TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RubixCubeDonut Archive

View 0 posts and 1,338 comments by RubixCubeDonut 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)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,338 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

More than that, women and men have easily identifiable differences in the shapes of their pelvic bones (needed so that women can birth successfully) which causes men's legs to naturally spread a little when sitting. People who complain about men not keeping their legs together are literally hating men for their biology. Not just for what's between our legs but literally hating us because of how our hips are designed.
/r/MensRights20/01/20 12:50 AM
2

One of the tricky things about questions like that is they're kind of set up to identify what a correct answer should be. After all, there are a lot of people that will act as if a man hit by a woman deserves it but when asked directly they'll probably hesitate a bit. People are the "good guys" in the story of their own life that they're telling themselves so questions that blatantly ask "are you the baddie?" will give hesitance. Although that said if feminists are willing to call themselves the…
/r/MensRights19/01/20 08:12 PM
-1

Hmmm... although he gave a reason for reaching that conclusion that you conveniently glossed over. Do you know what I would call someone that disagrees with the conclusion without addressing the argument that lead to it? Actually, I'd probably call them lots of things but "nuts" is one of the tamer ones. Congratulations, you're only supporting the position you're arguing against with your shitty dismissive attitude.
/r/MensRights19/01/20 08:02 PM
10

Feminism is about equal rights of sexes/genders. At least that’s what it was supposed to be. Feminism has always been about presenting women's "problems" while deliberately ignoring, burying, or outright demonizing the experiences of men. It's only "equality" from the perspective of narcissistic sociopaths who want more more more more more for themselves and can't empathize with men. If you don't think definitions of feminism support this, I'll present you with the Oxford definition (Google clai…
/r/MensRights19/01/20 07:57 PM
1

I don’t understand why women are against paternity testing. It's pretty simple: women don't empathize with men. How these events affect us are imperceptible to them unless they are choosing to think about it (in which case they sympathize with men but they won't feel what men are feeling... which comes with its own set of problems). Best case you have a women who may be currently keeping her feelings in check to (usually temporarily) agree with men... average case women don't even bother thinkin…
/r/MGTOW13/01/20 12:08 AM
4

Did lighting too... Misread this as: ​ Did lightning too... I blame the post above for calling you "metal as fuck" and subconsciously setting high expectations, hah.
/r/MGTOW09/01/20 05:40 AM
5

Plot twist: she was the one that actually left it up, she forgot and blamed you.
/r/MGTOW07/01/20 05:00 AM
2

You won't find a shred of true intellectual honestly within feminism If feminism didn't have double standards then it wouldn't have any standards. :)
/r/MensRights02/01/20 01:52 AM
10

I mean, why would a man fantasize about her making six figures? It sounds good on paper to a certain degree but all that means is if she's still making that much then maybe you won't be as divorce raped... if she's still working when that happens. Before then it'll be the same story as always: the money she makes is hers and the money you make is also hers. Actually, that kind of raises a valuable question about what she's actually doing here: is she listing what she "brings/offers" or is she li…
/r/MGTOW01/01/20 09:44 PM
3

And it's a very insidious lie by its very nature because it's one she also tells herself. However, the truth of the matter is that women don't love men. Instead they latch on to some other emotion and call it love... usually the tingles. Sometimes the "security". But never your own well being... your value to her in that regard is your continued ability to provide whatever she currently feels is "love".
/r/MGTOW01/01/20 09:14 PM
3

I agree that the fundamental idea of age of consent is flawed especially because, as you pointed out, when it's unexperienced having sex with unexperienced they're probably even less likely to take proper precautions and, regarding my philosophical opinion on it, overall it's a fantasy ideal built upon a rotten societal core. However, as interesting a conversation as that is, my point is that even when we take the idealized concept then the government's own actions are completely hypocritical. (…
/r/MensRights01/01/20 04:13 AM
47

Even worse, the entire concept of age of consent is about the idea that while the underage may be completely physically and hormonally prepared for sex they are not considered to be mentally / socially / established enough to do so and thus people above the age are taking advantage of their combination of hormones and ill-preparedness and, most importantly, causing harm to them because of this. Note here that the vast majority of the harm is coming directly from the government itself. In other w…
/r/MensRights31/12/19 08:34 AM
4

telling everyone to accept everything at all times It's way more insidious than that. Remember, you're not supposed to accept the idea that women are way more privileged and that men would be better categorized as a slave class. For all of their lies about "equality" it's really all about embracing and expanding a hateful ideology.
/r/MGTOW25/12/19 05:12 AM
14

Body can only take so much friction/force. This line is kind of interesting. It's causing some side thoughts... I think normal PIV sex doesn't actually involve too much friction but there are a couple common (at least here in the states) things which seem like they would cause / increase it: ​ Circumcision (one of the functions of the foreskin is to create a rolling/unrolling layer of skin to greatly reduce friction) Condoms (although I am admittedly guessing since I've never actually used) ​ No…
/r/MGTOW24/12/19 10:00 AM
1

LOL no. Next you'll be telling me women in Saudi Arabia are oppressed by men. Given that the person you're responding to has already shown a considerable lack of critical thinking skills this statement probably went completely over their head and they most likely strutted away thinking they "won". There's probably better ways to challenge them... (even though stupidity of their level probably can't be cured.)
/r/MensRights22/12/19 08:54 AM
2

I must admit I'm a little morbidly curious to seek out the original post to see if there's any more content that would make this slightly less insane. Note that they don't actually list anything that demonstrates they're being used but rather that they're not being specially catered to. "Doctors only have a business relationship with us so we're being used!" It actually demonstrates the inherently toxic nature of the poster. The entitlement, the sociopathy, the narcissism... But, given the subre…
/r/MGTOW21/12/19 11:58 PM
4

Hahahahaha, yeah right, as if any woman is going to cook (or do anything else for you) nowadays. You never know... you might find one willing to do it early in the relationship then begrudgingly hold it against you for the end of time when the "love" hormones peter out.
/r/MGTOW21/12/19 09:22 PM
4

It would be like trying to make a reversed version of To Kill A Mockingbird. While girl accused of raping a black man in a 1930s small town and lawyer desperately trying to prove her innocence so she doesn't get judicially lynch mobbed. Completely ignores the reality of the lived experience of black men in those times and how the story is really about the horrors thrust upon them.
/r/MGTOW20/12/19 01:47 AM
3

I don’t understand why people find men being cynical about dating so abrasive when it’s such a simple thing to understand Oh, that's easy to answer: you need empathy for men to intuitively grasp this. Women don't have that. (Although you might have some that understand that they should and give a sympathetic response, but make no mistake their emotions aren't there.) From there, you have women who don't feel it and so justify it as not being real and then men, being empathetic, listening to the …
/r/MGTOW20/12/19 01:35 AM
2

Can't expect modern women to reach the status of Vietnamese POW camp.
/r/MGTOW14/12/19 10:16 PM
1

"The foetus is violating my body." And "When I consent to unprotected sex, I do not consent to a foetus to grow inside my body." This is like saying the potato chips violated her body because she consented to eating them but not for the calories to be absorbed.
/r/MensRights13/12/19 04:43 AM
2

Doubly so. There's the aspect that people here already are nodding about regarding the nature of women to follow their emotions and being unable to properly suppress them when shit really needs to get done... but the dwindling resources from not having men keeping the basics of civilization kept up and running will create an ever increasing amount of strife. Remember, to keep these laboratories working to make their artificial sperm they'll need working transportation (of themselves and supplies…
/r/MGTOW11/12/19 07:42 AM
4

I did just wonder if maybe the Festival Staff have a legal team/person involved telling them not to refund the money. Maybe could be used as evidence in court as admitting slander / libel. (Although I would suspect promise to repay would already constitute that to some degree, if it could be proved.)
/r/MensRights09/12/19 05:14 AM
4

The statistic has always seemed to have a correlation/causation confusion going on so it doesn't strike me as a particularly useful argument point.
/r/MGTOW08/12/19 06:14 PM
1

I got downvoted to hell for pointing out that the guy now is very likely in jail. No, you got down voted for saying he deserved it you deluded scumbag.
/r/MensRights28/11/19 07:45 AM
2

They don't. This is why you see so much projection of their own malicious intentions everywhere. A government full of men must obviously mean that men will only pass male-centric legislation. When a random man sees a random woman in public he's evaluating how to take advantage of (rape) her. When a man goes to work he's obviously spending the whole time goofing off instead of helping her with the house work. Unfortunately, us men also tend to project our romantic ideals onto women and that's why…
/r/MGTOW10/11/19 06:02 AM
1

Some get comfortable and complacent and don't have to try to hide it, the narcissism that shows simply isn't as horrible as the "obvious" kind. Their narcissism is plainly on the surface but requires people to realize how many normal everyday behaviors are narcissism. That's why AWALT. Because that complacency can go both directions and in both sides of that spectrum men are the ones working their fucking asses off thanklessly. "Unicorns" will just try to pretend they're working as hard or harde…
/r/MGTOW04/11/19 01:12 AM
7

Most likely the "we got into fights for silly reasons" in her story is actually her starting them for petty reasons but shifting the responsibility on to him.
/r/MGTOW02/11/19 08:18 PM
2

An interesting point I've heard made along those lines is that it wasn't black women being hung from trees. Can't guarantee the veracity of the claim but it does Jive with my limited experience. I suspect that most of the extreme forms of racism against blacks was incredibly disproportionately experienced by black men.
/r/MGTOW24/10/19 05:49 AM
1

I remember all of the mumblings about men only seeing women as baby factories. Guess I shouldn't be surprised that's yet more projection.
/r/MGTOW11/10/19 04:37 AM
3

I could already see the AITA top post: YTA. You're a married couple and it's your responsibility to be there for her, especially if you need to share a car. Most couples come up with carpool plans in advance when they have to share a car and when unexpected situations come up they just suck it up and do it. That you're not willing to do this for her means you're an undedicated husband and it's your fault the marriage is going to fail. You should probably see a counselor before you destroy your m…
/r/MGTOW04/10/19 12:52 AM
6

Going a step above that: sociopathy. They simply can't empathize with men and so project onto us, usually in the worst way possible. Best-case they contain it until their emotions reach a boiling point, more often men are simply vilified.
/r/MGTOW04/10/19 12:23 AM
2

and certainly is not in love with you To be fair, I'm not convinced anymore that any women ever really does love a man. They do get attached to men, of course, but I'm not sure it's anything even approaching love. That's why they can fall back so easily on "love but not in love" crap ; love is synonymous with the tingles for them and they try to supplement it with the feeling of comfort of being taken care of but even that eventually dulls away. It's really unfortunate because in the grand schem…
/r/MGTOW13/09/19 01:24 AM
1

I guess the words "for the same reason" are pretty meaningless to you, huh? Because the reasons I've heard as to why it was done are far less "boogey man" made-up bullshit like the crap you're peddling and more "daughters are not socially obligated to take care of their parents in their old age".
/r/MensRights10/09/19 05:06 AM
0

Their point is, historical "feminism" has always been a facade for misandry. All that has changed is that they've become far more brazen about it on a far massive level.
/r/MensRights02/09/19 02:54 AM
1

although FtM trannies sure as fuck notice reality when it's taken away. Maybe... I wouldn't be surprised if most of them blame their loss of female privilege on transphobia, instead.
/r/MGTOW20/08/19 05:15 AM
3

Not really surprising considering that their entire subreddit is filled with delusion.
/r/MGTOW20/08/19 05:10 AM
3

So... dad jokes. We call them that because dads tend to make them. Well, I think that general line of thinking shows a major way that dads are important to the development in children. In particular, it seems to be a way to cognitively challenge kids. Think of it sort of like a game where the dad is messing with your head but he wants you to be in on the joke. (If not now then eventually.) Also maybe similar to baby-talk and how it kind of gives guidance to babies on how to begin figuring out sp…
/r/MGTOW20/08/19 05:07 AM
1

If that's your view of life, then why not just buy hookers? Because men are romantics. They want it to be that one special person. A hooker... you could maybe be a repeat customer but they're going to be customers to others as well and maybe that hooker will move on. Ultimately, it will all be an obvious illusion. And that's the trick... marriage is also an illusion that it'll provide that, but everybody "knows" it'll actually give it to you if you try hard enough! If it failed it was your (the …
/r/MGTOW13/08/19 04:11 AM
3

I'm a Male, I have balls. While the evolutionary reasons may be related, the more poignant observation is actually that your hips are not anywhere near as wide as a woman's. To properly accommodate a newborn's head being able to pass through their pelvis it is in a distinctly different shape which makes it much easier for a woman to sit with her legs being parallel. The degree of bigotry of sociopathic pieces of human garbage like her is truly disgusting when you realize just how much of a degen…
/r/MensRights06/08/19 07:00 AM
1

Unfortunately... well, for women to realize that would require them to actually empathize with men. That's apparently pretty hard for them so they just stick with demonizing us. Oh well.
/r/MGTOW26/07/19 03:43 AM
1

Doesn't just apply to feminists, either. It's probably just a bit more pronounced since really feminism is just female entitlement dialed up to 11. When I was a teen, my dad once told me that the secret to a successful marriage was compromise. I realized, however, that he had always been the one compromising and never my mom. Now, you have to know that most people would think she's actually a pretty cool person and lately she seems to say little things that makes me wonder if she's more acceptin…
/r/MGTOW26/07/19 03:41 AM
4

i don’t understand how people even have a problem with MGTOW. That one is pretty simple, actually. See, when people have to lie to each other about reality to establish a narrative that they can attach to and feel good about, somebody who just so happens to exist that completely contradict that ideology is is destroying that completely fake "feel good" feeling. They take this very personally.
/r/MGTOW25/07/19 05:54 AM
5

Yeah, it was kind of a scary post. I could see the person posting this thinking that they have a lot of these things but it's all feminist ideological crap. Their thoughts on politics, society, and philosophy are all about how women were oppressed and men are privileged... their hobbies involve pulling fire alarms at MRA meet ups, and they're not interested in their own personal vanity because men should just like them no matter how fat they are. Or things along those lines.
/r/MGTOW24/07/19 05:38 AM
3

It's a very standard saying of feminists, but when the "human rights" they present all end up either not being rights or being rights that men don't have... well, that's just plain old women's superiority. The truth is that feminists comes up with sayings like these so they can pretend that their sexist bigotry is something positive for the world.
/r/MGTOW20/07/19 06:13 PM
2

It's even worse than that. In her own sociopathic worldview men are just emotionless brutes who only get a thrill from violence... it never enters her tiny fucking brain that men are attracted to roles which involve heroism, self-sacrifice, and accomplishing great things for society and the people around you. Of course, this is the same stuff that leads us down a path of disposability and bullshit white knightism, but doesn't change the fact that this bitch is too dumb and delusional to care wha…
/r/MGTOW19/07/19 05:15 AM
1

Usually it's only 7% that identify as feminist. How many are actually feminist is a question of ideology and that number is far higher than 7%.
/r/MensRights19/07/19 05:02 AM
1

It's an ideology based on the denial of reality. You can get very easy insight into the various fallacies they employ by looking at other reality-denying ideologies. "Scientific" Creationism and Intelligent Design being probably the easiest to find immediate comparisons.
/r/MensRights19/07/19 04:54 AM
1

Feminism really is only the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes It's actually a very apt description. "on the ground of" is another way of saying "this is how they justify it". Notice, however, that the definition doesn't require this justification to be true at all. It can be completely false but as long as the feminists are advocating for "more rights for women" because they believe that women are oppressed (even when they're complete loonies detached from reality…
/r/MensRights19/07/19 04:38 AM
1

You haven't really addressed the issue I was talking about. You list two extreme examples and then claim "it's easy to tell" when the issue I'm talking about is clearly going to be somewhere in-between and will have far more nuance. Honestly, that you couldn't recognize this and that you're arrogant enough to claim that it's "easy" to categorize suggests to me that you are exactly the kind of person that would exercise this sort of lopsided judgment. People are subject to our limitations which i…
/r/MGTOW18/07/19 05:53 AM
1

Talk is cheap. It's easy for anybody to say "abuse is abuse" and "he is allowed to defend himself" but in practice people still mix those two up. "He went overboard defending himself he is also an abuser she's in more danger" (even though if they had done the same action to another man... nada).
/r/MGTOW17/07/19 06:33 AM
3

Unfortunately, the cynic in me agrees but only in that most women wouldn't be dumb enough to admit it. Or, even worse, wouldn't feel less attracted to him because she was never really attracted to him in the first place.
/r/MensRights15/07/19 04:39 AM
1

Everyone should be for equal pay for equal work, but the data says that this is an issue that disproportionately impacts women. Can't help but notice that while everybody should be for that, you apparently don't care about the "for equal work" part of it. You have the audacity to quote the "pay gap" crap which very deliberately ignores different work (especially different jobs and different hours of work) and then tell us that you're doing our research for us? In actually you're an intellectuall…
/r/MensRights11/07/19 06:42 AM
3

the school is using the “preponderance of the evidence” standard when deciding whether or not to expel a student for alleged sexual assault Well... yes but no. They'll say they are but in actually they just assume he's guilty from the start.
/r/MGTOW10/07/19 12:00 AM
2

Note that she doesn't say that she "thinks"... she "feels".
/r/MGTOW07/07/19 06:50 AM
3

Simple formula for manufacturing true quotes: reverse the genders of what feminists are claiming. (Not necessarily what they are saying because their claims are something indirectly hidden in what they are saying, E.G. claiming men are predatory and always looking to exploit women, often said as "men need to be told not to rape women" or something along those lines.)
/r/MGTOW02/07/19 05:46 AM
1

To the privileged equality feels like oppression.
/r/MGTOW27/06/19 06:03 AM
8

We are talking about the same medical community that has had no problem continuing to cut off the most sensitive part of the penis without permission of the patient and without medical necessity.
/r/MGTOW25/06/19 10:38 PM
2

If I were to try to change your mind, it'd be by pointing out that while the outcome of feminist actions appears to be this, I don't think feminists are actually thinking this and at their core they're doing something that I'd say is much worse. Feminism ideology is basically a complete sociopathy of the male lived experience. In order to portray women as having had things worse they have to deliberately leave out how men were affected by the same thing, how men had different (objectively toughe…
/r/MensRights23/06/19 07:37 PM
5

Eh, some dictionary definitions of feminism describe the actual feminism just fine but people are stupid and only read what they want instead of what's actually there. Take the definition that Google provides: the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. Two important points here: Feminism advocates specifically for women's rights. "on the basis of" means "this is how they justify it. In other words, according to this definition, feminists believe that women need mor…
/r/MGTOW23/06/19 06:53 AM
4

In our minds we are the protagonist in the narrative of our lives. Most people want to see themselves be the good guy... she can only do that by lying to herself and others.
/r/MGTOW14/06/19 02:34 AM
11

Technically she already admitted to her pair bonding capability being damaged; she admitted that she "used to cheat". In fact, she admitted that it was "quite a lot". This is not a person who can pair bond. At some level she knows it, hence why she has to lie to herself about having "the potential to be a loyal and loving partner". She doesn't, though. This statement is completely self-delusion in the form of mindless assertion and with none of the markers of introspection in any way, shape, or …
/r/MGTOW14/06/19 02:31 AM
14

feminist women are presumptuous, volatile and hostile towards males. You forgot the one that really summarizes it all: completely lacking in any way, shape, or form of empathy for men and our lived experience. (Which is funny because they're supposedly pretty post-modern but in practice that really means prioritizing one lived experience over others.)
/r/MensRights11/06/19 05:30 AM
54

The hilarious thing about this is the unintentional honesty: She feels this way. She doesn't think this, she feels it.
/r/MGTOW08/06/19 04:58 PM
1

Ah, sounds similar to the 'ole canard about if the title of the news "report" is a question the answer is almost always "no".
/r/MGTOW07/06/19 04:19 AM
6

Let's be realistic... this is the worst-case scenario. We should pay more attention to the best-case scenario: she's the reason for the stroke.
/r/MGTOW01/06/19 09:59 PM
5

Bitches think they own us, then they complain that we objectify them. That's because the idea that men "objectify" women is actually projection.
/r/MGTOW01/06/19 09:52 PM
4

There's many important points in here. Thanks for sharing all of it. This is something for people reading this story to keep in mind: alcohol lowers inhibitions. When somebody "changes" because they drink alcohol it's not the alcohol creating a new personality, it's just lowering their inhibitions. They are showing their true selves. Your loved one gets drunk and starts yelling at you and throwing things at you? That's their real feelings. I'm sure it's incredibly hard to see while in the thick …
/r/MGTOW31/05/19 01:58 AM
1

Correction: all-natural gourmet frosting! Although I agree that "gourmet" is the more distasteful of the words, which says a lot considering I'd wonder what non-natural ingredients are supposedly going into frosting and where. But... gourmet... I kind of lost my appetite when she said it. I think I blame that one youtube channel that claims to make "gourmet" versions of stuff... It's possible I've only watched one, but they spent the absolute entirety of the video unable to even approach the tas…
/r/MGTOW30/05/19 11:54 PM
2

It's not a movie, it's a skit... a skit intentionally designed to show a common behavior that women do and poke fun at it by giving it a physical manifestation. Maybe if you weren't so stupid you'd realize that the point of posting that video wasn't about the nail.
/r/MGTOW30/05/19 11:41 PM
4

Women always treat men worse than they'd ever admit. They don't even see their own shitty behavior or double standards. It's too scary to think about so they simply don't. An incredibly common example can be summarized with It's Not About The Nail. Women like to play it off as if they simply communicate differently but that's not the case. In reality their goals are different. They want to appear vulnerable how dare you try to make the immediate world around you better by fixing things! That's n…
/r/MGTOW30/05/19 06:07 AM
3

to go to [...] college to further [their] education [...] (waste of money) Ah, so like the overwhelming majority of women's college education...
/r/MGTOW30/05/19 05:34 AM
3

Doesn't matter if she feels that ; she's the one that went back on her word (if it was ever true to begin with).
/r/MensRights28/05/19 07:07 AM
1

Just because somebody does horrible things doesn't mean that there are no nuggets of good hidden in there. For example, Adolf Hitler once made the profoundly wise choice to shoot Adolf Hitler.
/r/MensRights28/05/19 07:05 AM
1

They can, they do, they shouldn't.
/r/MGTOW28/05/19 06:46 AM
7

Circumcision began as a way to prevent masturbation and improve moral hygiene. It had nothing to do with physical hygiene. Yes, this seems to be a very common misconception that even anti-circumcision protestors appear to miss. The connotation that seems to have sparked the "uncleanliness" vernacular seems to have more in common with the religious designation of "unclean" than with hygienic practices.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 03:58 AM
5

Women are finicky and change like the wind Correction: women are non-committal and change like the wind.
/r/MGTOW25/05/19 10:18 PM
2

Ah yes, I think I even very explicitly saw that in... this one. I'm not sure if the voting has changed since I was last in there but there's a ton of white-knighting "YTA" in there deliberately misrepresenting what he says... and the first (and supposedly highest upvoted) "NTA" you run in to is a girl who experienced the same thing. Bunch of degenerates in there.
/r/MensRights23/05/19 05:29 AM
8

men are beasts If even that. Some (if not many) places have made the docking of tails and the cropping of ears illegal for dogs. Still no sign of any sort of protection for the male genitalia.
/r/MensRights23/05/19 05:12 AM
2

Men gained the right to vote by protesting as veterans, the same way women gained it. I don't think it's what you meant to say but it's still funny that it sounds that way anyways... women never protested as veterans. :) Of course, that's kind of the big point along the lines of what you're saying, isn't it? Governments/populations started realizing that they were expecting action from their male citizens and so began giving the vote to men because of these obligations. Likewise, most people (es…
/r/MensRights22/05/19 05:50 AM
12

Says a lot about how much of a piece of shit they are, of course. If feminists aren't listening to men, the people whose lived experiences they're literally comparing their own to, then their own evaluation of their lived experiences with worth shit all. It reveals they didn't intend to listen in the first place. They already knew their conclusions. Which, again, pretty much boils down to "feminism = misandry".
/r/MensRights21/05/19 03:53 AM
14

If it helps, it's a slit and not a split, but compare to "circumcision" which is an amputation of the foreskin. Steroidal cream > slit > amputation. (And it says a lot about the medical community that it continues to fully endorse literally the worst option for the condition.)
/r/MensRights21/05/19 03:52 AM
12

Hell, there are surgical options that are far less invasive. (Dorsal slit.)
/r/MensRights21/05/19 03:47 AM
2

She's just looking for an argument excuse to flex her misandry.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 03:42 AM
2

Or it was yours, was conceived via rape, the court acknowledges as... the "father" must still pay.
/r/MensRights21/05/19 03:35 AM
12

It's also interesting how they're pretty directly dismissing the idea that people who are staying around longer are doing more work. It's kind of reminiscent of a shitty boss who assumes you're doing less work if you show up four hours before them but leave an hour before they do. You know, the kind that can't imagine that you're doing work when they can't see you?
/r/MGTOW21/05/19 03:25 AM
-1

the majority of women aren't feminists The majority of women don't identify as feminists. Doesn't mean they aren't. It's an ideology, not a membership. The question is if they hold on to the underlying bigoted ideas... and even many MRAs do.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 08:31 PM
3

And most likely she was completely for it until it affected her son.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 08:27 PM
3

No, first the pieces of shit pushing other people down for doing the right thing need to be addressed. You can't reasonably expect people to try to do the right thing when they are punished more and more for it.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 08:25 PM
2

Well, I'm not sure what's worse that a complete fucking dumbass but you're certainly pining for it. After all, the entire point of this conversational exchange has been that the child support system is deliberately pushing the responsibility for conceived children disproportionately onto men... and you're admitting that it does... but somehow that means that it shouldn't be revamped? Since you're actually probably stupid enough to try to answer that question, here's a clue: don't. It was rhetori…
/r/MensRights19/05/19 08:02 PM
6

Nobody gets ahead if you just drag everyone down to give you company. Uh huh... and nobody wants to help everybody get ahead when they do and they're only pushed further down.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 07:45 PM
4

It's shitty to create a child and push the cost on to others because you want to be irresponsible dbag. That's what the "child" support system allows women to do to men you complete fucking dumbass.
/r/MensRights19/05/19 07:26 PM
6

They don't know what's being said, they don't care what's being said. The scary thing, though, is that they're projecting... so what does this tell you she's trying to do to men?
/r/MGTOW19/05/19 02:45 AM
6

All women are sociopaths wrt men; they do not feel the emotions of what men go through (they do not empathize with the male experience). At best they can sympathize which does shit all once her emotions kick in. This one just happens to also be narcissistic which greatly amplifies the omnipresent underlying sociopathy.
/r/MGTOW18/05/19 07:03 PM
3

An unseating would be the bare minimum they deserve.
/r/MensRights17/05/19 03:09 AM
1

it is not unreasonable to think that this was the intent all along. Well... I could say it's unreasonable insofar as they don't wake up thinking "bwahahahaha how can I destroy men today". Their disgusting beliefs seem to be more malicious negligence, a specific callous disregard for the well-being of people just because of their unchangeable biological heritage. Basically, sociopaths without the sense to hide their lack of basic human empathy. Humanity as a whole would be better off without thes…
/r/MensRights17/05/19 02:07 AM
3

Yes, I'm assuming she's projecting until I hear a good source other than her confirming some of her "facts".
/r/MGTOW16/05/19 05:32 AM
6

True. If women actually loved what men did then they'd actually appreciate men doing it. Instead they're completely entitled to it and men are more often than not taken for granted.
/r/MGTOW13/05/19 11:29 PM
2

It's very much along the lines of addiction. Some definitions I've heard went something like "continuing to do something to the point of it causing negative repercussions in regularly living your life". Same problem with being s slut ; the type and frequency of sex being sought after isn't sustainable on pretty much any level. (Psychological, physiological, etc. as this post points out.) Thus somebody calling it a "heathy sex life" is fundamentally stupid because while somewhere in there there's…
/r/MGTOW13/05/19 10:50 PM
3

Hey now, not all women! Didn't you know that some of them stop being narcissistic sociopaths once they pass away?
/r/MGTOW09/05/19 03:40 AM
5

It's also why more and more men are accepting the idea of sex dolls; they give just as much actual love as women but without the selfish demands. Women just can't compete with that.
/r/MGTOW09/05/19 03:38 AM
2

If you want to be loved get a dog. Even many cats will actually love you. Plenty of birds, too. For human love... you'd probably need to get a boyfriend. Kind of a non-answer if you're not gay/bi, of course, but that's reality. Just never make the mistake of thinking that a woman actually loves you. Maybe infatuated with you, sure, but only for now and not anything that's actually love.
/r/MGTOW09/05/19 03:31 AM
2

Both the left and the right fundamentally have the same problem: idolization of women. They just express them in different ways. The right wants men to continue our same sacrifice to women that we've always done... even though it is literally killing us and we are being taken advantage of for doing so. The left, however, thinks it's being "revolutionary" by making women more important. This has some notable implications that should be considered worse than what the right is doing: By being "revo…
/r/MGTOW09/05/19 03:20 AM
5

Yes. This is also very closely represented in the idea of Post Modernism... at least as it was explained by somebody who claimed to adhere to it philosophically. The basic idea presented is the emphasis on the subjective experiences of people not being allowed to be trumped by the objective. It's supposed to sound very empathetic.. but in reality it's actually insanely venomous and actually a pretty bad philosophy. See, the biggest problem is that by not valuing the objective what's actually goi…
/r/MGTOW09/05/19 01:22 AM
1

rather than do something about these lunatics It's important to note that feminists don't completely disagree with the "lunatics". Often they believe the same general thing but those "crazy" ones are just going "too far". Remember, if they believe that feminism is/was good then they believe that men do/did oppress women, and in order to believe that men do/did oppress women they have to have built up a narrative that deliberately sweeps the experience of men under the rug (erasing the hard work …
/r/MensRights07/05/19 05:07 AM
1

A very interesting point. To put it another way, with a tech job you almost always need to have tech infrastructure around you (jobs with other tech people, etc) and only in rare cases can you make do with remote working. This means most people working in well-paying tech jobs will end up crowding near each other. (Not necessarily in big companies, but small companies will tend to be have offices where they can find the employees to fill their tech positions which means they'll be more likely to…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 04:56 AM
1

Congratulations, the projection in your post here pretty much defines absolutely everything you've said in this topic. I've never seen somebody accidentally sum up so many of their own posts so succinctly before. Not sure if that makes you an extra clever troll or a completely brainless dumbass, though.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 04:41 AM
1

Yes, it's something I haven't had to mention in a while, but society outright demonizes male sexuality. (I believe some places make it illegal for a man to have a visible erection... not penis exposed, mind you, but pitched tent...) Remember that when a feminist tries to claim that society suppresses female sexuality. It's a part of the fundamental feminist toolset: If it's worse for men, deliberately ignore the male experience. If men experience it too, deliberately downplay the male experience…
/r/MGTOW07/05/19 01:18 AM
3

You: 100% fake. You would have heard about this in the news already if this were a legitimate policy enforced by a school's administration. Also you: I mean, not literally every single remotely culture wars-related event is going to make the news.
/r/MensRights05/05/19 09:02 PM
1

Yeah, I noticed that too. Lost even the resemblance of respect for that sub reddit and its degenerate community. Make up your mind morons. They did: women = good, men = bad.
/r/MGTOW01/05/19 11:07 PM
1

Agreed. If they keep their heads up their asses and don't actually address the cause of the problem then it's only fair for the symptom to actually get worse. I'm just saying it actually is a crisis, but the fault isn't on men for giving up on a losing proposition... it's on the pieces of shit that keep pushing for it.
/r/MGTOW01/05/19 11:05 PM
2

The white knighting was so bad that the first "NTA" you run into is a post from a girl whose boyfriend did the same thing to her. What a bunch of lowlife scumbags.
/r/MGTOW01/05/19 11:03 PM
14

To be fair, it is a crisis when men rebel against their roles ; we're the ones who actually get anything fucking done.
/r/MGTOW30/04/19 05:59 AM
1

No. Feminism is the assumption that women are oppressed. All feminist ideas come from a perspective of completely ignoring the male experience in order to support this basis. Therefore, the best you can get from somebody that expresses a feminist idea is that maybe men need a little bit but women need more. (Even when women objectively have more but lalalalalala they're not listening...)
/r/MGTOW30/04/19 05:55 AM
10

Honestly, as great as it is, it's kind of a weak response to her. Not that it's wrong for it to be weak (sometimes gotta be political) but if we wanted to get down to real business we have but one simple question to address: What the fuck does she think a "stable relationship" actually is? I'll give you a hint: one that "feels" stable. In other words, she's not really different from those other girls. She won't feel sexually validated... or financially stable... or some other regular bullshit th…
/r/MGTOW30/04/19 05:43 AM
3

It's especially ironic because we criticize women for being sociopaths who disregard the hard work of men and our well being. MGTOW is basically "if you can't respect me then I don't owe you nothing." We want to watch women fail because of their own dumb actions. Women? They simply hate us and want us killed. Nothing karmic, they just hate us. We are evil and must be exterminated. Of course, they're once again being dumb as shit because that raises the question of who is going to do this. Of cou…
/r/MGTOW28/04/19 06:23 AM
4

Unfortunately, it's not only women who see themselves this way. Many white knights do as well.
/r/MGTOW27/04/19 10:01 PM
4

Women have no empathy for men. Because of this the hard work we do doesn't create an empathetic response in them so they they just assume we're doing what they feel: nothing. Either they move forward with that feeling or they project themselves into it. That's why women are so often completely opposite wrong about reality. (I mean, this is the case for sociopaths in general, but women are in a unique position to experience sociopathy in one direction as an entire group.)
/r/MGTOW24/04/19 05:03 AM
9

Oh it's totally to be blamed on circumcision, especially on the medical culture around the procedure. Doctor gave very common and very stupid advice ; there are alternative solutions that work just as well without amputating part of the penis.
/r/MensRights18/04/19 04:14 AM
14

To help inform you, remember that circumcising the foreskin has multiple effects: Removal of a large part of (or majority of?) the most innervated part of the penis. Removal of the "lubrication" functionality caused by the foreskin rolling and unrolling during sex. Removal of the functionality to protect the glans. I think trimming / removing the clitoral hood might be like the third point and maybe there could also be a little bit of skin-on-skin action that is lost similar to the second but wa…
/r/MensRights18/04/19 04:00 AM
22

And yet here you are blatantly ignoring the opening image's super blatant sexism against men. I know you're too stupid to realize it but the imagine in a nutshell is saying: Men aren't allowed to have sexual preferences. Men aren't allowed to want a partner that puts effort into a relationship. If there was any non-bigoted approach to this in any way, shape, or form then it wouldn't have been so completely fucking one-sided in its demands. In reality this is coming from a bunch of entitled sexis…
/r/MGTOW18/04/19 03:29 AM
1

If the First Wave description were updated to "men's experiences don't matter" that might be a pretty accurate summation of feminism.
/r/MGTOW11/04/19 04:21 AM
5

The funniest part about this is the dumb bitch is so entitled that she can't even begin to conceive that deliberately pushing men like this will very definitely cause social violence. All the social comforts in the world will mean exactly jack and shit if men are afraid. Some will snap, others will organize.
/r/MGTOW02/04/19 03:09 AM
4

The simple explanation for why there's a meme that women are mysterious is actually fairly easily explained by observing that men empathize with women and are trying to understand them... but they run into a stumbling block because women don't empathize with men.
/r/MGTOW02/04/19 02:58 AM
5

She explicitly states this, too. Remember, he is "her rock". He's not her partner, he exists to give her solid footing to do whatever she wants. I was curious about the phrase "blended family": a family consisting of a couple and their children from this and all previous relationships. Hmmmmmmmmmm
/r/MGTOW02/04/19 02:49 AM
5

Always relevant: It's not about the nail
/r/MGTOW02/04/19 02:43 AM
38

Yes, it's projection. Always remember it's projection, especially when looking at the problems they invent. They're afraid when walking the streets because "men are always on the lookout for a woman to spoil". Men are thoughtless brutes always at the slave of their baser instincts. Men see women only as objects. Men are entitled to sex. Men abandon their families. This is how women see men... and again, it's all projection. Women are always looking for a man to take advantage of. Women let the t…
/r/MGTOW02/04/19 02:28 AM
7

Because the "power + prejudice" argument isn't intended to be logical, it's put forth to be a means with which to excuse their own sexism / racism.
/r/MensRights31/03/19 07:59 PM
7

Unfortunately there are apologetic feminists. The kind that says "feminism used to be good but it's been corrupted" or "only the loud ones that nobody listens to says all that misandrous crap". Maybe slightly less disconnected from reality as unapologetic feminists but I don't really find them to be any less disgusting. I mean, they realize that something is amiss but decide to remain firmly rooted in a delusion that people are actively pointing out has no real philosophical grounding.
/r/MGTOW26/03/19 06:01 AM
6

Not really relevant since the consequences (to men) being discussed here is fully 100% artificially created by laws. Somehow you idiots always seem to forget that.
/r/MensRights24/03/19 11:57 PM
3

It's why "crazy cat lady" is a thing. I'm sure there are guys out there who horde cats but for the most part they seem to be fine with one or two. (Dogs are common as well.) Hypothesis: girl likes cats, gets one, it's so independent that she doesn't know if it'll always spend time with her when she wants it. So, out of fear of loneliness she gets another one...
/r/MGTOW19/03/19 01:10 AM
9

It's because women now no longer even try to empathize with men. Instead they project themselves onto men and just demonize us.
/r/MGTOW08/03/19 06:18 AM
4

And of course you just so happen to not answer the inconvenient (for you) question they asked.
/r/MensRights01/03/19 04:29 AM
2

Feminists are right that we live in a rape culture. However, they are wrong on which sex it affects. Makes these women extra disgusting.
/r/MGTOW01/03/19 01:49 AM
3

There's a reason they say that actions speak louder than words. If your friend tells you that your birthday party is important to them and they'll definitely be at your place later that evening... well, when they don't show up you'll have to look at why, but it's inevitably what they did that determines whether or not they actually considered it important. Did they collapse with exhaustion when they got home and forget to set an alarm? Maybe they valued it. Did they decide to go out on the town …
/r/MensRights25/02/19 08:15 AM
9

No, Divorce Rape is perfectly apt because there is another definition of rape other than the sexual one (that is usually used when, for example, somebody says that a town was "raped and pillaged"). From Dictionary.com: to plunder (a place); despoil: And in case anybody needs the definition of despoil: to strip of possessions, things of value, etc.; rob; plunder; pillage. and in this regard it's hard to call what happens to the marriage assets from a male perspective anything but. Once again, thi…
/r/MensRights25/02/19 07:51 AM
14

It's an interesting reversal of the reason why you should theoretically participate in internet arguments. The other party will almost never change their position, but the reason you should continue to debate is because of the third party listeners who are sitting on the fence. Trying to explain to her why she's the bad guy won't work. Nobody thinks they're the bad guy. Best case maybe you convince her but for what? So she's maybe not quite as shitty to her next partner? But not only is there no…
/r/MGTOW25/02/19 05:30 AM
3

Women don't like men to show emotions because it confuses them. They see the emotions happening but they don't feel the empathetic pangs that they're used to feeling from women. The idea that men had these emotions anyways and suppress them to get shit done is a completely alien concept to them. Meanwhile, men are so empathetic that even if we don't get these emotional validations we will try to give it to the women in our lives. We completely understand her fear of the spider and we will make s…
/r/MGTOW25/02/19 05:14 AM
2

Come on, we're above that! There's no need to besmirch the good name of whores by associating Brie Larson with them!
/r/MensRights23/02/19 09:30 PM
2

It describes the relationship strategy of ending it only when another one is already lined up. Like a monkey swinging between branches on a tree and only letting go of the previous one once it has grasped the new one.
/r/MGTOW22/02/19 01:15 AM
9

It's a really good example of how women simply don't empathize with men. Here they are demanding validation like everybody deserves it and yet it never occurs to them that they never give that to men at all. (Even worse, they think allowing men to validate them is validating men.) The male experience is completely alien to women because women are too fucking sociopathic to put themselves in our shoes. Women simply don't understand men because they don't even try... and because they're being lazy…
/r/MGTOW16/02/19 09:53 PM
5

Remember, it's not about the nail.
/r/MGTOW16/02/19 09:36 PM
40

Unfortunately, men do not have reproductive rights. Even if you choose to be abstinent, rape is never accepted as a reason to dismiss child support (which is the system forcing men to be fathers). This means a woman could force her way into your house, force you to have sex at gun point, be arrested, convicted, and jailed for it... and you might even be able to say you're not going to take care of the child that is born... but the system gives the kid to her closest relatives (her parents) and w…
/r/MensRights11/02/19 12:29 AM
2

And God said to Adam "I will create woman for you! She will be faithful to you, she will do her best to sexually fulfill you, she will cook for you, clean for you, make you always feel welcome at home, and she will love you until the end of time! It will cost you one arm and one leg!" Adam thought about it for a moment... "how much for just one rib?"
/r/MGTOW11/02/19 12:02 AM
1

The down votes for criticising a cheap meme Actually, you're being downvoted because you're a fucking idiot blatantly ignoring that we're criticizing an ideology (feminism) and not making "lazy jabs" at a sex (women).
/r/MensRights03/02/19 11:08 PM
1

Doesn't that sound a bit like the "1 in 4 homeless people are women" comment we often make fun of around here? No, and honestly I'm not sure how you could make that mistake if you were bothering to try to understand context. The entire purpose of pointing to a minority of people affected by something is to bring awareness to that group specifically. In good cases it's because that minority is disproportionately overlooked when help is given out. In bad cases it's because people reporting the sta…
/r/MensRights03/02/19 12:29 AM
15

I honestly think the last man should just flash a small smile and leave silently. The only thing men need to leave behind to destroy women is the absence of the male workhorse. The entire infrastructure of civilization will very quickly collapse well before most of them would be anywhere near old age.
/r/MGTOW02/02/19 03:52 AM
2

It's actually a part of both the numerator and the denominator, we just don't know how much of each it's a part of. Each one is a portion of people who have gotten married so of course that means the converse is buried in there somewhere. Put another way, the fact that more people might be choosing not to be married means that those who still continue to do so might have a more similar mindset than the historical married population and you could have a sample that could be more likely or less li…
/r/MensRights31/01/19 02:43 AM
1

I'm not so sure about it, not on purpose anyway. The problem is usually even though they know what they should be thinking and doing, they lack enough empathy for men to actually feel the way they ought. Usually means that you can have varying degrees of support from women but they can turn on you at any second even if they seem completely good up to that point. Prior to then they'll usually just slip at least slightly here and there so... that social imbalance will always be there.
/r/MGTOW26/01/19 01:30 AM
3

And they can't grasp that concept because it requires empathy.
/r/MGTOW25/01/19 12:02 AM
2

There is no reason a woman with the same EXACT qualifications as a man, should get paid less. And feminists have never proven that women with the same EXACT qualifications are actually paid less. They have, however, willingly ignored obvious qualification differences (such as men overwhelmingly working more hours than women) to try to craft a narrative wherein women are working just as hard as men but are obviously being paid less. The simplest way of explaining how feminism is sexist (even dawn…
/r/MensRights24/01/19 03:21 AM
1

This puts this document in the ironic position of not following its own main guideline: to be culturally sensitive to those in need of treatment. How postmodernist of them. Reject the notion of absolute truths to emphasize the perceived realities of individuals for the purpose of prioritizing one group's (women's) "perception" over the other (men's).
/r/MensRights15/01/19 07:39 AM
1

I just really wish we could all understand each other. Considering you spent most of your time in here making absolutely no effort to understand men's experience then perhaps you should start with yourself.
/r/MensRights14/01/19 03:08 AM
4

The problem with casual feminists is that they are totally silent about radfems those create laws against all men at the expense of few bad apples. If only. Seems more like they outright defend them.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 06:48 PM
14

And she'd be right... unlike her they're still fertile...
/r/MGTOW13/01/19 05:38 PM
6

It's win-win for feminists. Banning MGM would be tantamount to admitting that feminism's Patriarchy Theory is complete bullshit. Now not only can they still keep their heads shoved up their asses about the true direction of inequality but they can start complaining about female victims. More victims = more power for feminists.
/r/MensRights07/01/19 02:53 AM
1

Men, you don't have to be 6'2". 6'1" is perfectly acceptable. Maybe even 6'0".
/r/MensRights03/01/19 01:51 AM
3

They prefer to make indirect lies over direct ones.
/r/MGTOW01/01/19 08:14 PM
49

to be truly feminist you should be treating everyone equally and fairly but In practice when somebody states something and then follows it up with "but" then they didn't really mean what they said before. Of course, they go on to prove my point after that quoted section, but this small part made me chuckle a bit.
/r/MensRights01/01/19 12:00 AM
0

I doubt it, mostly because you're not saying HOW you have men's back, which pretty much means it's the usual excuses. Arguing for some of the topics online, maybe even offline, but never really getting your hands dirty. Hell, I suspect you probably also spout the "pendulum" bullshit ignoring that feminism's arguments have been inherently misandrous from the start (blatantly requiring sweeping men's bad experiences under the rug to try to portray women as somehow being worse off). It's easier to …
/r/MensRights31/12/18 09:33 PM
4

I hope you come back to get what turned my wife into a she-devil. Spoiler alert: revealed, not turned.
/r/MGTOW31/12/18 08:22 PM
12

[need] to understand society's propensity to suppress female sexuality. Can't wash away all of the feminist bullshit, I suppose. Even though this weakens the feminist narrative about men suppressing women, it still pretends that women have this worse by ignoring that men's sexuality is much worse than suppressed: it's actively demonized.
/r/MGTOW30/12/18 10:22 PM
2

That's an understandably common mistake to make. Feminism isn't about politics, it's about female entitlement. However, to acquire more of the latter it has wedged itself deep into the former. It's basically like winning the lottery. Many of the people who win can't handle the sudden influx of money and usually (from what I've heard) end up worse off. My understanding of it is that it happens because of a combination of a sudden and huge influx of privilege mixed with a lack of responsibility fo…
/r/MGTOW30/12/18 09:40 PM
4

female actress thinking Hahaha, no thinking actually going on. You can even see from the quote: I feel like we should
/r/MGTOW30/12/18 08:26 PM
24

she said I dont care about her, and just use her for her body Are you sure you weren't banging one of these 'cause she was doing an awful lot of projecting.
/r/MGTOW30/12/18 08:20 PM
1

Projection. "I don't like when you joke about that" is, 11 times out of 10, drama for the sake of drama.
/r/MGTOW27/12/18 01:28 AM
1

When you look at feminism as a whole it's not that specific women lack empathy for men but rather that they pretty much all do. Feminism wouldn't be able to get off the ground if women actually cared about what their men experience in their day to day lives. I mean, sure, you could have a vocal minority speaking up, but these things they're saying would be seen as completely unnecessarily and totally attacking the men that other women supposedly love... so much so that you'd have a very large an…
/r/MGTOW26/12/18 11:45 PM
14

Hmmm... I think I've heard this story before, but for some reason this time I had the appropriate thought to wonder what information she's leaving out. In particular the beginning of the story implies he came up to help but it doesn't actually say that. If, for example, she made a pass at a random guy walking by in order to get him to help her then suddenly his response doesn't seem so inappropriate. Honestly, given how fishy as fuck the opening of the story is now that I'm looking at it I think…
/r/MGTOW26/12/18 11:08 PM
11

I'm just here to insult you instead of engage with you because I'm an insecure little bitch. That's a very weird thing for you to admit, but kudos to you for having the willpower to own up to it.
/r/MGTOW26/12/18 10:26 PM
5

Eh, I'd give a pass on the ironing part if they had their shit together enough to never need to do it. Problem is, most of the time when it seems like they have their shit together it's because they're using one or more men to do the heavy lifting. It's sort of similar to them needing to know how to change a flat tire. That's such an approachable problem that the vast majority of cars have spare tires and a shitty (but functional) little jack. It's one of those things that's helpful to do a coup…
/r/MGTOW25/12/18 06:02 AM
3

Yes. "I never met an extremist feminist" should be properly read as "I agree with their views, I wouldn't call myself extreme, therefore I'm going to say they are not extremist".
/r/MensRights21/12/18 08:40 PM
2

Don't need to think about it much at all when a single word explains why they say it: projection.
/r/MensRights18/12/18 08:34 PM
1

Yeah, but unfortunately when you're at that point you're playing their game. They may have absolutely no basis for their arguments but that's never stopped them before, but now you don't have that "gotcha" that you were so sure you had and instead you're now playing whack-a-mole to their never-ending onslaught of propaganda. Shit sucks. :(
/r/MensRights17/12/18 07:06 PM
2

Would like to see them weasel their way out of that fact. Unfortunately it's basically "but mah wage gap!" I mean, more accurately it's "but they're not as well-paying as the STEM tracks so women are still losing" bullshit, but it's basically the standard goalpost shifting, deliberate lies, and man hate.
/r/MensRights17/12/18 03:26 AM
12

Andy's mom has two toys also named "Woody" and "Buzz".
/r/MGTOW17/12/18 02:06 AM
2

Feminism is simply hyper-traditionalism. It's the same old "men need to protect women" bullshit dialed up to 11.
/r/MGTOW15/12/18 09:00 PM
2

Feminists think Doubt
/r/MGTOW15/12/18 08:57 PM
5

Probably actually trying to signal their virtue.
/r/MensRights14/12/18 10:30 PM
1

The problem is that feminists statistics are bad on their own. They're woefully incomplete at best and outright lies at worst. You don't even have to look far to find this out just a simple questioning of the data and at best you'll find out that the person giving you the data doesn't give a rat's ass how "rape" is defined, only that men are scum because they do it. She's accepting these stats as-is without questioning them. This is the hallmark of the opposite of intelligence and the fact that …
/r/MGTOW14/12/18 09:49 PM
2

Second, men get much more emotional abuse and manipulation than support. No no no you see when she's nagging him that he should be doing half of the household chores (his chores don't count, him working twice as many hours doesn't count, and the 60% of "her" chores that he already takes care of doesn't count) is only about improving his social character! Why does he need a man cave? She doesn't want a man cave ; the rest of the house is already dressed up to their (her) preferences! No, you cann…
/r/MGTOW13/12/18 09:01 PM
2

My favorite part was how it wasn't going to be about how she is a woman and then it became about that.
/r/MGTOW10/12/18 10:29 PM
3

Didn't you hear? The suffering of innocent men was a consequence that women were willing to take. (Still is but it was, too.)
/r/MGTOW10/12/18 10:24 PM
2

Lies, damned lies and statistics...
/r/MGTOW10/12/18 08:39 PM
1

It seems like it'd be reminiscent of American Psycho.
/r/MGTOW10/12/18 08:35 PM
1

You sound like a tool. Eh, I'd say they sound more like a troll. Their post reeks strongly of "trying too hard". Of course, I could be mistaken and they're really just that insecure and stupid. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
/r/MGTOW10/12/18 08:28 PM
2

because of our genatalia Probably more to do with hip structure.
/r/MensRights09/12/18 08:23 PM
6

I've seen a couple female MRAs who, in the MensRight sub reddit, will post message after message, month after month confirming an understanding of the problems MRAs are noticing... but then the right topic will come up and suddenly they're 100% Team Women™. They will even acknowledge that innocent men are being thrown under the bus but THINK OF THE WOMEN. Honestly made more sense once I realized that women don't feel empathy or love for men. Women saying MRA/MGTOW messages KNOW they should be th…
/r/MGTOW02/12/18 06:29 PM
3

I noticed there were some women in that thread talking about this making them afraid of being married as well. I wonder how much of that is them being afraid of being seen that way vs them being afraid of putting men through that much pain. I suspect far more the former than the latter. Women don't love men. Women don't empathize with men.
/r/MGTOW25/11/18 08:07 PM
5

Something about the male-to-male connection Well, I was wondering why not the connection with anyone male or female... but pondering for a bit I guess it just seems to me that you'll get genuine gratitude from another guy. Maybe some women, too, but... maybe a majority of the gratitude isn't quite as genuine?
/r/MGTOW24/11/18 12:26 AM
6

It's a term that's being used by simps, cunts, and white knights I think the "NPC" label fits their thought pattern the best because it so perfectly captures the complete and utter lack of any thought whatsoever put into throwing the term around. Consider that the word "incel" specifically refers to "involuntarily celibate". Basically, they're saying they inherently hate people who are unattractive. Seems like a pretty extreme form of ableism, not that they're smart enough to realize their own h…
/r/MGTOW23/11/18 11:32 PM
2

Sounds more like an excuse instead of the actual reason.
/r/MGTOW23/11/18 10:58 PM
7

The only silver lining of feminism is that there's so much truth to be found when you reverse the sexes in their conclusions. I was going to say "analysis" instead of "conclusions" but... well, seeing feminist research it's painfully obvious that they don't analyze. They already have a conclusion and then spout some NPC garbage and decide that must make them correct.
/r/MGTOW22/11/18 06:58 PM
3

No, it is not. It's a half-assed piece of shit made by people who want to pat themselves on the back and say "we did something" without ever questioning if they actually did anything or if what they did had anything at all to do with the actual problem. If they want to address male underachievement then they need to address the pervasive anti-male bias that permeates the absolute entirety of the education system from beginning to end. Boys at a young age learn to simply give up because of how bl…
/r/MensRights21/11/18 07:45 PM
4

Double standard. :)
/r/MensRights21/11/18 07:21 PM
19

Police Thought Doubt
/r/MensRights17/11/18 07:33 AM
7

Only when it's the man doing it, of course.
/r/MGTOW17/11/18 07:14 AM
2

This is a great post, and helps me to understand the concept of empathy. Eh, I'd say you shouldn't give it too much weight. To quote a definition: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Bolded the "and share" part because it's what their definition is deliberately leaving out. The point they're missing and that you've been intuitively leaning towards is that even though women might possibly be quicker and maybe more accurate in identifying these emotions this doesn't mean t…
/r/MensRights15/11/18 02:27 AM
3

You’re cucking another man SHE is the one cucking that man you fucking nitwit. He may be enabling her but don't you fucking dare shift the responsibility for her choices onto him you misandrist piece of shit.
/r/MGTOW12/11/18 01:24 AM
6

Naw, not quite. She'll exhibit none of those traits. However, her dog that she brings with her will provide those...
/r/MGTOW10/11/18 06:40 PM
10

Worse than that... any help he does give her will ultimately be unappreciated.
/r/MGTOW10/11/18 06:23 PM
3

When I started pondering about common positive attributes ascribed to women two stood out to me: Women are more loving. Women are more empathetic. However, the fact that women would never sacrifice for men this way seemed to be pretty strong evidence that these were absolutely the other way around. The worst part of it all... it's not that men agree with women being better at these because men love women and want to look at them as angels... no, it's that women are so fucking entitled that the l…
/r/MGTOW09/11/18 06:17 AM
1

"There is no rape culture" Probably the funniest thing about it is that it'd be a total lie but in the complete opposite direction from what feminists would claim. Do we live in a rape culture? Of course we do! The rape of men is underplayed, swept under the rug, and considered a joke by the vast majority of NPCs.
/r/MGTOW03/11/18 05:30 AM
4

I'm pretty sure the actual reason is because the system literally doesn't care if a man is paying for her shit when it collects these stats. Hell, I've even heard that alimony and "child" support aren't counted as part of her income but are counted as part of his. Maybe that's changed, maybe that's never been the case, but you really can't trust that these starts are being collected especially since the expected outcome of a group being overrepresented in poverty (namely, losing their homes) com…
/r/MGTOW30/10/18 06:21 AM
24

Makes you wonder why they think guys want to hear that? Because they're unable to empathize with men and so project themselves on to us. They want us to tell them about how much other women fuck us because that's what turns them on: how much other women value that men. You see the same thing with fat acceptance bullshit. It's primarily driven by women who think that men only don't like fat women simply because land whales are not plastered all over the covers of fashion magazines.
/r/MGTOW20/10/18 09:13 PM
13

The drunker she got, the shittier she became Remember, getting drunk doesn't change you into a different person, it just removes your inhibitions.
/r/MGTOW20/10/18 09:00 PM
2

It's not really that MGTOW is harmful to society so much as it's correlated with society being harmed. The problem is that the harm is coming from elsewhere and MGTOW is just the natural consequence. So, in reality, it's the other way around: certain kinds of harm to society cause MGTOW. The problem is that NPCs can't acknowledge this because it would mean that they've been wrong. Being able to do so would require them to introspect and then realize that they've been the baddies.
/r/MGTOW18/10/18 06:34 AM
1

I want to learn about them as a PERSON Women accuse men of being shallow and not being interested in women as a person. However, it really does seem to be nothing but projection.
/r/MGTOW14/10/18 11:37 PM
4

Burden of proof is a law term No, it's a basic philosophical concept, you ignorant fuck.
/r/MGTOW12/10/18 12:31 AM
4

Look, the cackling comment may have been a little exaggeration but the general concept is right on there: women simply don't empathize with men, and you have to remember that doesn't mean women don't try (because they know they should). However, the effects of being truly unable to empathize with men can range from extreme to subtle. Subtle usually shows up along the lines of "understanding women is complicated"... that's the popular saying, at least, but in reality it's understanding people tha…
/r/MGTOW11/10/18 12:14 AM
4

You forgot an important part: she doesn't want to have sex with such a man. She'll even talk like this sort of man would make the perfect partner... for somebody else, of course. But eventually taking advantage of the nice guy is too much of an opportunity and she'll be all too willing to pretend it's his turn...
/r/MGTOW11/10/18 12:01 AM
15

It's interesting that women level that complaint at men so much... smells like they're projecting.
/r/MGTOW09/10/18 02:25 AM
0

It's not about money and it never has been. Now that you mention it, this accusation leveled at men by women does seem to be projection.
/r/MGTOW07/10/18 12:35 AM
1

Yes, and this shows why things are so messed up now. They were his kids because they were his responsibility. Then a bunch of women came along and said that children should grow up with their mothers. So, now they're her kids but they're still his responsibility. (Oh, but of course judges don't want to admit that they're being so blatantly biased so they call it "best interests of the child"... but of course the best interest is under a "tender years" mindset. Fucking scumbag liars.)
/r/MGTOW23/09/18 08:07 PM
1

its about going for total domination over males as a servant class Probably the obvious evidence of this is the complaints about men looking at women. How dare men "ogle" women! How dare men "stare" at women! How dare men have preferences for physically fit women! Women and feminists have been pushing for men to avert their eyes in growing numbers over the past century. This kind of bullshit is associated with class supremacy, not with anything even resembling equality. These scumbags don't care…
/r/MGTOW23/09/18 07:47 PM
7

2D girls can't really love you (because they're figments of our imagination) but 3D girls can't either (infatuated, yes, but not love). However, 2D girls can't nag you to death. The only big advantage that 3D girls have, then, is physical contact. But it turns out that's not too much of an advantage when the intentions behind their physical contact is so sociopathic and narcissistic. That's the full analysis. 2D > 3D because the purported advantages of 3D are all fantasies and lies.
/r/MGTOW16/09/18 06:56 PM
6

But is always happy to see me when he wakes up. You mean he doesn't punch you in your sleep because he had a dream that you were cheating on him?
/r/MGTOW10/09/18 04:50 AM
5

the majority of women, if not all, see us as subhuman The trickiest thing about this statement is that there are many women who know they shouldn't, and a good many of those who try to change their behavior to act accordingly. These women are the ones that appear to be "unicorns". However, AWALT. Some of these ones covering up their sociopathy do so for the sole purpose of capturing a guy. Once the ring is on suddenly her demeanor changes. The pretend empathy drops leaving only the sociopathic n…
/r/MGTOW02/09/18 07:05 PM
3

There's a lot of interesting psychology going on there, especially along the lines of the whole "fatherhood isn't biological" malarky. I mean, there's a portion of the saying that's true insofar as a man who actively seeks out that sort of relationship with a child but otherwise the saying is mostly used to shame men into accepting fatherhood roles that have been forced on to them. And it's in regards to that more common latter usage that makes her attempts to update you seem very... sociopathic…
/r/MGTOW20/08/18 05:45 AM
8

someone who doesn't value sex/appearance more than personality The go-to phrase for women with a shitty personality who actually don't offer anything to men but think guys should just throw themselves at her feet...
/r/MGTOW20/08/18 03:38 AM
1

Well, it's possible some of the reason they feel that way is because of guilt. At some level they probably know that their own shitty marriage contributed to your outlook. Instead of accepting their blame for that, though, it's easier to pretend that they're not an example of everything wrong with the world and to try to force you into their little reality bubble.
/r/MGTOW19/08/18 08:17 AM
3

Am I Not Enough... I notice that it's all about her looks and not about what she was doing for him. Given how self-absorbed she sounds like from other posts I suspect she wasn't trying to engage with him at all and he simply reciprocated.
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 05:31 AM
6

Do they think No, they operate on a complicated neural network of feels.
/r/MGTOW06/08/18 05:22 AM
2

Isn't it more like if women wanted us to continue to give a rats ass about your reproductive rights then you fucking shouldn't have ignored ours for over half a century after this very decision?
/r/MensRights06/08/18 01:51 AM
11

If anything, while it's kind of nice to be noticed, I hate that so many people in my day to day life recognize me. Honestly kind of hoping nobody here recognizes my handle from my posts around here.
/r/MGTOW20/07/18 05:41 AM
2

she attempted suicide Doesn't sound like she definitely intended to die. More likely she wanted to be found, saved, and validated.
/r/MGTOW20/07/18 04:42 AM
2

Megan Thinks https://i.imgur.com/8KTtscB.png
/r/MGTOW20/07/18 03:50 AM
3

You need to think more critically. There are two truths to always consider: What someone / something says they are. What someone / something actually is. Sometimes these truths align, but plenty of times they do not. Courts (especially family courts) do this a lot because it's a coping mechanism for bigotry. Another really common example is courts saying they no longer apply the "Tender Years Doctrine" standard when determining child custody but instead use "Best Interest of the Child". However,…
/r/MensRights19/07/18 03:12 AM
2

Schrödinger's Thot
/r/MGTOW19/07/18 03:00 AM
6

Those exchanges sent chills down my spine. It was sort of like watching a serial killer on trial, incontestable evidence of guilt, apologizing to a victim's family for killing and eating their kid.
/r/MGTOW18/07/18 01:33 AM
1

a girl who was 4'9 for a few months I once saw a movie where a boy was six feet tall for a few months.
/r/MGTOW18/07/18 12:34 AM
3

it's commitment This is laughable coming from the sex that doesn't commit. (Seriously, it's not even just that the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women... they don't even bring anything of value to the relationship in the first place.)
/r/MGTOW10/07/18 06:53 AM
1

My mistake for only reading the words OP actually wrote. Except, of course, how you didn't. In particular they said: I refuse to believe any rape or assault story There's a lot of wiggle room for interpretation there, but given that it's talking about METOO and false rape accusations in particular it's especially obvious that it's not like the abstract concept of story that a police case would tell but instead the direct kind of story that is told by people about an encounter of a particular eve…
/r/MensRights09/07/18 01:08 AM
3

Makise Kurisu was so popular that she ended up being on there twice... row 1 column 2, and row 5 column 7.
/r/MGTOW08/07/18 09:51 PM
6

It's not that women need to do these things, it's just that they're low-hanging enough fruit such that if women put the effort into doing these things then they'd be bringing something to a relationship by relieving men of that duty. It's more a testament to the degenerate entitlement of women that they think learning to cook is beneath them and they're attempting to dump cleaning chores on men by measuring "household chores" while deliberately excluding traditionally male chores... all of this …
/r/MGTOW08/07/18 09:47 PM
7

They should run the world This is the most hilarious part. See, they probably meant "rule the world" or "lead the world" or something like that but because they're a moron that's drinking the feminist koolaid they worded it as if women would be running government legislation... but to actually run the world would require women to be the laborers that actually keep the world running. You know, those positions that feminists have very specifically avoided making sure are represented proportionally…
/r/MGTOW02/07/18 02:52 AM
5

Most likely the relationship was abusive but it was she that was the abusive one.
/r/MGTOW01/07/18 08:32 PM
3

The worst part of women's suicide "attempts" is that, because there wasn't really intention to kill herself, all she had to do was talk about her problems with somebody and she's fine. So, some people turn around and start saying that men just need to open up and talk... Except of course men's problems that drive them to suicide are very real issues. We do talk about them and get poo-pooed left and right by narcissistic, sociopathic bitches and their white knight entourage, and talking won't sud…
/r/MGTOW01/07/18 05:10 PM
1

Is it just me or does that girl look like she has a seriously sucky attitude? A sort of narcissistic assuredness that will nag at you to stop playing those "video games" and to grow up and sell them already, complains because you're not doing all of the chores and she actually has to do some work, and clucking with her friends about how much better women are than men?
/r/MGTOW28/06/18 04:11 AM
3

Your hypothesis fails to explain why men are willing to sacrifice so much more for the women in their lives. Not even just sacrificing his life in a time of crisis but even in simpler ways such as his time seeing her by putting in extra time at work to make sure all the bills are paid. The only women I've ever seen actually doing this for their men are fictional ones. Women who actually love men are a fantasy that men tell to ourselves because we wish women were like that as well. The truth is t…
/r/MGTOW27/06/18 02:34 AM
2

Yes, it is important to remember that feminism is an ideology ; it's a way of thinking. It doesn't matter if anybody says the label doesn't apply, if they speak the feminist narrative then they are feminist. Period. You also need to be careful of women who sound like they aren't feminist. It can sound like they talk the talk but rarely do they have to walk the walk. Every once in a while, though, something bleeds through that tells you that, despite other posts they've made suggesting some level…
/r/MGTOW26/06/18 12:39 AM
2

There is a very important point to note here in the circumstance that she has been 100% faithful and there's a 100% chance it's his, namely: she takes for granted knowing she's the mother and doesn't care about his perspective in any way, shape, or form. In other words, this exact scenario demonstrates that women actually have absolutely no empathy for men, that women have absolutely no love for men, and (conversely) that men are so empathetic and loving of women that they will turn on their fel…
/r/MGTOW26/06/18 12:22 AM
2

it was men who evolved governance, statehood, voting systems This is not a great way to put it because it undermines how desperately men needed these things. In particular, governing bodies of some sort will always evolve because of one simple truth: some activity requires more disposability than others, thus groups of people (specifically men) need to come together to manage their disposability. They need an agreement on who to stick on the front lines and when they should stick their necks out…
/r/MensRights24/06/18 11:12 PM
1

Now now... there's no need to call these women cunts. They lack both the warmth and the depth to qualify.
/r/MGTOW24/06/18 05:41 PM
3

And of course the corollary to that: All women are bitches.
/r/MGTOW24/06/18 04:44 PM
12

Claiming to be raped is the first thing women do to cover up cheating that they think is or will be discovered.
/r/MGTOW24/06/18 04:29 PM
1

Furthering this point is that there don't appear to be many super unique hobbies being posted... the kind that would easily out a person as being a part of this community if posted. It's kind of sad, really, because this is the reason I haven't posted mine and y'all would totally love the stories surrounding it. There's some very MGTOW-relevant ideas there but I don't want to risk backlash from some bigoted idiot hearing that I'm GMOW and making it their temporary goal in life to ruin mine.
/r/MGTOW24/06/18 02:52 AM
6

You've pointed out some of their delusions, here's another big one you missed. Yeah, they admit they can get sex easily enough but they want marriage. See, what they actually want isn't marriage. It's never actually marriage that they want. Instead it's either the wedding ceremony for her day... or it's simply a man slave so she can just take it easy. I mean, it can't really be marriage given how women are completely unable to come up with anything that they're really giving to men. It's can't r…
/r/MGTOW22/06/18 12:55 AM
2

If women didn't have double standards then all of their standards would be childish fantasies.
/r/MGTOW20/06/18 04:10 AM
3

Indeed. Women don't love men. (Brief proof: no sacrifices, but plenty willing to claim things as sacrifices that clearly aren't.) That means once the infatuation and lust have dried up the only thing holding her to him is whatever sense of responsibility she has. And of course thanks to feminism women are encouraged more and more to be narcissistic cunts. (Or maybe it's the other way around.)
/r/MGTOW19/06/18 05:05 AM
1

https://i.imgur.com/1OWIb4w.jpg
/r/MGTOW19/06/18 03:41 AM
8

Funny thought: she takes out a loan to pay him back, he simps and marries her anyways, then he ends up paying off the loan... Less "haha" funny and more "oh god why" funny.
/r/MGTOW17/06/18 07:24 PM
3

Ah, sort of like the old canard about women being attracted to "confident men" even though the vast majority of the "confidence" they're attracted to is actually boasting to overcompensate for a massive insecurity complex. (IE, the complete opposite of confidence.)
/r/MGTOW17/06/18 06:50 AM
8

Can't help but notice that, as usual, feminists don't care about sons defying stereotypes. It's almost like the goal is to loosen women's gender roles while tightening men's gender roles...
/r/MGTOW17/06/18 06:38 AM
3

i think Debatable
/r/MensRights10/06/18 10:27 PM
1

These guys don't want the truth. Amusing considering you've explicitly said in other posts in this same conversation that you're not going to read others' posts. Not sure if you're a troll or just a projecting idiot, but somewhat amused by your antics either way.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 10:24 PM
2

expected to fulfil his role as provider and protector. (Or maybe that's providing protection?) even if that means doing hard labour for 40-60 hours per week Didn't you know that women also work? Granted a significant percentage less... and also his earnings pay all of the bills and hers is for her... and her commute is half of his... and she got home hours before he did but she was too tired to make dinner so he should (and by "make dinner" she means "zap frozen TV dinners in the microwave")...
/r/MGTOW03/06/18 05:33 PM
4

Hey now... sometimes she pushes her responsibilities onto the kids as well!
/r/MGTOW03/06/18 05:12 AM
2

Women only care about settle for a man in times of need and scarcity Unfortunately I think this more closely reflects reality.
/r/MGTOW03/06/18 12:54 AM
8

Yes, which is why it's funny because even when women are "settling down" and having kids... honestly doesn't seem like they're committing to a family. Committing to her kids, maybe, but the husband gets shafted even when they're his children.
/r/MGTOW02/06/18 04:33 AM
4

she's lying to try and get guys to view her as desired by other men. Some interesting projection on her part. Women are attracted to men that other women are attracted to. That's not how men work, though. Actually probably explains the whole fat acceptance BS that feminists push as well since they seem to think men don't prefer fat women just 'cause.
/r/MGTOW01/06/18 04:55 AM
29

Well, in theory going to HR first means that when they do take her side you have some anti-retaliation tools at your disposal which do tend to be a bit more gender-neutral.
/r/MGTOW30/05/18 03:14 AM
3

This was posted in the PPD thread: http://archive.is/bV4EK
/r/MGTOW30/05/18 03:06 AM
2

Probably less what the five year old understands and more that she's a one-track-minded misandrist bitch always on the hunt for the patriarchy.
/r/MGTOW30/05/18 02:00 AM
4

The way I have always put this when expressing this general idea in this sub: The only difference between a "good" feminist and a "bad" feminist is you simply haven't asked the "good" one the right question yet. The feminist narrative is a reality-denying ideology: assume women are worse off and scramble to twist everything to fit the premise. In actuality every culture prioritizes the well-being of its women over its men. At best a "good" feminist succumbs to their gynocentric leanings and echo…
/r/MensRights28/05/18 04:15 AM
4

He'd probably be the taller one in the relationship so... they'd probably use that to mean "bigger".
/r/MensRights20/05/18 10:38 PM
3

Agreed. You also see this with "rape". They tell each other that rape is the worst thing that could possibly ever happen and that it completely devastates their lives... then they act that way... but then it turns out that the "rape" in question was anything but. All of the supposed trauma is their own pity party in their own heads.
/r/MGTOW20/05/18 05:08 PM
2

Sounds like she didn't quite have a hold on the next branch and her instincts told her to hang on to you a little bit until she could find the next guy. If so... bullet dodged.
/r/MGTOW20/05/18 12:35 AM
4

That's because 3D women have also been a fantasy. It's only now that they've become too entitled and amped up their demands too far such that men are beginning to see that "real" women are incapable of giving them the love they seek. The important thing is to just not lose touch with reality.
/r/MGTOW20/05/18 12:29 AM
1

As I understand it two years is approximately how long the "honeymoon" phase of a relationship lasts. That's around when the infatuation hormones start to dry up. This is why I say that women don't love men but they can temporarily seem like it by being infatuated with him. However, I doubt that during that time period she would take a bullet for him... and I wouldn't be surprised if despite her thoroughly disgusting nature he at some level still would.
/r/MGTOW20/05/18 12:16 AM
2

Follow their advice and don't be shallow ; pay attention to their "winning" personalities!
/r/MGTOW16/05/18 03:41 AM
1

women are ... whores Not all women! Many are perfectly willing to demand the payment and then not put out...
/r/MGTOW16/05/18 03:39 AM
0

only tradcucks do I think you meant to say that "only tradcucks believe that women do". We value it as well, we just recognize that women don't so it's no longer a motivating factor in relating to women.
/r/MGTOW16/05/18 03:03 AM
1

"Bringing out" almost kind of suggests these women would be hiding it away if it wasn't being aggressively pulled out. Honestly, I'd describe it more as "feminism is removing all barriers to female sociopathic narcissism". After all, it's not like men have ever been the valuable ones in our relationships. Women just needed us more in the past than they do now so they were more willing to settle. But now that everything's easier? They can't even fucking pretend, so why should we accept their pret…
/r/MGTOW16/05/18 02:59 AM
2

when you get bored of your current man move on to the next one and then then dump the current one A more accurate order of events. She's gotta make sure there's always some guy doing all of the hard work for her at all times, after all.
/r/MGTOW16/05/18 02:54 AM
1

Prior to 1960s (but I think 1900), men could sexually express themselves I don't get the impression that laws banning visible male erections (even if underneath clothing) is a relatively recent phenomenon.
/r/MGTOW16/05/18 02:49 AM
3

Even more important phrase: "on the basis of" Which means "this is how the action is justified". So, the expanded definition would be: "People who believe that equality is achieved by advocating for more rights for women." This is the ideological premise of feminism. And it turns out they can't actually justify the assumption so they have to make up a ton of shit. Not that that's any surprise since they behave just like other reality-denying ideologies like "Scientific" Creationism.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 01:49 AM
1

No discovery. She always knew. Now she's just being forced to admit it.
/r/MGTOW15/05/18 01:01 AM
2

Implying there's a side that's not dark...
/r/MGTOW15/05/18 12:10 AM
3

I'm pretty sure she was half joking... which means it was half real.
/r/MGTOW12/05/18 06:31 PM
2

Well, in theory there's the advantage of numbers. It introduces redundancy so if one member is incapacitated temporarily the other can take care of necessities. In practice... well, women delved too greedily and too deep. They've demanded men who will do everything. We can't, but since they're no longer even attempting to supplement us they don't bring us closer to that ideal. All of the hard work we've realized in ourselves can instead be reserved for people who truly love us: ourselves.
/r/MGTOW12/05/18 06:20 PM
9

Yeah, it'd be "the projection is strong". The sign that better exemplifies what men are waiting for is "Waiting for a woman who's a decent human being."
/r/MGTOW12/05/18 06:09 PM
5

One interesting thing to note is that the stats are already per 100,000 so the numbers given are already a rate (essentially already a percentage), which is why it's kind of ridiculous for them to be trying to look at the percentage change of the percentage. (Especially since the data as-presented is literally only two data points so trying to make claims about the acceleration is futile.) Basically, the slope of the lines on the graph are already the rate of change in and of themselves. And, su…
/r/MensRights10/05/18 04:22 AM
1

No simping at all, simply introspection. Failure to acknowledge the existence of these base desires merely makes one susceptible to them when least expected. In reality, being a simp isn't the feeling of wanting a special significant other to work hard for. Being a simp is succumbing to the temptation and pretending you're not settling for a sociopathic (at least in respect to empathy with men) narcissist.
/r/MGTOW09/05/18 02:27 AM
1

I would love to slave away for a woman who actually appreciates the hard work I do on a day to day basis, fully realizes how much harder I work for her, loves me for who I am, and does everything in her power to take care of me while completely appreciating how much more I'm making her life easier. I'd give up some of my major hobbies for her so that we can instead make a family. The MGTOW part was realizing that the only parts of that which can't come true (even historically) are the parts wher…
/r/MGTOW08/05/18 04:26 AM
2

"I don't hate women, I'm just waiting for one that's not a narcissistic sociopathic piece of shit."
/r/MGTOW08/05/18 03:39 AM
1

The version of it that I heard was "a successful marriage requires compromise". This was my MGTOW moment because when my dad said it I realized that all of the compromising was on his part. And of course once you start seeing that one-sided dynamic in every single other relationship... yeah. Red pill can't be unswallowed.
/r/MGTOW07/05/18 06:17 AM
4

The feeling might never go away. The important thing to remember is that the hole in yourself that needs to be filled by a woman won't actually be filled by any woman in reality. The important MGTOW community term to remember here is "unicorn". You may think that you've found a unicorn, that perfect creature that will complete you. But... unicorns aren't real. You'll instead be faced with either: A girl who is lying to you. Like she takes bipolar medication but deliberately keeps that secret fro…
/r/MGTOW07/05/18 06:06 AM
1

"I am looking for someone who will appreciate the things I do for them." Nobody talking about this part. Sounds like more made-up garbage. What things exactly does she do "for him"? Put on make-up and a dress when she goes out? (Something she'd probably do anyways.) Heat up a frozen dinner in the microwave? (Put in minimal effort.) "Clean" the house? (Really spending most of the day lounging in front of the TV.) "Fuck" him? (AKA starfish once or twice a month.) I mean seriously, can she not even…
/r/MGTOW07/05/18 05:34 AM
0

It's interesting how the description switches from what "incels" (these pieces of shit rarely properly use these labels) don't say to what they supposedly "think" (most likely made-up bullshit given such a rapid change in language). The facts are against the quoted scumbag, though. Men sacrifice far, far, far more than women do. You don't see many (if any) girlfriends taking a bullet for her boyfriend. Or working herself to death to support his desire for an elevated lifestyle. Or sacrificing ab…
/r/MGTOW07/05/18 05:17 AM
3

Sounds like this would be a more appropriate saying to apply to this idea: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
/r/MGTOW07/05/18 04:27 AM
7

That's just so the ladies can get a whiff of some manly colon.
/r/MGTOW06/05/18 07:52 PM
3

The actual definition of “feminism” is just equality for women. No, it's the belief that women are unequal and that equality is achieved by advocating for more rights for women. Look, I'll even provide a definition: the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. (Hint: "on the basis of" is another way of saying "this is how they justify their thoughts/actions".) Incidentally, when facts contradict this assumption that simply makes feminism a reality-denying ideology...…
/r/MensRights06/05/18 04:25 AM
6

The truth will set you free, but admitting the truth will make you a target.
/r/MGTOW29/04/18 11:23 PM
6

Indeed. Hell, if they had only added these seven words they'd at least be a lot more accurate: and some randomer yelling 'what about men?' every time you talk about human issues as if they are specifically women's issues. (Of course, this ignores the times they explicitly portray a men's issue as a women's issue... and the completely 100% made-up issues.)
/r/MensRights28/04/18 07:10 PM
5

I've heard that the Phoenix Wright series of games was also intended to be a criticism of the Japanese legal system. That's seemed like a fairly legitimate claim given the nature of the legal system presented in the game and the obvious localization "hiding" its Japanese origins.
/r/MensRights26/04/18 07:38 PM
1

I don't. If she wasn't such an entitled sociopath then she'd realize it's all bullshit.
/r/MensRights26/04/18 07:08 PM
6

Probably slightly worse. Women know men enjoy sex, but then women project their own predatory nature onto men and assume all men are just looking for an opportunity to take what they want. It'd be nice if suing worked. More likely a lot of heads would literally have to roll to actually get women to rein in their bullshit.
/r/MGTOW26/04/18 05:54 AM
2

Do be careful not to confuse infatuation and love. You may be correct that she didn't feel infatuation for you. That feeling really does suck. But the flip side of that is even if she did feel infatuated with you she wouldn't love you. Women simply don't love men. They say they do, they may even get a little high on infatuation and temporarily move a little out of their comfort zone... hell, sometimes they even just give up and accept the current state of affairs. But... they won't jump in front…
/r/MGTOW24/04/18 05:21 AM
5

Is this everywhere? Yes. It was "subtle" things like this that I noticed in my youth that turned me MGTOW. Little things about every single relationship I saw which boiled down to men were working hard for women but that wasn't happening the other way around. (Or, when there was something like that, it wasn't anywhere near as much as he was doing.) It's only more recently that my cynicism has took it a step further to realize that women simply don't love men. These sacrifices that men do for wom…
/r/MGTOW22/04/18 04:41 AM
3

Could very well be OP. The wives are most likely nagging the husband to do it far more often than is really needed.
/r/MGTOW22/04/18 04:05 AM
1

And if men were egotistically clamoring to have all the benefits of birthing without actually performing the function all while deludedly screeching about "equality" then you'd maybe have a point.
/r/MensRights21/04/18 02:04 AM
1

That you have to put words in his mouth in order to try to make your point kind of shows how baseless your ideas are. Hell, you don't even have the mental capacity to actually analyze what you're saying, just to state it and strut around like a fucking idiot. Tell me, you fucking piece of shit... wasn't there conversations already in this very fucking topic where people were talking about debts being split? Oh wait, you didn't want to think about that because you're a dumbass who thinks that she…
/r/MensRights21/04/18 01:53 AM
6

their sacrifice Honestly sick and tired of you morons. Here's a fucking clue: just because you let something go doesn't mean you sacrificed that something. Oh no, I sacrificed my health by ordering french fries instead of salad. Woe is me, I sacrificed precious time drinking that delicious chocolate milk shake. Jesus take the wheel, I sacrificed a couple pounds and some valuable body fluid taking a huge shit earlier today. Holy macaroni, I sacrificed so much more in taxes than somebody that make…
/r/MensRights21/04/18 01:37 AM
6

Big Red thinks Debatable.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 02:36 AM
14

She's only saying it because she likes how it sounds.
/r/MensRights20/04/18 01:07 AM
2

Early retirement?
/r/MGTOW19/04/18 06:18 AM
5

the ex-wife did very little to help him I honestly think there's little hints in her vomit indicating that she was doing a lot more to keep him down. Biggest example is referring to his behavior as "having the life of a teenager"... this indicates that she didn't see his activities as escapism but instead behavior she simply didn't think he should be doing. This means nagging. Nagging nagging nagging nagging. He was probably doing all of these activities before sinking into depression and she wa…
/r/MGTOW18/04/18 06:37 AM
3

Unfortunately he doesn't sound smart enough to understand the corner he'd have painted himself into.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 03:12 AM
4

The meaning of words is derived from their usage, not their marketing. Feminists approach "Toxic Masculinity" from the perspective that men need to just stop being shitty, not from the perspective that society needs to stop royally fucking men over. Thus, "Toxic Masculinity" is really just a tool to hate men. (Like many feminist ideas, it might be referring to a real phenomenon but it is twisted into grade A misandry.)
/r/MensRights16/04/18 11:52 PM
2

they call us shallow This is simply projection on their part. Everything bad that women say about men seems to be projection.
/r/MGTOW15/04/18 04:26 PM
3

It seems like there's a dividing line between trans folks comfortable here and trans folks that aren't: the former are the ones looking for actual trans rights while the latter are entitled shitheads demanding that men should have sex with people they don't want to. Honestly not surprised if the latter group is finding companionship with the overprivileged women's entitlement movement (aka feminism).
/r/MensRights15/04/18 06:35 AM
1

I suppose my point is more along the lines of they'll "settle" because they don't think they can safely trade up but they'll still think they're entitled to everything. Then some guy will slip up and they'll take more. (Maybe it'll be a generation or two, but they'll take and they'll take and they'll take.)
/r/MGTOW14/04/18 04:43 PM
1

It would fix their attitude instantly. Eh, I doubt it. They'd maybe behave better, but they'd still think they're entitled to it. That is the nature of sociopathic narcissists.
/r/MGTOW14/04/18 04:20 PM
1

To be fair to her character, so many of the people from that movie are assholes and shitheads. IIRC Ben was pretty cool, though.
/r/MensRights14/04/18 05:17 AM
1

Correct. The best way to understand feminism is to view it as projection.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 02:54 AM
3

I'd call my emotional reaction more "disgust" than "terrified". Mostly because at some level I know there'd be no real love for me. Maybe a temporary infatuation but even then demanding so much and pretending what little is given means more than it does.
/r/MGTOW09/04/18 03:24 AM
10

Doesn't seem like this would work for women. They apparently see "one another" as "other women".
/r/MGTOW09/04/18 02:30 AM
3

Except of course for the times they complain about the things that benefit them because it doesn't benefit them enough.
/r/MensRights08/04/18 06:35 PM
8

And all along the way blaming him for all of it.
/r/MensRights07/04/18 10:46 PM
1

I'm not trying to convince him. I'm making sure any third parties privy to the conversation see the inherent bigotry of this shithead's argument.
/r/MensRights07/04/18 10:45 PM
0

And spread around by bigoted morons like you who assume that men don't underreport.
/r/MensRights07/04/18 05:42 AM
1

I think a more precise term would be oxymoron.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 12:31 AM
2

Especially since the reverse, the lifestyle he is accustomed to, is never considered.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 04:03 AM
5

Slightly more ammunition: these feminism and anti-MRAs are dumbass parrots who won't know where their information came from, have absolutely no idea how it was collected, and are so stupid that they think this makes their argument stronger than yours when you post links like this. Take this to your advantage and know the source of their bullshit better than they do. In particular, the source of the idea that "the only reason fathers are given less custody is because they seek it out less" comes …
/r/MensRights05/04/18 02:11 AM
24

Feminist thinks Was going to protest this but I see the image is already doing so.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 01:57 AM
6

feminists say it's "mansplaining" for a man to say how women's issues "actually are." Yet that's exactly what feminists do Feminism makes a lot of sense once you realize it's pretty much all projection.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 01:50 AM
4

It's not the feminists affecting him. It's the general social acceptance of their blatant sexism.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 01:21 AM
1

I'd rate them all 1s: doesn't matter how pretty they are since they've outed themselves as sexist bigots. Unless 0 is an option, then all 0s.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 01:18 AM
1

Since when have feminists ever tried to break male gender roles instead of enforce them even stronger? At best it blames men for taking on more responsibilities and hardships than their wives... but that's not the same thing as breaking the male gender role, that's just shitting on men. Usually feminism is really about demanding more and more and more and more from men. You know, just like the male-as-provider gender role already does. REALLY breaking the male gender role would entail getting wo…
/r/MGTOW01/04/18 11:34 PM
3

It's laughable when you hear the suggestions on how to fix male suicide. "Men just need to talk about their problems/feelings more." Yeah right... I mean, even ignoring that men are being vilified for trying to talk about their problems, it says a lot that women's problems can be managed with talking. Men deal with real discrimination. Real, living-on-the-streets homelessness... having your family stolen from you... being excommunicated from your social/business sphere... incarcerated more easil…
/r/MGTOW01/04/18 10:54 PM
1

My family never asks. If they did I would not mention the MGTOW philosophies behind it. My fall back is simple and a partial truth: I simply don't want to be with a woman whose driving I can't respect. Not that I'd put it in that way since some idiots would think I was saying something about women drivers specifically and not the shitty driving habits of people in general. I mean, most people can't even fathom the 2 second following rule, let alone the idea that it should maybe be 3 seconds. Bas…
/r/MGTOW01/04/18 10:44 PM
3

I remember when I was younger and there was general sentiment floating about regarding "infatuation" not being the same as "love" and the former was deeper. As I've grown older and thought about what I would want of a potential relationship I see it now... and while I'm not sure how many men do, I can absolutely tell that essentially all women don't. It's baked into our customs, our entertainment, and our laws... women simply don't love men. That said, I would personally loosen the idea of the m…
/r/MGTOW01/04/18 10:24 PM
6

I think it's kind of closely related to the "women are complex" meme that permeates society. Basically, it's understanding other people that's a complicated thing in general. Men? We love women. We want to please them. We want to protect them. We want to provide for them. So, of course, we try to understand them. But women? I don't think women love men. Sure, they can be infatuated with a man, but... they don't really care to try to understand us. Instead they just assume they already do. This i…
/r/MGTOW01/04/18 09:50 PM
4

Don't forget those feminist classics: "Rigid gender roles" = "Patriarchy" "Taking up adjacent seats on public transportation" = "manspreading" "Being condescending" = "mansplaining"
/r/MensRights01/04/18 07:02 PM
5

The only difference between a good feminist and a bad feminist is you simply haven't asked the good feminist the right question yet. Inevitably the fact that somebody is willing to call themselves a feminist means they believe some portion of the feminist narrative (which has been misandrist since its inception).
/r/MensRights01/04/18 06:59 PM
1

It probably just wouldn't be enforced against female offenders. Just like most laws, really.
/r/MensRights27/03/18 02:32 AM
1

Maybe too late to make this point but one train of thought to consider: First you ask why even bring up the Wage Gap in the first place. Namely, what is the function of making the argument? The answer is rather straightforward: it's an attempt to demonstrate a financial disparity between the sexes. Now, at this point you've pretty much won. Feminism very deliberately doesn't call it this because once you start analyzing it as a financial disparity too many inconvenient questions pop up, the most…
/r/MensRights27/03/18 02:30 AM
9

I'm a feminist and I'm right here. And yet where are the feminists out there protesting this court en masse? No, instead you fuckers protest anybody trying to raise awareness how boys being royally fucked over in school or pulling fire alarms when people try to talk about the issues of male suicide... or gather together in massive hordes of dumbasses pushing made-up issues like the fucking "wage gap" or how women are supposedly the only (or vast majority) victims of domestic violence. So yes, yo…
/r/MensRights25/03/18 02:18 AM
1

I'd agree that they're more social. I mean, yes, it's a generalization, but I'd agree with it as a generalization and not as a representation of all individual women. And, honestly, the vast majority of concepts I would consider "social" I would consider women to be far more likely to do. (Possibly because women are liked more by people in general and so they'll be more likely to do it.)
/r/MensRights24/03/18 07:18 PM
0

Works for me. I only ever thank him.
/r/MensRights24/03/18 07:02 PM
2

they are more caring, social and non-violent I'd agree on one of those but not the other two.
/r/MensRights22/03/18 01:04 AM
16

So basically, help women when they're disadvantaged Slightly worse than that: help women when they're perceived as disadvantaged. Not if they actually are, only if they are perceived to be. This is feminism 101 and is why even historical feminism wasn't about equality: just assume women are the victims and blame men, either directly or indirectly.
/r/MensRights22/03/18 12:59 AM
1

How can someone have such low self-awareness. Two words: narcissistic sociopath.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 02:41 AM
9

When did it become about being superior to men? Related question: when did feminism start? Lightning round: the answer to both questions is the same!
/r/MensRights20/03/18 02:01 AM
5

Sounds like a Narcissistic Sociopath's Handbook.
/r/MensRights20/03/18 01:45 AM
1

Not what I said at all. Not commenting on what you said but rather what you did. ;-p
/r/MensRights20/03/18 12:29 AM
5

Gotta make sure those uppity men aren't thinking about their own well being.
/r/MensRights18/03/18 07:51 PM
3

In my experience anything that feminists say about men / The Patriarchy™ / actual Equality sums up feminism perfectly.
/r/MensRights18/03/18 07:49 PM
4

And by "equal" she surely means "my way or the highway." More likely she wants a man that helps her with her half of the work. (Never mind that she won't help with his half.) Remember, what's his is hers and what's hers is hers.
/r/MensRights18/03/18 05:23 PM
3

https://i.imgur.com/7rIqM4W.png
/r/MensRights18/03/18 04:54 PM
3

trying for equality Did they? Looked like their very first argument was blatantly dismissive of the ideas. Seems more like an attempt to silence than an attempt to listen or understand.
/r/MensRights18/03/18 04:45 PM
2

Reminds me of a PBF comic.
/r/MensRights17/03/18 05:53 AM
3

does anyone else get the impression, and not just from this, that women tend to be a lot more adversely effected by, and less resilient to, failed relationships? I'd cynically guess that it's more likely they're the problem but instead of acknowledging that they're horribly entitled narcissistic sociopaths it's easier to blame the other person. Not that I have anything very concrete in that idea, just general observations that even many (most?) "successful" relationships seem to have a strong "w…
/r/MensRights11/03/18 07:47 PM
2

It's as much of a refutation as what you posted. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 06:14 PM
13

I notice that absolutely every single one of these statistics neglect to mention how these rates compare to what happens to men. See, if you want to convince a logical person that women specifically are suffering and that these aren't HUMAN problems then there's a lot more information to be needed. It's too bad you're too much of a sexist bigot to recognize this very obvious missing piece of data.
/r/MensRights11/03/18 06:04 PM
2

Often times men struggle more with suicide and depression because we're societally conditioned to be less open and emotionally vulnerable with our other male friends, or even other people in general. Honestly not going to read beyond this point because this is constantly asserted by never really justified. I'd more lean towards the idea that men don't talk about their problems because the issues they're facing are so severe that talking about them won't help. I mean, that's such a common feminis…
/r/MensRights10/03/18 10:50 PM
1

Considering the halfhearted (and sometimes completely missing) responses to MRA points... it's definitely the former. People leaving their own echo chambers with no understanding of their own arguments coming here simply to tell MRAs how it is.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 10:07 PM
0

Also super easy for somebody to get pushed into a hysteria-fed woman who then thinks she was groped, further spreading the anti-male bigotry.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 06:18 AM
2

Like some sort of Duck Man?
/r/MensRights10/03/18 05:31 AM
5

Honestly not sure why you think we'd just accept your word on it, especially since even here in the states plenty of MRAs have seen how blatantly people overlook the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse men receive. You've given us no reason to believe you're any better and by pushing your perspective without addressing this it's pretty clear that you're not an objective observer.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 05:27 AM
1

A big sign that you're not getting the picture is when you have to reorder the things somebody said and attach them to different points in their post in order to make your point. In particular, he never said "women should learn their place" but, again, you're a brainless animal reacting to one phrase in there and just applying it everywhere else willy nilly so you can vomit righteous indignation everywhere. And because you're too stupid to even try to engage the points they're actually making yo…
/r/MensRights04/03/18 09:02 PM
1

I didn't vote one way or the other but it seemed to me more that the wording implied something like "women actually understood what men could and did do for them". Of course, troll or idiot, you probably just knee-jerk reacted to the phrase itself like an animal.
/r/MensRights04/03/18 07:12 PM
2

Well, obviously I copied+pasted it from your post so I guess you're just being intentionally obstinate about my point which is saying it as if that were the eventual potential end state completely ignores the reasoning that was given. It's like you didn't actually read their post and instead threw your own strawman out because you just wanted to soapbox from your high horse. Which maybe would have been fine if you hadn't been directly addressing them as if they had demonstrated anything even res…
/r/MensRights04/03/18 06:52 PM
2

It is not okay to say "well, I agree with their intent, so I will accept their statistics" Well that's a pretty shitty thing for you to say considering that's not what he said.
/r/MensRights04/03/18 06:22 PM
1

I honestly fail to see how it's not malicious to throw an accusation with absolutely no care as to the accuracy.
/r/MensRights25/02/18 09:13 PM
5

It's really just intellectual cowardice going even further beyond catering to the lowest common denominator. People like women so it's disappointing but unsurprising that media focusing on mass appeal coddles this... but even outside of a by-the-numbers production it's disappointing to see so many who simply lack the self-awareness to create a thought-provoking narrative. I've wondered if my own tastes tended to include shows with more harmless or "kiddy" narratives... because so many of the one…
/r/MensRights20/02/18 03:26 AM
1

And doing bull shit to men.
/r/MensRights20/02/18 02:47 AM
3

Your reading comprehension sucks. Try removing your head from your ass and re-reading their post.
/r/MensRights16/02/18 07:27 AM
15

FWIW I want firefighter to be gender neutral too To be fair, "fireman" WAS gender neutral until some shitty group (feminists? PC? SJWs? Combinations?) decided that "man" could only mean "male humans". Kind of closely related to the "womyn" garbage. They see the word "man/men" and automatically assume it's patriarchy. In the end, it was all just projection of ill intent. Feminists and their ilk deliberately gendered good/bad things within their ideology and then pretended it was everybody else do…
/r/MensRights11/02/18 06:04 AM
1

I didn't insult anyone. You might get somewhere if you start approaching things this way.
/r/MensRights10/02/18 06:07 AM
1

There's a missing third component here, though, because those two things in and of themselves might not make for a satisfying personal life but can actually be good for society in general. That third component is something like "the drive to make it happen". And the real problem that most women seem to have is they don't have this last piece. They instead expect other people to make it happen. (And don't get me wrong... plenty of men are like this as well, but most men lacking this third compone…
/r/MensRights03/02/18 07:49 PM
11

The point is about the double standards.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 06:16 PM
1

Clearly the larger issue is women are also get more pretentious, demanding, and offer less when they are fatter. :)
/r/MGTOW29/01/18 04:13 AM
10

Unfortunately it's far worse than that. If she fucks 25 people while her spouse then clearly you did something wrong and not her.
/r/MGTOW29/01/18 03:56 AM
9

There's also something to be said about how the first one depicts a fantasy, namely that it being fantasy implies that most women were not submissive, at least to the point where enough men would have that fantasy such that they could appeal to it. Furthermore, if we dissect the fantasy a bit more, what exactly is being depicted? Honestly, there's nothing here that actually says enslavement. It's not showing that she's forced to do this... quite the opposite, it's showing her choosing to do it. …
/r/MensRights28/01/18 09:09 PM
2

A lot of definitions seem to understand that the concept of empathy isn't just "reading" the feelings. For example, the definition Google gives: understand and share the feelings of another. but many other definitions seem to make a distinction about "understanding" (as opposed to "evaluating") which suggests more than just reading. This is the part that women are being claimed to be bad at. (And I'd certainly question their ability to properly read emotions given just how badly women seem to un…
/r/MensRights27/01/18 09:46 PM
11

Women lack the empathy for it to make any difference.
/r/MGTOW22/01/18 03:21 AM
1

Of course "fact" applies to science. There's just lots of things that people misrepresent as fact, but that doesn't mean there aren't facts. For example, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a model to explain the fact of evolution (the observed change in the distribution of species between now and the past) as being sufficiently explained by natural phenomenon simply allowing the more fit species to pass on survival traits to offspring. And generally this fact of evolution is actuall…
/r/MensRights21/01/18 10:12 PM
1

Voting gives some power and yet you're not defining what exactly that power is. That is why you are garbage and your argument is garbage ; you are denying the possibility that the power that voting instills might actually be being accomplished in a different manner. (Because voting in and of itself isn't the power, hence why things like gerrymandering are considered bad. People are still voting but the power behind it is being deliberately diluted.) For example, your final summary: Oppression is…
/r/MensRights21/01/18 07:34 PM
3

Unfortunately, these people are too stupid to even think about what you said. In their mind there have been populations that were disenfranchised by being denied the vote therefore that's proof that all denial of the vote is oppression. (They may also be shocked to know that, while all men are mortal, not all mortals are men!) Anyways, a useful idea to keep in mind is gerrymandering. Most people properly don't like it. If pressed why they'd state because if makes the meaning behind the vote mean…
/r/MensRights21/01/18 05:38 PM
1

You're being condescending assuming your definition is correct and all others are wrong. Actually, what they are doing is laughably even worse. Many of their posts are criticizing people for talking about the usage and intentions of the word as if those concepts aren't part of the definition.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 05:48 AM
2

You shouldn't call them a cunt. They lack the warmth and depth.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 11:58 PM
1

on the basis of the equality of the sexes Your illiteracy shows. This literally only means "this is how they justify it". It doesn't require the justification to be valid and reflect reality. This very clearly breaks down feminism into two components: The belief that women are less equal than men. Advocating to change this. Now, if you were to base defining somebody as egalitarian solely on their beliefs (and not their actions and/or the applicability of their premises to reality) then this mean…
/r/MensRights16/01/18 11:55 PM
5

Three words: hostile work environment :)
/r/MGTOW16/01/18 08:19 AM
4

This is going to set back efforts for equality, especially at the workplace, that feminists and women in general have been putting in for years. Not sure if you were being sarcastic here but if feminists put in the effort then it was definitely not for equality but for "equality". In reality it's bringing women a tiny bit closer to equality with men. The irony is that, while they're being dragged down in the direction of men, it's not because we're pulling them down. They've been pushing up agai…
/r/MGTOW16/01/18 08:11 AM
14

Women be as empathetic as men? Now that's a tall order.
/r/MGTOW16/01/18 07:54 AM
2

Contrary to claims that feminism is a progressive movement ("the revolutionary belief that women are people too") it turns out it's actually just a regressive ideology (the belief that women are more important than men and that men should do more for women).
/r/MensRights14/01/18 08:43 PM
0

Oh wow, a single day's report. Yeah, definitely a very comprehensive summary of all the work being done in your household. Clearly we can just take your word for it that your listing of his activities is comprehensive. No way that there could be any bias. Also couldn't help but notice that your list of tasks is about five orders of magnitude off of your exaggeration. And, as predicted, a handful of those tasks might not be anywhere near as important as you're implying. There's nothing really tha…
/r/MensRights09/01/18 03:00 AM
0

Honestly you seem to be full of excuses and not objectivity, especially in regards to the pitfalls that other people are pointing out here on the topic at hand. Kind of makes it hard to take your situation as you present it at face value. The most blatant giveaway is your mindless blathering about having "millions" of tasks. This seems to be along the same lines of the larger pattern of exaggerating how much work women are doing and underplaying how much work men are doing. How do we know your h…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 02:39 AM
4

Like when the rubbish is overflowing, he'll just add shit to it instead of taking it out. So... not about who tops it off but that he just keeps the laziness going? I mean, the way you put it it sounds like you do the same thing but you expect differently from him?
/r/MensRights07/01/18 10:18 PM
6

Which is an amusing claim because even if accepted there's no reason to believe that women are not currently using women's shelters to abuse men. The only way to justify it is to believe that literally no woman ever abuses men, period, and only men abuse women. Can't really get any more misandric than that, really. It's just too bad these people can't be permanently marked in real life as the man-haters that they are, although the cynic in me thinks people wouldn't care anyways.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 07:30 AM
1

Well, as usual you demonstrate how little you care about equality, accuracy, or even simple basic coherent thought. See... even if your claims were to be taken at face value it doesn't really have anything to do with my point. I never said no examples could exist, only that it's all too common for feminist claims that something is sexual objectification to not have any substance. Literally the only arguments that keep getting put forth is assumptions about how little men supposedly think about w…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 07:25 AM
3

men that only think of women as pussy but otherwise vapid children An accusation thrown around at men by feminists very often but without any evidence. It's almost like feminists are simply assuming that men only think of women solely as sex objects when making their claims...
/r/MensRights06/01/18 07:23 PM
6

They're talking about the underlying premises and beliefs of feminists. You're talking about the name of Men's Rights. You are an idiot.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 07:03 PM
7

not all of it is to blame on feminism Not necessarily. You said below that you're teaching Algebra 2 so you're not teaching first graders. That'll be after about 9 years of school? If every year half of their classes graded them worse for the same amount of work that could very easily build contempt for the system overall.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 08:24 PM
8

Is it really the sub making you perpetually angry at women or is it really no longer having an obscured vision anymore and now women are making you angry?
/r/MGTOW27/12/17 09:46 AM
2

To be loyal they'd have to be empathetic. Unfortunately, contrary to popular sayings, women are not the more empathetic sex. More emotionally expressive, yes, but not more empathetic.
/r/MGTOW27/12/17 09:34 AM
2

Breaking Bad is such a painful example. She suspects he's getting his money illegally... he's been using it to upgrade and fix the house... she doesn't feel safe... but is such an entitled, narcissistic bitch that her solution is to kick him out (even though I'm not sure if she'll be able to hold onto the house if he's found out). And of course when someone she really considers do be family (her brother, not her husband) has a medical problem her morals go right out the window. I'd actually cons…
/r/MGTOW27/12/17 09:22 AM
1

I think there's room for women being called white knights as well. Men or women being overly protective of women because they are women... it's really bad either way.
/r/MensRights27/12/17 03:08 AM
2

Hahaha... I read the title of this topic, went off to take a pee, and was jokingly thinking about how white knights were like pedophiles: they're fucking immature assholes. Funny coincidence.
/r/MensRights27/12/17 03:04 AM
5

Doesn't feel right to call her Space Mary Poppins. That should be reserved for another character from another movie who was actually decently written. That said, it only took 10 seconds to explain... but the writers still thought it was appropriate to have her shoot Poe just for audience shock factor. For fucks sake, was this written by the same idiots that made Metroid: Other M?
/r/MensRights27/12/17 12:58 AM
7

It's kind of amusing how women use education in the same way they use makeup: lies.
/r/MGTOW26/12/17 09:41 AM
7

they think Debatable.
/r/MGTOW26/12/17 09:31 AM
2

Just an important point to remember... it's not that feminism is a religion, it's that feminism is the same sort of thing as a religion. In other words, both are ideologies.
/r/MensRights26/12/17 04:00 AM
6

I'd argue that the problem lies more in feminism than in the concept on its own. Usually the concept of Benevolent Sexism is useful to describe an observations of reality (as opposed to provide explanations of ideological interpretations of reality). Just follow through on analysis and identify unjustified assumptions and feminism's usage of the concept falls apart. For an example where the description is helpful, let's take a quick peek at the so-called "Wage Gap": you can see that while men ma…
/r/MensRights25/12/17 12:12 AM
7

It's through university. I think that's a more accurate description because it's still SJW feminists doing it, this is just one of the vehicles used to push their misandry forward.
/r/MensRights23/12/17 07:53 PM
11

I'm upvoting because I think you're trying to give a statistic with the understanding that this creates a cemented minimum for the percentage of rape accusations that are false. A distinction that is important to make because many (most?) feminists will take this percentage as the maximum even though it, combined with provably true convictions, leaves something like 80%-85% of claims as "unknown".
/r/MensRights23/12/17 07:48 PM
6

Of course, the tricky thing about the innocence project work is not knowing how many of the freed were falsely accused vs wrongly accused. From their (and an overall MRA perspective) it doesn't matter since the rights of men are clearly being trampled. It's just difficult to tell how much is targeted misandry (falsely accusing) vs how much is lazy misandry (wrongly accusing / just pick up the first black man that matches the description and he must be the culprit).
/r/MensRights23/12/17 07:44 PM
4

Agreed. For starters, Poe was able to easily recruit others to help with the mutiny. This actually tells us two things: Holdo wasn't giving orders to pretty much anybody else. Holdo choosing to fight back against the mutineers is hardly mature since the entire fucking ship could be against her. We also know that Holdo's plan was made without actually looking for many (if any) other options because of one very important resource that we know she never checked: Finn. Because the movie goes out of …
/r/MensRights22/12/17 01:54 AM
6

Even worse, she had multiple opportunities to give even a sliver of information but instead chose to keep silent and then attack the mutineers. Even even worse, the writer/director/whoever thought this bizarre silence on Holdo's part was so clever that they dragged Leia into it and instead of maturely communicating with Poe and cleaning up Holdo's mess had her simply shoot him.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 09:41 PM
8

You shouldn't call women cunts. They lack the warmth and depth.
/r/MGTOW20/12/17 10:08 AM
1

I usually find these types of mental exercises don't end with any useful outcome. I think the direct result isn't useful but indirectly it sounds like it's really helpful for identifying misandrists in the midsts.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 11:05 PM
3

You forgot the most important ingredient: projection.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 11:01 PM
3

Why does she think that... In a nutshell, she's projecting.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 04:46 AM
1

A rather pointless post considering the question was not about why it is but rather why it should be.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:22 PM
3

She probably knew that her dad was really protective of her. I would bet she expected a confrontation. Maybe she didn't expect it to be violent but at the same time maybe she should have.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 08:29 PM
1

Did you shit your brains out or something? This isn't about the state of the laws you dumbfuck. This is about the underlying justification of these laws and how they apply to your argument, in particular your shitty attempt to ignore that the portion of the law you're referring to was PATCHWORK ADDED ON and so doesn't support YOUR assertion that it indicates the reasoning behind the laws they were added to. In short, since you are too fucking stupid to keep track of a conversation, statutory rap…
/r/MensRights15/12/17 08:26 PM
1

Teenagers consenting with other teenagers is something that had to be added in after the fact. This means that it's in contradiction with the underlying idea of statutory rape and isn't really proof that the idea of statutory rape means something else.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 07:41 PM
1

Just wanted to point out some important phrasing in the article here: Yeatman reportedly told her Useful ammunition for the hordes of idiots talking about how insensitive his comments were when it's possible he didn't say anything or didn't say anything actually insensitive. Who knows what he said... all we know is that it probably wasn't Yeatman who said this is what he said... and nothing here says he was recorded as saying it. If anything it seems most likely the rape accuser said it and... w…
/r/MensRights15/12/17 01:58 AM
6

Do yourself a favor. Learn to read what people post you mother fucking idiot.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 01:44 AM
7

Going to have to ignore your rambling, incoherent strawman attack and outline what I tried to say: My point was that people might be dropping the label of feminism but most of them are still holding onto the sexist ideology of feminism. Furthermore, if you are going to try to argue against somebody, try to actually verify their stance instead of making unjustified assumptions like a fucking idiot.
/r/MensRights15/12/17 01:01 AM
15

only 18% of women in the U.S. will deign to identify as a Feminist, 7% in the UK Just because they don't identify as feminists doesn't make them not feminists. The more pertinent question is how many are ideologically feminist.
/r/MensRights14/12/17 10:21 PM
2

Well, I downvoted it because it doesn't actually address the comment it was addressing. Obvious main problem: we are talking about the experience of homeless and their point is about poorest. They are not the same thing and the former is only a subset of the latter, possibly even a relatively small subset. And given that it's possible that it's a small subset and we're dealing with averages it's still very possible that the average weight of the poor can be very high with an underweight starving…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 09:16 PM
1

Here's a definition of feminism that I think suits it very well: the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes If you're only seeking negative views then there's a good chance this definition looks innocuous. However, it embodies within it the core of what makes feminism cancer. The key is "on the basis of". This is another way of saying "this is how it is justified". So, if you break it down, the definition is really saying that a feminist believes that women are less…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 08:21 PM
1

You can attempt argue semantics all day but the definition states "sexes." the advocacy of women's rights
/r/MensRights11/12/17 06:12 PM
1

Not even sure a "deeply-convincing and barely concealed hatred" of feminism would win me over. How many women are abandoning the label of feminism but not the underlying sexist ideology? As far as I can tell a vast super-majority. Even here in this subreddit I don't keep track of all the posters who are women but of the few that I'm definitely sure only Karen (GirlWritesWhat) has remained consistent. So many others speak as if they have a deep understanding... quoting many MRA statistics and und…
/r/MensRights10/12/17 11:10 PM
16

That's not evidence... that's your justification for your assertion. They're different things.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 08:33 PM
2

Of course we can. We shouldn't, but we can.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 08:20 PM
23

The problem is that this isn't the political system going 180º, the political system is already twisted very heavily in that direction in the first place. Man raped? He must pay. Man not the actual father? He must pay. Sperm donation was unofficial? He must pay. And then, as was also pointed out, anonymity for official sperm donation was retroactively revoked. Hell, I think the justification given for that one was the child's right to know their genetic medical history. Not too far from the war …
/r/MensRights10/12/17 08:06 PM
1

If the basis is equality, then it comes down to women having the same rights as men. "On the basis of" means "this is how the person is justifying it". It doesn't make it actually that, it only means that the person believes that. If that belief is completely contradictory with reality that doesn't change how they're justifying it but it does mean that their action isn't actually the same as fighting for equality. Furthermore, this completely contradicts your assertion because the definition I g…
/r/MensRights10/12/17 07:55 PM
1

You would look less like an idiot if you actually quoted a definition that says that. The definition that Google gives, for example: the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. And compared to your supposed "definition": It specifically says it's the advocacy of women's rights The "equality of the sexes" component is "on the basis of"... in other words, it's not what feminism is defined as but rather what its adherents believe.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 10:21 PM
3

Still not quite the same. You'd also have to force her to go through the pregnancy because he wanted the child.
/r/MensRights09/12/17 07:19 AM
4

all women You kind of lost your point there by misrepresenting what they actually said. "Women" clearly refers to women as a group which means that there can be exceptions but they're stating an observation about a majority of the group. Sort of like saying men are stronger than women ; it's not a statement about every single last man being stronger than every single last woman (E.G. a guy with cerebral palsy would probably be unable to out-compete a athletic woman) but rather that the vast majo…
/r/MensRights09/12/17 07:08 AM
2

so all you have to do is prove all men are rapists is to look at the news papers? Honestly not sure how you could write something so completely dumb. It's pretty obvious you aren't even thinking about what you're typing considering the thing women in general are being accused of would be happening in the writing itself. You're literally comparing "things men are reported to do" vs "things women are saying in print" like a brainless fucktard. Honestly no motivation to read past your first sentenc…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 12:52 AM
9

His and only his last comment and not context? Fuck you asshole. Here is the root comment for anybody else curious. Mod probably had a point regarding modding of the original comment but a little digging turned out that they're scumbag pro-mutilation pieces of human fucking garbage.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 03:33 AM
5

And yet you don't even address any of the points made...
/r/MensRights23/11/17 08:04 PM
1

Honestly, I hesitate to believe that anybody who says they were raped were actually raped until they've demonstrated that they're not one of those incredibly common morons who keep calling things rape that are clearly not.
/r/MensRights22/11/17 03:54 AM
3

Only 20% of women identify as feminist Not the same as the number of women who are feminist (IE believe, spread, and act on feminist ideology). All they've learned is to not call themselves by the label.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 07:03 PM
4

Only 18% of women would identify with the label of feminist Far more still believe the underlying hateful ideology. Hell, many MRAs still parrot unsupportable, misandric feminist claims.
/r/MensRights19/11/17 06:46 PM
2

Well, I guess this video seems relevant to the conversation. That said, I've heard that people in prison can be treated very badly depending on their crime. I somehow doubt they'd come down as harshly on someone they heard was a false rape accuser as they would on somehow they heard was a rapist.
/r/MensRights05/11/17 07:39 PM
-1

Well, considering they went to an example for a crime for which their hypothetical would have both criminal and civil cases... yes, they are very, very, very retarded.
/r/MensRights05/11/17 06:34 PM
1

men and women likely commit violence at the same frequency Read that bullet point in the slide more closely because the purpose is to dismiss that concept without outright doing so. (The sub bullet points in particular are not in line with the idea presented that there may be parity in violence and don't even look like they'd come from the same studies claiming parity.)
/r/MensRights26/10/17 07:57 AM
1

Technically it's the conclusion derived from the statistics. Or, more specifically: Men are more physically violent than women. It's not actually supported by the bullet points that follow even if those statements are accurate. The first two bullet points talk about homicides and violent offenders... that's not a measurement of all violence but rather measurement of violence officially recognized by police. If the police and/or legal system simply don't respond to physical female aggression then…
/r/MensRights26/10/17 07:35 AM
1

I'd be curious what makes that one the best theory. My own hypothesis would be that the system simply made it easier for abusive women to make unsubstantiated claims backed by force thus giving abusive women a more socially acceptable way to destroy their male victims.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 07:02 AM
10

No source. Just here to point out that you're reading it wrong: it explicitly said that 20% of sexually active girls 12-18 are trying to get pregnant. Actually, never mind. Decided to go to the Other Discussions posting that's 5 years older and there was some discussion there about it. This post is claiming it's "a "study" the Tyra Banks show did", and provided a link to this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27716567#27716567 Hope that helps.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 07:05 AM
10

Because in those situations, the man can handle it himself. Only if he's allowed to defend himself, moron.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 01:07 AM
8

I feel sorry for those cats.
/r/MensRights14/10/17 08:31 PM
1

Indeed. I mathed very badly there.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 04:58 AM
1

Well, normally I use base 1010 (sometimes even base 1111) but I do encounter situations where base 10 works best.
/r/MensRights12/10/17 12:38 AM
3

True feminism is about believing that you're fighting for women's equality. Doesn't require the belief that women have less rights / privilege / power to actually be true.
/r/MensRights11/10/17 01:18 AM
1

"The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Honestly I'm not sure how idiots like you manage to remember to breathe. You blab a definition but clearly didn't even bother to think about it. Here, let me break it up into its two parts for you since you're apparently far too stupid to even think about what you're quoting: The advocacy of women's rights Straightforwardly feminism only fights for women's rights, not for men's. You seemed to understand this. on the gro…
/r/MensRights08/10/17 09:58 PM
14

and is known to cause cancer.
/r/MensRights07/10/17 07:38 PM
3

On the other side do consider that we need more men in roles working with children. Fuck you. If society wants more men in education then the first step is for society to stop being so fucking sexist against men.
/r/MensRights04/10/17 02:24 AM
0

Yeah I admitted my mistake months ago. Something tells me you didn't even bother to re-read your own posts 'cause there's no admitting anything anywhere in this conversation. Oh well, it's your prerogative if you don't want to stop being a scumbag. (Especially since this didn't happen "months ago"... it wasn't even a single month. Something tells me you do this often. Too bad you don't bother introspecting on the implications that you keep making the same shitty mistake over and over, apparently…
/r/MensRights28/09/17 10:37 PM
0

Bit rich coming from someone who calls a mild-mannered person a moron and a jackass. Was just browsing though my post history and thought I'd point out that you done fucked up here. I, RubixCubeDonut, made the comment you're referring to but you were talking to somebody else entirely. Well, at least you succeeded in making yourself look like a fool but in an old-enough topic that nobody saw it. Still, I hope you're sufficiently ashamed of your idiocy that maybe you won't fucking do that anymore.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 07:35 AM
1

True. But If you ever feel like actually being a better person I suggest you actually think about what you just did here.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 07:28 AM
1

It has always been an attack on men. If feminists using the term were actually trying to address the sources of these behaviors in men then they would approach it very differently. Instead of tackling them like simple learned / idealized behavior (like men are just stupid apes that need to learn how to be civilized) they'd instead recognize it as coping mechanisms for constant social discrimination against men.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 07:18 AM
1

It seems that information could be easily gleaned from medical records. Given how less likely men are to even seek medical attention for anything in the first place it probably won't help.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 06:47 AM
2

Or both men and women experience that feeling but women know someone will eventually just take care of everything for them so they cave in and just stay in bed. Meanwhile, men learn from an early age that nobody gives a fuck about us. If we don't get up and go to work then our bills won't get paid. Food won't be put on our table. Stuff just won't get done and then they'll get even worse than we thought and we'll be stuck there.
/r/MensRights26/09/17 06:46 AM
1

Honestly, it wasn't the mistake that irritated me, it was the part afterwards that essentially poo-pooed on the title / commenters.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 09:35 PM
6

Had to at least check your post history to make sure you weren't a troll because other than that I'm not sure what kind of moron would so deliberately miss that the poster on the left is targeting the girl ABOUT HER ABUSIVE MALE PARTNER. Girls: don't accept your man being abusive. Men: don't be abusive. The end result is the same: no matter who is targeted it is very specifically men that are being portrayed as abusive.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 09:15 PM
2

I gave proof. You gave proof after the fact you fucking moron. LOOK AT YOUR GODDAMN POST.. LOOK AT IT. There is NO proof in there whatsoever. Your "proof" had to come afterwards when people took your post as you presented it because YOU, and ONLY FUCKING YOU, gave absolutely no indication whatsoever what you were think constitutes proof. Reflect on your own idiocy and maybe become a decent human you lowlife scumbag.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 09:12 PM
7

If you’re not actually being deliberately obtuse Downvoting you for this line alone. He's not being deliberately obtuse... you are being deliberately vague and an asshole. YOU are the one who said there was proof and, instead of giving us any indication whatsoever what was going on in your fucking head you instead decided to give us an anecdote. The fact that you're so scummy that you'd deliberately push the responsibility for your blatant communication goof onto others is degrading the conversa…
/r/MensRights23/09/17 07:37 PM
6

I woke up on top of him I guess you're too fucking dumb to read the first half of the very quote you're commenting on and to even ponder the implications.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 01:46 AM
10

That and it's not men who need to be reformed to "show their emotions"... it's society that needs to be reformed to not outright dismiss (or attack) men's emotions when it's inconvenient.
/r/MensRights13/09/17 02:23 AM
6

Hell, you're not even necessarily safe being a man going into a men's room if a woman happens to be in there...
/r/MensRights13/09/17 01:03 AM
1

It's one of those things where you can best understand why it's bad by taking feminist reasoning and reversing the genders. I think it works extremely well here because the same observations that blow holes in feminist theory support why this is a problem for me. So, the feminist reasoning along these lines is that women are being socialized into their lesser work roles, blah blah blah. The problems observed with that are: It's not just which positions women are choosing, it's the absolutely eve…
/r/MensRights12/09/17 01:59 AM
5

The best way to tell this is the case is to see them advocate for feminist positions which require more governmental control and authority. I've not paid any attention to that subreddit for years so can't say for certain that's present but that was the telltale sign back then and I doubt it's changed. (If anything they've apparently regressed further into babbling animals.)
/r/MensRights10/09/17 08:37 PM
2

They are absolutely not playing the oppression Olympics. The article is, though, but that doesn't stop pieces of shit like you from blaming him for pointing it out.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 02:23 AM
3

It got in the way of feminists and their sexist beliefs.
/r/MensRights09/09/17 01:04 AM
6

Not the only time a feminist explanation for reality involves a narcissistic woman who assumes she understands the minds (and experience) of all men so well that we should simply be considered subhuman garbage.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 07:37 PM
3

They want to increase their standing in areas they feel women are behind You subtly hinted at this but didn't directly state it: feminists also don't care to check if what they "feel" is correct. Instead they must twist everything to cater to their presuppositions.
/r/MensRights06/09/17 12:19 AM
-1

They probably meant to say "support". At least based on the context of the quotes here... haven't read the article.
/r/MensRights04/09/17 09:32 PM
7

The same 'ole "role reversal" bullshit... Listen moron. There's a huge fucking difference between "avoid men because there may be some bad ones out there" and "avoid women because the system itself is fucking stacked against you and you are not allowed to defend yourself". Jackass.
/r/MensRights04/09/17 07:16 PM
1

Not that you can expect logical consistency from feminists other than "it's men's fault". So, men and women are equal, but to feminists men are subhuman garbage that would mindlessly trample over women because of our entitlement.
/r/MensRights03/09/17 09:47 PM
1

He's not comparing them you piece of shit, he's pointing out that even if it's trivial that doesn't make it meaningless.
/r/MensRights03/09/17 07:10 PM
1

No, it's not. Feminism very deliberately approaches problems from a perspective which ends up forcing men deeper into their gender roles to placate feminist demands. For example, the so-called "wage gap" which is more aptly described as an earning's gap. Women simply don't put anywhere near as much time and energy into earning money as men do. Not only do feminists blatantly ignore this, they push for women to simply be paid more and deliberately ignore women's preference for higher-earning men.…
/r/MensRights03/09/17 06:46 PM
3

It's short for "The Red Pill" and usually reference one of three things related to the MRA community: The concept presented by Morpheus in The Matrix wherein Neo is given a choice to take the Red Pill (wake up ad see reality as it really is) or the Blue Pill (stay asleep in blissful ignorance). The subreddit by the same name which is commonly misrepresented as being an MRA community but is significantly different. The film (documentary?) by Cassie Jaye which is about a feminist looking at MRA an…
/r/MensRights03/09/17 06:14 PM
3

Except, of course, they were assuming you weren't mentally ill. Given your complete lack of thought in your responses (and your complete avoidance at addressing the points sent your way) it was maybe an ill-founded assumption on their part.
/r/MensRights29/08/17 02:33 AM
2

I know the difference. No, you don't. Here, I can prove it to you: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6wgv3n/toxic_masculinity_and_privilege/dm8naep/ You're negative attitude does nothing to help you. Not sure what about my post makes me have a negative attitude... if anything it just expressed having a poor opinion about you and a complete lack in any sort of faith in your ability to reason. And you kind of support it yourself by, again, conflating two completely separate concepts (in…
/r/MensRights29/08/17 02:32 AM
4

This coming from the idiot who can't tell the difference between MRAs and incels...
/r/MensRights29/08/17 12:54 AM
1

Furthermore, they shouldn't wear shirts that have anything printed over their breasts whatsoever.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 11:40 PM
1

I think the phrase "self centered, overreacting irrational person" would describe your experience. Not really, because you're deliberately leaving out the element where she had a very opinionated (and blatantly sexist) stance on a man staring at a woman's chest.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 11:38 PM
2

I just wonder if the women he knows would tell a different story. Bigots so sexist they can't stop their misandry.
/r/MensRights24/08/17 01:21 AM
1

It'd be a pertinent point if they were trying to remind people of an ignored minority but any stat I've seen suggests that women are disproportionately more likely to receive assistance while homeless. Just more disgusting misandry.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 09:23 PM
3

If feminists actually admitted this instead of simply living it (and then lying about it) then people would see it for the bigoted ideology it is.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 04:53 AM
2

The payout is more in the form of continuing being to employed despite deliberately aiming to be less cooperative / productive.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 03:22 AM
18

I am male, remember? I fail to see anything about their post that makes this relevant.
/r/MensRights15/08/17 03:08 AM
4

"Social Justice Warrior" is usually used to refer specifically to people who vehemently "fight" for what is stereotypically "correct" (most often "politically correct") from a social equality perspective with blatant disregard for if their position is actually moral or justifiable. A closely related concept which may be similarly helpful for understanding is the concept of "virtue signaling" which refers to people who are attempting to show their virtuousness by explicitly expressing the "correc…
/r/MensRights13/08/17 06:15 PM
6

But feminists (and maybe women overall) get called a "slut", or a "lesbo" or a "cunt" and they categorize that as 'sexual harassment" in their mind and are either genuinely outraged by it or feign outrage over it. Sometimes even worse than all of that and claiming that saying the word is sexism against women.
/r/MensRights11/08/17 01:55 AM
2

If it only "didn't present the dark side" then you'd have a point. The issue is that it went out of its way to deliberately leave them out, putting an explicitly loving/kind face in front of them, painting their actions as good and only good, specifically to present a very false narrative that feminism has only recently been corrupted. The explicit misrepresentation of the older waves is completely contradictory to the message being presented.
/r/MensRights05/08/17 04:55 AM
4

Anyway- the point of all of this is that the correlation-causation argument is just used as a way to shut down any debate. Whenever I've seen it brought up it's because somebody has deliberately run with correlation being causation and THEY are the ones attempting to shut down any debate. They are debating as if the conclusion is already determined and somehow the people demanding real evidence of claims are the ones being unscientific. You are an idiot projecting the blame in the wrong directio…
/r/MensRights03/08/17 06:08 AM
6

Yeah, you sure showed him, what with all those counter arguments about his claim that you made... and those implications you added to his statement that weren't there... and your complete and utter failure to empathize with men you sexist piece of shit. For fuck's sake, did you even attempt to try to think about the implications of what he was pointing out? It means that the corollary is that men's main importance to society is as laborers. And that's the whole fucking point of this topic but yo…
/r/MensRights01/08/17 02:31 AM
1

This I could at least see some justification for if the male-only one was urinal-only, although I think I'd prefer to specify it as such instead of as male-only.
/r/MensRights30/07/17 07:39 PM
3

I've heard it's better to leave a 1 cent tip. It lets them know you didn't simply forget... of course also leaving a comment about them being a sexist piece of shit would also be a good hint. That said... party of 10... lots of places automatically add gratuity when the dining group is that large.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 02:35 AM
6

When you talk of bodily autonomy you (and the state) only care about the woman. A point made even more pertinent by the legal status of MGM.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 08:12 PM
1

Maybe after so many 16 hour shifts he might not have had the energy to put up a fight.
/r/MensRights12/07/17 03:13 AM
12

Or that women are the true losers because they only won because of how sexist men are.
/r/MensRights11/07/17 12:01 AM
1

That's no moon... it's a social construct. It's too big to be a social construct.
/r/MensRights08/07/17 05:20 AM
3

I suggest you look up the meaning of "most". That has nothing to do with what I said.
/r/MensRights04/07/17 06:19 PM
9

for me (and perhaps others), it's mostly about that loaded term intimacy I think I've heard about prostitutes saying similar things about their clientele.
/r/MensRights04/07/17 05:52 PM
5

So who wants to work with that all day and every day? Well, apparently males are perfectly willing to deal with it...
/r/MensRights04/07/17 05:45 PM
4

The very clear interpretation of their post isn't that every STEM feminist is saying that specific thing but rather that STEM feminists are saying things along those lines with a list of very explicit examples.
/r/MensRights04/07/17 05:38 PM
1

"why should i have to deal with struggles in order to get the same benefit only for being a women"? Well, more often than not, this is ending up being a strawman because when women have to suffer as much as men both genders interpret that as sexism against women.
/r/MensRights04/07/17 04:49 PM
2

Except they are the one who claimed that the "bad" feminists are a minority. We're simply asking them to prove they don't have their head up their ass. Especially since our claim is that feminist ideology itself is inherently sexist and we point to well-established-as-being-believed, never-dying, misandric concepts (patriarchy theory, rape culture, etc) as our evidence. It's not super concretely backed up but shit-for-brains was countering a somewhat established premise with a completely differe…
/r/MensRights01/07/17 05:40 AM
0

Honestly, I'd rather not have a complete piece of human garbage like you as an ally... pretending to care about men but then blatantly misrepresenting my point. Let's deal directly with the biggest claim that I'm generalizing women and I'll point out that my unedited post very clearly states that many MRAs fall into the same fucking bucket. Oh yeah, really singling women out there. It's almost like YOU tried to make it about generalizing women and I was making a point about PEOPLE. And that has …
/r/MensRights30/06/17 03:01 AM
0

I'm not actually convinced. Many don't (or won't) call themselves Feminists but I see so many who are perfectly fine adopting the ideology. So, they might not be Big F Feminists, but so many seem to be little f feminists. (Many MRAs, too.)
/r/MensRights29/06/17 02:26 AM
2

It's the other way around... they're terrible people and so they're desperately trying to convince themselves that they're not. Just like the racist / sexist bigots who claim that racism / sexism is bigotry + power therefore they aren't racist / sexist. Basically, we are all the main characters of the story we tell ourselves of our lives so we don't think ourselves the villains.
/r/MensRights27/06/17 01:52 AM
1

That's a fairly piss-poor comparison to make. Wage differentials between positions and professions are a naturally occurring phenomenon that arises because of differences in responsibilities, hours, risk, knowledge, experience, etc. Feminists are nut jobs because they rally against this as if it was deliberately planned by a conspiracy of white men. People making laws that criminalize consumers but not producers because of the perception that there might be victims among the producers are a comp…
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:38 PM
2

Ah, you're referring to the adage: "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Although I wonder if this sort of stuff is worse... a "damned statistics" form of dishonesty where somebody doesn't just have a statistic that might have no bearing on reality... they're deliberately misrepresenting what the statistic is even trying to measure in the first place.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 07:07 PM
12

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
/r/MensRights24/06/17 07:10 PM
59

Not quite. Feminism also contains an assumption about the existence of inequality. Take this definition: the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. These definitions keep being watered down to hide the underlying assumption but it is still there: a feminist advocates for women's rights because they believe that leads to more equality. This doesn't require the belief to be true and, in practice, feminists don't ever care if it's actually true. For example, researchi…
/r/MensRights24/06/17 07:03 PM
1

I've stared at a couple of women's chests before. Hard as fuck to read the funny joke on the shirt when huge knockers distort the shape so much.
/r/MensRights24/06/17 05:13 AM
1

bring a tape recorder with you to the meeting. Turn it on, set it in plain sight and tell them you're going to record the meeting As you started I was going to say "they're in Florida ; an all-party consent state" but this does seem to cover that. Well played.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 04:06 AM
4

I kind of feel like the sort of person that would start drama isn't smart enough to know when it is and isn't appropriate.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 05:43 AM
6

I could believe it, especially since their definition of "pedophile" would probably mean something asinine like "under the age of 21".
/r/MensRights13/06/17 01:23 AM
-2

Does it really hurt your man bits to sit properly? It's not just about the man bits you bigoted piece of shit. ("Properly"... this is you right now: you presuming that your idea of normal sitting isn't already sexist in and of itself.) Our pelvises are shaped so wildly differently that it's the #1 easiest way to determine the sex of a skeleton. If you weren't such a bigot you might actually consider the possibility that biologically sitting down functions differently for men and thus the comfort…
/r/MensRights10/06/17 08:16 PM
4

Two different kinds of hate, genius. We're being accused of hating people for what they are. The hate we expose and that you're referring to is a hate of what people think and their actions. (And our hate is very specifically aimed at their thoughts and actions being hateful for what somebody, namely men, are.) For all intents and purposes it's no different than calling the KKK scum sucking motherfuckers for being blatantly racist. Likewise, we hate feminists because the underlying ideology (and…
/r/MensRights10/06/17 07:34 PM
6

they think A questionable premise.
/r/MensRights10/06/17 07:12 PM
3

Although to be fair... while all feminists are misandrist, it doesn't necessarily follow that all misandrists are feminist. :)
/r/MensRights09/06/17 01:57 AM
2

It can be both, especially if the algorithm is unintentionally revealing the misandry of society in general.
/r/MensRights04/06/17 10:00 PM
7

The same thing they always do, Pinkie: Make shit up to complain about.
/r/MensRights04/06/17 09:48 PM
2

For fucks sake, this topic is upvoted to +5000. Second highest on the MRA front page is only a quarter of that with almost everything else pretty much in the double digits. It's pretty fucking obvious that this is an /r/all voting preference, not an /r/mensrights one, moron.
/r/MensRights04/06/17 09:46 PM
2

I think the general point being made: feminists claim to fight negative male stereotypes and support the need to do so by making claims about male behavior based on studies/stats that are not free from these assumptions about male stereotypes. Common example: claiming men are prone to raping because of toxic masculinity... except how many of those count forced envelopment as rape? How many stats are arrest / charge / convictions which would be biased if a system believed men were prone to rape a…
/r/MensRights31/05/17 05:15 AM
4

Because these theaters shouldn't be catering to the bigoted desires of scumbags. Same reason I'd be angry at a restaurant for holding a "no blacks" day.
/r/MensRights29/05/17 10:45 PM
1

Except feminism isn't a message board that people sign up for, it's an ideology, and even if many people are refusing to call themselves a feminist that doesn't make them not a feminist. So, the followup question that's pretty hard to answer is: how many of these individuals who aren't calling themselves feminist still believe and repeat the feminist narrative anyways?
/r/MensRights29/05/17 05:15 AM
13

Oh, this one is simple. First, start with a reasonable definition of feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. As you can see, "on the basis of" means that feminists believe that advocating for women's rights makes everybody more equal, or rather it means that feminism is an assumption that women are less-equal than men. This is regardless of whether or not the concept is true or false. However, turns out reality doesn't agree with feminists, thus in ord…
/r/MensRights29/05/17 05:05 AM
5

If true misandry from India is posted here, this sub will be only about Indian issues. Honestly I almost think I'd prefer it since it'd silence the idiots who keep talking about these "true patriarchies that really do oppress women".
/r/MensRights28/05/17 11:48 PM
3

Hey idiot, why don't you try reading posts that are 7 hours older than yours which give a ton of insight into why this stat is being treated with distrust?
/r/MensRights28/05/17 11:41 PM
7

I once saw a poster claiming that 80% of people in refugee camps were women and girls, and this is evidence of women's disadvantage. I always want to ask people, "okay, so where are the men and boys?" Oh yeah, that's right. They're dead. Or forcibly conscripted. Or they're living in a war zone attempting to defend their homes/villages from militants. I'd probably also wonder if male refugees were also simply denied entry into the camp in some circumstances.
/r/MensRights28/05/17 11:38 PM
6

Men have to pay for children they didn't even want. This is underplaying the issue by a long shot. Use the real guns: men who are raped are forced to be fathers.
/r/MensRights28/05/17 10:56 PM
2

He never said it was definitely caused by her being a woman. He said that his experience with female bosses was consistently horrible. Go back and read his first sentence. Everything else is just a story about one of those horrible bosses. Or, to put it another way: it was obviously not in and of itself supposed to be proof that women are worse bosses but rather a statement that he can't agree with the original statement because of his own lived experience.
/r/MensRights28/05/17 10:49 PM
27

Feminism summarized in a single word.
/r/MensRights26/05/17 06:30 AM
5

The reason there are more men in high status jobs than women isn't because men are oppressing women and keeping them down, it's because men have no choice but to aspire to be the best. Women aren't interested in any other type of man so we have to compete, constantly. Don't forget the part of this that explicitly reverses the meaning of the concept of the earnings gap: women can expect to use that man's earnings to some degree. And of course thanks to feminism entrenching itself in the governmen…
/r/MensRights26/05/17 05:16 AM
5

The toilets thing is ever worse than that. It's less taking from men and more keeping women privileged and allowing them to continue reveling in their sexist bigotry.
/r/MensRights26/05/17 04:58 AM
1

And this is without observing the inherently contradictory notion post modernists display by supporting somebody's perception of reality and in the process blatantly dismissing the other side's.
/r/MensRights26/05/17 02:21 AM
1

Indeed. Men not being targeted in this situation is a far better example of the concept of Benevolent Sexism than any of the claptrap feminists blabber about.
/r/MensRights25/05/17 04:38 AM
5

Maybe you should go back and tell that to yourself.
/r/MensRights24/05/17 01:46 AM
2

A very convincing argument making chimps sound like the great ape version of a drop bear. Gives the impression that even home turf won't help the kangaroo.
/r/MensRights23/05/17 01:25 AM
6

It's not hard to find out the definition of feminism. Okay. Let's find a definition... the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. So, contains a baked-in assumption that women have less rights than men. In other words, the definition of feminism isn't about whether or not women actually do have less rights, only that its advocates believe so. Aligns perfectly with what the article is asserting since the article is claiming that prison disproportionately affects wom…
/r/MensRights20/05/17 09:06 PM
9

We're not talking about video games in general, we're talking about e-sports specifically. These games are already going to be somewhat different than the majority of the video games market since a super vast majority of video games don't become e-sports. In general these games are far more focused on strategy, on the fly decision making, reflexes, etc and are nowhere near as focused on, say, sexualized imagery which tends to be the go-to for these claims. So, commentary about the video game mar…
/r/MensRights20/05/17 08:35 PM
2

It's a video game called The Curse of Monkey Island. (Third game in the series, IIRC.)
/r/MensRights19/05/17 05:55 AM
2

Depending on the volcano god even cheese will do.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 04:38 AM
2

A close friend of mine completely lost it while watching; I've never heard him cry, let alone ball. He pays a ridiculous amount in child support and gets to see his son every other Saturday. His ex-wife had a female attorney fight for her pro bono while he drained his savings account trying to fight for even 50/50 custody. Well, if you've been somewhat awakened by the ideas of this film then here's an interesting piece of information to inform you with regarding your friend's situation. Even if …
/r/MensRights19/05/17 04:19 AM
1

This is such an apples to oranges comparison. The issue at hand here is that feminists are assuming the contents of the Red Pill movie itself despite not having seen it. For MRAs not consuming feminist information the equivalent situation would be MRAs dismissing those sources outright. (Instead, MRAs seem to know feminist sources better than feminists do being better able to quote exact numbers, state their assertions, and even locate the damn source.) Beyond that, MRA derision of feminism in g…
/r/MensRights19/05/17 03:42 AM
1

Implying that there are words they've used properly...
/r/MensRights19/05/17 02:45 AM
2

This angers the volcano god.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 02:41 AM
4

Nobody has the right to vote. What they have the right to, though, is having their general interests represented by their governing body. This is viewed as being achieved through voting, hence why things like gerrymandering (in which people still have the ability to vote but their interests are intentionally diluted) are morally wrong. But of course if somebody's general interests are represented without them having the vote then they don't necessarily need the vote.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 01:28 AM
1

Well then, it's a good thing I'm not down voting you just for responding to me.
/r/MensRights14/05/17 11:53 PM
1

I think feminist have been trying to change it to "men are garbage".
/r/MensRights14/05/17 11:05 PM
2

Just because you're under thinking it doesn't mean I'm overthinking it. There's a very specific context under which this specific verbiage is being brought up and that indicates some intention behind the using of it. Especially in this case when it is very specifically being used to indicate that her own suffering is her own fault.
/r/MensRights14/05/17 10:46 PM
2

Because feminism at its core is a belief in the nature of inequality. Basically, assuming women have been oppressed, men have not, and equality is thus achieved by giving women more rights to match that of men's. That you call yourself a feminist means that you agree with this interpretation of reality for some things here and there. Maybe everywhere. I dunno. I'm not trying to find out what kind of feminist you are. Or were. The point is that the more you dive into the MRM the more the unsubsta…
/r/MensRights14/05/17 10:44 PM
1

Well that's why I said that for appearance sake it's probably best to hold off. However, you're not making your position look strong by misusing the label of "ad hominem" like that. (Hint: it's about attacking the person instead of their argument... in both "<blank> tears" cases they're saying "your suffering was caused by your own actions"... the feminist "male tears" version is cringey because it completely relies on an unsubstantiated universal conspiracy theory to accept while this "female t…
/r/MensRights14/05/17 09:53 PM
3

Kind of hard to stoop to their level since "male tears" is a sexist attack on men, mocking guys who are trying to point out just how badly treated they are by society. Basically, feminists have to assume the existence of a completely hypothetical boogey-man called The Patriarchy™ to try to make male suffering sounds like just desserts. That's what makes their bullshit cringey. This "female tears", on the other hand, is mocking a spoiled princess for taking her privilege for granted very explicit…
/r/MensRights14/05/17 09:02 PM
1

Standard feminist tripe. I've never seen feminists argue about "men gaining custody" without referencing the Massachusetts Gender Bias Study. Read it. It's horrible on its own. My recollection of the "reasoning" of the part of the study relevant to who gets custody was: Men's lawyers were suggesting not to fight for custody. "Stats" suggesting men win 70% when they fight. Therefore men not discriminated again. Notice that it doesn't try to compare the men who fought to the men who folded to look…
/r/MensRights12/05/17 07:31 AM
3

In fact, the notion of a suicide "attempt" is so nebulous a concept to nail down, especially compared to the far more concrete concept of a successful suicide, that it's hard to see people touting the higher "attempts" number as actually caring about the issue. I mean, sure, I can see how the suicide stats might not be completely accurate. Maybe some people who were only "attempting" accidentally succeeded... or maybe a homicide was accidentally categorized as a suicide... perhaps more accidents…
/r/MensRights10/05/17 02:44 AM
1

I suppose if my complete speculation had any legitimacy to it that'd be a horrible Catch 22. Jury is a bunch of white knight bigots? That's horrible... but the only way to adjust the system to guarantee prevent them from letting these molesters go is to get rid of Jury Nullification, and we really, really need that as a check against government corruption. In fact, a jury is pointless without it.
/r/MensRights10/05/17 02:31 AM
1

That's my point... it may be open and shut (and I used that exact phrasing) but the jury will vote how the jury will vote... and the cynic in me thinks it's very possible the jury would end up being a bunch of white knight (men and women) bigots. So... maybe the prosecutor is seeing it the same way. I have my doubts in that regard but it's the best light I can paint him with. No matter how you slice this (biased prosecutor, biased jurors, or biased judges) it's disgusting.
/r/MensRights10/05/17 02:23 AM
33

As a thought experiment I'm trying to think why a prosecutor wouldn't try to bring such an open and shut case to trial without the mother's go-ahead. Best I can come up with: Defense will demand a jury trial. Defense will point out that the victim's mother didn't want to press charges. Jury will succumb to pussy pass despite the blatant maliciousness and vote "not guilty". Although given that they're minors will there actually be jury or just a judge? Is the judge known to be biased in this rega…
/r/MensRights09/05/17 11:22 PM
1

At least it's not the South Park rendition of that song stuck in your head...
/r/MensRights09/05/17 05:43 AM
2

It's just a word play joke that I for some reason felt like posting. Helps to read the final line out loud. Maybe also helpful to get the joke if I put these lines side by side? if you live in a glass house don't throw stones. if you live in a glass house don't stow thrones.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 04:44 AM
1

There was once a man who lived in a glass house. He loved carving furniture and was especially obsessed with crafting himself the perfect wooden throne. However, as good as they were, none of them were quite right. He didn't want to get rid of them so instead he started storing him in the attic. Eventually, he accumulated so many that his glass house couldn't support the weight and it collapsed. Moral of the story? If you live in a glass house you also shouldn't stow thrones....
/r/MensRights09/05/17 04:34 AM
1

on the basis of If you were actually approaching the topic critically this portion of the definition would mean a lot more to you and you wouldn't look like an idiot ponying it around like you do. That phrase means that the part after it is the reasoning given for doing the part before it. In other words, the definition is completely true even if reality is completely opposite their assumption because it's a description of their belief system and not of reality itself. Thus, it would be more acc…
/r/MensRights09/05/17 04:30 AM
1

To expand on this, the issue in play is one that plagues pretty much any ideology that makes a claim about the nature of reality: ardent refusal to actually question that fundamental assumption. Ironically, in its zealous ramblings it has generated many tools which, when removed from their feminist underpinnings, demonstrate feminism to be the useless piece of shit it's always been because they actually demonstrate the complete opposite of feminist claims. The two most powerful examples that com…
/r/MensRights09/05/17 01:18 AM
5

Naw, feminists are approaching from a different angle... see, prison disproportionately affects women because they're less likely to be sent to prison and spend less time there so they are going to keep reducing the number of women in prison until they reach 0. Then the ratio of men to women in prison will result in a division by zero thus making the problem disappear!
/r/MensRights03/05/17 05:57 AM
1

Also probably a 4.5 year gap in his employment history that employers will ask about as well.
/r/MensRights03/05/17 05:25 AM
8

see how I get down voted just for saying that I'm not against it? Well, I downvote pieces of shit like you for two reasons: First, you being perfectly fine with having been circumcised has absolutely no effect on the moral implications of the discussion (the right to bodily autonomy) which makes your statement completely useless to the conversation. You know, the thing that down votes are supposed to be for? Second, you dumbasses almost always follow it up demonstrating that you have a shit ton …
/r/MensRights30/04/17 08:09 PM
28

Implying they understand anything they talk about...
/r/MensRights30/04/17 05:46 PM
1

Geez... way to give credibility to their argument. I mean, if them repeating your own argument back at you is ad hominem then what the fuck does that make yours?
/r/MensRights11/04/17 02:08 AM
1

I also wouldn't be surprised if she had been violent before and the police did absolutely nothing in the past. If confirmed, I'd want the heads of any piece of crap trying to push the "illegal gun" angle.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/04/17 01:24 AM
1

The only problem with this image that I see is it doesn't show the mare being fed from both the buckets.
/r/MensRights08/04/17 05:04 AM
2

Almost. One thing to consider is that both situations: Men pursuing higher payment from work. Men more likely to die from work. They aren't really separate measurements because many jobs pay more simply because the chance of death/injury is present. Basically, the stat for men dying is simply undeniable in its interpretation, but the other stat for pursuit for higher/lower paying jobs is completely contradictory to what feminists claim about reality. A better way to think of both is: when you lo…
/r/MensRights08/04/17 04:16 AM
1

I mean, our own ability to measure all of the variables is flawed at best, but it's telling how no matter how much it's shrunk feminists point at any unaccounted for portion and claim "see? discrimination!" Basically, it's the old god-of-the-gaps problem and reveals feminism's ideological underpinnings.
/r/MensRights06/04/17 05:27 AM
4

Bi men saying "bye women"?
/r/MensRights25/03/17 10:37 PM
10

Usually you only have messages like that when the group in question is simultaneously disproportionately affected and overlooked. Every statistic anybody has brought up in this topic suggests quite the opposite ; even though women are far less likely to have to deal with homelessness than men they are far more likely to have somebody looking out for them.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 03:19 AM
11

The source of that idea is the Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts. (I've heard feminists claim there are other sources but I've only ever seen this one linked to.) To summarize its logic (going off the top of my head): Men's lawyers recommend they do not fight. When men fight they get custody something like 70% of the time. Therefore men don't have custody because they don't want it. Notice the study doesn't bother to tell if there was anything different between men who fough…
/r/MensRights17/03/17 10:47 PM
4

Don't forget the cost of a human life multiplied by one minus the ratio of the lifespan of an average man over the lifespan of an average... woman... or over a person in general? Something in order to give a financial weight to the longer lifespan that men don't get to enjoy. Actually, that sounds fun in a I-don't-care-about-the-accuracy way. Let's see... Googling "cost of a human life" gives a quick result of one of these numbers: 9.1 million dollars - EPA 7.9 million dollars - FDA 6 million do…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 03:04 AM
2

An attack on pro-life legislation from the perspective that men are unable to empathize with women, a notion contrary to reality in direct contrast to the reasons why people make pro-life legislation, and thus it's an attack on men.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 12:59 AM
11

The problem with people like you is you conveniently ignore that "men" did this because women were simultaneously demanding to vote and demanding to not be conscripted. It's almost like the government being male-populated isn't synonymous with the government only representing male interests...
/r/MensRights05/03/17 05:32 AM
1

You're right, we should pay more attention to those "good" feminists who come are pointing out how only a minority of feminists are misandric but good feminists like them do exist... ...only for two questions later it's revealed that we should work on fixing the wage gap, women are the vast majority of domestically abused, FGM is worse than MGM, false accusations are only 2% of all rape accusations... Basically, the only difference between a good feminist and a bad feminist is you simply haven't…
/r/MensRights02/03/17 02:21 AM
6

I saw one running for president a couple of months ago.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 01:28 AM
2

Honestly, I'm more sick and tired of morons like you who blame the /r/mensrights subreddit for voting patterns of a post that looks more like it hit /r/all.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 02:47 AM
4

No need to drag Nazis down to their level.
/r/MensRights26/02/17 06:53 AM
2

Probably more appropriate to just begin asking about a 17 year old and a 14 year old. People are probably more likely to just agree with that. Then point out that the 17 year old could have their birthday before the 14 year old and... suddenly a currently existing relationship goes from a-ok to throw-him-away-and-lock-the-key... complete nonsense. Something like a logical proof by contradiction wherein you prove that using the assumptions given you reach a contradiction thus one of the assumptio…
/r/MensRights17/02/17 08:05 AM
10

Sure... and if a police officer arrested him it must mean he's guilty...
/r/MensRights16/02/17 01:28 AM
1

They do seem to be desperately trying to convince somebody of that concept... primarily themselves.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 03:52 AM
3

Yeah, that first quote sounds like rationalization, similar to stories from women who say they were raped but are desperately trying to downplay their involvement in the sexual activities and push all of the responsibility for the act onto him. They tend to be slow, sensual, and detailed stories... until suddenly sex happened. Probably only a half sincere confession to relieve the guilt some but to not admit that she was never a victim of circumstance and simply a selfish scumbag. This part also…
/r/MGTOW14/02/17 03:22 AM
9

Similar to how somebody could be working a job they don't like but it pays much better than their other options.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 12:07 AM
1

I could see an argument along those lines similar to the reasons I've heard some people give to why they prefer college football.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 03:28 AM
1

Which would be comparable if society put blacks on a pedestal and idolized them as angels that can do no wrong.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 09:05 PM
1

No, they're bad because they make baseless claims about the nature of reality, and in this case men are the ones under attack from their unsubstantiated ideology.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 12:33 AM
1

It's inappropriate to call them a cunt... they lack the warmth and depth.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 03:58 AM
5

But it does! It covers them with a blanket so that everybody can pretend they're not there.
/r/MensRights31/01/17 12:42 AM
7

Probably more the nature of /r/all. I mean, those topics are so more much upvoted than everything else in this subreddit that's it's pretty obvious that people from /r/all are upvoting. Basically, they're highly upvoted because /r/all digests low effort memes better, not necessarily because MRAs upvote them so they reach /r/all. And while there's a question on what gets the ball rolling, I just checked the /r/all rising and there's tons of topics with little to no comments/upvotes there so stand…
/r/MensRights29/01/17 10:02 PM
4

I'd speculate that they're both.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:15 AM
2

By that logic isn't it fairly narcissistic and geocentric of US men to protest the possibility of Selective Service when there are dozens of countries around the world that currently do require military service. Maybe if both were protesting to the same governing entity responsible for addressing them.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 01:14 AM
1

Do you have some sort of reading problem? Did you not read the fucking post you just responded to? Because you didn't even try to address the claims, you just answered your own stupid strawman. Again, if WOMEN are more privileged in all of the issues they are campaigning for then we are not belittling their issues ; we are calling them on their power grab. It means they are literally gaining privileges and continuing to drown out men's attempts to have anything whatsoever addressed. This is like…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 05:07 AM
1

Let's take the women's march unity principles as an example. Which of these directly oppress mens rights? What, you mean the constant stream of points suggesting that women and specifically women need all of these things solved so much better despite all evidence suggesting it is not worse for them in any way, shape, or form? You know, the constant narrative that women are oppressed and we have to specifically help women? The feminist ideology that continues to plague the public discourse and co…
/r/MensRights26/01/17 05:01 AM
1

Ah yes, apparently even questioning if these women are actually campaigning for their rights is a horrible thing to do because these women say they are campaigning for their rights therefore it's an attack on their rights to ask if what they're campaigning for is for rights or for additional privilege... Uh huh. You do realize that you're dismissing their post using circular reasoning, don't you?
/r/MensRights26/01/17 04:58 AM
1

Just curious... are you intentionally trying to make yourself sound like a complete idiot? "Imagine if you had said all this to him"... except the entire post you're talking about is literally AloysiusC saying the same things they already said...
/r/MensRights26/01/17 02:37 AM
6

How in the fuck do you think this supports your point in any way, shape, or form? She's not approaching it as if it's a prison problem. She's approaching it as if it's a women's problem. Which means, opposite your incoherent babble, she's not fixing one side of the coin, she's trying to run away with the whole thing. And no, when I see people advocating for improving men's prison it's not under your motherfucking stupid "we're doing it for men" bullshit. It's "prison is not designed to reform pr…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 03:15 AM
3

This claim does jive with the reception of Lorena Bobbit.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 02:19 AM
2

I'm surprised they didn't ask Lorena Bobbit to follow up.
/r/MensRights25/01/17 02:16 AM
6

Her claims about prison and advocacy for prisoner's rights are separate from what got her into prison. No, they're not, because you're very blatantly downplaying what she's actually advocating for: women's prisoner rights. That's right, about how horrible jails are for women and specifically women. Not what's wrong with the jail system... what's wrong with the jail system for women. In other words, she came out of the system a self-serving piece of shit. Sociopathic narcissist goes in... sociopa…
/r/MensRights25/01/17 02:08 AM
1

It's really themselves that they're trying to convince. Basically, feminism is an ideology based on the idea that women are oppressed. It assumes this a priori and when reality doesn't quite measure up to their assumption they have to bend the facts to fit. (You can see this in many present-day and historical arguments on the disenfranchisement of women... if they can even be called arguments instead of blind assertions.) Anyways, the point is that they are denying reality and that combined with…
/r/MensRights23/01/17 06:09 AM
2

Eh, it really helps your chances, but the child support system doesn't really care if the guy was raped when it comes to forcing him to take on his fatherly financial duties so...
/r/MensRights22/01/17 11:55 PM
2

Unless she swiped her older sister's ID and thanks to the science of genetics happens to look close enough to the ID it's indistinguishable. The best fake IDs are real IDs.
/r/MensRights19/01/17 05:12 AM
1

Well you don't pay a hooker for sex... you pay her so she goes away afterwards.
/r/MensRights19/01/17 12:40 AM
10

I'd say "projection" is a more accurate term for this (and most) feminist behavior since it says both that they're hypocrites and why/how.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 09:08 PM
2

The point that's going way over your head is that feelings are important but they are not the ends. Somebody could feel threatened because a black man moved in next door but that doesn't mean that man committed assault. See, you don't have the right to feel safe because sometimes the source of that feeling of fear comes from your own bigotry and not something the other person actually did wrong. At best, you have the right to pursue the feeling of safety. Just like the having the right to the pu…
/r/MensRights11/01/17 05:10 AM
1

Unfortunately, HOAs exist as an example of the law allowing sub groups to create their own legal systems.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 08:59 AM
2

Hey retard, you apparently only read the first couple of words and then made up something completely different than what was said. Maybe if you tried even finishing the second sentence you wouldn't look like such a moron.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 03:49 AM
2

Oh no... it's retarded... Seriously, OP's headline is actually not a judgment call on the person in question... it's about the forum's response, and their response wasn't "oh, you assaulted phone man so I don't trust you you must be an abuser covering yourself" otherwise you'd have something resembling a point. No, it actually turns out most of the people there just call him a girlfriend abuser. A couple people also mention that the phone assault happened. Nobody really even called him a liar ab…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 03:42 AM
1

Just because you don't like that fact doesn't mean it isn't true You really are just a complete scumbag, aren't you? I never said anything about whether or not I objected to that fact. In fact, I pretty clearly said it was a valid issue to bring up and talk about. However, what I did object to was the blatant fucking lie that this has anything to do with OP's headline being "misleading". Since you are apparently not even talking to me along those lines and only reading whatever you think you fuc…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 03:33 AM
3

Has absolutely nothing to do with OP's headline which was the point explicitly made and the point I very explicitly responded to.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 10:30 PM
20

How in the fuck does the headline misrepresent OP? Was the girlfriend described as physically abusive? Yes. Did he slap her to stop it? Yes. Are the pieces of shit of that subreddit telling him he's abusing his girlfriend? Yes. While it's a good point that he assaulted the phone owner, that has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever in any way, shape, or form to do with what OP claimed which of course makes you the piece of shit misrepresenting things for claiming that they're being disingenous fo…
/r/MensRights02/01/17 08:49 PM
3

Most likely an influx of people from /r/all... and since it's the general reddit population there will be a huge influx of people uncritically repeating the feminist narrative.
/r/MensRights31/12/16 06:33 AM
20

a female who mistreats a male in public will be ignored by observers Not always... sometimes onlookers cheer her on! Or join in the fray...
/r/MensRights26/12/16 01:33 AM
3

I was circumcised as an infant. I don't really regret it, but I do wish I could strangle the sick fucks who want to continue doing it to kids.
/r/MensRights19/12/16 04:01 AM
2

So, disclaimer, I'm not entirely sure if this will be useful for your paper (and didn't see anywhere suggesting a definite age/social range) but if the laughing was definitely about them believing the idea had been disproven by "research" then their "knowledge" most likely came from the Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts. You should definitely focus the most on your own research paper but if you have the time, energy, and curiosity feel free to read it. (And take my analysis …
/r/MensRights09/12/16 01:00 AM
5

If they did the right thing they didn't get rid of the books due to public pressure but rather moved them into the Fiction section where they probably belong.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 01:12 AM
15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YozC8yFrZKI
/r/MensRights05/12/16 12:40 AM
9

Rude, threatening or sarcastic questions can be disallowed if they are asked in a “manner or tone that is inappropriate or based on stereotype’’. Something tells me this will not include the "men are violent" stereotype.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 02:31 AM
2

Having a lot of trouble believing your statement considering you'd rather taunt that there was another reason instead of giving us third party readers your side of the story. If anything it gives the impression that you didn't have an actual logical reason for banning them and you're just an overly emotional power tripping scumbag. With control issues.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 01:33 AM
3

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. You've got to be an extra kind of stupid to put forth this definition to defend your position. Remember, you claimed feminists work for both sexes when this one explicitly said it's about fighting for women to become equal to men. Explicitly fighting for one gender. Moron. Furthermore, the common mistake idiots like you make putting forward this definition is: it's the advocacy on the ground of <bla…
/r/MensRights26/11/16 12:40 AM
1

Ah yes, the Donald Duck Unification Theory.
/r/MensRights25/11/16 07:19 AM
1

Unfortunately, it might not be genetics making these people entitled bigots. If it's memetic then they could technically pass on their sexism to an adopted child.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 06:25 PM
1

I'd guess the practice in general exists to avoid the rare false negatives from some forms of chimerism. Basically, the idea of chimerism is two (or more) eggs are fertilized within the womb but at some point early in the development process the clumps of cells merge into one clump. They continue developing into a normal human but some parts of the body are genetic siblings of the others. The end result can be that the sperm are generated from one set of DNA while the other commonly tested sites…
/r/MensRights24/11/16 03:48 AM
9

Probably a side effect of lying to themselves. (A coping mechanism for people in general who don't want to admit they may not be the good guy in their internal story about their own lives.)
/r/MensRights24/11/16 12:42 AM
2

It's about special treatment for women under the guise of "equality". Remember: both sexes are equal, but some sexes are more equal than others.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 01:23 AM
4

They didn't want an election, they wanted an automatic victory Feels kind of true considering news of protests in the streets in college towns because Trump won.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 04:40 AM
3

feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. You've completely missed the very obvious problem with this definition which shows exactly why feminism is fundamentally problematic and why this concept of neo-feminism is a non-sequitur: It's advocating on the grounds of blank, but that doesn't mean blank is real. It's simply the justification for the advocation. In other words, feminism isn't the belief that inequalities should be recti…
/r/MensRights09/11/16 02:45 AM
1

It's something I've always suspected... which kind of makes it unfortunate that my laziness is not attempting to verify your sources and so I'm kind of still sitting in the "suspected" territory, but... yeah, I've always suspected this. I'm not Japanese myself but I do watch a far amount of Japanese animation and it's pretty clear that Japan also has its fair share of cultural misandry. Surprisingly not so different from the west in that regard, I'd say. Hmmm... I do think in one of your posts h…
/r/MensRights19/10/16 04:38 AM
2

It's just really unfortunate that even though there doesn't have to be an epidemic, the policy is thrown around as proof of an epidemic. Hmmm... I guess the insight there is people who do that you might as well point out to them the epidemic of witches that Salem was having to deal with... I mean, by the same logic that women-trains = proof of grope culture, witch trials must therefore be proof of witch culture. Of course, the ideologues who already know "The Truth™" won't be convinced but hopef…
/r/MensRights19/10/16 04:10 AM
2

Well, technically no, but digging for that can be the majority of the work since by all definitions they'll believe in a patriarchy but since they refuse to admit they're believing that they will bury it deep in bullshit.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 01:38 AM
1

Actually, that dictionary definition is more accurate than you give it credit for. It's a true statement of fact: feminists believe they've been fighting for equality. It's just that feminist views of equality are clouded by gynocentrism and misandry. Exactly like how women who are treated the same as men are seen as being discriminated against. Probably one of the more honest dictionary definitions of feminism because it at least kind of pretends not to make any judgment calls about the accurac…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 11:20 PM
1

Hey idiot, just because the word "equality" is in there doesn't mean it's synonymous with it. Use your fucking brain: "on the ground of" means "the people doing it believe"... but believing doesn't mean that the answer is right. Furthermore, the very definition you gave tells us that the belief is that women have less rights. If that's actually false then it's by definition the complete opposite of equality. It'd be no different from a vigilante from a story executing a "criminal" with complete …
/r/MensRights06/09/16 11:08 PM
1

Jesus fucking christ where are all of you fucking idiots coming from? I didn't say ANYTHING ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY YOU DUMBSHIT. I'm not even going to bother reading anything else from your scummy little post because you apparently can't read worth a fucking damn. My point, you turd fucker, was that THE ANALOGY IS COMPLETELY INAPPLICABLE AT ALL. It's a BAD thought experiment. Try addressing the actual point I made you retarded dipshit. Also, EXAMPLE SINCE YOU ARE GUTTER TRASH: SHE KIDNAPS HIM, SHE…
/r/MensRights02/09/16 10:59 PM
0

Why X has a possibility to cause Y is irrelevant. You are so completely fucking stupid... I have to seriously consider the possibility that you're a troll. If you're not, you should probably not have children because we don't need more dumbasses like you in the world. Two different versions of the scenario since you are so completely retarded: Scenario 1: Violinist magically attached itself to her. Can she detach? Sure. Scenario 2: She begs and begs and begs and pleads and pleads and pleads to h…
/r/MensRights01/09/16 03:02 AM
1

I don't think Well, at least we can both agree on that. More seriously, while you don't think I understand, I know for an absolute 100% concrete fact that you have no idea whatsoever what a thought experiment is. In this case, the thought experiment is about constructing an analogy about reality so that you can ponder the potential moral consequences of rules applied on both situations. The problem is that it needs to actually be analogous to be worth anything because otherwise it's just emotion…
/r/MensRights01/09/16 02:08 AM
1

For fucks sake, a lottery attached to sex would be a complete 100% artificial addition to something else by some onerous "other" with blatantly malicious intentions... which not so coincidentally coincides with the dumb ass "kidnapped" scenario in there when pregnancy in general is absolutely nothing like this. These things are not natural consequences to the act being performed. You're just making up bad guys and then saying "see? the result is bad!" Again, you need the ACT ITSELF to sometimes …
/r/MensRights01/09/16 01:47 AM
1

It's a stupid thought experiment that begins with a fundamental flaw: you don't just wake up and are suddenly pregnant. And most everybody already agrees that the closest scenario to the one being argued (becoming pregnant because you were raped) should allow for abortion. To even properly adjust this batshit retarded thought experiment to have any semblance to reality for abortion in general you'd have to construct a scenario where somehow women are choosing to "tie themselves to the violinist"…
/r/MensRights01/09/16 01:12 AM
17

Well, semi-retarded shitheads are only semi-retarded.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 12:46 AM
8

But who is hurt in this instance? Men in general who are being told they are evil for enjoying looking at women.
/r/MensRights07/08/16 07:20 PM
3

It's probably always been our turn ; projection seems to be the word that best describes how feminism views the world.
/r/MensRights02/08/16 12:12 AM
3

Mens Rea, latin for "guilty mind".
/r/MensRights28/07/16 01:26 AM
3

And honestly in that regard the first one isn't that bad, either. Oh sure she's the stereotypical meek woman but... they don't really make it about her being a woman. The story could have almost worked as well if the terminator had been after a meek man. I say almost because there's definitely an element that works for it in that there's more natural sympathy from the audience for her situation because she's a woman in danger. (Well, that and the way the movie ties together at the end only works…
/r/MensRights20/07/16 12:37 AM
6

Feminism is just a synonym of women's rights. Except it isn't. Feminism is the belief that women are unequal and that equality is achieved by fighting for women's rights. It doesn't care if this actually has any bearing on reality.
/r/MensRights15/07/16 12:17 AM
1

Sometimes it's a really interesting and powerful tool to make the protagonist someone other than the titular character, and interestingly enough if we look at Sleeping Beauty through that lens I've noticed something I've never thought of before, namely that the protagonists of Sleeping Beauty would actually be the three good fairies. I mean, Aurora doesn't really do much to drive the plot and we really don't see much of the story through her perspective at all... and Prince Philips has even less…
/r/MensRights12/07/16 03:57 AM
10

In case anybody is actually considering taking this drivel seriously, you need only be aware that feminism is only concerned about relieving women of their gender roles. It couldn't give a rat's ass about mens' gender roles and is completely indifferent to the increased responsibilities being dumped onto men.
/r/MensRights03/07/16 04:55 AM
1

Or disappearing after the good women. Because they saw their parents' relationship and realized that despite living a ridiculously cushy life and pushing absolutely all responsibilities onto the dad that somehow she was still living a harder life... (Although I could be biased in that regard because my mom didn't work, didn't clean, didn't cook, didn't do laundry, didn't repair the house, didn't work on the cars, didn't do grocery shopping, etc... and though she wasn't abusive, I wouldn't want a…
/r/MensRights18/06/16 10:57 PM
3

That's a different kind of reboot than what they're talking about, though. While it is about reviving a franchise and retreading old ground, it's doing it as a sequel to the movies that have previously existed. That's why people are calling it a "soft reboot". They're talking about the more common form of reboot that people apply the label to wherein a franchise is restarted. Where once again you're going to see the origin story of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man. Basically, the point they're r…
/r/MensRights10/06/16 11:33 PM
11

It's not very nice to compare feminists to cancer ; it's unfair to cancer.
/r/MensRights05/06/16 05:20 AM
9

Feminism was a domestic terror threat. It still is but it was, too.
/r/MensRights02/06/16 07:16 PM
1

Agreed. Which is why when it comes to rape jokes it's painfully obvious that feminists are ideologically blinded. They point at any joke about rape as a horrible thing that normalizes it. The problem is... most (if not all) of those jokes that I've seen the humor is less in that the rape happened (save for the raping of males... bleh) and more in the blatant manipulation of emotions of disgust in the listener. In other words, it actually normalizes the opposite ; it cements that everybody involv…
/r/MensRights23/05/16 11:30 PM
6

The funny thing about this is that so many feminist talking points people point out aren't institutional so instead they say it's social. For example, they will agree women are choosing to go less into STEM but then say that's because they are socially discouraged from doing it! Basically, the requirement that sexism be institutional isn't a hard requirement, it's an excuse so that they can pretend they aren't being blatantly sexist. Sort of like academic feminists who didn't like how their anti…
/r/MensRights21/05/16 08:02 PM
4

Kind of funny I'm getting downvoted for expressing my experience and not even an opinion. Not really that funny considering how little about the subject you seem to understand. You're giving us an anecdote that essentially requires that we accept your assessment that they were "paid less for the same job" without giving us any idea how you've measured that it was "the same job". You see, we understand that pay differences exist but we also understand that idiots keep portraying these differences…
/r/MensRights19/05/16 07:21 PM
14

Feminism isn't synonymous with women's rights. It's a belief in the nature of inequality.
/r/MensRights18/05/16 05:39 PM
2

As others have pointed out, the underlying "study" is the "Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts". The article linked it but here it is again: http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm Try reading it. Unless I missed more sections talking about it, it's laughably bad. Basically, their logic goes: Lawyers advise their male clients that fighting will most likely not work. Well, we got statistics that say that when men do fight they get custody. Therefore, …
/r/MensRights15/05/16 12:32 AM
2

Maybe, but then again it could also be used to push things in the wrong direction. I'd actually expect as much considering the anti-male sentiment currently sprinkled in various health-related stuff anyways. (Domestic violence lines for men afraid of being abusers... men being considered inherently violent... male genital mutilation either being endorsed or accepted... etc) Basically, it could be a symbolic gesture in the right direction but an actual action towards enforcing the wrong stuff. On…
/r/MensRights08/05/16 01:11 AM
8

Sort of like how scientific creationism and intelligent design is kind of more scary than the Westboro stuff?
/r/MensRights24/04/16 06:14 PM
9

Depends... when was the last time Fox News talked about burglars?
/r/MensRights22/04/16 06:45 PM
3

Yeah, it's completely crazy to think men have reproductive rights. Even when the courts agree that a man was raped the child support system (IE, the "force men to be fathers" system) doesn't care. Even in the situation where a judge says "well, even though he's a minor and it was rape, he was eagerly involved in the sexual process"... it's mind boggling. Basically, it's considered rape because they are considered not mentally matured enough and informed enough to comprehend the consequences, but…
/r/MensRights14/04/16 05:58 PM
1

My point is that either way we're seeing bigots being catered to in the construct of facilities. The black and white fountains was about catering to white racism against blacks. Turning mens restrooms into unisex restrooms while maintaining the women-only ones is about catering to... well, I guess I would call it women's sexism against men. (AKA feminism. And yes, I know not all women, and lots of men... but it'd be strange to bring that up here when probably not all whites and Uncle Toms...)
/r/MensRights14/04/16 05:14 PM
1

You're right! What were we thinking? How silly of us. Probably also wrong to think that there was anything bad with there being separate water fountains for blacks and whites.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 04:43 AM
1

The law is fair! It bans both the poor and the king from sleeping under bridges!
/r/MensRights13/04/16 01:50 AM
4

Honestly, it seems strange that something that is called a right could be waived. Especially so if there's a coercive element to its denial such as whether or not you'll be able to reasonably afford any representation at all in court.
/r/MensRights10/04/16 02:07 AM
2

Honestly, saying it's one-directional is kind of underplaying the definition. Sure, it doesn't say anything about the right of men compared to women, but it goes beyond just not saying that but rather directly saying that women are definitely less equal than men in these regards. In other words, this dictionary definition of feminism very deliberately confirms that feminism is actually a belief in the form of inequality. (Hence "feminism isn't the belief in the equality of women but rather a bel…
/r/MensRights09/04/16 11:31 PM
2

When seconds count the police are only minutes away!
/r/MGTOW05/04/16 01:40 AM
2

They're being sarcastic, nitwit. They're pointing out that this is really just an excuse to discriminate against men. The restriction could have been to other demographics that would more closely match the underlying stories but the bigotry would have been more obvious to "normal" people so they stuck with the culturally acceptable misandry.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 09:41 PM
6

So, tell me... I've only skimmed the article, but why do you believe he was definitely violent? The article only seemed to mention it in passing and, even worse, it calls it a "kind of a violent situation". So, it wasn't violent, only kind of? What the hell does that mean? Sounds like weasel words so then who in the hell described it that way? The mom? If so, we know she's not lying about this because...? Basically, it looks like you're eager to jump on the anti-man bandwagon. So, useful article…
/r/MensRights27/03/16 08:44 PM
38

Actually, MRAs understand that the Tender Years Doctrine makes what you said complete bullshit.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 06:52 PM
1

Seems reminiscent of the saying that you're not paying a prostitute for sex, you're paying her to leave afterwards.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 06:55 PM
6

I never made any claim about that therefore it is not my responsibility to prove anything about it. It is the onus of the person making the claim to provide proof. Just like it's the responsibility of the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) to prove their argument. And IllinoisFamily.org's (IFO) responsibility to prove their argument that the ACP's claim has merit. (Even if by a simple reference to how ACP derived their conclusion.) And /u/soalone34's responsibility to prove their argument t…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 06:17 PM
3

Actually, he does if he's making the claim that they're wrong. Even if his argument amounts to "they haven't shown any proof" (a potentially valid counter-argument) we are fundamentally talking about proving somebody wrong by actually attacking their argument (or lack thereof) vs a straightforward ad hominem. Don't be a dunce and mistake "you didn't prove them wrong" with "I'll believe they are correct".
/r/MensRights21/03/16 05:19 PM
6

Or, more accurately, one is the wish for people to happen to experience karmic hardships in life that might be comparably traumatic to that which they are deliberately making light of... and the other is celebrating a blatantly malicious action by an individual.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 03:49 PM
1

I'd argue that it's ideologically anti-male. It begins with the premise that women are worse off and in order to justify this assumption it has to downplay and ignore the suffering of men. I think that tends to come in one of three forms: Ignoring that some bad thing happens to both men and women in order to say it happens to women. Ignoring that some bad thing happens only to men. Claiming some bad thing that happens to men is actually a bad thing happening to women. Whenever I see feminists at…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 06:38 PM
1

I've never heard of any speculated reasons prior to the infamous african trials. In that regard all I've heard is that the group that ran them was pro-circumcision. The information was most likely presented to suggest that the group ran the tests to verify a priori biases instead of to approach the matter scientifically. However, that's not necessarily the same thing as what they were telling themselves beforehand. I do vaguely recall reading about a paper that hypothesized a mechanism, though. …
/r/MensRights14/03/16 08:20 PM
8

I can't help but think you only read the first half of the post you replied to. Since you apparently didn't read the second half, let me break it down: The overall point is that feminism isn't the belief in women's equality... it's the belief in women's inequality. It's the belief that women are the oppressed. It doesn't care if women were more privileged or less privileged. Basically, your counterpoint makes no sense because it assumes the anger is valid when it's entirely possible it has no ba…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 03:43 PM
1

I don't think it was his friend that made it up. They're not. I remember it from a book about riddles that I read back in the 90s. Alongside things like "Brothers and sisters I have none, but this man's father is my father's son." Or the "move 1 matchstick". It's a good reminder in how our assumptions about the world can be unfounded based on incomplete information being filled in. Unfortunately, this person using it to look for sexism doesn't understand this. Thinking "man" when you hear "surge…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 10:32 PM
6

Given the areas they work in the income is pretty much given. Let's just stop there. This is exactly the point, the income is pretty much a given therefore this has absolutely nothing to do with poverty whatsoever thus it's a bold-faced lie about the actual purpose. To throw it out as the very first point indicates they're not explaining a position, they're spinning in place desperately justifying the reasoning to themselves. Also, you kind of revealed how absolutely fucking stupid you are by br…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 10:08 PM
10

How is it not? The very first thing it does is claim this is an anti-poverty endeavor (even though it's not based on income but gender) and then throws up a ton of misinformation about the pay "gap". This reads less like a coherent, well-thought-out explanation and a more like a desperate barrage of parroted information.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 09:37 PM
0

If you don't get why that situation generates an uncomfortable atmosphere, you don't get it. Apparently the person here who doesn't get it is you. Did you even read your own post that I replied to? You didn't say it generates an uncomfortable atmosphere, you blatantly said that it's men scaring women off. And that's the problem. You are actively denying the very real possibility that this isn't a lack-of-opportunity problem, it's an entitlement issue. And it makes you sound quite bigoted.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 09:32 PM
1

This seems to be the most pure representation of your bullshit. Lots of assertions boiling down to how it's men scaring away women... not much substance behind said assertion, though. Do you really expect us to just believe your subjective conclusions especially given how vague you're being about what's actually wrong?
/r/MensRights11/03/16 09:05 PM
1

Needs to have a "bullies" circle, though, so that there's a crybullies section.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 08:26 PM
2

Correction: most women in the United States don't identify as Feminist the label but the majority are still by any metric ideologically feminist.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 10:30 PM
5

Sounds like the answer is "yes, indirectly". Of course, the only gender that feminists degrade more than women.. are men.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 11:27 PM
2

That's because their topic is essentially a middle ground fallacy.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 09:54 PM
3

Most don't call themselves feminist. That's different from believing and spreading feminist misinformation. Basically, I'm saying that they're rejecting the label as bad instead of understanding that the underlying ideology is bad and rejecting that. For all intents and purposes they are still ideologically feminist and it doesn't make sense to say they're not feminist. It's basically just like encountering somebody who says they're not a christian but then tells you that they believe that Jesus…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 05:20 PM
4

Do we unfairly drop into threads and mess them up? Honestly, other than the random claim brought up in this subreddit, when I see the claim out in the wild it's in a very public post and the person making the claim doesn't want to accept that many MRA sentiments are widespread. I think the claim is really just projection.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 11:29 PM
8

When MRA conversations about what would happen to a city/country/world if all men simply just stopped working for a day... I think of this episode. At least I think it's this episode. And I don't think of it because I think it's right... I think of it as a silly reality-ignoring "everything is happy" bullshit delusion. Basically, IIRC, the poison gets released, all men are incapacitated on account of dying, and I'm sure some plan was in place to handle it, but it ends with everybody's okay becau…
/r/MensRights28/02/16 08:29 PM
6

We don't reject the "1 in 4" rape statistic because it is based on a survey... we reject it because it's a deliberately badly executed survey with objectively sexist goals that contradicts our (admittedly subjective) observation of reality. In other words, the 1-in-4 study author twisted as much activity into sexual assault as they could, only looked into women victimization, and all for the purpose of telling us that colleges are inherently more dangerous than the most lawless regions of our co…
/r/MensRights28/02/16 08:16 PM
1

with a sample of only 2000, their best case margin of error is going to be kinda huge. Honestly only down voting as I pass for this absurd statement. I mean, I don't exactly agree with everything else, but this makes your entire post a "pot calling the kettle black" since you're talking about cognitive biases. 2000 is a lot of samples. The real question is whether or not the sampling method would get a good-enough variety to be representative. The rest of your post is relevant to that and if you…
/r/MensRights28/02/16 08:00 PM
-3

You're right... when people are at work they should never, ever show any signs that they're humans instead of machines. They should just always be silent and go about their business until it's time to talk about something work related.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 06:30 AM
2

I've not read the article but based on the other quotes I think you're interpreting this one incorrectly. This would be a positive quote if it were pointing out how this tension is because of undue burden on the man. The other quotes people have been discussing from the article make it pretty clear that it's the other way around ; criticism of the man not giving up on certain desires. In other words, this tension between masculinity and family life are apparently being blamed on men.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 01:55 AM
1

And if we apply Hanlon's razor and assume this is the work of idiocy instead of malice then that would mean that the purpose you're referring to is "this is why my bigotry isn't really bigotry". Basically, the bullshit spewed by ideologues who start seeing evidence that maybe they're a filthy piece of shit but instead of improving themselves they have to go digging for excuses. Which is par for the course for feminism. (See: Patriarchy Theory + Intersectionality = Kyriarchy Theory, or "OH SHIT B…
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:12 PM
2

What is the point of a dictionary if people don't follow it? Dictionaries aren't instructional, they are descriptive. Their purpose is as a tool to facilitate understood meaning during communication, but both the tool and its usage are human constructs subject to possible human failings. Thus, if the dictionary is being deceptive in its descriptive purposes it is a broken tool for that moment/word/argument. Basically, it's an agreed-upon source for resolving disputes, but that agreement is worth…
/r/MensRights16/02/16 07:25 PM
1

This is "men in general" not "every single man ever". It's a description of trends that will take more than a couple years after massive application before you'd start seeing the effects. After all, it's not like the Japanese salaryman literally appeared overnight. So, while I'd like for your situation to be the norm, I'm not really sure how it's relevant to what I was saying. (Especially since I have my doubts that it's an indication of the effects of such policies and more of an indication of …
/r/MensRights16/02/16 07:25 AM
3

I doubt it'll really help. The underlying issue is that women are specifically looking for men with higher earning potential. So, is it any surprise that you find more men in a place where women want them? Giving fathers as much time off as women will probably just cause men to either start making up for it in other ways or giving up and becoming MGTOW.
/r/MensRights15/02/16 08:29 PM
8

Although the border between the two is surprisingly thin.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 07:55 PM
12

I don't know how stupid someone has to be in order to claim that feminism and egalitarianism are synonymous. You don't even have to think that feminism is bad or wrong to know that it's a subset of egalitarianism. In other words, as an egalitarian pursuit, feminism is based on the premise that women are (or were) worse off than men. Basically, feminism only "works towards equal rights for all genders" if its underlying assumption is actually true and, guess what, they don't actually care about e…
/r/MensRights14/02/16 07:30 AM
0

Try exercising more reading comprehension. It'll make you look less foolish: You care more about a woman being offended over some guy looking at her tits than things like male genital mutilation, male victims of rape and domestic violence, and fathers being allowed to see their children. He didn't suggest they were fine with circumcision and male victims, he clearly suggested that they were willing to leave because we took issue with women complaining about people "staring" at their cleavage. It…
/r/MensRights11/02/16 10:58 PM
2

Yeah, this is up there with "most domestic violence is male-to-female because that's the most arrests". Idiots like this look at numbers and fail to question if the underlying source could itself be biased. It jives with their biases and so it must be true. Never mind that if the police almost never arrest a woman that hits a man then the arrest statistics will never include that. Or that so much of our bigoted society will say that men can't be raped by women that of course they're not going to…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 05:55 AM
3

Wait... could you (UpsetMuffins) be an alt account for Zoidbergluver? Both of you have made the really bizarre mistake of referring to GirlWritesWhat, the most infamous female MRA, as a guy... and then both of you are making very strong accusations based on that assumption being true. Zoidbergluver's blabbering is objectively wrong: claiming that GWW was only supporting a paragraph because GWW was a guy thinking they read another guy's post. It demonstrates the inherently emotional nature of the…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 05:28 AM
6

you just end up looking like a presumptuous ass. Says the idiot who so lacks in reading comprehension that they look like a dumb ass. Since you're apparently too stupid to even bother re-reading a comment chain, here's the summary of your idiocy: Zoidbergluver posts ay_ch's wall of text. GirlWritesWhat suggests adding paragraph breaks. Zoidbergluver says it's ay_ch's wall of text. (Possibly implying that the lack of paragraph breaks is originally from ay_ch.) GirlWritesWhat says they read throug…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 05:16 AM
1

You do realize that nothing you said changes my point? You are completely failing to ask yourself if the numbers involved in the wage gap argument as you understand it have any basing whatsoever in reality. The answer is: they do in a perverse game of "telephone" by people desperate to be the victim. Namely, the Department of Labor reports that the wages of full-time (35+ hours) men vs women is ~77 cents to the dollar. Feminists initially report this saying this in and of itself is proof of sexi…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 10:15 PM
3

A really interesting and concise way I saw it put is: Do men commit suicide more because they don't talk about it? Or are their problems so much worse that talking about it won't make things better? (And with this the fundamental problem with feminism is obvious, especially wrt men's rights: feminism already knows which of those it needs to be the answer in order for Patriarchy Theory to have any basis whatsoever.)
/r/MensRights02/02/16 09:28 PM
2

That's how I learned about the wage gap too. This comic is completely wrong. What a completely stupid thing to say. "I learned it this way" therefore the people saying that it doesn't take certain things into account must be wrong? There's absolutely no shred of critical thinking in there on your part!
/r/MensRights02/02/16 07:31 PM
2

Feminism at it's core is not an enemy to men's rights Feminism at its core is the assumption that women are less equal to men. If this assumption is at odds with reality then it is very directly an enemy to men's rights ; any efforts to "correct" a non-existent inequality would in reality be either creating an inequality or widening it.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 07:00 PM
3

There is no blame on the mothers for picking bad guys Or, apparently, bad mothers who deliberately drive fathers away.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 05:38 PM
1

people, such as myself, are both advocates for men's issues AND are also feminists as well Given how much you poo-poo MRA issues in order to push the feminist position, I see you less as an advocate for men's issues and more as a missionary for feminist ideology. It's too bad you lack the introspection to realize this but at least it gives us a lot of chances to review and reject badly structured feminist arguments.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 10:31 PM
2

Jesus christ it's like talking to a brick wall. It doesn't get much more "pot calling the kettle black" than this. The point, dear dumbass, is that the bad thing that happened to this man is a completely life destroying process. Your retarded babbling is like responding to "I don't feel like going outside ever again because I was mugged in an alleyway and my life flashed before my eyes" with "stop being a baby, I accidentally stubbed my toe on a fence post but I still go outside". It's like you …
/r/MensRights29/01/16 10:27 PM
2

This is pretty pathetic even for you. In the library scenario the guy wasn't just kicked out of the library but also fired and convicted as a sex offender. In order for your mind-bogglingly stupid "reversal" to even begin to be comparable you'd have to believe that promiscuous women are also fired and then convicted as a sex offender. Next time, try reading what was actually said instead of whatever you decide to selectively interpret.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 05:58 PM
6

You shouldn't say such mean things. It's rude to the vermin.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 08:05 PM
5

Feminism isn't about believing in equality, it's about believing in inequality. Specifically: assuming a priori that women have it worse. From there it may look like equality because it then says that women are oppressed and it's claiming to fight for the oppressed but it's never cared to make sure they're actually oppressed or worse off or whatever. Instead, feminism has worked at proving that all evidence fits the assumption. This makes it an ideology masquerading as a rational philosophy. Lik…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 07:56 PM
3

I have no idea where that came from I suspect the source starts with "feminism" and ends with "feminism". Maybe "feminismfeminism".
/r/MensRights26/01/16 05:03 PM
5

There's a saying: "Your right to swing your fists ends at my nose." In a more generic form, it's the idea that when somebody starts using their rights to curtail others' rights that's when you can step in. These students may be exercising their right to free speech but they're not asking or discussing whether or not he should come back to the college (that should be protected), they're attempting to force the college to deny him his right to pursue happiness. Just like other forms of free speech…
/r/MensRights24/01/16 11:15 PM
11

Especially being drunk. Being drunk doesn't bestow you with the mind of a completely separate person, it lowers your inhibitions and makes observation cloudy. It's insight into the part of herself that she may normally try to hide and how she deals with situations when she's in over her head. Basically, deep down she's a narcissistic thug. This is a lot like the waiter test when it comes to dating.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 06:46 AM
1

Errr, no, even if what she said is true he didn't roofie her. It'd still be drugging her, but that is neither synonymous with "roofie" nor does it counter the point that was being made: Cosby is being depicted as somebody who unknowingly (to the consumer) slips drugs into somebody's food or drinks. The person you're talking about, even by their own claim, was never really told what the pills were or what they'd do but chose to take them. That's a completely different kind of monster from somebod…
/r/MensRights20/01/16 09:15 PM
1

1 Day vs 22 hours? It's not that big a difference but considering at the time I took it your post was 19 hours old (vs the edit time of 22 hours) that means they edited it approximately 3 hours before your post.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 07:01 PM
1

Looks like that's a feature of the Reddit Enhancement Suite. Here is what the beginning of their post looks like to me.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 05:38 PM
1

Their post has been edited approximately 3 hours before yours so it's possible they could have added it in after the complaint in question.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:51 AM
0

Wow, really going for the gold in the retard olympics there. "Justify" doesn't mean "oh hey this is the common form I'll use this like a moron" it means that you say WHY it applies. And since you're a complete moron, I'll clue you in why the responsibility lies in your idiotic court to justify the usage of a mean average: because you've admitted the sampling could be very biased and so a random sampling of individuals won't like anything like a mean average. This is very basic logic, but instead…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 01:58 AM
1

I know it's hard being a complete fucking retard but "most common" doesn't mean "always the case". You think presenting the data in a way that implies NO MEN are having sex I pointed out other scenarios where men were having more than 0. Try reading the whole thing moron.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 10:30 PM
1

You realize there are multiple different kinds of "average" and the "mean average" isn't necessarily useful for describing the data? If of 100 men and 100 women the 100 women were fucking 1 guy the mean average of the two groups may be 1 but the median and the mode for men would be 0 and for women would be 1. In that extreme example both of those are far more useful for describing the data because they indicate that you'd find most men don't get any sex at all. (Meanwhile, women would remain at …
/r/MensRights12/01/16 08:46 PM
1

I'm absolutely boggled by how completely stupid you are. For starters, the point I'm arguing that you've failed to address is completely the opposite of anything any feminist has ever argued for. In fact, if anybody here has argued in a more feminist fashion it's you with your "duuuuuh how are women more socially powerful" garbage. For fucks sake, I was very fucking explicit about not reading your fucking response because I already fucking said that I wasn't fucking arguing for the fucking point…
/r/MensRights08/01/16 08:45 PM
1

Why should male workers be put in more danger? Why should there be a social power imbalance of some kind? Why should I bother reading anything else you replied to me when I already addressed that I wasn't claiming it to be accurate, merely accusing you of ignoring their main point. The correct answer here should have been to apologize for your idiocy, not to cement it further.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 07:08 PM
2

Because his point wasn't about what's between the legs and the average physical capabilities (that was an obvious lead in to the real point if you'd bothered reading the whole post, moron) but rather the social power imbalance and the effect that would have in life or death situations in the form of putting male workers in more danger. Not that I think it's correct, but it's half his fucking post and the rest of it is clearly structured to make that main point. That is very clearly the main thin…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 01:33 AM
1

Not sure why you're being upvoted considering you completely failed to address any of the points that were actually made and instead constructed some very blatant straw men.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 05:27 PM
2

No. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is about trying to exclude unwanted outliers by claiming they're not a part of the group in question. The form of the argument being presented textually as something like "these are the realities of divorce for a significant percentage of men". So, if there are fallacies present, it's in the form of individual items not being "significant". (Keeping in mind that the term "significant" could be subjective.)
/r/MensRights04/01/16 05:35 PM
1

But it’s equally important that you know what you’re talking about. I agree with this. I absolutely do. I wonder when the author is going to start? I agree that people should do this but I'm not sure I agree that this makes somebody a better feminist. What does it mean to be "better"? If "better" means "less of an intolerable cunt" (non-gendered "cunt" there) then sure... but if it means "becoming more feminist" then you need to do exactly the opposite of knowing what you're talking about: you n…
/r/MensRights01/01/16 10:37 PM
2

No, we're aware exactly of what you're talking about and to call it a study is laughable. Try reading it. Even if you are unaware of the blatantly wrong numbers it tries to push off you should be able to see that it's a priori assumed the answer: It makes no distinction between men who fought for custody and men who didn't. It didn't bother to check anything, including if the men who fought did so (against their lawyer's recommendations) because the wife was violent, or they had tons of money, e…
/r/MensRights31/12/15 09:50 PM
2

I know this comment is probably late-enough that only you would see it but I thought it'd be worthwhile to add to this body of knowledge. So, you'll at least appreciate it, hopefully. This is all very reminiscent of the feminist ice cream meme: http://i.imgur.com/75l5asi.gif I think it was GWW who pointed out that feminists are so stupid they didn't even bother addressing the issue of where the ice cream was coming from. So, it isn't even just the physical infrastructure of society they choose t…
/r/MensRights30/12/15 07:52 AM
3

I agree. Basically, I boil it down to a simple saying: The only difference between a good feminist and a bad feminist is you haven't asked the good feminist the right question yet. You can argue this because feminism is an ideology. If you properly understand the underlying premises behind the ideology of feminism then you understand why it's bad. So, when somebody says they're a feminist, regardless of what they state their goals to be, you already know that they either accept some misandric "f…
/r/MensRights21/12/15 12:41 AM
2

It might as well be straight out of a Saw movie.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 06:39 AM
1

A useful read. Although Wikipedia has worked hard to tone down the damning nature of the doctrine in favor of turning the page into blatant feminist propaganda. "Men were given children by default." (No reason given.) "Women had no rights." (No sources given, sentence not needed for the explanation.) "Feminist campaigned for women's right to be the default parent." (Notice that the potentially damning outcome of the act was hidden behind simplified explanations and the language "rights rights ri…
/r/MensRights19/12/15 03:08 AM
5

I would say Lego Movie doesn't fall under that for a couple reasons. For starters, to say that he ended up better than her is... questionable. He certainly started seeing things in a way along her lines... beyond? Hard to say since we were supposed to see things from his point of view. But there was no training montage and I don't think they were training him to be her superior in any way, shape, or form. What he really represented was a different way of looking at things. He was a normal person…
/r/MensRights15/12/15 07:44 AM
3

To add on to this, I've found that most people are not lovely. And now if I open up to the wrong woman I risk far more than "simple" hurt feelings. Hell, I could choose a "mostly right" woman and she could still be a little gynocentric and it just whittles away everything I enjoy about life little by little and nobody would give a rat's ass.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 12:30 AM
11

Meanwhile, back in reality, if you are a feminist you are both sexist and ignorant.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 04:55 AM
1

Honestly, posts like this only further convince me to avoid dating. In my experience bad women are narcissistic but the vast majority who aren't narcissistic are instead simply gynocentric, and do you have any idea how gynocentric your post sounds? Absolutely nothing you said does anything to actually alleviate the concerns he brought up. In fact, all you're doing is completely dismissing what he said. Also... are you disparaging the word "mate"?
/r/MensRights10/12/15 05:27 PM
2

If I'm not mistaken, that's the count of the number of people who identify as feminist. However, feminism is an ideology and whether or not somebody actually is a feminist depends on their beliefs. The number of feminists are most likely much higher than that since we know of people who are definitely feminist but refuse to call themselves as such.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 09:56 PM
-1

Do idiots like you even think about these things before you type? If his opinion doesn't add something to the conversation then it doesn't fucking matter that it's his opinion ; it's not contributing to the discussion and thus it gets down voted.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 05:18 PM
5

My favorite way to put this: A sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from malice.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 09:13 PM
1

even in areas advertised as "Open-Minded". I'd say "especially in areas advertised as 'Open-Minded'" ; usually that's just code for "let's spread feminist ideology!"
/r/MensRights26/11/15 12:18 AM
56

If it's off I'd say it's off in a way that makes the comparison more apt. Basically, that we know rape of men by women is deliberately underplayed even by people looking for these stats. I mean, to even see something similar with "blacks stealing" you'd have to have fiends and family laughing at or congratulating people for, say, a white person stealing from them. As far as I'm concerned, the comparison to "reminding blacks not to steal" is playing softball. It only covers the surface of how big…
/r/MensRights25/11/15 08:43 PM
0

That's true, but I certainly wouldn't want to eat one that has had somebody's cock or cunt rubbed all over it. Eeew.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 08:26 PM
1

Twasn't I. As a general rule of thumb I only down vote people who respond to me when they've completely ignored a point I made just to repeat themselves. (So, pretty much any SJW that responds to me.) Friendly chatter is a-okay with me.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 11:13 PM
1

Easiest way to tell a feminist is lying: their lips are moving.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 09:17 PM
10

Good to know you're 'shaking with anger' that's sincerely hilarious. It does indicate how little their tantrum has to do with actual logical thought. It's like... why would you post that you're shaking with anger unless you're trying to emphasize the emotional impact of reading the thing instead of an attempt to construct an actual rational response? Honestly, "cuntwaffle" seems like a pretty weak comeback to "cockwaffle". I wonder what would work better? I was thinking something that combines c…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 06:09 PM
10

I agree, a little salt is worthwhile. The way it is written feels to me a less like an incident being recalled and a little more like a narrative being constructed. I think it's the context given in the beginning. While it's definitely possible it's a grieving husband venting on a tangentially related topic, it also very closely resembles a writer trying too hard to make you sympathize with a character. And the start after that... why would somebody go grocery shopping because of their grief ins…
/r/MensRights20/11/15 09:23 PM
3

Best thing to do when you see a kid in trouble is to yell out, "Hey, whose fucking kid is this?" No pedo would call attention to himself that way. Unfortunately, that only helps for people who are present during your initial contact. People who arrive afterwards will still be a liability. (And it's possible that people who show up afterwards would have already been the bigger liability because of the knee-jerk demonization of men they would already have but with even less context.) I'm not sure …
/r/MensRights19/11/15 06:40 PM
12

No feminist works on mens issues, they assume they don't exist Indeed. Whenever they talk about a men's issue it is from the perspective of it being indirectly a women's issue. Probably the most direct way of seeing this is in how feminism is supposedly "tackling the issue of men's gender roles". Feminists are always very vague on what exactly that entails, though, and yet around every corner you can plainly see feminists doing the exact opposite: men need to do more stuff for women. (HeForShe, …
/r/MensRights17/11/15 11:44 PM
1

I'd guess police reports. It's been the go-to for dishonest feminist statistics for domestic abuse since the dawn of... well, feminism.
/r/MensRights11/11/15 01:28 AM
3

1st wave fair wage Are you really this stupid? You've apparently shoved your head so far up your own ass that you've come out your mouth and gone back up your ass again. I pointed out that the "fair wage" stuff is indiscernible from the "wage gap" bullshit. You can't turn around and claim that same fact as what it is without addressing that, moron. All it proves is that first wave didn't care if it was a "wage gap" or an "earnings gap". Which makes it no different from the second or the third wa…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 10:34 PM
1

I don't think they're a hard core feminist but they do seem to lack the critical thinking skills to identify underlying feminist assumptions that they hold. This is actually a very common problem amongst MRAs, though, so it's not something I'd hold specifically against them. Like I mentioned, even if there are some feminist topics that I've pointed out that most MRAs would agree are bullshit, some things stick. "The Vote™" being the example I mentioned, but I call it "The Vote™" because it's pre…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 10:24 PM
1

My claim exists regardless of my opinion. It could be completely transplanted to another medium by somebody neither of us know and people there could debate its merits. Unlike anything you've posted here. What are people supposed to do with "radickulous says RubixCubeDonut is stupid"? It's the applicability of my claim that is possibly an opinion but you've actually done absolutely nothing to actually demonstrate (or even probe) that. Your assertion in that regard is not only unfounded, it's lau…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 09:55 PM
4

only passing connections to historical reality There you go again, trying to claim the other person is detached from reality simply because they don't accept as fact those things you uncritically think of as facts. Again, what feminism has defined as rights and privileges requires them to explicitly downplay the disposability and suffering of men to try and portray women as oppressed. They're playing word games because they are an ideology. They believe that women are oppressed and thus have to …
/r/MensRights10/11/15 09:20 PM
2

Yet more useless posting. Do you lack the introspection to realize how stupid and insecure you look in your posts? You've dismissed my claim in a way that even people that agree with you will probably down vote you. None of your posts give anybody any reason to agree with anything you've said, only that you think you're smarter than me. (And that we're supposed to believe you just because you say so.) Again, all you keep saying is: I'm smart and you're dumb so I don't need to make any actual poi…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 08:30 PM
7

I'm smart and you're dumb so I don't need to make any actual points. Another contentless response.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 07:38 PM
5

historically unsound and pure hyperbole historical revisionism Honestly, these are the core of the reason I down voted your response. It's apparently never occurred to you to ask the question of who is doing historical revisionism and instead because you've decided that certain interpretations of history should be interpreted as facts that people not mindlessly spewing these facts are therefore just making shit up. Pretty close to an ad hominen. The fact of the matter is that a pro-feminist inte…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 07:36 PM
5

Not a particularly useful response. The best I can work with is maybe you just did a really, really poor job of requesting clarification but I suspect that you're actually just attempting to ridicule without introducing anything of substance. (This should be a good indication that you're not being logical about your views.) In the off chance you were poorly asking for clarification (or for the sake of people passing by who want clarification), feminism has only even been able to construct a case…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 07:18 PM
6

That's a little different than hating men... That's because they left out the point that the only way to claim feminist actions even then are in any way for equality requires you to deliberately ignore the disposability of (and because of that the suffering of) men. So, basically, "I don't care if men suffer, I just want them to work harder to give me more stuff!" It's a deliberate transition from the gynocentric (pre-feminism) to the narcissistic (post-feminism) by sacrificing men. It's a form …
/r/MensRights10/11/15 06:58 PM
42

Worse than that, they're also brought up being told that they're oppressed. The privilege of being able to drop out of the workforce (partially or completely) is somehow not actually a privilege but oppression. That men owe them. Thanks feminism.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:19 PM
4

I don't think sex stores objectify women. I think they womenify objects. Pretty big difference there.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 11:50 PM
2

It's to be expected. There is a saying: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table. Feminism follows this ideal. It has no substance and so its followers can only focus on image. That image is "protect women" and so all problems are construed as women needing to be protected, all solutions are to protect women.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 09:30 PM
1

I wouldn't look for the "doing something for men" stuff in that way. The problem is that what you call "lip service" is kind of burying the real problem by making people think you're saying they're lying about their sincerity when, in fact, the problem is that they're holding onto their bigoted assumptions when attempting to solve them. In other words, while they're insincere about their desire to help (in the form of being unwilling to question their underlying assumptions about the source of t…
/r/MensRights05/11/15 08:12 PM
1

There's another problem in that if it's only looking at number of cases it's ignoring that there can be correlation without causation. Or rather, to state that there's a causal relationship is insufficient. Consider autism. Let's say autism rates do go up in the children of parents who conceive over 40. Is this because they're over 40? Or could there be related genes that tend to encourage these people to not have kids until later?
/r/MensRights04/11/15 03:44 AM
2

I have a friend who dated a girl making more than him. Her mom was also a business woman. Friend married girl. Over the course of a couple years she transitioned to being a SAHM. (No judgment here on whether or not she's pulling her weight since I am uninformed in that regard.)
/r/MensRights03/11/15 11:39 PM
1

You still didn't answer the critical question at all. In fact, your reply indicates you didn't even try to think about a single thing I said. I'm not even sure you even read it. You're strawmanning really badly.
/r/MensRights30/10/15 04:12 PM
-1

Yeah, this is a pretty good example of why feminists are pretty despicable even if they're wearing a mask of civility. The first question asked of you was: Do you see no problem with the presumption though that women don't have equal rights in western countries? You didn't just ignore it, you shat all over it with a pathetic pseudo-civil fluffy answer that ignores the fact that you're assuming in advance that women are the ones being discriminated against. Why did you do this? Because you're a f…
/r/MensRights30/10/15 12:09 AM
1

I can't recall her initiating peace. The day that fully opened my eyes and started me down the road to becoming an MGTOW was while I was a teenager. My dad attempted to give me some marriage advise: that a working marriage involved compromise. However, my interpretation of that was that my mom hadn't actually ever compromised and thus it was really "the man must always compromise". Not sure if he knew. Doubt it. I've not seen anything that suggests society thinks otherwise. In fact, it's continu…
/r/MensRights29/10/15 12:26 AM
4

Eh, exercise caution. So many of their animations (or at least the ones that make it to the states) show so many of the same anti-male memes. Perhaps that's also just the animation fan demographics there, though. My experience of Japanese entertainment outside of that and the occasional gameshow video on Youtube is admittedly lacking. Then there's the whole "herbivore" issue which, as part of the NEET phenomenon, seems to be mostly a huge societal backlash to the completely unbalanced social exp…
/r/MensRights27/10/15 06:11 AM
1

Or the pain doesn't matter because the procedure could be 100% guaranteed pain free, 100% guaranteed safe and it would still be very wrong to force upon people.
/r/MensRights27/10/15 12:53 AM
9

Indeed. It's the difference between whether the system is out to help you or out to get you. If an individual is attempting to screw you over but the system is on your side then you have the means of exercising self-defense in case of emergency. However, an individual attempting to screw you over using the system itself... even attempting to defend yourself becomes proof of your guilt. If you can't dot all your Is and cross all your Ts then that makes you completely vulnerable to the mob.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 10:20 PM
6

I'd say less "hamsters" and more "pots" as in "pots calling the kettle black".
/r/MensRights25/10/15 10:01 PM
2

It can be interpreted as including non-penetrative male rape by women insofar that the victim is not being identified as the one being penetrated. However, that makes it an even worse definition. If it was intended to include rape by envelopment then it should have been explicit, not this weasel-wordy bullshit clearly designed so that somebody could say "no, see, it includes men raped by women" while allowing stat-collectors to interpret it the old way. Whoever wrote this definition should be be…
/r/MensRights22/10/15 08:56 PM
0

Just how stupid are you? Your point number 2: 2.) whether or not it actually qualifies as being oppressed, or if women should just suck it up and deal with it. completely contradicts absolutely everything else you were trying to say. If a woman "feels" oppressed but it's up for debate whether or not she actually is then your saying she feels it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it can be called that, which means calling it that without context can only be called an a priori assump…
/r/MensRights22/10/15 08:48 PM
1

"Feminism" isn't synonymous with "women's rights". Saying that both sides are just the same flinging shit at each other ignores the blatantly obvious point that feminism is an ideology. It assumes a priori that women are oppressed. It doesn't fucking care about reality, it only cares about twisting any facts it can get its hands on to justify its bigotry. ("Benevolent Sexism" being the most blatantly obvious example since it completely destroys the concept that men are privileged just because a …
/r/MensRights22/10/15 06:25 PM
2

Yes. The idea as I understand it was that the remaining 90% would be so dispirited so as to become unable (or far less willing) to continue fighting.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 12:03 AM
24

Or male (for negative attributes).
/r/MensRights19/10/15 07:22 PM
3

I'm honestly not convinced we're actually dealing with a feminist here. This is also the sort of absurd claim the Manhood 101 spammers make. (However, for them it's absurd because their posts are deleted and their accounts banned because they're blatantly spam. A decidedly not-childish view contrary to claims they might make.) Now, granted, it doesn't seem like them because they haven't responded to everybody in the thread calling them a "faggot" but they've changed tactics before so... I can pr…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 06:15 PM
2

How about a one sentence summary on why it's wrong? "It's more accurate to call it an earnings gap than a wage gap." And if you really need that paragraph then "The number only measures raw values and doesn't take into account how hard people work to make money. It doesn't measure the risks, commute times, benefits, hours, negotiations, or anything else." Oh, but just FYI... you work in an office with a bunch of women who would rather complain about the patriarchy than actually doing work. They'…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 05:15 AM
4

It's sort of like splitting money on the first date. I recall one survey in which the vast majority of women said that they would split but the vast majority would want the man to pay.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 02:29 AM
3

That's because they're quite obviously feeling and not thinking. In all of these topics they are pushing for an emotional "gotcha". They are desperately struggling to point at somebody and say "look at this monster who doesn't believe women should have the vote". If it was an issue they had actually been thinking about they'd be throwing that around instead of an uninformative conclusion. It's sort of like anti-abortionists calling pro-abortionists "baby murderers". If they were even the least b…
/r/MensRights02/10/15 10:19 PM
1

No. "Feminist" refers to an ideology, IE one's beliefs, not whether or not somebody labels themselves as such. It's a descriptive term. Calling something "anti-feminist" as a derogatory term indicates that person not only has pro-feminist views but they explicitly see those views as feminist. They literally have feminist beliefs and can't not be called a feminist. (Now, other things on top of a feminist? Sure.) Compare/contrast with somebody claiming they're not a Christian except they believe J…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 01:18 AM
1

Congratulations on promoting something counter productive. Hypocrite.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 03:45 AM
7

Don't forget "toxic masculinity", "rape culture", etc which pretty much boil down to "I'm going to assume a priori that men are designed inherently bad but do everything in my power to convince myself and others that I'm not assuming that". For fucks sake, how many SJWs will hear "blacks commit more crimes" and know to respond "it's because they're less privileged" but then turn around not apply that to "men commit more crimes". No, there's just a huge assumption there that men are designed to b…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:41 AM
1

It could also have been the way you put it. Or perhaps people felt it wasn't as relevant in that topic. Any of a number of factors that I wouldn't bet on either way without seeing the post but... better to let bygones be bygones.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:35 AM
3

The laws/policies you're talking about didn't come about because mothers truly were concerned about the welfare of their children—they came about, because the children in question were expressing a preference for the parent who could better provide for them financially. Did it come about because children expressed preference? Or fear that children would express preference? It seems more like the latter the way the topic is discussed (IOW, what-if scenarios instead of citing actual scenarios.)
/r/MensRights15/08/15 10:57 PM
7

Well, the first step is to realize the game that feminists play when they discuss who has power. The give-away is they will claim that men have had power because they always occupy "positions of power". Now, if you look at the definitions of power there's a couple: the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality. the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. Notice that only the first one really has anyth…
/r/MensRights13/08/15 05:00 AM
12

In a nutshell, some group arguing that men need to work for women's equality.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 07:59 AM
4

I think the pertinent term may be "conflict of interest".
/r/MensRights10/08/15 10:20 PM
3

I know you didn't bother to think about it but that definition carries within it an assumption about the direction of inequality, namely that people who are feminists by definition are arguing that women have less political, social, and economic rights than men. This assumption is actually scientifically unsound. The best that feminists are able to do comes down to circular reasoning; they look for a difference in outcome and then interpret that difference using their assumption. For examples se…
/r/MensRights07/08/15 12:02 AM
2

Probably the most succinct and direct observation of this phenomenon is the deliberate conflation of "male populated" and "male representative", especially in government, to prematurely reach the conclusion that women do not have power. Of course, that's also conflated with the badly designed notion of power as something that can only be defined depending on your "position". (You can spot these blatantly bad jumps in logic when people try to defend the notion that men have historically been more…
/r/MensRights06/08/15 03:17 AM
5

Sure bud. The classic moron response followed by You are a moron. I've rarely seen such a blatant case of "pot calling the kettle black". Congrats? Anyways, you first asserted a contested fact. It is your responsibility to prove said point. Instead you are apparently doing some poor combination of moving the goalpost and appealing to emotion. And pretty badly, too. (Hint: my circumcised-against-my-will penis suggests men don't have the right to self autonomy either and that's just the tip of tha…
/r/MensRights04/08/15 12:48 AM
1

Some feminist concepts aren't completely full of garbage... if you reverse the genders they apply to, that is. For example, I'm a big fan of the concept of Benevolent Sexism because it pretty clearly describes the so-called male "privileges" that feminists harp about.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 03:01 AM
2

Race is an incredibly important component that needs to remain a part of the discussion but gender is a far stronger predictor of incrimination in this article's statistics. Even the "most privileged" male group in this article's stats are slightly more likely to be incriminated than the "least privileged" female group. Keeping that in mind I'm not sure how anybody can claim that race is the bigger issue. An issue that's close-enough in importance to simultaneously tackle? Yes. However, I don't …
/r/MensRights26/07/15 09:16 PM
7

The relevant concept to read up on is Strict Liability. It's a pretty horrible legal concept that ignores whether or not an event is actually harmful to society since that just gets in the way of the righteous mob's demand for blood.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 05:42 AM
23

It's because feminism is an ideology. This means that feminists make assumptions about reality instead of experimenting with reality to see if it conforms to their assumptions. For the average supporter of the concepts they just accept the assumptions without questioning them. However, once they have to become vocal about it, the ones that remain supporters have to deliberately contort reality to preserve their assumptions. Obviously the kind of person that would do this would be more likely to …
/r/MensRights16/07/15 04:18 AM
9

Feminism has never been about equality. It's always done the same thing it does now: claim women are oppressed without any interest in looking at the issue scientifically or even logically, just claim women have life harder and conveniently ignore male suffering in order to "prove" it.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 11:56 PM
2

You forgot a third possibility that is a rather popular one: they do it for the competition.
/r/MensRights04/07/15 06:16 PM
3

Feminism has always been really bad in this regard as far as I can tell. It is true that one mechanism that a group would use to discriminate against another group would be the denial of vote however that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody without the vote has had it taken away in order to be discriminated against. Correlation does not equal causation. If feminism wanted to be taken seriously it would be saying how men are using "The Vote" to discriminate against women. It cannot because it…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:14 PM
1

What a strange accusation. I can only suspect you're projecting since all I said is that the post is deliberately overlooking external (to the gender) explanations for an outcome. Can you at least attempt to argue against the points being made instead of throwing baseless accusations like an idiot?
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:00 PM
2

My belief in the concept would start with having an objective standard but would actually exist if I believed that people were actively trying to disprove the concept and failing.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 07:39 AM
2

Not quite ; it is ignorance caused by internalized misandry so it is both but the latter is the more descriptive. A really good example is the "men are more likely to become addictive" point. While this could be indicative of an inherit behavioral trait in men, it could also be indicative of how society treats men. Men could be more likely to become addicted as an escape mechanism from an oppressive reality. Given how overlooked men being oppressed is (from a research perspective), to assume (or…
/r/MensRights27/06/15 08:32 PM
3

What a stupid reply. Of course fathers want to fully participate in raising their kids, but you said nothing to counter the point that was claimed: they're giving fathers the scraps they don't want to eat. Regardless of whether or not I agree with that point it pisses me off to see such deliberate misrepresentation of the point.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 01:55 AM
3

You are not helping our cause labelling childcare a 'female responsibility'. Not sure why people are upvoting a post with such a disgustingly deliberate misrepresentation of the point that was being made. Even if it wasn't worded the way it was now (OLD female responsibilities) it is pretty fucking obvious that it was meant that way.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 01:51 AM
-1

What's fair about any of their points? Half of them are talking about "feminism" when this piece is clearly talking about "gynocentrism". So right off the bat half of their points are blatantly wrong.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 09:52 PM
1

Given your response and that the post you replied to was deleted their posts actually were most likely deleted previously. That's because Manhood Academy has for years been officially considered a spammer. I remember before it happened when we simply ignored any topic that had only one comment reply ; it was simply the same ~8 paragraph long rant~ish post (with a link to their site at the very end) that on very rare occasions was on topic (and slightly upvoted) but in all other cases was complet…
/r/MensRights08/06/15 02:20 AM
4

I've probably seen links come and go but I'm not sure how well I've kept track of them. However, people in the linked thread were talking about voat.co and one of the links I've saved is apparently an MRA sub-voat there: https://voat.co/v/mensrights The only other useful link I appear to have bookmarked is this which doesn't seem particularly communal but maybe useful informationaly. Chances are if Reddit takes down /r/mensrights we'd be able to see it talked about on popular MRA sites as well a…
/r/MensRights08/05/15 05:26 AM
2

The somewhat catchy way to say it: you cannot reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 05:10 AM
4

You do have to be cautious with this approach. Specifically, they would go to administration and simply say that you keep coming up to them and blowing the air horn, conveniently leaving out the part where they keep harassing you. At a minimum this approach will require you to also make sure you're always recording. I'm not sure what rules may bind the college but it's also seems possible the administration might enact punishments on yourself as well even if the plan successfully halted the hara…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 01:04 AM
10

Encroachment on reproductive rights Implying men have any reproductive rights at all. Hint: a raped boy was forced to become a father in this very article. This is not an isolated incident. political under-representation This has actually never been demonstrated. Instead there's simply been an unjustified assumption that under-populated is synonymous. frequency of sexual victimization Actually we don't really know what the frequencies are, partially because feminists use incredibly biased studie…
/r/MensRights05/04/15 02:21 AM
8

The law is fair... even the king is not allowed to sleep under bridges.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 02:10 AM
5

The only person being hyper-simplistic is you. Feminists complain about all men being potentially dangerous but both society and our legal system give them the right to defend themselves. The danger from women comes from society and the legal system blatantly enabling or enhancing their abuse. Sometimes the system moves forward that way despite the intentions of the woman. Since men aren't allowed to defend themselves the only winning move is not to play. Women, on the other hand, have a mind-bo…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 02:02 AM
3

If somebody else is giving you all the money you need to live comfortably then yes, careers don't necessarily affect quality of life. The depths to which feminists don't even understand their own arguments prevents me from taking it seriously in any way, shape, or form. The "wage gap" argument is being deliberately misrepresented in order to claim a financial spending gap but that only makes sense if of the two groups being compared there isn't a significant transfer of wealth going on between t…
/r/MensRights21/03/15 04:17 AM
2

The why is actually incredibly simple: the underlying premise of feminism as a so-called "equality" movement involves actively denying the reality of the social power women hold in order to portray men as more privileged. Feminism isn't actually concerned with whether or not men actually are more privileged, it simply assumes it. This is what makes it an ideology and it's why you see its advocates make all of the same philosophical mistakes that other ideological zealots make. (Creationism being…
/r/MensRights12/03/15 03:14 AM
10

girls are better at identifying scientific issues (questions like "Why do earthquakes occur more in some areas than others?"). This sounds like the setup to a joke about women always finding fault...
/r/MensRights06/03/15 05:20 AM
6

"Lie mother fucker lie mother fucker lie"
/r/MensRights22/02/15 06:48 PM
8

I'm pretty sure you weren't thinking about ebooks 50 years ago either.
/r/MensRights13/02/15 07:46 PM
2

If the Star Wars prequels were to be buried in a graveyard I think this is the quote that should be on the tombstone.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 09:57 PM
2

The most helpful thing you can keep in mind to help you not fall into what we would consider philosophical pit traps is to remember that when a statement is given you shouldn't accept it because of who said it or what was said but why it was said. (And the why commonly includes the who and the what but goes far beyond that.) I mention this because it's really easy to see this sort of stuff once you know what to look for and this isn't limited to criticisms of, say, feminists. A common example yo…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 10:11 PM
2

Well, this feeling makes sense since feminism, like Christianity, is an ideology and not anything even remotely scientific (or objective). It makes an assumption about reality (women are oppressed) and then twists and squirms to argue why this is right. I'd argue that feminism is more dangerous, though, since Christianity's unfalsifiable claims can't be falsified by their very nature considering they make claims about the supernatural. This means there's at least some wiggle room for believers t…
/r/MensRights26/01/15 01:23 AM
1

Rabid chocolate will do that to you.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 09:21 PM
0

I definitely understand the sentiment but I'd like to point out two things. First, it's probably good to keep in mind that this is a 100% us-vs-them mindset and is not conductive to actual rational dialogue. Now, maybe knowing that doesn't change how you feel, but if you keep it in mind during conversation you can be more productive. For example, you can expand on it feeling like a little bit of justice by adding "since they're legally untouchable and essentially unpunishable". It may seem like …
/r/MensRights19/01/15 02:00 AM
2

Those people should drop that label and stop giving tacit approval to man-haters. I think of it more like this: Their refusal to drop the label indicates an unwillingness to question and abandon misandric beliefs. At best it usually comes down to an abandonment of present-day feminist social narrative while blatantly ignoring that the historical feminist social narrative is equally as questionable. Both are about assuming a priori the direction of inequality, neither approach the assumption scie…
/r/MensRights15/01/15 01:53 AM
2

these tumblr warriors are pushing something entirely different Not really. Notice that the definition assumes a priori that women are less equal than men in these regards. This has been an unjustified and unexplored assumption on feminists' parts since it first stuck its biased nose in the "equality" business. All the tumblr warriors are doing "differently" is just taking an unsupportable premise and running further with it than you were expecting. When you dig down to it even the supposedly "go…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 08:36 AM
3

They were. They still are but they were, too.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 09:24 AM
32

Maybe the problem lies with me, not having the balls to take control of the finances. Honestly, I wouldn't fault you for that considering that there are too many out there that would consider a reasonable action like that to be domestic abuse.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 09:18 PM
5

I believe TyphonBlue cited Widom and Morris 1997 as the source for that. The brief summary is that the study was looking at people with a documented history of being sexually abused (perhaps as children?). The number who recalled the incidents were 64% women and 16% men, respectively. In other words, women were four times more likely to recall a past sexual abuse. Now, taking that into account, I noticed that the lifetime rape figures (adjusted to remove the CDC's blatant anti-male bias, of cour…
/r/MensRights27/11/14 06:19 AM
1

Agreed. The "feminism used to mean equality" story is another fairy tail that feminists tell themselves to believe they're not bigoted. However, the feminist historical narrative is no different from the feminist social narrative insofar as it begins by assuming a priori that women are oppressed, have a harder life, etc. An assumption, not a conclusion scientifically or objectively reached. Like creationism it's something that the believer feels is right and so they reinterpret all evidence to f…
/r/MensRights18/11/14 08:12 PM
6

And naturally anybody who agrees with these policies won't say that they're against due process; they'll phrase it a different way. Then, when you try and point out that they're removing due process, they'll either think you're exaggerating or they'll come up with excuses as to why it's important this time. The vast majority of people don't think of themselves as the bad guy so the bigots who lack introspection will do everything in their power to reinterpret reality to fit this bias.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 07:55 PM
0

Naw, it's more like an incredibly rich person saying that all the poor people are just lazy and should get "real" jobs.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 03:32 PM
7

[Downvotes ahoy. Fucking movement made up of anti-intellectuals, I tell ya] with accusations along the lines of how feminists were all sending men to die while they sit at home pretty eating bon bons or some shit like that. It’s a common thing apparently in MRA circles, since they can’t seem to stop talking about how feminists during World War I were trying to kill all men. Speaking of anti-intellectuals, it seems some scummy piece of shit threw around hyperbolic claims in the very first paragra…
/r/MensRights09/11/14 08:20 PM
13

This is most likely just bigots covering up their bigotry. In other words, they believe men are dangerous, wish to ban men, realize that sounds bigoted and so they just remove the gender (instead of the underlying bias). Just like the "all teachers/staff are not allowed to hug the kids" rule supposedly applies to both genders but is very disproportionally applied to men.
/r/MensRights09/11/14 03:10 AM
1

I considered the possibility except I swear I've seen that name before.
/r/MensRights07/11/14 02:24 PM
7

Who fucking cares what I think when the entire point of my post was that feminism has had a century long obligation to demonstrate its fundamental premises valid ; an obligation it has deliberately avoided making and by all appearances fails to accurately describe reality. I'm not sure if you're a goal-shifting moron or a straw-hatting asshat... maybe both?
/r/MensRights07/11/14 03:57 AM
10

Because it assumes a priori that women are less equal than men. Furthermore, feminism has always done so and to this day it continues to do so. It's completely unscientific, having never bothered to question this underlying premise, and so just like creationists all evidence must be twisted to fit their ideology. The simplest demonstration of this idea is "benevolent sexism", a concept that feminists only ever use to explain why an apparent privilege that women have is, in fact, actually sexism …
/r/MensRights07/11/14 02:18 AM
26

Even better, I think it still applies even if you go with feminists' absurdly low "2 percent" claim. Once again their own faulty logic results in a hypocritical outcome.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 09:58 PM
2

power fantasy is the exact terminology misused by feminists. Fixed that for you. Feminists like to throw around the phrase "power fantasy" to suggest that men are power hungry mini-tyrants who simply need to give up their stolen patriarchy power.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 09:27 PM
1

Pretend to be reasonable decent people you mean. Scratch the surface and you'll always find prejudice and hate. Agreed. The way I've always said it is that the only difference between a good feminist and a bad feminist is you simply haven't asked the good feminist the right questions. It fundamentally comes down to a simple fact: that they would call themselves feminist means they either believe the feminist social narrative or the feminist historical narrative. All you have to do is realize tha…
/r/MensRights03/11/14 05:30 PM
5

They ignore women being stoned to death for being raped in other parts of the world As other people have pointed out, they don't ignore this. However, what they do ignore is men being stoned to death for the same reasons. Along similar lines, a man and a woman elope in a country where that's illegal. An article about it talks about the poor woman they interviewed who is in jail. She can only see her family so many times a week. She has no freedom. Etc etc etc. Then, very briefly in the final par…
/r/MensRights29/10/14 07:26 PM
3

Their intent is to argue that men are inherently violent (bad). That's the only way to make their leap in logic. The point about them being unscientific in this case is true but in my opinion that's a criticism better directed at feminism in general. Feminists have never questioned or tested feminism's premises, they simply bend over backwards to try and make the evidence fit their ideological view. This is why you end up with blatant logical inconsistencies such as "way more women are graduatin…
/r/MensRights28/10/14 11:26 PM
1

Yeah, it's another example of a useful idea that feminism has, supposedly, come up with but has deliberately misused to justify its own bigotry. Benevolent sexism is a really good example of such an idea that I think has actual useful explanatory power but mostly when applied to the privileges that feminists claim men as a group have.
/r/MensRights22/10/14 05:21 PM
1

I have the idea that there are feminists who really are interested in changing restrictive men's roles. Although how thorough can their desire really be if they continue to call themselves feminists? To call themselves that mean that they either think women currently suffer more or that historically women have suffered more. So, their desire is somewhere along the lines of Emma Watson's little bullshit speech about how men can break their restrictive gender roles by helping women even more... He…
/r/MensRights21/10/14 05:16 PM
2

On the other hand, if it was written by a female feminist false flagger, it would actually be about as personal as an impersonal threat could be. In other words, it would be somebody fantasizing about somebody else rambling about the fantasizer.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 10:18 PM
1

You're a filthy lying piece of shit hypocrite. You've been arguing this whole time that men actually don't have the right to do what they want with their body, they must use it in forced labor to support a child no matter the circumstances.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 09:38 PM
1

a flap of skin Don't need to read beyond this to know you're an ignorant piece of shit.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 10:05 PM
2

Honestly I think this is more likely. Basically, it comes down to "life isn't as easy as I want it but I've been told I can blame that on men". In other words, I think for most feminists men are simply a scapegoat.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 05:25 PM
1

They know that's a logical fallacy. That's why they never said it. Granted, I know it's hard for you to comprehend this what with you being a dumb piece of shit and all that but it turns out they actually gave the source in your very first request for it; you were just a lazy, entitled cunt about it. You didn't want to Google it, you didn't really search the sidebar (hint: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS), you didn't want to search the paper... No, you assumed from the very beginning that they had ju…
/r/MensRights10/10/14 08:28 PM
1

Not all definitions of "they" is plural.
/r/MensRights09/10/14 09:32 PM
2

Im confused as to how he gets off compairing it to a hate group. It's simply projection; they themselves are a prejudiced, hateful individual and so they take the easy way out and instead of becoming a better person and not being that way they pretend the people they don't like are worse. My evidence is that the article apparently contains no concrete criticisms but it does contain evidence about his assumptions going into the group (IE, assuming they're inherently bad people, they're "broken", …
/r/MensRights09/10/14 09:10 PM
6

Honestly, I would have preferred: Women are not cunts. Cunts have warmth and depth to them. Although it does still feel dirty improperly generalizing like that so the maker and buyer of that bumper sticker lose even more respect than they had before. (Not that I had any respect for them so more like it's more negative respect?)
/r/MensRights08/10/14 06:14 PM
5

No, the point being made is that feminism has been about misportraying male responsibility as if it were privilege. For example: men having the responsibility to work (and earn money) for society in order to be seen as having value to society is portrayed by feminists as men being privileged. Why? Because women (who don't need to do so in order to have value to society) don't bring in as much money in their lifetime. Well of course they don't. They don't have the threat of dying a lonely social …
/r/MensRights07/10/14 04:41 AM
2

I think a 13 year old could reasonably understand the consequences of sex but not in our society, and I'm not even just talking about the retarded hush-hush nature of our approach to sex. Our schooling system takes kids and puts them in a completely 100% artificial world with absolutely no resemblance to how the real world works especially wrt consequences of actions and responsibilities, and to make matters worse we also segregate them by age their entire life encouraging the creation of peer g…
/r/MensRights07/10/14 04:17 AM
8

I hit him in his face several times. He restrained me Yeah, that part right there is what would have done it.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 08:10 PM
1

If you saw a pamphlet that said "the poor need to stop being so lazy and get real jobs that actually pay" would you think it's a scummy pamphlet? Of course you would. This pamphlet is doing the same to dads. It's assuming they're just lazy bums pushing the work onto moms, as if they can suddenly decide they shouldn't be enslaving those poor women. Except, of course, that the situation of moms being at home is caused mostly by society thinking women shouldn't be forced to take on the stress of be…
/r/MensRights01/10/14 09:57 PM
1

I'd like to argue that the take-away from this would be that this isn't necessarily an inherent trait but I guess I have to admit that I'm not 100% sure. What I mean is I recall stories from people in the transgender community who report feeling more emotional when they begin estrogen hormone treatments. It's not proof of a physiological cause for being more emotional since there could be a placebo effect going on but, without knowing of any double-blind experiments, I have to keep this informat…
/r/MensRights29/09/14 06:19 PM
28

/r/TumblrWhenTheFireNationAttacked
/r/MensRights26/09/14 04:37 PM
1

instead build up concepts that actual mirror reality. For example, male disposability.
/r/MensRights25/09/14 09:15 PM
7

I agree. There's a difference between "good intentions" and "lies you tell yourself to believe you're doing a good thing". Feminism is clearly in the latter camp. The whole "for equality" line is really just the lie they tell themselves to justify their knee-jerk feels to protect women so they don't have to question it.
/r/MensRights25/09/14 08:51 PM
2

while promoting a campaign that will do literally nothing to address them If anything it'll make it worse.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 10:01 PM
1

Feminists also try and paint women having the social power to simply quit working without huge social consequences as sexism against women when clearly it is benevolent sexism against men ; the man has more value to the company because he's not allowed to leave. Feminists suck at trying to find actual sexism.
/r/MensRights21/09/14 01:38 AM
2

Prior to reading this topic I looked for other posts of yours and saw that you were getting hits, took a peek, and immediately saw some pretty blatant bullshit. Somebody there was talking about the courts being changed to a "Best Interests of the Child" policy as something that feminism has done to increase the chance that fathers can get custody. However, like the filthy liars, they completely neglected to mention a couple things: The previous policy, Tender Years Doctrine, is how courts began …
/r/MensRights17/09/14 09:40 PM
1

There's nothing scientific about feminism whatsoever. There is no attempt to look for challenges to the underlying theory, only ideological followers looking to interpret "evidence" in favor of the underlying theory. Just like creationism. If it were scientific the feminist concept of benevolent sexism would easily find more appropriate use in countering the vast majority of feminist talking points. (E.G. the so-called wage gap.) Perhaps you meant to say that feminism is academic. Just realize t…
/r/MensRights15/09/14 06:29 PM
1

Certain actions from a man would be "assertive" that would be "bitchy" from a woman. Or many women were very poorly attempting to emulate "assertive".
/r/MensRights03/09/14 10:01 PM
1

How is what you posted not bitching? The topic you're championing actually got a decent amount of up votes and isn't particularly controversial so wouldn't get a lot of comments, and yet because the most controversial topics get a lot of comments you're too small-minded to actually think about what's going on and instead come here to complain, and I quote: Why the fuck did this story about little boys being sexually abused not make more of an impact on this sub? You're only complaining. You're n…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 09:59 PM
0

Well, I guess you turned out as dumb as I thought. My point wasn't even that my interpretation was correct, it was that you failed to even consider other possibilities. That you can shove your head up your ass after the fact to attempt to post-justify your complete lack of introspection doesn't change the fact that you immediately assumed the feminist explanation. You didn't even both to consider alternatives. It's also no surprise that your counter-point is more of the same kind of idiocy assum…
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:38 PM
1

This suggests a problematic social trend wherein women are less likely to have economic independence, and likely hints at the notion that women bare a larger social burden for raising children. Or it suggests that women are more privileged than men and don't need to focus as much on earning money as men do in order to just get by. Not that you even bothered to consider this possibility, you just assume the feminist explanation from the get-go.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 05:21 PM
4

Yeah, it's ironic how the OP is complaining about bitching while being the only one really bitching. Their naiveté in terms of telling us to stop attacking the underlying views causing and maintaining our problems in favor of simply attacking the symptoms is cringe-worthy.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 04:53 PM
1

While I think some people are conflating it with the sexual connotation, it really is the appropriate word to use. From dictionary.com. Rape, Noun: 4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside. 5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force. Rape, Verb (use with object): 7. to plunder (a place); despoil. 8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 06:52 PM
9

Although amusingly enough, when Team Women harms Team Women, feminists also declare that to be Team Men's fault.
/r/MensRights26/08/14 04:15 PM
5

This is simply more hypocritical of her. She was already a hypocrite for playing the damsel in distress so she could then complain about some games having a damsel in distress.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 07:08 PM
1

It's more interesting to poke around a "good" feminist's beliefs. Even outside of an echo chamber you can eventually dig down into some misandric assumptions and beliefs. My personal opinion is that the only difference between a "good" feminist and a "bad" feminist is I simply haven't had a chance to get the "good" feminist to state their bigoted assumptions. (Feminism is, after all, based on the assumption that women are oppressed and men are privileged and can only prove so by ignoring or down…
/r/MensRights18/08/14 08:29 PM
18

Men still have little to no reproductive rights. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that men have no reproductive rights. We already have cases of the legal system fully declaring an individual male as raped, or his sperm was dug out of the trash by a person they didn't even have sex with, yet he still is forced to be a parent via "child" support. We're not even legally allowed to be abstinent.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 04:42 PM
4

if we did allow for paternity leave then that would close the wage gap I doubt it would since women still have the privilege of more often being able to choose not to come back after leave. Not that feminists particularly care that men getting paid more because they don't have as much social freedom to just stop working is a very straightforward example of benevolent sexism. (Or, in other words, that men only appear to have a benefit because society is discriminating against men.)
/r/MensRights14/08/14 06:56 PM
5

That and women's bodies are already designed to temporarily shut down fertility (when they become pregnant). The same is not true for men.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 06:32 PM
21

Nowhere in the conversation does anybody say anything about any part of this conversation applying to women in general other than Hillary Clinton in her sexist quote. Meanwhile, "mealtickets don't just grow on TREES" clearly applies to the question of "how can [someone] use that line?"
/r/MensRights14/08/14 04:53 PM
4

An idea easily remembered by the witty one-liner: You cannot reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
/r/MensRights08/08/14 11:13 PM
1

I think the term is adequate if you go by one of the alternative definitions of rape that don't have to do with forced sexual intercourse: 4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside. 5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force. 7. to plunder (a place); despoil. 8. to seize, take, or carry off by force. In that regard, "divorce-rape" makes sense as a term describing how the wife gets everything of value, often by force (using…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 10:03 PM
9

It's because feminists can only straw man "the vote". To understand why not having "the vote" isn't necessarily as indicative of oppression as feminists say you need only ponder if it's possible for somebody to not need to vote in order to affect political change. Then it becomes really obvious that somebody who makes political contributions to political candidates in order to get kickbacks probably doesn't even need to vote (as it only becomes a symbolic gesture). In other words, if politicians…
/r/MensRights08/08/14 05:06 PM
1

how do I make this a "best of" because everyone needs to read this. Unless I'm misremembering, /r/bestof has banned posts from /r/mensrights so it's no longer possible to "best of" posts here.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 09:59 PM
1

Actually, I'd say the "walk away" option is even more absurd than you put it but not because he'd be walking away from his family. You can't just walk away from the government, especially in this situation when the government is out for blood.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 09:45 PM
1

She keeps saying that "they" made wedding plans but, given her entitled-to-marriage approach and his reluctance (and later bargaining), I rather suspect it's really her that's been making the wedding plans and him reluctantly going along with it. This is a really good example of how much of a shit hole 2xc is. They want to put him through therapy when her post is screaming "manipulative, entitled scumbag". Why? Because apparently they feel similarly entitled. As others have pointed out, their po…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 05:18 PM
1

It's actually really simple: feminists believe male sexuality is dangerous. The hatred of female avatars in video games is right alongside the idea that men are "pedophiles", "rapists", "perverts", etc. It basically stems from the same place that porn-hating feminism comes from: men having uncontrolled access to sexual material is dangerous to everybody.
/r/MensRights04/08/14 09:12 PM
1

I think you can already see the fourth wave in the form of people believing feminist ideas but refusing to use the label. I call it "The Silent Wave". All of feminism's inherent bigotry (IE assuming that women are oppressed while men are oppressors) will still be present but now they'll also be verbally denying that they can be called a feminist. In other words, rejecting associating with a word due to its tarnished name without acknowledging the underlying bigoted beliefs that tarnished it in t…
/r/MensRights01/08/14 06:50 PM
2

Painting every feminist as They didn't do that, though.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 11:13 PM
2

Actually, that they didn't know that you were referring to one specific piece of the post you were referring to without saying you were referring to one specific piece of the post suggests you're a poor communicator. Furthermore, by blaming them for failing to read your mind, you've also demonstrated yourself to be a pathetic asshole refusing to accept your own failures and instead pushing them off onto other people.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 11:02 PM
0

Also we have studies have animals that exhibit sexual interaction with the "children" of said animal. Seems reminiscent of stories about researchers intentionally ignoring homosexuality in the wild and thus homosexual humans were being called "unnatural".
/r/MensRights30/07/14 10:20 PM
8

a level and scope of entitlement I'm still trying to wrap my head around Actually, the answer is rather straightforward: contradictory to feminism's (and thus society's) assertions that women have been oppressed, women have actually been the privileged sex.
/r/MensRights23/07/14 06:16 PM
2

Feminists do have a useful tool that we can more appropriately use to look at the question: the idea of an apparently positive for a group being either privilege or benevolent sexism. While it's true that feminists misuse the concept as a way to force anything and everything to be explained via patriarchy conspiracy theory, we can use it to ask the actual question of how we can tell one from the other. In this case the pertinent question is to ponder what government is in the first place. Perhap…
/r/MensRights16/07/14 07:08 PM
1

And of course there's also "battered" woman defense which raises the question of whether or not the statistics include people who have been charged (but not convicted) with homicide. (I suspect not.)
/r/MensRights15/07/14 03:25 PM
3

I want to you practice reading/thinking comprehension and not ignore my point that those stats don't usually come from studies but rather are pulled from crime stats and thus you can't reasonably compare male vs female perpetration if female perpetration is deliberately ignored.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 06:45 PM
10

You are aware that, while the statistics will indicate that, there's probably inherent bias in there caused by most people (including police and judges) considering a woman hitting a man to not be violence.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 04:42 PM
5

Yes. The TV Trope name for the concept is called Kick the Dog (redundant TV Tropes warning). Its purpose is to let the audience know that we're expected to hate this character.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 05:46 PM
1

Again, I don't remember if banning even happens, and in order to be banned for it you'd most likely have to be just dropping links to it in a blatantly advertising way. It's not like the mods are stupid and any post even mentioning them gets banned.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 10:20 PM
1

To give you more insight into the Manhood Academy spammers and why they're banned on sight, have you noticed how lately every "other discussions" tab has had one link to /r/POLITICS that's always empty and thus you only really pay attention to "other discussions" tabs that have more than (1) other discussion? Well, 4~ish years ago it used to be the same for comments. If there was a topic with only one comment you simply assumed there weren't really any comments. Instead, it was Manhood Academy c…
/r/MensRights07/07/14 09:56 PM
2

Whether one wants to believe it or not, this is a War on Males. The fact that "good thing happens to men = privileged" and "good thing happens to women = benevolent sexism" is the modus operandi for feminism is proof of this. This means it boils down to "men have that therefore women deserve to have that and I don't care why men have it". (Or even if men have that in the first place, for example "safety on the streets".) Consider, for example, the wage gap argument. They don't care why men are g…
/r/MensRights02/07/14 09:27 PM
2

Assuming, of course, that the courts even pretend to care about the law. If the UK has an equivalent of U.S. family courts and if it's even only a quarter as bad as what we have here in the U.S. then the fear of financial liability seems reasonable to me.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 12:00 AM
2

There's little discussion about the message at the end. Because the path the comic takes to reach the message at the end indicates the comic maker is a hypocrite ; their real message at the end is "everybody should just agree with me". The hint is that they snuck in blatant interpretations as to the cause of problems instead of just saying "we need to solve these problems".
/r/MensRights30/06/14 08:29 PM
3

I think you mean in-group bias.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 06:53 PM
6

Edit: down votes for an opposing opinion? No, downvoted for following your opinion with a false fact: It's easier to maintain proper hygiene And nothing you say will convince me to remove it since you stupidly mixed up opinion with (false) fact, failed to realize you had done this, and then followed up by complaining about downvotes (which is almost always a guaranteed downvote).
/r/MensRights26/06/14 06:03 PM
2

Yeah, people here like to forget that a joke is simply another form of communication. Its primary function may be to illicit laughter but sometimes the joker is also saying something else. The primary problems with feminists and their anti-joke crusade hasn't been their attacks on jokes, it's been either the intentional and deliberate misrepresentation on the intentions of everyone involved in the joke or the blatant childproofing of society in the form of making sure rapists can't accidentally …
/r/MensRights24/06/14 08:55 PM
1

Except if kyriarchy was anything other than patriarchyOHSHITWEACCIDENTALLYCALLEDBLACKPEOPLEPRIVILEGED then the feminists who started using it would have abandoned all research which assumed patriarchy as a premise. They didn't, therefore they are still assuming patriarchy and they're just adding exceptions so they can feel like they're not being racist.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 11:22 PM
1

They probably imagine the stereotype of the woman joining the all-men squad and the men making fun of the sissy newcomer. There's just one problem with them imagining this because, as usual, feminists feel and don't think. To understand what I mean, you have to analyze what happens when somebody from an out group is bullied from the in group. Let's say a poor person is let into a group of rich people who then make fun of the poor person. Does this indicate that the bullying group is inherently p…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:10 PM
1

something like two or three times more women reported that they had been abused Typhonblue's article said four times, IE 64% of women still referred to their documented child abuse as abuse, 16% of men. Note carefully that if you adjust the lifetime stat from the 2010 NIPSVs to compensate for that bias you get 21,804,000 men raped, which would be comparable to the 21,840,000 women raped. Suddenly the numbers match up for both lifetime and one year. Doesn't seem coincidental. (So, either Typhonbl…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 10:42 PM
0

You are an idiot. I never said that men dont have it bad or that women have it worse Well guess what... I never said men have it worse than women. Not going to bother reading beyond this point as long as you're going to continue to be a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:06 PM
0

I love how the first reply to my post is trying to turn it into who is the bigger victim. Really? Considering you said, and I quote: women in non-white countries are heavily oppressed (literally) Talk about pot calling kettle black. Here you are literally saying that women in these situations have it worse and somehow I'm the one doing that when I'm calling you out on your one-sided reporting? Hypocrite.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 03:56 PM
0

here are many countries in Asia and Africa which allow beating women in the house, stoning them to death in the streets for "adultery", stopping them from getting an education and punishing them if they try, not allowing them to vote, or be independent. And how many horrible things are men suffering through that you've not been told about?
/r/MensRights05/06/14 09:55 PM
2

Or, to summarize another way, the Wikipedia definition intentionally leaves out that "equal" is defined by feminism under the assumption that men are (or were) more powerful than women and in order to construct this narrative it has had to resort to blatant dismissal of the suffering of men.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 09:37 PM
3

There's a number of highly questionable aspects of that report which would hold me back from declaring it definitive. Probably the three things that stand out the most: It's only looking at Notable School Shooting from Wikipedia. I'm assuming on good faith that they fact-checked to make sure somebody didn't add made-up school shootings to the page but I didn't catch anything that suggested looking for school shootings that didn't make it to Wikipedia as "notable". It's filtering out shootings th…
/r/MensRights02/06/14 09:15 PM
10

Then why do I use the LCD display of the ATM machine to enter my PIN number?
/r/MensRights02/06/14 07:22 PM
1

Definitely an accountability dodge. Remember, feminism isn't just a movement for equality, it's also a movement that defines the nature of the inequality. The nature of this inequality is close-enough to the same between the different feminist sects and they really only differ in how they think this inequality is fixed. Radical feminists pretty much think it can't be fixed because all attempts to fix it have failed; thus, men are inherently bad. "Sane" feminists recognize that men are suffering …
/r/MensRights23/05/14 04:54 PM
3

I think I've said before that, while you should never misattribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance, I think it's also the case that a sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from malice. The supposed "ignorance" that comes from being blinded by feminist ideology takes root in underlying misandry in which the individual has to blatantly ignore the suffering of males in order to construct/accept the "women are oppressed" narrative.
/r/MensRights20/05/14 05:06 PM
8

Shit. Normally I'm better at handling my TV Tropes but I just clicked on that link and I've already got 9 more tabs to read... and I haven't even started reading the examples!
/r/MensRights14/05/14 04:53 PM
1

Downvoted for conflating MGTOW with PUA. (Hint: a PUA might be an MGTOW, but an MGTOW is not necessarily a PUA.)
/r/MensRights13/05/14 08:40 PM
2

The difference between the people in this thread saying "it's just a joke" and Stephen Hawking? Hawking isn't an idiot. Oh wait... looks like jokes can be used to send messages and aren't "just jokes". The question is the intention behind the underlying joke. In this case, are they attempting to make listeners cringe by making them realize their silly assumptions about an individual/group? Or are they using it as a sigh about reality, thus confirming the assumption to be true? Given how prominen…
/r/MensRights09/05/14 04:15 PM
1

As far as againstmensrights goes, that's actually relatively positive. Instead of intentionally misinterpreting and outright lying about what we're arguing, they're simply ignoring it.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 09:39 PM
2

Can someone explain to me why these feminists, or "feminists" as I like to put them in quotes as they aren't feminists as I remember the definition being... Why they're so angry with men talking about their own issues? Why they think they're inferior and "everyone is after them?" Why do we live in an age where everyone is offended, by everything? Well, the first thing to realize is that the definition you're most likely referring to is self-defined by feminists. In other words, it's not an unbia…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 10:03 PM
4

Basically, feminism creates some problems, and then for other problems it either exacerbates the issue or protests against people trying to bring attention to it. Thus, for MRAs, it doesn't matter which issue we attempt to bring up, feminists continue to loudly shout us down. To get any of our issues heard we become natural enemies to feminism, thus feminists attempt to stop us, thus feminism need to be destroyed if we're to even have our issues considered.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 04:48 PM
-1

Actually, their argument was a bit more asinine than that. Basically, they're arguing that men are privileged in software engineering because they won't be judged based on womens' privilege. At least, when they're not making bullshit up such as people supposedly saying "you just got an A because you're a girl". It's pretty textbook hamster wheeling to intentionally manufacture female victimhood.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 04:33 PM
2

Women are supposed to raise the man's family. Intentionally scummy wording on your part considering she's raising her family...
/r/MensRights02/05/14 03:52 PM
4

The point, which you've blatantly overlooked, is: were they cut because that's the way to handle an infection or were they cut because the doctors were snip-happy?
/r/MensRights01/05/14 04:25 PM
2

Finally, they punish men more harshly for the same crimes as women there. You don't know about it because, once again, our media filters and cherry picks. I recall a story submitted to /r/MensRights at one point which was about a woman in the middle east who had been imprisoned for eloping with a man. It was mostly a pity piece for her confinement but, in the end, she was simply confined but visited by her family. Then, briefly in the final paragraph, it mention that he was also imprisoned, not …
/r/MensRights29/04/14 10:56 PM
2

I guess that would be in line with the saying "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance". However, I'm a believer in the corollary: "a sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from malice." So, if he was short sighted but he chose to remain in that state by brazenly ignoring cautions and warnings, I'd maybe still consider it a malicious form of ignorance.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 08:09 PM
1

In my experience, in order to justify pretty much any feminist advocacy (past and present) requires you to accept their definitions of power and suffering which blatantly ignore and hide the suffering of men in order to portray women as an oppressed class. That's pretty fundamentally anti-men.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 05:08 PM
1

As usual, a feminist term turns out more accurate if you swap the genders. A lot of the "advantages" people claim men have look more like benevolent sexism if you dig a little. For example, the fact that men make more money turns out that men are essentially trying harder at every turn. (Driving farther, negotiating more, working more hours, taking on more dangerous tasks, etc.) Why is this? Well, somehow they've come under the impression that making money is how they demonstrate social value. W…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 10:08 PM
11

Because reality doesn't agree with their bigoted bile so they have to invent ideologically-blinded versions of science.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 09:45 PM
4

Most of those studies also tend (tended?) to not include the housework that men do. (Lawn maintenance, home/vehicle repair, etc.)
/r/MensRights17/04/14 06:30 PM
4

Also, when surgical correction becomes necessary, it can many times be performed far less invasively than currently practiced.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 06:15 PM
1

I do agree with somebody else that this is a good example of a moderate feminist, though. Mostly sounding reasonable up until it comes time to do something and so men must sacrifice "for the greater good". They simply can't abandon the underlying assumption that men must be privileged and have to be taken down a notch.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 08:45 PM
2

A thesis isn't science. Academia isn't science. They can be used for it but they aren't science itself. Thus, your reply is downright stupid because NoFem never argued that feminists aren't using a specific process, they said that it's inherently unscientific ; that by all appearances it doesn't look for holes in its models, question its premises, or look for contradictions.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 06:53 PM
7

Note that this is lower case "m", lower case "r" "men's rights". In other words, they're not specifically opposed to the Mens Rights movement or subreddit but to the underlying reasons which have driven us to these movements and subreddits in the first place.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 06:04 PM
7

Are you aware that there's a difference between "asking questions" and "asking questions while simultaneously throwing around misconceptions"?
/r/MensRights08/04/14 05:28 PM
1

The issue is that feminism likes to stay conveniently quiet about societal obligations for men to give women stuff. (This is ignoring that your comparison is a rather stupid apples-to-oranges comparison that blatantly ignores the possibility that women choose to go into low-paying fields because they don't have to try anywhere near as hard as men just to get by.)
/r/MensRights04/04/14 09:10 PM
1

Feminism != women
/r/MensRights04/04/14 09:06 PM
3

Scumbag DualPollux/TheIdesOfLight: accuses MRAs of vote brigading, is a member of a subreddit whose sole purpose is essentially to vote brigade MRAs.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 08:49 PM
2

Although I have seen many who tell themselves that they believe in equality (despite betraying underlying bigoted beliefs).
/r/MensRights04/04/14 08:43 PM
4

I'd summarize as: all feminist arguments use patriarchy theory as a premise but patriarchy theory only makes sense if you blatantly ignore the suffering and sacrifices of men in order to portray women as oppressed. This contradiction would have been noticed by feminists if they had any scientific rigor or actually approached the topic skeptically but, based on the complete lack of attempts to even explore alternative hypothesis (including the Null Hypothesis), by all accounts feminism has more i…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 11:19 PM
5

I downvoted for two reasons: You completely failed to state why you did it and provided no details on sexual experience before vs after, thus you have completely failed to give us a reason to believe your anecdote is anywhere near an accurate indicator on the effects of circumcision on the sexual experience. You have also failed to give us any reason to believe you have any sort of experience with being a genitally mutilated female with which to make a similar comparison to.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 08:53 PM
1

I know it's difficult living day-to-day life as an idiot but you can at least pretend to try showing some reading comprehension and stop making asinine strawmen arguments? They didn't say you should pay attention to 12-month over lifetime to "ignore historical data", they said it is less biased by memory artifacts. Newsflash dumbass: HUMAN MEMORY IS FALLIBLE.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 08:12 PM
1

It's not that they "must" and it's not "claims" that must be supported, it's that they need to present supporting arguments if there's a disagreement on premises. Sometimes premises aren't stated but need to be supported, and there's only a requirement to support if there's a disagreement on premises. For third party observers sometimes it's clear that somebody isn't asking for supporting arguments in good faith and instead to support their own hidden premises. For example: "Men have penises." "…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 07:03 PM
2

I agree. The kurt "Source?" question is intended for when somebody brings a new or obscure argument to the table. Basically, people following the conversation would most likely also not know it or might know that their knowing of it would be less common. Basically, when you're questioning your current assumptions, you'd be asking a different question. "Men have penises." "Actually, how do we know that?"
/r/MensRights13/03/14 04:46 PM
1

It's alarming that some down vote when asked for a source to validate information. That bolded part is a huge and unjustified assumption about the author's intentions on your part. They could just as easily be saying "you're just making this bullshit up". In fact, I'd argue that's far more likely the case based on the context and it turns out that's really what they were doing.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 04:39 PM
2

Apparently they also compared men killed to women suffering from violence. Literally two completely different stats. That takes a disgusting amount of intellectual dishonesty to pull off.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 08:55 PM
2

Why do men pursue higher paying jobs? Probably because they are expected to support a family. I think it goes a little deeper than that: men pursue higher paying jobs because it's the only way they can obtain social worth. Basically, I'm suggesting that women have the privilege of having social worth from the day they are born by virtue of simply being female. It just gets worse for a man if they end up taking on providing for a family.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 08:46 PM
2

MRAs argue that women’s autonomy is directly oppressive to men. No. Although we do argue that some forms of women's autonomy being advocated for are directly oppressive to men. Consider as an example: people having the autonomy to decorate their living room with anything they want. Technically, you're limiting their autonomy when you don't, say, give them access to all of the gold in Fort Knox to build a sofa out of bars of gold. They can't really put "anything they want" in their living room si…
/r/MensRights12/03/14 08:11 PM
1

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." A fun quote, although probably more accurate to say "ideology" than "religion" (noting that a religion is a form of ideology).
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:22 PM
4

"Dedicated" is a very apt description considering the mental contortions they have to make to deliberately misrepresent what someone here says or why a topic is here. MensRights: "If a woman physically attacks a man then he should be allowed to physically defend himself." AMR: "MensRights wants to hit women!"
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:37 PM
3

If the majority of consumers are going there, wouldn't that mean the record label owners have a lot of power? It doesn't necessarily follow. You're simply begging the question here.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:18 PM
1

Women in business increase business margin: I actually read a refutation for this that explained there was actually a different cause behind it. If anyone has details on it feel free to share. Completely speculative but that sounds like the sort of thing that could easily be a "correlation mistaken as causation" fallacy. It's possible that the causation could be the other way around (women could be seen as more of a liability and if there isn't sufficient business margins to take a chance then t…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 10:59 PM
2

"Safe space".
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:25 PM
0

While I agree with TRPACC wrt a rapist choosing targets, note very carefully that he said "predators". It's been my interpretation that the research tends to focus on the predatory rapes which may possibly be mostly the rarer "stranger rape" and could be a minority of the far more common "acquaintance rape". In the case of a desperate person looking for an excuse to try initiating sex with a specific person (IE, not selecting targets), that person wearing clothing that says "I'm interested in ha…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 04:58 PM
1

There's also the possibility that even in a dual-income household that the wife has more control over her life. E.G. she works less (or more flexible) hours. Or perhaps had more say-so in which house they purchased which makes her commute easier at the expense of his. Hell, there could even be underlying feelings of her not feeling as trapped because she knows she'll probably get the kids and the house if they split.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 10:54 PM
1

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 10:35 PM
7

But I don't think she should be treated like a criminal I can agree with not charging her for production of child porn but the problem but that's not the only reason she could potentially be treated like a criminal and I think you're simply bending over backwards to justify white knighting for her. Let's summarize: her actions were predatory and/or executed with a reckless indifference to the danger to others. Basically, there's a good argument to say that she's dangerous to other people. Maybe …
/r/MensRights21/02/14 10:50 PM
3

Their distinction was more along the lines of subjective feelings vs subjective community agreement.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 07:28 PM
31

I'm sure they are out there. Some of us are in here, too. 30 year old virgin represent.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 07:17 PM
3

Your username used to be Sigil1 I knew their retarded "the meaning of Rape Culture is that there is acknowledgement of rape" logic seemed eerily familiar but couldn't quite place my finger on it.
/r/MensRights09/02/14 09:24 PM
3

This kills the feminism.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 11:13 PM
0

If it was the government stealing the car from you when you're completely innocent in a world where 50% of houses were raided for drug busts and 10% of the time that happened they simply took the cars whether they found drugs or not... Oh, and if cars cost as much as a house... Then yeah, I'd consider not having a car. Or living in a house. Maybe both.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 12:51 AM
17

I see. Very informative. Since a majority of feminists espouse the wage gap myth, the majority of feminists are shit people. And since a majority of MRAs complain specifically because men and women are treated differently, a minority of MRAs are shit people.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:33 PM
3

You'll find that it's more than just cherrypicking and out-of-context posts, there's a deliberate attempt to misinterpret and misrepresent MRM positions. For example, we think men should be able to physically defend themselves from women who are physically attacking them. This position has been misrepresented countless times as "MRAs just want to be able to hit women".
/r/MensRights31/01/14 12:40 AM
1

That's the top-rated thing linked to, not the top-rated post. What is the reason people upvoted? The post title and its comments would go a long way towards being able to guess. (Absent the curiously-missing link to the post, my guess would be that people upvoted it because it's a positive message about men in society's sea of negative messages about them.) Even beyond the potential misrepresentation about why the message may have been upvoted, this on its own fails to demonstrate that we are "c…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 12:35 AM
1

There's also an interesting point about how, if they are really a male power fantasy, wouldn't that suggest a lack of power in these males?
/r/MensRights27/01/14 10:32 PM
1

An even more inaccurate view would be to judge the practice via statistics collected in a region where the practice is illegal thus creating a self-selecting and highly biased (thus useless) statistic. I'm not sure if the article is also saying that the interviewed prostitutes were only interviewed AFTER being arrested but, if so, that would also be pretty damning. You can bet your ass that I would want to leave my industry after being arrested if the only thing I did wrong was work in my indust…
/r/MensRights24/01/14 09:45 PM
1

I'd say this is a pretty accurate way of putting it. Since they involve the same underlying philosophical quirks they tend to make the same exact reasoning errors. The major difference between the two is that feminism has massive public support. You're still dealing with people who are arguing an a priori conclusion and trying to mold data to fit the theory but telling a creationist this isn't anywhere near as likely to result in the fear of being mobbed or socially ostracized.
/r/MensRights22/01/14 05:56 PM
3

Or, to give slightly less vague ideas as examples, they'll proclaim something like "women are strong, capable, and independent too" (claiming agency) while pushing for automatic arrest of males in domestic violence incidents, advocating for convicting men of rape solely on the basis that she was drunk, and proposing quotas in desired positions. (Notice how all three not only assume women don't have the capacity to act but also legally enshrine this assumption while also removing a need for women…
/r/MensRights22/01/14 05:40 PM
4

Agreed. The quick way I've seen used of expressing this idea is "feminism is hyper-traditionalism". It allows "common" feminists who don't want to think to continue coasting through their lives blissfully unaware of their blatant sexism and the "academic" feminists the easier task of resorting to hamster wheeling instead of actually having to question their underlying ideology. Of the remaining people who are thinkers, it allows the gullible and the... clumsy, I guess... people to take feminist …
/r/MensRights16/01/14 10:29 PM
1

I find your lack of presented-evidence-that-the-belief-was-well-founded disturbing.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 01:47 AM
0

Ah yes, can't have a conversation like this without intellectually dishonest pieces of shit like you coming around to not only misconstrue the point but to intentionally shift the burden of proof around in order to try and shame me into not questioning the validity of the original assertion. Hint for the stupid: my statement doesn't say men had less rights and it doesn't say women didn't. It simply says it was the belief in an interpretation of reality that caused the name, thus preventing retar…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 12:29 AM
3

It's called feminism because it was believed that females are the ones that had less rights than men. FTFY
/r/MensRights10/01/14 05:00 PM
0

we shouldn't lecture men to get better at telepathy More like we shouldn't lecture men to get better at predicting every nuanced detail of the future. Needing telepathy is kind of a smaller subset of that much bigger (and far more impossible to resolve) problem. For example, a woman who really is sane and incredibly mentally stable now could 10 years down the line change mentally in such a slight way that they'd become susceptible to feminist groupthink even if they were immune previously. Or ma…
/r/MensRights07/01/14 11:17 PM
0

I agree to a degree, not necessarily because there's anything about women that's inherently illogical so much as they're so privileged they can get away with bad reasoning. IE, being so socially powerful that you can avoid most criticism for outright bad reasoning and decisions doesn't encourage a logical and/or thoughtful approach to life. Sort of like how purportedly George Lucas had far more power making Star Wars episodes 1-3 vs episodes 4-6.
/r/MensRights07/01/14 10:26 PM
1

Correction: she got $160,000 without even an attempted rape or an attempted murder. In other words, supposed "threats" with no apparent backing in reality making it a safe $160,000.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 10:03 AM
4

I hate to sound like a scientologist but medication is too overused. I would hope that plenty of MRAs would agree. We already know that large medical bodies don't necessarily show intellectual integrity. With many US ones we already know that they'll use shaky studies and selective statistics to continue justifying intentionally violating patients' (infant boys') bodily integrity. Who's to say it only stops there? Where else are researchers and their peers conveniently ignoring their own biased …
/r/MensRights16/12/13 08:30 PM
4

They also tend to deliberately ignore housework that men do for those sorts of studies as well.
/r/MensRights11/12/13 06:06 PM
1

The opposite is true as well, though. Just because it's a joke doesn't mean the intention of the teller isn't to be actually sexist or make actual sexist claims. Deliberately ignoring this like you do is disgusting intellectual dishonesty.
/r/MensRights10/12/13 10:17 PM
10

She... slept with every man she knew?
/r/MensRights09/12/13 06:27 PM
2

They're probably under the delusion of the "women are wonderful" effect.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 04:34 AM
2

Probably more accurate to say that we've been given no reason to believe they're not fooling themselves. Everything they've listed are things we are just supposed to believe because that's the conclusion they've come to. For example, we're told they've not been allowed to remove kids that are being beaten on a daily basis but not why they "know" said kids are definitely being beaten and why that's definitely not them overreacting or misinterpreting. Or probably more telling is the assurance that…
/r/MensRights05/12/13 10:04 PM
0

There must be some sort of brigading going on here because it makes no sense for this post to be upvoted as the post it's responding to is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Specifically, a "No True Scotsman" fallacy indicates that somebody is saying "no, that person has <disliked feature> so isn't a <group>". It refers to the act of ignoring undesirable variance that exists within a group in order to deceptively present the group as pure. The post in question was, instead, saying "here's evidenc…
/r/MensRights05/12/13 05:40 PM
3

If you believe the herbivore terminology to be derogative then you could always refer to them as MGTOWs. Not that the terms are synonymous but rather that becoming a societal herbivore is one way for a man to "go their own way". That said, I've not been under the impression that feminists invented the term and, if anything, they only made it sound like a derogatory term by using a sarcastic and mocking tone when referring to herbivores by their own label. (Sort of like what people here on Reddit…
/r/MensRights04/12/13 07:27 PM
2

I'd be glad to answer. Along those lines: given your clear disapproval of an equality-based ideology I downvoted you for this portion of your comment for poisoning the terminology prior to hearing my response. However, it's appropriate to quote because this is a far more accurate description of feminism: an equality-based-on-assumptions-about-reality ideology Since feminists have made it clear that they're uninterested in exploring whether or not these assumptions are accurate (or are like you a…
/r/MensRights03/12/13 03:21 AM
2

Neither is logical. Pseudo-feminism is this false pretense that feminism means equality. It's a delusional world view that comes from morons failing to question other peoples' assumptions. Meanwhile, real feminism is a delusional world view from morons failing to question their own assumptions.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 11:46 PM
2

Once again you have failed to answer the question asked of you on how it's relevant to bring it up. Just repeating yourself like a fucking moron is unproductive and shows a complete lack of thought on your part. Do humanity a favor and develop some critical thinking skills you dumbass.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 11:42 PM
2

Why would men need fantasies of power in their entertainment unless they were lacking it?
/r/MensRights01/12/13 09:10 AM
1

I'm pretty sure what the bullies want is for you to continue participating in the mating/dating scene and just accept the social beating they might inflict. Major clue in this regard: complaints about "peter pan syndrome" and "herbivores". Since their goal isn't to drive all men away, "giving in to the bullies" means "continuing to date", the complete opposite of what you're suggesting it is.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 07:55 PM
6

Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate this (like most criticisms of feminism) is a recent phenomenon. Basically, it's the most blatant reveal of both present-day and historical feminism's dark underbelly: pretend mens' problems don't exist. Either they blatantly ignore the figures or they try and linguistically turn a sexism against men into a sexism against women.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 07:34 PM
1

I heard one case summarized thusly: Mother no longer had official custody. Father didn't want the rape baby. Custody went to mother's close family (baby's grandparents). Mother comes out of jail, lives with family. Mother applies for welfare. Government now considers mother to be taking care of baby using welfare money and automatically goes after the father for child support.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 12:48 AM
1

"you know when you hold the door for me, as a feminist, it makes me feel like a second class citizen." Wow. The persecution complex in that person is mind-boggling. If anybody was a second class citizen in that situation it was you, slaving away to do all the little things for her. Good thing for you the entitled trash let slip their mental illness.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 08:18 PM
1

It comes from racist and sexist bigots attempting to redefine racism and sexism to pretend their bigotry isn't racist or sexist. It's a bit similar to the "I'm not racist but..." or "I have a black friend so I'm not being racist when I say..." excuses where, in reality, somebody is saying something racist but they don't want the label to apply to themselves. I think there's a couple subtly different ways this is done but other posts talk about those in pretty good detail. (E.G. redefining the te…
/r/MensRights22/11/13 08:16 PM
1

You cannot assume that somebody is definitely using the most accurate language so, no, they don't actually say he's doing it every day, they're just implying he does. Didn't you learn a damn thing from playing "telephone" as a little kid? For an example of "whenever" not being used to mean "every time": "whenever I'm in the shower I always get a phone call" (even though the vast majority of the time they're in the shower they don't). Even worse, since OP is not the friend, THEY could be misinter…
/r/MensRights22/11/13 07:11 PM
3

"White men" as a power fantasy On an aside, it's probably also important to recognize that feminism has poisoned the entire "power" idea from the get-go by pretending that the only forms of power are the primarily male ones. (It's really easy to make women seem powerless if you ignore their forms of power.) That aside, I agree that feminism has been trying to conflate "man" with "white". The wage gap is a really good example of this. The idea is it's being used to present a financial gap but it'…
/r/MensRights21/11/13 11:16 PM
2

I was here in order to understand you guys more. Based on your comments it seems more like you "tried" to understand us but didn't really try. It's always easier to say you've done something than to actually do it. You associate with an ideology built on blatant lies and misrepresentations which deliberately hide and ignore male suffering in order to justify its existence and then follow up with the audacity to tell us that you're actually concerned with how men are treated?
/r/MensRights21/11/13 09:59 PM
2

I dunno, they're so thorough at intentionally going out of their way to misinterpret and misrepresent anything and everything MRA that I'd call that a form of quality. It's so bad you could show it off! (Sort of like intentionally showing off an especially fragrant poop to your friends except instead of coming out of your asshole it came out of Reddit's asshole.) I mean, saying there's no quality in the SRS fempire I could understand since it's some of the most predictable, banal crap ever (they…
/r/MensRights21/11/13 08:51 PM
16

It could result in feminists constantly playing "the ground is lava"!
/r/MensRights20/11/13 07:28 PM
4

It's pretty easy to predict. If it's a bad thing then it's the fault of men. For example, men are giving up on participating on society in growing numbers? It's their fault, they're just being babies because they're losing their privilege, they need to "man up", return to sacrificing themselves for society, and just stand there silently like obedient dogs while feminists constantly scream at them.
/r/MensRights20/11/13 06:55 PM
0

My dad once told me that the secret to a successful marriage was compromise. I recognized right then and there that, while I'm sure he believed that, the truth is that my mom never compromised. Thus my road to being an MGTOW began.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 11:28 PM
2

Yeah. Feminism the Movement had specific assumptions it made about reality that make it possible to identify somebody as ideologically feminist, even if they're rejecting the group identity but only walking away with the interpretation of the world. With MRAs and the MRM in general it's more of a vague rejection of the interpretation of reality that the common societal narrative gives us. Thus, some MRAs identify feminism as the dominant contributor to said narrative and are ideologically anti-f…
/r/MensRights18/11/13 07:26 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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