TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Stratisphear Archive

View 8 posts and 1,025 comments by Stratisphear on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,025 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

I think if he found out about all the women involved he'd have a complete mental breakdown.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 10:35 PM
1

No, we just don't have identical political ideologies.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 08:47 PM
1

Nah, I'm not going to out myself. My friend group is mostly naive feminists (one of them called the police after a guy made a crude pun on the internet) and I like them, but I don't want to start a bunch of political bullshit.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 07:22 PM
4

I have a friend who is always making up bullshit about the MRM (Apparently one of our main problems is women with short hair. No idea where he got that idea.) and I have the urge to shove the sub in his face and ask him how things like raising awareness of male victims of acid attacks are misogynist.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 02:18 PM
12

I did. The speech is good, but HeForShe does NOT embody those ideals.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 11:55 PM
13

Basically. Her speech is basically the opposite of what the organization stands for, and yet another example of "Help men. But only because I'LL benefit too."
/r/MensRights22/09/14 10:34 PM
3

The speech is good, but the organization is not. The whole thing is basically: "We don't want just women fighting for women's rights. Men should also be working to improve the lives of women! ^<sup>Gender</sup> ^<sup>equality</sup> ^<sup>is</sup> ^<sup>only</sup> ^<sup>for</sup> ^<sup>women.</sup>
/r/MensRights22/09/14 10:27 PM
1

So am I.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 12:44 AM
0

Sorry, what are you arguing for here? I'm not clear on that.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 09:16 PM
-10

It's not a strawman. You're directly comparing the experiences of a rape victim and the victim of a false accusation. Ultimately a punishment is determined by three things: Severity of the crime, guilty state of mind, and consequences of the crime. Rape is much more severe than lying (however big the lie may be), both are guilty states of mind (although in this case, the woman's is less so due to some clear needs for attention and mental issues) and the consequences (even if you seriously think …
/r/MensRights02/12/13 09:15 PM
8

Good. Not many men SHOULD be convicted. Like you said, it's hard to prove. If it's hard to prove, we should have lower conviction rates, not lower standards of evidence.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 09:10 PM
-3

Wait wait wait, so now a false accusation should be punished more severely than the actual crime?
/r/MensRights02/12/13 09:06 PM
-15

Because being a rape victim is totally a walk in the park.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 09:06 PM
3

Ultimately the justice system needs to be fixed before we discuss punishments. Fundamentally, a false accusation can destroy a life only because the justice system is broken. If the accused had their anonymity protected and there were actual standards of evidence, it would be much harder to ruin a life, and definitely wouldn't deserve the same punishment.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 08:48 PM
-3

But that's not how the justice system works. We don't use symmetrical punishments. We don't torture a torturer and use the death penalty sparingly, if at all.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 08:46 PM
1

A lot of people here are of the opinion that a false accusation or rape is literally exactly as bad as rape.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 07:57 PM
2

Dude owns a small business, but makes a lot of money (he was pretty successful). He can't just abandon that.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 06:09 PM
1

Yah, it's pretty fucked up. The divorce has been going on for something like 10 years now.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 04:32 PM
8

I seriously believe that. I know a guy paying his technically-not-ex-wife $10K a month while she lives in his house. Basically, her lawyers (that he's paying for) are delaying the divorce as much as possible, because while they still aren't divorced, he has to support her and she gets to stay in the house, while the lawyers keep getting paid. He is getting FUCKED.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 02:54 PM
3

I mean the actual episode with a woman who convinced guys to murder her ex, then start dating someone else and convince THEM to murder the guy she just left, and so on.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 01:29 AM
7

This sounds like an episode of Misfits.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 04:44 PM
9

The wage gap exists. It's easily explained as a result of personal choice and not due to discrimination, but it's still there.
/r/MensRights16/11/13 05:31 PM
1

1 in 2!* *Will be physically or sexually assaulted in their lifetimes stop reading the fine print.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 06:37 PM
24

Why aren't there more female investment bankers? Because that career takes a shitload of work and women can reap the same rewards by marrying an investment banker.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 05:43 PM
2

Are you saying that the military doesn't have a "macho" culture to it?
/r/MensRights09/11/13 11:37 PM
1

I don't think we need to abandon male-only organizations. Though I do think attempting to move away the "macho" culture that encourages a lack of empathy is a good idea.
/r/MensRights09/11/13 12:17 AM
-16

But this issue is that feminists will then take that to mean "So men should shut up and help us. Forget about male issues, just focus on female ones, and then you'll magically be all better."
/r/MensRights06/11/13 10:56 PM
-1

Hi. I'm an astronaut billionaire brain surgeon. Who also invented the entire justice system. You can believe me because I said it on the internet.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 09:01 PM
1

"We believe that the kidnapped girl is being kept in this house! He'll probably kill her within a few hours! We need a warrant now!" "Okay, okay. Well, if you're wrong, I get punished, so... no. I'm not going to issue a warrant. Let her die, I'm not taking that risk."
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:00 PM
-1

Because the entire justice system relies on judges being impartial. If they have a vested interest in any aspect of it, especially warrants, the system falls apart. If you tell a judge "We want this warrant, but if someone along the way was lying, you get a cactus shoved up your ass", they're not going to issue ANY warrants. You clearly don't know how the justice system works, please learn how before continuing to claim it doesn't.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 06:56 PM
-2

Are you fucking kidding me? Without warrants, you paralyze the entire police force. Crime is legal. Hell, you can't even issue a warrant for someone's arrest! It would be entirely legal for me to stab you to death as long as no cop sees it happen.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 05:15 AM
-1

Okay, here's an example. We're investigating subject A for possession of narcotics. We have a witness who says he has them, and known narcotics manufacturers have been seen entering his residence. Can we get a search warrant? Now, if you give us a warrant and he IS a dealer, we get him off the streets. If you don't give us a warrant and he IS a dealer, he gets away. However, if you give us a warrant and he ISN'T a dealer, I shove this cactus up your ass until you pass out. Now, we definitely hav…
/r/MensRights06/11/13 05:05 AM
-6

Not necessarily. Immunity is important. If you can punish a judge for making a mistake, they won't make any decisions at all.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 03:16 AM
-4

We're not talking about handing out a warrant without a cause. We're talking about holding judges personally accountable for any mistake (even one not made by them). Without their immunity, they would cease to allow ANY warrants for fear of the reprisals. Putting a judge through the same thing wouldn't make judges think "Oh, better make sure my facts are straight here before issuing", it would make them think "I will literally never issue a warrant again because I'm not risking my ass for this."
/r/MensRights06/11/13 03:10 AM
-3

Please learn about how the justice system works before you go railing against it. You sound like a 9th-grade "gangster" who just hates the police.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 03:02 AM
-2

Yes they would. If one judge was forced through the same process as the suspect went through because they made a mistake on the warrant, they absolutely would stop issuing them. The only way they'd issue a warrant is if they were absolutely-100%-there's-absolutely-0-chance-anyone-here-messed-up-in-any-possible-way sure that they'd find the evidence they wanted, and only after several weeks of scrutiny. Especially for anything invasive like this. Why the hell would you risk your own safety on the…
/r/MensRights06/11/13 02:38 AM
-2

I'm not saying they'll err on the side of caution. I'm saying they'll literally never allow a single warrant to be issued because even a tiny mistake will fuck them over completely.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 02:29 AM
-4

I don't mean cautious as in "Let's make extra sure we can issue a warrant here", I mean cautious as in "We're going to need an extra few weeks to check this whole thing over. And even then we'll probably turn you down, just in case."
/r/MensRights06/11/13 01:47 AM
-14

Absolutely not. If a judge were to be forced to be violated for making a mistake with a warrant, every judge would be extremely cautious in issuing warrants making it way easier for criminals to get away with their crimes. EDIT: Clearly a ton of people in this subreddit have literally no idea how the justice system works. Please try to learn how it works before you claim that it doesn't. You sound like a bunch of 8th grade anarchists.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 01:08 AM
0

What? Where the hell are you getting that from?
/r/MensRights05/11/13 05:38 PM
3

That's a bad change.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 05:26 PM
4

How?
/r/MensRights05/11/13 05:13 PM
88

So let me get this straight: They have security footage showing no girls entered the washroom. This is their evidence for not punishing the girls. But why not just punish the boys who DID go into the washroom? That's still discrimination, but at least it makes a little bit of sense.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 04:39 AM
1

The fuck? Did you come here from that chastity belt thread? You're insane. Are you saying that black students are dumber than white ones?
/r/MensRights03/11/13 05:40 AM
10

Step 4: Lobby for public spending to fix some bullshit issue and direct the money towards women.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 09:52 PM
2

It doesn't mean every restaurant uses them.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:42 PM
1

I'm well aware, but the one I'm thinking of gives a 10% discount for cash, so I'm pretty sure they'd lose more on a cash sale than a credit card sale.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 06:29 PM
5

A lot of restaurants do it. If you get a discount for paying in cash, odds are they lie about their income.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 03:58 PM
29

It's always kind of sad to see that kid who forgot to submit his penis-stamped form into the Patriarchy Office on time.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 02:26 AM
-1

MRA's work only against discrimination against men. Isolated cases like this are not MRA issues. Just because the victim is a man doesn't make it an MRA issue.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 02:43 PM
17

It doesn't even matter if he's an adult. Look at all the women who manage to abuse grown men without being able to hold them down.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 02:40 PM
-2

Then in this case it was also an accident. They thought he was dangerous.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 09:49 PM
-5

The cops meant to shoot these women. They didn't accidentally do anything. They weren't aware they were innocent women, they just opened fire.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 08:34 PM
1

They didn't "accidentally" shoot them. It was pretty damn deliberate. They thought they were someone else, just as the cop who shot this guy thought he was someone else, a dangerous person with a weapon.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 07:26 PM
8

Here's two women shot in a car wielding newspapers.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 04:10 PM
3

Eh, I'd call this another case of police going too far, not necessarily misandry.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 03:28 PM
0

You're the one that doesn't understand that renovations take time and a lot of money, plus the cost due to lost revenue, and that that just isn't worth it to add one bathroom. What do you think they need to do, flip the "family bathroom switch" in an office?
/r/MensRights20/10/13 03:14 PM
0

You know what they should do for their customers? Free admission and a free car every time you go. THAT'LL keep people coming back! Because cost vs. reward doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 03:08 PM
0

You've never run any kind of business, have you? You clearly don't understand how this whole thing works.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 03:05 PM
-1

Yes. Because all businesses have a secret money pile which gives them infinite money for any business needs. They never need to determine cost vs. effect.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 02:33 PM
-1

What if this location is years old and hasn't had the money or need to renovate to add in a family washroom?
/r/MensRights20/10/13 02:25 PM
1

You don't know the budget / needs / spatial concerns they're working with. They might not have had the room / budget to add one to the building.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 02:05 PM
3

Because a ramp is literally the same as a third bathroom...
/r/MensRights20/10/13 02:31 AM
8

No. But I'm saying that the original complaint said many things that were outright lies, including the implication that she WAS in a wheelchair at the time. And it makes it seem much worse for them to deny helping someone in a wheelchair rather than someone who is walking.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 01:51 AM
2

That's ridiculous. Places shouldn't have to build a third washroom that will be hardly used just for extremely fringe cases like this. It's nice that some places do have that, but it should hardly be considered a necessity.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 12:51 AM
26

People, please read the response. There is security footage, which shows that the women's room WAS occupied, the men's was empty, and the girl was walking, not in a wheelchair. Can you people please actually click the link and not just the title?
/r/MensRights20/10/13 12:40 AM
12

Not really, thats a common affect of being an redditor.
/r/MensRights19/10/13 03:52 PM
1

That's why I also said you need to also restrict how many calories you eat.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 01:28 PM
1

You don't need to go hungry to lose weight. Just eat only when you're hungry, and then healthier, less calorie-rich foods. I've lost 20 pounds almost entirely by keeping below 2000 calories per day (amount varies person to person).
/r/MensRights17/10/13 06:17 AM
38

Rape culture is a way of saying that something you don't like causes rape, without actually saying that it causes rape, because then people would know you were full of shit. You know how people say violent video games cause murder? It's like that, except if you said "playing basketball causes rape", people would know you were an idiot. But, if you say "Organized sports contribute to rape culture, and rape culture causes rape", you sound like an academic and people actually need to think before t…
/r/MensRights16/10/13 07:53 PM
2

Against. But I'm also for sarcasm.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 06:09 PM
257

Yes, but that would require a woman being capable of doing wrong.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:32 PM
1

Some are.
/r/MensRights05/10/13 04:24 PM
2

An hourglass.
/r/MensRights05/10/13 03:48 PM
15

They all put themselves down as "curvy".
/r/MensRights05/10/13 02:43 AM
14

Well financial slavery is a very real issue, though that usually comes after divorce. (You work and pay money to your ex or you go to jail).
/r/MensRights30/09/13 08:19 PM
3

Yah, the workers didn't earn anything...
/r/MensRights30/09/13 07:01 PM
14

"You're all sexist and racist! FUCK WHITE MEN!"
/r/MensRights29/09/13 07:57 AM
29

Don't. Don't confront them. Just ignore them. They won't go away, but they'll be yelling at people who just ignore them. You remember the "scum" girl from UofT? She kept yelling "scum" at the guy, and he didn't react. He just stared forward, and then asked someone else if he could not be near her. That guy is what we should all aspire to be. Because of his actions, she looked like a psychotic bitch, and he looked like a reasonable person. If he had just started yelling "No, YOU'RE scum!" back at…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 07:56 AM
62

Based on what they say constitutes rape, I'm surprised they're not claiming it already.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 08:37 PM
7

Dude, NEVER link your online accounts to your real name. That's just a terrible idea.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 03:13 PM
2

Holocaust doesn't only refer to war, just large-scale destruction.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 02:45 PM
4

Destruction or slaughter on a massive scale?
/r/MensRights18/09/13 02:08 PM
-10

So you're saying it would literally cause a Nuclear Holocaust?
/r/MensRights18/09/13 12:04 PM
10

It's the same thing change.org does.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 10:47 AM
52

The gaming world is true equality. EVERYONE'S a niggerfaggot, no matter your gender, race, or sexual orientation.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 05:21 AM
69

It's like the exact opposite of the date-rape anthem. The line that they say promotes "rape culture" is "I know you want me". They ignore all the other lines that say things like "Go ahead, get at me" instead of "I'm going to get you now" and "Let me be the one you back that ass up to" instead of "Get your ass over here". Basically either thought-rape is a thing, or believing you're attractive is sexual assault.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:13 AM
1

Your analogy is terrible. Hiring a hitman is not equivalent to reporting a crime. It's like me saying her crime was like a kid taking a cookie when he wasn't supposed to, and because the kid wouldn't go to jail, she shouldn't either.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 09:48 PM
0

Are you seriously saying that the justice system is a hitman? You sound like a 14 year old anarchist.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 07:28 PM
1

Because there is literally no difference between kidnapping with forcible confinement, and being convicted of a crime and sent to prison.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 02:16 AM
0

The man lost 30 years because, despite evidence to the contrary and clear reasonable doubt, he was convicted. THAT was the failure of the justice system.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 07:51 PM
2

I NEVER SAID THAT.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 06:46 PM
1

You can't force people to live the way you want them to.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 12:06 AM
-1

Everyone in prison is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's literally what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:18 PM
2

No, if they're found guilty of falsely accusing, the guy wouldn't go to or stay in jail.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:16 PM
1

So you support capital punishment? You believe that the justice system should be set up purely for revenge?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:16 PM
1

Because the money earner AGREED to support the spouse for that period of time. The earner WILLINGLY CHOSE to pay for the homemaker. Your argument is that "the homemaker chose not to work, so they should get nothing", but you are forgetting that the working spouse made the same choice and agreement.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:15 PM
-1

Punishments for crimes are not solely based on deterrent. You can get the death penalty for murder, and people still do it. There is no sentence that will prevent people from committing a crime all-together. It's not a strong enough deterrent now because it isn't convicted. 5-10 years seems appropriate for the extreme cases (like this one). Just not 30.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:12 PM
0

WHERE DID I SAY SHE SHOULDN'T GO TO JAIL???? Jesus fucking christ, I've said about a half dozen times that she SHOULD GO TO JAIL!!! Just not for 30 fucking years!
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:10 PM
0

Look, if we make one crime punished by "eye for an eye", we need to make EVERY crime punished by "eye for an eye". There are tons of factors that go into determining a punishment for a crime, and they are all taken into account. We can't just waive most of them (all except experience of the victim) for just ONE crime. That's not how the justice system works. If we do that, we'd have to ignore the entire Accidental/Reckless/Intentional etc. scale that we use to determine HOW guilty someone was be…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:09 PM
0

People still commit crimes even though there can be jail sentences. Does that mean that we should increase ALL jail sentences? I mean, you can get the death penalty for murder, and people STILL do it! How do you punish them more then death?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:01 PM
1

Because you like to be angry at people so you respond to things I never said?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:59 PM
0

I'm well aware. I'm not saying false accusers should go free. I have literally never said that. Stop fucking assuming I'm saying that.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:58 PM
0

When someone is convicted of rape despite there not being enough evidence (like when they didn't do it), that's the justice system failing. We shouldn't be saying "Because the justice system doesn't work, fuck you", we should be saying "Let's fix the justice system so the falsely accused don't go to jail".
/r/MensRights10/09/13 10:46 AM
-7

I was the one who provided an argument detailing the consequences of your belief. You're the one who just shouted "FALLACY!" EDIT: For anyone interested, AMRadiohead1 below was claiming I supported rapists in my post history, and when asked to provide a link, claimed I sent him an "odd pm" then deleted his comments. I did nothing of the sort. Edit 2: Nevermind, I just checked his post history. Frequent poster in againstmensrights and complete troll.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 10:25 AM
-6

I don't think you could possibly make that assessment without actually being raped.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 10:24 AM
-3

It's not an argument, so it's not a logical fallacy. You're just demonstrating a high-school level knowledge of how discussions work (I know he made a fallacy, therefore he's wrong!) and an elementary level understanding of law (Bad people get bad things!), so I feel content in just calling you an idiot. I'm not trying to argue anymore, there's no point.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:29 AM
-6

The neckbeard tips his fedora and vanishes back into the shadows. Successfully pointing out another fallacy, he sips some mountain dew and thinks to himself, "How would the internet survive without me?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:26 AM
-14

I think about 1-2 years in jail is enough to deter that behaviour.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:19 AM
2

... Only to people who think that "technologically illiterate" actually means "unable to use technology". You may want to try a phrase that makes sense, like "technologically impaired". "Technologically illiterate" means I'm using technology to be unable to read or write.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:07 AM
-10

What the hell do you think I'm proposing? That false accusations should be legal? My alternative is that the jail sentence should not be equivalent to the jail sentence for rape. Let me just make that very clear for you: I DO NOT BELIEVE FALSELY ACCUSING SOMEONE OF A CRIME SHOULD BE LEGAL. I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE CONVICTED, AND, IF GUILTY, PUT IN PRISON. HOWEVER, THE LENGTH OF THE PRISON SENTENCE SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED BY THE PUNISHMENT FOR RAPE, BECAUSE THOSE TWO CRIMES ARE NOT EQUIVALENT. N…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:56 AM
-15

So you believe that all crimes should be punished by committing that crime against the victim? So you support prison rape of rapists? You believe that someone who accidentally kills someone while driving should be put to death? Thieves should be forbidden from owning property? Arsonists should be burned at the stake? And what would that say about people that commit crimes that aren't against people? How would you punish someone who hunts an endangered species? Kill them, or let them go free? You…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:30 AM
-19

My alternative is they they be prosecuted with a sentence of something like 18 months in jail. Not 30 fucking years.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:14 AM
-5

So should the death penalty be mandatory for murder?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:08 AM
-16

Why did you just say you were going to kill a bunch of black people? Sorry, I thought we were responding to statements nobody made. I never said it should be okay to lie in court. I said, and I'm quoting directly here, I disagree with "carry the same punishment". Lying is not equivalent to rape. I did not say "Lying is ok", I did not say "People should be able to lie in court", I said "Lying is not equivalent to rape".
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:08 AM
-27

That's a failure of the justice system.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:37 AM
-16

I disagree with "carry the same punishment". Lying is not equivalent to rape.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:33 AM
1

What if one spouse agrees to stop working on the condition the other spouse takes care of them financially while they raise the children? They made the decision with the assurance that they wouldn't need to work because the earning spouse would take care of their needs. What if the earning spouse decides to cut them off, and they're fucked because they can't support themselves and the kids. Or the earning spouse becomes abusive, they can't leave without losing their ability to support themselves…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:21 AM
2

Special definition: Better, greater, or otherwise different from the usual. Are you actually claiming Chrome is neither better, greater, nor different from IE?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:33 AM
1

That's still what, 5 years being out of work? That'll put a huge dent in your earning potential.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:31 AM
1

Because not everyone can afford a daycare or a baby sitter?
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:31 AM
1

People just don't understand why alimony exists in the first place and haven't thought it through. It's like when people say "Well, why would you not believe a woman who says she was raped?" without considering the consequences of it.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:30 AM
1

But that just isn't realistic. Should we be saying "If you choose to have kids, you must either be able to afford to pay someone to take care of them, or risk losing your ability to support yourself financially."
/r/MensRights08/09/13 11:03 PM
1

The edge cases are the entire point of the laws. This is my entire argument. This isn't a strawman. This is literally what I'm arguing. You can't allow situations in which one partner can force the other to stay in a marriage under threat of poverty.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:15 PM
1

The provider WILLINGLY CHOSE to support them. We need to consider abusive relationships. "If you go to the police I'll make sure you end up on the street", that kind of thing. Plus, it keeps people from staying in relationships where they're abused just for the payoff.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:08 PM
1

Yes, but my entire argument is that during marriage, if one spouse isn't working, their earning potential decreases. To say that this is equivalent to business partners is ludicrous.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:45 PM
3

Eh. I was more than a little bit drunk.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 08:32 PM
0

Which is why the laws should be gender-neutral. I'm not saying the current system is perfect, I'm just saying it needs to be fixed and not done away with entirely.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 03:25 PM
0

Huh. I guess I should have used gender-neutral language in my post. Oh wait, I did. I realize the current system is flawed, but we can't just do away with it entirely.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 03:24 PM
-4

Now we can see the douchebag reacting. It brings up a blog post from a bigoted website and claims the information is factual. Note how it compares it's enemy to what it believes to be an inferior race or gender.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 07:08 AM
-8

Here we see the common douchebag in the wild. Note his typical fedora and neckbeard. The douchebag will spew bigoted remarks in misplaced anger due to the fact nobody likes him. This is of course because he is a douchebag.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 07:02 AM
12

I'm really glad to hear that you unsubbed from this subreddit. We don't want assholes like you here.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 06:57 AM
20

So men should be forced to conform to traditional male gender roles so that women will want to fuck them?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 06:51 AM
-11

Are you comparing marriage to a business transaction? Because when you're working in a business, your earning potential doesn't really drop.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 06:28 AM
10

Some men WANT to be househusbands. We should be telling society to allow it, not telling men not to do it. The movement should fight against traditional gender roles.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 06:27 AM
12

Go back to the red pill.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 05:52 AM
-18

You need to take into account abusive relationships. What if one partner is beating the other one while supporting the other one financially? The victim is forced to stay in the relationship or lose the ability to support themselves. After several years, they couldn't hold down a job. What if there are children involved? Suddenly, if the victim leaves, their children end up in foster care or with the abuser because they can't support them. Alimony isn't just "Bitch wants my money even after she …
/r/MensRights08/09/13 05:46 AM
-33

You clearly have no idea how the real world works.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 04:59 AM
-29

I agree with alimony, but only to an extent. In this situation, it's clearly WAY too much. But women who are supported by their husbands lose the ability to support themselves slowly. If you stop working for several years, your potential earnings fall. Alimony laws need to exist, to prevent abuse caused by one partner threatening the other. For example: "If you go to the police, I'll divorce you, and you'll be out on the street". Lifelong support is, of course, ludicrous. I think a reasonable co…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 03:17 AM
3

I have a cult if you're interested. I'm Grand Archmage, but you can be one of my magi.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 01:29 AM
9

If I'm reading this correctly, it's that vigilante justice is okay because a victim knows they were attacked. Which is a terrible point.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 12:41 AM
8

YOU RAPED ME! I'm a victim here. Does that mean I can murder you now? Because I know that you did it?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 12:31 AM
12

But how do we know the "victim" wasn't just lying?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 12:11 AM
2

I know a guy who pays thousands of dollars a month in alimony (I think it was $10,000). He isn't even divorced yet. Her lawyers are stalling because so long as they don't fully divorce, he pays her shitloads of money, she gets the house, and he pays for everything. It's been going on for over 10 years.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 11:50 PM
2

It does.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 03:32 PM
3

I use 3 different operating systems in my work. (And OSX is the best one). Everything I said was 100% correct. If a user didn't know about printing to pdf, it's highly unlikely that they would have known OSX has the feature built-in while Windows requires third-party software. Maybe someday Microsoft will make an OS that ISN'T shit, and the conversation of which OS is the best will shift. But you'll always be an insufferable douche.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 07:31 AM
1

BioGenx2b: "If you're hungry, you can just go to the fridge and get some leftover porkchops." Stratisphear: "That only works if you actually have porkchops. Other wise you need to go out, buy them and cook them before you can eat them." psilorder: "You just need to go out and buy them, then cook them." Stratisphear: "Wow. If I'd known that were true, I would have said something like 'Other wise you need to go out, buy them and cook them before you can eat them.' But clearly you read my comment a…
/r/MensRights05/09/13 06:42 AM
-3

Wow. If I'd known that were true, I would have said something like "You need special software to create PDFs like that on Windows". But clearly you read my comment and didn't see that, so it must not have been there, right?
/r/MensRights05/09/13 05:26 AM
-2

What's a nice try?
/r/MensRights05/09/13 03:54 AM
-6

That only works on a mac. You need special software to create PDFs like that on Windows.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 03:11 AM
1

Yah, reddit didn't catch it because of the unneeded feature tag in the URL.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 12:44 AM
6

Karma whoring devalues the subreddit and fills it with shitty content and constant reposts instead of new information.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 06:07 PM
1

... I don't think we're talking about the same facility. I'm discussing the one in Toronto. I think you're talking about one that you made up so you could wave your fedora at something while yelling.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 05:46 PM
1

There are women-only classes due to a need for women-only classes. If they had men-only classes, they wouldn't have enough attendees to make it worthwhile. If a men's support group wanted to book a room in a community centre for a meeting, should they be banned from doing so due to discrimination?
/r/MensRights02/09/13 05:19 PM
1

Well then you make the only attendees women. Which frankly is even less discriminatory.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 04:58 PM
1

If they posted that the pool has a railing and ramp to get in for the disabled, would a reasonable person assume that all able bodied people are banned from touching it? No. They don't need to mention that anyone can use the screens because anyone with a bit of thinking ability can tell that they can. Furthermore, you're getting angry because an ANNOUNCEMENT only mentioned the group that will use it almost exclusively, and NOT because of any kind of discrimination.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 10:42 PM
1

How is it exclusionary? Those women could not use the pool. The new pool has screens that allow them to use the pool. It mentions that they can now use the pool. The point of the screens is to ALLOW the women to use the pool. They can be used by others, but the main use is for those women. How are you not getting this?
/r/MensRights01/09/13 07:31 PM
1

"I want to book the pool for my women's swim group". That's not segregation. It's a private event.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 02:04 PM
1

BECAUSE MUSLIM WOMEN CAN'T SWIM WITH MEN. There are religious laws. They cannot be seen by men while swimming. THAT'S why the facilities are there. To accommodate a significant part of the population. Should we ban wheelchair parking spaces because it discriminates against the able-bodied?
/r/MensRights01/09/13 02:03 PM
1

Yes they are.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 02:01 PM
1

I'm going to type quickly because I recognize how comment posting works. The pool supplies privacy screens. The privacy screens were installed specifically with religious women in mind. That's a large part of the population that can't swim normally. So the person who wrote the article wanted to point that out. That paragraph was written as "Religious women can also use the pool because..." and not "One of the features is...". It didn't mention men because men aren't the ones who will be usually …
/r/MensRights01/09/13 02:00 PM
0

You're an idiot. When you get out of high school and learn how the world works, and what "private event" means, let me know.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 05:46 AM
1

I'M willfully ignorant? Jesus. You think that because the facility has the materials to allow women who are banned from swimming with men to book the pool for a private event, that the pool bans men.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 05:35 AM
0

Do you not get what booking a private event is? And these women aren't just uncomfortable around men, they are BANNED from swimming with men by religious law. And if you wanted to book a white's only swim time, you're free to. That's what having a private event at a location IS. Should we ban classes at community centres? That's booking off public space for private events!
/r/MensRights01/09/13 05:33 AM
1

The screens were installed specifically for religious women. That was the entire point of installing the screens. So doesn't it make sense to mention "Yo, religious women, we installed screens for you!"?
/r/MensRights01/09/13 03:56 AM
0

Does every mention of a new ramp for the disabled also need to come with a clarification that the building is still allowed to be used by the able bodied? Toronto has a large religious population. The women in these religions are not allowed to swim with men due to religious laws. The article wants to mention that these women can use the facility due to the fact it is equipped with opaque screens. THAT'S why she specifically mentioned women. Not because it's a women-only program, not because onl…
/r/MensRights01/09/13 02:24 AM
0

Why are you assuming men can't book it?
/r/MensRights01/09/13 12:14 AM
0

Because the women have the interest due to religious laws? And men can book them too, it just isn't really something typically required for a population.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 12:12 AM
1

This article is from Toronto. You know what's in Toronto? A large population of Muslims (and other religious people) whose live by religious laws, one of which is that women must be covered around men. This means that they can't go swimming in a public pool without booking it and using the screens. So women especially can benefit from the policy, meaning that it makes sense to single them out. TL;DR Learn about the location and the author's intentions before screaming accusations.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 12:11 AM
1

But you're complaining about a non-issue. You don't know that men can't book the swimming pool, you just know that religious women CAN.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 08:39 PM
0

No, the article is saying that in a section about religious tolerance. If the author said that there were ramps and handles to help the disabled swim, would you be saying they had banned able-bodied people from swimming? The author wanted to point out that the pool was built with religious tolerance in mind.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 08:18 PM
1

No, but it should. The women freely choose to follow the religion, but apparently that choice isn't allowed.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 08:15 PM
3

She was making a point about religious tolerance. Islamic women have an interest in swimming out of sight of men, and she made it clear that the pool was equipped to handle that need. It's like me saying that the pool is built to help the disabled community swim with ramps, handles, and floatation devices, and then you saying "So why are you banning able-bodied swimmers?"
/r/MensRights31/08/13 08:13 PM
1

If a religious group wants to rent out a place for a private event and make the event men-only, that's fine.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 07:49 PM
3

We're talking about a public place that can be booked for a private gathering and is set up specifically to accommodate religious women, who constitute the main demographic of people who would want to privately book it.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 07:43 PM
5

Do you know men can't book the pool?
/r/MensRights31/08/13 07:35 PM
4

Most hotels, convention centres, and anywhere that can be booked for a private gathering.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 07:35 PM
3

You don't know that men won't be allowed to.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:49 PM
5

Remember, 99.98% (or whatever the number is this week) of rapes go unreported, so there's that.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:23 PM
7

Yes, women from men. But not men from women.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:17 PM
0

But the main people who would be using the location like that are religious women, so it makes sense to point that out.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:16 PM
3

It's segregation by choice. The pool can be booked for private events, and if religious women want to book an event for just religious women (due to the rules of said religion) they can. Man can do the same, but they don't really have a reason to.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:15 PM
9

Yah! Fuck other people's beliefs! How dare they be able to rent out a pool to use for a private event! Seriously, we're not assholes up here. We tolerate other beliefs, we don't shit on them.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:14 PM
3

That's not how it works. Women who follow the faith are not allowed to swim with men. There is no restriction like that for men. So men can go to the pool with non-religious women, but women cannot with men around at all.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:13 PM
11

The issue is religious tolerance. There are many religions in the city in which women are not allowed to do things like that with any men around, and THAT'S the reason for the discrimination. I'm sure men can also book the pool, but the writer wanted to emphasize the religious tolerance aspect (I don't think there's a religion that bans men from swimming anywhere with women, at least not a popular one).
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:11 PM
2

Okay, what the hell is wrong with you? Men are not slobbering dogs following a hot ass. They do not dictate their lives to pussy, and insinuating that is insulting. A club provides a service. They bring in women, and men will follow because the clubs is SELLING the women to the men. The men buy alcohol for the women and pay the cover charge for the women. When I go to a restaurant, I am buying food, not sex. When I go to the gym, I am buying time on the equipment, not sex. When I go to a club, I…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 08:15 PM
2

More girls at they gym? More guys join too. I don't know about you, but I like going to the gym to work out. So do most men. So that's not true. More girls frequent a restaurant? More guys join too. That's not true. More girls join a certain school? Then more guys join it too. Most people are more concerned with their educations than getting laid. It's not that common that a man chooses his school with his dick, and those that do seldom last long in the program, meaning that it's more cost-effec…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 08:07 PM
2

It's still illegal though, and they certainly wouldn't get away with advertizing that practice. Either way, the fact still remains that profit or demand don't get to dictate everything. Rules and guidelines still need to be put into place. Yes, but only where it makes sense. Walmart still has to abide by certain sets of ethical rules... and pretty sure if they started a "guys pay more for certain items" rule, they would suffer for it. Only because there are no items that guys buy more of because…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 06:26 PM
1

No it isn't. Read the damn thing. It only mentions rape in the first couple of paragraphs. Then it goes on to talk about how bad solitary confinement is, how solitary confinement needs to end, and asks you to help the justice system stop solitary confinement. NOTHING about the rape itself.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 05:39 PM
1

Do you think there businesses wouldn't benefit from getting together, creating a monopoly and setting the prices to whatever they want Except they need to be competitive enough to seem like they haven't conspired. But they do. You ever notice how gas prices in an area tend to all be the same? Do you think businesses wouldn't benefit from lowering costs by cutting corners and that there wouldn't be a demand for lower prices down the line? You've clearly never heard of Walmart. If you had to pay d…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 05:36 PM
1

Because there isn't demand for it.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 05:15 PM
1

This article isn't about the rape though, it's about the solitary confinement. The rape hardly even enters into it.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 06:07 AM
5

Yah, but we should be reacting differently to it. We should be getting pissed at bigotry. This is just a way to make money, and getting pissed at it is like when some tumblr idiots say that attractive women in advertisements is sexism.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 02:00 AM
7

It's not sexism. The bar wants to attract customers. By having a lot of women, they can attract a lot of men. By lowering the price, they can attract a lot of women. This means they make more money. It's just capitalism. Please don't get angry at petty things like this. It makes us look like tumblr feminists.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 01:58 AM
8

This isn't sexism, it's capitalism. Getting upset at issues like this makes us look like those whiny tumblr feminists.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 01:57 AM
3

Hang on, what was the kid convicted of? Apparently he went to prison several times, what for?
/r/MensRights30/08/13 01:55 AM
3

Teach her that in any situation, to always ask "What would Picard do?" That advice will get you through life.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 07:55 PM
14

Whoops, didn't see that part. My bad.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 07:13 PM
17

I bet she sips her latte on the way to her yoga class in the car her parents bought her and thinks "I am SO oppressed right now!"
/r/MensRights29/08/13 07:10 PM
5

Actually, in the first one, you might get the cops called on you.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 07:08 PM
13

You ever notice how it's usually the more unattractive women who complain about that kind of thing?
/r/MensRights29/08/13 07:08 PM
1

Holy shit, people. I'm only talking about how he said "it's impossible". It isn't. I'm simply saying one sentence was inaccurate. I still support the rest of his statement. Jesus Christ. Where the fuck did I say that false accusations should be legalized because of that? Absolutely nowhere. Pull your head out of your ass and read the damn comment, would you?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 05:56 AM
1

I know. I'm just responding to the "impossible" comment.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:14 PM
3

No, it can very easily be beyond a reasonable doubt. I remember a case where a guy was convicted with DNA evidence. It turned out later that it was actually his brother's DNA. But at the time, it was almost definitely his, and there was no "reasonable" doubt to it.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 08:33 PM
5

Not impossible. Innocent people go to prison after being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The system isn't perfect. But it is still incredibly unlikely.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 07:21 PM
1

Actually, I care very much when it happens to men. I've been alienated from several groups at my university for believing that men face discrimination. I simply don't believe men are always the victims.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 06:04 PM
1

Depends what you mean by "lie". Can they say that their client is innocent when they know they're guilty? Of course. Can they lie in order to subvert the legal system? No.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 01:32 AM
2

I was referring to men as a group. That's why I said "Women in power can be just as sexist".
/r/MensRights23/08/13 07:02 PM
0

You didn't even bother to read my full comment. You know how I know? -Having the power doesn't mean it's used -They also discriminate against men Only halfway through. Please read my full comment before blasting angrily at me.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 07:00 PM
-2

That's true though. The key there is "Institutionalized". There was a great post a while ago about what defines power. Power over your own life vs. power over institutions. Men have more of the latter, while women have more of the former. Because men are more likely to hold a position of authority in institutions (not due to sexism, just to life choices), typically men have more power to discriminate like that. However: -Having the power doesn't mean it's used -They also discriminate against men…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:30 PM
7

Wait, am I reading the messages correctly? The email that "advocates physical abuse" seems to be along the lines of "Yah, I'm more careful with the things I develop that you'll review because Greg doesn't scare me as much." "Dude, Greg is huge. He could probably squish you. You SHOULD be afraid of him." "Yah. Greg, you should really get more angry with developers. Swear a bit, and shout. You're getting a lot of bugs submitted to you because a lot of people can treat you as a door mat. If you'd b…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:51 PM
10

But then she also contacted several feminist organizations, and made the entire issue incredibly public. This wasn't just "Hey guys, you shouldn't do that." It was "HEY EVERYONE! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! MISSSSOOOOOGGGYYYYYNNNNNYYYYY!!!!"
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:46 PM
4

Like I said, he's her attorney. He needs to actively oppose the idea it was out of vengeance. The attorney can't say "Yah, my client tried to commit perjury". If he hadn't said that it wasn't out of vengeance, or implied that she committed a crime, he could face disbarment.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 09:08 PM
6

Don't blame the attorney. She deserves fair representation as much as anyone. The lawyer NEEDS to do his absolute best to defend her, or the entire justice system falls apart.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:50 PM
5

In schools and media only, of course. Though there's still the huge outcry after someone is found innocent due to a reasonable doubt. I like the Scottish (I think it's Scotland's system, I might be wrong) system of having three verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven. Guilty is when there is no reasonable doubt, Not Guilty is when there's enough evidence to safely say you didn't do it, and Not Proven means "We're pretty sure you did it, but we're not 100%.".
/r/MensRights21/08/13 05:37 PM
50

Saying ANYTHING will get rape and death threats. It's the internet. I've seen threats made against puppies on a youtube video.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 06:13 PM
0

Really? An ad like this? Really? Can we NOT get incredibly upset about every tiny slight? We get pissed at feminists doing the same thing!
/r/MensRights17/08/13 01:22 AM
5

Read the guy's post. It's clearly a troll. People who actually believe it wouldn't phrase it like that.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 12:51 PM
7

No, he isn't an SRS shill. He's just trying to get a bunch of people to get angry and say "No, Men aren't hardcoded you asshole", except with a much angrier tone.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 12:20 PM
-5

I wouldn't call this a double standard. I've seen plenty of columns about women who don't want to have sex. This isn't about him not being erect whenever she demands, it's about having sex less than once a month.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 12:14 PM
20

Ignore the troll. Just downvote and ignore it. Reply saying literally anything and he wins.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 12:13 PM
4

Dude, don't reply, just downvote and ignore. If you reply, literally no matter what you say, he wins and you lose.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 12:13 PM
-2

Oh well, I guess I was wrong. But it is possible.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 02:28 PM
-9

Also the photos were also probably taken only a few hours apart.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 02:08 PM
2

I'm aware of that. But on feminist topics, they go full retard.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 02:04 AM
36

My university's Atheists and Agnostics club is super feminist. It's great seeing the leader blog about how religious people make so many logical fallacies, then make the EXACT same ones in a feminist blog entry, then start hurling accusations of bigotry when he is called out (after a particularly long one about how religious people do the same thing).
/r/MensRights11/08/13 03:53 PM
-3

Yes it is. Thunderfoot, ViperX, the youtube commenters, conferences, the inevitable + drama, Elevatorgate, etc.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:17 PM
6

Of course, but if we're going to take everything literally instead of understanding that communication fundamentally isn't and any reasonable human being could discern what I actually meant, then I question how a shark could even use a computer.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:23 PM
2

How so?
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:09 PM
8

I stopped following atheism when it became feminism by another name.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 12:31 PM
0

Yah, but you can also use that logic for: Engineer presents a theory (911 towers brought down by planes) and accuses Terrorists of perpetuating it Truthers present data and logic that contradicts the claim Engineer accuses Truthers of fabricating evidence, doesn't even look at it.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:35 PM
5

Baldness in fighters is usually to protect against hair pulling. Long hair is a huge disadvantage.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 09:37 PM
21

Even if he doesn't have sex. Remember the woman who forged a signature to steal her ex's sperm from a sperm bank and won child support?
/r/MensRights01/08/13 11:08 PM
1

Eh. I'd consider that a pain pass.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:39 PM
11

First, hell yes it is okay. More force, even. I don't go up and slap a man who's 300 pounds of pure muscle and expect a little tap back. If someone attacks you, hit them back. A vagina isn't a free pass to be an asshole. Second, the Duluth doctrine was a law that basically said "If there is violence between a man and a woman, arrest the man, no matter what." So if a woman was, completely unprovoked, beating the shit out of her husband with a frying pan, or stabbing him, he'd get arrested. The do…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 05:11 PM
1

They mentioned it once. Kind of in passing.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 05:03 PM
1

Hell, most of those "trolls" that people like Sarkeesian use to justify their position are from 4Chan's /b/. If you post a picture of a banana on there they'll tell you to shove it up your ass and die.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 04:52 PM
1

That's not radical feminism. People SUPPORTING those practices would be radical feminism.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:48 PM
4

Sorry, but I like to believe we are.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:37 AM
21

Nah, there's a kid involved. He's screwed.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 03:20 AM
27

I'm watching a divorce on facebook right now. The woman is posting every hour or so about how awful this guy is. He isn't saying anything, keeping it private. According to her, it's 100% his fault. I'm pretty sure her insistence to share everything (she posted a huge rant against her own mother after she gave her son a cookie) had something to do with it.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 12:03 AM
1

Also a good purchase. As long as you get one that makes fluffy waffles and not crispy waffles. We got a cheap one that made these thin little shells, hated them. My cousins brought over their huge one that made these thick, fluffy waffles and it was amazing.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 08:01 PM
1

But without the grace and shaping that the quesadilla maker offers. Keep your grill. I shall continue to use the high quality, specialized quesadilla maker.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 06:48 PM
2

Because this one makes perfectly molded quesadillas!
/r/MensRights26/07/13 06:00 PM
2

Look man, Quesadillas are the staff of life! Without Quesadillas and other fine Mexican foods there would be no happiness! So get off my back, alright? It's the best appliance I have in the kitchen.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 05:30 PM
1

Does it cut it into slices for you?
/r/MensRights26/07/13 05:29 PM
23

Dude, that thing changed my fucking life. 3AM? Hungry for something crispy, cheesy, and salsa-y? 5 minutes, you've got a fucking quesadilla. That's including grating and cooking. I love that thing.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 05:33 AM
122

I've seen death threats in an argument over whether a rice cooker is a good purchase. I was threatened for advocating that a quesadilla maker is worth paying $29.99. She got threatened for being a woman? Cute.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 04:58 AM
4

No, we don't. We bash them for manipulating data to find their own conclusion. Not for getting the conclusions they think they will. And this isn't the study, it's an article ABOUT the study. Learn how reporting works.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:17 PM
11

Feminism appears to be all about choice. So long as you make the right one.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 04:48 PM
10

Can you point out any flaws in the study other than they got the results they expected? Or is that your entire rebuttal?
/r/MensRights25/07/13 03:02 PM
0

Did you... did you seriously go through my comment history and then take a comment completely out of context? What the hell is wrong with you? For reference, the comment chain was me saying that I had recently started running to try to lose weight, someone else said it was worth it, and then I joked that my body hurt.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 11:49 AM
-7

And I'll downvote your childish whining.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 01:43 AM
0

Don't ask why people downvote. It makes you seem petty and childish.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 12:42 AM
30

"Do you enjoy murdering babies as much as I do?" -Grapeban See, I can make up false statements too!
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:13 PM
1

My point is that people are taking this study more seriously than it should be taken, and that my issue with it is not the size, persay, but the fact it's all white men from one city.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:19 AM
1

Look, the study has shown that it is likely white gay men in Montreal are happier than white straight men from Montreal. So forgive me if I don't believe in taking that as proof that gay men everywhere are happier than straight men everywhere.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 05:56 AM
2

87 white men in one city. But no, that's totally representative of all men everywhere.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 05:15 PM
1

I'm not saying that she's not an idiot, just that she wasn't completely off.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 01:50 PM
8

Yah, for some things. But when happiness can depend on so many factors, I hardly thing 87 people from Montreal can show that. I could probably prove straight men are happier with a sample of 58 from the deep south.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 01:43 PM
21

To be fair, that IS a really small sample group.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 01:33 PM
-1

See, THIS is the subset of crazy people that make the rest of us look bad.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 06:45 AM
0

You mean that you thought she just tried to initiate sex, right? Because given this, that's pretty clearly attempted rape of a child.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 10:22 PM
1

Look man, pizza is the staff of life. Without pizza and other fine Italian foods there would be no happiness, okay?
/r/MensRights16/07/13 12:23 AM
8

I too hold popular opinions.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 11:04 AM
32

Not only just a pedophile, a pedophile who raped someone for THREE YEARS.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 11:20 PM
1

What a fair and balanced article! Sure glad we have news sites like these that don't make everything an opinion piece!
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:17 AM
2

My old (female) roommate once took us (myself and my other male roommate) out to the pizza place. Once. I would never get into a car with her after. 10:00pm, dark, pouring rain, on a highway, doing over 80kph, and she's texting with both hands. She was in a car accident earlier, but blamed it on the taxi driver. I seriously doubt her story.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 02:02 AM
2

Men pay more auto insurance because men statistically and significantly cost their companies more money (something I agree with). Women pay more health insurance because they statistically and significantly cost their companies more money (something I also agree with, though I believe healthcare should be free).
/r/MensRights13/07/13 02:00 AM
2

Not necessarily true. It depends on how you define safe. Men get into fewer, but more serious accidents, but women get into more accidents total.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 01:58 AM
26

More rapists jailed Some may be innocent. looks WAY better than ACCUSED RAPIST SET FREE All evidence pointed to innocence.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:58 PM
20

Yes. When a woman accuses a man of rape, we should automatically assume she's lying. When a man accuses someone else of punching him in the face, we should assume he's lying. When someone stabs someone else in public in downtown Toronto with 500 witnesses while screaming his name as it is recorded on 50 cameras, we should assume he is innocent. That's how the justice system works. You assume someone is innocent, and then need to PROVE that they are guilty. Assuming that they are guilty then dema…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:54 PM
1

The solution is very clear. For a man to be obliged to pay child support, he must agree to a contract (or something similar) allowing him rights in exchange for support. Once he agrees, he's on the hook for 18 years (barring very special circumstances). Women would be unable to get money from guys who don't want the kid, Men wouldn't be able to just stop paying, and women could decide to abort so long as they ask the guy soon enough.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:43 PM
2

So, if she's right about this creating more fatherless children, wouldn't that mean that there is an incredibly high amount of men forced into paying support who do not want to have anything to do with their children? That's very clearly indicative of other social problems that should be solved, if it is in fact true.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:39 PM
8

So if you say a man raped you, that men should immediately be thrown in jail based on nothing but your saying it happened? People have the right to be innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I'd rather hurt someone's feelings than throw a potentially innocent man in jail.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 12:05 PM
42

Because if they can, they are no longer 100% the victims, and lose a lot of footing.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 11:16 AM
6

There are countless men who have been tricked by women they've been married to for years, there's no such thing.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 02:50 AM
7

If you want child support, the man needs to agree to pay it? If he doesn't sign a contract or whatever, or better yet do something in person, he doesn't need to pay? If he doesn't agree, he loses all rights to the child and is only liable for 50% of the cost of the abortion, should she choose to have one. If he does agree, he can't back out later (There would be a set amount).
/r/MensRights11/07/13 02:49 AM
11

Is there just, like, a page with a thousand links to news articles about this? Because that would be useful.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 08:15 AM
3

Actually, the response was pretty reasonable, outlining her condition, advising him to get out and providing suggestions for resources and advice on how to select an attorney.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 08:12 AM
13

Can we stop calling it "oppression"? It's a disadvantage and discrimination, but I really don't think anyone's being "oppressed". At least not in the western world.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 07:44 AM
2

No doubt, I'm just questioning whether this is the place for such facilitation.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:26 AM
3

I'm not so sure we should be concerned about lowering the number of men dying in the workplace. Now, don't get me wrong, any actions that reduce workplace deaths are good. I'm just not so concerned that it should be a men's rights issue. Let's face it, deaths occur mostly on the really dangerous jobs, and those typically require physical attributes that men have and women don't. The difference in numbers isn't due to discrimination, it's due to established biological differences. We SHOULD use t…
/r/MensRights05/07/13 04:04 AM
100

Those who can't keep up with the coursing river, lack the force of a great typhoon and the strength of a raging fire, and are as open as the light side of the moon.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:59 AM
5

I don't know, I've seen some pretty ruthless sluts. Implacable, even.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 01:51 AM
1

Not really. It's based on markdown, so they'd need to spend a lot of time to come up with a new standard.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 12:27 AM
2

There are way more male victims, but because there is a very low percentage of women in the military, women are more likely to be assaulted. But once again, there is a huge stigma against men reporting it, and they still make up the majority of the victims.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 12:26 AM
1

In another discussion, I was told that men don't need reproductive rights because men don't reproduce.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 02:40 AM
1

There was a whole event, and a professor posted an editorial about how we shouldn't be against different opinions. One SJW wrote a reply about how they should censor any speech that is offensive, and the rest of them proceeded to gather around him in a circle and jack eachother off.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 10:26 PM
2

They also protested a speech by a Christian guy because he was against gay marriage (The speech wasn't about that, it was about philosophy, and it wasn't because "gays are evil" or anything. He was just against sex for anything other than procreation)
/r/MensRights29/06/13 06:03 PM
3

What? No. They were doing it because he was pro-life. They even stormed the stage and presented him with a "City's biggest misogynist" award.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 07:56 AM
46

"I can't believe how oppressed I am! People keep bumping into my imaginary wings!"
/r/MensRights29/06/13 03:20 AM
9

UWaterloo here, and they are here. There was an incident where a guy trying to discuss the pro-life stance (respectfully, it was a lecture) was screamed at and interrupted and swarmed (on the stage) by a group of morons, one of whom was dressed as a giant vagina.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 03:12 AM
3

No, it isn't. That's harassment. It's a school. Certain rights are voided within, as determined by the supreme court.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 01:29 PM
0

Should the charity hire a really terrible person to run it, that will take a smaller cut?
/r/MensRights24/06/13 01:11 PM
0

Well that's an incredibly misleading number. They also fund cancer awareness and education programs, as well as helping women check for cancer.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 12:39 PM
0

I'm not missing anything, it simply is irrelevant. She isn't stealing from people, she's taking donations. Jonathon Simons, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, takes over a million in salary. But I'd bet you wouldn't say he's evil and exploiting the world to make a profit.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 12:24 PM
1

That's typical for any charity that size. Remember, non-profit companies are just as much companies as other companies. That's a full time job, and if you want a good CEO, you need to pay her well.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 11:33 AM
1

That's not for personal gain, though.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 11:08 AM
4

I guess it depends what the actual shirts said. If they were "Justice for X", that would be alright. But if they were "Fuck {victim}", that isn't covered by free speech.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 10:24 AM
21

See, the issue is that the older people don't realize how serious this is. They think bullying means a punch in the shoulder and some teasing. They don't realize it means rape. I believe that some teasing is natural and just what kids do, but this is way too far.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:56 AM
5

Troll, dude. Ignore, downvote, move on. It feeds off of angry replies and making people hate it.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:55 AM
13

People, please just downvote an ignore it. It's a troll, or an SRSer. They just want to make you angry, because they enjoy being douchebags. Replying will only strengthen it. That's what it wants. Ignore it, downvote, and don't reply.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:54 AM
2

Attempting to get money to finance your institution != co-opting public money for personal gain.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:37 AM
0

"No, Patrick. Don't." Pant. "Aaaah! No, you mustn't." That sounds a lot like rape to me.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:32 AM
2

I haven't really seen that behaviour from any but a few individuals.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 06:33 AM
1

Woah woah woah, that first scenario was pretty clearly rape. If she specifically says "No, Don't", then he DOES, it's rape.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 06:20 AM
-1

I wouldn't say that. More like a misguided desire to hate someone.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 06:11 AM
4

The poster would be better if it said 'Men can say "No" to women" or something similar.'
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:11 AM
158

On my campus, a girl claimed she had been sexually assaulted in the middle of the residences at around 6pm (when they're usually crowded). She recalled the heights of the alleged attackers, but described their ethnicities as, simply, "non-white". I said it seemed suspicious. I was called out as a misogynist, and the university was condemned for encouraging "rape culture". The police reported that she "recanted her story after no evidence had been found". The local feminists decided that it still…
/r/MensRights17/06/13 10:36 PM
41

Racist? Me? Certainly not. Some of my best slaves are black.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 03:40 PM
1

I'm just going to assume you've never spent any time learning about the legal system.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:36 PM
3

That may work for smaller countries, but in one as large as the US it would seriously fuck things up. Something like 3% of speeding tickets are fought, and the system is fucked up enough as it is. By the way, protip, fight all driving-related charges you get. Worst case scenario: You get an extra few months before paying the fine. Best case: They delay the court-date enough that your right to a trial is violated and the charges are dropped.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:48 AM
42

Really? A fucking semicolon instead of the full colon? That qualifies as sexual harassment now?
/r/MensRights30/05/13 05:18 AM
8

It's a way of saying that discriminating against white men isn't really sexism/racism. It's a special unimportant thing called "reverse sexism". Basically, it allows them to acknowledge that it exists, while completely ignoring it and saying that women are the only real victims.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 04:47 AM
12

I believe that the whole "1 in 4 women at universities will be raped" or whatever it is would make a university campus literally more dangerous than Detroit.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 09:42 AM
6

This isn't Google in any way. Google uses an algorithm to attempt to answer the question from various sources.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 09:53 PM
12

Yes. It's like feminists looking at wage disparity and concluding it's discrimination against women despite the fact there are hundreds of other factors. Until you control for those, you can't claim anything to do with men's rights. Bottom line, with a sample size of only 200, a median value of income and income alone, and hundreds of other factors, you cannot claim that this is in any way due to discrimination or a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 01:48 PM
15

This has nothing to do with men's rights. It's not like they're being discriminated against, there are just a ton of social, cultural, economic, political, etc. factors at work.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 01:17 PM
2

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 10:42 AM
29

Literally any example of sexism can be restated to work the other way. Women are called sluts for being sexually active? Men are the real victims because it means society places no value on their sexuality.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 06:34 PM
1

That's good, but it really needs to be cleaned up in a format that's easier to read.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 01:30 AM
1

Farger: One who sticks rodents up his ass for pleasure
/r/MensRights09/05/13 02:34 PM
20

Can someone make an infographic with the data, and without the "Sorry women" or "LOL, females", so it will be useable? As it is, it's like an SRSer trying to discredit us as a bunch of misogynist neckbeards.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 02:07 PM
2

YOU! I need to have a talk with YOU, mister. Why the hell haven't you been allowing stuff recently? I used to see you allowing things all the time, and now you never allow anything! You're not living up to your name, good sir!
/r/MensRights09/05/13 01:07 PM
2

That isn't possible.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 12:06 PM
15

long -> longer
/r/MensRights09/05/13 10:45 AM
30

I love how a lot of the comments are talking about how women are still the victims here because it means they're viewed as weak.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 10:13 AM
26

male [anythings] get longer sentences on average for [any crime] than females FTFY
/r/MensRights09/05/13 10:13 AM
1

Even if he said he was going to brutally murder her that very night, an meant it, it wouldn't have been self-defense!
/r/MensRights09/05/13 09:12 AM
1

You're just like my manager who oppressed me by firing me just because I had an episode where my wolfkin instincts took over and I attacked a guy I worked with.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 11:14 AM
4

Citation?
/r/MensRights08/05/13 10:00 AM
1

I'm not saying that a he said she said should be a conviction, but I think several eye witnesses who corroborate the same story would count.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 08:28 PM
1

I would say that there's a significant difference between the testimony of a child and the testimony of an adult.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 11:15 AM
1

I'm well aware that false memory is an issue, but I'm still doubtful that enough witnesses don't remove reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 11:07 AM
0

The other 10% was that you're one of those RedPill idiots, but that's becoming more likely.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 10:40 AM
2

I'm about 90% sure you're either a SRS troll or you're from Manhood Academy. Either way, I'm out of this.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 10:05 AM
5

An understanding of how the justice system should work, and the logical clarity that feels do not trump reality. Unfortunately, people are way too emotional and political about these kinds of things, so it's unlikely to change any time soon. Especially since anyone who can change it will work in an elected position, and voters will never re-elect the person that lowered the conviction rate of rapists.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 09:20 AM
26

Accountability? Dear god no. If any judge was afraid to be personally accountable for a false conviction, the justice system would fall apart. The standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Meaning that physical evidence is not always necessary. Nevertheless, rape is often convicted despite a reasonable doubt remaining.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 06:52 AM
5

Socially is less strict, but if you're talking about sending men to jail for rape, no means no is not a good policy for the specific reason that no does not always mean no and that many men will take the non-verbal "yes" over the verbal "no".
/r/MensRights04/05/13 06:59 AM
41

There's a huge issue with defining sex like that. First, how do you define "Coerced"? Second, how sober is sober? Does one drink cause rape? What if the man AND woman are drunk? Third, consent isn't always verbal. Anyone who's been in a situation like that knows that body language plays a huge role in giving consent. Fourth, not even a "no means no" mentality works due to the fact that 40% of college women admit that they have said "no" when they mean "yes". (I'm not saying that not even "no" wi…
/r/MensRights04/05/13 04:43 AM
1

You can't believe that a judge wouldn't go easy on someone who committed statutory rape on camera while producing child pornography? (Just to note, they did it. There's no doubt they committed the offenses in question, it's just whether they should be charged that's the issue.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 08:16 PM
39

How the fuck is a legal ID issued by the state not useable as a defense?
/r/MensRights02/05/13 04:03 PM
24

I think there was a case about this where a guy was charged after sleeping with an underage women in an adult film after she was hired by the studio using a fake id. I could easily be wrong, though.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 02:50 PM
3

If you have "episodes" where you uncontrollably act like a wolf, then yes. You need help. You're not oppressed.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 02:26 AM
47

/r/TumblrInAction
/r/MensRights26/04/13 03:02 PM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/1crxwu/if_a_woman_tells_a_man_she_will_accuse_him_of/
/r/MensRights21/04/13 01:35 AM
5

It's definitely a crime. I think it's extortion, actually.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 01:18 AM
10

THAT'S the word I was looking for!
/r/MensRights21/04/13 01:17 AM
10

I don't think that's a terrorist threat. Probably Perjury?
/r/MensRights21/04/13 12:49 AM
1

Dude, it's a troll. Don't respond to it, don't acknowledge it. It wants attention, no matter how negative that attention is. Literally anything you do to it will feed it. But just ignoring it will cause it to wither and die.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 09:24 AM
6

A vagina (in some majors at least, especially STEM) is like a free money pass. You automatically get more assistance, and there are countless female-only scholarships. Any male-only ones have a female-only equivalent.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 04:40 AM
7

That's an absolutely HORRIBLE idea. Allowing that would destroy the entire legal system. Say a lawyer defends a man on a charge of murder. That man has a right to counsel. The man goes free. But he did it. Then, he kills again. Is the lawyer responsible for that murder? Nobody would act as defense again. Too risky. Nobody would become a prosecutor either (for this same reason). The entire legal system falls apart.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 04:37 AM
14

You're assuming they are talking about the same type of feminism. Feminism is a HUGE political spectrum. There are the "Let's have a civil discourse about gender roles" feminists MRAs tend to agree with. Then there are the "Women need all the help they can get from society" groups that MRAs frequently disagree with. Then there are the "SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU OPPRESSIVE SHITLORD SCUM SCUM SCUM SCUM SCUM RAPE APOLOGIST SCUM!" ones that MRAs tend to try to ignore and avoid. The second is the ancient …
/r/MensRights11/04/13 08:03 PM
1

It's likely. Men are way more unlikely to make a false report because of things like this. I'm not saying definitely, just likely.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:16 AM
1

Actually, that's a very apt description. I'm tagging you that.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:38 PM
1

I didn't say you WERE an asshole, just that your callousness makes you come off as one.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:35 PM
1

The fact that Atheism is becoming aligned with a poisonous political theory (not feminism, the radical parts of feminism) is why I stopped paying attention to it.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:25 PM
1

The penis doesn't matter, they hate women who believe in open-mindedness as well.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:22 PM
1

I don't want to offend you, but many times when I've seen you around, you come off as an asshole. That may be what he was talking about.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:21 PM
4

My whole point is that it's not useful to spend the same amount of time complaining about slightly sexist jokes as we do complaining about sexist affirmative action programs and university acceptance practices, which seriously affect people's lives.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 08:38 PM
5

That's not an effective strategy. Saying "Feminists are stupid because they get angry over this small sexist joke" then saying "I'm so angry over this small sexist joke" just makes us look petty.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:53 PM
-12

Because I've seen enough people on here complaining about when feminists get incredibly upset over small jokes.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:34 PM
-54

I really wish we'd cut that shit out. Yah, it's technically misandry. But stereotypes have always existed and will always exist. If you get all bent out of shape about a joke that really doesn't affect you, you'll never be taken seriously on real issues. Pick your battles.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:17 PM
1

But the way you tell it makes her seem like a victim who was attacked for trying to fight sexism.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:42 PM
1

No, there's a significant difference between "They caved into blackmail" and "She screwed up her job so incredibly badly".
/r/MensRights27/03/13 07:23 PM
7

You left out the most important detail. The company didn't fire her to placate nerd rage. They fired her because her job was to convince developers to use their software. Her job was PR. And she made a ton of developers despise her and her company. She wasn't fired because the company gave in to blackmail, she was fired because she horribly failed in her job.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 11:48 PM
1

Frankly, minor sexism does, always has, and always will exist. Let's face it. There's really no need to get all bent out of shape on the little things like this. You should pick your battles.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 04:13 PM
2

The police got involved to remove them and they tried to use that as evidence that the university hates women.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 03:49 PM
-2

I can't tell if you're a troll or what, but if you're sincere, you are definitely mentally unstable. Get help.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 06:32 PM
2

I left after one too many "The university is evil because they don't want us to (insert borderline-illegal action involving women generally being incredibly annoying assholes)!" facebook posts with absolutely no fighting. Why in the everloving fuck would I WANT a fight? It would accomplish nothing.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 05:52 PM
24

It was more like "You don't think we should yell 'Cunt!' for 20 minutes in the student center? So why do you hate women, Hitler?"
/r/MensRights24/03/13 08:23 AM
25

The best part is that the people in it are constantly talking about how religious organizations are clearly wrong because they try to spread information that can't be questioned. It's incredible irony.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 06:12 AM
72

I left my universities "Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers club" because you weren't allowed to question anything about feminism in it.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 06:00 AM
2

That sounds good in theory, but any group that works for two causes would end up prioritizing one over the other and end up as one-sided. It's just what humans do.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 07:11 PM
12

This won't go through. We shouldn't worry about it.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 06:57 AM
-23

Rape has absolutely nothing to do with sexual desire. It's not a crime committed because someone is horny. It's a crime of power. Porn does nothing to reduce rape, because the two are not connected.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 06:56 AM
2

Wait, I SHOULDN'T smash that guys face in and steal his wallet? Well shucks, I wish someone had told me this kind of thing before!
/r/MensRights07/03/13 01:20 AM
-1

I'm looking at this from how the media tends to look at these things. Fundamentally, she's being punished for trying to get the man she claims attacked her punished. There's a hell of a lot more to it, but the internet tends to like sensationalist titles.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 08:23 PM
-1

Really? Shocking? A woman being punished by an institution for claiming she was the victim of a sex crime, and you're shocked she's getting support?
/r/MensRights01/03/13 08:11 PM
12

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights26/02/13 05:34 PM
0

Hell, sometimes even "I'm not getting enough attention".
/r/MensRights26/02/13 02:16 AM
8

First, this may actually be a good idea. Affirmative action isn't a good idea when gender doesn't mean anything in the job, but male role models are very important for young boys. More men in education could definitely help them. Second, the hypocrisy is glaring.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 06:35 PM
2

YOU ARE LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT FORCING WOMEN TO UNDERGO ABORTION. WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM WITH YOU???????
/r/MensRights20/02/13 04:38 AM
1

No, they couldn't argue that. I'm talking about right from birth here. They can't say he was raising the fetus.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 04:34 AM
1

No. No. No it would not. No. Dear god NO. What the fuck is wrong with you?
/r/MensRights19/02/13 12:28 PM
1

I'm discussing only cases where a man hasn't been raising a kid for any period at all, he doesn't want to raise it right from birth.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 12:27 PM
3

The way they talk about it implies that they believe only the male battering is a real problem.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:41 PM
8

Men SHOULD be able to choose to have no responsibility. Women can choose to have no responsibility, why can't men?
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:29 PM
10

Your entire premise is that it's perfectly acceptable to destroy a man's life so that a woman doesn't have to make a difficult decision. Her feelings are more important than his life. That is the root of the issue. She's a grown woman. She can make a difficult decision. It's called life. We shouldn't force a man to destroy his life because it would be easier for her.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:01 PM
6

He mentioned it because we give women the choice to abandon a child but refuse to give the choice to men. The opinion that men should not be forced to raise a child that they do not want is not messed up.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:48 PM
8

Yes you are, wen you said "she can give it up for adoption" you were implying that the women should give it up for adoption if you don't want to pay child support. No, I'm saying that a woman has the choice of not being a mother to a child. Also, if she can't raise the child herself, without the father's support, then yes, she should. You shouldn't force a man into financial slavery so a grown woman doesn't need to make a difficult choice. No but that wasn't what you weren't saying you weren't s…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:45 PM
35

A full third of the preview is about trying to find ways to explain how it's still men being the bad guys. I applaud their dedication to the facts, but still, the fact they are trying to explain it to suit their preconceived results is baffling.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:00 PM
15

And nobody here is claiming that we should be able to. I certainly don't want to live in a world where a man can force a woman to have an abortion. However, the fact remains that a man should be able to abandon all rights and responsibilities to a child that he does not want (as long as he waives them right from the beginning. I'm not saying a father should be able to abandon his kids after he's been caring for them for a while). Furthermore, how are those messed up? A woman can give her child u…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 01:59 PM
136

WOW. The authors say they have no intention of minimizing the very real problem of serious domestic violence—the classic male batterer. They basically say "The majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are women. But clearly male perpetrators are the REAL issue here. The male victims aren't that serious." What the fuck.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 01:50 PM
12

So? The woman can give a kid up for adoption. The child is still there, but she has no responsibility to it. Besides, if a woman chooses to be a mother, that is her choice and her responsibility. If a man does not want to be a father, he shouldn't have to pay to be one. It's not his choice, he has no responsibility to it. The fact is, we're taking all the responsibility of the child and putting it on the man when he has absolutely no choice in the matter. A child has no "right" to the financial …
/r/MensRights18/02/13 01:47 PM
5

Put a trigger warning there! I was once scared by someone after they used a trigger to set off a flashing light and you using the word is literally raping me.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 11:08 PM
9

You mean rape her? I always have difficulty telling those two things apart.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 11:05 PM
32

No, he provided evidence to back up his claim. That would elevate their response to: "RAPIST!"
/r/MensRights17/02/13 06:28 PM
1

I need men's rights because I shouldn't be called a bigot and a rapist for asking "What about the men?"
/r/MensRights15/02/13 11:32 AM
1

So in order to archive these, everyone needs to download them? That's not what he's looking for...
/r/MensRights14/02/13 08:14 PM
2

"It's a step backwards for women, once again men will be in control of all sex just like they were throughout history and used it to oppress women!" That's my bet.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:44 PM
3

It sounds like the father attacked her whereas the mother just suggested drugging her, so I can see that this may be warranted. I would avoid commenting on this while we're clearly missing a lot of information.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:29 PM
2

... The pirate bay doesn't host files, except for torrents. And that's not a good idea, there wouldn't be enough seeders to allow easy access.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:24 PM
-1

Woah woah woah, are you actually suggesting that the MRM becomes violent? We can't stoop to their level. And Sun Tzu wrote about war, not political movements.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:23 PM
30

There are many reasons that guy's would not want to go down on a woman other than "I hate women and want to deny you pleasure!". The proper response to learning a guy will not go down on you is to evaluate the relationship, determine whether that is a dealbreaker, and if so, dump him. Not to assume he's a bigot.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:17 PM
5

You're wrong. Grabbing someone's crotch (sexual assault) is a lesser offense than forcibly fucking them (rape).
/r/MensRights14/02/13 10:10 AM
1

The FBI doesn't sentence people.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 10:09 AM
3

She'd still need to prove that he slept with her. If there was no communication she could show, it would be thrown out.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 02:14 AM
6

No, she'd need to prove a sexual encounter. He could probably prove he'd never slept with her (Rich guys tend to always have alibis).
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:50 AM
16

I'm French and "What is the fucking fucking fuck shit fuck bag"
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:48 AM
3

I'd use "Let's change that" on this one, it sounds better.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 11:07 PM
1

Not necessarily. You'd be only charged if you meant to take the actions that resulted in their deaths, and if those actions would conceivably cause a death. The death can be: Accidental: I was taking all the proper precautions when he jumped out from behind a bush and into the path of my car. No person could have avoided hitting him! Negligible: I looked at my phone for a second and didn't see him jaywalking. Reckless: I was speeding and texting when I hit him. Knowledgeable: I was drunk and spe…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 09:25 PM
2

Illustrated Lawyer for me.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 07:20 PM
8

Those first two things shouldn't be happening either...
/r/MensRights05/02/13 07:20 PM
17

What I'm amazed keeps being forgotten is the fact that someone is only supposed to be guilty if they meant to commit a crime (not intentionally break the law, but rather to commit an illegal act whether they knew the act was illegal or not). If a man reasonably believed he had consent, he didn't commit rape. (Reasonably being that the average law-abiding citizen would also believe they had consent in the same situation).
/r/MensRights05/02/13 05:19 PM
1

It wasn't an "evil". It was just the way life was. "Work" wasn't sitting in an air-conditioned office shuffling papers around. Except for a few individuals, It was manual labour in dangerous conditions. You can't judge historical societies by today's standards. Back then, you'd have 5 children so that you had a pretty good chance at least 2 would make it to adulthood. War was incredibly commonplace. Women were physically weaker and necessary for continuing the species, so they were protected. As…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:26 PM
-6

If you're telling me that women did not want to be treated like they were, and were oppressed for literally thousands of years by the other half of the population, I'm going to tell you that that's the greatest proof I've ever heard that men are definitely better than women.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:02 AM
5

Not today, no. But you need to remember that that was a time in which "Oh, my husband was killed in war and 3 of my children died, how was your year?" were pretty typical.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:01 AM
6

You probably have the (very wrong) view that patriarchy is men ruling over the women and taking their rights away to better men's lives. In fact, it means men are in charge. But that isn't a good thing. That brings with it many responsibilities. Men typically were expected to work, fight, and die for women if it came to that. That system worked centuries ago, but now, not so much.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 12:28 AM
4

I can confirm this. My school was viewed by many of the students to be intolerable and bigoted against women because they called the cops after about 20 women refused to stop shouting "CUNT!" (To the tune of a conga line) in the Student Centre. They were doing it for about 20 minutes and the cops just asked them to stop.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 12:26 AM
2

Talk to lawyer, record everything, don't ask reddit for legal advice.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 11:12 PM
1

I meant that he took it out of context to support his anti-feminist point.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 05:48 PM
-1

The title: UK: "Unmarried fathers are to be given full parental rights." Good so far... Oponents: mothers lose power to dispose of kids by adoption: Nobody said that "It adds another parent to the process ... objections by just one parent can delay an adoption for years." A quote taken out of context to support an anti-feminist point.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 04:07 PM
-8

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FEMINISTS. THESE ARE PRO-ADOPTION AND PRO-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE ACTIVISTS. NOT FEMINISTS.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:43 PM
0

OPs argument here is that feminists are upset that men are getting equal parenting rights because it will make it harder for them to get rid of their kids by adoption, when the article says nothing of the sort. It's talking about how traditional marriage groups are upset that giving more rights to non-married couples means fewer people will be getting married.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:23 PM
-8

Ctrl+f dispose, feminist, feminism, 0 hits. In the 4 you note, 2 are the name of a bill, and the other two are talking about how this will slow down the adoption system. Once again, nothing suggesting that mothers want to dispose of their children via adoption.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 02:58 PM
-1

Yes, but where does it say that this is bad because women should be able to easily dispose of their kids by adoption? In fact, this whole article has no real feminist perspective.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 02:46 PM
-1

I read the article, where does it say anything about disposing of kids by adoption?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 02:40 PM
1

Does TL;DE mean something or did you and Super_delicious just make the same typo?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 11:59 AM
2

Does TL;DE mean something or did you and dumnut567 just make the same typo?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 11:59 AM
0

There are four types of friendzone (male interested in female). Both sides seem not to realize this. Type 1: The woman is aware the man is interested in her, and uses this to get him to do things for her. She is taking advantage of him. This happens a lot, and women who do this are just bad people. When guys complain about the friendzone, this is possibly what they're taking about. The inverse tends to be a guy who sleeps with a woman for the sex while letting her think a relationship is more th…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 12:07 AM
6

If someone wants to walk down the street handing out fliers that say "Kill the niggers", they should be able to. I reserve the right to just ignore them.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 08:18 PM
8

As a woman in IT, what do you think of the theory that women on average just tend to be less interested in doing jobs like that, thereby causing the gap?
/r/MensRights22/01/13 07:27 PM
7

Read paragraph 3. In the event there already is discrimination based on things like race, gender, etc. then it is acceptable, if not ideal, to do the reverse. If there weren't so many women-only DV shelters, having a male-only shelter would not be ideal. There are instances, however, when sex-segregation IS a good idea, however this is never done correctly. Sex segregated gyms, for example. However this leads to 2/5 gyms being women-only and the rest being co-ed. It always ends up proportionally…
/r/MensRights21/01/13 02:27 PM
75

Well, let's look at it objectively. Let's say I notice that the homeless population of my city is 90% black, despite the regular population being only 10% black. I decide to fix this by opening a shelter for black people only. Is this racist? Yes. Is it wrong? Hell yes. Why not just open a shelter? Do the 10% non-blacks of the homeless population deserve to suffer more than the black guys? Why should we only help the black people who are suffering? If the shelter is equally open to everyone, the…
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:39 AM
-1

The heart condition wouldn't really matter financially in Canada.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 06:52 PM
46

Correction: Witness 1: we need to put up signs saying its bad to do this stuff, that way people are taught stealing & killing is bad. Witness 2: I'm pretty sure they know its bad, I don't think signs are going to help. Witness 1: MURDERER!!!! Witness 2: ...
/r/MensRights19/01/13 06:46 PM
21

Actually, a prenup will be considered pretty much void if there's a kid involved, citing "best interest of the child" and a law that doesn't allow a parent to sign away a child's rights.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 12:11 PM
2

You're using the reddit search, you'll never find it. Look up "women" with those subs and you'll get 3 results about puppies, ice cream, and an ad.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 11:00 PM
15

Link?
/r/MensRights04/01/13 09:17 PM
-3

You have no idea how the economy works, do you?
/r/MensRights01/01/13 07:34 PM
8

Do you have any idea how expensive the morning after pill is? Providing it for free would be ludicrously expensive.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 06:58 PM
8

Women SHOULD always have the final choice. Forcing someone to abort or keep a child is barbaric. You may want to include that the responsibility still lies on the man when he doesn't have a choice.
/r/MensRights25/12/12 05:47 AM
0

When you link, the first ")" ends the link. To avoid that, put a "\" before the first ")". [Like this!](http://mylink.com/(brackets\)) Will create Like this!
/r/MensRights25/12/12 05:45 AM
0

Translation: I know absolutely nothing about how this works but I'm still going to demand that I'm right anyways.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 03:38 AM
1

You realize it's a business, right? That they need to make money, and the best way to do that is to charge more to people who are likely to use their services more?
/r/MensRights22/12/12 10:13 PM
1

Insurance is a gamble. You pay based on the expected value. Statistics play a huge part. There isn't a men's rate and a women's rate. There are different rates based on a ton of statistical data. Young men have nothing to demonstrate that they are safe drivers, so their gender plays a larger role. Men cost more on average, therefore they pay more.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 08:06 PM
3

Of course. They had sex twice in their lifetimes, didn't they?
/r/MensRights22/12/12 04:18 AM
1

LET ME IN ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND I WILL CREATE THE WEBSITE AND HANDLE THE TECHNICAL SIDE.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 04:18 AM
1

Taxes are different, as they are based on your income and not how much you use services.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 02:29 AM
1

It should be.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 02:28 AM
0

Having a penis doesn't cause you to be more likely to be in an expensive accident. YES IT DOES. Statistically, males are more likely to be in an expensive accident. How are you not understanding this?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 08:01 PM
0

Insurance companies base their prices on what you will likely cost them statistically. There is no "male but really really promises not to get in an accident" category. If you have a penis, you are more likely to be in an expensive accident. THAT IS A FACT. It doesn't matter how you act, they have no evidence of that. Once you drive without an accident your costs go down. But right at the start, how the fuck are they supposed to know that you don't act like other people of your gender?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:42 PM
1

However, what civil services do you pay for that aren't based on your income?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 03:39 PM
0

Yes.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:46 PM
0

Statistically, it does. Being born with a penis does make it more likely for you to be in an expensive accident. Look at the statistics.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:45 PM
4

Because those cost way more for insurance companies. They don't care how often you crash, they care about how much money they'll need to pay out.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 03:48 AM
7

This isn't a good thing. Insurance is essentially a gamble based on a ton of factors. Your age, experience, and gender come into play to determine how likely you are to have an accident. By demanding equality despite the fact that reality says there shouldn't be we are doing what we hate feminists for doing. Young men should pay more for car insurance because young men are more likely to have an accident. That's not speculation, that's not "Men are evil therefore they crash", that's cold hard st…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 03:48 AM
1

I'm saying that that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if 99% of all crime is committed by black people, it's not what's going on here. What matters in sentencing is THE SEVERITY. You suffer harsher penalties for doing more damage, or using a more powerful weapon. Men are stronger than women, so men tend to do more damage when they hit people. Black people are not on average stronger than white people, so there's no reason for extra punishment.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 05:06 PM
1

The difference being that the men/women difference is actually rooted in scientific fact whereas black/white was just racism. Once again, not advocating this, just saying that it's a different comparison.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 04:54 AM
1

You're assuming reality corresponds to laws involving gender. People BELIEVE men do more damage, and therefore the penalties are worse for men.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 10:00 PM
1

That's a huge leap from "men do more damage" to "men commit more crimes". Being more likely has nothing to do with it. The thought process is: Men are stronger, therefore when a man attacks a woman he does more damage than if a woman attacks someone, therefore men hitting women should be charged more severely. At no point does "Therefore they commit more crime" come into it. Just that the view is that their crimes are more severe.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:48 PM
1

The whole point of this is that men are charged more severely. That has nothing to do with how many crimes are committed.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 06:41 PM
1

I'm not saying men should face greater crimes because they're male, I'm saying that comparing this to racial differences isn't fair because there are actual differences in strength between men and women.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 05:39 PM
3

The average man is much stronger than the average woman. There are women who are stronger than men, of course, but they're outliers.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 04:40 PM
2

That's not a fair comparison. Men are naturally stronger than women. Therefore they actually do more damage. Not saying it's right, it should be based on damage, but still.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 03:11 PM
11

Here's an idea, maybe some boys DO want that? I would have loved it as a kid. Maybe YOU don't get to define masculinity for everyone?
/r/MensRights18/12/12 10:30 PM
5

It's really the fact that gender roles are trends forced into rules. Boys tend to prefer playing with guns then dolls. Society then demands that all boys must play with guns and never play with dolls. People get mad and overcorrect, demanding that boys play with dolls and not guns. Meanwhile the boys just want to play with the damn toys.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 10:29 PM
4

Only if they get charged. Because women are getting the better deal, they won't be.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 09:59 PM
8

The judges, however, decided to overturn the jury's verdict, and upheld the previous sentence. Can someone please explain how judges can do that?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 08:34 PM
-1

Yah, replace that part with "BIGOT!"
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:27 PM
7

Lets be honest here, it's not that women are the only ones who would do this, it's that they're the only ones who can get away with it.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 05:29 PM
174

Hey, I'm the primary victim of that time I killed 20 people. I went TO JAIL. Do you have any idea how much hell that is? Lucky dead bastards...
/r/MensRights12/12/12 07:26 PM
26

She stole money from customers and then insulted them when they demanded a refund. I think the term "cunt" is pretty damn accurate.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 10:41 PM
-13

Forgive me, I'm sure it was a terrible ordeal, but what does this really have to do with the subreddit?
/r/MensRights05/12/12 10:41 PM
12

In 2 years she'll hold another kickstarter about misogyny because she's being criticized for wasting all the money she got in the first kickstarter. "They're calling me a con artist because I'm a WOMAN!".
/r/MensRights05/12/12 09:36 PM
1

Well duh. OBVIOUSLY he did something horrible, so she's the real victim. Way to go, she should be given a medal!
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:50 AM
26

Neutrality is when people's gender has nothing to do with how they're treated. It's good when it allows women an advantage (enlisting in the army, etc.) but absolute evil when it may have women treated the same as men (applying for student loans or government funding for education). Equality is when women are treated as good as or better than men in every way possible except that's actually benevolent sexism and therefore women are still the victims.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 04:24 PM
9

That's not related. Any man who has disagreed with a feminist knows that they've been told "You're a man therefore you don't know what you're talking about and you're wrong".
/r/MensRights03/12/12 07:54 PM
3

Feminists try to hijack everything. Look what happened to organized Atheism.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:45 PM
-2

OP will surely deliver. Let's just wait.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:29 PM
2

That feminists decided that a month for male issues was sexist, so it's for breast cancer instead of prostate cancer. Breast cancer awareness month is still totally fine, though.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:05 PM
2

Like I said, it's only a trend. Yes, there are definitely women who like to play with guns and boys who like dolls. But when you look at both groups, you'll find more boys like guns and more girls like dolls.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:28 PM
4

Yes, but still, there's a definite trend. Like any rule, there are many exceptions. But the idea that "Boys don't play with dolls" and "Girls don't play with trucks" is because they are taught that it's wrong isn't really all that correct.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:43 PM
1

Both. We fight towards equality, but only when men are disadvantaged. If we fought for women's rights, it would be a feminist group. So no, we don't work for women's rights, but for the same reason your local tennis club doesn't. Because it's not what the movement is for.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:07 PM
8

Eh. Let's be honest, kids don't play with toys because they are encouraged to stick to their gender, boys and girls prefer different toys. Not saying this is a rule, and any girls who use nerf guns or boys who use dolls are fine. But I've seen boys who were given dolls pretend that they were guns and shoot at each-other.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:00 PM
2

But way too many people don't.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:38 PM
28

This is ridiculous. If you rape someone in the middle of the street in broad daylight with cell phone cameras and security cameras recording you from 1000 different angles, with DNA evidence to back up all accusations, so that it is so obvious you are guilty that no jury in their right mind would determine that you are not guilty, you STILL deserve due process rights.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 04:37 PM
8

Or "Oh shit, I cheated, how the hell am I gonna tell my boyfriend?"
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:16 PM
38

To be fair, there WAS a lot of evidence against him in the initial persecution. His wife and her lover were killed right after he found out she was cheating, his footprints and tire-tracks were at the scene, he was drunk, etc...
/r/MensRights28/11/12 07:04 PM
76

It seems that they like to apply a scorched-earth policy in these sorts of things. They'd rather 100 innocent men go to jail rather than a single guilty man go free.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 06:32 PM
0

A horrible bigot.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 06:29 AM
-3

Ghandi was a bigot and only held a peaceful revolution because he couldn't get enough guns.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 01:07 AM
7

Guys, he didn't write this, this comes from a sidebar link
/r/MensRights27/11/12 10:55 PM
-10

Fuck Ghandi. Dude was an asshole, and we shouldn't identify with him.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 09:06 PM
16

This isn't MR. I agree women should be able to fight in whatever position they want to, but they should need to pass the required physical strength standards that men have to get those positions. Exceptions shouldn't be made for them. This means fewer women, of course. But you can't have weaker people in those situations in order to be politically correct.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:45 PM
9

I can see the future! The response will be "Thanks for the concern, and this is an important issue to us, but fuck off."
/r/MensRights27/11/12 07:50 PM
3

Well, yah. But that doesn't mean that it's still being done due to religion. The practice started religiously, and now it's mostly aesthetic or for BS "health" reasons.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 11:45 PM
6

What areas are you talking about? In the US it's mostly aesthetic/fake health reasons.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 10:12 PM
12

A huge amount of circumcisions are done for aesthetic reasons, not religious.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:41 PM
27

Their violence against men page shouldn't be "Yah, you couple of guys, we get it, but let's remind you that men are the evil ones here."
/r/MensRights25/11/12 08:48 PM
1

Anyone groping anyone is really violating.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 11:31 PM
0

We should, have you ever been randomly kissed by a stranger or groped by a stranger? It's a big deal.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 11:14 PM
3

Legally you can record any event as long as the participators have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and you are on public land. Taking a picture of private property is legal, taking a picture with one foot on private property requires permission of the property owner. You can take a picture of someone's lawn, or someone's fence, but if you climb something to take a picture over the fence, it's illegal, because though you may be on public property, the fence provides the reasonable expectati…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 11:12 PM
1

I cleaned bathrooms in high school. The women's washroom was more disgusting EVERY TIME.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 09:33 PM
2

Women are more disgusting to live with then men. I live with one other guy and two women. The women are disgusting.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 07:20 PM
2

it's visible that he does prefer the feminine role. That's what I was referring to.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 02:43 AM
8

I think he's referring to the fact this guy is apparently effeminate...
/r/MensRights20/11/12 11:48 PM
1

There should really be a list of those in the sidebar. This is asked pretty much daily.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:43 PM
4

We're talking about MEN you'd want to sleep with, not women you wouldn't even pity fuck after an 8 year dry spell, 2 bottles of viagra, and 6 cases of vodka.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 06:52 PM
8

Neil Patrick Harris, John Barrowman, George Clooney, Leonardo Dicaprio, Who else?
/r/MensRights19/11/12 01:37 PM
18

I heard the same thing about John Barrowman.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 12:38 PM
2

Feminism is about choice. As long as you make the right one.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 07:54 AM
1

I said accidentally. That's not racist. Backing up to make sure was the racist part.
/r/MensRights17/11/12 07:05 PM
3

Accidentally hit him with my car last week.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 01:37 PM
3

Yes there are. 100% of people born before 1600 AD are now dead. QED.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:26 AM
1

Don't private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone?
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:24 AM
2

Pats on head
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:21 AM
3

You did good, kid. You did good.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 05:15 AM
1

Protip: Reddit quotes (The blue line followed by text) can be made by including a "> " before the quoted text. Example: > This is a quote will become This is a quote
/r/MensRights16/11/12 03:47 AM
1

I'm sorry to hear that.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:33 PM
1

To be fair, there are a lot of really stupid women out there who could fuck it up accidentally. (There are a lot of really stupid men, too. I'm not saying anything about an entire gender here.)
/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:24 PM
2

It's also if the women don't know they screwed up or screw up on purpose. Then the guy is screwed.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:15 PM
4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRdq2zqGxgY Essentially the argument is that men have no idea of the risks they are taking, but women do. As a woman, you KNOW if you're on the pill or have some other invisible birth control. Men don't. You know if the man is wearing a condom. Which means, that if you say "I'm on the pill", the man has no choice but to trust you. If you don't have an equal knowledge of the risks, you can't take equal responsibility. The women are 100% informed. The men need to tru…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 07:04 PM
2

I would say it's more your fault. Girlwriteswhat did an excellent video arguing that women should be considered more responsible than men for this. However, society still thinks the man should take responsibility for it.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:39 PM
10

You forget that women are powerless against Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:30 PM
3

make sure you trust someone before you have sex with them. Pretty much every guy that this has ever happened to trusted the person they slept with to not do this. It's not like there's a giant red flag above these people's heads.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:28 PM
8

Because of a societal view that pregnancy is 100% the fault of the man.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:27 PM
1

Was that the one where she forged his signature to get his frozen sperm and he still had to pay child support?
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:26 PM
11

Uh, guys? Did nobody read the article? It's not because girls can't, it's also because most of the guys can't either.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:51 PM
8

Don't be ridiculous. Who would we brainwash via patriarchy to be our sluts and do all the work in the world?
/r/MensRights15/11/12 04:06 AM
27

Come by the Patriarchy club later! You'll need your penis to get in. This week we'll be discussing our plans to lower women's salaries to only 70% of what men make.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 10:38 PM
28

As any male who went through public school while going through puberty will tell you, we have no control over our erections.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 07:53 PM
2

And that is an outdated opinion.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 05:39 AM
1

I know, I'm agreeing with you.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:49 AM
1

We're talking about #3, pregnancy and abortion.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:48 AM
-1

That comes from a time when birth control was either unavailable or much less dependable. As time has progressed, it is no longer a relevant viewpoint, as available birth control and abortions allow sex without pregnancy. Happy?
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:44 AM
9

We have piles of Anecdotal evidence of women who've lied about being on it. Men should have security as well.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 11:48 PM
-8

It's called a well-aimed punch. I'll show myself out.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 11:46 PM
4

Men are penalised, in this case as they should be, because of statistics. Women should have to pay more for healthcare, because women as a collective group cost more. Men should have to pay more for auto insurance because men, as a collective group, cost more.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 11:41 PM
6

Feminism isn't just about women in the US.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:40 PM
1

Worldwide it's a serious problem.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:28 PM
4

I completely agree with you. That's what I'm trying to get across.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:28 PM
1

That's what I'm saying. We shouldn't force women to be mothers. And the societal view is that the man made a mistake by getting get pregnant, and he should pay for it.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:51 PM
2

I'm going with typical use, not ideal world use. And still, you shouldn't punish people for a mistake. Isn't forced child support because the man made a mistake a big issue of this movement?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:31 PM
-3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Effectiveness_calculation A male latex condom has a typical failure rate of 15%. Female contraceptive pills have a typical use failure rate of 8%. Far from the 0.01% chance you claim.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:15 PM
35

I think 3 was more referring to abortion. Birth control isn't 100% effective, and the "you should not have sex if you're not willing to get pregnant" attitude is horribly outdated.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:33 PM
4

Troll. Downvote. Ignore. Move on. Do not respond.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 08:20 PM
16

They don't need logic, they know it in their vaginas.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 12:35 AM
1

Those are really difficult to find considering the societal view that only men are molesters.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 06:55 PM
1

I'm pretty sure they commit it at equal rates, it's just that social views keep men from kids. (Men can't be left alone with a child, women can).
/r/MensRights09/11/12 06:50 PM
-1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE-ZI_FiG30&t=1m8s
/r/MensRights09/11/12 07:47 AM
2

Because you don't get to go into a group, not like them, and demand that they change. Trash talk is a part of gaming culture. Don't like it? Don't play on servers where there is trash talk. There are tons of gaming communities that aren't like that, join the ones that aren't.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 01:14 PM
2

Gaming is not hostile towards minorities. It's hostile towards everyone. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to play those games. Nobody is forcing you to not mute them. Nobody is forcing you to play on a server with people like that. You're going into a group, deciding you don't like the way they act, and decide that they should change for you. Like it or not, trash talk has always been a part of these games. Find an online community where there isn't any of it and play there.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 01:12 PM
5

He tried to eject her. It didn't work. He hit her down and then threw her out, and she ran back to attack him some more. How should he have tried to eject her? Should he have allowed himself to be hurt or injured so that he could protect his attacker?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 01:08 PM
3

Idea: If you're offended by what people say in a private online game, don't play said game.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:09 AM
2

But you're called that even though nobody knows what your race or sexual orientation is. It's not like they're just calling black gays that.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:25 AM
1

Ah. In that case it is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 01:50 AM
2

But there's a serious difference between chasing somebody down and defending yourself.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 01:47 AM
6

I can understand that. But then again, there are mods for that.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 10:40 PM
14

I liked that about Skyrim. Random enemies were seemingly 50% men and women.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 09:35 PM
7

Okay, them. Now how many males?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:59 PM
6

And allow her to keep attacking him while he waits?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:58 PM
5

It's right near the end, the footage cuts off then.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:58 PM
9

So he should have either run from his own bus or let her attack him while waiting for the cops?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:19 PM
10

Normally I hate your manhood 101 BS, but that poster is actually relevant.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:51 PM
22

They treat everyone equally. Everyone gets called a "nigger faggot" regardless of their race or sexual orientation.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:42 PM
9

The medusas, I think that's all. Maybe the oracle?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:40 PM
14

He hit her and threw her off the bus. She immediately went back and kept attacking him.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:30 PM
12

While she's grabbing his neck and spitting on him?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:29 PM
14

He couldn't of restrained her in a way that would have prevented her from injuring him. He grabs her arms, she kicks him in the crotch.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:29 PM
11

Threatened, or physically attacked? She placed her hands around his neck and spit on him.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:28 PM
34

Self defence allows you the minimal force to protect yourself. He hit her hard, and she went back and kept attacking him. He didn't hit hard enough.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:02 PM
14

He defended himself. She was attacking a man driving a bus. What if he had crashed and killed someone, because she was grabbing him and spitting at him? What was he supposed to do?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:40 PM
13

It wasn't disproportionate. What was he supposed to do? What if, because of that, he had crashed and killed some of the innocent passengers?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:39 PM
74

Women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. They'll say "I'm being discriminated against because one of them told me to get back in the kitchen!". Meanwhile, every guy is being called a "nigger faggot" and being told they'll be raped by a horse. I've found that women who try to use their femininity for special treatment will be generally hated on (as they should be) but women who play to…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:28 PM
-2

Poorly maintained equipment, and nobody passing by that aisle for a period of time long enough to molest someone.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:22 PM
-7

No... You haven't... It's unlikely it would even go to court in this case.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:44 PM
-6

A camera going down like that? And a kid being missing for long enough in a public place to be molested? There's no chance of a conviction.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:37 PM
-2

No cameras in a Target?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:21 PM
5

That's not a prison risk. There's no way he's have ever been convicted of anything.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:51 PM
98

Not just mothers. Mostly mothers, but a lot of fathers, too.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:50 PM
1

VP, which could have made her President.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:13 PM
6

Not hourly-paid jobs, but salaries are usually negotiable. Maybe not right at the start, but raises, etc. are usually negotiable (if you try).
/r/MensRights05/11/12 09:12 PM
3

And we can prove that they are wrong.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 07:07 PM
46

Isn't there a possibility that this belief causes a significant number women to honestly believe they'll get paid less, thereby causing them to negotiate lower salaries and perpetuate the myth?
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:06 PM
2

Because FREEDOM. /s
/r/MensRights05/11/12 04:45 PM
2

Besides, look at the female candidates so far. Clinton lost because she's white (How fucked up is it that race/gender are factor in this at all) and the public decided it was time for a black president, and then there was Palin and Bachman, neither of which should have been considered a possibility.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 04:44 PM
28

"I need feminism so I can learn how cars work"
/r/MensRights05/11/12 04:11 PM
9

They also shamed 15 year old boys who had already been sent back for being too young into re-enlisting.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 03:58 PM
6

Pretty sure in all of Canada, too.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 11:29 PM
12

No. That's a bullshit argument. It doesn't make it any harder. To be convicted of filing a false rape allegation, it needs to be proven that it was knowingly false. This is commonly a confession, but video, etc. can work as well. It's not "We don't think he raped you, you're going to jail".
/r/MensRights02/11/12 06:13 PM
14

And they get angry at men for "thinking with their dicks"...
/r/MensRights02/11/12 05:37 PM
2

You're obviously blinded by privilege. You can't see it yourself, but trust us, it's there. Women don't have any privilege. We now that because they can't see it, therefore it isn't there. /s
/r/MensRights02/11/12 05:27 PM
5

Well, duh. As we all know only white cis-hetero males are bigots, so obviously I didn't need to specify that.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 06:33 PM
12

Losing an argument? Yell "BIGOT!", and win!
/r/MensRights29/10/12 06:14 PM
18

There ARE only 12 months.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 06:11 PM
1

The point is that you shouldn't concentrate on one side!
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:22 PM
1

Once again, should tennis clubs talk about gender issues? No. You don't get the point of the MRM.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:10 PM
7

The MRM doesn't say that "women have no problems" or "men have it worse". The only claim made by it is that "men have problems". You don't need to just belong to one.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 06:39 PM
5

Feminism exists for the purpose of women's rights. The MRM is the response, for the purpose of men's rights. If the groups join together to create the HRM, one of the genders would get fucked, because that's how group priorities work. How do you not understand this? Should every single organization just devote itself to the same thing? Should all sports organizations merge together to become the sports organization?
/r/MensRights28/10/12 06:30 PM
5

Because it's the MRM.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 06:25 PM
6

When did I say I wasn't? Do you mean the MRM? Because the MRM is concerned with men's issues. You may as well ask why the local tennis club isn't focusing on breast cancer research.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 06:10 PM
11

That's not MR belief. And besides, why should she worry about women's problems in this country if women in other countries have it worse?
/r/MensRights28/10/12 05:54 PM
52

MR doesn't claim to work towards women's rights. Many MRAs support women's rights, but nobody pretends the solutions to women's problems is the MRM. Feminists, however, constantly claim that to fix men's problems, we need more feminism.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 05:37 PM
-5

If he did anything that was actually threatening, it would have been disclosed.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 04:47 AM
-13

I am saying that in this society, people are taught that men are incredibly dangerous, so much that saying "Do I know you?" is assault. And that is a problem.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 04:43 AM
0

Yes. But the key thing here is that she reported it. A man asked if he knew her, and then walked away, and she felt it was necessary to report this to the police.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 04:24 AM
5

Yes, but his actions the second time don't really qualify as assault. The bearhug might. Asking her? Of course not.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 04:15 AM
-3

But he didn't threaten her, he asked if he knew her. The fact that that alone made her feel threatened to the point the police are involved is disgusting.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 03:43 AM
2

That's another thing. They'll take "single men" and "single women" and compare them. But single can mean single, or never married. Married women are WAY more likely to stop working, then join back up later, whereas men will work all the way through. Men then make more.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:30 PM
1

By the way, this isn't a singular study. There a lots of them, all finding that women's lower salaries are the results of women's choices.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:01 PM
3

Yes. Then they DO separate by job. But not by experience, time worked, hours worked, etc., find there's still a gap, and demand women be paid more.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:00 PM
59

People assumed that it was less because a police report was filed for him asking "Don't I know you?". He wasn't arrested for that, but there was still a report filed for it.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:29 PM
10

There is a wage gap. Women do make 77% (or somewhere around there) what men make, and studies continuously back that up. But people see that and think "DISCRIMINATION!!!" when it's actually because women choose career paths and life paths that make less than men.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:22 PM
1

Yah, I know what you mean. I used to like her.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 08:13 PM
6

You're mistaking how it works. There are many stages of "guilty minds". Accidental, Reckless, Intentional, etc. If someone jumped in front of your car, that's accidental, and you have a defence. If you hit someone because you weren't paying attention, that's more like reckless, and you could go to jail. No reasonable person could think bear hugging someone is assault, so he is almost definitely at an "Accidental" state of mind.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:30 PM
10

You're assuming feminists act in favour of gender equality and not in favour of bettering the lives of women (and women alone).
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:21 PM
4

Crime requires a guilty state of mind. If it was accidental, he didn't commit a crime.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 04:00 PM
0

And links to the "privilege list".
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:06 AM
14

It's a great time. Come to the Patriarchy club. Every Wednesday, instead of working, we all sit around, smoke cigars, and discuss how we're going to oppress women this week. Our latest plan is to reduce women's salaries to only 70% of what men make!
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:04 AM
5

I LOVED one I read on white privilege. It included such gems as: "Stylists in my area are more likely to know how to handle my hair" and "I am more likely to find the food I grew up with in a grocery store". So basically I am incredibly privileged because I chose not to move to a different country.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:03 AM
67

60% is a good start. But I think we;ll achieve equality at about 80 or 90%.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:00 AM
68

No man. Too far. You take that back, you son of a bitch!
/r/MensRights20/10/12 06:11 PM
11

A lawsuit? For people getting food earlier? I really doubt it would go that far.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:02 PM
9

and snuggles
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:01 PM
6

Not punish, but also not encourage.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 02:29 PM
2

That's a private subreddit...
/r/MensRights18/10/12 04:54 AM
4

Men need to enlist and be drafted in a time of war in order to vote. Women get it for free.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 03:31 AM
11

I don't have the time to tell you that you don't know what oppression is. Women don't have it perfect, that's not oppression. Name one right men have that women don't.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 02:22 AM
11

Consider fairy tales, such as the story of "Cinderella." It equates femininity with submission, encouraging women to tolerate familial abuse, wait patiently to be rescued by a man, and view marriage as the only desirable reward for "right" conduct. Consider "Sleeping Beauty"-- the proper patriarchal young woman is sexually dormant until "awakened" by the man who claims her. And men are supposed to defend women, die for women, risk their lives for women. Men are not worth as much as women in thos…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 02:16 AM
16

Aside from the historical examples, you know, the whole not giving us the right to vote until 1920 thing and confining us to the household because that's a woman's domain under patriarchy The right to vote is really new. And, in the United States, men never got the right to vote. In order to vote, men need to sign up to be drafted in case of war. Men have an obligation, it's not an inalienable right. Women had to wait a few more years to vote, and they got it for free. Women have the right to vo…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 02:03 AM
2

That's true, but we're hated for something we're not. SRS is hated for what they actually are.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 01:08 AM
5

No, they had to. Gender roles were just as enforced. If men refused to fight, they were killed, or banished. That's not choice. Don't tell me it was in their best interests to be told by women to either come back with their shield or on it.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 12:41 AM
4

Yah, a few of those are okay, but when it begins taking over it can get kind of annoying. The "I'm a woman and support your cause" posts are kind of overdone, IMHO.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:40 PM
31

Guys, can we not submit jokes like this? It's funny, we need to learn to laugh at ourselves and others. We don't need to label everything as misandry. We'll become like feminists who label everything as misogyny.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:08 PM
7

Our sub gets enough shit as it is. Do you really want people to think we're a downvote brigade on top of that? That's why people hate SRS.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:07 PM
17

How about neither of those, but more of "This policy affecting men bad"?
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:00 PM
15

I'm going to bestof your comment, then post that submission in /r/MR complaining of downvotes, then submit THAT thread to SRS so they can bitch about it, while submitting that thread to /r/worstof and linking the result here so we can laugh at them.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:59 PM
22

No! Bad coldacid! We are not a downvote brigade!
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:57 PM
5

How were women oppressed by the Patriarchy?
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:43 PM
21

Patriarchy definitely existed, or at least used to. However, the typical feminist view of it is horribly flawed. Patriarchy basically states that men are in charge. And men were. Feminists see this and conclude that obviously because men were in charge, they had great lives and oppressed women. However, being in charge throughout history was NOT a good thing, particularly when it was half of the population that was in charge. Being in charge meant men had to: Do most of the manual labour Give th…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 08:12 PM
2

Mods can't rename threads.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:39 PM
2

And in this case, he was justified. When I said "run away", I mean that they are not going to come back at you, and are leaving.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 06:44 PM
1

Then reddit would become /new. DO YOU WANT IT TO BECOME /NEW??? LOOK AT /NEW!!!
/r/MensRights16/10/12 05:50 PM
1

Vote fuzzing, probably, outside sources maybe. Do you have any idea how much sites like gawker would love it if they could run a story saying "MENS RIGHTS UPVOTES RACISM!!!"? They'd have a field day. But it's probably just the vote fuzzing.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 04:14 PM
2

PSA: This is a troll. They feed on attention. Downvote and ignore him, or he will keep coming back and trying. May be someone trying to get the sub to look bad. Don't reply, you'll only help him.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 03:35 PM
0

I'm not sure about that, it differs by state at least. I'm pretty sure the standard is that you can hit back to defend yourself. If the guy runs away and you chase after and hit him, you may be charged.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 12:19 PM
0

A club is similar enough to a class.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 10:59 PM
0

How is it not a true comparison? I'm literally just flipping the genders.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 10:47 PM
0

Fewer females voting for said politician.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:26 PM
0

Would a men's only club attract only men who are uncomfortable with women?
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:25 PM
-1

Saying we shouldn't encourage women to get into STEM fields because nobody encourages men to get into the arts is like saying that we shouldn't try to fight for fair child support laws for men because they make more money than women on average. Don't try to get equality by dragging someone else down.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 08:45 AM
-1

I never said we shouldn't encourage more men to get into the arts. A men-only arts workshop would be awesome.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 08:31 AM
-2

Or they imply that the focus is female, and they want to target females, and do that so that it doesn't fill up with men and have only 3 women.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 08:07 AM
-1

Fewer women are in STEM fields. People want more people in STEM fields. So they're advertising to a community with very low representation in STEM fields. It's like a politician who focuses on the female vote because there are fewer female voters. If a university can increase the amount of students applying, they increase the average quality of students accepted. And one of the best ways to increase the amount applying is to try to appeal to the groups that are least likely to apply. More room t…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 08:07 AM
11

The only women I hear screaming about stuff like that are the arts majors. The ones in STEM fields never seem to agree with it.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:19 AM
-9

See, as a CS student, I can definitely support things like that. There are an average of 3 or so women in my classes (out of about 100). Women are definitely under-represented, so trying to interest them is something I can support. However, you wouldn't believe how often I hear from female arts students that "Only a small amount of women choose CS, so they are obviously being discriminated against!". I believe that women on average are less interested in those kinds of fields than men are. I'm n…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:14 AM
10

Harassment is. And I believe that inciting violence would be too. (If a member was attacked, it's not hard to make the connection.)
/r/MensRights12/10/12 02:54 PM
9

/r/trees is different. They are people who engage in illegal activity that does absolutely no harm to anyone else on the site, and has nothing to do with the site. SRS is attacking users of the site, harming them, and blackmailing them.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 02:37 AM
20

Men are dumb Immediately followed by the implication that she forces herself into "agony" to look prettier. Really?
/r/MensRights10/10/12 02:22 PM
1

I just donated 20 cents!
/r/MensRights09/10/12 04:07 PM
12

wouldn't a gender gap then indicate that the public considers more people of one gender to be suitable for the role? Let's be fair here, it could also mean that less women run.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 12:26 PM
1

That's what lawyers DO. His job is to get his client off, to the best of his ability. And he should do it. Everyone has a right to representation, and it would be a violation of her rights if he did anything but his best.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 02:44 PM
1

Don't blame the lawyer, man. She DOES deserve a fair trial, and legal representation. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 05:20 AM
0

See, that's at least somewhat funny. Let's not be like many feminists and get outraged over someone making a joke. Just go with it, it's not really worth it. The murder ones aren't a joke. There's no joke there. They're just "Kill men".
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:27 AM
4

Okay, the bottom two definitely go too far. They're not even a little bit funny? The animal testing one is kind of funny (Men are animals, ha ha, let's not get hung up on jokes here) and the on fire one is eh. But the last two are just straight up gore.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 09:02 PM
2

This is posted soooooooooooooooooo often. Just google "Pay gap myth".
/r/MensRights05/10/12 09:00 PM
1

But don't forget, those women don't actually want to do that, they've been conditioned to want to do it by Patriarchy!
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:41 PM
3

Because nobody knows about it.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 03:23 AM
4

http://www.reddit.com/r/askmensrights It exists and is not active.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 01:57 AM
1

Of course. That doesn't mean things can't still go wrong.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 09:57 PM
1

Oh, of course. But realistically, every job has it's potential dangers.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 08:05 PM
1

I suppose. But I'd still place being potentially crushed to death as more dangerous than potential health problems several years down the road.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 07:46 PM
1

Still, that's not as dangerous. An accident with those chemicals isn't likely to be fatal.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:33 PM
1

At least there there's a reasonable expectation. You know there's a chance. You're working with powerful and dangerous equipment. But falling down an elevator shaft? Nobody could possibly clarify that as a risk housekeepers face everyday.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:11 PM
1

That's not exactly something that you'd think would happen on that job. Sounds like something that could have happened to anyone, their job was incidental.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:49 PM
1

When you patent vague things like, 'It has shapes and kinda looks like our OS' and have billions to hire a legal team that can make these things stick, it is unfair to the consumer. Find me the patent number. Apple's suit against Samsung wasn't about a patent, it was about Trade Dress (ie, making a product that looks similar enough to another product that people confuse it). Also, one piece of evidence they had was an internal memo in Samsung saying that way too many people were returning Samsun…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 05:00 PM
1

I know. It's almost like they exist to make money, like they're some kind of corporation or something.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 04:48 PM
1

How so?
/r/MensRights04/10/12 04:32 PM
1

Frankly, I think it's between Google and Apple. They're both suing each-other into oblivion. You can find these things pretty easily by searching online. Just google "{Name of company} lawsuit".
/r/MensRights04/10/12 04:03 PM
1

I wouldn't. But can you honestly say that the average consumer wouldn't get confused? Remember, these are people that thought Samsung phones were iPhones.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 03:28 PM
1

Your link shows Apple suing a company for trying to get exclusive rights to a logo that looks very similar to apple's that would cover the electronics industry. That doesn't look silly at all.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 03:21 PM
0

It's not just Apple. Every big tech company is suing every other big tech company. But people always forget that, and just focus on when Apple does it.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 02:44 PM
4

It would be a rap video.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 04:45 AM
17

Breaking character, are we?
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:32 AM
0

I think you mean to say that men die earlier? Or die sooner?
/r/MensRights26/09/12 03:49 PM
1

Yah, B isn't true. Pretty much equal numbers of men and women die worldwide...
/r/MensRights26/09/12 03:50 AM
2

I'm not saying he should "have" to do it. Just that it would be the right thing to do. He obviously wanted kids at some point in his life. Like I said, there's no good answer to all of this.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 06:46 PM
-2

Well, he should step up and take custody. I'm not saying he should be forced to, and I'm not saying it's fair. But it's not that girl's fault her mother is a horrible person. It's a really shitty situation, and someone is going to get fucked over. It's either the girl, or him. And frankly, I think taking care of a child isn't as bad as growing up without your parents. There really is no "fair" answer here.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 05:55 PM
6

The English language is painfully slow to adapt to the current world. It doesn't change (officially, anyways) immediately when a word starts becoming popular. We really can't be mad at that. Misandry is a word that, until very, very recently (in terms of the evolution of language) didn't need to exist. And so, it officially doesn't. While it is becoming more mainstream, we're still going to need to wait a bit. And please don't say "Oh, well they should change that immediately!" That's not a good…
/r/MensRights23/09/12 07:13 AM
1

Yes. So the way to change that is to convince them through words, not by taking away their rights.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 03:55 AM
1

Should we lock humans in tight cages so they'll care about animal rights? The road to equality is not through pulling others down.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 03:49 AM
1

Taking rights away from women isn't advancing men.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 03:37 AM
1

You're a fucking idiot. It is "men gain additional rights". Not women lose theirs. That is not an option.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 10:40 PM
1

You're advocating taking away rights in order to achieve equality.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 08:50 PM
2

No! The goal isn't balance by dragging people down! It's like going back and fixing the slavery of blacks by enslaving all the whites too!
/r/MensRights15/09/12 05:19 PM
7

That's the wrong way to achieve equality.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 05:28 AM
1

That can be a good idea. But there's also the fear aspect. The cops aren't all-powerful protectors. If there's no evidence, what the fuck are they gonna do?
/r/MensRights15/09/12 03:28 AM
1

I'd stand to the side and watch. None of my business what two people want to yell at eachother. I'd intervene if it came to physical blows. I don't give a shit if it's your business, I'm going to stop someone from getting hurt.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 03:14 AM
6

Fundamentally, it's the woman's decision. It IS her body. Of course, she should discuss it with the father. But the final decision is hers. But keep in mind, this has nothing to do with legal and financial consequences. It's horribly wrong to force someone to abort their child or force them to have one.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 03:12 AM
19

Well, really, if the mother wants one but the father doesn't, she has every right to get an abortion. You can't force someone to carry a child, and you shouldn't be able to.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 03:10 AM
1

The issue isn't black and white. What if someone is planning to kill you, and you know it? What if they are threatening your family? This is a very complicated issue.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 02:59 AM
0

It varies significantly by state. You need to check the laws in your area. Self defense is a huge gray area.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 02:59 AM
0

I think he means intentionally murder.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 03:17 AM
1

I don't have the link, but basically some guy said a production and advertising company scratched up his Jurassic park jeep after he lent it to them, and refused to fix it. Turns out the head of the company WAS offering to pay for it, it was damaged by the shipping company before the production company ever got it, the Prod. company didn't realize it was damaged, and they thought he was stalling because he was getting an insurance claim filed. One of the prod. companies employees was also harass…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 07:08 PM
10

There's usually a spousal accusation there.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 07:08 PM
5

They can't arrest you. What would they arrest you for? Don't assault or kidnap any children, and you'll be fine.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 06:08 PM
1

I see a 3|9 upvote|downvote split. The comment was being downvoted.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:27 PM
6

No. I COULD, however, take them on with backup, which I could get with a single radio message.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:43 AM
12

But he wasn't disturbing the peace. If the officer didn't look at the posters, he wasn't doing his job. The man wasn't in any way disturbing the peace. He was hanging posters on what I'm believe was private property, and even if he wasn't, he had the permission of either the owner or the city. He wasn't disturbing the peace. The officer was a coward.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:27 AM
3

Note at the bottom: "Read more at Cosmopolitan.com!"
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:24 AM
2

Stop. Just stop. It's a troll. You can't win, you will never convince them otherwise. They're probably just hoping it will get upvoted so they can show that this sub is bigoted. Downvote, ignore, maybe report for the really bad stuff, and move on.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:22 AM
8

I'm saying that the officer decided to ignore the law that prevents vandalism and physical threats, and instead decided to wrongfully threaten to arrest someone who had done nothing illegal in order to make more people "happy". If he thought he was going to be attacked, he should have called in backup.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:15 AM
1

I'm saying that the officer decided to ignore the law that prevents vandalism and physical threats, and instead decided to wrongfully threaten to arrest someone who had done nothing illegal in order to make more people "happy". If he thought he was going to be attacked, he should have called in backup.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:14 AM
12

Officers aren't supposed to make people "happy". They are supposed to uphold the law. Can 30 of us go and beat a women's face in then get off because it would make 96% of the people there "happy"?
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:05 AM
7

She probably just wanted to be polite and try not to hurt his feelings. I agree, that's pretty annoying and direct is better, but you can see where the woman in the story was coming from, she really did nothing wrong here.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 11:54 PM
7

To be fair, he WAS acting creepy. Not "Being male" creepy, but he was acting in a way that would make any woman uncomfortable. Specifically, getting her number without being given it and then showing up unannounced at her work. He needed to be called out on that. The way she did it however, WAS nauseating. "Girls are conditioned to be polite" is bullshit.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 11:53 PM
0

It's actually a troll. Everyone downvote it, and don't reply. Pretend it doesn't exist, and it will go away.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 11:44 PM
5

Oh my god. Look at the tumblr right now. There are two posts: "I need feminism because I am shocked when I don't get harassed by strangers on the street" and "I need feminism because never having experienced street harassment shouldn't make me feel unattractive". WHAT DO YOU WANT???
/r/MensRights31/08/12 04:03 AM
0

Someone was saying he was only posting to try to learn her personal info so he could attack her, and he posted it to show it was freely available information and he could get it anyways. Then he realized it was a mistake to post it and deleted it.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 11:12 PM
19

Troll. Do not feed the troll. You can't win. Downvote, ignore, and move on.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 05:05 PM
6

Children, seniors, yes. Those are people who are ACTUALLY unable to protect themselves (probably). But women? Not anymore.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:35 AM
28

I'd tone down the ones on the male side that aren't strictly about his body, several of them aren't.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:33 AM
6

"A man who commits rape".
/r/MensRights25/08/12 02:14 PM
10

You can't use 30 here, because the figure you're using as a base is over all women. The rate of rape for those between 15 and 45 is much higher than that. He just said that the chance of being raped drops drastically at the age of 45. You can't assume a 20 year old woman has the same chances of getting raped as someone who's 60. And your math is horrible. Have you ever taken a statistics class? You can't add up percentages. If a woman has a 1.16% chance of being raped every year, and lives for 8…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 07:29 PM
7

Probably wanted to include it, but didn't want to point out the irony to avoid the article becoming biased.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:46 AM
2

Are you SI_bot's child?
/r/MensRights20/08/12 02:20 PM
1

I wouldn't quite call it rape, without knowing more details, but it's still a really horrible thing for a person to do. She was having a fucking seizure. A legitimate medical emergency. You don't keep fucking someone when that's happening.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 01:06 AM
2

See, this is where ACTUAL patriarchy comes into play. The feminist version is a system where all the men sit around and think of new ways to privilege themselves and screw over women, while the actual version legitimately screws over men and women. Actual patriarchy is where the men are in charge. That's all. This means that men NEED to protect women, and need to be strong. Which leads to the disbelief that men can be attacked by women. Men are supposed to defend women. If a woman attacks a man,…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 09:13 PM
3

A guy on facebook (who posted that the ACLU was oppressive because they defend the free speech of everyone and not just people who agree with him) told me this.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 09:04 PM
48

No, don't you see? It's only privilege when it's male. When a situation advantages women, it's actually benevolent sexism, so the woman is still the victim there. /s
/r/MensRights18/08/12 12:33 AM
1

Not really even different wars. Many of the big ones still would have happened. WW1 was caused by a shit-ton of issues sparked by an assassination. WW2 was going to happen anyways, after the ridiculous peace treaty that ended WW1. If it was Elizabeth Hitler, it would have all played out the same. Wars aren't caused by the leaders of a country going "Hmm... I'm bored. I bet I could take out Austria!", they're much more complex than that.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 05:11 PM
2

That's probably for the best. I hate to be so abrasive about it, everyone makes mistakes. But many people are quick to judge without reading the facts, and if it comes back that she's been receiving threats or attacks and she didn't do it, it will just come back to bite all of us in the ass.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:57 PM
1

I believe that those ones constitute free use, but I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it. Either way, there definitely was a basis for those DMCAs. The GWW ones had nothing to them.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:51 PM
4

Those ones were at least understandable. It's a site she hates, and they were using her material. Legally, she had no basis. But to be fair, I can understand why she did it. The difference in the GWW ones is that there was absolutely no basis for them, and they were clearly a means of discovering her personal identity. THAT is neither understandable, nor forgivable.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:48 PM
2

No problem, it happens. But if this causes a mob to attack her and we find out she DIDN'T do it, it's going to look bad on all of us. Let's hope it WAS her, or at least one of the skepchicks.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:43 PM
2

I just know we're going to find out it wasn't her, people are going to attack her, and it's just going to look bad for the whole movement...
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:41 PM
13

Note: THIS DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE GIRLWRITESWHAT DMCAS The only real connection here is the timing. The post says that it knows who made DMCA accusations against the Elevatorgate blog, NOT Girlwriteswhat. While the timing does suggest a connection, there is nothing tangible here. We cannot assume it was her without any real proof.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:22 PM
5

No, the only coincidence is the timing. It looks pretty likely, but we can't be sure and shouldn't start with the mob yet.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:18 PM
-13

Are you seriously fucking saying that pure Germans are a superior race? What. The. Fuck.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:08 PM
7

I knew this one girl who was amazing at games. I was at this summer college thing, and a guy had brought a Wii with Super Smash bros. 3 of use (all guys) were playing it. We were all pretty good. She comes up and asks if she can play. The guy started kind of hitting on her and saying "Yah, sure, I'll show you how". She played along, got the controls, and then proceeded to kick all our asses as Princess Peach while outlining exactly how we were fucking up. Typically guys will be better at gaming …
/r/MensRights17/08/12 03:51 PM
1

In Sweden, convincing someone to sleep with you, without the use of drugs, threats, etc. is legally rape. Consensual sex can seriously be rape there. How is that not absurd?
/r/MensRights15/08/12 10:49 PM
1

Do you also believe we should lock up gay people for their "mental derangement"?
/r/MensRights15/08/12 10:44 PM
14

WOMYNZ FTFY
/r/MensRights12/08/12 06:31 AM
1

I wouldn't call it feminists invading video games, it's really a problem with investors. Trying to make more money by appealing to people who don't game is fucking stupid, but most of them don't understand that.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 04:24 AM
1

It isn't really discrimination. They have a promotion to try to attract a different crowd. Female gamers are definitely a minority, so it's fine if they're given better treatment to try to bring more women into the hobby. The people in this thread are ridiculous. Sometimes discrimination is actually okay, as long as there are reasons FOR that discrimination. Men pay more for car insurance, and they should. Statistically, men are more likely to require an auto insurance pay out. Women pay more fo…
/r/MensRights11/08/12 04:21 AM
11

This really isn't something we should post here. It has nothing to do with MR. The fact he was male doesn't enter into it. He was a good person. The media doesn't touch on anything about his "male responsibility" to save a girl. And it WAS a heroic sacrifice. The events seem a little suspicious. There were adults watching the kids, but at no point did the boy shout or anything, and nobody noticed until it was too late?
/r/MensRights11/08/12 04:09 AM
7

Our intention is certainly not to discriminate in any way, What kind of fucked up definition do you use if you don't realize that that policy was discrimination?
/r/MensRights11/08/12 04:02 AM
2

You need to vote, though! It's an important right to be able to choose how you get fucked!
/r/MensRights10/08/12 10:45 PM
9

She plead down. That's how the criminal justice system works. You make a deal, and you can get a lighter sentence.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 04:55 PM
-1

How many men were? 1. When it becomes a large enough sample size to show a trend, you have permission to call it a MR issue.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 10:25 PM
0

No, because he wasn't arrested for being male, he was arrested because of terrible police work. And you can't claim this wouldn't have happened to a woman, this hasn't happened to anyone before.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 10:24 PM
1

This is /r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut material, not /r/MensRights material.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 06:06 PM
19

Note how it isn't, because it's a stupid argument.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 05:38 PM
5

More like let's keep the trolls away.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 04:39 PM
39

Even "Men and children only, No girls over nine" would provoke a shitstorm.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 04:24 PM
2

That might be the case, but still, the whole situation was ridiculously over-hyped.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 11:00 PM
3

How is this related?
/r/MensRights05/08/12 05:19 PM
8

She did. And he went away, never to be seen again.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 04:33 PM
38

Watson posted a video where she claims some guy in an elevator at 4AM that she'd been drinking with invited her back to his room for coffee. Obviously, she was very nearly raped. This has spiraled into a whole clusterfuck of political correctness and handbooks for how adults need to behave. Recently, a poster known as Thunderf00t was introduced to freethought blogs. He questioned whether the decline of women in the movement was because of sexism and suggested that it may be the whole "We have a …
/r/MensRights05/08/12 04:29 AM
21

That's... A little progress, at least? Baby steps here, people.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:01 AM
3

Men should bring them. Not out of any sort of responsibility, but you hear a lot more about women poking holes to try to trap a guy than men doing it.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 04:16 PM
1

Maybe not expected, but it's still honorable.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:26 AM
3

That is rather genius. Ants are some of the most self-conscious people I know.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:20 AM
2

So... All the time, then?
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:19 AM
4

WTF UK...
/r/MensRights02/08/12 03:52 AM
2

Wait, what? Link?
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:00 AM
2

thatsthejoke.jpg
/r/MensRights23/07/12 02:30 PM
103

Hitler was awfully fast, too!
/r/MensRights23/07/12 07:52 AM
2

Can you mirror that on imgur? The current site is absolute shit.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 03:26 PM
3

Oh, we got past it. Nothing like full-tackle soccer to get some pain there.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 03:49 PM
21

Because, logically, only men can rape because men are rapists. /s
/r/MensRights15/07/12 03:01 PM
8

My public school banned tetherball. They weren't even hard balls, they were foam!
/r/MensRights15/07/12 03:00 PM
0

That will probably never happen, because IE is a cesspool. As a web developer, IE is the bane of my existence. Get a browser that isn't complete shit, please. Firefox, Chrome, even Opera. Anything other than IE.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 12:36 AM
3

This is the kind of shit we need to stop posting here. Some women are abused horribly by their husbands. It happens. Making an artistic piece about a single person's experience is not saying that all men are evil. It's like saying "That female character was depicted as not being very smart, therefore the writers think all women are stupid!"
/r/MensRights14/07/12 09:29 PM
4

No, it's still pretty damn insane.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 07:59 AM
10

She lived at home. With her parents. And she didn't want them to be mad. She's immature.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 04:58 AM
14

"When a rape allegation is made it's often very difficult to prove but also very difficult to refute and those accused can suffer from the stigma attached." It kind of says so here. Right after that statement.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 09:05 PM
4

Why would you post something that has no relevance to the actual discussion?
/r/MensRights08/07/12 04:28 PM
7

Yah, but she didn't get rehabilitation. That's kind of the point. The debate over incarceration / rehabilitation is moot. We can all agree SOMETHING should be done, and nothing was.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 04:25 PM
3

And what about Fox?
/r/MensRights08/07/12 04:22 PM
7

You think banning them will do something? They are trolls. They are obviously trolls. You putting all that work in is feeding the trolls. And you know what will happen if you succeed? THEY'LL DO IT AGAIN. Or they'll do it in other subreddits. Let the trolls have their own little corner, pay them no attention, and put your time towards things that will actually be useful.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 02:07 PM
18

Personally, I'm against taking them down purely because I don't like the idea of removing a subreddit just because it's offensive, no matter how offensive it is. It's the free speech deal. It doesn't mean shit if not everyone has it. I'm against the subreddits, of course, but they still should be able to say what they want.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 01:26 PM
3

If it's sarcastic, you shouldn't reply. If not, it's a troll, and you still shouldn't reply.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 12:09 AM
12

WOMYNZ FTFY
/r/MensRights03/07/12 02:19 AM
-1

I personally don't think so. Yes, it deserves a very harsh sentence, but not that much. EDIT: To clarify, I meant that a false accusation shouldn't be as harsh a sentence as rape. It still definitely deserves jail time, but not that much.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 02:06 AM
1

Nobody is subject to the draft in Canada. There are no draft laws. You're just assuming that it's sexist, with no evidence.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 01:10 AM
1

Damnit you're stupid. Everyone is subject to draft, even women. And I can't provide evidence of women being drafted because nobody has been drafted in 70 years, a time when women were expected to shut up and work in the home. It's like asking for evidence that the Romans had gameboys.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 12:40 AM
1

You can't be serious. Canadians haven't been drafted in 70 years! I agree that there are ways women are better off in society, but that doesn't make me a "conditional" citizen.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 12:10 AM
0

Can I see the documents that show that only men will be conscripted in Canada?
/r/MensRights23/06/12 09:27 PM
0

I'm talking about Canada. The fact that you can be conscripted in the states is fucked up. Canada has only brought in conscription twice: At the end of both world wars. And even then it was when it was the only possible option. I'm not a "conditional citizen", and I'm not a "full citizen". I'm a citizen, plain and simple.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 09:15 PM
0

She was also not a 'person' in terms of obligation to the state. You're not getting this. I don't think you're getting this. What obligation to the state? What the hell are you talking about? The only obligation is to follow the laws. What you're talking about is the granting of unconditional citizenship rights to women. (Personhood = citizenship rights,k?) Men don't have this and never did. What the hell are conditional citizenship rights? I have no conditions to my citizenship, except for bein…
/r/MensRights23/06/12 08:55 PM
1

Legally, in Canada, a woman was not a "person" in terms of rights and privileges, under the BNA Act, which created the dominion of Canada, before The Famous Five, a group of women, fought it in 1930. What the hell is the matter with you? This was an actual, serious, issue. There was no conditional citizenship. This isn't about citizenship. This was about being defined as a "person".
/r/MensRights23/06/12 08:43 PM
1

I know in Canada, it was a group of women who got women legally defined as people.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 08:14 PM
7

I'm referring to possibly deceiving partners into thinking there was a more substantial relationship. If you aren't, there's nothing wrong with it.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 05:40 AM
7

FRA?
/r/MensRights23/06/12 04:27 AM
8

Literally the only downside is morality, but that's pretty much bullshit. As long as both people know what it is, there really isn't an issue. Ninja Edit: Also STDs. That's one I forgot.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 03:24 AM
2

Yes, that's what Child Services does.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 04:09 PM
10

The issue is that you CAN'T control it. Child services can intervene, but you can't start forcibly castrating people or tying women down and forcing them to have abortions. Plus, there's no way to design a test like that without horrible bias.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 01:26 PM
9

That's still stupid.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 01:48 PM
1

She does a lot of great stuff about body image and gender identity for men and women. Well worth looking into.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 01:39 AM
32

As a student, I see it a lot. "You don't need Financial Aid, you're white!"
/r/MensRights09/06/12 10:08 PM
2

Yah, pretty much. This is a great video on the subject.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 10:01 PM
-1

Dude. Troll. Just downvote and move along.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:44 PM
2

You can hate their reasons, but ultimately, it's kind of good for us if they win that one. (As in removing the tender-years clause)
/r/MensRights29/05/12 06:53 PM
2

Your local authorities! It helps if you actually get him to have sex with you, though.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:27 PM
23

Also the 1.5 million. That's kind of an incentive, too.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 04:09 AM
30

Because other false accusers may not come forward and actual rape victims may not either. That's pretty much bullshit, but it's their reasoning.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 04:08 AM
1

All states do. I meant when you're just out walking.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 12:57 AM
1

Wait... Seriously?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 08:59 PM
2

You ask them what they're going to arrest you for. It isn't illegal to walk alone at night. Seriously, read up on your rights, and use them.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 08:03 PM
1

Having talked to people that used to mug, they've told me they'd go after a woman first instead of a man. Made it less likely they'd fight back. Still, it's very dependent on size, but that's just what they told me.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:55 PM
9

Protip: You never need to show ID to officers, even if they ask for it, unless you are under arrest. Don't tell them anything, and just keep asking if you are under arrest or if you are free to go. Talking to cops will never help you.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:53 PM
9

[citation needed]
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:50 PM
10

That wasn't a twist ending. You knew right away as soon as they said the main character's name.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:46 PM
1

You know that cleaning your foreskin properly will greatly reduce the risks of pain, right?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:13 PM
12

That's a very rare issue. It doesn't justify forcing infants to undergo potentially dangerous, permanent surgery. Your appendix could cause death, should we remove that at birth too?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 05:44 AM
1

That's what I learned in my health class a few years ago, but I'll look.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 02:09 AM
0

To be fair, historically, I think women had it worse off. And the title is a play on "The Second Sex".
/r/MensRights24/05/12 01:08 AM
2

In the comments, the author says he doesn't identify as feminist.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 01:07 AM
1

We don't. What you're asking is like trying to get the feminist stance on animal abuse. Certainly there are MRAs in favour, and certainly there are some against. Our goal is rights for men, all men, and nothing more. Obviously the movement will generally be with you, but individual members will differ. Also, we need to work against the men v. woman image, it's going to get us nowhere. We need to work together for equality, etc.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:17 AM
38

And there would be celebrations.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 06:08 AM
0

It makes sense that men would be promoted faster. Male nurses tend to be laughed at. If you're going to go through that, you must want it, and therefore work harder at it.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 06:08 AM
-13

Reddit Enhancement SuiteReddit Enhancement Suite Huh, that must be a new feature. If you have RES, click the promote button a bunch of times.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 04:37 AM
-2

I get the "male privilege checklist". That's always fun.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 11:44 PM
5

The point is, nobody can decide that, because "psychological abuse" is different for every person. There's no way to see what it's done, so it couldn't hold up in a court of law. If you allow that, how many men would go to jail in custody disputes because their wives claim "psychological abuse"?
/r/MensRights20/05/12 04:12 PM
4

But couldn't that lead to me citing psychological abuse for my girlfriend making me watch Twilight? That's basically outlawing offensiveness, which is impossible.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 04:03 PM
3

But how could you possibly legally describe "psychological abuse"?
/r/MensRights20/05/12 03:45 PM
9

That would destroy free speech as we know it.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 06:12 AM
17

But both should have penalties, as the OP said.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 03:19 PM
21

That doesn't matter. Any genital mutilation is a bad thing. That's like saying it's okay to punch a baby in the face as long as you don't beat it with a stick, because the stick is worse.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 03:12 PM
1

In Britain around Victorian times, the punishment for attempted suicide was death by hanging.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 10:14 PM
1

I'm talking about all the posts about "I didn't know she was pregnant" or people being sued for child support.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 05:57 PM
1

It looks like it does, but really I'm trying to find out a reason it won't.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 09:39 AM
8

I mean in cases of "She's suing me for support of kids I didn't know about / want", etc.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 09:02 AM
0

Thanks, my friendly neighbourhood rightsbot!
/r/MensRights18/05/12 08:56 AM
4

Let's give him a day to do it...
/r/MensRights18/05/12 08:55 AM
1

No, but the point is the guy had nothing to do with America.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 03:46 AM
1

I wouldn't even trust that. If the US can extradite a british citizen who broke no UK laws and never went to the US, they can probably extradite from other countries.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 11:32 PM
1

... I was saying the system has him screwed no matter what he does. I think we're agreeing here.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:36 PM
3

Well, he could flee the country. Best case scenario he's in a new country with no contacts and no money. Worst, he's in jail AND paying child support.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:27 PM
1

What's he going to do? He goes to jail for this, he can run, but if they don't catch him he'll be in a different country with no money and can probably be extradited. He's absolutely fucked.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:59 PM
9

They'll take more of his money. You don't really get this. They'll come, put you in jail, and sell everything you have.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 06:45 PM
2

Thank you!
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:26 PM
14

Moving to another country with no money? That doesn't seem better to me.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:15 PM
11

There are no means that won't make it worse.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:04 PM
7

You can't trust the downvote numbers. At all. All that matters is the score.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:30 PM
24

Every so often a new tome details how men, not women, are discriminated against (apart from rape, Prison Rape murder, men are more likely to be victims of violence, don't have the stats on murder equal pay debunked time and time again genital mutilation circumcision the power imbalance in politics, business Don't have stats in front of me for this one education Women make up ~60% of post-secondary students law Women get a shorter sentence and arts What?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:25 PM
1

IIRC, intense pain while ejaculating later in life. But once again, that's a really low percentage of males, and it can be removed then.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 12:45 PM
2

They could write those names down anyways. If they want the money, they still need to prove it.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 02:39 PM
0

Because later it can cause some serious problems. But that's a really really low possibility. And by that logic, we should remove the appendix at birth, too.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 01:58 PM
7

They were surrounded by knives, burning oil, etc. They could have hurt him.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:00 PM
0

To be fair, I don't think that a supposed increase in sex tourism would be considered a genuine problem...
/r/MensRights12/05/12 10:17 PM
10

Actually, it's a risk of intense pain, THEN death. And if it goes well, just intense pain.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 09:41 PM
1

So let me get this straight: If you had to pick someone to rob at gunpoint, you'd pick a large man instead of a small woman?
/r/MensRights11/05/12 08:12 PM
1

I'm using my "I've talked to muggers and robbers and that's what they told me" wisdom. Also , your second stat just shows number of victims, not if they were out alone. Also, men are more likely to go out alone because of a culture of "Women shouldn't go out alone at night". And you choose one man over 2 women to attack.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 06:43 PM
1

We are discussing the dangers of going out at night alone. You brought up that men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime on average in any scenario. That statistic has no impact on this discussion.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 05:11 AM
1

Universities encouraging women not to go out alone means more men would be going out alone meaning more men are available to be mugged. Women are weaker, less likely to try something. Also, you say "violent crime". How often is this a stranger attacking someone at night?
/r/MensRights11/05/12 12:48 AM
1

Or a knife, or pretending they have a gun. The fact is, the stronger the person, the more of a risk you take. Mugging is all about minimizing the risk.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 12:47 AM
1

Are you kidding? That has everything to do with it. The bigger a person is, the more likely they'll fight back. Men are more likely to fight back then women.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 09:55 PM
1

And it is a fact that women make 0.70 for every dollar a man makes, until you look at all the factors.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 09:54 PM
1

Are you actually saying that muggers, whose goal is to get your wallet and get the fuck out, would target a huge guy instead of a small woman?
/r/MensRights10/05/12 09:32 PM
1

The point of mugging is to avoid any violence. You go, threaten, they give in, you leave. You don't beat the person, you shove a gun in their face and they fold.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 09:31 PM
1

I'd like to see those stats compared to who (men/women) are more likely to go out at night alone.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 10:10 PM
7

No, don't do that! As long as they're around, the main group of opposition to the movement has "Feminist dildo wars". (That was on their frontpage a few weeks ago)
/r/MensRights09/05/12 06:10 PM
3

Sober man has sex with a drunk woman FTFY
/r/MensRights09/05/12 06:06 PM
1

Honestly, it isn't fair, but you need to admit that smaller women are more of a target to criminals than larger men, and safer if there are larger men with them in dangerous areas and at night. I can't really blame the college for encouraging that. It's not right, but I can see where they're coming from.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 06:04 PM
17

Yah. Almost raped her twice more. I mean, the duct tape was in my hand and I had a knife to her throat, then it hit me that I'd made the mistake AGAIN! I mean, shucks! If that flier hadn't been there to remind me, my natural male instincts would have taken over, as they always do. </sarcasm> (Tag in case I'm linked to by SRS)
/r/MensRights09/05/12 07:07 AM
74

Honestly, last night I found myself in the middle of raping a woman, when I remembered. THAT was awkward...
/r/MensRights09/05/12 04:25 AM
1

Yes, many do. However, there is a huge number (Not going to say majority, no stats on this) who either do not, or believe that men are ahead in every possible way, and therefore do not.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 05:16 AM
1

If we all thought like that, we'd still be in the dark ages. The trials are ongoing, and if we realized that it caused problems, we'd see it before it was too late.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 05:00 AM
1

Place your bets now! I've got 2-1 odds on causing Autism, 3-1 on a genetic disease that impairs motor function, and 6-1 on loss of sight or hearing.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 04:55 AM
3

Imagine taking a pile of money every month and burning it in front of you as a baby you never wanted screams in your ear. How's the needle look now?
/r/MensRights08/05/12 04:54 AM
1

Actually, at that age, there isn't really a difference. And it says "skill". Not strength, speed, etc.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 12:52 AM
6

I can understand that, honestly. I'd prefer a male doctor, and I can understand if a woman prefers a female doctor.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 12:09 AM
5

Only 9/10?
/r/MensRights07/05/12 03:16 AM
1

Not sure how long, but this is something like doing it in the bathroom a few minutes after sex.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 03:08 AM
1

Lots of stories of women taking used condoms from the garbage.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 01:57 AM
9

What did they say?
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:33 AM
16

Really? You took him to a security guard and they accuse you of pedophilia? That's like kidnapping 101. Don't take them to the cops...
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:30 AM
29

To those people, they're synonyms.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:29 AM
1

But some people are more natural leaders.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 03:27 AM
0

Exactly.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 01:44 AM
5

Some people are natural leaders. Some aren't. I don't want to use the terms alpha and beta male, of course. However, they are saying because the people who started the group have a personality in line with the kind of people who start groups, that it will be bad, and exclude all other men.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 07:11 PM
7

Okay, I think I misinterpreted it. Turns out, because the 3 men organizing it are the kind of men willing to organize a student group, it would be exclusive. Basically, they want men who aren't really leaders to lead the group. (You understand what I'm saying, don't you?)
/r/MensRights04/05/12 06:28 PM
41

"I think the men's centre will become a highly masculinized space if it's not given a clear mandate for inclusion". Does this mean what I think it means? That he's worried that the men's centre will become a men's space unless women are let in as well?
/r/MensRights04/05/12 05:52 PM
3

I like that they're replacing it, but dropping it immediately seems like a bad idea. They should have kept it on for 3 months until it was replaced.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 03:42 PM
1

It's an average of 30% across the workplace. You're telling me you wouldn't notice if someone you worked with got paid more than 30% more than you? Particularly in this day and age, when women are told constantly that they're being paid way less. I didn't say worthless, I said worth less (note the space) Like I said above, there are companies who are willing to pay more for skilled labour. There also are companies who are willing to pay less to incompetent workers just because they're cheaper (e…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 09:14 PM
0

Yes, but come on. You would know if you were being paid 30% less than someone doing the same job. Maybe not 5 or even 10%, but on AVERAGE 30%? That's ridiculous. Also, men who view women as worthless wouldn't hire them in the first place, meaning they CAN'T get paid less than men.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 08:46 PM
3

Your great-great-grandfather killed my great-great-grandfather. Therefore, you should go to jail for murder.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:06 PM
15

I love that she says that right after "There are fewer female CEOs, therefore all women are oppressed." (paraphrased)
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:03 PM
1

I've never oppressed women, and those women have never been oppressed. What happened to your ancestors has no bearing on your life.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:02 PM
2

It's more prominent in America, but the logic holds for all first-world countries. Essentially, if women are being paid less: Why not hire only women? Same work for less pay? Jackpot! Why have no women come forward for that company? The company would be torn apart! Knowing this, you can guess that something isn't quite right.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 06:01 PM
1

You should be helpful to women you don't know. Also men you don't know. Just be a nice person, you know?
/r/MensRights29/04/12 11:51 PM
8

cough Tricked into child support payments cough
/r/MensRights29/04/12 04:10 AM
7

Why is this JUST being investigated for malpractice?
/r/MensRights28/04/12 09:56 AM
11

The suicide was. The urging him to do it was not.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 02:05 AM
5

The same reason. They both provide nothing to the conversation, but they serve important functions. Except ones like alwayssayslol. I have no idea how that guy took off.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:34 AM
72

Word of advice: Tell him to ALWAYS use his own condom. Always his OWN. Best advice that most women never think about.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:27 AM
10

Someone posted here recently that he was going to kill himself. SRS came in and spammed posts about how he should, how it would be good to have one less MRA in the world. It was fake, but still. You always assume that they are true.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:25 AM
4

Same reason people upvote shitty novelty accounts. He does good work.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 01:23 AM
3

I don't believe so, at least not one that was actually important.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 04:36 AM
3

I'm just answering 2, no personal knowledge of 1. The main reason feminists won't be allies with us is because they don't understand that Pro-men's rights does not equal Anti-women's rights. (Fun fact I just discovered, my spell check sees Pro-women's as a valid word, but not Pro-men's) They believe that to fight FOR men's rights, we need to be fighting AGAINST something. And because there's nothing else in the gender binary, we must be attacking WOMEN. There's also a possibility that they won't…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 03:15 AM
2

This is an immigration issue, not an MR issue. Unless you can find something allowing women to cross the border in these circumstances, it doesn't belong here.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 03:02 AM
5

A good plan, but it won't work. You'll get a letter saying that they won't do anything, inflated to about 2 pages.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 02:59 AM
9

Protip: Put a "> " before a line to have it quote. "> This" will look like This.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 05:19 PM
17

She was ACCUSED of 300 times, but only charged for 12. Still not nearly long enough, but read the article.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 04:42 PM
8

Community is better.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 07:47 PM
1

Which is that?
/r/MensRights25/03/12 06:44 AM
5

Well... It's a start, at least.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 05:36 AM
2

I'm pretty sure it's based off the fact that if a woman thinks it, she can say she was abused and the guy goes to jail.
/r/MensRights23/03/12 11:21 PM
-1

Hitler had some fantastic policies on social services. (Free healthcare, and fitness programs). Just because you disagree with someone in one area doesn't mean you can't agree with them in others.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 04:16 AM
6

I think we could get feminists on our side on this one. Women are supposed to take care of the children? Come on!
/r/MensRights21/03/12 02:49 AM
2

People can change their minds, and the guy might not know that. Also, some women do it because they want guys to marry them, and see a kid as a way to trap them into it.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 12:26 PM
3

This happens to people who have been in a relationship for years. The man thinks he can trust her, but he can't. Crazy women don't carry around signs, you know. Women have a limited time frame when they can have children. When it starts running out, some of them get crazy. It just happens.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 03:34 AM
9

No, nobody wants to force women to have an abortion. One big concern is that if a woman gets pregnant, she immediately has complete control over the man. They BOTH were a part of the pregnancy, but she can decide to end it (as she should) or have the man pay a ridiculous amount of child support (in many cases more than 100% of the man's income) and keep it. The man has no say.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 01:22 AM
8

There are other options to abortion, such as adoption. If a woman decides that she wants to care for the child, she is making a conscious decision to. And she shouldn't be able to force a man into 18 years of financial slavery. Here is an excellent video on the subject, by a woman known as girlwriteswhat.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 01:17 AM
10

What about men who do wear condoms? (They aren't 100% effective). What about men whose partners lie to them about being on birth control? (It happens a LOT.) Why is abortion legal then? By your logic, if a woman has sex, she should be absolutely forced to carry the child. She knew the risks, and she has to be punished for having sex. This is a fantastic video on the subject by a woman known as girlwriteswhat. I encourage you to watch it.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 01:14 AM
25

Because it still obviously exists, as seen by a female part-time secretary making less than her male boss.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 09:25 PM
3

What about why? As in "This comment deleted for Extreme hatefulness, extreme sexual content", etc.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 06:13 PM
15

Men's rights isn't about predominantly male issues, it's about issues that affect men. Which includes issues that affect both men and women negatively.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 03:47 AM
14

Personally, I think the whole sucking the genitalia of a baby thing should be illegal, but whatever...
/r/MensRights06/03/12 12:55 PM
5

If he would be incapable of caring for a child, he shouldn't get custody. We're for equal treatment in custody, which means unfit mothers AND unfit fathers shouldn't get custody.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 05:52 PM
-1

Source?
/r/MensRights04/03/12 06:16 PM
4

Wait, so someone who gets hurt a lot has a lower threshold to pain?
/r/MensRights04/03/12 04:18 AM
12

I wonder if career choice impacts that? For example, men more likely to be doing physical labour. Would that affect the results?
/r/MensRights04/03/12 04:08 AM
2

But we're trying to convince people! We need to convince people! And we should start by saying why we're here! The title won't convince anyone except MRA's and misogynists, neither of which would help us. If we want to convince other people, we need to start with our arguments, not our hate.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:55 PM
2

But the title has nothing to do with misandry, it's just saying that one ideology hates the other. If you want it to involve misandry, we should say something like "Fighting the anti-male views created by feminism and white knights". But even then, the title, the FIRST thing people see about us, should be why we're here, not who hates us.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:45 PM
1

But the problem is societies views. Most people see women as oppressed, feminism as good, and men not having any issues that pertain only to men. If you want to try to change that, you need to start with "Here's the ways men are oppressed" and work up to anti-feminism, not "Yah, you know that ideology that everyone thinks is perfect? Well it goes fully against us!" and working up to the ways men are oppressed. EDIT: Plus many people don't know what Men's Rights actually means.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:37 PM
9

Yes, but not the biggest part. If we want to convince people, we should start with "Here's how men are oppressed in today's society", not "Here are all the people who hate us". Get into the people who hate us, yes. But start with why we're here.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:29 PM
3

Yah, she could. A judge can't say she "will". It would create a bias immediately, and fuck up what little of a justice system we still have.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:13 PM
5

WOW huge typo there. I'm not making any claims about the validity of the title, I'm just saying that the first thing people see about the sub should be "These are the issues that affect men" not "These are the people who hate us"
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:08 PM
14

Yes, but that shouldn't be the title of the sub. Our main goal, first and foremost, is to fight for rights for men. Not against feminism, although that is up there. And it will be easier to convince people if we have a more open title. EDIT: Accidentally wrote "protest" instead of "fight for". WTF brain...
/r/MensRights03/03/12 02:58 PM
5

Just don't let them catch you buttfucking any more kids, ok? FTFY.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 06:38 AM
8

Could we set up a bot for this kind of thing?
/r/MensRights02/03/12 07:21 PM
-57

She didn't commit any crime. She never filed a police report, probably just lied for attention. I don't think she wanted him killed. Yes, she's a disgusting human being, but technically she did nothing illegal.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 01:24 PM
3

No, that won't work. You'll just feed them, they'll create new accounts, and they'll go on about how we don't allow other opinions.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 03:31 AM
2

Look at the comments, they're mostly pretty supportive.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 08:40 PM
2

My parents told me to be damn sure, damn sure, that I always use my own condom.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 11:40 PM
6

Seriously? Can you give a link to that?
/r/MensRights18/02/12 12:11 AM
2

I thought that that was just with RES?
/r/MensRights15/02/12 10:32 PM
18

No they aren't. We just have portable video recorders now. For the first time in history, they're being recorded. They haven't changed, we're just not believing their bullshit anymore.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 05:51 PM
23

/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut It's been like that for a long time now.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 05:30 PM
1

Seriously? At least 38 upvotes, and only 8 signatures?
/r/MensRights04/02/12 02:15 PM
0

An actual injury resulting in requiring a couple of stitches is less severe than an action which could very likely have caused a serious accident and killed a man and a 14 year old child, as well as other motorists. That is what I am saying. Are you suggesting we allow anyone convicted of attempted murder go free?
/r/MensRights20/01/12 03:33 AM
-1

Yes, but the motorcycle guy was much more likely to kill someone than her.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 12:45 PM
1

No. But it is you causing serious risk to other drivers. And, if you have a kid, it is also child endangerment and maybe even gross negligence.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 04:50 AM
1

I'm not saying she shouldn't either! I'm just saying I think having a guy need stitches is not as bad as potentially killing a 14 year old kid by going at ridiculous speeds on a motorcycle.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 04:38 AM
1

But it wasn't a car. It was a motorcycle. Which is much more dangerous. And he had a 14 year old kid. And he was going at over 120 mph.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 04:36 AM
1

Yes, but we charge people for attempted murder for a reason! Seriously endangering the life of a child is a very serious thing.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 03:50 AM
-1

I'm sorry, but going on a motorcycle at that speed could have caused WAY more damage than getting glassed. I could open fire on a crowded shopping center and not hit anyone, I'd still go to jail.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 03:40 AM
5

What is the matter with you?
/r/MensRights17/01/12 02:55 AM
-1

Well, to be fair, he was going at over 120mph... I don't think you can really compare these two crimes. Not saying she deserved to get off free.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 02:48 AM
1

I have to say, the comments are nicer on this one.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 03:19 PM
19

I really don't think this is MR material. The fact that she hates men has nothing to do with the story, just that she's an idiot getting tech support. Many men and women are idiots and yell obscenities when tech support can't fix the problem.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 02:45 AM
5

I think that was his point.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 02:00 AM
2

Just ignore it and the troll will go away.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 02:33 AM
5

This has been posted here so many times.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 10:01 PM
3

Don't worry about it, it happens to all of us.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 11:05 PM
4

Everybody loves generalizations!
/r/MensRights06/01/12 02:46 AM
9

I don't know, many men prefer women like that.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 02:36 AM
6

I think that the "By the way, I took legal action so that you couldn't find out" will be more damaging.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 07:37 PM
19

Am I reading that right? Three years? For attempted murder?
/r/MensRights31/12/11 05:54 AM
3

I would consider these circumstances as "forced to retire", which is hardly different from fired.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 09:05 PM
2

I do find this difficult to listen to...
/r/MensRights30/12/11 05:14 AM
1

Can you link me to that one?
/r/MensRights30/12/11 03:56 AM
10

Hey, to be fair, ~40% (I think that's the figure) is pretty rare. </sarcasm>
/r/MensRights29/12/11 08:50 PM
6

Nevermind, fake. Guy's an asshole.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 03:50 PM
2

He may have been out, or asleep. And the mother beat them with a belt. It's entirely possible she told them not to say anything or scream or she'd hurt them more.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 07:56 AM
1

Which stuff?
/r/MensRights26/12/11 07:50 AM
3

Note the part where the woman who beat the children, had a string of lovers, and has severe, diagnosed, mental illness almost won full custody. Also the part where the courts determined that the children are better in a foster home than with their father.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 07:28 AM
1

Sorry, I thought they were married. My mistake.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 11:38 PM
0

I'm not saying to abolish it entirely! I just think there may be a better way!
/r/MensRights25/12/11 03:05 AM
1

And I think that that is wrong. But I'm not going to condone his actions because she can.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 02:57 AM
4

I think that this is actually a good use for child support. Not using it to keep him in the marriage, but just making sure she can raise her kids. Yes, the system is absolute shit, and should be based off of the cost of raising a child, not income. But it seems the guy agreed to have children, and left. Nobody should be able to do that with no responsibilities. It seems that he CHOSE to have children, and wasn't tricked into it.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 02:30 AM
11

Fixed link
/r/MensRights21/12/11 02:07 PM
20

Actually, the donor agreements prevent that. EDIT: So, I did a bit of research. Apparently, in some states at least, any contract like this isn't worth shit.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 07:06 PM
7

Can anyone make a version for men that allows us to rate women on attractiveness, how much they put out, etc.? Or would that be sexist?
/r/MensRights17/12/11 08:09 PM
0

To be fair, I go to a university near that, and the guy running the groups (in mine too) is NOT the kind of guy we want representing us. He is pretty misogynist.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 06:35 AM
1

But you can't know that they won't. As far as medical history goes, the child should know. But the man should have his right to privacy in those situations.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 06:53 PM
2

Agreed as far as the medical history part, and that can be known without the identity of the father. But I wouldn't call knowing your father a "right". Sperm donors do expect a level of privacy, and that should be protected.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 03:02 PM
4

I wouldn't really call that a right. Sperm donors should be able to have their privacy if they want it. It's a complex issue though.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 06:12 AM
3

Woah Woah Woah, that's a little harsh, isn't it?
/r/MensRights11/12/11 05:37 AM
1

Don't mothers abuse children twice as much as fathers?
/r/MensRights05/12/11 04:44 PM
26

There may be hope after all.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 02:32 AM
1

I see their point, but that is such BS.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 03:11 AM
2

No no, it's completely fair. If a guy does it, he gets 18 years of jail time. And if a woman does it, she gets 18 years of child support.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 12:46 AM
3

I agree with the manslaughter charge, and he should serve some time. It may be a little harsh, but he still committed murder. But then again, I can't really comment on this. I think the wife deserved it, but maybe he could have seen some signs. Overall, he did something wrong, but the circumstances are really difficult to make a call on. EDIT: Also, I think the reduction to 10 years is a good idea. Although I'd like to see the man who doesn't go insane after this.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 09:27 PM
5

Definitely freeze some first, just in case. Even if you don't use them, you might want to in the future. But then, I wouldn't say anything unless you're going to commit. Just say that you are sure you don't want children. If you're going to marry someone, tell them, they have a right to know.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 09:21 PM
1

Yah, she was a real bitch. I know them both, the guy is great.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 08:27 PM
7

What. The. Fuck? Does this open up the opportunity for jail time for women who lie about being on the pill?
/r/MensRights02/12/11 07:46 PM
0

It was because he didn't have a good enough car.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 11:29 PM
7

Are you above them for the sole reason of being a man?
/r/MensRights01/12/11 05:17 PM
3

And of course, you've spent years together and believe you can trust her fully.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 10:16 AM
24

My point is that there are many women who feel that they are so far above all males because they are women, and only deserve the best. If you actually have something (besides a vagina) to back up this claim, fine.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 08:20 AM
139

I can't upvote this enough. I hate the viewpoint of "I have a pussy, therefore you must be worthy for me", which I experience way too often. I just had a conversation with a girl in which she actually described a guy as "unworthy" of her.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 07:34 AM
6

Because the woman says "Don't worry, I'm on the pill. You can trust me".
/r/MensRights01/12/11 06:50 AM
4

When a mother does pretty much anything, that's used an argument for gaining custody. The opposite is true for men, and the obligation of child support remains. FTFY
/r/MensRights01/12/11 06:47 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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