TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TheFarnell Archive

View 7 posts and 335 comments by TheFarnell 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)
-4

Tiny nitpick: bipolar is something you are, bipolar disorder is something you have.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 03:16 PM
-4

I stopped reading there too.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 11:30 AM
1

This subreddit is called /r/MensRights. Anti-feminism unrelated to men's rights belongs in /r/AntiFeminism.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 07:22 PM
8

I live in Québec, where marriage is increasingly rare largely because it has indeed only become a government institution to most people (religion is very weak here). Many people see marriage in the same way most other Westerners probably see a pre-nup - a legal agreement you buy into if you feel you need to protect yourself against your partner abusing of you. In some extreme cases, bringing up marriage in an established relationship is seen as a red flag that there are serious trust issues in y…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 03:38 PM
2

In many places in the world, "seduction" - or convincing a woman to sleep with you by falsely promising to marry her - is still a crime. It was still in certain parts of Canada until the 1950s, IIRC, and I wouldn't be surprised if certain similar archaic laws were still on the books in other places. This could be such a situation.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 03:31 PM
1

Do it for YOU, not for them. Exactly. Wanting to change yourself for the better is great, and necessary for a full life - but only if it's a function of who YOU want to be and the things YOU approve of.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 02:27 PM
1

Recasting something specifically done to improve your chances sexually as "a matter of simple respect" doesn't change the fact that it's done primarily as a matter of improving your chances sexually. I shower before I go out with male friends and have no particular interest in flirting with women. Am trying to sexually attract men? That sounds to me like you're putting self-absorption over interaction. An action done when it's all about ME ME ME is 100% a-ok. An action done when it's "I bet othe…
/r/MensRights18/05/13 04:44 AM
1

If you work a blue collar job you need a shower at the end of the day for hygiene. Otherwise most people do just fine with the shower at the beginning of the day. The reason people shower before a date is to minimize their chances of being odious to their datemate - that is, specifically to improve chances of their approval... but because it has secondary uses, that makes it not pathetic, right? There's a difference between doing something that takes 15 minutes and chances nothing about your beh…
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:24 AM
1

I see... so as far as you're concerned, any action taken to deliberately improve your chances with women is pathetic. That's not what I said. I said changing things about yourself solely for the approval of others is pathetic. All you guys showering before you go out on a date? Pathetic. No, that's proper hygene and basic respect for yourself and for others. Does that extend to all walks of life? To some degree, yes. If I was a welder, took a course to get a pressure ticket so I could get a bett…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 09:33 PM
1

It's not what you do, it's why you do it. If someone changes their hair cut because they prefer how they look, that's fine. If they change their hair cut because they think that will get them more female approval, that's pathetic.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 08:12 PM
1

Sure, you can stretch it into being sex-related Stretch anything far enough and it loses all meaning. Why do men want to have sex? Biological drive for continued survival. Why do we want to survive? To exist. Why do we want to exist? Ultimately, the only meaning is what you make of it. Altruism is as good an answer as any.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 07:07 PM
5

Many facets to life friend I fully agree, and I think we're trying to say the same thing. Your sexual attractiveness is just one facet to your life, and trying to reshape your whole social persona for that one facet is pitiful.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:44 AM
1

Sorry, I meant "killing a fetus once it is viable outside the womb". I will edit.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:32 AM
0

and the logic goes, if it doesn't exit voluntarily, she can pay a doctor to crush it's skull and drag it out piece by piece? I am not familiar with the medical procedure involved, but if the fetus is not viable outside of her body, then killing it to remove it seems like the only option. If the fetus is viable outside her body though, then I figure steps should be taken to try to save the fetus' life and allow it to develop into a person. How would this go if it was Maggie refusing to exit Mr. B…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:31 AM
4

There's more to your social identity than liking pussy or dick. That shouldn't be the driving force behind your self-development.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:25 AM
1

I think the argument for "male abortion" would be more effective if it were framed in pre-established notions that have become common sense - like, for instance, the right not to enter into contracts or agreements without your consent.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:02 AM
5

Entirely redefining yourself simply in order to gain sexual approval is not improvement.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 01:58 AM
0

The majority of people are against forced organ donations. Because the majority of people understand and agree to bodily autonomy. There are very rare instances in which you can bite someone's finger off and not get charged with a crime. Any instance in which someone sticks their finger in your mouth without your consent would be very rare. However, they would all be instances of assault, and thus biting off their finger is legitimate self-defense. If bodily autonomy were real, then you would be…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 01:33 AM
5

asexual fags lol
/r/MensRights17/05/13 01:06 AM
-1

You don't have the right to bite off your dentist's finger just because it's inside your mouth. You consented to having your dentist's finger in your mouth. If, for whatever reason, you want your dentist to remove their finger from your mouth and signify as much, they must do so in a reasonable and timely manner. If they do not, that's assault, and then you are justified in biting their finger off in self-defense. That has more to do with popular opinion than bodily autonomy. Popular opinion is …
/r/MensRights17/05/13 12:46 AM
2

So you're saying men can't overcome their biological and social urges?
/r/MensRights17/05/13 12:44 AM
0

Like I said, I'm neither a lawyer or a doctor. I'd argue aborting a fetus once it is viable outside the womb should not be done. Edit: Missed a word.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:40 PM
4

No, I was referring to people who go down the PUA road to rebrand themselves as "alphas" through completely artificial redefinition of self.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:33 PM
1

That's a different principle. Tenants will survive outside the landlord's property. The landlord may, however, evict them.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:28 PM
9

Its not about sex, its about a relationship. Makes no difference. Tailoring our entire intersocial behaviour around what gets us a relationship with a woman is every bit as pathetic and demeaning. It's arguably worse, since with sex, you can just revert back to your real self afterwards. A relationship means you need to keep up the charade.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:24 PM
3

I do. However, the principle of individual body ownership trumping someone else's need remains the same.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:22 PM
21

It's been my experience that no matter what you do, someone somewhere will assign ulterior motives to you. This isn't limited to "nice guys". Some of us really were just nice for its own sake until we were brutalized and driven to the brink. Can you elaborate what you mean by "brutalised and driven to the brink"? I'm not looking to slam you and understand this seems like a sensitive issue, I just want to make sure I understand what you mean.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:10 PM
15

If your social identity sucks, there are better ways to build it than on the sexual approval of others.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:54 PM
2

Why should she be allowed to kill an "occupant" of her body? For the same reason you're allowed to refuse to be an organ donor, even if someone else's life depends on it. It's your body first. It's my understanding that a person can only be charged with first degree murder for murdering a human being. I am neither a lawyer nor a doctor, though I generally agree that it's an extremely complex issue on both fronts.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:53 PM
7

Yes, no doubt. They're just not a reason to completely alter your whole social identity.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:50 PM
8

I agree with your general assessment. Difference is, men who don't excel at soccer don't blame net sizes or join groups of men teaching them to radically change their behaviour and social identity to better manipulate the ball. They simply move on to other things they are good at and enjoy doing, and occasionally pick up a game of soccer with friends every now and then. A 35-year-old who is still pouring all his energy into trying to relive his high school football dreams and pining that he neve…
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:48 PM
13

The baby isn't considered her own body - the baby is an occupant of her body. She, as the owner of her body, can decide whether or not to allow the baby to continue to occupy it.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 08:20 PM
5

I don't have a problem with the labels, I have a problem with the value system associated to it. Whatever the label is, the man who defines and presents himself as a function of what he values and who he wants to be is way more respectable than one who defines and presents himself as a function of what he thinks will win female approval. If you allow the promise of sex to radically define your self-image and interactions, you're every bit as pathetic as a 15-year-old girl who thinks Cosmo is the…
/r/MensRights16/05/13 07:35 PM
12

Not really, all of society and everything we do as men is designed and implemented to help us accomplish three things: Gamble Have sex Eat Why do men play videogames? Read books? Watch TV? Play golf? Sure, you can stretch it into being sex-related, but honestly, when I sit down to read a book or load up Mass Effect, there is no part of my mind that is thinking "damn, this will help me get laid" - and I know it's the case for most men as well. Something else is driving us - self-realisation. Whil…
/r/MensRights16/05/13 07:08 PM
27

I'm not saying "don't want sex", I'm saying "don't tailor your whole personality around a formula to have sex".
/r/MensRights16/05/13 06:51 PM
15

Whatever it is - sex, a relationship, marriage&children&white-picket-fence... doesn't matter. The very notion of redefining who you are in a social setting simply to better please some ridiculous notion of female approval is pathetic and demeaning. No man in his right mind should do it, and no woman in her right mind should be attracted to a man who does.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 05:59 PM
3

I'm not one myself, but if it didn't work, so many guys wouldn't be doing it. Tidbit: Traditional "behave like an alpha to score chicks" PUA culture doesn't work for most of the men who self-describe as PUAs. They just lie and pretend it does because status/ego.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 05:23 PM
217

I'm so sick of this "nice guy", "friendzone", and "alpha" bullshit. Here's a crazy notion - maybe we, as men, could stop tailoring our entire intersocial behaviour around what gets us sex with women. It's pathetic and demeaning to us, gives abusive women more power, and just comes off as creepy to the well-meaning women of the world. Be yourselves, love yourselves, and treat yourselves with respect. Your personality is not an object to be valued by women and rewarded with sex. Your personality i…
/r/MensRights16/05/13 04:26 PM
1

Ask her to explain exactly what she means by that, since odds are it's a catch-phrase she's using without fully understanding its implications. What she probably means is that she's asking you to use your position as their father to help explain and illustrate the basic rules of consent to your children as part of their upbringing. This doesn't seem unreasonable. I doubt she means "right now" too - 2 and 4 year olds can't understand the concept of not stealing cookies... sexual consent is way be…
/r/MensRights15/05/13 05:47 PM
1

I'm from Canada, where birth control is largely subsidized by the public health system. The cost for birth control pills is meaningless, as is the cost for a vasectomy. I think this is an excellent policy.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 12:10 PM
1

That's a completely seperate issue to what we're talking about. It doesn't change the point that it's just as unfair to expect feminists to add MRA disclaimers to their arguments as it is to ask MRAs to add feminist dislaimers to MRA arguments.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 10:29 PM
0

That's a term shift. The context implies quite strongly that the woman in the picture is using the term "slut" as a negative and derogatory term, which is precisely what the slutwalk opposes.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:38 PM
2

Simply calling them "sluts" inherently implies a lower moral worth for people who dress to appear sexually promiscuous. Her use of the term itself is abusive.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:35 PM
-1

like the ones asking for equal pay for equal work What? Where? First one Some of these women, though, seem to be implying the way a person dresses justifies and excuses abusive behaviour against them What? Where? Last one
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:24 PM
5

Instead of playing the definition game, we could instead promote means to make sure child support actually goes to support the child.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 03:08 PM
10

Woah... some of this is not cool. I applaud those pictures which express equality, like the ones asking for equal pay for equal work and saying being a woman is not a disadvantage. Some of these women, though, seem to be implying the way a person dresses justifies and excuses abusive behaviour against them, that birth control shouldn't be easily accessible, and that being sexually active is shameful. These are all things MRAs should not support.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 02:17 PM
1

"Be the change you want to see." How we behave and what we expect of others here and in other MRA hubs is the basis for how initial mainstream MRA will be judged. If we're having unrealistic and unfair expectations of feminists here, this will reflect on mainstream MRA when MRA becomes mainstream.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 05:47 PM
-4

You're confusing two things under the impression that feminism is a monolith. Yes, some radical feminists actively try to block MRAs from speaking out, and this is wrong. However, that doesn't mean moderate feminists should be expected to bring forward MRA issues when their topics are about feminism.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 03:48 PM
19

Don't do this. Political studies have shown that once a person begins to adopt one viewpoint, any contradictory information presented against that viewpoint only tends to entrench their position. Instead of presenting her with information that contradicts her position, ask her questions. Answers that come from her are much stronger at breaking preconceived notions. 1) Does she feel like she has been treated like a slave? Can she cite clear examples of how her treatment has been systematically wo…
/r/MensRights13/05/13 03:24 PM
-9

Actually, that's what every MRA has to open with, and close with, and spend the entirety of his talk on. Even if that were true (it's not - just look at the discussion in this sub), that still wouldn't change that it's not fair to expect it, and therefore, it's not fair to expect it from feminists either.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 03:04 PM
2

It's not fair to expect every single MRA to open by acknowledging "Yes, there are men who beat and rape women as a means of asserting dominance and control, there are professional glass ceilings for women still, and there are terribly unfair social biases still being reinforced against women" before or during any argument made in support of men's rights. Those things are true, and they do merit attention, but they're not the core of most MRA argumentation in a world of limited attention spans.. …
/r/MensRights13/05/13 02:24 PM
2

Another example would be feminist protests outside of MRA lectures. That's not oppression, as some MRAs have claimed, that's the organised democratic expression of an opposing viewpoint. Feminists blocking entrance to thse lectures a different issue, yes, but merely protesting against a lecture is not persecution.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:09 PM
29

I'm pretty sure, given the insane level of complexity involved in tax evasion law, there's absolutely no way to compare the two cases and draw any kind of gender-bias conclusion unless you're an IRS agent.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 04:07 AM
1

And that wasn't an issue for this guy. It was. As I said, he was completely unwilling to have and support children at the time.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:30 AM
-2

I'm sorry, but having unprotected sex will net you a baby, and that's really his own fault. This is victim-blaming, akin to "dressing like a skank and being overly flirty will get you raped". He made an idiotic decision, yes, but he is still the victim of being tricked into an unwanted pregnancy. I don't know the details - maybe she told him she was on the pill, or using some other form of birth control.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:28 AM
3

Umm... STDs man. Don't be a fool; wrap your tool. Plus, it's not like children are taught that babies come from storks anymore.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 02:25 AM
2

I think, for this reason, it should be stressed to men to be proactive with their choices, before its too late. Proactive action is always best, there is no doubt there. However, the fact that women have legally-protected retroactive options while have a legally-enforced lack of retroactive options men do not is injustice.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 01:54 AM
6

Off the top of my head, I think the issue of cat-calling women is one possible example. Some MRAs claim it's a legitimate form of compliment. Some feminists claim it's disrespectful and demeaning. I think both points have some validity entirely dependent on the nature of the cat-calling... and discussion here would be great, except that some narrow-minded MRAs claim the feminist position is oppression against men's freedom of speech.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:13 PM
1

Regardless of the woman's intentions, it is common knowledge that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. I completely agree, which is why it was stupid on his part. In his (partial) defense, he was very drunk - at this woman's urging - the first time. The other times, I agree some of the responsibility is his. The point, though, is that if he'd been a woman he would have had other options to terminate the pregnancy and the huge responsibility that comes with it. Not pretty options, sure, but opt…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 04:43 PM
2

Really? Is the phenomenon of spermjacking a well-publicized hazard where you live? Generally speaking, how often are men warned about this type of situation? How often are the actual dangers of family court and child support explained to men, especially young men? They're not. Hence, my interest in MRA. However, the dangers of unprotected sex with strangers are extremely well-known.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 04:39 PM
10

My initial interest to MRA was regarding reproductive rights. Specifically, a man I know was "spermjacked" - that is to say he had unprotected sex with a woman who intended to become pregnant and thus have child support payments from him. What particularly bothered me was how premeditated this was. This man was targeted because he was single, socially awkward, and fairly well-off professionally. He was encouraged to drink to excess by a woman, who then coerced him into sex that night. They hooke…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 03:51 PM
1

There's plenty of actual persecution to be worrying about. There is. But there's also plenty of perfectly legitimate criticism being misconstrued as persecution as well. It's important to recognise the latter if we're going to better focus on the former.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 03:10 PM
1

Patriarchy, by its core definition, is the idea that families are centered on fathers and family possessions are passed through male lines. I.E. in a patriarchy, women will usually be considered members of their husband's family first, as will any children. Historical example: most of medieval Europe. This is in opposition to matriarchy, in which families are centered on mothers and family possessions are passed through female lines. I.E. in a matriarchy, husbands will be considered members of t…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 02:29 AM
45

I love stuff like this. MRAs and feminists should both take heed.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 02:25 AM
1

MRA wants equal rights for men and women, with a focus on the legal and social shortcomings for men. Anti-feminism opposes feminism. Feminism wants equal rights for women and men, with a focus on the legal and social shortcomings for women. Don't spew off any nonsense about how feminism is actually about female supremacy. It's not - that's fringe radical feminism, which is not and never was representative of feminism as a whole. Don't mistake the worst of a group as representative of the whole, …
/r/MensRights06/05/13 07:53 PM
4

Just looked it up. Fortunately, most comments are indeed calling this out for the BS it is.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 06:56 PM
2

40 years from now, China will have huge numbers of homeless women as a result of men dying and leaving their elderly wives with too few savings to continue payments on their ridiculously overpriced appartments.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 06:55 PM
5

This. This is about as surprising as Maxim picking cover models for their sex appeal. It doesn't make it right, though, and we should bring reasonable argumentation against this. Does anyone have the link to the original article? I'd like to see the comments section, if any.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 06:45 PM
2

Ideally, we should be both.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 10:50 AM
0

We are defending Alba from criticism. Assuming that even were what the posts here were about (they're not), this is not a men's rights issue anyway.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 10:46 AM
2

/r/Egalitarian This sub is for how inequality specifically affects men.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:01 PM
1

The article doesn't even 'mention' men.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 03:24 PM
8

This sub is about MRA, not anti-feminism.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 03:23 PM
-1

The context in which this was posted indicates the intent behind this was simply to mock the women involved. The up votes aren't coming from people with humans rights concerns either. This is also not a human rights sub - an article about Chinese censorship would be downvoted as "irrelevant" here. This is getting some positive attention simply because it depicts women negatively and strikes a chord with the radical MRA fringe which simply wants to stroke their confirmation bias against women. If…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 02:59 PM
9

The article doesn't mention feminism at all. It's just two women disagreeing about a third woman's choices regarding her body. If simply expressing an opinion about women's body-image issues makes a woman a feminist, I shudder at the implications for the "antifeminist" fringe of MRA. The women-bashing context in which this article was submitted has no place in a subreddit about gender equality.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 02:45 PM
27

This is /r/MensRights, not /r/BashWomen. Please stop posting and upvoting articles like this in this sub - it only further spreads the false idea that MRA is anti-women.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 02:15 PM
1

Nazi germany? 98 percent slaves to the state, forced at gunpoint, the rest brainwashed into actually wanting to fight. What.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 09:11 PM
1

Yeah but how is that a bad thing? It implies women are on par with children in initiative and ability to take care of themselves, and thus indirectly justifies that men should have dominance over them "for their own good" in the way parents do with children.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 09:10 PM
1

It's offensive to both genders. It's offensive to men, because A) it implies it's more shocking that women died, which reinforces male disposability and B) implies men are combatants and therefore violent. It's offensive to women, because A) it implies "people" would not otherwise include women and B) the shock value comes from the implication that women are less able to defend themselves.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 09:07 PM
1

/r/MensRants
/r/MensRights03/05/13 09:04 PM
1

This is a step in the right direction. If you accept non-biological parents can "opt in" to social and financial responsibility, then it becomes more likely you can accept that biological parents can "opt out" as well.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 08:59 PM
2

While some of those articles are clearly about women's issues - which is fine - many you've highlighted aren't. This is hysteria, and a lot of the things you're pointing to as "female-centric" seem to imply that only women can be victims of sexual assault, only women consider aesthetics and aging as an issue, etc. - things which are patently false. You also claim merely showing a woman is a sign of female-centrism, which is equally ridiculous. Many of the genderu-neutral articles show men, and y…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 01:07 PM
-5

Stand up and fight what you deserve. Yeah! You tell 'em sister! Don't ever let the world give you what you deserve - fight it!
/r/MensRights03/05/13 12:35 PM
1

This post and many comments in this thread are a disgrace to decent people (men and women) everywhere.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 05:10 PM
1

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to lighten up.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:30 PM
1

Guys, I'm pretty sure this is meant to be a joke. It's a routine, similar to stand-up comedians who joke about how their girlfriends like to shop too much. Relax.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:31 PM
9

That's right, a synthetized version of a hormone that your body produces is a medically controlled substance. FTFY.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 03:00 PM
1

Drugs don't make breasts (significantly) bigger. If they did, pharmaceutical companies would be all over that.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 02:57 PM
1

... except that the example you're talking about has since been changed to better reflect gender-neutrality. I suppose that's also part of the feminist plot? If so, I fully support this feminist plot to bring about gender neutrality on Wikipedia.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 03:44 AM
1

There is precedent regarding lying about your medical condition with regards to obtaining consent to sex. People with AIDS and other serious STDs who do not inform their partners and do not use protection are, in some cases, liable for sexual assault charges. I would assume if they lied in order to secure consent with the knowledge that consent would not be given otherwise, this could count as rape, but to my knowledge this has never been tried before a court. Since infertility is also a medical…
/r/MensRights26/04/13 03:42 AM
1

So when feminists claim Wikipedia is biased against them, it's a plot to motivate their own forces, but when MRAs do it, it's the truth?
/r/MensRights26/04/13 03:36 AM
3

Feminists, meanwhile, are claiming Wikipedia is a bastion of male sexism.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 10:01 PM
1

No, I'm not. I just think "but the law is unfairly written against men being raped" is irrelevant to an obvious case of male-on-female rape.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 06:05 PM
1

While I object to this law on the grounds of presumption of innocence, it seems to be written gender-neutrally. I wouldn't be surprised it is application were less than gender-neutral, but that's part of the greater problem of social shaming of men who report sexual abuse by women.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 05:40 PM
13

Who the hell even thinks of doing things like that to anyone?! Some parts of the world are really messed up.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 03:30 PM
2

Canada is as screwed up as the US in how it treats male rape victims. This.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 03:27 PM
2

It is sexual assault. It's also rape.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:38 PM
2

I agree there are plenty of problems with sex crime law and sentencing. However, this remains rape by its very definition.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:19 PM
1

Then the UK law is wrong and should be changed.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:13 PM
5

Both are theft. Both are rape.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:10 PM
2

Elaborate please.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:10 PM
2

One partner knowingly and forcefully committed a sexual act that the other clearly stated they did not consent to beforehand. What do you call that?
/r/MensRights25/04/13 01:58 PM
1

It's forced penetration (they are forcing you to penetrate them), thus rape.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 01:55 PM
3

Rape and child support are two different issues.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 01:54 PM
3

Under this ruling, if a man came forward with this, the woman would be.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:54 PM
2

What's so unique about penetration that it is the only form of sexual violation that bothers you so much? Is the reason, simply because, only a man can penetrate? Why is not "enveloping" a matter that bothers you? Forceful penetration can be done by either gender. If you're forced to penetrate another, that still involves penetration.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:54 PM
4

"Don't scratch my back"; "Don't give me a hickey" Those would probably classify as sexual assault in most places, yes. "Don't tell anyone we did this" This is not, because it's not directly related to a sexual act.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:52 PM
5

There was an issue about this in Halifax, Canada, IIRC, where a man dilberately poked holes in his condoms to impregnate his girlfriend and was convicted of rape. The judgement was that if certain aspects of the sex are withheld or misrepresented, this invalidates consent. This works for both genders - a woman who claims to be on the pill before sex but isn't is technically committing rape... it's just yet to be tried in court.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:50 PM
11

No, it's like your neighbour letting you borrow a hammer for a day and you keeping it for a week. That is theft.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:47 PM
8

she is a moron if she thinks him pulling out is a good way to avoid pregnancy Sex education classes are abysmally lacking to many people.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:46 PM
18

However, Lord Judge said that men who tried in vain to withdraw in time should not be pursued for rape, adding: ‘These things happen – they always have and they always will. The key here is that if it's accidental, it's not a crime. Since a woman would have no way of knowing if she's about to bring a man to orgasm unless he told her to stop, this would always be accidental<sup>1</sup> . If he told her to stop, then that would constitute rape. <sup>1</sup> Edit: Barring any exceptional circumstan…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:45 PM
7

This is a case of terribly media bias implying the law only applies to men or that only men do this, but the law and ruling itself is perfectly reasonable. First line after the sensationalist article: He would still be guilty if he did something she asked him not to, a High Court panel led by England and Wales’ most senior judge decreed. Seems pretty straightforward, no? If two people are having sex, one of them clearly says beforehand they don't consent to X act during sex, and the other impose…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:42 PM
2

"I refuse to address your problem until you address mine" is not grounds for discussion.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 05:13 AM
2

This. There are many men who refuse to come forward when they themselves or their male friends are victims of sexual assault.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 05:10 AM
2

OP disagrees with the woman's position that protesting violence against a particular gender is only something that should only be done by members of that gender. I.E., men should not put up signs protesting violence against women, and vice versa.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 05:07 AM
1

I have read several blogs and websites about "men can stop rape" and in no way it is ever acknowledged there even exists other kinds of rape other than men doing it. What some people say on the internet is not representative of everyone everywhere.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 04:04 AM
0

Conversely when it says "men aren't..." one can assume they mean the entire male population of the campus is the target. It doesn't say "men aren't" anywhere. The closest it comes to that is saying there are few programs for men on how to avoid becoming a perpetrator of sexual assault. This could be interpreted as a malicious insinuation that all men are unable to control their impulses, but it could just as easily be interpreted as pointing out there are limited opportunities for men to have se…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 02:37 AM
1

There is no indication that this is limited to men who are having violent sexual impulses and that she's speaking to a subset of men. There's also no indication that it isn't limited to men who are having violent sexual impulses, either. If we're going to ask for disclaimers on everything and assume the worst otherwise, we're not moving forward with much dialogue.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:48 AM
2

No, I do not. I understand that you must though, so please tell me so I can better understand.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:46 AM
2

This makes no claims that rape as a whole will stop, just that some can be prevented some of the time by better understanding some of the things that can lead to it.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 01:45 AM
6

I would like to actually see the presentation before going further with criticisms Fully agree. Let's try to resist the urge to jump to conclusions.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 08:12 PM
2

... really.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 07:53 PM
2

We clearly don't have the same sensibilites. I've never once felt personally accused by a reminder not to drink and drive, or not to bully. A broad-spectrum warning against doing something bad does not constitute an accusation of individual wrong-doing.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 07:47 PM
9

I don't read that. I read that male sexuality can be a cause of rape (which is true), and that some men can't control their sexual arousal (which is also true). In both cases, it is appropriate to approach the thought process of these criminals from a viewpoint of psychology. If the sign said ... the cognitive and behavioural effects of sexual arousal will turn a friend into a rapist... or ... the cognitive and behavioural effects of sexual arousal can turn any friend into a rapist... then there…
/r/MensRights23/04/13 07:44 PM
8

What is there to refute, objectively?
/r/MensRights23/04/13 05:08 PM
2

This talk seems to be about what turns some men into rapists. It is true that some men are rapists, just as it is true that some women are rapists, and some men are rape victims. Just because they're not talking about all issues involving rape, doesn't mean you should refuse the discussion on some of the issues involving rape. I agree with those saying this is an opportunity to talk about other rape issues as well.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 05:06 PM
-5

/r/TrueMensRights
/r/MensRights20/04/13 03:27 PM
1

You should x-post that to /r/MRAhumor
/r/MensRights19/04/13 03:42 AM
3

... do we have confirmation that this isn't simple trolling? It seems pretty ridiculous.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:07 PM
22

Or fall on a judge with political ambition.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:46 PM
1

Yes. EDIT: To clarify, I've been selected for the full-body scan about six or seven times. Since I have no problem with the technology's safety (you're exposed to more radiation during the flight than you are during the scan), I go through the scanner. However, each time save once I was told I had the option of the scanner or the pat-down. The one time I wasn't, I asked if the pat-down was still an option (just to check if the policy had changed) and the TSA agent rolled his eyes and told me I h…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 12:13 PM
24

You bumped into an idiot TSA agent making up rules to suit their ego and/or cover their ignorance. Happens all the time. I fly through US airports frequently - the full body scanner is supposed to be for randomly-selected individuals, while everyone else gets the standard metal detector. You may have seen women sent through the metal detector merely because they were not randomly selected by a computer for the pat-down or full body scan. I've seen men and women equally in the body scanner and in…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 02:41 AM
1

Asking for a picture? Specifying 18-30? Utter bullshit reason? Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of a sleazy boss who just wants hot female assistants IMO.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:43 AM
1

Relevant
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:55 AM
3

Men, in general, have an affinity towards masculine traits, and women, in general, have an affinity towards feminine traits. Therefore, by that logic, mothers should get precedence over custody during divorces (because nurturing is a feminine trait) and fathers should be expected to pay for it (because providing is a masculine trait). See how that's not right?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:52 AM
3

This is not something MRAs should be happy about. It inherently implies men can't be nurturing.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 11:53 PM
3

feminism isn't collectively getting behind such efforts Like MRA, feminism isn't a monolith. I'd argue that those calling themselves feminists moving for this aren't actually feminists No True Scotsman
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:34 PM
1

I doubt it. I just drove by yesterday and saw it, plus, they might not speak English.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:54 PM
1

To be fair, now that women are "allowed" to engage in front-line combat in the US armed forced, feminists are asking for the law to be changed as well. Most other "western" countries, meanwhile, solved this years ago.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 01:20 PM
2

To this saying it is possible in this threat, note that while I certainly agree with you, in practice I'm sure anyone who advocated for women's rights would immediately be labeled a feminist regardless - unless you can think of a women's rights issue that isn't a feminist one, because I can't.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 01:14 PM
3

3ieme avenue, Limoilou
/r/MensRights07/04/13 12:58 PM
6

Translation: "Autonhommie" is a play on the French words for "man" (homme) and "autonomous". The bottom line says "Resource Center for Men", and several of the logos are major mainstream charities and public organisations.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 02:58 AM
2

Please note that asking for legal advice on Reddit (or on the internet in general) is a very, very bad idea. It's against Reddit's user policy for that reason. Not only is there absolutely no way to check the qualifications of anyone posting here, but laws also vary by country, province/state, municipality, etc. This is likely why you are being downvoted.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 02:39 PM
4

Justifying being an asshole based on comedy about puppets is probably not the wisest idea.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 02:04 PM
1

Apparently the Way to Reduce the "Gender Gap" in Math for Girls Is to Eliminate Timed Tests This is misleading. The article does not advocate for the elimination of timed tests. It says: In the first round of the timed competition, boys performed better than girls, reinforcing the conclusions of earlier studies. But when a second round was added, the advantage for boys disappeared. Here's where it gets even more interesting: When the competition was extended to three rounds, girls began to outsc…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 01:51 PM
13

I'm single now Good on you for leaving an abusive relationship.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 01:29 PM
36

In actual fact they had a pleasant family relationship. The appearance of a pleasant family relationship does not imply a pleasant family relationship, which is what I think twokidsinamansuit's point was. Many victims of abuse play nice in public, to the point where they look like the happiest family unit, out of fear of worse abuse later or simply not to hurt their extended families. That being said, I haven't seen the video or been involved in anything with the trial. I suspect if reasonable l…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 04:45 PM
1

I remember a time when War Criminals were executed or imprisoned for significant portions of their lives Only if they were on the losing side of the war.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 03:10 PM
2

She was involved in cases of sexual assault against male POWs. Her subsequent treatment by society is important to track because, historically, very few female soldiers have been linked to sexual abuse cases against males, and sexual double-standards might be in play. It's good news to see they're not.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 06:41 PM
3

She was involved in cases of sexual assault against male POWs. Her subsequent treatment by society is important to track because, historically, very few female soldiers have been linked to sexual abuse cases against males, and sexual double-standards might be in play. It's good news to see they're not.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 03:57 PM
6

Documented sexual abuser and war criminal having trouble finding stable employment and prosperity in hard economic times. System working as intended.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:50 PM
8

It probably has nothing to do with who she is. I doubt that. Military experience does give a certain core of skills which remain valuable even after a dishonorable discharge. If she's not being hired, it's more likely because she's a war criminal.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:48 PM
11

Apples and oranges. There were plenty of other ways to help the war effort that did not involve putting her hands at unnecessary risk, when she valued her ability to make music. Just because she wasn't forced to put herself at risk in the way draftees were, doesn't mean she should volunteer to. You can't blame the individual for the unfair choices of society.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:46 PM
22

Besides, the woman upon whom the original is based quit that job almost immediately because she didn't want to hurt her hands. This has nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with her valuing her ability as a musician. I'd have done the same thing.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:21 PM
-1

You're assuming the worst based on cynicism alone.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:26 AM
0

(of women) This does not show up anywhere on the sign. Unless you're saying rape is only possible against women, you're interpreting this incorrectly.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:54 PM
0

Then I must have misinterpreted your comment. This sign does indeed advocate stopping sexual violence against women. It also advocates stopping sexual violence against men. Are MRAs and feminists opposed to either position?
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:35 PM
0

You misread the sign. It's completely gender-neutral - as it should be.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:21 PM
31

2 day old account "Thanks Dove!" /r/HailCorporate
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:42 PM
10

The last argument ("He's my son, so it's my decision.") doesn't imply men are property as much as it implies children's decisions must be made for them by parents... which isn't necessarily incorrect. It would be more effective to point out that this same logic could be applied to female circumcision, which would be appalling to most people and isn't for males largely due to sexist reasoning.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:26 PM
1

Good on you, OP, for x-posting this to /r/Feminism as well. This is an issue MRAs and feminists need to cooperate on.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:22 PM
5

42-year-old attempts to rape 12-year-old, is arrested, and spouts bullshit nonsense as ineffective defense. Police and media correctly label 42-year-old as a sexual predator and 12-year-old as sexual assault victim. I agree we should keep an eye on this to see if the sentencing follows through, but so far, it seems the system is working as intended.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:18 PM
1

The negative reaction to this article is a case of us being unreasonable, for the aforementioned reasons.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 11:59 AM
1

I disagree. There is nothing here a reasonable MRA should take offense to.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 03:32 AM
1

Yeah, this has happened to me too. Try /r/TrueAtheism instead.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 01:32 AM
1

"They're always irrational, we're always correct."
/r/MensRights21/03/13 01:31 AM
1

I don't read that. She says if you tolerate or don't speak up when those around you behave disrespectfully, you're enabling a culture that promotes unhealthy gender relations.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 01:07 AM
1

Most are just as defensive as MRAs are when you bring up "rape culture", mostly out of knee-jerk reactions against perceived offenses. That their reaction is just as bad as irrational and idiotic does not allow ours to be as well.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 01:03 AM
1

If opposing extreme viewpoints and systematic irrational rejection of viewpoints simply for being contrary to those extremes, then sure, I'm a contrarian. MRAs and feminists have more common ground than separation. Idiotic us-versus-them mentality is keeping both groups from moving forward.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 12:54 AM
1

I'm talkin specifically about women who write articles asking men to stop the rape of women. This is still a lumping together. Not all women who write articles express the same opinions. You also make it sound like there's a centralised organisation of "feminists" who operate under a single united cause and front, and so they should all be treated as faces of the same group. This is simply false.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 12:51 AM
1

So because some women have wronged you, you're going to refuse to help all women? This is exactly the same logic radical feminists employ to declare all men are evil because some men do bad things. This is exactly the kind of discriminatory sexism MRAs should oppose.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 12:50 AM
1

Thanks for the heads-up.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 12:48 AM
1

You're hitting the nail on the head - drunken non-consent laws are a complete mess, and that turns the already emotional issue into a something horribly hurtful for everyone involved. Clearing up sexual consent laws is something that both feminists and MRAs should work together on.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 09:35 PM
2

estimated
/r/MensRights20/03/13 09:23 PM
1

This isn't what the article is calling for.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 09:21 PM
1

Some MRAs object, with reasonable arguments to support them, to the existance of a "rape culture" at all. A big part of the problem is that "rape culture" is the kind of buzzword that leads to a strong emotional shock without providing any clear definition of the content of the term. Some appropriations of "rape culture" come down to implying that all men are rapists or rapist-supporters, implicitly or explicitly. This is obviously problematic and unfairly discriminatory against men.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 09:20 PM
2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contact/
/r/MensRights20/03/13 09:13 PM
2

And we're all completely free to tell them, to write articles about it, and to express this to women as well. As MRAs, that's kind of what we're supposed to be doing, too.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 08:58 PM
2

I'm pretty sure we're mostly seeing eye to eye here. However, going back to the case at hand, I think while it's possible the girl gave drunken consent to sexual relations, she most likely did not give drunken consent to be used in the manner in which she was. The fact the the boys involved did not realise the difference, or realise what they were doing was wrong, shows a rather alarming bit of social education. If no means no then yes must mean yes. If a woman cannot legally consent when drunk …
/r/MensRights20/03/13 08:57 PM
3

Of interest: r/AskHistorians on the issue.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 08:45 PM
3

Why should we feel obligated to deal with violent people? Because it's the right thing to do, when a person is assaulting another person, to intervene if it can be done with minimal risk to your physical safety - regardless of the genders of anyone involved (yourself included).
/r/MensRights20/03/13 08:27 PM
3

I truly enjoy that radical feminists accuse me of being an oppressive patriarchist on /r/Feminism and radical MRAs derogatively call me a White Knight on /r/MensRights.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 08:03 PM
2

This article is not about male rape. It's ridiculous to expect every article about rape to discuss male rape, just as it's ridiculous to expect every article about rape to discuss female rape. Sometimes, people write articles to discuss female rape only - I agree this tends to happen more often than articles about male rape and I agree that it's up to MRAs to make male rape a more visible problem. However, that doesn't inherently make every instance of a discussion about female rape a case of us…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 08:00 PM
3

You only do the right thing for people who have directly helped you in the past?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:49 PM
2

You are quite right that male rape isn't being discussed. However, HuffPost is a user-content blogging website. You can contribute your own articles and thus change that. However, that isn't a reason to dismiss the wrongs being done to others. I also think your position is needlessly divisive between genders. You make it sound like men and women are two different camps with opposing goals. This simply isn't true. It's in all of our best interests to have healthy social relations. It therefore is…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:49 PM
2

So it's ok to lump all women in the same group, even though they clearly express differing opinions, because some of them treat us poorly... ... but it's not ok for women to lump all men together in the same group, even though we clearly express differing opinions, because some of us treat them poorly. Then the responsibility is on them to help us before they ask us to help them... ... because we refuse to help them before they help us. This isn't a reasonable position. Also, literally 5 seconds…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:37 PM
1

This, I feel, needs to be discussed as well. I'd like to ask /r/feminism about this, if you have a web article handy. Otherwise I'll look for it later.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:17 PM
-1

This article does not claim that all rapists are men, (nor does it dehumanise rapists, as it makes the claim they're affected by social behaviour as well). It claims some rapists are men, and then addresses behaviours men can take to render that specific subset of rapists more socially inexcusable. There is nothing to take offense of here.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:15 PM
2

I think we're saying the same thing, and so I agree with you that this does affect us (even if not directly) and so we should act.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 07:11 PM
-7

This article seems to thrive on dehumanizing men... How so? It states that most men are moral, upstanding people and simply asks them to make use of that moral strength.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 06:04 PM
4

were there other females that stood idly by and watched another person be raped? I'd actually love to know this. Anyone know?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 06:02 PM
8

Two bad arguments don't make a good one. First, nowhere does she state rape is only a women's issue, only that it is falsely seen as a women's issue. This is something MRAs should agree with. She then frames the rest of her argument in a way that only looks at rape of women, because that's the focus of this particular article. Secondly, implying we should only act against things that have an effect on our lives is just plain barbaric. Moral and social beings shouldn't do the right thing only whe…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 06:01 PM
2

First you insult our intelligence and our integrity by claiming that all men and boys are potential rapists Her article is pretty clear: If you are male and reading this and thinking that there are a lot of good boys and men out there who would never assault someone, of course you're right. You may even feel sick of being lumped together with "Neanderthal" men who abuse women. I don't blame you. I imagine I might feel the same way. Now as for this: you marginalize male victims of rape and deny t…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 05:56 PM
0

How and where does it blame all men? I got out of it that she expressed, correctly, that most men aren't to blame and would never engage in acts that could be blamed. She's just asking men to push that logic a little further by not tolerating it when others disrespect women.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 05:54 PM
2

The article doesn't claim or imply that insults against men are OK. The topic of this article simply isn't about those instances.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 05:51 PM
3

Guys, let's stop being knee-jerk offended every time someone mentions "men" and "rape culture" in the same article. Sure, this article is a little preachy and PC, but it's not discriminatory against men nor is it anything a reasonable MRA should oppose.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 05:48 PM
2

I was not aware of Daddy Justice. Have you got a link?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 03:43 AM
3

Perhaps I should give some context (as posted in response to AeneaLamia) - this is a comic which appeared in a major newspaper where I live today. This is an unfortunate example of how domestic violence against men is perceived as acceptable, even comical.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:49 AM
4

Perhaps I should give some context - this is a comic which appeared in a major newspaper where I live today. This is an unfortunate example of how domestic violence against men is perceived as acceptable, even comical.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:49 AM
4

"... and if you cheat on me dear, you'll see a ski can hit just as hard."
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:16 AM
-2

Irrelevant to this subreddit. This has nothing to do with men's rights and is simply a case of a corrupt judge being caught. The judge's gender is irrelevant to the story or its outcome.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:46 AM
1

a lot of commercials appear to me to say "if you love all that your mom has done for you then buy her jewelry or she won't understand". ... which is horribly sexist against women. Worth noting and worth correcting, but out of place in your rant, because it hugely and sexistly devalues the moral position of mothers.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:42 PM
2

I get your frustration and you bring up good points. I just feel a few of your examples are self-defeating: Don't know what I'm talking about? When was the last time you saw a church host a "Father's Day Out"? You really shouldn't expect a church to be a bastion of gender equality. When was the last time kids were told by commercials they had to buy ridiculously expensive jewelry on Father's day to make raising them worth Dads time? I sincerely hope you're not expecting parents to measure the wo…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:31 PM
0

At first you were like, Why does it not surprise(hint:I actually know why) me in the same thread in which I'm downvoted for being anti-feminist one of the responses to me is an ad-hominem. and then you were like, Yea...stopping here, you are a fool, an ignoramus, go pander to the man haters at the good men project you uncle tom. and after you were like, Piss off uncle tom. and now you're like, Go eat shit and die troll.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:03 AM
1

At first you were like, Why does it not surprise(hint:I actually know why) me in the same thread in which I'm downvoted for being anti-feminist one of the responses to me is an ad-hominem. and then you were like, Yea...stopping here, you are a fool, an ignoramus, go pander to the man haters at the good men project you uncle tom. and now you're like Piss off uncle tom.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 12:22 AM
0

At first you were like, Why does it not surprise(hint:I actually know why) me in the same thread in which I'm downvoted for being anti-feminist one of the responses to me is an ad-hominem. and then you were like, Yea...stopping here, you are a fool, an ignoramus, go pander to the man haters at the good men project you uncle tom.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 09:09 PM
1

Not every christian is a WBC loon, or a zealous politician legislating their views into law, or a nutty fire and brimstone preacher, but I'm still anti-religion. Not every religious person is opposes atheist rights - most do not. Not every feminist opposes mens rights - most do not.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 07:13 PM
1

Also, nice strawman, I've not once said its a black and white issue, but you're desperate to make it seem that way. If you give a damn about the rights of men I suggest you wise up and see feminism for what it is.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 07:11 PM
0

At first you were like, You replied to all that with a strawman? Really? but then you were like It would be easier to type out you're ok with mental gymnastics to deflect criticism against feminism, than type all that out.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 07:08 PM
1

Unless notanothercirclejerk genuinely believes Thievishmetal69 is very young, and is using Thievishmetal69's youth to imply his argument is invalid. Then it becomes ad hominem. Open to interpretation. But please, do carry on correcting people for misidentification of fallacies. It does force our arguments to be better.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 07:06 PM
0

All you're doing is strawmanning. But fine. Feminism is to the rights of women like the KKK is to the rights of white people. That's insane. The overwhelming majority of feminists do not advocate for anything even remotely resembling the KKK's policies. I don't remember the last time feminists held rallies that lynched men to trees, or dragged men through the forest. And those same some are usually the only important ones, the ones who say all heterosexual sex is rape, and are then widely consid…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 06:56 PM
1

Radical feminism =/= all feminism.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 02:48 PM
6

You say that like its a bad thing. It is a bad thing. We're not here to knock women's rights down, we're here to make sure men and women have equal rights. Some feminists are radicals who do not share this goal. Most feminists are not. Reasonable MRA and reasonable feminism have a lot more common ground than contention. If you're going to write off all of feminism and praise childish generalisations because a few of them say idiotic things now and then, you're inviting feminism to write us all o…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 09:30 PM
2

This shouldn't be upvoted here, it's just blantant anti-feminism that brings nothing forward for the good of men's rights. Invert the genders, imagine it on /r/feminism, then imagine how you'd react. This is trash either way.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 08:52 PM
3

The European Parliament is having its time wasted on Tuesday because a single radical wants to ban all porn in Europe. FTFY.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 02:47 PM
2

Don't blame them for my downvote too.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 04:04 AM
2

Buy a female ticket. Show up as if it was any other event. If they give you trouble, tell them you're a woman. If they still refuse, claim discrimination. If they ask to check, accuse them of attempted sexual assault. Enjoy the lulz.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 11:17 PM
3

Don't know why you've been downvoted. Done respectfully and not with any antagonizing intent, this is an excellent way to illustrate the point. Ask for her definition of "hate speech", then find exceptions which she'd agree need to be permitted. It then becomes a question of finding enough examples to convince her that any restriction on speech risks banning reasonable - though controversial - ideas.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 11:15 PM
0

/r/MensRants
/r/MensRights03/03/13 02:39 PM
-1

"We're sorry ladies, this game is too dangerous for your frail bodies." is not going to fly. It's both factually incorrect - getting hit by a linebacker at full speed is just as risky for men as it is for women - and it's an inherently sexist argument to say that just because women are on average less physically robust than men, that this specific woman must also be less physically robust than other male kickers. If she's seriously being considered for the role of an NFL kicker, I assume she's c…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 02:19 PM
6

"BUT HE HIT A GIRL!" - Sensationalist Media
/r/MensRights01/03/13 08:40 PM
4

It wouldn't be illegal. Rules governing participation of sporting events allow for sex discrimination. This is how female-only events are possible.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 08:39 PM
5

While your comment is a bad joke at best, you do bring up a valid point. How will the media react when she's tackled by a full-sized football player just doing his job?
/r/MensRights01/03/13 08:22 PM
4

Sex is not something a man does to a woman. It is something two people do together. I completely agree, which is why I said "Sex occurs" - it's neutral. There is no indication he forced her clothes off or forced penetration. Quite correct. There's actually clear indication that neither of these things, or anything else similarly intimidating, happened. She clearly says he did nothing to scare her. She was not incapacitated and was neither forced or coerced, I have a hard time identifying it as r…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:33 PM
4

There's no indication she withdrew her "no".
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:29 PM
3

She said she didn't want to have sex. A reasonable person would have been aware that she was not consenting, and a reasonable person would, remembering this, should have taken two seconds between kisses during the escalation to ask if she'd changed her mind. "Do you want this?" is extremely simple, doesn't kill the mood, and is a clear sign of consent if she answers anything even remotely positive. A reasonable person should have asked, given her prior statement.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:15 PM
3

Let's cut through all the "maybes". Fundamentally, this is what she directly says happened and all we know: Girl says she wants to make out, but not have sex. Guy and girl make out. Guy escalates towards sex. Girl does not stop him. Sex occurs. Note the key feature - nonconsent to sex was expressed, and consent to sex was not. Not saying "no" does not imply "yes". Not stopping someone from having sex with you does not imply consent. Ergo, according to the facts of account and nothing else, rape.…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 10:04 PM
1

Which is why I'm basing this on the facts expressed in the testimony alone. I'm completely in agreement that her testimony might not be entirely factual. All I'm saying is the exact circumstances she is describing are rape, not that they are what happened.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:56 PM
3

There is no indication in her testimony that she took her clothes off herself, or took any other initiative implicitly consenting to sex. Keep in mind, this is based on her testimony alone. There could be differences between what she is describing and what actually happened. However, the exact phrasing of what she is describing does not imply consent.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:49 PM
4

It's entirely reasonable to assume that a girl who describes the experience as feeling "too scared to stop" was likely showing signs of displeasure which an attentive partner would have noticed. Had she not expressed her lack of consent beforehand, simply not noticing these signs would not have made the guy guilty of rape - in the heat of the moment, he could reasonably not have noticed (being an inattentive partner is not a crime). However, given that she had expressed her lack of consent befor…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:39 PM
1

Completely agreed.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:32 PM
2

Not necessarily. Unless she took clear initiative, merely "going with it" does not imply consent.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:13 PM
4

She said "no sex" and then never said or implied "yes sex". Therefore, consent was never expressed at any point.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:11 PM
1

"Terrified silence" is usually a pretty clear non-verbal signal when you're checking for implied consent.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:56 PM
4

And then she gave every indication she changed her mind. I don't read that. Her account only says she didn't make a clear indication that she hadn't changed her mind. This is not sufficient to infer that she did. Say a man is at a woman's house. She says she doesn't want to have sex. A few hours later, she goes and changes into something sexy. Without saying anything, she comes out and initiates sex with the man. Would that be the man raping her because "she made her desires clear at the start."…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:50 PM
5

Yes, actually, it would. Consent can end at any time during the encounter. If you're having sex, your partner says "stop", and you don't stop, this makes you a rapist. Pre-approved consensual kinky role-play stuff excluded, of course, but even then, make sure you have a clear safe word.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:46 PM
3

This is where the principle of innoncence until proof of guilt must be respected. Better 100 guilty men and all that.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 07:32 PM
4

she gets close and the situation escalates If she initiates or actively escalates towards sex, that's consent. I know laws don't always properly reflect that, but in those cases it's the law that's wrong.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 05:59 PM
2

She said "stop" (or at least, "don't go further than this") before they started.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:32 PM
5

I did not want to go all the way and told him so. Guys - this is rape. She clearly said no beforehand, and he never stopped to check if she'd changed her mind before assuming she did. Unless she did something which clearly implied consent she's not mentioning - say she took off her own shirt, or reached into his pants, or something similar that clearly goes beyond "making out" - then this is still rape. His intentions and suppositions are irrelevant to the fact that he had sexual relations with …
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:29 PM
1

That's exactly what I'm advocating - that he expects the same treatment he would give. He's not secendary to her needs.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 03:45 AM
0

Then when the stories mention clear cases of unequal sentencing, that becomes a valid post. Before that, it's crass pandering to the desire of some to validate their point of view.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 01:13 AM
6

The gym used the same zero tolerance they use for men harassing women, and that was huge in my eyes. Props to your gym!
/r/MensRights25/02/13 11:07 PM
-1

I understand the argument, I just fundamentally disagree with it. Posting (and upvoting) stories which only involve women behaving badly and absolutely no legal or social inequality in a subreddit that's supposed to be about equal gender treatment is a terrible policy. It only provides fodder to our detractors claiming we hate women and have a big circle-jerk every time we catch one being bad, while bringing absolutely nothing forward for the cause of equal treatment for men. Celebrating instanc…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:56 PM
1

I really truly love my girlfriend of six years but she is very insistent that marriage is an absolute necessity for her. I'm willing to do it to make her happy but the nervousness of the whole situation is tearing me apart. Consider the inverse, with your girlfriend saying the following: I really truly love my boyfriend of six years but he is very insistent that marriage is an absolute necessity for him. I'm willing to do it to make him happy but the nervousness of the whole situation is tearing…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:24 PM
37

Up to date? With those haircuts? ;) Worth writing a letter to your psychology textbook publisher, IMO.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:16 PM
6

The constant stream of "look - a woman being bad!", justified as "raising awareness" that women can be violent, is pretty damning and should have no place on a subreddit about gender equality.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:08 PM
2

This was a brilliant episode, not just because of the subject matter, but because of how "human" everyone involved behaved about the issue, and how the consequences are so deeply felt by everyone involved (the victim, the doctor, Captain Janeway, and Seven).
/r/MensRights25/02/13 09:40 PM
2

There's no reason to go looking for a fuss where there isn't one. The way Wikipedia works with these "series" is that every page related to the series - of which this page is one - has the "part of a series" on it. Some pages have many of these "part of a series" tags. The whole top description is entirely gender-neutral. The "violence against women" tag is just a result of how Wikipedia generally operates, which is not at all against men. Also, VAWA has nothing to do with this, since the page a…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 02:55 PM
1

Change your passwords.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 02:01 PM
2

They're pretty out there. Their party's official policy is that party leadership must always alternate between a man and a woman, among many other crazy things. They oppose tampons. For real.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:35 PM
11

The only reason to use the term psychological violence is to associate an actual crime with a noncriminal action, thereby using your doublespeak to manipulate people and the courts. This is blatantly untrue. Gender activism has referred to domestic intimidation and privacy invasion as psychological violence for decades. The end result is the same - individuals who do not feel safe. This is the same reason why threatening to injure or kill someone is considered a crime.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:16 PM
28

If I'm not mistaken, it's the armed forces itself.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 01:53 PM
11

Quebec City isn't Montreal. They're two completely different cities, about 3 hours apart.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 01:52 PM
18

I'd first like to point out that the flyer makes no mention of the victim necessarily being male. This being Canada, the victim of an abusive wife/girlfriend in the army could also be a woman. And I don't know what double standards you're talking about. Any of this behaviour would be abusive, regardless of the gender of the person committing it.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 01:51 PM
40

Note (for clarity): translation is as literal as I could make it, which might make the syntax seem a little wonky. "Conjointe" directly translates as "female spouse", though the term is generally used in Quebec to refer to either a long-term girlfriend or wife, hence "girlfriend/wife" "Violenté" directly translates as "done violence to", though it is also a very common euphemism for rape, hence "beat/raped" "Valcartier" is the name of the army base nearby.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 05:57 AM
4

This belongs in /r/MensRants... at best. Otherwise, it's just plain old sexism and doesn't belong here.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:08 AM
122

Front: Feminine violence exists, whether it is verbal, physical, or psychological, it is destructive. BREAK THE SILENCE Armed forces health promotion services. Back: IS YOUR WIFE/GIRLFRIEND VIOLENT? Questions to ask: Your wife/girlfriend blocks your passage during a dispute? She opens your mail and reads your phone and social network messages? She humiliates you in front of others? She threatens to commit suicide if you leave her? She has already hit you? A hit from her handbag or shoe? Your wif…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:06 AM
2

These laws are already starting to be contested and overturned or diminished in areas where they've been in effect for a while. Quebec is the most recent example.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 05:26 AM
3

Which, most MRAs (and even most feminists) agree, is insane. It's a fad that won't last.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:03 AM
4

If somebody is contentedly married for 20 years, finds themselves unhappy with it for the following 3 or 4 years, and then gets a divorce, I'd personally call that 20 years of success. This. The "traditional marriange" was defined when just surviving for 20 years after you were married was considered a success. A marriage shouldn't be called a failure if it lasts longer than average marriages have throughout history.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:01 AM
10

He certainly isn't guaranteed a clean home , any sort of maid-service , or hot meals and that's not because she's too busy working (because there are good odds that she won't be) If MRAs want feminists to call out the sexism within their own movement, we need to do the same. That was a blatantly sexist comment.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:59 AM
2

Obligatory double-standard callout at 0:58. But thanks for making me smile all the same ;).
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:38 AM
1

all feminism is a system of equality or superiority of numbers for women, not equal opportunity The answer is, all forms of feminism are evil. That's a rather broad statement there. It also leaves absolutely no place for negotiation or common ground. You sure that's the best way to go about advocating for men's rights?
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:36 AM
0

... what does this have to do with OP's question?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 11:53 PM
1

Was this the door to the garbage disposal unit? Goes with the whole "trash" thing.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 11:52 PM
2

I'm all for nitpicking. wife-beating hick saying it's his man's right to beat his wife Fixed.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 11:51 PM
2

I meant statistically true in the general case - i.e. for men in general, but not necessarily for a subset of men in particular.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 11:29 PM
30

Proof that rational feminism and rational MRA only stand to gain from mutual cooperation.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 10:52 PM
5

Both of these are based on the idea that men make more money. This is statistically true for men in general, but you have to realise that included in this statistics is the large portion of middle-aged men who entered a much more sexually exclusive workforce than the entry-level workforce of today. In other words, I think skewering this statistic is the fact that a good number of men near the end of their careers, and therefore likely earning much more than those men beginning their careers, are…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 10:50 PM
3

Chivalry is fine so long as it is not expected and laws are not based off of it. This perfectly sums up the finest goals of this subreddit IMO.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:58 PM
5

I think this part needs to be made clear as we like our feminists counter parts have different views and that opinions. As a follow-up, we should all remember this whenever a crazy female-supremacist makes a ridiculous statement. It doesn't represent feminism any more than a wife-beating hick represents MRA.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:57 PM
1

Looks like a copy-paste error.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:55 PM
20

I also can't help but feel you're making a few sexist assumptions, namely: The man stands to have more to lose as he will necessarily be the richer of the two partners, The man will be supporting the woman because this is still the 1950s and that's how modern couples roll, All women want big fancy expensive marrianges.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:38 PM
20

In most areas, the tax benefits alone are pretty robust.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:34 PM
3

I feel your frustration, but next time, consider /r/MensRants for this kind of post.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:31 PM
-13

I looked at the title: Don’t Marry I looked at the URL: dontmarry.wordpress.com I looked at the second line: The intent is not to dissuade men from marrying I stopped reading.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 04:35 PM
1

This is not something new, bizarre, or extraordinary from feminists. They constantly go on about this stuff. So no, this is not a case of crazies being crazy. This is a consistent pattern. I'm not saying this is new. There have been crazy people forever, in almost every possible branch of human thought. These people are fanatics. The only thing to do is laugh and point out their heavy dose of crazy, then forget about them. Anything else makes them seem legitimate.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:46 PM
4

Just a small correction to an otherwise great post: feminist/MRA spectrum It's not a spectrum in the sense that it's one-way-or-the-other, if you're talking about reasonable feminism (and reasonable MRA). MRA and feminism usually have the same goal: gender equality. Anything else isn't feminism (or MRA), it's sexism.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:36 PM
1

Yeah, I hear you. Mockery remains the best defense. Taking them seriously only encourages others to do the same.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:31 PM
-1

This isn't something to worry about any more than the Flat Earth Society. It's a bunch of crazies just being crazy. Best thing to do is have a good laugh. For instance, their math is absurd - 10% of the population being male is far more than necessary to maintain functional breeding and genetic diversity under the conditions they are describing. Considering that a man can produce enough genetic material to impregnate easily 100 women per day (with proper application of modern medical technology)…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 06:00 PM
3

Some places have laws in which age of consent is higher if the older partner is in a position of authority. I.E. a random 35-year-old could have sex with a 16-year-old, but the 16-year-old's basketball coach (or in this case, teacher) could not until they were 18. That being said, I have no idea if this is the case here.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 05:35 PM
25

Heads up: The article does not state the gender of her alleged victims. This is, IMO, how it should be, because their gender shouldn't matter in the eyes of the law, but just keep that in mind before assuming her alleged victims were all male.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 05:33 PM
2

That wasn't the intent of my comment, but I didn't express it too well. What I meant was that usually, in this subreddit, upvotes tend to go in the same direction (more or less) as comments. This wasn't the case here, making it an anomaly, which is what leads me to believe it may be a trolling upvote campaign. The post currently sits at much fewer upvotes than yesterday, also making me believe the trolls lost interest and this subreddit's "natural" upvote/downvote process is back in place. In ot…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:54 PM
1

The discrepancy between the upvotes and the comments is rather striking. I suspect a troll as well. Cute :).
/r/MensRights12/02/13 10:26 PM
2

Yes. I also have rational arguments demonstrating why this kind of behaviour directly hurts us and makes us worse for them. But hey, opinions, right?
/r/MensRights12/02/13 06:20 PM
1

Some people have been victimized by feminist and some people have been victimized by christians. Ans some people have been victimised by masculinists... ... and some people have been victimised by Bulgarians, and some people have been victimised by the left-handed, and some people have been victimised by almost every imaginable and conceivable subcategorisation of people. This argument goes nowhere and has no merit. Good faith and mutual understanding is fine and good, but it's not always realit…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 06:14 PM
0

Comparing someone to a "radical Christian" is Reddit-speak for "person with whom rational debate is impossible". This is entirely like the Goodwin Point in that it implies discussion is impossible and usually just opens the door to equally asinine counter-comparisons and insults. It stops any attempt at promoting good faith and mutual understanding, and fundamentally hurts our activism more than anything. Always remember: there's nothing worse you can do for a good cause than to defend it with a…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 06:06 PM
3

I miss the days when "radical" was something the TMNT would say when something was awesome.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 06:00 PM
0

It frames the argument in a very relatable way. Not really. Comparing something to radical Christianity is Reddit's equivalent of the Goodwin Point. It only kills further debate.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 05:58 PM
3

According to this article (in French - the story is from Quebec), the man knows the identity of the three other fathers. He pays 226.50$ a week in child support.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 04:45 PM
2

I don't read the analogy that way. You are less likely to die from a gunshot if you've emptied 5 of the 6 chambers in a revolver. 5 in 6 is about the effectiveness of the pull-out method, too. That doesn't mean you're actually protecting yourself in any meaningful way.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 03:55 AM
1

How is this a victory for men's rights, exactly?
/r/MensRights04/02/13 10:12 PM
2

Oh lord, this is why we need more comprehensive sexual education classes in schools. It is possible to impregnate a woman from fluids before orgasm. It's less likely, but it's also entirely outside of your control. The Russian Roulette analogy is fairly accurate.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 09:54 PM
1

It sounds like if she cheated, she could have also gotten an early first trimester abortion without telling. Depending on where they live, this could be cost-prohibitive for her. She might be hoping her boyfriend will be more inclined to help pay for it if he thinks its his.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 09:52 PM
2

Though at least in this case it's called out as rape, and the perpetrator is clearly shown to be insane. ... then the movie has the raped character fall in love and marry his rapist, and this is portrayed as a happy ending. Urgh.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 09:28 PM
1

Being required to be there is one thing. Are you required to participate? I assume these meetings have set times - they'd be a great chance to catch up on your class readings if nothing else, and it's a great tougne-in-cheek protest against the absurdity of it. If you ever have to answer for it, state you find the loss of valuable study time for belonging to an all-male organisation to be gender discrimination.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 02:52 PM
-19

That comes off as extremely bitter. I find it hard to believe there's a rational reason to write off the needs of 50% of the human population.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:41 PM
2

You mean, someone thought "I have no idea if this is true, but I better not check because then I might have to change this." ?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:40 PM
-12

Birth?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:08 PM
1

The way MR conducts itself is as good as you can hope for, in my opinion. Thats saying it would be the top example of how to conduct this kind of group. Its just because people are so sensitive and skeptical of our subject matter. On that, I certainly agree.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:05 PM
4

I cant believe anyone that can string together words that coherently could write such a thing and literally not check a source to make sure it really is true, and then worse still, no one else questions it! You give PR firms too much credit. ;)
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:04 PM
3

I sent them a message on FB. I cant seem to find an email address on their website. Please let us know what their response is, if any. The reason they said this is probably because they just assume women are always having it worse, otherwise why would people be saying it all the time? And it just "feels" so right to everyone... Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:51 PM
9

Anyway... all of that side can you elaborate on how charities have historically treated CVD as a male issue? I'm not asking out of doubt, but I'm interested in the details. For a long time, studies in heart disease featured male-only experimental groups<sup>1</sup> and focused exclusively on the risk factors for men. This was true up until the early 90s, but even then, public opinion hasn't changed much. Anecdotal, sure, but my grandmother didn't believe it was possible for women to have heart a…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:41 PM
8

Hmm, I hadn't seen that. It is unfortunate that they would resort to this, but I honestly feel this is more of a case of a PR jockey getting ahead of himself. It should still be brought to their attention though. Has anyone here contacted them about it yet?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:32 PM
17

There are already many organisations and charities that raise awarness and research funds for heart disease, many of which have for a long time treated it exclusively as a men's issue. There's no harm in there being outreach specifically to women too - it's not being done at the expense of raising awareness to men (I doubt a man is going to think "Heart disease? That's a girl's thing." as a result of these campaigns).
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:24 PM
3

While the numbers clearly imply that violent-rampage-murder is something that occurs exclusively to men, treating it as a men's health issue implies this is something that can happen to all men and that a proper social reaction would be to target all men. The numbers also show that the men are several tens of millions of times more likely not to become rampage killers than they are to snap and gun down a group of people. Treating this like a men's mental health issue would amount to spending pre…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 08:12 PM
1

You should not have been downvoted for that. You present an argument rationally and in good faith. Others may disagree with it, but please do not downvote simply because of that.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 07:04 PM
1

Here's another recent one: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17op1v/how_to_compare_a_man_being_forced_to_be_a_father/c87fybt The poster makes a rational, logical point that a woman being pregnant is fundamentally different from a man being involved in the conception of a child. The poster then goes on to assert that men need greater powers in controlling their own post-conception reproduction. These are reasoned, rational arguments presented in a fair and good-faith manner. Downvoted. …
/r/MensRights01/02/13 07:03 PM
1

Did you get a response?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 06:57 PM
19

Terrible article is terrible. Move along.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 04:15 PM
1

Give your teacher some credit. By what you're describing, she didn't "backpedal" - you made her realise her sexism and she acknowledged her fault. I'm sure she'll keep that in mind next time too.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:47 PM
1

I wouldn't, and even if I did, we shouldn't (at least not here).
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:45 PM
1

Which brings me back to my original point in this topic - moral disagreement tends to lead to downvotes in this subreddit, regardless of the quality of the argument causing said moral disagreement. This is not proper reddiquette as far as I understand it, and is not appropriate when we're trying to have a fair debate of ideas. OP's congratulatory comments regarding our "best" reddiquette is, in my opinion, unwarranted. We're a lot better than /r/atheism, for sure, but the claims I'm seeing elsew…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:35 PM
1

If someone came in here making a reasoned, good-faith case for circumcision, I would: 1) Disagree. 2) Explain why I disagree, how and why I consider it is a form of unnecessary sexual mutilation, and why I feel he would be doing his children a disservice. 3) Not call him a meatsack (cheap and inappropriate) or a child sexual molester (arguably inaccurate and deliberately worded in favour of an emotional response instead of rational discourse). I would not: 1) Downvote him. Downvotes hide posts, …
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:21 PM
76

"Dicks" would be "Pussies" If the article referred to men as "Cocks", then "Cunts" would be appropriate.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:05 PM
1

So what comment are you referring to? Can you link me to it with permalink or something? This is one example, which questions the validity of this post in /rRMensRights and received a score of -4: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/172zjx/knifewielding_woman_tries_to_slit_cops_throat_at/c81s7fu Throughout the thread though, you'll notice downvoting whenever someone argued reasonably (even though you might disagree) against this belonging in this subreddit. I'd say its about as good as y…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 03:02 PM
1

Yes, because a post that says that and nothing else is obvious trolling, and it's not a men's rights issue. I wouldn't downvote someone who went on to express a clear, good-faith argument to support this position and express why they feel it belongs in this subreddit though. I simply wouldn't upvote either.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:54 PM
1

Well technically those questions aren't contributing to the discussion (edit: the supposition is that there is something to discuss) as per reddiquette. I'd argue maintaining the quality of this subreddit is always worth discussing. Some felt this post (and others like it) do not contribute to the quality of this subreddit, and said so. You may not agree with this position (and that's totally fine), but being downvoted for questioning the reasoning behind a post is not the kind of thing I'd expe…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:38 PM
1

This is not about saying you shouldn't disagree with others' arguments, this is about pointing out this subreddit is just as prone to bad reddiquette, in the form of downvoting dissident arguments simply because they are dissident. Remember, a downvote means you don't think people should see what is posted - not that you simply disagree. Downvoting blatant trolls and idiotic statements that bring nothing forward for the good of the discussion makes sense. Downvoting people simply because you dis…
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:31 PM
1

It's not about his position - that's irrelevant. It's about being downvoted for disagreeing with the general opinion of the subreddit or thread, even when presenting an argument with reason and good intentions.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 04:51 AM
3

The point is that there was the logically-phrased and articulated argument presented that went against the /r/MensRights groupthink, and it was downvoted. This is an example of what I was talking about. Again, I stress I beleive this is worthwhile and intelligent subreddit - most of the time. But there are instances of this kind of behaviour which can be enough to give us all a bad reputation, and it would be false to say this subreddit is a perfectly karma-safe haven for dissident thought.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 04:30 AM
3

A recent one here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/172zjx/knifewielding_woman_tries_to_slit_cops_throat_at/ Several Redditors (including myself) tried to point out that, in their opinion, this was not a Men's Rights issue, as the violence shown was not related to gender at all. Downvotes followed.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 11:24 PM
1

In general I found his response confusing (women commissioning gang rapes?) Example: a woman holding down another person so as to facilitate or enable a man to rape them. From my understanding of the response, a woman could be charged with rape in that situation.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 11:14 PM
4

To be perfectly fair, heart disease in general affects men much more than women (it's still the #1 killer of both genders, but there are still many more men who suffer and die from it than women). Male heart disease risk is already well-known and established, and generic "heart disease" awareness and research (of which there is plenty) is more likely to benefit and target men than women.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:41 PM
11

I get the feeling this subreddit has something of a circle-jerky context. I follow this subreddit and find a lot of the discussion here interesting, but let's be honest, this is not the place where a feminist could come to make a rational argument without it immediately descending into a flame war. The very few times feminists come here, the reception is such that they almost never return. There are few downvotes because, by and large, we all agree with each other most of the time. Any disagreem…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 10:30 PM
6

Context: The identity of "Eric" is a poorly-kept secret in Quebec - he's Guy Laliberté, founder and owner of the Cirque du Soleil. In Quebec, a couple which lives together for a certain period of time (typically two years) is considered "common law partners", and entitled to many of the same rights and protections as married couples - even if they have never wanted nor taken steps towards legal recognition of their union. "Lola", Laliberté's ex-girlfriend with whom he has three children, was sui…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 04:03 PM
1

A person swipes a gun off of a cop and they gun them down, a person INJURES a cop and they just take them down.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 11:41 PM
10

“In organizing the ‘free speech wall,’ the Students for Liberty have forgotten that liberty requires liberation, and this liberation is prevented by providing space … for the expression of hate,” he wrote in a 600-word Facebook post in which he identified himself as an anti-homophobia campaigner. ... 600-word Facebook post...
/r/MensRights23/01/13 08:45 PM
1

That's the point. A woman who never wants children can still enjoy sex and have multiple options to deal with an unfortunate unwanted pregnancy. A man who never wants children can not.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 05:59 PM
1

By that logic, what about the poor kid who gets aborted?
/r/MensRights23/01/13 05:54 PM
1

only it's not really fair. You're right, it's not fair, and biologically it never can be. Unfortunately nature cares little for our concept of fairness - we can only try to be as fair as nature allows us to be, which means there will always be some room for discussion. One signs a piece of paper. The other goes through emotional anguish I think this is simplifying things quite a bit. First, I don't agree a man who signs away his fatherhood does so without a great deal of his own emotional anguis…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 05:52 PM
2

The world can be divided into two camps When an article starts like this, it's generally a clear sign there isn't much interest in actual debate between a wide spectrum of ideas.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:13 PM
0

Fully agree. This is a case of a violent person assaulting police officers, and has nothing to do with the rights of men. Unless the police officer was attacked specifically because of his gender (and not his position or occupation), or the perpetrator attacked specifically because she was a woman (and not simply a generally violent individual), this should not belong here. This is r/MensRights, not r/DemonizeWomen.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 04:11 PM
1

A person opting out of parenthood after conception (be they male or female) is not a decision that should ever be taken lightly. There are important social and moral implications involved. However, we as a society accept that, under some circumstances, one parent can choose to abort their responsibility towards that life. It only makes sense to allow the other parent the same right.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 03:50 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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