TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Wasuremaru Archive

View 1 post and 120 comments by Wasuremaru on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Wasuremaru/r/MensRights19/08/14 07:25 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
38

Hey if you don't want kids, you could always.....not have sex! gasp crazy I know! But probably not what the sort of person who says "get a vasectomy because of muh bodily autonomy" is OK with.
/r/MensRights27/02/19 01:01 PM
27

True, but the accusation could still destroy you.
/r/MensRights09/11/18 11:29 PM
3

Forgiving someone is, more or less, no longer letting hatred and anger and resentment towards them for what they did be a part of your life. Forgetting is pretending it didn't happen. You can forgive them and still cut off all contact because they are a living risk to you. You can forgive them and still avoid them at all times because of the dangers of being anywhere near them. That is forgiving but not forgetting.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 06:21 PM
7

The trouble with "no naming the accused" is that it allows for things like secret trials where there isn't oversight or reporting on what goes on. This only increases the opportunities for corruption and can lead to things like people being "disappeared".
/r/MensRights16/08/18 11:07 PM
8

Yes they should. If you statistically cost more to an insurance company, the company should naturally charge you more. That's how it works.
/r/MensRights26/07/18 10:53 PM
-3

I mean, if it's on her fb profile or something, maybe don't. She might get dozxed or something. The whole thing is probably a bad move it just boggles the mind.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 02:09 AM
-2

I mean, either one, tbh. She just sounds so much like the quintessential Internet feminazi stereotype that I can't help but believe she isn't real.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 02:05 AM
-4

Tbh she sounds completely made up. Pics or it didn't happen.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 02:01 AM
6

Well, countries will likely have larger culture gaps than states do. Bigger differences in terms of economics and the general treatment of mental illness. The best way to handle it is to do a historical analysis over time in one area before and after gun control was instituted. Looking at australia between 1950 and 2006, for example could give us good data. In 1950, the rate is about 9.3/100,000 and in 2006, it is about 8.6/100,000.. This would seem to indicate that there isn't that strong of an…
/r/MensRights20/03/18 06:48 PM
3

Maybe my thinking is wrong, and fair enough if it is, but it seems to me that a woman who decides to go out and get wasted while dressed like a stripper speaks to their intentions, and might indicate that the accused may have thought the encounter was consensual (whether it was or wasn't). It may speak to their intentions, but it may not. Similarly, if I leave my front door unlocked, that might mean that I am OK with folks coming inside and taking my gaming rig, but it might mean that I left it …
/r/MensRights09/03/18 12:21 AM
10

Can you give us a citation on that? Like, of cases where the statute of limitations was ignored by the law? Cause that'd be a slam-dunk case for it to be thrown out of court, like, immediately.
/r/MensRights09/03/18 12:05 AM
2

She's not using just their sex to guide her. She's using the comparative consequences linked to their sex to guide her. Now, I don't believe that you should believe or disbelieve someone without evidence or a strong grasp of their character and that of the person they are accusing, but it's hard to deny that male vs female does make a difference in how society views alleged rape victims.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 05:34 PM
2

You can sue for anything. I can bring a suit against you alleging that you forced me to snort cocaine off of the shaved rump of a sleeping grizzly bear by threatening to shoot my dog with a 14th century crossbow you brought here by time travel. None of that means I will win the suit or that it won't get thrown out through a summary judgment of "Come on, your honor? Really?".
/r/MensRights18/01/18 05:24 PM
0

They are different things. Breasts are a secondary sex characteristic while pectoral muscles are not. Now, are they the same as genitalia? No not at all, but a woman's breasts are much more sexual than a man's chest.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 04:11 PM
1

Now let's be fair: touching a man's pecs is different from touching a woman's breasts. Not saying their behavior is acceptable, just that calling it fondling may be overstating things a tad.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 01:39 PM
3

There's a difference between "playing a role" and being "the major contributing factor" in male suicide. Sure women are half the population, so saying they play a role makes sense in so far as they are part of the society in which men who commit suicide exist, but saying they are "the major contributing factor" means that they are the biggest factor contributing to male suicide, which is a very, very strong claim that I'd want proportionally strong evidence for.
/r/MensRights24/11/17 02:35 AM
55

You have a source on that?
/r/MensRights24/11/17 12:05 AM
2

The third sub bullet does not refute the main bullet. Being equal in terms of one type of violence does not mean that they are equal perpetrators of all types of violence.
/r/MensRights26/10/17 12:56 PM
3

I don't say they might will to illegally detain people. That's the whole point. What they might will is to use a legal power to secretly detain people and, if they did, there would be no way for a person subjected to it, or for their friends and family, to fight back, stop it, or demand compensation. I don't fear the government doing bad things outside of the law because there is nothing the law can do to stop that. What I fear is giving the government further power to do bad things within the c…
/r/MensRights20/09/17 08:17 PM
7

Public outcry and the fact that people would KNOW that they were being taken to prison, why, and the ability to see court proceedings, arguments, evidence, etc. If the government made it illegal to publish that someone was being arrested or tried for a crime, it would open up the rights to a public trial to the possibility of being destroyed.
/r/MensRights20/09/17 07:53 PM
18

No it isn't. If the government makes it illegal to publish the identity of someone who is accused of a crime, it leaves open the possibility of secret judicial proceedings where people are hushed away into prison. Without the public being able to hear that a trial is taking place, we would be much worse off and the judicial system would be even more open to abuse than it is now. It's the least bad option, sadly.
/r/MensRights20/09/17 05:38 PM
2

Ah. I missed that detail. Assumed that the battery would be under heavy load just by being used to charge. Thanks for pointing it out!
/r/MensRights07/09/17 11:35 PM
4

I mean, unless I misread the tweets or misunderstood them, it seemed like he was saying that the method she was suggesting would actually deplete the phone's battery because it would use more power telling you it is charging than it would gain by the 9 volt battery. Correct me if I'm wrong.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 10:13 PM
4

A quick point: those who seek help probably have a higher rate of PTSD at the outset than those who don't. I haven't read the study, but that particular quote sounds like a stretch.
/r/MensRights06/09/17 05:30 AM
39

You have a source? Cause that sounds ludicrously high. I'll believe it if it's backed by a well-done study, though.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 07:54 PM
1

I'm honestly curious here: what goods and services can you think of that you can't buy online from a company with a large online presence like Amazon. I'm not talking about specifically Amazon. Just companies with online presences and a willingness to sell goods and services.
/r/MensRights07/08/17 09:11 PM
1

But I'm not talking about small local community businesses. My point is more than things like amazon exist for pretty much any good or service you need.
/r/MensRights07/08/17 09:02 PM
1

I mean, that argument might have worked when it was implemented, but we're in the internet age now. You can order your groceries online and have them shipped to your house. Same with pretty much any good or service in existence.
/r/MensRights07/08/17 08:54 PM
1

Do you have a link to one of those name studies? I've heard of them but I've never gotten around to reading through one. I'm curious what they used for "white" and "black" names and how, or if, they controlled for the simple commonality of names (e.g. using names that were neither "white" nor "black" but simply foreign and strange or uncommon enough to be seen as odd), or the socioeconomic status and thus life experiences of people that their names may be taken to suggest about them independent …
/r/MensRights20/07/17 04:31 AM
2

I'm actually glad to hear about that. If costs incurred were relatively constant throughout lifetime, women living longer wouldn't be a big issue for insurance companies, but if more than half is in post-65, and women live 5 years longer, then they will incur a good deal more cost for the companies, which should be reflected in their charges by these companies. Thanks for the article!
/r/MensRights19/07/17 05:37 PM
2

Thanks. This seems to answer my question. It's especially interesting that more than half of lifetime expenditures are made during senior years of life, which means that living longer is a very significant burden on insurance companies compared to what you pay into them.
/r/MensRights19/07/17 05:28 PM
3

The only "privilege" I will ever yield will be the privilege of having been born to parents who were reasonably well off (entirely through working their tails off throughout their lives), which gives me a better starting point that someone who is economically worse off. Even with that privilege, the majority of, or at least a massive portion of, the privilege of wealth was spent on keeping me and my siblings alive due to premature birth, giving us physical therapies to make sure we weren't going…
/r/MensRights19/07/17 02:48 PM
-7

Are women more expensive? Have you got a source on that and does it include the expense of pregnancy which really is a shared expense since you need two to tango? Edit: Thanks for the downvotes, everybody! I love getting downvoted for asking an honest question.
/r/MensRights19/07/17 02:37 PM
14

No. Don't do this. Don't romanticize yourself. You aren't a king. You are a man. You deserve what you can make for yourself. Don't take pride in being male. Take pride in being human and in what you yourself accomplish. Pride is good, but only when it comes from who you are instead of what you are.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 01:13 PM
32

Got a source on that? Just so I can read over how the research was conducted.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 02:32 PM
1

Let's also not pretend that it is meaningful to count statements like "I was assaulted." With no perpetrator specified (as is the case with 99% of such statements), nobody is subject to false allegations or character assault.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/06/17 12:28 AM
1

I literally just asked two comments up if you were also including allegations that could not be proven and you said yes. Now you aren't because you realize it is misleading to do so?
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 11:48 PM
0

Ok, so in other words then, your statement is that "the number of rape allegations which do not have sufficient evidence to result in conviction or which are not brought to court, including those which cause noone harm because they are "nonspecific" and thus do not slander anybody outnumber actual cases of rape." While that sounds plausible, it is also meaningless. Of course the number of allegations that do not result in convictions is greater than the number that does. That's simply how a crim…
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 11:16 PM
0

Are you lumping together false allegations and allegations that cannot be proven sufficiently for a legal punishment with that number? If so, that would be misleading but believable. If you aren't then please give me a citation because that literally changes the entire landscape of sexual assault cases if true.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 10:46 PM
3

Dude, I think we all agree that there are too many false allegations, but saying they "dwarf the instances of actual rape" is just so fallacious that it is almost humorous.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/06/17 10:39 PM
4

I would say that the issue of unknowingly becoming pregnant vs unknowingly getting someone pregnant is another thing that puts condom removal at a worse level. Ibviously, in both cases, the offending party should lose custody of the child and lose rights to child support, but still.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/17 03:14 PM
0

I think the condom one is slightly more heinous because of std risk. Also, if the woman becomes pregnant, it can be more dangerous for her than for the man if he is the one tricked. Both should be classified as sexual assault, but one is slightly more heinous than the other.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/06/17 03:10 PM
10

Yeah, the thing with the requirement that the man offer marriage and not be able to divorce the victim was actually a functional protection of the woman and her family. By ensuring he could not divorce her and thus remove his duties as her now husband, it ensured that she and her family would be provided for, else he would (I think) be penalized. Keep in mind, the family can refuse the offer if the wish. All it does is ensure that woman who would, in that time, have been seen as "damaged goods" …
/r/MensRights05/06/17 08:45 PM
1

I mean, if you're getting married, I'd say it is a conversation you should definitely have. After all, when you are married, what is trouble for one of you is trouble for the other as well. That said, it certainly isn't something that is first date material, to be sure. Edit: Just saw you said the exact same thing just below on the comment chain.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/05/17 03:31 PM
14

Now, to be fair, that could be more of a protective thing to avoid false accusations. That doesn't excuse it applying only to men (it should apply to men and women to protect both), but it isn't necessarily motivated by the assumption that men are rapists.
/r/MensRights11/04/17 10:47 PM
6

The bible actually is explicitly not in favor of circumcision in the new testament. It's irrelevant because we now have baptism. Edit: so I was wrong. It does not say that baptism replaces circumcision. It just says that circumcision vs no circumcision doesn't matter at all.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 08:07 PM
1

Wow. That's almost impossible to believe, but there it is. I mean, the core issue, though, is that women aren't being paid enough. If they were paid as much as men, they'd get taxed the same. When will sexism stop hurting women!
/r/MensRights09/01/17 01:58 PM
8

in aggregate, the only net-taxpayers What does this mean and do you have a source? Honest curiosity here. I'll believe if you've got a reliable source.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 04:11 AM
15

Exactly. It's the same mentality of "Never meet men. You might get raped." just the other way around. As long as you just get to know someone at a basic level before spending too much time with them, you will be fine. As a catholic man, I would never have premarital sex anyway, but the fear mindset is ridiculous and the fears are all combated by 'have some common sense.'
/r/MensRights15/12/16 05:35 PM
18

Yeah, but would you want to get involved in a mess like that? Have your name slandered and dragged through the mud? Or would you rather record it so it can be used as evidence to exonerate the poor guy after?
/r/MensRights27/11/16 11:53 PM
6

The issue is that they are customers in the same way a guy getting a bone fixed after a break is a customer. Not in much of a position to raise complaints.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 05:26 AM
5

Wow. Sounds like Crowe handled himself like a champ. Calm and let her tucker herself out until she became an active threat, not just a disruption, at which point he removed her from the situation.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/10/16 11:35 PM
6

I meam, hey its that business's right to do that if it wants. They could set the same or similar requirement for women as well, or both. It might go out of bhsiness, but that is the right of the market in determining what to supporr.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 09:02 PM
41

It shouldn't be a problem. The prosecution would need to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the person intended to accuse falsely and put the person in jail. That's pretty hard to prove without stuff like text conversations saying so, I would imagine.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 01:27 PM
7

That's actually good. Makes it less open to abuse from either side. And in this case, the girl admitted it outright.
/r/MensRights14/08/16 09:21 PM
-2

Perhaps I was unclear. You do know that a false rape accuser would be habitual offenders, but you do not know if this was a false rape accusation. Confusion or misinformation could have also been the cause as well and without evidence, you cannot make a statement one way or the other. Have an investigation. If it is found that she deliberately levied a false claim, then release her name and such to the public, but not before.
/r/MensRights30/07/16 03:44 AM
-23

Such people are habitual offenders. In saying this you are assuming guilt without evidence. You have no evidence on the person in question about whom you are making a generalization. You are doing exactly what a kangaroo court would do and what the mob mentality of how we handle sexual assault cases causes.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 08:53 PM
53

We can't become a lynch mob too. That is sinking to the level of what we want to prevent. If there is a way to do this under the law, it is acceptable, otherwise, we should lobby to change the law, but we cannot suggest a witch hunt lynch mob scenario.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 06:47 PM
3

Context clues are key to these sorts of cases. No resistance CAN just mean the victim is going limp or giving in to minimize harm. It can also mean that the other person is just not in the mood that night. Context is key to these sorts of cases, which is why throwing away testimony and evidence of context (like the text messages) is so utterly stupid and wrong.
/r/MensRights27/07/16 05:45 PM
-9

Honestly? What the brother did here was over the top compared to his punishment. Sure, he's grounded for 3 months (that makes his sister horrible for ratting on him and his parents insane for punishing that hard), but he just destroyed any possibility of a decent social life for his sister for, I would imagine, far longer than that. Not a pussy pass so much as it is both siblings being horrible human beings undeserving of our attention.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/07/16 01:51 AM
1

digital penetration only I don't disbelieve you, but got a source?
/r/MensRights23/06/16 03:35 PM
1

At least they aren't skittles in the M&M bowl.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 01:27 AM
3

Wait.......what? There's a black market for baby foreskins?
/r/MensRights09/06/16 10:16 PM
2

Sadly, that isn't their premise. That would be 'all A are in category B'. Their premise is 'Category B requires aspects A1, + A2' which is much more insidious. They aren't saying that the person who does not have power is not racist. They are saying that he, by definition, cannot be racist because of their new definition of it.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 10:33 AM
0

The specific term for an argument like that is the fallacy fallacy. Arguing that, because something has a flawed argument (e.g. racism), it must also have an incorrect conclusion. This does nothing to actually argue against the conclusion, or in the case of Trump's suggestions, the proposals. Note that I am not a Trump fan at all. I think he is too volatile an individual to have the position of Commander in Chief.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 10:03 PM
9

Holy crap. 'that's blaming the victim'. Is that lady at the end even hearing herself? She has mastered the art of doublethink.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/03/16 12:00 PM
40

I think it was the shock value of it. Didn't even seem to be a hard punch. She's just not used to being on the receiving end of a punch.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/03/16 11:55 AM
3

It's true that only SJWs take Jezebel seriously, but the issue is that they are the squeaky hinge or the shiny nail. They're the ones who draw the most attention and have the most active activists who get he most media coverage. As a result, they have the most political power, at present.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 07:24 PM
13

Look, man. Surgery consent has to be active ongoing and enthusiastic. If you are knocked out, who knows what that surgeon is going to do or how they will interpret your consent to surgery? What if you have an abnormality they don't know about? How are you supposed to consent to a different means of surgery during the surgery if you are unconscious? Clearly, surgeons must do surgery without anesthesia if they are to be ethical about patient consent to procedures.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 04:07 PM
17

Let's not take it too far, there. That would make us no better than them.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 12:38 PM
34

I wish that I could. Sadly, it is not. Google it and you will find a jezbel article discussing it, linking to several other sources that discuss it.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 12:21 PM
90

A vulnerable woman, who is powerless to leave the situation, is at times held down against her will, has strangers looking & touching at private parts of her body, perhaps without appropriate measures being taken to acknowledge her ownership of her body or to preserve her comfort levels. Perhaps she has fingers or instruments inserted without her consent, and sometimes against her consent, invading and crossing decent boundaries. She is fearful of what is happening to her and perhaps for the wel…
/r/MensRights25/03/16 11:48 AM
6

Given that another employee acted as lookout for her while she raped the boys, it is possible that her plea included snitching on all the other rapists she knew about at the hospital. We can only hope.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 09:35 PM
11

The thing is, you HAVE to be able to cross examine. That's a basic thing that a defense lawyer does. You have to cast doubt on or disprove the testimony of witnesses that testify against you. If you cant, you end up with kangaroo courts.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 07:11 PM
16

Yes. Especially then. You're afraid she'll kidnap him or that she'll get full custody in a divorce. If that's what's keeping you together, you shouldn't be together.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:39 PM
1

Yes, but that just means you should have one for guys one for girls.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:38 PM
3

Yes, but you will notice the even composition, whereas the actor above has a six pack but focuses mostly on the upper body, giving it a v shape overall. It isn't so much a six pack as the lack of other muscle mass in even quantity.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 05:36 AM
4

In fairness, Ricky did seem to have a bit of an anger management issue, chasing Lucy around the house whenever she made a plan without consulting him. Given, she had trust issues in not confiding in him, and it was all played for laughs and over the top because of this.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 01:14 PM
7

If they've been doing porn for a few years, they are likely on the way out. Porn stars don't have a long shelf life in their industry, by and large.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 02:17 PM
6

Well, it might show he has class, it might show he doesn't want any more media attention or an court cases. To others, it will show that he doesn't want it to go to court in case anything comes out, or that he doesn't want it to go to court due to the courts of public opinion regardless of whether he wins the case or loses the case.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 02:17 PM
-1

I think this really is the best argument when they try to say, 'but they wouldn't do that.' that or, "so not all women?"
/r/MensRights06/12/15 04:32 PM
202

In fairness here, it wasn't so much that she lied that sex was had as it is that the laws were stupidly written. She was of an age that he could not legally have sex with, it seems. He ought not be charged, but many age based laws are written so that ignorance is not a factor in guilt or innocence. Edit: I accidentally a word.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 11:12 PM
6

I see. I misread the tweet. That's what I get for not putting on my reading glasses. You are correct about her statement.
/r/MensRights29/11/15 04:36 PM
10

The thing is: we don't know either way. We can't say she's a liar until we have more evidence, nor can we say that she is a victim. She doesn't know whether or not Stoya is lying here. Not saying she's right to support her blindly, but it isn't right to assume she's lying either.
/r/MensRights29/11/15 04:20 PM
19

I think her reasoning is more that "I will support this thing that might be a lie so that when people to whom it has happened say something, they will know they are supported."
/r/MensRights29/11/15 03:59 PM
5

I don't.....I don't even know anymore. I didn't think I was this out of touch......unless....yes. The children must be just that wrong.
/r/MensRights30/10/15 11:48 AM
2

For clarity, was she therefore an exception in so far as it is a gendered pronoun? If not, what was the explicitly male one?
/r/MensRights30/10/15 11:39 AM
5

They.....they made a third one?
/r/MensRights30/10/15 11:38 AM
14

Yeah. Wasn't 'he' gender neutral for quite some time?
/r/MensRights30/10/15 11:37 AM
6

Yes, but that makes them feel good. They liked it so it's ok.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 04:16 PM
2

I think it's both that 'men don't cry' and that if they said 'where women cry' the assumption would be misogyny or sexism.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 04:53 PM
3

When you say you drink whisky neat, do you include scotch in that category? Not criticizing your tastes, just clarifying. (I personally like to open up a vein to get more flavor due to my low-quality palate.)
/r/MensRights14/08/15 02:49 AM
7

Because assassinating judges tends to draw public eye. And the whole murder thing too, I guess.
/r/MensRights01/08/15 02:14 PM
3

True, that is a major issue. As someone outside his situation, I would just say cut your losses, save the money, go to college in five years when folks have forgotten this and the 'he won' headlines will turn up on google searches. That said, I can't say how strong his motivation to finish college is and it is probably considerable.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 03:59 AM
21

He won't need one if he wins a decent sum. Just put it in dividend yielding investments with decent yields.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 03:45 AM
21

Sue them for all your lost lifetime earnings. They keep inflated figures of the average earnings of their graduates. Use that. They'll never admit they screw with the stats on them.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 03:43 AM
4

Yep. Most actually see sex as a very, very good thing.
/r/MensRights25/06/15 03:52 AM
0

As in many things, though, the government is wrong.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 03:41 AM
0

So apparently being pro life is misogynistic? Wow, I didn't know that not wanting to kill babies is fueled by my desire to control women. All along, I had thought it was fueled by my desire to not kill people. Thanks for enlightening me, feminism.
/r/MensRights13/09/14 10:19 PM
0

Look, I know that a lot of people don't like the inclusion of "touching" as part of sexual assault rules, but I quite agree with the inclusion of it. If someone grabs my crotch, that's sexual assault. Same with kissing and the rest.
/r/MensRights13/09/14 10:08 PM
3

"the age difference was not that great" She was nearly twice the student's age. She was almost old enough to be the mother of that student.
/r/MensRights06/09/14 02:05 AM
1

Thing is, if consent can be revoked at any time, a signed form is irrelevant since the other person can just decide to repeal the form.
/r/MensRights30/08/14 02:12 AM
1

I actually was going to comment pretty much the same thing. 3 is a viable suggestion that I think everyone can get behind, one is the usual party line crap, as is most of the stuff. 10 actually internally contradicts the implicit arguments of 8 and most of the other post parts.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 12:52 PM
3

We know it's there because we have no evidence of it. It turns out that the ordering of falsehoods actually goes lies, damning lies, statistics, and rape culture discussion.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 12:48 PM
3

Aren't there minimum sentencing laws for things like child porn?
/r/MensRights22/08/14 05:07 AM
1

Yeah, that sounds more realistic.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 02:01 PM
8

So because of the tuition money, defamation, loss of potential wages, etc., the college now has to deal with federal court? Does that mean that colleges will lower tuition to make themselves immune? I'd be quite happy with that.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 03:48 AM
1

I found conflicting information and was hoping that someone would be able to clarify.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 10:45 PM
2

Why would the airforce have a minimum runtime? I get the idea of physical fitenss, but doesn't the airforce focus on things like areal combat? How is physical ability a necessity for that? Honest question here.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:31 PM
4

Nah. Go for Minerva everytime.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:27 PM
2

Really? I'm moving to freaking NH.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:23 PM
-2

I am accepting of homosexuals, however, I am against gay marriage, if that is also part of your question (and the two are usually conflated in these kinds of question).
/r/MensRights27/07/14 06:50 AM
1

I'm not a lawyer, but the thing you should do seems simple: go to court and sue for defamation and libel. She has no evidence because no crime occurred, right? If that's true, you bring her to court and argue that she has damaged your good name with these charges, wasted time, stressed you so much it's effected your grades (if that's the case, which I sounds like it is) etc. and sue her, and maybe the university too, if they suspend you based on a lack of evidence of innocence, for libel, defama…
/r/MensRights25/07/14 03:04 PM
3

There's the whole 'to have and to hold' part of marriage. Sex is expected to be a part of a married couple's life because that's the main freaking point of marriage. It's so you can live together, have sex, start a family, etc. If you say 'he's not entitled to sex' well, technically, you're right, it's not like it's an inherent right, but it's reasonable for a married man to expect to be able to have sex with the woman he's married.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 02:32 PM
7

So there's programs for women and non-white people only now? Well, technically that's an improvement.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 02:22 PM
2

The thing with the 'wage gap' is that it is based on badly designed statistics. The studies all assume that the only difference is gender and ignore lurking variables like experience on the job, the degrees that the people have, the actual positions that the people have, whether the person is employed or unemployed, etc. and that leads to massive skewing of data thanks to what are called 'lurking variables.'
/r/MensRights25/07/14 02:12 PM
1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most countries with minimum wage laws have laws that make sex-based discrimination illegal?
/r/MensRights25/07/14 06:13 AM
1

But since they can't take a bac of the person at the time, they can just say "i'd been drinking" and have done with the whole issue of 'how drunk were you'
/r/MensRights25/07/14 06:12 AM
1

But thanks to politics, it's considered normal.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 06:10 AM
1

Here's the thing: you make laws against something, but then you don't just expect those laws to be followed. You follow up by protecting yourself from those breaches of law. It's why we don't just say 'gun crime is bad, guns are illegal', but also say 'hey, cops and citizens, want to buy some guns for self-defense?' and why we teach defensive driving and other things to help protect you when someone else breaks the law.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 05:54 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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