TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Smallpaul Archive

View 3 posts and 368 comments by Smallpaul on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Stop shilling Lurvessa and Thorynex. You obviously work for them.
/r/MensRights25/05/25 12:07 PM
-3

What makes you sure that a single subreddit has the total and complete truth about what is happening with all men everywhere?
/r/MensRights13/11/23 08:05 PM
-6

You will never get unbiased information on /r/mensrights . You should either ask in an unrelated forum like /r/AskReddit or you could blend answers from /r/mensrights with /r/menslib and try to come up with a middle ground.
/r/MensRights13/11/23 07:52 PM
-1

You aren’t wrong but leaving the concept of gold digging out of the original post was a big omission. There definitely is some societal pressure against young women marrying old rich dudes. But if the case is not egregious then it gets more subtle. I guess fundamentally it boils down to who seems to have more power and choice. An 80 year old man with a 25 year old wife we might think that the wife has lots of choices and decides to go with the money. She has most of the power to say yes or no be…
/r/MensRights18/12/22 06:30 PM
1

The idea that gold digging is distasteful is so pervasive in society that one doesn’t need a mainstream media think piece about it. It’s just common sense. The idea that there is something wrong with the opposite is new in society and thus there is a movement to stigmatize it equally. That’s why there are think pieces about it.
/r/MensRights18/12/22 11:51 AM
0

Have you never heard the term “gold digger?” Society absolutely shames women who chase rich men.
/r/MensRights18/12/22 11:04 AM
-1

For this question to make sense you would need to poll every man who had ever been married and ask them if they wish they hadn’t.
/r/MensRights30/10/22 05:50 PM
0

You realize this article is about 1916, right? They weren’t fighting for Canada but for the allies.
/r/MensRights03/09/22 01:56 AM
-1

In 1916???
/r/MensRights03/09/22 01:55 AM
3

The daily telegraph has done hundreds of studies. Please be more specific.
/r/MensRights22/07/22 02:53 PM
10

Learning about male/female relationships from an advocacy subreddit is like learning about road safety by watching a paramedic show. The horror stories are real but that doesn’t mean they are remotely representative. I’m 50. I can’t think of a single nightmare divorce or baby entrapment in my entire social circle.
/r/MensRights22/07/22 02:33 PM
1

What study?
/r/MensRights22/07/22 02:32 PM
1

When families get richer they have money to spend on everything. That includes e.g. Netflix which generates director and actor jobs and everything else. Every job you can imagine can be paid for more easily by a two income family. More money = more air trips = more pilots.
/r/MensRights12/10/21 03:57 AM
1

Who says there are a limited number of jobs? When two income families generate income they spend it in ways that make more jobs for other people. If it were true that there are a fixed number of jobs then unemployment works need to be several times higher than it is to deal with all the women and immigrants who have joined the labor force since 1939.
/r/MensRights10/10/21 04:24 PM
0

So she probably going to push for it. Or at least suggest it. And other people will have opinions. And maybe she will win and maybe she will lose. No decision has been made.
/r/MensRights01/10/21 05:56 PM
2

Can you quote the part you are discussing?
/r/MensRights26/09/21 02:17 AM
11

The article does not say that Marvel is going to drop the “men” from X-Men.
/r/MensRights25/09/21 09:46 PM
1

Where do you get your statistics? https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/marriage-and-mens-health https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20191010/marriage-tied-to-longer-life-span-new-data-shows
/r/MensRights29/06/21 12:57 AM
1

Love? Companionship? Longevity? “A major survey of 127,545 American adults found that married men are healthier than men who were never married or whose marriages ended in divorce or widowhood. Men who have marital partners also live longer than men without spouses; men who marry after age 25 get more protection than those who tie the knot at a younger age, and the longer a man stays married, the greater his survival advantage over his unmarried peers.” The article explains the methodology: http…
/r/MensRights29/06/21 12:56 AM
1

I could imagine the exact same comment with the genders reversed in a feminist sub.
/r/MensRights29/06/21 12:49 AM
11

In your experience, if a little boy prefers to sew and cook instead of doing sports and carpentry, it is the women in that boys life who will be upset and not the men? It is the women who defend these boundaries primarily? It’s primarily moms, not dads, who tell men not to use feminine gestures or have feminine traits? It’s primarily the girls at school who will ostracize androgynous makes, not the males?
/r/MensRights23/06/21 02:31 PM
-5

Really it’s simple: the other explanations here are over complicated. Rich people have higher status than poor people. Therefore it is shameful for a rich or middle class person to dress like a hobo. No middle class parent wants their kid doing that. Men traditionally have had higher status than women. That’s why America has never had a woman president, for example. So women acting as men are trying to improve their status. People understand that. Men acting as women are seen as degrading themse…
/r/MensRights23/06/21 02:25 PM
0

Are you using the same standard for all of your stats? Women are supposed to discount the rapes because most don’t happen on the street. But how many of these murder of men are by unprovoked strangers on the street? Versus related to street crime or relationships?
/r/MensRights23/08/20 06:57 PM
3

I literally said that the majority of posts in this reddit are not anti-women anecdotes anymore. And I didn’t say anything about Amber Heard at all. That’s not an anecdote about “women are evil”. It’s a case study in how the media picks a side before it has all of the facts. As such I think it is an important story to understand and publicize.
/r/MensRights18/02/20 03:42 PM
2

Um...I’m not. Imagine if there were a sub dedicated to only stories about how individual white people or Jews have done terrible things. And someone criticizes that sub. And someone responds “If you're here to pretend that [group] are flawless human beings and can do no wrong then this sub isn't for you.” Can you see how that makes no sense as a comment? If not, try reading this: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/ Or this: https://www.fallacyfiles.org/volvof…
/r/MensRights18/02/20 09:44 AM
6

Actually this subreddit seems as if it is getting better. Back when I started subscribing it was dominated by stories designed to prove that individual women were evil as if this made some larger point. I scrolled back a few days of posts and I don’t see that as much.
/r/MensRights18/02/20 06:01 AM
-2

Divorce rates are dropping. https://www.thecut.com/2014/12/the-divorce-rate-isnt-soaring.html Your mother’s attitude is not shared by my mother, my wife or my daughter. Select a wife carefully (don’t let your gonads pick) and you will be loved and respected.
/r/MensRights27/05/19 04:53 AM
1

I didn’t say that men and women are treated exactly equally under the law. I said that there is nothing in the w leave laws that hinges IN ANY WAY on whether a fetus is a person. As a thought experiment. Imagine that science could provide definitive evidence that a fetus does not become a person until birth (not that I expect it to do so...this is just a thought experiment). What if taking the first breath kick started the brain and changed the genome. Why would this change maternity leave in an…
/r/MensRights06/05/19 01:47 AM
1

The fact that your new “evidence” about maternity leave does not use — either directly not indirectly — the words “fetus” or “person” just show how indefensible your original argument was. Now you are trying to shift the goal posts to a new argument. I browse this forum because I am interested in the occasional argument that is logical and persuasive. If you are only interested in whipping the already convinced into a state of constant outrage then go ahead: people looking to be enraged very sel…
/r/MensRights05/05/19 10:59 PM
2

The existence of maternity leave proves that a fetus is a person in law? You know that the fetal homicide laws are mostly created by pro-life legislators specifically to set up the argument that you are making. Your”proof” that the mother can choose to treat the fetus as a person are not very compelling.
/r/MensRights05/05/19 09:18 PM
2

Where is the evidence that she is a feminist?
/r/MensRights10/02/19 10:10 PM
2

So the guy above you just admitted to getting teased about having “feminine” tastes in some products and on that basis you claimed that the original anecdote about getting teased about feminine tastes is therefore likely to be a lie? How does that follow?
/r/MensRights10/02/19 06:45 AM
5

Poster regurgitated Dep’s statement as if it were true as opposed to just a statement. It would be wrong to post that Dep is a proven abuser. It is equally wrong to post that Heard is a proven liar. Neither assertion has much evidence behind it.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 05:42 PM
9

The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. The person who posted this to Reddit made the assertion that the accusations were false (as opposed to unproven). The poster has therefore accepted a burden of proof. Where is the proof?
/r/MensRights19/12/18 03:45 PM
1

Where in the twitter thread was there any discussion about learning another language at all? Why are we talking about second language acquisition?
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:05 PM
2

Please give an example from a real court case.
/r/MensRights12/05/18 03:17 PM
9

Thanks for sharing the other side. This is a complex issue.
/r/MensRights11/05/18 02:53 PM
1

I can agree with that!
/r/MensRights11/04/18 02:07 AM
5

I've heard both stories, that she was a jilted lover and that she hated YouTube due to demonetization.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 01:55 AM
79

People of every political stripe have been complaining about YouTube demonetizing them. That's why the YouTube shooter was so enraged. It has nothing to do with MRA.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 09:20 PM
-2

The concept of a “European origin population” in Canada is any oxymoron. If they came from Europe then they are settlers or descendants of settlers, Settlers are immigrants by definition. They immigrated. Some of us came here 20,000 years ago and have no connection to any other land. They are indigenous. Some came in the last few hundred years. They are settlers and immigrants. Some cane in the last few decades. They are settlers and immigrants.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 12:20 PM
2

The female Green Party leader just had an article published about her poor staff treatment. Is it your point of view that it should not have been published unless the things she is accused of were illegal?
/r/MensRights28/01/18 11:15 AM
2

The headline is incorrect. Please delete this post before you misinform millions of readers. The article says clearly the that the goal was to make things fairer for women but the mechanisms was to give more time for everyone.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 04:37 PM
2

Why would they be sued? Both men and women were given more time.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 04:36 PM
-5

it's mass criminal littering aka civil disobedience extremely burdensome on the business I think you've missed the point...
/r/MensRights23/01/18 11:04 AM
8

https://www.snopes.com/2017/01/22/womens-march-dumped-signs/
/r/MensRights23/01/18 10:37 AM
0

https://www.snopes.com/2017/01/22/womens-march-dumped-signs/
/r/MensRights23/01/18 10:37 AM
4

https://www.snopes.com/2017/01/22/womens-march-dumped-signs/
/r/MensRights23/01/18 10:36 AM
1

Denigrating gay men, liberal men and traditionalist conservatives is not "speaking your mind." It is dividing the movement and therefore weakening it. I guess you are also in favor of white men using the n-word? It's just "bantr" amiright?
/r/MensRights24/04/17 10:58 AM
6

The title of his post says "feminists praise her even today." I'm just looking for evidence that many feminists praised her in the last several years. Assertions require evidence.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 05:38 PM
0

Picking on just the first one. Ti Grace Atkinson is about the same age as the crazy woman and has not published anything since 1982 according to Wikipedia. There is very little evidence that this list represents modern feminism.
/r/MensRights10/03/17 03:11 PM
-1

No. I'm a human being and not an animal or monster.
/r/MensRights02/01/17 09:38 AM
1

You're looking for a loophole that allows you to rape people?
/r/MensRights02/01/17 08:46 AM
6

You want: /r / MensLib I'm not allowed to link to it here. They have a censor-bot.
/r/MensRights23/12/16 04:16 PM
1

The fact that you picked one line, listed as the exception to the rule, shows that you yourself are not a trustworthy companion in an intellectual discussion. And given that my trust that you are interested in honest discussion is low, I choose not to engage any further.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 09:27 PM
3

Legality is the only thing relevant to society. That's so wrong I don't even know where to begin. But...okay, to begin somewhere: http://projectm-online.com/investing/the-value-of-trust/
/r/MensRights06/12/16 08:43 PM
2

First, racism, sexism, yadda-ism and yadda-phobia are protected by most constitutions. How did this become a conversation about how objectionable one is allowed to be under the law? He didn't say anything about making these things illegal. He said you shouldn't do them. What's legal or not is a complete irrelevancy.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 06:47 PM
2

Regardless, it proves that the top poster was incorrect in saying that Milo did not tweet at her. He did.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 02:05 PM
1

I'm neither a brigader nor a bought account. I'm curious what your evidence is for each accusation, especially the bought account one. That's particularly hilarious because I have been using this account since the early days of Reddit, long before the Digg exodus.
/r/MensRights24/07/16 02:03 PM
7

Twitter is an "essential media platform?" GMAFB.
/r/MensRights23/07/16 09:06 PM
-4

You heard wrong. https://archive.is/1EGVM#selection-2375.8-2375.9 He tweeted at her, and in particular, he tweeted faked screencaps of things she had supposedly said. Please give a link to these supposed tweets against "wypipo".
/r/MensRights23/07/16 06:17 PM
1

So you think that MRAs are at war with women because women are like nazis?
/r/MensRights29/05/16 02:16 PM
6

It is undeniably the case that the people at the very top were men. This is different than saying that all men were on top of all women, which certainly was not true. Also: women did not have the vote which is a pretty important indicator of being not-on-top. With respect to misogyny: it boggles my mind that you think that maybe the thing the world needs is a bit more hatred and discrimination. You have undermined the work that the OP was trying to do in reforming the image of MRAs, and confirme…
/r/MensRights29/05/16 02:15 PM
1

Buzzfeed is different in different locales. Can you shoot me the link to this on your version of Buzzfeed?
/r/MensRights13/04/16 05:30 PM
2

I live in Vancouver Canada. No dad I know has ever expressed this to me as s problem. I am father of a mixed race child. It has never happened to me. Admittedly I usually walk around with two kids. I cannot imagine a society where people think that pedophiles are more common than involved dads. Weird.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:15 AM
5

Yes well if you group 1.5 billion people, from Turks to Saudi Arabians to Persians under the label "savages" then you should expect to be mocked. That's not the case we're talking about. We're talking about taking one of the most regressive societies in the Muslim world and defending its misogyny. I'm waiting for someone to share a link with me of a SJW doing that.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 04:49 AM
-11

I've never yet met an SJW who defends Saudi Arabian or ISIS values. This pure cultural relativist SJW seems like some kind of a mythical creature. I am interested in being educated with links if such a person exists.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 04:34 AM
2

Okay, so please quote me the part that says "the more people a women sleeps with, the less chance she has for successful pair bonding in a monogamous relationship" and explain the consequences of her having some of another male's DNA in a tiny fraction of her cells. How does this make her unsuitable as a mate?
/r/MensRights06/03/15 08:21 PM
4

Not only that, but we're supposed to know which specific study he is referring to. I bet there was no chance whatsoever that we would find a study on the Internet, debunk it or prove it doesn't say what he says it says and then get told: "I was referring to a different study." No chance at all. This 7656456574 guy seems like an upright, honest, clear-headed, logical thinker, not someone with an axe to grind.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 08:19 PM
0

microchimerism is about babies.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 07:12 PM
0

Where did he say anything about lying?
/r/MensRights06/03/15 04:58 PM
-9

There was nothing to refute, because the assertions were not backed up at all. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." After dismissing the unbacked-assertion he also attacked the misogynist. Which is his reasonable.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 04:56 PM
6

Thank you for at least attempting to be somewhat scientific by providing a link. Now can you please explain how sperm cells from years previously could have any impact on a baby that is born?
/r/MensRights06/03/15 04:55 PM
-4

"Stop being anti-intellectual" It is anti-intellectual to say: "there is data out there" without linking, providing context, talking about how many times it has been (or hasn't been) replicated, and so forth.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 04:51 PM
15

"look it up, this is all new research" That's not how it works. You made the assertion. You provide the evidence. At best doing otherwise is laziness. At worst it is an attempt to cover up your own dishonesty. I'll wait here to see which it is.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 04:50 PM
0

Stupidest thing I've heard anyone say this week.
/r/MensRights01/02/15 10:44 PM
1

She has worked over decades to hone a craft. I have no idea why you would denigrate that. Do you feel the same about Kenneth Branagh and Ian McKellen?
/r/MensRights01/02/15 10:43 PM
1

You should try a sense of humor. Also, Helen Mirren has "been in a few movies" in the same sense that J K Rowling has "written a few books. " Do you equally respond with horror to this inaccurate headline? "It’s Candide Thovex’s World and We’re Just Living In It" http://www.theinertia.com/video/its-candide-thovexs-world-and-were-just-living-in-it/#ixzz3QVvVxz5r How dare they claim that Candide Thovex owns the planet earth! I am offended that they believe that I am a subject of a man who had just…
/r/MensRights01/02/15 05:08 PM
2

I am asking you to please offer the evidence of the assertion that the troll is from SRS and not just lying about being from SRS because he/she knows that /r/MensRights is going to fall for it.
/r/MensRights10/01/15 08:56 AM
-2

Can you link to the evidence please? Edit: can someone please explain why I am getting downvoted for asking for evidence for an assertion? Is this still reddit? Is this /r/faithtalk ?
/r/MensRights09/01/15 05:08 PM
3

So this person is a troll in the purest sense: they like to stir up trouble and cause anger. And yet when the person says that he or she is from SRS...we take them at their word?
/r/MensRights09/01/15 04:38 AM
1

Sorry. I responded to the wrong comment.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 07:17 PM
1

But who are the upvoters?
/r/MensRights18/12/14 03:01 PM
1

Edited.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 10:20 PM
1

Are you saying that Lena Dunham was touching get sister's vagina regularly from the age of 7 to the age of 17? Because that is the plain English meaning of your comment.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 12:38 PM
1

The vagina looking happened at 17? I had read 7. Vagina looking is the topic of this thread right?
/r/MensRights13/11/14 12:33 PM
3

Can your clarify please? I read that the vagina looking was a single event that happened at 7. What other vagina-related activity went on until 17?
/r/MensRights13/11/14 12:32 PM
1

If we're only counting the ones they're actually arrested for? Okay. So, why not advocate for setting all the men free, too, who are held for victimless crimes? Did you read the article?
/r/MensRights08/11/14 05:00 PM
6

I think he was more talking about her argument rather than her as a person.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 04:46 PM
2

May I suggest that you do the following experiment. Wait 2 weeks. Use a new account and come HERE and post something strident criticizing MRA. See what happens.
/r/MensRights29/10/14 08:32 PM
2

It is really a simple rule. People should control when their bodies are touched with obvious sexual intent. Women should act the way these men do, chuckle, get her to stop, but find it funny she goes through such great lengths to touch their butts. You don't get to tell other people how they "should" feel about other people groping them.
/r/MensRights26/10/14 09:43 AM
3

She is a self-declared, proud misandrist. This is like saying that a self-declared misogynist represents the Mens Rights movement.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 06:36 PM
1

Please do not. It makes no sense.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 04:27 AM
4

That is ridiculous. According to this way of thinking, nobody could ever replace their childhood ideas (e.g. santa clause, parent's religion) with new ideas. I have been reasoned out of many things that I once accepted uncritically. Creationism and capitalism are two examples.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 04:26 AM
1

What you'd are saying is just blatantly and obviously false, so I am going to just move on to another conversation. Everyone who comes along later should be able to see that one can misunderstand another human being without thinking that they cannot be a decent human being. What you have said makes no sense but you are too proud to admit it. I cannot really understand that point of view but I still respect you as a human being.
/r/MensRights24/08/14 03:12 PM
1

Yep. If she can't see a situation from the male point of view, it's less that she doesn't see men as decent human beings but doesn't see them as human beings. So when a parent fails to see an argument from the point of view of their teen, they "don't see the teen as a human being" which is basically the same as saying that they "don't see the teen as a decent human being." Similarly when an employer fails to be sufficiently sympathetic to the situation of an employee, or a girlfriend to a boyfri…
/r/MensRights24/08/14 04:49 AM
1

Laci Green is sympathetic to female cheaters and that is evidence that that she believe that "men are not able to be decent human beings?"
/r/MensRights24/08/14 03:32 AM
-4

... (well, it might. I'd need to see stats) That's why there would be a shitstorm. Because there are a lot of men who DO think it is true or suspect it might be true. Whereas women who think that women are generally smarter than men are a tiny and impotent minority. They have not even managed to elect a single woman president yet.
/r/MensRights06/08/14 10:38 PM
5

What evidence do you have that there is more than one person behind this (ancient, tiny) blog?
/r/MensRights29/07/14 12:18 PM
1

What other purpose could feminists have had in inventing this bullshit, if not to smear men? You believe that sex trafficking does not exist? Women are never abducted or purchased for the sake of prostitution? Here are a few cases I found in 5 minutes of looking: http://www.law.umich.edu/CLINICAL/HUTRAFFICCASES/Pages/CaseDisp.aspx?caseID=773 http://www.law.umich.edu/CLINICAL/HUTRAFFICCASES/Pages/CaseDisp.aspx?caseID=752 http://www.law.umich.edu/CLINICAL/HUTRAFFICCASES/Pages/CaseDisp.aspx?caseID=…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 11:23 AM
3

Where were men as a group shamed and castigated? Can you supply an example?
/r/MensRights29/05/14 03:58 AM
3

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights29/05/14 03:00 AM
1

What percentage of feminists do you think would say that "men are only vile violent monsters?"
/r/MensRights24/04/14 08:36 AM
4

"Black Pride" also has much less positive connotations than "Civil Rights Movement" or "Equal Rights Movement".
/r/MensRights01/04/14 01:12 AM
1

Do you really think you've done enough research that I should take your opinion over that of the epidemiologists all over the world have actually spent tens of millions of dollars and thousands of person hours studying this?
/r/MensRights20/03/14 03:53 PM
1

Do you think that nobody has tried that? Get a grip.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 02:06 PM
1

Interesting that I was silently downvoted for linking to the latest science. Speaks volumes about the voter's relative commitment to accuracy versus ideology.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 02:04 PM
0

You can trust your gut or you can wait for the science to give the facts. A new study from just this year disagrees with your gut. http://mobile.aidsmap.com/Women-with-circumcised-partners-less-likely-to-have-HIV-no-less-likely-to-use-condoms/page/2835950 " Circumcision appears to make no difference to the rate of condom use in what the researchers called ‘non-spousal’ sex. In extramarital sex, women reported using condoms 37.5% of the time with circumcised partners and 38.6% of the time with un…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 04:15 AM
1

So the narrative in the Nature document is the same as in the PDF you sent (and is probably in part based upon it) but it is quite different than what you presented. Studies have found that at a biological level, circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission from women to men. But the question is whether in the real, messy world these results will reduce propagation throughout a society. According to your link: "Therefore, although the efficacy of using male circumcision in reducing HIV infe…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:59 PM
2

That it protects against HIV. The three highly publicized African studies suggesting that it does, were all highly flawed because of early cancellation. There are also other studies suggesting the opposite effect. It is far from an established fact, and to state it as such is misinformation. That circumcision helps reduce HIV is the current best understanding of the data by the global epidiomiology community. Some disagree, as is right and proper in new science. Others are comfortable moving for…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 07:35 PM
1

Your narrative is completely different from the one in one of the world's leading science journals: http://www.nature.com/news/aids-prevention-africa-s-circumcision-challenge-1.14156 According to that article, the consensus among epidemiologists is that the evidence is overwhelming.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:53 PM
-1

All of the questions you ask are discussed here: http://www.nature.com/news/aids-prevention-africa-s-circumcision-challenge-1.14156
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:50 PM
3

What is the false information?
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:42 PM
4

If FGM had a medical benefit and relatively minor side effects then the coverage of it would be different.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:41 PM
1

... Physics was derived by the scientific method. Non sequitur. Engineers do not "derive physics". If they did, they would be physicists. ... A large part of engineering is physics with lab experiments and applied physics in the field. "Applied physics" is not "deriving physics". If they were the same thing then we would not have two different phrases for them and two different job titles: "scientist" and "engineers". I imagine that unless you work in psychology or at least the sciences then you…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 03:29 PM
2

Do you understand that there are area of science with techniques that are vastly different than the ones you are describing? Epidemiology, paleontology and psychology to name just three. It would be the height of arrogance for a structural engineer to claim that her experience in college labs and on building sites equips her to evaluate an epidemiological analysis or psychology experiment.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 02:27 PM
1

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis You seem intent on obscuring the difference between science's output and its methods. An engineer can understand how to combine chemicals to make materials but that does not mean that he understands the protocols and analysis required to do a psychology or medical experiment. A latge scale human experiment (the gold standard of psychology) has nothing to do with the wind tunnels or stress testers that engineers might use. I agree with you that it is …
/r/MensRights16/03/14 02:10 PM
3

Ok, up to a point, but an engineer would have a good grasp of scientific rigour, Why would they? Have you ever noticed how lists of creationist scientists are often dominated by engineers? You could be a stellar engineer without knowing anything at all about the scientific method. Look at Steve Wozniak. Why would be have needed to understand the scientific method to build the Apple products? Further to, how 'science' is defined, or what you mean by 'real science' will determine whether psycholog…
/r/MensRights16/03/14 10:52 AM
1

This is gross but the youngest participant is 17 which is essentially an adult.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 02:33 PM
-1

No, I do not think that she meant that. I think she meant that the organizers need to spend more effort recruiting women and minorities. That they gave up too easily.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 04:36 PM
-1

I still don't understand what "super-hot chicks with hockey players" versus "average looking girls with tech super-geeks" has to do with MRA.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 06:19 PM
1

I don't know what's going on with these comments, it looks like I responded to the wrong post, or you edited it or something. Sorry: I responded to the wrong post, and within 3 minutes I had moved it to the other thread, but I guess you were already replying to my original one.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 06:16 PM
-1

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Leykis%20101 It makes me feel dirty to paste this but... NEVER, EVER date a single mother. Never do what you don't want to do. You make the money, you decide where you are going and what you are doing. Don't ask a women what she wants to do. Never tell a women how much money you make. Don't EVER date co-workers! Never answer the phone on the weekend. Never spend more than 40 bucks on a date. NEVER approach a woman in a club who has her girlfriends w…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 06:15 PM
3

I suppose it turns on the definition of the word "super-geeks". Do we mean people who are "super-geeky" (Big Bang Theory stereotype) or do we mean people who are super-powered (very successful) geeks: Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Lawrence Krauss, etc. I think of the XKCD guy as falling more into the latter category rather than the former. it_turns_out did clarify and he seemed to be talking about Larry Ellison, John McAfee, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin. Not Comicon geeks.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 04:31 PM
-1

You realize that comments like this (and cultural touchpoints like Leykis 101) are why people like Randall Munroe do not want to be involved with the MRA movement at all. I would never have heard of Leykis 101 if I had never come here and I probably would have had a slightly higher impression of the long-term prospects for the human race. Even now, I am struggling to find the relationship between your first comment and this new one. Randall Munroe is probably like Bill Gates and he's happy with …
/r/MensRights27/01/14 04:30 PM
-7

The use of the word "small" implies that he is talking about a small subset of some other population that is having a different experience that is much larger. So what is this other population? Are you (and he) saying that most super-geeks do not have amicable relationships between the sexes? Are you (and he) saying that most geeks do not have amicable relationships between the sexes? Are you (and he) saying that most Westerners do not have amicable relationships between the sexes? I am trying t…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 03:43 PM
-7

There is a small subculture of super geeks where relations between the sexes may actually be working out great. Do you actually think that there exists only "small subcultures" of men for whom relations between the sexes are amicable?
/r/MensRights27/01/14 02:46 PM
-5

This forum is not the place to bring your reasoned talk of misunderstandings. Pitchforks are in the air and torches are alit!
/r/MensRights13/01/14 07:35 AM
2

Actually, it asks whether his feelings toward the women he knows are because "the ones he knows act like this," You are inserting extra words. Here's what you claim it says: If a boy does not respect [the] women [he knows], could it be because the[y] act like this? I had to do major surgery to the sentence to make it say what you claim it says. The actual sentence is: If a boy does not respect women, could it be because the ones he knows act like this? There is NO qualifier on the first instance…
/r/MensRights13/01/14 07:34 AM
-2

If a boy does not respect women, could it be because the ones he knows act like this? The message explicitly states that a boy may not respect the women he knows based on the way they act. False. You've inserted extra words. "the women he knows." The original said that it was okay for a boy to extrapolate from the "women he knows" to "all women". Which it is not.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 07:32 AM
0

Didn't your mother or father teach you that two wrongs do not make a right?
/r/MensRights13/01/14 07:30 AM
2

What happened in the last year to bring you in contact with so many crazies?
/r/MensRights03/01/14 04:57 PM
-2

And you think this friend is representative of all feminists?
/r/MensRights31/12/13 05:52 PM
0

Of course they will all claim to be battered. I have no idea why you are so obsessed with what they claim. The question is what the court system would believe. Claims are mostly irrelevant.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 08:34 PM
0

Look: you said that a person said something she did not say. You said: "feminist lawyer says murder of sleeping husband is a moral entitlement." Whereas the truth is that she said: "murder of your sleeping ABUSIVE husband is a moral entitlement." You can dance around your false paraphrase all you want. I don't care anymore. Some people cannot admit their mistakes and that is not a character flaw I can correct through Reddit.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 06:30 PM
0

You said: If you agree most women that kill their husbands in their sleep are going to claim (by themselves or their defense attorney) to have been battered then what is the importance of the word battered in the lawyers claim? But the claim is irrelevant. The question is what they can substantiate with evidence. I'm not arguing against a strawman at all. I'm arguing against your implication that a "claim" is sufficient to get someone off a murder charge with no corroborating evidence.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 05:56 PM
1

Yes, I read all of that. It does not in any way contradict my comment. Nowhere does she say that the woman has no burden of proof that she was abused or that her "say so" is sufficient.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 05:06 PM
1

According to the rest of the thread, she got convicted. The expert witness was ineffective. She had no evidence that she was battered and the claim alone was not sufficient. If you are implying that this Canadian lawyer woman is saying that a woman's claim that she is battered is sufficient to exonerate her for murder then you are simultaneously claiming that she is not a 10/10 on the crazy scale but actually 11. You are claiming that this lawyer wants to change the basic rules of legal evidence…
/r/MensRights14/12/13 03:54 PM
1

What this woman argues is outrageous and illiberal. But why did the title leave out the word "battered?"
/r/MensRights14/12/13 04:07 AM
1

Outside of Christmas Rape songs, I don't exactly see society cheering rapists on. It does happen. http://www.canada.com/Student+leaders+educators+Canadian+campuses+wrestle+with+pervasive+rape+culture/8895023/story.html I see far more of feminist outrage over any comment any person of any sex makes that women can protect themselves. That seems not just insane, but dangerous, and driven by politics, not logic. I'll agree with that.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 09:20 PM
6

What you say is true, FROM THE VICTIM'S point of view. But the point of these marches and signs etc. is that from society's point of view, we have a responsibility to condemn rape in strong terms which will reduce its incidence. It should both be true that "women should be careful" and "society should try to make it so that they do not need to be so careful." (after all, risk level is very context specific)
/r/MensRights07/12/13 07:51 PM
46

Two of the posters make sense in this analogy. They are about the danger from bad people. Child abusers in this graphic versus rapists in the feminist worldview. The posters make the point that it is irrational to think that you can change the behaviour of evil people through posters and marches. Makes sense. But two of these posters do not make sense. They equate drivers accidentally hitting cars with child abusers who purposely hurt children or rapists who purposely harm women. This could be s…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 05:01 PM
0

a - he's not white, he's a jew Jews are white according to the US census. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people b - the man openly hates white people, regardless of whether the quote in question was accurate or not I'm waiting for a quote that proves he hates white people as opposed to the social construct "the white race". This is your big chance to prove you are not a full of shit, lying racist. Just supply the quote. c - you are a butthurt marxist kook, probably his homosexual lover or …
/r/MensRights27/11/13 05:05 AM
0

I do not accept your quest because A) a white guy denouncing the "social construct of the white race" is different than a white guy denouncing the black race B) it is irrelevant: you are a slandering sack of shit who cannot admit to making a mistake. Even if he were a member of the BlacKKK panther nazi party, you would still be a slandering sack of shit who will not admit to making a mistake.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 04:15 AM
1

I am passionate about the truth and offended by slander whether it comes from the right or left. It has been decades since I watched a Michael Moore reason for the same reason. Is the concept of intellectual integrity foreign to you? I do not even know what the JIDF is. I could Google it but it hardly seems relevant. I've also never heard of the guy until you slandered him. If I took your slander at face value, I would now hold him in contempt for something he did not say. The fact of the matter…
/r/MensRights27/11/13 02:34 AM
3

And if i were to express certain negative opinions about a "black race" that would be A-ok? I mean, its not like im talking about black people specifically. If you express negative opinions about the social construct of the black race, as he expresses negative opinions about the social construct of the white race, that would be fine. Good even. Why should Jamaicans and Somalis be grouped together as if they have something meaningful in common. And where do the Maori fit in? "We do not hate you o…
/r/MensRights27/11/13 01:52 AM
2

Oh yeah: it is totally irrelevant what people actually say when you're accusing them of being genocidal monsters. You're totally comfortable with posting a link to a satire site as if it were real, and thereby slandering a person?
/r/MensRights27/11/13 01:45 AM
1

It's only a POE if it was very hard to distinguish the real thing from satire. But if you put aside your prejudices then it would have been easy to distinguish. I was 90% sure it was a hoax immediately. How? The guy is white, so he would need to kill himself. Professors do not tell their students to kill themselves. Suicide of his students would HURT rather than HELP his cause. After all, the students are the people he has trained to go out in the world and support him. The students agreed with …
/r/MensRights26/11/13 05:19 PM
2

There is a Sept 2002 article from the Washington Times [1] where he claims he wants to, "keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed not 'deconstructed' but destroyed." He wants to destroy a social construct. "Whiteness" is a meaningless social construct. 100 years ago, nobody would have said that the Slavs and Irish and Spanish and French were the "same race." But now we do. Why? How is it helpful?…
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:26 AM
1

It is satire. Your prejudices were used against you. http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:53 AM
1

Why?
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:52 AM
6

Yes.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:52 AM
1

It is satire. http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:51 AM
1

There is no "real thing." The poster linked to a satire site and you are proposing to parody it. You have both been hoaxed. http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:51 AM
1

It's a hoax. http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:50 AM
0

You got it!
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:50 AM
1

That is because the site is satire and you fell for it. http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:49 AM
3

Satire: http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:46 AM
8

Hoax: http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:43 AM
4

You've been fooled by a satire. Please take a moment to introspect about your prejudices. What made you so confident that it was not a satire even when you were specifically asked? I immediately guessed it was satire and used Google to verify: http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves What other prejudices are preventing your rational appraisal of the world?
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:42 AM
-1

It's a hoax : http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:37 AM
6

It is satire. http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:36 AM
7

Because it is a hoax : http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:36 AM
29

You have been hoaxed : http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:35 AM
4

It is a hoax. http://politix.topix.com/homepage/9120-prof-receives-hate-mail-after-false-reports-that-he-told-white-students-to-kill-themselves
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:35 AM
1

First, there's no such thing as "Patriarchy". Define it and prove it exists. I need to prove that there exist systems in society (politics, the military and many Christian conservative households to name three) where all-male or mostly-male hierarchies exert gender-disproportionate power? I would have thought it was kind of obvious. If your claim is that patriarchy DOES NOT exist, then you'll have to explain this: http://carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders That's not the most relevant ex…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:24 PM
0

I certainly do not think that the war was "about" gender politics, if that's what you're saying. War has always depended on young men to be cannon fodder. How does society convince them to do it? By telling them that it is their duty as men. That manliness and courage under fire are equivalent. The men are ordered into war through huge hierarchical systems where mostly-men exercise authority over mostly-men: the draft the military hierarchy This is patriarchy. If you take away the authoritarian,…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 05:43 PM
1

The people who were handing out White Feathers during WWI were feminists. Some were (suffragists at least). Many suffragists were also anti-war. I don't see how you can claim that the right wing is masculine while the left wing is feminine. Is your claim that the left didn't even exist until women got the vote and that pacifism didn't exist prior to that? I think those claims would be too broad and complicated to even define much less defend. Left wing does not mean the same thing everywhere and…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 01:05 PM
0

The situation is more complex than you claim, but let me grant it for the sake of argument. The opposing powers were a very literal embodiment of patriarchy. Empires run by men selected hereditarily rather than democratically. Here is the definition of patriarchy: Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over wom…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 12:32 PM
-1

Generally, right wingers consider the very act of talking and trying to find a peaceful way out of the dead end to be one of your hateful "compromises." That is bullshit. Conversation should never be ruled out.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:00 AM
2

How many people were "liberated". For how long? Now: How many died? How many were wounded? How many went MIA?
/r/MensRights11/11/13 12:29 AM
-10

War, machismo and pre-feminist visions of masculinity and duty are very highly bound together, yes. Even today you see the right-wing pushing to go to war to "not look weak" rather than for any rational strategic goal. And they complain that negotiating with Iran "looks weak". This is deeply rooted in bullshit machismo posturing.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 11:22 PM
5

Do we have to choose between acknowledging their sacrifice and analyzing the reasons for the sacrifice? Why? Many wars are literally pointless, World War 1 being a canonical example. Your brain can accept that fact at the same time as your heart goes out to the soldiers who died.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 09:09 PM
1

I did say that it is "obviously a stupid law." My point is just that you can take gender-oriented umbrage when there is really no gender discrimination implied or intended.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 04:10 PM
1

Sure: I agree with you. My point is that the teachers are not saying: "How can we turn little boys into little girls." The teachers are saying: "How can we get kids of all genders to calm down." There are wild and hard-to-control girls too (fewer, but they exist) and they get the same smackdown that the boys get.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 04:43 PM
1

This is obviously a stupid law. But with respect to men's rights: women's hairstylists are also forced to learn how to cut men's hair. They are just not whining about it because men's hair is easier. If the situations were reversed, one could easily imagine an MRA headline: "Women oppose new legislation because they are too lazy to learn how to cut men's hair."
/r/MensRights03/11/13 03:07 PM
2

If you had to run a classroom of 30 kids, you might prize docility too. It is just easier. It has nothing to do with gender from a preferences point of view. If just so happens that "easier" students happen to be women (on average).
/r/MensRights29/10/13 01:35 AM
11

What is your evidence that feminists prefer the system in which boys fail?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:32 PM
34

But what does this have to do with feminists? Girls are more docile. Docility is prized in school children. None of this has anything to do with feminism.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:31 PM
0

I know that it is very important to you to turn this into an us versus them narrative, but are you aware that most self-described feminists would not see this article as a threat or a problem?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:29 PM
1

Yes. It compensates them for stalled careers not for time at work.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 04:52 PM
2

You can keep putting words in my mouth if it makes you feel good. It turns out that I actually have very strong opinions about how we should reorganize society to allow employees to sacrifice less. But that is not the topic of this conversation. The topic of this conversation is the stated rationale for alimony. You claim that it is for the pain of time spent with the kids rather than with co-workers. I completely debunked that nonsense and now you want to change the topic. I'll accept that as y…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 04:23 PM
0

Your willingness to discount the sacrifices made by the breadwinner is exactly the injustice that I am referring to. I get that you think it's trivial. Now you're just lying. What I actually said is: "I am a work-at-the-office dad. It is a tremendous sacrifice to not be with my kids." This sacrifice is not legally measurable, because many people prefer to be out of the house away from the kids and many other people prefer to be at home with the kids. Each couple should organize their lives to mi…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 03:48 PM
-1

You are working very hard to pretend you do not understand. All choices to spend time in one way or another are sacrifices. And during a marriage, there are sacrifices of time and pleasure. Maybe the employed person would rather be less employed. Maybe the home person would rather be employed, but feels that's not in the family's best interest. That's all irrelevant. Irrelevant. The sacrifice that matters is career momentum. Sacrificing a career has long-term financial impact. Alimony is not com…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 03:34 PM
5

Black women—regardless of their income or education levels—are more likely than their white counterparts to experience poor pregnancy outcomes. She doesn't give any sources for that claim, only a source that shows that Black women have a much higher (almost 3 times higher) maternal mortality rate on average. I googled and the first hit I got backed up her claim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594683/pdf/jnma00315-0098.pdf To me it seems that what she complains about is not strictly…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 02:08 PM
2

Did you read the article? She did not say that stressed out people need more/better healthcare. She said that the sources of stress should be reduced and one such source is inequality.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 02:00 PM
5

Alimony is in no way related to the bizarre idea that you just presented. I don't even know who believes that. Feminists believe that both men and women should have the right to choose between employment or full time parenting. In any case, the privilege of work versus staying home has nothing to do with alimony: Alimony exists because full time employment sets the employee on a trajectory towards more employment. This isn't privilege. It is an easily verifiable fact. If the couple decides that …
/r/MensRights18/10/13 01:40 PM
3

It is normal for your mom to have a strong emotional reaction to such an abnormal situation. It is unfortunate that she cannot see A) that she should apologize for violating your right to privacy B) that masturbation is normal. I would not say that your mom's being a feminist makes this in any way representative of feminism. I also do not have any reason to believe that the situation would have been less shocking if a male dad had walked in on his daughter masturbatinf.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 01:33 PM
-3

I had to downvote for the fat-shaming. "Shoving Doritos into their fatty maws." And a picture of a woman eating chips outside. What the fuck does that have to do with rude people on the subway.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 02:37 PM
1

Nobody has yet accused him of being lazy. You're erecting a strawman argument.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:51 PM
1

I make no assertion one way or the other about it in this thread. It's a vast topic about a huge number of related but different philosophies, some of which are unambiguously anti-equality and some of which are unambiguously pro-equality. I decline your offer to summarize it into a boolean statement.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 02:27 PM
1

I make no assertion one way or the other about it in this thread. It's a vast topic about a huge number of related but different philosophies, some of which are unambiguously anti-equality and some of which are unambiguously pro-equality. I decline your offer to summarize it into a boolean statement.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 02:26 PM
1

The only hole that keeps getting bigger, are your pitiful attempts to deny that these feminists are not advocating for equality, merely female privilege. I deny no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth. It's an additional dishonesty heaped on your previous ones.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:51 PM
1

The only hole that keeps getting bigger, are your pitiful attempts to deny that these feminists are not advocating for equality, merely female privilege. I deny no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth. It's an additional dishonesty heaped on your previous ones.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:51 PM
1

Thanks for that article. Here's what it says: "It’s clear that, without risk to the public, the Government can act to save money and wasted lives by closing some women’s prisons and investing instead in more effective community measures to reduce offending, including women’s centres, probation supervision, restorative justice, treatment for addictions, mental health and social care, skills training and safe housing for women and their families." And even those who want to close all prisons which…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 04:18 AM
1

Thanks for that article. Here's what it says: "It’s clear that, without risk to the public, the Government can act to save money and wasted lives by closing some women’s prisons and investing instead in more effective community measures to reduce offending, including women’s centres, probation supervision, restorative justice, treatment for addictions, mental health and social care, skills training and safe housing for women and their families." And even those who want to close all prisons which…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 04:17 AM
1

"Women are not discriminated against" was in a list of statements that corpseflower endorsed as representative of peer-reviewed science. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1k71b6/an_honest_feminist_tells_you_the_truth_feminism/cbm8u03
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:45 AM
1

Oh, and the alternate reality where mainstream feminist organizations are advocating for the abolition of female imprisonment. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1k71b6/an_honest_feminist_tells_you_the_truth_feminism/cbm7q26
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:44 AM
1

The truth, which you are attempting to deny, is that feminist organisation the Fawcett Society is advocating for women, in an area that they already enjoy considerable advantage, effectively making gender inequalities worse. I do not deny any such thing. I make no assertion about the Fawcett society one way or the other. I had never heard of them until today. I had no interest in them until you made an outlandish claim that they intended to shut down all women's prisons. I investigate. I found t…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:41 AM
1

The truth, which you are attempting to deny, is that feminist organisation the Fawcett Society is advocating for women, in an area that they already enjoy considerable advantage, effectively making gender inequalities worse. I do not deny any such thing. I make no assertion about the Fawcett society one way or the other. I had never heard of them until today. I had no interest in them until you made an outlandish claim that they intended to shut down all women's prisons. I investigate. I found t…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:41 AM
0

I'm really not interested in discussing the subtleties with someone who is so disinterested in truthfulness that they cannot admit when they were wrong or lying.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:32 AM
1

Yes, that's the short form for the article title. It's a headline chosen by the newspaper, not the task force and not the Fawcett Society. Did you read the report? You gave me the link. It says: "The Task force acknowledges that there are some women whose offending is so serious that there is no option but custody. The women’s prison estate should be reviewed to determine the best geographical spread and service. Following a successful reduction in the number of women in custody the government s…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:32 AM
0

The truth does not matter? The accuracy of your claims does not matter? So you are an ideologue first and a truth teller second?
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:07 AM
1

If you read the links, the information you ask for is there. I did read the links and there is nowhere that it said that all women's prisons should be closed and no women should go to prison You can easily prove me wrong with a quote.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 01:05 AM
0

I need you to first demonstrate to me how the first link has anything to do with the Fawcett society or with "shutting all women's prisons." Then I need you to demonstrate to me how the second link is from the Fawcett society and how it advocates "shutting all women's prisons". Please use text from the links. Because here's the text I see in both of those links: "It should be possible to reform women's justice so that, with improved national and local co-ordination, better accountability and rei…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 12:40 AM
0

You said that the Fawcett society wants to close all women's prisons. But the link does not say that. It says that the task force wants to close women's prisons. The word "all" is key. Here is the main takeaway of the actual report: "It should be possible to reform women’s justice so that, with improved national and local coordination, better accountability and reinvestment of resources, the government can achieve a measurable reduction both in offending by women and the women’s prison populatio…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 12:02 AM
0

You said that the Fawcett society wants to close all women's prisons. But the link does not say that. It says that they want to close women's prisons. The word "all" is key.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 11:57 PM
1

You can rationalize it however you want. I'm not going to get into a big sociological discussion. The research indicates that women are discriminated against, which runs counter to the "alternate universe" narrative that only men are ever discriminated against. That's what I set out to demonstrate and I did.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:25 PM
0

Please link to a published policy from them about shutting all women's prisons and letting all criminals go free.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 03:44 PM
2

What is egotistical about that AMA?
/r/MensRights13/08/13 11:36 AM
1

xzxzzx said that part of the alternate reality is that "discrimination against women is a thing of the past and now the only significant discrimination is against men" corpseflower claimed that peer-reviewed science says that "discrimination against women is a thing of the past and now the only significant discrimination is against men" So what does a recent peer-reviewed study say? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/scientists-your-gender-bias-is-showing/#.UgnVGGRgY_A S…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:43 AM
-2

Feminism advocates .... There is no one movement called "feminism." There is a spectrum of movements. ... for increased female advantages in situations where women already fare significantly better than men. ... Take the moves by the long established feminist group The Fawcett Society to close all women's prisons, when women already make up less than 10% of the prison population, and for women to receive lighter sentencing, when females already undergo shorter sentences for the same crimes as me…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 12:13 AM
-6

My feminist activism involves privileging women's voices over men's voices. If you read the rest of that sentence you'll see that she's talking about her own consumption of content. She does not imply that she would censor men's voices. "I only read..." "I try to get...", "I follow only..." As I said in my first post: I consider this epistemically dangerous myself. So I disagree with it. But it isn't the same as making men less than equal with women in anything except her own content consumption…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 04:40 PM
2

Many people wish to build a society where the strong take care of the weak in the hope that both will survive. The general theory on a boat would be that the grown-ups could tread water longer and have a better chance of rescue than someone who will drown as soon as they fall into the water. It's a little bit late to sort people by swimming ability once the boat is sinking, so age is a proxy.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 04:22 PM
2

Oh, I agree that she has a very skewed view of the world. I disagree with most of the text in her post. It frightens me that there are people who live in such an unfamiliar alternate reality (the same is true of men who live in an MRA alternate reality that I don't recognize, socialists who can see nothing good in capitalism, capitalists who can see nothing good in government programs, etc.). So yes: I agree that she lives in a warped and dangerous alternate reality. I just don't disagree with t…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 04:07 PM
-5

You literally split your quote from the feminist in the middle of a sentence. And you implied that what she wants beyond equality is domination. When a much more charitable and accurate reading is that what she wants beyond equality is a revolutionarily different political and economic system. She certainly says things about only reading feminist authors which is disturbing. But she says nothing to imply that her ideal world would have men be less than equal. Her point was that equality before t…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 03:37 PM
1

Link removed.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:21 PM
2

You are so blinded by hatred that you cannot read anything on that site with unbiased eyes. There is not a single word praising paternity fraud in the first article. It discusses some research and speculates how it might apply to human beings. It does not suggest or "support" anything at all. The second article disseminates information of value: "According to a study of relationships that engage in nonreciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girl…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 10:14 PM
-6

Yes. It's bullshit. As in a bullshit quote with no sourcing whatsoever from a first-time poster whose username indicates that his mission in life is disparaging feminism.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:57 PM
-14

I cannot believe you got 100 points without giving ANY SOURCE of this "quote". The blind, emotional hatred in this sub-reddit makes me sad. Stopping to think logically for even a moment seems to go against the grain.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:56 PM
2

Gender Identity is not determined by biochemistry. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:45 PM
-6

Sorry about the downvotes, but you brought them on yourself. /r/mensrights is not the place to point out complicated ideas like "two different twitter commenters might have different and unrelated complaints." Everyone on twitter is anti-male and if one tweet does not prove that then you can always pick another one about an unrelated complaint!
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:41 PM
-10

Promoting stereotypes of women is now a form of advocacy for men's rights? Ugh. And I suppose that black civil rights campaigners should collect and disseminate statistics about how awful whites are.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 05:50 PM
-1

The kind that is owed $400 by a man who does not have the money.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 03:15 PM
1

I would say that it is safe to use that word when responding to those specific women, yes. Other women? No.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 07:29 PM
10

Same as nigger. It's been re-appropriated but that doesn't mean that outsiders (especially hostile outsiders) can use it.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:57 AM
3

I'm curious which ones. European countries generally have generous vacation and some have less than 40 hour weeks (or did until recently).
/r/MensRights31/05/13 03:04 AM
3

Most anarchists deny that "anarcho-capitalism" is a form of anarchism. If there are owners and workers then hierarchy has been maintained.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 01:55 AM
2

By "Market anarchism" do you mean capitalist libertarianism?
/r/MensRights30/05/13 01:34 AM
11

Absolutely. Do you consider Germany an "uncompetitive country?" "France has enacted a 35-hour workweek by law, and similar results have been produced in other countries such as Germany through collective bargaining. A major reason for the low annual hours worked in Europe is a relatively high amount of paid annual leave.[30] Fixed employment comes with four to six weeks of holiday as standard." And: "Over the 20th century, work hours declined by almost half, mostly due to rising wages brought ab…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 05:47 AM
7

A very simple solution for a start is to shorten the work week and discourage large amounts of overtime. As a father and citizen, I strongly disagree that the person working 60 hour weeks in the capitalist sphere is "over-achieving." They are frequently failing as a father, a son or a neighbor.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 04:50 AM
1

I don't really think you "get it". The problem is not that she's trying to lose weight. If she went jogging or went on a diet nobody would mind. The problem is that she's trying to change her body shape (as opposed to lose weight) in a very painful, unhealthy, outdated way. This sets a really bad precedent and is a bad influence on others. Here is an article about it: http://www.tribune.com.ng/news2013/index.php/en/component/k2/item/10575-weight-loss-alert-use-corset-lose-weight From the article…
/r/MensRights06/05/13 03:53 PM
1

Okay, sorry about that.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 07:45 PM
1

Sex-negative feminism is a harmful ideology Nobody in the thread is sex-negative. Erica Ehm runs Yummy Mummy: "With a distinctly sexy, playful and cheeky tone, Yummy Mummy club.ca is all about empowering mothers who long to be spoken to as someone who is more than "just somebody's mom""
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:44 PM
1

Hard to believe you got downvoted (repeatedly!) for saying that... I'm not sure what the readers are thinking? That it is okay to stare at a stranger's tits or crotch for as long as you like?
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:13 AM
3

Where exactly did she say that "men don't face problems?"
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:10 PM
-11

If the titles were reversed, you would be arguing that the writer was emphasizing the man's name to intensify the mockery for being the kind of idiot who puts up this kind of sign. You're looking for an excuse to be offended and victimized and you'll always find it.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:16 AM
-7

Shaming does not say whether the person being shamed deserves or does not deserve it. Actually it does sort of imply that they have something that they are embarrassed about. E.g. You cannot fat-shame a person who is proud of their fat, but such people are few and far between. So the word shame does imply a partial agreement on the part of the shamed.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 03:49 AM
-11

Obviously the person who puts up a sign is hoping for positive attention for their cause. But ... But ... It did not work out that way for this woman. You are really grasping at straws trying to prove a bias here and it is embarrassing.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 03:46 AM
1

The incident report does not use the word rape.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:44 AM
-1

Paradox: I'm not sure that you know what that means. I think that you are saying that there is another group of people who you do not respect who are complaining about X and therefore it is legitimate for you to complain about X'. I do not think that that follows. If MRAs are trying to be different than feminists then you should not model your behavior on theirs.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:38 AM
5

You're assuming that he is going to associate his oppression with feminism, despite the fact that strict male gender stereotyping long predated feminism and it was feminism that first questioned it. You are, therefore, making a huge assumption. I know many men who are uncomfortable with stereotypical gender roles. Reddit is the only place that I hear them blame it on "feminism."
/r/MensRights23/02/13 10:27 AM
20

The level of confusion in this question is astonishing. There are a lot of people in favor of equality for men who are scared by what the men's rights movement seems to want to become: Equal and opposite in irrationality and hatefulness to radical feminism. The answer to the question in your title is simple. Not all feminists want the same thing. Some feminists are pro-sex. A tiny minority are anti-sex. Some are pro-pornography. Some are anti-pornography. Some are pro-prostitution. Most are anti…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:00 PM
-17

Male contentious objectors had to prove they were part of a pacifistic order; it was nearly impossible unless you were a monk. The fact that there was minor exclusions does not invalidate the rule (does the fact that some black people owned slaves in the antebellum south invalidate slavery?) If voting was explicitly tied to being eligible to go to war, then these monks should not have been allowed to vote. Do you have any evidence that this link between war and voting was even discussed in non-g…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:54 PM
-4

Well it boggles my mind that America still has a draft registry. It also boggles my mind that not registering is a crime. It boggles my mind that registry is gender-stratified. These are all ridiculous. But...my point stands. You can register with the plan of being as a conscientious objector and you would still get the vote.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:26 PM
1

Thank you.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:20 PM
9

That is not what the US constitution says. It uses the term "right to vote" in several places. Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24, 26 in particular.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:11 PM
-18

Voting rights were not "tied to military obligations". You are tying them post facto. Male conscientious objectors had the vote. And women who went to war did not. In any case, you are attacking a bedrock of democracy, that people should not be denied access to the vote on the basis of their genes. That IS oppression. Voting is not a right that you earn by trading it for military service. We do not live in Starship Troopers. Edit: fixed Conscientious.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:19 PM
7

Thank you. This essay is much more interesting and rational than the one above. I think it is also interesting that one essay says that women are constantly insulting men and driving them to hatred and the other essay says that women are more friendly and lovable to men than other men are. My experience tends towards the lovable end of the spectrum. I see the men and women around me happily pairing up in loving, long-term relationships. I do not see a mainstream, generalized "gender war" and I a…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 06:23 AM
2

Temporarily cached here: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://cherryblossomlife.com/2013/02/01/are-men-aware-of-their-condition/
/r/MensRights04/02/13 04:19 PM
5

The article she links to about the Y chromosome DIRECTLY contradicts everything she says about it. The article is about new studies that undermine the beliefs she quotes. The article also describes how chromosomes migrate from the Y chromosome to the rest of the genome so that it is nearly irrelevant. The last line of the article says that experiments with mice suggest that it is not needed at all.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 04:05 PM
9

Because I want to avoid as much as possible a future society inundated with damaged women needing psychiatric medication and government cheese. Please point me to the science that demonstrates that "hookup culture" leads to "psychiatric medication" and "government dependency." Slutty women only benefit the top 30% (at best) of guys. Guys lower on the totem pole now get less opportunities than they do under a society that encourages some form of monogamy. Evidence please. Also: it is very offensi…
/r/MensRights29/01/13 12:41 PM
0

"Dear Mrs. Rosin: In "Boys on the Side" you speak positively of hookup culture as a sign of female empowerment. However, the first generation of women to embrace hookup culture in their late teens and early 20's, are now in their late 20's and early thirties. Many of them are regretful, desirous of a long-term commitment, and feel there are few good options of available men left on the market. Are you concerned that enthusiastic promotion of hookup culture will lead to more regretful and lonely …
/r/MensRights29/01/13 12:36 PM
-10

So you are attacking not the message but the messenger. I think that makes you part of the problem and not part of the solution. Instead of denouncing the post containing the message (the meta messenger), you should request that the messenger live up to the standards of the message.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 01:23 PM
9

Well then why did you disagree with the poster, which simply stated what seems like common sense. People need to communicate to collectively solve problems.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 04:20 AM
0

Either way you need to deal with it and not just respond with tit for tat. If she's a manipulative liar, you need to know and act in that info.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 04:28 PM
33

Genders are irrelevant here. Same story works for two gay guys or two lesbians. Partner 1 demonstrably has some kind of weird sexual hangup, perhaps tied to some kind of history. Partner 2 is withholding an analogous sex act that Partner 1 enjoys. Not as "blackmail" but somehow tied to partner 1's lack of reciprocation. Which is another word for blackmail. It does not matter what the genders are: partner 2's first priority should be helping partner 1 discover the root of the hangup (after all, t…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 12:25 PM
1

Because she didn't say "If there were 9 women serving, I'd be okay with that". She said "I want 9 women serving". 9 women serving (eventually) would be evidence of fair treatment. I explained that already. So yes, she said that she would like to see the evidence (eventually) that the recruitment process is gender blind. She also added that she wants to hire more women because it looks better when there's more women. Given the recent history of discrimination, having all men on the bench would se…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:49 AM
-1

This assumes the coin is fair. Yes, I am talking about a hypothetical future state. Not a present state. What is more reasonable: Throughout all of history there has been a conspiracy to systematically oppress women? Or Women and Men are both prone to making certain choices that bias them towards certain ways of life? It is silly to posit these as alternatives, because it is mind-bogglingly obvious that BOTH ARE TRUE. Women were property in Christian countries for nearly 2000 years. Women were d…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 06:08 PM
0

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14s73w/justice_ginsburgs_dream_of_an_allfemale_supreme/c7fze0q
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:26 PM
3

If you flip a fair coin enough times, you will eventually get 9 heads in a row. In a truly gender blind society, selecting the top candidate is like flipping that coin. Therefore, you should expect 9 men or 9 women to be on the court sometimes. Even if the coin is biased, you'll still get 9 tails in a row eventually, unless you are deliberately preventing it. On the Supreme Court, the way you prevent it is by recruiting justices based (partially) on gender identity. I.e a form of affirmative act…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:21 PM
-1

Did you read the article? Carefully and with an open mind?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:14 PM
3

Discouraging the poor from having too many children is not eugenics. It is common sense. You should have as many children as you can take care of. For some poor people, that's 2, for some it is 1, for some 0. Seldom 3 or 4 or 5.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:09 PM
1

Why are these the two options? Try some logical thinking.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 01:20 AM
1

Am I understanding this correctly? I'm new to all of this. On the one hand there are a bunch of free-speech hating feminists. On the other hand there is a guy who calls rape exciting and downplays the severity of incest. First, am I understanding this correctly? Second, if so, should /r/mensrights claim this guy as someone it should adopt as a cause célèbre?
/r/MensRights05/12/12 07:44 PM
1

It's an idiom. Not an argument. Do you know that it is also not literally true that "What's good for the goose is good for the gander?"
/r/MensRights14/11/12 06:23 PM
6

Can someone summarize?
/r/MensRights14/11/12 12:58 PM
6

Feminists say the same thing.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:33 PM
4

It wasn't the media that ran with it first. It was the Internet. Then the media reported on the Internet, and it snowballed from there. It does not help that it was a lie: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/romney-binders-full-of-women_n_1974092.html I agree that the thing is ridiculously overblown, but it really started from places like Twitter and Reddit, not CNN and MSNBC. But why are you "worked up" over Romney being unfairly treated. How is this case worse than "You didn't build that"…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:22 AM
6

Yes, that's exactly how morality works. My mother always told me: "two wrongs make a right" and "if it is not against the law, it must be okay."
/r/MensRights11/10/12 03:56 PM
16

Or her income could cover the mortgage and yours could cover the vacation. That's fine too, right? What makes you think that every man on reddit wants a stay-at-home spouse? I have never noticed that preference.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 03:33 PM
6

Pure and unadulterated misogyny! That's the stuff! Thanks for bringing bigotry and gender-hatred to /r/mensrights . Makes it a more perfect mirror of the radical feminist forums!
/r/MensRights27/09/12 01:33 AM
2

How is that "the most important part"?
/r/MensRights27/09/12 01:31 AM
15

What does this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights27/09/12 01:29 AM
23

They never seem crazy in the beginning. =(
/r/MensRights12/09/12 11:14 AM
1

A cut and paste error made it unreadable. Fixed now.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 04:34 PM
0

If you would "trade your wife" then that is a bad sign for your marriage. If you would trade your wife but not for an American woman then you are a bigot, in addition to having issues in your marriage.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 04:27 PM
3

The thing I find offensive is the idea that a rapists behavior reflects on me, because we share a gender.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 03:16 PM
1

What is it about misogynists that leads them to prefer the word "female" to "women."
/r/MensRights02/09/12 06:05 AM
2

To quote myself: Statistics matter. Every moment I could be hit by a meteor, but I do not worry about it. On the other hand, when I cross at a red light, some idiot could run the light and hit me. I do worry about that. Frequency matters.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:36 PM
5

Statistics matter. Every moment I could be hit by a meteor, but I do not worry about it. On the other hand, when I cross at a red light, some idiot could run the light and hit me. I do worry about that. Frequency matters.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:36 PM
11

The quote does not say that every man is a threat. It says that very UNKNOWN STRANGER is a POTENTIAL threat. Which is really just common sense.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:51 AM
5

Here's the big difference: homosexuals are less than 10% of the male population. If the rate of incidence of rapists is the same, then a girl has 9 times more risk than boys. That's before even accounting for muscular difference.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:48 AM
7

Not. Rihanna. But yeah, that lyric always annoyed me too.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:34 AM
0

How old are you? Would a middle aged man who dated you be a "pedophile?" Your tone and context does not suggest that you are an 11 year old girl. I am the father of a 7 year old girl and I cannot fathom how anyone seeing us on the street would think anything other than "isn't it cute that that girl is out with her father." I cannot imagine a place on this planet where men walking with their daughters are assumed to be pedophiles. I have not heard even anecdotal evidence much less research.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 08:28 AM
5

I agree 100% that there is a double standard at work but what do you mean that "a father can't walk down the street with his daughter without being accused of being a pedophile." I have never heard that nor observed it.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 12:19 AM
3

I wasn't talking about this video. I was talking about "his videos" in general. You broadened the conversation beyond this video and I continued in that thread.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 04:32 PM
2

The first reason that I think it was sarcasm was because of the exaggerated tones that he uses. "buttfucked by tigers", "cisgendered scum" The second reason is because he himself sounds critical of the dogfuckery (in another comment): http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/wgawl/bestiality_drama_is_happening_in_rsex_want_to/c5dbaja?context=3 poptart2nd seems to me to be the only person there who is seriously (not ironically) advocating in favor of bestiality. Personally: I am a fairly s…
/r/MensRights13/07/12 04:31 PM
7

The person writing to you was being sarcastic. They were caricaturing an extremist political correctness nut.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 02:58 PM
2

Nobody said it was "torture." They said it was hurtful. It's ridiculous to imply that one only does wrong if the discomfort experienced amounts to "torture."
/r/MensRights13/07/12 02:43 PM
1

Link please.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 02:40 PM
4

After his videos I feel a bit dirty. I hated them long before the rape blow-up. He specializes in intellectually vacuous rants. I corresponded with him exactly once, to criticize an ethical stance he took in one of his videos. He responded that he was "just trolling" which lowered my opinion of him even further.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 02:38 PM
1

We agree that it is unethical and yet I have a "bad white knight problem?" As far as I'm concerned, I'm not even sure what we disagree upon. I never said it was rape. A couple of posts ago you were comparing the situation to being given a brick of gold with no opportunity to give it back: I.e. you were saying that the blow job recipient was morally blameless. Now you admit that his action is immoral. But, instead of further admitting that I've clarified your thinking, you accuse me of being "a w…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 03:58 PM
0

Immoral doesn't equal rape, friend. The word rape is very vaguely defined. Honestly, I'd say that the semantic question of what immoral acts should go under that name and which ones should go under another...is not as important as deciding what actually constitutes right and wrong behaviours in this circumstance. I wouldn't have thought that there would be any confusion or disagreement in this case, but there seems to be. She's also still the one that was irresponsibly drunk. You really don't th…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:22 AM
0

My point is that nobody at the party would agree that holding a woman's head away from your dick is "sexual assault" and neither would the cop who gets called.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 06:08 AM
0

He started to correct her and changed his mind when he realized that he would profit from her confusion. Are you saying that inaction is NEVER an immoral choice? If you agree that inaction can be immoral, then stopping oneself mid-sentence to avoid telling someone a fact surely counts.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 03:25 PM
0

Many people get legal and moral arguments confused. I am not claiming that he did anything illegal. He engaged in a knowledgable deceit to get something he wanted and that's immoral. There is no common sense way to enforce a law like that. That's why it should probably not be illegal. Although this is not that different from financial fraud and the courts find ways of dealing with that. If the parties do not agree about who said what then that raises reasonable doubt. But anyhow, I am not arguin…
/r/MensRights01/07/12 03:01 PM
-1

Thank you for actually addressing the relevant question finally. Your punch analogy is useless because: a) punching someone is always illegal, so "it was the wrong guy" is no defence. AT BEST you are guilty of the crime of attempted assault of the "other guy", b) one generally does not have two opportunities to correct someone mid-punch, c) whether the actor is a man or a woman, if they have sex with someone by mistake then they do not have "mens rea". Morally, ethically and legally they are bla…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 11:24 PM
-1

The way I see the situation playing out had he been more physical about stopping this: she realizes what's happened, screams, then the other people in the house come in and see an upset girl and a guy with his penis out. You are right that this could certainly happen. It could also happen that she notices when she grabs his dick that it's not the right size. It could also happen that after she sucks his dick she goes to cuddle him and realizes he's the wrong guy. The right time to deal with this…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 11:13 PM
3

I get it. You're one of those people who can never admit they are wrong. Women, if under the influence, CANNOT CONSENT BY LAW. PEOPLE, if under the influence, CANNOT CONSENT BY LAW. It is not specific to women. What you said was: There's NO 'grey area'...the man, even if drunk himself, is guilty of rape. Now what you're saying is that corrupt judges will mis-apply the law to put the man, rather than the woman in jail. And I guess you would say that that has nothing to do with a "grey area". It's…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 11:09 PM
0

Care to cite a case where someone was actually convicted on facts similar to the one in the comic? I didn't claim that it was illegal. I doubt it is, in most jurisdictions, especially with the amount of confounding factors in this particular case. It's pretty clearly unethical, thought.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 11:05 PM
3

Find me a legal definition of rape that includes envelopment of the penis as rape. From wikipedia: The word "rape" is not used in the Canadian Criminal Code. Instead the law criminalizes "sexual assault". Sexual assault is defined as sexual contact with another person without that other person's consent. Consent is defined in section 273.1(1) as "the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question". You will find a new FBI definition for statistical purposes, …
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:49 PM
0

I'm not making an argument but whether the case is rape. I'm just pointing out that you neglected to summarize the entire "grey area" to be argued. You demonstrated that you're actually disinterested in thinking through the moral issues and wish only to jump to the defence of the man. your accusation is that he didn't fight her off enough Actually, the comic says very clearly that he realized that she didn't hear and understand him, so he started to state it again. Then he stopped when he realiz…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:14 PM
1

Many outdated laws define rape as "penetration," which creates this double standard. It's just now getting to the point where the laws are being reworded to correct this disgusting situation (that "only men can be rapists"). Hopefully sooner than later. From what I read, the FBI made the change last year... Now all we need is the rest of the country to fix their local laws. If rape is defined (in a certain jurisdiction) as "penetration" then neither party could be considered a rapist (legally) i…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:08 PM
2

Nothing you've quoted supports the point that you are making. If the woman is the one initiating and perpetuating the sex, then she would be the one who "induces the complainant". There is nothing in there that says "only men can be rapists". Gender is not mentioned at all.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:06 PM
-5

If he was defending HIMSELF against a potential assault, then the case would be thrown out: most likely before the charges are laid. Furthermore, wikipedia says: Modern American statutes define assault as: an attempt to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another; or, negligently causing bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. Some states also define assault as an attempt to menace (or actual menacing) by placing another person in fear of imminent serious…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:03 PM
-4

The relevant question is whether this is rape by deception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception I think it's an interesting moral and legal question. I'm not advocating one side or the other. But my point about you is that you left this fact entirely out of your synopsis. SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS BLOWING A DIFFERENT PERSON. HE GAVE UP ON HIS ATTEMPTS TO INFORM HER OF HER MISTAKE HE WAS WHEN HE REALIZED THAT SILENCE WOULD SCORE HIM A BLOWJOB.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 08:46 PM
1

What law? And what court has ever upheld that law as applied in this way? He made an assertion and I'd like to see some evidence. The assertion does not even make sense. Imagine the scenario: Dude Holds her away from her dick. "LISTEN TO ME. I AM NOT BRAD!!!! I AM NOT YOUR BOYFRIEND!" What's her next move? According to Gebdoe: "I'm going to call the cops! You should not have prevented me from giving you a blowjob due to a case of mistaken identity! If I want to give you a blowjob despite you bei…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 08:41 PM
-13

Give me a fucking break. If you truly believe that then your view of the world is so warped as to be unsalvageable. Holding someone at a safe distance away from you is not "physical assault."
/r/MensRights30/06/12 08:25 PM
2

You're claiming that even when the woman initiates the sex and the man takes NO ACTION (this is a BJ) that the man is the raper just by virtue of his gender. I'd like to see a citation to this effect. You're claiming that the rape law has different genders encoded right into it. It doesn't matter who is actually doing the sexual act. I'd appreciate proof of that.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 08:23 PM
1

Can you provide a reference? We're talking about a blow job: he did not act. He simply allowed an action to happen. (for the purposes of this sub-thread let's ignore the important detail of sex by deception)
/r/MensRights30/06/12 08:21 PM
2

Interesting that your summary left out the most salient detail of the situation. It's almost as if you aren't interested in an unbiased appraisal of it.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 08:17 PM
1

Fucked how?
/r/MensRights14/06/12 03:26 PM
2

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights11/06/12 04:38 AM
0

It's just a mechanism for estimation. Are you really so dogmatic that if you heard of a town with 100% men in it you wouldn't think "that's odd...that fact probably has some military significance." On the other hand, are you really willing to say that there is a decent chance that a significant portion of those 40 women and children were combatants? Is there any room for common sense and realistic demographic facts in your mindset?
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:42 PM
1

I can barely parse that sentence much less understand what you are trying to say. I'll try to guess, and respond: If an attack on a 'village' had 100% adult male deaths then that would be a very odd 'village' and is actually probably a military base. The loss of those lives is tragic, but the death of combatants is morally different than the death of non-combatants. It is also different as a matter of international law. That alone is sufficient to make it something a journalist should report.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:58 PM
5

How would you count "civilians" in a civil war. All rebel combatants are CIVILians in a CIVIL war. And it is virtually impossible to identify combatants and non-combatants except by using the rule of thumb that very few women and children are combatants, so we can set a lower bound on the probable number of combatants.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 03:13 PM
2

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Those cities were large, well-known civilian centers. Not small middle eastern villages.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 03:10 PM
23

The reason to highlight women and children is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the attack was not on a para-military base but rather on an ordinary village.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 09:27 AM
1

The context of this thread (up to the top) is the question of whether the scare quotes make sense or are insulting.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 08:47 PM
1

The point is that the word "wrong" is only from one point of view. From another point of view the biological father is the "right" father. THEREFORE, scare quotes make perfect sense.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 06:52 PM
1

The point is that the "father" is not "wrong". It is the IDENTIFICATION of the father that is wrong. The biological father is the father. Therefore the problem is not that babies sometimes have "wrong fathers". The problem is that sometimes the wrong person is identified as the father. The biological father is the "right father" from biology's point of view.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:57 PM
0

Wrong is in scare quotes because biology has no notion of a "wrong" father. The biological father is the father, from biology's point of view. It is society that decides that the husband is the "right" father.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:55 PM
-2

So in your mind, having a concern for racism, sexism, homophobia etc. in a mission statement is equivalent to being drafted for war? Blacks were called upon to accept abuse and not respond with violence. MLK adopted that higher standard and demonstrated the high moral standards of blacks. This made it impossible to claim that they should not have rights on the basis of their immorality. The same could and should happen for men's rights.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:38 PM
2

Do we have evidence that anyone does? So far we have the editorialist bitching about their stance and reddit picking up the pitch forks. Did anyone with authority say that the women's center has veto power?
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:35 PM
2

The women's centre can obviously have an opinion on what it would take for them to SUPPORT a men's centre. Nobody said that they do, or should, have a veto. I also have an OPINION for the proper mandate of a campus Islamic organization, but that does not mean that I have a VETO. If I had a veto over everything that I have an opinion over, I'd be pretty damn powerful.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 04:03 PM
-7

The obvious thing to do is to accept the "higher standard" rather than whine about it. What would Martin Luther King do? The MRA movement is stuck in first gear precisely because it has such a low standard of rhetoric and ethics-building.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 03:25 PM
-1

I do not think that either a men's centre or a women's center should just be a "we are so oppressed" bitch fest. That sounds extremely unlikely to result in a healthy and productive contribution to campus life. There is a subset of female feminists who have been trying to move beyond the bitch-fest for years. Perhaps they are trying to do MRA a favor by helping it leap-frog it's immature phase? Consider what wikipedia has to say about third wave feminism: Third-wave feminism is a term identified…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:19 AM
-1

Why should these men have to challenge their masculinity? You are eliding key words and swapping in others and therefore changing the meaning of the quote. The quote does not say that men must challenge "their" masculinity. What a men's centre must challenge is the idea that only football loving, beer drinking, hammer wielding, money making, woman-leading specimens are "real men". i also see "classism" as a synonym for "men are oppressors". That is fairly obviously a misreading. Racism is discri…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:08 AM
-2

I probably updated my comment while you were writing yours. Can you please explain how it is an "accurate paraphrase?" The women's center said that the men's center should fight every kind of discrimination. So should women's centers. What would be the problem with having this in the mission statement for the men's centre?
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:57 AM
-8

You realize that that is the paraphrase of the editorialist, not the words of the women, right? It is the editorialist who equates "challenging popular conceptions about masculinity, confronting homophobia, sexism, racism, classism" with "admitting gender crimes." I'll bet the women's center also sees it as their mission to "challenge popular conceptions about femininity, confront homophobia, sexism, racism, classism" That's sort of what modern feminism claims to be about. Note that they said th…
/r/MensRights26/05/12 02:28 AM
1

The whole debate is stupid because her punishment should not mirror his. Her punishment is what fits her crime. If you steal a car then your punishment is not "having your car stolen." Your punishment is what the justice system thinks will dissuade other people from the same crime, and will give you time to be rehabilitated.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 02:45 PM
5

I certainly do not want to re-litigate this stuff. My point was just that it was not a request to go grab a coffee and a Danish at starbucks.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:07 PM
4

The answer is no, he asked her to go to his hotel room with him for coffee at 4AM. Not "out for coffee", sometime. That changes the subtext significantly. You may still think that Watson over-reacted (many reasonable people did), but you can only even evaluate her reaction if you start from the accurate facts of the case.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:30 PM
5

I just remember that woman being utterly pissed because a guy asked her out for coffee. Did he ask her "out" for coffee? Let's get the facts of the case correct, please.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 02:19 PM
7

So you're disagreeing with Maschalismos that "She can press charges against you"? Or you still think that he's right, but you have no evidence?
/r/MensRights16/05/12 07:29 AM
4

You're trying to be reasonable, and yet this assertion is just not fact: And it isnt made any easier by the fact that unwanted attention is now a form of sexual harassment. So if you get it wrong, and shes not into you - guess what? She can press charges against you. You have not responded to my request for an example.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 06:11 AM
4

The negative consequences for a co-worker complaint are dismissal (infrequently, but sometimes), not criminal charges.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:54 AM
8

I have nothing but pity for you. I am a monogamous, minimally attractive man and have had hundreds of positive, platonic relationships with women over the years. All women hate the men that they aren't attracted to and wouldn't financially support them. Naked, irrational bigotry. Misogyny. And entirely disconnected from my 4 decades of experience on this planet. You are the kind of bigot that gives MRA it's bad name.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:17 AM
18

And it isnt made any easier by the fact that unwanted attention is now a form of sexual harassment. So if you get it wrong, and shes not into you - guess what? She can press charges against you. No...just no... Please cite a single case where criminal charges were pressed against a man politely expressing romantic interest in a woman.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 02:08 AM
2

Why would it matter if it were downvoted to the point that it is hidden? It serves it's role regardless.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 03:21 PM
1

Is there any point up voting bot comments? What does the bot do with the karma? Why should the bot comment be more visible than human comments?
/r/MensRights03/05/12 09:28 AM
1

Somewhere in the middle. I believe that there are probably serious men's rights issues and I came here to learn about them. Misogyny and anti-feminism make me want to leave before I have accomplished my educational goal.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 03:01 PM
0

The problem the FAQ addresses isn't that men are seen as too violent, but that women are seen as innocent and fragile and in need of protection. The correct way to undermine this perception is not to make a catalog of examples of women acting badly. It's irrational to think that putting these stories in front of people who have already voluntarily chosen to come to a men's right group is going to "teach" anybody anything. Statistics teach. Hateful anecdotes just encourage hatred. This is what le…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 07:37 PM
-3

I have read that article and it is full of shit. The way for black people to fight against the stereotype that they are violent is not to make a list of anecdotes of evil white people. That's just crazy. It's crazy because ANECDOTES ARE NOT PROOF OF STATISTICAL TRENDS and that goes double when the anecdotes are pulled from papers all over the world. If I worked hard enough, I could use this technique to demonize Rastafarians or Jains or anyone. Setting up a forum where women are demonized is a s…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 04:57 PM
-11

3 years... For such an abuse of trust and her profession. 3 years for such a premeditated, cold act of revenge. This is fucking awful. You're welcome to think that Poland's assault laws are too lax, but do you agree that that is not a men's right issue? The article even apologises for her saying "just days after he'd broken up with her". An explanation is not an excuse. This is basic ethics. "he killed his wife for her inheritance." the motive is not an excuse. Quite the opposite. So what? If yo…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 11:53 AM
-13

What Is the point of this post? To demonstrate that women can be evil just as men can? Is that not obvious to everyone sane? Surely to everyone who would subscribe?
/r/MensRights28/04/12 11:42 AM
2

Perhaps you are over-complicating it? Maybe everyone should be encouraged to do whatever they want without regard to gender. If a couple consists of a masculine woman and a feminine man then that would be perfectly fine with society if it is fine with the couple.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 02:43 AM
3

I definitely support classical gender roles. ... I can change my oil while my man does the dishes. That's not a "classical gender role."
/r/MensRights26/04/12 01:46 AM
6

Does the SPLC acknowledge rad fem hub as an "ally"?
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:34 AM
2

I have pretty solid evidence that my wife is educating my child much more than a daycare (or even Montessori pre-school) would. I value that. I also value the fact that I can work late or go on a business trip without making special arrangements. There's a reason that a nanny is more expensive than a daycare.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:57 AM
1

Why should there be a difference? There should be a difference because conversations flow more smoothly when everybody is talking about the same thing. Here's the assertion I was countering: Feminist woman who never had the choice sees other women staying at home raising children in a loving family, thinks it's somehow wrong for other women to have that choice. That assertion has net 23 upvotes. I think it is the top vote-getter here. I pointed out that this is a minority opinion among feminists…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:37 AM
0

I've addressed the "apex fallacy fallacy" here.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:25 AM
-2

I have never said anything like what you and the other replier are saying I said. We have a problem with patriarchy at the top of society. We have a problem with homeless men at the bottom. Feminists are concerned with both problems. I know many radical lesbian feminist who also hit the streets to feed homeless men and fight for homelessness elimination. The chapter of food not bombs that I worked with years ago was mostly feminist women helping men. The same is true at my Unitarian church. This…
/r/MensRights18/04/12 07:07 PM
0

We are talking about stay at home moms (like Ann Romney) and dads, not post-divorce single parenthood.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 04:08 PM
0

I am citing the words of feminists as evidence of what they believe. What do you prefer as evidence? Mind reading? If so: there is your problem.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:29 PM
0

Let me respond to your attempted character assassination with evidence. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/03/14/can-a-stay-at-home-mom-be_n_1080207.html This is reddit, right? Links count more than random opinions. Nothing I said is remotely self-flagellating. I'm new here, so I am about to learn whether this forum prefers links to relevant facts or personal attacks.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:23 PM
-1

People giving you a hard time are not feminists. They are probably Calvinist-capitalists. Here is what a feminist says: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/03/14/can-a-stay-at-home-mom-be_n_1080207.html
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:21 PM
0

That is precisely what the vast majority of feminists believe. Perhaps you are a feminist without knowing it.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:13 PM
1

Why do you get to define what feminism is? Can you find a single feminist who says that feminism is about "rules and equality of outcomes?"
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:11 PM
-2

The underlying theory that teaches that men are oppressors, and that "patriarchy" exists in a modern, western context, the use of terms like "mansplaining" and "pervasive male privilege" Presidency Leaders of most (sometimes all) major political parties in most countries Congress CEOs Richest people in the world No, no patriarchy. Everything is totally equal.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:09 PM
1

Hahaha. Oh. You're serious? Ouch.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:06 PM
2

Why would feminists have a problem with this? Are you judging all feminists by one or two outspoken radicals? You should ask in /r/feminism if anyone has a problem with what your mom did.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 03:02 PM
2

If a business partnership dissolves, there is a negotiation over the assets and future profits. I could not do my job and take care of the kids, so my wife is a contributor to my work success.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 02:56 PM
1

It is good that you used the word "woman" and not "women", because most feminists believe that both men and women should be able to choose whether to stay home with the kids.
/r/MensRights18/04/12 02:52 PM
1

So this 1975 comment is news because....
/r/MensRights18/04/12 02:48 PM
1

So you claim to be a Christian: http://mitsein.org/2010/03/07/irreconcilable-differences/#comment-1587 And yet nothing that comes out of your mouth sounds like anything that came out of Christ's mouth. You are the worst advocate for Christianity since those Westboro dudes.
/r/MensRights08/03/10 02:13 AM
0

Video makes me sick to my stomach. Any human being, male or female, that has their self-worth tied up in another human being like that, has a psychological problem.
/r/MensRights08/03/10 01:49 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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