TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ZeroError Archive

View 1 posts and 336 comments by ZeroError 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

You're trying so hard to insult someone on reddit and somehow prove them wrong. Paragraphs and paragraphs of irrelevant crap and insults way beyond the original point. I suppose I just don't see the point. Is it insecurity? There's nothing more to add.
/r/MensRights23/02/17 08:10 AM
1

Cool
/r/MensRights23/02/17 01:53 AM
1

Wasn't my downvote. Some of us lead lives outside of reddit. About chips on shoulders... I'm not really sure what to say. You've built up this strawman and thoroughly taken it down (or you certainly think you have), but none of it's really relevant to what I said, and half of it is just pointless vitriol directed at this fictional person you've decided I am. I just thought we could give a trans woman the courtesy of just referring to her as a woman. It takes no effort whatsoever, would be of ben…
/r/MensRights22/02/17 11:19 PM
1

You clearly feel very strongly about this. I'm sorry to have offended you. Free speech doesn't mean you can do whatever you like an be free of repercussions. People can still call you a twat for something you've said. Finally, the discussion was about men who have gender dysphoria and decide to live as women. Not about people who try and game the system for scholarships. Stop trying to make it something it's not to justify your prejudices.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 08:27 AM
1

I thought that the phrase was crap. I didn't say anything there about what doctors think. I don't think I'm backtracking at all: I think it's arrogant of the original commenter to declare that a transgender woman is "not a woman". I mean, first of all, nobody asked for his opinion. It's just transphobic circlejerking. Second of all, transgender people very much exist, even if they are a small minority. Thirdly, why not give somebody who lives as a woman the dignity of calling them a woman. It's …
/r/MensRights21/02/17 10:41 PM
0

No, the commenter before me said it. I've explained what I was complaining about.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 10:38 AM
1

Thank you. I feel the same. Some of them have been downright nonsensical, I swear.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 03:41 AM
1

What is "the science identification"? The choice of phrase is what I thought was crap - an attempt to lend credibility to prejudice by calling it "science".
/r/MensRights20/02/17 03:38 AM
1

I have no idea what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 06:43 PM
1

Except... I'm not. I'm just suggesting that maybe if somebody lives as a woman and wants to be referred to as a woman, it's not difficult to give them the basic respect of doing so?
/r/MensRights19/02/17 05:50 PM
1

The fact that there are elderly people who don't quite get it is not an excuse for anyone else to deliberately not get it.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 05:49 PM
1

I genuinely don't know what some of you people are talking about. Why are age and football relevant? If somebody is uncomfortable being a man and lives as a woman - even transitions to being a woman - it's not that hard to remember that they would prefer to be referred to as a woman. I don't know where any of you have got made-up pronouns from here, but that's a different kettle of fish.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 09:23 AM
-1

I just only think it's fair that if somebody feels so uncomfortable being a man and has chosen to live as a woman and even medically transition to being a woman, we call them a woman. It's basic human decency. What the fuck is everyone's problem?
/r/MensRights19/02/17 09:21 AM
1

Wow, there really is no arguing with stupid. What about the American Psychiatric Society? Or are you going to label them to avoid thinking, too?
/r/MensRights19/02/17 09:20 AM
0

I thought of clinical psychology and gender identity clinics as being part of "medicine". Clearly that was my mistake. Really not sure why you think any of this is relevant. I objected to the first commenter so arrogantly rejecting a woman's identity. It goes no further than that.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 01:40 AM
1

I didn't say that science was crap. I thought that taking his anti-trans view and calling it "the science identification" was pretty egotistical. I mean, the medical world seems to have largely agreed that transgender people exist. I just took exception to somebody denying a transgender woman her identity. It's just pure arrogance.
/r/MensRights19/02/17 01:27 AM
1

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dysphoria/Pages/Introduction.aspx Which views aren't supported by science?
/r/MensRights18/02/17 11:15 PM
1

Yeah, you're right. But it's irrelevant because this was never about medical treatment. It's about how we refer to them in the wider world.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 11:13 PM
1

People used to say that about gay people, in that they could marry heterosexually just like everybody else. Thankfully, that's changing. It seems really weird, to me, to desperately cling onto the pronouns you've decided they should have, instead of what they'd prefer. Wouldn't it weird to adamantly refer to your female friend as "he" even if she kept telling you not to?
/r/MensRights18/02/17 11:11 PM
1

Not sure what point you're getting at here. You mean those doctors that perform gender reassignment, which these commenters don't seem to accept?
/r/MensRights18/02/17 10:48 PM
1

How is that relevant? If you don't accept that transgender people (like the transgender woman who, according to you, some guy on the internet, isn't a woman) exist then you can't claim to support their rights.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 06:10 PM
-1

But it specified a transgender woman. How can you possibly say that you support LGBT rights if you don't acknowledge that they exist?
/r/MensRights18/02/17 05:50 PM
7

Transgender people have to live as the sex they believe themselves to be before undergoing treatment.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 05:49 PM
-12

The "science identification"? Sounds like crap to me.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 05:11 PM
4

Why do so many people in these subs have such an awful attitude towards trans people?
/r/MensRights18/02/17 04:15 PM
1

Did your mother never tell you not to feed trolls?
/r/PussyPassDenied17/02/17 07:05 PM
0

27 years is a long time. Yes, you could argue that you think it should be harsher, but I wouldn't call it light.
/r/PussyPass25/01/17 01:11 AM
13

Yeah, I love the idea of some rich dude deciding who deserves "justice" and sweeping it under the rug when it goes wrong.
/r/PussyPass09/01/17 04:09 PM
1

That's some serious gymnastics you're doing there.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:54 PM
5

I still think it's unfair, even if he was an idiot about it.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 08:40 AM
36

Alright, you're tall, but why does that give you the right to be unpleasant to people?
/r/PussyPassDenied23/08/16 12:39 PM
2

What, in the UK? No it isn't.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 02:17 PM
2

I hope you pointed out that the Equality Act doesn't take sides! Is there an agency that handles things like this, or would you have to take them to court yourself?
/r/PussyPassDenied07/06/16 04:26 PM
10

Isn't that just straight up illegal where you are?
/r/MensRights19/05/16 04:31 PM
6

How much has he stolen?
/r/PussyPassDenied18/05/16 05:27 PM
3

Are you talking about concentration camps for women?
/r/PussyPass01/05/16 08:31 AM
2

Size 10 is overweight now?
/r/MensRights04/03/16 10:47 AM
1

I mean, I understand what a slob is and I guessed that he was saying she was fat, but she isn't. And even if she was, so fucking what? It's completely irrelevant.
/r/MensRights03/03/16 11:23 PM
2

She's no size 4, but she's not big by any measure. And why do you have to derail the important conversation by mentioning the completely irrelevant matter of her weight, anyway?
/r/MensRights03/03/16 11:03 PM
0

Yeah, maybe if she was overweight.
/r/MensRights03/03/16 08:39 PM
-10

What. What makes her a slob?
/r/MensRights03/03/16 02:51 PM
2

He's not saying that at all. He's saying that the original commenter is feeding into the narrative that all MRAs are violent men who hate women, and that that's does the movement a disservice. I have to say, I agree.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 03:36 PM
6

I'm not really sure what point you're making. Should women not have those reproductive rights? Do you think control over their bodies is an inadequate argument for that control?
/r/MensRights07/02/16 11:06 PM
14

He has the right to have a kid. Just not necessarily with that woman, right then. Her right to control over her own body trumps his desire to have a child.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 10:14 PM
12

Are you against abortion, then? I don't see why you think that's a bad argument - women should have the right to control over their bodies in having an abortion, as far as I'm concerned. That's not to say that men shouldn't have more rights in that area. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 10:08 PM
2

With the exception of maybe North Korea, I'm not sure which of those you think are third world countries. Most of them are developed.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/02/16 12:39 PM
5

Such astute political commentary.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/02/16 10:39 AM
1

Have you actually looked into what's in these classes at Oxbridge? I'm not convinced. Like I say, I had my doubts (and still do), but they really are nothing like what you're saying they are. Plus, they're only half an hour long. Some sources: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/freshers-week-oxford-and-cambridge-university-running-compulsory-sexual-consent-classes-9746220.html http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29503973 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/stu…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 11:55 AM
-1

It's not. It's funny. But it seems like the courses have some useful information, and many people just hate having to do things they don't want to, but that's a separate problem.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 11:08 AM
-4

It would kind of defeat the point of having a students' union if it was controlled by central administration. Y'know, I had my doubts about the consent classes too, but having read up about them, they actually seem okay. Certainly not as bad as they could have been. We don't have the at my university, though, so I can't speak from personal experience.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 10:34 AM
-1

I'm in the UK. I've heard of Goldsmiths, but I don't think I heard about the issues at York. I stand by what I said. Two universities is hardly a majority, and besides, the problems were in the students' unions, not the central administration.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 09:39 AM
0

I'm not sure I'd call it luck. How many places would you say have a serious problem with this? Certainly at mine, the worst we get is the SU president and women's officer saying some stupid shit, but even then, most people knew it was stupid.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 08:44 AM
0

Are you saying that there's so much man-hating social justice going on at universities that it would make you borderline suicidal? For me and most of the people I know at universities around the country, that's pretty far from the truth. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 08:04 AM
1

Sorry for the misunderstanding :)
/r/MensRights11/12/15 09:24 AM
1

I totally see your point and I think I'm coming around to it. I take it you're just talking about moral responsibility?
/r/MensRights11/12/15 07:49 AM
1

Ah, whoops. For some reason I read it as them being responsible for subsequent rapes that they, themselves, suffer. I still can't say I agree, though.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 12:40 AM
-5

I have to disagree. I don't think a victim of rape is ever "responsible" for being raped. There are so many reasons that a victim might not report a rape and I think that's a really unhelpful and unpleasant position to take.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 12:40 PM
1

Except they're posting on Facebook. I get that it's not private but I think it's still "doxxing" if you deliberately break the rules to publish personal information and somebody uses that to harass the person in question.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 02:13 PM
2

It is if somebody goes after them, with information you've willingly handed over.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 01:30 PM
6

How do you know?
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:16 AM
7

Have you ever heard of the thought-terminating cliché?
/r/MensRights29/11/15 05:23 PM
3

Is that true? Seems backwards to me.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 05:29 PM
20

How about the considerable damages to property and wellbeing as a result of her deliberate lies?
/r/MensRights09/10/15 03:06 PM
7

How was he in the wrong?
/r/PussyPassDenied19/07/15 08:51 PM
2

Is she not a sabbatical officer employed by the Union?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/05/15 11:07 AM
1

See, I thought it stood for "black and minority ethnicity" which makes a little more sense.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/05/15 10:52 AM
1

Yes, you can argue that it is dangerous. This is just unnecessary pedantry.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 02:12 AM
76

Especially after the handcuffs made it pretty clear that she was.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/12/14 03:26 PM
13

They have a tendency to water down punishments in cases like these.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 10:44 PM
21

At my school, we had bins in the middle of the field. It doesn't look that unusual to me.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/11/14 10:27 AM
5

We have a similar thing going on at my university in England. There are a number of positions like the sabbatical Women's Officer, and council positions for women and BME students and (I think) disabled students. Essentially anybody who isn't a white man. And, of course, you're not entitled to vote unless you "self-identify" as part of that particular group. This is pretty common, I think. There was a motion last year to rename the Women's Officer to Equality Officer and remove the gender requir…
/r/MensRights25/11/14 01:51 AM
2

I haven't heard that before. Do you have a source?
/r/MensRights21/11/14 03:22 PM
12

I don't think it's quite that bad...
/r/MensRights12/10/14 03:16 PM
9

And yet, we all knew what he meant. Such is the wonder of language.
/r/MensRights11/10/14 05:17 PM
-2

I go to a college like this, but not in that state. They attempt to clarify a lot of this, and I feel it may very well be a money and a "covering our ass due to that damned scandal two years back" issue. that's how most laws that are outrageous to some come into frutation I'm glad you quoted his entire comment, or I wouldn't have known what you were replying to.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 11:38 AM
2

Oh yeah, very true.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 09:39 AM
3

Not to mention we don't have any real, legal concept of free speech in the UK... not in the way it exists in the US, anyway.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 09:22 AM
1

I'll say the same as I say every time: in the UK, rape is defined under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as being commited by a person with a penis. People who have penises are typically men, so this definition is fair in that regard.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 10:46 AM
11

Classic Woman.
/r/PussyPass28/08/14 11:54 PM
10

Almost: it's a man penetrating anyone with his penis.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 04:55 PM
1

What, pointing out that two totally different crimes are totally different is a Tumblr thing to do now, is it?
/r/MensRights08/07/14 04:34 PM
-10

Manslaughter. What if there had been people behind the wall when he'd hit it? I mean, obviously the sentence would have been higher, but it's not like he knew nothing would go wrong when he got behind the wheel.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:32 PM
-17

That's not the point. That's what she was sentenced for - I'm inclined to go with the judge who has intimate knowledge of the case over a few redditors...
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:31 PM
-12

No, one was manslaughter.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:25 PM
-8

The car crash was totally reckless behaviour and could still have resulted in people getting hurt. His intentions should still come into sentencing. He also has a history of being banned from driving and was twice the limit when he was arrested.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:25 PM
20

Why are you connecting those two crimes? They're totally different.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:02 PM
17

I'm pretty sure a suspended sentence means you don't go to prison - you just don't get a pass again if you commit a crime during your sentence. Looks like she is being treated at a psychiatric hospital, though, which is good. I'm not sure if "voluntary" means what it usually means.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:01 PM
10

consent Well...
/r/MensRights10/06/14 01:00 PM
0

What? What is "sexual value"?
/r/MensRights06/06/14 11:45 AM
2

I think talking about police states is a bit excessive when you're talking about how a company decides to run its website. Plus, you don't know that it's selective. If it's a case of "we'll remove what we see", then it's exactly the same as every other rule they have.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 11:26 PM
2

Not even three dimensions? Surely that counts as cruel and unusual.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 10:52 PM
7

It might've been better if you'd read my comment before replying to it.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 11:59 PM
22

That's not what this is at all. This is about the ridiculous double standard that say "men can't hit women at all, under any circumstances". Now most of us would probably prefer it if nobody hit anybody, but if we want true equality, then there are definitely situations in which a man hitting a woman might be appropriate. Of course, if you've already decided you're better than us based on misinterpreting one post, then by all means go ahead. I doubt any of us could change your mind.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 08:51 PM
13

It's a photo posted on Facebook of some police cars outside a house.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 08:48 PM
9

I don't see many men going on mass shootings, either. What's your point?
/r/MensRights25/05/14 10:41 AM
6

Oh wow. I've never been to /r/socialism before, but my first experience has not been good.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 09:37 AM
11

I was under the impression that saying that somebody was "up for it" was victim blaming, but I guess that only applies when the victim is a girl...
/r/MensRights18/05/14 09:48 PM
2

Thanks for that. I probably should have linked to the source in the first place, but hey, here you are.
/r/MensRights12/05/14 01:00 AM
1

And under UK law, you must have a penis to be convicted of rape. Owners of penises are typically men.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 02:17 AM
14

You cannot cannot be convicted of rape in the UK unless you have a penis.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 02:15 AM
7

If he's in his 40s, he was 17 for a whole year. Longer than you!
/r/MensRights01/05/14 08:38 PM
3

And when all of the gyms in his area engage in this illegal practice, what does he do then?
/r/MensRights06/04/14 01:26 PM
7

Nono, men can be raped but women can't rape. Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:57 PM
0

Just so you know, "trafficked" is a word.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 05:01 PM
3

I think your comparison was bad and barely relevant.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 06:07 PM
3

But there is a judicial force keeping men from winning custody as much as women, while this is a special interest board that, while it is nominally about men, does not exclude women at all.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:31 AM
-1

You can't just fire them straight off the bat. If you did, you'd end up firing a lot of officers after they've done nothing wrong. They have a right to due process too, y'know.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 10:49 AM
1

Yeah, that was another thing I was thinking. I wasn't necessarily calling the guy in the post unattractive, though; I just meant that it shouldn't matter if some people stereotype MRAs as "neckbeards", because it's irrelevant and they're going to do it regardless of whether or not it's actually true.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 06:34 PM
3

Not sure what his appearance has to do with anything. Being attractive isn't a requirement for "inclusion" in the MRM.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 03:43 PM
3

I thought this "real man" stuff was bullshit. I'm confused by your comment.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 02:43 PM
1

Forgive me, but doesn't the constitution only apply to the government?
/r/MensRights15/02/14 01:06 PM
19

But they didn't mind if the man's was ruined?
/r/MensRights01/02/14 03:57 PM
1

And if they changed the site after a complaint, that seems worrying. Should they not have changed it? At least it's a little bit better now.
/r/MensRights18/01/14 09:21 PM
1

I don't think that's a rule. But hey, check for yourself - I couldn't find anything: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing-guidelines.htm
/r/MensRights17/01/14 10:05 PM
1

Usually? At all of the universities I looked at, they had university-owned accommodation. Still isn't like that, though.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 06:50 PM
1

Regarding your last paragraph: no, it's none of those things.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 03:17 PM
4

I'm not going to shame men for feeling proud of their bodies, but I think we should shame men who want to mutilate their own children for the sake of tradition.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 11:07 PM
7

It's not about how it looks and it's nothing at all like your belly button, because both belly configurations are natural. About remembering the pain: if I rape somebody brutally but completely wipe their memory of the incident (as often happens with date rape drugs), does that make it okay? I mean, they don't remember the pain. Bullshit analogies aside, I fail to see how this isn't child abuse, and I'm at even more of a loss to see how people can side with male genital mutilation and against fe…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 11:06 PM
4

Can we not start coming up with new words for the same thing, please? All you're doing is distracting people. And I have never ever heard of femalism before.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 02:55 AM
1

There was a lot of debate on the ban in France because there were many women who chose to wear it. That's not to say that it's not used to oppress women, of course, just that it's not always used to oppress women.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:09 PM
0

But it's important to take things in context. As far as I'm aware, this was posted as a response to debates about banning the burqa (or the niqab) for being "oppressive".
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:08 PM
4

Probably because people like it and buy it...
/r/MensRights30/12/13 05:06 PM
38

I always thought this little comic was supposed to poke fun at the idea that the burqa is inherently oppressive. I think it came out as a response the burqa - it's not about men at all. Edit: or niqab. Makes no odds.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 01:42 AM
10

Regardless of whether or not you have a point, nobody finds the way you're presenting it funny.
/r/MensRights26/12/13 01:46 AM
1

I think I missed the /s thing the first time I read it... but I'm still not sure... is it a dig at "violent" police, or is it a dig at the popular hatred of the police? I feel like a right idiot right now.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 10:40 PM
0

cops are the people who are most likely to cause unprovoked harm How do you walk with that huge great chip on your shoulder?
/r/MensRights23/12/13 02:52 AM
10

The worst bit about it is it's usually a trilby wrongly identified as a fedora.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 12:34 AM
0

They certainly would if that aggressor presented no danger to your life. If they were trying to kill you, though, and you used reasonable force against them, you probably wouldn't face serious consequences. If they climbed in through an open window and you stabbed them to death as they tried to sneak out with your Xbox, you might face greater consequences, because that's a fucking ridiculous response.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 11:14 PM
3

He probably meant that from a gun-owners perspective. Some people seem to think it's impossible to defend yourself without a gun.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 09:07 PM
-1

It being a verified account still doesn't make it "representative of UK police".
/r/MensRights09/12/13 09:07 PM
3

That's exactly what I was thinking.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 12:57 PM
1

But the "he" is entirely irrelevant - most laws are phrased that way. I'm not arguing with the rest - it is entirely true that, they way the current law is worded (requiring penetration by a person's penis), a woman cannot rape a man. She can sexually assault him, though, and I think that carries the same maximum sentence.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 12:57 PM
1

I think it's perfectly clear. What elevul suggests would mean that if a father doesn't know about the pregnancy by the third month, he has no right to the child, even if he wants to. I don't think either an opt-out or an opt-in system is right because of the huge problems with both.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 12:55 PM
6

People have a tendency to talk shit about people they don't like or that they disagree with - it doesn't mean any of it's true.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 02:00 AM
8

Let's take away women's pills, too, then. I mean, if we have condoms, why do they need their pill?! The more options, the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. (Edited for clarity)
/r/MensRights09/12/13 01:56 AM
3

Maybe he didn't write it. I'm not familiar with the article, but if it's an opinion piece, it's entirely possible that somebody else wrote the headline.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 01:55 AM
2

But that opens up the opposite problem: women not mentioning the pregnancy until after the point by which a man must declare fatherhood. That's just as bad, if not worse.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 01:54 AM
1

That wasn't my point. I just meant that they highlighted the use of "he" as though that had anything to do with gender, which (as far as I understand it), it doesn't. Also, the plural of "penis" is "penises".
/r/MensRights09/12/13 01:01 AM
1

To be fair, I believe a lot of legislation uses "he" when it means "he or she", but it is true that you need a penis in order to commit rape.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 12:14 AM
13

I thought the title was referring to the fact that the article mentioned "doing right by women like Clare" (admittedly in a quotation) and "88 women are killed" without even making mention of the fact that men can use it or that men are victims of DV as well.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 01:54 PM
0

Same as the blacks brought lynchings on themselves in the 20th century?
/r/MensRights18/11/13 03:54 PM
5

I can't help but feel like you guys are part of the reason some people hate the MRM.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 04:01 PM
-1

What, just mentioning that he has a wife is bragging?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 01:41 PM
7

I'd definitely choose no discrimination over double the discrimination.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 01:37 PM
0

Did you make a complaint or even get legal advice? Nothing's going to happen if all you do is make snarky comments on reddit.
/r/MensRights12/11/13 12:23 AM
2

Pretty sure that's discrimination.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 05:03 PM
3

You typed "experience" but couldn't muster the energy to type "you"?
/r/MensRights11/11/13 05:02 PM
1

Well it's generally not considered normal to remove the tonsils/appendix/gall bladder at birth, so I can kind of understand that. I think that was the point he was trying to make.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 04:38 PM
1

It's not less precise. Mutilation could refer to any kind of bodily damage, but circumcision refers to this particular kind.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 12:51 PM
1

I never said it wasn't. I've explained why I used the word I used, so get over it.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 02:33 AM
5

But it is circumcision. The guy I was replying to didn't believe that it was mutilation, so there was no point in using that word straight off the bat.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:51 PM
11

I didn't want to ask a leading question. "Circumcised" is also a valid word for the practice and is much more precise.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 05:22 PM
12

Out of interest: why are you having your kids circumcised?
/r/MensRights01/11/13 04:47 PM
13

Assuming you're a man, then, would you say that raping women should be legal? I mean, you're not a woman. It's not harming you. The point here is that that's complete bullshit, of course. Female genital mutilation is regarded as exactly that: mutilation. I don't understand why a largely cosmetic (yes, cosmetic) and harmful procedure is so widely accepted when it's done to baby boys. To counter your HIV argument: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html Finally, the fact …
/r/MensRights01/11/13 04:45 PM
4

He's probably never heard of it, and if he has, he probably has more power to protest "barbarism" where he lives, not across an ocean on an entirely different continent amongst a small group of tribes.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 04:35 PM
3

I didn't even think to look. I guess I've just got that sixth sense, y'know? :P
/r/MensRights24/10/13 02:10 PM
2

I'm getting troll vibes off this guy.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 11:50 AM
13

Don't you think the proper response there is to try and fix the prison system, rather than just to kill more people?
/r/MensRights22/10/13 05:49 PM
2

Yeah, it's nothing to do with actual generosity! It must be to impress women!
/r/MensRights22/10/13 11:54 AM
2

There doesn't need to be a /s when it's blatantly obvious.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 08:08 PM
6

Yeah, that came across as a bit obnoxious, but he has a right not to consent based on whether or not he finds a girl attractive, doesn't he?
/r/MensRights10/10/13 08:06 PM
1

It doesn't, but you don't know anything about the rest of the textbook. We're celebrating that what we know about the textbook is good. Everything we don't know is irrelevant, because we don't know and therefore it's unnecessary.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 06:14 PM
6

Even if that's the case, what you said didn't add anything of value to the discussion. It was just needless conjecture.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 02:07 PM
10

But there's no point in making stuff up about what the textbook "probably says" because we can't see that.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 01:58 PM
2

Do you have a foreskin? Because I can attest to the fact that my foreskin is incredibly sensitive.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 10:02 PM
2

I am also seeing a frog. I think I remember this happening about 6 months ago - all of the images were getting confused.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:56 PM
2

Nah, that wouldn't work. Consent has to be sustained for the entirety of the act. She could change her mind at any point and it would become rape. Even afterwards, if she realises that she didn't actually want it in the first place. /s
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:53 PM
3

You're right, we should call them the "alleged victim".
/r/MensRights17/09/13 05:01 PM
1

For sure, if somebody goes to the police and says "This guy called David raped me" and David is found not guilty of rape, we should stop calling the accuser a victim, because the charges brought are dependent upon David having raped the accuser. But I would say (and I'm pulling this out of my ass, really) that most criminal charges brought aren't like that.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 04:47 PM
8

That's not what I'm saying: the accused can be found not guilty, but the 'alleged victim' can still be a victim - just not at the hands of the person originally suspected of the crime.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 03:52 PM
-1

I wasn't talking about what we call the accused... And is usually the state doing the 'accusing', isn't it?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 03:15 PM
4

This might be a good place to start: http://www.cultural-misandry.com/mens-rights/
/r/MensRights17/09/13 02:25 PM
-5

Maybe, but it doesn't imply anything about the accused themselves.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 02:22 PM
3

Can you give an example?
/r/MensRights17/09/13 01:44 PM
14

I just wonder: how many applications are made by men compared to those made by women? We often make the argument that there are fewer women in dangerous and technical lines of work because women are less interested in those lines, so I wonder how interested single men actually are in adopting kids.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 01:32 PM
-2

I agree with you on most points, but I'm not sure that calling the alleged victim a "victim" implies that the accused is guilty. It doesn't. It just implies that the victim was actually a victim of a crime.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 01:23 PM
1

Are you implying that stupid people shouldn't be allowed in the US? Will you be heading to your nearest airport, then?
/r/MensRights13/09/13 08:56 AM
1

I was going to offer a counter-argument, but I looked at the list of "web definitions" Google shows you when you click "More info", and none of those definitions specify gender... Maybe Google should just change it after all.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 09:21 AM
1

But you will, in a matter of time, get older. If you're black, you won't, in a matter of time, become white.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:31 PM
3

In the UK, this is true: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1. I imagine it's the same in many other places, too. Not to say I agree with that, but it's not something to get angry at Google or the dictionaries for.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 02:26 PM
2

For the curious: article 25 says that motherhood and childhood are entitled to "special care and assistance". I'm not sure what that special assistance is, though...
/r/MensRights05/09/13 09:18 AM
5

Comments like the one you made are completely unnecessary, detract from the discussion and give outsiders a terrible view of the movement.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 04:32 PM
5

Idiots like you are the reason that the MRM is often known as being violent and misogynistic.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 01:28 PM
16

That, is an awkward place, for a comma.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 01:57 PM
3

Touche.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 10:23 AM
16

I'm okay with that because it was really fucking obvious.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 10:53 PM
1

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex. From Wikipedia. I don't see how it's prejudice or discrimination if you do it to everybody.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 06:55 PM
1

Also, your comment doesn't contradict his at all. He did say that everybody has self esteem issues sometimes, but your original comment came across as insulting to women.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:58 AM
1

But you said that he was offensive about women, too. It's not sexism if he does it to everybody.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:55 AM
1

The fact that it's offensive and some of it pertains to gender doesn't make it sexist. That's ridiculous. Have you considered that he might be pretending to hold opinions that he actually doesn't? Comedians do that sometimes.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 10:25 PM
2

Except there is plenty of data to suggest that there are trends that can be split along gender lines.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 10:04 PM
1

If he's being offensive about both sexes, is that really sexist?
/r/MensRights12/08/13 09:50 PM
1

Sweetie Way to patronise him. That really helps.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 09:48 PM
2

In Britain, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 says that A must have a penis in order to have raped B, otherwise it's just sexual assault.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 09:42 PM
0

What's your comment supposed to add to the discussion?
/r/MensRights21/07/13 10:30 PM
1

I dunno why they capitalised "trampoline", but it's pretty common for the first one or two words of a news article to be capitalised, and it's not just in the tabloids, AFAIK.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 10:11 PM
1

There are probably millions of definitions indexed by Google. If one or two are unfavourable, that doesn't make Google sexist. Anyway, this particular definition is better than what it used to be - it used to say "particularly against women" or something like that.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 08:16 PM
3

Because your comment blamed the wrong people. Substituting "Princeton University" for "Google" would change the meaning of your comment. That's why you're being downvoted.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 03:03 PM
0

Of course. So I don't understand why you brought the first amendment up. It was irrelevant.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 07:15 AM
1

Doesn't that limit what the government can do, rather than private individuals?
/r/MensRights27/06/13 11:53 PM
0

Which amendment is that?
/r/MensRights27/06/13 11:41 PM
18

Regarding your first point, it may not legally be rape. I know that in the UK, rape can only be committed by somebody with a penis (regardless of how fair or unfair that may be). Regarding the second,you're damn right.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 10:26 PM
1

Would that have been the same if you were partnered with a smaller man, though?
/r/MensRights26/06/13 08:05 PM
6

I think it's the fact that they're all employed by the local authority, so they see that they are all "public service workers" and should be paid similarly. I think the interesting point is that the manual workers' contracts allow for bonuses and pay supplements, while the nursery workers' contracts don't. I found it frustrating, though, that the article and those quoted are referring to the whole situation in terms of "the men" and "the women", when the issue shouldn't have been one of gender a…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 08:04 PM
2

You could always wipe when you're done. Do people really not do this?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 02:25 PM
1

Not everybody does that. But it's just about convincing other people. You can't just say something over and over again and expect to convince somebody, regardless of whether or not you're in the right.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 09:35 PM
5

I think it's a common way of getting the points across. Like when people say "false rape claims don't just damage the accused, they damage future rape victims" - the immediate damage is to the accused, but there needs to be some consideration for "the other side" in order for some people to see your point.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 09:05 PM
2

This is Glen Poole: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glen-poole
/r/MensRights21/06/13 09:02 PM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ffdoc/i_live_in_switzerland_male_sexism_is_very_bad_here/ca9pwc4 This evidence. That's better than simple conjecture.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 04:21 PM
1

We weren't talking about children, so they're irrelevant. And I meant solely target the pimp rather than the buyer. Of course, much of the damage caused to prostitutes by this prostitution (although not all prostitutes work under the pimp/pimped system) could be solved by decriminalising and regulating it.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 04:20 PM
3

All good advice. But he doesn't need to talk to his school's mail admin - he can just do it in his own client, or in his school's webmail interface, if it has one. He can probably just unsubscribe from most of them, too.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 08:16 PM
12

I don't think it's that bit that's the problem. Yeah, it was an stupid question. It was the response that was the problem: that the questions were sexist (how?) and that "women and girls" should be protected (and if they are, men shouldn't? What?). I think this follows from a history of Gillard accusing everything under the sun of sexism and misogyny in order to get votes and try to dirty the other parties In an unrelated point: do people really have a right not to be stereotyped?
/r/MensRights15/06/13 01:41 PM
5

I didn't read it that way. I don't think the bit about circular reasoning is a lead-in for the next line.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 01:33 PM
4

Roddy0608 said nothing to suggest otherwise.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 01:27 PM
1

Is it always a poor one? Seems like a generalisation.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 11:59 AM
3

What do you base that on?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:47 PM
3

...like when? What makes you say he's in hiding?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:13 PM
4

Like when?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:23 PM
3

Does he? Where did you get that from?
/r/MensRights04/06/13 01:06 PM
1

Oh, yeah, absolutely.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 12:28 AM
1

Oops! Yeah, that meant to say "isn't". I blame my phone's keyboard.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 12:16 AM
1

But the customer isn't the one forcing the prostitute into service. Wouldn't it make MORE sense to target the pimp? Edit: made an oopsie.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 11:14 PM
0

I don't see how his atheism comes into it.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:21 PM
1

Grekhan is suggesting, I think, that increased incidences of male-on-female rape would finally make people listen to the problem of prison rape and do something about it (however tragic that may be - the fact that it would take this to fix the problem, not the problem being solved).
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:19 PM
1

So far, Demonspawn has provided evidence for his claims and you haven't. You don't just get to call his study "bullshit" and not provide anything to back that up.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:17 PM
2

I think you're oversimplifying it a bit. And when I say "a bit", I mean "a lot". Personally, I don't see a problem with people buying sex, so long as the person providing the service is not under duress. I'm curious as to why you think otherwise (if that is actually the case)?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:14 PM
2

But they are beneficial for men, are they not? This is /r/MensRights, not /r/SingleNonParentMensRights. And are you saying that we should be unconcerned with social attitudes towards things?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:12 PM
1

Oh, you're a great guy? It's okay, people, he's actually a great guy.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:46 PM
1

Oh, for sure. I don't think he was suggesting that, though.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 05:33 PM
1

I never said you needed evidence, just something to base those feelings on, because I see nothing.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 11:43 PM
1

Are you saying that the teacher is being spiteful? Based on what?
/r/MensRights01/06/13 11:37 PM
1

Why would he want to do that right off the bat? There's nothing yet that would even remotely suggest that they're doing this to spite anybody, or because of the father's gender. They may have noticed a change of attitude, perhaps some bruising (I mean, kids bruise all the time, but that coupled with a change in attitude might be suspicious), for example. Besides, the teacher probably never said that there WAS abuse; we know that teachers are mandatory reporters, so if there was evidence to sugge…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 11:09 PM
1

That's not what this is about. All we know is that social services was informed of something and that they've then informed the father of that. There's been no punishment or anything yet and it may yet all be resolved, or just go away. If a teacher suspects something, they have to report it (being mandatory reporters), so the problem for MRAs should come if negative consequences befall the father without conclusive proof and further investigation.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 11:06 PM
12

Isn't it more like cutting the head of the penis off?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 01:45 PM
1

Real women don't hit men!
/r/MensRights30/04/13 05:22 PM
3

You can find literally millions (billions, trillions, maybe!) of pictures of random women on the internet. Why would OP's ex-girlfriend be of any interest to you?
/r/MensRights30/04/13 05:20 PM
1

Oh, oops. Missed that somehow o.O Men can be raped anally.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 11:44 PM
1

What are you trying to say? I was talking specifically about the picture posted. Nothing else.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 11:25 PM
1

Well it's wrong if it's going by the quotation it provides at the bottom. That quotation does not specify a female victim. Nor does it even refer to oral penetration.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 11:22 PM
1

The picture you posted seemed to imply that men couldn't be raped, but the quotation at the bottom said the opposite.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 05:28 PM
1

Do men not have anuses?
/r/MensRights28/04/13 10:21 AM
1

I'd like to hope that it's a freshman who doesn't actually know anything.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 05:17 PM
10

So they could just give him back the money he sends them? It seems really strange that they can't just decline the payments.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 09:34 PM
20

It's actually institutionalised misogyny. Women are the ones hurting when their husbands and sons are killed in war.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 09:31 PM
0

That's okay. I just don't think it's worth forming an opinion on the entire legal system based on an urban legend.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 05:25 PM
1

Must be true, then!
/r/MensRights18/04/13 05:11 PM
1

Because the many people officers interact with every day wouldn't want those interactions being broadcast. And remember that not all of those interactions will be out in public, where there's no expectation of privacy anyway.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 04:50 PM
1

like 20,000$ Must have made the news. Got anything to back that up?
/r/MensRights18/04/13 04:49 PM
2

Yeah, that actually sounds like a really good system.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 04:48 PM
5

I must have missed the part where they said they are going to have roommates. In fact, all the picture said was that he was going to be a tenant.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 09:41 PM
1

But whether or not they 'circumvent morality' occasionally in their work is irrelevant, isn't, it? They are paid to represent clients. It's the clients who should bear the moral responsibility, if anyone.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 09:01 PM
6

Yeah, when they're doing their jobs. That says nothing about them outside of work. And it's not like all lawyers do morally reprehensible work, anyway.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 08:51 PM
4

Good choice! Most people would go straight for cannabis.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 08:26 PM
1

True, but what do you suggest? If the complainant genuinely feels that they have a case, should they not make it because his guy on reddit doesn't think it's important?
/r/MensRights17/04/13 08:25 PM
3

Out of interest, where would you start?
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:54 PM
1

That sounds like a terrible idea.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:52 PM
6

Why are lawyers' morals any more suspect than engineers'?
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:46 PM
-1

You can sue them, but that doesn't mean you'll win.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 07:44 PM
1

I think the final sentence negated the need for /s.
/r/TheRedPill07/04/13 06:27 PM
7

True, but that's not relevant to this discussion.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:17 PM
3

I really like that. It's a great description.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:38 PM
7

They had been joking about how forking a repo is the highest form of flattery. It's even less sexual in that context, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:15 PM
4

I never said anybody cared about it. It's an indication of how well received you were amongst the people who read your comment. You were poorly received, and this is why.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 01:36 PM
3

Sure you are. And we're allowed to call you out and ask for proof. You've been downvoted for a reason.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 01:28 PM
2

Nobody asked for a long and drawn-out debate. We just wanted you to back up that point. You're right, this shouldn't be too hard to understand.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 12:10 PM
3

If you don't care enough to convince us, why did you come here in the first place?
/r/MensRights21/03/13 11:49 AM
4

I just want to see what it is you've been looking it to make you think like you do. Have you realised that while you're berating me for being stupid and unable to google something, you've been refusing to google it too? What am I supposed to think of your intelligence?
/r/MensRights21/03/13 10:31 AM
10

If it's so easy to find, why not humour us? Find one. Hell, if they're really that easy to find, find three.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 11:43 PM
15

I'm sure you can provide one example to back up what you're saying. One. C'mon.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 11:24 PM
5

You may have noticed that this isn't a courtroom.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 01:36 AM
8

Don't worry, I got it. You don't need a /s for it to qualify as sarcasm.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 01:31 AM
5

By similar logic, then, we should release the names of alleged victims. Y'know, to avoid victims accusing others of crimes falsely and getting away with it. Either way, I think releasing the name of a minor is ridiculous. If they're an adult, fine, do it. But not a minor. Also, when did anybody say anything about making police reports private?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:29 PM
11

I don't disagree with anything else you've said, but something being "perfectly legal" does not necessarily mean that it's right. You may be missing the point of this subreddin.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 08:19 PM
1

Oooohh, I get it now. I must've read it wrong.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:37 PM
1

Are you answering my question?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:48 PM
2

Citations? It goes both ways, dude.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:16 PM
15

You said what I was thinking. It mentioned avoiding over-cautiousness, which is fair, but it never said anything to suggest that anybody would not be afforded due process.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:06 PM
1

I'm not sure you mean statistics.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:29 AM
2

What? Where did any of that come from?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:03 PM
1

I think maybe "let you go" is being used in the sense of an employer letting an employee go. Maybe it's not used in the same way in the US, but it's another way of referring to somebody being fired or made redundant.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:52 PM
2

Schroedinger's Rapist I like that one.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:50 PM
3

Your example sounds far-fetched, but even if it were to happen, I don't see why the court should continue to force him to pay the same amount. If he starts earning a much lower wage (regardless of why, and assuming he's not getting more on the side), he should pay less!
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:45 PM
1

You told me all these technologies things that their police will do just because they can and went on to assume that it would be true for my local police force in a totally different country, then belittled me for questioning your vastly greater wisdom.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 06:43 PM
1

You can tell me how evil my local police are, if you like. You've never dealt with them and so, ultimately, have no authority in what you're saying.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:26 AM
1

You and your lawyer read the statement. If it has been written in an incriminating fashion, you don't have to sign it.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:24 AM
0

I've seen the video. I didn't say that OP should go to the police. Perhaps you should re-read my first comment: it was about how I found it sad that he couldn't go to the police because of how they would be expected to make him the bad guy. You then told me how I shouldn't go to the police in my local area because of how you thought they'd behave. Come on, now.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:37 AM
-3

And I consider you to be wrong. In the case of the UK, that is. But let's go ahead and assume that a foreigner understands my local police force better than me.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:28 AM
0

Things are different in the UK, in my experience. I have already said that this is the case where I'm from.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:23 AM
1

No, I'd tell them the truth. I'd make a statement and make sure that everything that happened was down on paper. It would hurt my case more than help it if I left it until the police came to round me up. Edit: I'd make sure that my lawyer was there, though, of course, and that I'd talked to them before making the statement to make sure that what I was saying wasn't going to land me in an unfair heap of trouble. Where I'm from, the police aren't scumbags.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:15 AM
-1

This is really sad. I'm sure it's true, but where I'm from I'd be perfectly comfortable in going to the police first. Sure, I'd contact a lawyer, too, but if somebody's blackmailing me and people are trying to beat me up, I'm damn well gonna call the police.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 11:38 PM
2

Yeah, strict liability means there's no excuse. It's unfair in other cases, like serving alcohol to a person under 18, but that's a bit off-topic here.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:12 PM
1

Yeah, I feel like it's an appropriate one, too. I mean, "strict liability" is usually synonymous with "unfair" but how the hell can you not notice that you're fucking a 12-year-old?
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:45 PM
2

I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK there's no legal definition of a "paedophile". The real distinction, besides sentencing, between sexual activity with somebody under 13 and sexual activity with somebody who's 13-15 is that the former is strict liability.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 07:45 PM
5

Also from the UK. If the father is under 16 and the mother over, then the father was raped, under the law, and should therefore not be paying any child support. I'd feel sympathy for the mother if the kid was fully aware of that from the start and felt no remorse, though.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 07:38 PM
4

That's not what CubeCake said at all.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 04:04 PM
2

I agree with you. There really isn't enough in this letter to call it either way. You'd never prove rape based on that information, but this isn't a courtroom and Amy Dickinson isn't a judge.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:11 PM
2

Not quite. Language is a lot more flexible that maths. The subtext of "no means no" is that consent is implied unless stated otherwise, whereas "only yes means yes" means that consent must be explicit.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:52 PM
2

My local police force releases names after they charge people, but only if the charged is 18+. I can't remember seeing names released before they've been charged.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 03:15 PM
0

Maybe, but he may also have been making the point that it's a view that many feminists hold. "Feminism" is a term that refers to a very broad spectrum of political ideals.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 09:31 PM
1

Some misandrists are feminists; not all feminists are misandrists. I do believe that's what themountaingoat said. He said "the main people insisting that men are all rapists are feminists", not "feminists are the people insisting that men are all rapists".
/r/MensRights12/02/13 06:53 PM
5

How about you give him some constructive criticism and explain it to him instead of just posturing?
/r/MensRights29/01/13 11:31 PM
3

Ah. Maybe the solution for those in a similar situation would be to have a serious think about their girlfriend's attitudes towards their body, rather than chopping off a bit because she doesn't like it. Edit: I'm not suggesting that's why you did it. I hope it isn't!
/r/MensRights27/01/13 09:25 PM
3

because I like getting head Does being circumcised get you more head than you otherwise might've?
/r/MensRights27/01/13 08:40 PM
2

Doesn't mean they're not breaking the law!
/r/MensRights19/01/13 11:31 PM
2

If you have proof, you could probably report them.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 07:23 PM
3

Lawyers are inferior creatures? What?
/r/MensRights23/12/12 01:14 PM
0

Which is done, according to the NHS, only if a person gets tonsilitis about five or more times in a year - purely reactionary medical reasons.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 10:12 PM
10

The thing I don't get here is your use of "harmless". It's the removal of part of the body that doesn't grow back. How is that harmless?
/r/MensRights22/12/12 07:57 PM
1

It's incredible that people actually think like that...
/r/MensRights15/12/12 12:26 PM
0

Who's trolling? I disagree with you - that doesn't mean I'm trolling. Anyway, my point was that your edit is obsolete. Sure, somebody could exercise dominance through non-sexual violence. But they could also exercise it through sexual violence. It seems like you're trying to say that if the option for non-sexual violence is there, a person wouldn't resort to rape, which is plainly ridiculous.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:52 PM
0

That's so unfair it's ridiculous. Edit: I should probably mention that in this case, I agree that she should be severely punished.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:38 PM
3

I don't know where you're going with your edit. Is that supposed to prove some kind of point?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:30 PM
1

I'm not sure I agree. I know plenty of young people who are courteous and who know how to comport themselves public-wise. Sure, there are plenty who don't. But isn't that the case amongst adults, too? And who decides what's "right" and "wrong" here?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:32 PM
3

But practicing wine tasting with fruit juice? Really?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:24 PM
-1

Your use of parenthesis makes no sense there at all.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 11:40 PM
2

Before you edited your comment, it read that it wasn't rape in your own opinion. Of course it's not rape in the eyes of the law - this is what the post is all about.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 10:08 PM
1

Don't get me wrong, ass-grabbing is wrong if you're not on the right terms with the person whose ass you're grabbing. But I don't see how you can justify punishing male-on-female rape to a high degree and then punishing ass-grabbing and female-on-male rape to the same, lower degree.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 09:01 PM
1

I think it's pretty easy to see a line between grabbing somebody's ass and climbing aboard and forcing them to penetrate without their consent.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:45 PM
3

Not rape? Care to justify that?
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:44 PM
3

Seriously? That's beyond belief. It goes hand-in-hand with that girl who thought the month should be hijacked to highlight "a woman's right not to shave".
/r/MensRights30/11/12 11:41 PM
1

What's that even supposed to mean?
/r/MensRights30/11/12 09:04 PM
1

Life insurance is paid out on death and women, statistically, live longer. Perhaps you're thinking of health insurance, which could potentially benefit the longer-living sex more.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:37 PM
-7

But the US, Canada and the UK aren't the only countries in "the West". And I'm sure we don't hear of many false accusations that don't result in any charges being brought.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 07:03 PM
1

I don't think you realise quite how much you encompass when you say "Western court system". "Western" doesn't just mean "American".
/r/MensRights20/11/12 05:24 PM
9

It's funny that you're expecting everybody else to give you loads of sources, but you didn't give any when you made your original claim. Wanna give a source for that so you don't come across as such a hypocrite?
/r/MensRights17/11/12 07:38 PM
3

Sounds like the Baader-Meinhof effect.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:22 AM
0

But they're talking about the US here.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 03:11 PM
9

The sarcasm in WULYF's comment was far too thick to require a /s at the end.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 07:04 PM
2

If you're trying to hint that the first amendment protects you here: it doesn't. Reddit is a private entity and not a public one, and therefore does not have to honour your "right to free speech".
/r/MensRights10/10/12 09:12 PM
6

I hope you're joking. The health benefits do not - to me and many others - outweigh the infringement upon a child's right not to have his body unduly mutilated. If a penis needs to be circumcised because of an immediate medical problem, then fine, that's reasonable. But it should be done so only out of necessity or with the child's consent once he's at the right age, not right after birth for religious reasons, or to prevent health problems in the future. My uncircumcised penis is perfectly heal…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 08:18 PM
3

"OK" is acceptable, too, is it not?
/r/MensRights23/09/12 01:43 PM
4

That's a really interesting statistic, but do you have a source to back it up?
/r/MensRights21/09/12 07:12 PM
7

Quick, delete this repeat comment before all the negative karma outweighs the positive!
/r/MensRights08/09/12 12:13 PM
3

What does the "who lies more" line even mean?
/r/seduction16/10/11 08:07 PM
1

Their argument has nothing to do with an actual fucking candy bar. They're just comparing the weight carried by a decision to have sex to the weight carried by the decision to buy a candy bar. You can stop trying to make your point now.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 10:42 PM
1

He wasn't arguing with you - just contributing to the discussion.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 10:41 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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