TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SharkSpider Archive

View 3 posts and 555 comments by SharkSpider on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
48

Further, not prosecuting shoplifters harms all shoppers. Things get locked in cabinets, prices go up as stores need to cover the losses, high loss locations get closed down.
/r/MensRights27/02/26 08:29 PM
14

They found the most objectionable sub they could (jailbait, it was disgusting), banned it, and told us it was a one time thing and not a slippery slope. That was a lie, of course. I think fatpeoplehate was next?
/r/MensRights23/12/21 08:56 PM
52

Is it? Adoption should already be the default choice for someone who's single and about to give birth, but can't afford the cost of raising a child.
/r/MensRights10/11/21 07:33 PM
15

Feminists don't police misandry and man hating within their own movement because they've realized that it's pointless. It makes you look inward to fight about ideological purity rather than outwards to fight for equal rights and to solve actual injustices. Someone coming here and saying some borderline misogynist shit doesn't cause harm. Unequal rights under the law causes harm. What would you rather spend your time on? Anyone who says you need to address the former before the latter is concern …
/r/MensRights10/11/21 02:50 PM
22

It wasn't created, nobody ever sat down and sketched our a set of patriarchal rules that would privilege men over women and then somehow forced most of the world to follow them. Instead, these customs evolved over time because they were effective at protecting women, creating babies, and ensuring men's compliance with law and order. Patriarchal societies keep men in check by promising them one woman who will bear and raise his children. In return, men are expected to give up their bodies and liv…
/r/MensRights08/11/21 07:59 PM
3

False. The claim is that women are not held accountable, not that there's anything innate about men or women that would change how willing they are to take responsibility. I'm sure men would act about the same as women do, if afforded the same privileges.
/r/MensRights12/10/21 09:18 PM
6

Well apparently you don't think you're responsible for doing your own research or coming up with your own ideas either, but you can find them in every facet of life. What happens when a man and a woman slap each other in public? What happens when two people don't agree on what to do about an unplanned pregnancy? What happens when you go on social media and call an entire gender trash? What happens when someone's a victim of domestic abuse?
/r/MensRights12/10/21 09:16 PM
4

I said society was responsible, not women. If men in power treat women better than men, that's still an example of female privilege. Plus, women can be judges too, and when they're presiding the sentencing disparity gets larger, not smaller. Everyone involved in the court system is complicit, as are feminist organizations working to widen the gap by closing female prisons and introducing alternative lighter sentencing options for women only like what's happening in the UK right now.
/r/MensRights12/10/21 09:05 PM
12

There are many examples, but I think the most obvious place you find this thinking is in criminal sentencing and conviction. Women receive more lenient sentences for the same crimes, are more likely to be successful when using victim status or emotional state as a defense for violent crime, and are more likely to be released from prison without serving their full sentences. We attribute external factors to women's criminal behavior and internal ones to men's, and that leads us to punish men more…
/r/MensRights12/10/21 08:33 PM
14

It's a statement about society, not women. Society, under feminist influence, does not hold women accountable for their choices. It's not like women lack moral character or anything, they're just exempted from responsibility in a lot of situations where men aren't.
/r/MensRights12/10/21 07:03 PM
1

Why are you assuming the bio mother should have the right to be paid to look after the child? There is a shortage of healthy adoptee babies in first world countries and a long line of financially capable couples looking for them. Adoption is the clear solution in cases where the father doesn't want to be involved and the mother decides carry a baby to term without the means to support it.
/r/MensRights13/08/20 03:04 PM
1

Agreed, but that isn't how it is. Presently, when someone tries to use this defense it's up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was not battered to the point of being justifiably fearful for her life.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 05:18 PM
1

That isn't really how it works. They'd be presumed innocent if you wanted to convict them posthumously, but in the trial over their murder the defendant does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was abusive.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 04:54 AM
1

Many social concepts have deep connections to biology. Humans are naturally equipped for things like language and humor, and gender, sexuality, etc. is arguably much more primal than any of that.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 05:25 AM
7

The people working in those departments are not qualified to study the biological and psychological side of gender. They work under assumptions about those things, certainly, but gender studies is presently a subfield of sociology, not psychology or biology.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 07:27 PM
2

That survey is almost impossible to complete if you haven't been harassed. Unless you went in with an agenda of proving that street harassment didn't exist (unlikely), you just wouldn't finish it.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 12:53 AM
1

I didn't know research was a prerequisite for pandering.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 02:25 AM
6

That's not actually what gets you a hostile score. I was able to get 0 and 0 and I still answered strongly disagree to that question. Saying negative things about feminism is what gets you a high hostile score.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 11:11 PM
3

I went and put in the answers required to get zero and zero, which weren't at all hard to determine. Here's a few things you have to say to avoid being labeled a sexist: There aren't many women seeking advantage under the guise of equality. Feminists aren't trying to get women more power than men. Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men. tl;dr if you find fault with feminism, you're sexist.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 11:08 PM
1

Evolution also occurs between populations. We often focus on evolutionary traits as ones benefiting individuals, but it's also true that groups with common traits competed against each other in a similar way. Perhaps small groups of humans fared better when the women went through menopause, or something.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 07:56 PM
2

She wants to see more research on how video games lead to a decline in reading and thereby college performance. That doesn't sound like research. Research would be about whether or not video games affect college performance. I know it's an anecdote, but all of the top students in my graduating class this year played a copious amount of video games, but that didn't stop us from getting in to ivy league schools, getting internships at the best companies to work for, getting 4.0 GPAs, etc. Even peo…
/r/MensRights09/05/13 11:04 PM
8

Most of those things have been around longer than feminism has. Granted, they've changed quite a bit over the past couple hundred years, but it's nothing new.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 08:15 PM
10

Honestly if patriarchy is really only a descriptor for a society whose gender roles put men in the warrior/provider role and women in the caregiver/homemaker role then I'm all for saying that society has been a patriarchy for an awful long time and that we still have elements of it in the present day. If course, the capital-P Patriarchy used in feminist discourse includes a whole bunch of other stuff, like how oppression is unidirectional from men to women and how patriarchy exists to benefit me…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 12:32 AM
3

At the first event they were blocking the doors and shouting down people who tried to get in. Haven't seen that in any of the "big red" videos in particular, though overall these latest protests have had more lawbreaking.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 06:18 AM
1

The top level comment rule doesn't do much for them. It just means that if you want to post something that goes against the typical feminist viewpoint, you have to do it in a reply and you can't be an asshole about it.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 03:27 AM
8

It's an April fool's joke.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:49 AM
1

I've looked in to this one a few times before. It's certainly damning, but given that the 10% false conviction rate was established by running DNA tests, we can't expect that the same false conviction rate holds today. Most of these men would have been tested and released if they were picked up or accused in 2013.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 12:41 AM
3

"How to determine the sample size for a social science study."
/r/MensRights13/03/13 10:38 PM
0

Well, we know it was larger than 10. You can't have 43% of 10.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:35 PM
5

Even taking the Rainn statistics as given, that's something like an 8% victimization rate. That's a far cry from 33%.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:13 PM
5

We'll never know. Exactly, but that doesn't seem to stop people from completely discounting the possibility that any of these accusations were false. The vast majority of false accusations are never prosecuted, even ones that show up in the media. Saying that there were 35 of them is an incredibly dishonest thing to do.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:03 PM
1

Yes. I can't recall offhand by generally these studies are done at a single college where maybe 100-200 students are asked to report. Skepticism is wise, because the researchers are rarely upfront about their methods.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 06:56 AM
3

Well that's not really what I meant. No one should be forced to get an abortion, even if it's their right to have one. The point is that women have choices throughout the whole process, and as indicated by this case, at least, the sympathies of law enforcement and the general public. It's still a bad thing for her to experience (neither abortion nor birth are pleasant experiences), but it pales in comparison to being entrapped for at least 18 years. Even if a man finds out about the deception, t…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 05:48 PM
7

And just to be on the record here... a man deceptively getting a woman pregnant IS worse than a women deceptively getting herself pregnant. It's not. Maybe pre-abortion legalization it was, but women's rights were in a bad place then, anyways. Right now a simple look at the consequences for each party should make it pretty clear that anyone lacking reproductive rights (men) is way worse off when a deceptive pregnancy happens.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 05:22 PM
4

Where I live, at least, most minimum wage earners are teenagers or young college students who work to earn a bit of extra cash. Cleaners, shop staff, laborers, etc. all earn above the minimum wage on their own. Most people with an actual interest in these wage bumps are young people on the lower cusp of the voting age.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 03:59 AM
4

The person starting the group is a science student who used the word misandry non-ironically and called the protesters at the Warren Farrell speech close-minded. It's as good a start as any, and a sight better than most feminists who'd think to try that kind of appropriation.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 08:13 AM
1

Therefore it is true. It is not. It probably won't. And even if it did, that's not the situation right now. MRAs want to change that. Some discussion is about awareness, ie. telling men that they need to watch out and that the law is not on their side. Other discussion is about how we can argue to change the law, and what kind of basic legal principles would support our preferred model (which tends to be LPS). No one goes in blind except of their own free will. Men have a choice between celibacy…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 01:15 AM
2

This is completely true, and since it is true, then all men who are having sex are dealing with Schrödinger's nutcase. That would indicate that caution is a necessary component of any intimacy. This is only true because the law makes it so. If the law put the responsibility on those who have the ability to reduce the risk to almost nothing, and gave the freedom of choice to those who have to go in blind, schrodinger's nutcase wouldn't exist. The supposed "consequences" for a woman's irresponsibi…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 01:06 PM
1

The chances of having both a failed condom and failed female birth control at the same time are so low they might affect ten to a hundred couples every year, at most. Add in a morning-after pill if the condom burts and you have a near impossibility. Unfortunately the options that take it from one in a hundred to one in a million are entirely within the purview of women, to administer as they see fit while under no real obligation to disclose their birth control status to sexual partners. Acciden…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 04:46 AM
2

So she just asserts there would be no false accusations for no reason other than "if men suffered too, people wouldn't lie"? The biggest problem with the analogy is that verifying that someone was a vitcim of mutilation is much easier than verifying that someone was a rape victim. She compares the absurdity of dismembering yourself to frame someone to the "absurdity" of lying about rape.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 12:22 AM
1

The conviction rates are compared at the bottom of the linked infographic. The numbers here don't actually seem to be too far out of line with reality, except maybe the reporting rate, which is almost impossible to measure.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:10 AM
4

The only time anyone cares about the child's best interests is when the parents disagree on what to do with a pregnancy, and even then it's only done to favor one parent over the other. I'm all for considering children's rights, but not when those rights become privileges for parents, and not when legislation to counteract bad situations creates incentives for parents to create them.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 06:45 AM
2

TLDR becoming a firefighter decreases your chances of dying on the job.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 11:24 PM
2

Biggest feature of VAWA is allowing people (men, almost exclusively) to be removed from their homes without even knowing the decision was being made and without requiring any actual evidence of wrongdoing. It's not just supercriminalization, it's the erosion of basic rights associated with the presumption of innocence, under the guise of protecting people from the dangerous bad men.
/r/MensRights26/01/13 04:19 AM
5

REUs are generally given to departments on a quota system (Ie. a certain department gets a certain level of funding) and students are chosen based on their grades. They're encouraging more women and minorities to do REUs because those lead towards research careers and doctorate degrees. That doesn't mean they'll give an unfair advantage.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 04:22 AM
2

Thanks for this, I just finished writing up a comment on the article to the same effect. Posting below because I think the motivation is relevant. Articles like this one accept the principle used to drive figures like the 2% one, and in doing so we'll never be able to see how big the problem actually is. This is a good roundup, but I think it lacks the real kicker in the argument against the feminist interpretation of false rape data. I worry that by accepting the principle that it is okay to in…
/r/MensRights12/01/13 09:00 PM
1

You make some excellent points but I have to raise concern with this--it cannot be a common instance as rape is HARD to prove in court and a prosecutor doing this would be wilfully putting his career at risk. I see this point a lot and it makes perfect sense, but I have a hard time agreeing with it because there are plenty examples where it just doesn't seem to hold true. The hard truth is that there have been false convictions on rape charges, and in those cases there can't possibly be hard evi…
/r/MensRights11/01/13 09:08 PM
2

Did you read what I wrote? I wasn't defending the decision, my point was that given the flawed assumptions, the chart is fine. Using that (flawed) data to juxtapose rapists with people falsely accused of rape wouldn't be a problem if the assumptions were okay. The problem was that they obviously weren't looking for a nuanced description of false allegations, or the number would be much higher and might also contain multiple classes.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 03:54 AM
2

Instead, we should be supporting the reality that it does happen, we don't know exactly how much but sometimes it does and sometimes the person on trial is not guilty, and therfore we must let the evidence lead the way. That's been tried, and the reason feminists started trotting out the 2% figure was in order to minimize concerns about false allegations and support reform to make prosecution easier, defense harder, and to lower the likelihood that someone would be tried and convicted of making …
/r/MensRights10/01/13 11:35 PM
4

The chart is consistent with 2% of accusations being false, and with the notion that unreported false allegations are of no importance. Assumptions are bad but at least that works. Interesting tidbit, though, the men on the chart get smaller as you go to the right, there's actually a visual effect to minimize things on the right side of the chart. That's sort of messed up.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 11:15 PM
2

That depends on the context. There's been coverage here of plenty of cases where the falsity of an accusation resulted from overzealous or even racist actions by prosecutors. That's still an MRA issue and it still reflects the same type of problems with how crimes of sexual assault are prosecuted by courts.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 11:08 PM
2

10-13% usually occurs when some allowances are made for unknowable cases, from what I've seen. In all cases, there are two important factors. One is that the number of "true" accusations is compared to the number of "false" ones. The other is that the same standard of proof is used for judging whether an accusation is false or true. Without the first, you either have to report an unknown category, or you seriously underestimate whatever you do report. For example, if the data said 50% true, 40% …
/r/MensRights09/01/13 03:07 PM
1

Were you the one who made the changes to the chart? I have zero photoshop skills but I'd be happy to help hunt numbers for an updated one.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:41 PM
1

The problem with this is that the same lack of attention paid to the falsely accused carries over to the recoloring. False accusations don't come from the pool of rapists, they come from elsewhere, and to be fair they ought to show up at the reporting stage. The answer to "how many reported rapes are false ones?" is a tough question, but it's high. Much higher than people are willing to believe. Pierce Harlan occasionaly goes over this in his blog, but the number one biggest factor hiding the pr…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 02:58 PM
4

That article (the one in the huffington post website) has to be one of the worst collections of "facts" I've ever seen. In 30-31, the author asserts that 10% of inmates are raped, a figure that rises 15x (to a supposed 150%) when the inmate is LGBT. I'm not sure what kind of ignorance it takes to allow oneself to believe two so obviously contradictory facts, but apparently that's not all too uncommon.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 01:43 AM
1

The crazy woman thinks that Newtons laws were rapey and masculine because they involve movement of 'rigid' solid object and thought that fluid mechanics were underrepresented in physics because women menstruate. What she fails to grasp is the fluid mechanics are insanely complicated, relative to Newtonian physics that is. I read this anecdote years ago, and I believe it originated from a hoax paper that was submitted to a journal of "alternative" physics to make the publishers look like idiots. …
/r/MensRights20/12/12 07:50 AM
–

That's not even close to the truth. The most common type of protein is whey, which is essentially evaporated milk that gets separated from the fat and casein through a relatively simple process. With the amount of carbs and sugar in our diets today, there aren't many people (especially athletes) who wouldn't be better off supplementing protein than not doing so.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 07:51 AM
–

I'm really not impressed that the article factored using protein supplements under "unhealthy behaviors."
/r/MensRights20/11/12 07:22 AM
5

I don't think it matters. If it's a purely social thing, then enforcing arbitrary divisions is silly. If it's more innate (albeit with significant variation between individuals) there's still no sense in teaching it as a hard and fast rule.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 07:43 AM
2

Just so you know, MRA proposals for LPS would not have applied to someone who left after already agreeing to be the parent of a child.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 06:05 AM
1

Unfortunately, slander laws don't work that way. It's not slander if it's true, and in civil court the statement would be judged on a much lower standard of evidence than it would be in criminal court.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 03:43 AM
1

This is true. There's the very real concern that if enough people vote for a third candidate, they won't be able to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and might actually contribute to having their least ideal politician win. Canada has often had that problem.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 05:36 AM
3

This is exactly it. The antisrs appeared after a week where almost every day there were at least two threads created by SRS users who linked them to one or more of their subreddits and invited a giant downvote brigade.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 08:50 PM
-5

Actually no, it won't.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 02:39 AM
–

I don't have much sympathy for people who find themselves banned for explicitly breaking subreddit rules. Saying "feminists are shit" on r/feminism will get you banned, especially if you respond to a warning with a personal attack. It's possible to express those same ideas there without attracting a ban, and it's within the rights of a subreddit's moderators to demand a more respectful environment. If the mods here wanted, they could ban people for saying "MRAs are sexists" too.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 09:03 AM
1

Interesting, this definitely contradicts the "history of programming" I got during first year CS courses.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:09 AM
2

To be clear, she is credited with developing algorithms and programs that would have worked had Babbage been successful at building the computer he theorized about. She is technically responsible for the first computer program, though the machine it was written for never existed. While this particular accomplishment is of value mostly for esoteric reasons (and pales in comparison to the useful things she actually did), it gets repeated a lot because it's the earliest example of computer science,…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:03 AM
1

There's also FIRE. While it's not an explicitly MRA group they do come out on our side of education issues most of the time.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 10:23 PM
2

Except there isn't a 20% suicide rate and a 20% death in the army rate. The vast majority of people die of natural causes. The five-year gap is not explained away by suicide and accidental death.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 05:56 AM
5

You're right, but even with honest researchers you can't measure discrimination in a way that would give you a gap. The best you can do is try to account for more and more things and leave the unexplained amount as small as possible. It is telling, though, that so much focus is placed on the wage gap. There actually is virtually undeniable evidence that many employers really do discriminate against women, whether in hiring or salaries, in cases where subjectivity plays a big role. Showing case s…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 03:28 AM
8

I'm going to guess that AVFM was blocked because too many people were posting links to it, inappropriately. I doubt they require many infractions to blacklist a site that, by definition, isn't allowable as a source. If someone cared to try, they could probably spam links to freethoughtblogs until it was banned, too.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 02:53 AM
2

It's okay. When the SRSers are out in force it's pretty terrible (like now), but normally there's some legitimately insightful stuff.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 06:06 AM
9

At least it's in Canada. We don't have at-will employment, so he could certainly press charges against his employer for this. If there's any evidence that this is a result of some anonymous "tips", he could see a serious payout.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 04:15 AM
3

I really agree with this comment. OP should consider apologizing for hitting it so aggressively, then maybe offering a clearer explanation for his ideas. It's not hard to explain that provided men and women have equal responsibility in making a fetus, only one gender will ever be able to stop it from becoming a baby.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 03:02 AM
1

Thanks for the link, I had no idea the numbers actually looked like that.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 12:00 AM
–

I mean, most male rapes happen in prison, so there's this "criminals deserve that we don't care" attitude, but my guess is that if female prisons would have the same rape statistics, it would be a huge scandal all over the world and something would be done about that very fast. Few things. First off, the idea that most male rapes happen in prison is dubious. It's the result of a mishmash of two different surveying methods that don't behave similarly, and a definition of rape that specifies penet…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 05:45 PM
2

It suffers more from being taken in one place (probably one major, only psych students have to do these for credit where I am) than it does from a small sample.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:28 AM
3

Pretty sure that I'd want my wife to use my extension cord, if you know what I mean.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 02:20 AM
5

Fun fact, she's trying to get together with Adrian Chen (remember the "do mensrights next" tweet following the jailbait takedown) and run a panel at a pretty popular conference for the sole purpose of bashing reddit and r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 12:29 AM
10

It's fake because it's posted to one of Triond's shell sites. For those who don't know, Triond is a pay-per-view system where users write articles that get automatically posted to various sites that have been dressed up to look like news or blog webpages. Users are known to write provocative or blatantly false news posts to get views, and aren't above posting them to sites like reddit to make that happen.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 03:51 PM
2

It's a mainstream conference, but several known anti-MRA posters have joined up to form a panel proposal to bash reddit, its users, and almost certainly various MRA subreddits. Adrian Chen is best known for his tweet calling reddit admins to take down /r/Mensrights after the jailbait takedowns. Watson is best known for "elevatorgate", which is pretty easy to find if you look it up.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 05:33 AM
–

It is a really sad story about a woman suffering from pretty severe mental/emotional instability. Typical Jezebel, of course.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:02 PM
1

I wasn't suggesting that this was an accurate viewpoint, I was making an attempt to explain it. People see white men making laws and passing judgments in court, but they don't see the lobbying and pandering to special interest groups that happens in the background.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 11:05 PM
2

Don't blur the line between stats and her own experiences. If she's getting emotional and talking about her fear, that's a good sign that you should talk about something else, because continuing with it will give the impression that emotional outbursts are the kind of reaction you expect and maybe even want when these things get brought up. If you want to have a rational conversation, don't let yourself settle for a shouting match. If she complains about being propositioned so much, responding w…
/r/MensRights10/08/12 07:49 AM
–

Nice roundup, kind of crazy how much these people are willing to do when it's all logged and viewable by anyone with an interest to look in to it.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 12:12 AM
1

Get over yourself. Most men have other, better, things to do that sit on a train fantasizing about you.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 06:04 AM
2

There's a difference between choosing your own precautions and vilifying men. You aren't asking men who don't engage in that behavior to answer for it, and you aren't asking for special treatment. FYI, though, most guys have a little more class than to stare at the person sitting next to them.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 05:39 AM
–

Bullshit. I got banned from SRD for making a post to a different subreddit suggesting that safe spaces weren't the best places for intelligent debate. It's just as much of a circle jerk as SRS itself.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 10:22 PM
1

A pay gap relating to “choices” is still totally in need of remediation. That's a moral standpoint, not a statistical or truth-based one. Gender roles have a large part in causing these gaps, so your argument shouldn't be against the notion that these things are problematic. Instead, you should be questioning what methods are appropriate to solve a choice gap, maybe pointing out that legislation isn't such a great one.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:59 PM
2

In an idealized genderless society, the only extra time an expectant mother would take off work would be a few months right before giving birth, and after that there'd be an equal or male-skewed split in the overall statistics. That's not something you should legislate, but then again, none of the solutions to a "choice gap" should involve legislation.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:57 PM
2

No. The fundamental assumption behind the theory of privilege (from a gender studies lens) is that there are a bunch of axes, and that each axis has a "bad side" and a "good side." As nuanced as intersectionality is supposed to sound, it really does come down to oppression olympics and that's a crappy way of thinking about gender. I believe in privileges, with an "s", and only that. This signifies the fact that there's no objective measure of how much better a privilege makes your life, and that…
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:06 AM
4

Sorry, but it is incredibly obvious that the thread in question was downvote brigaded. It's the same thing as when SRD drops 70 downvotes on anyone who mentions that a certain topic has been linked, but just on more posts.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 01:09 AM
10

Then you get arrested.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:20 AM
3

"The guilty mind." You could take all those situations, strip away the creepy first-person narrative, and they'd seem like anything but rape to anyone who wasn't an ardent feminist. That's because crime isn't just about the victim, it's also about the intentions of the person who caused them harm. A somewhat clueless person who escalated from making out in to having sex without realizing that their partner didn't feel capable of turning down their advances is not a criminal, even if what happene…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 06:23 AM
8

I agree that it's a touchy subject, but your position is a lot closer to the MRA one than any feminist I've talked to on reddit. Anyways, that's pretty much what we mean by LPS, glad I could clear that up.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 06:29 AM
7

The most common MR motivation is the case where biological parents disagree about what they want for the child. If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, LPS would allow him to decline being a parent, which would waive any of his rights to parenthood. The mother could choose abortion, adoption, or raising it on her own or with state assistance. If a mother didn't want to have an abortion but also didn't want to raise a child, she could use LPS to prevent the child's biological father…
/r/MensRights29/07/12 06:16 AM
4

LPS means Legal Paternal Surrender. The common proposal is a right (genderless) for an expecting parent to legally relinquish their rights and responsibilities to a child within a set time period, and the ability to apply this retroactively in case a parent was not notified of a pregnancy within the usual time period. It is essentially the concept of voluntary parenthood. It's often called "financial abortion" but that's not such a good name for it.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 06:02 AM
–

I find it somewhat telling that you immediately extrapolated his comment to apply to all women. Why not respond to the actual point, instead of zoning in on a specific issue that doesn't really describe the lion's share of false claims?
/r/MensRights29/07/12 01:52 AM
–

I don't have much to reply to, but this comment stuck out as being off, in a way. There are a LOT of comments on here like "All it takes is one woman who wants to ruin you to accuse you of rape," but the people who say things like that probably have no idea about how humiliating it is to do this. Someone who goes through and reports a false rape to police to have someone fucked over is a.) a really fucking good actor and b.) very, very damaged psychologically. It's easier to falsely accuse someo…
/r/MensRights28/07/12 11:50 PM
1

Became, not become. It suggests that because they got the house during the divorce, they ended up keeping it as personal property after the kids moved out.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:57 PM
4

That was an image from the "new" queue. It's kind of sad that posts complaining about the downvoting or the presence of MRAs get hundreds of upvotes while the actual content sits there gathering dust. It's almost as if the ones going to r/feminism to complain about MRAs had no interest in talking about feminism.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 09:33 PM
2

A false conviction doesn't necessitate a false report. In almost every story I've seen here and elsewhere, falsely convicted men were not named by their accusers, they were innocent people picked up by the cops for crimes that probably did occur. If you don't believe that, let's not forget how many of these cases also involved murder, a dead person can't falsely accuse someone of anything. These things certainly point to the same problems with the system, but only one kind really shows how much …
/r/MensRights21/07/12 03:38 AM
7

The reason why male birth control is the answer speaks to the need for an LPS system as is. Female birth control is already many times as effective as condom use, so effective that if it were used properly, an unplanned pregnancy would be a freak accident, not a widespread problem. The effectiveness of birth control has essentially been squandered, and one of the reasons is that for a significant portion of the population (the ones that wouldn't mind having a child, being a single mother with ch…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 01:14 AM
2

She was an attempting to argue that her estimates were so incredibly conservative that they ought to be believed without any actual data. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there was no doubt for the numbers (for example, I could probably say that at least 50% of childcare is done by women without sourcing it) but when the numbers were held out as something else entirely, that introduced a pretty big error.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:31 PM
4

Ah, the old "proof by making up numbers." It's interesting how she goes straight from a fictional example with fictional numbers right in to the "real" data without discarding any of the numbers used in the illustration. Either way, though, the fundamental assumptions of these computations are flawed, and even simple examples show this. By her calculations, a child living in a shared custody arrangement with 80% time with the mother and 20% time with the father is going to "contribute" four time…
/r/MensRights17/07/12 01:58 PM
2

Or sarcastic text.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 07:24 PM
1

You might be talking about /r/MRJournalsandStudies/, but it doesn't have any subscribers.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 12:02 AM
9

Even if we do challenge "women have it worse", what do they have to worry? It shouldn't matter who has it worse. It shouldn't matter, but the foundations of patriarchy/privilege theories don't work without that as an assumption.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 08:34 PM
–

The reason these "tactics" don't work, and will never work, is because these people can't even rationalize the existence of an MRA who genuinely knows what feminism is and doesn't like it. Also, it's funny that the proposed solution is to engage in oppression olympics even harder. Like that's ever worked.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 03:26 PM
–

Mostly False – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. This is a fair assessment of Obama's statement.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 07:52 PM
14

This is an important argument, because it puts the burden of proof back where it belongs. If we accept the type of argument for discrimination that we usually see, then we're accepting that it's okay to assign arbitrary explanations to things we don't understand. That's something you see in religion, not science.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 07:49 PM
6

This has actually been a widespread problem in similar studies. It's very easy to prove that things are correlated when you get to define one or both of those things yourself.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:33 PM
4

It might not be particularly insightful, but it's the truth. At the end of the day, she's getting six figures to make the same stuff she'd be making with six thousand or even zero. In terms of self-marketing, it's brilliant, but that isn't really a redeeming characteristic in terms of morals.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 11:40 PM
7

Red links are actually a good thing. They represent a request for a wikipedia page on the topic. That is literally the opposite of what this was submitted as.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 05:03 PM
1

This CDC report might help. It suggests gender parity in a whole bunch of criminal activities, and it also goes a little further in depth to what types of domestic violence we talk about.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 10:25 PM
1

I insisted that he not be involved since he clearly didn't want to be. I now feel guilty because I feel that he thinks that he's obligated to me. I don't know how to make him realize that I'm not in this for child support or to force him into a relationship. It's not that he thinks he's obligated to you, it's that he really is, even if you have no desire to ever hold him up to that obligation. The simple truth is that you're 19 and, if at any point in the next twenty years, you need financial as…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 05:44 AM
10

The guy's homeless and lawyers are not free.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 03:26 AM
–

He's not citing results of any type of research. All stories are anecdotal, and you can feel free to believe it or not. You could ask for a link to the forums, if you aren't convinced.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 02:51 AM
2

To me the "single with money" comment is eerily similar to extreme feminists stating that men are only good for breeding. In this case women are only good for what? Nothing? To suck your wallet dry. It's not that women are bad, it's that the default social "contract" you sign by associating yourself with one is bad.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:39 PM
3

This blog isn't the first of its kind. People have been talking about male genocide since before the internet was invented. The satire claim could be made, of course, but that doesn't really make sense if you account for private forums like radfem hub where people talk about it amongst themselves without really catering to outside viewers.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 11:40 PM
4

It's satire of the MRM Can't be, this shit was around long before the MRM was.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 09:45 PM
2

It's not really good business to use a pay raise as a means of rewarding someone who covers for a missing employee. The last company I worked for gave bonuses to departments who could cover for an employee on leave so that we didn't have to hire temporary help, and I think that this was probably a better idea.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 02:19 PM
–

Misleading title, much? The article said nothing about feminists, at all.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 01:01 PM
3

Laws are pretty fair, but behavior of prosecutors, judges and juries doesn't tend to be that way. Never assume that fair laws lead to fair outcomes.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 03:19 AM
1

Your claim was too strong for the data you have or even claim to have. There's a distinction between impossible and unlikely, and there's a big distinction between codified law and policy and general rules of thumb.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 12:17 AM
4

Usually, you can answer all of those questions within the criminal legal framework of actus reus and mens rea. The action is always the same, namely having sex with someone who does not consent to the act. The mens rea is a little more complicated, but unmodified it would require that the perpetratory committed the act knowingly. That is, knowing there was no consent, but not necessarily having to know what they did was illegal. There are two common modifications, often in place by statute. One …
/r/MensRights20/05/12 11:46 PM
1

It's not necessarily false, just unlikely. The legal framework is there, and you can't claim to know the motivations and proclivities of every single judge, prosecutor and jury in the country.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 11:35 PM
16

The amount of abuse by women dropped as well. The wikipedia article doesn't mention it, but it also avoids a direct lie by couching it between two points that do include a "but not for men" result.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 05:11 AM
39

Fulltext of the study. Intersting to note that its figures suggest gender parity (or close to it) in all measures of domestic violence, spousal murder, and murder of family members. Examining the results of figure four suggests that the wikipedia source was somewhat misleading. No-fault divorce appears to affect men and women in similar ways. It is related to a statistically significant decline in female on male abuse as well as male on female abuse. The other two statistics cited in the wikiped…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 05:10 AM
4

It's interesting to note that the only mention of those children's mothers was in what they received in the way of child support. At some point, one has to wonder what these eleven women are doing having kids with a guy they know has no ability to support them.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 06:20 AM
5

I don't like manboobz, but if someone wants to read that crap on their iphone, no corporation or government should prevent them from doing so.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 12:03 AM
1

Actually, it is. When a bill like VAWA is passed, it doesn't include step-by-step instructions for the actual policies that will come to be. The section I linked includes enough text affirming that the Attorney General defines the limitations on evidence, and they do so in accordance to whatever litterature is made available to them. They are instructed to use "any credible evidence", but this term is defined outside of VAWA. This document sources the term "any credible evidence" as including: T…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 07:21 AM
1

You'll need to look under section 6, subtitle C. Section 1503-1506 of this reathorization describes most of the policy. A lot of what counts as credible evidence is left to discretion, but it's worth nothing that the text of intent for section 6 includes the goal of prosecuting all claims of domestic violence from immigrant women. It is within the court's power to order an arrest and prosecution based on a claim filed by someone seeking immigration protection alone. In simple terms, there's no s…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 06:18 AM
1

I've read VAWA (it's disgustingly long) but the crux of the matter is that you can't get that visa unless the abuse allegation is in the system. That means that a court capable of enacting sanctions against the accused has to be weighing the case, which is then weighed separately on a lower standard to determine whether the visa will be granted. Unfortunately, accusations of spousal abuse are not criminal allegations in the usual way. Restraining orders can be granted without the knowledge of th…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 05:44 AM
5

That's my point. I want to be able to, but I can't because the only candidates who've expressed even the slightest affinity to men's rights are those who have very little to lose by pissing off feminist groups and are sometimes legitimately against women's rights.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:56 PM
–

It sucks that for MRA concerns to end up getting through the house, they had to be combined with pandering to overly conservative values. This is a start, but it's not good that MRA is becoming too closely associated with right wing politics. I want to be able to vote for representatives who support men's rights and who are pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage, etc.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 09:53 PM
7

Insurers will no longer be allowed to charge women higher premius... But they will be required to provide them with more services.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 10:06 PM
6

It sounds like you were hearing about this study, which has become a fairly heavily cited piece by MRAs because of its implications and the nature by which its conclusions were presented. TLDR about whatever discussion you were reading, because they're almost all the same: Report classifies most male rapes as "forced to penetrate" and puts them under "other sexual violence", hiding the data from the abstract and press release and allowing only men who were penetrated against their will to count …
/r/MensRights14/05/12 05:44 AM
1

Indeed, but those variables aren't hidden, just not very measurable.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 04:41 AM
1

Unfortunately, this blog uses a mathematically invalid and ultimately dishonest comparison. Here's a symbolic representation of the error. There are X women working full time and Y men working full time. We know that if EX are the total earnings of these women and EY are the total earnings of these men, (EX/X)/(EY/Y) = 0.77. Let HX and HY be the total number of hours worked by these men and these women. Unfortunately, we don't know (based on the source) if HX/HY = 0.44/0.56 because we don't know…
/r/MensRights12/05/12 03:38 AM
1

It's not just education and hours worked. You'd have to consider experience, time spent in the workforce, quality of degree (men's representation is more close to parity in higher ranked universities), hours worked (which could account for a half of that 20% by itself, considering that hours worked have a higher order impact on earnings than linear), relocation and travel requirements, extended leave taken, etc. if you wanted to conclude that there's part of the pay gap that can't be attributed …
/r/MensRights12/05/12 03:25 AM
1

The standard of guilt is "innocent until proven guilty." The fear that a rape victim would stand trial for making a false report is not necessarily substantiated, because there would have to be fairly convincing evidence before it even went to trial.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 02:14 AM
1

It's also worth considering the fact that unmarried men don't face that problem.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 01:06 AM
3

Vancouver wasn't the only city to run similar campaigns. In fact, they didn't work in Edmonton but we rarely see that fact cited along with this one. Selective reporting at work.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 01:50 AM
1

The survey methodology involved asking about people's experiences. None of the questions included the word "rape". False positives probably came more from phrases like "when you didn't want to" than anything else.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 02:14 PM
6

I agree, in a sense, that he's being singled out more because he's a male here, but it's worth noting that plenty of people will assert that almost all suicide as selfish provided someone has emotional dependents. That does often extend to women.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 05:32 AM
0

Gotta love the stars under Male Rape as if it doesn't exist. It's like a scientist with fingers in his ears going NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE Here's some perspective. If the researchers and scientists wanted the data out of the report, it would be out of the report and you wouldn't get to see it, period. The only reason it's in there is because the people who write the report (not the people who read the abstracts, make funding decisions, and write press releases) wanted to publish all of their findings…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 09:05 PM
1

Headline was a double quote. The author of the article got a few (unnecessarily) obligatory feminists to comment and quoted them. Definitely a fallacy, but luckily it's a pretty obvious one.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 11:08 PM
1

I don't think the quote this was submitted under was fair. The writer was pretty objective, and anything questionable in the article was enclosed in quotes. No synthesis, no sweeping statements about the men's movement. This is the right kind of press.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 11:03 PM
–

As soon as I did this I lost 30 friends immediately. I woke up to literally 12 angry messages about what a chauvinist pig I am and this is why I'm single, yada yada yada. 30 friends or 30 facebook friends? Real friends wouldn't ditch you for calling someone out like that.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 05:33 PM
2

This wasn't a false rape claim, it was a witch hunt conducted by state prosecutors. A woman was raped and murdered, and there really is a murderer and a rapist who went unpunished.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 11:48 PM
1

If this trend is the cause of "the pay gap" then why do we feel we need to do something to correct it? It depends on what you want to do to correct it. If the answer is affirmative action or discrimination against men or unmarried individuals or people who don't want children, that's not justifiable. If the proposed solution is to use non-discriminatory methods and activism to question gender roles, then that's fine. It's a matter of fitting the type of solution to the type of problem. Also pare…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 08:07 PM
–

It was meant as a simplistic example, as I know others are reading and probably don't understand, thus I'm trying to explain in laymen's terms as we go along. In layman's terms, the best I can do is call it misinformation. If you're trying to teach people how to understand studies, all you really need to say is that a sample size of 10000 is good enough for national estimations, 1000 should be convincing, and at 100 you start asking questions about why the sample was so small. You gave an exampl…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 07:07 PM
–

But seriously, I've done similar studies - I've a heavy background in statistical analysis, and could probably code a Bayesian filter and a Monte Carlo simulation in my sleep. Let me brush my shoulders off, as the kids these days might say. To put it another way, if I randomly sample 1% of the American population to determine the average person's income, my baseline statistics are determined by compiling the existing data. From that 1% I determine that the average person's income is $43k/yr with…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 05:28 PM
–

I would argue that 1% is barely enough to ensure a high confidence interval with an acceptable margin of error. You could certainly propose this, but as a mathematician who's studied statistics fairly extensively, I can tell you right now that you're objectively wrong. The proportion of the population sampled is virtually meaningless, what matters is the actual number of people. This is because we consider an attribute of the population. Suppose we ask n people to report their income, and we fin…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 05:02 PM
–

I do know this, but what you're saying isn't really correct. 1% of the US population is 3 million people. You can be very confident in any type of data you take about the poulation with a sample size that large. For yes/no questions, ten thousand people will usually suffice. With three million you could come within a few hundred dollars of the national average income and be 95-99% sure that this is the case.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 03:36 PM
2

Random surveys produce qualitative results, as they're asking a subset of the population for their opinions, and then abstracting out generalizations that can then be tested against stronger, more qualitative methodologies and metrics. You should consider clarifying this. Random sampling is the best way of getting data about the population as a whole, short of asking every single person. What people often call random surveying is usually not random at all, and I think you mean "quantitative" in …
/r/MensRights19/04/12 02:38 PM
5

The resounding response was "he made the choice to have sex so he has to deal with the consequences." This one comes up everywhere. Luckily, there are great responses to it, particularly noting that it's what you'd call a vacuous argument. It supports whatever the status quo is. There aren't many proposals that you couldn't back up with that argument.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 05:47 AM
3

Even without that, in the very long run men should just move away from companies that don't offer them a fair share of benefits, and move away from or refuse to work long hours or difficult jobs in countries that don't offer them a fair share of government benefits. I doubt the company in question could get by with doubling salaries, but this is what will occur when it starts to attract too many women and not enough men.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 07:11 PM
-2

There's something to be said for discerning between ignorance and malice, though.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 04:20 AM
4

I dug down to find the source of the 138,095 figure. Those jobs are housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, CEO and psychologist. Mom cooks dinner? Professional chef. Mom checks email? IT department. Mom makes decision about signing daughter up for pottery class? CEO. Mom soothes crying kid after he fails a math test? Clearly, she must be compensated like someone who has a PHD in psychology. This is simply …
/r/MensRights15/04/12 03:20 PM
2

Rape, as a crime, doesn't exist in Canada, it's always called sexual assault.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 03:12 PM
19

Do we have any acutal evidence that Reddit really was subpoenaed?
/r/MensRights12/04/12 06:00 PM
4

A few potential issues. In cases where "refused to wear a condom" is cited, it's not fair to liken it to spermjacking by any means, because the purported victim can simply not consent to sex. The right response to "no sex if there's a condom" is "fine, no sex," rather than going with it and then feeling sorry for yourself after the fact. Even if you forget about that, there's still an estimated 8 million men and 2 million women who have their partners use other means to attempt to force concepti…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 04:38 PM
6

I'm pro gay-marriage and I think I can speak for a fair number of MRAs when I say I'd prefer gender-neutral courts with respect to divorce law. If it's too hard for judges to apply gender-neutral laws to gay couples, maybe the problem is that the judes or the policies really are sexist, just couched in egalitarian terminogy.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 07:00 AM
3

The right to cross-examine a witness can't be denied because it might make the witness feel bad. What you're suggesting is, legally speaking, close to preventing that from happening, unless we relax the notion that someone's advocate should never be allowed more rights than the person they're speaking and acting for.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 01:08 AM
1

Here's a precedent case in the UK. It really does look like the accused was guilty, here, but the precedent is that past accusations can be brought back, even if there was an acquittal.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 12:56 AM
1

Typhonblue is mentioning a case where evidence of a past accusation, for which the defendant was not convicted, was admitted in a trial years later as evidence.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 12:30 AM
2

I think this right has to stay because it would be unacceptable if your defense didn't have the right to confront your accuser. In the court, your legal attourney is essentially your voice, so a law that required a middle man would be a huge precedent that might lead in the wrong direction.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 12:26 AM
1

No, you are not. Men who can't see their rapists face an injustice, but it is not equivalent to that faced by the falsely accused. The cornerstone of our justice system is that it must not punish the innocent, and when universities make attempts at their own versions of the same, they should be held to a similar standard. In short, there's no such thhing as a less-than-palatable conviction rate if fixing it means punishing the innocent along with the guilty. The only acceptable improvements shou…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 12:19 AM
1

When the laws prevent potentially exculpatory evidence to be presented by the defense, then there is no possible way to make the decision that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is blatantly false. There are types of evidence that are good enough to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. The type of evidence that gets excluded could certainly make the difference in cases where you aren't sure what happened, but when you do know, you should convict.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 11:39 PM
1

Jury nullification works for punishable offenses. Jury-nullifying rape is a bad idea, but it's not so bad to do it in cases where specific statutes demand that despite arriving at a fair account of what happened, an unfair punishment will be meted out. If a guy is going to be convicted of statutory rape after being deceived about the supposed victim's age but lives in a state with strict liability, jury nullification would work. Likewise, a jury can refuse to convict someone despite convincing e…
/r/MensRights11/04/12 06:51 PM
3

That's interesting. The perception I had from reading these articles now was that Elam's writing was getting more extreme. The truth is that it's the exact opposite. His newer articles are better and more suited for a mainstream site. That said, if he still holds these opinions (ie, would write again) the fact that the article is old doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 06:42 PM
2

Thanks for clarifying, I usually expect blog links to be new.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 01:51 PM
3

Going in to it with a MRA background is fine if it means demanding more evidence than testimony, erring on the side of caution and telling other jurors to remember "innocent until guilty" still applies. Acquitting regardless is just plain wrong. EDIT - my bad about when it was posted.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 01:09 PM
2

I'm also in academics right now, and no university would treat a grad student this way. At worst, they'd be annoyed that their own name got involved somehow, but I doubt disciplinary action would ever be considered.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 03:40 AM
5

AVFM is bigger than Paul Elam now, and I think that makes him responsible for more than just his own words, whether he likes it or not. Yes he can say that everything he writes his personal opinion, but the fact is that it reflects on the other writers at AVFM and the men's rights movement as a whole. I think he should focus more on being a voice of reason and setting attainable goals than on trying to piss feminists off, fun as that may be.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 05:01 AM
–

If men had the legal power to screw women as hard as women screw men now, and if men could do so without taking a massive social beating for it, I would expect similar results. That's not to say that the individuals aren't to blame, just that we can't expect people to behave well when they're favored by laws that give them an unreasonable amount of power. MRAs should be focusing on bad laws, not bad women. The latter are useful only to find and expose flaws in the system.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 07:56 PM
–

From the article: Mark filed his own docs soon after, claiming the reason he paid less is because one of his sons now lives with him ... and Blount personally pays for his schooling. Mark now wants the support order modified given the new living arrangements. She's doing half the work and paying less than half the costs, and she still feels entitled to five thousand a month.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 04:42 PM
–

It says in the article that both parents now have one child living with them, and that the man in question is already paying for schooling. They have 50/50 custody of their children, he's already paying more than half. This guy shouldn't be owing any child support right now, much less 30 grand a year.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 04:41 PM
3

The post was a reflection of MRAs most paranoid fantasies. People were hesitant to believe you, but the fact is that it actually does happen, and when it does the articles tend to cross r/MR. Here and here are the two artciles about the most recent one to hit the press. It isn't common, the chances of it happening to an individual male are excessively low, but it's hardly a paranoid fantasy.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 03:52 PM
3

No, my methodology was not flawed. It did exactly what I thought it would. Get MRAs to admit that they think hitting women is ok. You realize that even saying this shows just how sexist you're being, here? Violence is violence, and the fact that you keep including "against women" shows that you think hurting a woman is somehow worse than hurting a man. Worse, you make a blatantly false claim about what MRAs think. The question people were discussing in the thread was whether or not it was self-d…
/r/MensRights08/04/12 03:41 PM
2

I agree, but unfortunately "to do" seems to pervade public discourse on the subject, and the (more public) side of feminism concerned with rape awareness doesn't seem interested on giving it up any time soon, even if it's degrading to women.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 12:10 AM
–

How often do we see talk about whether or not a male is enthusiastically consenting, though? When I see enthusiastic consent brought up, it's always framed as "now you don't just need consent to do sex to her, it has to be enthusiastic." Which is just more of the same traditionalist view on sex, except now we shouldn't expect women to make their intentions clear.
/r/MensRights07/04/12 03:39 PM
1

We should not, however, come up with our own interpretation of the raw data and own numbers. For even if they are good, they will not make for a good argument in any political discussion. I agree that reinterpreting data in this fashion is not an effective means of arguing, but it's also worth noting that mild reinterpretations provide perfectly reasonable talking points. A good example would be to point out how the CDC report on intimate partner violence improperly classified female on male rap…
/r/MensRights06/04/12 03:11 PM
4

I wouldn't say that Sweden is particularly good at it. Yes, they've realized that gender roles are bad, but they also have a bone to pick with traditionally masculine traits. Until their society can start to accept that when left to their own devices, boys might actually want to do the same kinds of things they always have, they aren't really against gender roles in general, just the more prevalent ones.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 03:37 PM
–

The quote you posted was not part of the study's direct findings, but figures that were argued based on some data analysis. The actual data analysis found that 8% or 216 of the 2643 cases were classified as false allegations. The researchers took 144 of these cases and, based on methodology that was not presented to us, classified them as probable, possible and questionable, then threw out all but the most likely and used that portion to classify the remaining 72 cases. After this, they found th…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 10:32 PM
1

Applying the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to statistics is a bad idea. Ideally, everything should be classified based on a balance of probabilities, because in the end you're either making assumptions about the unclear data, or making an educated and systematic guess.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 09:39 PM
2

There are a lot of good heuristics for dealing with stats from studies, but in general, if there's a significant problem with a study performed by a group containing at least one statistician, the problem is not going to be caused by random error. It's also not best practices to use only one standard deviation. Two gives you a 95% chance that the real number lies in the relevant range, three gives 99.7. If you have a study with 10000 people, for instance, you can be 99.7% sure that whatever prop…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 09:37 PM
2

I think there's a simpler problem with these kinds of arguments, in that they fail to recognize the end of a relationship as a possibility. As long as there's nothing wrong with a man making his participation in a relationship contingent on sex, this "entitlement" people keep talking about is simply a matter of expectations. It sounds wrong to vilify a woman for saying "no", but it doesn't seem so bad to vilify dishonesty, manipulation, or simply building up false expectations of what a relation…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 03:03 AM
2

Exactly. The problem here was that the police, prosecutors, and jury all helped find these men guilty when they were really innocent. You don't need a malicious false accuser for a miscarriage of justice.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:36 AM
1

There was a case in MR a while ago about someone released after being wrongfully imprisoned for rape, but denied help because his release didn't meet the right criteria. I think there needs to be some sort of "second level" of exoneration in most places.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:34 AM
1

The people who should be held accountable are the ones responsible for giving an eleven year old the power to incarcerate someone. There are reasons we treat crimes differently when they're committed by children, and a rape lie is no exception. If it were caught at the time, I would be all for throwing the book at her, but any punishment now is worthless as a deterrent, worthless in a correctional sense, and damaging to the fate of anyone currently convicted based on false testimony. Refusing to…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:28 AM
–

For some reason this story has appeared four or five times on r/MR in the past few days, and the people submitting it don't seem to get that the crime was committed by an eleven-year old. There might be an argument to be made that she became guilty as an adult when she got older and didn't recant, but it certainly isn't easy for an adult to put themselves in that position, and I agree with the court's decision not to prosecute. The problem is that people still don't think children would lie abou…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 04:26 PM
4

Yeah, I just replied to a This. post with a This. post.
/r/MensRights01/04/12 09:18 PM
–

This. I can get behind the OP's message, but not the means to deliver it.
/r/MensRights01/04/12 12:44 PM
0

If you're so close-minded that the only way you can possibly come to terms with someone saying the things I'm saying is that there must be trolling involved, you really have no intellectual grounding by which you can make that assertion.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 02:30 AM
-1

Your argument says nothing. It's an article on a website that has a female target audience, and all you're doing is suggesting that places that are bad for everyone are also bad for women. Your premise doesn't justify the conclusion you seem to want to reach, and if you need me to explain why this is completely different than a global gender gap report you should probably go read the latter, again. Next time I want to invent some sexism where none exists, I'll be sure to remember my "imagination…
/r/MensRights29/03/12 01:53 PM
2

Don't know why, but this comment just gave me the image of the "national geographic woman" (you know the one) on the cover of a cosmo.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 02:58 AM
–

Pretty much this. Nothing there was about women being advantaged at the expense of men, it was pretty much just a list of statistics suggesting that women in those states might be healthier/happier/wealthier than women in other states.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 02:44 AM
3

Sure, maybe a man would have been convicted in her place, and it would have been wrong for it to have happened.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 02:34 AM
2

Few things. Dictionary patriarchy is not feminist patriarchy. Dictionary privilege is not feminist privilege. This isn't contested or controversial, they'll tell you if you ask. Patriarchy is a little more subtle, but it's worth noting that the usual privilege theory denies the existence of female privilege in today's society, which is not something MRAs can get behind. Also, some historical fun facts. Women have been allowed to work for most of history. It was actually only a brief blip after t…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 07:18 AM
2

The numbers don't lie, but the people lie about the numbers. Here's an easy one. You can't call something a "wage" gap when it isn't normalized for hours worked, because the traditional or correct usage of the term wage refers to a rate of money for a unit of time. The real "wage" gap is much smaller because even among full-time workers, men put in more hours. There are plenty of other little quirks with how the income gap is reported, and some studies (yes, real studies) that remove variables l…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 07:09 AM
1

There are also plenty of people who are informed but just don't care. I've seen plenty of arguments that we shouldn't factor in hours worked (which eliminates most of the wage gap) because men working longer hours is part of patriarchy theory and equates to discrimination against women. I mean, sure you can maintain academic credibility by taking on weaker and weaker positions (as in, making less assertions about the world) but if there's one thing academic feminism does well, it's presenting th…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 06:59 AM
4

I'm not sure it applies to off-duty cops unless it is clear that the perpetrator knew the victim was a police officer (it probably goes both ways in different places) in which case it could be construed as a hate crime if the intent and motive were there. Either way, my point was that distinguishing based on a profession in the public sector doesn't diminish the seriousness of violence against people who aren't in that specific position in the same way distinguishing based on gender does. I don'…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 06:37 AM
17

You should probably read up a little more before jumping to that conclusion. We know that MR has a PR problem and that even cherry-picked quotes were, at one point, written by people who visit and comment on posts here. Posting a short quip isn't going to motivate any more introspection than what happens almost weekly as is. Also, if you want fake internet points when posting something that goes against the grain of what most of a subreddit's users think, you've got to do a bit of thinking yours…
/r/MensRights25/03/12 06:33 AM
4

When it's penalized more to hit a cop, it becomes more acceptable to hit a non-cop. Agreed up until this point. There are good reasons to have specific laws dealing with crimes committed against individuals who are in the process of performing a service for the state. This might not be exactly what you're referring to, but I'm perfectly fine with having laws that apply a default presumption that murdering a police officer is premeditated, for example.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 05:55 AM
3

This is a good question. There's a difference between having to stand up for yourself and having to stand up to women.
/r/MensRights24/03/12 09:19 PM
1

First off, my comment was an illustration of how the law is, not necessarily how it ought to be. There are several legal principles in question. One is that you cannot make a contract to do something illegal or have something illegal done to you and that some types of contracts are, by statute, void or voidable. Contracts to provide sex, to have abortions, to cut off your arm, etc. are all either toothless or reversible at the discretion of the person agreeing to perform the act prohibited by co…
/r/MensRights23/03/12 10:41 PM
2

If I sign a contract saying that today you will pay me 5 dollars and in a year I will cut off my right arm, you can't bring me to court and make me cut off my arm. You might be able to get your 5 dollars back, but that depends on what the specific laws are, where you live.
/r/MensRights23/03/12 11:57 AM
2

When I read the OP I wasn't sure what would make a good topic, but this really stands out as something measurable, researchable and profound. There are also plenty of examples available if you want to look at how resources are marketed and distributed.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 01:31 AM
2

The message that a passed out person can't consent to sex is a good one. Asking people not to be "that guy" is going too far, because of the implication it holds. "That guy" is the guy everyone knows, the guy who does something socially unacceptable and is usually unapologetic. You use the term when you want people to say "oh I know someone who does that." There's a reason it would sound wierd to say something like "Murder is wrong. Don't be that guy." The same holds for rape.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 10:06 PM
5

This. I'm glad FIRE got a reference. They're a legitimately MR-oriented advocacy group (in their jurisdiction, of course) and seeing them in more mainstream publications is great.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 04:05 AM
32

It's an opinion piece by Wendy Murphy. She's been featured on r/MR before for writing some excessively close-minded and anti-male pieces.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 10:27 PM
5

I would love to see them have at it, too. I just wanted to be clear about what was legal and what wasn't legal. We can't sue for the subreddit's sake, but the sites that were also targeted can certainly bring a case up in court.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 11:21 PM
3

Yes. I know the owners of FRS are lawyers who use their names when posting articles. They would have a reasonable claim against SPLC if they chose to go after them, but that's not an easy battle to fight.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 10:10 PM
4

You can't sue someone in tort law unless you can prove you suffered damages as a result of something they said. The only people who could make that case would be the reddit admins, really.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 09:55 PM
1

Do you think women can stand up for themselves? Yes, I'm convinced they can. But I think it's more effective for girls to work together for change rather than every individual girl having to resolve power-structural issues. Interesting how she uses "girls" to respond to a question about women.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 04:34 PM
12

Pretty simple stuff. I had some great high school teachers who held open-floor classes in english and philosophy. Most of my classmates were pretty feminist/socialist leaning in discussions, so the few of us who went the other way got to explore a lot of arguments and develop our own opinions on things. I've always believed that feminism is not a set of principles someone will reach through their own introspection on philosophy, politics, and society. I discovered the MRM when I decided to googl…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 06:15 AM
10

You can't shake off a reputation people want you to have without completely removing any and all traces of evidence supporting that reputation. We'd have to ban half of the posters here and add disclaimers to every argument to make sure something couldn't be taken out of context. It's the definition of "not worth it."
/r/MensRights04/03/12 07:58 PM
2

"There are no accidents" seems to be relevant here.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 11:10 PM
3

If someone disagrees with you, your default assumption shouldn't be that their reasoning is based on the dumbest notion you can think of. As we both know, government-supplied aid is paid for by taxes. People who choose not to work are not forced to do so in order for the government to collect tax money. The only forms of forced labour in most places are either part of the the prison system or part of the child support industry and imputed income.
/r/MensRights02/03/12 03:18 AM
2

That's completely false. You're confusing the inclusion of something in the government budget with the (not equivalent) notion of making an individual person liable for an expense. In my city, I have a right to government-supplied recycling containers so that I can use them to recycle. Not everyone takes advantage of this offer, but in my home we use these free plastic boxes to recycle things. I don't have the right to force someone to pay for them, nor can I force anyone to work for me. That is…
/r/MensRights01/03/12 11:27 PM
2

Women should pay for their own contraceptives, and men should also be forced to pay for their own contraceptives. If we (MRAs) want women to be responsible for the consequences of failing to use contraceptives, they should be available for use. The simple fact here is that female birth control is expensive, but vastly superior to anything but infertility (including surgical infertility) in terms of effectiveness. In fact, it's so far superior that if a woman were to get pregnant despite having a…
/r/MensRights01/03/12 10:30 PM
4

The ability to engage in safe sex should be a right enjoyed by everyone in a modern society. Individuals with the freedom to use contraception can be justly assigned a responsibility to bear the consequences of their decisions with respect to contraception, which is a fundamental talking point in the MRA community. That is, if we want to assign responsibilities based on someone's ability to take advantage of contraception, we should support that person's right to access it. In fact, many strong …
/r/MensRights01/03/12 10:24 PM
2

Anyone can be insecure about their relationship when they think there might be someone else who can take their place. I'm also not sure where the quote comes from or in what context it was used, which is kind of necessary for any meaningful discussion.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 05:30 PM
1

There seems to be a bit of support for it, but there's a few very vocal people there who're very much "The system sucks, can't change it, not going to try". Folks on 2X are notorious for making "status quo" arguments. That is, arguments that, by their nature, support whatever system is currently in place. These types of arguments are not logically sound, but not everyone will understand their refutations. Specifically, you can demonstrate that these types of arguments could be used to support th…
/r/MensRights27/02/12 01:01 PM
3

I think that using words like "screwed over" hides what's actually happening in individual situations. When we talk about a man being screwed over, we're talking about a case where a man is forced in to fatherhood or financial liability against his will. In these cases, he had a minor say over which contraception was used (female birth control is leagues ahead of condoms in that respect) and absolutely no say in whether or not he would be liable for the accidental birth. When we talk about a wom…
/r/MensRights27/02/12 12:54 PM
2

What gets me about this individual case is how her motive for committing the crime of falsely accusing someone of assault is used as a defense for her actions. It's suggested that she "only" said it was rape because she was afraid of having her husband learn that she was cheating on him with a coworker. Well no shit she was only making a false accusation to relieve herself of personal responsibility, but that makes it worse, not better.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 02:27 AM
1

Canada's legal system is pretty iffy, but it still remains that it has a shockingly low crime rate when compared to its neighbor. For violent crimes like murder, rape, assault, robbery, you can be anywhere from twice to ten times as likely to be victimized as a citizen of the US than as one of Canada. As far as making up false stories... women are treated with kid gloves after making false allegations everywhere, I don't think it would be fair to anyone to suggest that this is a localized proble…
/r/MensRights25/02/12 02:22 AM
3

My concern would be for situations where both parties took all possible precautions and a pregnancy still occurred (ideally the only circumstances under which either of these things would need to be considered). If both people are doing all they can and there is still an unwanted pregnancy the options are very unbalanced between the sexes. Pregnancies rarely occur if both individuals are doing all they can to avoid it. Not rarely as in 1 in 100, rarely as in your average person won't have enough…
/r/MensRights22/02/12 07:07 AM
–

Voting for men hasn't done anything for men's rights. In present day, a woman can get away with advocating for men's rights to a greater extent than a man, so it's quite possible that the best political candidates who will actually support men's rights will include women.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 05:06 PM
1

Some of that is also attributable to the fact that rape rates have fallen drastically over the past twenty years or so, despite continued insistence that it's still an epidemic.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 11:57 PM
–

Hell hath no fury like a feminist trying to shame a female MRA.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 10:52 PM
4

The major problem is that she makes far more money than me, and even owns both our cars. I'm 23, she's 26, and she's done with college. I just graduated and I'm currently looking for a job, which isn't going well. I also have a mountain of student loans to deal with that she was helping me with. So basically, she's providing for you and you're worried that she'll stop providing for you after your divorce? How the hell can you think she has every advantage in this situation? You have less money a…
/r/MensRights12/02/12 04:23 PM
3

Same here, anyone know what the deal is?
/r/MensRights07/02/12 04:21 PM
4

Came here to post something like this. If they really do provide most of their aid to fathers in that situation that's good to know, but it doesn't mean the organization should be supported.
/r/MensRights05/02/12 06:51 AM
–

I think Skyrim does a pretty decent job at throwing both genders at you. Then again, that's the only hack-ey game I've played lately so I can't say that it's the norm or anything.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 05:33 AM
5

In the purest, simplest mathematical way, veganism can't be the best diet because someone who is okay with eating animal byproducts and meat is also okay with eating everything a vegan eats. If there was a theoretical optimal diet for someone, it is certainly included in "eats everything" but cannot be proven to be included in veganism. Personally, I tend towards an almost entirely vegan diet, except I eat egg whites, some cheese, and lean meat for protein and vitamins. I have yet to be convince…
/r/MensRights02/02/12 02:58 AM
8

If other students in the class feel the same as you do, it can be done while the course is in progress, as well. I'm in a mathematics department, but there have been a couple cases where groups of students petitioned to have the instructor of a course changed out in the first few weeks of lectures. If enough students are bothered by unrelated material, excessive vegan bias, etc. you could get something done.
/r/MensRights02/02/12 02:53 AM
3

Have a presentation about violence against men using examples from movies, television and the internet to demonstrate how violence against men is "funny" and/or "justified" while violence against women is "horrific." Sitcoms would be your best bet. Laugh track every time a guy gets hit, almost without fail.
/r/MensRights31/01/12 06:33 AM
2

This is pretty much what the issue is. I know some people think of some sort of feminist ideal world where breasts are entirely nonsexual, but honestly most women aren't sitting around wishing they could bust them out in the streets.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 05:55 AM
5

Fix wasn't really the right word. Point is, apparently boys doing better in school than girls was so bad, they had to implement a system that would stunt everyone's growth and amplify class differences in the results of education. This might be the clearest example of privileged feminist thinking I've seen.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 05:20 PM
–

The title is misleading. Girls do better with the old way too, it's just that the new way hurts girls less. The fact that our education system is willing to harm the development of all children to fix a gender gap is troubling, at best.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 04:40 AM
-1

Now, I'm a circumcised 20 year old, who up until this point had no idea that there was anything better or worse to being circumcised. Once the question was in my head it bothered me quite alot and I felt the need to ask. What exactly are the differences between being circumcised and remaining uncircumcised? What Am I missing out on? Well first off, don't worry too much about it. Some people choose circumcision for themselves when they reach the right age to make that decision, so it's not all ba…
/r/MensRights27/01/12 12:52 PM
1

If the issue was brought to court there'd be evidence and a whole story to look at.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 09:15 PM
6

Yes, it's up there with the legislative ones, but the fact that we, as a society, still see women as unable to decide what's best for their bodies and still see men and boys as being in an inherent position to take advantage of women speaks to the root causes of a lot of the issues we face. Think about the disparity between the treatment of female and male statutory rape. A fourteen year old girl who had sex with an adult male is a victim, someone coerced in to having sex against their will and …
/r/MensRights22/01/12 07:58 PM
4

And of course, people still wonder why MRAs have a problem with feminism.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 12:48 PM
2

My reproductive organs beg to differ.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 02:20 AM
2

Posted a comment: “While they were fooling around, this young man told Sarah he wanted to “pop her cherry” and take the last vestige of her virginity. She reminded him that intercourse was off limits. But at one point, he suddenly straddled Sarah, grabbed her body, and slid his penis inside of her.” Rape, much? It got through moderation, too.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 02:17 AM
1

I don't really see the point of those ads. I mean, it's not like someone who's gonna assault somebody is really going to be swayed by a picture and some words. Only rapists are responsible for rape and regardless of their gender, they're shitty people and nothing is really gonna change that. These ads are better than the ones they used to post. While previous incarnations targeted men as rapists, these ones are starting to recognize that most men are not, in fact, rapists and that bystanders are…
/r/MensRights14/01/12 02:53 AM
–

You did have a bad attorney, and while that sucks, the only option you have now is to get rid of him/her and either appeal up the ladder on your own, or find the means to get a good lawyer. While you haven't posted and should not post specifics of your situation, for most people I'd say that their family is the best source of support when it comes to fighting a legal battle, but that varies. All that said, if you find a lawyer willing to work with pay contingent on winning, they might be less li…
/r/MensRights12/01/12 05:45 PM
–

At this point, you don't have many options. You could write a letter and send it to the next "step up" in the hierarchy, but the chances of that working are pretty slim. If you can afford it, file a lawsuit against the school. Considering the fact that their decision is preventing you from going in to the career you're trained for, it'll be worth it if you can manage. Schools can treat students like shit because they know they'll get away with it. If they have to be represented in a real court a…
/r/MensRights12/01/12 05:04 PM
2

And then at masculism. What? I just checked our moderation log, doesn't look like anything happened.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 07:40 AM
5

If anyone reads that CPed trash and thinks it's representative of every MRA, they're too dumb to be convinced by having it meticulously explained.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 03:50 AM
3

Companies perform best when they're able to hire the right person for the job, regardless of gender. Feminists like to tote the fact that boards with women on them perform just as well or better than ones with men on them. This study just shows what anyone should have been able to guess: women who are on boards because of their own merits perform as well as the men. Those who are there because of affirmative action do not.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 02:13 AM
3

Censuses are awesome because the nonresponse rate is low and you get actual data about a group of people. Internet surveys are terrible because all of your results can only be prefaced by "people who answered this survey..." if you want to be even the least bit intellectually honest.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 04:08 AM
3

How many people write a blog post and get a massive wave of vitriolic backlash only to follow up by making an account on the site responsible for said backlash and using it to engage in the discussion there? I don't think the blog post is defensible but come on, this isn't r/shitredditsays and we don't have any use for an exclusionary circle jerk based on someone's past history of posting.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 03:47 AM
2

This is actually what gets a lot of people in to MRA stuff. While some authors (people at Jezebel, for instance) like the narrative that MRAs are men who are angry about bad breakups or poor relationships with women, there are plenty of young, emotionally healthy people here for much less traumatic reasons. You could be sitting at home watching a sitcom and notice that they play the laugh track when a man gets slapped, but the live audience is dead silence if it's a woman. I think that's part of…
/r/MensRights07/01/12 03:43 AM
4

Poorly written, cites highly questionable statistics without explanation, and makes no attempt to verify sources with in-line citations or valid studies. A less shocking, but more well-researched list would be preferred. Further, the choices of statistics to cite are obviously biased to produce these results. A lot of the education ones seem to rely on the fact that males have statistically higher results in math than females. That's not a good indication of anything except performance in STEM f…
/r/MensRights07/01/12 12:41 AM
1

True, but one of the ways I hope the MRM can differ from feminism is in refraining from trying to demand that advertisers sacrifice their competitive advantage in the name of absolute egalitarianism. They're smart enough to change their act when they realize people have changed, if anything their actions are more an indicator than a source of sexism.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 04:51 AM
2

More often than not is an assertion that more than 50% of single mothers had children with the intent of eventually being a single parent and receiving child support. I don't think that's the consensus, here, nor do I think the majority of MRAs would see that claim as being worth discussing.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 02:34 AM
2

Finding stats as to its likelihood will be very difficult, if not impossible. Claiming that it never happens, however, is excessively naive. Some women are willing to steal men's sperm and impregnate themselves in order to have a baby and get child support. Obviously not all women will do things like that, but it's hardly a nonexistent problem.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 01:42 AM
7

There's nothing inherently wrong with requiring that a parent who walks out on their child continues to pay the costs. That said, there are a few things that just have to go. The first one is child support from people who never had anything to do with the child. From male rape victims to sperm donors to random hookups, no one should be on the line for a choice someone else gets to make. We live in a society where women have several ways of choosing whether or not they will be a parent if they ar…
/r/MensRights23/12/11 01:32 AM
2

There aren't many types of single mothers who don't get some form of support. The only category that really has this property is the group of successful working mothers who do not rely on government assistance and whose children's fathers are either entirely unemployed, deceased, out of the country, or unknown.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 01:12 AM
–

Provided a pregnancey is unwanted by the mother, and continues to be unwanted until abortion or birth, then yes. Accidental (but wanted) pregnancies exist because they are allowed to exist, and because the capacity to want is, in part, supported by child support laws.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 01:09 AM
–

What do you think? Does birth rape as a concept exist? Is it accurate to call it that? Comments closed, of course.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 03:26 AM
9

Your links do not counter the OP. The OP posted a link to coverage of a video where a woman and a man were stoned, but the man was not mentioned. That is, the tragedy of a woman being stoned to death appears to be of such magnitude that a man suffering the same fate deserves no mention. How do cases where only men are put to death reflect a counter-example to this line of thought? Further, doesn't your second link show that a man was put to death for the same "crime" a woman was spanked for?
/r/MensRights18/12/11 04:50 PM
3

Personally don't care. I'm not sure why anyone here would be particularly interested in women who post to sites like that and/or look up their dates there, anyways.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 06:11 AM
3

Google adsense generally knows your gender, as do other internet ad companies. You'd need a clean connection to get past a very, very simple filter.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 06:09 AM
5

Nothing wrong with being cut. That said, the fact that the practice has been used forcibly agaisnt boys and young adults is fairly clear evidence that it was, at one point, about control. There are people out there still dealing with the fact that catholic schools used to use it as a means of punishing and preventing masturbation. Whether or not you like it cut, that kind of thing is sick.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 04:20 AM
–

Forcible circumcision during adulthood's generally believed to give people less enjoyment from sex, or even make it painful or mentally distressing. If it was done at birth, I'm not sure. If anything, it would make people less able to masturbate and more likely to want sex?
/r/MensRights18/12/11 02:37 AM
6

If you count lynching as conviction it might be worse. Also, do you have a source on that? It would be interesting to see what the deal was, there.
/r/MensRights18/12/11 02:35 AM
2

In that case, you have a situation where both parents don't want to keep the child. Solutions include adoption, abortion, or use of safe haven laws. That said, it might be possible to sue him for misrepresentation alleging damages in the form of being pregnant under false pretenses. Depends on tort law in the country you're in.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 04:12 AM
1

Can you tell me what an alternative to this is? A realistic one? For a woman, consent to sex is already divorced from consent to abortion. Safe haven laws ensure that this is true in every state, they don't even need to rely on abortion. Extending a similar right to men shouldn't be much of a problem.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 04:10 AM
2

Both are assuming the risk, but only one party has the capacity to fully verify that appropriate methods of contraception are in use. In any other field of law, that does render the latter more culpable if something does go wrong.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 04:08 AM
1

She can sign adoption papers in some places but yeah, talk to a lawyer, or you might end up paying child support regardless of whether or not she intends it. If she ever reveals that you're the father, they can come at you for the balance of any welfare she receives over the next 18 years. Not a gamble I'd risk taking.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 04:03 AM
–

Because feminists totally invented marriage.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 09:13 PM
2

Surprisingly quiet and accessible during exam period, too.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 09:04 PM
2

I know, I'm totally redditing from math CnD right now.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 08:55 PM
2

No problem. I checked out the link on the poster, too. These people don't seem very well-equipped to handle the backlash of starting a successful men's group on a campus.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 08:46 PM
1

I would argue that most people know too little about feminism to be genuinely afraid of a men's rights movement. I do think, however, that most people would side against someone purporting to represent a men's rights movement if there was someone there who claimed to be a feminist who knew what the deal is with MRAs.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 08:46 PM
2

The poster is odd. If he means you're 3.1 times likely to die then it makes sense, but math doesn't let you flip that.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 04:23 PM
4

What does English and Cultural Studies qualify you for exactly? Divorce settlement recipient, she obviously isn't going to make it in journalism.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 04:16 PM
6

Emphasize fairness. It takes one kind of person to experience something bad and then go on a cruscade against that thing, to make sure it doesn't happen to others. It takes a better person to advocate fair treatment of everyone, to recognize that things aren't black and white and to stop themselves from misplacing any negative emotions they feel.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 03:17 PM
4

Non-humanities people just don't want to deal with it. Students in STEM fields tend to have very little respect for the difficulty, scientific basis, and accuracy of things taught in arts faculties. They'll respond to things that make sense, but not if someone else is sitting right there calling those things sexist. If you're going to change people's opinions, I'd strongly recommend doing it one on one, or in small groups.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 03:11 PM
–

I'm in a mostly-male program doing business and math, and I still have to walk on a very thin line whenever it comes up. I've found the best approach is to avoid identifying as anything in particular, and just make a few reasonable points instead. Trying to take on a feminist about the existence of patriarchy is a great way to have someone telling you that you hate women. I think the worst part, though, is that it's more acceptable to be casually sexist against women than to mention anything abo…
/r/MensRights13/12/11 03:07 PM
5

I somewhat doubt the comment will reappear, but thanks.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 02:33 PM
–

Posted a comment: Men's movements are knee jerk and not actually fighting anything, you say? Knee jerk is hearing about people wanting to bring a little light to men's issues and reminding everyone of a mass murder. Knee jerk is turning to patriarchy when you have no better reason by which to argue that people should shut up about issues you don't want them talking about. Knee jerk is dismissing a movement based on what you think it might stand for, rather than what its members are actually look…
/r/MensRights13/12/11 03:22 AM
–

You'd be offended if it was your school producing that kind of bigoted idiocy.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 01:58 AM
–

You from around here, too?
/r/MensRights13/12/11 01:49 AM
–

She's not. WLU doesn't even have an engineering school.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 12:27 AM
6

Fundamentally, I can agree with what you're saying because you use rape culture as an adjective, rather than a noun. That is, you're looking at a specific set of mens magazines and describing the attitudes as rape culture. The widely used feminist definition of rape culture, however, is not to be used this way. Here's what a widely sourced blog on feminism has to say about rape culture. A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against wo…
/r/MensRights11/12/11 08:08 PM
3

Glad you agree.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 05:06 PM
8

How is it even evidence of a rape culture? All this shows it that writers for magazines that are known to show very little respect for women write things that (you guessed it) show very little respect for women. The fact that male rapists also say things that indicate they have very little respect for women is not surprising.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 04:39 PM
4

Not sure about your article, but the claims are misleading because they are an incorrect conclusion, given the data on the wage gap. The gap is derived by dividing the mean weekly income for women working 35+ hours per week by the mean weekly income for men working 35+ hours per week. This is the source of the 77 cents claim. A few important mitigating factors exist. The standard wage gap doesn't control by industry, or by job within industry. That means that if people who do unskilled labour at…
/r/MensRights10/12/11 09:33 PM
1

That's something I can agree with, without a doubt. I completely agree with the conclusions of what you're posting (I'm an MRA), but I just wanted to raise issue with the particular example that you used during the first half of the video, that's all.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 10:21 PM
1

I agree with what you're saying here, but you have to note that unless we're in a courtroom, blame is not 100 percentage points to be assigned by some set formula. By the same token, if I'm watching my lactose intolerant friend who has not taken her pills about to bite in to some cheesecake, I should probably ask her what the deal is. In the same way, even if I had the right to financially abort, I wouldn't have sex with a girl who came up to me and said "no birth control, no condoms, let's go" …
/r/MensRights08/12/11 08:24 PM
1

So we should tattoo a warning on every guy's forehead that says, "Having unprotected sex with me could result in pregnancy"? Or should we tattoo a warning on every woman that says, "I am not necessarily doing anything to avoid pregnancy--something that only affects my own body--and may be too stupid to actually tell you that or ask you to wear a condom. Fuck at your own risk"? Those are both absurd solutions, neither of which can be directly derived from arguments that I've made. I repeat: it is…
/r/MensRights08/12/11 07:41 PM
2

Studies on unwanted pregnancies indicate that about a third of all pregnancies are unwanted and that more than half of these occur for women in their 20s. On that basis, I'm not sure it's appropriate to agree that the default assumption should be that a sex partner is on birth control. Perhaps it would be the case in the demographic that actually treats sex like fine dining (older, more mature people interested in hookups, maybe?) but in the younger crowds where more people are single and where …
/r/MensRights08/12/11 03:14 PM
1

When I was in my mid teens I worked for a masonry contractor renovating macdonalds branches, I've seen the 'cliche' in enough places to know that it's not some made-up charicature.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 01:30 AM
1

Yeah, there's definitely something to be said for principle, but I would not want to be the guy who got his support payments permanently raised because of it. In my opinion, MR doesn't need more people to stand up and suffer for it. Enough men have gotten screwed over to make it quite clear that more of that isn't going to help change things.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 05:41 AM
1

It's an option that doesn't end with him being screwed over. I agree that the system isn't just, but that doesn't mean that people should screw themselves over behaving in a way that would be appropriate if things were fair.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 05:14 AM
1

It's an option that doesn't end with him being screwed over. I agree that the system isn't just, but that doesn't mean that people should screw themselves over behaving in a way that would be appropriate if things were fair.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 05:14 AM
1

Agreeableness and being nice aren't necessarily the same thing. Maybe you'll define it as "Nice Guy" or something along those lines, but really it's about whether or not you avoid conflict and back off when things get a little heated.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 02:08 AM
1

If she needs help, he should offer to take care of the kid more days of the week to save her all the expenses of doing so.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 02:02 AM
1

You're suggesting that we might find something similar for female eggs. Genetically, I'm suggesting that there are good reasons for why this may not be the case.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 08:59 PM
2

That's quite the dramatization. Researchers have to publish in order to be funded. If someone discovered a similar biological link between females and eggs, it would need to be somewhere. You might have a hard time finding it, but if there's any real censorship, it happens at the funding stage and thankfully, biology isn't nearly as politicized as gender studies, so the chances of being blocked by biased reviewers aren't really a problem. You actually have to get a PHD and publish for years befo…
/r/MensRights04/12/11 07:13 PM
1

Biologically, an overweight female signifies less about a tribe's abundance of food than an overweight male, because feeding priority goes to the breeders even if there isn't much to go around.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 04:27 PM
2

This is probably true, but the article's talking about the biology of the sperm, not the 300 lb lady who drives a minivan full of kids up to mcdonalds for lunch every day. Obviously poor habits are passed on socially, but the question discussed here is asking whether or not biological tendencies exist. It even makes reasonable sense in an evolutionary context.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 04:26 PM
–

It is not alright to falsely disparage an entire sex. There's nothing false about the statement contained in this article's headline. And there goes your entire argument.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 04:08 PM
6

The researchers are doing their job, the person who wrote the article put a provocative spin on it. It's not even that bad, as far as representing the research goes. Seriously, shit like this is what bugs me about feminism, it's just PC to the point of idiocy.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 06:38 AM
–

Poor writing quality, obviously a headline designed to capture the attention of the typical Yahoo News readership, but science is science. If they can prove what they're saying, calling them sexist is pure bigotry, so how about we don't go there just yet?
/r/MensRights04/12/11 05:46 AM
15

What bothered me was that the captions and article subtitle still try to rake the guy over the coals. Everything except the factual accounts and quotes is biased, when you read it.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 01:05 AM
3

Well, next time someone writes that 6% of men are rapists, we have something to refer to. That said, this is more valuable as a means of showing how ludicrous some of the methods used to study sexual assault are than as an accurate depiction of reality.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 10:30 PM
5

Oh god but think about the children.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 04:53 AM
4

Where I come from, children that refused to co-operate or compromise were the ones who didn't get what they wanted. What kind of backwards system gives all the power to the person who refuses to comply with the law? Clearly, the just and effective solution is to give control to the father, when the mother is the one threatening to hold the court's order in contempt.
/r/MensRights24/11/11 03:31 AM
3

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Don't flatter liars.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 06:31 PM
4

No. I might have issues with how child custody, support, family courts, etc. operate, and how rape trials are handled, but that doesn't mean I think a male rapist should have any say at all in what happens to a female rape victim's child, if she chooses to keep it.
/r/MensRights20/11/11 02:17 AM
1

I tried looking this up. Sadly, people who type anecdotal responses like this are so plentiful that it's pretty much impossible to find a scientific comparison on the internet.
/r/MensRights19/11/11 04:23 PM
1

Also straw man, but mostly this.
/r/MensRights18/11/11 04:46 PM
2

I posted that comment after reading a completely different article... looks like a mistake or something. Not sure how that got 30+ upvotes, though. Makes you wonder.
/r/MensRights14/11/11 08:00 PM
–

Some of the comments on the article are just sickening. People claiming that recognizing female on male DV is based on false statistics and designed to arm abusers, etc. It's shocking what people are willing to believe.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 02:31 PM
10

She was drunk and a woman. She couldn't consent to having sex so obviously she couldn't consent to biting someone's genitals.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 05:05 AM
–

To respond to this point in particular, you have no way of knowing whether being taught to hate men causes lesbianism, or whether being lesbian makes someone more prone to accepting the dogma of people who identify with the same sexuality. There's a reason radical feminists are a minority, those who are sexually attracted to men have a hard time getting on board with notions like exterminating or biologically re-engineering them.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 01:55 AM
2

I'll accept that reasoning, because I agree that each of your groups contain some people, though the proportions may be off. That said, I dislike the fact that you're contending that very few men and almost no women in the "D" category. I've known quite a few gay-identified people, and a lot of that behavior can be explained by social factors. That is, a gay male who likes fishing and cars might be tempted to dress provocatively or modify his behavior in order to fit in as a gay person. Straight…
/r/MensRights12/11/11 01:52 AM
–

Do you actually have a source of all this, or are you making it up? If it's the latter, these are some wild assumptions.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 12:46 AM
1

That sounds familiar...
/r/MensRights11/11/11 08:03 PM
14

Reminds me of a time I was 12 and my dad drove me to the hospital with a broken finger. The real story was that I grew 6 inches that year and ended up being so clumsy I sat on it. The nurses were really suspicious, to say the least, especially after they asked how I got it. But yeah, I actually never realized how common it is to assume that peoples' injuries come from abuse without knowing anything.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 06:26 PM
2

This is fantastic, and I hope it catches on. This kind of thing really has the potential to change someone's life for the better, when they're out of other options.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 04:31 AM
1

At least the male anarchist lunatics aren't advocating exterminating or enslaving an entire gender. (See, I can do it too)
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:20 AM
6

Extreme radical feminists resent the notion that any man would want to be a woman. They believe that gender is socially constructed based on sex, and that as such, it is impossible for someone to be born in the wrong body. It's misandry and hate speech, but these people are so far off the deep end it shouldn't be surprising.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 04:20 AM
5

The woman drugged him and chopped off his penis. Why are you going with the assumption that he was abusive? If anything, she fits the profile better than he does, given her reaction to his attempt to end the relationship. Either way, like a typical criminal she'll say whatever it takes to get a lighter sentence and let's face it: the "battered woman" defense works too well.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:13 PM
8

No, that's definitely not victim blaming...
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:08 PM
6

He was the one who filed for divorce. Maybe he was trying to get away from her?
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:08 PM
–

For someone with so much time to spend on the internet, you could easily verify that this isn't a fabrication. But you'd rather make baseless comments instead. Bravo.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:05 PM
2

The problem with cases like this is that they open a whole can of worms related to rape laws, etc. when there are really two issues. Minors can be forced to pay child support to people who statutorily raped them. Child support varies by income and has no upper limit. We didn't need someone to accuse Justin Bieber of having 30-second bathroom sex with a fan to know any of that.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 02:19 PM
2

I've got a supportive group of friends, and Movember is really mainstream here. I've had more (mistaken) admonishments for not participating than people commenting on it.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 03:00 AM
3

Insane. Justices step down freely over much less obvious conflicts of interest.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 02:57 AM
3

Blonde hair, roughly half of the facial hair in the same situation. Other half is dark brown or black. Going to be an interesting month.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 12:40 AM
2

At this point, if you're the named father the state is able to come after you to balance the budget. They can make you pay back child support in full, and they are able to take the value of what they paid out to the mother. The only way a woman could spare the father from child support is to legally adopt the child from him, or lie to the government about who the father is at birth, using "I don't know" as her answer. I'm not sure about the adoption thing, though, because I know states have thei…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 06:35 PM
2

My aunts have always been a little odd, but never that bad. I think there's a point up to which older relatives delight in making you uncomfortable in a family setting, but this seems like it's going too far. Just tell her it bothers you.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 03:36 AM
1

Ah, okay. I thought from the story that you spent some real time in jail, rather than the usual (policy-mandated) arrest whenever someone calls about DV.
/r/MensRights30/10/11 02:39 AM
3

Working out the divorce for the kids' sake will likely do as much good as working the marriage out for their sake did. At some point you have to decide that this person isn't going to collaborate. Not while she has the power to get you thrown in jail on her word, while she has the courts' backing to keep your children and while she can turn to your past conviction of abuse whenever it's convenient. She has had and continues to have all the cards in her hand, and she's been uncompromising before.…
/r/MensRights30/10/11 01:51 AM
4

It's juvenile enough so that the people raging against it look like idiots, but offensive enough so that the raging is sure to happen. Even better, it breaks no laws, makes no actual negative claims about women, and works entirely off overblown stereotypes. Anyways, here's what I posted in response to someone suggesting it was over the top, interesting because this legitimately came up in a school class a few weeks ago.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 02:22 AM
3

24% of children in the US live with a single mother. Wikipedia states that 80% of single parents are female (5 year old data, though), so that would imply that 6% of children live with single fathers, leaving 70% in dual parent households. If you found the likelihood that an abused child is in a single-parent family you could use that to see if the gender differences in single parenthood explain the gender differences in the data presented here.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 02:00 AM
4

Alternatively, 62.2% of all these abuse cases involve the mother, while 36.9% involve the father.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 11:01 PM
9

“It is an age and maturity issue, not a gender issue,” Dillon said. “He’s a young boy coming into his own, being taken advantage of by an adult.” Someone who gets it, right here.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 05:02 AM
5

Wiki Mens Rights: The radical notion that you shouldn't be the authority on those who disagree with your publicly declared viewpoints.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 03:52 AM
–

You'd think wikipedia's more rational admins would see the obvious conflict of interest, there, and maybe have someone else handle it?
/r/MensRights17/10/11 02:35 AM
3

Discussing facts about feelings isn't "feelings over facts." In fact, absent the legal biases against men in our society, feelings are directly related to the double-standards that are applied even outside of courts and legislatures.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 10:57 PM
3

The article doesn't expressly state it, but I'd be interested to hear why these men were there in the first place, because it seems to imply that that's the only way these people were going to be able to get on the train. I'm not really that against gender-segregated carriages in places like India, but I am when they're more comfortable or less packed, because that's a cost to other commuters. Humiliating people for making the most optimal use of public services. That's equality, now?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:28 PM
6

Why the hell is this on r/MR? Her boyfriend, who was charged with very similar crimes, received an almost identical treatment. It's how the prison system works. Make this an issue when his prison sentence is twice a long as hers, or whatever. Until then this is pointless.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:22 PM
9

It's written by a woman, specifically to address a woman's perspective. I don't see it as being altogether pertinent to MR in any way other than the rather limited view she seems to have with respect to men.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:38 PM
–

Shouldn't need a pay gap at all for anyone, there just needs to be stricter physical tests, even if women can't pass them.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 02:26 AM
2

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. That's why I don't expect much when I hand a resume over to a company like Scotiabank, for instance.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 03:18 AM
3

It was originally made that way to prevent age discrimination against younger workers, but yes. That said, employers still do it, on the pretext of better fit or other reasons, but we're encouraged to look at jobs from a "characteristics" standpoint. It's still a bit of a racket, though.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 02:49 AM
–

That's the thing. It's considered discrimination to consider things that aren't in some way occupational requirements. If I say I want 3 years' experience and base my decision off one candidate having 6 years' to the other's 4, that's technically against the law.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 02:37 AM
–

Canada allows positive measures, which is basically the same thing. I take a human resources class for my business degree, apparently you're supposed to pick a woman or minority if two candidates are equal. Also, it's technically against the rules to ask those kinds of questions without a "rather not" option.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 01:43 AM
3

Exactly. If the stats are valid, they can say whatever they want as long as it's true.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 10:03 PM
2

Not necessarily. There are plenty of ways to establish high likelihoods of causation in studies. The only thing I've heard to suggest that, though, is that as a property, locus of control tends to stay the same as people age, so you could still possibly be correct.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 02:14 PM
2

I see r/masculism as "divisive" in the same way I saw my univeristy's splitting of the science department in to engineering, math and general sciences as divisive. I don't think this would have happened if r/MR wasn't so massive, these days. That's definitely my positive spin, though.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 04:50 AM
2

I didn't think he had one. Thus the whole living under a bridge arrangement.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 04:43 AM
5

I find the article amusing. Obviously feminist author finds successful women who aren't feminists, chooses to criticize them instead of wondering why this kind of thing is becoming more and more common. Surprisingly, psychology provides a reasonable answer. Belief that internal factors influence success has always been a predictor of personal success.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 11:06 PM
4

That isn't a benefit, r/AMR's been trolling r/Masculism since we opened it up.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 03:57 PM
2

Workforce representation affects income, not personal wealth. Inheritance, capital gains, dividents and interest are bigger contributors to personal wealth than money earned in the labour force. I've got an equally logical argument: Women control 40% of the world's apple supply but only 1% of the world's orange supply.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 04:01 PM
5

Clever, it's got an almost artistic interactive aspect, which is cool for something so simple.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 03:01 AM
2

So you're saying that whether or not it's accepted or denied, you can be sure it's partly because of your gender? I'm not sure what kind of experiences with men justify that kind of statement, but it's not like we wake up in the morning and flip a coin to decide whether we're going to be too hard or too easy on women, today. Yes, there are some sexist people who will think everything done by a woman is crap, and there are some equally sexist people who want more woman-made content to the extent …
/r/MensRights19/09/11 12:28 AM
–

It's a biased sample, but I think it illustrates the need for paternity tests overall. If 60% of men who managed to take them turned out not to be the father, that smashes any argument suggesting that cuckolding isn't a noteworthy problem. Depending on how it's done, we could draw the conclusion that more often than not, men are right when they don't think a child is theirs.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 10:44 PM
3

I remember that one! I think they couched it in some comment about expecting more sex because of sexually liberated women. Really, though, they'd rather men just go with whatever feminism tells them to think at a given point in time. Committing to ideologies can be inconvenient when you need to contradict something you believe.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 10:30 PM
4

Well, I guess we'll just give her a pass, for that one. But at the same time, no one should be allowed to whine ever, especially not women.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 04:37 AM
–

If my contributions are less than perfect, it won't be attributed to my gender. Okay, so we hold women to unfairly high standards because they're women. If my contributions are less than perfect, I won't get a "pass" because of my gender. But we also hold them to lower standards because they're women. Can someone help me with this?
/r/MensRights18/09/11 01:35 AM
5

It's full of fallacies in its comparison, but the biggest one is adding the gun to the picture. If someone was raped at gunpoint, no one will blame them for doing what they were asked to do, there's a death threat involved.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:21 AM
5

Honestly, I would hate this woman more if it wasn't for the fact that she's consistent in her beliefs. Most people who believe that gender is a purely social construct turn a blind eye to the fact that this represents a denial of the legitimacy of transgender. You can't be pro-trans and still believe that gender is social, at least not rationally.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 10:00 PM
–

Talk to a lawyer. Sign a witnessed affadavit describing the situation. The money you spend on legal fees will by far outweigh the value of your house, your future income, and access to your child.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 06:15 AM
1

Yeah, my point is just that it's the child support system that's broken, not the one for handling debts and court orders. Limiting contempt of court to 2 or 3 days would completely depower the justice system, which is a topic that really has nothing to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 11:52 AM
0

Generally, I would disagree, but the case of child support and alimony happens to be one where liability can be imposed without the consent of the one to be liable and regardless of ability to pay. When a judge orders loan repayment or a payment for damages under tort law and I refuse, I should most certainly be faced with real punishment until I liquidate assets to pay up or declare bankruptcy.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 09:58 PM
3

This is really screwed up...
/r/MensRights11/09/11 04:40 AM
28

This is Jessica Valenti. To her, innocence is kind of a girl thing.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 12:38 AM
10

Well there's another country off the list of "countries that a rational man would get married in."
/r/MensRights10/09/11 06:10 PM
–

At least you weren't made a sex offender, accused of rape, or living in a state where the age of consent is 18. Strong stuff, man. If your "friends" back at home won't hear you out, then chances are the friends you made in college are better ones.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 05:52 PM
0

Traditionalists aren't particularly fond of women being able to work, in some cases. They're not egalitarians, despite the fact that some of what they want fits under that label.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 04:04 PM
2

Heavily conservative people have always agreed with the MRM on certain issues but that doesn't make them "major allies", especially to MRAs who are pro-abortion, pro-women having jobs, etc. Thankfully, since men's rights is based on issues and not dogmatism, that shouldn't be too big of a problem.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 02:44 PM
1

The same duality exists there, though. The woman with no husband won't have a home, but a man with no home won't be able to marry. The previous law involved the man in a divorce ending up unable to marry again, and the woman perfectly capable of marrying in to a much better situation than her previous marriage. There's a common fallacy in the line of thinking being expressed by a lot of the dissent that's fairly important to understand. A lot, and I mean a lot of feminist justification for post-…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 03:14 AM
1

called progressive. Also, progressive != good.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 11:54 PM
2

You know things are seriously awry when progressive means undoing things that are also called progressive.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 08:09 AM
2

The actual gender inequalities have parents helping only male children get houses (inequality against women) but force men to have a house in order to get a socially acceptable marriage (inequality against men). Under the current system, women simply don't need that house after divorce, but if the man wants to remarry, he does. If something is going to change, it should be bottom-up, not top-down, as was the previous law (and as is the law in North America). That is, start making it an expectati…
/r/MensRights09/09/11 08:08 AM
5

Typical feministing response, really. The one thing that is undeniable is that a culture that makes ownership of a house an effective condition for a man to be married has issues to look after. As usual, though, writers like this think that the solution to sexism is well, more sexism. If parents aren't dividing the wealth between sons and daughters in a fair way, the solution is not to start awarding half of the entirety of men's wealth on divorce to balance things out. The only way the writer g…
/r/MensRights09/09/11 08:02 AM
5

I really hope this works, but someone representing themselves against lawyers is in for a tough slog, even if he is right.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 09:38 PM
1

Short answer: Hell yes.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 10:32 PM
1

Mathematics and interest theory suggest that the going rate of interest should be applied to all delayed monetary payments. So yes, I think that interest on child support is perfectly reasonable. I don't, on the other hand, think that the way child support is handled is at all reasonable. I also think that child support should be a transaction with the government, not a transfer payment.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 07:45 PM
2

Good luck and best wishes, kloo.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 11:34 PM
–

This highlights a pretty big piece of hypocrisy I've been seeing a lot lately. "Rape is about power and control" doesn't jive with "drunk consent means rape and using this definition we see that rape is super prevalent." Having sex with someone who is drunk and consenting is not about power and control, it's about having sex. You can push one statement or the other, but trying to do both is making a lot of the comments there look really, really dumb.
/r/MensRights29/08/11 04:39 AM
2

At first I thought it was sort of amusing, then I realized that the guy's a jackass, and chances are he'll be the one paying for all the damage anyways. Still amusing, but not really something to talk about men's rights issues over. Yes, women can be crazy, men can be crazy too, we get it.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 01:18 PM
4

The Judeo/Christian tradition of circumcision was also likely not based on anti-maleness. I recall an article was posted to r/MR a while back that detailed the experiences of a Canadian who was forcibly circumcized in a Catholic school as a punishment for masturbating.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 04:59 AM
0

I sincerely doubt that those types of people are the only ones reading feminist material on the internet.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:14 AM
1

So you assert that any and all people who volunteered to post on NSWATM are "feminists that have the stated goal of co-opting the mens movement for feminism and are involved in a very hostile anti-mra smear campaign"?
/r/MensRights16/08/11 12:50 AM
2

To put it plainly, since you've apparently decided to miss it the past few times: I'm not.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 12:33 AM
1

No, I don't think an organization like NOW is capable of that kind of shift, it's way too centralized. Best case, NOW loses support and falls in to obscurity, worst case it continues uninterrupted.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 08:08 PM
–

No, that is most certainly not the answer.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 07:07 PM
2

I can't explain it because it isn't true. You're basing everything on a statement that I did not write, that I do not endorse, and that I do not see being reflected in the end product. The only way I could answer you is if I'd been lying about everything.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 06:52 PM
–

I don't know how all feminists think, but I do know that the bigger blogs have a fair bit of influence, and that if they can "teach" people that MR issues are "solved" by the usual theories, then that primes people to ignore MR issues that would otherwise cause them to question things. I believe, firmly, that anyone who goes to the effort of making their own opinions based on facts will end up closer to being an MRA than they were beforehand. The fact that so many people are still so far away fr…
/r/MensRights15/08/11 06:43 PM
–

To put it simply, because I haven't had to interact with people like that, and I have yet to see any of my views as an MRA compromised. If what I saw was people like Ozy having their way with the MRA movement I wouldn't be advocating any of this. Personally, I think MRAs need to take back masculism. Not to make it MRA 2.0, but because originally, masculism was all about the fact that if feminism doesn't have anything pushing against it, it's going to start infringing on the rights of men. Mascul…
/r/MensRights15/08/11 06:36 PM
–

The extent of "ties" with AMR is that some (but not all) nswatm contributors are involved in discussing how to operate the new subreddit, that some (but not all) nswatm contributors are involved with manboobz and AMR and think bad thing about MRAs. It's more a question of support than ties. Do I support some articles written on nswatm? Yes, I do. Do I think that people who write articles like Ozy need to get over themselves are realize that feeling superior to MRAs just because you get along wit…
/r/MensRights15/08/11 06:05 PM
5

I'm not a fan of nswatm either, but I see that as a reason to give r/masculism a shot. Feminism is so mainstream that it would be ridiculous to assume that there's some centralized hivemind controlling itm and the type of feminist who would be willing to enter a discussion where they know that comments by MRAs won't be moderated away is the kind of feminist I would actually spend a little time talking to about men's rights issues.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 05:18 PM
0

Association: I've read everything posted to r/Communityplans. There are only two contributors there from NSWATM (that I know of), and one active one. I've read all of their articles on NSWATM and I see nothing wrong with them (unlike someone like Ozymandias, for example, who posts maybe 1/3 tolerable content at best) In my opinion, manboobz writers jumped the hell on to that NSWATM thing as part of their appropriation shit. I don't see anything to suggest that every writer for that blog is part …
/r/MensRights15/08/11 04:41 PM
0

Well first off, I'm not aware of how many smurf accounts Ozy may have, but they're not even a contributor to the planning subreddit on a notable account, if at all and I'll be the first to say that I'll take back pretty much everything I've said in favor of the place if people like that end up running the show. Obviously I can't be completely sure about anyone since it's the internet, but things don't look half as bad as you'd make it out to be. Something like patriarchy theory, for example, I w…
/r/MensRights15/08/11 06:52 AM
–

The problem with privilege isn't so much that people have it, or that they're ashamed of it or that it's different for various people. The problem is when it gets measured, compared, systematically hidden or brushed aside, etc. "My privilege is less good than yours" is a pretty common sentiment.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 05:45 AM
0

No, the "hearsay" part is where I'm questioning the latter part of the link. I know about the whole manboobz and nswatm thing, but I also know that that blog has some not-too-bad authors who post stuff that's not ridiculous or condescending or whatever. Obviously I don't like the fact that they included people from AMR in their blogging and I wish they'd just remove them entirely but I don't run nswatm so that isn't my decision. What I'm calling hearsay is that you're assuming that there's stron…
/r/MensRights15/08/11 12:11 AM
0

To clarify, I was saying that unless you are willing to accept my representation of my beliefs, we can't discuss things. If you're going to quote me please do it in context. As far as what you're claiming, that's hearsay based on loose evidence, but since I cannot disprove it, I accept it as a possibility and reserve judgment till I see what's produced.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 11:42 PM
0

I'm already part of the MRM and no, I am not calling you intellectually dishonest. I am saying that it is intellectually honest to give people a fair chance to prove themselves. That is, I am asking that you do something and citing intellectual honesty as a reason I believe it is a good thing. Of course, I don't control what you believe, so feel free to downvote or ignore my comments entirely, etc. I'm not a feminist or a concern troll and frankly, I don't care what you think I am. I have my own…
/r/MensRights14/08/11 11:32 PM
3

Well, I'm sorry you see it that way. That said, as an intellectually honest person I'd hope that people who agree with your suspicions would, at the very least, watch what goes on and make informed opinions on the result. If there ends up being an AMR mod or something, I'll be gone faster than you can blink, but until then I try not to judge people based on loose lines of association. Trolls do that kind of thing to us enough, as is.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 11:21 PM
1

Evidence other than anecdotal stuff, by any chance? I'm aware that there's some sort of connection because NSWATM links to manboobz who is r/AMR, but I'm pretty sure that's not much to go on, especially when most people posting there find the entire AMR bullshit laughable.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 10:43 PM
4

I'm not sure that's true. A lot of the current contributors, myself included, are highly against trying to view men's issues through the feminist lens that's so far been applied to gender studies. A lot of what I'd call appropriation seems to be a case of seeing MR issues as nails, and feminism as a hammer, when that's just not the case. That said, it isn't concern trolling unless it's making concessions while purporting to speak for us. If that happens anywhere on reddit (by an entire subreddit…
/r/MensRights14/08/11 10:02 PM
2

I'm currently involved in that particular group, and was invited because of how I've been posting in r/MR, for the most part. I legitimately want to see it work, but there's no way I'll let myself get involved with any sort of feminist appropriation of MR issues, even if that means leaving. There are a few other "regular" r/MR posters who go there, too, but obviously the idea of including anyone who identifies as a feminist is going to raise some concerns. Anyways, feel free to ask/pm me anythin…
/r/MensRights14/08/11 08:42 PM
–

Agreed, we get accused of racism pretty much constantly, hopefully the trolls will stay away long enough for people to realize that minority men actually suffer from different kinds of discrimination and that it's serious. As far as the article, it's just a strange feminist perspective on how some of them justify putting the problems of minority men below problems of women in general.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 06:28 PM
6

What bothers me the most is that she claims that prosecution of false rape claims stops people from reporting, but continues her politically motivated assertions that women who report won't get results to the extent that anyone who really believed what she were saying would be stupid to report an actual prosecutable rape. Pot, meet kettle.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 06:14 PM
2

Good call. Issues like these are pretty open for MRA action, because it's very hard to be taken out of context or viewed as being wrong when all you're asking for is a more modern, inclusive look at things.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 05:48 PM
1

Feminist academia at its worst. Use the horribly flawed gross income calculation used to establish the "pay gap" and now separate by level of education for new and improved misleading statistic.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 11:58 AM
6

Pretty sure 95% is fabrication. I'm certain I've seen things that put the estimate closer to 50/50, but I do believe they include something about the underreporting rate being much, much higher for men who are abused.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 05:58 AM
3

That's correct, but it's still objectively true that even those top female athletes simply cannot maintain similar muscle to fat ratios as men. That's not a property that goes on a bell curve, so in sports like wrestling, for example, men will have more muscle than women in the same weight category, no matter how hard they train.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 03:31 AM
4

There are physiological and scientifically valid reasons to keep them separate. Women cannot sustain muscle to fat ratios as favourable for sports as men can, nor can they gain muscle as fast as men. On the other hand, there haven't been studies that have shown, conclusively, any reason to separate men and women based on intellectual capacity, especially when these groups are fully capable of self-selecting.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 02:55 AM
–

Sports should be kept this way, men have different physical capabilities in terms of muscle to fat ratios and growth rates. Chess, on the other hand, is likely male-dominated for whatever reasons you believe mathematics and physics are male-dominated.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 09:26 PM
–

"She's the victim, being victimized again, by a system that says that she is a bad person," said Wallis Kendal, an advocate who works with troubled youth in Edmonton. A victim who knowingly engaged in sex that was likely to give guys HIV. They're the victims, she isn't. If she can't be trusted to let people know about it before sleeping with them, then maybe it's better for all the men she'll infect if the government does it for her.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 03:13 PM
7

When did the poster say that he was being oppressed?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 06:39 PM
7

Haters gonna hate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:59 AM
1

Do the test privately, if she is his kid, you're done and if not, you should probably lawyer up before trying to do anything in courts.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 07:31 PM
1

Ack, nevermind. Strict and absolute liability appear to mean the same thing in the US, unlike other countries. In Canada, it was ruled unconstitutional to use absolute liability for anything that can carry jail time, so strict liability was created as a presumption of mens rea. Looks like you're SOL in the US, then.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 09:09 PM
1

EDIT: Apparently US law works differently than law in other countries WRT strict liability.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 08:02 PM
2

This is one of the reasons I'm fundamentally anti-welfare. Welfare used to be based on the notion of providing money to people who simply couldn't elevate themselves without it. Today, welfare is an incentive program to encourage people to engage in fundamentally parasitic and damaging behavior.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:59 PM
2

A sperm bank? The whole world is a sperm bank. Not all men are smart enough, sober enough, or educated enough to insist on using a condom every time they have sex.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:55 PM
6

Have a better way of ranking people by a rough measure of intelligence? And I suppose we should also ignore the relations to social mobility discussed in the other half of the study. Just because, you know, some AMR troll thinks that an upvote on an interesting study means we believe IQ is a perfect measure of how smart someone is.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:45 PM
1

Can you really call it "your child" when you're shut out of their life 90% of the time? People talk about child support as if it's paying to be rid of your child when you're a bad person and just don't care when really, the injustices caused by the child support system are the people who want to be part of their child's life but simply aren't allowed to.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:23 PM
4

This is far from awful. In case you hadn't noticed, custody hearings do not grant equal custody in all cases except where one parent is abusive, neglectful or no longer wants anything to do with the child. Instead, motehrs are typically granted far more than equal custody where there's actually contention over it, and things like unsubstantiated allegations of abuse can affect the outcomes. In fact, there is systematic incentivization of parental alienation via courts, because child support paym…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 03:15 PM
2

A 40% woman quota is a legislative inequality against men.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:54 AM
1

Usually when you use quotes ("") you'll want to quote something that was actually written. It's pretty common knowledge that beginner weight gains are huge, but I'm by no means qualified to speak on any water/fat/muscle/whatever else ratios are going on there.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:09 PM
–

Not necessarily. Psychologists do have a role in the things we believe about people, but not necessarily the anti-male tag. Feminsts have used psychology as a virtual weapon for ages (any discussion of false claims, rape prevalence, how men supposedly behave as a group) to engender anti-male sentiments, but that doesn't make the psychology responsible, it makes it an accessory. That said, a some misconceptions can fairly easily be traced back to women (or male feminists) in psychology. For examp…
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:33 AM
2

Well, it gives credence to the notion that women are dominating the fields of psych, sociology, etc. A lot of anti-male legislation, policy, advocacy, common opinion, etc. comes from notions generated by questions that fall in the domain of those fields, too. Considering it's supportive of Kloo's conspiracy theories (no offense meant), I can see why this is relevant information.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 10:04 PM
1

Wasn't aware of that, I'm by no means qualified to talk about what actually goes on when a really tall/skinny person gets on a 4000 calorie diet and starts powerlifting, but the scale doesn't lie (about body weight, at least). I mean, I'm sure you have to factor in stuff like bone density increasing over time, added fat, the amount of hydration that comes from being conscious about water intake, etc, but my experience, as well as every other skinny person I've seen go on one of those 5x5 starter…
/r/MensRights31/07/11 01:52 AM
1

I think the difference is that a response is solicited or expected, while a reaction is purely about causation?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 11:14 PM
1

If you add the "financial abortion" option but maintain that in order for it to be valid, the father must notify the mother while she still has the option of terminating, it creates an incentive for the mother to be deceitful, ie. hide pregnancy until the father no longer has a recourse. For that reason, such a legal recourse must exist until post-birth. The notion of financial abortion must extend to a valid position when the father is in favor of adoption. Ie. if a father wishes to put a child…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 08:50 PM
1

Except that they both fall under the scope of politics, and in representative democracy, you can be sure that there will be compromises between your views on gender politics, economic policy, foreign policy, criminal and legal policy, etc.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 06:13 PM
3

It doesn't need a specific case to be true, though. The simple fact is parents have a right to financially terminate a child via adoption, but a mother can unilaterally take this right away from the father by choosing to keep the child and demanding child support payments.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 05:51 PM
3

It doesn't need a specific case to be true, though. The simple fact is parents have a right to financially terminate a child via adoption, but a mother can unilaterally take this right away from the father by choosing to keep the child and demanding child support payments.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 05:51 PM
1

Political alignment has everything to do with feminism and gender politics. If something affects what bills and measures you support, then it's quite relevant.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 05:49 PM
1

Your statement contradicts the laws surrounding adoption. There was even a recent case posted to r/MR where a mother put a child up for adoption against the father's wishes, and it was considered legal.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 05:08 PM
1

Yes but what if you were also a hardcore feminist?
/r/MensRights29/07/11 04:57 PM
2

I accidentally your rights.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 05:27 AM
3

No, but we should presume it.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:01 AM
–

Some of the comments on the article itself are enough to make me believe that feminists really do see this as a zero-sum game. The fact that it's hard to prove you were raped is because it's difficult to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone raped you. On a fundamental, rational scale, where something happens behind closed doors and neither parties' statements are refuted by physical evidence, you have literally nothing. That means that a reasonable person looking at the situation prese…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 12:00 AM
–

Canadian, here. Mostly far-right without any of the religiously-motivated elements. Against welfare, democracy, a fair number of arguments beginning with "it's a free country", and strongly in favor of education reform to the effect of globalizing standards, instead of nationalizing them.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 08:55 PM
2

Him being treated unjustly at the start of the case and her being treated unjustly at the end do not have to be mutually exclusive, nor can anyone really compare them. He is a very, very rich man who headed the IMF and was a key candidate for presidency in france. He lost both of those things on an accusation, without a trial. She's an immigrant woman with almost nothing to lose at all, and now she's got the public spotlight on her and has no real defense against constant harassment by the press…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 06:21 AM
2

So you're saying that because you don't like how he plays at politics, he deserves to be falsely accused of rape?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:54 AM
4

He most certainly shouldn't be. Hell, he wasn't subjected to any unfair treatment - she was.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:48 AM
3

I would hope so. Honestly, though, Reality Kings is a massive company and will have the best lawyer money can buy. I have no doubt that they'd take this all the way up the court ladder to keep this from leading to a conviction, which may even end up bringing more publicity to some of the injustices in sexual assault laws.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:36 AM
1

This is wrong. Strict liability is a presumption of mens rea, not an absolute mens rea. As such, in many states, providng that the child misrepresented her age to the extent that a reasonable person would not foresee any falsehood would be a valid defense. The problem is that a child's misrepresentation of her age is not a valid defense in this state, which means that the lawyers for the defendants will face an almost insurmountable obstacle, but not one that is literally impossible to overcome.…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:09 AM
10

I'm an MRA and I am strongly against the notion of allowing men to veto abortions. The solution to oppression isn't more oppression. We ought to be fighting for the right to withdraw financial support, but we shouldn't let the fact that we have yet to get that confound the issues, here.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 01:05 PM
–

Worst part: 'Florida criminal law decrees that "a minor's misrepresentation of his or her age... may not be raised as a defense" in statutory rape prosecution.'
/r/MensRights26/07/11 02:49 AM
2

Tort law. You sue everyone and anyone in hopes of making many defenders joint and severally liable. That way, if the court awards you $2,000,000 you're not trying to collect that from a 16 year old kid.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 02:41 AM
3

Those threads are almost exclusively started by people who frequent the "worse" subreddits. Hard to fault an entire community over something its worst members are doing, especially if it's being done in the typical upvote-attracting intellectually dishonest way.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 11:08 PM
2

You've already proven yourself to be far less than equal to virtually every regular poster here. Stop posting trollish, sexist garbage and we'll stop downvoting the things you're saying. Unlike you, we do have the ability to take comments at face value.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 07:11 PM
1

Rantgrrl and girlwriteswhat would make perfectly fine moderators here, if we needed moderators. We don't, though, and if anything, complying with your inane request for us to implement affirmative action for a largely duty-less position would be more sexist towards women than waiting till there's need and picking the best candidate at the time.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 07:09 PM
1

This is ridiculous. The reason MR doesn't have female mods is because MR has two mods, neither of whom are expected to moderate posts unless there's serious violations going on. The only reason you care so much is because all the mods you visit are so ban-happy and censorship-filled that having the mods be a "fair" representation of the community actually matters. The fact that you're even allowed to post here with your trollish garbage is a testament to how hands-off censoring is here. It'd be …
/r/MensRights25/07/11 07:07 PM
3

To be fair, 2XC isn't usually all that bad.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 05:29 AM
10

Most women would not, in fact, accuse a man of rape because they regret having sex with him. Most women I know are reasonable, well-intentioned people, as are most men. In fact, most men wouldn't rape women, either. Overall, people aren't half bad when it comes to these sorts of things, but that's not what this is about, is it? The problem, however, is that feministss are telling these women they were raped, using the fact that they do not think they were raped as supposed evidence that rape cul…
/r/MensRights24/07/11 05:17 PM
2

The problem with the 1 in 4 idea is that it relies on a victim-only definition of rape. This means that for the purposes of any studies that attempt to measure under reporting by asking people if they were raped, there's a structural and unavoidable error that could put off the result by an entire order of magnitude. Rape is a crime, so in order for rape to have occurred, someone must be guilty of it (this does not mean the court must find them guilty, but for something to be called rape, I pers…
/r/MensRights24/07/11 05:13 PM
–

Mens rea means "guilty mind" in criminal law. Ie, you must have both a guilty mind and a guilty action to be considered criminally responsible for an action. Rape (and some other crimes in varying states) cannot be defended against by claiming that you were drunk, provided the inebriation was self-inflicted. I am arguing that if you make it rape to have sex with someone who cannot legally consent to it (and has inflicted this state of mind on themselves) then a similar state of mind for the accu…
/r/MensRights24/07/11 05:00 PM
5

It's a sliding scale, really. That said, how do you say someone is guilty of rape, when they themselves are as drunk as the alleged victim? If you don't realize that someone's consent is invalid, is it still rape? Consider the difference between statutory rape (where not realizing someone is underaged is a valid defense) and forcible rape. (where self-inflicted inebriation is no defense at all) Where does this fit in?
/r/MensRights24/07/11 04:40 PM
–

If we're going to accept the notion that inebriation makes someone unable to consent (a reasonable thing) it needs to be accompanied with the requirement that mens rea for rape also includes knowing that the alleged victim was unable to consent. Specifically, if the accused and the alleged victim are equally inebriated, it should not be possible, under law, to argue that rape occurred because one party was unable to consent. (Forcible rape and rape occurring under non-self-inflicted inebriation …
/r/MensRights24/07/11 04:36 PM
2

There's nothing wrong with defining rape as unconsentual sex and then saying that inability to give consent qualifies. The problem, however, is that the same people asking for this are also the ones who will call you a misogynist for suggesting that there are worse degrees of rape. This means that to them, forcible sex and consentual (albeit drunk) sex are equally bad. This matters because there are special (or standard) laws in most states that prohibit using drunkenness as a defense when accus…
/r/MensRights24/07/11 04:27 PM
1

Rights and responsibilities. Women have the right to choose whether or not the child is born, therefore it is their responsibility to ensure that the child is appropriately financed. This means putting it up for adoption if she can't afford a child without enslaving an unwilling man's paycheque. It also means that if she wants to put it up for adoption and get out of the picture entirely, the father should have the right to take custody, but no right to expect child support from her. Legally, th…
/r/MensRights21/07/11 07:31 PM
3

Censorship is when people start troll accounts and an entire subreddit dedicated to trying to shut up people who post here. A low-interference policy allows for and even requires getting rid of people who do that.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 02:35 PM
1

The only upvoted submissions from that site have nothing to do with hate speech or racism against non-white people. The fact that MRAs are capable of reading an article and responding to it without worrying about what else is on the website is not a detriment.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 02:32 PM
2

The only upvoted submissions from that site have nothing to do with hate speech or racism against non-white people. The fact that MRAs are capable of reading an article and responding to it without worrying about what else is on the website is not a detriment.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 02:32 PM
5

You might give any of them a grace period, given that moderators can be added without explicit consent.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 03:46 AM
4

I have a lot of respect for anyone who can manage to really approach issues like this on a case-by-case basis. Too often, when reason fails, people turn to throwing statistics or towing a party line instead of admitting that there are situations when their philosophy isn't the right answer.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 02:14 AM
–

Canada's a virtual minefield of anti-male laws, but it just doesn't get the publicity it garners in the US, here. I'm glad that there didn't have to be a victim for this one to be exposed, though. The main problem, though, is that canadian practice generally supports the notion that it's only illegal to discriminate against women or visible minorities, despite the fact that the group for which this does not apply is a minority.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 01:49 AM
2

Countries with unfavorable economic conditions will see a talent outflow, and more businesses like yours will follow suit.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 11:09 PM
1

Awesome! I'm the least controversial top 100 MR poster. Guess I get banned from reddit now.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 10:21 PM
–

Why does this have upvotes? It's an attempt at a stupid anti-MR circle jerk.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 12:49 PM
1

That's my point. Me switching is not a big deal to me. I can buy a different thing for my floor, I can use new detergent, and I can get a gmail next time I need an address.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 06:55 PM
2

I've got a yahoo mail account, there's a swiffer in my house, I've eaten Kraft foods before, I've got tide detergent for my laundry and I use MS office 2010. Switching laundry detergents because a company gives financial support to women who like to go on TV and laugh about extreme genital mutilation isn't a big deal.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:05 PM
9

Uh. Yeah. "Have you watched porn or purchased a prostitute's services"? Well no shit you're going to get a high number. Take porn out and try again for radically different results.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 02:11 AM
4

The current writeup is very poorly worded.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 06:29 PM
1

Can't find anything about advertisers. Someone's going to have to bite the bullet and actually watch The Talk again if they want to note down who's advertising.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 06:04 PM
6

Done, hope we see some reaction for this.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 04:21 PM
–

Should be under "complaint" and "The Talk", FYI.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 05:29 AM
1

She should claim it was a one-night stand, definitely. The reason they force you to declare a husband is so they can balance state budget by using fathers (in nothing but the biological sense) as a source of welfare income.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 05:27 AM
24

The video says it has a link that lets you file a complaint about the show. These women have been on air for years, but internet reaction to an honest appraisal of their attitudes has been pretty strongly against it. Activism opportunity, maybe?
/r/MensRights17/07/11 05:16 AM
–

I've seen them before, on TV. They're misandrists, plain and simple, and it shows.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 05:05 AM
5

The only part of that page that even remotely approaches doing the movement justice is the one listing the major claims. That's strong evidence of generalization, in the sense that inability to debate point by point often leads to appeals to the general nature of what someone is saying. Ie. they can't win a rational argument against an MRM about any of the points we really care about, so they just call us all misogynists. Also, someone ought to point out that the good men project is actually jus…
/r/MensRights16/07/11 05:39 PM
2

Exactly. The question, then, is how can we reply to their attempts at marginalizing the crime without using the same tactics as the ones they use?
/r/MensRights16/07/11 04:12 PM
1

Damn straight.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 04:47 AM
3

Why do women have any right to tell men how they should feel after undergoing paternity fraud? If they can't empathize with the desire to have a child with your own genetic material, that's their problem.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 04:43 AM
1

It makes me happy to see that this is posted on Discovery news. Opinions like this should be mainstream already. Apart from that, it's a pretty tame article, but that's what you would expect.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 04:31 AM
3

Yeah, I looked at these as well. The girls did amazing work in the fields of health and medicine, which, while it does seem more feminine than computer science to many people, is not something to be trivialized. A voice to code translator sounds nice and genius-ey on paper but it's really not better than what the winners did.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:23 AM
1

"I just would like some direction"
/r/MensRights11/07/11 07:05 PM
–

"The nice guy" doesn't do a very good job debunking the list. The real problem with privilege is, and has always been, that it is essentially the dark matter of feminism. They needed an ambiguous concept that satisfied the properties of being available for use in shutting dissenting voices out of discussion, and justifying pushes for unequal policy and laws. If you have been harmed by feminist ideals in any way, you must be sore because you lost your privilege. If there is direct evidence that m…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:59 PM
–

No, that could let men get away with making them.
/r/MensRights09/07/11 06:14 PM
1

She could have been awarded the maximum sentence for raising public alarm because the judge decided maximum sentence should be applied. Under Tort law, at least, you are said to have caused something if, but for your actions, that thing could not have occurred AND if it is reasonably forseeable that the type of incident that did occur, could occur as a result of your actions. In this case, but for her actions, the car accident would not have occurred, and a real risk of a car accident is forseea…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 10:26 PM
4

Feminists advocated a marriage strike at one point, as well. I believe it had something to do with the presumption that husbands couldn't rape wives, and the whole notion of "indentured servitude" when married, etc. Those women are often seen as pioneers of gender equality. What's so wrong about a man doing it too?
/r/MensRights08/07/11 08:37 PM
–

Schools are the worst for that, really. Here's what happened to me when I was 14, after the English class was to read and work on analyzing a Margaret Atwood novel: Teacher: Class, feminism about belief that women and men should be equal. Who here is a feminist? Class: (Everyone agrees, nods, etc) Teacher: Good! I like how the boys were smart enough to realize that men can be feminists, too.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:40 PM
7

Deliberate smear campaign is the best way to describe it. The worst among them use that line, and then it filters down from there.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:29 PM
1

Main page as in www.reddit.com
/r/MensRights08/07/11 06:14 PM
7

Of course, you have to be a woman to understand why it's not a double standard.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:37 PM
7

People here are going to be pretty diverse, but if you're wondering what there is for someone who doesn't want the us vs. them, it's the fact that most of the posts that get the upvote storm here are ones relating to real issues with real people. I like this, because instead of muddying the waters with non-examples or generalism or possibly false statistics, we can talk about what we think should or should not happen in actual situations. Personally, I'm a self-titled MRA now, and I've only been…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:27 PM
–

Subreddits don't need to operate like the main page. Really, I'll downvote if I see a comment that has no basis in fact, that's trollish, or that I would feel ashamed to have associated with men's rights in general. People with racist or overtly sexists ideas are not and should not be welcome here. Our "reddit" image is bad enough, as is.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:15 PM
–

Problem with this article: women do not actually have a different way of knowing. When educated in the field of philosophy, men and women rely on the same rules of reason to produce arguments and opinions. The only problem is that you can't get a proper education in philosophy these days, with all the crap entering the system.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 06:18 AM
5

Great work.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 04:41 AM
5

20 Later withdrawn by the accuser. Fixed.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 12:39 PM
2

Alpha males like DSK...
/r/MensRights03/07/11 09:52 PM
–

You can't have equality under law and equality of outcomes. They're inherently contradictory. Equality of outcomes requires affirmative action, equality under law prohibits it.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 09:40 PM
1

That's COMMANDER obvious to you lot. Also, I absolutely 100% had to post this, couldn't stop myself: Don't breathe underwater and drink alcohol at parties.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 07:01 AM
4

Just saying there's no need to mess with racism topics when there are plenty of examples of women calling injustices against men victories for women.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 05:49 PM
5

No, they're defending her like they defended a woman who cut off her husband's penis and got away with it.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 05:36 PM
11

I remember being called an idiot on a few feminist forums for mentioning that the whole perp walk treatment was grossly unfair for someone who was presumed innocent, in reference to this case. Being able to say "I told you so" is pretty satisfying, but I'm just waiting on the "something must have happened" or the "abuse of an unequal relationship" line to come out in force. Chances are even if it's exposed as an elaborate hoax, they'll still be calling for his head.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 04:34 AM
–

Honestly, there have been too many posts in MR lately. Half of them are just crap that shoves the good stuff off the main page. Really, I want visitors to hear that story about the guy who was falsely accused of that horrible rape and how it ruined his life. I don't want them having to sift through a bunch of gleeful comments that, while relevant, do nothing to further the cause. I hate it when feminists do the circle jerk, so why should I not hate it when it's done here, too? Posting that stuff…
/r/MensRights30/06/11 05:09 AM
2

I recall reading a piece by a former inmate describing a rapist getting murdered in prison by a process called "gouging" where one man holds you up from behind and another uses a sharpened plastic toothbrush and his fingers to remove the contents of your gut. I'll see if I can dig it up, but apparently it happens when people refuse to let themselves be raped by other inmates and dont have enough friends to watch their back.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 11:55 PM
17

The entire debate about this case just bothers me. Walmart has every right to a conditional promotion system, provided that system does not include direct gender discrimination. People either fit the profile or they do not, and societal values are basically responsible for the gender porportions in lifestyles that are incompatible with this profile. Individuals choose their lifestyle based on what they want out of life and what they have to offer in return for it. It is, by no means, Walmart's r…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 01:09 PM
3

MRA is always going to come from a diverse set of people. Really, I would say that someone is in favor of most of the issues presented as mens' rights issues if they are in favor of legislative equity (which is the main reason MRAs and feminsits can't get along and probably never will), and a large chunk of mens' rights issues if they're aware that discrimination can happen to members of any group, even a majority or a minority seen by others as privileged. (which is also a reason MRAs and femin…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 12:35 AM
5

Guy's just a massive troll in the way he presents his material, but his opinions are the kind of stuff you'd discuss in a philosophy circle with a bunch of overtly rational people who can keep their emotions in check. Seeing its collision with the delectable samples of utter irrationality and inability to take a joke of internet feminism, while funny, doesn't really yield anything worthwhile to us as MRAs, or to politics in general. If you read the conversation, though, he's a reasonably good de…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 12:13 AM
11

Either you have a bad lawyer, or you have a good lawyer who realizes that the system is going to fuck you over, hard, and wants to get the best for you. You need to figure out which one it is, and then either fire her or have a serious talk about why she's trying to talk you down.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 02:14 PM
11

A. If one in six women are raped in their lifetimes (possibly untrue, given that the only survey I've seen produce that result involved pushing a "did you feel?" definition of rape, trying to convince respondents they were raped when they quite possibly didn't think they were, and then extrapolating the results. If there's a credible survey the onus is on the poster of the article to provide it) B. Rape may be four times as likely for college-aged women (I believe that, in fact I wouldn't bat an…
/r/MensRights18/06/11 03:15 AM
2

Contempt of a court order to pay money to a party is usually treated the same in most places and under most circumstances. My point was that we shouldn't be making any attempt to lessen the penalties for contempt of court. The last thing anyone should want to see is more people in contempt of court orders, because that's not getting to the root of the problem: the fact that the orders are being made.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 05:50 PM
–

Sometimes contempt of court is a big deal. In contract law, contempt of court is super important to put some real weight behind contracts to exchange services. The problem is that men are being legislated to have an obligation to pay things they can't reasonably be asked to pay, not that the court has means of ensuring that people don't screw eachother over by dodging their debts.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 03:08 AM
5

This is why more students should enroll in non-government schools or programs, if they can. Even something as cheap (financially) as doing the IB program where offered can get kids in classrooms with teachers who've actually been trained to foster independent thinking, and in a setting that places emphasis on final exams for grades, even before university.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 06:14 PM
12

This. I would never even consider having children with someone so adamantly opposed to freedom of thought.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 01:38 AM
2

There's a bit of everything in between, too. Most MRAs are reasonable enough to realize that if they want to talk about traditionalist topics, they won't get agreement from everyone else here, so for the most part topics like banning abortion, traditional gender roles, etc. are kept out of the main MRA dialogue. By the same token, everyone knows woman-hating really isn't acceptable here. It happens, the FUU posters and whatnot do appear, and yeah, seeing charicatures of political rivals is funny…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:00 AM
2

Eh, don't like his apology. We adamantly oppose religious practice when it harms women. Why does society not do the same when it harms men?
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:00 AM
5

Libel is still a valid cause for action in a civil court. People in the US throw around first amendment like it's an invisible star wars shield, but that's false. Of course, if he can show that it is likely she received an abortion, then he can't be sued or anything, but there's definitely privacy rights that are there because people infringe on them.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 02:47 AM
–

Overall, 91% of youth in these facilities were male; 9% were female. I'll be frank. This is an excessively misleading statistic as presented. One cursory glance over the article shows a rather obvious reason for the 95% figure, namely, that 91% of the victim pool is male, and in general, older teenaged boys aren't the prime targets for male sex offenders. Shame on menactivism.org for trying to present this in a completely misleading light, and I say this as someone who's in full support of the u…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 02:39 AM
8

Contracts are voidable if signed under duress. He's fine. It's the fact that his psycho wife is getting off with a slap on the wrist that's the issue, here.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 07:24 PM
1

Erp, sorry. I've been reading some wierd articles, lately. I should clarify that some cultures (not North America's) involved forcing chastity on women through all sorts of means. I don't think I should have used the word rape there, deprivation of ability to consent to sexual activities is a more broad scope that covers both crimes. I just don't know a name that would suit the crime of slapping a chastity belt on your 20-year old daughter.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 09:17 PM
3

Apparently these people think coercing a woman in to having sex is rape. That poses a big problem for anyone trying to assert that men shouldn't be forced in to sexless marriages or relationships. Sexual deprivation is something that might even be legitimately called rape if it was applied to a woman, so why is it okay to have a big giant financial chastity belt attached to a man when his wife says so?
/r/MensRights01/06/11 05:27 AM
2

To comment, a bit, these officers aren't innocent by any means, they breached their standard of trust to civilians, and by admission, one of them made out with a nearly passed out woman he'd been called to help. That said, the case showed that there was due cause to believe that the woman's memories of actually having sex with one of the officers was unfounded. What bothered me with the response, though, was just the resounding "guilty" that came from politicians, advocates, and even protesters.…
/r/MensRights30/05/11 03:19 AM
2

Actually, that still wouldn't be allowed in this case. No amount of consent can let you have sex with a passed out person, apparently.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 06:12 PM
–

What they did may have been morally wrong by your standards, but it wasn't illegal. The fact that our society is so lopsided that a single girl could convince five guys to follow her is more real of an issue than the fact that they went through with it.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 04:19 AM
–

State funded abortions for rape only provide an incentive to making false reports, especially the "stranger" ones that force the police out in to fruitless manhunts, on occasion.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 06:14 AM
–

This topic needs posts like this, instead of "ur so brainwashed." This helps, that doesn't.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:52 PM
3

No feminist wants to use "consentual sex whereby consent was made in a state of questionable mental capacity" when they can just say "rape." For them, it's a matter of denying the principle that there are varying degrees of rape, because most rational human beings can see far enough down that particular rabbit-hole to realize that once they say forcible, violent rape is less bad than two drunk college students having sex, they'll have to start accepting that argument to the point of trivializing…
/r/MensRights17/05/11 02:42 PM
1

I mean trying to get anything like this on to the main page.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 11:31 AM
3

Signed. I don't know how big this can on reddit, though. Feminism just has a bigger reddit presence, and some confirmation bias coupled with a radical denouncing this petition as trying to further 'rape culture' and let people get away with rape will probably suffice for most of them, if this gets on the radar.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 12:48 AM
2

The only thing this makes me thing is "well duh." If a man is in a relationship, wants sex, but finds that his partner is holding back, he's going to try to take it to a level where she's comfortable with it, regardless of whether or not he's there emotionally. I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true for women, either. Whichever party has a lower "emotional commitment" threshold before they're ready to have sex is going to have the incentive to act impulsively with the "I love you." It's no…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 01:39 PM
–

This. People who make posts like that are the same ones who will ignore sites like false rape society because they're "opinionated blogs," even when all the site does is link to real news stories and provide commentary. That doesn't mean the real stories were fake =.=
/r/MensRights20/04/11 05:34 PM
–

Ridiculous. If it was made a crime for women to withold sex from their husbands, I'm sure the feminists would already be trying to get the US government to intervene down there.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 03:28 PM
3

Nothing like a little victim-blaming from the feminists to highlight their sickening hypocrisy. "Well if you didn't want your career prospects and education ruined you shouldn't have gotten your girlfriend mad at you." ... right. I'm sure we all remember the fact that Feminists in Toronto STAGED A PROTEST when a cop made a comment of similar structure.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 03:02 PM
3

This is a joke, a complete violation of human rights, and a shot in the face to anyone who thinks the United States can consider itself a just nation. The writer of this article criticises people for engaging in their cloistered philosophy, but he carefully avoids acknowledging that he wants more innocent young men to have their lives permanently ruined to get all of the good things he’s talking about. Maybe beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t the way to go, but how about growing a pair and talking …
/r/MensRights20/04/11 01:23 AM
2

Add in fault for divorce and she could just accuse you of child abuse and take the kids permanently. It's not like someone morally reprehensible enough to demand money for cheating wouldn't be above a few lies in court for easy cash.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 03:48 PM
2

It's data. Radical feminists don't usually like data, because it does things they don't agree with. The key evidence is that estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin are in semen. You cannot argue with that, nor can you argue with the known, established medical properties of these chemicals. The rest of the evidence is what scientists would call "supporting" facts, namely cases where causation is not proven, but where applying our predictions made with hard data gives positive resul…
/r/MensRights19/04/11 03:35 PM
8

There's a lot of answers to those questions on the blog associated with this post. If you actually read some of the stories there, it becomes fairly obvious that "due process" is not happening. Colleges have always been able to pass their own "internal court" judgments regardless of what the actual legal system would say. Consider the downright ridiculousness of having a justice system, where it's alright for a school to declare you guilty, publicly shame you, kick you out, ruin your employment …
/r/MensRights19/04/11 03:25 PM
1

You can't just "walk free" from a rape accusation even if you're proven innocent. People have been kicked out of unisversity, lost their jobs, friends and families only to be cleared of charges in a court of law. Furthermore, if a woman gets a rape kit and points out the person who raped her in an alley, that guy is going to go to jail. This is because the man is forced to take a mandatory DNA test in order to prove that he had sex with her. In cases of forcible (and random) rapes, the defendant…
/r/MensRights19/04/11 02:10 PM
5

That's not a new thing. Screw a chick with a boyfriend and she can pre-emptively accuse you of rape so that she doesn't get dumped for cheating. If you aren't already reading it, http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
/r/MensRights18/04/11 11:19 PM
1

This is just yet another story that highlights a serious injustice in society. Why the hell should universities be allowed to pass judgment on people accused of sexual assault in a way that is completely independant of the justice system? Why is it suddenly okay for the people in charge of one of the biggest hot spots of false rape claims to pervert justice and presume guilt? This just flies in the face of basic, fundamental principles of any civilized country.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 03:20 PM
1

I have to say, thanks for going out and making this a thing, here. I honestly had no idea that women thought that way, because men tend to actively pursue knowledge of female anatomy (though often inaccurate representations thereof) and see knowledge in that subject as a bit of an ego or pride among other men thing. That said, I wish more people had the level-headedness to say things like what you posted. The idea that sex is something "a man does to a woman" is incredibly off-base, and really h…
/r/MensRights15/04/11 09:52 PM
1

MRAs wont be like feminists because we won't tell people who disagree with us that they deserve to be arrested, kicked out of their college and publicly humiliated for an accusation, when feminists will continue to tell us that we deserve to be raped for so much as questioning their dogmatic beliefs. We won't be like them becase we hate real rapists as much as anyone, while radical feminists react to a false rape accuser with unbridled sympathy and empathy. We don't look at real rape cases and a…
/r/MensRights15/04/11 06:24 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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