TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Reddit1990 Archive

View 0 posts and 355 comments by Reddit1990 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)
2

...I didn't ask what it is, I asked for an example that qualifies since this person seems to think that nothing short of killing a man is considered misandry.
/r/MensRights22/07/21 03:45 PM
10

Um, so what exactly qualifies as misandry in your head?
/r/MensRights21/07/21 07:48 PM
4

Yeah, they look Chinese.
/r/MensRights06/08/20 02:05 PM
–

...And normal girlfriends and wives who care. Can't forget those.
/r/MensRights27/05/20 03:25 PM
2

Do you know what he did? Or are you just parroting what you've heard? It might be good to look into it more before disowning him completely. Not saying you are wrong, I just think its important for people to do their due diligence. There's a link in that article I gave that goes into more detail about that topic, I believe. I think its become very clear that it is hard to trust big news outlets nowadays. With the internet taking peoples attention and them struggling to keep viewership, its just …
/r/MensRights12/10/18 10:10 PM
14

From the article: The overarching accusation is that Kavanaugh whitewashed his record... Democrats have not gone so far as to accuse Kavanaugh of perjury And at the end: Even though Leahy is careful to say Kavanaugh “might have” misled the Senate, he’s still throwing red meat out without much to back him up, and he gets Three Pinocchios for this one. Did you even fucking read it? Did you watch the hearing? Not even the democrats are saying he's lied, you are just brainwashed by the media hype. T…
/r/MensRights12/10/18 08:49 PM
27

What details are you referring to exactly? Rumors from his high school days over 30 years ago? Those aren't details, that's just speculation. You are judging him based on speculation that has nothing to do with his ability as a judge. Here's a suggestion, why don't you actually look into his career. You know, the part that's actually relevant to the job? http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/08/judge-kavanaughs-record-in-criminal-cases/
/r/MensRights12/10/18 05:47 PM
2

My bad, I actually meant "spiritual" rather than religious. Yeah, the requirement is belief in a higher power not necessarily christian God. Thanks for pointing that out.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 11:16 PM
3

That's really weird, I feel like you could have complained to someone up the ladder in the organization. They aren't supposed to do that.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 06:52 PM
1

Its a private organization that has a history associating itself with religion. If you arent religious you should probably go to a different organization, you know what you are getting into when you join. Its like Freemasonry, its just a requirement. They aren't required to allow everyone in, you have to meet the requirements.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 06:52 PM
1

It does though. I don't want men's rights to be associated with garbage. He essentially called single moms cumdumpsters instead of recognizing that the blame, generally speaking, lies in both the father and mother. That's incredibly stupid. There are plenty of mom's out there who did their best, and likewise, there are plenty of father's who tried their best. What he did makes hard working mother's feel like shit, unfairly. Imagine if you made a mistake with the wrong guy and some asshat said th…
/r/MensRights06/10/18 10:00 AM
-12

What? That's stupid. It takes two to tango, it's not one genders fault. You're being extremely hateful, I hope the mods give you a temporary ban.
/r/MensRights22/09/18 10:18 AM
2

I have no idea where you got that quote, but it inspired me to look at the sidebar: No clickbait titles, advice animals or other low-effort image or text posts
/r/MensRights07/08/18 08:26 AM
2

No, it doesnt. Your post explains in detail various topics such as lobbying which informs the reader. The cartoon is a poorly drawn picture of a girl crying with dialog that does little but enrage feminists and make immature boys laugh. It lacks insight and accomplishes nothing. Stop defending it.
/r/MensRights07/08/18 08:23 AM
1

First paragraph was uncalled for. Second paragraph was great! Too bad thats not what the cartoon depicts... at all.
/r/MensRights07/08/18 07:53 AM
-2

Agreed. This is the type of thing that makes people hate MRA.
/r/MensRights07/08/18 05:31 AM
-3

This is a stupid post and has very little to do with Men's rights.
/r/MensRights07/08/18 05:30 AM
-14

More importantly, nothing to do with men's rights. I dont know what OP was thinking here.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 04:57 AM
1

I know, That's why I let it slide. But it's still illegal here and a questionable thing to be asking. Companies have gotten sued for that sort of thing.
/r/MensRights14/07/18 04:03 PM
18

Im in the USA, game development. They can be really picky about who they hire, and Ive seen plenty of questionable things despite only working for a year at a big studio. For instance, HR asked me if I was married which is extremely bad to do. I don't really care so I shrugged it off, but yeah. There are other things but not really worth getting into.
/r/MensRights14/07/18 09:34 AM
19

I see. Well if that's the case then good on em. But I can't help but be a little confused, I see so much favoritism in my industry that this seems sorta minor in comparison.
/r/MensRights14/07/18 09:20 AM
62

What? 0.25% seems completely negligible. A person's personality plays a bigger role in company morale than 0.25%, unless Im missing something here. Doesn't seem like he should have won.
/r/MensRights14/07/18 09:07 AM
3

Do these people just not have children and exert zero effort to understand how much children cost? Working part time and taking unpaid parental leave is great, sure, but how ze fak are you supposed to support the family? If the wife is willing and able, great, but that's typically not the case. The solution is to have women be more productive and work harder, not have men work less and let the family suffer for it.
/r/MensRights13/05/18 05:28 PM
2

A couple of friends from her small rundown village probably. This is Russia and its not a big city.
/r/MensRights21/04/18 07:13 PM
1

So your way of understanding is saying "I would have saved my child instead of letting him get abused" Yeah, you're really good at understanding people. I guess the key word here is "trying" to put yourself in his shoes. Well Im here to inform you pal, your attempts are failing miserably. And fucking assholes like you are acting exactly like fucking feminists Again, why are you making this about feminism vs men's rights? This has absolutely nothing to do with that. You're being an asshat right n…
/r/MensRights17/12/17 07:00 PM
2

I simply said this is what I would do Unless you were raped as a child, no one really gives a shit about how much better you are at making life choices compared to them. How would you know what you would do in that situation anyway? Its a bit outside your realm of experience buddy. This has nothing to do with men's rights, you're just being incredibly self centered. Instead of showing compassion you are commenting about how you would have did a better job than the father who was abused... Come o…
/r/MensRights17/12/17 02:28 AM
13

All I know is that were it my child I would be fighting tooth and nail to get him out of that situation You do realize his dad was raped as a child right? He's not exactly a normal person, I don't know what makes you think you have the right to compare your life and hypothetical life choices to his. Were you raped as a child? Why are you looking to question him of all people? Don't you think he feels bad enough already? Question the reasoning of the people who are actually responsible for the he…
/r/MensRights16/12/17 10:05 PM
6

Well at least the majority of them seemed to understand it was bad.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 06:00 PM
1

LOL, thats the reason it should be banned? Woo boy.
/r/MensRights20/10/17 12:24 AM
1

Not the impression I got. ...then lied about (the rape) in hopes of winning the sympathy of a third male student whom she wanted to date That sounds like textbook manipulation, not regret. Is she lying and it was actually regret? Maybe, I guess. It would make for a good cover story. But seems unlikely that she would purposefully damage her character in that way if she was the type of person to regret having sex. It sounds like the truth to me.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 10:00 PM
3

She played on the desires of others, forced them into an undesirable situation (being accused of rape), all in an attempt to garner pity from a crush. I call this manipulation. Yeah, shes trying to manipulate the story too. This is true.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 09:44 PM
–

Not necessarily. Depends on the jury and judge. People are biased, its why black people usually get longer sentencing. A crying women helps greatly if you are trying to invoke sympathy to reduce your sentence.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 06:03 PM
–

What in the story makes you think shes insane? Because she manipulated some guys? Being manipulative by itself is not enough to be insane. Lying is not enough to be insane. Being insane implies you have absolutely no control over your behavior or any ability to understand why what you did is wrong. She knows what she did is wrong.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 05:58 PM
–

Being an asshole isnt insane. Borderline personality disorder doesnt make you insane. To legally be considered insane is very different from some hodge podge diagnosis.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 05:27 PM
2

Google's dictionary is incredibly shitty, you never want to use it honestly.
/r/MensRights12/07/17 02:18 PM
1

Clearly not a parent lol. Kids are hard to manage, you have to watch them constantly, if you let your guard down at all they can wander off. I got lost as a kid a couple times and my mom was overly cautious if anything, definitely not at fault. Can happen to anyone.
/r/MensRights28/06/17 01:28 AM
1

90k? That's only 23k a year... I mean even if the guy was in poverty making only 12k a year, that's still not very good compensation for being put in jail unjustly. He should at least get 120k imo, more if he made over minimum wage, and the girl should get some jailtime. She was 17, thats old enough to know what shes doing.
/r/MensRights15/05/17 06:13 PM
12

How was it not intentional? Basically, he thinks shes incredibly fucking stupid and unable to realize what she is doing.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 05:20 PM
1

Just sit on her bag. "Oops I didn't see it."
/r/MensRights20/04/17 12:22 AM
3

Oh I havent read the comments really. Didn't know people were getting upset about it. Weird.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 12:34 AM
11

You can still separate. Its not like you are required by law to live with the spouse, you can move out anytime... Just cant get remarried again for a couple years. After some period of time of separation you can get the divorce (if you still want to). Sometimes a period of separation can bring them back together and they go back to how things were, that's why the law is in place. This is also why you don't get married unless you really want to be with the person. Its a very serious decision, don…
/r/MensRights27/03/17 12:31 AM
2

They should have allowed the divorce, because the marriage is clearly broken if shes cheating, but she probably shouldn't get half of his stuff.
/r/MensRights27/03/17 12:28 AM
2

Eh, whatever. Im just gonna have to disagree with you about the GED vs high school diploma thing. I don't think any minimum wage place is going to give a shit as long as you show you have a positive attitude when applying. Some might, sure, but ultimately that only really matters for your first job when you have no experience. After that its literally pointless; the span of time in which the degree actually matters is so short I don't see how its a big deal. Your job experience is infinitely mor…
/r/MensRights25/03/17 01:07 AM
2

What is analysis lol. But yeah, are you trying to say that people with high school diplomas are being chosen instead of people with a GED in regards to higher paying jobs? Because what I'm trying to say is that most jobs that care about investigating the authenticity of your education are jobs that require some education outside of Highschool/GED. So why does the difference between GED and high school diploma matter? Even in your example, which is probably relatively rare, you still have schooli…
/r/MensRights24/03/17 02:25 PM
1

Many employers, especially ones that deal in well paying fields, conduct a simple investigation. Yeah, but chances are you'll need at least an associates for that kind of job right? And at that point you can just leave out the high school info, no one cares. That's why I asked originally, because I feel like high school is such an insignificant thing to most employers. If its low paying, GED is likely good enough (or you can lie and I doubt anyone will actually look it up though I could be wrong…
/r/MensRights24/03/17 12:55 AM
6

I regret it every second. Completely off topic, but why? Not like high school matters much and GED isn't difficult to get. Im legitimately curious why you regret it, do you feel like you missed out on your senior year shenanigans?
/r/MensRights23/03/17 05:25 AM
1

Disinformation, that's a fucking good one. What exactly did I say that was "disinformation" you fucking dipshit? Stop talking to me like I'm some kind of huge supporter of circumcision and read my goddamn posts. You're clearly just trying to avoid admitting your analogy was total horseshit by trying to find rare issues that can occur. Its no where near the same thing as removing your eyelids. The reason I "laughed" is because its obviously not something that happens very often, and you're making…
/r/MensRights17/03/17 04:36 AM
1

Or if there is just one he maintains a distance and tells them to put the weapon down. Approaching him so that you didn't have to shout would be very dangerous.. Uhh, I dont know about you but I can easily hear a person across the room, or even through the door, with just a normal talking voice... You cannot just shoot into the air. That's completely illegal. You can shoot at a wall or towards the ground. That's not illegal, especially if you are trying to scare the people trespassing. I didn't …
/r/MensRights16/03/17 11:48 PM
1

It's funny how you don't reply to anything else but just pick and choose what to read and reply to. What? I addressed everything I believe, its not like you said that much. screaming hands up. will alert the accomplice as well. Who said anything about screaming? You don't have to scream in order for the guy to hear you and put his hands up. No actually and statistically it will scare them away and they will run when they realize that you are alerted Yeah, but you don't know that. rather than hav…
/r/MensRights16/03/17 02:07 PM
0

Shooting him doesn't exactly prevent the accomplice from coming in and shooting you. Nor does it prevent the accomplice from running straight up into your kids room after hearing the gunshot. Really when you think about it, if you shoot his buddy he might be more inclined to do something crazy. Taking him as a hostage would be more ideal, you'd have more control over the situation in the event of an accomplice and you would be able to choose when to let yourself be detected because you haven't m…
/r/MensRights16/03/17 01:54 PM
1

You don't know if he's armed That's why you say hands up and shoot if he doesn't. As soon as he makes a motion that isn't hands up, shoot. I get that not everyone is trained, but if you have a gun and are willing to kill someone you probably fucking should be. Your responsibility as a gun owner.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 01:43 PM
2

What you seem to fail to understand is the situation that this occurred in.. I understand the situation... first thing I would have said is "hands up or I shoot". And what do you know, that would have solved the entire situation without having to kill someone, assuming he put his hands up.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 01:22 AM
2

Disagree. You never know a person's background. Perhaps he was severely abused as a kid. Sure he's a bad person and is continuing the cycle, but perhaps theres more to it than you know. That's why the justice system exists in the first place, you can't just assume you know everything based on the very limited amount of information you know.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 01:16 AM
5

The issue is that it sets a precedent. You aren't supposed to take the law into your own hands and that's essentially what he did. Beating the person to a pulp? I'm okay with that. But so much so that he dies? Probably should get minimum sentence for manslaughter honestly. What I really wonder is if he killed the guy in front of his own kids... or did he shoo them off to finish the job? This should be taken into account as well. Once hes knocked out and detained you really should be calling the …
/r/MensRights16/03/17 01:13 AM
0

Already addressed this elsewhere. Yes I do think it would be cosmetic and not mutilation, if all things were the same. Ultimately it depends on two things; the attitudes surrounding the change and whether the change handicaps the person. So if society finds it an acceptable cosmetic change and it doesn't seriously impair the person then I don't consider it mutilation. That's not to say I approve of it, I think any cosmetic change needs consent from the person. But I don't think its mutilation, I…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 11:31 PM
0

lol that's news to me.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 11:26 PM
1

You know what you said Yep, but the problem is you don't know what I said. Clearly.
/r/MensRights13/03/17 01:45 AM
1

You're an idiot. Hey, you're the one claiming I said things I literally never said. Poor reading comprehension is a good indication of lack of intelligence.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 07:09 PM
0

Not worry about your future BEFORE you have kids or get married? Whoa, I never said that. Of course you prepare beforehand. But the truth of the matter is that most people will never be earn enough or be prepared enough to have nannys and maids when that time comes. I already went over this. Listen, you're not capable of having this discussion. I'm not capable? You're the one who's completely misinterpreting what I was saying. Never said they shouldn't worry about their future before marriage or…
/r/MensRights12/03/17 05:35 PM
0

it's about personal responsibility The fact that you think parents have time to worry about their own personal well being is hilarious. That is not what raising a family is like for most people. They have to focus on keeping the family functioning and stable. You trust one person to take care of the finances, you trust one person to take care of child rearing and taking care of the home. You just completely overlook this simple fact. If everyone had your mindset then it would result in the two p…
/r/MensRights12/03/17 07:13 AM
0

It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with being prepared for life. Nothing to do with trust? It has everything to do with trust. She was preparing for life by improving the family's standards of living and making everything better for everyone. This is married life, your focus is the family. Even in regards to finances, the man (or woman) works to earn money for the family and its mostly for the family's benefit. Not himself. You trust that the partner who's responsible for finance hand…
/r/MensRights12/03/17 06:27 AM
1

would you want someone cutting a piece of you off without your permission? Of course not, Ive already established from the very beginning I am against circumcision. That doesn't mean I think its mutilation. Are you circumcised? I'm beginning to think this is a desperate cut guy trying to rationalize Totally irrelevant.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 06:23 AM
0

Yes Woo boy, trust no one. What a life you must live. I feel truly sorry for you. But anyway, you surely realize most people aren't like you, correct? Most people agree that trusting their partner shouldn't result in severe harm.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 04:05 AM
1

I think it also largely has to do with societal views as well, do enough people feel the same way about it, but yes technically if there was a culture out there who did that I would not jump to the conclusion people are being mutilated. If it were a finger, that'd be too extreme. I think that would qualify as a "necessary" piece of the body, which would put it under the blanket of mutilation regardless of intentions or society's view.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 04:02 AM
1

Is it your fault for trusting the one person in the world you're supposed to be able to trust?
/r/MensRights12/03/17 03:59 AM
2

Damn, my edit got cut off in my previous post I think. Oh well. But yeah I was just surprised because it seems like that would be a more destructive thing to do.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 03:58 AM
1

Because circumcision reduces sensitivity and functionality of the penis Sure, but Why does the UN and WHO consider removing girl's labia or a "ritual pinprick" of the clitoris mutilation Not sure honestly, cultural reasons probably. How people perceive it is a large part (but not the only part) of whether or not something is considered mutilation. In one culture a ear gauges could be mutilation, whereas in another its common practice and not a big deal. ...Is removing the labia really less destr…
/r/MensRights12/03/17 03:39 AM
1

You are definitely damaging skin dude. I don't know how we're still debating this. I never said you weren't damaging skin... I said some people might not consider it an injury or disfigurement. The reason I say this is because by definition disfigurement means "to impair (as in beauty) by deep and persistent injuries." Some people think its improving the beauty, so that goes out the window as an objective reason for it qualifying as mutilation. Look at the definition of mutilation by itself: htt…
/r/MensRights12/03/17 03:34 AM
1

The difference is most people choose those mutilations when they are an adult. Yes, obviously. I already recognized that as an issue. The question was whether or not you consider body modifications necessarily "mutilation" by definition. If so, then why do you consider circumcision necessarily by mutilation, considering there are body modifications that alter you more than the circumcision?
/r/MensRights12/03/17 03:08 AM
1

Didn't answer the question, because you can't without being proven wrong. I won.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 02:49 AM
0

Many body modifications don't heal at all and involve just as much body altering as snipping off some skin. Do you consider that mutilation? Do you think its fair to say the body modification is mutilation regardless of what the person's opinion might be? This is why I hesitate. I very much disagree that its necessarily considered an injury, and Im basing this off the definition of injury as well. Injury implies you are damaging something, which in this case, is a matter of opinion. Some believe…
/r/MensRights12/03/17 02:48 AM
0

"Injure, disfigure, or make imperfect" This part of the definition is why I hesitate to call it mutilation. Im not saying its not horrible, I just don't think it necessarily falls under the definition. Going through it one by one. Injure? Many would argue its not an injury, similar to how a pierced ear isn't an injury. Disfigure? Some would claim it makes the penis more appealing, so its not really being disfigured. Make imperfect? Some would also argue that its more perfect that way, either due…
/r/MensRights12/03/17 01:52 AM
1

by that definition, most FGM wouldn't be mutilation either If there was a significant number of people doing it, and it had some cultural significance, then nah I wouldn't call it mutilation either honestly. I wouldn't support it obviously, but I also wouldn't call it mutilation. but procedures such as foot binding, neck stretching, and head flattening are considered mutilation despite being done for the sake of beauty. I wouldn't consider that mutilation as well. I'd say its a cultural practice…
/r/MensRights12/03/17 12:11 AM
1

Uh, removal of the eyelid can cause permanent damage to an essential organ (your eyes)... so yes that's mutilation and its a totally different scenario. Circumcision doesn't have the potential to make you infertile. Removing eyelids? Can very easily cause serious eye damage.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 12:02 AM
0

Oh I can see you agreed already Duh... I said that right from the very beginning. And I never said we should ignore it, I just said I don't consider it mutilation.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 12:01 AM
1

that's your fault Even if the one person you love more than anyone, the one who you are financially linked to and have created offspring with, has promised to support you? Its your fault for trusting the one person in the world you're supposed to be able to trust? Yes or no question. No pressure.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 12:00 AM
0

If you choose a lifestyle that involves your lover sacrificing their earning potential for you and the family, you should be prepared to make up for it in the event you don't give her what you promised.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 10:38 PM
0

its not a single persons fault if the two of them decide together on a certain lifestyle Do I just have to keep narrowing it down until you actually notice the point?
/r/MensRights11/03/17 10:20 PM
-2

Eh, I just don't think it qualifies. People love to use extreme words for things they dislike to invoke emotion. Fascism, racism, mutilation, sexism. Exaggeration is trendy. When I think of mutilation I think of burns, acid, cutting of limbs. Things that are legitimately horrific. Not a small piece of skin that gets cut off when you're too young to even remember it. I put it under the category of tattoos, body modifications, and ear piercings. Sure, I don't think it should be done without consen…
/r/MensRights11/03/17 10:19 PM
-9

I wouldn't call it mutilation, its more of a cosmetic surgery at this point. But thats exactly why it shouldn't be forced on you by your parents, its cosmetic. They shouldn't make the choice for you.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 09:04 PM
0

If you choose to have kids and get married without working on your career, that's your fault. Not when you're married, its both people's choice. That's what you simply don't comprehend. Marriage is about the unit, its not a single persons fault if the two of them decide together on a certain lifestyle. They both decided on the lifestyle, they both decided to live it. You are arguing that the husband somehow was not aware, or chose not to live the lifestyle of having a stay at home wife. Wrong. H…
/r/MensRights11/03/17 07:25 PM
0

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/job Its a job. Its not a career, but its a job. If anyone's argument has failed its yours. Your resorting to straight up lies or distortions in order to avoid addressing the point here. Point being she took on a role and there was mutual expectations involved. Those expectations weren't met and that's an issue. An issue you are trying very very hard to avoid thinking about.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 09:38 AM
0

If I agree to do a job for someone, I expect payment. If they give half the payment and walk away something is clearly wrong.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 09:29 AM
0

They are owed nothing. Except this is not true, not in legal practice in many states nor logically. If I agree to do a job for someone, I expect payment. If they give half the payment and walk away something is clearly wrong.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 08:07 AM
1

The consequences should be to separate your things and go your own ways. And that's totally fine... if you leave before the person sacrifices their entire earning potential before that point. You can't just use the other person as a maid and for childcare then leave expecting to get off scott free. You nuts? This is common sense. And this is doubly true if you cheat or abuse the other person to the point where they have no choice but to divorce you, despite the investment into the family unit.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 08:04 AM
0

Remember, life is about choices. You pay for them. Exactly my point, the husband and wife chose to structure their family a certain way. You live according to the plan, and if you decide... naaah I don't want to anymore. Well you have to pay the consequences. And so does she. Even with alimony, her career has gone to shit. She lost a lot of earning potential over the course of those years. Both suffer.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 03:10 AM
0

Oh, what makes them false? Both situations are laws in order to protect individuals from being misled or taken advantage of, what makes them different? Why should people be protected against con-artists but not protected from husbands who could be "con-artists"? Point is, people go into it expecting something, don't get it, then are fucked for years because of it. Financial dependency was already established during marriage, an extension of that for a bit longer is nothing you wouldnt have expec…
/r/MensRights11/03/17 02:17 AM
1

but it shouldn't be in play Uh huh, and other laws that protect consumers shouldn't be in play either. Its their fault if they buy a bad product right? False advertising should be allowed too, its not their fault if the consumer doesn't research. And its the wife's fault if she chooses a husband who ends up bad. Why should they not get a refund for their payment to the family (sacrifice of career). You should really keep in mind by the way, if this wasn't clear, everything I say applies vice ver…
/r/MensRights10/03/17 03:54 PM
0

Haha "divorce that wasn't her fault". That's funny. Why is that funny? This happens just as often as it being her fault. Difference is, when its her fault he's usually financially stable enough that its not a big deal. But woo boy would people complain if men had chosen to be the family spouse in that kind of situation. as once you're out of the relationship, you should go your own way. Sure. If you are in a relationship. But you are in a marriage, dummy. Its totally different. This is why I kep…
/r/MensRights10/03/17 03:38 PM
0

Yes, it was. You feel it was deserving No, I felt it was deserving in some cases. I challenge you to find me saying that all women deserve alimony. Ive never said that in my life. and men shouldn't pay for the woman's choices. "Men" don't, the husband doe. This is an important distinction to make, not a trivial one. Payment only in certain circumstances where the women is cheated out of earnings by a divorce that wasn't her fault. You have laws protecting child labor, you have laws protecting di…
/r/MensRights10/03/17 03:33 PM
0

Your assertion is that the woman should be paid alimony. No, that wasn't my assertion. /facepalm Seriously dude, you need to fucking pay attention. Or write more clearly. One of the two. I said there are some cases where its warranted. I never said I agreed with all the cases, I said numerous times it needs to be decided fairly by the judged, case by case basis. since it was the (woman's) choice. I keep explaining this to you, and you even admitted that its both the husband and wife's choice to …
/r/MensRights10/03/17 02:53 PM
0

In any case, you understand my point. No, I really don't. What is your point here? The husband has just as much of a choice when it comes having a child and you keep arguing its not true. You're wrong.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 06:54 AM
0

We've already established, and this is common sense as well, that pregnancy/giving birth is decided by the woman, since it's her body. Pregnancy isn't decided just by the woman lol. It takes two to tango, she cant just magically get pregnant. You have no idea how relationships work, people talk to each other and decide on these things together. Im starting to doubt you've ever been in one. You have no basic concept or idea of how communication between partners work.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 06:15 AM
0

Do you think this is like, the 1950's or 40's or something? Erm, no. Erm, yes. He does actually have a say. Its called talking with your life partner and pushing for her to keep her job. If you so strongly disprove you can get a divorce. If your lifestyle choices for the family or marital life are that different you just split up, its that simple. If you let her do it then that means you are completely willing to have her devote her life to the family, and you to devote your financials to the fa…
/r/MensRights10/03/17 06:08 AM
7

Im unconvinced the majority of self described feminists are okay with her actions. I mean, she was literally mentally ill. Seems unlikely.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 06:06 AM
0

Men can't get pregnant, so no, you're wrong. You're dense. The husband has a say in whether they have a child. The husband has a say whether she quits her job. Again, you are naive if you think otherewise. Which you do very poorly. Uh huh, I'm pretty sure saying that the majority of women get married for money is sexist. You have no facts to back up your absurd claim, just bigoted world views.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 05:52 AM
0

Just like getting pregnant and deciding to not work on your career are choices that the woman makes. Yep, and these are also choices the husband makes. You are naive if you think the husband doesn't have a say. Are you female or something? Nope, just call em as I see em. Good luck being in any sort of successful relationship with the attitude you got there. No one is gonna put up with you for very long.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 05:45 AM
1

You're ignoring all the substantial parts of my post, buddy. You aren't only inexperienced and ignorant when it comes to marriage, but you are also completely unwilling to think outside of your bubble. Apparently sexist as well, judging by your attitude in regards to the reasons why women get married. No wonder you're single honestly.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 02:30 AM
0

That was a decision that she made... Irrelevant whether someone else agrees with her decision. Sigh. No, that's not how it works. I will try to make this as clear as possible for you since you are having so much trouble understanding this concept. It wasn't her decision alone, it was a decision made by two people. She made the decision and the husband made the decision. Here's an example of a decision that involves two people since you seem completely unable to comprehend the concept. You need t…
/r/MensRights09/03/17 03:19 PM
0

So when a woman decides she wants to say home and raise babies, it's never her decision to have kids and stay home? I never said that it wasn't her decision, I said it was a joint decision. Do you know what a joint decision is? Listen to what you're saying, before you type Oh Im listening. Maybe you should try understanding.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 07:55 AM
0

We shouldn't pay for THEIR DECISIONS... REPLY TO THAT BITCH! I have replied... numerous times. Its not "their" decision, its a joint decision, its family decision. You are inexperienced so you aren't able to understand that. When you are in a long term relationship you talk about these things. Haven't you heard the phrase, or a variant of it, to be of one flesh? In your mind you think of them as two individuals who are perhaps close friends... that's incorrect. Its more than that, every decision…
/r/MensRights09/03/17 07:11 AM
0

Much of the time, women go in for the money and security. LOL. Are you single? Give me a number, how much of the time is "much of the time". This should be hilarious, we are really getting to the crux of the issue here. You just think women are in it for the money eh? Don't think people get married for love, expecting to be together for life? You are out of touch with the majority of the population, inexperienced. I've went over this already. No you didn't. You keep ignoring the vast majority of…
/r/MensRights09/03/17 06:13 AM
1

given the fact that half of marriages end in divorce, and most of them fail You keep ignoring the fact that almost everyone goes into marriage thinking it will be successful. That's why they do it in the first place. You go into it expecting it to be successful, you plan around it being successful, one person either husband or wife stays home to raise the family, and if the other person ruins it without any fault of your own... well tough shit? No no. That's clearly not a fair situation. Like I …
/r/MensRights09/03/17 05:57 AM
0

What do you mean its not deserving to be mentioned? Most people who get married think they married the love of their life and they will grow old together. This is a completely valid point, you have to consider the mindset of the people who are involved in these situations not statistics. People aren't robots. Gonna chalk this one up as lack of experience again.
/r/MensRights09/03/17 01:38 AM
0

Since almost most marriages fail, then no, that's not true. I said "in theory" you dipshit, can you not read? Im sorry man, but you really need to fuckin read and pay attention to what Im saying. I didn't say "in practice". Marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment, this is how people look at it going in. And then you totally skipped over the most important parts of my comment. How about addressing the actual point instead of quoting things line by line, cherrypicking what you want to tal…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 03:02 PM
1

The services were already rendered. Arguable. When you're married you are in theory supposed to be with the person for life. That's the whole idea behind it. If the person does something to make it not work, then they have not rendered their services in full (which is where the compensation comes in). You go into it expecting to take care of the family as your job, while not having to worry about career and finances. Then its thrown in your face and your investment (the family unit) is taken awa…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 06:30 AM
1

However, in reality it pretty much is. Yeah, mostly because its so rare for men to be stay at home dads. There should be no alimony - at all, in any way. That's your opinion. I think as long as its done fairly, its a very good thing. Your finances were already tied together during marriage, giving them a buffer so they aren't cut off immediately, especially when they gave up their career for the family, is perfectly reasonable in my eyes.
/r/MensRights08/03/17 12:55 AM
0

Not anymore, now that women can have careers and education the same as a man. If a man stays home and sacrifices his career then the same rules apply. This isn't about the "ability" to have education or career; this isn't a female only concept. We are still behind on the practicing part, its rare for men to get any sort of compensation in the case where he's the stay home parent. But that's aside the point, the point is that there is a reason why the things are the way they are... its because wh…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 12:47 AM
1

Planning for them involves NOT NEGLECTING YOUR OWN LIFE as well! This is another thing you just don't get. Raising your kids isn't about neglecting your own life, people sacrifice their career to start a new "job" raising a child and keeping up the household. Its about raising the child in the best environment they can. This is a life change not a life downgrade, they aren't neglecting their life at all. Maybe independence, sure. They gave up some of that, but you sign up for it as soon as you g…
/r/MensRights07/03/17 03:21 PM
0

"Make it one" This brilliantly summarizes your naivety. Not everyone is in your shoes. Some people simply are unable to become financially well off nor have the intellect to do the things you suggest. Your solution is a resounding "be better, be smarter, make better choices." A hell of a lot of good that does anyone, some kid online who has no experience raising kids, no experience with marriage, no experience with divorce, acting like he knows it all. You are taking your own experiences and usi…
/r/MensRights07/03/17 05:30 AM
0

I'll wait to see if you educate me. I already explained this to you, you just don't have the experience to comprehend the issue at hand. This isn't a matter of "teaching", its about life experience which you clearly don't have. Or have day care, and only take paternity/maternity leave. Or plan your career better so you can work from home. Or have savings to last until you work again. Or go to school while you're home until it's time to work. This list can go on and on! It's called PLANNING. And …
/r/MensRights07/03/17 04:38 AM
0

No, one person doesn't NEED to stay home at all. And this is exactly why you don't know what you are talking about. You just have no clue. Sure, maybe if you're wealthy enough (most arent) you could hire a nanny... but that isn't exactly the best environment for the kid. Many parents don't want that, they have a kid in order to actually raise it. Im not gonna argue with you about this, you just aren't experienced enough to know what Im referring to. This isn't an "ad hom", you just don't know. B…
/r/MensRights07/03/17 04:12 AM
1

That's like telling a person they don't know how to raise kids unless they've had a kid. No. Its like saying they don't know the full extent of what is "entailed" when it comes to child rearing, which is 100% true. Ask anyone with children, you don't really get it until you go through with it no matter how much you try to prepare. It boils down to the fact you don't know what you're talking about. You have an image of what marriage and raising a family is, but its inaccurate, you have no idea wh…
/r/MensRights06/03/17 03:42 PM
0

I don't need to "raise a family" to know what's entailed with it. Says everyone who hasn't raised a family... until they raise a family.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 02:39 PM
4

Probably because you haven't raised a family before. Or at least, its incredibly unlikely you have.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 05:46 AM
19

No, he's saying you don't know what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 05:28 AM
2

But unless the guy goes to get snipped still under the impression that his wife is pregnant, it's not fraud. Fair enough.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 11:40 PM
1

Well yeah, sure. That's implied. Its fraud or coercion when its carried out.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 11:13 PM
3

I mean yeah sure, it has nothing to do with men's RIGHTS. But its still something men experience on rare occasion so I guess its worth discussing for some people. Imagine if a guy wanted a girl to get on birth control pills. Then he came up with some lie about a condom being broken during sex and not noticing, then mentioning later that she might be pregnant. Kind of a hard sell I know, but that would be fucked up. Similar situation. Its manipulating the person to try to get what you want.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 09:10 PM
1

I'd probably be annoyed even if it was within 2 minutes. Its childish.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 09:03 PM
1

I believe you can have it undone, don't think its permanent. Could be wrong though, never really looked into it.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 09:01 PM
1

...or fraud.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 09:00 PM
1

True. Though good luck finding a woman who wants to start a family without getting married. Even if they arent religious, most will want the added stability that comes along with the paper work so the family is less likely to split up.
/r/MensRights29/01/17 01:46 AM
1

Some people hide it well. That's not really a valid sentiment. Ehhhh, I dunno man. There's almost always red flags that pop up, especially when it comes to college kids. He probably just missed them, and I cant blame him. Its easy to overlook things, especially when you're younger. That's why vast majority of people shouldn't marry young, when you're older you notice more.
/r/MensRights29/01/17 12:26 AM
6

Honestly at that point I'd rather just be fucking lied to. She basically ruined his life, it would be very difficult to marry and have kids at that age. I rather be ignorant and happy. But really, this is why you have to know the person you marry. He should have been aware he was marrying a cunt, Im certain there were plenty of signs.
/r/MensRights28/01/17 06:20 PM
3

Yeah, because the government is like "sorry im not gonna give you free money because Im really oppressive and bad!" They actually send each individual woman this letter to let them know how evil they are for not giving out free money.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:46 AM
3

You've stopped responding to my arguments Your points weren't relevant to my original post. if the government pulls funding for something they are exercising their authority and power by doing so. Now you are addressing the central point, took you a while but you finally got there. You are arguing that cutting funding, or not providing funding, is an unjust or cruel exercise of power... I really don't want to argue with you about this but I will say this, traditionally this sort of government ac…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 11:29 PM
3

Did you read the definition of oppression? Its literally right there, I've shown you are wrong. There is no "cruel exercise of authority or power." You could say its irresponsible of the government not to fund clinics that provide abortions... but its not an exercise of authority or power at all. You are just flat out wrong.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 10:44 PM
4

Ok. But its still not oppression.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 10:39 PM
4

No, it is not the same at all. One is being forced upon the public by the government, the other is a result of economics. One is oppression committed by the government, one is a lack of self sustaining health infrastructure. Its an issue, its a problem, but its not oppression if the government isn't funding clinics. Read the definition of the word.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 10:07 PM
5

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oppression I'm sorry, you are wrong. Not coughing up the cash for abortion clinics is not a "cruel exercise of authority or power". Making it illegal to do so and putting people in jail when they do? Now that is cruel. That is oppression.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 10:01 PM
6

Oh come on, no one has the human right to cheap abortions. This isn't oppression, you are over exaggerating.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 09:55 PM
4

You said you shouldn't have to pay for other people's choices. No, this is what I said. One could argue its my "right" to not have to pay for other people's life choices, that it should be the person's own money that pays for their own choice... Now that said, I think abortion should be funded... Read my comments please. If something is legal, but difficult to get, you are still impinging on people's rights. What? That's not true at all. Imagine if the only place you could legally buy guns in th…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 09:20 PM
5

Did you even read my fucking comment? You're pissing me off, I said I support funding of planned parenthood. My point here is that stopping funding isn't oppression. Everyone still has the right to get an abortion, its not illegal to do so. Its just more costly and difficult to have it done.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 08:34 PM
6

...what are you talking about? Who said anything about rape? Are you talking about my comment on life choices? Its still a life choice whether you want to keep the child or not, regardless of how the pregnancy occurred. Sometimes they choose to keep the child, sometimes they don't. But regardless, that's very very off topic and accounts for a very small portion of abortions.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 08:18 PM
7

One could argue its my "right" to not have to pay for other people's life choices, that it should be the person's own money that pays for their own choice. So the government comes along and reduces or removes funding. The public no longer pay for it... but the facilities are still allowed to perform their operations. The right to have the operation done isn't removed, its just that they no longer have the means to give cheap abortions. Its now a costly procedure and it is more difficult to find …
/r/MensRights26/01/17 07:42 PM
7

That isn't oppression, that's inconvenience. It would be oppression if it was outlawed by the government. Doesn't have to be oppression for it to be a good cause though, you can still advocate it with protests.
/r/MensRights26/01/17 07:28 PM
1

Weird.
/r/MensRights14/01/17 03:32 AM
3

Often it's wiser to go for the less serious crime that is easier to prove. There is also the fact that we're reading about what happened from a single news source, and news source often do a mediocre at best, misrepresent at worse, job of conveying all the facts. Fair points.
/r/MensRights27/12/16 10:15 PM
3

But it could have easily killed him; she had to have been aware that running into an older person with a car and then beating them could kill them, right?
/r/MensRights27/12/16 09:51 PM
5

I do agree that there are assumptions being made here, perhaps she is just talking about attitudes; treating people respectfully, etc. But the initial post talks about rights so Im inclined to think this is a discussion about policy not moral philosophy.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 07:55 PM
6

Ends != Means They may want the same outcome (people being safe), but if someone defines safe through emotions and feelings then it can result in a very different situation. They aren't equivalent. I get what you are saying, and its a subtle difference. I can understand thinking its semantics. But I still think its an important distinction to make.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 07:26 PM
10

Hes talking about rights and shes talking about society, heavy implication that policy and law is involved.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 07:05 PM
18

No, there's a big difference between catering to people's feelings and catering to reality. For example, white people felt safe when blacks weren't in their restaurants despite there being no real threat to their safety when they were around... it was just feelings. You can't write law based on feelings and emotion, they are too inconsistent and subjective. When you have people writing laws that are based on subjective emotional thoughts then its the start of fascism.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 06:47 PM
2

Its like something from a dystopian novel, for sure.
/r/MensRights14/12/16 12:54 AM
1

I never said it was okay, in fact, I explicitly said Im not defending or arguing what the laws should be. Im just saying that to some cultures and governments its both legal and acceptable... which means it wouldn't be rape in those scenarios. My point here is that you could argue there exists cases where its consensual and not automatically rape, assuming the laws and culture view it a certain way. (But this isn't one of those cases clearly and its obviously rape. I don't know why that guy said…
/r/MensRights13/12/16 09:40 PM
19

When people talk about earnings its strictly monetary with no regards to the work or source of income. A wage is the amount you get paid for a job, so it implies there's a gap in wages for the same jobs.
/r/MensRights11/12/16 10:41 PM
11

14 was legal age consent in Hawaii until 2001 believe it or not, after which it was changed to 16. Rape is defined by laws, there are a few European countries that have consent at 14 if I recall correctly. Im not defending or arguing what the laws should be, just thought I'd point it out... what's taboo in one place might be tolerable elsewhere.
/r/MensRights08/12/16 09:14 PM
4

Using only online data collection makes it bad data, you are isolating your sample to a specific demographic. Any study like that I take with a grain of salt. Doesn't matter if it wasn't posted on some website, its still going to cause bias.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 12:10 AM
6

Honestly, try not to make it into a bigger deal than it is. Say no thanks and move on like an adult, its just a question! It doesn't have to be a big ordeal. If they continue to pressure you, then you have every right to be upset... but I think the situations where they are persistent are fairly uncommon. Some people genuinely like it when they are complimented or asked out. Its not meant to be an insult or embarrassing, so don't take it that way. Should men just never do it even though some peo…
/r/MensRights28/11/16 08:22 PM
3

This is about a girl who was raped by her father, the mother being thrown in jail for neglect, and the rape victim being unable to abort. Governments have autonomy, obviously, but this is about the events that occurred. No one here thinks the situation is favorable, correct?
/r/MensRights21/10/16 04:30 PM
5

You think its acceptable for a step father to rape his young daughter? Bullshit.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 03:47 PM
11

Is this intended to bait people? No one here is going to act like this is acceptable, so if that was indeed your intention you're wasting your time.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 03:19 PM
3

I wouldn't say its normal, its just easy to find shit like this online. THey are still a super minority, its just the videos go viral.
/r/MensRights13/10/16 08:02 PM
1

Horrible headline.
/r/MensRights09/10/16 08:58 AM
1

they had sex, regardless of all consent non-consent bullshit... i should not have been downvoted for that Oh yeah I agree with that. I kinda jumped in down the chain of comments. I don't see any issues with the headline really, I was just commenting on what consent should mean in context of the article. i'm not bound by any law in how to discuss the 'fucking' issue. Sure... but if you start saying things out of context people will be confused and not understand why you said them. If you just fla…
/r/MensRights18/09/16 08:00 PM
1

i'd rather make it about the real case, like what actually happened, and what is actually right or wrong. lol. That isn't what I said. I asked if we can agree that this is in fact a court case. (It is). i think moral context is always relevant. Sure morals are relevant, I didn't say they werent, but the context of what is occurring is also relevant... aka the court case and the use of United States law. Since this is in fact being tried in court means that you can't just ignore legal definitions…
/r/MensRights18/09/16 07:03 AM
8

Im not saying the child didn't give approval, that's not the point. The fact remains, no matter how you look at it, that this is a court case. We can both agree about this correct? And According to the written law of the land, the child cannot give consent. You can argue that the law is wrong and talk about how the requirements for consent should be changed, but the definition is still the same until the law itself changes. Its all about the context of the discussion, not what you think the defi…
/r/MensRights17/09/16 09:47 PM
17

No, it shouldn't be. This isn't an article about a hypothetical situation in a philosophy class. This is about a legal case so based on the context the legal definition of the word should be used.
/r/MensRights17/09/16 08:17 PM
1

Yeah lol. That's what makes it so damn funny.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 04:09 AM
2

Lmfao. "Explain." "No." "Okay bye!"
/r/MensRights10/09/16 07:26 PM
2

...That's a false analogy, which is a fallacy. No one is saying you shouldn't make decisions for your kids, no shit you have to make decisions for them. They are little children, if they did what they want they would spend all your money buying toys and candy. This is about medical facts and what is ultimately a cosmetic procedure on a persons genitals; they should choose what to do when they are older because of the facts of the procedure.
/r/MensRights28/08/16 07:38 PM
2

lmfao, what?
/r/MensRights28/08/16 07:16 PM
16

Weird thing to be "happy" about... but alright. You're entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else; which is exactly why everyone else should have the chance to form an opinion on the matter rather than having it forced on them.
/r/MensRights28/08/16 11:47 AM
25

The presentation gets people's attention, Im sure its changed people's minds. A boring presentation wouldn't have nearly the same effect. I wouldn't want to do it personally, but I'm glad they do it.
/r/MensRights28/08/16 11:45 AM
1

Im asking for the specific study in question that shows that there are more (or equal) number of female rapists. Instead you give me a youtube video that has a link to a forum post that has over two dozen links. Send me the source to your claim, Im not going to read dozens of studies because you wont be specific. Im not going to spend all day on account of you, if you know where the source is fucking link it or stop wasting my time...
/r/MensRights26/08/16 09:16 PM
1

Link to the study? Seems unlikely that its exactly 50/50, I'm fairly confident that it would lean male.
/r/MensRights26/08/16 03:00 AM
3

Yeah I kinda figured as much, but people might take it the wrong way. Definitely not trying to downplay the problem men have, just want people to be rational about it. If its not accurate it will just piss off the female demographic who feel strongly about the topic, which leads to more conflict.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 08:53 PM
1

for every male pedophile there is a female pedophile, for every male rapist there is a female rapist Not necessarily true... I have doubts its accurate. Maybe true for the pedophilia because there are many female teachers, however Im not so sure about the rape one.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 08:42 PM
19

Local police != government. Its not like they have unlimited funds.
/r/MensRights18/08/16 08:23 AM
3

2 years? This has been a growing issue for quite a while. When I joined about 7 years ago (I had an account before this one) reddit was a totally different place. It was the replacement for Digg and it was very promising..... then it got popular. And Digg is completely different now that I look. I don't even recognize it, crazy. Just a history lesson, this is the old digg: https://groups.drupal.org/files/2_digg_front_page_drupal_6_release_wed_13_feb_1844_uruguay_time.png This is the new Digg: ht…
/r/MensRights06/08/16 09:09 PM
0

You do realize the alternative is letting an immature child decide, right? I mean we are talking about kids who are extremely susceptible to falling into cliques and fads; all around they are just not mature enough for life altering decisions. You can't possibly be suggesting that children should make such huge decisions like that despite their parents judgement?
/r/MensRights24/07/16 08:22 PM
1

The most unjust thing we can do is blame men in any way for what is basically female privilege. Yeah, I definitely don't blame men for anything as a group. I do think people should be held accountable for their actions obviously, but blanket statements are bad. There are trends, and you can learn things from trends, but that's about it. My main point was that there is not necessarily sexism being committed by police just because the statistic is high for men getting shot. There are other factors…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 09:15 PM
1

Are you sure that testosterone doesn't influence mood? To me that's like saying a woman's period doesn't effect their mood, it obviously does its part of biology... But biology also isn't my strong suit. Maybe I'm wrong about it, I'll look into it. Btw I do agree with you about hardship. I also think that culture has a bit to do with it as well. Im just not convinced that biology doesn't play a role, especially considering evolutionary speaking we needed to be more aggressive and physically stro…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 08:25 PM
1

In any case it's reinforced on both sides. Yeah, true. Though I'm not so sure about women and men being exactly equal in terms of acting violently. And I definitely don't think women are more likely to be violent. Men have more testosterone which biologically is shown to cause aggression, that added to the fact men are conditioned in a different way then women that can potentially lead to physical violence. Women tend to be more stealthy when it comes to their aggressive behavior rather than out…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 07:09 PM
1

Chicken or the egg? What are you suggesting, what is the chicken and what is the egg? Im just saying men commit more violent crimes and are physically more intimidating. This isn't necessarily a case of sexism committed by officers, this is just circumstance. Men are in these situations more often so they die more often, I'm not offering an explanation for why they are in these situations more often though. That's a different matter entirely.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 08:26 AM
2

Kind of a stupid thing to say. There's a lot of reasons why men get shot at more than woman and its not just because of sexism. Males commit more crimes, they are usually more of a physical threat, etc.
/r/MensRights12/07/16 07:09 AM
1

I can't tell if this is mocking SJWs or white males. Im conflicted.
/r/MensRights11/07/16 02:43 AM
1

1.4% is probably close if not in the margin of error... so yeah
/r/MensRights29/06/16 09:47 PM
2

Sentences do vary based on how the offender behaves, if the judge believes the person is remorseful they will get a lighter sentence compared to a person who gives zero fucks or if the person thinks they are in the right. I wasn't there so I don't really want to comment strongly either way, but it does seem like a case of bias against the man. Usually seems to happen that way.
/r/MensRights25/06/16 11:41 PM
1

How about you actually post the university, class, and professor so they can get properly criticized over the net?
/r/MensRights25/06/16 05:28 AM
18

Even if it was rape, there's a point where its no longer self defense and it becomes an emotionally driven attack. It clearly got to that point. And if there's no proof she was assaulted and raped then she's kinda screwed. If there's no evidence the guy did anything wrong in the scenario, there is no case against him. For her however, there is clearly evidence of attempted murder.
/r/MensRights23/06/16 08:22 AM
1

I kind of agree to an extent, but it also depends on the scenario and relationship itself. Sure, its totally legal to have sex with people at that age in other countries... hell, in some places its legal at a younger age than 17. But the student-teacher relationship is a tricky one, and whether or not its "rape" depends a lot on the maturity of the teenager and the events that occurred prior to having sex. I don't think it was rape in the traditional sense, assuming theres no violence or blackma…
/r/MensRights19/06/16 04:01 AM
1

Hue hue hue nice bait dude 10/10
/r/MensRights18/06/16 02:45 AM
1

Okay, this particular case was for teenagers. But what the poster was saying applies to all age groups, not just this particular case. It really doesn't matter what age group I select as an example, the point still remains the same. Its not okay to record girls like that. Is it technically legal in many states? Yes. Is it okay? Is it acceptable? No, clearly not.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 11:30 PM
0

What? I honestly don't understand what you are implying. Would you prefer me use the word prepubescent?
/r/MensRights17/06/16 11:10 PM
-1

Lmfaoooo, right? I feel like this guy used multiple accounts, how could people read that and think that it was worth downvoting. Doesn't make sense.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 10:19 PM
-11

When did I ever define "ok"? The person said, "Just because it isn't illegal, doesn't mean its okay for you to do" and you replied with "Actually, yes it does." You just defined an action as being okay to do as long as its not illegal.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 09:31 PM
-17

By your definition of "okay" then it is okay to be a total dick to your waitress, its okay to be a total dick to customer service, its okay to be rude to your Mom, etc etc etc. All these things are totally okay! ...No, it is no "okay" to film little girls in public. Its legal, but its not okay.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 09:15 PM
6

Please go viral. This needs to be used as an example of all the sexist bullshit people have been pulling against men on the internet.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 05:01 AM
1

There's no real basis for the movie NOT using women. I have no issues with it personally, especially if its well done. The issue for many wasn't that "Ghostbusters can't be girls", it was the concern that hollywood using an all female cast would turn the franchise into something its not. People didn't want Ghostbusters to be a chick flick and its not an unreasonable concern. Think of all the movies with all female casts turning into a "girl power" movies... there are a lot. Honestly, the whole g…
/r/MensRights11/06/16 08:16 AM
3

Why did he get banned, he was just joking about opposing #KillAllWhitePeople and #KillAllMen. Its jokes all the way down, you can't ban him for this.
/r/MensRights09/06/16 07:31 PM
10

I think its different for parents. Most young adults and teens just don't understand parenting, you have to deal with naked kids all the time. Its not a big deal.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 07:36 PM
1

"I didn't do anything wrong besides get physical" Lmfao. Yeah and the get physical part is the part that's illegal. It's not just a minor aside note, its the issue. Its not illegal to be an asshole, its very illegal to assault someone.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 10:11 PM
3

Oh. Its kinda confusing because of the whole male tears bullshit, mixed messages.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 01:59 AM
8

The article didn't seem bad, I don't understand why they put that image up there. They admit its a legitimate issue in the article...? So why are they pushing buttons.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:29 PM
1

What the fuck? This legitimately pisses me off, I have family whos used and the thought that they would be denied just because of having a dick really upsets me.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 05:53 PM
3

Dude, it doesn't matter if you weren't arrested. You can sue them for damages. DO IT. I would in a heartbeat. Not only will you benefit, you will also scare them straight so it doesn't happen again to another person. Get a good lawyer and you could make bank potentially.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 01:51 AM
2

Ah, didn't know there was a legal term for it to be honest.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 05:36 PM
–

Its like in basketball, you can't jump in front of a player when they drive to the basket otherwise its a blocking foul. He was trying to move forward and she moves forward to stop him unfairly. He has every right to lightly push her aside.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 06:32 AM
17

Not really. People pay to watch the ball game not watch some fuckin dipshit run around harassing the players.
/r/MensRights03/03/16 08:56 AM
3

If there wasn't any evidence of coercion I'm not sure why he would be arrested. Its really strange though, because you don't want to arrest the woman for underage sex in the event it was rape... but without evidence this kind of fucks up the entire process of arresting people for underage sex. They could always make the claim it was rape, without evidence, and get away scott free. Very strange situation honestly. I don't want to say arrest the woman, but I don't want to let her get away with fuc…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 06:38 PM
2

It is not possible to be both literate yet unable to recognize the sexist flaws in this post I never said there wasn't sexism in the post. Can't you read? There's no point in talking to someone who lacks basic reading comprehension. Later.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 05:21 PM
1

Ignorance is not the same thing as ill-will. You are wrong.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 05:16 AM
0

A person can have good intentions despite doing the wrong thing... you are over reacting, it doesn't say "kill all men" or anything. I didn't say the message is a good one, I said there was good nature behind it. The person meant no ill will. That is all. You are reading too much into me, much how inflammatory feminists behave.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 07:52 PM
0

Its worded in a good natured way, I wouldn't care personally. But it is still a little odd to be told something like this.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 03:10 AM
1

I won't defend him for a minute as I don't know him If the living wont defend the dead then who will? You aren't going to defend a man who got murdered? Clearly he doesn't deserve this.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 06:46 PM
1

Well, I dunno about the nerf gun but you definitely cant accidentally pull the trigger of a real gun. The force required is way too high. She may not "remember" it, but she definitely purposely did it and it needs to be treated as a murder.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 01:45 AM
10

You dont "accidentally" fire a gun, its not a nerfgun.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 01:24 AM
1

Depends on what they are doing and how everyone feels about it. Not much you can really do except split off the group.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 09:31 PM
1

Breaking Bad wasn't a dark comedy... yes there were comedic moments but those moments weren't dark comedy imo. They were just funny moments. I get dark comedy, but that picture is NOT dark comedy. They are laughing at the children in a manner that is saying, "hey enjoy it kid!" Its really just ignorance, there's not much else to it.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 07:28 PM
1

You just stated that you can't so of course you don't laugh No, I said that I have thought teachers were attractive. I just havent ever crushed on them. Breaking Bad wasnt a fucking comedy... if anything there was a moral to it, cooking meth is bad. Its not funny at all. I can "understand" why people find it funny, I suppose, but they are being stupid and have a bad sense of humor. I mean I hate to sound like an asshole but its fucking true.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 07:09 PM
2

I'm not offended, its just not funny. I never had a "crush", but its not like I didn't find some teachers attractive. So why does that attraction make statutory rape funny? I don't get it. The funny part is that kids have crushes on teachers and imagine having sex with them? Its just not a clever or funny thing, poor taste in humor honestly.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 06:25 PM
2

I would agree except its not really a joke and its definitely not funny. If you had kids you would probably understand. I mean really, can you explain why its funny? What's the punchline, kids going through puberty want to have sex and sometimes they fantasize about doing it with teachers? I don't get it.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 04:07 PM
-1

I mean they don't deal with them in a confrontational manner like policemen. Its obvious that policemen are much more likely to get harmed by a criminal, that's not a point you should be arguing against.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 12:52 AM
-2

Firemen and paramedics don't deal with criminals frequently, if they get murdered then its almost always irrelevant to the fact they are a fireman or paramedic. On the other hand, if a cop is murdered then the vast vast majority of times its going to be because the person is a cop. That's why it does make sense. The police's job is to keep the peace and uphold the law, which can easily involve saving a person or preventing a crime that hurts someone... which is why I said saving.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 12:10 AM
3

It makes plenty of sense, you are reading too much into it. It has nothing to do with them being a "different class of person". Its because they are responsible for saving the lives of others, they spend a huge chunk of their lives serving the public. You kill a person whos job it is to save other peoples lives you are not only killing the cop but you are also harming all the people the cop would have helped in the future. Its also to further deter people from harming cops, because when cops are…
/r/MensRights13/12/15 08:45 PM
2

Depends on location too, if you go to a liberal college in a more rural area you are a lot less likely to find the same kind of feminists in a "hip" urban city that has a strong liberal college.
/r/MensRights13/12/15 01:46 AM
3

Go to a liberal arts college you'll see crazy chicks like this, they do exist outside tumblr if you look in the right places.
/r/MensRights13/12/15 01:26 AM
3

The government doesnt define the act, the actions define the act. The government simply pieces together an idea of what actions occurred based on evidence they can gather and then determine the consequences based on what they can perceive. This doesn't mean what they determined is absolute truth and the consequences are absolutely just. This is common sense. The kind of mindset you have is literally dangerous because it assumes that the government is always correct. For the purpose of statistics…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 07:21 AM
2

An unlawful act can be committed without a person being convicted in a courtroom. To put it another way, the official declaration of murder or rape in a courtroom or by police is not the end all be all. These acts can still occur, the police, judges, jury, and the government do not define the act itself. The action defines the action. A murder can occur without a trial and conviction. A rape can occur without a trial and conviction. This isn't about innocence until proven guilty. No one is being…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 06:58 AM
2

Do I need to repeat myself again? The legal definition is not the only definition, I even gave you the fuckin link to the dictionary and you are still arguing? It takes some real brainwashing to argue with the dictionary.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 06:45 AM
1

...And you have the best scrolling skills. Again, the legal definition isn't the only definition. Rape can occur without a conviction, this isn't an opinion. Its a fact. If you got raped and the person didn't get sent to jail it doesn't change the fact the person raped you.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 05:40 AM
-1

absent a conviction, there are no actual rapes committed Not true. Look at a dictionary, rape is not defined that way. You can be raped without a conviction taking place.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 03:29 AM
-3

Everything else is hogwash and guesswork at best. That's not true at all, statistics is a mathematical science. You shouldn't disregard studies as "hogwash" and "guesswork" just because you don't understand the math behind it. Common sense dictates that there are rapes that go unreported, so numbers that do not include those are obviously going to be on the low side. But that said, I think a lot of these studies are conducted by people with biases or conducted with a poor sample population that …
/r/MensRights10/12/15 02:29 AM
-1

Its surprisingly difficult to find the number of people convicted annually. I couldn't find it. But anyway, I wouldnt say convictions is the number to be concerned about. It's a number to be concerned about, there are others as well that should be taken into account. We should all know that convictions arent perfect and they aren't 100% reflective of the behavior of the population. It will be low side, so it shouldn't be treated as the exact number of rapes in the country.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 02:14 AM
3

That's right folks, approximately 0.02% of people in the US are raped every year. Just to clarify, these are the confirmed cases. Its the minimum number, the real number is higher (though obviously not nearly as high as they say, they are probably using the "max" number which is equally as misleading)
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:27 PM
0

It brings up a valid point, why arent we culling men?
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:23 PM
1

lmfao what? It cant be serious.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 03:22 AM
1

That's not true. I had my mind set on raping as many women as possible... until that fateful day when they made me pledge not to rape women in front of the entire school. It changed my life for the better.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 12:47 AM
2

I've said the same exact thing for quite a while now. For all this talk about women striving for independence and equality and child birth being a woman's choice, you never hear them say anything about taking responsibility for the choice. I understand I have no real say whether a woman decides to keep a child or not. But if I say I will pay for the abortion, or part of the abortion, and she says no shes going to have the child anyway... that means I'm done. I presented what I think should be do…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 12:05 AM
4

Its not, but it can be a hint that there could be some kind of inequality going on.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 07:03 PM
4

Can't tell if he actually did have an affair and that triggered the psycho or if shes just super psycho without any instigation. Either way, totally inappropriate of her.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 12:42 AM
0

Get away with what? Be more specific. Get away with cheating before their wedding? Get away with grouping strippers? Because men often get away with those very same things.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 06:53 PM
-5

Okay. Both men and female have wild parties, this shouldn't be surprising. Anecdotal evidence for it happening more often for females or males doesn't mean jack shit. The article is good in the sense that it shows that women are just like men, they will have crazy parties, but don't take it too far. The point to be taken is that there are people who cheat on both sides, its dumb to act like its just men (or women).
/r/MensRights09/08/15 09:28 PM
1

Well, its for softcore porn right? Its not for all porn. Given, I do think its silly because kids nowadays just look it up online. They dont fuckin buy softcore porn mags in this day in age.
/r/MensRights03/08/15 11:03 PM
2

Is this really an issue though? This is the modern age, if you aren't aware that photoshop happens we can probably chalk that one up as ignorance. Both men and women get photoshopped, I'm sure there are plenty of men who get photoshopped to have larger dicks. And men in porn are typically chosen based on dick size/shape. Do I care? No. No, I don't care. At all. I don't think any of this is an issue. Certain aesthetics are more appealing, this is a fact. If you have a problem with that, cry me a …
/r/MensRights03/08/15 07:52 AM
1

For fucks sake, men sit around and listen to women's problems all the fucking time. Does that mean we should get paid? Serious question. I want to hear her answer. Women aren't the only ones who listen to the problems of others. Fucking idiotic that she's implying it.
/r/MensRights24/07/15 01:02 AM
1

Uh... ok. No comment.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 07:19 PM
2

Even in those situations, professor would have mentioned it. This teacher probably didn't.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 06:42 PM
1

If you say so buddy.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 12:39 AM
1

And you base this on....? Common sense? I'm not going to argue this with you.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 11:13 PM
0

There's a difference in allowing for competetion (what class can sell the most chocolate bars, which kid can get the most AR points) and saying Bobby is a winner good job, amd Mikey is a loser, step up your game little boy. Obviously, does this even need to be said? I never said competition is bad. Read.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 09:05 PM
0

Why not? Um, because they are kids and they need to have some actual skills by the time they mature so they aren't fucking homeless? Are you seriously asking that question? Teaching them that losers don't succeed thus discouraging the kids from learning isn't going to give them the proper skills to succeed in life. Kids aren't the same as adults, you can't just shove logic and reality into their faces and expect them to succeed. That's not how it works. They need to be eased into the real world,…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 09:03 PM
0

I'm referring to this mentality: "There are winners and there are losers. The winner worked to get there. The losers now know they need to work even harder." You should not be exposing kids to that because it will deter them from learning. Some kids don't come from good homes, they don't want to feel that kind of pressure at school, it will just cause them to act out for attention. That's all I'm saying.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 08:21 PM
0

I don't know if you are sarcastic or not, but it is. Discouraging kids from trying in school is a bad thing to do, you shouldn't have kids giving up at such a young age.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 07:00 PM
1

If they asked me straight up if Santa is real then I would tell them he isn't. Santa is a cultural game you play along with, if the kids want to think its real then I give them that right. If they start to suspect the story isn't real, I tell them the truth. I'm not gonna baby them and tell them whats real and what isn't, they should figure it out themselves.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 06:59 PM
6

You can work hard and still be a "loser" compared to others. Not giving them a gold star means that despite working hard, they will not succeed. Kinda makes you lose motivation, doesnt it? Kids don't need to be thrown into the harsh reality of winners and losers quite yet. They are kids. They should be motivated to try hard and enjoy life, regardless if they are in the top half of the class or not.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 06:35 AM
-1

Fights, drama, crying For teenagers who will be almost guaranteed to break up, these things are facts when they have sex. I'm not being overly negative, I'm stating the truth. This will happen. And if a 16 year old hooks up with a 35 year old its only going to make it worse, mostly with bullying. Financial concerns is a very valid argument. They can't even support themselves, much less a child. So why on earth should we be allowing them to have sex with adults? I'm not going to sit here and expl…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 06:15 PM
0

No, its literally a skill. Its assumed that when they take the driving test they are capable drivers. They've passed. Sex is not so simple. I've explained why its not elsewhere so I won't repeat myself.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 05:56 PM
0

That's why you are taught to drive. The equivalent to being taught to drive for sex is having life experiences. Learning people's intentions, obtaining financial security in the event sex goes wrong, etc. The fact you think sex is a simple task with two rules is an over simplification of what it is. Just look at kids who end up having sex and break up in high school. Seriously. Look back, remember what happened. Fights, drama, crying. You might say its the same thing for adults, but its much mor…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 05:54 PM
-4

Driving takes more mental faculties? Do you know what you are saying? Do you even know what mental faculties are? I challenge you to define mental faculties. Your "opinion" is wrong, driving is a skill you learn. Sex is a complex social act, they are totally different in nature. It takes maturity to properly consent in a responsible manner, and maturity takes time to develop. You brain needs to develop. You need to develop as a person within society, financially to be specific. As a 16 year old …
/r/MensRights29/04/15 09:09 AM
-7

Yes, if it was consensual. lol. they are no longer children or adolescents at this age by any means Do you know any 16 year olds? Lmfao. You're obviously not a parent. Every 16 year old I've ever met has been a child. Perhaps a child who thinks they are an adult, but still a child. Maybe you are being fooled by the children? You should pay closer attention. Being able to drive and being able to put alcohol down your gullet doesnt make you an adult or have an adults sense of responsibility for yo…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:23 AM
3

Doesn't matter what you think, its the law. Teachers who are over thirty shouldnt be fucking students half their age, even if the child can "give consent"
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:22 AM
1

Well yeah, you'd be delusional to think there aren't dipshits who associate with Men's rights just like with feminism. People just don't think, especially when they get into the whole group bandwagon mindset.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 12:24 AM
2

The biggest issue here is the response to her letter. The guys didn't "use" her any more than she used them. They had sex. Unless shes leaving out some details, this is her fault and she should take responsibility. Yes, women tend to have to be more careful than men for this exact reason. But the reason women need to be more careful is biological it isn't social. Saying the female was used is just passing the bunk.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 05:02 PM
4

Well, how much did Hulk Hogan get in their non-liquid assets...?
/r/MensRights10/04/15 04:25 AM
1

Well, capitalism usually implies that everything is about money and efficiency. Considering shes trying to push some twisted form of "equality" I'd say its less capitalism and more like... I don't even know. I want to say communism but thats totally inaccurate. Its definitely not capitalism in the traditional sense, its some strange neo-liberal form. Plus the word "corporate" already implies capitalism, don't really need to emphasize it further.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 01:31 AM
9

I think I'll call this Corporate Darwinism.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 06:05 PM
4

Impolite, yes. Wrong, not necessarily.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 06:59 PM
1

Why would one cosider all locations? Um, because he didn't give a specific location? Duh? Obviously in some places a guy might not get arrested, and in other places he would. That's aside the point. The point is that this happens in some places and we are discussing it; then you come in saying it never happens. That's not true. You are only considering your own world with your own laws, assuming other places are the same way. You were literally doing what you criticized the other person of doing…
/r/MensRights05/03/15 06:01 PM
1

Um no? Um yes? That's exactly what you were doing. You said that if the genders were reversed nothing would happen. That's not necessarily true for all locations, but you were assuming it was... doing exactly what you were criticizing someone else of doing.
/r/MensRights05/03/15 05:29 PM
2

if the genders were reversed nothing would happen You were the one assuming other places have the same laws and reactions first... Perhaps in some places, if the genders were reversed, something would happen. Should those people just shut up and take it because it doesn't happen in insaneHoshi's hometown?
/r/MensRights05/03/15 07:48 AM
4

Ah, my bad it sounded like you were implying it.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 10:16 PM
15

Which is arguably a bad thing, you can't really use what other countries do as an argument for us. Other countries have committed genocide, doesn't mean much when arguing laws.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 09:50 PM
-14

The ugly truth is that these days, a teen can become sexually active as early as 12 - 13, willingly ...And? They are just barely hitting puberty at that age. That doesn't mean they should be having sex, or that the laws should be changed. That's not even an argument.
/r/MensRights21/02/15 06:51 AM
1

I'm not disagreeing with you, those guys are almost definitely scumbags. But I do think that these strange unique situations can occur based off of some peoples sexual behavior. That's really all I'm trying to get at. And then what happens? At that point we are dictating to the public, hey that kind of sexual activity is deviant and you can't do it. So what exactly would the law be? Would it be that drunken sex is illegal? Is there a clause that consent can be given beforehand? If there is a cla…
/r/MensRights15/02/15 06:50 AM
0

No reading minds involved if she gave consent beforehand... and like I said, we don't really know if she did or not. She herself wasn't even sure, which means she believes she could have been into it. Its hard to say. But lets just say the girl gave consent before going full black out. Is the following rape equivalent to something like date rape drug? What if the guy who got consent beforehand legitimately thought it was okay? What if the girl wanted to do it, even if she was passed out? I do th…
/r/MensRights15/02/15 06:35 AM
1

Are you sure? That's whats questionable about the whole thing, what if it was what she wanted. That's what makes the whole thing so complicated. I do think its rape, but Im just saying its a very blurry thing. Is this just as bad as other forms of rape? What if it was intentional and she wanted to get black out drunk and have sex. It'd be impossible to know. I know these are all hypotheticals but these are hypothetical that should be considered when creating a law. Because you gotta realize, as …
/r/MensRights15/02/15 05:40 AM
0

If she's unconscious, it's rape. I don't want to argue, but that isn't strictly true. There are legitimate fetishes that involve being unconscious and they are not necessarily rape just because of the fact they are unconscious.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 03:55 AM
2

If she's really unconscious, yes. Don't underestimate the fetishes some people are into. Now, I'm not saying she wanted this to happen... I'm just saying, how can a person tell if that's what she wants or not? If she indeed said she wanted to have sex, and continued to drink and hang around those men it could give the impression that's what she wanted. I'm kinda playing devils advocate here, I'm not saying she wants it or deserved it or anything like that... want to make my intentions clear, I'm…
/r/MensRights15/02/15 12:39 AM
4

Three 40 year olds banging a 23 year old who had 12 shots of vodka. Video footage of her being passed out. Is it rape? Well, it sounds like rape. But should it be considered the same thing as a more serious case of rape? There's a chance she did give consent initially and things got out of hand. Who knows? Its hard to say, there's apparently not much evidence of what happened beforehand. People shouldn't be getting that drunk out in the middle of the night alone if you don't want to wake up nake…
/r/MensRights14/02/15 09:33 PM
1

Have they? I wouldn't know, don't really pay for mine. That sucks. I usually hear about how the government provided one is cheap, its the first I've heard of insurance prices going up.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 06:07 PM
3

Well, I think there were laws passed to decrease the cost of insurance as well... so that 40 dollar pizza part isn't good for the analogy. Pizza would also have to cost less than usual for it to be a good analogy. Also its not all private, there's the government insurance as well.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 03:39 PM
5

Unlawful sex with a minor is the same thing as statutory rape, its just semantics. There's no difference between the two other than rape sounds more "serious". But I do think they should specify it was statutory rape in order to distinguish it from a more serious form of rape involving violence.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 07:14 AM
1

Lmfao what? What are they trying to say here, that the judicial system is biased against women? PFFFFT.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 12:10 AM
28

If someone can easily have their entire life ruined without any tangible proof simply because you claimed to have been raped by them, you have female privilege. I would say, "If you can have responsible, consensual sex without worrying about being accused of rape if the relationship turns sour you have female privilege."
/r/MensRights26/01/15 10:10 PM
4

A woman is held responsible if she gets in a fight while drunk, drives or commits any other actions. That's a good point.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 09:07 PM
1

You are in the minority I think. Most people add "high school friends" who they weren't really friends with. Then you end up with a bunch of morons posting crap, and people don't delete them. That's what I mean, like if theres someone on facebook like that you should just delete them. It really wasn't directed to people like you who use facebook for only close friends.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 10:25 PM
3

"I do think, in general, girls are socialized not to speak..." Hah, I wish!! Amirite fellas?! playful jab
/r/MensRights16/01/15 09:35 PM
1

Facebook friends and real friends are two very different things.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 09:31 PM
1

Why is it worrying to not be friends with people you don't like? I'm really not friends with people like that in the first place but if one did somehow sneak in I would distance myself and delete depending on how bad it is. If its only a minor issue I'd just hide all the facebook posts the person makes. If the person brought it up in real life all the time and was a general asshat... yeah bye. I don't have the time or patience for that.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 09:11 PM
2

I do, for the most part. Anyone who posts stupid shit gets deleted and I don't associate with them. I have no problem doing that.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 08:37 AM
19

Wow, they must have some crazy genetics.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 08:18 PM
1

I had to look it up because I didn't know what you were talking about. Apparently he paid her some amount for something, but she didn't get half of his earnings like she would have if she was his wife.
/r/MensRights02/01/15 06:44 AM
1

Okay? She didn't get half of his earning... because they weren't married. My point still stands.
/r/MensRights02/01/15 04:47 AM
1

why should any of the earnings from that career be consider as part of the marriage. Because like I said, that's what marriage is. You are bound together as a single entity. If you don't like it then why the hell are you getting married, you clearly dont want to make "whats mine is yours and what yours is mine". You should just be in a normal relationship if you don't want to take that step... and if you really can't take that step and want to get married anyway get a prenup. If it doesn't make …
/r/MensRights01/01/15 09:30 PM
4

That's... horrible. Very strange.
/r/MensRights01/01/15 01:43 AM
20

Because that's what marriage is. You are considered a legal couple, income is split, and they are considered one person... to an extent. That's why marriage is serious and people shouldn't fucking joke around about it like children. If people don't like how it works they really shouldn't get married, its not like its a requirement in a long term relationship. If they can't deal with the serious responsibilities of marriage it means they don't trust your partner enough, and if they can't even tru…
/r/MensRights31/12/14 08:46 PM
1

Yeah, but the article didn't talk about her marriage. It talked about her standing up for abortion rights... and is that so horrible? I wouldn't call it a "feminist fiasco".
/r/MensRights22/12/14 08:35 PM
1

The biggest issue I have is this: The cost of disbelieving women, on the other hand, is far steeper. It signals that that women don’t matter and that they are disposable Okay now, what? How does saying, we will keep this under-wraps and investigate before taking action "signal" anything to the woman? Refusing to jump the gun doesn't trivialize the woman's case at all, no ones saying there shouldn't be an investigation of some sort (Though honestly, if the woman doesn't immediately get a rape tes…
/r/MensRights07/12/14 08:09 AM
2

leave women alone Yeah, alright. Lets just all live in little bubbles where we can't see or hear other people. Get a grip lady, for fucks sake.
/r/MensRights30/11/14 10:25 AM
3

That would make a good movie.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 05:21 AM
3

Wow, that picture is dumb as hell.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 11:36 PM
1

Eh, I guess that's true.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 07:46 PM
1

No, I was referring to any rapist... But anyway, a registry would mean the rapist would have the address of the person. There's no registry for blind, deaf, or dumb people. It may seem a bit farfetched, but I just dont think its really worth having a registry for something like that. I also don't really see the purpose of it either.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 07:15 AM
0

No, it should only be kept on their personal record not on a public registry. It may sound dark, but I could see some rapists actually picking out people who have made false accusations in order to make their case better in the event something goes wrong.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 06:39 AM
7

Oh that's good to hear. Im glad he didn't get accused of rape, we must be making progress.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 09:19 PM
3

Hey, at least you recognize what happened and can see the issue. That's a good thing and a step in the right direction.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 02:48 AM
3

I think most men don't care, but that doesn't mean its not an extremely sketchy thing to do.
/r/MensRights13/08/14 08:56 PM
26

Persecution complex? Its pretty obvious what the picture means.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 09:24 AM
0

I don't know the details of the story, so I'm assuming what was said was accurate in regards to the age and legal age of consent. How do you know so many details? Statutory rape is not rape-rape You are being extremely pedantic and I have to wonder why?
/r/MensRights08/08/14 03:19 PM
1

Yes it does deserve more attention. An adult penetrating a minor is more serious than an adult being naked in front of a minor, therefore, the girl gets more attention. Its not rocket science and it has nothing to do with being "sexist."
/r/MensRights07/08/14 09:35 PM
-1

Probably because their parents didn't ask to go on Doctor Phil... I'm also doubtful that they were as drunk as she was, but its hard to say for sure because I don't know the details of the case. Its also much different for boys to have sex with girls their own age... the girl had sex with someone much older. That's the focus, the age difference and how drunk the kids were. If the adult male had anal sex with the boys there would probably be attention there as well. Now, I'm not saying underage b…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 07:39 PM
-5

Thank you, not the only one here who finds this discussion ridiculous. I can't believe no one is infuriated by the adult who got a 16 year old black out wasted, had a gangbang with her, and took video footage of it. No, lets get mad at the day time television doctor for being brutally honest with the girl instead... Come on people.
/r/MensRights07/08/14 04:11 PM
-9

Aside from what the other guy said about there being no mention of how drunk the men were, from the sound of it she was completely blacked out wasted. Not only that, but she was filmed without her consent, and had sex with an adult (who likely initiated the whole thing). Why is what Dr Phil said infuriating? Only thing infuriating about this is that an adult got a 16 year old black out drunk and had a gangbang with her. She did get taken advantage of, you kidding me? I'm surprised so many people…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 04:08 PM
0

Well according to the law, it is rape so there's nothing inaccurate about that. I don't really have time to watch this, but if she was filmed without her knowledge like she said then I would agree she was a victim... and you gotta realize, she was young and stupid and didn't even consider a lot of the consequences. If she were older and more mature its more likely she could have handled the situation better, this is why there are age restrictions on consensual sex. In a lot of ways she was a vic…
/r/MensRights07/08/14 04:00 PM
2

If making sandwiches every once in a while is the kind of oppression you have to worry about then I think you're pretty well off...
/r/MensRights30/07/14 09:18 PM
2

Yeah, that's the stupidest part of the video. Its distracting. They just want to increase the drama of the event. Its likely this isn't the first time that woman has thrown a temper tantrum, hopefully she learns from it. If you attack someone you better get ready because people don't just sit there and take it unless they are saints.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 01:13 AM
6

Its not a bias, its simple logic. Why the fuck would I be biased about a fucking picture of an ape. If a stranger says, "oh I think its like this." And another stranger in a different conversation says, "oh I have experience with this, its like this." Guess what? It only makes sense to put the one who claims to have experience over the one who doesn't claim to have experience. Whether or not the people are lying is completely irrelevant. If anything you are the one whos biased for trusting someo…
/r/MensRights22/07/14 08:17 PM
6

I already know about those things and I can't tell the difference because I don't have a lot of experience with apes and the angle of the picture isn't very good. If that person has experience then I'm going to trust his opinion over some other random opinion.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 08:07 PM
10

And? OP wanted the person in the picture to be wrong. I'm simply saying, this person says they worked with primates. That's more of a reason to believe him over OP. Anyone can lie on the internet, but if I have to believe anyone Im going to believe the one who claims to have experience.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 08:05 PM
15

And someone saying "after comparing the pictures I think OP's is male" is more reliable? There's no reason for this person to lie about working with primates, I think I'm going to go with that one. No shit there's not any proof, but that doesn't mean that it isn't more likely that the person is right.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 06:45 PM
15

I think that person is a bit more qualified because of the work experience with primates... But honestly who even cares. Whats the point of this...
/r/MensRights22/07/14 09:04 AM
2

I think hes just an idiot.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 08:59 AM
-1

This isn't new, people have been misusing statistics for their own agendas for quite a while. Shouldn't be too surprising.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 11:58 PM
8

Thats why people in general need to stop with the ironic, satirical shit. People really can't tell whats real and whats not anymore because they act so serious when they do it. They may be trying to be funny but some people out there take it seriously because they don't know any better. I used to be extremely sarcastic and all that shit, especially online, but now I really try not to because I realized.... people actually take it seriously sometimes and it causes bad ideology to spread.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 07:35 AM
2

Possibly trespassing, but its hard to say. The park might not be public, and if the owners have those rules then that means if you are there you are trespassing. Don't really know enough about the situation to say, though.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 08:16 PM
1

I just meant whoever uses it to promote gun agendas, probably should have said gun activists rather than gun rights.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 07:23 AM
12

Fuck the people using it to promote their own agenda. Be it feminists, gun rights activists, whoever. This is about mental health and respecting people as a whole. What happened is a tragedy for everyone involved, its not about fuckin tumblr wars.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 04:09 AM
1

Honestly you'd be surprised, you haven't seen vids of creeps doing that? Its definitely a thing. But Im pretty sure the sign doesn't do shit to prevent it from happening, so its a bit silly to have it plastered on the walls.
/r/MensRights18/05/14 12:33 AM
1

Good, I don't want to sit next to your kids either.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 09:06 PM
1

Ok, I don't think I'd go quite that far... but there definitely is a certain risk to getting trashed, especially after being told that a girl you have had previous sexual encounters with wants to hook up with you.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 08:17 AM
0

Glad you understand what I mean. Its horrible what happened, but its still something we have to learn from. I would say the same thing to a female in the same situation.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 08:12 AM
4

Of course its a crime, it goes without saying. But its also a lesson. I've had bad things happen to me, they still teach me things about the world. I'm not victim blaming and Im not defending the girl. Don't read too much into what I'm saying, you'll see things that aren't there.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 08:02 AM
0

This is why getting trashed is never a good idea. Lets consider this a lesson, yes?
/r/MensRights27/04/14 07:28 AM
3

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to attempt to have sex with kids too. It definitely is illegal. But the OP was stating that there are no kids involved so therefore there is no attempt to have sex with a child. There is only an attempt to have sex with a person who may or may not be a child. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be illegal, I just think its a bit questionable and Im not sure if it should carry the same kind of jail sentence as someone who actually tries to have sex with a child... f…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:33 PM
3

That doesn't make any sense, heroin is illegal to possess. As soon as he possesses it, hes breaking the law.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:08 PM
12

See, the issue isn't whether or not the kid gives the "ok"... the problem is that it is so easy to manipulate children into doing what you want. Should we let adults manipulate children into doing things? No. That's kinda fucked up, its hard to argue there isn't an issue there from an ethical/moral perspective.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:34 AM
1

I would literally say fuck you and go to 20 years in buttfuck camp. Im that stupid. Don't underestimate me.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:29 PM
12

man fuck that I dont care if I get more time if Im not guilty im not going to say Im guilty.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:48 AM
8

Not sure why its hard, you seem like quite the catch.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:46 PM
-2

You are fucking crazy.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 09:21 PM
2

Holy shit that's a lot of money.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 08:59 PM
1

Well I think that depends on the situation...
/r/MensRights17/02/14 09:24 PM
3

You can criticize all you want. I'm just saying that if you think he's actually going to do something other than talk you would probably be wrong.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 06:51 PM
17

Yeah that too, democratic party almost definitely worked with him on it. If people say, wow the democrats care about women, then that means mission accomplished.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 08:59 AM
58

what exactly does he want to do about it? Nothing. Its politics, come on. Hasn't everyone realized by now that its 95% talk? He's just trying to stay relevant and make people (women in particular for this instance) happy.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 07:58 AM
5

Are you dense? Your analogy is completely unrelated. If you want the analogy to be consistent with what happened, then you would have joined in and assaulted the person but not murdered them. In which case, you would be considered an accomplice and receive heavy jailtime. She wasn't just "watching", she was participating.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 01:08 AM
1

Well, the label that gets applied has to do with intentions and preconceived notions.. but I do get your point. Its situational and sometimes a person isn't sexist for calling a woman stupid, etc.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 06:52 PM
4

Wouldn't surprise me. Being to jail doesnt necessarily mean for long periods of time, it could just be a night in jail which happens to many younger adults and teenagers.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 07:02 AM
1

Nah, I think I have so many inhibitions that the alcohol doesn't know what to do with them.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 08:36 PM
3

Alcohol just makes it harder for me to concentrate and speak and walk...
/r/MensRights10/12/13 06:50 AM
1

similar crimes having two different sentencing outcomes is not a problem at all I think it really depends, you don't want sentences to differing greatly. In this case, I think it is differing too much and justice isn't really being served like it should be. We simply can't trust these judges not to over abuse the power they have, I mean look at the racial profiling. Same thing happens with different sexes. When we allow large difference in punishments "justice" is skewed to whatever the judges s…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 11:55 PM
11

considers the effect sentencing will have on the perpetrators That's true, but when discrepancy between sentences are large then there is a problem. Someone is either getting too harshly judged or someone is getting off easy, and in the case of the latter, justice isn't being served. If you are going by strictly the government's definition of justice then I guess the people in North Korea are living in a fair and just society too...
/r/MensRights07/10/13 07:37 PM
11

Its not real justice if other people commit the same crime and get harsher sentences.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 07:17 PM
1

Texts are probably the ones that would hold up best in court since there is hard evidence. If I kept asking my ex-girlfriend if she wanted to go out for drinks and have a good time, and she asked me to stop, and I continued to ask her every week... you bet she could make a case. She would get a restraining order and I could possibly get charged with sexual harassment. If you don't believe it, try it on an ex who isn't very friendly with you. This is one example where it could be considered sexua…
/r/MensRights05/10/13 12:58 AM
1

...Handshakes have nothing to do with sex though. Your analogy is fucking horrible. Its very common to go out and drink then meet up at the house afterwards for a one night stand. Serious dates typically arent "hey wanna go get a drink with me?" You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Not every instance is going to be sexual harassment, I don't know how many times I have to say it. If a guy asks a girl in a sexual tone to go out for drinks, especially if shes made it clear shes not interes…
/r/MensRights05/10/13 12:00 AM
1

sexual advances Asking someone out for a drink can be interpreted as a sexual advance, depending on the tone. Which is exactly what I'm talking about...
/r/MensRights04/10/13 11:28 PM
1

I disagree. Its sexual in nature, its unwanted, its upsetting, its literally harassment by definition... what else does it have to be in order to qualify as sexual harassment? Its not a severe case of sexual harassment but that doesn't change what it is. I'm not saying that every instance where a person asks someone out for drinks is sexual harassment, I'm saying there are instances where it is harassment. Just want to further clarify in case you or anyone else is confused by what I mean.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 07:55 PM
1

If you are asking someone you know doesn't like you. If you ask someone repeatedly. If you know the person doesn't want to go out with you. If you know the person is in a relationship. Etc, etc, etc.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 07:43 PM
-8

"hey, let's grab a drink Saturday night" I think that could be sexual harassment, it just depends on the context and tone. Whether its good or bad context would depend on setting and your personal relationship with the person
/r/MensRights04/10/13 02:49 AM
6

Oh, okay. Well I guess that's not a big deal then.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 08:46 PM
3

This person isn't a teen... we are talking about a 6 year old here. I wouldn't let my kid go through with it either.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 08:21 PM
3

...What? Its not disproved by science, you are more likely to have disorders because the bad genes continue to be passed down. If your parents have bad genes for say, increased likelihood for some type of cancer. Both the relatives may have the genes. The genes get more and more concentrated in the bloodline as they have offspring because you aren't exposed to different genetics. Mixed race children are healthier than "pure" bred partially because of this. Its definitely not a myth. Second cousi…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 07:58 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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