TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

YesImSardonic Archive

View 2 posts and 718 comments by YesImSardonic 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)
1

Conceded. Trolls and traditionalists come and go.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 08:35 PM
1

I was pretty fairly schooled by the Brits' children comments, to be fair. I'll take whatever karmic punishment the swarm deemeth necessary. It's an issue pretty close to my heart.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 08:27 PM
1

Ask the British girls at /r/transgender. It takes at least that long to get a psychological consultation, and you need a few of those before you can get HRT.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 08:17 PM
3

However, you also have the option of paying to go private. In addition to already having paid for the NHS? Yay. It's good to have both options, isn't it. Was that a question?
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:36 PM
3

And, of course, you end up with six-month waiting periods to get a basic consultation rather than a reasonable amount of time.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 06:21 PM
9

He already bought the ticket, though. This was flung upon him after.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 01:49 PM
2

Nope. 40% is 33% less than 60%, though.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 02:54 AM
3

A poorly-written, poorly-casted 'boss', sure.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 08:01 PM
6

After female circumcision you literally cannot enjoy sex ever again. You're kind of a dumbass. There was an AMA just a couple of days ago from a woman who was circumcised--no clitoris, and she'd lost a good deal of her labia minora--and she pointed out that she could enjoy sex just fine.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:39 PM
5

Perhaps it is because male and female circumcision are not the same thing? I don't like male circumcision but I don't see how it is comparable to female circumcision. The nonconsensual removal of pieces of genital skin that both need for their genitals to function correctly? Sounds comparable to me. You're losing the principle in pointing out the degree, and I'm tempted to just call you a 'fucking dumbass' and leave in a huff. It doesn't matter if one is 'worse' than the other (and I'd wager tha…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:36 PM
2

Sentences would be nice.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 11:09 PM
3

Paleo-dieters, I think.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 11:08 PM
0

regulates your mood He already said that. Yes, it does.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 06:49 PM
3

Dude, it's a bot.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 10:24 PM
2

I was referring to the shrinking 'heavy' sub-genre.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 09:44 AM
2

in the heavy metal field. Increasingly slim pickings there the further you get from the 80s. It's death, melodic death, metalcore, and some power metal nowadays--mostly, anyway.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 02:50 AM
0

Then you don't actually have free speech. You have a neat little garden you're allowed to play in every now and again.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 02:26 AM
1

women suffer much more then we do. See, unlike you, we on this issue are not caught up in the Oppression Olympics. Men in the U.S. are mutilated; women are not. Even a ceremonial pricking of the clitoris with a pin is felonious. Men's genitals? Just take the whole fucking hood. Want to boil it down? You've missed the whole point. Mutilation is mutilation, regardless of degree, and there's only one that we in the States can do anything about.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 02:55 PM
1

I think the "could care less" version was once sarcastic, but the intonation is gone and the wording remains just a weird regional idiom, but at least it is obvious what is meant. My pet theory is that the syllabic [nt] was dropped because it's an indistinct thing and it got enshrined in text by people who write the way they speak (a terrible travesty, I know). I just like to poke people in the ribs about it.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 01:39 AM
1

I could care less How much less can you care?
/r/MensRights09/04/12 07:11 PM
1

I spoke of trans-folk. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 04:41 PM
1

And impossible for humans. Those animals it has worked on have had drastically-shortened lifespans and a host of other problems.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 02:20 PM
3

Women don't have penises, men don't have vaginas. It certainly can happen. Rare, of course, but it happens.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 04:42 AM
1

Now you're just being willfully ignorant. I'll not entertain you further. Good day.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 10:05 PM
0

Couldn't that be arranged without marriage? Nope. Legally-recognised family only. you need to get married so that you can get hospital visits when she dies Or, you know, be able to sign the consent form so she doesn't fucking die, and vice versa. Please acquire some reading skills.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 09:56 PM
0

You're awfully shortsighted if you really think that.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 09:47 PM
0

Hospital visitation and the ability to determine the partner's fate in a medical emergency.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 09:35 PM
1

The current voicemail messages are fair game, however. She recorded those herself.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 09:35 PM
1

And clear your internet cache.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 09:33 PM
9

The Virgin's Paradox.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 05:12 PM
1

I don't see any need for a semicolon. Elaborate?
/r/MensRights25/03/12 01:36 PM
-1

Does that really need to be said? Is it really not that obvious?
/r/MensRights25/03/12 01:35 PM
1

We learn that they never really meant it.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 01:32 PM
1

I get to downvote him twice this way.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 01:10 PM
1

Was going with the 'head of state' thing. Women have been heads of state for a while. It's rare, of course, before the late twentieth century.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 02:14 AM
2

And, you know, Queen Isabella of Aragon, Queen Mary Tudor of England, and probably more I can't think of.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 01:52 AM
1

It's an explanation. And, yes, bitching about downvotes means you care about internet points.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 09:44 AM
1

No true Scotsman. I can profess to be a democrat, too, but if I support the installation of a monarch I won't have much to back up my assertion, will I?
/r/MensRights19/03/12 02:52 AM
1

Is a property tax not unlike paying rent? Is the State not ultimately in control of what is permitted to happen in business? Do corporations raise the barrier of entry by buying legislation?
/r/MensRights19/03/12 02:29 AM
1

Those are on different points of the same axis.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 02:26 AM
1

Complaining about downvotes is an invitation to downvote.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 02:17 AM
2

want to impose their beliefs without proof of the lack of said deity. Are you really that incapable of understanding the stance of what seems to be the average /r/atheist? None of them desire to use the State to enforce nontheism, despite the claims of many religious folk, and the burden of proof is not on us. You go about your life dismissing countless gods despite the fact that you have no proof they don't exist; why are we atheists so different that we have to have proof to dismiss yours?
/r/MensRights19/03/12 02:16 AM
1

It has no business being a default subreddit. Ignorance. Default subreddits are determined solely by popularity. /r/atheism was big enough to qualify. Grow up.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 02:08 AM
1

In which case you're still being polite.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:58 AM
3

She was polite. Mistake. The day being polite is actually a mistake I will kill myself. Fuck that noise.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:39 AM
1

That was...elucidating. I think I need a shower now. And an upvote for you.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:16 AM
4

Again with the fallacy. Look--it's rarely about the person you're arguing with; it's about those of us watching.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 04:52 AM
4

Ad hominem. I don't necessarily agree with him, but you need to defend your position properly.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 04:28 AM
1

bad wrap. We make excellent wraps, thank you very much.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 05:51 PM
2

So far as rights are concerned, yes, it is. I'm not following the red herring.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 04:57 AM
9

Not applicable. Measurements are divisible.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 06:54 AM
1

It happens. It's strange to me, though, because they're not homophonic to me. Ah, well.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 05:03 AM
-2

I don't mean to be rude, but it's 'tenets'. 'Tenants' are renters. As an addendum: 'Tennants' are Scotsman.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 02:06 AM
1

The '[f]eminism isn't about equality...' quote, I think. I still don't know why he thought it worth posting.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 07:42 PM
17

The alpha/beta dichotomy is, first, used to describe the traits of wolf-packs, not the infinitely more complex social lives of humans. Secondly, the term was rejected even by the man who coined it because it oversimplified wolvish society.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 03:17 PM
1

I don't give myself enough credit? In what way? Are you saying I somehow feel that women are incapable of behaving equally to men? That is NOT what I'm saying at all. Nor do I imply it. I meant that you, individually, don't give yourself enough credit. Sorry for the confusion. It is not women I have no faith in. It is society. Then why trust at all Demonspawn's vision for society? we expected things of women (duty, loyalty, commitment) whose manifestation was based on our gendered perceptions. I…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 11:02 PM
2

I think Demonspawn is a brilliant and caring man. He may be. He's not a misogynist. He's a realist. People say and have said that about race, too. They didn't hate Negros, they were just paternalistic because the other race was mentally inferior. And while I'm a dreamer, They were only dreamers who desired racial parity. Really, you don't give yourself enough credit. (Have fun, SRS, with this quote.) I won't tell them if you won't.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 09:43 PM
-9

My experience has been been that they actually do hate women, to one extent or another.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 03:08 AM
4

but don't see much evidence. You actually don't have to look far to find the 'traditionalists'. Just have a gander at Demonspawn's posting history.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 01:49 AM
3

Christians are forbidden from being circumcised. Not true. Saul of Tarsus says it's merely not necessary for salvation. He didn't advocate it, but neither did he forbid it. He was attempting to settle a disturbance caused by converted Jews, who claimed that adherence to Mosaic law was necessary for salvation through Jesus. Did you even read the scripture you posted? Ninja EDIT: Former Christian, by the way.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 05:03 AM
3

My father (a fundamentalist Christian, probably theologically similar to Reformed) circumcised me to get me in on the Abrahamic covenant. I was tempted, upon hearing this, to put my head through the wall.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 05:00 AM
2

Odd, the attack on Pearl Harbor took out a large chunk of our Pacific Fleet for some time, and we didn't get run over by the Japanese. Historically ignorant. They had no intent to invade.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 10:07 PM
1

Been mocked and scoffed at and compared to 'white rights'.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 09:55 PM
-1

Look, let's say there's an attack on American soil and takes out 50, hell 90% of our armed forces Then the war's over, moron, and the guerrilla resistance begins. Besides the stupidity of positing an invasion of the U.S., you forget the logistics--the time--it will take to train a legion of neophytes. A conventional invasion would be over before Congress finished drafting the legislation.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 09:50 PM
1

One can, however, be an uncertain gnostic atheist.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 05:55 PM
2

Self-awareness used to be the realm of religious teaching It really wasn't.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 05:45 PM
-1

not being completely sure Actually, the a/gnosticism line isn't determined by certainty but by whether you think it can be known.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 05:40 PM
3

I think it's more that it isn't so much 'men' as a bunch of rich, entitled pricks, who ultimately do what they can to assume more wealth, not what they can do to make the male sex more powerful. That's not patriarchy, though; it's pretty much straight-up feudalism.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 09:04 PM
1

Superior site. Your differentiation remains incorrect.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 08:17 PM
2

Content -- a Latin-based word meaning 'happy'.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 04:39 PM
10

it yields results Just wait till they learn they were lied to.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 03:27 PM
3

I wish I were bi so I could make an honestly snarky comment about doing that already.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 02:05 AM
1

Only if you discount the Protestant removal of the deuterocanonicals.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 06:55 PM
3

Does California have the death penalty?
/r/MensRights04/01/12 04:58 PM
1

Not 'forbids'. Saul of Tarsus says only that it's not necessary for salvation.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 04:21 PM
1

the church Which one? There are so many.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 04:20 PM
1

Was there ever a culture where the safety of men was prioritized over the safety of women? China. One-child policy. Female fetuses aborted in favor of males. Males ironically both valued and sent to war. Was there ever a culture where women were the ones sent to war, while men stayed on friendly soil? Presupposes sedentary horti-/agricultural society, which over the course of human history have been in the minority. This is so much to say that 'friendly soil' is a newfangled thing. To be perfect…
/r/MensRights29/12/11 05:04 AM
1

David was not transgendered. I know the story. Quite familiar, actually, and I know as much as anyone might the extents Dr. Money went to push 'Brenda' into accepting a female identity. I was making what's called an 'analogy'. The transgendered have few if any externalities that push them to incongruity. If anything, our society pushes them to adopt gender roles they feel they do not fit, which often ends in their suicides. In what way is this different from the Reimer case? Anyway, the point of…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 05:19 AM
2

So please explain how 'she' managed to get 'her' identity reversed. How does anyone transgendered get that way? I don't know the mechanism, but the phenomenon is observed. It is also observed that men of different cultures behave differently, i.e. they have different roles. Honestly, I'm no neuroscientist; I see the phenomenon of David Reimer, I've studied a wee bit of cultural anthropology, and the conclusion I've drawn from that taste of the breadth of human experience that the roles assigned …
/r/MensRights26/12/11 04:50 AM
2

(one of whom DID manage to "prove" that Newton's Principia Mathematica was a "rape manual", for crying out loud) My brain almost completely broke down at that. Forgive me if I seem less coherent for it. How the fuck was that supposed to work? Anyway, it is an incontrovertible fact that gender roles vary widely among cultures, and as such it's utterly ridiculous to claim that gender roles as defined by a certain part of Western civilisation in a certain period are the biological imperative. Gende…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 04:33 AM
3

Mildly annoyed that I let you waste my time, actually. Run along and join the military and get yourself killed, or whatever it is you male analogues of Valerie Solanos are up to these days.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 02:36 AM
3

pull your head out of your asshole. I don't seem to have the problem you believe I do. You, however, might be interested in cracking open a book every now and again. It'll really open your eyes to things you'd not otherwise encounter. And no, the norm is not a cultural definition. Idiotic proposition. Norms do not waffle. Quite right. They, like language, evolve.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 02:18 AM
3

If you mean to insinuate that you're Holmes, you're sorely mistaken, Simplicius. but as the boy was raised as a girl, 'he' would by your deduction identified with that gender role were that role a social construct. I've said nothing of the kind. You continue to assume that identity and role are synonymous. The roles he associated with his in-born identity were entirely dependent upon the society that raised him--a society, I may add, that has gender roles for the gender with which he identified.…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 01:23 AM
3

The Spartans would say you think that because you're a weakling deserving only of death or slavery. Seriously, though, the 'norm' is something that must be defined culturally. It varies and fluctuates far too much to do otherwise.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 01:00 AM
2

Here, a spiel from Wikipedia summarising the evolution of gender roles in Western culture. History and anthropology show that roles are mutable.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 12:42 AM
5

chose No. Gender identity appears to be biological. There was no more choice in Reimer's being a man than in my having a left arm. as well as the role that goes along with that identity. No shit, Sherlock. Living in Western culture would mean he was encultured with Western ideas of gender roles. His identity would mean he identified with the gender that takes on those roles.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 12:32 AM
4

that hormonal variables in utero determine gender role. A gender identity, not a gender role. I begin to think your entire argument roots in this misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 11:26 PM
4

To be fair, he seems almost trollish himself.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 11:20 PM
5

Gender identity and gender roles are not the same. Reimer's case does not disprove in the slightest the assertion that gender roles are cultural constructions.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 11:15 PM
3

We know the gender norm of humans is masculine attracted to feminine. The Spartans would like to have a word with you.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 11:12 PM
1

Personally I am a free-speech advocate first, MRAer second. Government censorship and rendering something socially unacceptable are two very different things.
/r/MensRights24/12/11 04:58 PM
1

I think it's just a troll.
/r/MensRights24/12/11 04:56 PM
1

The fact that his posts are completely insipid has nothing to do with it, of course.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 04:34 AM
1

drafted into the nazi party This makes little sense. Men were drafted into the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe. Drafting people into your control organisation is foolish.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 11:39 PM
0

His comment is aware of Demonspawn's history, which is in fact comparable to radical feminism in its lunacy and sexism.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 05:02 AM
0

If only he were. He's just a nigh-religious nut.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 04:59 AM
1

Indeed. I'll go back to writing papers now and insulting avowed patriarchalists.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 06:07 AM
-1

You edited the comment after I had already responded. The fact remains that I see no asterisk and I had begun editing before you responded. Your blatant victim-gaming is boring. Au revoir, thou shit-stain.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 06:05 AM
2

edit: Please do not edit posts without marking your edits. The edit didn't even add anything... I usually denote edits by writing the word in all caps and immediately following with a colon (e.g. 'EDIT:') and I figured playing with the format would be perfectly within bounds. Besides, I see no asterisk. I am unsure why you feel the need to insult me, The arrogance with which you dismissed my correction warrants it, especially after your treatment of IgnatiusLoyola's typo. No, you didn't 'help hi…
/r/MensRights08/12/11 05:54 AM
1

So your "solution" is to ignore reality because it doesn't fit your worldview.... And you call me the ignorant one? Ignorant and incapable of extending a metaphor, it seems. Really, if you can't see the difference between ignoring a facet of reality and junking a cultural paradigm, the problem lies not in me nor egalitarianism. That third car, privilege, isn't in the junk yard until it is in the junk yard. How do you plan on removing female privilege? By rolling my eyes at you really hard until …
/r/MensRights08/12/11 05:45 AM
0

More or less. I'd like to believe the humor was too subtle, honestly, but I think there's some confusion over which I mean by 'this'.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 05:35 AM
1

This is hilarious. Your usage is incorrect even by the standards of your own link. Please, continue the comedy. Here, I'll even EDIT this in so you know where, precisely, you fucked up: “Past” as an adverb The first meaning the OED cites for past being used as an adverb is “So as to pass or go by; by.” For example: “The ball sped past the goalkeeper.” Your usage was that of an adverb, and the verb 'to pass' had nothing to do with it.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 05:29 AM
-1

You are the one who is ignorant. Hilarious opener, to be perfectly honest. "No u" is the best you could come up with? That's the whole problem... it doesn't. That's not the problem at all. The problem lies in the bland space between your ears. You are giving a two car garage solution to a house that has 3 cars. That third car doesn't fit, there is no space for it, but it still exists and has to be dealt with. This third car is shipped off to the bloody junk yard, Sauron toppled and no dark lord …
/r/MensRights08/12/11 05:09 AM
1

I didn't even see a mention of race with the exception of saying that the previous Aryan ideal was wrong, His point was that saying something to the effect of "Whites thought the Aryan race was superior" unfairly generalises white folk. I agree, but for historical accuracy, he have to point out that every tribe of people in human history has thought itself better than outsiders. They're very good at inventing reasons for the inferiority of others.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 04:52 AM
3

(those who desire exact equality) No need to gallivant about displaying your complete ignorance of the definition of 'liberal'. You've done that enough, wouldn't you say? female privilege What about egalitarianism do you presume leaves space for this? If anything, you attempt to create a contradiction that doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 04:19 AM
3

move passed 'Past'.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 04:10 AM
6

The politically-expedient, to be more accurate. But InfinitelyThirsting is in a way correct. The conservative party of the 19th century was the Democratic Party. The government-expanding railway-subsidisers were the Republicans.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 04:10 AM
7

the real MRA ...Did you just seriously No True Scotsman almost the entire subreddit? You're no moderate, you're a loon.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 03:55 AM
1

Did you mean "too"? Gods forbid he make a typographical error.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 03:44 AM
0

This is that comment.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 03:38 AM
2

Germany's not so hot, either.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 03:25 AM
1

Brilliant. Thanks.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 03:37 AM
1

Sure. When it's not on the Daily Mail. I'm not giving the UK's version of the National Enquirer pageviews.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 02:04 AM
1

This probably indicates that there were enough occasional problems with boys' foreskins to warrant this. Only if you think cultural practises necessitate rational bases. They don't.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 01:31 AM
1

Yhwh is a male god. It's not that hard to figure out from reading the fucking manual.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 01:22 AM
2

I don't click Daily Mail links.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 01:04 AM
3

Can we get a source that's not the Daily Mail?
/r/MensRights07/12/11 12:35 AM
1

Meanwhile, I can imitate Received Pronunciation almost flawlessly.
/r/MensRights05/12/11 11:13 PM
2

It might have been the catastrophic lack of punctuation, come to think of it.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 02:46 PM
1

...what? There is literally nothing about that that makes sense.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 04:44 AM
1

I came to the party late. You really need to dust in here.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 04:43 AM
6

Stewart's Jewish.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 04:37 AM
1

Indeed. That's the whole bloody point.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 02:20 AM
-1

You think you 'd be the same person if you were born outside of society, guided only by your genes? When such things happen, the product is not people, point of fact.
/r/MensRights02/12/11 02:11 AM
4

"I don't know what to do with it" - didn't seem that bad to me. It still isn't valid. Most girls (I should figure--at least in the culture I grew up in they wouldn't) don't know what to do with a penis the first time they choose to play with one. Hell, I know of girls who'd never gotten a proper sex education who'd never seen a penis before their first times. Why the hesitance over more skin?
/r/MensRights02/12/11 02:01 AM
-5

wont
/r/MensRights01/12/11 11:57 PM
0

Anarcho-capitalist.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 10:43 PM
1

Argument by confusion should really be labeled in textbooks as fallacious.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 01:01 PM
0

Oh, that's it--you don't understand the concept. Eyes closed == temporarily blinded. 'Blinded' refers to a large number of conditions ranging in severity and duration, including having one's eyes blocked by some object, in this case one's eyelids. Is it really that hard to understand that one need not be disabled very long for one to be left open to attack? Are you an idiot?
/r/MensRights29/11/11 12:38 PM
-1

Having water thrown in my face and reflexively closing my eyes.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 12:20 PM
9

parents right to choose? Doesn't exist. It wasn't my father's place to have me cut or to sign me up for the Abrahamic covenant. The 'individual libert(y)' here is in the individual's prerogative to do as he will with his own penis, not for parents to swoop in with superstition and cultural nonsense and take that from him.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 06:19 AM
8

To be honest, the girls don't matter to him. He only seeks to protect his crazy back-asswards religion's practice.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 06:17 AM
3

Since the Sanhedrin does not exist, it has actually been forbidden to sentence anyone to death for the last 1900 years. Technicalities. Do you or do you not believe that it is ethical to stone gay people to death? Judaism says nothing about being Gay, rather prohibiting the act itself. A useless distinction.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 06:13 AM
2

I'm a very socially progressive person, but this color blindness regarding biological differences is just silly. Those differences lead to a more vibrant and flexible world, but there are differences nonetheless. Missing the point. I say nothing about the reality of biological differences; I comment only that you use the inanities of color when discussion strains of humanity. 'Black' and 'white' are too puerile and simplistic to be at all useful. Considering that it's slang without an official d…
/r/MensRights29/11/11 04:26 AM
1

True. If you want to stick with Twatlight, you could go with the moronic expectations associated with a paragon of masculinity as conceived by a woman eternally frozen on the cusp of pubescence. That may have been done to death, though. Ya know, 2500 plus posts -- some ain't gonna appeal to everyone. True. You do good work.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 03:26 AM
1

If 'against society' means 'for accuracy against moronic generalisations of large swaths of largely-unrelated peoples', then sure, but I have to correct your terminology (again, it seems): 'white knighting' is exclusively used for males stepping in to 'protect' females, mistakenly thinking it will get them cunt. Yes, I was talking to you. Furthermore, that wasn't projection. Read a fucking dictionary.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 02:41 AM
1

African Americans ...are a very small portion of the 'black' people in the world. It's hardly accurate to project studies of them onto 'black' folk at large.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 01:13 AM
1

Pierce, is Twilight's sex scene really something MR needs to go over? That fruit seems awfully low.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 12:58 AM
1

Oh, come on, that film was hilarious. I think I'm going to watch it again right now. I could use a laugh.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 12:57 AM
0

The only stipulation for sexytimes was seeing the movie, not liking it. I'd sue her for breach of contract.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 12:56 AM
1

have sex Well, not really. Porn is work, not play.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 09:41 PM
2

Since it's a good deal more nuanced than 'black' and 'white', I'm going to say that your statement as-is is a load of crock.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 09:36 PM
1

liberal is right-wing and socialists are their political enemies. American political terminology is different.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 09:31 PM
0

But others apparently think that having water thrown in your face temporarily blinds you leaving you open to attack. It kind of does.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 09:27 PM
1

Well, there's 'very important relative to my toothbrush' and 'I'mma kill me some muthafukkas for this'. Really, I'm not sure he impressed upon her that the watch was the latter.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 03:58 AM
20

Using that line of reasoning, abortion should be illegal.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 01:35 PM
7

He didn't explain why, though, which was the point of Terran's post. She didn't understand how important it was because he didn't explain.
/r/MensRights25/11/11 02:25 AM
-1

who had at one point in her life been a man. No, just ignorant, it seems.
/r/MensRights24/11/11 02:23 AM
1

Fuck the 'song'. Otherwise excellent. Australian, I take it?
/r/MensRights22/11/11 05:15 AM
3

Really? Not much into blades, are you?
/r/MensRights22/11/11 05:05 AM
4

What does Mensrights have to say about this kind of shit? Good on ya, /r/TwoXChromosomes. That's what.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 09:10 PM
1

"Answer to" is a phrase that also means--and in this instance does mean--"equivalent of".
/r/MensRights21/11/11 04:27 AM
1

You are incorrect there. There you go with the irrelevant-talk. Damn straight I am. The ignorant man hating harpy deserves to be burned alive. You misunderstood. Perhaps I shouldn't have expected you to otherwise.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 04:00 AM
1

Pertinence of your comment: none. Fact is that you are Men's Rights' answer to Andrea Dworkin.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 03:12 AM
1

Hell, legislation is nothing but legislating morality.
/r/MensRights20/11/11 06:05 PM
1

And that man is no true Scotsman. Of course.
/r/MensRights20/11/11 04:18 PM
1

At that point, we just bold and capitalise: BLACK
/r/MensRights20/11/11 04:13 PM
1

My point is that they are not feminists, no matter how much they think they are. Is that yours to define, though? Are not those unchristlike Christians still Christians?
/r/MensRights20/11/11 04:10 PM
-1

Actually, it seems ever truer the more you type.
/r/MensRights20/11/11 04:08 PM
3

Considering how women react, he might as well not have it, though.
/r/MensRights20/11/11 02:42 PM
3

In my opinion, rampant promiscuity on either sex is immoral. Why's that?
/r/MensRights20/11/11 02:32 PM
5

Lesbian trans women? They exist. Butch lesbian trans women, as well.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 01:01 PM
1

Still relevant. Getting facts right is always a good thing.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 12:11 PM
2

Why is it a wrong in the first place? Company time, company computers, signed name with position in company.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 04:10 AM
1

From DarkRider: in the US, $150k would be a large settlement.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 04:03 AM
2

Also, the prosecutor is a somewhat devout absolutely insane Catholic.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 01:31 PM
18

It’s almost as if God designed marriage that way. I'm just going to sigh here and walk away.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 01:29 PM
4

No. Those are unintended consequences, if anything.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 01:22 PM
2

That plainly doesn't say what you intended, unless you intend to imply it's 'charitable' to think that I'm missing your point intentionally. What the fuck drove you to think that I 'deny transgenderism'? Also, I rather think you have no idea what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 09:37 PM
1

Second result for Ctrl+f 'update' after loading all comments.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 09:18 PM
1

No. Which gender a person identifies with is not related to the roles of said gender.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 09:17 PM
6

Gender is culturally-defined, though. It has entirely cultural parameters.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 08:35 PM
5

Well, gender roles are culturally-determined. Gender identity is not.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 07:51 PM
2

Scroll down. There's an update telling men to stay away.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 02:55 PM
2

Exactly. I see what they're trying to do, and I suppose that's okay, but they explicitly alienate a large portion of the movement, and so are less likely to get what they want, which will just anger them. Gods forbid the people being lambasted actually get to contribute to a discussion.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 02:52 PM
6

What the hell is this supposed to be for? Can't they just focus on one topic without self-segregating?
/r/MensRights08/11/11 02:56 AM
2

oriented
/r/MensRights05/11/11 06:44 PM
4

The Daily Mail is a tabloid.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 06:42 PM
1

Americans buy guns with tax money, First I've heard of it.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 01:48 PM
12

She hit him with a pool cue immediately after. Did you read the fucking article?
/r/MensRights03/11/11 08:07 PM
1

I don't think the wording was a problem. They conveyed the same information in a similar manner.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 07:46 PM
2

I don't think you understood that sentence properly. Of set 'single parents', 8% are male.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 01:39 PM
8

Free for the price of taxation, if you want to be accurate.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 01:37 PM
1

Perhaps. I have a feeling that was largely reserved for daimyo who could afford the whorehouses. Did you ever read Shōgun?
/r/MensRights02/11/11 10:39 PM
1

All you really need to do is look at the Southern contestants for Miss America and USA.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 10:25 PM
1

True. However, I don't think I've heard of anything so systematic and widespread as the Japanese Empire's scheme, save perhaps the American prison system.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 06:11 PM
3

Evangelical fundamental christian women are never that hot. You haven't been around the South, have you?
/r/MensRights02/11/11 01:22 PM
1

Male circumcision shouldn't be supported by feminists as an intrinsic part of their feminism, because it's not a feminist issue. How is it not a feminist issue? It's a social and legal inequality.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 01:18 PM
2

I just gave Aerik an upvote. This is what this post has done to me. Fuck you, AntiFeministMedia.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 01:12 PM
3

In the West, at least. In the far East, well, there was shit like this.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 01:11 PM
1

I did. I got a 403.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:58 PM
2

Or, you know, send us extinct, but whatever.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 05:07 AM
12

Pretty much every modern convenience, yes, and most of the ancient tools for survival.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 09:47 AM
1

I know. I'm a big ol' naïve softie.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 09:33 PM
6

Can we give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they were being ironic as South Park was?
/r/MensRights27/10/11 08:03 PM
9

From the comment just below the linked one on the blog: For my sister hets who enjoy PIV sex, consider this: men are physiological able to have an orgasm without ejaculating. Yet they all do it, every time — penis-involved sex isn’t considered ‘complete’ until ejaculation occurs. Imagine a world in which men were taught not to ejaculate unless they were specifically asked to by the person they were sexing up. Not as a birth control method, since that wouldn’t prevent pregnancy, but just because …
/r/MensRights27/10/11 02:52 AM
-1

I'm thinking a good deal earlier than the Puritans of the American frontiers.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 03:39 AM
-2

Yes, sure there were some women who worked, Work and home were the same place. Farm or forge, women were there. Not as respected, of course, but they were indeed there.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 03:05 AM
2

Most Christians don't do that, though; deistic Enlightenment philosophers saw to that.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 02:36 AM
-1

Women were taking care of the home and children in total safety while men worked dangerous jobs and went to war. Except for the 'going to war' bit, men and women did usually very similar work in the preindustrial era.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 02:35 AM
0

It's still unaesthetic and off-putting.
/r/MensRights25/10/11 01:39 AM
1

But think about it. If the natural way for a home to be set up is with the man as head of household, would there really be a need to create religious rules to establish that? Is she really saying that religious rules aren't natural? Because people apparently can act entirely outside their nature? That's just so wrong I can hardly think straight.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 01:46 PM
6

as an over-protective FATHER of a beautiful little girl Unnecessary capitalisation combined with a lack of paragraphing and no initial capitalisation do not serve your sexist cause well. NO WAY WOULD I LET "SOME DUDE" I SAW ONCE A WEEK WIPE MY DAUGHTER UNLESS THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE TO DO IT. And yet you'd let a strange woman you only see once a week do it, no questions asked. I pity you. It must be terrible to hate yourself so. Its not being a bigot. Yes, it is, and you forgot your apostrophe. It…
/r/MensRights20/10/11 04:18 AM
7

Thing is, though, that, as the administrators said, she's teaching her child to distrust all men, forgetting that the men will see the disparity and bail, and the boys there will see and learn. They will learn that for some reason they are treated differently, with more suspicion. This will engender more of that natural classification, but they will ascribe further negative traits to the girls, as a natural reaction to being treated like shit by said Other. This woman is a problem.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 04:07 AM
1

Fare, people, fare.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 12:57 AM
1

I'm still a big anti-circ guy, don't get me wrong. Self-ownership is all-important, and it highlights the disparity in treatment between males and females in our society, belying pretty much perfectly the feminist idea of all-encompassing male privilege.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 07:18 PM
1

Nowhere near that, thank Odin. It really only comes up during (admittedly-frequent) masturbation, and then more as an annoyance. I expect that the more I dwell on it the worse I'll feel, though.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 07:01 PM
1

Well, there's a good deal of sensation that I know I'm missing (e.g. much of the back of my penis is entirely dead to sensation), and the fact that my body was violated without my permission and I can do nothing to seek redress.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 06:51 PM
21

Personally, I don't care, but I'm all virgin-y so I doubt my opinion matters. If I can't tell without being told, fantastic. If she still has a penis I'll want to know so I can acquire lubrication.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:33 PM
1

Oh gods. I think he was hoping for a good film.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:25 PM
2

It's the fukkin sheep, man. They'll blaaab on you every time.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:19 PM
4

On the other hand, they may very well end up like me and resent it, especially once circumcision has become strange.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 01:49 PM
5

Why don't you just let them do it if they want to? It's something the men in my family are proud of. That seems a stupid thing to be proud of. The only difference is whether I can get it done legally and safely in a hospital by a doctor or whether I'll have to go to jail to get it done. False dichotomy. If it's really that important to your family they can get it done as adults, and they won't ever grow to resent you having their dicks cut.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 01:25 PM
2

I wouldn't say that. I feel bereft, certainly, but not incomplete.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 01:13 PM
0

Culturally-programmed complacence. Disclaimer: I have not been downvoting you.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 10:05 PM
1

well shit, looks like my point just got nullified The post you were replying to specified white women. You got off that track. If you planned on that, you should have said so. Justifying rape, I never did that, and don't you fucking say I did. I said that one sexist policy instigated violence in another part of the world--rape being only one form. a day in the life of an MRA I prefer to call myself an egalitarian, not that the word (nor the idea) means much to you, you fallacious ragemonger.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 09:34 PM
1

As far as comfort women go, and the occupation of Japan, white women did get a pass, if only for the reason that they were fortunately not there. It bears mentioning that many if not all of those rapes never would have happened were the men not conscripted and the humanity forced from them.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 08:25 PM
1

As far as comfort women go, and the occupation of Japan, white women did get a pass, if only for the reason that they were fortunately not there. It bears mentioning that many if not all of those rapes never would have happened were the men not conscripted and the humanity forced from them.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 08:25 PM
2

It means you were born on the wrong side of the pond.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 03:20 AM
4

Congratulations for failing to notice that there are (inadequate, but that's irrelevant) foreskin restoration methods, and they sell decently. Since I happen to know I keep none of these companies afloat, it stands to reason that other people are giving them money.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 02:15 AM
5

I know I do, and fuck you for thinking otherwise, especially when there's a whole fucking industry dedicated to what little foreskin restoration one can get.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 10:07 PM
3

It's a third-world problem in a first-world country. Legitimate complaint the world over.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 02:36 PM
3

Poe's Law is strong with this one.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 02:23 PM
3

I'm talking about California law California law was apparently written by people who know nothing of what words mean.
/r/MensRights02/10/11 09:25 PM
1

The Copts and Ethiopian Orthodox (including those in Eritrea) are the only ones for whom ritual circumcision remains the established norm. American Protestants do it normally, too, though most sects don't officially support it as a point of doctrine. They do, however, usually tout the 'benefits' of circumcision, a la my father.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 03:44 PM
1

Saul of Tarsus, in the shifting of Christianity's PR to bring it more acceptable to Greco-Romans, explicitly states that circumcision is no longer a point of salvation. Jesus loves your penis just the way it is now. Why the unchanging god didn't bring this up two thousand years earlier is unfortunately not a point of contention.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 03:43 PM
1

ante
/r/MensRights30/09/11 03:36 PM
1

"Plagiarised", if you're not American. "Plagiarized" if you are.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 03:32 PM
2

Blood still falls out.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 03:18 PM
0

Maybe those medieval men were searching for a "pure" women, Hoo, boy. Read Foucault's Pendulum, by Umberto Eco, or at least one of the characters' diatribes on Sophia--wisdom personified. Now mix it with Mariology rather than Hebraic theology. You now have courtly love. Minus the sex.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 01:51 AM
1

Demonspawn had suggested Demonspawn suggests many things, many of which are wrong. when masculinity became about pleasing women instead of getting things done. This, for instance, requires a complete ignorance of the late medieval ideas surrounding courtly love.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:44 PM
1

I refuse to use the word. Gender is less binary than 'man' and 'woman', and we must recognise this if we're to have legitimate arguments at all.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 02:01 AM
1

Well said.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 06:54 PM
1

Feminism is an unrealistic utopian philosophy, yes. We don't disagree.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:23 PM
1

If I recall correctly, the raped tend to go into a sort of shock and out-of-body experience and so are incapable of fighting back. Humans are rather like goats in their fear-reactions.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:04 PM
2

To be fairer than fair, the Bible is irrelevant to modern rape law.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:02 PM
2

Trollings. "Troll" is English, after all.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:01 PM
1

Or, rather more accurately, "By my purchasing this drink within this social context, I indicate that I'd like to, on the basis of your appearance, would like to put myself forward as a candidate for tonight's boinking, and perhaps a more emotionally-involved relationship." The comic is actually funny because the male misunderstands the nuances of the social interaction within this cultural context and how that relates to prostitution, not because of some puerile rabble-rousing "Fuck yeah! He say…
/r/MensRights17/09/11 05:29 PM
1

You say that as if there's something wrong with prostitution.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 05:24 PM
1

That's usually attributed to Winston Churchill, to my knowledge. I can't say how true it is, though. Probably not at all.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 05:23 PM
1

go we
/r/MensRights17/09/11 05:07 PM
6

Why does the government possess child pornography? Who the fuck thought it was okay for the State to possess sexually exploitative imagery of persons who are unable to consent to such?
/r/MensRights17/09/11 05:07 PM
5

You know, this really needed the text of the damn bill. Being told what a law says is fucking useless.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 04:50 PM
1

in how they're socialized that is butting heads with the larger mainstream culture. That's not what feminists say. The larger mainstream culture is still terribly misogynistic/patriarchal in their eyes.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 04:42 PM
1

A psychologist doesn't really fix the problem so much as coach a person through it, correct?
/r/MensRights08/09/11 04:27 AM
4

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 04:12 AM
4

You've proven my example was stupid and completely unacceptable. It make no sense to have Woman Gyno at all. Hey, kids, hyperbole is fun! Are you really trying to say that if you had erectile dysfunction it wouldn't make a bit of difference if you saw a male or female urologist? Yeah, actually. To utilise the usual metaphor, one doesn't need to own a car to properly work on one. Now can you discuss how that relates to meat and potatoes of my argument? You need to find another example. The one yo…
/r/MensRights08/09/11 04:08 AM
2

Doesn't it make more sense to have a Woman Gyno because she knows what its like to have a vagina? Not really. So long as the doctor in question has studied rather well, I don't particularly care of what sex he might be.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 03:41 AM
2

It was Eve Ensler. Thanks go to therealbarackobama.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 02:39 AM
1

That was it, thanks. I honestly can't see how I confused the two.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 02:37 AM
1

Really? Hunh. I'm going to look for whoever that was, then.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 01:43 AM
1

It's not just the manifesto, though. Did you watch her TED talk? Misandric to the core. The only good parts of humanity are the "girl cells". EDIT: Hunh. Person misidentified. Will rectify.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 11:37 PM
1

Call women/actions misandrist without any real proof at all. Some do, some don't. Actually, I'm thinking that Men's Rights is running into the exact same problems modern feminism has: the religious masculine-supremacist nuts are the ones being used to the define the movement, rather than the egalitarians. It's one thing to be for fathers' rights. It's quite another to think that all women are perpetually children because that's how women work.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 01:17 AM
1

Within living memory, only men went into combat; Still fucking true. Women are not shock troops. Women are not front-line infantry. And women still aren't drafted, either. In a world where women go to war—and play hockey—men who believe that true manliness lies in doing what women can't are forced to create ever more-violent activities from which females can still be excluded. ... Because violent sports such as MMA aren't enjoyed by any women, and there have never been any violent sports before …
/r/MensRights30/08/11 12:42 PM
1

Castration is not the removal of the penis, ignoramus. Since the penis doesn't produce testosterone, it would not produce any noticeable physiological effect in the secondary sexual characteristics of a potential sinementulal man.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 12:39 PM
1

Castrato. "Castrati" is plural.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 12:37 PM
1

I went to see Black Swan with a couple of scruffy dude-friends and the women (adult-shaped children, really) in front of us could be heard whispering about how they figured we were there for lesbians, as if we couldn't appreciate the film aside from the cunnilingus and, furthermore, couldn't get more explicit lesbian porn from the Internet.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 05:06 AM
8

their special day, If that's the case, then why the ceremony? Why a public statement of unity? I'm rather convinced that weddings are no more about the married than funerals are about the buried.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 01:00 AM
3

I have something against it, and it would especially piss me off were I to consider myself this woman's friend, but there oughtn't be any legal repercussions.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 12:59 AM
2

Shorts have to be almost to the knee or below to be socially acceptable, however.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 03:20 PM
1

Nope. I'm an atheist. What's the opposition, then? Out of curiosity, what's your rectified opinion? While the convict has forsaken the right to control her body, it is not feasible to remove the offending tissue.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 01:01 AM
1

I read his comments. They don't support the sexism portrayed in the article.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:45 AM
5

I doubt ShinShinGogetsuko thinks they're anything but worthless, too.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:18 AM
1

I don't believe in abortion at all. Religious reasons? that would have to be the fastest trial and conviction EVER-- it's entirely possible the case wouldn't even get to trial until the kid was born. Didn't occur to me. Rectifying opinion.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 01:21 AM
1

Yes, ma'am. However, I was referring to the female rapist's getting pregnant from her victim. It's easiest to avoid child support by simply aborting the fetus, after a proper conviction.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 02:20 AM
1

The former should be completely controlled by the woman because it's her body, And if this person is a rapist has she not forsaken that right? The rapist in question obviously thinks it right, after all, and therefore assents to similar acts, no?
/r/MensRights17/08/11 02:45 AM
3

Run away with me and we can found a crazy egalitarian island nation in the southern Pacific. There'll be truth, justice, and coconuts for all.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 02:42 AM
1

I would have said 'I am on vacation'. That's acceptable. In Texas, at least.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:29 AM
1

biscuits "Cookies" in American English.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:29 AM
1

"Come round and I will fix you some dinner" Peculiar to the Texan sphere of influence.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:28 AM
1

It's Texan, regardless of rural or municipal background.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:26 AM
1

Depends. It was trending that way long before feminism, in the U.S., at least.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 04:31 AM
4

He's right. A total dick about it, but according to Google, he's correct. That said, your spelling makes sense, as well. It doesn't quite click, but it functions.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 02:52 AM
1

With girls around there's a pressure to suppress dude-ness for the unconscious drive to get laid. With other straight guys this becomes a non-issue and we can actually relax.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 04:38 PM
4

General Practitioner.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 09:18 PM
5

It might be the vowel duplication that sets off my Dutch alarm.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 07:29 PM
13

It looks Dutch.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 06:15 PM
1

It's what I do, but I realise this is quickly becoming nonstandard. The singular they has already stuck. Of course, I'd prefer to repersonalise "it", but that already isn't going over well, so alas.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 02:10 AM
1

Archaic usage. I'd like to promote the revival of "werman" and "wifman" for male and female, or just "wer" and "wif". "Man" becomes neutered again, as it was before.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 02:09 AM
3

Wouldn't that indicate they sold out of everything under 4XL?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 06:32 PM
3

That's point 4.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 06:25 PM
1

If there were a group promoting it, however, and making pretty good headway, would you not oppose it?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:50 AM
1

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:53 AM
1

Bingo. Not a novelty account, but it holds true here.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:15 AM
1

I'm XY, not XX. Meaningless. Women with AIS are XY, as well.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 11:11 PM
1

It happens, mate. Have a good one, yeah?
/r/MensRights20/07/11 08:30 PM
2

Dissonance.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 07:02 PM
1

But, sadly enough, it has a better chance of success than begging our masters for better treatment. A small rebellion against a global military force, in the home territory of both. I'm going to gamble on the bigger guy. I included it because it is one of the three answers. Isn't the question one of how one will turn back the clock on female rights? Turtle: Prepare for the collapse of this society which is quickly advancing due to feminism and then do whatever you think you can in the aftermath.…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 11:07 PM
1

Your first point is still a campaign. You'd be fighting a numerically superior force with the backing of the State. The second is running from the problem. It's not a solution on the scale we discuss. Turtle? Attempting to discern which of the meanings was the one you intended.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:25 AM
0

The general public doesn't give a shit about men. Men are disposable. Then why do you expect a campaign to deprive women of rights will work?
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:08 AM
1

The laws are gender-neutral I'm going to stop right here and laugh for a second. In some cases they are. In others the policy (ergo the law de facto) is to side with the female. How do you prevent equal rights from becoming female supremacy? Propaganda campaigns. See what the feminists did? Learn from that. We find it difficult, however, thanks to nearly a century of feminism and centuries of moronic chivalric codes to point out any victimhood.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 01:20 AM
1

I was actually asking in all honesty?
/r/MensRights18/07/11 12:30 AM
3

Not all are. /r/TwoXC is usually pretty good about this sort of thing.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 02:56 PM
1

I imagine that would be a secondary benefit.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 02:51 PM
1

It depends on the MRA, in the same way it depends on the feminist.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 02:49 PM
1

they're just in favour of over-all equality. Equality under the law. Sex-blindness in the courts. I take it you're a monarchist?
/r/MensRights17/07/11 02:43 PM
1

Islam may be fucked up in lots of ways but it is definitely a refuge against feminism. Back into circumcision for both sexes, stoning people despite a lack of evidence, and a general return to the good ol' days of Iron-Age goat-herding in the desert. Yep, listening to a drugged-up goatfucker is the way to go.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:32 AM
2

Oh--Sharia--that's what you meant. Took me a while.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:30 AM
1

And, once again, treated as children, so that the adults among them end up swinging towards feminism.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:28 AM
5

For the record: I have not downvoted you. That I think I have to say that is rather sad. Anyway, the devil's in the degree of response. Females have seriously struck me before. Would you say that I had the right to drop them?
/r/MensRights06/07/11 04:13 AM
13

Difference between spitting and striking. Big difference.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 03:18 AM
2

Except his makes sense.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 02:54 AM
1

It would have passed by the sound barrier first, so there'd be a boom there, and then the tremendous sound of the atmosphere closing behind it.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 05:06 AM
7

tribal anarchy Tribes are only miniature states. Real patriarchy in most cases.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 03:50 PM
8

Hear, hear.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 03:40 PM
1

tract
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:25 PM
-1

No poorly-marked sarcasm, thanks.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 04:45 AM
3

Did you point this out?
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:36 AM
1

Because one of the the main motivating factors which drives men to achieve is access to sex. When marriage is not in vogue and sex is easy/cheap to obtain, men aren't stupid.... Sex has never been difficult to obtain without marriage. Remember how nuns kept getting pregnant back in the medieval era? When it happens to the UK, US, France, and Switzerland..... When it happened to the US States which allowed women's suffrage prior to the 19th... And, of course, it wasn't a surge of progressive idea…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 10:47 PM
1

And, of course, my testosterone has no interplay with my cultural or autological programming. That would just make no sense. That my apparent bloodthirst cannot be slaked in harmless activity also makes perfect sense.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 10:38 PM
1

Without marriage men will not be motivated to work as hard. Why's that? Our government has grown from 3% of GNP (pre 1920) to 36% of GNP and climbing. Every government which allows women's suffrage grows damn-near exponentially and increases it's intrusion into personal lives. Correlation doesn't mean causation. Growth of the State in relation to GNP doesn't mean jack for property rights, once you've ceded them to taxation. What relation does Wickard v. Filburn have with feminism? Or the tyranni…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:17 AM
1

You said that without marriage, men would not be motivated to work, since there would be no guarantee of keeping the fruits of his labour. However, men have worked and do work in happy bachelorhood and still manage to keep their earnings. Marriage, then, is not the issue at hand. Quite to the contrary, marriage usually means an increase in expenditure while income remains relatively static. I'm not talking about feminism, just the conflation of marriage with property rights. Also, property right…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 12:17 AM
1

One doesn't necessitate the other. You've quite a non sequitur there, unless there's more thought you haven't seen fit to divulge.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 11:37 PM
3

Quick grammatical fixes: feminist mod’s here at /racism. "Mods." Apostrophe is for genitive case, "its" excepted. This is due to disagreement with many of feminisms core theories and it’s bigotry, "Feminism's" and "its." Some of the wording strikes me as awkward, but I'm not your bloody English teacher.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 11:15 PM
1

Pray for a religious resurgence which re-institutes traditional gender roles. I hope to fuck this doesn't happen. The world is religious enough without a resurgence. Also, your "answer" had nothing to do with my question. It's right up there for your perusal.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 10:37 PM
1

People running on an obscenely small amount of sleep can hardly be called 'lazy' by anyone with a functioning frontal cortex.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:01 AM
4

Indeed. One cannot quantitatively measure a quality such as "logical." Asserting one group is moreso than another based on biological determiners can hardly be less than moronic.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:55 AM
2

I take it you haven't met rantgrrl, then. Seriously, though, I think you'll find it quite cozy in here, despite the traditionalists. MRAs have two camps, from what I've seen: one finds egalitarianism quite appealing while the other would roll back voting rights for females. Mmm...couple of reasons. Feminists don't tend to like my views (I get into shouting matches, often), because I think they are just perpetuating the problem a lot of the time. A pity you didn't catch any of that on film. I wou…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:53 AM
2

So how would you explain some boy's preferences for dolls, etc? And girls for traditionally male toys? Outliers on a continuum, from what I understand. The fact that most males group at one point and females another doesn't prevent some (or a lot) of scatter.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:51 AM
1

Without marriage yoking men to the plow and equity giving them the knowledge that they can keep what they ear Marriage and property rights are divorced, as it were. How do you figure on equating the two?
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:49 AM
1

But that doesn't take away the effect pregnancy has on men! Sympathetic pregnancies aren't much fun, either, from what I hear. That said, why were you expecting downvotes?
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:42 AM
20

An equal, honestly.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 12:48 AM
1

Good thing I doubled up on the quotes, then.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 10:52 PM
1

fair better "Fare."
/r/MensRights16/06/11 01:41 AM
1

I get so much "你好嗎？" from random non-asian people I didn't figure the slanty-eyed languages were that common Stateside. We mostly have Spanish and Viet where I am.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 01:36 AM
1

Scott Adams is notable in that he is both a misandrist and a misogynist a master troll a miserable excuse for a human being.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 01:18 AM
0

Popular opinion decides morality? Slavery was moral 150 years ago, for example? Yes and sort of. Insofar as slavery was an inconsistency in the idea that all men are created equal and ought be treated equally before the law, it was immoral. Were I captain of a slaver and decided to raid Inverness for slaves, I'd have been hanged for a pirate. Most people do not believe that life begins at conception. I'm not so certain I can see this being true. "Life" and "life with rights" are quite different.…
/r/MensRights16/06/11 01:16 AM
-1

There is something morally wrong with throwing a baby in the woods. That's murder you douchebag. Hardly an uncontested assertion, there. There is no appreciable difference between a fetus in the late third trimester and its freshly-born self four weeks later. It can hardly be considered human then, unless we're going to start giving rights to apes and dogs, both of which are more intelligent (and closer, in a way, to sapience) than your average infant. We're ignoring, of course, the historical p…
/r/MensRights16/06/11 01:14 AM
1

"she's drunk and she's agreed" - I'm never fucking someone incapacitated. There's a difference between sober you and a drunk somebody else.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 03:42 AM
11

Because skin color does not imbue the possessor with greater physical strength or a social position of leadership. That's hardly relevant. With manhood comes apparently the expectation of crime. With black skin comes the expectation of crime. This is what's being compared, and this is not a good thing. So what if I'm stronger? My propensity to violation is not affected by my strength.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:07 PM
2

I'm not an authorised ambassador, but I'll tentatively say that your terms sound reasonable, madam.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 02:56 PM
1

Of course.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 02:03 AM
1

Stop whinging yourself and try instead to make it better. I hear more growling and grumbling than whinging, honestly.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 10:19 PM
2

I don't believe in marriage. It's a losing proposition. Then permit me to say that a fulfilling long-term relationship with you, based on two Internet posts, probably would not be disagreeable to Monsieur Furah.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 10:15 PM
1

It does seem short sided of her for thinking that it will stay secret, especially after the children grow up. If it were me, that fear would inhibit my ability to truly enjoy myself. She obviously doesn't care enough for anything but her own enjoyment, so this isn't an issue. Fear is for people who give a damn. Plus its absolutely important for there to be trust between loved ones. It's kind of in the definition, no? I wonder what kind of guy that guy is. By her own admission he's quite nice.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 10:12 PM
2

Blacktip reef shark.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 10:10 PM
3

They both have quasi legitimate evolutionary reasons. I can name at least one species of shark whose only method of breeding is gang-bang.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 03:04 AM
6

Our morals and intelligence is what made us different from the animals. We are animals. Very complex ones that have developed rules that say this sort of behavior is bullshit. Our simian cousins perform in a similar manner.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 02:59 AM
6

She is the matriarch of a wretched hive of scum and villainy. The hive queen of Mos Eisley.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 02:56 AM
9

All she's saying is that "legitimate reasons" don't mean shit once you're given your word that you've forsaken them. She is quite the horrible person. Nothing wrong with being a swinger or otherwise in an open relationship. The horrible person schtick comes about because of the fucking lies. His kids aren't. He's paid how much to raise (translated into hours spent in support of) some fucking cuckoos? He's spent how much time with them as if they were his? She has no leg to stand on. She's a prou…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 02:55 AM
3

That forum is just unvarnished truth without the PC filter. Any time you see this sentence, you know you're dealing with an irrational.
/r/MensRights05/06/11 04:22 AM
0

Hi, kids! Welcome to the exciting world of oncology!
/r/MensRights27/05/11 03:22 AM
2

I'd go with hot nurse. She is, however, required to finish the damn job.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 03:12 AM
2

I think I like this one. Subtle and biting.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 02:57 AM
1

They mature faster physically, not mentally. That's not the vulgar wisdom paraded about. Their forms mature sooner, not more quickly.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 02:55 AM
1

Common in Texas, too.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 02:54 AM
1

... thus revealing you know very little about the Bible. Rather presumptuous. Proverbs is no more nor less sexist than the average book in the Bible. Proverbs 31 looks fairly progressive to me, what with the ideal woman running her own business and being able to keep the profits for herself if she wishes. Perhaps the other traditional "family" arrangement, the one Paul preferred, should be considered. I was with you up till this point. Do you mean the lack thereof? Celibacy, I mean.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 11:44 PM
2

Kidnapping the child and leaving it on a hill to die is the traditional method, if I recall. Note: Not actually advocating infanticide.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 11:44 PM
6

That's other people's problem, not yours. He takes a book written by Iron-Age tribalists (who were sexist to the core, apparent writer of Proverbs excepted) to be inerrant when it comes to societal organisation. Definitely his problem.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 11:37 PM
2

Or maybe the power is about sex?
/r/MensRights24/05/11 07:31 PM
3

Power is a big part of rape. Well, duh. One must have power to rape.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 05:29 PM
1

Or we could lower sentences for everybody and do away completely with Prohibition.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 02:50 PM
2

I hadn't seen a lot of people saying- we're protesting this here, or meet us at this location Traveling that far isn't very much an option for many of us.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 08:08 PM
1

I am completely fascinated by the fact that we were so successful when we were tribal in nature, ...what? You'll have to define "successful" before this makes sense to me. Tribalism correlates with a lack of education, no? Primitivism and poor hygiene and nasty, brutish, and short lives, no?
/r/MensRights23/05/11 08:04 PM
1

The last sentence seems the odd man out. Why that particular wording?
/r/MensRights23/05/11 03:41 AM
2

why we aren't getting married. No worries about that around here. The general consensus is that marriage is a Bad Idea.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 03:37 AM
2

I don't believe the world is a happy fair equal place. Anyone who does is in for a surprise. Fortunately, we here are not. It would be redundant to go over Hume's pointing out that what is is entirely divorced from what ought be. One cannot derive what ought from what is.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 03:29 AM
3

Who is the man: the serf or the rebel? Some forgotten Englishman who died from some disease gotten while he toiled for his French master or Spartacus? The Christian who died screaming on a burning cross, cowed by the power of the Caesar who slew him, or the Saxon who died taking his due from a Breton king? The Japanese miller whose head can no longer be found or his cousin, who came in the night for the debt?
/r/MensRights23/05/11 03:27 AM
2

this sick egalitarian society. A perfectly egalitarian society does not exist, sick or otherwise.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 04:00 PM
1

Fortunately, that's a totally legitimate metric for attraction, so long as one also admits that AnnArchist's aboveposted criteria are also legitimate.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:05 PM
0

"[B]oys mature slower" my ass. Fuck you. That anti-egalitarian bullshit can climb into a cave forgotten by all but the dead and follow.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 07:43 PM
2

Oh, hey, there's this great page that says you're completely wrong.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 11:57 PM
2

To get the benefits of the government which runs the country you live in, you gotta sign up for the draft (here). I don't see a problem with that. Involuntary servitude regardless of compensation was made illegal in the U.S. one hundred and fifty years ago. It makes perfect sense that they violate their own rules, of course.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 10:59 PM
1

Testosterone is connected to sex drive, yes. Reproduction is not connected to sex anymore, and never has been for the homosexual population. I suggest brushing up on your reading comprehension. It's obviously not your strong suit.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 12:32 AM
1

I think you're missing the sarcasm. Rantgrrl is pretty awesome. These posts are usually posted specifically to counteract the cultural perception of females always as victims and males as always wanting it.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 06:37 PM
1

...because gays are acting entirely contrariwise to their inclinations. Of course.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 06:33 PM
2

Rantgrrl seems to have that ability. Let it be known to all of /r/MensRights that I, a male of an ancient line of Norsemen and eorlas, would have her babies.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 04:01 AM
2

If they're putting implants into infants, then hells to the fuck yes it's mutilation.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 01:36 AM
1

Hear, hear.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 01:33 AM
1

Unless I misunderstood the email thread, the prof did not spam the whole university with "FUCK YOU, REPUBLICANS." She replied to the group's account They had a point when they mentioned her using her credentials and leveraging the power of her position to insult them was in fact her acting in her position as professor at that university instead of individual partisan fuckwit.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 02:27 AM
1

It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 10:55 PM
1

My ubermasculine literary obsession refuses to permit such tomfoolery!
/r/MensRights20/04/11 07:31 PM
1

You're taking quite a lot for granted from a one-sided highly-biased cartoon. As do we all. Alas. She got upset because he called her a pussy. May surprise you but not everybody appreciates salty language (even gasp some men). Let's get my pedantry out of the way: You'll want to set off your "gasp" with dashes and add an exclamation point. It's an interrupting, secondary thought. Meat of argument: The ironic part is that on MR if I call one of y'all a pussy I get all sorts of Dr. Phill responses…
/r/MensRights20/04/11 06:20 PM
1

If she's complaining all the time about how she wants to be treated all man-like, then she'll get it. It's expected that I put up with that sort of speech from men and women, particularly friends, because we're all good-natured and just fucking around. This female apparently prefers to be treated as a delicate flower. She should have attacked the problem from another angle or gotten some tools (you know, the human way to fix problems of strength) to aid, rather than seeing the problem as one to …
/r/MensRights20/04/11 01:12 PM
1

In fact pussy meaning weak comes from a different root completely. Source?
/r/MensRights20/04/11 12:56 PM
1

man hating women exist? This doesn't mean what I think you think it means. Hyphens are there for a reason. Use them.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 12:54 PM
2

being one of the boys is really being a wolf in a pack Depends. We treat each other pretty roughly, yeah, but there's a camaraderie there that can run deeply.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 12:53 PM
2

...and then nuke the site to destroy the evidence.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 02:22 AM
2

A lawyer corrected him with "it depends."
/r/MensRights18/04/11 02:14 AM
1

It is just one more witness and then you have to take them out and they kill for a living and would probably be better at it than you... I already dealt with this. Catching him by surprise will be sufficient.
/r/MensRights17/04/11 03:09 PM
1

You wouldn't get away with it. You'd have motive, and your alibi wouldn't hold up forever. Best to get a friend to pay a hitman. Make small, discrete withdrawals of cash at random intervals in the year, or get all your pay-checks cashed. Leave no money in a bank. The police will have their case, and they'll likely have genetic evidence somewhere about. Cut the hitman's tongue out and break his fingers when the job's done. Don't forget to cut out his eyes. Flush the removed bits. Bleach the everl…
/r/MensRights17/04/11 04:30 AM
1

Well, there isn't. It's all just sexism.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 04:31 PM
1

Odysseus this female. It is the only way.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 04:37 AM
4

Not to mention its being quite unethical.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 04:33 AM
1

Or you pay to abort it. Whatever floats your boat.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 04:26 AM
1

Gandhi
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:25 AM
1

I think that was the joke, but my humour-detector occasionally goes on the fritz.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 05:24 PM
3

Bloody Queen Mary, Elizabeth I...why stop at Cleopatra?
/r/MensRights26/03/11 03:28 AM
1

Sorry--figured you began this branch of posts. Marriage is dead, family is dead, the very idea of living with a woman long term is dead. Everyone of you reading this: learn seduction and learn to live by yourself. It seemed you defended this guy's position, and from there I connected the statement to you. After the refutation of the original post, you jumped in with your "REPUBLICAN COMPASSION" comment.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 01:20 AM
2

I never spoke in absolutes. You pronounced the way his relationship worked out as "dead." Did I miss something?
/r/MensRights20/03/11 12:27 AM
0

whoosh much? Grant lived pre-women's lib. Pre-egalitarianism. The rules for then apply not now.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 11:37 PM
2

You spoke in absolutes when that obviously wasn't the case, hence the disagreement. The long-term relationship isn't dead at all; it's changed, that's it. A smaller audience, perhaps, but it's still there, and it will be there as long as there are people.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 11:36 PM
1

I've over 11.000 and get a petty sense of glee and cackle over my karma whoredom. Just numbers, yes, but I do so love seeing bigger ones.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 11:32 PM
3

Yes. Towards the end of the article she said exactly what you did.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 11:29 PM
1

Gay men have penises, too. That's the whole appeal, you see.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 11:20 PM
1

they glorify female on female rape You know, I should probably read it. For refutation purposes.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 11:18 PM
1

Then why not link to an insulting site that at the very least has better design?
/r/MensRights15/03/11 03:11 AM
2

Certainly I couldn't find them insulting all by myself, because that would just happen to coincide with the thoughts of others I elect to associate with. No, that's just crazy-talk.
/r/MensRights15/03/11 03:09 AM
6

on Jezebel No, thanks. Jezebel is more insanity-inducing than Cthulhu (I'a! I'a!).
/r/MensRights15/03/11 01:10 AM
1

That site needs dismantling--I mean, a pop-up? Really?
/r/MensRights10/03/11 08:17 PM
1

Then you're like the troll-style feminists you hate, & not supporting real debate. No, I'm downvoting you because you're rather obtuse. First, you are blind to the fact that that's exactly what he was saying. Second, it's not censorship. This time it's a statement to my thoughts of your lack of ability to autodidact. We're ignoring, of course, the fact that your last statements are insultingly fallacious.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 04:29 AM
1

Quite. Guns are defensive instruments, nothing more. Of course, in the dregs it's slightly different; a gun as offensive weapon is also serving as a defence by its use in offence.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 04:22 AM
3

that people who are prejudiced against gay people are gay themselves. The most virulent ones who go on about how it's a choice and how gay sex will seduce all the men away from women are, though.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 04:17 AM
0

Goddammit, is there any way to block Daily Mail submissions? I don't want tabloids poisoning my Internet.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 06:36 PM
1

There's a difference between forcing change upon people and letting them make the choice themselves.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 05:00 PM
1

Funny how that's not what you linked me, "brah."
/r/MensRights08/03/11 04:55 PM
1

That's not on the page. I have no fuckin' clue what you're looking at, but it isn't that wikipedia page.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 04:16 PM
0

Uh...no, it's not.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 03:55 PM
0

It puts the trekkies in a heightened state of kumbyaism, I think you mean Singularitarianism, which is connected, but not necessary. same old tired Frankfurt school BS wrapped in a tinfoil hat. Hadn't even heard of that shit, and I've been reading into H+ for a while now. I'm absolutely certain you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 02:52 PM
1

Do you mean machines with human brains? It would have to be a gradual process, else the human race would reject it, but no. Metal over meatsack.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 04:03 AM
1

That would happen eventually, but I don't reckon the majority will realise that the human shape is limiting until we freaks have been otherwise for a while.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 03:04 AM
0

This is me not complaining.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 12:14 AM
2

Transhumanism is highly politicized leftist social-engineering balderdash. Chickenshit horseshit bullshit. What bars other political philosophies from adopting the idea that humans can be improved, even on a mundane level such as susceptibility to illness and death in general? I, for one, am an-cap and see only benefit arising from replacing my non-durable squishy meat-bits with far more efficient and resilient metal.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 09:44 PM
3

One might point out the differences between Indira and Mahatma Gandhis.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 03:52 PM
1

Also i'm wondering if "mens rights" is really full of feminist. First: Learn 2 English, noob. Second: Fuck your "No True Scotsman" bullshit. If that's the only kind of argument you're capable of, please vacate the Internet immediately and look up a logic course at your local college. but I do find that interesting that it's ok for Joy to joke about testicular cancer but if a male comedian made fun of breast cancer he would be blacklisted for life. A point that is made here time and time again, w…
/r/MensRights04/03/11 08:07 PM
3

Eunuchs
/r/MensRights04/03/11 05:15 AM
2

Men weren't supposed to be severed from the community (driving off to work with random ppl) and family. Once upon a time home and work were the same building.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:45 AM
5

And--ding!--we have our answer. Most folks in my old college's Honors program were like this. Most of the Honors folks were female, too, but that's incidental. The males behaved similarly.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:43 AM
2

Yes, because everyone who disagrees with you cannae possess a penis. Mine says you're a goddamned yeast infection.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 05:21 PM
4

No, we're downvoting for "dugg me down." We digg nothing here.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 06:15 AM
5

Honestly, she's the better human and the better MRA. Get your antiquated pseudomasculine whoredom elsewhere.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 06:13 AM
0

You're a cumbucket. That's what it says. You're an entitled whore.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 06:08 AM
2

Stop fucking around with rabid pitbulls and find yourself a goddamned retriever, then. Jesus Christ, you're whiny. I don't truck with women, either, but do I complain? Fuck no. I'm celibate and I hang out with dudes and fap to Interweb porns like I'm from Tokyo. Grow up.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 06:07 AM
-1

You wouldn't allow feminists to bring up quotes from the 1880's, would you? If they're refuting a tradition that began in the 1880s with no scientific basis which is defended with pseudoscience, I certainly welcome them to it.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 05:56 AM
1

Believing your opponents are insincere strikes me as a horrible idea. You end up with WBC-like "thoughts" about how everyone's against you because you're right.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 03:50 PM
1

When certain limitations eventually no longer exist, my kind and I will take the final step away from humanity. H+ for the win, no?
/r/MensRights01/03/11 07:43 PM
6

Goddammit, Horowitz, it's not "pre-adulthood" if it's a practise generally practised by adults. Way to miss the fucking point. You call us children when the double-standard imposed by (some, not all, of course) women is the more childlike. Why is playing video games childish and not shoe-shopping? Why is drinking beer and relaxing through life puerile? When was enjoyment of life not the point of all this technological advancement? A life of stocking and re-stocking closets is not my idea of adul…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 07:42 PM
3

it's implying that "manhood" is a good thing. Yes. And? it's actually kinda woman-bashing, In the same way that saying "pizza is good" totally negates the possibility of one's belief in the statement "hamburgers are good."
/r/MensRights27/02/11 07:47 PM
8

utmost
/r/MensRights23/02/11 05:21 PM
2

Texas kicks ass in that regard, too. Hell, you can shoot a man for being on your lawn with your neighbor's shit.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 04:54 AM
6

Actually, it's pretty much run by women, from what I last read, and the women at the top have quite the business acumen.
/r/MensRights20/02/11 09:41 PM
0

The article is meh and the comments range from similar quality to "fucking horrible--when did fascists decide Men's Rights were the ticket to power?" and the like. I mean, really--one of the comments attributes the cause of the complaints to a "disgusting obsession with libertarianism..." as if, first, libertarianism is the majoritarian paradigm, and, second, as if individualism doesn't select for personal strength in a number of areas. I'm quite insulted, really.
/r/MensRights20/02/11 04:07 PM
-1

The article is meh and the comments range from similar quality to "fucking horrible--when did fascists decide Men's Rights were the ticket to power?" and the like. I mean, really--one of the comments attributes the cause of the complaints to a "disgusting obsession with libertarianism..." as if, first, libertarianism is the majoritarian paradigm, and, second, as if individualism doesn't select for personal strength in a number of areas. I'm quite insulted, really.
/r/MensRights20/02/11 04:06 PM
1

Village gasoline pumps. They're about two meters tall and require ninety newtons to move. They are the central plazas of our consumerist hamlets.
/r/MensRights20/02/11 04:25 AM
1

Because they have more contact with culturally subordinate males, perhaps?
/r/MensRights13/02/11 04:31 AM
1

Death! Death! Death!
/r/MensRights11/02/11 02:13 AM
6

FGM, however is a different beast. And yet advocates for female circumcision make the same arguments about cleanliness and æsthetics.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 02:12 AM
3

Indeed.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 02:08 AM
1

Phimosis isn't exactly epidemic in uncircumcised men. Sure, it happens (uncommonly), but it's no proper excuse to permanently mutilate an infant's penis.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 02:07 AM
1

"Bark fucking bark."
/r/MensRights11/02/11 01:51 AM
1

Uncommon, fine. Not uncommon enough for me to successfully avoid.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 01:58 AM
1

No, they're not.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 12:36 AM
1

And blue balls. Just imagining it...the agony...
/r/MensRights08/02/11 01:48 AM
2

I'll be a rake for ever, and gladly. Sex and companionship appear to be more trouble than they're worth.
/r/MensRights06/02/11 07:39 PM
5

Of course. It was pretty mindless, but the recent film The Mechanic had Statham saying something quite intelligent: "Never kill when you have a motive."
/r/MensRights06/02/11 04:32 AM
0

Because this "Devil's Advocate" generalises beyond that which is reasonable. It's common for most, especially when the internet fuckwad effect is in effect.
/r/MensRights06/02/11 04:29 AM
3

The word was "pressured," not "forced." And keep in mind that there are social consequences to not adhering to social norms.
/r/MensRights06/02/11 04:26 AM
2

Or did, until his character was degraded from "evil genius with homosexual tendencies" to "flamer."
/r/MensRights04/02/11 07:04 PM
1

"Pro-life" folks can make this argument only when they argue for voluntary taxation. Fucking statists.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 06:53 PM
2

Maybe he thinks murdering babies is worse than murdering foreigners with guns to defend themselves with? I think you'll find the children of the foreigners with guns seem to find themselves dead fairly often, as well.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 06:51 PM
5

Contrary to your sexist belief, not all women go to the gym to meet guys. No shit. However, they overwhelmingly desire that men make the first move, almost regardless of circumstance. Not all women are even heterosexual. Well, darn. I guess they couldn't say, "Sorry, I'm not into guys. At all. Your penis disgusts me. Go away." No, that would be too direct. Rather, the administration has to get involved in move that is itself sexist. We're ignoring, of course, that an overwhelming majority of wom…
/r/MensRights03/02/11 05:23 PM
2

No, you're not subjected to anything. You'd be surprised, it seems.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 05:01 PM
4

Point being that these women expect and desire that men hit on them. That they then complain about it is inconsistent and stupid.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 04:52 PM
5

Generally girls look better with their hair done. And guys with short, well-kept hair. It's the de facto of hairstyle. That's a fucking ethnocentric argument if I ever heard one. It wasn't until the last couple hundred years that short hair became fashionable for men, and then because of an inordinate admiration for the Roman barbarians of that empire. I am Norse, on both sides of my family. Why should I be subjected to the Romacentrism of your ignorance?
/r/MensRights03/02/11 04:47 PM
9

men tend to hit on girls a lot more than girls hit on men Well, no fucking shit. It's expected that the man make the first move.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 04:43 PM
1

hamster
/r/MensRights03/02/11 03:05 AM
4

I wouldn't mind cloning myself and raising me like my own son, no. Other people's genetic material would throw me for a loop, temperamentally speaking.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 03:03 AM
1

Technically speaking, this is positive reinforcement.
/r/MensRights29/01/11 07:22 PM
3

In some societies circumcision also involves cutting off the head of the penis. Holy shit. Could you cite that, please?
/r/MensRights29/01/11 07:21 PM
1

but that's very secondary to the very direct misogynistic themes starting with the fact that Eve (a woman) doomed us all. You'd think that, but it's heavily emphasised that it was Adam's fault the world is fucked up. The Protestants point out that judgement only came after Adam took his bite, and it's made much of that Adam said nothing while the snake spoke to Eve. The Catholics and Orthodox have their balancing thing where they regard Mary as the "second Eve," and worship her as mother-goddess…
/r/MensRights26/01/11 04:26 PM
0

This ties back to many cultural flaws in America, firstly gender stereotypes, only men rape women and men rape children. I'm pretty certain you have the same problems on your side of the pond. At least, I've never seen any Anglo-European anti-domestic violence posters or PSAs where the man was shewn to be the victim.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 04:15 PM
4

Isn't that a lot worse than being raped? Well, considering that they probably were raped, yes.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 04:09 PM
1

Not germane to the discussion, I'm afraid.
/r/MensRights21/01/11 06:46 PM
1

He isn't. Notice that "males" is in all caps up there.
/r/MensRights18/01/11 04:55 AM
0

It's the "male" part the OP decries, rather than the racial part.
/r/MensRights18/01/11 04:54 AM
1

There have been semi-religious spiels on the Sophia, as found in the Hebrew book of Proverbs. I mean, just look at that one character whose name I can't remember, in Eco's Foucault's Pendulum.
/r/MensRights18/01/11 01:03 AM
1

If you were a criminal breaking into a home loudly, wouldn't you dress yourself in police garb, especially if you knew the guy whose home you were invading wouldn't shoot first?
/r/MensRights16/01/11 08:47 PM
1

There'd be only one movement probably called something like "equalism" that didn't distinguish. "Egalitarianism." It's already around.
/r/MensRights15/01/11 05:35 AM
1

I'm not an advocate of circumcision but I do believe people have the right to choose for their children if it doesn't cause any harm to the child. All the people that have issue with this procedure have never had it done to them and seem to think its the most damaging thing mankind has ever attempted. I was almost with you till you said this. First of all, my penis is cut, and has been for almost all of my two decades of life. Second: What prevents female circumcisionists from making the same ar…
/r/MensRights08/01/11 03:57 AM
1

Are you then in favor of female genitals being cut here in the West? As well the female circumcision is usually used as a form of punishment or used to prevent sexual pleasure as it is a much more invasive procedure. Non sequitur in summae. That it is invasive does not follow from its purpose of preventing sexual pleasure (you should read John Harvey Kellogg's advocations of circumcision as masturbatory prevention). You are aware that male circumcision has entirely the same purposes as its femal…
/r/MensRights05/01/11 03:01 AM
1

Lee Adama and Starbuck beat the shit out of each other and it wasn't hard to watch and it wasn't obscene. But it was. There's no way she could have inflicted a comparable amount of damage in a comparable amount of time.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 06:38 PM
2

A male torturing a female in this way would not have been acceptable. It wasn't supposed to be acceptable, though. That seemed plain, despite the entity's participation in the near-annihilation of the human race.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 06:38 PM
2

Female circumcision is a much different and destructive procedure. If it were practised in the West, it would be similarly clinical. The differences in cultural practise are irrelevant.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 06:35 PM
2

Groupthink != independently coming to the same conclusion
/r/MensRights02/01/11 01:50 AM
1

It’s still a patriarchal society at the end of the day. Chickenshit bullshit, unless my father is the official and governmental head of the household his father once led, and I his heir. But, no, we are not clans anymore. My parents' marriage was not one of alliance. So, ladies, you get equality or you don't. Feudal collectivist alliances or individually-selected companionship. Vote and drive or don't get drafted. There is no middle ground.
/r/MensRights31/12/10 05:01 AM
2

Not any more than telling a guy he's attractive gives license for sex. And, no, it's not verbal abuse. If you're starting to lose sexual interest in your partner due to his (the old neutered "he") gaining weight, is it not fair to inform the accreting party of such?
/r/MensRights31/12/10 04:44 AM
1

You're talking about paternity, but many men aren't parents. Nor do we want to be, hence our stand here.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 06:03 PM
2

Equality-feminists are welcome, too, though the word "feminist" usually sets off a bad taste. Might you be interested in using "egalitarian" rather than "feminist?"
/r/MensRights13/12/10 08:25 AM
1

Yup. Unethical thing that it is, I am required to register, or suffer the consequences.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 03:07 AM
1

Or anarchists. Is that an out for me?
/r/MensRights01/12/10 11:38 PM
1

But really, I just think there should be no draft, because I don't think people should be forced to participate in wars they do not support. Most of us at /MR agree. However, so long as people are going to be enslaved, it might as well be egalitarian. It might even be the impetus that gets the "Selective Service" abolished.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 11:37 PM
1

Don't forget Elizabeth Tudor.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 11:34 PM
2

We still have to register.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 11:32 PM
1

No abortion? Man must marry first woman he impregnates and support both?
/r/MensRights06/11/10 12:40 AM
2

Possible, yes, but not probable.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 01:49 PM
6

He put me on top and I just sat there because I thought sex was just "penis in vagina." That's hilarious.
/r/MensRights01/11/10 04:15 PM
3

No, I'm pretty certain that being attracted to 12-year olds is pedophilia. There isn't enough maturation, generally, to qualify as ephebophilia.
/r/MensRights01/11/10 04:13 PM
1

Er...what? I think my funnyDetector (tm) is buzzing, but I think it's defective. Could you elucidate me?
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:16 AM
1

Indeed. Those drafted were and are slaves. Those who couldn't get out of "registering" for the SS are also slaves. I think we're all in agreement on that point, so I'll not rant.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:15 AM
1

'Tis a pity that analogies fail after certain amounts of stress. Hmm...I've two parts now--one says that you've got a point, and the other is screaming about there being an enormous difference between hygiene and cosmetic surgery. I mean, your parents could hardly have your eyelids or lips removed because you really don't need them, when you get down to it. Nipples, too, if you're male. Some toes really don't need to be there, either.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:13 AM
1

But you did. You signed up for the institution, knowing that hair-cuts were a condition of employment.
/r/MensRights28/10/10 04:11 PM
0

Lord knows any body modification would be. There's consent there, so no foul. Same with the hair-cut.
/r/MensRights28/10/10 04:00 PM
10

Men have been eating pussy since the dawn of time! Nope. Oral sex wasn't very popular before frequent bathing, for obvious reasons.
/r/MensRights23/10/10 08:10 PM
1

Literature is good for the occasional mind-fuck. Like you imply, however, most of it is self-important pontification on the mundane. Do you have any of your stuff online where I might get to it?
/r/MensRights18/10/10 02:44 AM
1

On the other hand, if you're going for a confusing set of broken images...
/r/MensRights18/10/10 02:20 AM
2

I can see how it would be difficult.
/r/MensRights17/10/10 06:11 PM
3

I always loved Lovecraft most when he used that format. Visiting Project Gutenberg now.
/r/MensRights17/10/10 06:01 PM
2

I still haven't read that. I am a bad literati.
/r/MensRights17/10/10 05:56 PM
2

Van Helsing. It's a Dracula reference.
/r/MensRights17/10/10 02:39 AM
3

It's not unsubstantiated, but it's not necessarily representative, either.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 04:07 AM
1

Your imagination would be horribly wrong. I lifeguard an indoor pool at least twice a week.
/r/MensRights24/09/10 07:05 PM
3

esp if you are using a pool to exercise, that means you are old or overweight (joint problems) Or play water polo or swim competitively.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 03:28 PM
5

then next we will be facing having to use "Mens Only" toilets while women use better cleaned, better equipped, larger womens only toilets. Already happening Stateside, too. Men's bathrooms are cleaned less often and less well, probably because we don't complain so much.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 03:24 PM
1

We really should've been executives and oil rig workers from the beginning, despite the entire western world telling us we were incapable. What you believe you have been told is irrelevant. You listened and complied. Well, perhaps you didn't, but most other women elected jobs they felt safer performing or jobs that didn't require much time input, but to imply that there's some sort of conspiracy preventing women from getting to the top is just bullshit. in fact, it goes back from us being suppos…
/r/MensRights12/08/10 10:12 PM
0

Gawking?! Surely you jest! Being looked at is one of the most horrible things ever to happen to a person, after all. Why some women still subject themselves to this is beyond me. Because they're looking for free drinks and maybe some sex afterward? It's not that difficult a concept. I wish you felt as oppressed during ladies night as you seem to because you lack funding because of your privilege. I never said I felt oppressed. Certainly, things aren't fair (skewed in many ways towards men's bene…
/r/MensRights09/08/10 09:53 PM
1

You're a fool if you don't think women maintain social control during "ladies' nights." They accept the drinks, no? They can call the coppers about sexual harassment, no? They choose with whom to speak and wither and with whom they go afterward. You're willfully blinded by your ideology. The fact is, in colleges women have more options, more available funds, and they are still in control of sexual dynamics, as they have been since the dissolution of the arranged marriage in Western culture. Also…
/r/MensRights03/08/10 10:01 PM
1

Majoritarian rule tends to weed out oppression by a minority.
/r/MensRights28/07/10 09:08 PM
1

Oppression by your peers is less of an issue than oppression by those in power over you. Look at the leadership of a school and you will notice an usually large number of white males. Given the number of nuns in the faculty and the fact that Catholic doctrine seems to worship at the altar of the vagina (see: veneration of Eve and Mary in Catholic tradition), and the fact that the theology and polisci departments are the only ones female-deprived (and then seem to be whipped by their wives), and …
/r/MensRights27/07/10 08:56 PM
1

If women are oppressed in college situations, then call me a llama and saddle me up for a trip to Peru. If you still claim oppression when you make up ~75% of the student body (as they do at my university), then fuck you.
/r/MensRights27/07/10 04:28 PM
6

I would think that if you asked in a less-belittling manner, you'd not be downvoted. To answer your question, however: how can people who are uncut claim its "horrible" when the "victims" of this "crime" like it so much they argue its better? The same question might be asked of those against the cutting of female genitals. How can Western women tell African and Middle Eastern women that what they do is horrible when the alleged "victims" claim it's better? The point is that cut men in the U.S. a…
/r/MensRights25/07/10 08:44 PM
2

The mentions of the Catholic Church's stance on female ordination is a bad one. Yes, the punishment is identical to that incurred by child molestation. It's also the punishment for being theologically different from the magisterium, whether on the topic of polygamy, contraception, slavery, papal infallibility, the nature of communion, and the like. The rest of it has been rather soundly dealt with elsewhere here. EDIT: It will be noted that I'm not Catholic, nor ever will be. That whole system s…
/r/MensRights19/07/10 02:55 PM
1

"Respond," then. Do you disagree? Do you have another definition? Is that not "violence" but something marginally different?
/r/MensRights17/07/10 10:40 PM
1

You forgot to answer the first point. Nor do you. Nope.
/r/MensRights17/07/10 10:02 PM
1

Narcissistic bitches commit white-collar crimes.
/r/MensRights17/07/10 04:18 PM
1

How do we punish criminals right now? Via threat of violence. The fact that coppers carry guns should be evidence enough to show this. When they arrest a violent person, it's usually with their hands on their guns or with the guns drawn. Prison guards carry nightsticks and use them on occasion. Society Imaginary. It doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights17/07/10 01:12 PM
1

How, exactly, do you plan on punishing a violent person without violence or the very severe threat of violence?
/r/MensRights17/07/10 01:02 PM
1

But if evil people are nurtured, then that will be reduced by withholding evil. If the eye-taking is reserved until after the person has committed evil, I don't see how others are being exposed to evil except by that person's existence. Besides, if I am going to die, I prefer to die with my morals and ethics intact. The difference, then, is that I see the one committing evil as claiming that, since he considers his acts permissible for himself, he considers it permissible for others to act upon …
/r/MensRights17/07/10 04:08 AM
1

It doesn't, really. Whether inherent or nurtured, evil men exist.
/r/MensRights17/07/10 03:17 AM
1

Where as the stereotype of Buddhists is that they are pacifists and feel that "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." It's a rather trite quip. Without an eye for an eye only evil men can see.
/r/MensRights16/07/10 11:55 PM
2

It ends the confrontation quickly. Since that was the goal, it would seem necessary.
/r/MensRights16/07/10 11:54 PM
3

Yeah, dude--this isn't working out.
/r/MensRights16/07/10 12:22 AM
2

Makes sense, though, if you assume the average penis is between 5.5 and 6.5 inches and approximately 1.5 inches in diameter, give or take a few points.
/r/MensRights12/07/10 10:38 PM
1

Fuck you, too. Cheerio.
/r/MensRights12/07/10 09:27 PM
1

I do believe there have been studies showing that to be horse shit.
/r/MensRights12/07/10 08:55 PM
1

You're missing the point. The wage gap is calculated by all men working full-time vs. all women working full-time without correction for difference in risk.
/r/MensRights12/07/10 02:34 PM
3

The hierarchy of needs is patent bullshit. I've read too many accounts of life in Nazi and Soviet concentration camps (where the "safety" is completely skipped) to find it an accurate description of human psychology.
/r/MensRights10/07/10 03:25 PM
6

"MetaphoricalTLDR" doesn't quite have the same ring, though.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 04:51 PM
1

I'm assuming you meant "shit" I think it was "shit hits the fan."
/r/MensRights09/07/10 01:33 AM
2

My suggestion: ignore the troll.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 01:27 AM
1

Pro-lifers haven't had any progress on their front for a while. They've merely succeeded in slowing the pro-choicers/abortionists/whatever you desire to call them.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 01:26 AM
0

The "...not" is supposed to emphasize the sarcasm rather than invert it. Also, in your attempt to interpret the comment, you inverted the adjectives as well as the verb. This doesn't function.
/r/MensRights09/07/10 01:18 AM
0

threesome
/r/MensRights09/07/10 12:56 AM
1

Correct. The question still stands.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 09:16 PM
1

Did they compensate for the time period in which sex would be impossible due to bandages?
/r/MensRights06/07/10 05:16 AM
1

Sounds Lovecraftian to me.
/r/MensRights02/07/10 05:44 PM
2

And yet they do for numerous other women. You are not representative.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 02:01 AM
2

It's still a determinate of attraction, though.
/r/MensRights28/06/10 11:16 PM
1

My The30thElement senses are tingling.
/r/MensRights28/06/10 11:13 PM
3

Ooh! Challenge him to a duel!
/r/MensRights28/06/10 02:54 PM
2

Nots thats kinds of sausage, Toki.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 01:09 PM
9

You make a good point. It's not necessarily feminism here, though the woman Dilbert dated might consider herself a feminist; all I see is cultural double standards instilled in the female. Also, epik, that was rather...tactful? No, that's not it. Well-put? Clever? Original? No, can't be it, either...Ah. Here we go: trite. Unoriginal. Idiotic, even. Unhelpful. Needlessly derisive (real rich coming from me, I know). Pathetic. Unbecoming of a traditionally-masculine male, or a conventionally-femini…
/r/MensRights23/06/10 12:08 AM
3

Insisted upon by those who weren't exactly in favor of the document. Hell, even with the amendments it's rather scary.
/r/MensRights20/06/10 02:26 PM
1

Oddly enough, I think one can still apply Locke's conception of rights in an atheistic universe. All are equal, therefore no one has the right to control another without the latter's consent.
/r/MensRights20/06/10 02:23 PM
1

I concur, but in this instance I think a shitstorm would have been unwarranted.
/r/MensRights19/06/10 03:06 AM
1

The "reverse" part is a bit silly, though.
/r/MensRights19/06/10 03:01 AM
3

At the recreation center I lifeguard the indoor women's restroom has changing stalls, twice the usable space, cleaner walls and floors, lighting that isn't complete shit, shower stalls--and the men's doesn't even have a urinal. It's hella-fuckin' annoying.
/r/MensRights16/06/10 02:17 AM
1

You make an excellent point. I will think further and reassess.
/r/MensRights13/06/10 05:57 PM
1

Men don't get free or heavily-discounted drinks every night.
/r/MensRights13/06/10 05:33 PM
2

It probably wouldn't be legal, no, but if black folks had issues opening up if whites were around (and vice versa, of course--it just seems more culturally palatable to phrase it the way I did), then it would probably be morally tenable, particularly if they're the victims of interracial violence.
/r/MensRights13/06/10 05:25 PM
2

No, no, no. Just follow two simple rules: Be attractive. Don't be unattractive.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 03:09 PM
1

Since automatic weapons with "bad-ass flesh shredding rounds" would be filed under "arms," yes.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 02:16 PM
0

Nope.
/r/MensRights10/06/10 02:15 PM
1

Wait, isn't killing in self defence your argument why this women was justified to kill her abusive husband? Sorry, I poorly phrased. I despise its use for military purposes. Soldiers have volunteered for a job where they are very likely to be assigned to places not home and shoot at people. Since the wars they fight are aggressive in nature (never has any living soldier from the U.S. fought a defensive war). That they are morally justified in killing because they're being shot it is preposterous…
/r/MensRights06/06/10 05:03 AM
0

Was she deliberately rubbing her feet against him or were they sitting around a tight table where she knocked his feet a few times (or him knock hers)? The difference between accidental knocking of feet and rubbing repeatedly is obvious, I should think. Lost boy? Or inexperienced boy who isn't perhaps equipped to deal with what might be normal and reasonable behaviour? There's a difference between having ADD and being totally fucking clueless, asshole. Color me offended since I have the same con…
/r/MensRights06/06/10 02:23 AM
1

No. Murder is the killing of any human person. On this we will have to disagree. which is also how the actions of soldiers are justified. And I despise that justification with all my soul. I don't agree personally, but am just bringing up the point that if you apply that to them both, then both are guilty of the same thing. The husband abused the wife and didn't care about her personhood. The wife killed the husband, also not caring about his personhood. Nonono. The husband already sacrificed hi…
/r/MensRights06/06/10 02:19 AM
1

You're failing to understand what InfinitelyThirsting is saying. "Murder" is the killing of an innocent human person, no? In murdering or abusing, one surrenders his own personhood by way of not caring about personhood. He plainly doesn't care about his own rights if he despises another's rights, after all. Killing the murderer/abuser at that point is not murder, since he is no longer a person.
/r/MensRights05/06/10 03:39 PM
1

because you are obligated to escape first, fight second. In some states. I realize that this took place in Australia, but both Texas and Florida at the very least have the Castle Doctrine
/r/MensRights05/06/10 03:35 PM
1

Those are folks that survive. Not included are the ones in the morgue.
/r/MensRights05/06/10 03:25 PM
6

And how youthful and vigorous she is.
/r/MensRights05/06/10 03:12 PM
2

What has actually been described could actually be perfectly innocent behaviour that has been misinterpretted. All three in conjunction are not "perfectly innocent" behavior. Are you familiar with body language Western women generally use to convey their being attracted? It's pretty much this list.
/r/MensRights05/06/10 03:11 PM
1

because girls don't grow facial hair. Generally, girls don't grow facial hair. I've seen women with more facial hair than some men will ever be able to. And mandating no facial hair is nothing new, nor emasculating; it's actually rather military. Pffft. It's a Greco-Roman construct, and even then not very "Greco-". The Greeks looked upon any male without facial hair as feminine; for instance, the Spartans would punish a man by shaving off half his beard to demonstrate that he was a half-man. And…
/r/MensRights04/06/10 04:36 PM
2

Okay, great, I get it--you're treated differently because you appear to deviate from the norm. This is the norm. Don't want to be treated differently? Don't deviate overmuch. That said, I am a male with long hair. I catch shit about it all the time. Ball up and accept that suppression of abnormality is a fundamental part of the typical human psyche, no changing it. That said, your persecution complex annoys me. "Oh! I'm so oppressed because I could crush most of the people I come across! I'm so …
/r/MensRights04/06/10 03:06 PM
1

"Misandrist" isn't widely regarded as a word, much less an insult, so you'll have to wait on that one. It would be nice if people were more creative, though.
/r/MensRights04/06/10 02:59 PM
2

"Cheating women" or "cheating on women?"
/r/MensRights03/06/10 12:21 AM
1

Fat wallets?
/r/MensRights03/06/10 12:18 AM
0

The answer will boil down to breasts and poon. If they're intellectually stimulating, then that's not a property inherent with possessing the physical traits. If people are dedicated to saying nice things, however, they will mention the things they like their partners to do and little else.
/r/MensRights25/05/10 12:12 AM
-1

Look at the user name and retract your gods-damned downvote. One cannot prove a universal negative.
/r/MensRights24/05/10 11:33 PM
-1

Can you prove that most major feminists don't? Actually, that burden of proof would be on you.
/r/MensRights24/05/10 09:57 PM
1

Roger Waters'
/r/MensRights08/05/10 08:18 PM
1

No, it's not; it's in the same vein as Freud's work, claiming that one sex is envious of another and seeks to take some symbol of the other into itself is ridiculous. There is no universal penis envy. There is no universal vagina envy. To claim otherwise is preposterous. Also, ad hominem will get you nowhere.
/r/MensRights07/05/10 02:35 AM
0

Violence for violence. It must be mentioned, though, that it's a facetious application of market theory.
/r/MensRights05/05/10 05:08 PM
1

Violence for violence. It must be mentioned, though, that it's a facetious application of market theory.
/r/MensRights05/05/10 05:07 PM
7

And there we'll have to disagree. In initiating violence, she has forfeited her right to be left unmolested (in the more mild sense of "disturbed"). It's a simple sort of free-market exchange. Of course, in some instances, violence is not only acceptable but preferable, and possibly capital-G Good.
/r/MensRights05/05/10 12:59 AM
1

You could have grabbed her hands, or just gotten up and walked away, That wouldn't have the comeuppance, nor would it very well deter her, at least from my experience with getting people to stop touching me. I never go so far as to strike out, but I can't say that it hasn't been tempting.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 07:53 PM
4

To nearly-quote Fezzik: I'm on the goon squad.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 02:58 PM
1

With the emphasis being on "incredible," no?
/r/MensRights02/05/10 06:28 AM
2

It's not so much that as the fact that, first, small donations to help them focus on cleanliness rather than dumpster-diving are seen to generally go to drugs or the more-legal alcohol. To say that Americans don't care, though, is a disservice to those who habitually donate time and money to kitchens and shelters unconnected to the heartless iron claw of the state.
/r/MensRights02/05/10 06:27 AM
1

Right. Blame the Mongols for destroying the earth. They were socialized into it, man! They were products of their time and culture! They didn't have the education to realize they were empowering the Great White Oppressor! /attempt at humor
/r/MensRights26/04/10 08:55 PM
2

They don't necessarily lack the power, either. Those pictures are plain enough for that.
/r/MensRights26/04/10 08:53 PM
1

Which definition of "fag" are you using? There are quite a few.
/r/MensRights26/04/10 07:32 PM
1

First: No, he isn't clearly unstable. He's not even obscurely unstable. The man likes guns and is prepared for the worst. Prudent, to my mind. Second: "Martial."
/r/MensRights26/04/10 01:37 AM
3

Well, that explains the "porch monkey" comment that's up-a-top over there.
/r/MensRights26/04/10 01:21 AM
1

Honestly, I couldn't say. Usually when I need one I just do a quick google and go with the first reputable-feeling site I find.
/r/MensRights21/04/10 09:55 PM
1

Use a proxy. Hulu is the only place the show is licensed to be hosted, as far as I know, and the free-access hosts are notoriously finicky, and difficult to find, to boot.
/r/MensRights21/04/10 08:39 PM
2

Women don't seem to care as much about sexual orientation. They can be rather vicious to men they think are gay, though. There's a guy I know who's rather thoroughly bi, and yet can't get a date from a female because they're convinced he'd only be using them as a beard.
/r/MensRights21/04/10 04:17 AM
16

It's just a matter of choice. Cut him now and he'll never be able to choose. My $.02, anyway. Honestly, I would have preferred the choice over being cut, and if your son does any reading on the subject, he will, too.
/r/MensRights21/04/10 04:10 AM
1

Lawrence v. Texas has rendered that joke obsolete, Mr. Wordsworth.
/r/MensRights17/04/10 03:40 AM
1

but rather in terms of what they percieve as "fair". Your countryman Alexis de Tocqueville agreed. Democracies will inevitably sacrifice liberty in favor of equalizing results.
/r/MensRights05/04/10 10:09 PM
2

I'll add my name to this list.
/r/MensRights05/04/10 10:05 PM
9

Men have long held women to be their psychological prisoner through violence, and the fact that some women have abused some men doesn't change that. The fact that some men have abused some women doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring half the damned problem.
/r/MensRights03/04/10 05:59 PM
2

And possibly the mange.
/r/MensRights01/04/10 01:40 PM
2

That's my instinct, too. Fortunately, as humans, we can overcome instinct with reason.
/r/MensRights01/04/10 01:33 PM
2

because it has a higher mortality rate than prostate cancer Could you cite that? I remember reading once (color me hypocritical) that the rates of death were approximately the same.
/r/MensRights25/03/10 09:44 PM
2

My mother. It actually terrifies me to see how together she's got her shit.
/r/MensRights25/03/10 09:30 PM
2

No Amendment is that short, is it? You'd be surprised. We have quite a number of short ones.
/r/MensRights21/03/10 03:51 AM
1

(as no woman needs to accept it and can reject it) In a business exchange either party can reject the other's terms--before the deal is made, of course.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 02:24 PM
9

You're rather atypical; you wouldn't fit in a list of stereotypical "misogynists."
/r/MensRights20/03/10 04:18 AM
1

They weren't in charge during the fifties, though. By nineteen fifty-nine the oldest Boomer would have been thirteen. It's already been established that many if not most Boomers rejected many of the values of their parents (Viet Nam War protests, anyone?). I'm not for Boomer neoconservatism, for the record. I am, however, concerned about accuracy.
/r/MensRights19/03/10 12:34 PM
1

I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics, but the baby boomer generation was a result of the servicemen returning from WWII and the population spiking. WWII was over in 1945. The 1950's are most certainly part of the baby boomer generation. The fifties were not ruled by the Boomers, though. Much of their thinking developed then, true, but was expressed in the hippie movement of the sixties and early seventies. It is inappropriate to cite a mythologized version of the fifties to the peop…
/r/MensRights18/03/10 11:08 PM
2

Unless most of them were to be out with smallpox or abstaining or out with their escorts.
/r/MensRights18/03/10 01:37 AM
1

Your optimism is unfounded. It's exactly what the Boomers thought would happen when the "greatest generation" fell out of power. Also, the Boomers are those of the '60s and '70s, not the '50s. New does not mean better.
/r/MensRights18/03/10 01:33 AM
2

to win everybody rights If rights have to be won then they are not rights. Rather, the fight was for the recognition of those rights. If one holds to the idea that the government or a "society" grants rights, then rights can properly be said not to exist. They are merely privileges that may be taken away at any time without evil being done. Anyhow, that's my spiel.
/r/MensRights18/03/10 01:31 AM
4

Not tomorrow. Now. You cannot afford the wait.
/r/MensRights17/03/10 03:09 AM
1

bears, cats, dogs Pffft. Speciesist. Why not give cetaceans and insects and reptiles a chance?
/r/MensRights13/03/10 07:06 PM
1

That they're better off being attacked based on their sex while powerless in so many more terrible ways than they being attacked based on their sex while in a position of power? No, I'm saying that they'll still be powerless, regardless of position in government. As a minority who has seen the ugly side of racism in America, I'd have to disagree with you. Racism was attacked in very much a different manner here than sexism is being attacked in India, if this bit of legislation is any indication.…
/r/MensRights11/03/10 03:13 PM
2

Your wife needs to be informed of Hume's assertion (or discovery) that an "ought" cannot be derived from an "is." What's normal is irrelevant. I'm in the 3-4x/day crowd, but since I'm virginal, my opinion is negligible.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 09:18 PM
-1

I will amend my stated position to say that some fault will be found and will be attributed to the representative's having a vagina. Is this more acceptable/accurate?
/r/MensRights10/03/10 04:35 AM
-1

How institutionalized is the sexism over there, then?
/r/MensRights10/03/10 04:22 AM
1

they're Depends on the game. What of games like Pokemon? They are not marketed to be "extreme and controversial" in the slightest, nor Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved, nor Braid, nor even any game in the Halo franchise. Please, at least attempt to generalize intelligently.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 04:11 AM
1

Your knowledge of this show and its contributors leaves me speechless.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 04:08 AM
1

Apparently dogpenis was phone.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 04:06 AM
2

I...I can't tell if you're serious. However, you made me laugh. This has caused me to click within the boundaries of the upper empty space that makes the invisible "H."
/r/MensRights10/03/10 04:05 AM
1

Ha! You know nothing, I say! Nothing!
/r/MensRights10/03/10 04:02 AM
-1

Placing poorly-educated women into governmental positions will only subject them to more sexism from the establishment and confirm the biases that women are inept. This is a shit way to go about achieving equality.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 03:56 AM
7

However, even if equality is reached the old laws will remain, with no impetus to repeal them.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 03:38 AM
2

That stage hit me when I was fourteen. Ah, the memories.
/r/MensRights07/03/10 04:42 AM
1

You don't change the definitions of words just because you don't like the current one. Actually, this happens quite often. "Nigger" was simply a colloquial pronunciation of "negro," yet the definition evolved into something quite a bit more offensive.
/r/MensRights03/03/10 05:43 AM
4

Evisceration? Murder, then the rape of the remains?
/r/MensRights27/02/10 02:00 AM
1

A lot of people also have problems with DeBeers blood diamonds. The EU and US have active campaigns against DeBeers and a lot of women are not getting diamonds as a result I wish I could find more of these. The few I have found have other traits that cause them to come up in my scales wanting.
/r/MensRights27/02/10 12:38 AM
1

To be fair, his name is appropriate.
/r/MensRights27/02/10 12:10 AM
1

Sounds good to my penis. Er...me.
/r/MensRights27/02/10 12:06 AM
1

Elaborate?
/r/MensRights24/02/10 05:00 AM
1

I know. I just felt like advertising.
/r/MensRights14/02/10 02:48 PM
3

Actually, some of us are against gay marriage because having the State intrude upon your sex lives is an injustice that straight people shouldn't have to put up with, either. Visitation rights and shared insurance and whatnot ought be dealt with by less-charged contracts.
/r/MensRights14/02/10 05:44 AM
3

I like you three. Penis-wielder is pleased.
/r/MensRights14/02/10 05:41 AM
0

Ball up sock. Stuff in female's mouth. Tape mouth shut.
/r/MensRights14/02/10 05:38 AM
4

I downvoted you because you complained about downvoting. It's irrelevant.
/r/MensRights13/02/10 03:04 AM
1

What's really strange is that this gender boundary is remarkably recent in evolution. Even as late as the 18th century, long hair was the norm, and even expected.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 10:17 PM
2

Increasing news coverage does not reality make.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 03:02 PM
-1

With good reason. At that age, girls are boring and stupid and don't like Batman.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 03:01 PM
1

Agreed. It's unfortunate that firing teachers is nigh-impossible.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 02:59 PM
2

I have rather long hair myself, and a moderately-sized penis. I'm not the gender-bending type, and I don't think this kid was, either. Personally, I think it calls to mind the Vik of my ancestry, but your mileage may vary. I don't think the teachers had anything in mind but mockery. I've had to put up with that sort of bullshit every now and again, mostly from "authority" figures.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 02:59 PM
2

Hey--I thought it was funny.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 02:55 PM
1

My mistake, then. Carry on.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 10:32 PM
0

I wouldn't say that cryptogirl's a troll; she's trying to strike a balance between the more radical MRAs and their feminist counterparts. The fact that she got off-topic here is not a failing of character but merely of argument.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 08:20 PM
1

Apology accepted, Captain Needa. Or the draft for neither. I'd like to see slavery eliminated.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 05:24 AM
1

Color me corrected. You're holding on to a myth Hardly. However, my views on the period are incorrect, apparently. Personally, I'd rather an equal partner than a domestic-labor automaton that I happen to sleep with. Offspring will complicate matters, so I hope to avoid that for a while yet.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 04:51 AM
1

It hasn't "worked" and only in the 1950s was there anything even resembling this idea of man at job woman at home See: Medieval era into recent modernity. Most moderately-wealthy homes had a working merchant male and a generally-idle female. However, there's a reason the Bible's book of Proverbs, chapter 30, tells of a very active, studious, industrious (not in the home so much as running her own business) wife as being ideal.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 02:00 AM
1

Like others, you make the mistake of equating "equality" with "being identical." So long as all have similar (though not necessarily identical) rights and treatment, equality is attained.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 01:53 AM
4

This is humorous. She believes there is a "penis-wielding" cabal out there, organizing itself and instructing its lesser grunts to infiltrate the radical feminist ranks by inverting their verpae. I mean, I reckon transsexualism to be a neurological disorder, seeing as the brain is the only organ not in congruity with the rest of the body, but I recognize that "fixing" it is impossible and liable to cause more harm than good, but this born-female's insinuation is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 01:51 AM
1

Yup. Most fail, incidentally.
/r/MensRights05/02/10 01:44 AM
1

Usually the attempt to change is for the worse and to the detriment of human rights.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 10:19 PM
1

Equal in worth I will accept; equal in rights I will similarly accept, and I will treat them with respect. However, equal in capacity to understand the nature of the world around me I will not and cannot accept. If they prove themselves my match intellectually I will treat them as such.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 10:18 PM
1

I agree that the first phrases were poorly thought-out.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 10:00 PM
1

Yes, it said gun ownership was a "right," but that it was subject to "reasonable regulation," leaving the latter term poorly-defined. Rest assured that this will be used for horrific restrictions in the future.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 09:10 PM
1

I wasn't necessarily speaking to all females (I know a small number of reasonable ones, myself); my intended subject was that woman Ensler celebrated for being irrational and who celebrated irrationality in herself. I will not treat an "overemotional fuckwit" who is incapable of reason as an equal when it's plain that such a person is incapable of being my equal.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 09:09 PM
1

It rather sounded like Ensler was, towards the end of her spiel.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 08:52 PM
1

When you need supplies to build a shelter or a fire or a knife so you can perhaps obtain your own food.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 03:34 PM
6

There was a turn of phrase that I particularly found humorous: "She was female-genitally-mutilated." That sort of mutilation is only reserved for English, it seems. EDIT: Emotion unchained by reason is idiocy and death. Okay, fine, you're an emotional creature. Great. Don't expect me to treat you like an intellectual equal. If you are governed by your spleen like a child I will be condescending with you as if I were speaking to a child. And please, don't speak to me about men not being in touch …
/r/MensRights04/02/10 03:22 PM
2

I think you mean "gun control activists," though Heller was quite the horrific decision for gun owners, too, despite the fact that most laud it as victory.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 01:48 PM
0

I won't humor you. Sorry. However, please, continue to put words in my mouth. I really don't mind. It's only the Internet, after all.
/r/MensRights30/01/10 07:46 PM
14

Nobody's saying that women should not be allowed to dress however they like. Like hell. If I can't waltz into work with a Hawaiian shirt and some board shorts or in some pants that display my manly bulge in a way that might make other heterosexual guys ask me, "what the fuck?" then there's no way in hell that women shouldn't be held to a similar dress code.
/r/MensRights29/01/10 02:36 AM
2

Oxamus is an admitted troll. Stop feeding her and she'll eventually get bored. Personally, I find her absolutely hilarious.
/r/MensRights28/01/10 03:37 PM
2

Cool. Still working on my B.A. Someone seems to be downvoting us both.
/r/MensRights26/01/10 02:05 AM
1

Indeed.
/r/MensRights26/01/10 02:04 AM
2

"Motherfucker?" "Douchebag?" "Slutty McDickerson?" Lord knows I've called men sluts before.
/r/MensRights25/01/10 09:50 PM
1

but to deny how much easier it is for a woman to become physically battered is just silly. Perhaps. However, it's easier for a woman not to leave marks and for a man to pass it off as "cute" or something. Males will, as a rule, report it many times less, because we're taught to endure. the old argument that if you give rights to one group (ie women) that you must inherently take them away from another (ie men.) Only if you believe in positive rights is that possible. Negative liberty is quite eg…
/r/MensRights25/01/10 09:48 PM
1

On the other hand, she might.
/r/MensRights25/01/10 09:44 PM
1

1) at one point didn't What matters is now. While the past is great to take into consideration, mostly to learn from mistakes made, it does not speak to the state of the dead human body. but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable, responsible or moral to premeditatedly bring a child onto this world without a father. That is the other wrinkle in the issue. I fully agree with you on this point.
/r/MensRights24/01/10 09:41 PM
1

This falls in the category of using a man's sperm without his direct consent So far as we're concerned, he doesn't exist. He's a lump of complicated molecules with no animating force whatsoever. There is no consent to be had. I doubt we would ask a rock for its permission, if the rock were able to inseminate humans. Which brings the question: if this were to happen, could the woman sue the man's next-of-kin for child support? That's the sticky issue. Are the dead man's parents functionally the f…
/r/MensRights24/01/10 09:03 PM
5

It would certainly answer why your partners keep taking the feminine role.
/r/MensRights24/01/10 07:30 PM
3

but I think it's just left over from the 50's - a majority of women like a guy to be taller than them. It's not a carryover. Height indicates social status and strength. Females desire males with greater social status and strength than themselves.
/r/MensRights24/01/10 06:31 PM
2

Sounds like polygamy will be making a comeback. Or something.
/r/MensRights24/01/10 06:29 PM
4

The body, after the death of the owner, is the property of the next-of-kin, in this case the parents. Semen, being part of the boy's body at the time of death, would similarly be the parents' property to dispose of as they pleased. A body might as well be a rock, for all it's worth. I really fail to see an issue here.
/r/MensRights24/01/10 06:28 PM
1

Affirmative action only agitates resentment.
/r/MensRights24/01/10 02:25 AM
5

Shouldn't people be mindful of where they put their own asses? Is that too much to ask? This is why female teachers have stereotypical issues with tacks. If they'd look where they were about to plunk their asses down, most of the problem would be solved.
/r/MensRights24/01/10 02:09 AM
16

Do women really just torpedo their asses down like ICBMs? That seems imprudent to me.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 07:36 PM
1

Your last sentence makes little sense. However, I was speaking on ethical terms.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 02:25 PM
1

Women are nothing but children. You obviously don't know my mother.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 02:24 PM
0

I really don't like being bundled with the complacent uncut guys. I mean, really, thanks for metaphorically rubbing your uncut wangs into the metaphorical wound. I'd rather not have been cut, but your arrogance is pissing me off.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 04:12 AM
2

I don't think human males had any problems over the millenia before circumcision was invented.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 04:10 AM
2

The difference is in distance and normality. Half that guy's scrotum was on the shaft.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 04:05 AM
0

No, no, no. Suffrage is fine. They are human, after all, and require human rights. Insofar as they are subjected to legislation they must at least have a say in their being subjugated. The issue is in Victorian legislation being enforced when people go on about equality.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 04:02 AM
1

Furthermore, there are loads of other species in which the female is just as territorial as the male, if not more so. In primates? I'm not so certain (I apologize for fitting my sample size to make my point). Yes, we are exceptional. However, we are still bound in many ways to the monkeymind. It's good to keep that in mind: both that we are exceptional and that we are not. There is much we cannot overcome.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 03:55 AM
1

Does equality preclude difference? Must we be identical to be equal in rights and worth?
/r/MensRights23/01/10 03:15 AM
0

Being proud of being male and masculine is hardly machismo. Equating the two indicates that you've bought into some strange feminist stereotyping that places Aragorn and Casanova in the same category.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 03:13 AM
1

And yet femininity is similarly defined by male sexual interests. These sexual interests define the genes that determine behavior in this vein, so defining the range of behaviors that men will perform and so consider "manly."
/r/MensRights23/01/10 03:10 AM
1

Males of all species engage in territorial disputes. Why do you think humans ought be exceptional?
/r/MensRights23/01/10 02:39 AM
1

You're forgetting that biology plays a role. I myself needed no encouragement to abandon the doll I was given as a two-year-old, especially after Batman came along and instilled in me my ineffable need for justice. I think I used the doll as a mech or King Kong-esque beast that stormed Wayne Manor. The culture is a human creation, and humans in general do behave a certain way. Culture follows evolution.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 02:34 AM
1

you cannot disagree that just by numbers domestic violence by men is a bigger problem. You can if you cite that Canadian study done a few years back, which said that, among those reporting, females initiated violence far more often, and were far more likely to use weapons.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 02:19 AM
1

There are several reasons I'm virginal; that's one of them.
/r/MensRights23/01/10 02:00 AM
4

Hopefully you're presumed innocent until proven guilty of psychotic bitchiness. If it helps, I presume innocence.
/r/MensRights22/01/10 03:08 AM
2

He's a troll. Ignore him and the fun goes away. On the other hand, sometimes I detect sarcasm.
/r/MensRights19/01/10 02:48 PM
2

Be warned--last I checked the most predominant slash authors were female.
/r/MensRights19/01/10 02:47 PM
1

It is for those of us not inclined to it.
/r/MensRights12/01/10 03:50 AM
1

Cultural factors tend to criticize the males far more readily, hence the article.
/r/MensRights12/01/10 03:31 AM
1

You have to admit that that comment was fairly funny, though.
/r/MensRights11/01/10 01:14 AM
2

In which case there doesn't need to be any effort to make him look bad; it's self-evident.
/r/MensRights11/01/10 12:58 AM
1

Actually it makes the woman look like a licentious whore.
/r/MensRights11/01/10 12:05 AM
1

I had indicated with my own gaze and body language that his behavior was uninvited, As far as rights go, it will be noted that you are in a public place and have put yourself out for the world to observe and interact with, to some very large degree mitigating your standing in your objection. Etiquette and cultural mores are somewhat irrelevant here.
/r/MensRights10/01/10 11:54 PM
-3

However, Western prejudices being what they are, what're the chances of people taking men seriously when they allege psychological torment? Also, from the article: The bill's aim is to protect women from the verbal threats and intimidation that often lead to physical violence. Rather open about it, really. "There are situations where the man constantly degrades the woman with his remarks and destroys her, little by little. And this is often done in front of the children," he said. "This law will…
/r/MensRights10/01/10 11:49 PM
1

One might call it "natural" for women to be sexual property. However, the arrangement you call "sexual property" seems to have been a beneficial mutual arrangement. In exchange for monogamy, the male gives protection and provision. I'll not advocate that arrangement for modernity, of course, but your argument is shaky at best.
/r/MensRights08/01/10 01:51 PM
2

When it's all you've ever known, it's not that bad, really. I still wish my mentula was intact, though. I'd much rather the choice to have been mine.
/r/MensRights01/01/10 12:07 AM
2

It's sort of the same if it's an old/fat/pimply/smelly female makes the come-ons, though it's admittedly less common.
/r/MensRights15/12/09 10:46 PM
1

I understand. I still disagree as to the principle of the thing.
/r/MensRights21/11/09 09:03 PM
2

But, you get the idea. Maybe others do, but I don't. If you're there for only one particular group, isn't it unethical to be anything but honest about it?
/r/MensRights20/11/09 03:35 AM
1

Because insinuating that men need periods, I think, is insulting to most perusers of this board.
/r/MensRights20/11/09 03:31 AM
2

Depends. There's a certain level of roughing around that might be considered abuse but contributes healthily to a male's development. Beyond that very fuzzy line, however, male "roughing" creates situations like Columbine (which also has roots in simple neurological problems). The frustration and anger builds to a breaking point.
/r/MensRights20/11/09 03:25 AM
1

I think Poe's Law applies.
/r/MensRights18/11/09 03:58 AM
1

You could edit that into your original post.
/r/MensRights18/11/09 03:32 AM
1

That case would seem to be an equal-opportunity offender, though.
/r/MensRights18/11/09 03:30 AM
-1

/r/DoesntJerkItself EDIT: /r/MakeMeASammich
/r/MensRights18/11/09 03:26 AM
2

Or he's just angry.
/r/MensRights03/11/09 08:50 PM
3

Regarding men’s health – given the male body is taken to be standard definition of what supposedly comprises human health it is not surprising the medical and scientific establishment have focused on women’s health because women’s bodies are innately faulty, leaky and inferior when compared to the male-defined standpoint of what passes for human (sic) health. Pathologising women’s bodies is common medical practice which is why we still no little or nothing about men’s reproductive systems or hea…
/r/MensRights03/11/09 08:48 PM
1

Maybe she didn't want to get her juices all over her room and figured that her brother was beneath her enough to be inconsequential?
/r/MensRights03/11/09 08:37 PM
0

Are the Transformer movies anything but an extended boy-pines-for-girl with gratuitous violence all over the place? Zombie-land is the same thing. No, and they're not intended to be. Funny how when one sets out to create a mindless romp one creates a mindless romp.
/r/MensRights03/11/09 08:36 PM
1

coughTwilightcough
/r/MensRights01/11/09 03:36 AM
1

One-dimensional "men of the world" whose goals in life are to be ubermasculine automata. They were not characters, except for Aladdin and maybe the fanged one. They were plot devices. Viri ex machinae.
/r/MensRights01/11/09 03:35 AM
0

Just like the women of Disney films, the men have evolved into thinking, breathing characters over time. I'm not familiar with this. I was under the impression they served the same purpose as that horrid diamond golem in Twilight.
/r/MensRights01/11/09 03:31 AM
1

The traditional diadem has changed. Dynamic. A diadem is a gem set into a crown or necklace or the like.
/r/MensRights01/11/09 03:07 AM
1

I plan to die surrounded by family and friend (of both genders). You will still die alone. Everyone dies alone.
/r/MensRights01/11/09 03:00 AM
1

Feminism is about class based on sex.
/r/MensRights01/11/09 02:50 AM
0

I only hear of troll-slaying. Leave thou me to mine fantasy.
/r/MensRights01/11/09 02:28 AM
2

A bit of a generalization, I think.
/r/MensRights21/10/09 03:22 AM
1

Isn't it spelled "misogyny?"
/r/MensRights21/10/09 03:19 AM
1

Yes. You only make her feel that much more right.
/r/MensRights14/10/09 02:40 PM
1

So what if the term has been co-opted? The term "equality" or "egalitarianism" is accurate. That people still perceive women as, on the whole, disadvantaged is merely a matter of and for education.
/r/MensRights14/10/09 02:34 PM
6

Right-libertarian anarcho-capitalist Christian reporting in, disagreeing with the parent comment. Incidentally, I (at 19) have never yet had sex, rendering disease-based arguments non-applicable. I'd rather my penis (and others) was not unnecessarily mutilated without my consent. That is all.
/r/MensRights31/08/09 02:37 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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