 PM
1

For example, in America, one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy (possibly the largest, with some studies pointing as high as 60%) is due to medical costs. Yeah, there's insurance, and yeah, people will use the system even without it, but the personal costs are staggering. Even if the individual isn't filing, the number of people overshadowed by medical debt is daunting. You like to over and under exaggerate depending on the subject at hand. "Daunting" is at most 25% according to most r…
/r/MensRights17/04/16 03:09 AM
2

No problem, I see this discussed often enough by people who haven't read anything on the topic. It gets annoying to see people chugging the koolaid without any second thought.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 02:20 AM
1

The big issue is that any differing opinions, especially on the subject of feminism, get censored by the mods. It's essentially a circlejerk subreddit despite being default.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 02:17 AM
1

Nice, one large city in Alberta; can this be said for small cities in Alberta? Quick google searching shows most are closed on Sundays at least, and the few I saw that are open on Saturdays seem to close around 2-3PM. So here, let me revise my comment specifically for you: The clinic that's closed for the weekend Sunday? Or do you mean the private ones that you have to pay $900 Canadian to visit? Better not get sick or injured on Sundays, or you'll be waiting 8 hours. Gotta plan that shit ahead …
/r/MensRights16/04/16 11:28 PM
1

First of all: Thanks for the informative reply. It's really interesting although not really relevant to my statistics as the definition for rape is different in the Netherlands. You didn't specify "Netherlands" until you editted your post, long after I'd began writing my post. Same goes for your "just curious" line. Reddit doesn't update threads in real-time. So rape includes any forced penetration of the body (anal, oral, vaginal) with any object or bodypart, against someones will or consent. T…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 11:17 PM
2

They clog up the system going to the ER when they likely are better served by going to the clinic or anywhere else. The clinic that's closed for the weekend? Or do you mean the private ones that you have to pay $900 Canadian to visit?
/r/MensRights16/04/16 11:04 PM
2

Hah, posting on TwoX; of course you were downvoted. Shoulda known better than to talk logic to that lot.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 11:01 PM
1

Yeah, 10% are having obscenely long waits So 4 hours(the national average) isn't an obscenely long wait? It's only obscenely long when it's 8 or more hours? Because Canada has "free" health care, we have an issue with people going to the ER for every little thing. Everywhere has that issue, even the US. The difference is our hospitals can afford more staff and shorter wait times. In the states, money is your gatekeeper. Not at all, money is only your "gatekeeper" after the visit is over; and eve…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 10:59 PM
6

The cherry picking was your one legal case and your anecdotal horror stories, something I think most developed countries would also have. You do realize I gave a lot more than that, correct? The legal case and the stories were one point of many that I made, they were included to cover a wide range of areas. The real point was the statistical evidence, I include every angle because I prefer to be thorough. Yes, the wait times for non-urgent care is long, unacceptably long for some. The quality of…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 06:13 PM
5

I guess it would be better if rich people got treated first? Maybe when we roll someone into the ER they should do a credit check, or just weigh their wallet: fattest stack of cash gets the first flu shot? Cause that's basically what you've got going on down south near as I can see. Considering I've seen both in action I can point out the differences for you: Canada: "Take a number, sit in the booths; a nurse will be by in an hour to see how important you are." US: "Oh, shit your head is bleedin…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 06:03 PM
6

You're doing it wrong if you are waiting that long. I've already linked several sources in this thread. Including your own CIHI which has gathered wait times. All of our clinics are free. No they aren't. You have private clinics all over. They cost $750-900($CAN) for a regular visit, and on the weekend when your free clinics are closed they're the place people are referred to so they don't have to wait 5 hours in the hospital. How do I know more about your healthcare system than you seem to?
/r/MensRights16/04/16 05:39 PM
7

Using the average statistics for Canada,provided by the Canadian Institute of Health Information, is cherry picking. Interesting. So if I were to talk about crime in America and used statistics from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, that would be cherry picking as well?
/r/MensRights16/04/16 05:35 PM
5

As long as you're fine with living in a wheelchair after and having to pay for all that expense out of pocket. And are also fine with giving 60% of your pay to taxes to help pay for the horrible healthcare, as well as the incredibly high sales tax and the increased price of goods in general. Whereas I give 40% of my pay to taxes and am able to save 20% off towards healthcare costs and still end up with a better cost of living than you. Not to mention most decent jobs giving healthcare that doesn…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 05:30 PM
7

Your supreme court, which declared your healthcare system a "Human right's violation". Also the CIHI which has looked at the average weight times. There's also the horror stories coming out of Canada. Then there's people recording it their experience testing it for themselves.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 04:42 PM
10

Tried that once, my dick burned for a week after.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 04:16 PM
6

You've never seen this video then. The sad truth is 1 in 2 women are sexually assaulted, according to feminists standing in a park in Toronto who assume anyone wondering what's going on is a Rooshv supporter.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 04:15 PM
15

Depends on what you consider rape. The CDC doesn't consider "Made to penetrate" rape, it classifies it under "Other sexual violence." However, personally, I think that forcing anyone to have sex against their will is rape; maybe that's just me though. However, if we go to the CDC's NISVS and look at their stats, we can still ascertain the numbers because they have included made to penetrate. Definitions Definitions Page 17 Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 04:07 PM
46

Feminism has never been about equality. The first feminist groups were either arsonists and domestic terrorists like the Suffragettes or outright supported inequality like the White Feather society. Crack open a history book, feminism has never been about equality, only about fighting for the interests of women. If they actually fought for equality, then feminists would have at least one victory that helps men and only men as opposed to the many victories that help women and only women. Surely y…
/r/MensRights16/04/16 03:18 PM
4

Masochism. Also out of curiosity, what's it like waiting 9 months to see a dermatologist or 12 hours to see a doctor at a hospital when outside of the range of the outrageous free clinic hours?
/r/MensRights16/04/16 02:46 PM
13

Turkey baster + used condom + vagina = sperm jacker.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 02:44 PM
0

Well none of the ones I know are batshit crazy, so I assume there's some kind of correlation there. I can only imagine Clementine Ford is comprised of nothing but cancer at this point.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 07:52 PM
1

Bottom left side of the poster: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia Bottom Right side of poster: Major Sponsor: Tyrepower, get the power of Australia's <Horrible red font colour> biggest independent I'd say it's definitely Australia, I doubt there's really anyone outside of Australia even know who tyrepower is(Or anyone in Australia who isn't on the east coast or Perth for that matter)
/r/MensRights20/03/16 07:42 PM
2

Donation rates have been shown to be steady year-to-year. So it is a zero sum game to get funding. If breast cancer takes the lions share of the funding, which it does, then other causes won't receive as many donations. People who argue it isn't a competition have never heard about well-known phenomenon like Donor Fatigue.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 06:50 PM
1

Donation rates have been shown to be steady year-to-year. So it is a zero sum game to get funding. If breast cancer takes the lions share of the funding, which it does, then other causes won't receive as many donations. People who argue it isn't a competition have never heard about well-known phenomenon like Donor Fatigue.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 06:50 PM
8

The posters are completely true for Australia, where the posters are: Breast Cancer: Projected number of deaths from breast cancer in 2015 3,065 = 25 males + 3,040 females Prostate Cancer: Projected number of deaths from prostate cancer in 2015 3,440 males
/r/MensRights20/03/16 06:45 PM
2

but it's another to follow feminism's ways of getting attention. OP is an Aussie, the person you're responding to is giving Americentric statistics. The posters are completely true for Australia: Breast Cancer: Projected number of deaths from breast cancer in 2015 3,065 = 25 males + 3,040 females Prostate Cancer: Projected number of deaths from prostate cancer in 2015 3,440 males 375 more men died of prostate cancer in 2015 than people died of breast cancer using Australia stats.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 06:43 PM
1

Exactly? suffragists fought for equal rights, if you believe that women should have equal rights to men then that makes you a feminist... False. You're going by a book definition, but our language isn't dictated by the dictionary, it's very much so the other way around. You don't get to decide other people's labels, they decided for themselves when the choice was relevant to them and decided not to identify as feminists because the feminists of the time were domestic terrorists. Look at the book…
/r/MensRights20/03/16 03:08 PM
1

you literally just described feminism in most of the world. No, I "literally" just described the suffragists. It seems that Americans don't understand what feminism is and label it as men hating. TIL not only am I American, but that talking about a group of self identified feminists and comparing them to a group that didn't identify as such is somehow labeling feminism.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 04:20 AM
1

It didn't do either. The suffragettes were domestic terrorists and made people question whether women should be given the right to vote. The suffragists weren't feminists, they were peaceful protestors of both men and women who eventually got through despite the dibasic terrorists giving women a bad name.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 03:43 PM
2

He's suing under the grounds of sexual harassment. One paragraph in: Nungesser alleged in his lawsuit that this constituted gender-based harassment and that Columbia was complicit. Two paragraphs in: President Obama-nominated judge Gregory H. Woods claimed in his court opinion that Nungesser failed to prove that he was the subject of gender-based discrimination. He's not suing for sexual harassment. He's suing for sex-based discrimination. Sex as in male or female, not the act of sex. It's writt…
/r/MensRights15/03/16 11:59 PM
3

Nobody claimed she was molesting him. The claim is that gender was used in a manner that creates a hostile learning environment. In this case one such instance was taking an article he wrote, and drawing penises all over it.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 10:17 PM
14

She's guilty of a hell of a lot, and should absolutely pay for those crimes, but she should not be made to pay for crimes she didn't commit, i.e. Title IX violations. For the last time, he isn't suing HER in this court case; he's suing the SCHOOL. You can't sue a person for Title IX violations, only entities in the field of education. Seriously the people trying to defend this who can't read the first paragraph of the article. The school is the one who violated Title IX by denying him the same r…
/r/MensRights15/03/16 09:08 PM
1

Yeah, I actually have a life and can't be on Reddit every moment to field responses. I responded to them, so feel free to act spastic somewhere else.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 12:16 AM
1

I commented here, listing 8 examples where men or boys shot people and got probation. Five of them resulted in death. Two resulted in relatively minor injuries. One left a woman in a wheel chair. And here's my reply on why the situations in any of these aren't comparable to this case. The top four results for "accidental shooting probation" are male perpatrators that all got probation. The first got jail time, second got fined, third got jail time, forth only came up because it was a probation o…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 12:15 AM
3

Yup. But look at this. If you're a man who accidentally shoots a woman, even if she's not killed or seriously injured, you still go to prison. Or this man who accidentally shot his son while trying to fend off a home invasion and got 4 years. Or this teenager who got 4.5 years in prison for accidentally shooting his friend. Or this teenage boy who got 3 years for accidentally shooting his friend. Or this man who accidentally shot and killed a teenage girl with a gun and now has to spend 13 years…
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:26 AM
2

The problem with this is that "unfounded" and "false" accusations are lumped together. Just because an accusation is unfounded, doesn't make it false. So it's presumptuous to assume the false accusations increased, when it could have just been the unfounded portion. I find it a bit dishonest to frame it that way actually, we shouldn't be resorting to SJW tactics of misrepresenting statistics like that.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 09:28 AM
3

You need to cut all contact with her as soon as you can. After that don't even let her in your home if she comes knocking. My best friend left his abusive ex after she beat him unconscious in a mall with her purse. A couple weeks after, she came back to talk and he let her in. She proceeded to pull out a gun and rape him at gunpoint. He's never been the same, and after 3 times of trying to report it to the police they told him that if he ever came back they would toss him in a cell for harassmen…
/r/MensRights08/02/15 08:57 PM
1

It's not hostility and it's not my fault if you take it as such. If you have nothing of value to bring to this conversation, then you should stop replying.
/r/MensRights01/01/15 09:32 PM
1

More annoyance than anything, you've done nothing but waste my time.
/r/MensRights01/01/15 09:19 PM
1

Gave you an out by showing period of what you'd been campaigning and more you decide to drop out. I take that to mean you have absolutely nothing to show such. That's fine, I didn't think you could anyway.
/r/MensRights01/01/15 06:53 PM
1

Are you claiming that I am lying about my experience? No I'm claiming that you've provided no sources, facts, or anything other than anecdotal experiences. You're essentially trying to disqualify my points by saying "nuh uh" with no reinforcing evidence. When I say that "MRA has in the past incorporated misogyny. MRA currently incorporates misogyny." I am also speaking of what the movement has done... going by actions, and not speeches. And what has the movement done that you feel is misogynisti…
/r/MensRights01/01/15 11:12 AM
1

You've ignored me. Because you've said nothing rooted in fact. You've simply said "You're wrong" with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Instead of evidence you've "enforced" your claims with "do research" which is the one of the least productive retorts possible. But you ignored this key piece of reasoning when talking about feminism. What key piece? I'm speaking of what the movement has done. Going by actions, and not speeches.
/r/MensRights31/12/14 08:35 PM
2

That is not true. Considering oneself a "part" of a "movement" does not negate the need for education. I was referring to "listening to feminists more." I listen and talk on the issues. None of them involve men outright, only as an indirect benefit. Reading only does one good if they're talking about the theory, and not the actions. MRA has in the past incorporated misogyny. MRA currently incorporates misogyny. Some members do, yes. That's the same as saying "Feminism incorporates and has in the…
/r/MensRights31/12/14 08:26 PM
1

I think you should read more about feminism, and listen to feminists more. I think your view of feminism is the sort of view that results when you only listen to feminists' critics. I'm actually a part of both movements. I'm just unbiased enough to point out the limitations and faults in each. I think it's clear that the MRA movement is only capable of helping one gender. I think that's the main difference between it and feminism, which seeks to overcome systemic imbalances and injustice. Both o…
/r/MensRights31/12/14 06:34 PM
1

Similarly, you must believe that the MRA movement solves nothing if the name remains gendered. Did you not actually read the thread, or are you trying to create a straw man by taking my post out of context? OP is talking about "rebooting" feminism so that it actually does help both genders, rather than only helping women as it does currently. I am saying that doing so does not solve that, because the name itself predisposes the group towards only helping one gender. Nobody is attempting to say t…
/r/MensRights31/12/14 05:56 PM
1

Men's rights doesn't attempt to portray itself as an all encompassing movement. It's called men's rights because we are specifically working on men. Feminism on the other hand attempts to portray itself as helping everyone, when that is not the case. They always end up only helping women, and if OP seeks to change this the only solution is changing the name. Similarly if we wanted the MRM to target rights for both genders, we'd likely have to change the name.
/r/MensRights31/12/14 05:22 PM
2

Well, I got censored a lot by them, so I guess it is not that extreme. Yes and you're both an outside party and likely browsing the groups controlled by uni-feminists and not the normal feminists. If I end up creating another rotten branch I'll happily erase the subreddit. That's best case scenario. Odds are you're just going to get a bunch of MRA and very few feminists. And then be further dismissed by the feminist community.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 04:50 PM
1

For some things, yes. But not when the change is so easily translated. The discs computer games are stored on have changed from CDs to DVDs, but what do you call it when you chuck it in there? And even though BluRay is slowly moving in, we're still going to know them as CDs.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 04:43 PM
1

Not you, the article.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 04:24 PM
1

They have no censorship in their branches, that's only in the extremist circles. Again, at best you'd just be creating yet another branch
/r/MensRights28/12/14 04:23 PM
1

You're assuming that the regular feminists actually associate with the extremists. They don't normally do so. They are two entirely separate branches of the movement, at the very most this effort will just create yet another branch.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 01:15 PM
3

Except recently feminism has become synonymous with negativity and misandry for the general population. Adopting the name only brings those implications. Similarly adopting the name does absolutely nothing to the echo chamber. You just make yet another branch that had nothing to do with any of the other branches.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 12:50 PM
2

The name is a large part of the problem. You can't expect a movement to be gender neutral or to treat both equally when it can't even use a gender neutral name.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 12:34 PM
1

There's no reason to do that though, and there's no good reason to believe that will happen. Feminism exists to help women, it's in the name; the MRM exists to help men, it's also in the name. Egalitarianism exists to help everyone, that's why it has no gendered basis and no gendered name. Feminism helps women, MRM helps men. Neither are mutually exclusive, and if you wish for one group that helps both its already out there.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 12:13 PM
2

I don't think changing the name will change the stigmas
/r/MensRights28/12/14 12:09 PM
2

Part of taking charge of one's own destiny, one's own identity, is to thumb your nose at social conventions and do what's right. The thing about going against social conventions is that there are punishments for doing so. I have shown my weaknesses and sought my help, as such my punishment is ostracism. You can't expect everyone to take those punishments. It was easy for me, because of my AvPD and the nature of my existence. For anyone who's even relatively socially acceptable I'd imagine that c…
/r/MensRights28/12/14 12:08 PM
1

Really? They lost all credibility for me when they considered buzzfeed a reliable source....
/r/MensRights28/12/14 11:51 AM
3

They didn't even say anything that bad on the pages. They quoted a movie as an inside joke to how awkward one of the members of the group was("does this smell like chloroform to you?") And anyone who thinks "hate sex" means rape is a moron. Hate sex is having sex with someone you're physically attracted to who you hate for one reason or another. Other than that it was talking about women they were attracted to. All within the confines of a private group that nobody could have had access to witho…
/r/MensRights28/12/14 11:35 AM
1

It's not just feminism, this has happened before feminism was around. The best comparison for this behavior is coined as "firstborn syndrome." Firstborn children are typically showered with attention, celebrated, and generally hold a lot of power in their relationships with their siblings. This leads to egocentric kind of narcissistic behavior, and they react with hostility when their source of attention is threatened. So what group in society would identify most with this kind of behavior? We h…
/r/MensRights28/12/14 11:03 AM
2

"Rebooting" feminism solves nothing if the name remains gendered. The gendered name is the reason why feminism only targets women's issues, keeping the name gendered will only continue it.
/r/MensRights28/12/14 10:30 AM
21

The best response she could come up with was: The Patriarchy hurts men too. To which I responded: That has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, deflecting problems to a higher power will not end this conversation. We are talking about privileges, a phenomenon you speak about all the time. This is about you touting "White men are the most privileged group, check your privilege" when, by your own metrics, I've shown you that white women are actually the most privileged group in society…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 10:24 AM
29

I had one on Facebook who both goes to college, browses SJW tumblrs, and has a lit major and a women's studies minor. I call it the Trifecta, the perfect mixture to produce the most annoyingly stupid Facebook posts that I just can't look away from. Anyway, she posted a link(to this comic) talking about white privilege along with the caption "Check your privilege" And had been previously been talking about how men are the "most privileged class" so I decided to have a little discussion. By those …
/r/MensRights26/12/14 09:22 AM
1

Yeah, I was referring to added cost; the way the businesses I've been involved in calculated it. If it's relevant on 2 million dollar purchases, I figured it would still be fairly relevant here.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 11:50 PM
1

Not quite. The usual expense is 2/1000 = .2% loss. With the MSM group added it's 4/1040 = .385% loss. So the added expense is .385% - .2% = .185% loss/cost increase.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 11:39 PM
1

Hmmm... so blood from gay men is about 2/40x100 =5% more expensive? Nope it has a 5% chance of having HIV. This is ignoring the fact that most people who know they have it wouldn't come in. So it would actually be closer to 17% of the infected that came in, rather than 57%. If this is true you changed my mind. :-) This is not worth the stigma. But if it's 0.04 gay people then shouldn't it be 0.02 gay men? No, the number I was using was for MSM. Men who have sex with men, not gay people overall. …
/r/MensRights24/12/14 11:05 PM
1

Blatantly so? Probably a few. I was just offering an example of one of the most prominent.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 10:26 PM
1

Gay men who don't have sex with gay men are not excluded from giving blood. My guess is you didn't actually read the press announcement and that is why you are confused. I read it. It requires abstinence for a year. Gay sex isn't what makes gay men high risk. It's the higher likelihood for more partners, the double jeopardy for risk with those partners, and the likelihood that they don't use a condom. A gay man that doesn't have multiple partners and uses a condom with one partner isn't much mor…
/r/MensRights24/12/14 03:41 PM
2

1000 blood donations excluding gays where 850 are usable and 150 are not 1500 blood donations including gays where 1000 are usable and 500 are not So then you just didn't continue reading my post? So you seem to feel that: Unless you think gay men are more likely to donate, and thus require a far larger number of tests to be done You feel that 2% of the population would submit 1/3 of the blood samples. Where do you draw your basis for this conclusion? The ones that are not usable are wasted test…
/r/MensRights24/12/14 03:33 PM
1

So if gay people are more likely to do something that gives them HIV, how is being gay not a lifestyle marker? Because not all gay people take part in these lifestyle choices. Men are more likely to be perpetrators of rape. Do we treat all men like rapists, or do we sort out the rapists from the non-rapists? If we use your logic, we have to apply it to your other makers as well. If we do that, all markers can be explained away as unfair to ban people for. No, if we do that we have a list of cond…
/r/MensRights24/12/14 03:03 PM
1

Even those who are serial monogamous though can claim that. Serial monogamy would, again, be covered by "large number of partners over a short period of time" Since gay men are statistically more likely to have HIV, a monogamous gay relationship faces that issue as well. And men are statistically more likely to have HIV. Statistics don't really factor in when you remove the lifestyle choices that contribute to the statistic.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 02:36 PM
0

My point is that filtering by number of partners as well as condom use bypasses all of this. Do you really feel that a gay man in a monogamous relationship(or single and abstaining) with condom use is at "high risk" for aids? Because with the filtering I'd set aside that would essentially be the group left
/r/MensRights24/12/14 02:24 PM
1

You don't seem to understand they're required to do that testing on every blood sample anyway. Unless you think gay men are more likely to donate, and thus require a far larger number of tests to be done, this point is null.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 02:18 PM
2

Screening donations from these men becomes uneconomical with the type of numbers you're talking about. No more uneconomical than it already is. It's all done by word of mouth already. If a gay man wants to donate, they need only say that they're straight.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 01:59 PM
1

A single study from 1989 that was based on self reporting. Do I need to actually look at the study any further to know the information won't be too reliable?
/r/MensRights24/12/14 01:54 PM
0

Yes is more likely to be transmitted that way, but not if protection is used. Which is covered by the unprotected sex marker of high risk.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 01:41 PM
3

But gay sex is a lifestyle marker... Not any more than straight sex. The difference is that gay people are more likely to make lifestyle choices within two of the first markers I'd already given. Unprotected sex and large numbers of partners. If we went by those, this would be a non-issue.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 01:04 PM
1

I'm advocating for gay people to have no ban, unless they have a marker that shows they have a high risk lifestyle(along with straight people). Then they would require a recent test showing that they do not have HIV or AIDs; and then the blood would be subjected to further testing along with every other sample.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:39 PM
4

HE's not getting punished? Cis, White, Male privilege at it's finest /s
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:15 PM
1

That's my usual approach. Can't get behind anything until I have the facts. Make sure to update it if you do find it.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:12 PM
2

Scrupulous testing of blood samples, recent HIV/AIDs test results required(or at least endorsed), required testing on individuals with a proven high risk lifestyle* unless a recent test is available, probably a bit more I can't think of off the top of my head as well. *High risk not including homosexuality, they have a higher rate of becoming infected but there are several other lifestyle markers that would indicate high risk more accurately than homosexuality. These include: a large number of s…
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:07 PM
4

the agency will take the necessary steps to recommend a change to the blood donor deferral period for men who have sex with men from indefinite deferral to one year since the last sexual contact. At least it's progress, still not where it needs to be though.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 11:37 AM
1

kangaroo rape trials Well I found the name for my new band.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 11:27 AM
1

Because her viewers don't know they're lies. They likely don't play the games in question, so they don't question the validity of what she says.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 11:23 AM
1

Before their most recent spasm, they do it every couple decades. In the 60's/70's for example they started suppressing anything to do with discrimination against males(a trend which has continued onward in most facets of society).
/r/MensRights24/12/14 11:17 AM
3

Is there another large media group that is blatantly pro-female? Gawker
/r/MensRights24/12/14 11:14 AM
3

And not to judge a book by her cover, but based on her picture I'm going to guess she has lived a very privileged life. She writes feminist pieces for Salon, you didn't really need a picture to determine she's privileged. Of course, I'm likely biased here.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 11:11 AM
3

Still 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine isn't anything to sneeze at.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 10:50 AM
1

"The law requires that you notify Selective Service within 10 days each time you have a change of address."
/r/MensRights24/12/14 10:48 AM
1

I wonder how they redefine duress in this contractual situation.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 10:45 AM
2

Now the name of the thread makes sense!
/r/MensRights24/12/14 10:40 AM
1

You can't get financial aid, can't vote, can't get any government(or state sometimes) funded jobs, a possible fine of $250,000 and 5 years jail time. The selective service is also the reason males between the age of 26 and 31 can't gain citizenship. If you're under the age of 26, you can register for SS and you must register to be a citizen. So if you're past that limit, you have to wait until 31 for citizenship.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 10:36 AM
2

But dealing with individuals applying for a job doesn't really fall into the same category. It's easy enough to look at their track record as an individual. It's relatively easy for insurance companies as well, it's just not necessary to go into as much detail. In this case we're not talking about an individual though, we're talking about her view on men as a whole. She's saying that: 1) Before she meets or identifies any man, they are a threat to the kids 2) Before she has enough information on…
/r/MensRights24/12/14 08:02 AM
1

I'm not really confrontational like that. I just avoid them instead
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:37 AM
1

The first part was commenting on the common subject, the second part was a parody of what happens on tumblr
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:26 AM
1

Get pulled out/off by others
/r/MensRights24/12/14 12:24 AM
0

Ah I stopped going to the gym because I can't handle harassment on that level. And if I run, it's out in the cornfields. For some reason people hate fat people so much more if they're trying to lose it. Even without exercise though my diet isn't much to be spoken of. I sometimes go weeks without eating just because I'm not hungry, and if I do attempt to eat I end up getting sick(similar to dysentery in that my food wants to escape no matter the direction or cost). Can't say I'm happy with it but…
/r/MensRights23/12/14 02:28 PM
7

Being a father is out of the question for me, but I love my little cousin and I take her everywhere regardless of whether it gets me into trouble. I like kids, they're usually far more agreeable than other people and they say the crap I want to say but can't.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 02:03 PM
2

Felt like I walked into r/TumblrInAction with this thread. Also your usage of the word straw is triggering to those of us who were raped in barns, shitlord
/r/MensRights23/12/14 01:58 PM
1

Hey it keeps my head nice and warm, prevents microwaves from melting my brain AND keeps the government from reading my thoughts.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 01:54 PM
35

Yup just one of the many reasons there's a shortage of male teachers in the workforce. Men are just walking predators to the general public. The following has happened to me 4 times, 3 of which I've been with a friend and his kid and the other with my little cousin. Went to the park, sat on a bench with my friend(or headphones). Let the kid play and get all that crazy energy out of their system. Look up every now and again to make sure there's no kicking or crying going on. Hour and a half in th…
/r/MensRights23/12/14 01:48 PM
1

A suicide may fail when you try to hang yourself and the support beam of the building collapses under your weight instead. Almost exactly how mine happened a while back except it was the rope that have out and not the beam
/r/MensRights23/12/14 01:22 PM
1

Many also just live dangerous lifestyles because they don't wish to do it themselves. Things like walking into traffic or driving more recklessly for the chance of losing control and ending it.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 01:21 PM
1

Yeah not to mention how socially unacceptable it is for men to seek any form of help. I attempted suicide a little over 7 years ago, only 3 people outside of my therapists know of this. None who know me actually know the circumstances or that they're still ongoing either, just that it was an event that happened a while ago.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 01:18 PM
1

Really? I've gotten through it by being a fat undatable cunt.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 01:06 PM
1

The issue is not that this private company targets women, they have that right, the issue is that they're using the complete 40,000 number to advertise themselves. They'll only be helping about 8,000 of those people, so why misrepresent themselves with the inflated number.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 01:02 PM
3

What about the men who kill themselves? The men that are 4 times as likely to kill themselves. And after a divorce that likelihood nearly doubles...
/r/MensRights23/12/14 12:59 PM
0

If you believe enough it becomes real. Just ask the fictionkin!
/r/MensRights23/12/14 12:55 PM
3

Exterminate! Exterminate!
/r/MensRights23/12/14 12:52 PM
4

I post this story everywhere, but I feel like I have to and it's extremely relevant here. One of my best friends was in an abusive relationship for years. Being around them as a couple was soul crushing, and I tried to get him out of it for so long. I called so many domestic violence hot lines trying to get advice or find one that I could have him call. I spent a week calling hotlines and either: A) Getting forwarded to the Batterer's hotline(for men who beat women) B) Accused of covering for a …
/r/MensRights22/12/14 01:38 PM
2

My story doesn't make good copy for newspapers though. Being a man and controlled by a woman. Sadly even if it had been more than controlling and she'd been violent, you likely would have had the same results.
/r/MensRights22/12/14 12:51 PM
0

Of course, but at the same time, women aren't the only ones suppressing men's sexuality or suppressing men in general. I understand why you included women, but I think you should have probably included that most men are also involved in it.
/r/MensRights22/12/14 12:37 PM
1

You could determine she's joking by what was linked in the OP. But the thing about jokes is that there's usually a bit of truth to them. Humor is a social lubricant of sorts, when something is thrown behind a joke it becomes easier to discuss. Check out the front page of this sub from time to time, notice how many comedians get shown giving pro-male opinions. Opinions that would otherwise receive a lot more negativity. Hell, right now Bill Burr is at the top of the page with his joke saying to w…
/r/MensRights22/12/14 12:00 PM
2

The problem is that women treat men like shit, and society backs them up. Don't need to specify women here, nearly everyone treats men like shit. It's like the multinational pass time.
/r/MensRights22/12/14 11:49 AM
3

I find it incredibly depressing that clubs which allow women exclusively, or businesses that cater exclusively to women, are allowed to operate no questions asked with little to no outrage. But when men attempt the same thing it's met with hostility and outrage. Anyone know of that barbershop that only allows men? The owner receives Death threats and defacement of his property all the time. “On Twitter they said, ‘I hope you get firebombed’ and ‘I hope you die’ – it’s keyboard warriors and I did…
/r/MensRights22/12/14 11:04 AM
1

Like a dog.
/r/MensRights22/12/14 10:42 AM
2

Honestly, the only thing I'd be able to say to dispel the awkwardness of someone taking a tape measure to my crotch would be: "Woah Woah Woah, it's not buyers remorse if you measure it first!"
/r/MensRights21/12/14 01:46 PM
2

Yes, the front is Women only. Blacks Boys to the back
/r/MensRights21/12/14 01:35 PM
1

Women have theories add to why men sit this way A couple decades of learning how to navigate around a sack between our legs that incapacitates us with so much as a rough tap. I sit with my legs apart because it's so much easier to accidentally nudge my balls if they're squeezed betwixt my legs. It's not rocket surgery
/r/MensRights21/12/14 01:31 PM
2

When did they strike down that rule with BA? I had a connecting flight from Heathrow to Hanover just a year ago where I was moved and told I couldn't sit next to a child because I was male and it was their policy. I was extremely pissed as the friend I was traveling with had deliberately chosen the seat across the aisle from me(we planned the trip together). Happy ending though, my friend was a girl so we just swapped sides of the aisle and I got to sit next to a crotchety old lady with no sense…
/r/MensRights21/12/14 01:16 PM
1

If I can make their skin color show up on my monitor, I don't want them driving my cab. Also no women, men, transgendered, fictionkin, furries, bronies, or anyone who's sex contains a letter of the alphabet. I need to be as safe as possible, what do you not understand about this?
/r/MensRights21/12/14 12:59 PM
1

Yes, well, in the usual societal view, men can't be raped and women can't rape... so there you go. FTFY. Many non-feminists also hold this viewpoint, the vast majority of the society we live in to be more specific. Some feminists also acknowledge that men can be raped and that women can be rapists. But you did nail a sizeable portion of that had.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 12:56 PM
3

Brilliantly written. I wish I could express my thoughts as well as this. Covers all the issues and gives everybody their due credit and understanding.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 12:49 PM
1

I understand what you're trying to get at, but your original reply sounded more like a blind dismissal than healthy skepticism. Rather than asking them to show you evidence of what they're talking about, it looked more like the "I don't believe that, so it's not true" that comes from SJWs. Of course I may have read too much into it, that's just how it read for me. Text is a horrible medium to derive tone.
/r/MensRights21/12/14 02:15 AM
2

Didn't notice he'd said male on male, but I don't think it's anything you should dismiss that quickly. I'm sure you've seen how skewed the rape statistics shown are, despite the fact that men are raped far more than women when you include all forms of rape(yes this means including prison rape). Despite this, how often do you see male victims getting justice? Should gender, accusations, or guilt in other crimes mean one deserves to get raped or deserve the lack of justice they receive when they a…
/r/MensRights21/12/14 12:27 AM
2

Not the person you're responding to, but I've seen it first hand. Best friend raped at gunpoint by his ex, went to the police twice and was laughed out both times. I didn't believe they'd do that at the time, so I go in with him the third time. Then I stand there in shock as they laugh at him, telling him that nobody could ever rape a "guy like him" and then tell him if he comes in again they'll throw him in a cell for harassment. This was the same ex that beat him unconscious with her purse in …
/r/MensRights20/12/14 09:49 PM
3

If I had any gold to give, you would have it. Nothing about that post pissed me off more than the claim that a female rape victim wouldn't have the perpetrator brought to justice. I had to stand there with my best friend while the police laughed at him and told him "men can't get raped" and then proceeded to tell him if he came in again, that they'd toss him in a cell for harassment.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 09:42 PM
2

Yup no worries. I also thought it was worded oddly, that's just how I figured they meant it.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 01:33 PM
4

Recreation is only what you do in your free time. Lots of people go to these conferences in their free time and enjoy them, so it could be considered recreational.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 01:10 PM
5

Thunderf00t actually had a short series on it in his usual style. He covers it quite well.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 12:54 PM
1

I wonder who that 2/5 of a person is
/r/MensRights20/12/14 07:57 AM
4

To be fair to the comment section. I am a fat undatable cunt, and I do believe this stuff. So they've got one person pegged.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 07:22 AM
2

I don't think they're talking about meninism being in quotes, but that points are put in quotes. Such as "'double standards' they perceive" the quotes with the added "they perceive" implies that the writer feels that these aren't real points. Similar to when someone says: Men have the "privilege" of comprising 99% of job fatalities. In this context, the quotes imply sarcasm.
/r/MensRights20/12/14 07:12 AM
1

I think you missed the point of my post. My friend, or anyone in a similar situation, won't be able to go to court or press charges. The police have kicked him out every time he's tried, the last time telling him they'd "throw him in jail for harassment" if he came back. We can't fix the problem you're speaking of before we fix this one. And we especially shouldn't be promoting changing any kind of legislation(from the post I initially replied to) without either of those changes happening.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 10:53 AM
1

Same exact thing that happens if I were to tell them anything more truthful.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 06:34 AM
2

The same reason that you hardly ever see "Men" in the news unless they are the perpetrators. Or that many male victims of rape or domestic violence get dismissed regularly as the offender. Acknowledging that men have problems means that men aren't the end all, be all power behind everything. It's much easier to look at the successes of the few, than to look at the detriment of the many; and as a result bringing that to the forefront of most conversations will evoke hostility. This link says it b…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 06:23 AM
2

No worries, happening a lot tonight.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 06:10 AM
-1

You are a fucking idiot. Again you are talking about your fucking self and only looking at the world through your retarded eyes and not looking at anything else. No, actually i'm pointing at myself as a contradiction to their hypothesis. You aren't fucking interested so you aren't looking for the women that would marry you just because you have a lot of money. No, this is nowhere near the basis I was speaking off of. I'm stating that women aren't attracted to me, adding money into that doesn't c…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 06:00 AM
-1

I'm not speaking in terms of national average, I'm speaking in terms of "Wealth trumps the lot" and "If you're making over 100k you won't have any problems finding someone to marry you." I was pointing out my situation and showing that the conclusions they're drawing are incorrect. Either you can have "problems finding someone to marry you" if you're "making over 100k" or wealth doesn't trump the lot or 100k isn't considered very much money and thus isn't wealthy. You're trying to create a straw…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 05:43 AM
1

Fairly close, SDE. There's a small bit of overlap.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 05:33 AM
-2

Someone else who didn't read the edit, or the following comments. I'm referring solely in the case of "attractiveness" by women. Since the people in the posts I was responding to think that making at least 100k will guarantee a relationship of some sort. Since this didn't apply to me I was asking if women just don't consider that a lot anymore, or whether it isn't as big a factor as they were making it out to be, or (to cover all bases) that I could just be an outlier as a possibility. I'll just…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 05:25 AM
1

This is all assuming the general public recognizes that men can be raped, which is debatable. Even by today's standards a best friend of mine was laughed out of a police station for trying to report rape at gunpoint. So I'd place that hypothetical outcome pretty low on probability.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 05:07 AM
6

Just as a side note, the FBI's definition of rape only has to do with how they sort and classify cases to provide statistics. Most rape and sexual assault definitions in the US occur on the state level, and those are generally more inclusive and better worded.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:58 AM
2

You seem to have caught me off guard, I have no possible path of retort to a point such as this. I concede to your superior whit.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:48 AM
2

In my opinion, people willing to accept that viewpoint on the basis of word of mouth alone likely wouldn't change that viewpoint given contradictory evidence.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:45 AM
1

Or the many jailed(or not allowed student loans) for not registering.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:41 AM
2

I'm confused, I was saying that there's so many double standards that the image required to house them all would be too large to upload. Sorry, a bit of a software joke I guess.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:34 AM
1

Facing UP TO Five Years In Jail Missed the most important part, she very well could get less time than that, and probably will. The maximum she will get is five years...
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:29 AM
-5

How so?
/r/MensRights18/12/14 04:09 AM
3

Is image compression advanced enough for an image of that size to be posted?
/r/MensRights18/12/14 03:50 AM
1

Comment history points to troll
/r/MensRights17/12/14 04:12 AM
4

If they're not important enough for the media to mention a gender? Yes, it's a male.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 03:59 AM
1

I think he has good points the whole way through, definitely warrants a study to see the numbers behind it. How many more women vs men are victims of tragedies and then compare it to how many more times women vs men are mentioned by gender rather than gender neutral terms. As well as a comparison when it's men vs women doing bad things and comparing that with how often the genders are mentioned there as well. Of course anyone will be biased in their perspective on it, but with some hard numbers …
/r/MensRights17/12/14 03:51 AM
2

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that guys talking out his ass
/r/MensRights05/12/14 10:55 PM
3

Well he said 90% but he's probably talking about the Eugene Kanin study. Not very well executed, very small sample size(2 Midwest cities, college kids, etc.), and commonly refuted by nearly everyone. That's the highest percentage I've ever seen from a study and it was around 50%.
/r/MensRights05/12/14 06:58 PM
0

The head of household might have been true 70 years ago, but today it's definitely not. I was speaking of men primarily being the political leaders, my phone excluded an or between the two definitions.
/r/MensRights26/07/14 02:07 PM
2

Citation needed. Kraemer, Sebastian (1991). "The Origins of Fatherhood: An Ancient Family Process"Family Process (4): 377–392. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1991.00377.x. PMID 1790784. Ehrenberg, 1989; Harris, M. (1993) The Evolution of Human Gender Hierarchies; Leibowitz, 1983; Lerner, 1986; Sanday, 1981 The "patriarchy" as described by feminists has never existed. This is exactly why I said you didn't actually read my post. I stated it never existed by feminist definition, but by book definition it …
/r/MensRights26/07/14 12:54 PM
2

Had a friend raped at gunpoint by his ex. Not only was he laughed out of the station twice, the third time they told him if he didn't stop coming in they'd arrest him for harassment.
/r/MensRights26/07/14 10:05 AM
2

This might be a shock but actually the patriarchy doesn't exist and never has. Actually it's been around since roughly 4000 BCE, according to anthropologists. Common sense should show this very clearly: if the patriarchy actually existed and had been oppressing women for thousands of years, we would find references to it before the appearance of the brand of feminism which uses the idea.But we don't. There is no mention of "the patriarchy" prior to feminism because they invented it. You obviousl…
/r/MensRights26/07/14 09:54 AM
0

They didn't invent it or define it, they repurposed it. The patriarchy is a social structure ruled by men, the reason they were able to take off and run with it is because the leaders in society are men. After that it was just a matter of changing definitions over time to suit whatever needs they had. We are living in a patriarchal society, but only by the book definition. "The best way to tell a lie is to wrap it in the truth" - Dr. Paul Ekman.
/r/MensRights26/07/14 09:33 AM
1

Makes me wonder if we should just segregate by gender. Then watch them implode. Welcome to the whole notion of MGTOW. The system needs us, yet wants to treat us like dirt; well what happens when we unplug?
/r/MensRights26/07/14 09:07 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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