TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TheCameraLady Archive

View 12 posts and 495 comments by TheCameraLady on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

thathappened.jpeg
/r/PussyPassDenied19/10/17 01:40 PM
1

link the thread?
/r/PussyPassDenied19/10/17 12:07 AM
1

well you can always fuck off to some amazon jungle to live among natives or shut the fuck up about it if you dont like the laws of normal society created by normal people, cant you? Except the laws of society are exactly what I've described, dude. That's why the guy in the OP wasn't charged. When I read your comment, the only thing I see of note, is that you've never actually been in a life-threatening situation.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/12/16 11:18 PM
1

AND proportional in relation to the gravity of the harm threatened No, and it's pretty clear why this is ridiculous. If your ability to defend yourself is crippled by how much damage your attacker can actually dish out, all it takes is for you to come up against a sufficiently weak opponent that can simply wail away on you in perpetuity causing minimal damage, while you can't defend yourself because even just one hit from you would knock them out. No, that's not how it works. Somebody doesn't ge…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/12/16 03:26 PM
3

law says that you can only use force that is proportional This is not what the law says. The definition of excessive force in self defense is not "you used more force on your attacker than your attacker used on you", it is "you used more force than was required to stop your attacker from further attacking you". You can, in fact, use more force on the instigator of a fight than they have used on you, if that's the required amount of force to end the fight. you fucking violent retard, you probably…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 10:47 PM
4

Man, spitting on him is considered assault as it is. If you spit on a cop they'll take you down, cuff you and arrest you. Why are there so many retards in these comments saying he reacted poorly? He did exactly what he should've done.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 03:50 PM
1

He doesn't automatically get absolved of his actions because he's defending himself. No, but because he is defending himself, he does have more leeway. Like I said before, she's already proven to be capable of one-sided initiation of violence - he hasn't. That means, if she were to get the upper hand, it is not guaranteed that she wouldn't continue to escalate. That puts the onus on him to stop the encounter. If he ultimately has to use more force than she did on him, that's fine. The idea is no…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 03:47 PM
1

Actually, those two things are completely congruent with each other. A toddler cannot be reasoned with on a meaningful level, due to a lack of development. If a toddler happens to attack you, that fact combined with the extreme power difference (significantly greater than grown man vs grown woman) would make having a measured response to the situation more important - you cannot reason them out of a fight based on the toddler's innate nature. However, an adult woman is different. She is expected…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 07:32 AM
5

It is reasonable to fear for your life when somebody instigates an attack against you, regardless of who they are. Period. Because you can no longer be assured they won't kill you if they gain the upper hand in that fight. Do you think it's worth it to gamble on the idea that somebody half your size won't brain you with a brick if they happen to get the upper hand in a brawl, when they were the one who instigated it? I don't think that gamble is worth dying, dude. If you do, that's fine. But it'…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 03:28 AM
3

Like I said, it's perfectly reasonable to fear for your life when somebody shows they are capable of being the aggressor in the scenario. Even if that somebody is a girl. Even if that somebody is half your size. Why? Because they may have a weapon they can pull on you, and they've already proven that they are capable of that kind of aggression by instigating a first strike. Because they may get a weapon from their surroundings. Because they may land a lucky or odd-angled punch that leaves you do…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 03:25 AM
1

He actually did try walking away in the video. That's the point - He went to leave, she stopped him to attack. At that point, it's reasonable to think "well, she's not gonna let me turn my back on her without trying something, because I just did that. I've gotta handle this another way."
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 03:22 AM
2

Even in your scenario, I think the response was appropriate. And in fact, it reminds me of something that happened in my city, nearly a decade ago now. A 120 lb weakling of a dude was being a belligerent in a local bar. The bouncer had a foot on him and was over double the weight, and thought nothing of going over to eject the guy after he started up a fight. The bouncer ended up getting a knife stuck between his ribs because he spent the first two seconds of the confrontation with the guy tryin…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 03:20 AM
1

I have, in fact. It might be a difference in life experience between myself and other commentors. But I don't treat fights as little happenings that might end up on worldstarhiphop by a bystander's iphone recording anymore. I treat them as life-and-death scenarios because, frankly, that's what they are. In a real fight, if you get put on your ass, on your back, KO'd, restrained from behind, or in any other way incapacitated, there's nothing stopping your life from ending right then and there. Is…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 03:05 AM
3

Did you just equate a toddler with limited reasoning skills to a fully grown woman? One of these things can (generally) not be reasoned with. The other, not only can they be reasoned with, society expects them to be reasonable, and their occasional lack of reasonability doesn't absolve them of responsibility from their actions. Which is, you know, the point of this sub.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 03:03 AM
4

Saying something is self-evident is the mark of somebody who has no actual defensible position. Your inability to show how what I said is ridiculous means that either it's not ridiculous, or you lack the capability of proving your own points. Either way, well done?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 03:01 AM
6

I spelled out four facts for you, directly taken from the GIF. You chose to ignore them. What 'facts' do you have?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 02:59 AM
2

Actually, yes. And I don't think that's a bad thing to advocate, especially if it's reasonable in that scenario to believe that person will continue to slap you, and not allow you to simply leave the situation without getting slapped.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/12/16 02:59 AM
5

You didn't point out how it's ridiculous. Simply saying "i think thats ridiculous lol" is not a refutation.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:57 PM
10

He wanted to punch her and he did. You're right, dishonesty is very unconvincing. Nothing in the GIF makes me think this is the truth. It really seems this claim is coming straight from your ass. The other people in this thread accept that but say that should be okay. The other people are wrong, and I have no problem disagreeing with them. Simply wanting to hit somebody is not a good reason to do it. You seem to be the only one claiming that his life was in danger. Yes, and I'm correct. Let me s…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:56 PM
6

Looks like you haven't actually refuted the entire argument. Thank you for admitting your position is untenable.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:54 PM
1

a weak push Battery already. And considering her behaviour earlier was potentially verbally aggressive, and she committed this battery while he was disengaging from the situation, she's already proven herself to very likely not let this go if he continued to disengage. At this point, he's already legally within his right to physically stop her aggression. But he doesn't. He takes up threatening posture in an attempt to scare her into backing off, but she doesn't, she hits him in the face. And th…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:53 PM
9

I did, you just don't like the proof. (that's why you haven't made an effort to refute it, by the way). He used enough force to immediately stop her aggression, ensure that in the short term she would not be able to get up and resume her aggression, and did minimal long-term damage to her. That's the exact definition of "just the right amount of force". If he had hit her just as hard as she hit him, she very likely could've been emboldened and escalated the situation, threatening his life. If he…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:49 PM
4

Here's the facts, as we can see them from the gif: One - She initiated the attack. This proves to him that she can't be reasoned with, taking "talk it out" off the table as an appropriate response. It also establishes self-defense. Two - She blocked him from leaving. This proves to him that "walking away" is also off the table as an appropriate response, as nothing is stopping her from continually following and re-engaging. Three - She escalated the situation. Watch the GIF carefully. He moves t…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:47 PM
1

It doesn't sound like we watched the same video, man. I see him trying to leave.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:39 PM
9

You've yet to prove the force was excessive. However, I've already proven it wasn't. The force was not excessive because she was the aggressor, and her aggression was stopped with minimal lasting damage to her, and that is the very definition of just the right amount of force. Reasoning with her was already an option taken off the table when she initiated the fight. That leaves either leaving, or defending yourself.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:38 PM
2

While he backs away or tries to make the call, she has a few seconds to escalate into a potentially deadly attacker. No. She's already proven that she's capable of one-sidedly and aggressively using force. Any more benefit of the doubt from that point can lead to her getting more shots in, reaching for a weapon, etc. The only course of action is to stop her attack, and if that means knocking her out, so be it. If the alternative is potentially having a knife handle sticking out of your chest, yo…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:36 PM
22

Again, the force was not excessive. Let's say he used a lesser amount of force. She hits him, he hits her back. Not enough to KO her, not enough to put her off her feet. Just enough to hurt her the way she hurt him. And then let's say, while he's spending his next few milliseconds trying to defuse the situation, her next move is to grab a bottle off that table and break it over his face. What then? When a person has already shown themselves capable of aggressively using force against you, all be…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:33 PM
3

Keep in mind I did say enough force to incapacitate your attacker, not kill your attacker. Sometimes, killing them might be required. Most of the time, it isn't. The law has other sections for a death caused in self-defense, but before that? Yes, the law will protect you if you knock out somebody who's attacking you, even if their attacks didn't culminate in you getting knocked out yourself. That's why the guy in the OP didn't actually get slapped with any legal repercussions. It was textbook se…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:30 PM
1

Anybody can.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:22 PM
13

Exactly. Fights are split-second scenarios. He could've put up his hands and said "whoah, easy now", and she could've used that half-second to pull a knife from her purse and shove it into his chest, grab a bottle off the table and smash it on his head, whatever. When somebody's attacking you, your job is to stop their attack, period.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:21 PM
3

Keep in mind that the amount of damage a person can output may be dependent on their body size, but the amount of damage a person can take is not. When a woman slugs a larger man with all her might, you think that doesn't hurt? You think that doesn't seriously hurt? I'm pretty sure it does.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:20 PM
2

You're only allowed to defend yourself with the same amount of force that your attacker is using on you I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. You are allowed to defend yourself with as much force as is necessary to get your attacker to stop attacking you. If that means they willingly back off? Fine. If that means that you knock them the fuck out because they just will not stop after the first punch? Fine. Every second you waste acting like you're in a fight scene from a movie is a second the o…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:17 PM
28

The force wasn't excessive, and here's why: Very clearly, she was the attacker. That's not in dispute. When attacked, you have two options: One, leave the area, or two, defend yourself. And if you pick option two, you'd better use enough force to stop your attacker dead in their tracks. If they're not on their ass, they're going to be angrier and come at you harder, or they're going to go for a weapon, etc. We can see from the video, he already tried option one. He was on his way out, and she re…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:12 PM
-1

No, dude. If somebody's attacking you, it's not about 'fair play', and it's not about 'honour'. After she's already shown to be willing to use violence against him, every second he spends trying to calm her down while she wails on him is a second she could pull out a weapon and use it on him instead. Real fights aren't governed by rules. In a real fight, you can lose your life very, very quickly. When somebody attacks you, you either need to have a clear way to escape the situation immediately, …
/r/PussyPassDenied19/12/16 10:05 PM
2

She probably deserves to get paid for managing one of his companies, like any other manager. But that's something she should've worked out before doing the work.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/09/16 10:45 PM
2

calm down, humpty
/r/MensRights16/08/16 06:34 PM
1

Like?
/r/MensRights22/06/16 03:15 AM
1

I mis-spoke, sorry. The point I was making is, your comment of "If I'm wrong, a person is born" is not all that happens. Lives can be ruined. This is why abortion is a necessary right.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 01:51 AM
1

You refuted the implied foregone conclusion that a fetus is a person in stating that it wasn't, The conclusion that a fetus is a person is not implied nor is it foregone, dude. That's a conclusion you came to on your own. And now I'm asking you to prove it. you have no evidence a fetus isn't a person and you know it. This is like saying "you have no evidence that a seed isn't a fully formed flower and you know it." It's a self-evident state of affairs. The statement "a fetus isn't a person" is j…
/r/MensRights18/06/16 10:47 PM
1

You made your originating claim first, that a fetus was a person. You haven't proved it yet. Please do so.
/r/MensRights18/06/16 10:39 PM
1

I see you haven't replied, yet you've been very active on Reddit. I'll take this as an admission that you really have nothing to back up your position, and that what you believe about a fetus being a person is an entirely untenable viewpoint to hold. Have a nice day!
/r/MensRights18/06/16 10:21 AM
1

You entered the conversation making the negative assertion. Now you're trying a reversal move. No, in fact, your own words betray you: The first claim was that it was a person, you claimed it wasn't. The first claim was that it was a person. Therefore, the first claim is the claim that must be proven. You haven't ever given any reason why it should not be considered a person, A basic logical principle is that a thing's current form does not mean that it must be considered as a thing's future for…
/r/MensRights16/06/16 10:24 PM
1

The burden of proof is on you in this scenario. You're the one making a positive assertion about the nature of something. Therefore, you must prove it. When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. You assert that a fetus is a person. I dispute it. You have to justify or substantiate that claim.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 09:08 PM
1

It's generally not women who try to remove men's cake, actually. Most of the time, it's rich people (both men and women), who want to get men back into wage slavery.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 06:30 PM
1

Fetus =/= human being. Wrong. Absolutely stunning refutation. You should be awarded an honourary Doctorate in Philosophy for that amazing display of logic. This is under the assumption that our bodies are our own property to do with what we like, therefore we can kill living things that cannot survive without being parasitic to our property, and therefore a fetus in a woman is like a passenger in an airplane I own. Multiple problems here. One. Again, fetus =/= person. And in case my sarcasm didn…
/r/MensRights16/06/16 06:29 PM
2

I agree, both women and men should be able to opt out. But the road to that goal isn't to remove the ability for women to opt out, it's to give men the ability to opt out.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 10:40 PM
1

Where's my freedom to kill another human being then? Fetus =/= human being. Well, a man can't force a woman to abort a baby. Therefore, under equality, she can't abort it, either. In the former example, that's one person demanding rights over another person's body. In the latter example, it's one person doing what they like with their own body. They're clearly not equivalent.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 10:36 PM
1

For my efforts, I have been mocked, laughed at, slandered, ignored, and gotten death threats. From women. This is bad, yes. Feminists got these as well, in the past. Anybody who ever wanted to change anything got this. It's bad, but it's par for the course. Meanwhile, Feminists get more demanding and obnoxious, the rights of men continue to wither away, and this is seen as progress by the vast majority of women. Yep. But again... why should it be feminists who hand you what you want? Fight for y…
/r/MensRights15/06/16 04:25 PM
2

Then I'd say in disagreement the person who takes precedence is the human life that has no ability to consent or not to its fabricated death by the decision of others. Except that it's not a human life. "Life at conception" is a ridiculous benchmark. I believe the "no" should take precedence over the "yes". If a man wants a kid and the woman doesn't, too bad, abort. If a woman wants a kid and the man doesn't, well, you should pay for it yourself, lady. It is more important that the rights of peo…
/r/MensRights15/06/16 04:21 PM
2

Oh, yes they are. And, in fact, my post outlined exactly how. Simply saying "lolno" is not a refutation. All humans need freedom. Abortion is how we've given some freedom to women. The path forward is giving equivalent freedom to men, not regressing and taking it away from women.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 04:18 PM
1

While that's awful, I don't think we were talking about alimony...
/r/MensRights15/06/16 03:00 PM
2

That's never, ever, ever going to happen because women will never allow it. Why should it be women who allow it? Why should it be men who stand around waiting for handouts from women? Women gained equality by fighting for it - why should it not be the same for men? Don't sit around and wait for something to be handed to you on silver platter. You want something, go get it. Therefore, the job of men is to guard their cake with their lives and fight for more of it. This implies that this is a zero…
/r/MensRights15/06/16 02:59 PM
1

What?
/r/MensRights15/06/16 02:54 PM
2

You'd think, right? Except that women have already begun to be arrested for having miscarriages in states where having an abortion without a licensed doctor performing the procedure is illegal. When it comes to government regulation, you have to watch out that your legislation doesn't cause more problems than it fixes - and you also have to realize when your government is made of christian nutjobs who are interested in controlling the private lives of citizens. The minute a law is passed stating…
/r/MensRights15/06/16 07:12 AM
1

The female body naturally miscarriages with no outside involvement about 60% of the time. Meaning, in humanity's natural state, more 'amalgamations of cells' are destroyed than carried to term. This is the problem with setting the life goalposts at 'conception' - when you do so, a woman's natural processes become murder in the eyes of the law.
/r/MensRights15/06/16 06:43 AM
1

And when the man and woman disagree, whose say takes precedence?
/r/MensRights15/06/16 06:41 AM
2

Why is it unfortunate that a human being's health take precedent over another human being's wealth?
/r/MensRights15/06/16 06:40 AM
5

No, the Cake represents rights here, not a child. A woman has the right to walk away from a child right now (with that right being under attack and curtailed in the USA via clinics being shut down, unreasonable restrictions on how and when and where to get an abortion, etc), while a man has no right to walk away from a child. Both of these things must be fixed for true equality. A man must have the option to walk away from any child, no strings attached. A woman must have safe, easy, affordable …
/r/MensRights15/06/16 06:36 AM
35

I think this is ultimately a good thing. I think it's necessary that women be able to get an abortion, pretty much any time they want. I think it's EQUALLY necessary that men be able to walk away from a child they didn't want, no strings attached, as well. Just because men don't have their cake, doesn't mean we should remove women's cake. Let's work on getting men their cake too.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 03:41 PM
-4

Haha, you can't be serious. If 'a lot' of people have a dating pool where they string along multiple partners until they choose one, then 'a lot' of people are scumbags. If we live in a culture that considers this acceptable behaviour, then the culture is intrinsically wrong. It's not a hard moral determination to make - if you recklessly hurt people you claim to care about for your own happiness, you're a bad person.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/16 10:52 PM
4

Nah, he's not. I don't care how common it is for people to perform bad behaviours. That just means that morally deficient people are common, and that this type of backlash should be just as common.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/16 07:26 PM
-1

That's new, the NDP was only elected in last year.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/08/15 06:14 PM
1

Nope
/r/PussyPassDenied02/06/15 05:53 PM
0

Thanks. How'd you find me to begin with? :x
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/15 12:03 AM
3

The player cannot afford to turn around mid-game and confront her. He's doing a speedrun and every second counts. Moreover, nobody in the room was willing to start something because that environment would likely also fuck up his run. He likely only got to clap for a few seconds because it was during a cutscene.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/02/15 03:10 AM
-5

Yo, faggot. I don't do this, consciously or subconsciously. I have no problem hitting a man when necessary and I have no problem being hit back by him. Mainly cause most men can't hit as hard as I can.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/15 03:56 PM
2

It shows a complete lack of moral fiber and character You'll have to prove this assertion. multiple emotional issues. You'll have to prove this assertion. Sluts = bad. You'll have to prove this assertion. Pull your head out of your ass. Aww, are you fucking butthurt that I simply won't go along with your shitty redpill opinions?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/01/15 02:28 PM
1

Nope. If people want to have consensual sex, what's the harm? If nobody's being raped or deceived, what's your issue with it? Having consensual, straightforward, safe, disease-free, deception-free sex with a hundred, a thousand, a million people is no problem.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/01/15 02:42 AM
11

Most of the shitty lesbians I've met are of the "lesbians until graduation" type, when they decide that their experimental phase is over, they were never truly attracted to women, and it's time for house/car/kids/white picket fence with whatever poor sap is unlucky enough to become entrapped by them. I've had three relationships end out of nowhere when the girl said "I was just with you until the right guy came along, lesbians aren't real, you need to grow up".
/r/PussyPassDenied11/01/15 05:28 PM
41

Shit you're one of the gays then. Fixed.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/01/15 05:25 PM
14

I'm a lesbian.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/01/15 04:17 PM
5

I don't think it's particularly moral or amoral, even if my primary intention WAS to brag.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/01/15 06:59 AM
12

I need no context - you cheated, your friends didn't call you on it. Ergo, scumbags. Some things are just unequivocally, universally bad, regardless of circumstances. Having sex behind your partner's back with another person while supposedly in a committed relationship is one of those. You hate her and want to leave? You're not having your sexual needs met and can't take it anymore? You just want a strange cunt? Fine, break it off and go fuck other people. There's never an excuse to cheat, perio…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/01/15 09:58 PM
9

Sounds like you and all of your friends are scumbags?
/r/PussyPassDenied07/01/15 06:46 PM
5

I don't drink :p
/r/PussyPassDenied05/01/15 03:37 PM
2

Do people generally let girls get away with cheating more so than guys? I don't think so. Girls will most certainly let other girls get away with cheating, more than girls will let guys get away with cheating. In the case of the latter, he's considered a scumbag or pervert or immature, while in the case of the former, she's just 'exploring her sexuality' or complaints against her will be construed as 'slut-shaming'... and all of her female friends will knowingly nod. That's why it's a PPD. I did…
/r/PussyPassDenied05/01/15 03:34 PM
10

Sucks that you've met so many shitty lesbians, dude. It hasn't been my experience, but that also doesn't mean your experience is wrong.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/01/15 06:28 AM
10

Let me bring up a part of the story that I didn't include because I didn't think was relevant. Your comment suddenly made it so. This all happened nearly 4 years ago. I remained friends with all of them, except the cheater, up until April of 2014, when I moved to a new city and subsequently lost contact with them all. The boyfriend found a new girlfriend, and eventually married his new girl. The cheater never got over the relationship, and blamed me for ruining it rather than her infidelity. The…
/r/PussyPassDenied05/01/15 12:22 AM
7

I prefer righteous over unethical.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/01/15 12:07 AM
2

Your conversation could have happened in a group of guy friends It didn't. a co-ed group It didn't. Everyone thinks their friends will excuse them based on their friendship not their gender. I assume you're male, because you seem to have no understanding of the 'sisterhood' dynamic of many all-female friendgroups. This lack of understanding is also why you are incorrectly asserting that my story doesn't belong here. You need more education on the topic. You're wrong, get over it. I feel bad for …
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 11:29 PM
6

You fail to understand what this sub is about. It's about women doing terrible things, then hoping they'll be excused for it simply because they're women, and then them not getting excused in the end. That is exactly what happened in my story. I'm sure that really helped her out. I'm not interested in helping cheaters, of either gender. I'm interested in getting their SO's away from their abusive and manipulative behaviours. Her feelings stopped being a consideration when she cheated. Maybe she …
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 11:06 PM
7

I'm not lonely, but if I were? I'd rather be alone than friend with cheaters. Being around other people is not so important that I'm gonna stoop to associating with scumbags.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 10:17 PM
4

you mean, one of the shittiest subs?
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 09:31 PM
13

What'r they all doing now? Man I really want you to make a detailed post of all the stories
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 04:15 PM
11

No regrets bro. I did the right thing. I would not be a moral human if I HADN'T sold her out.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 04:14 PM
13

Why do you think cheaters deserve confidence to be kept?
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 04:14 PM
7

But she did - her attitude was one of "hey we're all girls here, it's cool to just openly talk about the terrible immoral shit we do to guys". Also, do you mean /r/TwoXChromosomes ? I got banned from that shitty sub over a year ago because I provided accurate statistics on false rape reporting and everybody shit themselves when they saw it was around 30% rather than the 1 in 1000 they parrot constantly. It's such a dumbfuck sub.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 04:13 PM
14

You're god damn right I did. A cheater deserves no confidence. Hell, they deserve no friends.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 04:10 PM
2

It would only be racist, sexist, or homophobic if I outright believed all women everywhere did this. I don't. That doesn't mean I'm going to be surprised every single time a woman does it, because in my experience it happens more often than not. There's a clear and obvious difference between "Man i've seen a lot of women perform X behaviour, obviously all women do it" and "Man i've seen a lot of women perform X behaviour, it's a fair chance the next woman i encounter will do it too based on past…
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 04:07 PM
9

The one and only, yo.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 07:46 AM
13

I do regularly look beyond my own observations. I thought it was clear that my statement was limited to what I've personally experienced and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt. It would be prejudice if I said all of any group anywhere act in a specific way. I didn't say that. Stop looking for the spooky patriarchy spectre where there isn't any.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 04:45 AM
20

Did all of you dump them? Did they all scream and cry and want back in, only to be tossed to the curb? Tell me yo.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 04:03 AM
10

i'm actually a really shitty person to be friends with because my being a stickler for honesty and punctuality means everybody has a problem with me eventually i don't like when people lie, cheat, or steal. I don't like when people say one thing then do another. I don't like when people agree to show up at x time/place and don't. And i've learned that NOBODY likes it when I call them out.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 04:01 AM
33

were you referencing this
/r/PussyPassDenied04/01/15 01:07 AM
123

yeah i'm pretty much male with a vagina high natural testosterone
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 11:46 PM
27

I'd like to think I'm a strong woman. A lot of women think they're a strong woman, they by into that "hear me roar" shit, and then they play the pussy pass game constantly. Victim cards come out, alimony/child support is collected, special treatment is requested. I don't do any of that. I have no problem with taking responsibility for my choices, and engaging the world on its terms - just the type of things men are expected to do.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 11:19 PM
15

She can bring it
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 11:17 PM
10

Do you not like penises? Im just curious what or why you are straight.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 11:16 PM
17

There's nothing ironic - it's just that you're misunderstanding everything spoken to you.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 10:23 PM
51

I've heard this shit legit a lot. Comes with being pro-#gamergate.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 09:47 PM
18

Just going based on my own observations. You sorta forgot the part pointing out that everything I said entirely subjective and limited to the people I've interacted with, bro.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 09:46 PM
31

haha oh wow it's cute you think that actually qualifies even if my statement was inaccurate it still wouldn't qualify because I didn't use my gender to try and push through an inaccurate point of view read the sidebar, troglodyte
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 09:44 PM
26

Just going based on my own observations. Straight women cheat just as much as anybody else, but seem to be more willing to help their fellow straight women cover it up. Meanwhile lesbian women are more likely to be accepting of open relationships.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 09:17 PM
124

I'm a lesbian, there's a fair amount of us like this. Straight women? It's pretty fucking rare.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 08:08 PM
290

I do my best
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 07:42 PM
-10

Slut shaming is stupid. Nobody gets hurt when two people consent to safe sex. However, cheat shaming? A completely viable and morally correct course of action to take.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/15 06:57 PM
6

Oh they weren't together. This was actually the first time the two of 'em had met. They were friends of friends.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 05:54 PM
29

A male friend of mine got chewed out by another woman in our friendgroup for not owning a suit. Other males in our group own a suit, but this guy doesn't go to formal or semiformal events much, and doesn't feel the need to lay down the cash for something he'd never use. I was there, though I was in another room engaged in another conversation, and I didn't get the chance to chip in. but I vividly recall one exchange out of the corner of my ear: Girl: Every man should own a suit. Guy: Nah, I woul…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 04:19 PM
-4

It seems as if the mod took issue with you using a gendered slur, rather than you bringing up a situation in which a woman was creepy PMing a man. You weren't banned for the content of your post, rather for your use of the word 'bitch' (and then for mocking the mods when they told you it was against the rules to use that word!) We can't know for sure where that sub stands, until a situation appears on that sub in which a woman is stalking a man, but aside from that the post contains no other inf…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 09:15 AM
2

This hasn't been my experience. Every time I've seen a doctor it's been only me and him. No big deal.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 09:27 PM
3

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think government should cover all forms of birth control, for both men and women alike.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 09:25 PM
-1

I don't need to identify myself as a female generally... the "lady" is right in my name. :p
/r/MensRights11/07/14 12:08 PM
2

It's your.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 12:08 PM
2

I'm one, right here.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 05:40 AM
1

It's related to both men's and women's rights, because it affects young men and young women.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 12:26 AM
0

Physical violence in response to a non-physical situation is never okay - she was clearly in the wrong. But don't act like you weren't being an asshole, either. She's new. You don't personally know her. Why did you think making fun of a personal situation would be okay? Sounds like you both need a lesson in acceptable behaviour.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 07:00 PM
0

Human life is all life that is part of a human system. Take a skin cell. Is it human skin? Is it still alive? Then it is human life.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 03:02 AM
1

How can they NOT all be considered life? Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. Sperm has signaling and self-sustaining processes. So do red blood cells. They're all life. This is basic biology.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 02:41 AM
1

...but it's not an opinion. Sperm are alive, this is a fact. Unfertilized eggs are alive, this is a fact. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, life changes form, but it does not begin.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 01:11 AM
-1

I haven't found a good counter-argument to 'life starts at conception.' Life does not 'start' at conception. Life starts significantly BEFORE conception. Or are you saying the unfertilized egg and sperm are not alive?
/r/MensRights06/07/14 03:26 PM
-1

I've heard their arguments. I find them lacking.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 04:38 AM
0

Because the opinion that life begins at conception is ultimately an untenable one.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 04:30 AM
1

If left to it's own devices, if there is no intervention, it will just wither and die. As will a fertilized embryo. The mother constantly intervenes via supporting the fertilized embryo, but should it be left to its own devices, it will just wither and die. There's no difference. It's worth noting that literally all of the greatest crimes in history have been carried out in the name of the 'good of the many.' "In the name of" is not "in accordance with the principles of". It's very easy to say y…
/r/MensRights06/07/14 04:29 AM
0

Cool, what religion do you adhere to?
/r/MensRights05/07/14 04:31 PM
5

Your argument is premised on the idea that absolute laissez-faire contains within it a natural tendency towards monopoly, and that some regulations can thwart this tendency. Yes, this is my position. I believe it to be true based on human nature - Securing a monopoly means the most profit (everybody's buying your shit) for the least work (no need to improve), and since humans are generally lazy at best and scumbags at worst, it only makes sense that we'd trend toward this outcome without anythin…
/r/MensRights05/07/14 03:10 PM
0

it's hard to prove that an embryo is NOT in some way a human life. It's also hard to prove that a pre-fertilized embryo is NOT human life, either. It is. All those unreleased eggs are alive. All sperm is too. As are the skin cells that occasionally flake off. When an embryo goes from pre to post-fertilization, it's not like there's this glowing Discovery channel flash of light and BANG, the cell goes from dead to alive. It simply changes states. A tomato seed that isn't planted will never grow. …
/r/MensRights05/07/14 01:55 PM
0

for people who have a religious conviction I don't particularly care about people who have a religious conviction, if they're attempting to force others to adhere to that conviction. Nothing is stopping anyone. Except, say, money. I just don't think it's ethical to force another person to be involved in it. Insofar as corporations (if you believe they're people) or people in charge of a business (if you don't believe that), I disagree. When you operate a business, you need to accept that people …
/r/MensRights05/07/14 01:52 PM
2

They both are, in the end!
/r/MensRights05/07/14 01:48 PM
0

Depends! If we're actually believing that corporations are people, then no. The corporation, no matter how big or small, is its own person and therefore not linked to you. But if corporations aren't people, then it's simply your property. However, neither of these things allow a corporation, or the employees that run it, the right to force their religious beliefs on their employees.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 01:47 PM
1

I actually wrote another post, replying to a separate reply in this comment thread, that talks about some of this stuff. I don't want to type it again though >_>
/r/MensRights05/07/14 01:38 PM
2

The simple fact is that the MHRM is a small movement and trying to purge a large swathe of it is dangerous enough I'm not trying to run libertarians off. Did I say "libertarians, get out!" in any of my posts? I may think that libertarianism is incompatible with men's rights as a philosophical standpoint, but that doesn't mean that others can't disagree with me and therefore stick around. yet arguing that the libertarian political philosophy is incompatible with human rights? Not political, but e…
/r/MensRights05/07/14 01:28 PM
1

Obama is not liberal. He's a member of the democratic party - he's what americans might call "liberal" - he is not actually a liberal. He's slightly right of center in his policies, with his republican opponents being just a bit more right of center. The Dem and Repub parties are carbon copies of each other in practice right now.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 01:03 PM
1

For the most part. I'm not a believer in laissez-faire capitalism, mainly because I believe that humans will endeavour to fuck each other over if it means bettering themselves, and an unregulated economy will ultimately lead to rich people fucking over poor people. But, beyond that? Yeah, classical liberal.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 06:04 AM
4

I feel as if it's relevant because there are parts of libertarianism that is incompatible with men's rights (and women's rights and human rights as a whole, too.) A core philosophical tenant of libertarianism is that the freedom of the individual should be infringed upon by a governing body as little as possible. At first glance, that sounds quite liberating and therefore amenable to the idea of human rights, and perhaps in the beginning of a libertarian society, it would be. All it takes for th…
/r/MensRights05/07/14 05:53 AM
2

You can't tell the difference between courts striking down laws that ban abortion, and the court's treatment of laws that force people to pay for other people's abortions? One - Calling the forms of contraception Hobby Lobby refused to cover 'abortion' is intellectual dishonesty. Two - Access to a thing is just as important as making a thing legal. If it's legal but not accessible, then to the common person there's no difference whatsoever. I live in a country that's had the foresight to roll ab…
/r/MensRights05/07/14 05:41 AM
1

Hobby Lobby is a corporation, not a human. It therefore cannot have a religion, and even if it COULD, it does not have the right to force its religious beliefs on its employees.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 05:36 AM
-4

The biggest problem with libertarianism is that a government that's too small leads to a nonfunctioning society. You think those roads and bridges maintain themselves? It's in everybody's best interest that the government has its hands in SOME things, no matter how libertarian you get.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 04:25 AM
3

I'm very, very liberal. Human rights is a core tenant of classical liberalism. The MRM, being a rights based group, is inherently liberal. The idea that people should be treated equally, regardless of race/sex/orientation/etc, is an inherently liberal idea - However, there's a large subsection of liberalism that has forgotten that that definition actually includes men and their rights, alongside women and their rights.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 04:23 AM
2

They only contraceptions (there were only 4) they didn't want to be forced to cover with were ones they considered abortion. And this isn't a legitimate excuse to not cover them.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 04:21 AM
2

One, this case was not really about Hobby Lobby. It rather, it is much bigger than that. It was about what federal requirements for all employers are. Certainly. That's why my comment specifically talked about Hobby Lobby. "At least as far as Hobby Lobby is concerned, there IS a clear and noticeable bias against women's contraception." I didn't say in general - I said in regards to Hobby Lobby specifically. Out of 20 possible contraceptive options, they offered all but the 4 they considered abor…
/r/MensRights05/07/14 04:20 AM
6

Hold on now. Hobby Lobby specifically funds vasectomies as part of its healthcare package. Source I'm all for this sub and what it stands for, but let's be accurate in our accusations of sexism - at least as far as Hobby Lobby is concerned, there IS a clear and noticeable bias against women's contraception.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 01:06 AM
2

There's an obvious difference between a woman willingly going with you, and a woman being hassled by you. And I've got no problem with getting into a brawl with an actual harasser.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 02:07 PM
13

those who want to abuse things always will That's no reason not to do the right thing, when the occasion arises. Activism requires we make positive decisions whenever we can, even if that ultimately means a minority of people will abuse the opportunity.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 01:52 AM
32

I dunno. I don't think we can lump in scaring off actual hasslers with being a white knight.
/r/MensRights04/07/14 12:40 AM
25

Let's actually examine his points here: Porn can ruin our erections with actual women. It can, with horrendous overuse. The solution isn't to give porn up entirely, but to cut back on it, should you desire an erection with a woman. Porn can train our bodies to premature ejaculation. This is actually false - most men report taking LONGER in bed, due to excessive masturbation acclimating you to a death-grip tightness from your hand. Now, excessive longetivity can also be a problem in bed... but it…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 10:10 PM
24

So what you're saying is... he should 'man up'? He's a man whether you like it or not. If you don't want feminists to disparagingly and self-servingly define what a man is, don't do the same.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 10:02 PM
1

I honestly don't think we should we treating MTGOWs as nicely as we do, as a MRM sub-group. Rather than work to try and change things, they simply disengage. MTGOWs remind me too much of Schrodinger's Rapists radfems to be comfortable with them - both philosophies are grounded in the irrational and paranoid idea of "some minority of people within a specific social grouping might hurt me, therefore i should completely jettison every individual member of the entire social grouping from my life and…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 06:14 PM
2

The tag isn't entirely correct - This is more of an anti-TRP article, not anti-MRA. TRP is a shithole, the MRM isn't. They falsely equate TRP to the MRM, as many do. That's the extent of our involvement, and it amounts to a mislabeling.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 05:57 PM
1

Is making a joke about war or murder socially unacceptable? No? Then there is no reason that rape should be. Making a murder joke in general? No. Making one at the funeral of a murdered person? Yes. Making a rape joke in general? No. Making one at a conference discussing rape victims? Yes. There's a time and place. This event was not the time nor the place.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 05:45 PM
5

Fair enough - what's funny to some isn't funny to others, I can understand that. I still think my original point is important though - We cannot demand feminism end its misandry if we also do not end our own misogyny.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 06:40 PM
18

She does bring up a good anti-MRA point - How can we be taken seriously if we collectively laugh at stupid unfunny jokes like "But no means yes right?" We cannot demand feminism end its misandry if we also do not end our own misogyny.
/r/MensRights02/07/14 05:44 PM
1

But... they literally aren't. Not only does the devil not exist, not being busy 24/7 does not somehow irrationally lead to the creation of evil shit.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:23 PM
3

My local mall has equal quality men's and women's rooms. I don't think this is widespread nor do I think it's an important issue even if it was.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:03 PM
1

This is ridiculously stupid. Religious nutjobs often said this as well - Idle hands and all. What a stupid sentiment.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:01 PM
4

Generally, kids do better with two parents. Two parents means two different and seperate role models, two sources of income and support, etc... Gender isn't an issue in this regard - Fatherless homes is an issue because those are generally single-parent households, and it's a Men's Rights issue specifically because those single parent households are predominantly run by women. But make no mistake - should that woman get another partner who is willing to care for the child (the gender of the new …
/r/MensRights30/06/14 03:59 PM
6

A few days ago there was a thread regarding why we need to distance ourselves from Redpillers, and I think I outlined my own position at length there. I think it's becoming clear that Redpill ideology is not compatible with human rights of any kind, men's or otherwise. We don't need these people poisoning the movement.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 02:44 PM
3

I think there's an easier explanation... She's just taking the term "Beatnik", which in colloquial english speech is an older term referring to a person that is viewed as lazy, non-contributing, and non-conformist, and changing "beat" (which meant a member of the 'beat generation' in the 1950s) to "baby-refuse". Hence, "Baby-refusenik". I think the fact that "Refusenik" is also a term in russian, is a coincidence.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 01:40 PM
8

I have read that in Japanese culture, when faced with a problem, people focus on how to solve the problem, not where to place the blame. This is absolutely not the case - saving face is of vital importance, moreso than over here, in fact.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 06:18 PM
1

Well, I've never been one to back down from a fight. And I don't mean that in a "i am womyn hear me roar u guyz" way... 'strong warrior woman' is a term that's been co-opted by women that are neither strong nor warriors. I've gotten into my fair share of scraps and held my own. I hate that while I am actually a strong woman, the phrase 'strong woman' has become a cultural joke... what the hell do I call myself then?!
/r/MensRights22/06/14 06:06 PM
1

Gender egalitarian. Moderate second wave feminism is philosophically and morally sound, but to call yourself a feminist today means identifying with the delusional third wavers.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 06:01 PM
1

What credentials does an MRA have? Well, how about you post your face, and prove you were the first MRA to do so... or how about you post your real name, and prove you were the first MRA to do so... or how about you post your 14 webzines with a million downloads apiece... or how about you post proof that you named the movement? I think those would qualify. I used to go by the name 'factory', does that fit your demands? No, because you claimed to be involved in the movement for 20 years, to be ar…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 05:57 PM
2

I think that once a species reaches an adequate level of intelligence, behaviours that were once primarily instinctual and only served reproductive and survival purposes, begin to grow in other, less essential ways, due to exposure to that intelligence. We all do a LOT of things unrelated to reproduction and survival, and we collectively seem to co-opt behaviours that were once specifically for those purposes, and twist them into something else. That's not to say that we don't still have instinc…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 05:18 PM
1

Okay so instead of posting your credentials... you want me to go to Detroit? Stop posting, buddy.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 04:21 PM
2

She's feeling guilty and considering using the rape card. Don't talk to her anymore. If she gets serious, see a lawyer, and begin to consider flipping the table on her if she decides to proceed - she raped you, you were drunk as fuck and she brought you home.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 11:33 AM
1

patterns of what is attractive are largely biological. I don't even agree there - I'm attracted to dark skin, accents, straight hair, and petite bodies. I'm also exclusively lesbian - if what physical traits I was attracted to had a purely biological basis, they'd have something to do with reproduction, and they don't.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 05:29 AM
1

That's the plan. I'd like to be a professor.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 04:02 AM
1

I new to prove nothing. Need. All I need is agreement from the masses. Which, according to your downvotes, you don't seem to have. first MRA to show his face Prove it. first MRA to use his real name posting Prove it. creator of 14 webzine, each with over a million downloads. Prove it. I helped name the movement Prove it. you prove your bona fides. Why? You haven't proven anything, you've only talked a bunch. Citation needed on everything you've said - and by the way, a citation constitutes somet…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 03:18 AM
1

Sure, but in my experience redpillers only apply the alpha/beta dichotomy to males.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 02:06 AM
2

Double major, English Lit and Women's Studies. Going for a doctorate in the fall.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 02:04 AM
1

men and women have inherently different social behaviors and thought processes They do, but I think they're less inherent and more learned behaviours. Not that it matters, because sometimes inherent behaviours can be suppressed via willpower and education, and sometimes learned behaviours can't be changed due to years of habitual repetition... but still.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 01:33 AM
1

Only for the purposes of this conversation - I don't believe they're actually a part of us, but I do think we need to deal with them if we expect to flourish.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 01:30 AM
2

A redpiller calling a woman alpha? Never thought i'd see the day.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 01:26 AM
1

Not for nothing, but academics still cite Dworkin, Solanas, et al as reading material and "food for thought" in classroom settings. I pointed this out on another subreddit a while ago: Ten years ago, I took a first year Women's Studies course. Dworkin and Solanas were briefly talked about, and only to say that they were radicals whose only purpose was to make the moderates in the early second wave seem reasonable by comparison. Male issues, while not given equal time, were still discussed at len…
/r/MensRights22/06/14 01:22 AM
2

Masculinity was the focal point of two years of research in my Master's degree. Also thanks, but I still don't like Red Pill philosophy.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 01:16 AM
1

I don't regard those groups as "our elements" who we must "police" - it's our image, our "brand" if you will, that needs the policing. I don't believe this to be a practical difference. You may be correct semantically, but the actions we need to undertake to fix either of those issues is the same in the end - speak out against people who are clearly not MRAs, whose actions do not match up with the philosophy of the MRM, but nonetheless do terrible things while saying "hay guaiz im a mra".
/r/MensRights22/06/14 01:13 AM
2

I agree entirely. There's a few people in this community that don't, though. They're who I'm talking about. Fortunately, they seem to be nothing more than a vocal minority.
/r/MensRights22/06/14 01:09 AM
2

Perhaps not, but that's a semantic point. It's just as easy for a moderate feminist to point at radicals like Dworkinites, TERFs, and so on, and simply go "Well that's not MY feminism". Sure, it may not be your feminism, but they're hijacking the term, and as long as you don't actively speak out against them, your silence means consent in the court of public opinion. That same logic applies to us - they may not actually be MRAs, but the larger culture thinks they are, and it's in our own best in…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 10:57 PM
2

if the 'redpill you know' is not the same as /r/theredpill, would you be willing to direct me to any community that the 'redpill you know' is based within? Or any set of writings that form its philosophical base? Because I've heard about communities that focus on attraction dynamics, without the misogyny in /r/theredpill - and they do NOT refer to themselves as redpill in any way.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 10:28 PM
2

Find me a leftist government that doesn't severely restrict rights, or concede the point. It's your point. Burden of proof is on you, not me. Back up what you said, or concede the point. given that I was one of the people involved in the discusiion I don't expect you to believe what I say just because I've been here longer. But I do expect you to believe I have a better handle on what happened, considering I was there back in my day we had to walk to school in the snow uphill both ways fifteen m…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 10:25 PM
3

There are some parts of feminism (at least on paper, if not in the actions of many IRL feminists) that don't need to be rebutted. Keep in mind - I wouldn't be able to vote, hold land, attend school, work at a job or career, and have sex with other women if it weren't (partially) for feminism. At one point in our past, both men and women were treated like shit in different ways for different reasons. Feminism helped fix a lot of that for women, and we shouldn't move backward on any of those issue…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 08:42 PM
1

Are you on glue? Personal attacks - for when you don't have an actual leg to stand on. I recall a great number of feminists did the same to Warren Farrel when he abandoned NOW. Leftism ALWAYS results in bloated authoritarian government and mass suffering. Citation needed. in fact leftism groups everyone into bundles and assigns them roles, it does not allow personal freedom. You sound like a teenage RonPaul-ite that's just beginning to discover libertarianism. Protip: Personal freedom is not the…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 08:30 PM
0

You want to exploit the current system for your own benefit. We want it changed, for everybody's benefit. In complaining about us, you're just like a feminist woman, fearing for the loss of her chivalry, her female privilege, her place at the front of the line before men.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 07:51 PM
3

TRP doesn't agree with my beliefs True, but meaningless. sometimes says mean things True, but meaningless. The MRM needs to become an echo chamber No, but the MRM DOES need to become a place where hate speech, not 'hate speech' but ACTUAL fucking hate speech, isn't tolerated. There IS some legitimate misogyny in our community, and how can we demand the end of misandry when we don't practice the same for misogyny? Your solution is straight up 'let's be as bad as the feminists are'. Mine is to be …
/r/MensRights21/06/14 07:48 PM
6

I'm gonna assume redpillers are looking in and downvoting you, because what you said is pretty much factually correct. Redpillers tend to get butthurt when people challenge their philosophy outside of their safezone.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 06:28 PM
2

Feminists like to lump a bunch of unrelated groups under the same label of 'MRA' - this includes but isn't limited to, redpillers, pick up artists, separatists (otherwise known as MTGOWs), religious traditionalists, and individuals actually interested in men's rights as human beings. Anybody with some critical thinking skills can see why these groups are unrelated and actually entirely opposed to each other. For example: Pickup artists and religious traditionalists are completely opposed to each…
/r/MensRights21/06/14 06:25 PM
0

Well considering i'm a twitter troll and a woman... yeah.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 12:00 AM
1

Do you have links to either what Typhonblue stated, or your numbers?
/r/MensRights11/06/14 11:48 PM
1

What evidence do you have that causes you to prefer your theory?
/r/MensRights11/06/14 09:06 PM
1

I personally believe violence against men has drastically increased in the last few years, due to other studies showing that the numbers of female perpetrators of both sexual and non-sexual violence against both men and other women, have also steadily risen over time, while the number of male perpetrators have remained relatively constant. When you increase the total number of perpetrators in this manner, the number of victims can also be expected to rise. And due to the prevalence of heterosexu…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 08:28 PM
1

"Because mine is logical" is not evidence. We're both making speculative comments here. We're looking at the same sets of numbers, and saying "maybe this is why". I prefer my theory (that the numbers of men raped has risen steadily over time, while the numbers of women raped have remained constant) due to multiple sources stating that female-perpetrated violence of all types, both sexual and non-sexual, has steadily risen over time. Source: 1 2 3 So, I'll ask again - what evidence do you have th…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 08:22 PM
2

The lifetime vs yearly for rape is due to men not recognizing past events as rape. What evidence do you have for this? It could be what you said, or it could be what I said, or it could be something else entirely. Why do you believe this specific explanation and not others?
/r/MensRights11/06/14 04:44 PM
1

That's also possible. Additionally, the number of men reporting their rape could have gone up as well. It may be a combination of these factors. There's really no way to know which of these it is from what we're given, but they're all possibilities.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 04:43 PM
4

Over his entire lifetime, a man is only one-forth as likely as a woman to be raped, but in any given year, he is equally likely? Not in any given year - in 2010. Remember, you're comparing two specific categories here: "2010" and "all years between year of birth and 2010". If in 2010, men and women are raped in equal numbers, but over the lifetime period, women are raped 4 times as often, there's really only one conclusion to draw - that in earlier years, women were raped more than 4 times as of…
/r/MensRights11/06/14 05:15 AM
1

MRAs are at odds with a LOT of groups feminists love to lump us in with. They lump us in with religious traditionalists, and yet MRAs are not interested in that type of social regression. They lump us in with MTGOWs/seperatists, and yet those people purposefully disengage from the world, while as a human rights movement interested in change, we cannot do this. They lump us in with PUAs, and yet those people are simply interested in sex without consideration to anything else. We are interested in…
/r/MensRights04/06/14 06:54 AM
2

It's new to me, but I'm not surprised if it's already made the rounds here and I missed it.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:42 PM
-1

If they did, it's a step in the right direction, and I would be proud of the movement!
/r/MensRights28/05/14 02:40 PM
9

2X has gotten a lot worse over time. It used to be alright. Now it's just SRS-lite.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 10:30 AM
2

Homelessness isn't a gendered issue - but its effects and treatments can be gendered depending on the situation.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 08:59 PM
27

I honestly agree with the poster - women need services tailored specifically to them, due to biological and social differences between genders requiring different treatment. However, men need those services, too. We need to be keeping women's shelters open while also opening men's shelters alongside them, not closing women's shelters.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 10:30 AM
1

nice ct related name
/r/MensRights09/05/14 11:50 PM
1

...how is this related to anyhing i said
/r/MensRights09/05/14 10:06 PM
1

abortion for non medical reasons is a legal advantage women have over men (who may have interest in parenthood) that should be somehow compensated if we are interested at all in equalizing inequalities. So would you be interested in equalizing other biological gender differences via law... like say, installing female quotas in physically demanding job fields where women are underrepresented, even if those women wouldn't be qualified for the job? After all, male strength is an advantage men have …
/r/MensRights09/05/14 07:46 AM
11

As above, it would motivate women to avoid unwanted pregnancy and all its negatives. Well, to be honest, there's a lot of women who are already very motivated to do this. Before abortions, there are abstinance, condoms and contraceptive pills. Very affordable all of them. abstinence is unrealistic - condoms, contraception, and maternal legal abandonment at hospitals and clinics are all options women have. This is true for both men and women, and if we want to equalize we should either suppress a…
/r/MensRights08/05/14 06:12 PM
1

Despite my previous thread, I DO believe that irresponsibility is a problem. The male opt-out option should have reasonable restrictions placed on it, the same restrictions that the female opt-out system currently has.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 06:04 PM
1

This is an unnecessarily long post just to say "I won't back up what I've said."
/r/MensRights07/05/14 03:49 PM
5

I just read OP's post, and I honestly have to agree with them. And OP and I were 100% opposed to each other in my most recent thread. Do you think that a moms ability to adopt away a child without the dad having any say is not a worthy issue? Because I think it is. And (I'd hope) a lot of men would agree with me.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 08:33 AM
1

Do you have proof of this assertion?
/r/MensRights07/05/14 08:28 AM
1

I'm from Canada, which is a country that has an odd and relatively unique mix of hard liberalism, common sense, and extreme amounts of politeness. This generally results in a culture of people who truly believe and live by the "live and let live" philosophy. Additionally, when you see videos of radical feminists in Canada, like the Warren Farrel protests or the red haired woman, they're all happening in one area - southern Ontario. Southern Ontario is the one region in Canada where "live and let…
/r/MensRights07/05/14 08:26 AM
1

I've got a double major of English and Women's Studies, and I'm working on a double Masters for both. My WS thesis is on masculinity, and covers both feminist and MRA perspectives on many issues. I've gotten a few professors angry at me, but a lot of them are actually very receptive. Apparently a lot of the stuff I take from this community is stuff they've legitimately never heard of before.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 08:09 PM
11

AFAIK the Safe Haven laws do not work as you described them. A mother cannot transfer custody of the child to state (at least not permanently) if the father wants the child. The state would give the child to the father, and the mother would be made to pay child support. This isn't how Safe Haven laws operate - though if they did, I wouldn't mind. It would be equal. Mothers are not asked about the fathers wishes when they move to abandon a child. The father is never brought up, unless he is there…
/r/MensRights06/05/14 05:58 PM
4

A guy screwing around without a care in the world because he can simply abort any financial responsibilities Female parental surrender currently offers no cap on how many times an individual woman is able to walk away from her responsibilities. There is a hard biological cap in that a woman must spend 9 months pregnant before she is able to do it, while a man can procreate several times a day. Would a good solution be that men should only be able to claim a parental surrender once every 9 months…
/r/MensRights06/05/14 05:50 PM
2

My only concern is that it does not give the women all the relative information she may need to make an informed choice about carrying the pregnancy to term. In a perfect situation all parties would be honest about things, talk it out, and do what they each want to do responsibly. In a non-perfect situation, I don't think your concern is a problem because men rarely get all the relative information they may need to make an informed choice either, especially when the woman is being deceptive and …
/r/MensRights06/05/14 05:41 PM
7

Was there something in there that's too hard to understand?
/r/MensRights06/05/14 03:44 PM
7

Regarding rights issues, this is both a Men's issue and a Childfree issue - they intersect here. Childfree people of either gender have a tough time of it, and even if you ignore the MRA angle, this is still definitely something you should be telling Charlie. You will rip the family apart - for a while. Maybe forever. But if you don't do this, everything you like about Charlie will be sucked into a mass of depression. You can still be his friend if you save him from Jess - you will NEVER see him…
/r/MensRights02/05/14 06:42 PM
3

I'm a lesbian female ally too. Where do you live? <3
/r/MensRights13/04/14 09:39 AM
5

I'm not the one who's a urinal heap.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 12:11 AM
2

It's clearly too late for you to do a Hail Mary. If you can live with assaulting her to cause a miscarriage, or leaving the country, that's your choice. I personally feel like those options are rather underhanded though. If you still have time, feed her vitamin C - http://www.sisterzeus.com/Hsp1shlp.htm Get back on her good side. Become supportive. Make every meal for her and fill each one up with as much vitamin C as you can. Find out what ingredients are high in the right type of Vitamin C you…
/r/MensRights12/04/14 05:30 PM
15

A few centuries ago 12 year olds were captaining ships to explore the new world Is there recorded evidence of a 12 year old captaining a ship to explore the Americas?
/r/MensRights11/04/14 06:43 PM
42

Get the restraining order. Don't play nice, because if it comes down to a legal battle, she will not.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 05:46 PM
1

It's not where I live.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 04:38 PM
1

If this is the case, then why is there any stuff on the MRM at all on wikipedia?
/r/MensRights16/03/14 04:00 PM
6

Child support? Certainly. Abortion? Not at all.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 09:50 PM
47

It's wikipedia - add it.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 04:54 PM
3

Dunno why this got a downvote - I feel as if my criticisms of their MRA rebuttal were fair. Is there some radfem in the ranks, watching the replies to the OP's post?
/r/MensRights12/03/14 06:40 PM
1

What's Athiesm+?
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:40 PM
3

This article IS sourced, and it DOES have some things right - but it also has some things very, very wrong. Not for lack of trying: women attempt it three times as often. [1] Men are more likely to succeed because we are trained for violence, trained for emotional detachment, and trained to deal with problems ourselves rather than seeking help from others. This is true, but the author doesn't seem to notice that men being trained for those things is itself a male issue worthy of attention, just …
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:29 PM
2

Post the paper.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 01:00 PM
4

I said fuck once, shit. That's as far as she read.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 10:58 PM
1

Creep is actually a gender neutral term - it may affect men more, and more women may use it against men (both fairly and unfairly, but the debate of creepshaming vs slutshaming is another topic), but the word IS gender neutral and there ARE female creeps. It's time to start calling creepy women what they are - creepers.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:07 PM
1

That's just a No True Scotsman argument. In the end, they were feminists who weren't concerned with rape culture or privilege theory.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 12:20 PM
1

I disagree with that as well, and not just in a dictionary definition way. First wave feminism as an ideology was not at all concerned with rape culture or privilege theory.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 03:39 AM
1

Yes, we. Do you have a problem with that? Additionally, I don't think "30.9 percent of families with a female householder" means single mothers, or "16.4 percent of families with a male householder" means single fathers - I think they're referring to families that have a female or male member, as it is possible to have households that only contain one gender.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 09:09 PM
0

Here is the most upvoted reply, at 49 votes. Yes. If you want, you can fight to establish paternity, and then visitation or custody. I would caution you very strongly to think heavily before doing this. First, you open yourself up to child support obligations(which you have anyhow, but pushing the matter would make it more likely she'd fight for it). Second, this may not be the best thing for the child. You may want to start by simply speaking to her, and trying to build a relationship without r…
/r/MensRights24/02/14 06:58 PM
1

Then post the PMs for our examination? You shouldn't go "those guys were mean to me in this thread" when it actually happened in PMs.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 06:48 PM
0

but people there seem to be getting butt hurt that I want involvement in the child's life and Im angry about it. I just read your thread in /r/legal and nobody is getting butthurt because you want involvement. They're saying that, at this point in the kid's life, your showing up might throw a wrench into the works and you need to consider that. You probably shouldn't misrepresent your case when it's so easy to go back and prove you wrong.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 03:44 AM
4

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on this sub. Let's stick to verifiable facts and not spew ideology out of our anuses onto the keyboard, alright.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 03:37 AM
5

I support it when I feel it's right, and I don't support it when it's not. Same goes for feminism. I'm not concerned with movements as entire units, only what the facts show. I'm a skeptic before anything else.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 11:40 AM
8

Can we not follow this idiot? Please? The sections of the Men's Rights Movement that are interested in human rights (aka, not the mirror image of radfems) are philosophically based in classical liberalism, along with all other human rights movements. We don't need to be in bed with regressive conservative religious nutjobs.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 12:40 AM
1

If you've got proof of them only hiring women (as you seem to say you do), fuck that, make noise. If you don't get a career, so be it - burn them down along with you, at the very least.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 09:37 PM
4

The red pill is pretty much akin to the "all piv sex is rape" feminists - complete fucking wingnuts that don't understand how things actually work in reality. I'm more interested in correcting legal injustices and enforcing human rights, not talking about some ass-backwards traditionalist-based theory. Men's Rights, ideologically, sits squarely within the camp of liberalism (not the political party, the philosophy), as it is an idea based around human rights... the exact opposite of what the red…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 05:21 PM
4

Incorrect - rather that this place recognizes that for all of the whining feminism does about patriarchy, it is entirely willing to work with patriarchy, hand in hand, when it's convenient to them. feminists and right-wingers make good bedfellows. Traditionalism and chivalry are brothers, and if a man doesn't afford women their due 'benevolent sexism' he's a misogynist, don'tcha know? Feminists claim to have sprouted from the soil of liberal thought - maybe back in the day, they were related. Bu…
/r/MensRights10/02/14 05:15 PM
2

I don't think he's "just assuming" it, since he specifically called it possibility #4. Skepticism comes before feminism... skepticism also comes before the MRM. OP, this is a possibility you seriously need to consider before making your choice, and no amount of downvotes change that logic.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 05:06 PM
8

homelessness, suicide, workplace death, and genital mutilation ARE the actual areas of discrimination. Let's start worrying about frivolous shit like sports AFTER we stop people from dying or having their bodies hacked up, alright?
/r/MensRights08/02/14 10:44 AM
4

I spent a lot of time after the broadcast talking to that one idiot radfem who tried to disrupt the conversation on twitter- after refuting several of her points, with evidence and cited studies, she blocked me. I'm not surprised.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 10:40 AM
1

Considering it's actually an Indian product... I doubt it will be america only :P
/r/MensRights03/02/14 01:19 AM
2

Fix your rules.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 12:22 AM
1

I have no problem being imposing against people trying to be imposing. I have no problem discriminating against discriminatory individuals. I have no problem oppressing people who oppress others. Outside of that though, i'm quite egalitarian. Any sane human being can understand and appreciate my exceptions. Muslims are not aloud to force Islamic beliefs on non-Muslims. I will reply to this the same way I reply to moderate feminists who say "not all feminists are like that" or "feminism is for me…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 12:20 AM
2

I said it's worth a scrap of toilet paper specifically when it comes to my views on morality. This is a fact. My morals are not muslim morals, therefore to my morals, muslim holy scripture is worthless. Furthermore, the fundamental difference between your beliefs and mine, are that I'm not willing to tell other people how to live. You are. If I had power, I wouldn't enforce my morals on other people, yet you want the USA to be run by an Islamic Caliphate. That's the difference in our opinions - …
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:51 PM
2

Here's something you need to understand - your rules, your Quran, everything said in it... it doesn't apply to me. I don't need to listen to them, to follow them, to live by them. It has as much worth as a scrap of toilet paper when it comes to my views on morality. It is VERY good indeed that separation of church and state is a thing. I'm not muslim, I'm not bound by muslim laws, and I don't care about what muslims think of my actions. You don't need to use birth control... but I want to, and y…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:05 PM
1

While this isn't completely conclusive (it doesn't have all races, though I can't see asian women getting jailed more than asian men, for example) It's still VERY compelling evidence that gender is a more determinate factor than race regarding incarceration rates. At this point, we need to determine how much of this is due to men's tendency in our society to do more dangerous things, which in criminality would translate to more violent or frequent crimes, and how much of this is due to the pussy…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 06:11 PM
2

It's a satirical post. Check the person's post history.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:41 AM
3

Well, that's fine for you. But I don't follow your religion, many people don't follow your religion, and we'd like this to be an option. Nobody's forcing you to use it! :D
/r/MensRights02/02/14 09:33 AM
2

Why that reaction?
/r/MensRights02/02/14 03:37 AM
0

But you haven't demonstrated why my logic is wrong... you've only rephrased the initial assertion. Additionally, I'm being quite cordial... though, even if I wasn't, that has nothing to do with my arguments. Arguing from tone rather than from content is a logical fallacy, and something that is commonly attributed to modern feminists by a lot of people on this forum - let's not start doing it ourselves.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 03:33 AM
10

An injection that you get in your vas deferens that makes you infertile for ten years, reversible at any time before that. Extremely cheap to get, and non-hormonal. It's the best shot at male birth control that we're gonna get, IMO.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 03:32 AM
1

Hah I hope this is a joke, because if not you're really not paying attention to the topic. :p
/r/MensRights02/02/14 03:19 AM
-1

I think we're the only ones reading this deep into this comment thread... only two people it could be. Also I didn't just think i was pointing out a logical error - I was and I did. We are saying the same thing, but we're saying it from different sides. I'm saying "You claim it's A but your evidence does not prove nor disprove that, instead it only shows how it could be either A or B inconclusively" and you're saying "well it still might be A".
/r/MensRights02/02/14 03:17 AM
0

I know the groups overlap - but that was accounted for in /u/5th_law_of_robotic 's initial thesis. Furthermore, your challenge? I never said that could not be the case - it certainly can be. The opposite of that could also be the case. You're asking me to find numbers like I'm taking the opposite side. I'm not. The point of my comments aren't to mindlessly oppose /u/5th_law_of_robotic 's initial claim, no matter how hard you smack that downvote button. It's to show that his conclusion doesn't fo…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 01:26 AM
1

I was using those numbers as an example - the point is, you cannot necessarily consider the "men get 63% longer sentences than women" value to equal a consistently larger sentence served than the "black people get 60% longer sentences than white people" value, because the bases these percent values are drawing from (women and white people respectively) are not the same value.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 12:23 AM
5

I sometimes feel like I'm the only woman on the planet who employs them.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 10:30 PM
14

This assumes the base values for the percentages to be calculated from is the same between the black/white axis and the male/female axis. Men may get 63% longer sentences than women and blacks may get 60% longer sentences than whites, but if the initial value of white's sentencing is significantly higher than the initial value of women's sentencing, that 60% increase for black people is going to be larger than the 63% increase for men. An example: Assume, on average, white people get sentenced t…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 08:19 PM
6

I'll need to see a citation on that one.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 07:31 PM
1

They're asshats, but not automatically. They're asshats because they believe that taking away women's rights, rather than fighting for men's rights, is the way forward. They would be wrong. We need to lift people up. Not tear them down. Removing women's rights won't help men in need, it'll just make everybody suffer.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 10:12 AM
2

The content I see on this sub is split pretty evenly down the middle between... 1) traditionalist-minded asshats who want to see the MRM become a movement that advocates returning to a pre-feminist state of society 2) liberal freethinkers who recognize that although women's advancements are important and we need to avoid regression on them, men's advancements haven't been nearly so forthcoming and that we need to focus on making them happen. I'm part of the latter group. I'd like to think the la…
/r/MensRights28/01/14 03:22 AM
0

I don't live in the US, and islam won't take hold in the US in my lifetime - they're too in love with christianity. Though in the end, both are unacceptable - belief in god is belief in something without proof, and is too akin to modern feminism's "feelings over facts" approach for my books. Skepticism and empiricism are the rule as far as intelligent people are concerned, and it's those influences that brought me to both atheism and gender egalitarianism.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 02:50 AM
0

so read it as "Nice coherent reply that refutes all of her points. 10/10 would masturbate to again" and go on with your day? let's not go all tumblr and shit ourselves over pronouns alright
/r/MensRights28/01/14 02:25 AM
0

Neither neo-feminism nor islam are acceptable. If you restrict somebody's personal freedom, you're doing it wrong, no matter the mechanism you use for restriction.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 01:30 AM
4

i wouldn't call you a fuckwad, but i would say she deserved a confrontation, not support. What she's doing is wrong, don't support it.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 01:14 AM
5

Nice coherent reply that refutes all of his points. 10/10 would masturbate to again
/r/MensRights28/01/14 01:12 AM
6

I don't disagree with this. But I also think women who have long term affairs are also abusing their partners too. Truth is - there's NEVER an excuse to cheat. Talk to your partner. Go to counselling. Hell, break it off and go sleep around then. But, there's never any reason to cheat. And this applies to everybody.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 03:41 PM
1

So... Earth Day?
/r/MensRights19/01/14 03:39 PM
6

Could you throw up a pic of the posters This is a legitimate part of his comment. And I'd really like to see them, too.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 03:39 PM
1

If this isn't a troll - you already know what you need to do. Get ahold of friends or family. Secure a place to stay. Even if it's a hotel. Pack a bag, and leave. If you've got kids, take them. Do it when she's not around. Leave her a note saying your relationship is over, and you're not coming back.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 05:47 AM
5

I'd like to see a citation on this. Not that I'm kneejerk disbelieving you - I just like the numbers I read to be sourced.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 04:18 PM
2

I actually don't find a problem with this... women shouldn't be waiting for prince charming. Feminists would say that doing so suppresses the woman's own agency by putting her in a passive role, while MRAs would say that it places unwanted pressure on men to be a 'prince charming' and teaches women to be entitled and exploitative of men. It's something everybody agrees on.
/r/MensRights12/01/14 07:04 PM
1

You can post a rebuttal to what I said above. I will read it, but won't be responding. mallows
/r/MensRights10/01/14 04:34 AM
1

Genetic makeup, living, chromosomes, and human development make it a human. As well as sentient thought, abstract reasoning skills, and the ability to live independent from the mother's body. It's not a person when it's still receiving the bulk of its nutrients via umbilical cord - humans don't do that. Humans eat.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 04:05 AM
1

It isn't actually parasitic at all because a parasitic relationship is symbiotic. Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. The mother gives the child nutrients and oxygen, and biologically receives nothing in return. It is parasitic. By that argument all humans are always parts because humans need said materials for growth, in fact every 5-7 years we are made of completely different atoms. …
/r/MensRights10/01/14 03:50 AM
2

Fully formed humans with real, ongoing lives, responsibilities, concerns, and contributions, trump a baby. Everybody likes to see a baby as this miraculous blank slate - it could be the next savior of humanity, better put everything else behind its care! This is faulty logic. The baby will be a product of its environment. Its future will be determined by its genetics, its caregivers, its peers, and the area in which it grows up. It will not be special or unique in this regard. And when you can s…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 03:43 AM
3

A babies relationship to it's parents is parasitic in nature as well. Most of childhood is. Your point? Not biologically parasitic. A fetus is living and not just parts and it is growing and developing just like any other human in varying stages of development. The sperm and the egg are the parts. Incorrect. For a fetus to make the growth from single celled organism, to baby ready for birth, it needs approximately 8-9 pounds of material. Large amounts of water and carbon. Protein. Calcium. Small…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 03:37 AM
2

Human development begins at fertilization...the newly fertilized embryo has complete inherent capacity to propel itself through all stages of human development Human DEVELOPMENT. Not humanity. It can propel itself toward becoming a human being - it is not one yet. A pile of lumber and drywall is not a house. A pile of auto parts is not a car. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. And a fetus is not a human. You need to understand that as things age, they change state. As things assemble, they become…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 02:57 AM
5

I mean, is this really what we've become as a society? Abortion's been around for thousands of years in various forms. You're an old man screaming at kids to get off his lawn in this post. Someone finally sees a problem, and instead of fixing it correctly, they just say that we should give the father abandonment rights, because that apparently is what the problem is (it isn't). That IS the problem. Abortion and Birth Control came about because sexual equality demanded that women be able to run a…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 02:48 AM
3

At what point does it have sentience? When it forms rudimentary critical thinking and abstract thinking skills, which are (as far as we know) unique to humans - approximately 5 years of age at the latest. At what point can it survive on it's own? When the unborn child no longer needs an unbilical cord to feed it nutrients and oxygen, it can survive on its own. I forget how long into the third trimester do babies become viable, truthfully, but it's in there. So it's not a person 1 hour before bir…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 02:41 AM
4

To the first part - you're just parroting your own words, without actually adding anything substantive to them. Humans are not simply the sum of their parts - therefore it logically follows that unassembled human parts are not fully human yet. A fetus is not a human. It is a fetus. It becomes human when it can survive without the aid of the mother's body, before that it is a part of the mother. If a 1 month old fetus is its own human, let's take it out of the mother's body and see how it gets al…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 02:33 AM
5

the fetus is not a child, it has no right to life. and the woman's rights to the integrity of her own body is more important than the man's rights to a fetus.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 01:51 AM
4

Confirmed for person. Does it have sentience? No. Can it survive on its own? No. Confirmed for not a person. Sorry, pro-lifers. It's not a person until it's born. Period. You would look at a pile of random auto parts and call it a fully constructed car. Gold medal winning Olympic mental gymnast right here. Nope. Just a realist. Should landlords not have the right to evict a tenant, if that tenant is likely to die without housing? No, clearly the landlord should still have the right, regardless o…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 01:20 AM
3

You're misunderstanding rights of bodily autonomy, and rights of consent. I believe that a man has to consent to impregnating a woman - consent to sex and consent to impregnate are two different things. So, if a man was tricked? Not consent, no support. If a man was raped? Not consent, no support. If a man had his sperm stolen? Not consent, no support. But that being said, sperm is no longer a part of your body once it leaves your body. You have no control over what happens to it - but you also …
/r/MensRights10/01/14 01:15 AM
3

One - a fetus is not a person. It's a parasitic life form entirely dependent on the mother for survival, that may one day grow into a person, given the proper circumstances, but it is not a person yet. It has no rights, and killing it is not murder. Two - Even if killing it is murder, an abortion doesn't kill a fetus. What kills the fetus is exposure outside of the womb before it can survive. For example, assume a cat snuck into my house. I take the stray cat, and place it outside during a ragin…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 12:34 AM
-1

Your logic is the same logic used by defenders of the status quo, stating why men should pay for children they were duped into having - you consented to sex, therefore you consented to kids. If we accept that logic as faulty, we also must accept yours as faulty, for the same reasons.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 12:30 AM
2

They have both been defrauded, and the mother is to blame, not the man. There's no reason to penalize the man any further - if the mother wants support, she can go after the real father for it.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 12:24 AM
6

A man's DNA is NOT his body. Does every bit of skin that flakes off you, still count as your body, with all the inalienable rights that come with it? When you spit on the sidewalk, when you go to the bathroom, when you clip your nails, when you cut your hair? No - both law and culture are universally consistent in this regard. When a piece of your body leaves your body, it ceases to be considered part of your body. The only modern exception is limbs, and that's because with timely intervention a…
/r/MensRights10/01/14 12:22 AM
6

"of COURSE i'll be there for the child. We don't need to sign a contract. Don't you love me?" Suckers fall for this line for prenups. They'll fall for it with this.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 10:04 PM
7

The man can go impregnate another woman if he wants a child. It's not a child before birth - there's nothing to want.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 10:02 PM
4

"We don't need a silly contract, don't you looooove me?" People are deceived by this all the time - look at prenups and handling of marriage finances.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 10:00 PM
5

Men should have equal abortion rights, no exceptions and no qualifiers. Disagree, because you can't compel a women to do something to her body that she doesn't want to do. It may be half your genetic material, but it's not inside your body, it's inside hers. Additionally, abortions (especially in the USA, with such heavy restrictions placed on them and sub-par medical technology and access) are not a minor medical proccedure... you can thank the conservatives for ensuring that. I believe that a …
/r/MensRights09/01/14 09:59 PM
4

What about cases where he wants the child and she doesn't? I firmly believe it's not a 'child' until it's born. Before then, there's nothing substantive to want. If you want a child, have sex with another woman willing to bring it to term. You have no rights over THAT SPECIFIC FETUS as long as it remains within a body that you don't own.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 09:56 PM
3

Er, i'm describing hypothetical situations in which the man would be given an opportunity to opt-out of child support payments, in much the same way as women can opt-out of motherhood via abortion.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 09:53 PM
4

I believe men should not have to pay for a child that isn't his under any circumstance (unless, of course, he agrees to, knowing full well the child is not his). This includes being deceived or trapped. I don't believe there should be a statute of limitations on discovering your child is actually somebody else's - If a man discovers his teenaged son or whatever is not his, he should have every right to walk away, no strings attached.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 09:52 PM
3

So... impregnate another woman?
/r/MensRights09/01/14 09:37 PM
8

One - this would only work in a world with easy, safe, and affordable/free access to abortion for all women. If a man could just 'not sign', and yet there's no abortion clinic within 500 KM... that's not equal. Two - this can easily be exploited by men. "I think she's pregnant... if I can avoid her long enough to not sign, I can feign ignorance, keep my social standing intact, and still not have to pay!" Three - it DOES make sense for him to promise, but not sign, if you assume the guy is being …
/r/MensRights09/01/14 07:01 PM
7

But your option allows the man to string the woman along, past the point of no return for abortion, then refuse to sign, leaving her as the sole caregiver for a child that is legitimately his. It doesn't work.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 06:50 PM
15

I disagree with that being an equivalent. What you're describing is an 'opt-in' system - the default state is no, and you must explicitly say yes. But women don't have an 'opt-in' system - pregnancy, by biological default, is an 'opt-out' system. The default state is yes, and the woman must explicitly say no. Therefore, for things to be equal, a theoretical male system must also be 'opt-out'.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 06:33 PM
74

The child may not be exclusively hers, but her body is exclusively hers. Personally, I believe the way forward is to keep abortion rights intact, complimenting them with legal abandonment rights for men. If a woman can have up to 23 weeks to abort, a man can have up to 23 weeks to walk away, no strings attached. The way forward isn't restricting women's rights because men don't have an equivalent - it's about getting men their equivalent. Why pull down when you can lift up? Edit - thanks for gol…
/r/MensRights09/01/14 06:00 PM
1

Probably a troll post but no, it's not bad to break up with somebody you're not attracted to. Attraction is the reason you're with somebody, and if it's not there, why are you?
/r/MensRights08/01/14 06:04 PM
3

I have to disagree with you on some points here... These statements carry the assumption that intersectionality is a valid framework for dealing with political issues. Even when thinking about MRM issues, I think intersectionality is valid. The theory itself is sound, but feminists apply it in such a way that a man who has other issues via intersectionality has those issues erased due to gendered privilege. To explain: Women believe men have all of the privilege - a black man may be discriminate…
/r/MensRights08/01/14 05:21 PM
4

I don't view men that stand up for themselves or needing help as taking away from women. :|
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:09 AM
8

The reason that there are so few men raped is because we arbitrarily defined 'rape' as forced penetration and specifically NOT forced envelopment in this particular study, knowing full well most people reading the study at first glance would not be using that definition. fixed that
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:01 AM
3

The entire post is one sentence :x
/r/MensRights31/12/13 04:38 PM
2

But, does it say anywhere that the "primary physical aggressor" is always assumed to be the male in a male-female relationship?
/r/MensRights06/12/13 08:10 PM
2

If this is the case, do you have citations of state law stating to automatically arrest the man? I'm doing a paper on this topic, I need something credible I can source.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 08:08 PM
1

Certainly, the rich-ass ABCs are really terrible. If you get one from a middle class family, coming over to go to school or whatever, who are sorta well-off now but know what being poor is? They're both the best friends and the best partners you'll ever meet.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 10:55 AM
24

Fuck man. I'm a white woman who prefers to date asian woman too. Even in the lesbian community, white women are known for being really cunty. I don't want to have to deal with white woman entitlement attitude when looking for a partner. That's straight up it. It's not racism/sexism, it's how the individuals act in a way that simply is not attractive.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 01:05 AM
9

mantrum, testerical Can't say I've ever seen these before.
/r/MensRights29/11/13 10:11 PM
2

I don't. You'll need to do the research yourself.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 01:08 PM
1

Foreign countries rarely deport for child support payments, but it all depends on the country. If you're really worried, go to one without extradition.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 01:00 PM
2

Canada's shit for this sort of thing - bail out overseas man.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 09:42 AM
2

Maybe. I don't know for sure. I don't think it matters though. We don't need to arbitrarily divide up attention or resources based on things like gender or race or class. Why not just help all rape victims and go after all rapists, regardless of any other factors?
/r/MensRights26/11/13 11:43 AM
1

We put too much stock in genes, as a people. If people can grow to love a child not blood related to them via adoption and consider them their own, the reverse can also happen.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 09:30 PM
1

She will not, if he's in another country. Countries don't extradite for child support and as long as he doesn't go back he can ignore every single order he's given because they can't enforce it. support-wise, he's in a good position.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 09:29 PM
2

If I'm reading this right, you lucked out - she's not pursuing you for support, and you are in a position to easily refuse to give it should she go back on her, being in another country. The biggest pitfall seems to be solved. I know you want in on your kid's life. But if you're having fatherly urges, start a family in your new country with your new girlfriend, when you are both responsibly prepared for it. It may sound cruel, but the easiest thing right now may be to just cut the entire thing o…
/r/MensRights12/11/13 12:56 PM
3

I post on both too. The vast majority of people on /r/twoxchromosomes seem to think that /r/mensrights is /r/theredpill and don't take kindly to being corrected. :|
/r/MensRights07/11/13 11:22 AM
4

I'm in thunder bay actually, and I read the article in the local paper on the subject. All I could think of "if he seriously raped you, why not go right to the cops?" Cops in this town take rape allegations seriously. She'd get all the support she needed. Instead she asks the University to disclose private information (which is illegal in Canada) and complains when they won't. Either she's a liar and a false rape claimer, or she's a real rape victim that is acting incredibly stupidly.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 10:11 PM
60

When a woman is raped and hit with overwhelming opposition to her attempts to get justice on her rapist, it's the same as when a man is raped and society doesn't recognize it because men cannot be raped. This is not a man vs woman issue, it's a rapist vs victim issue. There are some women we need to stand with and some men we need to fight.
/r/MensRights19/10/13 04:10 AM
2

Poe's from Legend of Zelda.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 03:08 PM
2

Hit up /r/childfree they'd love to hear about this.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 05:10 AM
1

Eh, play the whole game. It's clear that they've got a connection, and when Midna is changed back into an actual fully grown woman instead of an imp when the curse is lifted, it comes full circle.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 01:58 PM
3

It's actually the plot of Twilight Princess. Zelda's actually the leader of her government in that game, and takes steps throughout the game to ensure the survival of her people. Furthermore, she doesn't exist to serve as a romantic interest, either, as Link has significantly more interest in Midna in that game. In TP, Zelda's pretty much the definition of a strong female character, that doesn't exist to eventually fall in love with the hero. I'm not surprised it's never talked about. :p
/r/MensRights07/10/13 04:56 AM
1

Oh, that too.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 08:43 PM
-1

Man, I wish people didn't blur out facebook names when they post this stuff.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 12:54 PM
-1

Like I said, social planning. How has ANY cultural shift come about?
/r/MensRights04/10/13 10:40 PM
1

Culture can be changed, but not overnight. There's many ways to remove male disposability, or add female disposability, or a combination of the two, but they all involve generations of social planning. We'll never reap the harvest personally, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 10:30 PM
2

Uh, when egalitarians say "equality", they mean it in all ways - including ways in which women need to be taken down a few pegs, such as disposability. Egalitarianism is the only way forward.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 09:19 PM
8

Men's rights is rooted in philosophical liberalism (as is any social justice movement), but unaffiliated with political liberalism.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 06:41 PM
1

I think it's a difference in how men and women generally socialize. GirlWritesWhat did a video on this before, it basically amounted to how the average woman is more likely to form bonds based on shared social positions (like being a woman, being a member of a race, being a member of a sexual orientation, etc, doubly so if that gender/race/orientation/whatever is perceived to be an oppressed class so that they can use the victim card), while the average man is more likely to form bonds based on …
/r/MensRights28/09/13 01:39 AM
2

Do you still have to pay support?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 05:05 PM
1

:| I've been subbed here for a year and I post a fair bit. Don't automatically assume that somebody who has a different idea than you is a troll.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 10:31 PM
1

A bridge is a real object, and it being out is a real, verifiable event. Supernatural beings, events, and places... not so much.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:38 PM
1

Oh certainly there are individual assholes everywhere. Even the MRM has a handful of idiots who abuse the activism label in order to fight for traditionalism, rather than social justice for men. I'm simply talking about the way each group generally trends.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:28 AM
0

As a former hamplanet myself, I stand by that comment. Calories in, calories out.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:19 AM
0

Christians rarely follow their actual scripture - they're Christians so they have a socially acceptable excuse to be bigots.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:18 AM
-1

Does this mean they should be bashed? How are we any better than they are if we do the same terrible, appeal-to-emotion shit? Stick to the numbers. Everything else is a distraction.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 12:49 PM
2

Sometimes. Depends where and when. Here and now? Yes, but in different ways than women's evils are supported by legislation and society. At the very least, we've managed to get the "equal but different" concept correct in one area - the way in which we shit on our fellow humans.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 03:52 PM
7

Enough men have done enough "evil" to cast a dark shadow on all men, too. Generalizing helps nobody.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 12:44 PM
1

I disagree. I think the fundamental difference is that people at r/mensrights know that while there are strands of feminism out there that actively seeks to hurt them, they have reconciled that truth with the equally valid truth that not all women are like that, and that the women in their lives are still valuable to them. From what i've read on r/theredpill they seem to have forgotten about the latter part of that necessary duality... they talk like they treat the women they love like utter shi…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:09 PM
12

people at the red pill play the game so that they can get laid, and are clever enough to avoid the accompanying pitfalls. MGTOW are the complete opposite - they avoid the pitfalls by explicitly not playing the game or even attempting to, instead disengaging entirely from it. Again... neither of these things have to do with men's rights. These camps are about men reacting to their social environment, but they don't have anything to do with the legal struggle of equality.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:28 PM
10

They have different goals. The red pill seeks to exploit commonly-held beliefs of shallow women in our culture in order to get men laid. It works well. Men's Rights fight for gender equality. They're entirely different animals.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 02:09 PM
1

Holy shit, did you just invent a new logical fallacy? Argumentum ad Interretium Cuspis
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:13 PM
2

Oh, I read the required reading. The point you're not understanding is that the required reading is factually incorrect. I read your article too... it's the same feminist party line. All talk, no action. I'll ask you the same question that caused everybody else to get so angry - If feminism is for men too, what REAL WORLD, practical activism has feminism done on behalf of men? What have they accomplished other than lip service? protip - you won't find a single thing because feminism doesn't actu…
/r/MensRights24/08/13 12:45 PM
1

if you don't blindly accept that feminism helps men too even though there's evidence to the contrary you will be BAND BAND BAAAAAANDDEDED Sorry chum, but when one of the rules of a subreddit is that you operate on an inherently flawed premise and are not allowed to question it, you've already failed from the get go. There are many examples of men being DIRECTLY harmed by feminists, and feminists meaning to do that harm in order to bolster their own position. See: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRigh…
/r/MensRights24/08/13 12:29 PM
1

Hung out with them a bit more, in the interest of seeing if they were truly good people. My encounters with pretty much all of them went the same way... they wanted women to have rights without fulfilling the corresponding social duties men have to perform with the rights they have. 90% of them got extremely offended when i asked them what feminism actually did for men's gender issues, while 10% of them admitted they couldn't think of anything one particularly spechul snowflake was disabled but …
/r/MensRights23/08/13 10:26 PM
1

That's me too :p
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:00 PM
9

Nah, but when a feminist says "feminism helps men too" and I ask "what has feminism actually done though" and I get banned for asking it? Yeah that's relevant.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 09:47 PM
3

To make it equal to women i'm guessing.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 05:54 PM
1

Not in Canada. Here, all workers are legally required to be paid minimum wage. Most stores pay their servers a 'server wage', knowing tips will make up the difference. but should the tips not make up the difference on a particular night? They're legally required to fill the gap until they at least hit minimum. Furthermore, at a popular or busy place many servers make way above minimum wage when everybody else's tips are considered. Why the hell should I tip somebody already making more money tha…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 01:56 PM
2

I don't tip. The wage an employee is given is between the employee and the boss, and it's not my job to make up the difference if the employee feels they're not making enough. Tipping is a ridiculous concept.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 02:45 PM
1

Feminism's main problems have been solved - I have a lot more opportunities to do things than my female ancestors. Let's not forget that women have a debt to ye olde feminisme. But nowadays? Feminism's kind of irrelevant. A lot of their gripes (pay gap, lack of women in STEM) is largely due to the individual choices of women, rather than something that can be blamed on men. Probably the last real fight is over reproductive control (which includes abortion, as you've mentioned). Other than that, …
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:35 PM
2

Nope!
/r/MensRights10/08/13 05:27 AM
4

I occasionally do, but 99% of them either disappear or become very hostile when I tell them I'm a lesbian and in no way will their white knightery will get them anywhere. The final 1% get even more invested - I have no idea why. But ignoring them always shakes them off eventually.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 07:35 PM
21

A fair amount of women I've run into seem to have interests only at a superficial level - they like a TV show primarily because the actor is hot. They like a movie primarily because the actor is hot. They like music primarily because the lead singer or guitarist is hot. But because anime/videogames don't have hot notable people involved with them, they generally like them in order to draw attention of men around them: They like a videogame because a hot guy they know likes videogames. These shal…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 04:55 PM
6

Humans are assholes. Some parents will use their children as a weapon against the other parent in a divorce. I didn't bring up gender in that sentence because it doesn't need to be brought up. We're all capable of this.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:42 PM
27

I say legitimately specifically because we're talking about women who fake it, and I want to begin from the get-go by saying I don't fake it. I would not have inserted the word 'legitimately' into that sentence in any other context. And yes, I'm just a gamer. That was one of the points of my post. :p
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:25 PM
95

I'm legitimately into videogames and anime. And I'm a girl. I personally feel that my hobbies are a more important part of my identity than my gender, as do most male geeks or nerds, and in opposition to most female geeks or nerds. I spent my childhood days playing SNES rpgs, downloading fansubbed anime off early days filesharing services, and building computers from old parts my school was throwing away. On the one hand - I get teased and ostracized often by a portion of the male geek community…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:57 PM
1

Considering that your point, as stated by you, was: a 6'1 male is stronger than you given equal nutrition and work ...yes, your point has been entirely invalidated. Sorry about reality.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 11:34 PM
6

Actually, no. The ability to build muscle, to maintain muscle during disuse, and to repair muscle quickly and efficiently, is a function of testosterone, not gender. Natural testosterone levels are influenced by physical gender, but testosterone is the ultimate arbiter. I have a condition that causes me to naturally generate significantly more natural testosterone than other women. As such, my strength levels are more in line with most men, given equal nutrition and work. Just the same, a male w…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:28 PM
7

I'm a female 6'1 bodybuilder and I can guarantee you that I'm stronger, smarter, more rational, and more useful than you at all times. I'm also a MRA though, so don't worry too much about it.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 02:25 PM
2

sever the penis immediately. ftfy
/r/MensRights20/07/13 11:53 AM
8

Right here, I've been in this sub for about a year. Done more lurking than posting though.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 11:57 PM
1

Yep.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:53 PM
2

Women could hold jobs. They were never meaningful. Poor women were required to work. Semantics. I would not even have the opportunity to pay the money and jump the hoops. I'd simply be denied based on my genitals. There's always been childfree women, true. But it was never considered a legitimate life choice until recently. And, old laws may not have explicitly stated that women must bear children, but they did state a father's right to marry off his daughter at his discretion, and a husband's r…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 02:46 AM
1

I disagree. As a woman, there are a lot of things I can thank early feminism for. Without it, I wouldn't be able to hold a meaningful job, earn my PhD, own land, choose not to procreate, or fuck other women without the possibility of being killed for it. However, as a rational human being, I can understand when enough is enough. Feminism hasn't been a force for good in a while now, and legitimate men's issues get ignored specifically because acknowledging them would shatter feminism's source of …
/r/MensRights22/06/13 05:26 PM
1

If you have six figures, you have a little mobility. Start up a fund on the side. Prepare to bail out to a new country in a few years time, so you won't be dinged for alimony. IN the meantime, get back in shape. /r/fitness is your friend.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:49 PM
1

It's a failure of an analogy. Locks are kept locked because there's something worth hiding behind them. There is nothing of exceptional worth inside of a random vagina.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 12:34 PM
0

I'm a female MRA and I don't hate women. MRAs and feminists are on the same page on a lot of things. It's the radicals of each groups that pull us apart.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 12:32 PM
4

You posted Andrea Dworkin's High Heel pig mouth quote twice.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 01:35 PM
-6

OH no. It was a rape joke, there's no doubt about it. However the fallacy here is that a rape joke is somehow equal in evil to actually raping the girl. It's not. It's a joke. It was a poor joke that didn't make me laugh, but nobody was harmed. Rape culture doesn't fucking exist.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 02:34 AM
9

It's obviously fake, but even if it wasn't, he wasn't reprimanded for holding a door open, he was reprimanded for his rude reply to her saying "I don't need you to hold open a door for me."
/r/MensRights25/05/13 04:17 PM
3

I've got a host of congenital disorders, including the rare female Hemophilia. I didn't even know it was a condition that affected primarily men until I was in my teens. Doctors were still entirely willing to help me, though. Man, when a woman is one of the rare few afflicted by a disease that normally targets only men, society sure is willing to jump in! If only society would be willing to help men who suffer from things that normally only afflict women, rather than letting them fall through th…
/r/MensRights22/05/13 04:04 PM
4

There's no reason to stoop to their level. That's only going to confirm the bias they have of us in their heads.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 09:11 PM
9

Actually we sort of are. If not legally, than demographically. Men aren't marrying women anymore. They're not working hard jobs anymore. What happens when the labour class of a society fails to reproduce new workers and fails to work the jobs at the base of society that keep things running? Well, stuff begins to collapse. And that's what we're seeing now.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 05:09 PM
6

u wot m8
/r/MensRights17/05/13 04:44 PM
2

If she won't sign a pre-nup of her own free will, don't marry her. You don't buy life insurance with the intent that you'll die early.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 01:13 PM
1

This is something child-free women hear on a daily basis. /r/childfree is full of people, both men and women (but more often women) who are harassed on a daily basis for not wanting kids and following responsible birth control. As for the matter of degree, I'd actually assert that it's women that hear it more often. The cultural norm is that men are naturally immature and must be brought to the table of maturity by force by the influences of a woman, while women are naturally mature from the beg…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:16 PM
0

I agree with everything you've said except "There's nowhere near as much pressure for 'girls' to become 'women' ". That part is simply incorrect. Women who choose not to have children are told they're not real women or that they need to grow up all the time.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 12:57 PM
1

Oh no, you don't need to sign papers to have sex with somebody. Sex would obviously function as it is right now, you can't really regulate sex. But for the responsible, forward thinking person, there should be a contract you can sign stating that both parties intend to have sex in their relationship while not wanting children, that the woman has the power to unilaterally abort a kid should the male change his mind post-conception, and that the man has the power to unilaterally withhold child sup…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 07:39 PM
7

When I was in Korea a number of establishments had gender neutral bathrooms. And I don't mean tiny bathrooms designed for one occupant at a time so gender is a non-issue anyway, but entirely public, gender neutral bathrooms. It was a bit odd but I got used to it by my third trip into one. Seems like the easiest way to fix things over here, IMO.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:08 PM
1

Oh, I agree with you. A woman being able to abort without her partner's permission is important, because there's no reason anybody should be able to tell anybody else what to do with their body. And I do think the woman should hold the final trump card - responsible adults in a relationship will talk things over, but when the chips are down, it's the woman's body and the woman's choice. But on the flip side, a woman refusing to abort should not automatically guarantee her to a man's wallet for 1…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:03 PM
1

Because while I don't believe that a mother has more inherent right to a already-born child than a father, I do believe that the right of bodily integrity takes priority over the right of parenthood. Both are rights, but when they come into conflict, a person's bodily integrity takes priority. And that's not to say I believe that only for women - a man's bodily integrity is also very important. It only so happens that the rights of bodily integrity and parenthood only really come in contact comm…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 09:33 AM
2

Mainly because I wouldn't want to mistreat a male that comes along that doesn't look or act like a typical male. A social movement such as ours should be inclusive towards those types of people.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 07:14 PM
1

If gender were purely biological, and that were accepted as a fact in the medical community, than any male who doesn't fit into the stereotypical idea of what it means to be a masculine male would suddenly find themselves diagnosed with some newfound biological disorder revolving around not being masculine enough, simply for being who they are. I don't like the idea that gender doesn't have some cultural part to it. There's only subdivision and discrimination amongst us down that road. If mascul…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 03:35 AM
5

If this were true, would it be a bad thing? I don't know or care if you can choose to be gay, or if you were born gay, or whatever. In any case, there's certainly no reason to be discriminated for it. We're not a bunch of religious bigots. Gay men's rights are still men's right.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 03:30 AM
1

Your answer is in your question. There can't be evidence that proves otherwise, because otherwise isn't true. When something isn't true it's not surprising that there's no evidence to support it. That being said, I'd like to point out that while feminists got it right when they said gender was a construct, they got it wrong when they said that gender was constructed in such a way in that men are all empowered by it and women are all enslaved by it. The reality is, men have it pretty bad, too.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 10:31 PM
2

If we're talking about purely biological sexual dimorphism amongst our species then of course it's not built. But that's generally referred to as 'sex' not 'gender'. Sex is the physical differences between male and female, something that is not a cultural construct. Gender is the internalized ideal personalities for somebody with a specific set of external sexual characteristics, which varies between culture and time, and applies to both women AND men (although feminists would have you think it …
/r/MensRights30/04/13 08:30 PM
3

Oh I dunno. The fact that there's a strict cultural guideline on what it means to be a man, or that rites of passage are a thing in most civilizations, sorta show that gender is something that's built.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 08:16 PM
-7

Dunno why you're getting downvoted. Gender as a construction is something important to Men's Rights as well. All that's required to be a man is that you identify as a male and have a penis (or plan on getting one in the case of a FTM.) Not all of the shit men have been manipulated into doing for women for most of recorded history in the name of "being a man". Of course the course shouldn't be mandatory, for a lot of other reasons regarding feminist bullshit, but the "gender as learned" thing is …
/r/MensRights30/04/13 07:56 PM
2

Would you feel better if the post just said "my male rape victim friend posted his story over at /r/rape and since this is a topic we often talk about here maybe you guys want to go see it"?
/r/MensRights30/04/13 12:43 PM
0

That's not a twist. That's (to use your own phrase) a flat statement. Additionally it's been three posts now and you're continually ignored that I've been calling you to task on not being interested in changing child support laws to be more equitable for you and your fellow MRA's. I guess you were never interested in equality for men after all.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 03:46 AM
1

And now you're getting into that argument where you have to make a medical distinction between unborn child and fetus and zygone, and when does one become the other, and etc. Religious people believe it's from the moment of conception but there's a lot of fundamental flaws with that. The law seems to be trending toward "if it's viable outside of the womb, it's a child", and that seems to be okay, but viability keeps getting pushed earlier into pregnancy via advancing medical technology, eroding …
/r/MensRights30/04/13 03:43 AM
1

He was looking to tell his story anyway. He can do that, and raise awareness, while still showing us how much /r/rape cares for male victims at the same time.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 03:28 AM
0

Not only have you not twisted anything I've said, I've not attempted to mimic you. Your actual fault lies in the fact that you want to damage abortion rights rather than fix child support law. Tear down rather than build up. You're motivated by hate of other people rather than love of your fellow MRA's. Simply put, you're not a part of this movement because you would actively try to damage any gains we make, out of spite.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:57 PM
0

So you admit that the flat statement of "Abortion rights are ill gotten as long as men don't have disownment rights" is a falsehood? I'm glad we agree. Abortion rights are not ill gotten. Men do need disownment rights. But just because you don't have them yet doesn't mean that women suddenly don't need abortion rights. Really, you should be focusing your energy positively. Work on changing Child Support legislation. If what you wanted to do came to pass, men would be no better off. Women could s…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:43 PM
2

This time you're simply factually incorrect. It's child support laws not giving men an opt-out scenario that is the problem. It's child support laws that need to change. It's child support laws that enslave men. Abortion was a solution to a different problem. It's tangentially related to this one, yes, but it is still a sound solution on it's own. You should be taking aim at changing child support laws to be less oppressive against men. That is the source of your oppression.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:36 PM
2

Yes, you can disagree with a single point of an overall ideology and still identify with it, totally. However, you can't disagree with the central point of an ideology and still identify with it. Well no, you can, but then you're either hypocritical or uneducated. This is like saying you're a christian but you don't believe God exists.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:31 PM
-1

It's different because abortion was originally intended, and for a time functioned as, an equalizer. Men are able to have sex freely and not have to think of the consequences. Access to birth control and abortion services allows the same sexual freedom for women. However, nowadays outrageous child support laws shackle men to paying for a child, giving them no choice to unilaterally opt out of such payments, even though women have a way to unilaterally physically opt out via abortion. The problem…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:28 PM
-1

What i'm saying is, at the present time, women already have some rights. Rights they SHOULD have. And men don't have their equivalent rights, rights they SHOULD have too. Removing anybody's rights is a step backward, not a step forward. A better long-term solution is education, compassion, and fighting for positive change for all your fellow humans, not negative change for your enemies in such a blanketing fashion that you're causing more collateral damage than anything else. If people listened …
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:14 PM
1

No prob.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:58 PM
0

At the very least you're honest about the exact qualities you have that make you dangerous to both men's rights AND women's rights. But if people listened to you en masse (and it is a good thing most of us are smarter than that) nobody would ever get what they want and we'd collectively stagnate in the mud for a very long time indeed.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:55 PM
2

Nothing I can link you to unfortunately. I wrote an essay on the subject a year ago. If you've got time to go to your local library, check out "Women and the Norman Conquest" by Pauline Stafford. Edit: Or, (and I know, lol yahoo answers) but this person seems to have summarized a good deal of information regarding women and property rights under the Saxons as compared to the Normans, and we did lose a fair bit for a time there.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:50 PM
1

So you openly admit that your view of Men's Rights Activism is just feminism, with all of it's ugliness included, and the pronouns swapped? You're not describing a civil right's movement, you're describing a regression of civilization. Tell me - why in the blue hell would anybody of any gender ever want to fight for what you've just described? You pretty much embody the hateful minority of the MRM, our equivalent of the radical neo-feminist that everybody else here hates so much.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:46 PM
2

Oh, it's the Norman invasion, not the Normandy invasion. And the Normans brought along with them religious laws stating that women couldn't hold property, which became the dominating law after their conquest.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:43 PM
-1

So does feminism. And we pride ourselves on being better than them, not being the same as them. How can you claim to fight feminism when you are simply feminism wearing a different coat?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:26 PM
1

What does the Normandy invasion have to do with the property rights of women OR men?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:24 PM
2

Yeah, it did. Of course, later laws would refine things. Rome wasn't built in a day.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:23 PM
2

When your next move changes from "Fighting for my rights" to "taking others rights away because they won't give me my rights" you have already failed. Any lasting change comes about through positive activism, not revenge. I'm not projecting at all. You advocate hurting others to get what you want. This is why you aren't a MRA.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:55 PM
0

Yes, more harm than absolving women while not yet absolving men because the final goal is for everybody to be absolved and we're already halfway there. Your idea of "walking backwards to go forward" is one of the craziest things anybody could suggest. In your irrational rage and lust for revenge that is entirely unrelated to Men's Rights or civil rights for anybody, you would harm your own cause and a lot of women unrelated to feminism in the process? You're the kind of radical this movement doe…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:50 PM
3

It was called the Married Woman's Property Act because it allowed, among other things, married women to inherit property ahead of their sons should her husband die. This was the first step in allowing women to fully own property like a men could.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:42 PM
2

Wrong on all counts. Citation needed.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:40 PM
0

You're absolutely delusional if you think it will. What you propose will paint the MRM as a hate movement, and they'd be right in painting it as so in this instance. People like you aren't what a civil right's movement needs. Your ideas do more harm than good. Edit: Additionally, it's disingenuous to edit your posts after I've replied to make yourself seem more reasonable. You don't have a leg to stand on, do you?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:40 PM
0

And now you're getting into the childish "you first" mentality. Abortion is legal. That means 1/2 of the fight is already won. We need to focus on getting men their rights, not removing from women theirs. Removing rights from women helps nobody and it's NOT going to bring feminists to the table. What you propose does more long-term harm than good. I'm wondering if you actually don't care about men's rights at all and are actually more interested in hurting women out of spite.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:36 PM
3

If you're not willing to grant them their civil rights, why should they be willing to grant you yours? We aren't them. Just because they stoop to those levels doesn't make it right if we do. Our movement would be just as hate-filled as theirs if we did what you suggest, and we'd be no better off. It has to be equality for all.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 02:28 PM
1

Sounds disturbingly like "Race Traitor", doesn't it?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 01:47 PM
2

You're simply balancing one type of radicalism with another and hoping things work out in the end. Yes. And that's wrong. That's not the MRM. You aren't me. Clearly not. I seem to actually care about the integrity of the things we fight for.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 01:23 PM
3

Your solution solves nothing. You're simply balancing one type of radicalism with another and hoping things work out in the end. Not only is that how a civil right's movement operates, it's also not how sane people operate. I'm not interested in politics, I'm not interested in stopgap measures, and I'm not interested in being extreme radicals just because our opponents are batshit crazy themselves. I'm interested in doing the right thing and only the right thing from the get-go and what you prop…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 01:18 PM
3

What you say regarding property ownership is technically true up until 1066, when the Normans conquered England. Then, the laws changed significantly. First, women could not own property at all. Then, after some time, women were able to own property again, but they could not purchase that property themselves - they could only inherit it, and even then only after every other male heir had passed away. So, legally, there was a method in which women could own property, and some minority did, but in…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 01:15 PM
1

Gosh.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 12:51 PM
2

So basically, you can't back up your views with any sort of reason, so you tell me to engage in masturbation? I just did that five minutes ago, and I'm not interested in the moment, thanks.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 12:51 PM
-3

I know what the movement stands for, and that is equality. If there is a point of view that is a detriment to equality, then the Men's Rights Movement doesn't stand for that. Being pro-life is holding a position that is a detriment to equality, so it has no place here. Get your conservativism out of here.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 12:18 PM
1

And pro-life "MRAs" are the anti-thesis of what the Men's Rights Movement is. We're not a group of exclusively men looking to return to a time where women were objects and they could be beaten by their husband-owner with impunity. This is a modern, civil rights movement and telling a woman she has no ownership over her body is like telling a MAN he has no ownership over HIS body. Being pro-life and being involved in the MRM simply is not compatible.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 11:51 AM
2

Warning, long ass post regarding Men's Rights and Abortion. I've read this post and all of it's comments and pretty much everything is covered already, so make sure you read all of it. The only thing that hasn't been covered is the MRM and abortions, so let's talk about that for a bit. No MRA welcome here is anti-abortion rights. I'm a woman and if the the majority of MRA's were wanting to set back abortion rights again I wouldn't consider myself one. We all understand and accept the logic as to…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 11:25 AM
11

I'm not really involved with the gay right's movement. Even though I like to fuck other women being gay is not an essential part of my personality. I feel no intrinsic gay identity as a part of me and I feel no kinship with other gay people. It's just a series of actions I find pleasurable, like anything else you'd do with your spare time on occasion. Additionally I'm Canadian and we are some of the most laid back people on the planet - Most people honestly don't consider any minority they happe…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:47 AM
3

As a woman not interesting in having children, the only time I have ever heard anybody say "you're not a real woman" is in regards to my not wanting children. Which never really bothered me because I don't hold up the quality of woman as a core part of my personal identity. I don't think i'd actually care if a wizard appeared and changed me into a guy.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 07:25 AM
36

I've been told that I'm setting back feminism. It's true that I wouldn't be able to own land, hold my own job, spend my own money, or fuck other women without feminism and I appreciate it for that, especially that last part, as I am a raging dyke. But that doesn't mean I can't see injustice when it happens and there are ways in which feminism just doesn't treat men fairly.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:34 AM
6

There are many things posted to this subreddit that I agree with. This is not one of them. Men's Rights is not a bastion for the irrational conservative that wants to hijack the movement and turn it into a traditionalist camp where we all want to remove access to abortion, erode gay rights, and return to a time when men could beat their wives with impunity and nobody even batted an eye. That is not Men's Rights. We aren't a conservative movement. We're a new type of liberal.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 04:31 PM
3

Are you willing to cut off your clitoral hood because it makes your clit slightly easier to wash and reduces chances of contracting HIV by about 1%? If not, then keep your hands off your son's dick. It's not yours to cut.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 12:23 PM
1

I just disagree with the implicit legalistic it's-my-right subtext it's used in, an excessive focus on who has the power in a given relationship. You say the first here - your disagreement here simply boils down to "I hate she can tell me to take my penis out". That is a rather unusual situation, aka not normal. You imply the second here. I'm saying this legislation is fine (provided it's gender neutral) and it's okay if somebody wishes to withdraw consent and be legally protected in doing so sh…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:53 AM
1

But... it is entirely her right. It's also his, should he want to use it. That's the point. Complaining that women have the right to withdraw their consent sorta shows your true colours here, bro. That is a rather unusual situation, aka not normal. Since when did something being an unusual situation (and i don't think this is) mean we shouldn't provide rights or legislation for that possibility?
/r/MensRights26/04/13 10:16 AM
1

It's not drastic if you feel the whole thing's gone south and want it to simply stop. Seriously. Stop thinking you're entitled to your partner's time or body if she says 'no, i've changed my mind, i want this to stop' just because earlier she said 'yes'. It works the same with you, if you want to stop having sex, your wishes should be respected. Why not hers?
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:50 AM
6

If a woman who is drunk and has sex can claim rape when she's sober based on the fact that she was drunk and therefore unable to give consent, why can't a man claim that? Her boyfriend was drunk. Under feminist definitions of consent, he is not accountable for having sex with his now ex-girlfriend.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 04:03 AM
5

Actually, I don't safely say that. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to change your mind on any matter, especially if new information comes to light that compels you to do so (in this instance, realizing your partner is doing something you don't like.) This is also why I roll my eyes when politicians get labelled "flip-floppers", when really, reacting to new information and evidence and adjusting your opinion accordingly is actually a pretty wise thing to do.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 03:26 PM
736

I actually agree with this ruling, as long as it rolls both ways, of course. It makes entirely perfect sense for somebody to consent to sex, but not to specific acts during sex, or to withdraw consent halfway through intercourse. If you're having sex with somebody, they have already given prior consent, they suddenly tell you to stop, and you do not... well yes, from that moment onward, you would be raping your previously consenting partner. The headline of the article is overly dramatic but the…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:25 PM
1

I posted on your site how my male roommate was raped by his ex-girlfriend, who loaded him up with booze and jumped on him in attempt to get her pregnant because he didn't want to have kids and she did. And how his friends told him to enjoy the fact that he got laid and how the police couldn't help him because legally, where we live, what happened to him wasn't rape. You didn't post my story. You're quite one-sided regarding sexism.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 03:13 AM
2

Get sent to jail like all the other male rapists.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:16 PM
1

she explained that I was confused Don't ever let anybody else dictate to you what your feelings are on a subject.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 04:05 PM
-1

You know how a lot of the feminist movement is filled with people with good intentions, but there's this sub-community on the underbelly of it full of feminazis who actively hate men and want to remove all of their rights? Yeah, /r/theredpill is our equivalent of that.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 10:45 AM
37

Usually in relationships, you've established boundaries for things like this... some guys like wake up blowjobs, and their partners are aware of this, and will occasionally give them without immediate verbal consent. Of course a random blowjob to a sleeping guy you don't know is rape, but in relationships where there's a lot of love on both sides and boundaries have been established, there's no real problem.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:52 PM
5

By the strictest definition, yes, she raped you. But it being a rape doesn't mean you are required to kneejerk to the most extreme response... this may not be a situation where it's justified. Make sure you decide the level of response that is appropriate to you. The facts are, she violated your body without your permission, laughed off your reaction, and made fun of your feelings on the issue. React exactly how you feel is proper - Don't increase it because of the "rape" label and don't decreas…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:50 PM
3

You're most certainly assigning gender roles to men through the usage of "weak men", and the implication that they need to "grow some balls" or "man up".
/r/MensRights28/03/13 07:48 PM
4

If women have historically manipulated men's sex drives in order to get them to produce more and provide for families, any man who gets sexual release outside of socially appropriate avenues damage female social power. Men who masturbate, have sex with prostitutes, are gay, have extramarital sex have always been demonized throughout history, because their sexual release does not service the needs of women, and a man who can't be manipulated through sex is an ideological danger. Additionally, wom…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 06:37 PM
3

I'll accept that when women get back in the kitchen and walk their own walk. Sexism works both ways, bro.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 06:28 PM
4

Well it's true. Rape is never the victim's fault. At the end of the day, the rapist is the rapist, not the victim. The rapist committed the rape, not the victim. However... if you put yourself in a stupid situation, and scream during a rape "this is not my fault!!!" that's not going to help you. YES, you are not at fault under any circumstances if you are raped. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do things to protect yourself from being raped. It's sort of why we have kevlar. It's not your fault if…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:43 PM
3

Well it's a dick move. But being a dick is a small price to pay, compared to 18 years of child support. You did the right thing. Edit: Also hey, I'm genuinely curious to hear if anything further happens. Maybe she'll get knocked up by another guy, and say "lul i faked abortion, pay me". Or maybe she'll turn into an obsessive nutter who beats your door down. Keep us posted, bro.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:38 PM
2

This actually makes sense. As soon as a woman says no, even once, if you continue, it's rape. That's pretty clear. Same rules apply for nagging women trying to have sex with their unwilling husbands, though. No double standards.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 12:13 PM
1

People downvoting a guy because he doesn't like fat women? Jesus christ, internet.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 10:13 PM
5

I just read the reasoning they posted for reverting your edits. It's sound. If you want that info in, come back with better sources, I guess.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 10:54 PM
1

It'll stay up as long as the sources you used stand up to scrutiny. A lot of people may try to vandalize it, but as long as the sources are fine, it'll get rolled back.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:31 PM
10

No. Rape is real. It is a thing that actually happens to people. The possibility that somebody might be raped on any given day is there, and increases or decreases depending on a large number of factors. Saying that this is not a problem is a falsehood. Rape Culture however, is a theory that states everything in our culture is designed to teach men to rape and women to accept rape, and that's simply not true at all. Nor is it true that telling a rape joke, or cat-calling, or anything else that i…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:28 PM
7

I actually think the idea of gendered restrooms is stupid... I know if I ever owned any kind of establishment, it would have either a single large gender neutral restroom, or a number of small restrooms designed for only one occupant at a time, or either gender.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 08:55 PM
1

many states have restrictions (but not bannings) of abortions after 12 weeks. Look up what restrictions may be placed on her, see if you can get an earlier appointment, see if there's anything that can be used as an excuse to not get the abortion at the last minute on her part. Research everything, from extra excuses she can pull out as you drive up to make it seem like a reasonable last minute change of mind, to things that may actually hinder her if she's being serious about getting it done.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 05:33 PM
1

There are a few men that get to be well known in the industry and do a lot of repeat work... other than that, it's all about women (and of course, gay men, but the gay porn industry is a different animal than the straight porn industry)
/r/MensRights11/03/13 04:12 PM
2

You play nice right now. You make it seem like there's still a future for the two of you. Have sex with her a bit, if it helps. I know, it feels like rape to do so, but would you rather than or be a dad? Lead her along enough that she feels comfortable, that she feels she has your support, that she feels like there is still a future between you. Confirm she gets that abortion, then cut her the fuck out of your life. She tricked you. Don't feel bad about tricking her back. She's proven herself to…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:56 PM
3

Honestly, TGs have a rough fucking time of it out there. Male-to-Female transgendered people have a much higher chance to be assaulted to killed than other groups. I think it's more likely that they just happen to fall in love with somebody, are unsure of how they'd react, and withhold information so they aren't, you know, chopped up into pieces. It's true their partners deserve the truth, and maybe one day we'll live in a society where it's safe for transgendered people to be open about it enti…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 11:02 AM
3

Man Child implies a male who is physically an adult but not mentally, with the side-implication that traditional adulthood is a positive thing. With men stepping away from marriage (and some even from women in general due to a lack of reproductive control), this leaves a lot of women who want to marry and reproduce in a bind. How do we get men to return to the table? Either offer incentives to do so, or offer detriments in not doing so. Modern neo-feminists have chosen the latter option, and one…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 10:36 AM
17

The extra attention women get (especially when entering into a field that women do not normally go into) is a double edged sword. If a woman is particularly manipulative she'll love the attention - it means she can make other people do what she wants. If a woman, however, is actually a decent human being and not manipulative whatsoever, she'll likely view such attention as annoying, distracting, and if it goes far enough, harassment. She may view men having privilege in that situation... and whi…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 10:27 AM
1

Test this. Bring it to court.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 05:07 AM
16

All of my female friends have this exact same conversation all the time about the men in their lives. Whenever I tell them they're being shallow, they say that they're just looking out for themselves - in their eyes they need to marry somebody they can benefit from, and be on the lookout for people who offer them nothing. It makes sense, if a bit cold. But if women think this way in mate selection, why can't men?
/r/MensRights26/02/13 04:54 AM
3

I'm a woman MRA. Without the early feminist movement, I wouldn't be able to own land, hold a job, earn my own money, vote, attend school. The master's degree I'm currently working towards would be nonexistent and I would likely be dead at this point for having sex with other women. I agree with the majority of this subreddit - that feminism nowadays has become a force for inequality, and actively harms men. But to say that feminism has never done anything good ever is an utter falsehood. My life…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 02:16 AM
1

I did it per-emptively, considering my nickname has 'lady' in it.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 07:35 PM
1

I figure that he just seemed to be a bigger financial catch than whatever guy actually got her pregnant. People knew they were dating for a month, and even if they didn't have sex, all she has to say is that they did, and bam! Instant deadbeat in their eyes.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 02:25 AM
5

Of course not. However I DID just read an article from this very subreddit written by a MRA on an MRA website stating that it's a miracle the majority of men have such control over their sexual urges, considering the chemical nature of testosterone. It's one or the other, y'know.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 02:21 AM
3

Unfortunately we're Canadian, so those links won't help. Thanks though, I'll be looking for something similar in our city.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 02:19 AM
3

This is all good advice. My roommate is firm in his belief that the child isn't his. He's not going to be handing over abortion money, and I know that if push came to shove in the courts, he'd demand a paternity test. The only real problem is trying to convince him that she can actually put his name on the birth certificate, should it come to that, and how to stop her from doing so (and i truthfully have no idea how to stop her from doing so, which is where the lawyer would come in I suppose).
/r/MensRights10/02/13 02:18 AM
4

Not at all. I believe classical feminism's done a lot of good for women. I would not want to live in an age where my only career options were housewife and mother. Nor would I want to live in an age where having sex for another women meant death if caught. But there's something about this current generation of women that reeks of entitlement. Same with men too, it's just a bad batch of people all around that's coming up. But the difference is, women are taking feminist principles and twisting th…
/r/MensRights10/02/13 02:14 AM
4

We're in Ontario actually. But I'll have to look it up.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 02:07 AM
4

He's a student, and can't really afford it. To me (and I may be wrong) this accusation may only come to fruition if she's allowed to put his name on the child's birth certificate, and I don't know if she can do that. Because it's definitely not his, and if push came to shove in child support court, a DNA test would prove that. He's not contacting her, offering to pay for her abortion or any other support... it seems like it's open and shut, aside from her potential ability to unilaterally put hi…
/r/MensRights10/02/13 02:06 AM
5

I dunno, the average male produces 12.5 times more testosterone than the average female, and testosterone is the primary controller of libido. Of course this is just an average, and biology is always tempered by cultural influence, but still.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 02:02 AM
2

Some of your comments are spot-on. Some of them are incredibly stupid.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 02:51 PM
1

I do. I see the weight room full of men and the cardio room full of women. I see men eating high-protein sources of food and I see women eating salads. The few women that do eat a lot, get fat rather than muscular, because they don't lift. 90% of women's physical weakness is due to their laziness.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 04:32 PM
0

Uh what? I'm a woman, I'm 6'1, and I've been observed to have the ability to grow muscle through proper diet and exercise at the same rate as a man. I'm stronger than 99% of the people I come across, on both genders. If an average women isn't as strong as an average man it's because she doesn't eat right, she doesn't exercise right, and she doesn't do a physical job.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 02:31 PM
-1

No, tell her now. Time will dull your senses on this. Also move into your dad's. Fuck your mom, never see her or talk to her again. Make her know there's consequences for her reprehensible actions.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 06:34 PM
1

being drunk doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility for your actions. If it did drunk driving wouldn't be a charge. :|
/r/MensRights12/12/12 07:19 PM
1

Actually I'm one of those women who got lucky with a 6'1 height and the ability to build muscle via weightlifting at the rate of an average male. Lucky genetics, I know, But I lift heavy and can kick the shit out of 99% of people, male and female, that I come across. :P
/r/MensRights12/12/12 07:17 PM
4

I'm in the show. :|
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:04 AM
1

Uh, I'm not lying about the youtube show, as i am actually in several episodes of the show. :|
/r/MensRights12/12/12 04:03 AM
5

Replied to this baseless criticism already. I'm the cameraperson of an internet show that stars a male, so yes, I link to that youtube. If you'd like to attack me make it more legitimate than that at least.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 02:23 AM
0

I'm the camerawoman for that youtube show. I'm in a variety of episodes, and do a lot of the behind-the-scenes work. Sorry mate, but I am, in fact, female.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 02:19 AM
-7

Not to toot my own horn, but my male friends would say me! They're always impressed/surprised when I call out stupid young women on their radical feminist bullshit just as often as I call out bigoted old men on their anti-women stances. I've been told by them, and I quote, "I expect you to tell sexist men to fuck off, but not sexist women!" It's not an issue of gender, really. Number rule is, for all people, don't be an asshole.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 02:03 AM
0

Of the 3 things you just described, I am none of them o_o
/r/MensRights12/12/12 01:08 AM
-2

Boy, since first putting this up, I've gotten a bunch of downvotes on comments and a fair amount of hate. I don't really blame any of you individually, even the ones who have actually done it. If you walked into a female-friendly zone, full of women who have been slighted, mistreated, abused by men, and said "b-b-but what about equal rights for men too??" you'd get the ever loving shit kicked out of you, so I can't complain when it happens to me. But to everybody who downvoted me or jeered at me…
/r/MensRights12/12/12 12:38 AM
0

I do my best to police those around me. But I'm only one person. Don't saddle the entirely of these problems on me. I do what I can.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 10:04 PM
-1

Entitlement isn't gendered, true. But plain ol' entitlement mixed with a false sense of needing social justice for your disenfranchised group, when your idea of what social justice is is twisted, is a deadly combo.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 09:41 PM
-1

From the very beginning feminists have believed that women were disadvantaged in society and men were in a position of privilege. Yes, but also that Men's position of privilege saddled them with responsibilities, many that were unwanted. Forcing unwilling women into the traditional female role hurts them, but no more and no less than forcing men into the traditional male role. Oldschool Feminists understood that for every woman who chafed against the assigned roles of domestic mother and housewi…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 09:39 PM
9

I understand the idea about rage entirely. If men went into a women-friendly zone, in the presence of women who had been harmed by men, those men, even if innocent, would probably have a hard time. It's only fair for a woman to have an equally hard time in this male-friendly zone. I can't begrudge you for that.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 09:34 PM
-2

Why do you insist on calling yourself a "feminist" (and therefore associating yourself with these hate-mongers) if you disagree with them so vehemently? Why do moderate practitioners of Islam still call themselves "Muslim" when there is a radical vocal minority that want to cause terror in the name of Islam? Why do moderate Christians still call themselves "Christian" when there is a radical minority that clearly and directly want to set back every single civil rights issue to the middle ages? I…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 09:31 PM
12

The same thing that is happening to the republican party (a schism between the ultra religious zealots who want to string up anybody who is non-male, non-white, non-straight, non-christian... and the economically conservative but socially liberal libertarians) will happen to the feminist movement. The vocal, radical minority will keep stretching the movement until it snaps like a rubber band into two distinct entities - and then hopefully we'll be able to separate and marginalize the men-haters …
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:09 PM
-3

Either you misunderstood or I mistyped, either way let me be more clear: there have always been a radical section of feminism, just as there is a radical section of any movement (including MRM, by the way). It is only until approximately recently, I put the year at 2000 since it's a nice round number but it was more of a gradual shift, that the radical section of feminism has become its driving force! As soon as incredibly entitled women born in the late 70's and 80's came of age, wanted everyth…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:06 PM
3

Noob to reddit, yeah. Not to the internet or to this topic, though.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:02 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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