TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Quail_eggs_29 Archive

View 1 post and 502 comments by Quail_eggs_29 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
107

GeneralQuail_eggs_29/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:38 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

Okay…. Have a good day bud
/r/AntiFeminists19/06/22 09:28 PM
-2

Correct, shaming is a very specific social interaction in which one person tries to make the other feel bad for their actions/choices/way of being. A father being internally upset does not qualify as shaming. My father calling me a fag for growing out my hair, for example, is a form of shaming.
/r/AntiFeminists19/06/22 09:17 PM
-2

Okay, i could accept this position with the right definition of ‘girl’, ‘boy’, and ‘gender roles’. But this is not the subject of discussion. No one else has mentioned shame besides you. The OP did not shame his son for liking tractors, so I’m not sure why we would discuss shame.
/r/AntiFeminists19/06/22 08:31 PM
-13

To be clear, you believe that not exposing a young boy to tractors and other ‘boy toys’ is an attempt to turn boys into girls? Edit: u/NohoTwoPointOh, do you no longer support this position?
/r/AntiFeminists19/06/22 05:34 PM
1

Funny how you claim this ‘progressive ideology’ is more-or-less split along gender lines. Where i come from, such a claim is considered sexist.
/r/AntiFeminists19/06/22 05:24 PM
-5

Sexists gonna be sexist
/r/AntiFeminists19/06/22 05:23 PM
-19

I mean, they are correct. Just because a court of law deems something to be true doesn’t mean it is true. The exact same statement is correct in every rape and murder case. Edit: y’all are repeating exactly what i said, and downvoting me for it. Sorry the truth hurts Really didn’t expect backlash for being logical on this sub Edit: u/TheSnesLord, i didn’t do that at all. But by all means make assumptions then get mad about it.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 05:09 AM
-12

Nothing to do with feminists. A feminist would argue for gender equality, and say this man deserves his flower! Edit: again, your ignorance of feminism is showing!
/r/AntiFeminists12/06/22 04:54 AM
1

Sad boy :(
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/22 03:48 AM
0

Yup
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/22 03:47 AM
-1

Red herring. Many sex workers do pay taxes.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/22 03:41 AM
0

Lol. Imagine not understanding the definition of content, or hating porn so much that you are willfully ignorant of the definition. Crazy.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/22 03:38 AM
3

Yes… duh
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/22 03:37 AM
2

The conspiracy goes deep!
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/22 03:37 AM
1

No, that’s not typical at all lol
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/22 03:37 AM
-3

Aight, but that’s not what we’re talking about. I’m not here to explain ethics to you, unfortunately.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 12:53 AM
-5

Lol. ‘Her vagina is her castle’ This reads like ridiculous satire, yet i know you’re serious. Which makes it even funnier. Tax money shouldn’t be spent in sexist ways. Alimony is definitely valid and ethical in the aforementioned case.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 12:32 AM
3

Start a movement online. Give it a name. Have a march. Turn out. The only thing to do is to organize it. Come up with clear goals. Advertise it online via social media. You will be made fun of. You will be opposed by a large, well-funded machine. The only thing you can do is stand up for yourself and that which is right, no matter the resistance, and hope to god your brothers and sisters stand beside you.
/r/MensRights10/06/22 07:16 PM
8

I dont see how people dont get it. Getting upset online won’t do shit. The only way to help men and defend egality is to be an activist. If feminists are holding parliament hostage, any able man in the UK needs to get up and hold parliament hostage is well. Figuratively, of course. British men need to organize and become a force which politicians cannot ignore.
/r/MensRights10/06/22 02:48 PM
17

… how is it not worth appealing your case to a higher court? You lost so much by accepting the guilty verdict
/r/MensRights06/06/22 11:19 PM
15

Why would you not appeal that decision to some court? Self defense is well-protected under common law
/r/MensRights06/06/22 09:50 PM
1

Can we get a r/blatantmisandry?
/r/AntiFeminists06/06/22 12:06 AM
1

It could definitely be sexist, it is odd how she assumes there are many men who act like this.
/r/AntiFeminists04/06/22 10:53 PM
1

Okay? Thanks for that tangential comment
/r/MensRights04/06/22 10:52 PM
0

Yes. I think one should be skeptical when people make claims
/r/MensRights04/06/22 10:51 PM
0

That’s fair. Two eyes are better than one.
/r/MensRights04/06/22 08:26 PM
0

Fair enough. My comment was about how this law won’t stop abusers or help the courts identify abusers. Unless we accept biological sexism, it’s self-evident to me that 50-50 custody should be the norm. Unless the child is some how hurt by still having two parents…
/r/MensRights04/06/22 08:17 PM
-2

Cool comment, but entirely unrelated to my comment. Did you misclick?
/r/MensRights04/06/22 07:57 PM
0

I mean yeah that’s fair to some extent It is weird that they focused on men and failed to mention women too. I bet they don’t like conservative women either though!
/r/AntiFeminists04/06/22 06:50 PM
-12

I really do not think this bill would help a kid who has an abusive parent. This could even make it harder for an abuser to lose custody. What we really need is a competent justice system that can identify and prove the guilt of abusive parents.
/r/MensRights04/06/22 06:50 PM
-6

Great hypothesis, I’ll be sure to rigorously test this theory
/r/AntiFeminists04/06/22 05:15 PM
2

Very true, you never specified that it was only men stripping away the bodily autonomy, just that some men are doing it. A lot of people on this sub have very poor reading comprehensions skills.
/r/AntiFeminists04/06/22 04:36 PM
4

They meant women vote to ban abortion too, i think
/r/AntiFeminists04/06/22 04:30 PM
-12

Well maybe her husband is cool? Not all men are sociopaths
/r/AntiFeminists04/06/22 04:30 PM
-17

Well, swearing off all women is probably sexist. She’s trashing some men with a very specific ideological postion. Not all men share this position, she doesn’t claim all men do; there’s no sexism here.
/r/AntiFeminists04/06/22 04:29 PM
-9

Says who? How do we know JD never was abusive? I’m not claiming he is, but you claimed he never was. Source? Edit: i see I’ve disagreed with the hive mind…
/r/MensRights03/06/22 04:18 AM
0

Some guys on here like to troll
/r/MensRights26/05/22 12:54 PM
-4

Sometimes censorship is good.
/r/MensRights25/05/22 05:59 PM
2

Which post?? I couldn’t find it.
/r/MensRights25/05/22 05:58 PM
-5

Which post are you referencing? I couldnt find anything on r/TwoXChromosomes advocating violence.
/r/MensRights25/05/22 05:58 PM
1

🤷‍♂️ It’s tough, there’s a lot of eggheads on this sub who can’t tell up from down
/r/MensRights21/05/22 03:03 PM
0

I’m not that commenter. The question wasn’t addressed to me, my answer wouldn’t have satisfied your intent. I liked your first Q a lot. It is a great ethical Q. The second is low hanging fruit, and frankly useless for a good discussion
/r/MensRights21/05/22 01:31 AM
2

Agree to disagree :) I would be mad if I was robbed in that situation.
/r/MensRights20/05/22 11:12 PM
-4

Always have to bring up the gendered nature of things… so silly
/r/MensRights20/05/22 11:12 PM
0

Nope. Luck is random chance. You are correct on your characterization of privilege. What is relevant to privilege, and not determined by luck, is whether any one individual will be ‘biased’. Just because a social standard exists does not mean it will always be upheld by everyone. Edit: Yup… but just because it’s standard does not mean every hiring manager is sexist…
/r/MensRights20/05/22 11:09 PM
0

Wouldn’t really view that as a privilege, no.
/r/MensRights20/05/22 11:08 PM
2

Sure, those could be examples.
/r/MensRights20/05/22 11:07 PM
-2

By businesses and the gvmt Individuals are free to discriminate as much as they want (for now…)
/r/MensRights20/05/22 06:35 PM
-7

Hahahahaha Women are bad drivers XD
/r/MensRights20/05/22 06:34 PM
-42

LOL Your comment comes out of left field, friend. It makes no sense in the context of this discussion. We were talking about the definition of privilege Stop trying to put words in other people’s mouths…
/r/MensRights20/05/22 06:33 PM
19

Cool victim blaming… Just because he let someone sit in the front seat doesn’t make it his fault she sexually assaulted him. Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds?
/r/MensRights20/05/22 06:31 PM
-18

Nope. Privilege is about probabilities. On average, a privileged person will do better than a non-privileged person. It does not mean that we will see black vs white outcomes. Go ahead and research the concept of privilege more if you are interested.
/r/MensRights20/05/22 06:30 PM
-51

They already know…
/r/MensRights20/05/22 06:29 PM
-1

Sure. For one, you need to appear as a centrist with a clear goal: helping babies. We need to not criticize pro-circumcision citizens. While they do deserve some criticism for not being smarter, we need to be clear that we’re not judging them or their ignorance. All we want to do is help the next generation of men lead a better life. This should win people over… few people can look at a man with love and compassion in his heart and turn him away.
/r/MensRights17/05/22 01:47 PM
-9

Lol yes, hospitals care about following the laws. Right now it’s not illegal to mutilate male babies. Why don’t you do something about that?
/r/MensRights17/05/22 04:40 AM
-12

I’m pretty sure they don’t sell foreskins to cosmetic companies, especially not without consent.
/r/MensRights17/05/22 01:57 AM
1

You should find an actual academic, capable of rationally engaging in a discussion. Though, it must be said, such argumentative flaws are not isolated to ideologies or the left. I have had some awful ‘discussions’ with people on every side of the aisle on Reddit.
/r/MensRights13/05/22 02:05 PM
1

Then expose them for not being true academics… Or acknowledge that your argument is not as compelling as it seems.
/r/MensRights12/05/22 03:40 PM
1

I’m not referring to popular ‘feminists’ on Reddit, but the academics. If you have legitimate critiques of their views and arguments, you should write them out and send them over. Generally, people love to be challenged in academia.
/r/MensRights12/05/22 03:40 PM
1

By ‘feminists’ do you mean published authors in the field of feminism? Or just women? Not everyone is smart, my friend. It’s perfectly plausible that someone here’s what an academic says, and runs with it to wildly illogical ends. Sounds like you should have contacted the dean in that situation. I’m sorry they tried to suppress that knowledge!
/r/MensRights12/05/22 03:38 PM
1

As someone who has taken feminist and gender studies courses, in my experiences the stuff we were taught was pretty simple, not radical, extremely practical (not theoretical academic bullshit). We discussed the gender situation in Iraq, for example, and how the lived experiences of men and women suffer. Anyone opposed to sexism would want to silence or discredit Peterson.
/r/MensRights12/05/22 03:36 PM
1

It seems you are mixing up popular feminism and academic feminism. The two are distinct. No feminist philosopher worth their salt would accept the claims you write without proof. In feminist ethics, lived experiences and logic are both used to reach judgements. I’m not aware of this, because what you are claiming is false. Feminists readily acknowledge that the men in charge do not act in the be interests of all men, e.g.. I would consider reading some feminists writings if I were you; then you …
/r/MensRights12/05/22 03:35 PM
1

You should tell them why they are wrong, and force them to acknowledge your points.
/r/MensRights11/05/22 05:00 PM
-1

This is an interesting characterization of feminism. I would be hesitant to believe this is their true philosophy, as it seems too easy to undermine and expose the illogical assumptions they make.
/r/MensRights11/05/22 03:58 PM
4

I mean. This is true. It’s not exclusive to men though: any human being is capable of ‘going crazy’ or putting up a facade to hide their craziness. The ‘good people’ sometimes turn out to be awful. All it takes is a few moments, one set of bad decisions. It’s my opinion that no one, not even the most moral out there, is incorruptible.
/r/MensRights11/05/22 02:13 PM
1

Okay, but then they didn’t prove the claim. Seems pretty easy to walk circles around these ‘feminists’!
/r/MensRights11/05/22 02:04 PM
1

As I explained before, he hyped up sexism but it’s just pseudo-intellectual bs Any feminist talk which will harm society could deserve censorship on this view.
/r/MensRights11/05/22 02:03 PM
1

Obviously I am generalizing from the Nazi example. I never even remotely characterized JP as a Nazi
/r/MensRights11/05/22 02:03 PM
1

So, take up a pen and convince them why they are wrong. Unless you don’t believe your POV is correct and compelling
/r/MensRights11/05/22 02:02 PM
1

Convince them otherwise
/r/MensRights11/05/22 02:01 PM
1

The next goal, after identifying in issue like this, is to convince others and try to affect policy at some level.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 04:16 PM
1

I’m not sure feminist theorists would agree with such a thing, but good for the ‘pop culture’ feminists. Demagogues are almost always deceptive.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 04:15 PM
1

The onus is on the asserter of the claim to defend it. I’m sure they have in papers and such, you could attack the defenses for their arguments. To get philosophical with it.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 04:14 PM
1

Yeah, the Nazi is just an example. Generalize it to whatever you want. Yes I believe it’s important to question people around us who are morally abhorrent.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 04:12 PM
1

Nope. Some of it is outright dangerous, and it’s disguised as pseudo intellectualism.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 04:11 PM
1

Care to characterize feminist teachings to be contrary to individual liberty and equality.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 04:10 PM
1

Let me reiterate for you: Is it wrong, necessarily, to prevent someone from being indoctrinated? If A tries to indoctrinate B, C, and D, is it okay to limit the free speech of A? That is the topic we’ve been considering in this thread, feel free to re-read my characterization of JP as an indoctrinator.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 03:11 PM
1

Is that ideal novel? Equality has been around for ages… I have raised a few objections to JP’s content in this thread, and elaborated on some reasons why It might deserve to be censored. Tbh, I am not an expert on his writings. But what I did read was… well, read the thread.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 03:07 PM
1

I addressed all this in my last comment. The line of reasoning goes: If you do need abhor nazis, such that you wouldn’t want to sit through a meal with one, then your ethical system is missing a pretty important value (hating intolerant genocidal militants), and therefore you might as well be a Nazi. It’s a little extremist, but I think it’s nice.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 02:53 PM
1

Good for the feminists I guess. It would take some work to show such a thing as being true.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 02:51 PM
1

Yes. You accept that ethical notion. Sometimes it’s okay to restrict free speech, because it risks harm to morally relevant beings. So, if sufficient harm could come from advocating a radical political ideology, wouldn’t it be reasonable to censor it? Fascism, extreme nationalism, animal abuse, the anarchist cookbook, how to kill a senator 101… These are dangerous ideas that ignorant masses might eat up, resulting in real harm. Just speculating here; point is some things might deserve censorship…
/r/MensRights07/05/22 04:59 AM
1

Accountable for his actions, whatever they may be.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 04:53 AM
1

Yeah, sometimes. I’m sure some people out there draw patriarchal ideals and use them in moral judgements. I’m sure some men unknowingly benefit from these ideals. Same for women-supremacy, obviously. Both are things that bear reasonable discussion imo. Neither are hateful actions, just ignorant.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 04:51 AM
1

The reasoning for the Nazi goes like this: If your ethical system doesn’t abhors Nazis, and if you can sit beside them without hate, or it’s moral equivalence repugnance, then you might as well be a Nazi as well. It’s a bit extremist.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 04:50 AM
0

I saw the questions, they just weren’t worth my time… neither is this one tbh, have a good day. Edit: LOL Imagining thinking that knowing a good discussion from a bad discussion makes you a troll.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 12:19 AM
1

I never advocated one of the points they ‘proved wrong’… (all they did was make claims) This discussion is a joke, no one can read here apparently.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 12:18 AM
-1

Okay… I’m sorry it seems that way to you, but that’s not what I’m saying at all. Oppression is wrong. Let’s stop it. Women not getting abortions = severe oppression (Do I need to explain why?) The potential risk of a gendered draft = potential severe oppression I feel you’re a little behind there Please continue to insult me, it’s my kink…
/r/MensRights07/05/22 12:16 AM
0

How could a question ever prove somebody wrong? I admitted my error in an edit… so it could reach everyone who reads my comment, not just you… It’s awkward how seriously you are taking this. We all make mistakes, no need to beat yourself up about it. I would love for a sincere discussion on men’s rights, it’s what I’ve been doing throughout this comment thread. Please ask a question if you would like.
/r/MensRights07/05/22 12:01 AM
0

‘Proven wrong openly and logically’ Where at?
/r/MensRights06/05/22 11:58 PM
1

Mhm. I would love for someone to ask me a question.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 11:58 PM
0

Lol. Sorry I didn’t convey myself well enough. I’m very pro human rights, and anti-oppressive governments. Abortion rights is an issue of human rights, no doubts about it. Rights are be not violated everyday. Thousands of women are currently being forced through unwanted personal and medical complications. The draft is also an issue of human rights. Right now, no rights are being violated (in America). No men are being forced to fight or serve, unless they volunteer. (Another poster brought up t…
/r/MensRights06/05/22 11:58 PM
1

I’m on board with men’s rights. Let’s just not take any sexism with us!
/r/MensRights06/05/22 11:26 PM
1

To be fair, that’s exactly what a troll would say. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I never brought up the American relevancy. I incorrectly assumed we were talking about America, because the context of the discussion is the imminent overturn-ing of Roe v Wade. I then apologized for making this incorrect assumption, and you kept going…
/r/MensRights06/05/22 10:33 PM
0

LOL, you must be trolling me. Why would it matter whether or not the right violation is in America? You brought this up… LOL Have a good day chief.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 10:24 PM
0

Agree to disagree. Have a good day
/r/MensRights06/05/22 10:23 PM
-2

Yeah, no government should be abusing people. It’s common sense, crazy 30% agree with that. I guess I could understand in the case of a serious external threat… but it would have to be a huge threat, and of course it shouldn’t be gendered in 2022
/r/MensRights06/05/22 10:14 PM
0

Is it? Asking someone to see from another POV != dismissing their POV I can see how it could come off that way though.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 10:12 PM
-2

LOL, I never said I thought that. Keep your lies out of my mouth. will smiths Sorry for thinking we were discussing American issues, in the context of Roe v Wade being overturned… lol
/r/MensRights06/05/22 10:12 PM
1

“Imagine” is the keyword here. She talks as if men don’t know what is like to lose “authority over their own body” when in fact men have known this for millennia It’s good to get people to see from the POV of the oppressed. It’s how you inspire change. She shouldn’t of gendered it. But this is hardly some invitation to compete in oppression. Just open your heart and empathize with these people who are being forced into pregnancy.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 10:06 PM
1

Read the thread.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 10:04 PM
0

Not every man (and woman!) knows that. Yes, it was wrong for her to gender the language. But say that then; half this thread is unnecessary women bashing. Why can’t we discuss men’s rights without descending into misogyny? Moderation of this sub is going downhill. Have a good day.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 09:59 PM
1

The whole thread is comparing the two. And belittling women. If you can’t see the issue here, good luck.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 09:58 PM
1

Yes, people (including us) should do more to change public opinion regarding male genital mutilation. I’m talking: convincing people day to day, or at least calling into question their firmly held beliefs; rallying, protesting, and lobbying; and ultimately passing laws. We should do these things; ethically we are required to do so. But… we should also defend a person’s right to abortion. Not to mention, the harm incurred by forced parenthood >>> circumcision harm. We could discuss this, but I th…
/r/MensRights06/05/22 09:52 PM
-1

Yes, the draft is an antiquated, unethical law that deserves to be abolished. But it’s not an issue right now. No one is being hurt by the draft right this second. Anti abortion laws hurt people every fucking day. People are suffering, and y’all are dismissing their suffering because… you would rather be forced by the government to carry a baby, rather than go into armed combat. Do you see how this makes no sense?
/r/MensRights06/05/22 09:45 PM
-4

Who says she can’t? Abortion is an immediate pressing issue, capable of stripping half the population of their right to self determination (not for 10 months; a kid is usually a commitment for the rest of your life…) The draft isn’t being used right now. I hope to god if it ever were, feminists would be able to see our POV and come to our aid. Crying about the draft because it ~could~ happen while women are being forced to carry babies… is sad and gross Edit: imho
/r/MensRights06/05/22 09:29 PM
-12

Is she? Asking someone to see someone else’s point of view is not a challenge…
/r/MensRights06/05/22 09:14 PM
2

This game of ‘oppression olympics’ is sad and gross. Women are suffering due to government tyranny. Men also suffer due to government tyranny. Brothers and sisters, unite.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 07:17 PM
-23

Yes, but the draft hasn’t been used in 50 years. Contraceptive fails every day. Not a great analogy. Obviously no one likes the draft, but this ‘oppression olympics’ trying to out-compete women is sad and gross. The government is tyrannical for multiple reasons, including abortion issues.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 07:16 PM
-26

Women also run that risk? Edit: sorry, I didn’t realize u/Nachtlicht_ was referencing the draft, instead of thee general risk of death and severe damage everyone faces as members of our society. Mostly oppressive cops and crazies
/r/MensRights06/05/22 06:49 PM
-27

Shhh don’t question the narrative
/r/MensRights06/05/22 06:49 PM
1

You seem to have missed the gist of my last two comment.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 02:19 PM
1

Bruh, we’re talking about her claims in general… The fact she lied in other instances calls into question all of her statements… Sorry if that wasn’t clear enough for you
/r/MensRights06/05/22 01:06 AM
1

I suppose you could put her claims into question, yes. But will it be enough that the average person believes him?
/r/MensRights05/05/22 09:25 PM
1

Yes. How could we show that Johnny wasn’t abusive as well, or that he did fucked up things on drugs? They could both be crazy
/r/MensRights05/05/22 06:53 PM
1

Without evidence, how can we know? No one will know what happens behind closed doors, it’s all heresy. I just know amber seems crazy, but that doesn’t mean Johnny isn’t also crazy
/r/MensRights05/05/22 03:27 PM
1

Maybe you need to get out and talk to real people more. I’ve had like 6 people ask me about it, all of them were obviously pro Depp.
/r/MensRights05/05/22 03:20 PM
1

Sure they do bud. Get off Twitter and go outside
/r/MensRights05/05/22 02:53 PM
6

Only an idiot would blindly listen to anyone 🤷‍♂️
/r/MensRights04/05/22 10:47 PM
-4

Well, we all agree we shouldn’t blindly listen to accusers. MeToo had some issues with that. Thanks for sharing your pessimism, i guess
/r/MensRights04/05/22 09:07 PM
-15

Okay
/r/MensRights04/05/22 07:23 PM
-25

Keep thinking that bud.
/r/MensRights04/05/22 07:19 PM
-25

Or because it’s morally wrong?
/r/MensRights04/05/22 06:38 PM
1

That article was just a little too quick to reach its conclusions, I’m afraid they didn’t seem adequately supported.
/r/MensRights03/05/22 01:46 PM
1

I’m not sure why I would care, when evaluating if bullying happened, if someone perceived themselves as being bullied. Is that part of your definition for bullying? I was sticking to the definition that relies on the intent of the agent. I agree someone could lie about bullying, and then the intent of the agent is hard to prove. But I was talking about me and you bullying people, which we always know the intent of the agent. I agree there is room for discussion, but I’m not convinced that it’s h…
/r/AntiFeminists03/05/22 01:22 AM
0

Intent can definitely be measured by you and me. I generally know what my intentions are, and think before I act. You can do the same thing. So the statement ‘we should bully less’ is perfectly fine, because I’m talking about our own actions. Sometimes criticism might look like bullying to some people; sure. Some criticism is probably even bullying, there’s probably overlap. But some criticism is good and constructive. Bullying, as standardly understood, is always bad and destructive.
/r/AntiFeminists02/05/22 07:01 PM
2

I think we could come up with a clear distinction if we put in just a little time and thought.
/r/AntiFeminists02/05/22 05:19 PM
3

Definitely reads like a fake text
/r/AntiFeminists02/05/22 03:15 PM
10

Challenge != bully We should bully people less.
/r/AntiFeminists02/05/22 03:15 PM
1

Thanks for sharing :) Seems like everyone practices hypergamy where possible. I also dislike the implicit assumption that human traits can be objectively quantized. The perfect mate for me might be the worst for you… Or, two people could mate and both think they traded up. It’s all about perception.
/r/MensRights02/05/22 03:08 PM
1

So if I understand hypergamy correctly, it’s a phenomena in which mates seek out the best possible mate. I’m not sure why this is thought to be a women only trait, or how it’s relevant to the disparity in online dating experiences for men and women. I also don’t see why it would be questioned or looked down upon. If you were choosing between different options, wouldn’t you always choose the best one? I also think it needs to be clear that hypergamy, by definition, is not limited to sexual/geneti…
/r/MensRights02/05/22 02:45 AM
1

You have to acknowledge the origin of this data. Anything taken from dating sites doesn’t really describe the hole of women very well. Also, on dating sites people love to ‘aim high’, because why not? There are no social consequences to failing.
/r/MensRights02/05/22 02:41 AM
1

I can see how you could think that, but it’s pretty simple to explain why any bigoted argument is illogical. (To be clear it’s not a statement of my opinion, it’s a formal evaluation of their position. This is of coursed biased (opinionated lol) because I, a human being, thought of it, but I wouldn’t call it an opinion which is usually less formally supported) So instead of saying “your racism/sexism is wrong because it’s bigoted”, a good philosopher would say “your bigoted view is logically inc…
/r/MensRights02/05/22 02:38 AM
1

I mean they might say that, but I would argue they are wrong. My definition is more logically complete, there’s is rooted in misandry.
/r/MensRights01/05/22 09:36 PM
-1

LOL Welcome to the world of theoretical discussions
/r/MensRights01/05/22 09:36 PM
1

The feminist you cited used a wrong definition. I’m sure some, like myself, use the philosophically defensible definition.
/r/MensRights01/05/22 05:36 PM
-5

I don’t take issue with you or them, I take issue with the definition. It’s important not to attack your opponents, but their ideas instead.
/r/MensRights01/05/22 05:31 PM
-11

That definition is almost right, but not quite. For instance, a traditional housewife would be valued under the patriarchy, for demonstrating traditional gender roles. The definition you gave wouldn’t catch this example, whereas mine encompasses both all of your examples, and examples like this one.
/r/MensRights01/05/22 05:29 PM
-18

Boys, no one says the patriarchy is our fault. If we define the patriarchy as the set of cultural norms which reinforce traditional gender roles, then it’s all of our ancestors fault that it exists. Men and women alike. Hence why it hurts men and women alike.
/r/MensRights01/05/22 04:20 PM
0

I love you brother ❤️
/r/MensRights01/05/22 04:18 PM
0

❤️❤️
/r/MensRights01/05/22 03:28 PM
1

Okay, so we agree it’s okay to silence hitler.
/r/MensRights01/05/22 03:25 PM
1

Brother, I don’t have a drop of hate in my heart. Seems like you are projecting tho
/r/MensRights01/05/22 03:24 PM
1

Nah, i disagree. You don’t have to incite violence to radicalize someone into violence. Deceptive tactics that promote sexism and things like r/redpill can lead to violence. JP should be held accountable. Too many mass shootings from radicalized men, who are radicalizing them?
/r/MensRights01/05/22 03:24 PM
1

Patriarchy has some weight, but it’s not some boogeyman we can blame all problems on
/r/MensRights01/05/22 03:22 PM
-1

God. That article was so poorly written
/r/MensRights01/05/22 02:06 PM
1

I’m sure there are Central feminist documents, like ‘the rights of women’ or something. It’s okay to see people as fellow travelers, just not when they’re violent extremists. Same thing with eating dinner w a Nazi imo
/r/MensRights01/05/22 01:50 PM
1

Still seems like you didn’t respond to my comment… give it a reread
/r/MensRights01/05/22 01:49 PM
1

Okay… seems you are missing the analogy with hitler. It’s pretty simple. Some people should be censored
/r/MensRights30/04/22 06:11 PM
1

This is the issue. Any reasonable person would see ‘kill all men’ as a ‘bad bias’, but it’s hard to make this shit definitive and un-abusable. Classic political science issue.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 05:12 PM
1

I would say any progressive who is rallying against progressive reform due to identity politics IS radical.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 05:10 PM
1

She can call herself a feminist all she wants, but wollencroft would roll over in her grave at her pig-headedness
/r/MensRights30/04/22 04:17 PM
1

Did you respond to the wrong comment?
/r/MensRights30/04/22 03:55 PM
1

They don’t claim he’s what? If you think I said JP is a fascist dictator, let me clarify. If we start censoring people for deceptively spreading bad ideologies, what’s to stop the state from descending into fascism, where any anti-state rhetoric can is labeled as bad and silenced? I agree something needs to be done about radicals, but it’s a slippery slope.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 03:54 PM
1

Good for you 👍
/r/MensRights30/04/22 03:40 PM
1

Let me repeat myself. If someone is using deceptive tactics to manipulate people into believing radical ideologies which are harmful to individuals and society as a whole, THEN it may be morally permissible to silence them. No mention of political power or dictatorships If someone could show JP was doing just that, I might condone censorship.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 03:39 PM
1

We aren’t talking about shutting down a forum, just silencing a radical individual. Hitler should have been silenced. This radical feminist should be silenced. And perhaps JP should be as well. How could we manage this without succumbing to a fascist dictator? Idk
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:42 PM
1

Even if their ideology is incredibly misandric? I mean, you don’t have to agree, but ideally we’d minimize the transmission of biases to the next generation.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:33 PM
1

And they’re around today. You just hear about the radicals. The average feminist would be an ally to MRA’s if we explained our cause and the need to help men.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:28 PM
1

No, the people who are egalitarian and originally espoused feminist doctrine
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:27 PM
1

‘Pretty’
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:27 PM
1

I suppose my issue is I deal with the concept of feminism, which dates back to the 1840’s at least. Back when women actually needed serious advocates…. To go to school and be able to own property. For me, feminism is men = women. Not in all ways, but in the morally relevant ones (degree of agency, cognitive sophistication, moral standing in our community, etc). It’s tough, I may not agree with what recent feminists are doing and saying. I don’t follow the movement that closely.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:25 PM
1

True that. If you sit down for dinner with three Nazis, you’re a Nazi. To tolerate such egregious ideological errors is to passively endorse them. I agree the feminist movement should be more vocal. Feminism has always been about inclusivity, i think this is why these radicals have always been allowed to share their opinions. Strangely it’s not inclusive to men. Which makes some sense, given the rise of feminism out of ‘the patriarchy’. But we all know the world ain’t like that; tons of men want…
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:23 PM
1

Yup. The evidence we have indicates that. 1) there could be missing evidence 2) the evidence may have been misinterpreted Both of these are possibilities, so as I said: there is a possible world where Newton laid pipe.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:19 PM
1

Well, hypothesize with me for a moment. If someone, like the ‘sterilize/kill all men crowd’ are advocating for seriously anti-egalitarian content, AND, they are using deceptive practices to trick people into their false/immoral ideology, Should we not pass legislation to protect those gullible people, and society as a whole? I’m thinking of Hitler’s rise to power, for an example. If someone could show that JP was sufficiently acting in this vein, it would be morally tolerable to silence him. I a…
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:18 PM
1

? You can cast it however you want to fit your POV. I’m just a guy who supports egality
/r/MensRights30/04/22 01:45 PM
1

Absolutely, the merits of data should be evaluated in it’s own right. Nobody ever presents the merits in a comment, unfortunately.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 03:23 AM
1

Sorry I’m not perfectly rational 24/7…
/r/MensRights30/04/22 03:20 AM
1

‘I’m pretty sure’
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:29 AM
1

No… you indicated it. I just left a few comments, and you start throwing out accusations
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:28 AM
1

If you’re a MRA, you’re a feminist. They might use feminist philosophy, but that doesn’t make them egalitarians.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:27 AM
1

Second wave feminists co-opted first wave feminism. They can do-opt the ideals and still start/found the movement As I said, this is common in progressive politics. Radicals take over, especially if there is a power vacuum. Look at the French Revolution of 1789
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:27 AM
1

Judge them based off what they do, not what they claim they are…. They claim to be feminists. Their actions disprove that claim. Feminists are allies to the MRA movement
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:26 AM
1

Someone should. She’s not a real feminist if she argues for misandry. Although she could technically be arguing using feminist philosophical techniques, and still be going against the goals of the feminist movement.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:23 AM
1

I mean, yeah, there’s is a possible world where Newton never lived and it’s all deception. And even more probable is the world where Newton got some action in secret
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:22 AM
1

I agree, the dilemma is not descending into sexism and echo chambers.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:19 AM
1

Yes. He almost definitely had platonic attraction for a woman (if he existed and had human-like emotions) It is more dubious, though not impossible, that he experienced sexual attraction.
/r/MensRights29/04/22 03:47 PM
1

Indeed I have :) Also, a lot of psychology (like other fields of science) have roots in philosophy. Psychology is a direct byproduct of philosophy of the mind. There is only one feminism, and it’s the ideal that men and women and everyone else deserves fair consideration, regardless of their sex/gender. I agree that the modern ‘feminists’ have ruined this ideal, but that don’t mean shit for real feminists who care about égalité.
/r/MensRights28/04/22 11:33 PM
1

Nope. A lot of data that is presented to me on Reddit is not properly analyzed, though. Take any statistics course and you’ll learn that while numbers can’t lie, people can certainly manipulate them. So I’m not sure what data they are referencing…
/r/MensRights28/04/22 11:31 PM
1

Yeah, sure thing bud
/r/MensRights28/04/22 11:30 PM
1

They aren’t feminists 🤷‍♂️ Just liars who co-opted a movement to benefit themselves. Quite common in progressive circles.
/r/MensRights28/04/22 11:29 PM
0

‘Pretty sure’ Lol, again, you are projecting. Pleasure to see you again Angry as f, k.
/r/MensRights28/04/22 11:28 PM
1

…it’s the same rules. Making dogmatic claims requires proof. I haven’t made any unproven dogmatic claims, just questioned his.
/r/MensRights28/04/22 11:27 PM
1

Nope. I said ‘for a lover, check out Mary’ She could have been a lover of Jesus. Doesn’t mean she 100% is. I’m not even 100% convinced a man named Jesus Christ ever walked this earth. I agree it was tongue in cheek, can’t resist a good debate tho :P
/r/MensRights28/04/22 11:26 PM
1

?
/r/MensRights28/04/22 11:25 PM
1

LOL Chief, you are analyzing into this just a bit too much. Yes, I’m not an expert in Jesus or the Bible. But to say he never was intimate (=emotionally close to) women seems wrong. Maybe you’re projecting with that last paragraph? Seems like you’re coming into my comment with your mind already made up, and reading it to fit what you ‘already knew’. Funnily enough you keep attacking feminism…. I wonder why
/r/MensRights28/04/22 11:24 PM
1

Sure, of course. This discussion began when u/heeroena said ‘jesus is a lot like MGTOW…’ And I said: he had close/intimate relationships with women. This was to show he was not a lot like MGTOW Then I believe you said: he had no sexual/romantic attraction to women. Which may or may not be true, but isn’t relevant to the discussion on whether or not Jesus was similar to MGTOW
/r/MensRights28/04/22 04:56 PM
1

He never had any attraction to anyone You probably meant sexual/romantic attraction here then
/r/MensRights28/04/22 04:54 PM
1

Also, he shows all kinds of interpersonal attraction towards his followers. Maybe not of the sexual/romantic nature
/r/MensRights28/04/22 04:25 PM
1

And from this lack of recorded evidence, you claim to understand his psychology? Do you see how this logic is tenuous? You certainly can’t prove that Jesus was never attracted to someone. And, if he’s like anyone else, he almost certainly was.
/r/MensRights28/04/22 04:24 PM
0

Not sure what data you’re referencing, but if my equal signs confused you then I’m probably wasting my time trying to reason with you. Have a good day!
/r/MensRights28/04/22 04:11 PM
1

So we need to organize activists like the feminists did in the 1910’s… it’s the only way to make real change.
/r/MensRights28/04/22 03:58 PM
1

That’s a great claim you make, what’s the proof? Did you talk to Jesus, and have him swear under oath that he was never attracted to anyone? Do I even trust this man not to lie?
/r/MensRights28/04/22 03:57 PM
0

No… you assume it’s a 1-1 relationship where each element in the domain maps to a single element in the range. This is not so. What do you mean by ‘Equal signs are absolute’? Absolute in which way? Egalitarianism = feminism = virtuous action = fair consideration to all Lots of things involve fair consideration. Those are just three examples. Perhaps also I could add ‘an ideal justice system’.
/r/MensRights28/04/22 03:57 PM
1

Okay, I admit some humans act selfishly. Now prove that all humans are inherently selfish. I’ll wait.
/r/MensRights28/04/22 03:53 PM
1

LOL, I never claimed feminism is the only thing that does so. Why would you assume that?
/r/MensRights28/04/22 01:09 PM
0

Mhm. I’m the one who lacks critical thinking skills… He tried to show that dominance hierarchies exist in humans by analyzing lobsters. It was ridiculous. Read the book. You can’t extrapolate from selfish neurology to humans…
/r/MensRights28/04/22 01:09 PM
0

I disagree that it is well made. It didn’t have a logical sequence to the rules (iirc), and the rules were nonsense. You do realize that this is still sexist even with the redefinition? Unless you define order to = “having a penis” and chaos = “having a vagina”, there is no way it’s not sexist to say men exemplify order and women chaos. It’s sexist. Plain and simple. And it’s not supported by any science, it’s just a crazy man’s ramblings.
/r/MensRights28/04/22 01:08 PM
1

But also, what a shitty comment you left. No sources, no logic, just ‘nah’. Contribute to the discussion
/r/MensRights28/04/22 01:05 PM
1

Friends: https://juniaproject.com/many-female-followers-of-jesus/ For a lover, check out Mary Magdalene.
/r/MensRights28/04/22 01:05 PM
0

This is exactly the pseudo intellectual ‘psychology’ that JP peddles. Who says humans are inherently selfish?
/r/MensRights28/04/22 01:03 PM
-3

Read the book I mentioned, ‘twelve rules for life’. He tries to equate lobster psychology with human psychology, with absurd results l
/r/MensRights27/04/22 05:44 PM
-4

See, I point out a particular MRA like JP and acknowledge he is a quack. You claim all feminists are quacks… which is objectively untrue. It is a broad field of philosophy, with thousands of well-spoken, smart advocates. Feminism = fair treatment and consideration. There’s nothing pseudo intellectual about that. Edit: I wish I could put up the good fight, but willful ignorance is next to impossible to cure.
/r/MensRights27/04/22 05:24 PM
-15

I’m pretty sure Jesus was intimate with women, both sexually and platonically.
/r/MensRights27/04/22 04:54 PM
-34

I haven’t thought long enough to know my ethical opinion on this with certainty. I will say: There is some distinction between radicals emerging out of a progressive movement, who should be corrected by the more intelligent and rational progressives. And those who peddle pseudo intellectual nonsense to TRY and manipulate people. I guess it’s the manipulation that’s wrong, though I agree both strains of discourse are ultimately wrong, immoral, and dangerous to individuals and society as a whole.
/r/MensRights27/04/22 04:53 PM
-53

My issue with JP (Peterson) is that the things he says SOUND smart and well composed, but are inconsequential, illogical, or blatantly biased. I read his book ‘The Twelve Rules for Life’, and it was a philosophical shitshow. And, he encourages this traditional, conservative, immoral world-view. ‘Women are chaos and men are order’, what the fuck buddy? So young dumb men (probably the same people who are downvoting us) get swept up in his compelling sexism without a second thought. As a rule, I’m …
/r/MensRights27/04/22 04:03 PM
-33

How?? Is it just funny because feminist=bad?
/r/MensRights27/04/22 03:49 PM
-73

Finally some common sense. It sounds like you actually read 1984 as well, the nonexistent but ever-present enemy is a theme. 95% of feminists and MRA’s are perfectly normal, respectable people who believe in treating people fairly regardless of gender. But you have a few crazy radicals who try and incite tensions between groups. No one is special. Everyone deserves respect and fair consideration. This is the most fundamental principle of feminism, which is twisted and radicalized by both sides o…
/r/MensRights27/04/22 03:31 PM
-42

What? Who upvoted this nonsense
/r/MensRights27/04/22 03:27 PM
1

That’s what courts are for
/r/MensRights26/04/22 01:57 PM
1

Rape should be gender neutral too…
/r/MensRights26/04/22 01:57 PM
1

And those police should have been penalized for arresting Mark after clearly seeing that the footage did not confirm the woman’s story. And the women should have criminal charges brought against her. The system really isn’t biased, but the people in charge of the system sure are.
/r/MensRights21/04/22 04:52 PM
1

I agree, especially with the state of the police in the USA. Not sure how it looks in the UK. But, to be fair, criminalizing something is a form of social pressure. If the people of the UK want this action criminalized, who am I to judge. Otherwise we will see this mayor not re-elected, and a return to legal ogling.
/r/MensRights21/04/22 04:50 PM
1

Again: it’s not sexist to say: ‘in my experiences on tinder, I found women to be ___’ It is sexist to say ‘women are ___, and I know because of my experiences on tinder’. In the first yo share your experiences. In the second you generalize those anecdotes to a broad section of the population that you have never met.
/r/MensRights21/04/22 04:43 PM
1

Very true, the complaint starts the process. People who are afraid, or have victim mentalities, will be more likely to call in a report. The implementation would be fair if the cops treated men and women as equals, as they should. The objective test is a comprehensive review of police incident reports. If men don’t call it in, that doesn’t make it unfair. I do agree it’s a little weird to criminalize staring, but I think only grossly sexually staring could be proven to be sexual harassment in co…
/r/MensRights21/04/22 02:19 PM
1

But wait, there’s more. At what frequency do men call in and report the incidents? THEN: At what frequency do they get ignored? Compare this to the frequency women get ignored. That’s where we find the bias. And (I can’t say this any more clearly) that is an enforcement bias. It’s not a bias in the policy, but a bias in the enforcers of the policy. Unless we had some internal government documents indicating that’s how they wanted the policy to be enforced. As it’s written on the signs, it’s perf…
/r/MensRights21/04/22 02:16 PM
1

Bruh r/woooosh Seems this concept is going over your head. The law specifically targets anyone who is perving at someone on the train. There is no gender or sexual bias, men aren’t targeted under the law. Enforcement is perhaps biased. That’s a whole different issues than the law itself being biased. Check my toxic femininity? You seem really far gone my friend. What evidence do you have that I exhibit toxic femininity?
/r/MensRights21/04/22 12:35 PM
1

Nope, I’ve given a few examples in this thread (my very last comment to you!) where you can definitively prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. The law isn’t about whether you made some uncomfortable. It’s about whether you were staring at them in an intense and sexual manner. The feelings of the victim have 0 relevance to the discussion, I’m not sure why you or anyone else would bring it up. These posters might deter creeps without actually needing to report anyone.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 04:07 PM
1

Okay? I’m not claiming that person A must ask person B to stop in order for it to be a criminal offense. I’m saying it’s sufficient to prove intent, not that it’s necessary. Of course a creep could be perving on someone and not be asked to stop, but still be acting immorally. But if you are asked to stop and refuse, it’s pretty clear you have malicious intent.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 04:05 PM
1

It’s fine if the sexism is based on personal experiences, i understand how confirmation bias works. But it’s still sexism.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 04:03 PM
1

CCTV footage, other eyewitness reports serve as evidence. Or even perhaps a large history of unsubstantiated accusations. Not one or two accusations. I agree the cops are way out of line. Bring back our due process!
/r/MensRights20/04/22 04:02 PM
1

Fair points! I think there may be more extreme cases where this policy would be fair. But it does seem dystopian at first glance.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 04:01 PM
1

I agree it would be a high bar to prove that the staring was excessive and sexual, which is why I’m not worried about this policy being abused. At most, it will act as a deterrent for the ignorant creeps out there who don’t understand that this policy won’t affect them. I agree with your example of politeness. We shouldn’t criminalize being rude, even though it would be better if no one was rude.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 03:59 PM
1

Yes, the text of the policy… It hasn’t been used against women yet. But that could simply be because women aren’t staring at people on trains at the same rate as men are. Doesn’t imply sexism.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 03:57 PM
1

That is a bold claim. Through what logic do you know it cannot be fairly implemented?
/r/MensRights20/04/22 03:56 PM
1

For me, pattern of actions -> nature, in that you would act differently if your nature was different. I think it’s perfectly fair to say someone’s nature needs improvement. None of our traits are set in stone, we can work to change the way we interface with the world. Obviously I’m sure some women say some dumb shit about how men should act; but just like I think men’s opinions on abortions should be considered fairly, so should women’s opinions on masculinity. Just my two cents. Obviously some …
/r/MensRights20/04/22 03:32 PM
1

True :)
/r/MensRights20/04/22 03:29 PM
1

I agree. What’s your point? That the policy will be difficult to equitably implement? Or that the policy is immoral?
/r/MensRights20/04/22 03:29 PM
1

Again. The official policy and posters is not gendered. It’s on the official UK transit website. MTA or something like that Just because we’ve seen some men get in trouble and no women so far, doesn’t mean the policy must be aimed at men. I think you are being a little defensive about this. It might feel like an attack, but anyone committing this form of sexual harassment should, in principle, be guilty under this policy. Enforcement might be biased towards men, but the law is not.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 03:01 PM
1

Can you support this claim? It’s interesting. I’m into ethics, but I haven’t learned philosophy of law yet. If something is objectively bad for society, why shouldn’t it be criminalized? Edit: please don’t respond and tell me that ‘stare rape’ is not objectively bad for society. It’s an interesting discussion to have, but now we are generalizing away from this example. If X is objectively bad for society, why shouldn’t we make X illegal?
/r/MensRights20/04/22 02:57 PM
1

This is a different issue. We are talking about corruption and institutionalized bias. This policy shouldn’t present an issue in terms of sexual discrimination, unless the system is biased. We’ve moved on from the discussion of whether or not this policy is a violation of human rights. This is a good discussion to have and I’d love to hear your thoughts on it more, but right now we were talking about systemic injustice that is not isolated to this one policy. Changing systemic injustice takes ti…
/r/MensRights20/04/22 02:55 PM
1

What’s not defined as such? That would definitely fall under the ‘excessive or repeated staring of a sexual nature’
/r/MensRights20/04/22 02:53 PM
1

True that. I’m just saying, if you’re government is being abusive you need to raise your voice. Organize a class action, start a non-profit, push for change.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 02:52 PM
1

No, it’s ONLY sexist because you assume all women think that way. I didn’t admit anything lmfao. The law isn’t sexist. Enforcement of the law may be biased, but that’s not an issue for this law. Consider literacy tests. On principle, they aren’t racist. But the implementation was racist.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 02:48 PM
1

Mhm. Thank you for sharing your limited experiences friend. My point is others DO do things for I) drugs, II) to dance and hang with their friends while doing drugs in bright lights and loud music III) while asexual Some people like go to clubs but aren’t interested in sex.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 02:07 PM
0

Or to the club with their friends… It’s sad y’all can’t understand someone doing something for a reason that’s not your own. Not everyone who goes to the club is trying to get laid, period.
/r/MensRights20/04/22 01:23 AM
1

… Painful
/r/MensRights20/04/22 01:22 AM
-11

AGAIN, you don’t know everyone… You make this claim, it is not remotely based in reality. You said they only go for sexual/romantic attention. Drugs, dancing, and hanging with friends are all great reasons to go to a club. Stop posting bullshit
/r/MensRights19/04/22 09:58 PM
-13

I’m sure all the asexual and lesbian women are hitting clubs for male attention LOL
/r/MensRights19/04/22 09:17 PM
-19

Speak for yourself friend. You don’t know the intentions of everyone out there. What about couples who go dancing, or asexuals. Have a good day.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 09:16 PM
1

You’re describing sexism. The state should be sued for discrimination.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 09:15 PM
1

Mhm, have a good day bud
/r/MensRights19/04/22 09:14 PM
1

…yes. So the enforcement system is a violation of men’s rights. But this sexual harassment policy isn’t.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 09:06 PM
1

I agree.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 09:05 PM
0

Bruh I never claimed to be around in 1789, what a dumb thing to infer from my comment Ah yes, we disagree so I’m a foolish troll. Thanks for your critical analysis 👍
/r/MensRights19/04/22 09:05 PM
0

Lol, this comment is so ignorant. If you were around for the horrors of the reign of terror, you would not make that comparison so lightly. How many people have been killed by feminists in Britain? Exactly.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 08:05 PM
1

Many people can’t make that choice and still survive… Let’s bring back Robespierre then! Behead anyone who disagrees with us!
/r/MensRights19/04/22 07:23 PM
0

So where do you draw the line? Can I flash people? Or punch people? Or belittle people? Or use hate speech? Or ‘violate your personal space’ without touching you? Or smell really bad? Or scream at the top of my lungs? What actions which hurt others are okay, and which are morally wrong?
/r/MensRights19/04/22 07:21 PM
-1

Stare != Pervy staring, no one in this thread seems to grasp that simple distinction.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 06:14 PM
-1

You choose to be in this forum. You don’t have much choice in commuting to work. Yes, I believe we should punish/fine negative externalities.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 06:14 PM
-15

We are all just people ❤️
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:19 PM
13

What even is masculinity? Just a pattern of actions men exhibit. Masculinity, and femininity, is a huge spectrum. There is no ‘wrong way’ to be a guy. If you’re an asshole you’re an asshole, that has nothing to do with gender.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:18 PM
2

Speculation… we will have to see how it is actually enforced. Staring and looking are very different, for the last time.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:41 PM
1

There’s a couple clear and cut examples discussed in this thread. I agree, 99/100 times this is unenforceable and just a deterrent.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:40 PM
1

And hobbies and interests and history… Not everyone on tinder is obsessed with looks. It’s also an awful extrapolation to make, because the 9/10 people on tinder are trying to hook up. That’s not reflective of the general population
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:40 PM
1

Yup :) But we could imagine a similar scenario, where he only states, is asked to stop, and refuses. Clear and shut case
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:38 PM
1

No… common law is all about whether you actually committed a crime. It doesn’t matter if someone felt you committed a crime, unless they can prove you did.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:38 PM
1

Tbh I doubt anyone would give you a hassle. One can generally tell when someone is ogling them va looking past them
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:37 PM
1

Also speculation on ‘what if the genders were reversed’ is specifically not allowed in the subreddit rules, unless you can furnish an example in which men tried to report excessive sexual staring and were actually ignored.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:36 PM
1

Oh big time. I just also think that if you are freaking someone out by staring, you should knock it off. This policy seems like it would help reduce this
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:36 PM
-2

What about the pervs who stare at a fully clothed person? Do they not deserve repercussions in your opinion?
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:34 PM
1

Yes, as I said anyone could manipulate a video to make it seem like you committed a crime. This is an issue with the courts accepting faulty video evidence, NOT an issue with the policy itself.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:33 PM
1

What’s the Better option? Let people be walked over by the courts and cops?
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:32 PM
1

It seems the parliament actually considers the phrase to be gender neutral
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:31 PM
1

Yes, but that’s an issue with sexist law enforcement and judges. A whole other issue than criminalizing sexual staring.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:27 PM
1

Yes sure, I’ll google it for you… Can’t find a good link, someone linked to a MTA (??) website in this thread somewhere. The official UK transit authority
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:27 PM
1

Well, if your government is wrongfully persecuting people, you kind of have to sue them. Or a the very least do something about it.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:20 PM
1

? This analogy doesn’t hold too well.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:19 PM
1

Misogyny and misandry are both bad. It’s perfectly fine to say 80% of women on tinder do _. It’s perfectly sexist to say ‘the majority of women do _’. You abused the statistic by extrapolating the conclusion outside of the population. Statistics aren’t offensive, people who use them to discriminate are.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 02:18 PM
0

Even when someone is actively making someone else’s commute dreadful?
/r/MensRights19/04/22 12:54 PM
1

Suicide is illegal, at least in the states Idk man. All I know is that your freedom is restricted by those around you. You can’t take your clothes off, so perhaps you can’t stare at that women’s chest for a 30 min train ride.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 12:52 PM
1

Well that’s ridiculous
/r/MensRights19/04/22 12:51 PM
-1

This makes a sexist assumption about women. Not all women are as shallow as you paint them to be. Plus, the law doesn’t care about looking or seeing. Just excessive, repeated staring
/r/MensRights19/04/22 12:51 PM
0

That’s not quite the policy. It’s about ‘extreme and excessive’ staring of a sexual nature. They have to prove you are acting like this before you can be found guilty of a crime.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:17 AM
0

Just because two specific in idents had female victims and make perps doesn’t make the policy biased… Even if it turned out 75% were men, that’s still not necessarily biased if it’s fairly applied. Maybe men commit more harassments than women in this timeframe. There could be systemic injustice.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:16 AM
0

Technically anyone could have made the case that it should be considered harassment under the 1986 act this whole time. There’s no new law here, just an executive enforcement decision.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:14 AM
1

Yup, but if they politely asked you to stop staring, then you could look away. No repeated issue, no harassment. Personally, I always make eye contact and a funny face with people staring into space in my direction. Usually gets a smile :)
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:12 AM
1

Yeah! I’m : Going nude to the school play, Or punching someone, Or killing myself, Or snorting opium. We draw the line, as a society, over what any Individual can do with their body. Do you think this staring policy is too far? How about those other examples?
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:11 AM
1

Extreme and excessive staring (do you want examples?) should be prosecuted, just like other violations of privacy/personal space. Maybe not legally, but you should be kicked off the train. I agree that there is an issue with enforcement. I think these men should sue their government and the women who lied, for creating a situation which allows for their lives to be wrongfully upended. It’s not that the law is bad, the system is broken. Cops need to be held accountable. Judges need to be held acc…
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:09 AM
1

… yes, the issue you’re describing doesn’t exist. The only issue that would matter is the legal (and moral) one. Who is making this issue about what the ‘victim’ felt? People on Twitter?
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:06 AM
1

Exactly :) it would be a clear case
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:04 AM
0

Nope. This sub is about men’s rights
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:03 AM
0

My only issue is when people extrapolate to real people from those studies or chat room theories
/r/MensRights19/04/22 05:02 AM
1

The subjective issue is difficult. But that just means the policy should only be enforced in clear, objective instances of sexual harassment. Like in my example where someone asks you to stop staring, and you refuse. That’s harassment. As a rule, it’s good to deter creeps from ogling people on the train. Some of these creeps could be prosecuted, great. Most cannot. Hopefully they will look less anyways! Nothing against your average man, but for the small percentage of creeps this might make a di…
/r/MensRights19/04/22 01:33 AM
-1

Cool… random media used sexist language. Not surprising at all. If you read the actual policy on the government webpage, it is gender neutral 👍
/r/MensRights19/04/22 01:30 AM
-1

How would ‘women and girls’ be gender neutral? Are you trying to mock me?
/r/MensRights19/04/22 01:29 AM
0

She might think so, and if she does she could ask you to look away. Then you would, because that’s the reasonable and kind thing to do. No harassment.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 01:28 AM
2

Crazy red pill logic lol
/r/MensRights19/04/22 01:27 AM
0

Yes, you may be prosecuted. But they can’t prove it, as they itch the example you gave. Then you should sue your accuser in civil court for wasting your time, and the state for allowing it to happen.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 01:26 AM
1

Under this law, they are both considered sexual harassment. Yes, it’s still sexual harassment even if they (gender neutral) don’t ask you to stop. BUT, how could you prove it in these ‘stare rape’ instances? The example I gave is a clear case where you can prove intent.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 01:25 AM
-1

Nice source, read the articles linked and you’ll see the text of the policy is gender neutral.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 01:23 AM
1

I’m not a legal expert. It seems to me (from reading comments) that no new law was passed. So, I infer it is just a change in policy, the way the law is enforced. Someone linked an article, which cited a 1986 law being used
/r/MensRights19/04/22 01:22 AM
-1

You make some claims here but they don’t sound trustworthy. How does one make ‘a useful heuristic’ without any polling? Also self-reporting surveys have no scientific validity, they certainly don’t allow you to make claims about those who don’t fill out the survey. So again, to say all men want ___ is sexist.
/r/MensRights19/04/22 01:19 AM
1

Yup, that’s what we just said
/r/MensRights18/04/22 10:44 PM
1

Yup, that’s how lying works
/r/MensRights18/04/22 10:44 PM
2

Meh, this varies from person to person.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 10:44 PM
1

The amount of ‘evolutionary psychology’ in this worries me. Women seek well educated, successful mates? Sure they do buddy… such a crazy armchair psychology generalization imo Seems boys need more attention in school as well.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 10:43 PM
1

Yes, then you could reasonably claim you were zoning out, and no one could prove otherwise. Edit: this makes you a creepy, obviously lol
/r/MensRights18/04/22 10:40 PM
0

Well if you read the website, they pretty clearly explain why this is included in the policy.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 10:40 PM
-1

The word repeated came from the website you provided. This isn’t a law but a policy (i believe). All they are doing is enforcing the old sexual harassment laws in a new way. I didn’t see any mention of intent… Repeated actions could happen on the subway. Look at this example: Person A touches Person B’s ass while on the train. It’s pretty packed, so no one (besides person A) knows if it was done on purpose. Then it happens 4 more times. Person B has a case for sexual harassment. Or, ’Hey can you…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 10:39 PM
1

Yes, they define harassment as ‘repeated unwanted behaviour’. Is there an issue with that? It seems to be a good definition to me.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 09:54 PM
1

If the cop discriminates against you, sue the state for allowing an abusive POS into office. Also I see you had an ‘input output error’. That is not the right I’m talking about, as I said.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 09:52 PM
0

No offense, but you didn’t know. You suspected. For all we know he did have evil intentions. Psychopaths are among us, and they can hide pretty well sometimes.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 09:29 PM
-12

Lol yes, I’m out of touch. Sure thing buddy. Here you go again, being sexist. How do you know the majority of modern men want ____. (Put whatever you want in the blank, you’re still sexist). Unless you took a poll of all men, your claim is sexist. You don’t get to speak for me. That certainly isn’t my 1st priority lmfao
/r/MensRights18/04/22 09:28 PM
-1

And yet you repeat this ‘knowledge’ as if it were a fact… it seems like you follow the ideology of you believe in their ‘facts’ That’s cool that it’s relational. You still stereotype all women. Which is sexist, by definition.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 09:26 PM
2

True that last bit. Collective action is the way. I think we all have the right to set limits on everyone’s actions. You can’t legally drive on the wrong side of the road, or sell fentanyl, or burn down my house. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Your right to stare ends where I begin.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 09:25 PM
1

Alright, we have to agree to disagree then. I think everyone has the right to exist without being targeted by harassers. This is not ‘a right to not be creeped out’, but it is similar. This law provides some help for us against Karen’s. If they won’t leave you alone, claim they are harassing you and call the cops.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 09:23 PM
0

Can you give an example of sexist advertising related to this policy?
/r/MensRights18/04/22 09:22 PM
-2

Good! I’m glad this makes you angry. Use that anger to defend your rights! Why do you think this is anti-male propaganda? The policy is gender neutral.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 09:22 PM
-13

Modern women brazenly chase the top 10-20 percent of Men but want to be desired and validated by virtually all Men and don’t care at all about the bottom 80-90 percent of guys. Your ‘red pill’ ideology is sexist. You assume things about all women. That is sexist. That is stereotyping.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 08:35 PM
2

This policy is only meant for clear and cut cases of sexual harassment. What you’ve described doesn’t fit the bill, I’m sorry you are scared but worry not, because it doesn’t apply to you. Any prosecutor would be unable to prove you were staring with sexual intent, if you were ever accused and arrested I would sue the state for wrongful arrest. They had no probable cause to arrest you, besides one persons word. The cases this policy does apply to are clear cut sexual harassment.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 08:30 PM
-10

More sexism.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 08:28 PM
-7

This is low effort sexism.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 08:27 PM
0

I agree this is subjective, there is some wiggle room. It’s up to the accuser to prove you bear the burden of guilt, which is difficult. But in some cases it’s exceptionally clear. Yes, implying that you are racist because of the color of your skin should be considered hate speech.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 08:25 PM
0

Sometimes, like on a train you have to take to work, you can’t leave. If someone is harassing you while you try to go to work, they deserve consequences. If 1% abuse it, the courts will deal with them as they deal with other false-reporters.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 08:18 PM
1

I am also a self-described libertarian socialist! A quick note: paragraph breaks would make your writing more easily read. I don’t agree with your characterization of manipulation. Not everything is manipulation: im not trying to change your view, just espouse what I believe is objectively valid. I don’t think we resolved my issue in my last comment. Some forms of manipulation are objectively harmful and are therefore criminalized. Like bribery, perjury, fraud. Staring/hate speech are also objec…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 07:45 PM
1

Thank you for your opinion. I hope no one uses this policy to exploit you; I agree it does pose a risk for certain men in certain social climates.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 07:38 PM
-5

Some very interesting points. Not everyone dislikes being looked at, obviously. I agree this may be enforced in a sexist way, this is an issue with society and the system, not the law. I think it’s okay to punish someone for being creepy. It’s hard to distinguish between the two, admittedly. But, for example, consider a case in which person A asks person B to stop staring at them, and person B refuses/ignores them/listens for half a second before staring again. This is weird. This is stepping on…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 07:31 PM
2

Yes, the issue is the enforcement may not be gender neutral. If the cops or judges have personal/systemic bias, this policy could pose an issue. But this is of course true for any policy.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 07:20 PM
1

As I said, I agree with this perspective. This is something my father taught me. HOWEVER, that does not mean that we should not criminalize such manipulation. As an example: It’s already illegal to accept bribes, yet we also have criminalized the offering of bribes. Although it would be better if we were all stoic, perhaps it would be even better if we also prosecuted assholes and dipshits who taunt/bully/creep on us respectable members of society. Let me know your thoughts!
/r/MensRights18/04/22 07:13 PM
1

This is very true and fair… certainly an admirable worldview. I disagree, however, that we can let people do whatever they want as a consequence. Take the classic example: I’m not touching you. I’m not doing you any physical harm, but people tend to get annoyed. I think it’s wrong to taunt people, even if it only matters if they are in a bad mental state and allow themselves to become agitated. Whether or not this moral position of mine should be codified into law, im not sure. But certainly it …
/r/MensRights18/04/22 06:57 PM
2

Yes, it is a gender neutral policy.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 06:53 PM
1

Agreed! It never hurts to say extra, I was just unclear if it contributed to your opinion on this topic 👍
/r/MensRights18/04/22 06:52 PM
0

I agree it’s either not an issue, or an issue of rights for both genders. I’m not sure this qualifies as authoritarian to anyone extreme degree. How is this any different from banning offensive/violent language? Your action (staring, verbally harassing) has negative externalities on other people. They don’t like it; why should you not be held accountable for this behaviour? Yes there’s no blatant physical harm, but mental harm is physical harm, our brains are physical things. Some forms of stari…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 05:53 PM
0

Not quite. The ‘law’ (policy) is gender neutral, it’s not targeted at either men nor women. Enforcement or judicial appraisal may be considered systemic sexism, however. I agree it’s subjective. And ‘staring’ is a common human function. I agree it may be abused if the system is abusive, but the bigger issue is the system, not the policy.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 05:44 PM
0

I think this relies on a few assumptions about the people reporting the crimes, which may or may not be fair Watching someone work out is okay, sometimes I just want to see someone else’s form. The issue is being a creep about it. Following them around the gym, staring for many minutes; this seems like inappropriate gym behaviour IMO, regardless of the gender or attractiveness of the person. This is very different from shooting someone because of an identity trait of theirs; they didn’t make tha…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:48 PM
0

Fair enough. Government (anything really) is a process of liberals pushing one way, and conservatives pushing back. And we oscillate around a medium position, which is hopefully good for everyone. If your government is pushing too far one way, it’s time to make your voice heard.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:42 PM
3

You are correct. I’m no UK political expert, but I assumed it was a policy adopted by the executive branch. So it’s not a new law, but a new way of enforcing an existing law. (This is my shitty, likely wrong understanding). The law in question, in the example I gave, is the Public Order Act of 1986. A man was charged under this act for harassing a woman, which in part involved excessive staring. (Also blocking her path to the exit and refusing to move, the greater issue)
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:41 PM
8

Yes this is a big issue in America too. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’… yet the average pre-trial detention is something like 7 months. The process is the punishment, i like that. This is an issue of executive and judicial rights, not of legal rights. The cops and judges should treat people with dignity, honor, and respect.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:38 PM
-3

I see your point, but it’s not necessarily true we will tumble down this slippery slope. We will see what time has to offer, for the time being all we can do is share our perspectives and rally your government. I liked your historical example a lot, thanks for sharing! It’s important to note that this 22 week example involves actual harassment, not just staring. I’m not sure this warrants 1/3 of a year in jail. But it is a fair discussion to have. If there aren’t consequences for harassing peopl…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:36 PM
1

Thank you for sharing your point of view! I’d hope this law would only be applied in edge cases, where someone is legitimately acting unethically. Only time will tell how people report and abuse this law. It would be very interesting if people engaged in civil disobedience to overturn this law, by abusing the report function. The social implications are interesting. I’m from the US, and personally I haven’t seen a weakening of social ties. I routinely chat with strangers regardless if their gend…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:27 PM
4

Thanks for sharing your POV :) I agree not many people are going to be creepy and stare incessantly at someone on the train. I’m glad no one (in your experience) is abusing this and reporting men for a casual glance. I’m sure it will happen, and then we have to hope that our criminal justice system is fair and equitable. Or rally for changes to make it fair and equitable. However, It’s hard to say no one felt threatened, since you only have your POV to share. I also don’t see the relevance of th…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:20 PM
2

Yes that is true; it’s an example that u/Spirited-Direction-9 spammed me with; so I used it. It would be an interesting to see an actual case of this staring issue. Personally, I don’t see how they could convict anyone based off of one person’s testimony.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:17 PM
12

Thanks for sharing your POV :)
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:04 PM
-5

Well, we have the same right to call the police and report harassment. We (should) have the same right to prosecute this, and we should have gender-blind outcomes. That’s three separate places for rights to be violated. The legislative front, the executive front, and the judicial front. The law is writer in an unbiased way. The executives are probably biased. The courts are probably biased. The last two claims come from statistics on conviction rates. These issues are serious violations of men’s…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:02 PM
6

Thanks for the response! I get how it could seem dystopian. The state is controlling our eyeballs…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:47 PM
1

This does benefit men. If you were ever getting harassed (by a man or a woman or anyone), you have every right to call them out. I agree we should be able to look where we want, the issue is when some creep is staring someone down for 20+ minutes. I doubt anyone will be in trouble for glancing around, or even checking someone out for 60 seconds.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:47 PM
-4

I agree: ‘innocent until proven guilty’ (is this UK law?) is tough to prove in a case of ‘stare rape’. But also, sometimes the facts do go the other way. What about the instances where it seems clear someone is harassing someone else? But how about the example I linked? The man literally harassed the lady, blocking her from exiting the train. Other passengers and the conductor (train driver?) had to help the woman. It just started with staring. My other issue with this being perceived as a viola…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:45 PM
1

Check out my post and give some feedback, if you’d like! https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/u6eksl/staring_in_london_is_this_an_issue_of_mens_rights/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:36 PM
0

Everything about you screams misogynist, which sucks because this sub should be about discussing men’s rights.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:26 PM
1

Great. I addressed this in my other comment: Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:26 PM
1

Can you please stop spamming this incorrect information? Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:24 PM
-1

It’s glaringly obvious you can’t have a rational discussion. ‘Woke obsessed radical feminist’; cool band name. ‘EveRYoNe WhO DisAgReEs wITh mE iS a RaDicAL FemInIsT!!1!’
/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:22 PM
1

https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/man-jailed-after-refusing-stop-23366110.amp Here’s an actual news source rather than an opinion piece. It seems the event you referenced did happen, though it was much more complex than you indicated. As I said, this ‘policy’ isn’t enforceable. The man in question, Dominik Bullock, was charged under Section 4(a) of the public order act of 1986. He’s in trouble for the crime of breaking this law. What did he do? More than just staring: Domi…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:04 PM
0

Did you read the article? I didn’t see this quote in there, and I reread it many times. I found another source which I will address in another comment. now I expect you to…. Good for you buddy. Get off your high horse and get rid of your expectations, in the real world no one cares what you ‘expect’ from them. Lol.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 01:58 PM
1

Ah yes, the famous university teachings that ‘women are more selfish than men’
/r/MensRights14/04/22 04:07 PM
0

Lol… no two people are identical. Ever heard of a Gaussian distribution? Probably not, if you only care about the sexist conclusions and not the actual science. You can’t measure a personality trait like selfishness… I dismiss pseudoscience, like we all shoud
/r/MensRights14/04/22 02:27 PM
0

Oops. I replied to the wrong comment. Why would I look into pseudoscience bullshit? Personality traits are semi-useful classifications for interpersonal dynamics. That’s it. Anyone trying to draw conclusions about broad groups of people, based on personality traits, are quacks.
/r/MensRights14/04/22 01:22 PM
1

Mhm, I’d love to hear that ‘science’. The same was said by scientific racists about black people in the 50’s. So much ‘science’ is fallible, riddled with confounding variables or biased in some way. Get back to me when they use Physics, not psychology, to differentiate between the mentality of the sexes. Basing your values on pop psychology doesn’t make you not sexist. If you can’t see why appealing to science to defend your prejudices is troubling, your education may have been a failure.
/r/MensRights13/04/22 07:57 PM
-3

Pretty sure this sub is being taken over by Russian bots, or teenagers.
/r/MensRights13/04/22 05:43 PM
2

Disliking women and thinking they are bad by nature is sexism. Do you disagree?
/r/MensRights13/04/22 05:43 PM
-1

This is just my opinion. But you can talk about facts with regards to your personal experiences, or opinions taking about groups (who you don’t know every member). Perfectly fine: ‘the women in my life suck’ ‘Every women I’ve know has been a gold-digger’ ‘The men I’ve dated are all sexist pigs’ ‘The women I know are all sexist and selfish’ Not okay, sexist, and unproductive language: ‘Women are shallow’ ‘Men like to objectify women’ ‘Women are selfish’ ‘Men are more rational than women’
/r/MensRights13/04/22 05:42 PM
2

How does this relate to men’s rights?
/r/MensRights13/04/22 03:18 PM
-6

Yes, what you’re talking about is misogyny. It’s fine to dislike individuals, but to be discriminatory and stereotype against a class of people is wrong.
/r/MensRights13/04/22 03:10 PM
1

Why would you think I would deny any systematic bias? I clearly left room for it in my comment. If we compare statistics and account for confounding variables, you can prove systemic bias.
/r/MensRights08/04/22 05:23 PM
1

How many men have been charged with looking at women? Only time and data will tell if the system is biased. Also, women might, on average, gawk at strangers at a different rate than men. This may lead to different rates of being ‘charged’ (it’s unclear how anyone would be charged under this policy). This would not be based in systemic bias, but gender differences. Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights08/04/22 04:08 PM
1

Mmm you can think that, but it’s still a leap. Women are convicted of sexual assault in the UK. I won’t deny they may be convicted at lower rates for the same crime, i haven’t seen the statistics. And, the statistics could easily be biased one way or another. We will have to see how this plays out. So far, this is ungendered and not a violation of men’s’ rights
/r/MensRights08/04/22 02:11 PM
1

That link is awful. A broken state is a broken state, however. With or without something like this, people can still be falsely arrested. Any cop in any civilized country would not arrest someone without evidence of wrongdoing… one would think. How to deal with the occasional evil mastermind…? Probably not relevant in this discussion.
/r/MensRights08/04/22 05:14 AM
1

I’ve been offensive? Sorry if I’m fed up with the nonsense in this thread. The article is very biased IMO, so I’m not surprised to find that quote. I’ll check that link out soon.
/r/MensRights08/04/22 05:11 AM
1

All of this is very pseudo-sciencey, so I wouldn’t put too much weight on the supposed reasons why you feel that way. It takes a lot to prove causation. What matters is you do feel that way, and that’s valid. But, just like the women who should learn not to be afraid of stares, you should learn not to be a sex-maniac LOL Not implying you don’t already know this, I read your previous comment :)
/r/MensRights07/04/22 09:26 PM
1

No worries! Unlike some, I never cared about being misgendered. While I’m male, if I had to ‘identify’ it would probably be agender. I certainly have the instinct to fuck, but I also have the social instinct to ‘fit in’ with my community (not be a shameful pervert, in this case). And the moral instinct to respect others
/r/MensRights07/04/22 09:24 PM
1

I’m sorry you feel so abandoned by your society. If only more men had free time (and weren’t caught up in a capitalist rat race) they could help other men succeed and thrive. I disagree strongly on your folk-neuroscience characterization of men. I definitely don’t feel like a lion, but if you do, that’s a legitimate concern when balancing social policies. Thank you for sharing. Your point is: either we both cater to each other’s desires/discomforts, or neither one is obligated to. And that’s fai…
/r/MensRights07/04/22 08:22 PM
1

That’s a fair opinion, if you live in the UK lobby your legislators Or lobby your legislators regardless, make sure it never happens near you
/r/MensRights07/04/22 08:17 PM
1

Yes, this has been well covered in this thread. Neurotypical people can also stare blankly off into space. Whether or not that can be construed as intense sexual staring is a matter of personal opinion. That’s why this is not enforceable, you’d have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt which is impossible. The point isn’t to hurt normal people, just deter creeps from ogling randos on the train. Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 07:16 PM
1

Yes, they talk about ‘intense sexual staring’ which is perving imo
/r/MensRights07/04/22 06:47 PM
1

Yes I agree with all of these All domestic violence response policies, police are told to always take in the male These gendered policies count as oppression, i agree. I agree circumcision is wrong, but idk if I would call it oppression. These topics are definitely worthy of this sub. No one here made a case why this staring policy is male oppression: it’s not gendered. I agree it’s a little fascist, but if it reduces sexual assault rates I’m on board 🤷‍♂️ Thank you :) have a good one ❤️
/r/MensRights07/04/22 06:47 PM
2

Also, it does suck that they block on sight of an opinion they don’t like. A lot of people crave echo chambers because they reinforce their opinions, i suspect.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:44 PM
1

Do you care to elaborate? I’ve never felt oppressed as a man, but I could be ignorant or have internalized misandry
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:44 PM
-1

So start a class action law suit against the state.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:43 PM
0

Sorry it’s hard to keep track, I’m answering a lot of comments in this thread. My OG point still stands, no ones life will be unfairly ruined by this law because it’s not enforceable in any way. It will shame some people unfairly, but if you know you’re not to be blamed you won’t feel the shame. It’s about integrity, i suppose.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:42 PM
1

I don’t think this is going to far. People who perv on strangers deserve to be named and shamed, regardless of the gender. How many videos have I seen of old men getting called out for taking pictures of young girls… they deserve to be shamed for this context. Just like if I was trying to see you your gym shorts, it’s fucking weird.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:40 PM
1

I still just don’t see how this is oppressing men. It’s not a gendered policy. Anyone who is creeping on someone else on the train deserves to be named and shamed, IMO. I also don’t know if we can blame this policy on feminists.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:39 PM
1

Seems more like a crazy person’s imagination/predictions of the future, from the wording of the statement.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:38 PM
0

Remind me when a man does. Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:37 PM
-1

Yes, why not? If they are reported that is. Also no one will be charged for this, it’s not punishable. If it was punishable, it would have to be applied equally otherwise that’s discrimination. Edit: So start a class action law suit against the state, if men are being discriminated against in the criminal justice system. Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:37 PM
0

To be fair, I’d you’re gawking at a woman on the train, you are a pervert imo. If you act dishonorably, you become dishonored. Edit: ❤️
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:36 PM
0

Lmfao, why the fuck would I do that? Did you read my comment? Or are you insisting on arguing in bad faith?
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:35 PM
1

Interesting point of view, thanks for the ‘rant’ lol. Everyone should be able to do what they want: show tiddies, look at tiddies… but it seems to me that if you know you’re making someone uncomfortable (they ask you to stop, body posture) and you proceed doing whatever you’re doing for a trivial reason, that’s fucked up. Very few people get upset if you glance at their tits or body, but staring and ogling them for minutes on end… is wrong. Unless they like it of course. It’s a tricky subject. I…
/r/MensRights07/04/22 05:35 PM
0

Nope. Real nice logic you have there, everyone who TOU disagree with is inherently wrong. Whenever people generalized against women, i called them out. ‘Women are just looking for validation when they wear clothes! It’s their fault they get stared at’ ‘Women just want to be able to abuse men’ ‘Women and feminists are oppressing men. Soon we won’t be able to exist without being accused of sexual assault’ Paraphrasing some examples. None of this is grounded in reality, all of it is unfair I’m afra…
/r/MensRights07/04/22 03:44 PM
1

Your argument is: if you are scared, you should go to therapy rather than trying to change the behaviour of others. My second point addressed this clearly: all threats are in your head. There’s no such thing as a ‘real threat’ that exists without being perceived by a Mind. Some threats lead to actual violence and assault. It’s impossible to tell which is which. Some threats are intended to be threats. It’s usually impossible to tell this apart from ‘fake, imagined threats’, unless you ask the ‘t…
/r/MensRights07/04/22 03:37 PM
1

True
/r/MensRights07/04/22 03:29 PM
0

Read through the thread. I’ve made plenty of comments calling out sexism.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 03:29 PM
0

‘On every post someone says we are doing something wrong. They must be crazy trolls right? It can’t be us who’s wrong, right??’ I’m sorry you’re blind to the sexism in this thread, it’s concerning.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 03:29 PM
1

I know!!
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:39 PM
1

Or the ones who don’t understand the policy because they can’t read the sign
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:39 PM
0

Uh pretty creepy? Nope. Exist all you want. Just don’t stare daggers at strangers and you’ll be okay.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:38 PM
1

This doesn’t make a whole gender suffer, and it doesn’t impact any one gender more than the other. Did you read the ad?
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:38 PM
0

Men face oppression. But this article and policy aren’t it. That’s the point. Y’all are whining and being sexist about… a non-gendered policy that only affects creeps…
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:37 PM
2

I agree that definition is outdated. But we’re not talking about rape, this is a red herring. Your source defines sexual harassment (the actual subject of our conversation) as: ‘Sexual harassment is behaviour of a sexual nature which: violates your dignity makes you feel intimidated, degraded, or humiliated creates a hostile or offensive environment This behaviour can be verbal, non-verbal, physical, and can take place online and offline.’ Which is clearly gender neutral. Men can be and are sexu…
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:35 PM
0

You: ‘you don’t agree with my sexist opinions and called me out as an women-hater. So you are childish and immature! Arguing in bad faith!!!1!’ Get real bud.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:33 PM
0

None of what you just said describes me :) I’m here in very good faith. And I’m disgusted by the sexist generalizations made against women in almost every comment. Are you okay with this? This sub used to be better. It used to be about men and their issues, not trashing women like incels would.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:31 PM
1

True this. We’ll see if it ever happens to someone. Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 12:07 PM
1

Getting groped can be traumatic. So can being gawked at by creepy people. All threats only exist in your head. It really seems like you’re trying to devalue and debase their experiences, why?
/r/MensRights07/04/22 12:07 PM
-3

Legit no one (including me) cares if you fuck or not. Everyone cares if you’re hateful and sexist, which is what incel has grown to mean. Sorry if you’re unfamiliar with internet culture, now you know ❤️
/r/MensRights07/04/22 04:04 AM
-2

Sorry, let incel go to women-hating, misogynistic, discriminatory, angry, etc etc You really proved my point by getting upset by this lol
/r/MensRights07/04/22 03:56 AM
1

She can say that, nothing will come of it. This law isn’t enforceable. And if anything does happen, you can sue her in civil court and the state for allowing it to happen.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 03:50 AM
-1

Keep living in your land of make-believe oppression, but it doesn’t belong on this sub. You act like a strip club/female tease show couldn’t run an ad if they wanted to.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 03:49 AM
-1

That’s true, but don’t be a creep and ogle peoples privates and it won’t be an issue.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:54 AM
1

Where was this?
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:53 AM
2

No, of course not. Did you read the article? Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:52 AM
0

But then they take photos or keep staring.. it’s degrading and wrong. This will hopefully deter the dumb creeps; even if it’s not enforceable they won’t know since they don’t read
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:52 AM
0

It’s not enforceable or punishable. Did you read the article? Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:51 AM
0

This has nothing to do with males and gender. Just meant to deter creeps. Edit: Block all you want, you’re the one assuming only men can be creepy and stare at strangers. Plenty of women do so
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:50 AM
1

This isn’t a gendered policy, just meant to deter creeps.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:50 AM
0

How??
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:50 AM
-1

Me too, it was an awful article. So reactionary and with such a twisted narrative.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:49 AM
1

No one will be hurt by this, it’s not punishable.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:48 AM
-1

Sexual assault does warrant a punch in the face. Did you read the ducked up shit that poster experienced? You need help.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:48 AM
-1

Well, when you ignore the point and trauma, you deserve to be called a sick.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:48 AM
0

… there is no punishment. Did you read the article? It’s meant to deter creeps and make everyone’s trolley ride more comfortable. It could increase safety. And yes, some people can’t help themselves. But many can, and choose to be creeps because they know there is no consequences. Hopefully this scares them just a bit, because they’re idiots who don’t read and just assume nonsense.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:46 AM
1

No ones life will be destroyed by this, it’s not a punishable offense. Did you read the article? That other commenters point went right over your head. Have fun playing the oppression olympics.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:44 AM
0

Legit nothing. This sub has gone to shit. Half these comments are sexist as fuck; in the good ‘ol days those would have been reported and removed. It’s becoming an incel hive mind
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:43 AM
-2

This policy isn’t gendered. And you’re drawing a shitty comparison. These men are paid to be stared at. Strip clubs aren’t illegal. We’re literally asking that you don’t gawk at strangers in the train… is that too much to ask?
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:41 AM
-1

Yes, this post and thread are ass. No one has a clue what is going on, probably because this is a reactionary article designed to incite anger.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:40 AM
-1

Is this even a law? What’s the legal code? And I disagree. Most rational people would agree what is and isn’t staring.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:39 AM
0

Nothing like this will ever happen.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:38 AM
1

Nope, this isn’t enforceable. Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:36 AM
0

Nope, this isn’t enforceable. It’s just a deterrent.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:35 AM
-1

That’s perfectly okay… if you read the article you would know
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:35 AM
1

Exactly. Why is this sub so upset about a non-gendered policy which aims to deter creeps from gawking at strangers? A bunch of incels and oppression-olympics competitors in this thread. If you read the article, it’s fucking crazy
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:35 AM
0

If you’re making someone uncomfortable, you may be reported. Just don’t ogle strangers like a creep.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:33 AM
1

Yes, this law is not gendered and doesn’t fit the sub.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:32 AM
2

seeing is not the same as staring incessantly like a creep, no one seems to understand that in this thread.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:32 AM
-1

Generally it’s easy to tell. Do their eyes track you as you move? And again, this isn’t enforceable. Say someone notices you staring and decides to call it in; how will they pin it on you? Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:30 AM
3

It’s not enforceable, just a deterrent. Says so in the article. Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:28 AM
3

This seems super sexist. Did you talk to every women in London about their desire for validation? Of course not. Notice all you want. Appreciate all you want. Just don’t stare them down like a freak
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:28 AM
4

You can look at someone. Just don’t stare them down like a freak and make them uncomfortable…
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:25 AM
-2

No, there is a difference between looking at someone and intensely staring at them.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:25 AM
-4

This is such a shitty article. Such a weird, twisted narrative. If you haven’t read it, I encourage you to. It’s awful lol It also doesn’t concern men’s rights at all, this is not a gendered policy. Unless we’re gonna talk about a man’s right to gawk at strangers in public, and make others uncomfortable. Which imo, we never had a moral right to do anyways.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:24 AM
2

Nothing, since it’s just a deterrent and not punishable. Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:22 AM
0

Only if you are looking intensely and sexually at someone. Looking != staring, if you read the article you would know
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:22 AM
-1

No, there are obvious exceptions to this. Not that it would hold up in court anyways. This isn’t a punishable offense, just a means of deterring creeps who ogle strangers.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:21 AM
-2

No, treat people like people. Don’t gawk at strangers, it’s rude and creepy.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:20 AM
-7

No, this is not a gendered policy.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:19 AM
-6

No, this is not a gendered policy.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:19 AM
1

Yes, if they are reported. There’s also no punishment for this, just a means of steering creeps who ogle strangers Edit: https://reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/txjbeu/_/i57k3p3/?context=1
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:19 AM
-2

No, it’s not a punishable crime.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:18 AM
1

So it’s a mean to deter creeps, with no actual consequences or effects. So it just deters dumb creeps. Great!
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:17 AM
-8

There’s nothing gendered about this policy. If someone is staring at you and making you uncomfortable, you can report them. This isn’t even an attack against men, just a means to deter creeps.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:16 AM
0

Casual racism, nice.
/r/MensRights07/04/22 02:15 AM
0

Nah. The people calling you a troll
/r/AntiFeminists06/04/22 08:27 PM
0

They literally are so mind-fucked by echo chambers, they can’t understand rationality when it is presented to them. Have a good day ❤️
/r/AntiFeminists06/04/22 04:48 PM
2

Ableism and as hominems, nice
/r/AntiFeminists06/04/22 04:47 PM
1

r/AsABlackMan This is so sexist. No one thinks less of themselves just because they believe in gender equality.
/r/AntiFeminists06/04/22 04:45 PM
1

Care to give an example? It’s hard to answer your question otherwise. Probably because the circumstances of their life resulted in them being ‘so cringe’, if I had to try to guess. Maybe we can just blame it on the arrangement of particles following the Big Bang…
/r/AntiFeminists05/04/22 04:27 AM
0

I’m a male, and tbh everyone is very kind and friendly where I live (Northern USA). Regardless of age, gender, race, education level, or occupation; I have good (unsolicited) chats with a lot of people. This doesn’t mean anything, just responding to your anecdotal experiences with my own. I will try to read SCUM or Steinem and get back to you. Thanks for sharing your views on the matter with me :) Statistics are almost always interpretable in multiple ways. They are not as objective as people ma…
/r/AntiFeminists03/04/22 09:06 PM
0

I agree with your last statement, I disagree with a lot of your other statements. Though I would love to learn more, that’s why I’m here! I’ve never seen it taught that all men oppress all women, but I also tune out dumbasses so maybe I missed it. I know the Duluth Model for Domestic Violence is a feminist policy which is similar to this, but that’s at the government, not education/academic, level. A lot of women were afraid of male strangers long before feminism. Hell, a lot of people are afrai…
/r/AntiFeminists03/04/22 07:25 PM
2

Excellent, let’s discuss. How is it, that feminism managed to create this mal-socialization phenomena? What steps did they take? What ideology did they promote, specifically? We can’t just blame all male problems on feminists, that’s just not true.
/r/AntiFeminists03/04/22 07:01 PM
2

No, I’m here to critique feminist dogma and policy. Until this social phenomena can be shown, objectively, to derive from feminist ideals and policies, it doesn’t belong here. Your speculation is a good start, but we would need historical evidence to attribute this social phenomena to feminists. If it’s not championed by feminists, it doesn’t deserve criticism on r/antiFeminists. r/MensRights and r/maleMentalHealth would love this post The topic of this post is not female supremacy, but male soc…
/r/AntiFeminists03/04/22 06:39 PM
5

It’s impossible for anyone to actually design such a social phenomena. It’s not like all women have secret briefings on how to act… Social propaganda could work. But not so reliably. I think the best bet would be to spread reverse propaganda. Also, this doesn’t fit on r/antiFeminists.
/r/AntiFeminists03/04/22 01:12 PM
1

Yes it is. Look up the definition of discrimination if you are confused
/r/AntiFeminists23/03/22 08:43 PM
-1

Alright, discriminate and stereotype if you want. Just makes you look shitty. Getting yourself covered in shit won’t make anything better.
/r/AntiFeminists23/03/22 12:45 PM
-4

Hopefully spending their time on something more worthwhile than listening to idiots online Better yourself > bettering others
/r/AntiFeminists22/03/22 08:25 PM
0

Nope. Not caused by feminism. Caused by ignorant people having a platform to spew their ignorance. they might call themselves a feminist, but 9/10 other feminists would realize they’re idiota
/r/AntiFeminists22/03/22 07:23 PM
1

Read about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model This is an actual misandrist policy supported by feminists that hurts men. That’s the kind of content that deserves discussion on this sub, not general issues of men’s rights. Equally valid discussion, wrong place.
/r/AntiFeminists17/03/22 04:46 AM
1

In that case, post examples of their advocacy so we can talk about. This post does not belong here. It belongs on a men’s liberation sub. This sub is specifically for opposition to feminist doctrine.
/r/AntiFeminists16/03/22 10:44 PM
1

Alright, then since feminists don’t advocate for these ideals it doesn’t belong on r/antifeminists. Post it to r/MensRights, r/MensLib , or r/malementalhealth This sub is specifically for opposition to feminist movements.
/r/AntiFeminists16/03/22 10:32 PM
1

Fair enough. It’s good to promote activism even in the face of adversity! It sucks so called feminists are standing in the way of gender equality. But we can’t blame the feminists for these circumstances themselves, right? They don’t openly/secretly advocate for these ideals?
/r/AntiFeminists16/03/22 10:28 PM
1

Why can we blame all of this on feminists?
/r/AntiFeminists16/03/22 10:25 PM
-1

I agree society should have a less misandrist view towards men’s struggles. Can we really blame this on the feminists? This post would fit better on r/MensRights, though WARNING: we don’t tolerate women-hate there. No need for it when discussing the rights of men.
/r/AntiFeminists16/03/22 06:37 PM
30

That is a very sexist practice.
/r/AntiFeminists15/03/22 04:49 PM
-4

Seemed all in good fun, seemed he wasn’t bothered by it. Would love to see an interview. I could see this happening with reversed roles and no media uproar. The jokes were harmless…
/r/AntiFeminists15/03/22 04:42 AM
0

Tbh I don’t mind the jokes she’s making. And I don’t think people would react differently if it was a man on a woman. This guys 27, a little flirting is part of what makes the show human, … i wouldn’t be surprised if they planned the scenes and he consented. I think you’re just looking for something to be mad about bud. Have you read about the Duluth model for sexual harassment? There’s a serious reason to be anti-feminist.
/r/AntiFeminists15/03/22 04:41 AM
3

No one here said you should fight in a war… You need to stay on track. Don’t reply to me with more dumb shit. Either make a defensible point (really think) or I’ll have to block you for my sanity lol Bitter aint better. You’re hurting yourself and making me read these dumbass comments.
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 05:32 PM
3

Again, stop worrying about others!! Be a good person. If they want to whine and complain, so be it. They’re obviously wrong and dumb. It shouldn’t matter to you though, don’t let them live in your head rent free! Do what you need to do to make your life better, don’t worry about what dumbasses say online. They are. A fringe minority.
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 04:36 PM
1

Good :) I love you man, let go of this anger in your heart. Live each day to the best of your ability, do good in the world whenever you can, don’t spread hate… unless it’s necessary. Women aren’t to blame for the suffering of men. Corporations and governments (run predominantly by men) are. Incel mean involuntary celibate. Generally they hate women, call them whores (like you did), etc. Totally unacceptable and unnecessary behavior IMO. What would your mother think if she knew you were calling …
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 03:21 PM
2

Well at least your honest, and don’t discriminate!
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 03:09 PM
0

Lol bro… you need to think and reread the argument a few times before you respond…
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 03:02 PM
3

No one said that? Check your reading comprehension skills, maybe try redoing the 3rd grade
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 03:01 PM
2

Unlikely.
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 03:00 PM
6

No no no, you hate men because you thought about a woman!!!!1!
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 02:53 PM
5

You are so dumb lol. Best to keep your opinions to yourself for now. Unless you’re a troll trying to undermine the integrity of r/antifeminists by acting like a mentally deficient 4th grader
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 02:52 PM
1

Even more heroic to shit on people half way around the world
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 02:50 PM
3

Lol I’m not trolling. But you need to do some serious reflection and critical thinking before you show up and start spewing hatred and stereotypes. Grow up. It ain’t so deep. It doesn’t belong on this sub. Both men and women can struggle and succeed, and we can support both of them! We’re here to be better people, start working on it. Not this incel shit which: 1) just spreads your anger 2) helps no one, at all 3) is based on a fringe population of tumble shitposters. 99.9999999% of the populati…
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 02:49 PM
1

You are so sad. Read a book and go outside. Maybe see the sun.
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 01:15 PM
1

Two wrongs do not make a right. You got downvoted for being insufferable.
/r/AntiFeminists07/03/22 01:13 PM
2

Men can be wimps. No need for sexism.
/r/AntiFeminists31/01/22 08:16 PM
3

No. Young people are unable to give consent to those significantly older to them. A difference of a year or two is not a big deal, but 4+ years is certainly concerning. They will most likely be exposed to things that they weren’t prepared for, and because they didn’t know they cannot give informed consent. Date people around your own age is a good rule of thumb until you’re 25, 30+
/r/PussyPass20/09/20 05:51 PM
4

While I agree you may have felt mature enough to make such a decision, I don’t agree that means you can give informed consent (especially to an adult). I maintain that a person under the age of 16 (or 21 for that matter..) is not mature enough to make the necessary judgement calls for emotional and physical intimacy, especially not in the long term. I support young romances naturally progressing as they feel comfortable, but this case (22 and 14) clearly seems to be an older party preying on a c…
/r/PussyPass20/09/20 05:12 PM
2

I agree with the other poster, no need to use ad hominem
/r/PussyPass20/09/20 04:58 PM
9

The issue is 16 year olds and younger really aren’t equipped to analyze these kinds of situations and determine if it’s safe and what they truly want. That’s why we have general prohibitions against adults having sex with minors, because it’s innately predatory as they are incapable of giving informed consent.
/r/PussyPass20/09/20 02:38 PM
2

You sound so silly
/r/MensRights10/06/20 07:39 PM
1

My only issue with UBI is the potential abuse to the system. The federal or state governments should furnish easily accessible jobs in a variety of fields to all citizens. Anyone may apply, work whatever job suits them, and have a decent wage and benefit package. If they fail to meet expectations for whatever reason, they could be transferred to another job. Multiple transferals warrants a review which could lead to termination. Then they gotta work in the private sector, sorry. Feel free to rea…
/r/MensRights10/06/20 07:36 PM
1

Any proof to make it true? Because all I see right now is unverified discrimination. You know I used to like the message MGTOW put out: significant others and a relationship isn’t a necessity for being happy. But lately it’s truly devolved into a cesspool of sexism and racism, which is sad. Can we men not exist in our own sphere without relationships and women without devolving into this? You guys are really showing the opposite of what you preach imo.
/r/MGTOW14/06/19 09:08 AM
-3

That’s very racist.
/r/MGTOW13/06/19 06:39 PM
0

Alrighty, thanks for the input. I don’t agree, as I don’t see how I’m martyring myself, but thanks anyways.
/r/MensRights01/01/19 07:30 AM
0

I really was trying to be sincere, I don’t get why you’re getting so heated about this. So we disagreed, who cares? No point in feuding and remaining hostile. Maybe we’ll have another good discussion here another time :)
/r/MensRights31/12/18 06:39 AM
1

Well, I tried. I’m sorry we couldn’t come to a more peaceful conclusion. Have a nice day :)
/r/MensRights31/12/18 06:20 AM
1

Well yeah I do get to decide that. And so do you. That’s kinda how reddit works. Every time you upvote a post or downvote a comment you’re deciding what content fits a sub via natural selection. Whatever comments and posts get the most karma will flourish, so by casting your vote you get to decide what content fits a sub. Here I’m trying to let other people know why I think this content doesn’t fit, so as to try and persuade them to downvote the post I think is subpar. It’s low effort shitpost t…
/r/MensRights31/12/18 06:11 AM
2

I’m alright to stay thank you. I appreciate this sub as it’s meant to be used, as a platform for calling out injustice in the world. Not as a platform for using straw man arguments to ridicule feminism, that does nothing. I’d like to stay and see this sub reach its goal of promoting equality rather than bashing women and feminism senselessly.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 11:37 PM
2

Oh I could definitely see it hahaha
/r/MensRights30/12/18 11:35 PM
4

It definitely is. This has nothing to do with men’s rights. It’s just a middle school level anti feminist post. I expect more from this community; this is why MRA’s aren’t taken seriously.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 08:24 AM
4

Nice try here man. He’s not wrong ya know, the sub’s been getting worse. And comments like yours only serve to further its decline.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 08:23 AM
7

Well, ideally it should all be about the perpetrators. You can’t undue what someone did to someone, and revenge is not the way to go. It’s better to focus on rehabilitating the prisoners if at all possible, and if not then at least segregating them from society. The issue here is the inconsistency between punishments for the sexes, AND the lack of prevention of further crime by these perpetrators. I’m sure accommodations could be made for deaf prisoners, this judge is just off the wall...
/r/MensRights03/12/18 12:40 AM
6

I’d say so :)
/r/MensRights01/11/18 12:32 AM
0

Consent should be a hot topic for everyone, regardless of gender. Rape and molestation concerns everyone, regardless of who’s affected more or less.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 04:12 PM
1

Blaming women for circumcision is like blaming men for destroying the environment. Both genders contribute, and saying one is more at fault is ridiculous. Women are just as societally conditioned as men to believe that circumcision is a necessity. Let’s not lay blame where it needn’t be laid.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 02:04 PM
0

You are wrong, pal. No need to draw gender in where it’s unwarranted. There’s no one that isn’t familiar with giving consent, we do it every single day.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 01:51 PM
67

Let’s not bring gender into this, both parents make the call to circumcise their child. No need to unnecessarily gender the perpetrators.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 03:38 AM
25

What article are you referring to?
/r/MensRights06/05/18 06:51 PM
2

Okay thank you so much for the information! I’ll be sure to read up more about this, have a splendid day!
/r/MensRights05/02/18 05:28 AM
1

I’m sorry, I’m relatively new here. On your other post you mentioned domestic violence laws, something about dumtha or something, I don’t quite remember the word you used. Can you elaborate on that? What are these laws?
/r/MensRights05/02/18 05:03 AM
3

Can you give some examples of what are wrong? Who’ll be “lining up” to attest to this?
/r/MensRights10/01/18 12:54 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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