TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RedactedDude Archive

View 0 posts and 325 comments by RedactedDude on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

If a MR article said something like "Want to make women better understand men's issues? Fuck them up the ass." what implication would be there? This is reddit, so the implication would be misogyny, whether or not it's correct.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:25 PM
4

And yet it doesn't claim to use coercion. It doesn't have to because it also doesn't say "Ask to fuck him up the ass." It just says to do it, whether there is consent or not.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 07:36 PM
3

Looks like someone doesn't understand sarcasm. Or capitalization.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 02:40 PM
1

Please explain to me how my personal life choices are causing the government to divide up the medical grant research budget disproportionately for breast cancer, rather than equally with colon cancer, when demographics show an almost equal number of cases yearly. That's a part of the life expectancy gap. I can expect to live a shorter life because there is less available medical care for me, because as a male I am disposable.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 01:12 PM
1

The article is about a study performed and published by the American Journal of Adolescent Health. It's plenty credible.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 12:05 PM
1

How much was it? Largely depends on whether your insurance will cover any of it. Mine didn't, but it was like $450 out of pocket for a lifetime of peace of mind.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 01:19 PM
1

Better than an unfounded generalization. Almost every gay couple I know over 30 has adopted at this point.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 02:51 PM
3

I dunno, David Burtka seems to do a lot of the stay-at-home parenting for his and Neil Patrick Harris's twins. I don't think they're likely to get divorced any time soon (since they aren't actually married yet) though.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 02:19 PM
1

You're not even replying to the same person. Of course you don't see...
/r/MensRights15/07/13 01:18 PM
1

No, the employer gets punished by one person's decision, and the rest of the company has to pick up that employee's slack. Women just get the blame for it.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 12:01 PM
1

You realize that women have had to actually fight to be able to serve in the military at all, right? I'm a former USAF O3. Yes, I know. But did you realize that women may now serve in combat roles, but still don't have to register, so this excuse is invalid?
/r/MensRights12/07/13 12:00 PM
1

I think that's why women get helping hands sometimes. Maybe. But I don't think you can have it both ways. You can either be treated perfectly equally, and not get the benefits; or accept the benefits but also the detriments that come with it.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 10:09 PM
1

I'm not American so not all of those apply to me. Fair enough. I don't know what the Selective Service is. All American men between 18 and 25 must register for the Selective Service in order to even apply for college or hold a government job. The Selective Service is the military draft. Essentially all American men must sign up to be conscripted into military service and potentially killed if they want an education. I think that, sadly, women will always struggle professionally because of the pe…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:59 PM
1

Surely: Equal shared parental custody. Equal sentencing for the same crimes. (women are overwhelmingly treated better by the legal system and given lighter punishments) Registering for the Selective Service just to even go to college or ever hold a government job. Equal responsibility for reciprocal domestic violence. (instead of the automatic assumption of woman=victim, man=attacker) Additionally, there are rights that you would lose if things were truly equal, such as obtaining grant money fro…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:32 PM
1

I'm a woman who wants equal rights for both genders. What about equal responsibilities?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:18 PM
1

By not understanding you are raping, these posters assume ignorance of what constitutes as consent and as such it's impossible to know that you're raping. Not true. The original posters said "Teach men not to rape." It was a blanket statement that ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS, not that no man understands what consent is. No necessarily, if they don't understand what constitutes rape. Assuming lying assumes they are filing a false report knowingly. So you're saying that a rape victim doesn't know they've …
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:19 PM
1

Can you also substantiate that claim? Can you explain to me how raping someone is not an act of ill intent? Still doesn't make it lying though. So it's wrong to say lying is what makes it a crime since that assumes lying. Just that it's a false report. The person who files the police report KNOWS whether it's the truth or a lie. If they knowingly file a false report, of course it's lying. Here, I'll help you out. Lie - intransitive verb 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : …
/r/MensRights11/07/13 03:25 PM
1

It's a blunder because it assumes ill intent(lying) which the original posters did not. Actually they DID assume ill intent, but it was for rape and not lying. Depending on jurisdiction unintentional falsification may not be subject to legal action. Well, considering this jurisdiction is Edmonton, it is certainly a criminal offense - even says so in the sidebar on the left.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 03:13 PM
5

clearly states "lying about sexual assault = a crime" which is a blunder. Not at all. Filing a false report with the police is a crime in itself.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:18 PM
2

Try some originality. Faggot isn't an insult to someone who is secure in their masculinity.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 03:45 PM
1

If you honestly believe that this is debating, you are a truly sad little boy. Nice edit. I've accepted a debate numerous times, but you guys won't send anyone forward who can speak in full, grammatically correct sentences.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 03:36 PM
2

edit: just as i told you--censored by mods lol! FUCKING COWARDS! LOL! Actually, we can still see it. We just don't care about you. And although I am in no way an official representative of MR, I have offered to debate your people, and have yet to be taken up on it. So who is the real coward here?
/r/MensRights09/07/13 01:55 PM
1

You clearly don't understand the definition of generalization either, then. Please re-educate yourself. This constant stream of ridiculous statements is only proving your ignorance.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 11:55 AM
1

Humans are have never gone into space That's not a generalization, that's just plain incorrect. Once again you have no idea what you are actually saying.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 03:29 PM
7

You cant truely consent to sex if someone has more power than you. I stopped right there. Many people have power fantasies that involve sex. Many people actively look to engage in sex with those they perceive to be more powerful, whether that's financially, physically, socially, etc. Do you honestly believe that such a person could not consent to sex they were actively seeking out?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 03:24 PM
1

ajority does not mean all woman, it would still be a generalization. Which would still be wrong. But if it were a majority, it would be a perfectly justifiable generalization, which would be correct. Look up the definition. It is consistent with hatred. Not it isn't. Here, I'll help you out: Resentment (also called ranklement or bitterness) is the experience of a negative emotion felt as a result of a real or imagined wrong done. Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike that can …
/r/MensRights22/06/13 03:09 PM
1

Not all marriages end in divorce Only half of them do. That's basically a coin flip. I am fairly certain those numbers make woman divorcing the minority of woman A minority of all women globally, yes. But the statement in question was specifically about women who want to be married. Even if it was the majority I would still object. So you're saying that you still would object if it were a proven fact? That's frightening, that you would still believe your own ideology over scientifically proven t…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:53 PM
0

I thought your suggestion of taking responsibility for your own personal safety was a serious statement. Guess I was wrong.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:31 PM
1

I'm saying that it was a generalization that, while in poor taste, is not a display of hatred. Portraying someone or a group of people in a negative light, especially in a comedic manner, is hardly an act of oppression. This is even more poignant when the statistics bear out the obfuscated truth; which in this case is that women initiate over 70% of all divorces, and over 50% of those are a surprise to the husband - which indicates that the women who initiated those divorces did not want a marri…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:27 PM
0

You just contradicted your earlier statement: Take some fucking responsibility! So which is it? Are people responsible for their own individual safety? Or is everyone a potential victim, and there's nothing they can do about it?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:20 PM
1

The people said the original remarks do think it is wrong, that was why they were saying it. That should be pretty obvious. Then you and I have been reading an entirely different thread there if that's what you got out of it. Yet you get the point well enough. Sometimes I get the point. Sometimes I have to make an educated guess at translating your scrawl because it makes no grammatical or logical sense. Either way "getting the point" isn't enough if the point is wrong.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:01 PM
1

Once again you are completely off the mark. Slow does not = worse. Did you miss the day they taught logic in your school? yeah my spelling and grammar suck but that does not have any bearing on the issue at all Actually it does. It shows a lack of certitude. That either you aren't serious enough about what you say to say it properly (which would make you a troll), or you aren't educated enough to be able to do so (which would make you generally incorrect). edit: Nice edit to your original reply,…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 01:44 PM
1

You're still harping on about this two days later? Jeez. Once again I feel the need to remind you that a generalization is not indicative of hatred. It's like if I said "All blue cars are slow." Does that mean I hate blue cars? No. It means I think they are slow. Do you see how silly you sound arguing a point that you are so obviously wrong about? Also, the plural of woman is women. And you still need to work on your punctuation and capitalization to be taken seriously at all. We've been over th…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 01:38 PM
35

Who is stopping any women from doing that? No one. Hell, the U.S. government will even give women grants to start a business, simply for being women.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:45 PM
3

reinterpretate feminist arguments to fit your understanding of feminism. Which is exactly what you do with men's rights. Reinterpret to fit your pre-defined narrative in order to "other" and vilify a group of people you don't identify with. The irony, it burns.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 06:46 PM
6

I can't find a single instance of someone being injured from reading an insulting word on the internet. Adults shouldn't need to be coddled. If scientific publications aren't considered valid until they are peer-reviewed, why shouldn't any other so-called "media critics" be allowed to review their peer's work? At best it would be validated, at worst debunked. If someone's feelings get hurt in the process, then perhaps they should not strive to be in the public sphere.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 03:19 PM
1

Hell, Manly Guys Doing Manly Things is written by a woman, and she's awesome!
/r/MensRights30/05/13 09:26 PM
7

In general, vasectomy reversal: Leads to overall pregnancy rates of around 50%. So even successful reversal surgeries do not guarantee pregnancy. Has the greatest chance of success within 3 years of the vasectomy. Leads to pregnancy only about 30% of the time if the reversal is done 10 years after vasectomy. Edit to add: It also depends on the type of vasectomy. Laser cauterization vasectomies with titanium vas deferens caps aren't nearly as reversible as scalpel vasectomies.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 07:53 PM
4

"The radical notion that women are people" is derived from the critical analysis of gender issues. No it isn't. It's an appeal to emotion. Pretty much the opposite of critical analysis.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 07:15 PM
12

My favorite part: Teach them the finesse and charm necessary to attract and keep an amazing woman because at this rate, we’ll all remain single! Umm, I'm willing to bet that isn't why you're single, Sylvia.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 07:49 PM
5

Really? Cuz, like, yikes! I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt (having never read your blog before) but you come off as a pop psychology-spouting armchair expert. You tend to make declarative statements about history and sociology/anthropology with no citation or backing evidence, just assuming you are correct. Most of your external links tend to lead to feminist sites that do the same, which you also assume to be correct with no citation or evidence. It comes off like a giant circlejer…
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:21 PM
15

From the link: "In line with their hypotheses, the data revealed that wealthy men with high upper-body strength were less likely to support redistribution, while less wealthy men of the same strength were more likely to support it." Well no shit! The rich people want to keep their money, and the poor people would like it redistributed. This directly contradicts the headline, by the way.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 02:35 PM
5

And your statement didn't directly counter anything /u/imclever said either. You simply sarcastically described a scenario of what you see, then complained about political rhetoric using rhetoric - the irony of which seems to be lost on you - and then you closed with an unrelated but true statement, presumably to garner sympathy for the entirety of the comment that preceded it. Reddiquette-ly speaking, you added nothing to the conversation.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 02:43 PM
3

And yet more and more soldiers are homeless or commit suicide in record numbers. Doesn't seem like the rhetoric is working, since there is no actual change being made.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 11:07 PM
1

Unless you're some sort of psychic, you don't actually know what 5th Law thinks. The fact that you believe you do is troubling as well. Perhaps you should seek psychiatric help.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 01:04 PM
0

Didn't say it wasn't valid. I said it wasn't convincing.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 12:34 PM
1

I think you are inferring things, rather than OP implying them. It's a subtle but important distinction.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:51 AM
15

Countered straw feminist with NAFALT. Not exactly a convincing argument.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 11:21 PM
1

Still no originality. So sad. But seriously, you should seek help for that failed abortion your call your life.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 02:08 AM
1

Ha! You still can't anger me. This is just proving how pathetic you are. You can't even choose an original topic. Now we know why you were kicked out, no critical thinking ability. Although I could probably shorten that to just no thinking.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 01:57 AM
1

The only part you got right is all of it. FTFY Still angry about your dead wife? Never was. Sad that's the best you can come up with.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 01:45 AM
1

I have no rage. Just mockery for you. But you're too dumb to understand the difference. I guess that's what happens when you get kicked out of college. And in Canada no less; you must really be an intellectual failure. Like I said, you can't offend or anger me. Keep trying though. I'm enjoying your stupidity. It's entertaining at least. And thanks for asking about my semen. I'm glad you're taking an active interest in your favorite drink. Sadly for you, I just don't swing that way.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 01:38 AM
1

But why u mad tho? I'm not. Seems like you are. You keep replying back, hoping someone will take up your cause, justifying your idiocy. It isn't working. so if trolling on reddit helps The hypocrisy is rich. Also, you can't offend or incense me. You can't make me mad. You can't intimidate me. You're just unloved and taking it out on the internet. But here's the thing, the internet hates you too. Plus if you're digging through my post history trying to insult me, you missed the part about the vas…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 12:24 AM
2

In essence you're admitting you're a mangina. More like you're admitting that you lack reading comprehension as a life skill. Do you want to continue the butthurt parade or are you finished being a bitch? I'm not butthurt at all. You're just a sniveling dickwit, and I'm enjoying making fun of you in the hopes that you'll go the fuck away and never come back. This sub doesn't need shitstains like you around.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 08:37 PM
5

I guess I was wrong. I'm sure you're used to that by now.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 07:54 PM
8

Actually no, it isn't. It's just stupid.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 04:57 PM
8

She should do some more research. There were entire female dynasties of rulers in both ancient Egypt and Japan, as well as the Roman empire.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 04:36 PM
46

but the in upper classes women were not allowed to lead Boudica, Tomyris, Hatshepsut, Nzingha, Empress Theodora, Queen Margaret I, Tiye, Neferteri, Arsinoe II, Berenice, Cleopatra, Empresses Zauditu & Zaudita, Queen Tamara, Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Queen Anne, Queen Victoria, Athaliah, Theodelinda, Joanna I & II, Empress Suiko Tenno, Empress Kogyoku, Empress Jito, Empress Gemmyo, Empress Koken, Empress Shotuku-Koken, Empress Toshi-ko, Queen Amina, Queen Hedwige, Empress Irene, Queen Makeda.…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 02:37 PM
0

I don't control your emotions. If you are becoming infuriated, it's because you allow yourself to be.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 02:06 PM
1

I was not making an argument from popularity. I was pointing out the many places that agree with my definition of "feminism" to demonstrate that it is in fact a mainstream one. That's the exact definition. You are appealing to a population of people who agree with you in order to define your position as the correct one. Since you're wrong in the very first rebuttal, I can assume the rest is just drivel.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 01:21 PM
1

Since I'm not going to do a long search for discussions of men's issues on various blogs I know of, I guess I just have to leave it at the fact that I've seen it brought up many times, in addition to in conversations with my friends. Incidentally, it's not a fact if it can't be verified. What you mean is that since you can't factually defend your position, you are going to dismiss your detractor completely and assume a supposed moral victory.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 12:53 AM
1

What I call feminism is... So it's just your own definition, and that of your echo chamber, like I said. Also, argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. Seriously? Show me where a feminist, one that aligns at all similarly to me, says something even remotely close to this. And I mean concretely, since we're both not fans of assuming unstated intentions. Um, you made the claim, you have to prove it. I've demonstrated a very large contingent of the feminist movement that is on the same page about …
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:58 PM
0

Assuming one person represents the entire MRM is a fallacy on your part.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:53 PM
3

I very specifically stated at the end that I hoped I represented well what I and all others I know refer to as feminism (equality of the sexes). I received positive feedback from /r/AtheismPlus[1] and my friends. So apparently my statements did align with mainstream feminism. First, this reeks of confirmation bias. If your opinion represented only that of your echo chamber, then of course they will agree with you. Also, Atheism Plus isn't mainstream feminism, FYI. But hey, let me know what you m…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:35 PM
2

And you made the same mistakes TF & Sarkeesian did. You made assumptions about what another person or group of people thinks, and then stated that as if it were an objective fact.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:58 PM
0

That's now how formal logic works. You make an assertion, then you have to prove it. If you are too lazy to have factual information to back up your claim, then I don't see why I should help you. You clearly have no actual desire to learn anything either.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:40 PM
0

In other words, you have no citation, only an assertion.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:02 PM
17

You don't get to dictate anyone else's self-identification, despite what your cutesy link would have you believe.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 01:52 PM
9

You're really convincing me you don't hate women! I don't think Piroko has to prove anything to you, or convince you of anything. Your assumption that he should only serves to demonstrate your attitude of entitlement and perceived victimhood.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:48 PM
2

http://cordellcordell.com/ You can get a good consultation from these guys at least.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 06:13 PM
1

It was over a year ago on a deleted account. I may have screenshots somewhere though. I'll see what I can find for you, as I honestly want you to see the truth of how that sub is modded.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 04:31 PM
2

Menrights dont ban people for expressing alternative views despite promoting MRA issues. That's the point, /r/Christianity DOES ban people for promoting alternate views, even if they aren't anti-christian. For instance, I was banned for pointing out a line of scripture lifted almost directly from the Hindu Vedas that came 1700 years before Christ. It was a simple "this thought has been around longer than you think" post. Not anti-christian at all. Banned.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 03:59 PM
7

Incidentally, when you respond with "Neither do many men", but offer no corroborating evidence then ask for evidence to prove essentially your same claim, it shows you lack a fundamental grasp of how formal logic or debate works. Was BTB's statement a generalization? Sure. Was your empty retort any better at all? Nope.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 03:05 PM
4

Exactly this. And then when someone tries to assert that being white in America means I have it easy, because I'm not a minority. I try to explain that it's all relative. For instance, I grew up (and still live) in Memphis, TN - historically the first majority black city in the US, and still hugely so. I was and still am a minority where I live, and have been my whole life. But such things require empathy, and I suspect many feminists are not capable.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 08:08 PM
3

The entirety of her From the Choirgirl Hotel album? *edit: Thematically and conceptually, the "choirgirl hotel" of the title refers to the fictional, imaginary place where the songs "live." Amos pointed out that although the songs are recorded, they are also alive themselves - they can be re-modeled and reshaped in concert etc. Amos imagined the songs as living their own lives, all checking into the "choirgirl hotel" (i.e. the album) but living separate lives. In the artwork, Amos included a han…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 07:50 PM
1

Oh! No, I meant my reply to spermjack_attack's follow-up. It's further down the thread. Sorry for the confusion there.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 07:45 PM
1

Well, I address Tori in my reply. But yeah, pretty much this.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 07:10 PM
18

white men are the least inhibited of all the subgroups when it comes to prejudice Wow. Just...wow. The amount of bullshit justification for prejudice here is astounding. Should I just go ahead and call you Adria Richards, since you are outright saying white male = easy mode too?
/r/MensRights29/03/13 06:18 PM
1

As a follow-up, I currently see 6 of the top 25 in /r/politics RIGHT NOW that have misleading titles that don't come from the article headline or a relevant quote. Some have been up for over 12 hours. So I ask again, is it selective enforcement?
/r/MensRights29/03/13 05:07 PM
1

Like I said, you don't get to decide other people's identities. HE called himself a man before HIS transformation. Now SHE is a woman. When speaking in the past tense, SHE says HE to refer to HERself. I am using the same tenses SHE does now. You are not helping your case. Neither are you, but you did prove my point about you being a bigot.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 03:05 PM
2

The point is that you can call me names and assign me whatever labels help you sleep well at night. It doesn't make them true. It just makes you a bigot. Forgive me for speaking from a privileged position of actually knowing what people's identities usually mean Yeah, you don't get to decide what people's identities mean either. *edit: if it helps your conscience, my brother was with his bf/partner before he made the transition, and they are still together
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:07 PM
3

No. You simply interpreted it as such though your own judgmental lens, same as I did. For instance, I have a gay brother currently married to a trans-woman. But you just accuse me of things you have no idea about because it suits your worldview. That's okay. You're entitled to have a shitty opinion, same as everyone else. And you don't get to decide who else's is valid.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:10 AM
4

That's called moving the goal posts, and it's frowned on in more educated circles. Then you shouldn't travel in those circles. No goalposts were moved. The original request was for creditable feminists. You did not provide that, and I made fun of your list appropriately. No one changed the goal, you just didn't meet it. Neither did your rebuttal. And I have no idea who "Peaches" is. Tori Amos is an artist, and as such (just like the fiction writers above) can put down whatever creative thing she…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:02 AM
6

It means the articles contents isn't misrepresented by a user based title here You seem to only be selectively enforcing those rules then, judging by how many posts that violate this don't get taken down. So either you or your other mods are being disingenuous for some ideological reason, or you are largely ignorant of the actual workings of your sub and its other mods. Also, the reason you gave in the removal notice is that it didn't involve US politics as no taxpayers were involved. Why should…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 07:48 PM
14

Judith Hooks: "Tolerance is worse than censorship." - seems pretty craycray bell hooks: "My irrational impulse to want to kill people who bore me or whose ideas are not very complex clearly has to do with an exaggerated response to situations where I feel powerless." - wants to murder people who don't entertain her, very craycray Patricia Hill Collins: mostly good ideas, but she preaches that "racism and heterosexism are intertwined, and that ideals of beauty work to oppress African-Americans ma…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:46 PM
5

Take the same route that men do: action. "Actions speak louder than words." You've heard it your whole life, now implement it. You can say that you notice and care all day long. Until you actually stop and take the time to DO something, you are just making noise. Ways you can help that men will see and acknowledge as you caring: don't generalize all men, start a men's shelter or defense fund, campaign for equal child custody or bilateral alimony/child support, raise awareness of men falling behi…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 01:59 PM
4

Can you argue with their viewpoint? Easily. They did it to fit in with their neighbors/community. Did they parade you around showing off your penis to them afterwards? No? Then they did it for no reason. They surgically removed a fully functioning and evolutionarily-intended piece of your anatomy to make themselves feel better. Seems like a stupid viewpoint to me.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:44 PM
0

First off, we've seen the modern world bootstrap racial parity into lots of industries in way less than 70 years, so the argument that it takes time, while possible, isn't necessarily true. Lots, but not all as OP asserts. This is a weak rebuttal. Also, as an IT professional, do you honestly believe that 70 years ago anyone had any idea of what modern IT work would look like, and what skillsets would be necessary? People bring this up a lot, actually [2] [3] [4]. (Links removed for ease of reply…
/r/MensRights26/03/13 01:35 PM
1

Keep in mind that biologically 1 man + 10 women = 10 babies. If you reverse the numbers, the whole of civilization falls apart.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 08:08 PM
1

No, they are both racism. One is just meant humorously, and the other seriously.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 07:59 PM
1

From the bottom of the piece: About Lauren Nelson - Lauren Nelson blogs at Rant Against The Random, a collection of the impulsive rants. "It's going to be random, opinionated, and, at times, utter nonsense. Be prepared." Well, she got the "utter nonsense" part right.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 05:41 PM
4

Saying there is a systematic culture of misogyny in video game development is most certainly false, though. Which is kind of Anita's overarching point.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 03:49 PM
6

i did read it Then you would have understood that the quote is a direct follow-up to a paragraph about how Planned Parenthood is a "health organization" committed to "reproductive rights", but only the rights of women. The author isn't saying that men have no rights. He's saying that by Planned Parenthood's logic men have no reproductive rights. And to follow that logic, men shouldn't have reproductive responsibilities either. It's a criticism of Planned Parenthood and their treatment of men, no…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:12 PM
7

Spoken like someone who didn't actually read the article to observe the context of the quote in the title.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:07 PM
1

Yep, which is why I don't agree with it. But luckily, I'm not under 21, and I don't live in the UK.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 02:41 AM
1

Damn. I paid $75/mo for my piece of shit truck I had when I was 17.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 08:29 PM
3

Is there any legitimate logic behind charging such astronomically high costs to insure a car? Well, yes, but I don't agree with it. Basically (in the UK anyway), they found that most teen drivers were in an accident within their first 6 months driving. Thus they now charge ridiculous rates for people under 21, basically to discourage bad teen drivers through mandatory and unaffordable insurance.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 08:27 PM
3

Is this whole crazy insurance cost a non-American thing? Yes. I've seen yearly rates in the UK that were higher than the value of the car being driven.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 08:07 PM
2

There is no reason not to. Except, you know, profitability.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:06 PM
1

Such as?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:04 PM
0

My point was that you probably Googled the question to come to the IRS website. It's called context, look it up.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:54 PM
0

Except that you missed the part where it says: "To meet this test, the person must either: Live as a member of the taxpayer's household all year, OR (all that other stuff)" As long as that person is living with you, and not earning income, they do not have to be related. They only require that the person be related if you are claiming them but they DO NOT live with you. In fact, to claim someone who is not related, they have to specifically NOT be a "qualifying child", and not claimed as anyone …
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:37 PM
1

No. Claiming someone as a dependent for tax purposes does not impose any legal obligations on you to that person. It merely states that you are the primary provider for someone who does not provide for themselves.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 06:15 PM
1

If they live with him, and he provides 50.1% or more of their care (rent, utilities, groceries, medical expenses, etc), then he can file as Head of Household with them as dependents with no illegalities whatsoever; as long as the woman does not file the baby as HER dependent instead. If they both try to, there will definitely be a problem.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:50 PM
1

That's not true at all. There are 4 tests to qualify someone as your dependent: 1-They are not the “qualifying child” of another taxpayer or your “qualifying child”. 2-Gross Income – Dependent earns less than $3,700 TY 2011 and $3,650 TY 2010. 3-Total Support – You provide more than half of the total support for the year. 4-Member of Household or Relationship – The person must live with you all year as a member of your household.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:47 PM
2

My point is that in the case of the news & entertainment media sectors, which are free speech sectors, since the majority of people in those sectors & the great majority of people in executive & decision-making positions in those sectors are male, that male views & voice dominate the media those sectors output. I'm not trying to rebut your overall point, but FYI the "News Media Industry" is 63.1% male. That 13.1% difference is not, as you put it, "a great majority". That's a 6/4 split, realistic…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 10:05 PM
3

Doh! Will try to find a good one again. Thanks for the heads up.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 04:52 PM
5

Actually, women abuse children at 2-3x the rate that men do.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 04:40 PM
7

Not all downvotes are real. Reddit uses "vote fuzzing" to mask the actual number of upvotes and downvotes. Also, linking to Gawker sites is verboten, hence thanking for the screenshots.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 04:07 PM
0

Ask questions, get downvotes. Mature discussion over here. Karma is a made up number on a civilizationally irrelevant website. If that is your determining factor for the quality of a discussion, I weep for your future.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:23 PM
28

You are an SRS frequenter, and yet you have a problem with "brigading". The irony, it burns.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 06:14 PM
2

Then why dont people get drafted for the military based on physical fitness not gender? Probably because we don't have an active draft right now, and haven't for 40 years.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 02:33 PM
2

Your complaining that the law doesn't treat you equal in an unequal matter. But we're talking equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Of course men can't have equality of outcome, that's basic biology. But why are we not considered for equality of opportunity? Also, you're*
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:18 PM
2

Way to dodge the question.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:15 PM
1

Gender fascists then?
/r/MensRights18/02/13 01:23 PM
2

Believe me, being the distrusted minority opinion in a subreddit like this can keep one very edgy and defensive at times. My username has the word "dude" in it, and most of my comment karma comes from 2X. I get it.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:05 PM
3

If you people are going to represent the movement in critiquing feminism and expect to be taken seriously, you need to do your homework and get it fucking right. You're making several awfully big assumptions here. First, that I am one of "you people". Second, that I am in any way representing a movement. Third, that I am critiquing feminism. (All I did was reply to a comment) Fourth, that MRAs care if feminists take them seriously. Fifth, that your mysterious "you people" are actually wrong and …
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:37 PM
2

I think the credibility of this sub could benefit from a more intellectually serious engagement of feminist thought, history, and literature. I think if you remove the word "feminist" from that sentence, you have a statement that holds true for almost all of Reddit. As it is though, it's applicable to not just this sub, but /r/TwoXChromosomes, /r/feminism, /r/feminisms, /r/againstmensrights, and every SRS sub.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:06 PM
2

I'll probably just get a bunch of comments from the community challenging me to justify my beliefs and self-identification Do you not feel that this is something that everyone should probably do once in a while anyway? To question their beliefs in an attempt to find out why they hold them? Holding yourself above deigning to analyze your beliefs is akin to blind faith.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:32 PM
1

Um, dude...all I did was answer your query. You might want to aim that reply at /u/buster2209.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 01:08 PM
5

I fail to see why you felt the need to react by bringing feminism into this though. Topical relevance. The feminist lobby actively campaigned against FGM, but not MGM.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 09:43 PM
3

Doesn't matter. It's pretty well known that the site admins are SRS-friendly IRL.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 05:04 AM
5

Yes indeed.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 08:31 PM
54

Just replying here for visibility. Somewhat incriminating, but nothing will be done.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 08:12 PM
1

Rome was mighty because of its educated and literate population. Its population was not educated or literate until centuries after it was THE dominant world power. Until then, as we have already established, only wealthy patricians were educated. Please do some REAL historical research, not just wiki browsing and making shit up, as you have already admitted to doing.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 09:34 PM
1

Rome was mighty because literacy was high and many were educated. No, Rome was mighty because it had the largest standing military of its day, exactly like the US does today.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 09:20 PM
2

Saying I'm a feminist is easy Yep. But DOING something, now that's where you're hitting the brick wall.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 08:45 PM
1

Women obviously were important and had jobs. You said they didn't. No, I said there were no women generals, architects, or Senators. This is true. You really have issues reading, don't you? I was telling you why rome was so mighty. No, you were offering conjecture. And incorrect conjecture at that. Also, Rome is a proper noun, it gets capitalized. We have places were men are educated and the women are not and there society's have many issues Yes, and we have places (like the US) where men and wo…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 08:42 PM
2

So your excuse is laziness? That's not any way to advance social progress.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 08:35 PM
0

your statement is incorrect. No. Slaves were not educated by the government, unlike citizens, they were educated by their individual masters, if allowed. Read your own source. I didn't say there were no important women in ancient Rome. I said they were educated separately from men, which is true. I also said that women were not educated en masse until several centuries after the men. Since the Roman Empire was founded near 26AD, and women were not formally allowed to read until almost 300AD, thi…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 08:28 PM
0

Then you should seek to either elevate your peers in knowledge, or find new peers. You should not lower yourself to lesser standards, especially when it comes to something as important as equality.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 07:55 PM
1

That doesn't make sense. The current movement dictates exactly what feminism is. You just don't believe in that movement anymore, and are suffering cognitive dissonance. Hence, you aren't actually a modern feminist, you're an egalitarian.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:54 PM
0

The only reason for life of ancient Romans to be so much better than those surrounding them is because everyone was educated. First, that isn't true at all. Only the city dwellers were educated. And even then only the land-owning citizens. No freeholders or plebians were allowed. Second, none of your sources indicate that the women were educated first, in order to get the men to be educated. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The women were educated separately, and didn't begin receiving formal e…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:53 PM
1

never said I supported the current movement Hint: you can't be a feminist if you don't support feminism. So which is it?
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:30 PM
0

So in other words, you made it up, and it has no scientific basis whatsoever. That's what I thought.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:28 PM
1

Gender Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts gender above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a single leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition Sounds exactly like feminism.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:28 PM
0

I'm gonna need a citation on that. Sounds like a quote you pulled directly from feministing.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:25 PM
0

Tackling women's rights means educating. Huh? Since when is education a women-only thing? Your rhetoric makes no sense.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:20 PM
1

You say you're a feminist. You support the "values" of that movement by your own admission. The feminist movement's political lobby pushes for laws that give women greater rights than men and for laws that exclude men entirely from certain rights. Ergo, you support the movement that takes rights away from men, or at the very least you support the lobby that pushes through discriminatory laws. Perfectly logical, really.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:19 PM
0

So by tackling women's rights first we can then tackle men's rights for a better society. That makes no sense. If you want to change things, you can't start by separating out one group as "special" for the very first thing you do. That's segregation, and it doesn't work. You have to put everyone on equal footing right from the get-go.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:15 PM
1

But you do seem to see a problem with men having the same rights as women. Such as shared custody, DV Primary Aggressor laws, judicial sentencing for the same crimes, etc...
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:11 PM
1

Total cop out. And it's "higher ups". You aren't employing them.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:10 PM
0

Do you not support men's rights in those places? You are aware that many boys are conscripted to fight in a jihad that they have been indoctrinated to believe in, right? They are sent off to die for someone else's agenda. They don't get to go to school either. They don't get to speak up either. They certainly don't get iconic pictures taken of them and posted to the internet to raise awareness for them - as you are proving. So I ask again, do you only support women's rights in those places?
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:08 PM
1

That's like saying "My engine doesn't run, but the car is good to go." If the values are good, then enacting them wouldn't be hypocritical to the mission statement. If enacting them is hypocritical, then the values aren't actually good.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:03 PM
-1

The author can't bear to admit... First, you are assuming knowledge of someone else's thoughts. Don't do that. It makes you look irrational. So yeah it's the same old NAFALT That's all we needed to know. Thanks.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 03:51 PM
-4

So your entire point boils down to the same old Not All Feminists Are Like That?
/r/MensRights25/01/13 01:27 PM
3

Why would you want to take away my bending?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 06:21 PM
2

You're assuming English is my native language. It is not.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 11:26 PM
3

Am I wrong in this in saying this is what happened? Yes, because you were looking for something to back your point of view, rather than listening to what he said. He talks about 2 different men who have cheated on their wifes. First off, the word is "wives". He says he doesn't give a fuck about that. No, he says he doesn't give a fuck if she (Kobe Bryant's wife) divorced him because of the cheating. He then asks if he cheated, why did she hang around for 4 years collecting money from him before …
/r/MensRights14/01/13 10:57 PM
5

Spoken like someone who didn't bother taking the time to watch the clip.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:56 PM
2

Of course they took a general population. They didn't want to skew the results in one direction or another. If you only tested the people already interested in STEM, it would stand to reason that they are already better in those fields, and would subsequently test higher. By using a general cross-section of the population, they can more accurately gauge a relative "baseline" of competence, and see where the peaks in data extend from there to extrapolate results.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:27 PM
1

Neal Stephenson has another book in the same universe but 50 years later, called The Diamond Age. I also recommend that one.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:12 PM
1

"The fear of getting falsely accused of rape just doesn’t compare to the fear of an actual rapist getting away with his or her crime." ~Sarah Beaulieu
/r/MensRights10/01/13 08:40 PM
10

Sluts, WTF? Where did that come from? Umm, the Amanda Marcotte quote he's responding to. Reading comprehension ftw.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 07:50 PM
9

The author remarks in the comments that the sources were changed, and later re-added.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 07:48 PM
2

No, OP said: As much as feminists would hate to admit it, women at the bottom generally have it better than men at the bottom.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 11:09 PM
0

As a woman and a feminist I can tell you that women do not "generally have it better than men at the bottom". Not to get into oppression olympics, but as someone who has been homeless, I'd like to know how I had it better than you when I was "at the bottom". I was often refused help, food, and shelter in favor of women. So, care to explain what you mean?
/r/MensRights09/01/13 07:13 PM
0

but the truth is that outside of the developed world and especially in the third world , it's sorely needed No, the truth is that those parts of the world need infrastructure, education, medical care, & scientific progress. They don't need a political structure that lifts one gender above the other. They already have that, and it isn't working. However, advancing the entire culture out of the stone age is generally all it takes to make gender equality seem glaringly obvious.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 07:09 PM
2

You do realize that as someone on Reddit, you are likely to have a home, job, food, shelter, electricity, at least one computer or smartphone, and internet, right? That makes your continued "But other people have it worse" rhetoric completely hypocritical.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 07:00 PM
1

No, you're confusing "how much money you make" with "how much you have". Two different meanings.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:56 PM
1

I don't remember the exact quote or anything, but it was one of those "Real Men do this..." threads, where some nebulous outside force (in that case /r/feminism) gets to define a man's masculinity.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 03:26 PM
3

I wonder, have you ever tried to bring up your concerns by posting to /r/Feminism about it? If so, what has the response been like? Just to interject where I was't invited...I was banned from /r/Feminism for pointing out something horribly sexist/misandrist one of their users said. That sub and its mods do not take criticism at all.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:25 PM
3

Feminism is totally lacking in such structure and organization. These women would disagree with you.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:18 PM
4

And many parents make the assumption that their child will never be able to learn to clean their own junk, so they just remove those bits. You'd think that argument would go away if the parents actually thought "We can just show him how to clean his penis, rather than surgically altering it from how evolution intended."
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:25 PM
1

Keep in mind that's the anatomical equivalent to losing your clitoris. Do you really think you'd be okay with that? Would you really be okay with the skin around your vagina becoming keratinized and losing almost all sensation? Would you also be okay with your parents making the assumption that you'll never be able to clean your own junk properly?
/r/MensRights20/12/12 02:51 PM
1

Yeah, he's 13 and playing on the Varsity team. He's only 4'8" and weighs 82lbs. He's a tiny dude.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 03:47 PM
2

He's 4'8" and 82 lbs. These girls do, in fact, have a height and weight advantage.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 03:42 PM
2

"You people"? http://i.imgur.com/xV3sl.gif
/r/MensRights14/12/12 08:11 PM
6

I love that she includes a gem like this: "They will get girlfriends, who will be hateful and willful and annoying." and yet she doesn't realize that phenomenon is entirely due to mothers like her raising their daughters that way.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 02:41 PM
1

I'm not denying it exists, but context is important.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 10:44 PM
0

Incidentally, that's not an official briefing, that's an interview with KTR TV in Kyrgyzstan. And the article from The Daily Fail was about a gaffe she made in the G20 portrait. Neither of those were actual examples of the type of commentary you were implying.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:36 PM
1

Fair enough. Thought I'd ask before I judged.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 07:53 PM
5

Just to jump in where I wasn't invited: Most men come to the MRM after having been burned by women; some for years, some for decades. Some have lost everything due to a vindictive or lying woman. So yes, they do tend to be quite bitter and reactionary. That said, thank you for taking the time to drop in. I'm sorry that you see a lot of anger here, but you must understand that having been demonized for most of our lives, it's all some men have left. sorry for intruding/possibly offending Don't be…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 07:45 PM
2

Are you implying that a US Marine Corps officer would be lying in an official USMC publication? Or did your sarcasm just fall flat there?
/r/MensRights04/12/12 07:40 PM
1

Awesome! Former USAF O3 here.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 07:15 PM
1

I'm aware of that, which is why I posted a source for my quote, as it was not from OP's article. *edit: You should read the entire article I linked anyway. I'm sure it will be enlightening.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 06:53 PM
46

From an actual female Marine officer: "As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security." Source
/r/MensRights04/12/12 05:05 PM
1

As an aside: As to a patriarchal machine, I'm torn on the idea - women running for office still get asked about their clothes and makeup way more than their male counterparts, which gives the impression that the media doesn't take them seriously. I'm pretty sure they only get asked those questions by female reporters for female-centric publications. As such, it's actually somewhat relevant to the people's interest in that case. I'm fairly sure most guys couldn't give a damn what designer suit th…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 03:10 AM
5

I had a long, flowery, and prosaic response, but what it comes down to is this, when you say: I think I'm conflating encouragement with opportunity. I actually think you're conflating encouragement with entitlement. Let me explain. All of your responses seem to be geared toward a theme of society, whether consciously or not, being the overarching machine of negative pressure on a woman running for office. I think this is a bit of a nebulous cop-out, as it does not have to be specific - and in fa…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 02:16 AM
3

So how does that jive with women being the majority of the voter base? Does the female automatic own-group preference factor into their voting at all? (ie: would a woman be more likely to vote for another woman simply for being a woman) Also, all 7 of the first source's talking points have to do with perception and feelings in regards to running for office. It really has nothing to do with the opportunity they have to achieve the office, or what non-psychological factors are preventing them from…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 11:41 PM
1

I'm going to try to not respond to you anymore because you are shrill and unthinking. Fine by me, as your false logic is awful and is most assuredly making us all dumber for reading.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 10:07 PM
1

So you're telling me that they were oppressed during the elections that won them a seat due to a difference in how they grew up 40 years ago? How exactly does that logic work?
/r/MensRights03/12/12 09:59 PM
1

Senators, yes. But there aren't 100 states. Reading comprehension fail Vini. Also, cherry-picking one awkward phrase doesn't actually rebut me in any way. Try a supporting argument next time.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 09:37 PM
4

Your numbers seem to be conflating opportunity with success. Just because there are only 17 female senators, that doesn't mean that the other 33 states don't let women run for office. It doesn't represent some form of oppression of women. It merely shows that either no female candidates ran for office in those states, or did but were not elected - by their own constituents I might add. The opportunity for them to achieve was equal to men, but only 17 were successful.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 09:07 PM
5

My comment: "This unhinged argument fuses dreadful history with empirically baseless contemporary analysis." Well, Mr. Kimmel, you got one point right. Sadly it was about your own article.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:08 PM
3

I can't imagine how much it would suck to get a girl pregnant, be totally excited for your new child, then have the mother up and kill the kid without say. I can already tell you. Feels bad, man.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 03:23 PM
5

Well, it excludes passengers from suing drunk drivers they knowingly accepted a ride from.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 01:13 PM
6

Essentially (according to the studies I've seen) men are less likely to suffer serious injury from DV committed by hands/fists alone, whereas women are more prone to injury from that. However, women are MUCH more likely to use a weapon that causes grievous injury, mutilation, or death. Think baseball bat, knives, etc...
/r/MensRights02/11/12 08:37 PM
6

Whereas on the flipside, I was banned from there without ever having visited, because I debated a mod in a totally different sub and she didn't like it when I showed her all of the flaws in her argument.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 02:26 PM
4

Because you were advocating for personal responsibility in reproduction as the means to support children. Of course, now you are advocating for state support. So which is it? Are the parents individually responsible, or do I have to pay for other people's kids? If you are saying that the father should be the primary earner for support of the mother and child, which these comments show: Just because a woman can have an abortion doesn't mean she should pay for everything and spend years looking af…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:24 PM
3

Well if your logic stands, whereby each person only assumes their individual responsibilities, we should let them starve. Of course from a wider social perspective this stance falls apart rather quickly. So like I said, extremely narrow-minded.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:02 PM
5

Either accept the risks, or don't copulate. That's an extremely narrow-minded view. What about all of the welfare recipients who did not accept the risks, did not have an abortion, and now are a tax burden for everyone else? I didn't accept that person's risk. I certainly didn't copulate with them. And yet we're both paying for it in a very real way.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:22 PM
5

What kind of person wouldn't donate some money to ensure their child can live comfortably? Wow. The sheer scale of your strawman fallacy here is boggling. That isn't what we're even talking about here. We're talking about even having the option in the first place. Other than uprooting and disappearing, men simply don't have a way to opt out, whereas women have multiple options.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 05:46 PM
8

I'm sure you would be outraged if mothers were allowed to abandon their children and leave them under the father's jurisdiction without having to provide any help. They already can, and the courts rarely enforce Child Support payments on women. Your bias is obvious Oh, the irony.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 05:39 PM
6

Close to 50% of 1st marriages fail. Subsequent marriages raise the percentage higher. Something like 70% of second, and 85% of third marriages fail.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 09:06 PM
7

Which is all well and good, except for one thing. What happens if you two decide to buy a house, or even a new car somewhere down the line? If both of your names are on the paperwork, you can still legally take that away from him should you ever split up - regardless of whether or not the two of you were ever legally married. You are arguing for the present, he is arguing for the future. It honestly sounds like you have no confidence in your ability to not leave him.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 09:05 PM
0

It's not baseless in your case. You earned it.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:56 PM
-1

I would retort, but I'm fairly certain what tiny intellect you have couldn't understand it.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:35 PM
-1

That's cute. I'm the Director of IT for an accounting firm. I'm on the Board. I highly doubt you earn anywhere near what I do. Your rambling nonsense is why my firm doesn't hire shitbrains like you. Good luck with your miserable life. Also, it's grammar. Moron.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:23 PM
-1

Let's analyze this, shall we? No capitalization, poor punctuation, baseless insult, unfounded rhetoric. Looks like you won the failure lottery. Congrats on being a bottom feeder. I'm sure my tax dollars will fund your welfare.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:13 PM
1

The main thought on this though is if you educate the populace then the tribal factions will be more willing to overlook differences. The GOP would beg to differ.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 02:15 PM
1

Maybe, but in the wake of the Amanda Todd tragedy, he might be able to demonize Gawker through more legitimate media coverage. Who knows...
/r/MensRights20/10/12 04:28 PM
12

I think VA should have served Reddit/Gawker a court order to turn over the users/Adrian Chen for a cyber-bullying lawsuit. He can legitimately prove that they have irreparably damaged his life and potential future earnings.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:32 PM
1

Ah, gotcha. Makes sense now. Thank you.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 03:07 PM
12

Linking to anything by Ozy Frantz is worthless. S/he almost never cites sources, and does not allow unmoderated comments or discussion. Even in that article, if you read the actual link that s/he uses, it actually says the opposite of what Ozy is interpreting. S/he is intellectually dishonest on almost every level.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 02:16 PM
1

Docters are antagonistic to women giving birth and breastfeeding Care to explain for clarity's sake? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to convey.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 02:05 PM
1

Umm, where and when did I do that? I started this debate by asking you to show me a talking snake.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 03:20 PM
1

Nope. You've been trying to misrepresent and strawman me from the beginning. I'm not bigoted towards the Bible at all. I'm just trying to get you to see that these so-called "truths" come from humanity itself, and not any sort of religious book. I said it contained truths. And yet you can't name any. How can anything contain truths that cannot be listed? That defies reason entirely. If something is true, you should be able to point to it directly and say "THAT! That is true!" But you can't. Or y…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 03:09 PM
1

Start with the 10 Commandments. Except for the blasphemy, I would think any moral person would say those are truths in regards to a well-formed society. If you skip the blasphemy, you end up throwing out the first 4 commandments. That's already almost half right out the window before we even begin analysis. The rest are almost a rote copy from Hammurabi over 1700 years prior - including the ancestor worship borne out in the 5th Commandment. So what you then have is a moral code (that still fits …
/r/MensRights17/10/12 02:44 PM
1

So wait, now you're saying that they all contain truths that are relevant, but you can't point any out? That's a bit contradictory. If they contain relevant truths, then it should be glaringly obvious and extremely easy to find. Again, I'm not dismissing anything out of hand, I just want you to back up your claim with specifics and not just empty rhetoric. But you just admitted here: You know as well as I do that isn't possible. ...that you can't. So if you can't back up your claim, the only rat…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 02:16 PM
1

However, it does contain numerous "truths" which are necessary rules for human/social interaction. And all I'm asking is for you to cite some that are specific to the Bible, and not humanity at large. For instance, can you show me a "truth" in the Bible that is not in the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Talmud, the Baghvad Gita, the Vedas, etc. I am in no way dismissing the parables contained within the book itself, just asking you to back up what you are claiming.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 01:53 PM
1

For a logical, rational, scientific atheist I find it funny that you think you can read minds. Umm, where did I make that claim anywhere? You're making shit up now, and claiming to know my thoughts. Hypocrite much? You are looking for a conflict where there isn't one - almost like a religious zealot. Funny, because that's exactly what you are doing right now! In the US, if you go the the Supreme Court, you will see the 10 Commandments placed directly above where the Justices sit. I'm sure that i…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 01:41 PM
1

So you're saying that in the context of a back-and-forth conversation, your direct reply to someone else's statement was not actually a direct reply to said statement. I think you may be the one who's reaching. Also, you are right now saying to me that the Bible contains many truths. Care to cite some that are specific to the Bible, and not simply common to the human condition? Actually the laws of most of Western Society come from a moral and ethical code derived from the ancient Greeks, who we…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 01:29 PM
0

Fine, just to show that you have reading comprehension issues, I'll lay it all out for you here: jubbergun: "While I'm generally disposed to agree that religious people and religion in general are mocked out-of-hand here on Reddit, I can't disagree with friestogo. It literally is a piece bashing women based on Old Testament theology." you: "Not all truths are new." You just said - right there - that the Old Testament is true. How is that the complete opposite of what you said?
/r/MensRights17/10/12 01:03 PM
-1

If you had actually read the article in question, it talks about women being evil due to the whole Garden of Eden debacle. You then called that a "truth". I'm not being a rabid atheist, I'm asking you to back up your claim that the article was speaking the truth. Nice deflection though.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 12:42 PM
0

I'm gonna go ahead and need you to present me with evidence of a talking snake before we can accept that as a "truth". Only peer-reviewed citations, please.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 09:32 PM
1

Except that they are both active political regimes, not simply something that happened once, and then never again. I can appreciate your analogy, but it isn't entirely accurate.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:43 AM
0

I tried that. It's too easy to brush off or dismiss.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 06:22 PM
9

I have replaced "feminazi" in my personal lexicon with the phrase "gender fascist". It gets the same point across and generally makes them think about it for a second.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 03:33 PM
1

My problem ( and the problem of men's rights) is why men are making the "personal choice" of sacraficing their lives for a couple bucks. I think what you're missing is that most men are working more to support the same women/children/families that are causing the gap in the first place. We're not out blindly killing ourselves at work all day just for a couple bucks. It's typically to offset the "personal choices" that were made as a family, such as having kids. I think you'll find that the major…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 08:40 PM
1

Except that the gap is less than 2%. So that math doesn't apply. See my other reply comment to you with the attached study.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 08:13 PM
1

PDF of CONSAD report here.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 01:18 PM
1

I don't know where you are getting that 130% figure, but it's completely incorrect.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 01:16 PM
5

No, it really doesn't. Here is a study by the US Dept of Labor, who used the raw data from hundreds of professions. When accounting for all variables, there is less than a 5% difference, with a 3% margin of error. It works out to about a 1.8% gap, which is not statistically significant. PDF here.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 01:14 PM
6

What's equally silly is that my office is overwhelmingly female, and the male staff we do have work in the field for 75% of the year. There are maybe half a dozen men inside the office year-round versus roughly fifty women. So unless the ladies are raping each other in the unisex restroom, it seems kind of pointless.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:14 PM
23

Same at my office, except that the one labeled as the women's restroom also has a keypad lock on the door. Equality is alive and well in corporate America, let me tell ya...
/r/MensRights03/10/12 04:29 PM
1

I'm referring to you as a feminist based on your posting history. I could call you a troll based on yours. Let's not devolve to name-calling, please.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:37 PM
2

Less than 5 cents according to the US Dept of Labor who accounted for every variable they had data for. PDF here.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 03:49 PM
4

And her whole story is suspect anyway, since it begins with her saying they were drinking at the hotel bar until 4am, when the hotel in question closes its bar at midnight. So she either begins with a mistake, which then begs the question of what else she is mistaken about, or she is lying for attention.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:32 PM
3

You realize that the same studies Jill is quoting came to the conclusion that FGM prevents HIV infection at roughly the same rate as MGM, right? But she is leaving that part conveniently out, and you are outright ignoring it to push your agenda.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:29 PM
1

Also, there's that whole Catholic church campaign in Africa where they preach that condoms are a sin.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:24 PM
1

Because these consequences are typically less traumatic Excuse me? FMRI's show that circumcision permanently alters the brain. How is a permanent change to neurochemistry less traumatic?
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:13 PM
4

Except that her reasoning wasn't sound at all. Newborns aren't out running around having unprotected sex.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:10 PM
0

I actually do work in a predominantly female office, and we had 6 women out on maternity leave at the same time earlier this year. While they were gone, their work got split up between the 3 men in the department in addition to our normal workload. It's worth noting that there are 14 other women in my department who could have helped, but my direct supervisor is the only female partner in the firm, and she decided that only the men were going to be shouldering the extra work. We actually did tak…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 01:36 PM
1

My rules involve correct grammar, punctuation, spacing, and spelling. They also involve complete sentences filled with logic and reason. Now go away.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 09:35 PM
5

According to the US Dept of Labor, there is no significant wage gap. The only gap they found was within the margin of error. PDF here.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 09:32 PM
4

Wow. Your comments are so full of ignorance it's astounding you haven't choked to death on it yet.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 05:42 PM
2

I'm pretty sure 9/11 and the resulting wars was the worst thing to happen to this country during your lifetime. To say otherwise is both ignorant and insulting.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 05:27 PM
8

These men can easily just divorce and jet if the woman is really an incorrigible freeloader. You seem to be under the impression that the court won't then award her 50% of his assets and a further unsustainable percentage of his future income anyway, should he go that route. Also, your use of the word "easily" in the above shows a naive understanding of how difficult the American divorce court system really is.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 05:12 PM
0

I wasn't advocating it, merely trying to clarify it for your edification.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 09:09 PM
3

Well if it isn't psuedo- anything, then you can provide peer-reviewed studies that lay out your points with succinct data, right? Otherwise you are simply employing empty rhetoric to talk in circles. If you can't show, with evidence, that somehow "society encourages certain choices", then you ARE just spreading misinformation, because you are speaking without knowledge of the truth. I am fine if you want to explain to me in some way that the wage gap does not show women are taught gender roles w…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 09:06 PM
-1

You misunderstand dumbguyscene28's comments. He isn't comparing Futrelle to Glenn Beck. He is using Beck's tactics of stating something wholly outrageous and most probably untrue, and then demanding that the target provide evidence that this is not the case. Since you can't prove non-existence, it is a logical circular fallacy.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 08:52 PM
3

There is no wage gap in the US. The Dept. of Labor did a full statistical review, and accounted for all work choice variables they could conceive of (ie: experience, education, # of hours worked, amount of travel involved) and they found less than a 2% gap, with a 3% margin of error on the study. Here is a link to the final PDF results. Now please stop spreading misinformation based off of junk pseudo-sociology.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 08:38 PM
1

Fine by me. Run away Captain Logical Fallacy. Godspeed.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:17 PM
1

I am not the one intentionally conflating. You are ignoring my points, and defending my claim without even realizing it. Negative. You just either lack the reading comprehension to understand what it is that I am actually saying, lack the statistical comprehension to understand the numerical logic, or you are choosing to ignore this in an attempt to not lose face. Either way, the statistics are the same. In the same way that not believing in evolution doesn't make it false, not believing these n…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 09:27 PM
1

Now you are intentionally conflating unrelated things. Dogs have no means of self-sufficiency. They are artificially dependent upon humans to survive. Whether by being taken in and cared for, or living off of scraps and garbage ferally. Dogs also lack the cognition to choose to commit what a human would consider a crime. They act purely upon instinct and learned behaviors. The simple fact is that there are statistically millions, if not billions, of humans who will die without ever having contri…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:53 PM
1

I wasn't confusing anything, I was intentionally conflating them to show how ludicrous your argument is. Your point hinges on every human alive today being able to make an equally valuable contribution to society, which is simply not the case. I used the sheer numerical population as a metric to explain that to you.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:25 PM
1

During the first 60-90 days that maternity leave typically comprises, it will.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:40 PM
2

Your newborn will also be sleeping 14-18 hours per day. Having gone through it, it isn't the world-ending business people attribute to it.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:27 PM
-1

Really? Because there are only 400 million dogs worldwide, but a little over 7 billion humans. Statistically, that animal has a FAR higher chance of being noteworthy. 17.5x higher, to be exact.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:23 PM
1

I think taking care of a newborn should be under the FMLA because they require more in their delicate state than caring for your family for other medical reasons. My deceased wife's cancer would disagree with you.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:17 PM
4

What you are describing is called oligarchy, not patriarchy.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 10:29 PM
4

Or maybe the movement itself has moved from egalitarian to gender fascism. One is defensible, the other is not.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 10:21 PM
17

With a side of NAFALT.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 08:08 PM
4

Former Air Force officer here, this man speaks the truth. I joined the country club compared to my brother's experience in the Army. Admittedly, the USAF is basically the IT department of the military.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 01:04 PM
6

If you click Show/Hide notes on your first link, you'll see this: "Persons in poverty are defined here as those living in "health insurance units" with incomes less than 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) as measured by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) poverty guidelines. Health insurance units are related individuals who would be eligible as a group for "family" coverage in a health plan." Thus yes, more women are figured in, as this chart only accounts for family gr…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 05:08 PM
6

The US Dept. of Labor Statistics did indeed perform a study where they controlled for all factors they could account for, and determined there to be a less than 2% deviation in pay for the same job/experience/hours/responsibility, which was within the 3% margin of error. So essentially there is no statistically significant gap at all. Here is a link to the full PDF.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 04:10 PM
2

Mostly it comes down to the Apex Fallacy. Feminist critique started when some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men. Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man. The mistake in that way of thinking is to look onl…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 03:39 PM
21

Maybe. But I'm a former military officer, my brother is a cop, and my sister is a ballbreaking criminal defense attorney. We can go to jail together and see what happens in court. Either way I'm sure my sister would sue them in civil court for inflicting emotional damage to her kids.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 02:24 AM
54

The last time someone did something similar to me while I was at the park with my niece and nephew, I very quickly turned it around on him, and demanded "Why are you talking to my children? You some kinda pervert, buddy?!" I mean, I got all up in this poor guy's face. He backed way the fuck up, and got apologetic real fast. 'Round about the third time he was apologizing (after I kept pressing him and threatened to call the cops because of a middle-age guy hitting on kids in the park - master tro…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 11:29 PM
1

I think your entire position is only serving to reinforce my own. If all rapes were investigated seriously and thoroughly every time, no one would have any reason to change their mind or back down. The guilty party would be held responsible in every case, whether rape or false accusation. I know that such a situation is a pipe dream due to terrible policing standards and personal bias, but I honestly believe that it's the only way to keep rapists in prison and simultaneously punish the false acc…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 11:02 PM
1

false accusations of rape make it all the harder for real victims of rape to come forward You know, I've heard that line brought out over and over again as a justification about why false accusers should not be criminally prosecuted. It is an unfounded supposition that false claims lead to an automatic suspicion about the validity of an actual victim's claim. The logical answer would be to prosecute all false accusations across the board. If we investigate every rape case, every time, and prosec…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 06:52 PM
4

I wouldn't worry about Sigil. He/she has no idea what they mean. The actual stats are closer to 45-55% intimate partner rape, 20-28% friend/acquaintance rape, and the remaining 20-ish% is stranger rape. That 99% stat is just outright false.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 01:29 PM
5

Don't forget that the actual family court itself also gets a cut of all Child Support payments decreed through it. So it is in their own self-interest to make men pay up.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 05:27 PM
2

Makes sense. Good find!
/r/MensRights31/08/12 05:05 PM
0

But your ideology IS feeding into that same fallacy.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:28 PM
2

I thought Israel's compulsory service was only for 1 year, though. Whereas the US's draft is for an indefinite amount of time. That alone is the difference between indentured servitude and slavery.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:21 PM
2

What IamTheBrainOfMe forgot is that you also don't get to go to college without signing up either. So not only is it "register or go to jail", it's also "register or you can never advance your education, and therefore your career prospects".
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:17 PM
3

I'm pretty sure that as a species we still value bearing children. It's kind of how we keep existing.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:08 PM
2

That's a classic Apex Fallacy argument all the way through. Just FYI.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:03 PM
2

Who? Where? The more this subreddit relies on a rhetoric of the "unseen evil", the more it devolves into mindless nonsense. You realize that you are asking for a citation, without providing one for your own statements like: "By far the majority of women, feminist and, I would say, normal people would say that women should be able to serve on the front lines of combat" By far the majority, huh? Then there should be some way for you to prove that to me.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:00 PM
1

They have a branch in the building next door to my office. Super nice folks, and my coworkers have nothing but good things to say about their services. I'm glad to see this.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 01:39 PM
0

Guess I should have added a /s at the end, then.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:54 PM
-1

Way to address one point and ignore the other while still being a dismissive prick. Good day.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:10 PM
0

Cue standard NAFALT response?
/r/MensRights16/08/12 02:21 PM
0

3. Keep in mind that you are not the universal standard. Just because you got over something quickly, does not mean that everyone else will. Also, you don't recover from , ya know, actually being dead.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 02:17 PM
3

Also, if a man is raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo, he has broken the law by participating in unlawful deviant sexual activities and cannot report it, or he will go to jail for being a victim; whereas the women can at least get help from various aid organizations.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 02:13 PM
4

My aunt used that same argument to justify circumcising my cousin. So I asked him, in front of both of his parents, how many times he actually saw his dad's penis growing up. His answer: "None. And who the fuck walks around with their dick hanging out like that who isn't a pedo anyway?"
/r/MensRights06/08/12 05:08 PM
3

No, I'm telling you that a false either/or scenario is a logical fallacy. Nothing more.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 06:57 PM
3

Way to break out the logical fallacy hammer.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 06:28 PM
2

If you were at risk of going to jail for bringing your rape case forward, it would really make you consider whether or not it would be worth it to do so - likely keeping you out of court. You realize that men are at risk of going to jail every time they have sex with someone, right?
/r/MensRights02/08/12 06:25 PM
9

You didn't actually watch it, did you? If you can actually sit all the way through that episode, and still honestly ask that question, then we can have an open and intelligent discussion.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 05:06 PM
1

And never apologize for any of it.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 02:27 PM
13

By using the personal pronoun "you", you have implied that the user 'Donkey_Schlong' is the perpetrator of said actions. When this personal pronoun is used in such a way conversationally, it comes off as accusatory and dismissive in relation to the receiver, leading a reasonable person to assume that in a point/counterpoint style of discussion the statement's originator is also implying that they would not perpetrate the same said actions. A way to state it that would not be misleading or accusa…
/r/MensRights18/07/12 05:51 PM
1

I explained to them that women in general don't judge men for unjustifiable things that were done to them, but they didn't seem to understand. The problem is that many do. I have personally been rejected by partners before, simply for being uncut - or as I like to call it: "as evolution intended". Now, were these women generally terrible people? As I found out, yes. But that does not make being judged any less harsh or psychologically damaging.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 04:53 PM
10

'damselling' wtf does that even mean “experiencing a feminine life imaginatively from the inside.” You fail at Google.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 04:44 PM
-2

I didn't know we had an official scale for these things. TIL.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 01:13 PM
6

Actually that's a perfectly valid word to use. Faze means: to frighten or cause hesitation. It's a real word. (Hence why if you are unafraid of something, you are unfazed.) That said, yeah the author still used the wrong word, and was in fact supposed to use "phase" there.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 09:14 PM
1

Exactly! And this isn't even counting sexual assault and statutory rape of minors. IE: teacher/student relationships. Men are basically crucified for it, but women tend to get off with a slap on the wrist. I'm not condoning it either way, but the punishment statistics are shocking.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 08:21 PM
2

Domestic Violence
/r/MensRights29/06/12 07:21 PM
3

And it's used against women when they aren't being stereotypically feminine, ie: man-like, implying somehow that there is something wrong with being male. Which is misandry, not misogyny. You are now contradicting your original point (which I quoted) to reinforce mine. So, um, thanks.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 02:33 PM
1

:)
/r/MensRights29/06/12 02:31 PM
2

I'm not saying they don't prime the audience (I've been to a taping) or edit out the horse guffaws, but I see so many people on reddit bash them for having a laugh track without ever bothering to see if they do.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 02:16 PM
1

Because there isn't one. It's a live studio audience. Tickets are free.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:34 PM
1

Live studio audience. No laugh track. Free tickets. Source
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:33 PM
7

simply citing lowest prisoner rate is not sufficient evidence of privilege What about when you compare that to the 50% of DV being committed by women with almost no repercussions? If women are just as guilty as men of DV, and we know that they are, but men overwhelmingly are the ones who end up in prison because of it, I would say that's a pretty good example of privilege.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:31 PM
3

it's misogynistic whether it's aimed at men or women Negative. As per zap283 above: "Interestingly, it's used in both cases to call out deviation from gender norms. A female bitch is loud, harsh, rough, and aggressive, while a male bitch is weak, innefectual, or impotent." It's not only misogynistic. Sexist, yes, but equally so. Stop being so myopic.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:24 PM
2

You can't argue with someone who advocates indentured servitude, while denying that people as property equates to slavery.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 12:29 PM
1

I am actually an apologetic teacher Well, at least we know you earned your username then.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 12:19 PM
4

Downvoting for disagreeing, rather than for the reason it was intended. Way to live up to the stereotype.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 06:53 PM
9

The kids didn't spontaneously happen. There was a man there at some point. And as an observation, specifically not empirical evidence, all of the single moms in my office are in that position because they initiated a divorce from their husbands. Two of them because they were cheating with other men.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:19 PM
3

He did. It's in that long list of links he provided. It's listed under: U.S. Navy Finds That Circumcision Does Not Prevent HIV or STIs. Also listed: Male Circumcision and the HIV/AIDS Myth
/r/MensRights05/06/12 09:09 PM
1

You don't actually know me IRL, so that scenario seems appropriately ludicrous to you. However, given my particular life circumstances, yeah I would have given you the money if I didn't need it, and just happened to have it. But I understand that many, if not most, people wouldn't. That said, I don't sweat what people expect of me, and generally strive to simply respect myself as I move through life. If I can go to bed with a clean conscience, then it was a good day.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 02:31 AM
1

Bag of frozen peas on the jublies for a couple days, and I was good to go. Basically I got snipped on a Friday afternoon, lounged around for the weekend, and was back at work on Monday with no issues.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 08:40 PM
1

There is, from a pragmatic point of view, no reward for being a good person, other than the internal satisfaction of sacrifice instilled in men from birth. I beg to differ. Compassion is never a bad thing. Making the world a better place in whatever tiny way one can is never a bad thing. Helping to make someone else's life easier, just for a moment, is never a bad thing. To believe that one needs a reward in order to live a good life is shortsighted and disgusting, not to mention fairly anti-hum…
/r/MensRights30/05/12 08:35 PM
1

It is the duty of every man to turn our backs to the world. You go right on ahead. I'll be back here fighting for our rights, and not taking the coward's way out by walking away from the problem.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 08:30 PM
6

It keeps the threads in check so that they decay normally and fall off the front page after a day or so. That way no massively upvoted thread, like a famous AMA or whatnot, stays on the front page indefinitely.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 01:36 PM
4

I'm pretty sure that a 30% global prevalence of genital mutilation counts as "human rights". I understand what you are getting at, but I think you fail to see the significance. Also, I do quite a bit of aid work in Asia. So, yes, I have seen what you would consider "real human rights violations". Don't preach to me if you aren't willing to get your own hands dirty to make a difference.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 04:07 PM
4

A guy in high school was also laughed at by the girls when they found out he was uncircumcised as must girls thought it was gross. I had the total opposite reaction. I am the first uncircumcised man my current partner has ever been with, and she has said on numerous occasions that it is easily the best sexual experience she has had. She explained that most cut guys have to thrust hard and fast during sex (due to the glans becoming keratinized, circumcised men usually have much less penile sensit…
/r/MensRights08/05/12 02:31 PM
6

I'm all for parental rights. I just don't believe that those rights extend to the permanent and unnecessary alteration of their child's anatomy before the child is old enough to understand or consent to it. I think it is a men's rights issue just as much as it is a human rights issue.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 02:25 PM
3

OP really has no right to get offended that the woman he was talking to was choosing to highlight the women subjected to genital mutilation. Except that she only took offense to female mutilation, and said that MGM is perfectly okay. So he had every right in the world to be offended at her blatant sexism.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 09:44 PM
3

I understand how the process works, and it is awful in every way. I'm not denying that. But what you seem to be doing is equating severity with scale, and they are not the same thing. What we are seeing is that roughly 160,000 women per year, almost all in northeastern Africa, are subjected to FGM. Whereas around 1,900,000 men per year are subjected to MGM. That's an order of magnitude and then some. Do you see the problem here?
/r/MensRights23/04/12 08:24 PM
3

It wasn't that long ago that every major city had 20-30% beggars And I'm willing to bet even those were mostly men, and probably got there by losing a job at some point.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 07:48 PM
2

So because MGM is more common, that makes it somehow better, or more forgivable? That's a ridiculous argument. That basically promotes the premise that if it is culturally acceptable, then it isn't mutilation, which means that FGM falls squarely into that same category. Now, I abhor the very idea of genital mutilation performed on anyone, regardless of gender. But your idea of it being okay to do to little boys because it's more common is beyond silly. It's a fact that it doesn't happen to the s…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 07:38 PM
1

Also, most of the studies that produce results such as these are from 3rd world countries with no access to birth control that would also prevent these problems.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 06:13 PM
1

Thank you. Yeah. I've had a lot of time to come to terms with it. So I just don't feel the need to sugarcoat it anymore. Plus I was trying to find a way of expressing that I was married, but am no longer married, but am not divorced, without making that part the actual story. If that makes any sense...
/r/MensRights27/03/12 01:10 PM
1

My wife died. So, yes.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 12:20 PM
1

To give you a slightly different perspective, I became a widower 3 years ago at the tender age of 29. When I got married, I thought it was what I wanted. I was 25, and already knew better by the time I was 26. And that's even after dating for 5 years, living and traveling the world together, and one near-death experience for me before ever getting married. To further promote my new singledom, I even got myself a vasectomy for Christmas last year. While I have met someone amazing now, she fully u…
/r/MensRights26/03/12 09:08 PM
2

You seem to be good at denying logic, reality, and reason when it contradicts the point you want to make. Did you even read the article you linked? Because this statement sort of implies that you did not.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 08:57 PM
2

That doesn't make you special. Welcome to the big leagues, son.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 10:09 PM
8

A friend of mine who was circumcised as an infant actually took his parents and their mohel to court when he was 16. He used their collective aggravated assault and genital mutilation as evidence of abuse and grounds for emancipation. He even went so far as to state that since the mohel was active in their temple and community, and he was forced to see him quite often, that it constituted ongoing mental and emotional abuse. He actually did win his emancipation, and something like legal fees + si…
/r/MensRights07/03/12 10:39 PM
1

I usually wink at him and make a kissy face while I walk away with his girl. Shuts him down in front of everyone.
/r/seduction24/02/12 08:57 PM
1

Ask her what sound a dial-up modem makes. If she has no idea what you're talking about, then she's too young. That's pretty much my only guideline.
/r/seduction23/02/12 08:57 PM
5

Yeah, but I'd never admit it to my gf. Brofist(paw?).
/r/MensRights02/02/12 02:04 PM
11

What I've noticed is that that "Nice Guys" tend to set up a mental Emotional Economy, in relation to their perceived love interest. So that over time they come to believe that there should be an equality in terms of what each is bringing to the relationship. He believes that because he is giving her the emotional intimacy that she isn't getting from elsewhere (friends, family, bf, etc...), he now deserves her physical intimacy to balance the scales. When he doesn't receive this, he becomes angry…
/r/seduction24/10/11 09:32 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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