TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

WineWhine Archive

View 0 posts and 257 comments by WineWhine 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Same study showed that men gain weight after getting divorced.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 12:54 AM
1

Maybe we should have better support and policies in place so educated women can continue to work after giving birth to children.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 06:19 PM
0

Why, because your comment just proved that the original point is entirely fabricated, baseless and idiotic? Kthanks.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 06:02 PM
-1

Yup.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 02:11 AM
-2

Nope!
/r/MensRights01/06/11 01:56 AM
0

No. It's because he was acting inappropriately. Try not to put words into my mouth.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 01:46 AM
-6

Exactly. Keep fighting the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 10:17 PM
0

yup
/r/MensRights31/05/11 04:04 PM
0

I disagree, but really don't care enough to change your mind to really continue arguing the point.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 03:09 PM
0

Wow - you're making a lot of assumptions there without addressing the real issue: it's less about the spectrum of trauma and more about the stigma/shame associated with reporting rape and sexual violence crimes.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 02:46 PM
-4

Oh look, another straw man argument!
/r/MensRights31/05/11 01:58 PM
0

"all violent crime" is not "simple assault" Look at your statistics again.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 01:21 PM
0

That's fine. (Even though your same source shows that rape is reported at a significantly lower rate than all violent crime). But the whole point of the original comment was to claim something about how feminists overstate the statistics, which simply hasn't been substantiated, and it the quintessential straw man.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 12:24 PM
1

No, you'RE pretending that I'm not answering the question. What is the actual point you're trying to make here?
/r/MensRights30/05/11 01:47 PM
1

It's not wrong to look. But it is wrong to stare to the point of making people feel uncomfortable and it is right for a school to discourage such behavior.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 01:37 PM
1

Staring wasn't an assumption, it was part of the original post.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 11:39 PM
1

It's not about embarrassing kids, it's about teaching kids that it's inappropriate to stare at people's private parts.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 11:26 PM
1

It doesn't matter why the boy was staring at the girl's chest. They boy was staring. The girl felt very uncomfortable, enough to the point where she told the teacher. It doesn't matter if the boy was staring because he's curious or because he's an asshole; he should be taught that staring at a girl's chest is inappropriate.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 05:04 PM
1

It's not a double standard. I'm not seeing any sexuality. I'm saying that he's staring a classmate's chest to the point of making her feel harassed.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 02:56 PM
-5

hahah, win!
/r/MensRights29/05/11 02:45 PM
0

but if you look at the actual numbers of rape that are reported, and the numbers that feminists claim happen, you would need about a thousand or more unreported rapes to happen, for every one that does. Care to cite that claim? Again, straw man.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 02:05 PM
-4

It's intellectually honest to claim that rape is under reported, more under reported than other crimes. I haven't seen any real reference to "rape epidemics" happening outside of the Congo, so I think you're creating a bit of a straw man here.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 01:50 PM
1

If you have only one witness and no corroborating evidence in a non-rape crime, then nobody would convict. Happens with rape all the time. Just look at the two police officers who were acquitted of rape last week.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 01:35 PM
-3

Who is saying that there's an "epidemic" of rape in Oslo?
/r/MensRights29/05/11 01:01 PM
1

Okay, I'll compare Age of Innocence and The Da Vinci Code next and make a broad generalization about men and women writers.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 10:10 AM
1

Every single rape that resulted in a conviction was committed by "non-westerners." That doesn't mean that every rape was reported, or investigated, or led to an arrest, or led to a trial, or led to sentencing, etc.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 09:58 AM
1

Try to explain yourself.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 01:02 AM
1

It's a 10 year old, you pervert.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 12:39 AM
0

What kind of an "investigation" are you looking for here? Are there cameras in the classrooms? Should we swap her for DNA evidence? The principal talked to the girl, talked to the boy, who admitted that he "looked, maybe stared" and was warned that if he stared again he would be given a suspension. That seems like a pretty reasonable investigation and response.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 01:43 PM
1

The threat of expulsion means the activity can cause expulsion. Who said anything about expulsion? You are valueing her feelings but not his. How am I not valuing his feelings? I said that it's natural to be curious, but a child should be taught that staring so intently that a little girl feels harassed is not appropriate.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 01:28 PM
-1

You can have whatever intentions you want. But that doesn't mean you have the right to make people uncomfortable in a learning environment.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 01:18 PM
1

What do women do?
/r/MensRights28/05/11 01:07 PM
-7

There was no talk of investigation, allegation seems to have been sufficient. Do you think her feelings matter more than his? No, there was an investigation. The boy was called into the principal's office where he admitted to "looking, maybe staring." He was warned. He was not expelled and he was not suspended.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 08:43 PM
-7

Her feelings should not be used as proof as they could be excessive. Or they could be accurate. If someone is feeling harassed, it's a valid issue that should be investigated. The accusation of staring could be levelled at you tomorrow, and if you were male you could face real consequences. What "real" consequences?
/r/MensRights27/05/11 08:33 PM
-3

And what a horrible, horrible lesson to teach a child.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 08:12 PM
6

False?
/r/MensRights27/05/11 08:02 PM
1

And no one's getting arrested.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 07:52 PM
1

I'd congratulate him and give the school hell for their puritanical, Christian based fundementalism in trying to shame and punish a boy for normal behavior The boy wasn't punished. He was warned. If we should teach boys not to look at breasts, maybe we should teach girls to cover them up. There is no indication that the girl was wearing inappropriate clothing. This comment is not warranted. Also, we are not teaching boys not to "look" at them, we are teaching boys not to "stare" at them.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 07:40 PM
0

the boy isn't hurting anyone He is hurting someone. The person he is staring at felt harassed or uncomfortable. Just because someone isn't physically harming someone doesn't mean that their actions should get a complete pass. We wouldn't allow kids to bully one another, or make rude comments to them. This is similar. You can't stop a boy from looking at breasts any more than you can stop the bull from chasing the red cloth. Two points: I have higher standards for men and boys than circus animals…
/r/MensRights27/05/11 07:28 PM
0

He looked, maybe stared at her breasts while she was talking. My son's friend was accused by another 10 year old that he was staring at her tits during class. A 10 year old "stares" at a girl's breasts in class. The accused child's mom is told that another incident of "sexual harassment" will result in his immediate suspension. What would you do? Didn't "add" that. I didn't say anything about gawking. Why did you feel the need to add that? ;)
/r/MensRights27/05/11 06:57 PM
-2

So if something is "human nature" it should not be punishable? Is that what you're really saying?
/r/MensRights27/05/11 06:41 PM
-3

What is wrong with teaching children that staring at a girl's breasts is wrong?
/r/MensRights27/05/11 05:45 PM
1

Yeah - but I think that's where the public/private issue comes into play. Feminine traits are valued in the home and with children, not in the public sphere. How to change it? I think you start by making people realize that your last few sentences aren't true: We just THINK that it's "natural" that you need to be aggressive, rebellious, etc., in order to succeed in politics and business. For women to succeed in politics and business, they generally need to (naturally or purposefully) exhibit tho…
/r/MensRights27/05/11 05:33 PM
1

I agree with everything you said. I can understand why people react a certain way to "patriarchy," and I get the literal connotations. I wish it would be able to get away from the feeling that the word is divisive - lots of words have lots the gendered connotations after enough use (patriot, patronize, matrimony), but I don't think a reddit sub forum is really going to make that happen. But I think it's hard to find a word, because I really do think it comes down to elevating what we consider "m…
/r/MensRights27/05/11 01:24 AM
1

Confused - so only men who act like men are the problem? No - I think it's anyone who elevates the masculine over the feminine simply because it is masculine. It can be a man or a woman or a law or a organization. "Masculine" just means of or pertaining to men. I'm assuming, though, you mean, rather, the traits traditionally and/or typically associated with "masculinity," such as aggression, arrogance, stoicism, etc? Yes - aggression, arrogance, stocism, individualism, etc. Why use male-connotat…
/r/MensRights26/05/11 11:46 PM
1

And I don't think that people who are "on the fence" will think that I am being a bad person for calling people who either call me a bitch or downvote me just because they disagree "childish."
/r/MensRights26/05/11 08:21 PM
1

Thank you for confirming that the real reason why that was downvoted was because people disagreed with it (which is against reddit policy) and not some made-up excuse that it was "whiny."
/r/MensRights26/05/11 08:07 PM
1

That's fine, I'm not looking for respect from people who call me bitch.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 07:34 PM
1

Cool
/r/MensRights26/05/11 03:27 PM
1

Yeah, I thought I said that a bunch in my comments, the father has to intend to create the parental relationship; it's not just a matter of funding a child or coaching him in baseball or anything.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 02:20 PM
2

"the [very] long list of comments that I have emailed to myself that I haven't been able to respond to because I am only able to comment once every ten minutes and, believe it or not, I sometimes have more pressing matters to attend to than hitting refresh all day"
/r/MensRights26/05/11 10:23 AM
0

Yes. I can use a non-vulgar descriptive term to describe someone's actions. That is different from calling someone a bitch. I think you're able to understand the difference.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 10:11 AM
4

In that vein, how is it the man's responsibility if the child is not his? Why should he be forced to pay for another man's child? Oh, my whole outline was based on the assumption that the child is genetically the fathers; I think the issue with being able to "deny" paternity/funding a child is is predicated on the child actually being the genetic child of the father. I think how to deal with children conceived outside of a marriage and then presented as the father's own is more complicated and c…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 10:04 PM
-4

You still haven't responded to my comment from yesterday. I know. I haven't forgotten about it. It's in the queue.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 09:21 PM
-7

Please tell me exactly what about the post I linked to is "whining" to warrant the numerous downvotes I received. I'm waiting.....
/r/MensRights25/05/11 09:09 PM
-4

I'm not saying it matters what I think. You're the one who claimed that I am being downvoted because I am "just whining." I gave you an example of a post where I was downvoted and asked you to point out where I was whining. You were not able to do that. Reddiquette: Please don't downvote opinions just because you disagree with them. The down arrow is for comments that add nothing to the discussion. So unless you can show how I was whining or adding nothing to the discussion in the above thread, …
/r/MensRights25/05/11 08:59 PM
-2

No I'm not. Please tell where in this post I was whining so as to warrant a -10 rating: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/hj3yq/men_are_in_charge_of_what_now/c1vt41x?context=3
/r/MensRights25/05/11 08:48 PM
0

Okay, instead of just listing names, or giving links, can you please make an argument as to what you are trying to prove (with sentences and words, with a premise and a conclusion). I can respond to facts, but I can't respond to vague references.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 08:00 PM
0

What studies are you referencing, hmm?
/r/MensRights25/05/11 07:50 PM
-5

That certainly wasn't my experience, but it's possible that a handful of particularly vocal individuals drowned out the reasoned debate you're referencing.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 07:10 PM
3

I think we should refer to it as a post-birth choice. Pre-birth, I'd argue that there should be a clear legal concept that a woman should be able to make choices about her body without another person influencing that decision. If we characterize this "defunding" decision as starting at conception, I think it makes a woman's right to choose start to get murky. This is obviously not the main point of what you're getting at, and I'll be happy to explain more if anything is unclear. So, post-birth, …
/r/MensRights25/05/11 06:46 PM
1

How do women play a role in your analysis?
/r/MensRights25/05/11 06:29 PM
-8

Because people on this forum choose to downvote opinions they disagree with rather that engaging, I can't respond as quickly as I'd like to comments. Maybe if you (if you do that) and your co-mensrights redditors would choose to act like mature adults and not engage in such behavior, I could actually have a chance to respond without being unfairly locked out the system. I've discussed my points in good faith with everyone who engaged with me respectfully, it's unfortunate that a few choose to ac…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 06:15 PM
-6

You've literally been one of only two people who have consistently not resorted to namecalling and other childish tactics here. That's unfortunately not the case for the vast majority of people who respond to me in an abusive manner without being willing to engage in a discussion. Not to mention the large number of people who, instead of following the reddit rules and not downvoting comments just because you disagree with them, choose to downvote me rather than engage in the discussion at hand.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 06:04 PM
-2

Nice try. Bye.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 05:52 PM
-16

Man, it sure would be great to have a lively discussion here..........
/r/MensRights25/05/11 04:11 PM
0

I think you're attributing a greater degree of logic and a lesser degree of knee-jerking to the general population than is realistic. Yeah, I have high standards for human intelligence rather than just accepting that people are stupid. I'm pretty sure there was no way to do this study without inevitable calls for his dismissal from angry women crying racism. Unless he determined that white women were deemed by subjects to be less attractive than other races, that is. I have high standards for hu…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 03:06 PM
-1

All right. And what if he'd gone in depth to prove or disprove the "racial bias" hypothesis, and in the end it really was down to testosterone levels? We'd have to see his study, wouldn't we? He'd still be taking hits, because finding a biological factor "blames" black women for other people deeming them less attractive, while a social conclusion "blames" everyone else. It's not his conclusion that is the issue; it's the method, justification and unanalyzed biases that is the issue. So do we not…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:48 PM
1

I wonder, too, if there would be less outcry if he'd determined that the differences he found were due to personal biases and internalized stereotypes in regard to black women, rather than hypothesizing a biological basis for it. Because that would mean hey, it's everyone else's racism rather than physical/biological factors that differ from race to race. Yes. That is EXACTLY the point.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:37 PM
-2

Um, there's a difference between measuring "How do people rate the difference 'races' on attractiveness" and "How attractive are different "races." The first is what the guy actually measured. He explained it as if he had measured the latter. He didn't analyze what inherent biases the survey-takers had when judging the "races" and "gender" and how the intersect.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:13 PM
-1

Racism doesn't require intent. You don't have to be a "bad" person to hold racist views. It's not a moral question.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:58 PM
-2

Yep. And, unlike the United States, has a much lower threshold for limiting racist or bigoted speech.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:34 PM
-1

But don't you understand? This all encompassing emphasis on money as the only measure of value isn't the ONLY way it can be. It's a patriarchal view, it's not necessary. Value can be measured in total benefit to the community; total benefit to future generations; total benefit to nature, etc. We don't use those rubrics as measures of value because the patriarchy has determined that money is the basis for all value.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:15 PM
-3

You do realize that the United Kingdom isn't governed by the Constitution, yes?
/r/MensRights25/05/11 12:59 PM
-5

The "principle" of free speech has nothing to do with immunity from consequences. You're allowed to say whatever you want to say. And people are allowed to say whatever they want to say in reaction. No one is saying that he shouldn't be ALLOWED to publish his articles. But he should be willing to deal with the consequences.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 12:25 PM
-4

these women want him fired but claim to be upholding free speech.... Free speech doesn't mean the absence of consequences for your speech. It means freedom from governmental interference/punishment for your speech. An individual can use their constitutional right to free speech to disagree (or impose consequences) for speech they do or don't agree with. It's not hypocritical; it's what the Constitution intended.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 11:46 AM
1

Maybe it would help if you listed the specific traits masculine/feminine: single leadership/collaboration; risk/care; influencing/responding; reason/emotion; culture/nature, etc. Trying to legislate to artificially devalue or overvalue certain skills or traits isn't really workable. I never mentioned anything about legislation. There are a lot of ways to fight the patriarchy; the first step is to admit it exists. Lastly, if all the men at the top of society were replaced with women, just how muc…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 11:35 AM
0

When was the last time there was a "don't go out" campaign? Mid90s. Thats because it's moved to the "don't drink and drive" message. That's the point. Like drunk driving, we need to refine the message and move on from old fashioned notions that it's the responsibility of the victim to prevent others from committing crimes. Treat it like drunk driving, make it a matter of personal responsibility not to commit a crime.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 10:33 AM
1

Compliance, subservience, these are "feminine" traits that, yes, the patriarchy requires. The patriarchy doesn't reward them in the same way they reward the "masculine" features I noted above. You're not saying anything that disagrees with my premise
/r/MensRights25/05/11 10:20 AM
1

How does giving birth or nursing affect the ability of a person to be socialized for certain traits. re: doing as you're told, I don't think that's valued by the patriarchy. I think that acting in an aggressive manner is valued by the patriarchy. Same with the "being expendable," that's not valued by the patriarchy. I don't think that expendibility is valued by any social structure. I think that a certain level of prioritizing self over others is valued by the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 05:24 AM
1

So I think we can agree that there's nothing about males that make them more likely to be socialized to have the traits that are useful to the "patriarchy," right? And I think we can agree that it's just happenstance that males are the ones who are socialized by the patriarchy to be valuable to the patriarchy, right? Whatever traits I list; the question remains: why those traits? Why are men the ones who are socialized to exhibit those traits? Why aren't the traits that women exhibit under the p…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 05:09 AM
1

Nor does it mean it's "wrong" or "bad" or "irrational". Never said it did. It just is. But we should question it. But since it is here, why would it be such a stretch to say that, after that initial 'chance happening', men have been socialized to maintain 'patriarchy' in a way that women haven't been? I'd argue that both men and women, generally speaking, have been socialized to maintain "patriarchy."
/r/MensRights25/05/11 04:48 AM
0

If men and women were equally capable(if there is no rational reason why the 'patriarchy' favors men then they must be equally capable) of creating the structures that you title 'patriarchy' what stopped women from creating them first? Chance. As random as anything else in the universe. It's all random, it has no intrinsic value or meaning. Just because it's the most dominant force, or happened first, doesn't mean that it was "right" or "good" or "rational." That's why we should question it and …
/r/MensRights25/05/11 04:15 AM
0

Again, if you had made a cogent argument for the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, your analogy would be appropriate. But it's not, so it's nothing like what I'm doing here. But thanks for trying.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 04:04 AM
1

This is restating the question as a statement. No it's not. What about "achieve more" is the same as "rewarding maleness in the public sphere? This is restating the question as a statement. NO, it's not. It's explaining it. In no place did you use "patriarchy" "maculinity' or "femininity" in your question. Therefore, how in the world are you claiming that I'm merely "restating" it. Think. Think about the assumptions that you're making in order for you to consider my statements "restatements." Ka…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 03:53 AM
-4

Bye! Thanks for trying!
/r/MensRights25/05/11 03:30 AM
1

First, thanks for answering my question with question instead of actually answering the question. But I'll play along anyway.... Why do you think men achieve more? Really think about it. Because the patriarchy rewards maleness in the public sphere. Traditional concepts of achievement are centered around the public sphere. Why would employers prefer men over women? Because they are part of (effect of) the patriarchy which rewards masculinity to femininity. I know you're trying to bait me into say…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 03:19 AM
1

Dude, maleness is not valued; that's why the death professions are 95% male. Are you saying that the only way to measure a sex's value is to measure their participation in a "death profession"? I doubt that. Explain why you think maleness is not valued. Your entire argument depends on that notion.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:56 AM
-2

The problems of women are irrelevant to the men's rights movement, so they should not be discussed here. They aren't irrelevant when you realize that they both come from the exact same source: patriarchy. Cool, except no one but deluded feminists believes that patriarchy is the reason why male victims of violence get screwed over. It doesn't matter how many people believe it; it doesn't affect whether it's true or not. Likewise, you can call them all the names you want, but it doesn't change the…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:39 AM
0

The problem is that the basis of your position (when it comes to western, first world society) hasn't been proved. You're effectively saying "yes, but what about patriarchy! - that's the reason for... well, anything!" But just because it hasn't been proved [by whom?] doesn't mean that I can't attempt to prove it. Just as you can attempt to prove the absence of a patriarchy, or the existence of a matriarchy, or what have you. These are all concepts and theories about the world we live in. There's…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:28 AM
-2

Do you, or do you not admit, that men face discrimination simply for being men? When men attempt to exhibit feminine traits, yes. And, to answer the question you surprisingly failed to ask, women face discrimination simply for being women when they attempt to exhibit masculine traits. Do you admit that women receive privilege just for being women? In the "feminine" sphere, some women receive privilege just for being women. Just like in the "masculine" sphere, some men receive privilege just for …
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:17 AM
0

Can you please stop referencing other feminists and their views for reasons why you disagree with ME? I brought up the homelessness problem; I addressed the parental rights, domestic violence, rape issues as their pertain to men. I didn't value solving one side over the other; neither side can be solved without the other. Seriously, this whole "putting words in my mouth" thing is getting tired.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 02:04 AM
0

Dude, you've been arguing with dumb feminists if all they can do is rely on Wikipedia. And if people want to take a practical take is one thing; personal attacks and other bullshit reactions is another. The patriarchy rewards masculinity (especially in the public sphere). The patriarchy punishes femininity (especially in the public sphere). When men exhibit feminity (needing help [ex. no one helping blind man from post yesterday], being victimized [ex. male rape and male DV], attempting to parti…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:54 AM
-1

Let me guess: It will involve extreme solipsism where you say something incredibly ignorant about the top strata of society a higher percentage of men than women while ignoring everything below that. Nope. It's because 'masculine' isn't the same as "men." The patriarchy does not elevate all MEN, it elevates masculinity. Which is how it can harm both men and women.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:38 AM
-1

That pales in comparison to the difference in number of homeless people by gender. I explained the homeless issue in detail above. Another example of how the patriarchy harms men too. It pales in comparison to the workplace death and injury gap (13 times higher for men). This is because maleness is valued in the workplace, locking women out of many fields, many of which are dangerous. This is yet another example of how the patriarchy harms men. I think many feminists want to drag those men down …
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:28 AM
-6

Oh look, ANOTHER person who can't actually articulate why anything I said was untrue. And some name calling for good measure.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:18 AM
-1

YES. That's the point. And I think it's the exact point that Wikipedia is attempting to make but is failing - it's not XY chromosomes, it's the elevation of the masculine to spite the feminine, in particular in the public sphere. Wikipedia isn't some scholarly tome that contains the basis for all knowledge. I think we can talk about concepts, especially when I very clearly define them, as such, without having to rely on effing wikipedia.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:03 AM
1

Ah, but by your own admission, males do not dominate society. Yes. I never said that "males" did. A group of people: those who exhibit masculine traits in the public sphere. The problem is with your cognitive dissonance between the idea that all men control society, and the belief that not all men control society. Never said all males control society. No cognitive dissonance. How about you state that you believe that some men control the majority of the sources of power in society? Sure. And tha…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 12:53 AM
1

if some women control some sources of power in society, using a polarizing definition like "men control the sources of power in society" is obviously incorrect. It's not "men," though. I'm not saying it's human males. It's maleness. Male qualities control and dictate power. There is a significant difference.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 12:43 AM
-1

I wasn't crying. I wasn't angry. I'm sorry that you can't respond to a serious, unemotional discussion without resorting to name-calling because you can't actually articulate any reason why anything I said was untrue.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 12:32 AM
-1

Men might be more open to discussing things with feminists if feminism didn't claim things like all privileges men have are privilege and a form of privilege, while all privileges women have are benevolent sexism designed to devalue and oppress them. I never said anything about privilege. Tell me: what would have to happen for you to believe the patriarchy had been overthrown? When it is just as valuable to be feminine in the public society as it is to be masculine. And when it is just as valuab…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 12:18 AM
-1

There's a difference between feminist jurisprudence in legal scholarship and criminal law that is unfair to men, but interesting links and thank you for actually responding with sources. I think the word "dominant" is a little much, and I don't know if these links claim that feminist jurisprudence per se is "the dominant force" in legal scholarship, which was my main point, but, again, interesting links.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 12:07 AM
-6

You're not up for "open to debate" Yes I am. Someone gives me an example X. I EXPLAIN how it's evidence of the patriarchy. That's not being blind. That's carefully EXPLAINING how all sorts of things that initially don't seem part of the patriarchy are actually all tied together. If I wasn't EXPLAINING how things work (see, e.g. explanation of how homeless demographics are symptoms of the patriarchy) you would have a point. But that's simply not the case and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. Mos…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:56 PM
-2

okay, make a logical argument as to how there is a "patriarchal system" that gives men an advantage and women a disadvantage. Look at my very long and very-downvoted-because-people-here-don't-understand-the-rules-against-downvoting-just-because-you-disagree post for an explanation of the patriarchy. Which, as I said repeatedly, does not exclusively give men an advantage and women a disadvantage. Explain my "male privilege" (and how it is more substantial than any female privilege) to me. I never…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:45 PM
-5

Too bad few people are actually debating the coherence of it but rather blindly downvoting/namecalling/etc. I'm up for "open to debate." I think the personal attacks and baseless downvoting is shameful.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:34 PM
-11

If someone could make a logical argument have as coherent as mine to the existence of invisible gnomes, you might have a point. But they can't, so you don't.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:23 PM
-1

they don't tend to want to work 14-on/7-off on oil rigs or do jobs that would get them danger pay How do you know it is because they don't "want" to. How do you know that, in the absence of the patriarchy telling women that they are weak, more women wouldn't "want" to? The wage gap is due to the patriarchy; it's just more subtle that you see. All I hear is "Why aren't more women sacrificing their time with their kids and families so they can be partners in law firms?" with the implication being …
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:13 PM
-6

It elevates the masculine to the detriment of the feminine. That's how it can hurt men too. At no point did I say it elevates "men" to the detriment of "women." Please put on your reading spectacles and try again. Sorry, you are forced to misquote me in order to prove a point. Try responding to the words I actually use next time rather than something you made up because you have don't have the ability to disprove anything I said.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:03 PM
-1

You're guilting me by saying I'm the reason women are "behind" I never said that. Please do not use "fake" quotations in an attempt to prove something I did not do. I think you won't be happy until we've all had cameras installed in our homes to record every dish we wash and every diaper we change and get a paycheck from the government to do it. That's not true. I wouldn't be happy in such a situation. And at no point did I imply that I would be, please respond to the comments I actually make ra…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 10:53 PM
-5

Because...on average, women work fewer hours than men, spend more time at home enjoying their kids and the fruits of their labors, and less working fiendish overtime and dropping from a heart attack 5-7 years sooner than his wife. Your gross mischaracterization of child and home care aside (just another piece of evidence of the patriarchy), that's just not true. Controlled for all those factors, women earn less on average than men. That's just the facts, and even the original post admitted it. A…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 10:42 PM
-5

I never said gender is a social construct.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 10:32 PM
-8

government: The majority of government spending is on entitlements, retirement and welfare programs, all of which constitute a large transfer of wealth from men to women. Women are provided protection under a large set of laws such as VAWA without comparable protection for men. The transfer of wealth exists because, among many things, because men make more money than women for the same amount of work. To your second point, women are viewed as weak and needing more protection, and such displays o…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 10:22 PM
-8

Masculinity is rewarded because humans are biologically predisposed to reward it No way. Don't you see that this is the patriarchy at work? Feminine traits can and should be rewarded - there is absolutely nothing "biological" about it. Women control 60% of the wealth in the US, 83% of consumer spending, and represent roughly half of the $1 million and up club Again, I question the source of these statistics. An uncited website for women's leadership isn't what I would call an unbiased source by …
/r/MensRights24/05/11 10:12 PM
-4

Evolutionary psychology is what I should have written.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 09:58 PM
-6

The first half of my post was countering logical fallacies used by feminists. I was basically saying to prove patriarchy existed (and still exists) and the reasons it supposedly exists, you have to do more than say, "2% of men and 0% of women are in positions of power". The fact that twice as many men are in positions of power as women are (as per your example) is actually a great example of the patriarchy. But not the only one that feminists use. Oddly, patriarchy helped women retain value rath…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 09:46 PM
-11

Men are not deriving any benefits from this supposed patriarchy. Yes they are. The masculine is elevated in all levels of government, business, law, military, etc. Men who exhibit traditionally masculine traits benefit from this. To deny this is to be purposefully obtuse. Men do not control finances in their households, they don't rights over their children (mothers do), they don't have rights over their wives, they don't get anything expressly for being male. You listed a whole bunch of things …
/r/MensRights24/05/11 09:36 PM
-9

There's really nothing more for us to discuss. Humans are animals, first and foremost. To claim that instinctive emotions/drives/behaviors don't exist in humans simply because we (some of us, anyway) are able to think logically is to deny a huge part of our natures. I didn't say that there are emotions/drives/behaviors, but if you think that human beings are incapable of controlling them, then I think you can continue just reacting to your base desires and I can continue over here trying to star…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 09:25 PM
-19

It's always a patriarchy because....there's a patriarchy. When you can't think of an example to disprove the patriarchy, that pretty much proves there's a patriarchy.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 09:14 PM
-10

patriarchy /ˈpātrēˌärkē/ noun I'd argue that the term "patriarchy" actually is more about elevating the masculine to the detriment of the feminine. As such, you can't just point to a powerless man or a powerful woman as a way to disprove the patriarchy. It's not that simple. Feminists will point to the underrepresentation of women (therefore the overrepresentation of men) in top positions in commerce, business, and politics and claim that this means patriarchy still exists. Sure At the same time…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 08:41 PM
-5

Sure. Working on it.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 08:24 PM
1

Then who is perpetuating this supposed patriarchy if almost no men benefit from it? And why call it a patriarchy? Plenty of men benefit from it. And women do, too. It's being perpetuated by society, both structurally and culturally, including women, who are not aware that their actions help enhance the patriarchy. It's called "patriarchy" because it's the elevation of the masculine/male to the detriment of the feminine/female. That does NOT mean that only men are active participants, and that do…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 07:32 PM
3

I don't buy that at all. If there is a criminal prosecution.... That's the problem, there usually isn't a criminal prosection. Source for untested rape kits (400,000 - 500,000) Human rights watch link
/r/MensRights24/05/11 06:32 PM
1

How is this not completely counter to a patriarchal goal? Because the patriarchy isn't a matter of achieving "goals." It's just the overvaluation of the masculine and an undervaluation of the feminine. Men are victims of the patriarchy as much as women precisely because it is not the "Goal" of the patriarchy to "Maximize the utility of Males" It's just to elevate the masculine, often times to the detriment of men. What about the fact that two of the "fathers" of psychoanalysis, Wundt and Freud, …
/r/MensRights24/05/11 06:21 PM
1

One of the major contributors to homelessness is mental health issues. Mental health issues are routinely ignored by the established medical and insurance community (read: patriarchy) because of the inappropriate assumption that mental health issues aren't as "real" or "important" as physical health issues. The patriarchy doesn't recognize mental health issues as being legitimate, evidenced by a history of viewing women with mental health issues as "hysterical" or "emoitonal," etc. This feminizi…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 05:49 PM
3

We do that for drunk driving. In the 90s, we used to tell people not to drive on New Year's, etc., because drunk driving was just assumed. Now, there's a lot more focused on telling people NOT to drive drunk. I think the same could be useful for rape - especially and perhaps exclusively for the too-drunk-to-consent and date rape variety - I don't think anyone is claiming that those campaigns are targeted towards the stranger rape scenarios. But consent issues and date rape? I think media campaig…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 04:52 PM
1

I didn't say you did. I explained what the comment you are referring to was referring to. -leadership of the various political parties -the media's analysis of women candidates -the structure of lower-level candidacy political positions -composition of the committee that are in charge of district boundaries etc. etc. Some women manage to surmount these impediments the same way some men manage to get custody of their children: luck, skill and circumstances. The fact that some people have managed …
/r/MensRights24/05/11 04:38 PM
1

BUT you critisize when someone says "women refuse to run." Couldn't that just mean "women refuse to run as often as men"? "Women refuse to vote for women as much as they vote for men"? No. That's not what "refuse" means. Yes, clearly not all women refuse to run, that is made obvious by the facts But when you say "women refuse to run" it makes it clear you are ignoring the facts. In fact, as you have conceded, if more women chose to run, and more women chose to vote for women, women would undoubt…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 04:22 PM
1

The two examples where you point (education of children and home life) are strongly tied to raising children. The concept that a woman's value is best suited to the private sphere (read: raising children) negatively influences women (opportunities to influence and power in the public sphere is severely limited) and men (opportunities to gain influence and power in the private sphere is severely limited). This is because of the patriarchal view of the proper roles of "men" and "women." This patri…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 04:12 PM
0

Wow, you're being purposefully dense. Women choose to run all the time. That doesn't mean that more women choose to run than men. That just means that they choose to run at a solid rate. (this was in direct response to someone stating that "women refuse to run") Women vote for women candidates. That doesn't mean that all women vote for women candidates. It just means the vote for them (this was in direct response to someone stating that "women refuse to vote for women") Women vote at higher rate…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 03:55 PM
2

Because I'm not saying ALL men control society. I'm saying that "maleness" and men control society. I never once said ALL men control society. There's a difference between saying "Democrats control the Senate" and saying "All democrats control the Senate". Of course they don't. There are some democrats who do not control the Senate. It doesn't make the statement "Democrats control the Senate" any less true. Again, I never said "complete" control. I never said "total" domination. You're inserting…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 02:27 PM
0

There is no such thing as "gravity." Are you floating yet? Oh, you mean to tell me that just stating that something doesn't exist doesn't actually prove anything? Hmm....fancy that. Try using support and justification for your arguments, like I have been, rather than just namecalling and other juvenile behavior.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 01:00 PM
0

Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation and helping make my underlying point even stronger. When the only way someone can respond to a cogent point is through personal attacks, it only makes the person capable of intelligent discourse that much stronger.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 12:46 PM
0

Yes. When males act feminine (read: helpless), a male-dominated society punishes such displays. A patriarchy is bad for men, too, when they do not act sufficiently "male" enough or exhibit other signs of "feminity" See, also, how the patriarchy deals with male victims of rape and domestic violence.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 12:36 PM
-2

That's simply not true.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 12:26 PM
1

Well, here's the key. Saying that a group of people dominate society isn't an attack. It's a description. The reason why you can't think about this rationally is because you're choosing to interpret it as a personal attack. Nothing about the word "dominates" requires 100% of the dominating class to be actively "dominate" the less privileged class. Water dominates the ocean. The fact that there are lakes doesn't change that.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:38 AM
0

"Males dominate society" does not mean "All males dominate all parts of society." If you can't understand what the word "dominates" means, then we can't have this conversation. It's not contradictory, you're being purposefully obtuse. Nothing in the definition of "to dominate" requires all of "X" to dominate Y in order to say that X dominates Y. Try again.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 11:24 AM
-1

And women even vote at higher rates than men. This isn't surprising. Women aren't immune from the negative effects ofthe patriarchy. They, too, can be convinced that male traits ate superior to female traits in public office and vote accordingly. I don't think the implication of your statistics really mean what you think they do.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 10:33 AM
1

No you don't. The fact that whites dominated society pre civil war isn't affected by the fact that there were poor, relatively powerless whites. This is a losing argument for you guys.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 10:20 AM
1

It's not wrong to say "male" because I'm not saying that 100% of individual males control society but rather "maleness" controls society. Just because you're wilfully misinterpreting my words doesn't make them wrong, it just makes you look purposefully obtuse.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 10:09 AM
-3

Here, let's play the definition game "Dominate" 1. Have a commanding influence on; exercise control over. 2. Be the most important or conspicuous person or thing in. Hmmm, let's re-read that one more time, just to make sure. I'll wait. Okay. See how that definition does NOT say that the only way for X to dominate Y is to have X be the ONLY influence on Y? See that?? So males/maleness does not have to be the ONLY influence on society for there to be a patriarchy? And not all Xs have to influence …
/r/MensRights24/05/11 03:20 AM
-5

You have no idea what you're talking about. Here, I'll make it bold so you can understand how to read: There is nothing about the definition of patriarchy that requires every male to dominate each source of power in society "Males" dominate society the same way that "water" dominates the ocean. Or "trees" dominate the forest. Oh, have you found that FISH also exist in the ocean? Or there is water NOT in the ocean? Or there are bugs ALSO in the forest? Or there are trees NOT in the forest? You di…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 03:10 AM
-4

so not "all" men are involved in the patriarchy. That's exactly my point. Don't put words in my mouth. You have to amend that to "some men dominate the sources of power in society". No I don't. Maleness dominates the sources of power in society. Males do. I don't care that there are exceptions. It doesn't take away from the fact that MALES DOMINATE SOCIETY. The reason why not 100% of males do? Partly thanks to feminism and women's rights movements, the patriarchy has weakened and women have made…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 02:13 AM
2

Okay. I don't deny that false rape charges are awful, and I'm glad that the example you talked about ended up with the man going free. I can't speak to the level of evidence presented in that case, so I really can't say anything about that. And I was talking about reported/prosecuted false rape claims, not non-criminal lies that women tell, and I really can't speak to the prevalence of that.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 12:57 AM
1

Not always of course but often and depending on where you are. That's the problem - it's depending on where you are. Of course there are certain places where the patriarchy has been weakened, where people have identified and understood that traditional gender power structures are detrimental to society. But, overall, the major gatekeepers are still structured under the patriarchy and any amount of "praise" won't change that. Men might be lauded by the Today Show and Oprah for being great dads; b…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 12:42 AM
1

I don't agree. I see "maleness" demonized all the time and "femaleness" praised and vice versa. Femaleness is demonized whenever a male exhibits "female" characteristics. That's not good for men, women and a key symptom of the patriarchy. Maleness is not the same as violence or rage; I don't see the typically "male" qualities of leadership, for instance, being routinely demonized by any stretch of the imagination. Granted, those fields generally don't have as much power over society. That's exac…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 12:17 AM
1

I didn't say they were victims. I said that there are structural and societal constraints (read: patriarchy) that impose an overarching idea that maleness is good and femaleness is bad. So obviously this is going to affect women more (but still affects men : this is why male victims of DV and rape are ignored by the male-dominated society). You need examples? I think that giving you specific examples will likely be an exercise in futility, I'll bite: What is the sex of the leaders of the Democra…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 11:51 PM
-3

I didn't say they ran in equal numbers. I was merely stating that the concept that women "refuse" to run is patently false. Like I said, the reason why women do not run in equal numbers is due to the structural and societal constraints that are imposed by the patriarchy. It's not a victim complex, and I haven't whined (if you can find an instance where I was whining, please let me know). Merely pointing out that the patriarchy exists is the first step to fighting it; ignoring or refusing to admi…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 11:34 PM
-7

I don't see it that way. I'd argue that the baseline, the "ideal" society that we should strive for is that everyone fucking helps a blind person if they're being swindled. I don't think that's a 'matriarchal" world view or "feminist" world view, but a just view of the world that works towards the general good. Therefore, the fact that people assisted the women CERTAINLY is privileged in a patriarchy, but would be the norm in a non-patriarchal world. So that's why I focused on the disadvantages …
/r/MensRights23/05/11 11:24 PM
-6

Alright, first of all, knock it off with the personal attacks. It's pathetic and doesn't make you look like a smart person (or remotely sane). Second, the reason why women "fail" in non-elected fields is for the same reason why they "fail" in the elected fields : male-dominated structural and societal constraints value maleness to the exclusion of femaleness. I didn't bring up rape. Women are the victims when they are raped. Men are the victims when they are raped. Women are the victims when the…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 11:14 PM
2

Absolutely, all statistics with a grain of salt, and I was a little too narrow with referring to them as "rape" in my original post as it was off memory, but I appreciate the charity with which you read those statistics.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 11:00 PM
-8

Your last two sentences are patently false. Women choose to run all the time. Many women run in elections. And women do not refuse to vote for women candidates. Women vote for women candidates in elections where there are women running. So your last two statements are wrong, incorrect, untrue, false, misleading, etc. etc. etc. How many other ways can I say "wrong"? The fact that fewer women are elected in democratic elections is due to the fact that the system is dominated by male power, rewards…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 10:44 PM
-7

When did I say "all" men were involved in the patriarchy? Men dominate the sources of power in society. Period, you can't dispute that. Stating that a few women have fought the structural and cultural impediments to leadership in today's patriarchal society to attain leadership positions does not change the fact that we still live in a patriarchal society.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 10:34 PM
2

Here - I know it's off of a RAINN website, but it's just the only publicly-linkable pdf of the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics that I can find quickly- RAINN hasn't edited it it's just hosting it (if you are concerned that RAINN isn't unbiased, which I'm not, but just in case). The 2006 Criminal Victimization Report by the DOJ. link Table 8 is the relevant table.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 10:24 PM
-10

Only a handful of the examples I gave are positions that are democratically elected, so your little tantrum about how women don't vote for women is worthless. Further, even in democratic elections, there are organizations that choose, groom and fund political candidates running for office that are overwhelmingly led and support men. And I really love how your threw in the false rape claims because that's just the favorite thing of some of the most pathetic and embarrassing members of this "men's…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 10:08 PM
-7

For what, the fourth time in this thread, Exhibit A: who leads the vast majority of countries, cities, states, governmental organizations, companies, judiciary, law enforcement, etc. etc. etc.? How does that not show that this society is led/controlled by men in power?
/r/MensRights23/05/11 09:58 PM
-7

Oh, there's only one man who's a political leader in the entire world? And, no, to actually answer your ridiculous question: No, it doesn't mean a blind man doesn't DESERVE our help. But the reason why a blind man doesn't RECEIVE the majority of passer-by's help is for the same reason the vast majority of the world is run by men: society values male-ness. Therefore, they are promoted in places of leadership and when a male does not exhibit traits that are considered particularly "male" (for inst…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 09:37 PM
3

In rape, you can have several witnesses corroborating the story as well. In non-rape cases, you can have only one witness as well, as well as doubt as to whether a crime was committed. There is no difference that would necessitate the requirement of physical evidence in a rape trial.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 09:26 PM
2

You're not describing physical evidence to prove someone's guilt. A dead body doesn't prove someone is guilty any more than the mere fact that a woman has a vagina proves she was raped. The fact that an item exists doesn't prove it was stolen; it takes testimony to establish that fact. Likewise, your "physical" evidence (to match the levels of "physical" evidence that you're claiming above) is as follows: This woman claims she was raped. She has the physical structures with which to be raped. Th…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 09:16 PM
-9

So blind women get help at the supermarket (even though the reason why men don't get the same treatment is because men are expected to act "manly" because acting "male" is always "good") and men get to be in positions of leadership in politics, business, law enforcement, judiciary, religious groups, etc. I GUESS EVERYONE'S EVEN!!!!
/r/MensRights23/05/11 08:57 PM
0

I honestly hope you get your head out your propaganda enough to realize that when you lose an argument because your underlying premises are wrong and factually inaccurate, it's better just to walk away than to wish ill unto others.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 08:46 PM
-18

I know what the WORD means. All that you've proven with your literary tantrum is that you know what the root "patriarc" means. Patriarchy is a separate concept that does NOT mean "rule by fathers" but rather "rule by males," so your little tantrum means nothing. If you don't believe that society is controlled by men, why don't you open your eyes and see who runs the majority of the nations, states, cities, companies, governmental agencies, judiciary, etc. etc. etc. Men. Your issue with father's …
/r/MensRights23/05/11 08:34 PM
1

Ah, I see you can't actually respond to any of my points, so you just disregard them by calling them "schtick" rather than attempt to defend your (now proven wrong) assertions? Guess what: physical evidence isn't the only way to prove a case. Like I said before, a little less CSI might do a body (and your ability not to make a fool of yourself) good.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 08:23 PM
1

No crime requires physical evidence to be prosecuted. Why should sex crimes be different? Especially considering how easy it would be to prevent depositing physical evidence (condoms), why would you make sex crimes the ONLY crime that can only be convicted with physical evidence???????? Someone's "words alone" coupled with the adversarial system of justice, the ability of the defense to present a defense, cross examination, witnesses to dispute details of the account, evidence that is relevant a…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 08:13 PM
-18

It actually just proves how harmful the patriarchy is for men AND women. Women are thought of as weak, men are thought of as strong. Women need intervention; if a man is observed to be the victim of a crime at the hands of a woman, they aren't "manly" enough for the patriarchy and must be punished/ignored.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 07:57 PM
1

Are you fucking kidding. You're the idiot to repeatedly claimed that people are getting convicted on "no evidence" or an "absence of evidence." You showed me a whole bunch of cases where people got convicted based on evidence, just not the particular subset of evidence that, thanks to your hours of watching CSI, you think is the only important kind. Who's the fucking moron now? Stop watching CSI and pretending that the only way you can be found guilty of a crime is through DNA/physical evidence.…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 07:46 PM
1

Oh, so you think "physical" evidence is the only kind of evidence that is valuable in a criminal trial? Hold the mustard, mayo, I'll pass the plate to you. You can use my law degree as a bib.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 07:36 PM
2

Are you kidding? Please give a single example where an "utter absence" of evidence leads to a conviction. That is the most legally ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It is quite literally impossible and if you can give a single instance in the history of the world where the prosecution offered no evidence at trial yet the defendant was convicted in a rape case, I will eat my words.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 07:19 PM
0

He points out very clearly for you why it's half problematic. It creates a loophole where lack of evidence can be construed as evidence. You're being willfully ignorant here. Christ. Lying isn't a "loophole." Someone can lie about any crime, it doesn't mean there's a "loophole" in the law. This isn't a matter of being willfully ignorant, it's about understanding that the prevalence of false accusations shouldn't change the legal definition of rape. You seem more than a little confused. Your anal…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 07:09 PM
1

The only person suggesting that seems to be you. The absence of evidence cannot be evidence in itself. It's insane. An accusation is not enough. Who is saying that people should be convicted of rape based on a single accusation? But testimony from the victim is valuable and can be used as evidence. And with enough other supporting evidence, it can be substantive grounds for a conviction, there's nothing wrong with that. The only person suggesting that seems to be you. The absence of evidence can…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 06:49 PM
2

Yes, of course, people can lie all the time for all sorts of reasons. That's bad. But the solution isn't to make it impossible for a husband to rape his wife.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 06:37 PM
7

No it can't. This is such a myth, in my opinion, perpetrated here. You need proof of a lack of consent. If a woman says "no," for instance, or there is some level of force or intimidation. But if there is none of these factors, if it's just "I never consented" without any evidence that there was affirmative non-consent (again, saying no, being pushed away, etc), it's not rape. If you can find evidence of a person being convicted (and that conviction being upheld) based only the claim "I did not …
/r/MensRights23/05/11 05:55 PM
0

Yep - when they were prevented from doing so before because of structural, systemic sexism, absolutely it is. I'm sorry you're so prejudiced that you can't understand that.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 04:40 PM
6

which is half ok and half problematic. If he beats and threatens her, if she has no chance to leave, yes he is a rapist. But it is a problem if every man has to live in fear to go to jail because his wife can claim: that 5 year ago she once asked him to stop and he continued and th So you're saying it's okay for a man to have sex with a woman after she asks him to stop just because they're married?????? not so sure about that. does not happen too often either. If he drugged her then he was guilt…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 03:56 PM
9

This is an excellent point, and one I think everyone needs to remember: "By the same token, just as we must insist that they stop talking about rape every time we talk about false rape claims, we must stop changing the subject to false rape claims every time they talk about rape. We must be willing to engage in an honest discussion about rape."
/r/MensRights23/05/11 03:25 PM
0

Don't you think that people are much more than just parents, though? I think much of feminism is focused on realizing the value outside of the private sphere and giving them the opportunity to gain equal footing with men in the public sphere. I'd argue that when both parents are fulfilled in their public and private lives is when they would both be able to be the most present and valuable parents; so it would seem that feminism actually implies that the goals of men/women/fathers/mothers work to…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 02:58 PM
12

First rape is re-defined, so that dozens of crimes that had a different name before, or that did not even exist before, become rape. Yes in the last half century, it was legally impossible for a man to rape someone he was legally married to, it was legally impossible for someone to be punished for having sex with someone who was unconscious and it was legally impossible for a man to be raped. How is changing those things a bad thing? Pretty soon, having sex with a 20 year old is rape (when the a…
/r/MensRights23/05/11 02:46 PM
3

Good for her!
/r/MensRights23/05/11 01:13 AM
2

Neato!
/r/MensRights23/05/11 12:08 AM
2

Okay, I have better things to do than try to over-explain an obvious point such as "It's important to know that Barack Obama was the first black president." If you don't believe that, that's your own prejudice and insecurity, not my lack of ability to explain obvious points.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 11:17 PM
0

If you can't see the value in identifying the first woman president or pilot just because it's also really hard for guys to do those two things, you're being willingly obtuse and this conversation is over. Sorry.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 10:44 PM
2

I disagree - when certain groups of people have been excluded from certain professions and spheres of life, it's important and relevant to note the first persons who cross that barrier. If men were kept from owning land, participating in politics, having certain professions because of their foreskin status, it would be relevant to note when the first 'outsider" was elected president. But since they don't, that's why we don't care. Likewise, since women, minorities, etc., have been excluded from …
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:48 PM
3

Because the death rates associated with breast cancer are much higher than prostate cancer (just look at the number cited in another comment; even with all the early intervention, screening, etc., breast cancer is still more likely to be lethal than prostate cancer) Doctors stop testing/treating prostate cancer after a certain age because it is so ubiquitous and not the reason why older men die. Breast cancer is much more likely, especially before the recent push for early screening and interven…
/r/MensRights22/05/11 03:21 PM
10

The reason why it's notable that Amelia Earhart was a woman is because she was the only one during her time. When 99% of X profession is male, it's really not notable to reference their gender. No one has to be told that G. Washington was a the first male president of the US because no woman has ever been elected president. I don't think there are any little boys sitting in class asking "Hey? Aren't there any GUYS we can be talking about?"
/r/MensRights22/05/11 03:11 PM
1

If I'm naive, you're a paranoid, woman-hating sociopath. I'm not arguing further when you refuse to listen to anything else. Good day.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 03:35 PM
1

Have the police been notified?
/r/MensRights21/05/11 02:15 PM
0

It DOES invalidate your argument because you're using the "lack of documentation" of sex as evidence that it isn't as important as buying a house. So your argument means nothing. No, because larceny isn't defined as taking an item with one's consent. So the fact that a drunk person couldn't consent doesn't make you guilty of a crime (but it does mean that the drunk person could invalidate the argument). Rape IS defined as having sex without the others' consent - so that's why consent (and whethe…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 01:53 PM
1

Yes. Please find a SINGLE instance where it was used for a wrong purpose. Until then, this is sounds like a whole bunch of anti-woman paranoia. You're going to take away an item that can be properly used by rape victims to protect men against the slim-to-none (unless you have a treasure trove of proof that this has ever happened; I can give you a few examples of women who have been actually raped) chance that someone who, but for this item, would NOT have set up a person for a false rape claim, …
/r/MensRights21/05/11 01:43 PM
0

Who cares? Punish the mother if you want, pass a law that makes it illegal not to notify the father, whatever, I don't care. But that doesn't mean that the father gets to not pay the money. He owes it to the kid. He should have been paying it all along and he wasn't, and I don't care that he's unemployed. He owes the money.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 01:31 PM
1

Then punish the people who use it as a weapon, just like people who use guns and knives as weapons and not self-defense. "Brand new weapon for rape liars" doesn't exactly embrace the sentiment of your last paragraph.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 03:17 AM
1

Wait, what part of your TWO SENTENCES (a) did I ignore or (b) prove me wrong??????? Is the word "trap" a code for something illegal nefarious and immoral? THEN SAY THAT. Sure, it's a trap! It's a trap for rapists! There should be MORE traps for rapists and murderers and burglars!
/r/MensRights21/05/11 02:56 AM
1

So now having sex with unwilling women is a means of empowerment? I'm sorry if someone actually thinking logically about issues is "trolling" in this little place.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 02:21 AM
-1

It honestly does. not. fucking. matter. You have a 0% chance of getting HPV from a candy bar. Please stop trying to prove that eating a candy bar carries the same risk as having sex. It doesn't. The end.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 01:23 AM
1

Right, right, right, right, I should have said if he wants to go to the police and report a crime, he's well within his rights to do so. Still true.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 01:06 AM
-3

You don't need a signature or formal documentation to buy a house. You can enter into a multi-million dollar enforceable contract without ever setting a pen to paper. The only reason why some (most) people choose to memorialize something in writing is because it clears up confusion and makes things clearer. But it doesn't magically make turn something into a "contract." So your conclusion simply doesn't follow, implicitly or explicitly. A quicker, and safer, and less invasive "fix" is talking to…
/r/MensRights21/05/11 12:56 AM
0

No, but considering that HPV is a SDT that causes cancer, I guess you just helped prove one more way how having sex isn't anything at all like having a candy bar.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 12:45 AM
-5

It's statistically more likely to get AIDS from sex than it is from eating a candy bar.
/r/MensRights21/05/11 12:27 AM
-2

You're right. But it's still a possibility, so it's a factor that makes this idea that a false accusation is a "quick fix" laughable (and you've successfully ignored 90% of my comment to share a statistic that doesn't change my argument).
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:58 PM
-2

You can't get AIDS, pregnant or another SDT from eating a candy bar. Individuals, male and female, value the decision to have sex as more than the decision to have a candy bar and the law reflects that seriousness. False rape allegations, what with the invasive physical exam, protracted trial, public scrutiny and possibility of being criminally charged, are by no means a "quick fix" and frankly it's a little obnoxious to pretend that it is. And in your final point, both the husband and the wife …
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:45 PM
-1

No, you just obviously didn't understand my response and I tried to explain it to you using concepts and words that might be easier for someone like you to understand.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:35 PM
0

But if you did, I wouldn't spend too much time losing sleep if someone DID rape you and was hurt (and that rapist wouldn't have a claim against you). If you rigged up a device that made it so a burglar would be jabbed in the hand if he tried to sneak through a window, that would be entirely legal and the burglar would have no claim against you.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:25 PM
1

I never claimed that only one party is a victim. But if only one party goes to the police and reports a crime, there's only one party that is going to be charged with a crime. It doesn't matter whether the other person was drunk or sober, if they have sex with you while you were too drunk to consent, they raped you. There's no "defacto admission" or any of this other bullshit. Yes, with rape that was predicated on too-drunk-to-consent, you're going to need a complaining witness. I understand tha…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:15 PM
1

Hahaha, you can think whatever you want, but you're being unreasonable if you deliberately refuse to understand the usage of this device as a defense to assault. I was trying to be a little jovial because of the absurdity of this willful ignorance of the real issue at hand. I didn't imply it was invented for You (there you go with your ridiculous capitalization), and I'm sorry if you took it personally and it hurt your feelings. Buck up, buddy, I'm sure you're a big boy.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:04 PM
0

No, you are responsible for rape when you rape someone. A big clue that someone doesn't want you to have sex with them is that they failed to remove the razors from their vagina.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 10:54 PM
0

No, you should stop having sex with people who don't want to have sex with you so much that they put razors in their vagina to keep your penis out.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 10:44 PM
1

No, it's not "either both are guilty" or "neither is." You're only guilty if a jury of your peers is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of your guilt. Both people have the right to go to the police with their claims, and the police have a duty to investigate, and the DA has a duty to prosecute, but the actions of two people are independent. Don't muddy it up by trying to claim that they both acted in exactly the same way. And, yes, if no goes to the police to report a rape, there won't be a cri…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 10:34 PM
1

It's not a "trap," when the only way you can get harmed by it is by sticking your penis in someone's vagina. Don't stick your penis in someone's vagina!
/r/MensRights20/05/11 10:16 PM
1

But the issue at hand isn't whether both parties were too drunk to proceed. It was whether Party A gave legal consent and whether party B had the legal capacity to commit a crime. Being drunk affects Party A's ability to consent but does not affect Party B's legal capacity. So there are separate and distinct legal issues and isn't just a matter of "spreading the guilt around." And, in a court of law, the only kind of consent that matters is the legal kind. I don't know what you mean by "practica…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 10:05 PM
-1

I don't "subscribe" to statistics, thanks. Also, this isn't special treatment. This is a passive defensive measure against an assault. If someone assaults you, you have the right to defend yourself during the course of the assault as well as the right to pursue criminal charges.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:52 PM
0

Why do you randomly capitalize words like that? It's strange. Anyway, yep, you're right, there are lots of reasons why rapists have a really good chance at never getting convicted. A lot of it has to do with the psychological effects of rape that don't have similar correlaries to burglaries. But there aren't "High levels of False accusations" there are just high levels of reported false accusations because, heck, if there's not something that would strike fear in the heart of a news executive li…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:42 PM
1

The first sentence of your second paragraph isn't accurate - it's not as though consent is retracted - it is that consent was never properly obtained. No retroactive retraction. Your last sentence is accurate. Yes, if two people are drunk, they cannot consent to sex and would both therefore be victims of rape. But there would be two separate and independent trials, both of which would need a cooperating victim to help prove the case that there was no consent due to intoxication. If one of the ra…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:32 PM
-3

Or.....let's do both? NB: the reason why the justice system systemically fails to convict rapists has nothing to do with the alleged "systemic nature of False accusations."
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:21 PM
-5

Well, I guess this all goes back to the original point: Don't rape people. Also a good piece of advice: don't have sex with crazy people who might want to set up you up. Listen, part of me wonders what you think the rate of pre-meditated false rape allegations are. Putting aside false rape allegations that step from a woman "changing her mind," how many false rape claims originate in a situation where the woman attempts to cajole a man into having sex with her, only to turn around and cry rape? …
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:11 PM
-6

Yeah, because women who "falsely cry rape" have no access to any weapons, hospitals or videocameras with which to premeditate and execute their evil plan, only cases and cases of VAGINA RAZORS.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:01 PM
-6

It might not take TOO much imagination, but it certainly takes IMAGINATION. You're making stuff up. I'll start giving a shit the second anyone actually attempts to use this maliciously. Until then, keep sticking your dick in scary razor caves (read: vaginas!) with the same reckless abandon hippies in the 60s had! Guess what? You have sex with a crazy bitch? She might just try to kill you with a hand razor, or a finger gun, or a foot boot! Beware! Always beware! And don't go into dark alleys or e…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:51 PM
-9

Yeah, that happens ALL the time. I'm so surprised there aren't even more men who haven't been victims of this awful, awful, vagina razor! Poor guys just don't know how to talk to girls without sticking their penis inside of them, just like toddlers, VCRs and pennies! And don't forget that there's NOTHING a woman would like to do more than maim a man with a vagina razor when a regular switchblade just isn't "Sex and the City" enough! Women!
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:41 PM
1

A good way not to get attacked by a vagina razor is by not sticking your penis is other people's vaginas!
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:31 PM
-1

No, it's sarcasm, sorry you weren't able to comprehend that. Apparently your brain only develops the ability to understand sarcasm around age 8.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:08 PM
1

But intoxication isn't a defense for a crime. There's a huge difference between the legal requirements for sobriety to give consent and the understanding that being drunk isn't an excuse to commit a crime.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:52 PM
1

Well, I will readily admit that my experience with criminal law is more of the pro bono persuasion rather than my bread and butter. And maybe I live in some hippie conclave where the small amount of men who are too-drunk-to-consent rape victims aren't swept under the carpet, but I think that it's hard to believe that elsewhere in the country, there are thousands of men beating down the door of their police station claiming that they were raped while they were drunk and everyone is turning a blin…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:26 PM
0

You can't use your experience in Texas to blame a woman in the UK. Until you can show that it's just that easy in the UK, you're not very convincing. I don't think it's unfair to get arrested for a debt you didn't know about (I DO think it's unfair to get arrested for debt in general, but that's the difference between the UK and the US) - - - and I really don't understand the concern over the well-being of the unemployed parent who never supported his kid rather than the well-being of the kid.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:15 PM
1

While my comments here shouldn't be construed as 'legal advice," I actually do have a career in the legal profession.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:04 PM
1

First: Do you have ANY evidence for men being "laughed out of the building"? Second: Again, the fact that men in the lack of consent criminal procedures do not choose to report their crime doesn't mean that it wouldn't be taken seriously if it were reported. Third: The only difference in the amount of physical evidence between male and female victims of rape is semen, which can easily be taken out of the picture for female victims through the use of a condom, which many rapists use, so I really …
/r/MensRights20/05/11 06:38 PM
0

Oh, I'm sorry, I should I have written a little more than £200 (I was going off of someone else's numbers, but the point is still the same). It's not that the child didn't NEED support for the first 14 years of his life. It's that his mother didn't sue for it (again, perhaps she was busy being a single mom). That's not so say that it's money that isn't owed, or the man shouldn't be required to pay it. Just because someone waits a while to collect on a debt doesn't mean that debt is extinguished …
/r/MensRights20/05/11 06:17 PM
0

Right, but no DA is going to take a case without a cooperative witness. So if the man wants to go down to the police station and report the crime, he is welcome to. I don't know what "practical" sense you're talking about. Just because fewer men are raped doesn't mean that there is a legal impediment from them seeking justice.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 06:05 PM
0

Wow, all these women CHOOSING to be raped rather than messing up their pretty faces? Yeah, I guess you're right, I've never heard of a time where a woman was raped AND beaten at the same time! It's so nice of rapists to give these women a choice, since what they really wanted was is a little P in V.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:52 PM
0

"Most people" - do you have ANY basis for such a claim about the "preference" among crime victims? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass because you don't think you'd mind a little uninvited ass action?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:39 PM
0

There's a difference between talking about how the law should be and wasting your time making moral attacks on "greedy women" and painting every picture as if the poor, put-upon man is a mere victim in the situation. It'll get you a heck of a lot father to do it rationally than trying to keep calling single mothers raising children alone "greedy" for wanting less than $200 a month to help pay bills.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:28 PM
1

Considering he was arrested at an airport fleeing to a country with no extradition to the United States, he should count his lucky stars he's not in jail like a non-rich/white person would be.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:17 PM
0

Um, no, focusing on what's best for the child isn't really what's best for the woman at the expense of the man. You can't just say something that ridiculous without any actual support for it. And, yes, consent to sex means consent to parenthood by both parties. And consent to sex doesn't mean that you lose the right to an abortion. Entirely different things. Thanks to a little thing called "biology" the act of carrying a child to term is entirely different than being liable for helping support a…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:06 PM
2

At the very least, she's a smart bitch.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:52 PM
0

I disagree - I think that the statute of limitations judges the reasonability of holding someone liable for child support. In this case, it's with the SOL, so the liability holds. There are ways to talk about this issue (support shortening the SOL, for instance) that don't turn into a question of morality.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:42 PM
-2

Listen, don't call me a "liar" based on some hypothetical situation you just made up. I think the law should focus on what's best for the CHILD. Not the father (or the mother). I don't really care whether the father did or did not have parental rights. What MATTERS is whether the child did or did not receive child support from his father. In this case, he didn't. In this case, it's legally owed to him. And in this case, sorry to say, the father needs to buck up and pay because of the choices he …
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:32 PM
0

What's to prevent a whole bunch of deadbeat dads from refusing to work just so that their money wouldn't go to a kid they've never spent time with? Oh, you think that's RIDICULOUS? Yeah, it's just about as ridiculous as pretending that single mothers out there got pregnant, raised a kid by themselves for 13 years, just to give an especially hard "fuck you" to the unemployed father of their kid.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:19 PM
0

It's not bullshit. He legally owes that money. And, yeah, statutes of limitation sometimes give people a while to sue, but that's because a person shouldn't be able to dodge the law just because someone has waited a certain amount of time before going through the process of suing. You know, like spending time raising a kid.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:09 PM
-1

First of all, let's not pretend that every single mom out there chose that lifestyle so that, a decade and a half down the line, she could royally screw over the unemployed father of her child. Maybe papa bear should get a job and then he can help support the well-being of his child instead of pretending like some salty shrew is screwing him over. The correct/just/moral issue at hand is what's best for the child. His or her interests should outweigh whatever squabbling is coming from the mother …
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:57 PM
0

Um, yeah, it's really unfair to expect someone who fathered a child to actually take responsibility to his actions. It's totally unfair that a child shouldn't have to suffer because his father didn't know about him. Oh, the poor put upon father, having to spend less than $200 a month on raising his child, without any time commitment at all! I can guarantee the mom spent more than that on food, clothes, schools, medical bills, etc. - and, you know, spent her time actually attending to the child's…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:45 PM
-1

I understand why you might jump to the conclusion that she was motivated by greed, but I personally find it hard to judge someone for simply asking for what is legally her child's.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:34 PM
-2

There is a statute of limitations in a lot of states. In NYS, for example, it's 20 years. And why wouldn't it be realistically spent on the child? A year of college could take care of it pretty quickly.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 02:24 PM
0

If that guy wants to press charges, he's within his rights to do so.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 01:56 PM
2

How about you actually make an argument rather than passive aggressively linking to a wikipedia entry about a story. What's your actual point?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 01:41 PM
1

No, because there's nothing about any larceny statute that requires a lack of affirmative consent. A necessary element of rape is the "no consent" part.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:54 PM
0

Because, in the examples you're considering, only one of those persons chooses to press charges.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:40 PM
1

It absolutely doesn't protect the rights of all parties. One of those parties is a child. And removing a child from the home to punish the parents is absurd.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:28 PM
1

That just because you don't know about your legal obligations, even if it's not your fault, you don't deserve to be absolved of your legal liability.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:17 PM
1

No it's not. That ONE statistic shows that, in West Virginia, during one year, the rate of total requested OOPs was found by a judge to majority "unnecessary." (whatever unecessary means). It gives no color as to the rate of ACTUAL abuse or the rate of ACTUAL false allegations.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 12:04 PM
0

Much higher than they should be? Sure. There should be zero false allegations. And there should be zero true child abuse. But the mere evidence of false allegations doesn't necessarily imply that we should remove children from a non-abusive parent as a backhanded way to prevent false allegations.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:02 AM
-1

Nothing you linked to proves that the rate of false accusations are higher than the rate of actual abuse.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:49 AM
-1

That's like saying that two people who get in a fist fight can't both be charged with assault. Of course they can.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:40 AM
-3

No, a person is only a rapist if they have sex with someone without their consent. Don't have sex with people who can't give consent. Pretty easy peasy.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:28 AM
0

It's easy. When you get yourself drunk, you are responsible for any harm that you do. And, just because you're drunk, no one has the right to harm you. Pretty easy, right?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:24 AM
1

No, it actually creates the wrong motivations. Rather than protecting and encouraging people to report abuse, it creates a strong disincentive to report abuse. What parent would report abuse if that mean they had to knowingly give up custody of their child to the government. In what bizarro world do you think we live in that a victim of a crime should be removed from his or her home and sent to live with strangers? The rates of false abuse allegations are not nearly high enough (and certainly no…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:45 AM
1

Right, so punish the falsely accusing father or mother with sanctions or fines. It seems desperately short-sighted to use children as punishment pawns.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:27 AM
0

Do you really think that adding more children to the government care system is really a good thing for the children? Or are you more concerned about punishing evil wenches?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:17 AM
1

Easy mistake.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:04 AM
3

Not true. The article quoted extensively from men and women; only one woman was against pink toenails; only one man supported it.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 02:39 AM
-1

Yeah, this one time my W2 was sent to the wrong address because the post office made a mistake and I didn't have to pay my taxes. Oh, that never happened? Hmm, that's interesting.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 02:24 AM
1

The people who are most supportive of little boys being able to paint their toes pink are women. It's not an accident that the mom was painting her son's toes pink, not the dad. The vast majority of people who are concerned about the feminsation of boys are men, no?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 02:10 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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