TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Targren Archive

View 0 posts and 672 comments by Targren on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

"Understanding... is a three-edged sword." - Kosh
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/18 05:15 PM
2

The only child mentioned in the article would be 22
/r/PussyPassDenied09/12/17 01:04 AM
1

Not if it uses the Harris-Benedict Equation that most of them do. That's been supplanted for years. Between that and individual variance, which can be sizable: One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ/day) to as high as 2499 kcal/day (10455 kJ/day); with a mean BMR of 1500 kcal/day (6279 kJ/day). Statistically, the researchers calculated that 62.3% of this variation was explained by differences i…
/r/MensRights26/03/16 03:42 PM
2

I didn't say otherwise.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 05:20 AM
2

How is it relevant? The AI was a PR stunt which led to a bunch of bad PR. Calling pulling the plug on it "censorship" is a real stretch.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 05:00 AM
1

At best, it's about as relevant as "sexist air conditioning." At worst, some low-hanging-fruit hunting feminist hack latches on to it and starts shrieking about how "MRAs consider Microsoft's Hitler-loving sex bot one of their own"
/r/MensRights26/03/16 04:48 AM
3

Oh man, it was funny as hell. I laughed so hard my sides hurt and tears ran down my face. Trying to play it as anything to do with "Mens' Rights", though, is just a bad play all around.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 04:38 AM
2

Put in that you do zero exersise per day ( that's what I do ) and it will figure it out And it most likely will get it wrong.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 01:14 AM
4

yea you dont recall. other countries performed the same tests and came to the same results. the exception being the UK gaging at 1800 for an average adult male, but thats understandable given their average national height is lower than america. Yes. 2000/1800 is an average. That's my point that you're missing. It's not a magic number. There are several formulas for calculating BMR, with flaws is that they don accurately take into account personal metabolism, just more "averages" based on "activi…
/r/MensRights26/03/16 12:08 AM
-3

he only difference in burn rates for people will be INSANELY SMALL- within 10-100 calories of that magical 2000 calorie marker And yet here I am, a living, breathing disproof by contradiction. Just by the simple fact that you use the "magical 2000 calorie marker" as a baseline shows you don't know as much about what you're talking about as you think - that number came from FDA surveys and then chopped a percentage off the top (about 20%, IIRC). Simple- if its not working, you either arent sticki…
/r/MensRights25/03/16 11:43 PM
-2

hahahahaah oh god thats adorable... holy jeez... do you not know how a calorie is gauged? Yes, I do. Do you know where the Base Metabolic Rate calculation comes from? Aggregated estimates. It's not a static value, and there's not a person out there that comes with a gauge on their ass with a needle pointing out how many calories they're burning at a given time. put yourself in a caloric deficit And here's where you show that you have either a reading or attention disorder, since my entire point …
/r/MensRights25/03/16 11:09 PM
-3

or completely underestimate just how many calories are in that burger with two patties four slices of mostly fat chese, and eight strips of bacon. And because literally everything from the calorie count on the package to the "scientific" calculation of BMR can range from "a near guess" to "horribly inaccurate." There are enough individual and unmeasurable variables in play in any given meal so that "calorie counting" is essentially non-deterministic, and you can't do "basic math" if you don't ha…
/r/MensRights25/03/16 10:24 PM
9

Naw, dude. Don't bother planting your flag in the Tay hill, trust me. 4chan let loose on that bot and turned it all kinds of fucked up real fast.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 09:04 PM
2

Surely I can't be the only one with enough self-respect to show a someone the door when presented with a bullshit ultimatum like this?
/r/MensRights24/03/16 09:23 PM
2

I was confused about what New Zealand did to change Clinton's mind. Should have known better.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 08:27 PM
6

Untrue. Any Klingon who has to be pressed into service instead of waiting outside the recruiting office the day he comes of age is obviously a miserable taHqeq. Such a petaQ is unworthy of the label of "Klingon."
/r/MensRights24/03/16 08:19 PM
7

If that's true, then there's no pussy pass here to deny. Either way, it's a bogus post
/r/PussyPassDenied04/12/15 12:31 AM
43

A "suspended sentence" is a prime example of the pussy pass in action. Nothing "denied" here.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/12/15 03:25 PM
7

She was given suspended sentence at Southampton Crown Court Suspended sentence for faking a kidnapping? There's nothing "denied" about the pussy pass here.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/11/15 03:13 PM
32

that this wasn't just a case of a woman randomly wanting something because she feels entitled to it Other than the meaningless "randomly" qualification, that's precisely what it is. She feels entitled to change the original agreement because her situation has changed.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/11/15 04:13 PM
16

Then yes
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/15 07:58 PM
1

by a cis-gender white man For someone who hates "feminazi freak-genders", it's telling that you're using SJW-speak. 1/10. Weak troll.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/11/15 02:59 PM
1

You've just been trolled.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/11/15 02:58 PM
14

Because even if the student is over 18, in that jurisdiction, it's still illegal for a teacher to bone them.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/15 04:45 PM
5

You're not right - you were wrong about the movie, for starters. But if you're so salty over something as little as that, then time spent trying to reason with you is better spent elsewhere. Pax.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/15 03:22 PM
2

Forget it.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/15 03:14 PM
3

No, your response confused me, not your error. I'm still on my first coffee, and forgot I was on Reddit, so I was expecting reasonable behavior. Derp.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/15 03:11 PM
4

It confused me because rather than fixing the post and/or posting something like "oh yeah, that's the one", you basically doubled-down on "being an ass". Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I thought there might have been some other reference you were making.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/15 03:06 PM
5

Is there another, relevant movie with a "Happy Gilmore" character?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/15 02:52 PM
-1

I question how one quantifies "happiness" to the point that one can say that "waiting" can make a couple "significantly happier." Beyond that, there's a lot of philosophizing and loaded rhetoric in there. /u/mr_insomniac has a point - he covered most of the reasons, as you said, but did so as a bloviating pundit rather than making objective observations.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/10/15 11:53 AM
12

The top minds over at SRS If anything legit needs a "trigger warning", it's dropping logic bombs like this. My computer just lost its magic smoke, and I think I had a little stroke.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/10/15 07:59 PM
1

That's actually kind of cool.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/10/15 05:52 PM
2

turk and jd are still best friends irl. Is that actually the truth, or is that just one of your "things you tell yourself" things?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/10/15 05:43 PM
1

That's not the authority I was talking about, and you know it.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 11:05 PM
1

One authority, one responsibility. See? I can talk in macros, too.
/r/MensRights29/09/15 09:12 PM
1

Yeah, its mother
/r/MensRights29/09/15 12:01 PM
2

It comes up all the time, and the discussion always goes the same way. Some people are "for." Others are "against". The primary arguments for that group are "Abortion is wrong" and "You can't force a woman to have an abortion" - two disparate groups who share a strawman, since literally no one actually advocates this. "Well someone has to care for the child if the mother can't" - This is based on the exact same thought process that led to the need for an MRM in the first place: that the fact tha…
/r/MensRights28/09/15 05:13 PM
2

But I do know some MRAs who complain about the name feminism being all about women, when we are MRAs, so it is the same thing. You miss the point. The gendered nature of the word "feminism" is brought up when feminists claim that "feminism isn't just about women." When you see an MRA making a similar claim, feel free to call him out the same way, because he's an idiot, too.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 04:43 PM
4

Bollocks. By the time "bloggers" got away with calling themselves "journalists", journalism was already a greasy pile of unidentifiable biomatter rotting in the corner of the room. That's why they got away with it, "journalist" already didn't mean a damn thing. The kill shot was when the first commercial spot during a news broadcast was sold, and the TOD was when the first asshole in a suit used the word "infotainment."
/r/MensRights10/09/15 09:40 PM
0

I'm talking about the research that you've posted a half-dozen times in this thread. If it's proof of something, give it its own post.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 09:04 PM
2

The only mention of men in that dribbling screed, other than as rapists again, is that "men need to be empowered to [do what we tell them to do]" rather than "treated as the archenemy." Fuckall to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 04:57 PM
-6

Then make a top post of the research, rather than wanking out over a dumb bitch on a plane.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 04:10 PM
4

/r/pussypass is thataway---->
/r/MensRights02/09/15 04:07 PM
56

It's "The Mary Sue." Mind-numbing stupidity is their raison d'etre.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 01:11 PM
2

It depends on who the Dems end up running. If it's not Clinton, then I won't bother. If it's Clinton, then I'll be voting for whoever the GOP runs.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 06:08 PM
1

It has nothing to do with internet points.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 10:08 PM
1

I figured it was better form to give OP first crack at it, what with it being his work and all
/r/MensRights29/08/15 03:12 PM
23

I have to agree with one thing on the UT page though. “Oh, nice to meet you, [insert name]. What pronouns should I use?” is a perfectly fine question to ask. It's absolutely a great question. Ask it, and if the answer is anything other than "What, are you a fucking idiot?" you know that you can go through life completely ignoring that person, and lose nothing of value.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:52 AM
2

You read wrong. Change.org isn't an official government site, and even if it was a legitimate petition, it would be just as ignored.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:30 AM
1

/r/mensrights is banned from the frontpage
/r/MensRights28/08/15 04:22 PM
57

This totally needs to be in /r/MRRef. I expect we'll be getting a lot of use out of it.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 03:31 PM
2

Yes, you say "friendzone" and use complaining about it as a "dipshit canary".
/r/MensRights28/08/15 04:23 AM
1

Looks like it's just a long, wanky way to play the same old "MRAs are just pissed because they can't get laid" canard, and the same MRA == TRP idiocy. All in all, it's just old.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 04:16 AM
13

Feminists need self-awareness like a fish needs a bicycle.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 04:10 AM
4

If you say so. I don't see how the status quo makes for good grounds for changing the status quo.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:24 PM
14

Either way, this is a strong case for pro-choice on the part of men. No, it isn't. Even with abortion legal, men still can't back out.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:15 PM
12

Indeed. You end up failing miserably at both.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:14 PM
2

I loved News Room. That speech in the first episode depressed the hell out of me because people like that don't actually exist
/r/MensRights27/08/15 01:31 AM
2

The current system may feel like it robs men of choice at every turn. But the focus isn't on the men and it's not on the women either. The focus is to create a safety net for the sake of every citizen born within our nation. Once you are born, you need to have a supply line for necessities. That's all. The nearest source is the biological father. Simple as that. And once you reject that premise, your entire argument falls apart. And I do reject it, because it is, itself, based on the same flawed…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:44 PM
4

That was a great damn show before Sorkin left.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 09:38 PM
2

And yet, the sets of the infertile, those with vasectomies and hysterectomies, and the post-menopausal all have members who enjoy sex. It's almost like sex might not be solely limited to injecting sperm. You'd think someone capable of a bitchy little passive aggressive snipe like that could have sussed that out without help.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 08:46 PM
2

You're the one insisting that a person who only exists because ONE person made the decision absolutely MUST be cared for, because said person made that decision and now cannot live up to the consequences of that decision. If it's that important to you, then go ahead and step up. That's preferable to subjecting one human being immutably to the will of another. Otherwise, you haven't made any compelling response other than a bullshit appeal to a "natural and just" order which is, in fact, neither,…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 08:39 PM
0

I don't think it did but I'm unsure.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 08:04 PM
2

You've "posited" it. Now back it up.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 07:26 PM
1

Not quite the same. I've personally seen nothing that convinced me that "the good of the child" is even relevant to the equality of the situation. But if you want an honest discussion, you can't move the goalposts to leave a vulnerability to your/our side big enough to drive a truck through.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:59 PM
1

if you enshrine her quote into law or whatever then no man would ever pay child support unless they really really wanted to pay it. Or if he wanted a relationship with the child. Surrendering parental rights means just that - he's not considered the parent. If you think that no man ever wants to be a father to his child, then that says more about you and your views of men than it does about the issue at hand.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:57 PM
2

I'll give you the "crazy fringe" categorization for the "spermjacking" subject, but not for husband traps. That just reeks of trying to artificially limit the discussion to circumstances that suit your position.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:12 PM
1

Cognitive dissonance doesn't disappear overnight.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:03 PM
1

Could you rephrase your first point? I don't understand it. Sure you do. You embody it in your second paragraph. And for one, the child's potential future is likely to be much longer than the man who's halfway through his life, meaning the child's future will hold more impact.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:02 PM
2

It is the principle that a child, once in existence, should be given all the necessities of life. Then you pay for it. Forcing someone to 20+ years of labor with no agency in the decision is "just" in no reasonable sense of the world.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:57 PM
1

please, can we have an honest no crazy discussion here - please cite research of the number of times this has happened vs. the number of pregnancies that are pure accidental If we're being honest, then let's not play the "call for research" card for a phenomenon that is old and recognized enough to go back through some centuries of literature. The "husband trap baby" is not a modern concept.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:52 PM
1

I think the flaw here is that on one hand - the man may feel that "to abort" is an option, on the other hand, the woman may feel otherwise and that there is no other choice but to keep that fetus alive and carry it to full term. False. To keep it alive is a choice, her choice alone, and her responsibility alone. And if she chooses to carry term solely due to moral/personal objection to abortion, but recognizes that she cannot take care of the child that she alone decided to bring into the world,…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:48 PM
1

Why would it be?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:46 PM
1

A child with a lower quality of life is more likely to partake in crime, drugs, and otherwise antisocial behaviors that end up costing the taxpayer (i.e. us) more money. That only holds true if you consider men to have less value and impact on society, since they're certainly suffering lower qualities of life, and suffering increased probabilities of partaking in crime, drugs, and otherwise antisocial behaviors, not to mention suicide, depression, and alcoholism. So, again, what makes the child …
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:31 PM
1

To answer your question, I'll ask my own. How is it fair to only force ONE party into slave labour (plus hopefully taxpayer funding) because the other believes in abortion? Is it better than forcing BOTH into slightly less slave labour each because the woman can't "bring herself to kill like the others"? That's not an answer to my question, it's an evasion. If the woman decides to have the child, for whatever reason is irrelevant, then she is making that decision for herself. As it is, she is al…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:25 PM
36

Don't worry! They solved that with the Hayden Rider The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex To their credit, the National Women's Party actually withdrew support for it after that(1958).
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:46 PM
3

That's not hyperbole. Your entire premise is based on that assumption.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:23 PM
3

There wasn't any hyperbole in that one.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:03 PM
2

I'm quite confident you don't understand the concept of bodily integrity/autonomy. In the US legal system bodily integrity only covers birth control, organ donations and abortions. I understand it enough to recognize you playing three-card-monty with the terms there. Child support isn't slavery, it doesn't fit any of the criteria. Taxation isn't slavery. Child support isn't taxation either. If you don't like the hyperbole, then how about indentured servitude? Does that work better for you? It do…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:50 PM
1

Why?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:28 PM
2

My beliefs around abortion stem from the bodily autonomy argument Then it is still hypocritical, yes. Bodily autonomy includes deciding who to work for and how much, which men in this situation are denied. Once that baby is born however, I believe they should be given every chance in life to succeed. Why? What makes that baby so special that reinstating slavery is called for?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:09 PM
1

Bollocks. A socialist approach would be public funding for these kids. Contrary to conservative propaganda, even socialists don't advocate slave labor.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:04 PM
2

That's mommy's fault. She decided to go ahead and do whatever the hell she wanted expecting someone else to deal with her consequences.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:03 PM
6

The act of sex is ultimately about reproduction This is the 21st century, not the 12th. Please feel free to join us in it.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:01 PM
2

They have everything to do with maximizing the welfare of the now existing child Why? What makes a child under a single person's authority worth enslaving another person who was denied any say in the matter? Not one person has bothered to answer this yet. Care to be the first?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:59 PM
2

Abortion is emotionally tramautic - it's not something a lot of women could handle Being forced to work as an indentured servant against your will for twenty years wouldn't be "traumatic?"
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:58 PM
1

What is that even supposed to mean? It doesn't matter what men "state", they don't get a say in the matter. That's the problem.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:56 PM
3

Why? What makes a "good start" more valuable than the self determination of another human being? No one has bothered to answer that yet.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:53 AM
3

Even though some people are okay with abortion, making this law would cause millions more to suffer unjustly As opposed to now, how is it better? Or does it not matter when those suffering are men basically pressed into slave labor for 20 years?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:11 AM
2

"/s" indicates sarcasm.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:08 AM
7

That all depends on the woman, now doesn't it?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:05 AM
6

They still result in a child with reduced means for support, which doesn't become irrelevant just because you don't care about them They might. Or the mother might decide not to have a child she can't support. Contrary to what feminists seem to want us to believe, most women actually are capable of making decisions. And press-ganging men doesn't become irrelevant just because you don't care about them. When it comes to lesser evils, I'll take letting women make tough decisions over the reintrodu…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:02 AM
5

They can, but that's the point of the shadowban - they dont' generally know that they have to (or didn't, before the admins started banning actual users). When they started using it as a censorship tool, GG mods like our guy EvilPundit let them know. Now the spambot writers know to check their posts from a not-logged-in session and it's useless as an anti-spam tool.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:58 AM
13

It was originally supposed to be used only for spambots, since telling them they were banned would just lead to making a new account. It has since come to be employed far more broadly.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:48 AM
3

Abortion occurs before the child legally exists So does just about every suggestion of a legal parental surrender system. Nice attempt at a hatchet-job, though.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:43 AM
6

If your mature enough to have sex you should be mature enough to accept the responsibilities that come with it or deal with the consequences Naturally, we can't expect the same of women. That might give them the idea that they're adults and capable of making decisions that come with responsibility and consequences. (/s for the thickies)
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:41 AM
5

Additionally, being raised by a single mother is the single-worst risk factor in the upbringing of a child. I'd love to have a source for this to keep handy.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:32 AM
2

I nominate all of the "the rights of a bundle of largely undifferentiated cells are sufficient grounds to bring back slavery" crowd.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 05:27 AM
4

Pretty much.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:50 AM
10

You can think that only the mother should have to financially support that little bastard, but the child is the one who suffers for that. Is that better? Yes, it is, because at least the one making the decision bears the responsibility.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:47 AM
2

At this point, I'd rather know why the fuck you just spent three hours spewing insanity over someone who didn't actually disagree with you. I suspect there's a missed dosage somewhere in the answer.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:41 AM
3

And women would be more careful if they didn't know they could have someone else on the hook to pay for their decision for 20 years. They're supposed to be able to make their own decisions for their own lives, right?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:40 AM
5

Child support should be viewed from the perspective of the child and not the mother or father. Why? If a child is born, Since the decision for that is entirely one sided, what makes a child so special that its very existence justifies re-introducing a barbaric concept like indentured servitude?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:39 AM
2

Succulent and to the point I really hope you mean "succinct." Otherwise, that just sounds creepy...
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:31 AM
6

Men would be less incentivized about preventing unwanted pregnancies if they know they could just vote for an abortion and . You could get 10 chicks pregnant in one day and just say "ABORTIONS FOR ALL" and skip home without a care in the world. Pretty sure those 10 women would have a say in that. Bogus argument. Children resulting from unwanted pregnancies would be at even more of a disadvantage in life by increasing the chances that they are raised by a single mom without the support of a fathe…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:31 AM
3

And the onus of that suffering is on the mother and the mother alone. And, rabies aside, nick over there did make a valid point that the kid is going to be messed up even with the way things go now.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:17 AM
2

I never even voiced my opinions, you fucking lunatic. SHE brought up "what the children" and I challenged her on it. Were you so gung-ho to get up on your soapbox that you forgot how to READ? Jesus tapdancing Christ.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 04:16 AM
8

Then the blame is entirely on the mother - she made the unilateral decision to have a baby she could not support. The reason that financial viability is usually not a factor in that decision is because it doesn't have to be, because the law dictates that the father becomes an indentured servant for two decades or more. "For the children" doesn't make slavery any less unconscionable.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:57 AM
1

No, I just said that. And I still don't see the relevance.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:45 AM
1

I wouldn't have gotten it anyway, but I see what you mean now. Thing is, without feminism doing all they could to enshrine them into law (and succeeding), the traditionalist expectations of men would have faded out along with the traditionalist expectations of women.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:44 AM
8

Actually, it bounced back. It was down to -6 before. I figure someone brought in friends or sock puppets, but I'm not too fashed about losing some IIP.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:34 AM
1

I missed the "question" in the midst of all your other ranting. No, having been the yoke, and had to support friends who were, I eschewed the topic entirely. Now I answered yours, so you answer mine: what does that have to do with what I originally asked reverserer that set you off?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:28 AM
2

Only thing I disagree with is the idea that second-wave feminism discarded patriarchy theory By "eventually", I meant around the time they were kicking out the Pizzeys, Sommerses, Farrells, and DeCrows. Too little, too late, maybe, but there are examples like this where some of them did extract their heads. Many MRA's regard traditionalism OG feminism I'm not sure what this means. Literally. I'm not familiar with the OG abbreviation, unless it's a typo, but I'm not parsing it successfully.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 03:03 AM
4

I would have been happy to discuss whatever you wanted, except you were too busy frothing at things I never said and never got around to actually, you know, expressing your point. It would have been helpful.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:59 AM
3

Wow. That's all kinds of fucked up. Thanks (?) for the link, though.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:34 AM
2

Send money to one of the actual feminist organizations that do the things that you say feminists don't do. They might send you a membership card but, if you're male, it will probably come with a "shut up and do as you're told" memo.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:15 AM
4

Feminist, yes, but my point was not all that "contemporary". She's operating out of a conservative think tank now.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:11 AM
7

What comments are you even READING, dude? Seriously, are you high or something? I challenged her on including the non-sequitur about the good of the children. I don't know what the blue monkey fuck you're nattering about.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:10 AM
11

It's one of the clearest forms of sexual discrimination and I've never understood why mainstream 3rd wave never latched onto it. It's evidence of institutional sexism. Because it's angled in their favor. They opted for that "you can't be sexist against men" doublethink to explain away the hypocrisy, instead.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:09 AM
2

As far as determining the qualities of a movement, I find it difficult to swallow that some arbitrary definition is a better indicator than the behaviors of the membership of said movement. The "dictionary defense" is crap. Feminism is no more about "equality" than the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" is any of those things (besides Korea).
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:06 AM
32

Feminists and the feminist ideology is not harmful to MRA. Demonstrably false. The core of feminist ideology is the resurrection of "Patriarchy Theory" that the second wave eventually recognized for the bullshit that it is, and that feeds into everything from family and criminal court inequalities to "microaggression" harassment. Not only is feminist ideology "harmful to the MRM," it's the reason we need one.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:03 AM
67

She's not the only one. Warren Farrell, of "The Myth of Male Power" fame, was a second Waver who actually sat on the board of the NYC Board of NOW. Quotes like this is why modern feminism disavows most of the second wave, and canonizes the nutters like Dworkin.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 02:00 AM
4

CHS got drummed out of feminism in the 90s. Like Karen DeCrow, she was a second-waver.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:56 AM
5

It's a thing that actually happened, and just one of the many, many reasons that your "having sex is consenting to parenthood" position is utter bullshit.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:54 AM
6

What the fuck are you even talking about?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:41 AM
7

NYT Quote, May 9, 1982
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:39 AM
12

She said it in 1982...
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:19 AM
12

Actually, she died last June.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:17 AM
2

/r/thathappened Louis C.K. would be pissed off if he knew you were ripping off his bit.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 01:09 AM
2

I don't think anything. She brought it up, I'm trying to figure out how it's relevant to the issue of men bearing responsibility without agency.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 12:33 AM
31

She's not "modern", she's second wave.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 12:25 AM
3

Look up "Cinderella Law". What is it? I looked it up and came up with a S. Korean law about cutting kids off of video games at 11 pm...
/r/MensRights26/08/15 12:23 AM
2

In the end....what about the child? What about it?
/r/MensRights26/08/15 12:18 AM
1

I didn't see your post until after the apparent edit, so I just saw the allusion to it. I was just making sure I was reading your message clearly. :)
/r/MensRights25/08/15 10:20 PM
2

I know we don't go in for male shaming but jim morrison wrote this one line ... you know the one . The one in "People are Strange?"
/r/MensRights25/08/15 10:08 PM
7

By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the …
/r/MensRights25/08/15 08:50 PM
2

I looked and, to be honest, I'm not entirely clear what the "Third Way" actually is. Something about religion and something else about atheists and virtue, but yeah... not quite sure what you're trying to sell here.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 08:40 PM
6

Wow, that's an almost feminist-level of language abuse there. "Hate group," I could see - they fit most of the requirements of just about any official definition. Shooting for "terrorist group" is just a TLA trying to abuse the Patriot Act.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:30 PM
7

To be fair, I've read that even the author of it recognizes it for the flawed mess that it is now.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 06:59 PM
1

Someone's been hiding the pills under his tongue until the orderly leaves again, I see.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:34 PM
4

I dunno about you, but I've lost track of how many years it's been since I thought any of those assholes were coming anywhere near representing me.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 04:41 AM
3

You don't. You're feeding the troll.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/08/15 07:00 PM
2

What a tragedy.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 06:49 PM
1

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'd appreciate if you'd show me the same courtesy. This isn't /r/CMV
/r/MensRights19/08/15 02:46 AM
1

Enough people already have, I've seen some of them have been convinced, some haven't. The individuals in play are all but irrelevant when it's the system that's rigged.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:46 AM
2

That's answered plenty of times in the thread itself. It's good enough for the OP of the CMV, not for me.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:36 AM
2

That's fully understandable, but here's a good CMV which is relevant towards the way you feel. No, it's not. It does nothing for the "he's a politician, ergo a scumbag" position that renders the rest of it moot. If Clinton gets the nomination, I'll go vote for whoever's running in the R column. Otherwise, I'll leave it to the rest of you guys.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:28 AM
3

Considering how many of the things he believes in are completely irrelevant because they're outside the purview of the executive branch, and how many of the others are ridiculous or horrible, he's nothing to get me out of the house on 11/8/16.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:16 AM
3

I was speaking in terms of his position on men's rights. All the rest is the same old crap Obama spouted, too.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:05 AM
10

As far as Men's Rights goes, he pretty much ignores the subject. Like all of the others, he perpetuates the wage gap myth. His only redeeming quality is that he's not Hillary.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 08:52 PM
1

I'm very aware of who he is, which is why I questioned the statement and its reasoning, rather than discounting it entirely. I understand that he claims that men are overworked, but that doesn't make claiming that men "need" to fix their work-life balance any less arrogantly prescriptive
/r/MensRights15/08/15 01:07 AM
1

I am actually very fond of Warren Farrells point on the wage gap issue - something to the effect of "the issue isn't that women aren't seeking high paying jobs, the issue is that men need to learn to seek better work-life balance as women do". I do think the wage gap is more nuanced, as you suggest. Why? If the "wage gap" is the result of the aggregate working within their style, why should men have to change to make women feel better about making less for working less taxing jobs/fewer days/etc…
/r/MensRights14/08/15 10:51 PM
10

You don't have to be MGTOW to have something other than pulling pussy be the metric of your self-worth.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 09:55 PM
1

Well bless their little hearts. Who cares? Anytime somebody starts splitting groups by Greek letters, I enjoy the irony and rest assured that I can safely discount anything they may think.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 06:19 PM
1

TRP is a place for men and boys who have been hurt, screwed over, victimized, or otherwise wronged by women to gather and stew and rant and bitch and trade their dignity for a bond of victimization with others (sound familiar?), until they sack up, get over it and get on with their lives. If it wasn't for the fact that SJW idiots continue to conflate them with the MRM, their existence would be irrelevant to me, much less their "attitudes" towards me.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 06:11 PM
2

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul" I can't believe I read the whole thing. It's like - if Jack the Ripper had gotten a Liberal Arts degree instead of being a surgeon, you'd get a scolding, preachy, self-righteous screed like that. I guess it's not as bad as dead hookers, at least.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 03:49 PM
2

Calling feminism a "victim complex" was valid, too. Not "respectful", perhaps, but hardly slander.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 03:11 PM
9

Looks to me like you're the one making it a partisan issue, but whatevs. Good luck to you.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 06:19 PM
2

Search Bar.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 02:27 PM
5

Data source?
/r/MensRights13/08/15 01:56 PM
7

How on earth do you even argue with feminists in the first place? Everything oppossing their world view gets immediately shut out I feel. You don't. It's like trying to convince someone that their religion is wrong. Keep posting your rebuttals, those might at least stop some naive forum denizen from swallowing their bullshit, but the dogmatic authoritarian boot-lickers themselves are a lost cause.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 01:48 PM
42

I think you've just had the absurdity that is "Patriarchy Theory" explained to you by an inexpressive idiot.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 05:14 PM
4

I stopped at "Real Vampires." Just no.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 03:46 PM
3

What would be irresponsible about it? This place has over 100k subscribers interested in men's rights. I think many of them would find that knowing that the owner of a company considers "End Anti-Male Discrimantion" to be an "ignorant and amoral viewpoint" to be extremely salient to a purchasing decision.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 03:31 PM
70

Name the companies.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 03:29 PM
2

I wouldn't say it's "absurd", they really do genuinely seem to think that's what's going to happen. For some reason it hasn't occurred to them, yet, that a free, financially successful man isn't going to be particularly interested in trading that freedom for a middle-aged, less successful (that pesky hypergamy trend again) woman. An amazing concept, apparently.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 03:18 PM
2

Paywalled link?
/r/MensRights12/08/15 12:57 PM
1

Eddie Murphy, 1986?
/r/MensRights12/08/15 03:51 AM
1

I honestly don't know. It came up with "applause gif" on DDG.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 03:33 AM
3

Nicely said.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 12:47 AM
3

Speak for yourself! I'm a massively wealthy CEO oppressive shitlord, TYVM. ;) That's why women like that have absolutely nothing to offer me.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 12:31 AM
13

To see the ever-increasing number of articles lamenting the "lack of marriageable men," it seems that they just think they're delaying it until they're good and ready. We're just a bunch of rat bastards for not playing along.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 05:39 PM
3

One bad joke deserves another.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 04:57 PM
3

I don't see how slapping them with a Dungeon Master's Guide is going to help him in this case...
/r/MensRights11/08/15 04:29 PM
11

men shun marriage and women put careers before motherhood And these two shifts have no connection at all. Nope nope nope.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 04:24 PM
1

Yeah, not so much.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 02:12 PM
1

This has what to do with men's rights, exactly?
/r/MensRights11/08/15 01:48 PM
1

The problem is that, far too often, the "in a safe environment" part gets tossed out, usually by those who confuse their own anger for the "TRP message," which means they're undermining whatever else they're trying to accomplish. That's the big part of where their reputation came from, and frankly, it's not undeserved. TRP rants in /r/TRP is one thing. Putting them in /r/MR, for one example, is a different matter entirely, and presents a far different POV than what you're describing here.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 04:43 PM
1

They say that in the opening of Judge Judy, e.g., but then she'll herself say something like "I hope the judge that hears your case..." Always leaves me head-scratching.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/08/15 05:36 PM
5

Don't feed the redpillers.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 02:42 PM
-15

Have you ever watched any of his videos? He's not exactly cagey about his contempt for Islam. "Racism" is a tougher sell, admittedly, since religions aren't races, he just really doesn't like Muslims. It's got an easy enough solution - ignore anything he says about Muslims, enjoy the rest of it. I don't expect everyone who writes my comedy to be some kind of paragon of virtue, just that they be funny.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 02:35 PM
1

"Come out the other side" as in "get over it" ("it" being the anger, not the injustice). Some don't, and some decide to try juggling both at once, and they end up being more of an embarrassment and liability than anything else (not mentioning any names, but we've all seen them here).
/r/MensRights05/08/15 02:23 PM
5

Go home, /u/ConvertsToMetric , you're drunk.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 02:52 AM
2

Annoying to deal with, but necessary. I see TRP as a place for men screwed over by a female-slanted system to end up to get their anger out. If/when they get over it and come out the other side, they might be ready to start getting things done (or they go MGTOW, and good luck to them).
/r/MensRights05/08/15 02:50 AM
3

Feminism™ - Because self-determination is only for people who do what we tell them to.
/r/MensRights02/08/15 08:09 PM
1

Supposedly, but it doesn't take into account the judges' or juries' biases, the possibility of charging with lesser crimes, or simply suspending sentences.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 01:51 AM
1

She said that HIS parents should tell HER parents. Whether nor not the girl lies would be no different if he told her parents directly. At this point, I just have to conclude you're ragebaiting, because you couldn't have gotten this far into reddit being as illiterate as you're behaving.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 09:54 PM
3

It's pretty sad that this is such a common reaction. Yeah, he did his job admirably, but when cops not being overweening pricks is noteworthy, we're in a bad spot.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 09:04 PM
1

Not sure how it's MR-related, but that was funny as hell. What the blue monkey balls is a "Free Inhabitant," anyway (besides a loud-mouthed, taser-baiting idiot)?
/r/MensRights31/07/15 09:03 PM
1

I'm 70% convinced you're here to bait "typical MRA responses" to take back to some meta sub. You're probably right about that.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 09:01 PM
1

So you're assuming the woman is protecting the girl, rather than the kid's dignity, because you're assuming that his parents are liars? I think you're trying too hard.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 08:59 PM
1

All i saw was she was preventing him from informing their parents about what the girl did. Really? Talk to your parents and let them handle it with her parents. Do this last bit with dignity and your head held high. Looks like the exact opposite to me.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 08:57 PM
1

Are you talking about the highlighted comment? Because I think you're misreading it, big time. There's repeated reassurances that he didn't do anything wrong, sympathy, and a gentle admonition not to act like... well, like an 18 year old would probably act in that situation. Just good, old-fashioned wise advice. Nothing to do with Men's rights here.
/r/MensRights31/07/15 08:42 PM
5

A bit early for that. It was just proposed today. They probably haven't officially even heard about it yet. When their staffers brief them tomorrow will probably be the first time they hear of it.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 10:23 PM
0

What, exactly, is it that you want "us guys" to do? We can't tell our local congress turds to vote for it before it's even gone INTO committee, much less come out of it.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:58 PM
1

Presidential Medal of Freedom. About as worthwhile as a Nobel Peace Prize, without the million bucks. BIG difference.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:56 PM
0

IF it passes. And yeah, that would be a great thing, never said it wouldn't. I don't see what harm it does to keep a realistic outlook.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:47 PM
0

The attitude is "don't pop the champaign yet, this still has to get through the same committee that let all the other bullshit go through."
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:38 PM
0

I know, but it hasn't even gotten over the first hurdle. Seems a little premature for "hallelujahs"
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:28 PM
0

He can't do that. Apparently, it's only not rape if it's a female tongue now.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:24 PM
6

I'm pretty sure I speak for every left-of-centre person here when I say i'm absolutely ashamed that the republicans had to do this and not the democrats. Dear gods, how I wish that were true. Other than that, though, you're absolutely right.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:23 PM
0

Unfortunately, it looks like it's NOT the next step. It's been a long time since Schoolhouse rock, but it looks like they haven't even gotten the bill adopted yet. It's still a proposal.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:21 PM
0

It doesn't even seem to have been assigned an HR number yet. Call me disillusioned, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:15 PM
2

They don't pick it. Just simply posting in the subs in question is enough - it's automated.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:11 PM
3

No, you still have to submit a video of yourself twirling your mustache while oppressing a helpless woman before we'll send you your laminated ID card, handbook, and certificate of membership (suitable for framing!)
/r/MensRights29/07/15 08:01 PM
2

{"tag":"/r/mensrights user","color":"fuchsia","link":"http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/3ei1ih/law_professors_line_up_against_new_yorks_new/ctf86p0"},"gprime" There you go.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 08:00 PM
14

They don't apply to SRS and co.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 07:58 PM
2

There's a website that uses the reddit API to read the subreddit, make a list of users posting in it, and generate RES tags. They seriously go through all that effort just to save themselves from hearing something they don't want to hear. It's the intellectual equivalent of living in a plastic bubble.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 07:57 PM
2

Yay, I made the list. Maybe now those useless wastes of biomass will stop talking to me.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 07:56 PM
5

It caught on pretty good in the States, thanks to Comedy Central, though most people wouldn't recognize any references other than "Crushing your head"
/r/MensRights29/07/15 05:11 PM
0

Yeah, okay, whatever you say.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 03:43 AM
2

Why not?
/r/MensRights29/07/15 03:08 AM
2

What about it?
/r/MensRights29/07/15 02:49 AM
3

What?
/r/MensRights29/07/15 02:37 AM
18

Yeah, they're not a bunch of BPD-afflicted paranoids. Not a bit. Fuck 'em. I doubt anyone who uses it has the self-awareness to have their heads extracted by anything I could say anyway, so nothing of value was lost.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 07:03 PM
5

If they put forward Hillary, I will be. If not, I'll probably just stay home.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 05:49 AM
6

Unless you're a trained therapist of no small talent, you probably can't.
/r/MensRights28/07/15 02:20 AM
33

Because there's influence and privilege to be had in being in control of the prevalent political narrative. By calling bullshit on it, MRAs become a threat to that narrative and, by extension, that influence. Discrediting your detractors is one of the most basic elements of any propaganda campaign - they just happen to be extremely clumsy about it. Fortunately for them, they're not exactly trying to convince the cream of the intellectual crop, so it just gets parroted on without any of that pesk…
/r/MensRights28/07/15 01:53 AM
0

We know. I called this one months ago.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 11:00 PM
9

And I thought "manspreading" was the nadir of feminism's ridiculous first-world-problems whining. Lesson learned.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 10:29 PM
0

So it does. Thanks.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 05:23 PM
0

Is the hand even used in the game, or is the hand just used in the ad photo? The trailer on Youtube doesn't have any hand in it. I don't see how this has anything to do with men's rights, just SJWs being idiotic.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 01:51 PM
2

Naturally. I think I heard on NPR the other day that the number of lawsuits for mishandling Title IX rape accusations is up in the thirties now? But having the numbers on exonerated rape convictions will be nice to have in the holster for the inevitable counterarguments of infrequency.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 04:58 AM
3

When you make the movement hostile to minorities, you're being the exact sort of entitled shit people accuse us of being. Get out. Get bent. I'm not going anywhere because you can't read. Every problem experience by white men is experienced by minority men to an even greater degree. That was exactly my damned point. Those common problems are a subset of the problems men of race X experience, and are the ones to focus on, the ones that affect all men.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 12:39 AM
1

Every community of a certain size has trolls After years and years of experience with our species, I'm pretty sure "a certain size" means "Greater than or equal to 2"
/r/MensRights21/07/15 11:51 PM
7

I'd say you're half right and half wrong. Your point about the wrong man being convicted is well made, and I do think it's something we should consider adding to the Official MRA Standard Rebuttal Toolkit™ (Pat. Pend.). On the other hand, the "feminist camp", as you put it, has given no indication that they actually require those they're accusing of something to have actually committed said action.
/r/MensRights21/07/15 10:55 PM
4

Any comment, anywhere on this sub, that I've made comments of turning men's rights into a race issue have been downvoted en masse. Because, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, including in the subthread you linked to, making it into a race issue is not welcome. If you want to do that "intersectional" bullshit, go play with the feminists. "Men's rights" means men's rights. Not black/white/brown/purple men's rights. There are plenty of injustices that men of all races have in common, an…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 10:50 PM
29

The worker said, "Good to know." You do realize that was a brush-off, right?
/r/MensRights21/07/15 03:28 AM
7

As much as I love a good Judge Judy smackdown... the analog hole? Seriously? Damn thing made me seasick.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/07/15 03:19 PM
11

Gotta love that logic. Obviously women are incapable of inventing things and curing diseases. The "special services" part was particularly lol-worthy. Fucking idiots.
/r/MensRights20/07/15 01:37 AM
1

Huh?
/r/MensRights19/07/15 03:45 AM
1

I'm inclined to agree with you that it's embarassing, but I don't know if I'd push for deleting them. I downvote them, though - the same thing I do with those insipid "imagine if it was the other way around" posts - and look for something with some actual content.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 02:41 PM
1

A level of butthurt, whinging, and general bitching that rivaled a feminism tumblr feed. It was like /r/MR's own "manspreading" it was so cringeworthy.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 12:48 PM
1

Oh christ... Not Inge Lehmann all over again.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 11:46 AM
2

I've never met a self-identified "submissive feminist" that wasn't basically one of these (NSFW)
/r/MensRights15/07/15 10:20 PM
4

Is it really true that especially feminists are repelled by nice guys? Can anybody link to a few related stories giving merit to this assertion? What constitutes a "nice guy"? You could try starting by watching the video instead of stepping in with a contrarian opinion when you admit to not having any information. Karen/GWW is good about presenting examples of what she's talking about.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 01:16 PM
8

Those who can, do. Those who can't become feminists and bitch about it being mens' fault that they can't.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 02:50 AM
1

Then you'll need to do an objective search yourself, not ask them.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 02:10 AM
1

You're preaching to the choir here. :) But that's the thing, WE don't think we're pushing bogus statistics or gone for feels-over-facts. If evidence comes out that we are (which would involve actually trying to counter-argue us instead of jumping right to the usual SJW dismissal - a flurry of ad hominem and abuse), and we continue to push them, then we'd be just as guilty. It may happen. It may not. We won't know until it does.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 02:06 AM
2

That's not an easy one to answer, because no one is going to lobby for something they think is "bad". To an MRA, a return to due process in sexual assault and violence cases is a good thing to push for, because it reduces the potential for abusive prosecutions. To a feminist, it's bad because it's "too stressful" for a victim and convinces actual victims not to report it. Which one is more valid? Well, being as I'm a subscriber here and not in /r/feminism, it's a pretty safe guess that I lean to…
/r/MensRights13/07/15 01:45 AM
3

Best of luck with that. I doubt they give an airborne copulation at a ventrally rotating toroid about our objections. They'd probably tell us to go to voat
/r/MensRights11/07/15 09:47 PM
3

See, this would have been a better post than the one from Askmen that she's bitching about, that someone else posted. Of course, it's /r/askwomen, so WTF do you expect?
/r/MensRights11/07/15 03:50 AM
12

And if anyone thinks that Huffman is going to just start rolling back the hamfisted bullshit that turned her into the newest incarnation of Internet Satan, I've got some lovely beachfront property in Nebraska to sell you. Okay, so probably that stupid salary negotiation thing, but that's likely it.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 10:34 PM
3

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's banned from /r/all
/r/MensRights10/07/15 09:08 PM
1

Either that or browser caching, yeah, probably. Yeah, because it's updated now.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 09:05 PM
1

Ah. Must be the RES popup.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 08:41 PM
1

Doesn't look like it is. :)
/r/MensRights10/07/15 08:19 PM
1

Whoever took this screenie needs to practice. If you're going to edit out names, you might want to catch the response-tags, too...
/r/MensRights10/07/15 07:53 PM
1

A few months back, someone posted a political compass plot here in the sub. I don't have it saved but a quick search should dig it up.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 07:42 PM
-2

I really think that's a stretch. I mean, if she'd admitted that there was a possibility he was right, I could see where you're coming from.
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:39 PM
10

Well, it's entirely possible that the "audience", who mostly seem to be saying "that's not how genetics works, get the test and demonstrate it", is right, and the father doesn't understand that. If they were just taking her side because she's a woman (which is, why I am assuming you posted this here), there would be a lot more support for the OP's "don't get the test on principle" option, which is pretty commonly called out for being a bad idea. I don't think there's anything here worth our atte…
/r/MensRights10/07/15 03:28 PM
23

Just goes to show you how stupid people are. Every one who likes or reposts this thinks they're smashing teh ebil patriearchie, when what they're actually doing is advertising for a bar saying "come be eye candy so men will pay for more booze" Mmm... empowerment.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 09:43 PM
6

"If you ever see me getting the shit kicked out of me, put down the camera and help me!" -- Bobcat Goldthwait (I think)
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/15 12:55 PM
1

Facepalm Why did it have to be Florida? FFS, people...
/r/PussyPassDenied08/07/15 04:22 PM
3

Because Facebook.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 03:52 PM
4

Another reddit mod that's an idiot. Wish this was surprising.
/r/MensRights08/07/15 12:46 AM
1

Weird. I've heard that most companies consider it an "elective" procedure. Never dug too deep into it, admittedly, since it's pretty much a non-issue for me anyway. :)
/r/MensRights07/07/15 06:43 PM
3

I'm torn. On one hand, typical "think of the women" bullshit. On the other hand... fuck Kanye's feelings. If I never hear about him again, it's too damn soon.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 05:57 PM
2

The only thing stopping me from doing the same thing (though I wouldn't put it as "MRA" reasons, just "self defense") is lack of health insurance. It doesn't usually cover the procedure anyway, but from what I read, you want to have it in case something goes wrong...
/r/MensRights07/07/15 04:57 PM
1

Indeed it was. Glad someone else recognized it. :)
/r/MensRights07/07/15 06:51 AM
15

Holy shit, they were doing satire cartoons about that when this shit started. The entire world is Poe's Law now...
/r/MensRights07/07/15 01:50 AM
1

Nah, I don't let it bother me. A two-dimensional character is a two-dimensional character, whether it be your basic Xena or Hercules. And if they're a well-done female badass, so much the better (I'm looking at you, Susan Ivanova). The only thing that really pisses me off is when they ruin an otherwise intriguing character by turning her into said cardboard killing machine (I'm looking at you, River the Reaver Slayer)
/r/MensRights06/07/15 05:36 PM
3

I think there is a level of validation there, coming from someone who is not a man, acknowledging that its shit. At this point, I don't care what plumbing you're carrying. I'm just thrilled when anyone has their "Sokath, his eyes uncovered" moment.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 05:26 PM
3

Starts off by demanding special treatment for women. Check. Gets called on it and switches to the victim card. Check. Nobody bites, so "you guys are mean!" Check. Deja moo, indeed
/r/MensRights06/07/15 07:12 AM
3

Because they don't stay in their own little pig stys. /v/news might as well be renamed /v/letstrollreddit, /v/ideasforvoat is all full of modifying the code base to cripple down voting so that the trolls can run amok... Etc. It's a mess.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 06:31 AM
3

You were tested and found wanting.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 03:38 AM
3

instead of ... making me out to be some kind of troll As I said, you don't present yourself as someone who is actually interested in new information and looking for an argument isn't the same as looking for a debate. Nothing you've said or done gives any indication that you're the latter. TL;DR I'm convinced you are some kind of troll.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 03:21 AM
5

At least I'm offering something No you're not. You're coming in with the same old talking point, slapping it down on the table, and saying "I dare you to prove me wrong" just like all the ones who came before you, and all the ones who will come after. Someone else might take you up on it, but for me, I've swallowed that hook too many times to bother anymore. It's obvious to me from the way you presented your argument that you're not going to be converted, convinced, or even entertain the possibi…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 03:07 AM
1

I've actually all but stopped going to voat since FPH were banned and swarmed over there. It dropped the quality of the userbase considerably, and the idiocy still churning about banning /v/jailbait et al is just mind-numbing. Unfortunately, it extends to atko. I don't foresee much longevity there with the inmates running the asylum.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 02:59 AM
8

You also have other studies showing women getting preferential hiring treatment, that I can't be arsed to look for at 11pm, which are equally "waved off". Can you take a balanced, unbiased look at anything? You first. This same shit you're posting gets posted all the damn time. It might seem like a fresh and new argument to you, but here, it's right up there with the geocentric model. Been on this merry-go-round before, and you're not offering anything new that makes it worth another ride.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 02:48 AM
1

According to OnTheIssues Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination: Favors topic 2 That's all I see, but it's enough of a deal breaker for me.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 02:38 AM
7

Ignoring for the moment that that "fact" is highly debatable to begin with, if that is truly the case, it's only to be expected considering the number of special "protection" laws on the books that allow badly behaved or poorly performing employees to retaliate against their employers, provided they happen to be women.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 02:32 AM
12

Bollocks. "Going out of their way" to hire women over men would be discrimination.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 02:06 AM
18

People who don't understand how statistics and concepts like "variables" work. It wasn't so much "made up" as born and perpetuated out of ignorance.
/r/MensRights06/07/15 12:45 AM
46

"Niche type of fiction" meaning "anything with swords/blades?" I've seen the term used by knights, elves, pirates, ninjas, confederate soldiers, WWI-era soldiers... What exact "niche" did you have in mind?
/r/MensRights04/07/15 07:48 PM
5

Yeah, I'm inclined to reverse my previous opinion, for whatever that's worth
/r/MensRights03/07/15 04:58 AM
2

Wonder how the users feel about at least putting up verbal support.
/r/MensRights03/07/15 04:54 AM
1

Well, if they're not online, by the time an official gathering took place, the blackout would likely be done.
/r/MensRights03/07/15 04:50 AM
4

I didn't think it would matter, but seeing the parade of subs taking part, it might not be completely futile. On the other hand, would it just be bandwagoning?
/r/MensRights03/07/15 04:35 AM
1

Yeah, I've been watching the drama with the appropriate popcorn-munching attitude, I was just trying to figure out what OP was getting at. I don't think /r/MensRights going dark would have much weight - no one would see it who doesn't already know about the clusterfuck-spiral the site's got itself into.
/r/MensRights03/07/15 04:25 AM
2

I did. She's an admin with some connection to r/IAMA. I suppose I should have made the "...and why should we care?" explicit rather than implicit. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with this sub. Stretch the imagination a little for me :) Based on a circlejerky Wiki article? I think you're stretching it quite enough for both of us.
/r/MensRights03/07/15 12:26 AM
1

Who is Victoria and what direct impact on /r/MensRights does her firing have? I wouldn't be too quick to jump to voat. I use it myself, but I don't think the "inmates running the asylum philosophy" will lend itself to the site's longevity.
/r/MensRights03/07/15 12:09 AM
1

Most of 5 and 7 apply here (funny that you consider then arguably negative), except that I don't treat men any differently. And 9 is a direct hit.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 05:38 PM
6

I had the same thought. At that point, I rolled my eyes and closed it down. Every time I read that copout, I remember that image macro of "manager vs. leader"
/r/MensRights02/07/15 05:36 PM
5

Good on them.
/r/MensRights02/07/15 05:53 AM
3

\0. Learn to ignore top-ten lists from self-serving attention-seekers ?
/r/MensRights02/07/15 05:33 AM
2

I'm familiar with the drama, but unless I missed an aspect, they were wailing and gnashing their teeth about "Fat shaming". It sounds like there's a link I'm missing.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 10:26 AM
3

What connection to Mens' Rights?
/r/MensRights01/07/15 06:40 AM
2

Obligatory "Feminism is about equality" link
/r/MensRights01/07/15 05:38 AM
2

Isn't Buzzfeed under the Gawker umbrella?
/r/MensRights30/06/15 11:44 PM
3

Bars have been doing this for decades, they just used to call it "Ladies' Night" rather than trying to pander to the gender-studies types. You ever use Gmail, Youtube, Hotmail, etc.. Any "free" service, really, and someone tells you "you're not the customer, you're the product?" Same idea. If free/cheaper drinks or cover bring women in, more men will come to meet these women and pay full price and more. They're just bait.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 11:07 PM
7

Because feminism doesn't have any reasonable problems of its own anymore, so they have to claim them from normal people now.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 11:00 PM
38

Feminism should be about gender equality for all, and the moderator of that subreddit should not automatically assume that I am anti-feminist. You must be new here.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 07:13 AM
1

Where is the gender bias? Forbes uses the title "Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer"
/r/MensRights29/06/15 07:10 PM
2

Jesus balls, if I had a bottle of Unicorn Milk for every time that shrew said "Women... well not all women, some women..." completely oblivious to the fact that, every time she did, she hamstrung her own argument.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 07:05 PM
1

Excellent. He just needs two more frames to be perfect, IMO. "10 years later... " Female icon: "I'm in my 30s and want to get married. Where did the good men go? Hello...?"
/r/MensRights29/06/15 06:43 AM
7

I think that's a bit hypersensitive then, even assuming it's true. More likely, they're just tired of being spammed by bullshit from both subs, considering that I very,very strongly doubt that they think MR and TRP are the same as SRS...
/r/MensRights28/06/15 09:01 PM
7

Maybe there's a contextual issue I'm out of the loop on, but I don't see what pisses you off about that. Is it just the grouping of examples at the bottom? Because it seems like a pretty reasonable policy to me - they don't want some butthurt "nice feminist" trying to point the /r/worstof users to our this sub because they felt less than validated.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 08:53 PM
6

No accounting for taste, I guess. I laughed through the act.
/r/MensRights27/06/15 05:14 AM
2

Sorry, explain to me again which part of never marrying, fucking as many women as you can, not sacrificing for women, and not leading families is traditionalist? Counterpoint: explain to me which part of that makes you desirable "allies"? At best, individuals can participate in both groups, but TRP as a whole is no more "the closest thing to an ally" to the MRM as a whole than the ASPCA is.
/r/MensRights27/06/15 03:06 AM
4

a man can stay or leave. How do I feel about a father paying child support for the rest of his life? I'm not entirely sure, honestly. Consider that your second statement belies your first - he may be allowed to physically leave, but the law requires at least two decades of indentured servitude from him.
/r/MensRights27/06/15 03:04 AM
6

What kind of data proves that women are not treated inferior? That's a tricky question because of how it's worded. Data generally cannot prove that something is NOT true. However, we can look at data where men are treated as inferior, and go for proof by contradiction (because they are two mutually exclusive possibilities) Men are consistently given longer prison sentences than women, for the same crimes. The educational policies in primary and secondary schools (i.e. K-12) that are mandated are…
/r/MensRights27/06/15 12:58 AM
3

In what way, exactly, do you perceive that women are at an inferior level to men, and do you perceive these things in spite evidence to the contrary ("wage gap" myth, e.g.)
/r/MensRights26/06/15 11:51 PM
3

Looks like a drive-by
/r/MensRights26/06/15 11:17 PM
16

Holy shit, they finally managed to swallow their own heads WITHOUT extracting them from their asses first. I am amazed.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 09:39 PM
3

Just imagine how Bell Hook must feel. A Middle class white con-artist lifted her insane dribblings, filed off the serial numbers, and all but passed them off as her own "insights" to make half a million dollars. That irony is about the only karmic justice in the entire clusterfuck that is Sarkeesian's existence.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 06:12 AM
3

That's hardly new. He's been basically constantly contradicting himself on treatment of the sexes for at least two weeks running.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 06:05 AM
2

That's an old one. IIRC, the guy was mentally disabled on top of it, too.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/06/15 06:02 AM
1

Came to just say this. You cut off idiots when you can. There's always another one to take their place.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 12:34 AM
1

A noble intention, but my imaginary friend, El Abogado del Diablo, says that it's not going to happen. Just looking at your "mission statement" tells me that you're going to attract the same sort of hysterical zealots who are going to be screaming mutually-exclusive versions of reality that shows how "they're oppressed", probably with demands that you "do something about it"... I wish you luck in proving me wrong, though.
/r/MensRights24/06/15 10:11 PM
8

Don't you know that "Double Standard" is a 4-letter word to feminists? (They count about as well as they reason)
/r/MensRights24/06/15 12:50 AM
1

Keep in mind, the book was written in 1993. He may have come around in 20 years. :)
/r/MensRights24/06/15 12:19 AM
5

you tear down your own arguments I'm not sure you're entirely literate enough to actually understand my argument, if that's your claim. I suppose that could explain why you've spent the entirety of the subthread putting words in my mouth rather than addressing what I've actually said, and making the same sort of pro-victimization arguments that Sarkeesian and her ilk do, that feelings matter more than fact ("Congratulations on the values you share with her"). Perhaps I should have applied Hanlon…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 03:49 PM
5

It's not up for debate. Everything is up for debate. You are not so special that you are granted dispensation to declare the nature of reality. It doesn't matter [..snip] And since none of my points were dependent on any of those points, they doubly don't matter, since they're completely irrelevant. She DOES receive very credible threats against her. She HAS stalkers who know where she lives. People doxx her and broadcast her public information Most people who own a personal website make their p…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 03:37 PM
1

[Dupe deleted]
/r/MensRights23/06/15 03:37 PM
4

This is so far removed from reality. How could you possibly compare death matching to people who actually fear for their lives and/or consider suicide after being stalked, harassed, and threatened? Because they are both "bullshit said by assholes on the internet." That someone "actually fears for their lives" says far more about the "victim" than it does about the nature of the threat. If you think you are, you should check again. /r/MensRights ITSELF has rules against doxxing, anything threaten…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 03:26 PM
3

She actually DOES receive LOTS of harassment and threats of violence. She deservedly fears for her life To paraphrase Yahtzee of ZP: Bollocks. People talking shit on the internet is an old, old game. The "Internet Tough Guy" is a troll predating the Eternal September. I would get more threats in a day than she's gotten in her entire professional victim career, just by being passably good at Quake III. The difference is that I'm a semi-well-adjusted adult not out to make a quick buck lying to idi…
/r/MensRights23/06/15 03:01 PM
5

Well, he certainly has a point about engaging internet trolls, but after the BS where he took Sarkessian at face value, it doesn't really do much to absolve him of the accusations of hypocrisy. "If you're this sensitive, Facebook and Twitter might not be for you." Good advice all 'round, but for some reason he didn't apply it to the captains of victim industry
/r/MensRights23/06/15 02:27 PM
1

Can't imagine that'll buy him much forgiveness from the aforementioned demographic. I watched it, and he's basically comparing the quote from original article (decrying womens' rape fantasies) to 50 shades. The quote from the submitter is his attempt to step away from the original quote but double-down on the judgement.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 08:53 PM
1

What does 50 shades have to do with it? (I admit, I couldn't be arsed to watch the video) If the title's a misquote, then okay. Otherwise, it's still a pretty bad judgement call, even worse if he's making it based on shit fiction - they laugh at the book, but HATE being judged on it.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 08:26 PM
5

I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be satire.
/r/MensRights21/06/15 07:14 PM
4

And just like that, Bernie alienates a good chunk of the BDSM community. /golfclap /slowjazzhands
/r/MensRights21/06/15 04:29 PM
6

God, yes. What are you, new here? That's not even the tip of the bullshit iceberg.
/r/MensRights19/06/15 09:05 PM
2

With the "unfriend" button, ideally.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 06:01 PM
9

And "a cat's just a little dog with an attitude problem." That said, why are we trading folksy, Ross Perot-style non-sequiturs?
/r/MensRights18/06/15 05:59 PM
23

"Uhh, honey, why are you poking me in the junk with a needle? You're not trying to neutralize the Vasalgel, are you?" "Oh, of course not, you big silly. It's..uh... it's the new snake-flu vaccine! That's it!"
/r/MensRights18/06/15 05:13 PM
27

Isn't the definition of feminism, "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." (i googled it) And yet, somehow, the definitions of "democratic" and "republic" doesn't stop North Korea. Funny, that. It's almost like dictionary definitions are entirely useless as indicators of behavior.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 05:05 PM
4

Yes, but there's nothing new here. The MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement beat you to it by a few years.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 03:43 AM
1

Preachy but insubstantial. Indeed. Why not just save the effort and just post #include <mgtow_howto.h>
/r/MensRights18/06/15 02:50 AM
2

Still running pretty sluggishly from here.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/06/15 10:08 PM
18

I suspect it boils down to a combination of not wanting to be sued for stepping in physically, and the removal of authority from teachers by administrators so the little shits don't even have to bother worrying about whether the teacher is present or not.
/r/MensRights17/06/15 05:00 AM
3

Because it's not fair to support the notion that women can't be held responsible for their own choices, except when THEY say they can't. This is my favorite bit: This could lead to an increase in dehumanizing or making women counterparts inferior I thought that's been what feminists have been doing for (at least) the last 25 years.
/r/MensRights16/06/15 01:07 PM
1

Good on her. It's almost forgivable when it's all theoretical, but when one sees the reality of it being used against someone they care about, hanging on to the delusion is just contemptible.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 11:44 PM
3

A pointless distinction when the reason that said issues haven't been addressed is feminists lobbying against it. The latest failed attempt at alimony reform in Florida, e.g. Saying "that wasn't feminists, it was the state legislature" is equally ridiculous.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 01:53 PM
4

that the smaller real gap is still an issue worth addressing You are aware that that "smaller 'real' gap" you're referring to, when normalized by occupation, is less than 5%, right? As in, within the margin of error - you cannot honestly claim that it is "real" from those results.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 05:58 AM
1

You can believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that there are monsters under your bed who want to steal your toes, be my guest. It is a pretty good sign that you have very little to offer, though.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 05:35 AM
7

Why do you think patriarchy theory and the MRM are fundamentally opposed? Because the vast majority of men's issues are because of politicians pandering to delusional feminists in the face of actual evidence, statistics, and basic common sense. If it wasn't for feminism and its idiotic "Patriarchy" tinfoil hattery, there wouldn't be an MRM, just "shit in life that's broken" Instead, we have shit that's broken, and laws blaming and punishing men for it even when it doesn't actually work out that …
/r/MensRights13/06/15 05:26 AM
12

It's more accurate (though technically equivalent) to say that you cannot be a feminist and an MRA, because the core of feminism is the school of thought (and I use that term generously) that society is controlled by men and systemically and systematically oppresses women (Patriarchy Theory) - besides being completely at odds with reality, this is, for reasons that should be obvious, incompatible with the vast majority of concerns of the MRM. And if you're going to respond with the "dictionary d…
/r/MensRights13/06/15 05:15 AM
1

Look at actions instead of words, and you'll see that "uniting" is impossible and would be counterproductive if it were. Dictionary definitions are crap. Read the sidebar, starting with "Why feminism is not a solution for men's issues", then go away.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 04:43 AM
25

I felt guilty and I didn't even do anything. Mission accomplished, then.
/r/MensRights13/06/15 12:48 AM
70

"How many cops have I stripped for?" Definitely a class act.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/15 11:53 PM
3

Forgot to mention that this nutjob is heading up their NAACP chapter up there. Stranger than fiction...
/r/MensRights12/06/15 07:47 PM
2

We have a shorthand for that. You're just "fucked."
/r/MensRights12/06/15 04:16 PM
66

DAE read far enough to get to the "racially threatening mail with no postmark" and instantly suspect that someone was pulling a Brianna Wu?
/r/PussyPassDenied12/06/15 03:23 PM
31

I think we should spot him 2, and let him off with a warning if they're his parents.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 07:56 PM
6

The membership of both groups is primarily carbon-based?
/r/MensRights11/06/15 07:55 PM
9

We've already established that it's an asshole. You expect it to be able to communicate consistently?
/r/MensRights11/06/15 07:42 PM
1

Sorry, but individuals invite being judged for actions taken in the name of feminism (as opposed to "by other feminists") when they elect to adopt the label for themselves.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 07:37 PM
1

I'll just leave this here
/r/MensRights11/06/15 07:36 PM
30

That, my lad, is an asshole. World's full of them. Best solution: take its advice and "unfriend/block/ignore" it.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 03:11 PM
2

Aren't you the one who just claimed that "conservatives" have never engaged in censorship based on "hate speech, "sensitivity"/political correctness, etc." ? I said "almost", and I said "don't" (again, present tense). Conservative censorship tends towards the puritanical and nationalistic (Swear words and bashing the government, respectively, e.g.) and not on "hate speech"/"political correctness." And the latter goes much further, to the point that, as I mentioned, even doubt and refusal to acce…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 04:14 AM
2

You might, just might, have a point if the post in question was written in a historical context. Perhaps English isn't your first language, and you don't understand the difference between past and present tense (our verbs can be a little strange at times). No, because if that were the case, you wouldn't be making imbecilic assumptions about me, my politics, or my education, so I think I can safely conclude that you're just another cardboard internet liberal, functionally indistinguishable from y…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 04:02 AM
3

Maybe you can find a video for remedial reading comprehension skills... Conservatives have their own share of scumbag censorship (and I acknowledged as much in my original post, but that would require you to actually look at all those funny sigils in my post) but little to none that is qualified by the description Anything involving the intentionally emotionally-loaded term "hate speech," "sensitivity"/political correctness, etc... that tries to make unpopular speech illegal
/r/MensRights10/06/15 03:53 AM
-4

No, that was me, and no, it's not relevant. You're playing the usual deflection card to try to protect your sense of identity that you've interwoven with your political stance, while adding exactly nothing to what was said.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 03:44 AM
-1

Edit: congrats to the dipshit who downvoted for me. You would fit in well on a feminist site. It wasn't me, but you deserved it. You're completely off-topic.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 03:40 AM
5

I'm not familiar with the history of San Diego, but yes, as a rule I condemn any government that takes that sort of action. I reject the notions of "harmful ideas" and "ideological soundness" and any actions taken in service of them is despicable. I'm going to respond to both of your other responses in a single post: please read my original post instead of wasting your time with pointless "well conservatives did it too" posts that do nothing to counter anything I was saying, and contributes noth…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 03:39 AM
6

I'm sure I'll eat some downvotes for this, but you asked a legitimate question, so damn the torpedoes. Political correctness has gone so far over the line past "Why can't I call him a $racial_slur? Freedom of speech!"[0] and into the point where legitimately questioning inconsistencies and hypocrisy in racial claims has become "racist," with the convenient side effect that it relieves the speaker of actually having to answer said questions (substitute "gender" for "race" and you'll get an idea o…
/r/MensRights10/06/15 03:17 AM
5

Karen is great when she's picking apart feminist propaganda with historic references and a scholarly approach. She's utterly delightful when she goes ranty, though. I don't fanboy often, but I'm grinning like a madman over here.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 01:37 AM
4

I admit I haven't experienced much of the thought policing. You're asking that in /r/MensRights? Seriously? Anything involving the intentionally emotionally-loaded term "hate speech," "sensitivity"/political correctness, etc... that tries to make unpopular thoughts actually illegal to have would qualify, and it is almost universally from our self-styled "liberal" side.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 01:34 AM
6

I honestly don't know, but then, I'm limited by having lived thirty-mumble years with the US definitions. On the one hand, I steadfastly reject the "every man for himself" philosophy of our "conservative" side. On the other hand, I just as strongly reject the anti-individual thought-policing of our "liberal" side. On the gripping hand, the politicians on both sides are the same bent, authoritarian corporate toadies regardless of which jersey they're wearing.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 01:27 AM
0

Whichever one the "misogynist" was making
/r/MensRights08/06/15 11:06 AM
1

It all depends on how it's being used. If the one throwing out the accusation or "misogyny" (or any other accusation, for that matter), unfounded or otherwise and dismisses the other, then no, that's ad hominem, like he said. On the other hand, if they call out "misogynist" and then proceed to argue "misogyny is bad because feminism is about equality and pay gap and microagression trigger quack quack quack quack..." then they have, in fact, employed the straw man fallacy: they've replaced the ac…
/r/MensRights08/06/15 04:51 AM
6

Creepy as fuck, yes. Men's Rights? Not seeing it.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 07:11 PM
1

Who is this guy again?
/r/MensRights28/05/15 05:08 PM
4

If the mother is hospitalized for mental health issues, then it shouldn't be too difficult to make a case that she's non compos mentis, and was not of sound mind to entrust them with the property any more than she is capable of giving them permission to return it. You're going up against other bureaucrats, so there will be hoop jumping, but you should be able to get it back for them.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 05:02 PM
10

Stay classy, NYPD. That flag-waving 9/11 PR will surely last forever, right?
/r/MensRights28/05/15 04:19 PM
2

Neither are most of the 57% in question. Most of the "unequal workplace" statistics abuse originates from academic spectators who have probably never spent a real day on the job since they got fired from McDonald's at 17 for being "above" washing the countertops or something. Then they just get bounced through eternity by an ever-renewing pool of simpletons repeating the same bullshit with nary a thought as to its validity. I say it's time we updated the old saw. "Those who can, do. Those who ca…
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:18 PM
2

"If you wanna be happy all of your life, Never make a LibArts woman your wife. So from my personal point of view, Get a smarter girl to marry you." There we go, updated for the modern world. :D
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:11 PM
75

Most of which are also against men, which makes her "Awareness of Violence against Women" link completely disingenuous. IOW, she's not only moving the goalposts, but completely full of shit, too (such a shock, I know).
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:01 PM
3

I have to force myself to stop following it. A few more minutes of that shit and I'll vote straight down the R column for the next decade, just to be vindictive. Heed Nietzche's admonition, I must.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:54 AM
17

I was actually participating in that one for awhile. I swear, the only ones more obnoxious than the smug little shitheads endlessly meeping that consenting to sex == consenting to parenthood (but only for the father!) are the assholes going after the "forced abortion" strawman for entire subthreads.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 02:04 AM
1

Concur. I can't imagine any purpose someone from here would have to post there, anyway, except maybe trolling.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 06:28 PM
1

I actually had to google that myself. Apparently they're at www.reddit.com/saved, but I'm not sure where vanilla reddit puts the link, if anywhere. I use RES which puts extra buttons on my control bar.
/r/MensRights25/05/15 12:50 PM
1

Actually, you're the one not reading what's being said to you. Equal qualifications means exactly dick when not coupled with equal effort. If you have two degreed professionals with the same amount of time in experience but one of them balks at "crunch time", won't come in on weekends, and insists on being out the door at 5pm, and the other is at the desk for all of that, then you have two very different quality employees, regardless of "qualifications"
/r/MensRights25/05/15 02:51 AM
11

I'm saving this to repost in all of the weekly "I'm a nice feminist, let's get along!" post
/r/MensRights25/05/15 02:34 AM
2

If there's any justice: 1955 :)
/r/MensRights24/05/15 07:38 PM
1

Well, yeah. That's just called "not being a dick." If letting a door close in someone's face is vital to equality, or something, then it may be overrated after all.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 09:09 AM
1

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, seriously? If you think anything about this phrase other than "this schmuck should stop ripping off a guy born over a hundred years ago", you seriously need to re-asses your priorities...
/r/MensRights24/05/15 09:05 AM
10

There have been a few comments lately about people who HAVEN'T contributed to /r/feminism but posting here have been banned. My guess is that some bored mod got a wild hair up her ass and decided to be "pro-active."
/r/MensRights24/05/15 09:00 AM
2

That's why they should have investigated, which is their fucking job. I don't know if you're actually a psychopathic zealot, or just Poe's law given flesh, but you're a goddamned fool and I'm sick of feeding you.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 06:56 PM
4

She "just got arrested" after being raped. She was the victim and they added insult to injury.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 04:21 AM
1

[Less-than-serious answer] Check the "John The Ripper" wordlist file.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 01:10 AM
0

Notions of chivalry are fundamentally opposed to any kind of equal rights for the sexes. Chivalry enforces male disposability and female non-agency. I disagree. There's nothing about the protocol that denies anyone any rights. As for disposability, that goes back to authority and responsibility - disposability is a factor because men have lost the authority to make the hard decisions, but still carry the responsibility of carrying them out.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 11:25 PM
6

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with the world CHS is describing: all of the issues that hit home for me would be addressed pretty well in it, the biggest being responsibility coming with the commensurate authority, as opposed to the status quo where one sex gets the authority and the other one gets the responsibility. I think, with that baseline in place, pretty much anything else can be sorted out.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 11:02 PM
1

3/4 of them only got a written warning because they "voluntarily retired or resigned" On the downside, that's probably an equivalent of an "honorable discharge" so they keep their pensions or whatever the UK equivalent for cops to worry about is. On the upside, at least there's three fewer fuckwit cops in the world.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 10:23 PM
15

That's weird, because Noah's special on Netflix (which wasn't half bad, IIRC. I gave it 4 at the time) was a knock on PC language.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 10:21 PM
1

I agree (but I'm not a doctor), but legally, children can't consent to pretty much anything. Other than the horror of the poor kid and the way his mom was abused by the courts, the outcome of the case promises to be pretty interesting.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 10:17 PM
2

I imagine that's part of the reason the father is having so much difficulty finding a doctor to do it.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 10:12 PM
1

I'm pretty sure SOP is that parents have de facto Medical Power of Attorney over their children.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 10:07 PM
1

Hope the little brat slips a disc.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 10:05 PM
1

From what I've read, it couldn't have happened to a nicer gutless wonder.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:51 PM
1

Ask Jackie.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:49 PM
1

There are literally only 5 posts on this story that aren't in this subthread. All you have to do is point.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:48 PM
1

/r/PussyPassDenied usually has one every week or two about a false accuser getting booked. Usually ends up with probation or another wrist-slap though.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:44 PM
2

Damn, how did they get such a sweet picture? My GOG copy doesn't look half as sweet.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:43 PM
1

then the content of some of the replies seems a bit on the bitter side Which ones? That's what I've been asking the entire time.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:34 PM
1

It's not all that unprecedented. It's certainly extremely uncommon (but less so in the UK than in the US), and doesn't get the MSM's attention. I agree we might not be getting the whole story, though. Maybe the DI had a personal beef, maybe the girl had a history of bogus police reports or other history ("mental problems" is vague enough to qualify as weasel-wording, IMO), or maybe the cops just didn't feel like doing the paperwork. Doubt we'll ever know. This is worrisome, though: We have chang…
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:33 PM
1

The OP didn't opine either way, so it's a big assumption to assume he was "upset about it" or "advocating that [the investor] cease to operate". All he did was make us aware of it, which is still a necessity for "avoiding him and his investments", which is the approach you advocated.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:28 PM
10

It's just as much a miscarriage of justice as a false accusation is. It's a tragedy, and the cops in question should be punished. What it's NOT is a reason for lax due process in sexual assault cases.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:20 PM
1

We should never advocate that private entities cease to exist or operate simply because of their belief structure. The notion of thought police is a horrible one, and should be opposed at every opportunity. This means allowing people to do things we do not like, but drawing a distinct line when any government limits a specific group for any reason. What I'm asking is "Who did?" Please let me know if it does not, and I will be happy to make an other attempt.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:17 PM
2

This sub thinks FMG = circumcision Firstly, "this sub" doesn't "think" anything. It's a non-sentient subdivision of a larger website. The users of this sub, while mostly sentient, are also not a hive-mind. Secondly, I doubt anyone thinks anything of the sort. I'm pretty sure most of us here are well aware that females don't have foreskins on their penises.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:15 PM
3

"Needlessly lop off the tip of his dick" is not a solution.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:13 PM
3

After adjustment for demographic and behavioral risk factors, lack of circumcision was not found to be a risk factor for HIV (OR = 0.9; 95% CI, 0.51–1.7) or STI (OR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.52–2.26).
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:05 PM
4

Well, its content was mostly sensible until the last line (which is what the poster quoted as the link title) into the usual sort of paranoid hyperbole that has done so much to earn TRP its reputation.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 09:02 PM
3

If it's any consolation, there have been several methodology problems identified in the "circumcision reduces HIV transmission" studies One link with a bunch of further references. Edit: Added link
/r/MensRights22/05/15 08:32 PM
1

It was this that had me scratching my head: Please do not turn the men's rights movement into what modern feminism has become. I see mockery here, rightly identified bigotry, and just a sense of the whole thing being generally facepalm-worthy, so I just wasn't sure what made you feel that someone was advocating infringing on his right to be a putz. (I'm genuinely asking, btw, not busting your chops).
/r/MensRights22/05/15 08:13 PM
1

Uh... okay?
/r/MensRights22/05/15 08:09 PM
3

Actually, I think this one might be a little bit of a reach. There is no public money, he is doing with his money what he wants to do with it. This is actually the essence of America. Discrimination based on physical characteristics may or may not be morally repugnant to someone, but in interactions between private citizens, they should be allowed to exist. Who's saying it shouldn't be "allowed" - none of the posts here are, and the article seems to be giving him quite the back-patting suck-off …
/r/MensRights22/05/15 07:56 PM
1

Apparently every claim of sexual assault that goes public for whatever reason seems to be doubted by some on this subreddit That's what happens to the boygirl who cried wolf. And there's not a damn thing wrong with not trusting complete strangers' words at face value without evidence.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 06:56 PM
1

I don't see anything wrong with it per se - it only pisses me off is when the figures happen to be invented or purposefully manipulated. It's just as bad when the numbers are strictly true, but misrepresented, which is what the feminists do all the time (which is hardly a ringing endorsement of a behavior). I'd say that that counts as being manipulated - if not the numbers, then the readers.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 05:37 PM
16

I'm afraid it's us men who have to take the responsibility for these crimes. I assume that by saying "us men", you're admitting you're the father, his lawyer, the doctor, or the judge in the story. If not, then kindly piss off. Too many assholes already lay too much at our feet that we had no hand in(Have you attended your weekly "How not to rape" class, yet?).
/r/MensRights22/05/15 05:29 PM
1

Agreed. The overall application rate as well as the difference between the deltas suggest that there is certainly something to look into. You have the right idea, and I'm interested to see how it plays out. The wrong idea, though, is to just take the difference and start flinging claims about: that's why it's so easy to debunk most feminist "systemic victimization" claims: they jump the gun and skip the homework.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 05:23 PM
8

Yes... and? Considering that "orthogonal" means that, while there may be some intersection, one in no way implies the other, what exactly is your point?
/r/MensRights22/05/15 05:19 PM
2

Sorry if I came off as disagreeing with you, I was actually agreeing and expanding on your point. I just quoted your percentages because they showed a big gap and you know someone will try to use the feminist-logic and just grab the numbers and run with them. :) Edit: See? facepalm
/r/MensRights22/05/15 03:18 PM
3

I'm pretty sure there are exactly zero men in the "L" of LGBT (the edge cases would fall under the "T"). Beyond that, there are plenty of other great posts about why we don't bother with the "intersectionality" BS, in this thread and it's bazillion twin siblings.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 02:35 PM
9

Both are orthogonal to the MRM.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 02:29 PM
1

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but it's particularly noticeable at Goldsmith's where the split is 34% male to 66% female students ... As a mostly Liberal Arts college Without statistics on how many of each sex applied, that doesn't actually tell us much. It's entirely feasible that the male population is so low because the potential male students are looking at better schools to work on actual degrees. You can't just look at enrollment percentages and reasonably conclude "exclusion…
/r/MensRights22/05/15 02:28 PM
16

Wouldn't inserting myself be a bit hypocritical, Trying to do it in the general case (calling for a blanket ban, including for adults, e.g.) would make you hypocritical, yes. "Inserting yourself" for the welfare of your child is called "parenting."
/r/MensRights22/05/15 02:13 PM
4

More likely, it's because it's not why he's pushing it. I wouldn't expect "time" to improve matters much. You probably have to come to terms with the fact that you might end up having to choose between your relationship and the welfare of the children born from it.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 02:11 PM
1

Impressive. It's not often a youtube video turns me off before it's even started to play.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 02:02 PM
2

They're looking for a web developer and marketer rolled into one? Wow, I don't envy them if they actually find someone. XD
/r/MensRights22/05/15 01:58 PM
41

If "Feminism" is so incohesive as to be impossible to criticize, then it's completely meaningless.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 01:46 PM
8

The cleanliness argument is the easiest to offset: just teach the kid how to wash his junk, which he'll have to do either way anyway, whether or not you have the doctor cut on him.
/r/MensRights22/05/15 01:45 PM
0

You're making my point for me. They "don't want to be wrong" so badly that they will outright ignore facts to the contrary. Look at all the #Standwithjackie nitwits
/r/MensRights22/05/15 02:23 AM
1

The proper approach would be with damning points, such as mentioning the facebook chats or emails, or that he was put off the hook You honestly think they just "aren't aware" that he was cleared, both by the school and by a criminal investigation? They intentionally ignore your "damning points". The fact that he was cleared was what DROVE this little nutjob into lugging around a mattress, FFS. They know, they just don't care. And in that case, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.
/r/MensRights21/05/15 03:29 PM
2

He is (the school at least)
/r/MensRights21/05/15 03:26 PM
10

Did "Reddit" do it, or was it the mods of that subreddit?
/r/MensRights19/05/15 09:06 PM
13

Clearly a graduate of the Sabrina Erdely school of "Journalism"
/r/MensRights19/05/15 01:02 PM
5

If you need the money to see to your daughter's health and well being, then go ahead and make the complaint. If not, I think it would be more prudent not to expose yourself and your daughter to that sort of person out of spite.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 01:18 AM
19

You don't need a lawyer to file a complaint: Call the cops, tell them all of the things you've just told us. What you're describing is a crime, not a civil complaint: that's the cops/DA's job to deal with. She invites herself over to my house You don't live together? Then change the locks and ask her to leave. If she doesn't, she's also trespassing and you can get the police involved then, as well. If she keeps coming back, you can make a complaint for harassment. Disclaimer: IANAL, just a guy f…
/r/MensRights19/05/15 01:04 AM
7

So is stupidity. Exhibit A. ^
/r/MensRights19/05/15 12:54 AM
4

Just for a few examples off the top of my head while I wait for my dinner to cook: Drumming them out of the movement entirely (Warren Farrel, Christina Hoff Sommers) and then smearing them as "misogynists" Threats of violence, bomb threats, murdering their pets pets (Erin Pizzey)
/r/MensRights15/05/15 08:41 PM
3

All of that predated the new site-wide policies. That's just the way SRS and its kin do business.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 01:55 PM
3

I've been on this sub for all of 15 minutes Start on the sidebar --->>> 2/10. Would not feed again
/r/MensRights15/05/15 01:52 PM
4

Just mentioning that SitC had a shitty movie (or was it two) to go with the shitty TV series.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 09:54 PM
6

That's what I was thinking. WTF is the point of making a point of "an all-male Avengers team was unacceptable"? That's like "taking a stand" that "A Ninja Turtles movie must have Donatello."
/r/MensRights14/05/15 09:25 PM
2

It's worth noting that they've tried doing the same thing, too. Not that I'm advocating using their tactics (I would hope my post history would disabuse anyone of that notion), but since it's on-topic... Missouri HB1853 was basically a "revenge" bill that banned vasectomies except in cases of "averting the death of the man or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function"
/r/MensRights14/05/15 07:51 PM
1

That's generally the point.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 07:48 PM
1

Okay, even on a desktop browser, that page sucks for scraping data. Would you, as a compromise, accept the Wikipedia lists as a suitably reprentative sample? If not, I'm not going to bother, because I'm looking at a fuckton of work here.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 07:25 PM
36

It's one guy on a terrible website that identifies as an MRA while peddling misogyny Actually, Clarey DOESN'T identify as an MRA (by his own words), and trolls the latter about as much as he does feminists. This whole fracas is just usual internet clickbaiting garbage.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 06:53 PM
4

Well, you need to remember the enlightened words of that other social media feminist... something like "Evidence is for neckbeards" or somesuch.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 06:29 PM
4

The ones who need them aren't the ones who are getting them, so I'd wager that the delta-of-fuckedness wouldn't be particularly huge.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 03:40 PM
3

I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that people would not respond positively to a tactic like that. Probably not, but considering that people in general don't respond positively to any suggestion of it, I don't know how much of a concern that should be.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 03:38 PM
1

It's less a concern about the supreme court (you would need a case that survives all appeals while having the existing Roe V. Wade and related decisions applied, AND is broad enough to override them - they won't just re-hear a case because the political balance has shifted) and more about states working around the spirit of the decision. Florida, for example, has bullshit "clinical requirements" that don't technically "prohibit" abortions, but make it infeasible to meet the structural and facili…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 03:03 PM
1

I've been chewing on similar thoughts myself lately, and pretty much for the exact same reasons. I haven't come up with a good answer, though. On the one hand, I'm with you in that it's basically self-defeating to support rights for women they wish to continue to refuse us. On the other hand, I actually do think women and men should both have the right to make that choice, and it feels counterproductive to stop supporting what progress has been made, out of spite. On the gripping hand, is it rea…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 02:02 PM
0

Depends on how old they are. When they're still in college trading in their youth and attractiveness, they don't want anything to do with being married. Not until a few years pass under the bridge and things start to sag, then they cry about men being "afraid of commitment" and crap
/r/MensRights14/05/15 12:50 AM
1

I tried to look at it but as I'm out and about now, I can only access the horrible mobile page that will only show me a handful at a time. It'll have to wait until I get back to my rig. A quick glance shows that the last several months do bear out 1:1 but I'll have to see more of it before I accept it as a trend. It might also be interesting to break it up by year to see if there's a new trend, or by specific dates to see if David's claim bears out across the year (doing it for 1/365 days isn't …
/r/MensRights13/05/15 11:24 PM
1

I did read it, but there's no evidence there. I see some biographical info on her, and the reference to Google touting the Diversity party line that you mentioned, but there's no data on the distribution of doodles, or even a mention of more than one other doodle.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:58 PM
1

A fair claim. If you think that the sample I used wasn't representative then, by all means, redo the test on the list you provided and see if your results come out significantly different. That's why I made sure my claim was testable. Please feel free to do so. Edit: I think I see why you thought the article backed up your original claim: by "more women" they were referring to the other seismologist mentioned in the article. They meant "more than yesterday" not "more than men".
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:49 PM
2

Considering that's not what I put up, I'm pretty sure that's a moot point.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:25 PM
2

I've given you the evidence in no fewer than 3 separate posts. Now you're just outright lying.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:22 PM
1

Since we've got three seperate threads going arguing the same bullshit, and you've already read the related replies where I point out that the relevance of that link is that it's the source I'm using to counter the original claim, it's plain that I didn't "skip" anything and you're being willfully obtuse.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:22 PM
2

It's better to look at one date because you never know what else was on any given date unless you look. No, it's better to look at all dates because then you don't end up with a sample size less than 15. You seem to be under some bizarre illusion that famous people are 50% female. That's begging the question. I did neither. I contested the OPs claim that men are discriminated against by the doodle.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:20 PM
2

Not so "objective" since Nobel recognition is necessarily limited and of purely subjective value.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:18 PM
2

Looks like their webserver/DB crashed. I put the specific counts on a google doc in response to your other post. Edit: It's back up now, so you can verify my results if you so desire.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:10 PM
2

There's more to getting a doodle than just nobel prize winners. Now you're moving goalposts.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:09 PM
2

And while you fixate on one date, I went to doodlehistory.com and did a count. Results . The original claim that doodles favor women over men is trash, and all of us have wasted time that could have been spent productively.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:08 PM
0

Except they do, so your point is blunted.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:54 PM
1

If you examine Google Doodle's history, you will find that they prefer to female intellectuals while neglecting competent male counterparts. Actually, I did just that - (rather, part of it. I have a dinner to get to) Going by the first 50 birthday/recognition days whole main page of Doodle History, I'm showing about a 5:1 ratio of men to women. You're calling discrimination without evidence, which is the same shit we're constantly decrying when feminists do. It's not doing your credibility any g…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:52 PM
2

It's also worth noting that they don't usually repeat doodles, and there are more May 13ths to come.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:48 PM
1

Feminists argue that women were somehow eliminated from history by the patriarchy and therefore should be over-represented now (to punish men as a birth group -- group guilt and punishment being another sign of hate). Yes, that has to be what it is. It can't possibly be that legitimate recognition is being paid to a scientist who was a woman, and feminists are full of shit.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:33 PM
1

Who shares a birthday with her that deserves but hasn't gotten a doodle?
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:24 PM
-1

And a good number of them get their own google doodles.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:21 PM
0

Complaining about this is getting old already, doubly so with that idiotic ROK link. If you want a real reason not to see it, consider that it's a 30-year-removed sequel to a trilogy from the 80s - there's been enough traffic down that road to justify giving it a miss without tumblr-esque bitching over nothing. :)
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:16 PM
0

Today, Inge Lehmann is on Google Doodle but there are many competent male counterparts. That's because it's her birthday.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:12 PM
1

I'm just gonna put that one in my handy mental file. ;)
/r/MensRights13/05/15 07:10 PM
2

"Cup" as in "athletic supporter", i.e. protection from being kicked in the junk.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 07:01 PM
3

And I'm serious when I say Sidebar >>>>
/r/MensRights13/05/15 06:35 PM
1

You're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by "male disposability," because if you're citing the army, then I would point out how that issue has almost always come down to class Maybe you should put in a modicum of effort to actually learn about what a movement is about before you take it on yourself to make "brief critiques" of it, and come back after you've done your homework.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 06:27 PM
3

The first is the seeming lack of discussion on intersectionality. You can scoff at me all you want for bringing up a theoretical framework pioneered by feminists, but I think it's a valid one. Black men do not have the same male experience as Asian men, and they do not have the same male experience as white men. Same goes for class, age, sexuality, etc. To claim otherwise is to depend on a fictional universal male experience. Don't think "masculinity," think "masculinities." And, in doing so, fr…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 06:13 PM
1

In my experience, a good number of them are. That's why I like that response so much. ;)
/r/MensRights13/05/15 06:05 PM
6

"Do you believe that honesty should be valued and violence should be denounced?"(or some other reasonable-sounding belief) "Then you're a [religious/philosophical affiliation that doesn't apply to them]"
/r/MensRights13/05/15 06:00 PM
1

Sure, that's fine if you prioritize reality over men's rights and men's happiness. I think I just took Poe's Law right between the eyes.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 08:30 PM
1

Well, no shit, Sherlock. If the research was done properly (I didn't say "better") and actually reflected reality, then yes, I'd support acting on it, because it's actually, you know, the real world. If I was willing to ignore reality in the name of pushing a narrative, I'd be on the other side.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 08:11 PM
1

Thinking like what? I don't get what you're trying to express.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 05:33 PM
2

Maybe, but it seems to be a Power Point presentation, so it's entirely possible that the speakers being quoted are aware of the actual studies, but whoever made the presentation isn't. It's equally possible that the speakers and/or presenter are trying to perpetuate a woozle, but if that's the case, it's more promoting a sexist agenda than being sexist on its face.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 03:17 AM
1

Nah, I think "speak for everybody" is the hyperbole. "What a crazy bitch" is drastic understatement
/r/MensRights06/05/15 12:09 AM
11

IF those "studies" and "research" are actually done properly, rather than being the same old wage gap-esque handwaving, with proper controls and data points, then it's not sexist to point out the results of them. Big "if", of course.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 11:32 PM
5

Also, the reason I call myself a FEMINIST and not an equalitarian is because while yes, third wave feminism has evolved and is flawed, to simply get rid of the name would get rid of all the history and hard work those before us put into the movement. Feminism today is not the same as feminism in the 1900's I think it's the other way around, actually. By latching on to the accomplishments of the 19th and 20th centuries, modern feminism tries to give itself a sense of legitimacy. Instead, it ends …
/r/MensRights05/05/15 11:27 PM
1

Didn't even read the link, did you?
/r/MensRights05/05/15 10:15 PM
2

Out of curiosity, where'd you get that data?
/r/MensRights05/05/15 09:54 PM
5

I think the victims in the other car were best friends with each other? You're right, though; that's really badly expressed.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/05/15 09:31 PM
3

Great Maker, I really hope you stick around a bit. I like the cut of your jib. XD
/r/MensRights05/05/15 09:24 PM
9

Because A) I try not to think of just myself, a privledged white femininst of an educated background, but those who are experiencing more immediate and obvious oppression elsewhere in the world. What are you doing, as a "privileged white, educated feminist" that will have any impact whatsoever in the parts of the world where women genuinely suffer from oppression? What are you doing, as a "privileged white, educated feminist" to make feminism about those oppressed women in other parts of the wor…
/r/MensRights05/05/15 09:18 PM
25

Dictionary definitions are irrelevant: actions trump words, and "Feminism" is not about equality in any sense, and those men's issues that aren't the direct result of feminism's actions are usually exacerbate by it. For starters, read "interesting discussions" in the sidebar. This is all old ground.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 04:55 PM
3

As others have pointed out, the next scene sets up a "context" which belies your conclusion. It's pretty clear that it's just the same straight-up "LOL man got his ass kicked by a woman" sitcom gag.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 07:17 PM
3

To be pedantic, none of the "seven more" are "rights." They're absolutely special privileges, but confusing the issue with sloppy rhetoric just gives detractors a hole to hit your credibility.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 03:43 PM
9

They actually seem to love passing around that image macro of him spewing the "No greater threat to women than men" garbage.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 03:31 PM
13

No argument here. On the other hand, playing "woman beats up man" for laughs is downright hackneyed these days, and not particularly applause-worthy.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 03:05 PM
8

Wouldn't give him too much applause: he played it for laughs.
/r/MensRights04/05/15 02:32 PM
2

And she was obviously utterly brain-blown on top of that. It's situations like that where "Don't stick it in crazy" turns up to 11.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/05/15 04:59 PM
2

No, but it's certainly the most fitting. It sure as hell beats sending her to prison on the taxpayer dime only to have her get out and profit from her deception anyway.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 09:38 AM
1

Okay, whatever you say. This is like arguing with a feminist. I'm out.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 02:06 AM
2

No, the State of California retroactively decided that, based on arbitrary bureaucratic decision, the wife's lottery winnings should have been the husband's property also — hence, alimony. There was nothing retroactive about it. Those laws have been in place since at least 1961 (when it was referenced in The Parent Trap).
/r/MensRights01/05/15 02:00 AM
2

No, it does not. Someone is only the owner of something if they created it or it was given to them. Neither of those things applied to the lottery money, so the husband did not own that money. Just because a judge arbitrarily declared otherwise does not make it true. You're still missing the point. The California lottery commission did not give her the winnings. It gave them their winnings, because that is the law in the state. She just hid his half from him. It was legally as much his as hers t…
/r/MensRights01/05/15 01:40 AM
2

The law of California may claim that the husband "legally" owned half of the money, but that doesn't make it true. Considering that the state laws about community property are in the same state as the one regulating the state lottery, it does. She agreed to those same laws when she bought the lottery ticket. If you want to make a case that "community property" laws are bad, abusive, or whatever, that's one thing. When you go on about it being "forced" or "theft" or whatever, then you cross the l…
/r/MensRights01/05/15 01:32 AM
2

You can keep claiming that, it doesn't make it any less wrong. It's not alimony because half of that money was his, legally, before they were even divorced. That's how "community property" laws work.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 01:20 AM
2

No, because I've had a long day and I'm not interested in suffering fools gladly. Feel free to continue to be intentionally obtuse, and I'll continue not taking you seriously.
/r/MensRights01/05/15 01:15 AM
1

How does a fake car key cost thousands of dollars?
/r/MensRights30/04/15 08:03 PM
5

Right next to where it says that you agree to let your spouse make medical decisions for you if you're unable to do so, and grants you protection from being forced to testify in court against each other.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 06:14 PM
11

This is alimony because it's income being taken from one spouse and given to another following divorce, presumably without there being any contract to do so. Whatever your opinion of "community property laws" is, this isn't true. The "contract" in question is the marriage license they both signed while in the state.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 06:04 PM
19

Actually, it's not alimony. California is a community property state, which means marital assets are the property of both parties. She won the money while she was still married, therefore it was half his before the divorce. She essentially got busted trying to steal half a mil from him. Nothing to do with alimony.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 05:57 PM
2

I disagree. I think it's a perfectly equitable punishment: she ends up on the receiving end of her own scam, no prison or fine or other punishment for what is, in fact, a crime. She also did not, to my knowledge, have to forfeit her half of the other marital assets. You still haven't said WHY you think it sounds bad and is "excessive" that she gets none of it, since it's exactly what she was trying to do to him.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 05:36 PM
2

No, I'd call that more of the overarching concept that would encompass things like the WaW effect, white Knighting, etc
/r/MensRights30/04/15 04:51 PM
2

It's like people who say it's reverse theft when blacks steal from whites. I'm sorry, but I gotta ask: is that just an analogy to show the absurdity of the concept "reverse discrimination", or are there actually people out there who say "reverse theft?" Because at this point, I'm really doubting that there's a lower bound to human idiocy, so I can see it going either way. <_<
/r/MensRights30/04/15 04:08 PM
9

On what grounds is it excessive? Her punishment for what has to be at least perjury (lying about marital assets to a judge) is no more or less what she was trying to do to her husband. Probably less - I have no proof but it would be a sucker bet that she didn't tell the judge "let him have all of the marital assets, I'll be fine."
/r/MensRights30/04/15 03:56 PM
18

He would already have been entitled to half (California is a community property state) if she'd played it straight. So you're saying she should get away without punishment?
/r/MensRights30/04/15 03:28 PM
8

I believe the current favored slang term is "The Pussy Pass", but as /u/Marcruise points out here, there's a "psychological" name for the phenomenon.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 03:25 PM
1

The "reasonable middle ground" would have been that she plays on the up-and-up, files for divorce, and probably gets to keep the lion's share (if not all) of the winnings, as par for the course. Instead, she broke the law, tried to put one over on the husband and the judge, and was punished for it. It's simply "the dog with two bones" come to life.
/r/MensRights30/04/15 03:20 PM
1

feminists unknowingly get a lot wrong You'll have a hard time convincing me that there's anything "unknowing" about it, and I suspect I'm not the only one. It's been 10 years, and yet they still trumpet it rather than fixing it. Those must be some mighty effective blinders.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 07:03 AM
2

From your own paste: Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act may not be sufficient to ensure equal access to services.[32]" And there's plenty more critique where that came from. GIYF
/r/MensRights22/04/15 06:25 AM
2

A different take on the same law: This one from SAVE, a non-profit focused on ending violence and abuse. Edit: Fixed link
/r/MensRights22/04/15 06:03 AM
4

FLNow (Florida chapter of NOW) press release opposing alimony reform bill: (docx format) NOW NY (NY Chapter of NOW) presidents statement on joint custody: Mirrored on a fathers' rights site, original 404s That's one of each to start with, but it's 2AM and the only reason I'm awake is I'm supposed to be applying security updates to servers. There's lots more information right here in our own sidebar.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 05:58 AM
2

Practice trumps principle, no matter whether or not you want to disregard it. Until that changes, there's no middle ground - the two groups are at cross purposes.
/r/MensRights22/04/15 05:48 AM
5

NOW, the "National Organization [for/of?] Women" openly opposes both of the things /r/juan_golt mentioned. What your anecdotal feminist acquaintances do or do not oppose is irrelevant if they're not part of the subset of feminists who have actual political influence (like NOW does)
/r/MensRights22/04/15 05:44 AM
1

I'll concede the point for the potential outcome that I hadn't considered. I don't think there's much that's controversial about CHS calling herself a feminist, though, once you step outside the feminism echo chamber. She was a second wave feminist, back when the movement had a legitimate reason to exist, and decries the third wave for its professional victimhood, histrionics, and lack of dignity. Pointing her out as an example of feminism "doing something" would be damaging to their narrative
/r/MensRights22/04/15 03:03 AM
1

Exactly--you might--or you might--after considering the matter-- conclude something else. Since I wasn't the one making the other "clueless responses" you mentioned, it's pretty safe to conclude that I'm not the constant in play. Telling me I am waving my dick around is not insulting?! No, it's an idiom for being belligerent, as has already been explained to you.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:38 PM
3

Interesting project, nice work. Out of curiosity, have you found that your disclaimer (about defacement being a waste of time) had any effect? (edit: Dear gods, do I even English, brah?)
/r/MensRights21/04/15 04:04 AM
4

I actually had a similar thought (or whim, I suppose) during the most recent "feminist ambassador" thread - since feminists are always quick to point out that "there are multiple kinds of feminism" and "we have no right to say they're not feminists if they want to call themselves feminists," it seems like an interesting thought experiment. Pick a new adjective ("Responsible Feminism", "Legislative Feminism", whatever) Construct a soundbite-sized tagline for this "new new new feminism." Something…
/r/MensRights20/04/15 05:05 PM
1

A bit off-topic, but are you in/from the UK by any chance? I don't hear a lot of Americans using "stroppy" or "footballers".
/r/MensRights20/04/15 03:43 PM
2

Pretty much just ignore it. He's not saying nothing dozens of other feminists haven't bleated out when their precious narrative is threatened. Ignore it, and thicken your skin before you embark on any adventures deeper into reddit. If one gormless troll pisses you off that bad, you're practically guaranteed to blow a blood vessel in your brain out there.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 02:50 AM
2

I've seen several mentions of him going off the deep end and an exodus of writers from AVFM and whatnot, but I was on "sabbatical" at the time (taking Neitzsche's excellent advice) so I don't know what that was all about. Can you fill me in?
/r/MensRights20/04/15 02:45 AM
2

Did the lobotomy scars heal well?
/r/MensRights20/04/15 02:37 AM
5

What the hell does that even mean?
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:05 PM
6

My smile chartity is currently set to National Parents Organization, formerly "Fathers and Families"
/r/MensRights19/04/15 10:59 AM
3

That assumes that a) said enemies are united in the first place, which is debatable -- "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is hardly a given -- and b) that the purpose of a tactic is to separate said alliances, rather than to simply attack the alliance as a whole, such as this. For example, if the post had said that "PUAs advocate the de-criminalization of rape; MRA and PUA groups protest feminist conference" that might be "divide and conquer", if said groups where acting in concert.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 10:53 AM
1

If you look at my posts, you will notice that I post a number of these sorts of stories, and I get a lot of one sentence comments from seemingly clueless people asking me what in the heck those sorts of posts have to do with MRA. One might stop for a moment and consider that if you often get similar responses to similar posts, then it's your post quality that may be the problem. You admit yourself that you didn't know what the proper flare was, and you seem to post them with an "I'll just leave …
/r/MensRights19/04/15 10:47 AM
5

"De-criminalizing rape" sure as hell isn't an MRA position. Is it a PUA position? If not, then it's hardly a "divide and conquer" tactic when they're blatantly lying about both groups. (This is Salon. Anyone who's surprised, raise your hand) If it is (which I doubt), then kindly DIAF - I'm pretty sure most MRAs (and anyone who's not a goddamn sociopath) wouldn't mind being "divided" from such a group.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 03:41 AM
2

I knew it was something like that. :)
/r/MensRights19/04/15 03:23 AM
2

No, you said that we can't know what Clinton meant, which is entirely incorrect, regardless of the merit of your other arguments or lack thereof.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 01:27 AM
0

I think that someone said that was a sorority that has drawn the ire of the Diversity Brigade or whatever, rather than the group itself.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 01:26 AM
2

As a definition, I always liked "A room full of people who look different and think exactly the same."
/r/MensRights19/04/15 12:12 AM
4

Boy, was Jim way out of date with part of his reasoning at ~5:30 though. "Nobody just comes out and says 'You can't say that because I don't like it.'" They actually say that shit all the time. XD
/r/MensRights19/04/15 12:11 AM
3

Actually, yes, we do. "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children."
/r/MensRights18/04/15 11:59 PM
1

I guess you're afraid to venture a stab at self-reflection. It's not exactly "self-reflection" when one is playing "what is going through the mind of a random stranger on the internet." The reason I flaired this with "Raising Awareness": it means raising awareness of the fact that females--and not just males, as the mainstream of the media narrative goes--commit heinous acts, make poor leadership decisions, are violent, take advantage of people, etc. It might be safe to assume that our presence …
/r/MensRights18/04/15 11:29 PM
1

Or you could improve the quality of your post instead of playing at the insipid sphinx impression.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 05:49 PM
8

Because when we try, Feminism tries to block it (and usually succeeds)
/r/MensRights18/04/15 03:33 AM
1

You said you were going to vote third party. Those were examples of third parties. Lay off the hyperbolic bullshit.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 03:31 AM
1

Yeah, you and your twelve Libertarian or Green or whatever buddies will show 'em. Good luck with that.
/r/MensRights18/04/15 03:25 AM
2

Not me. They're the same old refutations we've all seen and likely made a million times. At least I could get a laugh out of the snark and Brit rage... But then again, I also loved watching Zero Punctuation.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 03:03 PM
1

So in 14 hours, we've got: no direct responses to challenges or counterpoints; a few snide remarks; lots of scolding and finger wagging; and a metric arsetonne of NAFALTing. DAE think it would have just been polite to bring enough cornbread for everybody?
/r/MensRights17/04/15 06:06 AM
1

Okay, then I can definitely see the value of it. I'm always a fan of a good laugh:) Might suggest putting that in the sidebar though, so the next stonefaced buzzkill to come along doesn't ask you the same question. ;)
/r/MensRights17/04/15 04:45 AM
2

What is this supposed to be "raising awareness" (flair) of?
/r/MensRights17/04/15 04:16 AM
1

How,exactly, does that sub differ from /r/AskMen again?
/r/MensRights17/04/15 04:14 AM
3

Feminism in the real world? Like the Rolling Stone debacle? Like Title XI and the "Dear Colleague" letter?, "Don't be that guy", and "Teach men not to rape?" Like NOW/FlNOW opposing alimony reform bills that would move toward equalizing biases? Like lobbying for domestic violence legislation that is all but blind to women as aggressors and abusers Like threatening a feminist who actually wanted to help male victims of domestic violence, with violence, bomb threats, and murdering her dog? Like ho…
/r/MensRights17/04/15 04:05 AM
2

You're right. I'm so sorry. How many lashes is that again? My Sooper-Sekrit Patriarchy Guidebook is still the 2012 edition.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 03:56 AM
2

I figured that from the fact that I was still able to respond. XD I honestly just don't get the joke. <_<
/r/MensRights17/04/15 03:16 AM
3

Huh?
/r/MensRights17/04/15 01:53 AM
1

Then yeah, self-awareness and introspection are fine things, but in this case, I think you're on pretty solid ground.
/r/MensRights17/04/15 01:14 AM
7

You identify as one of them, and they don't have nearly the same "open-door" policy we do. If you want to play ambassador, "you first" isn't terribly constructive
/r/MensRights17/04/15 12:14 AM
3

I don't think it's particularly important either. Hell, even the feminists themselves rarely bother to mention it, but you know, full disclosure and all. I don't like saying "every right" if it's not true. Honesty aside, it's just a hole in one's rhetoric
/r/MensRights17/04/15 12:08 AM
3

And that is why, unfortunately, feminism and the MRM cannot "be friends." Because even those who might want to don't want to do anything about the bad actors and, in feminism's case, those are the ones with the political influence.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 11:21 PM
6

I don't think it's that hard to back up. There are plenty of examples right in this sub where you can see garbage like that getting verbally called out and /or downed mercilessly. Recognizing it, though, you may have a point, and not only if you share the biases. I've seen several threads (especially in the stickied post when it veered off topic) where objective posts about harmful feminist actions were conflated with redpillers and whatnot. One has to be just as careful about overcompensating a…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 11:16 PM
6

The "quick to call them out" is the distinguishing characteristic.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 10:48 PM
1

I think "animal rights" is a misnomer. Animals don't have "rights" , humans have restrictions on the way they're allowed to treat animals. Otherwise, any cat who ever caught a mouse is a criminal ("One does not simply eat a mouse") - since cats aren't sentient, obviously that can't be the case.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 10:46 PM
2

Except it will never happen, the system in place sees to that. Might so well just stay home.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 10:24 PM
1

That's where I hit "back", too. Talk about your argument ad absurdum...
/r/MensRights16/04/15 10:22 PM
1

Yes, but voting for a nutter because he /she is a third party is not "fighting". I didn't say it wasn't a problem. I said, and stand by, voting 3rd party isn't a solution.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 09:55 PM
6

That reformation is necessary before there's any genuine possibility of working together. Right now, there is zero common ground. Feminism promotes "solutions" to problems that don't actually exist, legislation that favors women, and perpetuates a narrative fiction to justify it. The vast majority of the issues the MRM is centered on are at least aggravated by those "feminist solutions", when they're not literally created by them. If you have any genuine interest in doing as you claim, you need …
/r/MensRights16/04/15 09:35 PM
6

Nitpick: there is one - men can go topless on beaches.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 09:08 PM
1

Yes I do know that. It's also beside the point at hand.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 08:57 PM
7

Well, yeah. Seeing which ones actually go along with it would probably be a much better indicator. Just releasing the list doesn't tell us much more than we've got the typical control freak politician trying to proactively censor things. The majority of the list doesn't even have anything to do sexism, and even the ones that might only do after some pretty generous mental gymnastics.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 07:47 PM
2

Odds are that we won't be able to elect a third party outright No, the problem with FPTP is, even if somehow a "third party" managed to garner enough support to be considered an actual contender, it would just displace one of the existing two parties, and we'd be right back where we are. And that's working on the assumption that there is a third party worth voting for. Looking at all of them, they all seem like fringes of the existing two, usually on the more extreme edges. Maybe that's just a r…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 07:22 PM
0

And as long as we don't know what they think, they don't matter. All that matters is that they count themselves as "feminists", which inflates the numbers to be used by those feminists for whom we DO know what they think - NOW et al - which is what gives them that influence.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 05:35 PM
4

Don't vote for Democrat or Republican. Vote for anybody else even write in a vote if you have to. Why does everyone think there are only two possibilities? Because we have a first-past-the-post voting system (and an electoral college). It's been known for some time how FPTP will always deteriorate into a two-party system.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 05:29 PM
0

You keep saying that, when the simple fact is that feminism, as a whole, is not remotely interested in helping. The first thing feminists would have to do to help us would be to abandon the vast majority of the core dogma and their platform narrative[0], since it's a massive contributing factor (if not an explicit cause) of way too many of our issues. If you honestly believe that is even remotely possible, you're just being hopelessly naive. [0]People HAVE done that, and the vast majority of the…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 05:20 PM
0

That doesn't change the fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of it's members, no matter how huge the movement is, have done nothing for men's issues, at best. I'd say it's pretty safe to dismiss them.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 03:51 PM
0

Feminists frequently claim that "Feminism is about equality" while simultaneously fighting against just that. You have to judge by actions, not words. When I judge actions rather than words, I see no reason to believe that "they are reaching out to us, they want to break out of identity politics, they want a more equal society" and despite my asking, none of the "play nice with feminism" proponents have been able to provide me with any.
/r/MensRights16/04/15 02:20 PM
1

And then how do you address the fact that the research in question is being ignored by the government and society as a whole?
/r/MensRights15/04/15 09:46 PM
1

The entire thing is a misguided reaction to the stickied concern-troll from the other day.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 06:15 PM
1

It's a post flair on this sub that means "Women Behaving Badly" - case studies that counter the popular narrative that women don't commit rape, violence, false prosecution, etc.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 05:35 PM
0

Let me put it this way, I don't care how they identify, as long as we can move towards equality Best of luck with that. Hopefully you have time to do some good between your "How not to rape" classes.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 05:06 PM
0

They do exist, there are pushes for more action in men's issues. Where are they? Okay, we had one who came in here a few months back who was trying to open up a men's support shelter in one of the northern states (I think Michigan?) but that's the only one I've seen - I don't know how that turned out, sadly. That's one against the legion of self-defined feminists who offer "I care about your problems, but you have some bad seeds using your name and being nasty on the internet, so maybe next time…
/r/MensRights15/04/15 04:20 PM
2

Nah, I'll be staying here, but you guys have fun.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 02:51 PM
0

There are some in the tent that want to help us I expressed my views on "Feminist Allies" here. Short version: I'll accept that they want to help us when they actually try to help us.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 06:15 AM
1

And It's at -7 now. Most of those sorts of things generally get downvoted. I'd say that was a pretty good indication that the general population of the sub doesn't go for that sort of thing.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 04:20 AM
1

The "existing gender advocacy structure" is openly hostile not only to men's issues, but to men ("Rape culture", Deluth Model, etc). Unless, by "working with" it, you mean adopting feminist tactics of professional victimhood, misrepresenting, biasing, or outright manufacturing statistics, and overt sexism, your position is self-contradictory.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 04:18 AM
6

Our own sub, with hookers and blackjack!
/r/MensRights15/04/15 12:46 AM
3

The article that was linked was just about Hilary Clinton announcing her presidential campaign. Seeing the shit about "get ready for cries of sexism when she is criticised" just seemed like misogynistic circlejerking to me (yes I used the m word). Considering that HRC wasted no time in declaring that she'd be basing her campaign on "gender issues" -- which only a passing familiarity with her past positions and rhetoric will make clear that there's only one "gender" she's interested in -- that's …
/r/MensRights15/04/15 12:42 AM
1

There are reasonable feminists and there are illogical feminists While this is true, I disagree with the implication that treating feminism (as a movement) as an enemy/obstacle, rather than a potential ally, is a mistake. Here's why: "Feminism," as a movement, is not as simple as a one-line dictionary definition, and it's not something that can be considered on an individual basis, because it's not an individual thing: it's a movement. I admit that I might be willing to adjust my view on it, but…
/r/MensRights15/04/15 12:39 AM
2

That's pretty damn cool.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 11:27 PM
1

Out of curiosity, where was the latter post rated when you originally linked it? They come around, yeah, but from what I see, they tend to be downvoted rather soundly.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 11:03 PM
2

We need to focus on mens' and males' issues, not feminism "We need to focus on getting to Mars, not on that pesky 140M miles of vaccuum in between." The narrative so utterly divorced from reality that it can only be called "propaganda", put out and supported by the feminists, that is a very real obstacle to helping men (See NOW vs. Alimony Reform in Florida, for a fresh example). Claiming that feminism is off-topic to "mens' and males' issues" is naive, at best.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 10:44 PM
2

That, or asking a clarifying question, according to the subreddit rules. Now that I know it exists, I may need to spend some time there. Seems interesting.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 09:38 PM
1

Firstly, don't do this. "yes men aren't taken serious or supported" Other grammar concerns aside, don't combine "Yes" with a negative statement. It's confusing. (Normally I wouldn't bother with the language fascism, but you did say that this was for an English class). That said, for an argumentative essay, you're only about halfway to your premise. You've established your body of evidence, but presenting evidence doesn't make for an argumentative essay: you need to take a position and express ho…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 04:17 AM
2

I love that. "Why do you think access to your vagina is worth talking to you for two entire dates?" If this girl wants to be "respected for her brain," she might try using it before going on youtube and demonstrating an inability to grasp concepts like causality...
/r/MensRights13/04/15 04:44 PM
3

This is indeed a valid point.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 03:11 PM
2

And a buttload more comfortable.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 03:06 PM
1

My brain is full of fuck. Is this some kind of Poe's law thing or is she really dipshit enough to think she's making a legitimate point while referring to these poor fools with what is, to my knowledge, the most pejorative term there is?
/r/MensRights13/04/15 03:03 PM
2

I'd give 80% (Gilda Radner and Carol Burnett), but minus an extra 10% for putting the SNL Tumblrina sisters on there. So yeah, my math concurs.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/04/15 08:03 AM
15

You talking about Lisa Lampanelli, or did someone else rip off her schtick? (WHY?) I always figured she's gone into semi-retirement and just comes out for crappy CC roasts, since "OMG a white woman is swearing and talking about sleeping with black men" kind of wore out its shock value 30+ years ago
/r/PussyPassDenied09/04/15 05:17 AM
2

But every publication has taken notice about what this has cost Rolling Stone What, exactly, has it cost them? "Credibility" hasn't beena valued commodity for "news" media in a couple of decades, at least. Have they had a ton of advertisers pull out? Gotten smacked with fines? Are there lawsuits in the works? Or are we going to get the same disingenuous "Sorry! I fucked up!" response from the mag itself as from the vicious, incompetent hack who wrote it, while they count on the collective ADD to…
/r/MensRights06/04/15 12:53 PM
3

Number 7 sent me into a screaming spiral of recursive madness, like the spectres of Lovecraft and Von Neumann twisting into a helix of abomination and coiling into my mind with the oily stench of a career politician
/r/MensRights02/04/15 04:56 AM
8

Not sure if I'd call that a "denial," - a guy would definitely have found himself on some sex offender list for life if he whipped out his mini-me for the camera. "Disorderly conduct" ain't nothin'.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/04/15 03:39 AM
2

I had to stop at "Before Obamacare, Americans told the government what to do..." Typical youtube rant: incendiary and pretty much utterly divorced from reality.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 01:30 PM
1

How is this any better than hating women? I'm not sure I follow. Edit: I've been scratching my head over this response (and the downmod) for a few minutes, but all I can come up with is a guess that we've bumped into a language ambiguity. If so, I'll clarify: I mean that there are women that I love, i.e. I've not chosen to eschew having relationships with women entirely based on the decision not to marry. I still can't conceive of how "loving" can be as bad as "hating," though, even if it is don…
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:57 PM
2

Exactly. I got that, I just got the impression that /u/imeasureutils didn't. :)
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:38 PM
-3

While I can say I fear some of the legal repercussions I think there's an extremity to his position I can't connect with. Well put. I agree with his conclusions, kids included (I came to the same ones myself some years ago), but there's a nastiness to his edge, bordering on genuine (as opposed to feminist) misogyny - he really does seem to loathe women. Me, I love women, I'm just aware of enough of the big picture to be unwilling to give them a gun to point at me.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 04:10 PM
6

Society doesn't owe you shit bro. True, but the point is that complaints like this carry the implicit position that we, as men, owe it to society to dutifully wed and spawn.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 03:41 PM
6

Can one really expect anything different when feminists use the word "reality?" Truly, they are irony given flesh.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 01:29 PM
1

While I'm aware of the issue, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with thinking it's a good idea to NOT act like the caricature the propaganda paints us as.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 12:56 PM
2

The problem is that there's no point in us looking at them when no one else is looking at them. Great, they may or may not exist, but whenever these "fair feminists" show up, they're shouted down by the "mainstream", as you call them, feminists as "not being real feminists," suffering "internalized misogyny", etc. Just about the only ones that get any notice are the former 2nd wave feminists who were drummed out for not toeing the "professional victim" party line: Christina Hoff Summers, Erin Pi…
/r/MensRights30/03/15 12:53 PM
1

seriously? i mean, first of all, absolutely not true. yes, mainstream feminism wastes a lot of time and money on what is arguably bullshit. Then what is "absolute" about it being not true? The Feminist Movement is a "western world" phenomenon and has no power outside of the that sphere, where it has no legitimate reason to continue to exist - that's why it has to make up reasons and "waste time and money on what is arguably bullshit." and not to get too stuck on this hypocrisy thing, but what yo…
/r/MensRights30/03/15 12:07 PM
2

It doesn't stand very well with the correction, either, unfortunately. You see, you acknowledge that it's all but a non-issue in the developed world. And those "other places" you mentioned? Feminism isn't equipped, nor even interested, in doing anything about them - just holding them up as some sort of "indicator" that "the world needs feminism," while they blow thousands of dollars on made-up "issues" like "manspreading" and "micro-aggressions."
/r/MensRights30/03/15 11:30 AM
3

Came here to say just this. OP 2/10, would not feed again.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 11:21 AM
3

yeah, the difference here is that the ~patriarchy~ is a thing that, you know, exists. maybe not anymore in the western world, but most definitely in other parts. No, not even in the other parts. There is a difference between a "patriarchal society" and "THE (big-P) Patriarchy."
/r/MensRights30/03/15 11:18 AM
3

not every feminist buys into patriarchy. That doesn't change the fact that feminist theory is centered on the concept. That "feminist" has become the new 90s-era "neo-pagan" - i.e. a self-applied label that allows the user to pick and choose whatever aspects of whatever philosophies they like, thus making it ultimately meaningless - doesn't change that. You're the one that set the context to feminist theory, not feminists. it's also still important to acknowledge "patriarchy" as a concept, and t…
/r/MensRights30/03/15 11:05 AM
5

The core of "feminist theory" is the delusion of persecution that is "Patriarchy." As long as feminism, regardless of "flavor", continues to miss the forest for trees that aren't even there, it won't ever be anything more than a professional victimhood scam for walking "first world problems" memes.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 10:37 AM
4

OP is pretty standard NAFALT, and the article is basically about the writer's dad "seeing the light", in spite of being 'patriarchal, ageist, and sexist.' Typical fluff, nothing to see here.
/r/MensRights30/03/15 10:33 AM
2

Anecdotal, but as someone who considered switching careers into teaching: No way. For me, it was never the money that stopped me. I've just never been one to walk through a minefield wearing snowshoes. Lack of discipline, helicopters, and idiotic last-past-the-post curriculum standards are bad enough. Drop in this "every male is a sexual predator" attitude that we love so much these days (especially in schools), and it seemed more prudent to just nope the hell out of there, stay where I was, and…
/r/MensRights25/03/15 08:26 PM
35

Because that's how zealotry works.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 08:16 PM
1

OP linked to the image directly, so it's not clear that it's being passed around from the "Feminists Against Vaccination" FB page as if it was a real thing.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 03:04 PM
1

Yeah, I saw that too after I snopes-ed up the claim to see if anyone was stupid enough to be taking it seriously. And sure enough, there was!
/r/MensRights24/03/15 02:35 PM
4

You realize that's a parody, right? It's even still got the SA logo on it.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 02:16 PM
8

If feminism is really irrelevant maybe we should all just ignore it as such. While you're "just not looking," they're getting more laws passed based on their propaganda narrative. "Having no legitimate reason to exist" is not the same thing as "being irrelevant." They even have the goddamn POTUS parroting their lies.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 03:28 PM
14

While I agree with the sentiment, I have to say, you really squandered a golden opportunity, there. Something like this wouldn't been ill-fitting. "It looks like her pussy pass..." dons sunglasses "...was intercepted."
/r/MensRights18/03/15 11:55 PM
2

Thats too broad a statistic. I would assume by "violence" they are accounting for any type of violence, which would include military actions, which militaries, are mostly male (generally speaking) most everywhere in the world You would be assuming incorrectly. The statistic is limited to criminal "stranger" violence (which excludes domestic violence, which is within error of parity) Women are more likely to be assaulted just walking to their cars, or home from a bar or to the train station than …
/r/MensRights18/03/15 10:51 PM
4

I think this may be one of those morally grey areas. I mean, statistically women are FAR more likely to be attacked/assaulted/mugged than men. In China? I ask because that is, in fact, not the case in the U.S. despite frequent claims to the contrary.
/r/MensRights18/03/15 05:04 PM
2

Untrue.It's just generally more difficult and dependent upon the claim being true.You can, for instance, prove that something does not exist because the qualities it possesses are logically contradictory. No, contradiction only disproves that the claimed quality doesn't exist in the questioned entity. To claim that the entity itself doesn't exist is akin to the error of denying the antecedent. Theism is the claim.Atheism is the rejection of the claim.It is the null position. No. "Apathy" or "Ign…
/r/MensRights13/03/15 03:03 PM
1

It still does not apply to atheism, as atheism does not meet the definition of an opinion, or a conviction.It is literally neither of those.So it is still not a belief. It is, in fact, both of those, since it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of something. To hold something true in absence of proof falls under "conviction". To make a subjective value judgement is an opinion. To claim atheism is a fact, absent the possibility aforementioned proof, is zealotry.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 01:01 PM
2

or simply don't care Yes, apathy is pretty much the only position that's not a belief, at least until it becomes possible to disprove the existence of something.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 12:58 PM
2

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief something believed; an opinion or conviction: A disbelief is a belief of the converse. The rest is simply semantic quibbling, and I believe this argument isn't worth continuing further, since I got bored of it when it was still taking place on usenet. Or, I disbelieve that this is going anywhere, if you prefer.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 04:38 AM
3

What you are thinking of is what would sometimes be referred to as "strong atheism" which is the outright assertion that there is no god. No. What I'm thinking of is that you're working on a flawed definition of "belief." It's simply an opinion or conviction. There is no requirement that it be a "positive" position.
/r/MensRights13/03/15 04:16 AM
7

No, it is a belief, just like "the guy who decided green skittles should be a shitty apple flavor after 30+ years of being lime should be kicked in the groin by a mule." What it's not, no matter how many nitwits on the internet think they're being clever and original by claiming otherwise, is a "faith" or a "religion."
/r/MensRights13/03/15 02:59 AM
1

You might not be dead in 40 years, the first bionic heart was tested recently. Unless they finally manage to come up with a datajack, I'm not particularly interested in cybernetics. Least of all to put my decendants into hock to pay for a robo-ticker so that I can stick around and be surrounded by people for even longer. There would be a huge problem if we were still reproducing like we were in the past, but we are not. We might not be, for some unspecified value of "we", but worldwide populatio…
/r/MensRights12/03/15 10:50 PM
1

We are only a couple of years away from totally changing the game with male b/c. So you've said. Ignoring the fact that that's one of those things that always seems to be "a couple of years away", I suspect it won't make quite as powerful a difference, macrocosmically-speaking, as you think. In 40 years we will be living much longer and Gates says 40% of the labour requirement will be gone to machines, we just won't need eggs so much and sperm will be much more limited than it is today. Lucky fo…
/r/MensRights12/03/15 12:51 PM
1

There's a difference between being slaves to it, and acknowledging its existence. Personally, I doubt we'll ever reach the point you were talking about - technology advanced enough to bring us to that point will be used to kill off huge blocks of the population first (the same reasoning that makes me believe that humanity will never pass the edge of the solar system).
/r/MensRights11/03/15 08:21 PM
1

In the context of evolutionary biology, it's modern technology that doesn't matter. Maybe after a few hundred years of this glorious future you envision, those imperatives will fade out, but that's hardly relevant now.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 06:15 PM
2

Okay. So I'm being downvoted simply for introducing factual information. Nicely done, Reddit/MensRights. Perhaps factual, but potentially misleading. You seem to be using some very loose definitions for "recent" (twice as far back as earliest recorded history) and "war" (lack of evidence of standing armies and intra-tribe violence says nothing when those widespread groups crossed paths), for instance.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 06:01 PM
1

Anyhow, what you describe will be reversed as soon as we roll out free reliable birth control for men. When it comes down to biology, ova are more valuable than sperm because of scarcity: a penis, once put to its reproductive use, has multiple uses before being rendered ineffective for, at most, a few weeks; A vagina, once put to its reproductive use, is out of commission for the better part of a year. The manipulation you speak of, and your proposed solution, won't do anything to address that, …
/r/MensRights11/03/15 05:57 PM
1

If you think that being cautious is the same as Tumblr feminism where they are post constant sexist bs and express anti-male crap 24/7 then you are clearly a moron. There is a difference between being cautious, and being paranoid. You still didn't bother to answer my question: what is the risk associated with NOT being openly hostile, even if OP is up to something sneaky? It's not like there was any begging for money, which would admittedly have been a red flag. It was a request for information,…
/r/MensRights07/03/15 08:36 PM
0

Actually, I am aware. Most tumblr feminists don't do anything but talk bullshit they read somewhere else in their echo chamber (that group is not big on original thought): the ones doing doxxing GGers and inciting violence are the small minority that feeds the rest of the nitwits. That's why I said "average" and not worst. You, however, are engaging in the same sexist bigotry that lets feminism do the damage it does, and serving no end. Consider this: OP did not come in here asking for money, ju…
/r/MensRights06/03/15 02:12 AM
0

Erin Prizzey was also a member of the feminist movement, before she was drummed out for being a decent human being. You, however, are behaving no better than your average tumblr feminist.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 05:28 AM
0

Then you need to loosen your tin foil hat enough to let more blood flow to your brain. It's not a difficult train of thought to get from "woman trying to provide victim services for men" to "abuse, harassment, and death threats".
/r/MensRights27/02/15 08:53 PM
1

LOL. My bad. I blame lack of coffee and too much time in the "Net Neutrality" post. Mea Culpa.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 02:01 AM
8

Try it sometime.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 01:12 AM
0

I've seen many MRA-friendly articles in the Huff Post so it's not wrong to say that we're "linked" to right-wing media. In what universe is HuffPo "Right-Wing Media?" Does Arianna have a goatee in it? Update: Okay, so I completely lost my ability to read a complete sentence there.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 01:06 AM
2

Basically, it's the intersection of the "hacker" (traditional, not media, definition) and "DIYer" sets.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 11:40 PM
5

You look like you are very dodgy with you appearing to have created the account for the purpose of this post. That raises the question, what are you trying to hide ? Google "Erin Pizzey" for just a few rational reasons.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 11:16 PM
0

No, you cropped out what he actually suggested, as if no one could read his post and see the context (a very SJW move) What he suggested (more politely than I'm going to), is that you not act like a dickbag.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 10:44 PM
23

What you want to do is good, noble, and very much something the world needs (someone of a different philosophical bent might say "God's work."), and you should be applauded. That said, I have to add "Be careful." You're not the first to want to fill this need.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 10:07 PM
3

True enough, but it's still disappointing if she's actually a librarian with an LS degree and all. If she's just some trumped up arts teacher or something, meh.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 08:33 PM
3

That's pretty messed up. When I was coming up, all of the librarians I knew (and there were a bunch, I was a bit of a bookworm and this was pre-internet) were some of the most anti-censorship people I'd ever met, and it was explained to me that part of it was a natural result of things they learned studying Library Science. Hell, Librarian groups were among the first to oppose the feds' snooping patrons' records after the Patriot Act. If she's an actual librarian, that's disappointing as hell.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 04:19 PM
4

Do you think Cracked.com is just baiting people? Given their history in the last couple years, it wouldn't surprise me. The answer is within the question. But calling the new title "hostile" is a bit of a stretch. "Pandering", "insipid", "flamebait", sure, but let's not be Tumblr here and lose our minds over some dipshit editor on a washed-up "comedy" website.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 04:15 PM
1

Ohhh, so it was basically the whole "explicit consent"->"Enthusiastic Consent"->"Signed Affidavit from the woman, her mother, her cleric, and her local Magistrate of Social Justice" progression we've had over here, except less ridiculous (so far). To err is human, to really fuck things up takes an American lawyer.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 03:36 PM
1

I guess I'm still missing too much context.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 01:26 AM
1

I'm almost afraid to ask, but... what happened?
/r/MensRights26/02/15 01:19 AM
1

Use Adblock/ABE/microblock/whatever. Check /r/MensRightsMeta to see that this comes up every few months and gets shot down. Get over it. ??? Profit!
/r/MensRights26/02/15 12:59 AM
1

I'm sure your intentions are noble, but your premise is flawed, since the center tenet of modern feminism is that women are systemically disadvantaged as demographic who do not have the same rights as men. The obvious counter to that claim is the fact that, in every society where feminism is active (i.e. the developed Western world), they have more rights. By pointing that out, several men's issues have just been brought into the context.
/r/MensRights26/02/15 12:35 AM
1

I know there's /r/MRRef, but can't speak to anything other than that.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 10:18 PM
2

But but but... Patriarchy! Clearly, we were able the make all sorts of laws to protect, nurture, and otherwise prop up the poor womenfolk in order to oppress them, because we're The Patriarchy(TM)! We're crafty bastards that way. Then we got so distracted patting ourselves on the back and twirling our mustaches evilly that we forgot the part that keeps our own asses out of jail. Silly us!
/r/MensRights25/02/15 07:40 PM
3

it's very odd to me that championing the pay for women is so frequently chosen. You're not cynical enough. I don't find it surprising at all: as a "cause", it's safe - it's a long-solved problem, so they don't have to worry about being taken to task for not accomplishing anything, they just pick an anecdote and call that a "win", and useless people like her who see more money in a year than most men and women will ever get their hands on, get to use it to pandering for cheap praise.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 07:30 PM
14

It's HuffPo. Did you really expect any better?
/r/MensRights25/02/15 05:29 PM
5

Can someone more enlightened than me explain what's ignorant about "regret sex has been defined as rape," (other than the absolute vs existential) when it's demonstrably shown that it can be treated as such? Or are we dealing with a feminist article writer?
/r/MensRights25/02/15 05:26 PM
3

My sentiments exactly. Dammit, I'm not supposed to have feels.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 05:20 PM
1

Notable how you snip out the part where I asked you directly about womens' post-conception options. Too bad it's still in the original post for everyone to see. It looks like I've unlocked the same achievement as everyone else who's made the mistake of talking to you like a person: reduced you to namecalling and gibbering incoherence, and outed you as a hypocritical troll. WHAT? -10 GS?! Damn it.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 05:15 PM
1

That's what I was talking about too. Poe's law was definitely in play until I looked at some of the links: For example White men are rapists Link: "Blacks Rape Preteen Hispanic in Texas, Whites Get Blamed" All women are potential rape victims Link: "Is the US the only country where more men are raped than women?" We need to get women out of the kitchen and into the workforce, where they can prosper and be happy. Link: "Women are more unhappy despite 40 years of feminism, claims study" Update: Ni…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 05:08 PM
2

Betteridge's Law of Headlines
/r/MensRights25/02/15 04:26 PM
4

I think he's being facetious. "What could possibly go wrong?" is usually used ironically, in cases where it's pretty clear just what could go wrong. Update: Yeah, looking over the article, particularly the links, the writer is being ironic. Important reminder here for all of us: "Don't be a Tumblrina: context MATTERS!"
/r/MensRights25/02/15 04:23 PM
1

Fine, and the women who cannot afford, but go ahead? Is making a bad decision. That's her prerogative, but doesn't make it his responsibility. The problem is, as much as I fight for financial abortions, your logic is wrong. If this is the case, your response fails to demonstrate it. He has self-determination before - now he has fertilized an egg. This statement is simply an implicit wording of "if he doesn't want a child, he should not have sex." A straight question that you've avoided making yo…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 03:54 PM
2

Since "what happens next" in the current state of affairs is obvious, I'm going to assume you mean what happens next if the man has the right to legal parental surrender. The man is out of the picture. He's made his decision, his role is done. The mother-to-be then has to re-evaluate her decision: can she afford the financial, labor, and time costs of being a single mother? If yes: she goes forward and has the baby. If no: she exercises one of the many options she has available to her. The only …
/r/MensRights25/02/15 03:02 PM
2

What reproductive rights are they being denied? I am not saying they aren't, but I am genuinely asking because you keep writing things like your have cramp in both your hands and you cannot type out a few more sentences to elucidate. The right to determine for themselves if they are ready, willing, and able to be a parent. i.e., the same rights used by women to justify the necessity of abortion remaining safe, legal, and available.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:31 PM
3

It's a pretty horrible term, really -- the cynic in me wonders if that's not by design, since I usually see it being used by people arguing that men should, in fact, not have that right. The actual legal term, IIRC, is something along the lines of "legal parental surrender" or somesuch - along the same lines of what a biological parent does when their child is to be adopted. (IANAL)
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:22 PM
5

Actually, what they're arguing is that the status quo says that only women have the right to determine whether or not she wants to be a parent, and also has the right to make that decision for a man. If she decides that he does, he shoulders a not exactly mild responsibility for a good chunk of his life. "Agency," which was a big thing for women back when feminism had a legitimate reason to exist, is the state of having the authority to go with one's responsibilities - something thing denied men…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:17 PM
1

Ohh, they're not gonna last very long...
/r/MensRights23/02/15 03:12 PM
3

That damned meme has been spreading through the internet for twenty-something years and has always driven me nuts. I hereby absolve you of moron status. Go now and sin no more. ;)
/r/MensRights23/02/15 02:43 PM
3

Since intelligence is normally distributed, mean=median=mode, so "average" is not ambiguous nor incorrect.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 02:37 PM
12

Funny how every user I saw complaining about a "toxic community" has never, ever posted in here. Admittedly, I lurk more than anything, but that has to make one wonder...
/r/MensRights23/02/15 04:26 AM
6

I had the same idea, until my younger brother started wearing one. Figured that would overshadow the point in our circle.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 02:58 PM
1

Personally, you'll need to lose the Facebook requirement before I bother to look at it.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 02:41 PM
1

It means the feminists saying that are full of it.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 02:34 PM
1

I stopped reading as soon as I hit the feminism buzzword "mansplaining." At the risk of committing a Black Swan Fallacy, I'm fairly certain that the intersection of people who have used that term, and the set of people who have anything at all worth saying, is empty.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 02:00 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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