TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

XenoX101 Archive

View 4 posts and 514 comments by XenoX101 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
12

Believe me when I say that if you can talk to women, speak maturely and intelligently, dress reasonably well (doesn't have to be expensive) and have good hygiene your lack of wealth is not going to be a significant factor for many women. Wealth is only one part of the equation. Look at how many criminals have women sending them letters in jail and asking them to marry them. How much money do you think those criminals have? Whether you can turn women on will always outweigh the amount of money in…
/r/MensRights03/06/26 09:41 AM
-10

Bro it's instagram, not much better than twitter as far as shitposting goes. I don't think any of them are downplaying the severity, just acknowledging that she's attractive enough that some men would still shoot their shot (which if that is indeed her pic she obviously is).
/r/MensRights14/03/26 02:56 PM
2

They are absolutely welcome here, because they are doing more for men than the feminists that leftists align themselves with and elevate. Have you forgotten how we got here in the first place? Where do you think the term toxic masculinity and the pejorative "straight white male" come from? These are products of the woke ideology designed to "dismantle the patriarchy", and are a big part of why men don't get a fair shake in society.
/r/MensRights22/12/25 03:49 PM
4

Banning catcalling is how unattractive feminists prevent attractive women from feeling validated by their beauty.
/r/MensRights05/12/25 07:23 AM
19

Always remember a woman would never reject Brad Pitt for an ick, she would just think it's cute. Icks are a post-rationalisation for rejecting men they would have already rejected for not having enough value to them, be it in looks, charisma/game, social status, wealth, height, or some other more meaningful quality that they are judging you by. They may not consciously realise it, but it's the reality regardless. So instead of focusing on what icks you may/may not have, focus on the stuff that m…
/r/MensRights02/10/25 02:58 PM
16

Yeah if anything this article sides with most of the sentiments on this sub, surprisingly.
/r/MensRights02/10/25 02:47 PM
8

The best one I heard is when people comment that Lizzo is "so beautiful", watch their face turn when you tell them "You look just like Lizzo". Shows what they truly think; the fat positivity movement is all for show.
/r/MensRights19/09/25 09:59 AM
-4

It would be massively hypocritical of me to demand single digits while I was nowhere close to that. No it wouldn't because men and women aren't the same. Men don't give sex the same significance as women, which is why gay men tend to have ridiculously high body counts (hundreds is not uncommon). Men are also less likely to get STDs than women, making it less risky to sleep around provided you aren't having anal sex (the HIV risk associated with anal obviously changes things) and using a condom. …
/r/MensRights26/07/25 02:34 PM
11

In a vacuum it does. But with societal context it doesn’t Well then it doesn't because we don't live in a vacuum. You could probably say that it appears to favour men, but ultimately ends up evening out with consideration for the fact that men pay for the bulk of things in a relationship.
/r/MensRights23/07/25 06:52 AM
19

it kinda favors men, but not extremely. Does it? Men are expected to pay for first dates, be the bread winner and cover more of the household expenses, buy expensive engagement rings. So even if they end up receiving more after their marriage ends, they would have paid more than the woman to get there, and will likely pay more than the woman in the future on future dates and relationships.
/r/MensRights23/07/25 06:49 AM
4

Those pesky men not wanting the cops called on them amirite? So entitled.
/r/MensRights20/07/25 04:15 AM
2

That assumes he broke up with her rather than the other way around. And statistically women are more likely to initiate divorce than men, so the guy isn't necessarily genetically superior (though since her market valur has gone down, they may still be).
/r/MensRights07/07/25 12:06 PM
2

I think there are four necessary prerequisites that can make it work: She is smoking hot, such that you wouldn't be able to get this type of woman if she had no kids The kid is old enough (e.g. 13+) and not a headache, so you don't have to be a full-time parent to someone else's child, as that would be a deal breaker for most. Basically it shouldn't impact your time in any meaningful way The woman is mature/reasonable/etc. Again this comes down to not negatively impacting your life in any way. A…
/r/MensRights07/07/25 06:33 AM
1

network with strippers, call girls, find girls that like your company. You may or may not find a soul mate but you're going to get way more action than crying about how you aren't getting matches on a dating app. Many of those girls have issues that led them to such professions, e.g. drugs, mental health problems, etc. that will make your life difficult if you get too close to them, so a smart wealthy businessman isn't going to entertain this type of company unless he can be absolutely sure it's…
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:49 AM
0

If you already have $0 to your name then divorce costs you nothing, and barring ill health you always have the opportunity to move upward. If you lose millions or billions of dollars on the other hand, it is going to be far harder for you to gain it back, such that you might never see that money again given how substantial the amount is. Yes you will be better off, but the amount you lost is infinitely greater.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:46 AM
1

A billionaire didn't become a billionaire by being this frivolous with their money and pursuing short term pleasure over long term gains.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:43 AM
12

Sure, jokes are fine. It's the "men are trash", "men are pigs", "kill all men" remarks that are obviously not jokes which are problematic.
/r/MensRights15/06/25 08:32 PM
15

So 100 women vs teen pregnancy, 100 women vs logical reasoning are "harmless jokes", They are jokes yes. but Sabrina calling men "pigs" in her new video is misandrist These are not jokes. Sabrina is trying to making an edgy statement about men.
/r/MensRights15/06/25 08:02 PM
1

Man's life has always been about struggle. Look at all the jobs we used to have, many of them involved hard labour and long hours in the field. Medicine was also worse, diseases and wars were more common. The flipside is we have always perservered and overcome the odds to some extent. That is the hero's journey and the archetype most men aspire to. So don't look at it as an insurmountable obstacle, but a challenge you must aim to overcome in your quest to be the best man you can be. Use it as fu…
/r/MensRights13/06/25 05:26 AM
23

It is never up to the woman to say "no", "I'd rather not", or "not today", the man has to pre-empt any escalation with the question, and if he doesn't he gets charged. It is always on the man, never on the woman. This is what sexism looks like in 2025.
/r/MensRights07/06/25 10:27 AM
3

Weight filter won't make a big (heh) difference because the chads are only swiping on profiles with body pics anyway, and those that aren't chads have already left the apps because they aren't getting swiped right on (something like the top 10%-20% of guys get 80% of the right swipes).
/r/MensRights02/06/25 04:27 PM
9

It was already over for short people on dating apps so this won't change much. Most people that aren't having luck on these apps (such as short guys or any guy that isn't an 8/10 or better) are simply leaving from swiping fatigue.
/r/MensRights02/06/25 04:24 PM
9

That's because that was the example they are trying to use to win over men. Whether conservatives support abortion or not is utterly irrelevant to the fact that this is not a men's issue. Though it is comically ironic that you - presumably a democrat - are continuing to push the point of abortion on a men's rights sub 😂. You've learnt nothing.
/r/MensRights31/05/25 05:54 PM
21

What? My comment has nothing to do with the legality of abortion, it's about the stupidity of democrats using this to win votes as though it's a men's issue. You do realise what sub you are on right?
/r/MensRights31/05/25 04:15 PM
67

Only the democrats would be stupid enough to talk about a freaking women's issue in an attempt to convince more men to vote for them. Amazing.
/r/MensRights31/05/25 05:47 AM
26

Democrats: White men are the problem! Democrats: Oh and uhh.. please vote for us.
/r/MensRights31/05/25 05:42 AM
0

Maybe. Parole is part of the normal process though even for men unless you're convicted of something truly heinous, so it's disingenuous to say "sentenced to 4.5 years" when it is still 7. A man would get the chance for parole as well in this position, even if the original sentence would be longer.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 07:14 AM
1

Well she set someone on fire for making a mildly offensive remark, I wouldn't be so sure that she won't go off at someone in prison, as her inmates are going to be far less friendly even in a women's only prison.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 07:06 AM
8

I agree it's too low, attempted murder has a sentence of around 20 years in Australia, with a minimum of 7 years without parole.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 05:05 PM
6

Where did you get 4.5 years? This article says she got 7 years. I'm guessing because she is eligible for parole in 2029 they are assuming she will get out then, there is no guarantee that will happen however.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 03:46 PM
3

She ain't it man, look at the later photos in the article.
/r/MensRights16/05/25 07:44 AM
7

Domestic violence is already illegal, so I don't know what legislation they are hoping for. The fact that some of the women claim they spent years dealing with DV shows that they didn't report it to the police, which makes any new legislation useless. I also wonder why they would stay in relationships or situations that involve DV for so many years. As much as the man is wrong to assault the woman (if that is indeed what happened), the woman is wrong to stay with the man. You can't complain abou…
/r/MensRights13/05/25 05:43 AM
8

It is a myth that there are fixed biological or innate traits by gender, because trans women are women and trans men are men Well there I disagree, because if there is one thing humans have a 99.9% accuracy with it's differentiating between men and women. And even amongst women who are not trans, they don't necessarily possess all the same hormonal profiles and reproductive function/organs. There are obviously exceptions and I made that clear in my original comment. That doesn't change the fact …
/r/MensRights13/05/25 04:52 AM
8

Your flyer has "fixed/innate biological traits" by gender as a "myth" though, so you're contradicting yourself here.
/r/MensRights13/05/25 04:40 AM
8

There are innate differences between men and women though, even on a psychological level, and anyone who has spoken to people knows this. Sure there are exceptions and social conditioning can play a role, but denying there are any fixed or innate characteristics is naive. Objectively we know that men have on average more testosterone, which alone will have an impact on their risk-taking and aggressive behaviours. So there's no point in arguing men and women are equal, it doesn't help in any way,…
/r/MensRights13/05/25 04:13 AM
-4

It could be that you're not showing interest first by looking at them or trying to get closer to them. Women are more risk averse than men due to having less testosterone, so they are less likely to make the first move on a guy even if it's simply holding eye contact. If you try to be the first to engage you may be surprised how many women are receptive to it, because even the basic act of holding eye contact or approaching them makes you more attractive, as it shows them you are confident in yo…
/r/MensRights16/04/25 03:14 PM
-5

the problem is what is "clearly" never is explained Well if they don't look happy, aren't looking at you, are giving you one word answers or ignoring you, are trying to walk away from you, or look uncomfortable about the situation then it's probably time to walk away. Basically if they are making it difficult for you to communicate with them, it's a sign that they don't want this to continue. That's likely the only scenario where I can see a girl making the case for sexual harassment if you pers…
/r/MensRights16/04/25 03:09 PM
12

9% seems a bit high. I think if you only ask girls out once you gauge some level of interest through their body language, level of eye contact, tone of voice, etc. then you should be fine. The guys that get in trouble are more likely to be the ones that are aggressive and/or ignorant and try to force the issue even when the girl clearly isn't interested. Even if it's on the edge it's unlikely she will press charges, there has to be a reason and that's going to be that you are making her uncomfor…
/r/MensRights16/04/25 08:50 AM
27

Bear in mind the only ones commenting like this are the trashiest of the trash. There are decent women out there, you just have to go looking for them, and then have the courage to tell them to kick rocks if they end up being controlling/manipulative/disrespectful/etc. even if they're attractive.
/r/MensRights11/04/25 10:10 AM
2

That scene would never see the light of day today.
/r/MensRights11/04/25 03:36 AM
5

Never said it was an issue.
/r/MensRights04/04/25 07:32 PM
9

It's definitely both, you can't tell me men aren't dating Brazilian and Colombian women because they're exotic (read: tanned, curvy, speaking seductively in Spanish), or that there isn't a subsection of men that fetishize asian women. They aren't likely to admit to this in a formal survey though so you get the "traditional values" shtick (which is perhaps partly true but not the whole answer).
/r/MensRights04/04/25 06:05 AM
8

I think this has more to do with your mother having 6 kids than with being a mum being inherently exhausting.
/r/MensRights29/03/25 11:27 AM
1

The attempts are irrelevant because it means the person did not commit suicide and is still alive. You would rather have 100 attempts than 1 suicide because in all 100 attempts the person is still alive, while in the 1 suicide they are not. So it makes no difference whether they attempted it or not. If they really wanted to kill themselves they would have chosen one of the many methods that are guaranteed to succeed.
/r/MensRights09/03/25 05:08 PM
176

But muh wage gap, watch as noone cares anymore now that it's men falling behind.
/r/MensRights03/03/25 12:04 PM
12

Women: Put off by the words "ambitious" and "driven" Also Women: wHy Do wE gEt PaId LeSs!? I'm surprised this article was published actually, as it insinuates that women are not driven, ambitious, or entrepreneurial. Try saying that in public and see the reaction you get.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 04:59 AM
1

Intelligence is 75% hereditary
/r/MensRights21/01/25 04:40 AM
16

It's simple, women are on average physically weaker than men, therefore the only way they can subvert a man is through manipulation, coercion, and other psychological tricks. The problem is because we live in the #BelieveAllWomen era, these tactics have a much higher rate of success than they should normally have. So moral of the story is be very careful of who you pair up with, because the old adage couldn't be more true today: don't stick your dick in crazy.
/r/MensRights29/12/24 08:55 AM
6

Even though young women out-earn young men in some cities, fuck that noise.
/r/MensRights14/12/24 08:10 PM
5

Damn, unlucky, she sounds like quite the catch. /s
/r/MensRights14/12/24 08:08 PM
3

Uncalled for to be fired for asking someone to kill themselves? No I'm pretty sure that's very called for, what kind of employer would want their staff to be that unhinged?
/r/MensRights11/12/24 11:52 AM
1

You still need a sperm and an egg from a male and woman respectively, there's no getting around that. Sure you could reduce the numbers needed by storing them in bulk, but you still need genetic diversity from many different sources to prevent extinction. And if both man and woman are involved, then legally it doesn't make much difference whether the baby is in an external womb or not. The only difference an external womb would make is to abortion, where the argument of 'my body my choice' would…
/r/MensRights25/11/24 12:30 PM
1

In reddit land if you go against the hivemind you need to post sources, otherwise you will have the mob come after you including the moderators, which remember are not paid so their moderation skills may be questionable if the sub doesn't do its due diligence in picking good moderators. This one supports your claim, as does this one. It's still possible that you get banned, but less likely because they have don't have as much of a leg to stand on if you back up your opinions with facts from cred…
/r/MensRights24/11/24 05:07 PM
1

Sure but it's a step in the right direction and should be commended for that. Doesn't mean that more can't be done but rome wasn't built in a day right? Would you rather more or less of this type of thing?
/r/MensRights23/11/24 12:45 PM
17

It's 525K now. Also Elon Musk responded.
/r/MensRights20/11/24 08:45 AM
2

and you and the rest of the XYs on this thread have translated that to rape Nobody is translating it to rape here, but the friends clearly thought it was in the vein of either sexual assault or rape, because they distanced themselves from him after the event. That's the reason they are alleging he committed suicide. She needs to talk about it to get partner ? You don’t even know if she did or not. If she came out after to say she felt uncomfortable it means either she failed to communicate this …
/r/MensRights11/11/24 05:01 PM
3

And it made me slightly terrified, especially when she said I was 'lucky' she wasn't the sort of girl to get me 'into trouble' over it. Women can be manipulative as well, particularly because they usually can't physically overpower a man, they are more likely to resort to manipulation instead. So it may be both true that she was into it on the night and unhappy with it afterwards for whatever reason, but since she didn't show signs she gaslights you into thinking that because she made a comment …
/r/MensRights11/11/24 03:42 PM
3

She did agree to it, that's why she said she felt "uncomfortable" rather than that he raped her. Because according to your buddies on this thread, she can’t even have a negative thought about the guy before , during or after She is, but she needs to communicate this to her partner so that he can stop. She’s not allowed to talk about it even though woman are SO emotional and must talk about everything, but not if it involves sex . Ok gotcha She is not only allowed but encouraged to talk about it …
/r/MensRights11/11/24 06:42 AM
9

Then why did she agree to the encounter? Why do women get no accountability for their actions? Feel uncomfortable? Tell the fucking guy! He's not a mind-reader! And what if he is autistic? God help him, it will be impossible for him to gain the confidence to know at all times whether the woman is feeling comfortable, simply because we don't hold women accountable for their inaction of simply communicating with men how they feel. Even the act of asking for consent is a failure to hold women accou…
/r/MensRights10/11/24 06:48 AM
38

It's simple, if men were truly evil by nature, the patriarchy would have resulted in no laws against rape, murder, or sexual assault of a woman. Yet we have the opposite, more laws against rape and sexual assault against woman than against men - where some countries don't even recognise that it exists or downplay it when it does. Not only is this true, but it is true in virtually all countries and virtually all time in history, even when there was not a single woman in power. So if anyone ever q…
/r/MensRights17/08/24 04:18 PM
13

The company published an open letter to the banned user on its blog. “We’re going to continue to build a world that makes small-minded, misogynist boys like you outdated,” it said." "Damn, they're after my money AND neurotic."
/r/MensRights08/08/24 08:04 PM
14

1 year for killing a 10 year old child is fucking ridiculous.
/r/MensRights17/07/24 08:02 AM
0

Yes I've had depression and am well aware of how it manifests. Didn't stop me from doing what I had to do because I was still able to think and act, just made it harder. People are so weak these days that they use every ailment as an excuse to avoid the responsibilities of every day life. It doesn't mean you have to do 100% of your duties when unwell, obviously, that would be unreasonable. But to say depression prevents you from doing 100% of your duties is also unreasonable, that's my point.
/r/MensRights07/06/24 02:33 AM
4

If she does have post-partum she needs to be checked. And if she does not then we can go into abuse. Why is it up to the father to get her wife checked for depression? If it were a man the comments would be "Get some help before your wife leaves you". Nobody would expect the wife to get her husband medical care. Also depression does not physically stop you from doing things. Yes it makes things harder, but if left with no other choice they will do what they need to do because they are still phys…
/r/MensRights06/06/24 01:46 PM
10

These articles are always so myopic, never talking about the potential downsides of their brilliant ideas. It is quite literally men congregating with ideas that led to the creation of the relatively peaceful, advanced civil society that we live in today. Without men congregating there would only be tyranny, since no discussions could be had about the future. Even the systems of safety that are afforded to everyone: the legal system, the healthcare system, the police force, the army, are all a r…
/r/MensRights21/05/24 11:44 AM
1

Also men don't go to the doctor or report symptoms anywhere near as often as women, so take these comparisons with a grain of salt.
/r/MensRights02/05/24 04:48 PM
3

This is all that needs to be said really, anyone choosing the bear is simply being irrational.
/r/MensRights02/05/24 04:37 PM
54

EDIT: I take it all back. Bitch made it all up. She deserves to be put in prison for 99 years. Not the bullshit $240 court costs and mental counseling. It's even worse man, she cut herself and ransacked her own place. This was literally entirely her own creation. She should be in a psych ward: It was later proven Cox cut herself and caused the damage to her home.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 12:05 PM
-1

You make it sound really pathetic, you want men to function like an obedient slave doing what he must do and then going home to cry. If you aren't a slave to your duties then you are a slave to your emotions, which would you prefer? Men can thrive even after civilization collapses, i don't see a problem. Well I can assure you that if our civilisation collapses, the luxury you currently have of being able to let out your emotions in the privacy of your own home will no longer exist. You will have…
/r/MensRights04/04/24 02:45 PM
2

I for one wish it were more normal for me to be able to break down and cry when I feel overwhelmed by my feelings.. I wish I could cry in front of people instead of finding secluded places where my crying wont bother or inconvenience others.. The problem is that men still have duties to uphold even when the world is crumbling, especially those duties that women struggle with doing - the very physically demanding, dangerous roles that are essential to the lifestyle we enjoy. The reason men crying…
/r/MensRights04/04/24 01:28 PM
2

If you "refuse to release" your anger it doesn't build up until you explode. It works the exact opposite: people who engage in activities where they find healthy releases for their anger become angrier. That's not true, Robert Sapolsky mentioned in one of his Stanford biology lectures that punching something produces similar stress relieving hormones as other stress relief activities. And we've known this in the past where when someone is angry they are told to punch a pillow. Unresolved emotion…
/r/MensRights04/04/24 01:21 PM
13

Because they are a special breed that have the determination of a man without the physical attributes to go with it. So they spend their lives doing everything they can to level the playing field, whether that's putting down men under the guise of the patriarchy or lobbying the government to invest more in female only initiatives and campaigns. And even still they resent the unequalness, forever living with a chip on their shoulder.
/r/MensRights27/03/24 09:56 AM
11

With women it's not about whether what you say is valid or not, but the vibe you are giving off. Probably most women would read that and think "This person sounds very negative and confrontational, I don't think we will get along".
/r/MensRights23/03/24 01:16 PM
18

It's because women are not used to having this many options to choose from, they aren't able to come up with a reasonable equation so they simply ask for the best of everything. They also have to estimate how they feel about the guy, because unlike men they aren't drawn to the guy on looks alone. Then they also have to deduct points from the guy because she loses the romantic origin story of how they met since it was done crudely through a dating app. So dating apps end up being possibly the wor…
/r/MensRights23/03/24 01:14 PM
1

Except the post says "tax payers should not pay you to retire" not "men shouldn't retire". Ben Shapiro is a libertarian so he expects people to pay for their own way, which includes retirement. It doesn't mean never retire, it just means don't expect others to foot the bill if you have no physical or mental issue preventing you from working; seems pretty reasonable to me.
/r/MensRights13/03/24 10:44 PM
89

Online dating which is a women's game, high salaries which make it hard for them to date someone poorer than them, feminism which has boosted their ego and reduced their willingness to compromise. It's not surprising at all, especially when society has done precisely nothing to help men step up to the table because male privilege or some bullshit. The only benefit men have in today's society is the internet to inform them of just how fucked they are in virtually every way except for earning pote…
/r/MensRights29/02/24 08:19 AM
28

I don't think this is accurate, lots of guys say "looking sharp" or "nice haircut" or similar to each other, and guys in sports are constantly supporting each other. Maybe if you say something that may be seen as coming on to them like "you're looking stunning" or similarly exaggerated compliments about their appearance, but that's because guys don't want to be seen as gay because it's considered effeminate and emasculating for a straight guy. This is also important because men define themselves…
/r/MensRights27/02/24 11:36 AM
-1

I suspect your comment was /s... but if you were serious then gyms often contain mirrors for that very purpose You realise how many problems there are with this? Just think about it for a second. You have to do the movement while looking at yourself in the mirror and the mirror needs to be in the right angle (most gyms do not have both a side and front mirror, and you need a side mirror for squats and other exercises) and nobody or nothing needs to be obstructing the mirror. It's not feasible. a…
/r/MensRights25/02/24 09:28 AM
-10

So you can't check your form when doing squats or any other exercise? So your PR will never be captured on video? What a short-sighted idea.
/r/MensRights25/02/24 02:00 AM
3

This will surely help with our declining birth rates. Freaking morons.
/r/MensRights11/02/24 12:30 PM
1

The comments about it being close to schools is ridiculous, it's freaking New York, everything is close to everything because there isn't enough space. Notice as well that they provide no alternative solution, showing how little they actually care about helping as opposed to simply complaining.
/r/MensRights15/01/24 01:36 AM
10

Keep your work ‘friendships’ between male coworkers and enjoy your life. Though this can be a career limiting move if your superiors or people you rely on are women, so I would tread carefully - not being friends can at times be more damaging than being friends.
/r/MensRights12/01/24 01:52 AM
74

This is what happens when women get a pussy pass, communities that would have been instantly banned if they had men in them are allowed to flourish. There is no way a community like this would survive if it were men doxxing women they met on a dating website, not even for a second.
/r/MensRights05/01/24 01:16 PM
15

I just can not comprehend how women think. They are in amazing positions, socially superior and have access to the highest education yet they spend their time just thinking about how to ruin everything for everyone, including themselves. They have been brainwashed by critical theory nonsense, it is the only possible explanation for labelling everything as 'misogynistic' or 'racist' without regard for the detail. Because once you see everything as a power dynamic the only thing that matters ironi…
/r/MensRights04/12/23 01:59 PM
14

We expect to work to get what we want out of life. Not only we expect but we love it. The reason the whole sigma grindset meme got so popular is because it taps into the instinctual desire men have to be exceptional and gain power. I am sure there are women who have a similar drive (I personally know some), though it is rare and this can be seen by the gender of people who watch those sigma grindset type motivational videos and the lack of an equivalent in the female sphere.
/r/MensRights03/12/23 11:28 AM
3

But one can highlight a toxic culture and mindset without blanketly attributing it to sex. Even if something is true of many women, that doesn't mean it's because they're women, nor is something that is true of many men necessarily because they're men. But some things can be attributed to sex and can be because of their sex. Men and women have fairly different personalities on average, with women being more neurotic than men for example. Call it furthering identity politics or whatever you wish,…
/r/MensRights28/10/23 03:54 PM
55

Women don't like confrontation. To add to this, this is likely why they are so ban happy in these subs, because they recognise they aren't willing to debate the points, so they take the non-confrontational route of simply banning the individual altogether. It is a way of burying your head in the sand to avoid confronting ideas contrary to your own that you aren't able to contest.
/r/MensRights28/10/23 03:18 PM
10

I don't think it's fair to generalize women any more than it is to generalize men. In a different context sure, but the question being asked is why "most female only communities prefer an echo chamber". Therefore the answer almost inevitably has to be a generalisation about why a female only space differs to a male only space. This doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, obviously there are, but they are too small in number to change the overall nature of the community which is the average sentime…
/r/MensRights28/10/23 03:15 PM
-3

Well the scientific reality is biological men are on average far physically stronger than women, less neurotic, not prone to the hormonal whirlwind of a menstrual cycle, and not needing or able to become pregnant. This means that in many situations men are on average simply better equipped to help than women. And I can understand feeling wronged by feminism and the media for making men out to be the devil, but you don't fight fire with fire lest everyone get burned. In the end your inaction coul…
/r/MensRights20/10/23 02:45 PM
-30

Eh two wrongs don't make a right.
/r/MensRights20/10/23 02:41 PM
10

I guess she has never heard of Christianity.
/r/MensRights04/10/23 07:05 AM
9

Probably ketamine, illegal drug but also a horse tranquilizer.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 06:49 AM
3

They should extend the definition to include saying "Hello" to make it 100%. Hello can be considered a micro aggression if said in a forceful manner /s.
/r/MensRights30/09/23 06:06 AM
5

ONLY MIND READERS ALLOWED. YOU MUST HAVE 100% CERTAINTY YOUR ADVANCES ARE WANTED. Good work UK, you are officially the dumbest country for sexual harassment laws. Don't be surprised when your low birth rates continue to plummet and send your society into disarray. This is what happens when you demonise men for trying to court women, they will simply stop trying. I hope the feminist virtue signalling brownie points were worth it.
/r/MensRights30/09/23 06:03 AM
29

A study on women's and men’s height preferences found that women are most satisfied when their partner was 8 inches (21 cm) taller. Men are most satisfied when they are 3 inches (8 cm) taller than their partners. Another study found that among men, 13.5 percent prefer to date only women shorter than them. But among women, about half (48.9 percent) preferred to date only men taller than them. Relatedly, a study about height and human mate choice found that, on average, the shortest man a woman wo…
/r/MensRights08/06/23 10:15 AM
2

"I don't remember asking about women's suicide stats. Why did you feel the need to mention this on a post about men committing suicide? If you want to talk about women's issues, there are better places to do so. Please stay on topic when commenting or don't comment at all."
/r/MensRights07/06/23 01:42 PM
18

Good to see this posted here, as this is precisely why the men's rights movement needs to exist. What an awful situation to be in. Also this comment, which albeit being true, truly makes my blood boil: Anything that could be construed as discouraging women from reporting harassment or abuse is not something that's going to have much support. How deranged our institutions are when people are more concerned with pushing their feminist political agenda than with providing a man justice. Disgusting.
/r/MensRights24/05/23 03:49 PM
23

"Why is the birth rate so far below replacement!? Why aren't men getting married!?" shocked pikachu face
/r/MensRights19/03/23 09:46 AM
212

It would be illegal in Australia because businesses have to aim for gender "equality" as part of their business model. This business likely gets a pass because it is "aiming to correct the imbalance" or some such nonsense.
/r/MensRights05/03/23 08:53 AM
2

Perhaps the fact that the men actually die, the women attempting evidently do not (else they would not be classified as an attempt). It raises the question of why are attempts even recorded in the first place? The cynic in me makes me think it is purely because women attempt more that they choose to focus on attempts, since otherwise recording attempts is meaningless - you can attempt 100 times and it have no bearing on your life because you failed every time.
/r/MensRights04/03/23 01:26 PM
14

Right, lonely men that have had their confidence shot by the war on masculinity and the so-called "patriarchy". Men that are fearful of any move however innocent they make on a girl being interpreted as sexual harassment. Men that don't want to get married or even too close to a girl because the court may decide half of their possessions don't belong to them. It is upsetting, but certainly not surprising that we are where we are today.
/r/MensRights05/02/23 07:10 AM
1

Carrying all that munition is where the difference in strength becomes apparent. From what I've heard the men tend to carry some of the women's luggage due to the sheer weight of it.
/r/MensRights31/01/23 07:00 AM
1

More babies is only going to make that worse, not better It's not even more, it's the same as we have number of adults at the moment which we need. Currently it is less, which is the main issue. The problem is that this is a system set up for infinite growth, and we've reached the limits of that growth. We need to change the system, not keep trying harder for something that's not going to keep working. Well our birth rates show that we are not getting infinite growth, quite the opposite, so I do…
/r/MensRights31/01/23 12:52 AM
1

Right but the infinite growth isn't happening in the developed world, we need as many babies as we can get otherwise we have bigger problems on the horizon. This is a third world problem, so the solution has to be there.
/r/MensRights31/01/23 12:50 AM
12

You missed the part where I said developed countries are seeing declining birth rates, as well as the source that I linked. And of course we produce more for ourselves, why would we produce it for others? We do give foreign aid, but countries are not charities.
/r/MensRights30/01/23 03:56 PM
16

We also produce way more, virtually all the major companies in the world reside in developed nations such as the US, countries of Europe, Japan, etc. Either way our population is declining and if we do nothing to improve the birth rates we will struggle to remain as developed countries, due to an aging population with not enough people to take care of the elderly.
/r/MensRights30/01/23 03:44 PM
2

There is nothing that men can do but women cant. Fighting in military is just one of those things. No but let's be realistic, the average strength of a woman is far less than a man, among other things such as women on average being more emotional and of course having that time of the month which can be debilitating. I don't think women shouldn't be in the army, but I definitely don't think all women should, it would take a certain kind of woman that is especially strong and especially unemotiona…
/r/MensRights30/01/23 03:09 PM
34

The third world is overpopulated, not the developed world. All developed countries are suffering from declining birth rates, so anyone in the developed world repeating this 'overpopulated' nonsense is misinformed. We need more babies, not less.
/r/MensRights30/01/23 03:03 PM
5

There are moderate lefties that don't support the mainstream left-wing agenda, but unfortunately they are in the minority, as the current trend is to denigrate or at least ignore those who are white, cis, or male, or heaven-forbid a combination of all three. The left also supports feminism, which has made it clear it does not want anything to do with supporting men in the fight for gender equality.
/r/MensRights12/12/22 11:34 AM
2

So the AI is a liberal.
/r/MensRights08/12/22 09:33 AM
16

If they are being killed in their own home then gender is clearly not the deciding factor, the relationship is. How do they fail at logic so badly? If simply being a woman was the deciding factor, any woman would do. But it isn't, it's a spouse. And not a cousin or a mother, because it's an issue in the partnership, not the gender.
/r/MensRights25/11/22 12:03 AM
2

fEmInIsM iS aBoUt EqUaLiTy!
/r/MensRights19/11/22 01:55 PM
5

I believe the correct response here is "u mad bro". If we've elicited such passive aggressiveness from an alleged encyclopedia then we are certainly doing something right.
/r/MensRights23/10/22 12:58 PM
58

And a "I don't want to study engineering because it's full of nerds!" gap.
/r/MensRights08/10/22 06:19 PM
6

In other case, they, what, calling themselfs helpless children? Sounds like misogyny, from feminists, non other. It is but the idea is the more women are seen as helpless the more justified it is to invest disproportionate amounts of resources towards female only support services, such as scholarships, charities, DV shelters, etc.
/r/MensRights07/10/22 04:07 PM
51

It's also often covered with gleeful headlines like "Women are outclassing men in ..", yet when the men are favoured the women are seen as the victim - "Women less likely to .. than men". Basically it's either "Girl power!" or "These poor women need help" in every scenario.
/r/MensRights07/10/22 02:49 PM
65

While I can understand the point, the reality is the majority of homeless people are women.. ..no wait that's not right, the majority are men. So even when men are most victimised, it's the other sex that gets priority. Wonderful.
/r/MensRights24/09/22 06:25 AM
3

Is this from that 'Destroy a Man Now' book?
/r/MensRights22/07/22 01:07 PM
2

Well men can get raped yet the law refuses to acknowledge this by defining rape as "intentional penetration of the vagina", so the idea that men are given favouritism is evidently false. Women and children are often given priority in society due to their on average smaller stature, and arguably this is why feminism has become successful, as a result of sympathy towards women.
/r/MensRights16/07/22 11:51 AM
22

Literally the top comment in this thread is "I don't give a shit which gender". Perhaps open your eyes before forming an opinion.
/r/MensRights02/07/22 10:07 AM
54

married queens were more inclined to enlist their spouses in helping them rule Well this makes perfect sense, of course you will start more wars when you don't even have to fight them yourself. And so much for the all-ruling 'patriarchy', this shows that even in historic times men were subservient to women such as their spouse.
/r/MensRights29/06/22 02:54 PM
10

I really feel sorry for feminists like this one, because it takes a special kind of stupid to think 50% of the population hate you and want you 'oppressed'. 'Oppression' in the past meant women didn't have to work and were given special treatment by chivalrous men. And if studies on happiness are anything to go by, women on average preferred this approach. So if men are truly evil and worth hating, why were women happier before feminism? Either feminists such as this one have drunken the koolaid…
/r/MensRights21/06/22 10:18 AM
52

Also if you are reasonably attractive, you can basically make free money off of horny guys on Instagram or OnlyFans, something which is almost impossible as a guy (unless you're in the top 0.1% of attractive men).
/r/MensRights07/06/22 11:11 AM
1

You would think that having such drastic side effects from these surgeries would make them think "perhaps this isn't such a good idea", but apparently not. And isn't the whole point of being able to choose your own gender identity that you don't have to mutilate your body to become the opposite gender? It's amazing the lengths people will go to instead of accepting that they might be wrong.
/r/MensRights05/06/22 11:51 AM
5

I have never read so much yet learnt so little. This reads like a C graded high school essay. Just awful.
/r/MensRights26/05/22 02:30 PM
6

Except they're not a victim at all, because by definition a victim is a person affected by a crime.
/r/MensRights24/05/22 02:53 PM
40

It's a fair point but unfortunately it doesn't make the argument any better, when we know that women are in fact more college educated than men. Because if the goal is to resolve gender inequality in colleges, we should see the reverse - the majority of sex-specific scholarships being for men. Or at the very least, an even split or close to. There is no justification for virtually all sex specific scholarships to be given to women.
/r/MensRights18/05/22 08:04 AM
1

I agree they will drop hints and clues, though the person above specifically said they would 'approach you' if they are interested, which is unrealistic
/r/MensRights16/05/22 11:30 AM
1

Is this a Babylon Bee article?
/r/MensRights14/05/22 05:16 AM
10

While focusing on yourself is good because it gives you confidence and a better understanding of who you are and what your goals should be in life, the below line is problematic: eventually someone interested will see that and approach you This will almost never happen because women don't want to lead in a relationship, they want to be led. This is because leading means taking risks and showing courage, something that women expect from men and find attractive in them.
/r/MensRights12/05/22 01:48 PM
-1

That is a very extreme example. I just hope you aren't rationalising to yourself a behaviour which is harming you for the purpose of preventing change. If you are genuinely happy with not talking to women for the next 50+ years of your life, that's your prerogative, but I would be very surprised if this is genuinely how you feel, as it goes against tens of thousands of years of evolution that has made us instinctively want to find a partner and procreate.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 01:47 PM
0

Do you even know what MGTOW stands for? The whole point is to give up the chase of finding the perfect woman and focus on yourself instead. It sounds like you are distorting this purpose to win the argument, by claiming MGTOW is not about that and still includes women as a part of it. This is false.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 11:42 AM
-2

How about neither are healthy modes of operating in the modern world? How many people do you know that genuinely would be happy never speaking to a woman for the rest of their life? Sex and reproduction are the most powerful instincts we have apart from survival. To deny any opportunity for that is going to lead to significant issues for 99.9% of people later down the line, men or women.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 09:39 AM
-5

You haven't been listening to feminists have you? 😉 Well you are validating the Op's not talking to women his entire life through the promotion of MGTOW, so on some level you are advocating for isolationism from women. That's a bit hard to do if you're not a hermit living in a remote cave somewhere.. How will I buy my groceries if I dont talk to the checkout girl at the supermarket? This is a strawman. You know what I mean by never talking to women, obviously there are circumstances where you ha…
/r/MensRights08/05/22 07:55 AM
-1

This is spot on, and in fact many of these symptoms are part of schizoid personality disorder, which is in essence a much milder form of schizophrenia. I am not a psychologist so I can't diagnose Op, but it is absolutely possible (perhaps even likely?) that there is some condition involved that is causing this. I too have had a similar experience, and am also only now coming to terms with the fact that my issues with relationships may be a result of undiagnosed mental conditions that I have had …
/r/MensRights08/05/22 06:06 AM
-2

Honestly if this is your genuine experience I would speak to a psychologist about this rather than reddit. People here will say this is part of the "MGTOW" culture, but humans are social creatures and for many this type of stoic isolationist lifestyle is not going to be healthy in the long term (though perhaps might give some respite in the short term). Maybe you are okay with living your life not talking to women, however based on your question here I am guessing you are at least a little conce…
/r/MensRights08/05/22 06:02 AM
2

Haven't seen the video but I'm going to take a solid guess that "misogyny" is mentioned at least 24 times.
/r/MensRights30/04/22 02:28 PM
1

The real tell here is that "gender nonconforming" is seen as a positive. That's right, a man who isn't a typical man is a positive. If you needed any more proof that the disparaging term "toxic masculinity" is not just about the negative aspects of men, but men and masculinity as a whole, this is it. Because as we all know, a man who conforms to his gender is violent, misogynistic, and doesn't treat women as his equals. Disgusting and utterly false gender propaganda.
/r/MensRights25/04/22 08:03 AM
-2

It's not a full replacement, but I have nieces and nephews I can appreciate at least. Yes that is definitely a positive, since you can live vicariously through them. I've just accepted that I'm not attractive to most women. See that's the type of belief you don't want to carry around, and yet the folks promoting MGTOW and similar would say this is not of any concern. Bollocks, I had the exact same thoughts growing up, and unfortunately it took me far too long to realise I had been talking and ap…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 04:49 PM
1

Having children or a shared future with a woman doesn't guarantee happiness You are right that it doesn't, but it certainly helps. This type of "bond" has been sold as the 'ultimate bond' since forever, and yet marriages have always been a clusterfuck. There's even scientific data that this is not how humans evolved to form relationships. We are not a monogamous species. Well to be fair I didn't say one had to find their soulmate to be happy, only that they needed to find someone that they could…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 04:27 PM
2

The bond with your partner or spouse is a very different bond however, since it provides sexual intimacy (not just sex, but the intimacy of sex with a significant other), the prospect of having children, and a shared future together. You are right that there is overlap, and Maslow's hierarchy of needs portrays this as such, but I don't think there is sufficient overlap for men to feel happy and fulfilled without this aspect.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:33 PM
-1

Considering historically a tiny minority of men were able to reproduce, but a large majority of women did, it's not surprising. Don't know if that's entirely true, considering how much population has boomed. I do know the 'alpha' men tended to reproduce at disproportionately high rates (particularly emperors like Genghis Khan), but these were still in the minority. It is fighting against your nature, but I'd rather work to reconcile my single life rather than deal with the crippling depression o…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 03:21 PM
-4

Psychologically, I think men would be wise to take on the mindset of happy single during younger years. They need time to gather strength and life experience to recognize a worthy partner. What I wrote was just another perspective to help young men navigate this world. They will be better off if they develop patience for delayed satisfaction. While parts of this are true, you have to realise that most people, men included, form the majority of their relationships in their earlier years. Because …
/r/MensRights18/04/22 02:05 PM
7

Sure, but that isn't what the person above me is advocating with "Men are happy single" and "Stay safe, single and happy". Also there are no guarantees that older men can develop financial security. Some might, many even, but all? It's unlikely. What then of the dispossessed? Do we exile them to a life of solipsistic misery? I don't think that is a winning strategy for men or for society.
/r/MensRights18/04/22 01:10 PM
9

Leave men alone. Men are happy single, enjoying life, hobbies, male friends, passions and earning enough to provide for themselves. While this sounds nice in theory, I can assure you that biologically this does not hold. Procreation is our strongest desire alongside self-preservation. You can try your best to ignore or compensate for it, but ultimately your subconscious is in the vast majority of cases not going to be happy living a life of relative solitude without a family. This isn't to say i…
/r/MensRights18/04/22 10:33 AM
1

It won't be as profitable, this article links to a few stats that show some 50% go to the gym purely to oggle the opposite sex. So while that might not be true for you, it is probably true for your friend or your friend's friend. Fact is having a bit of eye candy of either sex at the gym is good for business, because sex sells, as we know all too well from the advertising industry. But perhaps there is a possibility of 1 or 2 niche male only gyms in some specific areas, so long as they are willi…
/r/MensRights02/04/22 06:28 AM
1

Men choose more lethal methods than women for suicide, such as hanging and asphyxia, and as a result are more often successful. I can't think of any other reason why men would choose the more lethal / violent approach than women.
/r/MensRights27/03/22 10:48 AM
-2

It is tragic but I don't know if the proportion of male to female is necessarily a cause for concern, since we don't know what the "normal" ratio would be. What can be said is that men on average are more aggressive and violent simply by virtue of having more testosterone than women. This means just as men make up the majority of homicides, so too will they likely make up the majority of suicides, since it is a similar mechanism. Secondly, while gender norms have progressed dramatically over the…
/r/MensRights26/03/22 03:11 PM
1

Besides the same joke but “boy or abortion” version was there in a movie called “the dictator”. She just reversed the joke. The difference is that the joke is very obvious within the context of a comedy film. Here the joke is much less obvious, which you can imagine if "boy or abortion" was treated as not a joke the person would get similar threats. As I said in my previous comment, such jokes should only be made if there is 100% certainty it will be treated as a joke, as is the case in the movi…
/r/MensRights25/03/22 10:49 AM
1

That's fair, but I wouldn't take her side either, because even if it was intended as a joke, the sentiment behind it is pure evil no two ways about it. Anyone wishing death upon someone based on their gender, unless it is meant 100% unequivocally as a joke (which I don't think is the case here, it sounds like the exaggeration was the joke not the hating men part), should be scolded for it. Even (especially?) if they are young, these are ideas we absolutely do not want in our society. I don't nor…
/r/MensRights25/03/22 10:29 AM
1

without even clarifying the situation or whether she was joking or being serious Nobody is going to take it as a joke because it doesn't sound like one at all. So who are ACTUALLY the horrible ones here?? How about both?
/r/MensRights25/03/22 10:26 AM
1

Sure you are allowed to criticise the joke but a child getting sent RAPE threats over what she CLARIFIED was a joke is fucked up. Yeah I'm not condoning that, and nobody here is making rape threats or condoning that either. That doesn't excuse what she said which as you put it was in quite bad taste, and should be called out. So happy for your 'chill out' comment to be directed to the twitter base, I don't think it is relevant here, where people have been highly critical but civil in their disco…
/r/MensRights25/03/22 10:00 AM
1

She even received rape and death threats. Chill out. Oh yes, the people criticising a person "joking" about aborting their son if they are having a boy and hashtagging #killallmen are the ones that need to chill out. I also find it rich that they say they are joking, what's the punch line? Because #killallmen is a real hash tag that 99% of women use without even a hint of a joke, and I can't find any punch line here, unless it's that men are so bad they deserve aborting (which doesn't really hel…
/r/MensRights25/03/22 09:09 AM
94

I'm just amazed this horrible person was able to find someone to get her pregnant.
/r/MensRights23/03/22 08:47 AM
0

Ah, ok, that does make more sense.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 02:20 PM
13

So a few things: Not all women have major symptoms during their period Sick leave is there for a reason The company has to stay afloat regardless of people's personal problems. Some companies simply cannot afford such a policy Nothing is stopping women negotiating a contract that has them work 1 day less per month for slightly less pay. Since it's only 1 day it won't hurt her bottom line much, and will safeguard against the above point (3) Taking a nuanced approach is almost always better than b…
/r/MensRights05/03/22 01:34 PM
13

It's unlimited because after X number of days it becomes permanent (and unpaid), if you catch my drift.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 01:27 PM
-4

Is this meant to be a joke? How is giving transgender people period leave "accepting the biological differences in the workplace"? That is doing the exact opposite. I would love to hear their argument for why transgender women (i.e. biological men) need period leave.
/r/MensRights05/03/22 01:25 PM
10

If women are so underrepresented in companies, is it really an advantage to be a woman Yes because the reason they are "underrepresented" is because they don't apply, or don't have the requisite STEM degree they need, or opted for fewer working hours than men (disregard the misleading clickbait title) and therefore lack the experience to be considered for more senior roles. Yet despite this, they are preferentially chosen by employers who need to fill their diversity quota more often than men ar…
/r/MensRights28/01/22 01:38 PM
9

I don't know if this is necessarily about him being a man, but this is an incredible display of lack of self awareness on the judge's part. Repeatedly calling the man "shameful" while at the same time callously ignoring his serious health condition. There must be something seriously wrong with her to value the appearance of an alley way more than treating a vulnerable elderly man with dignity and respect. I suspect if she isn't a sociopath, she at the least has strong tendencies towards one, bec…
/r/MensRights17/01/22 03:28 PM
6

iNtErNaLiSeD mIsOgYnY!!
/r/MensRights16/01/22 09:12 AM
2

Well the unfortunate hard truth is that sleeping around is much riskier for women than it is for men, because women's chances of getting an STD are 2-3x higher than for men, due to numerous factors. And since STDs naturally can spread from women to men, there is good reason for men to be more cautious around promiscuous women. This is worth remembering, since it's likely a big motivating factor for why men on average tend to find this kind of behaviour unattractive, it's self-preservation on the…
/r/MensRights05/01/22 06:07 PM
9

Putting aside that there are a minority of women who are stronger than men, a knife or gun will make short work of whatever muscular advantage a man has.
/r/MensRights30/12/21 05:35 AM
3

It seems it's his go to MO, as he provides the exact same advice here to a different couple, where the guy didn't trash a hotel. Part of his justification is that 'the LAPD will come after you' if you lay your hands on a woman, which suggests to me he is trying to prevent the guy from going to jail, due to the heavy police bias against men defending themselves. This advice would make sense from a friend who doesn't have the platform Dr Phil does. In his position however, he has the opportunity t…
/r/MensRights29/12/21 09:09 AM
73

Right, so when men do bad things it's toxic masculinity. When women do bad things it's.. also toxic masculinity. Pretty obvious what is going on here.
/r/MensRights27/12/21 09:30 AM
55

They don't have any feminine negative words so they re-use the male ones. How ironic.
/r/MensRights27/12/21 09:29 AM
17

How is this a defense? In what world would killing your own daughters help your depression? If anything it would do the opposite. Moreover depression is very, very, very common; killing your children is not. Clearly whatever compelled this person to commit such a horrific act is far beyond depression. She even provides a rationale for the killings. It's obviously a bad rationale, but it shows planning and premeditation, things which would appear to show she wasn't completely off her rocker. So i…
/r/MensRights13/12/21 11:38 AM
1

But I thought men already have equal rights and subs like this are useless?
/r/MensRights04/12/21 06:36 AM
56

Did they really cross out the word "Man" in "Man Up" on International Men's Day? Unbelievable, I have no words.
/r/MensRights21/11/21 10:39 AM
11

It's a classic tactic. They did this in Vermont by replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous People's Day. Having them on the same day means they have to prioritise which one to celebrate, and given the power to prioritise we know which one they'll choose.
/r/MensRights08/11/21 01:13 PM
140

Right, suffering trauma as a child is unfortunate, but let's be real many people particularly from poorer neighbourhoods have experienced some level of trauma. Yet they don't go around raping people or doing similar heinous acts. On the contrary if you had a traumatic childhood, you should know more than anyone else from first hand experience how not to treat people. I can see this excuse validly being applied to things such drug abuse, where someone is trying to suppress memories or similar by …
/r/MensRights06/11/21 02:59 AM
13

100% this, the issue is in conflating 'emotional' with 'emotionally invested'. Men may not be on average as outwardly emotional as women in day-to-day experiences, for one reason or another (biochemistry, cultural factors, etc.), yet that does not mean they aren't as emotionally invested should something go wrong. Given that men have the same drive as women to find a mate, have offspring, and care for their family, it seems quite logical that their emotional investment in these things would be t…
/r/MensRights04/11/21 07:53 AM
5

Where am I demonizing women? I asked a legitimate question, and you still haven't given an example.
/r/MensRights24/10/21 03:28 PM
6

both genders face discrimination at certain points I can't think of any situation where a woman is discriminated against. Employers never took gender into account when hiring, yet they are now bending over backwards to get more female representation. Same with our educational institutions. Women consistently get lower sentences for similar crimes to men. Women have DV shelters made for them. Which area exactly are women being discriminated against? The wage gap has been thoroughly debunked.
/r/MensRights24/10/21 02:48 PM
14

You said we shouldn't gender violence. I think that neglects certain sex specific phenomena such as post-partum psychosis that by definition are only biologically possible for women (since only women can become pregnant and give birth). It doesn't mean we should treat people differently under law, or stereotype all women, since both of these are discriminatory and wrong. However if we are to be honest and accurate there necessarily needs to be recognition and treatment for female specific causes…
/r/MensRights22/10/21 05:03 AM
7

Fuck this piece of shit platform. The more time passes the more I am convinced we need more egalitarian spaces not run by corrupt political zealots with no moral compass.
/r/MensRights16/10/21 10:32 AM
4

Yep, this is how feminists infiltrate our institutions, not by overtly setting quotas (though that can happen) but by discretely adding women to male only spaces while not doing the same with female only spaces. It's the same when they provide grants for "femaled owned businesses" or scholarships to women only, but never do the same for men. Then they claim it's because of the structural barriers women face to these areas, yet never explain what these barriers are. Because in most cases a poor l…
/r/MensRights16/10/21 04:48 AM
10

I know this isn't for a university, but this is exactly the same as the overwhelming number of scholarships provided to minority groups by universities. It is a sneaky way of lowering the standards for a particular gender or demographic without openly changing entry score requirements. The cost and difficulty of entry are identical buuuut if you are a woman or other minority group within a certain faculty we might pay for part of your degree, and we might reduce the barrier for entry. But don't …
/r/MensRights12/10/21 12:10 PM
7

You won't get a response because there are literally no barriers for women to get into tech, apart from the fact that they have to work in a predominantly male industry. I don't know of any employer who would turn down a highly capable woman for a less capable man applying for the same position.
/r/MensRights12/10/21 11:58 AM
1

That's definitely true, men in positions of power being evil says nothing of the ordinary man. Though even this very premise they provide is false, so it should be noted. But yes, we should absolutely call out the gross generalisation of all men based on the few % at the top. We see this as well as with the "all men are rapists" or "all men are predators" narratives. Even the proliferation of the "#NotAllMen" hashtag which seeks to undermine people pointing out these over-generalisations, shows …
/r/MensRights12/10/21 06:26 AM
75

I'm glad others are coming to this conclusion. The leap they make from a society merely being led by men, to one of men oppressing women is unfounded, and relies as you put it on the idea that men in positions of power are evil, and will inevitably be compelled to oppress women. As an obvious counter example, almost all of the progress in the women's rights movement has been, and continues to be had under predominantly male heads of state and leaders. It is therefore in part because of men's all…
/r/MensRights11/10/21 02:19 PM
3

This actually is a great bait, because now you have a bunch of women betraying their sexism by claiming "No silly! we mean hate speech against WOMEN not against men!". Indeed you can use misogyny or misandry to describe the act, but you absolutely should not use it when discussing legalities, lest you ostracize one or the other. Hopefully this opens people's eyes into how lopsided our legal and governmental systems are (though I'm not holding my breath).
/r/MensRights06/10/21 04:03 PM
18

On average they are far less likely to choose STEM subjects which pay more (preferring the humanities), and show preference for work that is less senior/managerial and with fewer hours.
/r/MensRights14/09/21 04:07 PM
5

Right, nobody thinks about the rational skepticism such practices cause. Even recipient's of affirmative action have admitted to feeling insecure about their worth at university, knowing they were given a leg up.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 04:29 PM
13

Right, imagine your surgeon being chosen not for their expertise but for their gender, how terrified would you be? People treating university placements like they are for a game show is just wrong. People's lives are dependant on engineers, doctors and scientists (among others) getting it right. You compromise on your standards and you will get more medical deaths, bridge and building collapses, and other residuals that come from sacrificing quality for quotas.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 04:24 PM
5

Wikipedia has been run by radical leftists for a while now. The feminism page has basically no criticism within its criticism section, and this applies to most progressive movements and ideas (see "non binary" for example, not a word about it being claimed by many to be an entirely made up category with no basis in biology (even if you oppose this view, as an encyclopaedia you must acknowledge it exists)). I don't know what the solution is, but wikipedia can't be trusted for any topic that is ev…
/r/MensRights04/08/21 08:36 AM
55

I have always said "diversity" is code for "not white and male" and inherently racist/sexist. Shows quite scarily that they have gone a step further when a bill that only bans material that suggests an individual should feel guilt or discomfort because of their race or sex voids a "diversity training"'s course material. So diversity training it seems is now code not just for "not white and male", but "you suck if you are white and male". I really hope these laws don't just put a stop to this, bu…
/r/MensRights13/07/21 11:12 AM
-7

I didn't say reluctance, I said "right" More right to cheat rather than more reluctance? But you said female faithfulness is important (which I agreed with).. anyway. since historically it meant the man was forced to raise a child that is not his. The opposite cannot happen. Not true, before child support the man would just leave, because the mother had to breastfeed the child and her nurturing instinct kicks in. Even now the man often leaves if the couple breaks up, hence the "kids without fath…
/r/MensRights06/07/21 11:38 AM
-6

will primarily do so if something is wrong And then so will men Not going by your own logic, that women are more reluctant to cheat because it may involve rearing a child. This means logically that the bar must be higher for a woman to cheat than for a man. And indeed when citing reasons for cheating, women are more likely to cite relationship issues (sure they may be lying, but as we discussed there is an evolutionary reason for why this might be true). Women cheat just as much, even though the…
/r/MensRights06/07/21 11:20 AM
-12

Not that I agree with Alinity but she is basically agreeing with your point, by saying women are less likely to cheat, and will primarily do so if something is wrong, rather than simply if the opportunity arises. Where she gets it wrong is in assuming this is all women, since there are definitely women out there who cheat just because they can, and also in implying this justifies the behaviour, which it doesn't. But I think the idea is right, that men are in general more opportunistic than women…
/r/MensRights06/07/21 10:30 AM
0

The top comment claiming reddit is full of paedophiles shows they don't even know what paedophilia is, which is attraction to prepubescent persons, i.e. not teenagers verging on adulthood such as on TikTok (the example they give), who are from time to time mistaken for being over 18 (hence the common joke "how old are you?" followed by awkwardness when the person ends up being 16). In my country for example, it is not an offense to have intercourse with someone who is 16 or 17 if you genuinely b…
/r/MensRights03/07/21 03:02 PM
2

Nope, in the year + I've been here I've never seen one post saying they hate women. I would wager almost nobody here is in that camp. Feminism on the other hand, that movement has long since served its usefulness, and in its current form acts purely as a pro-female anti-male cult not worthy of respect.
/r/MensRights03/07/21 02:48 PM
2

The sad reality is the most confident people in society are often the dumbest (see Dunning-Kruger effect). They will assertively tell you without blinking that every industry should have a 50:50 split of men and women, and anything short of this is sexism. The thought that scientifically well established biological differences between men and women, such as their hormones and personality traits, may be the reason for differing preferences in college degrees, personal interests, and virtually eve…
/r/MensRights18/06/21 03:03 PM
8

they want to stick it to men because their ancestors didn’t have it as good. Allegedly didn't have it as good. Women's happiness has been in steady decline since the women's rights movement, so I'm not sure I buy that all the progress has been positive. Certainly there are women who are happier now than they would have been in the past, but for others my guess is the added responsibility of working a day job isn't as exciting a proposition as once thought. It's why so many women prefer to work p…
/r/MensRights08/06/21 02:00 PM
7

For any issue you can be sure that any reason given by feminists comes from the feminist dictionary so to speak. It's the reason why you will find "Sexual discrimination" at the top of lists for the gender pay gap, even though there is zero evidence that this is the leading cause, or even a cause of the gap (most of the gap is due to women electing to enter fields that pay less such as teaching and nursing). As is always the case with political movements, the truth is secondary to the narrative.
/r/MensRights08/06/21 05:28 AM
8

If someone has to go out of their way to find out which subs you are subscribed to, you've already won. Ad hominem is the lowest form of argumentation, for when they have nothing else they can say to rebut you. Best idea is to simply ignore them, as it's not worth stooping to their level or acknowledging such immature and uncivilised behaviour.
/r/MensRights27/05/21 12:15 PM
5

So all you would need to get past a false accusation is to be a presidential candidate or federal judge nominee? Too easy.
/r/MensRights11/05/21 05:45 AM
23

This despite the fact that some studies have found more than 40% of domestic violence victims are male. Australia's government initiatives are heavily politicized to the point where it's just a joke. The women's hotline has countless support services, while the men's hotline is literally about "how to deal with your anger issues". Because of course, what could a man possibly be calling a hotline for except to gain insight on how to stop beating their wife. Probably the only argument the leftist …
/r/MensRights03/05/21 03:07 PM
2

For one it was mainly a joke, hence "trash or truth", secondly it's exactly the same as women who say "women are beautiful" or "the future is woman" or whatever flavour of the month slogan they use to pat each other on the backs. If women can positively reinforce eachother why can't men?
/r/MensRights22/04/21 12:33 AM
3

Yeah heaven forbid men compliment each other like women do literally all the time. Seems the man hating has pervaded even this sub.
/r/MensRights22/04/21 12:27 AM
2

I think it's time to switch platforms, eventually this sub will probably get removed for criticising feminism. Such companies don't deserve our patronage. Not sure what the best alternative is, but conservative social media sites like Minds and Gab, albeit hosting lots of vitriol, are ardent supporters of the first amendment and don't hold such ridiculous double standards.
/r/MensRights14/04/21 01:12 PM
23

It's ironic too because the word incel is a confession of women's power in society, to validate a man's worth by choosing to sleep with them. So it is especially rich coming from anyone who supports the feminist idea of a male patriarchy, to be able to successfully bring down men by their lack of association to women.
/r/MensRights11/04/21 01:02 PM
5

Excluding Asians in this current climate is a particularly stupid and racist thing to do. Seems they are a bit out of touch with the current narrative.
/r/MensRights10/04/21 07:09 AM
11

It's because sexual harassment is a political term that isn't needed to describe the behaviour. Someone who touches you inappropriately without your permission is already committing a sexual assault, someone who makes repeated comments of a sexual nature is already stalking and/or invading your privacy in ways that are not legal. The reason they use and cling to the term 'sexual harassment' is because it is so vague that they can mold it to anything they like, from mildly inappropriate comments …
/r/MensRights18/03/21 12:39 PM
16

What on earth is the "Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability"? And I'm sure there is a male one too given that as you pointed out, males are murdered at much higher rates than women. Right? Right...? Oh who am I kidding.
/r/MensRights18/03/21 12:20 PM
1

99.9% of men don't rape and yet these people have the audacity to say "This is a man problem" and criticise the factually accurate statement of #NotAllMen. Stereotypes are bad if you are stereotyping women, minorities, LGBTQ persons, or any other protected group. But if it's men, especially White men, they have no reservations about being discriminatory and generalising this as a "male problem". To put this in perspective, there are some 20-40x more female domestic violence perpetrators than the…
/r/MensRights13/03/21 06:06 AM
4

You don't need to water down the definition at all. Female rapists typically hold men at gunpoint and knifepoint insisting on sex (example). That is just as bad as if the genders were reversed. No watering down necessary. I think you are here with a hidden agenda, since you seem to be hellbent on de-legitimising this very real and very obvious double standard in the law.
/r/MensRights07/02/21 12:52 PM
7

Are you seriously calling male rape "issues almost no man deals with or cares about". What the fuck is wrong with you? Who is up-voting this? Stop doing exactly what you claim others are doing, "derailing the real issues". Moron.
/r/MensRights07/02/21 12:48 PM
1

It doesn't matter, I've edited my post, non-White makes up some 85% of the world's population so they will always be the majority, even if every Western country became 100% White. This whole argument is dumb. And child support laws pretty much guarantee that one man can't support more than a few children, so even financially your conspiracy isn't feasible. And with more lenient immigration laws and most of the world not being White, the more mixed race you get the more non-White people become, s…
/r/MensRights28/01/21 03:41 PM
1

No statistically this is impossible, since White people barely make up 60% of the population, there wouldn't be enough White men to go around. You are also forgetting that dominant traits can come from either race, meaning a half-black person can look completely black or completely white based on luck. This together also makes it completely unsustainable in maintaining 2.0 or higher reproduction rste, so the population will eventually erode itself to nothing. Even if it did succeed, 85% of the w…
/r/MensRights28/01/21 03:27 PM
6

This has to be the stupidest thing I have read in a while. You may want to look up the definition of White supremacy if you think having a Mixed race population is in any way helpful to their cause. The idea that race mingling would lead to less racial diversity, not more, is just patently stupid, even putting aside the logistical issues of such a conspiracy.
/r/MensRights28/01/21 07:49 AM
4

I don't know if it's the loud minority, whoever it is they are the most prevalent view points, it doesn't seem fringe to me. Monthly post thread sounds fine, but not sure what it has to do with making liberals not generalise MRAs.
/r/MensRights27/01/21 10:39 AM
5

Yeah but the rest of liberals still do, which you admitted in your earlier post. Once we aren't automatically labelled as sexist, there can be some discussion.
/r/MensRights27/01/21 10:23 AM
3

I agree completely, and you can start by not generalising MRAs. We will follow suite accordingly.
/r/MensRights27/01/21 10:05 AM
11

Don't just generalize an entire group like this. Hm so far seems reasonable. As for the notion of being an MRA, then yes, people do think that of MRA people LOL, WHAT HAPPENED TO NOT GENERALIZING? You've inadvertently proven the Op right in your supposed rebuttal, well done.
/r/MensRights27/01/21 09:33 AM
23

Nah, embrace your opinions, you most likely worked hard to come up with them. If they're looking through your post history you've already won, ad hominem is the lowest form of argumentation, as you pointed out. If they resort to such a low, either ignore them, or ask them to stay on topic instead of resorting to ad homenim (they won't, but it will prove they have nothing meaningful to contribute).
/r/MensRights27/01/21 09:27 AM
51

Lol photo 8 says "YOU ARE LIKE THESE MEN" while photo 9 immediately after says "No one is out to CRUCIFY YOU". Yeah this is why making gross generalisations about a given gender/race/etc. is bad, you lump in all the people who should be applauded for being moral with those who should be chastised for being immoral. It is also simply inaccurate, since the proportion of men who commit these crimes is far lower than the proportion that don't. They would be more accurate to say "The vast majority of…
/r/MensRights21/01/21 09:50 AM
5

Anyone denying men support because it would "take resources away from women" is a bad feminist. And given that these feminists have power, and are actively influencing legislation, we can't say they are anomalies, they are what feminism is in its most powerful form as it stands today, changing laws and funding as we speak. Whether there are less radical feminists in public doesn't change that the radical ones have power and are destroying our society. Worse still, they are not rejected by femini…
/r/MensRights14/01/21 04:50 AM
3

Because it takes courage to take the social risk, and men are historically the ones to make the courageous moves, probably because it shows to the woman that they are courageous and willing to take risks. Men don't care as much if women are courageous, since they value physical appearance and nurturing/motherlyness more. This is because women were historically not the providers of the family, due to their typically smaller stature and lower aggression due to lower testosterone. So there's no inc…
/r/MensRights12/01/21 10:57 AM
4

It's why the MGTOW movement has become a thing. Perhaps they go too far, but reading articles like these and knowing a healthy chunk of the female population subscribe to the feminist ideology, it doesn't seem as far-fetched. Though there are still some people that care about men thankfully, it's why this community exists. Probably the best advice is as you have done, to have extra solidarity for your fellow man, knowing those who subscribe to feminism likely won't.
/r/MensRights11/01/21 01:23 PM
25

Yeah this was truly eye-opening, my jaw almost dropped when I realised I was reading about a journalist quite literally fetishizing hating men. And yet apparently men are supposed to be the sexist and evil ones. What's scarier is that nothing will happen, despite the proliferation of cancel culture. Much as I hate cancel culture, here we have someone who consciously, explicitly is talking about relishing in hate towards the opposite sex, the very definition of sexism, and yet nobody complains. I…
/r/MensRights11/01/21 09:48 AM
18

The womanual you mean, let's not be sexist now.
/r/MensRights08/01/21 07:26 AM
42

He should have checked the feminist womanual on gendered language, so he could womandate the new term, to make it womanifest. #importantissues
/r/MensRights08/01/21 04:32 AM
1

Now if only we could turn White women Asian, we would solve the wage gap!
/r/MensRights25/12/20 03:33 PM
3

especially the calling into question of the notion of ‘gender’, the emphasis on its constructedness etc. You make a good point, by claiming gender is a social construct not grounded to any fixed norms or characteristics feminism makes no logical sense whatsoever. Why promote women if the category of 'women' is simply a social construct with no inherit value? And why not then simply become men if men have it so good? The malleability of gender defeats feminism, making it a self-contradicting phil…
/r/MensRights25/12/20 03:29 PM
38

It is biological though, female rats also preference male rats with social status. Chickens also have the famed 'pecking order' that determines which chickens are higher up in the hierarchy, also affecting mating. So there is definitely a biological aspect to it. Of course as humans we can try to override it with social conditioning, though if the instinct is left to occur 'naturally' as it is to some extent in modern life, it produces part of the importance in social status we see today when it…
/r/MensRights23/12/20 03:34 PM
55

This is actually a true phenomenon, the increased promotion of women in the workforce has made many now equally or less titled men less desirable to women. It might have sexist implications but the facts themselves are biologically accurate, women subconsciously do seek out men with higher status than themselves.
/r/MensRights23/12/20 03:03 PM
14

Do you know how fucked up it is for feminists to call KAM a god damned joke? You know feminists would never let that shit ass excuse slide by for anyone else. There are already many examples on TikTok where it isn't used as a joke. Even in the video in the article linked, the woman says "When we ride at midnight to kill all men we will spare the trans community and the non-binary.", articulating the previous point she makes about trans men being 'above normal men'. No joke to be found.
/r/MensRights20/12/20 06:11 PM
29

The problem is a woman holding a knife or other weapon is stronger than a man holding nothing at all, especially if caught by surprise. And even if the man is stronger, it is against the law for him to use his force, so how much benefit to him is it really? As for the 'patriarchy' argument, that would imply men can be abused in Britain, Germany, and New Zealand, since they are all matriarchies of sorts, but not in other countries, which is obviously absurd.
/r/MensRights19/12/20 04:04 PM
2

I think we should call our generation the "make shit up" generation, since that seems to be what all these so-called journalists are doing. No sources, no evidence, just forwarding the same tired "progressive" feminist agenda. You may as well read a fiction novel at this point. Such low quality drivel. Imagine writing this as an essay in school, you would very quickly fail when the person assessing it realises you are just talking out of your ass, and yet somehow this journalist managed to find …
/r/MensRights29/11/20 11:55 AM
2

Yes, that's not unreasonable, since man's purpose is usually to provide, it is what they are good at with their typically strong bodies and masculine bravado/aggression. I don't think anyone has intrinsic value, that assumes someone with no morals has value (e.g. Hitler), people ought to be judged on what they bring to the world with consideration to their capacity to do so.
/r/MensRights21/11/20 04:51 PM
7

Men have had intrinsic value in the past, it isn't traditionalism that says they don't. On the contrary men were seen as the leaders and pioneers of their time. The reason people claim they were seen as disposable is because they were courageous enough to deal with dangerous situations, so naturally it was seen as a man's job to take on roles where their life might be in jeopardy such as mining, fishing or the military. The recent loss of intrinsic value is therefore an entirely separate issue t…
/r/MensRights21/11/20 04:40 PM
46

Don't worry guys, we all know sexism isn't allowed on social media platforms. Wait did I say sexism? I meant sexism against women, of course. EDIT: On the bright side, it seems the comments on their post are a little more reasonable, with quite a few of them calling out the tactless nature of posting this and particularly posting it on IMD.
/r/MensRights21/11/20 03:28 PM
16

Feminists use the word patriarchy to describe the cultural biases that do indeed result in a number of disadvantages to men (non-intrinsic value, mental health stigma, etc.). Of the disadvantages to pick, these have to be among the least important, compared to say child support ruining men financially, men doing worse than women in higher ed, men committing suicide at higher rates, etc. You are playing into their game of using international men's day to promote feminist ideals (ending the so-cal…
/r/MensRights21/11/20 03:23 PM
1

I mean delusion isn't helpful regardless of which sex it's directed at. Better to simply say everyone has good and bad points, rather than lying to people that they're all perfect. It also doesn't motivate people to actually get fitter, if they're already "perfect". A more inspiring message is that everyone can become an ideal version of themselves, if they put the work in.
/r/MensRights17/11/20 01:34 AM
41

topkek
/r/MensRights23/10/20 08:29 AM
68

The department will investigate whether these programs discriminate against men by excluding them from applying That's going to be a quick investigation.
/r/MensRights15/10/20 06:52 AM
2

I'm guessing they're referring to the inability for women to vote and/or work, and less stringency on sexism/harassment etc.
/r/MensRights14/09/20 11:20 PM
3

Well no, the men one is even worse since it includes Jewish men as well as all other men if you care about comparing them. But it's pointless to compare them because they're both stupid as we've agreed, neither are justifiable.
/r/MensRights14/09/20 10:58 PM
3

but this post just acts as something to downplay the absurdity of the nazis. As opposed to the absurdity of blaming an entire gender for the issues of the past. Both are idiotic statements.
/r/MensRights14/09/20 08:38 PM
68

Most people think of “feminism” as gender equality, But there's a definite stereotype of the man-hating feminist that exists, and it exists for good reason, because there are quite a few out there. And since they aren't denounced and removed by the movement, we are right to condemn them for not doing so (and we should). It's not using blanket terms, it's using the term which they themselves have poisoned. If we don't call it feminism then people will continue to think feminism is in a good state…
/r/MensRights29/08/20 09:01 PM
3

Literally never heard an MRA complain about being rejected by a woman or paying the bill on a date, not once. Also have never heard a feminist campaigning to stop domestic violence or rape against men. I'll be happy to support it when I see it, but I haven't seen it, at all.
/r/MensRights24/08/20 10:45 AM
1

May I ask if you are this stringent with your analysis when someone points out the sentencing disparity for blacks vs whites. Yes, I think most people have a short-sighted view of statistics, so I am absolutely scrutinizing of such statistics. Thanks for linking the study.
/r/MensRights19/08/20 04:20 PM
1

Yeah but that doesn't tell you enough. Men also probably get many % more costly speeding fines than women for the same crime of speeding. Yet they were probably breaking the speed limit by 2x or 3x more than the women in most cases, since men tend to drive more aggressively and subsequently get into more serious car accidents. I would wager the 'same crime' was committed more heinously on average by men, given that men tend to commit more serious crimes generally speaking. It is not to say that …
/r/MensRights19/08/20 04:02 PM
8

Well incarceration rates are astronomically higher for men than for women for a start. Of course that is due to men committing more crimes, but in some cases such as this one it turns out not to be the case, so we ought to celebrate any effort to bring those numbers down for those who were wrongfully incarcerated.
/r/MensRights19/08/20 03:16 PM
10

Well kind of. The kitchen one isn't really that bad, because there is scientific evidence that women prefer housewifery over part-time or full-time careers. I'm not aware of any evidence of men being happier being dead. I completely agree that we shouldn't be stereotyping at all, but the two are not at all comparable, and equating the two should never happen, namely because we absolutely cannot let "kill all men" - a call to gender-based genocide - become acceptable in any way shape or form. Bec…
/r/MensRights02/08/20 11:37 AM
7

Wikipedia has become a liberal trash-heap over the past 10 years. It's not a reliable source for anything even slightly right of center.
/r/MensRights27/07/20 10:24 AM
3

Yeah "slut shaming" is definitely the problem, when we're seeing record numbers of STDs such as Chlamydia that affect Women at double the rate of men (overall rate for both genders has doubled since 2000). I'm glad we as a society are targeting the real issues in 2020.
/r/MensRights24/07/20 11:42 AM
1

483,000 likes and 140,000 retweets for mob rule persecution without any evidence, when rape has a ~6% false accusation rate, 4x that of any other crime. Just no words..
/r/MensRights07/07/20 01:50 PM
11

Strange, never heard about it on the news, even though I hear about every little afront committed by white people against minorities from the media. Must just be a coincidence. /s
/r/MensRights06/07/20 07:01 AM
7

You can accept that they have gender dysphoria, while still recognising that physiologically they still have the chromosomes and in most cases physical stature of their biological sex. Indeed the very definition of gender dysphoria and trans to begin with relies on an originating sex that one does not feel they belong to, therefore any admission of a trans person is an admission of their originating sex. It seems the main distinction is that liberals want to give them 'their truth' while conserv…
/r/MensRights01/07/20 04:53 AM
2

They're right, can't have your rights infringed if you're dead. /s
/r/MensRights24/05/20 07:31 PM
17

Does Clementine really think that people are going to read "the corona virus isn't killing men fast enough" and interpret it as whatever that long-winded essay above is meant to say? Rather than you know, interpreting it in plain English? Such a liar.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 07:18 AM
19

That is huge, almost one third of all DV claims. How's that for a counter-argument to the idea that men don't suffer from DV? 1 in 3 victims are men.
/r/MensRights06/05/20 03:24 PM
1

Sorry I meant the unwanted sexual comment or advance, not the rape comment. Yes the rape comment sounds like it should be considered a threat by law and would be prosecutable.
/r/MensRights05/04/20 10:21 AM
2

Nobody here from what I can see is disputing that it's immoral, the issue is whether it should involve the government and be part of law. This is why the post we're replying to has a link to "sexual violence and the law", and why people care at all. It's one thing to socially condemn an activity, it's quite another to put someone in jail for it. I think most are happy to socially condemn the activity, the issue is in suggesting the government get involved, as this website is doing.
/r/MensRights05/04/20 09:37 AM
5

Claiming you want to rape someone with a broom is evidently a threat, not an "unwanted sexual comment", there are laws that already exist for that if it is indeed not a joke. But you mentioned a drunk person making a sexual remark, not threatening actual violence or rape. These are very different things so please don't conflate the two, even if it helps your argument. The word violence suggests a level of seriousness that warrants jail-time, traditionally speaking. Since violence almost always m…
/r/MensRights05/04/20 07:30 AM
14

Doesn't make it violence. Sorry, words have meanings. I'm not discrediting your experience but equating a drunk person's inappropriate comment with any kind of physical assault is ridiculous. It is not psychological damage if it is occasional, humans are designed to go into fight or flight on occasion. Provided it is a rarity this shouldn't be treated at all with the same severity as a legitimate threat. There are even studies that show this improves your immune system (not saying it is good ove…
/r/MensRights05/04/20 06:13 AM
28

Only problem is it looks like they would treat a guy making an unwanted sexual advance, such as moving in for a kiss after misreading a date's intentions, as "sexual violence". They seem to be more concerned about increasing authoritarianism than whether it affects men or women. I.e. the more they can push their distorted view of what sexual violence is (obviously most people would not treat an unwanted comment or advance as violence), the better, and this therefore means men must be included.
/r/MensRights05/04/20 05:39 AM
46

Which is ridiculous because their definition of violence includes "Unwanted sexual comments". Who in their right mind treats an "Unwanted" (note: this is subjective, recognizing that sometimes a guy or girl gets it wrong in terms of reading what is wanted) sexual comments as violence? This is the distortion of language that progressives are using to increase government control. The more that can be treated as violence, the more that can be policed under the guise of "helping society".
/r/MensRights05/04/20 05:36 AM
1

It's still supporting the platform, and if artists aren't willing to use another platform, that's their loss.
/r/MensRights10/03/20 01:27 PM
2

These same people will say traditional masculinity is "outdated" and "harmful", and often equate it with toxic masculinity. So a woman should "be herself" while men need to "do better", stop "mansplaining" and supporting the "patriarchy". The lack of any feminine equivalents for all the new negative terms for men is quite telling. I guess this is what equality means when it is defined by feminists.
/r/MensRights08/03/20 03:37 AM
1

And chances are with that sort of consideration she probably has a more successful, charismatic and attractive husband than any of them. Because many men would kill for that kind of caring woman. She probably also doesn't have to work, or works very little compared to the girls complaining. But of course they would never tell you that side of the story.
/r/MensRights09/02/20 09:01 AM
15

Stupid sexy Flanders.
/r/MensRights23/12/19 04:28 AM
3

No silly, it says longer hours not more hours. Everyone knows that 1 female worked hour is 40% longer than a male worked hour (because internalised misogyny or something). /s
/r/MensRights16/12/19 09:29 AM
6

Then we can move on to similar pressing issues such as getting more men to become make-up artists, more women to do boxing, more children to like lawn bowls and more retirees to attend rave parties. Or, perhaps we could acknowledge that different demographics are simply into different things and won't be represented in equal proportions everywhere, and let them do whatever they want. Crazy thought I know.
/r/MensRights27/11/19 12:20 PM
69

Hate is the right word. This is textbook hate speech and we should be calling it out everywhere it rears its ugly head.
/r/MensRights19/10/19 11:15 AM
8

Literally admitting the current practices are discriminatory, bravo, finally someone senior talking sense.
/r/MensRights17/10/19 09:24 AM
3

Isn't this technically sexist against women? Because none of this has been shown to be a result of discrimination, what other reason can there be if not the choices made by women? And yet there are plenty of women who didn't make these fiscally weaker choices, yet they are being lumped in with those who did. Not all women earn less than men, some women do, and if they want that to change they need to make better career choices. The claim that women as a whole earn less than men is the equivalent…
/r/MensRights05/10/19 02:36 AM
3

So I have a theory that, because some women are promoted to positions they wouldn't have on a purely merit basis due to corporates attempting to come across as "socially conscious", men who got promoted on merit alone end up having to explain more to such women. Therefore, women end up at the receiving end of so-called "mansplaining" because of ill-conceived woke policy. What do you guys think?
/r/MensRights05/10/19 01:02 AM
2

It's actually even higher for men. An 11% decline vs. an 8% decline for Women. This coincides with previous research that men deal with break-ups more harshly than women. Personally I think it's because for a man being historically the provider, break-up is seen as a sign that they've 'failed', where-as for a woman it just means the right guy hasn't come yet, because it isn't up to them to pursue men, only to 'be available' for men to pursue them. As a result women likely don't feel as guilty fo…
/r/MensRights03/10/19 12:12 PM
1

Passing blame as always. If women choose to do things that are less advantageous for them than men, that is on them. The format of these articles is always the same. "Women are worse off in some situation X caused by their decision Y this is because of something that has nothing to do with decision Y". Or to put it simpler: "Woman are worse off in X, here is why it's not their fault (even though it is)". Such crock. At least it gives them insight into the decisions causing it, I guess.
/r/MensRights02/10/19 07:53 AM
2

This has to be a joke. Literally being blamed for something that is uncontrollable. Meanwhile there are articles about how unconscious bias is to blame for women not recognising symptoms of heart attack. The war on men continues.
/r/MensRights30/09/19 09:07 AM
15

My condolences for the mother, but isn't this basically blackmailing the government? "Give me money or I'll commit suicide". Anxiety and depression are treatable conditions in most cases * (I've suffered from both in the past), I don't think that's reason enough for someone to not work their entire life. EDIT: *added in most cases, as naturally there are extreme cases that can't be treated and may require special care. I also don't mean to discount the illness or say it can be cured, simply sayi…
/r/MensRights28/09/19 03:46 PM
38

The internet wouldn't side with a cop disturbing a dude reading a book on his own, if anything it would support the "cops are assholes" narrative.
/r/MensRights27/09/19 02:57 AM
18

feminism is just the belief that women and men should be equal and i agree with that Then why does this sub exist, and why are feminists against it? The fact that they not only don't support mens rights, but actively oppose them proves that their agenda is most certainly not that "men and women should be equal".
/r/MensRights26/09/19 11:26 AM
18

Positive discrimination to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There is still no evidence that women are being discriminated against. The fact that they need to restrict applications for men basically proves as much. If similarly capable women were applying at similar rates to men, then why would you need to restrict male applicants, why wouldn't you simply hire the women? It's because they are applying at vastly fewer rates, and therefore have fewer strong candidates, which is why they are wait…
/r/MensRights24/09/19 12:55 PM
11

Feminists: We are all about gender equality. Also Feminists: This name plate.
/r/MensRights23/09/19 05:56 AM
7

This is a bit trickier because he is expecting her to sacrifice her job for X number of years. My understanding is part of the 50:50 financial split in divorce law was designed for this reason. Though I don't think 50:50 is justified, receiving no compensation for rearing kids while you forego employment opportunities seems a bit like a dick move.
/r/MensRights22/09/19 04:28 AM
-1

I don't recall America ever arming the Taliban or Hamas. On the contrary we attacked the Taliban after 9/11. In any case you concede these are not problems we created, even if our actions may not always result in positive outcomes. And I think it's clear that the alternative of letting them retain power is far more dangerous, particularly with terrorist groups such as the Taliban or ISIS. So some intervention is necessary to protect America from its enemies.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 03:53 PM
1

Lo, do you know how ISIS came about in the first place? American Intervention in Iraq. You have obviously no idea what you're talking about. And the Taliban were no threat at all (to America) until you invaded Afghanistan. You were friends with the cunts. Yes I'm aware. My question is, what would you like America to do? Because based on your rationale, the thing we should be doing is leaving the middle-east and therefore lletting ISIS do their thing. Is that your idea of good foreign policy, and…
/r/MensRights17/09/19 03:42 PM
5

The problem with deciding that words or phrases shouldn't be used anymore is two fold: 1) There are often underlying reasons for why terms exist, since people usually don't come up with terms randomly. Before you decide to get rid of a term, you should think about why the term exists in the first place. "Man up" seems to be a call to action for a man to honour his name in the face of some adversity, which most men appreciate (typically, men like such challenges). Of course it can be used negativ…
/r/MensRights17/09/19 03:37 PM
-1

The Taliban exists because of American interference? Really? How? How about Muslim extremism? Hamas? How about the Syrian civil war? Are you suggesting America is to blame for all of this? Because that seems rather unlikely. There isn't anything America could do to cause all of that, even if it wanted to. Any small insurgencies or similar activities America may have done are not enough to breed an entire culture of Muslim extremism, for example.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 03:21 PM
0

No offense (I mean this genuinely, not insultingly) but I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about if you think the current wars are "of no benefit to your country". No country goes to war for no reason, it is immensely expensive in money, lives, planning and other aspects. That you haven't researched every place American troops are stationed to find the rationale for it, doesn't mean there is no rationale, it means you haven't done your due diligence before developing your opini…
/r/MensRights17/09/19 02:45 PM
-1

Except for you know, the Taliban, ISIS, and other threats that would have grown if not for American intervention. Would you rather we left them to proliferate? While of course global trade has something to do with America's interests, calling the armed forces "nothing more than a gang of thugs" is really over the top.
/r/MensRights17/09/19 02:39 PM
2

Except there's nothing misogynistic about finding women attractive and discussing this among close friends. It doesn't mean he doesn't respect the woman. You can respect someone and find them attractive, obviously. It just so happens men are biologically attracted to woman predominantly by their appearance, where women place more stock in status, personality, etc. That's just science. To claim men shouldn't discuss women's appearance is a form of misandry, since it claims a man's sexual interest…
/r/MensRights11/09/19 07:59 AM
97

Gee those able-bodied, middle-aged, white, male homeless guys in developed nations really ought to cash in their privilege cheques. Quick, someone go tell them how privileged they are.
/r/MensRights09/09/19 03:17 PM
1

Man gets falsely accused of something, jeopardizing his livelihood. People defend the man from false accusations and provide support. ... Is this.. Misogyny?
/r/MensRights07/09/19 12:18 PM
1

Incel also forgets that many people are religious and still value the sanctity of being intimate. Because for some people there's more to life than how much promiscuous sex you are having (and subsequently how much you risk getting STDs, unwanted pregnancies etc).
/r/MensRights02/09/19 02:49 AM
8

Gender imbalance means even though there are far far fewer female applicants than male applicants, we expect a 50:50 gender split in our employees to forward our political agenda, even though this means discriminating against men based on their gender.
/r/MensRights31/08/19 12:40 PM
2

Guess that's one more right we should be fighting for - the right to have our own supportive communities. Thanks random spiteful woman!
/r/MensRights22/08/19 03:25 PM
8

Who would have thought a knowledge repository that can be updated by anyone could be wrong?
/r/MensRights10/08/19 03:57 PM
16

That must be why men succeed in such welcoming industries as: Military Mining Plumbing Garbage collection Police Firefighting Men every day work in large man-made craters; knee deep in shit; amongst criminals; and against another country's armed forces. If nerd culture is what's stopping women from joining computer science, my advice is get a grip. But we already know why they are talking about computer science and not plumbing. It's cushy white collar jobs with high salaries that they are after…
/r/MensRights06/08/19 12:49 PM
2

I never understood the "they should be more normal" argument. Why would anything less than the most ideal version of a person be on national television, magazine covers, and advertisements? He-Man is a superhero, Barbie is seen as "the perfect girl". If He-Man was chosen as the warrior to protect their nation as an overweight balding guy, something would seriously be wrong. Likewise if Barbie as the perfect girl looked pudgy and dressed frumpy, on billboards and TV, that would be setting the bar…
/r/MensRights29/06/19 05:46 AM
1

"Oh crap they're coming up the north flank!" "Who are?" "The Australian Army." "Hahahaha..let them come" This is going to the conversation. Australia will be the laughing stock of the world with its inequipped military. The radical feminism that led to this decision is a bloody joke and we are all going to die for it.
/r/MensRights23/06/19 04:04 PM
5

She's pretty attractive though, I wouldn't really call her plus-size. She looks closer to Kim Kardashian's size which is 'trendy' at the moment.
/r/MensRights28/05/19 02:11 PM
20

The author says that social definitions and norms, such as the idea that women are weak, are constructed by women with their needs in mind. Eh, it's the same social constructivist BS that feminists pull. Women are on average dramatically physically weaker, and on average have a different psychological profile than men. Part of this can be explained by genetics. The scientific literature is pretty clear on all of this. Let's not dumb ourselves down to pseudo-scienctific drivel just because it ali…
/r/MensRights28/05/19 02:08 PM
28

/r/murderedbywords
/r/MensRights12/05/19 11:31 AM
7

I didn't say they did. You claimed the Mod agreeing with you meant something. I was pointing out that it doesn't since they aren't the arbiters of morality.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 11:29 PM
5

Any post approaching straight up victim-blaming is about as harmful to the MRM as plain censorship. Only if you know, MRM actually agrees with the position. You removing posts that nobody agrees with in fact does a disservice by obscuring our opinion on such issues, namely, that we don't agree with them.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 04:47 PM
-6

Oh good, I'm glad we have a voice of authority to tell us how to think and what to believe.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 04:43 PM
2

Okay, so you want more people to believe what is in Op's comment? I'm not sure where you are going with this. Who are you trying to convince here and what are you trying to convince them of?
/r/MensRights28/04/19 04:41 PM
23

Considering nobody saw this comment until Op decided to post it, I would say it is doing quite well.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 04:02 PM
15

Yes, that's why we have the downvote button.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 04:00 PM
10

And they probably all have at most one upvote if not downvotes. That's how every reddit community works, you get a few bad apples and they get downvoted. But even still Op did not post a few examples, they posted one single comment, which is not indicative of any trend or pattern.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 04:00 PM
21

This type of shit, regardless of how many upvotes, creates a bad name for us as a whole It doesn't though because nobody saw the comment, because it only had one upvote. And if someone truly felt that one one-upvoted comment was a reflection of our entire community, that is on them, not on us.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 03:44 PM
41

It means it is unnoteworthy since almost nobody agrees with it. Why should we talk about something that nobody agrees with? What does that solve? If nobody agreed with it before then at best nobody will agree with it after. The only reason to post this is to virtue signal to others how much you won't tolerate certain viewpoints. Which is their right, but isn't really a good reason to post in my view.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 03:33 PM
2

I never said it was mandatory free speech, I said the comment deserve to be here because it's one of the largest publicly accessible websites. It should promote free speech because it is akin to a communal public space. Reddit is known to not be a free speech area. This isn't news anymore. I'm aware, doesn't change my view.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 03:20 PM
2

I mean publicly available. I'm not disputing their right to be anti-free-speech, I'm disputing the morality of such a decision, particularly on arguably the largest community website on the internet.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 02:58 PM
56

Oh please, the comment has one upvote. Portraying this as /r/mensrights is the same as Gillette claiming all men are sexual predators who 'need to do better', when the vast majority don't do such things. This is pure virtue-signalling by the Op and I'm surprised nobody is calling them out for it.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 02:49 PM
12

Saying the comment "doesn't deserve to be on /r/mensrights" is suggesting that comments need to "earn their place" on the sub, and that this comment hasn't done so and should be removed. That is antithetical to the point of reddit, where users decide what content is noteworthy or not via upvotes or downvotes. I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve with this post, given that the comment you screenshotted has a whopping 1 upvote on it, apart from virtue-signalling. Because even removing it w…
/r/MensRights28/04/19 02:47 PM
1

It was a figure of speech. The point is the same.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 02:39 PM
4

This is a public website.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 02:38 PM
8

Yes they do, because it's a free bloody country. 1 Upvote? You decided to post this because of 1 upvote? Just downvote it and move on. I do not support censorship and nor should you, no matter how reprehensible the view is. EDIT: I should add that I don't support the views in the comment, though this is really beside the point.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 02:28 PM
24

Literally wrote about how toxic sexism is and subsequently admitted to being man hating within the same bloody post. I truly think these people have either no logical bone in their body, or just don't care and have conceded to repeating the same tired political tropes even if they make no sense whatsoever. I feel like arguing with this person would be like debating a radish, full of hardiness yet lacking any cognitive ability.
/r/MensRights25/04/19 01:02 PM
1

Well when you see companies that have 20-30%+ female employees, despite females representing closer to 5-10% of the IT cohort at university (and that is being generous), it becomes pretty clear what is going on. Then there are blatantly obvious, ridiculous examples such as Harvey Mudd, who while not a tech company, as a university took in 50-50 men and women applicants (which would correspond to about 3:1 favouritism of women). If Harvey Mudd can go to such extremes without reprisal, it seems ve…
/r/MensRights25/04/19 08:09 AM
5

Others have said most of them. In IT women are hired at the rate of roughly 2:1 on average to men, relative to admission rates, which means employers are showing preference for women in order to show they have a 'diverse' workplace. This despite it being not only sexist but illegal to choose a job applicant based on their gender. The way women casually talk about 'bringing their husband in line' and in some cases threatening violence "if he ever did X to me I'll cut off his .." is pretty concern…
/r/MensRights24/04/19 10:29 AM
3

"You do realise some men are insecure about their height too, don't you? Why else do you think they get defensive?"
/r/MensRights10/04/19 12:44 PM
29

So violence against men and boys in child arrangement cases doesn't require an inquiry.. Hm.
/r/MensRights07/04/19 01:34 PM
53

I kind of hope enough people read the article as "More women are able to survive and not be homeless without working than men", because that's what this ultimately boils down to. Women don't work because they can. If a man doesn't work, it is rare that he has a woman who will support him.
/r/MensRights03/04/19 10:04 AM
20

To believe in the wage gap you have to believe people value discriminating against others (and subsequently breaking the law) more than making money. I don't see any evidence for this. Moreover, where are the lawsuits? And when there are lawsuits, it turns out it is men that are being paid less, not women (though the amount was small because again, people are in interested in making money more than discriminating). The only way the wage gap exists is if you make some statistical error such as co…
/r/MensRights03/04/19 09:59 AM
2

I hate this pattern so much it physically pains me. Women are under-represented in X What can society do to fix this injustice? I swear these people would have to look the word "responsibility" up in the dictionary if you suggested that they are personally responsible for the decisions and indecisions they make. In the absence of any evidence of discrimination (last I checked nobody is forcing men or women to cycle), it is up to the individual to decide how they live their life, not society. If …
/r/MensRights14/03/19 10:56 AM
7

All you have to do is change it to negative tense to see how fucking sexist this is. "Games not made by men" Imagine if it read the below: "Games not made by women" How do you think the media would react? This is a total joke and I can't wait until it's revealed for the hypocritic BS that it is.
/r/MensRights09/03/19 04:51 AM
1

then you must accept the proposition "the vast majority of men do not have political, or institutional power, therefore the vast majority of men cannot be sexist" Correct. Lets call this "point A" So if (i) the vast majority of men and women cannot be sexist, (ii) the only gender that can be sexist is the gender that has ultimate political and institutional power and (iii) women occupy all the ultimate positions of political and institutional power, then it follows that only women can be sexist.…
/r/MensRights05/03/19 12:03 PM
3

~80 firefighters die each year in the US on average (link ). Around 3% are women. Assuming men and women would die at roughly equal proportions, Harvard Business School are essentially advocating for something that would lead to 38 more female deaths, statistically speaking. How the heck is that good for women?
/r/MensRights05/03/19 10:48 AM
1

Well you are falling into the same statistical problem that they are, in extrapolating the benefits of the top 0.01% to the remaining 99.99% because of their gender. It just isn't the case, majority of people are simply 'normal' for lack of a better term with some minor differences based on demographics. The entire lower and middle class of men are worse off than the upper class of women, and vice versa. If you really want to talk about institutional power you should be talking about class struc…
/r/MensRights05/03/19 10:28 AM
1

The best response to this is "Neither do I". If that fails then ask them to name one benefit you gain strictly by way of your gender (and if they mention the pay gap you've basically won). Really unless you're the 1% you are unlikely to be notably better or worse off than the opposite sex. Claiming that you somehow inherit the power of your superiors because of your gender is simply prejudice.
/r/MensRights04/03/19 12:43 PM
4

On the one hand you are right and this argument should be used when it needs to be, yet on the other you are entertaining a stupid argument. You named 8 women and the majority of an electorate (don't know how many but I'm guessing less than 100?). There are literally billions of women that don't have such positions, just as there are men. The point being looking at the gender of the top 0.001% and extrapolating it to an entire freaking gender is awfully prejudice.
/r/MensRights04/03/19 12:36 PM
10

Obsessed with pointing out significant acts of injustice, sounds like a pretty damn good obsession to me.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 12:11 PM
3

It's not a patriarchy it's simply human biology. Men were historically the protectors and providers while women were the carers and nurturers. This is naturally because of the dramatic difference in physical strength on average between the sexes. In that sense it makes sense historically that a man would be put to jail for longer, since he is often more dangerous through his physical stature. Only physical strength doesn't mean anywhere near as much now as who is brandishing a gun or a knife, so…
/r/MensRights27/02/19 02:02 PM
6

Well you know what they say, sexism sells.
/r/MensRights26/02/19 10:49 AM
2

Has a labor gap too.
/r/MensRights25/02/19 10:43 AM
1

Further proof that our current education system teaches indoctrination. It looks like we need two definitions of education, "education" in crazy fringe left-wing postmodernist ideologies, and education in strictly factual and science-based disciplines. I would not call someone who treats mansplaining as a greater social epidemic than rape in third-world countries (or similar atrocities) educated, at best "educated" with quotes (the first definition I gave).
/r/MensRights17/02/19 05:51 AM
5

"Why does that matter? I didn't realise it was a competition. Okay, how about we address both issues then?", to which you will probably get a response like "This takes attention away from women's issues", whereby you can say "Good, because it isn't only women who face these issues.". There is no argument they can make from here, apart from vague allusions to their "historical oppression". Then you realise it isn't about the issue at all, but about reaffirming some deep-seated belief about women …
/r/MensRights16/02/19 12:23 PM
15

Eugh, I can smell the smug from here.
/r/MensRights10/02/19 04:18 PM
1

Food is more important to a relationship than sex. You can live without sex. You can't live without food. Aha, interesting argument. You can live without a partner as well, can't you? ;). Clearly whether you are able to live with or without something isn't a sufficient criteria for whether something is important, otherwise your partner, children, car, house wouldn't be important either. Obviously food is more important than sex, but that doesn't mean sex is not important. It is important, just n…
/r/MensRights10/02/19 04:13 PM
1

Marriage is not performed soley for the purpose of enabling sex. Sure, but I think it's safe to say sex is a big part of people's relationships, if you look at just how often couples do it particularly in their younger years. The notion that you save your virginity for wedding night is nothing but religious hogwash. Hogwash as it may be, this is still practised by the very religious. In this very case it was practised, so it can't really be called 'hogwash'. Typically when you buy a car you test…
/r/MensRights10/02/19 07:34 AM
6

Well it's a pretty safe assumption that the woman would want to know this, so although it isn't specifically asked for, it should be discussed prior to marriage. It's the same as if you are buying a car and upon purchasing it at the showroom you realise it doesn't have an engine. Sure you might not have asked "does this car have an engine?", but it is a pretty safe assumption that you would want the car to have an engine, so you would rightly be annoyed at the car salesman for omitting this vita…
/r/MensRights09/02/19 06:07 PM
132

Feminists: Feminism is about equality! Also Feminists:
/r/MensRights07/02/19 10:27 AM
11

Can someone say victim blaming?
/r/MensRights01/02/19 01:19 AM
1

And she'll blame the patriarchy for not being able to find a job. Yeah it's definitely the patriarchy's fault that your PhD in comedic sitcoms isn't landing you a job, not the fact that you chose to major in a highly specialised field that is barely profitable. I hope she finds work in a more level-headed field of journalism, one that doesn't presuppose that human biology and its strong influence is false for example.
/r/MensRights26/01/19 04:55 AM
20

Then again who actually reads "Indy100". Sounds like another independent 'woke' journalist jumping on the virtue signalling train. Also I love the argument about historical oppression, because that is a racial supremacy argument if I ever heard one. "My race was oppressed 100 years ago, so I am entitled to be free from criticism". For all the talk of white privilege it seems whites are the only ones privileged enough for it to be socially acceptable to criticise. In any case, two wrongs don't ma…
/r/MensRights25/01/19 06:24 AM
9

Stop using facistbook
/r/MensRights23/01/19 01:09 AM
44

"What rights do women have that men don't?" These ones.
/r/MensRights21/01/19 09:30 AM
29

This shit right here. This is why you need MRAs
/r/MensRights20/01/19 02:08 PM
112

“This will draw attention away from women’s issues,” The nerve. All we ever hear is women's issues. When was the last time men's issues made headlines? I certainly can't remember one. If I ever hear someone make this argument I will ask them to recite the last three times men's issues made some form of headline, I would be surprised if they could even name one.
/r/MensRights19/01/19 05:07 PM
68

Didn't you get the memo? Finding women attractive is illegal now.
/r/MensRights17/01/19 12:30 AM
2

I found it by searching, it is here. EDIT: This also appears to be the UK one. However on second thought wouldn't it be the same given Australia and the UK serve the same Crown under the Monarchy of Queen Elizabeth?
/r/MensRights15/01/19 02:54 PM
2

There are a damn lot of better reasons why there isn't any point including the likelihood you will be arrested. This is what made me realise this Prosecution Service should be met with great skepticism. The fact that they don't include the biggest reason men won't call about DV shows they are being insincere. I wouldn't trust them until they proved otherwise. I also like this little gem in their "Violence Against Women and Girls" policy: VAWG policies are applied fairly and equitably to all perp…
/r/MensRights15/01/19 02:47 PM
5

It's possible, but what she is describing is in fact rape, it's not a euphemism or exaggeration at all. I suppose there could be context she isn't giving. Either way it is in really poor taste, though it doesn't sound very satirical to me.
/r/MensRights14/01/19 10:24 PM
742

How does someone use a freaking winky smiley while admitting to raping someone, while literally using the word "raped"? That requires some insane level of cognitive dissonance. Surely at some point in writing that tweet you would stop and think to yourself "hang on, what I am saying here". Then again perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising that her decision making leaves a bit to be desired.
/r/MensRights14/01/19 11:52 AM
23

I hope they keep up the "If you didn't want a child you shouldn't have had sex" argument, because the defence is obvious, take your own damn advice.
/r/MensRights13/01/19 02:56 PM
1

They couldn't care less about what we stand for, all they care about is whether we are against feminism, which has done nothing to address and everything to exacerbate the problems men face. Masculinity itself (no, not just the toxic kind) has now been deemed harmful, no doubt in large part thanks to the scientifically wrong and dangerous ideology espoused by third wave feminism. We have every reason to be against feminism, so articles such as these shouldn't mean much in the grand scheme of thi…
/r/MensRights10/01/19 11:24 AM
3

weird flex but ok
/r/MensRights02/01/19 02:09 PM
2

Yes that's precisely it, there are good evolutionary reasons why we choose mates the way we do - neither are right or wrong. Perhaps the extremes can lead to negative consequences, e.g. the womaniser who only cares about sex/physical attraction vs. the gold-digger who only cares about money. Yet increasingly we see examples of men who moderately flatter women based on their appearance as "objectifying women". When was the last time you heard of women "objectifying men"? If a measured interest in…
/r/MensRights01/01/19 04:51 AM
148

Calling physical attraction "shallow" is another. We don't say it's shallow to appreciate fine art or photography, so why does this apply to men who appreciate women's physical beauty? Yes personality matters, but it is a denial of our own biology to say appearance does not. And it is not true that you can't change your appearance, many women spend lots of time figuring out just how to do this. To claim that the way men are attracted to women is somehow worse than the way women are attracted to …
/r/MensRights30/12/18 03:27 AM
90

“These men and women that leave their homes to work away to provide for their families are not a threat to rural communities,” said Wheale in her letter to Trudeau. “These are, as you said, mostly men who spend weeks and months away from their families investing into their home away from home. “They spend often hundreds and even thousands of dollars at hotels, restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores and countless other places that often just make ends meet. These men provide tips that the youn…
/r/MensRights24/12/18 09:23 AM
1

Feminisms big issue is that they make issues out of nothing. Sex assault isn’t a small issue. If feminist made a big deal out of a male teacher sleeping with his student I don’t think we’d be saying “there go those crazy feminists again” Yeah that's consistent with what I'm saying, male on female statutory rape is bad. My point is that you can't simply swap the genders and treat it the same. Men statistically speaking are more promiscuous than women on average, and consequently likely to have fa…
/r/MensRights21/12/18 10:34 AM
3

I think you can say this is wrong while acknowledging that unlike women, on average men do fantasise about this sort of thing. Doesn't mean all men, nor does it excuse the female perpetrator in any way at all, what she did was clearly wrong. But biologically speaking men and women are different, and this is one of the ways. I just don't want us to fall into the same trap feminists do of assuming the sexes are identical. We can and should treat them the same legally because that's the definition …
/r/MensRights21/12/18 08:39 AM
2

Possibly. Only medicine pays a ton as does law. And last I heard female grads were earning more on average than men, so I don't know how strong that argument is.
/r/MensRights17/12/18 09:06 AM
9

So the best response then is "Shouldn't we worry about all the majors that women dominate first before looking at the only major where they don't dominate?". Would like to see them weasel their way out of that fact. I would hope most would be sensible enough to concede rather than try to push the women in STEM narrative. And if they do persist, it is pretty strong evidence that they don't care about gender equality, but instead female dominance.
/r/MensRights16/12/18 10:45 AM
1

Cue Google's YouTube algorithm "magically" changing to show 50:50 men and women in the recommendations list.
/r/MensRights11/12/18 10:24 PM
1

"Repeat the mistakes of ancient industries"? WHO is making the mistakes? Mr. Free Market? I am sick to death of people blaming companies for independent outcomes. GET BETTER. That's the beauty of the free market. Nobody is to blame for it being 100% male or 100% female except the people themselves. And you can prove this by asking one question: "What should be done about it?". If their answer starts with "Companies" or similar, then you know they have already failed to understand the free market…
/r/MensRights11/12/18 08:34 AM
-3

Well all of those apply to saying yes on camera just as well. I wasn't claiming it is a perfect defense, I'm just saying it would be pretty hard to argue that a woman that is actively engaging in a sexual activity is doing so against her will, if no threat is evident.
/r/MensRights01/12/18 01:25 PM
68

It's the Sun, the word neutrality is too long for them to understand, let alone adhere to.
/r/MensRights01/12/18 10:50 AM
-5

Why don't they just ask the woman to be on top first? If a woman is performing the sexual act, unless there is evidence she is being threatened you cannot say she isn't consenting - since she is initiating the act and can stop whenever she wants. Might not be what they want sexually but that's what you get in our current culture.
/r/MensRights01/12/18 10:47 AM
1

There's no gap though, a gap suggests it should be 50/50, and that there is some hole just waiting to be filled by women/lower represented people. GAP: 0 -> 100 |---|xx|------| Reason to use: Oh we must fill this gap with more people of "X" NO GAP: 0 -> 100 |---||--------| Reason to use: Men and women are paid proportional to their productive potential, which is not 50/50. Any 'gap' ignores the choices by the genders that lead to the natural unevenness. There is also no 'hole' in the employment …
/r/MensRights01/12/18 01:16 AM
4

Alternate headline: Women with less experience than men earned less than men. My god stop the press, this is insanity!
/r/MensRights01/12/18 01:07 AM
6

Yes I mentioned that in my comment.
/r/MensRights28/11/18 02:08 PM
18

You can look up the stats, I think it's around 4-8% false allegations for rape and 1-2% for other crimes. I suspect it is due to the nature of rape being so difficult to prove, it provides more opportunity for it to be weaponised. It is also worth noting the 4-8% are the proven false claims, there are likely many that are either inconclusive/unprovable or proven true despite being false (wrongful conviction). Of course there are also proven false despite being true, so that should be taken into …
/r/MensRights28/11/18 11:02 AM
28

If you do the math there are 4x more false rape allegations than any other crime. So whoever purported that false allegations are a myth was being especially untruthful, likely for ideological reasons (as these things tend to be).
/r/MensRights28/11/18 07:02 AM
1

How is this not illegal? Don't we have laws precisely to ban discrimination based on sex? Also how do they quantify "under-represented", I really hope they aren't assuming a 50/50 split (though deep down I know that's what they expect, because men and women are to them completely identical).
/r/MensRights27/11/18 01:59 AM
7

There is no gap, gap implies an empty space to be filled. That space isn't empty, it is filled by people who are willing to invest more of their time into their career.
/r/MensRights25/11/18 09:51 AM
13

Shocker. I would have thought it was because everyone hates women /s. And there is no "gap", a gap implies there is an empty space needing to be filled. This is part of the bullshit word game they play to convince you of their argument. The same as the word "imbalance", it is balanced unless the companies aren't able to cover the shortfall caused by the fewer work hours, which doesn't seem to be the case. The only way this is an issue is if you can provide cases of women doing the exact same as …
/r/MensRights25/11/18 09:50 AM
103

Yeah the mental gymnastics is amazing when all it takes is swapping one word to see how wrong it is to generalise. It's like they've convinced themselves men are the problem a priori and are only trying to find reasons afterwards to justify their initial feeling. Mental gymnastics is often a good sign someone is doing this rather than rationally determining their position through logic and sincere deliberation on the problem.
/r/MensRights23/11/18 01:44 PM
6

This was eye opening. I grew up as a fan of Ellen, but to see her openly chastise the idea of International Men's Day in spite of being (presumably) a supporter of International Women's Day is just disgusting. Every day is men's day, except for the day we get sent to war, or the day we lose custody of our kids, or the day we end up homeless, or the day we get diagnosed with prostate cancer, or the day we commit suicide. All of which are disproportionately suffered by men, many of which they have…
/r/MensRights20/11/18 09:29 AM
15

And this is why you don't get your political views or value systems from talk show hosts, let alone Howard fucking Stern.
/r/MensRights20/11/18 09:08 AM
30

Notice they never mention you can do the exact same actions to men. Because that would show the RDR2 devs aren't being sexist. It also shows they only care when women are involved (not that I think they should care at all, it's a video game for pete's sake), yet somehow RDR2 are the sexist ones. You can't discriminate based on gender on which violence you report on, then call others sexist, unless you want to be called out as a hypocrite (which they should be).
/r/MensRights19/11/18 12:10 AM
6

If anyone ever claims we aren't cultivating snowflakes..
/r/MensRights19/11/18 12:02 AM
12

Why do we treat CEOs as experts on anything apart from their business? I hate it when they do it with celebrities, CEOS should be no different. There is nothing I can learn from this man about the human psyche, outside of how they behave on reddit, that I couldn't learn with much greater accuracy and depth from a psychologist or similar. The more we emphasize the need for experts and evidence-based claims, the sooner we can do away with ideas that lack them, of which this one obviously is. There…
/r/MensRights17/11/18 03:35 PM
15

So many questions. Why would I read GQ if its aspirational man for the year is a woman? I mean who do they think their audience is? Also why is the "WOMAN" in quotes? Are they suggesting Serena isn't a woman? I'm not sure what the point of this magazine is now, apart from being a progressive rag for immature millenials to read whilst pretending to be grown ups.
/r/MensRights16/11/18 02:19 PM
21

Worth it. Says 👏 the 👏 guy 👏 with 👏 no 👏 claps 👏 in 👏 his 👏 comment. 👏. Wow that's annoying. I hate myself just a little more for doing that.
/r/MensRights09/11/18 11:42 AM
18

I agree, though my hope is if the reverse can be justifiably used it will give them a strong reason to simply abandon the term altogether, since it no longer serves their ends and reveals the somewhat sexist nature of it. And if we don't abandon it, the least we can do is use it in an egalitarian fashion. Either we have balanced gendered language or none at all (I would prefer people end up deciding the latter).
/r/MensRights07/11/18 10:26 AM
222

As much as I abhor the term, if there was ever a time the word "womansplaining" were apt, this would be it. Such patronising drivel, can you imagine a male senator talking like that to women? He would get booted so fast. The scary thing is how accepted this discourse is. For being a so-called patriarchy we sure do allow a heck of a lot of misandry. Even from a pure political perspective it is utterly disrespectful and unprofessional, before even getting into the blatant sexism.
/r/MensRights07/11/18 07:30 AM
16

What, for not giving equal credence to the man hating anti-republican third wave feminism? I support women's rights and any sub that deals with them without adopting the radical parts of modern day feminism, I don't support radical groups that stand for more nefarious ideals such as feminism. Equality is not the point of feminism. Why else do you think this sub exists? If feminism were about equality then we wouldn't need a men's rights sub, there would simply be a male-focused sect for male spe…
/r/MensRights06/11/18 05:32 AM
20

You're attacking the straw man that feminism is synonymous with women's rights, it is not in its current third wave form. I support everything you mentioned yet I don't support modern feminism. If there was a moderate sub called womensrights that focused on women's issues without demonising men, I would be all for it.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 05:14 AM
5

Just like feminism.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 05:11 AM
2

Unless she banned him from all electronic media.
/r/MensRights30/10/18 02:39 PM
7

Worth, who is now in a new relationship, was made the subject of a restraining order which prevents her from contacting her ex for an indefinite period. Damn. Sucks to be that guy.
/r/MensRights28/10/18 02:28 PM
17

That's where the patriarchy myth comes from: it's nothing but feminists' fevered imaginings that men have the same in-group bias that women do. Very astute observation, particularly when you consider the competitive nature of men against other men. Business is often cut-throat, with every new manager seeking to make their mark by slashing the workforce numbers in some seemingly controlled but ultimately arbitrary fashion. In high performing companies workers often work overtime, answer calls at …
/r/MensRights28/10/18 11:53 AM
3

I was looking for this response, did not disappoint.
/r/MensRights15/10/18 04:08 AM
20

companies would have to raise pay and conditions to attract women And where will all this free money to attract women come from? Quotas are a hindrance to the free market. Guess who will incur these added costs to adhere to them? The customers, naturally, unless the government decides to pay for the refurbishments required (spoiler: they won't).
/r/MensRights11/10/18 01:10 PM
2

If you need a quota to be put in place to make the numbers 'even', chances are there is a skill shortage from that demographic. A quota therefore is an excellent way of making the numbers look better without actually benefiting anyone. Let's say that women avoid corporate boards at a rate of 2:1 compared to men due to lacking managerial skills, out of a lack of motivation and desire to be a boss. How does the quota address the lack of managerial skills and motivation to become a manager? Obvious…
/r/MensRights11/10/18 01:05 PM
16

Not the op but what tactic are you going to employ to figure out which ones were hired solely for their merit vs. hired to meet a quota? It will be hard to decipher (perhaps not impossible like the Op said, but hard) which of those were legitimate hires.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 12:57 PM
7

Let's be real, we both know what would happen if he retaliated.
/r/MensRights05/10/18 02:39 PM
2

There are merits to the ideas, I do agree with them on some level from the existentialist point of view. The problem is it gets pushed so far by ideologues that it becomes a charicature of its own self, drawing conclusions that it has no right to. If I hear 'the patriarchy is to blame' and it is not backed by hard evidence of testosterone and chromosomal differences causing effects that bring about said thing that is blame worthy, then no, I'm not goint to believe it's because of 'the patriarchy…
/r/MensRights03/10/18 12:54 PM
1

I could smell the liberal agenda a mile away. The main reason they would be doing this is for the identity politics optics of supporting the gay community. They realised that the law is discriminatory against liberal views, so they nipped precisely the part that liberals would be offended by. Disgusting indeed, the law should not be politicised.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 03:44 PM
-1

Ahaha this was a great response.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 02:00 PM
3

Time to start finding another content aggregator platform, one that doesn't decide for us what we should and shouldn't see. This would have never been acceptable in the 90's, it shouldn't be acceptable now.
/r/MensRights28/09/18 05:54 AM
5

How would a recent trend of "Increasing five times faster than male figures" be a result of "pervasive systemic gender bias"? If it is systemic then it obviously won't be the cause of a recent up-tick. And if gender bias is a bad thing, why are they trying to bias in favour of women, such as in "women have lower reoffending rates" and "[women have] increased suffering in custody" (which is almost certainly BS considering that more men are raped in prison than women in and outside of prison combi…
/r/MensRights14/09/18 08:02 PM
2

That's in keeping with my comment, where I said a few posts are off. However I did not see that post, so I am guessing it is the only one in the top 20 or so, which doesn't say much about the community on its own. You made it sound like every post or every second post is bad, when the bad ones seem to be quite rare.
/r/MensRights11/09/18 03:42 PM
5

So majority of them are mocking some overtly sexist male comment such as anti-Father's day, or blatant sexism such as in the stark differences in how sexual abuse of a minor is dealt with depending on the perpetrator's sex. If criticising the literal worst parts of feminism is something you deem sexist, I think you need to re-evaluate your definition of sexism. Maybe one or two of the posts went too far, but that is to be expected in virtually any politically driven sub.
/r/MensRights11/09/18 01:31 PM
7

They are incredibly sexist How is men going their own way sexist? Is it now sexist to live your life as a single man? Are women obligated to partners now? I say that as a joke but at this rate I almost believe it will eventually be a reality with how society is "progressing".
/r/MensRights11/09/18 12:49 PM
6

Biology would disagree with you, there are more nerve endings / higher sensitivity around sexual organs. This is a liberal talking point I have heard before, on the constructivist idea that sexuality is purely a social construct. I'm pointing it out because it goes against everything we know about sexuality in biology, (i. e. it's anti-science political bullishit) and should be vehemently criticised.
/r/MensRights06/09/18 05:39 AM
1

I'm not at all opposed to 50/50, very much the contrary (as I think most guys would be). I'm opposed to discriminating against men to achieve that end by accepting a greater proportion of women simply because they are women. This necessarily means setting a lower bar because if the bar were the same then we would be getting women in proportion to the amount applying (closer to 20/80). Unless we are saying that women are 2.5x better than men, which I very much doubt.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 07:28 PM
15

IANAL but this looks to be illegal: Under federal law, an employer cannot illegally discriminate in its hiring processs based on a job applicant's race, national origin, gender, pregnancy, age, disability, or religion I would also like to see their reasoning, particularly as to why they believe women can't get these jobs without the government's support. The fact is any company can rebuke this by simply showing the government all female applicants' applicant scores and application papers. If the…
/r/MensRights02/09/18 04:38 PM
3

And apparently the majority of panels are occurring before this time, and won't be repeated after the time. So it's a pretty big f you to males. I really can't believe a company would actually be stupid enough to do this, yet here we are.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 01:26 PM
11

This, I would say I am more than happy to swap aircon temperatures if you're happy to swap dress codes. No surprise as to what the answer will be.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 10:27 AM
3

I made a similar point in my comment. AA is precisely what this is.
/r/MensRights01/09/18 03:03 AM
9

Harvey Mudd is the same : link, as are many others if you search "Women in Engineering" . There are two clear ways to know they are consciously discriminating based on gender: 1) Enrolment rates (not acceptance rates) for women have not changed. This is what proportion of people actually applying are women, irrespective of whether they get in (not biased by university staff's acceptance criteria) 2) There was a 4x increase in 5 years, an unprecedented increase when the IT field nor their curricu…
/r/MensRights01/09/18 02:57 AM
40

We've known this forever. This article summarises quite a number of differences in job preferences between women and men. Women are more concerned about flexible work arrangements and short commutes, while Men are more concerned about career growth and financial performance. Not to say it has to be this way, but this is how it currently is and has been. So suffice it to say anyone who expects equal gender parity is either ignorant to the facts, or wants to overcompensate women for political reas…
/r/MensRights31/08/18 04:04 PM
5

ubiquitously absent
/r/MensRights29/08/18 11:36 PM
1

Ok..? That doesn't refute anything I've said.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 02:37 PM
1

Your argument doesn't make sense. Were there more or less borders during the Soviet Union? Was it a good or bad thing that Hitler was overwhelmed? If nations cease to exist, then nations can no longer serve as checks and balances to other nations. Another way to frame it: Would you be okay with using Mexico's police force instead of America's? How do you feel about adopting Saudi Arabia's women's rights? In short: Are you willing to give up the liberty and rights of a developed nation in the pur…
/r/MensRights29/08/18 01:58 PM
1

'imaginary line'? That's a strange way of talking about a country's borders. It sounds like you don't believe in a country's right to sovereignty, which is intrinsic to the existence of the country itself. Going by that I can see why you don't agree with the illegal part. But the fact is we currently live in a society with countries, so to say otherwise is a political opinion not a factual one. This is fine but obviously it isn't unbiased.
/r/MensRights29/08/18 04:02 AM
3

They are literally crossing the border illegally. What part of 'illegal' is rhetoric?
/r/MensRights28/08/18 02:45 PM
1

Someone needs to tell them there's an even simpler solution to not going on the registered sex offenders list..
/r/MensRights27/08/18 01:43 PM
2

Might be because she's worried she might spout another gaff.
/r/MensRights19/08/18 05:39 AM
12

It's almost as if you can't summarise all people of demographic X through three words. Whodathunkit?
/r/MensRights18/08/18 03:39 AM
2

"How dare you call us fake news!"
/r/MensRights17/08/18 12:12 PM
3

So more of them cried than fought back? Now if only that made the headlines.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 12:11 PM
12

Patiently waiting for this person to not be suspended and not be banned for directly inciting violence.
/r/MensRights08/08/18 12:22 AM
3

there's no way there are tens of millions of psychopaths in the US, This is dead on. On this note anyone who calls an entire political party "racist, evil, etc." either doesn't understand or is entirely oblivious to human biology. It is simply not possible for such a large percentage of people to be so malevolant unless coerced into it. The risk is not that people as a whole believe it, but rather that enough people are coerced into electing those that do. For instance I doubt readers of Sarah J…
/r/MensRights03/08/18 07:35 AM
3

How many minutes are in a longer hour as opposed to a normal hour?
/r/MensRights31/07/18 10:25 AM
0

The thing is, your title says he filed a restraining order "due to violence". I've read multiple articles on the restraining order, and none of them have mentioned violence as the reason. Isn't the MSM great? All of them conveniently omitting the police report that mentions her hitting her husband on the head several times. Turns out reading 'multiple articles' isn't useful anymore when those articles come from the same partisanship.
/r/MensRights24/07/18 02:15 PM
12

Ah honestly I don't find this particularly bad. They aren't criticising him, just making light of something unusual about him (and it is unusual for men not in showbiz) - that he wears make-up. For instance it doesn't say "looks like a clown" or anything of that nature. And I think the same banter should be acceptable with women. So I am much more opposed to the idea of people being too uptight to make jokes like this, than the jokes themselves.
/r/MensRights24/07/18 09:25 AM
1

But how on earth do you conflate Silicon valley's success with the Kardashian household and still have people retweet such nonsense. Tweet claiming disproportionately negative criticism against Women highlights disproportionately negative analogies used against Men.
/r/MensRights23/07/18 01:49 PM
17

This is pretty big news. It proves that you can see ~30% variance in what is essentially a self-controlled study (passengers can't choose who they get) as a result of human's choice. So when we see this amount of variance or less in other areas, we cannot assume it is simply sexism. That could be part of it (though some evidence would be necessary), but it could be the same cause as Uber: a result of differing choices between men and women. Occam's razor also tells us to prefer simpler answers o…
/r/MensRights23/07/18 08:54 AM
1

I've identified it in one guy who was demanding he was not controlled whilst demanding he could not leave the abuser as he had no friends and never would have any. The cognitive dissonance and look of confusion was amazing when I asked what would stop him having friends in the future if he left his abuser. Eh what if he was telling the truth? You assume he was lying or being 'coerced' when that might be the reality. And this is precisely what I don't like about this term, you csn turn anything i…
/r/MensRights22/07/18 02:07 AM
5

Those are clearly extreme cases (which is why you mention them), and I already stated I would be okay with such extreme cases being persecuted if and only if the law was specific enough to only apply to those cases, where it is clear the people had little or no control over the situation. My concern is around defining coersion within a family, and what it constitutes, I don't think the law is clear enough on this matter so as to only apply to extreme cases (such as the ones you described).
/r/MensRights21/07/18 05:43 PM
4

You assume that those subject to control are able to recognise it and or act independently. Are you saying people aren't able to say "no"? I don't agree with that all. If that were true then salespeople would be millionaires, not low-medium wage employees. Also extortion is already a crime (coersion with material gain), so if someone was truly under the influence of another they can already be prosecuted without the law changing. You need to educate yourself on the subject. Presently you are jus…
/r/MensRights21/07/18 04:36 PM
4

Yeah so my opinion is that doesn't sound like something the government should be involved in. That's the kind of thing you should speak to your counsellor about, tell them how your partner is manipulative and controlling and seek their advice. I don't deny these things exist, I just don't believe the government should be involved unless there is a legitimate threat to one's livelihood.
/r/MensRights21/07/18 04:10 PM
0

Oh I don't disagree. The law is definitely skewed towards women. Child support and alimony laws are enough to prove that. But it's worth noting the separate pushback against the government overreach. I would oppose every law criminilazing emotional abuse unless it was specifically defining the most extreme cases (e.g. that kid that was coerced into committing suicide by his girlfriend). Most libertarians would also. Not because the acts aren't wrong (they may be), but because it is up to individ…
/r/MensRights21/07/18 03:51 PM
8

Controlling behaviour seems reasonable enough to prosecute. But Coercive behaviour includes "humiliation and intimidation". Like really? Humiliating someone is a crime? This is what I mean by the government don't know what they're doing and I don't trust them. The last thing I want is a bad joke to put someone in a court case because someone was humiliated. And I know they try to persecute only the most severe cases, but I would need to see that clearly written into the law first, since once aga…
/r/MensRights21/07/18 03:40 PM
25

It could also be that people don't want the government defining what emotional abuse is. Is telling a child he is grounded emotional abuse? How about telling someone "I am sick of your s**t, you are terrible person" when in fact they may be a terrible person (sometimes criticism is warranted). Of course there are extremes but I don't trust the government to be able to make that distinction. Also physical abuse is much easier because there is usually evidence in the way of bruises or scars. Emoti…
/r/MensRights21/07/18 03:33 PM
22

I'm torn on this. On the one hand I am happy to see domestic abuse against men finally getting recognised. On the other, I don't know if I want the government policing "coercive control" between partners. Of course it is something that needs to be dealt with, but by the government? Think if the roles were switched and a woman was taking a man to court for "coercive control". Do you think that would be reasonable? I am all for physical domestic abuse and very severe mental abuse (think threatenin…
/r/MensRights21/07/18 03:26 PM
7

If you’ve got something to hide from your significant other such that she feels the need to check your phone in the first place, that’s a problem. What about discussing potentially controversial opinions with close friends? She might react with shock when they are in fact not your opinions, but opinions you are bouncing off of friends. For instance, she could see "I hate feminism" and automatically assume you are misogynistic. But if you were to talk to her first about what kind of feminism (e.g…
/r/MensRights21/07/18 07:03 AM
2

Well we don't know how much of a difference they would have allowed. While in this specific case it was only 0.25%, the person may have been willing to go up to as high as a 10-20% difference under the same hiring practices. The key point is the person allowed a difference for a bad reason, how much the difference was isn't really relevant to the wrongness of the act, only to its consequences (a bigger difference would mean the man would have had to work harder to overcome it).
/r/MensRights14/07/18 02:51 PM
3

These are really important cases. Remember them as best you can because they are a strong argument to use against using gender within hiring practices whenever you hear of them. If there is a legal risk to such hiring practices, companies will be reluctant to continue this type of gender favouritism. Though it might be hard to speak up, doing so tactfully and with subtlety when there isn't as much risk to you (changing jobs for example) is worth the potential blow back. This stuff eats into prod…
/r/MensRights14/07/18 02:41 PM
52

Holy shit can you imagine someone talking like this about their daughter? The amount of outrage it would cause, the speaker would need to come out with a public apology. Nobody should be so apathetic to their baby's wants and needs, irrespective of its sex.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 09:49 AM
24

It is sexist to assume women can't become directors without getting handouts. Perhaps it is simply 19% of women who want director roles? Or perhaps not enough women have the qualifications? Once again they assume that 50:50 is what you would expect in an egalitarian society, without providing any evidence for it. I bet if you polled women on whether they want a director role, you would not get a 50:50 split, because studies show women are on average less interested in managerial roles than men. …
/r/MensRights08/07/18 02:28 PM
1

Yeah I agree that it's not a great way of dealing with the problem, but it's better than the alternative. Even if it bumps up your odds of survival by 10%, that's still a worthwhile improvement. But I think we've come a long way with medicine, think vaccines such as against polio, or antibiotics such as penicillin. Clearly they have had a demonstrative effect on the lives of which they've saved. What your describing is more the philosophical reality of us knowing very little, which I agree with,…
/r/MensRights06/07/18 01:37 AM
1

That's all good and well, but if you were stricken with cancer I bet your overly stringent attitude would change if given the opportunity to get a treatment that has on average a 65% chance of success. You are confusing objective truth with risk reward. Yes we can't make objective trurh claima that the cancer treatment will help, but on average the reward is worth the risk. This is how stock market traders make money, and lots of ir. If you are 51% likely to turn a profit you can turn that into …
/r/MensRights05/07/18 11:22 PM
10

It's not scientific realism to assume that because studies have been wrong before, every study is wrong. That's scientific stupidity. If we adopted your mentality then pray tell, what could we make decisions about? There's almost nothing in this world that isn't teeming with complexity. If your position is to refrain from any action that we are not 100% certain of, then the only conclusion is to not do anything but eat, breath, drink and sleep, since those are the only things we can be almost ce…
/r/MensRights05/07/18 01:14 PM
10

This is what's called the continuum fallacy or the fallacy of grey. You assume that because a problem is complex or has many uncertain aspects, it cannot be solved to any meaningful degree. The weather and climate are incredibly complex phenomenons that we don't yet fully understand. Yet we can still tell with reasonable certainty what the weather will be in the near future, and are still able to uncover phenomena such as the Ice Age and El Nino. Just because something is complex does not make i…
/r/MensRights05/07/18 12:55 PM
7

There is toxic masculinity but masculinity in itself isn't toxic, unfortunately it is hard to make that distinction when the two words are joined in this way. There are already many definitions online that define toxic masculinity not just as simply the criticism of men sharing their feelings, but of "boysterousness" and "competitiveness" in general. This will do more harm than good. So my view is we condemn the excessive machismo that is harmful, while also condemning catch-all terms such as to…
/r/MensRights30/06/18 05:18 AM
2

But two parents may not always better than one if you read my argument about child support. If you agree with this premise then it logically follows that masculinity is at least the main (if not the only) addition a father would make to a mother-son family. Her only fault was not including a counter-argument to the 'two parents are better than one' claim, otherwise it is logically solid.
/r/MensRights28/06/18 09:02 AM
2

Ok, what do they provide that a mother can't provide, that isn't related to masculinity. Can you give some examples? The tweet is logically sound in that Man - Woman = Masculinity, the same as Woman - Man = Femininity. If you are getting all femininity from a woman, what does the man provide if not masculinity? The only argument I can see is that two parents are better than one, but child support enables the mother to spend more time than she otherwise would with the child. So the total amount o…
/r/MensRights28/06/18 06:06 AM
2

I was referring to the article.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 05:26 PM
2

Cost efficiency never lead to male prisoners being not given sentences, so yes it is sexist.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 12:10 PM
5

It would be stupid to cut the size of the prison down at all, due to the overhead involved, it would still effect the efficiency of the system. A much smarter option would be to keep open a female prison the same size as men, but reduce the number of prisons... right? The argument wasn't whether it would be less efficient, it was whether it is a sustainable model. You admit here that it is, since there is no 1/4 doctor involved. Of course it will be less efficient, the question is whether it is …
/r/MensRights27/06/18 11:33 AM
4

And the hypothetical was obviously stupid, which is why I pointed it out. Just like how you tried to point out how stupid I was being. (which is a good thing, I'm not complaining) No you created a strawman by assuming my hypothetical was literally what I was suggesting in order to claim it's stupid (as you just did), without providing any evidence. So tell me then, why is it stupid when there could be 30-50 cells of women (less cells than for men, but still enough to cover the overhead)? This is…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 11:00 AM
6

I'll let you in on a secret, there are a tad bit more than 5 cells worth of female prisoners. My point was obviously a hypothetical. It could be 30 cells or 50 cells. I don't know the stats on crime but obviously there are more than 10 female prisoners (assuming 2 per cell). Thanks for patronising me on what overhead means however, it was very insightful.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 10:39 AM
13

Then make the prison 5 cells with 1 security guard. You make it sound like every prison has to be a massive warehouse 3 stories high, with 20 armed guards and a 20 foot wall. Make it the size of a medical clinic. I guarantee there are enough female prisoners. Remember that 40% of domestic violence and the majority of violence against infants is committed by women, along with numerous drug offenses, assaults, and rapes that for some strange reason aren't counted as rapes, those of cohersion under…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 10:16 AM
1

I hope people are calling them out on this. There is no way you should be able to insult half of the population and get away with it. They are entirely free to post these idiotic opinions, but they should be criticised and ridiculed for how prejudice and sexist they are. Personally I would love to see the male LGBT, black, and other minority group people bite back, the ironing would be delicious.
/r/MensRights24/06/18 04:42 AM
12

Can you take your anti-abortion agenda somewhere else? That's not how public discourse works my friend. He is entitled to his opinion just as much as you are yours. People like you make the MRA movement look like a bunch of crazy extremists. Not wanting people to kill growing babies is being a 'crazy extremist'?
/r/MensRights22/06/18 05:42 PM
1

Actually I think "Big" would be the better word, because people also call muscular people "big", so for some people it is something they aspire to. The same can be said for "curvy", some women aspire to be curvy. Indeed studies show men prefer slim but curvy women over strictly slim women, most likely because the small amount of fat ends up accentuating the breasts and buttocks. So "Big" and "Curvy" would be a reasonable choice for each sex respectively.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 11:14 AM
20

So the picture they used was in fact the daughter of someone who was being smuggled in. In other words, the context of the very picture they used makes a strong argument for tight border controls. Unbelievable. Well this would make one hell of a counter argument to anyone who decides to bring up that picture.
/r/MensRights22/06/18 06:52 AM
78

Men finding women physically attractive is not misogyny.
/r/MensRights20/06/18 03:42 PM
2

Fair point. I think this may be why you see priests disproportionately as paedophiles, deep down they know they have some demons so they try to compensate by being as good natured as possible by becoming a priest. There's also the anecdote that people who recycle more/are more environentally conscious are also among the most wasteful/consuming in other ways, such as through water and energy consumption. It does seem people have a subconscious moral compass that they try to rectify.
/r/MensRights16/06/18 03:45 AM
0

the person with custody, who is raising the child, is obviously paying a lot of money to raise them Yes, and my point is that "lot of money" should be evenly distributed between the man and the woman (or 0.77 for every 1.00 the man pays). but the person raising the kid probably spends a lot on them too. Though remember this spending includes the man's money. That she is spending a lot says nothing about her income streams. If all the money is coming from the man then it means she is spending a l…
/r/MensRights15/06/18 04:16 PM
35

Isn't child support sexist by implying that women need to be taken care of financially by men? If women earn $0.77 cents to the dollar of men (I know this is a flawed stat but I'm being generous here), shouldn't they be at the very least paying $0.77 cents to every dollar on their child that the man contributes? I would love to see the man/woman split of expenditure on children, as compared to man/woman earnings. That would make for an awesome statistic or paper. But I doubt we'll ever see it.
/r/MensRights15/06/18 02:51 PM
5

Difference is between "You can have" and "You always have". The former is not sexist, while the latter is. Unfortunately the current notion of patriarchy seems very much to be the latter, as I'm not aware of any high office where it being predominantly male is not seen as oppressive and evil, even though it doesn't need to be and likely isn't in most cases (most people are not evil). You summarise this yourself (albeit unintentionally) in the below passage. So because you can't blame all men in …
/r/MensRights13/06/18 08:06 AM
47

The idea of a malevolent patriarchy is as sexist as the idea of a malevolent matriarchy. The assumption is that when a particular gender is over-represented in positions of authority (male or female), they automatically act in evil ways to oppress the other. Imagine someone storming into a typically female dominant business such as a cosmetics company and shouting "Down with the matriarchy". Nobody would take them seriously, yet somehow it is acceptable to do the same for male dominated industri…
/r/MensRights13/06/18 04:21 AM
3

Jordan Peterson says something similar. It is because there is no grand crisis for us to invest our energy into or something to that effect. That humans need some level of adversity to function. It makes sense, if you look at the hayday of music it was in the 60's and 70's, before technology made it easy to create and reproduce music. The same with the golden era of gaming in the 90's, before we had high polygon count graphics. People seem to do better when there are limitations and obstacles to…
/r/MensRights12/06/18 04:16 AM
2

Amazing. It's like she realised you can't be both a sexist and an egalitarian, so she stuck with being a sexist.
/r/MensRights11/06/18 01:39 PM
9

There's a simple test for this: If it is a matter of principle (i.e. not about strict biological differences), then try swapping the word "Male" for "Female". If this makes you think the opinion is sexist or misogynistic, then you ought to be critical of that opinion. It sounds like you have intuitively identified this yourself, which is great. The problem is the more radical strain of feminists that typically voice such opinions have gained a lot of power, and it is becoming increasingly diffic…
/r/MensRights11/06/18 09:53 AM
2

Suicide privilege.
/r/MensRights10/06/18 04:48 AM
8

Actually this was debunked. In short to deal in absolutes is different to believing in absolutes. The former takes the form "Join me or die" which is akin to what a Sith might say, while the latter takes the form "Only X is true" which isn't so much a deal as it is a statement of truth. My interpretation of the video: They are basically moral relativists, who only deal in absolutes because they are assholes, rather than because it aligns with their absolutist world view. So saying "Only Siths de…
/r/MensRights08/06/18 11:16 AM
9

Surely you can sue them. They deliberately conspired against you to expel you from the school, potentially even sent you to jail. That is not okay. If there isn't a law against deliberately lying to an authority about a crime then there needs to be. Otherwise this will be a legally permissible weapon for any spiteful awful woman to use on people she doesn't like. Just terrible.
/r/MensRights04/06/18 03:06 PM
3

So let me get this straight, women have a gargantuan, enormous, massive, incomprehensibly large amount of products marketed to them as "Sexy", "Beautiful", "Feminen", "Divine", "The real you", etc. Yet when this guy decides to make a masculine product he gets chastised. This is so anti-male and sexist, I don't even. I have no words for how stupid and hypocritical this is. And whether he donates the cans to the homeless or not is beside the point. Sure it makes it even worse how awful these peopl…
/r/MensRights01/06/18 07:17 AM
32

Excuse me? Theft that is explicitly towards men is about as clear sexism as it gets.
/r/MensRights23/05/18 11:47 PM
13

Doctor-assisted suicide is not the same at all. Where it is legal it requires a terminal illness, and the patient proactively seeking out the doctor. It also involves consent. Murder is someone enforcing their will in someone else, as this mother (though I hate to call her that) has done. It also does not involve consent, as this case has not. That the suicidal person or the teenage boy may have enjoyed (in the short-term) the betrayal of their rights does not make the betrayal excusable.
/r/MensRights21/05/18 06:40 AM
68

Yeah by that logic it would be legal to murder people who are suicidal because "they wanted it anyway". I'm not a psychologist but it would seem high likely that this kind of behaviour in the Op has lasting negative consequences in the longterm. Ironically it is the very gender stereotypes of the "feeble, innocent woman" that feminism rails against that leads to these kind of light sentences. If they truly want to fight gender stereotypes they should be fighting these light sentences as much as …
/r/MensRights21/05/18 05:22 AM
2

I just lost my reply but basically when making small incremental advances it is not possible for you or I to know with 100% certainty whether we are overstepping our welcome. Your argument assumes men are mindreaders, which nobody is. On a basic level people understand what is acceptable/wanted, but when it comes to specifics things are less clear. And if you have had any experience with women you will know that you have made at least one misread on a woman's level of interest in your past. The …
/r/MensRights20/05/18 06:49 PM
0

Even if we take it as not a strawman (though it is one since dress codes are based on upholding the school atmosphere/image rather than boys being distracted), notice how for men the benefit is being "distraction free" yet for women it is "their education". It is an education issue for both the man and the woman, since what would they be distracted from when at school? Most likely the teacher and their work. And it must be said that men are biologically attracted to female features. It doesn't m…
/r/MensRights20/05/18 05:04 PM
17

This I don't understand either. If the so-called patriarchy was so detrimental, why was it under the patriarchy of the 20th century that sex before marriage and monogomy was so prevalent? With men having "only one thing on their mind", being part of supposed "rape culture", and being "pigs", why would they shoot themselves in the foot with such conservative values? Isn't it women that stand to benefit most from a man's celibacy and monogomy? As that gives them the emotional attachment and ideali…
/r/MensRights20/05/18 03:02 PM
2

Or you know, women could work the same amount as men if they want to earn the same amount. Or how about they work as much as they want under the obvious knowledge that if they work less they get paid less? Why do they have to work the same amount? This goes to the heart of the issue, they assume equal distributions are better than unequal ones without providing any evidence for it. In fact most forms of art suggest the opposite, that we are attracted to asymmetry and uneven juxtapositions. Men a…
/r/MensRights14/05/18 07:01 AM
61

How can you on the one hand say that men should be free to feel and act as they want, including as the opposite sex, yet on the other criticise them for being 'fragile'? Aren't they allowed to be as 'fragile' as they want (if they are in fact, which I don't agree with), or is that a trait reserved for women (who would never be criticised for being fragile)? It is both hilarious and saddening seeing such so-called journalists actively reinforcing the very gender stereotypes they seek to destroy. …
/r/MensRights12/05/18 05:22 PM
5

It's only petty if you don't think about the fact that someone is consciously changing a search engine to align with their prejudiced political views. It's not the literal autocorrect text that matters, nobody really cares what it says, but the intention behind it is pretty concerning. And if they do this to your search, they will probably do it to your news as well, and your maps, and anywhere else they can. Those are the worrying parts.
/r/MensRights08/05/18 06:33 AM
3

Disproved only in the actualised sense, that what he claimed isn't being consciously thought about or consciously acted on. Whether it is happening subconsciously is still to be decided, since it is possible for us to have very absurd subconscious thoughts that result in much milder realisations. For instance, one might act on the subconscious thought of "sex with their mother" by having a conscious thought of "sex with someone who embodies the femininity my mother did", while being naturally re…
/r/MensRights03/05/18 01:28 AM
1

Good looks and being fit doesn’t guarantee confidence and being good with the ladies. But it sure as shit helps, and the people who are likely to get this message are those that need every bit of help they can get. So it is dishonest and damaging to say to them that they don't need it and it won't help, they might, and it may (likely will). It also helps build confidence, which you concede is fundamental to attracting women.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 12:54 PM
29

It's not just virtue signalling it's lying. No you aren't as desirable as Channing Tatum, and yes it because you lack the physical characteristics. It may be harsh but it's true. On the flip side, you are justified in not having a supermodel girlfriend, and if you do somehow end up with one, you will know it is because of your hard work at self-betterment more so than your gifted appearance. That is worth celebrating. This is the one downside to those who are highly attractive, they must live th…
/r/MensRights18/04/18 11:27 AM
55

You only need to look at the abuse of H-1B VISAs in Silicon Valley to see the lengths people will go to to cut costs. These are people who aren't citizens, typically don't carry degrees from reputable universities, speak English as a second language, have had no relationship with the business or networking opportunities, and have visa applications that are in some form fraudulent 21% of the time (source). If women were even 5% cheaper than men for the same work output there would be a rush to pr…
/r/MensRights11/04/18 01:53 PM
1

He should have said he doesn't serve lawyers instead, easier case to win.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 01:30 PM
4

Fair enough. My comment was more addressing the issue than your comment specifically. I wasn't sure where you stood on the issue. Also "I don't like feminism but.." is a convenient way to criticise efforts to curtail radical feminism, so I am always skeptical of that. A safer way is to say as you have done now that generalising all men is wrong, as it is clearer that there is no ambiguity or alterior motive there.
/r/MensRights30/03/18 12:15 PM
22

Yes, this is something men need to work on. The female brain is more wired for social skills than men (source), so in our current social-media heavy culture they end up with a natural advantage. Part of the male identity is also somewhat at odds with this, such as the ideological story of the man becoming the hero against all odds that many men aspire to (in this case the hero being the CEO, billionaire, etc.). And then there's the idea that men who seek out help or support for others are someho…
/r/MensRights30/03/18 11:55 AM
15

Ok, but then where are the signs saying "Women will be held to higher standard"? Why is the expectation only on men to do the right thing? The underlying premise is that men are 'broken' as compared to women, otherwise you would see similar signs about women. Indeed chances are a similar sign about a woman would be labelled as sexist or misogynistic. This is the real danger to egalitarianism, the progressive decline of the image of man in the name of equality.
/r/MensRights30/03/18 11:37 AM
5

You can't complain about toxic masculinity preventing men from being emotional, then go on to criticise them for being emotional by calling them 'fragile'. Either they are allowed to be fragile and toxic masculinity is wrong, or they aren't and toxic masculinity is sending the right message that fragility is bad. You can't have it both ways, so which is it? Are men allowed to be 'fragile' or not?
/r/MensRights23/03/18 06:46 AM
2

I was responding to the secondary claim that "The term refers to a toxic subset of masculine behaviours, such as being "tough" and not talking about issues." rather than the misuse of the term in the picture.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 05:25 PM
39

Originally I agreed with you, however I'm starting to see problems with this notion. The term refers to a toxic subset of masculine behaviours, such as being "tough" and not talking about issues. The first claim is framed in a very negative way. Think about 'being tough', what traits underpin this behaviour? Resilience, steadfastness, bravery, commitment, and sure sometimes arrogance and egoism. Most of those traits are not negative, but they are portrayed as such under the definition of "being …
/r/MensRights10/03/18 10:16 AM
3

Past injustices never condone future injustices.
/r/MensRights06/03/18 01:49 AM
11

But the sperm count phenomena is wide-spread globally from what I've heard, and some countries do not add fluoride to their water. You could argue that some fluoride still gets in through imports of food and produce from countries that fluoride their water (and therefore produce food with fluoridated water). I don't think the amounts of fluoride would be sufficient enough though. One way you could test it is to find people from countries with non-fluoridated water who eat local produce only (and…
/r/MensRights04/03/18 05:31 AM
15

There has been no study showing that half of suicides are fathers without access to their children or the breakdown of the family unit. Australian national suicide data lacks that level of detail. Yeah maybe not, but you can make some good inferences based on studies that have been done. In this case, we know that divorced males are at a greater risk of suicide, to the extent of being over twice as likely as married individuals (though married men have shown slightly lower suicide rates than sin…
/r/MensRights04/03/18 03:35 AM
30

This is the fundamental problem with social justice, it prioritises the group over the individual. Which is ironic given that this has led to generalisations being made about the group, which is the very type of thing people have tried to breakdown, such as gender and racial stereotypes. These generalisations are the cornerstone of all the hate being directed towards men (especially white men). For if they were treated as individuals you could never argue for example that a lower class white mal…
/r/MensRights16/02/18 12:03 PM
1

Way to assume their gender Harvard.
/r/MensRights15/02/18 12:13 PM
5

Neither does almost any issue currently being tackled by feminism, because women already have the same rights as men. gender pay gap (discrimination is illegal) sexual harassment & assault (illegal) LGBTQ+ rights (all legal apart from marriage) gender norms / roles sexualisation of women equal representation And equality does not just pertain to rights. Equality is simply the state of being equal, i.e. not favouring either side. This can be in any domain, not just human rights. Historically it w…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 07:16 PM
5

I am aware of and understand the history. While the purpose may have made sense in the past, it does not currently, since there are real social, personal, and even economical issues affecting men (homelessness for example) more than women. So if your purpose is advocating for equality of the sexes in all of those domains then you must look at it for both sexes. It is even admitted from feminist sources such as everydayfeminism that some issues of discrimination and oppression affect both sexes, …
/r/MensRights04/01/18 07:05 PM
7

achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes Given that these issues affect all genders, that is an impossible goal to have without being for all genders. So either the above mission statement from Wikipedia is incorrect, or they are liars about their purpose.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 06:33 PM
13

I never said that it did. I said it is masquerading as a movement for all genders. We are in agreement here that they are not engaging with men's rights issues. My problem was that it claims to be for all genders despite this fact. That is the difference between MRA's and feminism. Honesty of purpose. masquerade false outward show; façade; pretense:
/r/MensRights04/01/18 06:28 PM
10

"Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism I used gender instead of sex because there are feminists who reject the distinction between gender and sex, and opt for a definition of sex closer to our current definition of gender (See wikipedia link on sex/gender distinction) EDIT: Just realised I also said …
/r/MensRights04/01/18 06:18 PM
23

Difference is MensRights is not masquerading as a movement for all genders. Feminism is. The problem with this is two fold. One is that it implies that feminism already deals with Men's Rights, meaning we don't need another movement such as MRA. The other problem is that since feminism already deals with Men's Rights, and yet never talks about Men's Rights, people come to believe that there are no issues currently affecting men. It is also why you now have blatantly sexist ideas such as "toxic m…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 06:07 PM
12

Yeah jokes about genocide based on modern (i.e. contentious and not historical) thoughts always gets me going. /s But really humour isn't an excuse when the issue is still topical/has the potential to enable radicals. Put simply if a joke has political strength in the current climate it is no longer just a joke.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 02:35 AM
2

Are we reporting this? This should definitely be reported to twitter. There is no context where this comment is acceptable.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 02:22 AM
1

I agree, though 'gender egalitarian' seems too long and containing too many syllables to gain traction. Gengalist perhaps? Not sure. Another suggestion, we could start using the word "Meninist" for male feminists, while strictly advocating for the same goals feminists purport to have. This has the nice touch of adding credence to the idea that feminism is for equal rights, by giving men their own prefixed version of the originally female prefixed word. It could also serve as an olive branch of s…
/r/MensRights30/12/17 03:10 PM
5

The name "feminism" needs to change. I recall that the most highly upvoted comment on a petition to stop the screening of "The Red Pill" in Sydney, Australia was "Meninism is not a fucking thing". You can also find quite a few criticisms of the term "Meninism" by giving it a search. Why is this important? If someone takes offense to the term "Meninism", then they must hold the view that "Feminism" is a female-loaded term and subsequently reject the removal of this female-bias. Otherwise "Meninis…
/r/MensRights30/12/17 01:00 PM
9

Indeed, and if there was video evidence of her ass being slapped he would for sure be legally prosecuted. But I doubt anything will come of this video because of the idea that "men can take it". And I can assure you that if the man tried to take this to court, even if he succeeded (which would be quite remarkable) he would still be laughed at in social circles for being a "pussy". It's the male privilege of not having sexual harassing/assault against you treated seriously.
/r/MensRights30/12/17 11:15 AM
1

This is why every movement and every sect should always be treated with skepticism. Some are better than others, none is immune to the fallibility of human kind. Naturally this includes MRAs. But with a healthy dose of skepticism/cynicism, you can see that for feminism to exist we need MRAs to exist, in order to act as a check and balance for feminists. Though this also means the converse is true, without any feminists women would have no movement to rally around (unless it were renamed, which i…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 04:09 AM
23

I would be careful with saying it is "worthless" when most guys see it as a means of releasing pent-up sexual urges. There are also studies showing that testosterone starts to declines if a man does not ejaculate after a very long period of time. However, you are completely right about its generally neutral-to-negative effect on health. Some older studies suggested that masturbation was good for you, however more recently there have been concerns raised about its benefits. One problem is that th…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 12:22 PM
7

I don't think he is disagreeing with this. His point is that censorship is bad regardless, and that we should not be advocating censorship to counter censorship. An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. It also runs the risk of coming across as hypocritical, because it affirms the idea that "censorship is okay when it benefits me", which is precisely what MRA would hold that feminists believe. It calls into question whether the community truly is against censorship, or whether they dislike it…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 03:19 PM
2

Feminists are not a protected class of people. Moreover, the idea that we should not "hate" anything is counter-intuitive. Do you hate racism? Do you hate hitler? Do you hate the KKK? Now imagine not being allowed to hate them or any concept/person/movement like them. Of course feminism is not anywhere close to any of these, currently. But what if it were in 5-10 years time? The policing of hate would allow them to become authoritarian and silence all dissent. There are already examples of moral…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 09:42 AM
11

Haven't read the other posts in this chain but thanks for posting this. I haven't looked into your examples with a critical lens, but if they are credible you make a strong case against feminist. I would recommend adding sources to this post and after toning down the aggression a tiny bit (though I completely understand why you would be annoyed if this is true, others might not understand and be put off what is otherwise an insightful post), posting it somewhere such as Medium. I think it’s impo…
/r/MensRights04/12/17 02:21 AM
18

Because without millions of dollars they can't "maintain their standard of living". That's the actual justification given. I guess it would be too traumatising to go from upper class to middle class. Can you imagine having to return to work and support yourself again? Truly horrifying.
/r/MensRights17/11/17 03:54 AM
48

Then she should have fired the incompetent hiring managers. This would simply change it from malpractice to some form of negligence, it's still inexcusable. After all that is a major part of her role as manager, to take accountability for her staff and prevent this sort of thing from happening. Why else would she be managing them?
/r/MensRights11/11/17 10:29 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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