TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

XFDRaven Archive

View 12 posts and 1,286 comments by XFDRaven 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)
113

XFDRaven/r/MensRights26/10/10 09:06 PM
59

XFDRaven/r/MensRights27/04/10 01:48 PM
51

XFDRaven/r/MensRights06/07/10 05:17 PM
40

XFDRaven/r/MensRights22/06/10 05:44 PM
18

XFDRaven/r/MensRights08/03/11 04:11 AM
16

XFDRaven/r/MensRights29/06/10 07:59 PM
14

XFDRaven/r/MensRights28/04/10 05:08 PM
8

XFDRaven/r/MensRights12/10/10 12:09 AM
6

XFDRaven/r/MensRights04/05/11 05:26 AM
6

XFDRaven/r/MensRights04/07/10 09:47 PM
5

XFDRaven/r/MensRights18/03/11 07:33 PM
0

XFDRaven/r/MensRights30/07/10 12:27 AM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,286 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
14

I don't think so. I would personally support the gal on the left side as she's not using an unfounded canard of all women are victims, and addresses the problems specifically. In addition she's acting as an egalitarian on male issues as well. You will not find a feminist who is her equal. To be a straw-person argument, the person on the right must have some token tag-line, often taken out of context, and misconstrued to falsely misrepresent her position. If there were a fallacy here, it would pr…
/r/MensRights18/12/11 10:33 PM
6

If you're coming in here to affirm something, the burden is on you to back it up. None the less, since it's absent from the sidebar, applying math and using public statistics to debunk the bull: http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/the-radical-middle/27667--one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven Counter that.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 07:02 PM
2

In the UK she gets free college anyway. Underprivileged entitlement for being female and all of that.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 06:03 PM
3

Does it sound pretty accurate in order to support a pre-determined perception, or does it sound pretty accurate because it lets you not have to actually back up anything you believe? The whole 1 in 4, 1 in 5, x of y, line has been disproven, disproven again and continuously done until the horse has been rendered into dust. When actual math and statistics are evaluated openly, the hysteria "statistic" falls apart.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 06:00 PM
5

Well the short of it is, you go into GBS for a while and "learn how to play on SA." Whenever people say "lurk moar" it basically means you failed to learn how things worked and gotta go back to GBS. The Sub-forums are where you "graduate" to. Then it basically becomes similar to reddit. And just like reddit, there is a central cirlcejerk theme that they each have (even /MR has one). AI has some loud, obnoxious twits who are Subaru Fanboys. TFR has a fun and silly affinity with "gay" as sort of a…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 11:56 PM
2

Never went to DPPH, mainly hang out (and hung out) in TFR and AI. D&D is the statist heaven sub-forum, and it sounds like you got beaten down by Ozma, SA's resident Femi-Nazi.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 11:36 PM
15

4chan's creator, moot, was originally an SA member. SomethingAwful (SA) had an anime subforum called ADTRW (Anime Death Tentacle Rape Whorehouse), where all anime related shit was relegated to. Moot and others enjoyed hanging out on the Japanese messageboard, 2chan.org. Somehow, he decided to start up a US based equivalent to get around the xenophobic portions of 2chan (basically a non-japanese IP gets cockblocked). He called it 4chan.net. Other shit happened and after 6 years or so you have 4ch…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 10:43 PM
1

What you're getting at, is what I like to call the Porch Monkey defense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWdVwt2deY4
/r/MensRights14/12/11 07:43 AM
2

If you want to believe that there is a central power that can define it past an abstract state, that's your take, and I must respect that. You don't have to respect it. Just as I do not need to respect feminism. None the less, you reversed the direction of what I said. If those with power brand themselves as something, and there is no hard definition of what that thing is prior to that declaration, they take ownership of it. How are you going to claim they are not what they say they are? You can…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 05:04 AM
4

What you wrote essentially embodies that there are people, who associate themselves as feminists, who do good things. That may well be, I won't argue that. However, the notion that there is no core leadership or similar means of No-true-scotsman, is almost entirely meaningless. It is the group with power which defines what it is. A king to a pile of dirt has neither power or value. If he claims himself a ruler of smurfs, it is meaningless. Compared to a king of a land with troops of all ethnicit…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 04:04 AM
3

Eh ok I'll bite the troll bait. Feminist groups push their politics to perpetuate the notion that all men are evil through some mechanism. In one particular case, it goes along the lines of "Only men can stop rape." Another is, "a call to men to stop abusing their girlfriends." Tounge in cheek, this post then flips the situation to use actual rational statistics (something the feminist groups apparently create or collect with a heaping helping of confirmation bias) to point out the opposite case…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 02:01 AM
3

So if anyone can brand themselves a Feminist, then feminism is whatever is included with that person's agenda/goals. The general Anti-male antics that you believe are not from feminists, are then automatically feminist because they get a free pass to the movement. There is no core ruleset, that can be used to test the authenticity. Judge people on actions, not attributes; and the metric is the rules/beliefs core to the ideology. You can't do that with Feminism. You can do it with many other thin…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 01:56 AM
2

The point, you missed it.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 01:24 AM
2

So feminism is something amorphous without any quantifiable membership and thus no quantifiable standard? This is going to become another NAFALT run around but I'll play along.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 01:22 AM
2

Too often, I've seen people quit, rejoin, and quit again. So it's mainly a mechanism against the cycle. I figure that if I have a "tombstone" profile, it lets me vent my disappointments, eliminates any drunken notions of "well maybe this time..." and gives some closure. Somewhat amusingly, I've actually recevied two messages from equally jaded women who have had the same experience as I in their dating, expressing some of that bittersweet mutual understanding.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 09:18 PM
5

They do. That's why they try so hard screaming NAWALT and saying "No, no, that isn't feminism/She isn't a feminist/Not all Feminists are like that/etc"
/r/MensRights13/12/11 06:39 PM
5

It's all about framing it with the same unarguable pretexing you need to justify a science background to a fundie. Stating your association first lends you to interruption. I actually went out with a gal on one date (only) a while ago when I was still dating. She went on about something or other and then grouped in MRAs with them. So my response was something along the lines of, "Eh, well I don't think women who abuse their kids or even kill them are better than men who do the same, and since fa…
/r/MensRights13/12/11 06:37 PM
0

As if there were a difference?
/r/MensRights13/12/11 04:07 AM
3

So we can easily resolve this through linking to your campus' Dorm policies. It's remarkably doubtful that you would lose anonymity among several thousand male students by linking that much.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 04:06 AM
2

In your experience, what is the spread of divorce lawyers from "do my damnedest to do what is right" to "I'm batshit crazy with a bone to pick" that you've seen? (Evenly mixed, mostly good, mostly crazy?) Also, as I understand, the results of Divorces are kept locked away so it becomes hard to quantify outcomes either way, is there any truth to that?
/r/MensRights12/11/11 05:17 AM
8

Well it certainly puts some form of brakes on the gals who instantly change their behaviors the second the ring goes on the finger.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 07:00 AM
5

I was thinking 5 year but given most marriages falling apart in the first year this probably makes sense.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 02:57 AM
4

Interested in sharing more? One case isn't much more than anecdotal, but hearing your story has value none the less.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 04:30 PM
15

Equally capable, sure. Equally enforced? Not so much. You're welcome to show us how common it is that the woman busts ass to pay for home and doesn't get to keep it post divorce. You'll be digging for a very, very long time.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 05:38 AM
10

In regards to his ability to pay for her lifestyle after divorce, a steady job is pretty important. Fixed that for you.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 05:44 AM
9

Well thank you for presenting yourself as someone who feels others should be cannibalized for some presumed "greater good."
/r/MensRights05/10/11 12:21 AM
19

That's a very objectivist line of thinking (A good thing). How is that which is moral, also that which would destroy the self? What the message states, almost verbosely, is that to be a good man you must be a human sacrifice to some kind of woman-god.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 08:48 PM
2

Needs more upboats. Replacing feminists with their sexual opposites is not an improvement.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 12:54 AM
2

All of feminism is in conflict with MR. Feminism relies on scapegoating to justify its policy, politics and ideology. "Not all MR haters are feminist," true, "not all feminists hate MR," false. If I said, "Not all racists are Klansmen, and not all Klansmen are racist," you would probably look at me if I shat myself.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 10:53 PM
4

I support this one. Removing the feminist link is enabling the old card, "Well no true feminist..." by means of "well I'm not anti-equality, I'm a feminist."
/r/MensRights28/09/11 10:36 PM
1

Apparently no one on the hysteria side has doors at all.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 06:27 PM
13

Maybe there should be some sort of large object that creates a barrier from the outside world to the inside of the home. Some sort of gate. I think my place has one with a peephole. I live in a very advanced world though. The funny thing about this large object is that it reduces this whole argument of different in physical force, which is unto itself bullshit. If such a gate were to be seiged and broken, then whatever force difference between a male and woman there might have been is rendered p…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 06:26 PM
20

That actually just came out like a lot of non-speak. Plenty was said, not much was actually conveyed. A stream of consciousness with no well defined position or followup to explain that position. E.g. I refuse to allow for men who claim to 'fight for their rights' to be blind to the fact that doing so harms children. Doesn't really get connected to: The bread-winning parent has the right to support from the non-bread winning parent, so that they can BOTH be engaged in the child's life. or There …
/r/MensRights02/09/11 05:18 PM
5

About fucking time, now follow through with it and can her ass.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 06:08 PM
3

I had a strikingly similar argument with the BolshevikMuppet guy. Basically he hit a wall of Cognitive Dissonance where in all other cases what she does is wrong, but once there is a child produced from her whims it's the guy's responsibility; contradicting all other situations. It's a massive "think of the children" escapism.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 11:21 PM
4

So... how's that white knighting business working out for ya buddy?
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:55 PM
7

Great, good job! Now use that bullshit to explain how the VAWA, a feminist policy sponsored and created by N.O.W., is advocating equality through anti male policies! Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of feminism violently disagree with your rose-colored version of feminism.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:52 PM
5

In general, this is going to be the norm. The nature of modern "equality" is the same thing as modern politics in the US. It's a system which requires a monster to blame all woes on, skew and distort the numbers and apply exceptional quantities of intellectual dishonesty. There needs to be understanding that these people are not merely children or man-hating lesbians. These are subjectivists, people who live their lives on cherry picking whims for what they claim to be morally good, and even tha…
/r/MensRights11/08/11 06:08 AM
6

Hell has hit absolute zero.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 08:40 PM
2

You insult by accusing of "being confused," then take exception through the same absolute I described. In doing so, you then affirm what I already said.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:54 AM
2

Then you lose the game. It wasn't long ago that people would argue, "black people always steal." The given data today is that black men make up the majority of the prison population. By your argument above, that then validates "Black people always steal." Which it does not. You can "use your common sense" for this, but claiming "using your noggin" or "use common sense" is a fallback attempt to claim mental superiority without establishing any. Again absolutes become the differentiator. "Women ar…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:41 AM
1

Without some kind of absolute, when you make sweeping generalizations (even if there is truth behind it) you lose your objectivity which then costs you credibility. It enables those who seek to destroy you to have leverage over you. Omit the whole issue I mentioned in my first response. None of it is written. The article calls to question why girls are put on a pedestal while the boys with actual innovation are blown off. It's a critical piece. Now someone who has it out for the author comes to …
/r/MensRights12/07/11 11:27 PM
22

Damnit. That was going well until it pigeon-holed boys as innovators and girls as memorizers. It loses credibility when it stereotypes and distracts from what is otherwise a great argument. The girl was basically doing a study into food-science in what amounts to some basic Chemistry. No problem was really trying to be solved, purely an experiment for the sake of experiment (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but its not innovation). The boy was noting a general problem and developing a novel…
/r/MensRights12/07/11 06:55 PM
9

Look at OP's story. There is reason enough.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 06:42 PM
9

Oh look, another feminist preaching the same crap. Hello and welcome to years ago. Check your victim complex.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 11:02 PM
1

Yeah, I just love having the privilege of being defacto guilty for so many things by the sword of Feminism. I also love the privilege of getting to work my ass off and not getting any excuses because I didn't have the decency to be born with a second X chromosome. I savor and flaunt my privilege to be the fall guy for Women's fraud (since we cannot hold women accountable). Etc. Etc. Anyone who claims men have this grand world of privilege lives in a delusional, fictitious reality in need of scap…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 06:41 PM
5

The context doesn't really depart from the essence though. She's saying unless certain qualifiers of her own standards are met, all men are misogynistic. Those qualifiers happen to also be, in essence, feminist dogma falling back to the joke, "What do you call a guy who argues with a feminist? ...A misogynist." She uses this fictitious "privilege" boogeyman that she can't substantiate in a meaningful manner, so it's all BS.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 05:51 PM
2

I did not contest or imply otherwise I inferred that from It also implies the ACLU has weighed in on the subject we are discussing, which they have not. <break> You need to show where the VAWA codifies into law a women being the exclusive and sole arbiter in deciding wether or not she was raped. Am I to understand that the constraints are then explicitly direct; that is indirectly doing so is not acceptable?
/r/MensRights04/07/11 06:27 AM
2

you claim this, but you don't demonstrate it Well lets prevent you from moving the goal post, define what you want explicitly demonstrated. It Provided the possibility... Explain why it would need to hit the SCOTUS and then be stricken down as an excessive reach of congress. Following that, the assertion that this is official feminist dogma. An organization, which is feminist, pushed to make this policy possible. None the less, let's then take an easy one; The Duke Lacrosse case. She claimed she…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 05:39 AM
2

Indoctrinates (2) to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view. Anyway, it isn't an argument firstly. The focus statement from the topic's image is expressed in legal policy which skips out on that which you state I am "still" wrong on. For note, the feminist group, "NOW" was a huge supporter of the bill and had quite a hand in its content. The ACLU had a problem with it, so perhaps you know more than they do. 'The Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act of 1994, effect…
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:45 AM
5

The Violence Against Women Act indoctrinates this policy as law. Would you like me to google the act for you?
/r/MensRights04/07/11 02:56 AM
2

When I was in engineering school there were two upperclassmen who were female, one was the party girl and probably won her opportunities through "favors" as she couldn't design a resistive circuit to save her life. The other exhibited the usual "male" engineer qualities and was actually very competent. Both got jobs. One was qualified for it. When I reached upperclassman status, there were two girls of note. One who was a party girl. She couldn't design a resistive circuit to save her life, but …
/r/MensRights28/06/11 11:41 PM
2

As an integral sum of them all? Yes. Actively? Only the feminists. Passively, the rest.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 10:57 PM
9

Don't know about that. These are usually inquiries asked by those who don't know how to be obscure in asking for their perceived entitlements. Never underestimate the floor of human stupidity.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 09:04 PM
5

Property has no feelings that should be considered. Men are simply a property asset which produces revenue for the woman. Who really worries about how their shoes feel about their predicament?
/r/MensRights28/06/11 09:00 PM
3

I actually treat women on the exact same level as my male peers. I don't accept any excuses for things that need to get done, don't let whiny appeals get dismissive acceptance. When women, be they at work or in company of friends, pull any kind of crap based on their sex I explicitly bench them against a male counterpart and ask what makes them so special they need that privilege. They usually steam off and get quite upset, so I'm still classified as an asshole because I don't coddle them. So it…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 03:55 AM
1

Yup. And this is going to be the case until the first battery of MRA style policy gets put into law. Once that happens, the MRA movement will be defined by that law. If it's sexist like feminist law, it'll be what Bolshevik is going on about. If it isn't, then it's easy to say "you're not an mra" via the obvious contradiction to the policy.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 07:21 PM
1

You argue that because both the man and the woman must put into the process their reproductive abilities, both men and women should have the same rights. And, in that sense they do. So far as the legal system goes, they get 100% equal treatment for all things which are mutually common to them. However, your argument is overly broad, ignoring that once the man has donated sperm, the question is not one of the reproductive functions of both bodies, but of one. As described by the facility describe…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 05:44 PM
1

Or, as is often argued by MRAs... So in of itself, I'm not seeing her job as a function of state treatment of her, unless all jobs are state jobs. If a job requires high levels of travel, a woman who becomes a mother is not going to be compatible with the need. I would not hire her for that position. If the law tells me that I cannot ask her plans for creating a family in the future, I then have to hedge my bets for the company's best outcome. So, yet again, Thus, we must divorce the right from …
/r/MensRights22/06/11 10:44 PM
-8

So you now give it qualifiers? Why not to that from the beginning? "As a police officer, bail in my state is usually set based on the crime. Often, repeat offenders will have higher bail than non-repeat. So while the article does not say, it's likely the man received the higher bail amount due to prior arrests, acts or similar offenses." Simply saying "its likely he's a crook," is no more credible than "the story about the theft doesn't say, but I bet the thief is black." There isn't any solid r…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 09:25 PM
1

If we present F(A) and F(B) as being the rights of the person they are equal. Your equivocation is to present F(A) and F(B) both as the underlying (and equal) right, but also as the result. It was specified earlier that F(x) is the operation of the government system with respect to the capabilities, rights and responsibilities of the person passed as the argument. Equality demands that the system gives the same results regardless of the person of argument passed through F(x), otherwise you have …
/r/MensRights22/06/11 09:15 PM
-6

Citation needed.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 08:20 PM
1

With due respect, I'm going to jump past all of the mathematics. You make a very simple false equivalence early on, and it taints the rest of it. But, it's the same equivalence we're debating. "In other words, a false equivalence fallacy occurs when someone falsely equates an act by one party as being equally egregious to that of another without taking into account the underlying differences which may make the comparison patently invalid." By this explanation of false equivalence, my mathematica…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 07:58 PM
1

Care to explain how babies have some rights against interference by their parents, and not others? And can we avoid the simply annoying thing about "positive versus negative rights" that I think we've done before? They have no more, or less rights than any other person. If I cannot do "x" to you, why could I do it to a baby? That is the point about the supernatural creation being entitled to supernatural rights. An infant is still a person, who in essence is limited in ability and a dependent to…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:27 PM
1

Victims are victims because of oppression. No oppression, no victims. Can you not be a victim by nature of assault, fraud or rape? What you read was history. Which is why we have the SCUM manifesto, Gail Dines saying men are inclined to become pedophiles because porn subjects women which drives them to shave their pubes, etc. etc. Why we have the VAWA which creates pre-crime and otherwise unlawful policies forged by the folks of N.O.W.; a feminist group. It's how we got that great little piece o…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 04:29 AM
1

But, if you want to send the woman to jail, and saddle the father with complete custody and child-rearing obligations, I'm fine with that. So we have the first point of agreement. A child has a right (not merely an expectation) to some minimum of support from its progenitors. A good question to ask is why, and to what extent? Who defines the minimum? This position still requires supreme position of rights born by spontaneous creation of some god which superceeds that of common man. Just as I hav…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 11:01 PM
1

You know what? It is amazing. Do you have any idea how many times people have posted in here going "uhg look at this /2xc thread"? Do you have any idea how many times those threads contained the membership supporting the same shitty ideas that the OP of this topic was going on about? If you can accurately guess the first you need not guess the second. Women are not mindless. You will not ever find me disputing this. It is because I think this to be true without condition that I hold all women to…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 08:23 PM
1

To address this first, You spend a lot of words repeating "it's the mother's obligation, she chose to have the child" conveniently ignoring that the needs of the child can easily go thus unmet. So, for the purposes of further discussion, please respond to that situation at least once, as opposed to simply returning to "the woman should pay, grr" and "see, you just don't like men." There was no ignoring it. It's quite possible. It's also equally possible that the father can't meet those as well. …
/r/MensRights21/06/11 08:15 PM
9

Feminism and women's rights are not necessarily inclusive to one another. You can be an advocate for women's rights and equality and not be a feminist. He's asking regarding feminist alignment specifically, though.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 06:20 AM
7

I... Hell hath frozen over. Her peers actually seem to be calling her to the carpet and downvoting the crap out of her on their own accord. ... Props to them? /Confused
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:57 AM
1

Seen it, experienced it, heard your same tired "no true feminist" rhetoric before. I did actually educate myself on it, because I wondered why I was so hated when I had done nothing wrong. Then I read Greer and the other "mothers of the feminist movement" works. Then I learned that feminism is nothing about being well thought out or logic. It's about fud, scapegoating and needing to be the perpetual victim.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 01:20 AM
1

You don't have an argument either. I argue that a woman is responsible for her choices and a man should not be subjugated to her for her choices. That is my argument. With great rights come great responsibilities. An inability to to complete the chain of responsibility from the woman's choice in producing a child, to the unknowing father with countless, disconnected arguments under the banner of "think of the children." It leads to a reasonable doubt about your motives and argument. In fact, the…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 11:46 PM
6

This is a new and exciting thread. It's full of new ideas that have been well thought out and has a lot to bring to the table. Now excuse me, I need to go castrate myself for my male privilege.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:58 PM
2

State the problem, state your constraints. A good engineer can come up with a solution. ;) (just might not be a good one.)
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:55 PM
1

For me, of course, it's a matter of not having had a computer reliably these past few weeks, and missing some messages. Congratulations on claiming victory by default for me having not responded quite as quickly as you would have liked though, I'm sure that feels nice. We both had work to do. Three days running blanks and you started posting and just happen to miss it a day after you start posting? Doubt it. You don't have an argument. You're circling around and around "but the child." The Child…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:52 PM
1

Check update, your false third party argument is nothing other than an appeal to emotion. Further I have not seen any actual logical argument to justify this ends-justify-the-means belief you have. This third party is only an actor to the person who chose to engage with them (mother producing or adopting a child). So long as the father did not enter into this third party engagement initially, it's completely irrelevant.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:27 PM
1

Which I think I dispelled that whole argument with great satisfaction. If the woman is capable of choice such that she is neither legally incompetent or property to another, then she is responsible to the choice of a child if she so does produce it on her own accord. Otherwise, it's simply exchanging her as a piece of property from the right of the husband to the right of the state. Either of those propositions are disagreeable. Women are capable of their own independent choice of their own voli…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:23 PM
1

Which is funny that you don't seem to apply that to our other discussion. It gets even more amusing that you don't seem to apply that to women who pull all sorts of funny stunts to gain offspring, dump on guys, and then apply the power of the state to steal from them. Not evil, just sexist. Well maybe a little malicious too.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:05 PM
0

It's TwoX, Feminisms, Feminism, GenderEquality, et. all.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:53 PM
0

You seem to be very happy to sacrifice the rights of men under their sacrifice "for the children." Or it may be more specific to say that you're not opposed to any man's rights until they can be traded for some other "socially preferred" class.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:52 PM
1

Quickest one that comes to mind was engineering school. There were two gals (not using each as examples, but rather as one example) out of my class working on the assigned coursework. They were having problems similar to that of my peers and they came to me asking for help (I'm one of a few at the top of the graduating class). The particularly annoying thing with their request is that they didn't do anything to solve it. "Can you tell me how to solve this? It's too hard." was approximately what …
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:48 PM
2

Got a standardized reference which all true feminists adopt? Gail teaches women's studies at some accredited college. So she's pretty much defining what feminism is.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 11:37 PM
1

Why not just say that because my heritage is German I will start gassing jews, gays, and gypsies? Because being that open will show that feminism is crazy. The foundation of Feminism is based on that kind of FUD. Call any feminist on it, and you get "No true feminist..." This is why I say sigh and move on. You can't convert religious fanatics.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 08:40 PM
0

It was a weak episode, I won't contest that at all. Their conclusion that "it depends on the person" was decent enough though. There is a bit of a "magic pill" too, in spite of what they said. It's thermo dynamics; if you expend more energy than you take in, it has to come from somewhere. It's how I went from 220lbs to 140lbs. :\
/r/MensRights19/06/11 06:58 PM
0

Well that's the problem, the evidence is usually pretty good. Organic food was a great example. The Hoorah, America FUCK YEAH episode as well. Much of the pseudo science crowd is founded on idiocy, they poke fun at idiots and use the biggest yaps as their weapon against the subject. This particular piece regarding the war on porn uses the norm of Feminist thought (Gail & the other one with her head up her ass) as the standard. In doing so, since there are so many parallels, they can cut the whol…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 06:49 PM
6

And, no, I don't think consent to sex equals consent to parenthood. I think this is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome at present. There exists this incorrect perception that sex = kids unconditionally when we now have very effective contraceptives. If we applied this kind of thinking elsewhere, then people also have sex to get STDs. Both have tiny, non-zero, chances of happening with contraceptives but this does not make the act of sex have the intention of getting an STD or producing a pr…
/r/MensRights19/06/11 06:17 PM
1

The women in 2X are likely not the same women that you deal with in your day to day life. I have doubts about that, given that there is no difference in behavior between the two that I can observe. And secretly aroused. Of this, I'm nearly certain is untrue. It would be funny though.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 04:57 PM
0

The part where people refer to them as unbiased. It's strange that they do so when P&T themselves state it's biased to their views.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 04:48 PM
2

She'll do that regardless for arguing with her in the first place.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 04:30 PM
1

Feminism requires hysteria and fear of the other. The mechanism to support fear, hysteria and ultimately hatred of the other sex here is porn to justify the notion that rapists are born out of sexual desire/acting male. Guy sees porn, gets horny, decides to rape, likes this, goes on to children. That's her chain of idiocy, and it's supported by the college.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 04:29 PM
5

That would be Gail. She happens to be right up there wither Germaine Greer on "all men are evil rapists just waiting to bloom." The real kicker is it's very hard for feminists to say "she's not a real feminist" since she's a teacher of women's studies.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 04:27 PM
2

Common feminist thinking. Sigh and move on.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 04:25 PM
4

P&T Openly admit that their show is biased to their views. Where did you hear them ever say otherwise? Their opening show explicitly states that its about things they think are bullshit.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 04:25 PM
2

Ok so your constraint is you want to keep her as a friend. This is pretty simple: You won't win against her when she goes off on a foaming-at-the-mouth feminist argument. You can drown her in reason, studies, etc and nothing will work. What do you do? Change topics immediately and never let the discussions start. There. Now count the number of times you have to change the topic.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 06:56 AM
0

The general theme I read from that thread is that they feel women are treated like children. I find this strange, because I exclusively treat women like I treat my male peers, and those women usually wind up pissed off. Must be all that privilege I'm swimming around in. Nothing good comes from /2XC.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 05:46 AM
1

As there has not been a follow up response it's pretty easy to see why. The question posed presents the problem with this natural entitlement to take from one and give to another. Fault is required to justify compensation when we have a logical reason. I slide on ice while driving and crash into your lawn ornaments, I am at fault and am liable to pay for those damages. Anything not constrained to this is robbery, and when performed by the state it's coercion. If women are prohibited from having …
/r/MensRights18/06/11 07:58 PM
1

For one, I'm confused as to who else is actually reading this that there are upvotes and downvotes still. None the less, we can begin clarifying something that is one source of contention: I can think of another: that the child is owed its due independent of any shenanigans engaged in by its progenitors. Question: Is a child a product of sexual activity choices, or is a child a spontaneous creation by a supernatural power?
/r/MensRights15/06/11 08:29 AM
1

You really should spare yourself the pain down the road and end it now. The top rated comment above hits the argument. Lay it flat and dump her on being a sexist princess. Relationships with Entitled women end in tears and broken homes, there is no success or hope.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 08:25 AM
1

Child support is not punishment. Characterizing it as such does not make it true, and it does not grant weight to your inapplicable analogy. What's better, in fact, is your fraud analogy. I'm classifying punishment as suffering negative consequences of a decision, a bad choice of words. None the less, others are being put to burden for her choice as an exception to what would otherwise be her liability alone unless she has intentional accomplices. If she kills someone on her own volition, she is…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:42 AM
2

If the fathers wants the child, I would default to equal custody. That's not the situation we're discussing. If the father wants the child and is the only one capable of paying for it, he should be the sole parent of it. Huh? We do. We do not. You've been arguing for special asymmetrical treatment this whole time. If a woman kills a person, everyone else is not subjected to punishment from her actions. If she chooses to produce a person, others are subject to punishment from her actions. I'll sk…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 09:28 PM
2

That's a lot of assumptions. I would be fine with a system of testing the single parent's ability to provide a minimum amount of support, and only use child support if they can't. That's kind of what happens now. Except the dad usually doesn't get the kid when he's the one who is financially capable. Much of this can actually be reduced to two questions: If a woman murders someone, is she not held responsible for her actions? Why do we not hold her responsible when she chooses to produce a perso…
/r/MensRights12/06/11 06:22 PM
1

Was there a response to my post that I missed?
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:00 PM
1

Pretty much, I lost count of how many times Mitsu has been in bankruptcy.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 03:32 PM
2

Funny thing is, Mitsubishi has reportedly scrapped their Evo platform to become a "green" car maker. The STi should get shitcanned. The WRX? That should stick around because it's a slightly ricy impreza without a lot of promises. :|
/r/MensRights10/06/11 02:20 AM
2

I had not-living-up-to-its-promises problems. The car is massively fat, and keeps getting fatter. Cornering is lethargic and it groans loudly at high speed cornering. It eats through tires like my track car, without producing any of the performance of my track car. Its drive train losses are so massive, all but a handful of the horses from the "300 HP" are turned into glue on the way to the wheels. The gearbox had to have been designed by a committee. It wasn't setup as an acceleration gearbox, …
/r/MensRights09/06/11 11:57 PM
2

The STI is a massive pile of failure that I still have nightmares about owning. I would have rather owned a base model Neon. At least the neon would be somewhat fun to drive. The WRX at least doesn't lie about what it is and leaves you the extra ten grand to spend fixing it.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 11:37 PM
2

I wouldn't wish an STi on anyone. Fucking terrible disappointment in the shape of a car.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 10:47 PM
1

I'll go in reverse but try to keep this concise. ..and then argue that a child has a right to support which can be removed at the whim of a father. Unless we're making the assumption that the mother is incapable, irresponsible and inept, she is going to provide some level of support. Wants are not inalienable rights. If we presume she is and thus requires coercion of the unwilling father who never entered into contract or intent, then it's the acceptance of a form of slavery. If we give her cred…
/r/MensRights08/06/11 03:52 AM
2

For instance, I have student-loan debt. When I get married, my wife will become responsible for that debt. Is she thus "enslaved" by my debt? I doubt it. No, because she was entering into that obligation with knowledge and acceptance. This is why your position is refutable. If she had a massive problem with it, she would likely work to absolve herself of that debt. This is the condition mentioned that grants exception to the problem as it was a voluntary act and thus not coercion. The more appro…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 04:39 AM
2

We're going to have to agree to disagree. You believe the balance should be to make it fair between the mother and father, I believe we must do right by the child. It's a matter of personal convictions. So this part gets its own response as it needed some thought. If we're applying coercion to a person by forcing their labor for another person's benefit, it is not unreasonable to say that they are being treated as property. Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are f…
/r/MensRights07/06/11 12:33 AM
1

If I said I had "found" it, I apologize. I should have said that from my experience in working family law cases, it does not seem as unbelievably unbalanced as presented by MRAs, and that I can say with certainty that the "OMG men can't contest paternity after X number of days" is just plain wrong. That I'd be happy to cite to. It was probably a slip up where found could have been substituted with "discovered" or "observed." I was hoping to actually figure out a means of getting data. I don't ev…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 11:10 PM
1

Well, first, let's remember some limitations. Most family court decisions aren't reported... Which makes it problematic for either side to say with any certainty, anything on their position. Second, what are you asking me to prove with a family court proceeding? It wasn't actually asking you to prove anything. At one point in time some time ago, you said you "found" some kind of evidence for your side based on proceedings of family court cases. I wanted to know what I asked above so I could actu…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 10:35 PM
1

Gaining more rights for one particular sex is what feminism does. Doing that would simply push the balance back to what it once was, and is not constructive towards equality. MR seeks to get a level playing field.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:35 AM
1

I believe we've had the circumcision argument before, and I have always provided facts. The fact that you blithely dismiss them does not make the information nonexistent. We start to, and then you go mute. If this is untrue, I would really appreciate the sources on where to go to actually fish out family court proceedings - the thing I asked for quite some time ago. I'm pretty sure there's a difference between "forced to pay for your children's wellbeing" and "owned by another person as forced l…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 05:26 AM
1

But how do you, then, explain the level of aggression and violence in the reaction of many MRAs to people (often such as myself) who disagree, often with facts and quantitative data, with aspects of the MRM position? I can compile a list of reactions I've gotten here on the subject of circumcision, or the gender wage gap, or financial abortion, which scream less "reasoned discourse" and more "shrieking monkeys". Are you saying that many MRAs here are of weak mind? How are you distinguishing? I'v…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 04:27 AM
2

Does match.com falsify "matches"? Look at it this way, match.com is feeding their need for drama and excuses for people to blame.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 10:25 PM
1

Eh Match also permits M2M and W2M relationships so I don't see how this is necessarily a contradiction or anything special. "Hate men? COME HERE TO DATE WOMEN AND SHOW THEM WHOS BOSS!"
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:44 PM
2

Citation needed? I'd be interested in seeing some proof of that.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:42 PM
2

Oh goodie, I can't wait to hear all of the "No True Feminist" arguments that are going to come from this.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 06:40 PM
1

Nothing she isn't already learning from her peers.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 07:49 AM
2

First holy crap I'm surprised you could read that. I should not post to reddit from my phone. Second, there are vague instances of it which I can dig up when I get home from my flight if you wish. The easiest references are grossly disproportionate raises in child support payments to "raise the quality of life at home." The quickest example is with Jim Carry's ex. She didn't rake in the cash that he did, so she got the payments jacked up. The kid's payouts from mom went up (to gain favoritism) a…
/r/MensRights02/06/11 07:39 PM
1

She'll then make it up with oddly high child support payments in the unlikely event that the court honors the prenup.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 04:07 PM
3

Excellent writeup!
/r/MensRights01/06/11 08:12 PM
1

I still think Marriages should have term limits of 5 years, like any other government 'license.' Still somehow delusional and think you still got it? Re-up for another 5.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 03:06 AM
1

I failed to catch the sarcasm. None the less, in the ladder of truths/evidence, personal observations hold more ground than unconditional hearsay. That doesn't make them strong but it is better. Loose studies (those with weak controls or process) have more credibility as evidence than personal observations. It continues up until you have very tightly defined studies to the point you can associate an equation to give predictable results (e.g. imperial nature of Chemistry). So if you claim somethi…
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:21 PM
2

This guy is great.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 10:24 AM
1

Er no. If I say you're a baby raping pedophile, its on me to back that up with some coherent facts. Otherwise, it's presumption of guilt until proven innocent.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 10:04 AM
1

The issue is that you'll get lawyer types who then dismiss observations as non-facts or tautological statements. It then becomes a run at dismissing you through exhaustion, often dodging any specifics on their own accord such that they do not subject themselves to their own rules.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 10:01 AM
1

You've been here long enough to know that /r/Equality is a feminist subreddit. Seriously. Reading that thread was really a waste on both sides. The only thing amusing on their side was the biblical circular-arguing to avoid having to stand by anything they say.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:57 AM
5

Feminism is hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:51 AM
2

That will be the norm for responses you get.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:46 AM
-4

You're making the porch monkey defense. Feminsm has given the world gender-biased favoritism in law, via the Family Courts, VAWA, SaVE, and many other facets of life. It is the Feminists in power who give Feminism it's branding. If Feminism was ever a good movement, it is not now purely by nature of its actions and what it has become. Upholding womanism as a virtuous idea against the tide of history is a losing battle, especially here where Feminism's actions are shown on a daily basis. If you w…
/r/MensRights18/05/11 10:11 PM
3

Pretty much. The crux of the argument is: Most of /MR are misogynistic assholes, most of feminists are beautiful angels. A few of /MR are good guys, a few of the feminist group are man-haters. A "prettier" broad brush to be dismissive of the issues and try to appeal to emotion. <shrug> they can go hang out in /oneY.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 02:42 AM
0

There goes any sex ever. Well he can invest in a fleshlight at least.
/r/MensRights17/05/11 06:43 AM
1

So with the CDC's report, it's alarming that they exclude the divorce statistics from a state with one of the highest populations in the nation, but include it for the marriage statistics. We can see that from 2000 to 2009, the number of marriages are going down, roughly at .14 persons per thousand-year. In the same timeline, divorces (while ignoring California still), are going down 0.05 instances per thousands-year. This is stating that the frequency of divorce is nearly constant while the num…
/r/MensRights16/05/11 08:26 PM
35

Feminism has begun to eat itself because the men that it has made are not attractive, even to feminists. Very well said.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 07:28 PM
1

Kanuk got the core jist in trimming out the bible-thumper idiocy. In spite of his fundamentalist zealotry, the core issue is true and relevant to the point I mentioned. The modern woman in the US is granted authority by the state, while responsibility for the actions of the choices made under that authority are given to the men. This is the essence of SaVE, VAWA, the Family courts, and on and on. The people champion these policies are the benefactors of those policies or willful slaves, and as c…
/r/MensRights16/05/11 06:50 PM
16

"Today's American woman wants a man who'll take responsibility without authority." That's a pretty concise summary of the current state of affairs these days. This has been a particularly clarifying year for me which this article backs: -My foster dad is getting divorced after 39 years, his wife's choice. -My friend who moved to Texas and has a 2 year old, no longer has his 2 year old as his wife started sleeping around around Christmas with a guy in her home town and has now moved back to New Y…
/r/MensRights15/05/11 09:14 PM
-1

Because when women do it, it's okay. When men do it, it's bad. Nothing new, same shit, different day. Now stop wasting time in the circlejerk of /2XC.
/r/MensRights14/05/11 04:20 PM
9

Repeatedly.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:11 PM
1

Seen worse on 4chan/don't really care. Yes, damn those boob jobs and hair transplants and ooh, that terrible viagra! Still XX, Still X*, Still XY. Your point is riddled with emotion and not addressing the deception. All things superficial and cosmetic are nothing but lies and deceptions, and indulging in them is pure psychological instability!! BullSHIT. Hyperbole hysterics are strong with this one. Look, you can either rationally explain how this isn't deceptive and then build up or we're finis…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 08:03 PM
1

MMmmnnnooope. Deception is still deception. Indeed, sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken; You got it! but getting treatment for a psychological illness does make you a person seeking after health. You lost it! Damnit. Well, just because one IS a man physically, does that mean that one OUGHT to be a man in any other sense of the term? Unless they're actually becoming XX from XY, they're still XY. Presenting themselves as XX when they're XY is deceptive, no different than stu…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 07:17 PM
1

There exists more than there is supporting evidence than the psychology of a trans person knowing more about what their body is than their body's own makeup. From your link you're stating that I'm sticking a moral good/ bad to the essence of being a transperson which I'm not. I'm putting a moral good/bad to the deception which that person is putting to the person they're intending on sleeping with. Split those two points. If their body was mal-formed, let's say with an intrasexual person like on…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 07:01 PM
2

Do you understand the difference I am driving at? I do. Also, I have no idea what you're trying to "extrapolate" to. Please reframe the scenarios and explain a bit more. This was an attempt at demonstrating the difference between simple sexual appeal and sexual function.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 06:46 PM
1

If cartman declares he is not fat, just big boned is he really saying what he is? A person is who they are within their body. Many gay people have struggled to fight what their genetics tell them and eventually accept themselves that they're gay. Straight people and gay people's sexuality is what is defined in their blood. So to say "my blood is a lie and my body is wrong" is quite interesting in the face of the prior. If trans people have such an acute awareness about their blood's architecture…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 06:30 PM
2

Edit: And also, yes, if you go through my history, I'll always say deception isn't rape. Go back far enough in my submission history, and you'll see me raising the question about lying about condoms--that it isn't rape to consent specifically with a condom and then they don't wear one, but it should be something bad because of the unconsenting health risk. But please. Stop taking my position that anonymous sex should be allowed to be anonymous, and extrapolating it to situations I've already sai…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 06:23 PM
1

Yes indeed. Wanting to feel normal is deception. Thank you for enlightening me. If feeling normal is lying to others, then there is something wrong with that. Deception is what the person who is advertising what they are not to someone who thinks they are. That's flatly wrong, no matter how much you use emotional appeals. You have yet to have one logical argument to explain how deceiving someone is a good thing to do. Yes indeed. It is impossible to deny the logical conclusion that transpeople a…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 06:05 PM
2

So while someone who believes in it should probably believe that undisclosed trans sex would be rape, I think it's a crock of shit. If I go through your history, am I going to find this position consistent where women were led to believe that the guy had certain attributes which turned out to be lies and you dismiss the woman's complaints? Will you explicitly state that deception for sex is a completely acceptable practice by your standards, without exception? If a guy is a complete sleeze, and …
/r/MensRights08/05/11 05:10 PM
7

Well firstly, if you say "again" you should state it in the prior comment. None the less, if we're playing off of the encounter angle lets take a second spin on the value of disclosure. Guy and girl chat up and both want to go bump uglies. They do. Funny thing is, she's a minor and the authorities find out. That doesn't matter though, it's just casual sex. Not like context is important ever. There are countless topics relating to the interactions between two people for something as intimate as s…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 08:11 AM
5

So you've slept with 500lb midgets? Better say yes, otherwise by your standard here you operate on a bigoted preference. People have the right to be attracted to certain attributes. If it's a straight guy being attracted to a straight woman, a gay guy to men or a gay woman to women, that's fine. (And by your rules, still bigoted since they're excluding others on personal discrimination) Transsexual does not infer sexual orientation. It is an issue where the person who changed their appearance to…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 07:22 AM
1

Wanting to feel normal isn't like wanting a race car, unless you're a toddler. Normal has not been defined here. To a junkie, normal is their state of mind while high. I doubt you're referring to that. To a gay guy, normal might be having a loving relationship with another guy. To a person who is into mutilating theirself, normal might be something else. The analog was about being something you're not and nothing more. You want to hate people for wanting to feel normal? Fine--but that's all you.…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 06:16 AM
-1

And how is it "mutilation" to want your body to look like the way you feel? Wanting something is not the same as hacking off major parts of your body with non-functioning imitations. If you want a race car, and are satiated with simply putting badges on your econobox then the issue is in your head. If superficial changes satisfy your feelings, then my point 2 comes back and raises that question. The fact that you can't tell the difference between a transperson and a drag queen is evidence enough…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 05:48 AM
-8

May as well get this out. Firstly: IF- If this "transsexual" person literally had their body converted from XY to XX and the appropriate body to which they could say they're now female (or now male from being female prior), this would be on the physical level a non issue. What we have in reality are plastic surgeries to simply make a "trans" person one who wears very elaborate drag. Their blood still states what they are born as, and further they've mutilated their bodies. Which somewhat leads t…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 05:07 AM
1

Not anymore, tragically. I've been branded a misogynist quite often, most of those who do the branding hail from /2XC and /Feminisms. To dispute this redefinition leads to the endless circle of "no true feminist" which has no end.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 09:12 AM
2

Its as well defined as feminism's own standard. No more, no less.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 09:03 AM
1

So what she's doing is attempting to convert hard sciences into an intangible art which she might be good at. The problem is her ignorance leads her to believe that discourse in defining the cutting edge issues of physics means that physics is not well defined overall and that there are many differing opinions of physics and how they work. In reality, the issue is trying to come up with a model for the new findings which fit in with existing Newtonian physics, or redefining our classical Newtoni…
/r/MensRights03/05/11 09:01 AM
1

Welcome to the club. Egalitarians are valuable (and valued) people.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 08:37 AM
1

A misogynist has been defined by a "no-true-feminist" feminist as a man who argues with a feminist, so that word's value is meaningless among this crowd.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 08:36 AM
-1

"bite off [my] clit and spit it in my face" So here is where I as an egalitarian can do a test that no feminist can: "Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal") is a belief of thought that favors equality of some sort. Its general premise is that people should be treated as equals on certain dimensions such as race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, economic status, social status, and cultural heritage. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental wor…
/r/MensRights03/05/11 08:34 AM
0

And to the Emperor he has the finest clothes. Seriously each successive post you made discredited you more and more in the face of every link he made. If you're hateful of a person, that's fine. Admit it and move on. Dancing around the subject in the face of evidence shows your blatant insincerity.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 08:24 AM
2

Good: academic study Bad: Really need something newer than 1983 with all the more recent hysteria pouring out from feminism.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 08:12 AM
1

Well see, there you go. You stick to your actual field of study and you have something to go on. Sadly I actually agree here and funny enough blacks and jews also shared the tragic attribute of being property just like women in the past. There is an actual word specific to this state that is neither prosecution or discrimination, yet I can't remember it. Its dehumanizing if nothing else. Edit: When I learned of its use, it was chattel, but the definition seems to be only loosely suitable. A term…
/r/MensRights03/05/11 08:05 AM
1

Actually, I think it's pretty applicable. Every time feminism is brought to question, as well as false rape claims, feminists always claim that we need to take women's studies to "really understand the issues." As if doing so would justify and rationalize the behavior.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 10:37 PM
1

Bingo.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 09:36 PM
1

Given the intentional misrepresentation and trolling, I simply propose that Cliffor is Qeraeth from /2XC. It makes sense to me.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 04:20 AM
1

Hope is the first step to disappointment.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 04:17 AM
1

was arguing against your statement/opinion that gun ownership signifies anti-statism, Intentionally misleading and not what I said. If group A does not like X and group B does like X, you cannot state that group B is anti group A. The State applies coercive (and ultimately lethal) force to its subjects to behave in a particular manner its political class deems fit. Statists, favor the state at all cost. Firearms, in the hands of the people, are anti-state tools as they give leverage of the peopl…
/r/MensRights30/04/11 12:17 AM
1

Not at all. You seem to infer that I think in a statist manner and are some how educating me. I said, /r/politics is a pro-statist group. Guns are anti state via threat so it makes sense. No where did I say I support or am a part of /r/politics nor did I say I am statist.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:07 PM
1

Yes, as a pro-gun person I'm highly aware of this. Did you ever notice that the statists got in a pisser over this fact? What are you trying to explain here, seriously?
/r/MensRights29/04/11 10:45 PM
-1

In fact, what does that have to do with anything? Defacto guilt for men. That's totally awesome! Haha, a Jonestown reference! Well, this explains sufficiently enough that you're so socially challenged you've never heard of spiked punch with drugs prior to (and post) Jonestown. It's kind of like when people compare feminists to Nazis and relate it to the extermination of millions of Jews! Plenty can be expressed between Nazi's treatment of jews and Feminism's scapegoating of men. Note, there is p…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 10:44 PM
-1

Right, like SaVE. ...and VAWA... ...and the Family Courts business.. All of which are enacted by feminist lobbies such as NOW. Purely equality. Unicorns, rainbows, etc. How's that koolaid?
/r/MensRights29/04/11 10:31 PM
0

They interpret that to mean militias and/or police. Not the citizenry.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 10:14 PM
0

/r/politics is a pro-statist group. Guns are anti state via threat so it makes sense.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 07:31 PM
3

So the only fix for this is an all-male college. Well, less of a fix more of a bandaid.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 06:56 AM
23

The nature of her arguments is why she's paid 77c on the dollar everyone else makes.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 07:52 PM
2

That evil patriarchy oppressing this poor soul further still. We all know women are nothing but saints and would never do harm, ever. ...About fucking time.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 07:48 PM
18

No true feminist....
/r/MensRights20/04/11 07:42 PM
1

I'd rather we didn't have a death penalty. I'm fine with this outcome.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 09:12 PM
1

Their uh, statement? isn't really hitting on anything. It's based on physical labor being somehow either more important or harder to do than mental labor. I don't see any argument there, really I don't even see anything there. <Person A> "I love to eat meat." <Person B> 'Man fish have it easy. It sucks to be a cow.' Wut?
/r/MensRights14/04/11 08:08 PM
2

I seriously don't get it. All I'm reading is back-and-forth pissing and moaning. What is the argument? Your dad is a case study of what's going on with Male teachers? Male teachers have to pick up slack at home? What?
/r/MensRights14/04/11 07:29 PM
1

Would she need to? It wrote itself.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 04:02 PM
2

The problem I have is that "it's not true in every instance, and therefore there is no universal wage gap" is not the same thing as saying "because it's not true in this instance, it's not true in any instance, and therefore there is no wage gap ever". There is evidence of wage gaps in other instances. I suppose I'm not understanding. If one person is claiming something, and it's debunked. That claim is then worthless. They can always revise and refine it to make it better and less garbage if th…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 08:24 PM
3

There is no 70c per dollar universal wage gap. It's false argument stated over and over again by so many feminists. This study debunks that. That is for all units of labor done by a male, all units of labor done by a female being paid 0.7 of a male as this holy truth is broken. The early claim is: $(m,x) = f(x) * normalized_coefficient. $(w,x) = 0.7 * normalized_coefficient * f(x) This study then states, for a < x < b: $(w,x) = 1.09 * normalized_coefficient * f(x) Then $(w,x) != 0.7 * normalized…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 07:44 PM
1

Penisocracy, that is fucking funny.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 07:09 PM
6

Which carries fine logic, yet never seen demonstrated against the purported of the initial accusation. Instead this argument is just "fair-and-balanced" of the Fox News variety. Keep quiet when its in line with your views, and protest when against. When feminism claims universally, "Women get 70c for every dollar a man makes" and a legitimate study arises which states, "We found that women actually earn more than men for this study" the universal claim is busted; false. A lie. Even when that stu…
/r/MensRights13/04/11 07:05 PM
4

This is all quite fine, but I haven't really seen you ever make the same statements when feminists state there is a wage gap by including everything under the sun for women against selective groups of men. Again, for absolute proof, work would have to be quantified as a calculable unit, then a person's pay for that unit of work could be gauged. Integrate all of the pay vs. work for women to get one, against pay vs work for men and only then do we know. You're right with respect to the age group …
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:11 PM
4

Right. I believe you. Completely.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 07:14 AM
10

This is a gift from Feminism. This counters every claim a feminist has ever made that they're about equality.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 12:43 AM
4

If I integrate the total sum of all workers, then I need to have a means to express the work performed on a quantifiable unit. Of that unit, I could then assert their respective pay per unit of labor as an expectation and only then could I define a disparity between men and women. Unfortunately, when Feminists scream wage gap, they to a total integral of all women, who do not all work equally, which will affect the outcome when placed next to a total integral of all men who do not work all equal…
/r/MensRights12/04/11 09:21 PM
11

Oh look, Kita is doing yet another troll thread. This is certainly new and exciting.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 10:23 PM
1

I disagree, unless you can cite something. As far as the US goes, women were simply left off the table of consideration at the time rights were enshrined. Nothing was taken because nothing was given. The WRM was the notion that women are humans who should also have those same rights. The WRM became The Feminist movement, which then sought to take away rights from men as mentioned above. The order of operations described is not what you make it out to be.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 10:06 PM
3

They don't normally get time off for being knocked up, they get time off to recover from childbirth. If its excessive, then it's an abuse. Beyond abuse, however, it isn't that much different than any other significant injury where you have to recover - or at least it shouldn't be.
/r/MensRights08/04/11 10:17 PM
-2

Women are just as gross as men, so pretty much on common ground there. None the less, shouldn't you be in your /GE farce subreddit helping them out with their hatespeech?
/r/MensRights08/04/11 03:56 PM
-3

Almost. They love doormats, baby-check sources, and the general resource richness that comes with delusional male suckers.
/r/MensRights08/04/11 03:55 PM
-2

This. Going into /2XC for an open debate about the negative impacts of their ideology is like going to a Klan meeting to tell them Black People shouldn't be treated as ape-men.
/r/MensRights08/04/11 03:53 PM
1

Hope is the first step to disappointment. For some reason, people seem to have this disconnect that bad things will never happen to me, never mind the fact that the writing is on the wall, on the floor and being served to me by a lawyer.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 08:59 PM
1

You need to be getting answers to "why" when you're told no. If it's a legit answer, it'll have details. It will have a method and be citable for why. If this guy is wasting your money the answers will be non-answers, you'll be just fed bullshit. etc.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 08:49 PM
7

That sound of water hitting the pavement was the collective of /r/Feminisms wetting themselves.
/r/MensRights07/04/11 03:54 AM
5

How is what you're doing not attentionwhoring? "OH LOOK AT ME, I'M BEING VICTIMIZED BY PEOPLE I GROSSLY MISREPRESENTED!" /GE seems to be eating it up like candy.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 11:54 PM
4

Yup! Just found the dupe on the GE liar subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/GenderEgalitarian/comments/gk97w/i_support_human_rights_mens_and_womens_but_i_do/ She's using this thread as a springboard to say "look at me, aren't I the victim"
/r/MensRights06/04/11 11:37 PM
7

Oh, I'm absolutely sure of this. So you're going to correct yourself among the peers you're trying to impress, right It's like dealing with a 12 year old denying they did wrong.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 11:36 PM
5

So you rape children or just lust about having sex with them? Yes, I see what you did there.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 11:32 PM
13

The timing of this, specifically to kloo, in light of the GenderEgalitarianism bit sure is... convenient.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 11:30 PM
6

This is the same as a birthcontrol pill oopsie or "actually he really didn't rape me" whoopsies right?
/r/MensRights06/04/11 11:29 PM
3

Oh shit I ran over your child. It's okay though, because I'm sorry! So you can just use that as a fall back? If you were male, do you think that would work?
/r/MensRights06/04/11 11:28 PM
1

The second definition of sexmism in the Dictionary (since the first is sexist as it only applies to women) is: "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" Sexism against one's own sex, e.g. "You should man up" coming from a guy, is still sexism. Not reverse sexism.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 10:03 PM
1

Guys who dress certain ways are called fags or metrosexuals. It isn't just women, that's simply ignoring the male variant. Instead of rape, its assault. Both excuses are bullshit.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 04:54 PM
1

See sidebar faq on the freedom baring feminist that gets shot down.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 11:42 AM
0

Not a direct quote, but one of the Feminist bibles of thought, "The Female Eunuch" by Germaine Greer actually has quite a bit on her justification that any sex is rape, not just regret rape.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 11:10 PM
2

Like any other day in the life? It is probably the same for men as it is for women.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 11:00 PM
4

You're being baited into a no-win argument on the same vein of "do you rape your wife or just beat her?" /MR is not welcome on /2XC. Those of /2XC are not generally welcome in MR because, as stated earlier by others, they encourage or at least support this vile behavior. However, when something that evil is posted, everyone has a moral decision that should be made on expressing their disgust. In this case it's a down-vote. I can't believe that I almost made a post in that subreddit to convey my …
/r/MensRights05/04/11 10:48 PM
24

uhg "reverse sexism"? Stop that shit. Racism is racism, be it white on black or black on white. Sexism is sexism, be it man on woman or woman on man. There is no "reverse" to make it PC friendly and make it okay. It isn't.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 10:38 PM
1

Collectively, we should write one letter a day asking them both to justify themselves in the face of what they say they represent. Nothing aggressive, or hateful. Just a simply copied and pasted message, every day at the same time (or nearest to it) until a proper response has been given.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 10:30 PM
2

The road to hell is paved with the best intentions. XD
/r/MensRights05/04/11 10:27 PM
6

I forget who, but someone spoke of one's true character showing only when presented with power. These two are apparently complete crooks.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 10:26 PM
3

I'll go ahead and one-up you Ironically, this is my first reddit ban. Neither /r/Feminisms nor /2XC have banned me. ..Well, not yet.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 10:24 PM
1

I'm still massively disappointed we didn't create that subreddit first. It's been consumed by more feminist hate.
/r/MensRights05/04/11 02:39 AM
3

What is disturbing to me is that the feminists are trying to confiscate Egalitarianism under their umbrella. Egalitarianism, by definition, is not preferential to any one sex, race or otherwise. I guess they're desperate.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 02:49 AM
1

When you use words which people possess like Client, victim, teacher, lawyer, etc, you can build an emotional link to that image no different really than a child to a named toy. "My client is a victim." What images does that bring up when you hear it? A battered house wife? An assaulted nerd from school? A raped child? There is a lot of emotional context by words which change our perception of people. Numbers are pretty emotionless. They have a collectively identified fixed value and objectifica…
/r/MensRights03/04/11 04:21 PM
2

I'm already called by MRAs a non-MRA so that's find and makes that latter point moot. I'm an egalitarian. The ultimate solution is that everything legal is processed in a sex-agnostic manner. If it's divorce court, the husband and wife are assigned personal identification tags and the lawyers have to use those numbers. If they drop mention of a party's sex, they fail and void their case. Everything has to be then substantiated. It's hard to assign emotional appeals to a number. "Number 38282 fee…
/r/MensRights03/04/11 03:53 AM
-2

I have a serious problem with this response. We go on about financial abortion all the time, but when it comes down to the moment of truth we back peddle and say "well fuck may as well?" That's a cop-out, not a solution.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 05:11 AM
3

Then, I think, maybe in 5 years he will improve and realize what a selfish person he was and come around. No one ever fixes themselves when they think they're fine as is. Don't hang on to him, doing otherwise is going to be toxic. It's the same regardless of the sex. There are toxic men and toxic women. If your priority is getting money, then I'm not going to be of use. If your priority is raising a kid, then that is the issue that should be worked on. I know nothing about Texas. I don't know if…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 04:34 AM
0

Whoa down there. I'm trying to give you some defense of reasonable doubt. A junk account isn't made only by trolls. It's mostly done by trolls, but not all.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 04:21 AM
0

It's a pretty obvious junk account given by the name, but let's let them get caught in their own trap if it's a troll and try to be good first. Always be open to opportunity, but be ready to catch an enemy. Edit: and if it is a troll so be it, I'm shown foolish but have lost nothing.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 03:56 AM
4

First, your logical side is doing the better part in owning up that the lead of this is your choice and not his. You want this kid and have taken up the burden of bringing it into the world by yourself. You've acknowledged this in the face of the fact that he might do this. You do have a right to be angry though. It is not that he isn't interested in being a parent to the daughter. It's that he backstabbed you after saying he did. That's reasonable anger. You stated first that you wanted the kid…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 03:54 AM
-2

Nay! Not banned, but "liberated" from Oppression! ... or something.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 09:06 PM
2

TwoX thinks the patriarchy is real, that they're all victims and all the usual rounds of ideology of /r/Feminisms. It's a prettier, female oriented general-purpose subreddit under the umbrella of /r/Feminisms. They have membership subreddit invasions (though haven't seemed to have done it lately) from time to time and all the usual antagonistic crap that comes with a hate movement. Let's, instead, just not waste our time in there.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 08:50 PM
2

That's fair as long as you consider the entire thing to be a two-part system (man and woman), and ignore the third party (the child) and its interests. But, we've had that discussion before. The third part is wholly owned by the person who made the choice to take on that responsibility. It is a two party system of woman versus the man. I would have to take a completely different line of thinking if we were in the days of old where abortion was illegal because there was no choice. Women now have …
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:56 PM
6

And we bomb Libya for the Libyans, invade Iraq for the Iraqis etc. It's so good of us to use the ends-justify-the-means to do what we want and skip out on the long term impacts. So how she came to produce an offspring (the means) is irrelevant because hey another person (the end). It's amazing what becomes acceptable under the banner of Think of the Children. Surely you can prove as well, that in most cases 100% of the child support is spent by the mother on things which are integral to supporti…
/r/MensRights30/03/11 06:53 PM
3

One does not simply vote into Morodor.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 05:17 AM
20

It's the written form of Ad Hominem. If they say "Hate speech" they win, as their political value system lets them. You created an excellent piece of work, without being aggressive or mean or even condescending. Very well done.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 05:30 PM
1

Until we have technology which can determine with 100% accuracy whether man X committed rape against woman Y, we're either going to have to accept that some number of guilty men go free, or some number of innocent men go to jail. Then it's simply a value assessment. I wold rather error to have a questionable man go free than an innocent be condemned. For as much as you go on about auditing a statistics class, I have taken statistics. Not even the remedial business oriented statistics class but e…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 03:48 PM
0

(if he was arrested, it must have been a frame job) Like the Duke Lacrosse bit? Seriously, if we're not going to become a pre-crime punishing society we need to not punish before proper conviction. False Accusations evaporate as an issue to the context you ignored in the other post I made. At that point it becomes: 1. He did and he wasn't convicted, 2. He didn't and is convicted, and 3. He didn't and wasn't convicted. #3 eliminates the main issue that you don't feel exists at all. This means mak…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 07:13 AM
0

He has a bit of a hazard at leaving certain things open and starting new fires with other people; a troll like behavior even if it isn't necessarily his intention. Many of his arguments challenge people "prove it," and if it's open ended on both sides he'll state that the point made isn't what he's found (without really giving any sources to back up his side or make it necessarily any stronger). He has some legal schooling behind him, which he appears to use abusively which then gets him a troll…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 07:01 AM
0

As a fundamental right, all children are entitled to support (financially, and preferably emotionally) from both parents. The child's support is granted by the one or those who accepted the choice. If the mother produced the child, and the father did not have sufficient interest in that outcome then the child is still entitled to the support of the person who chose that outcome; the mother. The father is not the sole source of income. Interesting. I've never found it difficult to stop if I neede…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:38 PM
1

What might be more credible than wikipedia would be this report by a research firm for the Dept of Labor. http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Gender-Wage-Gap-Final-Report.pdf The short of it is that, while not all of it, most of the actual despairity is largely due to the choice women make. In many cases working part time (which pays less) over full time.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:26 PM
0

Basically, the reason I blanch at financial abortion is that once the child exists, how do we justify allowing one parent to abandon it? That's the fundamental issue here. Whether the woman can abort (or not) is irrelevant. Once a child exists in the world, should we allow a man to simply say "nope, I'm out"? Yes? When a woman obtains an abortion (which is legally protected as part of her right to privacy), the child does not come into existence. No obligations exist because the child literally …
/r/MensRights28/03/11 09:21 PM
1

I'm simply stating that opening access to determining this either way is going to do more than anything else.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 09:19 PM
1

I'm sure you're aware of the fallacy of ignorance, "I know little, and do not know that X exists, but because I do not know, it must exist." Either way, if it's going to be claimed on either side that it is, or is not, an issue it would be more useful learning how to actually be able to find this out, so that no one needs to infer what must be for what they do or do not know.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 07:39 AM
1

There isn't much to think about. For all the goings on of that article, there's one real fundamental point that isn't hit upon: In the majority of video games, even if the female character is made to be valuable in some respect (story, role, whatever) there isn't any real difference in what she would be or how she would behave if she were a male character. As guys, we cannot associate with any of the things that would define a female character unique and representative to women. The only things …
/r/MensRights25/03/11 11:33 PM
2

Her previous relationships were based on high profile, high visibility "celebrity" glamor relationships. That's showy. They all ended, they're bad by the outcome's consequences. ...but I personally think that it is entirely possible she'll be a good parent. So here's the crux of it: She's failed at the work of a relationship many times over in the past, and now she wants to engage in the most demanding relationship possible. The argument you used above is basically wishful thinking. Its an analo…
/r/MensRights21/03/11 06:06 PM
3

She hasn't been able to sustain a healthy relationship over her previous 23 years of it mattering, and she's hyper busy with her show business work. These flags are cause for concern - if she can't manage a healthy relationship what makes you think she can be a good parent, and in addition there seems to be a lack of reality on how much time and effort that kid is going to consume from her daily life. Is she willing to have only the off program to work on? Frequent time off for trips to the doct…
/r/MensRights21/03/11 06:49 AM
1

It sounds silly, but I actually long for some kind of tangible person that would fit the role of "extremist" from the Civil Rights Movement. If for no other reason than the fact that I could understand how something at its roots which is so good and neutral to all, could spawn someone in the extremities. What would an extremist of the CRM be about? Taking away from white folk to equalize all? The CRM was simply "we all deserve equal rights and opportunities." So if the extremist wanted reparatio…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:03 AM
2

I don't think she's actually a feminist. She's arguing against the bad of both extremes, and advocating for fair treatment from both sides. She's an Egalitarian. Through no point did she fall back on "feminism" being the virtuous path, but instead she made solid arguments about the acts. This lady is someone I would like to hug and say thanks to.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 06:58 AM
3

I always figure they're simply trolls. I advocate that all feminists are opponents, but not all women are feminists. <shrug>
/r/MensRights20/03/11 03:31 AM
1

What MRAs want male supremacy?
/r/MensRights20/03/11 03:02 AM
7

State sanctioned to boot.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 02:38 AM
0

If we purge the feminists from the picture, then look at who is left, yeah I think that's a pretty good position.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 11:59 PM
1

I wasn't meaning to troll, I was hoping you could actually point out who the crazies were. :(
/r/MensRights18/03/11 10:08 PM
2

You got the point. The general problem on the oppositions side is that they paint all men with the same brush; grouping those who disagree with their ideology as the same person who thinks less of them due to their born sex. It is here that Feminism is demonstrated as a misandrist movement, through its political force it steamrolls over all men based upon their sex, painting them all universally with the same brush. As such they self-limit their own abilities to discriminate between legitimate a…
/r/MensRights18/03/11 09:59 PM
3

For reference, could you point out the crazies in the Civil Rights Movement?
/r/MensRights18/03/11 09:51 PM
3

When disagreement with the misandrist policies of feminism gets one branded as misogynist, disallowing them means banning one-self. It is Feminism's mechanism to strawman the MRM and "bin" it into the other or "monster" category. Instead, since 'misogynist' has been rebranded as anything that disagrees with Feminism's anti-male ideology, it may be better to argue and suggest what behaviors you find offensive.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 08:59 PM
1

Oh of course, but you noticed her discussion terminated because she has no proof and is just wrong. :)
/r/MensRights14/03/11 01:43 AM
2

She did a pretty good job of reaffirming the template position of a feminist that he mentioned. It's an interesting case that the more she posted, the more credibility she lost.
/r/MensRights13/03/11 08:35 PM
1

Exactly. So why are you asserting otherwise until now? NOW, a Misandrist/Feminist organization has huge political clout. Hillary Clinton, and others are politically powerful misandrists. None of them share your ideology of what feminism should be. The act upon the feminism that is misandrist, sexist and hateful. You still haven't proven otherwise.
/r/MensRights13/03/11 07:05 PM
1

Again missing the point. You're still arguing small fish != majority (a truth), but applying it to the majority & leadership. If you were a farmer in Afghanistan getting bombed to hell, getting shot at (whether intentionally or accidentally) by US forces, and a few people in the US protest those actions what will your position be? "The US is fucking shooting at me!" The worthless dissidents are irrelevant. You cannot prove otherwise.
/r/MensRights13/03/11 06:39 PM
1

The vocal "crazy" feminists, are those with the power. Anyone else is irrelevant. It is no different than a klan member who isn't really racist saying he isn't racist while proudly associating himself . The leadership and majority are racist, and he brands himself as one of them, he's a part of a racist organization. Period. The difference between Feminism and Racism is that Feminism is state condoned hate. You're not going to win this. You're trying to tell people who have seen the actions of F…
/r/MensRights13/03/11 06:22 PM
1

[Citation needed] Additionally, you might want to try helping out your peer who couldn't dig herself out of her own hole here
/r/MensRights13/03/11 06:18 PM
3

Even if they did, they acted as hostiles. No reason to ever switch treatment. Once an Enemy, always an Enemy.
/r/MensRights13/03/11 08:21 AM
3

Numerous muslim clerics actively vocalize their disapproval of minor bodies of Islam who seek to use fear to propel their radical beliefs. Feminism's "leadership" speaks about the evil that is all men, and draft sexist hate legislation under lies and blatant, willful misrepresentation. Apples, and rocks. If feminist leadership did anything to denounce misandrist acts, you would have credibility, yet the opposite is true. Feminist leadership creates misandry, propels misandry, and creates colorfu…
/r/MensRights13/03/11 08:19 AM
11

Actually many feminists really believe in equal rights and will fight for the rights of men, too. Since this is such a common occurrence, surely you have volumes of citations to go with this! Let me go first with a piece of feminist legislation counter to what you say! The Violence Against Women Act. Defacto guilt for men! Added punishment just for being accused! Proofless burden! EQUALITY!
/r/MensRights12/03/11 05:42 PM
1

I remember, when I was really young, ADD was called Hyperactivity Disorder. It's anecdotal, but when you consider it, as the classrooms have become better catered to girls' learning styles, the differences between the two sexes becomes more pronounced. If girls' learning is the central focus, anything not in line with that must be anti-learning, thus the boys have problems. Then it became a "disease." Once something becomes a disease, the person is incapable of self control and personal responsi…
/r/MensRights12/03/11 05:33 PM
0

Its unlikely that "math is hard." Math is hard to bullshit. If they owned up to the math, they can't apply their narcissism and turn this into a giant victim-hood complex. It's similar to the kids who claim ADD. It's a cheap escape of responsibility. You have to maintain it all the time or else the jig is up. Apply it elsewhere, "Just give me half his paycheck, that should do" doesn't work so well when queried, "well the kid costs about $450/mo in expenses between food, clothing, etc." You can a…
/r/MensRights12/03/11 09:53 AM
2

You already had the right answer with the first part. The second is irrelevant. It's the litmus test dude. IF the sexes are reverse and the outcome changes, then there's an issue. If the outcome doesn't change, it's a non-issue.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 05:37 AM
2

For one, do you think if the sexes were reversed, the courts would behave the same? If so, do you think this wouldn't be posted all over feminist and womens forums?
/r/MensRights08/03/11 05:24 AM
3

Apparently. That's the point Dr. Tara is going "WTF" on, among many.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 04:40 AM
3

I cannot say this actually surprises me at all. The guy, who I don't find funny, derives his income through having a constant problem to make fun of: Corporate Environments. Consider what would happen if he spent his non-comicking time working on correcting corporate office politics and behaviors, and then it started working. He would have worked himself out of a job. He has often used sexism in either direction to create a joke. If he turned that into a political activism, he would likely have …
/r/MensRights08/03/11 04:22 AM
3

So lets suspend our disbelief for a moment and run with the article a little. She's coming down from her 10 year party and apparently getting the baby blues coming into her 30s. I've been getting her rejections, games, and general garbage for the 10 years she's been partying. So now that she's decided it's time to settle, it's my obligation to just dump the last 10 years of hassle? I don't think so, but let's say I'm a gullible twit and some how go for it. For the rest of the relationship, I wil…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:58 PM
5

Don't link to /2XC. It's the pretty version of /r/Feminism. It's the same old drum, where the collective's groupthink validates itself, and rejects outside dissent. There was one exception some time ago. One. The sisters of /2XC downvoted their own into oblivion for disagreeing with them. /2XC shows one face of the problem, expecting anything good from that group is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:46 PM
1

"Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man's insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for <person> and to demonize <opposition> who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks." Wiki:No_true_Scotsman: No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecti…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 06:03 PM
1

Emotional responses often overwhelm rational decisions.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 05:53 PM
2

There's a difference between third wave feminists and second wave. Unless you can give a link or point out where the membership forms are which establish the values of the different groups, your argument is bullshit and meaningless. It's a very novel approach to try and pass off the realities of feminism and its followers as "no true feminist..." Or do you want to accept every single guy who claims to be for men's rights when really he wants to disenfranchise women as a true MRA? Avoiceformen ha…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 05:48 PM
0

Awesome, thank you very much!
/r/MensRights01/03/11 05:04 PM
2

What is the biggest road block that you see which prevents any sort of remedy from happening to this madness? Any suggestions on how to try fixing it?
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:33 AM
4

If your marriage is in need of counseling, she's already breeched her trustworthiness to you. It's over. Get a lawyer because she's getting hers.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 05:52 AM
1

Correct :)
/r/MensRights01/03/11 05:38 AM
0

Retirement plan, weekend credit card, and baby support, for free. If she's really clever, she'll get free college tuition for the kids too.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 04:28 AM
1

Ah, so she isn't a true feminist.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 04:21 AM
2

Isn't this a political Meme? <Politican> "I love Nazis!" <Peanut Gallery> 'This guy loves Nazis!" <Politician> "Wait, that was taken out of context."
/r/MensRights01/03/11 04:20 AM
7

Skip counselling, go straight to lawyer.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 04:18 AM
2

Exactly, but because rape is only a male possessed verb (as far as feminists are concerned), "it's okay" per feminism's rules (a woman cannot rape according to feminism, for example). Similarly, racism from a non-white to white? "Reverse Racism." It's a kind of doublespeak that molests the context of an issue to forcibly become one-sided.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 04:13 AM
3

NPR lost my appreciation when they tried to argue for the "need" of 30 round magazines with firearms. When it came time for their donation drive, I wrote them a letter that in the same vein that I don't "need" a 30 round mag, I don't "need" NPR. I further went on, that if they want more support they should do less preaching and more reporting.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 11:10 PM
4

Of course. If your entire MO is trying to feed your narcissistic personality disorders conceding any ground that shows you to be a shit human being that uses sexism for entitlements is against your short-term emotional bullshit goals. If she openly stated, "yeah I created boogiemen to strawman so I could cast away my share of this problem" she would not only have nothing to sell to other narcissistic twits that live the feminist mantra of "be the victim," but it would require an open acknowledge…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 08:14 PM
8

Birthcontrol Fraud is trendy and socially acceptable. It's a shining aspect of Feminism's "girl power."
/r/MensRights28/02/11 06:43 PM
10

The whole of the article serves only to remedy some of the fury over a prior article and her book. It's a token "acknowledgement" of <a few> motivations from her opponents as a half-hearted attempt to gain PC points. It has no intention on addressing real issues, for doing so would negate the value of her written works and affect her bottom line.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 06:06 PM
1

That's pretty apt. Both sides abuse, hate and try to destroy each other. The one fault: they're a hermaphrodite.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 06:00 PM
1

No no, he asked if it's okay to shoot him execution style. When some thug is breaking into your home and enters your home you're shooting him in fear-of-your-life style, not execution style. So the answer is no, it isn't okay to shoot him execution style, but it is just fine to shoot him in-fear-of-your-life style. :)
/r/MensRights23/02/11 09:31 AM
1

... Are you aware what "execution style" is, or is this just a artful troll?
/r/MensRights23/02/11 09:29 AM
5

So what differentiates this feminist from the other feminist? Since this headline is asserting that this woman is a true feminist, what makes the other gal not a true feminist? Oh moving targets how convenient you are.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 09:23 AM
3

Or they hit 30 and said fuck it all together and tour the world, own a decent home and enjoy life via numerous hobbies. Not the way I would have liked it, but it's a good life.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 09:21 AM
1

Kidnapping is cool bro!
/r/MensRights23/02/11 09:16 AM
13

Feminism: Mission Accomplished!
/r/MensRights23/02/11 09:14 AM
5

I don't understand why it's not. Effort & Shame. Feminism creates monsters of individuals and then applies guilt-by-association tactics to keep those victims isolated. Cut off from their would be supporters, they just take it as they have no meaningful options for a 'win' condition.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 09:12 AM
3

Narcissism. The whole thing reeks of narcissistic rage.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 08:16 PM
-4

Same shit, different day, nothing changes.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 06:25 AM
-8

Well isn't this yet another bullshit question that's been beaten to death. Simple test: Name one MRA policy that negatively impacts women to the same degree Feminist policy affects men.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 12:51 AM
2

Doing nothing is not rectifying it, especially with the gossipy trailer park mentality the US society seems to have where if you don't deny it, you're admitting it (and if you deny it you probably did it anyway).
/r/MensRights07/02/11 08:29 AM
1

I guess he'll just have to sue and it'll wash out if they showed equal treatment eh?
/r/MensRights07/02/11 02:06 AM
1

So on the circumcision debate, it's sensitive to the point between abortion. Who do you want to address? If it's the people on the fence, being abrupt and aggressive pins you to an extreme. It's my point on letting the opposition kill themselves. It is going to be TMI, but if someone states, "There is no medical value in a circumcision," I would have to bring up, "When I was 3, I had an infection which disabled my means to piss and subsequently got circumcised as a remedy (it worked). So what sh…
/r/MensRights21/01/11 01:54 AM
1

In terms of being packed up, shipped off, and killed en-masse you're very right. But what then do you use to parallel the core issues in treatment and behavior? Maybe the Japanese concentration camps we had in the States, but as we were the victors that whole issue has mostly been swept under the carpet. :|
/r/MensRights20/01/11 11:21 PM
1

...and there was certainly a sense of "screw this, education is for fogies who don't know how to live life to the fullest and have adventures" among young men... By no measure do I disagree that there are elements which are anti-intellectual (look at the Creationist movements), but I do not believe that it's due to a gender/sex norm. The problem I have with /MR is that it's tough to be a moderate MRA around these parts. I agree false paternity is a problem, as is legitimately disparate sentencin…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 11:15 PM
1

But, more recently, I'm an MRA because I believe that we can be the first steps in alleviating some of the societal impediments to true equality. And this is done by berating, marginalizing, dismissing, etc, subjects brought up in /MR? Your behaviors are contradicting your above statement. You may be a harmonizer through a feminist lens, but you have yet to make more than a post or two out of your entire history that was even neutral in standing. We can redefine masculinity to be supportive of b…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:17 PM
1

The people who know of the holocaust in black-and-white terms can easily understand the position. So while it's tired, overused and exhausted, it doesn't suddenly become less valid.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 07:57 AM
2

Should we just erase that chapter in history as an inconvenient sore point in arguing? So long as the analog is valid and logically sound, it's still valid even if it's tired and exhausted in academic terms.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 07:55 AM
2

Especially since you cannot protect yourself against the mama-support/"child support." 18+ years of your income siphoned away under the guise of being used for the child(ren) that you'll never get to see.
/r/MensRights17/01/11 09:04 AM
1

Doesn't work anymore. :(
/r/MensRights17/01/11 09:02 AM
1

Marriage is a business and little else. Only when it's considered as an investment is it obvious how terrible an idea it is.
/r/MensRights17/01/11 09:01 AM
1

I'm curious what you mean by this. All assets obtained during a marriage are owned cooperatively. You own half of everything she earns or buys, and vice-versa. Probably operating on the notion that if she doesn't work much (or at all), she still gets half. That much, should be an obvious guess. Alternately, he may mean the kinds of power women get like the issues this fellow seems to be dealing with: http://redd.it/f3ita
/r/MensRights17/01/11 08:59 AM
1

Ah, my sarcasm meter is broken. Sorry then.
/r/MensRights11/01/11 07:03 PM
3

If males commit 99.9% of rape then ... [Citation needed]
/r/MensRights11/01/11 06:09 PM
1

I agree that VAWA is one sided but I disagree that it hurts men. It isn't that it hurts men (that is merely a side effect), it's that it is inherently sexist. Feminist policy, touted as seeking equality, cannot exclude men or create law that only benefits women if it is to be "equal." So when 'extra' protections, and funding for specific government offices are only for the purposes of women, it's sexist. So this leads to... And perhaps I'm reading it wrong but your argument seems circular. I see…
/r/MensRights11/01/11 04:39 AM
1

And then there are all the cases of rape which go without being investigated and the perpetrators go unpunished. You know, the ones where women in Afghanistan and Iraq (who are also being shot at) are raped by fellow soldiers? Ok so I misunderstood "Afghanistan & Iraq" to mean something different than "The US in 2003." In that case, the Military Legal System is still not the Civilian Legal system. They may share many similar policies but are separate systems. Awareness has been brought, but acti…
/r/MensRights10/01/11 11:08 PM
1

Except I've asked you a few times to cite sources on things I'm genuinely interested in, and you've not responded. When it's only convenient for you, is the only time it seems to be a "valuable" argument. Your posts only exist in a state of antagonism. I'm honestly surprised you even responded this time. I stand by my statement that you quoted.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 11:00 PM
2

I clicked, thinking it was the DailyFail. I'm really disappointed.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 05:34 AM
2

So your interpretation of it is that it must explicitly include the part of the fallacy as, "no true <x> would do <y>"? 1 "No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it." So if you're rooted to the word "tr…
/r/MensRights10/01/11 05:29 AM
10

No true Scotsman...
/r/MensRights10/01/11 12:49 AM
1

It isn't an analogy. It isn't an analog to anything. Be it an anarchist society (or as close as there has been in history) or a police state, there has always been crime. So say that we should just skip out on police & such completely then, is just an absurdist argument, not an analog. You're not comparing two like things.
/r/MensRights10/01/11 12:37 AM
2

BM is throwing a red herring at you. The US is not Afghanistan or Iraq. It is not Somalia or Pakistan. Oh those poor women over there are being treated poorly, thus we should marginalize men here in the US to compensate. The Military is outside of the standard realm of law within the US. They have their own system which parallels many things with non-military law, but punishing the civilian men will have no impact on military women. Further, there are likely feminist groups up in arms over the m…
/r/MensRights10/01/11 12:34 AM
2

BM is basically a concern troll, he uses [citation needed] often as a means of shutting down his opponent, yet never fulfills the request when its put to him in terms of something he claims. In his appeal to feminists in /MR he did a nice writeup, but did the opposite of what he stated not to do with frequency. So on topic, If you had a baby inside of you, I promise that you would have the right to terminate it. You're conflating the right for a woman to decide what to do with a cellular growth …
/r/MensRights10/01/11 12:28 AM
2

Nothing was really inflammatory as far as I could tell. It didn't have any theme of "the other" in terms of men. It wasn't funny to me, but it wasn't bad either.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 09:11 AM
1

If you go talk to a family law attorney, it's not quite as bad as a lot of the more egregious examples here make it seem. We don't get shafted nearly as much as you seem to believe. Custody is usually shared if both parents are competent, and child support payments (if you hire an attorney) are rarely crippling. Citation needed. Spousal support/maintenance is almost never granted in divorce anymore (in Colorado it's almost unheard of among family law practitioners) Here too. I'd actually like to…
/r/MensRights09/01/11 09:05 AM
2

Man, the jig is up. I always try to put on a front that when I'm confronted with an engineering problem I work my way through it from a well founded position gained by my education. But really, it's by yelling at paper and punching circuit boards until they work. I do it elsewhere too. I always say that I try to drive as well as I can, but really I just crash into people and ram them off the road. Instead of paying my bills, I beat up the people who ask. The list goes on. I just use physical vio…
/r/MensRights04/01/11 07:28 AM
6

Feminism's end game: the black widow? I guess it is the ultimate female supremacy gig.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 06:45 AM
1

You suggested OP "go ask /Feminism and /2XC what to do." 2XC is a women's subreddit, not a feminist subreddit, so sending OP there implied "women," not just "feminists." To you that might be a subtle distinction but trust me, there's a difference. Many of the mods there, are feminist. They have banned people for things they deemed misogynistic based on feminist positioning. Qeraeth has subreddit dumped into here on a feminist glee fest. /2XC is, by their leadership, a prettier faced version of /…
/r/MensRights03/01/11 06:13 AM
0

So /2XC decides its time to do another subreddit shitup and creates a thread, "Mens rights, it's time to put the woman back in the kitchen." They then post a highway full of misogynistic commentary. Then with no way to bury the piss out of the thread (as only up-votes happen) it sticks around. Then they link to that thread elsewhere in reddit to say, "see they're a bunch of misogynistic pricks." So either every viewer of /MR upvotes every other thread to out-vote that one thread, or it floats ar…
/r/MensRights02/01/11 08:16 AM
3

Whoops, your reading comprehension fell short of the mark. Since feminists, not women, are the source of the only-men-rape hysteria, they're probably the best ones to hear what to do. They would probably respond with "you deserve it," or "now you understand." And since it would cause a shit storm with the groups which source the hysteria, it wouldn't be productive thus one shouldn't do it. Someone else mentioned the OP's best recourse: move. But since you're on the morally superior awesomesauce …
/r/MensRights02/01/11 08:11 AM
3

Being the better person is bullshit for saying "taking the fall."
/r/MensRights02/01/11 07:13 AM
-1

I actually messed up and the edit of, "I'm not fully serious..." didn't work out. Past that if your comment stands, /2XC has plenty of "ZOMFG MISOGYNY EVERYWHER OPPESING ME WITH PENISES!" It also has plenty of feminist raging idiots. Their mod Qeraeth did a subreddit shit up 8 months ago. Sadrah was a pretty good failure too.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 07:07 AM
2

As far as I can tell, those women tend to assert themselves as individuals or egalitarians, not as feminists. I have yet to see a self proclaimed feminist come in here and present any piece of evidence or information on it's merit. As far as I have seen, it is always a case of "I am a feminist" as a social proof of autocredibility to assert whatever their position is true, without evidence.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 06:58 AM
1

Want to explain the issue you see? I'm not seeing it.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 06:55 AM
9

I'm not fully serious about this, but you should go ask /Feminism and /2XC what to do since they're the kinds groups which spawned the rape hysteria.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 06:52 AM
6

People are evil assholes.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 06:50 AM
1

At which point we're still blamed because Guilt By Association is acceptable to these types. :\
/r/MensRights02/01/11 02:31 AM
3

You sure it wasn't MaleStudies?
/r/MensRights01/01/11 06:52 PM
10

Earlier on in my Uni career, I went to the counseling services office when my alcoholic dad kicked the bucket. Mostly just to vent some frustrations. I did one session. That particular counselor was trying to convert the 'issue' into a "transgender personal disorder." He asked a lot of questions that had nothing to do with my discussion and I kept pushing back to "get on topic." Not long after, I looked up his credentials. He got his psyc Masters from the college, specializing in Transgendered (…
/r/MensRights31/12/10 10:19 AM
5

Citations needed.
/r/MensRights31/12/10 02:23 AM
1

The only way to win, is not to play.
/r/MensRights31/12/10 02:21 AM
1

If someone wanted to collect statistics on divorce proceedings where would one go or how would one begin?
/r/MensRights31/12/10 02:17 AM
1

Less assumptions, more like wishful thinking. Look at the whole thing as a business decision and then consider your position. AOL Merged with Time Warner without the intention of getting "divorced." It didn't take long for them to want that divorce.
/r/MensRights31/12/10 02:01 AM
2

The only peaceful way to fix the system is to have ever dad enslaved to child support default and willfully go to prison. The feminist noise will go up, the feminist rage will go up, the politicians will buzz trying to keep votes. The money will stop, and only then will things have to change. It won't happen though.
/r/MensRights30/12/10 12:10 PM
2

In addition, if you're up front about it you can usually arrange a payment plan.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 11:26 PM
1

When you meme, you rage. Your point is, then, popular law is all that needs to apply. Better to make a big story about a guy reading his (now) ex's email, than both of them for being retarded. Sound about right?
/r/MensRights29/12/10 06:19 AM
1

Alright, go ahead and play up the journalism/news angle, what relevance is this guy's actions to me? Why is it more important than his ex doing some other guy? All you've stated is that the difference between tabloid journalism & your journalism is the newness of the 'crime' (moral or legal). I'll stand by my position here. Both people did something wrong. The article as a whole is non news, putting focus on the guy serves no value other than sensationalist bullshit.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 06:08 AM
0

No true Scotsman would do such a thing!
/r/MensRights29/12/10 01:39 AM
1

Legally, there is a law on the books. It isn't enforced, but it is a law (similar to the detonation of Nuclear Ordinance within the city limits of Chico California). So it's still a crime, but you just explained that since it's not a crime to reasonable person, that is it's acceptable/ok. Which would then dismiss the guy's crime as well, since that's acceptable/ok but something of a sleezy thing to do. It won't, for obvious reasons, but that isn't what you're banging on about. So the question is…
/r/MensRights29/12/10 01:32 AM
1

So that same reasonable person thinks that sleeping around while married is also okay too. Well that makes a huge amount of sense suddenly, especially if they're women.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 01:17 AM
1

So tabloids are the best form a journalism. Got it. "News" should serve the purpose to inform. The BBC does a pretty good job at this. You're stating journalism is about sensationalism, which is less informational and more for entertainment value or to push a particular angle. That doesn't make it "right."
/r/MensRights27/12/10 10:37 PM
1

Did I say women diddling kids = man snooping soon-to-be ex-wife's email?
/r/MensRights27/12/10 07:48 PM
1

The first result in the search turned up the law too bud. You just found that it is a crime according to the books regardless of the enforcement. You just negated yourself.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 07:27 PM
0

...Right? Are people blind? I've been saying that he did something illegal everywhere in this damned discussion.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 07:11 PM
1

A point or two that should probably be made in addition: Ask questions over making assertions. Blatant assertions come off as antagonistic which get people defensive. Questions can either identify a communication void or attempt to understand something about the other side. It's safer to state your values than branding yourself. If the majority of your views are not shared exactly by the label, don't use the label.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 11:41 AM
0

No, seriously what the hell are you on? You're frothing at the bit you and you really are coming across as 'off the handle.' Slow down, re-read the whole of this thread. Two people committed a crime here. Two. One, slept around with someone else while married (a crime). One, suspected the other was sleeping around and found evidence by getting into her email through unlawful means (a crime). The article sensationalized what he did while doing little more than mentioning what she did. It's that s…
/r/MensRights27/12/10 07:36 AM
2

...What are you on? That didn't even make sense. Some politician created some law that he broke. It's a law, good, bad or other. He broke it. She broke a law as well. The article put the emphasis on what he did to marginalize what she did. A red herring fallacy is specifically, "... a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue." So "yeah she committed adultery, but he snooped her email!" Christ, you're as bad as a feminist.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 03:55 AM
3

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Michigan+adultery+law Michigan Penal Code 750.29
/r/MensRights27/12/10 03:34 AM
2

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Michigan+adultery+law Behold the power of the search engine.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 03:34 AM
2

This. She's an adult. Let her bare her own failings and use it to improve herself (if she cares).
/r/MensRights27/12/10 12:32 AM
2

Haven't you killed Cartman yet?
/r/MensRights26/12/10 11:17 PM
11

Yeah it's a typical kind of enabled sexist crap, probably meant to be funny. Raise the bar, return the favor, "If only the men could have taught you as well." The best way to shut down someone who thinks they're witty is to marginalize them as retarded or worthless. /there is a reason I don't have many friends.
/r/MensRights26/12/10 11:16 PM
0

You're missing the point a bit, well as far as I can see it. He did a crime (by law) and found out his wife was sleeping around. The hysteria from the media marginalizes the wife's actions and maximizes the guy's actions. She's setup to be the victim. That's the real point of contention.
/r/MensRights26/12/10 11:13 PM
1

And his income, and his kids, and...
/r/MensRights26/12/10 11:12 PM
-1

Dude broke the law, that violation is the red herring to marginalize the soon-to-be ex wife's crime. Dude did it wrong, he'll get reamed and she'll get half plus change.
/r/MensRights26/12/10 11:11 PM
0

I think the email bit is a red herring here. He found out she was sleeping around. That puts her in bad light. He did something unscrupulous to validate his hunch. Thus it isn't about her, it's about him. The question should be, "Did he do something he shouldn't have?" Yup. "Moving on, did his wife do something that violated their marriage?" Yup. But that won't get any attention. She'll still get half, plus change since the negative attention is on him.
/r/MensRights26/12/10 11:08 PM
3

There are a number of cases that get attention in /MR where women are diddling kids and get a token sentence while a guy who does the exact same thing in the exact same kinds of circumstances gets "the full force of the law." Other instances still include murder and fraud. He's allowed to have whatever attitude he wants, just as you're allowed to have a dismissive attitude that it never happens.
/r/MensRights26/12/10 11:05 PM
1

This thread needs a procedure for identifying relevant sources. Some people cite a law, it gets dismissed as irrelevant as a source. Others cite cite blogs, which are actually worthless sources. /MR should figure out what a standard should be for sources and then include a method for researching based on a given argument. Realistically, since most fundamental arguments are redundant due to random sewage leaking in here, once usable sources are identified they can be copy-pasta'd all day long.
/r/MensRights25/12/10 04:16 AM
4

Not even all feminists are women.
/r/MensRights24/12/10 10:11 AM
0

That is, unless your goal is to be forever victim. Because if that's your goal, keep on with your current strategy. It's working for you. So kind of like Feminism?
/r/MensRights24/12/10 10:09 AM
6

Most often, the newcomers are less Lewis and Clark, and more like aggressive Bible thumpers. /2XC bleeds a feminist member or two into here, who tries to "right the wrongs" by telling everyone how they understand "our pain" and if only we understood feminism we would "be saved." Various other incarnations occur be it from the /r/politics/ type or elsewhere. It gets old, and most people become very callused.
/r/MensRights24/12/10 10:04 AM
4

No reasonable person is gonna see you with a 12 year old girl in public and assume you're gonna rape her or something. Virgina called and wanted to say hello.
/r/MensRights24/12/10 10:01 AM
1

This was a good post. Upboat.
/r/MensRights24/12/10 09:48 AM
0

I seems you really want to beg the case, which is fine. I don't really care to engage after this as it's pretty apparent that you have a tightly closed mind and because you keep countering with straw man fallacies. "You don't agree with me, because you have a tightly closed mind" is a straw man if there ever was one. You're not actually disproving anything i wrote. yeah, feminist movements exist because historically, and for the most part, worldwide because women have not and do not have an equa…
/r/MensRights20/12/10 11:45 PM
5

Think of the children is the appeal to emotion used as a cover for the political motive of controlling sexual materials, specifically aimed at men. The result is an attempt at controlling their sexuality and as a result, men themselves. It's why many academic feminists make very sloppy connections between soft porn to child porn and then argue that any man who likes porn will eventually become aroused by kiddie porn due to boredom. In one fell swoop of a fantastic strawman, they establish that a…
/r/MensRights20/12/10 10:43 AM
2

Edit: here
/r/MensRights20/12/10 02:40 AM
0

It wasn't a submission. She thread dumped in a non /2XC thread in here. That's the search issue. Either I pick through my own post history one at a time, or figure out some other mechanism. Still. Just go ask. Surely there will be no reason to lie.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 02:32 AM
1

Just go ask Qeraeth. Surely that bastion of holy purity would never lie. Subsequently, how would you provide a link for something around 8 months ago?
/r/MensRights20/12/10 02:26 AM
-6

The moral here is, don't go into /2XC. Nothing good comes from that shit-reddit. It's basically /r/Feminism with a prettier front.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 01:58 AM
-3

But the more people unfairly put the 2XChromosome reddit in the middle of the gender wars, the less likely they are going to be able to have a normal reddit. Maybe, just maybe, the membership of /2XC shouldn't come in here and do a feminist helldump to shit up this subreddit with their tripe? Go ask Qeraeth what the intent was for the little invasion some months ago. It's typical two-faced bullshit. "We don't want anything to do with it"/"Lets go fuck with them." I'm not going to hold my breath.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 01:57 AM
3

if you're speaking in terms of practicality and historical precedent, why would feminism address what is wrong with any of the above? Because the above mentioned items are grossly sexist, gender unequal issues where in Feminism has either directly or indirectly had a hand in the result in spite of the fact that Feminism asserts itself as an equality for all movement. they have had to fight for gender inequality from the other side (for women's rights) since the inception and still have a lot mor…
/r/MensRights20/12/10 01:50 AM
2

but you have got to be on some serious shit if you are comparing the women over men oppression to the white over black oppression that have caused their respective reactionary rights movements. So you refuse to really question your beliefs, and reject anything that challenges them, dismissing anything that does as "fringe." Well then, there is no further reason to continue as you're cemented in your beliefs as any other fundamentalist. As such, this conversation is over. Good day.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 09:31 PM
1

dude, that's insane. you're seriously comparing feminism to the institutional racism in the US that caused the need for the civil rights movement? Those in power, were people. Those people were racist. Racist people, with power, create racist policy. Feminists with power, create feminist policy. Feminist policy, is sexist and misandrist. for starters, say what you will about feminists, but feminism is not based on the idea that men are lower beings so it's cool to deny them rights when we feel l…
/r/MensRights19/12/10 09:07 PM
-1

...and an even earlier death. Feminists will say we deserved it. I'm trying to find the downside here.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 08:45 PM
3

feminism by many mainstream definitions is simply the striving for equality in gender identification and is in theory, by no means, counter to "men's rights". -Domestic Violence -Women in the draft -Child support system -Divorce system -Cancer research -False Rape accusations Where is the feminism you speak of seeking "equality" in any of the above? Domestic violence? NOW, a feminist group, gave us the VAWA. A piece of legislation that requires the man of the house be arrested "to keep the peace…
/r/MensRights19/12/10 08:40 PM
2

Or, are you among those who that believe female dominance over men needs to be replaced with male dominance over women? So are you an active child molester, or just lust after sex with children? I love arguments where the person preaching presents a false dichotomy on grounds of moral superiority.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 08:28 PM
4

Let's try that with a different situation, but similar in fight: Wait, since when was Civil Rights an anti-Racism Movement? I thought Civil Rights was about people standing their ground for equal rights for everyone regardless of color, not seeking to disavow and destroy racism (no matter how wrong you and I may think they are). Did the Civil Rights movement work against racism? Yup. Did the CRM realize that racists were working against them? Yup. Especially with laws for one group, and differen…
/r/MensRights19/12/10 08:24 PM
4

At my work, we just interviewed a recent Masters grad with a 3.93 GPA from a respected engineering school. He sought to defend his masters' thesis as an introduction to the interview. He failed horribly. For an electrical engineer, he couldn't answer the most basic 200 level questions. I, as a lowly person in possession of a Bachelors degree in EE, was able to out-do him in skill by a disappointingly large margin. Paper does not equal intelligence, skill, or anything else. It tells you that they…
/r/MensRights19/12/10 08:16 PM
0

I could similarly talk to a wall and get the same result.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 07:40 PM
1

Better yet, "Get out." Terminate the one-sided relationship. Done. Ends the cycle very abruptly and suspends having to deal with it ever again.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 08:27 AM
-7

Where are they? I haven't found any. ... or is it a case of finding them "totally reasonable" after you ignore 99 out of 100 disorders?
/r/MensRights19/12/10 08:24 AM
4

NOW is the lead group which gave us the VAW Act. It's a misandrist organization by its core principals. If they could, they would ban anyone with a penis from living.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 07:52 AM
1

Take her up on it for a rotation, one week when you do it, the next she does it?
/r/MensRights17/12/10 07:43 PM
8

That link to the side is pretty damned close to what I was thinking we needed. We need to build upon it every day, and begin to count up and tally all the instances of he feminist bullshit that happens in our world, begin to accumulate proper data, and start getting information on the bullshit court cases. No, it won't refute mindless emotional rhetoric. It won't refute the morally superior by their abstract self-appointed professional merit. Those people are the fundamentalists on the same leve…
/r/MensRights17/12/10 08:16 AM
1

This is why no /MR advocate should enable or be inclusive to any feminist. So long as they carry the banner of feminism, they will only see things with the feminist glasses on. It is only when they realize that feminism is a farce do they become someone who is going to help an egalitarian movement. Simultaneously, at that point they cease to be a feminist by their own acknowledgement.
/r/MensRights15/12/10 01:18 AM
1

I whole heartedly agree, but sitting idle isn't going to change anything. I have a lot of self hatred for not thinking of a meaningful way to combat this crap either, which is what /MR really needs to start doing.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 08:21 AM
19

When you call a feminist to the floor on this, you're always going to get some strawman that its the fault of the patriarchy and thus the fault of men not feminism. Bring to the floor the issue of false rape, and you're a misogynist, etc. Same old song, nothing changes.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 07:27 AM
1

That's a straw man. No, it isn't. Both groups I mentioned are hate groups, specifically antagonistic against any level of commonality. Both use common methods of placing blame on their scapegoat to justify their position (Nazis had Jews, White racists blame it on people who are Black/Mexican/Asian/etc, and so on). Feminism does the same by blaming men for all their problems. Bringing any of those groups, be they racist or sexist, to the table is going to be unproductive. They are exactly the typ…
/r/MensRights12/12/10 06:42 AM
2

Yeah go message Qeraeth and get some justification when she went on a trolling spree in /MR a while ago. /2XC is a feminist subreddit, in some flavor or another by the actions of the posters and moderators. In the articles linked even discussing anything that is sexist, it's always a gynocentric worldview. It's only sexism when it happens to women. If it's a bad thing happening to men, it's because of men, and thus the patriarchy (a figment of feminist minds) is the source of the ills. We get pe…
/r/MensRights12/12/10 06:18 AM
-2

I suppose, but it just seemed really out of place for the rest of the post. Nothing described required a particular sex to justify itself. For me, it was like reading, "Killing people is bad. Poisoning the water is bad. What is going on in Afghanistan is bad. I am a woman." It just kind of stuck out.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 06:13 AM
1

Great. Open up a channel of communication with White Supremacists and Black Separatists. Lets get everyone back on board to fix things. I'll buy you a beer for it! There is nothing to be gained from /MR interfering with /2XC, and nothing to be gained by trying to persuade them to our causes. /2XC does not represent all women. It does not represent all of North America, it represents a group of people who have a more moderate tie-in of feminism than /feminism. At its core, all feminism is misandr…
/r/MensRights12/12/10 06:02 AM
1

You're 'arguing' ad nauseam.. When you get to high school, you're going to be expected to do more critical thinking than you are in middle school right now. Simply stating "you're angry" to anything you object to is going to get you poor marks, even with the standards being as diluted as they are. So forgive me for giving you any credit. Let's look at the very first comment I made in the thread. Ok, completely stepping aside from the fact that they defaulted to, "it's all the fault of the patria…
/r/MensRights12/12/10 05:59 AM
3

What's hers is hers, whats mine is hers.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 02:20 AM
1

Objectional to the fact he was banned? I don't follow, what is objectionable?
/r/MensRights12/12/10 12:33 AM
1

I doubt that the ratio is higher between white supremacists and feminists, but given that both groups are hate movements it makes sense that it's hard to differentiate when they aren't being explicitly obvious. In either case, the fact that TheEnlightener is banned is a good thing.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 12:25 AM
0

Well, it's kind of analogous to deriving joy from others' suffering. Getting them stirred up sparks some kind of internalized joy. By having the power to make others lose their shit, it gives the person doing that level of trolling a sense of power over others.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 11:59 PM
4

Why do we keep getting threads linking to /2XC? We don't link to any racist subreddits, we shouldn't do it for /2XC. There is nothing to be gained from linking to the feminist subreddits. Nothing. We know what crap goes on there, this is nothing new. Whether is new complaints against the "patriarchy" or some mod of theirs like Qeraeth coming in with a band of trolls to shit up this subreddit, nothing positive comes from that subreddit. Simply restating it is nice, but nothing is learned.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 10:24 PM
1

That's a great question, why would you, especially when you don't seem to want to agree to the terms of continuing? I might guess it's because if you are the loudest, you feel that it makes you more right. Just like the creationists. Care to try again?
/r/MensRights11/12/10 10:11 PM
1

Also, I am not a dude. Why is this needed? You're not asserting a feminist point, you're stating equality questions. There isn't anything here to be attacked at by an egalitarian. Your statement was good all the way around.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 09:40 PM
1

I think she's referring to Qeraeth's /MR invasion.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 09:27 PM
1

No, but it is a pretty common theme of Reddit's thinking.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 09:13 PM
1

Just because you say so doesn't make it true. No matter how long you go on with your ad hominem bull, you have never made a valid point or addressed any issue. Even to here, you're still making this "my" issue, when you've been the antagonist the whole time. Are you even capable of understanding what gynocentric means? It's probably a big word for you so I'll tell you: it means women-focused, or women being the center of it all. That's it. It seems to be the most offensive word to you, yet don't…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 08:56 PM
3

Oh god, not this shit again. Just go back to /2XC already.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 09:12 AM
2

Most feminists use a single or small number of martyrs to create a moral panic to further a particular political agenda as most of the real inequalities have been resolved. It's likely that the person is a feminist troll based on the behavior & tactics similar to those of /feminism and /2XC, and thus the usual presumption occurs. The MRA, even voiceofreason, focus on the blanket issues; the message. It's why /mr is more inclusive than any feminist movement ever could be, the individual is second…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 09:06 AM
1

I'm getting a lot of responses from people over this right now- and not just from this thread. Your reply was more of the same rabble-rousing and frankly, i don't really care what you think. So i took a cheap shot and moved on to more interesting conversation. I can't have a serious discussion with someone who uses the word "gynocentric" that much. You're drinking the special koolaid a bit too much, my friend. And you're preaching to me about not having a well thought out response? That's pretty…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 08:49 AM
2

Ah. In that case, "not my problem."
/r/MensRights11/12/10 03:31 AM
1

er...what?
/r/MensRights11/12/10 02:53 AM
1

Yeah, but that's a blatant insult. Ad Homenims are trying to win an argument through insult (the insult is the justification).
/r/MensRights11/12/10 12:54 AM
2

Ah, then indeed I did misunderstand. It happens.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 04:32 PM
1

Wow, you're right, "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing." I think, though, that given the rhetoric of feminism it's all too close to fundamentalism and still works thusly.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 09:35 AM
0

Wow, that actually nails the good dads in our society pretty damned well.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 08:40 AM
3

Sixth--nice ad hominem there. I don't even think it's an ad-hominem. It would have to be, "Of course you think it's bad there, you're a woman" or something along those lines.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 08:27 AM
3

First - Birth control IS covered by the majority of medical insurance companies. Viagra and other ED treatments ARE NOT covered by the vast majority of insurance companies. Ask your doctor. You are either ignorant of this fact or you are lying. My insurance co actually denies coverage of both. I think, like many insurance plans, it's subjective to the insurance plan so it's a grey zone. Third - Uh There are public clinics that provide birth control and abortions. It's called planned parenthood. …
/r/MensRights10/12/10 08:22 AM
1

So do you hate and distrust women so much because your mommy molested you? That's it? That is your witty, well thought out response? Well then, there is nothing left here but for you to go back to /2XC, tell them how you put us in our place and then celebrate your gynocentric circlejerk. All you would need to know why I distrust you is a mirror, and reading comprehension of what you have written.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 08:10 AM
6

Welcome to the real world. Its shades of brown and you're knee deep in it.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 03:34 AM
2

I applaud you for your un-yielding position, but must say you will never get a satisfactory answer because there is no real answer :) (But you know this already).
/r/MensRights10/12/10 02:50 AM
5

"The patriarchy has it, and we don't!"
/r/MensRights10/12/10 02:39 AM
1

Unless it's a woman who is accused, of course. :|
/r/MensRights10/12/10 02:24 AM
3

Old. She probably works for Oprah now, if that is legitimate. It seems so far fetched to be so blatantly bad, we have to call it Poe's law at this point.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 02:21 AM
-1

She just used the same garbage on me. Just another Qeraeth from /2XC. Same shit, different day. Give it a little more time, and like every other fundamentalist moral-crusade, she'll come to "save us" all, if we would only just buy into her feminist religion.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 02:14 AM
-1

Awww how adorably common, "This guy doesn't buy into our fundamentalist tripe, let's try to shame, marginalize and strawman him!" Did you learn that from Grere, or Wolf? Maybe some other misandrist "equality for everyone, just more equality for women" brand of moral-panic driven feminist? Where? You're supposedly intelligent and equal, maybe you could read your own whine fest of a thread, or would that detract from your vapid pride from how totally awesome grrl-power enabled you are? Better yet,…
/r/MensRights10/12/10 02:05 AM
0

Ok, completely stepping aside from the fact that they defaulted to, "it's all the fault of the patriarchy" - doesn't /r/Malestudies ban anyone from /2XC, /feminism, etc to create as contaminant free subreddit as possible? Also, I wish there were some kind of advance indication that a link goes into that gosspy gynogroupthink shit hole. We already know what they think.
/r/MensRights09/12/10 09:43 AM
1

What about women who don't want to be equal to men. Would they not be a woman, by this logic? lol. The issue is this very thing - it isn't logic, it's rhetoric nonsense.
/r/MensRights09/12/10 09:35 AM
1

That's using reason, which will still get spun.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:08 PM
0

My doubt to her accusations is exponentially increasing.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:03 PM
1

Get ready for the feminist double-step, first they'll pull an equivalance fallacy; Feminism is for women to be equal to men, thus feminism is for all women, therefore all women are feminist. Once they assert this (as a superior position), they then create their strawman misogynist (you) - "So why do you hate women?" Then they use you to justify themselves.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 10:56 PM
4

Or in short, the Gynocentric Worldview; only women matter, and the only problems are those that matter to them. If an issue comes up about men, it must only be solved through the lens of Feminist Ideology. Feminism is no different than any other extremist fundamentalism, be it extremist Christianity, extremist Muslim, extremist separatists, etc.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 08:03 PM
2

I think that's the point in contention - did she actually try, or did she rewrite history to game the system? Their discredit thus far is the peculiar timing of things.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 07:22 PM
18

These women pick an ideology that is intentionally antagonistic to men, then are surprised when it keeps them distanced from them? What a shock.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 06:52 PM
9

Denial of basic facts is nothing new to political movements like feminism.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 06:47 PM
1

Feminists' idea of mens rights issues usually differs from Men's right's issues through the eyes of men. Stating support for one interpretation based on gynocentric world views, at best, rarely means comprehension of the issues as seen by men.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 09:20 AM
1

Those who say it's an irrational fear, speak so because they have the most to gain by your ignorance. If you deal with any woman in a manner to cover yourself, you lessen her effectiveness in using false-rape accusations and thus prevent her from legally taking control over you. You're denying her the entitled privilege she was promised by feminism. If someone claims it's an irrational fear such as being hit by a meteorite, or winning the lottery, they're being willfully dishonest about the matt…
/r/MensRights07/12/10 09:03 AM
1

Right?
/r/MensRights07/12/10 03:40 AM
1

If every successive year has a 5% decline, then it's 95% of the previous year's numbers. So as time (t) goes on, the total population drops to zero.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 12:49 AM
1

Cool, so feminism just has to sit back and wait it out. They get what they want without any effort. I wonder what they'll do when their collective revenue system vaporizes once the men they leech off of are all gone.
/r/MensRights06/12/10 10:23 PM
1

A new sub-reddit, started by people who use the very subject to propel their movement? I'm highly suspicious and skeptical. We've had countless examples in /mr of the /2XC type of person "demonstrating sympathy to both sides" by being one sided and viewing things through the eyes of their gynocentric circlejerk.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 06:58 AM
1

Uh, one of them already has. Some guy went to her for help, she gave him the basic tools to start protecting himself and breaking off the toxic (healthy by women's standards) relationship. Once he did, the ex figured out who he went to and started harassing her through phonecalls, email and junk mail. She's a threat to Feminists because she rejects the bullshit "Patriarchy" strawman and tenants of feminist ideology.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 06:55 AM
1

If feminists openly acknowledge the gravity of the situation, it would require a responsible reaction to rectify the situation or else they show themselves as a sexist hate movement. By simply ignoring it, dismissing it, marginalizing it and denying it, they free themselves from having to do anything about it.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 06:52 AM
1

Permanent fraud record, felony extortion, etc. If an innocent man's chance of success in life is stolen by the entitled twit, she should be denied every means of a good life by the same token. True equality should include the bad.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 06:47 AM
1

Equality in Justice.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 06:43 AM
2

Nope. Canadian Police are similar enough to the US Police that the fines get rolled into the operating expenses and nothing ever hits the cops. There exists no punishment that can reach them within legal means, so they'll roll their eyes and continue the same old bit.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 06:34 AM
1

He considered it 14, or at least that was his preference.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 06:29 AM
1

For one, he kind of does. Two, he's 30 and prefers them at 14.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 06:28 AM
1

Same shit, different pariah. Don't care. I'm not particularly sorry you weren't made to feel like a beautiful, unique and valuable snowflake because of your bad ideas.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 09:33 AM
0

You are my hero.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 09:27 AM
0

/r/2Ovaries1Braincell ... awesome! Upboat for you.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 09:09 AM
2

There was some muppet character in here who said 10 out of 380 was a significant number to represent a majority. So I guess goofy numbers matter to people who run on goofy math?
/r/MensRights02/12/10 09:03 AM
2

Obvious troll is obvious. Leave him be.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 08:58 AM
2

Ditto.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 08:49 AM
3

I think it's pretty easy: define feminism through the legal policies brought by feminist groups. It blanketly ignores all the propaganda and utter bullshit spouted by supposed "equality" feminists and only judges them collectively on their actions. We do it with other political groups and movements (look at PETA), Feminism should be no exception due to "PC Taboos"
/r/MensRights02/12/10 08:35 AM
1

Hahahahhahahahahhaa Wow, I need to introduce you to my Nigerian Prince friend. He's a guy who's out to better his people, but his money is tied up in the banking system and needs a way to funnel it out of the country for redistribution. Think you can help? Also, Politicians fulfill promises they make, the police are all your friends, and the IRS never does wrong.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 08:32 AM
0

Because women can do no wrong in the eyes of the legal system, only men can. Just ignore the fact that there are numerous feminist groups pushing for more laws along the same lines.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 08:30 AM
3

What's your fetish, or particular sexual turn on? Now how do we get you to change it to the exact opposite? Part of the problem is that in the desire for a magic bullet solution, society gets to skip the realization that each instance is dependent upon the individual. Rare is it that one cure/treatment works on two people for matters of the mind. I formerly had a friend who proudly proclaimed himself an ebophile or something, the twit is a mental case all around and didn't want to do anything ab…
/r/MensRights02/12/10 08:29 AM
2

Rule 34.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 08:25 AM
14

Especially when you can use it to gain things to become more equal than others!
/r/MensRights02/12/10 08:24 AM
2

Starting with the local "Women's Resource Centers" at both colleges I went to, which uttered the same tripe about women being the victims always, followed up with a mob-justice brigade (8-10 of them) who went around the urban center pointing at various males stating, "You might be a rapist!" At the same school, they had permissions to go into men's bathrooms and post up fliers above the urinals and elsewhere which read, "ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT RAPE" with an arrow pointing down to your junk. Those …
/r/MensRights23/11/10 05:55 AM
1

You're absolutely right. There are also parks for nerds, parks for drug addicts, and hundreds of other parks for specific groups that have been paid for with tax dollars which are completely exclusive to other groups that do not belong! .. except this isn't the case. This is a case of a public park, (no where in the article did it say it was exclusively a children's park) paid for with public funds via the taxpayer, and is exclusive to one particular group and excludes another group. This is not…
/r/MensRights23/11/10 05:47 AM
1

Because, obviously, this is officially drafted into law or other formalized document. Similar positions to yours: - There's no workplace racism - There is no workplace sexism Both took time of people bitching about it before studies happened! Oops! Oh you silly subversive /2XC'er, go home with your kind; citation needed that you're not a twit.
/r/MensRights21/11/10 11:30 PM
1

The first problem, it is a punishable offense, though it's rarely enforced for women. The second problem is that once a person has been accused, whether it's true or not, they're permanently branded for life. No one can legislate compassion effectively, let alone rewrite people's hysteria into sensibility. What might be the first step towards fixing it is changing the crime from "filing a false report," to "an attempt to defraud" as a felony; one which carries the same line of jail time as men, …
/r/MensRights21/11/10 08:10 PM
1

So what do you propose as an actual fix? Letting women off entirely enables them to do it more often without consequence. Going reverse suppresses those who've actually been victims.
/r/MensRights21/11/10 03:54 AM
-5

Raises what awareness? That guys rape women? Let's get an ad that sits right next to it, "Just because he asked you out, doesn't mean you can take him for all he's worth." You know, for awareness sake.
/r/MensRights21/11/10 03:51 AM
1

The level of Cluster-B coming through the quoted persons' writing is enough to make /r/Feminism proud.
/r/MensRights21/11/10 03:47 AM
1

Either what's popular, or what is going to get his Senator buddy more votes in the next election.
/r/MensRights21/11/10 02:54 AM
3

The way to solve a woman's problems is to ignore her and let her deal with them herself, just like every guy is expected to do. What better way to give her equality than by letting her deal with her own problems and thusly treat her like a man?
/r/MensRights21/11/10 02:51 AM
24

Feminism: If she turns out to be a liar, she's just doing it to raise awareness and alert us that every man is a potential rapist.
/r/MensRights21/11/10 02:48 AM
1

"A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: Topic A is under discussion. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merel…
/r/MensRights20/11/10 12:39 AM
2

If the area is designated for whites and visible signs prohibit blacks, then these men were trespassing. Hmmm, I don't think that should fly if this is public land.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 10:10 PM
3

How is this case not equivalent to white areas and black areas in terms of segregation? If this were, 'no blacks allowed,' everyone would scream racism.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 10:06 PM
3

About time. Next should include a similar witch trial that men get.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 07:32 PM
12

This article just seems to be useless gossip.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 05:16 AM
-2

Let's be honest, the bulk of us are not/were not in it to begin with.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 05:13 AM
5

Quick: name a stereotype for white guys that's as prevalent, easily referenced and troped as "Welfare Queen" Dead beat dad. Rapist.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 04:55 AM
7

If you yourself, regardless of your sex, were discriminated for any reason in such a way that it limited you by false means, you have the right to bitch. So if you apply for a job and have the best credentials for the task, and are not hired because the hiring manager is a racist; that's justification to bitch. If you apply for the same job, and have virtually no credentials for the task and are not hired; you have no justification to bitch. Affirmative action remedies #2, which then places undu…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 04:54 AM
3

Just remember, you must bomb da haaabaaa.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 07:02 PM
8

It wasn't the movie, it was the Chin-Poke-mon episode.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 06:53 PM
6

Feminist shaming tactics are very effective.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 06:39 PM
0

In reading this thread, the gist I get from the actual court case is: The means of giving, or denying, consent is contingent upon consciousness. Two things I would like to see established: Terms and definition of consciousness (it looks like any altered state equates to unconsciousness) Reasonable time to end the act Withholding laughter, if I were in the act of sex with a woman and after deciding she wasn't interested anymore stated, "stop" the time to comply becomes an important term. If the s…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 06:26 PM
1

Actual, coherent systems of positive action. Progress isn't simply recognition of "feminist policy is benefiting women at the expense of men, and it's doing so with governmental sanctioning." It's actually fixing the horrendously jacked up family courts, it's getting the legal system to actually enforce serious punishment upon women for the same actions that get men long terms in jail. It's requiring the Child Support system hold women accountable for the funds they receive, etc. Absolutely none…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 06:04 PM
1

There's enough action in us for it to happen. Like....?
/r/MensRights17/11/10 05:27 PM
2

Fair enough, thanks for your explanation. I appreciate it (and this isn't sarcasm).
/r/MensRights17/11/10 10:27 AM
1

The fallacy is guilt by association, but I get what you meant. I may ask that you link this though; My angle is that not all women are feminists, but all feminists should be treated as hostiles. That is what "danger" I'm curious about. As far as I'm concerned, any "feminist" that is going against the tide of those who've been the defining voice for modern feminism (e.g. Greer) aren't doing anything more than trying to rewrite the meaning of 'porchmonkey'. It appears that the feminists who are th…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 09:55 AM
2

Thank you! Well time to try this on myself: 1 My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed. 3 If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex. With affirmative action & workplace quotas to equalize things, this isn't necessarily true anymore. 4 If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities. Yup. Mu…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 09:44 AM
2

I don't know about that. I can run through the list of women I've known and been around in my life and check off quite a few of those items. It's probably worse for a divorced man. Would you indulge me and link the "Male check list"?
/r/MensRights17/11/10 08:53 AM
1

Personally, I've pretty much given up. I haven't found anything in /MR that leads to action or serious organization. As long as the feminists get women benefits under the lie of oppression, the western male will get screwed over and nothing changes. Being negative is pretty much a coping mechanism as we circle the drain.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 08:36 AM
1

This is old as hell at this point (2 weeks) but what do you see as the "danger" in saying to one self, "this person identifies with Germain Grier & co. I don't think it's in my best interest to have anything to do with them"?
/r/MensRights17/11/10 08:32 AM
1

That's pretty much how it is now; that's why it's broken. "We think you need to pay x% because it sounds like a reasonable estimate from x, y, z"
/r/MensRights17/11/10 02:03 AM
1

There is a parameter that needs to be brought into the picture here that I've never seen brought in: Duration of Custody. Let's ignore the politics of custody battles and start with an assumption of 50/50 custody. Electricity The largest sink of money is the home's water heater & (if applicable) electric heat. Lights, stove, etc make up relatively little of the total bill (and this can be backed up by utility companies, with different %s based on where you're located). So you have to look at it …
/r/MensRights17/11/10 02:01 AM
1

I wanted to mention: Show me the posts from /2XC that they cheer this girl on. Seriously, if they're as supportive as you claim it should be easy. One problem with reddit is the means of archival. There have been multiple threads in /MR where they link to the very things you're wanting from /2XC. When it comes and goes, finding those threads gets hard. It's a convenience for those in your position. You haven't been a redditor (or at least this account) for long enough to hit them. When one does …
/r/MensRights17/11/10 01:27 AM
0

So, anecdotes count as data? Awesome. I'll tell all the stats folks that they aren't needed anymore. If you wish. You've met every woman on the planet and none of them wanted to be accountable for anything? Jesus, how do you find time to post on Reddit, dude? You must have a lot of work just to keep up with new eighteen-year-olds around the world. Okay... That statement is unrelated to the question of whether women take responsibility, and hence not relevant. Furthermore, "this time will be diff…
/r/MensRights16/11/10 09:45 PM
1

But I'm not into incest, so that wouldn't be a very successful career.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 07:43 AM
-1

Because she's a newage fundamentalist. As long as the time around her is kept short, she stays tolerable. More than half a day and she starts going batty with her Reiki gemstone psychic healing crap. Keep asking. The majority of my datapoints are equally unhealthy. I have 2-3 samples that are looking to not fit the bill, but they're still pending. When the majority of bad experiences present a common theme, it's pretty easy to see that not placing yourself around that theme solves the problem. :…
/r/MensRights16/11/10 06:19 AM
-1

Yeah totally, like the ones at my uni that accused me of being a rapist (through sweeping generalizations!)... And the ones that questioned the intellect of the men in the class and had nothing done to them, and the list goes on. But that's okay, they're allowed to do it; we don't want to hold them accountable or anything! XD So while you're on the moral high-ground, want to explain how the Duke Lacrosse false-rape accuser was held responsible? Our evil media never said a word! Now if they didn'…
/r/MensRights16/11/10 06:11 AM
-1

Cool story bro.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 06:02 AM
-1

You mean like feminists? Mmmmmm No. Equality means if it's okay for them to do it, they can receive it just the same. If you're really interested in solving the problem, let's start lobbying to mandate that any child support be billed through an expense report system, and include equally harsh penalties for not providing that report on the same level as a "dead beat dad."
/r/MensRights16/11/10 04:47 AM
-1

It's overbroad and unsubstantiated. I said that in my first response, and you've yet to either back off of the conclusory and overly categorical nature of the statement, or prove it. That's why it's invalid. If I say the sky is fluorescent pink, you'd expect me to prove it, no? It's substantiated with the reasons I've given so far as I've found fit, enforced by my personal experiences. You've said it yourself, you can find 3 different studies that give 3 different answers. So in the end, we go b…
/r/MensRights15/11/10 10:54 PM
1

How can an historical institution of advocacy preach egalitarianism? Bit of a contradiction. So I believe this is not a strict tenet, or rather it's not 'preaching'. Same would go for mensrights etc. would you make such a claim of integrity? See Jim Crowe Laws. You can preach one thing, and then structure things that become exclusive to groups you don't like. You're still being "equal," it's just in a way that "happens" to exclude the group you don't like as though they were secondary effects.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 05:26 PM
-1

Bingo.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 05:21 PM
0

Egalitarian is what Feminism advertises itself to be, and actually follows through on it. Feminism carries those traits in advertisement yet no better than rarely ever adheres to it.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 05:20 PM
1

Eh look at the other thread; makes it cleaner. Just finished editing that. Show me the posts from /2XC that they cheer this girl on. Seriously, if they're as supportive as you claim it should be easy. As I recall, I said /2XC gets wet over this girls behavior. I didn't say they posted about this specific case. I'll be completely honest that I didn't bookmark the comments from /2XC and /r/Feminisms over similar goings on back when I actually was surprised by their behavior so long ago. I'm jaded.…
/r/MensRights15/11/10 11:02 AM
-3

Eh you've done very well to derail me from the top post of mine. Your future in politics looks good. That being said, How often does this occur? Do you have statistics, or anything but vague conspiracy theories and a few select instances? Furthermore, the same provisions would apply (and do apply) in the reverse. But, as I said, since the point to which I objected was your overbroad and unsupported statement that expecting women to take responsibility is as unreasonable as expecting politicians …
/r/MensRights15/11/10 10:39 AM
2

Make a test case then, eat nothing but HFCS and motor oil for a week and let us know how that works out. I'm going to celebrate the results. Circular logic. My point is that you provide no evidence of her being treated like a hero. You assume that /2XC must have 'wet themselves', but there's nothing you say which indicates it. Basically, you accuse them of venerating her, and defend your claim by stating (without evidence) that they venerate women like her. You've been on reddit long enough to s…
/r/MensRights15/11/10 09:44 AM
-3

It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. That doesn't sound quite as stark as the implication you make. The VAWA doesn't somehow make it less of a crime to commit assault against a man. Boy because if there's one thing that reeks of equality…
/r/MensRights15/11/10 09:27 AM
-5

That's a bit overly broad, don't you think? Obviously not, or else I wouldn't have said it. You're drawing a conclusion about all women from a few sensationalized stories you've seen here and elsewhere? Personal experiences, legal precedent, legal entitlement cases, etc. The latter two seem to do a pretty good job of backing up this claim. Easiest case in point to claim is the Violence Against Women Act; as we know that only men perpetrate violence upon others. That's like a woman thinking all m…
/r/MensRights15/11/10 01:54 AM
4

Yep, just like I'm sure everyone here loves to see a video of a man beating his wife. It must make us all giddy to see how a man reasserts his masculinity and dominance. Since when a Man assaults a woman it's domestic violence, and when a woman assaults a man she's a hero, your comment reeks of bullshit. Or, you know, we're all decent people. Hahahahahah, now there's the cherry on top. Next up, 'corn sugar' is good for you, and spilling oil in the gulf is beneficial to marine life.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 01:45 AM
3

Child support accountability requires that the woman be accountable in the first place. Feminism's crusade for equality forgot that whole trait the rest of us with a Y chromosome have to bear. Expecting a woman to be accountable in any useful manner in society is like expecting a politician to be honest and fulfill 99% of their promises. Past discussions in here on the subject boiled down to very simplistic and straight forward means to bring accountability to the table, namely expense reports. …
/r/MensRights14/11/10 08:48 AM
1

Some months ago, qaerth and a few others from /2xc invaded specifically to cause problems in this sub reddit. A person with a lot of status came in, advocating her feminism as the only thing that mattered, being very intellectually dishonest in arguing. Feminism has never been inclusive of men. feminism, of any vein from Germaine grier to the modern "women's studies" feminist at your local college, exists on polarizing pro women issues by using men as the token Jew/scapegoat. its why feminism st…
/r/MensRights14/11/10 02:38 AM
3

Wow. Most of /2XC must have wet themselves over that fine display of girl power. Just think, they've gained the freedom to assault without punishment and make it socially acceptable to behave like an irresponsible 12 year old.
/r/MensRights14/11/10 01:44 AM
1

Then what you're basically entertaining is that reckless spending is an acceptable reality. This leads to all kinds of other entitlements of recklessness that feed narcissistic behaviors and creates shitty people and loads of debt that they can't pay off. It also fuels the stereotype of the wife with the limitless creditcard that goes on $5,000 weekend trips to the mall. Needs trump wants. I'd like to have a $500,000 sports car, but I do not need it; I am also not entitled to it. No one should h…
/r/MensRights08/11/10 08:10 PM
-3

Pretty much this. There comes a point where you have to stop enabling these twits and let them know there is a real consequence for their actions. She made the first move with physical violence, he responded. It stopped her from continuing didn't it?
/r/MensRights31/10/10 05:44 AM
1

If I died tomorrow, I don't think I could relate. There is always more we want to do, it's a part of our nature, but I've done so much in my life I don't think I could carry such kinds of regret.
/r/MensRights28/10/10 08:07 AM
1

It's a great start. It needs some lawyer input and damn it would be awesome.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 11:06 PM
6

I'd say she's doing a pretty good job in acting like a cunt.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 10:56 PM
-1

Well obviously not, but probably more true than we wish.
/r/MensRights25/10/10 05:33 AM
0

Yes?
/r/MensRights24/10/10 08:15 PM
3

So that's why you're in here. Funny it took this long to get the truth out of you.
/r/MensRights24/10/10 08:14 PM
-5

So you hang out with post-op transsexuals?
/r/MensRights24/10/10 06:51 AM
2

Show me some legal policy, maybe even in the family court, from the MRA side of the politics of the caliber that the Feminists have been able to plant. Hell, ignore the caliber part, show us any. The wonderful treasures feminism has bestowed upon men has many avenues of demonstration which serve as backings for the position of many MRAs. There exists no such equality in law from the MRA side of the game. The basic denial is trying to hide from the truth that feminism is harmful socially and very…
/r/MensRights24/10/10 06:45 AM
2

Denial on the levels you're living at must be painful.
/r/MensRights23/10/10 04:57 AM
1

Did I assert that I am an MRA in my previous statement? Did I associate myself with any particular group, let alone one which has no action or sense? You're doing nothing other than trying to protect your false reality with a variant of blame and denial doing well to avoid the painful points raised. It's nothing other than bullshit and theater to try and appear "morally good" by your standards.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 06:20 PM
2

Quick, call yourself a Nazi and then say you're not like other Nazis and they don't speak for you! It'll be brilliant and everyone will agree. I know this has been lost on you time and time again, but the reality you desire and keep trying to substitute is exclusive to you and not something the rest of the world partakes in. Feminism, regardless of flavor, is still feminism and is anti-male by rule, practice and name.
/r/MensRights22/10/10 06:37 AM
2

Dating is the start of the down-hill run to divorce. Funny that part of what people are "doing wrong" doesn't seem to apply when she thinks he owes her everything. Dating is nothing more than the first step to the guys end. The only trade he might get out of it is getting laid once or twice before marriage. Remove that, and it's literally a zero-return for him.
/r/MensRights14/10/10 08:32 AM
15

Feminist ideology, social norms, media and many other sources of information in modern society does just that. Men are temporary bits of living you pick up from Ikea, get your service life out of it and then replace it. It's the commoditization of living beings. Women do it to their own children to certain degrees (depending on what self-fulfilling needs they wish to leverage). You don't even need to mention "adultery." This is simply the "maturity" phase of a modern relationship with a western-…
/r/MensRights12/10/10 06:04 AM
11

Give the internet your personal information. I'm willing to bet $100 to a charity of your choice that the people online can drive you to commit suicide. You're simply pulling bullshit apologist rhetoric. "Sure events A, B, and C all were caused by her. And sure those events are all really wrong, and sure they cause pain. But that doesn't matter, because he killed himself and that's his own damned fault and probably was caused because of something completely different." You're denying the most ob…
/r/MensRights12/10/10 06:00 AM
5

Oh without a doubt it's a genuinely interesting question. I do seriously think it's more along the lines of speculation #1 on the blog, which incidentally makes it less of a MRA issue in my opinion. There is probably speculation that if the term requirement drops for men, there will be greater chances for anchor babies or some such. Like many political issues it's multifaceted. You bring up great points too. The whole "see, MRAs are just mean about the wonderful feminists!" bit is just a grind w…
/r/MensRights12/10/10 12:41 AM
7

Don't bother posting in the comments section, if you aren't on their side of the politics you don't get moderator's approval. It's pretty easy to understand why pro-women/feminist groups are in support of this. A stateless child does not fall under jurisdiction of US family court laws. The mother has no means to collect against the father for any kind of "child support" she would use on herself. There must also be a question of the kinds of problems caused when the father is US born and the moth…
/r/MensRights12/10/10 12:14 AM
-6

Statistically speaking, you're lying. You simply might not be aware of it yet.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 05:36 AM
1

Anger is nothing less than the knowledge you possess about the injustices enacted by feminism under lies of equality. It's up to you whether you want to sacrifice your life to the wolfe in sheep's clothing.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 05:29 AM
1

The only solution for this is a male and female fire escape. They can burn to death while being scatterbrained due to being overly pampered by feminism's message "you're a beautiful snowflake" while everyone else can sort their shit out. The current payments system is proof of it. Remove, what is effectively, her welfare check and she's bones useless. Same thing here. Sure, there are a few women who aren't mentally vapid, but the places where feminism hasn't raped the population is probably not …
/r/MensRights11/10/10 05:27 AM
2

Short form: Feminism has enabled women to behave like spoiled children, with society approvingly allowing them to act accordingly, absolved of any and all responsibilities they should carry for their given decisions. The cost of it goes straight to the males, as that same feminism has mutated the social perspective of men to sub human monsters which are only best permitted to live in exchange for feeding the narcissistic habits of women regardless of the costs involved to everyone (dad and/or ch…
/r/MensRights11/10/10 05:21 AM
-2

Provide him a plan for the next 18 years that show you won't rape him through every means available to you, as those in /r/feminisms and /2XC would tell you do to otherwise.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 05:17 AM
0

That would be the larger, un-abridged form for feminist.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 05:14 AM
4

Doesn't work that way. She's a feminist, and female therefore she's perfect and immune from any kind of damage. Just like the rest of the feminist martyrs.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 05:12 AM
6

This is the same dullard who claims men are merely defective human by nature that in-utero, we all start off as female. She also happens to be one of the leading voices of feminism that claim everything bad is caused by men and only the good is caused by women. The usual shit.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 05:11 AM
2

Isn't that reason enough to get pissed off? Women always go on about wanting equality, but their actions always show that statement to be a lie time and time again. That's the basis of the smarm of my statement at the top. /r/feminisms and /2XC always go on about how they're the victims while enabling, encouraging and supporting this kind of sick behavior. When you call them on it, they scramble to dismiss it as "fringe extremists."
/r/MensRights23/09/10 12:50 AM
1

Exactly. I can say nothing more because you have it.
/r/MensRights20/09/10 01:38 AM
1

Cheers! No group wants to fix things, so fuck it let us get wiped out. Nice to be on the same page with a few others. :)
/r/MensRights18/09/10 03:51 PM
10

Thank the ladies, remember, they're the victims here. <Smiles at /r/Feminisms and /2XC>
/r/MensRights18/09/10 03:47 AM
-1

Because they can. This has become a society of irresponsibility. Women are not expected toe be responsible for anything. Since there must be a responsible party, the legal system defaults it all to men. When responsibility is called upon, it is almost always for bad things, thus bad things in relationships is synonymous with male punishment. Just go look at /2XC for references of the scatter-brained, disconnected and aloof narcissism of that sub reddit to see everything you need to understand wh…
/r/MensRights06/09/10 08:41 AM
1

How do you repay your dead grandmothers?
/r/MensRights06/09/10 08:36 AM
1

This is a point mentioned frequently in /MR and will continue to be echoed. Those with power are the ones who define the impact of the movement. If those acts are not in the interest of the membership that carries that label, then it is the responsibility of that membership to work against those "radicals." If they're left to their own devices without regulation, nothing improves. It is by those same devices that we have republicans creating policies that are socially conservative (when they sel…
/r/MensRights31/07/10 07:12 AM
1

Look at the Violence Against Women Act, a policy created by Feminists and tell me how it brings equality to the table. I can save you some time: It doesn't. It created defacto guilt and inequal punishment against males without any burden of proof. If a man is assaulted and calls the police, the assaulter can claim "he hit me" and the victim gets arrested. That's the kind of crap feminism gives us and has absolutely nothing to do with equality. Feminism is not about equality. *Period.***
/r/MensRights30/07/10 08:47 PM
1

You see the loud, obnoxious, confused feminists because they make the biggest fuss - you have to make a big fuss to excuse an irrational idea. Not quite. I see the one who have political power and the kinds of policies and laws they create. That becomes the standard of what feminism means, and those policies embrace nothing other than misandry. Feminism in power has done little-to-nothing in building equality, and everything to simply turn the tables and reverse the game as an act of revenge. Pe…
/r/MensRights30/07/10 05:28 PM
6

And why wouldn't they? There are so many feminist laws passed to assign the male defacto-guilt that it lets the woman giggle with entitled glee and be the horrible person she is. The media, the laws, and reach-out groups go on and on endlessly complaining about how poor and battered these women are so that they can have greater privilege to screw over men without any consequence. We need to seriously begin to figure out how to attack these bullshit policies and get them off the books. It took de…
/r/MensRights30/07/10 05:19 PM
-2

They won't. Feminist policies are so stupidly entrenched she'll never so much as get a strongly worded letter.
/r/MensRights30/07/10 05:15 PM
2

Wow that dude doesn't live far from me. I should see if I could buy him a beer and give him some support.
/r/MensRights30/07/10 05:15 PM
0

If I am to make my point without being an asshole, you should learn how to actually address issues without pulling a race card. Your aversion to discussing the subjects mentioned and the intentional diversion with your ad hominem about "anger and social issues" shows that you realize your position is meritless and as a result you're trying to evade dealing with something that shows you to be as much of an idiot as you are. You're right, that is completely idiotic-- good thing that wasn't even in…
/r/MensRights30/07/10 05:11 PM
-1

If you're for equal rights, you're not a feminist. There isn't any value in degrading yourself with such a label. The thing here is, for once, I didn't say this is all women. I stated narcissist woman specifically. Honestly, I didn't even see the author's comment until after I had posted it. It sounds like you're in a relationship that makes you miserable. I'm sorry. I wish you could get out of it without being treated unfairly by the legal system. I am a woman who fights for equal rights for me…
/r/MensRights30/07/10 06:13 AM
-3

On a long enough timeline, this is all you'll ever hear. It will always be some variant, a manipulative behavior to get you to do things for her while she does her own things. And it will be wrong when you expect equal return from her, because you're being pig. At the end of the day, remember she's the one who is backed by Feminists and the family courts.
/r/MensRights30/07/10 12:30 AM
1

I don't believe I stated that you were for or against marriage. I stated that the mindset of people with regards to it is naive and nothing more than wishful thinking. "You" was intended to be applied as an impersonal general situation. You could just as easily say that statistically speaking, because I am black and come from an inner city it is probable that I've been on welfare, had a child in my teens, have a criminal record. However if you did, you'd not only be wrong; you'd be a bigot. Wow,…
/r/MensRights29/07/10 10:02 PM
14

I wish I could buy you a beer.
/r/MensRights29/07/10 07:37 PM
1

I think that's a nice idea, but it doesn't deal with the existing group of people who've been fucked over. :( I'm asking about actual action - what does it take to start getting this shit fixed and how to start doing it.
/r/MensRights29/07/10 06:39 PM
2

Well to be fair, ADHD is a trendy diagnosis. Everyone has it, or they have ADD. It's a BS pop-culture issue.
/r/MensRights29/07/10 06:32 PM
1

Much like "sexism, rape," and "oppression," domestic violence has been transformed into something that only happens to women, thanks to the feminist movement's victimhood attitude. In pursuing that, they got VAWA. Once that was in place, they secured the means to be protected from their own violence towards others. Feminism is a fucking crock about equality. Feminism is only about turning the tables and reversing the situations from many decades before most of us were born; an Entitlement Activi…
/r/MensRights29/07/10 06:30 PM
-3

So we're just waiting for when she gets bored of you.
/r/MensRights29/07/10 06:24 PM
10

And it's a bad thing? General behaviors do lessen the likeliness of individual attributes. When things, events, or behaviors are commonplace, it's becomes a general thing. 'Mission accomplished', or 'change we can believe in,' the generalization is that any politician is going to do more harm than good. And it's yet to be disproven. Right now, the way things are, the general result of relationships and marriages is that they will fail. And fail messily. Just because you're clinging to a feint gl…
/r/MensRights29/07/10 06:01 PM
0

Odd. I recall someone from the /2XC crowd saying women don't lie about rape, it's a false statistic and anyone who mentions false-rape is just a rape apologist. Funny that.
/r/MensRights29/07/10 05:49 PM
-3

Let's see how that holds after she produces offspring and gets bored of you. <I seriously hope I'm wrong here>
/r/MensRights29/07/10 05:45 PM
2

More likely the bet is the marriage would last longer with less financial damage.
/r/MensRights29/07/10 05:44 PM
0

Infuriatingly awful. So any ideas on how to start fixing this crap? It makes a great case for simply turning off the welfare faucet outright.
/r/MensRights29/07/10 05:42 PM
2

Any you're still asserting you're right because you say you're right because you say you're right... ad nauseum. You have made a baseless assertion, with nothing to back it. You're insisting that it's "great," in use as comparison to begin with and now having been called out, you're changing your meaning/interpretation to be more "truthful." As you state, "You're pretending to be stupid to hold to an obviously flawed point," by the mere execution of your thread of shambled logic. Another symptom…
/r/MensRights26/07/10 11:16 PM
1

Main Entry: 1great Pronunciation: \ˈgrāt, Southern also ˈgre(ə)t\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English grete, from Old English grēat; akin to Old High German grōz large Date: before 12th century 1 a : notably large in size : huge b : of a kind characterized by relative largeness —used in plant and animal names c : elaborate, ample <great detail> 2 a : large in number or measure : numerous <great multitudes> b : predominant <the great majority> 3 : remarkable in magnitude, degree, or eff…
/r/MensRights26/07/10 10:59 PM
1

Is it reasonable to tell you that I am then a Greater Man? Your answer to this, is the answer to your own question.
/r/MensRights26/07/10 10:45 PM
1

I'm curious, from your perception what are the general issues that people of Men's Rights Advocacy have 1. In general, and 2. With feminism? Not trolling, nor Poe's Law; I'm genuinely interested.
/r/MensRights26/07/10 10:39 PM
0

Is that why you have credibility? You have experienced both cut and uncut equally and chosen one as superior? Because if that's the only way to deduce, then put up or shut up (figuratively, of course. I have no interest in seeing your wang). I need not be experienced in both, to point out logical errors. I need only logical reasoning to demonstrate parallels between an obvious fallacy and someone who is leveraging it. If I were saying "you're wrong because you're cut." You would be correct. I'm …
/r/MensRights26/07/10 10:37 PM
1

As if we needed an example past the "Twilight Cougars."
/r/MensRights26/07/10 10:11 PM
-1

Again, idiot, I never said better. I said great. Great, grand, super; whatever adverb you wish to use does not change the fact that you have no data outside a sample of 1 to come to a conclusion. I can also say my life is much better now than it was before the circumcision. You can't say that because there is no experience or anything meaningful to back it. You're asserting a falsehood on similar grounds of "my life is great because I wasn't born with Blonde hair (when I have brown hair). There …
/r/MensRights26/07/10 09:57 PM
6

Yawns .... but they mostly abstain from cases involving it so it's a moot point anyway. Except when they were very vocal that the 2nd Amendment is exclusive to the government. From their own website: "To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the …
/r/MensRights26/07/10 09:40 PM
1

Is this the question that you're wanting me to answer? The one I don't have an answer for, because I, just like everyone else circumcised as a baby, have no way of remembering it? I really thought it was rhetorical. The highlighted part is the key. It's fallacious to assert things are better than other states simply because you have no experience with those other states. If you live in an isolated part of the world and assert that the one food you eat daily is the best food in the world, it's an…
/r/MensRights26/07/10 09:26 PM
1

Fair nuff. Typos happen.
/r/MensRights26/07/10 09:22 PM
5

The "We support every amendment but the second" Union - The ACLU. :)
/r/MensRights26/07/10 06:55 PM
4

I never said better. I said great. My circumcised penis is great. You also did not answer the question. Can you honestly say it's not great being a man simply because you haven't been a woman? And now you're trying to spin the question in order to dodge the point simply because your position is absurd and idiotic. You are applying circular logic to a fallacious position that abuse of one sex is fine while abuse of another sex is not. Being willfully ignorant and dismissing people who are serious…
/r/MensRights26/07/10 06:08 PM
4

What was life like for you when you didn't have your dick circumcised? If you can't answer that, then your position is completely without merit. You could then similarly assert that you love being a man because it's better than being a woman. If your only life experience is as a biologically functional male, you cannot state that it is better than being a female.
/r/MensRights26/07/10 05:17 PM
1

Well looks like AI is now on the same level with the 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 Union. Good to know, the next time they have their workers out and about I'll tell them to go fuck themselves too.
/r/MensRights26/07/10 04:53 PM
3

Let this be a benchmark to hold supposed "equality" feminists and /2XC ilk to. When they claim they're for equality and fair treatment, let them explain this.
/r/MensRights26/07/10 07:42 AM
0

Good essay. TL;DR: "The Patriarchy" is Feminism's greatest Strawman.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 09:51 AM
2

The thunderous snapping sound you hear are feminists breaking their arms while patting themselves on the back.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 04:20 AM
0

I can't really think up any scenario where cheating is acceptable, from either sex. The wife, after having suckered the guy into marriage, refuses to sleep with him now that she's gained his assets. Even when he tries to be romantic, she blows him off. After a few years the options are: 1. Jerk off, 2. Cheat. May as well go with #2 since she's getting it all in the divorce anyway.
/r/MensRights24/07/10 11:30 PM
2

Well to be fair, the courts do let them get away with it, and the house, and the kids, etc in divorce.
/r/MensRights24/07/10 11:27 PM
1

False analogy. The correct analogy is a person who donates to the Taliban and then asserts they're doing it for their Muslim cause. The majority of muslims aren't all that interested (read as not at all interested) in blowing people up. Donate to a muslim charity, and you're doing good under that focus exclusively. Donate to the Taliban or similar group with the same brand it's willful ignorance to say that its for a charity cause when their core behavior is about being destructive to everything…
/r/MensRights24/07/10 10:59 PM
1

How does an act protecting women from violence hurt men? I don't see why it's wrong to have specialized laws when it was acceptable for a man to strike a woman two generations ago. Do some reasearch on the half of the DV victims (the men) and then tell me what policy is the male equivalent. When you inevitably fail, explain how it isn't sexist. Then show where the feminist groups are acting in support of a VAWA equivalent for men. I'll save you the trouble if you wish: there is no equivalent, it…
/r/MensRights24/07/10 10:57 PM
1

I really don't understand what you want to get at. Could you elaborate? Apparently not since general ideas were turned into a theology discussion?
/r/MensRights24/07/10 06:53 AM
1

To be precise women are actually unclean about 50% of the year (more if they gave birth). I don't really get that. What do you mean with "holy purity"? Motherhood? No, the notion is that things which are holy are "perfect," "complete" and "clean." Basically a state that is impossible to obtain, be, or exist in. Per Atomicparrot's point, since Eve was created out of Adam she was created imperfectly (and thus the justification to subjugation of women for centuries as all women are then supposedly …
/r/MensRights24/07/10 06:11 AM
2

So lets play with that appeal to emotion: We shouldn't worry about how much the US Federal government takes in taxes so long as we have reason to believe the citizenry is adequately cared for. How dare we expect accountability by anyone receiving 'free' money. I would have any parent who receives "child support", regardless of their sex, to provide an accounting of monies spent on the kid. Were it my ideal, the whole thing would be handled like the rest of us in the working world do and do it vi…
/r/MensRights24/07/10 05:55 AM
4

and sorry for the hell you've been going through. Best wishes mate.
/r/MensRights24/07/10 01:47 AM
-1

I was putting it into context of the idea of purity from the likes of the bible, not "the bible says..." In other words, the notion "holy purity" is what is being associated to this idea. Its poorly worded now that I've reread it.
/r/MensRights23/07/10 07:25 AM
2

Explain the Violence Against Women Act and how it proves those "ideals," specifically in the context of men. Then do the same on the fictitious wage gap. And if you're feeling up to the challenge, apply it to the family courts and the legal system.
/r/MensRights23/07/10 07:23 AM
3

So out of curiosity... What happens if, as an employer, I simply keep no data on any of my employee's sex and reduce them all to an employee number?
/r/MensRights23/07/10 04:21 AM
1

No, that would be Egalitarianism. Feminism is the exclusive social, economic and political power to the female sex for no other reason than the idea that women are inherently superior.
/r/MensRights23/07/10 04:17 AM
1

Yup. What ever it takes to keep the leash short. If they could get away with it, they would try to resurrect the idea of chastity belts I'm sure.
/r/MensRights23/07/10 03:14 AM
2

I think they're lying. It's like a white supremacist saying he's pro equality for minors. A bit of a stretch.
/r/MensRights23/07/10 01:51 AM
11

Meh. One part of the political behavior of feminism is control over men's sexuality. Enabling a guy to have sex on his own terms, even if it's with a doll, is a bad thing to them because he still then has control over his sexuality. If memory serves, there were some "extreme" (standard) feminists in Canada who got legislation passed to ban such products in some province under the FUD "it overly objectifies women!"
/r/MensRights23/07/10 01:09 AM
1

Since you've been doing it since your first response to any comment I ever made, you would have to be psychic to determine such a thing. In which case, what is the next thing I'm eating?
/r/MensRights22/07/10 11:50 PM
6

It's interesting that the ones who share greater understanding identify themselves as a person and not a member of a movement. Cheers :)
/r/MensRights22/07/10 10:02 PM
4

There is no logic. It's a chain of loosely connected ideas. The mother gestates the child and so she obviously must have a natural blind love and bond for that child which she gives birth to. As the vessel to produce life, she must be the most apt to care for the life since its a product of her own body. As the child is an extension of her own body, and not the fathers, she will take care of the child as if it were a part of her QED. A lot of it comes from the BS notion of bible-thumping purity.…
/r/MensRights22/07/10 09:58 PM
3

Citations please. Legal Policies on the books, and in the works agree with the parent poster and disagree with your statement.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 09:51 PM
0

Given the usual rantings of feminists, all sex is rape. Anything that results in sex is raping a woman; this question is pointless. Is lying that "she loves you" justification to nullify a marriage when she wanted a free ride on your financial security?
/r/MensRights22/07/10 06:44 PM
-3

The most effective way to combat the idiots you refer to, is simply apply their own rules and arguments against them. I do it to cryptogirl now by default and they end quickly, just as one example.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 06:40 PM
2

Can we then void marriage because she says she loves the husband instead of his wallet?
/r/MensRights21/07/10 03:59 PM
2

Most of the subreddit invaders to /MR come from /2XC. The general message dismisses pretty much every issue we have as misogyny as a straw man attack. The mods from /2XC such as Qeraeth join in and participate destructively, generally using many kinds of deceitful behaviors. /2XC has defined itself through its actions. When a female comes into here and parrots the same kinds of crap that we find in /2XC,we (or I do at least) direct them to their appropriate circlejerk subreddit where they can be…
/r/MensRights21/07/10 06:22 AM
5

The US, England and Australia. Stay away from those nations and you're pretty much safe.
/r/MensRights21/07/10 05:54 AM
2

Well there is what I learned for today. Sorry to hear that. :(
/r/MensRights21/07/10 04:15 AM
2

If the message is to vote "not guilty" as an unconditional application, just because the system is broken, then once power has been at least regained somewhat by the group performing the application they simply have turned the tables. That is what Feminists do. If the end goal is to purely be supreme over the oppressor, then that is not fixing anything nor is it a beneficial system. It is merely perpetuating the existing problem and the pendulum continues. As I read your word above, I see a self…
/r/MensRights20/07/10 07:31 PM
3

It's an interesting proposition, especially when you consider Feminist complaints about the lack of women in Engineering. Engineering seems to be one of the few arms of the sciences which is still difficult all around, so factor in the lowering of the bar for other programs and the suddenly vapid landscape of engineering's women membership makes sense.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 06:28 PM
2

So the essence of your position is that based on your preconceived ideals from the issue, without actually observing the issue, that you can assert insight into that very issue. You state that it isn't hypocrisy, but the very definition of hypocrisy is, *"Hypocrisy is the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one's actions. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie." Jezebel professed the evils of TDS for not having equality…
/r/MensRights20/07/10 08:37 AM
4

If you're leveraging horrifically biased laws as justification, you've already lost this argument. Jezebel's article was inflammatory, raising hell to the amount of "how sexist they are, they do not employ any women." If equality is the heart of the message, she is then a hypocrite as she has no male coworkers at her place of work. Period. ...and I think most people would agree that this is a reasonable standard for a just hiring practice. And per this line of thinking, in the middle east most p…
/r/MensRights20/07/10 08:06 AM
2

As a victim of rape when I was six, I would like to kindly tell you to go fuck yourself. Rape is not something that only happens to women.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 07:47 AM
5

Then she can't complain about a different media outlet employing only men, without being a hypocrite, can she?
/r/MensRights20/07/10 07:42 AM
1

Better let your sisterhood know this.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 07:40 AM
4

I simply mean that while combating an enemy who would kill you in your sleep, you not kill the village you're in as a means of insurance.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 04:10 AM
2

It means jack shit here too. People love voting two-party because we're a bunch of prudish retards who simply have to win against the other team. People from the US are two-dimensional simpletons.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:29 AM
3

Aha now you're getting closer to it. Hanging is a better protest, and we're in agreement about the misandrist politicritters.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:28 AM
2

I just started into that one.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:27 AM
4

Law protects the protected individuals. The issue is that we as men have been demoted to the slave class. In such context what you say is exactly true.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:26 AM
2

I'm not sure I follow, I voted third party.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:24 AM
3

Yup. And the patriot act is unconstitutional, the NSA Wiretapping deal that Obama went for (FISA) is also unconstitutional. Little of the system as it exists is what it was. What IS left is the power of the individual to overrule the above. But if you're simply going to be vindictive with that power then we're already in a foresaken wasteland.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:21 AM
2

Dude I would totally be friends with Beetlejuice, you just know he's Al Bundy in the afterlife.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:17 AM
2

Yup! Look at how many people voted for Obama. It's all about feel-good theater, and not fixing anything.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:14 AM
3

Was it Nietzsche? I'm still cutting my teeth on his stuff. None the less, you need not become a monster to hunt one, but to hunt one you will likely have to dirty yourself.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:14 AM
3

Nullification is different than saying not guilty. E.g. Nullification should be used against a kid getting busted for smoking pot - it's against the constitution to prohibit such applications unless it affects others. The laws are not legal by nature and should not be enforced, the jury nullifies the entire case because it should not even be happening.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:13 AM
2

Complacency is not an excuse.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:10 AM
0

Uhm, I agree with you here. You have shadows of doubt in such case. The point behind individual members of a jury is that every member has their own perception of the system. If you initially have doubts about the case, ... you have doubts and vote "Not guilty" justly. I'm in the same boat. The DA has to over come the Nifong threshold to even being to establish credibility.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:09 AM
3

There is a saying along the lines of Beware hunting monsters less you become one yourself. The separation is in maintaining your efforts to your prey alone and not subject everyone as targets. If you treat everyone as a whole as an enemy instead of just your enemy, you're going to be no different than your enemy. I agree with many of those points of "shoulds," but blanketly dismissing every rape case as defacto rape is no different than any feminist dismissing false rape claims as all cases are …
/r/MensRights20/07/10 03:07 AM
4

This is correct. Blind and blanket radicalism are the rules used by feminists. In the court room, personal politics should be left at the door as much as possible. If the evidence is overwhelmingly true, then you should agree with guilt. If you have a reasonable uncertainty, disbelief or otherwise *shadow** of doubt* then you are to issue not guilty. The DA's job is to prove guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. If the guy yells, "fuck yeah I raped her" and you vote not-guilty, you're doing the same c…
/r/MensRights20/07/10 02:01 AM
7

I'll try for an overly simplistic approach. Rape is a real crime that has real victims. Feminism hops aboard and brands pretty much any kind of sex as an act of rape. Women buy into #2, or are otherwise feminist leverage this idea for whatever their particular means are. As long as real rape happens more often than false, the false accusers get away with the crap. More false accusations occur because the rewards outweigh the consequences. When false rape occurs more often than real, you have the…
/r/MensRights20/07/10 01:21 AM
5

I find the amount of support your comment has received disturbing. Mostly because you're creating something else in your mind, other than what was written. The important issue here is that in order to do this, we need to have a high number of legitimate rapists getting off scott-free. I think the only tolerable number of legitimate rapists going free is zero. How are false rapes equivalent to actual rapes? This equivalence baffles me and makes me kind of pissed at willful dishonesty you're spout…
/r/MensRights20/07/10 12:57 AM
6

No, they create a problem for real rape victims. Congrats, you're now on the same page as I. You're making the assumption that all rape victims are Feminists. Not quite. Feminists feed their membership that everything involving a man is rape by a man. A girl has some regret about something? Is feeling vindictive? Cry rape. Screw over the guy through all sorts of social stigma created by her crime. She gets a slap on the wrist, the guy has his life ruined. That's what feminism has done for us. Mo…
/r/MensRights20/07/10 12:36 AM
6

Yup! And if you argue against it, you're a rape apologist. You apparently haven't spent a whole lot of time in /MR. We frequently point out the worst of them. Only recently did we have anyone of note from /2XC argue against their membership, and she was a mod at that. The typical gig comes from the likes of Qeraeth, who use all kinds of dishonest methods to discount, discredit and dismiss very serious issues. As far as /2XC is concerned, false rape is a non-issue and does not happen, only real r…
/r/MensRights20/07/10 12:10 AM
9

Selective reading at its finest! The light is specifically that Feminists are doing harm to their own cause by falsifying a serious crime. Get over yourself.
/r/MensRights20/07/10 12:02 AM
2

...but I never thought it was taken seriously and never would have linked it to sexism. That was my intent of my analogy. People who look for justifications pull out whatever they can find. Grier's claims about men being incomplete and thusly inferior females based solely on the notion that the Y Chromosome is not as "filled in" as an additional X is as valid an indicator of capability as a woman's skull is a limitation of her intellect. I was attempting to link bad science with bad science (nei…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 10:15 PM
2

The short: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology As I understood it, Phrenology was the same as Craniometry but as far as Wikipedia goes to say, they're only similar. In essence it's bogus science to determine your mental aptitude based on bumps on your skull and overall size of your head. It argued that since women have smaller skulls they have thusly smaller brains. Smaller brains meant less thinking capacity, therefore Women are mentally inferior. It was mainly used for racist purposes to e…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 09:54 PM
2

However, I think I'll stick by my argument that there is likely some psychological trauma that will show through to an experienced cop or detective. Totally guessing here though. Naturally, an adept enough liar or someone who has practice can always manipulate the system. I didn't mean to disqualify or discredit you here at all if I inferred that. My issue is that even if the person working with the real victim can "see it," it is intangible evidence in court; hear-say. So my thinking is in term…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 09:27 PM
6

But the issue here is being able to separate a woman who was genuinely raped, from a woman who slept with a guy with no condom and regretted it and then cried rape. The former should be provided every means of security and recovery from an evil, disgusting crime upon their own well being and security. The later should own up to her own failings and be a responsible adult. The challenge is separating the two. The situation is worsened, if the actual rapist used a condom because evidence becomes m…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 08:55 PM
4

Japan is a nation that overvalues it's elders. If you have the younger generation blaming their parents that is going to cause a (probably much needed) social ruckus. When I was helping ESL students from Japan around 6 years ago, many of the girls had one recurring complaint: The men they dated didn't want wives/girlfriends. They wanted second-mothers. No matter how you cut this issue, there is no simple fix or simple cause answer. Japan is a horrifically expensive place to live, it's actually h…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 08:43 PM
8

Oh, the first link's quote was from the popular Feminist Author Germain Grier's 'The Female Eunuch'. She's basically makes the case to justify men as inferior beings in the same way men created phrenology to rationalize their marginalization of women as "inferior beings". What leads to extremely anti-male views? What lead to the justification of killing millions of Jews? Any political hate movement needs a scapegoat to blame all the wrongs in the world on. It's that simple. Life is complex, rela…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 08:21 PM
4

I think it's less of "equal rights" and more about realizing how much of an issue it is in terms of wasting police time. If this were about fixing things, the Feminist movement would have to survive on something other than victimhood, which is where the false rape claims stem from. I personally think the issue is a bad thing, because people who do genuinely get raped get lost in the noise of the Falsifiers' claims. It is, however, the inevitable consequence of Feminist policy. The best we can ho…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 07:52 PM
3

People said the same thing about Obama. Lately they've been rather surprised that his actions now are accurate reflections of his actions of the past. Only idiots think anything changes with the change in political power. To be somewhat fair, no one will be surprised that as a politician she'll do the same kind of fuck-everyone-over policy as every other predecessor and peer.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 06:03 PM
2

Man-hating Feminists with policy making power, speak for all Feminists through that power. When they're elected based on their allegiance to feminism, and act through the lens of that feminism in ways that are hateful towards the male sex, you cannot suddenly claim "not feminist."
/r/MensRights19/07/10 06:01 PM
33

That's odd, the paragons of honesty in /2XC swear up and down this is a non-issue and never happens. Why would they lie? It isn't like they might get some kind of benefit from it .... Oh. Well Feminists decry this stuff all the time since they're about equality right? ... oh right. The light here is that the more it happens, the less credibility either case gets. Feminists create their own problem by drowning out the real victims with their own pseudo-victimhood.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 05:54 PM
5

The relationship usually begins after a parent telephones New Start and arranges for consultations and routine visits from a rental sister, which costs about $8,000 a year. The rental sister then writes a letter to the hikikomori, introducing herself and the program. "I never read it; I threw it away," said Y.S., the 28-year-old with the shy smile I'd met at New Start's potluck. When Kawakami arrived at his house in Chiba, near Tokyo, for the first time, Y.S. opened his bedroom door long enough …
/r/MensRights19/07/10 05:44 PM
2

Meh. He appears to be another dismissive. "There is no problem. Only men are the problem. Women are all beautiful and innocent snowflakes." He sees no problems willfully, because ignorance is bliss.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 04:03 PM
4

And that was thanks to the VAWA. A piece of bullshit Feminist Entitlement law, created in part by N.O.W. Feminists everywhere champion the law for the very inequality it creates. Equality my ass.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 03:55 PM
0

I love how the judge shot down the reasonable idea that expenses be tracked. That right there shows where the Courts' "unbiased position" lay. Of course, we have Feminists (who are our allies! they say so!) storming the gate to help revoke and do away with this bias. Yeah right. Case example of Female entitlement granted by Feminist policy.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 03:51 PM
10

It makes sense to me. Ignore what they're getting, continue claiming they're getting nothing. Use that to justify more privilege at others' expense. Same feminist message as always.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 03:50 PM
1

Hope the guy learns to stay the fuck away from women.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 05:24 AM
1

Eh you get used to the procedure pretty quickly. Just think of them as suicide bombers with an itch just waiting for an excuse. If a woman is walking your way in such a manner that you'll be within arms reach, cross the street, move away, change directions, etc. Just avoid her like she's going to explode at any moment. Works well for me overall.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 05:22 AM
1

Duke Lacrosse false-rape case?
/r/MensRights19/07/10 05:02 AM
0

It gets better when you call her out on a failed claim of hers. Downvote a-hoy without a single follow up!
/r/MensRights19/07/10 04:57 AM
2

That's utter trash. Welcome to fair treatment, don't commit to something with consequences and responsibilities if you're not willing to deal with them. Are women still oppressed by the phallus of sexual control, or are they free to go about their business? Which is it, because it can't be both. This bullshit of cultural shame is not an excuse to go "whoopsie, i wuz raep'd!" Any woman who does that should be desexed just to solve her problem.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 04:56 AM
0

Because our society is the descendant nation of a bunch of prudish twits. Sex as a dirty thing comes from the Church. Sex is this weird double standard of some holy gift (because kids are the result 'with permission') and a sinful act (people enjoy it). With respect to women it's supposed to be some bullshit shame act, falling back upon some fictional tale of Eve who wronged Adam. For a woman to be a slut, with these people, it means she's flaunting her joy of the act across multiple people to s…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 04:50 AM
0

It gets really questionable how much of a crock it is when you see similar kinds of policy and attempts at social engineering are being pushed on your own doorstep. Exaggeration? Maybe. Completely fabricated? Most likely not.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 04:41 AM
1

The whole gig on racism gets really sketchy in Europe. Here in the US, the bulk of our racism is, "Dey took oer jeeeerrrbs." The issue in some EU countries is that many Muslisms pursue Sharia law within those systems, effectively spawning micro-governments which permit a lot of arguable things. Those countries enable it because they're so focused on being "PC" that the risk of looking racist is politically more damaging than looking the other way when a woman gets stoned within their own borders…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 04:38 AM
1

I feel sorry for the guys they hit on. Her STD is the political ideology of her country, nothing but misery (and misandry!) in its wake.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 04:32 AM
1

What is Femininity? Is it merely the opposite of Masculinity? Is Femininity all good and thusly Masculinity all bad? Maybe its a grouping of characteristics that differentiate one sex from another without being antagonistic or degrading?
/r/MensRights19/07/10 04:30 AM
0

Almost, Feminism: give us the good, but keep the bad. They keep chanting about how there is no pussy pass, how there are feminists everywhere who hate this shit, yet they are always so quiet when it's actually happening. Words are cheap.
/r/MensRights19/07/10 04:19 AM
2

Seriously, why do people let themselves be victimized and then complain afterward? I truly believe this is the fault of the kid for not standing up for himself.. he truly is a little bitch. Modern feminism has entrenched the notion in western society that if we relinquish our control of ourselves to those with higher authorities, we'll forever be protected. It is the same kind of bull that feeds the "think of the children" tripe that they brought to become the standard FUD. Run to mom, she'll pr…
/r/MensRights14/07/10 10:47 PM
2

On another note, why is his anecdotal evidence fine and dandy, but mine is not? Didn't say it was. You were making the argument that blanket statements are bad, but then in turn used an anecdote to imply one. I'm simply all about consistency.
/r/MensRights13/07/10 09:37 PM
2

Meh. She exaggerates that being turned off by a stuck up chick makes the boyfriend gay. And then gets in a huff when called out. She has her own brand of FoxNews like commenting.
/r/MensRights13/07/10 09:16 PM
2

Which operates on the notion that the success of one trumps the pains of the many. Weren't you just going on about blanket statements?
/r/MensRights13/07/10 09:10 PM
3

Not all women with kids are wealthy either.
/r/MensRights13/07/10 08:41 PM
2

Women's rights groups everywhere pat themselves on the back for sticking it to the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights13/07/10 08:39 PM
9

Doubtful, corporations have to play by popular politics when they're a consumer servicing industry. You'll see a change in policies if the public perception of adult women is equivalent to their FUD about adult men.
/r/MensRights13/07/10 08:37 PM
2

I'm sorry, I didn't see anywhere in the OP that he said he doesn't like vaginas. Where exactly is this? --I'm blind. Sex didn't happen. He begged (such a turn off, guys!) for a bj, and when I said no, he went straight for the intercourse. It was dry, obviously, and he was like "can you help me here?" I was like "no, you know what to do." So he just gave up. Wouldn't even touch it. So then I get pissed, and I asked him why he was so selfish. He was like "it's gooey. There's like white stuff that …
/r/MensRights12/07/10 06:44 PM
4

I'm actually surprised your logical skills are so lacking that you identify sexism as a good thing. Versus, something like actual hiring the most appropriate candidate for the job.
/r/MensRights12/07/10 04:53 PM
5

Wait friend, the department of love would wish you to understand that it is "double plus untrue" to be true Ingsoc.
/r/MensRights12/07/10 04:50 PM
0

Same. The second his dick goes in her mouth, he won't have much of a dick left.
/r/MensRights11/07/10 04:11 PM
1

A completely irrelevant side, but any information or insight as to why aussies are particularly racist towards Indians?
/r/MensRights11/07/10 05:25 AM
4

I'm slightly drunk, so for once I went over there. Honestly, I read it less of "Woman = good, man = bad," and amusingly more as a stereotype: he can't read my mind! Neither of the two in the subject did fuck-all communication, to do something magical like make a relationship work. The /2XC enablers just coddled her and dismissed her own part of the failure on the guy exclusively. It is kind of depressing that the mutual failure in communication defaulted to, "he must be gay." The inevitable blow…
/r/MensRights11/07/10 05:02 AM
-1

Today, I learned that cryptogirl is a mod from /2XC and so much has suddenly made sense.
/r/MensRights11/07/10 04:54 AM
1

You really live in some other world don't you? You don't fucking get it, at all. It's amazing. I could actually get a better understanding from Atomic Parrot and we're in complete disagreement on perspectives.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 06:06 AM
1

If you're not interested in losing, don't gamble. It's that simple.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 04:35 AM
2

And in doing so, you're trying to reframe the point into something else. An act of aggression is an act of aggression, period. You do not instigate physical violence and expect not to get some kind of consequence.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 03:47 AM
1

....Or you can answer the question instead of rewriting it.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 02:22 AM
1

There are shinks (therapists) that are the stereotype you see on TV and for people with very serious issues. You don't need that. There are counselors who are basically sounding boards and propose suggestions and insight. They help you work through problems and try to improve yourself. They're also much less than therapists, and don't try to medicate you. Don't trust any one particular counselor though, go with your feelings and if something feels wrong go else where. Some counselors approach al…
/r/MensRights10/07/10 02:17 AM
4

Go kick a wrestler in the junk and then let us know if he went soft on you. Or don't initiate physical violence if you're not ready for the consequences. It's an act of aggression and a power trip. The weaker one loses.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 02:03 AM
8

Looks to me that once she told him to try it, he treated her like any other guy. Equality is amusing. So seriously, there is a simple test here in my opinion to figure out a position on this. Who actually made the first move? The girl pushed him; engaging in physical violence. The guy dumped soda on her head, while stupid, was a less offensive (but dumb) detractor. She kept up so he escalated the issue and decked her square in the face. So the question: Did he continue to hit her? If yes, then h…
/r/MensRights10/07/10 02:02 AM
0

Curious, but does she identify herself as a feminist?
/r/MensRights10/07/10 02:00 AM
7

Welcome to today, what you see is the Feminist message of "equality." Come college, the fliers will add one distinct piece for men, accusing them of being potential rapists and the cause for all the woe in the world.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 01:55 AM
1

Until you establish that link, I'm done with you. Bye Glenn! Gonna miss your tearjerking sob story about how you tried to be so empathetic while talking trash to your opponent for not blindly agreeing with your own idiocy. A few finishing points (since you won't read them): The cumulation of your position is based on the hope that the actors are completely honest and up front about their intentions. It's the same hopes that people of your party (the party) have to their elected candidates. From …
/r/MensRights10/07/10 01:16 AM
2

It gets even better when the extremists are the ones drafting policy under your banner.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 12:30 AM
0

I wish that I could plop you down in front of every single feminist I've ever met.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 12:29 AM
4

I think what infuriates many other people, are the drunken regrets. A woman gets drunk while partying, drops her social walls and (because she's human) wants to get her mack on and shacks up with some guy. Once sober, deeply regretting her decision and then through Feminist Victimization that she was "taken advantage of" claim that the guy raped her. Obviously the best choice is to either not get drunk if you might end up in such a situation with a girl at a party, or if you have a girlfriend th…
/r/MensRights09/07/10 09:09 PM
3

Well, I can get behind a monochromatic rule-set. I really like that, but that's why I consider myself an egalitarian. Consider the kinds of laws and policies which were created by Feminists such as the VAWA which put women in a position of political power over men, and it tilts the scale in such a way that it creates contempt by people who are truly about equality. One becomes skeptical of womanism/feminism's "equality" when its own policies contradict the mission statement.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 07:38 PM
2

So your position is that to equalize wage, men should work less?
/r/MensRights09/07/10 07:19 PM
2

Egalitarianism is not Feminism. Feminism is woman-ism, a movement that is gynocentric. Equality is only important to Feminism until it meets a Y chromosome.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 05:48 PM
1

Because allying yourself with your enemies always works out in your favor.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 05:47 PM
0

This is the exact opposite of what I've said. My point was that you cannot define words however you like. Words matter. In your analogy, Bush describes himself as a fiscal conservative, but the policies of his administration do not match up to the dictionary definition of fiscal conservative; therefore, he is not a fiscal conservative. No, it's pretty much exactly what you said. People who brand themselves as the something inherently abide by that definition. This is false, because they do not. …
/r/MensRights09/07/10 04:01 PM
1

There probably are, but I'm just speculating. Sorry I don't have anything concrete.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 02:36 PM
0

Good for you!
/r/MensRights09/07/10 05:30 AM
0

"I agree here" I'm going to agree with this whole statement. "except that most people are Assholes." Exception. Would it be easier to read if, instead, I just said, "Most people are assholes."? What would be the context then?
/r/MensRights09/07/10 04:33 AM
0

Do you hear yourself? Words are defined by their dictionary definition. Unless A denotes B, you cannot claim that that B is necessitated by A without establishing a causal link from A to B. Then by your reasoning, George Bush Junior was a epitome of government fiscal responsibility (since, by their definition, Republicans are conservative), and a champion of the US Constitution and Civil Rights (also definitions of Conservative). And since the definition is the absolute truth, Obama has upheld e…
/r/MensRights09/07/10 04:29 AM
1

Well, considering the "benefits" are mostly just bait and switch tactics, those benefits are "intended" to have a purpose. The idea is, "we give you more of your money back, you breed." More people = more tax revenue. This is the basic motivation behind it. It is the same motivation as the housing crisis. Over-inflated housing values mean higher housing assessments. Higher assessments mean higher property tax.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 03:51 AM
1

...Correct?
/r/MensRights09/07/10 03:49 AM
0

So like all other government spending, if I let them take $10 today, they'll give me back $2.50 in 10 years? No thanks.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 02:35 AM
-1

See previous statement.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 02:09 AM
2

Instead of FFFFFUUUUU, throw it back at her. "I guess as long as you say that, it explains why so many of the students molested in schools are raped by women teachers." Dismiss their perception, blame them for the harm.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:55 AM
0

Whatcha got? Lotus? Alfa?
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:51 AM
-1

A life of desolation and slavery is one sought only by a man who gambles his life on his wishes for the future. In the end you will be broke in both wallet and heart.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:50 AM
-2

The red flag was a self-declared feminist.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:48 AM
0

Hope you had a vasectomy.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:41 AM
0

Better yet, just don't get married.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:30 AM
0

How many of those marriages ended where the wife racked up thousands in debt over frivolous spending, only to have it offloaded on the now-ex-husband (and actually I'd be curious what the reverse is on this)? How many of those marriages did the wife conceive of a child other than that of her husband? Of those, how many of them was the husband required to still pay child support? How many of those failed marriages had a wife manipulate the legal system to tilt the outcomes towards her favor by ma…
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:29 AM
1

I almost agree here, except that most people are assholes. So most women are like that, and most men are like that.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:09 AM
7

What's the period of time apart to reset that counter?
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:07 AM
-1

You mean like "home ownership" where you rent from the world's shittiest landlord (the gov't)?
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:07 AM
0

Not only that everyone works their share, but they're treated uniformly, and are held to the same rules and standards. Equal rights also means equal rewards for doing the same things. But Equal Rights & Treatment is Egalitarianism. Feminism isn't about equal rights at all.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:05 AM
2

People who hate pre-nups, operate with the rose-colored glasses idea that married people will always stay together because of love. In essence, they believe marriage will be like a Disney fairytale. Opting for a prenup, in these people's minds, means that you're walking into a situation expecting to get divorced, in which case they argue "Why bother getting married at all?" But that isn't the point. The purpose of a pre-nup is that it operates on the realistic notion that people change and often…
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:02 AM
2

Well, you hear them go on long enough, see them write enough hate, it gets pretty easy to imitate.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 10:56 PM
1

Well you're always welcome to leave. They have a fictitious boogeyman to justify their victimhood. We have western laws written by raging Feminist activist groups that we're rather unhappy with.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 09:02 PM
0

Neither of us know the true answer, so that's a loaded line of crap. Do I know for sure? Nope. Do you know for sure? Nope. But you're trying to bait that for your own side. Do I think it is probably true? Definitely. With the context of this subreddit, I do know that I am impartial to genuine equality - uniform rules for everyone. In addition, you did move the question marker so to "stay on topic" flies in the face of asking that question.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:34 PM
-1

Go hang out in /r/Feminisms. Then /2XC. Then come back to /MR and read through the divorce articles. Entitled women bitch about what they deserve, take guys for all they're worth. Guys post about it in /MR. The circle is complete.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:20 PM
-2

Oooh the dictionary game, let me try one! fem·i·nism Pronunciation: \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1895 the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes Hmph, well that isn't the actual applied behavior of Feminism these days. Well, while you're at it, why not try to take back some other words to terms you like? The nice thing is, I don't have to prove anything. And it's the internet, so even if I did prove anything, there will still be apologist idiots who don't li…
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:19 PM
2

The fundamentally wrong point you're using is the idea that the dictionary definition is what Feminism actually is. The whole of your main argument is trying to play the dictionary game and not call out feminists based on their political action. Pro/Anti-porn? Irrelevant compared to the wage-gap misrepresentation, the family court laws, alimony, the deliberately false misrepresentation of domestic violence, false rape enabling, and a slew of other sexist policies brought about by The Feminist Mo…
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:15 PM
-1

Funny thing about common sense is that everyone thinks they have lots of it and everyone else has little to none of it. There is some ridiculous idea that "common sense" is a standard set of ideas and rules which every person is born with. So if someone is touting common sense, their grounds are suspect. It's a shitty fallback for a positioning. What you really are trying to say is that, "I'm not requiring academic citations, just some level of agreement with me, because I'm right." Common sense…
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:00 PM
-1

Ok if you need it reduced to the lowest common denominator: If you can dismiss me because of an anecdote, I can dismiss you for the same. If you require hard proof for my position, I can require it of you. If you require hard proof from me, and expect me to take anecdotes from you, you're retarded.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 07:52 PM
-3

That whole line sounds loaded, or suspicious at best. There are no meat-eating, car driving women? A misogynist is a guy that argues with feminists.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 07:49 PM
3

He psychologically tormented her day after day, and under the mental domestic violence she snapped and felt that killing her kid was the only "out." So it's the dad's fault and we should punish him, per the Feminist Doctrine of victimhood.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 06:43 PM
-1

Yet the original posts are more likely than not, actual quotes but as they aren't cited may as well be anecdotal. So in this case, both of you prefer anecdotes which fit your preconceived notions and you're self supporting your beliefs. So..got an accredited academic journal to justify what you say is true? It's all hearsay and meaningless otherwise. If you want to go that route, I would be more than happy to require you to back up everything you say with a peer reviewed journal with its absence…
/r/MensRights08/07/10 06:23 PM
4

I wish I were in the kinds of accounting you were in. I could solve the US national debt by touting it as, "a few dollars and not a significant indicator of financial help." ...unfortunately, I'm not. So on with the show.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:38 PM
1

This is coming from the person who goes in more loops than a hung windows95 program. So if they did take the money, with the giver operating under one set of expectations, and then did something else (destructive) with that money, how is that any less idiotic? There are two routes you're possibly taking with this, and both are trying to portray the idiocy here as being a reasonable act. They are not, it's plain stupid.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:36 PM
0

At which point you would say, "Meh anecdotal." And then it becomes a game where you simply dismiss everything because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion. Denial is a pretty serious mental condition, you may want to get some counseling.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:32 PM
2

Which means that you're implying it's fiction. Yet truth is stranger than fiction, and there is an equivalent army of men who could introduce you to such women.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:27 PM
1

Divorce does not tear the child in half. The mom gets the kid, she tells the kid that daddy is an evil, heartless, self-righteous deadbeat while she spends 75% of his salary buying herself the latest Gucci bag and some shoes. The kid is pulled to one side and used for monetary gains. In effect, mothers prostitute their children for personal financial gains.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:15 PM
3

Very well said.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:14 PM
1

This is all very well spelled out in the feminists text, "The Female Eunuch" by Germaine Greer. The 'logic' used to justify it is hilariously fucked in the head and feeds the /2XC kind of woman like a jelly Donut to a fat person.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:13 PM
1

Okay here's the short of it: Men, idiotic men at least, can be feminists too. So they give money to other feminists. And the collective goes stupid and burns money to "stick it to the man." Feminists burn $13k of their own money over fictitious wage gap. Still having difficulties with this?
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:08 PM
1

Oh, better prosecute him for both rape and violation of privacy. It isn't like she tried to wrong him.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:06 PM
0

I do find that the differences between the two are that one accepts their theft happily, and the feminist thinks it isn't enough.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 05:04 PM
2

How is a group whose aim is to get women the same rights as men sexist? How is a group, who has an aim to get more rights than men based on nothing more than their sex as a means of explaining their victimization, not sexism?
/r/MensRights08/07/10 03:25 PM
5

A pre-nup will not help. Fixed that for you. The only pre-nup that works is not getting married. The best contraceptive is complete honesty.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 03:11 PM
-2

Ten bucks says they're all feminists too.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 03:10 PM
48

Cops and DAs don't like it when you prove they're full of shit and incompetent.
/r/MensRights07/07/10 12:55 AM
-8

If money is given, it's ownership is transferred. If the guys said, "burn our money" and they lit it as someone else's to stick it to the man, the headline would be different.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 09:47 PM
0

They could also burn that money on social programs to benefit others and .. you know.. not attention whore themselves. They're quite a distance from Gandhi at least.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 09:20 PM
-7

Did they find a guy with money and burn it in front of him, or did they receive money and say "what better way to further our cause than to burn it and stick it to the man?"
/r/MensRights06/07/10 09:18 PM
2

Ew is having a friend volunteer you as an assistant when he's on diaper duty. X[
/r/MensRights06/07/10 07:25 PM
13

Substitute the socially positive word, "mature," with the more degrading term, "behaved."
/r/MensRights06/07/10 05:29 PM
7

Have you given your kids the "Bad touch" lecture? Outside of giving them the basic tools to understand when something wrong is done to them, and letting them know that if things ever go south for any reason you're there for them, I don't think there is a lot you can do. Maybe try and get some kind of document to catalog their concerns?
/r/MensRights06/07/10 05:08 PM
0

You're right. /2XC is nothing but purity and well founded moral awesomeness and I'm just jealous. It is completely and totally wrong to judge a collective by their actions. I should just believe what they say and ignore what they do. Man, that means I'm totally wrong about Nazis, Klansmen, Black Supremacists, and more! ... Well now I understand why so few women go into engineering. It's a field which operates on repeatable actions from known behaviors, not hopes, dreams and rainbows.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 05:06 PM
-1

Much of what builds "intelligence" comes from parenting at an early age. Boys were the preferred sex a while ago, and now since girls are the preferred sex the focus is changing. Feminist ideology is paralleling the John Wayne ideology from days of old, so relinquishing early development time for boys and giving it to girls is going to tilt that scale. Either sex is equally capable of being as intellectually strong, but it requires proper development to get there. Since boys are just rapists in …
/r/MensRights06/07/10 04:59 PM
0

I believe what I see, not what I'm told.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 04:54 PM
1

But, comparing judges sending innocent men to death row to a moderator banning someone from a subreddit is a little extreme anyways. Extremes remove ambiguity that can be used to derail an argument. Bad judges build contempt for the system and its membership within a local government. When such cases happen, it has secondary and higher order effects that hit others within that system. Those with the life and death power, when they act wrongly, damage the whole much more effectively than those wi…
/r/MensRights06/07/10 04:35 PM
1

The mods are representatives of the group. But I guess, like so many other times with feminists, it's another round of saying "no they have nothing to do with us, they are not like us" and dismiss it so you can try to maintain moral superiority. "There are a lot of judges in the US who have had to deal with murder cases. Even if a few of them send innocent men to death row, it's wrong to say the system is broken! The system is fine. You can't say it has problems because a few people that abused …
/r/MensRights06/07/10 04:14 PM
-2

It isn't like they get much in the way of consequences when they do it. If they get knocked up, it was rape. If they get caught being drunk, a boy pressured her into it. If they get alcohol poisoning, it's because she's fragile and some guy is to blame; if no guy is to blame, the male of the house she was getting drunk in is to blame because he "enabled" it. Welcome to the Damaged Liver Club girls, just remember it is not your fault; even when it was your own decision.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 04:09 PM
-1

If faith comes in contact with a self-contradiction, dishonesty is the only route to sustain that faith. How about a great example? Go back a few centuries ago. Women are equally capable of doing things as men. Contradicts the idea that men are born inherently superior to women. Result? "Women be dumb lol. Women be weak." All kinds of bullshit "science" emerged to try and "prove" women are retarded. That's what we get with Q. No thanks.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 05:05 AM
-3

Reminds me a lot of the Catholic Church "forgiving" an Italian comedian who mocked them and got in the hot seat for it. Once it gained enough negative publicity, they came up with a very "noble" excuse to dismiss their behavior. Pretty well rolled up here.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 05:02 AM
-4

Oh hey it's Mr. Herpes. Looks like we're getting a new outbreak!
/r/MensRights05/07/10 11:50 PM
1

Its odd, I could have sworn I wrote a response to this already but here goes round two. I think Qeraeth's last crusade into here was about 1-2 months ago. She demonstrated all kinds of intellectual dishonesty, crap arguments, and they were all gynocentric if they were for anything positive. The end result leads me to believe any kind of "support" of mens rights will be supporting their removal for the greater "female good." Also, it's good if you question those you agree with, so I take no offen…
/r/MensRights05/07/10 09:34 PM
-4

"He's a misogynist pig and is totally a kiddie diddler!" There, I saved you the trouble.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 09:30 PM
4

Bingo. They got the rights, but those rights came with costs (work) so now it's about entitlement and free rides.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 09:29 PM
2

In all of its JellyDonut filled glory! Wonder if she's also president of N.O.W.?
/r/MensRights05/07/10 09:28 PM
3

Excellent post, and hits on the problem points of feminists very well. Thank you.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 09:26 PM
2

What do I define Feminism as? The running integral summing all self proclaimed feminists' "ideologies" into a single comprehensive grouping. Since they'll stick together in certain cases and then declare themselves to be completely different when it would be socially bad in an obvious manner. The nature of picking and choosing demonstrates a willfull ignoranance and acknowledgement of the dishonesty of the feminist movement. So even if they're moderates, they support the extremists by indifferen…
/r/MensRights05/07/10 05:35 PM
1

The most recent was,at this point, a few weeks (A month?) ago. The essence of the point is that based upon those actions, its very questionable what kinds of "mens rights" they approve of if it fuels so much hate that they spill into here.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 03:21 PM
1

All you need to see of this idiot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDYZOaTaK2A&NR=1 You get to hear all of the great feminist doublespeak and bullshit to tell us we're all rapists.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 06:37 AM
-2

Given Qeraeth's behavior with her latest subreddit invasion on /MR, I'm highly suspect of the kinds of "Mens rights" discussion that are accepted there.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 06:24 AM
9

I don't even understand why any /MR person goes into that circlejerk subreddit. It's not going to do anything other than cause aggravation.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 04:55 AM
1

Address the rational reasons here? You can make the drug comparison to lots of human needs. You could say that for food, even, or friendship. You're still assuming that marriage is a mistaken solution to some other emotional need, that marriage is never satisfies an actual emotional need. It's a loaded comparison, but I'll roll with it. Someone could take a drug because they lack a purpose in life, or have parental issues, or are insecure. But they could also take drugs just because they enjoy t…
/r/MensRights05/07/10 04:52 AM
-3

The issue is rarely that it's a single event of such a person, but rather a collective of persons who exhibit similar behaviors that build the "brand" everyone else evaluates. This gal is one of a long list of similar hysterical feminists that use "think of the children" to spread their misandry and feminist ideology.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 03:06 AM
1

So, desire to marry comes from an emotional need, but marriage does nothing to satisfy that need, is what I now understand. what leads you to believe this, that someone who wants to gets married really just has holes in their life unrelated to marriage, love, or commitment? That seems like a pretty wild assumption to make, especially if you're applying it to every single married man. Differentiate the similarities between a guy getting married to satisfy an emotional fix, and a guy getting a dru…
/r/MensRights05/07/10 03:03 AM
-4

Okay Feminists, this is your queue to say "this crazy isn't a feminist." You spend so much time picking-and-choosing who is and isn't a feminist you've committed yourselves to micromanaging every single nutjob-- or is this lady not a nutjob but your sister? What a load of worthless tripe from an idiot. She makes an excellent case example for any Male Studies program that wants to address the FUD Hysterical Feminist Method.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 01:47 AM
1

You're attempting to wedge in emotional need as a valuable thing to my side of the discussion, and it isn't working because it isn't from my standpoint. Emotions are only valuable within the self. The instant it becomes an exchange there is a dependency that loads the whole issue towards a negative outcome. That being said, I don't get your answer to that second quote at all. If a man has an emotional need to be with a certain woman (in other words, he loves her), and marriage fills that emotion…
/r/MensRights05/07/10 01:27 AM
1

You're asserting that marriage is only done just to fill some kind of void, and that anything built on emotions (like a relationship, period) is doomed to fail because it is not rational. Yup. You got it. And really, you're saying marriage has nothing to offer to anyone. For one, you say that it's built on emotions but that it offers nothing emotionally to the man? If a person is emotionally stable and well balanced, the emotional portion is moot. They are happy being single or with someone else…
/r/MensRights04/07/10 11:17 PM
1

Guess #1 this was all caused be "psychological abuse" that Kaine somehow inadvertently caused, and through VAWA gets off with the pussy pass. Guess #2: She suffered psychological trauma being around her step son because he reminded her of the emotional attachment her husband has with his ex. So she was an emotionally battered victim with no help because the patriarchy was keeping her down. With no recourse left she sought to save herself by hiring the guy to kill off her husband. Because the lan…
/r/MensRights04/07/10 09:51 PM
1

Are you saying marriage has nothing to offer a man, even emotionally? In a word, Yes. Given that if a person entering into marriage is doing so to "complete themselves," meaning to fill in some emotional part of their existence, then the ordeal is doomed from its outset. She'll be entering into the whole thing with loaded expectations, and he'll enter into it with his own. Emotions setup both sides for failure, because they are not rational thoughts. If each person in the situation were complete…
/r/MensRights04/07/10 06:06 PM
0

You seem to simply repeat yourself when what I've stated above addresses it already. If you want to fix things, including the group that broke them in the first place is counter intuitive. You do not gain anything by seeking support of the group that views you as the enemy, regardless of its permutations. Lets switch your analog to something more appropriate: It's a bad situation if you're the only jew in the middle of a group of Muslims. There are many gradients of belief, but most of them want…
/r/MensRights04/07/10 08:01 AM
0

Socialism is all about creating unfairness by law, under the guise of making things more fair. France's particular flavor is giving us these wonderful gems. Just one more reason not to ever do anything with that shithole.
/r/MensRights04/07/10 07:50 AM
-2

Genie is out of the bottle, so it's time to enjoy this road to hell.
/r/MensRights04/07/10 07:45 AM
2

Quick, to the safety of /2X!
/r/MensRights04/07/10 07:36 AM
0

As more women become feminists, the statistical likeliness of meeting a feminist goes up. With most modern situations, women have been raised with varying degrees of misandry and entitlement, so to have numerous bad experiences is less unlikely than you might think.
/r/MensRights04/07/10 07:35 AM
-7

Given /2xc's history in interacting with /MR, I think they do a plenty fine job painting themselves in a negative light.
/r/MensRights04/07/10 07:26 AM
-4

That was as unbiased as fox news or Keith Olbermann (which is to say completely fucking biased). This is the only line worth catching: "Marriage of course has only the function of getting the woman’s legal hooks into the guy. It’s a set-up aimed at child support and nothing else."
/r/MensRights04/07/10 07:20 AM
-2

Actually venturing into the /2XC version, the short of what I read is, "It's already a Crime with a just punishment so it's a non issue." So basically they're making the argument that because there is something on the books of falsely accusing someone of a crime, that there is no further discussion to be had on it. Unfortunately it does not account for the impact of the accused's life, and while he might be able to sue her, things are so pro-woman all she has to do is give a sob story and it'll …
/r/MensRights03/07/10 11:46 PM
-1

So where are all the "she isn't a feminist" feminists to denounce her as not a feminists? I figured they would be flooding out of the wood work... or is that only when they're being called out on it?
/r/MensRights03/07/10 09:20 PM
0

Surprisingly I think that was a /different/ Gail.
/r/MensRights03/07/10 09:18 PM
2

Guess I'll be making a donation then.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 07:33 AM
1

Except socially, Lesbian DV "doesn't exist" per feminism's idea. DV is exclusive to men against women. Go read the VAWA. The joke was that since DV only exists when a man does it and a woman does it instead, it's a paradox that explodes the world.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 07:00 AM
2

I'm sitting here trying to figure out if the link at the bottom of the page is the MCDEV group or their opposition who are helping make this case happen. If the latter, I got a donation of cash to go to them right now.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 11:26 PM
1

Bingo. When I had an Advertising project to do, my study had me digging through car ads. In doing so, I discovered an interesting catch: Questionable, poorly made, or no-name parts used more sex to market their parts than the vendors who produce quality, well known products. I almost use it as a filter now for buying car shit.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 10:16 PM
2

How is it irrelevant? Outside of sensational TV shows, how many Conspiracy Theorists have gained office and actually fixed things? None. Tribes with no power or teeth are ineffective against those who have it. how does that justify mashing more rational viewpoints back into the most violent one? See above. If the ones who are doing the damage are the "most violent" ones and the rational ones sit on ass and do nothing, they're doing nothing to fix anything. It's a shallow and meaningless gesture …
/r/MensRights01/07/10 10:11 PM
3

Did you know that the tribes of feminism are irrelevant when compared to the "radical feminism" which supports, drafts and enables Misandrist law?
/r/MensRights01/07/10 08:25 PM
3

Marriage is a business venture. Period. Only with the narcotic like high of infatuation would you think a business decision of taking all your assets and giving 50% of them to your business partner (who did no work prior to the transaction) and then providing them with a golden parachute of payments over the next 20~ years is a good idea. If you're "needing" another person, you have personal problems and that relationship is already predisposed to problems.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 08:20 PM
1

So after reading, it looks good as a start. It's a seed for things to come, but it isn't something I would use to establish things as "getting fixed right now." Much of the content dealing with existing problems is simply an observation, with little to no action in response. It's great that they started to work on shit-canning the two misandrist judges. In ten years, it will probably start having an impact if it can overcome the counter-action of groups like NOW, who have established the set of …
/r/MensRights01/07/10 08:17 PM
1

Thanks for giving some substance. I'll start reading.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 07:31 PM
1

There are plenty of places where assets, especially premarital assets, are not split 50-50, and alimony is rare. Yeah, but I have no interest in living in the Middle East. Same shit, different extreme. Do you have anything more than the 1950s-esque all sounds good on paper ideology of those laws, such as statistics of the outcomes from divorce proceedings from that state?
/r/MensRights01/07/10 06:55 PM
1

Marriage was a system for property. Women are not property. Men are not property nor are they walking wallets. What is the value of Marriage then? Marriage is a business decision. A terrible one at that. I have never heard of a successful business that decides to bring on a partner, and start by giving half of all assets to the partner as well as signing up for a 20-year financial golden parachute. If its a stupid decision for real businesses, why is it not a stupid decision for the individual b…
/r/MensRights01/07/10 06:38 PM
1

I can see I'm not getting through to you :(
/r/MensRights01/07/10 06:47 AM
0

Don't you understand that in accusing, you're doing the very thing you're arguing against? I think you need to re-evaluate your views.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 01:06 AM
0

Don't you understand that you're just being paranoid when you say that?
/r/MensRights01/07/10 12:08 AM
4

Sorry if my wording expressed that I meant you came from /2XC. I didn't mean for that. Rather its that while the whole order was going on, you and others made comments/statements. I'm not stating that you did or do have alts. I honestly do not care. I'm just speculating at where that whole "so-and-so's other account" business came about. TL;DR: Correlation does not mean causation.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 11:13 PM
2

That works. Thanks!
/r/MensRights30/06/10 10:04 PM
2

Not really. You deal with certain types after a few times and you figure out the value of discussing anything with them. If you recognize it, chaining post-pong is completely up to you to do.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 10:02 PM
2

Or we could just not be retarded and not get Married and save ourselves the hassle of the inevitable "we've been fair in our analysis and conclude that sir, you be fucked."
/r/MensRights30/06/10 09:59 PM
3

Call me a pessimist but until I see a papertrail of the family courts' actions to reflect their position, I doubt any of this holds. It's like saying "Republicans are financially conservative" and believing it when the last 8 years of em' operated in quite the opposite manner.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 09:58 PM
2

So whats your solution?
/r/MensRights30/06/10 09:48 PM
0

Sell them to China. I hear they're hurting for women.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 09:46 PM
3

Whats your suggestion to fix the problem? (actually curious)
/r/MensRights30/06/10 09:45 PM
2

Kinda? It was something that came up when /2XC (which never does subreddit invasions and is totally not misandrist at all) did a subreddit invasion in /MR. There we a handful of key /2XC people with Qeraeth who would make some post, and get bursts of up-votes while simultaneously having a burst of down-votes to dissenting posters. Cryptogirl, Atomic and some others I don't even remember made many pro-feminist/anti-male comments. The thought was that they had created alternate accounts to mass-up…
/r/MensRights30/06/10 09:37 PM
8

I hope she gets raped and murdered by a lesbian. The Feminist Paradox would cause an explosion that would take out at least 12 city blocks.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 09:34 PM
4

9000 get.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 09:28 PM
1

Your posting history's content is similar to pro-feminist posters, so the idea is that you may well be an alternate account of atomicparrot.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 09:26 PM
2

Then it looks as though I only know of the exceptions. The girls of engineering that got through, were feminist, and mediocre at their work also used their sexuality to freeload off a bunch of horny, dateless guys. The ones I speak highly of didn't need to use gimmiks. They are hard working, independant and competitive people worthy of their due respect. The shit ones are all doing non-engineering jobs now though. So once the good ones are driven out, it looks like the mediocrity filter will be …
/r/MensRights30/06/10 08:45 PM
3

Oh look, the feminist works of social policy to demonize all men is working. But wait, feminists don't hate men! Magic tricks work by distracting people with a lie (we're not your enemies) while covering a truth (spreading hate) of the action. Nope. Not a hate movement at all.
/r/MensRights30/06/10 08:39 PM
-1

Given the kind of anti-equality policy that feminists make, /MR is the response to undo what it can and raise awareness. So given your line of thinking, if you're ill with a bacterial infection and believe in health you're best off ignoring the problem so you can stay healthy?
/r/MensRights30/06/10 02:52 PM
2

Surprised at the event happening? No, not really. Surprised that they're being punished because there aren't men to blame? Yeah
/r/MensRights30/06/10 04:25 AM
4

There ARE women in engineering fields. All of the women I've known to complete engineering degrees have done something that the feminist groups can't give them - the power of earning that piece of paper. It isn't just engineering, but also physics. The core sciences have tough bars to hurdle over, and while not 100% effective, is filters out most of the trash (both male and female). If you want to meet a respectable woman, you'll find them as graduates of hard sciences. Many of them are really f…
/r/MensRights30/06/10 04:02 AM
0

Clearly Bush was not an accurate reflection of current Republican leaders like McCain, Pailin,.... oh wait.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 10:14 PM
-1

It's like Egalitarianism or Humanism isn't good enough because it isn't woman-focused...
/r/MensRights29/06/10 09:57 PM
-1

This person is a self-proclaimed radical feminist and "puts women first." If you're aiming to project this person's craziness on all other feminists like I often see around here, then you're terribly misguided. If only N.O.W., Women's Resource Centers in public universities, and other Feminists political groups made for a good example to agree with you...
/r/MensRights29/06/10 09:56 PM
-2

The woman in that link would disagree because you can only be a rapist if you have a penis. /r/Feminisms seems to agree.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 09:54 PM
2

My best suggestion would be to ask an Anthropologist. It'd be the closest you could get to a real answer, I would think. (Versus an internet know it all.)
/r/MensRights29/06/10 08:44 PM
0

I bet they like money. I like money.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 08:43 PM
1

Fine by me. Equality also means getting screwed by the system equally.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 08:40 PM
1

Instead of /s, we should start ending with, /2XC.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 08:38 PM
0

I've been on the receiving side of four accidents. The only accidents I've ever been in. The first, was a drunk little old lady. The second? A little old lady who thought because I "look like you have a really fast car, so I thought you'd run the red light" (what she told the cop ), rear ended me doing 50 while I was at a stop light. The third time, a gal was driving an SUV she had no sense of dimensions on and hit me from behind (again at a stop light). And most recently, a little old lady that…
/r/MensRights29/06/10 08:37 PM
0

I'm not joking, but I honestly bet (so long as it was in person and the "work" was good) it depends on how good the result looks.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 08:34 PM
0

More "atypical" typical feminism.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 08:00 PM
1

Cryptogirl has a pretty apparent standard of "discussion" in /MR Attempt to subvert a discussion by denying the people discussing a subject the language which is used to do so. Accuse the person discussing the subject of being the thing they're arguing against (again an attempt to deny the means and ability to discuss or argue a given subject) As a last resort, create some kind of personal attack by using a tautological or ad hominem fallacy about the person to discredit them. (See the follow up…
/r/MensRights29/06/10 12:32 AM
7

Either party will pander to the women voters. They have a numerically power count, and most of the male voters dismiss the misandrist policy as "It will not affect me" so they never even pay attention. So regardless of the political mono-party in power, they'll pass Feminist anti-male legislation because it'll get them votes.
/r/MensRights28/06/10 07:13 PM
2

There is a word and group to describe that though, and it isn't pro woman or pro man: Egalitarian. :) Cheers :)
/r/MensRights27/06/10 11:23 PM
7

It's basically "stranger danger" hysteria. With Feminist propaganda that only men are pedophiles/rapists/predators, the media amplifies that bias to feed fear. A gal, interviewed on Penn & Teller's Bullshit, seems to think it's due to Cable TV coming into more people's homes. In essence, to keep ratings up, there has to be more hysteria added to the picture. It's become a FUD campaign that keeps concerned parents glued to the TV to find out where the next evil person might be. Here locally, a ki…
/r/MensRights24/06/10 06:36 PM
2

Did you miss the article posted in /MR not too long ago where it was because of affirmative action that male applicants of lower quality were being admitted as there was a disproportionately large female student body? None the less, with respect to the US being about opportunity it has become so contaminated with special interests or "some are more equal than others" politics that George Carlin has it right, "They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." If this w…
/r/MensRights24/06/10 04:56 AM
0

Funny how a one liner is more time involving than anything else on /MR and as such makes dismissing a terrible article a key example of the problem. I suppose I'm supposed to eat up this tripe then, because that would be the only positive thing to do! It must be, otherwise what I did is double-plus un-good. Or we can not be retarded and call a spade a spade when it's demonstratively stupid and not adhere to language restriction of some feminist idiot.
/r/MensRights24/06/10 03:09 AM
1

Exactly. Honestly your best options are to use what Mexican immigrants do: find a job field women won't touch. Success comes from fighting smarter, not through brute force.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 11:49 PM
10

I don't think it's women who are doing the complaining, I think it's the feminists. The short of it is, when the opportunities opened up justifiably women were allowed to do all these things they saw men do with some kind of glory in their minds about those kinds of work. Then there was a realization about the responsibilities that came with it. Suddenly all of these new possibilities were a lot less glamorous with the burden of responsibility. The complaint that men have displaced women is a po…
/r/MensRights23/06/10 11:41 PM
1

Not entirely. Men go into the college system and get hit with all kinds of propaganda by the groups within the college. The women's resource centers post up flyers and the like everywhere stating that the men of the campus are rapists. Ethnic groups accuse everyone else of being racist against them (pick your group). The line stops when the "Politically Correct" protected groups hit upon those with more political power than themselves; typically the women's groups. So the ladies get, "you can do…
/r/MensRights23/06/10 08:51 PM
2

You're getting to the point which colleges use to hide their sexism and racism: "Diversity" The word "Diversity" is the scholastic buzzword of PC correctness to socially promote sexism and racists under the banner of equal opportunity. It's a very clever catch all that dances around the real effects of Affirmative Action.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 07:27 PM
1

I think it's a fine demonstration of Feminist ideology that women can do it all and don't need men. The problem is that men are helping to pay for the universities they cannot get into (unless they're private), which if they are to be denied they should not have to pay into (but we have decades of this ideology in other, similar sexist-based gaps such as family law). Feminists want to have these things be exclusive to women, and have leveraged sexist & racist policy to get it and they're getting…
/r/MensRights23/06/10 07:22 PM
4

Similarly, I've found that you can identify the college's "entitlement" group by lingering near the Fin-Aid office. At CU Boulder, I went with a friend who was attending there and the majority of the FinAid recipients were minorities. At my College, the majority were women. When I applied for FinAid, as an 18 year old with zero support and a min wage job, I was told to piss off - unless I was married, had a kid, was a minority, or was over 24 I don't deserve shit. This would be fine for hand out…
/r/MensRights23/06/10 07:06 PM
0

I think it's less giving them a bad name, and more about showing their true colors.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 05:23 PM
14

And the sad part is, this is allowed by the VAWA. Equality my ass.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 05:09 PM
4

Nice. I have a friend who is about to go into this himself. The wife just went off the deep end and things have started on the down hill run.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 07:13 AM
-1

Abridged version: -Is She a Feminist? Yes? -Stay the fuck away.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 01:06 AM
2

Even I have to say, this is dumb.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 05:30 PM
1

Any interpretation, other than that, is an aberration of the definition. While language can change, there are already words that cover the definition of what you are outlining, misandrists, misandry. Call it what it is. Redefining "Feminism" is backward as what you WILL end up doing is alienating women who consider themselves "feminists, you know, by the definition of the word from the DICTIONARY, into thinking the board using feminism interchangably with misandry are a bunch of misogynists. The…
/r/MensRights22/06/10 05:26 PM
2

No. His penis was threatening her existence. She feared for her life upon realizing he'll grow up to be a rapist. Or something like that.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 04:46 PM
0

You're right. It's a double-standard, and it doesn't make it any less offensive.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 04:44 PM
-2

waves Bye bye Mr. Herpes!
/r/MensRights22/06/10 06:01 AM
-2

Man you're still here? I thought you were going to pretend you didn't come here. You really are like Herpes.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 05:57 AM
2

Sorry, when you say in one post it's bad, and then dismiss it when the person doing it is female it's okay, that's being a hypocrite. You're retarded and you know it.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 05:56 AM
-2

Please do. If you don't come here, it'll be terrible. It will be as if we've been cured of some horrible STD.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 05:53 AM
-1

It's okay when they do it then, but not when it's done here? That's a bit hypocritical.
/r/MensRights22/06/10 05:47 AM
-3

Regardless, I think the MensRights subreddit has attracted more of the misogynistic crowd of people, people who really think that all of the history of feminism can be summed up by some angry girl's club of dumb man-haters, who have worked in sexist legal policies which have been passed and causing more problems than they have solved. Most of which, have been based on a false perception of sexual disparity. Unfortunately, there have been people who have been on the wrong end of those policies an…
/r/MensRights22/06/10 05:46 AM
-1

I quoted the bill and linked it. Should I produce the text too, or is that just hateful? Struck down if unconstitutional? Like the Patriot Act? The funny thing about legislating fairness, is that inherently makes things less fair. See: Corporatism. That's working out really well right now. I've said before, I'd prefer an actually equal system. But as feminism cannot survive in such a system, per it's gynocentric necessity, it seeks to create sexist divides. By encouraging gender egalitarianism r…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 08:08 PM
0

Good on you for the realization that for actual equality, you have to approach things equally. The general issue I have, is that those "couple people" are the ones who are the ones getting misandrist law passed. The general principal I've gone over elswhere. So the non-vocal majority be damned, they get the benefit of that vocal minority and do nothing to stop it then they're enabling it just the same.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 07:54 PM
-2

Have you been to /r/Feminisms? Their Feminism 101 info, defines equality around women as victims (The Evil Patriarchy! All men rape women, its just in different ways! etc). Their own list of rules requires you to accept the idea that women are this perpetual victim class and need all sorts of privileges to be made "equal." /r/Equality is better, by a good factor, but still has Feminist leanings. Many of the "radical" feminists tone down their vitriol, but argue pro-woman just the same.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 07:35 PM
0

There it is! There's your default line. 'NO! You can't call it that, you're just being what you call it! So what I'm protecting is still pure and clean!' The instant you state that you cannot describe hateful and sexist acts as such, and strawman the point by trying to use it against the person you're disagreeing with, you lose. You're a hypocrite with no ground. I think it's time you got some counseling to examine your own cognitive dissonance. I've linked you to the text of the bill, explained…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 07:27 PM
0

Christ on a pogostick, you're really trying to do language manipulation. Let's make this easy: Where is the Violence Against Men Act? The VAWA: "It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted." So lets start with the first great one, "violent crime…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 07:17 PM
0

If there is no real definition, then it's not a real object. It's rhetoric that is no different than that of religious fanatics. It does nothing to help your case.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 06:53 PM
2

That response demonstrates the kinds of ignorance here at best, and a mental block of hypocrisy at worst. The subject of this whole thread pointed out that feminism is a bad thing. Feminism is not needed. It's a hindrance to progress, it's a hate movement that uses sexism to classify men as lesser beings and women as underprivileged beings suppressed by men. If feminism were to be socially unacceptable and hated like it should be, 90% of MRA would vanish, the remaining 10% of issues would be abs…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 06:37 PM
0

The patriarchy is a fictitious strawman created by Feminists not unlike the /2X crowd to enable their perpetual victim-hood. Go into /r/Feminisms. Read their "feminism 101" crap (and for the time being, ignore all the gynocentric bullshit contained there-in) and look up their definition of the patriarchy. "Mens oppress us with their phallus of sexism. Women are slaves under the evil patriarchy" blah blah blah. It's the convenient catch-all for the loose ends of Feminism's bullshit logic, not unl…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 06:33 PM
0

In the U.S: The Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence against Women Act. Equal pay act.. We have Feminists decrying that they only make 70% of what men do today, yet the data doesn't match up. In response, there are more voices demanding this be legislated to be fixed. In essence, as feminists do less, but want the same net wage they need law to make things unequal; that they get pair more per hour worked so that the net average is equivalent…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 06:27 PM
-3

If the thought were all that mattered, the world would be a better place. But stating a moral opinion does not over-ride the actual effect put into place by groups which desire to take from others, e.g. Feminism's enacted laws which fuck over men. So as long as you feel that you have the moral high ground, regardless of what your kinship do legally which flies in the face of that moral standing, it's the best. You cannot cite any laws to back your claim because Feminism is all about sexist law w…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 05:30 PM
0

Hmm, good point since highly negative posts never see the light of day it was a condition that couldn't happen. Eh oh well, as far as the comments go the /2X group reflected the kinds of crap I expected of them. "Even if it's a woman doing it, it's still the man's fault." Derp Derp.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 05:24 PM
6

And the laws in the Western World would love to differ with you (or in the opposite direction, the laws in the Middle eastern world would also disagree with you).
/r/MensRights21/06/10 05:04 PM
10

It seems that the greatest thing about Feminism is that those who take on the brand get to define what it means. It has the consistency of water. Feminism is nothing other than the political movement to get revenge for conditions which most modern feminists never had to live under. It's an entitlement movement to convert men into wallets and fourth-class citizens. The last sentence is also poorly stated: TL;DR: “Equality” is a mistake. Well Feminist equality is equality for all feminists, and si…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 04:30 PM
-1

In the slave days, those two items (laws and fundamental human rights) didn't seem to co-exist. So per your reasoning as long as the notion of the human rights exist, men be damned on what they get.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 03:43 PM
-2

Cite some recent laws to back that?
/r/MensRights21/06/10 04:38 AM
-2

A Misogynist is a person who argues with a feminist and typically wins.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 04:36 AM
-6

Funny, since feminism is supposed to be about equality, but I suppose they need not practice what they preach. It's okay though, they've been living by the double-standard for a few decades at this point. /2X does serve a purpose though. Every time I get the delusional idea that it might be nice to go out with a woman, I just browse there and get a nice cold reminder why to stay the fuck away.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 04:35 AM
1

Given that they attempt to discredit /MR for being "misogynistic assholes," while trying to bullshit everyone that they're really all about equality, it's a validation point to show how much of a load of crap their ideology is given their demonstrated behavior. I'd rather /2X kept to themselves in their gynocentric circlejerk. Whenever they leave to evangelize to other subreddits, they only do a great job of making things worse.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 04:32 AM
1

Well there goes one of /2X's greatest lines of bullshit in a puff of factually based smoke. Now, lets see what line they come up with next.
/r/MensRights21/06/10 04:26 AM
2

Yes, Feminist want to control speech. It's a common stunt they'll use. If they can deny you the language to explain why feminism is so fucked up and shares more than it should with hate groups (itself pretty much being a kind of sexist hate movement), then they deny you the means to discredit it. Qeraeth did a great job of it when she subreddit-invaded not that long ago. Others will come in and do their own variant of it. Basically it boils down to what a few people have explained, Feminism proc…
/r/MensRights21/06/10 04:18 AM
3

If it were a woman, Frothing-at-the-Mouth Feminists would be rioting and using this as yet another example of the Patriarchy oppressing them. But, because this is a woman Judge, she's a bastion of integrity and a pure role-model of intellectual and moral honesty.
/r/MensRights18/06/10 05:54 PM
2

So it's been a day. /2X Doesn't seem to be responding that well to it, much as I predicted.
/r/MensRights18/06/10 05:51 PM
0

The difference is the idea that Feminists think the Patriarchy exists when it doesn't. The Feminist Matriarchy wouldn't be much more different than the system for National Socialists; great for their own membership. TL;DR: same bullshit as always from the Feminists.
/r/MensRights18/06/10 05:27 PM
2

Over generalization: All muslims are terrorists. It's a fallacy, why? Many prominent Muslim Scholars and Political leaders denounce those of vocal minority who encourage and act out terrorism. Those with the power enabled by the majority denounce and act against those who are killing innocents including other followers of Islam. Over generalization of Feminism? The most vocal and misandrist of the Feminists (the ones "moderate" feminists denounce as extreme or militant) are the ones which enable…
/r/MensRights18/06/10 05:02 AM
2

A patriarchal society isn't a group of men, it's a social construct, for which women are equally as responsible. Only militant feminist extremists think that "The Patriarchy" is some evil group of men out to keep women down, or something. "Patriarchy" means a family/society where men have a dominant role and women a more submissive one, but the roles are equally as restrictive for both. The comic is a woman enforcing patriarchy on the man. The comment is merely reflecting that. Patriarchy isn't …
/r/MensRights18/06/10 04:52 AM
2

Undoubtably. But all I'm stating is that he did this as a CYA act for the inevitable storm that will hit him.
/r/MensRights18/06/10 04:46 AM
2

In The Feminist Movement, they place blame for all things bad on men under the umbrella idea of "the patriarchy." This catch-all is apparently the source of all the wrongs in the world because it's a system designed by men exclusively. Since this system exists solely to oppress women the woman in the comic is "programmed" in her misandry. So a male controlled society would apparently program women to hate on men per this comic. It isn't a product of feminism, no it's a product of men. And since …
/r/MensRights18/06/10 04:45 AM
7

And this is the basic truth of Feminism. Equality when it means the good, old-ways-protection when it's bad. The feminist does not want equality, the feminist does not want equal opportunity. The feminist wants the most gains for the least cost to her, at any male's expense. Feminism is the collection of behaviors specifically using sexism to avoid responsibility of actions which may have negative consequences while wielding that same sexism to derive the most benefit.
/r/MensRights17/06/10 11:00 PM
6

From your crosspost's comments, "File under "ways in which living in a patriarchal society hurts men too"." Wow, there's a completely unexpected and unpredictable response. 'No, see this is still men being mean!' Even when the woman is being complete gutter-trash, it's still the fault of the man because he has a penis. That's the gynocentral circlejerk of /2x.
/r/MensRights17/06/10 10:06 PM
4

Because in the United States, we want to punish responsible spending.
/r/MensRights17/06/10 09:31 PM
7

Creating laws, to fix other laws that are broken does not solve the issue of broken laws. It's a bottomless pit of broken patches. With more laws to fix laws that were meant to fix other laws, you begin to introduce loop-holes and exceptions. How about this: If the existing laws are fucked, throw them out and make new ones? It would be nice, but then that would actually mean dealing with the problems and the people in charge rather not do that.
/r/MensRights17/06/10 09:30 PM
1

No, see in that case he's oppressing her freedom with his penis... or something. She's a victim. She has to be. Feminism dictates it so.
/r/MensRights17/06/10 08:27 PM
1

Pretty much spot on. Now for real fun, post in /2X and see how negative it'll go.
/r/MensRights17/06/10 08:25 PM
0

When more kids are in the picture, the dad gets soaked for more anyway so being tasked to pay payment=water_bill*(kids/people_in_house) can be a nice form for sorting out costs.
/r/MensRights17/06/10 07:52 PM
0

You would have to show that the kid is incurring a significant volume more of those resources than the parent would without the kid. Take the case of Jim Carrey and his kid. He has a larger house, with more rooms and resource sinks to maintain that house than his ex. He thusly expends more funds to maintain that than his ex wife does, without even having his kids with him. (We'll neglect the fact that she sought higher child support payments for the purposes of "elevating her standard of life so…
/r/MensRights17/06/10 06:32 PM
0

It's funny that how this is the most true statement, it's getting downvoted to hell. :\
/r/MensRights17/06/10 05:32 PM
0

Cheap bastard refuses to pay bill to creditor x, gets taken to court, loses. Gets wages garnished or has assets seized. There is no magical blanket of exception here that changes everything because the guy was stupid enough to get pre-divorced/married. Your point that he has to show receipts for "privacy" is retarded unless he's getting child support from her at the same time. What you're effectively saying is, "we should believe the mom unconditionally that the child support is going to the kid…
/r/MensRights17/06/10 05:15 PM
4

Ah ha! http://news.scotsman.com/politics/MSP-quits-over-schoolgirl-leer.6367670.jp The girl was jail-bait. He quit before the press could start calling him a kiddie-diddler. (They'll still call him a pedophile)
/r/MensRights17/06/10 05:04 PM
0

Mommy bought a cart load of groceries including tampons & a bottle of wine. Does she split the cost of the gallon of milk in half or into a quarter? She also purchased a the latest sleazy love novel. Now these purchases are the business & review of the ex-spouse? That said, I do think the current process is overwhelmingly unfair and agree that the funds being provided shouldn't be mommy support. Mommy can submit the recipt as a whole. Credit = bill * 0.5. If the guy is as vindictive as the mom, …
/r/MensRights17/06/10 04:53 PM
6

What you bring up is pretty much the norm for me. I hear a woman on the news, at school, wherever go on about being sexually harassed and the first thought is "uh oh. An ugly guy asked her out or made a compliment to her." It was said in another thread, but basically sexual harassment policies are now just tools to protect delicate and beautiful snowflake women from "ugly" or "unattractive" guys. The fun thing with these policies are their further reaching implications. With laws stating "you mu…
/r/MensRights17/06/10 04:48 PM
4

If so, track ALL of your expenses for three months and tell me how that goes. I can do it for a short while, and it's a good experiment. But it is also a major pain in the ass & time consuming. It's going very well for me. It's also helping me reduce my total debt, letting me know where I'm poorly spending money, and letting me accumulate savings. But I guess fiscal responsibility isn't something we're supposed to be encouraging huh? Now I understand you don't care how much time it may take the …
/r/MensRights17/06/10 04:34 PM
6

Did you miss the part about the subject which intended to focus on the issues of men? The subject of the thread was discussing why Marriage is a bad deal for men. The result of the thread was the /2X crowd changing the subject into how bad life is for women. The quote I copied was one sample of the gynocirclejerk of /2X and the seriousness at which they take subjects that don't enable their misandry. So lets put you to the test. Suppose a thread showed up on the front page of reddit discussing t…
/r/MensRights17/06/10 06:56 AM
11

Article doesn't list where the pressure came from to encourage him to resign. He told a clerk he found some woman attractive. Did they have a beef with it? Who made the complaint? I'm not dismissing it as it's probably brought on by some N.O.W. equivalent, but it would be nice if it gave some details. Edit: Turns out the girl was jail-bait. He quit as a pre-emptive measure. http://news.scotsman.com/politics/MSP-quits-over-schoolgirl-leer.6367670.jp
/r/MensRights17/06/10 05:15 AM
0

That's a shame. Until you did the derail upon pointing out the logical disconnect, I thought this was going quite well. If you're changing the issue from "Don't date western women," to something else and then get upset, then I can do nothing further as that's simply combating emotional rhetoric with emotional rhetoric. Cheers.
/r/MensRights15/06/10 08:16 PM
0

I thought I was responding about someone who was pissed off with his treatment and made a lot of emotionally fueled statements of which the only valid point was "don't date western women." Since I believe equality means the same rules for everyone, what I've stated with respect to women and middle-eastern policy applies to a nutjob's idea against women. Don't deal with him if that's his policy. His post, specifically, I am very happy indeed to see that men have awakened, at long last. As far as …
/r/MensRights15/06/10 07:55 PM
0

I understood that we dismissed his emotional rhetoric early on. The core subject is the legally enforced inferiority men are classified under in western law. The logic is specifically, if one is to be punished for dealing with a person of legal superiority then the best decision is simply not dealing with them. That is the point with a woman engaging in a relationship with a middle eastern man and the situation which is disproportionately against her due to similar laws. To speak ill of the man …
/r/MensRights15/06/10 07:28 PM
0

Again, that is the individual working in opposition to the legal precedent. The hazard is what is established by law as preferential treatment. Worse, if they are driven and supported by social expectations, that only speaks worse of the average Western Woman as she is the sole beneficiary of that preferential treatment (and typically the pursuer of those laws). Thus, the parent comment has merit as a kind of protest against this preferential treatment. That is the individual acting in the only …
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:51 PM
1

/2X Doesn't care about anything that does not benefit the membership of /2X. /2X is a Gynocentric circlejerk. Look at the headline of one of the comments, the subject is asking why it's a bad deal for men and then Kita chimes in with, "Indeed, but if we're speaking anecdotally, we can also address all of the women who get screwed by divorce?" "Enough talking about men, let's talk about women." /2X.
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:32 PM
0

I think you jumped a little ahead of yourself, but from what I read you're headed in the direction I wanted to get to; the legalization of preferential power. In the Middle East, men get the preferential power. Everything of benefit is defaulted to the man and the woman is left with the dregs and is usually destitute. You express that you don't like the idea where one party is, what is really, legally subservient (legally inferior) to the other. The issue is not what you feel or believe, but wha…
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:22 PM
3

Eh, I think the article was misleading about exactly how powerful each of these women are. The thing is, these women are just the most obvious. There has been a number of legal policies such as the Violence Against Women Act, which creates automatic guilt of the male, without anything other than the woman's word. Almost comically, if the male were being assaulted and called the police the woman could assert she was being assaulted and he would get hauled off. This is the kind of policy which com…
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:45 AM
-1

I think it's understandable that you couldn't believe it to be true when you're on the other side/not on the receiving end. So let us warp it into a kind of context you could relate to: How generally willing would you be to date a Saudi-Arabian, Iranian, Iraqi, Samali, or Afghanitanian traditional muslim man? If very, why? If not, why? (And why the hell did someone downvote you? You stated an opinion that didn't even flame.)
/r/MensRights15/06/10 06:36 AM
-1

Like any medicine, only if the recipient wants to be cured.
/r/MensRights14/06/10 06:10 AM
1

Ignorance isn't any less damaging than malice.
/r/MensRights14/06/10 03:58 AM
1

Once upon a time, there were a lot of pissed off women. They were mad because they were being treated poorly, with laws that treated them as things and property. So is this yet another case of, "it's okay when we did it (were pissed off), but for you it's not"? If women bring the problem, how is it that having more women will fix it? Do you put out a fire by adding gasoline, or do you find some other means of extinguishing the flame? It doesn't mean gasoline is bad, but there are times when usin…
/r/MensRights14/06/10 03:56 AM
0

Eh, /r/Equality is basically /r/ModerateFeminism. It's more palatable, but it's still suffering the same underlying problems. It is better about it, but still slants towards female "fairness."
/r/MensRights14/06/10 03:52 AM
4

If Human history is to serve as a good example, people will believe right up to the point that it's causing serious problems, then put it off another few decades. Basically to the point that everything crashes and burns to the ground, leaving the moderates left to pick up the pieces and rebuild.
/r/MensRights14/06/10 03:38 AM
3

http://www.amazon.com/Female-Eunuch-P-S-Germaine-Greer/dp/006157953X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276486528&sr=1-1-spell This was cited by my uni's Women's Resource Center as a must-read feminist text. First one I (regrettably) read to boot. And this isn't meant to say you were taught out of this, but this is meant in a "general context."
/r/MensRights14/06/10 03:36 AM
5

Except there are more Muslim Clerics denouncing suicide bombings and more Muslim Scholars who denounce the wrongful interpretations of the Koran as pro-terrorism, than there are Osama Bin Ladens. So that argument does not really hold. The general issue is that, as the article stated, it is those "fringe" Feminists who have the political power to cause problems for men. Those with the political power confiscate the terms they carry and make them their own. Without a moderate feminist, or even bet…
/r/MensRights14/06/10 03:34 AM
1

I don't like most musicals because they don't do anything for me. There always seems to be something "off" about them that prohibits me to do any kind of suspension-of-disbelief. The exception to date has been "Dr. Horrible's Sing-along blog" and the musical episode of Mega64- but almost because they parody Musicals more than try to take them seriously :(
/r/MensRights14/06/10 03:22 AM
-1

Strip away the emotional bitterness, and there is a very reasonable idea: If western women use and abuse men in relationships, the best solution is to not have relationships with them. In a WRM context, if the woman gets assaulted by a partner and doesn't like it, she needs to not be around those people who assault and abuse. Hypothetically, (because it isn't likely) this means whats left to the Western Woman are the Alpha Male types and PUAs (on the standard that the person you're quoting is so…
/r/MensRights14/06/10 03:15 AM
-1

I don't think you're using irony in the right frame. Projecting much? Would there be any value in sitting through with the, probably bottomless, checklist of similarities between feminists and Glenn Beck fans? Probably not with a feminist. Dang. Oh well. Since the alternative is to simply hear about how false rape claims to ruin men's lives is okay (because if it means we save just one woman it's all worth is!) and the usual feminist drum beat. Quick lets get Qeraeth back in here, surely she can…
/r/MensRights11/06/10 01:24 AM
0

Consider the result of subreddits that share the moderation ideas of /r/Feminisms and their restrictions of discussed topics and the kinds of moderation which occurs in /MR is wonderful. When /2X does subreddit invation, even when feminist trolls come a clanging, it isn't anything more than the price of freedom to speak your mind. That's a greater step towards equality than any feminist group can claim.
/r/MensRights11/06/10 12:19 AM
-3

Lets just cut to the chase - /MR isn't going to eat the /2X or /feminisms brand of candy. /MR isn't going to "accept" the equivalent "jesus" of those groups so that we can come to terms with your brand of "equality." The very nature of, "Feminists got pissed against 'the patriarchy' and did something" is good, but "MRA got pissed at 'the feminist movement' for their rather heinous laws and policy" is bad shows the mental failure of feminists which makes the BP Oil response look intelligent. Keep…
/r/MensRights11/06/10 12:12 AM
-4

Yeah I mean just the other day, a Glenn Beck fan decided to scope out the local extremist tea-bagger rally and whoa, what do you know they were pretty level headed, compared to what they had heard. Derp derp. Fancy the idea that a racist will identify other racists as being level headed. Man, fuck those malestudies guys they should just own up and take it like men. After centuries of oppressing women with their phallus of injustice women need to vent. It's only natural. Plus men are all rapists.…
/r/MensRights11/06/10 12:08 AM
7

I think I have something in my eye from the amount of awesome here.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 10:18 PM
2

They're over in /2X and /r/Feminisms of course.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 07:32 AM
-6

The /2Xers essentially view everything through the lens of their feminist dogma and impress it upon others that their view is the only one. (Think major religions). Their philosophy is founded on being the victim (look at /r/feminisms), and thus are constantly under attack. Much of /r/Mensrights brings up articles and subjects which not only question the idea of perpetual victimhood, but additionally shows the hypocrisy of feminism. Just as carbon-dating gets a fundamentalist who believes the Ea…
/r/MensRights10/06/10 07:28 AM
-1

Ssshhhhh you don't want to ruin their Utopian dream.
/r/MensRights07/06/10 06:27 PM
0

Pretty much. They've been drinking the men-are-the-cause-of-all-our-woes koolaid so long they'll simply need to add another escape mechanism to explain it. "See his father's family had a history of <something> which predisposed him to <situation>" Feminism: it's only wrong if a man does it. They should cut to the chase and simply abort the second they find out they're carrying a rapist/male in utero. Then she can write about how the whole situation scarred her in an addition to the Vagina Monolo…
/r/MensRights07/06/10 09:51 AM
1

They probably had them castrated so they wouldn't be a part of the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights07/06/10 09:43 AM
1

Qeraeth did it not long ago, why didn't you call her out on it? I've saved this image though, it's the textbook example of feminist behavior and language manipulation. It's the kind of tripe spouted by "MRA respecting feminists," who simply use intellectual dishonesty and hate to derive their predetermined result.
/r/MensRights07/06/10 09:43 AM
2

Well this certainly helps progress /MR towards new horizons. Thanks Erszebet_b for speaking your complaint and then doing something for positive change....?
/r/MensRights07/06/10 09:30 AM
-1

It would make life easier, that's for sure. Socialism would actually work like a textbook too. The near-enough equivalent would be a disease which rendered all men sterile, leaving only women to exist. The /mr issues disappear in one generation, the feminists lose the basis of their movement, and all is happy.
/r/MensRights07/06/10 09:20 AM
2

Feminist addiction? That's a new one. The unfairness is documented. That doesn't mean we see our selfs as victims but we are pissed off. This is scatterbrained, are there countless victims of unreported rape, or just pseudo raped and thusly pissed off? I'd say reddits feminists are quite moderate and more equalist then the MRA. The feminist and women subforum have NO anti-men posts or anti MRA posts. This has been debunked countless times elsewhere in this post. The victim martyr complex here pu…
/r/MensRights04/06/10 04:16 PM
2

There are no feminists who are friends. There are women who can be friends, but a person who groups them-self with Feminism is not someone that should be considered a friend. The foundation of feminism is to gain political and social benefit through claims of "unfairness" by being a perpetual victim. Supporting anyone who enables this behavior is doing no less of a harm than someone who enables and feeds another person's drug addiction. Positive change in society cannot happen when the group in …
/r/MensRights04/06/10 08:54 AM
1

Can you, by any chance, link to any anti-women policies by MR types of people which are at least similar to the kinds of anti-men policies being passed by feminists? Surely, if there is some kind of equivalence between the two groups it should be universal; if not it might mean that there is some real reasoning behind one camp.
/r/MensRights04/06/10 08:28 AM
-1

I really don't care anymore. You have no real means of justifying why your opinion matters and more than I do my own. You're establishing yourself to be superior without any credit to justify it, so there really isn't any merit to justify going on any further. You have deliberately avoided addressing a few of the key points - perhaps it was missing my subtlety - so I can't see you really being interested in discussing anything. None the less, in your frantic trolling you left yourself in a contr…
/r/MensRights25/05/10 12:45 AM
4

That is a very ... unexpected response. The expected response would, incidentally, be the correct answer: "That must be why you're still single." A great example is with a gal I was talking to recently. I said something that was a pet peeve to her. I asked her if she had a user's guide to go with her so I could bypass the mine-field of talking to her. She didn't like that much.
/r/MensRights24/05/10 09:24 PM
0

You're a genius, prove me wrong; specifically about Feminism.
/r/MensRights24/05/10 07:46 PM
3

Not all women are Feminists. That's the fallacy you seem to be embracing. All of the women I know who aren't feminists are pretty good people. All of the feminists I know are not.
/r/MensRights24/05/10 07:39 PM
-1

There's some fine Glenn Becking right there. Punching a grown adult is not the same as punching a 4 year old. I'm done with that part of the conversation. We seem to agree on this, but you're insistent upon one-upping the point.
/r/MensRights24/05/10 07:38 PM
1

I disagree. Feminism is a movement to try and bring the rights of women to the rights of men and exposing the irrational social differences between the two sexes. This would be Egalitarianism or Humanism, as they're based on equalizing any differences; the closest to the Civil Rights Movement. It isn't about some boogeyman group, but rather "there is inequality of rights between groups. There should neither be inequality of rights nor the kinds of segregation of groups that we have." Versus the …
/r/MensRights24/05/10 07:33 PM
5

Exposed? It's been pretty obvious that I consider ignoring female abuse upon others, including children, to be a bad thing.
/r/MensRights24/05/10 07:19 PM
1

Listen here, you raging idiot I reviewed your history and realized you're a troll who asserts themselves as a high level intellectual genius based upon the idea that you just are. Feminism is a hate movement, based upon villifying men. Men's rights is a reaction to the scapegoating of Feminism and does not fix anything by simply being a feminist-apologist. If you were as much of a genius as you try to portray yourself to be, you might recognize that. Further if it's wrong, you might be intellige…
/r/MensRights24/05/10 07:14 PM
2

Child abuse is MUCH different that spousal abuse. You are wrong. Abuse, is wrong. Period. The results of different abuses are different and with children have a higher impact with more long term consequences for everyone. Not only did I never say that moms should always have custody, I don't believe that. So not only are you criticizing me for a stance I did not take, you're criticizing the judge for doing the same thing. I did not state that you stated this. It was from the front page of the ar…
/r/MensRights24/05/10 07:10 PM
1

We're talking about child abuse, not spousal abuse. You're remapping the problem now to dodge the issue. Abuse is abuse. No, you're just not that smart. How is THIS article or this discussion a symptom of anything except a tragedy? You're reading something into it that's not there because you want to use the story to show that women abuse their children too, which we know already. The father indicated a potential problem and expressed concerns while coming to a settling. People shrugged, and dis…
/r/MensRights24/05/10 06:53 PM
4

Being Pro men's rights means not blindly eating misandrist trash or ignoring examples of female abuse upon children, fourth rate waste of flesh. Go back to /2X and keep raging about "The Patriarchy" oppressing you with it's penis.
/r/MensRights24/05/10 06:47 PM
0

Okay you have to be trolling at this point. Poe's law is in effect.
/r/MensRights24/05/10 06:18 PM
5

Statistically, the majority of child abusers are men. Like it or not, that's how it is. Source please. Popular belief is not the same as actual fact. You're just assuming that we believe that, where's the evidence? From dismissive individuals who blow off subjects into forms that conform to their own positions: You know what I feel sick about? That this kid's death has turned into an anti-woman rally over here. "I don't believe this to be any indicator of a greater symptom. A men's-rights subred…
/r/MensRights24/05/10 06:11 PM
4

Your dismissiveness in your top comment inferred that this is only gaining attention because of it's "anti woman rally" nature rather than another example of the women-can-do-no-wrong ideology. I don't know anyone who believes that child abuse is male dominated. I find this hard to believe. Either you've been living in a cave or you're intentionally trolling. Have you ever read any articles which have been posted in /MR? How about the misandry flowing out of /2X? Maybe the general media blitz th…
/r/MensRights24/05/10 05:53 PM
-1

Because if there is one thing we should do in our efforts to raise awareness that "child abuse isn't caused by men only" it is to ignore cases where women are perpetrators. There's some /2X logic right there.
/r/MensRights24/05/10 05:30 PM
1

I see a red-orangeish up arrow on my view.
/r/MensRights23/05/10 10:04 PM
29

-I should pay for everything because she deserves it. -I should be over 6 feet tall and athletic. -I should have no consideration for her body size. Physical attraction is meaningless, especially when she departs from healthy to barn. -I should have a dick made of chocolate which ejaculates money. -I should sell all of my things that are of no interest to her, and replace them with things which interest her. -I should limit the kinds of knowledge I enjoy to what she approves so that we can conti…
/r/MensRights23/05/10 06:09 PM
1

Eh 1/5. The effort was there but the insult impact is negligible under the shadow of your own ineptitude and failure. You really should go back to /2X though. You can be safe and have your self-image maintained regardless of your failures.
/r/MensRights20/05/10 10:03 PM
7

Good riddance! Hopefully this continues towards the ending Feminism's influence and ideology of perpetual victimhood.
/r/MensRights20/05/10 08:07 PM
0

Well there is the response I expect from a Feminist. "You can't prove anything!" <proof> "You're an asshole." You got called out, shown to be wrong and now you're trying to rewrite the problem so that you don't look to be as much of an idiot as you are. Sorry, but no. You lost. I read the article and found no mention that the person's sex. For the record, any girls I have known (and I have known 2) with a "Bree" name had it spelled, "Brie." Like the cheese, or that which is closest in similarity…
/r/MensRights20/05/10 07:06 PM
4

Fair treatment! Equal rights! She's gonna get punished if we follow those ideas? Whoa there not so fast! She's just an innocent victim of The Patriarchy! Pussy pass wins again!
/r/MensRights20/05/10 05:41 PM
2

Yes actually. One that I can mention off the top of my head is Breehn Burns (did you know that Bree is short for Breehn among other names?). http://www.breehnburns.com/ I guess it's my non-sexist nature to let it be ambiguous and not assign gender to everything. As for the voices, it's nice of you not to define who you'll pick in advance. It lets you skirt around any citations I make later on. "Oh no they're not true feminists. " repeat on an infinite loop. Same feminist shit, different day.
/r/MensRights19/05/10 10:23 PM
-3

That doesn't mean I think it's good. I'm not a fucking feminist. Sigh. Okay. From now on, I'm treating you like a rapist, because you have equal potential of being one. Do unto others and all that, I'll treat you like you treat me. If you really think that I haven't raped a man financially yet just because I haven't yet, then you have to admit that you only haven't raped a woman yet because you haven't yet. As I just indicated you're dissonance is with laws that enable one group and punish anoth…
/r/MensRights19/05/10 08:42 PM
-4

And you still exhibit the cognitive dissonance that would make Hitler cringe. Men Raping people is illegal. Women financially/socially raping men is legal. Feminist equality: this is good. If we were in public, and you pointed towards me and claimed rape, I would be punished because rape is illegal per what the law states. When it came to light that no such act occurred, little to no recourse would happen. With an added benefit, that I would probably have the rest of my life ruined. This is a co…
/r/MensRights19/05/10 08:32 PM
0

How would you like it if I said, "Oh, you're a man, so you must be the one responsible for women not getting promotions and being sexually harassed; you must think women should get back in the kitchen and are nothing more than baby-making machines." I've heard that argument with enough frequency it's equivalent to telling me, "Nice weather today." A person within the boundaries of society (meaning one who plays by the defined rules) exists in such a manner that anything within those boundaries i…
/r/MensRights19/05/10 08:21 PM
4

Odd, I couldn't find anything in the article to confirm that this president is female (or is it a female-only org?), nor could I find out any information from AWARE's own site. From their website's statements, DV is a women's issue only, and since no women were harmed from this coordinator's action it should be just fine. Only men abuse right? It might be worth defining what you consider a "leading feminist" role to be, before we have to go into the "No true Scottsman" argument.
/r/MensRights19/05/10 08:04 PM
-2

My conclusions of what, exactly? Because you're very angry, and seem to hate all women, categorizing us as man-enslaving child-murderers who are nothing but selfish. Misogyny hurts the cause, because it makes even people who agree with you want to dismiss and disregard you, much less the people you should be trying to convince. You appear to be embracing the disconnect that other feminists do, with a brand of one-sided equality. The laws which we're all subjected to treat men as inherent villain…
/r/MensRights19/05/10 07:55 PM
0

Fallacy is a word used by people who have some level of debate. It isn't limited to an internet asshole who sometimes decides to be coherent. :)
/r/MensRights19/05/10 07:10 PM
0

Which is pretty much my beef with this article. It's written with a belief bias over an objective context that can be argued.
/r/MensRights19/05/10 07:09 PM
2

It may require a better definition of the group to grasp the intent. The author may see the /MR group as a collection of individuals with no cohesive direction and as such try to steer them into a direction he believes to be more functional. From a mob into a Choir so to speak.
/r/MensRights19/05/10 07:00 PM
-4

It seems women use the Misogyny label these days whenever a guy disagrees with them. Look at the Legal system and how it processes men though it in comparison to women and then assert that your conclusions are still true. The brand of western feminism /2X claims doesn't exist is found well rooted to fucking over men under false notions of women being superior by some arbitrary metric by creating misandrist policies. Accumulate enough garbage from such a system and people will eventually get piss…
/r/MensRights19/05/10 06:58 PM
2

Don't worry, the pussy pass will get her out pretty quickly. The patriarchy is just being sexist and oppressive to these fine folk, and leading feminist voices will help with the appeal!
/r/MensRights19/05/10 06:49 PM
7

Yup. And this is where many guys hit a wall. He might want to ask out a gal, and instead of rejection/acceptance, it's acceptance/jail. Equality is so wonderful (when it's one sided)! The guy in this article should have been suspicious of the female coworker, but instead he put her on his level and this is the natural consequence. Hopefully he will have learned from the mistake and keep a divide between people he can socialize with on his level and the group of people who are entitled, sensitive…
/r/MensRights19/05/10 06:42 PM
-1

I'm not sure where you're getting a lot of this. Sex can lead to pregnancy, it's a consequence of the act. A woman may become pregnant, regardless of birth control. That's just how it works. The discussion isn't whether a woman can become pregnant. The discussion is the issue that women have been given legal power to make slaves of men, yet if any man were to enact the reverse it would be the next worst thing to Hitler. Feminism loves this brand of "equality," and continues to bring about more l…
/r/MensRights19/05/10 04:43 PM
-1

I'm stating that the pregnancy resulted from both people willfully engaging in sex, versus a situation where someone was raped.
/r/MensRights19/05/10 04:26 PM
-6

Indeed, it is good that fathers are having a little more attention paid to them. The end result is the same though. MR isn't about just the happy thoughts you want to have, and you are not so all-encompassing that you have a monopoly on mentioned subjects. You're welcome to play a game of hide-and-go-fuck-yourself though.
/r/MensRights19/05/10 05:30 AM
-6

Did you get lost on your way to /2X or is your nerdrage spent on the uselessness of non-feminist college programs?
/r/MensRights19/05/10 05:22 AM
5

I made this comment else where, but I think it bears repeating. As long as we apply unborn in a manner the article wants, the courts will always be "think of the children." With that said... Some context is necessary to setup an answer for this question: I'm going to exclusively assume the pregnancy was a voluntary act by both parties. (This includes women who regret it the next day. That isn't rape, it's an excuse.) Second, I will ignore feminism's idea of one-sided equality. Equality has to be…
/r/MensRights19/05/10 05:11 AM
1

It finally sets in that he's screwed for life, at the mercy of a thing with a princess complex, and a list of entitlements that will bring him no joy. The imminent divorce will be the only relief he'll see until he dies.
/r/MensRights19/05/10 04:55 AM
-1

Yup. Prostitutes, in the traditional sense, are the only honest women in the world. $17.5k would have made him very happy with a gal that would have better utilized it than a self-entitled narcissist snatch.
/r/MensRights18/05/10 08:05 PM
-7

It's a feminist tool for social engineering. The old drum about women being treated as inferior has worn out, and this is the new "tool of change" to fill the vacuum. It fits perfectly with the need to be a perpetual victim and nothing more. Feminists do not care about the collateral damage it causes, so long as they get the benefit.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 08:11 PM
10

Wage gap: it only exists when you prune out data that disputes your idiotic claims. It's another standard procedure from Feminism's PR book.
/r/MensRights13/05/10 07:02 PM
5

This is really nice to hear. Though as women continue to work in the direction of fatherless households, this kind of thing will be inevitable though.
/r/MensRights10/05/10 02:04 AM
-1

It doesn't matter though. The word rape has been raped by the people calling everything rape so it has become meaningless. If I hear a woman got raped somewhere, I'll write her off as just regretting her decision and trying to uphold her bullshit social image.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 08:30 PM
1

Since Feminism defines rape so broadly as to become inclusive of "any male act which might get into the pants of a woman," we should apply a little equality and do the same with women. As such, any act by a woman upon a man to derive financial gain - be it through coercion or sexual deception, is rape upon the man. (Which is obviously inclusive to the baby-daddy issue) Therefore all women are rapists, more-so then men could ever be. The only reason why it's okay for them, is because Feminism has…
/r/MensRights09/05/10 05:15 PM
3

So what is the typical answer you give? If it isn't "Stay the hell away," I will be disappointed but curious.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 08:29 AM
2

I love it. In Feminism's crusade they've been getting closer to this result. It would bring me joy to see the day when these women are only left with their opposites of the middle east. Hopefuls aside, I've already adopted this behavior. It's all a part of covering one's own ass. If a gal doesn't like you, simply showing interest counts as sexual harassment. That gets classified as a sex crime. The rest snowballs to hell.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 08:28 AM
3

Rape charges carry more burdens than those of the courtroom. Society brands people charged with rape as monsters, regardless of their court asserted "not guilty" or "guilty." Proving a fabrication is harder than proving no rape occurred. With a falsification, you have to prove a motive. Motive unfortunately isn't just probable cause.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 08:23 AM
-2

Oh okay then. So there are only one or two similar examples like this? ... Nope. It's the standard and a recurring theme. Women are rapists, enabled by feminism.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 08:03 AM
4

And a group of feminists in /2X get wet over the heroics of their sister. We should have a coefficient of votes for a District attourney. For each False-rape claim they take on and don't do their homework, they lose 20% of their votes. Compounded per violation. The only way the feminists are going to quit this shit is by making the cost of prosecuting this rhetoric unpopular.
/r/MensRights08/05/10 05:56 AM
0

Color me surprised. And here the feminist rhetoric always swears up and down that these beautiful snowflakes are nothing but pure honesty. The great part about it, is that the feminists have been calling everything rape to the extent that it is beginning to be devalued and lose its meaning as a word.
/r/MensRights07/05/10 01:53 AM
7

So they just made Marriage Illegal? Nice.
/r/MensRights06/05/10 11:59 PM
1

The girls are doing just fine with their own social groups.
/r/MensRights05/05/10 08:21 AM
0

I used to have source comments of that to link to, but again, my idiocy of not bookmarking it and instead referring to the comments look up has caught up to me. Hang out in /MR long enough and you'll see them come out of the woodwork.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 05:23 PM
1

Q wandered over and brought her intellectual dishonesty with her, then began starting up crap. When the same is done in her subreddit, those people just get banned. Much of her arguing amounted to, "I assert X" someone countering and then, "well that's bullshit, prove it." The onus is placed on the person of the argument until she gets called on it, then she skitters about trying to either maliciously strawman the person, or ignores them because she got checked. Dissent is more than simply "disa…
/r/MensRights04/05/10 04:38 PM
4

Great find. This is the kind of useful study that gets feminists pissed off because it exposes their politically backed sexism. It would be nice if it linked the sources used for the numbers.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 05:00 AM
0

Feminists had a great planning department to set that one up.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 04:11 AM
-1

I'm stating it based on the response of /MR people to the /2Xers that leak into here. I do not venture into /2X as I have no place there just as a Black man would be dumb to attend a Klan gathering. While I am certain of such cases where the /MR guys get downvoted into oblivion in /2X, I have apparently failed in understanding reddit's comment system as those threads which i participated in and used for references are gone. I had some rather excellent specimins from the likes of Qareth to boot, …
/r/MensRights04/05/10 02:39 AM
-1

/2X partakes in what is in essence a forum invasion. The Feminists come out of the woodwork and then go on a trolling spree within this subreddit to basically try to squash out dissenting voices. When /MR makes contact with anything touched by /2X it is usually a product of something Misandrist going on from that waste pit. Where people are, there exists politics. /2X isn't immune from this and hemorrhages particular beliefs readily with its own down-vote brigade at the ready for anyone who disa…
/r/MensRights04/05/10 12:06 AM
-7

So you're a fan of the Salem Witch Trials then? If a simple accusation is all that it takes to prosecute, then you're not only doing harm to society you're also harming individuals; a very reckless position.
/r/MensRights03/05/10 04:06 PM
1

don't get me wrong, but she was pregnant, hormonal, and most of all, scared of being out on the street and not acting rational. Welcome to equality, ass. That means traditional "girl" excuses don't work. /MR has a bad rep with princesses because there is zero reason to tolerate this shit. Fuckwit got exactly what she deserved, and hopefully her life is ruined with her unwanted brat.
/r/MensRights30/04/10 04:23 AM
1

I'm either a really nice person in real life and just a grouch online, a person who is as much of an ass in real life as he in online because he expects people to show some iota of intelligence or value. You get two guesses. For an additional clue, a person is a reflection of their environment. As for the "who said these women were feminists?" 1. Feel entitled to another persons' efforts (even if they were negligible at best here) 2. Bitch that you're entitled, based on the fact the person you'r…
/r/MensRights30/04/10 04:00 AM
1

You may be right about the Jim Crow being a charicature. I couldn't find anything on a specific fellow so I'm wrong there. In the meantime... Hi, wallstreet recently? "We're going to just ignore/do-away-with these certain sets of rules for you guys because we just know you won't exploit them!" Well, here's another case of the kind of willful ignorance which enables all the shit in our political environment.
/r/MensRights30/04/10 03:52 AM
1

As if there is a difference...
/r/MensRights30/04/10 01:01 AM
1

It was equal because I treated them exactly like I would if they were male.
/r/MensRights30/04/10 12:22 AM
1

You didn't have to support Jim Crowe to benefit from his policies if you were white.
/r/MensRights30/04/10 12:17 AM
0

You must have missed a century of hospitality based social norms. Or you're being intentionally obtuse.
/r/MensRights30/04/10 12:14 AM
0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act as one example?
/r/MensRights30/04/10 12:02 AM
1

what legal policies, they're being tried for assault and battery? Pick-and-choose much? And quit pretending to be a psychic. Holy shit! Looking at trends and drawing conclusions is pretending to be psychic! Well shit, no wonder the religious right is so damned afraid of science, they think it's witchcraft! Damned repeatability!
/r/MensRights29/04/10 05:51 AM
0

Feminism has nothing to do with equal rights, it's arguing for better treatment for the female sex upon the lie that they're perpetual victims. Equal rights activists would be be egalitarianism. Every other point has been beaten to death already.
/r/MensRights29/04/10 12:43 AM
0

When the city planners for New York city were doing their work back in the earlier parts of the 1900s, they ever had any explicit policies which were racist. Instead, what they would do is architect things based off things white people would have and black people wouldn't. For example, bridges and overpasses were created that would be sufficiently high for a car to pass through, but impassible by a bus. Poor people (who the majority were black at the time) couldn't gain access to those facilitie…
/r/MensRights29/04/10 12:39 AM
0

Protections? Swap sexes. If two guys were to do this to a girl guess what the result would be? Would that result have any similarity to what these women will get? Hell no. Guess what group crusaded on the idea that men are violent oppressive rapists and enabled bad law which placed guilt by association of being male as a valid policy?
/r/MensRights28/04/10 05:47 AM
-1

Meh. You get exhausted with a group being a perpetual batch of victims you stop giving a damned about their cause and only pay attention to how they're trying to screw you over for their causes - because they're beautiful snowflakes who are entitled to ... whatever.
/r/MensRights28/04/10 05:46 AM
0

Just a gullible sap with a Y chromosome. Commit an act of violence? His fault. Get really wasted one night and sleep with him, only to regret it? Claim rape. Want a free ride for a few years, get knocked up with some other guys kid you're doing on the side and claim Mr. Sap to be the daddy. No questions and automatic guilt on his part. Just claim in your victimhood.
/r/MensRights28/04/10 05:36 AM
-3

Call out a racist on their racist acts and they'll harass you, point out their reaction and it furthers it. I can't lose because there isn't a rational justification to say "this group here is evil, this other group is good. We call this equality."
/r/MensRights28/04/10 05:32 AM
-1

Let me know when you act on that. I'll send you a cake you should eat with great care.
/r/MensRights27/04/10 10:04 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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