TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SidewaysGiraffe Archive

View 0 posts and 4,490 comments by SidewaysGiraffe on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 4,490 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-3

Well, you're almost there. Keep at it; it'll click eventually.
/r/MensRights20/07/26 11:27 PM
14

Why is it crazy? It's just the next logical step. Convince women that they have no agency but somehow deserve the best of everything, and it's only natural that some will start thinking that way. Put into place brutal social repercussions for those who dare to speak openly against the narrative, and few will, reinforcing among the general populace (especially women, who, as I've said before, aren't raised to have the social courage or moral fortitude to stand against massed opinion). Eventually,…
/r/MensRights20/07/26 11:26 PM
0

...Did you miss the point where I pointed out how that doesn't matter? Bad bot!
/r/MensRights19/07/26 08:49 PM
0

Because it's what they've been exposed to and raised to do, and few have the werewithal to differ, especially openly. It doesn't help that the usual way to do that is to praise women for doing X despite being women (which is pretty damned sexist, frankly) than to praise the results of their efforts. This is why brands are referred to as "women owned" rather than anything about their actual quality or price or genuinely praiseworthy qualities. It's a lot easier to make yourself seem taller by kno…
/r/MensRights19/07/26 06:10 PM
5

It's quite simple, really: an appallingly large percentage of women are hollow. Not physically, of course, but morally- in the sense of lacking an internal sense of ethics and agency in which they have the slightest bit of faith (this is why they feel attracted to men who're already in relationships- said men have the approval of other women, who presumably know better). They're infantilized from childhood with the idea that nothing they do matters, because they're just girls- it doesn't matter …
/r/MensRights19/07/26 05:44 PM
2

AI doesn't exist- and LLMs just follow their programming. That IS a human judge, just with extra steps.
/r/MensRights19/07/26 05:17 PM
2

It's almost as though several decades of inhumane policy decisions don't erase billions of years of natural selection. Who'd've thought?
/r/MensRights19/07/26 05:16 PM
5

Did you miss the point where no other evidence was offered? Being an asexual hermit wouldn't've prevented this. Excepting, of course, that he wouldn't then have a daughter, but it could just as easily have been some other woman.
/r/MensRights19/07/26 05:15 PM
2

That's because poring into the darker aspects of human nature is making you paranoid. If thirty percent of the people in a police lineup have committed a crime, that doesn't mean that thirty percent, or anything like thirty percent, of the general population have.
/r/MensRights19/07/26 05:12 PM
1

Yes, completely true. A man having suspicions is not the same as a man not having suspicions; you can't be in both groups.
/r/MensRights19/07/26 05:10 PM
19

Because men aren't seen as being human. Remember Hermesmann V. Seyer?
/r/MensRights18/07/26 09:45 PM
16

It's far more likely that the figure is smaller than that it's larger; a man isn't going to have a test done unless he has suspicions.
/r/MensRights18/07/26 09:43 PM
1

Misogyny is hatred of women; it's not in the least limited to men. Esther Villar comes to mind.
/r/MensRights18/07/26 09:40 PM
2

We're not- most of us don't know squat about UK maternity services. What're the problems it has, and what makes you say misogyny is the issue?
/r/MensRights18/07/26 03:10 PM
1

Esther Vilar was writing a wildly exaggerated parody of "The Manipulative Man". Her book has as much to do with reality as does Birth of a Nation.
/r/MensRights18/07/26 03:10 PM
11

...except that even the extreme Feminists were accepted and even celebrated. Valerie Solanas comes to mind. Or do you not think that "breathing" qualifies as a "male interest"? Beyond that, who are you quoting? And why? What do you hope to accomplish here?
/r/MensRights17/07/26 02:16 PM
8

Basically, it means "a man who doesn't follow the standard life script and instead prioritizes his own happiness". More practically, it means "a man who doesn't do what I feel he should, and so should be made to feel bad". There isn't really any more depth to it than that. I've had the term applied to me because I enjoy video games. Never mind that I've learned and developed mental and social skills from video games; never mind that I have, on more than one occasion, saved multiple lives with in…
/r/MensRights17/07/26 01:03 AM
2

I told you that you were overloading that pony!
/r/MensRights16/07/26 02:19 PM
0

No, the word means means "unmarried, against their will". They might call themselves "incels" because they don't like strawberry ice cream; it doesn't mean that it applies.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 02:17 PM
0

And you can't even lie competently. For shame.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 02:15 PM
3

They'd say if it asked straight out, yes- but give actual examples, and you'd see a lot more wavering. A big part of the problem is that while people are reluctant to hold women to the same level of accountability as they do men, it's usually subconscious.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 02:14 PM
2

Society hates them because they're not following its script- the same as it does for every other type of noncomforming behavior.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:48 AM
1

One of the first things we see an angel doing in the Bible is guarding the entrance to a place where God's dishonesty was proved to humanity; one of the most noteworthy is going forth to slaughter thousands of innocent children as part of a dick-measuring contest between Yahweh and His Egyptian counterparts. In both cases, the only justification given is "such is God's command"- exactly the same justification that woman would probably use, with "Yahweh" swapped for "hypergamy". The problem is th…
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:46 AM
7

People openly calling for others to be punished, even in the form of social ostracization, for their epigenetics are people it's best to avoid; that they do so openly and without being prompted means they're kind enough to declare their bastardry. Remembering that it's no different from people calling for homosexuals to be punished (that's epigenetics, too), make a note of who they are and move on. The only Tiktok that you should trust is the one from Evna.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:36 AM
7

It's the equivalent of going online and saying "the government is fascist" and not only being able to do so, but not winding up imprisoned or dead as a consequence of doing it.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:30 AM
2

No. A person who is involuntarily celibate, not just a man.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:27 AM
8

No, it's a word created by a lonely lesbian to try to describe her situation and seek out others in the same position, presumably to hopefully pair up with one of them. It's since been taken up as a thought-terminating slur, true, but that's not how it got started- and the term, in its origin, wasn't a slur at all.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:26 AM
-7

There are NO married people who are involuntarily not married. Go visit a dictionary.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:23 AM
2

Manifestly, because they inspire a complete breakdown in associative logic. Try to follow me here: 1. "Incel" means "involuntarily celibate". 2. "Celibate" means "not married". 3. Being both "married" and "not married" would require that the flaws of Bohr's philosophy were not only true, but not flaws- which Schrodinger illustrated the inaccuracy of in 1935. 4. Being both "married" and "involuntarily not married" would require mathematics to be deterministic rather than predictive. 5. Mathematic…
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:22 AM
2

That would be a "no", then. Battle slavery is wrong. That doesn't mean governments do more harm than good.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:11 AM
0

Now THAT is more like it! My request, however, was entirely reasonable, given that you initially supplied nothing- your downvote was wholly inappropriate.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:10 AM
5

It's something I'll never understand. The baby you rocked to sleep in your arms and the young man whose life the politicians declare to be state property are the same person.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:09 AM
3

It's not just the ultimate decision, it's the ignoring of ANY level complexity. I mean, joining or leaving an international political and economic organization is, of necessity, going to have a LOT of components; a lot of things to approve or disapprove of. And how do you weigh the different aspects, if both sides have things you support and oppose? But no: it was just "if you support 'leave', you're racist". And that was the narrative in American media; in the UK itself, I'm sure it was even wo…
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:06 AM
9

I concur. Especially when the movement's adherents constantly talk about "empowerment" while doing the exact opposite.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 01:02 AM
0

How could it? What reliable source could their possibly be for those aspects? Given that, how can you say one is "likely much higher"? Do YOU have a source beyond "trust me, bro"?
/r/MensRights15/07/26 07:52 PM
1

In the name of Devil's Advocacy, I'll point out that the idea of men's increasingly limited social lives having an outsized impact on their romantic partners isn't wrong, even if it IS oversimplified. Of course, that means that the logical solution is to encourage men to do MORE, and provide them with opportunities to do so without demonizing them for actually doing it, rather than playing the "Waah, waah, poor victim/woman me!" card for the six bazillionth time.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 07:49 PM
21

It was. It was also the wrong social decision. Ever hear of the Galbrush Paradox? It's the one and only reason any given villain shouldn't be female (assume narrative neutrality otherwise, of course). In reality, women are just as capable of good or evil as men are, and insisting otherwise is sexism, plain and simple.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 07:46 PM
23

Not really. What's unbelievable- to me, anyway- is that men keep tolerating this, generation after generation. My grandfather fought as a slave in Korea at a time when due to his age, he didn't even have the right to vote. And yet, when the men of his generation saw their own sons threatened with the same in Vietnam, they didn't even vote the bastards responsible out of office.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 07:41 PM
12

But remember, people, the only reason anyone in the UK voted the leave the EU was racism. No other considerations came into play.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 07:38 PM
1

No, "person who didn't sleep through history class". Try to keep up.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 07:30 PM
9

Okay, first thing's first: this is not "A female teacher" strikes again; this is "Another rapist". If this happened, it's horrific, and she should be punished just as a man who did it would be, and she won't be, and that, too, is awful. But sexually assaulting their students is something the overwhelming majority of female teachers don't do. Also: these are allegations; nothing has been proven yet. And, given that the alleged incidents happened in 1999, and the victim didn't come forward for mor…
/r/MensRights15/07/26 02:45 PM
-2

Yes, it is, and yes, they are. I said absolutely nothing in support of battle slavery, merely pointed out that "governments are evil garbage" is a gross oversimplification, and that "we don't need them" is flat-out incorrect, and that that are Serbian people alive today who saw with their own eyes how false that is. And you downvoted me, because you think any response other than unthinking acceptance of what opposes your enemies is seeing male lives as valueless. Do you have the honesty to admit…
/r/MensRights15/07/26 02:36 PM
-3

Israel. Where is acknowledgement that governments serve the function of preventing even greater evils?
/r/MensRights15/07/26 02:09 PM
-4

...This is Serbia. Are you TOTALLY unaware of what happened to the people of Yugoslavia when their government fell apart?
/r/MensRights15/07/26 12:50 AM
-3

Then fat men are in serious need of some self-esteem. You can't externalize your source of that and still realistically be happy. Look at how poorly it works for women.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 12:48 AM
5

The right to be a citizen, rather than a slave; to not have your life be considered property of the state; to not be discriminated against in employment, housing, and education; to not have your genitals mutilated at birth; to not risk imprisonment because you're unable to make your court-ordered payments to your rapist. THESE are things stripping away rights from men- and they're things Feminism has been calling for decades if not centuries. The movement's entire purpose is promote inequality, …
/r/MensRights15/07/26 12:46 AM
2

Patriarchy has exactly the same level of effect on boys and men as does the Loch Ness monster. You're starting from a faulty premise, and then being surprised that other people don't agree with your conclusions.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 12:43 AM
1

Yes- and I was pointing out that that interperation is incorrect (well, incomplete), because of the anti-male, rather than simply pro-female) angle.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 12:40 AM
2

A noble thought, but calling them "boy soldiers" is just going to destroy whatever remaining sympathy they get.
/r/MensRights14/07/26 06:25 PM
-1

They have a population where men outnumber women by hundreds of millions, and yet many women still can't get a date. What does that tell you?
/r/MensRights14/07/26 06:25 PM
10

Well, it IS an evil thing that puts men down. Do you think that YOU'D like a movement that sought to have you stripped of your rights for no reason beyond your gender?
/r/MensRights14/07/26 06:24 PM
12

Manifestly not, at least according to this (or so I assume; Both_Relationship is playing the EME game); the labor and sacrifice that men make matter, too. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter if they died. Now, all the women of the world will never benefit from the sweat of the brows of those men, which means the only reason they'd kill themselves is to deny those benefits to women. It's not anti-utopian at all; as you say, it's just an exaggeration of commonly-held attitudes today.
/r/MensRights13/07/26 07:19 PM
10

Who do you think needs to be committed first?
/r/MensRights13/07/26 07:15 PM
9

"Cannabis-induced psychosis"? They're literally blaming reefer madness? I would remind you that in the United States, marijuana is a Schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substances act. It is illegal. I would also remind you that, with the exception of South Dakota, every single state legislature and governorship (and emperorship, in Illinois) has an oath requiring obedience to the Federal government (this is explicitly required in the US constitution, meaning South Dakota isn't actually a …
/r/MensRights13/07/26 07:14 PM
4

And how do you respond to that when it happens? It's sad reality, but no less real for that, but the treatment we get from others is pretty much what we're willing to accept from others. If you don't call it out, it'll keep happening. If you DO call it out, you'll have an argument instead- but eventually, they'll either start thinking of you as a person or they'll get sick of fighting and stop.
/r/MensRights13/07/26 07:02 PM
2

True, but... UK.
/r/MensRights13/07/26 02:10 PM
1

The reports- at least the initial ones- from last year were a mistake, but she HAD, as per the corrections, been moved into end-of-life care, so it's entirely possible she's died since then. Of course, it's not like I went over to the UK to check personally, so I suppose those reports might've been true.
/r/MensRights13/07/26 02:08 PM
2

They don't want husbands, either; they want sugar daddies. The common term for such women is "gold digger", but that's a mistake; digging for gold is hard, physical labor- these women are just whores. I'm sure it sucks to hear that kind of rejection, especially time and again, but remember: it's far better to hear it on the first date than after the first baby. Take the lesson and be grateful it didn't come at a higher cost.
/r/MensRights12/07/26 04:35 PM
-12

No, I feel like men get bashed for being unable to count- but clearly, not bashed enough. Bad bot!
/r/MensRights12/07/26 04:31 PM
1

A means of trasmuting suffering into root beer, presumably. Asking which country is "best" for men isn't one with a simple answer, since different people are going to value different things at different levels- how do you rank economic discrimination against military slavery? Divorce laws against pension policies? Social more X against social more Y? And then there are the non-gendered aspects, where different laws, rules, and traditions affect everyone positively or negatively (or both). Overal…
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:28 PM
-3

Because it's not caused by men. It's caused by politicians, which women have had an equal voice in electing longer than anyone currently above ground has been alive. Why are YOU equating modern men with long-dead traitors while complaining about other people falsely assigning blame?
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:22 PM
1

You're mistaken- the "modern day" Feminist movement contains nothing that it didn't contain at Seneca Falls; they simply had far more by way of legitimate grievances to hide their hate behind back then. It hasn't "fallen far"; it's just had its mask slip. And in the interest of fairness, I'll note that the only people I've ever seen for female military slavery (who aren't short-sighted MRAs) actually ARE Feminists- and not the coffee-shop type, either, but dyed-in-the-wool crusaders, determined …
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:20 PM
2

A supercontinent, comprising the continents of North America (which contains 45 countries) and South America (which contains 15).
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:15 PM
2

Ireland? You mean the country whose Minister of Justice told the citizenry to report their friends and neighbors to the police for referring to the country as a "police state" is engaging in authoritarian bullshit? Next thing you're going to tell me is that water is wet!
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:13 PM
0

Then it would be the USA, which has not only local and county fairs, but also state fairs, and hosted the most world's fairs. Are you ready to stop pretending words have only one meaning, or shall I continue?
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:11 PM
0

Not a country.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:09 PM
3

Fairness, now- where ARE boys legally protected against genital mutilation? Not merely by tradition (that's most of the world), but by law? I'm not aware of ANY jurisdiction.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:09 PM
2

How on Earth would that make it MORE fair?
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:07 PM
6

No, just a decent sense of priority. Not everyone is going to weigh the varying issues the same.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 03:06 PM
1

Fly at once- the truth about your trouser-stretchers is known. -A friend.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 02:40 PM
1

Fly at once- the truth about your trouser-stretchers is known. -A friend.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 02:39 PM
1

But blatant hypocrisy= winning debate? That's hardly fair (though I suppose it's at least logically consistent, since it's hypocritical). If the argument is that male athletes SHOULD make more money because they perform more impressively, then roided-up athletes should make more still, since they're even better.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 02:39 PM
-10

And if you're basing it on athletic performance, than athletes should be paid MORE for taking performance-enhancing drugs, because they give better results.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 06:20 PM
2

That'd it be nice to have a post with actual content. I'm assuming there's a Youtube link in there, just hidden for EME reasons, but even if there IS, a basic description of the video's content would be much appreciated. Especially if it's long.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 06:17 PM
1

But what about Martin Tupper?
/r/MensRights10/07/26 06:15 PM
1

No- muscle doesn't let you violate the laws of physics. If he can't land a blow because he's up against a trained martial artist, all that strength won't help one dang bit.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 06:15 PM
1

No, I've been studying physics.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 02:06 PM
1

That would be a "no", then.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 02:05 PM
3

I sure hope so- but it doesn't look that way.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 01:25 AM
5

Bingo. And let's not forget the, what, 80% of rapists who're rape victims themselves, and get told they're "lucky" for getting sexual attention, so they come to see it as harmless, or even beneficial!
/r/MensRights09/07/26 08:51 PM
-2

You're vastly oversimplifying here. You don't become stronger by being "trained"; you just become better trained. The most muscular man in the world, if all he does is build muscles, could get trounced in an actual fight by a skilled female martial artist who was a fraction of his size and weight. No, she can't throw you around like Hollywood wants you to believe, but a few punches deflected or dodged so they slam into a wall will slow your attack, at which point a few good nerve strikes or join…
/r/MensRights09/07/26 08:49 PM
2

No- but not in the way that words makes it sound. It's not that you're wrong, but that the framing of your question makes it kinda meaningless, because "film and television" aren't nearly so monolithic as you make it sound. I think you need to also consider the angles of: 1. who made the movie (writer/director), 2. who made the movie (company/organization), and 3. when the movie was made. I think you'll see a LOT of variation with those three accounted for, and things falling into predictable pa…
/r/MensRights09/07/26 08:45 PM
0

In order to stop lying, I'd first have to start: less than 20% of Disney's movies even HAVE female stars, and that's not only counting the dubious cases of "starring", but counting non-human characters, non-human characters in documentaries, and even "It's Pat"! Your feelings aren't more important than facts.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 08:38 PM
1

...and?
/r/MensRights09/07/26 05:18 PM
10

That the forum has a rule against non-descriptive titles? Yes. Yes, it is. Allow me to demonstrate.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 03:07 PM
6

Because if they didn't, the parties would drop them. Look at where it's happening, and who it's happening TO. You'll find your answer- but you're not going to like it.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 03:07 PM
1

When you read through Stephen King's Dark Tower series, and finally reach the end, after a million and a quarter words (about one and a half Bibles), and it's crappy, do you get angry at the book? Of course not; that wouldn't make sense. You get angry at the author, who WROTE the book. If millions of people instead got angry at the book, would that make it more logical? No- it'd just mean that those people weren't very bright. It's no different with a program. It runs the code it was given, and …
/r/MensRights09/07/26 02:44 PM
2

Yes, yes they have. Good! This is the second half of why. Longer hair is seen as a feminine thing, and men engaging in "feminine" behaviors, even in really minor ways, is often frowned upon. This usually holds true across cultural lines; the variation there is much more about which behaviors are considered feminine. In many Oriental (no, not "Asian"; that refers to a much larger area) cultures, focusing attention and effort on one's appearance isn't seen the same way, so there's less of a stigma…
/r/MensRights09/07/26 02:38 PM
0

This is the first half. Has someone pointed out the second?
/r/MensRights09/07/26 02:27 PM
-2

Is this your first day?
/r/MensRights09/07/26 02:27 PM
2

No, the reason for the encouragement of men keeping their hair short was to avoid getting it caught or tangled in dangerous machinery, which is enormously more likely than getting into a brawl.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 02:26 PM
0

You'd find it "self-important" if someone rebutted a point with an actual idea, instead of simply saying "bullshit"? Arguments on your planet must be awful.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 02:26 PM
-32

No, it isn't- if only men can rape, then 100% of rapists would be men. That's a logical place to start, but it can't be the only source of the idea.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 02:24 PM
-1

What on Earth are you talking about? Okay, I can let the misuse of "boycott" slide, since no one studies history enough to know what that word actually means, but the overwhelming majority of Disney movies have male leads. Even if they didn't, though, how would that constitute "marginalizing" anyone? You aren't entitled to see people who look like you on screen, and neither are any of your demographic characteristics. Even if you WERE, what stopped you from changing the channel? Do you also obje…
/r/MensRights09/07/26 02:23 PM
1

It might not have been the CDC that I was thinking of- but I think it was; I'll take a look and see if I can find what I read. Anyway, it was a revision of the old study that concluded the healthiest level of alcohol consumption was a small amount, taken fairly frequently, since that showed the lowest level of heart problems (in particular, and most delayed death in general). The problem was, that looked only at the raw numbers, and didn't consider why they were that way: those who abstain from …
/r/MensRights09/07/26 02:08 PM
5

Almost. "The only winning move is not to play", but it's also not to juggle porcupines. The phrase doesn't give answers, just eliminates possibilities. The only winning move is to not play.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 02:05 PM
-3

Even more confusingly, why is privacy only an issue when women threaten it? If you've got other men staring at you naked, that should still be a problem. I think James Turnbull had something to say on this subject...
/r/MensRights08/07/26 04:39 PM
33

Good on you! This kind of crap is only going to stop when it starts being penalized. And, much as I understand the temptation to do otherwise, responding to that accusation with "Quit ovary-acting, you sound she-tarded" probably wouldn't've helped.
/r/MensRights08/07/26 02:11 PM
-4

So, um, what's your point? That you disagree with people who say that women owe them sex? Good, I guess; that's a pretty awful idea. But...?
/r/MensRights07/07/26 07:20 PM
14

So can oxygen- hell, an element THAT reactive would, under any other circumstances, be classed as outright toxic. Let the Puritan bullshit go; you'll be much happier if you do.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 07:19 PM
2

Sure- it's not uncommon to try to get to know someone by taking (or faking) an interest in their hobbies. There ARE women who're interested in heavier/more complex games that typically appeal more to men, though; they're just a minority of the market.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 07:18 PM
0

"Chad"? Why not criticize them for not being "alphas", or having inadequate phlogiston in their phrenological profiles? If you're going to cling to nonsensical pseudoscience, you should at least have some FUN with them.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 04:57 PM
1

And not even accounting for pre-Judaic religions? You bots can't even do STUPID right!
/r/MensRights07/07/26 04:56 PM
8

Because the diversification of that... community (? Industry? Medium? Whatever you'd call the group) is so vast that it hardly seems worthwhile to lump them all together. The bored housewife playing Candy Crush while she waits to pick up her kids, the frat bro playing Halo with his drunken roommates, the fourth grader exploring in Minecraft, and the ultra-autist zooming through Aurora and wishing it had more system depth are all technically "gaming", but they're not doing the same thing, and cer…
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:39 PM
1

Porn was always morally right- but it's not factually right, at least in terms of teaching how to please women, given that the vast majority of it is made for male consumption and gratification. It's probably the LAST place you'll get good instruction on that subject (unless it's something specifically made for that), and won't give you the kind of experience that women want in that department.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:35 PM
3

Porn is GOOD. You're just not honest enough to admit that.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:32 PM
4

Promiscuity damages a person's ability to form monogamous pair bonds, reducing their fitness as a romantic and parenting partner. If you're going to claim that divorce "has no effect on others", then, well, all I can say is that you're in the right place.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:32 PM
3

You're wrong. There have been studies done that were interpreted to indicate that porn "isn't good for your brain", but there have also been many that showed, in exactly the same way, the benefits of smoking and DDT. The CDC's recent change on alcohol is enough to make any honest person question what they've been told. Porn is a vice in the same way that oxygen is, and should be treated in the same way.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:29 PM
1

Multi-megabyte hard drives, always-online internet connections (hell, any speed faster than 14.4, really), and at least a dozen or so image manipulation techniques... the list goes on.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:27 PM
4

"You have heard that it was said 'You shall not commit adultery'. But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28 Since the only way to prevent that without indulging it would be castration, and that would violate the "go forth and multiply" command, then yes, Jesus logically wants you to masturbate. Adultery damages both personal integrity (by weakening the strength of your word) and social cohesion (by weakening t…
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:25 PM
-1

Jesus DID decry marriage, stating that it was only there for people who couldn't resist sex. Funny how the tradcons never see that coming; it makes you wonder how much of the Bible they've actually READ.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:18 PM
2

You're conflating cause and effect. This aspect of religion is reinforcement of a standing social norm, not its origin.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:17 PM
45

You CAN win, just not their game.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:16 PM
9

It's worse than that: women aren't just victims, they're inherently victims- they've mostly been convinced that it's not POSSIBLE for them to be strong. They (they think) need to be rescued, not controlled.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:15 PM
2

Because women are, by that mindset, wanted to be complacent, and by nature (collectively) more likely to be so. Men are, broadly speaking, the disruptors, movers and shakers. Women aren't. That means maintaining the status quo requires reining in men much more than women.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:13 PM
24

But porn isn't unhealthy- not inherently, anyway. This is no different from saying that CRYING is unhealthy.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:11 PM
7

Interestingly, so are centaurs, which are half human and half horse, even though "taurus" means "bull".
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:10 PM
21

Feminist dogma is, to them, a matter of religion- not in the sense of providing a moral framework for understanding the role of individual in the world and society (though it does that, albeit crappily), or in the sense of giving an origin for the world and society (though it does that, too, even more crappily), but in the more fundamentalist sense of giving them an excuse to stop thinking, because they've already been given all the answers, and anything else is blasphemy.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 02:09 PM
23

The UN is off celebrating with the Bacha Bazi. Or, without the bitter sarcasm, no major political organization has EVER, to the best of my knowledge, acknowledged battle thralldom as slavery. You're not going to find it from the UN under even the best of circumstances, though, since that's not what the organization is for. A better question is, where's the ACLU? And the answer: partying with Biden's star chamber campus rape groups.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 12:02 AM
23

It all comes down to agency. A woman is inherently not an agent, in these people's eyes- and that's not seen as sexist, but calling it out somehow IS. Since she lacks agency, any problems are obviously the man's responsibility, as is the burden of fixing them. Acting like two adults, rationally discussing the issue, and working together to find solutions? Bah! You can't expect a woman to be capable of that! No, clearly the problem is that he's addicted to porn, or masturbates too much. It's all …
/r/MensRights06/07/26 09:18 PM
2

During the Spanish civil war, a man named Dan West was volunteering as a relief worker, handing out milk to street children (which basically meant "war orphans"), and at one point was explicitly told to not give any to children who looked too weak to survive. That decision, naturally, enraged him, and when he got home, he started up what would become Heifer Project (later Heifer International), a charity dedicated to fighting hunger (and longer-term, poverty and helplessness). It's a wonderful o…
/r/MensRights06/07/26 02:19 PM
2

Not very, but probably more than most other guys here. Things that make me sad are things that I tend to avoid. One of the perks of autism, though, is not worrying about whether people approve of what you do, since you already know they don't. So we're much freer in that regard.
/r/MensRights06/07/26 02:12 PM
-1

Presumably, the lack of actual proof that she is a monster. Allegations aren't evidence.
/r/MensRights06/07/26 02:08 PM
-2

Because free speech is more important than hurt feelings.
/r/MensRights04/07/26 11:26 PM
14

It's sexual assault, no less. Think about how horrible that's seen as when it happens to women.
/r/MensRights04/07/26 11:16 PM
1

And yet you wonder why women hate you, based solely on your gender. I'm not the one who's deluded here.
/r/MensRights04/07/26 11:15 PM
-3

You don't HAVE wisdom and knowledge; you have resentment and sexism. Why do you think it's somehow okay when it's you doing it?
/r/MensRights04/07/26 11:13 PM
-3

He made an unprovoked ad hominem attack against half the population. That's the exact opposite of looking deeper. Remember how, when the Feminists condemn men in exactly the same way, it's a BAD thing? It is here, too.
/r/MensRights04/07/26 11:12 PM
1

! More specifically, Warren had a deep distrust of doctors, which lead to him avoiding them, even when he shouldn't've. When he went public with his cancer diagnosis, his first comment was "I may have made an error in not having a checkup for twenty years". He was right about that; he might've survived if it had been caught earlier.
/r/MensRights04/07/26 11:11 PM
-14

If you truly think that poorly of women, then by all means, keep your distance from them. Everyone will be happier for it. Some people, however, look deeper. A handful of us are even wise enough to reject ad hominem attacks.
/r/MensRights04/07/26 08:07 PM
17

Wanting sex and wanting other forms of physical intimacy are not mutually exclusive- nor is either lacking in moral value. Stop trying to make sex evil; it's never going to work.
/r/MensRights04/07/26 08:05 PM
3

If it's never been real, then you've never had it.
/r/MensRights04/07/26 08:04 PM
3

Well, the good news is, this doesn't sound like despair. The bad news is, this is straight-up hate speech. Let's break it down: Men do not "exist to sacrifice"; if anything, we exist to build. From crop rotation to skyscrapers, basically every innovation humanity has ever devised has come from men- women have made a few, and helped with many more, and full credit to them for what they did, but the overwhelming majority of them are male in origin. So, too, are they overwhelmingly male in replicat…
/r/MensRights04/07/26 02:41 PM
-2

You'd say that such individuals have a higher burden of unfairness- but still don't think black people have issues? Don't that that police might, even unconsciously, be more expecting of violent overreaction in matters as simple as routine traffic stops, and become slightly more likely to escalate the situation themselves? Hell, that regular black people might be viewed as inherently lesser or unworthy because others suspect they only got where they are due to racial favoritism? Now, it's true t…
/r/MensRights04/07/26 02:23 PM
2

It wasn't. For most of human history, choice wasn't really a factor. Note that my saying so isn't me approving that.
/r/MensRights04/07/26 02:12 PM
-6

Not semantics at all- and for exactly the reason I specified. A better fit for a given situation isn't "superior" in any way except for maintaining homeostasis. That would mean that women are better than man at living on the savanna, running from lions, and having a 50% childbirth mortality rate. Every change humanity made pushing us farther from the hardscrabble conditions we lived under was the result of us being a poor fit for the environment we lived in- and the overwhelming majority of thos…
/r/MensRights03/07/26 05:13 PM
1

No, he pointed out that the situation may be more complex than it appears at first, and it's worth examining it in depth before making judgements.
/r/MensRights03/07/26 05:09 PM
1

And let's not forget the artificial apathy put up as a form of psychological shielding; seeing someone you helped care for, who came to you specifically FOR that help, suffering and/or dying, has to do a tremendous number on you- I couldn't do it. Regardless of the medical rank or the level of experience, medical people are still people, with all the failings, flaws, and limitations inherent in that.
/r/MensRights03/07/26 05:08 PM
2

This is good advice. If you want a proper diagnosis, you need to give proper information; medicine is very complicated, and even knowing what to test FOR, let alone which test to do, can be thrown off by red herrings- in EITHER direction. When you start seeing an issue, start a log, as thorough and accurate as you can get, for as long as it lasts (until your appointment, anyway). The more information you can give your doctor, the better s/he'll be able to help- and, frankly, the more likely you'…
/r/MensRights03/07/26 05:04 PM
1

It's not a solution, but: remind him of what happened to Warren Zevon.
/r/MensRights03/07/26 05:01 PM
2

That hasn't been my experience, but then, I haven't had much need to go to healthcare providers, through a combination of good health, good luck, and an expectation that life not be devoid of pain, coupled with growing up as the child of a doctor. I have, however, heard some real horror stories- but on both sides. People going in and demanding opioids (and -ates!), both in the time when they were handed out like Halloween candy, and the time after. People refusing to give explanations of problem…
/r/MensRights03/07/26 05:00 PM
-14

No, she isn't- she's implying we're less fit for our current environment. Evolution isn't about producing better lifeforms, but BETTER ADAPTED lifeforms. Which, given how so much of the world is slowly descending again into authoritarianism, where the best-fit people are those who blindly accept authority and do what they're told without question, isn't exactly an insult.
/r/MensRights03/07/26 04:55 PM
0

Wait- less rights for people who aren't white in Colombia? That's not just racist, it's racist and stupid. ...Which, sadly, means it's probably true.
/r/MensRights03/07/26 04:52 PM
2

Given how the process of evolution actually works, I wonder if she realizes what she's saying. Probably not.
/r/MensRights03/07/26 04:51 PM
1

No, the same scenario would not "be repeating itself once again"; Ukraine is being attacked by Russia, a real country with real limits, not some Platonic ideal of "invader". Nor would no one be left to defend Ukraine if the population escaped slavery; they DO have an army, you know. But you flee to Germany, which then gets attacked, because in your mind Putin is a Saturday morning cartoon villain? Okay, flee to France. They get attacked? Well then, every major city in Russia gets transformed int…
/r/MensRights02/07/26 01:43 PM
1

What part of Indian dental license law prohibits undervaluing human life?
/r/MensRights01/07/26 11:20 PM
3

You shouldn't. Neither should they. That's the entire point of being a citizen rather than a slave. But they didn't decide that. If you were trapped in a burning building with three hundred other people you couldn't help escape, would you stay and burn?
/r/MensRights01/07/26 11:19 PM
1

Of course- any rational person would. You can get another country; you can't get another life. It's even worse in the case of Ukraine, since they took NO measures to protect themselves or prevent a Russian attack- and then continued to take no measures to protect themselves even after Russia violated international law to steal Crimea. Enslaving their citizenry was their FIRST reaction, not the last. No calling up NATO and saying "Hey, about that membership...", no seeking an alliance with other …
/r/MensRights01/07/26 11:17 PM
2

How? Negatively against them is positively against everyone who isn't them.
/r/MensRights01/07/26 11:13 PM
2

And remember: Earl Silverman got off easy, as far as this madness is concerned. Erin Pizzey faced attempted murder. Nothing scares a Feminist quite like receiving equality.
/r/MensRights01/07/26 04:45 PM
-1

No. They fled from a war. Their victimhood is lesser, since they were allowed to flee, but it doesn't magically disappear because of political convenience. Any Ukrainian man with sense would've fled, too, had he thought it possible. If you're going to deny people rights because they refuse to be government property, then they don't actually have any rights anyway.
/r/MensRights01/07/26 04:41 PM
1

You're not wrong- but you're not taking it far enough. It's not just the dead who suffer; look at what happens to child soldiers when the wars end- they're typically given precious little support to integrate into the societies that enslaved and abused them, and can at best expect to spend their lives bouncing in and out of prison. That's to say nothing of the Rambos. The movies after the first turned the anti-war message into a "fuck yeah, war!" one, but the really telling example is the first …
/r/MensRights01/07/26 04:38 PM
3

It's not- basic equal opportunity employment law says as much. The problem is that that's overlooked, just like far too many other laws.
/r/MensRights01/07/26 04:31 PM
2

Fairness, now- a drowning person is usually panicking, and very likely to actively endanger someone coming to rescue them, regardless of their respective sizes- that's why they carry flotation devices and throw them to the drowning person instead, since they're designed to stay afloat. So, too, is fat tissue; unless they guy was 300 lbs of muscle, he was in far less danger of drowning than a normal-sized person would be. Neither of those applies in a firefighting situation, though.
/r/MensRights01/07/26 04:30 PM
4

ALL discrimination is positive discrimination; that's the nature of a zero-sum game.
/r/MensRights01/07/26 04:27 PM
7

Someone referring themselves as "free" of children, as though they were a disease, is someone who's clearly not thinking things through. To the other side, well, "racist" and "fuckhead" go together like peanut butter and chocolate.
/r/MensRights30/06/26 02:16 PM
0

"Cis" is a prefix meaning "on the other side of", as in "Cisalpine Gaul". What does that have to do with gender?
/r/MensRights30/06/26 12:09 AM
-7

You're the one making the ludicrous assertion; you're going to need to back that up with something beyond "because I said so".
/r/MensRights30/06/26 12:08 AM
3

I don't, because sexism is, by definition, illiberal; failure to adhere to an ideology doesn't change the ideology, just your adherence to it. The Chinese Communist Party built the world's largest shopping mall. Does that change Communism? Of course not- it just means they're not Commies. Of course, on the surface, that's a quibble- simple semantics. But it betrays a deeper issue with the way you see the world. Still, that's something for you to reflect on, not a matter for armchair psychology.
/r/MensRights30/06/26 12:02 AM
1

You've hit on something interesting here. Now, Yahweh is clearly and distinctly a male god, referred to a such even before He took over the proto-Hebrew pantheon. When, exactly, that happened is still a matter of debate, but the Jews didn't really become monotheistic, as we would think of the term, until the aftermath of the Assyrian war, when what was probably the strongest army in the world, using the most advanced weapons tech on the planet, failed to conquer Jerusalem, in what was seen as no…
/r/MensRights29/06/26 02:51 PM
8

The same way we can push for violence to stop when other people who share our demographic traits are violent. Moral agency is derived from individual action, not sex.
/r/MensRights29/06/26 02:23 PM
24

Because doing otherwise would mean acknowledging men as human beings, with desires and drives as complex as a woman's can be. They simply can't have that.
/r/MensRights29/06/26 02:20 PM
12

No. No, we are not. The men who act irresponsibly are. We do not share their guilt because we share their chromosome shape.
/r/MensRights29/06/26 02:20 PM
-1

In fairness, that doesn't mean that men can't take a "no". They just persist instead of flipping out. What that says about how people will respond in non-sexual cases when it comes to rejection is the really disturbing part.
/r/MensRights29/06/26 02:19 PM
56

Her body, her choice. His body, her choice.
/r/MensRights29/06/26 02:17 PM
4

Gotta love the downvotes you're getting here; nothing like questioning a victim narrative to generate suspicion in people questioning a victim narrative!
/r/MensRights29/06/26 02:16 PM
2

Oh, but we can- just not their game.
/r/MensRights29/06/26 02:15 PM
1

My opinion is that you should give some actual information before linking to untrustworthy sites. What, exactly, are they calling for- and what are your concerns about it?
/r/MensRights28/06/26 05:09 PM
1

Being a victim of violence isn't gendered. Neither is committing it. Someone, male or female, killed by someone else is no more or less dead based on the gender of their attacker. I've pointed this out to you repeatedly; you're just spamming your personal grudges at this point.
/r/MensRights26/06/26 03:53 PM
2

Your period is misplaced. Women do not have children; a woman, by herself, is no more capable of reproduction than any other individual. Women bear children, but they can't have them without a man involved. They're not more important; they're more inefficient. It's being a bottleneck, not having value.
/r/MensRights26/06/26 03:51 PM
1

You wait three days and then laugh at women's underwear? Bad bot.
/r/MensRights26/06/26 03:47 PM
1

No, you assume that what would follow a collapse would be better, and that the base state of a society is a positive one. You assume that in direct opposition to what history and nature show to be the case. The empire I cling to is fading, yes, and perhaps dying, but it's the only one that's ever even tried to respect individual liberties and rights. Has it succeeded? Not completely, but better than anyone else ever has. Incompetent? Sure. Evil? Not remotely. You'll appreciate that when the jack…
/r/MensRights26/06/26 03:46 PM
0

That would be subtracting, not adding- and insofar as it can tell us quite a bit about the experience of how others interact with you, with an actual standard of comparison, it's not TRUE, either. If social pressures were inherent to BEING something, they wouldn't be "social". If you don't like transsexuals, that's... well, that's unfortunate, but it's your prerogative. But this is just bigotry that isn't even supported by its own internal logic.
/r/MensRights25/06/26 08:32 PM
0

It would not BE good- that's my point. The circumstances that gave rise to modern civilization were exceptions, not the norm. And no, what stands on the brink of collapse is the power bloc that opposes the powers raping the world; Russia and China are doing just fine. In both cases, you're assuming a default state of benevolence that reality doesn't support.
/r/MensRights25/06/26 08:30 PM
13

Even worse: it's McCarthyism. Accusation equals guilt, so evidence isn't necessary.
/r/MensRights25/06/26 02:35 PM
8

President Obama? How long have YOU been here?
/r/MensRights25/06/26 02:33 PM
4

Collapse would lead to rule by strength, and the return of (however fancily they titled themselves) warlords. That would be worse for men, not better.
/r/MensRights25/06/26 02:33 PM
16

Transsexuals (either direction) can be a very useful voice for exposing many of the lies surrounding gender discourse- but if they're the ONLY voice, then the perspective's going to be rather limited.
/r/MensRights25/06/26 02:31 PM
1

Understandable. The only reliable way to do that is for her to want to stay. Force alone won't do the job.
/r/MensRights25/06/26 02:29 PM
2

Then you're mistaken. The only way to ensure a bad idea is rejected is open discussion and explanation of WHY it's wrong. Silencing it just makes it more compelling, because it makes it look like you're afraid of it. Germany wouldn't have neo-Nazis if it could openly discuss the original Nazis.
/r/MensRights25/06/26 02:28 PM
2

No- they can't take back power, because they never had it in the first place. Could they just "take" it, though? In theory- but that's not really how things work. Typically, what'll happen is that someone will emerge who sees the discontentment among the socially disfavored, and steers their anger towards a target that that someone disapproves of. Sometimes it's related to the source of that anger, sometimes it isn't. Populism isn't inherently a bad thing, but it's a very abuseable one.
/r/MensRights24/06/26 10:06 PM
12

It's absolutely about censorship- you don't like the ideas, so you want them silenced, and people punished for expressing them. The two are one and the same.
/r/MensRights24/06/26 10:03 PM
1

You... want to go somewhere where discrimination isn't illegal? How would that help?
/r/MensRights24/06/26 10:02 PM
1

Arousal affects your brain chemistry. The source doesn't really matter. Puritanism is Puritanism, no matter how you gussy it up.
/r/MensRights24/06/26 10:01 PM
1

That's not in keeping with what I've seen. The "male loneliness epidemic", from what I've observed, is less about a lack of romantic partnership, and more about a lack of social connection in general. The two aren't unrelated, but that's mostly because the last few decades have seen the culmination of social shifts pushing most of the average man's social needs on to his romantic partner, which isn't fair for either of them, and the lack of said partnerships having the knock-on effect of damagin…
/r/MensRights24/06/26 07:47 PM
28

Of course not- why would we want to silence people who openly proclaim their horrendousness? The cure for bad speech is good speech, not censorship. What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.
/r/MensRights24/06/26 07:16 PM
3

...Except none of that is true. Not on a level with any depth, anyway. Women are not "born with their value"; that value is derived from their functionality as a reproductive bottleneck, and that doesn't kick in until adolescence. That WILL be taken away by the simple process of aging via the passage of time; it's why there are multiple billion-dollar industries based on helping them lie about or forestall that. It's why asking a woman her date of birth is seen as an insult. Further, men don't "…
/r/MensRights24/06/26 07:15 PM
7

The anti-discrimination laws make it very unambiguously clear- discrimination on the basis of sex and race is illegal. Awesome. Then the judges say that "not discriminating against men" is an overly narrow interpretation of "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such i…
/r/MensRights24/06/26 04:48 PM
6

Someone you're close enough to to be dating made an ad hominem attack on billions of people she's never even met, including you, and YOU DON'T THINK IT'S A PROBLEM? I'm aware that we as black people traded away our sense of self-respect (see how awful it sounds when you change the demographic? It's the same when you don't), but have a sense of perspective, man!
/r/MensRights24/06/26 02:49 PM
7

Of course- who hasn't? Granted, it's not usually for men as men, but black men are men, gay men are men, and so on. It's also not always wisely, or even intelligently, done, but still. And there ARE women who advocate for men as men (Erin Pizzey springs to mind); they're just notably rarer. But since most MEN don't so advocate, it's hardly fair to uniquely blame women for that.
/r/MensRights24/06/26 02:45 PM
2

He lead the core of the anti-gaming push that wound up creating the ESRB, displacing the (objective) RSAC rating system, along with exactly the kind of fearmongering that Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkesian would later make their careers off of.
/r/MensRights24/06/26 02:41 PM
2

It can have whatever attributes you want it to; that's the benefit of being imaginary. Heck, why not have it frolic through fields of wildflowers, hand in hand with patriarchy?
/r/MensRights24/06/26 02:38 PM
8

That Lieberman- he just doesn't know when to quit!
/r/MensRights23/06/26 11:18 PM
4

So... women are seeking after someone to help parent their children, but "lose respect" for the men who do it? But still stay married to them? Can we PLEASE stop with the senseless woman-bashing? They're not robots controlled by instincts; they're people, same as we are.
/r/MensRights23/06/26 11:17 PM
-3

Porn predates anatomically modern humanity. You might as well claim to be addicted to oxygen.
/r/MensRights23/06/26 11:15 PM
5

The main thing you hear libertarians advocating for is "Leave me alone!", which you'd think wouldn't cause a conflict, but you'll also get "I should be allowed to do [X]!". If you don't see a potential conflict with men's interests, consider that X could easily be "sexually mutilate my newborn son". That said, one point of contention hardly eliminates the common ground we share- and at any rate, they're libertarians, not anarchists.
/r/MensRights23/06/26 04:56 PM
3

Of course- why wouldn't they be? We don't discriminate. Well, some of us DO, but we quickly report them (and then get downvoted for calling it out, but that's another issue). However, since the root of most of what we talk about here is differing treatments of people based on gender, the respective experiences of men and women ARE going to come up; there's really no avoiding that. Frankly, I think the transsexuals are one of the keys to blowing the whole issue open, in the public mindset. It's w…
/r/MensRights23/06/26 04:53 PM
1

You... have no idea how someone facing down impoverishment, or possibly even prison, could come to the conclusion that, since their life is basically over either way, it makes more sense to go the route with a chance, however slim (I doubt the odds of getting away with murder are any better in the UK than here), of freedom? Unless you've lived a hopelessly sheltered life, you know perfectly well how one could come to that conclusion, since it's simple logic. Now, once again, I do not approve of …
/r/MensRights23/06/26 01:13 AM
67

The KKK didn't celebrate Martin Luther King day, either. Why would you expect anything different?
/r/MensRights22/06/26 03:04 PM
69

Spending their whole adult lives hearing how rejection "just doesn't happen to women" and other such nonsense is going to make getting rejected hurt even more.
/r/MensRights22/06/26 12:32 AM
1

No, my argument is rooted in the idea that bigotry is bad. You, evidently, disagree, as you claim pride from sharing demographic traits with people. I'm not trying to "pseudo-intellectualize" anything; I'm trying to steer this often branzenly sexist community on to a nobler path- one that doesn't judge based on chromosome shape. The fact that you think "don't discriminate" is damaging says a lot more about you than it does me.
/r/MensRights22/06/26 12:29 AM
1

A little positivity makes for a nice change, but- this is sexism. How could you not be proud of sharing a gender with Aurelius, Jung, Neitzsche, Hesse, Debussy and Da Vinci? The same way you could not be ashamed of sharing it with Nero, Stalin, Neitschze, Heidegger, Wagner, and Lincoln. Take pride in WHO you are, not WHAT you are.
/r/MensRights21/06/26 05:44 PM
15

I've said it before and I'll say it again: family is the best defense we have. Against what? Just about everything. And if you're fortunate enough for it to be extended family, you're even better off. Your uncle sounds like a good dude, and his daughters- and you, from the sound of it- are lucky to have him.
/r/MensRights21/06/26 05:40 PM
6

They don't. Women often- hell, usually- work as well. I think you need to find better women to hang around with.
/r/MensRights21/06/26 05:36 PM
2

Thanks for clearing that up. It doesn't make it any less stupid, but that's hardly your fault. I mean, when you're threatened by another person's sexuality to the point where you feel compelled to insult them for it...
/r/MensRights21/06/26 05:35 PM
0

I don't think so- not directly, anyway. I think it's more insidious- and, weirdly, perhaps a bit less malicious. It's not the compassion gap, but the expectations gap that's at work here. Women are perceived as being so devoid of agency that even expecting them to show basic empathy for men is subconsciously deemed as "too much to ask", and men go along with it because we're taught from boyhood that it's "not fair" to call them on it; put simply, we internalize it, too. Naturally, many of you ar…
/r/MensRights20/06/26 07:16 PM
11

Judgement, discernment, and enough intellectual honesty to admit uncertainty? My hat is off to you, good sir!
/r/MensRights20/06/26 03:11 PM
1

So for all you know, this is just the guy talking about baseball, but you brought it up here because you thought there was a possibility that it might be relevant?
/r/MensRights20/06/26 03:09 PM
2

That's funny; I hate how you keep bringing this up as though gendered violence existed. It doesn't. We need LESS focus on that aspect of this issue, because that serves no purpose except to divide men and women.
/r/MensRights20/06/26 03:08 PM
18

This is the key that I think a lot of people miss: it's not reasonable to blame the Feminist movement for Valerie Solanas- ANY movement, grown large enough, will attract its share of crazies. But their own reaction to her? Different story- it's PERFECTLY reasonable to blame them for that. And sure enough, that's where most of the real nastiness comes in.
/r/MensRights20/06/26 03:07 PM
1

Why is a post with a mod comment saying why it has been removed still up?
/r/MensRights19/06/26 09:13 PM
0

Unless you're going to vampirically drain her youth from her, yes, because "being young" isn't contagious. And if you ARE going to vampricially drain her youth from her, then still yes, because that's morally wrong.
/r/MensRights19/06/26 09:11 PM
-1

You honestly think that "deteriorating sperm quality" is the issue with having a kid at 38? Are you under the impression that human children are just small adults, entirely capable of caring for themselves from birth? Even if you ARE in exceptionally good physical shape, you're not going to be able to keep with even an average toddler when you're in your mid-40's, and it just gets worse from there. Do you just want to make sure your genes pass on, and don't care about your theoretical children? …
/r/MensRights19/06/26 03:06 PM
14

A "blowjob pig"? Isn't that kind of like being an "orgasm slut" or having a "coitus fetish"? Horror of horrors; you enjoy sexually gratifying your sexual partner!
/r/MensRights19/06/26 02:54 PM
12

They already have; the entire point of this is removing celibacy as a defense against it.
/r/MensRights19/06/26 02:52 PM
3

Logically, low enough that some desperate men will start seeing violence as the best way out for them, thus prompting MORE fear on the part of women, and driving the sexes even further away from each other. Not that I'm approving of that, mind you, it's just the reasonable extrapolation from "how low can they go?".
/r/MensRights19/06/26 02:03 AM
2

Mount Athos, maybe?
/r/MensRights19/06/26 02:01 AM
6

I'm not even in to country music, but if she responds by putting on a fake mustache and rebranding herself as Shanamuel Clemens, I'm totally a buying a ticket to her next concert.
/r/MensRights19/06/26 01:49 AM
3

"Think"? No- I know, through basic observation of repeated occurrences.
/r/MensRights19/06/26 01:46 AM
1

You asked with the same account you use to post here. This is pretty much what you should expect to happen. It's still bad, but remember what we're dealing with.
/r/MensRights19/06/26 01:44 AM
-5

Why haven't you actually answered any of my questions? I didn't "look for the worst possible interpretation"; I clearly and unambiguously asked why this was a problem. The userbase here, however, insists on repeatedly downvoting my honest questions, calls for reason, and seeking explanations that DON'T boil down to "women bad". It ain't ME looking for the worst. I haven't fucked off because someone actually has to give a damn about men, instead of bitching about women. And as you've shown here, …
/r/MensRights18/06/26 08:10 PM
1

Thank goodness, someone who can actually reason! Unfortunately, this isn't the elephant in the room; it's one of its fleas. The elephant is the violence occurring in the first place. They ask why so many women are the victims of violence; you ask whether they can prove that more women than men actually are victimized. The answer to both is: does it matter? Consider BLM. The movement predicates itself on the idea its name declares: that the lives of black people matter. It does basically nothing …
/r/MensRights18/06/26 08:07 PM
1

No. There are no "winners" in a collapse; just survivors. Learn from history here.
/r/MensRights18/06/26 07:55 PM
0

I am NOT unable to "treat men's issues seriously", and I'm not trying to minimize anything- merely to point that an extremely unlikely happenstance isn't the raging epidemic that you assume it to be. And I have absolutely no problem believing drugging for robberies (and various forms of sexual assault) are an issue; you specifically excluded them from being counted. And you weren't seeking support; you were asking if anyone else had experienced it, and I pointed out that, given how dangerous and…
/r/MensRights18/06/26 07:54 PM
-1

Why, pray tell, are you so concerned with specifically female violence against men? Do you think you're somehow less dead if it's another man that kills you? The logical reason to object to the "male violence against women" rhetoric is that it ignores male victims, not that it ignores female perpetrators- but given that it DOES ignore them, that just reinforces that this shouldn't be gendered at all, not just in the other direction. What's really motivating you here?
/r/MensRights18/06/26 02:51 PM
6

Troll smarter, not harder.
/r/MensRights18/06/26 02:48 PM
-1

"Complete collapse" would bring the awful aspects of modern society further forward, not back.
/r/MensRights18/06/26 02:47 PM
-13

Um... and why is it a problem that they've gender-integrated?
/r/MensRights18/06/26 02:46 PM
-1

Dude, you have GOT to let the persecution complex go. Bigotry is, if you include all levels of it, quite widespread, yes. Bigotry on the level of being physically violent towards the disliked group, on the other hand, is quite rare- and where you DO find it, it's going to be quite extreme. The Venn diagram of "hating group X so much that you'll attack them on sight, in ways that will land you in jail" and "limiting yourself to knocking them out" is infinitesimal. You're acting like it's enormous…
/r/MensRights18/06/26 02:45 PM
2

So... women are simultaneously "helplessly enthralled by their instincts" AND "in control of society, even though that doesn't exist", and you're calling ME a "cardboard cutout"?
/r/MensRights18/06/26 02:40 PM
11

No- you don't matter to an idiot like that because you're placing facts above feelings. You'll note that the rhetoric is rarely- not even in your example- about women actually being unsafe going out at night; just feeling that way.
/r/MensRights18/06/26 12:20 AM
-1

Yes- because that's what it was from the beginning; it couldn't be converted into what it already was (though it isn't limited to "the West"). But Sulikowski's theory makes LESS sense in that light, because the movement is still seeking to advantage women. You don't do that by depriving them of their free will. You COULD, of course, get an ever-increasing number of Feminism's victims convinced that women are utterly incapable of any volition, utterly at the mercy of society's diktats, but the us…
/r/MensRights18/06/26 12:17 AM
-3

No, I'm an intelligent person. She said that labeling certain masculine behaviors as "toxic" might make women seek after men who exhibit traits they don't want. If you're going to claim that's not society controlling women's behavior, then by what possible pattern of events could it come about? She absolutely said that. You are mischaracterizing her statements in order to make your ideological opponents look bad. Are you a fool?
/r/MensRights18/06/26 12:13 AM
-14

"Eliminating reliable mate-quality differentation"? Does she think that women pick a mate after seeing how they behave in public for six seconds? Human behavior, and consequently human society, are complex things. If evolutionary psychology is ever going to shake its reputation as a laughable pseudoscience, it's going to have to become something better. This idea, for example, ignores two critical facts: first, the humans are pack animals, and that many of the traits decried as "toxic" ARE, in f…
/r/MensRights17/06/26 07:39 PM
2

So much for "garbage in, garbage out".
/r/MensRights17/06/26 03:41 PM
5

If we understood THAT, half the posts on this platform would disappear.
/r/MensRights17/06/26 03:41 PM
9

The corollary to Santayana's famous epigram is that those who do learn from history are doomed to watch EVERYONE ELSE repeat it.
/r/MensRights17/06/26 03:40 PM
-1

"A million reasons". Such as? You don't impress a woman another guy's hitting on by making him pass out; that'd just make her think (if she cared about him) that he needed help, or (if she didn't) that the guys "in this place" drink way too much, and she'd bail. We don't find it "impossible"; we find it "ludicrously impractical and far too dangerous to be worth doing". Maybe that's because we're not sociopaths, but you have yet to give even a single viable other reason.
/r/MensRights17/06/26 03:37 PM
2

Um... it's so far beyond imagination because it would mean going to jail, and the only things that would justify that in a sane person's mind is if you intended to do something that'd see you thrown in jail already. Robbery, rape, and murder are the logical choices. "Making you look stupid" isn't worth being imprisoned for ten years.
/r/MensRights17/06/26 03:34 PM
-5

We don't die more; men have the same 100% mortality rate that women do. We die younger. Are we killed more? Well, let's take a look. The leading cause of death for both sexes is heart disease. Then cancer. Then comes the split, where men have injuries suffered in accidents (fifth for women), while women proceed directly to strokes. Men then get strokes while women get Alzheimer's, then men get "lower respiratory diseases". Murder is WAY down the list. So the only way you could really argue that …
/r/MensRights17/06/26 03:32 PM
23

Our "responsibility as men" is to police one another- and by implication, only one another- and to protect women, and, again implied, only women. I've been hearing this "come back to the plantation" nonsense since before you were born. It's never been true before; why would it be now, especially when all you have to back your idea up is sexist nonsense?
/r/MensRights17/06/26 12:37 AM
10

Universal human rights aren't an "unproven moral framework"; they're an attempt to raise humanity up from the mire they were created in. Religion started that. When it fails, something else has to take over.
/r/MensRights17/06/26 12:31 AM
5

How much of a standard of comparison do you think we have? Okay, we were all boys once, but who's to say the changes there aren't going from childhood to adulthood? Transsexual folks will certainly have some insights, but even they're only going to have a limited perspective. Nor is "being a man" a very singular experience; a guy who's long-term homeless isn't going to feel the unspeakable work pressures of a CEO. And life has, over the last several years, gotten harder for everyone- and I don't…
/r/MensRights16/06/26 06:59 PM
111

Wow. It's the UK, but still. A note to confused Jews and Muslims: your children are people, not property. Not of you or of your tribe. An 8-day-od boy is not a Jew. He is not a Muslim. He is a baby. Let him make his own decisions about his own body when he is an adult. It is not "a vital part of your faith" any more than burning widows alive was for the Hindus, or human sacrifice was for anyone who did it (which was basically everyone, if you go back far enough). Mexcans don't demand the right t…
/r/MensRights16/06/26 06:56 PM
16

When "bad things happen to their sons"? Like, say, when they get stabbed in the heart for no reason and die? Or is she just saying that mothers who aren't black don't feel the same way? Or that "bad things" means "being held accountable for murdering people"? Speaking as a deep-voiced, beardy individual who's Irish on one side and mostly Irish on the other, Jasmine Crockett has managed to offend me as a black woman. That's actually kind of impressive.
/r/MensRights16/06/26 06:47 PM
12

When Tremors 6 came out, it was decried (not that anyone paid attention; it was direct-to-video, but still) as "misogynistic" because of the number of women the monsters killed. Which was... 50% of the total count. More (by total, let alone percentage) than the entire rest of the franchise combined. And funnily enough, it was set in a very poorly CGI'd Antarctic research base, where the percentage of women would naturally be much LOWER.
/r/MensRights16/06/26 01:08 AM
2

Sure- but you're being neither authentic nor honest. Claiming otherwise doesn't change that.
/r/MensRights16/06/26 01:03 AM
1

You waited OVER A YEAR to pipe in a long-finished conversation you weren't even a part of to give... an EME-locked link, with absolutely no accompanying description? Even for a BOT, you're lazy.
/r/MensRights16/06/26 01:01 AM
15

That's the whole point- men feeling weak and powerless, women feeling unsatisfied and discontent. Both far more receptive to solutions peddled by those who created- or expanded, rather- the problems. You CAN please them- but they have to be willing to be pleased.
/r/MensRights15/06/26 05:13 PM
-2

The world is more egalitarian, and more financially equal (well, up until a few years ago) than it has ever been. Nor is the existence of trillionaires a problem when wealth is being generated, rather than simply hoarded. Or when it's due to hyperinflation running rampant. Every prior case was the latter- now it's the former. If you only see it as a problem NOW, then you need to take a long look in an ideological mirror.
/r/MensRights15/06/26 05:10 PM
2

No, you clearly feel a need to be Victim Man. Yes, we're up against those who would seek to grind us under their heels, but they make up only a tiny portion of society- the overwhelming majority are effectively bystanders, unaware that their actions are no less important than anyone else's. It's not a question of ideological combat, but of proselytizing; convert enough to your cause, and the problems will disappear.
/r/MensRights15/06/26 05:07 PM
3

A couple of things here. First, there are men out there who ARE monsters: Pol Pot, Vlad Tepes, Ted Bundy. They weren't monsters because of their gender, but said gender doesn't excuse their evils, either. There are definitely men who ARE monsters. Secondly, we did not "build the world"; it was already complete when we got here. Yes, we share a demographic trait with the people who did it, and yes, we (generally) do more to shape the world than women do, but evaluating a person based on their dem…
/r/MensRights14/06/26 05:12 PM
1

Brown bears have adapted to humanity's presence because of their intelligence, not despite it; one is MORE likely to follow you, if it's hungry enough to attack. You're thinking of BLACK bears. But then, rational analysis isn't your strong suit, is it?
/r/MensRights14/06/26 04:53 PM
2

And that damages the legitimacy of what was said... how, exactly?
/r/MensRights14/06/26 02:00 AM
3

Well, if the problem is that NASA is being less than transparent about its selection criteria, that's a reasonable thing to complain about- I don't know if it's a fair one, they might have legitimate reasons for not doing so, and I don't know if that applies in this case, but it's reasonable- but as you know, that's not what this is about. Here's something interesting you might not know: the pilots for Mercury capsules (and Soviet Vostoks, too) were chosen from the ranks of fighter pilots. That …
/r/MensRights14/06/26 01:59 AM
-9

Here's a crazy idea: if the problem is people not knowing about men's problems, then the solution is EDUCATION, not "seeking victimhood at any cost" or "automatically assuming the worst of anyone who's not already on our side".
/r/MensRights14/06/26 01:46 AM
6

Are... are you somehow you're under the impression that you're weaker than a man, but somehow stronger than a bear?
/r/MensRights14/06/26 01:44 AM
0

That's it, right enough; that's where you fail- you fail to understand.
/r/MensRights14/06/26 01:43 AM
0

Ahem: "And again, a bigoted feminist saying men wanting rights is hateful without a single example of how it’s bad for women." YOUR words. Not mine. YOU accused Prestigious-Hold of being both Feminist and bigoted when his words said nothing of the kind- simply because he disagreed with you. You then assume that I'm actually him on a different account, because no one could possibly have a legitimate reason to disagree with YOU; Heaven forfend! You want some examples of someone here hating women? …
/r/MensRights13/06/26 06:51 PM
2

It's a question because it ends with a question mark. It's a legitimate question because of the constant decrying of women and seeking of victim status for utterly nonsensical reasons that you see around here.
/r/MensRights13/06/26 06:38 PM
2

This is the rather telling point; while I've seen (and reported, and usually had ignored) scores of incidents of outright hatred of women, actual supporters of restricting women's rights is quite rare.
/r/MensRights13/06/26 02:29 AM
-8

No, an outsider saying that hating women is counterproductive. S/he's not wrong- nor is anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist here automatically a Feminist. But by all means, carry on with the "with us or against us" nonsense; nothing props up the willingness of outsiders to support our desires like ad hominem attacks.
/r/MensRights13/06/26 02:26 AM
32

And the fact that that's actually "progress" is, while true, unspeakably depressing.
/r/MensRights12/06/26 09:20 PM
-3

Yes, "women hold all the strings" and yet somehow are also "subject to constant humiliation by individuals who really, really despise them". I thought "Schrodinger's empowered woman" was a stupid enough idea to be recognized as a fallacy. Then again, the same is true of the cat. Are there similarities between the dating and job markets? Sure. You've pointed some of them out. But this is exactly the kind of nonsensical interpretation that lead to the idea of "patriarchy".
/r/MensRights12/06/26 09:19 PM
4

Except you have no idea how many men the majority of the women you encounter- in ANY context- have been with. You have taken the idea of hypergamy, which is very real, and used it in a constructed ideology that women, lacking any form of personal volition and entirely controlled by their instincts. Logically, you shouldn't worry about it, because you, as a man, are incapable of acting outside of the push of YOUR instincts to impregnate as many women as possible. Do you see how false it is when I…
/r/MensRights12/06/26 09:14 PM
0

"Posts with titles that do not indicate what the post is about or use a clickbait format may be removed, or reposted by moderators." Where is the confusion coming from? What part of that is ambiguous, or hand to understand?
/r/MensRights12/06/26 04:50 PM
1

Okay. And let's start with rule #3: ● Posts with titles that do not indicate what the post is about or use a clickbait format may be removed, or reposted by moderators.
/r/MensRights12/06/26 04:49 PM
1

Fair enough. I just want to make sure we also don't forget the other positive aspects our fathers have on our lives. It's very easy to focus all the attention on one aspect, and that inherently limits you; you can't see a three-dimensional image with only one eye. Well... unless you're a portia spider. But they have eight of them anyway.
/r/MensRights12/06/26 04:48 PM
2

I'm sensing a theme here. You're not going to like this, but- what else is there? Is he nothing more to you and your family but a beast of burden and a source of money? You praise him for his sacrifices, and rightly so, but is that all he is?
/r/MensRights11/06/26 08:10 PM
5

For one, the fact that colorblindness is both autosomal dominant AND sex-linked, so it IS far more common among boys than girls. Oh, but I'm letting facts get in the way of dogma again, ain't I? How silly of me.
/r/MensRights11/06/26 02:42 PM
23

Well, from this comment alone, you: 1. blame a nonexistent "patriarchy" for your problems, 2. call masculinity "toxic", and 3. either assert that all men are in prison, or claim that the idea of "rape culture" extends outside of it. Three examples in two sentences isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
/r/MensRights11/06/26 02:40 PM
-8

Who, then, DO you have respect for? Odds are, they see (or saw) little problem with the terrible things that you were, or could've been, a victim of, based solely on your gender. That's pretty misandric.
/r/MensRights11/06/26 02:38 PM
1

Yes, you could- but acknowledging that would mean acknowledging that this survey masquerading a study had no value either. Pick your battles.
/r/MensRights11/06/26 02:36 PM
-4

I don't know- I've heard no shortage of "oh, he must've wanted it" and "where were those teachers when I was in school?" from other guys.
/r/MensRights11/06/26 12:51 AM
0

I think that calling them- or thinking of them as- "double agent" suggests a framing that doesn't reflect reality; women are the opposite sex, not the enemy sex.
/r/MensRights10/06/26 02:07 PM
14

Holy crap. I know this sounds harsh, but- why do you stay there?
/r/MensRights10/06/26 12:51 AM
2

If that's really what you want, Gretchen, then how about you start by apologizing? A hell of a lot of people were denied the care they deserved- and, y'know, NEEDED- because of the restrictions you put in place during the Lockdowns, and KEPT in place long after it became apparent that the danger was hideously overblown, and the only way out was through. You know what's worse than having a loved one die? Having a loved one die alone because you're not allowed to visit them. Having to then learn t…
/r/MensRights10/06/26 12:49 AM
2

Right. My annoyance- which is really full-on irritation at this point- is that this is being treated as though it WERE AI, with the attendant risks and dangers, and ignoring those that it actually represents. It's fearing the gun instead of the person pointing it at you.
/r/MensRights10/06/26 12:39 AM
-1

Yes, because that is what it's programmed to do. It is not called an AI by anyone who knows what that actually means; that's not what it is. If you read a book and get angry at what the author says, you don't get angry at the book. A great many of you here seemed to think that not shooting the messenger means, instead, shooting the tablet on which the message is written. That's not actually any smarter.
/r/MensRights09/06/26 06:51 PM
2

One is, of necessity, left-wing. The other may or may not be. Aside from illustrating a political angle (or rather, an angle within the existing political framework), it's difference without distinction.
/r/MensRights09/06/26 06:46 PM
3

That's better- thank you.
/r/MensRights09/06/26 01:03 AM
12

So... you think we need MORE sexist nonsense?
/r/MensRights09/06/26 12:46 AM
4

"Far normal"? I'm assuming there's some invisible EME link there, but FOR THE LOVE OF SATAN, can we PLEASE stop with the posts consisting of an unexplained link and absolutely nothing else?
/r/MensRights08/06/26 09:08 PM
5

The phrase "rape culture" refers to the fact that men are often exposed to the threat of sexual violence while in prison, and that this is accepted as a normal and reasonable thing. It has nothing to do with women.
/r/MensRights08/06/26 03:13 PM
1

No, they don't- every major genetic screening and testing company has sold, or simply given, the taken data away, and I'm unaware of even a single lawsuit against them for violating medical privacy that's even gotten off the ground. And if the government isn't involved in policing these tests, then who the Hell is enforcing the "mandatory" part of the policy? We're not "assuming" anything; we're looking at the logical results of the proposal.
/r/MensRights08/06/26 03:10 PM
-3

Imagine a crime-ridden city where street-level muggings and the like are common. A politician comes along and proposes that this be combated by having the government issue every adult a semiautomatic weapon and a supply of ammunition. You'd call that insane, and it is- even the most die-hard gun nut would say there are SOME people who shouldn't be armed. Johnny the Crackhead won't quietly accept people not giving him change when he could just shoot them, and Becky Bottlebrain won't back down fro…
/r/MensRights08/06/26 12:35 AM
21

In order to properly understand something, you need to confront it truthfully- and truthfully in all aspects, which is the tricky part. That means: 1. no lies. 2. no damned lies. 3. no statistics. 4. no euphemisms. The most important part of military training isn't the "here's how to shoot/stab somebody", or the wilderness survival, or even the physical exercise regimens; it's the psychological breaking down of a human being into a machine for enacting the will of the state, unbound by pesky thi…
/r/MensRights07/06/26 02:18 AM
9

I thought it said "capitalism". The truth, sadly is even stupider. "Casteism". Holy crap. The entire point of the Indian caste system is that it's built-in discrimination that placed people on a specific rung of society from before they were even born; it's a hard-coded form of bigotry that's so obviously awful that even INDIA abolished it. It's part of traditional Indian culture. So is Sati, a practice whereby widows were burned alive for the crime of outliving their husbands. Fun fact: despite…
/r/MensRights07/06/26 01:49 AM
8

This is what a 50-year-old in particularly good shape should look like. Let's not move the Overton window in another wrong direction.
/r/MensRights07/06/26 01:38 AM
31

Dude, take a look at that picture again. Do you really want to steal food from a guy that jacked?
/r/MensRights07/06/26 01:36 AM
3

It's not a "made-up word"; it's a prefix meaning "on the other side of", as in Cisalpine Gaul; the Gaul on the other side (northwestern, in this case) of the Alps.
/r/MensRights06/06/26 07:10 PM
0

Amen, brother.
/r/MensRights06/06/26 07:09 PM
7

Here is a map of South America: http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_south_america/maps_of_french_guiana/full_political_map_of_south_america.jpg Now, those borders are current-day, which might differ slightly, but not hugely, from 1864, when the war of the Triple Alliance broke out, pitting Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay together against... Paraguay. Take a look at that map again, and try to guess how it went for Paraguay. Better than 90% of the male population died, and it was, for years afterwa…
/r/MensRights06/06/26 07:08 PM
29

Savages.
/r/MensRights06/06/26 07:02 PM
2

Her body is her body- the baby's isn't. That's why it's perfectly legal for her to abort, but illegal for a man to refuse to sacrifice his health and life to support a government composed of full adults who're capable of operating entirely on their own.
/r/MensRights06/06/26 02:52 PM
1

Or- more healthfully- both, as your nature dictates. Walking away really is the best option.
/r/MensRights06/06/26 02:50 PM
2

Partially, yes. A great many people, men and women alike, view "femininity" as exclusively being the traits that are a behavioral form of conspicuous consumption; a sign of a society SO ludicrously wealthy that half the population can be essentially useless. Obviously, that's not how it works- but the signs of it are very much there. And it repulses women just as much as it, frankly, ought to repulse men. Notice how rarely rejection of traditionally feminine virtues corresponds with taking up ma…
/r/MensRights06/06/26 02:48 PM
0

Well... yeah. Joy requires the prerequisites of joy; that's what "prerequisite" means. But being psychologically damaged doesn't change the fundamental nature of the world, just your capacity (in this case) to appreciate it. A tree falling in the woods does make a sound even if there's no one to hear it.
/r/MensRights06/06/26 02:42 PM
2

I'd imagine most of the trades have certifications or equivalent requirements, and even those that do on-the-job training would want you to have SOME background understanding of the material. I guess the first question would be "how much money do you need?". Figuring that out will give you a baseline for what you'll need. Then, "how much/long are you willing/wanting to work in a given day/week?". If you're in the US (and possibly some other places; I can't say, but that's out of ignorance), one …
/r/MensRights05/06/26 03:28 PM
5

There's dogs and watermelon and sunsets and old friends and jokes that only Braille readers get and swimming and good books. Snow cones on a hot day and hot cocoa on a cold one. Cracking open a beer to celebrate the catapault you built getting a strike in siege engine bowling and finally figuring out how to do that super loud whistle where you put both pinkies in your mouth. If the only joy you have is in front of a monitor or television, then maybe the problem is YOU, not the world. Happiness d…
/r/MensRights05/06/26 03:07 PM
8

It's not an argument; it's a statement of fact. Yes, most world leaders are men. So are most great villains and nearly all great heroes- and that stands pretty much regardless of how you define villainy and heroism. This is because men are the ones society (and biology, but the door is open to any woman who wants to do the same) expects to run insane risks on top of sacrificing their health and well-being for the good of others. The powerful are, generally, men, yes. That doesn't mean that men a…
/r/MensRights05/06/26 02:58 PM
2

Newly passed laws wouldn't help previous victims. Don't look for a single simple solution to a complex problem. Remember Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" campaign, and how it was dismissed as a wildly naive plan to deal with the scourge of drug consumption? Those dismissals were right- but that didn't make it useless; it COULD help those in far better circumstances have the social courage to defy the zeitgeist, helping them, as well as lowering the demand, and ultimately helping the poor kids who'd …
/r/MensRights05/06/26 02:49 PM
2

Then you're guilty of nearly crime that took place within your lifetime, and you need to turn yourself over to the authorities.
/r/MensRights05/06/26 02:45 PM
1

You choose to walk, if that's what you mean.
/r/MensRights05/06/26 02:44 PM
1

I'll make you a deal: I'll tell you why no one else notices this if you tell me why no one notices the "Posts with titles that do not indicate what the post is about or use a clickbait format may be removed, or reposted by moderators" rule.
/r/MensRights04/06/26 07:15 PM
0

You're claiming that failure to stop something is the same as endorsing it, and yet you accuse me of being naive?
/r/MensRights04/06/26 05:04 PM
1

I appreciate the sentiment, but let's not forget the likes of Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Henry Holmes, and Abraham Lincoln. All male, all very hardworking, and all monsters. Chromosomes and industriousness don't automatically make you good.
/r/MensRights04/06/26 02:16 PM
8

It's not just men- Australian culture is way too comfortable with authoritarianism for comfort. Given them, New Zealand, China, Japan, both Koreas, Russia and California, I'm starting to wonder if maybe it's just prolonged contact with the Pacific.
/r/MensRights04/06/26 02:08 PM
6

Every wise despot cares about their boogeymen. If all the men die off, who will they claim is oppressing women?
/r/MensRights04/06/26 02:05 PM
-7

So... "testosterone has ZERO association with aggressiveness/violence", followed by an explanation of testosterone's association with aggression and violence? I think you've gotten a little too close to the subject matter, here; human actions, with the exception of the purely relfexive (and even those are debatable) are ALL the result of conscious choices, not mere biochemistry. Influence isn't control.
/r/MensRights04/06/26 02:04 PM
1

No, it amounts to everything, because this isn't D'ni. Actions change the world, not words.
/r/MensRights04/06/26 01:51 PM
3

They aren't- just the loud ones are. But there are a LOT of loud ones, and they're very, very loud.
/r/MensRights04/06/26 01:17 AM
1

No, it's a correct comment, pointing out that a program is following its programming. Do you get angry with books for what authors write in them? And does that make YOU refuse to follow the rules of the forums on which you complain?
/r/MensRights04/06/26 01:12 AM
-8

A computer program did was it was programmed to do, and that somehow filled you a desire to violate rule #3?
/r/MensRights03/06/26 08:28 PM
1

Not privilege, status.
/r/MensRights03/06/26 08:27 PM
2

For future generations, we need (as a society) to start raising our daughters to be moral agents; to see themselves as capable and their actions as impactful. That means throwing out the bullshit of both Feminists and tradcons, though, so I wouldn't hold my breath. For current generations? That's tougher. Above and beyond the difficulties of getting gender-blind punishments (criminal and otherwise) implemented, getting them accepted would be a nightmare. And even if you did, that's only half the…
/r/MensRights03/06/26 02:48 PM
5

Far more likely that THAT is incorrect; bisexuality is a source of social status for women while being a social death sentence for men (in most contexts)- claiming something isn't the same as BEING it. In any junior high school in the country (that's not run by Westboro Baptist-types), you can find young "lesbians" who hold hands and go on "dates" but never so much as kiss one another. Some, of course, WILL be homosexual, and just taking things slow, but the vast majority are straight girls who …
/r/MensRights03/06/26 02:42 PM
10

The Pew Research Institute is one of the most respected (and nonpartisan!) organizations on the planet, dude.
/r/MensRights03/06/26 02:36 PM
3

Liberalism is the only reason you know both Orthodox and Protestant Christians without either being "from across a battlefield". If showing respect is beyond you, at least show some historical perspective.
/r/MensRights03/06/26 02:35 PM
-10

Neither does your hate speech.
/r/MensRights03/06/26 02:33 PM
3

That would be a "no", then. You explicitly ask for "serious challenges that women face". I give you quite a few, and you respond by twisting your own words to imply that you wanted problems that ONLY affect women- which might carry more weight if you had anything by way of an actual rebuttal, but all you had was insults to my moral integrity by implying that I couldn't have empathy for people if I didn't share a gender with them. Then you imply that "it doesn't count when it happens to women, be…
/r/MensRights02/06/26 10:25 PM
1

High inflation, stagnant wages, rising property costs, civic rights vanishing like houseguests in an Agatha Christie story, the entire medical industry having flushed its reputation down the toilet and consequently lead to a rise in easily preventable diseases, social isolation, an abysmal dating scene, a rise in the seething hatred they face on the basis of their sex, rising rates of street violence, naked power grabs by politicians trying to destroy the very idea of the rule of law, and at lea…
/r/MensRights02/06/26 05:06 PM
-10

Just about EVERYONE here is brave enough to say all this; the problem is that it's not actually true. That, and that many of us are actually smart enough to recognize tradcon bullshit when we see it. Women are not unreasoning beasts or thoughtless robots; they are PEOPLE, equipped with moral agency and fully responsible for their own choices and actions. They do not do bad things "because of weak men"; they do bad things "because they choose to do them". Nor are they able to avoid accountability…
/r/MensRights02/06/26 04:44 PM
8

Man, the trolls have gotten REALLY lazy around here these days.
/r/MensRights02/06/26 04:29 PM
3

Golly, it's almost as though horrific brutality is seen as better than outright genocide. Who would've thought?
/r/MensRights01/06/26 11:31 PM
-2

Only if I was hallucinating- you call out the "always a man" narrative when you are, in fact, complaining about the "never a man" one. I realize you're used to dealing with people who think that four sentences is too much to read; I'm not one of them. Go back to trolling the stupid people; you won't get what you want here.
/r/MensRights01/06/26 11:28 PM
5

No, we're under the reality that giving something to one group and not to another is, by definition, not being equal. Your blatant disingenuousness doesn't change that. Troll smarter, not harder.
/r/MensRights01/06/26 03:00 PM
5

So you're okay with it if, and ONLY if, it's unfairly advantaging one sex over another?
/r/MensRights01/06/26 02:45 PM
-2

Again, you're conflating "male victim" and "female offender". A male victim of a male is no less deserving of help and support than if he'd been attacked by a woman. Do you really not see how this is making you look less like someone seeking help for the needy and more like someone bearing a sexist grudge?
/r/MensRights01/06/26 02:36 PM
-12

No. No, it does not- it means those male victims get no help or support. Why does this issue always get conflated with "holding awful women accountable for their misdeeds"? I agree that needs to happen, but nowhere is there a rule saying that you can only perpetrate evils against the opposite sex. Why are YOU giving a free pass to the horrible men that abuse boys, and only going after the horrible women?
/r/MensRights31/05/26 09:55 PM
-17

Clearly not- "military service" is taking your army in to have its tires rotated. What THEY do is slavery.
/r/MensRights31/05/26 09:52 PM
5

Well, that is, indeed, an unpopular opinion. Gotta give you that much.
/r/MensRights31/05/26 09:09 PM
4

Avoid having their adherents exposed to good-faith discussion of opposing ideas, thereby reinforcing their sense of victimhood and entrenching the faith. What were you expecting?
/r/MensRights31/05/26 09:08 PM
3

Yet another consequence of raising girls to see themselves as having no power and no obligations- women with no agency, who see a relationship as a means to getting stuff, and not, y'know, a relationship. As distasteful as I find the idea of "relationship tests", there may be some real merit to that joke I made about asking your woman to buy you flowers- she'll be confused, but if she's willing, the brainwashing hasn't taken complete hold.
/r/MensRights31/05/26 09:07 PM
-2

...and so you spread awareness of her around by posting here? What was the point of this post?
/r/MensRights31/05/26 09:02 PM
1

Like rule #3?
/r/MensRights30/05/26 09:01 PM
1

You're missing a couple pieces of the puzzle. Historically, circumcision served two purposes: first, it was a marker of membership in the tribe, that both identified you immediately and let you feel that you were a member of a special, select group; that you were set apart and superior. The second reason is, as you said, that it makes masturbation less pleasurable- but doesn't diminish sexual intercourse nearly as much. Thus, a man who was intact felt less physical impetus to get married and fol…
/r/MensRights30/05/26 04:26 PM
4

"Flipped"? No, that's what the narrative has always been, at least as long as I've been around. Nor, at least in the US, are there rights men have that women don't- in most jurisdictions, anyway, and the handful that remain are a fourteenth Amendment-lawsuit away from dissolution. The reverse is most definitely NOT true. What I'm seeing is THAT narrative beginning to shift- and sadly, not in a solidly good way. More and more young (and some not so young) men are finally admitting, to themselves …
/r/MensRights30/05/26 03:56 PM
-8

That's right- it isn't. This is just trolling.
/r/MensRights30/05/26 03:18 PM
1

Humans are consummate K-strategists; we are most definitely monogamous, since a child that doesn't survive to adulthood doesn't pass on your genes.
/r/MensRights29/05/26 07:17 PM
-2

It isn't. Sexualizing an adult human being is like setting fire to the sun; you can't do it, because nature already did. You merely acknowledge or ignore it.
/r/MensRights29/05/26 07:16 PM
4

By pointing out one's own obnoxious twattery; cognitive dissonance is even harder to handle when you're not self-aware enough to recognize it.
/r/MensRights29/05/26 12:54 AM
4

The idea that monogamous pair bonds formed between members of the single most consummate K-strategist species on the planet is solipsism incarnate. It's natural selection, plain and simple.
/r/MensRights28/05/26 09:39 PM
23

Another important reminder of how government-funded healthcare is government-controlled healthcare. Caveat voter.
/r/MensRights28/05/26 03:29 PM
0

::Sigh:: Let me guess: another old man sees young men rejecting the idea of dating, saying that it's not even worth it, and then offers them advice on how to get women, assuming that their complaint is that "it's too hard", despite them clearly saying otherwise? And then you come here and post a direct link and absolutely nothing else, making it the epitome of a low-effort post? And then will criticize me for flagging it, despite my clearly explaining why?
/r/MensRights28/05/26 03:25 PM
2

To be fair, it's entirely possible that they think they are "someone who ALSO needs to use the bathroom". I know that's not what you're talking about, but still.
/r/MensRights28/05/26 03:22 PM
23

"Feel-good" self-righteousness for those who hang around there periodically give the hunting cry of "go to therapy", which for them is a magic bullet that instantly cures all ills.
/r/MensRights28/05/26 03:20 PM
4

Brevity is the soul of wit; detail is the soul of wisdom.
/r/MensRights28/05/26 01:01 AM
2

In an abstract sense, sure- but remember that Vader was, at that point, essentially throwing a tantrum. That's what she was doing, too.
/r/MensRights28/05/26 01:01 AM
10

As someone descended from Irish people who'd recently immigrated about that time- and who knew them, no less- I can tell you the stories I heard show a world eerily like our own, but with "black" replaced by "Irish". Had medical technology been just two or three decades more advanced, we'd've at least had "prone to stealing the sunscreen of proper, God-fearing white people" to differentiate us, but no; every stereotype is the same. I maintain, however, that OUR music glorifying violence and crim…
/r/MensRights27/05/26 11:23 PM
12

Remember the scene in A New Hope when Vader tells the Death Star council that the ability to destroy a planet in insignificant next to the power of the Force, and admiral Motti points out that Vader's faith hasn't helped him find the tapes OR Rebel headquarters? And how, despite Motti being entirely correct on both those points, Vader still chokes him, because he doesn't have a more eloquent rebuttal or the honesty to admit his own failings, much less those of the Force? It's the same thing here…
/r/MensRights27/05/26 07:32 PM
2

To enforce rule #3?
/r/MensRights27/05/26 03:48 PM
1

Sperm counts are falling, and notably; that's really the only concrete example that's actually TRUE that I can think of. And the reasons for that are far from settled; many people cite environmental pollution as the cause (a foolish thing in itself, since it's very unlikely a complex phenomenon has only ONE cause), but the vastly lower levels of many forms of pollution, that seems unlikely- doubly so, given that the trend started well before the spike in pollution forms that HAVE increased. The …
/r/MensRights27/05/26 03:47 PM
4

Because it works. Why else?
/r/MensRights27/05/26 12:59 AM
13

So I guess I hallucinated all those comments about "I've got an obstetrician appointment tomorrow and I'll find out if I'm having a girl or an abortion"? Oh, wait; female violence is okay if the alternative would inconvenience them. Of course, that's not necessarily "systemic". But you know what IS? The SS- a copy of whose registration card I carry in my wallet as a reminder of what human compassion actually means. An organization created with for the sole and explicit purpose of enacting violen…
/r/MensRights26/05/26 07:47 PM
2

Son, any idiot using Google in 2026 deserves what they get. I'm actually NOT evil.
/r/MensRights26/05/26 07:37 PM
0

Oh. That makes more sense, then.
/r/MensRights26/05/26 07:35 PM
1

That would be Byzantium, silly. And what we're seeing now is very little like the fall of Rome; it's much more like Spain 2.0.
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:44 PM
1

Not guys- taters. Soon ALL will hail the homosexual potato!
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:43 PM
1

As a white dude who's been directly attacked with anti-white racist bullshit, I concur; it's much less frequent than anti-male sexist bullshit. Don't get me wrong, it's there and it sucks, but it's far less common.
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:43 PM
4

::Laughs in Indian::
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:41 PM
2

It's not "reversing sexism", any more than driving backwards is "negative speed". It's just changing the target.
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:40 PM
-4

Well... statistically, yes, but that's just because they make up the overwhelming majority of the population. I don't think there are any aspects of heterosexuality that make you more likely to design a Tokamak.
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:40 PM
-51

Or about potential uranium re-enrichment technologies making fission power renewable, because that's a completely different issue. Porn is just porn; this is considerably more in-depth.
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:37 PM
16

Um... aren't ALL girlfriends "girls" by definition?
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:36 PM
8

Interesting. Can you give those of us who don't speak Spanish any details?
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:35 PM
-1

No, you've got it backwards- cutting a boy's sex organs IS what violates religious freedom, because it's HIS religious freedom.
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:29 PM
1

Once again: FGM is already banned, and is likewise a long-entrenched tradition. Jews aren't any more of an all-powerful boogeyman than "the patriarchy" is, though they actually exist; I'll give you credit for that much.
/r/MensRights26/05/26 02:28 PM
2

Tell that to the Jebusites! Oh, wait.
/r/MensRights25/05/26 08:42 PM
19

Oh, kiss my first Amendment. Or, in this case, kiss those of their children- an eight-day-old boy is not a Muslim. He is not a Jew. He is not part of any religion, organized or otherwise; he is a baby. We took down female genital mutilation without needing to "ban" entire religions; we can do the same here.
/r/MensRights25/05/26 08:40 PM
-1

Yes, she did. And we condemned her for it. Why would you think we'd hold our own to a lower ethical standard?
/r/MensRights25/05/26 08:32 PM
-12

...Okay, did I miss a memo? Is this "bring up stories from a decade ago and pretend they're current" week?
/r/MensRights25/05/26 02:38 PM
2

Not the way you're going, you won't. You'll build your anger and your resentment, and eventually they'll calcify into hate, and you'll become exactly what we decry here, just pointed at a different target.
/r/MensRights24/05/26 04:52 PM
5

That you're too good to follow rule #3?
/r/MensRights24/05/26 04:50 PM
1

Imperial Japan knew the difference between fission and fusion- and the value in not waiting a month before making a comment that didn't add anything.
/r/MensRights24/05/26 04:49 PM
1

Yes. You do not refute an argument with "Nunh-uh!".
/r/MensRights24/05/26 04:48 PM
1

And euphemisms. Don't forget them.
/r/MensRights24/05/26 04:47 PM
2

That clearly I touched a nerve. If you want to make it a three-way self-insert Putin/Muhammed/emo-ctrl slashfic, that's fine.
/r/MensRights24/05/26 01:49 AM
11

More to the point, though- so what? Even if it IS true, that hardly justifies punishing innocent people. I mean, most murder is committed by someone the victim knows; does that mean you should only hang around strangers?
/r/MensRights23/05/26 06:40 PM
5

Savages. It's an important reminder that as annoying as the alphabet mob can be, they're still by far the better option, if writing gay fanfiction can get you a year and a half of forced labor. Time for an "International Putin/Medvedev slashfic day", I think ("slashfic" is the gay porn one, right?). And speaking as a former child, the idea of needing protection from "depictions of non-traditional family relations” is about as insulting as it gets. It's like China banning depictions of time trave…
/r/MensRights23/05/26 03:29 PM
13

Um... how on Earth is "being forced to play as a female character" inhibiting your ability to express yourself? If you're worried about not being able to steal, kill and destroy in a video game, you can relax; there are an absolute shit-ton of games that let you do that. And since vanishingly few of them feature nudity, you're free to imagine a penis wherever you want it. Hell, play Saints Row 2, which doesn't have a gender switch, but a gender slider. GTA is one game (well, one franchise) in a …
/r/MensRights23/05/26 02:59 PM
0

"Masculine energy"? Seriously? You DO realize that every man here is half woman on his mother's side, right? And speaking as someone whose personal struggles were less like those of the Odyssey and more like those of the Tain Bo Cuilange, I can tell you firsthand that not every man's struggles are the same. The root of most of the suffering that we, specifically as men, endure ultimately stem from a lack of empathy; pushing the "single correct mindset" mentality is going to make that WORSE, not …
/r/MensRights23/05/26 02:54 PM
8

This is akin to saying you want poor people to become absolutely penniless; that you want new Hoovervilles to spring up overnight. The situation isn't GOING to improve if it collapses; it's going to get worse. How? Well, let's think it through: what do you need, mechanically speaking, to make a baby? Male gametes, female gametes, compatible DNA, and a uterine incubator. Artificial version of which were developed, respectively, in 2010, 2009, 2011, and, well, we're still waiting on the last one, …
/r/MensRights22/05/26 09:47 PM
4

...case in point. An LLM is not an AI. This isn't the first such attribution of complex, high-level traits to a simple, only vaugely-related system in the world of tech; look at how strapping a TrackIR-enabled monitor to your forehead gets called "virtual reality". But this isn't simple marketing jargon like that; this distinction is actually important. People don't realize that, and so you've got fearing what is, metaphorically, a gun pointed at them. You shouldn't fear guns; they're inanimate …
/r/MensRights22/05/26 09:41 PM
26

Neither, actually; it's a program, doing exactly what it was programmed to do. It's like being upset at a book for what the author wrote in it- not at the author, but at the book. An actual AI would be a different story- but that doesn't exist, at least not yet. This is what comes of too many people not playing Deus Ex.
/r/MensRights22/05/26 03:13 PM
1

I upvoted your comment, you coward; why would I hide something I though worth engaging in a conversation with? Not everyone who disagrees with you wants you silenced. Some of us have faith in our ideas.
/r/MensRights22/05/26 03:11 PM
1

It's a tricky question; I don't have a solid answer.
/r/MensRights22/05/26 03:10 PM
1

He doesn't, but your smooth presumption shows the dialogue does. That's why I didn't speak for him. Respect the rights of other people to make their own decisions, thanks.
/r/MensRights22/05/26 03:08 PM
1

Nature works by means of selecting which genes are most likely to homeostatically maintain balance within your ecosystem. That's stability, not prosperity.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 07:18 PM
1

Ah, Malthus; I wondered when you'd show up. How's the phrenology business going?
/r/MensRights21/05/26 07:16 PM
1

Bull. Our biological purpose is threefold: to feed off certain species, to feed certain species, and to propagate your own species. He's opposing a third of that at worst. Telling him to do something he's explicitly expressed desire to not do- i.e., he doesn't "want"- with no more justification than "biology" isn't answering his question; it's half-assed bullying.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 07:16 PM
2

It's morally wrong to lead a woman (or a man, for that matter) on if she wants kids and you don't, but pretend otherwise. But it's also morally wrong to yield to immorality just because it's pushed by entities stronger than you; tame acquiescence to evil is a sin, not a virtue.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 07:12 PM
23

You're missing the point: these people aren't TRYING to help; they're trying to stir up controversy and foment fear. Why are women still afraid of men? Because they have a massive media complex telling them to be, coupled with a poor grasp of statistics. There you go; one sentence. But that won't get clicks, now will it?
/r/MensRights21/05/26 03:18 PM
20

Because they make up a simple majority of the voterbase- and have spent their entire lives being told that they're oppressed victims under constant threat from invisible bogeymen.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 03:10 PM
1

Yes- who hasn't, unless they haven't argued against it? Nothing extreme, though; I've just had forum posts and comments removed when I openly questioned their dogmas. I believe, however, that this was because it was old and long-entrenched; openly questioning the dogmas of the Covid crisis in 2020-2021 got me banned from more platforms, and even physical locations, than I had in my entire life to date up to that point. My lifetime ban from Discord came in response to my saying that the focused p…
/r/MensRights21/05/26 03:09 PM
0

Reality is NOT "thought experiment land". An entire half of the population being grouped together because of unrelated actions taken by an unrelated group, however? That IS. This is EXACTLY the kind of bullshit we object to from Feminists. It doesn't magically become better when it's you doing it.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 02:38 PM
-17

A direct inversion is "not really comparable"? What the Hell IS, then?
/r/MensRights21/05/26 12:30 AM
1

No- he should go to the authorities, and listen to what they tell him, which is most emphatically NOT "post about this on social media".
/r/MensRights21/05/26 12:28 AM
1

No- we're going to go on social media and bitch about them, apparently. Why are you telling this to US and not making reports of open declarations of discrimination by people in charge of making hiring decisions to the relevant authorities? This comes across like those women who claim they were sexually assaulted, and then go to Facebook rather than the police.
/r/MensRights20/05/26 03:02 PM
2

There's a story that, upon his first visit to London, Mohandas Gandhi was taken around, shown the sights, and then asked "What do you think of European civilization?", to which he allegedly replied "I think it's a good idea, and you should get started on it right away!". This was a man born into what would become the country of India, today a nightmarish hellscape for the rights of men, but at the time a place where the question of "How should we, as a society, help widows sustain themselves in …
/r/MensRights20/05/26 02:58 PM
-1

Exactly what I said: that modern life, while difficult in ways that the past wasn't, is FAR from hellish.
/r/MensRights20/05/26 02:53 PM
-2

Oh, grow up! Cynicism is for cowards who aren't brave enough to be happy.
/r/MensRights20/05/26 02:52 PM
30

A decade or so ago, I was on a long car trip, and turned to NPR for lack of anything to listen to. After some interesting astronomical stuff, the next segment was on transsexuals at different levels, and the social experiences they had having seen both sides of the coin (to varying degrees). I thought that sounded interesting, and decided to listen- but before it started, there was a warning, that the segment contained "descriptions of looking at women and wanting sex". That stopped me cold. Not…
/r/MensRights20/05/26 02:05 AM
-2

Plagues. Wars. Famines. Religious turmoil that lead to genocides. Poverty that lead to people selling their children into slavery, or sending out to steal from the rich, instructing them to get caught, because imprisonment meant survival- or if they were hung, a quick death. That was the past. The closest thing we have had to a plague was a disease that had to be tracked differently from any other disease in human history in order to keep up the media frenzy, and even then was barely half as let…
/r/MensRights20/05/26 01:28 AM
1

I did. You don't make a point by accusing the person who pointed out your mistake of doing the same thing by illustrating how they're correct. This isn't even trolling; it's just claiming that your stupidity makes you seem intelligent.
/r/MensRights20/05/26 01:11 AM
0

The men (young and otherwise) who do. You know perfectly well that we're not a hive mind; why do you have trouble accepting it?
/r/MensRights19/05/26 08:46 PM
14

The politicization of anything and everything related to transsexuals is a pre-emptive move to deflect criticism, because it shows the hidden sexism of the Progressives. Social conservatives, you'd think, would leap on that, but their zeitgeist has begun shifting away from its past bigotries, and calling their opponents out in this case would mean revealing their own, more open sexism. And so the poor schlubs who transition, and usually just want to live their own lives, become a rope in a tug-o…
/r/MensRights19/05/26 04:56 PM
4

Is there hope for future generations? Well, that depends- what are you willing to do to fix the problems? Like Newton said, an object at rest will tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Will you be that outside force? Or part of it, at least? People tend to assume that entrenched social customs and trends are permanent things; that "there's nothing I can do" because "I'm just one person". There IS logic to this, but the core motivation is actually moral laziness; if there's …
/r/MensRights19/05/26 04:50 PM
-4

Complaining about having to survive on a quart of water a day doesn't mean you want to drown. Put your personal biases aside for a moment and ask yourself whether you'd be content to ignore being constantly approached by people offering you something you had no interest in getting. Would it wear on you? Maybe not at first, but your patience isn't infinite. That doesn't mean, however, that you don't want it at all.
/r/MensRights19/05/26 04:40 PM
3

Because "pretty privilege" isn't limited to sexual attraction. If you look better, you get treated better- that's just how animals are.
/r/MensRights19/05/26 04:36 PM
1

No, it was a bitter denunciation of the answer to the question, given because you didn't have an actual rebuttal. Also, six is not eighty.
/r/MensRights19/05/26 03:24 PM
1

Ah, thank you!
/r/MensRights19/05/26 03:24 PM
-19

So... do you have any actual evidence of that? I can believe it, but I'll need more than "trust me, bro". For that matter, I'd want to see how it compared with men in the same situations, giving the damage that supplemental estrogens do to MtF transsexuals but not biological women. Neurochemistry isn't a toy, after all.
/r/MensRights18/05/26 07:09 PM
32

No- they're just afraid of what they can't control. For all the decrying of male heterosexuality, and the "fear" of it that so many women seem to have, they know its value- or the value of its power, anyway. The stereotype of the "gay best friend"- well, you've probably seen more of it than I have, but even I've noticed the dismissal that often comes with it. The idea is getting the benefits- well, most of them- of a boyfriend without the sexual or sexual-adjacent costs. But show them that they …
/r/MensRights18/05/26 07:03 PM
5

No- that's insane. You should avoid bitter and spiteful people regardless of age, not avoid people of a certain age in case they're bitter and spiteful. Try swapping out the demographic word: should you avoid people of a certain race, gender, or sexual orientation?
/r/MensRights18/05/26 02:41 PM
-6

The first Amendment. They have the right to criticize us, and we have the right to criticize them. And they have the right to criticize our criticism; that's how rights work. You can criticize their criticism of your criticism, too; you don't lose a right just because someone calls you names for it. This is the lesson of Donald Trump.
/r/MensRights18/05/26 02:38 PM
4

Because a great many women primarily see men's value in terms of what they can get from him, and you can't get resources from someone who doesn't have them. And since most men lack the moral fortitude- or, failing that, the autism- to base their sense of self-worth on their own impressions, they default to social approval, which means conforming to the "standard model" of a life trajectory, which in this case means gaining the approval of women. Women could help counter this, but they're collect…
/r/MensRights18/05/26 02:36 PM
1

Yes, it is. You're trying to snatch victimhood that isn't there. It's no better when you do than when the Feminists do.
/r/MensRights18/05/26 02:29 PM
1

THEY DIED AT 25. That's pretty much the definition of a "downside".
/r/MensRights18/05/26 02:28 PM
-7

No, that's men being taught to fear women- they go with Mom because a woman in the men's room is seen as more an issue than a boy in the women's. It's actually pretty reasonable.
/r/MensRights17/05/26 09:03 PM
1

No- because that's not what you did.
/r/MensRights17/05/26 08:58 PM
-2

"Unironically"? You need a word- an exclusionary word, no less- for "saying what you mean"? Your problems go far deeper than gender issues.
/r/MensRights17/05/26 04:54 PM
-3

To play Devil's advocate for a moment: this isn't the first time. How do you think the British felt when the Romans came in? And what would king Arthur say if he returned to find his beloved Britain overrun by Englishmen?
/r/MensRights17/05/26 04:53 PM
9

Ah, yes, how dare she... see suffering and try to help.
/r/MensRights17/05/26 04:51 PM
5

First off: thank you. While many will no doubt (and perhaps already have) ask "what does this have to do with men's rights?", the sad truth is that just about every men's issue we experience is rooted in a lack of empathy; you seem to be trying directly to counter that. I, at least, appreciate your asking. That said, I think the core thing is to remember that men are human- but aren't women. We're problem solvers, so if you bring us an issue you're complaining about, we're going to assume you wa…
/r/MensRights17/05/26 04:50 PM
3

Why do you people keep being surprised by sexists being sexist? And by people so stupid they conflate "discrimination" with "hatred" being morons? It's bordering on spam on this point. Yes, they're bigoted idiots; shake your head and move on.
/r/MensRights17/05/26 04:39 PM
1

Because recoil affects where the bullet goes- that's literally the entire point of aiming at the center of the body. Likewise, an insurance company would have to pay out significantly MORE if an innocent bystander got hit. Please try to think these things through before you post them; you're making us all look thick.
/r/MensRights16/05/26 07:10 PM
0

Well, thank you for at least specifying that it's a Youtube link, but do you actually have anything to SAY about it?
/r/MensRights16/05/26 03:55 PM
2

Your hatred is justified- but we're all much better off when the screaming bigots don't hesitate to identify themselves.
/r/MensRights16/05/26 03:54 PM
-3

It's funny how that's always the excuse, and yet no one can be bothered to justify it with anything other than "because I said so". It's funnier how fourteen downvoted me, and yet no one can be bothered to explain what the word is even supposed to MEAN. This is flugnoobering all over again.
/r/MensRights16/05/26 01:03 AM
5

Oh, I see. You're just a spammer.
/r/MensRights15/05/26 08:46 PM
9

What about them? This is the epitome of low-effort.
/r/MensRights15/05/26 08:46 PM
5

What on Earth are you talking about? "Men's harm" is harm suffered by men: battle slavery, genital mutilation, discrimination in education and *employment***, paternity fraud, forced economic parenthood without corresponding access to their children, and every other form of violence and suffering men are exposed to. That may LEAD to suicide, but suicide, being by definition self-inflicted, is the one thing you CAN'T call "men's harm"- unless you're arguing that "men's harm" is the harm that men …
/r/MensRights15/05/26 08:45 PM
17

No, it's discrimination.
/r/MensRights15/05/26 02:23 AM
-15

I'm glad to see it's getting called out, but- since when is "ratio" a verb? If you're going to invent a new word, that's fine, but if you try to repurpose one that's currently in use, you're just going to confuse people.
/r/MensRights15/05/26 02:22 AM
1

So... the ad hominem attacks and blatant hate speech are made out of well-reasoned, earnest belief? You realize that makes it WORSE, right?
/r/MensRights15/05/26 02:20 AM
1

Given that legislation isn't done by the people, those WOULD be the same. The equivalent would be removing it by plebiscite.
/r/MensRights14/05/26 04:30 PM
0

One forum removes it, done by the mods. One downvotes it into oblivion, done by the userbase. Are the two really that different?
/r/MensRights14/05/26 01:51 PM
-2

True- but I don't think that's what s/he's talking about. Even around here, there's a hell of a lot of understandable-but-misdirected anger.
/r/MensRights14/05/26 01:50 PM
3

You certainly have a point here, but if the only messages a society gives someone are meaningless sanctimonious rhetoric, it's hardly surprising that they turn elsewhere. And while you're not wrong about the dangers of being handed a convenient "list of enemies" (and that's a pretty good way to put it), that doesn't mean that people actively working to undermine the resolution of legitimate grievances and deny you what should be fundamental human rights aren't worth opposing. Constructive engage…
/r/MensRights14/05/26 01:48 PM
1

But they're not loved for who they are. They're coddled- protected, isolated from the dangers that might hurt them and WOULD give them opportunities for real personal growth- for what they are. And as they age, that fades, leaving many of them focusing all their time, effort, and money on holding on to the youth and beauty that was the only praiseworthy thing they've ever been valued for. It's easy to be resentful of someone who got the regard you sought without having to work for it, but if you…
/r/MensRights14/05/26 01:44 PM
7

Don't forget "women and minorities", which is literally the entire population.
/r/MensRights13/05/26 09:32 PM
16

Nonsense. You're forgetting that the reason- well, one of the reasons- that female interpersonal violence isn't taken seriously is BECAUSE of their lesser physical strength. These things don't coalesce from the ether; they're the consequences of the realities we evolved in.
/r/MensRights13/05/26 09:31 PM
10

You'll rarely win betting against human stupidity.
/r/MensRights13/05/26 05:36 PM
3

Well, yeah- bigots are, as they say, gonna bigot.
/r/MensRights13/05/26 05:26 PM
4

Okay, one more time: everything that lives and isn't omnicidal is pro-life, from simple self-interest. Everyone who favors any form of exercise of individual will is pro-choice, from logical follow-through. Abortion support opposition isn't either of those things. They're pro-abortion or anti-abortion, or whatever gradation of policy they may hold. And that's fine, but why would you expect maturity if they can't honestly label their position? It just shows they don't have the maturity to discuss…
/r/MensRights13/05/26 05:15 PM
20

"Ending patriarchy" is like "exterminating Bigfoot"; doing so would require them existing in the first place. This is part of why Feminism is so enduring: it takes the continued high-level success that some men see, which comes from the greater economic expectations placed on men than on women, who're socially allowed a better work-life balance, as evidence of a grand conspiracy to elevate men at the expense of women. They combat this by artificially elevating women themselves, creating a situat…
/r/MensRights13/05/26 05:11 PM
7

Walking away. How many times are you going to let this surprise you?
/r/MensRights13/05/26 04:14 AM
23

Wait- it wasn't premeditated, so it wasn't murder. That's fair. But why the hell would manslaughter, or at least assault with a deadly weapon, not carry a prison sen- oh, it's India. That explains it.
/r/MensRights13/05/26 04:13 AM
4

A first marriage is the triumph of hope over experience; a second marriage is the triumph of marketing over pattern recognition.
/r/MensRights12/05/26 10:02 PM
3

Love doesn't require marriage.
/r/MensRights12/05/26 10:01 PM
6

Well... what makes you think that we DON'T oppose it? It's by far one of the most common talking points.
/r/MensRights12/05/26 10:00 PM
1

Um... maybe I'm missing something here, but how is making a proposal specifically containing the idea that it be limited by gender a sign of HAVING empathy?
/r/MensRights12/05/26 09:59 PM
8

"The growing threat from Russia". Russia. The country that can't even subdue Ukraine. Even if they manage to WIN, they'll have lost massive amounts of lives and money, and they've already shown that they're willing to attack nations within their sphere of influence that they have relatively friendly relations with; does Germany think that the three countries between them and Ukraine will just evaporate one night? No. This isn't about Russia. I don't think it's even about military strength. It's …
/r/MensRights11/05/26 04:19 AM
50

Well... duh? It's a big part of why the Democrats lost in 2016; forget 2024. I'm glad you've finally caught on, Mr. Fetterman, but this very much comes across as "young men being pushed into economic and social desperation; Democrat party most affected". At least he's better off than the Ms. Brazile: "Young men are dealing with what young women had to deal with centuries ago". I'm just going to leave that sentence there. And she, too, does better than Crenshaw: "I'm not a fan of gentle parenting…
/r/MensRights11/05/26 04:10 AM
7

Maybe, but that's not what this is. What this woman is describing is low-level stalking.
/r/MensRights10/05/26 09:01 PM
1

Well, that's kind of hard to say without knowing what said story is, or how it'd be relevant. But if the mods are shared between the two, couldn't they just move it, if appropriate?
/r/MensRights10/05/26 05:31 PM
0

No, I'm saying that if it IS given more attention (which it is), then it's only natural to expect that funding and attention to have increased the number of diagnoses (from better knowledge and screenings) and reduced the number of people dying from it (from more and better treatment options). I mean, what do you think that money is being spent on? From that, comparing apples to apples in terms of lethality is misleading, since of course the mortality rate will be lower. And yes, prostate cancer…
/r/MensRights10/05/26 05:28 PM
7

I disagree- but I think you're close. Feminism is an excuse for women who hate men.
/r/MensRights10/05/26 01:37 AM
3

In what capacity? Women certainly aren't taken seriously as predators, or abusers, or any of the awful things that awful women do. And given the probable roots of that thinking- I can't give a completely objective answer here, since that would require telepathy I don't have- it stands to reason they'd also be taken less seriously in more positive ways. They certainly, from what I've seen, take themselves less seriously, in the "I can't do it; I need a man" sense.
/r/MensRights10/05/26 01:36 AM
7

Such attitudes and actions are, sadly, common among women these days; if you choose to bow out of relationships altogether, I don't blame you- it's not far from what I've done. But those attitudes stem from a terrible disregard of half of the population, and you're not going to help ANYTHING if you simply decide to return the favor. Ad hominem attacks just make things worse.
/r/MensRights10/05/26 01:33 AM
-1

But prostate cancer can be prevented- not absolutely, no, but NO cancer can. As you noted yourself, even removing body parts isn't a guarantee. Further, breast cancer research being so disproportionately funded isn't a new thing; it's been that way for decades. The result of that is earlier detections and better treatments, which of course is going to lead to better outcomes; that's literally the entire POINT. Don't read victimhood into logic.
/r/MensRights09/05/26 07:07 PM
7

No, you're trusting it to government-regulated organizations in countries that have eminent domain laws. That's recipe for disaster if I've ever heard one.
/r/MensRights09/05/26 02:29 PM
11

Not really. They don't care about me in any other way; why would this be different?
/r/MensRights09/05/26 02:28 PM
1

You say you can't separate sex from marriage (historically)... and then say sex can't be controlled by laws or customs. I'd skip the Logical Inconsistency Flakes at breakfast tomorrow if I were you.
/r/MensRights09/05/26 02:27 PM
1

Hiding behind the platform doesn't make it better; it just shows that you don't have any faith in your argument. And that just further weakens the empathy we get.
/r/MensRights08/05/26 07:54 PM
-5

It matters because you're criticizing people for being wrong- and giving a correction which is also wrong.
/r/MensRights08/05/26 07:53 PM
1

Thanks for the detail! But wait- you can't file a lawsuit on behalf of someone else? Even children? This can't be the first issue where something like this has happened.
/r/MensRights08/05/26 07:52 PM
11

If an "emphasis on measurable outcomes" is seen as "a manifestation of white supremacy" in medicine, then... well, I guess it makes doctors caving in to Covid hysteria more understandable, but it also makes it sound like your school is a front running a long con for KKK recruitment. If your brain equates "providing concrete results" with racism, then how, exactly, are you NOT inferior? I know how harsh that sounds, but still, it makes you wonder.
/r/MensRights08/05/26 02:53 PM
4

This... doesn't make any sense. Even people who've never fired a gun in their lives know that gunshots have recoil, and it's by far safest to aim for the center of the body (which they usually call "center of mass", but even physicists use that term incorrectly). A decently-pumped BB gun will give you enough recoil at 50 feet to move from the genitals to the femoral artery, and if THAT gets cut, they may bleed out before you can reach them. And even if you don't, there's an insane amount of bloo…
/r/MensRights08/05/26 02:32 PM
-18

Well, you're half-right: while there ARE ten-year-old boys who're capable of being sexual, they're a tiny minority, and even the proto-sexual feelings that pre-adolescents have (and no one is willing to acknowledge, despite having felt them themselves) usually haven't started by that point. That is, however, irrelevant, because celibacy is about marriage, not sex.
/r/MensRights08/05/26 02:27 PM
4

There are several aspects, I think: different women is the most obvious, but also different moods at the time of polling AND of approaching; regardless of whether she's interested, if she's angry or scared for unrelated reasons, she's a lot more likely to see it as aggressive, threatening, or otherwise unwelcome. Since so many women don't bother with self-reflection, they often don't realize that men aren't telepathic, and so can't be expected to know their desires beforehand.
/r/MensRights08/05/26 02:24 PM
3

Wait, what? The German courts actually ruled that illegal? Did that not ban it there, or do German courts work differently?
/r/MensRights07/05/26 10:00 PM
4

So... "don't be part of the problem; be the whole problem"? I guess that IS a different solution.
/r/MensRights07/05/26 09:59 PM
5

The only way the world ever improves is when we take what we can't change and change it anyway.
/r/MensRights07/05/26 09:58 PM
-1

Well... what were you expecting? Why would women who don't hate men complain about them? Frustration, okay, sure, but that's going to be an occasional thing, motivated by specific actions of specific individuals. This is like saying the KKK complains the most about black people.
/r/MensRights07/05/26 09:57 PM
6

You can't call for the enslavement of the citizenry and then criticize the government for being "evil fucks"; they're just a more advanced version of what you are.
/r/MensRights07/05/26 04:17 PM
4

This decade has seen a remarkable thinning in the difference between "conspiracy theories" and "spoilers".
/r/MensRights07/05/26 04:16 PM
7

"Serving the nation" in the UK would mean removing the current government and replacing it with one far less authoritarian, which was willing to confront the actual problems plaguing the country and find real solutions instead of throwing its people in jail for social media posts and undermining due process. You don't want that, Mr. Galloway; you want them to become battle slaves. Have the decency to at least say what you mean.
/r/MensRights07/05/26 04:15 PM
4

It's not an assumption- it's a dogma. For any given man and any given woman, the life and experiences of the woman are harder, even if she's the pampered wife of a billionaire tech CEO, and he's homeless guy trying not to get stabbed because he sat on the wrong bench.
/r/MensRights07/05/26 04:12 PM
0

Let's take a look. Okay, the first problem is in the second sentence. What the heck is "Catholicity"? It sounds like something an angry Protestant would make up to try and make Catholicism seem less legitimate (believe me, they've done stupider things) when they can't come up with theological objections. And yet, he seems to BE Catholic, or at least is arguing from their perspective. It's a petty thing, but sadly, it kinda sets the tone here. Now, I'm going to say some harsh things here, and I h…
/r/MensRights07/05/26 04:10 PM
-1

Hiding behind "one company on the single most decentralized medium in the entire history of the human race will get mad" isn't exactly helping your case.
/r/MensRights06/05/26 08:19 PM
2

I think (though this is based on observation and thankfully not experience) that female sexual harassment in general isn't taken seriously. A woman victimized by a woman is probably in for a rude shock.
/r/MensRights06/05/26 03:31 PM
2

And yet you describe it as "made to penetrate" rather than 'forced envelopment". What does that tell you?
/r/MensRights06/05/26 03:24 PM
1

I guess I'm going to have to be the one to say it. Don't. You've seen that these people are shallow and petty; that their approval is based on vapid standards, that, as you say, are not going to change. So why do you seek to fulfill them? Why labor for the favor of those who aren't worthy of picking your nose? If you want to get in shape, that's good, but do it for your own sake- and know that a person's value is far better measured by the strength of their enemies than the strength of their fri…
/r/MensRights06/05/26 03:23 PM
1

Insulting and disrespecting others is nature, too. Hating and fearing those who are different is exactly the direction natural selection pushed us in. Is that really the kind of thinking you want to reward with your allegiance?
/r/MensRights06/05/26 03:15 PM
6

There's a saying among gun nuts: "God made men; Sam Colt made them equal". While few will admit it, Leslie Groves finished the job. That's the real reason people are afraid of nuclear weapons: they make your "civilian" status just as revocable as that of a young man.
/r/MensRights06/05/26 03:13 PM
1

No, we need to start siccing the police on them for making illegal recordings (where they're illegal) and suing them for defamation when that's what they do. Our society- our species, really- does a terrible job of teaching its daughters accountability; while this isn't a good way to do so, it's the best option we, as a third party, have. And for pity's sake, if you ever DO have a daughter, raise her to understand that moral agency isn't a consequence of a Y chromosome.
/r/MensRights06/05/26 03:11 PM
12

Why do so many choose euphemisms? You hide the greatest act of surrender to suffering and misery behind a cutesy phrase you might hear in a Disney movie, and then you wonder why our issues aren't taken seriously? Don't make Bob Cody a necessity. Please.
/r/MensRights06/05/26 03:04 PM
5

I imagine things like this would lead to far LESS smiling.
/r/MensRights06/05/26 03:03 PM
4

I guess they heard that Canada was the sexist shithole of the New World, and felt compelled to challenge them for the title.
/r/MensRights05/05/26 03:36 PM
9

Wait- if he wants to have sex with her, then he should keep her phone in a locker? Wouldn't that keep him from being able to get in touch with her, making sex more difficult? What's you trying to say here?
/r/MensRights05/05/26 03:34 PM
5

In the same sense that, say, crack cocaine "has been available for 20 years", perhaps, but most of us live in reality, rather than Shangri-La, where something have been invented means that it's also been perfected. Mid-March, 2026 AD, was not "15 years ago"; it wasn't even fifteen WEEKS ago. You're trying to snatch victimhood from thin air, and that's no better than when the Feminists do it.
/r/MensRights05/05/26 03:32 PM
21

"We were surprised to see reduced mortality among men who are fathers." I know that young people are disproportionately likely to buy into Malthusian nonsense, but are they really THIS disconnected from reality?
/r/MensRights05/05/26 01:20 AM
41

It's not "available"; it's "in human testing". If you don't understand the difference, ask a Thalidomide baby. Then, if you're feeling bold, ask a doctor how much money you have to throw at a study to get five-year safety test results in six months- but only if you're okay with them never speaking to you again.
/r/MensRights05/05/26 01:15 AM
3

Well... yeah. It's Reddit. What were you expecting?
/r/MensRights05/05/26 12:45 AM
2

I have to disagree- there are many reasons to hate many people, but those are individual people, not entire demographic characteristics. Likewise, it's not only foolish (men ARE more strongly represented at the extremes of the intelligence spectrum, that applies to both ends), but potentially dangerous to assume "men" or "women" do X- you'd do better, always, to judge people by their actions than their capabilities.
/r/MensRights04/05/26 09:31 PM
2

That'd do it, then.
/r/MensRights04/05/26 09:22 PM
5

Do you have a source for that?
/r/MensRights04/05/26 02:10 PM
2

You have a right to BE safe (within the practical limits of other people's rights); your feelings are your own affair, and not a matter for the state to consider.
/r/MensRights04/05/26 02:10 PM
9

"Not every sandwich, but always a sandwich".
/r/MensRights04/05/26 12:48 AM
1

But I don't HAVE to know you; I know enough of relationships to know that they're not the "fix everything" button that you seem to think they are. If you mean that you'd be doing fine if you had yourself sorted out enough to BE in a relationship, that's more plausible- but then you should say that. If the lack of a partner is truly making you desperate, then what do you think would happen if you GOT one? A person who defines themself by a struggle almost invariably flounders when they finally su…
/r/MensRights04/05/26 12:41 AM
13

"Mobilization" would be giving him a wheelchair. They're trying to enslave the guy; quit trying to justify it with euphemisms.
/r/MensRights02/05/26 10:05 PM
11

An important reminder that government-funded healthcare is also government-controlled healthcare.
/r/MensRights02/05/26 09:57 PM
1

I guess they showed Solzhenitsyn; they didn't love freedom enough either.
/r/MensRights02/05/26 09:49 PM
-26

If you think violating rule #3 won't, guess what?
/r/MensRights02/05/26 09:48 PM
17

There's a question that every straight woman wondering why so many men can't be bothered with dating anymore needs to ask herself: how would she react if her boyfriend asked her to buy him flowers? Most would start with "I'd be confused," which is honesty, and a good starting point, but the usual follow-up is something like "but if he wanted them, I'd buy them for him". Some would, of course, but would SHE? On the surface, the question seems to be about reciprocity, and willingness to spend mone…
/r/MensRights02/05/26 03:46 PM
-1

A lot to unpack here, but there are two core things: a question and a statement. The question isn't to be answered for me, but for you: how badly does the deck need to be stacked against you before you're unwilling to play the game? The answer to it is mostly based on the answers two other questions: how much do you enjoy playing, and how much is at stake? Giving your opponent a forty-stroke handicap in golf is insane- but if you love the game and don't have money on the line, who cares? (Assumi…
/r/MensRights02/05/26 02:21 PM
1

Remember: rule #3 is a rule, not a suggestion. It's also basic good manners, and should be observed even if you DON'T know that it's enforced.
/r/MensRights02/05/26 01:55 AM
1

I guess that makes sense; there are probably some contexts where it would. Most people, though, aren't going to know.
/r/MensRights30/04/26 07:22 PM
5

This is the critical question. I very much doubt that he actually hates being a man; what he hates is more likely the way he's treated for being a man. That's not the fault of his gender, but of the actions others choose. Of course, body dysmorphia IS a real thing, and it's possible he DOES actually hate his body; I don't want to downplay that possibility. But considering where he's posting this... Anyway, it's not like every woman out there is doing dandy, or is loved by everyone she encounters…
/r/MensRights30/04/26 02:47 PM
1

Who is this "us"? Lumping people together and declaring all of them responsible for the sins of specific individuals in the group because of shared demographic characteristics... seems to me that there's a word for that. Meanwhile, ask yourself: is it that women are less of a danger, or simply that they're seen as less of a danger?
/r/MensRights30/04/26 02:43 PM
6

The right-leaning US press still does. Which is made all the more depressing by Obama's drone strike policy declaring all "military-aged males" in a drone strike zone to be enemy combatants unless cleared posthumously. Nothing like a Constitutional lawyer declaring possession of a Y chromosome to be not merely a capital offense, but worthy of summary execution.
/r/MensRights30/04/26 02:39 PM
2

Her appearance has nothing to do with her allegedly being a rapist. Priorities, dude.
/r/MensRights30/04/26 02:34 PM
2

I was going to say- how many of us have actually been in a position to KNOW?
/r/MensRights30/04/26 02:33 PM
3

It's almost as though creating wealth leads to getting paid more. How awful!
/r/MensRights30/04/26 02:32 PM
2

Then why didn't- or don't- you report it to the higher-ups? If you expect the world to be as it should be, you're in for a helluva lot of disappointment. It has problems. You can help fix them or you can bitch about them. Which do YOU think is going to make them better?
/r/MensRights28/04/26 11:41 PM
2

And you assume this is limited to women... why, exactly? Do you think women are gifted with tremendous powers that allow them control over legislation that blocks nuclear plants from being built, despite making up a distinct minority in basically every legislature in the country? And that if that somehow dissolved, all the safety issues with nuclear waste disposal and plant construction would somehow vanish? Yes, it's the safest mass-scale option we've got; that doesn't mean it doesn't have prob…
/r/MensRights28/04/26 11:39 PM
-14

Well, are you boycotting them or just not buying them? One is a simple overreaction; the other is insanity. Someone picked, as a spokeswoman, someone who said- not did, SAID- some things you don't like. Pick your battles, dude.
/r/MensRights28/04/26 11:31 PM
1

And I will say it again: I never said that height is a disadvantage; you're the one who keeps steering the conversation that way- because, I suspect, you're insecure about what you actually said. But since you're determined, I WILL say it: height- size in general, really- is a disadvantage. And while I'm a fair bit short of 6'7", I'm quite glad of that, because the genetic circulatory issues I'm dealing with are already cutting a good many years off my expected lifespan. Would YOU give up your s…
/r/MensRights28/04/26 11:29 PM
2

Being apathetic to the desires of your loved ones, regardless of age, is a sign of weakness and psychopathy. Caring about someone doesn't mean being their slave.
/r/MensRights28/04/26 11:23 PM
1

And I literally said " it's not like tall people don't have major problems"; you can go back and read my comment yourself. You, however, insisted on viewing things only through the lens of romantic and sexual partnership, and only at the angle of height. Were I to tell you to go and talk to the crippled, the homeless, and the autistic, you'd be GRATEFUL that height was all you had to worry about.
/r/MensRights28/04/26 06:26 PM
1

Because Newton's first law applies to ideology as well as physical objects. Inertia is a much bigger power than people give it credit for. And, speaking from bitter experience, because the backlash against seeking to improve things, even in a benevolent thing like "exercising basic human empathy", that those who walk away from Omelas only do so after becoming so pissed off that they come to feel those who remain behind deserve what they get- and so can't be bothered to come back and lay siege to…
/r/MensRights28/04/26 06:22 PM
9

It's not about "supporting women"; it's about supporting an existing social narrative to maintain group cohesion. That includes supporting women in a physical and financial sense, but it's not the purpose, only part of it.
/r/MensRights28/04/26 06:16 PM
1

...and you think that's the only attribute that people have? That height shields you from poverty, hunger, social isolation, fire, polar bears, and heartbreak? That it somehow makes you LESS likely to bang your head on ceilings and lighting fixtures? It's funny you say so; I've heard people say the same thing about gender. How does that work out?
/r/MensRights28/04/26 06:13 PM
1

In fairness, this is just two posts on a single platform (and an awful one, at that); it's not like tall people don't have major problems, or that short people don't have good parts of their lives.
/r/MensRights28/04/26 02:40 PM
0

Um... none of the images you linked have anything to do with Feminism. Do you have any actual evidence of a causative link? Because guilt by accusation is just as awful when it's you doing it.
/r/MensRights28/04/26 02:38 PM
3

Because he's not a psychopath, and has fondness for, and regard for the opinions of, his family?
/r/MensRights28/04/26 02:37 PM
1

He said he had "never heard of it". I did not, and do not, "constantly, continuously us[e] the past", I pointed out that he was, in fact, familiar with the practice, and DID know that it happened- and was hypocritically lying about that in order to secure more victim points. It's not "only bad when Feminists do it". And I'm not "pretending" that people today are victims of the past, because they ARE- that's literally the entire reason battle slavery exists in the first place; because IT DID BEFO…
/r/MensRights28/04/26 02:36 PM
1

That would be a "no", then.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 11:54 PM
-2

Now you're starting to get it. A frankly alarming number of posts here are "Moron says something insulting on social media and YOU MUST BE OFFENDED!".
/r/MensRights27/04/26 03:29 PM
3

Good. It's nice to see a judge who actually has a backbone- unlike those cowards in the Nagarwalla case.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 03:23 PM
1

So, a monastery? Last I checked, 90 out of the 100 visas issued were reserved for religious pilgrims, but if you're one of the lucky ten, you can always check out Mount Athos.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 03:21 PM
1

Thank you. It's nice to see some positivity about other people, rather than just endless craving for victimhood points.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 03:17 PM
1

You need to follow Rule #3. Come on, people, this isn't hard.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 03:16 PM
0

Thank you for at least being civil; that seems to be a lost art around here. But no, monks were not (generally speaking) raised to see monkhood as "the ultimate virtue"; it's a life they chose. They had the same expectations and desires that you do; they simply picked a different path. You can, too- and no, it doesn't have to be theirs. What it comes down to is this: you're in a position where you think sex and romantic partnership are impossible. You have knowledge of the reasons why, or some o…
/r/MensRights27/04/26 03:16 PM
-1

Ditch the persecution complex, kid; it won't help you where you're going. Dude said he considered sex to be impossible; I said "then try something else-sex isn't everything". Monks and gurus are perfect proof that it CAN be done, so they're absolutely relevant to the topic. You just want to be a victim, reality be damned.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 03:06 PM
1

Read a dictionary, fool.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 03:04 PM
0

Yes, because everyone always says everything they mean, regardless of context. You people are just bound and determined to be victims, regardless of the reality, aren't you?
/r/MensRights27/04/26 03:04 PM
1

Lyrssoh. Your paranoia prevents people who actually sympathize from being willing to help, furthering male suffering for no benefit but your own self-righteous smugness. I hope it's worth it.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 03:03 PM
-2

Not date, and find joy in other parts of life? Monks and gurus have been doing that for thousands of years.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 12:39 AM
5

Looking through these comments, I think a LOT of people have missed a very important point: this poor suicidal bastard is a victim, too. He's spreading this hatred because it's what he's been inundated with day after day, year after year, until it's broken his mind and will. He loves Big Brother.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 12:39 AM
1

There rarely is- and when it's there, it's almost always either kept quiet by the investigator or silenced by their supporters. Cassie Jaye and Warren Farrel are the exception, not the norm.
/r/MensRights27/04/26 12:33 AM
3

And it doesn't occur to you that could be actually sympathetic... why, exactly? Shame on the naive? No- shame on the cowardly, like yourself, who have too little faith in half of humanity to think they could possibly be worth a damn!
/r/MensRights27/04/26 12:32 AM
0

Sleeping through history class was fun, wasn't it?
/r/MensRights27/04/26 12:25 AM
2

Well, at least you're not calling them AIs. That's a start. But you really ought to take the next step and realize that a machine that's incapable of reasoning can't, y'know, reason; it's going to do what it's programmed to do- no more and no less. Your comments here are like complaining about breadmakers because they only make bread; the bias isn't in the machine, but its programmers.
/r/MensRights25/04/26 07:57 PM
1

You'd never pay for something "so unreal and unnatural like porn"... you say as your internet connection, which you pay for, allows you to cause multiple computers to use electricity to display text on monitors. Do you not know what "natural" is? I'll give you an example of something that is: sex- and by extension, porn. There are examples of it in cave art that predates the anatomically modern human race. Having a way to indulge sexual desires with no risk of unwanted pregnancy or spreading dis…
/r/MensRights25/04/26 07:55 PM
3

You shouldn't be. It's happened because of a bombardment of medical misinformation about reversibility (and a much larger socio-ideological bombardment of Malthusian bullshit, but that's another issue). In light of how gay men have often historically been treated, it shouldn't surprise you at all. I mean, GRID research alone...
/r/MensRights25/04/26 07:40 PM
14

Yes, they will- they simply don't see "bringing the government into our relationship in the form of a binding legal contract" as "the next level". Men are wising up. That's not a bad thing.
/r/MensRights25/04/26 07:37 PM
1

It was downvoted because I challenged the prevailing narrative around here, which is that "man equals victim" and "woman equals evil". For all the decrying of Feminist tactics we do, a LOT of guys seem very eager to adopt them when they can. As to Snowden, what he did- well, the core of it, anyway- was to expose the massive government surveillance program going on against both the American citizenry and those outside of the country. Historically, the best outcome for the common people of a count…
/r/MensRights25/04/26 07:35 PM
1

The past absolutely still exists; that's why we have understanding of the idea of cause and effect. This is why ignoring it makes you look and act so foolish. As to a modern example, no; it doesn't happen any more. That is not the same as saying "it never happened". Things changed; they can change again, and perhaps change into what they used to be.
/r/MensRights25/04/26 07:16 PM
-2

What I've added to the conversation was a reference to a historical atrocity, which you obviously missed, and an unintentional chance for you to show off your historical ignorance, which you absolutely didn't. I mean, I'm assuming that's why you chose to make yourself look like an asshole, and it wasn't belief that the lives of Russians are more important than those of Koreans, Chinese, Burmese, Dutch, and Indonesians, but given the attitudes around here these days... Imperial Japan did, in fact…
/r/MensRights25/04/26 07:14 PM
-47

You've never heard of Imperial Japan?
/r/MensRights24/04/26 08:00 PM
6

I can't speak to Youtube specifically, but yes, the idea is all over horror movies; the men are wiped out so quickly and casually that it's seen as "misogyny" that the monster struggles (and ultimately fails) to kill the last surviving woman. Tremors 6 caught a fair bit of flak for killing so many female characters (as many as had died in the entire series before that point), and so being "misogynistic", even though more male characters were still killed overall. Misandry, though, is hatred, and…
/r/MensRights24/04/26 03:49 PM
0

No, "adequate justification" outright STATES that, not merely implies it.
/r/MensRights24/04/26 03:43 PM
-9

...okay, people, can we PLEASE dial back on the hate speech? Or at least the upvoting of it?
/r/MensRights24/04/26 03:13 PM
-8

No. No, he would not. Ask Edward Snowden if you don't understand why.
/r/MensRights24/04/26 03:12 PM
1

By getting them used to the idea of relationships that don't require any sacrifice, with entities that have no quirks, tastes, desires, opinions, awkward aspects, annoying relatives, will of their own or ability to say "no". That's on top of promoting loyalty to the corporate interests that control it. It goes WAY beyond romance, and it's certainly not limited to boys, but if you actually think about it, it's not hard to see why this would damage someone's employability.
/r/MensRights24/04/26 03:10 PM
0

It obviously IS the case- no one does bad things without adequate justification, unless they're a straight-up psychopath. The problem is that the threshold for "adequate justification" is a LOT lower for some people than for others (well, that and differences in what counts as a "bad thing", but that's a bigger issue).
/r/MensRights24/04/26 03:06 PM
-4

No, you don't condemn them for "being single moms"; you condemn them for "deliberately seeking single parenthood", ignoring the damage that does to the child. And given how a man needs to move heaven and earth to be granted sole custody, AND how relatively few of them there are, the statistics are- potentially, at least- woefully misleading. It's still bigotry, even if it's YOUR bigotry.
/r/MensRights24/04/26 03:04 PM
-28

Yes- because it should. How often do we complain about women deliberately choosing to become single mothers, ignoring the damage it does to the child? Are we REALLY going to turn around and abandon any sense of morality because "it's okay if WE do it"?
/r/MensRights23/04/26 09:04 PM
2

Why the Hell is "break your vows, casually sacrificing your honor, integrity, marriage, and family" being upvoted? Shame on each and every last one of you.
/r/MensRights23/04/26 03:19 PM
-3

You're not being pedantic; you're objecting to unwarranted ad hominem attacks. You're then casting all the blame on Feminism, rather than merely according it its due share among the dozens of other major factors, but it's still progress.
/r/MensRights23/04/26 03:16 PM
7

A millionaire walks into a homeless shelter and begins complaining about capital gains taxes. How do you think that's going to go over? Capital gains taxes exist, yes, and I'm sure that having to pay them sucks, but hearing about how awful it is to pay them while you're struggling to keep body and soul together isn't going to engender much sympathy. Kick it up a step, however, and have the millionaire complaining about how disadvantaged he is because of them, and how the poor are so lucky becaus…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 07:13 PM
7

I don't- and it isn't; I question how you could think female genital mutilation would be unique to MEN. Assuming you mean genital mutilation in general, again, I don't- but female genital mutilation is 1. much rarer, and 2. utterly illegal.
/r/MensRights22/04/26 07:07 PM
1

You criticize them as "overly aggressive" while making an ad hominem attack against millions of people you've never even MET?
/r/MensRights22/04/26 02:39 PM
23

Women aren't an "oppressed minority", and for two simple reasons: 1. they're not oppressed. 2. they're not a minority. Women don't face military slavery or mutilation of their genitals when they're newborn babies. It's illegal to discriminate against them in employment and housing. They actually HAVE reproductive rights, and never face being thrown in prison because they can't make court-mandated support payments to their rapists. Men, on the other hand, ARE routinely denied what are supposed to…
/r/MensRights22/04/26 02:39 PM
8

You can't really criticize people "motivated by patriotic fervor" and yet call every wounded soldier a hero. There were injuries at My Lai.
/r/MensRights21/04/26 08:29 PM
2

Once again: if your first response is to go to social media instead of the authorities... Of course, it could all be true; I don't have enough information to say. Nor should I; I'm just some random guy on the internet. But why would a consulate staffer advise a rape victim that the US couldn't prosecute an assault on Vietnamese soil and NOT say "go to the local police"? Why would he tell her about legal odds in the US, which, again, has no jurisdiction? Why would she think that the US would even…
/r/MensRights21/04/26 08:24 PM
1

Probably because he cares about them.
/r/MensRights21/04/26 08:05 PM
3

I have to disagree. Your mother knows, if only intellectually, that you're the same person she held as a newborn and rocked to sleep; that won't motivate her to strike down the politicians who seek to force you into battle thralldom. Of course, that's a very extreme response, but it won't even motivate her to vote against them. And it's no different for your father, who faced the same danger.
/r/MensRights21/04/26 08:05 PM
3

By caring about myself. Becoming the kind of person you admire means that your support means more to you- and as ridiculous as it sounds, that works. This is an aspect of life that autism makes easier. This is an aspect of life that autism makes easier. (I write that twice because it's a sentence you'll probably never read again). You can't ensure the approval of others- you may be able to improve the odds, maybe drastically, but it's still ultimately not up to you. A pity, but that's reality. S…
/r/MensRights21/04/26 08:03 PM
1

They didn't- they became afraid of having to confront a dissenting opinion, and realized they could avoid that by shouting them down or otherwise silencing them.
/r/MensRights21/04/26 07:52 PM
1

My question is "why do so many people have such a problem with reading the rules?".
/r/MensRights21/04/26 07:51 PM
1

I'm not "strawmanning"; I'm quoting: "Sure if a nation wants to prepare its men for a conflict, I'm all for it". So yes, you DID say you're all for enslavement. I could stop there, but let's keep going: it's true that you didn't claim that Russia is losing, but then you didn't need to; it's clear from the simple fact that they're not winning, while engaged in a war of aggression. That's what losing is. Trying to terrify people with claims that they've just "finished" their stockpile of Soviet ta…
/r/MensRights21/04/26 07:49 PM
2

Yeah, Russia is losing. That's the way a defensive war WORKS; you can win just by not losing for a long enough time. Russia could launch an attack against an EU nation in the middle of this sentence; it would just be suicide, because, again, they're already in the middle of a war they're already losing. Politicians- military or otherwise- trying to drum up fear isn't new. Germans Gulf of Tonkining a crisis isn't any better than Americans doing it.
/r/MensRights21/04/26 07:35 PM
4

Let me see if I have this straight: -We somehow have ten thousand years of recorded military history (despite our oldest forms of writing- of ANY KIND- being less than half of that). -An EU-Russia war is "highly likely", despite Russia proving itself unable to a win a fighting victory against a country far smaller than it, with a much weaker military AND being far down in money and manpower because of the war it's currently fighting. -Despite that being an impossibility unless the EU invades Rus…
/r/MensRights20/04/26 11:23 PM
0

That we really need to start implementing a basic "Can you read the rules?" test before we start letting people post here.
/r/MensRights20/04/26 11:01 PM
1

Or from 99.98% of all humans that've ever lived. We were talking about Shakers- not everything is Feminists.
/r/MensRights20/04/26 10:59 PM
3

Because the medical establishment in the US was largely pioneered by Jewish doctors. Then Graham and Kellogg came along following their lead, and the rest is inertia.
/r/MensRights20/04/26 04:52 PM
1

And different jurisdictions don't have different laws?
/r/MensRights20/04/26 04:51 PM
2

Yes, and a woman wrote this: https://archive.org/download/the-manipulated-man_202201/The%20Manipulated%20Man.pdf Sexist drivel isn't limited to one gender.
/r/MensRights20/04/26 04:50 PM
1

Violating rule #3? Yeah, I agree.
/r/MensRights20/04/26 04:49 PM
2

No, I'm saying that they (the Shakers) didn't- that membership was both voluntary and not unbreakable.
/r/MensRights20/04/26 04:49 PM
1

No, the Holocaust has been proven; the burials haven't. And it WOULD be entirely in keeping with English colonial practices at the time.
/r/MensRights20/04/26 04:48 PM
1

No, I mean men seeking out surrogates and becoming single fathers by their own choice, depriving kids of a proper two-parent household.
/r/MensRights20/04/26 04:47 PM
1

Then you're technically correct, but the same is true of basically every single empathetic interaction every living being, human or otherwise, has ever had for another living creature. That's why I specified "anti-orphan"; had it actually BEEN their responsibility, I wouldn't've needed to.
/r/MensRights19/04/26 05:57 PM
-1

Don't forget that men who lack a strong desire to procreate are much less likely to pass on their genes- and, that humans being consummate k-strategists, knocking up dozens of women isn't a viable replacement in pre-modern times.
/r/MensRights19/04/26 05:51 PM
0

It's not about "cat ladies"; it's about "pet parents"- and even grandparents, now. It's probably stronger in women, but it's by no means limited to them.
/r/MensRights19/04/26 05:49 PM
2

You're very mixed up here. One person can feed multiple people only because of advances in agriculture whose development was only possible because of excess population. Ditto for the advances that let us build cars and houses and spears to fight off the lions. Nor are newborns "born to be slaves"- but they WOULD be if the government fed and housed them; governments are not made up of wizards who create things from the ether. They would have to force the people to create them. Instead, babies are…
/r/MensRights19/04/26 05:47 PM
2

Sure it did- they only lost out when they lost the ability to adopt orphans. You do know that they didn't kidnap people, and that their members were free to leave, right?
/r/MensRights19/04/26 05:42 PM
-3

Yeah- that's how free speech works. Did you think it was all sweetness and light? This woman had the brutal oppression of her people downplayed and denied, and basically said "you wouldn't be saying that if you'd gone through it". In an insensitive way, yes, but that's what's called for in a situation like this, frankly. You'll hear far worse if you hear a Jew respond to a Holocaust denier- or a Gypsy respond to a Holocaust exclusionist, for that matter. I do love the “The UBC faculty of medicin…
/r/MensRights19/04/26 05:40 PM
-3

Ebony is a wood; it functions the same way regardless of the human population. I'm assuming that was a typo, but what were you trying to say? Anyway, it's just more Malthusian nonsense, the truth of which was shown centuries before Malthus was even born. It ain't going away.
/r/MensRights19/04/26 05:34 PM
-26

Well, short of making this post, what have you DONE about it?
/r/MensRights19/04/26 05:31 PM
2

The reasoning behind it is the idea that something as involved as an in-person approach has exactly the same impact as an effortless, momentary swipe, which is why human behavior is identical in all circumstances. It literally has less real-world legitimacy than phrenology, because impacts that physically reshape your head CAN impact your mental attributes.
/r/MensRights19/04/26 05:31 PM
1

Of course it's not their problem; I said anti-orphan, not anti-recipient.
/r/MensRights19/04/26 05:28 PM
8

Other way around. Our considering slavery and genital mutilation more important than minor inconveniences based on a poor grasp of statistics is a consequence of your depraved indifference to human suffering, not a cause of it. Good job proving my point, though.
/r/MensRights18/04/26 06:35 PM
8

By creating a new child when there are already plenty of kids in the system who're in need of a good home.
/r/MensRights18/04/26 06:21 PM
1

Glad to hear it.
/r/MensRights18/04/26 06:20 PM
6

You've fallen at the first hurdle, here. The Palestinians (boys and girls alike) being brutalized by the IDF (whether lethally or otherwise) are (well, were) going through that precisely because of Israeli indulgence of Palestinian atrocities; had they taken a stronger stance earlier, they wouldn't've been brought to the point of having inhumane occupation being the only alternative to outright genocide. And that's exactly where the "manosphere" you so object to came from; men and boys defending…
/r/MensRights18/04/26 03:09 PM
30

And logical reasoning, too.
/r/MensRights18/04/26 03:03 PM
15

No kidding. It's not like right-wing tradcon nonsense is great for men either.
/r/MensRights18/04/26 03:02 PM
5

Do you then also oppose men deliberately choosing to become single fathers? I'm usually the only one I see calling the idea out around here. And while sperm donation may or may not be anti-male, it's sure as hell anti-orphan. Let's not forget those who, by definition, have no one to speak for them.
/r/MensRights18/04/26 03:01 PM
7

The need for something being reinforced by indulging it is astrology-level reasoning. It's saying that you only need oxygen because you breathe too much.
/r/MensRights17/04/26 02:35 PM
8

So... the grounds of her request for release (it's just out on bond; the trial's still ongoing) is "she's not evil, just violently insane"? This isn't a request for some kind of psychiatric hold (i.e., in a mental hospital instead of a prison); it's straight-up "let me go free". I wonder how much of this stems from the Overton shift in the dialogue around abortion; changing from "safe, affordable, and rare" to "any limitation or restriction on the practice is an attack on women everywhere" is bo…
/r/MensRights17/04/26 02:33 PM
2

Between Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, Singapore, and California, I'm starting to wonder if there isn't something about long-term exposure to the Pacific that somehow destroys your ability to reject totalitarianism. I guess we'd better keep a close eye on Hawaii...
/r/MensRights17/04/26 02:26 PM
7

No. Morons are, as the saying goes, gonna moron, and I'm happier when they don't hide their hate. I like knowing who my enemies are before they put their knives in my back.
/r/MensRights16/04/26 08:32 PM
0

As are the rest of theirs. Downvoting is an attempt to silence dissent without having to engage with the argument; it's exactly the same as removing comments, but done by people who lack the technical ability to do so. So no, it's not "perfectly respectable"; it's not respectable at all. And I'm not "being contrarian"- calling me that, too, is an attempt to deflect criticism without having to engage with it- I'm pointing out the logical flaws in the presented argument. Do you have any actual reb…
/r/MensRights16/04/26 08:28 PM
0

You say "this is a violation of the 8th Commandment".
/r/MensRights16/04/26 04:06 PM
-1

No, "maturing", regardless of gender, means not making- and not upvoting- ad hominem attacks against billions of people you've never even MET. This is sick, guys. Bigotry doesn't magically become acceptable when it's coming from YOU.
/r/MensRights16/04/26 04:04 PM
5

I'm not saying you're wrong, but let's be fair here: the vast majority of the people you meet aren't going to introduce themselves with their sexual orientation; it's not only possible but likely that you know more homosexuals (good and bad, male and female) than you're aware of, and that those who put their sexuality front and center in their personality are GOING to be more stereotypical.
/r/MensRights16/04/26 04:02 PM
2

Well, natch- what else would you expect? The most reliable way to combat an individual's bigotry is to have them frequently interact with members of the despised group; they'll eventually come to realize that people, regardless of demographics, are individuals, and should be judged accordingly. In terms of sex, dating will usually take care of that, since heterosexuals make up the vast majority of the population. Homosexuals don't get that, so they have to deal with other interactions, which are…
/r/MensRights16/04/26 04:01 PM
1

Except that it's entirely possible for voices raising women's issues to be downvoted, ignored, or decried as propaganda, especially in self-contained spaces like this one.
/r/MensRights16/04/26 03:56 PM
1

Insofar as paternity is DETERMINED BY GENETIC TESTING, no. No, they aren't.
/r/MensRights16/04/26 03:55 PM
6

Becoming a Cub Scout (the pre-Boy Scout arm of the BSA, for the unaware). As a toddler, I'd gone along with my mother when she'd lead my sister's Girl Scout meetings, and I'd seen what they got up to; we got to do WAY more cool stuff, and that didn't seem fair to me. When I asked my mother about it, she said "girls like different things than boys do", which seemed reasonable, but when I asked my sister, she said "that sounds like WAY more fun". When you see something that's not right, point it o…
/r/MensRights15/04/26 06:13 PM
0

Lockheed Martin (or in this case, Facebook) would dispute that.
/r/MensRights15/04/26 06:05 PM
-2

We'll never win if we do. You don't beat hatred with hatred.
/r/MensRights15/04/26 06:05 PM
43

For the same reason they hate(d) gay guys: he's not following the script, and so is of no use to them. But since he's found a way out, he might tell other guys about it, and so threaten their way of life, which heavily relies on men seeing themselves as disposable. Ever hear of Ravoux's slavemaker ant, and the efforts to preserve it since it's endangered? It's the same basic idea, just less immediately horrific.
/r/MensRights15/04/26 06:04 PM
23

That's what everyone fails to realize- that every last issue we talk about here is ultimately rooted in the lack of empathy. Fix that and the door will be open to handling all the specifics. Sadly, it seems a lot of people think that Fred Rogers did, in fact, take that with him.
/r/MensRights15/04/26 06:02 PM
1

"Accepting the loss of their rights" is what Ukraine DID; that's the problem we have with it. What YOU should do is to stop pretending this situation spontaneously sprang into existence, instead of being the result of decades of incredibly foolish political decisions. What they should have done is accept that Russia being a threat meant that Russia was not a friend, and thus that SOME kind of serious defense would be required against a larger, stronger, richer, and historically very aggressive n…
/r/MensRights15/04/26 05:59 PM
2

It would NOT lead to "a more stable family"; it would lead to "a hellish dystopia". Creating a genetic database of the entire population is quite possibly the stupidest thing a government could do, and that was the case BEFORE the age of CRISPR, when all you had to worry about was genetic discrimination: starving to death in the street because no one will hire you due to your genetic predispositions. In 2018, when Osama Bin Evilfuck, hiding out in a cave, could spend five grand to whip up a stra…
/r/MensRights15/04/26 02:33 PM
1

No, you don't- you respect the rights of your citizens, so that your country DESERVES to survive. "Inalienable" doesn't mean "can't be alienated unless it's convenient".
/r/MensRights15/04/26 02:21 PM
6

That's just straight-up untrue.
/r/MensRights15/04/26 02:19 PM
4

You're starting from a false premise. The war in Ukraine proved only one thing: you should never let go of your nukes. When one well-placed set of explosive charges could wipe out an army, battle thralldom became not only unnecessary, but counterproductive. That was in 1867 at the very latest.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 11:59 PM
9

If the country respects your rights, it can't enslave you. If it enslaves you, it doesn't respect your rights- and if it doesn't respect your rights, it's sure as hell not worth fighting for. This is not a complicated issue; I don't know why so many of you don't understand it.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 11:57 PM
3

No, just a willingness to LOOK PAST the screaming crazies and actually think about the situation. You do understand that "pedophilia" and "child molestation" are different things, right?
/r/MensRights14/04/26 11:55 PM
5

But it won't affect you.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 11:54 PM
9

There's something refreshing about openly declaring violence against people for traits they can't help. I mean, it still makes you an awful human being, but at least you're honest.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 07:36 PM
2

Insofar as, for many people even in the allegedly-tolerant West, being labeled a "pedophile" is a social, economic, and sometimes even physical death sentence, it's hard to criticize an attempt to spare people from that. You choose your actions; you don't choose your orientation.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 07:33 PM
5

Naturally, it depends on the woman. Some are lazy, some are greedy, some are just ragingly sexist.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 07:31 PM
47

Probably not, but there's an easy solution: bow out.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 07:30 PM
3

As would I.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 07:29 PM
19

Even better, in Sayer's case, was that the rapist in question, Colleen Hermesmann, was only 16- she'd been his babysitter. Why, you may wonder, would she sue him, when 1. she knew he was only a child and had no money, and 2. win or lose, she'd be destroying her reputation and opening herself up to criminal charges? The answer: she didn't. The state sued on her behalf. Somewhere, Oscar Wilde is weeping.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 01:56 PM
9

India. It never stops, does it?
/r/MensRights14/04/26 01:53 PM
27

You may be thinking of Shane Seyer. What people don't realize is that that meant the state was threatening to throw him in prison if he was unable to make the court-ordered payments to his rapist. Actually, it probably wasn't him, since HE was only 12 when the ruling came down. In Kansas- and the 17 other states that passed laws saying the same thing after the ruling- it's not that having sex is consenting to parenthood; it's having a functional male reproductive system.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 01:52 PM
1

The man dodged slavery in an unjust war, and you condemn him for it? Human lives aren't government property.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 01:48 PM
5

The one member of Congress who actually TRIED was Fred Upton. Guess which party he was a member of? If it ever gets abolished, it will almost certainly come from the liberals- but the Democrats have utterly cast liberalism aside. The Republicans haven't exactly picked it up, no, but they HAVE picked up quite a few liberal people, who've found themselves politically homeless. Don't completely count out the conservatives, though: you've still got the whole "we're wasting a boatload of money an org…
/r/MensRights14/04/26 01:47 PM
-1

It does, doesn't it? It's a bitter lesson, but an important one: someone can stand for positive things and still be ruled by hate.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 01:42 PM
-1

Because you're actually capable of empathizing with people who don't look or act like you, and so don't see the entire world in terms of your own experience, which is a vanishingly rare thing these days. This makes you more prone to expecting basic human decency from people, which, well, I don't think I need to tell you how disappointing it can be.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 01:41 PM
8

No, we need respect for individual rights. You don't solve a disparity in civics by making things WORSE.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 01:37 PM
3

You don't need to wonder-just look around here. There's no shortage of guys who've let their anger calcify into hate.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 01:36 PM
5

What is there to believe? Sunshine and puppies and theremin solos. Eating a bacon sandwich on garlic bread and hearing the soft sighs of contentment from the sodium gods. Teaching yourself Braille so you can read three books at once (four, if you count audiobooks). Running a four-minute mile. Buying a handful of 2X4s, building an onager, and lobbing water balloons at squirrels. Debating whether a standard catapult would be more accurate, realizing you'd need more (and more stationary) targets, a…
/r/MensRights14/04/26 01:35 PM
3

And we live instead in a world where people get to choose the level and intensity of the work they do, and take the resultant compensation, rather than have that determined by the government. That's not sad, though.
/r/MensRights13/04/26 07:24 PM
5

No, it's an evolved response created by the conditions our species evolved under. This is NATURE, not artifice.
/r/MensRights13/04/26 02:19 PM
-4

I guess the 3,000 people who died in 9/11 attacks are a myth, too? Gotta get your religion-bashing in, though, regardless of the truth of the matter.
/r/MensRights13/04/26 02:18 PM
26

In much of the West, that kind of discrimination is illegal. In those places where it's not, the media apparatus would be used to turn public opinion against such a gym. Lawsuits would likely follow if they didn't back down.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 09:12 PM
10

This shit is, indeed, getting ridiculous, but for almost exactly the opposite of the reason you're giving: they're lowering recruitment standards to avoid having to enslave *anyone***. If THAT was their plan, they wouldn't change the recruitment standards, because they wouldn't NEED to, since they'd soon have an inundation of recruits. Battle thralldom is a direct violation of the rights to life, liberty, AND the pursuit of happiness; it's a valid and a legitimate concern. But crying wolf like t…
/r/MensRights12/04/26 09:10 PM
4

For divorce, I can't say. For marriage, denial.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 09:04 PM
2

So can the Magic 8-ball, and THAT hasn't been inundated with the creator's biases. Well, maybe it has, but it just uses a D20, which doesn't care. And it's more accurate, too.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 09:04 PM
2

Because it's Twitter. What else do you expect? You've got people saying "finna", for whom even typing "gonna" is too much to ask. There's a reason for that.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 09:02 PM
6

That low-effort posts asking opinions of terms they can't even bothered to define are against the rules.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 08:59 PM
5

So the answer is: because you think life consists exclusively of work and sex. That's a level of depression I'm not sure I'm equipped to handle.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 08:58 PM
4

By that logic, ANY form of interaction between the sexes would be forbidden. Hell, in the days of trial by social media, you don't even need that, and the only rational response would be "kill them all". Do you see how insane that sounds?
/r/MensRights12/04/26 08:56 PM
0

You don't ask with declarative statements.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 08:55 PM
4

Because you're speaking against the narrative. Yes, even when all you're doing is calling for logic. Sadly, this place isn't much less of an echo chamber than those it decries.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 05:27 PM
2

It DOES, however, raise one of the great "test of personality" questions: when you ride out on a helicopter to start your mission, do you launch to "Long Tall Sally" or "Ride of the Valkyries"?
/r/MensRights12/04/26 05:25 PM
2

Somewhere, Emmett Till is crying.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 05:23 PM
-43

True. But so are ad hominem attacks.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 05:21 PM
13

This raises some legitimate questions, but also operates on the premise that the President controls the economy. I get that you hate Trump, but he's the President, not the god-emperor. It also operates from the premise that current economic trends are irreversible because that's what the experts say. That's why the 1930's were such an economic extravaganza, building on the wild growth of the late 20's and raising it even further, right? I'll leave with some words from one of the 20th century's m…
/r/MensRights12/04/26 05:21 PM
30

Okay, spelling issues aside, why on Earth would you jump to "women can't ever work with men" instead of "don't date coworkers"?
/r/MensRights12/04/26 05:15 PM
0

Then the logical thing to do would be to ask for an explanation, no?
/r/MensRights12/04/26 05:14 PM
1

Respectively: yes, potentially (but the common alternatives are far worse; I'm open to a better idea if you have one), and yes. Most of the userbase here tends to focus on the importance of fathers in a child's life (which isn't surprising), but a mother is vitally important, too- and a prospective one should be chosen wisely.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 05:13 PM
3

You know, I was going to make a joke about "the right wing does very little good for men and probably harms them more than they hurt them", but thinking about it, that seems less like a typo and more like a Freudian slip. And not an incorrect one, either.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 04:01 PM
1

The literal Biblical Satan shows up all of three times: to push Job test his faith, to accuse Joshua to test his mettle, and to tempt Jesus, to see if He'd break under the strain of walking the path with the power He'd been given. Satan, Biblically, is Yahweh's district attorney- you seem to have conflated him with Ahriman. Nor did Eve eat the fruit out of feeling "she was more deserving"; she ate it because the snake pointed out- correctly!- that Yahweh had lied, since she and Adam both ate it …
/r/MensRights11/04/26 03:58 PM
1

It's worse than that: inundation of dehumanizing propaganda (in both word AND policy) convinces neutral, and sometimes even good, people that it's RIGHT that young men should be enslaved to murder the slaves of another nation.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 03:47 PM
4

Choosing to either not reject the offer of NATO membership (turned down on the grounds that it would antagonize Russia, which SOUNDS reasonable, but clearly didn't help) or by joining or forming some other alliance, especially in light of Putin betraying them in 2014, violating the Geneva Convention to seize Crimea. It's certainly oversimplifying to say "it's all Zelensky's fault", but Ukraine could definitely have taken wiser actions than "do nothing and wait for NATO to come save us". As to wh…
/r/MensRights11/04/26 03:44 PM
-13

That's never going to cease to be a myth, no matter how often it's repeated.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 03:40 PM
4

The first step is obvious: make firing someone based on an unproven accusation illegal, just like it is for whistleblowing in civilized places. Suspension? Perfectly reasonable. Firing? Legally actionable. That doesn't eliminate the financial damage, but it does blunt its claws, as well as removing the social pressure on organizations that refuse to fire "problematic" people, since they can't. Then, loosen restrictions on defamation lawsuits, enabling recovery for some of the damage done. Make f…
/r/MensRights11/04/26 03:36 PM
1

No- the point is that even minor power corrupts the vast majority of people. And that "man" is a non-gendered sense is non-gendered.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 03:22 PM
1

The US Constitution says federal elections are to be held on "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November". Holding them on a Tuesday makes sense, especially for people who had to travel some distance to vote (doubly so given the transportation technology of the time, and triply so given how bad the roads were), but the particular phrasing leaves room for the order of the days of the week to change- not TOO far fetched, given that it was written post-Thermidor revolution, but why would …
/r/MensRights11/04/26 03:21 PM
7

I was wondering what kind of church he goes to...
/r/MensRights10/04/26 07:37 PM
-12

I was a kid in school when I first read that Abigail Adams quote "All men would be tyrants if they could". It offended me, since I wouldn't- but all the years since have shown me that I'm a rare exception. Most people simply don't have the moral fortitude to handle power, and can do so safely only because of fear of reprisal. The kind of power? Doesn't matter.
/r/MensRights10/04/26 07:36 PM
0

The reason antinatalism exists is because educational standards are low enough that Malthus still gets taken seriously. It's not an "entitlement" to have kids; it's a biological obligation. The previous century showed us the true face of eugenics.
/r/MensRights10/04/26 07:31 PM
3

You're not wrong; it IS a harmful ideology. But so is the anti-nuclear power movement, and you're not objecting to THAT- not here, anyway. And that makes sense, since it's not relevant to men's rights or issues. This isn't either.
/r/MensRights10/04/26 07:30 PM
16

Sadly, no; it's just contemplating the horrible tactics often seen by misandric women and thinking "Hey, we should do that too!".
/r/MensRights10/04/26 07:25 PM
8

That you haven't put enough thought into this. In the US, seventeen states (the website with the list seems to have gone down), in the wake of Hermesmann V. Seyer, passed legislation making "conception as a result of criminal activity" not mitigate child support requirements. That means that in over a third of the country, you can go to jail for being unable to make court-ordered payments to your rapist. Shane Seyer, defendant in the initial case, was twelve. THAT is what we're up against here. …
/r/MensRights10/04/26 02:58 PM
1

You don't know NOW? The largest Feminist organization in the world? You've never heard of Warren Farrell? Hyperbole doesn't help when it weakens your point. Then again, neither does downvoting the truth just because you don't like it.
/r/MensRights10/04/26 02:49 PM
1

Then you'll have an amusing story to tell the kids some day. Assuming it's the right of fish, of course. A woman who presents you with, say, a hammerhead shark on your first date is... yeah, okay, I have no idea what that would symbolize, but you'd know she sure as hell MEANS it!
/r/MensRights09/04/26 08:44 PM
3

The fairest way would be to tax consumption. Taxing production just incentivizes people to not produce.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 08:42 PM
2

The original blurb (it was one of the tiny little non-articles in a corner of the "paper") actually WAS "white girl to be tried as black man", or words to that effect; I made a mental note of it at the time I saw it. Would that the censoring of that part surprised me, but given what The Onion was in the process of becoming...
/r/MensRights09/04/26 06:08 PM
2

That would be my guess, too; it's likely not as malicious as Final-Psychology seems to think. Although now I'm wondering whether a profile with a picture of a flower holding up a fish or a fish receiving flowers would get more messages...
/r/MensRights09/04/26 06:05 PM
25

McCarthism wasn't a law either. Is THAT okay now, or is it only a problem when Republicans do it? Hypocrisy is no less ugly when it's YOUR hypocrisy. Troll smarter, not harder.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 06:02 PM
28

Historical revisionism is no less awful because it's yours. Troll smarter, not harder.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 06:01 PM
4

"Military service" is taking your army in to have its tires rotated. We're talking about battle slavery here. And since it's about depriving the citizenry of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, kristalnacht is (part of) a perfectly apt comparison: government-controlled (or at least implicitly endorsed) demonization of people based on uncontrollable demographic factors to motivate the hoi polloi to not care about abuses heaped on them. The only real difference is that there was first a prolonged …
/r/MensRights09/04/26 06:00 PM
2

Yes, because it's SO MUCH EASIER to solve political problems that you don't even know exist. If you're going to be sarcastic, at least put in the effort to do it right.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 05:55 PM
5

I'm not "trying to say" anything about income taxes; I'm pointing out that it was originally introduced (in the US, at least) as an explicitly temporary measure to pay off the country's war debt. Which clearly illustrates that no, a "well-funded and egalitarian government" certainly doesn't need it, as the prior century demonstrated. Likewise, I'm not "trying to call" slaves slaves; I'm doing so clearly and unambiguously. There's a reason that every legal definition of slavery where it doesn't q…
/r/MensRights09/04/26 05:53 PM
9

Yes, you are: that this is a blatant attempt to hide the continued existence of the SS from public awareness. You don't START by removing fundamental rights from a given demographic; you start by weakening public perception of them as free and equal human beings, worth of the same rights and respect as everyone else. Then you either capitalize on (like Covid) or manufacture (like the Gulf of Tonkin) a crisis and begin stripping things away while the public is outraged or afraid enough, and tell …
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:26 PM
5

You praise the suffering of innocent people because it makes your bogeyman look bad, and yet you still consider yourself the "good guy". He won in 2024 (and 2016, for that matter) for a reason.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:19 PM
4

That's because it hasn't- so no, it's not alarming.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:18 PM
5

Yes- or something equivalent (driver's license registrations are the most common, I think). It's still attempting to slam the Overton Window shut on the issue. Looks like the current NCFM run may be our last real shot at this, at least for the next few decades.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:17 PM
9

The side where the government throws you in prison for social media posts?
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:15 PM
10

"Enforcing laws" would include the 13th and 14th Amendments, and ending this abomination.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:14 PM
12

Not digitizing, automating- ensuring that no one thinks about it until it's too late. Kristalnacht wasn't a "genocide", either- it was (part of) an attempt to dehumanize an unpopular demographic so that no one would complain when the horrors DID start. That's exactly what this is, too.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:13 PM
40

It's an attempt to remove the process from discussion- and thus, from even the potential of public consciousness. And in fairness, there actually WAS an attempt to stop it, in Congress, and by Fred Upton, of all people. Naturally, it gained no traction and fell apart, but still.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:11 PM
84

Neither do Democrats- did you miss the whole "vax pass" issue?
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:10 PM
1

"People-like-her" is not her. Discriminating on the basis of demographics doesn't magically become acceptable when it's no longer your demographic. "Guy who shares a skin color with other who are known to be diagnosed sociopaths and who have more than one restraining order against them" is not "guy". This is not complicated. Try to keep up.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:08 PM
2

Once again: having lots of babies means nothing if they don't live long enough to reproduce themselves. This is not complicated. Try to keep up.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 03:06 PM
-3

Furchfur already copy-pasted it for you, but let me take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to you for actually wanting to read the article before commenting. It seems we had a massive gas leak last night that went unnoticed around here.
/r/MensRights08/04/26 09:12 PM
-4

Well, they would be, if that's what the law actually *said. This kind of hysterical pearl-clutching is exactly what we'd decry if the genders were reversed.
/r/MensRights08/04/26 09:09 PM
1

Where is the evidence that the inaction (obviously, it couldn't've been ignorance) was about gender? "Just trust me, bro" does not suffice if you're making an accusation- or does the idea of due process and evidentiary standards only apply when the accused is male? And insofar as he's decided to stop being an organ donor, thereby denying potentially male people lifesaving medical treatment with body parts he's no longer using, thereby treating males more poorly in response to males being treated…
/r/MensRights08/04/26 09:07 PM
2

Let's take a look at the numbers. The VA says- holy crap. 18 and a quarter MILLION veterans? I know they're not all combat roles, but that's more than five and a quarter percent of the population; that's beyond insane. But that's another issue. 30,000 is 0.16% of 18.26 million, which doesn't sound so bad. But NAEH says we've got 771,000 homeless people (or we did in 2023; I'm sure it's higher now, but that's also the last year the VA has numbers for), and 30,000 is 3.89% of that, which is still …
/r/MensRights08/04/26 03:19 PM
5

No- at an immediate reproductive level, it's mostly true. But humans aren't chimps; we're born at a late fetal stage, and require a TON of care and resources for quite some time. Men, collectively, are far better at that; it's more accurate to say "women's role in reproduction ends at birth" than "men's role in reproduction ends at ejaculation". In evolutionary terms, having lots of babies doesn't count for squat if they don't live long enough to reproduce themselves.
/r/MensRights08/04/26 03:01 PM
6

And long-term complications from injuries, and cancers from agent orange, and unwillingness to seek medical care from psychological traumas...
/r/MensRights08/04/26 02:58 PM
-2

So... not only do you assume the ignorance was about gender, rather than failings of government agencies, you also respond to people in general failing to take positive steps to support those in need by revoking the positive steps you had taken to support those in need? This isn't killing for peace; this is declaring war for peace. Reading this sub has convinced me that regardless of the nobility of their intentions, a great many people will, on principle, refuse to think things through.
/r/MensRights08/04/26 02:56 PM
1

I didn't- I replied in a timely fashion to a ridiculous claim, rather than waiting most of a month to try and make someone look stupid in the future by... doing nothing of note. Troll smarter, not harder.
/r/MensRights08/04/26 02:50 PM
1

For the same reason we shouldn't suspect Steve from the accounting department, hitting on that cutie at the bar, is doing the same thing as Ted Bundy. Paranoia is no more morally correct coming from you than it is from the Feminists.
/r/MensRights08/04/26 02:49 PM
1

Okay. That makes more sense, then.
/r/MensRights08/04/26 02:48 PM
6

No, it's called "Rambo: First Blood". Oh, wait, you said "cause".
/r/MensRights07/04/26 11:26 PM
2

You speak of the benefits of raising awareness, but you do it in a place filled with people who're already aware. I guess "undercuts" would've been a better choice than "undercuts".
/r/MensRights07/04/26 11:22 PM
-5

And yet you're in here, preaching to the choir. Kinda defeats your point.
/r/MensRights07/04/26 06:21 PM
3

Is there a point in trying to reason with that level of delusion? No- but the thing is, there's no point in trying to reason with either of those levels of delusion. Not the flaming misandry which you all spotted already, nor the idiotic decision to respond to the women you date denying your emotional needs whenever you share them by ceasing to share them. If you really believe that women are THAT strongly inclined to ignore your emotional needs, then why the chicken fried fuck are you still dat…
/r/MensRights07/04/26 02:01 PM
-12

...and? Look, I'm no fan of Mr. Newsom, but complaining about this is just nonsense. If playing with dolls ("action figures" are no doubt exempt) harms your masculinity, you never had any to begin with.
/r/MensRights07/04/26 01:51 PM
27

Bigoted doofus acts in a bigoted, doofusical manner; film at eleven.
/r/MensRights07/04/26 01:49 PM
2

It was Obama's drone policy: avoid the media criticizing his causing civilian casualties by declaring any "military-aged male" an enemy combatant unless posthumously cleared. I'm guessing you "haven't heard of" his writing bills of attainder (which the Constitution explicitly forbids) either? Or of Biden's "death to due process" campus reforms that cut off the federal funding of any college that dared allow students accused of sexual assault to present exculpatory evidence. I'm guessing you DID …
/r/MensRights07/04/26 12:07 AM
8

A noble thought, but lawyers don't outlaw things; Congress does.
/r/MensRights06/04/26 07:39 PM
4

Then clearly you haven't heard of outright killing them, because just being male and "military aged" warrants summary execution, as per Obama. Look, I'm not saying that Republicans are good, in terms of men's rights and issues; they're not. It's just that- as it currently stands- Democrats are worse.
/r/MensRights06/04/26 07:38 PM
3

The party of star chamber justice, prosecuting whisteblowers, and Constitutional lawyers writing bills of attainder is not a better option. Crazy beats evil, every time. Don't like the Republicans? Vote green. Or whatever color the Libertarians are.
/r/MensRights06/04/26 02:01 PM
6

They don't- but "not caring" is a huge step forward compared to what the Democrats offered. If you think hostility is better than apathy, it's beyond "beyond sad".
/r/MensRights06/04/26 01:59 PM
11

A basic glance at your profile says you've been on this platform for fourteen years. That means, unless you wandered away for a while and then came back, that you saw the insanity of, and the insanity in response to, the Covid crisis. That means you know exactly where the blind faith comes from; you saw it firsthand. If you didn't participate in it, you faced the wrath of those who did- calling for logic, reason, and evidence before making major alterations in the pandemic response plans that ha…
/r/MensRights05/04/26 03:54 PM
1

And do you have anything to SAY about what it says?
/r/MensRights05/04/26 03:54 PM
6

Thanks-and good. Nail those sexist laws to the wall.
/r/MensRights05/04/26 03:39 PM
4

Does Germany have laws (for that matter, does it have a legal system that allows) that would make that possible? I'm genuinely asking here; I don't know.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 08:57 PM
6

But society doesn't give them rights that nobody else gets. They don't even get the same rights that everyone else does.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 08:56 PM
4

Something like that- hence the "relatively".
/r/MensRights04/04/26 08:55 PM
10

No, the solution is to acknowledge human rights, in the form of human lives not being treated as government property. Veterans being given advantages in employment, housing, and medical care doesn't count as an advantage when there's nothing keeping women from getting those same benefits by enlisting themselves- and such things certainly aren't "rights". Protection against being enslaved, however? THAT is a right- and one that, in most of the world, is reserved exclusively for women, when it com…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 07:07 PM
1

Plenty, given that people don't "become antagonistic towards you" spontaneously for absolutely no reason. I know this is hard to understand, but women aren't robots or unreasoning beasts incapable of thought. However stupid or imaginary the reason might before her to explode at you, there IS a reason, and no, it's not an inexplicable signal she received from outer space that completely overrode her personal will. Someone who's angry at you is angry for a reason (or reasons), and while they can't…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 06:57 PM
2

War is war.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:57 PM
0

Ah, nothing like "falling back on ethnic slurs" to make your point look legitimate. And nothing like pretending that court corruption doesn't exist, even when presented with direct evidence that that's not the case.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:57 PM
1

Ahem: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript Battle slavery is a direct obstacle to all three. We are not "beholden to the government"; it is beholden to US. Nor does it have the moral, intellectual, or operational authority to determine what "my purpose" is. Cl…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:55 PM
1

ALL wars are brother wars. That's the thing they don't want you to realize.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:52 PM
-1

Actually, yes- depending on your definition of "lobbied", NOW, of all organizations, did. Not sure about in Germany, though.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:51 PM
1

The ones in the museums, too; when the German government makes it clear it wants you to leave and you refuse, it doesn't end well for you.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:50 PM
11

It's Reddit. Any political thing critical of the European-style Leftist political agenda is silenced, regardless of its legitimacy.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:49 PM
1

Don't forget "energy production down", because the safest location-agnostic means of power production is politically inconvenient!
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:47 PM
11

No, no one should be. The lives of the citizenry are not property of the government. Why is this so hard for so many of you to understand?
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:45 PM
2

Not so- if you choose to not take untested gene therapies when the general population is sufficiently scared, you're not allowed to participate in society in many places. It's not even always true for women any more.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:45 PM
-1

And that's why you're all so vehemently opposed to the death penalty, right? Sacco and Vanzetti sure appreciated your strong devotion to justice and determination to inflict no harm until you were absolutely certain of guilt!
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:40 PM
2

That was literally the point of founding Planned Parenthood. Don't tell that to BLM activist-types unless you can run very fast, though.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:37 PM
-2

Right, because someone else repeating what a biased source says gives it more legitimacy! That's why we know the sun revolves around the Earth.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:35 PM
1

No- and the difference between your title and your post explains why. You being "pro-choice" is pretty much something that can be taken for granted, since you're not an automaton devoid of volition. Likewise, you're pro-life out of simple self-interest, since you're alive. It's not about life and it's not about choice; it's about abortion. The bulk of the voter base refuses to acknowledge that, and whether it's because of zealous dogma or media manipulation or a combination of the two, the resul…
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:34 PM
2

...and we'll tell you what it is after this commercial break! Your point isn't wrong, but the clickbait-style title very much undermines your point.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:30 PM
1

...Are you insane? Do you think that it's literally impossible to solve relationship issues, and that as soon as one comes up, it's all over? Contemplation of where and how problems originate, calm discussion of what participants might do differently, and making even small changes can TOTALLY help with unhappiness in relationships- and learning how to set mutually satisfactory borders, bring up issues, and settle things fairly in a relationship is ABSOLUTELY productive.
/r/MensRights04/04/26 03:29 PM
8

As someone who's made a (very informal) study of the history of hatred: prejudice is almost always disguised as virtue. That's what makes it so hard to kill. "Birth Of A Nation" is about the heroic KKK saving the town (and, ultimately, the world) from the horrors of evil black people (and, ultimately, all black people).
/r/MensRights03/04/26 02:24 PM
2

What makes it so frustrating is that there are real discussions to be had on the topic, and this kind of thing just discourages them.
/r/MensRights03/04/26 02:21 PM
4

Thank you- it's good to actually know what's being presented.
/r/MensRights02/04/26 11:32 PM
50

Nothing like the horrors of free speech, is there?
/r/MensRights02/04/26 06:41 PM
-31

The controversy is you going against the groupthink and the "victim first" mentality. Around here, it's only bad when THEY do it.
/r/MensRights02/04/26 06:39 PM
104

So... no information about what the video is actually about, just single-sentence comments on what it made you think about what other people said? This is the epitome of low-effort posting, dude.
/r/MensRights02/04/26 06:38 PM
1

Of course. You have to take the bad with the good; that's what "free" means.
/r/MensRights02/04/26 06:37 PM
1

Good question- but the expectation extends WAY beyond romantic partnership, into "anyone with a Y chromosome". I, for one, have never been dating "every woman in America", but I still have the registration card the SS sent me.
/r/MensRights02/04/26 02:10 PM
3

Nothing- but that's being a witch doctor. He's talking about prostitutes.
/r/MensRights01/04/26 07:12 PM
3

Feeling entitled to his protection is the basis which pretty much every intersexual point of contention rests. It doesn't always- rather rarely, in fact- involve the words "protect me".
/r/MensRights01/04/26 07:12 PM
3

You can disagree without resorting to hate speech, you know.
/r/MensRights01/04/26 07:10 PM
7

Um... do you not understand how newspapers work? They don't have "mods".
/r/MensRights01/04/26 02:53 PM
2

It's also partially correct- metaphorically, at least. Just remember that the "A" applies to man, not to world.
/r/MensRights01/04/26 02:51 PM
1

In fairness, there was some controversy about it even at the time. I don't think much came of it; but then, I don't pay much attention to the country music scene. But in light of songs like "Delia" and "Ruby, don't take your love to town", the idea of relatively casual murder isn't exactly uncommon in that genre. I'd say it's an outgrowth of the "I live far from the police, so dealing out life and death is MY choice" mindset (spend some time on a gun forum and you'll see what I mean; those peopl…
/r/MensRights01/04/26 02:48 PM
-36

And "mob justice" doesn't mean justice. Go back to your witch burnings.
/r/MensRights29/03/26 08:18 PM
-41

So... we need to silence the expression of opinions we disagree with? We need to punish people for holding ideas that disagree with ours? Go back to Wisconsin, Senator McCarthy; you're drunk. We support the fifth Amendment here.
/r/MensRights29/03/26 07:29 PM
2

And this reads as emotionally manipulative guilt-tripping. Crying is for sad people. Tears won't fix the problem, but neither will denying them.
/r/MensRights29/03/26 01:13 PM
7

That doesn't make emotional suppression and denial of self-worth healthy.
/r/MensRights29/03/26 01:12 PM
1

How? By means of evolutionary pressure, coupled with an absolute lack of self-reflection- maybe even self-awareness. Social norms are strongly shaped by the circumstances we evolved under, but not entirely determined by them, especially with the whole "free will" thing we've got going. The sad and sorry truth is that, when she finds her man crying, or even openly expressing weakness (like women so often tell men to do), the average woman is going to lose attraction for him; this is one of the pr…
/r/MensRights29/03/26 01:10 PM
2

"With protection"? You mean, like, condoms? Because we've had those for centuries.
/r/MensRights29/03/26 12:56 PM
1

That would be a "no", then. Try harder next time.
/r/MensRights28/03/26 02:33 PM
3

This... this is equating correlation with causation. It even calls itself out, noting how the study's author says it "identifies the causal link but does not directly test the behavioral mechanisms behind it" and not pointing out how it does no such thing. I've seen more scientific legitimacy in things published in the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Literally. Scientific American sacrificed its journalistic integrity during the Covid crisis, but I'd assumed THAT was due to pressure from the …
/r/MensRights28/03/26 02:31 PM
-10

Um... who, exactly, are these "so many people"? I have never in my life heard anyone say anything like that.
/r/MensRights28/03/26 02:17 PM
2

"Funny" and "offensive" aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, even in things that offend ME.
/r/MensRights28/03/26 02:16 PM
1

It's not- and you waited a month to say that?
/r/MensRights28/03/26 02:15 PM
2

Except they don't get kidnapped OR raped more often than men do- unless you're using definitions of "rape" that exclude female perpetrators. And that's WITHOUT counting what happens in prison. Troll smarter, not harder.
/r/MensRights28/03/26 02:15 PM
20

Exist?
/r/MensRights27/03/26 02:52 PM
25

It happens to us more often, but it's more likely to happen to them? Does causality work differently on your planet than it does on Earth?
/r/MensRights27/03/26 02:50 PM
1

Gotta love it when the idea of "let's think this through" gets downvoted!
/r/MensRights27/03/26 02:38 PM
1

Of course not- that means creating a genetic database that the government either has or will quickly be given access to. And if THAT happens, mere paternity fraud will be the least of your concerns. That job you had? Gone, because the company can't afford to insure you, given your genetic history. Your own insurance? Unaffordable, because your rates have tripled? Feeling smug, because you live in a country with government-funded healthcare, so insurance costs don't matter to you? Don't smile yet…
/r/MensRights27/03/26 02:37 PM
1

Choosing your own actions doesn't make sense to you? Well, that certainly sounds like depression.
/r/MensRights27/03/26 02:28 PM
1

Anyone who's ever dealt with it- but remember that while depression isn't a choice, how you decide to deal with it IS.
/r/MensRights26/03/26 06:00 PM
3

The Earth is flat. Wolf packs are enormous and lead by "alphas". Mama Cass died choking on a ham sandwich. Donald Trump is a fascist. Covid-19 killed millions of people. People believe all sorts of stupid nonsense, without and despite evidence, and the consolidation of Western media has made it more prevalent and easier than ever before. These people CAN think for themselves, but they choose not to; either because they're lazy or because they fear isolation more than the harm they cause by being…
/r/MensRights24/03/26 03:21 PM
8

Most emphatically. And since it's a man doing the raping, it wouldn't go ignored, either.
/r/MensRights24/03/26 03:13 PM
2

Understandable- foolish, but understandable. Bigots are, as they say, gonna bigot, and if it's not a matter of immediate danger, you're generally better finding out sooner rather than later.
/r/MensRights24/03/26 03:11 PM
9

...and? That IS a pretty misogynist (which I'm guessing is what you were going for) thing to say.
/r/MensRights24/03/26 03:09 PM
2

Don't forget domestic violence!
/r/MensRights24/03/26 03:07 PM
3

It's coming, have no doubt. There's a BIG push for anti-individualism; it's not the racism OR the slavery (reprehensible though they were) that's making people want to tear down Confederate statues.
/r/MensRights23/03/26 03:47 PM
3

Seventy-odd years ago, Joe McCarthy rose to power and began a reign of terror that destroyed many, many lives, based on nothing more than unfounded allegations of "being a Communist". For many years afterwards, this was widely condemned; the idea that "freedom of religion is a core American value, you authoritarian fucktard" was widely accepted. Tragically, authoritarian fucktardedness is a core human value, and today you have no shortage of conservatives claiming that McCarthy's actions were re…
/r/MensRights23/03/26 03:45 PM
2

Given how far the realities of "VR" fall from the promises of the 80's and 90's- you may not be old enough to remember, but even back then, you could get a lot more from a force feedback joystick than from strapping a TrackIR-equipped Viewmaster to your face- I'm inclined to point out that you don't HAVE to stop anyone. But what makes you think anyone is trying to? Where are those systems illegal?
/r/MensRights23/03/26 03:29 PM
0

You're saying that it's unfair that the government funds programs that aren't being used by men, and that men "disproportionately" fund these programs. They don't. Our taxes are taken just like anyone else's. This is exactly the same reasoning used by Feminists who complain that women make up a tiny proportion of CEOs. The only possible thing you COULD be complaining about is victimhood- and it's no less stupid when you do than when they do. You're explaining your persecution complex, not realit…
/r/MensRights23/03/26 03:25 PM
1

No, they weren't. Liberalism is an ideology, not a party line; if the people you disagree with politically are liberal and then what they push for changes, that is not a change in the nature of liberalism; that is that group no longer being liberal. You know how the Chinese government claims to be Communist, but then went and built the world's largest shopping mall? That doesn't change Communism; it means they're not Communist. Same thing.
/r/MensRights23/03/26 03:20 PM
5

Do you have/know of a place it can be read online? In English?
/r/MensRights22/03/26 09:38 PM
0

Liberal women believe in due process. Don't conflate party allegiance with ideology.
/r/MensRights22/03/26 09:36 PM
5

That's literally the entire point of the media storm around the issue: the government DID NOT FIND ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO ISSUE WARRANTS for these people, but we have to get the hoi polloi to call for their blood anyway, because they're rich and famous, and the common folk are resentful of them. Making EVERYONE Joe McCarthy is the key.
/r/MensRights22/03/26 09:33 PM
0

Then it's not an issue with taxation, but with programs being exclusionary. You're trying to claim a high tier of victimhood than the truth warrants.
/r/MensRights22/03/26 09:31 PM
1

Sure. I'm not saying there aren't any good solutions, just that the concern is legitimate. In SOME areas, at least; not freaking chess, FIDE.
/r/MensRights22/03/26 09:30 PM
0

And yet you wonder how we know that you slept through economics class...
/r/MensRights22/03/26 09:29 PM
6

The only reason there's such a social storm around transsexuals is that the different treatment of the sexes is exposed by them- if you intend to treat people equally, as nearly everyone says they do, it doesn't matter whether someone is a man or a woman. Well, I suppose female athletes have some grounds to complain, and there may be other groups I haven't thought of, but they're numerically insignificant (which doesn't mean their complaints don't matter, but they're not major contributors to th…
/r/MensRights21/03/26 05:57 PM
1

No- people who make more contribute more. If women make more, they contribute more, too. This is the equivalent of saying that drug laws are racist because black people smoke more crack. Your longing for victimhood doesn't change reality.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 05:50 PM
3

That it won't do that- people behaving irresponsibly will. It's not vasalgel's fault if people misunderstand what it does.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 05:48 PM
7

The pill that works by screwing with hormones to control the gametes? Of which men have hundreds of millions in every ejaculation? It's really not surprising that that would be more complicated.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 05:46 PM
0

Investing in the stock market IS gambling; just rigged by people in the government, rather than the Mob.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 03:34 PM
2

No, mine gave a damn. Not enough of one, ultimately, but he was only human- and his failings didn't specifically target me any more than my sister.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 03:31 PM
7

Don't forget the laughter around sexually mutilation!
/r/MensRights21/03/26 03:28 PM
0

And you came and posted about it on social media instead of escalating the complaint... why, exactly?
/r/MensRights21/03/26 03:28 PM
2

You're approaching it from the wrong end; following- intentionally or otherwise- the tradcon notion that things used to be better; that humanity was at one point in an ideal, if not perfect, state, and then "fell". You see this most notably (well, to the average Westerner, anyway) in Christian theology: Yahweh gets His part of the Earth (eventually, he'd become the ONLY god, but the proto-Jews were henotheistic at first, recall) and makes the garden of Eden, putting Adam, and then Eve, in it. He…
/r/MensRights21/03/26 03:26 PM
3

In the same sense that distributing butterfly knives will decrease gunshots wounds, sure.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 03:07 PM
11

Other way around, actually: we came up with condoms literally centuries ago.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 03:06 PM
6

Luck isn't necessary, given that we have free will, and aren't unreasoning beasts controlled entirely by our instincts, and masturbation doesn't exist. Credit for not limiting that accusation to women, though; most around here aren't so considerate.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 03:05 PM
1

That's not what "tax burden" means; by THAT logic, every single person in the US under the age of 55 or so won't see ANY benefit from the tax money they pay in, since every last penny of it went (and will go) to paying off the S&L bailouts. "Tax burden" is the level of taxation you're dealing with. That's all it means; it has nothing to do with what you get in exchange.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 03:02 PM
0

No, entirely true (again, with possibly exceptions that I don't know about; I'm hardly an expert on tax law). If there are programs limited to women, then that's a services gap, not a tax one- a very legitimate issue, but that's not about taxes. If they're available to men, but men just don't choose to use them, then that's on US, not the government.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 02:59 PM
1

Yeah, eating after 1 PM won't make you gay, just a time-delayed gremlin.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 06:22 PM
2

Unless you do if after saying "Simon says". That cancels the "yes homo" out. Or if he puts a pause between the words and you claim you changed your name to "Homo".
/r/MensRights20/03/26 06:20 PM
2

Being sexually attracted to the same sex is gay. That's pretty much it. Even having sex with the same sex doesn't count, since it's not a requirement; it sure suggests it, though. As to making you gay, the only way to do that is through complicated epigenetic manipulations or some sort of mind control. The right kind of environmental damage could do it, too; there's potential for some truly hilarious PSAs about how "lack of pollution regulation is gay", but it mostly just kills people.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 06:19 PM
-6

It's equal because you get taxed on what you make and what you spend; gender has nothing to do with it- so far as I'm aware, anyway. Is there something I'm missing?
/r/MensRights20/03/26 06:16 PM
1

You make a post that consists of a title, then give absolutely no evidence for, or even development of, that idea. It's the precise definition of a low-effort post.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 06:09 PM
1

The threshold of what "too much" is? Yeah, somewhat. But the actual, meaningful harm done? Not really.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 06:08 PM
2

Think it through: how on Earth WOULD it? Yes, there's an expenditure of energy and a minor protein loss, but you'd get the same with ANY form of sex. You're only going to hear that kind of crap from guys who're angry that Kinsey got all the babes. The fundamental problem with almost anything being called "a sin" is that those calling it that don't explain WHY. Sometimes it's obvious: murder, theft, adultery; sometimes it's less so, but becomes clear when you think about it: heresy, simony. Somet…
/r/MensRights19/03/26 02:21 PM
9

The same thing we want the Darwa Boodi to do: respect the fact that your children aren't your property and that your religion isn't their religion. I would think that being part of the only religion on the planet that explicitly calls it sinful to sexually mutilate a baby* would give you a clue there.
/r/MensRights19/03/26 02:07 PM
1

That's likely true, but the only way these things are going to change is if there's a PRICE for doing them- and if the choices are "facing legal penalties" or "mob justice", we all really, REALLY want the former.
/r/MensRights19/03/26 02:04 PM
19

Have you tried going to the police? Libel is against the law, and accusations of criminal activity are pretty easy to prove when the evidence is there for anyone to see.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 07:21 PM
0

Um... in many places, that's straight-up illegal. When it's not, it's powerfully discouraged, for obvious reasons. And unless you live somewhere where revenge porn isn't outlawed... I have to be honest, though: Marilyn Manson once said how suspicious he found it that people who were supposedly traumatized by sexual assault first went to social media to bitch about it, rather than to, say, the police. I have to hold you to the same standards. Why are you telling US, and not the authorities, or th…
/r/MensRights18/03/26 07:18 PM
7

...and are you going to actually SAY anything about it, or is this just a general-purpose PSA? Because you're kinda preaching to the deity here.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 07:14 PM
2

Thomas Sowell said "If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.". Even he, though, would probably blanch if you applied the same idea to the sexes; it would've gotten you labeled a sexist 60 years ago, a sexist 30 years ago, and a sexist today.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 03:33 PM
2

Egalitarianism is not a complicated idea. Then again, neither is "party line and ideology are separate things", and look how few people understand THAT. "Idpol liberal" is no less oxymoronic than "conservative Christian". Embracing bigotry means forfeiting any claim to liberalism.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 03:31 PM
1

Never trust a company that can't spell its own name correctly. No Googol, no Ticktock, and no Readit. Usenet's a ghost town, or we'd be having this discussion there.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 03:27 PM
3

Call it out. You don't always have to make a major deal of it, but don't let it slide. Will that anger people? Yes. Will it cost you reputation? Yes. But it'll also earn you respect, both from people who see you'll stand up for what you believe in AND, believe it or not, from the people (more the women than the men, in my experience) you call out- it's nothing on the HATE you'll get from those people, but those who are more honest and don't realize the deeper meanings of what they're saying or d…
/r/MensRights18/03/26 03:26 PM
3

So... women don't commit crimes, but are in need of special assistance to keep them out of prison for the crimes they don't commit? Seriously- what the hell is happening in the UK? It's like it's a series of pranks that's gotten completely out of hand, and they're just waiting to see how far people will let them go...
/r/MensRights17/03/26 11:29 PM
12

Oh, it gets better: he's often on the hook even if he doesn't- or CAN'T- consent to have sex. Ask Shane Seyer.
/r/MensRights17/03/26 11:27 PM
53

How many mined the iron to make the nails that bound together the wooden planks that others carved from trees which still others cut down?
/r/MensRights17/03/26 04:22 PM
2

What about the apparent men's hobby of looking for the words of crazy women, in an effort to republish them elsewhere and make them look insane? Evil bitches gonna evil, dude. Make a note to avoid them and move on.
/r/MensRights16/03/26 06:45 PM
1

Problem 1: "the free market" is what gave us brutal working conditions, corporate monopolies, and environmental damage so severe that the Cuyahoga river routinely caught fire before the Leftists came in and enacted antitrust policies, established unions, and passed environmental laws. Point to the Left. Problem 2: conflation of the government with the country is never going to be true, no matter how many times you repeat it; subordinating the individual to their government overlords as well as t…
/r/MensRights15/03/26 03:51 PM
1

Not controversial, just poorly thought out. The danger, as I've said innumerable times before, doesn't lay in any particular ideology, but in the concentration of too much power into too few hands. Whose hands they are doesn't really matter, and the kind of power it is doesn't really matter, either. Fundamentally, the choice between them is whether you want men to have fewer rights, or everyone to have fewer rights. The fact that the Western Left has, over the last few decades, completely abando…
/r/MensRights15/03/26 03:37 PM
1

Smart people, those with a healthy distrust of the media, Canadians who're still capable of rational thought, people with something to hide... it's a pretty long list.
/r/MensRights15/03/26 03:32 PM
4

...any actual evidence or explanation of that?
/r/MensRights15/03/26 03:30 PM
1

Please do. Then please explain how.
/r/MensRights15/03/26 03:30 PM
2

You've never heard of Mexico, have you?
/r/MensRights14/03/26 02:17 PM
1

Putting aside, for the moment, the fact that that company is, in fact, an abomination on the face of both the internet and humanity in general (which is pretty big thing to set aside), and thus as far from being my "friend" as possible, do you honestly expect a company that can't spell its own name correctly to be an authority on correct spelling? Credit for chutzpah, at least.
/r/MensRights14/03/26 02:17 PM
2

Oh. That's actually pretty sensible, then (though still annoying, given the proximity of Zambia and Zimbabwe). Thanks for clearing that up!
/r/MensRights14/03/26 02:15 PM
4

Do you want most macho or least misandric? That's like asking which state is wettest and least damp.
/r/MensRights13/03/26 07:21 PM
1

No, they aren't.
/r/MensRights13/03/26 07:20 PM
2

Ah, South Africa. I was wondering what the heck ".za" meant, since I didn't think it was the high court of pizza. Of course, now I'm wondering why the hell it would be "South Africa", which starts with an 'S', not a 'Z', especially when Zimbabwe's right next door, and Zambia's next to THEM. Evidently, no one in South Africa owns a map.
/r/MensRights13/03/26 04:09 PM
2

And h's.
/r/MensRights13/03/26 04:07 PM
3

In the same way that stock ownership would constitute slavery. Laws are for poor people.
/r/MensRights13/03/26 04:06 PM
1

Here's a noodle scratcher: of the quest for validation and the quest for status, which has caused more unnecessary suffering and misery?
/r/MensRights13/03/26 04:01 PM
1

Hmm. While I certainly don't think the line of "the people I tried to bring in recently lost their child" lends her much credibility, it's entirely possible that excessive force WAS used in removing her. Let's not condemn without evidence.
/r/MensRights13/03/26 04:00 PM
3

And it made us declare war on Eastasia!
/r/MensRights13/03/26 03:57 PM
3

Newton taught us that an object in motion will tend to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Be that force, and steer it toward something better. We did not make the world; we didn't shape it into the form it's currently taken. But we can change it-not completely and not overnight, but we CAN make things better. And if no one does, it'll never improve. Call out the crap when you see it, treat other men (well, everyone, because bigotry sucks, but take special notice of how you t…
/r/MensRights13/03/26 03:55 PM
1

So... the people being discriminated against are more likely to be opposed to discrimination? And this is newsworthy? Is there something in the water up there?
/r/MensRights13/03/26 03:49 PM
1

It's as false as saying you should avoid Wisconsin if you want to escape Packers fans. Yes, it still exists offline, but it's MUCH less common. The world contains awful things; film at eleven.
/r/MensRights13/03/26 03:46 PM
2

Yeah, because THAT leaves no room for confusion or misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights13/03/26 03:44 PM
1

Do... do you not know what plastic is made from? Or are you Amish, connecting to a hand-spun internet on a keyboard made from wood? I pointed out that participating in an internet discussion is proof- not mere evidence, but proof- that nature doesn't always win, and in fact is quite frequently defeated by simple human ingenuity. Nothing "madman" about it, unless "knowing basic biochemistry" is limited to the insane these days. Although that WOULD explain a lot...
/r/MensRights13/03/26 03:43 PM
5

I'd want to know how "obey" was defined- but then, I'm the kind of perverted weirdo who asks people what they mean when I think I don't understand them, and doesn't automatically assume the worst possible interpretation.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 02:38 PM
-8

Your use of euphemisms gives the lie to your statements; the Japanese army in WW2 was also a "dispatched force", and the Koreans WERE invading Vietnam. They were there for a nominally more noble purpose, it's true, but the war crimes they committed make it pretty clear just how little that meant. Why on Earth do so many of you have the idea that being a soldier- slave or otherwise- means that your atrocities don't count, or that you shouldn't be held accountable for them? Many of the soldiers So…
/r/MensRights12/03/26 02:36 PM
-2

No, I'm "applying logic". It's just that most people here aren't willing to admit reality when it conflicts with their desires. I guess it's only seen as bad when it's Feminists doing it.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 02:22 PM
-13

...he says, typing on a keyboard made of ultraprocessed oil, attached to a machine of nearly unfathomable complexity, inside a building with finely controlled weather, likely viewed through angle-correcting lenses. Nature huddles in a corner when humanity gets angry. Which is fitting, since we do the same when IT gets angry. With that as our role model, why wouldn't our relationships suck?
/r/MensRights11/03/26 06:54 PM
-3

Nor the lying, the cheating, the mind games, or of course the expense. But nature can't be switched off.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 06:50 PM
-4

You're mistaken: chivalry is about protecting the weak, not denying people rights. It may often not have worked out that way in practice, natch, but that's the idea. As to women wanting men who follow the lead they evolved to want them to follow- what did you expect? Political fads don't undo millions of years of natural selection. What most people- men and women alike- would be happiest with is a modified form of it; one that followed the general idea that that kind of bio-traditionalism does, …
/r/MensRights11/03/26 06:48 PM
5

By setting up sting operations to arrest men hitting on joggers. As per UK law, that's a far bigger issue than people getting, say, stabbed. Nowhere near as big as someone saying something uncomplimentary about the government, though.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 02:29 PM
2

The entire point of the foofaraw around said files is to get people to accept, and even seek out, punishment inflicted on people without proof of guilt. Have you not noticed how, as time has passed and current events have made people increasingly angry, the calls have gone from "arrest them" to "line them up against the wall and shoot them"? And how the amount of actual evidence of "them" committing any actual wrongdoing hasn't grown any larger? Now, take a look at how society calls out for wome…
/r/MensRights11/03/26 02:27 PM
1

Rule #3: Posts with titles that do not indicate what the post is about or use a clickbait format may be removed, or reposted by moderators.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 02:23 PM
0

...which you attempt to demonstrate by linking to an article that ADMITS THAT ITS CENTRAL PREMISE IS MISTAKEN. Yes, the government often fails to do what it sets out to; the only way that could possibly equate to what it's trying to do NOT EXISTING is if you're engaging in victimhood whoring that would make a Feminist blush. Reality hurts when you're mistaken- but that doesn't mean you're not mistaken. Grow up.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 02:22 PM
1

That's exactly why- controversy drives clicks.
/r/MensRights10/03/26 05:20 PM
4

Some sexes are more equal than others.
/r/MensRights10/03/26 05:20 PM
28

But men are a minority. That's why "women" are specifically mentioned separately. Also, does the 14th Amendment just not apply any more?
/r/MensRights10/03/26 05:19 PM
1

...okay, who had "accuracy in intercontinental bathroom gender tolerances" for 2026? "Deus Ex future predictions" is the weirdest bingo ever.
/r/MensRights10/03/26 05:17 PM
1

Aww, is the little bigot angry that the smart people have arrived?
/r/MensRights10/03/26 05:15 PM
2

Troll smarter, not harder.
/r/MensRights10/03/26 05:14 PM
10

Bigotry. The word you're looking for is "bigotry". Calling it "DEI" just legitimizes it.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 11:59 PM
-1

A good dictionary, then. "Semite" doesn't refer to a religious, ethnic, or cultural group, but a LINGUISTIC one. Most Jews aren't Semites, and vanishingly few Semites are Jews.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 11:58 PM
2

-Guy issues a call to serve his country by ending the last legal form of non-penal slavery. -You object. -You get called out on the nonsensicality of your objection. -You claim that you, and ONLY you, have no problem in serving your country. Time to head back to reality.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 11:57 PM
2

Yes, yes, and everything's awful and nothing can ever improve. Seriously, dude, grow up.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 11:55 PM
2

Step one: buy a dictionary. "Arab-speaking" and "anti-Semite" go together like bleach and vinegar.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:30 PM
1

No. Not "horseshoe theory", just "acknowledgement of more than one political axis". You can find authoritarianism at any point on the left/right scale.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:28 PM
1

More like heretics, I think.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:27 PM
1

Authoritarianism is general is devilish.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:26 PM
3

Y'know, I remember reading, many years back, about how the Israeli government was having trouble sorting out the genuine converts (protected under their right of return laws) from those just looking to dodge trouble in whatever country they were currently in, and said government deciding to make a list of known and vetted rabbis. I remember thinking that, even in Israel, the government making a list of approved Jews was sign number 1 that you should start making plans to get the Hell out, pronto…
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:26 PM
7

Right; it was SO MUCH BETTER in the days of mob justice, lynch mobs, and the Klan.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:20 PM
-12

Wait-"released from prison following murder conviction"? You don't get convicted and then released, you- oh. A second-degree murder conviction in 2013. She was also released following the JFK assassination, the incorporation of Amtrak, and the formation of the universe, then. So there's not actually a story here, except that she was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years in prison; it would seem that no one in North Carolina owns a calendar.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:18 PM
4

NCFM finally started up again with another certiorari request: https://ncfm.org/2026/03/activities/national/ncfm-files-supreme-court-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-in-ncfm-v-selective-service-system/
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:15 PM
3

If it's unnecessary, destroy it; the 13th Amendment already makes it illegal. If it's not, the complaint is unwarranted. In either case, do you have an actual argument beyond "I'm scared"?
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:12 PM
1

...and regained the right to vote when they left it. Try to keep up.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:09 PM
0

Yes- but only one state fails to restore them once you LEAVE prison.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:08 PM
1

I'm saying that "averages aren't reality", because they aren't. I'm saying that puberty has no exceptions, because it doesn't. The two aren't related. You're reaching like a midget playing the Harlem Globetrotters, and it's not working. You're only doing this- and waiting two weeks to do so in the hope I wouldn't reply- because it feels very uncomfortable to you, since it means questioning some ideas you hold very deeply. But faith isn't reality, either. You're not going to disprove what I say v…
/r/MensRights09/03/26 08:07 PM
-32

You can repeat this all you want; it's still bullshit. The two things are entirely unrelated. Men are, indeed, granted suffrage; this is why even those who went to jail for refusing battle slavery didn't lose the right to vote.
/r/MensRights08/03/26 05:51 PM
1

So... someone who doesn't come forward, doesn't seek help, and lets their condition go untreated is supposed to get more sympathy? And above and beyond questions of suffering, you question the sourcing of their claim that women develop depression more (which is fair) and then back up your claim that it's men who do with "just trust me, bro"? Are you really THAT determined to steal the precious victimhood points?
/r/MensRights08/03/26 05:50 PM
1

Yes- and it's the making of utterly unwarranted ad hominem attacks against billions of people you've never even MET. Which is, naturally, the great art of the fuckhead.
/r/MensRights08/03/26 05:47 PM
1

Yes.
/r/MensRights08/03/26 05:46 PM
1

As an added bonus, it's currently up on the Archive.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 08:05 PM
1

No, that's exactly why there IS more to it- because life continues to have social purposes beyond one's reproductive years. This isn't rocket science. Please try to keep up.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 08:03 PM
1

I have- that's why I know it isn't. Pronouns are pronouns- nothing more. Time to grow up.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 08:01 PM
6

You're right, but with an important caveat: "pretty privilege" is a very real thing, and all the moral character and personality positives in the world won't lead to being treated better during surface-level interactions. Of course, shallowness is shallow, but going from praise and affirmation for merely existing to being just another person is inevitably going to be a blow.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 03:36 PM
2

Plenty more to it than that. Octopuses mate and then die; bean plants go to seed and then give themselves a death hormone. Humans survive past the point of reproductive capability- hell, humans HAVE menopause, which only a handful of other animals do- because our social patterns are complex enough that there are REASONS for old people.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 03:34 PM
3

No, they're also defensive- remember Titanic?
/r/MensRights07/03/26 03:32 PM
1

I think a lack of empathy is a terrible thing, no matter who it's directed towards.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 03:32 PM
1

No, it doesn't. If society has reached the point where use of pronouns is a major issues for you, you are somehow suffering from a lack of problems. You're right in that it doesn't require much attention, though; if you prefer to use "he or she" or "they" or even "she", that's fine- because it's not important. It's a PRONOUN.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 03:29 PM
3

The key to understanding it is remembering that some humans are truly, unambiguously, awful to one another.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 03:27 PM
1

In some languages, perhaps, but not in English. English's history is... weird.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 03:27 PM
1

I'm encouraging people to focus their attention on things that actually matter. Pronouns don't count.
/r/MensRights06/03/26 06:01 PM
1

Or femwolf, depending on which part of linguistic Germany you're in.
/r/MensRights06/03/26 05:59 PM
1

This is why "werewolf" doesn't apply to female lycanthropes. Unless you became a female wolf, I suppose; there might be some leeway there.
/r/MensRights06/03/26 03:20 PM
1

When "he" stops being the default pronoun for a person of unknown gender, presumably. This isn't bigotry; just the way English works.
/r/MensRights06/03/26 03:18 PM
1

Insofar as it's deciding the value of life based on its cuteness, yes, they ARE totally connected.
/r/MensRights06/03/26 03:17 PM
5

It's not an argument, though. It was part of the justification given in Hermesmann v. Seyer. You can look up the ruling and read it yourself.
/r/MensRights06/03/26 03:16 PM
30

Don't forget that the Court in Hermesmann v. Seyer ruled that it wasn't rape because he didn't complain to his parents about it!
/r/MensRights05/03/26 11:29 PM
19

Tax benefits and immigration dodges, mostly.
/r/MensRights05/03/26 11:24 PM
3

The people who make a big fuss about the way an infant monkey is treated by the rest of the troop are the same people who raise Hell whenever their abortion rights are threatened. It's about cuteness, nothing deeper.
/r/MensRights05/03/26 11:23 PM
5

About damn time! Pick up Mark's fallen colors and finish this.
/r/MensRights05/03/26 11:22 PM
1

No, that's because of the pervasive influence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's just as real.
/r/MensRights05/03/26 11:20 PM
2

Patriarchy is also nonexistent, so that doesn't matter.
/r/MensRights05/03/26 07:37 PM
5

If you're from Spain, you're in trouble.
/r/MensRights05/03/26 07:35 PM
10

Human. It's rather unfortunate that you feel that meritocracy would hurt black people, but given the incredible racism that underlies such a position, I feel very little discomfort in telling you to stick your bigotry where the sun doesn't shine.
/r/MensRights05/03/26 07:34 PM
1

That's because you're under the impression that women are so incredibly fragile that they're harmed by the proximity of testicles. "Being near to" something is not the same as "being attacked by" it. This is exactly the same reasoning the KKK uses. Please grow up.
/r/MensRights05/03/26 07:32 PM
5

Sure. Many laws and policies actively discriminate on the basis of sex, even in places that claim to be above or beyond sexism. They got away with this because sex was long considered an innate and unalterable trait, but the rise in acceptance of sex change changed that. Since almost no one was willing to undergo major life-altering surgeries over what they saw as minor problems, that didn't matter, but then attitudes kept pushing farther, to the point where "changing your sex" involved nothing …
/r/MensRights04/03/26 06:25 PM
0

Demonstrably, it does- look at Spain and Switzerland. If it doesn't, you've got grounds for a lawsuit, which is the probable requirement for getting laws changed. And "TERFs" can only restrict rights because of the legal gender disparities. If you want the rights of transsexuals preserved, you need to confront them; would you rather do that with the law on your side or not? I am not "shitting on other people"; I am pointing out that ACTUALLY BEING DEPRIVED OF LIFE AND LIBERTY IS MORE IMPORTANT T…
/r/MensRights04/03/26 06:17 PM
2

The proper title is "I think I'm too good to follow the forum rules".
/r/MensRights04/03/26 03:42 PM
1

It helps the people getting access to the privileges they're denied access to based on sex- and it exposes the sexist attitudes and policies that make those discrepancies real in the first place. "Someone saying nasty things about you under their breath" is hardly on the same level as "someone forcing you into battle slavery".
/r/MensRights04/03/26 03:42 PM
4

No, because you don't "spy on" men using the bathroom when you're in there. Using the women's bathroom would be the equivalent.
/r/MensRights04/03/26 03:39 PM
9

It's not "expecting the world to bend to their will"; it's "exploiting the openly bigoted sexism of the world".
/r/MensRights04/03/26 03:38 PM
3

Digital bank access? That's not done by account numbers and passwords?
/r/MensRights04/03/26 03:37 PM
5

www.sss.gov
/r/MensRights04/03/26 12:36 AM
2

No; the solution here is more literacy,not less: https://emersoncentral.com/ebook/Self-Reliance.pdf
/r/MensRights04/03/26 12:35 AM
9

That... well, that's a pretty bold statement; I have to say I respect the courage behind it.
/r/MensRights04/03/26 12:34 AM
7

Good for you! Remember, one person reaching out to ask is just one person; a wave of concern is much more likely to get noticed. And to help with the cause, here's a link to find out who to contact: https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member It's also important to reach out to both sides of the aisle.
/r/MensRights03/03/26 08:19 PM
1

Rule #3.
/r/MensRights03/03/26 08:14 PM
1

And that's why rental cars are in so much better condition than used ones, right? Your history teacher would be ashamed of you.
/r/MensRights03/03/26 08:13 PM
-3

And that line of thinking is why we're seeing the specter of totalitarianism rising again today. Learn from the past or you'll repeat it. The peace and prosperity we know is an exception- the tolerance could easily become that way, too. It's going to be much harder to stop if you don't know the warning signs, and a monster not strangled in the cradle grows harder to kill every day.
/r/MensRights03/03/26 08:11 PM
2

"Order out of chaos" is just entropy. It's being done for wealth and power, same as always.
/r/MensRights03/03/26 03:35 PM
4

Fighting a war to regain (though it would simply be to gain, in this case) rights is, as the saying goes, like screwing for virginity. It's even less productive, though, since screwing CAN make more virgins. "Rights by violence" just sets violence as the means by which social issues are settled; as soon as someone wants to change something, all power will shift to those most willing and able to use violence.
/r/MensRights03/03/26 03:34 PM
3

You, um... you didn't pay much attention in history class, did you? Wars have ALWAYS been about power. Money, land, resources; for the government, the Church, the corporations. It's never been about "the country".
/r/MensRights03/03/26 03:30 PM
4

Because that means that having power requires accepting that your life is a government resource- i.e., that you're a subject, not a citizen.
/r/MensRights03/03/26 03:25 PM
13

One that eants people, evidently.
/r/MensRights03/03/26 03:24 PM
1

Wrong question. It's not about fears of Russia invading "Europe"; they're currently mired in Ukraine. It's about rising tolerance of- and even desire for- increased government power, mistrust of others, personal paranoia, and abridgement of civil rights in the name of security from threats that probably aren't even real. Want to stop the government forcing you to go kill some Russian or Chinese schlub who's ultimately no different from you, forced out to kill you by a government that also consid…
/r/MensRights03/03/26 03:23 PM
1

I'm pretty sure that if Emerson had been writing today, he'd've said "He who would gather immortal palms had better brace himself for a whole lotta ugly coming at him from a neverending parade of stupid".
/r/MensRights03/03/26 03:17 PM
1

Well, yeah. Sexism sucks, regardless of direction. What's so hard to understand about that?
/r/MensRights03/03/26 03:13 PM
6

Devil's advocate here, but: the backlash is going to depend enormously on where (and when) you are. In the modern West, you'll probably catch far more crap for being a man openly expressing attraction to women than one expressing it to men, but that's a very recent development. Society may not support homophobia now, but I can tell you, it used to. And for the record, people were no better at defending it then than they are now. Fifty years ago, being into men- or even being seen as being into m…
/r/MensRights03/03/26 03:12 PM
4

It goes both ways. Consider Galileo: you likely know that he wasn't a martyr, brutally punished by the dogmatic force of the Catholic Church (quite the opposite, actually), but even by a basic application of the scientific method, he was WRONG. Calm down- I'm not saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth. But the simple question of "If it's the Earth that's moving, then why is there no parallax shift in the fixed stars?" was one Galileo had no answer for, which is part of why his approach le…
/r/MensRights03/03/26 03:08 PM
5

Thank you. I'm getting REALLY sick of these blank posts (to those of us who didn't sleep through history class and so are EME-avoiding) with absolutely no description or detail.
/r/MensRights02/03/26 08:53 PM
20

Because women aren't considered to have moral agency.
/r/MensRights02/03/26 08:50 PM
-3

A valiant effort- but it won't help. Quite a few people here are just as locked into the "Feminist=Bad" mindset as Feminists tend to be of men. That's SURE to make them open their minds to help with men's issues, right? Nothing like unrelenting condemnation to make someone support you!
/r/MensRights02/03/26 03:46 PM
-3

-Insists that women only respond with silence when they themselves are threatened. -Is given an example of when an openly Feminist organization did just the opposite, loudly supporting a call for gender equality in a way that currently discriminated against men. -Insists that "women don't do that". Yeah, this isn't hate speech or anything.
/r/MensRights02/03/26 03:44 PM
1

It gets clicks. Or taps, or whatever the smartphone equivalent is.
/r/MensRights02/03/26 03:40 PM
2

It's a form of consummate dehumanization and a disgrace to our society and our species. "Here's a set of tools and guidelines to manipulate women into wanting to have sex with you" is what it boils down to, and it's every bit as misogynistic as the manipulative Feminist crap we so decry is misandric. Yes, humans are animals, and yes, our evolutionary history has lead to us evolving certain instinctive responses- but instinct decides only what you'll do if you don't decide otherwise. A woman will…
/r/MensRights02/03/26 03:39 PM
0

How on Earth would we have accurate data on women receiving "creepy" behaviors when "creepy" can't be even objectively defined?
/r/MensRights02/03/26 03:30 PM
1

Hatred would only change things for the worse.
/r/MensRights02/03/26 03:28 PM
1

Doesn't work, I'm afraid; that would include the Irish, who are very white, and an absolute fuckton of Amerind folks.
/r/MensRights02/03/26 03:27 PM
3

It's the UK- they're going to take that as a challenge.
/r/MensRights01/03/26 03:25 PM
3

I wouldn't call that wild; just a predictable consequence of decisions and actions. I've had female bosses who were skilled and competent, as a boss should be; they were fine to work for. It's not like the idea of a work ethic is limited to men, after all. But when society asks less of you, tells you your actions don't matter, and constantly bombards you with affirmations, it's hardly surprising that you might start to see yourself as being better than everyone else, and not take the steps neede…
/r/MensRights01/03/26 03:23 PM
-1

Don't. If you let your anger become hate, you cease to be any different from them
/r/MensRights01/03/26 03:16 PM
2

It contributes to mental health problems in the short term. In the long term, it leads to suicides- and homicides, too. Harris and Klebold weren't exactly bastions of sanity. But even saving the lives of favored demographics isn't as important as keeping the undesirables down, is it? You know, on the off chance that the people responsible for these decisions genuinely don't understand, I'll take this opportunity to clear it up: Fred Rogers, when he died, didn't take compassion and empathy with h…
/r/MensRights28/02/26 06:09 PM
1

...because "white" isn't a race? Well, that's actually true, but neither is "black".
/r/MensRights28/02/26 06:05 PM
-1

That's... um... that... Okay, don't take this the wrong way, but you will be the very last person we bring in to find Carmen Sandiego.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 06:04 PM
9

I was going to point out that, since men are a minority, and visibly so, this didn't exclude them- but the laws of Canada only apply that to ethnic minorities. Interestingly, it's defined as "...people who are non-Caucasian in race...", which would exclude most white people (seriously, Europe, look at a map), so you could probably still make a lawsuit over it- but even putting aside the fact that it would doubtless fail, "courage" and "Canada" don't overlap much these days. Note to offended Cana…
/r/MensRights28/02/26 03:35 PM
2

Chad isn't rich; it's the seventh poorest country in the world, and it couldn't even come with its own flag, having to steal Romania's. Unless there's some obscure "hanging" joke that I'm missing, using its name for your boogeyman makes no sense. Then again, you're just complaining that the guys today that women prize today are just silly gigolos; Cole Porter was blowing that horn a century ago, and it wasn't true then, either. Maybe I'm expecting too much.
/r/MensRights27/02/26 06:58 PM
-9

The Catholics are the only people who'd be actively opposing the pogroms that would follow from mandatory DNA tests; show a little respect.
/r/MensRights27/02/26 06:52 PM
5

No- you should only hit anyone a a last resort. Treat women the same way you'd treat men. That's what "equality" means.
/r/MensRights27/02/26 03:12 PM
-5

Ah, yes, because the problem were have as a society is that we have just too much empathy for others, and we need LESS.
/r/MensRights26/02/26 03:18 PM
1

A little slow on the uptake, eh?
/r/MensRights26/02/26 03:17 PM
1

This is pretty much in keeping with things I've heard from other guys. The mistake you're all making is looking for happiness externally- you're not going to find it there. Ask yourself: if, tomorrow, you woke up and were the last person left on Earth- everyone else just vanished- what would motivate you then? What would keep you going? In the immediate sense, you'd need to secure things for survival (electricity won't last long), and in the long term, you're probably screwed (most parts of the …
/r/MensRights25/02/26 07:42 PM
3

...You just woke up from a nap you laid down to take in 2019, didn't you? You missed the medical-industrial complex driving the idea of intellectual integrity off a cliff, power-hungry governments all over the first setting the wreckage on fire, and 98% of the rank and file of humanity lining up to piss on the ashes. Reason won't help you any more.
/r/MensRights25/02/26 05:39 PM
2

And then brought out the chlorine trifluoride.
/r/MensRights25/02/26 05:28 PM
3

I think that a character's chromosomes and melanin level have very little to do with whether I enjoy the story they're in. I think that the Galbrush Paradox is a very real phenomenon, but you can write compelling female characters, either against or despite social norms, but it IS more challenging. I think that Disney's quiet tolerance of Kathleen Kennedy's open declaration of support for gender-based genocide is a much, much bigger issue. Learning about that, and seeing the utter lack of respon…
/r/MensRights25/02/26 05:27 PM
2

I'm not denying that age is a relevant concern, simply pointing out that an average is only an average, not reality. Remember how trends have exceptions? This isn't one.
/r/MensRights25/02/26 05:12 PM
2

Don't forget the conflation of fertility (the capacity to have children) with the actual HAVING of children. Just try and tell me that's not deliberate.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 03:29 PM
1

Jocelyn Elders- surgeon general of the US at the time- was once asked, at an AIDS conference, if she thought that masturbation should be encouraged among young people as an alternative to riskier forms of sexual activity. She responded "I think that is something that is a part of human sexuality and it's a part of something that perhaps should be taught", a very reasonable response (that caused Bill Clinton to fire her, incidentally). I remember it mostly because of the Saturday Night Live parod…
/r/MensRights24/02/26 03:27 PM
9

I'd probably be reluctant to trust my kids to anyone I didn't know well enough to trust, regardless of gender- but then, I don't have kids, so that's more about me than them.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 03:20 PM
2

Most likely. But correlation isn't causation.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 03:18 PM
5

That's a valid message, but it sounds like this was talking about outfits, rather than violence. Hardly the same thing.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 01:15 AM
46

...you're not sure what the point of noting the difficulties in coming forward as a victim of sexual assault is, because the assailant wasn't female? This is r/mensrights, not r/womenareawful. Is this "everyone be a sexist" day or something?
/r/MensRights24/02/26 01:13 AM
2

Treating people differently based on demographic factors IS cruelty. Troll smarter, not harder.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 01:09 AM
-2

Lyrrsoh. Treating people differently based on demographic factors IS cruelty. Troll smarter, not harder.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 01:09 AM
3

"Stop helping random women". Troll smarter, not harder.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 01:07 AM
2

Egalitarianism. Or empathy. Or simple compassion. Or, as demonstrated by your Dunning-Krugered grasp of KKK history, logic.
/r/MensRights23/02/26 10:23 PM
2

Haters are, as they say, gonna hate. You'd think they'd at least be less self-righteous about their recruitment attempts.
/r/MensRights23/02/26 07:23 PM
4

Better people. See, I know the history. And I choose to learn from it, rather than repeat it. A shame you choose otherwise.
/r/MensRights23/02/26 07:22 PM
-21

Look! The goalposts! They're moving on their own! It's a mirac- oh, wait, no; it's a just a hypocrite who's realized they've said something indefensible and isn't honest enough to admit it. Read the original post again- it wasn't calling for only helping those who appreciate it; it was calling for refusing to help others based on their sex.
/r/MensRights23/02/26 04:17 PM
-1

Women are not "the ones who start it"; they are people. The call wasn't to "stop helping those who treat you poorly"; it was "stop helping women". This is exactly the kind of reasoning that gave rise to the KKK, and it's no less horrendous now than it was back then. Treating people differently based on the shape of their chromosomes is no different from doing it based on the color of their skin. And putting all moral issues aside, why on Earth would you care about someone who demonstrably doesn'…
/r/MensRights23/02/26 04:13 PM
-5

So bigotry is acceptable if a member of one demographic is unkind to you? Or, rather, is unkind to someone who shares a demographic characteristic with you?
/r/MensRights23/02/26 04:11 PM
-1

...you're complaining about a post on social media, which is itself complaining about something minor and insignificant. At this very moment, there are innocent people having their genitals sliced apart and others being blown to smithereens by artillery strikes, for no reason other than their gender, and you complain about someone making irrelevant complaints? Is this an attempt to say "we're not so different after all"? Because that's absolutely what you're doing.
/r/MensRights23/02/26 03:34 PM
3

No kidding. Can men "absolutely crush it" in terms of parenting without female support? Theoretically- but it's just as irresponsible as when women do it. We're meant to be partners, not rivals.
/r/MensRights23/02/26 03:33 PM
-1

...you're complaining about a post on social media, which is itself complaining about something minor and insignificant. At this very moment, there are innocent people having their genitals sliced apart and others being blown to smithereens by artillery strikes, for no reason other than their gender, and you complain about someone making irrelevant complaints? Is this an attempt to say "we're not so different after all"? Because that's absolutely what you're doing.
/r/MensRights23/02/26 03:31 PM
-5

So... you're calling for people to be cruel, and thereby earn the derision and hatred that's unjustly heaped upon them? You look on the current sorry state of the world and decide "what this place needs is less compassion"?
/r/MensRights23/02/26 03:28 PM
9

Can we get some actual information, or are you just here to shout slogans?
/r/MensRights22/02/26 05:49 PM
2

You pick an issue and begin discussing it with those around you. A vague, general appeal "to men's issues" isn't going to do much; it's too broad and too undefined.
/r/MensRights22/02/26 05:46 PM
1

Joe McCarthy, not Charlie.
/r/MensRights22/02/26 05:44 PM
2

Puberty is a physical process, not an age.
/r/MensRights22/02/26 05:44 PM
0

Not so: the original requirement was "not being married", since that's what "celibate" MEANS. Sex is unrelated.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 07:00 PM
1

Taking a look at the societies that weren't: no, you really, really don't. Or, rather, you might, but it's not because they're not scientific. Religion is an inherent aspect of humanity, and the secular gods are even worse than their supernatural counterparts.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 06:51 PM
23

Well... yeah. You're not only trying to claim the privilege granted to women, you're making them confront their bigotries. Bluntly, what do you expect?
/r/MensRights21/02/26 06:47 PM
1

Only in Minority Report do you get jailed for thoughts. McCarthy showed us that you can very frequently get punished for them.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 06:45 PM
2

Yes, as it damned well should be. But once again: these are ACTIONS, not feelings. You can't help your feelings of bloodlust at the idea of innocents being harmed- you can help calling for brutalizing the victims of epigenetics, leading to more victims of sexual abuse. Your self-satisfied delusions of virtue aren't any more important than their need to get off. You will of course deny this, but the fact is that you didn't condemn her as a rapist or a child molester, but as a "pedo". Then you joi…
/r/MensRights21/02/26 03:52 PM
-3

No one is subject to "military service"; that would be taking your army in to have its tires rotated. The word you're looking for is "slavery". Using their euphemisms is justifying their sins- that's part of what keeps them happening. Stick with the truth; you'll sleep better. As to your question itself, it's the same reason people say women are discriminated against in any country in the West: a constant bombardment of propaganda messaging, coupled with historical laws and social norms that DID…
/r/MensRights21/02/26 03:40 PM
3

It'd be nice if we could at least get a description, or a bit of opinion on the subject. This "here's someone else's words; talk about it" is the height of lazy posting.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 03:31 PM
17

Sure- but I think a playthrough of Deus Ex: Invisible War would tell you more than my words could. It's about consolidation of power, which is ultimately where the danger lies; too much power in too few hands is a bigger problem than any given ideology or philosophy. Whose hands they are doesn't really matter and surprisingly to many people, the kind of power it is doesn't really matter either. Pretty much no one in the West, and vanishingly few people outside of it, have enough of a grasp of hi…
/r/MensRights21/02/26 03:29 PM
0

"Dictionary ownership" isn't a crime either. Nor, much as you may wish it otherwise, is pattern recognition. You call for blood when someone cries "pedophile", which leads these people- who, once again, didn't CHOOSE to feel the way they do- to hide their desires, extending the stigma to the point where even the medical industry refuses to touch the condition for fear of being tarred with the same brush. So there are no treatments and no safe outlets, and when it inevitably explodes, because sim…
/r/MensRights21/02/26 03:14 PM
-2

That pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, which is a biological term, not a legal one. And it's just as deliberate a choice as homosexuality is. People are responsible for their actions, not their desires.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 03:10 PM
1

The hard sciences are where it started. Look at Galileo.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 03:08 PM
1

No, Bobby Sands (MP, for the record) thrown in prison in a trial without a jury, conducted in flagrant violation of UK law. But sure, pretend that the law somehow doesn't exist when you're sufficiently scared of the crime being committed. Then wonder why the government throws you in prison for social media posts.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 03:07 PM
-46

Demonstrably not, given the ages involved. Nor would that be worthy of condemnation, since, no matter how often the hypocrites object to it, sexual orientation isn't a choice. Child molester, however, yes. Rapist? Absolutely. But let's assign blame where it belongs, not simply where our anger tells us to.
/r/MensRights20/02/26 08:17 PM
5

Have you seen the backlash Warren Farrell got just for being booked? Colleges and universities have been more about indoctrination than education for some time now.
/r/MensRights20/02/26 07:44 PM
1

That, um... That surprises you? Okay, I'm going to have to borrow a note from Terrance Mann: Back! Back to the nineties! Back! There's no place for you here in the future! Get back while you still can!
/r/MensRights20/02/26 07:42 PM
4

Time was, you spent your health in pursuit of money, then spent your money in pursuit of health. Now you can't even make enough money to have it to waste, so more and more aren't bothering.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 07:30 PM
13

The female version of the "you're not a lesbian; you've just never been with a real man" guy, I guess.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 07:28 PM
2

Wait- the article says "Coca-Cola is not a defendant in the case"; that the company being sued is "Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast", which is apparently owned by a Japanese company- apparently, it's a bottling one. Why on Earth would Coke subcontract out its bottling to another company- and yet make their relationship so close that they share a NAME? Any time a situation gets this lawyer-y, I get suspicious.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 07:25 PM
23

-Want to get married, bringing the government into your relationship to secure it. -Want to avoid having to sign a pre-nup, since that means your partner is trying secure what he already has. Pick one. I'm not saying "dump her ass", since that's an insane overreaction, but saying "a pre-nup is planning for the marriage to fail" is like saying "a seat belt is planning for the car to crash". A flag THAT red calls for some serious discussion; she may not realize how unreasonable she's being, but th…
/r/MensRights19/02/26 07:17 PM
4

...I really am the last dictionary owner on the planet, ain't I?
/r/MensRights19/02/26 01:07 AM
57

They did grow up, Bill. That's the root of the issue- and the reason why you're complaining. They grew up in a world of zugzwang, where every potential move was the wrong one. They complained; you didn't care. They called for changes in the rules and norms; you didn't care. Then they finally found a solution; you didn't care. But that solution started affecting women in large (or large-ish) numbers, and NOW you step in. Zugzwang, if you don't know, is a German term from the world of chess. It re…
/r/MensRights18/02/26 07:42 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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