TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Zephs Archive

View 1 posts and 218 comments by Zephs on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

Zephs/r/MensRights26/06/13 12:50 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Well, that's why some other people are saying that the solution is to push for the girls to be charged in cases like this, instead of trying to argue the boys are innocent. No one cares about the boys' innocence, it's about protecting the girls. Once girls start getting charged, suddenly these things begin to get overturned, which sets precedence that boys can use to have theirs overturned.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 03:07 PM
1

Except these laws are being looked at in Canada, as arguments are being put forth that charging minors with production and distribution of CP is unconstitutional.
/r/MensRights31/05/17 02:54 PM
3

This is like a commercial that used to play in Canada that was meant to tell kids to stay in shape. 3 girls chase down a boy and cover him in unwanted kisses. 3 boys chase down a girl and kiss her without consent, it would be evidence of rape culture.
/r/MensRights10/05/17 03:29 PM
1

Sounds like they might actually mean dies with prostate cancer, rather than from. Since it hits so late, there's a huge number of men that die with prostate cancer, but who were on their way out from heart disease or liver disease or any of another thousand reasons anyway. Breast cancer hits much younger, so we are more aggressive about treating it and studying it. Prostate cancer is more of a nuisance once you're old enough, and the treatment is worse than putting up with the disease for the sh…
/r/MensRights05/04/17 12:33 PM
20

Pedophilia and ephebophilia are pretty different. One is before puberty, one is during puberty. They share similarities, like that it's wrong, and that they shouldn't be around those demographics if they can't control themselves, but also key differences that differentiate them. Like do you think someone that is attracted to 16 year olds will have the same causes for that as someone attracted to 6 year olds? And is treatment the same? Like sure, it's easy to just lump them all together. While we…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/03/17 03:19 PM
7

Unfortunately, Canada explicitly allows discrimination in our Charter: Equality Rights Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Marginal note:Affirmative action p…
/r/MensRights14/10/16 11:24 PM
16

You have it backwards. The problem is that he didn't get enough prison time. In fact, he didn't get any prison time. He got jail time. Only 6 months. 3 months with good behaviour. He's already out.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/09/16 12:41 AM
1

Deaths from breast cancer is still higher. Other guy was saying the prostate cancer number was higher, which is apparently only the case in Australia. I was asking for a source for higher prostate cancer deaths, because everything I've seen says that's not true. And it has nothing to do with gender. If prostate cancer killed young men and breast cancer primarily killed old women, I'd say the exact same thing about not caring about geriatric people dying like a week early. I don't think male deat…
/r/MensRights04/07/16 04:38 AM
1

That's still not a source. Person below provided a source. I could say it's a billion times higher, but without a source, there's no evidence. Also, "deaths" is not the ultimate decider here. If there are 10% higher deaths, but they're mostly 80+ years old, I'd still say that breast cancer is worse, as the men dying from prostate cancer aren't going to get as many productive years out of a cure as breast cancer would. And yes, there's actually a formula for figuring out how many lives would be s…
/r/MensRights04/07/16 03:17 AM
0

Source? Someone else posted a source that shows the opposite, with the number of prostate cancer deaths only a bit higher than half of breast cancer deaths. And even if the number were to be higher, how old are people dying? A disease that kills mostly geriatric people who are going to die of x, y, or z in the next year or two anyway would still not be as objectively bad as a disease that kills fewer people, but those people would otherwise live another 30+ years.
/r/MensRights03/07/16 10:05 PM
6

Breast cancer hits a lot younger. The number above says 80% of men at 80 have prostate cancer cells, but how often do men actually die strictly because from prostate cancer? 80 is already an above-average lifespan. Prostate cancer is common, but hits really late in life, and isn't particularly fatal. By the time you have it, even if you cure it, you're only adding a small amount of time before heart disease or something else takes you anyway, and you often die before it gets really bad because o…
/r/MensRights03/07/16 05:46 PM
4

Could make a female Bond that's more like Black Widow where she uses finesse over brawn. It's not realistic, but it still feels believable to watch.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 05:16 PM
1

...I'm not a lawyer?
/r/MensRights29/05/16 02:32 PM
1

Not disagreeing with that. But to say what they do isn't "hard work" really undervalues the amount of work and time they've had to put into their craft to get to where they are. The other user pretty much said that it's only really "hard work" if it's some kind of blue collar job, or you're struggling to pay your bills. If being a judge were really as simple as the other guy is making it out to be, then rich yuppies that don't want to work would aspire to be judges... but they don't, because eve…
/r/MensRights29/05/16 12:58 AM
4

No, read his follow-up comment. He believes that anything short of a blue-collar job isn't actually hard work.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 11:07 PM
6

Yeah, because apparently actually being a lawyer doesn't require any work. It's just hanging out at country clubs and drinking. >_>
/r/MensRights28/05/16 11:06 PM
2

Law school specifically is not easy to get into, and requires pretty good grades. Being a lawyer isn't exactly an easy job, either. The idea they've "never had a day of hard work in their life" is just ridiculous. You don't become a judge with a C average in school, then by being a lazy lawyer. Like sure, maybe it's not as physically demanding as a coal miner or roofer, but if it were really as easy as /u/AtomicFlx makes it sound, there would be a heck of a lot more people trying to be judges.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 10:17 PM
3

Why do you think a person making only 35k/year would be made to pay the whole 50%? It says "only up to 50%", which could mean that if you make 7 figures, they never make you pay more than half for child support, leaving you with plenty of money still. If you're only making 35k, you could still be required to pay less than the 50%. Now I'm not saying 50% is a reasonable amount, especially if you're making millions, since kids don't need a million dollars a month for support, but it's silly to get…
/r/MensRights28/05/16 07:28 PM
10

And this is decided by millionaire judges that have never had a day of hard work in their life. Yeah... because becoming a judge is really just that easy...
/r/MensRights28/05/16 07:25 PM
6

It's federal law. By the letter of the law, anyone under 18 that takes a picture or video of themselves that's sexual in nature have technically produced child porn. Teenage boys have been charged with producing and distributing child porn for sexting with their girlfriends. They have also been charged with possession of child porn for having pics and videos of their girlfriend. Unsurprisingly, girls don't get charged for it.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 02:58 PM
15

Why does everyone need to take extremes on this? The 1 in 5 stat is bogus. We can all agree on that. On the other hand, do you really believe that there was not a single rape incident in a whopping 91% of campuses? Because that sounds just as crazy to me. To me, it feels like the truth must obviously lie somewhere in the middle. Campuses are not reporting incidents that come up if they can be swept under the rug to protect their image, while some groups are exaggerating numbers to make it seem l…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 02:42 AM
3

I put all my stat drops into charisma. ;-;
/r/MensRights03/11/15 03:07 PM
8

I'm sorry, I didn't know we men were bulletproof... Did I just not get the memo? I doubt someone bringing a gun is going to decide not to because they think a man would be able to stop them. That's one of the reasons they're using a gun and not a baseball bat in the first place.
/r/MensRights03/11/15 01:09 PM
1

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial. Literally the definition of equity.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 07:29 PM
3

The word is "equity".
/r/MensRights01/10/15 12:14 PM
6

I would understand that if they were maybe 13-14 She started with one or more of the students when he was in 8th grade, putting him smack dab in there. She's been doing it for years.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/15 01:24 AM
1

why should the judge, by default, ask if they agree that the mother should have primary custody Because that's how most cases usually go anyway, and it's easier to phrase it as a "yes" or "no" question. Judges shouldn't give preferential treatment to mothers, but let's not be ignorant here. Mothers are usually the primary caregivers because both the father and mother agree to that. I don't see a problem with a judge asking if they're like an "average" family. The father could have just said no, …
/r/MensRights01/07/15 06:49 AM
5

The judge asked if both parents agreed to joint custody. The judge asked if the father agreed that the mother should have primary custody. Both parents agreed, with no argument. The judge even asked if either parent thought the other parent was unfit. The father said "No.". Honestly, this isn't the judge's fault. It's the father's fault. He knew she had a mental illness, and didn't say anything. Judges don't have time to investigate every single case when everyone agrees. The judge had no way of…
/r/MensRights01/07/15 06:21 AM
3

That's... not true. My mom volunteers for a group that helps victims find resources after an assault or suicide, and things like that. One of her calls was for a parent that rolled over onto their baby and smothered it in their sleep. Everyone always says "yeah, but I would never do that". That's exactly what the people who do it thought, too. Should also look into parents that leave their kids in the car accidentally and the child dies. Again, parents on the outside always say they would never …
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/15 05:52 PM
2

Watch Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father and see if you feel the same way. It can really go both ways.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 07:39 AM
2

Because mild annoyance is totally the same thing as outrage...
/r/MensRights27/04/15 06:22 PM
0

What you said was: If someone is stupid enough to photograph and send unsolicited naked pictures of themselves, they violated their own privacy. This seems to be a statement about sending nude pictures in general, not distributing child porn specifically. Would your stance be different if everyone involved were 18? Also, your example is not relevant, because leaving your keys in the car is accidental and not a crime. Who said it was accidental? What if someone purposely leaves their keys in thei…
/r/MensRights27/04/15 06:19 PM
1

You know, it's kind of messed up that you think someone has to be punished. If you can't catch the person at fault, that sucks. It doesn't mean you throw everyone else under the bus just because you feel it's not fair the girl was humiliated. Like I said, she chose to take that risk by sharing her pictures. The guys that didn't share it are being punished for someone sending them something.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 06:04 PM
3

Uh... maybe if you don't want to be charged with distributing child porn, you shouldn't do it? Sure, the girl might have sent the guy the pic, but he still chose to spread it online to strangers. I stand by saying that only those actually responsible should be punished, or no one should. Full stop. I think it's more fair that no one get punished than that every suspect gets punished regardless of culpability. It does suck that the girl got humiliated, but she took that risk by sending the pictur…
/r/MensRights27/04/15 05:39 PM
0

Source? Because everything I've seen shows less crime when guns aren't available. Obviously a black market gets created, but a black market makes it more expensive, meaning far fewer guns actually on the street. EDIT: You also didn't address that it's not hypocrisy
/r/MensRights27/04/15 05:35 PM
1

It's not a big deal... until they can't get into college because it says they got suspended for "distributing child pornography". I agree that the person who did it should be punished. The guy(s) that just received the pictures and kept it to himself/themselves? They should not. If you can't figure out who did it, then you can't just punish anyone that might have done it. Especially something like this, that will come back to bite him in the future, especially if his name ever gets made public d…
/r/MensRights27/04/15 04:30 PM
0

So if someone is "stupid enough" to leave their keys in their car, the person that steals it shouldn't be prosecuted? This comment sums it up pretty nicely.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 04:26 PM
1

It's not hypocrisy. "Unsafe" sex and drugs hurt the individual(s) doing it, not so much others. Me taking drugs doesn't hurt you. Consensual unsafe sex is a risk both parties take on. Even if I were passing an STI to the people I slept with, they're taking that risk by choosing to have unsafe sex. I shouldn't do that, but educating everyone about those risks can prevent them from doing those unsafe practices, or at least mitigating their risk. If the thing people were worried about with unsafe g…
/r/MensRights27/04/15 04:20 PM
0

...did you just say it's better to punish everyone when you're not sure who the culprit is than to actually figure it out? "Sorry, we can't figure out who murdered Mr. Jameson, so we've just sent all the suspects to prison. We know one of them did it, we're just not sure which."
/r/MensRights27/04/15 04:06 PM
1

You know, if you're just going to be ridiculous, there's no point in having a discussion. Why distinguish between kids and adults, then? It's all rape. All rapists should get life imprisonment, no parole. That 18-year old that slept with his 16-year old girlfriend and the parents didn't like him? Well, technically that's rape when there's no Romeo and Juliet laws, so prison for life, no parole. Saying that hurting someone worse doesn't make the crime worse is kind of stupid. Frankly, I'm glad pe…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 05:25 PM
1

It's all sick... but it's probably a lot more physically damaging to a 3-year old than it would be to an 8-year old just due to the 3-year old being so much smaller, thus a "worse" crime. I'm not even talking about the ability to consent, though I'd also say a 3-year old has "less" of an ability to consent. Crimes don't have neat lines you can just draw like that and say everything below is disgusting, everything above is okay. It's a spectrum. While both are horrible crimes, they're not equival…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 08:29 AM
1

Uh... sure?
/r/MensRights15/04/15 11:00 PM
2

That's kind of my point. The context of the case matters.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 10:55 PM
-1

You know I'm not siding with the rapist here, right? The only thing I said is that the cases are not comparable because there are too many variables that are different other than just the sex of the perp. She definitely should have a longer sentence than she got, but that doesn't make the case any more like the other one mentioned.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 10:53 PM
3

Are you really trying to say that having sex with a 15-year old and having sex with a 1-year old are equivalent just because they're both "statutory rape"? There's a reason that crimes don't have a single mandatory sentence for the specific charge. The context is extremely relevant. And even if you don't believe they should be treated differently, the fact is that they are, which means comparing those two cases still doesn't make sense.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 10:17 PM
13

I wouldn't say these two cases are the comparable. 3-year old and 8-year old are a huge difference for something like this. They're similar, sure, but that's a significant enough age discrepancy that you can't really say how much of the charge is because he's a male perpetrator and how much is due to how much more heinous it is to rape a 3-year old than an 8-year old. You'd need to compare it to a case of a man raping a child of similar age.
/r/MensRights15/04/15 10:05 PM
1

Sad state of higher education. That assumes that the students rate any teacher below "average". Maybe they feel it's "too mean" to rate them lower. Then "average" is actually a really bad score, even if the name doesn't sound like it. I highly doubt they genuinely believed that was an average teacher.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/03/15 12:46 AM
1

If I remember correctly, I agree with you on pancreatic cancer. I definitely don't on prostate cancer, though.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 09:05 PM
2

Honestly, I think breast cancer is way overfunded at this point. It was a much more dangerous disease years ago, but thanks to research in the area over the last few decades it's fairly manageable. I'd rather that money move to something that needs the funding more at this point.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:43 PM
1

Before 50 it says to only check if you have family members that also had prostate cancer before 50, so clearly not a common thing. After 50 it's just doing a checkup. It says to not bother with even that much if the patient has less than 10 years to live because there's no point then. Doesn't really sound like that big a deal to me.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:38 PM
1

...if you're going to use the rare fringe case of a person that gets it at 20 to argue it needs more funding, I can introduce you to a million other more debilitating diseases that are equally as unlikely. You can argue either that it's a bad disease to get young, but that it's rare, or that it's a common disease when you're old, but not really a big deal. You're trying to argue it's common and deadly using different populations for each claim. Deciding how to allocate research funds doesn't wor…
/r/MensRights10/03/15 06:47 PM
0

Doesn't really fail to understand that. How often does prostate cancer become advanced enough to become metastatic? Like I said, a lot of people die with prostate cancer, but that doesn't mean they die because of prostate cancer.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 06:33 PM
1

They develop prostate cancer, but they don't die of it. For most guys, it's just an inconvenience of old age. They're on their way out anyway due to heart disease, or any other number of diseases that can hit. Look at the two numbers. Prostate cancer has only a 1% mortality rate, but 8/10 men that reach 80 have it. For most guys, fixing prostate cancer is like patching up a broken finger on a severed hand. Like sure it's "fixed", but it's not really changing anything.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 05:27 AM
4

I remember one time when a teacher pulled me out of class to go to the head's office I couldn't breathe, started hyperventilating and almost passed out For the record, you can't pass out from a panic attack. You might think you can, but you can't. It's physically impossible. Teaching people with anxiety disorders this tends to help reduce the fear a bit with panic attacks.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/02/15 03:22 AM
2

Wouldn't it be NOT in a public place? If it were illegal to record anyone in a public place, anyone that's recorded anything publicly would be breaking the law, since they don't get consent from everyone around them/
/r/MensRights29/01/15 07:18 PM
26

Was there cameras in the bathroom? Pretty sure this is illegal in most place.
/r/MensRights12/01/15 05:30 PM
2

That counts, right? Pretty sure almost a hundred years is more than "a couple decades". But I think you'd need to look up when non-white people were able to vote, too. I'm not big on history.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 06:05 PM
3

Maybe we should bring freedom to America, for a change? :P
/r/MensRights24/12/14 08:20 AM
1

There's no "extra" barrier, is all I was meaning to point out. If you're an adult citizen, you can vote. Except for the standard restrictions, like no criminals and stuff.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 06:29 AM
1

I voted for the first time in the last election, but I never registered for it. I got a letter saying I was now eligible with instructions where I could show up to cast my vote.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 06:23 AM
4

Turn 18 Show up to vote Check the box Actually, showing up isn't even mandatory. I believe there's a way to mail votes or something if you can't show up.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 06:18 AM
2

Canada? How many decades do you need to go back for it to count?
/r/MensRights24/12/14 06:02 AM
5

Actually, yes.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 05:38 AM
-2

As a whole, condoms alone are pretty damn effective at preventing transmission. Getting men to wear condoms is a lot more important than altering their genitalia when it comes to preventing the disease, particularly if that above quote is true. While I agree that condoms would be the better option, it's cheaper to circumcise once than to give out condoms every time. Even the ones that would use condoms probably can't afford to on any frequent basis. Saying we should teach them the benefits of co…
/r/MensRights01/11/14 04:09 PM
1

Sounds like you have a bad lawyer. Get a second opinion?
/r/MensRights16/10/14 11:45 PM
2

fruition*
/r/MensRights05/10/14 08:33 PM
1

Cool. I was just pointing out that even if he had no testicles, modern medicine can manually induce puberty, for the most part.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 02:44 AM
4

6 year old boys voice will never deepen, not much facial hair will grow, and he won't mature properly. No, it means he'll need to take hormones to force puberty. Not that it makes it okay what the mother did or anything. Thanks to trans* and intersexed people, we have somewhat of an idea of how to force the body to undergo gender-specific changes, so he won't be stuck as a prepubescent boy the rest of his life. I believe he'll be forced to take testosterone the rest of his life, though. His body…
/r/MensRights27/09/14 01:46 PM
11

D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y
/r/MensRights25/09/14 06:16 PM
1

How is the word I'm looking for male? He's referring to a female, therefore fiancée. And for the record, while people routinely spell it without the accent, it's supposed to have one.
/r/MensRights17/09/14 08:41 PM
2

Well, it's not really whether he's straight or gay himself, but whether his partner is male or female. Male is fiancé, female is fiancée.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 01:55 AM
2

Unless he's gay, it would be his fiancee. Fiancée, if you want to get really fancy.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 05:42 PM
1

...and, like I pointed out, date is definitely relevant. Claiming that lynchings are a modern day problem and then my "source" being an article from the '20s wouldn't work. As for the other, I'd say she shouldn't have been charged with statutory rape in the first place, and he should have to pay child support. It's perfectly possible (and altogether likely) that a different judge handed down each sentence.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 12:58 AM
1

So people shouldn't need to source their claims? Get over yourself.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:22 PM
1

The "half-hearted" part is in your head. What were you expecting my response to be? I responded so you'd know I'm admitting I'm wrong and not just ignoring your post.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 04:25 AM
1

You don't need to be a dick about it...
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:46 AM
1

Huh... Guess you win.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:16 PM
33

Dickbag69 holds much wisdom.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 06:25 AM
1

I have been given only one source, and it's 20 years old. The other source is NOT statutory rape, it's two teens that had a baby and the younger one happened to be a guy. The last one was just a guy making the same claim as you, also without sources. I can't make the claim and then source your original comment saying that it happens, because that's not actually proof that it did. Can I use sources from the 20's as evidence that lynchings are a modern issue for black people? What about the 30's? …
/r/MensRights24/08/14 04:22 AM
1

So what you are saying is that teenage boys are suppose to be more mature and responsible than 19 year old women, or even 30 year old women, and the fact that it has happened, and theoretically can happen again means we should just shut up about it? Who said anything about a 30 year old woman? I said that, where I'm from, 15 - 19 is a consensual relationship, and therefore the father is equally responsible for the child's well-being. Age is irrelevant, since it is consensual, and thus falls unde…
/r/MensRights23/08/14 05:30 AM
1

The first one was already claimed, and the same points still apply The second one is not statutory rape (at least not where I live). It's only a 4 year difference, for Pete's sake. The boy should be paying child support. The third is an indictment of the child support system as a whole. While he claims that "minor boys statutorily raped by adult women must pay child support to the criminals who raped him. In one case, the boy was drugged before sex." there's no source to back it up, which brings…
/r/MensRights23/08/14 02:47 AM
1

I'm not claiming it isn't legal. I'm claiming it doesn't happen. Two completely different things. A single case from twenty years ago doesn't mean a new law needs to be enacted. Legal just means it isn't illegal. Lots of things are dumb, but legal. So it's not that boys are legally required to pay child support in cases of statutory rape. It's just not illegal to enforce. If a case like that happened recently, I'd expect it to make big news and affect change. Until a case like that actually come…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 06:52 PM
1

Can you find cases where an underage boy was not forced to pay child support? That would support your point very well. You're the one making the claim that boys are forced to pay child support. The onus is on you to prove that. Whether or not it's "legal" isn't what's being discussed. It's whether or not it's enforced. Like I said, Georgia has laws on the books making sex toys illegal, but does that mean people hide sex toys from the cops, or that cops press charges on people that own them? No, …
/r/MensRights22/08/14 06:40 PM
1

I'm moving the goalposts? You literally just jumped from "statutory rape victims are forced to pay child support" to "consenting adults". I'm not saying that spermjacking should be allowed, but it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Stick to the topic. To put it as plainly as possible: statutory rape victims are not required to pay child support because they are male. There's no law stating that females get sole custody in cases of statutory rape where the victim is female, either. Us…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 06:27 PM
1

that there have been women then forcing those boys to pay child support when they hit the age of 18 Plural. men have absolutely NO rights when it comes to procreation. Present tense. I haven't moved the goal posts. You've presented a single case from almost two decades back as "evidence" that this is something that's commonplace in such cases. I understand that cases in which a male teen impregnates an adult woman are rare, but you'd think there would be more than a single case in the last twent…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 06:10 PM
1

that there have been women then forcing those boys to pay child support when they hit the age of 18 Plural. men have absolutely NO rights when it comes to procreation. Present tense. I haven't moved the goal posts. You've presented a single case from almost two decades back as "evidence" that this is something that's commonplace in such cases. I understand that cases in which a male teen impregnates an adult woman are rare, but you'd think there would be more than a single case in the last twent…
/r/MensRights22/08/14 05:23 PM
1

That's a case from nearly 20 years ago. That "child" would literally be too old to be getting child support from the father anymore. Laws change a lot over time. To put this into context, this is only a year after the O.J. Simpson trial. Unless you have a recent source, there's no evidence that it's actually still happening.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 04:59 PM
-3

While the title brings up a relevant discussion to /r/MensRights, the comments are just a bunch of hateful "DAE women suck amirite?". Second highest comment is a bunch of sweeping generalizations towards an entire gender with no sources to back it up. It's pure hate for the sake of hate.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 02:53 PM
1

The simple fact that there have been women in their 30's having sex with underage boys, and then forcing those boys to pay child support when they hit the age of 18 that suggests that men have absolutely NO rights when it comes to procreation. Source? I've only ever seen one "source", but it's been debunked as there's no record of either person ever existing where it says it happened, and the woman's charge would have been public record.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 02:48 PM
5

I think a man would be crazy not to accept 50,000 to sleep with another woman, etc. The parallel to that would be a man accepting 50 000 so his wife could sleep with another man, not getting paid to sleep with another woman. I don't even think the money one would need to be changed. Sure, guys don't care as much between women that make like $20 000 more or less a year, but an amount like a lottery? That can sway anyone: man, woman, gay, straight, bi. Everyone is moneysexual.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 02:44 PM
2

I don't understand why people stay in these relationships, but I guess it's something you can't understand until experiencing it. I was more responding to this sentence than OP's post. I took "these" to mean "abusive relationships" in general.
/r/MensRights16/08/14 05:10 PM
8

It's different things for different people. I was reading a story on TwoX or something recently where the woman thought to herself "I'm too smart to be in an abusive relationship". It was exactly your kind of thinking ("If it were really abusive, I'd just leave") that made her not leave. She hadn't left, so it must not be abusive. Eventually she realized it was abusive, but that's just one person. You could be financially dependent on your SO. Two common tactics in abusive relationships is contr…
/r/MensRights16/08/14 04:59 PM
2

moral*
/r/MensRights10/08/14 06:30 AM
4

Honest answer? Publicly, no. Privately? Of course. They would be completely PC in any public messages they send out, being extra careful to not actually admit guilt on the executive's part. They would say they are looking into it, all the while they would probably be digging up any dirt they could on the lower level employee to discredit the claim. The higher up the executive, the more true this becomes. Companies don't want to lose their higher ups. They would throw the executive under the bus …
/r/MensRights12/07/14 08:59 PM
9

I think you mean red-handed.
/r/MensRights12/07/14 08:31 PM
1

I don't have a problem with laws being written in black and white. In fact, I find that to be important, otherwise it's too easy to charge people on a technicality AND for people to pay off people to get off of charges. Even with the laws written very specifically, that's still an issue, but at least the public can show an outcry in cases where they obviously broke the law, making it more difficult. The problem comes at enforcement. The kid never should have been charged in the first place, beca…
/r/MensRights09/07/14 08:34 PM
0

I understand why. It would be a pretty easy loophole if it was allowed. "I didn't take that video. He took the video of himself and posted it online." How do you prove that the victim didn't make it voluntarily? I don't think it should be used in cases like this, since the teen obviously had the capacity to make the decision and was not coerced in any way, but it would be a dangerous precedent to set if all you had to say for underage pornography is "they made it on their own".
/r/MensRights09/07/14 08:20 PM
3

He's not saying that they should be more lax. He's saying that only 1% being convicted doesn't mean that 99% of cases are false. It's just difficult to convict, whether or not it was actually rape. If I kill someone and there's not enough evidence to prove it, it doesn't mean I was falsely accused.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:15 PM
3

Pretty sure that as long as we have people shooting other people on TV, kids will always play cops and robbers/cowboys and indians and will always pretend to shoot one another. But then this is wrong. It goes even further. It means that even if we take away TV shows and movies, it's still going to exist because it's a fact of life.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 07:40 PM
5

This was a thing way before TV...
/r/MensRights24/06/14 07:25 PM
5

The truth at the end of the day is that no survey is going to be 100% accurate. But neither is only considering those that are reported. Some people are going to lie and say they had a crime committed against them when they didn't. Some are going to lie and say that they weren't victimized, for all kinds of reasons. But generally there's no reason for people to lie on these types of surveys. Unless you genuinely believe that a significant portion of people surveyed lie for the sake of lying, the…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 07:35 PM
5

The survey asks "Have you experienced [x]?" and "Did you report [x]?". Then you extrapolate the number of people that are victimized, and the number of people that report it. These surveys have also undergone research to see if people lie on them. The vast majority don't, which makes sense. There's really no reason to lie on it unless you just want to screw people over for fun.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 06:21 PM
7

They anonymously admit that they were raped, but didn't want to be forced to face the police and stuff about it. It's not that far-fetched. They give their reasons for not reporting it, too. If you know there isn't any evidence that it happened, but that you'll be heavily questioned and forced to "re-live" the event knowing the person is never going to get prosecuted, why put yourself through that? Some people just want to move on.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 06:10 PM
0

...okay? That still doesn't address any of what I said. I agree that these are problems. It doesn't change that the OP used a biased statistic to make a claim that doesn't account for variables like the fathers' attempts (or lack thereof) to actually gain custody. I'm not saying that men aren't boned by the family court system, and custody issues in general. I'm saying that the specific number posted by OP is easily rebutted, and is not a good example to use.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 08:11 PM
0

That's not related to this issue. The issues is that a statistic is misleading. Giving me reasons that a similar stat on women would also be misleading doesn't change that. It's a problem in both cases.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:21 PM
0

It isn't conjecture when it happens every single day. Anecdotal evidence. Lots of things happen every single day. Men also give up custody because they don't want it every single day, and don't get custody because they're abusive every single day. Unless we know how often cases fall into which category, we can't make conclusions in any direction. You seem to be asking for an unreasonably high degree of accuracy for statistics that you are not for feminists. Who says I don't expect the same of Fe…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 12:46 PM
-1

I'm not saying the number is wrong in what it states. I'm saying it's wrong in what it implies in the context of the image saying that males aren't "privileged" because they don't get those things. We don't know of those 84% of men that didn't get custody how many legitimately didn't want custody, because that's not controlled for. We don't know how many genuinely don't deserve custody (e.g., abusive), because that's not controlled for either. It could be 1%, 10%, or 50%. Without actually having…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 12:19 PM
-1

I'm not disagreeing with any of your post. It doesn't change that the number used in the original image is lumping together different situations without actually telling us what percentage said what. Without that crucial information the infographic is easily rebutted, and thus meaningless. Every single time a feminist posts one of these things it's highly cherry picked - and warped. So... your solution to a group lying to get their point across is to lie right back? Congrats, that's how you lose…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 11:39 AM
2

Your reasoning is that women are excused from combat because they are considered to weak to fight, and that this is oppression equal to a man being hounded and sent against his will to face death. That was a big leap to make and not at all what I said... I definitely never said anything was "equal" to anything else. I don't believe that men should be sent against their will to fight. Last I checked, there's no draft in effect. Those combat deaths are all people that signed up voluntarily. And be…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 02:04 AM
-2

The thing is, when a LAWYER tells you that you don't have a case, its a lot more convincing to not go into court when you have to pay that much money to lose. But we don't have the numbers on how often a lawyer is consulted and advises that. For all we know, the majority of men that settle for no custody don't consult a lawyer (possibly because they can't afford one), and just assume they can't win, so don't bother. Or, even worse case scenario, they actually don't want custody of the child, and…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 01:42 AM
0

But that argument can equally be applied to the lack of women applying in STEM fields, when a lot of the time it's that they aren't even applying. If you don't even try, it's hard to really complain that you didn't get what you wanted.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 01:25 AM
-2

So... in the cases where fathers actually fight for custody, they receive joint custody or more in the majority of cases. Essentially, all the stats in this graphic are cherry-picked out of context. I agree that there's bias to custody proceedings, but people should really use more accurate stats if they want to make a point. Ones like this just look like MRAs are making up fake causes.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 01:11 AM
24

Winner of custody Does this take into account cases where it's disputed, or just in general? If men concede custody without a battle, it's not really "privilege" anymore than women NOT applying to STEM fields is sexist. Industrial deaths/accidents Combat deaths Disingenuous. Of course women make up a small percent of those. Women were not allowed into combat roles until very recently, so even 3% actually seems high to me. And there's probably a pretty fair argument that sexist hiring practices p…
/r/MensRights12/06/14 07:03 PM
1

The DSM-V might not, but the DSM-V is new and under pretty heavy criticism. It's not the be-all and end-all of mental health disorder classifications.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 10:54 PM
2

you're crazy enough to be institutionalized against your will, but sane enough to be held accountable for a nonviolent crime? That's crazy. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what NCRMD (Not Criminally Responsible by reason of Mental Disorder) means. If you're a danger to yourself or those around you, you can be institutionalized. You understand hitting people is wrong, but you lash out due to your mental disorder. Or you threaten to kill yourself. You don't qualify for NCRMD in that case.…
/r/MensRights23/05/14 03:28 PM
-1

No, the problem is that it can create a rift in the family. If Mom is making money hand over fist and can afford to buy the kids fancy toys while Dad is making only enough to feed and clothe them, the kids will increasingly pressure everyone involved to stay with the rich parent. It's essentially to protect the poor parent from having their kids bought off by the rich parent.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 01:58 AM
0

cue*: give a cue to or for. queue: a line or sequence of people or vehicles awaiting their turn to be attended to or to proceed.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 07:47 PM
2

Like you pointed out, it depends on where they cut, and how deep. I was using it as a blanket statement. Yeah, they're pretty toast if they cut the femoral artery, but few people do that. It was just to point out that if someone cuts themselves with the intent to kill themselves and then decides to get help, that's counted as a suicide attempt, even if the cuts wouldn't have been fatal. Men rarely pick methods like that compared to women.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 05:08 PM
5

I disagree with 2 of those. I've found more of my female friends and acquaintances have been mentally unstable to the point of suicide. (Though, in most cases, turns out they were bipolar, etc, and not because of any actual issues in their life causing it.) It doesn't count thoughts of suicide or attempts at suicide. That number is purely about people that actually die from suicide. More women suffer from depression and attempt suicide, but they attempt it in ways that don't work very well. A ma…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 02:33 PM
12

Keep in mind, that was written almost 20 years ago. Gender equality has changed a lot since then. While there's nothing on the books preventing this from happening, a more recent case would probably be better evidence. The only other case I've heard about where this happened recently was found to be false after no record of the case turned out to exist and someone just posted a random picture with a story next to it.
/r/MensRights27/04/14 03:43 AM
5

I think you're missing the point TRPACC is making. This isn't pedophilia. It is rape. It is wrong. It's not pedophilia, though. Pedophilia has a specific definition. Attraction to pre-pubescent children. It's defined that way because age of consent varies state to state, and country to country. Having sex with an underage child is wrong, but it's only technically pedophilia when the child is pre-pubescent. It's a misuse of the term, not justification for the horrible things the women are doing. …
/r/MensRights05/04/14 05:43 PM
1

Relevant video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U
/r/MensRights22/02/14 07:22 AM
8

Some people might think this is a joke. This is the actual truth. Originally, 50 Shades of Gray was a Twilight fanfiction. She got a lot of support saying to do something more with it. She knew she couldn't rip off Twilight characters, so she tweaked it a bit changing the characters' names and the vampire stuff was taken out.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 08:55 PM
1

That's what my post says... Specifically: That's not to say the victim is blameless, though. The victim must also take responsibility for understanding how they could have protected themselves.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 07:24 PM
3

No, you seem to be the one confused. That assumes that blame is zero-sum. As in if blame can be doled out to multiple individuals, then the total blame can be computed as a percentage that cannot exceed 100%. But it doesn't work like that. The attacker is completely at fault. Nothing forced the attacker to commit the crime. They are just as culpable as a person committing the crime when the victim took better precautions. That the victim might have been able to prevent it is a separate issue alt…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 07:01 PM
13

That reasoning assumes that blame is zero-sum. It's not. It's ENTIRELY the attacker's fault in boh scenarios. The attacker is in no way correct to do those things, and made an active decision to hurt someone. But that doesn't mean the victim didn't also make mistakes. Just because the victim was able to prevent an event doesn't detract from the fault of the attacker.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 03:46 PM
5

And, in the hypothetical situation, hot air balloon accidents were the leading cause of death in that town. It doesn't mean the town should focus spending on it when it's actually a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. If you want to save the most people from committing suicide, then you should focus on men 40-45. If you want to save the most teens, then you should focus on car accidents that kill WAY more than suicide. Teen suicide only seems like it's a big deal because the nerdy kid tha…
/r/MensRights16/01/14 11:57 PM
10

I hate seeing the claim that suicide is "especially a leading cause of death among young people". It's extremely misleading. As a demographic, young people are the least likely to commit suicide. Middle aged men kill themselves at almost twice the rate of young people. This isn't raw numbers, this is per hundred thousand. Raw numbers I think would be even higher since we're just reaching the tail-end of the boomers there. The reason it's a "leading" cause for young people is because there's no c…
/r/MensRights16/01/14 08:58 PM
-1

As someone that lives in a country WITHOUT conscription, I can easily defend it. I'm no more required to go off to war than any of the women here. I don't believe that you get the right to vote in exchange for the responsibility of going to war. I believe we have taxes and stuff that we pay and we contribute to our country, and that allows us a right to help decide in what direction the country goes in the future.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 06:18 AM
-1

When they got the right to vote, they still weren't even allowed to VOLUNTARILY sign up for most army positions, so it makes sense that they weren't required to conscript. That's just a poor argument. Heck, a link was just posted a day or two ago showing that women that voluntarily sign up now can't actually complete all the fitness tests that are required. If the ones that want to be there can't complete them, will conscripted women do better? Or will they just end up costing money to train and…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 03:39 AM
0

Basically, the study I know of shows that same sexes enforce their own stereotypes more than opposite sexes, but males enforce more to males than females do to females. Females do to females more than males do to females, and females enforce male stereotypes the least overall. I think, anyway. The opposite-sex scenario I'm least sure of. I know for certain that's how it worked for male-male ones. I'm going to try to find it Sunday. Hopefully it's in my textbook and not in a lecture slide. EDIT: …
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:40 AM
2

The study looked at if the people punished the "other person" (their true results didn't matter, they were told they were beaten or not regardless of how well they actually did, and there wasn't actually another person) when the "other person" performed better. The "punishment" was they had the opportunity to give a clue to the person on the next task. The clues ranged from highly helpful to not at all helpful. They were told if it was a guy or a girl. If the "other person" was a guy that did we…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 07:35 AM
7

I don't really see an issue with saying "let me get back to you". If I were hanging out with a friend and he told me some "cool fact" and I asked for proof and he said "when I get home", I'd just move on. I was contributing something I have learned, but I don't happen to have the evidence immediately in front of me. It's not like I'm demanding people to believe me on my word and calling them idiots for asking for proof. I'm saying "you know what? You're right. I should get the original study. I …
/r/MensRights04/01/14 06:13 AM
4

Not really. Like I said, I can't check for the stuff until Sunday, since I'm on vacation right now. The results were the important part of the study that I had to memorize, so I glossed over the finer details like the design. I know what I had to know to get the grade. I'm not saying to take what I say as gospel. I clearly separate "this is what I think" from "this is what has been found". Even without the exact studies, you can see what it's talking about by looking at the comments. Women say t…
/r/MensRights04/01/14 06:05 AM
3

Gender-inappropriateness hardly exists anymore? Tell that to the people that think all "gamer girls" are faking for attention. Or that if a guy wants to be a nanny, he's likely a pedophile. There are a lot of things still considered "gender-inappropriate". It's reduced for women over the years, but is still very much in existence for both men and women.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:23 PM
-1

I'm going mostly off memory, so I don't remember the exact design of the study and those details might be off, but I remember the results. It's either in one of my textbooks at home or it's in the slides. If it's in my textbook, I can look it up when I get back Sunday. If it's in the slides, they've been wiped since the semester is over and they're considered copyrighted by the University, so I no longer have access to them. I can try to find it myself, though. EDIT: Found it. The study was call…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 09:03 PM
1

Well the study I was thinking of actually was directly related to self-esteem. When a man was told another man performed well on a test of something like domestic duties better than they did on something like sports, then the subject was given the opportunity to punish the other men on a subsequent task. Men punished men more when they did well on the "gender-inappropriate" task, and the men that chose the punishment showed higher boosts in self-esteem afterwards. There were other groups, like w…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 08:29 PM
3

Yeah, but the studies show that men enforce male stereotypes even more aggressively than women enforce female ones. That was what I was trying to say. Men also enforce female sterotypes more than women try to enforce male stereotypes. Although I credit women being more open to norm-breaking, on average, to the women's rights movements of the 1900's that allowed them to step out of just their socially approved roles. EDIT: Found it. The study was called "Reactions to Counterstereotypic Behavior: …
/r/MensRights03/01/14 08:05 PM
27

Not really surprising. Most psych studies focusing on gender stereotyping show that men are actually the greatest enforcers of gender norms, especially towards other men. That's not to say that women don't do it too, just that men, on average, are both more aggressive in enforcing those norms, and enforce them more often. Just looking at the comments the women are like "I find this hard to believe" while the men are saying stuff like "what a pitiful little sissy boy". I personally think it's par…
/r/MensRights03/01/14 07:43 PM
1

Well I figured it was implied that it was in the interests of the child, but you can't just enforce any rich guy to support a kid. And that response is ignoring the spirit of what I was trying to say. That specific line makes it sound like having a bias towards what's best for the child is a bad thing. Having a bias towards the mother is bad, but so is having a bias towards the father. There should, however, be a bias towards the child. That's only in relation to parties actually involved. I.e.,…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 07:07 PM
12

family courts are clearly in the favor of women and children Frankly, they should be ruling in favour of the children. If the father is a batterer, then it's in the child's interest to go with the mother and get support. If the mother is a neglectful drug addict, then the father should be entitled to the same, because it's in the interest of the child. I think fathers do get the shaft a lot of the time, but courts should be working in the interests of the child, not the mother or father. There d…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 12:42 AM
4

Suicide is the third biggest killler... so what? 15-24 year olds really don't die much. They're actually one of the least likely demographics to commit suicide in North America. There's a huge bias to it. Anything natural (like diseases) that kill people before child-bearing age are weeded out through natural selection. The disease that are still around are extremely rare to contract before most people would have had a kid. Say there's a town of 150 people and only 6 people die in a year. 3 of n…
/r/MensRights27/12/13 08:21 AM
1

Uh... no. Penis is the anatomical term. "Fair" would be using the equivalent word, not the most derogatory one.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 04:26 PM
4

Vagina* She didn't call them cocks or dicks. You said fair, not escalatory.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 05:00 AM
1

Because, as I pointed out, if they were smart enough to game the system, they'd get a real job making better money. It's not like welfare is faceless. There are intake workers that see your file and decide how much you're supposed to get. If you're making "good" money on welfare, it would flag you to be investigated, especially if you're a guy (just the way the numbers work, since the only way to really rack up money is if you have dependents, and guys rarely do on their own). If someone's claim…
/r/MensRights20/11/13 05:07 PM
1

Oh, she always had work. It was a big city. Tons of people defrauding the government. As a percentage of people on welfare though, it's pretty small. They're not exactly hard to catch. If they were smart enough to defraud the government and get a good income, they probably would be making more doing something at a real job. It's mostly stuff like declaring dependants you don't have (like mothers saying they have a 3-year old full-time when the father has sole custody or they have shared custody*…
/r/MensRights17/11/13 04:33 PM
4

Most people on welfare are off of it within 6 months. Cases like this are pretty rare. When I was growing up, my mom's job was to find people on welfare defrauding the government. It's a lot rarer than people seem to think.
/r/MensRights16/11/13 10:28 PM
17

The plotline for the episode is similar. Kindergarten teacher is sleeping with Ike. When Kyle tells the police they at first think it's a male teacher. Kyle says no, it's a girl. The cop's like "but... but she's like fat, right?" and Kyle says that no, she's actually pretty good looking. Then the cop says "Nice". It's appropriate if you know the context. The episode is entirely about pointing out how bad this double standard is.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 03:25 PM
5

If the psychiatrists are being requested by the mother's attorney, they may not actually believe what they're saying, it's just in their interests to say what the mother's side wants to be said. That's a whole 'nother can of ethical worms being opened, but it's actually pretty common. EDIT: Could also just be laziness. Some people will do a standard test and take it as fact rather than do proper interviews and gather other data. For instance, my neuropsych assessment prof had a colleague that wo…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 05:37 PM
0

Eh, they evened out. If I cared about downvotes, I wouldn't post.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 11:04 PM
-3

quiet*
/r/MensRights19/10/13 05:58 PM
8

Talk to some other lawyers. If everything they say matches what your current lawyer says, then what will internet people be able to tell you? Top advice for these things is ALWAYS talk to a lawyer. They know what's going on. If all the lawyers in the area say there's nothing you can do, then that means there's nothing you can do. It sucks, but that's the reality of the situation.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 12:49 AM
13

As a thought experiment, if your reasoning is that it increases hereditary disease in cases of true incest, how do you feel about a person with Huntington's Chorea? Should sex be illegal for them, since it's a 50% chance with ANYONE to have a child with a debilitating disease? What if the partner also has Huntington's, hugely increasing the chances of any offspring getting it? if the issue is due to diseases, where do we draw the line? A mother that has the colourblind gene can give it to her so…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 02:34 PM
1

Doesn't matter what the reason is that they feel that way. I was just making the point that some people DO feel that way. It may be irrational, but it still exists.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 07:39 PM
-1

Not to say I think circumcision should be done unless medically necessary, but green is partially true. If you change the word "all" to "many" and "terrified" to "uncomfortable", it's actually pretty common. I know lots of guys and girls that have very strong feelings about circumcision. Some find it looks really gross and wouldn't sleep with a guy that was circumcised, some feel the opposite, and some don't care. It's not a good enough reason to do it unnecessarily to an infant, but it IS a con…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:48 AM
3

per se* Though it's not really used well, anyway.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 07:18 AM
5

Anti-semites also believe that 1 + 1 = 2. It doesn't stop being true. Not that I necessarily agree with IcarusLived, just that your logic is flawed.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:22 PM
5

Did you actually read it? What it boiled down to was she wanted to have kids, and it was a deal breaker in their relationship at that point. She didn't try to have a kid without his consent, she said that if he wasn't prepared for the next step, she wants to move on to a new relationship. That's a perfectly legitimate reason. Why should she be foreced to stay with him when they disagree on something so fundamental? It even says she coaxed him for months, it wasn't an abrupt decision. They were t…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 03:41 PM
1

Well the problem is that it needs to be an advertisement used outside the internet. As long as I have proof that it's used out in the real world, I think it's fine.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:32 PM
1

Yeah, that's all I found, unfortunately.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:02 AM
1

Thanks, I'll try. Any other links would be helpful in case the person says no.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 01:51 AM
2

From what I gathered, age of consent is federal and the provinces don't change it.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 11:21 PM
9

Yup, 14 with an 18 year old is still legal in Canada
/r/MensRights21/05/13 11:09 PM
8

She didn't say that wasn't rape. She said it was wrong to equate the Steubenville incident with what she experience as a teen and to call them both rape. It would have been clearer if she had added something like "only one of these scenarios is actually rape".
/r/MensRights23/03/13 06:35 PM
4

Sounds like the Just-World Hypothesis. The inherent belief that many people have that there is order to life and "what goes around comes around".
/r/MensRights18/03/13 05:20 PM
-2

Different majors: Not really effective, since they need you to have a specific major to have the skills to work there Work experience: They already do check for that. Most people are fairly similar at the stage you seem to be at, though. Socio-economic backgrounds: How would you even check for this? While it would be a good idea in theory, it would be very difficult to actually implement. I wouldn't use the word "radical". It doesn't really need to be a huge change in perspective. Heck, lots of …
/r/MensRights17/03/13 07:55 AM
0

No two people think exactly alike. The more dissimilar they are, the more differently they are likely to think. When you have a bunch of men already, women might bring in new perspectives that men would be less likely to think about. If you populate an entire workplace with people that all think the same, you'll stunt your productivity. Diversity is good in the workplace. Unless there is a single optimum way to do things already, diversifying things greatly increases your chance for improvement.…
/r/MensRights17/03/13 07:24 AM
-1

Normally I'm on board, but none of what you said is necessarily important. The extremely important, yet missing, variable is: does the company have lack of women that they need to remedy? It doesn't matter if the school is 99% female and the men were even more qualified if the needs of the company are for more female employees. There could be any number of reasons for that. If the company is 99% male, then maybe getting a female would be more beneficial than an equally-qualified male. I would sa…
/r/MensRights17/03/13 01:38 AM
1

As someone who grew up with the nickname "Cody", what's the problem with it? O_o
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:41 PM
1

If it wasn't considered so unacceptable, then you run into essentially the same problem. The social pressure has a lot to do with why parents help pay for post-secondary. I doubt there's even enough work out there for all students to be responsible for just tuition and be able to live at home such as you. Parents should feel obligated to contribute, on some level, because there's just not enough otherwise.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:01 AM
2

If everyone had that opinion, there wouldn't be enough jobs out there to support any of the students paying their own way. Look at how many students just outright don't work while they do their studies. Now look at how many jobs are hiring. Do you really think that's at all feasible for everyone? If anything, I'd say it would reduce the number of jobs. If all parents 100% cut off their kids at 18, a huge chunk of those students would no longer have the time or money to go to fast food places, dr…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 01:33 AM
4

While she wasn't allowed to remain in the seat, the punishment was much less severe than if she had been a man. As milkesteane said, a black man that did the same would have been beaten for that as well as possibly arrested. What Rosa Parks did was brave, but was still significantly less dangerous due to her sex.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 05:53 PM
9

Actually, papers here (Canada) will not put the father's name if he's the accused for the same reason. I really think you're looking too far into this. The girl will want to move on from this one day, and people Googling her name shouldn't be getting articles about this event.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 02:24 AM
1

So the school isn't saying no, they're saying that some form of legal action needs to be taken in order for them to pay. That sounds like it's a bureaucratic issue, and that because cases like this are so rare, it seems more insane than it is. If we upped the ages to maybe 12 years old, then requiring the parents to open a legal case makes sense. If they're not willing to do that, it's possible the event never occurred and it's just an excuse to get the school to pony up for expensive private sc…
/r/MensRights10/01/13 04:21 PM
-1

Uh... I said that mentioning the broader category of body dysmorphic disorders makes more sense in this post because it's related to body image, and men get it. I'm not saying to ignore "50%" of anything. I'm saying to prioritize the 95% that suffer from a disease, just as the top commenter says we should prioritize male suicides since they account for the majority. Your argument is akin to saying we should put more research into curing sickle cell anemia in white people. It happens, but it's so…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 04:24 PM
1

Then eating disorders, on the other hand, are occupied by something like 95% women (source is the DSM III-R, which I'm aware is out of date, but there can't have been that much of a shift). Body dysmorphic disorders make more sense for guys, in this scenario. While yes, they can theoretically have an eating disorder, it's so uncommon that it's almost detrimental to put funds into there unless they will also help women, since even the current treatments don't help all that much (too lazy to pull …
/r/MensRights08/01/13 05:33 AM
1

1) And as I said, I don't have access to that information. If you're going to completely ignore any attempt to actually make things fair, then you're wasting my time. 2) No, I stand by women are more depressed. Men are likely more depressed than stats say, but not more than women. There's just too big a gap for it to be as simple as them just not reporting it. It's fine if you don't believe me, though. I don't really care.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 10:16 PM
0

I have no idea. Hopefully new research in that area can help figure it out.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:52 PM
2

1) In legal terms, he wouldn't say that he was raped. He would say that he was sexually assaulted. Just as a women would. The laws are structured more on how violent the crime is. If there were no injuries, it would be level 1 sexual assault (any form of sexual contact in which at least one member did not provide consent). There won't be "rape by envelopment" because neither words are used in Canada. It essentially comes down to two questions: "Was there ANY sexual activity?" and "Was it consens…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:48 PM
0

I'm not saying that there aren't more guys that are depressed than the stats show, but the discrepancy is too huge to attribute solely to men not reporting.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:01 PM
1

If they aren't asking for help, all the other problems are moot. Coming up with good treatment options does nothing if they don't look for treatment. So yes, it is the "big" problem.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:57 PM
1

1) Canada. We have sexual assault laws (rape is not used in a legal sense) and they are covered in gender-neutral terms that focus on consent, regardless of who penetrated whom, or not. Get your act together, America. 2) You have the logic totally wrong. It's not the belief that men are inherently violent. It's that the women actually going there aren't comfortable being around men when they're feeling so vulnerable. If they didn't enforce those kinds of rules at those shelters, many women would…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:43 PM
0

The main reason is that alcohol can be used to self-medicate. It gradually turns into "feeling depressed, take a drink". A lot of the diagnoses for depression in men is found because they're in the hospital due to alcohol poisoning, or just to deal with their alcoholism in general.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 05:49 PM
0

Not really. Most people think that just taking a bunch of pills is enough. They figure that the people that didn't OD either weren't trying, or just didn't take enough. Most people don't exactly do thorough research, it's a spur-of-the-moment decision.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 05:46 PM
2

1) Maybe by American law. Here the laws would actually be in his favour. 2) I actually would not be against separating them from black people if a black person did it and they weren't comfortable around black people. My dad became extremely racist following an incident where he was attacked by like 10 black guys. It took him a while to get over it, and avoiding black people definitely helped him get over the initial shock. So of all those follow up points, I wouldn't have a problem with those re…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 05:44 PM
3

I don't actually have a problem with that. The reason is that many of their clients don't feel safe there if men can also stay there. Their whole reason for going is that they feel there's no way a guy can do that stuff to them while they're there. Learning to trust guys should be a goal to work on, but in the mean time they need somewhere they can feel safe, and they can't feel safe around men. I'd advocate more for a men's shelter that would provide similar support, rather than force woman's s…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 05:00 PM
-1

I don't think it has anything to do with guts, and to put it into terms like that shows you have a pretty warped view of how a depressed person thinks.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:25 PM
2

You have to wonder how many of those women make these choices due to guilt or shame associated with a society which expects them to stay at home and be a mom who isn't affected by their job requirements in a negative way How is that different? It's pure hypocrisy to claim that the wage-gap is due to women's choices (and therefore, not an issue), but that not going to therapy is "societal pressure" and needs to be dealt with. Either they're both issues, or people need to take responsibility for t…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:05 PM
-2

Uh... actually a guy that doesn't jump off the bridge or doesn't pull the trigger is less of a suicide attempt. The thing is, they didn't attempt it. They thought about it. A guy that holds a gun and doesn't pull the trigger is equivalent to a girl that holds a bottle of pills and doesn't take any. Neither of those get reported.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:01 PM
0

Not sure about your campus mental health facility, but I know that most battered women's shelters don't really deal with men, and shoo them out the door without really even looking at their files. Not surprised at that reaction at all. Not that I agree with it, just not surprised. Since you didn't know, here's someone informing you: doctors can be seen for more than just physical illness. They are trained to deal with mental illness, or will at least know somewhere that's better trained to deal …
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:57 PM
0

I don't see the disparity. I agree that if men aren't making the choice to go to therapy, then there's nothing we can really do to help them, just like women that choose to work fewer hours should be payed less than a guy that chooses to work overtime. The stats in those reports try to extrapolate to include those that don't seek treatment (just like any other disease). The discrepancy between men and women is too huge to accept that non-reports from men account for the gap. There are also clear…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:51 PM
1

I'm replying to make it known I'm not ignoring this post, but otherwise I feel it's a waste of time. If you truly believe that a self-report measure on something like depression would be of any use to research, you're mind-numbingly naive. The only way to gauge true depression is by using numbers of people diagnosed by a professional. If you took just self-reports, you'd wind up with people that had a bad week listing themselves as "Depressed". Most regular people don't understand the difference…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:42 PM
-2

Who is "anyone"? Did you see a doctor before attempting suicide? Did you see a therapist that was educated on mental illness? Expecting that stuff from people who aren't trained is unrealistic. Where would they learn to deal with that? Where can men be informed of these services? Any doctor's office or therapist that I've ever been to has scores of resources for both men and women suffering from depression. Health centres, too. The problem is that, statistically, men don't go to any of these pla…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:26 PM
2

You both keep using the word "crazy", but have yet to define it. At what point do you, personally, consider someone to be crazy? Would that person agree that they are crazy? As for denying it was an illness, according to lordgodzan: I'm not sick The literal definition of sick is: afflicted by a physical or mental illness So yes, lordgodzan DID indirectly deny that depression was an illness by stating that he suffers from depression, but is not sick. I also never claimed that depression was synon…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:17 PM
1

I've never actually experienced someone ignoring depression in men, or saying that it just doesn't happen. Whenever I'm around someone that seems to be developing some form of depression, girls and guys will tell them that they should see someone about it. Girls will often agree and go see someone. Guys will brush it off and say that they'll deal with it. They actively refuse to acknowledge that they're not the same person anymore. They'll show all the signs (hypo/hypersomnia, loss of appetite, …
/r/MensRights10/12/12 03:04 PM
5

Well if guys choose not to go to therapy and would rather drink, what alternatives are there? Unless you're advocating forced treatment, there's nothing the mental health field can do until they themselves make the choice to show up for therapy. If you're just going to use "victim-blaming" to ignore something like that, then you're no different than the radfems you complain about.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:59 PM
3

Then what is a sick person if not "a person with a sickness"? You can choose to not live by that label, but to say that the label does not apply to you is just false. Does it suck? Yeah. But that's like a guy without an arm saying "I'm not an amputee, I can open doors". Well, sure you can still function with one arm, but that doesn't mean you're NOT an amputee. Would anyone you consider "crazy" accept that they are crazy?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:55 PM
2

There IS something wrong with them, otherwise they wouldn't need treatment. If you suffer from true depression, it is a sickness. To claim it is NOT a sickness is absurd. Is there "treatment" for depression? Yeah. Well why are you treating someone that isn't sick? Define "crazy". Do hallucinations make you crazy? Did you know that in some severe cases, depression can cause hallucinations? Depression also causes reduced cognitive function and memory recall issues. At what point does it turn from …
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:33 PM
-2

Do you find depressed women attractive? I certainly don't. I wouldn't date a girl with that kind of baggage hanging around them, and most guys I talk to wouldn't, either. So again, not really different for either gender.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:28 PM
1

They're not made up based on reports of depression, they're taken from statistics of people actually in treatment for depression. The numbers are from my abnormal and neuropsych textbooks, which are in turn from meta-analyses of various studies. What do dead bodies have to do with it? If you're talking about deaths specifically due to depression, that's just because guys don't care about leaving a mess and so use more guaranteed methods. Many women won't use a gun because it would get blood all …
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:26 PM
1

My numbers were for Major Depressive Disorder specifically, which is different than postpartum depression (mostly due to the time scale). While some postpartum may develop into MDD, not all postpartum would be included automatically, and certainly wouldn't account for double the incidence.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:14 PM
13

Actually, the bigger issue is that men don't stick to therapy the way women do. They usually turn to self-medication (mostly alcohol), and either don't go to therapy, or go once or twice and then drop out. Them not getting help for it is totally due to their own choices, just as the wage-gap is largely due to choices women make. You can't force guys to make these choices. If it's a problem of not being able to afford it, that's an American healthcare problem, and both genders have that issue. As…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:07 PM
3

Wait, how does it "especially" effect men? 12-15% of men get depression in their lifetime, but 20-25% of women are afflicted. Even when you include bipolar, women tend to experience the depression longer, while men experience more of the mania. If you're talking about actually getting treatment, that's largely because guys choose not to get help about it. They're in no way screened differently for depression (and there are more complaints that tests are biased towards men than anything). I'm all…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 02:02 PM
2

The title questions whether it is sexual assault, so it doesn't "all but" call it sexual assault, the entire article is outright calling it sexual assault in a backhanded way.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 12:39 AM
2

It's not called statutory rape here, but the age of consent at the time was 14, meaning he was just under that line, and while not out of puberty, he was far enough in for it to be less pedophilia and more ephebophilia. Some people do genuinely lose their virginity that young with peers, and our laws actually understand that and have special circumstances for those under the age of consent (which is now 16). Do you always ask "would you like to have sex?" before you have sex? A lot of people don…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:42 PM
1

Obviously there is a difference in theory, but how well could you prove that there was coercion in court? One person says there was not, the other says there was. Statutory would get the guy in both cases, though.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:47 PM
29

Not necessarily. I went to a seminar on men who were molested as children. One of the guys mentioned that when he got the nerve to tell his mom's boyfriend to stop, the guy stopped. It actually caused him a ton of guilt after, because he couldn't get over that all he had to do was tell him to stop. That also means that the molester didn't "force" himself on the guy (I think he was ~12-14 at the time). Would you say that it was voluntary? Not really, but the other guy could easily argue that it W…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:58 AM
2

You seem to have missed my point. All I was saying was that, as of now, we don't have concrete evidence for either side. Both sides have some degree of merit. I personally think that there's a diathesis for gender dysphoria and very early childhood experiences can activate it. So, while most transpeople would have an abnormal biological makeup, not everyone with that makeup would be trans.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:48 PM
12

There is one flaw in the case, and it's a pretty big deal. Gender identity seems to possibly be set by as early as 6 months, but they didn't actually start treating David Reimer like a girl until he was almost 2 years old. It's still possible that gender is a social construct and that Reimer's case study got started too late. EDIT: That's not to say gender is definitely a social construct, just that there's evidence for both nature and nurture still.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 11:21 PM
6

He looked pretty manly before the surgery if you look at the "before" picture. If you had just cropped the face and took out the hair, I would have thought it was a guy already.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 08:46 PM
0

I guess the government would need to step in and pay disability, but then it's everyone else paying for it. Your wording makes it sound like they purposely got hit by the truck to become disabled. They should be able to leave you, yes, but they are also responsible for your well being, since it happened while you were married. Just as you share your partner's debt when you are married, you are on the hook just as much as they are if a horrendous accident such as this were to happen.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 03:59 AM
2

Both Caucasian_Knight and I are not talking about your case, we're talking about permanent alimony for disability as a concept. I can see how you could misinterpret it though. The second paragraph in my other post was more attributed directly to you. Judges should be able to realize when people, like your ex-wife, are trying to game the system. I believe that permanent alimony for people that become disabled should exist. I don't believe your ex-wife is disabled, and therefore should not be cove…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 03:14 AM
1

Well, he does have a valid point. The spirit of the law is that if I'm married and get hit by a truck and become too disabled to work (whatever you deem "too disabled" to mean), does that mean my SO should be able to just leave me with no way to support myself? They agreed to "in sickness and in health". It may get abused, but judges should (not that they can, but they SHOULD) be able to figure out people that are lying to cheat the system, and they should be punished for it.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 02:50 AM
1

Or, you know... apologize and say it was a knee-jerk reaction and you thought they were someone else. Maybe buy them a drink (maybe their entire group). Could even make a new friend. Which is the thing I think should happen if the genders switched, too. Worst that happened is probably a bloody nose. There's really no reason to get the law involved. As for the groping, it was a misunderstanding. Definitely not in the spirit of the law to prosecute on. You're not keeping a menace off the streets, …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:04 AM
0

Well... I think it's all in how you think of it. In my head, I'm picturing a pretty small girl punching a bouncer-type person and running away. The reverse would be a nerdy guy punching a big body-builder girl and running away, which in my head is actually even funnier. It's not really funny if the one that punches is significantly bigger than the one being punched, because then the person might actually have been hurt, rather than it be a silly misunderstanding. That's why most people say you c…
/r/MensRights30/07/12 11:26 AM
37

I'm on board with this. I didn't read it as "A GIRL grabbed a GUY and then punched HIM. Hahaha", I read it as "a person grabbed another person thinking they were someone else, freaked out, and hit said person". I think it's funny. I'd think it was funny if the sexes switched places, too. I'm sure she's sorry she did it, just as a guy would be, but it's one of those "act without thinking" things that you can sort of see how they got there, but it is so dumb it's funny. Try not to turn everything …
/r/MensRights29/07/12 07:59 PM
5

That's the article's take on a statement that seems to be originally just conjecture. The study itself doesn't make a conclusion of why the correlation exists, just things that might be possible. Normally I agree with you guys on things, but this time you seem to be looking for a reason to hate something that's not even really offensive.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 09:30 PM
2

Seems the point WAS correlation. It's not saying that all muscular guys are sexist, but the odds of a guy being sexist are higher among those who spend time working out. Basically, if you took a mish-mash of guys, say 100, and you also took 100 "muscular" guys, the second group would likely have more guys that are sexist than the first group. It's not saying that one causes the other, just that there is some form of correlation.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 09:18 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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