TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SocratesLives Archive

View 32 posts and 389 comments by SocratesLives on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
71

Men's Rights NewsSocratesLives/r/MensRights08/05/14 04:42 PM
46

OutrageSocratesLives/r/MensRights19/04/14 03:00 PM
39

SocratesLives/r/MensRights27/04/14 02:53 PM
30

re: FeminismSocratesLives/r/MensRights12/05/14 06:19 AM
26

SocratesLives/r/MensRights05/05/14 04:10 PM
21

SocratesLives/r/MensRights24/10/13 07:17 PM
19

SocratesLives/r/MensRights28/03/14 10:10 PM
17

DiscussionSocratesLives/r/MensRights13/05/14 11:44 PM
17

DiscussionSocratesLives/r/MensRights09/05/14 02:29 PM
12

SocratesLives/r/MensRights10/05/14 02:32 PM
9

QuestionSocratesLives/r/MensRights08/05/14 02:35 PM
8

SocratesLives/r/MensRights03/04/14 06:53 PM
8

re: FeminismSocratesLives/r/MensRights12/05/14 01:09 AM
7

SocratesLives/r/MensRights02/05/14 12:16 AM
6

SocratesLives/r/MensRights16/02/14 10:07 PM
6

SocratesLives/r/MensRights15/04/14 05:36 AM
6

SocratesLives/r/MensRights14/01/14 10:21 PM
4

SocratesLives/r/MensRights27/05/14 02:07 AM
4

SocratesLives/r/MensRights19/04/14 05:05 PM
4

SocratesLives/r/MensRights12/04/14 04:39 PM
3

SocratesLives/r/MensRights09/04/14 08:01 PM
3

SocratesLives/r/MensRights27/05/14 12:58 AM
2

SocratesLives/r/MensRights19/04/14 06:36 PM
2

SocratesLives/r/MensRights19/04/14 05:06 PM
1

SocratesLives/r/MensRights09/04/14 07:53 PM
1

SocratesLives/r/MensRights19/04/14 01:35 PM
1

SocratesLives/r/MensRights10/01/14 08:53 PM
0

SocratesLives/r/MensRights07/05/14 01:56 PM
0

SocratesLives/r/MensRights18/04/14 03:44 PM
0

SocratesLives/r/MensRights02/05/14 02:29 PM
0

DiscussionSocratesLives/r/MensRights01/05/14 02:52 PM
0

SocratesLives/r/MensRights21/03/14 09:27 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

=)
/r/MensRights28/05/14 09:42 PM
1

Just to clarify: I am not the OP of this content. This is a copy/paste repost due to this sub's linkban to another specific sub.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 08:06 PM
1

Perhaps I was not clear. I will try to streamline the arguments for better flow: Medical necessity is a good reason for circumcision. Circumcision should be prohibited in all cases excepting only immediate medical necessity. Routine circumcisions are not medically necessary, thus should be prohibited. If you believe removing the foreskin is medically necessary to prevent potential problems that may never occur, then it is also justified to cut off all women's breasts because they might get cance…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/14 10:21 PM
1

Stoning and circumcision are both religious traditions which are also both wrong, though perhaps for different reasons. That is two similarities. That you find one less bad than the other is irrelevant. The better question is, if ypu would accept stoning is wrong, why don't you see circumcision as equally wrong, or wrong enough to prohibit?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/14 10:06 PM
2

After some consideration of the quoted passages, it seems that if this disturbed person had found the MRM then perhaps this tragedy could have been averted. Many of the comments from the manifesto suggest that he discovered the lies told by Traditionalism, but he lacked a community which could help put those ideas into a healthy perspective. Feeling alone in the world, feeling betrayed by one's culture, feeling no one else understands, these all add up to rage and isolation. Impotent rage scream…
/r/MensRights27/05/14 03:15 PM
1

I wish it was the case that we could simply ignore such nonsense and it would go away, but it is far wiser to be aware of what extremists believe, because they will convince others and these themes will spread into other conversations.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 04:15 AM
3

If one were to take the words "against mens rights", run them all together with no spaces and put r/ in front of it, that would make a link which is banned from this sub.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 04:09 AM
4

Perhaps this is a new AMR tactic; make socks to post nonsense in hopes that it will make MRAs look bad?
/r/MensRights27/05/14 04:07 AM
7

I am not the author of this OP. It is quoted from a subreddit populated by those who are Against Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 02:26 AM
2

Quoted reply: Oooh, a thread on plotting to stifle precious MRA free speech. This gets my stamp of approval.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 01:02 AM
3

Quoted reply: Perhaps someone knowledgeable can talk about past victories where Reddit was forced to change. I'm thinking about the banning of child porn subs. How did that come about? How did the admins respond? How is the new policy worded?
/r/MensRights27/05/14 01:01 AM
6

Quoted reply: Personally, I don't blame the admins for not wanting to ban these subs. It's not just the fall out and spill over into the main subs they would have to worry about, it's their own safety. The MRA subreddit is by far the biggest MRM hub online, and MRAs have proven time and time again that they are more than willing to doxx, threat, hurt, and even kill those who oppose them. A lot of these admins are public figures with a lot of information available that dangerous MRAs could use ag…
/r/MensRights27/05/14 01:00 AM
2

Argument by analogy, and by comparison to other similarly wrong acts, are valid forms in a debate. Two ideas may be similarly wrong for the same reason. If a behavior is of a certain type, and there is a principle that applies to all behaviors of that type, then showing how a behavior fits that type shows that the principle must also apply to that behavior. Principle: Parents do not have complete freedom to do anything to their children without restriction (nor should they)... Therefore: ...it i…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/14 05:09 PM
1

I maintain that stoning and circumcision are both inappropriate and should not be allowed merely to validate "religious freedom".
/r/PurplePillDebate22/05/14 04:50 PM
3

The only caveat to that concept is that behavior is a factor in sexual attraction as well as purely physical attributes. I'm not as attracted to women who behave and dress more like traditional men. This could be an artifact of cultural training, but I'm not so sure.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/14 03:16 PM
6

To be fair, it is entirely possible that many of your preferences are learned from, and reinforced by, the society around you. However, this gets tricky when individual attributes like sexual orientation come into play. I know I am sexually attracted to women and not men, but if that is purely a social construct then I should be able to choose to be aroused by men. I'm just not. Are we all naturally bi-sexual and most of us just repress it? And would that mean that gay people really aren't born …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/05/14 05:32 AM
1

That's a good point. The deception is what makes actual Trolling different than mere "verbal assault" or "insult".
/r/MensRights16/05/14 01:17 PM
0

Sadly, this has led to the current state of affairs where those like myself, who sometimes play Devil's Advocate, are now routinely accused of being "Concern Trolls", as if the purpose was not acheiving a better understanding of the truth, but merely getting a reaction and attention. Then follows vitrol and demonizing based on this mistaken assumption. So many people are far too willing to default to the cynical and give in to hate.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 02:35 PM
1

To be fair, "Trolling" can be anything designed to get a "negative reaction", though the specific response sought is typically a "Rustlin' of the Jimmies" (anger, upset or agitation).
/r/MensRights15/05/14 02:19 PM
4

I think there is ample evidence that men are more likely to use physical means of interpersonal aggression, and women are more liklely to use emotional and psychological means of interpersonal aggression. It can be debated whether this is biological or cultural, but neither men nor women are more likely to use aggression itself, just more likely to use one of these disparate means over the other. This means that aggression seen in "social media" likely overwhelmingly originates from women, thoug…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 02:17 PM
3

You forgot the "/s"
/r/MensRights15/05/14 02:11 PM
1

I think some descriptions of Rape are very black and white; use of force, threat of harm, screaming, crying victim, etc. It is those situations I am most comfortable calling Rape and which no one would ever dispute. It is exactly the grey areas where it seems improper to use such a strong label for a situation that could more accurately be described as an honest mistake or poor communication. It cheapens or lessens the seriousness of what Rape is supposed to be when some attempt to classify it s…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/14 03:19 AM
2

I think the "cognitive dissonance" revealed by the above example is that most people don't really think any of what was described is all that terrible, bad, wrong, immoral, etc. But Rape is terrible, bad, wrong, immoral, etc. So either the described experiences are not Rape because they were not terrible, bad, wrong, immoral, etc., or sometimes Rape is actually not terrible, bad, wrong, immoral, etc. I think most people resolve this by choosing not to label such experiences Rape, rather than dil…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/05/14 01:54 AM
1

Very good examples. Well done.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/14 11:43 PM
3

Hooray for actual communication =)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/14 11:41 PM
3

Can confirm. Is legit.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/14 11:39 PM
4

Quoting myself from another recent thread: I think part of the solution may be that we need degrees of Rape (as we do with Murder) and categories of technical "accidental sexual assault" that don't meet the full criteria for Rape, but that still recognize one person suffered as a result of another person's actions, even if those actions were not intentionally malicious. Perhaps the balance lies somewhere between the comparable concepts of "justifiable homicide" (not murder) and "involuntary mans…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/14 11:35 PM
1

You too.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 05:46 PM
1

And: Social identity theory, which means that when a person's beliefs are attacked it often feels (to that person) like they themselves are being personally attacked, even if that was not the intent of the message. Thus we get vitriolic flame-wars over concepts and ideology. I am not immune to this effect, but it helps to be aware of it, and to frequently remind one's self that it it is more important to know right than to be right.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 01:22 PM
1

I'll agree that morbid obesity (much like severe anorexia) should be discouraged from a health perspective, at least it should be acknowledged as fact that those things are unhealthy, but I might also put that in the same category with smoking. Sure it's unhealthy, possibly deadly, but I don't go around shaming smokers, nor do I think we should encourage smoker-shaming as a society. I feel like, it's your life, kill yourself any way you please.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 01:14 PM
1

FATHER!? The Sleeper has awakened!!
/r/MensRights13/05/14 02:57 PM
4

Except. I'm a feminist with sexual abuse PTSD/sex phobia. When I'm triggered, paralysis is...it's like being in a nightmare. My ex, drunk or not, had no problems taking advantage of that paralysis... I think the key factor is intent. For an incident to happen once, that could very well be an accident. For it to happen twice (or regularly!) because a person is exploiting a known vulnerability, that is malicious. I would never argue that such malicious exploition is not Rape. According to The Femi…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 11:35 PM
1

Well, we have two options to deal with this apparent dilemma. One, is to go the angry/accusatory route: "See? Again, Feminists leave men out!" (Aka "whut bout da menz".) And, the other is the avenue of proactive leadership: "We MRAs are very proud of Feminism's newfound courage to speak truth to it's own power, and welcome this move towards true gender equality that frees both men and women from arbitrary and harmful social standards. We fully support women encouraging other women to stop shamin…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 11:13 PM
1

What "-ists" could we say these insults represent? "Fat" might be Sizeist. "Virgin" (directed at men) is definitely Sexist and is certainly a sex-negative shaming. What else? Bring out your inner SJW!
/r/MensRights12/05/14 10:42 PM
3

I agree, she's a total babe... just not more of a babe than a woman who is larger and proportioned differently. This article doesn't mean to say that thin isn't also beautiful, it just shouldn't be put forth as the ideal, nor should those who are not thin be judged as inferior or defective. Viewed in purely neutral language, this is just a call for everyone to quit judging and shaming people for their size and shape (though the article seems mostly aimed at encouraging women to quit doing this t…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 10:36 PM
1

I don't think this is the most important issue in modern society, but it is far from being entirely a non-issue.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 10:29 PM
1

In this context, "real" is asserted to be synonymous with "good/right". You are very correct to point out that "bad/wrong" things are every bit as "real".
/r/MensRights12/05/14 10:28 PM
1

And other people bake themselves into a melanoma-ridden lobster in tanning beds... FFS moderation, people!
/r/MensRights12/05/14 10:25 PM
1

You don't own a catapult?
/r/MensRights12/05/14 10:21 PM
3

I honestly don't think this was rape, nor would it have been rape had the drunk one been the woman, instead of the man. It is the Feminists who assert otherwise, but draw the line at applying this standard fairly and consistently when the "accused" is a woman. Imagine the outrage if a man were the one telling this story: "Sure she was drunk, but she initiated the sex and did all the work... so it wasn't rape." I think that's only a problem if the "victim" is a woman, not a man.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 10:19 PM
2

I dont see /r/MensRights as specifically being limited to, or primarily about, rape prevention. It is a concern among MRAs, but not a sole focus. So, were I inclined to advocate for rape prevention in-person, I would likely join an existing group. However, the first question I would ask of the group would be, "what is your definition of rape?", as many bad definitions appear to exist. I do not wish to support a group pushing a bad definition that ends up hurting more than it helps. Before I ask …
/r/MensRights12/05/14 09:24 PM
3

Hmmm. You may have a point. I will give it all due consideration.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 08:31 PM
2

I think part of the solution may be that we need degrees of Rape (as we do with Murder) and categories of technical "accidental sexual assault" that don't meet the full criteria for Rape, but that still recognize one person suffered as a result of another person's actions, even if those actions were not intentionally malicious. Perhaps the balance lies somewhere between the comparable concepts of "justifiable homicide" (not murder) and "involuntary manslaughter" (criminal negligence) which both …
/r/MensRights12/05/14 07:39 PM
1

It does seem that men most often hear messages concerning what a "real man" should be, but less often hear messages concerning what a "real woman" should be. Perhaps women hear the opposite, thus that message appears more significant or omnipresent based on the sex/gender experience of the person hearing it.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 05:38 PM
2

Does it seem to you that this becomes a form of "retroactive consent removal" based not on actual capacity but on a person's subjective emotional response after the fact?
/r/MensRights12/05/14 05:35 PM
1

It seems you are already part of the solution =)
/r/MensRights12/05/14 05:33 PM
1

So, drunk person buys a product sold by sober person, thus drunk person has been wronged by default? Only in cases where the drunk person later feels wronged, or are they always wronged regardless of later personal satisfaction with their purchase? Should society endorse and codify mandatory criminal prosecutions by the state in all cases of "drunk buying", regardless of whether the buyer is satisfied with the purchase? If so, doesn't this create a scenario by which buyers can exploit sellers th…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 03:54 PM
0

If we flip the genders here, is it thus appropriate for Feminism to ignore or downplay Men's Rights issues as unimportant?
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:57 PM
3

Perhaps in leading by example, Feminists will adopt the MRA position of reaching across the aisle in mutual support. If not, it further serves to undermine Feminism as a mere hate-group.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:54 PM
1

Men and women have significant social influence upon one another. This article is basically encouraging everyone to shed useless and actively harmful fictional social standards. If an idea is good, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Be generous, as any reasonable person should. Let Feminists be the haters who oppose anything put forth by MRAs, while MRAs remain open to actively supporting good ideas no matter where they come from. I say to MRAs, hold the moral high ground and lead b…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:51 PM
2

I generally agree... however, there is a significant argument to be made for tact and diplomacy in some of these highly emotional issues. I don't often open negotiations by offering an insult, even if I disagree that the other person should find a given statement insulting.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:46 PM
1

The relative significance of a problem is irrelevant isnt it? Just because talking and texting in a theatre is less bad than shooting someone in the face, this doesn't mean we ought not discourage people from being inconsiderate assholes, right?
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:43 PM
3

Can you correlate the relevant analogous elements? I think I get it, but I don't want to respond based on a false impression of your meaning.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:34 PM
6

Good luck getting the schmucks around here to agree with you. Schmucks will be schmucks. It is a good thing that the vast majority of MRAs are not Schmucks. When a bunch of twats can't agree that someone who keeps passing out is not in any shape to give consent to anything of any importance, you might as well save yourself the headache and stop trying. This is a tragic oversimplification. No one here intent upon reaching a just and accurate definition of rape will argue that a stone cold sober p…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:30 PM
2

Can you come back to this and clarify (at your leisure). I don't understand. Maybe its the early hour and my need of more caffeination =)
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:14 PM
6

I get around this problem by accepting that what "appears to be", as verified through the senses, is probably "real", so I may as well act "as if" it is real. It sure seems to burn my hand and cause pain when I hold it in the fire, and as this is a consistent result, I will conclude that fire is "real" and can cause me pain. If I wish to avoid pain, I ought not stick my hand in fire.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:10 PM
2

The Seeker of Truth is the Strength of the Base of the Pillar.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:05 PM
2

It is a sad fact that raising such questions is damn near guaranteed to get one banned from participation in most Feminist subreddits (as has happened to me). Thus /r/MensRights has become the last bastion of questioning dogma, seeking reasonable understanding and working towards just outcomes, which is itself then mischaracterized and held up as reason to demonize all MRAs as "misogynist rape apologists". Basically, seeking a good definition of Rape itself makes one automatically Pro-Rape, acco…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 02:03 PM
1

I think, whatever one's "type", it is good to know why that type has appeal personally, and to recognize that one's individual preference does not magically translate to a moral standard which should be enforced in any way on a cultural level.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 01:50 PM
1

I think some extremists will warp and twist the message, no matter what, but my interpretation is that we should all stop reinforcing such wholly fictional cultural standards. So long as MRAs are clear about what they support specifically, I think such support only serves to prove (yet again) that the MRM is not merely anti-Feminist (and absolutely not anti-woman!), as some have claimed.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 01:43 PM
1

The most we can say now is that we are unsure exactly how much "attraction" is based on biology vs culture. However, where does that leave the idea that gay/lesbian and transgender persons are "born that way"? I tend to believe such things are biologically generated, but that means that straight (or "cishet") people are also born that way, and by extension that biology does play a very significant role in determining "attraction". Even if we can't quite quantify how much of a role it plays, it i…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 01:39 PM
1

This would make an interesting discussion: what are inherent vs acquired positive traits that give a person worth or value and are these traits unisex? (Not sure about the phrasing... need more coffee.)
/r/MensRights12/05/14 01:33 PM
3

See my edit at the bottom of the OP. More than anything, I believe the users of this sub want a fair standard applied applied equally with logical consistency. Even raising questions about exactly how to fairly apply a standard (whatever that standard may be) is dubbed "Rape Appologism" and quickly devolves into demonization and mischaracterization. A simple, honest discussion would be a good start, but that is so unnecessarily hard to come by these days. Edit: a word.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 01:31 PM
3

I have dubbed them "TUBs", short for Trolls Under a Bridge (a play on their self-chosen title of "the Coven Under a Bridge").
/r/MensRights12/05/14 01:25 PM
1

I think that may be the most relevant "common ground".
/r/MensRights12/05/14 03:10 AM
4

Feel free to explain. I have heard the theory that "fat" was attractive once because it was a sign of being well-fed and prosperous, but that since it is no longer difficult or expensive to eat well, the "self-discipline" or "willpower" needed to be "thin" has come into vogue as a physical standard representing the accomplishment that being "fat" once did. Or something, lol.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 03:09 AM
1

This entire statement endorses a false equivalency. It is entirely appropriate to stop acts of racism and homophobia (etc.); it is entirely inappropriate to silence discussion about those ideas. Discussion of an idea, no matter how abhorent to some, is not itself an abhorent act.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 02:04 PM
1

The MRM is not "anti-Feminist". The MRM is about helping men, which includes opposing the bad parts of Feminism that have harmed (and continue to harm) men. I am pleased for the opportunity to clarify your misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 01:57 PM
1

No one believes that mainstream Feminism advocates for the death of all men. Those who do are deranged extremists. Likewise, any person who calls for the death of women does not remotely represent the beliefs of the MRM. People on both aides get angry and say stupid things. The rest of us appropriately ignore them, assuming that the opposition will understand that these far fringe individuals do not speak for the rest of us.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 01:55 PM
1

I have heard it said that, for Feminists, "Logic Don't Real", or at the very least that "Feelz" supercede "Realz". This would seem to be one such example.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 05:31 AM
1

Feminists have both good ideas and bad ideas, so it is useful to sort them out. Hopefully, the questioning and discussion here are also relevant to others who may not be familiar with the subject, or who may be influenced to accept certain arguments due to lack of available detailed counter-arguments. I don't define myself by what Feminists do or do not think, but I do personally need to determine if certain arguments have merit.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 03:09 AM
1

Good idea. I reddit on mobile so I forget I even can take SS's.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 01:24 AM
2

Sometimes I fear that the ones willing to fight dirty will get the upper hand, and that Men's Rights will suffer for being too honorable. This may be a war that gets won by "any means necessary".
/r/MensRights11/05/14 12:07 AM
1

Feminists have created so many enemies through their own mistakes, but they will not admit to any mistakes, so it's very hard to be forgiving.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 12:04 AM
2

It was not my intent to break the rules. I could try and find a different source, if necessary (that just looked like a representative sample). However, I do think Jezebel should be unblocked for links. Sometimes you need to go straight to the source to make a good point.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 11:57 PM
0

Commentary from the TUBs: Hey MRAs, Fun fact: being "tolerant" of racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc. speech isn't a virtue. Claiming something along the lines of "well, that statement goes against my beliefs, but I'll let it stand" means you don't actually believe in your core beliefs that much.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 09:29 PM
3

I have many regrets about that thread, the foremost of which was loosing my objectivity in emotion and failing to better respond with the very points you gave. Hindsight! Feminists have become so adept at demonizing and derailing and misharacterizing that it is very difficult to stay on topic and offer convincing logical argument. I live, I learn.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 06:50 PM
2

Ask a different user and you will get a different assumption of my bias based on their own preconceptions. Ultimately, no matter what I say, it seems I am just another face upon which to project, a player in the drama in their head, cast as the villain or the hero depending on what they already believe. Few things are as dehumanizing as willful misharacterization by someone unwilling to reflect critically on their own beliefs.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 06:06 PM
2

Who can understand Feminism(tm)? Do "Feminists" even understand it? Which of the "31 Flavors" is in fashion today? Edit: Also, the claim is made that only Real Feminists(tm) are allowed to critique Feminism, which leads to the following circular logic: (1) Only Real Feminists(tm) are allowed to speak against "X Feminist Principle/Belief" in /r/Feminism (2) Anyone who disagrees with "X Feminist Principle/Belief" is Not A Real Feminist (NARF) (3) Therefore no one is ever allowed to speak against "…
/r/MensRights10/05/14 05:16 PM
1

Here we see mere critique of Feminism equated to being both inherently against all women and everything Feminism has ever done, and not itself being a form of advocacy for men. Patently false and absurd.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 05:14 PM
2

Implicit in this argument is the assumption is that Feminism has never done anything which resulted in harm to men, thus any critique of Feminism itself is defacto invalid.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 05:13 PM
2

For any who would claim misrepresentation of their argument, we see here that exact assertion: that failure to censor equates to endorsement.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 05:12 PM
1

Start a new thread! =)
/r/MensRights10/05/14 05:03 PM
1

Commentary from the TUBs: Can we please focus on the real reason he's being ridiculous instead of pretending that he explicitly stated disagreeing with feminism is an intrinsically valuable action? There is a perfectly valid reason why his quote is ridiculous, so we don't need to invent one. The quote clearly means that he wanted to create a space where disagreement with feminism isn't seen as manifestly ignorant. The real reason its silly is because people vocally disagree with feminism in main…
/r/MensRights10/05/14 05:03 PM
1

Commentary from the TUBs: Oh this is totally going to be my new go-to response for idiots saying MRM or /MensRights/ is not anti-feminist. PS: they've silenced plenty of people for doing nothing more than quoting Paul Elam to show how bad he is. But when those same submissions are made sincerely, they're left up. So fuck right off thanks.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 05:01 PM
1

Commentary from the TUBs: "Banning such things is tantamount to imposing a moral code on others." Uh no it's imposing a moral code on the platform you control. Those people can go on living their lives however, but you don't have to let them use MensRights to advocate killing women. <sup>Just</sup> <sup>an</sup> <sup>idea</sup>
/r/MensRights10/05/14 05:00 PM
1

Commentary from the TUBs: Wow that entire wallof.txt could be accurately summed up as: "I don't understand what feminists mean when they say 'no platform' but it scares me and my feelings are hurt."
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:59 PM
1

Commentary from the TUBs: okay, i am confused. cuz' it sounds like they just admitted they don't want to really do anything but whine about feminism and they are kind of okay with that
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:57 PM
1

Commentary from the TUBs: So... they just straight up admit the purpose of creating /mensrights wasn't about helping men, but about opposing feminism. Love it. But opposing feminism is about helping men, because something something misandry something something white feather something something male disposability.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:56 PM
1

Commentary from the TUBs: /u/SocratesLives brain-farts yet again! And the brain-fart echoes across the empty heads of fellow MRAs. Seriously, if you want obscene comments to not be associated with your already obscene movement, how about you ban them? Or how about you at least ban the people making them and acknowledge that you've dealt with the shittiness appropriately? If you want people to take you seriously, then you better display some shame and delete bullshit comments as well as those who…
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:51 PM
1

This is a salient point in terms of practical application, but it may be irrelevant to establishing the truth of principle. However, you are entirely correct that, even if we accept the principle that certain instances of censorship may be justified, we are still left with the very significant problem of exactly where to draw the line and who to trust with such power. I have a strong leaning to default to never censoring anything because that line is so difficult to enforce properly and is inher…
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:49 PM
1

Dont get me started on Triggers(tm), lol!
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:33 PM
3

So very well said!
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:30 PM
3

Or pulling FIRE alarms?
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:27 PM
3

I think this raises a very salient point. Women mock "NAMALT/NAMRALT!" (Not All Men/Men's Rights Activists are Like That) with this meme: Your Guide to 'Not All Men,' the Best Meme on the Internet, but fail to recognize the inherent hipocracy of saying "NAWALT/NAFALT!" (Not All Women/Feminists are Like That).
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:24 PM
2

Do you feel I accurately represented the Feminist argument in support of censorship, or did I StrawMan?
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:18 PM
1

To be fair, I don't simply dismiss a given argument based on the source. I find myself compelled to address arguments if for no other reason than to make up my own mind about whether or not there is a good point being made.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:15 PM
2

I find the concept of stifling speech as opposed to correcting it to be obscene and abhorrent. Nothing was ever solved by STFU, it only enables tyrants. Especially Petty Tyrants with extremely low thresholds for what constitutes "obscene or abhorent content". Even if the principle were sound, who can be trusted to apply such judgement fairly and accurately such that the censorship might actually be a boon and not a tool of oppression?
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:10 PM
4

Very well said.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 04:02 PM
0

I think the response would be that removing the "offensive" material constitutes a representation of "The Will of The Community" as a group in opposition to the idea, in a way similar to the accusation that allowing it to stand undeleted constitutes an "endorsement" by The Community.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 03:56 PM
6

It seems clear to me that deleting that post would be ad hominim activism against the source, to the detriment of a worthy cause.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 03:47 PM
3

Follow-up question: is my syllogism an accurate depiction of Feminist justification or did I StrawMan? I dont mind the argument being wrong, but I do not intend to mischaracterize the belief it represents.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 03:46 PM
9

If you have to be right before you're allowed to speak then how can anyone discuss new unproven controversial ideas? Sometimes being wrong is a valuable contribution to a debate or discussion, often all the wrong ideas need to be worked through to get to the good ideas. I think this is a very key concept. If dogma is never allowed to be challenged, how can we ever know it is actually true and not just accepted or assumed to be true? I think some Feminists will assert that allowing "hate-speech" …
/r/MensRights10/05/14 03:42 PM
5

"Obscene" and "abhorrent" is in the eye of the beholder. They are not absolutes, and they are not defendable qualifications. I fully agree. Check out the /r/FeMRADebates post, which I cross-posted to /r/Feminism to invite comment, that resulted in an insta-ban: As a man, if it's not supposed to be ok to punch a woman who is assaulting you, is it an acceptable alternative to choke her out to make her stop? Merely asking the question was considered proof of bias and intent to spread hate, though s…
/r/MensRights10/05/14 03:37 PM
2

I've had many arguments in /r/Anarchism over this very issue. They, too, believe that censorship of specific ideas is the superior moral position (and many consider Anarchism itself to be inherently Feminist).
/r/MensRights10/05/14 03:13 PM
3

I do believe allowing even obscene or abhorent ideas to remain undeleted is the morally superior position, but I am conflicted, as the argument for active opposition through removal has merit as well. Is it necessarily true that allowing the display of obscene or abhorent ideas causes harm? Even if we accept that it does, is the harm done sufficient to justify violation of free speech rights?
/r/MensRights10/05/14 03:10 PM
3

I am on the fence about removing even those, though the rationale might be different. It makes practical sense to remove "low effort insults" that add nothing but clutter/noise to the conversation, without such removal being an endorsement or act of actual censorship of ideas.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 03:05 PM
2

Any suggestions on how to clean up this syllogism? Specific flow or phrasing that needs to change to present it more clearly or accurately?
/r/MensRights10/05/14 03:02 PM
7

I would assert that the fluid concept of exactly what speech is "obscene or abhorent" is critically relevant to this issue. Very often, mere disagreement over ideology is itself considered Ban-worthy by those with the power of censorship. Edit: apparently neither I, nor my phone, know how to spell "censorship" (DYAC!)
/r/MensRights10/05/14 02:45 PM
1

Very well said.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 07:51 PM
1

"When Legal Parental Surrender (LPS) is law, it should be..."
/r/MensRights09/05/14 07:47 PM
0

The proper resolution to this aspect is to codify the biological parents as having the "Right of First Refusal". Basically, bioparents get "dibbs" on the kid if they want it, or they must officially Decline if they do not.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 06:41 PM
2

Don't freeze the peaches!
/r/MensRights09/05/14 06:38 PM
2

You raise some valid points, but the most important aspect of this tack is that LPS doesn't have to be equivalent to actual physical abortion in order for LPS to be appropriate or legitimate.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 06:37 PM
1

A raped person has not voluntarily become "non-abstinent", they have had that condition forced on them against their will.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 06:32 PM
7

Currently, if a woman surrenders the child at the hospital, and the father claims parental rights, she can be compelled to pay child support. LPS would protect both men and women.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 03:28 PM
1

No. Women will gain the same right to LPS if the man wants the child and she does not. Think of it as surrendering the child to an "adoption", except it is the other parent who is taking on full authority and responsibility.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 01:48 PM
2

I firmly believe that specific users, such as myself, very often have their brand new posts heavily downvoted before anyone even gets a chance to see them, for the specific purpose of freezing peaches. Just another "fire alarm" application of their desire to BanHammer everyone in real life.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 01:46 PM
1

That's a fair point. In some ways, I think we should, but not universally. How do you feel about women's physical fitness standards being lower than men's in the military?
/r/MensRights09/05/14 01:19 PM
9

This may be the most literal application of the "Pussy Pass" I have ever heard.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 05:34 AM
3

I think there are three basic principles that make it impossible/unethical: Everybody has the right to bodily autonomy. Agreed. Women have uteri Also true. Both parents are responsible for the well-being of their child Nope. The person responsible for causing the child to be in a state of need is responsible for the care of that child. The woman can abort. The woman can abandon under safe haven laws. The woman can agree to an adoption. The woman has the sole power to place that child in a state …
/r/MensRights09/05/14 05:25 AM
2

LPS should be... THIS. Every discussion in the future must be phrased towards what LPS will be like, not if it will be. Speak confidently and firmly about the way it should be when it happens. Bring every conversation and debate back to focus on how it will be composed and arranged to account for the complications and variables. Dismiss any notions or objections that try to paint it as impossible or implausible, and simply laugh off the people who think it is wrong. When LPS is law, it should be…
/r/MensRights09/05/14 03:16 AM
2

This pretty much obliterates the entire "moral hazard" objection to LPS.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 03:05 AM
1

Vasectomy FTW!
/r/MensRights09/05/14 03:03 AM
1

Brilliant!
/r/MensRights09/05/14 03:01 AM
2

I think my leaning towards not telling "offensive" jokes comes primarily from not wanting to emotionally wound people, any people, as you have described. I feel like hurting people is bad, and I don't want to do bad things. That being said, I still get a laugh out of "offensive" jokes, so they make me feel good (when they're not at my expense, of course). It's a tough call. More than anything I just want everyone to agree that it's either ok or not ok to be intentionally hurtful sometimes in the…
/r/MensRights09/05/14 01:32 AM
2

I cannot advocate this choice, but I respect your right to choose.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 12:58 AM
5

And MRAs are not against abortion, or adoption or the mother keeping and raising the child on her own without the unwilling father. And all the Feminists can spew is hate towards men. What the actual fuck!?
/r/MensRights09/05/14 12:56 AM
2

It is not logically inconsistent to hold people responsible for starting a process they had no power to end. We do it all the time. This is a non issue. Child support is the right of the child, any argument about what the mother did to "not deserve" support is irrelevant. The child has no right to support, as there are no positive rights. The obligation of a parent(s) to care for a child comes from claiming ownership and exercising parental authority. Abortion does not stem from the right to aba…
/r/MensRights09/05/14 12:02 AM
3

this whole idea, just the damage it would inflict on children, in my mind's eye it's cruel and evil and I am in a state of shock that such a large population of people would put the father's need of keeping a full paycheck over the incredible damage that would be done to the child This always blows my mind. The argument is framed that, if the father doesn't pay, he is dooming the child! Where is the mother's responsibility for the consequences of her actions? Why is abortion and adoption always …
/r/MensRights08/05/14 11:51 PM
2

You know what infuriates me? Practical jokes that humiliate people. Unreasonable rage. Seriously. I actively discourage them and make it clear among my friends/co-workers that I do not participate in such things or approve whatsoever. But some people seem to enjoy pranking each other back and forth, and I don't know that I should judge them if that's what they enjoy.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 11:32 PM
2

I think a lot of feminists assume a massive expensive welfare system will need to be put in place to take care of mothers and children if LPS became real, as if adoption doesn't even exist.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 11:29 PM
2

Some more "official" method seems more appropriate, lol.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 11:26 PM
3

I am a firm believer that whatever system we develop must be fairly applicable to both men and women, so that both have the ability to exercise LPS (and the woman's right to an abortion remains unchanged).
/r/MensRights08/05/14 10:14 PM
3

I love this analysis. Well said.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 09:56 PM
4

Men and women should both have the same right to LPS if the other person wants to keep the child.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 09:54 PM
7

Men should have the same choice.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 09:53 PM
0

9) men don't have a lot of say when a baby they fathered is gestating because the baby is not gestating inside of them; funny how biology works. but it's irresponsible to pretend they didn't have any rights before hand and therefore, shouldn't have any responsibility after birth. there will always be women and men who treat reproduction irresponsibly and abuse their roles to force pregnancy or fatherhood upon one or another, whether it be for money, control, or just abuse. these tend to be sad c…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 09:48 PM
0

4) if you changed child support laws to allow a father to opt out of fatherhood, legally speaking, you would be terminating a child's rights to paternal support before it even legally existed. that's not possible so you would either have to change the law so fetuses ARE persons who can be involuntarily stripped of the benefits guaranteed by law to a child from it's parents, or claim fetuses are a class of non-persons that can be stripped of certain rights and benefits depending on their father's…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 09:47 PM
1

Also from the TUBs: Much words. Good argument? 1) what financial abortion is now proposing is child support reform of the entire system, and with the state's current child care responsibilities, it could be called socialized child care reform. the fathers who are not paying for their children will place a greater burden on the state. so, if you're okay with the government expansion, that's good. because it essentially means government intervention in reproduction and families, the following of w…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 09:44 PM
1

Thank you for contributing. Food for thought.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 09:41 PM
3

Thank you for the very thoughtful response. I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of how difficult the problem is, but I do take issue with the idea that adoption and abortion are not good options because they might be emotionally upsetting. I know it is not easy to terminate a pregnancy or give up a child to adoption, and I am sympathetic. However, I do not view the emotional difficulty to be a valid objection. Many life decisions are emotionally difficult, but they cannot be avoided,…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 07:55 PM
1

Some MRAs have "complained", but it wasn't about the jokes, per se. The complaint is regarding the apparent double-standard that jokes about male stereotypes are deemed ok by feminists, but jokes about female stereotypes are not ok.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 05:14 PM
2

Omg my terrible spelling... mock me if you wish. I'm ok with that, lol. I do not mean to necessarily advocate for actual censorship here. But, if a principle can be established regarding the morality of certain types of jokes, then people who accept the principle as true would willingly self-censor in an attempt to "do right" in their chosen actions (much like people who accept theft is wrong will not steal, regardless of whether a law or prohibition against stealing exists).
/r/MensRights08/05/14 05:10 PM
1

I tend to agree, but I do wonder if the "sad factor" doesn't ruin it sometimes. Certain things are just so horrible that the feelings of sympathy for the butt of the joke overwhelms the comedic intent. Rape, child molestation and holocaust jokes come to mind. This raises the question of whether such jokes are just plain wrong due to the nature of the subject, or whether it all comes down to an individual's relative sensitivity to the subject.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 05:03 PM
2

I too like to push the boundaries and dance on the knife edge of appropriateness, and sometimes I have been cut through my own foolishness and carelessness. I think the form and intent of a joke makes a big difference. In think it is very different to mock a person for being racist, compared to mocking a person for their race. I think this may come down to a difference between mocking freely chosen behavior vs inherent qualities of the subject. It seems fully appropriate to apply moral judgement…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 04:27 PM
1

I dont know that I support the assertion that comedy is inherently amoral. Or perhaps it is, as a concept, but that application of comedy can be properly subject to moral judgement. I think there is a good case to be made that some things should not be ridiculed. In terms of the Police joke, this riducule is directed at something genuinely abhorent (police violence and abuse of power). I believe others before me have described this as appropriately mocking people (or categories of people) for be…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 04:21 PM
2

^ Example for analysis: Who is the "butt" of this joke? Is this joke "appropriate"? What makes this joke funny?
/r/MensRights08/05/14 04:10 PM
1

I am looking at this from the standpoint of identifying moral or immoral behavior, rather than necessarily taking specific action regarding that behavior. This thread is intended to be an examination of whether it should be considered right or wrong to tell "-ist" jokes. I think the idea of whether individuals or society should actively discourage people from such "wrong" behavior is a relevant but separate issue.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 03:57 PM
1

As a fan if logical consistency, it must be one or the other; no double-standards allowed.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 03:36 PM
2

...people that respond to things I never said have transposed a fictional representation of all they hate over my actual dialogue... Well said!
/r/MensRights08/05/14 02:41 AM
1

Seems legit.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 03:17 PM
1

I guess I always thought it was more broad, or not only limited to the realm of education.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 01:49 PM
2

Completely re-absorbed by the body. I didn't really quite believe it was possible either, but it's true.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 07:22 AM
1

Quick Google search, for what it's worth (I've never podered the question before): http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1837/if-a-man-has-had-a-vasectomy-can-dna-be-obtained-from-his-semen
/r/MensRights06/05/14 01:04 AM
1

Gratz!
/r/MensRights06/05/14 01:00 AM
1

I believe that no one should be forced to become a parent against their will, and I view abortion as the superior moral action over giving birth (in general and in specific). But, if a child is going to be born, and neither parent wants it, and if society prefers they don't simply kill it after birth, then society must be willing to allow them to abandon the infant to society's care and walk away without further responsibility.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 10:15 PM
2

Are there any comparable Title IX cases?
/r/MensRights05/05/14 07:23 PM
7

Yes, covering TL and not Vasectomy is definitely not equal access to proper medical care.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 05:24 PM
1

Best Answer: 7days sitting on a bag of frozen peas > 18yrs of Child Support. Every. Fucking. Time.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 04:06 PM
1

Perhaps I do not understand your meaning of consent as it relates to responsibility for child expenses. Can you restate your position?
/r/MensRights05/05/14 03:53 PM
2

Vasectomy: Frequently Asked Questions | Cornell Urology Every man should know!
/r/MensRights05/05/14 03:13 PM
0

Getting drunk, alone, and wearing a short skirt increase the risk of rape... so those behaviors constitute consent?
/r/MensRights05/05/14 03:10 PM
0

Submit a post and a bot replies. Fully automated for your convenience =)
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:50 PM
2

Driving a car does not constitute consent to an auto accident just because that may be a risk.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:40 PM
1

I'll give you this: it is consistent to be against "financial abortion" absolving men of responsibility for the same reason as you would oppose "safe haven" abandonment or adoption absolving women of responsibility. I disagree with your stated goals and oppose your desired outcomes, but it is a logically consistent position.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:37 PM
1

We could also say that women need to better control who's spunk they allow near their womb. Or, we can just allow that accidents happen and decide the best course of action without blaming either of them.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:18 PM
2

In a society that places value on having children, adoption is the superior choice when a woman is faced with raising a child alone in poverty. Abortion is the second best choice. (However, I personally favor abortion, as I believe it is immoral to create children at all. But that is a debate for another time.)
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:16 PM
1

Unfortunately, many docs still refuse to perform a TL on a woman under a certain age who hasn't already had kids. That refusal should be illegal. It is still much easier and cheaper for men to get a vasectomy, and I strongly encourage it!
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:08 PM
1

It doesn't make sense, period.
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:05 PM
0

I can hear it now... "blah blah blah MRAs are racist, classist eugenecists blah blah blah".
/r/MensRights05/05/14 01:05 PM
0

/r/shadowbanned
/r/MensRights05/05/14 12:55 PM
1

Parental Rights are the default. One must surrender them if they do not wish to be a parent.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:40 PM
0

Vasectomy FTW!
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:39 PM
3

Or the more PC term: "Parental Surrender".
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:38 PM
2

Does a woman have enforceable duty in this scenario, or only rights? Edit: Does one need to have Agency to have Rights, or Rights to have Agency? Edit2: The Right to be a parent does not create the duty to be a parent.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 08:33 PM
2

I would propose that Rights must be claimed; that they exist only potentially until one asserts that Right. I may have a Right to Free Speech, but this does not infer a responsibility to speak, if I choose to remain silent (nor does choosing to remain silent in one moment create an obligation to continue to remain silent at any future time). If a man claims his Right to be a Father, then that Right comes with Responsibility. If the man does not claim that Right, then he gains none of the privile…
/r/MensRights04/05/14 06:27 PM
6

Parental rights are the default condition. One can only choose to surrender rights, they cannot (should not) be stripped from a person. It is the woman's body, and her right to autonomy should not be stripped by forcing or restricting abortion. Once born, it is both biological parent's right to be involved in their child's life. If the mother chooses to abort, she is exercising her right not to be a parent (even if the father disagrees). The father deserves the same right to surrender parental r…
/r/MensRights04/05/14 04:50 PM
5

How is it not 100% her choice therefore 0% his responsibility? They both get equal right to choose to be parents, and they should both get equal rights to choose not to be parents (in the financial sense as well).
/r/MensRights04/05/14 04:18 PM
4

If the father chooses to exercise parental rights, then he must share the financial burden as well. If he chooses not to exercise parental rights, to perform a "financial abortion", then he should have no duty to pay and no authority over the child. Do you see this position as inconsistent?
/r/MensRights04/05/14 03:41 PM
6

The right for a father to opt-in, without the approval of the mother is equivalent to the woman's right to opt-in by being the mother. The only currently unequal right is to opt-out. At present, the mother has the exclusive right to terminate if she chooses not to be a mother, and the father has no right to opt-out if he prefers not to be a father. This unjust law must change.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 03:01 PM
8

The following is from this post, a couple months back: Forced Child Support payments are immoral "financial slavery" and should be ended immediately: An examination of Free Agency and the assigning of Responsibility for Choices. The Law First, allow me to proactively respond to the idea that Child Support is currently The Law. I ask everyone to keep in mind that relatively recently women were not allowed to vote and blacks were slaves. This was The Law, and now it is not The Law anymore. Bad law…
/r/MensRights04/05/14 02:55 PM
3

There is a special kind of frustration found in being grossly mischaracterized, in being personally turned into a Straw Man with statements and beliefs assigned to you that you don't hold and never said, and then being vilified for those things you never said and do not believe... and then being actively banned from defending yourself. Such profound injustice stirs my rage to irrational levels. More than anything, I just want the fair opportunity to set the record straight and be given the chanc…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 09:28 PM
8

I am so pleased you chose to detail your journey to /r/MensRights, as it strongly mirrors my own. I first came to this issue after seeing several prominent public figures declaring "I am a Feminist!" Based on what I thought at the time, that Feminism = Equality for All, I thought, "I must be a Feminist, too." But, being the critical thinker that I am, I decided I should educate myself further before endorsing that conclusion on a personal level. Just like yourself, I engaged in discussion with F…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 03:57 PM
3

I am a man and the middle row is also my preference. If I had to pick one I would have a rough time choosing between 25-30%.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/05/14 12:59 AM
5

I like the idea that the "ideal" is what has become most difficult to acheive (it was being plump, now it is being thin). Puts the "moral argument" about what is "healthy" in a different context
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/14 04:50 PM
2

... Youth is ignorance. Therefore, thinness is ignorance. BRB, grabbing a donut!
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/14 04:47 PM
2

Also posted to /r/AskMen recently. Consensus opinion favored the middle row as "most attractive".
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/14 04:45 PM
1

The problem with trying to draw too many conclusions from comparison to apes and chimps, is that humans have greater intellectual capacity. One could argue that any social structures of our cousins are necessarily "primitive", because they just can't reason the way we humans do, and that if they could, they would abandon certain social practices, as we are attempting to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/14 04:29 PM
1

As men can father children for almost their entire lifespan, I would consider the risk of pregnancy more of a "chronic disease" than a "temporary problem". As such, both men and women should restrict their sexual activity (or take reasonable precautions) until they have taken more effective surgical measures. While I do tend to strongly favor individuals taking personal responsibility for their mistakes, I consider the prevention of unwanted pregnancies to be one society-wide benefit that deserv…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 03:18 PM
2

As you are paying for his prostate exam.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/14 02:49 PM
7

For reference: Range of Female Size and Shape From a recent poll on /r/AskMen, I believe the middle row was considered "most attractive" (or possibly #8-#18).
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/14 02:08 PM
1

Maybe... I'm not sure we can actually say that for certain. But, I think even then people were just making it up as they went along. Maybe especially then, lol. I tend to believe we've been at this social construction business for a long time now, and it's only in recent years we've been able to use actual science to separate fact from fiction. It's made us more cautious and specific about what we can say occurs naturally, and what is learned behavior. I've taken a special interest in just that,…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 03:32 AM
4

Of particular interest: " The message is on point: Consent is mandatory, and being a bystander is just as detrimental to women. Victim blaming and rape culture are backed by statistics, and by focusing on changing “campus climate” through education as well as policy enforcement, the government is acknowledging that sexual assault prevention is just as important as justice for victims. "The report fails men, however, by silencing the 1 in 33 men who will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Y…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 01:28 AM
1

Contrary to what some choose to believe, my purpose for asking "provocative" questions is never simply "to stir the shit". I only ask about things to help myself understand better, and I am always pleased when others draw similar benefit.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 01:23 AM
1

I would argue that rights, privileges, responsibility, and obligation have all had their definitions twisted to a certain extent. As a result people are left arguing points that make no logical sense. As long as we're both clear that you're wanting to discuss obligation rather than responsibility there shouldn't be a problem. Do you think we need to stop here and define terms before things become unnecessarily confusing? To be clear, I am using "responsibility" and "obligation" as interchangeabl…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 09:14 PM
1

It seems like you're confusing the word "responsibility" with the word "obligation". "Responsibility" is used to indicate the person/thing that exercised power. "With great power, comes great responsibility." is simply a factual statement and confers no obligation. In this post, I am certainly using "responsibility" and "obligation" as interchangeable synonyms. Would you argue that we need to draw a relevant distinction for some reason? I would ask you, who decides what is a wise use of your pow…
/r/MensRights01/05/14 07:24 PM
2

Is it not every self-identified Feminist's responsibility to call-out and oppose instances of inappropriate behavior by other self-identified Feminists? Would you not ask the same of MRAs?
/r/MensRights01/05/14 01:49 PM
2

Literally sexist.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 01:43 PM
1

Then, we really shouldn't allow it or promote it as good, since it's meaningless, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/14 01:08 AM
1

Female Circumcision (or Female Genital Mutilation) is partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. This includes removing labia minora, labia majora, clitoral hood, or an entire clitorectomy. Only the last one is comparable to removing the entire penis. However, they are all genital mutilation, and all wrong, lacking a medical necessity for the procedure.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 11:57 PM
1

Although "moral intuition" is a popular idea, there us no evidence that humans are actually born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Everything we think and feel is a result of personal experience and cultural conditioning. No one "just knows" anything, but we do hold a lot of beliefs based on cultural assumptions of an ideal Right and Wrong that results from a combination of lived experience and what we are taught by society. I am not horrified by murder, only certain types of murder. Some…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 02:43 PM
1

Arguing from principle allows us to decide what behaviors fit into the categories of acceptable or unacceptable. It is only principle which makes murder wrong, but killing in self defense not wrong (not murder). What makes it wrong to cut off a finger, but not wrong to cut off the foreskin?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 02:10 PM
2

...because we've always done it that way, which is a dumb reason to keep doing something... So dumb that it has it's own Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 02:03 PM
1

If you read other comments, you will find this is a common argument that many seem to find convincing. The counter is that the principle of the child's right to bodily autonomy supersedes the parent's right to religious freedom. Some practices (cutting off an infant's body parts) should not be allowed, regardless of cultural or religious tradition. If this is something the child wishes to do as an adult to honor their chosen religion or culture, they may choose to do so themselves, of their own …
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 01:57 PM
1

Well, you did make the claim that it was ok because it was legal. So we can agree that legality is irrelevant. If legality itself does not make it right, then what justifies circumcision?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 05:36 AM
2

What makes circumcision permissible? Why is it something that should be done? Edit: more to the point, what makes cutting off the foreskin acceptable, but not cutting off other body parts?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 05:34 AM
1

Would you consider anything legal to be also automatically moral, or are there some technically legal behaviors which are immoral, regardless of being legal? Conversely, are there any illegal behaviors which are not immoral and thus not deserving of punishment? Is the law itself never wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 04:39 AM
2

I'm attempting to explore the reasons you find circumcision acceptable. Perhaps you have an argument I haven't heard that will sway me. Conversely, you may find that your reasons don't make sense the way you think they do. Do you want to continue?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 04:32 AM
1

Are there no proper limits on parental authority? Can they cut off any body parts they please? What health issues justify circumcision in your understanding?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 03:36 AM
1

I take your point, and this should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of wholesale "civilizing of the barbarians". Peole should have the freedom to embrace their own cultural rituals and traditions as they see fit, within reason. I would not stop an adult from modifying their body in (almost) any way they choose. I would certainly stop an adult from mutilating a child, and their culture be damned.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 03:33 AM
2

Anyone could have medical problems, but it's better not to put someone under the knife without a clear and present reason. The chances of having penis problems that require circumcision later in life are less than the risks of breast cancer. If you had a daughter, would you cut off her breasts to prevent the possibility of breast cancer?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 02:22 AM
1

What parts of your body should I be legally allowed to remove with a scalpel without your permission?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 02:18 AM
2

The cutting off of fingers and ritual rape would be justified by the blanket permission to follow religious and cultural freedom without restriction. I will assume you are abandoning that argument. There are proper limits on what should be allowed, regardless of claims to religion or tradition or culture. As for the risk of later medical complication in life, then you would also advocate routine breast removal for all women as a preventative measure against breast cancer (since women's risk of b…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 02:03 AM
1

The only reason I would oppose such cultural intervention in other countries is because I think we should fix our own first, then fix the other ones =)
/r/PurplePillDebate30/04/14 01:56 AM
2

Perhaps we should go back to treating women as property? That has very long and rich tradition behind it. I mean, I'm a man, so it won't effect me much. My life might even be better, relatively speaking. Maybe I should support this?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 11:08 PM
3

To be fair, the analogies are extreme, but that's just a part of how some arguing by analogy works. You take the principle proposed and show how it can be abused to justify other clearly wrong acts. Of course this falls prey to the slippery slope fallacy, but you would need to show why cutting off one part of the body is ok, and another is not. The arguments used to justify circumcision can all be used to justify cutting off noses and fingers and anything, really. Why stop at foreskins? If my cu…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 11:06 PM
1

Without any reasonable restriction?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:56 PM
2

Head bagels, Luls...
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:55 PM
2

Not just would, but should, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:52 PM
3

How about prostitution of their children for money? Is parental authority so absolute?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:52 PM
3

Maybe if we started calling Rape a "religious ceremony" then it would become OK?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:47 PM
1

I did not mean this statement to suggest that doctors agree that it should be banned, only that it is not a medical necessity.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:46 PM
1

BTW, let me just take a moment to thank you for playing your role as The Opposition. (This should not be read to say that I think you are being anything other than honest and genuine about your position.) I know your must feel that people are "piling on" against you, but we couldn't get the depth of debate we have here without your representation =)
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:44 PM
1

You make some good points about red herrings in this debate. A lot of the anti-circumcision arguments are only tangentially relevant at best. I would, however, advise moderating the tone of your rebuttal. You may not realize it, but it comes across as angry or antagonistic sometimes (a lesson I am still learning myself, lol).
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:41 PM
2

I get a lot of downvotes from challenging a given sub's popular opinion. I, for one, thank you and every doubter and naysayer for playing your critical role in the debate. Somebody has got to be The Opposition =)
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:37 PM
1

There is nothing about the presence of a foreskin which prevents or precludes proper hygiene. One might expect that, had foreskins presented an evolutionary disadvantage to survival, they would be naturally absent.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:35 PM
2

Would you accept that one should avoid unnecessary cosmetic surgery on an infant as a general default? Thus there would need to be a reason to circumcise, rather than needing a reason not to circumcise.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:33 PM
3

Taking a sharp instrument and purposefully carving away natural, healthy tissue, falls very well within the definition of "damage".
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:30 PM
5

My position is based on solid moral and ethical principles. Thus far, you have not told me why you favor circumcision. If it is so important to you that this tradition continue, please tell me why.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:15 PM
6

You are correct that circumcision is not currently illegal, just as some forms of physical punishment were once not illegal.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:11 PM
1

Heh. Answer the question, then.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:09 PM
3

In what way are my statements intellectually dishonest arguments? How do my analogies fail?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:09 PM
3

This is not an equivalent comparison.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:07 PM
3

In what way does having the labia removed differ significantly from removing the foreskin?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 10:05 PM
5

...don't fix something that isn't broken. Well said.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 08:31 PM
1

For your edification. NSFL. Female genital cutting fact sheet | womenshealth.gov
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 08:29 PM
1

NSFL... Penis Torture: Top 10 Anti-Masturbation Devices in History | Masturbation Torture These were considered "socially appropriate" and even "recommended by doctors" - just think about that in relation to circumcision today.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 08:22 PM
3

I can only hope to be one voice of reason, and that you will consider this further before making such a decision.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 08:15 PM
2

I don't judge you for it, or bear you any ill will. The push to end the cultural acceptance of circumcision as the default norm is a struggle we are still fighting (as you can see here).
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 08:13 PM
7

I urge you to reconsider performing cosmetic surgery on an infant, as they are unable to give informed consent. If your son wants surgery as an adult, you have my blessing.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 06:31 PM
10

Should parents have the right to beat (or torture) their children, or are some forms of physical punishment legitimately considered "child abuse"?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 06:27 PM
7

It's not inappropriate to firmly restrict some behaviors, regardless of what a given religion believes. It's not all-or-nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 06:21 PM
3

Thanks metabot!
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 06:20 PM
5

Men and women should both be against mutilating children for cultural and religious reasons. I honestly don't understand how some people can't see routine infant circumcision is an abomination.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 06:19 PM
2

Think of masturbation being seen as "unclean" and it makes more sense (though that is still nonsense, lol).
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 06:18 PM
15

Sexual pleasure is an easily dismissed red herring. This is about a violation of the child's right to bodily autonomy. When they reach adulthood, they can elect to remove any body part a doctor is willing to excise. Until then, it is your job as parents to safeguard the right for them to make that decision for themselves, when they are ready, having given fully informed consent. I hope you put your foot down and refuse to allow the procedure.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 06:16 PM
6

The arguments, to me, are dishonest. Well, if you will take my word for it, I am being genuine about my beliefs. There is no intent to deceive. Why does it appear so? You're comparing it to cutting off a nose. That's dishonest. I believe the comparison is valid. The nose and the foreskin are both naturally occurring human body parts and should not be excised from infants for purely cultural, religious or cosmetic reasons. Medical necessity is a valid reason, but only if a situation occurs where …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 06:12 PM
4

I believe the preponderence of evidence is that (as most doctors agree) routine infant curcumcision is not a medical necessity, thus should be banned. But, some disagree, so we get into a war of competing sources in which both sides believe their chosen source is The Authority. I often think it is best for intactivists to be (overly!) generous and say, "well, lets agree the science might be inconclusive" and tackle this from another more important angle. I wonder how many people would endorse pa…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 05:52 PM
8

To be fair, some people can be just plain wrong without necessarily being "corrupt". This is more of philosophical and cultural issue than about science, and people's ideologies will blind them to the evidence they dont want to see. Check out my response for what I believe is the proper "debate" to be having (mostly leaving arguments over science/medicine largely out of it).
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 05:37 PM
6

Is it the ideology itself you find bizarre, or just some forms of intactivism? The basic idea is that circumcision (whether on males or females) is a violation of the bodily integrity of a non-consenting person; it is chopping off human body parts for purely cosmetic reasons (thus "mutilation"). Consider if it became a fad to cut off people's noses. How could that possibly be justified by culture or tradition or religion (let alone assumed "medical benefit" without evidence). We ought not to be …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 05:31 PM
12

Routine Infant Circumcision = Genital Mutilation (when done for purely cosmetic reasons) and should be banned (excepting only absolute medical necessity). Edit: clarified the specific terms a bit. Some men have said it is insulting to say that circumcised men should feel "mutilated". I do not mean that to be the insinuation nor the purpose of my statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/14 05:21 PM
3

It might help to remember that "Society" seeks to control a lot of things, the sexual behavior of young women being just one of many (as well as the sexual behavior of young men, just with different expectations). I think we can recognize this without appealing to Patriarchy(tm). There's no reason for that truth to be phrased as an attack on men or as if men are solely responsible for all the ways society goes wrong.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 11:37 PM
1

It may take a while to bring them around on this issue. Baby steps, I guess.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 11:15 PM
2

There is a difference between respecting other people's desired identities and denying reality. I think this here really nails the core of the issue, but maybe in a way that doesn't make itself obvious. If a person identifies as a woman, dresses and acts like a woman, then they should be treated like a woman and basically they are a woman. Being a "woman" is pretty much a "role"' just like playing a vampire. But you are correct to say that, biologically speaking, they are not technically Female …
/r/MensRights28/04/14 11:07 PM
1

Basically, yes. The measured effects can (and in my opinion are) largely (if not exclusively) created by social expectations, not by anything inherent to the behavior itself. The only one that isn't, is the risk of STDs, though I think once we have conquered those it will properly be a non-issue. In the meantime, safe sex is the best sex.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 08:26 PM
2

I feel entirely comfortable speaking on behalf of all MRAs when I say that no one here would ever consider "being beaten, held down and fucked against your will" an ambiguous situation. That type of violent violation cannot be defended in any way. Victims of this kind of assault have the full and unqualified support of the MRM (be they male or female).
/r/MensRights28/04/14 04:27 PM
1

Technically, yes. This is where a lot of confusion is concerning what to consider properly "egalitarian" methods. I look at it as solving a problem that effects both men and women (unwanted pregnancy) rather than as something which benefits women but not men (healthcare available to women but not men). The mode itself may be unbalanced, and the ideal may be (and in my opinion should be) that men and women get fully equall access to services in the relevant areas, but I would also consider free c…
/r/MensRights28/04/14 02:31 PM
2

To be entirely fair (as is always my goal), women also set their own societal standards to which men are expected to conform or be deemed "unsuitable". I am proposing the radical notion that we all knock that shit off, lol =)
/r/MensRights27/04/14 10:06 PM
6

I honestly have my own personal standards, too. There's nothing wrong with you having your own Likes for your own reasons. But I draw the line at trying to make those personal preferences into society-wide standards, or using societal pressures to make people conform to those standards. "Normal" just means common, or typical, or "what most people do"; there's nothing magic about most people doing something that makes it inherently right. There is simply no moral or ethical argument to support so…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 09:38 PM
1

I think exactly these issues are where we need Feminism and the MRM to get together. Hopefully, those of us on both "sides" who are not Extremist(tm) can make this happen.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 09:32 PM
1

Well, if it prevents pregnancy, and thus the attendant hassles/obligations, I'll take that as a "better than nothing" measure!
/r/MensRights27/04/14 09:30 PM
2

I couldn't have said it better myself.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 09:28 PM
3

Don't get me wrong, there's a need for angry rhetoric and calling out the other side for extremist bullshit, sometimes. But, we also need to acknowledge and call attention to the areas of agreement. I am reminded of The North Wind and The Sun. Let the righteous tempest howl when necessary, but dont forget about the good we're trying to do. The light and warmth of mutual support for the good ideas will eventually accomplish even more. For me, my ultimate goal is that world of equal partnership wh…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 07:47 PM
3

Well, we need to win the PR battle, too... =)
/r/MensRights27/04/14 07:31 PM
6

i encourage a more instructional tone. Give reasons why these things could be (and should be) viewed differently.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 06:29 PM
3

At the very least there is a consistent (equal) application of the "rule" if both men and women are expected to remain chaste. I don't agree that they should have that expectation placed upon them, but at least it isn't a purely sexist double-standard =)
/r/MensRights27/04/14 06:26 PM
5

Haters gonna hate. I say lets build bridges with those who aren't trying to burn them =)
/r/MensRights27/04/14 06:23 PM
2

You have a point there.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 06:03 PM
5

Thanks for responding. To your points... 1: Virginity exists. Many repeated studies of marriage success rates prove it. This depends entirely on your definition of virginity. And even if we could say such a thing does exist, that doesn't mean it must be cause for other restrictions or assumptions. Hammers exist. They are the best way to pound nails... but they can also open walnuts or be a paperweight. Nothing about a thing existing sets specific moral boundaries. Also: [Watch "Fuck Me In The As…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 06:02 PM
11

Does being "pure" or a virgin still have the same practical value it once did? There may have been a good reason for such a social construct in a different age, but does it hold up in the modern world? Is there something metaphysically or inherently valuable about virginity such that we should continue to endorse it once it is no longer a necessary practical tool for a worthy social aim? I would liken this to biblical prohibitions against pork/shellfish. It may have made a certain sense once-upo…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 05:26 PM
3

I think the point of the "(1) Virginity" topic is to highlight the broken nature of the concept itself as a social construct (including the ideas that women are supposed to "save" their "virginity" else they are "sluts", and that men who haven't "lost" their "virginity" are somehow less "manly"). I am all in favor of knocking these poorly conceived and oppressive notions off the pedestal of "things to which we all should aspire". My interpretation of the "(10) Frigid" section is a call to abando…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 05:15 PM
1

Fair is fair. Very Egalitarian arrangement =)
/r/MensRights27/04/14 03:54 PM
5

Summary for the lazy: (1.) Virginity exists. (2.) Hymens are a sign of virginity. (3.) All women are born with vaginas. (4.) The first time is going to hurt — a lot. (5.) If someone buys you something, you owe him or her sex. (6.) Too much sex will stretch you out. (7.) Women don't think about sex very much. (8.) Women don’t like casual sex. (9.) Boys buy the condoms. (10.) "Frigid" wives make cheating husbands. (11.) You have to wax. (12.) You can't have sex on your period. (13.) Sex is suppose…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 03:00 PM
3

Additional Analogies to consider (from /r/FeMRADebates): (1) imagine a tandem skydive. Lets say the inexperienced jumper is equal parts exhilarated and terrified to jump. Right before they go out the door, the inexperienced jumper says, "I dont think I want to do this..." and the other person says "We'll be fine! Trust me..." then jumps them both anyway. The inexperienced jumper makes no further protest and does not resist the jump. Afterwards, when they both land safely, the inexperienced jumpe…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 02:41 PM
3

I think that is not an entirely fair comparison, but it has been made. Have you been here yet: [From r/MensRights] Discussion of GoT and "Rape Culture": Addressing the question of exactly what constitutes "Consent" to sex acts. (Article link at r/MR post.) ?
/r/MensRights27/04/14 03:44 AM
3

I honestly don't think the castration or the rape are worth protesting or getting upset about. They are both awful things, and we would be awful people if we didn't recognize that when we saw it. But, which one gets the big hullabaloo and which one basically gets ignored, is very telling.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 02:18 AM
3

How so?
/r/MensRights27/04/14 01:12 AM
2

I'll complain about anything I like, thank you very much.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:37 AM
3

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 03:12 PM
-1

I am both shocked and amazed there is not yet an /AMR post mocking MRAs here for Rape Appologism(tm), complete with intentionally mischaracterized and out-of-context, cherrypicked "quotes"... There is, however, a /r/FeMRADebates post here: [From r/MensRights] Discussion of GoT and "Rape Culture": Addressing the question of exactly what constitutes "Consent" to sex acts. (Article link at r/MR post.) Feel free to join the conversation! Ahhh... there we go: Watch the misters think they understand w…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 02:46 PM
3

Perhaps you are correct. I have entertained mistaken impressions before. I may be going off old data as well. Maybe someone will throw some links up here to help clarify where this impression comes from. Regardless, I cast no aspersions on your ability to be a good parent =)
/r/MensRights26/04/14 02:26 PM
0

Lets say "well-paid Sex Workers", please. It costs extra to let you call them Whore to their face.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 02:11 PM
3

Lets imagine a woman begins to take down the pants of a man in a barely hidden but generally public place. She intends to felate him, and he knows this. He wants the BJ, but he is afraid of being caught in the act. He says, "I don't think we should... please, stop." But she does the deed anyway and he allows it. He enjoys it and reaches climax, despite (or because?) of the fear that they might be caught. He both wanted it physically, and didn't want it situationally. Was this rape?
/r/MensRights26/04/14 02:08 PM
0

Most important is the lack of outrage over the many many MANY murders when viewed in comparison to the handful of rapes, and the disparity in chosen topic for protest.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 02:02 PM
3

I don't think the comment was intended to insult or denigrate gay parents in any way, only to highlight that children benefit most from having both male and female positive role-models actively participating in their lives. These roles can, as the prior commenter stated, be provided by non-parental adults, be they friends/relatives or "Big Brothers, Big Sisters". One can argue that this data only holds true in our current gender-binary culture, and I would say that may be true. Perhaps, as our c…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:59 PM
3

The first rule of Man Meetings is: You don't talk about Man Meetings...
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:52 PM
6

More importantly, MRAs can accept the fictional display of disturbing scenarios involving torture and genital mutilation without feeling the need to organize protests against the Castration Culture in America.
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:46 PM
0

Omg... the author forgot the mandatory Trigger Warnings: Rape, Incest, Church, Dead Child's Body, Man Without A Hand...
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:41 PM
1

The idea is that, to these characters, their life is so fucked up that they even could do such a thing. These are not "normal healthy people" who would respond or restrain themselves as you or I would. This type of improper or immoral behavior is an (extreme!) example of what happens to many people in the modern world (and throughout human history). Why do so many us seem willing to abuse and violate each other? The answer is found in the story of the path they took to become who they are. This …
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:35 PM
1

Stories about morally ambiguous people are bad somehow? Do you take the display of such material as an endorsement of the behavior in some way? Have you never watched a movie or show where people engage in given behavior, then interpreted the scenario according to your own moral code? Are we to prohibit certain acts from being displayed merely because most of us agree the behavior is abhorrent? Should we thus ban movies that graphically depict the horrors of the holocaust? If you are disturbed b…
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:28 PM
0

Omg dood... breaking the BroCode(tm)! You are required to only always respond "She was asking for it". What are you trying to do, make us look reasonable over here?
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:21 PM
1

I would not endorse making sockpups to inject this into feminist subs, but I would be surprised if this effort was not already underway...
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:18 PM
1

Que complaints that MRAs always inappropriately inject "what about the menz!?" into every discussion of Rape(tm)!
/r/MensRights26/04/14 01:16 PM
3

Or don't read the books and just watch the show...
/r/MensRights26/04/14 05:10 AM
10

Well said. You should contribute to /r/FeMRADebates.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 08:34 PM
1

I truly want a serious answer to this question. Lets assume I don't mean to derail the conversation about women... when is the proper time/place to talk about this?
/r/MensRights21/04/14 07:23 PM
1

The arguments below all rely on "missing the point" and accusing you of "false equivalency" as a means of obfuscation. I have recently found this to be a common tactic, and I am recognizing it more often.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 04:39 PM
0

^ (-41 downvotes) literally evidence of an /AMR brigade. This specific comment was linked to that sub.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 02:07 PM
1

I really dont want to type that all out every time, but it could work. Maybe AFEs, for short, lol. I'd really prefer something better. That really doesn't seem to capture the essence of it (like TERF, that's a great acronym). I hope, if I lead by example, feminists will jump on this bandwagon and tone down the intentionally insulting slurs and namecallling as well. Keeping my fingers crossed!
/r/MensRights21/04/14 03:40 AM
1

We could use the voice of wisdom in there, lol. But be careful; they bite.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 02:24 AM
2

Well said.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 11:08 PM
1

It doesn't matter if you don't feel a term is insulting, it only matters if the subject feels insulted by the term. (Example: "Some of my best friends are gay and they call each other 'fags' all the time. Why are you making a big deal out of it?") Also, some terms are insulting in a specific context, especially when they are meant specifically as an insult.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 03:55 PM
3

Some groups (across the realm of activism) equate "allowing specific content" with "advocating specific content". In those groups (and especially in their respective subs here on Reddit) it is seen as fully appropriate to delete comments or ban users for very loosely-defined "hate-speech" (as well as real instances of actual hate-speech). In their minds, they have a responsibility to ensure that this content is deleted and these users are excluded from the conversation entirely. They believe tha…
/r/MensRights20/04/14 03:00 PM
1

I personally avoid such terms, and recommend others do as well. I prefer to label or call-out people by their behaviors.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 01:53 PM
-18

Should we resurrect that term and apply it to the specific type of "Angry Feminist Extremist" who appears to be uneducated, ignorant, or just plain stupid? I dont know that I want to advocate for more "insulting expression of anger", but some people are angry and will express that anger, so I guess the least we can do is recommend a mode that is not a double-standard.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 01:50 PM
-3

/r/Feminism please take note: users may get downvoted for unpopular opinions here, but they will not be banned from /r/MensRights because we welcome alternative views. THIS is how you have a dialogue with The Opposition. The MRM is not exclusionary of dissenters; no censorship by Thought Police here.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 01:44 PM
5

If you know a term is insulting, wouldn't it be better to stop using it? I think it is used in an expression of anger and meant to be insulting. This is no way to move the conversation forward or gain allies or change opinions. I think, if Feminists and SJW want people to stop using gendered slurs, they need to lead by example and stop using their own newly invented gendered slurs.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 01:39 PM
-3

Sereious question: What might be the best way to clearly and accurately label a specific type of "Angry Feminist Extremist" without being intentionally insulting or derogatory? Corollary: What might be the best way to clearly and accurately label a specific type of "Angry MRA Extremist" without being intentionally insulting or derogatory?
/r/MensRights20/04/14 01:27 PM
0

"Femextremists" ?
/r/MensRights20/04/14 01:24 PM
1

I approve this message =)
/r/MensRights20/04/14 01:21 PM
1

THIS is why I post! To get responses like that. Very well said. Can I copy/paste this to my OP of the article adaptation with proper attribution? I would title it: "And now for some real good advice..."
/r/MensRights20/04/14 01:19 PM
4

That seems to be the nature of our conundrum. Well said.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 04:43 AM
1

I do endorse this statement.
/r/MensRights19/04/14 11:55 PM
0

You are right on both counts. I'm just trying to get my facts straight so I dont look (more) foolish (than I often already do) in debates =)
/r/MensRights19/04/14 11:13 PM
1

Good stuff!
/r/MensRights19/04/14 11:09 PM
1

Ack... all of them? No linking to content to invite participation? I want MRAs to come join the discussion and it was my own OP. Does this make any difference? Does the .np link allow for that?
/r/MensRights19/04/14 10:47 PM
2

Seriously... me, too.
/r/MensRights19/04/14 10:45 PM
0

I see. I am interested in seeing the original to learn how the stat was calculated. Specifically, how they defined "false reports" (as "proven lie" or "unable to substantiate claim"). With one can be a horrible experience for an innocent man, but not knowing how the terms are defined leaves the data open to critique, and the person putting it forth at risk of being unable to defend it against Feminist charges of misrepresenting the data. Edit: Ack... wait... the article linked within the article…
/r/MensRights19/04/14 10:39 PM
2

BTW, can you link to that report? I would love to see how they define their terms.
/r/MensRights19/04/14 09:19 PM
7

Hey, how about a little sensitivity here! Discussing "Triggers" is my trigger. This comment will be reported to the Mods and you will be banned for making me feel uncomfortable in this safespace! /s
/r/MensRights19/04/14 06:10 PM
22

Apparently asking the question, "How do we promote Women's Rights in a way that doesn't result in punishing innocent Men?" is verboten by the Though Police in Feminist discussion groups. Is it really a surprise that men "get the wrong idea" about Feminism and end up thinking Feminists not only don't care about men, but actually consider innocent men merely acceptable collateral damage?
/r/MensRights19/04/14 03:07 PM
1

I would be very happy if anyone felt this post was worthy of sharing with subs that represent feminist perspectives. As always, the conversation is incomplete without both sides giving critique.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 05:42 PM
1

The topic itself most definitely belongs here.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 04:38 PM
4

Read that as "less emotionally expressive than the average woman" and it makes more sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/14 10:48 PM
2

I am pretty "aggressive" in my debate style (against ideas, not persons) so if they haven't banned me yet, other more cautious commentary should do just fine.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 12:02 AM
3

I always assume the person asking the question is genuinely open-minded. At least, until proven otherwise. I am often improperly accused of shit-stirring and concern-trolling for posting exactly this type of question in "opposition" subs. My purpose is to increase my understanding through discussion and debate by openly asserting controversial perspectives (thus "provoking" response), so I try to give everyone the same benefit of the doubt.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 04:10 PM
19

Please UPVOTE this post. This is a great conversation-starter, especially if you disagree! Most men will agree that being male comes with certain "privileges", just as being female comes with certain "priveleges" (some biological, some socially constructed). Likewise, being male or female also comes with certain liabilities (again, some are biological, some socially constructed). The problem with Feminism's definition of Privilege is that focuses exclusively on the benefits of being male and lea…
/r/MensRights12/04/14 02:52 PM
1

Please post this to the main discussion.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 05:51 AM
1

I did this on mobile, but I can try.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 08:00 PM
1

I also linked this to /r/Feminism at the same time.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 06:51 AM
1

I don't understand "np."
/r/MensRights04/04/14 01:58 AM
1

Is there any difference in your mind between an invitation to conversation and a call to Brigade?
/r/MensRights04/04/14 01:14 AM
0

Please click through to the OP to join the conversation!
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:01 PM
3

Is it equivalent? I don't think that follows. One happens to a fully cognizant human, the other happens to an hours-old neonate who has almost zero higher thought and memory function, So it doesn't matter how much trauma we inflict on an infant, even when it is unnecessary? We might as well rape them for our own amusement as well. They wont remember it anyway, right? No harm no foul? Maybe throw them across the room like a football for shits and giggles? BTW, this ignores the data that proves al…
/r/MensRights30/03/14 01:46 AM
2

You do realize that denying circumcision trauma causes later negative effects is equivalent to denying rape trauma causes later negative effects? This says nothing about a person's inherent value or subsequent ability to overcome that trauma and live a meaningful or fulfilling life after experiencing trauma, only that they have been negatively affected by the trauma and that this will cause problems.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 09:38 PM
2

See my other reply in this thread and tell me if that addresses your critique.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 08:22 PM
2

Please to explain the purpose of this comment.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 08:06 PM
2

Here's a fairly good PDF about the effects of early childhood trauma. The link between such trauma and significant adult dysfunction is well established. How bad the dysfunctiom becomes and what specific behaviors are displayed as a result of trauma may vary, but the dysfunctuon is always there and can be extreme. The rate of self-harm and violent outbursts towards others as an adult is significantly higher when a person has experienced childhood trauma. Those whose trauma causes them to act out…
/r/MensRights29/03/14 07:25 PM
2

I have been looking for exactly this type of hard science for years. I would not be surprised to learn that the majority of violent criminals are circumcised and that we will discover a direct link to violent genital mutilation and later tendency to enact this trauma on others.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 10:24 PM
1

Have I violate a strict rule? Is it improper to invite the participants of this sub to join a conversation in another sub? Has my post been removed? I think the linked post is definitely relevant content.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 11:07 PM
1

Could use a few upvotes over on the OP. Haters have buried it so no one else can see it.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 10:42 AM
2

It's a Religion, of course it doesn't make any sense.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 10:27 PM
0

Time to file a lawsuit against YouTube for violating your rights. It is not illegal or improper to film a willing participant with full knowledge of the intended use. She has no basis to demand such removal of a filmed mutual public conversation. You'd do us all a solid to fight that nonsense.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 09:27 PM
1

Obviously the Rape Culture has infected even CCTVs causing them to display false images to acquit rapists. More evidence of the insidious Patriarchy at work. /s
/r/MensRights19/01/14 08:11 PM
1

If I got blackout drunk and left on my own then I did not take the appropriate safety precautions.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 02:33 AM
1

Again, there are some who would see neutral analysis regarding risk factors and react very strongly against even having such discussion. In your example, any mention that the victim made the mistake of becoming blackout-drunk would be met with charges of "blaming the victim." The intent of such retrospective analysis is not to remove responsibility from the perpetrator but to provide useful information to others about what factors contributed to the outcome in hopes that they will mitigate their…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 08:28 PM
1

I don't think you've seen the same discussions I have. There is a strong movement that vehemently opposes any suggestion of teaching women about risk factors. The entire ideology is based on their perception that merely mentioning mitigating risk is itself "blaming the victim." It becomes a form of banned speech in conversations about the subject. How prevalent this opinion is, I don't know, but it does exist, and my analogy was meant to elicit a response from those who hold that view for the pu…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:31 PM
1

You cannot control whether another driver hits your car, but you can choose to wear a seat belt, or not. Telling women there is nothing they can do to mitigate risk of rape is like telling people not to bother wearing a seat belt because it would have no impact on how hurt they get in an accident. Should we really avoid giving good advice just to prevent the appearance of blaming the victim?
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:21 PM
1

There is no picture, just a text explanation of the idea.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 07:14 PM
1

Interesting take. I didn't see it that way. In fact, I specifically likened only those inclined to rape, not all men (I didn't specify a sex for the rapist at all). Did you read my actual post or just the title?
/r/MensRights15/01/14 02:43 AM
3

Lets not make dissenting opinions feel unwelcome. We must always be wary of circlejerkery, and ideological opposition only serves to keep us honest and sharp.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 08:48 PM
1

Question Everything.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 08:45 PM
-10

Just out of curiosity, how do female soldiers deal with periods if they run out of tampons in the field? Also, what about the problem of female soldier prisoners being subject to rape if captured?
/r/MensRights02/01/14 11:02 AM
2

Some feminists will argue that every aspect of our current culture, gaming included, is a direct result of "Patriarchy" and inherently designed to oppress any non-white, non-male person. If viewed through that lense, then everything qualifies as "promoting rape culture."
/r/MensRights02/01/14 05:59 AM
2

I don't see a coherent argument within the article that supports the title. Too bad; I thought it might actually have something insightful to say about gaming culture in the modern world.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 05:55 AM
1

I don't see it. Can you explain the connection?
/r/MensRights01/01/14 08:01 PM
1

From what definition of Humanism do you draw the conclusion that it precludes my description?
/r/MensRights01/01/14 07:47 PM
2

Humanism may assert that human animals are "better" than other animals (viewed by a given criteria set) yet still give validity to moral arguments that humans should also be "good" to other animals (not beat, starve, torture, etc.). Humanist moral arguments could be used to make claims that "meat is murder" if you wanted to, or to show that being omnivorous is morally appropriate.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 05:45 AM
60

You assume this tool will not be misused to harass innocent men.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 07:44 AM
1

TIL: Breast Cancer awareness month is sexist because it is only culturally appropriate for women to have boobs. Fair enough. No longer will I contribute to such blatant misandry. /s
/r/MensRights01/12/13 10:01 PM
9

Hear hear!
/r/MensRights14/11/13 10:03 AM
6

Get a lawyer immediately. Today. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Not "in a while." Right now. Call in sick of you have to. Get a lawyer! You cannot fight this on your own.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 08:47 PM
1

How does one tell the difference between a person being genuine by expressing their real concerns, and someone with an agenda? Is this just a matter of "Internet Paranoia" where everyone is assumed to be fake or a troll until proven otherwise? I see this OP as a real person expressing a real thought process honestly. They may be wrong, in which case the proper response is to provide alternative perspectives and information needed to correct the ignorance. Or they may be a troll, in which case ou…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 08:28 PM
1

There are at least some core concepts of early feminism which are not imaginary and deserve to be addressed as the legitimate problems they are, not dismissed out of hand with the juvenile fuckery of insult games. We must acknowledging that some feminist arguments have merit, while others do not. It is an untenable position to cast all "feminist" ideas as 100% wrongheaded and "anti-male." To apply such judgements logically, we must understand where to draw the line between legitimate concerns an…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 08:26 AM
2

Lets approach this from a different perspective. Do you differentiate between "concern trolls" and "regular" trolls?
/r/MensRights05/11/13 07:37 AM
3

Lets look at this from another perspective. Do you draw a distinction between a "concern troll" and a "regular" troll? Please explain why there is, or is not, a difference.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 07:32 AM
2

I don't see the OP fitting these patterns. To paraphrase: "I'm new here. Some people say MRM are misogynists. Thank you to all the people who prove them wrong." It is entirely complimentary while reinforcing the ongoing struggle against the type of behavior that would feed the misconception most damaging to the MRM. Reactive accusations of trolling are unwarranted in this instance. EDIT: Thanks for the great primer =)
/r/MensRights05/11/13 03:26 AM
2

I don't have to explain myself to you. If you claim to speak on behalf of the members of this sub (telling people to GTFO), or as a supporter of the cause, you do no good to anyone by being abusive towards newcomers with questions. If you refuse to explain yourself, you supply every reason needed to ignore your comments. And I never claimed to be moving towards any goal, but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate people detracting from the MRM's goals. Worse than "not moving towards a goal," you a…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 03:19 AM
1

Please describe your understanding of the MRM and include why you feel screaming obscenities at people moves us towards that goal?
/r/MensRights05/11/13 02:44 AM
2

Are his comments inaccurate? Do we not have our fair share of extremist hotheads who lack the civility to express their beliefs without resorting to angry, inappropriate attacks? Do you want the MRM to be perceived as a "hate group?" Do you believe the public image of the MRM as reasonable and logical (vs emotional and irrational) matters in terms of winning public opinion and attaining favorable outcomes? It appears you have confused a new user awakening from feminist indoctrination with a mali…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 01:38 AM
2

How do you define a "concern troll" and how does OP fit this description?
/r/MensRights05/11/13 12:22 AM
4

Genuine open-minded question asked with acknowledged ignorance seeking clarification. Angry, insulting and dismissive response. Way to represent, yo!
/r/MensRights04/11/13 09:47 PM
1

I may not like you calling me a moron on the internet, but I will fight to the death to protect your freedom to do so! =)
/r/MensRights25/10/13 07:42 PM
1

I see you've read "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Step 1: always lead with an insult. Well played, sir!
/r/MensRights25/10/13 06:49 PM
1

Get the story to the press. A big media hubbub over obviously false allegations may embarrass the police into dropping the investigation. Plus they can trot out her past false accusations with impunity.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 11:39 AM
2

Ad hominem is an appropriately ironic mode for feminists.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 10:14 PM
1

Thanks a million, RightsBot!
/r/MensRights24/10/13 07:30 PM
2

I will aspire to live up to such a high ideal in all my questions and commentary =)
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:14 PM
1

I am not. But now I want to know who that is!
/r/MensRights22/10/13 06:21 PM
2

Yo!
/r/MensRights22/10/13 07:44 AM
2

Well done! This is the test of the gom jabbar. Now we see if this one is more human than animal.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 06:48 PM
38

Please OP... copy/paste this reply, then update here with her response.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 09:40 AM
1

Relevant discussions from a few days ago: Top cop's rape victim ["willing 10 year old"] comment investigated - National - NZ Herald News Does hebephilia really exist or is it a part of normal male sexuality?
/r/MensRights04/10/13 05:43 PM
4

This is absolutely true and works both ways. All dating is an "audition" process for the role of "Life Companion." The same could also be said of any other relationship/friendship. One should always reserve the right to reclassify or terminate based on behavior and personality. Remove the gender specifications and this is just plain practical advice.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 09:03 PM
12

It absolutely works both ways. All dating is an "audition" process for the role of "Life Companion." The same could also be said of any other relationship/friendship. One should always reserve the right to reclassify or terminate based on behavior and personality. Remove the gender specifications and this is just plain practical advice.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 09:02 PM
9

All relationships are utilitarian by nature; they serve a common purpose of mutual companionship.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 08:58 PM
2

And sometimes it's enough cocaine to kill a Clydesdale, lol
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:29 PM
4

22 - swap "stubbornness" for the internalized cultural expectation that men are not allowed to be sick ("weak").
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:19 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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