TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ShakeyBobWillis Archive

View 0 posts and 656 comments by ShakeyBobWillis on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

This sub has largely always been the same. Every once in a while a post like yours comes up and the comments are filled with people who agree that its become too much of a 'woman in Utah shoots man, look at how evil all women are' sub. But that's incorrect, that's always been most of the subs content. It's just new waves of users finally taking notice after hanging around long enough to get the larger sense of this sub. That its really far less about helping each other and far more about ranting…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:42 PM
4

It would be unlikely to happen because a commonly used term for that type of shirt is 'wife beater'. You wouldn't put the phrase 'wife beater' on there any more than youd put the phrase 'Tshirt' on a Tshirt. So which is worse? That she turned the common name of the shirt to 'husband beater' or that a widespread common name for the shirt itself is already 'wife beater'?
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:33 PM
1

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/11/02/herman-cain-to-forbes-a-rick-perry-consultant-behind-sex-harassment-leaks/
/r/MensRights04/11/11 05:17 AM
1

The situation you describe is the last in a chain of events in a bitterly fought conflict And also the first an no chain of events but simply because a parent wants no responsibility for the child anymore. It happens, stop pretending that children aren't abandoned by one or both parents. The fact is that women have considerably more power within the relationship and through enforcement of the legal system are able to force the continuation of that relationship, on their terms, Agreed, but that d…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:11 PM
1

I've merely answered his anecdotal assertions with another anecdote. You can in fact go to a courthouse and see all sorts of parents who would like nothing more than to give up all custodial, financial, and moral obligation to their children. What he provided as a link I have not addressed yet as I'm still looking at that and other sources brought up in looking at that.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 05:36 AM
2

As I mentioned, that nevermind would have been unnecessary had I read your name on the first post of yours I responded too. Because I wouldn't have bothered to even start the discussion with you. Feel good about it, you're one of the very few people I've actually taken notice of by name and actively seek to avoid from the sheer stupidity. That's quite an achievement.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 05:33 AM
1

Boop. Silly rantgrrl. You're one of the worst people on this sub to have any sort of discussion with. between the shit you make up and your add jumping from place to place it's like a waking nightmare. But if you need to take it as a victory that your past history of discussion is so full of fail people know ahead of time not to bother, then be my guest. You're right. You won. You've shown yourself so devoid of any larger sense of understanding that you make it worthless to discuss any idea with…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 04:42 AM
5

Anyone that loves the child. I've seen aunts and uncles step into the place, grandparents, friends, second husbands/wives, etc. Bio-parent means pretty much fuck all but a passing on of genes if they don't do anything else to participate. At this point I'll apologize for getting into it, I've run into that old problem of commenting before looking at the username. I've finally noticed so I'm out. I know this is going nowhere because discussions never do with you.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 02:25 AM
1

You can also go to courts and see thousands of fathers or mothers that take zero responsibility and want none. Again, anecdotes are just anecdotes.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 02:23 AM
1

Your example is a personal anecdote. It can no more determine the frequency of that scenario than my own personal anecdote does. But thanks for the links. I'm heading out for a dog walk and a haircut but will check those out.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 12:28 AM
2

Unless you've got some studies to back it up then you shouldn't really be suggesting that's not the case.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 12:26 AM
4

Not my problem you don't understand how to interpret research results or know the difference between correlation and causation. Hell, don't believe me, ust go back and re-read the article, they make it clear what the data suggests. "The data suggest that having a second adult involved during childhood produces benefits in terms of skills and abilities that endure throughout adult life," he added. Notice they don't say father here. Because when it comes to actually pointing out what the data real…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 12:24 AM
2

Yes. Let's have a research lesson. Dr Daniel Nettle, who led the research, said: "What was surprising about this research was the real sizeable difference in the progress of children who benefited from paternal interest and how thirty years later, people whose dads were involved are more upwardly mobile. The sample they used was specifically fathers so that's what they'll talk about in terms of discussing data results. "The data suggest that having a second adult involved during childhood produc…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 12:17 AM
1

Yes, they would have survived just fine without their father, because what the research shows is that 2 adults raising a child is better than 1. In those times a child would have had that second adult whether or not that person was the father. This study didn't prove 'fathers' are what raises the IQ. It suggests that more people is better than one person.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 12:07 AM
3

You don't understand what this research is even talking about. Read the quote I provided again. Then look at how dumb your statement is. Not that it needs help. Your overgenerlizations about mothers and fathers are dumb enough on their own without having to put it into context of what was actually derived form the research.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 12:06 AM
4

You're the one that went on this imaginary tangent with what he said. His point was merely that it wasn't a simple mother/father scenario. Stop taking your own crazy biases with you on this imaginary journey of what you thought they implied.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 11:43 PM
1

As I said before, there are some men that will not want to support their children, but it is a very very small percentage. Is it?
/r/MensRights04/08/11 11:16 PM
3

"The data suggest that having a second adult involved during childhood produces benefits in terms of skills and abilities that endure throughout adult life," he added. The research dealt with data relating to the father, the conclusion is not merely that fathers are what provide the actual IQ advancement but that a 2nd adult in the process does.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 11:06 PM
3

Actually what they pointed out was a disregard for mother OR father, showing that it was an entire community that raised children.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 11:03 PM
2

The researchers warned that it was not enough for parents to live together, but that a father should be actively involved in a child's life to benefit their development. "The data suggest that having a second adult involved during childhood produces benefits in terms of skills and abilities that endure throughout adult life," he added. Go figure, 2 adults putting time and effort into raising a child is better than 1. Note, what this really points to is 'more people' not necessarily the biologica…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 11:01 PM
1

Maybe it would. Maybe this comment is also well directed at people who think it only works one way too. Also: Strawman? Lulz. It's as much a fact as this guys opposite point. Also: OP isn't the author nimrod.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 05:41 PM
-2

Bitter fathers grumbling about women being deceitful bitches looking to accuse you of rape and have secret babies with your jizz unbeknownst to you, will also create a problem in their children. Just food for thought for some of the mensrighters here.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 04:08 AM
2

Just pointing out she is indeed branded for life. Just like anyone else in that situation would be.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 11:16 PM
3

She's still branded a sex offender.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 10:43 PM
1

Your biggest hurdle will be a single-parent looking to adopt. Your next biggest hurdle will be a male single-parent looking to adopt.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:17 PM
2

Not a mensrights issue.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:12 PM
2

So what?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:08 PM
3

This actually applies to a lot of people in a lot of subjects.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:06 PM
3

Sure but who fucking says that? Almost nobody.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:05 PM
5

how do you think even moderate feminists would have reacted had all the winners been male? This is whiny baby shit and get's nobody anywhere in any topic. 'Oh yeah, well can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Obama said it instead of Bush?!?' It adds NOTHING to the discussion.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:33 AM
1

NEVER!!! We should be as knee jerk reactionary as the batshit insane fringe feminists and presume that because no men were included in the winners it is because of sexism and discrimination! *HowardDeanScream*
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:31 AM
-1

No actually there are people saying just that. EDIT: Downvotes..heh. Don't believe me? Read the OP's comment right above.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 04:30 PM
2

Clearly his breaking point was earlier when he held his kids at gunpoint. Is that the act of someone that hasn't already 'broken'?
/r/MensRights14/06/11 11:14 PM
1

Yeah I was merely pointing out why you shouldn't be understanding of his raging at not being able to see his kids.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 09:16 PM
8

I think the difference in how the things are looked at are in part because 'flashing your cash in a bad neighborhood' was never really used in court to argue that a person was 'asking for it', while, in the past, how a woman dressed was frequently used as an an attempt to question a woman's claim they didn't want the sex. From a purely philosophical place, sure, there's not much distinction between the two thing. But in the actual context of the two issues, there's a difference. The problem is, …
/r/MensRights14/06/11 09:02 PM
1

There are many cases where male criminals get a slap on the wrist for the same crime in which another male spends years in jail. There are many cases in which the person gets a slap on the wrist for the same crime another person spends years in jail for.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:42 PM
0

Awww. Commence circle jerk of r/mensrighters patting themselves on the back for being so 'open' in 5..4...3..2..
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:39 PM
1

Any more than Feminism mischaracterization? It's rampant on both sides. Generalizations are generally stupid.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:35 PM
2

He was kept from seeing them because he fucking held them hostage. Prior to that it was a custody dispute and no information alludes to the fact he wasn't able to see them prior to his gun problems.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:33 PM
4

Umm... I'm guessing being denied visitation. ...because he held the family at gunpoint. Go figure.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:32 PM
5

Who fucking knows. We can cherry pick examples of women and men getting the book thrown at them for abhorrent shit and we can cherry pick stories of men and women getting a slap on the wrist for abhorrent shit.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:31 PM
2

The point remains. Many of us don't seem to have our lives flooded with the same type of people you seem to be inundated with.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:28 PM
2

Most people of both sexes can't fix shit on a car, on a house, on a boat, on a bike, or on anything else.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:27 PM
1

These are fucking stupid. These are also stupid fucking generalizations that would get a lot of r/mensrighters in a fucking twist if it was the other way around. These are also stupid because they're not even funny accidentally. These should be downvoted into oblivion as they're irrelevant to the sub and don't help anything.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:26 PM
-1

I thought we we're supposed to be about equal power, not being the side 'in power'.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:23 PM
1

Except 'rape' isn't a consequence anyone should have to face for anything.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:17 PM
1

Probably the same way most of society reacted to this one. They wouldn't give a fuck either way.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:14 PM
11

I know people think this is a 'gotcha' moment but really the definitive statement is true in both cases. Neither of those actions (dressing slutty or flashing cash) excuses rape or robbery.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:11 PM
1

He was willing to lie for it, which means he could have been blackmailed. One does not follow the other. I've lied about all sorts of things in my life that I would've been public about if someone actually expected to get money or favors from me because of it.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:04 PM
1

The point is if the other person in your relationship doesn't believe it, its no less valid than you wanting them to adhere to it.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 06:16 PM
0

Oh we make new pointless rituals all the time. That's no excuse not to get rid of one more and more people are shrugging off. Culture evolves. If we kept every pointless ritual we've ever had as a culture we'd never make any progress.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 05:59 PM
1

Remember that it's what a specific person did to you. Not a gender. Stay the fuck out of r/mensrights. (Note: This is not a call to stay away from the MRM).
/r/MensRights09/06/11 09:09 AM
1

21 year old female Mexican police chief seeking asylum So basically she was the first police chief in that city that had a lick of common sense. Well....strike that...taking the job in the first place ruined that.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 09:06 AM
4

It is to many of the regulars on r/mensrights that have one hell of a skewed view on what 'feminists' are. It's akin to saying you date Pol Pot.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 09:04 AM
2

Yes, the word feminist is too often just a broad overgeneralized replacement word for women on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 09:01 AM
1

My friends got married a couple years ago and made up their own last name. I wish I could mention it but wont for obvious privacy issues, but it's hilarious.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 08:57 AM
2

The "age old tradition" didn't just magically appear out of thin air though. there's context to it. In places it was traditional to take the mans last name it was about ownership and leadership of the family . At best it's an outdated tradition, at worst it exemplifies the male centric viewpoint. While you may not be expecting the women you happen to marry to adhere to the tradition for those same reasons, you cannot simply call it an innocuous tradition.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 08:55 AM
1

So adhering to more pointless rituals is better than slowly dropping them one by one out of our culture?
/r/MensRights09/06/11 08:44 AM
0

Hyperbole and bullshit. I can point to plenty of examples of women wing punished for being crazy.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 12:42 AM
0

Yeah, I have no problem with that part. But that's not all that was being done.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:22 PM
0

Yeah I usually get sucked into conversations with her because I don't always read the names of people I'm talking to. Then I get a few messages in and happen to look up and see the name and 'Oh shit...I should've just avoided commenting here in the first place.'
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:20 PM
-1

Crazy bitches is a recognized problem. Nobody is clueless as to the crazy fucking people existing in the world. Get real.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:18 PM
0

Because I prefer to see men's weakness and women's strength? Rather then removing women's agency, I prefer to see it? Ahh but in this case you're ignoring the specifics of what we're talking about. Yes the woman can still choose to get an abortion or have the child by herself. No this is not an acceptable choice to put a woman into because you duplicitously fucked her without a condom. Because after conception women(or unprotected sex) still have choices, men do not. Abortion(the morning after p…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:17 PM
-2

And one can force you to make a decision to get an abortion or raise a child on your own. The POINT is both actions can be huge betrayals and deception that will have long term and short term major implications. Why is it ok or just 'stupid' by your opinion for a man to purposely break a condom or remove it unnoticed and put a woman in the position to be forced to get an abortion or deal with the reality of potentially getting no assistance financial or otherwise in raising a child if she gets p…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:33 AM
1

Except they're talking about the choice solely in post-childbirth opportunity, not post-separation. So you have a big non sequitur there. In the context there it's not about entitlement at all. And there's plenty of single mothers that aren't living high off the hog from alimony and child support that have to work every day out of necessity not choice. So the post-separation opportunities aren't exactly black and white for that matter.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:17 AM
1

Modern labor in many cases is nothing like the same either.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:12 AM
1

Funny that there were quite a few responses form women and women that believe in their version of feminism that says it's just about the power to choose that life and not have it foisted on you. Then you read the comments here and it's as if the post was filled with "real" feminists that came out of the woodwork to admonish this woman for wanting to do that. Feminism didn't kill that fucking dream. This is just stupid.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:12 AM
2

I didn't say 'rare' I said most men wouldn't have that problem. Which is a far cry from calling it 'rare'. If we had equal amounts of both sexes saying it who knows. It'd probably be equal. Both sexes have serious problems about open communication during and about sex. We live in a fucked up society. Misogynist sentiment noted. Nice try. Nice victim card too! Wasn't making any reference to your sex with that comment nor do I use the phrase exclusively with women. Though I'll admit I typically sa…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:02 AM
-2

It's not the same, because it's not the same thing. Duh. But it's also fucking abhorrent type of behavior. So it's better that they deceive a woman about the condom 'accidentally breaking' or by taking it off without her noticing just because they want to fuck without a condom? That they don't care if she has to get an abortion or have a kid because they don't plan on paying either way? I know it's not a popular opinion to have here, but there is indeed a subset of men equally as fucked up and m…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:55 AM
2

It's not the same dynamic. It is however, an example of what bombtrack411 is pointing out. That there's disgusting behavior going on both ways.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:52 AM
0

Oh I'm not getting carried away. It's readily apparent if you spend enough time here.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:49 AM
3

Florida man gets probation in attempted stabbing A Florida man was ordered Wednesday to serve 11 months' probation for attempting to stab his wife and two others outside a Fraser fitness center. Anthony Arthur-Joseph Lane, 22, pleaded guilty in February in Macomb County Circuit Court to one count of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. Lane had been facing up to life in prison in the July 7, 2010, incident outside Macomb Boxing & Fitness. A review hearing is set for Marc…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:47 AM
2

Ahhh yes, I see you've been downvoted for an unpopular, but true, take for anyone interested in logical consistency.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:27 AM
2

This is something that all men and women in this country could stand to learn. But alas, our society still insists on promoting an archaic system of life that is worthless except to unite under God and procreate. So you wind up with a shit ton of people getting married because that's what they think they're 'supposed' to do. Damn shame too. Relationships would be so much better if everyone came from a place of desire rather than social obligation.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:22 AM
1

There's a handful of regulars you can follow and watch them downvote dissent and defend any position under the guise of mens rights, call any comment about questioning the wisdom of continual venting and emotional hyperbole to be 'concern trolling', call any comment even remotely trying to question an illogical and unwarranted attack on women as a whole a 'white knight' (which is even funnier because they're also the same ones who will White Knight any mens righter they see being questioned), an…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:17 AM
-1

I mean, really? What kind of gormless moron tampers with a condom to get a girl pregnant so that she can turn around and peg him for child support? The point is that those types of guy aren't trying to get a girl pregnant, they don't give a fuck about it either way, nor do they think in any sort of timeline that extends beyond the time they bust a nut. They just don't wanna fuck with a condom on. Yes they are stupid fucking men. Yes they exist. Yes there is more than just a rare handful.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:10 AM
0

Yeah it's stupid behavior, but it's not rare by any stretch. Just like there's crazy women, there's crazy fucking dudes. Go figure.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:08 AM
1

Yes, through the sheer mathematical process of the reality that most men don't have that problem via intercourse (and certainly not as common as women who have that issue) so inherently there would be less women butt hurt if everyone 'not getting off from fucking' revealed it to their partner. Nothing nefarious here. Don't get your undies in a bind.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:03 AM
5

I've seen it and it's just stupid...not really making a claim that all men need to be 'trained' to be a good dad. They specifically pick out douchebags. Nobody is pretending this is the average guy. It's clear.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 06:02 AM
1

I assume you mean healthy functioning body parts.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:59 AM
1

I'm all for banning circumcision unless it's self-selected. However, the story is stupid because it tries to equivocate doing it to an adult. The law has been clear over and over that it doesn't consider children to be possessing the exact same level of equality to self-determination as adults do. We can argue about whether or not that should be true no doubt. But the reality is some shit parents decide for children. I agree that circumcision shouldn't BE one of those things but that's another m…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:58 AM
-2

It's not the venting that's the problem. It's when many people here have absolutely nothing else to offer BUT venting. I get their desire to, but I don't pretend it's constructive to the cause as a whole. He's one of those continual 'venters'. This place frequently delves too deep into circle jerk commiserating. I get why, but this isn't r/bitchaboutcrazyfuckingwomenthatfuckedyouover. It's r/mensrights. Go yell it on a mountain or something if that's all you can offer.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:50 AM
2

No, but that's because they did things like fake a call to go back. I'm not saying they raped her. I'm just saying I have no reason to believe their statements when they've been proven to have started acting in a duplicitous manner to get the whole thing going. I'll never know what actually happened. Also, one can defend men's rights and still want a proven rapist to go to jail or a man that has not been proven to be a rapist to go free per the rule of law. None of this is mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:47 AM
-5

Ahh, I see. He's 'right' and 'correct about shit'. Heh. He's being a whiny cunt just like whiny cunt extremist feminists. "Oh this is MY space. Who the fuck are you to have an opinion?!?" Fucking dickbag.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:38 AM
1

Probably larger.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:36 AM
1

+1 for oldie but goodie song reference.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:34 AM
2

While there's many flaws in her idea (the HUGE one, and most unforgivable flaw being that MRM isn't all about hating women like she implies by lumping in MRA's with 'pickup artists' and 'feminist haters'), I think there's some merit to the idea in terms of r/mensrights, especially the people that frequent here the most who DO fall into that bitter jaded divorced/dumped guy mentality. It would be beneficial to come up for air once in a while and just check in with reality and realize that no, not…
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:29 AM
1

I think it varies by state.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:24 AM
2

If we're just throwing out pipedreams, why not suggest he win the lottery? THIS is the exact problem with r/mensrights. Finding a healthy relationship isn't a fucking pipe dream. People do it all the fucking time. Stop over exaggerating the fucking problem.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:21 AM
1

So you had a bad experience with A girl and you "can see how ANY girls can become a monster now"? Come on dude. That's cheap intellectual dishonesty.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:19 AM
1

Well that's not what it says at all.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:17 AM
1

Yeah! The 'system' in Thailand is bound to work so much better for your foreigner ex-pat ass.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:14 AM
-1

Semantic argument trying to defer the larger douchebaggery.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:10 AM
1

How about women stop using the belief that we are 'always in the mood' to have sex on their terms and also stop using the belief that when men want to get down women have a canned excuse not to bother. Because I don't know about you but my gf's have always been down to fuck.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:06 AM
3

Good points in the post. That being said there is in fact a huge part of the male population that will get butthurt by a woman not 'faking it' and instead just saying they didn't get off from fucking.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:05 AM
-3

The most hilarious part is you're just like the extremist feminists you love to hate. Get the fuck over yourself and thinking you're speaking for all men in the MRM.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:01 AM
-12

A concern troll is anyone that doesn't agree with every post by a mensrighter 100%. Anyone that suggests that the asshats among us are actually a detriment to the cause because they make it easy to marginalize the whole movement with their idiocy is a 'concern troll'. Because calling someone a concern troll is a way in which they attempt to negate any validity of the concern shown. This is also another reason r/mensrights gets a lot of hate.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 05:00 AM
15

In part because many hardcore feminists detest being challenged on some serious inconsistencies in their actions/logic. They don't like it being pointed out that their extremist views have in fact created a huge double standard for men and women in the legal system...disparities that anyone preaching 'equality' should be concerned about. In part because there's a lot of idiots here that are net drains on the actual cause: The misogynists and the tools that upvote them and defend them. The jaded …
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:57 AM
2

Don't mistake stupid bureaucracy of illogical contradictions for conscious malicious intent. This isn't the only medicine that's run into this problem and none of them had anything to do with men's reproduction.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 04:47 AM
3

Horrible, but doesn't seem like any laws were actually broken.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 08:44 PM
0

And white females don't systematically claim their oppressed either.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 10:36 PM
4

Not a mensrights issue. This is stupid cherry picking stories of random females doing fucked up shit. There exists the same number of random stories of males doing fucked up shit. This accomplishes nothing.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 10:35 PM
0

Not a mensrights issue.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 10:04 PM
0

Nope. You think an SO is the only person that can be very close to you and betray you or that someone that's not a close associate can't fuck your life over just as bad? That's patently ridiculous and provably false. But nice try in trying to twist it into a strawman by attempting to say I was trying to equate it with a mugging. Asshat.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 09:57 PM
6

Wealthy people have more rights by default.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 04:00 PM
2

I would've liked to see those things answered as well.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 07:34 AM
1

Well that's provably false.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 07:31 AM
0

I'd say the fact that it's "Today News" lends more to it's lack of any insight than some ulterior motive.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 07:27 AM
-1

Wealthy white men.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 07:22 AM
4

How does one go through any big horrible event in life and not hate the entirety of the demographic of the person that fucked them over?
/r/MensRights26/05/11 07:20 AM
1

Yes and my point there is that the phrase 'scarred for life' carries a lot more weight than the words at face value. You know that they do, stop pretending they don't. Stop feigning ignorance about it.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:01 PM
1

No the difference in my case is that I'm not traumatized by either of the scars, which is why I don't use the phrase "scarred for life". Because it's not appropriate for how I feel about either scar. If YOU wanna use that for yourself that's cool. But don't start applying it to me as part of the group. and we don't go around moaning about how we are "scarred for life"- at least, i don't usually. Boy you wouldn't know it from reading your last bunch of posts on the topic on Reddit. I personally d…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 10:19 PM
1

Who said anything about calling it something other than a scar? I made my point...I have a scar and I'm scarred for life have two very different connotations. You play semantic games and try to pretend that you'd say something llke "I'm scarred for life" about any old scar. But I doubt that's the case. Piercing my ears 'scarred me for life" in the most technically literal sense, but I'd never actually say "I'm scarred for life" when talking about my ear piercings because I'm aware of the connota…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:13 PM
1

Circumcision is not a crime And if this law passes it will be a crime to do it in SF. And I'm not trying to make circumcision seem equivalent to murder or rape. Im pointing out that you too will 'judge' an action inappropriate even if it's a religious or cultural one. You just have a different line in the sand. You'll judge at murder and rape...other people will judge sooner...but everyones judging. So stop trying to tell me that we have to respect it just because it's a religious or cultural ri…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:44 PM
0

"I have a scar" and "I am scarred for life" have two very different connotations. You prefer the latter because it hits people in a more visceral place. But don't pretend that your turn of phrase is simply pointing out you have a scar. You're having fun with words but pretending you're not playing the game. Don't be intellectually dishonest.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:37 PM
1

My point is that just because someone does something under the umbrella of religion or culture doesn't mean the larger culture they live in has to simply accept it as something that has to occur. Some families participate in revenge killings due to religious and cultural beliefs, should we allow them to do that? Some families participate in stoning a woman for getting raped. Should we accept that? By your argument, yes, we have to because they're doing it as part of their religion or culture and…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:15 PM
1

Point being nothing is immune from judgement just because it's done under the guise of religion or culture. Your bar for judging is just in a different place.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 06:37 PM
1

Yeah, welcome to the world. Are you not going to try to stop me if my belief is to kill your family?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:42 PM
1

I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress. Err...be sure to tell your waitress she's not getting a tip because she's fucked over too many men in her life.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:07 AM
1

What you are 'arguing' for is continuation of the status quo. Continue to feed the beast, else it eat itself. Nope. I'm all for not getting married if you don't want to. I'm in a relationship and odds are we aren't ever going to get married. I'm all for not getting into relationships if you don't want to. What I'm not for is people blinding themselves by doing nothing but lurking in a sub like this and then thinking that's how the whole world is. I assume you're a 'happily married man', and ther…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:04 AM
1

Anyone really into men's rights should actually be staunch supporters of gay marriage as those couples navigating divorce,etc. are the most likely to spur change in the whole realm of divorce and custody and such.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:52 AM
0

It's commonplace in us heteros not hung up on the whole 'virgin bride/I'm the only man you can look at/I'm the only woman you'll ever need so don't even masturbate or look at porn' types. It's not as uncommon as you think.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:50 AM
1

You don't really give a shit about men's rights. God you power users really get off on telling everyone else what club they belong to. I give a shit about mens rights. If I didn't I wouldn't care what the fuck you say as a member of it. I'd let you live out your sad angry life without comment.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:21 AM
1

No, my point is these things are happening, but not to the extent where having NO relationships with women at all is a rational choice. And again, I'm all for the same changes you want. I'm just not going to get there by being a jaded pissed off asshole with no perspective.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:20 AM
1

The MRAs here do the same Excuse me while I shit myself laughing.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:18 AM
1

No, I'm well aware of the disparities in divorce law. I promote changing them. I don't promote the idea that it's lurking around the corner waiting to fuck every man up. When all a person does all day is read articles that confirm their bias it adds up in a cumulative effect in which the fear gets out of proportion from the reality of the individuals chance to actually experience it. It's no small surprise the most adamant and hyperbolic of this subreddit are the ones that do nothing but lurn on…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:17 AM
1

Care about it all. Just don't lose perspective. That's been my point all along.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:09 AM
1

What's to 'have at'? You'll disagree with everything I say and then call me a troll because I don't tow your extremist position. You'll also attempt to disenfranchise me from a cause I care about by calling me a 'feminist'. It's hilarious that you're the same kind of know-nothing extremist you hate in feminism. I'll comment on your dumb ass posts, not looking for agreement, just to point out the logical problems so you don't infect other members with your jaded opinion.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:08 AM
1

So then you're saying that mens rights should be painted by the brush of the loudest and most prolific members? That's not going to pan out well as you can see from this sub, the most outspoken and regular participants are indeed on the extreme end of opinions within the movement. Not all ANYTHING is like that. Do it vocally and publicly and passionately. March against the things the extreme branches of feminism are doing, ffs. If you're not willing to do that, you're agreeing with them. Absolut…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:06 AM
1

Ok, now how many of those were contested? I'm asking seriously because if you want to attribute any value to that stat you just threw out we're gonna need more information. Also would be nice to see the source of the 92%.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:00 AM
1

Why do you keep using analogies that aren't close to the actual odds of it happening? You've got a pistol with 150,000,000 empty chambers and one bullet?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:59 AM
1

Ok. The bumbling husband. That's one way.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:58 AM
1

No, I'm sure I'll probably comment again, mostly because I rarely read the names of posters so I won't realize it's you until you trot out your old arguments, but partly because there's 100% chance you're going to say another thing so stupid it just needs a comment.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:56 AM
1

The whole idea of that comment was to emphasize how splintered the movement is, and how varied and fucked up some of the ideologies are. the whole idea of generalizing all feminists was to emphasize how splintered the movement is? Interesting. is that the upper echelons of the movement--academia, lobbyists, activists and organizers, basically everyone who's really influencing public or government policy, or shouting from on high--ARE the extremists. Right...and even they're not all on the same p…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:53 AM
1

You were splitting hairs because you're saying it's better that a woman in a movie is viewed as holes for fucking as opposed to hero male protagonists that are expendable. I assumed your point with the old women and young girls was more hair splitting on how they get treated better because even old women are considered goot enough to be holes while old men in movies are never given the role of virile hero. There's plenty of complaining to go around in movies. Everyone's a fucking oppressed and m…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:50 AM
1

Thanks dude! I pride myself on amazing comebacks.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:46 AM
1

Well that's crap. I personally know three guys that were accused of rape by exes...but never was a complaint to cops made (gee, there's another 'unreported rape' hey? - except they only accused him in social circles, and it was purely to wreck his reputation). I myself have had that happen to me as well (that's what you get for giving the drunk girl a ride home). So even 'dating' experiences...hell, even flat out platonic 'just doing a favour for a friend' type 'relationships' with women come wi…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:45 AM
1

Posts like the original one here where some half-wit convinces himself it's not worth getting into relationships of any sort because of the actions of a small number of women. Yeah...you have to worry about that 10%, but don't pretend your odds are 90% of getting one.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:40 AM
1

They don't. It doesn't mean they're immune from judgement.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:38 AM
1

Of for fuck's sake. There's plenty of encouragement from men by other men to be douche bags to women. Fact is, anyone getting into a relationship is taking a chance on another individual. Women don't corner the market on crazy nor are they even the majority.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:37 AM
1

Probably 90% of street feminists aren't aware of what feminist academics and eccentrics get up to. But it's the academics and eccentrics who lobby government, advocate for policy changes, etc. Street feminists tend to be really mainstream, but they aren't the ones who write the papers that lead to things like allocation of funds for DV shelters, etc. Are they? Yes, most people fall in the grand moderate middle, and you don't hear from them. Which is why you should avoid lumping their opinions in…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:35 AM
1

Yes, because we all know there's never been a movie in which an old man is considered virile enough to land all sorts of hot 20-somethings.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:30 AM
1

Of course you don't. Who'd want someone continually pointing out their logical inconsistencies?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:29 AM
1

Consider that hair split. Women are treated sooo much better because at least they're considered holes for fucking.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:58 AM
1

Every man, when thinking of getting a girlfriend to start with should do what economists do if they run into a decision making situation about doing or not doing something and perform a risk assessment analysis to compare risks with benefits. Right...and if your risk assessment is telling you that the risk is so high you might as well not get into relationships at all it means you've fucked up the calculations. You can blah blah blah about how the law is all unfair until the cows come home, I'm …
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:56 AM
1

Yeah, wasn't even aware you were the person I initially responded to on this one or I wouldn't have bothered. I thought it was a different dumb fuck. My bad.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:44 AM
1

I wouldn't have to keep trotting them out if you didn't keep making the same stupid argument. Why should I think of new lines when the old ones refute your point just fine?
/r/MensRights19/05/11 11:36 PM
0

Yeah...wear a seatbelt...not refuse to drive or to even get into a vehicle. Perspective...this subreddit could use a massive dose.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 11:30 PM
1

Dont lose hopes good sir, 80/20 rule, 20% of people cause 80% of your problems. Only a few people are shit bags, refuse to deal with the shit bags and cultivate love with the other 80%. A-fucking-men.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 11:26 PM
1

I like the quote about trust but verify. This is 100% applicable to men too. You can pretend it's less important because 'bitches be crazier, yo!' but it's not true.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 11:25 PM
1

Yeah, and typically the 'reason' they are being saved is because the male lead wants to get with them...hardly a stellar example of how 'valuable' or 'vitally important' they are.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 11:24 PM
1

I'm yet to see a movie where the woman is portrayed badly Then you're just not looking. There's loads of them.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 11:23 PM
1

Commercials portray people in pretty much every possible way that exists. What you mean to say is you notice it more when people are portrayed in certain ways. You can find just as many examples of women being painted in negative lights as well. Don't let your confirmation bias muddle the reality of the world. aren't held accountable for almost anything that they do, This is hyperbole and provably false. Your first step should be to stop repeating it to yourself as gospel truth. or example, in t…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 11:22 PM
0

I don't think anyone here is downplaying the bias of the court system, what he, and myself, and others have tried to point out is that while, yes, the legal system does have some gross disparities it needs to address, no you are not destined to be run over the coals for child support or accused of a false rape or made to support a child that isn't even yours or any of this just because you have sex with a woman, or get married, or anything else.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 11:16 PM
1

Go read the reaction on feminist blogs to that woman who drowned her kids Which ones? Any of them? All of them? The majority of them? Have YOU read the majority of them? Are bloggers now mean to represent the 'mainstream' opinion of whatever they're blogging about? DO you ever ask yourself any critical questions like this or do you just spout the stupid rhetoric and feel good when all the other regular's give you an upvote?
/r/MensRights19/05/11 11:04 PM
1

They all do? Most of them do? Who are 'feminists' and why do you think that everyone with the feminist label thinks lock-step 100% the same way? It's provably false. This is by and large THE biggest failing of this subreddit. The inability to find nuance in the issue. Everything's painted with a stupid black and white brush when 99% of the world isn't black and white. Oh but 'it's different' in this case...wide broad brush stereotypes not backed in reality are Ok..the rest of us just don't know …
/r/MensRights19/05/11 11:02 PM
1

and who, if they ever split up, would remember the fact that they'd love them once, enough to have kids together, and treat them fairly. And, in fact, this occurs in HUGE numbers. But you wouldn't know it from r/mensrights. It's not about painting an accurate picture here, it's about painting the most biased picture available. There are SERIOUS disparities in divorce law from custody, to visitation, to alimony, to child support, to the presumption of which parent is the 'better parent' for the c…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 10:59 PM
0

I'm pretty sure you mean subconsciously, and we're not talking about infants here, I'm talking about you trying to tell me, a grown ass fucking man, the correct way to feel about my circumcision. For the millionth time, you want to call yourself a victim, go right the fuck ahead. It's your prerogative. You want to claim we're ALL victims? Fuck off, you've got no idea how I'm supposed to feel. And spare me the semantic argument that the word usage fits a definition regardless of how I feel, becau…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 09:47 PM
0

I never once stated that it wasn't a scarring, victim type issue for anyone else. My point, for the whatever'th time, is that you're free to describe it however you want, you're not free to tell everyone else how they should feel about a particular thing that happened to them. There's only one of us trying to portray this in a biased light, and that's the side that wants everyone with a circumcision to be called a victim of mutilation, regardless of how they feel.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 09:27 PM
1

People shouldn't just buy that whatever I do under the umbrella of religion or cultural norms is , by default, acceptable either. Because there is nothing about religion or culture that mean we inherently have to accept anything done under those guises is acceptable in general.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 07:07 PM
1

They do defend genital mutilation. Although you're going to have a hard time making the parallel of how men in this country have the same lack of access to information to make up their minds as women in Africa do. I get that if the culture itself promotes something enough you can convince people that horrible things are in fact 'normal'. But I also understand that there's a huge difference in women defending the right to female circumcision (which in large part is due to lack of access to any in…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 05:27 PM
1

Except it's not similar in that in the case of circumcision what we have is an actual living person, not a clump of cells in a woman's body.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 05:24 PM
1

Dismissive bullshit. You don't really get to tell other people how to feel. or why they should feel a certain way. If they don't then they fucking don't. There's plenty of people willing to throw themselves on the petard of victimhood. You don't need to try to throw everyone else on.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 05:21 PM
1

The problem is you assume we can only be against circumcision if you convince us we are mutilated victims. It's easy enough to be against childhood circumcision just by believing in a persons right to make their own choices about their body. Look, there's a perfectly understandable reason why some people try to make surer to paint everyone as a victim. It generates more visceral support. You don't want people claiming they're fine with their circumcision and don't feel like victims at all becaus…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 05:18 PM
0

I find it funny that a lot of MRA people will howl over feminists playing the victim card all the time but have no problems running to use the exact same card when it suits them.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 05:15 PM
2

r/mensrights has a big problem with calling everyone who doesn't toe the extremist MRA line 100% 'a troll'.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 05:10 PM
1

Just because someone does something under the umbrella of cultural/religious practice doesn't mean it inherently deserves respect and acceptance. .
/r/MensRights19/05/11 05:03 PM
0

It does come off as extremely dismissive. Just because something bad has happened to a lot of people and most people don't care doesn't mean that you can minimize the suffering of the people who do. This is totally true. However what you're trying to do is maximize the implied suffering that others feel. Which is wrong for the very same reasons. Just because you feel like a victim doesn't mean that everyone in the same situation does.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 04:58 PM
1

But what you're trying to do would be convince a girl who was raped when she was 1 that she should self-identify and feel as 'a victim'.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 04:55 PM
3

My ear piercings have scars to, but I'd never use the phrase 'scarred for life' because it implies a lot more negativity than there actually is. Your phrase choices are conscious efforts to frame the discussion of circumcision in a certain way.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 04:25 PM
1

Maybe a better choice of words was apply victimhood to themselves. I have no problem with people self identifying as a victim if that's how they feel. I have a problem with people trying to lump everyone in as a victim just to further their ends.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 04:23 PM
0

I'm not 'so strongly' in favor. I'm neutral. Regardless I feel it's something the individual should get to decide, not the parents. All I'm strongly in favor of is people keeping their victimhood to themselves.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 04:17 PM
0

And I'm making the point of keeping your victimhood to yourself. You presume all lack of concern stems from being brainwashed into not seeing yourself as a victim. My lack of concern comes from knowing the issue, having no problems at all with my dick or how pleasurable I find sex. What you're trying to sell is a bill of goods where you tell me you know more about how I should feel than I know how i should feel. you wanna stress the victimhood go nuts, just don't lump everyone in with you.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 07:54 AM
0

That's fine for your own dick then. Point being, don't paint everyone with a circumcision as feeling like a victim like yourself.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 05:10 AM
1

Only if you're the type that think there aren't feminists ok with prostitution. There are. Not my opinion but objective fact.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 03:21 AM
-4

Awww. Another boy ruined by jaded men who've been fucked over by women in their lives.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 03:04 AM
3

I can assure you I don't consider my self scarred. I fully agree that parents shouldn't be able to do this to children, I just don't buy the rhetoric of making everyone out to be a victim if, in the end, they really don't care about it themselves. I get why, as a movement, supporters want to paint everyone with the words like 'victim' and 'scarred' as they're great words to convey serious emotion of the issue, I just don't buy that you assume I should feel a particular way about my lack of fores…
/r/MensRights19/05/11 02:55 AM
1

Here in /r/MensRights we have seen this pattern of the character assassination of men repeated many times. Who?
/r/MensRights18/05/11 05:46 AM
1

That's what I thought. Have fun cellar dweller.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 10:48 PM
1

I don't think you understand what a concern troll is.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 10:32 PM
1

Anti-MRA? Sorry bub. Let's stop the victim card before you even play it. I didn't generalize MRAs at all. Because that would be foolish. Most MRAs are completely able to understand the issues and their importance as well as staying grounded in reality when it comes to levels of fear, paranoia, rhetoric, or hyperbole. I'm talking about a very small subset of MRAs that never pick their heads up and take a look around once in a while. You dwell and you dwell and you dwell and you never absorb infor…
/r/MensRights17/05/11 10:20 PM
0

Yes, 'you people' that just sit on this sub and dwell in the misery 24/7 and get paranoid way out of proportion with the reality of the situation. Obviously not everyone that uses the sub is like that so how else should I have specified who I was talking about?
/r/MensRights17/05/11 09:47 PM
0

Yes, you have to defend against something you have a fraction of a percents chance of happening to you. And you should defend yourself accordingly based on the actual chance of danger. Not with paranoia about every woman and everything you do with women. Get off of mensrights for a while and take a breath of fresh air, you people are turning into pasty fear trolls.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 03:37 PM
0

Except he's not suggesting an occasional checkup, he's suggesting daily checkups. Anyway I'm tired of going down the equivalency list. If you worry about false rape accusations on a daily basis or any time you have sexual relations you're a fucking moron because your paranoia is way out of whack with reality. Keep making excuses for why everyone should have this base level panic about dealing with women.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 03:35 PM
1

You chances of being in an accident on the road are massively higher than your chances of being falsely accused of rape. But yeah if you want to try to equate the two, be my guest. You're free to live your life however you want though. You can keep that helmet on all day if you want. Just don't be surprised when sane people look at you a little weirdly.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 06:44 AM
2

she knows that she is going to get a slap on the wrist for having a vagina. Blah blah blah. Not a mens rights issue here. But I know the regulars will insist that it is.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 06:38 AM
-1

Yeah that's not how it works.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 06:35 AM
-2

Yep. It is. So why you'd think it was ok in this instance is beyond me.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 06:01 AM
2

The issue itself isn't trivial. Being falsely accused of rape is serious business. Pretending it's something lurking around every corner or something that you need to 'prepare' for or worry about with every woman you come across in life is just plain fucking stupid.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 03:52 AM
4

I wear my seat belt because there's a reasonable chance I would actually be in a car crash at some point. I prepare for the possibility of getting hit by lightning in far less stringent manners. I don't actually 'worry' about either one.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 01:31 AM
1

I've seen episodes with all of those things and I'm not even a regular watcher of those shows in general. Maybe you can find some disparity from complete and total proportional representation, but BFD. All the stories are represented because all the tired old stories have to be trotted out again and again and again changing some small elements to give the illusion of being a 'new' episode. It's not done out of malice, it's done because these shows are unthinking revenue machines cranking out pro…
/r/MensRights17/05/11 01:27 AM
1

When weed is legalized, I'm totally opening a strip club with that name. Do NOT steal this idea.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 01:19 AM
4

The media, for the most part, isn't acting in some nebulous conspiratorial way. It's acting in thoroughly predictable and low level ways. In fact, there's so much 'media' out there now that it's quite possible for ANY group to selectively peer into the depths that are 'the media' and see how 'it' is 'biased against XYZ'. It's hilarious that feminists, mensrightists, minorities, fat people, women, men, ugly, handicapped, religious, gay, straight, whatever all lay claim to the media being specific…
/r/MensRights17/05/11 01:18 AM
0

Especially when you have a functional TV. I'm totally perplexed as to why you'd say you didn't.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 01:08 AM
1

It's simple. TV police procedural dramas deal in the basics. Murder, Rape, Kidnapping. Your odds of seeing a rape story on any crime procedural is high by the very formula that makes the show. Not because women hold most of the purchasing power, not because fear and misandry are what women want to see, but because there's only a handful of core stories to even DO.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 01:05 AM
0

I know this sounds kind of silly and the obvious solutions would be not to sleep with women you think are capable of doing something like that, but it just doesn't seem to be enough anymore. The obvious solution is first getting back to reality and realizing that most women you meet will not be people capable of lying about you raping them.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 01:00 AM
1

Sorry, anyone 'terrified' of that stuff really needs to take a step back and get some perspective. This is what happens to people who never leave r/mensrights and explore the rest of what Reddit and life have to offer.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 12:52 AM
6

Your comment struggled to get many votes at all...for or against. Don't make it out to be bigger than it is.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 12:47 AM
2

Found troll post and reposted on Reddit. yay
/r/MensRights17/05/11 12:44 AM
3

Well then I'm sure the irrefutable evidence will be presented forthwith.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 12:40 AM
1

I'm not saying it's stupid to stop a murder in progress or anything like that, I'm sayin it's stupid to go to war with a cartel. No amount of fighting will change the fact there's a million people waiting to climb the ranks once a cartel member is killed. And fighting the cartels IS fighting the war on drugs, so it's inherently a losing proposition.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 07:53 PM
1

You look like a bunch of ranting whining fuckwits. As others have pointed out this stupid joke has made the rounds as both genders.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 03:39 PM
1

Sacrificing your life for something that won't make one iota of difference in anyone's lives is stupid. Fighting the War On Drugs in Mexico is stupid. It's a losing battle with no point.
/r/MensRights12/05/11 03:36 PM
4

No, the paranoia comes from the notion that all men are capable of being mean conniving men encouraging women to get drunk to take advantage of them. Edit: Because certainly men like that DO exist. But I'm sure that was just a mistake on your part.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 01:37 AM
3

Yeah and there's no indication that these people were selected simply because they were men or that they wouldn't have run the same type of sting on a woman had a man paid to have it done. So again, unless you want to twist yourself into a pretzel to make this about mens rights it's really not. Try again.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 12:22 AM
3

This isn't about the larger DUI issues, this is about a crooked investigator and some crooked lawyers and police. There's no indication these people were chosen simply because they were men, and there's no indication they wouldn't have done the same thing to women had then been paid to do it. This is about specific people setting up specific other people, getting them drunk, and then calling it in as a 'citizen report' once the victim drives home.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 11:35 PM
7

Not a mensrights issue unless you break your neck contorting it into one.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 09:37 PM
1

Damn! Kevin Federline only got $20,000/month from Brittney Spears. Totally unfair.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 09:35 PM
3

It's sad in the same way the live chat on Xbox Live is sad. Most of the behavior is abhorrent by any normal stretch of the imagination.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 09:29 PM
0

You'd probably be a NIMBY prick too. That's the whole point of the acronym.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 09:26 PM
1

You must have the same problem as NiceIce.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 09:21 PM
2

Why reduce it to just feminists? (Rhetorical...I know why you did it). You You can find ample proof of many Reddit liberals (male, female, feminist, or otherwise) saying the exact same things the last few days.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 05:28 AM
1

She's going to trap him with a baby that isn't his. He better get a DNA test. Bitches by crazy yo! /endsarcasm
/r/MensRights04/05/11 05:20 AM
1

It's called golf.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 04:09 AM
2

Worst-case scenario: You tell him; he kills them both in a fit of rage.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 04:07 AM
-4

What if he's a rageaholic and kills her and the guy when you tell him? What if what if what if.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 04:06 AM
1

I don't underestimate anyone's (including men) ability to overreact with offense at something.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 04:49 PM
5

You asked what people were upset about, I just pointed it out. If it was flipped around and woman's pussy juice was found to "heighten mood" no one would have any qualms with someone making a joke "next time maybe dig in for a little longer". But they might not make the joke in a professional trade journal that they were the senior editor of. I don't think the joke is so awful that his livelihood should be ruined, but there is something to be said for maybe not throwing out a jizz joke in a prof…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 08:15 AM
2

The joke at the end about there being "...a better gift for that (Valentine's) day than chocolate." Basically the joke is, "Give your gf/wife/whatever a load of jizz next Valentines day instead of chocolates."
/r/MensRights26/04/11 07:37 AM
3

Maybe not the best joke to close with but really, this person has no history of poor behavior and a long standing well-respected career. The idea that this comment should be the end of him is just asinine.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 07:34 AM
1

Yes, men getting hit in the nuts is funny. Funny enough to keep Americas Funniest Videos on the air for 20years. Remember when Steven Martin's character in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles got smashed in, and then picked up off the ground by his nut sack? Yeah, hilarious.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 07:27 AM
3

No, this anecdote doesn't really "say" anything about the larger groups they come from.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 07:14 AM
2

Dude, most of the hard core regulars here are here because they got burned by women in their lives. This whole issue is about emotion for them. They bring their feelings and personal bias into every discussion they have. You're not going to get this place just running on logic and sound intellectual arguments. You're going to mostly get 'All feminists are blah blah blah, and the presumption that any pregnancy is likely a ruse and that the only way to be "safe" is to never get into relationships …
/r/MensRights26/04/11 07:11 AM
0

Convenient justification to be the same assholes you hate on the other side.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 06:50 AM
2

Whatever you choose. Just don't use this sub for your guide.
/r/MensRights22/04/11 10:13 PM
1

Ooo downvotes with no comments. How thought provoking!
/r/MensRights22/04/11 10:12 PM
1

What you are arguing is along the lines of "not all KKK members like guns". And right there you point out your bias. Feminism is nothing like the KKK. The KKK has a much more specific belief set, or more specifically a much more specific underlying tenet that drives the rest of their beliefs. The KKK isn't like 'feminist' or 'liberal' or 'conservative' or anything like that. The KKK is a subset of a larger group. Like Libertarians are to Conservatives or Socialists are to Liberals or Separatist …
/r/MensRights22/04/11 10:08 PM
1

Not all anything are like that.
/r/MensRights21/04/11 06:03 AM
1

No, it's like any other group of millions of individuals falling under a broad label with no unified lock step plan they're all adhering to. All you knobs here keep trying to argue how 'it's different' when you do this shit. News flash. It's not. For example, I could say all MRA's are like the lunatic fringe of the regulars here but it would be a vast generalization of a group and issue as complex as it is, and unlike you, I haven't given up the logical side of my brain just to try to further a …
/r/MensRights21/04/11 01:14 AM
1

Single parent shit is glorified. Kids are better off with two caring parents if possible. If you want kids it's entirely possible to marry someone and not have ANY of the horror stories you see here happen to you. This sub picks the worst of the worst of the examples out there, and most regulars are people that have been burnt in bad relationships and carry a huge grudge out of proportion to the reality of the situation (understandably so in some cases, but still not something you want to take b…
/r/MensRights20/04/11 10:44 PM
0

I think he's talking about saving his own sperm so that, after vasectomy, he could still have a child that was genetically his. Not that he's decided not to get married but to instead donate all his sperm away.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 10:32 PM
-2

A horrible decision. Not the swearing off of marriage and not having children, as that may in fact be the right choice for you, but basing that decision on reading this sub for a few months. You might as well base your entire opinion of peanuts from reading r/peanutallergies.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 10:29 PM
2

People who stop in on any regular basis actually don't need much help in finding out that most of what goes on here is confirmation bias, over-generalization to a fault, and anecdotes being presented as hard data. That being said there's still some gem discussions happening here. Just saying...r/mensrights does pretty well on it's own discrediting itself all too frequently.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 10:17 PM
0

Maybe next you can tell me how all Muslims are. And after that Mexicans.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 10:11 PM
1

I dated a black girl once. *insert retarded anecdotes alluding to how all black women are*
/r/MensRights20/04/11 10:08 PM
0

Get rid of the line whining about downvotes...errr 'post not seeing the light of day'
/r/MensRights20/04/11 09:54 PM
0

What if the cheated was actually part of the problem that cause the cheating?
/r/MensRights20/04/11 09:48 PM
0

Too many situations in which the cheater isn't the only failure happening in the relationship (man OR woman). Not saying cheating is right, just saying that cheating isn't always a problem that arises in and of itself in a vacuum.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 09:45 PM
0

Look closely in the photo at how she leans in and smiles at the boy to such an extreme degree. Notice the asymmetry between the smile on her face and the one on his. She isn’t laughing with him. She’s trying to elicit a sympathetic smile from him. She’s trying to get him to laugh with her. This is fun. We are having fun now. She is teaching him that it’s fun and good when mommy dresses him up, tells him what to wear, tells him that painting toenails is silly, etc. She’s imprinting herself on/as …
/r/MensRights15/04/11 07:16 AM
3

Why? Why do you doubt it? Because you can't fathom a boy wanting to do something that you believe is for girls only? Because you can't see any boys having different opinions on nail painting than you have? because you believe that kids that age should already carry around all the baggage you do when it comes to genders?
/r/MensRights15/04/11 07:01 AM
4

Anyone here who thinks this ad is part of some larger feminization of males is a fucking moron. Anyone that thinks it's ok to paint the kids nails, but not pink, is a fucking moron. Anyone that reads anything more into this ad than a mother and her son sharing a cute moment of play time is a fucking moron.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 06:59 AM
1

Point being it's worthless to r/mensrights
/r/MensRights10/04/11 04:43 PM
1

This article does not support your theory that it's because men are viewed as endangering the lives of children. Again, they didn't just ignore the dad when looking for a guardian, they ignored everyone in the family.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 01:59 AM
2

I'm not sure that r/mensrights gets any benefit from it as there's just as many examples of ridiculous shit said on here. Instead of lowering yourself to stupid intellectually dishonest baiting games, raise the level of the arguments you make for mens rights. Craft your responses well. Carry yourself with respect, and stay above the petty fray.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 10:37 PM
1

Remember that other time that other person said some stupid shit on Twitter and someone tried to apply it to all people in general instead of just noting how bat shit stupid that one individual person was? Good times. Good times.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 10:35 PM
2

FWIW the story just says she attempted a circumcision, not that she succeeded. I'm assuming as soon as she made the initial cut the blood went everywhere and she (per the story) then couldn't stop the bleeding and at least had one shred of common decency left in her daft head and called the paramedics rather than try to actually cut his foreskin off.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 10:20 PM
1

Divorce is rarely a happy event when kids are involved. There's horror stories to be sure, but honestly...I think there's quite a few examples of people that made it work without a lot of animosity. Happy, probably not, but surely plenty take place without the type of vindictiveness in this story.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 10:08 PM
1

Well, yeah it is...because they didn't burn their own crops where they wound up too.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 10:06 PM
1

You're on.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 10:04 PM
2

Boy I can't wait for the day I can cut off MY nose just to spite my face.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 10:03 PM
1

Downvote? Really? Weak but hilarious.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 09:06 PM
1

I agree, but don't presume to know why, in this case, the father wasn't given a chance to be the guardian instead of the state. It seems the state didn't want to check if ANYONE in the family could be the guardian. Which is a problem in and of itself, but not necessarily a mensrights issue. That's all I'm getting at.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 08:58 PM
1

What about nagging, credit card/student loan debt, and obesity is supposed to be attractive???? Nothing. The problem is his sweeping generalization. And it's not about 'obesity' it's (in his words) about not gaining a pound of weight from high school to your 40's (and of course not mentioning if he bothered to uphold his own body to the same high standards). How does having a foreign bride = mail order bride? It doesn't. When you add up all the specifics in an individual case it can be the same …
/r/MensRights09/04/11 04:49 PM
1

You have no fucking idea in the slighted why this guy didn't have custody. Stop pretending you've got it all narrowed down to sexism.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 04:25 PM
1

The ruling is on the fitness of the mom because she had custody. This issue is a question of her alleged neglect. That is a separate issue that determining if the father could have custody. "A lawyer for the girl's father, Mubuarak Hakim, also accused protective services of failing one of its mandates to keep families together by not trying to find the father or another relative with whom to place the girl." From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110407/METRO01/104070398/Girl-seized…
/r/MensRights09/04/11 03:02 AM
1

There's no reported facts saying they didn't take his fitness into account. The due process issue seems to be that they didn't bother to check any family members for fitness to guardian, per their mandate.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 01:10 AM
0

If I went there to read comments I would. And I do when I read / hear those types of comments outside of those subs and the internet.
/r/MensRights08/04/11 10:13 PM
1

I disagree. Disagree all you want, doesn't make it correct. There are plenty of examples of people living together with a child and no marriage or reason to have the same last name. Thousands and thousands of them. There's plenty of examples as to why the same last name doesn't imply the parents live together either. There are plenty of examples of why separate lawyers might be necessary as well. Neither of those things you keep repeating implies what you think it does in the slightest. Also, th…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 10:08 PM
1

Mr. Hakim has a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his own child, and to a more than fair process before it's abridged. See Troxel V Granville. and yes, the application of the law may be discriminatory on the basis of gender. Yes, except in this case it wasn't discriminatory on gender. Or at least not in any manner backed by the facts we have. Because, contrary to what you believe... I believe that if Mr. Hakim were the custodial parent in this case, the state would have mor…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 10:03 PM
0

That people in general stop cherry picking stories and acting immediately sympathetic to anyone with a sob story that fits their agenda. That people stop excuse making all around. That the back patting and immediate support and excuse making and the 'oh man I'm totally taking your word for it, she's totally to blame' and the anecdotes around being misrepresented as data are just as bad as some woman giving a story about why she cheated and everyone immediately making excuses for why the woman wa…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 09:43 PM
0

If it's bullshit it's bullshit. You wanna argue it's a larger pile because of Oprah's reach, sure. But the bullshit itself is no different. Also, another Oprah influenced network (Oxygen) has been running Snapped for years now. Ten seasons of 'Bitches be crazy ,yo!"
/r/MensRights08/04/11 08:28 PM
1

Well hopefully you saved all the evidence of her initiating all the contact, as it will make proving things a lot easier. I doubt you'd just want to send a letter to the judge, but you may want to have a lawyer send a letter for you. I see someone has already directed you to mensrightslaw. Good advice.
/r/MensRights08/04/11 06:34 PM
1

Why did you regret not calling her 'cunt'? Because it was the worst word you could think of calling a woman. And then you wonder why it's considered the worst word to call a woman?
/r/MensRights08/04/11 06:19 PM
0

Different last names doesn't imply jack shit about where a person lived. Nor does separate lawyers. Stop repeating it.
/r/MensRights08/04/11 06:16 PM
1

By that measure everything is a men's rights issue. If it's an issue that affects both sexes and you choose to frame it as an issue about one sex, you're doing the issue a disservice. The issue here isn't men being discriminated against, it's that the rest of the entire family is being discriminated against when the judge didn't bother to try to find anyone in the family that could take her into custody instead of the state. Considering it a 'mens rights' issue beyond 'There is at least one male…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 06:16 PM
1

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110407/METRO01/104070398/Girl-seized-in-Detroit-standoff-to-remain-in-state-custody A lawyer for the girl's father, Mubuarak Hakim, also accused protective services of failing one of its mandates to keep families together by not trying to find the father or another relative with whom to place the girl. What it seems even the man is arguing isn't that men were discriminated against, but that the court ignored the entire mandate to find ANYONE , man or woman, in th…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 06:11 PM
0

How is this different than all the r/mensrights stories where it's all sympathy for the dude because 'that bitch be crazy yo'?
/r/MensRights08/04/11 05:57 PM
1

No, and neither has anyone I know.
/r/MensRights08/04/11 05:52 PM
1

Do whatever you want. It's your choice. Don't act butthurt when people use that same shit to disenfranchise the movement. And don't act like you couldn't have done something to prevent it. Maybe you can start up an r/rantaboutbitches where everyone can go get their gripe on. And every minority group or discriminated group has to deal with the ever present spectre of the worst examples of their group being used to protray the whole. This sub does the same thing to women and feminism. I've seen sh…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 11:14 PM
1

I gotta say you're vague about everything that's happening and I'm not sure I disagree with the lawyer about how little of that information matters. They guy had past with an car wreck that killed people...OK...how is this relevant? You don't even explain any info on the wreck...drunk driving? Complete accident? "Drug convictions"...is that ten bags of crackrock or a doobie or a kilo of heroin? You basically have a lot of hearsay and assumptions and seemingly totally useless info (she told you s…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 05:13 AM
1

It still creates beta males taking care of alpha male jizzbabies...which was the original lizard brain intent. So from that perspective, nothing's changed.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 04:43 AM
6

Except not everyone here is just being ironic or flippant or off-handed with those comments. I'm not saying /mensrights is a place uber scary to any woman who dare cross its threshold, not at all. But the reality is a lot of the power users in here are people that got burned by some chick in their life and they hold a very skewed and angry view on things. These are the ones most likely to make those types of comments that look bad. Honestly, I view them the same way I do angry fringe feminists. …
/r/MensRights07/04/11 04:35 AM
2

Yeah context matters. As it does for Roland3337's comments and activity. He's a r/mensrightslurker with a mail order bride and a distaste for "American Women" with their nagging and credit card/student loan debt and the indecency to not still weigh what they weighed when they were 21 (no mention if he's bothered to keep up his end of that physical bargain), and all that refusing him of the sexing, and all that 'baggage' (kids) that American women come with. You may find nothing off about that, b…
/r/MensRights07/04/11 04:30 AM
2

I've seen many divorces. Ones where the chick was the asshole, ones where the dude was, and ones where nobody was the asshole and the people just got an amicable divorce (happens way more than anyone here would care to admit). Shit happens. People are assholes. Women don't come close to cornering the market on any of it. There's as many horror stories about men to give women the same concern about marrying you. Life goes on for everyone.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 04:12 AM
1

Why should it be obsolete now? And we're all controlled a lot more by the lizard brain than we like to admit.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 04:04 AM
1

The Sun? Pass.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 04:03 AM
0

Again, missing the point.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 08:07 PM
0

Never said anything about how people should run things. I merely pointed out that while everyone likes to pat themselves on the back that mensrights does not bring the banhammer so fast, it would serve them better (if transmission of and acceptance of said ideas is the end goal) to polish their ideas and arguments up as it's much more important in the overall scheme of things than whether or not r/mensrights bans more than r/whatever.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 08:00 PM
0

True nonetheless. So they don't ban people. Huzzah. They sure still spend an inordinate amount of time falling prey to the same logical fallacies and poor arguments...which, in the end is certainly far more important to the movement as a whole progressing it's thoughts and opinions than whether or not mod's ban people. But yes, I suppose I should be happy that instead of ban happy subreddit full of poor logical arguments, stereotypes, and the common misconception that anecdotes = data that r/men…
/r/MensRights04/04/11 07:32 PM
1

You might think this is somehow relevant to r/mensrights, butt it taint.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 07:23 PM
1

But just as likely to engage in all the other ridiculousness. Trolling, No True Scotsman fallacies, anecdotal bias, yadda yadda. This place is still way more similar to any of those than it is different.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 07:22 PM
2

This is of so little consequence it can't even be called a first-world problem.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 07:20 PM
0

Bwop bwop bwop bwahhhhhhh
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:08 AM
2

+1 For living up to your Reddit name.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:03 AM
3

This entire blogfart is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 04:22 AM
2

Never heard of him. Doesn't he know Tucker Max already has that internet douchebag niche covered?
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:17 AM
1

Yeah I'm sure those 8 guys who went to jail for looking funny at a kid totally tipped the balance into men as a whole experiencing more sexism.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:12 AM
1

Yes Yes Yes 4&5. Anyone that answers this yes or no is a fool. This is no monolithic group of feminists all going in one direction with all the same beliefs and prejudices. You might as well ask if I think Asians stay true to the cause, or women in general, or sports fans. Who the fuck knows. There's millions of people with a wide assortment of beliefs. Pretending they're all of one mind is retarded.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:10 AM
2

24 year old guy kills his kid (the very first time he'd been responsible for taking care of her alone) after becoming annoyed she cried when he was playing a video game. And no, you're not really advancing any cause by posting random stories in r/mensrights of women doing horrible shit. You're not enlightening anyone or changing how women are seen. Everyone already knows some women do awful shit just like some men do. Spare me the just cause bullshit.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:03 AM
1

Says who? Common fucking sense and basic economic theory. Choose at least one. Risks decreases which means the products is safer to sell which means more income. Risk decreases to that of any other legal arming operation which means you're 10,000% markup is going WAY down. You won't increase the volume enough to even remotely offset the huge loss in unit margin you once had. Fact is, if it's commercially legal to do, drug lords won't be able to do anything about maintaining control over the reso…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 07:56 PM
1

Because they will no longer be able to get the same price for the product. The large markup is due to the increased cost of cultivation/processing/shipping due to the illegality of the product as well as the increased risk to one's self for being in the business. It doesn't matter if Marlboro will join the fray or not. Simple economic theory should be enough to explain to you why prices will fall when prohibition is removed. It's not rocket science. And you can't keep the violence up if you can'…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 07:29 PM
1

Ah well, you can point a person to the path out of stupidity, but you can't make em walk it. Your loss.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 07:18 PM
1

The reason there are so few women in these positions is because of women's choices. That's a huge assumption. You have proof or even a logical argument for why we should assume that the reason women don't make it is because of their choices? And what about the women who ARE doing the work? Yeah, they made it to that level. Super. Still doesn't mean that it's not an industry that's based more on connections and influence than merit, which is an issue that's separate from any discrepancies in male…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 06:30 PM
0

If the war on drugs stops, the drug lords lose money and power. They won't become rational people overnight, but they'll certainly lose their effectiveness and, for many of them, the job entirely. These people can threaten and kill police with impunity because of the money they get from massive profits due to prohibition, which allows them to buy enough muscle and influence to do whatever it is they want. These people are in the positions they are for no other reason than the War on Drugs.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 06:18 PM
2

I've read many articles about the deaths of the other police chiefs and other policemen in Mexico. And people have been making a fuss over the amount of violence and risk to the local police in Mexico due to the War on Drugs for quite some time. Also where did she get called a hero in this article? She's being rewarded asylum, presumably because they have credible information regarding threats to her safety. Can male police in Mexico not do the same thing? Is there evidence of this? As for your …
/r/MensRights25/03/11 06:13 PM
0

Kind of like the sensationalist articles claiming something stupid about women and then making them all look like crazed fringe feminists.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:53 PM
1

Someone calls him a name. He responds by calling someone else a beached whale. At least get the facts completely straight.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:50 PM
1

It's not funny because he's a man, it's funny because he's a dick.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:47 PM
1

That's great theory but we don't really run exclusively off of a merit based system. Hollywood is even a bigger egregious example than most industries.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:45 PM
2

Women writers are underrepresented in those industries. It's still a grown mans treehouse club in a lot of places. That being said, it doesn't mean any criticism of her shitty works is inherently misogynistic. I think the real problem in Hollywood is that in the key bottleneck area (the people who actually greenlight stuff) it's heavily dominated by men. The end result of that I believe results in less stories from a woman's perspective getting a chance. I personally don't think it's due to some…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:41 PM
1

Without a doubt.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:29 PM
2

Ridiculous that it takes this much discussion and legal wrangling to allow something to common fucking sense.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:27 PM
1

For the most part they're represented as the fap dreams of forever alone game designer nerds.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:23 PM
3

The average woman is able to make the distinction between male idiots and all men.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:19 PM
2

Sure. And according to the link, they can. Problem?
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:10 PM
1

I have been with a lot of women. Never had a problem. Maybe you're doing it wrong.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:06 PM
1

IF it does. You have no way of knowing that so far in the future. You could just as easily set up a trust for your children as your grandchildren.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 10:15 PM
1

Point remains, the risk for divorce is still there. Moving it to the grandkids is no more 'safe'.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 09:19 PM
1

And what if they get divorced?
/r/MensRights07/03/11 08:33 PM
1

So what's their alternative if they're not giving their inheritance to their kids? Getting zero is far less than getting 50% in a divorce.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 08:19 PM
2

People, a kilt is a skirt, not a dress.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 08:16 PM
1

Yeah exactly. And by that measure why don't we just assign a random person to help pay for a child when there's only one parent. After all..every child bears the cost of having only one parent!
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:11 PM
3

Doesn't matter if they do or not, doesn't change anything.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:10 PM
3

What the public would do is beside the point. You're still a horrible human being whether or not the public agrees.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:07 PM
3

Only a certain kind of man would consider a mail-order bride. That type of man is not someone anyone should be trying to emulate. Because the reality is that when most men looking for mail order women talk about liking the 'traditional' woman, what is really meant by this is 'subservient'.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 06:49 PM
2

Oh for fuck's sake there's a lot of shithead dudes out there too. Most people waste lots of time trying to find the right person.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 06:46 PM
5

If you actually see a rape happening (to a man, woman, girl, or boy) and don't do anything to stop it you're a horrible human being. No amount of mental gymnastics and misguided justifications gets you around that.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 06:41 PM
8

Angry women’s groups said last night that it would be the children at the centre of the disputes who would suffer most if money were paid back. While this is true, it's not an actual argument for why someone should have to pay child support for a child that isn't theirs.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 06:38 PM
1

Sure, if it was taking up tons of hours every week that they didn't want to spend with you. But more specifically you could use that argument to ask them to stop. You don't control anyone.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:33 PM
2

Why is there so much complaining about Scientology outside of Scientology?
/r/MensRights28/02/11 08:25 PM
7

My guess is it's not the gaming, it's the large amounts of time devoted to it. You'll find complainers in relationships about anything that takes tons of hours of their partners time.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 08:24 PM
12

My Rule: Don't let other people in your relationships (whether married or not) set stupid fucking rules for you, you're an adult. Also not sure why this is in r/mensrights. It's not like women hold a monopoly over making stupid fucking demands of their partners.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 08:22 PM
0

I don't think they're trying to imply that "all women suck"--but rather that "women suck, too!" You wouldn't know it from the comments on most of those types of posts.
/r/MensRights22/02/11 08:52 PM
1

Neither is sexist. Maybe we need to reexamine the definition of sexism.
/r/MensRights22/02/11 08:48 PM
0

Hell most people here use a sample size of a dozen shitty women in their lives to extrapolate the entirety of women in general.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 09:46 PM
2

Oh god, now homophobia is women's fault too? Mensrights needs a fucking chill pill.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 09:44 PM
1

Really? Yahoo Answers?
/r/MensRights21/02/11 09:41 PM
1

When you realize that the amount of time and resources that go into raising a child today are quite extensive, coupled with the fact, that if someone believes (via fraud) that they already have a child that belief will stop many men from producing additional children in favor of what they believe is theirs... They may even opt for sterilization. The crime of paternity fraud's impact is very substantial upon the victim and goes well beyond a simple dollar amount. A simple test at the maternity wa…
/r/MensRights03/02/11 04:51 AM
1

35% was one of the higher figures I remember reading from one report. But again...that's the results of contested parental lineage. It's not simply applicable to the entirety of marriage. it's not my opinion, it's how statistics works. I don't think auto paternity tests are necessary or warranted. If people want one they can get one.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 03:21 AM
1

I'm not complaining about the idea that it's bad that it happens, just that there's nothing available to say something like 'up to 30% o all married couples involves a kid from another genetic father.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 02:01 AM
0

Arguing that noone should be allowed to be alone with any of the children is far better then arguing that men shouldn't be forbidden from it because of their gender. Depends on where the perspective is. In the case of the business at hand it may simply not be financially or logistically feasible to have a policy where two adults are always present at all times for everything. As such it seems like a far more logical solution to just apply the rule to men who are statistically more likely to run …
/r/MensRights03/02/11 12:45 AM
1

I guess I'm not getting how what the father of the accuser says is relevant. I'm sure the father of the accused in these types of cases would say the same thing about their child. Also not getting how you know it's a false accusation....aside from the fact that you're posting on r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 12:42 AM
1

You have to also factor in the fact that she's in a bad situation (no family), She's also got a history of drug abuse and is questionable on employment (only 20 years old). He's getting ready to graduate from a University had a months worth of contact with the OP before he broke away from her. Those are likely to be the case in many challenged paternity suits to being with. That's why i say a lot of that is already factored into that 30% stat. How many people do you think get into genetic patern…
/r/MensRights03/02/11 12:37 AM
1

here's what you said Remember, up to 30% of all married women give birth to babies not related to the husband. I would expect that figure is higher for those women not wearing a ring on their finger. (and she got with you ASAP.. didn't she) There's nothing suggesting that up to 30% of all married women give birth to babies. There is some 'evidence' to suggest that 30% of all CONTESTED births are not the child of the man being labeled as the father. There's a HUGE distinction between what you sai…
/r/MensRights03/02/11 12:33 AM
3

Since never. This is hyperbole.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 12:20 AM
2

As someone who was never raped, I don't see an inherent problem with an adult being alone with a child. not taking anything away from your experience, but it's hardly an excuse to never let an adult ever be around a child on their own.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 12:18 AM
1

but why is it that Mr. Smith to go out of his way to protect himself but Mrs. Jones needs can be alone with Suzie with no worries. Thats where the sexism comes into play. Because the current legal climate is much more intolerant of accusations against men. This business place isn't responsible for the climate of the court/legal system. It's responsible for it's employees and protecting them. What's sexist is the larger problem of the courts/legal system...not the companies policy. If it were pol…
/r/MensRights03/02/11 12:15 AM
4

You're muddling two separate issues together here. The policy likely isn't applied in a sexist manner to discriminate against men. Ideally what we should strive for is a system in which everyone (man or women) doesn't need to spend a lot of time worrying about being alone in a place with a child their tending if they aren't doing anything wrong. There's no reason for this policy to include women if the statistics of who's likely to get accused of some mischief don't bear it out. The men aren't s…
/r/MensRights03/02/11 12:06 AM
1

So then what you have is 30%...again...a huge jump in logic to 'in all likelihood not yours'. You do realize that 30% also contains the factors like 'crazy' 'on drugs', 'etc.'. And the only one questioning paternity is you...not either of the people actually involved.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 11:15 PM
1

I cannot pay a black guy less because of "the budget", I can refuse to hire more employees because we have no money but I can't pay him less than John Smith over here. No, in you can't pay him less because he's black. you can most assuredly pay him less because of the budget. You can in fact hire more people and pay them less because you don't have the money to continue to pay people at a scale you were paying people during good economic times.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 10:49 PM
1

I believe it is when you've offered up nothing for me to think otherwise. Again...if you had women being hired at the same time you were that got paid more, maybe you could imply it was due to sex. But you don't. you have a couple men hired around when you were also making less than everyone (men and women) else working those positions that were hired earlier and before the budget issues. Then you have one man (the most recent hire) who got the higher amount, which could mean the end to the budg…
/r/MensRights02/02/11 10:44 PM
1

The law doesn't say that it's illegal to change what you pay for a position from one person to the next. It says it's illegal to base that on sex. The evidence you've provided doesn't actually go all that far in proving anything, because You're comparing the salaries of people who were hired before they started lowering the pay due to 'budget issues' and people who got hired during the budget issues. Guess what...starting pay for positions varies all the time, based on the economy, supply of app…
/r/MensRights02/02/11 10:16 PM
3

To be clear, the AABB is the agency that licenses DNA testing labs across the country. Its 30% figure is for contested cases, i.e. those in which the father already has some doubt about paternity. So 30% false paternity is in no way an across-the-board figure. From your link.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 09:38 PM
3

So because others aren't being wronged, I'm not? No, but just because no woman makes less than you doesn't mean you are. No woman makes less than what the position says it pays. It is only men that are under that mark. The only men under the mark that you've alluded to were more recent hires...hires during the time they stated they were having budget problems. Are no women getting paid less than the position 'mark' because they're women, or because no women happened to get hired during the time …
/r/MensRights02/02/11 09:17 PM
1

So then how can you assume it's unequal pay if both men and women in the same position make more than you? Because none get paid less than you? That's hardly 'evidence'.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 08:55 PM
1

Relevant because it runs contrary to r/mensrights opinion that nothing bad happens to women who rape children, while the book is thrown at men.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 08:05 PM
2

Wait...you throw out a statistic (without source) of 30% and then say 'in all likelihood it's not yours'? Bullshit much?
/r/MensRights02/02/11 07:59 PM
2

If they hired another male at the full rate, how are you assuming that only women get paid more?
/r/MensRights02/02/11 07:55 PM
3

and before i take any shit, we all know condoms suck. gimme a break. Give you a break? Put a fucking condom on. If you don't even trust her to tell you the truth about being on Depro, it's clearly not someone you should trust enough to fuck without a condom. babies or not...there's still disease issues.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 07:51 PM
3

Actually, more people deserve a punch in the face, not less.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 06:15 PM
1

It's still a movie...as such I find it hard to get insulted by the content. Maybe it was just an exploration of an idea, not that it's something we're all supposed to buy into as 'how it should be'.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 06:04 PM
2

YES! Including many mensrighters.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 06:01 PM
9

I think it's a movie. As such it can have any number of story/points of view you may or may not agree with. I find most major motion picture releases insulting to my intelligence but such is life.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 05:28 PM
1

You are paranoid. Neither of your two false accusations were from random women you encountered in life. There's no reason to now assume that even women outside of your relationships are going to start accusing you of assaulting them. And don't let these morons talk you into being even more paranoid.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 07:11 PM
1

This was stupid all the other times it was posted too.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 07:08 PM
1

In fact, last I heard, too big causes severe problems. As does 'too small'. Penis size matters whether one cares to admit it or not. But it's all relative so it really shouldn't get people so bent out of shape about it. One might indeed have a penis too big or too small for a specific woman or man to enjoy it. What your opinion is about her or his opinion on size is irrelevant. What one person finds too small to get off with, another will find just right.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 07:03 PM
1

But she would be tight enough if your penis wasn't so small.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 06:54 PM
2

This is a mensrights issue? Don't pull a hammy with all that stretching.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 06:38 PM
3

Was it because she was a woman or because she was old? Do old men never queue hop? Do young people never do that? Do men never do that? This is retarded.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 06:36 PM
2

Provide said evidence to lawyers and the court instead of Reddit.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 09:37 PM
0

I think a felony charge and up to five years is outrageous but all you people that think being married waives some right to personal privacy of email accounts and such are fucking morons.
/r/MensRights26/12/10 06:40 PM
3

News reports overstating the dangers of something? No way! Are plastic sporks the silent killer at picnics? They just might be! tune in to the 11o'clock news for more details.
/r/MensRights23/12/10 07:05 PM
9

Some feminists in media shocked. Others have actually supported him.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 06:17 PM
2

I remember how stupid the outrage was. Which reminded me to find this outrage stupid as well.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 06:14 PM
1

Yep
/r/MensRights19/12/10 06:59 AM
1

He was never able to present such evidence, even though he should've. Exactly..and why didn't he? I mean, according to him it was right out there in the texts...a blatant threat of lying about theft. Like 'Oh I had proof all along but I never did anything with it'. Sorry, not buying it at face value.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 04:19 AM
1

Oh I'm not suggesting he's lying so much as I'm suggesting the whole story is fake. I mean really...she texted him that if he didn't come over and get her she'd lie to the higher ups and tell them he was stealing, yet even with this information no one would believe him?
/r/MensRights19/12/10 03:45 AM
1

Well you did sort of just believe him but made a gigantic deal about it by attempting to link it to male mortality rates. I'm just sayin, there's no reason to knee jerk believe this guy either. Especially if texts as outrageous as he claims are on his phone.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 02:40 AM
1

If the roles were reversed I'd also question the woman's claim that she had all these text messages, including an outright threat of making up a theft story if she didn't fuck the boss but 'nobody would believe her' even though these texts supposedly exist.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 12:47 AM
1

This just in, children defend parents (mothers and fathers) for all sorts of abhorrent behavior.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 12:31 AM
5

You'd have as many pennies as the person who got pennies when the exact opposite happened!
/r/MensRights19/12/10 12:29 AM
3

We already know this happens.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 08:38 PM
1

Technically true as very few women (relatively speaking) make any rape claims at all.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 08:36 PM
1

Boy, she sure gets her head smashed a lot.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 08:26 PM
1

It is as long as there's a make-a-sammich rotation and males are exempt. EDIT: D'oh! Someone already thought of this.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 08:20 PM
14

What the fuck indeed. Heads need to roll.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 06:27 AM
1

It does need to be seen. Nobody needs to outright lie to show it. Save the spin for Drudge.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:36 AM
4

Typically the headline should be about the subject in the article (crazy..I know). This was an article about general sexual abuse in juvenile prisons. The title reflects that. Had the article focused on the abuse of males in the juvenile system it would have made more sense to call out that part of the abuse going on in the headline. But this article is about the study in general and all the findings.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 12:05 AM
3

It's not like that fact was buried downpage to a place they didn't read, it's the first sentence AND the exact place the fact presented in the title came from. That's not a 'mistake' that's a conscious effort to make a false title.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 11:54 PM
3

You mean the article with the first sentence that informed you of that very fact? Have a downvote for making shit up just to get views.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 10:01 PM
1

Why would o ask someone such a ridiculous type of question like why they think men anf women are physically identical in every way? Nobody thinks that,
/r/MensRights16/12/10 07:22 AM
1

Riiiiight...we should always leve room for every conceivable tangent, no matter how unlikely it is.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 01:15 AM
1

That phrase is typically said in the context I provided. Again, that you assumed a potential different context is particularly ignorant or purposely obtuse.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 11:48 PM
2

Sorry, talking on phone and reading.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 05:59 PM
1

Technically that's true, though maybe not by the same line of logic as they're implying. Almost all women don't lie about rape because almost all women never make a rape accusation.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 05:53 PM
-1

By that rationale, r/mensrights has gender prejudice in the name itself.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 05:52 PM
2

Everyone has a different interpretation of religion, spirituality, love, honor, sexy, masculinity, and on and on and on. very few things at the broad top level label have one and only one right answer or definition. The only way to avoid looking like someone who can't get past making broad incorrect generalizations is to stop making them, not by trying to find excuses to make them.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 05:48 PM
1

No because Catholicism would be akin to one type of Feminism. It would be like saying the Pope spoke for all religions. Which would also be incorrect.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 05:45 PM
1

Men and men are different too. Everyone has a varying level of abilities, regardless of sex. Plenty of men are naturally better at math than other men too. Plenty of women are better at math than plenty of men.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 05:38 PM
4

In fact many women are fine with taking the 'traditional' role. The point of pushing womens rights in places like the workplace was so that they weren't forced to take that traditional role but could choose it on their own. SOME women debase the traditional role. Many are fine with it as long as it was a choice to fill that role.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 05:37 PM
1

But don't call it sexism when there is a 70/30 gender split. This is only true if the split is due to inherent interest or ability.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 05:34 PM
0

It's not a fair question. You have to be fairly ignorant or purposely trolling to actually believe what they're talking about is that all women are identical to men in all physical attributes. It's EQUALITY of rights that's being fought for in Feminism, the Civil Rights movement, etc. Equality of VALUE as a human being. NOT that everything between men and women is identical right down to the genes.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 05:30 PM
2

Alot of women claim they've been 'sexually assaulted' in some way by their boyfriends, How sciency. You all misbehave. You all blame men. You ARE all like that. 80%=ALL. Thats a perfectly reasonable conclusion. A stereotype is a stereotype because it is generally true across the group. No, 80% = 80%. Also 94% of statistics cited on the internet are made up on the spot. You pulled that number out of your ass. 1.False sexual assault/rape allegaions (Kanin's studies showed 40% of rape claims over a…
/r/MensRights14/12/10 05:27 PM
-3

I discredit whack jobs when I see them, which inherently means calling out some mensrighters too.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 11:55 AM
-6

Ahh so you see the baseline woman as a Nazi. Well that's certainly a rational jumping off point! Hahaha what a load.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 11:52 AM
-1

I think you need to grasp the concept of equal in this context. When women, black people, etc push for equality they're not saying they're pushing for the idea that everyone is identical, they're pushing to have the same courtesies, rights, voice, etc. as others. These rights movements are about equality of worth as a human being and equality of rights. That you think they're talking about equality of shape/size/etc speaks volumes to how you are missing the whole point.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 11:50 AM
-3

Equal human beings moron. Nobody's suggesting women are identical to men.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 07:09 AM
-6

No, you take issue with what some feminists do in the name of feminism, and you lump the other 90% of women in with it.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 07:09 AM
0

It's the fundamental characteristic of any broad nebulous term. It's no different thN trying to make some hard and fast definition of religion, or liberal, or true love, or whatever. There IS NO exact definition to any of those things that will represent the entirety of those terms. But you're trying to imply it's some devious conscious effort of Feminists to be nebulous. Bullshit, that's how all broad wide-spectrum ideologies or belief sets work. You'll have no better luck defining what all Red…
/r/MensRights14/12/10 07:04 AM
3

I love how everyones a fucking expert on what Feminism is as if you could sum it all up with one ideological mission statement. It's like summing up religion without acknowledging that there's a vast spectrum of ideas that fall under the umbrella of that term.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 06:56 AM
1

Most people are penny smart and pound foolish.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 09:10 PM
3

Nobody is denying their are great women out there. Oh you'll find a few around here that deny that.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 09:00 PM
1

Heresy! All women are out to claim false rape against you and lie to you about being on birth control to trap you with a baby! Who cares that the majority of women don't fall within this generalization! THIS IS MERNSRIIIGHTS!!! #kickswomanintobottomlessabyss /sarcasm
/r/MensRights13/12/10 08:58 PM
-7

Whoops, you forgot to post this to circlejerk.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 07:44 PM
2

Women in India have women-only cars because of the rampant groping and pawing on regular train cars.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 08:28 AM
3

Funny how people with no idea of what's happening in Japan talk the most about it.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 08:25 AM
1

Feminism has nothing to do with it. It's was a wild overreaction.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 08:17 AM
1

While current culture is almost always at least slightly suspicious of single men alone with children that aren't their own, you still freaked wayyy the fuck out for such a minor interaction. Stay away from r/mensrights/ for a while and realize the world isn't really out to get men every second of every day. In fact, the vast majority of men in this country won't ever be accused of rape, or child molestation, or have a woman lie to them to get pregnant. Keep shit in perspective.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 08:16 AM
1

Whew! I was holding off on having an opinion on this until I saw what side of the fence the creator of Dilbert came down on. Thank God I finally know what's happening with this case!
/r/MensRights10/12/10 08:09 AM
2

99.9% of all fucking of people that just met 24 hours ago doesn't result in men being trapped by a woman who purposely got pregnant out of malice or craziness. So rethink one's strategy, yes, but also keep it in proper perspective.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 12:16 AM
2

You mean like the vast majority of good women in the world that aren't on reddit and haven't the slightest clue what any of this is about? You're going to continue to generalize because they haven't spoken out against some random story about some crazy broad and of a handful or two of opinions on Reddit?
/r/MensRights07/12/10 12:06 AM
1

Point being there's no 'anything' on a sinking ship. Not really sexist. But I know that's just you being you, and that's why I love you so.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 09:15 PM
0

This man trusted his girlfriend to allow him to "pull out" in time to prevent pregnancy. You can argue the stupidity if you will, but she still deliberately violated that trust and, as a result, got pregnant just so she could use him as her personal piggy bank. If you think that is okay, then no matter what sex you are, you are an idiot. Except this happened after he already knew she was crazy and their relationship was a fucked up one. He was putting his trust into someone he already knew was n…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 07:37 PM
1

Wear a condom ahead of time. At that point he already KNEW she was crazy but continued to fuck her without condoms. That's his fault. Not blasting the guy cuz it sounds like his overall problem isn't all his fault, but certainly THAT is.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 07:33 PM
3

Yeah the problem is so much of it is a leftover relic from a time where it actually WAS necessary to protect women of divorce because woman in the workplace was not a common or acceptable thing to many. Many women of that time would have, without spousal support, a tough time leaving a man even if he deserved it because of their lack of much gainful opportunity outside of marriage. Times have changed and everyone can join the full time working world regardless of sex. our divorce settlement law …
/r/MensRights01/12/10 07:31 PM
1

This is a first world problem.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 09:26 PM
1

I stand dejected!
/r/MensRights30/11/10 07:23 PM
0

Oh that we could all be the cock connoisseur that you are. Alas, most of us have jobs to go to.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 06:49 PM
1

I don't even think it's 'more often'. It's selective affirmation. We all do it. We've come accustomed to lumping women in as clucking hens of gossip and men as competitors of sport, in which all discrepancies are hashed out on the playing field. We then tend to notice it more when people fit into the molds we preconceived. What little difference there is is probably truly negligible. So if by 'more often' you mean you notice it that way more often, then sure...I'll buy that.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 06:05 AM
1

So, how is it fair that little girls are allowed to like any Disney movie they want, regardless of the gender of the star, while little boys are only allowed to like the 'masculine' Disney movies? It's not...but then again...the little boy probably isn't going to be getting shit for girls for liking them. He's going to get shit from other boys and men in his life, if anywhere. In other words, that's a problem men put on themselves.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 06:01 AM
1

Men will more often strive to outperform each other, whereas women will smear and tear each other down more often. OMFG. The idea that men prefer to succeed and look better solely through some honest competition and comparison of performance and not resort to the same gossipy underhanded bullshit simply flies in the face of reality. A large part of 'dude' interaction is 'tearing each other down'. Either it's ok for everyone to do it or for no one. But stop pretending that only women do it.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:46 AM
2

This is funny because it pretends that r/mensrights doesn't have it's own set of dismissive language for people that don't toe the line 100% with the extreme cellar dwellers in the midst. "White Knight" = Used to dismiss any man that enters into the argument that doesn't side 100% with whatever the current /r/mensrights outrage is. Because obviously, the only way a man could disagree with r/mensrighters is if he's trying to 'save' women from their evil clutches! "NAFALT...But the ones that MATTE…
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:43 AM
7

One can always find some random situation to justify lying. Just because random situations could theoretically exist doesn't mean we pretend it's likely that that situation actually exists.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:34 AM
7

Not sure most do it about such a large issue.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:31 AM
1

Even at half speed you'll have 2.5 inches of foreskin by then. How much does one man need?
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:28 AM
0

Keep stretching!
/r/MensRights29/11/10 04:46 AM
2

Ahhh yes. Women around the world are lying! That's it! Also, any condom use pretty much erases the supposed 'benefits'. So for quite a few people it's a moot point, even if it were possible to quantitatively prove what they're claiming.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 04:45 AM
4

I'll have both. Thanks.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 04:43 AM
-1

Nowadays most men would whine like babies too and scramble for a seat.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:55 AM
0

Why are so many married men having affairs?
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:55 AM
3

Which, depending on where one falls on the /r/mensrights spectrum, may mean never having sex.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:52 AM
9

Only if you have a spouse that doesn't mind a lying partner.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:47 AM
0

Don't worry. Within 5 years you'll have so much foreskin you'll be drowning in it!
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:46 AM
13

QUIET! The research proves uncircumcised is bettar!!1
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:45 AM
4

What a fucking load. People not worked up enough by telling them they don't know what they're missing. Start up assertion that their women-folk are also missing out! Profit!
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:43 AM
8

Well good thing you're the arbiter of what others should care about themselves.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:40 AM
2

Who thought they were in the first place?
/r/MensRights25/11/10 12:10 AM
1

I'm having a really hard time wrapping my head around how the death of princess movies is anti-feminist. Who said the death of princess movies was anti-feminist?
/r/MensRights25/11/10 12:08 AM
1

While the blog is snarky and whiny, there's a valid point in there. Pixar plans on removing the 'princess' movies, but instead of moving to a situation wherein boy and girl hero main characters are at least somewhat equally represented they're opting to seemingly just forgo female leads (in a non-princess fashion) entirely, or for the majority of movies. They want to make movies for boys and girls...but they still dont seem to want to make movies for boys and girls in which females play the pred…
/r/MensRights25/11/10 12:01 AM
6

Are they not applied equally or are there just not any men coming forward the next morning saying that they were too drunk to consent?
/r/MensRights24/11/10 02:47 AM
0

She lied and cheated on him???? Sure. Which doesn't inherently mean she'll look to rake him over the coals. Tiger woods got hit by his wife with a golf club and raked over the coals in the press by women(I thought men were studs and playas?) and she get's attention on a widely read female magazine.... Tiger Woods has nothing to do with anything.
/r/MensRights23/11/10 11:32 PM
1

I guess you only know assholes.
/r/MensRights23/11/10 11:30 PM
1

Just laughing at your idea of marriage being locked into a house with the same fucking person forever. As if you don't have any life outside of it.
/r/MensRights23/11/10 06:14 AM
1

It seems that it is better to waste the time of 99% of the people, and in passing frustrate a few percent, than to have to think. You mean waste 15 seconds of people's time and piss off a few people that can't stand that 15 seconds lost. Forgive me if I don't care about that lost time or those frustrated people that can't get over themselves for a hot second and look past some questions that may be unwarranted in their situation. Not everything's a fucking crisis and an outrage. The crack is alr…
/r/MensRights23/11/10 06:14 AM
3

Only when short sighted. Would you prefer to lose your kids over a false charge?
/r/MensRights22/11/10 10:25 PM
1

Ahh so her hospital is representative of all hospitals? Or were you not trying to imply representation to the industry as a whole?
/r/MensRights22/11/10 10:01 PM
-1

It's my understanding they can be had for spousal support, just not for child support determination. I was under the understanding that this was not all child support.
/r/MensRights22/11/10 10:00 PM
1

Bingo
/r/MensRights22/11/10 09:54 PM
1

They ask regardless because it's easier to ask a blanket set of questions to everyone than to try to determine, visit by visit, which situations warrant the question being asked. If your goal is to help people who are being abused, the better policy is to always ask instead of sometimes ask. That way people don't fall through the cracks.
/r/MensRights22/11/10 09:51 PM
1

Citations? Or just because you don't think they do?
/r/MensRights22/11/10 09:47 PM
0

And when my roommate (female) gave me (male) a ride to the ER when I was having a clusterfuck of kidney stones rape me on the inside they asked me this same question. They asked me when she was OUT OF THE ROOm!!!11one!1
/r/MensRights22/11/10 09:46 PM
2

Pretty sure having roommates is just bullshit. Only the smallest most hardened percentage of the population can stand to be locked into a house with someone else for the rest of your lease.
/r/MensRights22/11/10 09:43 PM
1

How do we know he has all the 'stuff' in the marriage? How do you know she plans on raking him over the coals in a divorce to milk him dry? How do you know what she's looking for in getting a divorce is 'half his shit'? How do we know they won't just split up their shit and divorce amicably? Contrary to r/mensrights beliefs...it does happen.
/r/MensRights22/11/10 09:33 PM
1

Stop asking Reddit for answers, start asking your lawyer for them.
/r/MensRights22/11/10 09:29 PM
-2

Last night experts said it was likely the couple failed to include a legally-binding "clean break" arrangement at the time of their divorce. So basically he fucked up when he got a divorce and left himself open. May THIS be the lesson to Reddtors. Handle your shit, dot your i's and cross your t's
/r/MensRights22/11/10 09:24 PM
1

Certainly there exist cultural constructs which allow certain segments of certain genders to not work much. This brings to mind images of harems, royalty, and otherwise repugnant setups. That's because those are the only types of setups you can see coming out of a place where your value system is the main driver of the culture. That the only way it could possibly be culturally driven is if it's through objectification or worship. It's clear you're mistaken on that end because women in the Nether…
/r/MensRights19/11/10 07:29 AM
1

My point is that my standard of living (purchasing power) will go down in a Dutch marriage because the wife isn't working to her full potential. Unless Dutch men just really like having less money, this suggests that something is at play here. Or they just value other things they benefit from in the arragement more than they worry about maximizing household income. I get that you put pretty much all your value on equality of number of hours of labor and a paycheck....is it that hard to imagine p…
/r/MensRights19/11/10 05:20 AM
1

Seems to indicate that childcare is not a substantial part of the workload of Dutch women. Again, it's only your personal biases and preferences that make it seem like this. To other people who value other things as 'effort' besides child rearing, it's not as big an issue. And it still doesn't say they aren't putting in 'effort', just that it's not in childcare (during the day) for those without young children in the house. Which is completely different than NO children in the house, ever. That'…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 11:52 PM
1

The point of the article was that time spent working at a paying job was not equal. Not that the work of the relationship wasn't equal or that the 'effort' put into the relationship wasn't equal. Why would you assume they wanted or needed a higher standard of living or that they see their standard of living as lower than ours? Most Europeans simply don't buy the same sheer volume of useless shit we do. (for example, if I'm only working 40 hours a week, I might be more willing to accept a spouse'…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 09:18 PM
1

So your argument is that there are 3 options instead of the 2 that I presented? No, I merely brought up one more as an example. And there's any number of cultural issues at play. You keep presenting it as something that they're giving up in terms of rights or equality as human beings, but that's from your own perspective of equality meaning everything has to be exactly 50/50, and that there's hardly any reasons that one person working part-time in a relationship could actually be beneficial to t…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 05:04 AM
1

I have trouble believing the former proposition. Which has no bearing on whether or not it's true. Maybe they are indeed happy with the tradeoffs. Example: I'm happy to work an extra 10 hours for a nice pay raise, but I'm not willing to work an extra 10 hours so that my spouse can work 10 fewer hours. That's you coming from your culture and your view on your marriage. Other people might do that. My moral calculation would change if my spouse were engaged in child care, but the article indicated …
/r/MensRights18/11/10 03:04 AM
2

Both the women themselves and their partners and employers are satisfied with the Dutch part-time culture for women. Seems like everyone's getting value out of the situation. Basically this has to show that either the welfare state is exceedingly strong in the Netherlands (we're talking hundreds of light years ahead of the US and Canada here) or divorce/alimony laws are exceedingly harsh toward men. Limited view presenting a false logic that there's only two options. Could just be that their cul…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 10:12 PM
1

That's not what women say!
/r/MensRights16/11/10 08:21 AM
3

Ahhh misanthrope. Women done ya wrong! You should make a country & western album!
/r/MensRights16/11/10 07:03 AM
3

Ahh so because some specific women ruined your life ALL women be bitchez! Got it. Why IS your mom such a royal cunt anyway?
/r/MensRights16/11/10 06:15 AM
2

Dudeman. Fucking bitchez be crazy yo.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 06:06 AM
3

You mean like feminists? Mmmmmm No. Equality means if it's okay for them to do it, they can receive it just the same. Ahhhhh justification! How sweet the smell! And sure, you could play 'I know you are but what am I'. But, as previously mentioned, it's herpderping through an issue just making noise. When you make wide sweeping generalizations,any argument you may have is easily dismissed. I for fixing the child support/custody/etc to make it more equitable. Doesn't mean I'll let some dumbass gen…
/r/MensRights16/11/10 06:00 AM
2

Good thing I'm not you then!
/r/MensRights16/11/10 03:18 AM
-1

I'm a man in America and I've never gotten a white trash fat chick pregnant, nor been abused by one. I must be doing it wrong.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 03:17 AM
3

Expecting a woman to be accountable in any useful manner in society is like expecting a politician to be honest and fulfill 99% of their promises. And all men are sexist pigs and rapists! herpderp. Stop being part of the problem.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 01:34 AM
2

I'd have asked in a non-insulting manner if the initial statements weren't so insulting.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 01:13 AM
3

I'm a straight guy dating a girl who was self-identified as lesbian...just sayin.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 01:07 AM
-1

as an extremely straight guy i always used to stay well away from gay dudes. they have nothing to offer a normal guy, and dudes kissing each other is pretty crappy. What is 'extremely straight'? How is that different than 'straight', other than insecure peacocking and machismo? They have nothing to offer a normal guy? They're human being shithead. They can offer pretty much anything a straight friend can except the mutual desire to fuck girls.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 01:05 AM
3

I don't think there's any rational argument for how it CAN'T affect men on some level. Most men aren't really cavemen as the vocal minority (of men) provide an example of. But they can sure create, especially in school, an atmosphere where a straight male is forced to hide who they may truly be for fear of running afoul of the meatheads in out midst.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 12:53 AM
3

Girl drink drunk! /fistbump
/r/MensRights16/11/10 12:49 AM
7

Some men do. I tend to value people based on their value as people. Silly me. And calling me a fag is not the biggest insult I could think of. Mainly because I'm not homophobic and don't see 'being gay' as some sort of insult. Also because I actually have gay friends and know that, like straight men, they run the gamut of 'masculinity', so any attempt to try to question my masculinity by implying homosexuality is laughable and more an indication of the insulter's ignorance of the world and the e…
/r/MensRights16/11/10 12:48 AM
6

Way to flesh out your argument!
/r/MensRights16/11/10 12:39 AM
3

Young males that have nothing to lose -- they're hyperaggressive, they get into gang violence, they're liable to die at a very young age. Aggressive men go to prison and they go for longer periods of time, and they commit more offenses that keep them in there, which impedes their ability to have a family life and reproduce. saywhatnow? they still reproduce, they just don't play any part in actually raising the kids.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 09:30 PM
2

Oh for fuck's sake. Like a million other words in the dictionary what it means is pretty much open to the interpretation. There's no hard and fast rules about the word 'creep' or 'slut' or 'bitch' or 'asshole' or 'douchebag' or anything else. Everyone's thresholds are different. This isn't some sexist outrage that some dudes get called 'creepy'.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 09:22 PM
1

I doubt any of these people are on reddit. Nah, they're on Reddit too.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 09:17 PM
0

Who said I spend $500 a month on food? I didn't say a person couldn't survive on $500/month. Just because someone can survive on X dollars doesn't mean that's inherently the baseline for child support. I'm tired of this topic having gone round in circles on it already so this will be my only response.
/r/MensRights12/11/10 02:22 PM
-5

I agree. Just poking fun at the extremists in r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights11/11/10 09:23 PM
0

Upvote for directing anger at the proper target....fringe militant feminists with retarded disregard for the idea of due process for anyone but themselves, and not just dropping it on 'women' of 'feminists' in general.
/r/MensRights11/11/10 09:22 PM
5

Ripe for McCarthyist blacklist style abuse. This would be ridiculous regardless of the crime/social issue.
/r/MensRights11/11/10 08:42 PM
-5

Quick everyone! Apply this to all women!
/r/MensRights11/11/10 08:40 PM
-4

What about being against the male created system that gave males the wealth and power that repeatedly screw you? I mean, that's more what their argument is. Unless being a man, is a free pass to having wealth handed to you, there is no justified resentment of male patriarchy. The argument here is, just like racism, you don't have to be an active participant to accrue benefits from those actively participating in it. And that, by default, if you're not actively trying to help remove it, you're pa…
/r/MensRights10/11/10 11:12 PM
5

I agree, I misread this the first time around.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 11:10 PM
-4

You'll be sorry when the inevitable false rape claim and fraud baby happen in your life.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 10:11 PM
2

You don't have activist movements unless people have a reason to be angry about an injustice. This assumes everyone's anger has actual objective merit. Or that the injustice they perceive, and at the level they perceive it, is accurate.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 10:09 PM
1

Oh really? Here in the state of VA they can and will take up to 65% of your pay for support. Yes really. Unless $500 is now magically 65% or less of $600.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 10:04 PM
1

This is what a child is due from each parent for their support. No, this is what a child can GET based on the amount of money a parent has. Once again, no bearing on a childs worth, it's a measurement of financial ability. If child support is $500 a month and the parent makes $600 a month they are not physically going to be able to get $500 a month from them. IT HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT A CHILD IS "WORTH". So, yes, sitting on the floor for extended periods of time typically ends in back and hip is…
/r/MensRights10/11/10 09:17 PM
1

One equates to the value of a child They both equate to the amount of money a payer has to pay. It doesn't say 'child A is worth less than child B' it says 'child A will get less money than child B because the parent of child A cannot afford to pay more than X amount but the parent of child B can.' There is NO equivocation to any child's 'worth' or 'value' as a human being. YOU make that part up in your thick head. I would argue that having a couch to sit on is, indeed, not frivolous according t…
/r/MensRights10/11/10 09:00 PM
1

my point is that it's bullshit Your point, devoid of any facts or coherent argument is that it's bullshit. FTFY. Income tax and child support are two different things. They cannot be compared. We're not comparing the actual things (tax vs child support) we're comparing the system in which the amount paid is calculated, which, per this argument would be the same. As everything you have been saying has been garbled tripe I believe you have already beat me to the punch on this one. So, I'll let you…
/r/MensRights10/11/10 08:33 PM
1

If by trolling you mean explaining correctly how determining child support based on income (with a base minimum) doesn't put different amounts of 'worth' on a child, but simply measures how much more an individual PAYER could pay based on income, then yes. I am trolling you. Does your income tax mean you're worth more or less as a human being than someone else? No. because it doesn't have fuck all to do with your worth as a human being. It's just a fucking measure of your income. I recommend goi…
/r/MensRights10/11/10 07:28 PM
0

If by trolling you mean explaining correctly how determining child support based on income (with a base minimum) doesn't put different amounts of 'worth' on a child, but simply measures how much more an individual PAYER could pay based on income, then yes. I am trolling you. Does your income tax mean you're worth more or less as a human being than someone else? No. because it doesn't have fuck all to do with your worth as a human being. It's just a fucking measure of your income. I recommend goi…
/r/MensRights10/11/10 07:27 PM
1

D'oh! I've been trolled. Shoulda known.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 06:32 PM
1

Means testing a parents ability to pay certain amounts does not put worth on a child. Any more than means testing for your income tax puts a 'worth' on anyone. It provides the COST of your responsibility. I'm done here because if you can't move past the poor logic of your initial assumption, anything that stems from it is inherently screwed up. Seriously.....you're kinda a moron.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 05:45 PM
2

"But the ones that MATTER are...." what a bunch of shit. But thanks for following me around and posting your idiocy everywhere. It's good for that to be public knowledge. Boop.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 05:39 PM
1

The above statements are a hot mess of personal bias and insane leaps of logic. All racists are racist. So if you want, feel free to say all feminists are feminists. That's as far as a logical comparison can go. This doesn't even touch on the insane idea that all Feminists believe the exact same thing or all want to go about it in the same way. You are making a huge illogical leap. When you equate feminism to nazis or racists or the IRA that's just your personal bias showing through. No need to …
/r/MensRights10/11/10 05:36 PM
1

No, by my logic we wouldn't consider Rand Paul to be the only republican that wants to do this. There's also the issue that the 'feminist party' DOESN'T SAY that all men accused of rape are guilty of rape. You seem to keep forgetting that.
/r/MensRights10/11/10 03:12 AM
1

the feminists that speak to the issue are either brainwashed or attempting to brainwash listeners with the presumption. So no feminists that speak to the issues of rape believe that a man should be innocent until proven guilty? Really? This is your stance? Other then being objectively false it's airtight! Its entirely fair to generalize feminism based on its political advocates. But unfair to judge them by selectively choosing which political advocates you choose to trot out as examples. Feminis…
/r/MensRights09/11/10 11:07 PM
1

You're just plain old wrong here. That is what you are arguing whether or not it was your intention to do so. Yes you did, and you did it again in the next sentence: Child A worth $100 per month because non-custodial parent makes $10k per year. Child B worth $500 per month because non-custodial parent makes $50k per year. Do you not read a lot? Child A RECEIVES $100 a month because non-custodial parent makes $10k per year. Child B RECEIEVES $500 a month because non-custodial parent makes $50k pe…
/r/MensRights09/11/10 11:00 PM
-2

Hahahahaha.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 09:49 PM
1

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. You could never convince me that one child is worth more than another because of their parents' income. And make no mistake about it - that is what you are arguing. Again, making an argument I never did. If you think thats the argument I'm making then you have a problem comprehending the written word. I never said one child was worth more than another. I said a child should receive more child support if the parent paying child support can afford mor…
/r/MensRights09/11/10 09:43 PM
1

I thought it was all about the children? Are you saying that it's OK for some people to not have to pay the minimum level required to support a child? No. I've said more than once there should be a baseline support level required. I'm ALSO saying that obviously, by the very fact that you can't make something out of nothing, if the person doesn't make enough to pay the baseline amount there's not much we can do to make money out of thin air in their wallet. You keep trying to make these argument …
/r/MensRights09/11/10 08:41 PM
1

That has nothing to do with the question that I asked. Aren't all children entitled to the same basic standard of upbringing? Yes. However, not all payers of child support can PAY that level. I know what question you asked, but its not really what I was talking about. What happened to equal protection under the law? Still exists. Why is one child suffering and the other is not? WHy do you keep making up scenarios that don't exist and I never claimed existed? They're both suffering if they have t…
/r/MensRights09/11/10 08:09 PM
1

But male rape as a tool of control is a central tenant of patriarchy according to feminism. But that's not what you said either. You said the tenet of feminism (modern) was "if a man is convicted of rape in a court he's a rapist, if he's found not guilty he's a rapist who got away with it... if he isn't even charged just accused he is a rapist and the system should be changed." Which is full of shit as only SOME feminists believe that. And rape is a tool of control for men and women who rape. It…
/r/MensRights09/11/10 06:46 PM
1

If the guy got custody and has a job, she should pay her part, period And she would. If she earns more or less, it shouldn't matter. Sure it should. It should be factored into HOW MUCH she pays.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 06:24 PM
1

I agree. That's the perverse part of child support law, it's not the actual equal application of the law that's perverse, nor the justice that arises from it.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 06:22 PM
1

.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 06:16 PM
7

In the eyes of modern feminists In the eyes of some modern feminists. This is no different than the 'men are pigs' type crap spewed from some women. Or 'muslims are terrorists'. Or 'Republicans are racist'. Don't add to the herp derp with more ill informed generalizations.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 05:59 PM
1

Because it's not about the parents, it's about the child. If the means is there I don't find anything wrong with expecting a higher level of child support. We're not dealing with theoretical ideas here, we're dealing with a child. Why make any specific kid suffer for some idea of financial fairness (absolute value) equality across incomes? Would you find it rational for someone of upper middle class to raise their kids on a pauper level if they were still married? No. One rationally expects that…
/r/MensRights09/11/10 05:41 PM
2

WHo said anything about the father not having a job?
/r/MensRights09/11/10 05:16 PM
1

Sure, I agree, but that's different than your original statement.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 05:14 PM
1

I think there should also be means testing for certain levels of support. If I'm not mistaken, income is already taken into account. Obviously I don't believe you can squeeze blood from a stone. I just don't believe that if the means are there, some people can just get divorced and the wealthier parent ends up only having to be legally responsible for now providing a poverty level existence.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 05:14 PM
1

Right but we're talking about what should be required as part of the baseline. I feel that the poverty line shouldn't be the baseline child support level for those that can afford more.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 08:09 AM
1

Yes a marriage. They get together when you join up and are there when you split up.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 08:06 AM
1

Reel it in.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 06:42 AM
1

It's awfully convenient that the government only gets involved when two people split up. You mean aside from the part where they get involved right at the start too.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 06:20 AM
1

They are examples. I'm waiting to see a justification on the breakdown of cost, not just a vacuous amount a father should pay. And I'm asking you, would you consider the lifestyle you lived when you lived off of $500 a month the only level of lifestyle that child support should cover?
/r/MensRights09/11/10 05:10 AM
0

I don't think you actually asked me this before because I would have said yes huh...coulda swore I did. Probably got lost in the back and forth between the two separate convos we had. My only point was that in my opinion, child support should be somewhere in between 'absolute survival minimums' and 'lifestyles of the rich and famous'. I think your measure of child support is too conservative. EDIT: Yeah I think I may have you confused with another discussion.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 04:41 AM
1

No, ya see the dismissive burn was already used. Just like the 'asking about your woman' problems joke was already used before you pulled out the 'i know you are but what am I' method of reusing that joke too. Be a little more proactive in your joke creation. Don't just reuse my comebacks. Weaksauce Factory2....weaksauce.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 04:37 AM
1

This savings is not really a need, as we could survive just fine without it, it is simply a safety net. So again, your idea is that really nothing about a baseline survival necessity should be considered in child support. Not even a safety net. I guess childcare really would be fairly cheap if one considers nothing but the very frugal bare minimum x required to be deemed 'child support'. Where do you live? (Not asking specifics, like what region of the country? urban/rural/unibomber level outski…
/r/MensRights09/11/10 04:30 AM
1

Oh NOW I get it. Your ex was like Godot. She never came. Yeah that's bound to mess ya up man. Sorry to hear that.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 04:16 AM
0

Your health insurance post mentioned you were saving up money monthly as health care buffer. This is essentially your own personal premium you're paying. So if you set aside X mount of money per month for family related health care funds, then one persons "premium' is 1/6 of that. Unless you were lying and you don't really sock any money away for health care expenses. Or you're saying you save the same amount no matter how many family members you have, in which case your calculations on how much…
/r/MensRights09/11/10 04:13 AM
2

If only $200 goes towards the child's needs, the rest should either go back to the one paying support, or go into an interest-bearing account as a college fund. It is completely irrational for it to not only be tolerated, but legally allowed and encouraged that the recipient use the money on whatever they want. You're telling me this like I don't already agree. I was merely talking to s0nicfreak about how I didn't feel $500 a month ($250 each) was a LOT of money to spend on a child. Then you ste…
/r/MensRights09/11/10 04:08 AM
3

Herp Derp
/r/MensRights09/11/10 03:57 AM
2

I didn't seem him mention wanting full custody or that he wasn't in partial custody.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 02:01 AM
1

Never said I agreed with anything that happened to you. Or that health insurance should be above and beyond the amount figured into child support, though I do think that healthcare should be part of child support. Also, what she does with the money (while asshatted if she's using the money on herself) has no bearing on whether or not the amount set for your child support was rational or not. It was calculated based on what the child needs. I also agree some level of monitoring should be done to …
/r/MensRights09/11/10 12:26 AM
1

Maybe children touched his heart in a way that has never happened before so he's more emotional. Who knows. I'm just saying I think there's probably a large difference in what is considered 'clinical postpartum depression' and what this guy is having. I'd assume almost everyone that has a kid goes through SOME level of emotional change once the kid arrives.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 11:30 PM
1

I'm assuming you live on $500 a month and in more than just a 'surviving' manner? EDIT : Also, I never suggested someone COULDN'T live on that much. I'm suggesting that living on that much isn't going to get you much out of life other than basic survival. My point being that I think child support shouldn't use 'baseline survival' as a measuring point for determining child support.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 11:26 PM
1

Nobody said you had to have meat at every meal. I'm just trying to figure out where I could live on $500 a month with anything more than a paupers lifestyle.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 11:09 PM
1

Scintillating.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 10:45 PM
1

If I spend more than $500 a month on food, shelter, transportation, medicine, personal hygiene, and education I'm doing it wrong? I guess first off what I need is a location where all this can happen at any level beyond 'just surviving'.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 10:40 PM
2

I've had to feed, clothe and shelter myself at less than $500 per month - so, yes I can. Now would you consider that standard of living to be the minimum a parent should have to support? Why do you keep asking me questions about things I never said I thought should happen? Did I ever bring up an xBox or smartphone or ivy league education?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 10:36 PM
0

You get the amount per person by averaging the amount you save total and dividing it by the number of people. This is your 'healthcare cost' per indiidual and, as such, 50% should be included in the monthly payment. I'm just trying to get a running total of the costs you think are needed to 'support' a child.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 10:30 PM
1

I'm trying to use your answers to find what you consider the absolute minimum a parent should be responsible for in child support. Basically you're arguing that anything beyond keeping them alive with enough calories to sustain a human being and a roof over their head and some clothing of some sort is a 'want'...ergo you believe child support should only cover the absolute minimum standard of living...enough to keep you biologically alive and a place with (presumably) four walls a roof and a doo…
/r/MensRights08/11/10 10:26 PM
-1

So then yes, you believe child support should be based on the absolute minimum standard of living. Just clarifying.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 10:00 PM
2

Ah so it's not rational to assume getting a little more space when you increase your household size? I mean yeah, they could cram into a studio, but is it rational to assume that child support should only support the most meager of lifestyles? EDIT: Side note, we've got two convos going, let's consolidate. If you want to answer these questions put them on the other convo and we'll go from there on one conversation.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 09:54 PM
1

I think the average parent would consider getting a separate bedroom for the kids to be rational. Is that the expected increase the average person can assume in the average city? Can you feed/clothe/shelter a person for $500 a month? Or are you arguing that child support should do no more than to keep the child alive at a baseline poverty level?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 09:50 PM
0

So how much is that per month that you put away per child? How much per year is spent per child? I'm assuming you would consider it rational for him to have to pay for half of that. I'd also like to point out that while you say you have $4000 saved and earning interest that any MAJOR illness or accident is going to eat through that in a heartbeat. I'd say you're simply lucky that none of you has had anything major/long-term happen. I'm not going to get into a debate about the high costs associat…
/r/MensRights08/11/10 09:24 PM
3

I"m not saying they need to spend $5 I'm just saying that $5 is the maximum. So then when you start discussing other costs, you keep reducing that number. Maybe I'll just ask you this. Can you feed/clothe/and shelter yourself for $500 a month? Can this be achieved in the average city?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 09:15 PM
4

Do you live 'just fine without it' or are you just lucky nothing major medically has happened to anyone in your family? Big difference. So you're basically arguing that child support should be no more money than 50% of what it takes to keep a human being alive at the base level?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 09:02 PM
2

Hey O!
/r/MensRights08/11/10 08:43 PM
1

Your ENTIRE argument, no matter what the subject, is "That's Different". I'm sorry you are unable to get anything else from it. Maybe you should work on that. So c'mon, spill...how long have you been frustrated by the inability to gain female approval? 16 days, 8 hours, 14 minutes. So who WAS the woman that made you so angry, and what did they do to you...did they force you to pay alimony or was it child support? Still waiting for your answer.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 08:37 PM
1

Why the fuck would I do that? I MADE those posts. To get back pats from all those that agree with you, in order to 'verify' how 'right' you are. Good job of trying to remove the conversation from those areas you were looking like a total moron in though...you know, like the actual debate n stuff? Already addressed why we've moved on. No idea why, days later, you'd assume this changed. All I see you do is sling insults, and not even ones related to the replies... No, all you see me do NOW is hurl…
/r/MensRights08/11/10 08:22 PM
0

I'm just saying....$5 per meal is the maximum and that doesn't even include any other expenditures it's rational to assume exist for a child. It's not all that much money. Hell, we haven't even gotten into health insurance or toiletries or school related costs, etc. I'd like to see you feed/clothe/and house yourself for $500 a month.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 08:10 PM
1

Oh I've rebutted plenty of points here. You just choose to ignore them. And you must've forgotten that I didn't plan on actually having any discussion of the actual issue any longer with you once I saw that you're just a r/mensrights lurker. You're not here to listen to any arguments. You're here to call anyone who doesn't agree with you a man-hater. Don't believe me. Go look at your post history. So, you resort to name calling and attempts to shame. Says the guy that name calls and attempts to …
/r/MensRights08/11/10 08:04 PM
-2

how is it perverse? Just because the government takes some money out of it? Is it perverse equality that men and women are equally allowed to drive cars just because the state rquires one to pay for a drivers license? Or is it just equal application of the law?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:57 PM
1

Not if you 'forgot' to use a condom.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:52 PM
1

He wanted to be home more, and that was NOT like him at all. He cried, and that was also not like him. I'd seen him sleep deprived before (especially coming off very long work projects) and they didn't turn him into a crying social recluse. However is any of this 'hormone' related? Or is it just because there was now a child that he loved very much in the picture.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:44 PM
0

Being held to the same standards of law (regardless of how you feel about said law) is still equality.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:42 PM
3

Curious if you feel health insurance is a 'want' for a child or a necessity?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:28 PM
13

$500/month is not 'crazy amounts of child support'.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:26 PM
6

It's not really perverse equality....it's just equality. if the woman makes more and doesn't have custody or shared custody, she should pay the man.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:25 PM
-6

Is it? About $5 per meal eats up $500 in a month.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:21 PM
1

Too bad you need to fall back on threadbare female insults. Says the guy who's main arguments consist of feminist insults whenever someone doesn't agree with him. Is there any chance you'll get over the woman who fucked you over? Rhetorical.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:05 PM
1

Thanks.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:04 PM
1

Yes...I was 100% serious with that comment and not just saying something I knew would make you weep into your alimony checkbook.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 07:03 PM
1

I asked you first. Who was the woman that turned you into this?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 06:58 PM
1

Man hater!!! I'm here, you're queer, I'm used to it.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 06:41 PM
1

Whargarble!
/r/MensRights08/11/10 06:41 PM
1

SO who was the woman that fucked you over and turned you into this?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 06:41 PM
0

I call YOU a man hating feminist, because that's what you are. Given your back posts I guess it's what everyone that disagrees with you is. So come on, tell us. Who was the woman that put you on tilt? You've got more than the anger of general injustice behind your posts. So what is it?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 06:38 PM
-1

Wow, this guy really whines like a biatch.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 06:01 PM
0

Let's be serious for a second. Did you catch your old lady sucking your best frend's dick one day or something? Is there a reason all you do on reddit is lurk in r/mensrights and call everyone who doesn't agree with you a man-hating feminist?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 05:50 PM
5

Well women are the primary market because, I'd hazard a guess, they still make the majority of those purchases by a large margin. They're not blindly guessing about who buys their stuff. They look at the credit cards info, etc. My guess is men just haven't proven to be buying in the numbers that warrant someone thinking outside the box to address. Though part of that is created in a feedback loop created by the advertising itself which associates 'baby stuff' with 'women'.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 11:35 PM
9

Or is what they're really implying is nothing more than they think that their marketing works better on mom? They're not trying to say anything about the state of fatherhood. They're just trying to sell baby stuff. They know who buys the stuff more than this guy does. Maybe the amount of men that currently buy their stuff doesn't warrant additional spending in marketing to them. I have no idea. The advertising doesn't make any claims as to who cares about the baby. It makes claims to who their b…
/r/MensRights07/11/10 10:56 PM
1

If I were to go around and call a girl a slut, bitch, tramp, etc, just because she tried to come on to me then that would be called sexual harassment. Actually, odds are it would be wildly ignored. As evidenced by the million times a day girls are publicly called a slut, bitch, or tramp and nobody gives a shit. Just as odds are that freak dancing with some chick at a party isn't going to end in harassment/rape/ or any other negative claims. It sucks to be in a situation that is the exception, bu…
/r/MensRights07/11/10 08:16 PM
2

Of note from your story: You never once stood up for yourself or publicly called her out on anything when she was publicly calling you out on shit.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 06:51 PM
21

It's one thing to note that baby stuff is targeted towards women. It's another thing to care enough to boycott it.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 06:15 PM
1

Reproductive fraud? You mean like lying about birth control? I'm assuming the courts position would be you always have the option to use your own method of contraception. Nothing says you ever have to rely on the other party to make sure contraceptives are used. Regardless of what they say. Or do you mean something like poking a hole in his condom? i'm not sure how you'd ever actually prove any of it so it seems sort of moot. Statuatory rape. Not sure on that. Mainly because the term encompasses…
/r/MensRights07/11/10 03:30 AM
1

Ahh yes. The great rebuttal of 'you lost because I said you did'. Proof of my point Sally. See how easy it is to say that and act smug? Provide real arguments and they will be addressed. Do things like link to a wiki about the safe haven law when it has fuck all to do with what I was saying, and then ignoring that once I point it out to you isn't 'handing me my ass in an argument'. It's selectively running away from my argument. HerpDerp XOXO EDIT: You said it best when you said. It scares me th…
/r/MensRights06/11/10 04:09 PM
1

when you see that you're not making any headway in an argument I don't come to r/mensrights to make headway. That would presume that most of the skulkers here have the capability of having their mind changed with any facts. They're (Factory whateverhisnameis among the worst offenders) simply here to insist everything is set up against men and that any point to the contrary is some sexist feminist trollbait. Don't believe me? Go look at all his work here on Reddit. It's a rare person who isn't ut…
/r/MensRights06/11/10 03:59 PM
0

Daytime tiredness is a sign of poor sleep quality. Maybe due to sleep apnea...I see that you snore.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:44 PM
2

Herp Derp
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:31 PM
0

You are just a snarky effeminate bitch. You should try harder. Zero for creativity. Fully expected insult in r/mensrights. Go play in 2XC. What is that? Do they have tower defense games? I fucking LOVE those. Check who said that My bad...I didn't realize somebody had secretly replaced the douche I was talking to with Folgers douche crystals. And I DIDN'T NOTICE!!! It really IS as good!!1 He's a very nice, heartfelt guy A-DORE-able. Douches of a feather...
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:15 PM
1

Hides pregnancy, has child, delivers child to adoption agency, walks away. And then I said. That's illegal in many places. For both her and the adoption agency Boop
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:04 PM
1

You're saying this is about 'california rules serving notice of accusation'; I'm saying it's about women using the courts as a weapon against men. Except the problem isn't that it gives women too much power over men. The problem with their policy is it doesn't do enough to notify people when they've been served. REGARDLESS of what type of case it is. You do realize we're talking about the article that was linked when we talk about this stuff right? You keep trying to say it points out how the co…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 06:51 AM
1

It's not irrelevant if you're trying to portray the issue as something that's a men's rights issue. What's relevant is that the article we were currently discussing explains something that happens in all sorts of court proceedings. it only focused on the paternity cases. The PROBLEM with the California rules surrounding serving a notice of accusation aren't a men's rights issue, they're an everyone's rights issue. Stop trying to paint it otherwise. What's wrong with a little light hearted fun? Y…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 06:20 AM
0

Mmmmm, creeepylicious....aaghaghhgahghahaghahg.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:56 AM
1

You're saying the government has the ability to instigate fucking your shit up .....and men, and shop owners, and credit card companies, and women, and Colombia House DVD club and on and on and on. You clearly have no idea how court works. Men don't have the ability to instigate fucking women's shit up via the legal system to anywhere near the same extent. AND THIS IS A PROBLEM. Jesus fucking Christ I agree with you on 99% of this shit. Will you stop and take a fucking look at what I've been say…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:46 AM
-1

You're a troll because of every single post you make. This is the best rebuttal since 'I know you are but what am I' Ahhh right. Because reading through your post history is like an amazing trip through coherent and varied arguments? I'm a little disappointed that I wasted this much time talking to you before actually going to see what you spend most/all of your time doing on Reddit. You're an r/mensrights cellar dweller basically saying the same shit to everyone you disagree with. You don't par…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:19 AM
-1

Oh..my bad I guess that wasn't you who automatically assumed that I thought Kevin Federline was a douche because he took child support. I guess that wasn't you that insisted it again after I told you once that wasn't the reason. I guess that wasn't you that quoted my comment about Kevin Federline and then accused me of saying it because he took child support. I guess that wasn't you that then got all self righteous and got to the tippy top of your high horse and said. And you similarly call wome…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:02 AM
-1

I'm a troll because I pointed out that he manages to question someone elses generalization and then do the same fucking thing a few lines later? Get fucking real.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:41 AM
0

Oh Bob, how would you describe yourself? Tall, short? Medium build? What line of employ are you in? Oh, nevermind, I'll just see what I can dig out of your reddit posts... We can only hope the first thing you learn is my name isn't Bob. And how creepy is this? Stalked by a grrl because I don't agree with her on teh internets! Threated with false claims!!! My butt!! it's hurting!!!
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:31 AM
1

Never said you kept track. In fact I told you specifically because I know you don't keep track. Mainly so you'd get your panties out of a wad and stop trying to accuse me of calling him a douche for taking child support. (Which BTW was fucking hilarious...."Man-Hater! WHARGARBLELELE kFed not douche for taking child support!"). Classic Peg.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 02:23 AM
1

Here's the thing Bob Willis What is the thing ant grrl? all those things involve actually signing onto responsibilities. Who said you had to actually owe on the bill they claim? Are Who said you actually OWE back taxes? Why are you presuming guilt before due process here but assuming innocence before due process for paternity? It's innocence before due process for all. Nobody 'signed on' to be potentially sued for skipping a bill that was never their to begin with. When you are named in a civil …
/r/MensRights05/11/10 02:12 AM
1

Ahhh hivemind accusation! Reddit for, 'you are not agreeing with my opinion!' Edit: Does it really fucking matter what they believe?
/r/MensRights05/11/10 02:02 AM
0

Women don't create children they don't want because they can abort. You can shoot yourself in your fat head too, but how likely are you to do it? Not every woman who gets pregnant believes in abortion or would get one just to avoid an accidental child. As long as both father and mother are held to the same scrutiny. It shouldn't be that a father has to prove his fitness in order to be a father when a mother doesn't. Nowhere in this discussion was it suggested they should have to. It would be sim…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:51 AM
1

Hmmm you mean you're not even reading my posts in a coherent manner? And again...that's how it works in almost all court hearings. Accused of speeding? Don't challenge it and you lose. Accused of skipping out on a bill for services rendered? Don't challenge it and you lose. Government accuses you of owing back taxes? Don't challenge it and you lose. If you're ignorant of the fact, I'll clue you in here. You're served by mail.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:36 AM
3

Kind of a catch-22. If the government in fact acknowledges the very idea of a 'common law spouse' then it's pretty hard to argue why they shouldn't be privy to the same rights and protections as a person who was religiously married or civilly joined. The problems more with the principle of common law spouses then in Quebec applying spousal protections/rules/laws equally across the different types of marriage.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 12:20 AM
1

Roger that.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 12:05 AM
0

Really? Why is KFed a douche? Have you ever even heard of the guy? I've been calling him a douche long before he ever asked for child support so clearly it has fuck all to do with it.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 11:33 PM
5

Any chance we can get a list of all the possible choices, as well as the real wording on them. I'm sure 'Straight up believe her and support her' was not an actual answer choice. Kind of hard to reach any conclusion aside from a preconceived one based on what you've given us.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 11:21 PM
0

nearly 80 percent of paternity establishments come in the form of default judgments. Which doesn't mean the judgment is in error. Default paternity judgements are and continue to be a problem. Default judgments are the results of the problem, which is an overzealous pursuit coupled with serious lack of controls confirming the accused has been notified. I've already agreed that's an issue that need serious fixing. It rather does, actually. When a woman says you are the father the state is not und…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 11:11 PM
0

BZZZ...That's illegal in many places. For both her and the adoption agency. I never claimed there wasn't ways a woman could lie to do it, but in no way is it some sort of implication that the system itself is responsible for that, any more than laws making it illegal to murder someone are responsible for murderers who hide their murders.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 10:53 PM
1

There's a 'Feminst party line'? Feminists are one large undifferentiated mass? Like all Democrats, or all Republicans, or all liberals, or all conservatives, or all white people, or all senior citizens? Or is it just feminists that are all alike?
/r/MensRights04/11/10 10:43 PM
-1

men of today are terrified of having their entire lives raped. Really??!!?! REALLY? All men? Just sayin...
/r/MensRights04/11/10 10:32 PM
2

Being frank, limiting sexual encounters to settings which don't serve alcohol severely limits where one can meet a suitable lass. Also being frank...99.99999% of all sexual encounters with woman who has had 'any alcohol or drugs' results in no rape claims at all. As does 99.99999% of all sexual encounters with someone you barely know. If this wasn't the case, we'd all know dozens and dozens of friends and family accused of rape.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 10:22 PM
2

This isn't what women are doing to you. This is what a small percentage of women are doing to some men. This is also what you're doing to yourself by coming into a forum with severe confirmation bias and extrapolating it out to mean you're forever a tit hair away from dodging a false rape claim. False rape claims are bad. Not being able to properly defend yourself from rape claims is bad. Protect yourself in general, but not to the point of paralysis or so far out of proportion to the statistica…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 10:12 PM
3

Wait, even though your girlfriend just proved to you that women can indeed be rational and not jump to making rape claims you've lost your faith in women because of stories that other people have of women that you don't even know?
/r/MensRights04/11/10 09:58 PM
0

And if you were a man who couldn't pay/didn't have time to attend the court hearing(which could be half way across the country)? Can't pay? You can be appointed a free lawyer for your case. Or just file a response on your own...just like was mentioned in the article linked. You don't have to attend the actual court hearing to defend yourself as long as you challenge it. You can also be deposed in your local area if you can't attend. All your initial challenge has to do is notify them you intend …
/r/MensRights04/11/10 09:40 PM
-1

While the over-reporting at Davis was unusual for its scope, the institutional interest to misclassify innocent conduct as "rape" hovers over many colleges. Or, in other words...while this was the exception, we will continue to imply that it's closer to the rule. This blog falls prey to the same type of fear mongering that the "feminist sexual grievance industry" does (BTW some of the best hyperbole I've seen in a while. Kudos to this guy). The article says very little in specifics and prefers t…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 09:23 PM
0

Like women, men should only be liable for those financial responsibilities that they decide upon Well actually men and women can and are frequently made liable for financial responsibilities they didn't decide on. Like accidents. Or Negligence. Basically the top two reasons people wind up creating a child they didn't want. If you want to talk about 'best interests of the child' then the best interests of the child, first and foremost, is to have an equal relationship with both parents. Parent's …
/r/MensRights04/11/10 09:04 PM
0

d'oh! Try again. Regardless it's a moot point as I'd actually lawyer up and attend the court hearing. not let the 30 days expire by trying to get it figured out over the phone. Nor would I assume I could just ignore it and it would go away.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 08:53 PM
1

They're related in that they all revolve around the creation of a child. they are unrelated in that pointing out the failings of adoption law does not inherently make any argument for or against the laws of abortion or of financial responsibility of a child that's yours. They're just an argument for rectifying adoption law. Which, I agree, needs to be fixed. I mean, I know a typical Feminist tactic is to try and isolate each of these issues to try and minimize them, then to blame these issues on…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 08:37 PM
0

40% of Paternity Judgments in California, for example, are what is called "Default Judgments". What that means, is that a woman put a man's name down ("Bob Smith"), and as much info as she has ("He's white, lives downtown, and says he does something in Advertising"), then the State finds a Bob Smith who lives downtown and works in Advertising, and assigns Paternity to him unless he contests it (within a certain timeframe). This doesn't prove that a man can be financially held responsible just be…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 08:27 PM
-1

Courts have awarded child support in situations where men have been raped, ANd that's wrong...I agree. however you're still stupid if you try to use this exmaple to say that i'm going to be responsible for your child if I never had sex with you or even met you. where random men have been fingered as fathers, I agree this is a problem. I also agree that the courts shouldn't force child support payments if they're not the father and don't want to continue taking care of the child. but again...sepa…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 08:08 PM
0

Holy Shit man! Is there no end to your dissembling? Can you not ever, under ANY circumstances, accept that there is social bias against men? I totally know there's social bias. However, you're still incorrect in trying to lump in the adoption law with the issue at hand. And as I've stated previously...I find those adoption laws that bias to be problematic and should be rectified. if one of the biological parents wants to keep the child, the other should bot be able to unilaterally give it up for…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 07:53 PM
1

No, you dumb shit. I was using their existence to show the hypocrisy of your statement. The fact that this went over your head...repeatedly...is not my fault. You're using their existence to imply they're somehow created to favor the woman. They're created to FAVOR THE CHILD. If you don't get it then quit talking about it. And somehow I'm not surprised at all that you think this is the only one that matters... When it comes to getting an abortion...it's legally the only one that matter. It's not…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 07:49 PM
1

You conveniently left out the FACT that almost all adoptions are a result of women having a choice (I'm not ready for this) Also, depending on the State a woman cannot give up a child for adoption if the biological father wants it. He has to sign off too. Some states don't require this and I think it's wrong. But that's an adoption law problem. Which is an entirely separate issue.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 07:35 PM
1

I did! Twice now! Now tell me how this quote makes sense, given that information... Beat women legally? No they didn't. At least not in Christian societies.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 07:24 PM
-1

I don't have to. I'm a woman. I can make a man take responsibility for my choices. No, you can't. the court can make a man take responsibility for a child that exists to protect the childs rights. I'm five months pregnant and I'm thinking I need a little extra cash. Apparently you don't even have to have sex with me to be on the hook. Not sure where you got that idea. But if you're that stupid...abort. And feminists want to make it so you don't even get the right to contest paternity. Separate i…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 07:20 PM
1

You conveniently left out the FACT that almost all adoptions are a result of women having a choice (I'm not ready for this) that you have NO problem denying all men based on their sex alone. There is a baby in existence, it needs support (YOUR arguments, not mine), and you see nothing wrong with letting others do the supporting - but ONLY if it's to help out Mommy....if Daddy isn't ready, well "Tough Shit". Nah, you're not a sexist asshole at all... I didn't leave anything out. You wanted to kno…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 07:13 PM
0

Saying something like that is meaningless, yeah there are cultures in which men can legally beat women (and I assume the reverse is true too) but they aren't our own or an immediate predecessor of our own. Yes, it happened here and in 'Christian' societies. Things are 'legal' until the law says otherwise. If the law didn't codify that it was 'illegal' to beat your wife, then for all intents and purposes it was legal.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:51 PM
1

I know...what I'm saying is that the 'medical destiny' part throws a big monkey wrench into the 'financial destiny' situation. Creating inherent imbalances that won't ever be fully rectified. And once the child is born, it's not really an issue of the WOMAN having the right to demand financial responsibility from the men, that's done for the rights/protection of the CHILD. So yes, women control the ability to actually birth the child...but that's not going to change. When it comes to financial r…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:49 PM
1

"While it was certainly true that in many places in the past (and unfortunately to this present day), men were permitted to beat their wives," That it wasn't codified doesn't change that.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:43 PM
1

Yes, but I would have to have willingly had the child. Right because we value the right of people to choose their own medical decisions about their own body. That's part of the inherent imbalance in fairness that will ALWAYS exist when it comes to procreation. On some level the woman will ALWAYS have more power in the decision making process because we value self-determination when it comes to medical procedures. And we value it more than self-determination of fiscal responsibility. Whenever the…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:33 PM
2

Then explain the existence of Abortion and Adoption (not to mention baby drop-off centres)... Adoption exists as a benefit to the child to get it to some parents. NOT to equalize mens rights or rectify some imbalance in rights. Abortion exists as a benefit to women to allow them to have control over their own medical destiny. NOT to equalize mens rights or rectify some imbalance. Baby Drop off Centers exist to help the child not to fix some imbalance in rights. The child has a right to support, …
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:29 PM
2

Men don't have the same rights to choose their own medical destiny?
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:23 PM
0

Beat women legally? No they didn't. SURVEY SAYS!! X At least not in Christian societies. SURVEY SAYS!! XX As for asylums... women's asylums came equipped with daily 'womb manipulation' to orgasm and recreational activities. They were more like spa retreats. SURVEY SAYS!!! XXX Ok Cranston family, here's your chance to steal!
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:22 PM
0

I will never, and could not legally be forced to, raise a child without my consent. Once you have the child you can indeed by legally forced to be financially responsible for it, just like men. but if she gets pregnant, it's probably her own damn fault for not being on hbc or messing it up- Not everyone can be on HBC. And yes, anytime two people have sex they're BOTH responsible for creating a child if it happens. We don't have virgin births. Not to mention, adoption. If you're against abortion …
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:18 PM
1

No, legal inequality is a byproduct of inherent biological inequality. You have to accept it because you can't change the fact that women get pregnant and men don't. Based strictly on biology you have the EXACT same rights as a woman to choose your own medical destiny. if I'm at work and my arm gets crushed, does my place of employment have the right to choose what kind of medical treatment I get in order to limit their financial responsibility? Can they say that if I opt to get my mangled arm r…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 05:57 PM
1

There is no problem. unfortunately for you what that statement means for women is that they have the choice to make their own medical decisions about their body. Men have that right in equal amounts. There's no problem there OR imbalance in rights.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 05:46 PM
-1

And what if the couple agreed beforehand that if she got pregnant, she'd get an abortion, and then she changes her mind? That happens all the time. Does it? Then why, as a man, would you assume that a woman wouldn't change her mind? Basically, you don't want to restrict women's sexual freedom by banning abortion No, I don't want to restrict a womans freedom to make her own medical choices about her own body. And that's exactly where the inherent imbalance will ALWAYS exist in mens v womens right…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 05:43 PM
-1

That's your fucked up logic, not mine. My logic is, if you're a man and you don't want to have kids take control of your life and take every precaution. Use your own condoms (learn how to fucking use them and buy the correct size..stop pretending you're a magnum), get a vasectomy, whatever. Fucking inherently runs the risk of creating a child. You know there's no way to force a woman to get an abortion. So run your life accordingly and quit whining.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 05:32 PM
-4

That statement basically absolves men of having any responsibility for child creation. It doesn't 'balance' the rights, it gives them all to men.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 05:29 PM
3

If a woman can absolve herself of the responsibility of having a child (which she can), why should that be denied to a man? Because the woman can absolve herself due to being in control of her own body, due to how we treat medical rights in this country. If she doesn't want to keep it, can the man decide he wants to raise it on his own and force her to make regular monthly payments to support his choice? If she's already had the baby? Yes. Well sort of yes. HE can't make her, any more than SHE c…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 05:27 PM
4

How about making all of the legal contraception and abortion options for women equal to those for men? If that means removing some, then so be it. So you're saying that a reasonable method to ensure fairness would be to ban abortions? Yyyeahhh ok. So you don't have a problem with being made financially responsible for things you haven't agreed to be financially responsible for? Sure, but fucking isn't one of those things you don't 'agree' to be financially responsible for. There is inherent resp…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:52 AM
-1

If sex and parenthood is divorced for women, then sex and parenthood should be divorced for men. This ignores the biological realities. It can be divorced from women because ultimately there's not much that people can do to physically FORCE a woman to have a child. It flies in the face of pretty much everything we've set up regarding personal health care. On the flip side of that there's plenty of examples of being forced to maintain financial responsibility for something you may (or may not hav…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:24 AM
-1

You can't walk away from your student loans. I don't see why you should be able to walk away from your child. EDIT: (Hit save on accident) I don't understand how you can absolve yourself of responsibility of a child that still exists that is yours.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 06:16 AM
-5

I'm just sick of hearing the woman gets pregnant and tells the man he should have kept it in his pants story. But that's in fact what he should have done if he didn't want any risk of having children. Or had a vasectomy. Lifes full of inherent risks. Fucking is full of the inherent risk of getting a woman pregnant. Biological differences mean there's an inherent risk the woman will have more say than you do once the child is conceived, so as a man, I and every other man should understand that in…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 05:17 AM
0

Sorry, it doesn't equalize any responsibility. It absolves men of any responsibility any time they choose to. You've essentially said men have no inherent responsibility ever for creating a child.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 05:07 AM
0

I think the last I saw was that child services had about 1/3 of people not paying their court mandated child support (no differentiation on whether or not it was due to not wanting to pay or not being able to pay). I don't know if the exact number exists anywhere, but as a guesstimate I'd say it'd have to be over the current 1/3 of men who already don't pay, I personally wouldn't be surprised if at least another 10-20% of those men would opt out if given the choice.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 04:31 AM
-2

That's not 'fair' that's just switching who holds the vast majority of the power in the decision.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 04:27 AM
1

Do they? No. Should they? From the aspect of 'fairness' maybe. In reality...No. You're pretty vague about your 'rights' question. Do you mean do men have any right to force women to get an abortion? No, and no argument suggesting the contrary will be based in anything resembling reality. Do you mean do men have any right to force the woman to have the child? No, and no argument (aside from some religious hullabaloo) wil ever be made to argue that you can force a woman to physically carry a child…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 04:26 AM
4

(Some) Feminists: Who cares if it's your kid? FTFY
/r/MensRights02/11/10 06:49 PM
1

Yes, I know that semantically you are correct..there are similarities...which isn't all you said. What you were communicating (without directly saying) is that it makes them equivalent in the discussion. And as a matter of fact... The only difference is that the trauma comes afterwards in the case of the latter. Don't feed me some bullshit that your post wasn't trying to equate the two. Maybe YOU should go back and read what you wrote.
/r/MensRights28/10/10 04:19 PM
1

Here's what's actually been written...you keep bringing up similarities and then pretending said similarities equate to the actual means to the results and the results themselves are similar, when in fact they aren't even close. I can rob you of your autonomy in many ways. Let's say you wanted to go hunting. I could: Create, say, a licensing fee for hunting or prohibit hunting of a certain species. If you cant afford said license then I've taken your autonomy to hunt when and how you want. If I'…
/r/MensRights28/10/10 01:16 AM
1

yeahhhh...that's the problem. Certainly not saying violent physical assault and being 1/2 of creating a kid are so similar as to equate them as exactly the same thing.
/r/MensRights28/10/10 12:58 AM
1

They're both similar in that they involve people and occur on planet Earth too! Gee! See how close rape and lying about birth control are?!?
/r/MensRights28/10/10 12:48 AM
1

"in that they both involve a robbery of autonomy." I really don't know how many times I can say the same thing. Yes, they both involve a robbery of autonomy, the manner in which autonomy is robbed in each case ISNT EVEN CLOSE to being similar. You can compare anything you can dream of, that doesn't mean the two things are relevant or extremely similar.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 11:45 PM
0

Yes exactly as being grounded and being raped are comparable. What we learn from the comparison is that THEY AREN'T EVEN CLOSE.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 11:02 PM
-1

Yeah, in the sense that being grounded by your parents for getting bad grades and physical rape are similar in that they are robbery of autonomy. BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY FUCKING CLOSE.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 09:57 PM
2

Yes they are similar in that they both involve sex. However THEY AREN'T EVEN FUCKING CLOSE. EVEN with deceit it's not even fucking close. If you are not sterile and you have sex with a woman you are STILL inherently consenting to the possibility of a child. Because no condom or pill is 100% effective. I agree it would suck to have someone trap me like that but rape? Not even close.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 09:42 PM
6

You mean aside from the other obvious differences that once you consent to having sex with someone you are in fact consenting to potentially having a child, and that one is rape and one ISN'T EVEN FUCKING CLOSE?
/r/MensRights27/10/10 09:30 PM
0

Of course you've yet to actually point out why I don't know what I'm talking about.
/r/MensRights23/10/10 02:11 AM
-1

Nope. I was waiting for you to bestow upon me you're vast knowledge of googling and sounding authoritative!
/r/MensRights22/10/10 08:06 PM
-3

Doubtful.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 07:06 PM
-4

But they don't make false rape claims.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 06:32 PM
0

I don't have any details about this and I can't be bothered to be outraged by YouTube comments as they're never to be taken seriously or as a measure of general public opinion.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 06:08 PM
3

Depends on how publicized it was before they were going to air it. They had planned on showing that orange freak Snooki getting jacked in the face (and in fact advertised it in promos until public opinion started to turn). Had they not ran all the promos of her taking a monster punch the general public probably wouldn't have said shit until the epiosde aired.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 11:17 PM
1

women's natural sexual behaviour - which is far, far away from monogamous So is man's. And one can still be married and not be monogamous, provided both people are adults and agree on it. And if you think LTR's are a continual power struggle then you're doing it wrong.
/r/MensRights19/09/10 12:09 AM
1

I encourage everyone to go to the Village Voice and read the multi-part story. They also have portions of the audio recordings he made while on duty. http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-05-04/news/the-nypd-tapes-inside-bed-stuy-s-81st-precinct/
/r/MensRights16/09/10 08:36 AM
-2

Discrimination? Yes. But catch-22 since a real man would just get over it and move on.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 11:46 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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