TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RadiumGirl Archive

View 0 posts and 254 comments by RadiumGirl 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

Did you contact her with the intention of antagonizing her? If so, then you will have done nothing more than reinforce the belief she already has about MRA's.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 06:45 AM
2

If expulsion of the fetal matter isn't complete, and a D&C isn't performed, the remaining tissue could lead to septicaemia. In addition, she could've had an allergic reaction, or been on medication that wouldn't work well in conjunction - all of which a doctor would've been in a better position to establish before prescribing the drug. It is a very strong drug. I lost a pregnancy due to complications and had the medicine administered to me by a physician, and even then it was an incredibly unple…
/r/MensRights18/05/13 05:22 PM
2

Were I a feminist, I wouldn't touch this matter with a ten foot pole. Honestly, nor should MRAs. What this guy did was abhorrent. All issues of fetuses aside, what he did could have resulted in the death of an adult. These drugs can be dangerous if not administered correctly buy a medical professional. Using this as a springboard as a case for men's reproductive rights, or aligning with this guy at all, will do nothing to improve the image of MRAs.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:32 PM
2

What has he done wrong? Fetus aside, he deliberately, and potentially fatally, administered a poison to an adult without their knowledge.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:25 PM
3

You're ignoring the fact that he maliciously administered a potentially fatal poison to her, an adult. He could have killed her.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:17 PM
2

it's about trust. if she won't sign, then you cannot trust her to view the marriage as a life long commitment. Couldn't she use the same argument to OP?
/r/MensRights15/05/13 12:20 PM
2

I meant in order to be more specific for those searching for a specific author. I think as long as its 'American Male Authors' and 'American Female Authors' then it's not a problem.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:55 PM
3

As long as the remaining group is renamed 'American Male novelists' then it's not an issue. On a practical side though, wouldn't it be easier to categorise them by period? Eg, 20th Century American Novelists etc?
/r/MensRights25/04/13 07:19 PM
1

Well, take me for example. I cannot use hormonal birth control for medical reasons. I can only use barrier methods (condom/diaphragm) which are far from ideal. My partner knows this and accepts the risks, and for me personally abortion is an option. The problem is paternal surrender literally makes contraception 100% the woman's responsibility. I simply do not see any reason (outside of STIs) for a male to voluntarily take any responsibility at all. And there will be men who take advantage of th…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 04:06 AM
1

My concern re paternal surrender is that it reduces this responsibility to zilch. There is literally no consequence for a male to be proactive at all about preventing unwanted pregnancies.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:43 AM
1

Do you, or do you not think that males have a degree of responsibility when it comes to preventing the conception of an unwanted pregnancy?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:37 AM
1

But that doesn't mean they should take no responsibility in preventing conception. Wear a condom. It's even better than just using a condom, or just using the pill. The pill is not 100% fool proof. Anyone - male or female - who says 'but she/I was on the pill?!?!' clearly doesn't understand the risks of contraception. When I hear guys on here say 'she said she was on the pill!' I want to shout at them that it's not 100% effective and she may have conceived on the pill anyway.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 02:19 AM
1

It's not that I think women will be malicious. I don't trust the pill to always function correctly. There are so many variable that can affect its efficacy. I'm not saying he's an idiot for trusting women because they are inherently malicious, I'm saying he's an idiot for trusting the pill to work as effectively as it should. There are so many things that can interfere with it that are outside the woman's control.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 12:52 AM
1

Meanwhile, there are many forms of birth control that the man just needs to trust the woman on. Anyone who is just 'trusting' the other party for their own reproductive control is an idiot in my mind. If a girl says she's on the pill - use a condom anyway. If a male hormonal birth control pill was available I would not just trust my sexual partner to take it and for it to function correctly because I am mature enough to understand that I'm the only one who can truly be responsible for my reprodu…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:18 PM
1

it is their negligence if they conceive. Birth control for women is so good pregnancy will only happen if the women are careless, negligent, or want to conceive. Stopped reading here, for this is a moronic thought process. Ensuring conception does not occur is both parties responsibility. Take me for example, due to health issues I cannot take the birth control pill. I rely on my partner using condoms. I'm not in a position to ensure contraception so I rely on my partner using a condom, and he i…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 08:50 PM
1

It's not like the kid will starve. Worst comes to worst the kid is taken by the state. If only it were that simple. I work closely with children, and every single day I see children - from single parent and two-parent homes - who have not had enough food (or any at all), are wearing clothes much too small or large or unclean, are shoeless, with terrible dental health or who don't have access to even the most basic medicines such as asthma inhalers. These are not simply cases of "a few kids havin…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 09:19 AM
2

To play devil's advocate: Abortion and financially opting out are not comparable as far as 'quality of life' of the child is concerned. It obviously depends of where you stand on the whole 'when does life begin' quandary, however a lot of people would argue (myself included) that the removal of tissue/cells at a point at which it is not viable =/= a child, or the suffering of a child. An abortion does not leave behind a child without food or clothes. A father 'opting out' of parenthood/financial…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 06:02 AM
7

While the separation of a child and his/her parents is always sad, in this instance I am going to side with Red. The child is unwell. Popping him/her in a car at night and moving them to a new location is not in the child's best interest. Red offered for Black to come and visit - just not take the child for the night. The fact that Black just got out of jail? Well, that's a whole different issue.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:15 AM
3

Yeah, maybe that would be the case if divorce weren't so overwhelmingly initiated by women. Initiating divorce =\= responsibility for the breakdown of a relationship.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 08:36 PM
2

My results are significantly different to yours.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 05:19 AM
4

Someone who stops taking the pill surreptitiously is not a trustworthy person, or the sort of person you want to have around. Having said that, please be aware that The Pill is not 100% protection and should only be relied upon if you'd both be OK with a 'happy accident'. If you don't want a kid then you should use a condom too, even if she is on the pill and is completely trustworthy as there is just so much that can interfere with it (antibiotics, tummy bug etc).
/r/MensRights07/01/13 11:39 AM
1

I think it's just best to blank out names as a general rule.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:28 PM
1

Facebook posts must be done w/ screenshot & blanked names.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:05 PM
0

I think that should be a case by case basis then. Edit: and, having said that, it still doesn't make it a double standard comparable with the birth control pill. Unless the same medication is being used to prevent pregnancy. It's funding on its own merits is not the issue here.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 02:30 AM
4

While I'm not in anyway downplaying the emotion/psychological impact of ED, the fact that it is not covered is not a double standard - as it's not a comparable medication with the birth control pill. The birth control pill is in societies best interest to fund as the prevention of unwanted pregnancies is significantly more beneficial than treating ED - for both men and women. What is a double standard is the unavailability of a male birth control pill.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:23 PM
14

If a girl hits a man, she should expect to be hit back. I don't think violence is ever the answer. Hit back to defend yourself - not as punishment. If a girl can joke about my big nose, I'm allowed to make fun of her meaty calves. Or, walk away. I don't think it's ever OK to pick on someone's physical appearance. Tit for tat is childish - don't lower yourself. Ignore her and you will come off looking like the better person. Don't flirt if you're not interested in sex. Disagree. Flirting =/= sex.…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 08:10 AM
4

'Lesser people'?! What an awful attitude to have.
/r/seduction23/12/12 01:08 AM
2

You're more than welcome to start the site if you think it's a financially viable idea.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 12:34 AM
2

I don't really have a problem with this. If both adults want to participate, then that's fine. It seems quite pathetic to me, but if someone wants to do it then that's their prerogative. If there was a market for the opposite (rich women/attractive young men) then someone would've started up a site for it.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 12:16 AM
5

You've got a lot of anger in you - and I get that - just make sure you're not conveying that in the way you're carrying yourself. I know that's easier said than done :( Perhaps you could try signing up for a free dating service, like Okcupid, that way you're not going to lose any money at least. I'm sorry you've had a rough time.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 03:57 AM
0

To be fair, a lot of that link is fairly offensive to women. It's important to remember the distinction between 'woman' and 'feminist' - it's ok to oppose feminism, it's not ok to oppose women as a whole - or it's just as bad as feminism. The link is quite hyperbolic, and a lot of the text - and the picture of the woman with tags - are vast generalisations and offensive parodies. I'm a woman, and a supporter of Men's Rights - I think it's unreasonable and unfair to say that there is a 'problem w…
/r/MensRights22/12/12 03:50 AM
2

The only pre-requisite I have for a partner is that he has a steady income. No need for millions, just enough that he can support himself - just like I do. From what I hear, online dating for most men is soul destroying. My brothers - who are both kind, handsome professionals - were pushed to (at one point) tears because of it. You're better off getting out there and meeting people. I know it's daunting.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 03:34 AM
1

I am really a girl. I guess it's difficult. I have a profile on a dating site and despite being just an average girl I get between 15-20 messages a day. I'm nothing special, it's just that there are so few females in relation to males on dating sites. It also gives girls an inflated sense of self to a degree. If an average girl receives a ton of messages a day begging her for a date, then shes going to start believing that she's super desirable. For what it's worth, the guys I've dated from the …
/r/MensRights22/12/12 03:07 AM
3

The reality with online dating is that there is significantly more men that sign up than women. It's simply a numbers game.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 12:53 AM
1

That is a gross generalisation. I'm employed and on a good income. For three years I supported myself and my partner who was struggling to find work.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:36 PM
7

My local video store has sections called 'chick flicks' (romance-y stuff) and 'dick flicks' (action/adventure/superheroes) - no one seems to mind.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:02 AM
1

Your attempt to 'replicate' my 'fallacies' by repeatedly calling me a paedophile is making you look ridiculous.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 05:24 AM
2

It's not a fallacy. You argue that it runs close to entrapment because these people did not seek out sex with a minor, but merely 'took up the offer' once accepted. I said that I think that is irrelevant, as an adult should not be able to be convinced - under any circumstances - to be 'lured' into sex with a child. You then suggested I could potentially be swayed by a 'suave 13yo' if I was vulnerable/distressed enough. By saying this you've taken your logic a lot farther than simply suggesting e…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 05:13 AM
1

Behaving like a petulant child. Classy.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:52 AM
1

This is your comment that I was originally responding to: i'm sure that more than once the guy showed no iniative to do more than internet flirting untill the bait invited him to sex. My bolding, obviously. My response is that if a child offers sex, and the adult accepts, then the adult is in the wrong. There may be many circumstance that lead a person to being in a dark place in their life that causes them to think this is acceptable/comforting/ok - but that does not make it so. That makes them…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:31 AM
0

I'm not discussing the legality of the program, or whether or not it is entrapment. What I am trying to understand is your thought process that thinks that because these people never sought out sex with a minor, but accepted the invitation once offered, that it is somehow excusable or understandable. I understand that there are many reasons a person may feel it's acceptable in the moment - or make ba life choices - that never makes the act excusable. If someone can be swayed to engage in interco…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:13 AM
1

maybe. maybe not. maybe this 13 year old happens to be damn suave and you happen to be especially vulnerable(sad, drunk or a plenthpra of other possibilities) and you make a bad decision. Then I am a paedophile who has knowingly broken the law - and who deserves to treated thusly by the legal system. The morals of the television program are not black and white, but knowingly engaging in sex with a child is.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 03:32 AM
1

I'm not saying the show is acceptable, but I do have a problem with the excuse of 'I had no intention of breaking the law until sex was offered'. If I meet you down the street and say 'Hey Jazekki, I'm going to break into a house - come with me!' - and you do - are you not guilty of breaking and entering because you did not intend to until I offered for you to come with me? not even going into the mess that is "what is a child exactly and when can they make their own choices" because that's a me…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 10:42 PM
2

i'm sure that more than once the guy showed no iniative to do more than internet flirting untill the bait invited him to sex. A child offering sex should not be able to sway an adult.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 12:12 PM
11

Great work!
/r/MensRights26/11/12 02:38 PM
0

I'm not saying it is voluntary. I never did. I just said I would be happy to pay for subsidising contraception. Not at all. So why did you repeatedly use the term 'brown people'? For emotive impact I dare say. I am ending the discussion because we disagree on the most fundamental aspects of taxation that I really don't see the point. I do see the value in taxation, particularly where health services are concerned - and you don't. I support universal health care because I believe in supporting th…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 02:20 PM
0

I don't think you should be forced to pay for bombing brown people in Afghanistan, but you do. Or do you voluntarily pay to kill brown people in a country thousands of miles away, too? Sigh. This is a strawman if ever I saw one "You agree to subsidizing contraception therefore you must be ok with bombing Afghanistan". I'm also not sure why you repeatedly use the term 'brown people' - other than some other agenda of implying I'm racist (?). I think taxation is a significantly complex issue that t…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 01:54 PM
0

We might as well crank the doublespeak machine to full speed. With all due respect, 'tax' is the correct term, 'forcibly taken' is your way of trying to sensationalize the word. Do you think more women will use contraceptives who currently do not for this purpose because they are now free? Perhaps, but I'm ok with that. If it does lead to reducing unwanted pregnancies, then I don't care if some women are using to reduce periods or menstrual pains etc (I think that is a perfectly valid reason to …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 01:12 PM
0

Forcibly taking money from others is wrong. If by 'forcibly taking' you mean 'taxing', then that is not a fact - it's your opinion. Just like it is my opinion that I do not believe that taxing people reasonably is wrong. This just seems like another program to benefit women primarily where men get the bill. If it does prevent unwanted pregnancy then both women and men benefit. Also, given that women make up 46% of the US workforce then I'm not sure how men primarily get the bill. Ultimately, as …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 12:35 PM
0

My point is that subsidising birth control actually takes less money in the long run from the tax payer. Money is already being taken for courts, welfare for single parents etc - subsidising contraceptives in the short term has a greater financial benefit in the long term. Subsidising birth control, be it implanon, the pill, condoms etc is not subsidising 'bad decisions', it's helping people make good decisions. Unless you consider any sex not for the purpose of reproduction to be a 'poor decisi…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 10:38 AM
0

Children being born to unmarried women is not the same as a child being born to a single mother, particularly in Iceland where there is a significant number of unmarried couples choosing to have children. So it's important to keep that in mind where stats of 'unmarried mothers' are concerned. And I know plenty of women who have had children because husbands wanted them - but I really feel that the carbon emission can only be attributed to women where they birth a child that the male party has ex…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:08 AM
1

Where a child is wanted by the couple, both parties a equally responsible for the increase in carbon emissions.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:32 AM
–

I'm sorry, but that's a pretty big stretch. Are you suggesting that women should carry more responsibility for the carbon footprint because they have more options in relation to preventing the conception of the child?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:18 AM
2

That would be the responsibility of both genders.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 01:16 AM
1

Because in the long term, unwanted pregnancy prevention actually saves the tax payer money. It is in societies financial best interests to fund prevention than to ultimately fund the welfare program's, court proceedings etc. Having said that, I'm Australian and I support universal health care. So I dare say you and I would have significantly different opinions on the matter anyway.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 10:04 PM
4

I firmly believe that all available forms of contraception should be provided free for males and females. Do you not? Why, or why not?
/r/MensRights24/11/12 05:24 PM
5

Girls don't tell their boyfriend how special he is, how much she loves him and cherishes him. He is not inherently valuable and precious. I regularly do. Perhaps you're just not with a very nice girlfriend.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 04:43 AM
4

I think you're trolling, but I will answer your question anyway just in case you're being genuine. I play video games like to ride my bike around collect Uranium glass build model aeroplanes read a lot play guitar and sing Is that enough?
/r/MensRights20/11/12 05:29 AM
2

You're not actually making any sense.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 05:21 AM
2

Feeling kind of stupid yet? Not at all. Nothing you've posted so far has made me look stupid. All I've said so far is that for some people, the risk of pursuing a relationship is worth the potential fall out, as the married MRAs on this sub can attest.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 05:18 AM
2

Ok, if that makes you feel better then we'll go with that :)
/r/MensRights20/11/12 04:57 AM
2

Goodness me. I was actually going to try to engage in discussion with you, but it's evident that you're actually not well.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 04:45 AM
0

Well, for starters - I'm Australian. So let me guess, you're just going to 'trust' a female to not fuck you over with the power of that state fully at her command? Exactly how stupid do you have to be to believe in that system? So, you're suggesting no one should ever marry or procreate? That seems like a sound alternative. Should bode well for the human race. I bet you've done the sums n' all. And, yes, I would just 'trust' someone. Relationships are about trust - and sometimes that trust is br…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 03:03 AM
1

With all due respect, your negative experience doesn't make it not worth it for all people. It's about deciding whether the risk is worth it for each individual. For some people it will be. For some people it will work out. I'm sorry you've had a bad experience.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 12:21 AM
3

My brother is a secondary English/history teacher and he said the same. Being male gave him an edge as male humanities teachers are a minority in our area.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 09:10 AM
9

When a man commits, its a heavy emotional investment. He has to sacrifice all his dreams to enter into a serious one. To a woman a relationship is her dreams coming true. To her, its not the same sacrifice. Are you serious? Just gonna get it out there, I have dreams too - and they're not about about starching your shirt and burping the baby.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 10:52 PM
4

This is an excellent response.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:32 AM
5

Hmmm, I see what you're saying - but I don't think cleavage/neck comparison is accurate. You're comparing apples and oranges. I can wear a low cut top and you can wear a shirt unbuttoned down your chest. You can't get around with your 'neck' on display, just like I couldn't get around with my mons pubis on display.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 01:41 AM
1

That does sound pleasant.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:15 PM
1

I don't want to have a child with myself!
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:02 PM
1

But they'll still need an egg won't they? It's an artificial womb for incubation, it doesn't create the embryo. Am I reading it correctly?
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:54 AM
-1

I am not against it, and have never stated otherwise. As I've repeatedly said, I'm not against MBC. I'm 100% for it. there is something wrong in that you can't trust your partner to respect your own bodily rights, such as not getting pregnant If you'd read my other posts, you would also understand that - unlike a lot of MRAs - my mistrust of the BC pill comes not from assumed malice on the part of my partner, but rather knowing as a female who has taken the pill how easy it is to accidentally fo…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 07:13 PM
3

I don't think any one 'deserves' the pill more than another. Everyone, male or female, deserves equal access to a safe contraceptive pill. Girls can get abortions if contraception fails. For starters, not everyone feels that abortions are an option - be it religious, or just moral reasons. I do, but not everyone does. I also think its better to prevent these things, rather than abort after the fact.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 10:21 AM
0

Yes, but the whole point is whether or not women would 'trust' men - and whether that is an unreasonable stand point. I'm just explaining from my perspective that its not a mistrust of men, just that I would only ever rely on myself preventing myself from becoming pregnant.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 10:18 AM
1

Ah, ok. I was a bit confused!
/r/MensRights13/11/12 09:12 AM
2

Is it related to 2X?
/r/MensRights13/11/12 08:06 AM
1

It's the best. I'm always flaunting my poorly painted mitts on there.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:36 AM
11

Good on you! Come on over to /r/redditlaqueristas and show off your nails :)
/r/MensRights13/11/12 02:26 AM
0

I'd say it'd be fine in a polygamous relationship, too. As long as all people involved know the consequences. Absolutely. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I should've just said 'in any trusted relationship'.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 12:47 AM
2

I think it is an issue of misunderstanding here. Thanks for taking the time to respond :)
/r/MensRights13/11/12 12:46 AM
5

Issues of malice aside, I know from experience that its pretty easy to absentmindedly forget or forget that medication might interfere. I don't trust the pill, male or female, because its not infallible - neither are we. I would rely solely on the pill only in a situation such as an LTR in which both parties were not actively trying for a baby, but also not opposed to it if it happened.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 12:41 AM
2

In a monogamous relationship that's fine. But please remember that you are still at risk of STIs.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 12:36 AM
–

His argument was that men having the decision to take a contraceptive pill removes power from women and thus they are against it. This is not the case. It removes the power from woman who would choose to trick men into impregnating them. He made a ridiculous blanket statement to suggest that this is not an exceptional attitude and I was simply explaining that it is a generalisation that is clearly not relevant to all women. I felt his argument contributed nothing more than inaccurate vitriol.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 11:55 PM
-6

Oh look, you twisted around what I said to invent a strawman. No, I was responding to an argument that you had poorly articulated.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:39 PM
5

Are you referring to the physical logistics or how an unwilling male could reach a state of arousal necessary for non-consensual penetration? Easily. Erection can occur when the penis is stimulated regardless of whether the male wants it to or not. The man may feel threatened, he may be intoxicated or drugged, or he may be passed out etc.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:55 PM
21

Of course I support research into male BC. My biggest concern is that there are people out there who trust, or would trust, the contraceptive pill (male or female) for their sole BC. I am on the pill and I use condoms - because I want neither a child nor an STI. The best sex ed advice I ever received was from my 9th grade teacher: "Every time you have sex with someone, ask yourself if they're someone you want to have to see every weekend for the next 18yrs"
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:44 PM
–

contraception is power, control over one's own destiny, women can't stand that, they can't stand that their power is so easily threatened. I do not want a child. I want power over my decision not to get pregnant, just as you want the power to decide not to get a woman pregnant. I am not against the male pill, however I don't think it reflects poorly on me that I would not accept the risk of relying only on the male contraceptive pill to prevent me becoming pregnant. If I were a male, I would not…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:39 PM
37

I fully support the male pill, but as a female I wouldn't trust it as my only source of birth control. Ultimately, there is a greater health risk involved in accidental pregnancy for the female party - therefore I'd feel more comfortable knowing I'm also taking the pill.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:17 PM
5

Yeah, last year he accumulated over 90 bottles and cans of beer over the holiday season.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:41 AM
3

Yeah, my Dad is a garbage man in Australia, and he makes about 70k. And there is always overtime to be had, especially around public holidays. He loves doing it and has decorated the interior of his cab with Oscar the Grouch plushies.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:41 AM
11

My dad is a garbage man and I just asked him: He likes trucks. He likes the hours (he's an early bird) He can sit in the cab listening to music all day. He hates interacting with people. The money is reasonable. At Christmas time everyone gives him beer.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 02:39 AM
3

Well with respect to HIV transmission they probably do, but as you said, this is not a major concern in America. It was not I that said that, it was another commenter. I probably don't believe in a lot of the stuff you want to do either None of my beliefs impinge on another persons right to bodily autonomy. All I'm asking for is for you to just not persecute my people by trying to make it illegal. Gonna play that card, hey? Sigh. Buddy, I was raised Jewish too. And I absolutely would make circum…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 06:55 AM
6

Vaccinations are a different issue because they work on herd immunity. Circumcision doesn't. want the best for their children Someone who wants the best for their child does not perform an unnecessary operation to remove part of the genitals - denying their child bodily autonomy and exposing them to potential risks both physically and psychologically. As far as religion goes, I'm sorry but I will never believe that a religious belief system justifies performing an unnecessary medical procedure.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 06:43 AM
8

excellent justification That's pushing it. The reality is that there are risks, and it is a medically unnecessary procedure. Therefore, parents who choose to do this are exposing their child to unnecessary risks. Given that the above statement says its not necessary given that the data is not sufficient to warrant it being necessary, then the parents who do circumcise are not doing it for medical reasons. They are doing it for perceived social or religious reasons. That, to me, is selfish and ba…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 06:32 AM
8

However, while there are potential medical benefits, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision of all boys. Not justifiable.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 06:22 AM
1

I was responding to SCCROW's comment about women's work attire. Not all offices have uniforms - some work places have a more casual approach to work wear. If a woman wears a pencil skirt, is that sexual because its very fitted? What is considered sexually appealing is different for every person, so to suggest a women should expect men to respond in a sexual manner if they find her attire sexually titilating, is putting the onus on females to predict what the males response. The same would apply …
/r/MensRights30/10/12 08:33 AM
1

I agree, I check out other girls boobs if they're on display. Sometimes it's hard not to. My only concern is this: If women dress in a sexual context, they should expect the men around them to act in a sexual context towards them. Where do we draw the line as far as what constitutes dressing in a 'sexual context'? For one person this may be a low cut top, for another it may be a woman wearing a red dress. And where do we draw the line for what is 'acting in a sexual context'? Glancing at a woman…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:00 AM
2

Here we just call that party 'the complainant'. It's more neutral.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 03:58 PM
1

Sigh, alright - lets run through this like you're five: I think there are many worthwhile causes on this sub. It's petty shit like this article that keeps this sub from actually being of any use. This is not a men's rights issue any more than its a women's rights issue. This is about two grown ups treating each other like shit, then one of them deciding to do something about it. It's posters like you that are so desperate to board the outrage bus that you can't see the forest for the trees - tha…
/r/MensRights26/10/12 11:06 PM
1

No, it's just about understanding that life isn't black and white. Day in, day out I see commenters on self-posts run with the narratives other commenters provide just because they want something to fuel their outrage. I'm just saying it'd be wise for us all - regardless of gender - to realise that, short of infidelity, most relationship breakdowns are the result of both parties engaging in negative contributive behaviour.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 10:36 PM
1

Trying being nice is good advice for anyone. You hit the nail on the head. Thanks for illustrating my point about how this is not a men's right issue, it's just a 'how to be a better person' issue.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 10:33 PM
3

I like you. I like your comments.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:16 AM
-1

You also seem to (I refer to this in another post to you) chase an argument. I don't chase arguments - I call out people who are saying things I disagree with. And I'm more than willing to argue for that. If we don't engage in meaningful debate on this sub then it becomes nothing more than a circle jerk. I am empathetic to the situation of men - I was drawn to MRM because of my frustration with the custody system and its treatment of men. The angry, bitter misogynists need to be cut down by memb…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:29 AM
–

That's reasonable. I apologize for my generalization. But it seems you take more umbrage with my generalizations than his. He's called out a majority also - by saying that women contribute significantly more to a relationship breakdown. I'm not confusing feminist with woman - because the majority of anecdotal complaints on this sub are ex-partners. He also didnt say feminists contribute more to the breakdown - he said 'females' did. That's what I have a problem with. I do abhor feminism - I am a…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:18 AM
1

The findings also show that the more men and women try to be empathetic to their partner's feelings, the happier they are. The authors suggest that this research should encourage couples to better appreciate and communicate one another's efforts to be empathetic. I'm not sure that anything in this article suggests women want men to be unhappy, or contribute to more break downs, it just confirms that women want their male partners to empathetic when they're unhappy or distressed. I don't see how …
/r/MensRights25/10/12 05:06 AM
2

I agree with everything you've said, I just don't feel that this particular example ties into that.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 05:00 AM
1

Yeah, that's fine. As I said, I'm more than happy to read any unbiased (ie not a MR advocate site) source. My issue with it is that I don't agree that women contribute to a significantly higher amount of relationship breakdowns than men do. Women initiate divorce proceedings more than men, but that doesn't mean they're responsible for the break down of the relationship more so. Also, contributive behaviour - short of infidelity - is a pretty subjective concept. What one person might consider neg…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:58 AM
–

People that disagree with you, even in this sub, aren't necessarily cynical and bitter. Sometimes they might just have a different opinion or worse, have a better idea of what is going on. I'm never sai that people who disagree with me are bitter or cynical, but I am saying that through the wording of a lot of comments and contributors to this sub it seems that that is how a lot of them have come to this sub. And that to me, does not seem like an unbiased platform upon which to build an MRA view…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:48 AM
2

I totally agree. I'm not a feminist and find most feminist theory simplistic and conspiratorial. But to me, both 'feminist' and 'men's rights advocate ' are problematic because they both imply the advocation I one genders rights over the other. I consider myself an egalitarian.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:38 AM
1

I agree with your comment re feminism. But at no point did this author say she was experiencing any kind of oppression from her partner, or imply it at all. She simply conceded that their work lives, children etc had led to them being unkind to each other and so she made a concerted effort to try o bring back intimacy. I agree with your argument about allegations of female oppression being toxic to a relationship, but I don't feel that this article demonstrates that.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:30 AM
–

Where did I say I was concerned the woman's side wasn't being heard? I simply said we are only getting one side of the story on this sub so we should all keep that in mind when reading them. It's common sense.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:12 AM
0

I'm pretty sure the author conceded she was also a crappy partner and only took the initiative to improve the relationship it was suggested to her by a professional.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:11 AM
–

Well, I think there are plenty of anecdotal stories, and actual research showing that yes, there are several typical female behaviors that are highly negative and lead to breakup of marriage. And there are also many ways that male's contribute to relationship break downs as well. I'm more than happy to look at any unbiased research that supports your claims that women's behaviour is more likely to lead to marriage breakdown than men's. and don't mansplain to me I just want someone to listen and …
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:05 AM
–

and often that marriage is noted by various behaviors of women in regards to negativity and withdrawal from their husband, if not worse. I think that's a fairly large generalisation. Keep in mind on this sub we are only presented with the male partners side of the relationship breakdown, so obviously he is going to have examples of his spouses negativities, and is not likely to be forthcoming with his own. But, short of an unfaithful partner, I think most relationship breakdowns would have a fai…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:31 AM
1

This is where I get confused. Why don't MRAs call themselves Gender Equalists? Why is it acceptable to call themselves MRAs, but if I called myself an FRA that would be viewed negatively? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm genuinely curious. Don't we all want equality for both genders?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:42 AM
–

Hmmm... this doesn't really sounds like a men's issue. It seems, like many long term relationships, they got bogged down with kids, work etc and lost time for each other and started bickering. This is just an account of the conscious steps she took to try to bring closeness and intimacy back into their relationship. Can you elaborate as to why this article is of note?
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:34 AM
11

Yeah, they're pretty awesome. Apparently they met with some pretty serious animosity from my mother's side (who are Jewish) so I've got a lot of respect for them.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 11:24 AM
16

It's an absolutely ridiculous argument. My father is circumcised but my parents made the decision not to circumcise my brothers because its an abhorrent practice.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 10:59 AM
1

Stop making this about gender. I would feel the same way if the genders were reversed in this situation. If you read my other comments you would see that I do know a women in this situation and I don't have sympathy for her either. I know it's easier to accuse me of these things than to actually construct a valid argument but the fact remains, the Canadian resident knew that she was financially his responsibility for three years regardless of their relationship status, he's an adult and entered …
/r/MensRights23/10/12 03:26 PM
2

I can only speak anecdotally, but I had a female co-worker who ended up in the same position. She was in her mid-50's, met an attractive 20 something Brazilian man. He moved to Australia to be with her and, after the minimum amount of time required to get residency, he left her for a young Aussie female.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 12:13 PM
–

I think he is incredibly naive, and she is manipulative. I have very little sympathy for either of them. My choice of words was perhaps poor, but I stand by my lack of sympathy for either party.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 06:10 AM
0

I wasn't saying the study was offensive, I was saying the interpretation was, regardless of who said that.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 04:53 AM
8

I'm sure that is probably true, but the law wasn't put in place to 'help' the other party or to support them - it was put in place to avoid them being a burden on the system of a country they've just arrived in. So, where child support comes from an inherently misandric social thought (ie, a man should support the woman an child to ensure they are taken care of), this is more of a situation of paying back the tax payers (ie, you brought the immigrant here, they're your financial burden - not our…
/r/MensRights23/10/12 03:57 AM
2

I agree that it's sad that he's been taken for a ride - and the wife is clearly a nasty piece of work - but his age is irrelevant. If he is of sound mind and entered into the situation knowing the potential financial fall out (which he should have) then I just can't feel that he is the victim of an unjust 'system'. The fact that he gets stuck with her support for 3 years even after she leaves him under these pretenses is inexcusable. Her behaviour is inexcusable, but the law isn't. As I said abo…
/r/MensRights23/10/12 03:43 AM
11

I'm not sure the law is misandric as it applies to men and women who sponsor foreigners. I know lots of women who have sponsored male partners to migrate.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 03:35 AM
13

I know I'll sound cold saying this, but I have very little sympathy for people who get 'had' by mail-order brides. Common sense should've kicked in and set off the 'something's fishy' alarm before it got to this. A 50 something woman I work with had a similar experience with a 20 something Brazilian man she met online.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 01:03 AM
-1

Do you honestly think that calling someone 'shallow' is neutral? Neutral would be 'studies show that women are attracted to men who appear to be financially well off' - accusing women of being shallow implies a character judgement. While not 'misogyny', it is certainly a negative portrayal.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 12:51 AM
-2

I don't agree that finding wealth and social status attractive is 'shallow'. I guess it depends for what reason someone would pursue a wealthy person. If its just to live a luxurious life, then yes, it is shallow - but, for me at least, a good job with a good income suggests the person is driven, intelligent, has a good work ethic etc. and these are all attributes I find attractive. I am on a high income, and I've worked very hard to get to the position I'm in. I tend to seek out people with sim…
/r/MensRights22/10/12 03:08 PM
10

I received a PM with that information also, from 'AnneArchist'.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 01:07 AM
5

This in incredibly depressing. The fact that his virginity isn't 'worth' as much as hers is depressing; the fact that hers is 'worth' so much is depressing. I just... yeah... depressing.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 12:09 PM
1

But remember that you don't own them, so they aren't obligated to stop. Of course not, but that doesn't make it an acceptable thing to do. I just think it wouldn't kill us all to be a bit more courteous and aware of those around us. There's no shame in trying to be considerate. I have to laugh, because I've done this. No bullshit. But then again it was hunting season. Goodness me! That's some serious banking! Here (Australia) you cannot enter a bank with your face obscured - and we're also a lot…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:23 PM
–

Say "Hi" next time Gave him a polite nod and a 'hey' and got nothing back. I can't make anyone feel anything That's true. But now I feel you're being facetious - you know exactly what I mean. I think we can all avoid doing things that might lead to someone feeling uneasy. I mean, you could walk into a bank with a balaclava and a gun and then say 'hey, I didn't make the staff and customers nervous - they chose to feel nervous', but that's just semantics to me.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:56 PM
–

I'm not trying to be facetious, but do you really not see how staring unwaveringly at a stranger for an extended period of time might make them feel uneasy? How does one make another feel uncomfortable? Here's an example: Last night, I finished work at 2.30am. I was waiting outside my building at a taxi rank for a taxi, as public transport had finished for the night. There was one other person waiting for a taxi. The two of us were the only two people on the street and yet he chose to stare dire…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:06 PM
1

Well, if a tree falls in the forest... I don't mind men, or women, viewing me sexually. Heck, save an image for the spank bank if you want, just don't make me feel awkward - or unsafe - in public. That's all I ask. EDIT: Similarly, it's not that I don't notice attractive men and women in the street - and sneak a cheeky look - but I wouldn't stare.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 11:54 AM
5

I was recently given t-shirt with the twin girls from The Shining on it. I thought it was great and wore it the day I got it. It kept getting chuckles from my friends (male and female) and it wasn't until my boss laughed, pointed and said "The Twins look good today" that I realised why it was funny. I had a laugh too and wasn't offended :D
/r/MensRights08/10/12 11:43 AM
1

I don't think there's any problem with looking at people, the issue becomes when one is staring at someone else and making them feel uncomfortable.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 11:41 AM
1

What exactly is the man doing that enables you to tell? It's not just men, and it's not just 'sexual' intentions that could lead to discomfort. I'm quite realistic, and I understand that a lot of the fashions I wear (corsetry etc) do present a sexualised image - you could probably compare it a Betty Paige-esque look - but having said that, I have had occasions in which people have made sexual comments and leered, and I don't think that's appropriate. So it's not just the "look" that gives it awa…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 11:39 AM
–

Finally, don't women sometimes enjoy the attention? For me personally, that's true. I dress in a 1940's style (hair, make-up, clothes etc) and I do like it when people look at me and admire my fashions and what not. I put effort in to look nice, so it's nice for that to be acknowledged. Having said that, I think it's all about the intention of the person looking. It would be make me feel uncomfortable if a guy or girl was 'leering' at me in a suggestive manner, just like I wouldn't leer in a pre…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:54 AM
1

I'm with Phuzzums here. The parties involved obviously didn't realise the mother was in the car as well and I believe they would've reacted the same way if they thought the mother had left the kids alone in the car.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 11:39 AM
1

I am a terrible driver, and should have stuck to automatic, but as a vintage car nut I had to be able to drive manual.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:04 AM
0

Hi Trevbork2. You're right. 'Courting' dynamics (for want of a better word) are still frustratingly traditional. Having said that, there are a few of my thoughts on the matter. Though this might sound reductionist/generalizing, it is what my life has been so far. I think this may have a fair bit to do with the age group of women you're dealing with. At 22, a lot of guys and girls are a still 'finding themselves' as far as dating goes. I'm 26, a bit older than the girls you're likely perusing, an…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 09:49 AM
2

It doesn't have to be fellatio. It's believed that regularly ejaculating can prevent prostate cancer.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 10:16 AM
1

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing it up :)
/r/MensRights04/10/12 01:54 PM
6

Yes, I agree. On top of that, I'm sure the decision passed through the hands of many people along the way who all should have realised it was a bad idea.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 01:54 PM
15

They replaced fire fighting hoses with light weight ones with plastic connecty bits (official terminology) so they were more easily used by the female members, the hoses were plagued with issues such as kinking, and the plastic melted leading to reduced fire fighting abilities.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 09:10 AM
4

Sorry you're going through this, it must be awful :( I can't give you much medical advice, but I think one of the most important tips I can offer is to make sure you always take someone with you to your consultations. When my dad was being treated for prostate cancer, my brothers or I always went with him. Sometimes it's hard to take it all in when you're the one being discussed, and having a third party with you can help you make informed decisions. Complete removal does seem quite invasive. Ar…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 09:04 AM
2

Was definitely because of your presence? Maybe she didn't realise she needed to alight until the bus had taken off again - so the driver stopped and let her out?
/r/MensRights04/10/12 04:41 AM
1

Buddy, I'm not a man hating feminist. You can say it as many times as you want to try to justify your behaviour, or to convince yourself that the only reason I disagree with you is because I'm a misandrist - it's just an easy 'get out of jail free card' for when you realise you haven't convinced someone of something. You're so transparent it's painful. But, at the end of the day there some awesome posters on the sub - you are not one of them.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 08:45 PM
1

In all seriousness, with all matters of our personal differences aside, do you not see how your angry, poorly thought out responses do nothing to help your cause? After two decades you have still failed to see that as long as you continue with your aggressive delivery you are condemning MRAs to remain a fringe movement. You are giving the feminists you so hate the ammunition to say to the world, 'look at these crazy people' - if you want to be taken seriously you need to start behaving and respo…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 08:07 PM
4

I love Insight. But I can't watch it cos I get too worked up :) The fact that male circumcision is still legal in Australia never ceases to blow my mind.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:52 AM
2

I guess it's very difficult. If she had only had a drink or two and blacked out, then that's certainly something worth looking into. If it were me the I would go to the police and say, 'I believe my drink was spiked, but I'm not sure if I've been sexually assaulted/taken advantage of'. If she has no recollection of the event because she had voluntarily consumed a large quantity of alcohol then it's a different situation. If the guy was just as drunk as her, and they both consented, then her drun…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:46 AM
1

You haven't insulted me - just made yourself look unintelligent, quick to anger and lived up to the stereotype that undoes all the good work of real MRAs.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:26 AM
0

Then why do you keep replying? ;)
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:22 AM
0

Neither. I dislike thoughtless, cruel, inarticulate, and inflammatory people (male or female).
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:11 AM
1

I'm not a feminist, but whatever floats your boat. I look forward to further inarticulate replies.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:07 AM
1

Nah, I think I'll stick around. Because like you said before, you don't actually get to control me.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:42 AM
1

Haha, you're funny :)
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:32 AM
1

'Sanctimonious hag' Thanks for proving my point :)
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:21 AM
1

It's people like you that are holding the men's rights movement back. You're letting down the guys doing a good and reasonable job. Think about that.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 05:10 AM
1

No shit... really? Wow, you're smrt... So, after saying that and referring to your sister as a pig I'm the nasty one for saying that you seem like a difficult person to put up with. Can dish it out but can't take it, hey?
/r/MensRights03/10/12 05:00 AM
1

Goodness me. It must be lovely for your family to have to put up with you.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 04:09 AM
1

She's overweight. Still not cool to speak about her that way. I'm not familiar with US sizes, but 26 certainly sounds quite large. Perhaps she needs to be referred to a nutritionist? Maybe there's deeper psychological issues at play?
/r/MensRights03/10/12 03:56 AM
1

If it makes you feel any better, I'm only 5'1 so most guys are taller than me :) find yourself a little lady - we're great!
/r/MensRights03/10/12 02:56 AM
1

Yup, sure - link back to me next time you cherry pick an article. And hopefully you'll think of me also next time you walk past Maxim or Ralph magazine, or decide to refer to your sister as a fat pig, or see one the thousands of reddit comments criticising a woman's physical appearance or giving her a "2/10 would not bang".
/r/MensRights03/10/12 02:51 AM
2

Jesus..RIGHT after I told you why this argument sucks...you use this argument. As in, the fucking REPLY to the contention. I saw your comment. I just disagree with it. Wow, you've got two sisters? I've got two brothers. What's your point? be tall, dark, handsome, funny, exciting, sociable, popular, well dressed, have a nice car/place, make 'at least as much as her', etc etc etc.... If he meets these criteria, THEN he might be nice to meet.... For starters, you're generalising in saying that that…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 02:40 AM
3

I'm not saying that it's ok that he is being treated unfairly because he is shorter, I'm just saying that the exact same thing happens to women. It's not a gender issue, it's a 'some people are assholes' issue. There are many ways in which women are judged harshly for their physical appearance, so a man being upset that he is too seems an odd thing to be on a men's rights forum.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 02:12 AM
1

I don't understand your comment. Can you elaborate?
/r/MensRights03/10/12 02:03 AM
6

Yeah big boobs are sexy but I'd take a flat girl with a good personality and a cute face over a big boobed bimbo anyday. Yeah, and there are lots of women who would take a shorter guy with a great personality over a tall guy without. There are shallow women, and there are shallow men. Just like some shallow women have treated you disrespectfully for being shorter, similarly some shallow men have treated some women disrespectfully because of aesthetic reasons. I'm not sure that this is a gender i…
/r/MensRights03/10/12 01:01 AM
2

That's where the right for a male yo absolve himself of financial responsibility comes in. That is the most practically equal alternative. You'll never convince me that a male party should be able to demand a female gestate or terminate a pregnancy against her wishes. That is not a situation in which there is equality, because even if the decision making is equal, the medical and physical burden of the decision is not. The woman will always have to bear that burden regardless of how equal the le…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 11:51 PM
2

I do have an interest in equality. But the unfortunate reality is that as long as only one party can bear children, true equality will never exist.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 11:33 PM
2

I think the problem here, and unfortunately I see it a lot from MRAs is that the delivery is letting down the message. It's understandable to be emotive and passionate about a subject, but launching into a bolded rant is not the right way to go about it. Starting off th comment by saying something like, "Rape of any kind is abhorrent, but lets all calm down and take a moment to look at the facts..." then outline arguments in a neutral tone.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 05:13 AM
1

If you want to continue this, lets take it to pm or email.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 05:03 AM
1

Please see my other comment re 'oppression' definition. agree with me that both men and women had various issues at various times? That is precisely what I was saying! As you would say, good grief. My entire point from the beginning was that women have been oppressed as men have throughout history but that many on this sub would seek to argue against that. We agree? Is that not enough for you?
/r/MensRights02/10/12 04:48 AM
1

I have defined it. You just didn't like my definition because it didn't sit with yours. Oppression is when a group of people are treated unjustly or unfairly, in a manner that prevents them from maintaining their autonomy reasonably, by an authority. I believe both men and women have been oppressed in varying ways by varying authoritarian bodies. The reason I say that they were primarily men is because 1.) they were, and 2.) it is relevant in a historical to understand that significant decisions…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 04:44 AM
1

A short fuse? I don't think so. I am just a realistic person, and I can see that we both have very differing views and we will continue talking at each other indefinitely, and throwing evidence at each other (which I acknowledge we can both find to support our claims) indefinitely.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 04:40 AM
1

I believe that varying groups have been oppressed throughout history - men and women - not all of them, and not all at the same time. I'm not trying to make it 'just about women', I'm trying to show you that it isn't 'just about men' - which seems to what you and this sub are standing for. There are reasons for women to be outraged and there are reasons for men to be outraged. That does not mean one cancels out the other. And yes, lots of different sorts of people can be oppressed for different …
/r/MensRights02/10/12 04:37 AM
1

I don't know why you want to keep going with this. I disagree with you. You disagree with me. Neither of us is likely to convince the other. What do you hope to gain? Lay it out for me.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 04:32 AM
1

A lot of people were oppressed, men and women. I've acknowledged that. But what I want you to see is that there is ways that women are oppressed due to their gender that men aren't, and vice versa. And if several groups are oppressed for different reasons that doesn't make any of them acceptable. I'm not even sure what your argument is? Women can't be upset about previous incidents of oppression due to gender because experienced different kinds of oppression too? I think we should be outraged ab…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 04:18 AM
1

You were interested in discussing it before and in fact asked me for evidence. I provide evidence and suddenly you think it's best we don't talk about it. Very interesting.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 04:14 AM
1

How come you didn't respond to my evidence of men's unilateral decision making in divorce in some shariah factions? It's interesting that you use evidence (from wiki no less!) that you have and think you've ended the issue, and then completely ignore when I post evidence in support of my claim.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 03:33 AM
1

You seem a bit unclear on what you mean yourself here. I'm not unclear, but nice try :) I'm not denying there are many ways people of both genders can be discriminated against (classism, racism, anti-intellectualism etc) but what I'm here to say is that there have been times women have been oppressed because of their gender be it directly, or indirectly (such as the catholic/sex example). No matter how many examples you bring up of other people being oppressed in other ways, it's not going to ne…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 02:07 AM
1

I suggest we either take this to pm or finish this as we have high jacked a good portion of the thread. I disagree with your logic on so many of these issues. Honesty reading your post, I feel I'm looking at a person who is seems terrified of admitting that females have ever suffered. MRAs do great work, but as long as there are people like yourself, constantly clutching at straws to say 'but, but, but!' then the movement is being shot in the foot. I have never said that men have not been oppres…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 01:56 AM
7

Very well said. It's easy to jump to a rant when you feel hurt or outraged. I'm gonna save this and re-read it next time I want to just shout at someone :)
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:04 PM
1

I don't have any stats, but it's probably more likely to be the mum. Having said that, a girl at my work took our work places maternity leave when she had a baby and then when the maternity leave was up she came back and her husband went off on the paid parental leave. It seems more and more couples are doing that.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 05:58 PM
6

I think it's all in the delivery. You raised good points, but you're not going to get them across by ranting. You'll come across as crazy unless you take a more balanced and informative approach. The ol' "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" adage still holds true.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 05:43 PM
1

It's a rather patronizing view of women that they all were submissive to men back then. I'm not saying they were. I'm suggesting that the climate in which someone is raised greatly affects their outlook and informs their beliefs - male and female. Women raised in the latter part of the 19th century and earlier part of the 20th century were raised with different attitudes towards women (positive and negative) to women born in the later 20th Century, such as myself. In the same way people raised i…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 05:36 PM
1

That is not a gender equality issue - that is a pro-life/pro-choice issue - and also it is not at all what you were saying in your original post. If she wants to keep it, she can accept full responsibility, financial and otherwise.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 03:18 PM
1

I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. I see the gestation and birth as a disadvantage that men are not burdened with. If men and women were to have equal power over whether a child is to be terminated or gestated then the woman is suffering the inequality of having to bear the physical/medical burden of that decision (birth or termination) - which is not equal. If both parties were exposed to the same risk and physical trauma of either gestation and birth, or of termination then I…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:41 PM
1

Agreed :D
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:20 PM
1

Sorry, I'm confused. Should the mother provide that to the father, or vice versa?
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:07 PM
3

I think it's awesome. My dad was the stay-at-home parent with me and we're so close because of it.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 12:50 PM
1

I think the most realistic, and ideal situation is this: The male party cannot demand the female party either terminate, or gestate a pregnancy against her will. But she can also not demand parenting assistance of any kind from the male should he choose to relinquish said rights during the period in which termination is a possibility. (Assuming he is aware of the pregnancy) For adoption, it would be ideal if neither party could put a child up for adoption without the other parties approval. Both…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 12:30 PM
2

I have no legal means to keep her from aborting. Nor should you. Because ultimately the foetus is gestated within the females body - not the males. He is not exposed to the medical risk that the female is. In fact, he is imposing a risk on an unwilling party. He is not just making the decision for himself, and for the foetus, but also for the woman - that is not equality. If we lived in a perfect world, our reproductive systems would have been created equally with both genders able to gestate an…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 12:26 PM
1

I've learned a lot of things that you have not. So, yeah, obviously it's not likely you'll change my mind any more than if you talk to one of your university professors it's unlikely that you will correct them on their topic of expertise. Does that mean they have inferior thinking too somehow? I have a funny feeling you'd still tell a professor of feminist theory that her thinking was inferior or wrong, despite you not being a professor in the field. Are you just pissed off because I educated yo…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 08:46 AM
2

Oh, so you do want me to disagree with you? Ok, here's what I think (uncensored - which is frightening thing to do in this sub): Some women wanted to vote. A majority of women did not want them to. At the time, the majority of authority figures in a woman's life (in education, political, social and religious) were male based. Therefore a majority of women, having only been exposed to a male authority influence, will believe it to be in their 'best interests' and are likely - after a lifetime of …
/r/MensRights01/10/12 07:54 AM
1

Yup that is exactly the case. I'm resigning from said debate because you have shown me the you are 100% correct.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 07:41 AM
1

I don't expect you to agree with me. I certainly don't agree with you. Aren't generalisations what this sub is all about dispelling? I'm not frustrated or angry - more exasperated. I realised I wasted my afternoon with a pointless discussion that neither of us will come out with any better understanding of the others perspective. Your comments have made it pretty clear that your beliefs are set on set in stone.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 07:22 AM
1

Depending on the faction of shariah (Sunni/Shiite) men can be in a position of unilateral decision re divorce. As I said. I'm done discussing this with you. You're never going to convince me and I'm never going to convince you. You think I have some sort of agenda and vice versa. I say we call it a day.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 07:12 AM
1

I honestly feel like discussing this with you has gone beyond pointless. I believe you are making generalisation with no real intention of meaningful discourse.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:59 AM
1

In some interpretations they can, in some they can't.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:58 AM
1

But some women did want the vote. You speak about is as though no women did. Clearly some did or there would not have been a suffragette movement. "Oppression: the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner" That is the definition of oppression. In a society in which a female cannot initiate divorce proceedings but a male can we have a situation in which the authority (government) is exercising power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. I am not holding all men …
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:56 AM
1

(1) Why does the action of about 0.01% of men somehow become the fault of all men? I never said it was the fault of all men. What I resent is the implication by some users of this sub that women have never experienced discrimination or oppression. Men in power would mean women were treated better than men wouldn't it? I don't follow your logic. Please elaborate. (3) If women supported what the male legislators did, how were they "oppressed"? I believe women should have the right to vote, but not…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:42 AM
1

I am not Islamic, but I did study Islamic theory at Uni. So I'm not an expert, but I have a bit of an understanding. My belief is thus: in all situations, a woman an a man should have equal rights to terminate a marriage. If there is a situation in which the male party can but the female party can't (or vice versa) - then we have an inequality.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:36 AM
1

I ask this in all seriousness: do you believe that throughout western history, women have been discriminated against? Or oppressed by a political/religious authority at all?
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:34 AM
1

'Oppression' doesn't have to mean that every male was responsible, it just means that the authority of the time (political or religious). The majority of which were male purely because they were the ones in power. I don't believe that women in western society are oppressed today. Just to clear that up.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:28 AM
1

By 'oppressed' I mean, for example, countries that operate under certain interpretations of shariah law. This can mean only the male party being able to initiate divorce proceedings. Historically, I'm referring to the periods in which females were not allowed to vote with equal rights as their male contemporaries. This is a form of oppression because it was forcing women to live under a political umbrella of which they had no say in.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:15 AM
0

I love tempura!
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:06 AM
1

Troll status: confirmed. Thanks for clearing it up :)
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:02 AM
2

Why does that bother you? Because I believe in equality. I want to be part of the Men's Rights movement, but not if it means I have to be part of a community that actively denies any female oppression has every occurred. It has, as has male oppression and deserves to be acknowledged regardless even if it is not 'comfortable' to think about. It's not comfortable for me to acknowledge that females, like myself, have caused male oppression, but I'm comfortable enough in my support of MR to be able …
/r/MensRights01/10/12 05:46 AM
2

I'm sure your google foo can answer that for you. I have a fascination with all things radioactive, including Radium history and the 'Radium Girls' trial, and the user name 'Oppenheimer' was already taken ;)
/r/MensRights01/10/12 05:43 AM
1

Are you saying men must accept what feminists say about the past and accept that men in history are all evil and hated and oppressed women? And if so what does that say about men? No, not at all. But I do believe that there are periods in history (and in some parts of the world today) where females were/are oppressed. But I'm also an MR supporter because they are not mutually exclusive. You're a reasonable person, so this is not directed at you, but there are posters on this sub that seem to wan…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 05:41 AM
2

Yeah, sorry David, my rant was not directed at you - it just spilled out.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 05:20 AM
1

Marie Curie is one example. Using her as a basis to state that discrimination didn't occur is not a particularly thorough sample group. You don't just walk into that. You have to earn it. It's basically like the Nobel prizes. You're right, I misread. But do you honestly believe that during the period up until 1944/45 a woman never contributed in any way that may have been worthy of admittance as a fellow? Is it not more likely that women were not afforded the opportunity or were relegate to supp…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 04:56 AM
1

The reality is that you believe this because you have been fed feminist revisionist history since you were a child. Now you take it for granted that men are evil, jealous and stupid compared to women. Calm down - sheesh - nowhere did I say that. I was simply stating that women were not given the same opportunities within the scientific communities. Take for example, as I stated to another commenter, that women were not admitted to the Royal Society until 1945, with the Royal Astronomical Society…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 04:11 AM
2

This article from biochemist.org talks about how women were not accepted into the Royal Society until 1944. It also talks about Mary Somerville and her inability up present a published paper the Royal Society 1826 with all communication dealt with by her husband, who was not a scientists. Hertha Ayrton passed the Cambridge Tripos, but was only awarded a certificate - not a degree like her fellow male students. Similarly, Phillipa Fawcett achieve a score on the Cambridge Mathematics tripos 13% hi…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 03:49 AM
1

Ok :)
/r/MensRights01/10/12 03:18 AM
7

Wouldn't everyone 'owe' each other equally as all are descended from both males and females?
/r/MensRights30/09/12 08:18 PM
1

but any female over the age of 15?..... 10% of your paycheck is going to the "compesnation to men for discrimnation by women act" fund. Hmm... Surely you are a troll trying to discredit MRAs...
/r/MensRights30/09/12 08:15 PM
4

Actually, when we had our workplace renovated, myself and a male coworker lobbied for a unisex washroom and it was included in the new design. We've had no complaints so far. No, I'm sorry that you have clearly labeled me as an 'evil woman' without even knowing me.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:44 PM
3

I'm sorry you feel this way. I have no problem with you, or any other guys using the female washrooms. In fact I advocate for unisex washrooms.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:03 PM
2

Try stating that women were once considered property But I'm not. I'm talking about their role in early 20th century writing. They weren't respected or acknowledge in the same way male scientists were. I'm also disappointed that I'm getting down voted for expressing an opinion, which I don't think is the spirit of meaningful discussion. I've been lurking on this sub for a few months but only started commenting two or so days ago for this very reason.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:01 PM
3

Yeah, I pretty much go straight in. Everyone seems pretty cool with it. I'll use a cubicle - but I'm pretty quick in and out. I don't use the urinal because it does require me to expose myself a little more than I'd be comfortable doing standing next to a stranger! The She-Pee is really for use outside. Here in Australia you're not going to end up on the sex offenders register for peeing outside. You might get a ticket for peeing in a public place, but that's it. If I'm at a music festival or on…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 04:51 PM
–

To be fair, I'm not sure they're re-writing history. The reality is that in the late part of the 19th, and the early part of the 20th century, women were overshadowed by men in the field of science regardless of the merit of their contribution. I'm not a feminist, but that is a reality. Because of that, women who were working in the era are not as well known as men who were and, given that wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, that even those without historic understanding can edit, their contribut…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 04:17 PM
2

I feel that there can never be true equality in reproductive rights as long as only one party can gestate the foetus. Because it simply isn't equal. Only one gender can carry/birth the child. The reproductive systems weren't created equally, so I'm not sure the rights in the medical regard can ever truly be equal.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 02:56 PM
3

I guess it comes from being raised the only girl in a family full of boys but it just doesn't bother me :)
/r/MensRights30/09/12 02:42 PM
1

You can't look at your friends individual cases and say that's what applies to the whole. That's true. But it's no different that your statement of "I think the problems with many woman having abortions, is that they are short-term decisions that are made without truly going over potential consequences". Both are our opinions on the matter and both of us could find statistics to back up our own viewpoint if we looked in the right places. I guess what I want is an answer to this question: do you …
/r/MensRights30/09/12 02:38 PM
5

Me too! That's what great about the She-Pee.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 12:55 PM
4

I think there's two reasons. Money. Cancer is big business, particularly in the US. Breast cancer is a 'relatable' illness. Breast cancer is (at least in Australia, where I am) the most common cancer in women. It is also a lot more survivable if detected early. So I can understand the push for awareness so that women and men are aware of what to look for and how to self-check before symptoms become apparent. I have no problem with the raising of awareness. What I DO have a problem with is the di…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 11:27 AM
1

Thanks, now I have to go and play BioShock again :) I think the problem with Feminism and MR from an outsiders perspective, is that those that shout the loudest are the ones that those who aren't part of the movement identify as 'typical' of it. MR hate feminists because they see the misandrous "destory all men" types because they are the loudest (despite being the minority). Similarly, a lot of people view MR negatively because, despite a lot of men (and women) on this sub putting forth good id…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 08:30 AM
1

I'm not sure how they are the same issue. Can you explain to me why a father having decision making powers over a child, which every father has for his living breathing child, no matter how limited those powers are compared to the mother's, is wrong? We're not discussing children that have been born, or even foetuses that are at a viable stage. We are speaking about a foetus, at a point at which it can be terminated, being gestated within a woman's body. I'm not saying that men shouldn't be awar…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 06:30 AM
2

I appreciate your comments and I am well aware that I must address the medical implications of childbirth and abortion in my essay, no matter which side I end up advocating. It is important to point out, however, that abortions are invasive procedures that can and will do traumatic and irreversible damage to a woman's body, and can lead to infertility as well. Absolutely. No one would argue against that, but the woman is making that decision having weighed the risks, it isn't being decided for h…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:48 AM
–

In general, public rest rooms are an abomination. I have a She-Pee and I use men's restrooms when out at a big event like a music festival etc. I don't know why we don't just do away with segregated toilets all together and just have a bank of unisex toilets.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:26 AM
3

The problem with giving males equal power over decision making relating to termination is that you are not only giving him decision making power over the child, but also the woman's body and her autonomy. As has been stated by others, it is more beneficial to focus on the reverse scenario in which a male is required to financially support an unwanted child due to the mother's unwillingness to terminate. My partner and I lost our very much wanted child through a traumatic septic miscarriage. I su…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:13 AM
2

As I've stated several times already, I agree with a mans right to be absolved of financial responsibility - my response is about the financial comparison of the two scenarios depicted. I am all for a man's right to walk away from the responsibility of an unwanted child (if he decides this at an appropriate point in gestation - not post birth obviously), but I feel the comparison in the comic is neither accurate, not persuasive.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 12:31 AM
2

You believe a man should be able to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy even if she is willing to be solely responsible for it financially and physically?
/r/MensRights29/09/12 08:48 PM
1

I didn't imply there was a double meaning, I just thought that the way it read came off as sooking. I'm sorry if I offended you.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 06:49 PM
2

I'm sorry if I sounded insensitive, but tantrum talk like 'thought someone might care. Guess not' is counterintuitive to getting people on side, and doesn't have a place in a forum for meaningful discourse.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 05:39 PM
–

thought someone might care. Guess not. Hot tip: if you want to get your point across, don't sound like a whiny teenager.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 05:18 PM
-4

I don't think so. This cartoon is comparing the choice by a female to terminate a pregnancy to that of a male who chooses to absolve himself of parental responsibility, and the judgement that does, or does not, ensue. When it comes to equality of reproductive decision making, it has to be viewed from all angles. And this IS about reproductive and parental equality - or it wouldn't have been posted. Another commenter has already suggested that a female should be responsible for paying for the the…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 05:05 PM
1

I guess when it all comes down to it, the ideal situation is a world where both men and women try to avoid unwanted pregnancies at all costs.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 04:22 PM
2

I actually do agree with the sentiment, however that leaves a female who has been impregnated accidentally (remember is does take two to tango) in a position where either decision leaves her with financial cost medically or financially. She has found herself accidentally pregnant and the male wants to keep the child, but she wishes to terminate. She has two options: Continue with the pregnancy against her will and incur the financial burden of missed work/salary while pregnant and face significa…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 03:52 PM
-5

I have repeatedly addressed this issue in my other comments.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 03:38 PM
2

No I don't. I just think that before she makes that decision she should at least hear the fathers opinion. And if the father doesn't want or isn't ready or whatever then she knows she will be raising the child without his emotional or financial support. 100% agree, as I have repeatedly stated in previous comments. My only concern with your contract is that there is not an option for a mother choosing not to carry the child despite the father wanting her to, regardless of any remuneration. I hone…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 03:26 PM
1

I agree with your argument. That's my point. Your comments insinuate that having no choice when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy could lead him to being emotionally devastated. I agree, but what is the alternative in a scenario in which a female wants to terminate a pregnancy yet the father wants to continue it? Should she be required to carry the child against her wishes?
/r/MensRights29/09/12 03:10 PM
2

So what is your alternative? A woman should carry a child against her will to prevent the emotional distress of the father? Or that she should be required to financially compensate him if she chooses to terminate?
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:56 PM
-1

Yours is a terrible situation, and I'm sorry you're experiencing it. But my concern remains: if a male and female equally share the decision as to whether a pregnancy continues or not, women could be (theoretically) left in a position in which they are required to continue a pregnancy against their will.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:54 PM
3

So, just to clarify, you believe that there are situations in which a woman should be required to carry a pregnancy to term against her will?
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:52 PM
4

I agree with your first point that a male should be able to be absolved of financial responsibility should he not want to continue with the pregnancy at a reasonable point in gestation. We are on the same page there. I'm not sure what you're implying with your anecdote. It is very sad, but are you suggesting the female should've carried the child? That she was responsible for their unhappiness?
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:28 PM
–

For starters, using language like 'greedy money hungry bitch' is unnecessary and doesn't nothing to support your argument. I actually support a man's right to be absolved of financial responsibility should he refuse his right to the child during the period in which termination is possible. I don't support a man, or woman, abandoning a child after its born and then refusing to support it. But, most importantly, I am discussing the comic OP posted, which compares a father shirking his responsibili…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 01:25 PM
4

I'm not arguing against a father having the right of being absolved of the financial responsibility of supporting a child he does not want. My concern, that is not often discussed on r/mensrights is that the reverse scenario, of a woman being forced to carry a child she does not want because the male party does want the child, is the potential outcome of a male and female having equal decision making power over the fate of a child they were both responsible for conceiving.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 12:41 PM
–

No, what I'm concerned with is a scenario in which a female becomes pregnant, wants to terminate the pregnancy, but the male party wants her to keep the baby. Having equal decision making regarding the fate of a conceived foetus could leave a female in a position in which she is legally required to carry a child to term against her will.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 12:38 PM
–

This would last for 24 times longer than your nine months. The financial burden he faces is completely incomparable to the medical/health burden of gestation/birth. Money will never equate to the potential for a woman to lose her life. I see the angle you're coming from, but I think implying that him being 'deprived' of his body due to having to work is in any way the same as being 'deprived' of your body due to pregnancy, or the complications inherent in it, completely undermines your argument.…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:03 AM
54

Sorry, I should've made my point clearer. I'm speaking as though the child is wanted by one party in each scenario. If the male wants the female to continue with the pregnancy and she chooses to terminate, as emotionally devasating as that is for the male, he does not incur a financial burden in order for her choice to be accomodated. If a female chooses to continue with the pregnancy and the male refuses to support it financially, then she is incurring a financial burden (the cost of sole paren…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 08:07 AM
55

Speaking from only a financial perspective, if the female aborts the pregnancy there is no financial burden on either party. However, if a father chooses to not financially contribute then one party is bearing the financial burden.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 07:00 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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