TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Ready_Inevitable2718 Archive

View 0 posts and 331 comments by Ready_Inevitable2718 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)
0

I agree, showing up to work naked was intentionally hyperbolic. You should not show up to work naked in the same way you should not sexually harass someone who does. When someome says wearing makeup is at all comparable to sexual harassment they are using it as a justification to sexually harasing women.
/r/MensRights31/05/22 01:37 PM
1

If i show up to work naked i still have the right not to have your sexuality exerted on me.
/r/MensRights31/05/22 12:06 PM
3

The arguement you just used is this guy is more famous than you, ergo he is better than you and you have no place to criticize him. I can criticize a book without having written one, i can criticize a movie without having made one.
/r/MensRights31/05/22 12:04 PM
5

Funny how the moment it's a guy hogging the seat it's completely ok and you're a punk for touching their stuff.
/r/MensRights13/02/22 04:01 PM
2

This was a very short article that tells us very little of the important details to make a judgement. But, from what we do see, it seems rather silly to compare this with sentencing for sexual abuse. 17 is over the missouri age of consent and because it was not mentioned or charged we have to assume that the boy did consent. 4 years really isn't that large an age gap so it's diffucult to compare this to a middle aged adult comming onto a teenager. The only crime that was charged was on the basis…
/r/MensRights05/02/22 03:25 PM
1

A feminist organization is one which exists for the purpose of promoting or enacting feminist policy. A feminist organization is not any organization which happens to fight for womens rights around the world as part if its human rights mission. A feminist organization is not any organization that states facts which are sometimes conducive to a feminist worldview. You cannot simply decide that any source, even the fucking united nations, that dissagrees with you is a specifically femenist organiz…
/r/MensRights09/12/21 01:54 PM
1

If the united nations doesn't make the cut, what isn't a feminist organization?
/r/MensRights08/12/21 11:16 PM
1

Are you claiming that the united nations is an unreliable feminist organization?
/r/MensRights08/12/21 02:56 PM
1

Are you prepared to make the case that wearing skin tight clothes is public indecency? Laws are built around concencus. Most people don't agree with that sentiment. Interestingly, for that logic to work, the world would have to revolve around your own feelings. I called a creep creepy, what is it exactly I think i'm owed? What have i demanded? What have i proclaimed i am entitled to? No, telling a creep not to be creepy probably won't help. But defending him, putting the fault on the woman, just…
/r/MensRights07/12/21 08:42 PM
1

Public indecincy is a crime. Public nudity is a crime. Public urination is a crime. As a society we do have a code of conduct. There are things you can and cannot do because it makes others uncomfortable. It doesn't matter what your intention was if you are pissing naked in front of a walmart. Regardless of his intention he did something creepy. So i said, that's creepy. And you disagreed. Because you seem to think a grown man being an "accidental creep" by repeatedly walking up to and ogling a …
/r/MensRights07/12/21 12:01 PM
1

Apologies, i had forgotten you were the op, however that does not change how terrible your other comments were. Let's break down the title. You called the creep "a bit rude" then proceded to put the fault on the woman and justify his behaviour. Saying "a bit rude" once does not change the shitty take on this you are spouting.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 11:31 PM
1

Maybe we can both recognize that and hold people accountable. Maybe that's not an excuse for others to be creeps. And maybe, the fact that you would have this to say, while specifically not agreeing that the creep was at fault means you don't actually think that and are trying to justify creeping on women.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 11:28 PM
0

I likened them because they are similar in the relevant way, rude things you should not do to a person. If you care to notice, i never suggested any form of punishment or response. I simply said, that's creepy and everyone victim blaming to justify it are creeps or creep enablers. You are fighting a strawman.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 08:50 PM
0

When did i say they were equally rude or dangerous situations? They were a list of rude situations. Let me spell it out for you, if in every other situation where someone does something rude they are at fault, why is that not the case with ogling.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 08:09 PM
0

Staring at someone pervertedly, like encroaching on their personal space and physically assaulting them, is something you should not do to a person. And in none of these circumstances does it make sense to blame the person who is on the recieving end of the action.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 07:03 PM
-1

Do you think looking can't be rude. Do you think looking can't be creepy. Do you think there are nit ways and circumstances where it isn't appropriate. What is your point here?
/r/MensRights06/12/21 06:51 PM
0

It was an example of the flaws in his justification system. For example if i walked up to you and creepily sniffed you repeatedly, i could not then justify it by "you put on deoderant so you must have wanted it" or "imagine permission to use my nose lol" the guy was a creep and you justifying creeping on women makes you seem like a creep.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 06:01 PM
0

No one worth considering is advocating legal action. No one thinks this was a crime. People are calling it creepy. The word victim can be used outside of a legal context. Are you too dense to understand a three sentence comment?
/r/MensRights06/12/21 03:15 PM
0

It can be, as all things do, it depends on the context. If a white man was killed by a black man and you showed up to his funeral in a black power shirt, that would be racist. However the society we live in is a context of it's own for the shirt. Black people face real, measureable consequences from systemic racism. They are opressed through the financial system and criminal justice system to name a couple. Wearing a white power shirt is inseperably linked to supporting those oppressions, it is …
/r/MensRights06/12/21 12:10 PM
0

You said, "I see this shit all the time in gyms -- women dressed in outfits that scream "look at my ass!" Luckily i know enough to take only a quick glance before sneaking off to the change rooms to rub out a quick one, but not all men are going to be that subtle. Reverse the sexes on this, and you will see why she is partly to blame. PS The rubbing bit is a joke -- i only fancy cartoon girls, and not many of them walking around gyms." I've looked through this comment section and i still have ye…
/r/MensRights06/12/21 11:49 AM
-2

Would you justify a punch with, "lol the idea of permission to use your hand lol"? Maybe just... don't be a pervert.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 11:44 AM
-6

That's funny. I wasn't aware that the term vicitm cannot be used unless something that is specifically illegal happened. That's my bad.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 03:36 AM
-8

The point of the murder example was to show the flaws of victim blaming. Either you were too stupid to realise that or to dishonest to actually engage with the arguement.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 03:30 AM
1

Shorts for women existing does not change that leggings are viewed as women's clothing. Generally honest people would have done something to aknowlege the actual point the person they are argueing made. I do not see where you called that behaviour stupid and rude. I do however, see where you called it justified and joked about masturbating to random women in the locker room.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 02:51 AM
0

Shorts and t-shirts for women existing doesn't refute my point. Tight fitting leggings are better for leg days so some people buy them. Those people are mostly women because they are socially considered women's clothing. And people who buy them tend to use them as their general gym cloths regardless of leg day or not. These are not difficult concepts to grasp and your intentional ignorance genuinely confuses me. Are you trying to justify creeping on women?
/r/MensRights06/12/21 02:11 AM
-1

Are you new to the concepts of gym clothes that you wear every time you work out and men having different styles of clothing from women?
/r/MensRights06/12/21 01:29 AM
-5

No substantial group of people is advocating criminalizing ogling. People are just pointing out it is rude and creepy. You are fighting an imaginary enemy here. Wearing tight fitting clothing is not advertizing a product. Certianly not in any legal sense. People having bodies is not permission for you to creepily stare at them.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 01:26 AM
7

Hey... fuck you. No one "should" be raped.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 01:19 AM
-5

This comment section is a disguisting blob of victim blaming. Imagine this in any other context. "If they didnt want to be murdered, they wouldn't have been acting so murderable". To everyone who genuinely feels justified for creeping on women because they dared to wear leggings, fuck you.
/r/MensRights06/12/21 01:13 AM
1

Things are worse somewhere else ergo problems here cannot be complained about is not a valid arguement. A problem is a problem regardless of worse ones existing.
/r/AntiFeminists06/12/21 01:02 AM
-1

Your WW2 example is either an intentional ignoring of context to push a bigoted narrative or just a shitty take built on ignorance. Firstly you are ignoring the vast portion of those instances that were rape and/or kidnapping at gunpoint. Secondly yes, some women did marry foriegn soldiers by choice. That however, isn't proof that women are dubious fiends or whatever, it is an example of humans ignoring their country and doing whatever it takes to survive. People in occupied countries were often…
/r/AntiFeminists05/12/21 05:52 PM
1

You added the words "on average". That is misleading and disingenuous. As i have said multiple times you do not have to be an active supporter of a social system to perpetuate it. At the time, it was normal. Most people, including women, did not know to object to it. I have elaborated in this thread. Calling me shifty and dishonest for not doing it every individual time is, ironically enough, shifty and dishonest. Before we had the structures in place we have now to distribute and maintain power…
/r/AntiFeminists03/12/21 05:35 PM
0

No. That's a strawman. If i meant all men are evil, i would have said so. Cultural stigma and unequal power distribution can exist without every individual man intentionally working to make it so. Patriachy was formed through the creation of stigmas and distribution of power in the dawn of society. When these things were first forming they were fought over physically. Patriarchy is maintained through traditionalism and conservatism, conciously or otherwise. Men did often protect women. That howe…
/r/AntiFeminists03/12/21 03:25 PM
0

Owning your own person in that context means owning yourself and your body.
/r/MensRights03/12/21 02:46 AM
1

Link the article.
/r/MensRights02/12/21 04:50 PM
1

Your arguement is baseless and weird. This entire text wall is based around the idea that physical strength is the deciding factor in modern government power. Both of the last two united states presidents were in their 70s when elected. Obviously candidates don't physically fight each other over the office so there is no reason women would be disadvantaged in getting it other than sexism. Additionaly, half of iceland's parliament is female and countless countries have female leaders and prime mi…
/r/AntiFeminists02/12/21 04:47 PM
5

In my experience, any time you start with the premise that monetary wealth is comparable to fundamental rights such as owning your own person, you set yourself up for failure.
/r/MensRights02/12/21 03:07 PM
2

I agree. Women get a level of empathy men don't and it needs to be adressed.
/r/MensRights01/12/21 09:31 PM
-7

You are really caught up in this semantics game, 75% is an entire 4% more than 71%. Maybe that's not a big enough difference to invest this much time and energy around policing the word vast. And i don't have the numbers on me but almost all reporting and discussion i've come across on homelessness was gender neutral.
/r/MensRights01/12/21 09:18 PM
-12

Majority could be 51%, i was emphasizing, and you just replied to the answer with the same question. Edit: also men and boys tend to be used for exploitiative labour which is less attention grabbing.
/r/MensRights01/12/21 09:02 PM
3

I disagreed with your tough on crime claim, not your border security.
/r/MensRights01/12/21 09:00 PM
5

"Tough on crime" does not work and never has worked. Every time it has been implemented it either didn't substantially impact the amount of crime or even raised it. What we actually need to do is provide programs that prioritize getting the homeless off of the streets and into homes. Invest in disadvantaged communities and relieve sheer desperation. And most importanly and relevantly we need to legalize sex work so we can regulate it, ensure the workers safety standards and fair treatment, and g…
/r/MensRights01/12/21 08:57 PM
-7

Two main reasons. Women in peril get more clicks and it's just a mostly female problem. The vast majority of vicitms are women and girls. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/12/report-majority-of-trafficking-victims-are-women-and-girls-one-third-children/
/r/MensRights01/12/21 08:51 PM
1

Convenient that you don't wish to discuss this any more after depositing your impressively wrong manifesto. Your arguement hinges on the idea that men were better suited for leadership roles because they most often occupied them. You, with your own words, agreed that women being less physically powerful is why they rarely had positions of power. Either your first point is irrelevant or you subscribe to a fascist might makes right ideology. I never said every individual role of power was won thro…
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 08:41 PM
2

Ok, lets unpack that. My claim, that men in society occupied the vast majority of positions of power because in the dawn of society power was directly related to physical strength and not because men have some innate superiority, is debunked because in the modern day (which happens to not be the dawn of society) more men than women are sanitation workers? Not only is that barely relevant, it is that way because of the box of what behaviours and jobs women could do and occupy which is, ironically…
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 07:41 PM
3

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck...
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 07:14 PM
1

Do you think that was a relevant theme throughout history? The united states has now had 46 presidents. Guess how many were women. There were 8 monarchs of prussia, guess how many of them were women. The only way your point here would be valid is if at least 50% of the people in positions of power throughout history were female.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 07:13 PM
4

Next time you think about saying something like this, just fucking don't. It doesn't matter if it's a joke, this is a sub with no shortage of people who genuinely think shit like this. Dangerous sexists who you empower every time you say something like this because they think, correct or otherwise, that you agree with them.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 05:52 PM
1

Making the assertion that men gained power because there is something inherently superior about them is bigotry. It's about as close to a textbook example as one could get. I used the term "were" because in the past physical strength held relevance in who had power. That is largely no longer the case. If you care to think about it, anything that could be described as a regime happened after the concept of society. Power was struggled over at every level and long before we had any such concepts o…
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 05:31 PM
1

No. Thats a weird and bigoted take. Men were more physically powerful on average and in the foundations of society and culture leadership was generally physically fought over.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 05:07 PM
3

I'd like you to look at his responses in this thread and tell me again that i withheld the benifit of the doubt from someone who deserved it. He agreed to be called a dangerous sexist and called himself a racist.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 02:42 PM
-6

Male privilege existing does not mean modern men created it.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 12:51 PM
-11

Any feminists blaming it on modern men as a whole are wrong and argueably bigoted. In my experience though, that usually isn't the case. Phrases like "kill all men" exist in feminist circles to grab attention, they are rarely reflective of actual views.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 12:16 PM
-8

Frankly i don't care who we blame, it's not about blame.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 12:11 PM
3

You at least know that you are a dangerous raving sexist right?
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 12:05 PM
-16

This is a fundamental misunderstanding if what the patriarchy is. It's not a club of guys with patriarchy business cards. It's our cultural climate. There is no inventor of the patriarchy, of course there isn't. The same way there is no inventor of racism, and yet we know that racism, both personal and systemic, exists.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 12:00 PM
1

You have to understand the difference between what you said and "physically destroy" woman to reinstil "primordial fear" so you can "bring them back to heel". This guy is not just sexist, he's almost certianly dangerous and i'm baffelled by your leap to defend him.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 11:48 AM
6

What the actual fuck is this?
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 03:52 AM
-2

I don't think you know what feminism is or what nazism is.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 03:41 AM
-1

You just proved the feminist point the op was trying to critique.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 03:35 AM
1

Why would you use the word reward here. That is so profoundly creepy.
/r/AntiFeminists01/12/21 03:34 AM
1

... what the fuck I'm aware that this is what you want. You almost definitely said this as a joke. The punchline being me, the triggered lib. But i have to ask, are you too stupid to understand that saying things like this can cause real harm to real people or is trolling a snowflake cuck like me more important to you than human suffering?
/r/MensRights20/11/21 04:11 PM
-5

I didn't get free lunch isn't really the same as an entire history of oppression is it? Are you also upset about holocaust rememberence day because jews aren't opressed anymore?
/r/MensRights20/11/21 04:02 PM
-3

I agree that lady was rude and annoying but it seems that you don't understand why they feel that way. I highly doubt no one has ever tried to fill you in but i'm in the right mood so if this is an explanation to the void than so be it. Things like celebrating womens day exist to empower historically marginalized groups, especially those who suffered far more than or were made to suffer by comparable groups. It's a token way of saying, we aknowlege the struggles you faced and face. People are an…
/r/MensRights20/11/21 03:58 PM
0

That explanation of yours would only make sense if j&j wasn't also recommended for women over 50. Did they want women over 50 to take the hit too? Why don't they make the cut?
/r/MensRights06/11/21 06:38 PM
2

I don't see how you could read marx's work and come away with that interpretation.
/r/MensRights06/11/21 05:06 PM
2

Adding class as a level of nuance is fair, but to call me disingenuous for not doing so isn't. I was refuting the claim "because men died more in wars, they are and were the opressed gender as a whole". Class had not yet become relevant. You then bring up the question "historically, did men and women of the same class have the same amount of power?" To which the answer is no, obviously not. While upper class women lived comfortably, as did their male counterparts, they did not have the social or…
/r/MensRights06/11/21 02:33 PM
-10

Someone doesn't understand how ad hominem works. My comment not only gave you the benifit of the doubt that you might not be a bigot but had an actual use. It never once insulted you if you care to read it. It said that you were pushing a bigoted narritive and joking or otherwise that is a problem. Your comment on the other hand only existed to call me an idiot.
/r/MensRights06/11/21 01:33 AM
-10

Ad hominem.
/r/MensRights06/11/21 01:12 AM
-8

This is a weird claim. Historically the vast amount of power, be that social, political, or capital, was held by men. The vast majority of states were dominated by male interest, hell even women voting is a relatively recent thing. Women were not allowed to join the military and it was men who made it that way. That is why men died more in wars. If you think it is the structure of our culture and gender stigmas that caused this than you are making an anti patriarchy feminist arguement. Seeing as…
/r/MensRights06/11/21 12:40 AM
1

As i repeatedly stressed, this was a dumb decision. It was a massive failing by the portugese govt. But this comment section is full of people screaming male genocide. It seemed nessacary to provide context. In their rush to get to 70% they did value hitting the number over providing the best care they could. I simply said, it doesn't seem sexist. To put the all important question in a more direct way, is it more likely that the portugese govt encouraged J&J for men because of the blood clot sid…
/r/MensRights06/11/21 12:30 AM
-20

I have no words that can do justice to how shitty of a take this is. You are, whether you realise or not, using a rhetorical tactic where you can reinforce xenophobic, islamaphobic, and sexist ideas and fall back on "it's a joke" if need be. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it's a duck. It doesn't matter if you don't think you are bigoted or even if you aren't a bigot at all. You are pushing a dangerous narritive and every fascist who comes across this post will feel validated. …
/r/MensRights06/11/21 12:04 AM
3

I absolutely agree that this was a mistake on portugal's part. However, you posting it on this particular sub implies you think it was sexist and i disagree with that. Do you think the portugese govt is trying to kill it's men... why? What would they have to gain? The majority of the portugese govt is male so this would be a massive movement by men and women to secretly kill men. As theories go, this one is insane. But you might ask, why was it approved for men under 50 but not women? That's a f…
/r/MensRights05/11/21 11:57 PM
1

I think you mean idiocy, an idiocracy is a society governed or populated by idiots. If you aren't sure what a word means, look it up before you use it in a desperate attempt to call someone an idiot. Honestly, your stupidity is blinding.
/r/MensRights22/10/21 11:16 AM
1

Slavery is defined as a human being owned by another, there is a reason indentured servitude is the bad faith term of choice. This is one of the biggest strawmans i have ever seen. Allow me to demonstrate what you just did. My stance: babies deserve decent lives and women have reproductive rights. Your stance: babies do not deserve decent lives and child support cannot help children. Most people end a debate by taking a compromise position or at least aknowleging the other arguement as best they…
/r/MensRights21/10/21 09:02 PM
0

This sentence makes no sense. It should be "just get off all that tough talk" or "just get off all your tough talk". If you cant put an insult together properly, download a spell checker.
/r/MensRights21/10/21 11:06 AM
-1

About 20 seconds of googling has proven you are either lying, or you used a saying so rare you might as well be. Also i'm genuinely impressed you managed to call me a dumb fuck and then make fun of shaming in the next sentence without a trace if irony. You have reached new levels of stupid.
/r/MensRights21/10/21 10:59 AM
0

There are few things in this world that could make you look more stupid that say accent instead of account in the same message you make fun of someone for a typo. This is not a "alternate accent" this is just all i use reddit for. What do you think i'm scared of? An angry virgin taking revenge for being debated? Clearly the way i put it last time was too dificult for you so lets try again shall we. The government can regulate taxes and private property. It does so regularly. It cannot however, r…
/r/MensRights20/10/21 03:14 PM
1

What?... The word never does not once appear in my comment.
/r/MensRights20/10/21 12:54 PM
1

Im gonna go short to long here. Rape and deciet are not what i was talking about. If the conception was nonconsentaul or fruadulent i do not think the man should have to pay child support. In fact i believe lying about being on birth control should be a crime in the same catagory as lying about not having an std. You cant force a woman to give up the child. Once the child is born you are equal parents and have to agree and compromise. If that compromise is im going to leave but support it financ…
/r/MensRights20/10/21 12:47 PM
-1

Do you think men should have a choice in whether or bot women get an abortion? Let me rephrase, do you think men should be able to override a womans decision on whether she wants to carry to term? No, you don't. Or at least you know it's bigoted and you wont say it. So you came to the conclusion that "if i don't get to decide what happens to a woman because she has a fetus that is argueably partially mine, i sure as hell am not gonna pay for it" in your head that works, its common sense, it feel…
/r/MensRights20/10/21 11:38 AM
1

Close, i dont use reddit for much else and the other subs i follow aren't worth commenting on.
/r/MensRights20/10/21 11:04 AM
0

My parents were divorced with equal custody but that isn't the point. "Fucked over" in this context means not given what they are owed.
/r/MensRights20/10/21 03:27 AM
1

Because the child has the right to the best life she can reasonably be expected to provide for it. She does not get to fuck over the child because she doesn't want it.
/r/MensRights20/10/21 03:21 AM
1

Yes
/r/MensRights20/10/21 03:18 AM
1

There is a legal process for challenging her spending of child support so you dont have an arguement here. Wow you misinterpreted that. Calling this indentured servitude is like calling credit card debt slavery in that they are both loaded words that technically work but don't belong in that context and are not true in spirit. My point is that you do not have the right to infringe on the reproductive rights of a woman or the human rights of a child. Calling it indentured servitude is an attempt …
/r/MensRights20/10/21 03:03 AM
0

If i was wrong about that much one would think you could come up with more than one example. Child support is required to be spent on the child. https://www.divorcenet.com/resources/child-support-what-it-can-and-can-t-be-used-for.html
/r/MensRights20/10/21 02:51 AM
1

I am going to do you a massive favor which, after you blatanly strawmanned me in attempt to score an imaginary point, you don't deserve and assume we are operating under different definitions of what a child deserves. To define my term, a child deserves the best life its parents can reasonably be expected to give it. If it is getting jack shit from its father because its father "didn't want it" then it is not getting the life it deserves. No matter how well a single mother treats her child she c…
/r/MensRights20/10/21 02:43 AM
2

Indentured servitude is a loaded word. I wouldn't use it to describe providing for your child. Who is the master here? The baby who needs food and clothing? Children need to be provided for. If that scares you, wear a condom. This last part of your arguement is a blatant strawman and you must know that. I said a single mother could not raise a child without child support as well as she would be able to with it. You claim i said women are incapable of raising children alone, and somehow then extr…
/r/MensRights20/10/21 02:13 AM
1

I am aware that abortion has a monetary incentive. However, as i said, if an abortion is had BOTH parties don't have to pay. If you dont pay child support YOU dont have to pay and SHE has to make up for it. Ultimately, she wont be able to make up for it so the child is simply not getting the life it deserves. You not wanting the child doesnt make it less human or worthy of a decent upbringing. Do i need to draw a flow chart to explain this? I have repeatedly explained how abortion and child supp…
/r/MensRights20/10/21 02:00 AM
1

Feminism is a very broad thing. To denounce all of it in all of its aspects would be silly. But i agree in general, note that i said "happened".
/r/MensRights20/10/21 01:03 AM
0

As a man it pains me to say this somewhat but she has the baby until it is born. Any system we make where i can force her to carry to term is unethical and creates a system of class where one gender is given legal power over the other. Once the baby is born both parents have, or at least should have, equal rights over the child. Options like adoption and custody need to be agreed on or compromised. However, now that this child exists, it is owed a life. A life that costs money. Both parents have…
/r/MensRights20/10/21 01:00 AM
1

The same thing that happened to feminism. It is becomming a list of justifications to hate women rather than a list of problems to solve. If this trend is not fought, the movement will be lost, and its genuinely good points will not be considered.
/r/MensRights20/10/21 12:45 AM
0

You are not worthy of debate. You have staked your personality on a false equivalency and cannot or will not understand any point of nuance or context that would challenge the world view you need to feel like a victim. To feel like the world is against you. To convince yourself that you are the good guy. You have taken a few genuinely good points (custody inequity, gender roles, etc), many of which were taken from feminism, and used them as a foundation upon which you built a temple of mysogony …
/r/MensRights19/10/21 07:35 PM
1

This is not a complicated point and i am genuinely struggling as to how i can make it even more simple. He doesnt "not deserve to choose" because he knew the risks. He doesn't deserve to choose because he does not have the power to force his will on a woman. If his child is born, assuming the curcumstances of contraception were consentual, he has an obligation to the child that he cannot ignore because he doesn't want it. Men do have the same right to fatherhood. They do not however, have the ri…
/r/MensRights19/10/21 06:17 PM
0

I wont endlessly reapeat simple points to someone unwilling to engage with them. The world you propose is one where men are incentivised to impregnate women and leave. That is unethical to women and to children. It is not a double standard because women are the ones who are pregnant. The only way of creating a system where the baby is aborted if she doesn't want an abortion is one where men control women.
/r/MensRights19/10/21 05:39 PM
2

If you refuse to aknowlege context you cannot understand any issue in a nuanced and accurate way. If you continue to believe context is a red herring i dont want to convince you because having you on my side would look bad. Women and men are in different circumstances upon the conception of a child and are therefore bound to different choices.
/r/MensRights19/10/21 05:20 PM
1

Do you not understand a multistep arguement, or are you ignoring it to win some type of imaginary points? My arguement, not your strawman, was that women get pregnent. You cannot ethically force them to come to term nor, as i explained in more detail, can you ethically force them not to. This is not because they are some type of all powerful class, it is because they get pregnant and if men got pregnant the same rules would apply. You cannot have a completely fair compromise because either the b…
/r/MensRights19/10/21 11:09 AM
2

To give you a short answer... that's a flase equivalency. Women get pregnant, men don't. That leads to a different set of choices for the parties involved. Women can get an abortion or give birth and raise the child. Men can help raise the child or leave and financially help the woman raise it. To give you a much longer answer... Getting pregnant and giving birth are things that women can do and men cannot. That isn't sexist, it's just a fact. You cannot ethically force a woman to give birth. I …
/r/MensRights19/10/21 01:32 AM
1

So long as you demonstrate commitment your consent is required and you can legally challenge the adoption if you did not consent. https://www.findlaw.com/family/paternity/parental-rights-unmarried-fathers-and-adoption.html
/r/MensRights19/10/21 01:19 AM
2

So your point here is no one can possibly be contributing to a conversation if people dissagree with them? That's an interesting stance.
/r/MensRights19/10/21 01:17 AM
1

In most cases it is illegal to put a child up for adoption if the father wants it.
/r/MensRights19/10/21 01:12 AM
-1

A contradictory opinion is worthy of a ban? That is mighty similar to the kind of thing this subreddit, and by proxy you, would be very quick to judge a feminist for saying. The reason I have not been banned is that I have yet to break a single rule. And the idea that not sharing your opinions is detracting from the conversation is baffeling to me. I contribute to the conversation by submitting my thoughts which you are more than welcome to ignore and I dont spend my time trying to get people wh…
/r/MensRights19/10/21 01:08 AM
2

Why did you make a numbered list if there is only one number? I was speaking about what would have to be done by both parties if the decision was to use safe haven laws The choice is not between giving birth and not giving birth, it is between giving birth and abortion. That is an immensly complicated ethical question that cannot be summed up with "she wanted to have a child or she didnt"
/r/MensRights19/10/21 12:49 AM
1

Men do not have to pay child support in that situation so it was irrelevant to the conversation. However that is another option where men face no ramifications and women have to go through pregnancy and giving birth which is unimaginably painful and possibly dangerous.
/r/MensRights19/10/21 12:36 AM
-4

Saying a fallacy without proving it really isnt a rock solid arguement. If I were to respond with "no it's not, nice try" it would be just as valid. But im in a discoursing mood so i'll explain why it isnt. He said women have been spoiled rotten over the last 50+ years. That means 1971 was the most generous year i possibly could have given him for when the "spoiling" began. Now unless he finds basic equality to be spoilled rotten, which would be a much shittier take, he thinks women had full equ…
/r/MensRights19/10/21 12:30 AM
-3

Did you have no say in having sex? Sex has risks and if she chooses to have the child she is signing herself up for much more financial support than you will pay through child support. Not to mention pregnancy, giving birth, or raising the child.
/r/MensRights19/10/21 12:24 AM
-1

Getting pregnant and giving birth are things that women can do and men cannot. That isn't sexist, it's just a fact. You cannot ethically force a woman to give birth. I do think a man should have more say if he does not want a child but ultimately the best fix we can come to is the issue is taken to court. You can't have half a child, the baby exists or it doesn't. And if it exists, it needs to be afforded a certain level of human needs and decency that costs money. That raises the question, shou…
/r/MensRights19/10/21 12:20 AM
-7

So this is also sexist name calling. Even if this is your experience with every woman you have ever met it is silly to extrapolate that to all women. That is half the population you are attacking as a monolith right there.
/r/MensRights18/10/21 11:41 PM
-5

Do you somehow think that the woman is not also financially tied to the child? The average cost of rasing a child to 17 in america is about $230,000. The average child support payment over 17 years is $87,000. That leaves the woman with, on average, a little under 2/3 of the monatary cost.
/r/MensRights18/10/21 11:39 PM
-11

Spoiled rotten? Are you implying that 1971 was a shining beacon of gender equality we should aspire to?
/r/MensRights18/10/21 11:35 PM
2

Saying that women are empathyless beings of pure self interest isnt an arguement, its sexist name calling. It genuinely begs the question, have you had meaningful relationships with women? Better yet, have you had any conversations with women? They are not a conglomerate of conniving sociopaths who don't give a fuck about anyone or anything but themselves.
/r/MensRights18/10/21 11:31 PM
0

I largely agree with you. I think lying about birth control in an attempt to get pregnant without your partner's consent is an imeasurably shitty thing to do. I find it terrible and extrordinarily unethical. However, making it illegal is complicated. Outside of a court room, lying is almost never a crime. Lying to another non legal/governmental person in private is, to my knowlege, not criminalized in any context. Poking holes in or not wearing a condom is considered a different sexual act that …
/r/MensRights18/10/21 11:00 PM
7

The same way you prosecute someone for rape and all other sex crimes.
/r/MensRights16/10/21 10:42 AM
-3

So... that's a lie. California did not "decriminalize" anything. What they did is lowered knowing hiv transmittal to the same legal catagory as all other stds due to the prevalency of treatments in the modern day that were not present when the law made it a worse crime than other stds. You can disagree with their position but to say they decriminalized it is spreading misinformation and propaganda.
/r/MensRights16/10/21 10:30 AM
-1

Group statistics for certian crimes.
/r/MensRights28/09/21 12:49 AM
-1

I do believe it is environmental factors that push men to crime more than women.
/r/MensRights28/09/21 12:26 AM
0

I have "read up" on iq testing including, which most people with views similar to yours hail as gospel, the bell curve. And i have read the other side of the story which i imagine you have not such as the mismeasure of man. Scientists are always careful to differentiate between iq and intellegence. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/it-may-be-possible-to-improve-your-iq-score-with-practice-experts-suggest/amp For it to be factually accurate you need to have a factual basis to buil…
/r/MensRights28/09/21 12:20 AM
1

Darwinism has reached its peak. Good on you sir.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 11:14 PM
1

Solid roast
/r/MensRights27/09/21 11:11 PM
-1

Immigrants commit less crime per capita than natural born citizens. People of color do not make up the majority of the perpetrators of any crime i know of. Women are more likely to be emotionally manipulative, that is something you should keep in mind when on a first date. Men are more likely to commit violent crime, that is something you should keep in mind when walking alone at night. And of course, everything depends on context.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 11:09 PM
2

This could be an interesting conversation. Source it first though. I want to know how common of a problem it is and not from some guy on the internet.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 11:02 PM
1

I sould have said if as opposed to assuming, thats my bad. I was just making sure he wasnt supporting the idea that you have no responsibility to help others and yet others should help you.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 10:58 PM
0

Im not saying it is common. Im saying it is a crime that is almost impossible to pretend didnt happen or say did happen when it did not. This makes it a solid reference point for the statistics of violent crime
/r/MensRights27/09/21 10:56 PM
1

You dont understand the enviromental arguement then. Women arent less intelegent because they are women, they do worse on iq tests because of environmental factors and the flaws of iq tests. Nurture not nature. Maybe its worth considering why white men might have had such an inpact on history. Your arguement, that they are biologically superior is racist. The history of this world is one where the vast majority of the power, wealth, and education was possessed by white men. If she needs a firefi…
/r/MensRights27/09/21 10:49 PM
0

There is no effective way of measuring intellegence, there is not even a completely agreed upon definition of intellegence. To say that a biological group of people is inferior intellectually due to biological reasons is race/whatever you are discriminating against ist The more iq tests someone takes, the better they score. This means that iq tests dont measure intelligence, they measure how good someone is at taking iq tests.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 07:55 PM
-3

Do you want women not to wory about voilence? Do you want them to accept violence as an inevitability? And are you willing to accept that it would lead to more violence happening to women?
/r/MensRights27/09/21 07:47 PM
-2

Murder isnt easily denyable though. If you were right that voilent crime is more evenly spread than murder would reflect that.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 07:45 PM
0

Saying women are fundamentally less intelegent due to the fact that they are women is sexist. It is as sexist as it would be racist to say black people are stupid. I am not interested in writing a text wall about the problems with intelegence testing.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 07:11 PM
1

Give me a link that shows a substantial portion of feminists think that the male population should be reduced to 10%. Not a feminist or a book, a substantial portion.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 07:00 PM
-8

You wont need protection if you arent attacked. Have you heard the phrase "better safe than sorry"?
/r/MensRights27/09/21 06:56 PM
1

Prove that most feminists agree with it. You have provided no evidence that more than one person thinks the male population should be reduced to 10%.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 06:54 PM
-4

Nearly one third of the adult working age population has a criminal record. Which is, believe it or not, more than 0.001%. In your example one in ten men are child molesters. That is a percentage more than large enough to be cautious about who interacts with your child. And your arguement that a violent crime is not at all likely is just silly. One in six women are raped in the US and that is just one type of violent crime. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem
/r/MensRights27/09/21 06:53 PM
1

Im asking you to prove that. Your word isnt a credible source.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 06:47 PM
1

And the scum manifesto was written by a substantial portion of feminists? If so that is a lot of co authors.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 06:39 PM
-7

Muder victims arent very good at pretending nothing happened. And yet the vast majority of murderers are men.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 06:37 PM
-1

Lets say we have apples and pears. If 90% of all secretly poisoned fruits are apples, it would make more sense to be cautious around them than pears. That does not mean one should assume every apple is poisoned but it makes nearly an order of magnitude more sense to be cautious that they might be.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 06:33 PM
1

If that comment would prove your claim that a substantial portion of feminists want to "reduce the male polulation to 10%" and that this idea is integral to feminism than it would help.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 06:14 PM
-14

You have two points here and they are both pretty silly. Firstly to claim that most geniouses are men you must either argue that women are biologically less intelegent or it is all environmental. Either you are argueing that women are disadvantaged or you are being sexist. Most geniouses and inventors also haven't been black. Most police and firefighters are men, you are absolutely right. Now how does that change the fact that the vast majority of violent crines are committed by men? A woman can…
/r/MensRights27/09/21 06:11 PM
-9

The fbi isnt interested in twitter accusations.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 06:00 PM
1

If the vast majority of feminists are trying to reduce men to 10% of the population, though so far you have only shown one person, they are remarkably bad at it.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 04:50 PM
6

I just saw that rule #1 is no men allowed. What a fun place.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 04:18 PM
7

Wow... that is a truly repulsive sub.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 04:14 PM
-13

I feel really one sided is there a good feminist sub i can go argue against? I just get banned when i try most of the time.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 04:05 PM
-19

And yet you have fallen into my trap, that was a reply.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 03:53 PM
-2

Where is your source that reducing the male population to 10% is accepted by effectively all feminists. That is just silly.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 03:35 PM
-67

Its not really the same thing. About 3/4 of all crimes are comitted by men and that number becomes much higher with more violent crimes. For example embezzlement is around 50/50 whereas murder is almost 90% male. Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/42tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_42_arrests_by_sex_2012.xls Being afraid of a group of men at night is an understandable precaution and she did nothing to hurt those men by taking a ride.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 03:32 PM
0

Women dont have the right to be protected by ramndom men by nature if their gender. But do you have a scrap of proof that they are more likely to believe they have no obligation to help anyone else?
/r/MensRights27/09/21 10:51 AM
0

Ok, but that didnt answer the question. What percent of feminists hold that belief.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 10:47 AM
1

What if i decide to be a feminist and i decide you are a feminist?
/r/MensRights27/09/21 02:31 AM
1

Do you have a list of all feminists? Who decides who is a feminist and who isnt?
/r/MensRights27/09/21 02:28 AM
1

Who decides what feminism is. Who is the authority on feminism. Is there a queen of feminism i could email? Feminism is a different thing to everyone because there is no standardization. Feminism is an idea, organizations that call themselves feminist are specific things that exist in the physical world.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 01:44 AM
1

What if i self identify as a feminist and decide it is solely for the purpose of promoting the consumption of chicken noodle soup? Anyone can decide what feminism means to them. However the kkk is an entity that decides what it means for itself. If you cant say 100% what something means it cant be compared in this way. It doesnt matter what the posts above are speaking of this debate is about whether it makes more sense to compare feminism to white supremacy than the kkk.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 01:20 AM
1

You saying no doesnt make it not true. If we are comparing the two, do so for me. Show me how you would do it.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 01:12 AM
1

If i want to know the philosophical underpinnings of the kkk i can go to their website, or send an email to an official. Femminism means something different to everyone. There is no official "correct" feminism and any attempt to compare it to a specific and defined set of beliefs would require you to decide what is a real feminist belief and what isnt. There is no one with the authority to make that decision.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 01:09 AM
1

To be completely honest, if you do not see the meaningful difference between a diverse set of ideas with no structure or standardization and a specific organization with a rank structure and members list, you do not know how things work, and there is no point in further discussion. You could compare feminism to the kkk but it would be about as useful as comparing turtles to the number seven.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 01:00 AM
1

There is no feminist member list. There is not even an agreed upon definition of feminism among all feminists. This does in fact make it vague. The kkk is a specific and defined organization. They are in that way fundamentally different. Do you disagree?
/r/MensRights27/09/21 12:55 AM
1

I have been repeatedly stating that it makes sense to compare feminism to white supremacy as opposed to the kkk in particular. You have been debating this point. Either you did not understand what i was saying after all, though it was a simple point, or this comment was intentional lying.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 12:51 AM
1

I dont think you know what an equivalent is. Feminism, as a vague set of related ideas, should be compared to another vague set of connected ideas such as white supremacy.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 12:49 AM
1

Lets hit the question it seems you are trying to dodge. Why does it make more sense to compare feminism to the kkk than it would to compare feminism to white supremacy?
/r/MensRights27/09/21 12:47 AM
1

Even by your own logic in this message "feminism" didnt make change. Feminist special interest groups did. Those interest groups are entities that could be adaquetly compared to the kkk.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 12:46 AM
1

Sure, but it doesnt prove a point either. You used it as though it does.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 12:19 AM
1

I have said nothing to that matter. I said feminism should be compared to an equivalent. The kkk is not an equivalent.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 12:19 AM
1

You brought up the definition of the term movement as though it would change reality. Accusing other people of word games is an interesting move.
/r/MensRights27/09/21 12:16 AM
1

You a big fan of semantics? Feminism is a large, unorganized, and unstandardized ideology. The kkk is a specific group and entity with a rank structure, member list, no ambiguity, and even a legal status as a quasi corperation. Do you deny this and do you think that is somehow irrelevant in a discussion of what they fundamentally are?
/r/MensRights27/09/21 12:14 AM
2

You said they are movements that take on different forms. The kkk is not a movement, white supremacy is.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 11:58 PM
1

If you take the time to google apples to oranges you will see that it is a common phrase to describe things that cannot be conpared.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 11:57 PM
1

Im going to give one more shot at getting a simple concept through your head. You could reasonably compare feminism to white supremacy. But it would be silly to compare feminism to an organized group like the kkk. You could compare an organized group within feminism to the kkk. But comparing an ideology/movement to a specific organized group is to compare apples to oranges. It is silly and non applicable.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 11:47 PM
-1

You are doing a very silly thing right there. That is the equivalent of me asking you, "when did you stop cheating on your wife?" The answer is neither yes nor no, you didnt list the correct option. The kkk is a specific group within an ideology/movement whereas feminism is an ideology/movement, not an organization. There are organizations inside of feminism which it makes sense to compare to the kkk but comparing the kkk to feminism as a whole is non applicable.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 11:13 PM
-1

Feminism isnt an organization. You could compare a feminist group to the kkk but not feminism as a concept.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 11:06 PM
0

I never called you a bigot. And you dont group people based on their beliefs you group everyone who does not share your beliefs regardless of what they actually do believe.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 11:05 PM
1

Feminism is an ideology. The kkk is an organized entity. They are fundamentally different things.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 11:04 PM
1

So one feminist. Thats a pretty large portion right there.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 11:02 PM
-1

Im gonna need more than your word to believe that any substantial portion of feminists want to reduce the male population to 10%. Any claim like that needs a source, you should know that.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 09:39 PM
2

Very few people like being mean to the persons face. And dont be so hard on yourself, im a fighter, i lost count of how many times my nose has been broken, people care about you, not your appearance.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 08:56 PM
1

What do you mean women blame you for your hair? People will always mock over things outside of your control. People are mocked daily for being stupid or ugly.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 08:43 PM
1

Put simply, there is not a better source for crime in the united states than the bureau of justice statistics. If you have a better one please do enlighten me. Enrico is far too busy raw dogging my wife to listen to me, you will have to say hi yourself .
/r/MensRights26/09/21 08:25 PM
-1

Im sure there is an official term but i am going to call that hate grouping. You are grouping everyone you hate into one entity because they are easier to fight that way regardless of whether or not they are the same thing. There are huge distinctions even within feminism much less the left as a whole. 2.there is no official feminist list where everyone on the list is a feminist and everyone else isnt. Many who call themselves feminists and are considered to be feminists see the patriarchy as no…
/r/MensRights26/09/21 08:08 PM
1

There is no way for me to make it easier for you than this. If you cant tap this link you have bigger problems than incorrect beliefs. https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs
/r/MensRights26/09/21 07:49 PM
1

Its a downloadable file. At the very least reddit for android has no easy way of sharing that. You need to tap twice my dude, this shouldnt be too complicated.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 07:45 PM
0

Lets take an example. The first source discussed is on the matter of the measurement of rape and sexual assault. It lays out its source, a bureau of justice report, and links to that report. Under the link it provides a summary of how that report was conducted. What is missing? Here is a link in case the website was to complicated for you. https://www.rainn.org/about-rainns-statistics
/r/MensRights26/09/21 07:33 PM
-10

If that is your position you should not have included "the online left" but i digress. Feminism is a tricky thing, depending on who you talk to it can mean anything from a search for equality by allieviating the burdens that come from gender, male or female; to an attack on men with the goal to end western civilization. And to decide that you have no moral obligation to others means others have no moral obligation to you. He made no exception based on danger in his comment.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 07:29 PM
1

I dont know what epic blow you think you are dealing, you dont have to respond either.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 07:23 PM
-14

He stated that you need only concern yourself with the well being of yourself and your family. They shouldnt be mutually exclusive. You will find if you genuinely empathize with people they will do the same for you.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 07:20 PM
0

A normal person would read those sources such as the specifically mentioned national crime victimization survey or they would click the link "understanding rainn's statistics" where the exact info you are looking for can be found. As opposed to just deciding it is wrong. Yeah, enrico is so cool
/r/MensRights26/09/21 07:11 PM
-2

Im aware that there are feminist organizations but a more apt comparison would be feminism to racism not feminism to the kkk.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 06:58 PM
1

It links to the national crime victimization survey you semi litterate man baby.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 06:54 PM
-2

Who is the grand wizard of feminism? Feminism is an idea not an organization.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 06:49 PM
-5

This may come as a syprise but the kkk was a bit more than a non zero amount. Also the kkk was a bad conparison because unlike feminism it was clearly defined and organized with a detailed rank structure.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 06:36 PM
1

Reddit doesnt like links so if that didnt send look at rainn scope of the problem
/r/MensRights26/09/21 06:33 PM
1

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem A man approaching you alone at night is also a reasonable situation to be afraid Read the link man, i sent it twice and it was accepted as valid by multiple others im these comments
/r/MensRights26/09/21 06:32 PM
1

1 in six women are raped in the united states. Lets put this in a classroom for scale. Lets say Ms. Smith's class has 36 kids. About 18 then would be female. Meaning in this one normal sized class, statistically, 3 women would be raped at some point. This is not an invalid fear. If you cant now understand the difference between mens relation to rape and black peoples relation to crime you never will.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:51 PM
0

No one is forcing you to watch the movie.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:47 PM
0

A better example would be non violent but i fold. I do not care enough to fight this.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:46 PM
2

I think that in health and sex ed classes schools should teach things like how to deal with emotional manipulation and how to stay safe from rapists. It could go a long way toward fixing these problems.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:44 PM
1

That is where the line gets blurry. I would be inclined to agree with you but it differs case to case.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:28 PM
1

Im confused if you are incapable of understanding sentence structure or you are ingoring it to bolster a weak point. Most men arent rapists BUT most rapists are men. Most black people arent criminals AND most criminals arent black people. That is the fundamental difference. And there are circumstances where it is valid to be cautious about robbery. If you are in an extremely high crime area for example.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:27 PM
-12

Every analogy is picked for a reason, you selecting the kkk implies it is comparable to feminism. I cede that i came on too strong but it felt as though you structured your arguement in poor taste
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:22 PM
2

Of course, everything is based on context. If someone asks you the time in public dont run and scream that they are trying to rape you or something.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:20 PM
-2

Its a company. There is a market for movies with female leads. If you dont like that for some reason, dont watch it.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:14 PM
-21

You compared feminism to the kkk. You then should justify that comparison.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:11 PM
1

A reputable source is evidence. Your opinion on something isnt. I cant say i am familiar with vice but i trust a reputable source over some guy.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:10 PM
1

Most criminals arent black people. If you are scared of being robbed by a black person, you arent scared of being robbed, you are scared of black people. Most rapists are men. If you are scared of being raped then there are absolutely circumstances where it is valid to be cautious around men. And solid roast squak squak
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:08 PM
-24

For you to omit the horrendous and regular violent acts of the kkk is also giving a very misleading view.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:05 PM
-29

I'm not saying you are wrong, that is a valid ethical choice. But no one has any obligation to help you if you live that way. No one needs to call the fire department if your house catches fire and no one needs to administer cpr if you have a heart attack. Perhaps more importantly no one needs to help you in support of a goal larger than yourself so societal change becomes impossible. If you only look out for your family but expect anyone to call an ambulance for you then you are selfish and sil…
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:04 PM
-12

Wow... i found a needle of sanity in this deeply weird haystack of a sub.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 05:00 PM
-20

That's a bold comparison. How many men have been hunted down and lynched by feminist mobs?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 04:55 PM
9

Did you forget that this was a conversation about whether sexism is why this happened? Iceland does not have an even number of seats, this is as close to 50/50 as it could be.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 04:47 PM
19

If the parlament was substantially disproportionate i would agree. But 52% is just within a reasonable margin of error for 50%.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 03:43 PM
1

I have recieved dozens of challenges so i wont have the same conversation over and over. If you want to know my thoughts on the nuance of prejudice look for where i disclosed them. To make a very long story very short everything depends on context. I would ask you, do you want women to stop worrying about r#pe? Do you want them not to be cautious? Do you want them to accept r#pe as something that will happen and live with it? And are you willing to accept that more women will be r#ped because of…
/r/MensRights26/09/21 03:41 PM
-4

Do you find 52% to be beyond statistical possibility next to the percent of the population that is female?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:53 PM
-15

Ok, so where is your proof that is the reason for the outcome? 52% one time is not emblamatic of unrepresentative opression or whatever
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:40 PM
1

I'm a man. And it doesnt really matter. I said he shouldnt be hostile toward women because they are scared.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:07 PM
1

You really cant hold me accountable for something some feminist has said at some point. I disagree with people refusing to engage with analogies and treating thrm like a surface level statement no matter who they are.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:05 PM
1

He specifically states he is upset that women dare see him as a potential threat.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:03 PM
104

To argue that one female majority is sexist you must also claim that every male majority ever is and was sexist.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 01:56 PM
4

Why wouldnt you link the article?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 01:34 PM
0

I cant say much more than, that sucks i guess. You cant make people stop being attracted to attractive people. And i really feel like this is based on observation. Is there a study that shows this?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:59 PM
4

Im most mind blown by the fact that dozens of people saw an analogy and thought. "HE SAID MEN=SNAKES! BURN HIM! THATS SO MANNIST!" Its an anaolgy m8, finding what it means is fourth grade level stuff.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:51 PM
1

You guys are really struggling with the concept of an analogy.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:47 PM
1

But this guy is INFURIATED by it. And he is posting about it in hopes that society will turn against it and those who do will be condemned. He is trying to stop it.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:44 PM
1

That is an iternationally reputable factchecker. Im going to need a bit more than your opinion to outweigh it.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:43 PM
3

No analogy can be completely perfect. Men also dont have scales and arent known for slithering. The point of the analogy was to explain how the fear works. And the second half of the comment was to explain why the fear exists. I would ask you, what do you want women to do. Stop worrying about r#pe? Never take precautions? Accept r#pe as something that will probably happen and move on? Are you willing to accept that it will end in more women being r#ped?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:41 PM
0

People have been going after this post for twelve hours. Im not adressing the same point over and over anymore. Feel free to go look for where i adressed the nuances of prejudice but the tldr is. Women arent afraid of men they are afraid of being raped, in certain contexts that validates being cautios around men.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:32 PM
5

I cant speak to everyone here but in my experience a lot of the people ive found say the right things when they know they are talking to an outsider but clearly harbor genuine sexism under the surface.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:14 PM
-2

Prisons are segragated by gender. The fact that rapist rape men when no women are available does not refute my point. And that is a remarkably shitty source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
/r/MensRights26/09/21 03:40 AM
-8

So when women are physically impossible to target, men become the main victoms. I guess you got me there. Still waiting on that source that says men are raped more than women.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 03:26 AM
0

Ok
/r/MensRights26/09/21 03:21 AM
-1

If i were to say, a below average cow is smarter than you, have i called you dumb?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 03:20 AM
2

Sure, but how is that relevant?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 03:13 AM
0

You seem to have a stark lack of understanding of how language works. Have you yet managed to find anyone else who can read that sentence and not know what happened?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 03:12 AM
1

I dont actually know how to link posts if you explain i could send it. While the post in question was deleted the conversation around it is enough. There is a difference between describing me and the sub. When describing the sub one would use the average opinions. When describing me one would use my opinions.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:55 AM
-16

Im sorry... did you just say men are more likely to be raped? I would love for you to source that one.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:53 AM
-35

That's a false equivalency. Women are raped, the vast majority of the time, because of their gender. White people were almost never robbed because of their skin color. The attributes relevance to the crime is an important consideration that you are ignoring for the sake of an oversimplistic attempt at calling me racist.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:41 AM
1

I genuinely dont know what this means. Can you rephrase?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:33 AM
1

This is perhaps the dumbest deep dive ive ever seen. Im not gonna take time out of my life to track this down for some idiot on reddit. This is a sub for a movement. Movements are made out of collective ideas and opinions. Not everyone in the sub is the same but it is fair to talk about those collective ideas and opinions noticed when generalizing about this sub. Women on the other hand, are not a movement. They are just women.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:31 AM
0

The article also never said they were going to a jail with gaurds. They will just walk out. SOMEONE STOP THIS INJUSTICE! This is second grade level shit, get over yourself dumbass.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:27 AM
-1

I disagree with people treating men as a monolith as well. You are trying to hold me accountable for things i have never said. Everyone you dont like isnt one entity that can be held accountable for everything anyone you dont like has ever said.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:21 AM
-3

He specifically states that he is angry that women dare see him as threatening. And for the 45th time. My bad, 1 in 6 women.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:19 AM
1

The relevancy is that this is a sub that would and has support an open sexist over someone they disagree with slightly.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:14 AM
-1

The sexist post in question was like a week ago. Idk what gordian knot you think you are unravelling. Yes... why is that a concern of yours?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:05 AM
0

You are relying on the idea that she knew the plan was to kill him. For legal reasons that cannot be disclosed. We have no way of knowing what you are stating as fact. What we do know is her role was different and her sentence was different. Assuming the important factor was her gender as opposed to her role in the crime is silly.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:03 AM
1

Different person man. Is the idea that someone could have prior experiences foriegn to you?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 01:53 AM
5

I can show you a screenshot of me politely asking for a source to a claim that got dozens of downvotes. That is just a silly claim you made. The analogy, since i seem to be talking to a five year old, was pointing out that people are scared of snakes and avoid them even though a snake biting you is rare and almost no snakes will ever seek someone out to hurt them. The point being, as long as you are not hurting anyone, you are more than welcome to be afraid. Also as i addressed i apologize but o…
/r/MensRights26/09/21 01:49 AM
-2

"Bad sign" in this case would mean confirmation of my belief. I may be wrong but i was downvoted in mass when debating a man who openly said "women are conniving, lazy, whores who are unfit to raise children."
/r/MensRights26/09/21 01:45 AM
2

As i said race in relation to robbery is infinitly less valid than gender in relation to rape. However he has the right to fears. As long as he does not hurt anyone and keeps in mind that black people are not out to hurt him and most would help in the event someone did he is in his right to exercize caution.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 01:42 AM
5

To answer that requires a more nuanced conversation. Firstly being raped is just a more realistic situation than being mugged by a specifically black person in the west but where the line of valid concern is, is vague so i digress. Additionally rape is something that, in the vast majority of cases, happens because of your gender, thus legitimizing the fear of the other gender. A black person will almost certanly not rob you because you are white. Being afraid of all men in all situations is sexi…
/r/MensRights26/09/21 01:32 AM
6

Did i say you arent allowed to fear false allegations? Did she say you arent allowed to fear false allegations? You hearing other people say things doesnt make me a hypocrite, you are just grouping everyone you dont like into a single entity and holding them all responsible for what the others said.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 01:12 AM
6

I dont see you empathizing up a storm for women's fears. Make sure "back at ya" isnt a valid response when insulting people.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 01:09 AM
2

Are you implying that being allowed to cross a street and society collectively agreeing to be nice to you specifically are the same thing? If you decided to avoid women i wouldnt make fun of you. And i would defend you if others were. But i have no interest in dedicating my life to changing society so you dont get mean words for a life choice.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 01:00 AM
1

Interesting use of "they". Is this every woman simultaniously conspiring against you or do they take turns in an orderly line?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:57 AM
5

If you care to notice, she was nearly raped twice and still keeps in mind that most men dont want to hurt her. She even supports the mens rights movement. Her logic is being cautios and she has every right to be. Why on earth are you upset, who is she hurting.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:51 AM
-3

People calling people mean names always happens. No one is gonna move mountains for your feelings.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:47 AM
2

Thats a stratiegic change of subject. And i said women are allowed to have fears on a sub crawling with sexists, if it was getting upvotes i would be amazed.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:45 AM
-8

You are more than welcome to avoid women so long as you aren't hurting them.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:44 AM
4

Im sorry, i didnt realize women were automatically law enforcement with the backing and jurisdiction of the united states government. I also didnt happen to notice that them crossing the street actually sends you to jail. Thats my bad, i'll be more observant from now on. If you crossed the street because you were genuinely scared of women, id be confused, but you did nothing to hurt them so i would have no problem with it.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:39 AM
-1

I agree with you and i agree with the main points of this movement but i fear there is a dark undercurrent. The fact that my message is being downvoted into oblivion as we speak is a bad sign for the real opinions of the people in this sub.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:31 AM
-18

I thought it was an apt metaphor.
/r/MensRights26/09/21 12:30 AM
-46

The idea that people should constantly be afraid of snakes is INFURIATINGLY snakeist. I hate the constant narritive that snakes will bite you. It makes me feel ashamed to be a snake sometimes until i remember the problem isnt snakes, its snakes who bite people. We live in a world where one in five women are r*ped. To women, that is understandably terrifying. The audacity you must have to be angry with women for being scared and catious genuinely blows my mind. Let women take the precautions they…
/r/MensRights25/09/21 11:59 PM
-3

The article specifically stated that the girl took a plea bargin. It then said, in contrast to a plea bargin, the boys were convicted in court. The author assumed the reader would have an iq larger than their shoe size and the ability to understand basic language without every single detail being laid out explicitly. Every message you send that isnt an apology and retraction makes you look even less competent you condescending piece of human garbage.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 09:35 PM
2

But not for women. Do you have any reasoning as to why we need to gender it. I mean evidence based reasoning. I could just as easily say we need to go more under the hood than gender. You will never reach "under the hood enough" if you work under the logic that we cant solve an entire problem at once.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 09:27 PM
1

That is an interesting thing actually, women are more likely to attempt suicide. However men tend to pick more violent ways of doing and and are more likely to be sucessful. Additionally, violence is something that happens to women too, there is no rational reason to leave that out of "focus".
/r/MensRights25/09/21 08:16 PM
5

Why gender it? Why would we need to focus on one gender's violence as opposed to violence as a whole?
/r/MensRights25/09/21 08:09 PM
4

What is the point of saying focus on one specifically if not to mean over the other.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 08:06 PM
5

Society is capable of doing two things at once. There is no particular reson we need to fix violence for one gender at a time.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 08:02 PM
4

I dont think there is a particular type of violence that needs to be focused on, i think all violence deserves its place in the conversation.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 07:09 PM
2

Lets break this down. By nature of their gender, men must be given a special position of power over women, as it is needed for society. Any attempt to show that this power dynamic can be harmful to women is an attack on men and, by proxy, an attack on society. The purpose of this attack on society is so that the government can have better control over the populace. Do i need to explain the problem here?
/r/MensRights25/09/21 07:03 PM
2

Lets talk about that, what powerful culture was brought to its knees by a paradigm change like that?
/r/MensRights25/09/21 06:56 PM
1

There would not be a trial if they pleaded guilty. The justice system does not have time to give every case a trial, that is why plea bargins exist. The only possible explanation for them pleading guilty in court would be their lawyer made it clear they would not accept a plea bargin and were going to plea not guilty and the boys said, "yolo it was me" in court.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 06:52 PM
-5

Less frequently with minors and they are far more likely to be allowed to plea manslaughter. This article man, try some reading comprehension. "The two boys, now both aged 14, were convicted of murder following a trial"
/r/MensRights25/09/21 05:11 PM
4

Ok let me blow your mind real quick. "Police must prioritize tackling violence against women" was underlined. On the bbc website that means it is a clickable link. I clicked it and the link is to a related article on domestic abuse with the all important line being its title. That was not a statement about the graph, it was a link to a different article. The bbc is center left and is often criticized by the far left for not being progressive enough. And how the hell did you come to the conclusio…
/r/MensRights25/09/21 04:58 PM
5

You think having someone follow you is a more impotant role in murder than like, the murdering? Thats... an interesting opinion. She did not get less time because she is female. She got less time because, and stay with me here because we are gonna use a real legal term, she was an accessory to the murder, not a perpetrator. Maybe find out how the law works before you decide its sexist and unfair.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 03:11 PM
-1

Dude the legal system relies on plea deals. What she did was horrible, but they didnt let her of because she was a woman or whatever, she took a plea deal.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 03:02 PM
-7

No, its easy enough to say, she took a plea deal you idiot, so it makes sense she got less jail time. Read the article man.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 02:38 PM
-21

Did you read the article? The girl accepted a plea bargin for manslaughter. The boys plead not guilty and were convicted for murder. This is standard legal procedings. What was sexist?
/r/MensRights25/09/21 02:13 PM
1

I dont disagree that mainstream media is bias and leaves many things, including mens issues, woefully under reported. I just explained why in this specific instance the focus was on womens rights.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 07:32 PM
1

I asked you for a credible source that shows more men are aborted because of their gender. And you gave me a link to 18th century finland miscarriage statistics. Why? What was that link supposed to prove?
/r/MensRights22/09/21 07:27 PM
2

What is then?
/r/MensRights22/09/21 07:24 PM
2

What parallels? You said intentional abortion based on sex. That is not what happened in 18th century finland. That is an uncontrollable, biological process. Do you think the finnish women used magic powers to learn the gender and then intentionally had a miscarriage?
/r/MensRights22/09/21 07:22 PM
2

Did you read this article? This is not gender selective abortions. This is a study based in 18th century finland observing miscarridge probability. I can see how you might have read the title and thought it proved your point but it doesn't.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 07:13 PM
1

I would love one credible source that says more men than women are aborted based on sex. Untill such time i wont argue something you just feel like is a fact. I am not here to debate social stigmas in the united states, i explained why the emphasis in the media has been on womens rights in relation to the taliban taking power.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 07:02 PM
1

You vastly overestimate the talibans power as an organization. They are not communist, they do not own the industry or the economy. They also do not assign jobs to individuals. There is forced conscription but they do not have enough money to even fund an army that contains most fighting age males.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 06:57 PM
2

So these boys are all boys? I haven't been called a rapist. You cant just say "these" and expect it to mean anything. And, while numbers are hard to asses for the usa as the birth rates are so close that, at least it definitly isnt widespread. One look at india and china shows the opposite of what you are saying.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 06:54 PM
1

Do you mean to claim that men have less rights than women under taliban rule. While it is difficult to detirmine what they will be as the taliban secures its power the taliban has ruled the country before. Basing of the afganistan of the late 90's it is just silly to say men were less free than women. For example https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/23/afghanistan-taliban-women-gender/
/r/MensRights22/09/21 06:48 PM
2

Who are "these boys" you are refrencing? And sex selective abortions are a problem and are always wrong. However it goes against your point as it is something that happens to women the majority of the time.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 06:41 PM
0

I imagine we have different definitions of "nation".
/r/MensRights22/09/21 05:46 PM
2

I can only specifically remember two examples. I'm sure there were more. But you are absolutely right that this is something that goes largely unreported.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 05:40 PM
1

The modern afganastan has existed with about the same borders it has now since the 18th century. Countless nations are ethnically diverse, but still nations. Most afgans i have met consider themselves afgan and it has a sense of community, culture, and nationalism. It happens to be in civil war at the moment but saying it isnt a nation is silly.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 05:38 PM
1

I agree and I'm glad you did say something. Any time humans are suffering it is important to make it known. I was just explaining how I think this happened and why the focus has been on women recently.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 05:28 PM
-3

These "chai boys", or bacha bazi, are a real systemic problem in the afgan countryside. And the reason they are so rarely talked about thusfar is mostly that it is a system supported and practiced by the US backed former afgan government. We picked the lesser of two evils and downplayed the evil we chose. The main reasons people are worried about womens rights as apposed to bacha bazi are as follows. The taliban is an islamic fundamentalist group that despises bacha bazi, the practice became wid…
/r/MensRights22/09/21 03:49 PM
7

This wouldn't fall under rape in any country i can think of. Its a textbook manslaughter. Just because genetalia are involved doesnt make it rape. If i get kicked in the balls i haven't been raped. Please do explain if i am wrong here but the article never said a rape happened.
/r/MensRights22/09/21 10:52 AM
1

I am saying now for the third time. NOT ALL WOMEN ARE MOTHERS. All mothers are women. There was no interpretation required here i have said the words "not all women are mothers" Clearly you didnt know how a motte and bailey works because you said me saying relatively rare was a motte and bailey. Presumably you thought i was minimizing a problem as irrelevant which is not a motte and bailey. You wanted to sound smart, get over it. Im not a feminist and you thinking i have to be to take issue with…
/r/MensRights21/09/21 04:19 PM
1

Last part first because it hurts my brain you didnt understand this. Every mother is a woman. Not every woman is a mother. Squares and rectangles man. Look up what a term means before you use it. A motte and bailey fallacy is making an extreme claim (the bailey) and when questioned retreating to a fact that does not evidence that claim (the motte). Your bailey was mothers do not love their children unconditionally, fathers do. Your motte was some women use custody to turn thier children against …
/r/MensRights21/09/21 01:01 PM
1

I see i was too vague. Womens issues and mens issues are linked as they are ultimately peoples issues. They are both "famines" worthy of consideration and forcing their separation hurts both.
/r/MensRights21/09/21 11:21 AM
1

True, but i feel that a famine in another part of the world would be relevant.
/r/MensRights21/09/21 11:05 AM
1

I believe i did answer it but the reddit app really doesnt like comment threads this long so i'll repost. Draft is easy, abolish it or add women. I dissagree with the draft as a concept unless it is resonable to believe the nation will be invaded without it. Family courts is a more difficult question. Keep improving and spreading the mens rights movement and work harder to reach out to women is the eventaul fix. In the shorter term more men who understand and agree with these problems need to be…
/r/MensRights21/09/21 03:20 AM
1

I dissagree that a conversation about women cannot be productive but i digress. Draft is easy, abolish it or add women. I dissagree with the draft as a concept unless it is resonable to believe the nation will be invaded without it. Family courts is a more difficult question. Keep improving and spreading the mens rights movement and work harder to reach out to women is the eventaul fix. In the shorter term more men who understand and agree with these problems need to become family court judges a…
/r/MensRights21/09/21 03:17 AM
1

Your words were "can only care about their offspring, at most"
/r/MensRights21/09/21 02:50 AM
0

Women can only care about their offspring at most. If they can ONLY care about their offspring they cant care about other men. That is how words work. You said it in the last paragraph of the original post. So unfortunately there will be no buggering. I have repeatedly said I agree with the rest of your post. Me pointing out what I didnt agree with isnt gynocentrism, its conversation. And your refusal to have a conversation about women after voicing your extensive opinion about men is (drumroll …
/r/MensRights21/09/21 02:39 AM
1

You seem to have missed the point. We like dogs but dont see them as equals and keep them subserviant to us. A relatively short time ago women had a similar societal status. Similarly mens status today as the dominant emotionless protecters and all those other pressures could change within a lifetime.
/r/MensRights21/09/21 12:52 AM
3

I actually agree with this and feel a little silly for not understanding it earlier. Obviously all women are not like that but it is a common theme in much of the world.
/r/MensRights20/09/21 08:10 PM
1

Wow this is a text wall 1: you said that men dont care about men once. You said women dont care about men three times. You found it three times as important to stress that women don't care. You also said women are incapable of caring, something you did not say of men. I agreed with most of what you said so of course i brought up the part i took issue with. 2: generalizing is how humans think. We should try to avoid it but it is inevitable. Saying women cannot care about men, presumably biologica…
/r/MensRights20/09/21 08:07 PM
2

I'd call that arguement silly but it's just misguided and dangerous. You don't know it but you are paraphrasing anti abolitionists.
/r/MensRights20/09/21 07:01 PM
2

I agree with that. My problem lies in how you regard women. They are not a monolith or a person and they absolutely can and do care about men. Additionly i found where you did in fact say that they cannot care about men. Near the end you say they can ONLY care about their offspring. This after establishing that they do not care about men and the confusing claim that they do not see their brothers and fathers as brothers and fathers.
/r/MensRights20/09/21 06:52 PM
2

Im not gonna have a word choice battle with you. I apologise for misinterpreting. But, your point relies on the idea that women do not care about men and i dissagree with that. You have no way to prove that you are right because you are using your opinions about women as a factual source for your arguement.
/r/MensRights20/09/21 04:54 PM
-2

"Women have never cared for men and never will" you dont need to say the word cannot to say cannot. You gave off the message cannot and went along with it when i used the word.
/r/MensRights20/09/21 03:59 PM
2

An interpretation of their behaviour would be "do not care" which has problems of its own as women arent one person. You said "cannot care" which means physically incapable. This is anecdotal of course but every woman i've met has been capable of caring about men.
/r/MensRights20/09/21 03:51 PM
0

This arguement would work if women were dogs. But alas, they are people. They have agency and choice. Asserting they "cannot care about men" because of your interpretation of their brain is just silly. And it genuinely begs the question, have you ever met a woman?
/r/MensRights20/09/21 03:45 PM
1

How society views a gender can absolutely change. It wasn't that long ago that women were viewed as little more than dogs. I do think the empathy gap can be overcame but it is going to take a lot of civilized discussion. And empathy is a two way street, you need to talk to women, empathize with them, and then ask them to do the same.
/r/MensRights20/09/21 03:36 PM
2

Absolutely, silence is the killer of ideas. If you are right, people will eventually notice. Debate is the best way of bolstering an idea or movement. Debate with yourselves to improve your arguements and in an almost darwinian way, strengthen your stances. Debate with others to show them that you have ideas worthy of debate. If you loose they still had to think about your ideas and if you win you might shake their faith that you are wrong. I do not consider myself part of the mens rights moveme…
/r/MensRights20/09/21 03:26 PM
11

I'm not convinced this would work. Intentionally blocking a highway in the way you describe is a public danger and illegal, possibly on the federal level. The trucks would be moved in days and the truckers who did it would be jailed in weeks. A massive scale transportation strike is more interesting as it isnt illegal, however I'm not sold on this one either. This is, in large part, not a movement for specific law changes. While there are some, this is mostly about social stigmas and societal un…
/r/MensRights20/09/21 03:19 PM
1

Apologies for the typo. I meant everyone is innocent until proven guilty. In your last message you spelled then with an r and in this message you said "women is UK". These happen. I'm not sure what "support women" means to you. You seem to be tossing random stances you dont like on me. All i have said is if a woman tells me she has been assaulted, i comfort her, because i am a decent human. I do not support everything every woman has ever said, that would be silly.
/r/MensRights20/09/21 01:18 AM
-9

This is a confusing response. You asked what I say to sluts, then asked if i believe all women. Since you did not distinguish between those i thought you might not see a difference. And, if you care to look, i said "if". You asked my opinion, in my opinion, no one is innocent untill proven guilty. I am not a woman or in the UK so calling me a hypocrite for my views not lining up with people completely unrelated to me is baffeling.
/r/MensRights20/09/21 01:02 AM
-9

If you think the terms slut and woman are synonymous that is a problem, but yes. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty and an accusation is not proof. I console all women, i take their claim seriously and do what i can to comfort them. But i pass no judgement toward and make no action against the man without proof.
/r/MensRights20/09/21 12:22 AM
0

I could definitly find an example but you are right that women are more likely to recieve custody and men are more likely to pay child support. And in some relatively rare cases women do weild that against the man. But that isnt what you said, you said that the average woman is a conniving, lazy, whore who is not fit to raise children. Those are radically different points. You are doing something called a motte and bailey fallacy.
/r/MensRights19/09/21 07:00 PM
3

I understand you saying i was too agressive and, in hindsight, to an extent i agree. But, frankly i dont see what he said as worthy of consideration as a valid point. He essentially said that women are conniving, lazy, whores who are not fit to raise children. If he included something to evidence that beyond sexist rambling i would have taken a calmer approach to dissect his source. This is also why I didnt link multiple sources. There would be no point, his arguement was just not built on facts…
/r/MensRights19/09/21 05:39 PM
0

He said that mothers do not love their children unconditionally, fathers do. Because of the definition of mother and father he said the equivalent of: Women do not love their children unconditionally, men do. Since it is made clear through context and, like duh, loving your children unconditionally is a good quality. Ergo women bad, men good. And even if you disagree with that logic train he provided no reason as to why women "dont love their children unconditionally" other than presumably, beca…
/r/MensRights19/09/21 05:30 PM
0

I would love an explanation as to how this isn't just open sexism.
/r/MensRights19/09/21 03:54 PM
-2

Wow... So first of all saying "on average" doesnt change how shitty of a take this is. Secondly, calling women conniving and lazy, especially with the implyed as opposed to men, is a disguisting generalization and is an opinion at best. Unless you have a study to back this up maybe don't say this type of thing. And lastly, you straight up lied when you said that women have 3x the amount of sexual partners. That was just factually wrong. Feel free to correct me if you have counter EVIDENCE, but i…
/r/MensRights19/09/21 03:52 PM
-1

Maybe don't misspell a three letter word in the sentence where you call someone else an idiot.
/r/MensRights19/09/21 03:38 PM
-36

This is a bold claim, can you source it?
/r/MensRights19/09/21 03:33 PM
1

Yes, any crime you can think of without getting too creative has happened. Most estimates I have seen put 14-20% of victoms of forced marriges as male. It mostly happens in south and southeast asia where gay or suspected gay men are forced by their family to marry a woman and, in rare cases, sometimes better educated men are kidnapped by lower class/caste families in hopes of attaining a better life for their daughter at any cost. However, I have to wonder why you didn't just google this. To be …
/r/MensRights19/09/21 03:24 PM
-2

My condolences for your hardships but this is a conversation about legal rights in 1912 so they are largely irrelevant. Women did not work at the time because, for the most part, they were not allowed to. Because if they could work they could support themselves and that was not acceptable. Society was designed, intentionally or otherwise, to make women dependant on and subservient to men. They could not vote, beating them was legal, and marital rape was not a crime. This was not a good society f…
/r/MensRights17/09/21 12:58 AM
-2

Also this just bothers me, it would take you 20 seconds to google this shit. Why do you feel the need to pull statistics out of your ass.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 12:27 AM
-5

You are implying women just didnt feel like working. They weren't allowed to. Wife beating was legal in many states in 1912.
/r/MensRights17/09/21 12:21 AM
-9

Did you just try to claim that women had more legal rights than men in 1912? Is this a low point for you or are you always this dense?
/r/MensRights16/09/21 11:07 PM
2

Im not interested in debating this till the cows come home so i'll try to meet you in the middle here. You are absolutely right that widely accepted feminist views are often hypocritical and many women do act the way you discribe. However in this particular instance it only seems hypocritical on the very surface level. Women don't not want your support or, mostly, think you cant have an opinion. They just dont want someone else to decide they have the answer and pass their answer into law. I app…
/r/MensRights16/09/21 01:18 AM
2

I was explaining why women are upset and why the equivalency he made was false. I haven't called anything sexist. Comments like the one i responded to are lowkey why few people take this movement seriously and many call it sexist. In hindsight i did imply that the texas bill was sexist and while that is a fascinating question it is not one i am interested in unpacking atm.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 01:03 AM
1

That is an interesting point actually, while you should always vote based on merit not gender. More women should run for office and we should encourage them to do so. My only fear here is that you seem to be blaming women for experiencing sexism which is, to put it mildly, a poor take.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 12:54 AM
1

I was speaking more generally as to the fact that women don't want men, or anyone for that matter, to decide we are more qualified to answer this question than the woman in the situation. I apologize if i was not clear enough. Men are not a monolith and should not be viewed as a single entity.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 12:46 AM
-6

This is a silly arguement. Women dont think men have the right to enforce our answer to this complicated ethical question onto them. That is where the "no uterus, no opinion" stigma comes from. This texas bill, passed by a mostly male legislature, is enforcing an answer onto them. They want men to support them in their fight against people controlling them. I'm no feminist but maybe think abt your opinions beyond the surface level and false equivalencies once in a while.
/r/MensRights16/09/21 12:32 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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