TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TrouserTorpedo Archive

View 2 posts and 484 comments by TrouserTorpedo 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)
27

What kind of guy do you think is going to fantasise about women having their unfair power taken away from them? Probably a guy who's lonely. Lonely people generally don't have great social skills. They can't distinguish a joke from reality. It's cringy but I don't want to take the piss out them. I think it's kinda distasteful to rag on lonely people.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/02/17 05:23 AM
6

It's extremely obvious fanfiction.
/r/TheRedPill08/02/17 09:04 PM
2

He said they were emasculating. They are. The marches are full of very emasculating rhetoric.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 02:55 PM
1

I'm not questioning that he is a cunt. Obviously he is. I am questioning whether this point is "shit."
/r/MensRights22/01/17 02:19 PM
21

his "point" is shit /u/WiWiWiWiWiWi made a pretty clear statement and I don't see why he's being so evasive in backing it up.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 04:49 AM
26

No, to the point that is "shit." That's not a meaningful post. What even is his point? Why is it shit? Where am I supposed to start?
/r/MensRights22/01/17 01:17 AM
15

Do you have links? Edit: You can't just say "his point is shit, google it." I don't know where to start. What am I even supposed to be Googling?
/r/MensRights22/01/17 12:26 AM
2

The boy was 13, and she will be in prison. Assuming you're pro-choice, termination was probably the best outcome.
/r/MensRights14/01/17 03:05 PM
6

The main reason we prosecute people who have sex with teenagers is not that they might damage the teenager's psyche. It's that they might produce a child. 13-year-olds are not capable of understanding the depth of those consequences, nor are they capable of raising children effectively. They don't even have income. If she's female, there's a high probability she will die in childbirth, along with the child.
/r/MensRights14/01/17 03:00 PM
9

Perhaps her lawyer requested a lighter sentence, or maybe he was making a point of stating it precisely because so many judges are willing to ignore that aspect of the law. The reason Tumblr feminists get annoyed when feminism actually makes progress is that they don't want their source of moral outrage to be taken away from them. I get the feeling this is true of a lot of people in this sub too. Are you looking for things to get annoyed at?
/r/MensRights12/09/16 09:36 PM
23

Oh come on. What this judge did was fine. Can you please not act like a Tumblr feminist and twist everything into a problem even if it is good for your cause?
/r/MensRights12/09/16 08:45 PM
-3

Don't do this.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 03:48 AM
1

Do they have a link to the evidence?
/r/MensRights30/06/14 04:19 PM
1

You didn't mention that radical feminism is dominant. When you're talking about tacit support, it's only really the dominant ideology you'd be tacitly suppprting.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 10:45 AM
3

An important thing to remember here is that radical feminism is the dominant feminist ideology. When I declare myself a feminist, I am implicitly supporting the dominant ideology of feminism only.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 01:49 AM
1

No, he's saying it doesn't matter if you agree with Scotland's policies or not. If you shout from the rooftops "I am a Scotsman," then that is supporting the policies of Scotland.
/r/MensRights31/05/14 01:41 AM
-1

Most men are not rapists, so stereotyping them would be wrong. Most feminists who are at all active are "like that" - stereotyping them is actually pretty valid, especially given that they choose to identify with their ideology. Being a man is not a personal choice. I am not lending support to men who are rapists simply by virtue of being a man. When I say "I support feminism", I am lending support to the most significant group of feminists. I am not just lending support to my specific branch. I…
/r/MensRights31/05/14 01:29 AM
3

Towards the end. "There's no reason for it, but there's also no harm in it." Right after reeling off a list of harms.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 01:36 PM
6

This isn't stupidity. Read the article again. It's a hit piece.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 04:02 AM
20

I'm straight and I think vaginas are fucking strange. Don't get me wrong, I love them, but they're a giant bag of mucus that bleeds on the full moon and pops out babies. That shit is weird.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 03:27 AM
8

Largely good, except for this line: "There's also no harm in it" Boggles the mind.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 03:27 AM
2

Woman's Rights Activism is just activism for women's rights. Any form of activism for the rights of women would fall under that banner. Feminism is an ideology built on the theory of patriarchal oppression. It's used as a label for other forms of Women's Rights Activism unrelated to the ideology, but even ignoring whether that's correct or not, it it isn't limited to rights issues. If you were to champion a women's rights issue that was directly against the theory of Feminism (for example, the r…
/r/MensRights07/05/14 07:32 PM
3

Saying women must protect themselves from men paints all men as rapists, point blank. The phrase is "women must protect themselves from rapists," not "women must protect themselves from men."
/r/MensRights06/05/14 10:58 PM
9

What a disgusting reply. Time and a fucking place.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 10:06 PM
3

complimentary inequalities What?
/r/MensRights22/04/14 01:16 PM
20

How do you know she even confirms to the gender binary? You are the problem.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 01:14 PM
4

This is probably the right place to discuss it, but if you're looking for activism I'd contact Fathers 4 Justice - they'll be able to point you to some educational resources if you're looking for further reading, and can tell you about any action opportunities they have coming up.
/r/MensRights20/04/14 09:15 PM
16

Temporarily disable his facebook. Don't delete it - might contain evidence.
/r/MensRights19/04/14 08:16 PM
7

I don't think that's true. I think that's exactly how certain prominent feminsts see it, but this is a school event - to be perfectly honest, I don't think the school will have analysed it at all. I think they've heard "male violence against women is bad", they agree with that sentiment (as would most of us here) and they're holding a walk for it. You just need to ask for a walk against all violence, hold it, and the hypocrisy becomes obvious to everyone.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 03:27 PM
1

Where in the rules is it?
/r/MensRights17/04/14 01:41 AM
1

Oh definitely. It's unusual. But it's also perfectly genuine outrage. Take bob geldoff as another example.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 09:29 PM
2

We aren't talking about individual members, we're talking about classes in broad. "When one class wins, both classes lose". If the quote was: "When either sex wins unilaterally, some members of each sex lose" Then I think what you said would be correct, but that's not his claim.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 04:24 AM
1

I feel like you're deliberately trying to make the quote work. Using the same argument, we didn't lose out because of slavery - we lost out because we ended slavery. I don't think this is a helpful example.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 04:21 AM
2

"Outrage" is subjective. I don't think it's up to the mods to decide what's "legitimate" outrage and what's just "recreational". it has no other label Yes it does. Outrage. (Edit: and even that is loaded) Why not use something neutral, that doesn't cast a value judgement on a post before it's even been voted on?
/r/MensRights16/04/14 03:46 AM
2

Then why isn't that in the rules? This seemed important enough to post in the main sub. It seems like people agree with me there, but if it's disallowed, feel free to move it.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 03:36 AM
0

I'm not distorting your words. I'm trying to highlight a problem with the idea that they don't have a right to offer a girls-only service. It is sexist, and there's a pretty strong case that it's morally wrong. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to do it. It's their service.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 01:40 AM
0

If it's a business that is selling something and turning a profit, I'd probably say no. Ok, cool. Do you think you have the right to dictate how they run their business because of this?
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:41 AM
1

Sure, they can, but being able to doesn't make it acceptable. Well then, why is it not acceptable in this situation? Say you wanted to open a men's country club - a safe space for men where the members had to pay to cover costs. Would that be acceptable?
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:12 AM
-1

"When either sex wins unilaterally, both sexes lose" Disagree. Let's think of white people and the slave trade - I'm pretty sure whites were unilaterally winning in that disgusting arrangement. Privilege isn't a disadvantage.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:10 AM
0

even ONE group of males who'd want it in the entire world, they wouldn't be able to get it because of their gender. And that's sexist. Ok, let's say they turned that room into a closet. Now, instead of being excluding boys for being "girl's only" they're excluding them because it's a closet. Would you make them rent out that room to boys because they "wouldn't be able to get it" otherwise? It's their business. If they want to lose revenue by not renting that room to boys, they can. It just creat…
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:05 AM
-3

Moral outrage starts at home, if it's genuine. No it doesn't. I'm far more worried by the state of poverty in Zambia than the state of poverty in my home, the United Kingdom. Both are horrible, but you can be damn sure Zambia is a hell of a lot worse. The reason MGM should be causing as much (if not more) outrage isn't because it's a "more domestic" issue, it's because it's a more endemic issue.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 11:43 PM
5

Exactly. When the subreddit is specifically about watching people get angry at each other in glee, you aren't going to convert them to a good cause of any variety. They want to post people getting emotional about things so they can feel superior for not giving a fuck.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 12:21 AM
5

Awareness that the problem exists is the biggest issue right now. If people were already aware that men could be sexually assaulted, I'd be more worried about spreading misinformation. As it stands, at least the message is getting out there. I'd prefer them to be accurate, but hell, if it's the woman's center this is a pretty big leap forward.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 11:34 AM
1

I know, I agree with your interpretation. But we have to take the worst possible meaning from ambiguous phrases, because a lot of people already will have done that.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 11:55 PM
2

I don't care what they meant. I care about what they said.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 04:21 PM
8

Ok, so from my perspective reading this, whilst you were definitely right, she was debating pretty well (at least if your audience is uninformed observers). These things popped out at me as problems with the debate: 1) You should be debating to convince the audience, not the opponent. Reading this, it seems like you were trying to get her into a position where she says: "oh, ok, you're right about that." It seemed like you were trying to prove to her that she was wrong; to get her to think "I ha…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 03:21 PM
23

"In most cases it's all men's fault" Oh for crying out loud...
/r/MensRights10/04/14 12:10 PM
2

I think you've missed the point of my post. Wanting to get laid is fine. Sex is lovely, as is having a backbone. This is an example of TRP putting getting laid above basic moral decency. Oh, women find it sexy when I put employees who are financially dependant upon me through the rinser? Well, better do that then. Like I said, TRP is about getting laid regardless of the moral implications. Members are willing to do objectively immoral things in order to achieve their aims - that is not ok, and w…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 02:26 PM
5

TRP is a subreddit where people openly admit to disregarding moral standards in favour of getting laid. Even if that isn't its purpose, it is there. I consider that to be abhorant, and where the bad reputation comes from. Please don't conclude the MRM is the same simply because they share certain components of ideology.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 05:18 AM
5

Yes. Being emotional telegraphs to other people that you care about others. If I am emotional about men's issues, it shows I earnestly care about men's issues. It shows we're not doing this because we're bigoted but because we give a damn, and that is what makes people stop and go: "Huh. These guys seem really bothered by this. I wonder if there is an issue here?"
/r/MensRights09/04/14 05:11 AM
3

Are gay/trans men not men? Why would you not focus on them? Movements for any one class of people will generally be related to the broad liberation of that class of people, and not much else. It's unlikely the MRM is going to focus on gay issues unless they're framed in the context of affecting men. That's not a value judgement on gay issues; many MRAs are going to fight tooth and nail for gay rights. But they'll do so under the banner of the LGBTQ movement - they won't do it under the banner of…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 04:59 AM
3

Are they opposed to this movement because you oppose theirs? Honestly, most are opposed to the MRM because it tries to address gender issues in a different way than feminism. I'm sure mutual antagonism comes into it, but if the MRM loved feminism, most feminists would still hate the MRM. Most feminists will openly admit they want feminism to have a monopoly on gender issues. "Why can't you discuss this in a feminist context?" "You believe in equality? Great, you're a feminist. (In other words, y…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 03:54 AM
16

She obviously cares a lot more about the women's suffering in the Titanic than the men's. In fact, she appears to be unable to see the latter. I'd say total ignorance of a group's suffering is pretty anti-that-group.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 05:50 AM
54

Wikipedia is not a source If a Wikipedia article has citations, it is a source. The reason your professors tell you not to use it is that it changes frequently, so it isn't appropriate in a published paper that is going to be around for years.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 05:49 AM
1

Oh yeah, I was assuming membership cancellation/false advertising would be an option. I just wondered if you had a problem with a mixed gym that had restricted times for men, but charged women and men the same amount. To me that seems sexist, but also a sure fire way to stop men coming to your gym. I don't know that I have the right to ban a gym owner from doing that unless it was affecting my existing membership.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 11:20 PM
2

I want them to. :/
/r/MensRights06/04/14 08:31 PM
1

Riiiiiiiight. Did they seriously not realise?
/r/MensRights06/04/14 08:29 PM
1

Out of interest, why do you consider a woman-only gym to be more acceptable than a mixed gym with woman-only hours?
/r/MensRights06/04/14 08:21 PM
2

No worries, it was a great comment. I don't think people get how damaging that kind of expectation is until they actually hear it first-hand.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 04:53 AM
6

Responsibility is not the same as "why". If you beat a child and he grows up to be a criminal, you were probably the reason he grew up to be a criminal. He, however, is responsible for his crimes. Identifying how people become rapists doesn't absolve rapists of responsibility - it's a significant step in eradicating rapists.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 03:07 AM
3

The problem isn't that single mothers are feminists, the problem is that single mothers often exclude fathers from their children's lives. Lack of empathy is predicated on childhood abuse and, significantly, a lack of a father. Feminists aren't more likely to raise rapists simply because they are feminists.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 03:05 AM
3

Your story on that from a few weeks back was incredibly salient. Just wanted to say thanks for it.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 03:03 AM
6

As someone who has read the Guardian for a long long time What makes you think the Guardian has any more integrity than any other newspaper? The Guardian makes money by pitching rather simplistic stories to left-wing people who aren't all that informed about the political process. They make money off traffic. What matters to them is that they get people to click on their website as much as possible while still being able to stick with the party line. The point is that they foster allegiance to k…
/r/MensRights05/04/14 02:44 AM
1

I get all that, what I'm saying is TRP isn't remotely exploiting what the MRM is bothered by.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 12:58 PM
1

That's not exploiting sexism. That's (as far as they believe) being attractive. Women having specific preferences in a partner isn't a rights issue.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 10:54 PM
0

Men love sluts. Unless they can't get laid and really, really want to. For those men, calling her a slut is a way of avoiding the fact that even though she sleeps with a bunch of other men, she still won't sleep with him.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 07:01 PM
2

we want to fix something broken and they want to abuse it Where on earth does this idea come from? No, that's not true at all. The MRM would like to fix all the rights violations men face, as well as stigma in society. The Red Pill doesn't want to exploit those things. The Red Pill wants to exploit things that they think will get them laid. They behave in a way that attracts emotionally dependent people by emulating the emotional unavailability of an abuser without the actual abuse, because they…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 06:53 PM
2

Oh, I'm sure it does. I just don't understand how anyone who is even remotely intelligent can can also lack the integrity not to throw up at the sight of Jezebel.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 06:40 PM
1

My point is, why separate the discussion into two threads The primary point of links on this subreddit tends to be awareness, the secondary point is discussion. In any case, there was no discussion happening on the original thread any more. He didn't separate discussion, he reignited it.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 06:38 PM
6

No it isn't. The search function is to find a specific thread, not prevent reposts. Who cares if good links are posted up more than once? Not everyone checks this subreddit twice a day.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 10:36 PM
9

This has been posted before, but it's a great watch. Powerful stuff.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 08:34 PM
32

I have friends that are into Jezebel. They're otherwise lovely, wonderful, intelligent people. I honestly do not understand how they can like it one bit.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 08:12 PM
2

To answer your original question, I think it is definitely an event that should be inclusive. Why would you deliberately exclude one very specific demographic? The only time people would consider that to be justified is if they think that group doesn't deserve awareness. To be perfectly honest, it's likely that's where the backlash is coming from. In any case, I have a lot of problems with Take Back the Night, and rather than making the event itself inclusive I would focus on those first. Now, I…
/r/MensRights30/03/14 04:31 AM
2

That "these men are potential rapists" poster campaign. Holy. Fuck.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 12:14 PM
2

Cheers. Will take a look.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 12:58 AM
5

Do you have any examples of gendercides? I didn't know this was a thing.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 01:48 AM
1

Chimp societies have an alpha male and a male hierarchy, but they also have an alpha female and a female hierarchy. The important thing is that only the female's social status is hereditary, and it's only passed to her daughters. The son of the alpha male gains none of his father or his mother's status, whereas the alpha female's daughter is boss bitch when she grows up. The females of the group also have final say over who becomes the alpha male, whilst males don't get to make that decision for…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 11:54 PM
2

E) Female soldiers are actually considerably more effective, because people are less willing to shoot them. The strength argument is so irrelevant.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 05:54 PM
1

Read the article.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 05:10 AM
1

That is not the biggest factor. Watch the series in the link.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 05:09 AM
1

A delusional power-hungry person who doesn't realise the effects of their delusion still wants power to dictate their particular version of morality onto the world. Even if Stalin's motivations were (in his mind) egalitarian, that doesn't mean his objective wasn't the power to enact them.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 06:36 PM
1

No, the problem is sexism and entitlement. The Orwellian control measures are a side-effect.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 06:26 PM
2

Guys who cares......WHO CARES! This law hardly effects men at all. Ok, aside from the fact this is a ridiculous assertion to make in the first place, we aren't going to "not care" about something when it actively harms female rape victims as well. Jesus, man...
/r/MensRights21/03/14 06:13 PM
5

It's pretty hard-wired for women to feel shame as a result of social ostracism in a way that men don't feel it. Men tend to feel shame through material loss, women through social embarrassment. Asking for a raise is much more likely to result in social rejection ("no") than material loss (you aren't going to lose salary from it). In any case, the original comment didn't say whether it was nature or nurture. It's likely both. (This citation isn't going to help as there's 50 or so hours of footage…
/r/MensRights21/03/14 05:55 PM
3

We're going off on a tangeant, so it'd be good for you to post those numbers. You will likely convince me and a lot of other people by doing so. She He posted numbers without a citation, and because of her position I sure as hell don't trust them. In answer to your point, I will trust people on this sub who don't call feminists the internet equivalent of Hitler. The term feminazi refers to the feminist practice of silencing opposition, not killing Jews. Regardless, the sub is not the same as som…
/r/MensRights21/03/14 06:29 AM
3

I read it. The criticism of the article came from a woman who called the MRAs "the internet equivalent of the KKK". I'm not going to trust that kind of interpretation. Do you have any numbers yourself?
/r/MensRights21/03/14 06:22 AM
3

Do you mind linking to that thread? I'll take a look. Edit: I read the thread. The criticism of the article came from a woman man - who is not happy with being called a woman - who called the MRAs "the internet equivalent of the KKK". Sorry, I'm not going trust someone who thinks like that. Do you have any numbers we could take a look at yourself? Also: a tiny fraction being women only What fraction are women-only, and what fraction are men-only? Do these match up with the rate of homelessness i…
/r/MensRights21/03/14 06:12 AM
2

Read through the comments in this thread - there are multiple people giving their experience of the shelter, explaining that the women who ran it refused to admit men, or even open the wing to them. There was no outrage to them denying women because they weren't denying women. Every other wing was devoted to women.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 05:56 AM
2

Those sound more like little sacks of patriarchy to me.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 05:49 AM
1

A) The beds for men were well oversubscribed, primarily by homeless men. The shelter refused to actually use them. B) If that were the case - which it was not - perhaps a gender-neutral wing and advertising that the shelter serves men would be better than outright banning men?
/r/MensRights21/03/14 05:47 AM
9

"Someone has alleged this man is a rapist. He hasn't been convicted yet so we can't say with any certainty that he is, but we're still going to name him and shame him on the national news." I don't know that this is exactly a good article.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 04:42 PM
2

Then you're making a different argument.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 03:30 PM
1

Well, yes, it is pedantic. As I say, I'm not trying to just be an asshole. The reason I say it is because one thing the MRM should have is intellectual consistency, it's not something we want to be compromising.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 03:07 PM
1

"I feel" refers to an emotional feeling towards a conclusion. If you said "I think," that would imply the conclusion had been gathered through reason. "I feel" doesn't imply that. Sorry, I don't mean to be a semantic pedant but it's important to distinguish.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 01:29 AM
0

I want to be clear, did people seriously just downvote the message "objective analysis is more important than personal feelings"? And here I was thinking we weren't feminists.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 09:26 PM
3

So? Charity is charity. If it works and it's voluntary, it's ethical. It doesn't have to be the most effective form of it.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 09:23 PM
1

Do you think people should be shunned or punished in some social capacity for having that state of mind?
/r/MensRights19/03/14 09:21 PM
1

Where?
/r/MensRights19/03/14 08:40 PM
1

To whoever started this petition, please listen. I'm going to assume it's OP. "Any penetration - even with an object" No. If a girl puts her finger in my mouth, that is not rape but it is certainly penetration with an object. The same would be true if a girl, say, put a candy cane in my mouth while flirting. Those are not rape. The same is true the other way around, but you know this will lead to men being imprisoned for life for doing something like that. This petition also doesn't cover forced…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 06:07 PM
34

You aren't raped in prison because you're considered a woman. You're raped in prison to take away your masculinity. It isn't to make you a woman, it's just to remove the protection that masculinity gives you. It does that without granting you the sympathy you would get if you actually were a woman. It's about power. Men are supposed to fight back. A man who is raped has been clearly told he absolutely cannot fight back and the rapist is demonstrating that he is the one the victim had better serv…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:43 PM
5

That's the problem with using the passive voice I would say that's generally the intention when using the passive voice. "Hey, I didn't say I agreed with that article I published. I'm not responsible for those ideas I promoted - I never said they were my ideas!"
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:34 PM
4

Not to mention, built into the cost is protection, sanitation and subsequent sex education training the patients will likely receive. They'll also need to pay for sedatives, which will require buying the drugs as well as paying for security. They have to pay for rent, materials, and likely will need to bribe a large number of officials to actually have access to a lot of these communities. Oh, and there's also the cost of advertisements/transport - getting rural East-African men to come to a cir…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:29 PM
-1

I feel it would just be cheaper to spend the fifty million on condoms or sex education programs Well, and I'm sorry for this, but feelings aren't sufficient to make decisions around charity. They require research, infrastructure and foresight which is something the Gates foundation has specialised in for a long time. I don't mean to be a dick, but your feelings in this instance are almost certainly a lot less objective than their research. Don't fall into the trap of using "I feel bad about this…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:26 PM
3

They do both. By that same argument, I could tell you to get off Reddit and go wait tables for an hour before donating the money to water aid. After all, how dare you try to do anything other than the ultimate, most effective form of helping.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:22 PM
8

Yes. If genital mutilation reduces the risk of AIDS, then subsidising it as a working form of prevention for consenting adults is absolutely ethical. If it reduces the risk.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:18 PM
3

Not quite. Circumcision helps reduce your chance of contracting HIV from unprotected sex. What people don't understand is that there is also a myth in the developing world that circumcision actually makes people immune from HIV. In other words, people who are circumcised in Africa are far more likely to refuse to use condoms. Perversely, circumcision in these circumstances may actually increase the prevalence of HIV.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:16 PM
5

When you defraud someone (when you provide them misrepresented incentive to go through with an act - in other words, when you lie to them or subsidise an uninformed decision on their part) it is no longer voluntary. Defrauded people are not voluntarily defrauded.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 05:13 PM
1

Are you differentiating between the state of mind and acting on the state of mind? Why is the state of mind (if it is never acted upon) morally wrong, as opposed to unhealthy?
/r/MensRights19/03/14 04:59 PM
1

I was being sarcastic. An adult seducing a child is not the same as a child seducing an adult.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 02:48 AM
4

Gasp The horror! How morally wrong...
/r/MensRights19/03/14 12:21 AM
4

you get the general idea. No, I don't actually. I think you just ascribed the same responsibility to a child for being manipulative as you did to an adult. That is a pretty scary attitude.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 11:35 PM
11

It could also mean the difference is 98 cents, I.E. $14.26 to $15.24. It averages to 50.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 11:30 PM
10

reverse pedophile What the fuck is a reverse pedophile?
/r/MensRights18/03/14 11:26 PM
1

Huh? I'm not sure what you're responding to.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 10:10 PM
1

In some areas private schools thrives. Well yes, where the 3% live. I agree with your point though, it's not really a gendered issue. That wasn't my point. It's completely a gendered issue. It just pales in comparison to education deficits for the poor
/r/MensRights18/03/14 10:07 PM
21

For the same reason that "it's never OK to hit a girl" reinforces the idea that this is something that is unique to girls; that it is sometimes OK to hit a man - but never to hit a girl. It would be like me saying "it's never OK to hit a white person." It's also incredibly racist for me to say "white people are inherently valuable."
/r/MensRights18/03/14 09:40 PM
2

Is there a consolidated list of these? It'd be good if there was somewhere central we can point to when people say "not all feminists are like that". Actually, whilst that's normally true, if parts of the core ideology are innately sexist, then I'm afraid yes, all feminists are like that.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 09:35 PM
1

Ahh, fair enough. These seem largely the same as what I'd do, but I'd go straight to preventative defence if evasion doesn't seem likely to work. As an aside (and I'm really sorry to do this!) you might like to read this article on Ghandi's rather violent actions on behalf of the British against the Zulu. Unfortunately, he's not a great poster child for pacifism.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 09:00 PM
2

Why would there be a movement against personal safety? Well, there wouldn't likely be one intentionally, but that doesn't mean it can't exist. The KKK are an example of a movement against personal safety. Pacifists of certain denominations are another. Thats the logical error the mens movement makes - objecting to victim blaming isn't discouraging people from being safe. See, this is what the people running the walks say, and it misses the point somewhat. Whatever the slut walks are meant to be …
/r/MensRights18/03/14 08:24 PM
1

If I might jump in, you only demonstrated that their objective isn't to undermine personal responsibility. You didn't demonstrate that their effect isn't undermining personal responsibility.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 08:17 PM
3

Mra's have been handing out lectures unprompted since we mistook the slut walk for an argument against safety in 2011. You haven't actually explained why the slut walks aren't an argument against ensuring personal safety. All you've done is told us how victim-blaming is problematic, which is a separate issue. This is what the slutwalkers miss too. My response to them would be thus: we understand you are trying to reduce victim blaming, but in doing so you are discouraging people from keeping the…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 08:15 PM
2

That makes sense. I'm genuinely curious about what the pacifist approach to a couple of things would be, since these are pretty in line with my morals but I believe that initiating force is wrong, not responding to it. Sorry if I'm being a dick, that's not my intention! I wouldn't call myself a pacifist, but thus far I'd do all the same things as you. So, say these hypothetical situations were happening: You're a guy, and a girl comes at you with a frying pan. She's not going to kill you or do y…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 07:53 PM
2

I think the issue is that she revealed herself to be a different person to the one they thought they were employing, and so they didn't want to employ her anymore. I don't think they should have given her a job just to avoid being rude.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 05:38 PM
3

But her response betrayed the fact that she didn't want to teach, so they realised it would be a bad idea to employ her...
/r/MensRights18/03/14 05:12 PM
2

I mean if they were already being violent with you. Let's say they're either stronger, or they have a weapon.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 04:22 PM
2

Although I as a pacifist have different view on how to handle such situations As a pacifist, how would you handle these situations?
/r/MensRights18/03/14 04:03 PM
16

I'd say it's because the MRM cares about a group that most people consider to be advantaged in society, which is seen as pretty bad, but they are also angry about that fact which many people misinterpret as irrationality. That anger is one of the only reasons men's issues are known about. The biggest issue facing men is that people don't know that they have gender-specific issues. Shit, even men are ignorant of that fact until they get slapped in the face by it. This angry movement is probably t…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:52 PM
3

Patriarchy was born of our chimp side Except both bonobo and chimp societies are matriarchal in structure. I don't mean to be a dick here but reading through all these comments, I'm not sure you've got a solid definition of patriarchy yourself. How would you define it?
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:46 PM
3

British men weren't fully enfranchised until 1918 for example with British women enfranchised on equal terms in 1928. Women were never enfranchised on equal terms - take the vote. The reason the vote took longer for women to get was because they weren't conscripted and they didn't do national service. The reason men got the vote was because they were required to serve their country in this way. Consequently, they got a say in how it was run and most women were happier to have neither of these th…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:25 PM
2

she wasn't interested because she didn't like the people in the movement You're not going to convince her of anything if she has this attitude. She isn't an egalitarian, she's a charitable person who wants to do charity with people she likes. I'd say that's the first thing you should speak about with her.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:20 PM
2

Why couldn't they respond with "I'm afraid most of that won't be possible for us to offer, maybe we could do ___ but that's all"? Because they're a teaching university, so they want people who are willing to teach. They don't want to hire people who are trying to limit the proportion of their workload that is teaching.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:04 PM
3

She genuinely didn't consider a crime to be a crime if she has moral superiority over the victim. If the victim is doing something immoral, she thinks crimes become non-crimes. That's terrifying, but it explains a hell of a lot.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 02:43 PM
6

Well yes, but for once we have a legitimate article about a feminist studies professor that gets into her mind and really explains the point of view she's approaching things from. Considering the amount of largely unsupported feminism-bashing on this subreddit, surely it's good that we have here an article which gives an accurate representation of motivations? I said it somewhere else, but the bit about the fact that she genuinely didn't consider a crime to be a crime if she has moral superiorit…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 02:42 PM
4

Doing this just irritates everyone Jesus, worth remembering this alone. You don't want to look like an annoying 14 year old from /r/atheism.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 02:26 PM
1

In poor countries, there is a severe educational deficit for girls, there's not much point contesting that. It's true. But it misses the point. School is a privilege which very few children at all afford. It's like saying "There is a gender imbalance among 3% of the population." We should be addressing the other 97%, not the 1.5% of rich people that are discriminated against. The biggest problem here is that barely anyone goes to school in those countries - it's not that in the vastly small grou…
/r/MensRights18/03/14 02:15 PM
1

That's pretty much my justification as well. I'm amazed so many people in this thread have missed that.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 01:52 PM
4

that's over the line in my opinion Why? I would agree, but I think I can present a justification. I'm not sure you've made a distinction here except for "well, it feels wrong to me." I'm not meaning to be obnoxious, just that this kind of opinion needs backing up. We should not punish other's actions based on our own personal feelings.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 03:46 PM
2

Much as I hate to use the dictionary to prove a point, Privilege doesn't have to apply to the norm: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/privilege Of course, that also makes it a completely useless term since as soon as some group becomes worse off than another, the second suddenly become "privileged" without anything having changed for them.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 01:31 PM
1

I think you mean impact.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 01:28 PM
1

Can someone explain why it wouldn't be a privilege? As far as I can tell, it's only ridiculous because it's used to ascribe blame to the "privileged." The terminology doesn't seem wrong.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 04:02 AM
21

This is an issue which only takes away rights - the right to free speech. Why do you support this? You don't have a right not to be insulted. Controlling language is incredibly Orwellian.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 12:41 AM
2

My response would be, in general, no. Those MRAs who feel like victims of the system generally have been victims of the system (for example, they have been wrongfully accused and taken through the courts or they have lost their children). Thankfully, I don't feel like I am the one suffering from problems that face men, though I do feel like I am at risk of that happening. Most MRAs do not use the word "oppress" because it puts people in a state of mind where certain groups are always victims, ra…
/r/MensRights17/03/14 12:35 AM
2

That depends on whether you consider agency to be encumbent upon consciousness, which is a separate debate.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 04:24 PM
40

women are more likely to try You don't know this. They may be more likely to: A) Cry for help via non-committal suicide B) Report actual failed attempts Instead. Those numbers might represent a higher number of women legitimately attempting suicide, but that's a proposal not a conclusion. Edit: Edited for clarity.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 01:50 AM
17

Note the timeframe, between Elementary & High School. Remember, girls hit puberty sooner than guys. "During the time more girls are hitting puberty, they experience a larger drop in self-confidence" God damn this shit.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 01:47 AM
-1

A participant has agency. An egg does not have agency. It cannot move.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 01:44 AM
7

People sitting where they're not supposed to on the bus? Where have we seen this before...
/r/MensRights14/03/14 12:43 PM
-11

You do realise that the only reason blacks had to sit at the bus was to keep whites safe, right? Statistically, whites were at a big risk of assault from blacks so why was that something people complained about? You know full well why, and it applies exactly the same here. This policy is bigoted as hell. Edit: This was a rephrasing. I was pointing out the idiocy, Jesus guys...
/r/MensRights14/03/14 12:42 PM
3

They are like the Feminist who clings to the title for no good reason other than what they personally feel it should mean. More MRAs should heed this warning. They really should know better.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 01:23 PM
1

Updated the original comment. ;)
/r/MensRights13/03/14 01:14 PM
1

Erin Pizzey: This Way to the Revolution is a great read, as well as anything concerning the Weathermen and the Angry Brigade. Hold on, I'll find some links... Edit: This is what happened at the Miss World pageant of 1970. Lots of people are aware that there were extremists there, what isn't mentioned is the fact that the people who launched that bomb were pretty much running the women's movement in the UK at the time. The Weather Underground was a group of communist terrorists in the US, primari…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 12:56 PM
1

Watch out, you just claimed something obvious on Reddit without putting a citation. Wanna take bets on how long it takes before someone demands one?
/r/MensRights13/03/14 12:54 PM
4

Vote with your wallet. This is a marginalising statement. I have almost no effect on the world by withdrawing my custom from it, nor do I need to be told to do so. Activism and actively highlighting problems like this are far more important.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 12:53 PM
2

It doesn't even imply the impulse can be taught away - it just implies we can teach men to try and control it, but that it will still always be there.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 03:54 AM
7

/r/pussypass is a lot like that.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 03:49 AM
0

Hey! Irish people are not disgusting.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 03:46 AM
3

I've been reading a lot of Erin Pizzey recently, that's where I've found most of my information. It's shocking, the level to which the history of feminism has been completely wiped clean. It was not a nice movement.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 03:32 AM
1

that have signs on their door like "I am an ally of LGBTQ issues." Jesus, how pretentious can you get? "Hey everyone! Look at me! I'm moral."
/r/MensRights13/03/14 03:16 AM
2

Is there a chance you could provide more details on this? I'm very interested in hearing more.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 03:13 AM
3

I would consider Maoism (a regime which left, I believe, 78 million dead) to be far more effectual than feminism, but if you want to claim feminism is still worse, feel free. I'm not going to be able to convince you out of that kind of belief.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 10:11 PM
3

That doesn't matter. Thus far, it hasn't (and I highly doubt it ever will), so saying it is worse than Naziism is absurd and does not help at all.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 08:49 PM
1

(lots of people forget that in the 60's and early 70's feminism was very pro-child pornography - check the university newspapers of the day). Do you have a citation for this? I've been doing a lot of research on the unseen history of early feminism (the weatherwomen, etc) and might be compiling something soon. This is a pretty shocking accusation.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 07:14 PM
6

Be careful with this type of statement. Feminism does not dwarf the systemized discrimination programs of Nazi Germany, or Maoist China. Feminism has not caused genocide.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 07:13 PM
1

I understand a whole lot more than I used to about the world at large. That alone is enough for me.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 07:10 PM
0

I read it.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 07:04 PM
3

He wasn't talking about who owns it, he was talking about what it equates to. Most people see "the red pill" as meaning /r/theredpill. Using it to describe the MRM is a terrible idea for that reason alone.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 07:00 PM
3

AVfM used the "Red pill" analogy long before PUA's co-opted "the red pill" to mean something else. Who cares? It means something else now, it doesn't matter where it came from. Male prisoners invented the term "rape culture." Does that mean we should use it now, given how it's been co-opted?
/r/MensRights12/03/14 06:58 PM
3

This post sums it up pretty well for me.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 03:08 PM
2

No worries. It doesn't involve white, middle-class American women, so it unsurprisingly isn't made out to be a big issue. Normally it's only brought up as "proof" feminism is necessary, rather than an issue that needs solving and is incredibly difficult to solve. If it's any consolation, NGOs spend a load of time focussing on it.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:37 PM
1

To the US, and I believe just for children. That isn't the case in most developing countries, very little trafficking actually makes it across that many borders and for adults the proportions skew further towards women. Sex trafficking is overwhelmingly female, though general trafficking involves a vast number of men (I believe they actually make up the majority of trafficked individuals). The issue is that the slaves, if they escape, can talk about their experiences once they get back to their …
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:34 PM
0

Bossy is an adjective to describe a reaction, not a dictate on a woman's ability. Telling women to flat out ignore people's perception of them is not a good way to foster self-esteem, or success.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 04:54 AM
2

My rustled jimmies are taking up so much space right now. Edit: Oh my God this one in particular. What's he supposed to do, chop his fucking legs off??
/r/MensRights12/03/14 04:18 AM
2

I think their goal overall is positive I don't. Restricting language is not exactly admirable, and nor is their broad message of "if someone calls you bossy, it's not that they think you're being arrogant and commanding and a bad leader - they're just wrong."
/r/MensRights12/03/14 04:05 AM
2

Millions of others are still not sure they are ready for change. What a way of rephrasing "millions of Saudi women are against these policies." They want them really, they just aren't ready for them just yet. If they could only have the bravery to make the jump to the correct point of view! How incredibly infantilising.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 03:57 AM
5

Sex trafficking, particularly of children. Women are far more likely to be trafficked for sexual reasons and it's an incredibly difficult issue to tackle because it prays upon a rather unique aspect of female psychology in developing nations so that the crime often goes completely unreported. It's probably the biggest women's issue that exists today, and by far one of the hardest for western NGOs to solve.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 03:35 AM
2

That deals with rape, not sexual violence. I can't remember where it was, but I did read a study recently about men being victims of sexual violence more often than women, with rape being the only act where women were more frequently victims. Can anyone remember where this stat was?
/r/MensRights12/03/14 03:32 AM
0

Fine, have a source, and one particularly relevant to this discussion: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html You know you can find this information in the sidebar, right? Don't call bullshit on a statistic without checking the sidebar first. I shouldn't need to cite something that is cited by the subreddit itself. Either way, you're missing the point. The point is the magnitude of likelihood, not the exact number. Shit, it's ac…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:18 PM
5

I'm saying there's a reason why people are more scared of it. I would rather just be raped than convicted of rape, and then probably be brutally raped in prison as well as lose my liberty. The only people in prison who are more likely to be abused than rapists are child molesters. I didn't say the fears are in line with the risks, I'm just trying to explain why people are scared of it.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:14 PM
2

So, I've been dancing for a long time, they're good but not nightclub good.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:05 PM
1

I'm giving you advice. You're putting people off with your phrasing. I'm trying to point that out, because if you can be clear with your points without putting people off it will help you communicate. That's why I gave you an example - and it put you off, didn't it? It made me seem pretty racist, didn't it? Well, when I see you throwing in ebonics to your posts it stirs the same reaction. That's my point. If you don't want to take that advice, that's fine, but if you want people to listen to you…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:54 PM
-5

You're correct. It's something like 1 in 10 chance of being raped, 1 in 300 chance of being wrongfully accused (and charged - if we include accusations without court time, that goes way up). However, a false accusation of rape is significantly more damaging, not least because it is likely to result in prison rape if a conviction is levied. Are you more scared of a car crash, or a plane crash? You're much more likely to die in the former, but people are far more scared of plane crashes.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:40 PM
5

It's amazing how people here are are more afraid of being accused of rape rather than being raped. That's because if we get wrongly accused of rape, we not only are likely to lose our liberty but if that happens, we are very likely to also get raped.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:36 PM
5

We probably shouldn't go full Mao. Brilliant.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:35 PM
6

This is a documentary that might help. It explains the problem with family courts pretty well. They aren't designed for justice, they're designed to make money. The man tends to be the one who gets shafted, and it's absolutely disgusting.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:30 PM
1

The service charge is normally a service cost the ticket seller takes, based on the price of the ticket. From their point of view, these are two different ticket types, it's all automatic.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:18 AM
1

Talking in ironic ebonics doesn't make your points more palatable or more correct, and it's going to put people off. You raised a good point about gender policing, but tagging on "rap lyric about capitalism" doesn't make capitalism actually "whack, yo." Capitalism is not "whack," yo' get me nigga?
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:15 AM
1

If your sole reason for going to clubs is to pickup chicks there are way easier ways and places of doing this Where on earth is easier??
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:10 AM
3

Careful, sarcasm requires agency. Can't be acting like you have that now.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:06 AM
3

It is for their boyfriends.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:54 AM
1

I'm saying you shouldn't tell people to "just take a joke", because that's not only intensely disrespectful but also shows you obviously aren't "looking through their eyes for a few minutes" If people want to be pissed because they've been ripped on, then more power to them. Or should they sit down, shut up and just take it as a learning exercise?
/r/MensRights10/03/14 02:48 PM
1

There isn't anything else, that's what I was getting at.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 02:46 PM
1

Doing vasectomies isn't exactly "having both genders covered for birth control"...
/r/MensRights10/03/14 05:12 AM
1

No worries. Judging by the votes, I don't think you were the only one to misinterpret it. ;)
/r/MensRights10/03/14 05:10 AM
1

That's not what I was saying.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 05:06 AM
2

If I rip on someone, especially by misrepresenting them, then of course they're going to be pissed off, they have every right to be. I don't get a free pass to rip on people without consequences just because I rip on myself as well. Jesus Christ...
/r/MensRights10/03/14 05:06 AM
1

And how is it that Afghani women need you to speak for them when Afghani men appear to be just as powerless? Both groups need us to speak for them. Afghani women suffer in highly specific ways which are sexist, Afghani men suffer in other highly specific ways which are also sexist. Unsurprisingly, when both Afghani men and Afghani women are so powerless that they are: A) Unable to speak out B) Indoctrinated into believing they are not oppressed (you should be familiar with this concept) then bot…
/r/MensRights09/03/14 05:30 PM
6

I don't think it implies that. There are enough problems with this sketch that there is no need to grasp at straws.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 04:52 PM
-2

Take a look at the show again and count how many times that she made fun of herself as a woman compared to that character in that single sketch. If she wants to take the piss out of herself, I'm not stopping her. If she wants to take the piss out of herself.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 04:41 PM
19

Sitcoms tend to be watched more by women, particularly between the ages of 16-24. I believe it's about a 60/40 split for sitcoms, with a 55/45 split for TV overall, women/men. Here's a breakdown of different audiences. Either way, if they're getting Lena Dunham to guest-host an episode, the target audience is going to be women.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 04:25 PM
1

That wasn't really what I was talking about, but yes I'd agree completely.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 01:47 PM
1

That's my point. A lot of rapists want to rape, but are scared to.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 09:47 PM
4

Yes, but he deserves it because he is getting in your face, not because he is black out drunk.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:58 PM
3

If you don't like [being a victim], why would you want to [exploit others] I think this is pretty ubiquitous human nature.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:53 PM
7

people that get black out drunk deserve what they get. No, people who get black out drunk should expect what they get. They absolutely do not deserve it.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:31 PM
2

Actually, they do. Their are a minority people who are perfectly willing to rape except that their inhibitions prevent it. Alcohol will always lower that. People often become more violent when they're drunk, rape is no different. The idea that alcohol doesn't cause rape is extremely damaging. One should feel entitled to safety when drunk, but it's incredibly dangerous to expect it.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:29 PM
3

It means put your neck on the line, but only if you're a man. I fully support putting my neck on the line. People, not men, and I think it's a commendable action, not an obligation. As an aside, I can't help but worry a naive girls might leave their friends to find men to step in for them with this kind of stuff flying around.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:25 PM
2

Exactly. And not just that, but people miss the fact that the primary purpose of advertising is to tell you that a product exists. Saying "it doesn't work on me" is like saying "I am immune to remembering anything I read."
/r/MensRights05/03/14 09:08 PM
1

Expecting someone to act immoral given the chance is very, very different from not faulting them for it.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 02:02 PM
3

Why does that matter? This is an injustice, this must be fixed. In terms of differences though, in most areas of the Justice System the profiteering comes from the actual incarceration, not from the process of trial.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 02:00 PM
2

Oh yeah, sure, but even given that I would say the point of the word "creep" is that it connotes danger. "Slut" just doesn't have that. Different genders, different insults. A guy who is a danger to women (in particular by compromising their sexual leverage) is the worst thing a guy can be, a woman who compromises the sexual leverage of other women is the worst thing a woman can be. Both are judged on the same effect, but for different actions.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 01:54 PM
6

Because of the idea that making a choice to wear heels on a night out is oppressive. They are shaming men who disagree with the statement "a woman who chooses to wear heels is being discriminated against." They're not real men. In order to be a real man, you have to agree with these people. That's the issue.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:58 PM
2

because mastering your feelings is an expected part of masculinity. FTFY
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:51 PM
1

Nahh, "slut" means "immoral for being promiscuous." It doesn't have any connotations of danger.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:49 PM
1

A woman. Just because she makes me uncomfortable, doesn't mean I have justification to smear her reputation. I don't think there's really a parallel, anyway. We insult women with different terms.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:48 PM
3

The best way to counter this would be to hold a "not sexist bake sale", where you sell cakes to both men and women for $0.75. Just like the wage gap isn't sustainable under the laws of economics, neither are wage-gap bake sales.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:38 PM
1

People constantly yelling slurs at the Westboro Baptist Church is precisely why they are so militant...
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:36 PM
2

"They will definitely disagree with you so you should be a dickhead to them rather than try to converse. Force them to agree with you, dammit." I don't feel like this is helpful.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:33 PM
2

That means that commercials don't work on me. As someone who works in marketing, I can categorically tell you that they do.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 12:26 PM
1

I get that statistically, this isn't a big issue. What I'm concerned about is the fact that, by default, in this case I have considerably less sympathy for men than women, regardless of what I know about the issues. That is scary.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 02:22 AM
1

What makes me sad is the fact that even I get a less visceral reaction to this than I have to pictures of women in this situation. Like, what hope do we ever have of getting people to recognise male victims if that's the case? I hope I'm alone in this, but I don't think I am.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 11:36 PM
2

Oh, believe me, they have it already.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 08:58 PM
1

Why are you on this sub? That kind of sentiment is not welcome. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 08:29 PM
-1

"Misandry can't exist! I've heard misogyny since I was a child so obviously that means misandry doesn't exist. Maybe you should feel oppressed for once. Get it, shitlord?" Not buying it.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 03:32 PM
-1

If you're going to argue that race is a linguistic construct, then why are you appropriating another term ("racism") to describe what is only a race through the vagarity of another term? I told you. It's bigoted, and you seem to be hung up on which particular definition of bigoted it applies to. I chose to point out it was misogynistic. You want to use something else? Fine, we'll use racism. If I were to hate black Americans, am I doubleplus racist? Nope, just a racist.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:59 AM
7

I don't think that's exactly "having your heart in the right place..."
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:18 AM
-1

I'm a man, and I'm arguing linguistics. This has nothing to do with "victim cards" but if you want to write off arguments with thought-terminating cliches, this sub is accepting new members. For the record, as an Ohioan who is fed up with the state of my county, I think "Americans are fucked up" is not a wholly inaccurate statement. Right, as an American. This is sort of a different argument, I don't think there's any need to delve into it. Prove that the statement applies to all American women,…
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:14 AM
1

Exactly.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:01 AM
0

Oh for crying out loud... Ok, let's say I'm a feminist, and I say this. Is it misandry? Fuck, no wonder American men are so fucked up. [Justification for why I think American men are fucked up]
/r/MensRights24/02/14 05:00 AM
-1

Hooo, boy... Ok, how about this: American men are fucked up Is that misandry?
/r/MensRights24/02/14 04:28 AM
-3

Are you arguing that this isn't racism because race is a concept that defines non-discrete groups, therefore there is no way to define what is or isn't a race? Because that's true. What you just stated is a very old, and bad argument against the concepts of race full stop. Race is a linguistic structure, not an objective classification. In lay terms, it's bigoted, and race is a way of classifying the group it is bigoted against. Ergo, it's racist.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 04:13 AM
-1

Well, ok, I'll rephrase: American men are pigs. Is that misandry?
/r/MensRights24/02/14 04:06 AM
-2

Not a screenshot, but does: I see a generalization work for you?
/r/MensRights24/02/14 03:57 AM
2

Shut it, misogynist. Don't you know pain isn't really a form of danger if it happens to a man? God, how dare he feel it might be. The bloody bastard.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 03:56 AM
-1

You were the one who wanted to argue semantics. Use the term prejudice if you prefer, I don't care. You know full well what I'm getting at. Would you like to answer those questions?
/r/MensRights24/02/14 03:51 AM
-1

A quick brush-up on the definition of race - yes, Americans are a race. Ok, now, let's say I said "Black people are so fucked up". Would that be racist? Let's say I said "poor black people are so fucked up?" Would that be racist? Last one. Let's say I said "African men are pigs." Would that be misandry?
/r/MensRights24/02/14 03:22 AM
2

I don't hate men, I just hate the way they were created.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 02:51 AM
-1

This just in: American is now a race. Well, yes, it is
/r/MensRights24/02/14 02:45 AM
-1

"What the fucking fuck?! No wonder blacks are so fucked up. [Some explanation for why blacks are fucked up here]"
/r/MensRights24/02/14 02:42 AM
-1

Because it paints all women of an entire nationality as having a specific disorder. Yes, nationality does come under the definition of "race" - see "noun: definition 5"
/r/MensRights24/02/14 02:41 AM
2

Does expressing disapproval of 5% of a population ("American women are fucked up") equate hating the majority of that population ("All / most women are fucked up?") Well... Yes. He's expressing a sentiment that is hateful for more than half the American population. Like both of us have said, it's either sexist, or deeply racist. Take your pick.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 02:21 AM
1

If I say "muslims are terrorists" it is completely unreasonable to imply I meant "only some muslims are terrorists." "some" =/= "most"
/r/MensRights24/02/14 02:17 AM
1

...So the woman has already started the fight?
/r/MensRights24/02/14 01:15 AM
1

Have you seen Alison's other videos? She has some that are brilliant, but she gets migraines when she spends the time animating good ones. I applaud her for just getting this one out there.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 10:27 PM
2

"He's a man. He should have been stoic." "It's the man's actions that determine when the fight has started."
/r/MensRights23/02/14 10:23 PM
2

the slap in the video was clearly a one-time thing. If someone has hit me, I think it's safe to assume they might hit me again.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 10:22 PM
2

How do you define danger? If there was a risk she was going to hit him again, that is danger. She just hit him once, what's to stop her doing it again? Or is it only real danger when his life is on the line?
/r/MensRights23/02/14 10:20 PM
2

Well, let's run with that. If that's true, they must find all groups they are socially obligated not to date more attractive. Do you think most women find losers attractive?
/r/MensRights23/02/14 09:57 PM
2

It's not the reason. Black men might be seen as animalistic, and some women eroticise that, probably because they see it as a manifestation of dominance. I guess some women like men who act like cavemen, and there's a ridiculous racist stereotype that black guys do this (which I would guess is why they're fine with shouting "hashtag junglefever"). It's insanely racist, but it doesn't come from feeling "naughty". I'd pose that's also the reason why it's a "fever" - certain white women eroticise b…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:52 PM
2

Getting your hot friend to try and lure your man into cheating is pretty malicious.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:41 PM
15

Maybe if you post this to a lovely, non-hateful sub like SRS it will prove that.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:29 PM
5

Just ignore him. He's not actually moving to Brazil and raising a fucked up child with an impoverished 20-something, and I doubt he will be anytime soon.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:26 PM
-3

It's a statement deriding all American women. It is misogynistic. You have a problem with the fact that all it takes to be called a misogynist is to make misogynistic statements? I mean, I guess it could be classified as racist instead, if you like. Either way, it ain't helpful.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:18 PM
5

Tucker Max, thankfully, does not represent the epitome of what a man should strive for. Men are welcome to strive to be Tucker if they want, but he sure as hell doesn't represent what I or most men want to become.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 08:12 PM
16

No wonder American women are so fucked up. No wonder everyone else thinks we're misogynists. At least put a "some" in there, Jesus...
/r/MensRights23/02/14 07:28 PM
2

No, I was saying the only thing that defines a feminist is whether or not they call themselves a feminist. However, what you said is true. Look at it this way: Someone who regularly murders women (and only women) can be a feminist, as long as they identify as a feminist. Someone who cares very deeply about women and calls themselves a feminist, might not follow feminism. They'd be an idiot to call themselves a feminist if that were the case, but they can still do it. Their beliefs would also, ir…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 07:09 PM
1

Feminism is a name given to a movement, and to an ideology if it fits into that movement. Feminist is a name given to someone who claims to be a feminist. I wouldn't call Christina Hoff-Summers a feminism. I'd call her a feminist.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 06:30 PM
10

You know, even if this was example number 1,345,539, that still leaves over 3 billion women and half a billion marriages that are absolutely fine.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 06:23 PM
-1

Though this sentiment is only applicable in the context of "please don't let that stop you."
/r/MensRights23/02/14 05:14 PM
2

This seems like a bold statement to make. How do you know what people are thinking? Have you asked them? I have, and the main response I get is that they think feminism is against men, that's why they don't agree with it. It has nothing to do with extremists. Whether it's intentionally like that or not, that is the vast majority of feminism.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 05:12 PM
1

Feminism is the name given to the movement, it isn't derived from the set of ideals. If the ideals match the movement, they are feminism. If the ideals don't, they aren't. Even if feminism's objective today was the murder of black babies, it would still be feminism. That's why it's so nebulous trying to argue with it. Edit: Clarified some lexical definitions
/r/MensRights23/02/14 05:10 PM
3

I'll take that bet for 200 doge
/r/MensRights22/02/14 09:40 AM
7

If she had a lawyer, there is no way in hell she didn't know about that trick.
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:47 AM
15

She was asked to look at photos of people of various ages and rate their attractiveness "Ok lady, he's 23. Out of 10?" "Oh well, totally an 8. Definitely. For sure. He's some hot stuff officer." "Alright, let me just... BAM 5-year-old!" "OH! Total 1. Totally a 1. Whaaat, you think I'd be into *kids?**"* "Ok, looks like you aren't a pedophile this time. But we're watching you."
/r/MensRights22/02/14 05:06 AM
-2

There's a joke about his sex life, the doggy-style position, and the phrase "Who's your Daddy?!" in there somewhere, but I lack the proper incentive to find it. This sounds ambiguous enough to me that someone in this subreddit might interpret that as you ripping on him for attempting to kill himself after his dog died and his wife left him - after all, I sure did. Unsurprisingly, many people here have been the direct victims of male suicide just like this. If you make a joke on a board where peo…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 01:55 AM
-1

You are on the men's rights subreddit. I'm pretty sure you shouldn't be ridiculing men who've committed suicide. Need I state why?
/r/MensRights21/02/14 11:59 PM
27

It constantly amazes me how people fail to see this.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 11:14 PM
1

You can read more about "Master of the Universe", the original 50 Shades of Grey, here. Yes, Snowsqueen Icedragon was her genuine fanfic account name.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 11:12 PM
-1

Yes, let's all ridicule a man who attempted suicide.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 10:23 PM
17

"I want rough sex and it's stupid not to tell a guy that's what you want" Well, that's the point, she did tell him. The problem isn't that she stayed silent at first - the problem is how she expected him to act around girls in the first place. Look at what she said: "Hey, as a girl, I wanted you to act in a way that was basically no different to a rape. Oh, and you're dumb for not realising - you should probably act like that with other girls in the future if you want them to like you." Like, ho…
/r/MensRights21/02/14 08:01 PM
31

I feel like you are one of the women that doesn't understand what kind of predicament this exact sentiment puts us in.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 07:36 PM
-4

Because evolutionary psychology theory is always a valid base to determine numerical statistics, right? Rather than, well, statistics?
/r/MensRights19/02/14 06:27 PM
5

Hooray NOW...
/r/MensRights19/02/14 06:23 PM
2

The reason single mothers exist is pretty overtly due to feminism, as is the denial of custody to fathers. But I guess some modern feminists are nice, so we can't blame feminism, right?
/r/MensRights19/02/14 12:39 AM
1

Isn't that the definition of polyamorous?
/r/MensRights19/02/14 12:33 AM
1

Sure, it might, but that's a nebulous claim and the onus is on us to prove it. Until we do, we can't really claim it happens.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 04:21 AM
1

You're a lost cause. Ciao.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 08:16 PM
1

Game as creepy is your conclusion, which rides on the presuppositions of manipulation and whatever else you've said above. That's not the reason. At all. It's creepy because it creeps girls out. It results in a reaction from girls that is along the lines of "that's a really creepy thing to do." That isn't shaming someone, that's describing how people react to their behaviour. As an aside, you can really go fuck yourself for claiming otherwise. Look, the rhetoric TRP espouses is based in the para…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 07:40 PM
1

A) When you start to define my identity in order to fit your narrative, you are stepping into territory which you don't know. You are attempting to define my experiences and are consequently very likely to be wrong. If, when I complain that you aren't addressing my problems, you say, "Sit down, shut up, I am because I already have a narrative about you and your problems", then you are overstepping your rights. B) You didn't answer my question. We can't talk about this if we don't have specific e…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 06:51 PM
1

Would you like me to explain why it's not? I have already but if you want to be super-alpha and never let up, I can explain again here.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 05:45 PM
1

I have attempted to correct you, but you refuse to listen, and instead employ shame And you deliberately didn't read my refutation to this accusation. I would suggest that you are yourself using shaming, to justify not having to listen to me. "You said something that could be construed as shaming? IT MUST BE SHAMING! Shame on you for DEFINITELY shaming. Thank God for that, I don't have to listen to you challenge my viewpoints any more." Mind you, if you'd like a formal debate, I'm up for it. Rea…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 04:00 PM
1

Oh my God! Are you by any chance employing this tactic I just found in your posting history?
/r/MensRights06/02/14 03:35 PM
1

So, what you're saying is that because I've offended you you've stopped listening. You have got to be a feminist. Well, I never. See below.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 03:24 PM
1

Ahh, I see. Writing someone off because they said something you found offensive. Must be that all their ideas are wrong, and you definitely interpreted it right when you took offense. Are you a sure you aren't a feminist?
/r/MensRights06/02/14 03:18 PM
1

Have you even read the response? Just because you're providing an outlet for ostracised, lonely men, that doesn't mean your outlet is A) Healthy B) Moral C) Effective.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 03:13 PM
1

Deliberately misinterpreting something in order to justify not challenging your beliefs. Are you a feminist?
/r/MensRights06/02/14 03:04 PM
1

Did you even read it? If not, dear God, watch these. Your ideology is destructive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_04eBZcTy1o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uOIlX31o2M
/r/MensRights06/02/14 03:01 PM
2

It seems that the study of anticipation of other's actions and reactions appears immoral to you. It's a bold accusation to make, to assume that studying to become better with women would be so bad. Viewing a potential sexual partner as an opponent is not the same as anticipating people's actions. Viewing someone as an opponent is incredibly objectifying. We objectify opponents in order to suppress our empathetic response to them - this is why soldiers are willing to kill in a battle. There might…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 02:56 PM
1

I disagree. If I donate to one charity, it causes no harm to any other charity and it creates no additional need for the others. If the charity is a demographic, I would say the same rule applies.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 12:51 PM
2

A) No, but the people defining toxic masculinity are primarily not men. B) And yet you call it the "patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity". At no point is femininity in any way referenced as the driving factor. I'm going to call you out on this - how exactly do women "contribute" and "continue" (notably, not create) toxic masculinity? C/D) You have a term called "toxic masculinity" to describe all the negative masculine personality traits. Clearly violence is not the only one, though the idea that …
/r/MensRights06/02/14 10:27 AM
1

When you treat interactions with women like they are a game to be won, you objectify women, rival men, and yourself. It's ironically the one situation where female objectification does exist. I'm not even going to address the actually damaging idea you've presented here that we're taking advantage of anybody or that women lack the agency to decide for themselves. I don't think TRP members are taking advantage of anybody. I think they're trying though. Just because someone has the agency to respo…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 10:14 AM
2

I disagree wholeheartedly. It's full of people who like women and want to learn how to be liked by women. If that's your version of hate, then you and I are not using the word in the same way. No, it isn't. It's full of men who hate women for being on top of them their entire lives, and they want to conquer them sexually to vindicate this frustration. By definition of hate, this is false, despite your example. Radical feminists who call for the genocide of men claim they don't hate men. Do they,…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 01:14 AM
1

Myth of male suicide That's what did it for me. They're so sincere as well. What the fuck man?
/r/MensRights06/02/14 01:03 AM
1

Who is banning anyone from giving men a donation as well as women here? Just because I don't donate to cancer research, doesn't mean I'm not allowed to.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 01:02 AM
2

A) Empathy is not a bad thing, but toxic masculinity is defined by feminists who are primarily female. They are not men, and thus their perspective will be highly skewed. The fact they think their "empathy" is enough to overcome this is half the problem. B) Let me rephrase. It ignores the power women have over men and how they use this power to shape men's personalities. You seem to be saying "Women influence the patriarchy which influences men". I am saying "women influence men". C/D) Masculini…
/r/MensRights06/02/14 12:57 AM
-1

A) /r/TheRedPill is full of people who demonstrably hate women. It's not universal, but it is the primary selling point of that subreddit. B) Claiming you don't hate a group is not enough to prove that you don't hate a group.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 05:20 PM
2

and certainly do not mean it to be hateful, which is the mistake that feminists are making here. Most feminists do not intend for their conjecture to be hateful. That does not mean that it doesn't end up being hateful.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 05:09 PM
1

Well I'm just barely about to break my four month mark, so I'm not sure how well asking for a raise would go. OP, forgive me, but this is probably why you are being paid less. Your employer is going to pay you as little as they can get away with; If co worker 3 was being paid $14 per hour then she probably demanded to be paid that. The same with the others. If you are unwilling to ask for a raise, you really don't have a good reason to complain you aren't being paid well. I doubt sexism comes in…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 04:45 PM
1

Their tactics are also morally wrong, since they're violating other people's property.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 04:33 PM
-2

I want to make it clear, I'm differentiating between scientific hypergamy arguments, and the conjecture of /r/theredpill. I most certainly don't support the latter, although I support their freedom to explore those theories.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 04:31 PM
11

I didn't say you were wrong. I said you aren't helping.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 04:09 PM
-1

You are conflating discrimination with violation of rights. They are not the same thing. No, I'm not. I'm pointing out the difference. If I choose to select my wife from only women, then that is not discriminatory, despite the fact that the end result will be a considerably expensive wedding ring which is only going to be accessible to women. I'm pointing out that preferential financial giving should not be classed as discriminatory unless it harms someone else. By the same logic people are usin…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 04:00 PM
9

This is precisely the shit that puts people off in the first place. You aren't helping.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 03:20 PM
-1

Offering a certain demographic rewards for a product or service is discriminatory That's not actually true. If I offer a wedding ring to my wife in order for being my wife, that's not discriminatory. Neither are student discounts, though the latter is debatable. I suppose you might define them as discriminatory if you have a different definition, but they do not fit the definition of a rights violation unless they overtly cause harm or disadvantage one group. Did Rosa Parks suffer emotionally or…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 03:03 PM
1

That's fair. I suppose awareness of the nature of shaming tactics is the most important thing.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 03:00 PM
-2

Would it stop you from coding? Would it damage you emotionally? Or would it simply make you feel slighted and angry? Being offended, as we all well know, is not the basis for a human rights issue. Obviously it's unpleasant, but unless we can demonstrate harm, it's not a rights issue, it's an issue of offensiveness. Remember, this incentive is being offered by a private company, not the government. They have the right to provide support to whoever they want, provided it doesn't harm anyone. The p…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:54 PM
-4

If I am a straight man and I will only buy a wedding wing for people who fit into the category of women, is that sexist? Unless we can demonstrate the harm it causes, we have no right to claim it is a men's rights issue. I didn't say it wasn't a men's rights issue, and I didn't say that it definitely doesn't cause harm. My point is that without proof, these claims make us just as bad as feminists and will probably lead to our own version of "patriarchy theory."
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:43 PM
1

My problem is with shaming tactics. Are you implying I'm against free speech advocation?
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:25 PM
5

Here is a link to the recording
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:22 PM
6

Bring on the crazy radfems. Despite their vitriol and emotive hatred, they're literally our best publicity. This comment, thousands of times over. All you need to do is highlight it, and people will do their own research. The fact they are introducing people to the movement is not a bad thing. Ignorance of men's issues is the number one barrier at the moment.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:17 PM
5

This is a link to the original comment. do NOT go home with any women from that lecture unless you know them very very well I had not thought of this. I wonder if this has ever been pulled before?
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:14 PM
8

^ What this dude said. She wants to learn about men's rights. Are you being hostile just because she doesn't currently agree with you?
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:05 PM
2

The entire thread is devoted to that topic, I'm afraid I'll have to redirect you upwards. I wanted to address the concept of toxic masculinity. Whoops, wrong reply. But again, the rest of this thread is devoted to that. I will make an aside and mention that access to opportunity is subsumed under human rights, whereas we have no right to be equal in outcome.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 02:01 PM
2

They don't want extra rights and we don't either. We want equality. No, we want the rights that are denied to men - the human rights - to be given to them. The MRM's objective is not total equality - that is a ridiculous concept and impossible to institute. The objective of the MRM is equality of rights.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 01:48 PM
9

Precisely. What feminism cares about is how men's emotions are screwed up by society, not how their rights are violated. Toxic masculinity is the embodiment of that concept. "You've hurt my feelings" is seen as a genuine problem for men. "You've violated my rights" is not.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 01:36 PM
14

Toxic masculinity focuses on how men are hurt by gender roles, but you have to remember - toxic masculinity is essentially the following: "If I were a man, how would my emotions be affected by the way I was raised?" There are a few issues with it: A) It judges men by women's standards - it is about how women (in particular, feminists) would feel if they were raised to be men. This is a subtle but key problem - men are not women, and will react differently to how they are raised. Toxic masculinit…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 01:25 PM
5

She's a really great girl though. Something tells me that's not the case. Get the fuck out while you still can, Jesus man.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 01:18 PM
10

THIS is the issue. The issue isn't the subsidies being given by Google, it's the lack of any equivalent elsewhere.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:57 PM
-5

do you think being told "you could've donated $100 to your school if only you weren't... you" might give rise to some serious self-esteem issues? It might, I think it probably doesn't. I currently work in the area where this stuff is happening; people honestly don't mind that much. Subsidies bother us. Charity doesn't. In order to make a claim like this, you need to have some sort of documented study that proves a link. You can't make that claim based on conjecture - that's how patriarchy theory…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:33 PM
4

I have dealt with a lot of Tumblr feminists, but you have to remember, the majority of them are teenagers. I was irrational and stupid when I was a teenager, and I also (thank God) had very little sway with society. They're mental, but at the same time they're not a particularly large threat. The only concern I can think of is that they don't grow out of it before they get to University.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 11:59 AM
1

I have heard our women's officer supported the women who falsely accused throughout almost the entire process, though Sam has made efforts to get rid of all media records of the event, quite wisely. You can read more about her here, if you would like. To put that in perspective, the charitable fundraising officer at Manchester has to pay about £7,000 of their salary through charitable fundraising, whilst Tabz gets her entire salary through the Union, as well as budgets for events like that.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 11:44 AM
1

I would kill myself if I were ever in that situation. No. One day your kids will be 18, and they will need you then. The world is rough for 18-year-olds, especially if they're guys. They will need you then, even if your partner sets up lies about you. What are they going to feel if they find out their dad killed themselves because of their mother - especially if it's in relation to them?
/r/MensRights05/02/14 11:34 AM
-9

The psychological effects of that on teenage boys should not be taken lightly. Yes, but they also need to be proven. Who says this will affect teenage boys negatively? I'm a 22-year-old white male coding right now, and the reason is because I find it fun, not because I'm being paid an incentive to learn. I'm in the one demographic that gets the least subsidies for it. For example, I'm fully aware some parents give their kids money to do what I'm doing, but that doesn't factor into it. In fact, I…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 11:28 AM
2

That might well be the case, but the MRM will simply hold another event, and another, and another. Eventually, there won't be enough emotional charge to motivate protests. As well as that, though, people who are simply curious about men's issues will see they're being suppressive and will likely realise straight away that the MRM might be justified. It's also free publicity since they're specifically shouting and screaming in a crazy manner about men's issues - which is likely just going to make…
/r/MensRights05/02/14 10:59 AM
4

No! That is exactly the same logic that feminists use - it's just they have a different definition of bigot than you and I.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 10:56 AM
1

Fucking brilliant! Good on you, Ryerson.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 10:55 AM
9

I can see a lot of her hypergamy arguments being construed as hateful for those who reject the science. Kind of how evolution is offensive to fundamentalist Christians.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 10:36 AM
1

For once, I don't think that is the reason. It seems like she's genuinely internalised the idea that she may only get value from men as a result of her sexuality, and as such any male attention, even that from her father, must be motivated by sexual means. GO FEMINISM!
/r/MensRights05/02/14 10:18 AM
3

Do you mean you hate the fact it makes you a likely paedophile in some people's eyes? Everyone is a potential paedophile to any rational outside observer. The reason women are so often not charged with sexual abuse of children is because people specifically don't consider them potential paedophiles. They think the idea is physically impossible.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 07:47 AM
1

I think hypothetically, a lawyer advised her to take advantage of that societal bias in order to lessen her sentence, which is categorically immoral, regardless of its legality. I agree with you completely. However, we also know a considerable amount about men's rights This is a subreddit primarily dedicated to raising awareness of men's rights in a productive way. If I stumbled across it today not knowing the background and found this story on the front page, this would be my response: "But she…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:12 AM
0

Yuuu dirty capitalist dirtbags. MAGGOTS I SAY. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 05:07 AM
2

Dude, I didn't say I was libertarian - it's pretty clear by voter demographics that women today are far more likely to vote for the left. Why do you think Obama is so much more worried about women's rights than Mitt Romney? Are you rejecting this source because of where it comes from, or because of the data?
/r/MensRights04/02/14 04:46 AM
3

I think they do when expulsion is the punishment. They have to give due reason afaik, if the reason is not the allegation itself it would be pretty hard to defend. But seriously OP, lawyer up first.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 06:45 PM
0

And he would be able to marshal a very good defence against them. It's a lot easier to attack a process violation than it is a rape allegation. They'd be dumb to expel him for the former.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 06:18 PM
2

Seems fair.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 06:15 PM
1

I didn't say it was right wing either.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 05:53 PM
-1

Only once we have heard the court's decision on them. If the court hasn't ruled, what happens if they throw her defence out? What happens is that it reinforces the idea that the courts are not biased against men. This does not help. Wait until the court does something shitty before you guys turn vigilante flash gordon on their ass.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 05:22 PM
1

I agree?
/r/MensRights03/02/14 05:05 PM
0

I didn't say to thank them. But it is not a bad idea to take the safety net they're providing.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 03:37 PM
-1

Libertarianism is not left-wing. Its core tenet is a respect for property rights and the non-initiation of force - essentially, that taxes are immoral. It's impossible for libertarianism to be left-wing.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 03:10 PM
0

I don't know any courts who think that if a woman exploits the battered wife defence, they then think all battered wife defences are bullshit. They seem to understand the distinction. The problem is not that they don't distinguish, it's that they will weight it's mitigation power wayyyy too heavily.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 02:36 PM
3

http://the-libertarian.co.uk/why-are-women-more-left-wing/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MejkH61o_U
/r/MensRights03/02/14 01:58 PM
2

I wasn't attacking a strawman, I was explaining the motivation for their (very real) irrational actions.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 01:58 PM
0

Libertarianism is not left-wing.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 12:38 PM
1

Women vote for left-wing policies in far higher numbers than men. It's a pretty linear process - women vote for the left, so the left caters to women.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 12:37 PM
1

I was explaining why they act that way, not your definition of patriarchy theory.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 12:36 PM
1

I didn't say it wasn't. I just stated it's the most effective tactic used in eroding due process, as demonstrated by the recent rape reforms bill.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 12:08 PM
7

He has every right to refuse to speak to them until he has a lawyer.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 12:03 PM
1

I wish they did. :/
/r/MensRights03/02/14 11:49 AM
-3

Refusing to give someone a platform to spout irrelevant bigotries is not denial of due process. Actually, it is. Refusing to allow someone to speak in court because they are bigoted is complete erosion of due process. In an appeal, I have a right - a human right - to say whatever I want to try and get myself off, bar attacking the court. That doesn't mean it'll work, or that if I lie, it's not illegal. But to deny someone the right to their own choice of words at a hearing - even if it's because…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 11:28 AM
9

regardless of whether or not that was the intention.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 11:25 AM
-4

The nature of my analogy is irrelevant. You are saying that a convict may make no attempt to present mitigating circumstances in regards to their crime. You are advocating for the erosion of due process, and for the eradication of a human right. Fucking stop.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 10:54 AM
9

This is so important to remember. When you are moved away from a child on an airplane, as a man, it is first and foremost you who is being protected, regardless of whether or not that was the intention.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 10:26 AM
-3

I said rapists, not accused rapists. A convicted rapist is just as free to appeal via implied consent as this woman is to appeal via the battered woman defence. Neither imply the defence will work, but the freedom to try is a human right. It's disgusting that some people in this community think it's ok to do away with human rights, whoever they belong to.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 10:21 AM
1

I think between our usernames we make a good team.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 09:35 AM
1

It's just an example of the use of "perving" as "lusting after". Dude, if your father is lusting after you that pretty categorically counts as perving. Holy shit, OP I stand corrected - the original link is not actually that creepy at all. You're right, she's assuming there must be sexual intent behind all male actions that involve her, and malicious intent at that. She's assuming any invasion of privacy must be motivated by malicious sexual intent. I wonder what has made her think that?
/r/MensRights03/02/14 09:13 AM
0

What that "certain defense" is, is part of the problem. As if it's a neutral thing like any other defense. No. It creates incentive to get away with murder. Are you suggesting she shouldn't be allowed to use this defence? Expecting due process is quite different from questioning the motive for changing a story, after it has fully churned through the system. There is no evidence, yet, that the system won't be questioning this use of the defence. Until there is, this is not a men's rights issue. I…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 08:59 AM
0

"women are willing to exploit the battered wife defense" is not the same as "this is why the battered wife defense is bullshit" This is immediately obvious to me, and probably will be to people outside of men's rights. Please, do not alienate them.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 08:57 AM
3

I think that focusing on confrontation, so to speak, would be especially helpful. Starting with specific feminist fallacies and men's rights issues[...] No! Don't start with feminist fallacies - start with men's rights issues. Feminism should only come in once you've established that men's issues exist and what they are, and you should only focus on how it's obstructing and creating men's issues. Don't criticise it outright, or people will (quite rationally) assume you're out to get feminism mor…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 08:53 AM
4

Patriarchy theory - the more power men have, in any area, the more they will use it (even subconsciously) to oppress women. Fuck patriarchy theory.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 08:51 AM
2

the classical liberal ideology that most MRAs work off of: People have rights, anything less is a transgression, anything more is a privilege. That isn't liberal ideology, that's conservative ideology. Most of the highly active MRAs are libertarians, anyway. Edit: I stand corrected, classical liberalism is a different philosophy entirely.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 08:50 AM
1

Let them object to unsolicited rape prevention advice, it doesn't affect us at all. Actually, it does. This is the most effective tactic in the erosion of due process for rapists.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 08:47 AM
2

You dumb MRA, burglary is nothing like rape. Are you saying burglary is like rape? God, you rape apologist not-real-man mother's-basement loser. Why don't men like me??? </feminist>
/r/MensRights03/02/14 08:42 AM
1

This is a very good analogy.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 08:40 AM
1

It's important to note that the suffrage movement simply allowed politicians to give women the vote without mandatory war-work - something those in power had wanted to do for a while. Women vote for more governmental power, on average, than men, so by giving women the vote those in power knew they would get more power. This is why the suffrage movement was funded (primarily) by men like the Rockefellers. Women's suffrage did not motivate politicians to give women the vote, it allowed those polit…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 08:35 AM
2

Careful, you might be committing copyright infringement.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 08:24 AM
0

Patents.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 07:54 AM
3

Why is it bad for a woman to say they wouldn't trust a man to take it? I wouldn't trust a woman who says she's taken birth control because I understand the risks associated with it. The article is examining barriers to adoption, and this woman is citing one. Yes, she's also being a cunt, but I don't have a problem with this part of her message.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 07:52 AM
3

No, we won't. We'll have one example where it wasn't self-defense. That does not condemn all women.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 07:05 AM
-1

No. This is not an acceptable thread. Do you think she shouldn't be allowed to change her story? That she shouldn't be allowed to use a certain defense? She has not been deemed innocent on these claims, she has simply made them. They are ridiculous, but she has every right to do that. Considering the problems with due process being denied to rapists, I would encourage everyone posting in this thread to take a long, hard look at whether you are attempting to do the same thing here.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 07:01 AM
2

Single comments in an obscure comments section on a website for alcoholics are not evidence of widespread sexism. So no, I don't think we should be posting them. Maybe a collection of comments, or comments with thumbs up? Not some random person on "barstool sports nyc" under an article that has garnered a grand total of 7 comments since 2009. The article itself was just as bad. I agree, and good evidence of wider attitudes. That comment, not so much. If it looks like we can only come up with obs…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 05:03 AM
10

Because it involves putting laws in place to prioritise women (and women's opportunity) over men's. Even if those laws are valid (which they generally are not), this is a hostile action. From another perspective, it has just resulted in an act being passed in the US that erodes due process for rape cases where the accused is male; this is a violation of human rights, and in this case a violation of only one gender's human rights. It uses the phrase "patriarchy", a gendered phrase, to explain opp…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 11:19 PM
11

This is pretty much the best summary.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 10:49 PM
6

There is its track record of advocacy and organizing. And if you don't know the negative track record of your movement, I would reevaluate whether you have actually studied it - or simply studied propaganda.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 10:40 PM
2

They absolutely are. Top rated on SRS for this week: "Modern black culture is the worst thing to happen to black people since slavery." [+339] Which is an incredibly offensive thing to say. But, honestly, who gives a fuck? Some people are offensive. They will always be offensive. It's widespread, deplorable sexism we should be providing examples of, not individual examples of trolls on the internet. If we do that, we become just as ridiculous as SRS and people will lose just as much respect for …
/r/MensRights31/01/14 10:30 PM
2

Guys, please. Let's not post extreme comments and then get outraged at them - that's exactly what SRS does and it doesn't help.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:47 PM
4

http://i1.ryjbuk.pl/0f73d2d736c76888344a77d0707a6644a1bce8c7/very-good-gif
/r/MensRights27/01/14 11:27 PM
10

I hope that he doesn't lose his faith in the rest of us. This is such a sad sentiment, and the worst part is he probably will. Fuck C.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 09:38 PM
4

This is probably the best introduction to men's rights there is. It clearly explains the problems and it's very, very eloquently written. Most of her videos are excellent.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 09:16 PM
1

Don't you joke about the penis being a weapon of death and terror!
/r/MensRights27/01/14 09:12 PM
12

I didn't say men have no hold on government. I said men's rights activists can't change laws, whilst feminists can - and do. Those in power are not men's rights activists just because they are men. Just like you aren't a feminist just because you are a woman.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 07:26 PM
5

and you don't think that feminists are hated too? It's irrelevant if they are or aren't - feminists can change laws, policies and government to suit their whims, MRAs cannot.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 05:44 PM
5

due to past social oppression Forgive me, but oppression is not the same as discrimination or disadvantage. What are some examples of past social oppression of women? I'm not trying to be obtuse, but people have a helluva misconception here. I'm curious to know how you would classify it.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 05:40 PM
2

It's somewhat depressing they have to report the men's centres as caring for "the health of men and that of their partners" before people will take it seriously, but this is definitely a step in the right direction.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 02:50 PM
2

We need to focus not on the standards, but people's self confidence not only in their image but also other aspects of themselves. This fucking point. Perfection will always be unattainable to most, and unattainable to all eventually. We can't solve the problem by lowering the standard of perfection.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 02:32 PM
24

This is a bigger victory than you know. Well done.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 03:31 AM
4

Ladies and gentlemen, feminism's biggest fucking blind spot of all.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 03:26 AM
0

A worthy comparison to common steroid abuse (illegally obtained, improperly planned, improperly administered, often with extreme doses, by people who don't really understand what may go wrong) would be people getting their silicone breasts from a butcher in a dirty room. Yes, but oddly enough, the only type of steroid use that happens in bodybuilding is the dirty butcher room kind. That's sort of the point.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 03:24 AM
7

This is a massive fallacy. It is not incredibly unattainable bodies in media that cause the problem. Eventually, most of us will be 60 and even a realistic standard of beauty will be unattainable to us. Muscle-bound toys do not cause steroid use in 20-year-olds any more than they cause steroid use in 60-year-olds. An inability to be comfortable being any less than the best causes that.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 03:21 AM
3

Did you just cite a comment saying the same thing your comment said? Oh wow...
/r/MensRights21/01/14 02:48 PM
7

Or, you know, people could support their claims when they make them.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 02:46 PM
1

Did I say that?
/r/MensRights11/01/14 01:35 AM
3

Too much subtext.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 02:09 PM
3

"I don't need feminism" She's taking aim at the "I need feminism" campaigns where people list ridiculous reasons why they, personally need it.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 02:08 PM
5

Has anyone got a concise, effective way to respond to this?
/r/MensRights10/01/14 01:26 PM
13

The distinction is important since the girl in the post does not emphasise that.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 01:23 PM
4

"Yes of course it is, but that doesn't mean it's changeable. It's acquired as we grow and by sexual maturity it is cemented. It's still not something they can help." Would be, I imagine, the gymnastic response. Never assume you have a concrete argument when you're arguing with someone who simply doesn't want to change their mind.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 02:07 AM
29

Just watched the first episode on this recommendation. That was brilliant. I suppose if you deny there are innate biological differences between the genders, any difference we see in the world seems like evidence of inequality.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:16 PM
0

I'm annoyed that you pushed your way into this circle and discussion claiming to just be looking out for women when all I see is you trying as hard as you can to be in direct opposition to MRAs. You see? It works both ways, and it doesn't take away from the actual message of either side.
/r/MensRights04/01/14 05:52 PM
1

It's around 90%, and that number includes sexual crimes.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 07:26 PM
1

First let's admit that it would actually be a Politically Correct stance for the movement to take. That alone would throw opponents of MRM off guard. Secondly by picking a battle on an issue that is not inherently gendered MRM would avoid claims of automatic misogyny for disagreeing with Feminism. Man, that sounds like a really, really shaky reason to me.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 06:53 PM
1

I think posting a topic like "I suggest our movement adopt a stance because it's good for PR" is a terrible thing for a rights movement of any kind to accept. I just hope to hell this doesn't end up getting misquoted.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 06:38 PM
5

Who cares? Some consider it pathetic for a man to not be able to fight, does that mean every man should box until the age of 16? "Pathetic" =/= illegal.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:48 PM
0

Those aren't rights issues, they're just issues men might have seen. If you'd like a safe space, set up a subreddit called /r/malesafespace.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:45 PM
1

While arguing for the need for female agency by denying actual female agency is a massive problem, that's like telling a guy he "should have fought back" when he's in an abusive relationship. Although she could well have stopped the behavior, you can't tell her it was her fault she was treated that way or that it she should have just told him to stop.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 01:09 AM
1

Costs money for the child support department to use those methods to track him down. They're external systems.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 12:44 AM
1

Micro-credit is a little different - the administration process for it is different, as is the value placed on the donation. By it's nature it has to be used to stimulate further income and it can't afford to be wasted. You're right though, sending money can be helpful. It's just that generally, without decent arbitration it won't be. Especially not when it's being arbitrated by a random western school.
/r/MensRights13/11/13 06:20 PM
1

I said sending money. I think people misinterpreted me. Sending capital directly to individuals causes economic chaos. Sending money directly to women inevitably results in it being handed to men. I'm fully aware that helping women is great, this is just a terrible way of helping.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 10:28 PM
1

http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/criminal_pros/crown_prosecutor/Pages/parental_child_abduction.aspx Article 3, section 2. If she's denying custody to the father and doesn't have sole custody, it's criminal.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 08:16 PM
1

If one parent hasn't been granted sole custody, they can't claim sole custody. It doesn't really matter whether they're the mother or father The issue is more whether or not she can claim sole custody. As a mother, she's more likely to be able to claim it but if she doesn't have it already, she's kidnapping her kids.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 07:56 PM
3

That's not true. It most definitely is a crime if she hadn't been granted sole custody and she relocates with the children, especially if she denies knowledge of their location to the father. To OP, file a police report immediately and continue to pay maintenance.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 07:01 PM
-3

This is beyond retarded. Sending money to women in third world countries is about the worst way to: A) Help anyone in third world countries at all B) Target their help towards women Even if they want to help women over men, they're not achieving it.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 06:47 PM
2

It already does this, I have it installed for this purpose. It's great.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 06:45 PM
1

That's brilliant. Thanks.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 06:34 PM
1

Most of the campaigning revenue goes towards the campaign itself, then grants to other charities. That money in turn will be turned into infrastructure, which then allows them to raise more revenue for research. It's hard to determine exact splits. It's a very indirect process but to put in perspective how effective the campaigning is, jobs at Breast Cancer charities are often seen as the pinnacle of success for people who want a career in charity work (at least if they want to deal with domesti…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:35 PM
1

I've updated the thread - whether and why discrimination against men exists isn't the issue. She understands issues exist, but she won't consider that they're systematic or serious because in her eyes, all MRAs are mental. That's the problem I'm trying to solve.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:32 PM
2

So, what I'm having trouble with is finding an article that details that, preferably from a feminist perspective. Essentially, what I'm looking for is something that says "Hey, guys, let's not criticise the men's rights movement because of some crazy extremists - they actually have some valid viewpoints. Here's why those extremists exist." She likes feminist articles written by feminists, I'm not going to be able to convert her to another form of political information gathering. I've tried.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:27 PM
1

It's difficult to get a campaign on the tills of a store unless it has some sort of fashion statement or heart-touching "we want people to care" moniker involved. Often, it's an awareness campaign or nothing. Of course, the money from those campaigns is often just invested into research anyway, it's just a brand image.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:23 PM
1

That's just what I'm looking for. Thanks!
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:17 PM
1

Can't find it myself, sidebar links aren't relevant. Figured people would want to help out. Thanks for the link, by the way. God damn though, for a community that focuses on forwarding men's rights, everyone sure seems to get hostile when I actually ask for help with forwarding men's rights.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:15 PM
1

Both sites have a lot of hostility. I don't think it would help.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:13 PM
0

I'm not making that argument, I'm illustrating her point of view so I can try and tackle it. She will likely soon be making that claim. Any ideas?
/r/MensRights02/11/13 02:42 PM
1

I used to work indirectly with a breast cancer charity and they could fundraise incredible easily because of all the awareness campaigns. Awareness is exceedingly helpful as it creates a market for donations to that particular cause, which can then be exploited.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 02:40 PM
3

Dude, you posted this at the start of Movember. It's an entire prostate cancer awareness month. Awareness is not really an issue at the moment.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 02:38 PM
1

Exactly. Hencewhy I want to make her aware of what she's inadvertantly doing.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 02:35 PM
0

I'm going to flip the genders to represent the viewpoint I think she's going to fall into if she keeps reading what she's reading. That is the viewpoint I want to change. "People are anti-MRA when men's rights has shown itself to be anti-female. Prior to the claim of 'but that's the fringe MRAs', it's a bullshit claim. There have been demonstrable anti-FEMALE, note, not anti-FEMINIST, biases and legislation passed with the aid and full comprehension of MRA organizations." Christ guys, I'm trying…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 02:34 PM
1

She didn't cherry-pick them, she's only seeing articles that have cherry-picked them. That's the issue I want to highlight. And the way to do it is probably not to tell her that writers she trusts do all of the things you just said.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 02:31 PM
-5

This is exactly the kind of bullshit she's seeing.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 02:17 PM
1

Recruiting the subjects of this survey from /r/mensrights is really going to skew the results. Please post the results here, but keep it a study that doesn't have flaws people can easily use to write off the whole thing.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 12:40 AM
1

Only if it was done right. I would not want to advertise, for example, /r/mensrights as the posterchild for the MRA movement.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 09:21 PM
2

"Next time you go into a newsagents, have a look at the headlines, and count how many go like this: 'Famous man sexually abused young, underage girl' Then, see how many follow that in the article with one of two phrases. The first is, 'a court heard yesterday', the second, 'it was alleged.' It's likely to be all of them. Innocence is smallprint for men when they are accused of a sex crime. Have you heard the phrase 'I never would have thought it of him'? Have you heard it when somebody has simpl…
/r/MensRights17/09/13 08:59 PM
1

passive victimology surrounding atrocity vs. active resistance to the same "Please don't hurt me" is active resistance. That's pretty much the entire point.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 02:04 AM
1

Saying yes to get something over and done with is not the same as being physically intimidated into doing it or saying no in a way that was different to whatever rapey mcvampire wanted someone to say. That's not philosophy, that's common sense. I appreciate it needs to be discussed but you can't just reframe a discussion and have any objection that doesn't fit into that frame become irrelevant. Sciorra: "Tell me to go away. Don't ask me...tell me" Taylor: "Please don't hurt me...please...." That…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 02:44 PM
1

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Taylor said "please don't hurt me", then Sciorra hurt her. If she'd said "please don't rape me" then Sciorra raped her, I don't give a fuck if she was being a sheep or not. She was still raped.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 05:03 PM
1

Not discussing something because it's already been discussed is ridiculous. And also pretty much the cause of all immorality ever.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 08:01 PM
1

I don't agree. If people aren't even willing to discuss whether a fetus is a human or not, then that's pretty fucked.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 12:39 AM
2

He's been charged, not convicted. There's a major difference.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:04 AM
1

Well, it's gendered in that respect but gendered =/= persecuted.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 10:47 PM
2

Yes, I've spoken to a lot. They're generally people who found the movement because they realised they've been exploited by some woman, and don't really understand that's exploitative, not sexist. They don't exist on reddit so much but YouTube is full of them.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:36 PM
2

Dear God, jumping on every little thing people say like this is exactly what I'm talking about. Idiots exist in the movement, I can't really believe it needs pointing out. That's not a criticism of the movement. Saying idiots exist isn't persecution of you.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:31 PM
4

Because loads of MRAs are utter retards and assume things like the friendzone are persecution rather than exploitation. And they really, really hurt the movement. EDIT: Can't quite believe it needs to be stated but that's not a criticism of men's rights, just a few idiots within it.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 04:46 AM
2

This was a UK headline.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 12:04 AM
1

It's worth noting he's nearing the end of his post, he won't be at another assembly. The union does good work. There's no point antagonising them, that won't make them listen. I can see why people do it, but I wouldn't want to here.
/r/MensRights26/04/13 12:02 AM
2

Read through the thread. We noted the problems with the voting system, and the reason we think people voted against us. We noted the limitations in timeframe of getting views across, and we're looking for the next platform to get our voices heard. You'll also notice we didn't once blame feminism. There were a couple of supporters of feminism who came along and were rude and offensive, but thankfully that is not indicative of most of the movement. Feminism is supposed for gender equality, which t…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 09:35 PM
3

I was just in the audience, not presenting. I had a limited time to put a point forward, which I did. Unfortunately, developing that point takes about half an hour. I only had the opportunity to do that with the people who wanted to speak to me afterwards.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:54 AM
1

The results of the assembly can be found here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1d199k/my_union_just_voted_against_a_mens_officer_out_of/
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:46 AM
1

What? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:36 AM
7

I know, but I'm not about to challenge terminology. There's no point, as long as we can both agree on the effects of a particular group of people having power over another, they're free to call it what they like. We can challenge the negative connotations of the word later.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:21 AM
2

The union didn't, an executive member stepping out of line did. I don't want to be petty about that. The guy was a dick, but the Union can deal with it.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:18 AM
2

Thanks, I've dropped them a message.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 02:17 AM
3

Ah, yes. That's certainly an idea, but I don't want to venture down that route. As far as I can tell, this is the first movement towards any kind of men's campaign on campus for a while. I don't want to ruin the name of it by attacking the woman's officer, especially when I agree with a large part of what she does.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 01:47 AM
2

I'm leaving, I thankfully don't care about the ire of the Union. However, I'm not sure suing them would be a great idea. It might bring publicity to the issue, but at the same time they don't deserve it. They put the idea to a vote, and although that system was somewhat flawed, that wasn't necessarily intentional.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:57 AM
1

It does however nicely highlight the pervasiveness of feminist "fact" that someone with no understanding of or involvement with gender politics should be so ready to shout down an individual asking for more equal treatment for men Oh yes. Essentially, his experience comes from spending a year working in the same office as the women's officer. He didn't seem to understand why that might give him a biased opinion. Either way, it wasn't his place to take the stand he did. He clearly did not underst…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:53 AM
2

I don't think the women's officer should be dissolved. She does a good job on most issues. She's set up a lot of initiatives that make Manchester safer and better for female students, which has knock-on benefits for males. A Safe Taxi scheme was one - we can use our student card as a sort of "delayed payment" when we're drunk and out of cab fair. Drivers deliver it to the union with a tab, the union pays the driver, and then you buy back your card from reception. As a man, this inadvertently ben…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:48 AM
2

I stupidly forgot to call everyone out on the fact they were ridiculing people for bringing up valid statistics about men's suffering. It was shameful, but thankfully most people later said to me they were equally ashamed of people laughing. Another friend of mine wanted to raise that point, but she didn't get called on in the end.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:45 AM
3

Unfortunately, I won't be able to do it as I'm leaving, but I'll see if I can gather together people who know about these issues to head something next year. Either way, those two people will be heavily involved with the union next year, so hopefully they can give some basic support.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:42 AM
5

Any advice? Awareness is my number one priority. I don't know about bongonimo, but I don't want to demonise the union. If people look at the facts they'll likely realise the scope of men's issues. I think it's mainly about pointing them in that direction.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:38 AM
1

I don't think they did that. They recently restructured the union elections to make them more fair (before, we did not get through all the issues so some were never even voted on). The system still needs fine-tuning, and the union has a reputation for being a bit useless on matters like that. It's quite often political for the sake of being political. Some people would vote on, for example, the charity officer if they could. That would be beyond stupid. They did bump the issue from 3rd to 5th on…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:34 AM
4

It was a vote. I don't think you can sue a union for voting a certain way. (Do correct me if I'm wrong!) As far as I can tell, all policies are implemented through a voting system like this at my University, probably for that reason.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:29 AM
4

I've posted some replies, I'll see if I can do a more detailed account of how it all went down tomorrow some time. One thing that was a plus was that some people encouraged me to start a men's campaign, and not sarcastically. They seemed to really want to learn about the issues once I showed them I was actually totally in favour of women's rights. They seemed to want the campaign to stand on its own merits rather than be shot down before people had a chance to hear the issues. I was really, real…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:26 AM
15

Most of the audience was, but afterwards I spoke to a few of the peeps who were opposed and explained how disposability needs to be tackled separately to the objectification and commodifying of women. They seemed pretty responsive once I showed it wasn't about cheuvanism and sexism and that it was mainly about trying to tackle legitimate issues and, indeed, help remove gender roles. As for "patriarchy that hurts men", I mainly tried to explain how patriarchy being upper-class white men generally…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:23 AM
1

So, the way they do it is that they have a certain quota of student places they have to fill on the board. So, for example, X black students, X female students, X postgrads. At this point, it's turned to a random selection within those criteria So, it's random people, supposedly representing the wider student body. Obviously, there are flaws with that selection process, but I've discussed it with the General Secretary before and they seemed to want to trial it for this year, which seems fair eno…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:15 AM
5

It's worth noting that we don't have an LGBT officer. Personally, I think the union needs to implement one of these before we have a chance at getting a men's officer, LGBT issues are higher up on people's priority lists. A lot of this assembly was people saying "well, gay men suffer but they should go to LGBT support, and minorities should contact the diversity officer." It was difficult to explain why it just doesn't work that way, obviously a large number of these people have never been a man…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:11 AM
1

It seemed to be the initial concern, I tried to make it clear that there would be no disenfranchising of women, just as the women's officer doesn't currently disenfranchise men. The main concern in the end seemed to be redundancy, at least for people who hadn't already made up their minds. It was very hard to convey all of the issues in such a short time, and honestly, I think most people seemed to think most of the men's issues we had weren't relevant to university. One guy seemed to think that…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:03 AM
1

Haha, brilliant. The main thing we seem to have done is raise awareness. I suppose people just needed to know that men's issues do exist, and that we need to address them. As long as people can go away and do their own research, they'll come to their own conclusions, but they need to have the facts. I think we've made an impact, which is brilliant.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 11:56 PM
7

Can't you go after this person for slander at least? The guy essentially deals with events management. He noted that he had no idea about gender politics before getting the role, and the role involves no gender politics. I was surprised he was the one to make assertions about how evil it is to assist men. The women's officer didn't say anything, however, beyond responding to some misunderstanding of her remit. He put a heavy emphasis on physical violence so I explained the details and prevalence…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 11:53 PM
4

They're randomly selected, so it's unlikely that they'll have an alterior motive. I think they want people to vote on choice, rather than on peer pressure. There were a number of the feminist's society who attended just to oppose the men's officer suggestion, they left straight away - I think non-accountability was better, in this case, since it helped negate the peer pressure of that. EDIT: The panel was separate from the audience. Just to be clear. The panel was selected, the audience was an o…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 11:41 PM
10

I was at the assembly too, it's worth noting we didn't have much time to make a case so it was hard to convey the issues. We definitely changed some minds though. I'll post some more details if anyone wants. Feel free to ask any questions about what happened, bongonimo did a great job presenting it.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 11:39 PM
1

Do you know the precise format of the assembly? I'm still not sure what to expect, I haven't been since we still had AGMs. How would you like me to make myself known? Edit: words
/r/MensRights24/04/13 02:57 PM
1

I doubt I would run for the position, so I'm afraid I couldn't answer that. It's up to candidates to specify how they hope to solve the problems that exist.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 02:54 PM
3

This is all brilliant stuff. I don't have much experience of what people are and aren't willing to listen to, so this helps. Do you have any statistics that could help back these things up? I want this to be watertight.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 07:23 AM
-6

if you do it in public, expect to be photographed. And if you don't wear a burqa in iraq, expect to be arrested. In fairness, I don't think that's a good argument.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 04:54 AM
1

I just wanted to say I liked this comment a lot. Really great way of describing the issue I, and I assume most rational people, have with the way we approach gender-issues. Not antagonistic, not predicated on a victim-complex from either side. And it stops petty fighting over "who's the most oppressed" as though that should be justification for any form of activism. Good stuff.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 07:57 PM
0

Have you ever run a campaign like this?
/r/MensRights21/04/13 07:38 PM
0

"All or nothing" They can't do all. So you're saying they should do nothing. Stop downvoting me because you disagree.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 06:03 PM
0

I'm glad you don't run a charity or have any political power. When people act like you they are the number 1 roadblock in charity work.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 05:42 PM
0

If you want to create a campaign, you have limited resources. What are people most likely to respond to? Something they sympathise with on a gut level. People sympathise with male-on-female violence so as a non-profit they will probably go for that. Campaigns are not free. They cost money, just like aid, and generally a lot more. They really are a zero-sum. Their aim is domestic violence awareness, and thankfully they're also giving a shit about men in that campaign. Like I said. Stop attacking …
/r/MensRights21/04/13 05:15 PM
1

Dude, click the link. How about not lambasting a charity that helps abuse victims, both men and women, because they aren't trying to push one particular agenda. That's like getting mad at Oxfam because they're helping starving children in Mali, not Tanzania. It's stupid, it doesn't help, and they're probably doing more than most of us have ever done in our lives.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 04:39 PM
1

I didn't think it needed developing, but ok. If you're actively baiting discrimination, especially if you then record the results, you're not advancing your cause. You're making it seem like in order to be discriminated against, you have to actively try to get people to discriminate against you. I think it's pretty intuitive that that hurts your cause rather than helps it. Like I said, making the point for the sake of making a point is not helpful. If you're trying to prove yourself right rather…
/r/MensRights21/04/13 04:33 PM
3

This is the summary text for the myths section. Anyone can be a victim of relationship abuse. If you are a boy who has or is being abused, it’s not your fault and there are organisations who can offer support and advice for you. I think they're doing pretty well, actually.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 02:20 AM
1

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
/r/MensRights21/04/13 01:41 AM
1

That's making a point for the sake of making a point. Not helpful.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 01:39 AM
9

x-posted to /r/bestof http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/1crf23/librtee_explains_in_a_nutshell_why_age_of_consent/
/r/MensRights20/04/13 09:04 PM
1

He works for a charity. They don't have HR departments.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 02:02 AM
1

If you don't have a theoretical framework that stands up to scrutiny then you end up fighting not just for things you do deserve, but for all kinds of things you don't deserve too. If you just shout "Women are oppressed!" or "Men are oppressed!" and you are actually oppressed, then by definition nobody listens to you. You have to argue your case with facts and theory because, from an emotional standpoint, nobody has any connection to your suffering. You have to actively prove that emotional bias…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 07:28 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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