TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Willravel Archive

View 1 posts and 405 comments by Willravel 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)
13

Willravel/r/MensRights17/05/12 02:49 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-46

Back in 2019, US women’s soccer games now generate more revenue than men’s—but the players still earn less. It took years of "complaining" to start to right that statistic. There are many situations across many fields in which it makes zero sense that women make less than men, and people shouldn't pretend otherwise simply because it fits their agenda or because they want to have a shallow mic-drop comment for some easy karma. Grow up.
/r/MensRights26/12/22 03:52 PM
1

This'd be better if they reoriented the draft to start based on family wealth, starting with those with the most. We'd never have a draft.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/07/21 03:05 AM
4

You're just pretending that the feminist movement to get women into combat roles in the military doesn't exist? We're going to ignore the protests and the lawsuits that you can find with 3 seconds of googling? We're going to ignore the feminist celebration that happened a few years ago when the DoD finally announced that women could have combat roles in the US?
/r/PussyPassDenied21/07/19 02:13 PM
1

Why do men and women, on average and on a large scale, make different choices? The study suggests that "at the root of these different choices is the fact that women value time and flexibility more than men" given that the data collected suggests that women tend to avoid scheduling work on inconvenient days and avoid split-shifts, however the study also says that men tend to do the same thing and offset this through overtime. What's still missing, however, is ultimately the reason why women choo…
/r/MensRights04/04/19 01:17 AM
0

No, the issue here is you're not here to talk with me, you're here to talk at me. You're not interested in engaging with what I'm saying, you're here to score a cheap point. You see agreeing that bullying is wrong not as a matter of ethics but a concession in some verbal competition. That's not what I'm here for. That's not what the reply button is for. You don't have anything to contribute to the discussion because you're not here to have a discussion.
/r/MensRights20/01/19 04:22 PM
0

Still not actually responding, cool. I'll get to your thing about race, but we're having this conversation in order and you're still refusing to reply to what I'm actually writing. I said, "How's that bad?" referring to all of the actual moral lessons of the video. Which of the moral lessons do you disagree with? Terry Crews speaking on a national stage about male survivors of sexual assault? Stopping the bullying of boys? Stopping boys from fighting? Answer this first, then we'll deal with your…
/r/MensRights20/01/19 04:15 PM
-4

I said, "How's that bad?" referring to all of the actual moral lessons of the video. Which of the moral lessons do you disagree with? Terry Crews speaking on a national stage about male survivors of sexual assault? Stopping the bullying of boys? Stopping boys from fighting? Because you're not responding to this, I'm assuming you agree with this. As I point out: try to imagine an ad like this about black people. Again, that's not a 1:1 comparison.
/r/MensRights20/01/19 04:01 PM
-9

That's not a 1:1 comparison and it doesn't respond to anything in my comment. I said, "How's that bad?" referring to all of the actual moral lessons of the video. Which of the moral lessons do you disagree with? Terry Crews speaking on a national stage about male survivors of sexual assault? Stopping the bullying of boys? Stopping boys from fighting? What's bad?
/r/MensRights20/01/19 03:54 PM
-9

What did the Gillette ad shame men for doing? IRL bullying of a boy, online harassment of a boy, objectification and harassment of women in the media, dismissing and infantilizing women in the workplace, fathers letting sons get in physical fights. 3/5ths of those being abused are boys. If you abuse men yourself or enable the abuse of men yourself, you should expect to be shamed. You deserve it. Your behavior is bad and you need to change your behavior. Look at the fixes in the ad: a real video …
/r/MensRights20/01/19 03:45 PM
0

No, I'm talking about how OP said that if a woman can have an abortion, a man can give up his responsibilities by signing a legal document. What happens after the hypothetical child is born is a separate issue, one that can be and has been discussed a great deal on this subreddit but which doesn't have direct bearing on the false equivalence being drawn by OP.
/r/MensRights18/12/18 01:22 AM
1

Gender-blind custody and child support hearings/mediations would deal with some significant issues associated with the underlying problems implicit in OP's suggestion. As to the specific issue of the asymmetry of choosing responsibility, there's probably a middle-ground solution even if there can never be a 1:1 system to compensate for the reality of only people with female bodies being able to give birth. While it is true that a father should never be able to have any legal influence on either …
/r/MensRights17/12/18 11:47 PM
-6

and oversimplifies a complex ethical question to the point of absurdity. You forgot the second part. Seems like you agree with me.
/r/MensRights17/12/18 11:34 PM
4

The point is that the woman has the option to opt out. Yes pregnancy is difficult, but the woman can choose not to be pregnant. Pregnancy it not, however, more difficult than working thousands of hours over 18 years because a condom broke. No, a lot of women don't have an option to opt out because a woman's right to choose is not even remotely a universally available option. Try getting an abortion in Mississippi or Texas then tell me women simply have the option available to them to terminate a…
/r/MensRights17/12/18 11:18 PM
4

You've moved several levels of abstraction away from the topic at hand, a topic in which OP explicitly compared a woman's right to abort with a theoretical father's right to sign away legal custodial responsibilities. My point about the difficulty of pregnancy being a significant and entirely overlooked factor still stands and, for the second time, you've refused to respond to it. If you want to have a conversation about child support or financial responsibilities, find a comment about that and …
/r/MensRights17/12/18 10:55 PM
-1

Carrying a child to term vs. signing a piece of paper: a) the same b) different.
/r/MensRights17/12/18 10:31 PM
8

The core of my comment, the thesis, is that signing a piece of paper is not the same thing as being pregnant for 9 months and that difference matters. You didn't respond to this at all.
/r/MensRights17/12/18 10:31 PM
75

It's not just choosing not to be a mother, it's choosing not to host a growing fetus for 9 months. Being pregnant is a significantly difficult ordeal that, in and of itself, can and often does change loves. That's not the same thing as the few seconds it takes to sign a piece of paper. This is not an equivalent comparison and oversimplifies a complex ethical question to the point of absurdity.
/r/MensRights17/12/18 07:04 PM
2

I am french so I only know about France; Merci for the assistance during the Revolutionary War, mon amie. The information you've provided is quite valuable, and could clarify that information from French governmental sources may have some issues pertaining to attempted vs. completed suicide methods, people being counted more than once for attempts due to individuals making multiple attempts, and issues of anonymity complicating things even further. The sources I used are largely from the UK, whi…
/r/MensRights27/02/18 11:07 PM
2

This is a myth, based on a statistic about people hospitalized for suicide attempts. Where did you read this?
/r/MensRights27/02/18 10:16 PM
2

These are decent primers: Cognative Behavioral Therapy, Mayo Clinic, What Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy? - American Psychological Association I found it to be a very practical approach to tackling negative thinking in a logical way. A lot of it starts with learning to listen to and contextualize your own thinking, to no longer allow thoughts to happen without awareness and examination. After that, you get to identifying and confronting thinking which is affecting you negatively, things like ne…
/r/MensRights27/02/18 09:07 PM
2

I think that the problem is, as horrible as depression is, like anger and other "dark" emotions, they can be addicting, and even if you don't want to return to them, you can end up falling into the same patterns that land you in the mess again and again. This is really insightful for someone who has never experienced clinical depression. There are several "worst parts" of depression, but among them is certainly the simultaneous feeling of immense emotional pain and numbness becoming like a cold …
/r/MensRights27/02/18 08:50 PM
2

Overdosing on pills, cutting, and asphyxiation are methods of suicide, though, and are successful every day. They're not somehow less legitimate just because the person who attempted them didn't bother to do research on method effectiveness ahead of time. Diminishing the people who use these methods with terms like "bullshit" and "whiney" serves no one. It's fine if you don't believe me, but I suggest asking a psychologist or sociologist about this. I genuinely think you have the wrong idea, and…
/r/MensRights27/02/18 08:20 PM
1

He has gotten a lot of help, but he swings back and forth into depressed and normal. He's one of those classic cases of people who stop taking the meds when they feel like they are doing fine and then sliding back because they shouldn't have stopped taking meds at all. That sounds really frustrating for you and your father's loved ones. I've heard depression medications described like vitamins: you don't just take them when you're sick, you take them to prevent sickness. But your father may not …
/r/MensRights27/02/18 08:16 PM
0

Perhaps you have a better knowledge of the nature of epidemiological data collection as it pertains to suicide, but do you have a source or some reason to think that data for suicide attempts are collected only from anonymous hospital admissions? Additionally, what reason do you have to think that successful suicides are not part of the general tracking of suicide attempt methods? I didn't see that anywhere in my links, even the second.
/r/MensRights27/02/18 08:12 PM
1

They're not really my statistics, they're data collected from governmental agencies. I don't know if they take into account the underreporting due to social tendencies towards treating men like stoic automatons and women like they're going to burst into emotion at any given moment. I'm sorry about your father. I hope he was able to find relief and good mental health. No one deserves to feel suicidally depressed, let alone to go undiagnosed.
/r/MensRights27/02/18 07:56 PM
1

I do.
/r/MensRights27/02/18 07:44 PM
2

What's both interesting and incredibly sad about your comment is that it does a good job to highlight the cultural idea that using a gun in a suicide attempt is more mature, more legitimate, more noble somehow. You're making a the use of a more effective method for suicide sound more desirable than less effective alternatives. Think about that for a second. You should have thought about that before you commented. Suicide isn't noble, it's tragic. That doesn't change depending on method.
/r/MensRights27/02/18 07:42 PM
2

If we're going to attempt to investigate the behavior of people who are suicidal, we can't think of it from a non-suicideal perspective. Suicide is impulsive the vast majority of the time, not the result of careful, objective contemplation and planning but a momentary act of desperation in the face of unequalled despair. That "I must do this" impulse leads many to reach for the closest method, with people not in the right mind to investigate or even think through their actions. 24% of those who …
/r/MensRights27/02/18 07:18 PM
1

Intent is generally not considered to be the reason for this discrepancy: although Rich et al., (1988) used psychological autopsy data to suggest that women are less intent on dying than men, more recent data from Canetto and Sakinofsky (1998) contradicted this, finding that males and females reported equal intent, and Denning, Conwell, King, and Cox (2000) corroborated this finding. Furthermore, Beautrais et al. (1996) found that the proportion of males and females who made a medically serious …
/r/MensRights27/02/18 06:08 PM
1

Studies on the issue have largely ruled out intent, meaning that attempts are meant to yield the result of suicide equally in men and women, meaning it's not as simple as women attempt suicide with the intent of attention and men attempt suicide with the intent of death.
/r/MensRights27/02/18 05:58 PM
-1

The way the data for suicide attempts are collected is from ANNONYMOUS hospital admissions To which of my links are you referring? Or are you suggesting all data is collected from anonymous hospital admissions?
/r/MensRights27/02/18 05:50 PM
-1

78% of suicides There are additional statistics associated with this one which may be of some interest. Psychological disorders are 20-40% higher in women, especially anxiety, depression, and insomnia. 19% of women and 14% of men have considered taking their own life, and 7% of women and 5% of men have attempted suicide. One woman in 14 has attempted suicide compared with one in 25 men. It's certainly the case that men are successful at suicide attempts, but considering that more women attempt s…
/r/MensRights27/02/18 03:39 PM
1

You misunderstand both menslib and feminism.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/04/17 04:47 PM
2

I'm shitting on the toxic subreddit. The movement and the subreddit should not be conflated. Mens Liberation has been around for decades, and is a positive movement about challenging dangerous and restrictive social gender constructs to liberate (the liberation in Mens Liberation) us. The MRM has been around for like 10 years and is largely centered around misrepresenting and misunderstanding feminism. It's accomplished almost nothing positive, and has tarnished Mens Lib by being so anti-women. …
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 09:51 PM
43

Yeah, shitting all over feminism is definitely about helping out men. If you want an actual mens rights community, try /r/MensLib.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 09:41 AM
23

LOL, holy shit that place is still a thing.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/04/17 04:55 AM
-1

Feminists have been fighting to get women into combat roles for decades (and never once asked for different standards). This is a major feminist victory... which is somehow being spun into women trying to skirt responsibility?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/12/15 03:12 AM
5

You don't see any MRA's doing this kind of thing on Feminist boards. Seriously? Not that two wrongs make a right, but you can't possibly be serious.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 10:06 PM
1

Self-parody.
/r/MensRights09/07/15 02:45 AM
1

Interestingly, this has been a long, long time coming. I've been on discussion boards since the mid 1990s, and I recall issues related to political and social progressivism making their way into a number of communities. Most of the time, it more or less works just fine. I moderated a Star Trek board and around 1998 we instituted rules against sexism, racism, and homophobia (the last of which being fairly progressive for the time) and while a few people cried foul, overall discussion continued on…
/r/TheRedPill07/05/15 09:03 PM
-3

Over the past few months there has been an increasing amount of censorship (just look at the CEO lawsuit shit) and shadowbans resulting from it. People seem to be under the mistaken opinion that the concept of freedom of expression means they can say anything anywhere at any time without consequences. Freedom of speech as a concept exists to prevent the US government from actively preventing citizens from expressing their viewpoints and does not extend to any private space, including Reddit. It …
/r/TheRedPill07/05/15 07:32 PM
-3

A gender-balanced team! Oppression!
/r/MensRights07/04/15 05:11 AM
-2

What are "you" even trying to "say" by "responding" to my "posts"? If you wanted to demonstrate that lifetime data was somehow less reliable, you would have actually tried to demonstrate it by backing up your assertion. Instead, it's just your typical uncreative condescension, which is par for the course. Once again it's been delightful talking with you.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 07:49 PM
-2

Lifetime figures are worse because fucking reasons. Yes, that's more or less how I read your post. Or, perhaps even better, Lifetime figures are worse because they disagree with my preconceived notions.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 07:37 PM
-2

12 month figures are unreliable (that's why MRAs love them). Try the lifetime figures.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 06:58 PM
4

The actual study: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e It appears that 31.5% of women and 27.5% of men report being victims of physical violence perpetrated by a domestic partner in their lifetime, according to Table 6. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 11:31 PM
1

There have been plenty of men's rights conferences, Saw that, actually. Someone was nice enough to record a decent amount of speeches. This may come as a surprise to you, but they all oddly seem to be about feminism. They never resulted in any campaign, any political or social action, and never impacted the lives of men as a class. Saw the support subs, too. Instead of being about healthy environment for folks like abuse survivors, weirdly even men who talk about abuse end up talking about femin…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:58 PM
1

Cool, now you're asking me to prove a negative and you're still doing jack shit to help men.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:41 PM
1

relative privation It's not worse problems, it's not doing what you say you're doing. It's in the name, 'Mens Rights'. So long as you do nothing to actually represent the right of men and just attack a different civil rights group, you're not a men's rights advocate, you're just another anti-feminist. Prove me wrong. Go actually represent the rights of men, represent justice for men. I doubt it will happen, because you folks are so damned obsessed with feminism, but you always have the opportuni…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:37 PM
1

Another MRA comment, another opportunity to serve the interests of men lost due to obsessing about feminism.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 11:26 PM
1

That's exactly what I expected. Instead of addressing the fact the MRM does nothing to actually help men, you just make another shallow attack on feminism. Did you read my first post here? Here it is to refresh your memory: Shouldn't everything tagged on MR be "re: Feminism"? Since none of it's actually about helping men as a class and it's just about the boogeyman of feminism?
/r/MensRights15/11/14 10:57 PM
1

Raising awareness is meaningless if nothing ever gets done. Instead of being the Susan J. Komen of civil rights for men, maybe try being the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins and actually address what it is you claim to represent. No amount of shallow awareness raising could ever do as well as actually having positive accomplishments to point to as far as actually getting people on board. Talk is cheap. Shit on feminism all you want, but there are international organizations changing rape laws in Ind…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 10:26 PM
2

Feminism has demonstrably harmed the rights of men, and we're going to keep calling them on it. And while you almost exclusively do that, the people you ostensibly have organized to protect go unrepresented, unprotected.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 07:34 PM
1

http://np.reddit.com/r/videos/search?q=feminis&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all Nothing there, sport.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 06:48 PM
0

By that rationale, Reddit as a whole believes Peruvian Morgan Freeman is more important than the rights of men.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 06:14 PM
4

You had enough people to call in fake rapes to bring down an anonymous rape reporting system you deemed somehow oppressive to men. Hundreds of people making phone calls can actually do good in the world if they're directed constructively instead of destructively. What about finding a case where a man has unfairly lost custody of his children because a judge's hands are tied due to family court rules? 400+ people call the local news station, maybe a few thousand people sent emails (which would be…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 06:13 PM
1

I'm from the rest of Reddit. If you folks don't want people from outside of /r/mensrights coming in, try and avoid the front page of /r/all.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 05:59 PM
-2

A shirt. It's about defending shirts from a few people who complained about a shirt. This is defending a shirt. /r/shirtsrights.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 05:58 PM
10

Shouldn't everything tagged on MR be "re: Feminism"? Since none of it's actually about helping men as a class and it's just about the boogeyman of feminism?
/r/MensRights15/11/14 04:22 PM
1

I'd call her someone who doesn't get to indulge that fantasy in full. Sometimes when I'm driving and someone does something incredibly dangerous because of inattentiveness or apathy, I get the momentary impulse to fish-tail them, but I don't. I can imagine it, but carrying it out would be disastrous and would have very real consequences. We don't always get to indulge our fantasies. What I'd recommend to someone like that is to find a way to work her fantasy into a consensual sexual relationship…
/r/TheRedPill26/07/14 02:57 AM
0

Not really, since there is a word to describe consensual rape: ravishment. Bear in mind that one of the definitions of ravishment is sexual rape. It's clearly differentiated from unpleasant rape, so it stands that we need additional descriptors. From your link, with added emphasis: "ravishment - the crime of forcing a woman to submit to sexual intercourse against her will" We have to be careful what words we use. I think (though I'm by no means certain) you used the word rape because it's more c…
/r/TheRedPill25/07/14 07:05 PM
3

Right, which seems totally fine and actually relatively healthy (relatively because it likely is influenced to some degree by internalized societal stuff about women and sex). I think the issue is misusing the term "rape", which means non-conseusal sex. Coercive sexual play is fine and can be part of a normal, healthy sexual relationship so long as it's fully consensual.
/r/TheRedPill25/07/14 06:56 PM
0

non-consensual rape What I feel like we're not agreeing on is that "non-consensual rape" is redundant. It's like saying "we're going to descend downward" or "I should postpone this until later". Rape is universally non-consensual. There has never been nor will there ever be a rape that's consensual. This is why semantics matter in language and communication. What you're trying to say, based on the context, is coercive sexual play. That's not the same thing as rape because coercive sexual play ex…
/r/TheRedPill25/07/14 06:37 PM
0

The thing is, though, the concept of 'high value' can't really be given to the man. As I understand it, high value means wealthy, attractive, assertive to the point of being dominating, and a decent degree of selfishness. That's not the true archetype used in smut novels. The objects of affection in smut novels tend to be assertive more as a kind of confidence that comes from knowing himself, they're normally not particularly wealthy (though they're often partially defined by their work), they e…
/r/TheRedPill25/07/14 06:21 PM
21

Your title is correct neither figuratively nor literally. Women don't want to be raped. No one wants to be raped. Rape, by definition, is not consensual. You're using the wrong term. What you're trying to describe, but failing to understand, is a coercive sex fantasy. What people fantasize about in a fictional environment does not reflect what they actually want in a real-life relationship. I doubt most women would be interested in marrying a man who's constantly about to murder her by drinking …
/r/TheRedPill25/07/14 05:27 PM
-2

He never claimed that every single woman was the same way I never claimed he did. "Some significant amount" is not the same thing as "every single". You should read posts before becoming upset by them, so you avoid the pitfall of making errors like this. Maybe if you weren't so anxious to accuse me of hating myself—actually, I'm fucking terrific—you would have actually understood what I wrote. As it stands, you're really just wasting my time and yours. Feel free to continue doing the latter.
/r/TheRedPill17/06/14 08:31 AM
-6

The only way you can imagine a man speaking respectfully about women is that he wants some kind of romantic reward out of it? That says nothing about me and everything about you.
/r/TheRedPill16/06/14 11:05 PM
-9

That seems like a hasty generalization, OP. You talk to one (possibly hypothetical) person, of seven billion, and find she is a little selfish in this one way, therefore all men are victims or potential victims of this because you think she's somehow representative of some significant number of women? I see no reason to conclude that. And what about men? Do you really think that there aren't men who are consumed by what they want in a partner but are unwilling to provide a host of their own posi…
/r/TheRedPill16/06/14 08:47 PM
1

lolwtf. It's actually not bullshit, but I made this comment two months ago, so who the hell cares.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 01:22 PM
2

I guess I was pretending we were having a conversation in which you actually read my posts. Second time: No, the problem is the article I had bookmarked is dead, and I can't find it cached. The only thing I can assume is they withdrew that position at some point, but with nothing to demonstrate that, it's kinda moot. It was up at one point, in fact I'm pretty sure there's an article on manboobz mocking it, but it's gone now.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:37 AM
2

but you just tried to do that... You should read my post.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:24 AM
2

No, the problem is the article I had bookmarked is dead, and I can't find it cached. The only thing I can assume is they withdrew that position at some point, but with nothing to demonstrate that, it's kinda moot. Plus, Celda, but whatever. That means the official position of A Voice for Men is "financial divorce" (terrible word choice), meaning that men should have an equivalent to abortion, meaning the excusal of parental responsibility, only from a financial standpoint. That would have been a…
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:19 AM
-1

Then you are a liar. This is what I get for not reading usernames.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 09:16 PM
-2

I mean what I wrote, which reflects the conclusion of the GAO. You're welcome to reread the report. The factors attributed by MRAs to explain the gap do not explain the gap. That is a lie - it is not an MRA position that women should be forced to birth against their will. Terrific, so when can I expect A Voice for Men to be removed from the sidebar?
/r/MensRights09/03/14 09:11 PM
-1

This isn't really a popular MRA position either. You also fail at accurate representation. It might be a good idea to remove A Voice for Men from the sidebar, then, as that's the official position there. It's also more than popular enough to show up on the front page of this subreddit. You may not like it, but you are not all MRAs.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 08:40 PM
-1

Call it financial independence. I wish there were more people who were vocal about this taking your position, because every time A Voice for Men writes about it and most times it hits the front page of /r/MensRights, there's very vocal support not just for financial independence, but for partial control over the fetus, which is a terrifying position.
/r/MensRights09/03/14 08:29 PM
-1

Are you a troll? I was just someone who saw the SNL sketch and found it missed the mark by a mile. Actually, it comes out to about a 2% unaccounted for change that could be due to gender discrimination. You're quote of statistics is incorrect. Actually, it's 20%, which you can see in the GAO report I linked for people who were skeptical. I have yet to see this position argued and not be ridiculed by the majority of MRA's. Your statement is simply untrue and you are making up lies. You can't poss…
/r/MensRights09/03/14 08:27 PM
2

He is a men's rights activist Well, this should be interesting. I fight for the right to be paid more if you're a man. This is not the same thing as denying that there's a sexism-based gender wage gap. MRAs often assert that, while there is a gender wage gap, it's not caused by gender discrimination. Rather, it's asserted that women earn less than men because women, in general, make different choices in their career paths and have different career goals. This, of course, ignores the fact that nu…
/r/MensRights09/03/14 04:46 PM
0

Nope.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 01:16 PM
1

For what is the gun a metaphor?
/r/MensRights21/10/13 03:54 AM
3

I admittedly said in my post that I could be entirely wrong about r/whiterights and that I've never visited it, I was just simply stating that the argument could be made. My point is we're not having a theoretical argument. /r/whiterights isn't in an unknowable state. The argument could be made in a vacuum, certainly, but that could be said of anything. Now that I've posted a small sample, can you see how my saying that /r/mensrights and /r/whiterights aren't the same is a legitimate point? I do…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 12:33 AM
-2

The guy has two female friends he plays video games with and does fun things with. I'm not sure he understands that a casual relationship could operate in much the same way, just with the obvious added benefit. He also seems to conflate casual dating with marriage, which I don't quite get. I'm sad he sees unhappy marriages around him, but having a girlfriend doesn't mean a 70 hour workweek and his wife controlling the purse strings. In any event, this seems to be an economic problem that's accid…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 12:21 AM
4

exactly, but if. Fine, let's remove the if. How about saying you have to be a Zionist to be a journalist? Is that just white pride? Or that Zionists are trying to destroy the white race? Or that it's a myth that 6 million Jews died in the holocaust? Those are all pulled directly from OP's recent posting history, all in /r/whiterights. These are not atypical posts for the subreddit. You act as if we're arguing about something unknowable. The information is right here, and his argument is bullshit…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 12:17 AM
8

No I'm not. You said "you could say that about any sub-reddit that has "rights" within the name". Well, no, actually, you can't, because you can actually visit subreddits to see what they're about. Since your post is about you being singled out for being white, you opened the gate on what that means to you, so this is entirely on-topic. I have zero interest in ignoring that you might have been banned not because of the color of your skin, but because you think the color of your skin entitles you…
/r/MensRights21/10/13 12:03 AM
8

No, No you're wrong. He crossposted to /r/whiterights. Go visit there before assuming I'm off-base, because I'm really not. A rights group may not have to be supremacist or bigoted in nature, but if you think Jews are evil and you call yourself a white rights advocate, you're a supremacist.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 11:59 PM
6

You could say the same for any sub-reddit that has "rights" within the name. You're directly comparing the MRA with White Rights groups now. That's exactly what I was warning against.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 11:50 PM
3

You're saying that if a woman gets drunk, she bears responsibility if someone rapes her?
/r/MensRights20/10/13 11:48 PM
6

You can post anywhere you want, but I suspect most MRAs are not in a hurry to be associated with white supremacists. I'm certainly not.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 11:44 PM
13

x-posting to /r/whiterights isn't going to do you any favors there, Adolph.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 11:41 PM
4

What you have to bear in mind is it's the nature of alcohol intoxication that while you perhaps recognize the consequences to your actions, inhibition being lessened means you don't care in the same way you would while sober. Getting drunk creates an alternate version of yourself which doesn't care about making bad decisions (this is a conclusion backed up by many studies). That's why it's such an important part of the discussion on ongoing knowing/informed consent. If your ability to say no to …
/r/MensRights20/10/13 11:39 PM
-6

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this. Sex is really terrific. It's a physical release, it's nice to do something pleasurable with someone you like, and it can be a really important part of a larger romantic relationship. Where are these kids getting the idea that sex isn't good or worth it? Are they just allowing social anxiety to get to them? I almost hate to say it, and this could come off a bit insensitive, but they sound a bit like the virgin in college, the person pretending to be…
/r/MensRights20/10/13 10:59 PM
6

My view is that it's largely medically unnecessary and it's based on a combination of old religious beliefs and outdated medicine. So long as people with male parts are taught proper hygiene, there's little to no risk of infections previously associated with foreskin. This is largely the conclusion of the American Academy of Pediatrics, as I understand it. If I get the opportunity to vote on it, I'd vote to make it illegal, as it's unnecessary surgery. I'd vote against any unnecessary surgery.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 10:45 PM
1

And, on top of that, Doxxing is not a legitimate form of discussion, debate, or protest.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 07:28 PM
-1

Just consider the consequences of immediately labeling someone a category of people you've convinced yourself you can ignore and/or marginalize. I think you'll find this is not a constructive way of thinking of other people with other viewpoints.
/r/MensRights19/10/13 11:03 PM
-1

You don't know what you're taking about. I wrote a paper on an earlier incarnation of the same movement years back for a sociology class, it's really not a complicated thing to get your head around. Like many things, it appears different from the outside than it does from the inside. If you can't make peace with that reality, it really doesn't matter what I say. You are just some follower feminist that has no clue Feminism has been covering up and misleading the public and followers like yoursel…
/r/MensRights19/10/13 10:28 PM
-2

I see, You really don't. so the 3 decades history of feminists attacking, slandering and even threatening the likes of Erin Pizzy, Murray Struss, Warren Farrell, the fathers rights movement, Christine Hoff Sommers and people that tell the truth about abuse rates and so on is imagined. That's not really the case. The "attacks" are disagreement, and they're only from the small minority of feminists who are even familiar with these people. For the vast majority of feminists, you're not on their rad…
/r/MensRights19/10/13 06:30 PM
-1

Most feminsits don't know the MRM exists, let alone 'tend to tell lies about men and mens movements'. It is imagined persecution you describe, which is a big part of the reason that the MRM is not only failing to get traction in the real world, but also why Paul Elam is about to be made a fool on national television. This could be the last nail in the coffin of the whole show. The prescription for the 'movement' at this point should be introspection. When people check out this sub and larger MRM…
/r/MensRights19/10/13 03:56 PM
1

The movement could take this opportunity to drum the misogynists, anti-feminists, and general morons out. Could.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 02:38 PM
1

I cannot wait until you actually hear from a gender studies professor.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 02:55 AM
3

Thankhankhanks. sorry, couldn't resist
/r/MensRights06/10/13 12:53 AM
4

Funny how that thread has such an overabundance of up and downvotes, plus suddenly people are posting on /r/Calgary who have never posted on the sub before. I think it was Thales that said "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." I'm guessing you don't like it when and if /r/mensrights gets hit with a downvote brigade, so maybe think about that when someone like OP links to another sub.
/r/MensRights05/10/13 10:46 PM
-3

They did seem to glaze over at least one pertinent fact.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 11:15 PM
0

This is a discussion, not a competition. Attempting cheap debate points instead of getting at the truth suggests to me that you're not discussing this in good faith. In the studies you referenced, how was power quantified?
/r/TheRedPill28/07/13 08:28 PM
1

The evidence for patriarchy goes well beyond CEOs and politicians. If you're in these classes now, I strongly recommend you ask your teacher or professor about both the evidence for patriarchy, and how the theory of patriarchy has been consistently demonstrated to be predictive. Never mind the fact that studies have shown women hold 70% of the power in the average marriage, it's still a patriarchy where women are seen as lesser thans. How is power quantified in this statistic?
/r/TheRedPill28/07/13 05:51 PM
0

The term has evolved throughout the years as more and more pieces of the original theory have been rendered obviously false by close study. Granted, patriarchy is not a universal term, which means it becomes less useful when discussing intersectionality, for example, but patriarchy itself is not any more falsifiable than any other social phenomenon we have literally millenia of data on. For larger studies of social stratification, newer terms like kyriarchy might be better, as they span the enti…
/r/TheRedPill28/07/13 05:48 PM
-2

I think what's most important to recognize in all of this is that Tobian Wiebe has absolutely no idea what patriarchy means. The idea that patriarchy suggests in any way conscious intent, especially on a gender-wide level, betrays an ignorance that would make even the greenest sociologists roll their eyes. Patriarchy, the concept studied in sociology and psychology, has absolutely nothing to do with conscious behavior, let alone 'cartel' behavior. Patriarchy, like matriarchy and other gender rel…
/r/TheRedPill28/07/13 02:25 AM
1

Anything yet, Babill?
/r/MensRights25/07/13 10:22 PM
2

Upvote brigades aren't the same things as downvote brigades.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:42 PM
12

Every sub has people that brigade. Do you think /r/fishing has a big brigade that leads to people getting -1100 comment karma in a few hours because somewhere else on Reddit someone gives the wrong way to catch a trout? Or perhaps /r/asksciencefiction goes around dealing out downvotes by the hundred because people make a mistake in speculative fiction? Maybe /r/Anime goes hunting for people who have a problem with Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood! No, every sub does not brigade. It's generally o…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 05:00 AM
1

what's wrong with that if there is no master plan? A mob is a mob regardless of whether or not it sets out to be one. The point is that when a post or submission on Reddit is posted to this subreddit and it suddenly gets a ton of downvotes, that's a brigade. This is a relatively large, highly active subreddit of people who feel very strongly about something, so sicking them on an opinion that wouldn't be welcome here even though what was posted was posted elsewhere isn't as simple as people voti…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 01:07 AM
0

I'm not talking about things like that though. I'm talking about things like your Warren Farrell AMA example, which you labelled a "famous brigade". That wasn't linked because people wanted to grab their pitchforks, it was linked because it's a high-profile MRA doing an AMA - just about as relevant to this subreddit as you can possibly get. I'll tell you what, I'll grant you that the Warren Farrell AMA may not be an example of a brigade per se. It was more infamous because of the bizarre numbers…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 12:15 AM
0

When I said organized I didn't mean that someone said "hey, let's all go downvote this". When someone links to something the community obviously won't agree with so that community grabs its pitchforks and head over, that's clearly a brigade. What surprises me is that this subreddit has been victim to this from time to time. Communities like SRS jump over from time to time, after having linked to a comment they don't like, and end up downvoting the shit out of that comment. This results in a wild…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 11:55 PM
-1

The votes are a side-effect, not the purpose of linking. The purpose of linking can ostensibly be anything, but if linking to another part of Reddit leads to sudden, massive downvotes it's a brigade. Brigading doesn't mean it's only a brigade.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 11:29 PM
-2

It's not unthinkable that 1,000 of them wouldn't independently decide to downvote an inflammatory and completely false troll post. What's unthinkable is that a highly uncharacteristic, fast, and large amount of downvotes to a post otherwise not getting any attention coincides exactly with that being posted on /r/mensrights and almost immediately going to the front page, and that this happens over and over and over again when a link to another part of Reddit hits the frontpage of /r/mensrights (a…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 09:07 PM
4

A sudden, large amount of downvotes would be the distinction.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 09:02 PM
3

Okay, so in fact you've got nothing but an empty allegation, no better than gossip. [Edit: speaking of brigading...] Wait, so you get downvoted right after you submit, and that's evidence of brigading, but suddenly having 1000 downvotes on a submission to /r/bestof from /r/toronto after it was linked on the frontpage of /r/mensrights isn't? Your troll-fu is weak.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 08:57 PM
2

Usually what you'll see with a brigade is a submission elsewhere linking to your post or submission, and along with that a lot of accompanying downvotes within a short time. With the Red Pill sub, it's more a constant presence of people who have an opposing view. They're not organized, they're not coming from another submission, they're just an ever present dissident sub-movement. TOR has talked about this a bit before.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 08:43 PM
7

Oh thank goodness. Yeah, no one should get a free pass on brigading.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 08:33 PM
19

Oh, no, it's not alleged. Alleged suggests it's just an accusation without having been investigated and found to be true. This was the recent example that sprang to mind: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1fi5vt/male_feminist_invades_a_rbestof_post_about/ Before that was posted on /r/mensrights, it had a few votes up and down. Immediately after it was posted, it was frontpaged on /r/mensrights and was inundated with so many downvotes that /r/subredditdrama jumped on board. This is unqu…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 08:32 PM
20

It's impossible to know who's doing the voting. Know for sure? Yes, that'd be impossible without access to admin data. However, when a post on the front page of /r/mensrights leading to another thread/sub coincides exactly with a massive, sudden shift in what's being downvoted, it doesn't take admin privileges to know what's going on.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 08:29 PM
72

You want to sink to SRS's level? Are you serious?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 08:27 PM
14

proof? Last month there was this which led to massive brigading on /r/news, there was the now famous brigade for the Warren Farrell AMA, but the one on /r/bestof I'm thinking of is this one, which I believe caught the attention of the /r/bestof moderators. This sub has a reputation for being really quick to brigade, in fact the /r/mensrights mods even had to add a note to the rules about not brigading (though, it's not a rule banning it, just restricting it to larger subreddits, which is worriso…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 08:27 PM
20

Great, let us know when they get back to you.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:59 PM
249

/r/mensrights has been caught vote brigading on /r/bestof before. I don't know for sure, but that kind of thing has gotten the sub into trouble before.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:52 PM
52

So just to be clear, you're not going to actually ask the moderators of /r/bestof why this policy is in place? All you're going to do is feel sick about it here? AeneaLamia is right, babill. You should ask why this is going on in case your assumptions about double-standards are incorrect.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:51 PM
2

You'd like to know what the reaction would be to a project intended to tell women how to think and act organized by people with a men's rights worldview? I'd imagine the reaction would be laughter. Not a light chuckle either, but the kind of belly laugh that usually only babies have; infectious laughter.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:17 PM
0

I don't think this is a new policy, I remember reading something about this a while back. IIRC, it's because of vote brigading.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:12 PM
1

It can be, as can male, depending on context. Female and male refer to gender only and not species, and if you say "men and females" or "women and males", you're comparing one gender of our species with another gender of indeterminate species, which I think you can understand, if intentional, is insulting. It's a common example of dog-whistle sexism, and has been around for many years.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 10:12 PM
0

/r/Adviceanimals is that way ->
/r/MensRights21/07/13 10:09 PM
1

As a man in America, I face no hurdles in getting healthcare for all of my reproductive needs; there are no states that are closing down clinics that perform vasectomies or ultrasounds to find testicular cancer and I can get contraception from a corner drugstore or free at local health centers without having to worry about being over 18 or getting parental permission. Women's healthcare, however, is still severely curtailed in this country both by private institutions and public laws. Reproducti…
/r/MensRights21/07/13 10:08 PM
6

One should bear in mind that the Men's Rights Movement is not of one mind on all issues. I believe the vast majority, however, would disagree with the suggestion that women aren't as intelligent as men. That's clearly misogynistic, and that should be something the MRM rejects outright, as it damages the legitimate purposes of the movement. It's really hard to speak out against things like inhuman conditions men deal with every day in prison or the marginalization of men who are victims of domest…
/r/MensRights21/07/13 09:55 PM
2

Not to shatter your ego, but I'm not here for you. I was posting for OP, who's heart was in the right place, but perhaps didn't understand what he or she was getting into, something you're still doing a terrific job demonstrating. Feel free to go on.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 01:36 AM
1

That's a very good point.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 01:16 AM
0

You already seem to have a list of problems in the MRM. My list is not always the same as the lists of other people. Your post suggested thoughtfulness, so I was curious as to your perspective.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 12:56 AM
2

Do you find it just the least bit interesting, No. Your entire post goes on to do a better job of showing how the MRM doesn't understand feminism than I could ever hope to.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 12:54 AM
5

Empowerment does not automatically mean empowerment over another, it could be empowerment to rise up to equal power. That's clearly the intent of this statement. Let's find inequality where it really is, not read it into places where it is not.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 11:36 PM
1

The extreme side of this community tends to lean towards misogyny in the same way that the extreme side of feminism (not true feminism, mind you -there seems to be controversy with this statement. I was under the assumption that feminism is the equality of men and women, but many seem to disagree-) unfortunately leans towards misandry. Asking MRAs to define feminism is like asking Republicans to define Democrat. Your heart is in the right place, LO, but you're not the first to try the "can't we …
/r/MensRights20/07/13 11:35 PM
0

What are the undesirable parts of the MRM, and what steps are being taken to deal with them? What education or information are they missing? Or, if they're unwilling to change, how are they marginalized?
/r/MensRights20/07/13 11:29 PM
5

What you should bear in mind is some of both of those numbers represent people who don't necessarily identify with each group. As someone who was on /r/feminism for a few years, I know a lot of active members there are MRAs and/or anti-feminists. The same is certainly true of /r/mensrights. Some people subscribe to watch drama, some for fun, some because they saw one article once. Additionally, there have been fractures from both subs, resulting in subs like /r/feminisms and /r/egalitarianism.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 11:20 PM
1

For the most part I agree, unless it's overwhelmingly obvious. I am not clear on how obvious it actually is in this case though. Like GWW's YT says she's in Canada links to her blog which here says she's 42, divorced, 3 kids so it wouldn't be sleuthing to say that info would it? I share information about myself in discussions on Reddit all the time, when they are pertinent to the discussion. I might mention, for example, I'm a man in a discussion about male DV. I might mention I'm straight befor…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:25 PM
1

There is no mystery. If it wasn't a mystery, you would have shared your evidence. Show me the evidence or, whether you like it or not, it remains either hidden or nonexistent. I don't have to pretend anything, you're intentionally obfuscating. Show me your evidence, or admit you're a liar.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 05:17 PM
1

There is no mystery evidence. There is years of exposure by the smarter people in the atheist movement. If it's not a mystery, show me. If not, the mystery continues.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 05:06 PM
1

Well established where? By whom? And, most importantly, what evidence did they use to establish this? Around and around we go, and we won't stop until you actually give in and show me your mystery evidence that everyone knows about, but somehow you're incapable of sharing.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 04:59 PM
1

You keep throwing out these accusations, but the only intellectual dishonesty going on here is yours. You have insisted over and over that the evidence to back up your claim is well established and numerous, but when I ask you to post any of it, you sidestep. You call me names, you keep insisting there's a ton of evidence, you insult me some more. If there wasn't any dispute over the evidence, you wouldn't be afraid to show it to me. Show me the evidence or keep playing this game.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 04:53 PM
1

LOL, so you actually post a google search. This is really pitiful, man. A google search is not evidence, in fact it's astounding to me that you'd put this much work into replying to all of my posts, but actually finding a shred of what you seem to think is a mountain of evidence is apparently beyond you. Show me actual evidence.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 04:43 PM
1

I love your tactic, even though there are three years of blogger and vloggers exposing these people are the bullies and professional victims that there are, you are acting as if there is no evidence. If there were evidence, you would have posted it the thousand times I've asked. Either you're hoarding secret evidence, or you know it won't hold up to scrutiny. My guess is it's the latter.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 04:35 PM
1

I love this tactic; you make an assertion and when you're asked to back it up, you demand that the people questioning your evidence go find it themselves. If there were years of people making blogs and videos which supported your assertion, you could have found them yourself and posted them by now. No, you're just hoping that I'll stop poking your bubble.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 04:28 PM
2

Okay fair enough. I'm not hugely clear on this - but did Vacula link to her full address (Street name, etc.) or general address (like, [City], [State])? I very foolishly didn't bookmark this when it happened, and last I checked it was removed, deleted, or otherwise isn't reachable. I welcome corrections, however. Sure thing - I would personally say that openly hostile or not, his motives in whether he was trying to dox her maliciously are still fairly questionable. That said, it's not like he wa…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 02:47 AM
1

And, again, not a shred of evidence. Assertions, generalities, accusations, par for the Sigil1 course.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 02:22 AM
2

Okay so your definition of doxxing is linking a person's online persona to their real persona. It's a little more than that. It's doing so without her permission and by doing at least a little looking first. If private information shows up on the first page of a google search associated with the username, for example, it's not hidden and there shouldn't be a presumption of privacy. Now I found Surly Amy's real name and general location pretty quick First, did you find her real information by sea…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 02:21 AM
1

This is a person that is best known for false claims relating to rape in an elevator. At least you've made a reference I'm familiar with. You've unsurprisingly misunderstood the elevator situation completely. Watson was attending an atheist conference and, afterward, got on an elevator. A man she'd not spoken to, broke off from friends, got on the elevator with her, and said, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. Would you like to come back to my hotel room for coffee?…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 01:19 AM
1

Oh, that's not really what I mean. What I mean is that while some knew who she really was, it wasn't widely known. Think of it this way: Some people on Reddit know who I am irl. Either I've introduced them to Reddit, we've had conversations about Reddit, or people know me from my forum days when I also went by Willravel. Still, the vast majority of Redditors don't know who I am irl, and it would take active sleuthing to figure it out. I don't go around saying "I'm insert real name here" from my …
/r/MensRights30/04/13 12:54 AM
1

Can you expand on this? I'm familiar with the film reference, but I don't understand how it applies.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 12:38 AM
1

Is it that you don't understand what evidence is? Or are you deliberately trolling to just drag this out? I've been asking for evidence for hours and hours and the most you've done is elude to some vague evidence you seem incapable of sharing with me. You clearly made your assertions without actually having the facts to back them up, otherwise you would have shared them specifically by now. Feel free to reply if you have a evidence which specifically backs up this post: Evidence presented by a p…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 12:37 AM
1

Link to specific evidence on Grey Lining to back up your assertion?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:46 PM
1

I've been asking for one shred of evidence for hours so you can actually support your assertion. You've presented jack shit, and I'm dishonest? Cute.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:44 PM
1

It's amazing how they're so well known for this, and yet when I ask you why it is they're well known for this, you can't cite any evidence. Around and around and around we go; is there evidence? You clearly don't know.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:40 PM
1

You've not demonstrated it's a false accusation yet, so don't put your cart before your horse.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:34 PM
1

The fact that the baboons falsely accused the man of doxxing someone Not fact, assertion. Prove it with evidence.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:32 PM
1

What evidence are you accusing me of ignoring?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:28 PM
1

The false accusation of doxxing was sorted hours ago, Sorted where? By what evidence was it sorted?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:20 PM
1

Yes, you keep asking for evidence, while ignoring evidence you have been given. Oh no you don't. You don't get to pretend that this entire time I've been demanding evidence you did and I somehow missed it. That's bullshit and you know it. If you think you've posted evidence (you haven't), show me where.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:16 PM
0

No, what you're calling facts are actually assertions. Assertions are only worth the evidence they're built on. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as the great Christopher Hitchens once said. You can assert until you're blue in the face, but unless you can back up those assertions, they're meaningless. That's why I keep asking for evidence.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:11 PM
0

You say he's not guilty. Super. Saying he's not guilty isn't evidence of anything, it's an opinion divorced from fact. What are the facts?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:06 PM
-4

I replied to what you posted. If you wanted me to reply to something different, you should have posted something different.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:04 PM
0

They are falsely accusing Justin of harassment, and threatening him with reporting him to an authority. They were false accusations if he's guilty. This is why I, again, ask for actual evidence.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:04 PM
0

I don't believe you watched the video. I don't believe you have any evidence to back up your original assertion. Here is a blog entry about false accusations and the threat of reporting false accusations to an authority. There's no evidence of false accusations in that article, which I've already obviously read as it's the article for which this comment section exists. I can't help but find your desperation at this point entertaining. Let me know when you're ready to admit you pulled those accus…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 10:00 PM
-2

You continue to not address any of the evidence, What evidence? All you've said about the evidence so far is that it's "laughable" and then you said you're not even able to find it. If you're not familiar with the case, go research it. Considering that she (apparently) used a DMCA takedown request to censor his blog post, I think #1, #3, and #4 are entirely justified and completely expected. Finally, some specifics. Why was the DMCA takedown request sent, specifically? He made a mean twitter com…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:56 PM
0

Like I said, I watched the video and it doesn't provide evidence to back up your assertion. We started to get somewhere for a second, where you were talking about a specific instance, but then when I asked you to demonstrate it was a lie, you clammed up again.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:53 PM
-1

Posting on /r/mensrights doesn't mean one has to not like skepchick.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:46 PM
0

No, Im not going to go trawling though that ancient history. "I have evidence" "Show me" "No, it's old" Quite the artful dodge.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:45 PM
0

Ah, now we're at least headed in the right direction. Please provide a link to evidence that the rape threat was proved false. After we're through that, we'll go on to the more complicated issue of doxxing.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:41 PM
0

Great, so give me examples which directly support your assertion.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:33 PM
0

It is, it demonstrates how that group create their threat narratives. It doesn't provide evidence to back up your specific claim.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:20 PM
-2

I spent the largest paragraph talking about her "evidence" which is entirely lacking. That's not what the paragraph read. You said "the evidence is laughable", then immediately went on to say that you're not familiar with the evidence. Let's not pretend you posted something you didn't. And let's also not pretend I fell into a trap by calling you out on your fallacy. The fallacy was made, you made it, I called you out. That doesn't damage my credibility, but it does suggest yours is thinner than …
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:19 PM
-2

Oh I'm not suggesting they're mutually exclusive. I'm just saying they're not mutually inclusive. Then we agree. That is debatable if she voluntarily made them no longer separate. The genie can't be put back into the bottle as it were. Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see that she really took down the wall between the persona and the person. I get it if you're saying she didn't work hard to keep her anonymity, but that's not the same as actively not having any separation between username and us…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:15 PM
-1

It's not evidence to back up your assertion, and I did watch it which is why I'm able to say that it's not evidence to back up your assertion.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 09:14 PM
-1

RW etc have been exposed for what they are over and over and over. It's been exposed over and over and over, and yet you can't cite a single example of this. Still full of shit.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:59 PM
-4

Did you really just cite Rebecca Watson as evidence in /MR? Spoilers: not everyone who posts on /r/mensrights is anti-feminist. Overall a shitty argument from a shitty person (Rebecca Watson). Sorry, someone beat you to an ad hom. I don't think anyone has tried an appeal to false authority yet, so you're welcome to that one.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:57 PM
1

Not, but let's not act as if they're necessarily mutually exclusive, either. The point is that we're talking about linking a real name with an online username without the permission of said person. In this instance, it was done by someone with a history of what I consider to be bullying, and was done in a way so as to bring attention not to what she posts, but who she is in real life. Maybe she didn't work hard at keeping the two identities separate, but that doesn't mean she looses the right to…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:55 PM
3

Are basically you sending an anti-professor brigade your professor's page in this hypothetical? Have you been harassing this professor on Twitter? Intent has to play a role in what we consider doxxing.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:49 PM
-1

It's so overdone... you can't name even a single example. Here's my theory: you know I am just waiting for you to post an example because I know it's bullshit and I'll easily pick it apart in a few sentences. Prove me wrong, post evidence.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:38 PM
-1

You're trying to change the subject. Evidence presented by a pathological false accuser that doesn't really amount to anything? Provide evidence to back this up. What evidence of false accusations? Edit: Holy shit, did you actually lose your grip of the topic of discussion?! Did you deflect and troll so hard, you lost track of your unsupported accusation?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:31 PM
-1

Show me evidence to back up your original assertion. I'll ignore your attempts to try and change the conversation.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:30 PM
-1

I'm not from a+, I'm from Reddit. You're just another MRA troll who hates reality and thinks accusations are the same as evidence. They're not. Show me the evidence.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:26 PM
-1

And you have got it many times. Show me the evidence, not just some vague "oh, well, you did it up there". Prove it. Back up your claims.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:25 PM
-1

Sources unlinked and unnamed by you. You presented the case, and you think it's my job to back up your assertions by finding evidence to support you? How lazy are you?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:21 PM
-1

I'm still asking for evidence.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:20 PM
-1

You're still sidestepping. Show me the evidence or continue demonstrating you have none.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:15 PM
-1

Evidence of dishonesty.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:15 PM
2

Thank you for posting in a respectful manner, seriously. I'm not here to troll. I can understand this if the person is making an effort to divide these. If someone slipped their name or personal detail and wants to change their mind about that, we should protect them... I think it goes beyond that, though. We shouldn't make this by degrees of sleuthing, it should be determined by the sleuthing itself. It should be up to the individual with the screen name and real identity to link them, not some…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 08:14 PM
-1

Yes. Evidence that they've lied, not accusation, not fallacy. No one gives a shit about "an internet joke".
/r/MensRights29/04/13 07:29 PM
-1

Argumentum ad populum, kiddo. Even if "everyone" knew that they manufacture drama, that wouldn't make it true. That's why we stick to evidence when lobbing accusations around, to ad credibility to said accusations. Without evidence your accusations have zero credibility. That's why, for the 14th or so time, I'm asking for evidence. Evidence. Evidence.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 07:26 PM
3

And on and on we go. Everyone can see I'm part of everyone, I don't see it. I again ask for evidence instead of a weak argumentum ad populum. It's really fun to have you keep implying I'm stupid while you're unable to present even the most basic case to back up your point, though, so please keep that up.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 07:18 PM
0

All the observer know that wasn't a dox and slyme pit isn't a hate site and there was no malicious intention. Ah, so I reply with a summarizing of your weak and petty attempts to get me to stop replying, and you cleverly retort with a post which is a grammatical car crash, hoping that I won't understand what you're saying and reply to something I read into your post. Well, calling yourself "all the observer" is incorrect. If you mean to say everyone who reads the site, you're going to have to ba…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 07:10 PM
0

It is long established that it self evident. Now it's clear you're just talking out of your ass. It's not 'self-evident'. In a debate when one side takes one side and the other takes the other, the point of contention is never self-evident precisely because it's contended. If you could have made your case, you would have at least attempted to back up your claim. Instead, you've called me names and done everything possible but actually back up your accusation. You're still calling me names. I sho…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:51 PM
0

The evidence is self evident. Now you're contradicting yourself. You just got finished saying it was long established. If you can't show me that, you've admitted that you made that up.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:42 PM
1

Its been long established that those accusations are false. Long established where? By whom? What was the evidence used to establish this? Do you see how you're still ducking my very, very simple request for evidence? Show me the evidence.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:40 PM
-1

It is demonstrated on this thread that you made these false accusations. Your own words, you imbecile. No, you've accused me of making false accusations. An accusation is not the same thing as evidence. I'm asking for evidence to back up your accusation.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:35 PM
-2

You falsely accused a man of doxxing someone on hate site. Never demonstrated. There was no doxxing, there was no hate site, there was no malicious motive. Never demonstrated. You athiemplus people are known only for false accusations and threat narratives, you achieve nothing else. Never demonstrated. I await actual evidence.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:32 PM
-2

The you characterized it as "doxxing" you are a false accuser, I kinda feel like you should read your posts before hitting "save", but you're not since you're upset. Do you need a minute? You never actually engaged me in a conversation about what constitutes doxxing, so we haven't actually hashed that out yet. Say what you will about femdelusion, but he or she at least engaged me like an adult when it became obvious we define doxxing differently. Unlike femdelusion, you decided that an honest de…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:28 PM
0

Calling for evidence isn't lying. False accusations are, you false accuser, you.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:21 PM
-1

You have no evidence, you're an empty accuser. Add that to being falsely accusing of being a false accuser, and you're now a full four times as bad as a false accuser.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:19 PM
-1

Here's a film about how to make an axe: The Birth of a Tool. There, now neither of the videos we've posted are evidence to back up your claim. I can do this all day, sport.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:18 PM
-3

You're falsely accusing me of being a false accuser, which, if my math is right, is twice as bad as being a false accuser. Either show me evidence, or keep entertaining people with empty replies.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:16 PM
-3

No, Im not calling calling someone a liar because I don't like what they say. If you had objective, verifiable evidence she was a liar, you'd have posted it by now. This is just you trying to vaguely accuse without getting into specifics because you have nothing to back it up. I wish I could say this is the first time you've done this, but you do it all the time. It's been proven over and over again that you do this. You tell lies about and manufacture dishonest narratives against people that sa…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:12 PM
-4

No he didn't you false accuser. What do you call someone who's falsely accused you of being a false accuser? Nothing, because they're acting like they're 12.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:10 PM
2

Define 'doxxing'. I'm glad you asked. Doxxing is the malicious sharing of private information to link an online persona with a real life person. Does it include simply linking to a site where someone has put up their own address voluntarily? I would say this is a pretty clear 'no'. You'd probably be less clear if some asshole did that to you. Do you have any private information about yourself available online? I certainly do. My name, my city, and my business are all online. None of them, howeve…
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:09 PM
-4

"merely" doxxing is still doxxing. He intended to spread her personal information to people for the purposes of allowing internet trolls to become trolls in her real life, and that's what happened. He himself even considered it doxxing. Funny how it's never doxxing with you if the victims are feminists, there's always some loophole you're jumping to share with the rest of the class.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:04 PM
0

It's calling someone you don't like a liar because you don't like what they say, and suggesting that because they fit your ironically dishonest label of liar, you can conveniently ignore whatever she says. That's a bit part of why ad homs are such a poor way to go about arguing/discussing, because they allow you to introduce your own mistakes and biases instead of addressing the facts at hand.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 06:03 PM
-6

Doxxing apologism? That's your defense?
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:27 PM
5

That's called ad hom.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:24 PM
13

No false accusations I can see, evidence here. Vacula is just fuming since his bad behavior has consequences.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:50 PM
1

I didn't say field, I said different uses. And, in any event, one using the fact that more men are in power to demonstrate that more men are in power doesn't take a PhD student to figure out.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 06:21 PM
1

Thats totally insane. Great opening there, sport. but you cannot prove by showing anything by merely showing a few examples or many examples. Proof is like the word theory, it means different things in different uses. When I use it, I mean to say that I've demonstrated my point to a high enough degree it should be accepted. Like water on the floor and a glass next to it is proof someone spilled their water.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 02:28 AM
1

While we're nitpicking, I'll point out that I never mentioned you. Fair enough, but certainly I'm the one on this side of the debate here. I'm not every feminist any more than you're every MRA, and I think it would be best if I didn't try to justify the position of every feminist, just this one. My basic argument in this thread was that this one video isn't sufficient to demonstrate that male privilege doesn't exist, and then that went off on the tangent of the apex fallacy and a question of how…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 01:10 AM
1

The fact that the people in power are male does not mean males have all the power and want to put females in their place. I never said men have all the power, nor did I say, suggest, or imply anything about motivation. The question of motive comes after basic facts and definitions are understood, and we're not there yet. I've been careful to use words like "most" or "majority", as that's what I mean to say. Patriarchy doesn't require that all power be with men, just more.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:09 AM
1

You realize that a fallacy is a fallacy because of its logical invalidity, not the credentials of the people who point them out? You realize that people who have education and experience with something are likely to have a better grasp of a concept, right? No fallacy there, just the nature of expertise.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:07 AM
1

Considering you've not responded to what I'm actually posting, I'm not surprised that what you think I'm posting isn't surprising you. You're ignoring what I post instead assuming you know what I'm posting. It's fascinating to see from the outside.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:06 AM
1

Then we're operating on different definitions. I've come across MRAs using the term apex fallacy as a way to counter that men hold a majority of leadership positions as evidence of patriarchy. Next time I see that, should I point them your way? Maybe there needs to be a discussion about what "apex fallacy" means so everyone can be on the same page. In any event, I don't think you're guilty of things that, say, Paul Elam says by simple virtue of being an MRA, however it's difficult to ignore that…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:27 PM
0

This is the level of discourse I'll expect of you in the future. Thanks for the warning.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:17 PM
1

This is correct. However when you use it to speak on the power of the individual man, as is frequently done, you commit the compositional fallacy, as the power of some men does not translate to every individual man. It's a bit more complicated than this, though. Patriarchy is a sociological (and political) concept, and like any sociological concept it has to do with general trends based on specific data. Generally, the United States government is patriarchal by virtue of the fact that it's major…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:16 PM
1

You're not familiar with the association fallacy?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:03 PM
1

As I just posted: When it's pointed out be feminists, or really anyone because it's an almost universally recognized truth, that men hold the vast majority of leadership roles in a given society, the argument that's being made is this is, among many other things, this is evidence of patriarchy or at least patriarchal leanings. The reasoning is solid, because it's built into the definition of patriarchy. Patriarchy literally means a society or government in which men hold more power. It's not a f…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 08:57 PM
1

Apex fallacy is a specific example of hasty generalization, That's not how it's used. How do you define the apex fallacy?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 08:49 PM
0

The problem with your assertion is that... what if I encounter an academic who believes in "Apex Fallacy" Then you have them explain it to you and we can have a discussion based on their definition. "Fallacy" actually means something, a logical mistake (be it formal or informal), which can be demonstrated. Since new fallacies are rare, most modern fallacies can be linked back to older fallacies. Godwin's law, for example, is actually an association fallacy. This is how feminists defend the theor…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 07:03 PM
1

Also for the record, are you saying that what the Apex Fallacy describes is fake and illogical ? The most common use of the term describes the supposed disconnect between leadership positions being overwhelmingly held by men and patriarchy or male power over women in general. The problem with this supposed fallacy is that it doesn't actually point out a logical mistake, it simply restates an oversimplified version of a feminist argument with "doesn't" instead of "does". No fallacy is actually de…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:59 PM
-1

They're not all of society, nor do you know why they're reacting like that is my point, which you've danced around like everyone else. Trying to use one video as evidence a society-wide concept doesn't exist is making the mistake of far, far too small a sample size. That's why I brought up other forms of privilege to test your theory. If a black man beats on a white man, there's no such thing as white privilege anymore? Yes or no. If a gay guy beats up a straight guy, straight privilege is offic…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:55 PM
1

Any classes or fields which use logical fallacies. I'm suggesting you speak to people who know what fallacy means, instead of, say, googling it (as another poster just suggested was sufficient evidence that apex fallacy is an actual fallacy).
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:26 PM
-2

So if it's socially acceptable to beat black men, does that say something about their lack of privilege? Or if it's socially acceptable to beat a gay guy, does that say something about their lack of privilege? Or if it's socially acceptable to beat a transgender person, does that say something about their lack of privilege? That's not what I posted and you know it. Do you acknowledge that straight privilege exists? If so, would one gay man beating up one straight mean mean that was over? Because…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:19 PM
-1

Googling something doesn't mean it's valid, genius. The word "fallacy" actually means something, and specific fallacies are demonstrated to actually be errors in reasoning for varying reasons. The "apex fallacy" is simply the fact that people who want to pretend sexism doesn't exist don't like the fact that most leadership roles are held by men thrown in their faces, so they pretend it doesn't matter.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:17 PM
-12

There are other messages, you just chose to pretend they're not there. In the video? Where specifically? would you think that the video was a representation of women's oppression if the one laying on the ground was a woman, the one kicking her in the head and genitals was a man, and the bystanders were acting in the exact same way they're doing in that video. No, because I'm not so stupid as to think one video proves something about all of society. And why is it no one seems capable of respondin…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:30 AM
-9

Apex fallacy is a made-up term. It doesn't exist in the fields which actually use the term "fallacy", it's a goofy internet nothing. Go ask your sophomore critical thinking professor if apex fallacy is a thing. Go ahead, I'll wait here.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:27 AM
-5

I know they don't care if a man gets stomped on. That's the best you can do? This cheap strawman? I was pointing out that the context was irrelevant. It is when you're taking one single incident to try and say something about the sociological reality of 9 billion people. I knew you'd continue ignoring my argument, so here it is again: Is that how it works? So if a black man beats on a white man, there's no such thing as white privilege anymore? Or if a gay guy beats up a straight guy, straight p…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:26 AM
-6

Your best explanation as to why men hold the vast majority of leadership positions across basically all fields is because women simply haven't earned them? No one's stepped up? You act as if women are sitting at home, expecting leadership to show up at their front door. That couldn't possibly be farther from the truth. As it's only fair, I'll be real with you: that's an identical argument to the one made by honest to goodness, self-described male supremacists. They insist that women simply aren'…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:24 AM
-13

He did. By posting a video and making a snide comment isn't an argument. I think OP felt that people would get the obvious message from the video. The message of the video is that a woman is beating up a man. That's it. There are no other messages. How privileged are they if nobody cares about their well being? You just posted this: no one out there has context. You don't know who cares for what in that video because of the lack of context. If looking at what gender makes up the majority of gove…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:36 AM
-20

Is that how it works? So if a black man beats on a white man, there's no such thing as white privilege anymore? Or if a gay guy beats up a straight guy, straight privilege is officially over? Or if a transgender person beats up a cis person, cis privilege is over? If you want to attack the concept of male privilege, go right ahead. At least make a coherent argument, though. This is simply a video of a woman beating up a man submitted without context. It neither provides proof for nor against any…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:00 AM
1

I know a few who could be infantry but the number is so scarce that it would be a waste of money and resources to accommodate an unusually low number of actual qualified individuals. No accommodations are necessary. Those who are qualified are tested, regardless of gender (or sexual orientation, or race, or any other thing which has no bearing on service). If a person passes it is because he or she is capable. Unless you were speaking of other accommodations, like separate bunks/heads/showers? I…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 02:49 AM
1

there aren't enough women WHO CAN become Marine Corps infantry. What do you mean 'enough'? You apply one physical standard for becoming a Marine, and anyone who meets that standard becomes a Marine. Some women can do it, some can't. Some men can do it, some can't.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 12:08 AM
2

Historically, however, Why does this matter? The video is about video games, which have only been around for the past 40 years. We're not talking about bands of hunter-gatherers on the Savannah hunting mastodon 250,000 years ago, we're talking about modern society in which the closest thing we get to hunting is going to Safeway because there's a sale on chicken. We've not been hunter gatherers now for some 12,000 years. Despite that, and you can verify this with your history professor, we've bee…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 03:18 PM
2

Agreed!
/r/MensRights08/03/13 06:01 AM
9

I wasn't trying to quote mine. I don't mean to suggest you were, only that looking at the context suggests a different meaning to "strength" which isn't physical. A physically strong person can be kidnapped and held, a physically strong person can be a coward, and a physically strong person can be dependent on others to save him or her. The video isn't about physical strength, but domination and submission, assertiveness and passiveness, etc. When the vast majority of the weaker, submitting char…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 05:46 AM
9

The full quote: The reality is this [damsel in distress] trope is being used in a real-world context, where backwards, sexist attitudes are already rampant. It's a sad fact that a large percentage of the world's population still clings to the deeply sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected, and taken care of by men. The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply-ingrained, socially-constructed myth, which, of course, is completely false. But th…
/r/MensRights08/03/13 04:57 AM
4

So genius If you want to talk to adults, you have to talk like an adult.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 02:27 AM
5

No, she closed comments because she doesnt want criticism. No, she closed comments because her last few comments sections have been full of rape and death threats.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 02:20 AM
-5

Reasonable criticism for something which didn't exist yet? Reasonable doesn't mean what you think it means.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 02:08 AM
20

You may have missed it, but her last few comments sections have been full of rape and death threats. And, really, it's a Youtube comment section. I don't think it'd be fair to expect high minded analysis of her video there.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 11:51 PM
37

I swear I read something recently where she said she would allow criticism and what not, and yet here she goes disabling comments. Criticism is cool, but the last few open comments sections of hers were full of rape and death threats, so disabling the Youtube comments makes sense. Criticism belongs in the media, on blogs, and places like Reddit. Also why doesn't she try to offer a solution or show examples of things she'd like to see more of in place of "damsel in distress", instead of just list…
/r/MensRights07/03/13 10:43 PM
1

Oh, I didn't think I was banned from /r/MensRights, the mods here are very consistent on free speech policies regarding dissent, for which they have my appreciation in that regard. I was just curious in general. As someone like yourself with very strong opinions which are not appreciated by everyone, I figure there's a possibility it could happen or might have happened, and I'd rather know so I don't waste my time posting stuff no one can even read.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 11:23 PM
1

Using a different browser works? Or is that just another way of being signed out?
/r/MensRights21/12/12 11:14 PM
1

Please read the text of the act. You are unfamiliar with it.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 05:10 PM
1

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 06:36 AM
3

Holy shit, this is a huge victory for human rights! Why isn't this at the top of the front page? Isn't a big part of the MRM stopping prison rape of men?
/r/MensRights08/12/12 12:01 AM
1

What's the best way to test and see if you've been shadowbanned?
/r/MensRights07/12/12 11:59 PM
2

Did you really just make the claim that gender studies don't prioritize women over men? Yes, but only because I was explaining that gender studies programs study social systems, a point people seem to be glossing over or ignoring. Patriarchy, as a concept, is not about men or blaming men., Patriarchy is about describing a system and its consequences. They used to be called women's studies, you fool. Do you know why it was called women's studies? Because it was the feminist movement that pushed f…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 07:27 PM
1

On the other hand, the elected representitive is supposed to do what is in the best interest of their electoral district. That doesn't preclude leadership, in fact I propose it's implied. Think of other leadership positions. A CEO acts in the best interest of his or her (more often his) stockholders first, and also for the consumers if they're a good CEO. A military commander has to consider what's best for the mission on a basic level, but what's good for his or her (more often his) troops in t…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 09:38 PM
1

Then I would hope you would be more clear that you're not suggesting that a masters in gender studies is necessary to form an opinion on it, because that seemed to be what you were suggesting. I'm not suggesting that a masters in gender studies is necessary to form an opinion about gender studies programs, however I will say that one should take at least one class before one thinks they know the first thing about said programs. That was my point. When the rules are arbitrary, it makes no sense t…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 04:14 PM
0

The "maybe even get your masters" thing was more about the value of education than anything else. The first part of that second quote, however, was what I was discussing in the first quote, so no, there was no misrepresentation. It is a bit funny that you responded to so little.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 03:53 PM
2

Having an opinion on gender studies programs does, in fact, require some experience with them. That's not absurd at all. Do you have any opinions on things you're not familiar with? I'm almost completely unfamiliar with quantum theory. Guess what? I have no opinion on string theory. I'm almost completely unfamiliar with French literature. Guess what? No opinion on French literature, either. I won't even pretend to know about ancient Mesopotamia, because I've never bothered studying it. A person'…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 05:23 AM
1

Originally posted response by actanonverb8 I completely don't trust anything you just wrote. Fortunately, social sciences programs can be found in every college and community college in the country, so you can actually verify or disprove what I've written by educating yourself. Unfortunately, your skepticism appears to be based on what you want to believe, though, and that's a significant personal hurdle for anyone who wants to seek the truth. Perhaps it's presumptuous of me to assume you seek t…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 12:57 AM
1

I need feminism because nowhere in the world should it be an act of bravery for a girl to go to school. Amen.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 05:46 PM
3

[In the social sciences] the primary concern centers around women, next children, and, farther on down the line, men's interests. I know of no social sciences program in the country for which this is an accurate description. Even gender studies classes are not conceptualized this way. The study of gender is not based on concentrating on a gender, but talking about systems. If you've taken a gender studies class, you know that the class is a sociology class which talks about tendencies in given p…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 05:42 PM
1

The problem is what women being a minority in leadership positions tells women and men about the importance of women in our society.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 04:00 PM
1

That would depend entirely on the individual women elected. I think it would send a really wonderful message to women, the same message that men get now, that if they want to serve their country by creating new laws that opportunity is open to them. That's a good thing. I'm under no illusions, many would be corrupt and incompetent--it's not as if women senators would fix all of the problems that exist in our legislative process--, but that's because both corruption and incompetence knows no gend…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 03:36 PM
1

Perhaps you don't remember Gore or Kerry cheating on their wives Do you know how I know these aren't gender-specific issues? Because when wives cheat on their husbands they are similarly maligned in the press. I'm talking about gender-specific attacks, here. BTW, it's not "everyone", because there are non-straight, non-cis, non-white, non-old, etc people who run and win. Yes, but they're in the minority. I think their running and winning demonstrates that it's not a lack of interest or will on t…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 09:16 PM
1

When you distill Patriarchy Theory down to its bare essence, it is in effect blaming all men collectively for every perceived problem in society, while ignoring female contributions to those problems. In no way is this even in the same galaxy as correct. If you're going to try and talk about something like this, coming to the table with a completely wrong idea about even the most basic theory means that there's never going to be a dialog. Take a gender studies class, they offer them for cheap at…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 03:59 AM
1

Why do you think that the composition of the senate compared to the overall population is a disconnect? It's due to several reasons, but one of those reasons is issues of sexism. Look at how the media went after Hillary Clinton when she ran for President in 2008. Conversations about her credentials were overshadowed by repeated coverage of what she was wearing, whether her voice was "nagging", whether she was crying or not, and insisting that the only reason she was the front-runner at the time …
/r/MensRights27/11/12 03:26 AM
1

I don't have to prove you wrong Give me a break. You're the one who presented your real beliefs as if they were a hypothetical, then you got all pissy when I called you on it. I asked you to back up your beliefs, now you're pretending you already did in some mystery post I somehow missed. I then brought up several feminist-directed policies that are gendered You brought up the VAWA, which features new protections for men against violence and sexual assault. Yeah, that's so sexist against men. An…
/r/MensRights27/11/12 03:15 AM
2

The entirety of your response is an ad hominem attack. You're literally asking how much research I personally have done in the first part, and in the second you speculate as to my experiences. Your entire post is an attempt to avoid actually demonstrating that I'm wrong. You're the one who decided to bring up the assertion that 'crazy radical feminists who hate men' are the ones being published As soon as I basically said anyone who says that doesn't know shit, you cry ad hom. Well guess what? Y…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 11:23 PM
2

My response would be "biased sample". They're not actually the ones being published, if you mean the vast majority of books and articles. How many issues of, say, Bitch magazine have you read? A dozen? A few years worth? All of them? How about feminist book club recommendation lists, how many of their email lists are you on? Or are you a part of an in-person group? No? How about your old gender studies textbooks, how many of them were written by the crazy radical feminists you describe? Maybe th…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 11:04 PM
2

Very quickly, I would like for you to respond to my question: Men's issues include the rights of gay men and non-white men, do they not? I consider gay rights and racial civil rights issues to overlap with men's issues. I've never seen that attitude reflected in the MRM, however, and I was wondering if you go with or against my experience on this. Do you also consider yourself an MRA too? Yes, but not in the same way most do. I consider myself an MRA in that if we lived in a matriarchal society …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:32 PM
1

Ok. Do you understand that many women are currently voting for men right now? Do you understand that many men are currently voting for women, too? I'm not saying women should vote for women and men should vote for men, I'm saying that if half the country is female, there's a disconnect between that statistic and the >20% representation in our legislative bodies. There must be reasons why 1/2 of the senate is not female. Why do you think that might be?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:27 PM
2

As a serious inquisition, what are your current beliefs regarding women and their rights in America? This is a big question, so I'm going to have to generalize a bit. Basically, feminism has taken a lot of hits but has won a lot of fights. Suffrage, equal education, women entering the workplace, women in combat, reproductive rights, etc. have all been massive victories for the cause of equality, but that many of those fights have been won does not mean 1) those fights are over or 2) there aren't…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:25 PM
2

If Feminism represents equality, what's it doing for men's rights, It's not that simple. It would be easy for me to turn that around and ask what, specifically, the MRM is doing for women, but a better way to look at it is this: feminism's main fight is with sexism. While many of their battles are against sexism directed at women, historically and presently a lot of feminist causes aren't just about women, but expand beyond sexism to wider issues of bigotry. A lot of feminism, for example, is ab…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:01 PM
0

Because half the population is female. I would expect the number in the house and senate to be close to he national average.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:29 PM
1

I just looked at the 2012 version of VAWA. Fantastic. Which part specifically is sexist (aside from the meaningless title, of course)?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:29 PM
1

This seems more an argument against centralized governance than feminism. That's an important debate to be had, but it might be better elsewhere. You should know that feminism, as a whole, is not particularly centralized. We do have organizations--many, in fact--but there's not just one big organization that speaks for all of us (like NOW or LoWV). And you're really conflating two very different things when you only separate feminism and the Democratic party with a slash like that. A ton of libe…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:28 PM
1

It doesn't matter what it is there for, It did for you a minute ago. Before I explained what the name really meant, you were huffing and puffing about it being sexist, now you're worried that other people will mistakenly think it's sexist. Here's what you should take away from the Violence Against Women Act: names of bills are meant to be openly manipulative and rarely fairly represent what's in them and often are so very misnamed that it's going to offend a lot of people. Leave No Child Behind …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:14 PM
0

I wouldn't presume to know. Some are, certainly, but I can't guess at what percent.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:09 PM
1

The title implies that only violence against women is important, That's not what it's there for, it's there to manipulate Senators and Congressmen into voting for it by making it a wedge issue. Do you have a link to back up your claims, or do you expect us to just take your word for it? I'm not making 'claims', I'm explaining to you how politics works.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:58 PM
0

My point is that feminists don't believe in the definition given. I'm a feminist and I believe in the definition given. I personally know at least a hundred other feminists, and they all agree with it. I think you're speaking for tens of millions of people based on some fairly anecdotal experiences. Perhaps some feminists don't agree with it, but I see no reason to think they're even a significant minority.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:56 PM
1

If men commit violence or not, is irrelevant to men being the main victim. I think you've missed the point. Playing oppression olympics is problematic because it can be used to ignore the suffering of the minority. If 1 in 5 victims of spousal abuse is a man (a figure I've made up for the purpose of illustration) that 1 in 5 is just as much in need of help as the 4 in 5. The problem, however, is when the numbers are used to make it seem like the suffering of one group is greater thus the other g…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:54 PM
1

If you're a feminist, you do not believe in equality. I'm a feminist and I believe in equality, so you're wrong.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:52 PM
0

On reddit or /r/mensrights? Both. There are some good feminist spaces on Reddit, but many are hidden after what happened to /r/Feminism. The understanding of feminism on Reddit is pretty skewed, as evidenced by other people posting replies to my post. I've been accused of hating men, as if that's the default position of feminism. I thought these myths died out during the Clinton administration. When people who call themselves feminists or feminist organizations attack MRM, males, and actively fi…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:51 PM
0

He didn't stop being a feminist, he just started talking about men's issues, too. Check out Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?, it's a fascinating book and I'm of the opinion that it demonstrates that he's still every bit the feminist he's always been, but you'll have to read it to decide for yourself.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:35 PM
1

It is not 'up to feminists' to determine what feminism is or who can be one. It is. You can no more define or grant admittance to feminism than a non-MRA can define the MRM or grand admittance.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:33 PM
1

Perhaps you could give me an example of feminist legislation that is lacking? It's apparent enough by the title what the aims of that act are. The title is made so that voting against it would seem like the politicians were anti-woman. They could be (and are being) attacked for not voting for it. It's politics, and more often than not it's played dirty.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:32 PM
1

Very often the titles of bills are designed to make the bills either hard to vote for or hard to vote against. The Patriot Act, for example, sounds like something people would want, even though it's mostly just a power grab and a series of restrictions on constitutionally protected rights (fairly un-patriotic, actually).
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:30 PM
1

I don't think people are saying that ALL feminists are anti-male. You'd have to ask people here if that's what they're saying. I've gotten that impression from more than a few responses, but I won't presume to speak for them. It's just that feminism is by nature pro-female as a priority. That by nature makes male interests a second priority. It is de-emphasized if it contradicts with a pro-female aim. Some feminism is that way, sure, but some includes men, too. It's not about giving men less of …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:29 PM
0

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism?q=feminism It's not as if I'm pulling this stuff from twixt my cheeks, this is simply what feminism means. It's a very broad term including all people which those definitions describe.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:27 PM
1

The modern MRM is only a few years old.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:25 PM
1

Will, can you define 'real feminism' here? http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism?q=feminism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism Seems like a 'no true Scotsman' situation when you affix 'real' like that. This is the opposite of a No True Scotsman. I'm arguing that feminism is more broad than OP seems to be suggesting, not more narrow.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:25 PM
1

No.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:23 PM
2

Surely, then, academia knows what women are about. Some of academia did, therefore saying that academia didn't know what women were about would be wrong because it would be discounting the women in academic positions.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:01 AM
1

Is that what you are implying? Not even slightly. My point was this: An example of a situation where females today have it worse than males do might be in leadership roles in government and business. While there have been great strides made over the last few decades, there are still challenges to women that want to be leaders that are either non-existent or less severe for men. Half of the population is female, therefore one would expect that roughly half of those elected to the Senate would be …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:00 AM
0

Custody hearings are a big part of family life. Specifically for families that split up and that don't handle custody privately. That's hardly something common to family existence. Yes, it's common, but it's not an essential part of the experience of being in a family or being a man. Yet you are saying that all the feminists, who have been preoccupied with gender issues over the past decades, have been completely ignorant about this fact? All? No, that's not what I wrote. Some. Some is less than…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:56 AM
2

Ah. That statement is also just not true by anyone's standards. It's true by my standards, and I'm not alone. Your standards are not the only standards.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:54 AM
2

Well it's hard not too, especially when you deal so much with the insane ones. Where do you go to interact with feminists one-on-one aside from here? Have you ever taken a gender-studies class or a club about gender issues? Posting on /r/MensRights alone doesn't seem to me to be a good sampling of what feminism is and isn't because it's mostly people who aren't feminists describing what they think feminism is. I wouldn't go to /r/Feminisms to find out what MRAs think the MRM is. And even if you …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:52 AM
2

The title doesn't matter in the slightest. They could call it the slaughtering puppies act of 2012. What matters is what's in the bill, and it includes new and expanded protections for men against violence and sexual assault. BTW, your article is referring to the bill from 2011. The re authorization I'm talking about is from 2012.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:52 AM
0

You haven't really argued against anything I said, Of course I did. You made it perfectly clear in your post that "feminist thinkers" have no idea what men are about. I'm a feminist thinker, I am a man, and I'm every bit as qualified as you might be to speak about what men are about. I tried to make this clear in my post, but maybe by not specifically putting "feminist" thinker it was unclear. And if you meant thinker more specifically, limited only to people who are published or are in the high…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:36 AM
-1

You're suggesting that custody hearings are part of the male experience. What percent of men go through having to fight for custody of their children? I'm a man and I never have. It's a part of some men's experience, certainly, but not a part of our collective experience.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:32 AM
1

I am of course referring to feminists saying females today have it worse than males do. I would disagree with them on that point, mainly because it's too simplistic a way to conceptualize the role of gender in society and social stratification. You'd have to break it down more, discuss specifics. An example of a situation where females today have it worse than males do might be in leadership roles in government and business. While there have been great strides made over the last few decades, the…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:24 AM
-2

If you're a true feminist, then you must buy into the despicable idea that men are collectively responsible for all the problems in society, including the so-called "Rape Culture". That's not what patriarchy in feminist theory proposes in the slightest. Patriarchy is about a system, something much bigger than individuals or even entire genders. It's about the social mechanisms themselves, specifically (basically) about social stratification based on gender. I can go into far greater detail if yo…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:18 AM
-3

Wow what a fucking idiotic hypothetical scenario to illustrate your point. If you'd like to have an adult conversation, you need to learn to communicate like an adult.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:04 AM
5

That statement is also just not true by anyone's standards. Way to not address anything in my post at all. Did you even read it?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:01 AM
2

No, I have seen that almost all feminist activism, What's this "almost all" business? Do you have a pie chart or something? No, you have anecdotal experience colored heavily by anti-feminist rants within subgroups of the MRM. Most feminist legislation are not just about women, but are more broadly about violence. Did you know the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act, the poster-child for "feminist legislation", improves legal protections for male victims of domestic and sexual violen…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 06:00 AM
1

Deflection. I was heading off your obvious strawman and attempt to derail the conversation. I understand what this man experiences, what this man thinks, what this man faces, and that's every bit as much as you or OP relative to what all men experience, think, and face. None of us has a monopoly on understanding what it is to be male any more than any other male. Arrogance, another typical feminist behavioral trait. Name calling seems a fairly common trait of you, personally, looking at your pos…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:53 AM
2

Calling yourself a member of a political or social group indicates that you support the main tenants and/or actions of the political or social group. The problem is that your understanding the main tenants and/or actions of the political or social group in this instance seem to be quite different than my direct experiences and broader understanding based on research. Perhaps (and I'm only guessing) you think of feminism of being misandrist? That in no way represents either my experience or my un…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:46 AM
2

This is statement is too vague That's the point exactly! Feminism is far more broad than the way OP presented it. It only seems vague when you're trying to fit all of feminism into one little box. For example, not all feminists think of equality the same way. Ask a room full of feminists how they feel about paternity leave, and you're going to get three or four positions represented. There's not just one specific version of feminist equality, as you suggest, but many. You can see the same thing …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:41 AM
-3

Because those two things are not the same thing. An illustration: Person 1: All men's rights activists are misogynist. Person 2: Well that's not true. Person 1: Of course they are. Person 2: Am I a misogynist? Person 1: No. Person 2: I am a men's rights activist, therefore your first statement is false. Person 1: You're right. Let's get married. Person 2: You're drunk.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:34 AM
0

You don't. Because there isn't a man that does. You shouldn't be responding to me, then, but to the same thing I responded to. OP argued that only men can understand what men are about, what men face, what men think, and what we feel as a collective. You clearly disagree, so go right ahead and post a response to OP if you feel so strongly. Wow, I didn't know feminists had so much influence over how MRAs are perceived. I never suggested I had any such influence. It's not my actions, but the actio…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:31 AM
1

You're speaking pretty broadly about feminists, as if we're all exactly the same. That has happened in several responses, speaking of all feminists with vague accusations. I was hoping for a bit of specificity. I'm a feminist, you say feminists ignore the female experience, I ask how it is I've done that. My guess is that you're speaking generally because you've seen that some feminists ignore male experience (what does that even mean?), and you assume that applies to all of us. That's a fairly …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:11 AM
-2

You're not really the person to make that determination, though. That's up to feminists, and they are just fine with men being feminists, just like most MRAs are just fine with women being MRAs. Or are you of the position the MRM is for men only?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 05:05 AM
2

Ignore what, specifically? You've clearly accused me of ignoring something here. What have I, Willravel, ignored?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:59 AM
7

If you are a "male feminist" then your party does not represent your gender. The problem is this right here. My party? Feminism is not an organization, not a unified party, not a single group. Feminism is advocacy for and belief in women's equality. Sometimes it brings along a ton of extra baggage, sometimes not. And just look at your post. What in there describes me? Us vs. them? I'm a feminist on /r/MensRights sharing my opinion, both when it agrees and when it disagrees with whatever consensu…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:56 AM
2

The problem is that you're going to get bogged down in that. One could easily respond: "Yes, but how much of that violence was perpetrated by men vs. women?" That number would end up looking skewed toward men for a complex list of reasons, but it would appear that men are simply more violent to the casual observer. That's why these things tend not to go well. Or one could go with the even easier "women are victims of domestic abuse more than men" argument. They'd have the stats, reliable or not,…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:21 AM
5

What about #1 in pressuring the courts to rule that equal treatment of parents in custody is a 14th Amendment issue? Or what about #1 in getting the UN to investigate sexual assault in US prisons? Or what about #1 in setting up new battered persons shelters?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:12 AM
0

You're beating SRS at doing what people hate SRS for doing. Super.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:08 AM
7

Consider who you're in competition with for that title.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:04 AM
-1

Oppression olympics, eh?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 03:00 AM
14

I'm a feminist and a man, and you presume to tell me that I don't know what men are about, what men face, what men think, and what we feel "as a collective"? Give me a break. There are a ton of male feminists, just like there are female MRAs. Every time you overgeneralize feminists, you undermine whatever you hope to achieve because you paint feminism as something it's not. You're fighting a specter, something that exists in your imagination, a feminism which has no men and no familiarity with w…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 02:58 AM
5

Please remember not to be a downvote brigade, folks.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 02:46 AM
2

Most of all, thank you for having a civil discussion with me on reddit, it is a rarity these days. Likewise.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 03:13 PM
2

here's your whole quote: Yeah, you should read it again. Without any context, this suggests bias, however upon further reading, the Affordable Healthcare Act isn't actually providing services for women's cancer screening and treatment that aren't available for men. The "that aren't available for men" part of the sentence is referring to all available services, not just services in the AHA. Anyway the ACA is a list of benefits and so to mention one thing 44 times and the other 0 shows a huge imba…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 05:37 AM
2

but to act like the bill treats men and women as equals is a joke Whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not what I said. I said this: the Affordable Healthcare Act isn't actually providing services for women's cancer screening and treatment that aren't available for men. I'm talking about all healthcare law in the US, not just the ACA. There are already laws on the books about both breast cancer and prostate cancer regarding medical coverage. Considering there are around 26,000 new cases of prostate cancer d…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 05:07 AM
-4

I'd suggest healthy skepticism regarding any publications from the American Enterprise Institute, regardless of the topic. They are a well known right-wing, neoliberal think tank with a history of fudging facts to fit ideology instead of gathering data and performing analysis in order to reach some objective truth. Their attacks on the IPCC alone should cause anyone to treat them with a skeptical eye. For example: The Affordable Care Act mentions “breast” 44 times, “prostate” not once. Without a…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 09:43 PM
1

That sentiment can be found nowhere in what I wrote, in the words and their meanings, which suggests to me that perhaps people are attempting to read into my post and in doing so are introducing their own biases. This is not meant as an accusation or to be confrontational, but rather it's a concern of mine that, perhaps, alternate viewpoints on this subreddit are often thought of in black and white terms. There's a "you're either with us or against us" mentality that crops up on the subreddit fr…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 02:21 PM
2

There's an alternate theory which could speak to their somewhat juvenile response: men can't get pregnant and bare young. We can father young, but we don't get pregnant and we don't give birth. A man will never have to carry his rapist's baby. This is not to say the rape is any less rape, with all of the associated badness and damage and hurt and pain, but regardless of your feelings about gender-related social issues, men and women are biologically different when it comes to reproduction. This …
/r/MensRights31/10/12 03:21 AM
1

What do you think about the practice of verification as a part of the AMA subreddit? Do you think that should happen here, too? I ask this because /r/mensrights has been targeted in the past by people who stretched the truth. It's happened often enough that it could be a problem. This is not an accusation, please understand, but rather my concern for the truth.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 03:16 AM
3

"anti-feminists" Most (or, at least, many) MRAs are self-described as anti-feminist. There's a link in the sidebar to an anti-feminist website. There are a ton of people in this very thread who describe themselves as anti-feminist. This shouldn't be controversial at all here, in fact it should be common knowledge that many MRAs are anti-feminist. If /r/Communism is pro-feminism (spoilers: it is), it's their prerogative to ban anti-feminists just the same as it would be /r/MensRights' perogative …
/r/MensRights31/10/12 03:14 AM
1

Did you become a nurse to meet a cute doctor?
/r/MensRights31/10/12 03:07 AM
1

If you feel yourself getting bitter- try taking a break. People who take this kind of advice are not the problem, it's the people who don't follow this advice that aren't just a problem here, but everywhere on the internet.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 02:32 AM
3

It's good that such things are against the rules and very rarely fall through the cracks, but what is problematic for keeping the face of the movement clean is how sometimes violence are upvoted quite a bit before they're reported and deleted. Do you remember this thread? You'll notice that the comments are now removed, but comments by several members recommended arson and murder and were upvoted. Fortunately, the mods were quick and pulled down the hateful, dangerous comments, but the fact thes…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 04:14 AM
1

The research is a good place to start if you want to convince someone that "chivalry" isn't what it's cracked up to be scientifically. One doesn't need to fall back on "I feel" statements, things which can be dismissed, when they have scientific data they can present.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 02:38 AM
2

This sub is a huge joke to the rest of Reddit... Not all of it. I'd guess most people don't know about it, some people know a little about it and don't have an opinion, some people know a little about it and do have an opinion, and some people know a lot about it and are generally polarized about it. I know a enough about it not to think that the whole movement can be fit neatly into one category. There's some pretty good stuff here and some incredibly ugly stuff. People who paint the entire sub…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 12:43 AM
0

Do you think it's possible that you're wrong?
/r/MensRights29/08/12 03:49 AM
0

If someone said the MRM harms women, I would ask to see the evidence for that and evaluate the evidence. Because you would understand that it was an accusation, not a fact. Accusations, especially loaded accusations like the above, require evidence. Thank you for demonstrating my point.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 03:32 AM
0

I've never seen a feminist admit that feminism marginalizes and is harmful to men. This isn't a discussion, it's a loaded accusation. If someone suggested to you that MRM marginalizes and is harmful to women, would you be interested in a dialog?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:58 PM
0

No True Feminist in reverse.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:38 PM
0

Debating and/or reaching out to feminism is indeed a waste of effort. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:38 PM
4

Of course Paul Elam's priorities, most likely, along with some feminists is just to have a senseless fight. Let them have at it. They are not interested in actually informing about any issues in a way that reaches through to people. The problem is that this childish mud-slinging sabotages the fight for gender equality. Every time someone only interested in provoking a fight speaks out as an MRA or a feminist, it damages the credibility of the whole movement, not just the individual. We should ob…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 01:53 AM
1

Categorizing what Joe did as mild heckling is absurd.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 05:20 PM
1

It's a sitting congressman shouting "You lie" to a truthful statement made by the president at the most important speaking even of the year. And Fox News treated him like a hero. So yea, it's plenty justification.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:57 AM
1

They didn't make a hero of, let alone defend, the guy who interrupted a Kerry speech. They defended Joe Wilson's outburst during a State of the Union Address. That one incident alone is more than enough justification for my conclusion.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:46 AM
3

Do any of you also consider yourselves to be feminists, or do you see men's rights activism and feminism to be incompatible? I consider myself to be a feminist, absolutely. Feminism, at its most basic, is the belief that women are of equal intrinsic value to men and should be treated as such. If you don't believe that, imho, you're a bigot. I don't care what MRAs say about feminists or what some other feminists say, women are equal to men, and in instances this reality isn't reflected, I see an …
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:35 AM
1

/r/feminism is a bit of a wasteland. Between asshole trolls, infighting, and terrible moderation, the subreddit really is collapsing. There are other feminist subreddits around that are far better.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:14 AM
1

So what you're saying, to clarify, is more like "anti-(my experience with) feminism is NOT anti-inequality". That's totally fine, in fact I laud anyone who joins any movement with a reasonable amount of skepticism and concludes after careful consideration that it's not for them. If your experience was of misandrists and such, I'm glad you removed yourself from that group. I wish more people were like this. Especially Republicans. I really only posted my response because it was painting feminists…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 01:26 AM
1

I'm a male teacher. I adore my job, I'm good with kids, and, fortunately, I've not once in the years I've been teaching been even looked at funny. Sane people are still out there. I think the idiots seem like they're in the majority because they're so loud. And fat.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 01:06 AM
1

I would be perfectly okay with it if the decision, like mine, is not based on strawmen. Wait, hold on just a second here. I'm not talking about being okay with people's decisions, agreeing to disagree, I'm talking about getting to the truth of things. As you're on r/MR, you probably believe that the MRM is a legitimate way for seeking equality. How would you respond to a sister post to yours written by a feminist about MRA? What I'm getting at is I think you've got a really broad brush, and if s…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 01:05 AM
3

OK moron, lets try it your way. My way doesn't feature name-calling. If you actually want to have an adult conversation, a prerequisite is the ability to act like an adult.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:56 AM
1

Thanks for your response. I'm all for egalitarianism and seeking equality. I just don't believe that feminism is the way to do it. How would you respond to a feminist that posted the same thing about the men's rights movement? Feminism at its most basic means women should be treated equally. All other bullshit aside, that's a damned worthy cause if you ask me.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 12:01 AM
4

Sorry, but I don't waste my time on stupid. I can't have an honest debate about this issue, so I'm going to try and derail the conversation and then end it with an insult. FTFY.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 11:38 PM
2

The best goal here is to be egalitarians, people who strive for equality across all genders, orientations, races, religions, and any other way people categorize each other. You can be a good, active, contributing member of the MR community while also being a strident feminist. You can simultaneously decry the courts for unfairly favoring the mother while decrying transvaginal ultrasounds being required in order to get a perfectly legal abortion. These are not mutually exclusive positions, in fac…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 11:35 PM
1

Good talk.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:48 PM
1

Hmm, I posted it because you used "rapey" to describe a guy staring at a woman's ass and that's fucking stupid. I posted "rapey" to describe someone changing directing and following someone. Reread my post, please.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 08:51 PM
1

Society is not going to enforce morality in the absence of laws You mean like people not appreciating someone dressing up like a Nazi? It seems like you're contradicting yourself.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:34 PM
7

For some people, the Y chromosome is the pedophile chromosome. These people are colloquially known as "morons".
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:11 PM
1

Interesting point Thank you.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:21 PM
0

"Rapey", in this usage, doesn't mean rape. I'm not suggesting a tiered classification system of rapes. I'm not even sure why you would post this.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:20 PM
3

Fox would disown them. You think Fox News would disown Tea Partiers who did anything to disrupt an Obama rally? Have you seen Fox News?
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:19 PM
-3

Do you think when women "stare" at a man's car, wallet, job and social status that they are not objectifying? If you can find where I posted this, I welcome you to point it out. Moreover, tu quoque.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:19 PM
1

MSNBC would have a debate between three pro-corporate liberals who hated them and three conservatives who love them. FTFYFTFM.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 05:18 PM
1

News flash Why is this never followed by breaking news? humans are sexual beings Yeah, I think we are all pretty well aware of this. It explains innate behavioral tendencies, though, not programmed behavior. We are not slaves to our base impulses. If you want to be viewed as an androgynous being, I would suggest you start by not wearing low cut shirts, push up bras and designer butt rounding jeans. I'm not a cross dresser. Still, if I wasn't a 6' tall man with broad shoulders, it wouldn't mean t…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:38 AM
6

Um, if Tea Partiers did that at an Obama rally, Fox would call them heroes, CNN would read tweets about them, and MSNBC would have a debate between three liberals who hated them and three conservatives who love them.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 04:01 AM
3

They probably would be in many instances. This kind of neutral system could help to deal with racism, too.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:59 AM
0

It seems like they're bigger believers in the patriarchy than we are. Actually, it's a major theme in feminism that men are victimized by patriarchy just like women. {Edit: evidence} Unequal systems based on any groups, be they gender, race, religion, or orientation, always end up not only significantly oppressing the minority (minority not meaning less than half of the people, but the group being victimized primarily), but the supposedly favored class. In fact, a new term, kyriarchy, has been r…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:58 AM
1

Oversimplifications like this help no one, be they feminist or MRA.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:53 AM
-2

The issue isn't men being attracted to you, the issue is one of objectification. I'm sure there are times when a nice looking man (or even a not so nice looking man) is caught peeking a bit and it gives you a little boost. That's fine, nothing in the world wrong with that. The problem isn't the innocent looks or smiles or flirtations, the issue is more about ignoring that you're a person deserving of respect when peeking. If you're at the bank and the teller is staring at your chest instead of d…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 03:50 AM
1

In advance, I will apologize for royally screwing up those links. I was able to read them so I don't think any apology is necessary, though the thought is appreciated. It also implies that this is because of 'discrimination'. For some reason, women who do well don't do so because of 'discrimination'. So you think, based on the article, the author might have had a bias that was intentionally left out? Or you mean that people reading the article are expected to infer something not written into the…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 03:25 AM
1

I have a feeling, however, that you're going to quickly write all of these off with another NAFALT argument as if it means anything since THIS IS WHAT THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT CONSISTS OF! That's not a feeling, that's an opinion. Feelings are emotions, like impatience. Opinions are judgments based about things that aren't necessarily based on knowledge or facts. This opinion demonstrates little other than your bias against me and the fact you don't know the first thing about what I'm thinking. I'd …
/r/MensRights23/05/12 02:43 AM
1

How much more evidence do we need to show you? You've provided zero in this discussion. That really is where this begins and ends.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 02:10 AM
1

You have to look at the what the GROUP is doing as a WHOLE. And when that information isn't available, as is this case, people tend to project their own biases into their beliefs about a group. That's not okay. The few feminists on /mr are too small a sample size to go making assumptions about the whole movement. I am an exception to such assumptions which should, to an objective person, interject some doubt into the particular assumption about feminism I was responding to, and I'm not the only …
/r/MensRights22/05/12 09:44 PM
2

It's rare because I'm not just a lone feminist in the wilderness, I'm actually very active in the community. I speak with other feminists daily, I have a blog (won't link on Reddit because it has my real name, which isn't Willravel), and I even moderate a feminist subreddit. In the years I've been a feminist, I've met one female supremacist, and she was a 16 year old who didn't know her ass from her elbows. Do they exist? Absolutely. Are they common? Not in my experience, and my experience is no…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 02:10 AM
2

Some people think that bigotry of a kind means both the prejudice and the power. I maintain it's just the prejudice. Whenever someone holds an unfavorable opinion of a group of people formed before understanding them and without evidence or reason, that's bigotry. That includes any person of any race thinking any other race is inferior, or any person of any gender thinking any other gender is inferior. There is no evidence women are genetically superior to men, nor is there any evidence men are …
/r/MensRights19/05/12 01:23 AM
1

I understand what you're saying, that our central goals should include real fairness, in this case gender equality. My thinking is that if something is unfair to one gender, wouldn't it be better to remove that unfair thing from the gender affected instead of making it unfair for both genders?
/r/MensRights18/05/12 08:56 PM
1

Because that's how feminists think and what they fight for... and there's evidence of this EVERY DAY on /mr... A few self-identifying feminists posting on /r/MensRights does not represent the entirety of a vast, diverse movement/belief. The few bad apple MRAs that jump into /r/Feminism or /r/AskFeminists to say women are inherently weak or some other such nonsense don't represent MRM as a whole, do they? Of course not. The best of feminism and the best of the MRM are egalitarian at their core, t…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 04:00 PM
1

You're fucking awesome. This kind of display of objectivity is rare on Reddit.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 03:13 AM
1

And who do you think was protecting the cave in the stone age? Men hunted, but women and men shared in defense. We can see the same behavior in other social primates today. We have for millennia been protecting and killing. So have women. There are historical records from all over the world and throughout history of women being allowed to soldier. The Scythians and the Sarmatians had women in their militaries thousands of years ago. The problem is in some patriarchal societies women are prevente…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 02:09 AM
1

But not men? Holy crap, that was a hell of a leap. Are you serious? I can't think women should be equal without thinking men should be equal? How can you think like that?
/r/MensRights18/05/12 01:14 AM
1

I believe women should be treated equally.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 01:08 AM
1

In this case, I think it refers to a volunteer military. Ah, I just wanted to clarify. In the US, we do things a bit differently. We pay our soldiers, who volunteer for service (though we incentivize service and recruiters concentrate much harder on the poor, often leaving the poor little option but to join). Our conscripts are currently performing a civic duty and do not receive a real compensation from the time served. I had heard that. Based on my understanding, you're conscripted at 18, then…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 01:07 AM
1

Guys on average are stronger than women, thus they are better suited to kill people? That's a non sequitor. I could just as easily say that because women have a higher physiological tolerance for pain, they're better suited to kill people, but it wouldn't be true. The idea that men are more suited to kill is not an idea based in science, but an idea based in old stereotypes.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 12:58 AM
1

By "hired force" do you mean a volunteer military? Or do you mean private contractors?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:42 PM
3

You can't solve injustice with injustice.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:40 PM
2

First, men are built for battle That's a sexist stereotype against men that's been disproved. Men are not built for battle. Some men are capable in battle or like fighting, just like women, but we're not war machines. We're human beings and most of us would much rather be at home with our families than out killing someone on behalf of our country. Innate tendencies toward aggression are only slightly higher in men, and those could just as easily find an outlet playing basketball as they do killi…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:40 PM
1

Nonmilitary conscription might be a better compromise, but I still don't see, in the foreseeable future, a threat requiring a draft. Most military and political leaders seem to think the same way. It may be that we never face threats from nations again, because of globalization. What we inevitably fight are either unnecessary wars, or unorthodox wars against guerrilla fighters and extremist organizations. Those don't require a draft. That said, I don't want to move too far off gender, because I …
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:58 PM
1

Do you believe women can be sexist? Yes. Feminism denies it because "women don't have power" and sexism "requires power plus prejudice" That's only one school of thought among feminists, but it's hardly held by all feminists. There are many feminists, including myself, who think the prejudice alone is enough to warrant the label of sexism. It's the same with racism or homophobia, too. Some gay people hate trans people. Some Asian people hate black people. Power can play a role in prejudice, cert…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:47 PM
3

Does racism require power? No. It often comes from it, but the prejudice alone is enough to warrant the label of racism.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:43 PM
2

Allowing violence against women is not the same thing as addressing and preventing violence against men. The MRM should stand for the latter, not the former. H.R. 4970 gets rid of confidentiality protections for victims, it makes domestic abuse crimes harder to report, and it rolls back anti-fraud protections. It also excludes protections for lgbt victims of domestic abuse (of either gender). Whether or not NOW supports a piece of legislation should be immaterial. What should matter is what's in…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:21 AM
2

I'm a feminist, and there's no practical difference between saying women are genetically superior and white people are genetically superior. Both are claims of superiority made without a shred of evidence, and with plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Technically the quote should be considered female supremacist. They do exist, though they're rare.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:11 AM
3

I like that hierarchy of solutions a lot.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:27 AM
2

If congress and the President knew that choosing to invade another country would trigger a draft from the general population, one hopes that they would be less inclined to commit military forces to missions that don't have very, very good reasons for fear of the backlash from the electorate. I appreciate your rationale, but between authorizations to use military force (possibly endless wars that aren't formally declared) and the backdoor draft, it seems our country is willing and able to go to w…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:23 AM
3

I'd happily tell my kids about the day conscription ended. I think such an occurrence would be a big deal, because a marked shift away from being a militaristic society would be forever linked with a victory for male equality, would it not? Or maybe I'm romanticizing it.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:13 AM
3

Do I think the task of adding women to conscription would be easier than ending it? Yes, probably. Still, that is at best a guess, and I don't like the idea of giving up on a good idea before even giving it a shot. Hypothetically, if they were of equal difficulty, which would you support?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 03:10 AM
0

Wow, I'm kinda flabbergasted this is necessary.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 02:53 AM
2

Gender bias is something that we end up learning by osmosis since before we can even talk. It's something we encounter in media, in the behavior and attitudes of parents, teachers, friends, and school-mates. By the time we're grown, we're bursting at the seams with all sorts of nonsensical garbage about gender. The best thing you can do is try to get back to square one. One of my favorite Bruce Lee quotes is "Empty your cup so that it may be filled; become devoid to gain totality." You're presum…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 02:31 AM
1

That's far too much of a simplification. Any description of feminism in a few sentences is going to have to simply more complex history, ideas, and such. That said, the two things you're presenting as different really aren't. Feminist theories about patriarchy, at their root, are about visible, demonstrable instances of societies that provide advantage to men and disadvantage to men. Feminism grew out of movements to provide women the vote and to allow women to work. Certainly we can all agree t…
/r/MensRights20/04/12 04:29 PM
0

Feminism is based on the idea of patriarchy or "men's rule" existing in society and causing most of its troubles, telling men that they're evil and control the world, accepting them as victims only when it means that other men are being even more evil. Feminism is based on the idea that there are some gender inequalities in the world and those inequalities need addressing. Many feminists do come at the problem from one side, dealing with inequalities that specifically victimize women, but it's a…
/r/MensRights20/04/12 02:28 AM
3

But where is the "sexism" in the article? Off-coloured jokes does not make you a sexist. Calling women sluts to their faces when meeting them for the first time isn't simply off-color. I can perhaps understand that after it's been established you have a rough sense of humor, maybe, but that really wasn't the case here. The author of the article was clearly looking forward to a nice dinner with her boyfriend, not an evening of objectification. And how was that women being reduced as a "object"? I…
/r/MensRights04/02/12 06:13 PM
3

Imagine a situation where the roles were reversed, Desmondus. Imagine you're reduced to an object, something with no worth beyond the physical. This happens every day to both men and women, and it's dehumanizing and wrong. Men's Rights is about identifying and fighting sexism against men, a community devoted to equality. It's not about supporting sexism against anyone, man or woman.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 08:08 AM
3

The comic certainly has a point to make. You might consider dropping by /r/Feminism every now and then so you can draw your own conclusions. Just be aware that one problem that's being pointed out is derailing discussion of feminist issues by bringing in unrelated MRA discussion points.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 04:30 AM
7

If you'd like to come back to /r/Feminism, I'd be glad to stand back to back with you. I believe it can be salvaged with some work from the feminist community on Reddit. Clearly the community is ready for a shift of some kind.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 04:26 AM
2

Interesting. I think I prefer your term, 'derailment', to the term I've been using, 'threadjack'. It seems to better communicate what's happening and it isn't just internet-speak, which seems to give the word a bit more heft.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 04:22 AM
1

I'm afraid that's incorrect. A No True Scotsman would have been if I'd said they weren't Feminists. I never said that. I did say self-proclaimed feminists, but that's actually true as they proclaimed themselves to be feminists. TAA commits the fallacy of the biased sample.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 06:24 PM
0

Just because a few self-proclaimed feminists contacted TheAmazingAtheist claiming all sexism favors men does not mean all feminists believe this. TAA's failure is one of making an assumption about a movement of hundreds of millions based on, what, a few hundred? That's too small a sample size. I am a feminist, and I recognize there are serious instances of sexism which victimize men. Does that stop me from being a feminist? Shit no. It's funny, really, because so often Men's Rights activists rig…
/r/MensRights02/01/12 06:39 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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