TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

StoicSophist Archive

View 0 posts and 625 comments by StoicSophist 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Because the ruling was an accurate application of the relevant laws. Whether the laws should be that way is beyond the judge's purview.
/r/MensRights22/02/15 03:49 AM
-2

She must be on the take - there must be some financial incentive for her to be so angrily assertive and power-mad. So let me get this straight. You think it's not okay for this judge to call someone a liar without providing proof, but you're perfectly comfortable with accusing people of corruption based on literally no evidence?
/r/MensRights22/02/15 03:39 AM
2

Even the use of the word "survivor" for people who overcome life threatening disease piss me off. Everybody want to be a hero, i get it, but it's mostly luck and your doctor who did the job. Because surviving a plane crash or a shooting is totally not about being lucky or having a good doctor, right?
/r/MensRights24/10/14 07:48 PM
4

Are you seriously trying to equate not retweeting someone with assaulting them?
/r/MensRights11/06/14 11:48 PM
0

By the way, you totally make your point by coming off condescending and arrogant. You just told someone that citing a book instead of a website made them "[sound] like you're an anti-male crazy". So you'll forgive me if I don't take your criticism to heart.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 12:35 AM
-1

...also try linking sources instead of citing some book no one can verify? Pft, yeah, because nothing is harder to track down than a quote from a bestselling book. That might require you to visit a library or a bookstore or something, and do you know how rare those are?
/r/MensRights02/06/14 08:22 PM
2

If you say so. The vast majority of the time I see the word used, it does not take into account the moral implications of the use of one's intellect. An evil genius is still called a genius.
/r/MensRights01/06/14 04:37 AM
1

You do realize "intelligent" and "fraudulent" are not opposed traits, right? One can be either, both, or neither.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 11:14 PM
6

Have you noticed the countries that are listed proportionally to their interest in the topic? Have you noticed that they're all countries with a large English speaking population? Gee, do you think that might have something to do with how many of them are Googling an English phrase?
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:50 AM
8

If you're so unsure if you were raped that you have to google it, then you probably weren't. So I guess you think that all the confused male victims who have trouble defining what happened to them because it doesn't fit with the cultural concept of "rape" that they have been exposed to just need man up and pretend it never happened?
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:39 AM
1

You brought it up. I talked about feminism in general not you. Go back and check. Yes, let's do that. Yeah I figured you were a feminist but it's not nice to just assume people are assholes, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you might have an actual interest in anti-hate activism as opposed to just wanting to defend your own hate movement. Hence I mentioned the SPLC is just not a good source these days, and directed you to better sources, but you don't care of course. So anyway guess w…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 12:48 AM
1

For example, prostate cancer gets less than 1% of the funding that breast cancer does. How many people does it kill? 92% of what breast cancer does. The average age of a person diagnosed with prostate cancer is 66. The average age of a person diagnosed with breast cancer is 61. The 10 year survival rate for prostate cancer is 99%. The 10 year survival rate for breast cancer is 78%. Breast cancer gets more money because people get it sooner, and it kills them quicker. There are lots of people who…
/r/MensRights15/05/14 12:21 AM
0

'Emotional outburst'? Pfft, whatever dude.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 09:33 PM
1

Pointing out that OP is a sad little individual is incompatible with stoicism?
/r/MensRights10/05/14 08:35 PM
-2

This is pathetic. She's "ruined" cancer research? Really? She's raising a bunch of money to fight cancer (and not even a lady-cancer), and because she didn't do it how you would have done it, suddenly it ruins cancer research forever? Do you realize how petty and small this makes you sound? I mean, it's one thing to not like her, but now you're just inventing reasons to be mad at her. This is pathological.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 07:15 AM
1

I can't do what? Substantiate your claim. You know, that thing I originally asked if you could do? That thing you are conspicuously failing to do? It should be easy, if you're aren't totally full of shit. Right back atcha. You were the one who made the original claim, you need to be the one providing evidence here.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 06:55 PM
-1

In other words, you can't. (Also, thinking something exists and thinking it should be punished are different things, so even in principle your answer provides no support for your previous assertion.)
/r/MensRights06/05/14 06:48 AM
-1

The vast majority of feminists don't even admit such a thing as a false rape accusation exists. I would love to see you substantiate that.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 04:46 AM
0

I think everyone in this sub thinks about feminism constantly.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 12:20 AM
1

And what's the deal with airplane food?
/r/MensRights19/04/14 10:40 PM
1

Sadly it's not true. [looks at thread title] Ya think?
/r/MensRights19/04/14 09:33 PM
0

Fresh humors! Now tell one about bra-burning.
/r/MensRights19/04/14 09:28 PM
-2

Primo: Do you not get it that the victim is a minor and not yet of legal age, talk about comprehension. You act as though what this woman did is okay. I don't care how many times this encounter has occurred. She needs to have her sorry soul locked up. Yes it is rape. She has abused her power to get what her sick and depraved mind desired to do. Garans, if this was committed by a man, I highly doubt you'd posess the same attitude. Segundo: You are living in a dream world. The perp indeed broke th…
/r/MensRights07/04/14 06:57 PM
0

So you're telling me you think the historical event also revolved around "the tale of two lovers, torn apart by the sinking of a legendary ship"?
/r/MensRights07/04/14 06:50 PM
-6

She's talking about the movie, not writing a thesis paper on the historical event.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 06:05 AM
-13

You're telling me that, based solely on this, you are comfortable in concluding that the woman who posted it is anti-man? Care to show your work?
/r/MensRights07/04/14 04:12 AM
-7

I'm not sure if she noticed but Jack (a financially poor male) had a pretty shitty time of things and was treated as bad (if not worse) than she was by many of the characters. You do realize that Rose was an upper class woman, right?
/r/MensRights07/04/14 04:10 AM
5

I don't know where [we're] going though. Champ, nobody knows where you're going.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 05:43 AM
10

Because there's no way I'm critical of you just because you're being a bit of an asshole. No, I must have some ulterior motivation.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 08:45 PM
13

Yeah, you say that. But the minute your bf acts on that, it's nothing but tears and invective. Yes, by all means, tell a woman you've never met how she would act. That totally sounds like a reasonable thing to do.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:52 PM
1

Once some kid touches another kid because they couldn't handle their desire. From an adult perspective (I should say administrator since they make the rules at school) you've got two choices: 1) make a new curriculum, and involve parents with what is okay, and what's not okay when it comes to sexuality, OR, E) Ban short shorts/yoga pants so you don't have to deal with the problem anymore. Hahaha, no.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 05:34 AM
2

If some kid in high school is staring at a girls backside and she gets offended or he touches her inappropriately...sure, his fault, but he could hardly help it. Yet another example of female hypoagency.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 05:30 AM
4

No kidding: PIV is dangerous and oppressive to women. It causes us to trauma-bond to our oppressors and can lead to a multitude of medical emergencies as well as causing us to be bound to a man who's innate violence threatens our very existence. This sort of tripe [a romance novel] is little more than heteronormative propaganda that brainwashes young girls into ignoring the blatant violence and misogyny that is intrinsic to every male on the planet. It is hazardous to women and as such should be…
/r/MensRights03/04/14 12:33 AM
2

So, in order to overcome that implication, you almost have to say "women aren't only as wise as men, but they can be more wise." Granted, the quote doesn't say "can be more wise" or "sometimes more wise", it says "often more wise". The quote unequivocally does not say that women are "often more wise". It just doesn't.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 11:48 PM
0

...this poster that uses "males" instead of "men". You, uh...you did notice that it says "Hey Men" on the top of the poster in 50 point red text, right? And also calls them "Guys", "Bros" and "Gentlemen", again is large red type?
/r/MensRights02/04/14 08:27 PM
0

/r/TheRedPill
/r/MensRights01/04/14 10:23 PM
5

I think the silly visual image is only included to cover over a fact that they don't even want to admit to themseleves: they can't stand to be reminded they are sharing the toilet with a man. Such is their disgust for mens' bodies and bodily functions. It's not the toilet they are afraid if, it's you. You're diagnosing a group of women's pathological hatred of men based on wanting a toilet seat down? Seriously? It's bullshit like this that makes MR a laughingstock.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 04:24 PM
-1

You want to talk about the subset of worker rights that specifically apply to parents? No, the author wanted to talk about mothers, not parents. Is that not allowed?
/r/MensRights31/03/14 04:34 PM
-5

"Intentional contrarianism"? OP said that "I ran into someone claiming that women face 99 times more problems than men". That wasn't true. I pointed that out. That's not contrarianism, that's being right
/r/MensRights31/03/14 01:40 AM
-6

No. My argument wasn't about offensive/not offensive, it was about right and wrong, true or false. I probably should've made that more clear. Then how does drawing a completely unrelated parallel show the truth or falsity of the claim? But I'm interested. Give me a scenario where sexism plays a major role in a sexual assault, and explain how. Are we talking about broad cultural trends, or do you want me to provide an example of an individual sexist who sexually assaults someone because of that s…
/r/MensRights31/03/14 12:17 AM
-5

Did you just compare being an extreme sexist to being black? Because those things are not freely interchangeable. One is a set of attitudes, and one is a racial category. I mean, are you seriously arguing that saying being an extreme sexist makes you more likely to engage is sexual violence is offensive in the same way that saying being black makes you more likely to be a rapist? Extreme sexism might foster living arrangements that were common back in the 1800s, not sexual violence. Really?
/r/MensRights30/03/14 11:32 PM
-6

So you're not allowed to write an article specifically about working women's experiences? Any article that deals with workers' rights has to deal with every aspect of that subject, or else it's 'reframing worker rights as mommy rights'? Doesn't that strike you as a bit unreasonable?
/r/MensRights30/03/14 11:19 PM
-11

but eventually I ran into someone claiming that women face 99 times more problems than men That's not what it says. It says that 99% of the time women are at a disadvantage to men. It says nothing about the level of disadvantage.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 11:09 PM
-6

Did they say that "extreme sexism" was the sole cause of "sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence"? No, they did not. So saying non-sexists can also engage in that behavior isn't much of a counter to that statement.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 11:01 PM
1

Yeah, seems so.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 10:45 PM
-7

According to Fred R. Shapiro, in American Speech (Vol. 60, No. 1, Spring 1985), the term "sexism" was most likely coined on November 18, 1965, by Pauline M. Leet during the Student-Faculty Forum at Franklin and Marshall College.[7] The term appears in Leet's forum contribution titled "Women and the Undergraduate", in which she defines it by comparing it to racism, saying in part, "When you argue…that since fewer women write good poetry this justifies their total exclusion, you are taking a posit…
/r/MensRights30/03/14 10:38 PM
-1

The relevance to Mens' Rights is, of course, patently obvious.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 10:29 PM
1

You’re all just hating. I can’t really be wrong, I am studying Women’s Studies, and I’m pretty good at it. I learn about this stuff all day, so unless you have a magically superior education, I’m the authority on this subject. Don’t shoot the passenger. Reading all the hate mail, I got really scared because someone called “Sum Ting Wong Wi Yu” threatened to drown me in wonton soup, so I called Carly, Jenna, Kaitlin, Heather and Holly to come over to my apartment and support me. They were all tot…
/r/MensRights30/03/14 10:25 PM
-5

Just a fine example of how zealous and absurd the "progressive" feminist crowd can be and it's affect on men. What does this have to do with "progressive feminism"? Do you have any evidence that the members of this group are progressive feminists?
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:55 AM
1

I originally thought then thread title was your response to the image. My bad.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 03:39 AM
0

Oh, you're responding to a random comment on a tublr page. Uh, okay.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 01:01 AM
1

Yeah, that sounds plausible.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 12:49 AM
-1

...but I haven't had a single person, even guys who have experienced it, say a word of sympathy or "Igaf about you" to me. You are experiencing first-hand the "empathy gap" that exists in our society. In general, (not all) women do not see it as a loss for you. ?
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:30 PM
-2

What, exactly, is your point?
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:25 PM
0

I know. Like I said, I'm having trouble finding a good source. You'd think finding the overall rape conviction rate would be easier.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 06:23 AM
0

Most, but not necessarily all. You don't need to arrest someone to subpoena their DNA, especially if they know they're innocent.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 05:08 AM
0

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry
/r/MensRights29/03/14 05:03 AM
0

2011 Total Consumer Spend On All Games Content In The U.S. Estimated Between $16.3 To $16.6 Billion
/r/MensRights29/03/14 04:32 AM
2

The problem is that we don't know what percentage of the 2,000 tests that excluded the suspect are associated with a prosecution. Even if we had a good rape conviction stat, we couldn't use it to get a meaningful result.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 04:12 AM
-3

It doesn't excuse it, but it might explain it, and it might also limit how culpable they are for their actions, and how they ought to be treated.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 04:03 AM
1

So 20% of the time a person is brought to trial for a sexual crime, on average mind you, they are unequivocally the wrong person... Not just brought to trial. This also includes people who are investigated but not charged. Not all of the 20% saw the inside of a courtroom. According to Wikipedia, the US has a 93% conviction rate on average according to the department of justice for 2011. I'm having trouble finding a good source for rape conviction rates, but this one says that "18% of rape cases …
/r/MensRights29/03/14 04:00 AM
1

Fuck off. Your arguments have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and you know it.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:31 AM
-1

Note that something as simple as a car accident that causes death is a homicide. Homicide simply means "caused by a human". Hey, asshole, are any of the homicides in the cited material the results of an auto accident? No. No they are not, so stop arguing in bad faith.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:28 AM
-1

But most homicides are crimes. Unless you're suggesting that the rape and murder of a nine year old girl is justifiable homicide?
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:19 AM
2

You're so full of shit.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:18 AM
4

A 20% wrongful conviction rate is horrible. It's not a 20% wrongful conviction rate. The FBI stats are not for convictions, they are for all cases referred to the FBI. This includes cases that never made it to trial, and cases that did not result in a conviction. Unless you've got another source for that 20 percent figure, your math is wrong.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:16 AM
2

Except that definition does not fit the subject at hand. Several of the cases singled out in the cited material involved murders, so we can hardly be working from a definition where "no crime occurred".
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:08 AM
-4

Belittle you. Idiots like you like to generalize things that are personal against them. So your claim is that using ADD as an insult isn't offensive to people with ADD?
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:06 AM
-3

That depends. How are you defining "false accusation"?
/r/MensRights29/03/14 01:18 AM
-3

...your ADD shouldn't kick in until most of it is done. Yes, let's belittle a condition that disproportionately affects boys. I mean, it's not like this is a sub that's supposed to be interested in helping boys, right?
/r/MensRights29/03/14 01:10 AM
-3

And it's totally out of the realm of of possibility that he decided not to hit back because his assailants were two people who were bigger and meaner than him and he didn't want to do anything that might lead to him being seriously injured? Contrary to what TV would have you believe, not all bullies are complete cowards who will leave you alone the moment you fight back. Some will just beat the hell out of you.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 12:46 AM
-6

And that is proof that someone taught him to never, ever defend himself?
/r/MensRights29/03/14 12:25 AM
-5

In other words, no.
/r/MensRights29/03/14 12:03 AM
3

It seems to be open season on autistic kids for some reason. Abusers have always looked for victims who cannot defend themselves very well. It's always been that way, we're just noticing it more now that autism is a thing.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 11:11 PM
-1

The 14-year-old girl has been in more than 50 different foster homes, and at one stage was bashed by her father so severely she required a full body cast. Ms McKinnon said her father received a wholly suspended jail sentence for the attack. Yeah, I wonder where she learned that sort of behavior. It's a mystery.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 10:46 PM
-2

Because they're the defense attournies. It's their job to put forward a defense, and the defense being put forward is relevant information in an article about the case. Also, you left out this part: Both girls, who are not related, made allegations of being sexually abused when they were younger but the claims never progressed to court. The 14-year-old girl has been in more than 50 different foster homes, and at one stage was bashed by her father so severely she required a full body cast. Ms McK…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 10:44 PM
-11

Someone taught him to never defend himself, which is appalling. Got any evidence of that?
/r/MensRights28/03/14 10:37 PM
2

It is what it is.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 09:51 PM
2

That would never have happened if she was a man.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 09:16 PM
1

Congratulations, you're a better person than a murderer. Way to set a high bar for yourself.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 08:53 PM
0

You're right, my mistake. Please go back to hoping people get murdered.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 08:52 PM
-3

I hope she gets gutted like a fish in prison. Classy.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 05:32 PM
0

Indeed they are.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 10:54 PM
6

You're just looking for an excuse to call women "bitches", aren't you?
/r/MensRights27/03/14 10:45 PM
2

In Iran, traditional couples looking to get married sometimes work out a dowry agreement where the wife receives gold coins equal to her weight should the marriage end in divorce.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 08:24 AM
4

Divorce is completely in their hands. "The right of divorce had initially belonged solely to the husband, but with the Family Protection Law, both men and women can ask the courts for divorce under specific circumstances."
/r/MensRights26/03/14 07:01 AM
-5

Your inability to comprehend that people can genuinely hold opinions that differ from yours without being either uninformed or unintelligent says a lot more about you than it does about the people you're insulting.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 04:31 AM
3

Yes, let's just trot out the old "everything men do is an attempt to get laid" bit. That's not at all sexist or anything, right?
/r/MensRights26/03/14 02:18 AM
-17

Why do you immediately have to turn this into competition? This is an awful story in its own right, and it's pretty damn disrespectful to treat it as nothing but a potential weapon to bop feminists over the head with.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 01:28 AM
3

Where was it said that she never intended to have sex with him? All that was stated was that he assumed it was just rough sex and that she was enjoying it. It's entirely possible they were a couple who typically enjoyed rough sex, he got too into it, and failed to recognize that she stopped enjoying it. In other words, you have no actual knowledge about the case, but feel comfortable talking about it anyway. No, they were not "a couple who typically enjoyed rough sex". He forced her to have sex …
/r/MensRights25/03/14 08:38 PM
2

Really? Fucking really? You can see how a man forcibly raping a woman who never intended to have any kind of sex with him, rough or otherwise, ought not to be considered rape? And your response to that woman who never wanted to engage in any sort of BDSM with the man is "should have had a safe word"? Are you for real?
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:11 PM
0

So if someone buys some fake heroin off an undercover officer, you think there should be no charges because it was just two consenting adults LARPing a smack sale?
/r/MensRights25/03/14 06:00 PM
-1

Is it? Really? Or is it putting into boys subconscious that women are the 'prize', that it's women who are the reward to which men must appeal to and strive to please? So your counter to the claim that some types of porn objectify women is to describe them as both a "prize" and a "reward"? Do you not realize that you're basically making my point for me?
/r/MensRights25/03/14 05:52 PM
0

Beyond that, it's not actually calibrated to health outcomes. Even people who aren't particularly muscular can have a BMI above what is considered "healthy" and be perfectly fine, and actually have a lower mortality rate than people just below "healthy" BMI.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 05:45 AM
2

0 of 6 people found the following review helpful Top Reviewer Ranking: 20,527,509 Helpful Votes: 1
/r/MensRights25/03/14 05:28 AM
3

Seeing as businesses obey the markets, which doesn't care about gender, I'd say a lack of female black representation in boardrooms proves that indeed, there are not enough qualified women blacks that can par with men whites.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 05:03 AM
-3

...or that masculinity [is] "problematic". There you go again, conflating porn with "masculinity" so that you can accuse someone being critical of one with being critical of the other.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 02:46 AM
-5

Schoolboys have no responsibility for or control over the men who run the world... And he explicitly says that: ...men create this world, you don’t create this world that’s why I’m not blaming you for nothing. I’m not going to preach to you but men create this world you just live in it. ...male sexual desire does not belittle females. Where does he say it does? If porn is causing a problem for women, attack the people who make porn. You could also, I dunno, maybe talk to boys about the ways in w…
/r/MensRights25/03/14 02:21 AM
-24

Kind of hard to imprison fictional characters. (p.s. Downvoting me won't change the fact that you're jerking over something that all evidence indicates never happened. But I guess it'll make you feel better.)
/r/MensRights25/03/14 01:41 AM
-5

So in your mind the porn industry = "male sexuality"?
/r/MensRights25/03/14 01:36 AM
8

You can ask him for a link/the footage. You're the one posting the story here. It's not out of line to ask you to provide some evidence that it actually happened (which, as far as Google can reveal, it didn't).
/r/MensRights24/03/14 10:21 PM
-7

This is a great example of how they are psychologically abusing boys by turning treating their male sexuality as some kind of social disease that must be purged. Do me a favor: quote me the part of the site where they do that.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 10:10 PM
8

Top UrbanDictionary Definition for MRA is terrible -- Downvote it!! In favor of what, one of the other six equally hostile definitions?
/r/MensRights24/03/14 04:57 AM
1

The amount is designed to be painful enough to the organization that they crack down on this sort of thing. $200,000 doesn't come close to doing that. ...they awarded Ross-Paige $300,000 in compensatory damages and $7.2 million in punitive damages from the board for retaliation.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 02:05 AM
1

So you agree with me that FiremanJack's "It's in the name" argument is nonsense.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 06:52 AM
0

For expecting your response to have anything to do with the subject at hand? Yeah, I should probably know better...
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:07 AM
2

Those aren't really comparable. This isn't a course about getting women into a career as a mechanic, it's a course about teaching women the basics in personal car maintenance. A parallel would be something like "Basic Sewing For Men". Which wouldn't be that bad an idea, come to think of it.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 01:36 AM
1

The idea that men instinctively know how to work on a vehicle because they have a penis... No, the idea is that, for certain social reasons, men are far more likely to have received some informal instruction in basic vehicle maintenance from family or friends than woman are. It has nothing to do with inherent ability and everything to do with the fact that working on cars is coded as a masculine activity.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 12:45 AM
7

/r/MensRights
/r/MensRights18/03/14 10:06 PM
0

And that has what to do with the Innocence Project?
/r/MensRights18/03/14 07:50 PM
5

I'm not saying it's not an authentic 17th century document, I'm saying that it's not a genuine petition. It's a bit of anonymously published humor. Just read the darned thing. Are you really telling me that something full of stuff like this: ...ande we have read, how a Prince of Spain was forced to make a Law, that Men should not Repeat the Grand Kindness to their Wives, above NINE times a night; but Alas! Alas! Those forwards Days are gone, The dull Lubbers want a Spur now, rather than a Bridle…
/r/MensRights17/03/14 04:05 AM
2

The Women’s Petition Against Coffee of 1674 highlights this childish behavior. Pfft, seriously? The Women’s Petition Against Coffee of 1674 isn't real, it's a humorous essay full of dirty sex jokes (or what passed for dirty sex jokes in the 17th century). I bet you felt so intelligent when you were writing that, too.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 01:52 AM
2

Do you have a link to the actual text of the law? All I can find is other articles repeating the same couple of factoids, I can't find any specific information that would allow me to track it down. It's just "A Belgian law".
/r/MensRights17/03/14 12:56 AM
10

Carol Gilligan has "a master's degree in clinical psychology from Radcliffe College, and a Ph.D. in social psychology from Harvard University." Nancy Goldberger is a professor of "Biology & Biomedical Sciences" at Fielding Graduate University. Three minutes of Googling, dude.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 03:40 AM
5

It's easy, you just have to avoid the ones with devil horns and a tee shirt that says "I <3 abuse".
/r/MensRights16/03/14 03:26 AM
0

Why would its illegality render it inadmissible? Cocaine is illegal to have, but it can still be used as evidence.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 05:54 PM
-10

Because all human beings are deserving of empathy and respect. The fact that you think such a statement is prima facie absurd speaks volumes.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 04:21 AM
-13

Do you even understand what "consent can be withdrawn at any time" means? It means that at any point a person can decide they want to stop having sex. That is all.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 09:43 PM
-3

I didn't even know it was there until you told me. And even assuming that your interpretation is correct, you are accusing a woman of planning a rape that she had no knowledge of. I thought you guys were opposed to false rape allegations?
/r/MensRights14/03/14 08:27 PM
-4

I can't get the video to load, but none of the other sources unequivocally say the she was the ringleader. The Huffington Post story corroborates this version of events[1] , "Efemia A. Neumaier has been charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery after the man she was seeing discovered her Facebook messages to Thomas setting up the attack, the complaint says." It also says that: Police said after interviewing neighbors that the alleged assailants planned a "lick" on a man believed to carry l…
/r/MensRights14/03/14 07:48 PM
-4

Your headline is basically a lie. The woman is accused of helping to plan the crime. Your source says nothing about her being the mastermind behind it all. Furthermore, she couldn't have "orchestrated" that rape because the robbers broke into the wrong house. edited to add: Also, the other man who was involved in planning the robbery but not in carrying it out received the exact same bail as the woman, so it is not true that she got the "lightest bail". She got bail commensurate with her role in…
/r/MensRights14/03/14 06:19 PM
1

The attempts to deny her culpability of her own actions is what makes this relevant. That wouldn't happen if a male was on trial. Uh, that was by the defense council. Of course they would do the same for a male client. Denying culpability is their job.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 05:56 PM
-1

Fuck you too. I personally hope these people are convicted and do significant time.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 05:06 PM
1

No.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 04:57 PM
-2

Bail is about insuring you appear in court, not about how bad your crime was. Apparently they don't think she's a flight risk.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 04:31 AM
2

so no, I don't think the dad deserves jail. I don't think he deserves to feel bad, except that he was lied to. Wait, you don't think he even deserves to feel bad for shooting an innocent kid to death? Is this the "disposable male" thing I've been hearing so much about?
/r/MensRights14/03/14 03:15 AM
7

I can't see a jury giving them any sympathy, even if they are young girls. Certainly not after they play the recordings of their abuse for the jury.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:46 AM
10

Given that we don't have any details on what they did, we can't really say whether what they did qualifies as rape.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:41 AM
-6

Prosecutors charged the 17-year-old, Lauren A. Bush, as an adult. ... Each was charged with two counts of first-degree assault, two counts of second-degree assault, child pornography and false imprisonment. Yeah, total slap on the wrist. Also, calling a 15 year old perpetrator a "woman" while calling her 16 year old victim a "boy" is kinda iffy. The situation is awful enough as it is, you don't have to gild the lily.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:40 AM
2

You're not helping.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:34 AM
3

How does it make sense then for feminists not to oppose circumcision? In my experience, most feminists do oppose circumcision, to one degree or another. Some don't, to be sure, but you could say that about most segments of American society.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:32 AM
4

Many have been tried in court and no conviction so are likely to be false allegations. Seriously?
/r/MensRights14/03/14 01:23 AM
13

he took a pic of something that was visible from certain angles. Everything is visible "from certain angles".
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:02 PM
-4

In other words, the Innocence Project is not really relevant to the subject at hand.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 05:16 PM
4

Why are you linking to the website of noted racist and homophobe Robert Stacy McCain? A man who writes stuff like this: As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue,…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 08:54 AM
-7

Did you miss the part where I was totally right, and showed that the figure of 20,000 was based on the wrong statistic?
/r/MensRights03/03/14 08:16 AM
0

Okay, maybe I took it the wrong way. It just seemed a lot like you were saying "here is a terrible thing that women do and men don't". If you say that was not your intent I'll take you at your word. You just phrased it a bit awkwardly.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 05:30 AM
0

But that's still a strawman, isn't it? How? You said "men don't normally destroy property out of anger at women" when men actually do do that. I don't know if they do it at the same rate as women, but they certainly do it. And on the other hand it's practically celebrated when women do it. So women don't get billed for the damages? Or they do, but it's okay cause the Dixie Chicks wrote a song where a woman does it and gets away with it?
/r/MensRights03/03/14 05:16 AM
0

After the first 3-4 results they all turn into women vandalizing men's stuff. Nope, there's a pretty even mix. You were completely wrong, there are thousands and thousands of cases of men who "destroy property out of anger at women".
/r/MensRights03/03/14 05:00 AM
-2

But men don't normally destroy property out of anger at women. Yeah, that never happens.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 04:18 AM
-10

No kidding. The problem comes when you equivocate between different definitions of "false rape accusation".
/r/MensRights03/03/14 03:54 AM
1

Really? I was given links to Innocence Project cases that involved "women who claim to be raped without any evidence"? Because I don't see them.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 03:51 AM
1

You have got to be trolling, if you want a debate on the validity of the innocence project then start a thread on it, you are derailing so absurdly i can't even take you seriously. What makes you think I have qualms about the Innocence Project? The Innocence Project is awesome. If you think you're pointing out some grand fallacy in the initial statement, which you can't seem to stop attacking for what seems to be no sane or justifiable reason, then you are sorely mistaken. In its entirety: ""The…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 03:38 AM
-12

It doesn't. I never argued that men never get falsely accused by women, merely that the work of the Innocence Project has very little to do with the subject one way or the other.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 03:16 AM
3

I'm not seeing where this 20,000 number is coming from one way or the other is my point. It's at the link I posted: If one in 10 charges of rape is made up, is that a dangerously high rate or an acceptably low one? To put this in perspective, if we use the Bureau of Justice Statistics that show about 200,000 rapes in 2008, we could be looking at as many as 20,000 false accusations. They took the 200,000 number they got from who knows where and took ten percent of it based on the 1-in-10 false re…
/r/MensRights03/03/14 03:11 AM
-8

Yes, lets look at the original exchange, shall we: Snowdens_BTC_Wallet: But that would provide evidence against her claims for a accepting the claims of women who claim to be raped without any evidence... And I still haven't gotten any indication that the Innocence Project provides evidence one way or the other about "accepting the claims of women who claim to be raped without any evidence".
/r/MensRights03/03/14 02:55 AM
-8

What logical fallacies? I asked for one example of "accepting the claims of women who claim to be raped without any evidence" in the cases the Innocence Project has worked to justify the claims made by Snowdens_BTC_Wallet, and you gave me something totally unrelated.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 02:49 AM
2

I am not claiming the 200,000 is accurate. I am claiming that you can not take a statistic based on reported rapes and use that on the projected number of total rapes. Whether that number is correct is immaterial.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 02:46 AM
-10

But that's not what this particular thread was about. This thread is about Snowdens_BTC_Wallet's claim that Project Innocence has much to do with "women who claim to be raped without any evidence". As far as I can tell, it doesn't, one way or the other.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 02:40 AM
-10

So you're really splitting hairs over wrongful convictions vs false claims? When someone uses the former as evidence for the latter, yes.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 02:36 AM
0

Right here.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 01:06 AM
0

No they didn't. Read the link. They improperly applied the "10% of rape charges are false" stat to all rapes, not just those that were reported.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:59 PM
-21

In other words, it is related to some discussion occurring somewhere in the world, but not to the one happening right here.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:58 PM
-8

Yes. Go to their website. Go to their list of successes. Look up the cases online. Pretty much none of them have to do with "the claims of women who claim to be raped without any evidence". They mostly involve police or prosecutors manipulating victim and witness testimony, lab errors, withheld evidence, and the like. I looked at a bunch of the cases, and none of them seemed like made up crimes.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:56 PM
-11

And this has what to do with the Innocence Project?
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:39 PM
-6

I went to Jezebel because trying to read the article stripped of all formatting in the post's text box was a pain in the ass.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:25 PM
-3

Yes. Their number is essentially meaningless. And it took me about 15 seconds of googling to find that out. Google title of Jezebel piece >>> scroll down, click link >>> read 2nd paragraph.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:11 PM
1

The figure of 20,000 was arrived at by assuming a %10 false accusation rate our of 200,000 rapes. But those were all rapes, not just reported ones, so it doesn't really wash.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:10 PM
-8

Not in the sense that the term "false rape accusation" is generally used in, no. Generally prosecutorial misconduct or police misconduct is not what is meant by this term when used by MRAs, as demonstrated by Snowdens_BTC_Wallet's response to your post. When used here, "false rape accusation" pretty much always means "woman filing a police report accusing a man she knows to be innocent". That does not apply to those freed by the Innocence Project.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 11:00 PM
-2

This link. It's in the Jezebel article.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 10:48 PM
-1

Yes, that is exactly my point. You can't take an estimate based on the higher number and apply it directly to the lower one. It's apples and oranges.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 10:15 PM
-9

My math was accurate... Only if you ignore what the numbers actually mean. ...the information was not presented in a precise manner. Really? The link was right there, and the part I quoted was in the second paragraph. It took me literally 15 seconds to find it.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 10:09 PM
-2

Oh, jeeze. Read the source: If one in 10 charges of rape is made up, is that a dangerously high rate or an acceptably low one? To put this in perspective, if we use the Bureau of Justice Statistics that show about 200,000 rapes in 2008, we could be looking at as many as 20,000 false accusations. You're essentially saying that 10% equals 25%. Math doesn't work like that.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 09:37 PM
-18

Really? Go to The Innocence Project's website and find me one case involving a man being put away by "the claims of women who claim to be raped without any evidence". Just one case. Go ahead, I'll wait.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 09:29 PM
-9

Have you actually read about the crimes involved in those cases? I looked up about a hundred of them, once, and the ones that involved rape were pretty much all rape/murders or rape/assaults or similar, where the fact that a rape had occurred wasn't really in question. Pretty much none of them were based on women filing false rape reports, which is generally what is meant by "false rape accusation" in this context.
/r/MensRights02/03/14 09:26 PM
1

I think it's unequal that they consider men unable to get breast cancer. Where does it say that? "Men can't ski for a $5 donation" does not equal "Men can't get breast cancer".
/r/MensRights02/03/14 09:11 PM
-4

Real world: a) mothers can beat their children with impunity. Did you forget the part where they called the cops on her?
/r/MensRights28/02/14 09:35 PM
1

It might have something to do with the fact that the cops never saw her do that. By the time they got there all that had already happened.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 09:32 PM
0

keeps you away from your friends and family Women make their own choices and have physical autonomy. She decides to not see friends and family and somehow that's abuse? Separating someone from their friends and family is a very well documented strategy of abusers. Could you maybe not trivialize it so much?
/r/MensRights26/02/14 11:41 PM
1

So wait, you think manufacturing fake bank statements and then "accidentally" dropping them in front of her is the same level of manipulation as wearing shoes that you were probably going to wear in the near future anyway? Are you for real?
/r/MensRights25/02/14 01:36 AM
-1

A responsible healthy person will find these things out organically and naturally, not by manipulation and control. Yeah, because what's organic and natural about a woman occasionally wearing high heeled shoes, right? That's all manipulative and shit.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 08:16 AM
1

Yeah, but if that is the case, you should probably figure it out early in the relationship. That's not manipulative, it's just direct.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 07:00 PM
4

The first one is fine. The other five are varying levels of ridiculous bullshit.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 06:48 PM
5

Which it totally something that you are in a position to know for certain.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 06:38 PM
17

You're right, mocking a woman who is hurt and confused and looking for a little support for not being "empowered" enough is a totally cool thing to do. Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:55 AM
-2

This is a legitimate issue, why do you have to frame it as some sort of competition with women? What good does that do?
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:28 AM
15

You are a fucking asshole.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:18 AM
-1

That's a joke, son.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 06:34 AM
-7

Considering that your source cut a a seventy word sentence out of the quote without even an ellipsis to show that it had been done, yes, your source is quite flawed compared the complete quote which I have already posted. But don't let that stop you from downvoting me.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 03:53 AM
1

Disney The film industry keeps making the same movies over and over.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 03:13 AM
1

Those feminised, wimpish, and male-image-destroying cretonians are more than happy to sell their fellow human being down the gutter. One could only wish that some level of payback would be granted, or something bad befalls them, for their disgusting, sickening and betrayal behaviour. Yes, we should totally be hoping something bad happens to the people that made a movie you don't like. That sounds reasonable.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 02:21 AM
-6

Whatever, I give up. You're right, altering quotes like that is totally an intellectually honest think to do. You should keep doing it, it's what all the cool human rights movements are doing this year,
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:11 AM
-3

If that's your opinion, that's fine. Just make sure it's based on what she actually wrote.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:07 AM
-1

So the vast majority of men are murderers, rapists, molesters or abusers... ...or refuse to hire women in well-paid jobs, extract as much or more work from women than men but pay them less, or treat women disrespectfully at work or at home. Yes, that is what she is saying, and no it is not a "nice" claim. But when you cut that off to make it seem like she is saying all men are rapists and murderers, you are a liar.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:52 AM
-10

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you seriously arguing that a quote that says the vast majority of men engage in behaviors that may be as minor as "treat[ing] women disrespectfully at work or at home" can be accurately summarized by truncating it to say that the vast majority of men kill or rape women and molest their daughters? Really?
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:47 AM
-6

Than a quote doctored to suggest that the vast majority of men are murderers and rapists? I'm going to say yes. And even if you don't like the full quote, that still doesn't justify truncating it to make the author seem more extreme. That is very dishonest.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:37 AM
-14

Yes, your inaccurate rephrasing is just as absurd as the initial misquote. Maybe look at the original instead, hmm?
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:36 AM
-10

As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. Beyond that, it is not necessary to beat up a woman to beat her down. A man can simply refuse to hire women in well-paid jobs, extract as much or more work from women than men but pay them less, or treat women disrespectfully at work or at home. He can fail to support a child he has engendered, demand the woman he lives with wait on him like a servant. He …
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:25 AM
-20

As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE. -Marilyn French. Let me guess, you got this off a list of hateful feminist quotes, right? See those ellipses? Yeah, they cut out a whole bunch of other, less extreme behaviors that F…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 12:10 AM
1

So you don't care about how reliable the result is, you just want the tests to be equally unpleasant? With all due respect, that is fucking stupid.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 10:22 PM
2

Community service and probation? I've got five bucks that says you're wrong.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 08:18 AM
2

Crossfield, however, was shown photos of people of different ages, races and genders, and asked to rank their level of attractiveness. The test measures the length of time the subject looks at the photos -- someone lingering on photos of young people may suggest the person has an attraction to children. "It sort of operates on a trick," Gray said.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:41 AM
-32

SHE'S NOT GETTING AWAY WITH ANYTHING. SHE'S GOING TO PRISON. WHY DOES NOBODY GRASP THAT?
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:37 AM
-3

Why is the question whether she is a pedophile of importance here? Because we want to know how likely she is to assault another child when she gets out of prison. Because what sort therapy she undergoes while in prison to try and prevent her from re-offending will depend on the nature of her psychosis.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:33 AM
-1

No, it affects it very much. It's why she's going to go to prison. But what they do with her while she's in prison, and when they decide it's okay to let her out, very much depends on whether or not she has a compulsion to sexually assault children.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:25 AM
-5

So, you're arguing that the fact that a source has a history of making shit up is not worth knowing?
/r/MensRights22/02/14 04:41 AM
3

This is no defense, she's already been convicted. They're just trying to figure out what to do with her. Whether or not she's a pedophile affects that.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 04:00 AM
-3

So that was the test? Looking deep into her eyes? Tracking her eye movement, actually. Why wasn't there the equivalent of the penile test The penile test has been shown to be very inaccurate anyway, and given the physiology I imagine a female version would be even worse.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 03:16 AM
-3

LOL...you mean they had her look at pictures. Yes. They had her look at pictures and told her they wanted her to rate how attractive the people in the pictures were, while secretly measuring which pictures her eyes lingered on the most. I don't know how good the specific test they used is, but other image based tests have been shown to be at least somewhat effective. Look, they're not trying to absolve her of responsibility, they're just trying to figure out how likely she is to re-offend. If yo…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 02:52 AM
-4

This video was put out by the Austin Institute for The Study of Family and Culture, a rightwing social conservative think tank staffed by people like this well known homophobic asshole.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 02:34 AM
0

What does a random woman writing about how she thinks almost all women are terrible human beings have to do with Men's Rights? I mean, the personal heroes she lists include Aragorn (from The Lord of the Rings) and Genghis fucking Khan. She also writes sentences like this: With regard to the title as well, when I think of men, words like nobility, honour, courage, integrity and decency spring to mind, as for women – and being the most likely to make it onto the list of people I despise the most –…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 01:06 AM
-18

Jesus, just let it go already.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 11:13 PM
-17

They gave her a test, and the test did not show any particular sexual attraction to minors. She is an awful human being, but she is probably not a pedophile. What, exactly, is the point of posting this?
/r/MensRights21/02/14 11:08 PM
7

Disagree. I objectify women because I enjoy visual aspects of the form. Objectification is more than just looking at someone and finding them attractive. You have to do more than think "Damn, she's hot," to objectify someone.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 10:43 PM
-2

Want to know why some men have trouble respecting women's boundaries? Because they've been rejected so many times for not being dominant enough. So women are responsible for men who don't respect women's boundaries? Aren't you the people who talk about "female hypoagency" all the time?
/r/MensRights21/02/14 10:39 PM
-13

The MRM is never about bashing women... Which is why the post about his "gold digging whore of a wife" is at plus ten, and all of UmBongo86's posts explaining why that is unjustified because we have lack the information to make that sort of judgement are in the red.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 08:29 PM
-12

Hey, if men choose not to attend college, that's their business, right? I mean, that whole "hostile work/school environment" thing is a load of bull, right?
/r/MensRights20/02/14 07:59 PM
2

He's worth $45 million.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 07:55 PM
-40

We should consider these too, and not automatically bash the woman. Oh boy did you come to the wrong sub.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 07:53 PM
-11

And you get downvoted. Typical.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 07:50 PM
2

Are you saying she didn't have the CHOICE of not RUINING his life through taking all that money ? I'm assuming because no one needs all that money to live a normal life... So wait, having that amount of money taken from you will ruin your life to the point that you attempt suicide, but at the same time not having that money shouldn't prevent you from leading a normal life? Dude, make up you mind.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 07:02 PM
1

So before Jackie Robinson, Major League Baseball couldn't possibly have been biased against blacks? (Seriously, exclusion is one of the fundamental expressions of bias. How are you not seeing that?)
/r/MensRights20/02/14 09:50 AM
-1

By your logic, they're institutionally sexist by accusation unless... But that is not my logic. I explicitly said that I do no know whether or not there is systemic discrimination here. I was merely objecting to the assertion that, since the mechanics of the games themselves don't care about sex, therefore an organization dedicated to playing those games also must not discriminate by sex. That simply does not follow.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 11:06 PM
1

There is no actual or subtle bias against women in esports, there cannot be because there are no women in (big) esports. I would love to see you explain the logic of this assertion.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 11:02 PM
-6

Video games don't handicap by gender. You either play well or you don't. You do realize that there are many real world examples of ostensibly merit-based sports and activities being run in a discriminatory fashion, don't you? By your logic, Major League Baseball could never have excluded people of color because the actual rules don't mention race. (note: I am not saying this situation is equivalent to segregation. I am merely pointing out that saying "Video games don't handicap by gender" doesn'…
/r/MensRights19/02/14 08:40 AM
-4

Because you think someone disagreeing with you is sufficient cause to completely dismiss what they say?
/r/MensRights18/02/14 09:35 AM
1

D- A very poor effort, see me after class.
/r/MensRights17/02/14 11:46 PM
-6

We're getting close, people. Just a couple thousand more posts about women behaving badly and those Men's Rights will flow like milk and honey!
/r/MensRights17/02/14 11:43 PM
-7

Imagine, if I were to make a campaign that specifically says "Stop violence against males" A lot of feminists would be pretty pissed... Do you honestly believe this? Do you honestly believe that "a lot" of feminists would be seriously angered by a targeted attempt to stop violence perpetrated against men?
/r/MensRights17/02/14 11:40 PM
0

Holy shit, you were down voted to hell! Occupational hazard. That said, I did mention that I'm talking about loans... More specifically, you're talking about business loans. Is there any evidence that women are more likely to get those than men?
/r/MensRights17/02/14 08:47 PM
-5

...given women's superior access to funding, it should be easier for them, right? Women have better access to the venture capital required to start a business than men do? Got a source for that assertion?
/r/MensRights17/02/14 08:59 AM
0

Yeah, they're throwing me a ticker-tape parade as we speak.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 06:02 AM
-3

I know that never happened. SporkTornado seemed to be arguing that a longer life expectancy was, in and of itself, sufficient to prove the absence of oppression, and I was constructing a hypothetical to see how committed they were to that position.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 02:36 AM
-15

So if it turned out that being forced to spend all day in a scorching hot field lacerating your hands on cotton plants to enrich the owner who sold your children to plantations hundreds of miles away somehow resulted in you living longer on average than that owner, would that mean it no longer counted as oppression? Just trying to suss out the logic of your argument here. p.s. Also, I think you are taking modern life expectancies and projecting them backwards.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 07:21 AM
-1

What, you mean like letting women into combat roles in the military. You, that thing that we're talking about, that's happening right now?
/r/MensRights11/02/14 02:35 AM
-1

Or, is it possible that women of that era wanted the right to vote without the responsibility of serving in the military? I think it's more likely that, like with most of the rest of their culture, the idea that women were fit to serve in the military just never even occurred to them.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 02:27 AM
-1

Ok, fine. Did they then also have to work to shame men in to signing up? Was that necessary for the advancement of women's rights? No, that had nothing to do with advancing women's rights. That's just proof that feminists are no more immune to jingoism than non-feminists. I'm sure plenty of them were racist and classist too. They were simply a product of their time, and part of that was a romanticized, pre-WWI idea of war as a place for men to win martial glory while supporting the empire and te…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 02:19 AM
3

They could fight for the right to vote. They easily could have included the draft too, I don't see why not. Because including a request for something that most people think is absurd with a request for something many people think is reasonable makes it more likely you won't get anything. If the Suffragettes had come out of the gate demanding the right to vote and the right to military service, many people who might otherwise have supported them would have written them off as lunatics.That's just…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 02:05 AM
1

You're pretty good at arguing against points I never made. Of course I'm not saying that there was never any resistance to blacks in the military, what I am saying is that the sort of resistance faced by them was different than the sort of resistance a hypothetical suffragette to have women serve in the 1910s would have faced. People who were against integrating the military generally weren't of that opinion because they thought people of color were incapable of being soldiers, whereas the idea …
/r/MensRights11/02/14 01:55 AM
2

There had been some blacks in the US military since before there was a US, so your gotcha is somewhat toothless. Also, the two situations are not equivalent.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 12:30 AM
-1

Why would they have no chance of achieving it? Are you seriously asking why women would have had no chance of military service in the 1910s?
/r/MensRights11/02/14 12:27 AM
-7

...but nonetheless, it's sad that feminists never fought to get drafted back then... Yes, they should have wasted a bunch of effort on something there was absolutely no change of achieving, instead of focusing on things where they actually could make some progress. That's totally a rational thing to do.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 11:43 PM
1

Oh, yes, there is certainly a difference, but the two are related. My problem isn't the claim that there is a loss of sensation, that is certainly plausible. But the idea that there is an order of magnitude difference between the experience of pleasure in a circumcised versus an uncircumcised penis, and nobody noticed, strains credibility. That is something that literally every man who was circumcised as an adult would notice, and complain about. Frequently, at high volume, and at length.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 09:09 AM
5

Are you really making the argument that Red Pill style bullshit is the moral equivalent of a bra that makes your tits look bigger?
/r/MensRights06/02/14 04:28 AM
9

Yeah, brigaders. It couldn't possibly be the fact that OP completely misrepresented the nature of the image they posted, and everyone, feminist or not, can see that they did that. Nope, got to be brigaders.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 04:26 AM
10

i never said a thing about this users argument... Yeah, that was kind of my entire point.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 03:09 AM
5

So do you have any source for your assertion that circumcision "causes a man to lose 90% of his pleasure", or is that merely speculation on your part? You would think that if it were really such a drastic change, then men who were circumcised would find it much more difficult to achieve orgasm than men who were uncircumcised, but this does not seem to be the case. Furthermore, if this were true it should be trivially easy to do a scientific study of men who were circumcised as adults. A tenfold …
/r/MensRights06/02/14 03:05 AM
7

Well, I was going to pay attention to the totally rational argument the poster was making, but now that you've suggested they post in SRS, I guess I'll just have to downvote them and then jerk about how this comic is hateful towards all men.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 02:55 AM
1

That's the best you got?
/r/MensRights04/02/14 10:13 AM
2

Ask damn near any "gifted" kid, the school system held them back and made them bored. Held them back more than no education at all would have?
/r/MensRights04/02/14 08:43 AM
1

If you don't want this to happen, increase the CPS budget and they'll gladly come to the same conclusion as the police and not charge/sanction anyone. Then how do you explain the fact that everywhere that the number of referred cases declined significantly, the number of cases that were prosecuted fell as well? It is obvious that some of these cases that were not passed along to CPS were ones that in the past CPS would have chosen to prosecute. So the claim that CPS would "come to the same concl…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:44 AM
0

There are no laws protecting men from wage discrimination... Oh really? Lets just look at the Equal Pay Act of 1963: No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in …
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:22 AM
1

You made up a bunch of crap about how she got of the car and really knew she hit someone. That's what I was objecting to.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 04:44 AM
1

uh, that information is not in that article. Then maybe you should have done a minute's worth of googling instead of engaging in baseless speculation and then telling someone they were wrong based on that speculation. And that is exactly what she was convicted of.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 03:11 AM
1

Uh, yeah. That's basically the textbook definition of a plea bargain. The DA offers an amount of punishment, and if you think it's fair or a better deal than you'll get going to trial, you accept it and plead guilty. I mean, duh.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 02:41 AM
1

The guys, in their effort to protect her, convinced/forced her to go alone with covering up the crime and evidence. I'm not sure what the point is of talking about what might have happened. There's no evidence for this, so why even bring it up if not to rationalise her actions? The defendant's brother took the stand, claiming that Cynthia Garcia-Cisneros brought up turning herself into investigators, but they didn't want her to. "She wanted to go to police, but I didn't, I just told her to relax…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 02:31 AM
0

How exactly did she learn that while driving? hmmm, perhaps because she wasn't driving, she got out of her car to check and realized that she hit two kids and still fled the scene. You're just wrong and your trying really hard not to be. Just stop... Uh, before you mock someone for being wrong, maybe you should read the story first. She lived a block and a half away from where she hit them. She learned of it "a few minutes later" because the whole neighborhood was in an uproar about it.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 02:20 AM
8

Either way it doesn't justify the total disenfranchisement of a person or the witchunt for consensual sex with an age-of-consent individual. A woman with the same record would not be treated this way. ... But court records show Rush has a violent background, having been arrested for aggravated and simple assault, reckless endangerment and terroristic threats, as well as indecent assault of a child under 13 years old. Most recently he was charged with assaulting one former girlfriend and attackin…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 12:12 AM
0

So you are telling me that setting up a federal rape system is as much a legitimate function of the state as providing for the national defense? Furthermore, can you not see the difference between not prioritizing the removal of a law which has essentially been rendered moot, and creating a new law that serves no purpose and is intentionally offensive?
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:09 AM
3

Or, you know, we could just have women register the same way men do, instead of constructing some sort of elaborate fantasy in which all women have to sign up to be potentially raped at some point in the future, because that'll show the damn feminists.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 02:36 AM
1

are you suggesting that someone's thoughts are not part of objective reality? Not the part of objective reality I have access to.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 04:21 AM
1

hating women is a statement of fact. Not really. It's speculation about someone's thoughts. That's not a statement about objective reality. that's like saying someone's in the KKK. No, it's like saying someone is a racist. The KKK is an organization, participation in the activities of which is a matter of fact.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 04:09 AM
5

As you believe that this is false, her statements may be slander ("the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."). Depending on the damage she has caused your reputation, femi, may be in a legally actionable position. Opinions are generally held not to be slanderous. If she stuck to value judgements about you, and refrained from making false statements of fact, you can't really touch her. Saying you're a tax cheat is slander. Saying you hate women isn…
/r/MensRights30/01/14 07:40 AM
2

It would literally be on par with doctors discouraging and refusing to treat women with lumps on their breasts. Actually, it would be more like doctors telling women to get pap smears every three years instead of every year because getting one every year doesn't save any lives, but it does increase the number of false positives by a substantial margin.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 09:37 PM
2

Feminist America!
/r/MensRights28/01/14 09:31 PM
1

So while there might have been 2250 (false accusation of) rape cases considered and only 750 go to trial, there were also 12750 (actually happened) rape cases and 4250 go to trial. And? 750 cases going to trial still means at most 500 convictions unless you posit that false accusations are more likely to result in conviction. And that is without taking into account the other factors that would have reduced that number even further. So, we assume the rate of false accusations goes down as we work…
/r/MensRights28/01/14 05:13 AM
2

False rape claims are different than mistaken rape claims. This was exactly my point.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 02:31 AM
5

Imply nothing. Your sneer at feminism made it pretty much the only reasonable conclusion. Feminists don't argue against the existence of loaded police lineups, they argue against the idea that women frequently make up rapes that never happened.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 02:12 AM
5

Those aren't the sort of "false rape allegation" that feminists argue about, and you know it.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 01:55 AM
4

This in not, strictly speaking, the truth. You are not differentiating between cases where no rape occurred, and cases where a rape occurred and the wrong man was convicted. I mean, it's pretty hard to argue that a case where a woman was raped and murdered was a "false rape claim". The rape clearly happened, they just got the wrong guy. Here's the list. Go through it and find me a case where the rape clearly didn't happen, because I'm browsing through it and so far they all look like cases where…
/r/MensRights28/01/14 12:38 AM
7

But that's not what it said. What it said was that 25% of "cases of rape and rape-murder where there has already been either arrest or an indictment" resulted in excluding the suspect. Your math only holds if every one of those arrested is indicted, every one of those indicted is prosecuted, and every one of those prosecuted is convicted. I don't know what the percentage of arrests that lead to indictments is, or what the percentage of indictments that lead to prosecutions is, but the conviction…
/r/MensRights27/01/14 06:35 PM
6

Of the 3k who go to jail, 750 (25%) are innocent. Where did this stat come from?
/r/MensRights27/01/14 09:20 AM
2

But your financial standing affects every aspect of your life, your job, your living conditions, whether you can afford to participate in society and essentially live a full life. It is the basis for all other forms of oppression (insofar as racism and homophobia can even be called “oppression”).
/r/MensRights22/01/14 09:37 PM
5

You'd think the fact that his username is "marclepinewasright" would be enough of a red flag.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 09:30 PM
-13

1) Since when is saying a person's argument is nonsensical a personal attack? 2) You got me, I think equating a statement telling men "don't be a rapist" to a statement telling women "don't get raped" makes you an asshole. what is wrong with me?
/r/MensRights02/01/14 05:04 AM
-11

If anyone is worthy of mockery, it would be someone who feels qualified to mock other people for their grasp of the English language... But that is explicitly what I was trying not to do. I wanted to know if the confusion was due to not being a native speaker, or if it was the ideas themselves that were jumbled. ...having such poor reading comprehension that their only response to a legible post... A legible post? Please diagram this sentence for me: There's no side of the argument, else I would…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:48 AM
-11

His wit is spot on. Then explain it to me, because I'm really not seeing it.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:40 AM
-13

Oh, look, turns out I was wrong - it's Essemd's third language.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:39 AM
-16

What's racist about wanting to know whether someone is a native English speaker? The grammar in the preceding post is all over the place, and if it's due to not being entirely familiar with the language it wouldn't be nice to mock them for that.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:03 AM
-16

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but is English not your first language?
/r/MensRights02/01/14 01:55 AM
1

TIL that some people prefer leisure activities to paid labor.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 01:46 AM
-25

And that excuses him from making sense, or being a decent person, or at the very least thinking about how his words will reflect on a movement he at least theoretically wants to succeed?
/r/MensRights02/01/14 01:38 AM
-21

Pro tip for anyone who's afraid of accusing someone of rape, don't get raped. Not only do you suck at being witty, you are not really helping your side of the argument here. Not only does this make no sense, and frame rape as something that is the responsibility of the victim, but it can quite easily (and fairly) be read as an attack on people for making true rape accusations. You maybe want to think about rephrasing, champ?
/r/MensRights02/01/14 01:34 AM
2

Its a shame because there is no reason why it should be attached to that crowed, but thats what has happened. No reason, other than the fact that American political liberalism has historically tended to be far more accepting of religious pluralism than American political conservatism has.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 03:34 AM
0

Well, as long as you're a member of a sub allied with /r/nationalsocialism for noble reasons, I guess that's okay then.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 11:16 PM
5

I wasn't born at a time and place when that was a cultural norm, so how I would feel about it isn't really relevant.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 03:52 AM
0

Hopefully they'll get a good settlement out of this. If you're going to chop pieces of somebody's living flesh off without formal medical training, you should be ready to pay the piper when you screw up. p.s. I see that the Daily Mail is maintaining it's usual standards: Jewish Rabbi being sued... As opposed to the other kind?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 01:42 AM
5

So you are claiming that in the 1940's the state initiated a program intended to humiliate boys?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 01:33 AM
-21

You do realize that this is for the purposes of the investigation, and has nothing to do with the assumed guilt of any individual who is accused, right? This about the police, not the courts. Anyone charged with rape is still innocent until proven guilty.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 01:25 AM
1

The woman, Helen Ann Williams, 44, of an address on Clifton Street in North Charleston, was in the Charleston County jail on $10,000 cash bond, jail records showed Friday. She faces a hearing in Charleston County Circuit Court in April on a felony charge of domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 05:53 AM
1

Then maybe someone should have told OP that, instead of telling them that "Your question has been answered" and "Figure it the fuck out".
/r/MensRights29/12/13 05:49 AM
-2

The MRM or the MHRM is focused on establishing and advocating for the equal civic, social, human, and legal rights of men to those of women. That is it's goal. Figure it the fuck out. slu-g wasn't asking about your goal, slu-g was asking about your methods. Even if what you are ultimately aiming for is equality, if different groups of people are in different places right now it is going to take different methods to get them there.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 05:46 AM
0

Your question has been answered by him, there are a lot of problems faced by all men. And that's what's being worked on. So when someone asks what the movement is doing for a certain subset of men, you consider the answer "stuff" to be so sufficient that further questions are unnecessary? That's some great advocacy there.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 05:43 AM
0

There are very few places men can vent about this sort of thing. But why would you want this to be one of them? I thought this place at least aspired to be more than a circlejerk?
/r/MensRights29/12/13 04:42 AM
-1

Also are you aware that early black civil rights leaders did place getting blacks the right to serve very high in their list of priorities? Given that African Americans have served in the military in various capacities as far back as the Revolutionary War, that's kind of an apple to oranges comparison, don't you think? Getting blacks into the military during the Civil Rights movement was feasible, getting women into active military service in 1914 is just laughable.
/r/MensRights29/12/13 02:52 AM
-1

Someone who supports traditional gender roles, and in that, sends men off to die isn't great, but at least they're consistent. She opposed traditional gender roles but only where it benefited her. So you're, what, complaining she wasn't trying to get women in the army in 1914? Is that really a reasonable thing to expect from a person in her time and place? And why is consistency in wrongness a virtue here? How is a person suffering from jingoistic nationalism somehow made more palatable by also …
/r/MensRights28/12/13 10:00 AM
-1

Not such a nice lady and one that the Uk should not be proud of. Do you think the same of all the people who were responsible for sending a generation of British youth off to be slaughtered, or just of her?
/r/MensRights28/12/13 01:34 AM
0

What part of my joke about changing babies makes you think I'm taking this seriously?
/r/MensRights27/12/13 02:06 AM
-9

Without women, civilization would last until the baby needed changing.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 07:24 AM
5

Uh, that is asserted entirely on the unsupported claims of a man convicted of extensive fraud and misrepresentation. There has never been any indication that the movie "Taken" was based on any particular real life event. Maybe not so much with taking scam artists at their word, huh?
/r/MensRights24/12/13 12:28 AM
1

Let me ask you a question: what do you think the odds are that the court might have had legitimate reasons to strip custody from a man who threw a three year old child off of a 50 story building? You are acting like this is an obvious injustice, but you have zero evidence that the court's decision was wrong, and compelling circumstantial evidence that the father was an abusive asshole.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 11:45 PM
1

Your lack of compassion is showing. Remind me, which of us is defending a man who threw his three year old son off of a building because he didn't want his wife to raise him? The state took away everything he had to live for and he snapped. But did the state take away everything his son had to live for? No, it did not. If he really loved his son as his own person, instead of an extension of himself, he would not have killed him. Killing a child to keep from giving custody of them to someone else…
/r/MensRights23/12/13 11:24 PM
2

That comment seems more like an implicit criticism of the theater, really.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 08:15 PM
2

Which country is that, if you don't mind me asking?
/r/MensRights23/12/13 08:13 PM
3

Edit: additionally the article implies the man was afraid off heights and blames him for sitting that high up. No it doesn't.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 09:42 AM
6

Yes, how dare the court try to remove a child from the custody of a man who was willing to murder that child to spite his wife.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 08:57 AM
0

This is obviously wrong because a slave doesn't own the property where he works, unlike the wife who owns 50% of all the property acquired during marriage (including property inherited by the husband), under the traditional marriage laws. Which "traditional marriage laws" are these? In Britain, where Marx did much of his writing, married women didn't even gain the right to own ANY property until 1882, and even then they lost ownership to any property they owned before marriage to their husband. …
/r/MensRights23/12/13 08:43 AM
1

Sorry, it was not my intention to be hostile.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 10:34 AM
-1

The "logical inconsistencies" of a joke? Are you for real?
/r/MensRights17/12/13 06:46 AM
2

Yes, because I don't get it. Ms Watson tells an anecdote, which presumably really happened. In this anecdote she gets drunk and then tries to have sex. She told a joke. Seriously, how do you not get this? Are you really telling me that you think she makes a habit of having "one of everything" when she goes to a bar? Surely you have at least heard of humor before, even if you have not personally witnessed it?
/r/MensRights16/12/13 11:08 PM
-1

Did the maker of the video post it to /r/MensRights? No, you did. You decided that this was the sort of thing you ought to promote, so fucking own it.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 06:59 PM
5

You really need someone to explain to you how taking someone's joke, removing it from all context, and acting like it's a serious statement in order to accuse someone of wanting to be raped makes you look like an asshole?
/r/MensRights16/12/13 06:58 PM
1

Where are you getting that from? All I can find is that they have been charged, I can't find any news of a conviction.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 06:53 PM
1

That's more of a corporate thing. As far as I know, club owners and managers are generally closer to the action. They can't really make next quarter somebody else's problem like corporate officers seem to be able to do. They're tied a lot more firmly to the long term performance, and I doubt any of them have golden parachutes.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 09:43 AM
2

Really weird they'd go about it based off of a percentage thing since a $200 transfer shouldn't take more resources than a $15 but hey, not my business thing. Yeah, and a 300 dollar lobster dinner isn't any harder to serve than a 30 dollar pasta entree, but when it comes to tips you're supposed to go based on the price of the food. Nobody said this was all rational or reasonable, it's just what is.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 09:40 AM
2

That said, I then look to the service charge and get a bit.... iffy. I'm sorry but I'm not club savvy (or at least story club savvy) enough to understand how women would require a service charge of $7.80, while men $12.50. That probably has a lot more to do with the online ticket service than the club. They generally base it on the price, which is pretty silly, but ticket sellers jerking people around with service fees is nothing new.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 08:41 AM
2

I'm ALSO sorry that you got such a big reply to a quick 2 sentence pointing out of fact. T'would be churlish to complain that someone answered your question too thoroughly.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 08:18 AM
6

No, not really. It's not just about keeping the guys under half, it's about trying to have parity with girls. They're essentially bribing women to come to their club, rather than another one, because they know if they don't, someone else will. It's a pretty silly game, but you can't really blame individual clubs for playing it, any more than you can blame your waiter for how silly the tipping system is. They didn't make the rules.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 08:12 AM
4

You really think this has anything to do with feminism? It's what clubs do, not because of ideology, but because of money. Using women as bait to get guys into a club is not a remotely feminist action by any stretch of the imagination.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 08:06 AM
3

Club owners tend to be pretty canny about making a profit. They're not perfect at it, but if it were hurting their profits in a real way odds are pretty good they would notice it and change the policy.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 08:04 AM
2

Allegedly stabbed him to death. If you're going to care about accusing people of committing crimes they have not been convicted of, you ought to be consistent.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 07:49 AM
5

Seriously? You're exactly the kind of person who gives MRAs a bad name.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 07:38 AM
13

Prepare to be disappointed. The vast majority of feminists, and women in general, think a safe effective pill for men is a great idea.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 12:53 AM
1

Well, what I find amusing is that you think that's an adequate response. Does that make my point any less valid?
/r/MensRights07/12/13 11:39 PM
1

Because if somebody posted it on Facebook it must be true? Have you ever been on Facebook?
/r/MensRights07/12/13 09:08 PM
3

The very concept of making it more profitable to incarcerate more people is a perversion of justice.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 05:56 PM
4

If my email inbox is any indicator, it's clear that modern men and women are clueless about how to behave on a first date. Maybe that's because only clueless people would be willing to ask you for advice.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 05:41 PM
-5

Women can use a weapon to attack a man who's harrassing them (any kind of harrass) Really? So I assume you can show me tons of examples of women stabbing a guy for catcalling them and getting no punishment for it, right?
/r/MensRights06/12/13 05:30 PM
0

and whether I sound like a conspiracy theorist, or just a paranoid loony There's a difference?
/r/MensRights05/12/13 09:33 PM
-1

Violence by proxy? The two women were engaging each other in violence by violence. And you're really going to blame them for two men pulling guns on each other? Aren't you the ones who go on about "female hypoagency"?
/r/MensRights05/12/13 09:30 PM
2

Is it brigading if you find the thread on your own and don't downvote anyone?
/r/MensRights05/12/13 05:16 PM
2

The obvious rejoinder being "You don't respond substantively to anyone."
/r/MensRights05/12/13 05:14 PM
2

Let's say that it's deflecting "more" of the blame to the husband. Let's not. I agree that the idea that paying for a yoga class is a necessary prerequisite for exercise is silly, but how in the world does a family's budget not covering it translate to blaming the husband at all? In general, I think people should take more responsibility for their own health rather trying to go through every excuse in the book. That's a nice sentiment and all, but there are structural issues in play here that ef…
/r/MensRights04/12/13 09:08 PM
3

I was responding to the pic OP posted, which they claimed would never be published.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 08:44 PM
0

The implication here, for a married couple is that the husband isn't giving the wife money to spend on her own fitness. That's a pretty big stretch to call that 'deflecting the blame on the husband', let alone 'deflecting all the blame on the husband'. While that may be true, it's still technically allotting more of the responsibility on the man. Now you're just flailing.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 08:38 PM
35

It's not an analogy, it's a double entendre. And if you think a double entendre about men liking large breasts wouldn't be published, you must live in a cave. On Io.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 08:15 PM
5

And honestly, I found the rationalizations a bit annoying both in the article and the comments. They once again try to deflect all the blame on the husband. Come again? The article never even mentions husbands, and the comments barely do either. Where exactly do you see anyone trying to "deflect all the blame on the husband"?
/r/MensRights04/12/13 08:09 PM
7

Almost certainly. The increase in time spent driving by itself probably counts for a very big chunk of the new "sedentary" time.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 06:41 PM
9

If I am reading it right(too lazy to read the actual study at the moment, that says that even in the 1960s, before the feminist movement gained massive amount of power, housewives worked 4/5ths the time that their husbands did You're not reading it right. This study only includes "housework, child care, laundry, food preparation, postmeal cleanup, and exercise" in its physical activity category, and includes both mothers who have paid employment and those who do not. Even in 1965, the oldest dat…
/r/MensRights04/12/13 06:31 PM
16

You guys do realize that this is a study of mothers in general, not stay at home mothers, right? And that it only includes work done in the home, and not other employment? And that it includes time spent driving, which has increased a lot since the 70's?
/r/MensRights04/12/13 06:18 PM
-1

This is the post that conversation was about.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 06:02 PM
0

Are you joking? Please tell me you're joking?
/r/MensRights03/12/13 05:44 PM
-1

Uh, I wasn't talking about OP. You can click in the "parent" link and see who I was talking about.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 05:41 PM
3

So I just hallucinated the post where /u/RichBl said that "There are many cases of men being sentenced to life in prison based only on a womans lie"? I must have also hallucinated the part where, 13 hours later, nobody has yet to provide me with even one example to substantiate the claim.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 10:46 AM
0

The point is that rape + kidnapping IS a life sentence kind of crime, so that should be on the table for the woman... Then they should have made that argument, instead of making exaggerated claims they couldn't back up.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 03:19 AM
1

I'm not "refuting" news sources, I'm reading them and noticing that none of them fulfill my request for an example of a woman lying a man into life in prison. Also, the links to each story are right above each of those single sentences. If I have erred in describing any of them, please correct me.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 03:17 AM
-7

Rape is not a capital crime and life sentences for rape do not usually occur unless there are aggravating circumstances. Then why are you responding to my request to substantiate that claim if you agree with me that it is not true? (p.s. Sorry, I thought you were they guy I originally replied to.)
/r/MensRights03/12/13 02:28 AM
8

They are stating that 12% were false allegations No crime! Not really. Accurately reporting someone's actions to the police and being told that what they did is not a crime is not the same thing as a false accusation.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 02:23 AM
-4

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/22/johnathan-montgomery_n_2175208.html He was sentenced to 7.5 years, not life. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/big12/story/2012-07-23/Darrell-Williams-convicted-rape-oklahoma-state/56446242/1 There was testimony from two women. The sentence was two years, not life. There is no evidence they lied, you hypocrite. You are accusing these women of a crime based on zero evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case Nobody …
/r/MensRights03/12/13 02:16 AM
6

So it's cool to draw a generalization about an entire sex based on one data point? You guys are cool with that here? Okay then. Hey, remember the sub-prime mortgage crisis, caused by hundreds of CEOs, thousands of executives, and tens of thousands of upper and middle management people, the vast majority of them male? Yeah, that's why there shouldn't be many male CEOs or executives. When men are raised to be sociopathic, self centered assholes willing to screw anyone over for a buck, ready to gam…
/r/MensRights03/12/13 01:34 AM
-26

There are many cases of men being sentenced to life in prison based only on a womans lie. Really? Cite one. Cite me one case where a man was sent to prison for the rest of his life based on the word of a woman and no other evidence.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 12:44 AM
-6

I don't think being critical is the same thing as trolling.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 12:43 AM
-3

There's also the chance that the person who was imprisoned for 7 years could have been raped, assaulted, or even murdered during that time. If anything like that occurred, and was documented then the false accuser should be held criminally liable for those crimes as well. Now you want the accuser to be held accountable for the failings of the penal system as well? Really? If the accused dies in a traffic accident on the way to court, should they be charged with murder too?
/r/MensRights02/12/13 11:59 PM
-7

The downvotes you received reek of vengeance. Yeah, but I've posted in SRS, so downvoting me is a righteous act of retribution.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 11:53 PM
-25

So will she get life in prison that a man would have got had he kidnapped her? Why the hell would you expect her to?
/r/MensRights02/12/13 07:31 PM
5

The median age for deaths from colon cancer is 74, and very few of the deaths are of those under 50. The median age for deaths from breast cancer, despite its massive advantage in funding, is 68, and a much larger portion of the deaths are of those under 50. The simple fact is that there are a lot more people who lost a mother or a sister or a daughter or a wife to breast cancer at a young age than there are people who lost a father or a brother or a son or a husband to colon cancer at a young a…
/r/MensRights01/12/13 06:11 AM
4

Well, you guys don't seem to think that sociopathic personality traits are something to be aspired to, so you've got that distinction going for you.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 05:43 AM
0

Uh, what? I'm pretty sure most of the people arguing for it aren't Jewish. I think you're making an unwarranted generalization here. An unwarranted generalization about Jews being responsible for a problem. Which, uh...well, I might want to be careful about how you phrase that if I were you.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 01:35 AM
1

It's almost like the videogames industry perpetuates silly and outdated gender stereotypes or something.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 01:24 AM
1

Downvoted because she demands proof of opinions. So if I said that you want rapists to go free, you'd be okay with me not supporting that assertion with any proof that you believe that? I mean, it's just an opinion, right? Bullshit. You would be justifiably upset. Similarly, accusing someone of wanting to put innocent people in jail based on nothing is also bullshit, and you damn well know it. Edit: Also, the person quoted in the story outright said it. Really? So you can quote the part where sh…
/r/MensRights27/11/13 10:50 PM
3

Good luck. There was a guy who pointed out about twenty times in the original thread that they were citing satire and not a real source, and about half the responses were "yeah, but we're still totally justified in saying all the things we said, because reasons". I don't see this conversation going anywhere, sadly.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 04:55 AM
4

I notice you don't actually dispute any of the numbers, you just point at "feminist bloggers" and act like that's all the rebuttal needed.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 04:43 AM
0

It is also worrying that she just wants to drive up conviction rates regardless of whether the person is guilty. Care to substantiate that?
/r/MensRights27/11/13 01:06 AM
-6

That's nice. That doesn't actually address my post though, does it? This article makes the point that if the genders were reversed women would hate the idea. You know, that thing you guys do all the time? And yet it still isn't good enough for PartyTime86. This is a petty, inaccurate complaint about a balanced article. You guys can do better.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 10:13 PM
-4

If this doesn't seem bad enough, committed faithfuls can be assessed by the ghosts of girlfriends past with phrases like #ForgotMyBirthday and thrown into the same pool as bad boys, serial daters and dumpers, aka #TotalF*ckingDickhead #IncapableOfCommitment. This is ... #WildlyOffensive. So by this point, if you're single, Lulu has poured salt in your most recent wounds and deterred you from the nice guy you went out with last night. My close friend -- let's call him Andrew -- has been with his …
/r/MensRights26/11/13 09:00 PM
1

I still don't get how all of these new age things can be biased like this... Did you just call the Oxford English Dictionary "New Age"?
/r/MensRights26/11/13 08:50 PM
4

And having read the whole thing now, the question remains.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 08:24 PM
2

It's a subscription website, genius.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 08:15 PM
3

Someone need to program a bot that automatically posts "But what does this have to do with Men's Rights" every time Alisdair starts a thread.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 07:59 PM
1

Yes, because Matt Barber is totally the sort of person you want to ally yourself with.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 09:28 PM
1

Really?
/r/MensRights25/11/13 09:24 PM
3

Not to be overly critical, but maybe you should wait until after you research the claim before you post about it.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 08:45 PM
10

How will the world react if even here the issue of circumcision is given to the discretion of any person, according to their own beliefs? Letting people make their own decisions? Quelle horreur! One of the anti-circumcision groups ought to donate some money to pay the fine for her. Might be some good publicity in it.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 08:16 PM
-9

You got a source for the part about WHO's statement? It would be handy since that will be the first thing that gets demanded if this ever comes up in an argument. Gee, ya think?
/r/MensRights25/11/13 06:50 PM
2

Clearly an important men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 05:46 PM
0

The title directly calls her a murderer. She has not been convicted of murder.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 09:58 PM
0

You know, if you're going to use "alleged" to describe her assailant, you really ought to use it to describe her as well. It's only fair.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 06:14 PM
2

No, feminists convinced the UN to recognize it in order to demoralize all men and render International Men's Day toothless. Obviously.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 09:29 PM
0

feminism is supposed to be about equality.. maybe they will change the date for womens day to be on.. the date of the pisser? Worst. Gotcha. Evar.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 08:03 PM
2

That's why, traditionally, you read the article you are complaining about first. I mean, are you seriously trying to justify just reading the title right now? Are you that much of an ass? Stop trying to rationalize your behavior, just admit that you were wrong and move the fuck on.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 07:54 PM
1

He didn't make the claim at all, you fucking prat. The author is not responsible for your staggering lack of reading comprehension or common sense.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 07:47 PM
1

that was based on an article that men ought to be thankful to feminist that we have a day of a year to celebrate. No, that was based on you reading nothing but the fucking title of the article and assuming it meant Feminism was responsible for International Men's Day, you disingenuous ass.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 07:42 PM
0

How is this a men's rights issue? A woman seems to have sexually assaulted someone, and she has been arrested.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 07:39 PM
2

Yes, they recognized something that has been going on on this date for 12 years. They didn't pick the date.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 07:33 PM
1

Hey "sopist" argue my point? What the hell is your point by now? Your whole "Feminists manipulated the UN into making this World Toilet Day" and "Feminists Chose Nov 19th to be International Men's Day" arguments have pretty obviously been shown as bullshit. What's left?
/r/MensRights19/11/13 07:28 PM
-1

"In 2001, the World Toilet Organization declared its founding day, 19 November, as World Toilet Day. ... Jack Sim established the Restroom Association of Singapore (RAS) in 1998 to break the taboo of toilet and sanitation and legitimize it for mainstream culture." "International Men's Day (IMD) is an annual international event celebrated on 19 November. Inaugurated in 1999 in Trinidad and Tobago, the day and its events find support from a variety of individuals and groups in Australia, the Carib…
/r/MensRights19/11/13 07:18 PM
2

Ashtone is convinced The Feminism had something to do with manipulating the UN into picking the date of World Toilet day to coincide with International Men's day, just show how shit they think men are. Not content with sharing their bugaboo in a couple other threads, they decided it needed a new thread all its own.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 07:04 PM
18

World Toilet Day was started by an independent non-profit organization in 2001. The UN is recognizing it now, but it didn't start it and it didn't pick the date. It's a coincidence. There are only 365 days in a year, and thousands of "World X Day"s and "International Y Day"s and "Global Z Day"s. There's going to be shared days. Deal.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 06:46 PM
4

Wow, you're really hurt over this crazy conspiracy theory of yours, aren't you? Yes, The Feminism specifically made World Toilet Day and International Men's Day be on they same day, just to spite you. You personally, Ashtone.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 06:32 PM
19

Did you actually read past the title? Go on, I'll wait. ...done yet? Good. That article is about the author expressing approval of International Men's Day as a feminist. What it is not about is feminists creating International Men's Day or setting its date. Sheesh.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 06:27 PM
24

The most abusive group that actively promotes hate of men giving us the same day as world toilet day.. You think feminists picked the day? Seriously? Why?
/r/MensRights19/11/13 06:16 PM
1

Doesn't matter. The message it would send - that quotas aren't a threat to men, but can help them - would be a positive side effect. Oh, I agree. There's no reason not to make it gender neutral (or maybe gender equal is the phrase I'm looking for), I just don't think it's a substantive criticism of the law. (and don't kid yourself, the odds are far better than nothing) Clearly a little bit of hyperbole is involved, but I think the odds that 71% of all board seats will be held by women (or non-me…
/r/MensRights18/11/13 06:19 PM
-1

I generally disapprove of quotas, I just thought the idea that men would need the protection of a quota to keep 30% of the board seats pretty risible. Like, seriously, that's your objection?
/r/MensRights18/11/13 05:18 PM
-16

Anything else wouldn't be fair since 100% could be women but only 70% could be men. Yes, theoretically that's true. In reality, what are the odds of men needing that guaranteed 30% in order to be represented? I'll tell you: 0.000000000000000000000000000%.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 11:04 AM
-3

30% should be male too. Either the intersex population is WAY overrepresented in German boardrooms, or you didn't think this through.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 09:25 AM
6

This is pretty fucking pathetic. You think chewinchawingum is "a mean person" because they think writing lurid masturbatory torture fantasies based on someone's unsupported and suspicious claims is bad? It's not the one who thinks that encouraging someone to "cut off important body parts like her nose, eyes, tongue, hands, feet, nipples, and clitoris" is okay who is "the worst person ever", it's the one who objects? You look at this situation, and it's chewinchawingum who you think lacks empathy…
/r/MensRights18/11/13 03:11 AM
1

How is that any different from a thousand other karma whores on reddit? It's not, this is just the one I happened to stumble upon last night. Why hold him to a different standard than everyone else, unless you have some kind of person issue with him? You might have a point, if I had any idea who they were.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 10:11 PM
3

There's really not enough context here to figure out what they're arguing.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 06:35 AM
8

In the next part of this series we will address Feminism in light of Jewish internationalism and the uniquely Jewish character of Marxism. DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
/r/MensRights17/11/13 06:07 AM
0

Yes and your evaluation is a clear affirmation of her behavior that is being called out. Nor familiar with the concept of accepting something for the sake of argument are we? "speaking gigs" those gigs are her telling people she was the "innocent" victim of males. She is speaking to garner support. So hr TED talk was about 'garnering support'? Her talk at Bungie was about 'garnering support'? The irony is she made her entire series on games largely about bashing men for using the damsel in distr…
/r/MensRights15/11/13 05:58 AM
-3

Not usually one to agree with an SRSer Sorry. Here, I'll say something terrible so you can stop agreeing with me: all men fantasize about throwing women out of helicopters into flaming shark tanks. Better?
/r/MensRights15/11/13 05:49 AM
2

pimpingb herself like a cheap little whore Not doing yourself any favors. you agreed she was pimping herself by saying she had agreed to it Look, I was just pointing out how strange your argument that she didn't get a big enough response to suit her purposes is. I was accepting your premises arguendo because it was the inherant silliness of your argument I was interested in.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 11:07 PM
7

Besides, everyone knows how humorless feminists are. Clearly the failure is mine.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 11:06 PM
4

No, the portion of your argument that I was responding to was the idea that she "didn't get the threat display she needed to pimp her case". If getting 150,000 dollars and an invitation to speak at Bungie doesn't count as successfully 'pimping her case' in your mind, what exactly would?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 09:58 PM
12

Very good. You admit that pimping her case was what she was doing. No, I was merely evaluating your argument by its own terms. Under which it clearly fails.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 09:37 PM
1

We have had many civil activist use many methods to have their ideas heard. The ideas that never really are heard are from people who use the types of methods you are describing. Yes while in the short term it may work to ones benefit it will ultimately hinder any movement. We can not and should not ever use tactics that put s us in an ethical situation. "For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never…
/r/MensRights14/11/13 08:12 PM
1

So you really don't see any difference between the two? Truly you think they are exactly equivalent?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 08:01 PM
1

So the girls were stupid. That doesn't change the fact that the boys are distributing nude photos of underage girls.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 07:52 PM
12

The girls intended to only show the boys, using a program that only shows the pictures for a couple of seconds. The boys, without the knowledge or participation of the girls, took screenshots and distributed them to other people.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 07:46 PM
13

...didn't get the threat display she needed to pimp her case. Yeah, she only managed to get 150,000 dollars in donations and a bunch of speaking gigs and stuff out of what was supposed to be a 6,000 dollar kickstarter. Clearly this counts as an abject failure to "pimp her case".
/r/MensRights14/11/13 07:43 PM
8

A group of teenagers in Canada allegedly deceived girls into sending them lewd pictures through the photo-sharing application SnapChat and distributed them at school, police said.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 07:35 PM
6

So nobody is allowed to raise funds for breast cancer this month, and if they do they are 'stepping all over men'? Breast cancer doesn't take the month off, you know. Yes, you're right, this is very petty.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 07:31 PM
12

I guess I really must not have one, because I don't see what's supposed to be funny about this. "4chan wasn't being quite as horrible as they have been in the past, therefore they were actually in on it!" Uh...hilarious? What's the joke?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 07:10 PM
10

No, not all people who identify as male have penises.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 06:52 PM
20

Uh, guys, this is pretty esoteric and conspiratorial. Is this really the sort of thing you want stickied on your front page, so it's the first thing new people see?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 06:48 PM
5

many women are buyers Almost all of the youth (91%) said that they dealt mainly with male customers, but 11% of the girls and 40% of the boys said that they had served a female client (including 14 boys that said that they exclusively served female clients). I think you might be overselling this point slightly. If 60% of boys and 89% of girls have never served a female client, and only 9% mostly serve female clients, is it really accurate to headline this with "many women are buyers"?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 06:43 PM
-1

We all know what happens to men accused of rape in prison - they get gang raped repeatedly, day in and day out. Do we? I know that movies and TV portray child rapists as frequent targets of prison rape and assault, but do you have any source for your assertion that rapists of any sort are especially likely to be targets? Yet feminists don't want to charge the woman who falsely accuse men with a crime. Uh, right here. I think a person of any gender who is proven to have knowingly falsely accused …
/r/MensRights13/11/13 10:37 PM
-3

So it's not so much that they don't think that it is wrong, but that they think it should be labeled differently, which could have the effect of being treated less seriously.
/r/MensRights13/11/13 08:27 PM
4

Oh, so when you said "Feminists don't think rape (of men) is wrong", you meant "it is possible to find people who identify as feminists who don't think rape of men is wrong."
/r/MensRights13/11/13 08:25 PM
7

Should I even bother asking you to substantiate that?
/r/MensRights13/11/13 08:16 PM
1

According to this: Studies that reported sex-specific mortality in the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone observed a higher mortality rates among females (71/1000) compared to males (15/1000)
/r/MensRights13/11/13 07:47 AM
1

The UN claims that women and 'kids' are 14x more llikey to die in a natural diaster then men. This puts the death toll of 'men' around 170ish-730ish depending on whether or not the death toll is 2,500 or 10,000. Obviously this is a woozle and false. According to this study of the fatalities from the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone, in a representative sample of 1123 of those in the most seriously affected area the mortality rate for children under 10 was 26%, and the mortality rate for women over 40 was…
/r/MensRights13/11/13 06:33 AM
3

What is wrong with you?
/r/MensRights13/11/13 04:51 AM
-3

More offensive than systematically raping boys? So as long as you don't do something worse than what you're talking about, criticism is unwarranted? So you'd be totally cool with a headline saying "When men aren't beating women, they're raping them"? I mean, it's pretty shitty to say all men are rapists, but not as shitty as actually raping someone, so it's okay, right? Also, "Jewish Rabbis"? As opposed to the other kind?
/r/MensRights13/11/13 04:32 AM
1

That's the point, sadly one which once again has to be explicitly explained to someone with a fuchsia tag. Oh, no, I got it right away. I just thought someone on MensRights mocking a guy for being too nerdy to use slightly overheated rhetoric on the interwebz was funnier than your actual joke.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 05:19 PM
-1

I don't buy a lot of the excuses. Feminists would often deconstruct fiction and humour in order to claim misogyny. Then deconstruct it, like the fiction it is. Don't just throw it on a list of "what feminists believe". The only valid entries in that list are the misquotes and misattributions. So a joke probably written by a male Letterman writer and read by a woman who may or may not be a feminist in order to make fun of the horrible advice women's magazines give remains a valid criticism of fem…
/r/MensRights12/11/13 05:10 AM
3

He looks kind of nerdy, which means he isn't qualified to have an opinion about the manly sport of fooball. AKA missing the point entirely.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 04:55 AM
1

A lot of places in the US wouldn't let black people be firefighters. I guess that must have been because they were run by black people, huh? You're such a clown.
/r/MensRights09/11/13 11:13 PM
8

You didn't research your "favorite example of how feminism hurts everyone"?
/r/MensRights08/11/13 08:10 PM
2

During the summer of 2006, R.R. helped Deer with chores at her home, including helping her to move into a new home and to prepare for a housewarming party. R.R. testified that, on one occasion, while he was doing yard work for Deer, Deer told him that he should have "kissing lessons." Report of Proceedings (RP) (Feb. 11, 2009, Vol. 1) at 25. He further testified that he and Deer kissed multiple times that day. According to R.R.'s testimony, Deer told R.R. that she would "be okay with" having a s…
/r/MensRights08/11/13 08:06 PM
1

...really? Are you really this obtuse? What am I saying, of course you are, you're Tom Martin. You're the guy who thinks that countries where they won't let girls out of burning buildings because they're not properly dressed are actually run by and for women.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 05:05 AM
0

I'm part of the Valerie Solanas faction. St. Dworkin didn't shoot enough Warhols.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 06:41 PM
-1

Yes, there has been a bit of a swing in the vote tally. Perhaps there's hope for you yet.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 05:50 PM
3

then the dean "fires" everybody. Ahem.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 05:44 PM
-1

My response there was before I read further down. My question was genuine curiosity. Well then, consider my sarcasm retracted. I tend to judge people by their actions, and not their personal opinions. That's all well and good, but beliefs drive actions. Also, some beliefs are so rancid it's pretty impossible not to judge someone for them. For example, it really doesn't matter what actions a person takes, if they believe the Shoah didn't happen I'm pretty much incapable of not despising them.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:43 AM
0

What baby? In addition to the aforementioned bullshit, Tom Martin thinks Saudi Arabia is a "whoriarchy" run by and for women, and that any woman who accepts any sort of gift from a romantic partner is a gold-digger and a whore. As far as I can tell, Tom Martin is all bathwater.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:39 AM
1

Arguing that a ten-year-old child is capable of giving informed consent to be fucked by a 40-year-old adult because they accept money for it doesn't count? Shit, son, what does someone have to do to get in your bad books. Aside from being a feminist, I mean?
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:33 AM
0

Too fucking right I do. At least over there trying to argue the morality of grown ass people fucking ten-year-olds is a dealbreaker.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 12:40 AM
1

And what about 24 year old men? Do you also consider them moral children?
/r/MensRights06/11/13 11:24 PM
1

get over people having differing opinions about the question of the sexual agency of children I decline.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 11:22 PM
1

Does that change the fact that Tom Martin is a terrible human being who no decent person would promote?
/r/MensRights06/11/13 09:49 PM
1

A direct quote from the link: Now, if a ten year old is for instance sucking cock for money up front, then there is very much less question whether that whore understands the meaning of consent or not.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 09:47 PM
-1

Her fearing him is not relevant... A reasonable fear for your safety is the basic threshold for justified self-defense, genius. ...an irrational woman. Fuck you.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:54 PM
4

Am I stopping you? You are perfectly free to clutch this adder to your breast if you want. I'm just pointing out that associating yourself with such folk is likely to be...counterproductive to your goals, shall we say. You're quite free to ignore that advice, and I'm quite certain you will. So be it.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:32 PM
0

Every time a man hits a woman, it's automatically considered a women's issue. So your solution to countering feminism is to exactly mirror all of the things you think it does wrong? Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:26 PM
0

Where did you grasp the word 'surround' from? By actually watching watching the linked video. It is not reasonable to believe he was a party to the attack... Okay, I'm done being polite. Fuck you. If you're alone on a bike path and a couple guys come up on both sides of you, and then one attacks you and the other one starts yelling at you when you defend yourself, it is entirely fucking reasonable to assume that you are in danger from both of them.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:16 PM
0

Him and his friend surrounded the victim, and when she defended herself from a sexual assault he became aggressive toward her. This is more than just saying something, this is giving the victim a very reasonable basis to believe that you are party to the attack.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:02 PM
3

I just realized that you are Tom Martin. You are a terrible human being, and you presence here serves to do nothing but undermine this whole movement. In conclusion, have a wonderful day.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 06:58 PM
0

Well, that's a dishonest parsing of my words. He did more than just speak.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 06:53 PM
0

...she attacked the gropers alleged friend when he did nothing but swear at her. The two guys surrounded her, and when she defended herself from the guy behind her, the guy in front of her got aggressive and started swearing at her. And when she punched him he pulled a knife. Yeah, he was totally just a bystander and not part of the attack. Riiiight.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 06:30 PM
4

This post promoting Tom Martin has nothing to do with what an awful human being who deserves no such support Tom Martin is?
/r/MensRights06/11/13 06:25 PM
4

Asking people to do something for free for a couple days counts as "jobs" now?
/r/MensRights06/11/13 06:15 PM
9

Tom Martin? Tom "I stand by my statement, that child prostitutes know what they are doing, and therefore deserve to be called prostitutes, not victims" Martin? Really? This is exactly the sort of person you should be running away from as fast as you can if you want to be a legitimate movement.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 05:53 PM
1

Well, we know that feminists always bully, and a feminist got someone to change a banner, ergo they must have done it through bullying. The logic is unassailable!
/r/MensRights03/11/13 08:39 AM
10

...what we have a problem with is that feminist bullying and harassment was used to get it changed. Really? Please, point out the feminist bullying? Because all I see is a post in /r/Feminism saying they didn't like the banner, followed by stuff like this: Thank you so much for this insightful reply, and your work on the banner. It's actually a super nice design with the funny photos, and the "guess the scientist" idea is good too. I like that it honors Nobel Prize winners. The one and only sugg…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 10:21 PM
3

Not really. She just said most men were. BUT SHE DIDN'T. How do you not understand this? She said most men did a least one thing from a list that included things other than rape. That is not saying that most men rape, and cutting out the middle to make it seem that way is essentially a lie.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 07:46 PM
2

How is the quote you provided better? Because she's not saying that "the vast majority of men in the world" rape, beat or kill women? You know, like the doctored quote implied? If you can't see the inherent dishonesty in the version that was quoted when compared to the actual quote, then I just don't even know what to say to you. If so, you're just not a reasonable person.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 05:49 PM
4

Sorry, it's just that a lot of people here seem to be under the impression that the haunted house was filled with nothing but severed dicks.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 05:28 PM
3

Can't do that without a severed penis hanging in the backdrop. You didn't read the article, did you? There are no actual severed penises mentioned in the article, just one sign joking about them.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 05:12 PM
1

She actually did say this. No she didn't. What she said was this: "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. Beyond that, it is not necessary to beat up a woman to beat her down. A man can simply refuse to hire women in well-paid jobs, extract as much or more work from women than men but pay them less, or treat women disrespectfully at work or at home. He can fail to support a child he has engende…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 04:56 PM
7

Imagine if someone set up a Halloween rape camp - depicting scene after scene of violent rape, and glorifying the hell out of it. That's not nearly as traumatizing or dangerous as cutting off a penis, yet it would still be fucked up, agreed? So you are saying that a haunted house that features, as far as I can tell from the article, one sign mentioning severed penises is the equivalent of another haunted house graphically depicting rape?
/r/MensRights31/10/13 04:30 PM
1

Why the fuck would any feminist be outraged that men are living longer ? Because hatred of all men burns like black fire in the place my heart used to be. Obviously.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 04:06 PM
0

he says that it should be taken seriously (i don't think for a second that he means that), but he says that it shouldn't be taken as seriously as 'legitimate' rape. He certainly did not say anything of the sort, and all his posts in that thread say he doesn't mean anything of the sort either. Unless you can provide a quote of him saying that, then sorry, but your "he says" bit is kind of a lie.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 04:03 PM
-2

Also, how did /u/diehtc0ke[4] go from being the guy "accurately quoting" Futrelle to the one who "just fabricated a paraphrase of what he claimed Futrelle said"? He didn't. I got the two posters confused. /u/levelate was the one who lied about what Futrelle said, and /u/diehtc0ke was the one who played a "disgusting word game" by pointing out that /u/levelate was a lying liar who lies. And you may be right, posting "he says that it shouldn't be taken as seriously as 'legitimate' rape" may well n…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 03:35 AM
0

When I said troll, I meant someone trolling SRS. But fine, forget the qualifications, show me ANYONE in SRS saying that rape victims who become aroused wanted it. Anyone at all.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 12:07 AM
-2

Show me an example. Show me a single example of a non-troll saying that a rape didn't count as a "real" rape because the victim became aroused. I do not read all of SRS everyday, but out of all the stuff I've read there I have not once seen a poster dismiss a rape victim, of any sex, on the grounds of their arousal. If this is really a "main" excuse, you should have no trouble showing me a bunch of examples, yes?
/r/MensRights31/10/13 12:01 AM
-5

but he says that it shouldn't be taken as seriously as 'legitimate' rape. Okay fine, diehtc0ke didn't quote him, he just fabricated a paraphrase of what he claimed Futrelle said. Better?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 11:58 PM
0

No, really?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:33 PM
1

Full of hatred and misandry as usu...aww, shoot, you tricked me. Darn you and your clever word traps, lev!
/r/MensRights30/10/13 10:23 PM
6

This demonstrates the problem. If one really believed rape should only refer to sexual assaults in which the victim is penetrated, one wouldn't call female on male statutory rape rape. Why would one make this exception? I mostly agree. Furthermore, I think that calling it something other than rape makes it easier for people to ignore or minimize it. The word "rape" has powerful connotations in this culture, and I think that calling what happens to a man who is made to penetrate something other t…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:36 PM
0

As a feminist, naturally I am outraged. Seriously though, this is good news. Not as good as the headline indicates: Men will live as long as women in some parts of the country within five years, official statistics indicate. According to the Office for National Statistics, men who were aged 65 last year can expect to live until 83 while women will live until they are aged 86. ...but still, progress is progress.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:26 PM
3

Pretty sure this is making fun of the ridiculous and painful looking "sex moves" featured in women's magazines.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:22 PM
-6

...I'm tired of people deliberately ignoring male rape victims by parroting the "Well, if he had an erection that means he wanted it" myth. Those people, especially feminist-minded people... Which feminist minded people say that getting physically aroused during an assault means "you wanted it"?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:18 PM
-2

fuck off back to againstmensrights with your disgusting word games. So accurately quoting what a person has said is "word games" now?
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:08 PM
-2

I note that you didn't quote his response to someone who made a similar argument in the comments: Ash, how on earth are you interpreting my saying that made-to-penetrate is “sexual violence and needs to be taken seriously” as the equivalent of “well it isn’t really that bad.” Obviously I am saying it IS bad. That’s what saying it’s “”sexual violence and needs to be taken seriously” means. There are a number of other forms of sexual assault that don’t involve the victim being penetrated. They sho…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:02 PM
1

Some Walmart heir could easily have 300 kids/year Assuming that there are any Walmart heirs that are also rabbits.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 06:15 AM
-1

Well then, your mother is (and I hope you will forgive me for saying this) being a bit silly, and not doing women or feminism any favors.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:42 AM
-3

The first half of the sentence refers to their faith in women's accounts of sexual abuse as feminism's "methodological secret". Nope. It has nothing to do with any "faith" that individual women all tell the truth. It's about how women of the time were rarely believed, and how feminism managed to uncover all sorts of abuse that was being ignored. The secret to uncovering this abuse was not starting from the assumption that women were all lying about their experiences. It is most certainly not a c…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:38 AM
-3

but if they slap you, you better leave them with the memory that makes them not do it again. Doesn't sound like you're talking about self defense to me.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:13 AM
0

I don't see your point, spell it out maybe? My point is that if my initial question was based on an erroneous understanding of the purpose of this thread, shouldn't /u/saint2e have said that instead of trying to answer it? But no, only after I pointed out that the woman cited explicitly did not believe false accusations happen did saint2e say "oh, that was never the argument anyway".
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:27 AM
-6

You do realize you are quoting one half of a sentence, right? Ten bucks says you got that off a list of "look at these crazy things feminists said" quotes. Another ten bucks says you have absolutely no idea what the context is.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:40 AM
0

Finally, someone who actually read the article before commenting! Yes, that is part of the article that is actually legitimately problematic. I was wondering how long it would take someone to actually cite it.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 11:57 PM
-7

That's not how it works. You are not allowed to inflict violence on other people "in order to teach them a lesson". If you are not defending yourself or another person from harm, you are committing a crime, and deserve to be arrested.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 11:16 PM
0

I find it hilarious how you came in so confident no one would find any examples, only to get showered in them. I find it hilarious that you think two links to the same story about a woman who explicitly acknowledges false accusations happen is "getting showered in them" Thanks for the chuckles. You're most welcome.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 11:05 PM
1

So the argument isn't that feminists don't believe it doesn't happen, they just believe it doesn't matter?
/r/MensRights25/10/13 10:57 PM
1

Yes, me fully quoting her because you guys stripped out the portion of her comment where she explicitly says that false accusations occur in order to argue that she believes that false accusation don't occur is "not listening to what she said". Using feminist terminology and language in absurd ways doesn't make the language itself absurd, you know. It just makes you look absurd.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 10:55 PM
1

There are not stats saying that 50% of men who acknowledge the existence of a woman in public go on to rape her. 1) You're the one who made up the "50%" bit, remember? Nobody else actually asserted that. 2) Reframing "street harassment" as "acknowledg[ing] the existence of a woman in public" is objectively bullshit. She is not talking about that, and you know it. You are attempting to expand the group of people she is focusing on to include people engaging in innocuous activities in order to mak…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 10:35 PM
3

If a father dragged his daughter by the tits and ripped one, that's 5 to 10 minimum in any court case. The FBI charged Jennifer Marie Vargas, 34, with assault within maritime and territorial jurisdiction resulting in serious bodily injury. She faces up to 10 years in prison.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 10:20 PM
2

Greater than 50% of strangers a woman meets will abuse her sexually. How about we quote the whole paragraph, hmm? Predominant is the idea that street harassment is for the benefit of the woman. Women are encouraged to be grateful that a stranger, who is statistically likely to physically, mentally and sexually abuse them, is providing them with attention while they are simply trying to get to class. It's pretty disingenuous to talk about "50% of strangers a woman meets" when the author is quite …
/r/MensRights25/10/13 10:10 PM
-6

Naïve feminists frequently claim that women never falsely accuse men of rape. Here are links to six(6) articles about six(6) cases in which this is exactly what occurred. How is this not an argument that "Naïve feminists" don't believe that false accusations happen at all? If the argument being addressed was "false accusations happen very rarely", citing six examples isn't really a good counter argument. It only makes sense as a counter argument to someone who literally believes it never happens…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 07:25 PM
-5

Really? So why was your initial response to go look for a feminist who believed it never happened, instead of just telling me I was reading OP's point wrong?
/r/MensRights25/10/13 07:06 PM
-9

What I'm saying is that, in the context of her comment, it's pretty clear that the phrase “People just don’t X” is being used idiomatically to me mean "people very rarely do X".
/r/MensRights25/10/13 06:49 PM
-10

Keep reading: “We’re really angry and disturbed by the posters,” said Karen Smith, executive director of the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton. “People just don’t lie about that.” She cited national statistics as evidence that false reports are incredibly rare. “One to two percent of sexual assaults reported to the police would be false. And that would be the same for any other crime that would be reported to the police.” This woman explicitly says that it happens, in literally the next sentence…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 06:41 PM
-20

Naïve feminists frequently claim that women never falsely accuse men of rape. Name one. Name one feminist of any stature who thinks this never happens.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 06:04 PM
5

The other day, a man followed me into an empty stairwell in the McKinney Humanities building to ask for my phone number. He continued following me to my car, asking for my phone number, even after I explained to him that I felt very uncomfortable giving my phone number to a stranger. This is literally the first sentence of the story. Yeah, this is totally about women being offended by men "lounging" or "walking to classes". You picked what has to be the least relevant and least important sentenc…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 05:50 PM
5

It's a men's rights issue because the class is only available to women and there most likely isn't an equivalent class for men. So why not have a group on campus create one? If there is enough demand for such a thing, that seems like some pretty easy Men's Rights Activism to perform.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 02:15 AM
6

The obvious solution is to get more female judges, since they're less likely to give women lighter sentences than men.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 09:26 PM
6

It was believed, for instance, that Jews did not see the Eucharist as a wafer or bread... Uh, neither did the people taking communion.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 01:21 AM
25

Does anyone see the treatment of men in the West as becoming analogous with how jews were treated in medieval europe? I'm not suggesting oppression... Yes you fucking are. There is no way you can invoke the treatment of Jews in medieval Europe without invoking oppression. Oppression was the defining feature of that period of Jewish history.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 01:15 AM
-3

Shorter blueoak9: putting words in people's mouths is fun!
/r/MensRights16/10/13 05:24 PM
-2

Except not. As far as I'm concerned, there's no good reason to circumcise someone when they're too young to consent. None of the purported health benefits kick in until much later, so there's no justification for not letting someone decide for themselves what they want to do.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 05:12 PM
-4

I'm saying you should focus on places like the US, dipshit. Sweden's about as good as you've ever going to get it to be without actually making circumcision illegal.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 04:24 PM
1

I agree.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 04:17 PM
-4

The circumcision rate in Sweden is something like 2%, and most physicians there don't want to perform that operation. The circumcision rate in the US just went down to about 50%. Pick your battles is all I'm saying.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 07:06 AM
15

She wants to split the holidays, and give me every summer, but I'd have to pay for transport (to and from). You should absolutely NOT negotiate custody informally. With such an adversarial situation, you need something legally enforceable. Lawyer. Now.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 06:51 AM
-9

Christ. Fine, whatever, I only posted that because I knew it would totally piss you (specifically YOU) off and ruin your evening. Fucksake.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 06:42 AM
-9

Calm the fuck down. I don't support what the school did, I was just providing some context as to what they were basing their actions on. Sheesh, some people...
/r/MensRights16/10/13 06:34 AM
-9

How terrible for you that I provided you relevant information. I can see why you're so put out. Have a lovely night.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 06:07 AM
2

How many consensual sex acts involve dumping a semiconcious 14 year old girl wearing not much clothing in her front yard in the middle of a freezing night? Asshole.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 04:51 AM
12

Here's an idea: instead of thinking up reciprocal ways to violate people's rights, how about focusing on how using castration as a punishment is unethical, unconstitutional and has a long history of being abused for the puposes of eugenics?
/r/MensRights15/10/13 11:00 PM
9

Neither does a man.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 10:53 PM
-1

It's not enough to provide an answer, the answer has to be, you know, justified and stuff.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 10:47 PM
0

I repeat, BULLSHIT. You specifically invoked porn where a man "is being beaten up, walked on with high stiletto boots, shit on, and forced to drink urine". SHITTING ON PEOPLE IS NOT MAINSTREAM. You're equivocating between the vanilla latex-corset-and-fuzzy-handcuffs BDSM that's everywhere and niche stuff that is not.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 10:40 PM
23

Security footage leading up to the most recent threat shows only males entering the bathroom where the threat was found.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 10:24 PM
-1

As for coping, Marsh at RAINN says it’s never too late to reach out for help. But with the stigma attached, survivors may not feel comfortable talking to their friends and family because the victims themselves haven’t defined their experience as assault. Yes, clearly the words of someone that doesn't think men can be raped by women. (p.s. Here's how RAINN defines rape on their website: "Rape is forced sexual intercourse, including vaginal, anal, or oral penetration. Penetration may be by a body …
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:14 PM
-2

However she is choosing to shame men for having a sex drive and liking pretty women. Really? She doesn't think men are allowed to like pretty women? Like, at all? I must have missed that part of the article, you'll have to point it out for me.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:12 PM
0

Neither, as you well know. Don't be disingenuous.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:11 PM
-5

Don't bullshit. You put me down as an enemy the moment I disagreed with anything posted here.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:08 PM
0

You do realize that this doesn't actually refute my point, right?
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:06 PM
-1

Listen buddy, we've seen youre awesome logic and deductions in threads here. Why thank you. Who the hell are you to demand that this guy has empirical data/notes from DHHS about all this. Who's demanding anything? I just asked if he had any reason to believe that the thing he posted on /r/MensRights had anything to do with men's rights. Seems like a reasonable question to me. The story is pretty clear from the linked articles why they think it happened. It's certainly clear what they think. It's…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:00 PM
-1

I think you'll find that very few men will have read beyond that point. Why would we have? Wait...are you trying to provide a justification for not reading beyond an article's title (which is often written by someone else)? I'm sorry, that's fucking absurd.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 09:31 AM
10

It's not.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:49 AM
1

Now now, search term algorithms are notorious for being feminazis.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:43 AM
0

Your wish is my command.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:40 AM
0

If you don't have anything positive to say about the cause, then leave. Simple. Really? Because the sidebar says this: /r/MensRights strongly supports principles of free speech. People posting here are sharing their opinions. Opinions will not be removed, but actions may (see above rules).
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:38 AM
0

The author is saying that "women are complicit in misogyny" by allowing themselves to be filmed in porn, whatever happened to "a woman's right to chose"? Non-sequitur. Criticizing the consequences of an action is not the same thing as saying one shouldn't have the right to choose that action. Why are men allowed to go into porn but women aren't? What? Where did she ever say that men who participate in porn aren't complicit in misogyny as well?
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:28 AM
-7

Gloriosky, someone who actually read the article beyond the first sentence! I was waiting for the other guy to mention that. I disagree with your interpretation of that sentence. I don't think what she is saying is that looking at female bodies by itself makes you a sicko, I think what she is saying is that the problem's of the current porn industry are not entirely driven by "sicko" consumers. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I read it.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:25 AM
-4

Bullshit. You described a very specific, extreme and uncommon scenario where a man is "beaten up, walked on with high stiletto boots, shit on, and forced to drink urine". You can't just turn around and talk about the entire category of BDSM porn now. BDSM is mainstream. Shitting on people isn't.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:19 AM
-1

You asked where she said that female nudity was misogynistic and I told you. Seriously? The only part you pointed out was the title, which I will quote in its entirety, with subtitle: Women are complicit in misogyny, too We must face up to the many ways in which women support the pornification of society, rather than fighting it Nope, still doesn't say that female nudity in and of itself is misogynistic. Nor does she say or imply that anywhere in the body of the article. What she does say is tha…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:06 AM
-2

This seems more like a pot-legalization issue than a Men's Rights one. What evidence do you have that sex played a role in any of this?
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:57 AM
2

Wasn't this the same silly argument for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? We can't have gays in the military it'll mess with our camaraderie? Yup, and for keeping the military segregated too. Blacks and whites can't have camaraderie, doncha know?
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:47 AM
-11

Covering your inability to support your assertions with pointless swearing = "swearing fit". It's not the quantity, it's the usage.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:43 AM
3

Division of property is an entirely separate issue from child support. The "money, assets, houses, cars" etc. are divided based on whether they are marital assets or not. Maids ain't got nothing to do with it. Look, just read this
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:36 AM
-9

The guy reduced to pathetic swearing fits because I won't just accept that he's right in the face of all evidence to the contrary thinks I'm looking for an echo chamber. It is to lol.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:28 AM
-6

Read what I wrote again. If a woman participating in porn is abetting misogyny, then how can you claim that a man participating in a porno where he is being beaten up, walked on with high stiletto boots, shit on, and forced to drink urine by a dominatrix, is not also abetting misandry? If that were the industry standard, and leaking out into mainstream culture, you might have a point.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:24 AM
-12

In other words, at no point does the author say that wanting to look at pretty ladies doing sexy things is misogyny. You don't even seem to do anything to support feminism, you just complain and complain. This is /r/MensRights. I thought pointless kvetching without actually making anything better was SOP here?
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:17 AM
1

Ah, so you know all of the members of One Direction and their educational backgrounds. I'm assuming that you also know their families and personal histories. Why would you have to? They make music, which you can listen to. Maybe they are enormously talented and creative in other areas of their lives, but why would that matter in the context at hand, which, in case you have forgotten, is their music?
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:11 AM
1

I'm suprised someone that famous can't get legal actions taken. Uh, maybe this is a stupid question, but did he even try? Did he file a complaint? No part of the article indicates he did.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:05 AM
-13

Lovely human rights movement you have here.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:56 AM
-7

Which is fine, if you want to argue that. But that doesn't change the fact that the editorializing by OP was also bullshit.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:55 AM
-21

Except nope. She's not saying that women participating in porn is inherently misogynistic, she is saying that women participating in pornography are supporting an industry that, as it currently exists, is deeply misogynistic. There is an important distinction there.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:53 AM
0

No. That's why I put the word in scare quotes.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:48 AM
-2

Does it matter? Yes. The context matters. Is it degrading for a man to get his female partner's sexual fluids on him? It's not the fact that fluids are exchanged, it's how and why. And you know that, which is why you keep trying to make it about fluids, and nothing else.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:45 AM
-17

Do me a favor; please quote the portion of the linked article that either states or implies that merely looking at a woman is hateful.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:09 AM
-9

...aaaand the top reply is making fun of how she looks. I'm shocked.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:08 AM
-1

Is it degrading for a man to get his female partner's sexual fluids on him? Is a woman covering a kneeling man's face in fluid for no good reason a part of any mainstream porn?
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:06 AM
0

You're kind of ignoring that a woman on her period cannot choose not to stop leaking fluids while she's having sex, while ejaculating on someone's face is entirely within a person's control. In order to refrain from "contaminating" her lover, the women needs to abstain from sex for three days a month. In order for a man to avoid coming on their partner's face, they just need to NOT DO IT. Maybe if 90% (or even 1%) of het porn scenes ended with the woman rubbing her menstrual fluids on the man's …
/r/MensRights15/10/13 03:56 AM
-7

Really? So, you suggest that Femdom BDSM porn is not in any way symmetrical to sadomasochistic porn where women are playing the role of a sub? No, am suggesting that, according to the argument advanced in the linked article, it does not follow that a man participating in pornography is abetting misandry in the same way a woman participating is abetting misogyny. Your attempt to "use her logic" is not logical.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 03:48 AM
-15

This feminist writer believes that 'women are complicit in misogyny' by participating in porn and modelling for "Lads' Mags". Using her logic, men in pornos must also be complicit in misandry... Uh, no, her logic requires no such thing. He argument is that the porn industry as it currently exists is extremely misogynistic. Therefore women who are complicit with the industry are complicit in misogyny. Since, according to her, the industry is not also extremely misandristic, men involved in it are…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 12:09 AM
9

Not everyone in the MRM is a big supporter of new and special rights, privileges, and protections for gay people. Good thing that's not happening then. Name one "special" right gay people get. Name just one. And govt should keep its hands off of marriage, Pfft, seriously? In the US, marriage is thoroughly entwined with the government, and has been for a long time. Funny that only now do you care about that.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 09:03 AM
1

(Typo: should read 'Self-Defence') Why? What about this merits the scare quotes?
/r/MensRights09/10/13 11:29 PM
15

If you leave make sure it's clear you're still alive. A woman needs to pay for her choices just like a man would. People like you are why the sub has the rep it does. "A woman needs to pay"? For what? You know nothing about this woman other than the fact that she married the sort of asshole that would totally abandon his children for the better part of three decades, but you sure as hell want her to pay for something. Because clearly she deserves to, for reasons that totally won't make you sound…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 11:24 PM
5

Serious question: are there any legal advantages to being declared legally dead? If you rob a bank, could you avoid prosecution by showing that you legally aren't alive and therefore couldn't have robbed the bank? Do dead people have to file tax returns? Would you have de jure immunity in any other area? No, no, no and no. If the legal system refuses to acknowledge that this guy is alive, there might be some way he could turn that to his advantage, or at least do something stupid enough to force…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 11:17 PM
46

Seriously? The man abandoned his family for 27 years, and his wife is the bad guy? She followed the correct procedure to have a missing person declared legally dead, and he didn't show his face for 19 years after that declaration was made. So far as she knew, he was dead, and she acted accordingly. As absurd as it may seem, the decision to declare him legally dead was made correctly, and the woman was legally entitled to the money she received.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 10:45 PM
14

If only the statutory rape laws feminists advocated for were gender neutral, instead of explicitly applying only to girls.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 05:58 AM
-14

Bullshit.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 04:29 AM
7

I'm being real. I don't think this is, like, a huge deal or anything, but as a feminist I can't defend a woman assaulting a man for cheating being appropriate ad material. Especially since I wouldn't condone an ad with a man punching a woman for cheating. The idea that violence is an appropriate response to infidelity is not something I think ought to be reinforced. (And as an aside, I don't think this sort of thing springs from any sort of "misandry" or man-hate, but rather from old gender ster…
/r/MensRights23/09/13 03:09 AM
3

Why shouldn't they? There's nothing inherently wrong with the label. It's what you do with it that matters.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 12:48 AM
155

Yeah, that's not cool. The idea that a woman assaulting a man for infidelity is acceptable is a bullshit double standard. You punish someone for infidelity by breaking up with them. You don't get to hit them. Not too hot on the website it's advertizing either. Too much potential for abuse.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 12:32 AM
-1

Saying that someone "really shouldn't wear makeup" is a lot more than just an insinuation they look good without it. It comes off as you telling the person what they should do, and implies that they are wearing makeup for your benefit. There's also the implied insult that they don't look good in makeup. If all you want to say is that a person looks good without makeup, say "you look good without makeup".
/r/MensRights23/09/13 12:21 AM
1

The issue being discussed here is consent to express one's feelings in a consensual manner without being demonized for it. Then there's nothing here to argue about any more.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 11:43 PM
1

So you're telling a man who did express their feelings in that "traditionally feminine" way wouldn't see that as an attack on their masculinity? Because in their position I sure would.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 11:35 PM
-1

We were using the phrase "express your feelings" as a stand in for something like "talk about your problems with someone else and try to work through them in a healthy fashion". In the context of the discussion we were having your question makes no sense. Interestingly, the only person in this comment thread to associate appropriate expression of one's feelings with masculinity is you. Really? So framing one way to deal with your feelings as "Sit[ting] them down, ply[ing] them with hankies and m…
/r/MensRights22/09/13 11:21 PM
0

Don't be an asshole.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 10:46 PM
2

The correct way to talk about you feelings is whatever way works for you, and nobody who cares about men's mental health should be mocking them for how they go about it.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 10:38 PM
2

That's because the next sentence doesn't negate the one that came before it. You're reinforcing the idea that there is a correct, manly way to talk about your feelings, and shaming people who are doing it "wrong". You could have easily talked up the Men’s Sheds movement without denigrating others.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 09:48 PM
1

Also on quite a few questions I was unsure if you were asking if I believed that x was true or if society did. Do I believe being gay a bad thing. No. Is it seen as a bad thing? It is by many so I guess? At the top of that page, it says: Thinking about your own actions, feelings and beliefs, please indicate how much you personally agree or disagree with each statement.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 09:09 PM
3

Yes, how dare she express her gratitude for his good parenting with humor and affection. Doesn't she know he's not a child?!
/r/MensRights22/09/13 09:04 PM
2

"Stop being a little crybaby girl" isn't an emotional argument? News to me.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 08:58 PM
2

they use the gender roles theory with which to peddle their views, which I feel is wrong. How, exactly, do they do this, and why do you think it is wrong?
/r/MensRights22/09/13 08:43 PM
1

^ | This.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 08:37 PM
4

It's not a question of fairness, it's a question of remembering the point you were making at the beginning of the sentence.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 08:36 PM
-1

I would rather just be myself, and let my own body tell me where it feels most comfortable, without trying to define it any which way. That's pretty much what most feminists want too.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 08:33 PM
17

Exactly. If traditional gender roles are a natural fit for most people, then they don't need to be enforced. Just let people be the way they want to.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 08:25 PM
7

Don't try to make emotional arguments to defend our positions, and when they make emotional arguments against us, tell them to man up and speak logically instead of acting like a little girl who is crying because her siblings won't let her play football with them. Sigh.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 08:21 PM
2

Yes, in many ways this is true. Because a man acting "feminine" is often seen as somehow degrading, while a woman acting "masculine" isn't, there is a lot less social pressure on women to be gender conforming in all aspects. Men definitely get the short end of the stick here.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 08:07 PM
0

Sit them down, ply them with hankies and moisturising cream until they talk about their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings. Or, here's an idea, maybe if people like you didn't constantly frame talking about your feelings like this, there would be less of a stigma attached to men who do talk about their feelings. And then maybe men would be more likely to seek help for mental illness and less likely to kill themselves.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 07:52 PM
9

You've kind of missed the point. The whole idea of "toxic masculinity" is not that masculinity is wrong, it's that men being forced to constantly prove their masculinity is wrong. See, there's this conception of masculinity where no matter how many masculine things you do, if you "slip up" and do one "feminine" thing, you're not a real man. You could be a lumberjack that cuts down trees with a chainsaw made of grizzly-bears and sleeps on a bed made of flaming barbed wire, but if you like to watc…
/r/MensRights22/09/13 07:27 PM
1

Seriously? Someone whose response was "What a dreadful 3rd rate reply" is whining about a lack of arguments? Whatever. You want me gone, I'm gone. Enjoy your victory.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 07:06 PM
0

Says the poster who uses the phrase "cultural marxism" with a straight face.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 06:59 PM
3

No they were defined by the structure of the language. So you're saying that words in English, one of the most non-standard and contradictory languages in the world, are defined "by the structure of the language"? Excuse me while I go roll my eyes for several minutes.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 06:25 PM
1

This is feminists trying to redefine our language. Uh, no it's not. The words "sexist" and "sexism" were coined by feminists, and even then they were defined in largely gender neutral ways. See, for instance, this excerpt from what is thought to be the first use of the word in print: Sexism is intended to rhyme with racism. Both have used to keep the powers that be in power. Women are sexists as often as men. The definition of sexism as "especially, such discrimination directed against women" co…
/r/MensRights22/09/13 06:11 PM
0

You could totally prove how wrong he is. You just don't want to right now.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 06:00 PM
-1

Pretty much the only part of the Violence Against Women Act that isn't gender neutral at this point is the name.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 05:58 PM
4

Using logic to win arguments is a violent and controlling behavior according to feminists Cry harder.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 11:29 PM
-1

Don't you know that humor in not open to analysis? Stuff that makes us laugh just does, and is not open in any way to critical appraisal.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 07:09 PM
9

There's also the fact that there is a logical connection between being strong and being able to move heavy objects, but none between being weak and performing oral sex. According to patriarchy theory, there's no answer the man can give to the woman's request that does not constitute patriarchalism. How about "You could have just asked me if I was willing to help, instead of trying to shame me into it by conflating my masculinity with my ability and willingness to move something heavy." Not as pi…
/r/MensRights21/09/13 07:08 PM
-4

Richard Dawkins needs to stop talking now. Apparently he has used up his lifetime allotment of worthwhile things to say, because most of what comes out of his mouth these days is terrible.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 05:02 AM
2

An elderly Georgia missionary claims he shot a young [Hispanic] man approaching his house this weekend because he feared a home invasion, but the victim's friends say he was looking to pick up a pal to go skating and his GPS device took him to the wrong driveway.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 08:21 AM
2

You spelled "speck" wrong, so clearly you didn't waste your money on a degree in English. Also, you do know that colleges have breadth requirements for pretty much all majors, right? A woman's studies major is going to learn as much about "the world in general" at school as a computer science major will. That's kind of the whole point.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 08:07 AM
0

Lets talk about a real problem, like doofy sitcom dads.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 12:29 AM
5

I mean in the scenario Ryo keeps silent the entire time and for several minutes and never asks Casey to clarify or if all is okay. Does seem like a jerk. Um, according to the scenario presented she said "stop", and he had to physically restrain her to keep going. I think that is well past "jerk".
/r/MensRights15/09/13 08:22 PM
-3

It show how important it is though to take a camera with you when you go out. It’s not beyond the nature of these cowards to make a claim of harrassment. Like, say, claiming 30 people came at you with box cutters?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 07:47 PM
-1

So, nobody's going to address the fact that the article used to support the idea that "Feminists want to censor Robin Thicke" doesn't actually call for censorship? Not one of you? Because it doesn't. Please, quote me the part of the article that does, I'm begging you.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 06:45 PM
-3

There's nothing wrong with showing female breasts except in the fantasies of prudes. Also in the YouTube terms of service.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 08:30 AM
-10

They're calling for the video to be removed from YouTube. That's censorship. 1) No it isn't, unless YouTube became part of the government while I wasn't looking. 2) No they aren't. Please quote the portion of the article "calling for the video to be removed".
/r/MensRights15/09/13 08:27 AM
-7

So the article is asking people to voluntarily stop listening to the song, and also complaining about a feminist parody being pulled for being too explicit, despite having less exposed skin than the official version which was not pulled, and to you that is a call for censorship? That's pretty weak.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 07:56 AM
-1

Thus, 'some' would imply 'healthier women' in countries such as Belgium (also mentioned in the article). Hmm. The apparent answer is not so much—if you're a woman living in a country with a decent health-care system and few harmful pathogens. While a masculine father's "good genes" may confer health advantages to children, so do good medical attention and a clean environment. In the Face Lab study, women with the weakest masculinity preferences tended to live in some of the healthiest countries:…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 06:24 AM
0

How do you know that was the exact study used? I don't, since the wonderful writer of the article refers to it only as "a study". So, did you find the part of the article that says what "some populations" means yet?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 04:08 AM
1

Uh, yeah, that's why we have a justice system instead of letting the family of the victim decide the punishment. It's an attempt to inject some measure of fairness and objectivity into the process.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 02:09 AM
3

Now?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 02:07 AM
5

They were obviously saying it was justice for all the children that were abused in the making of the CP she was trading, not all abused children in the world. Be reasonable.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 02:04 AM
8

Tom Martin is the guy who thinks that Saudi Arabia, a country where women's rights are seriously curtailed, is a 'whoriarchy', a state run by "lazy whores pulling all strings" from behind the scenes. Yeah, I can't imagine why people hate him.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 01:07 AM
0

You may have inferred that, but the article does not actually say that. That stat is dropped, unsourced, into the middle of a paragraph discussing the results of a different study (that the WSJ also didn't bother to link to [and which, now that I've tracked it down, doesn't seem to have anything to do with it either]).
/r/MensRights15/09/13 12:01 AM
-4

So "up to" ten percent of babies in "some populations", huh? Which populations are these, might I ask?
/r/MensRights14/09/13 11:17 PM
2

What I mean is, it would be possible to reduce one's interactions with men to pretty much just business ones and mostly cut men out of one's life. You mean it's easier for lesbians to be Women Going Their Own Way? I suppose that might be true on some level, but I don't think there's any reason to suspect lesbians are likely to do that, and you don't have to be gay to withdraw from contact with the opposite sex. I just don't see any reason to believe that lesbians' outspoken feminism has to do wi…
/r/MensRights14/09/13 11:01 PM
2

Someone with a negative opinion of men is more likely to be an outspoken feminist... Would it be churlish of me to ask how you know that?
/r/MensRights14/09/13 10:39 PM
4

Men only reveal their positive side to their romantic partners? Aren't you selling men a little short here?
/r/MensRights14/09/13 10:10 PM
7

I suspect that the reason (out) lesbians are more likely to be outspoken feminists is that they don't have as much to lose. There is a lot of overlap between the set of people who will think less of you for being a lesbian and the set of people who will think less of you for being a feminist. There is a social cost to publicly identifying as either, but once you have identified as one, you have already incurred most of the social cost for identifying as the other as well. So you might as well id…
/r/MensRights14/09/13 08:22 PM
10

The thing is, as lesbians, their sexuality does not force them to interact with men on more than a surface level on a regular basis, meaning there is no process to regularly reset their expectations of men. Implying that the only non-superficial way to interact with men is sexual/romantic. Implying that they don't work closely with men, don't have good friends who are men, don't have fathers and brothers and uncles and nephews. "Radical lesbian separatist" is not the default setting for lesbians…
/r/MensRights14/09/13 08:09 PM
2

Fortunately, we'd never let the free market be so rudely trammeled here in the US of A.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 06:27 AM
-24

In other words, you listened to bands played videogames before they were cool, and girls aren't real gamers because reasons. Yawn.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 03:18 AM
-2

Yes, I understand that, I just thought the idea that this makes her especially dangerous was amusing.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 01:17 AM
-1

Who's defending her? If the facts presented so far turn out to be an accurate portrayal of events, I think she should be convicted of at least criminally negligent homicide. And that's if she didn't intend to kill him. I just thought it was funny that a person who (possibly unintentionally) pushed someone off a cliff in the heat of the moment was being described as "capable of murdering people with no weapons", like she's a lethal kung-fu master or something.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 12:38 AM
1

No it wouldn't. News organizations are pretty damned paranoid about avoiding libel. Man or woman, until a verdict comes down they'll refer to you as "accused".
/r/MensRights14/09/13 12:16 AM
-1

Um, I'm pretty sure that's a direct quote from her FBI affidavit. At one point, she turned to walk away, but Johnson grabbed her arm, she said. She turned around, removed his hand from her arm and "due to her anger, she pushed Johnson with both hands in the back, and as a result, he fell face first off the cliff," an affidavit states. That's not FOX trying to excuse her actions, that's her trying to excuse her own actions. At this point all we have is her word to go on, so can you really blame t…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:53 PM
-10

She proved capable of murdering people with no weapons. Yeah, she might pull a cliff out of her pocket and push you off it. Be afraaaaaaid.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:38 PM
1

...not demanding bail is ridiculous. Ahem: Woman accused of pushing husband off cliff to be released on bond It is not clear at this time how much money Jordan Linn Graham will have to post to be released on bond or what conditions her bond will require. An order imposing conditions of her release will be filed separately. Graham has not yet been released from custody.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:36 PM
2

Were they actually on the 'edge if a cliff' or were they on a trail edge and he fell in an unexpected way? This is most likely the part of the loop trail they're talking about. Make of that what you will. (And if that really is where it happened, Id say a charge of at least depraved indifference/criminally negligent homicide would be appropriate.)
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:25 PM
2

Irrelevant... Not when the claim is that "feminism is pro male genital mutilation".
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:03 PM
0

Facts can be extremely malicious depending on how they're used. Anything can be used maliciously. That does not mean that the thing itself is malicious. Saying they can't be false is redundantly stating the obvious. One would think so, but since you keep saying that facts can be "slanderous" despite falsity being part of the definition of that word, apparently that is not the case.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 04:28 PM
2

In other words, there's no evidence that feminists are more supportive of cosmetic circumcision than the general population.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 04:21 PM
0

Actually, they're both incredibly slanderous in that they imply something about either gender as a whole that is only true for an incredible small percentage. No they don't That's like saying that "most presidents have been white" is the same as saying "most whites have been president". Saying that most prostitutes are women or that most street harassers are male implies nothing about either sex as a whole. It is merely a fact. Facts are incapable of being malicious or false.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 09:19 AM
1

To the degree that saying luxury goods play some role in competition between women for mates counts as 'blaming it on men'.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 06:28 AM
1

You're acting like 100% of my post was about the article. No, I'm acting like a portion of your post that was 100% false was about the article. Saying "well, I didn't make everything up" doesn't really address the point, now does it?
/r/MensRights13/09/13 06:07 AM
1

I'm not sure how "demonstrable" it is that "street harassment" is performed mostly by men, and even if it were "demonstrable," it's no less slanderous than the "demonstrable fact" that most acts of prostitution are performed by women[...]. Well, yes, in that neither are slanderous. Most prostitutes are, and historically have been, women (or girls). Am I supposed to be offended by that? It's a fact, and facts by definition cannot be slanderous. He's not complaining about the article, he's complai…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 05:59 AM
-1

Edit: seriously, do people not realize that feminism is pro male genital mutilation? Uh, cite please? Some feminists certainly support circumcision, but given that as of 2000 about 80% of men in the US were circumcised it is obvious that you could say that about almost any group in the US. Do you have any evidence that feminists are more likely to support circumcision than the population at large?
/r/MensRights13/09/13 04:12 AM
1

Not really. The demonstrable fact that street harassment is mostly performed by men is a far cry from saying that all men as a class are "hateful beasts". One is mere statistical reality, the other a bigoted slander. Also, how could anything I say possibly change the fact that the article did not say what it was claimed to have said?
/r/MensRights13/09/13 03:56 AM
4

That said, I believe the solution is empowering women, not demonizing men. And I certainly don't think the solution is painting women as 'damsels in distress' who need to be 'protected' from street harassment. Which is not exactly what this article is doing. And again I ask: fucking where? Where does the article demonize men? Where does the article article portray women as damsels in distress? But I didn't quote the article, I quoted a comment, and I specifically stated I was talking about the c…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 12:04 AM
1

Societal influences are not real I guess? They're certainly real, but they're also unavoidable. That's just reality. I am male, I have been harassed. You can continue to believe that it doesn't happen all you want, that doesn't make it true. Uh, the article mentions that men are harassed as well, and I personally have given no indication that I believe that harassers are all men, or that harassment victims are all women. So I call BS. Uh-oh, somebody seems to be debating based on personal emotio…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 11:56 PM
12

If you gave this to article to 10 people to read without specifically mentioning the assigned gender of the street harassers, how many would say that the article had assigned 'male'? I'd bet it's close to 10. Why? Because the vast, vast, vast majority of street harassment is performed by men, and everyone knows it. That's not the writer of the article's fault. So maybe the author carefully used gender-neutral pronouns. But the article as whole is not male-friendly, and based on this anecdotal ev…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 11:33 PM
9

I will admit that I may have unfairly castigated the author due to the opinions and writing of the readers. There's no "may" about it. Your entire characterization of the article was wrong. It says none of the things you accused it of saying.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 11:04 PM
36

The problem is that a circumcised penis has become what a penis is "supposed to look like" in American culture. The percentage of newborns being circumcised is dropping down towards 50%, so clearly this is changing, but it could and should be dropping faster. And really, this would be a great issue for groups interested in promoting men's issues to actually pursue. An effectively run awareness campaign could actually have a measurable affect here. You could buy ad space on popular websites for p…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:54 PM
16

So we're just going to pretend OP didn't lie about the content of the cited article then? OP directly accused the article of 'framing men as oppressors' when the article barely even mentions men at all.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:26 PM
24

Before you write this off as the rantings of a misogynist, think about the inherent misandry in this HuffPo article. Men (an unspecific, general 'men') are framed as the oppressors and females as the victims. Men (all men) are labeled as hateful beasts who beset women with their vileness. Where? No, seriously, where? I just read the article, and men are mentioned exactly twice. And I quote: Instance #1 Thus far she has primarily focused on the experience of women, but she's open to expanding the…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:04 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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