TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Suitecake Archive

View 1 posts and 432 comments by Suitecake on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
118

Suitecake/r/MensRights05/07/13 07:58 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

That's basically my view. I pushed back on what I saw as an overdramatic overstatement of what 'Kill all men' implies. In the same camp, I think comparable speech from hurting men freaks people out more than it should. (though I think incels in general are more of a problem than the kill all men folks are, as incel seems to be more of a permanent identity, and that's where the toxicity builds up)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/20 05:52 PM
-6

You're confused. There's a _big_ difference between the hurt 'kill all men' might cause and the hurt 'toxic masculinity' might cause. If someone's hurt by the phrase 'toxic masculinity' _regardless of whether the speaker is properly referring to a subset of male gender norms rather than all men_, then that's on the hearer to learn more about what it means.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/20 05:07 PM
-2

I'm not a dancing monkey for you to summon up any time you want to have an argument about toxic masculinity.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/20 04:49 PM
0

Post is very well-written and compelling. FWIW, I read the post as hewing closer to my view than the folks I was talking to in the conversation you saw me in.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/11/20 04:07 PM
1

Seriously? That principle would go way beyond whatever sub-group of women you're demonizing. Any victim of any embarrassing crime would be less likely to accuse if their name was attached to it. Men and women.
/r/MensRights05/10/15 10:20 PM
3

This would have a chilling effect on genuine accusations too, though.
/r/MensRights05/10/15 12:21 PM
7

1/4th of the general populace. The figure might be different for women in porn.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 02:22 PM
-1

He isn't being criticized for his frustration; he's being criticized for his dumb, unreasonable idea.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 09:49 AM
0

You could slot in any ideology for your post and it would still "work." That's exactly my point. For some group of people, you could say "Liberalism is no longer a rational movement in the first world, ...". Replace the reference to shirtstorm with something like Sandy Hook or Planned Parenthood, and boom. You've got a handy bit of demagoguery. So it would be for "Socialism is no longer a rational movement...", libertarianism, atheism, what-have-you. That's why your two previous posts are just t…
/r/MensRights31/08/15 11:43 AM
2

I've been generally happy with the increase in rationalism in this sub-reddit compared to a few years ago, but then I see comments like this one get a good chunk of upvotes. This is just base tribalism.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 04:37 PM
-1

IE, with the mild talking points we've been batting around for years. You don't need to post here every time you 'school' one of your facebook friends.
/r/MensRights31/05/15 06:38 PM
1

I was sipping ginger ale from a handle-less mug and listening to piano music when I wrote that. Not sure where you're getting 'irrational hatred' from, or that I'm so upset I need to 'calm down.' My point, which you seemed to miss: Just because a community does one good thing doesn't justify their message. Perhaps some topics on TRP are supportive. That doesn't justify the genuine misogyny (for all that word is thrown around, it sure as hell applies here).
/r/MensRights16/05/15 11:21 AM
1

I think most of us are aware of what TRP is about. It's shallow, unlettered and hateful. If you want to argue that it isn't, then you have some work to do.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 11:19 AM
1

It's two very different things to say "I don't take shit from Republicans" and "I don't take shit from black people."
/r/MensRights16/05/15 11:17 AM
1

I'll bet some of the larger hyper-racist subreddits do charity every so often.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 05:11 PM
1

wat?
/r/MensRights14/05/15 12:24 PM
0

So you don't identify with the movement because feminists claim people who aren't MRA's are representatives of the MRM? Basically. The general image of MRM (and MRAs in general) evokes TRP. Rather than bothering with explaining over and over that I'm an MRA but think TRP is awful, I've found it's easier to avoid labels altogether. This is the first I've heard that TRP and MRAs consider themselves in two opposite camps.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 09:37 AM
1

The men's rights movement has no real gatekeeper, but the inclusion of MGTOW and TRP are why I don't publicly identify with the movement, as those groups are generally unlettered, shallow and hateful, and propose views antithetical to my core worldview.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 08:58 AM
1

This would be easier if you presented a manifesto (or other representative text) of TRP.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 08:54 AM
1

Not taking shit from women is not the same as abuse. MRAs don't take shit from feminists, does that mean we're abusing them? If I were to say "I don't take my girlfriend's shit", people would not conclude that my girlfriend and I enjoy a healthy and respectful relationship.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 08:53 AM
6

In your own words: Why?
/r/MensRights13/05/15 06:44 PM
1

"Freedom of speech" is often used to refer to the common belief that no person has a right to prevent or limit another person's expression (with some exceptions for egregious and demonstrably harmful speech). The reason you're getting flak is because this distinction comes up literally every time freedom of speech is talked about.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:37 PM
2

Agreed. I'm surprised this is getting upvoted.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 10:28 PM
1

It's a strong claim to say there's no such thing as private text.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 11:22 AM
-1

I know who she is, bro
/r/MensRights17/04/15 09:16 PM
3

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights17/04/15 09:13 PM
0

No reason to go there. I think she's pretty.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 09:12 PM
4

For each instance of feminists supporting men's issues, I can bring an instance of feminists demonizing men, men's issues and male sexuality. What is feminism to you? Feminism is an extremely powerful political movement that understands itself as a revolutionary underdog. Have you had bad personal experiences with people or events that were identified as feminist? If so, what happened? Not so much. My girlfriend is feminist and she's awesome. Most of my friends identify as feminist, and they're …
/r/MensRights17/04/15 09:11 PM
1

You misunderstood what I wrote. To put it another way: In the interview, Bentivegna doesn't blame OnShift. She doesn't even hint toward blaming OnShift. The difference in tone between her Facebook post and the interview is striking.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 08:55 PM
1

Perhaps not, but there's quite a difference between a rant posted on Facebook in the immediate passion of rejection and a measured interview.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 06:20 PM
1

Comparing within strata (men to women, Europeans to Maori) is tricky enough, as there are all kinds of meaningful variables lurking beneath the surface. Comparing across strata (all women to all Maori) makes everything much more complicated. Not only do you have to consider those meaningful, sneaky variables, but you also have to consider the overlap. The average age for women already partially includes the average age for Maori, since some Maori are women. How many Maori women? How many non-Mao…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 02:14 PM
3

I disagree. It isn't meant to go deep. It's meant to be wide, to provide context. It isn't complete; what graphic on the subject could be? And in isolation, it's perhaps not very useful. But when paired with OP's text comment, it's a different look at a tired subject.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 01:41 PM
8

I certainly found it interesting to see how women's wages fit into a broader picture, especially with, on average, women earning more than Maori. European women. Maori women still earn less than Maori men. Very interesting graphic.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 01:39 PM
14

I'm not so sure this is anything more than a private Facebook rant that got picked up and alchemized into a story by Buzzfeed (by way of her friend). Read back through the things Bentivegna says in the interview; she doesn't even explicitly blame OnShift. She just relays the facts. No rant, no charged rhetoric. This definitely doesn't make her look good, but I'm not so sure she wanted this to go any farther than her Facebook circle.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 01:36 PM
2

This. I had a friend basically cut all ties with me after he moved to another state because "you argue like a Gamergator/MRA, and I realized I didn't have to put up with that." Which sucks because he was a good friend. Some people get sucked into the politics too deep.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 01:27 PM
1

No, I believe he simply misspelled "sow", and misused a comma for a semicolon. As so: "Men have a day to sow. Therefore, your point is moot." Which is a great point. We haven't been considering the perspective of the farmer. Or alternately, the sexually successful male. Both are well-worth exploring in this context.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 04:36 PM
3

I don't think the majority of the male population [in the western world] are manginas/white knights. For that matter, every poll I've heard on the subject indicates that, at best, a quarter of the American population identifies as feminist.
/r/MensRights16/02/15 11:16 AM
1

Censorship generally implies one entity censoring another entity. When one entity censors itself, we call that self-censorship, and it's an odd phrase that kinda means something else (inner turmoil). You can absolutely dig around for a definition of censorship that applies in this case and justify your use of the word, but it really isn't what most people mean when they say 'censorship' (Australia is censoring violence in imported games; North Korea is censoring all incoming media). Now, if you …
/r/MensRights16/02/15 10:45 AM
1

That's a pretty silly definition of censorship, especially given that the information is widely available elsewhere.
/r/MensRights16/02/15 12:09 AM
10

Nothing was really censored. The original study still exists. This article is clickbait.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 07:10 PM
2

Is there any reason to believe that this article was deleted because of censorship? The reporting is shoddy regardless; it wasn't a Harvard study. The now deleted article was reporting on a study published in the American Journal of Public Health. None of the authors (as best as I can tell) have ever been employed by Harvard University. I dug around to see if the study was generally considered poor (it wouldn't be surprising that the article reporting on the study would be deleted if the study w…
/r/MensRights15/02/15 07:08 PM
1

I have social anxiety, but thanks for all the helpful advice
/r/MensRights10/02/15 11:31 PM
3

That's why I never go. My apartment complex has a free one, but I literally don't know how gyms work (how lifting works, what I should do, how many 'reps', etc), and I don't want to look like a know-nothing dumbass, so I just don't go.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 12:24 PM
-2

Alternate hypothesis: Men don't get special hours because there isn't a significant number of men who have voiced that they feel threatened by women in a gym. EDIT: For the people downvoting: I'm curious why you think this alternate hypothesis is unreasonable.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 12:23 PM
23

Guys, he's saying "If only it was true Anita only has two fans." EDIT: Context: When I made this reply, /u/regis-satanis' post was at -8
/r/MensRights01/02/15 06:04 PM
0

I do like jazz. I'm not sure what you mean by the second part. If you mean that everyone should approach an argument as an opportunity to learn something, then I agree wholeheartedly, and that was my original intent.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 09:04 PM
-1

I'm going to expand a bit on what I wrote. I'm going to word things differently, but that doesn't really mean I'm disagreeing with you. I think politicized discussions are actively destructive to the refinement of one's beliefs, and convincing others. They should be avoided. I think everything we (humanity) talk about is way more complex than the arguments we make. I think people put way too much effort into shaping their own argument and not enough effort into understanding other people's argum…
/r/MensRights29/01/15 01:42 PM
2

You write this as if you're never wrong.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 11:33 AM
1

What would Hitchens say?
/r/MensRights29/01/15 11:32 AM
1

Odd that you reference last year's most damaging scandal to feminism as evidence of the value of anecdote. Slate Star Codex did a great write-up on the scandal (The Toxoplasma of Rage), with an analysis of the role of anecdote in ideology that's quite relevant to the discussion here.
/r/MensRights20/01/15 04:31 AM
12

Pretty clever, but the natural follow-up is "Rape is far more prevalent than baby dumping." And then you get accused of minimizing rape, and on it goes.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 03:14 PM
0

I understand the importance of awareness (or, as some people put it, "raising consciousness"), but anecdotes are shit for that. They're hilariously easy to brush aside. Too, there's no need to raise awareness in this sub. We all already know about this issue.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 03:12 PM
1

If OP wants sympathy, that's cool. I'm all for that. But the read I was getting (and demonstrated in the comments) is that he was trying to make a point.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 03:11 PM
1

Of course she's unreasonable and shouldn't be unreasonable. But pointing that out doesn't help anything.
/r/MensRights19/01/15 03:10 PM
2

For sure. Perhaps I was too harsh on this.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 11:53 PM
4

As Christopher Hitchens said, "Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence." If you have the stomach for it, reasonable and productive disagreement is invigorating, and a great mechanism for refining our beliefs. But sometimes reasonable discussion isn't possible, and it sounds like it isn't with the person you describe.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 11:09 PM
1

I have no idea. That's scary as hell. It sounds like there are deep rifts in your family, but I hope this gets resolved.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 11:03 PM
7

Living with deep political disagreements like this is part of being an adult. We all have to deal with this. Sometimes you just gotta not talk about it with that one person. It's up to you whether the tension that these conflicts cause is worth it. I believe it is, and am not terribly quiet about what I believe.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 11:00 PM
1

Again, we all already know there's a double standard. If your purpose in posting this is convincing us that there's a double standard, that effort is wasted. How does your anecdote clarify or expand our understanding?
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:57 PM
1

Well sure. Hyperbolic language is an annoying, omnipresent problem in online opinion articles. Not unique to articles relevant to men's issues.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:47 PM
1

The author seems scared shitless of both sex and Communism. Not much content here. If he wants to argue against the ideas that Penny or Kollontai espouses, he should analyze it. "It's Communist" or "It's kinky" aren't counter-arguments.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:32 PM
3

That's kind of a fantastic scenario. I can't imagine anyone here really saves all the posted anecdotes to trot them out for people to persuade them that female-on-male violence (and the double standard) is a big deal. And even if they did, I can't imagine anyone would find the anecdote all that compelling (unless it was someone they knew personally, or was particularly sensational/egregious). Anecdotal evidence is awful, and accumulating it doesn't really help.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:21 PM
1

Your headline is mocking; what do you find absurd about this article? Did you read it? It's taking feminists to task for not doing enough to address pressures against people trying to raise a family. It even mentioned paid parental leave and paid sick leave, both of which allow fathers to be more active in their children's lives without losing face at work.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:17 PM
0

But this story isn't compelling. Seems like Stef is just a bitch.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:10 PM
2

Why would I apologize to someone that hit me? There's absolutely no value in retaliation. It may temporarily make a person feel better, but the situation ultimately won't be improved (and will almost always be harmed through escalation). Retaliating is a sign of weak mind: incivility and a lack of self-control.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:09 PM
1

But we all already know there's a double standard. How does your anecdote clarify or expand our understanding? If it doesn't, then this post is masturbation.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:05 PM
4

I'm proud of the fact that I don't escalate. I'm secure enough in my manhood that I don't need to beat the shit out of people who disrespect me to prove it.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:03 PM
5

Rape and Sexual Assault Among College-age Females, 1995-2013 - Bureau of Justice Statistics This study is really all you need.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 10:00 PM
5

There's a whole lot of middleground between brute retaliation and doormat. And don't turn this into what is and isn't masculine. I don't have to be a mindless asshole with no self-control to be a man.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 09:58 PM
1

I would have absolutely retaliated & socked her so hard in the lower gut/overies she would be floored for an hour. This kind of caveman retaliation nonsense is exactly why we can't have nice things. Grow the fuck up.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 09:55 PM
-1

If you want to talk about casual female violence towards men as a general problem in society, then you have to treat it at the level of a general problem in society. Statistics. A single anecdote of one guy at a party doesn't have anything to do with men's rights. It doesn't clarify anything. It doesn't expand our understanding of the issue. It's just a story. It's no more useful for understanding female-on-male violence than a single woman's rape anecdote is for understanding male-on-female sex…
/r/MensRights18/01/15 09:54 PM
2

This is pretty dumb. That said, I think parody songs as a genre are pointless.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 09:34 PM
-4

That sucks. What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights18/01/15 09:33 PM
1

Odd for the author to gloss over the 1950's without mentioning The Feminine Mystique. I can't imagine any feminists would really be convinced by this opinion mini-piece.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 09:31 PM
3

Oh. What you're describing is a regressive, Puritanical society that actually subjugates women. I don't know where you'd find one of those. If your skin is so thin that you can't handle living in a society that doesn't conform 100% to your (frankly backwards-ass) ideals, I doubt you'll be able to integrate anywhere.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 05:21 PM
1

What you're looking for sounds very much like how a standard American conservative's (Republican) ideal. I can't speak for other countries, but America is huge, and has significant cultural diversity. It sounds like you'd fit right in with rural, southern folk.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 05:01 PM
1

Whispering insults don't make them any less insulting. You're exactly the kind of rabid, thoughtless person that ruins reasonable discussion in this sub-reddit.
/r/MensRights17/01/15 10:09 PM
1

And i would prefer for your kind to fuck off Not exactly quiet words, hoss
/r/MensRights17/01/15 05:35 PM
1

Likewise; I don't have much patience for people who rant and rave.
/r/MensRights17/01/15 01:56 AM
3

One doesn't follow from the other. Both of the following statements may be true: 1) The court system marginalizes proper fathers the vast majority of the time 2) There are a significant number of fathers who are emotionally abusive and manipulative or violent.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 04:39 PM
2

I prefer my anti-feminist content to at least partially overlap with men's issues. This is just pure anti-feminism. It isn't even that. It's just a thing some feminists did that some people here might think is weird.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 04:13 AM
1

Women Behaving Badly
/r/MensRights16/01/15 12:52 AM
-7

But then how would we harvest the karma? EDIT: It's sarcastic, folks
/r/MensRights16/01/15 12:17 AM
3

We have no context for this video. For all we know, he could be emotionally abusive and manipulative, or violent. He certainly seemed more interested in maligning his ex ("This is what your mother is really like") than telling his daughter he loves her on video.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 12:14 AM
-2

This doesn't have anything to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 12:12 AM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2sjxep/dershowitzs_letter_in_wsj_yesterday_nightmare_of/
/r/MensRights16/01/15 12:10 AM
2

I don't think it'd be all that different. Her remarks are already considered very awkward.
/r/MensRights16/01/15 12:10 AM
1

I'm pretty skeptical that a boycott and letter-writing campaign to Intel will help our cause any. Minds aren't really changed by who is and is not sponsoring opponent organizations.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 04:38 PM
3

(or better yet, just use the burritoes as is).
/r/MensRights09/01/15 04:19 AM
0

As before, if you really cared to find out (rather than throw the accusation at anyone who disagrees with you), my post history is accessible.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 03:50 AM
3

How do you know?
/r/MensRights09/01/15 02:55 AM
1

Because Anita Sarkeesian is not popularly perceived as a con artist.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 02:49 AM
0

Your values and beliefs are flighty indeed if they can be swayed so easily.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 02:48 AM
1

From the article: Some female sailors have complained that the short haircuts they receive do not prepare them for entering the service, when longer hairstyles are allowed. Now Navy recruits will be able to select any hairstyle that meets the service's grooming regulations. Later in the same article: Brown said the NSTC is also considering changes to the haircut rules for new male recruits, who are now required to have their heads closely shaved at the start of boot camp.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 02:47 AM
1

You want us to brigade the youtube video? No thx
/r/MensRights09/01/15 12:17 AM
9

You're implying that the confessor is being abused by the commenters, but the commenters are hella supportive. Here are the top ten comments at the time of this comment: insidious611 318 points : 3 replies : 4 hours ago reply That fucking sucks dude. Have this upvote. Also, tell your wife, you don't want to hide things like this. shark805 211 points : 10 replies : 4 hours ago reply Not achieving orgasm could be mental, as you "caved" and were not thrilled about the procedure. Subdued resentment …
/r/MensRights09/01/15 12:12 AM
11

Because a woman making a man a sandwich carries with it implications of "That's what a woman is for", whereas this tweet presumably implies only that the author really likes burritoes. If you wanted a fair reversal, you'd have to choose something like 'pancakes' (or better yet, just use the burritoes as is).
/r/MensRights09/01/15 12:07 AM
-1

Long hair was typical of an anti-military counter-culture. You can't expect the military to lax its rules in response to that.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 11:59 PM
1

No worries, just giving you a heads up in prep for the downvotes =p
/r/MensRights08/01/15 10:07 PM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2rprcd/recent_studies_show_men_who_take_selfies_are/
/r/MensRights08/01/15 10:04 PM
0

Ah, I was under the impression you wanted to efficiently exact social change, not just whine.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 09:55 PM
-2

You have to weigh the effort against the reward. In this case, the effort would probably be significant (the military is pretty damn traditional), and the reward would be extremely minor.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 09:40 PM
1

Actually a pretty good article overall. Recognizing that good work can be done separate from feminism.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 09:39 PM
1

I wish we had an objective explanation as to why this video was not sufficient for charging. I suspect the video itself doesn't have enough context to demonstrate actionable abuse. Disgusting behavior, though. Parents should never scream at their children, and certainly shouldn't discipline in anger (if they physically discipline at all).
/r/MensRights08/01/15 09:35 PM
0

Given your propensity for calling me a liar and a bad-faith feminist troll (despite a long, accessible history of participating in this sub-reddit), and your general unwillingness to support your claims with evidence (preferring instead to make more claims), I'm not confident enough that this discussion will be productive to invest more time into it. Which is a shame because there's definitely a good discussion worth having in the second half of your post.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 09:18 PM
5

This isn't someone we want on our side.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 09:09 PM
2

Did you mean to link something?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 09:06 PM
2

For archival purposes. Not as a value judgment on the content of the material, but because it's worthwhile to have a copy of it on hand. Perhaps the copy of The SCUM Manifesto on the SBC website is for much the same reason: archiving feminist literature. Or perhaps it's not. I have no way of knowing. The point is, without context (a syllabus would be helpful, especially if it has some indication as to how it will be taught), the presence of that text on that ugly website doesn't constitute an em…
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:59 PM
-3

This just seems like an effort to declare anything sexist that can be twisted enough to make it work. Feminists do this too and get made fun of for it. As far as issues facing men in society today, freedom of hairstyle in the military isn't in the top five.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:55 PM
2

Why does the Library of Congress have a copy of Mein Kampf?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:50 PM
-4

Is it? Short hair is the norm for men, and isn't the norm for women. I'm saying this as a long-haired hippie who won't cut his hair for job interviews. I don't think this is that big a deal.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:45 PM
0

Not exactly helping your reputation. Also, you should go back there as the wide-ranging restrictions on speech make it a much better fit for you. The restrictions help to keep discussion reasonable. It's definitely more restrictive than I would like. One is not required to support common knowledge with evidence. Nor is one obligated to enter into formal debates with people who argue in bad faith such as yourself. It isn't common knowledge that prominent [contemporary] feminists embrace the SCUM …
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:43 PM
2

I meant "It would be easy" in the sense of "If they actually support X, it would be easy to demonstrate that they do." These people generally make money on pageviews, and pageviews are generated by controversy. And what would be more controversial than an explicit embrace of The SCUM Manifesto? Perhaps they don't mention feminist literature. I'm not about to scour their blogs to find out, and haven't been able to craft the right Google query to snipe those posts. Either way, so much the worse fo…
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:39 PM
-1

Surely we have bigger fish to fry.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:29 PM
2

Yeah, I checked up on them on wiki after you linked it. Given their small size, I don't know if "prominent" is the right word for it. Are they churning out a lot of authors that champion the SCUM Manifesto? More importantly, what about my other point, that we have any indication that the posted copy of the SCUM Manifesto is anything other than archival for historical significance?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:26 PM
1

Feel free to dig through my history. I'm a frequent contributor to /r/FEMRADebates (private sub, so it may not actually show up if you aren't an approved submitter; I identify there as an egalitarian), and used to contribute regularly to /r/mensrights until about five months ago, when I became frustrated with the vitriol and ranting that tried to pass for a reasonable discussion. More recently, I'd heard that this sub-reddit has shaped up quite a bit, and I've been lurking for a week or so. For …
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:19 PM
-1

Prove it. Given that you refused to provide evidence for your own claim elsewhere on this post, the irony here is delightful.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 08:01 PM
0

What are you implying?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:58 PM
1

To sub: Stop downvoting /u/surfingbrit. It's poor Reddiquette.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:55 PM
0

No you didn't. You linked to a women's college that has archived the book. You didn't provide a syllabus indicating that it's being actively taught, and you didn't provide lecture notes or a lecture video indicating how it's being taught. For all we know, it's archived for its historical significance. I've never heard of Sweet Briar College before, and I certainly don't know who's maintaining that page. Doesn't exactly qualify for "prominent feminist" either. It would be extremely easy to demons…
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:47 PM
0

You generally shouldn't make claims if you aren't prepared to provide evidence. I did a bit of googling and didn't come up with anything.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:40 PM
-2

Your argument wasn't very compelling either.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:37 PM
0

To reiterate, I'm not arguing that it is satire. What I care about is your implicit claim that it's embraced by prominent [contemporary] feminists. So, I ask again: Can you provide some examples of prominent, contemporary feminists that embrace the SCUM Manifesto?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:32 PM
-1

So we have two positive claims here. One, that it's generally used as a literal manifesto for feminism (made by /u/guywithaccount). Two, that it's generally interpreted as satire (made by me). I don't really know. Hence, why I couched it with "My understanding is..." I'm not here to defend it as satire, or defend Valerie Solanas. My real interest is whether or not that first positive claim is true, and what prominent, contemporary feminists have to say about it.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:22 PM
1

See also https://www.yahoo.com/health/stay-away-from-guys-who-do-this-107417304132.html EDIT: From http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2rprcd/recent_studies_show_men_who_take_selfies_are/
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:16 PM
0

And Heidegger was a Nazi, but he's still taught in philosophy courses because his writing was influential. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto#As_parody_and_satire
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:11 PM
2

Yes, that's the general consensus amongst liberal folk. But there are whole swaths of the English-speaking world (at least in America) who disagree. I see the male pronoun used for unknown gender all the time. And Georgia definitely ain't liberal.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:05 PM
1

I'm not trying to bait you into anything. I'm pointing out some mistakes you're making that undermine your argument. These mistakes aren't subtle, and would get rightly hammered on in a general discussion. The first mistake is your too-quick claim that this instance of 'his' rather than 'their is an instance of sexism. We don't know that. There are whole swaths of people who use 'his' for indeterminate gender. It's recommended by Strunk & White, which plenty of people still hold as the one, true…
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:04 PM
0

Maybe Georgia's form is maintained by a Strunk & White adherent.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:50 PM
0

Unless you're being sarcastic through two levels of indirection instead of just one, I'm confused. It seems like you're disagreeing with /u/King_Turnip that this instance is the product of a grammatical practice, rather than sexism. What evidence do you have that this use of the male pronoun stems from sexism?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:42 PM
1

Why?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:39 PM
1

fuckin people not voting the way i want them to
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:36 PM
16

Even if you went on a date with a woman, you'd end up having to jerk yourself off? Seems like a self-burn.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:36 PM
3

If only /u/romulusnr voted differently, our political woes would be over
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:34 PM
9

Like it or not, the linen that FemFreq peddles is generally considered socially progressive. It behooves a company like Intel to support these things. Moralizing these kinds of business decisions has always seemed strange to me. It's for profit and image. Intel isn't taking a stand for misandry. They're just playing into the politicized diversity nonsense that's hip right now.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:30 PM
2

the convenient use of "his" rather than "their" is intentional. What evidence do you have for this? The use of 'his' for unknown gender is considered old-fashioned, but not at all uncommon. Did the form not have sections for mother's last known address, mother's last known place of work, mother's criminal history, etc?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:26 PM
2

Was this actually presented by the hospital, or by some third-party?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:24 PM
1

Well, technically, feminism has the SCUM Manifesto. And prominent feminists have embraced this man-hating screed, or at least defended it. Can you give some examples, particularly of contemporary, prominent feminists? My understanding is that it is generally interpreted as satire rather than an explicit and literal manifesto. EDIT: /u/guywithaccount finally declined to provide evidence for his first claim. View with suspicion.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:23 PM
1

What evidence do you have otherwise?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:20 PM
1

And now you're playing your emotional experience as a trump card. It sucks that that happened to you, but it's irrelevant to this conversation. If anything, it should demonstrate how far removed from serious issues this quibbling over a pronoun is. EDIT: Everything you're doing in this comment thread? We make fun of feminists when they do it.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:15 PM
4

It's a sub-reddit for men's issues, not grammar. It's pretty clear what the point you're trying to make is. As /u/King_Turnip points out, it's just grammar. Not really worth getting worked up over. For every instance of this, I can find you a positive instance. There's no real sexism on display here. This post reeks of the same PC oversensitivity that many of us find obnoxious.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 04:59 PM
1

100% are unaware this [lack of diversity ]is a problem That's not a racist or sexist claim, and calling something you disagree with 'ignorant' is a quick way to ensure any ensuing discussion won't be productive.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 04:20 PM
14

It didn't seem to be what you were suggesting. It seemed like you were suggesting this use of the male pronoun is indicative of sexism. If you really are only suggesting that this grammatical practice is outdated, then this whole post is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 04:16 PM
0

You played pretty fast and loose with what you were criticizing. The image never claims that white christian men are a problem. It claims that the lack of representation of people other than white christian men is a problem. That isn't a racist or sexist claim (and 'ignorant' is probably too inflammatory a word for 'unaware of valid reasons why'). Accusing people of racism and sexism when they aren't being racist or sexist is a real problem, and precludes reasonable discussion.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 04:15 PM
1

Anyone can believe anything is harmful to society. But they have to at least try to prove it if they really want to convince anyone. As far as I know she hasn't even come close to doing that. So basically what her videos are really about is "I don't like these things and you shouldn't either." This is all completely irrelevant to my point. It doesn't matter whether anyone can believe anything is harmful to society. It doesn't matter if her arguments are weak (we agree that they are). What matter…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 11:11 PM
2

The reason I put "hate" and "like" in quotes is to demonstrate that people are capable of maintaining these conflicting feelings towards objects/classes/whatever. People can both hate and like something. This was all just to counter your argument that (paraphrased) There isn't a huge difference between "I don't like these games" and "These games are harmful to society at large because of the effect they have on people." There is a significant difference between those two claims. It's possible (a…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 10:19 PM
2

That doesn't really have anything to do with my point =p
/r/MensRights28/08/14 10:14 PM
3

But there is. You can argue that X is harmful to society at large while still "liking" X. Ever heard a sermon against pornography? Or a recovering addict describe the object of their addiction? People can "hate" these things because of their destructive tendencies, but also, on a more primal level, "like" them (usually with a sense of guilt or shame). Regardless, Anita Sarkeesian unequivocally isn't saying "I don't like these games," and if you misrepresent her videos, you're doing yourself (and…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 07:53 PM
0

That article quickly left a sour taste in my mouth. It felt very red pilly. KnowYourMeme's writeup is a great introduction.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 07:41 PM
4

To be fair, if a game company brought me in for consultation, I'd be dictating left and right
/r/MensRights28/08/14 07:08 PM
5

To be fair, Anita's point is less "I don't like these games" and more "These games are harmful to society at large because of the effect they have on people." I don't agree with her, but if we misrepresent her goals, we give her team an easy point.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 07:07 PM
7

Well, you aren't really contributing to the discussion. You've been hostile and smug from post one.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 07:06 PM
1

No, that's our job. We all need more goddamn moxie, and less whining about feminists not doing all the shit for us.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 07:21 PM
-1

Nice sidestep.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 04:35 AM
3

To be fair, when I bring this up with feminists I know, they have without exception advocated for a consistent application for men and women. Usually that means getting rid of the draft entirely, but a few have said that women should also be obligated. No one has tried to defend a man-only obligation. As for feminist institutions, since 1980, NOW publicly supported the abolition of the draft, and if not that, the inclusion of women in the draft. "women have been evading selective service" is abo…
/r/MensRights09/05/14 04:16 AM
3

Hyperbole?
/r/MensRights09/05/14 04:12 AM
1

Because of how shadowbanning works, you wouldn't see any 'yes' answers (except your own!)
/r/MensRights05/05/14 09:24 PM
6

Because it's irrelevant. I don't think anyone here is saying all feminists at the time were involved in the White Feather Campaign.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 03:27 PM
0

I think they mean the people that read and loved Atlas Shrugged and went bonkers over Ron Paul.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 10:51 PM
2

Or, making good software is really hard.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 06:53 PM
7

While I'll agree that some of his points are overblown (I'm not convinced feminists at large hate transgender people), the majority of them seem to me to be spot on. I'm curious what your response is to this paragraph from his post: A huge amount of feminist discourse characterises men as predatory, privileged and patriarchal, writes off issues affecting men as entitled whining, advocates a zero-sum approach to gender issues, declares men to all be 'potential rapists' (or worse, potential paedop…
/r/MensRights08/04/14 07:59 PM
1

Very well written and persuasive.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 11:11 PM
6

To be fair, it's the Daily Mail.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 10:55 PM
-1

Please try to convince me that feminism as a movement does not approve of U of T's extremists in the same manner that Christianity does not approve of WBC. The U of T feminists are just as representative of feminism as your next door neighbor. But Christianity does approve of the WBC insofar as WBC is a part of Christianity. We qualify it. The WBC is extremist. In the same way, I'd qualify the U of T protesters as extremist. I agree that it's a lot more acceptable to criticize the WBC than femin…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:55 PM
0

I'd call 'mainstream feminism' the feminism of the people I actually bump into. IE, intellectually-minded young people (20-30). People who aren't employed in academia, and weren't picketing at U of T. Mainstream feminism is looking to critique and correct injustices that women experience because they are women. Frequent subjects are the objectification of women, societal attitudes toward rape, and discrimination against women in the workplace. Some of the more internationally-minded feminists fo…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:40 PM
0

Each of the feminists I've discussed it with had been completely unaware. I've literally heard your exact argument with respect to Christianity and the WBC. Most people know that the WBC is wildly different from mainstream Christianity. Accordingly, most people know that the protests at the U of T are more the product of pissy children than mainstream feminism. But you and others, for some reason, don't draw the same distinction in the same way that some of the more riled-up atheists condemn Chr…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:34 PM
0

the difference between christians is that many christians are actively critical of what the Church organizations are doing. And many Christians aren't. All the people I heard yelling about the Catholic Church's stance on contraception in HIV-infested Africa were non-Catholics. I think the problem is simple: we (people) aren't very good at being critical of the institutions we identify with. There are some exceptions (it's very fashionable to be critical of America, as an American). where is the …
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:16 PM
0

Third-wave feminism consists of exactly that criticism. It would be foolish of us to expect any movement for social change to be both complete and consistent from its moment of creation.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:08 PM
0

You sound like a true believer.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:06 PM
0

Ranting is fun and fine as long as it's on-topic. I'm aware of the issues facing men in our society.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:05 PM
-1

This tired argument directly mirrors the argument that Christianity as a whole is fucked because the Catholic Church did/does bad things. Christianity is huge. Much bigger than any institution. So is feminism. A lot of people self-identify as feminists without participating in NOW. It's a mistake to round up the actions of a zealous minority (such as the infamous University of Toronto protests) with feminism.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:03 PM
2

Only if you get bogged down in the philosophy. From a practical perspective, I've found feminists are generally willing to agree that men face significant problems in today's society, and those problems should be resolved. I don't agree that their idea of the patriarchy is at all relevant to those issues, but if they're on our side, what do I care? It's just a religious discussion at that point. If the homeless are hungry, I don't give two shits if it's a Mormon or atheist that feeds them.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:13 AM
1

but it's wrong to say that to be pro-men's rights is to be anti-feminism. Demonstrated, if nothing else, by the existence of people who are both pro-MR and not anti-feminism.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:05 AM
3

Pro-men's rights sentiment is inseparable from anti-feminist sentiment. This sounds like bullshit. Presumably, there are women's issues and men's issues. Feminism has worked on fixing a lot of women's issues, and is much farther along in its goal than the MRM is with fixing men's issues. Where feminism ends up harming the state of men in society, we should chirp up. Accordingly, once MRM actually gets churning and starts fixing these issues, we should be open to criticism from other groups as we…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:02 AM
3

Is a human being typing this, or is this some elaborate text-generating bot?
/r/MensRights18/03/14 10:01 PM
1

The Darwinian impulse is not inconsistent with a strong notion of free will.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:11 PM
0

Non-issues can be great stories. I'll bet this one has earned both Yahoo and CBC a lot of ad revenue.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 11:05 PM
2

Replace 'America' with 'Canada' and my point still stands. I'm not arguing for this as a significant issue. It's a curiosity. What I am saying is that theorizing about flipping the genders (as OP does) is useless.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 10:56 PM
4

If this note was written with 'man', it would be an isolated incident. I'm aware of no sub-culture in America that believes men have no place in high-performance or critical workplaces. There is a (very small and absurd) sub-culture in America that believes women have no place in high-performance or critical workplaces, and should be nothing more than baby factories.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 10:36 PM
3

The egalitarians aren't the ones spewing hateful drivel without any justifying argument. In other words, there's a reason you're being heavily downvoted.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:09 PM
2

If you don't enjoy or aren't capable of productive disagreement, you're welcome to leave. We don't need any demagogues.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 08:19 PM
3

You and a few others. As above, there's a bunch of children in this sub-reddit who don't know how to productively disagree. A lot of my stuff is downvoted because I actively seek out and argue with the lowest common denominator.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 05:54 PM
4

You are an entertaining troll.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 05:32 PM
6

Your beliefs are ridiculous.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 05:29 PM
4

I don't need to be informed when someone says something stupid on Tumblr.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 05:50 AM
1

Dude. It's The Blaze. Sensationalism is Glenn Beck's thing. Bless him, he'll never let facts get in the way of a good kerfluffle.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 05:46 AM
1

That right there is dedication.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 01:06 AM
7

It's a silly picture. No substance here. This isn't a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 11:41 PM
2

Women know stuff.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 11:39 PM
1

If it used to be recognized by Chrome, my guess is you added it to your internal dictionary. Digging through Chromium's hunspell log, the word misandry or any of its conjugations has never existed in either the base dictionary (which is pulled from http://wordlist.sourceforge.net/, and is used by numerous major software projects, including FireFox and LibreOffice), or Chromium's extension on the base dictionary. In other words, this isn't a conspiracy, and there's no political oppressor present …
/r/MensRights04/03/14 11:06 PM
-1

HAIL
/r/MensRights04/03/14 09:32 PM
2

I don't see why. It's not as though an increase in awareness about disposability would remove all risk-taking. Some people (primarily men) engage in risky activity because they want to. You can boil it down to Darwinian mate posturing all you want, but the fundamental point is that some men like taking risks. Riskier jobs generally pay better than less risky jobs, and an increase in awareness about disposability isn't going to change any of that.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 08:16 PM
1

I'm not a troll, there's just a handful of petulant people in this sub-reddit (yourself included, apparently) who can't handle being disagreed with. I'm very much interested in men's issues, and don't identify as a feminist.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 08:07 PM
2

I've been active here for months. Check my history. Not a brigader. I'm just not a militant asshole. I'm still dedicated to men's issues.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 08:06 PM
0

I'm against circumcision too, but that doesn't change the motive of the author, which is clear. Prowling around, looking for a fight isn't helpful, especially if it results in drumming up a harmless post into a battleground. It just makes you look silly.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:58 PM
4

I did read the Twitter entries. I saw a lot of incredulity ('omg cant believe @TNR posted this drivel'), but not a whole lot in the way of accusations. I don't need to be notified every time there's a mild controversy on Twitter.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:45 PM
3

Coined in the late 19th century, and only appearing in a dictionary in the middle of the 20th definitely qualifies as a 'very young word.' It seems far more likely to me that Chrome and Firefox's dictionaries (if they don't use the same) are just operating on a subset of common words, and that it isn't missing for political reasons. EDIT: As noted elsewhere, this is the case.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:44 PM
2

Increasing awareness about male disposability would lead to 96% of oil workers stopping their work? That's, frankly, incredible.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:42 PM
0

I know. I'm talking about the clear intent behind the original wording.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:42 PM
0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahVsa0jAdy0
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:41 PM
2

Misandry is a very young word. Misogyny isn't. If it bothers you, find out what dictionary Chromium and Firefox use and fight for misandry to be included.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:48 PM
0

Couldn't find it after reaching the end of the first page. Unless by 'false accusations about the mrm' you're equivocating and mean 'accusing them unfairly' (and not, say, accusing them of rape). Either way, I don't think Twitter chains are noteworthy. This is pretty tame for what I suspect happens on Twitter every day.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:45 PM
20

That's a ridiculous explanation.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:42 PM
2

Google and Mozilla don't write dictionaries. They probably outsourced it (my guess is they use some open source one). Just add 'misandry' and 'misandrist' to your browser's dictionary. Type the word in a comment bar, right click the word, and select 'Add to Dictionary'
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:39 PM
0

Why not?
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:24 PM
1

I really don't think an increase in awareness about male disposability will lead to a breakdown of capitalism or civil society. The systems we participate in aren't so fragile.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:23 PM
0

Well, there goes the discussion. You broke it.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 08:19 AM
1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoPVC4YxDlI
/r/MensRights04/03/14 08:13 AM
1

Suppose France and Germany are about to face off in WWII. France has a severe supply chain issue, whereas the Germans (in their ingenuity) do not. By your logic, France's best course here would be to ignore the problem. After all, "worrying about something that one's opponent doesn't have to worry about gives those opponents an advantage." Of course, away from the armchair's dreamworld, that's just not how it works. Things don't go away by ignoring them. The correct course is for France to take …
/r/MensRights04/03/14 08:02 AM
0

What?
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:51 AM
1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahVsa0jAdy0
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:50 AM
1

Wouldn't it be better to raise awareness of disposability, so that we no longer consider men disposable, rather than trying to make women more disposable?
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:04 AM
1

I don't disagree with the MRM. I disagree with your absurd formulation. =p
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:10 AM
1

I like GirlWritesWhat's arguments, but she's way too condescending and antagonistic for my tastes. This discussion of love by Warren Farrell is my absolute favorite "men's rights video." It's positive, balanced and clear.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:09 AM
-2

Everyone who disagrees with me is a troll and/or idiot
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:07 AM
2

Damn straight it does
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:05 AM
0

You are the extremist splinter I have to distance myself from every time I identify as an MRA. You are why our movement isn't taken seriously. You are why we have too much heat and not enough light. It'll be fun to share this sub-reddit with you.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 04:03 AM
-4

I did back when I thought it was Jezebel. Cosmo, less so. I would hope the intactivist folk would spend their time on more productive stuff rather than inflating a harmless article into an issuetm
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:58 AM
-4

As an MRA, I unfortunately have proxy enemies generated by assholes like you, who prowl around looking for a fight and snap at otherwise well-meaning people. That makes it rather difficult to change minds.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:56 AM
0

...what? Pretty sure I picked that verb up from the Savage LoveCast. EDIT: See this tweet.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:52 AM
-1

I did. I just didn't check the header. It's a non-issue. Just substitute 'Cosmo' for 'Jezebel' in my previous post and the point stands.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:46 AM
-4

You're just looking for a fight, and inventing enemies if you can't find a real one. No thanks.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:45 AM
0

Feminism means a lot of things. Some people define feminism to mean 'pushing toward equality for all people, specifically in the context of breaking down oppressive gender roles.' I'm for that. Another kind of feminism is, as you say, activism focused on improving the state of women with respect to oppressive gender roles. Not opposed to men. Just focused on women. That's where, I think, the MRM comes in: it's the same thing, but focused on men. There's a lot of angsty, militant folk in this sub…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:44 AM
-2

That's very compelling
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:37 AM
0

I'd rather err on the side of charity than assumed malice. If that's what it boils down to, I'm happy to leave it there.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:33 AM
-2

You're not making points. You're making one point based on an absurd interpretation of the article. If I don't grant a premise, then I don't have to address the conclusion. In other words, a reason not to give a blowjob is if a man is uncircumcised. How much more clear can you get than that? I'm not being funny, but is English your second language? As a native speaker, the intent in the article was very clear to me as 'This is a reason a woman might give for not giving a blowjob.' It could just …
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:28 AM
-1

But that's not what the bake sale is saying. The bake sale people believe there is an inequity, and want to fix that inequity because they believe in equality. Believing in equality is admirable. They just happen to be (as you and I believe) mistaken on the facts. But if we're charitable (and I think it's absurd to assume they're malicious), they're well-meaning people who are trying to raise awareness for a cause they believe in. That's a goddamn virtue, and it's a petty militancy that tries to…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:22 AM
-6

Because Jezebel Cosmo wants clicks, and that's a snappier title than "18 reasons a woman might reasonably have for not giving a guy a blowjob"
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:17 AM
-4

I completely disagree. I read her original no.6 as, in spirit, what she eventually edited it in to say, before I even saw the edited material. I mean, shouldn't we be a LITTLE self-aware if we're agreeing with Jezebel Cosmo commenters?
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:16 AM
-2

But it isn't implying that. You can twist it into that if you're looking for a fight, but the intent is clear. I think it's harmless because I think the interpretation you're espousing (which makes it 'harmful) is absolutely absurd and disingenuous.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 03:15 AM
-2

It isn't saying "You shouldn't give uncircumcised guys blowjobs." It's saying "One reason a woman might have for not giving a blowjob is if the guy is uncircumcised." Not because it's a bad thing, but because it's a dealbreaker for some ladies. Which is fine. We're allowed to be arbitrary when it comes to what we find attractive. She could just have easily mentioned any other detail. Her edit makes her intent clear. If you want to give an uncut guy a blowjob, I'm sure the author would give you h…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:42 AM
0

That isn't a relevant detail to the analogy. Even if I was certain (and really, I would say that I am in the colloquial meaning), I still wouldn't shout down a booth guy.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:39 AM
2

Ah yes, Scabman's Law: Sub-reddits must not overlap in domain
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:18 AM
1

It's a shame this got heavily downvoted, and that you're catching shit. Thanks for posting this.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:17 AM
2

No
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:11 AM
2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf2mBVcYS10
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:08 AM
-3

It isn't bigoted. People have every right to fuck only those people they want to fuck. I'm not an equal opportunity fucker. Most people I've talked to about the subject has some kind of preference. I met up with a girl last year for a one night stand (ish), and it turned out that her clitoris was huge (like, on the order of a small penis). Squicked me out a bit, and we didn't really have sex. I don't hate her, and I don't hate people with big clits. Some people love that shit.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:07 AM
1

Frankly, this just sounds like closed-mindedness. It looks like you're only interested in parroting your own opinion, where any dissent is put down is 'illogical' (which is amazing, since I'm not even making a positive claim!) That's both disingenuous and, worse, boring.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:04 AM
-1

The article isn't saying "Don't blow uncircumcised men." The article is saying "You don't have to give blowjobs if you don't want to." It then just lists reasons a woman might have for not wanting to give a blowjob. I mean, I'm all for hating on Jezebel, but let's get flustered about the actual shit it spews. This is harmless.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 01:58 AM
1

Logic is what dictates the flow of premises to a conclusion. You aren't doing any of that. You're just printing conclusion, conclusion, conclusion. I'm getting the feel that you don't have productive disagreements very often.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 01:48 AM
1

caught me
/r/MensRights04/03/14 01:48 AM
3

Yeah, sounds like bullshit to me.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 01:47 AM
1

Wouldn't it be $1.00 for white people and $0.75 for black people? I really don't give a shit tbh. $1.00 is a damn good price for baked goods, and they're just trying to spread a message. I don't happen to agree with that message, but it ain't rustlin my jimmies
/r/MensRights04/03/14 01:02 AM
4

There's a difference between the motive behind a goal and the unintended consequence. All the feminists I know and have talked to have said they want equality between the genders. Most of them (excepting a small, angsty subset) understand that men have significant societal problems too. The goal of advocating for equal rights is equal rights. While it's true that this has come, in some cases, without equal responsibility (here in the States, Selective Service is the most significant example), th…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:28 AM
-3

You're reading way too far into this thing.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:23 AM
2

I'm not interested in responding to soapboxing. All I'm reading here is absurd overstatements presented as bald fact without a shred of justification. I think it's clear to reasonable people that most feminists are reasonable and aren't out to get us.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:22 AM
5

It's a pretty impressive argument where 'equal rights = supremacy' Both genders have issues. Feminism focuses on women's issues, and we focus on men's issues.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 11:04 PM
-6

You define feminism very differently from my friends who identify as feminists.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 10:38 PM
0

I don't get it. Is this some kind of semantics game? Not yelling at people is not the same thing as yelling at people.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 10:34 PM
1

All you jaded people should come to Maryland, because apparently it's the only place where most feminists (and most people) aren't insufferable twats.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 10:28 PM
1

wat
/r/MensRights03/03/14 10:26 PM
2

Becuz big red, we should feel justified in being slightly less douchey
/r/MensRights03/03/14 10:26 PM
-2

Not being a douche?
/r/MensRights03/03/14 10:25 PM
-1

To answer your rhetorical question =p Because, unfortunately, a large subset of this sub-reddit is more concerned with anti-feminism than pro-masculism (in much the same way that /r/atheism is a hotbed for anti-Christianity rather than pro-humanism). Being anti- something is cathartic and unifying, but not very helpful.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 09:38 PM
2

As best as I can tell, your point is 'Why should we worry about image if feminists don't have to?' I'm too much of a pragmatist to give a shit about ideological fairness. Even if it is unfair, that doesn't change the fact that we have to be extremely careful with the way we're perceived.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 09:27 PM
-1

And what good would that do? Unless you're just suggesting free money for OP.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 09:23 PM
5

Attend and keep an open mind. Record him if you want, as long as that's in line with the event rules.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 09:05 PM
-1

I don't believe there's a god, but I don't yell at church booths at local festivals because I'm not a douche.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 09:03 PM
5

Bullshit. Yelling something at a university bake sale isn't bravery, and it isn't instilling quieted men with courage. It's venting. But even if it did provide courage, it would be the most fatuous sort: emotional and primal. The sort of courage that leads to militant arguments. Lots of heat, no light. Accordingly, it also raises the hackles of anyone who doesn't agree (and even some who do).
/r/MensRights03/03/14 09:01 PM
0

This post has absolutely nothing to do with men's rights, and serves as nothing more than an easy target for SRS and AMR.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 08:59 PM
1

Perhaps they couldn't identify you as an MRA, but they could identify you as "a person who believes there is no wage gap."
/r/MensRights03/03/14 08:57 PM
13

I yelled "there is no wage gap" but kept walking. This is a perfect example of unhelpful behavior. This will come across as aggressive and antagonistic, without any explanation or justification. We have an image issue, and childish antics like that aren't helping.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 08:50 PM
4

i choose to pay $0.01 for a delicious treat
/r/MensRights03/03/14 08:48 PM
8

Fantastic, like many English words, has multiple meanings. One of which is 'really great.' One might say it's also terrific, but they don't necessarily mean it's terrifying.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 11:57 PM
-6

Overwritten, unnecessarily antagonistic. I can't imagine this is going to convince anyone (though I'm sure it was cathartic for the writer).
/r/MensRights01/03/14 11:49 PM
10

As with most reality shows, looks shallow and exploitative.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 11:45 PM
2

I don't care if she's the Grand Poobah of Hell, Murderer of Our Lord Gaben. There's due process. Whatever your absurd (probably overstated) belief, you would be charged with murder if you tried to follow through on your 'moral conviction.' We as a society don't agree with you.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 11:31 PM
0

What a great article! Thorough and balanced. Time to watch the linked debate!
/r/MensRights01/03/14 11:09 PM
3

That is absolutely not civilized behavior.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 10:28 PM
2

Then may I also propose the Council of Elrond as relevant to men's rights
/r/MensRights01/03/14 08:09 PM
1

But there's no message here. It's just a funny little staged video about a group of men uniting against a woman. If your intended message is solidarity, why not solidarity for some positive goal?
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:50 PM
0

For upvotes?
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:43 PM
2

Tagging as 'Compulsive Fecal Squirter' EDIT: RES needs to add brown to tag colors. Olive will have to do
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:08 PM
-3

I tend to prefer posts that promote discussion. This is just fictional catharsis. That said, I have no doubt this post will generate a lot of upvotes (as it has multiple times each on /r/funny and /r/gifs).
/r/MensRights01/03/14 07:01 PM
1

It's interesting that this post has four net upvotes (at the time of this comment), but no positive comments. I think people are upvoting the headline without having read the blog post.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 06:44 PM
1

I'm a small guy. I probably couldn't wrangle an angry, aggressive woman. But the class of people who could wrangle an angry, aggressive woman are disproportionately men.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 04:47 PM
1

That's a bit of a stretch.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 03:54 PM
1

Alex Jones? Seriously?
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:33 AM
6

The Fox News mouthpiece was thoroughly annoying. The feminist was thoroughly annoying. The MRA was rude and petulant. A lot of heat, no light.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:32 AM
1

It doesn't belong here.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:27 AM
2

I've heard the argument a hundred times, and both sides of it (Don't say 'cunt'! Don't say 'dick'!) just sound to me like an excuse to argue. It's a delightful, mildly provocative little word, and I do love my profanity.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:17 AM
0

A pretentious breakdown of a pop song (of course there'll be cliche. It's pop.) which, to my estimation, seems to be neither misogynist nor misandrist. His point is that the [male] speaker in the pop song is shallow, therefore it's misandrist? Because he describes his desire as 'too much to handle', he's an animal? I think that's just part of the human experience. Seems like a perfectly reasonable way to describe strong emotion. This blog post falls into the same old trap where some trend in the…
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:10 AM
5

I think your post has a lot of misunderstandings. As what the title of this threads says, do these thoughts come to mind when you see or hear someone say things like "you will never get pussy if you have them opinions"? No. I talk about this stuff a lot, but I've never been told that. Perhaps it's because my friends aren't dicks, or perhaps it's because I'm not a particularly aggressive debater, but I've only seen this kind of rhetoric directed at other, more aggressive (read, angry) debaters. I…
/r/MensRights01/03/14 04:59 AM
1

Sounds good to me!
/r/MensRights01/03/14 04:50 AM
1

I'm aware of the importance and usefulness of the MRM. My point is that a more general, charitable donation would be good PR. It has nothing to do with sincerity or efficacy (though presumably our donations will be sincere, and hopefully, efficacious).
/r/MensRights01/03/14 04:47 AM
2

That's context, not content.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 04:46 AM
-2

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. EDIT: Even if it is true though, it wouldn't be perceived that way. My point was with respect to image.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 01:47 AM
2

More likely, the author just uses the male pronoun if the gender isn't known. I'll bet he uses 'he' for a hypothetical doctor too. It isn't PC, but it is Strunk and White.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 12:35 AM
-2

I'd rather rally around a more general, humanitarian charity instead of a men-focused charity. Doctors Without Borders would be a fine candidate. EDIT: To explain, it's clear that our movement has an image problem. Making a big push for a contribution that benefits all of humanity is, it seems to me, genuine altruism.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 12:33 AM
2

There are seven examples in the wikipedia article I linked, representing a cross-section of victims, from middle-aged men to young women to toddlers (Axel Casian, a two-year-old boy, and Wang Yue, a two-year-old girl).
/r/MensRights01/03/14 12:28 AM
2

This isn't relevant to men's rights. Even if this did show that /r/feminism isn't internally consistent (and what sub-reddit devoted to a controversial subject is?), why should we care? This sub-reddit isn't about fighting against /r/feminism. It's about supporting men's rights. Honestly, this looks like bald karma farming. As of this comment, the linked post is at 3 upvotes and 2 downvotes. It could not be more insignificant.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 11:03 PM
3

That's a lot of speculation. But even if all that were true, this article alone wouldn't show it. Without context, it's just 'Look at this woman who did this bad thing against men.'
/r/MensRights28/02/14 10:53 PM
3

By that logic, Buffalo Bill is an argument for feminism. This is one woman who did something evil, who targeted men. I don't see any societal biases at work here. She's insane, and this is the flavor of her insanity.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 10:21 PM
1

wat
/r/MensRights28/02/14 10:18 PM
-1

Overwritten, doesn't say anything new
/r/MensRights28/02/14 10:18 PM
0

yeah answer sexism with sexism thatll show em
/r/MensRights28/02/14 10:13 PM
4

This could also be explained by the bystander effect. It isn't clear to me that this is relevant to men's issues.
/r/MensRights28/02/14 10:10 PM
1

All petitions are good for is making people feel like they accomplished something. The exceptions (such as clearly delineated civil processes as a result of reaching X signatures, such as the recent Wisconsin governor recall attempt) are very rare. Most petitions are the equivalent of 'Like this if you agree' facebook chains.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 10:39 PM
2

I always wonder who it is that populates the frontpage with low-effort, cheap content, since I never seem to bump into them. Now I know.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 08:12 PM
1

Oh wtf. I completely misread all the ratios in this thread; I thought it was affected men to total men, rather than men to women. nvm
/r/MensRights27/12/13 01:45 AM
1

So you have two good, general strategies to countering someone who challenges the significance of quantity (in this case, ratios). First, you can simply turn the exact quantity around in the reverse. "A 1:5 suicide rate among men is not misandry, but a 1:5 sexual assault rate (or what have you) among women is misogyny? Why the double standard?" Second, you can point out an even smaller quantity as a way of proving your point that much further. You actually did this in your initial post: But in a…
/r/MensRights26/12/13 08:05 PM
-4

To be fair, none of your examples were at least 1:2 (>= 50%). EDIT: To downvoters, I'm not suggesting scarecrow's statistics are insignificant or incorrect, I'm simply pointing out his misuse of the ratio in his repartee. EDIT2: ITT: me misreading everything
/r/MensRights26/12/13 03:01 AM
2

I'm sure Google has a publicly-available email you could shoot your list of people-more-important-than-Grace-Hopper. Grace Hopper is an important figure in the history of programming, and well worth being honored by way of a doodle.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:34 PM
3

Grace Hopper ...[is] one of the more significant figures in the history of programming that many people haven't heard of Many more people know about Hopper than Shannon or Flowers or any number of people I could name. These two statements are not inconsistent
/r/MensRights09/12/13 09:05 PM
6

No, they celebrate Grace Hopper because she was a fucking badass, and one of the more significant figures in the history of programming that many people haven't heard of.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 07:45 PM
1

The user name, irrelevant
/r/MensRights05/12/13 10:33 PM
1

I'm more referring to the close-knit [developing world] communities where this sort of thing seems to persist. 'Law' in that context refers more to social mores rather than a formal legal system.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 12:47 AM
1

Pretty silly and vacuous.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 11:37 PM
1

I skimmed through that list and can't figure out why this is relevant. She's a figure that's drummed up some mild (ten-ish posts at most) controversy in this sub-reddit, and has been suspended over an unrelated story?
/r/MensRights27/11/13 11:15 PM
2

It's my understanding that 'law' means something very different in those places where FGM is commonly practiced.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 11:11 PM
6

Enjoy your ice cream and flip them off.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 11:07 PM
0

If we assume these funds would be available to men if they were not restricted to women, then this would be unjust. But it seems to me more likely that, for the most part, these are funds which, if not directly offered to women, would not be offered at all.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 11:06 PM
6

You sound upset. What's wrong?
/r/MensRights27/11/13 11:04 PM
8

Are there really any male-only scholarships? Other than podunk, $50 two-bit foundation scholarships I mean.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 11:04 PM
11

It's all creepy. Don't expect a measured and reasonable treatment of controversial issues from the fucking Daily Mail.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 11:39 PM
1

someone disagrees with me on the internet oh noes
/r/MensRights22/11/13 06:23 PM
24

It's a joke. I'm amazed anyone here is taking this seriously. The authors name is 'Burns Well', for chris'sake.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 08:51 AM
1

shrug In my experience, most teachers are too polite to shoot down an off-tangent student.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 02:10 AM
2

Great read. Interesting experiment.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:57 AM
1

Oh I see. That sounds useful!
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:51 AM
3

1) Self-improvement. 2) More flexibility in your work opportunities. 3) A better life for your child.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:50 AM
1

It'll probably be very difficult to keep an open wiki sane and sensible on such a controversial subject.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:47 AM
3

Not a men's rights issue. At best, you've just crossposted a weird joke.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:27 AM
-6

I once talked with a Christian who made the same argument in favor of singing worship music in the middle of class. There is indeed a time to keep silent and a time to speak. The middle of a lecture on an unrelated subject is not that time.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:17 AM
3

No idea, but good luck. Hopefully this works out.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:01 AM
10

Probably because the rest of your comment history doesn't paint the picture of someone interested in an open, productive discussion. Maybe they were a bit quick with the banhammer, but maybe they're willing to put up with a few false positives.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:58 AM
-4

Honestly, unless classes are really getting bogged down in these discussions, I'd let it pass. Academia is full of feminists. That's just how it is. If you jump into a fight every time they pat each other on the back, you won't have much time left for the lecture you're paying for.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:51 AM
0

I mean, beyond the obvious objection (women =/= fiction), most movies aren't 70+ years long either.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:48 AM
13

Seriously? No.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:43 AM
3

Did you mean to link something?
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:42 AM
1

Not very pretty to look at, and two of the statistics (combat deaths since first gulf war (presumably this is talking about the US?) and average sentence by gender) aren't particularly compelling.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:42 AM
1

There are numerous resources online to read up on the etymology of a word. Other than that, I'm not certain what your point or question is here, exactly.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 11:33 PM
0

overflowing machismo
/r/MensRights07/11/13 11:42 PM
13

This is cute, but let's be honest, most of us here don't do any real 'work' for the cause. We participate in discussions and arguments, and might grow mustaches once a year for prostate cancer, but "let's work together" more refers to an understanding of one another rather than a commitment to action.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 09:51 PM
0

This seriously has never happened to me. Maybe I'm way more introverted than you folks.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 10:02 PM
0

Trended here a couple days ago. And, as a heads up, Reddit doesn't much care for 9gag.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 09:58 PM
1

Correct. Im impressed. Don't patronize me. If you want to have productive discussions, approach them with a bit more charity and a bit less snark. This is I think the ultimate basis for your problem here. I don't know how you mean this. As in, it's the basis for why I'm disagreeing with you? Then sure; I've just presented it as a basis for why I'm disagreeing with you. But if you mean that that opinion is what's wrong with my position, you still have work left to do. That opinion is my position,…
/r/MensRights23/10/13 05:47 PM
1

Which is why I said here.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 05:42 PM
0

People are lurking around saying women NEVER abuse men/children?
/r/MensRights23/10/13 12:18 AM
-2

You feel as though the link has value in demonstrating that women can abuse men/children, and do so violently. You also believe that there is a popular misconception that women do not abuse men/children, or if they do, do not do so violently. Thus, you believe that the link is useful for correcting this misconception. My point is that this is not a misconception that exists here in /r/mensrights. We all know that women are just as capable as men of abusing one another, or abusing children, and d…
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:43 PM
0

Then they should be posted to a public-facing forum (like your facebook feed). We already know that this stuff happens. If your argument for the value of this link is its utility, then it doesn't seem intended for this environment.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:10 PM
0

My father was physically and emotionally abusive to my family (I got off way easier than my siblings/mother). He frequently told my mother how he could kill her and hide the body and no one would know. Once or twice a week, he'd have her crying at the table, and she'd leave and hide in her room. He'd also play catch with me and sometimes hug me and tell me he wished he could be a better father. We'd sit down and play Super Mario World and laugh about it. Turns out, he was untreated bipolar. No o…
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:08 PM
-2

There's a subtlety here you're persistently missing, and I don't know how to express myself any more clearly.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 09:01 PM
-3

It needs to be said over and over again because it isn't very compelling. No one here believes that women aren't violent. The story may have some utility for correcting a popular misconception, but it isn't a fertile ground for reflection on society.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 08:55 PM
-2

You're mistaking 'event indicating a societal injustice' with 'event that contradicts a public misconception.' Men getting screwed over by divorce courts clearly indicates a societal injustice. OP's link does not indicate a societal injustice. It's the difference between a renegade judge and an established legal precedent. So the value of this link rests in correcting a public misconception, and not in indicating a societal injustice. But that public misconception is not one shared by the typica…
/r/MensRights22/10/13 08:49 PM
-2

Here. I'm talking about here. In /r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 08:26 PM
-2

You're talking about public awareness. Here, the statistics are already common knowledge.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 07:50 PM
-4

This is no more informative for our movement than Ariel Castro is for feminism.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 07:41 PM
-6

Insane, but not a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 06:08 PM
3

Society-wide paradigm shift!
/r/MensRights21/10/13 10:19 PM
1

I didn't (didn't think to). Just installed a new OS and haven't installed Chrome. A Private Browsing Window in FireFox produced the same results I saw before (all positive).
/r/MensRights21/10/13 10:14 PM
5

Great answer. I did google 'male domestic violence victims,' however, and found mostly sympathetic results. I didn't see any feminist websites trying to bury the issue on the front page.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 09:48 PM
1

I think you're way out of touch with how this conversation has been going. You might be new here (and if so, welcome), but this isn't a new statistic. It's rather common knowledge in /r/mensrights that the proportion of all successful suicides is skewed heavily toward men. We've talked about the reasons why this might be, and there's a good amount of conversation/literature out there on the subject as well (Warren Farrell's talk Why Love is Such a Mess is a particularly insightful treatment). Wh…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 08:01 PM
1

Who's talking about a systematic effort to drive men into suicide? I certainly haven't claimed that, and the guy you originally replied to didn't say that. /u/JackWhoEatsTheFloor expressed curiosity as to the root of the statistics, noting that they are cause for concern. I'd have to agree. That's far from positing an antagonistic cabal driving men to suicide.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 04:15 PM
2

People tend to over-interpret statistics; no argument here. But it also sounds like you're saying 'can't do sociology.' That I can't agree with.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 03:25 PM
9

i think you shouldnt read too much into this, it simply means men and women approach suicide differently, women tend to want someone to stop them, whereas men tend to just want to end it. That's a huge difference. There's plenty to 'read into' that.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 03:16 PM
1

Either I'm missing all of them or they haven't been memorable. I've been a subscriber for a few months now, and this is the first I remember.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:34 AM
1

wat
/r/MensRights04/10/13 12:13 PM
3

Authorities are scared of a child pretending to have a gun?
/r/MensRights03/10/13 10:47 PM
3

No one is afraid of a child pretending to have a gun.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 07:10 PM
1

The next step, then, is to aggregate these various highly-specific, perceived misbehaviors. As of now, I'm only aware of this one.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 09:11 PM
1

How many boys are ACTUALLY being suspended for playing with pretend guns? My guess is, less than 0.01%. Of those, how much does the suspension actually affect their education? My guess is, not much. I just don't think this is that big an issue.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 05:30 PM
1

I was trained in philosophy. I use 'property' in the more general philosophical sense (put naively, an attribute of an object). It sounds like you're objecting to my use of 'property' in the chemical sense. That would explain our disagreement.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 02:29 PM
1

I'm not making any particular interpretation of the data, myself.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 09:55 PM
2

I'd say it's a property of gas. It seems to me that transitions can be properties as well. Thus, 'the balding man.' The man is transitioning from 'having hair' to 'being bald.' 'Balding' is a property of the man. You can distinguish the man from others as 'the man who is balding.' Further, it seems to me that 'balding' implies 'not bald.' If 'balding' implies a transition, then a balding man must not be bald, for if he was bald, then there would be no transition; he would be at the end state. Th…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 09:54 PM
2

As I described above, I think of boiling as a property, not as a state transition. For myself, and most others, 'boiling water' is not so much 'water transforming into gas' as it is 'water that's ready for tea.' But clearly, it's a capacious word, and you think of it differently. Words are squishy.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 09:23 PM
0

No, it isn't. Today's a particularly bad day for it. It's like a not-as-bad version of /r/atheism. There's a lot of angsty children who are looking for fights and cheap points, but there's also a lot of good, insightful discussion. Sometimes, you have to dig. As a community, we aren't very good at promoting quality over trash through upvotes. Piss and vinegar, regardless of quality, tends to get bumped up.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 08:27 PM
0

But you were accusing us of saying it's a matter-state. I wasn't saying that. I'm not trained in chemistry. I use 'property' in the general, colloquial sense, such that the following two sentences are parallel: 'The water is boiling.' 'The ball is red.' EDIT: On reflection, I think you're wrong. The way most people use the word 'boiling' does not refer explicitly to the transformation of water into water vapor, but rather to a state of the water itself; ie, hot enough that it bubbles and froths.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 08:21 PM
0

Exactly.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 07:17 PM
2

There's plenty of evidence that children are being punished for play violence at school. The majority of those children happen to be male, but then, the majority of children who participate in play violence also happens to be male. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of dress code violations at school were for females, but that wouldn't be indicative of misogyny.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 07:03 PM
1

I'm saying the event described by the article is pretty shocking.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 06:59 PM
1

This is why I downvoted the post. Pro-MRA material is much better than anti-feminist material, but even as anti-feminist material this post has no merit.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 06:45 PM
0

All because one teacher got a bit bonkers?
/r/MensRights01/10/13 06:41 PM
0

Probably not. Play violence (gunfights, swordfights, etc) doesn't seem to be as popular with young girls as it is with young boys. Still not indicative of misandry as opposed to over-sensitivity to play violence.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 06:38 PM
1

Not at all. Punishing a young boy for crying because "boys shouldn't cry" is clearly an example of an individual perpetuating a social norm that's harmful for men. This case, though, doesn't seem to be explicitly targeted against males. Just seems to me to be an instance of a teacher being overly sensitive to playful violence.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 06:37 PM
2

That doesn't answer my question, and assumes misandry (rather than explaining the connection).
/r/MensRights01/10/13 06:35 PM
6

I did read the article. My point was that this sort of thing is unimaginable for a boy in exactly the same way that it's unimaginable if it was happening to a girl.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 06:33 PM
-1

I don't think anyone is saying that 'boiling' is either a liquid or a gas. I'm talking about properties.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 05:53 PM
3

Why do you think this instance of over-the-top punishment is an example of misandry, and not (say) an over-sensitivity to play violence?
/r/MensRights01/10/13 04:19 PM
-1

OP hasn't expressed any interpretation[ yet], and certainly not that.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 04:07 PM
0

I know what water vapor is. But that's a weird way to say it. If you boil 30 gallons of water for 0.5 seconds, then remove heat, then technically you could say "Boiling the water resulted in a gas", but it isn't all gas, and most people wouldn't say it that way, and practically no one would say 'The water was turned into a gas from extreme heat.' The vast majority (99.999999%) of the water remains as liquid. The act of boiling does not transform all[ or the majority of] a liquid into gas. The mo…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 04:00 PM
0

'Boiling' is a property of liquid, not gas. When water boils, water vapor is produced, but the vapor itself isn't boiling. The liquid water is boiling. This is a stupid thing to argue about, but then, your joke was pretty lame too.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:46 PM
0

Boiling water is still water, not gas. Boiling blood is still blood, not gas. WARNING: Pedantism below. Abandon hope all ye who enter here
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:40 PM
8

I can't see this happening if a boy was going 'pew pew pew' either.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:39 PM
-1

Please cite (or better, quote) which portion of that website applies in this case. Not all instances of stupid punishments against schoolboys are indicative of systematic oppression. Put another way, sometimes an individual injustice is an individual injustice, and doesn't participate in a societal injustice. If a teacher shoots and kills a young boy in her class for swearing, that act would be indicative of sociopathy, not systematic oppression.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:37 PM
3

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:14 PM
54

I'm not clear on how this is a Men's Rights issue. Wouldn't the other side's argument be that this is a sign that women are being [implicitly] restricted from participating in the upper echelons of wealth-making business ventures, such that they can't make this money for themselves even if they wanted to and had the skill? It's an interesting factoid, but I don't get the relevance to our movement.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:13 PM
7

'Fucking with somebody' will go over better if it's funny and/or topical
/r/MensRights18/07/13 10:07 PM
2

Dude missed an 'o'. Chill.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 09:13 PM
2

No worries; in retrospect, my title is super misleading, and I didn't know RES could just filch the image from tumblr
/r/MensRights06/07/13 07:31 PM
2

No, I'm talking about the essay after the comic. The comic itself is the subject of the critique. I'm talking about the text that begins "This is so deliberately misleading." You have to click through to the tumblr page to read that.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 06:47 PM
1

reddit is hard :(
/r/MensRights06/07/13 04:22 PM
4

There's an essay following the comic (have to actually click-through to Tumblr to find it; RES only shows the comic, which has its own text). The essay thoroughly breaks down the comic.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 04:22 PM
1

The whole critique is a sustained study of the 'flipside [making] the opposite point.' It's an argument for equality throughout, where equality must be argued for by defending men.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 04:20 PM
1

I tried, but couldn't figure it out own my end. The mods might be able to do something. EDIT: Yeah, RES isn't too kind to this one.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 02:24 AM
4

I recommend reading the critique following the comic.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 12:53 AM
1

The point of this submission is the argument that /u/TheBandaloopDoctors C&P-ed (a critique of the comic), not the comic itself.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 12:50 AM
15

Couldn't think of a way to focus on the text, since it's Tumblr. For all the angsty downvote-folks, the textual argument after the comic is in the spotlight here, not the comic.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 12:48 AM
1

There's a deconstruction (in text) by another blogger after the comic. That's the point of this submission. The comic itself is horseshit.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 12:48 AM
5

If for no other reason than that 'anecdote' is singular. My point is that /u/Typicaledgyname's characterization of women-at-large is without source (a few relevant statistics would be a nice start), and is inconsistent with my experience of the world. As best I can tell, his characterization is based on anecdote as well, which makes your vague snark a bit odd.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 02:56 AM
4

Whoa. Not sure what your social circle is like, but in my experience, self-centered, entitled women are the minority. EDIT: Reddiquette folks.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 10:27 PM
3

I seriously doubt that's why.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 06:02 PM
7

ah i get it, it's a reference to his username
/r/MensRights22/06/13 07:28 AM
4

open your eyes
/r/MensRights24/05/13 04:30 PM
1

I've responded to this claim elsewhere in this thread: Estimates of 'majority' are based on anecdotal evidence at best. We'd need a good, hard survey or study to justify that claim. Further, even if it was the majority, that wouldn't make this rhetoric proper. I should not be lumped into the same category as the people in OP's screenshot.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:37 PM
2

Yup. I think most of the 'Feminists are X' rhetoric in this sub is bullshit, since it's typically in response to extreme shit, and none of the feminists I know are onboard with that kind of stuff.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 05:56 PM
-2

Not going to bother continuing. It's pretty clear I've fallen on the wrong side of the MRA circlejerk, here.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:56 AM
-10

How scientific.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 04:34 AM
-1

It would be idiotic because of my follow-up paragraph: You're addressing individuals, not a group. Unless a trait is intrinsic to a group (such as: NRA members like guns), it's improper to address that group for a trait that a majority has. The fact that a majority has a trait is irrelevant. If the percentage possessing the trait was one of 97 or 98%, then you could be excused for such a shorthand. The majority of white Americans believe in God. I would feel tweaked if I was addressed by someone…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:00 AM
-12

I doubt it's the majority, but that's irrelevant. If it were revealed tomorrow that 54% of white Americans believed the Holocaust was fake, it would be idiotic and nonsensical to say "Whites, get your shit together about the Holocaust!" Fundamentally, the real disconnect is this: The transition from the group (men) to the individual (me, you, the reader). I'm a member of this group, but I'm not necessarily representative of 'the group' (whether that's an amalgam of the majority, or that's an ama…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:07 AM
-1

Didn't catch the quote. I thought he was just talking about general bullshit sitcom gender role/stereotype nonsense. I love South Park.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:01 AM
-5

But who really thinks low-brow comedy shows are representative of our culture? Who's dumb enough to expect substance and meaning from a shitty sitcom?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 11:41 PM
68

Let's talk about the idiocy of this post's title. "Men, stop doing this to yourselves..." Based on the responses of three men to some random facebook post. When you see a subset of a group speaking or writing in an idiotic way, don't hold the group responsible. We learned awhile ago that that's a bad idea. I'm not responsible for these guys. They're people saying dumb things.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:52 PM
9

Same issue with /r/atheism. The stuff that gets the upvotes are mostly cheap shots against Christianity. Lot of heat, no light. I think it's just an effect of the sub being so damn large. The stuff that'll float to the top will be easy-to-consume, and flogging feminism (or a straw man of it) is very easy-to-consume.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 10:20 PM
2

Why not just dig through the top-of-all-time list when you first join a sub-reddit? That's what I do, pretty much across the board. It's great for finding out whether or not you'll actually like the sub-reddit, and gives you a good sense of what's been explored already (for discussion-heavy sub-reddits, anyway. Alas, this one isn't).
/r/MensRights05/02/13 11:04 PM
1

Dude on the right. Calling it.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 07:46 AM
4

There's space for everyone here. Any restriction is imposed by an individual's bigotry. EDIT: To downvoters, care to explain why you disagree?
/r/MensRights21/01/13 04:35 AM
2

Who the fuck would want to sit next to an unaccompanied child?
/r/MensRights17/01/13 04:09 AM
1

I maintain that betrayal connotes intention, and to use the word in a non-intentional context is either sensational or misleading or both. For all the richness of language, there's a difference between a literary flourish and obtuse rhetoric. We have conventions, and while many words have a large, poorly-defined territory, you can expect to be misunderstood if you ignore the border entirely and go plodding off into the great unknown (is this metaphor dead yet?). I think, pretty clearly, the guy …
/r/MensRights15/01/13 03:43 AM
1

My point is that however many millions of women exist in our 'culture' didn't convene to do this intentionally. If the feeling is that they did so, then that feeling is ridiculous and deserves criticism. If you want to say that women, as a whole, have intentionally done this thing, then say that. But don't hide behind someone else's weaselly use of words.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 08:24 PM
2

In my experience, when 'betray' is used without motive, it's also used as the action of a non-intentional being (such as an emotion, or a face; as in 'Her face betrayed her concern'). This is poetic, where the ascription of motive is the mechanism for personification, such that the actual flavor of the motive (that is, negative) is irrelevant. By this point, the two counter-examples you gave are both non-intentional beings (that is, 'passion' and 'nature'), wherein the ascription of motive allow…
/r/MensRights14/01/13 06:45 PM
1

'Betrayal' definitely does carry with it an implied intention/motive. Using it to refer to what is, in all likelihood, an unintentional conflict is pure sensationalism. Which, it so happens, is often rather popular in this sub-reddit.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 05:30 PM
1

Bit silly to call it a betrayal. Seems to me that this is a simple case of the conscious brain wanting one thing and the reptile-brain wanting another. I'd be surprised if there's more than a nutty handful that do this intentionally.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 05:15 PM
3

I haven't run into any women who freak out at the fact that I have a fleshlight. I've told a couple.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 10:26 AM
1

Mediocre is good enough for me, for the roles she's in. If she was going to be portraying Bill the Butcher, then yeah. She'd need to be performing on Daniel Day-Lewis' level.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 07:56 AM
2

No really. She's not that bad. I haven't seen her in any roles that let her show dramatic chops, but she's never struck me as a bad actress. I'm getting the read that the Internet likes to hate on her, though. Dunno why (child of famous person, maybe?).
/r/MensRights01/01/13 07:06 AM
6

She's not that bad. I thought her performance was just fine. The book-fidelity brigade is getting old, regardless.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 09:06 PM
2

I have my doubts that those upvotes came from our community. The top comments are pretty negative.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 08:54 PM
3

I think the upvoted submission was fantastic, not necessarily as a criticism of feminism, but more as a criticism of a particular style of justice activism: that of attempting to silence or homogenize anything that I-don't-like. It serves as a warning to us. Also, it's pretty damn funny. I upvoted it, and would again.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 07:44 PM
-1

I spent most of my read-through trying to figure out what this article was trying to parody.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:42 PM
6

Guy: feminism leads to a communist/socialist state Gal: dude whatever men's rights movement is pointless Guy: wtf!?!
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:40 PM
41

Ridiculous. Is autonomous women's space so vaporous that it fizzles in the presence of a penis?
/r/MensRights11/12/12 04:15 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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