TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Siiimo Archive

View 1 posts and 276 comments by Siiimo 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)
3

Social IssuesSiiimo/r/MensRights24/06/15 07:57 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

So Scottish is also not an accent?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/20 07:44 PM
1

Are you retarded? Do you think that they study Scottish slang in school?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/20 07:14 PM
1

I meant accents, clearly. If you think that all white accents are "pronunciation" and black Americans don't have accents, but rather "enunciation problems" you're just fucking racist.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/20 10:41 AM
0

If you think all British accents are pronunciation and black American ones are enunciation, you're probably racist.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/20 09:57 AM
-9

Do you not understand how clearly racist it is to generalize that "Black women" are "centuries behind" white women? What in the fuck do you even mean? Are you suggesting that the behavior of women in black communities is similar to puritanical 1800's America? Because that's just as fucking stupid.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/20 08:26 AM
-14

Welp, the literal former First Lady of the United States is a clear counter example to your stupidity. Were your parents just cousins and you live in the boonies, never seeing other humans?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/20 08:20 AM
7

How is asking for source this downvoted? Why is this sub so shitty?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/20 08:16 AM
-12

Holy fucking shit, how is this upvoted? What kind of ass backwards sub upvotes this kind of shitty racism? You're a fucking cunt and I hope your racism is exposed to those around you and you become an outcast.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/20 08:15 AM
-15

It's an accent, idiot. Telling people to annunciate away their accent is the part that sounds fucking retarded.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/20 08:13 AM
0

But surely you must understand that this does not represent feminism as a whole? Or are you so lost in your YouTube pit of hate that you only see those you hate and nobody else?
/r/MensRights18/01/19 12:45 PM
0

But you said that feminism was "nothing but awful"? So are all those accomplishments awful? Or do you just dismiss them because they don't fit well with your worldview?
/r/MensRights18/01/19 09:10 AM
0

The scale of your misunderstanding of massive cultural trends is almost insurmountable. I'm not even sure to begin. The patriarchy is not "men are all oppressors and women are all victims." The patriarchy is the idea that men are superior to women and women are weak. That is the dominating idea of Western civilization for centuries. It hurts both men and women. That's the point of the gillette ad. Don't let your male children fight because you think it's part of what being a man is. That's dumb.…
/r/MensRights18/01/19 08:28 AM
0

But you understand that nobody is making that argument, right? You're quite good at tearing down the series of straw-men you set up, where you portray feminism as literally wanting to enslave men, then say "boy I think that's bad!" Your claim that fringe hashtags about feminism are a leading cause of male suicide is just so absolutely preposterous that I find it hard to even read anything else you're writing. You guys are all trapped in this bubble where you are hyper-focused on like 1% of the p…
/r/MensRights18/01/19 07:37 AM
0

You live in such a bubble that I don't think there are any facts or information that could be put in front of you that would change your mind.
/r/MensRights18/01/19 07:04 AM
1

I don't understand what your argument is. Is it that secretly for the past hundred years women have been pulling the strings of their male puppets in positions of power? And that the men that dominated world leadership didn't have agency over what they were doing? I really don't understand what you could be talking about.
/r/MensRights16/01/19 08:25 AM
1

Wow dude. That's pretty hateful. You just went on for like 500 words about how women are the worst. It's shocking to me that you can think that women are horrible and also that sexism against women doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights16/01/19 08:15 AM
1

What do you mean "women do these behaviours at similar rates?" Violence? Pretty male-dominated. Bottling up your feelings then killing yourself? Pretty male-dominated. Being condescending to women? Pretty male-dominated. Surely you don't think the current state of being a man is ideal. Surely we should be working to reduce violence and suicide. Surely that takes tackling the idea that men are supposed to be violent. I'm not sure what part you disagree with.
/r/MensRights16/01/19 07:11 AM
0

First off, I've seen a few dozen articles on toxic femininity, but when males are committing something like 80% of violent crime and suicide rates among men are ludicrously high, it would seem to me that there is a set of traits that are currently male-dominated that are pretty objectively negative. Men hurt more people (by a huge amount), often get hurt more, are more prone to suicide and the historic lack of respect for women is still pervasive in male culture. Toxic masculinity is just the te…
/r/MensRights16/01/19 07:00 AM
0

But that seems like an argument over terminology to me. Obviously you don't think violence, concealment of emotion, disregard for women etc etc are good things. Society has chosen to call those things "toxic masculinity" since being "masculine" is often associated with those things. Fighting/violence has been part of being a man for a very long time. If you don't want to call that collection of bad traits "toxic masculinity" that's fine, but what collective term for those traits would you find l…
/r/MensRights16/01/19 06:35 AM
-3

But that's ludicrous. They aren't saying men are responsible for all bad things, they listed a few, very specific, issues that are all male problems. Mostly, they stem from a historic lack of respect for women. They should be addressed. They are issues that are fixable in society by de-normalizing that kind of behaviour. Do you simply not think that there are differences between the genders? That men the cause of more problems in some areas, and women the cause of more problems in other areas? I…
/r/MensRights16/01/19 06:22 AM
-8

What? Your best way of explaining your point is for me to read someone else's fictional commercial? All the things in the Gillette commercial are things I've seen personally happen. Most of them were wrong and should be stopped. Is /r/mensrights argument that toxic masculinity should be perpetuated indefinitely?
/r/MensRights16/01/19 12:05 AM
-20

But it doesn't demonize men? It just encourages the progress of male attitudes towards women. It says men should be listened to, which is what you guys are saying. I don't get what there is to hate in the ad.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 11:41 PM
-22

Right... it's very hypocritical. The ad makes the point "Hyper masculinity is bad, you should let men express their feelings" but then this sub seems to be full of hate for the ad? I don't get it. Do you disagree or agree with the ad?
/r/MensRights15/01/19 11:21 PM
-20

I don't get it, do you disagree with the Gillette ad or do you agree with it?
/r/MensRights15/01/19 11:11 PM
4

That's ridiculous. Being male isn't more magnificent than being female. I don't like you saying "you're awesome because you're a man" any more than u/kdulius does.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 10:54 PM
26

I don't understand what "teaching someone to be a man" means? Do you mean teaching someone to be a good person? My dad was just as able to teach my sister to be a good person as he was to teach me to be a good person. Shitty people in shitty situations teach their children shitty things. A single mom raising a child can raise a good child or a shitty child, just like a single dad. It has nothing to do with "teaching them to be a man/woman" it has to do with teaching them to be a good person.
/r/MensRights15/01/19 10:43 PM
1

But like, you guys have heard the audio where that's very much not the case, right?
/r/MGTOW08/11/17 10:32 AM
7

I don't get why people are still acting like this is something new. It's been Reddit's policy for a few years now.
/r/MGTOW08/11/17 10:27 AM
1

I feel like this definitely is not controlled for socio-economic status. Single moms are almost definitely going to come more often from getting ditched and having to take care of a child, where as single fathers are going to come as a result of fathers pursuing custody of their children. Does anyone have any meaningful stats on this?
/r/MGTOW05/12/16 07:24 AM
0

...what? That's not how IQ works.
/r/MGTOW04/12/16 10:23 PM
1

OP's post is literally about Lebanon. Why don't you ask him?
/r/MGTOW04/12/16 05:18 AM
0

That's not how that works. Once an immigrant has a kid here, their kids are native Canadians.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 05:58 PM
0

I mean more efficient because even at a similar GDP per capita their citizens are healthier, happier and have a higher overall quality of life. If those are measures of governmental success I don't know what is.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 05:56 PM
1

They don't. But they produce better weapons than Switzerland, since the Swiss don't manufacturer arms. So by that definition of success, NJ is more successful than the Swiss.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 05:55 PM
1

But you recognize that you're parotting, almost word for word, all the concerns about immigrants in the past as well, right? What is so different this time?
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 05:53 PM
1

What? I haven't deleted anything.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 05:51 PM
2

So I'll take that to mean that you don't have any empirical evidence? Just your interpretation of the situation and self-assuredness that this time, surely, immigrants are going to destroy everything?
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 07:24 AM
1

But that argument has been used for every wave of immigration, for hundreds of years. So unless you have any empirical evidence, an objective analysis would treat that concern seriously.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 07:06 AM
1

Right...you're mocking a lack of evidence while lacking evidence for your argument.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 06:45 AM
-2

Without the US? They would be annihilated by the rest of the world. And in the mean time they get to enjoy that sweet, sweet famine lifestyle. Poor Switzerland, with its education and healthcare.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 05:41 AM
-9

The rope that chokes them being the highest quality of life in the world?
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 05:01 AM
1

So just gonna ignore this now that I pointed out that your post was about Lebanon?
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 04:11 AM
-5

And do you have any super convincing empirical evidence to argue that the most successful countries in the history of humanity are going to collapse within a decade?
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 02:38 AM
1

Ah, I get it. What I meant was that OP was tying it to the country's success or failure, so I was arguing on that point. I don't think those are linked, my apologies for the confusion.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 01:39 AM
1

Mind quoting the comment you mean?
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 01:30 AM
1

I've been arguing against the idea that Europe is "finished," which is the parent comment we're replying to right now.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 01:17 AM
1

I'm pretty sure it was OP who posted the original image and then said that that was why Europe was "finished." Not me.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 01:13 AM
1

Wait, did you think I was arguing that they were successful as a result of these secretaries?
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 01:04 AM
1

Okay, so let's try to make it more coherent. I think a good measure of how successful a country is, is how happy its citizens are, and how high their quality of life is.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 12:49 AM
1

who will refuse to accept or ignore and contradictory evidence due to your preexisting bias Boy that's quite the sentence you made there.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 12:46 AM
1

So now you understand my argument? Or is that still a point of confusion, and you've just decided to judge nonetheless?
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 12:39 AM
1

You said you have no idea what my argument is? Now you seem to think you know it quite well. What changed?
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 12:35 AM
2

Ya, I have no idea what your argument is either. It's okay, we should probably both move on.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 12:20 AM
2

I, and most others in this thread seem to have interpreted this as the reason for a country's overall success or failure.
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 12:04 AM
2

Hop in here
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 12:02 AM
2

So you define a country's "success" by the nature if it's standing army?
/r/MGTOW03/12/16 12:00 AM
1

Success in that the citizens who live there are the happiest, with the highest quality of life in the world. North Korea has a massive standing army. Perhaps you should go visit if you think that makes it a success.
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 11:48 PM
2

...you would call a country that is a complete shit hole to live in a 'success' if it produces decent weaponry? So North Korea is a bigger success than Switzerland?
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 11:47 PM
3

I took a quick glance at your post history. I'd be very interested in picking your brain. You have a few dozen minutes for a realtime chat?
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 11:46 PM
1

Millions of people have had that opinion in the past and been wrong. It's incredibly hard to believe without great empirical evidence. It's also hilarious that OP cites Russia as a success story...since it's quality of life is lower than Sri Lanka.
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 11:36 PM
3

Obviously not. But I'm sure you and, apparently, the Russians enjoy your grammar and abject poverty.
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 11:24 PM
6

Fair enough. It's just Norway, Ireland and Switzerland. But the claim is still moronic. The US pouring trillions into war in Afghanistan, Iraq (x2), Vietnam and Korea did not supplement capital that these countries otherwise would have spent.
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 11:13 PM
3

Ah, there's the solid, convincing reasoning I had just assumed was there. Never mind, your argument is bulletproof.
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 11:09 PM
0

My point is that you can hardly call the most successful group of countries in the history of humanity "finished" without some seriously convincing indicators.
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 11:06 PM
7

Nah, all good. I'm sure you have a great reason for considering a country that's worse off than Ecuador a big success.
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 11:04 PM
7

...you're deciding to ignore my comment because you dug through my post history and found a grammatical error?
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 10:58 PM
2

So you agree that they're successful right now. A theory that they might "finish" at some point in the future because they have become more diverse hardly makes them "finished" now.
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 10:52 PM
7

I used "their" correctly both times. But apparently you don't know that? Does that mean you shouldn't be expected to argue with yourself?
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 10:50 PM
4

Then they probably shouldn't have posted about Lebanon... And by "going downhill" you mean their economy is growing and quality of life improving? Wishing it were so does not make it so. It's also hilarious that "Russia" is your example of a successful country. Pretty sure their quality of life is lower than India and Sri Lanka.
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 10:39 PM
-7

Their richer in GDP per capita, not only a better quality of life through more efficient distribution of government funds.
/r/MGTOW02/12/16 10:31 PM
1

...it's the article that you linked to.
/r/MGTOW30/11/16 08:51 PM
1

Both your links state that women are assaulted more than men, and neither of your links address Lebanon.
/r/MGTOW30/11/16 08:16 PM
1

If you make the claim, the burden is on you to provide the proof. It's not my responsibility to go hunt for stats that prove your claim.
/r/MGTOW30/11/16 05:59 PM
1

Have you ever had a girl say that she's not going to sleep with you, then through dating and whatnot, you convince her to?
/r/MGTOW30/11/16 05:56 PM
1

Do you not think rape culture exists? Or do you have any stats to back up anything you're saying?
/r/MGTOW30/11/16 04:16 AM
1

Certainly doesn't seem like it would be true in Lebanon. There has to be a shit ton of marital rape there.
/r/MGTOW30/11/16 04:15 AM
0

So when asked to provide a source for your statistical claim on sexual assault in Lebanon, your answer is "find it yourself"?
/r/MGTOW30/11/16 04:14 AM
0

Soooo, that's a 'no' on the source?
/r/MGTOW29/11/16 05:30 PM
5

spoiler alert: He's lying.
/r/MGTOW29/11/16 05:11 PM
4

More young men are subject to sexual assaults? You have an actual source for that? Because that sounds wrong. Especially in Lebanon.
/r/MGTOW29/11/16 05:04 PM
1

There are two aspects to human behavior, nature and nurture. Nurture being how people are raised both by society and their parents (socialization) and any other external stimulus they receive. Nature being genetics. In countries like Belgium the wage gap between women and men is about 6%, where as in the US it's about 23%. Assuming genetics aren't very different in women and men in Belgium, the statistics would suggest that it's the nurture component there that makes males and females earn much …
/r/MensRights27/06/15 03:55 AM
1

Well, that would still be part of the socialization that we should try to fix. But the whole point is that there is a whole field of study on how to close the wage gap, with studies of social behaviour at every level, from children to seniors. For you to say "It's x" without a source, that's not very convincing. Either way, this is the main discussion about the wage gap.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 08:06 PM
1

There are many countries where they are socialized much less and make much more similar choices.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 07:46 PM
2

What if she says that women and men make those different choices because of how we raise them, and that's something we should address?
/r/MensRights26/06/15 10:41 AM
0

Sooo, just to be clear, you want them to cover up or not go outside. And they're the Islamists?
/r/MensRights29/04/15 09:16 PM
1

I really wish you hadn't editorialized the title so much. Not everything has to be "this sucks for men and is great for women." We can just say "this sucks for men." You should have kept the original title of "Why Some Men Pretend to Work 80-Hour Weeks."
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:48 PM
0

If you're defining "okay" sexism as someone assuming they know about a candidate because of their gender, then ya, there is probably very little "bad" sexism. But the rest of the world views the sexism that you find okay as bad. Honestly though, I'm just content to have gotten to this point that allowed me to realize that you are a bad person, I'm all done with this. Good luck with your life.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 04:07 AM
1

It's just comforting that you're also racist and fine with denying jobs to people for being women or other races. It just reaffirms my theory that you had no logic behind your arguments.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 12:39 AM
1

Nice semantic argument. Feel free to amend my initial statement to replace pre-judge with judge. It still makes the fact that you judge someone based on their race and gender morally reprehensible.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 10:58 PM
1

I'm not attempting to change the topic. If you think that it's "right" to pre-judge people based solely on their sex or race then we just have a fundamental disagreement in morality. And honestly I'm a little happy we got to this point. Good luck with the rest of your life.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 10:07 PM
1

That is so dumb. You are saying that pre-judging a female candidate because she is female is not bad sexism. If that isn't bad sexism, I don't know what is. Do you also think that there is no bad racism?
/r/MensRights16/04/15 05:36 PM
1

And you think that a woman has never lost out on a job/promotion/been paid less solely because she's a woman? My dad is sexist as fuck. If he ran a company that required people to drive, you can bet your ass that he wouldn't be hiring women, no matter how qualified. You're completely blind to the world if you think that literally no employer has ever been unfairly sexist against women.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 12:47 AM
1

How is that possible? How can you possibly believe that no employer has ever discriminated against someone based on their sex alone?
/r/MensRights15/04/15 10:53 AM
1

So you think that they are so good that they have been able to mitigate every case of bad sexism? And that in recent years no women has made less money for the same work for the mere fact that she was a woman?
/r/MensRights15/04/15 12:59 AM
1

anti white wikipedia doesnt count HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaha…
/r/MensRights03/04/15 05:44 PM
1

So you think every HR department in the western world is so advanced that they are able to prevent bad sexism in every instance?
/r/MensRights28/03/15 06:18 AM
1

But HR doesn't just pay everyone the same amount. That's what salary negotiations are. I negotiated salary with my boss, he agreed and told HR what he'd be paying me. I think you have a skewed vision of how companies work if you think HR in large companies literally prevents all bad sexism from happening.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 06:09 PM
1

If an employee is disadvantaged by the employer, the fine and consequences are on the company. If I make 20% less because I'm a man and I sue for a million dollars, the company pays that, not the person who made the sexist choice.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 11:25 AM
-2

Shhh, making up quotes is fun. Don't ruin it for everyone.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 11:14 AM
1

You didn't answer my question. Do you think that bad sexism ever happens in large companies?
/r/MensRights27/03/15 11:00 AM
1

Okay, so most people err on the side of caution, fine. Most sexism is "benevolent" (not sure what that means, if you're being benevolent based on sex towards one group another group is losing out because of sexism, but whatever) but that means that there probably is malicious sexism and bad sexism that happens in some companies. Correct?
/r/MensRights27/03/15 10:28 AM
1

I've worked for a company very like KPMG and never had HR involved in my salary negotiations or promotion. I negotiated with my boss, he then told them what was happening. Do you really think that large companies are perfect, and that there is never any bad sexism?
/r/MensRights27/03/15 12:48 AM
1

Okay, sorry, my main question was the last line. Do you not think that there are any stupid assholes who have the power to decide wages and promotions in big businesses? Promotions and wages are approved by HR, but not decided by them.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 11:44 PM
1

Okay, so, your statement is essentially, small business can have bad sexism, but large don't (anymore) because they are too risk averse (which I disagree with, because companies cutting back on inspections and safety checks to increase bottom line increases risk but they do it all the time, but that's besides the point). Do you not think that there are any stupid assholes who have the power to decide wages and promotions in big businesses?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 10:58 PM
1

Okay. So do you think bad sexism ever happens with employers?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 09:45 PM
1

Okay, cool. So I understand your position more now. Do you think that bad sexism against men or women happens?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 09:28 PM
-2

What? Feminists passing sexist laws make people who threaten rape and death representative of the movement?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 08:56 PM
1

I'm struggling to understand your position. Let's say an employer hires two people, a man and a woman. They have equal qualifications, but he chooses to pay one more because he thinks they're going to do their job better, and he bases this on their gender. You are okay with that?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 01:18 PM
1

So you think paying someone less because they're female is okay, because females are less intelligent?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 12:05 PM
-6

Do you really think that the people who are suggesting this girl get raped and die are the feminist leaders and representative of feminist ideology? Or are they closer to those who threaten women with rape then call themselves MRAs?
/r/MensRights26/03/15 08:50 AM
-8

Does Lena Dunham suggest rape, call people fat, ugly, stupid and brainwashed, wish death on people, threaten their children etc? There are extremists on both ends. There was a post upvoted the other day advertising a white supremacist group. To highlight the extremes on either side and claim they are representative of the majority is a straw man that's just not helpful.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 08:33 AM
–

This is a completely reductionist post that is in no way helpful. Feminism isn't filled with people threatening things like this any more than MR is filled with it. Picking out the stupid people on either side and holding them up as representative of the movement helps nothing.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 08:21 AM
1

Okay, this conversation has been bugging me for a while. You said you'd like to see one instance of gender discrimination lawsuit that matches up to your standards. That's fine, I understand that. I'd really like to get us close together on this, so that there is some understanding. I'm going to ask a few basic questions about the situation to better understand your position. Do you think that anyone has ever been discriminated against solely because of their gender, when it comes to paying peop…
/r/MensRights26/03/15 07:23 AM
0

Hahaha, read all the wiki sources. If you still don't think it's a white supremacist group, you're probably a white supremacist.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 12:34 AM
0

What's no such thing? They're not neo-nazis? Because they're sponsored by a White Supremacist party which is kinda the definition of neo-nazi.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 11:32 PM
0

It's probably because you're advertising for a neo-nazi group.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 11:40 AM
-1

Criticism is nowhere near censorship. Saying "We can do better than this" is completely different than "This shouldn't be allowed."
/r/MensRights24/03/15 11:30 AM
13

They didn't imply it, they said it. BUT they said it because it's the women doing the walking, so in that respect it would affect them more.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 08:10 AM
1

In non-tech companies coders and IT are often the same department.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 08:16 PM
9

Then wouldn't she just kill herself?
/r/MensRights16/03/15 09:34 PM
1

Regular hours worked explains the rest, You have no evidence for that. Even if /u/dellsharpie's study DID point that out (it didn't, in fact it concluded that you couldn't conclusively prove gender discrimination as there were too many factors. It also ended the study with a 6% gap unaccounted for.). But even if it did, you can't say "Well, in general over the entire American workforce there is no gender discrimination when it comes to pay, so therefore there are never cases where discrimination…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 08:48 PM
1

Except for the fact it was the thing all the women had in common. I think you misread that. The maternity was not something they all had in common, it was a separate issue that as included in the suit. This is more evidence that parental leave is the cause of the gap. You're confusing the fact that it's a factor in wages with it being the complete explanation for it. Again, the only reason you think it completely explains the gap is because you believe it does.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 01:29 PM
1

But the only thing that leads you to believe that, in this huge class action that involves 9,000 women, the maternity leave accounts for the gap found, is that you believe it does. There is no reason to think that the maternity leave would account for it otherwise.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 01:04 PM
1

You're missing the core of it. You're just trying to come to the conclusion that you already believe. Any rational person looking at that case objectively would come to the conclusion that it was gender discrimination, but you come into it think that's impossible, so nothing can convince you otherwise.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 12:47 PM
1

Okay, my apologies, let me amend my last comment. You're going into this assuming that there is no gender discrimination, then you're ensuring that you come to that conclusion. The stats could have said anything, and as long as they didn't count maternity leave you would have said "well, I'm sure maternity leave accounts for the gap because there is no gender discrimination here."
/r/MensRights16/03/15 12:17 PM
1

But see, I am not coming into this thinking "Hey, I'm going to find discrimination in this case." I am looking at it, they are saying "We looked at the stats, and found discrimination." On the other hand, you are saying "Hey, I'm going to find that there is no discrimination in this case." Then, when you are looking at it and see "We looked at the stats, and found discrimination" you are saying "Well that doesn't fit my conclusion, so I assume maternity leave accounts for it." Would the gender g…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 11:52 AM
1

Six months of maternity leave is more than four thousand hours of lost work. Not unless you're working 160 hours a week. Starting with a presumption of innocence is what the courts do to bias themselves. They want someone to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but they want to be biased on the side of innocence. When you are trying to find the truth of a situation, you should go in with no assumptions, assess the facts, then decide. What you are doing, is assuming you know the facts, the…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 11:01 AM
1

But here's the thing, you're starting with the assumption that they weren't discriminated against, then, when shown statistics on how they were discriminated against, you're saying "well, I know they weren't discriminated against, so that must be explained by maternity leave." That's not how you should be trying to measure the validity of this law suit.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 07:32 AM
1

I live in a country where men do get paternity leave. In fact, KPMG gives paternity leave. So, are you just dismissing the disparity in pay that was found in this case and sued for as "probably because of maternity leave"? What makes you think that accounted for the whole disparity? This sounds an awful lot like you coming into this assuming there is no disparity, then trying to come up with reasons why that's true. Instead, you should be looking at the case objectively, and not come in with the…
/r/MensRights15/03/15 08:24 PM
1

Okay, I'll quote the KPMG one: That statistical analysis identified pay disparities attributable to gender that were “statistically significant” at 11.35 standard deviations (while courts only require the significance be at 1.96 or greater). When Plaintiffs’ expert compared the compensation of men and women at KPMG, he made sure that the was comparing apples to apples. To do that, he made sure he was only comparing the compensation of individuals doing (a) the same job in the same function; (b) …
/r/MensRights15/03/15 11:55 AM
1

Mind linking to one? I can't seem to find any calling for the annihilation of anyone suggesting female privilege might exist.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 07:06 AM
1

What about the cases where they won huge settlements for being passed over for promotions and paid lower wages? You said it would take just one to convince you that it happens.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 04:39 AM
1

I'm just talking about my experience, and being downvoted for that. How is "Actually I have a degree in programming and it's my profession, so I think I have some idea. Having been educated and worked in the field the misogyny is pretty apparent." blatant certainty? I'm literally just saying what I experienced.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 04:29 AM
1

The case would be about the fact that they dismissed her, that's her lawsuit. If other people wanted to file for their dismissal that would have been separate. Either way, do you consider any of these lawsuits evidence? You said it wouldn't take many to shift your view.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 09:27 PM
0

I think that this is a bad example to support that viewpoint. Cherry-picking a stupid, unimportant person and acting like that is evidence to support a mainstream view is terrible argumentation and doesn't help the point. It's like when feminists pick one mean comment that's be downvoted to oblivion out of ten thousand and say "look, here's what men really think!"
/r/MensRights14/03/15 09:14 PM
-3

Because you can feel the disdain for women pouring out of him, and I am not sure the original commenter actually believes that what he's saying is hyperbolic and only applies to a particular group of women. It just comes off as misogynistic and hate-filled. It would help this sub so much more if it were really just discussing actual issues and not just spewing hate and vitriol at women and feminists.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 09:02 PM
-1

Hahahaha, I wasn't quoting the name of my degree. It's okay though, for expressing the fact that I find the field I was educated and work in misogynistic I got downvoted to the point where there's a timer on my comments. As long as this sub keeps pushing their fingers into their ears so they don't hear dissent I'm sure everything will be fine :)
/r/MensRights14/03/15 08:51 PM
1

Ya, It's okay. Pretty used to just straight up links to information getting downvoted in this sub.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 08:41 PM
1

Ya, you too! It always gives me glimmers of hope and makes me very happy when I run into reasonable conversation on here.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 03:08 PM
-1

A 5% gap is quite large. That's like $125,000 in earnings over a life time. That's half a house in some places. At the very least you can clearly see that the idea that the gap is "debunked" is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 03:07 PM
-4

Hahahaha, no. I did not mean that at all. Read the comment above mine. He says "Gonna tell you something about IT, though. Those 'misogynist troll' types? They never get beyond basic support." Most IT people are in basic support (and I think that what he said would apply to coders as well). meaning that a lot of IT people and coders are "Those 'misogynist troll' types." As a result, it's a pretty hostile environment for women.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 03:01 PM
-14

Dude made a claim about basic IT that I thought would also apply to most coders. What part of that is tough to understand?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:54 PM
-4

I said basic IT and coders...clearly meaning two separate groups.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:52 PM
-1

6% is the average of 4.8 and 7.1. Maybe you should read the results instead of ctrl+Fing and skimming. Ya, the study takes those things into account. Really read it.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:51 PM
1

And another And another (I may have already counted that one) And another
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:50 PM
1

Haha, what? Where did the sexual assault requirement come from? Women can't be sexually assaulted and discriminated against at the same time? Anyway, here's one. Here's another. And another. And another. And another. And another. And another.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:45 PM
1

My point was that men were more superficial than women, which is what all the articles I linked to agree with.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:32 PM
-1

Okay, so, you clearly aren't getting this. The study I linked to, takes all of that shit into account. When women work the same amount at the same job with the same education, they are still paid about 6% less. The authors of the study theorize that they might be able to get that number lower with more data. So, to make is as clear as possible, your claim that "the wage gap doesn't exist" if you account for all those things is just straight up wrong.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:31 PM
1

Yay selective reading! Are you really not going to read the rest of the article?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:23 PM
-1

You can read the "results" section, if you like, or you can just trust me: They come to the conclusion that they can account for all but 6% of the wage gap, and that they might be able to account for more if they had more data. That is not "debunking" by any stretch of the imagination.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:22 PM
1

There are countless lawsuits by women for discrimination in the workplace. How many would you need to believe it?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:18 PM
-4

I do remember it being on the front page of BBC. Some stuff is going to go viral, other stuff isn't. News is still news.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:17 PM
-2

Sure, take a look at these stats, they're pretty comprehensive. They come to the conclusion that they can account for all but 6% of the wage gap, and that they might be able to account for more if they had more data. They hardly "debunk" it, nor have I seen any statistics backing that up. Also, you can search anything followed by "debunked" to get a video with people saying that somethings been debunked, but that doesn't make it so.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:05 PM
-29

Actually I have a degree in programming and it's my profession, so I think I have some idea. Having been educated and worked in the field the misogyny is pretty apparent.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 02:02 PM
0

Having a 6% (the average of 4.8 and 7.1) variance between two genders with such copious amounts of data is in no way "standard." 6% is very statistically significant. The study we're discussing specifically tried to take all that into account, and could only get as low as 6%. They theorized they might be able to get lower, but that is hardly a "debunking" of that 6%.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:59 PM
0

So you found evidence that disproved what you were theorizing? Also, I wasn't being condescending, I was honestly asking if that's what you were looking for.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:48 PM
-5

I don't trust a stat that isn't controlled for professions. Is there any better analysis out there on this? Because that seems pretty weak and I feel like your assumptions are pretty big.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:46 PM
-2

Ah yes, a video by the "American Enterprise Institute." Mind linking to their statistics so I can take a look at them myself? All the stats I've seen can't get the gap lower than 6% even when taking the factors you mentioned into account.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:44 PM
-1

I feel like you completely misunderstood what I said. Women being ahead in educations is very recent, so if that was truly the cause we should see it reflected in leadership in 20 years time. Women not being in leadership roles is the symptom of what's wrong, not the major cause.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:40 PM
-2

Mind linking to the studies that account for that 5%? All I've seen so far are studies saying "maybe it can be accounted for."
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:37 PM
0

This is because they are actual scientists: conclusions come AFTER evidence. It is possible it could drop to zero, it's possible it COULD be 5% and discrimination abound, but it could also be -5% and MEN are actually earning less per hour then women, and making it up by working more hours. Right, so the claim that there is no wage gap, or as another commenter put it the wage gap has been "debunked" is bullshit. Statistical analysis get's it down to 6% but then we're not sure how much discriminat…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:35 PM
-27

Saying stuff like this hurts this whole sub so much.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:30 PM
-46

Most IT personnel are basic IT support (and I think that would also apply to coders). So being educated and working in an environment surrounded by misogynist troll types definitely makes it a boys club.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:30 PM
0

Couldn't agree more. I feel like people who fall into that category in your second paragraph just need to stay here and moderate the whole sub, despite how painful it is to read comments like that.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:26 PM
0

Tackling individual issues makes sense, and I agree that it's a good approach. I just think it's so backwards and unproductive to claim that "In first world countries, female advantages grossly outnumber male advantages." which is what I originally took issue with. There are massive gaps on both sides. Men are raised and expected to work and die, women are raised to be meek and stupid. It would be so helpful to have less vitriol spewed between MR and feminism.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:25 PM
-2

I would argue that 5% is still a problem. Do you have any comprehensive study of the younger women claim and the closed gap?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:21 PM
0

They're saying they don't have the data for it. They nowhere say that they think it would drop to zero, just that the factors that make up the remaining 6% would not possible to count.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:17 PM
-2

Once would be good.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:11 PM
-1

Because those high up people speak to how we socialize women. It's hard to articulate that we don't teach them to be as smart, or confident. It's hard to come up with evidence for that because it's so endemic, and what evidence could their even be? The strongest evidence of it is in the results. It's in the fact that most women don't try to lead, and don't get elected when they do.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:11 PM
0

Ya, just broke the sentence down into it's logical components and got that. Though, it's hardly a full throated guarantee of the opposite either. I would find it very hard to believe that the 4.8-7.1% has no discrimination component.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:08 PM
-1

Ya, you're right. Though, it's not the opposite, but hardly full support in the other direction. They're essentially saying it's like trying to prove a negative.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:07 PM
-2

Okay, that part you cited says, "Part of the 7.1 percent is probably because of other things, but we don't have the data on it so we can't analyze it." It in no way says that the gender gap doesn't exist or that discrimination is "not probable." In fact, they spell it out quite clearly in the last summarizing sentence: As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 01:02 PM
-1

So you think we don't elect any female leaders because we value women so much inherently?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:56 PM
-1

Hahaha, his study supports me. Read the conclusion of the study if you want, or I'll quote it here: Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. And then continues: As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether any portion of the…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:55 PM
-3

Right...that's the preamble written by a DoL rep. Go ahead and jump down to the actual conclusion of the study (which is where I quoted from) which finds the opposite.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:52 PM
0

You're looking for sources that say women are just biologically inferior to men intellectually to the point where they're unqualified leaders?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:50 PM
-2

So wait, are you saying you can't find one comprehensive study that supports you so you're just randomly guessing at numbers and claiming a solid conclusion?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:48 PM
-1

Okay, so are we agreeing that the fact that men lead everything is an advantage and now moving on to other topics?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:45 PM
-3

That study agrees with me as well...
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:43 PM
-4

That it would be a disadvantage to be less respected and not considered good for leadership? Ya, that seems to follow to me.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:41 PM
-8

First off, it's "shriek" and that's super condescending. Secondly, the study you linked you explicitly says and I'll quote, since you clearly haven't read it: Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. And then continues: As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:39 PM
-3

Ya, as would not letting black people register to vote. That doesn't mean it wasn't a problem.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:28 PM
2

This is turning into that as well, so I just do what I can to push back.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:26 PM
-6

You're looking at it backwards. Men are so much more respected as leaders and rulers that they are in positions of power everywhere around the world. The fact that they are in leadership roles everywhere is evidence of the advantage. Now it in and of itself has obviously been an advantage in the past (such as only men having the right to vote) and I assume that that systematic sexism probably still has some remnants, but they would be much harder to tease out.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:25 PM
-8

He's quoting statisticians that study labour and have come to the conclusion that there is gender bias in almost every case... I'm quoting a congressional report that cites all statisticians and economic studies on the topic. You linked to an excel chart that shows, I assume, aggregate hours over all jobs for all genders, which is not comparing like occupation to like occupation. I have to assume all that because you literally just linked to one chart. Also the study you linked to says, and I qu…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:20 PM
2

Ya, it is. I just always find the quality of people, arguments and discussions in it so disheartening. I was asked for sources in another thread, so I linked to four and got downvoted to oblivion with no responses. Literally people just downvoting information.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:15 PM
-9

You can't just say that something is sexist therefore also chauvinist. I didn't, I said it was an advantage and an example of privilege.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:13 PM
2

It'd be pretty hard to argue that those three comments above us aren't dripping with contempt for their idea of feminists.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:07 PM
-9

Do you have a source for that boko-haram claim? Men had to earn their right to vote but women were just given their ability to vote. What? I truly have no idea what you could mean by that. Just because the national media decided it could make money by exploiting this one subset of violence experienced by males doesn't make it a trend. I was just pointing out how hyperbolic and ridiculous your claim that "all anyone hears about" is violence against women, when violence against men has been intern…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 12:01 PM
-2

Is it relevant here though? It's kinda just like SRS for men. I feel like "Hey someone unimportant said something stupid" is hardly a mensrights issue.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:57 AM
1

They could probably explain it to you best. Perhaps you should ask feminists instead of asking a sub full of anti-feminists to explain their opponent's view.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:55 AM
-13

They are more likely to be paid less for the same job and doing the same work. The fact that it's 0.001% of males in charge of the government is not the point. Males controlling the government isn't male privilege because it is specifically me controlling everyone, it's male privilege because the idea of males leading and ruling is pervasive, it's just the embodiment of that.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:46 AM
-10

Nobody is insisting that. They want equal pay for equal work. Because right now it is not equal.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:43 AM
-1

For which claim? Here's money for equal work. Here's one for hiring, here's another. Do you need one for government? I assume not, but just in case. Yay getting downvoted for linking to studies -.-
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:42 AM
-15

People and society actually care about the issues women face in life. I'm sorry but that advantage trumps everything else Wait, what? So during the women's suffrage movement when everyone cared about female issues they, by your claim, had more of an advantage than all men despite not being able to vote? all anyone hears within the media and from politicians. All we hear about is violence against women? Clearly you haven't been glancing at your TV for the past several months. The #1 topic has bee…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:37 AM
-1

Can you point to any of these "great many people" calling for the "annihilation" of anyone who suggests female privilege?
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:30 AM
7

[Citation needed]
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:14 AM
-39

What? Males make much more money, are more likely to be hired for jobs, are more likely to be paid more in the same jobs and are hugely more in control of government. What are the major advantages of being female? Slight affirmative action if you want to go into fields that have been male dominated for decades? Because men have already held those jobs for a long time...
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:13 AM
-15

I think you're attacking a straw man. I don't think many would say that there is no female privilege, just that there is much more male privilege. Sure, waitresses may get paid more for equal work, but the vast majority of men get paid 5-6% more for the same work as a woman. That's an example of female privilege and male privilege, it's just in two different situations.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 11:10 AM
0

Right, so women don't have an idea of what men look like, they find a much wider range of men attractive. Men, on the other hand, were more than twice as likely to agree on attractiveness, if you keep reading that next sentence there. It's okay though, reading comprehension is hard.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 10:07 AM
0

Really? You need me to cite things to know that men care more about looks than women? Jesus. Fine. One Two Three You can just Google it if you like. Most of it is clickbait about how women are just as superficial because that's so obviously contrary to society's belief, but if you read through them they all conclude that men care about looks more.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 08:04 AM
0

Well that's kinda sexist and statistically wrong. Men care much more about appearance than women do.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 07:42 AM
0

So you're saying we socialize girls to feel weak? Pretty sure that's a basic tenant of feminism.
/r/MensRights14/03/15 07:25 AM
1

And what are you basing that on?
/r/MensRights13/03/15 10:22 PM
-3

the fact that feminists react negatively to it is extremely likely I feel like you don't know what a fact is.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 09:25 PM
3

Also being topless isn't illegal in a lot of places.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 02:33 AM
-4

Really? You think this is the best time for it in history?
/r/MensRights19/02/15 04:41 PM
1

Mind pointing me to some of those?
/r/MensRights19/02/15 04:08 PM
1

Ya! Totally! Show us some examples!
/r/MensRights18/02/15 07:04 PM
0

Ya, that imaginary person you just quoted commenting on an imaginary situation is bullshit! You tell him/her!
/r/MensRights18/02/15 06:22 PM
0

You think if that was a female singer and she knocked out a male fan for brushing up against her it would look less insane?
/r/MensRights18/02/15 06:10 PM
1

I...have you ever seen a club?
/r/MensRights18/02/15 06:07 PM
3

Definitely. Men are (or should be) held to the same standard.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 05:13 PM
1

Really? A guy would be charged with sexual assault for touching his back to a girl's back?
/r/MensRights18/02/15 05:13 PM
-1

With that definition any violent act by a woman against anyone is a men's rights issue... Woman robbed a bank and shot a male employee? "this was a woman doing this to a man. But if the world were governed by women there would be fewer wars because women are instrinsically less violent, we are told. So all this needs to be stacked up together."
/r/MensRights18/02/15 04:44 PM
-2

What? First off, that's not what OP was saying, he was saying that the article said that "women should earn the same regardless of their choices." Which is 100% not true. She's saying that sexism against women in the workplace is a problem in these roles and needs to be tackled, which is completely fair. Secondly, you just put forward a claim with no evidence, so I'm going to dismiss it with no evidence.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 04:39 PM
-1

The point is that she wants more women in the higher paying positions, not that she wants the current positions to pay more, which is what OP claimed the article was saying.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 04:37 PM
1

His claim is wrong. It would not be on CNN. That's what I wanted to say. You're trying to say "oh but also please say this other thing so I can argue with you!" I don't want to argue. I wanted to point out that the CNN claim is stupid. Which is done. If you can't understand that, you have my sympathies.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 07:59 AM
-4

You excluded the next paragraph... “Employers who are committed to creating equal access to opportunities for women and men need to work harder to remove barriers that inhibit women from entering these higher paying roles. A lack of quality flexible work, the legacy of workplace cultures built on the male breadwinner model and gender bias are likely to be among the barriers that need to be tackled,” Ms Conway said. Which says the opposite of what you're saying. They're saying there need to more …
/r/MensRights18/02/15 07:57 AM
1

No, I'm not here to debate a whole other topic. What OP said was wrong, it would not be "all over CNN" and you agree. End of story. If you want to debate a topic go find another person to do it with.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 07:29 AM
1

I agree with what I said. You agree with what I said. I'm all done with this conversation.
/r/MensRights17/02/15 12:54 PM
1

And, since you're apparently unable to read it, I'll say it for the fourth time. I am disagreeing that it would be all over CNN, as OP said, and that it took a victimization mentality to even say such a stupid thing.
/r/MensRights16/02/15 12:47 AM
1

There are panics in schools every day. Schools get shut down every day. They only make the news if there is a risk of a mass shooting, or some semblance of evidence of one. There was not for this. Two people dead in one room, one the victim, on the shooter. The college was closed down as a precaution. It's not international news.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 12:15 PM
1

The link that we are commenting on? The link OP posted? The one with the headline of wife murders husband? OP wants the victimhood to be true. That's why he was able to delude himself into thinking that this would be "all over CNN" if it was a husband murdering his wife, which is demonstrably untrue.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 12:14 PM
1

I...did you click the link? The point is that this would not be "All over CNN" if the genders are reversed. That's a ridiculous claim that is only being taken seriously because everyone here wants it to be true.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 11:35 AM
-2

Really? Because it's all over his local news. He linked to an article on it.
/r/MensRights14/02/15 02:11 AM
-13

What does that have to do with it? I'm saying OP's claim that this would be "all over CNN" if it were a woman is dumb.
/r/MensRights13/02/15 10:00 PM
-11

I'm not. He's saying that domestic violence murders by men against women would be "all over CNN." But there are about 3 per day. So the idea that they're all CNN reports is borderline retarded.
/r/MensRights13/02/15 10:00 PM
-7

That doesn't make the comment I'm replying to less stupid. He enters the situation assuming there's going to be bias against men, and that leads him to the idiotic conclusion that because one murder isn't international news, it's bias.
/r/MensRights13/02/15 09:59 PM
-6

A minute and a half report counts as "all over CNN?" TIL.
/r/MensRights13/02/15 09:58 PM
-48

What? Do you know how many husbands kill their wives every day? Or how many other cases of domestic violence murders there are? You think they're all on CNN? They'd have to dedicate a daily show to it. You're deluded by your preconceived notions of nobody caring about men.
/r/MensRights13/02/15 04:41 PM
1

What about heart disease?
/r/MensRights11/02/15 08:11 AM
2

If this stat is going to be the top comment it should probably include the finding: Rape and sexual assault victimizations of students (80%) were more likely than nonstudent victimizations (67%) to go unreported to police.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 09:34 PM
1

He means allies to a cause, he's not talking about an actual friend...
/r/MensRights11/12/14 09:04 PM
1

The one I linked to was 10 years old about an incident that was 10.5 years old. The original comment I replied to said people would go ape shit and immediately believe it if it were a woman, but that's obviously not true.
/r/MensRights30/11/14 03:07 AM
1

I disagree. Several of the women are remaining anonymous, most are not pursuing civil action, they have nothing to gain from lying about something that they probably don't want to talk about.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 10:30 PM
1

No, they went forward for sure. It's been public for at least ten years.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 08:36 PM
1

I think it's beyond a reasonable doubt that 14 women he interacted with are all just lying...
/r/MensRights29/11/14 08:34 PM
3

I mean, the Cosby rape victims said it years ago and nobody cared. So I'm not sure what you mean.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 01:24 PM
1

You're projecting. They use gender neutral pronouns everywhere except the two examples which they site, which are male perps. I guess one of those could have been female, but you can hardly fault them for that when the two examples they used were the lawmaker's words and a book recently written on the subject. You go into it expecting it to be about men, so when you read it you think their talking about men. I don't think an objective reading with no previous bias would come to the same conclusi…
/r/MensRights27/11/14 06:55 PM
1

I'll get you fired if you keep disagreeing with me.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:27 PM
0

But not women, right? Wrong, the law is specifically genderless. Though I like the strawman in your last sentence.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:25 PM
1

The point is that people do care very much about music videos. As Vandredd pointed out there have literally been congressional hearings over it. That's not to say that there should be outrage over this, but rather that the lack of outrage speaks to inherent biases of our society.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:23 PM
2

Except that's not true. “She or he should do their due diligence and check the guy out,” Mark Harris told CBS New York. “If he or she isn’t what they say they are, then move on.”
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:17 PM
1

Is she getting preferential treatment? She's making the exact same complaint many people (mainly men) have been making for years. We should be saying "See, she's right!" Not "fuck her!"
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:06 PM
1

What? Is that a women driving joke?
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:03 PM
5

Source?
/r/MensRights13/11/14 07:44 AM
1

Ya, vote brigading never happens on individuals...
/r/MensRights05/11/14 01:13 AM
1

Nice cohesive, well explained, well researched point you have there.
/r/MensRights24/10/14 04:55 PM
0

You can claim overtones all you want, but I didn't see any. Where's your evidence?
/r/MensRights24/10/14 01:58 AM
3

So you're assuming that the victims of rape that they're talking about can't be female? That seems like exactly the type of assumptions that this sub is trying to prevent.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 09:42 PM
2

"This chart says nothing about male/female" is bullshit? Sorry, does it say male/female man/woman anywhere?
/r/MensRights23/10/14 09:10 PM
8

This chart says nothing about male/female. It's initiator/non-initiator.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 04:24 PM
18

Women love stereotypes lol
/r/MensRights28/09/14 07:35 AM
0

If real rape is not having sex with someone, what would you like to call forcing someone to have sex with you?
/r/TheRedPill26/09/14 07:35 PM
1

Ya, nobody is saying that it does, it's just a reasonable safety precaution to not get stupid drunk at parties where you don't know the people. In the same way that if I got murdered walking through El Salvador while counting cash, that wouldn't justify the murder, but it was a pretty stupid thing for me to do.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 05:34 AM
13

Neither does "I was drunk, I couldn't consent!"
/r/MensRights23/09/14 09:07 PM
4

The comment does not say that.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 11:10 AM
5

Hahaha, nobody drops out of engineering because of cal 1. PDEs, Fluid Dynamics, Elec Eng, Thermo, those are the tough courses that make people drop.
/r/TheRedPill30/05/14 09:24 PM
2

I like your evidence-filled comment asserting that the law is often disregarded.
/r/TheRedPill17/05/14 11:44 PM
1

Meh, that's not true. It's only if she's intoxicated and you know she is, then you enter into the agreement with her.
/r/TheRedPill17/05/14 06:59 AM
2

But one shot doesn't affect your decision making ability. If, on the other hand, the contractor for your new house took you out and encouraged you to get drunk, then brought you the contract once you were drunk, yes, that would be plausible deniability.
/r/TheRedPill16/05/14 04:20 AM
7

Actually, you are not liable for agreements you make (contracts you sign) while intoxicated if the person you're making the agreement with knows you're drunk.
/r/TheRedPill16/05/14 04:02 AM
-3

Her doing porn doesn't make what he did right.
/r/TheRedPill27/02/14 06:21 AM
-1

Okay? How is that relevant?
/r/TheRedPill27/02/14 03:14 AM
2

He contacted her and she asked him not to tell people. He told people that made a site about it.
/r/TheRedPill27/02/14 03:12 AM
1

lol
/r/TheRedPill27/02/14 01:04 AM
-6

Because anyone who would reveal something as potentially life-ruining as being in porn to a group of mutual friends is not someone whose side I want to be on.
/r/TheRedPill27/02/14 12:21 AM
-8

Granted, it wasn't a great analogy, but I disagree that there's an expectation of privacy. I can reasonably expect that, as a sexually active adult with friends and family, at some point in my life, be it at a family function where a joke is made or a story accidentally told or even a pregnancy, that my mom will know I had sex at some point.
/r/TheRedPill26/02/14 09:07 PM
-3

Fair enough.
/r/TheRedPill26/02/14 08:19 PM
-10

The fact that it might have gotten out anyways does not make it acceptable to do. Will my Mom find out that I've had sex one day? Probably. Does that make it okay for my friend to tell my mom "Siiimo banged this girl last night"? No, definitely not.
/r/TheRedPill26/02/14 08:05 PM
1

Oh, I see what you mean. It looks like what happened is that he told people who then created a website. I guess that makes him less dickish, but still not great.
/r/TheRedPill26/02/14 07:33 PM
8

"After a frat-oriented website threatened to out Lauren (not her real name) as porn performer Aurora"
/r/TheRedPill26/02/14 07:23 PM
59

He didn't just tell people, he made a website about exposing her, threatened her with it, then linked it to people. That's a dick move.
/r/TheRedPill26/02/14 07:10 PM
2

The police didn't think about taking it seriously. The school barely put any time into it. The journalist wrote about it because it gets him page views from postings like this. Nobody serious takes it seriously.
/r/TheRedPill10/02/14 12:34 PM
7

I guess it should come as no surprise that you missed the point entirely. Whore Sorry who's using ad hominem attacks? Also, when the genders are reversed and guys tell on girls people are just as supportive. Out of curiosity why on earth is it "just as much her fault"? Because she believed a lie?
/r/TheRedPill12/12/13 07:38 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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