TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ZorbaTHut Archive

View 3 posts and 870 comments by ZorbaTHut 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)
11

My takeaway is that men should wear a bra to work.
/r/EverydayMisandry05/07/26 05:13 AM
37

If you're limited to two groups, and neither of them actually want to help you, but one of them pretends to want to help you while the other blatantly tries to harm you, it's pretty clear which one people are going to head for.
/r/MensRights12/06/26 11:07 AM
1

We demonising driving in cars now? I mean, now that you you mention it: yes.
/r/MensRights04/05/26 12:45 AM
18

I get that 200 people died in the 2011 Thailand floods, but I had to pay like fifty bucks more for a hard drive. I'm the real victim here.
/r/MensRights09/04/26 06:30 PM
20

What does Trump have to do with anything? You're trying to divide all possible political positions into two groups. If it's a position you agree with then your group is in favor of it, otherwise the other group is in favor of it. This includes a lot of really conceptual stuff like "a good welfare state" but without a solid grasp of what that means. Yes, Trump is not helping vulnerable men. Feminists aren't either. The DNC isn't either. Culturally, vulnerable men are not cared about by anyone wit…
/r/MensRights07/04/26 09:02 PM
14

I have to be fair this sup is extremely sex negative they also hate on women who watch p*rn I mean, credit for consistency, at least. I'm happier with an opinion that I think is wrong but is applied consistently than with an opinion that I think is right but which is applied inconsistently.
/r/EverydayMisandry18/02/26 04:21 AM
2

So why is "women killed a lot of infants" a valid reason to let women give up responsibility, but "hypothetically, men kill a lot of infants" not a valid reason to let men give up responsibility? You're giving an explanation for your decision that you're then refusing to follow, and this makes me think it isn't the real reason.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/26 12:26 AM
4

Who do you think is using safe haven laws? It’s people in crisis. Drug addicts, dv victims, college students, impoverished people. These laws exsist to stop them from murdering the infant. So if more men in crisis murdered infants, then it would be right to let men in general give up responsibility for infants. Yes or no? Do you think only 426 babies in 25 years would be abandoned by men if they could abolish all their rights? Are you now saying that safe-haven laws are good because they aren't …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/26 12:21 AM
0

so yes there are laws to prevent men from murdering their children Right, but in these cases, we put the men in jail, we don't let them give their children up. I'm saying that by your logic, if men murdered children more often, it would be reasonable to respond by letting men drop responsibility for children, just like we did with women.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/26 12:15 AM
2

No way would I oppose it the law exists to prevent infant murder. So . . . just to make sure I have this right . . . you're in favor of safe haven laws for women because otherwise women would kill babies? And if men started killing babies in much higher volume, you'd be in favor of safe-haven-law equivalents for men as well?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/26 12:05 AM
4

Not "follow", they actually can't detect that, but "post/comment in".
/r/MensRights05/01/26 01:11 AM
8

Keep in mind that athletes aren't paid based on how good they are at sports, they're paid based on how much they can demand from their team/brand/venture capitalist/ad agency/whatever. And pretty much all of that is a function of how many fans the person can show ads to. Number 1 Ranked Woman In The World is going to command a shitload more fans than some random semipro.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/25 07:40 PM
9

They're not different, though? It's the same sport. Men and women can play tennis against each other without a problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/25 07:38 PM
14

I think they mean "let's not make this about positivity towards men".
/r/EverydayMisandry27/12/25 09:42 PM
36

In the comic's mild defense, they're not technically discussing whether it's more common, they're just talking about how they feel about it. The woman is insanely paranoid and fearful and this is impacting her life negatively. In conclusion, she should learn to be less terrified about life and possibly take anxiety counseling. . . . That might not actually be the lesson the comic is trying to teach.
/r/EverydayMisandry27/12/25 05:34 PM
5

I've got a friend in a similar situation. It was made very clear that if he put up any fight, he would end up blacklisted from the industry.
/r/MensRights22/12/25 02:53 AM
2

Yeah, I'm putting that in the "circumstantial evidence, but, like, a lot of circumstantial evidence" category.
/r/EverydayMisandry15/12/25 06:02 PM
10

As for books... literally no one cares who it's written by, it's all about genre. Almost nobody picks up a book that's completely oriented to their interests, sees it's written by a certain gender of author, then puts it down. Yeah, a large part of this is just that I don't index my brain based on gender. I had trouble coming up with the name of a specific woman until I read "books by women" and then it's like, oh, duh, Bujold, Pirateaba, and "I Forget Who It Is That Writes That Ultra-Slow Super…
/r/EverydayMisandry15/12/25 03:46 PM
-7

It's ultimately irrelevant to my point Well, I disagree. You're talking about "the basic necessities required to live" but you're unwilling to say what those necessities are, and the price tag for those can span multiple orders of magnitude depending on what you're talking about. It's nice to say "we should all have a lot of free stuff" but unfortunately things still take work to make and there's a point where that's not viable. But for what it's worth, I also agree that we should work towards u…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 08:16 AM
-3

Would "you can have a free pack of bandaids every year" count as affordable healthcare to you? It's affordable, and it's healthcare, so, 2/2, right? Generally when people say "affordable healthcare" they mean "people shouldn't have treatments withheld because they're too expensive, like the US does" . . . but generally they also don't realize that other countries do that as well. So, what do you mean by "affordable healthcare", and how certain are you that other countries actually provide it?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 08:07 AM
-2

Every country in the world has limits on what they count as "healthcare". There isn't a single place that will give you all treatments under all circumstances and soon enough to be useful. That's even including medical necessity.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/08/25 08:03 AM
3

The general idea that you can't discriminate against sex or race without a really good reason.
/r/MensRights03/07/25 09:59 PM
4

What part of the word "imperfect" are you confused by?
/r/MensRights03/07/25 09:54 PM
3

I think it's imperfect, and enforced very questionably, but I think the overall goal and phrasing is beneficial in total, yes.
/r/MensRights03/07/25 09:43 PM
15

In the US, there's a thing called the Civil Rights Act that prohibits it.
/r/MensRights03/07/25 09:10 PM
31

Someone recently linked me to a subreddit where they were complaining about the term 'toxic empathy", because the existence of the term "toxic empathy" means that all empathy is toxic. I would have asked what they thought of the term "toxic masculinity", but I was already banned from the subreddit before ever visiting it.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 06:25 PM
13

Systems are not setup they emerge and survive based on incentives Yeah, this is like saying "well, who set up the predator/prey relationship between hawks and rabbits". Nobody did. It just happened.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/25 05:34 PM
25

Wait, "destroying women's bodies"? Where did that come from?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/05/25 05:00 AM
1

That said, you still felt the need to point out the blatantly obvious. Someone said: "men prefer" and you responded with: "Men don't universally prefer". Here, let me quote a few more words then. Yes, we universally prefer huge dicks, just like men prefer big boobs and round asses And my response: Men don't universally prefer big boobs and round asses. Does that make it any more clear?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 03:44 PM
1

So you didn't read the conversation, but you're certain I misread it, because autism. Glad that's settled. Good luck with life, you're gonna need it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 03:27 PM
3

Yeah. I also suspect this is a fundamentally unanswerable question without knowing more about the person; like, I'm pulling this out of nowhere, but I feel pretty safe saying that "dick size preference" is going to have a big cultural component. And without knowing the culture of the people that the question-asker is trying to date, the question is just not something that can be answered. And most people don't answer that question; hell, I think a lot of people don't even know the answer to that…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 01:55 PM
4

Yeah, and I think that's what the intent of these questions are. "How popular are big dicks? What counts as that? [insert a million minor detail questions here]" I'm pretty sure it's true that men mostly prefer big boobs and round asses, and it's plausibly true that women mostly prefer larger dicks, and I think it is totally reasonable to ask about the extent of these preferences.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 01:34 PM
0

Does this suggest to you that maybe they were drawing a comparison between how men and women approach attractiveness? For example, would you say that men literally universally prefer big boobs and round asses, or would you say that most men prefer big boobs and round asses? And if your answer is "well, most men prefer big boobs and round asses, but not all", then does this suggest that maybe men asking about penis size are asking a similar question, i.e. trying to figure out if most women prefer…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 01:03 PM
8

What about when someone says "universally"? Does that mean "universally" or does it mean something else?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 11:58 AM
18

just like men prefer big boobs and round asses Men don't universally prefer big boobs and round asses.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 10:43 AM
34

"Flirting should be allowed" is IMO totally reasonable and I agree with it. But "your boss flirting with you" is weird as hell and starts to go down some really nasty pathways, and ". . . then gets annoyed when you don't get flattered" is one of those pathways. I am 100% in favor of making that very much disallowed.
/r/MensRights08/05/25 04:57 AM
36

Yeah, "always believe the victim" isn't wrong. It's just that it kind of skips the hard part, which is figuring out who the victim is.
/r/MensRights05/04/25 02:32 PM
3

The thing about these “guidebooks” though is that all of the happy married men I’ve ever met did not use guidebooks. This is kind of inevitably victim of sample bias. How many people do you know who voted for the Presidential candidate that you didn't vote for? For most people, the answer is "virtually nobody", and yet the popular vote was very close to a 50/50 split. People tend to hang out with people like them, and so if you're not the kind of person who would use a guide, your friends are un…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/25 02:42 AM
2

His whole point in this post is women don’t deserve empathy. I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this from.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/25 03:15 PM
5

Its like saying "make a manual on how to shake someone's hand". Here's a Youtube video on how to shake hands. Here's a WikiHow. Here's an AskReddit thread. Here's a book on, among other things, shaking hands. And while I obviously can't prove this, I also remember my mom showing me how to shake hands properly as a teenager. (I also remember realizing halfway through that I was on slippery socks on a hardwood floor, and using that to slide towards her while posing, then intentionally breaking eve…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/25 02:20 AM
3

Wait, what argument are you making here? "It takes more effort to help the homeless, therefore people shouldn't try to help people who can't get a date, because generosity is measured in how much effort you spend"? Or "it takes less effort to help the homeless, therefore people shouldn't try to help people who can't get a date, because generosity is fundamentally lazy and you shouldn't try to be generous in ways that are more difficult"? I would personally never tie "effort and energy" to whethe…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/25 02:16 AM
4

You literally cannot make a guidebook that works for every single person. Keep in mind that this is true of every major pursuit of humanity. Everyone learns differently, every situation is slightly different. Nevertheless, we make guidebooks anyway, because it turns out that most major pursuits have a lot in common and, in any subject, you can teach someone a reasonably consistent set of basics that give them a big advantage over someone without those basics. I swear, y'all think "guidebook" mea…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/25 02:13 AM
40

Yeah, if you're stuck between a group that discriminates against you and a group that discriminates against someone else, most people are going to pick the latter.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates05/03/25 06:28 PM
2

Being left of center demands even the smallest amount of reform to how capital works and the undetstanding of the intersectionality between extremist capitalism and why Men have their own issues in modern society. From the sidebar: A left-winger is an egalitarian who advocates reducing inequality through social change. Your definition isn't held by the subreddit rules, nor is it universal.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/25 01:46 PM
9

But truly a massive reason for his rise his how unbelievably hypocritical we are. It's both amazing and depressing how often I've seen, paraphrased and a bit exaggerated but not nearly as much as I'd like, "the difference between the left-wing and the right-wing is empathy. We have empathy! But they don't! They're just subhuman monsters who delight in making people suffer!" Yeah, really selling this whole "we have empathy" thing.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/25 02:33 PM
1

How am I coming across as a nutcase? By sending twelve messages in the space of seventeen minutes. It is entirely possible that nobody has even checked the mod queue in that time, and it's not helping your case at all - this is the "my ex keeps blowing up my phone" behavior that absolutely nobody respects. Next time, take the time to write one well-written message, send it, and don't expect to get a response for at least a few hours.
/r/MensRights06/10/24 06:59 AM
0

I mean, I think they shouldn't have banned you, but I also think that spamming them with twelve increasingly-strident-and-all-caps messages in the space of seventeen minutes is unlikely to help anything. You're just coming off as a nutcase.
/r/MensRights06/10/24 04:52 AM
65

It's also entirely possible that the most recent videos are just plain worse. There's a lot of stuff that could be going on here.
/r/MensRights15/04/24 02:43 AM
6

Sometimes women actually choose to do things on their own, they don't need to wait for a man's permission.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/24 12:55 PM
9

I will disagree, blowing up a building that they know what empty is not the same as a shooting or stabbing spree or running crowds over with your car. So if men were organizing to blow up unoccupied buildings, you'd say that doesn't count as violence against the general public? What's your feeling about Jan 6th? They didn't kill anyone, after all. Your next link, it’s violence against woman, ok I agree it’s violence, but it’s violence to woman to restrict woman not to give them more rights or fr…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/24 10:37 AM
9

From the first link: On the evening of November 7, 1983, a call came into the U.S. Capitol switchboard. “Listen carefully, I’m only going to tell you this one time,” the caller said. “There is a bomb in the Capitol building. It will go off in five minutes. Evacuate the building.” Then the caller hung up. At 10:58 p.m., a blast went off on the second floor of the structure’s north wing. The explosion blew doors off their hinges, shattered chandeliers and sent a shower of pulverized glass, brick a…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/24 10:10 AM
13

there’s no female groups in the world that deliberately commit violence against men or the general public The Dark History of America’s First Female Terrorist Group The Al-Khansaa Brigade was an all-women police or religious enforcement unit of the jihadist group Islamic State (That's two separate links.) The thing about women is that women are people, and sometimes people are awful, and women aren't exempt from that.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/24 09:54 AM
1

Why it wasn't dismissed as a not matching "single data point", but it was checked to turn on as (of course) false positive for "magic thrust force"? People in social science like to completely ignore so called anecdotal evidence. I'm going to be honest, your first sentence isn't even English and I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say. But my point is that the Emdrive was a single data point that conservation of momentum wasn't real, and everyone said "that seems unlikely, …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/24 04:51 PM
2

Yes. But we're talking about single data point proving or disproving something; and that's how so called hard science works. No, again, it really isn't. You don't prove something with a single data point, and you don't disprove something with a single data point unless that thing is a universal limit that you can cleanly extract from possible confounders or is ridiculously overgeneral. See the Emdrive "disproving" conservation of momentum, for example. Subop just disingenuously calls this "singl…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/24 02:28 AM
1

I didn't say "smaller force", I said "lessened gravity". The force of gravity is proportional to the mass of both objects, but with one object held constant it produces a constant acceleration on the other due to the mass of the second object cancelling out with itself (one clause increasing the force, one clause requiring a larger force to produce the same acceleration.) And yet, magically, feathers fall more slowly than bowling balls! Obviously gravity is not actually proportional! I've revolu…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/24 01:48 AM
1

That really isn't how math and physics work. If I drop a bowling ball and a feather, and observe that the feather takes longer to hit the ground, I can't say "aha, I have proven that lighter objects are universally subject to lessened gravity, under all circumstances!"
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/24 01:29 AM
18

Asked my girlfriend for a hug and she dumped me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/24 04:37 PM
0

Sure, but imagine what you could do with that money. 300 billion dollars, applied appropriately (or even inappropriately), makes you effectively immortal; it lets you fund studies into whatever you want, it lets you set up a well-funded charity of your choice that will last long long long past your death. Think people deserve better legal representation? Boom, hundred billion dollars invested into a charity dedicated to freeing people who have been wrongfully imprisoned; that's enough to hire te…
/r/MensRights21/12/23 09:56 PM
0

Not everyone is a carbon copy of you and lying about it. Sometimes people are just different.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 09:38 PM
0

You wouldn't? 300 billion dollars is world-changing amounts of money. It's like five thousand bucks to save a life; 300 billion is enough to help millions and set up foundations that will last long after you've gone. I'd take that trade.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 09:28 PM
1

Three hundred billion would be a lot more than enough, yo.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 06:26 PM
15

"fuck, you caught me. this always happens"
/r/MensRights21/10/23 06:38 PM
8

I do wonder what the per-hour rate is, though. "Men are the vast majority of victims" and "a woman is more at risk" aren't mutually exclusive, if men are far more likely to go outside than women are. And that part, at least, seems very plausible. Whether women actually end up more at risk, that I don't know, at least without some solid numbers. Regardless of what the rate is, obviously "men getting assaulted constantly at night" is a problem and we should be trying to solve it.
/r/MensRights21/08/23 11:57 AM
0

Oh yeah, and I'm absolutely not in favor of that. But people get convicted of stuff incorrectly everywhere. The presumption of innocence is a great tool, and helps a lot, but it doesn't entirely solve the problem. We shouldn't use the hypothetical existence of larger potential problems as a way to deny the existence of smaller current problems.
/r/MensRights04/08/23 08:20 AM
-1

The presumption of innocence addresses both of those issues. And this is why men are never convicted of false rape accusations. Problem solved, right? Except it's not solved, because men are still convicted of false rape accusations; rarely, again, but occasionally. The law is imperfect because we have never figured out how to make the law perfect. Potential false accusers would be given the exact same treatment, namely, "most of the time, if you didn't do it, you're fine . . . but once in a whi…
/r/MensRights04/08/23 08:09 AM
5

There is no logical reason as to why punishing false accusations would stop actual victims coming forward. I mean, I get this one. Proof is never perfect, as we all know because false rape accusations happen and even sometimes result in convictions. If false accusations become something with actual penalties, there will be cases of those penalties applied incorrectly. Probably not often, but sometimes. And just as men are paranoid of false rape accusations, this is going to end up with women par…
/r/MensRights04/08/23 07:54 AM
1

You.... can't be serious? At this point I don't think there's any way you're being honest in this conversation. Incredulity is not a counterargument. Neither are accusations of dishonesty. We may pay, get less, and are setting up the future collapse of the economy. The US is incredibly rich compared to the rest of the world. This is one of many reasons it has one of the highest non-refugee immigration rates across the entire planet, including plenty of people moving from the EU in order to have …
/r/MensRights21/06/23 04:45 PM
-1

It doesn't seem to be that way in the rest of the world. The rest of the world is lagging behind in technological progression and is doing much more manufacturing due to lower wages. A lot of the problems the US has with lack of jobs are because it's literally not worth paying people US-mandated wages. If the cost is trillions then we need to intervene and entirely undo colleges in the US and rebuild the entire thing. That cost is absurd and not sustainable. Sure, I'm fine with that. Make a prop…
/r/MensRights21/06/23 04:10 PM
2

How about, and hear me out, we socialize the majority of colleges and/or strictly regulate how much they can cost? The fact people rely on scholarships on something that is overwhelmingly required for the work force is a HUGE problem. You're right, but this doesn't really fix the problem. It used to be that not everyone went to high school, so workplaces used "did you finish high school" as the metric for whether you were responsible and educated enough to hold down a job. Then everyone started …
/r/MensRights21/06/23 04:00 PM
1

Wouldn't the 3rd party actively know if their provision is legal or not? No, why would they? Laws are complicated. There's plenty of cases where you won't even know if something is legal or not until it goes to court, and that's if you've researched the relevant laws. If I'm asking someone to sign a contract, it's not my responsibility to ensure that they're able to legally fulfill the contract. That's their problem. All that said, the usual noncompete does not, in any way, force someone to viol…
/r/MensRights07/02/23 04:32 PM
5

But if he has a no-compete clause...wouldn't just need to express that to the potential patron? How can you get sued for not cutting a woman's hair when a provision on your lease LITERALLY says "you cannot cut a woman's hair". Signing a contract with a third party doesn't make you exempt from state or federal law. If it is illegal, then he's responsible for that.
/r/MensRights07/02/23 12:16 PM
9

You really don't think there are any feminists who are in this to hate men? Even historical well-regarded feminists?
/r/MensRights04/08/22 07:39 AM
20

So I've got this theory that I use when moderating political debate communities. The idea is: People overestimate offense aimed at themselves, while underestimating offense aimed by themselves. If you see a group of a thousand people, and ten of them are yelling about how much they hate you and want to destroy you, you're going to focus on that ten; you're going to assume the group is fundamentally opposed to you. But if you're in a group of a thousand people, and fifty of them are yelling about…
/r/MensRights04/08/22 07:11 AM
3

I actually think that's the best part of the chicken. White meat is boring.
/r/MensRights08/07/22 04:30 PM
11

What they're saying is that you shouldn't make arguments based on lies, even if those lies make your argument better. Argue based on things that are true, and if it hurts your position, then your position deserves to be weaker. If you want to argue that fewer women voted, then argue that. If you want to argue that there were rights women didn't have, then argue that. But if you're arguing that no women voted, or that women were legally considered property, then you are saying things that are str…
/r/MensRights13/06/22 08:24 AM
2

I honestly didn't even know there was a TV series until I went to look up the plot summary to remind myself of it :V
/r/MensRights30/05/22 09:54 PM
11

Seriously, I remember having some criticisms of that series, but it was still pretty good. Better than it sounds like this is.
/r/MensRights30/05/22 09:32 PM
1

You are posting at stats that literally show gun homicides in my country has dropped post ‘96. Yes, and I'm also posting stats that show homicides have not dropped. If you give someone a choice between being killed with a gun and a knife, which will they choose? I think the answer is generally going to be "I don't care, can you make it so I'm not killed at all, thanks in advance". Yet suicide rates, home accidental shootings, mass shootings etc are down as related to gun deaths. I also posted st…
/r/MensRights30/05/22 09:10 AM
1

A lot of the overseas studies are frankly garbage too. I don't know what country you're in, but the whole "they banned guns in Australia and gun crime went down" thing is said often and it's technically true but not really relevant. One big confounder is that people always lump "suicides" into "gun crime". And suicides are, in fact, the vast majority of deaths caused by guns. So gun suicide went down a lot, but that doesn't mean anything if total suicides didn't decrease. And total suicides didn…
/r/MensRights29/05/22 11:34 AM
43

And what percentage of homeless are men? What percentage of home decisions are made by men? I'm not saying men are worse off than women. I'm saying the situation is complicated and simplifying it does no good to anyone.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 04:42 AM
60

Factor in that men run all countries and companies and businesses and dominate the high paying job fields and you see that most men are at the top. No, most people at the top are men. Most men are nowhere near the top.
/r/MensRights21/08/21 03:10 AM
8

and usually has little to do with sexual desires. It's more of a power play. I've heard this a lot, and actually tried to track it down, but I've never managed to trace it to an actual study. As near I can tell it's nothing more than widely-believed folklore.
/r/MensRights16/08/21 07:35 PM
1

I think the problem I have with this is you're treating "white men" like a monolithic hivemind block, and "disturbing" as an encompassing universal that includes all kinds of making yourself known. I don't think either of those are true. So you say, for example: You say this, but these groups did cause a hell of a commotion, multiple times. Over and over again. White people then also didn't like it and did the whole 'hey guys, if you keep disturbing us how are we supposed to support you thing th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/07/21 08:07 AM
6

So white men had the power and just happened to give it to them of their own free will... Or did they have to be forced into it? Regarding black people, you might want to check your history because you're conflating the civil rights movement and the civil war to end slavery. Both of them required white men to have their hands forced into giving black people rights. Yes. More or less, a small number of them were forced into it by the rest of them. Just looking at the numbers and power involved, i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/07/21 05:08 AM
1

Failure is not an option. It is mandatory. The option is whether or not to let failure be the last thing you do.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/05/21 02:55 AM
38

Many many years back, before I knew much about him and when I was a small kid, I was at a math talk after-gathering with John Conway and he was describing decision trees, and I tried introducing him to what I thought was a relevant game involving dots and lines. Unknown to me, he had invented that game thirty years earlier, for exactly this purpose. He was actually kind of charmed by the whole thing. I'm pretty sure he did not end up fuming afterwards about "kidsplaining".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/04/21 07:55 AM
2

so why are you for a parent's choice to cut off a foreskin if the only problems associated with are for exclusively sexually active men who are basically man-whores (if they get HIV) I'm not. Why do you think I am? Disagreeing with your logic doesn't mean I disagree with your conclusion. If I say "Hitler was bad because rainbows don't contain any yellow", then you could tell me I was wrong about rainbows without being a fan of Hitler. Also your analogy makes no sense lol. I never said circumcisi…
/r/MensRights14/10/17 11:52 PM
1

Nothing, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying circumcision is a good idea. I'm saying that there's nothing wrong with the general idea of removing a body part to prevent future problems, if there are actual future problems that could exist. Like, analogy: This person paid a million dollars for a donut! What an idiot! Don't they realize that you should never pay money for anything? There's nothing wrong with the idea of buying things. Yeah? So you think a donut is worth a million dollars? No. …
/r/MensRights14/10/17 09:22 PM
1

Then maybe you should spend some time telling people that "medical procedure" doesn't mean "good", because there are tons of things that were done in the name of medicine that are now considered terrible, and there's even things today that are done solely because we don't have a better option. There's no shortage of lists. Maybe, instead of trying to give all words value judgments, you should be working against giving words value judgments, and trying to keep word definitions aimed a single thin…
/r/MensRights14/10/17 12:55 AM
1

I mean, in the strictest interpretation of the word, yes. It would also be assault. I don't recommend it. Seriously, are you actually confused about this? I'll reiterate: "medical procedure" doesn't mean "good". There are plenty of things that have been done and that continue to be done for medical reasons. These are medical procedures. Even the ones that were a bad idea; even the ones that, as it turns out, had literally no redeeming features; even the ones that are being done today that will e…
/r/MensRights14/10/17 12:25 AM
1

Sure. It's a misused medical procedure, and it isn't even close to worth the benefits. But the term "medical procedure" isn't a value judgement. Something can be a bad medical procedure. Both your example and routine circumcision are great examples of terrible medical procedures. They're still medical procedures.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 11:31 PM
1

Are you saying that amputating the healthy foreskin of an infant boy is a "medical procedure" because it's "curing a condition"? The "condition" being that like all parts of the human body there is the (tiny) possibility of the healthy foreskin developing certain problems in the future, or being the site of an infection or developing a cancer? No, I'm saying that it's a medical procedure because it claims to be preventing future conditions. Similar to wisdom tooth removal. And, again, I don't th…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 11:13 PM
2

With your logic, there are "benefits" to ISIS chopping your head off, because then you wouldn't get any more headaches. I mean, technically, yes, but of course it comes with some pretty serious side effects, like death. Okay, I have to ask: do you really not understand that an action can have more than one consequence? Like, if I buy a donut, not only do I get a donut, but I also spend money. These are two different consequences, one of which is good, and the other of which is bad; in choosing w…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 10:16 PM
2

There are no "benefits"; just as there are no "benefits" to pulling off working, healthy parts of your car and throwing them in the dumpster. Which makes it very easy for the costs to outweigh them, yes? A cure would be finding a pill that destroys cancer. Amputating an ear that has cancer is not a "cure" for cancer of the ear, as you don't have the ear anymore. And you also don't have the cancer anymore. It does, in fact, cure the cancer. You can cure appendicitis by removing the appendix, you …
/r/MensRights13/10/17 09:55 PM
1

Alright, maybe wisdom tooth removal is less common now than it used to be :) But Google seems to think that it's still pretty common - I can provide some maybe-not-ideal searches, but it sounds like it's not exactly universal to take a wait-and-see approach.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 09:37 PM
2

But the infant babies foreskin has multiple functions, and it doesn't even have anything wrong with it. Right. Which is why male circumcision is a bad idea. It's because the costs outweigh the benefits. It's not because removing a piece of someone's body is never beneficial, and it's not because 'you can't "cure" a condition by amputating part of the human body'. Both of those statements are wrong. I was being sarcastic you twit. no, really, I had no idea
/r/MensRights13/10/17 09:33 PM
2

Many people will certainly have problems, and for those people it makes sense to remove them before they cause problems. Many other people will have no problems with their wisdom teeth, and as such there's no value in removing them. Note that we don't go digging into an infant's jawbone to remove the wisdom teeth buds that will cause them problems decades later. We address the issue when it arises. We actually address the issue before it arises, if we think it's likely to arise. The statement ma…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 09:26 PM
2

Let's say your car's door panel developed rust. So I took the door, and threw it in a dumpster. Is that a "cure" for your car? If the disease we're concerned about is rust, then yes, the car no longer has rust. Of course now you have the problem that your car is missing a door; this feels like a worse issue than rust to me, so the side effects probably aren't acceptable. If the rust is bad enough, this may actually be the preferred solution (though I suspect you'd go and install a new door next.…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 09:16 PM
-5

You can't "cure" a condition by amputating part of the human body. For instance, if you have cancer of the ear, you are not "cured" of that cancer by amputating the ear. Rather you have amputated the part that was suffering from cancer, so that the cancer does not spread. And you have now lost an ear. Before, you had ear cancer. Now you don't. That sounds like a cure to me. It's a cure with some unfortunate side effects, but it's still a cure. Really? Like which parts? Wisdom teeth. Parts of the…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 08:50 PM
-1

I mean, that's a great theory, but there's a lot of conditions that can be cured by removing parts of people's bodies. It's even common and accepted in first-world countries to remove several small parts of your body just to ensure they don't cause anything bad.
/r/MensRights13/10/17 07:52 PM
1

The set of people who already own a popular service that many people own will find that they do not have to pay extra for this movie.
/r/MGTOW08/06/17 09:26 PM
1

Do you mean "remove all laws that benefit women" or "remove all gender-specific laws"? Because in the former case, you'd have to remove almost all laws, because most laws benefit men and women. Most people here (aside from the hardcore liberatrians/anarchists) will have no problem with those laws. The latter case might be more interesting, but removing those certainly wouldn't result in an overnight collapse.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/17 12:09 AM
12

The post links to it, just click the title.
/r/MensRights21/04/17 03:54 PM
2

It's got a lot of possible flavors depending on context. The one thing they all have in common is that they imply putting effort into something that people don't usually put effort into. This can be negative ("look at this fucking tryhard") or positive ("I'm tired of losing, gonna go tryhard for a week or two"). I'd say that it's generally negative, and positive only if the person gets something significant out of it. Calling someone else a tryhard is almost always negative; it implies that they…
/r/MGTOW15/03/17 11:29 PM
9

Both, honestly; the filmmaker picking it independently is what we're talking about here, but the subreddit actually invented that label for the philosophy. Neither of them was basing it off a label that existed in any form besides the original Matrix reference.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 09:26 PM
12

You're being downvoted for claiming that the movie is associated with the movement.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 08:56 PM
16

I mean, this info isn't exactly hidden - plenty of other people have made the same (well-founded, IMO) criticism. Nevertheless, the movie is named that, and it has nothing to do with the Red Pill philosophy. So what other conclusion can you take from it?
/r/MensRights16/12/16 07:47 PM
31

They picked the name for reasons thoroughly unrelated to the philosophy. It's a Matrix reference.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 07:17 PM
2

I wouldn't call that mono/poly, though, I'd call that poly/poly-but-with-only-one-partner-right-now. Poly's a preference and a state of mind, not a statement about one's current situation. Similar to how gay people don't stop being gay when they're single.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/16 02:53 PM
4

I've heard of a few successful relationships where one partner is A-OK with their other partner being poly but has no interest in more partners of their own. Generally with dramatically mismatched libido. I stress the word "few", however. It's certainly less common than either symmetrically poly relationships or horribly toxic asymmetrical relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/16 02:47 PM
43

I told my mom! She told me to stop begging for attention. Didn't make that mistake again. (life's cool now, that was me from a decade and a half ago)
/r/MensRights15/11/16 07:44 PM
2

Probably Zorba the Hutt's Revenge. Zorba is surprisingly badass in it - I read it many years later because I was curious where my namesake came from. Seriously, dude's more competent than Darth Vader ever was.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/16 03:25 PM
2

Almost twenty years ago, I needed a nickname for my AOL email. My normal nickname was taken, but my dad had just bought me the Star Wars Encyclopedia as a half-joking Christmas gift. So I opened it up to the back and picked one of the last entries (labeled "Zorba the Hutt" in the encyclopedia itself), planning to change it once I came up with a better name. So, yeah, that never happened. AOL had a 10-character limit, so I started as ZorbaTHutt, but later shortened it to 9 characters for EFNet. L…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/10/16 02:21 PM
1

How did the Black man get to become a middle class tech employee??? It's because white people either allowed or were forced to allow Blacks into their company (in the past, over generations). And when one Black person is employed and gains a better income, his whole family benefits, more Black people are encouraged to enter that industry and so on and so on. You don't actually understand my point, do you? What I'm saying is that skin culture is less important than what's in our heads. For every …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 03:31 AM
1

People of different cultural backgrounds, genders and physical abilities (if any disabilities don't stop them from doing the job). The whole left wing/ right wing thing is another issue altogether. Wait, you don't think "left wing/right wing" counts as a different cultural background? Which of these two people are more culturally different; a white man and a black man, both of are middle-class people who work in the tech industry in San Francisco and vote liberal, or a middle-class white male te…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/16 01:16 AM
1

But how is that relevant? I'm not saying they should hire writers to write conservative articles, but clearly, if "diverse people" "complement each other" and "bring more profits to business", then Salon would be well-served by bringing some on-board. How about Amazon? Amazon is mostly liberal. Should they hire more conservatives? Starbucks could offer easier hiring paths for conservatives. Costco, Trader Joe's, and Microsoft could all make a big push to hire conservative employees. That would b…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/16 12:24 PM
1

But I thought "men and women and diverse people think differently and complement each other and also bring more profits to business". How do you justify Salon intentionally avoiding profit? Why do you want the National Organization for Women to be less successful than it could be?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/16 02:02 AM
1

gender Do you believe the National Organization for Women should have more male presidents and boardmembers? cultural background Do you believe Huffington Post and Salon should hire more conservative writers? physically-abled I'll admit I can't think of any companies that are mostly physically disabled :V but if there were any, would you advocate for them to specifically hire physically-abled people, for the sake of diversity?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/16 12:35 AM
1

Brevity's harder when you care about accuracy. Here. Short version, just for you. From a TRP mod: This doesn't say what you said it does. From an RP blog who is a self-proclaimed MRA: This isn't an RP blog. Also, the MRAs don't like it either. Happy?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/16 12:09 AM
0

From a TRP mod: Alright, let's see here, compared against the specific thing I asked for citations on, that you quoted . . . I'm not a fan of men who suggest that age of consent laws are only in place at the behest of jealous older women Nope. It talks about society, not women. One common theme among the "manosphere", so to speak, is that a lot of this isn't conscious and intentional, it's a result of our genetic upbringing and things like the women-are-wonderful effect. That there's no big cons…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/16 11:25 PM
0

The first post you linked has nothing to do with what I asked for, I asked for examples of lowkey creepiness. A private sub where no one can see what is discussed is irrelevant since neither of us can even see what's in there. . . . It doesn't count because it's too low-key? It doesn't matter if we can see in there or not. That's the entire point - that TBP is choosing situations where there's no visible creepiness and assuming the existence of creepiness and misogyny and rape and oh god think o…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/16 08:06 PM
-1

Again, please show me some proof that people are crucified on TBP for being merely lowkey creepy. Here you go. I mean, that's not even "lowkey creepy", and I've literally never heard about that sub. But apparently the mere existence of a private subreddit is enough to say, and I quote, I ain't going in there. Think of all the horrifying rapey, pedo, etc shit that they come out with in their public subreddit. Now imagine how far they go when they think no one will see it. And here's another one -…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/16 06:52 PM
6

Other than that, yes, it's the guys who hit all the boxes who you actually see brought up on the meta subs. No. It's the guys who hit, like, one box. The rest are just assumed because the person is a Bad Person. If I were to point at a police report of a robber and say "well, I assume he's black, that's what black people do", I'd be rightfully crucified. But for some reason, not only is it considered totally kosher to point at a jerk and say "he's probably an MRA", but this is actually considere…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/16 05:47 PM
9

It's interesting to me that you don't think there can be overlap between the descriptive terms I listed. There can be overlap between all descriptive terms. I imagine there are people who fall into all combinations of MRA, feminist, pedophile, androphobe, and misogynist. But I think it's telling which terms you picked. You went to "pedophile" only when you needed a better justification for heresy-by-proxy. No one goes on Reddit and says "Oh my god an ugly dude hit on me today! Ew!" and even if s…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/16 05:05 PM
12

The things the liberal/feminist meta subs were picking on back then are the same things they're picking on now: Misogynists. Rape apologists. Pedophiles. I think it's funny how you're contradicting yourself within two posts. Here, I'll quote you, one post ago: The backlash came from the associations with seddit and MRAs, which already had a bad reputation for being pushy creeps and anti-feminist, respectively. They weren't picking up on "misogynists, rape apologists, and pedophiles". They were p…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/16 04:42 PM
1

Representation is healthy . . . Do you realise that men and women and diverse people think differently and complement each other and also bring more profits to business? Out of curiosity, how do you define "diverse people"?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/16 04:04 PM
11

The backlash came from the associations with seddit and MRAs, which already had a bad reputation for being pushy creeps and anti-feminist, respectively. Yes, people were already maligning those groups also. It turns out that if you take a group of people and mock them, and them mock everyone vaguely related to them, and then mock everyone vaguely related to them, you shouldn't be surprised when that entire new growing culture decides it doesn't care about you. At some point you've found yet anot…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/16 04:03 PM
22

Remember, economic class is the only thing that never contributes to oppression!
/r/MensRights21/08/16 10:56 PM
2

Er . . . how does it say that?
/r/MensRights21/08/16 06:57 PM
172

I'm signing because as a male, I've never felt threatened in a public space in my life This says more about the person's social class than about their gender. Try growing up in a lower-class neighborhood and saying that.
/r/MensRights21/08/16 04:35 PM
2

Regardless of whether that is something anyone should wish on anyone else, there are serious logistical problems with it. Mostly revolving around the fact that she's already dead.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 04:40 AM
1

I'm afraid most of my information is now a decade out of date, and focused on C++ anyway, which is increasingly a niche language. Can't link directly due to subreddit rules, but check out the subreddit "learnprogramming" - from what I understand, they have a great link resource.
/r/TheRedPill02/08/16 07:22 AM
6

While looking for someone with the above traits, attempt to become someone with the above traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/16 06:24 AM
14

Gonna have to go with the option that doesn't involve dating a duck. But if you ask /u/fuckswithducks you'll probably get a different answer. Takes all kinds, y'know?
/r/seduction13/07/16 09:40 AM
14

And if you stop feeding your dog, you shouldn't be surprised when the dog doesn't want to spend time with you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/16 11:43 PM
48

You can lift, suck badly and yet still you lift. Or you can dick around, watch motivational videos, study proper form etc. Nothing achieved. Agreed. I knew someone who wanted to learn programming. I've been coding for well over two decades, I'm good at it, so he asked me what books he should buy and what language he should use. I gave him a few suggestions and sent him on his way. About a month later he came back and asked if maybe he should be using a different language instead. I said, sure, I…
/r/TheRedPill07/07/16 11:10 PM
17

I kinda feel like the societal cost of stabbing a baby is sharply sub-linear. After you've stabbed a baby ten or twenty times, I wouldn't expect further stabs to have the same jail sentence as the earliest ones.
/r/MensRights08/06/16 05:33 PM
3

Yeah, when I saw this, my only question was whether he was rich or an athlete. Turns out he's both!
/r/MensRights05/06/16 03:16 PM
5

Make it a lottery system. Every pound of fat is a ticket into the lottery. Win the lottery and you're going to the Middle East!
/r/MensRights30/04/16 08:24 AM
2

I don't need to bait and switch in this argument, because the feminist movement isn't actually the straw-movement that you TERPs rail against. "The feminist movement" is not a homogenous monolith. It consists of many parts with their own differing philosophies. There is maybe an argument to be had about which of those philosophies has the most political influence, but there isn't an argument to be had about whether the philosophies exist. That's why people are talking about the bailey/motte fall…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/16 08:37 AM
3

If you want the perfect guy, you'd better be prepared to be the perfect girl.
/r/RedPillWomen06/04/16 05:53 PM
2

Members hung out with Paul Elam, and the exact same kind of MRAs already described as failing men in the first place. It raised alarms. The MRM isn't big enough to hold to strict ideological lines. Sometimes you have to ally with someone you don't quite agree with in order to get stuff done. We're at the point where merely existing and talking about men "raises alarms". Hell, if you take a look at the reactions to attempts to get men's groups on campuses, not existing and talking about men seems…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/02/16 07:39 PM
1

If he lives in the US then, honestly, no language gives access to many more people, since virtually everyone here speaks English. At that point it's more a question of what he'll stay motivated with than what's practically useful.
/r/seduction05/02/16 04:14 PM
15

Both of those submissions have been removed from their respective subreddits.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 12:41 PM
11

Congratulate them both for finding an appropriate relationship. Never speak to either of them again.
/r/askTRP21/12/15 10:15 AM
2

I work and live in Bay Area. I pay 1100 a month rent and bills. When did you start renting? Most landlords in this area don't jack up rent over time, but if you went hunting for a new place right now, you might be surprised to find what's happened to prices.
/r/TheRedPill24/11/15 02:10 PM
2

Well, good news - the way things are going, your second sentence will be true of "rapist" in a few years as well. I use "good" in a colloquial sense that means "bad".
/r/MensRights23/11/15 01:43 PM
2

How so?
/r/MensRights23/11/15 01:18 PM
1

Ah, I have some knowledge of Scandinavia and was thinking that was approximately representative of Europe as a whole. Apparently not! Thanks for the correction there :)
/r/MensRights23/11/15 12:04 PM
4

Technically, an accusation of "whore" would be an accusation of prostitution, which is a crime (in most places in first-world countries, at least.) "Slut" would be treated about as badly, though, and in that case your statement would be true.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 11:03 AM
6

So like if you beat someone at a game or whatever and you said "I just bad touched you like your uncle did when you were 7", that would be considered kind of fucked up right, because joking about child abuse isn't cool. That'd just be considered trash talking. I mean, depending on context of course, but I can think of many situations where it wouldn't be considered particularly fucked up.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/15 10:20 PM
3

My personal opinion is that the question is not whether we'll have a monopoly on force, it's which monopoly on force we'll have. Unless you have a way to prevent a monopoly on force that doesn't require everyone to cooperate, you simply can't achieve anything else. At that point the discussion turns towards how we can ensure the monopoly is one that's reasonably beneficial.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 06:40 PM
0

Not really, we're just getting yet another batch of people who think their use of force is just and other people's isn't. If they somehow win (which they won't) we'll just have yet another government within a hundred years.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 06:30 PM
7

We did. It's called "government". Seriously, where do you think government came from?
/r/MensRights25/10/15 06:11 PM
10

The issue is roads that provide a public service. Five Guys maintain their lot because their lot benefits Five Guys directly. They're not going to maintain the ten miles of roads around them - for one thing they could never afford it, for another thing they don't benefit directly. It's the whole Tragedy of the Commons issue.
/r/MensRights25/10/15 03:06 PM
2

Nah. Love the job. I'd do it even if I couldn't make any money at it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/15 04:16 AM
3

So you are literally telling TRPers "Hey, don't have what I have. You don't want it." Yet... you think your experience is awesome. Do you hate TRPers, do you not want them to have awesome experiences? I'm a game programmer. Bear with me. This is going somewhere. The game industry is a catastrophic hellhole. The pay is bad and the hours are long. Your users swing between adoring the developers and straight-up hating the developers, sometimes for reasons that seem petty at best, sometimes for reas…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/15 02:26 AM
6

Because it's kind of irrelevant. They're right, dropping the allegations does not mean they were false; it also does not mean they were true.
/r/MensRights01/10/15 08:56 PM
2

Say that I have no reason to lie about my N? No. Say that nobody would lie about it. Hell, people lie about the stupidest stuff. Sure, believe what you want. I have reason to over or underinflate my numbers. The question wasn't "what number would we get if we surveyed /u/dstoo about their sex partners count".
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/15 11:28 PM
2

Er, why do you say that? It seems very unlikely to me.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/15 10:32 PM
1

From what I can tell, you seem to have defined a source in a very narrow, specific way, and I think that that is clouding your ability to see and consider alternative advice. You are only looking for advice that is a literal step by step guide to dating? Would advice like crazy never gets better or Keep it casual be considered useful advice by you or not? For one thing, you keep conflating "me" and "the people I'm talking about". And yes, I am saying that the people searching for help are, at th…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/15 03:20 PM
1

Oh and if you're getting pre-emptively banned from places, your opinions probably aren't as universal or objective as TRP would lead you to believe. All it takes is to make a single post in the wrong subreddit. You can even disagree with people in that subreddit. Doesn't matter. If you dare to interact with the unwanted, you become one of the unwanted. No, I'm recommending Titanic as an example of cultural piece exemplifying how it's possible to be oneself without being a doormat at the same tim…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/15 10:10 PM
1

TRP of course would never ban somebody for having the wrong opinion. /s Not pre-emptively. Hell, I'm banned from two of those subreddits and I've never posted in them. If you think those are the right sources to get advice from, how, exactly, do you intend for me to get advice from them? Movies/TV are not a good reflection of reality but they are the most common medium through which people in our society are taught social values. Yes. That's the problem. It turns out that "just being yourself" d…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/15 04:25 PM
1

None of the places you've linked provides a learning source on how to date. At least two of them ban people for having the wrong opinions. I asked for a source that taught people how to have functional relationships, not a source that bans people for not having a functional relationship. The reason people go to TRP is that it has a large and mostly-consistent body of knowledge, available online without having to know the right questions to ask. The places you've linked don't have that - the best…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/15 05:46 AM
1

and refuse to see that brilliant tRP truths such as "don't be a bitch" and "stand up for yourself" can come from other sources What other sources? What other learning-focused sources exist for teaching people how to do well in relationships? I keep hearing "other sources" and yet nobody seems willing to list them. Please show an appropriate source - a group of people focused on learning how to be romantically successful, in a manner that you consider appropriate. And if you give something as vag…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/15 11:32 AM
1

So what exactly makes you think dating is any different? Er . . . the point I'm making is that dating is the same. In both cases you need to learn by doing; but in both cases, you need to start somewhere, and usually that "somewhere" is reading. My issue is that I don't think TRP is help. And my point is that, in the absence of a good alternative, if TRP is the only apparently-working option people have, people are going to follow TRP. I mean consider your own post; you pre-suppose that your lon…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/15 01:04 AM
1

All the skills you have listed are technical skills; when you read about them, you read about the technique and memorize it, and then perform it; things like writing code, ploughing a field, or repairing an instrument are all techniques that need to be executed in a specifically ordered way in order to work. This is the kind of thing that someone who's never written code, plowed a field, or repaired an instrument would say. None of those are mechanical follow-the-steps deals. All of them are unp…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/15 11:56 PM
10

Dating is something you do, not something you read about. Yeah, that's great, except there are lots of people who don't know how to do. Here, I'm gonna list some skills: welding, farming, computer programming, fencing, clarinet repair. I'm gonna assume you're not expert in all of them; pick one you're unskilled in. (If you are skilled in all of them I'm impressed.) Each of these are things you do, not things you read about. And yet, if I gave you the right tools and told you to go do it, you'd p…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/15 04:38 AM
4

How?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 10:07 PM
5

Er . . . what does that have to do with the statistic? And how does that prove it's not ~50/50? What are you talking about?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 10:00 PM
5

but ~50/50 "true/false" rate is nonsensical Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/15 09:46 PM
1

We’re not sure about the exact execution yet I'd recommend taking a look at /r/femradebates's system. Works great.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/15 03:34 PM
10

I actually remember this moment - I was playing Frisbee with my dad. Managed to fuck up the catch pretty badly and the frisbee ran straight into my finger. Hurt like a bitch. I told my dad I'd have to stop playing for a bit because my finger hurt pretty badly. He said he was proud of me for not crying, as I'd always done that before.
/r/TheRedPill13/08/15 08:29 AM
1

Only if it's a sub you participated in before the ban.
/r/MensRights25/07/15 12:19 AM
8

If she chooses him, fuck her, you can do better. If she doesn't choose him, why were you worried? Even if you could do something about it in general, you sure as hell can't from this distance, and you're just going to come across as insecure if you make a big thing out of it. I mean, you clearly are a bit insecure, so work on that too :)
/r/askTRP16/07/15 05:01 AM
3

I don't think anyone's interested in trolling mods for the sake of your curiosity. You could do it and see what happens, if you like.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/15 09:24 AM
2

I'd like a member of TRP to advocate that. Why would they advocate what you believe instead of what they believe?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/15 07:22 AM
1

If she's doing more things I like in a relationship, awesome. If she's doing more things I don't like in a relationship, not awesome. (Some of your post falls into the first category, some of it falls into the second category). I don't give a shit where she's getting that information from, though. I do give a shit if she's posting complaints about me online but not bringing them up to me. Not because it's happening online, or because of some evil girl's group, but because if she thinks things ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/15 05:41 AM
1

Then start your own movement that isnt considered a hate group. Every relevant movement on the planet is considered to be a hate group by someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/15 07:21 PM
2

The solution is to breed people capable of taking care of themselves and then others, instead of yet more people who fuck up taking care of others because they don't know how to take care of themselves. There's a reason airplane safety instructions tell you to put the oxygen mask over your own mouth first. The same reasoning can be applied to empathy.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/15 06:28 AM
2

You quoted an article that shows some species don't have differences. I mean, there's obvious stuff like the praying mantis, honeybees, or flatworms. You can't take a few species that behave in a certain manner and use that to "prove" that all species behave that way when we have concrete evidence that not all species behave that way. I said there were differences in the animal kingdom, but I didn't say that literally every species had asymmetrical mating habits.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/15 05:05 PM
3

I was clicking on the one on the quote "But a University of Michigan researcher found in 2011 that “gender differences are minimized when women feel that they can avoid being stigmatized for their behavior.” Women like having sex. They don’t like being socially punished for it." and assuming, apparently mistakenly, that the research paper you quoted was the part you considered relevant, instead of some random other bit in the story that you didn't bother quoting. So, your argument is "some anima…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/15 04:53 PM
4

Female animals don’t just enjoy sex, they are not shy about pursuing it. . . . Did you click on the link? The paper quoted didn't say anything about animals. Are you trying to prove your claim based on a research paper or based on "well, this other species does this, so humans must also"? Can you actually make a statement? I feel like I'm shadowboxing here. A German researcher “shows women and men in new relationships reporting, on average, more or less equal lust for each other. But for women w…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/15 04:37 PM
3

It seems to say that, if the situation is carefully constructed to be as beneficial towards the woman as possible, women like casual sex as much as men. I find the usefulness of this result kind of questionable and it's also not really related to libido. Unfortunately I can't find the actual paper anywhere, so it's hard to delve into what the paper really says.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/15 03:19 PM
9

It's also completely plausible that the FBI did 9/11, in your own words you don't have the studies to back it up. Yes, I admitted that. But you don't have the studies to prove otherwise, either. Neither of us know the truth, and there's plenty of evidence it could be true, so stop pretending you know for a fact it isn't. Nope. Are you seriously claiming that no creatures in the animal kingdom behave differently along gender lines? Or are you saying that the existence of one species with females …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/15 03:07 PM
13

His point was that women are somehow less sexual than men and have lower libidos. What are you getting at with "somehow"? There's plenty of scientific evidence that men and women have behavioral differences, both in the animal kingdom and with humans at birth. While I don't know of any studies that have been done along these lines (it would be difficult to untangle culture from biology) it's completely plausible that men and women really do have, on average, different libidos. Honestly, given ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/15 02:40 PM
8

I'm not making a statement on it either way, I'm just saying that you've failed to understand /u/kenee24's point. Maybe you don't know women who are representative of the average woman. Hell, I doubt most of us do.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/15 01:53 PM
3

I understand you're starving to death. I know how that feels! Once I wanted Italian food, but all I had available was orange chicken and a burrito. I'm going to assume starving to death is kind of like that. We're not talking "dead bedroom" here, and we're not talking "sexual frustration". We're talking about people walking around with the deep-seated belief that they're unlovable and will never find companionship.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/15 01:38 PM
11

Some women have lower libidos than some men. Some men have lower libidos than some women. Some humans have lower libidos than other humans. While this is true, I assume it was intended as a statement about the average libido of men vs. the average libido of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/05/15 01:35 PM
4

Is there some hidden message in the phrase "not ready for a relationship" that I'm not getting? If I had to make a guess, I'd say the hidden message is ". . . but I'm worried you are, and you're looking for one actively". People don't tend to bring that up unless they think there's a potential conflict. If you're not actively looking for a relationship with him, you're probably OK. That said . . . I don't want to cohabit, I just want to be exclusive. So this suits me fine. . . . if you haven't m…
/r/altTRP13/05/15 09:01 AM
8

Well, that's nice, but if you wanted to know why people expect feminism to handle men's problems, it's because feminism is claiming to handle men's problems. If you voluntarily take on responsibility, then blow it off, people are going to be displeased. Either stop claiming that responsibility or start taking it seriously. And doubly so when, as part of "taking on that responsibility", you actively prevent other people from tackling the same problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/15 05:22 PM
8

Right? I don't get why people feel like Feminism needs to give lip service to men. Because there are tons of feminists who claim that feminism is a movement for gender equality as a whole and that feminism deals with men's issues just as well as it does with women's issues. Get them to stop doing that and I'll be perfectly happy, though.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/05/15 05:06 PM
8

Well, a general meta-answer first: Very often, a game involves an attempt to get something shiny. World of Warcraft's gear grind is a classic example - a large part of the game is driven by people's attempts to get the best gear. Well, sometimes, someone will claim the game will be more fun if they already had the best gear. Turns out they're just flat-out wrong. Having the shiny is rarely fun; getting the shiny is what's fun. And once you give people what they ask for, they immediately stop hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/15 09:05 PM
4

Do you want prions? Because that's how you get prions.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/15 02:50 PM
6

And if the lyrics to that song were "Men... You can't live with 'em and you just can't cook them and eat them", you wouldn't be slightly more disturbed and whiny about how the feminazis are insane? Actually, I'd think that would be pretty funny. It's plausibility that makes things disturbing. If you tell someone you're tired of them and so you're going to come to their house at night and kill them, it's scary; if you tell someone you're tired of them and so you're going to sell them to alien sla…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/15 01:59 PM
19

Man, there's a lot of ways to pick this apart. Let's see . . . How are you defining "normal and balanced"? Because if you're defining it as "disagrees with TRP" then okay, but that's begging the question. There have been plenty of famous people who would generally be considered "normal" and "balanced" but who held what were, even at the time, opinions that were unflattering towards women. People like to focus on TRP being unflattering towards women, but there's a lot in there that's rather unfla…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/15 08:58 AM
0

That's a hell of a lot of virgin-shaming goin' on right there.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 04:57 PM
2

I think the question is whether she did so with an intent to deceive or just because she happened to type in that email address. Maybe that one's easier for her to check or the other one is just a forwarding address or something. Given that the entire rest of the application was (supposedly) HB-branded, I have a hard time imagining she was trying to deceive anyone. If she was, she's fuckin' awful at it :V
/r/MensRights20/04/15 04:55 PM
2

You won't concede that some sentences are more easily misinterpreted than others? That to misinterpret some, it needs something like willful ignorance, while other sentences will be mistaken, as an insult for example, because of context or even intention of the person said sentence originated from? Yes, of course I will. But that's not what you said, is it? And again, if we're going down this path - and you don't yet seem aware that this is a path you want to go down - then we get to have a disc…
/r/MensRights20/04/15 04:30 PM
3

No, what gives you that idea? I think they could both be misinterpreted, if that helps.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 07:21 AM
7

I didn't claim the statements were identical. I claimed they could both be misinterpreted. No sane person will ever claim that a statement can't be misinterpreted. Your original objection was along the same lines as "don't you think that a paper plate could be dangerous". Of course it could. Everything could be dangerous. Everything could be misinterpreted. You can't ban "all things that can be dangerous" and you can't ban "all things that can be misinterpreted". Now your job is to either prove …
/r/MensRights20/04/15 07:07 AM
9

If you tell someone "the sky is blue", and they're desperate enough to misinterpret it, they'll find a way to do so. Yes, of course that statement could be misinterpreted, but so what?
/r/MensRights20/04/15 06:56 AM
1

Er . . . not really? Unless you're claiming the KKK has a monopoly on the concept of "standing" and "hats". I hope this is not the case because frequently I stand up, and, rarely, I have been known to wear a hat. I really hope I wasn't accidentally committing a hate crime.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 08:56 PM
1

Yep. He's crazy. Entire game industry is full of people who are fuckin' nuts. Been in it for over a decade, never want to leave. Sometimes being crazy is worth it.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 02:08 AM
1

I was disputing someone else's claim that NPR has some sort of bias toward women. No you weren't, you were just making fun of them.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 05:41 PM
3

That's sports culture, not rape culture. You can tell because nobody would have said that about some random Joe off the street, and because sports figures get away with other crimes as well under the same justification.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 03:39 PM
1

If she can get over an entire emotional breakdown in the ten seconds it takes for a boss to pose dramatically, I'd argue it wasn't much of an emotional breakdown.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 08:11 AM
8

Nobody - it would have been a slightly different role played by a different character. Remember that for every time someone says "nobody else could have played that role", in a parallel universe, they're saying the same thing about the same character, written slightly differently and played slightly differently by a different actor.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 07:31 AM
60

Why do you hate women? >:(
/r/MensRights17/02/15 08:12 PM
16

The thing to remember is that when people say "listen and believe", what they really mean is "listen and believe the things that I, personally, also believe". They never intend for you to automatically believe things that they doubt. So if they say "always believe a rape accusation", and you say "you raped me", they'll just say "lol, no I didn't, that's silly", and not believe you.
/r/MensRights17/02/15 08:07 PM
2

I'm polyamorous myself, so . . . I'm pretty much okay with it, obviously :V
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/15 12:05 AM
1

I'm a little confused here- isn't TRP all about having promiscuous sex and NOT getting into relationships? If that's the case, looks matter way more than anything else. TRP is about the male doing what makes their life the best. Which, for some, means lots of sex and no relationships. The theory is that a large number of women will be attracted to a successful man because they believe they can have a relationship with him, and in that context, looks are secondary. To put it another way, if you'r…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/15 04:21 AM
39

It won't endanger the rich. They have money for lawyers.
/r/MensRights31/01/15 06:00 PM
19

5 out of 7 if you count his successful suicide.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 03:53 PM
1

At that point you could argue that porn is offensive to the family members of the actors.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/12/14 10:50 PM
2

Is it normal for men not to be able to cum from penetration? Same thing happened to me the first few times. Don't sweat it. Sex is pretty dang stressful until you get used to it, and stress is the orgasm-killer.
/r/askTRP29/12/14 04:49 PM
2

I grew up in a household that didn't really use the word "feminist", but still discussed gender issues. I remember coming up with the idea of "reverse racism" on my own and asking my mom about it, who gently corrected me; she said that there was no such thing as "reverse racism", it was just good ol' normal racism, and that any race could be discriminated against. I considered myself a feminist kind of by default. I thought feminism was gender equality, since that's what had been mentioned at sc…
/r/MensRights23/12/14 07:03 AM
11

There are literally no questions on the test that have a swing greater than -1/+1. You're looking for offense, and unsurprisingly, you've found some.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/14 04:52 AM
2

Seriously, I'd probably pay a buck extra to have the sticker included.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 03:31 AM
3

If that's an apology, it's a pretty backhanded one. It puts the suggestion out there that the people who supported the legal costs are rape supporters on principle, and tries to morally extort them into paying out the money to an organization that pushes the 1-in-3/1-in-4/women never lie about rape propaganda that caused the problem in the first place. It's also mathematically equivalent to "as an apology, we are offering to donate money to a charity of our choice".
/r/MensRights09/12/14 01:39 PM
2

It got better :)
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/14 09:00 PM
3

Bad grades, bullies, boredom, mom who stayed right on the edge of verbally abusive and right on the edge of narcissistic. Planned out a few ways to commit suicide, then eventually decided I was too pissed off with Murphy to let him win. Fucker's not getting the best of me as long as I have anything to say about it. Not a fun time in my life, and it lasted up through the first year or two of college as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/14 08:46 PM
6

Seriously, high school fuckin' sucked. Life's great now. Thumbs up for things getting better.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/14 08:18 PM
2

We do not know whether or not Samus had emotional breakdowns the first 4 times since we only saw the outside of her helmet. We only saw the outside of her helmet and the entire outside of her suit. She wasn't exactly consumed in paralyzing fear, she was leaping around like a damn transforming pinball and firing dozens of missiles directly into his face.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 09:28 AM
2

Yeesh. If a gift of charity is dependent on the recipient doing something that benefits you, then it's not charity, it's payment.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 07:07 AM
6

They can fly?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/14 10:05 PM
2

And my counterargument was that looking at the comments revealed upvoted posters trying to steer the conversation back to anti-feminism, with very little effort to turn all of this into something more constructive, or helpful to the men in need. I guess I don't see your point. Yes, jerks exist, and some of those jerks are trying to make this subreddit as bad as AMR. What are you trying to get at? It's a problem when they claim to be something more than a circlejerk. If this was honest enough to …
/r/MensRights24/11/14 07:15 PM
2

A single quote would be cherry picking. Here's the link. The point I was making there is that the MRM subreddit's anti-X jerk is small compared to a subreddit that was literally built for being an anti-X jerk. I wasn't saying that the mere existence was somehow fundamentally different. I will also point out that you're the one who started criticizing circlejerks. Personally I don't think they're intrinsically awful. Not really a great way to get discussion done, but sometimes you don't really ca…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 06:18 PM
2

But I do believe that it's okay to worry about the influence some of those members have over the direction of the community I agree. I don't think anyone's saying otherwise. Where I see hypocrisy, is that from the beginning, you've argued the MRM subreddit's anti-feminist jerk is completely different from what AMR is doing. Eh? Where have I done that? Can you give me a quote? You also enjoy the "No True Scotsman", an awesome trick where feminists are responsible for repeatedly denouncing other f…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 05:06 PM
2

So, basically, you're saying you don't blame me for the actions of others, even as you call me a hypocrite for the actions of others? Do you believe the actions of small numbers of a community reflect on the community as a whole? Because if so, then yes, I'm calling you a hypocrite for your unwillingness to apply your beliefs onto yourself. If you don't then you should be aware that you're hanging out with a bunch of people who do. But for folks who claim to be outraged by the whole "anti-femini…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 03:36 PM
2

That's a hell of a subject change, yo. Also, keep in mind I'm not saying you should have left that subreddit. I'm saying you're hypocritical for not doing so. I actually don't think the actions of a single person represent the whole, but that's one of the major AMR talking points.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 03:00 PM
2

I left, but then I remembered I liked being there, so I came back. Look, I've heard person after person after person tell me that (insert incident here) is such a damning situation that everyone should have left this subreddit and never returned. And here's a similar damning situation - so bad that you left! For days! (Maybe. Maybe it was shorter.) And then you came back 'cause you really liked the subreddit. If the tables were turned, you'd probably be telling me that coming back to the subredd…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 02:48 PM
5

I took a vacation from AMR, because of it "I was so offended I left for a bit, and someone posted a thread. And then I came back. The end." I can see that this incident shook you to your very core.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 02:33 PM
3

I'm guessing that she was only playing drunk when the cameras were rolling.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 10:22 AM
1

If you are still failing after graduation, you will simply be unemployed. Statistically speaking, exactly half of all cases end in failure. They must because every case has a prosecutor and a defendant. It is impossible for this ratio to change. You suggested hiring ex-judges (which are also lawyers). You would have to pay them a very competitive salary of at least 200k+ a year since they could be better spend their time earning money practicing law. Yes, this is true. On the plus side, each jud…
/r/TheRedPill12/11/14 02:59 AM
1

If you read up several posts, you'll see: You're absolutely correct with regards to the legal profession. There's no way to "Fail Cheap", so the rest of the advice doesn't really apply. This would be a way to fail cheap.
/r/TheRedPill12/11/14 02:18 AM
1

Practice is good even once you've graduated, though. Things change. Laws, especially, change.
/r/TheRedPill12/11/14 01:48 AM
3

Albinos are inferior to the master lightbulb race.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 12:27 AM
5

You're absolutely correct with regards to the legal profession. There's no way to "Fail Cheap", so the rest of the advice doesn't really apply. If I knew anything about law, I'd see if I could hire a few semiretired judges and set up court simulations so that lawyers could fail and practice relatively cheaply. Wonder if that could be a viable business. If anyone here is involved in law you are welcome to steal my idea, send me a 6-pack if you get rich.
/r/TheRedPill11/11/14 11:53 PM
2

I like the three people that hit C.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 06:48 AM
5

Yep. It's often shortened to "PoCs". And yes, "pocks" sounds like it should be a racist slur.
/r/MensRights06/10/14 12:52 PM
1

I don't. I figured out a while back that even feminists don't know what feminism is, so why should I pretend to?
/r/MensRights05/10/14 11:40 PM
0

You realize that not everyone's child support payments are identical, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/14 01:30 AM
1

Yes, that's true. And there are many arguments against it given that context.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/14 08:44 PM
7

A woman lost her job because her boss found her too attractive and distracting to do his own damn job. The courts sided with him. Keep in mind that this isn't "yes, men are weak", this is "no, being attractive is not a protected class". He also could have fired her for being a lizardman commando, magically teleported from the planet Krypton to overthrow the Illuminati, and the courts would have sided in his favor because you can fire people for almost anything no matter how ridiculous.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/14 08:33 PM
1

I guess all I can say, then, is that given that partial nudity is more complicated and is not an automatic pass, the legal system has collectively decided that a situation with a huge power imbalance like adult/child is still not a situation where partial nudity is acceptable. I definitely agree that we should be easing kids into adult responsibilities; the right way to do that is not flashing them on a doorstep, nor is it an adult doing sexual things with them. There's an argument that kids sho…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 09:19 AM
1

Explain why teenagers are to be treated like a child? Because we've decided culturally that teenagers are not yet developed enough to have full command over their behavior. But hey, I'll flex on this - let's replace "teenager" with "person three years younger than whatever age of consent you'd prefer". Assuming you don't think 3-year-olds can consent to sex, then the question stands otherwise. Flashing partial nudity? More complicated. I'd agree with "complicated", but I will point out that at t…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 11:07 PM
1

In a world where that might affect her chances of being hired for a job, or could inspire stalking/harassment? Anything could do those things. There's good reason to portray adolescent sexuality in media, and deal with the complexities. I'm just not convinced that stripping the scene of context, and arming a sexually inappropriate teenager with uninterrupted partial nudity, is wise, or appropriate. It could easily glamorize the subject, and audiences tend to hyper-focus on taboo nudity... And se…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 10:50 PM
1

I also said that absent other motives for displaying the breasts, it's risky for a teenage girl to share her body with the entire world, which is what can happen with a photo. Sure, but ignoring any sexuality attached to breasts, no more so than with a non-topless picture. And I'm personally uncomfortable with a topless photo of a sexually aggressive/assertive teenager, which has way more going on than just her breasts. Would you be as uncomfortable if she were clothed, or not? What is purple? D…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 10:10 PM
1

I'm trying to figure out what you believe the difference is between "child modeling" and "topless child modeling". You haven't described one yet, except that you believe the second example is pornography. But you don't seem to have an actual explanation for that belief. In fact, since you've said breasts aren't genitals, and that the exposure of breasts shouldn't be considered a sex crime, but that the exposure of genitals should, I really don't see why you're suddenly changing your perspective.…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 09:58 PM
1

Can a child say "No", if an adult insists? In theory, yes; in practice, not easily. But, again, what's the issue? Are you suggesting that all forms of child modeling should be banned? And not the creepy child-beauty-pageant stuff, but things like advertisement, child actors, catalog modeling, etc. And if you're not suggesting that, then given that you've already stated breasts aren't genitals and shouldn't be considered as such, what is it about topless prepubescent modeling that gives you troub…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 08:16 PM
1

Try me. Ask me for evidence, of something specific. Okay. Why do you think it's relevant whether breasts are genitals or not? Why is that the dividing line? Do you believe that dividing line applies to child pornography as well? If not, why not? If you really believe that harm is the golden rule, then why did you bring up the whole "breasts aren't genitals" thing in the first place? What relevance does it have in determining whether harm is done? But reading further, revealed a concern and an ar…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 02:19 PM
1

We both agree the breasts are considered sexual. But I said that I care about whether any harm was done, and whether there's a double standard that could potentially cause harm to be done. Then why was your argument originally "breasts aren't genitals"? I mean, if harm is the only thing you care about - which is a sensible approach, honestly - but if that's your approach, then how is it relevant whether they're genitals? As I said before, I don't feel I know enough about this subject to make sta…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 01:41 PM
1

I don't see how the difference between a "photo" and a "moment" would change whether breasts are considered sexual or not.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 11:38 AM
1

I believe that in the current climate, it would be inappropriate to show a teenage girl trying to seduce the viewer, while topless. It risks glamorizing/objectifying the behavior. Then I'd argue that, in the current climate, there's a good argument for claiming that breasts are sexualized, and that this sort of eliminates the breasts aren't genitals claim. If we're treating them as sexual objects in one context then we have to acknowledge this baggage in other contexts. At the same time, the opp…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 04:21 AM
1

Well, that's an interesting question - how do you define "not pornographic"? Because US law, at least, seems firmly convinced that there is no such thing, at least when topless prepubescent girls are involved. But let's pretend for a second that we can ignore the law entirely. Do you believe there is something sexualized about breasts? Is there a situation where you would consider it A-OK to sell a series of pictures if the girls had their shirts on, but not OK with their shirts off?
/r/MensRights09/09/14 06:10 PM
1

Are you really going to claim that's the same meaning of the words? Mine means there was no serious harm, and isn't literal. Yours is based on the literal meaning that the world survived, despite the very real harm. I have no idea what your words mean if you don't tell me. Regardless of how offended you get at my lack of magic powers, I can't read your mind. Perhaps next time you should say things you mean, instead of saying things you don't mean and throwing a tantrum when I listen to you. If y…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 05:31 PM
1

With all due respect, you're the one who started this. You're the one who started with the wild accusations. Here's where you did it. If you want to back up to before that post and start over I'm happy to do so. But you don't have much of a leg to stand on right now. You "gave my question the full weight it deserved" after saying ". . .you can't be bothered to even pretend to give a shit. Like the rest, you're only really here to be morally outraged about clickbait." If you really want me to ret…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 05:00 PM
2

I'm still waiting to see where I stated briefly flashing breasts was a serious problem. I'll respond to the rest of your post when you've shown me that post or admitted I didn't make it.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 04:26 PM
2

I'm still waiting to see where I stated briefly flashing breasts was a serious problem. Actually, some of them don't survive. And you know exactly what I meant, if you bother to stop thinking like a broken DOS prompt. You really want to score those cheap internet points, don't you? Some of the worlds don't survive? What worlds exactly are you talking about here? And yes, I know exactly what you meant. You meant "omg this person is wrong on the Internet, I'm going to use unfounded hyperbole to ma…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 03:06 PM
2

And you're claiming that briefly flashing breasts, in a way that looks accidental, no less, is a serious problem, without any evidence of harm. You carefully use language that places it in the same context as a rape. I'm pretty sure I didn't do that. Can you provide a link? I'm just going to assume the rest of your comment is delusional ravings until you point out where I said that. I'll give you some help, though - I've posted only twice in this conversation. Here's the first post, here's the s…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 02:38 PM
5

But hold up, you just said breasts aren't genitals. Why would there be a problem? I mean, are you suggesting it wouldn't be morally okay to sell photographs of fully-clothed kids? With that said, it's already been done, and the world survived. Children are raped every day and the world survives. I don't think that's a very good dividing line to use. Now let me ask you a question - do you think it's morally okay to sell media with topless adult women in it to teenage boys? No, that's ridiculous. …
/r/MensRights08/09/14 02:15 PM
7

Out of curiosity, do you think it would be morally OK to sell photographs of topless teenage girls? (With their consent and the consent of their parents, of course.)
/r/MensRights08/09/14 11:59 AM
2

I was agreeing, not disagreeing :)
/r/MensRights21/08/14 01:26 PM
1

I've been in the gaming industry for over a decade and somehow I never noticed that. But you're totally right. The people who make the games are too busy making games to bother with this sort of drama - you don't become a game developer if games aren't your dream job.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 06:30 AM
8

Price is ripe for a spike. There has never been a point in Bitcoin history where people have said otherwise.
/r/TheRedPill02/08/14 02:32 PM
3

More use than a health clinic that doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights02/08/14 01:57 PM
4

https://www.google.com/search?q=dick+cheney&tbm=isch here, have an entire page full of dick
/r/RedPillWomen25/07/14 04:07 AM
13

We also don't criticize victims of theft, question them unless the story is obviously false Yeah we do. "Are you sure you didn't leave it at home?"
/r/MensRights13/07/14 09:54 PM
8

how would I approach? Frequently. The great thing about college is that in six years everyone will have forgotten about it. Use it for practice. That's what it's there for. I'll let other people give details on what they'd try, but, seriously, just approach.
/r/seduction13/07/14 11:58 AM
5

Here's the thing, the people in their respective 15+ brackets aren't necessarily having sex with each other. The people in the 1-4 brackets could be having sex with, like, 2 people from the 15+ brackets, which would increase the number in the people in the 15+ brackets without increasing the opposite gender's number, necessarily. I think your example only works if people in 15+ brackets are only having sex with each other. So . . . then who has sex with the other people in the 1-4 brackets? It d…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/14 03:37 PM
4

More men than women have had these ridiculous amounts of partners though. What's your point? No, you've got it backwards - you're claiming that there are a large number of men with a large number of partners, but this implies a small number of women with a really huge number of partners. Simplified example: Let's assume that everyone in the world has either 0 or >=15 partners. 25% of men have >=15 partners; 10% of women have >=15 partners. Assuming that all men who have >=15 partners have exactl…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/14 03:15 PM
4

I dug into the study in more depth - turns out it's available here - and "average" is referring to median, which would have been a useful thing for that original link to list. So, yes; in theory, there might be a situation where there's a very small number of women that are sleeping with a huge number of men. That said, I'm questioning the statistic quite a bit right now. For one thing, they're excluding people who have never had sex, and it turns out more men, in every age bracket, have never h…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/14 02:56 PM
9

One thing about those numbers that always makes me deeply skeptical: Males 30-44 report an average of 6-8 female sexual partners in their lifetime (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005). Females 30-44 report an average of 4 male sexual partners in their lifetime (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005). Who are the men sleeping with? They can't be sleeping with women of the same age, or - just thanks to the biological necessities of heterosexual relationships - the women would be reporting the same number. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/14 12:12 PM
5

I think the distinction /u/JGH8763 is making is between organizations and groups of people. There are many groups of people you can't criticize, but virtually every organization is up for criticism. I'm not entirely sure I agree with him - the LGBT rights movement is, while not as sacrosanct as feminism, pretty far up there. And there are (obviously) places where you can criticize feminism safely. But I can't think of any organizations that are as unattackable as feminism is, and honestly, I can…
/r/TheRedPill30/06/14 07:43 AM
1

What do you mean? Do you mean that they are leaving out a percentage of the population and/or sample? In some manner, yes, that's what it looks like. If I had to take a guess, they're not including women below a certain age.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 08:50 PM
1

They say statistics and population estimates were based on weighted analyses. There's nothing wrong with weighted analyses in general; I'm just saying that their percentage doesn't match up with their numbers. My best guess is that they're not considering all women to be "women". They're both pretty bad. I just don't think we should be using known-inaccurate scare numbers.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 08:36 PM
1

Well, first, it turns out I did the math wrong - they don't show 1 in 14, they show 1 in 7 - but second, they actually show 1 in 7. I'm really confused where they get "1 in 5" from. The estimated number of victims is 21,840,000; the population of the US is around 300m; that comes out to about 1 in 7. And "1 in 4" is not anywhere close to "1 in 7". That's almost a factor of two difference. This is, again, not a consistent pattern; it's a ridiculously wide range. That said, it's somewhat consisten…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 08:13 PM
1

They were mentioned because the data was collected, it just didn't amount to enough data to be of use at this time. And I'm saying, release the data anyway. We're capable of understanding error bounds. Plus, apparently it was enough data to include in the final paper; why wouldn't it be enough data to include in data form? While there have been found to be flaws in the methods of Koss's study, the findings have been replicated multiple times over through various other methods, pointing to a stro…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 07:11 PM
1

Rape against men is definitely mentioned. Tables 7.2 and 7.5 are about men. 7.5 explicitly includes rape. Made to penetrate is not split into its own category, you're correct. There is no table that shows "rape against men". 7.2 explicitly excludes rape. 7.5 includes it, along with a pile of other stuff. The numbers simply aren't available. There isn't going to be calculations for 12-months because there was not enough data to draw an accurate conclusion. . . . Then why did they include it in th…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 04:09 PM
1

Unfortunately those tables don't help - it still doesn't show the raw data, nor does it split "made to penetrate" into its own category, nor does it even mention rape against men. Also, they're all lifetime numbers.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/06/14 07:27 AM
3

In the notes of each chart, you find that an asterisk marks that the data’s standard error (RSE) is >30%. That isn't quite true - it also could mean that the data size is extremely small. Unsurprisingly, the *'s exist only in the slots where we'd expect to see small amounts of data (like "made to penetrate" for women.) And, given that they chose to give four significant figures on the datapoints that do exist, I'd wager that the non-* datapoints are reasonably accurate. I really wish they'd incl…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/14 04:26 AM
3

but based on readings I have done, coupled with the knowledge that there are a lot easier, less risky ways to get laid other than raping somebody, it seems logical that that is the case. A lot of crime is actually really difficult and unprofitable. Nevertheless, nobody would say that a petty thief was robbing for "power"; they'd just say the thief wasn't very smart. Criminals aren't usually particularly clever. If they were, they wouldn't be committing crimes. They certainly wouldn't be getting …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 07:51 PM
5

A lot of these statistics are based in Mary Koss's early study for Ms Magazine. That's where the 1-in-4 number came from, and virtually every study since then has either relied on 1-in-4 or jumped through hoops to come up with an even more frightening number. If you search for "koss ms magazine criticism" you can find a lot of sources. I don't know of any from Slate specifically. It's also worth noting that the article is now over 25 years old; even if we throw sanity to the wind and take it as …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 06:36 PM
8

Rape is an expression of power. Nothing to do with age or sex or attractiveness. Nothing to do with those? That's a hell of a claim. Can you back it up? I will point out that RAINN says 80% of all rape victims are below the age of 30. It seems like there's a pretty serious age factor involved.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 01:28 PM
1

Technically speaking that would be true only if being raped once left you immune to rape in the future. The real numbers would be somewhat lower than that due to the same people being raped more than once. It's a reasonable upper bounds for forcible rape, though. That said, that covers only forcible rape, which isn't the only form of rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 12:05 PM
19

Can I get factual statistics on this, and also factual statistics on its male counter part? Short answer: No, you can't. Longer answer: There's a lot of haziness surrounding the definition of "rape". Worse, even ignoring that haziness, it's nigh-impossible to factually determine if a rape occurred. (If it was easy, there would be no unsolved rapes.) The first approach people took in surveys was to check legal records. This turned out to be a terrible idea due to how many rapes are unreported, wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/14 11:58 AM
3

The spikes are basically Google's way of saying "this is so rare that we generally don't bother storing information about it".
/r/MensRights24/05/14 05:34 PM
1

Ah, fair enough then :)
/r/MensRights08/05/14 12:57 PM
1

Whoever said reverse sexism was a thing?
/r/MensRights02/05/14 10:20 AM
3

I believe I was told that while feminists may post in AMR, the subreddit is not actually a feminist subreddit. Your call on which side you take on this; however, if you decide it isn't a feminist subreddit, I'll again request that you post a link to Hanna Rosin story on a feminist subreddit.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 12:37 AM
3

I've been told so by people who post in AMR. Unfortunately I don't have a link, so I can't back that up. But I'll save a link to this and start referring to AMR as a feminist subreddit again.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 12:28 AM
6

I believe your response comment was deleted. That said, are you claiming the subreddit you linked to is a feminist subreddit?
/r/MensRights30/04/14 12:23 AM
8

How about posting the article in a feminist subreddit?
/r/MensRights29/04/14 11:57 PM
6

I like the term "straw feminist". It means "feminist whose existence is undeniable, but really really inconvenient for other feminists".
/r/MensRights29/04/14 09:57 AM
7

I'm willing to admit that there are some serious assholes who call themselves MRAs. Are you willing to admit there are serious assholes who call themselves feminists? No movement consists solely of perfect people. I just wish more movements would acknowledge this.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 09:56 AM
4

He sounds like a sane person stuck in a crazy system.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 03:03 PM
8

Then why did you post it?
/r/MensRights22/04/14 11:35 AM
1

I have yet to see any RPs source articles from jezebel (the only feminist website they know ) that cover feminists' views of men's issues. I already linked one. Did you miss it? Also, don't you see the problem with your understanding of feminism, or people even? "Am I thinking of other websites, or just one, or am I just smoke screening?" Not if you're asking for mainstream websites. I mean, yeah, there's tons of tiny amateur websites. Should I start linking Tumblr? I don't think you'll like the…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/14 10:43 AM
2

That's the only "mainstream well-known" feminist website I can think of. When I referred to "research" I was talking about things other than just looking for mainstream websites. Can you think of any others? Again, I honestly want to know what you're thinking of, if, in fact, you are thinking of one and not just smokescreening.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/14 10:20 PM
1

Did you know that apples can speak English? I'm not going to provide any proof, though, because it's not my job to educate you. If you want people to believe you, you'd better be prepared to introduce evidence instead of just pretending to be superior. To be honest, this comes across as a panic reaction now that you've realized you have no answer to the question. If that's not the impression you want to make, perhaps you should refrain from making statements you have no intention of backing up? …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/14 09:37 PM
16

I asked for suggestions because I wanted suggestions. Do you have any suggestions or just sarcasm? And yet, despite this being the only publication RPs know of, no source from jezebel is brought as an example of how feminists view men's issues. Here's a nice comical look at how hilarious it is when men are physically abused by women. Prepare to laugh!
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/14 08:40 PM
10

Which websites would you recommend? The websites that come to mind are things like Jezebel, which don't exactly put feminism in a good light.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/14 08:03 PM
6

As I read it, it's one girl per day. No threesome.
/r/seduction20/04/14 12:05 PM
1

It covers many of the reasons I don't like feminists.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 03:39 PM
3

It's the flip side of this classic XKCD comic. Yes, there are people who attribute all personal failings of individual women to women as a whole; but there are also people who attribute all insulted aimed at individual women to women as a whole. When a woman is bad at math, it doesn't mean women are bad at math. When someone says "that woman is a cunt", it doesn't mean they think women are cunts. It's sort of frustrating when people are so eager to complain about generalizations in the first cas…
/r/MensRights08/04/14 05:26 PM
19

TIL horses are naturally skilled at public relations.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 04:51 PM
16

Here's a very good explanation from CMV.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 02:18 PM
3

Same here, although AFAIK we never got doctors involved. Never had a UTI.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 01:05 PM
1

I'm sure if I keep going you'll just shift the goalposts further, and I'm not really interested in a goalpost-shifting competition right now.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 10:04 AM
2

That's just the one I bothered to look at. It's possible there's more, but I'm certain you'll come up with ways to ignore those also, because facts are really inconvenient to your agenda. Are you really trying to use "the exception proves the rule" as part of a logical proof?
/r/MensRights25/03/14 09:36 AM
-1

Is it more or less than "all of them"? You should do the math and get back to me. I'll give you a hint: here's one in the top ten that doesn't. Again, remember that we're comparing it against "all of them". Can you figure it out from here?
/r/MensRights24/03/14 09:26 PM
-1

Even those who think forced to penetrate is a different crime than rape don't go there. And some do. I know you really really really don't want those people to exist, but it doesn't matter how much you wish they don't exist. I gotta say this conversation is funny, though . . . "MRAs are evil!" Well, some are, but some feminists are evil too. "NO THEY AREN'T I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA WHY DO YOU GENERALIZE ENTIRE GROUPS LIKE THAT" When you lie, are you even aware you're lying? If someone isn't awa…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 09:22 PM
0

Yes, those standards where every single post in AMR is a disrespectful flame towards the group they don't like. You're right - unlike AMR, we like doing things other than complaining about other groups. I'm sorry if this is foreign territory to you, but the good news is that you'll be comfortable once in a while. This thread, for example, which is one of those three out of ten I mentioned earlier. So, just keep yourself restricted to the angry threads, and then you can keep pretending that all t…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 08:27 PM
-1

I don't think feminism supports child molestation. I don't think "feminism" supports anything. The word is practically meaningless. The only consistent meaning is "people who think some set of women should have at least one more right than they currently have". Nevertheless, some feminists support child molestation. Or rather, they don't support child molestation, because if it's a man, it's not molestation somehow. This goes right back to that "not a homogenous group" thing which you seem to ha…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 08:24 PM
-1

Obvious troll? Sure is convenient how everything that looks bad for you is a troll. They certainly give us plenty of material. So, how many threads have been started here about doing more activism and less mindless feminist bashing circle-jerk? Out of the top ten threads right now, exactly three of them are bashing feminists. Maybe I should check AMR to see how much of it is MRA-bashing, though, since that's the beacon of quality we're being compared to. Oh, look, it's all of them. Or wasn't I s…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 07:41 PM
0

I am very respectful, to those who respect me. I wasn't talking about you in the singular. I was talking about feminists. Keep track of the conversation, please. But hey, let's do this! Take a look at this conversation. Where did the disrespect start? Did it start with keiichi, or did it start with you? 'Cause as near as I can tell, you're the first one who started being disrespectful. Unless you consider yourself to be feminism incarnate. I assume you don't. When I said millions of feminists, c…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 07:36 PM
-1

Since when do we not need to worry about getting respect? If you do need to worry about it, you should probably consider, you know, actually being respectful towards men. If you want to know what that looks like, hang out in AMR, and imagine that on the news. Only there are millions of us doing things to help people every day of our lives, and we're being attacked for it. If by "doing things to help people every day of our lives" you mean "making fun of strawman caricatures of men", then yes, th…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 06:42 PM
-1

What makes you think I'm not? When I see a good faith effort, I'm first to admit it. I go out of my way to acknowledge and advocate for men's issues. It's not every member of AMR who MRAs lobby to be unbanned from FMR. And that's why you're considering every MRA to be interchangable: because you're so interested in good-faith efforts of communication. But when every good faith effort is followed by thanks, and then hitting the reset button and pretending feminists are the enemies of men, it's an…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 06:37 PM
-1

Meanwhile, feminists totally don't have to worry about gaining respect, because
/r/MensRights24/03/14 05:11 PM
1

And every time you criticize all of the MRM, instead of trying to find common ground, you're alienating us even further. All you're doing is sitting on a pedestal, demanding that we fix your problems. Maybe if feminists universally believed men could be raped, we wouldn't be concerned about the fact that they don't. Maybe if "helping men" didn't 90% of the time mean "sure, we'll get to it someday, when women have no problems" we'd have some respect for feminists who actually do help men. Maybe f…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 04:29 PM
8

"Toxic feminism" is a term that means nothing more than "the variant of feminism that the speaker dislikes the most". Telling someone to wage a war against toxic feminism is roughly on par with saying "hey, why don't you go stop bad people". Like, hey, no shit. Maybe we should go stop bad people! Maybe that's what we're already doing, and maybe your definition of "bad people" is different from ours. You might be interested to know that life is not, in fact, a video game, and the bad guys don't h…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 10:28 AM
2

Probably the part where you're insisting it's a donation despite all evidence to the contrary. If it looks like a purchase, and quacks like a purchase, it's probably a purchase.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 07:58 PM
2

What that's saying is that Kickstarter isn't liable for the money, because they're not the ones getting the money. There's nothing in there which says the person running the kickstarter avoids liability.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 06:17 PM
3

True. Which is totally bogus in pretty much every way. :V
/r/MensRights22/03/14 06:15 PM
3

As YouTube partners, they aren't. End of. Technically speaking this wouldn't be true if they were, in fact, a non-profit organization. Non-profit organizations are allowed to make money, it's just that the money they make must be spent for the sake of the non-profit. They aren't a non-profit, but if they were, YouTube partner monetization wouldn't conflict in any way.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 11:23 AM
2

The legal status of a kickstarter payment is a donation and backers don't actually really have much legal protection if they aren't delivered. I don't believe this is true at all. It's a purchase, albeit a purchase with a very long lead time expected before delivery. People who don't get their purchased item are likely able to get a refund by going through legal channels.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 11:22 AM
11

As a creative person - true, they don't appear without putting the hours in, but your muse doesn't always give you a choice of which hours to put in. As a result I'm sitting here at 3am plugging away on something that's got me excited. That's just how the creative mind works sometimes.
/r/TheRedPill22/03/14 10:06 AM
1

The key to being a good programmer is to program a shitload of stuff. Do that in your free time. Don't assume a college degree alone will get you a job.
/r/askTRP14/03/14 10:16 PM
9

That was sarcastic, yo, not passive-aggressive.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 05:11 PM
5

I know this might be surprising, but it's possible for us to post things that aren't specifically about us.
/r/MensRights03/03/14 09:33 PM
2

Whoever said it had anything to do with MR?
/r/MensRights03/03/14 08:57 PM
20

the fact that women are sexually assaulted more, raped more, harassed more, and abused more around the world than men. Except that isn't a fact - in fact, it's the opposite of a fact. It's true only when you define those terms to marginalize male victims and emphasize female victims.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 08:44 AM
2

My mom tried to hide the computer power cables. You can imagine just how well that went.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 01:39 AM
7

Or swapped it with a mostly-naked sleepwalking woman after a few days.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 01:15 AM
2

The world records already are co-ed. It's competitions where the gender segregation happens.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 01:03 AM
155

How surprising.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:39 AM
3

If they were co-ed, men would win all of them. Just look at how many athletic world records are held by men. Last I checked, it was all but one.
/r/MensRights05/02/14 12:38 AM
3

It's not possible to critique the bluepill subreddit on any other point because there is no other point they all definitely agree on. Then maybe you should have said that in the first place instead of coming up with a fake critique? Your analogy with asking a person about their character is wrong because the bluepill subreddit is not a person. Oh come on. Alright then . . . "What's your company's biggest weakness?" "My company's biggest weakness is that we're so awesome that some people don't li…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 04:21 PM
3

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you've responded to the question "what does your side get wrong" by saying "what we get wrong is that we're even righter than we think and the other side is even wronger!" "What's your biggest interpersonal weakness?" "Well, my biggest weakness is probably how awesome I am. I'm actually so awesome that other people are intimidated by it."
/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/14 03:44 PM
8

I feel like you're the kind of person who, when asked about your biggest weakness as an employee, responds "I work too hard". In other words, you've managed to "answer" the question by completely dodging it.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 11:26 PM
6

A while back there was a (mediocre) TV show called Cupid, in which Cupid had lost touch with humanity and God had sent him down to Earth in order to learn how to make people fall in love with each other. Without his magic bow. In one episode, he started with a group of four guys who were hopeless romantically. He brought 'em to a bar and got them to chip in $20 each for a competition. The rules: Whoever gets rejected the most number of times tonight wins the pot. It's always seemed like a great …
/r/seduction25/01/14 07:09 AM
1

Hold up - first, you're arguing against something I never said. I merely said they were different, not how they were different. I'm not sure I agree with TRP on the details; I just agree that it's a subject worth discussing. Second, that's a really bad argument against TRP's point. Something being correlated with one variable may also be correlated with another variable. TRP's claim is that all women are more hypergamous than men - all you've demonstrated is that women become less hypergamous, r…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 09:43 PM
-1

I've never seen anyone in TBP claim that men and women are identical; if you have a source for that claim I'd appreciate it. Sadly, I don't - I haven't gotten into that particular discussion in months and I didn't bother to save links. But that's quite different from making bold claims, saying they're backed up by science, and then ignoring scientific evidence that is in clear disagreement with those claims. What scientific evidence against those claims do you have?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 04:24 PM
1

Okay, I'm really confused here . . . Besides, acknowledging that there are some trends that differentiate men and women does not come even close to ceding that TRP got a single thing right in their assessment of women or men. This is the very definition of "significantly different". You may disagree in what ways they're different, but not that they are different.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 01:14 AM
0

So . . . you're saying they're different, but insignificantly so? I can't think of another option than that.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 01:04 AM
1

Explain, please?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 12:58 AM
1

So . . . does TBP believe that men and women are significantly different, then? Because in my experience, the answer to that is "no".
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 12:55 AM
-1

You used the word "you" the sentence that follows the sentence that says it's only an insult if it contains the word "you". This is ridiculous - you're just jamming words in my mouth that I never said. I never said it was only an insult if it contained the word "you". I'll try to put this simply: Language isn't an arcade game where you lose points by shooting the spaceship with the wrong letters letters on it, it's about putting words together to form concepts. I was being careful to criticize y…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 12:52 AM
2

You're right, we have. I highly doubt this subreddit is a representative sample of both TRP and TBP.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 12:31 AM
1

I have, unfortunately - I got into an argument with someone who made the claim that, because there exist women who are stronger than men, therefore women and men have the same average strength. That was kind of an extreme of nuttiness, admittedly, but it's very common to hear claims that male and female behavior are so similar as to be effectively identical . . . without any evidence demonstrating so. Whereas I see TRP as being aimed more towards trying to determine if there are differences, and…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 12:18 AM
2

Or maybe you need to be more specific when you say that "We can find concrete differences in many gendered species on the planet and (to the best of my knowledge) most primates. I see no reason that humans would be different." Rodents aren't primates. I think my statement was pretty clear and I don't see why you're misunderstanding it. TRP does not consist of 5 year olds. If you are 18 and still don't know how to interact normally wieh women Again, interaction isn't a binary thing. Look at the b…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 12:05 AM
4

Preface: I'm trying very hard to understand where you're coming from, but to be blunt, your response feels like a giant pile of non sequiturs and wild assumptions. I'd really like to go a step back before you introduced . . . everything in this post, to be honest . . . and work through it one point a a time, so we can figure out what the common ground is. Comparing humans to other animals is pointless when it comes to issues like this. That's another TRP epic fail. Rodents don't have prejudice i…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/14 11:31 PM
2

Since the differences are larger within genders than between them it doesn't make any sense to assume that a person is going to be a certain way because of their gender. It makes sense to assume that they are more likely to act one way than another. I mean, example. I come up to you and say "which is heavier, a rodent or an adult human?!" I suspect you're going to say "an adult human is heavier". But an adult capybara can be up to 66kg. There are plenty of people lighter than that! Aha! You say …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/14 10:50 PM
3

TBP seems to generally lean on the idea that men and women are identical. They aren't. There are physical differences between male brains and female brains, there are hormone differences between male bodies and female bodies and those hormones have (moderately) known effects, and there are studies indicating that other primates share human "gender roles". My conclusion would be that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the average man will behave somewhat differently from the average woman. …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/14 09:09 PM
2

First, I think you got your logic backwards. You're saying that if it was better to be drafted, we would force people to take the inferior option? How is that even related to what I said? Second, assuming you meant to say "if it was better to live at home with your wife and kids than submit to the draft", you're somehow missing the point of the draft. The point of the draft is to force someone to do something that is detrimental to them for the sake of the greater good. If you want to compare th…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/14 07:51 PM
7

If it was better to be dead, then we'd consider it an act of altruism to murder people who are living in poverty and have kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/14 07:33 PM
2

The odd part is that I'd make a very similar statement about TBP.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/14 07:29 PM
3

I really doubt the researchers and hanging out and playing games with the monkeys. The cultural influence is going to be quite minimal, and this really feels like grasping at straws.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 06:18 AM
3

Are you suggesting that all human and animal social behavior "varies with culture and time", but by pure coincidence, a set of monkeys happens to have the exact same cultural conditioning at this time that humans do? Or are you suggesting that us humans are culturally influencing the monkeys somehow? This is really feeling like a stretch to me.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 03:49 AM
3

Except what that means varies with culture and time. See here: That's talking about color, though, not toy type. I'm very skeptical about whether toy choice also varies with culture and time, given that it doesn't seem to vary by species.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 02:42 AM
107

I got banned from /r/askfeminists and /r/feminism by saying that I believed the thing most trivializing rape was the people who called everything rape.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 12:02 AM
1

If there's a large number of people who believe they're feminists, and they are collectively identified by the majority of humanity as feminists, and they don't believe I'm a feminist, then who am I to say otherwise? Why does a small minority get to redefine the term used by the majority?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/01/14 02:58 AM
1

That is what the word "feminism" means. I've been told by many feminists that I'm not a feminist. I also believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. If "feminist" means "believes men and women should have equal rights and opportunities" then perhaps someone should tell the feminists that, because they don't seem to be aware of it :P
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 05:58 PM
6

So I want to see. Show of hands, who here believes that? Does anyone? Is that an accurate summation of the position? I don't, but I have talked to people who did. I suspect those people don't read this subreddit. Hell, a while back I had someone claiming that men weren't, on average, stronger than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 01:25 PM
5

Like from the neck up totally identical Well, men are much more likely to be colorblind than women. And men tend to go bald, whereas women get gray hair. I know that wasn't what you were talking about, but I admit, given the sheer number of physical differences between men and women, I find it absolutely fascinating that anyone would propose our brains are identical.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/01/14 01:23 PM
6

What if her cause is lies? Checkmate, MRAs!
/r/MensRights26/12/13 05:32 PM
1

You can get all the software needed to make that image for free.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 07:56 PM
1

All you've got to do is find a nice utilitarian set of iron knuckles - these would work fine - and attach the text to it.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 12:26 PM
1

This tells us nothing about humans. Sure, it doesn't. But it does strongly nudge us in the direction of thinking something is going on here. You realize we use primates for medical and psychological studies, right? We don't do that just to waste money. We do that because primates are far more similar to humans than they are different, and while there is certainly no guarantee that primate biology and behavior parallels human biology and behavior, it's sure a hell of a lot better than guessing wi…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:31 AM
1

Do me one favor, explain how you think natural selection, a process that takes quite a long time, resulted in little boys liking Tonka trucks. That's a very interesting question, and I think it would be a fascinating thing to figure out. Nevertheless, it seems to be true - male primates prefer trucks over dolls, female primates prefer dolls over trucks. I say "primate" because that's a study done on monkeys. If toy preference is simply a societal construct, how do you explain the fact that rhesu…
/r/MensRights17/12/13 01:56 PM
10

Gender of perpetrator: Yes
/r/MensRights17/12/13 01:35 PM
3

Here are the studies saying that our partner preference may not be hard-wired: Interesting study. However, there's no evidence as yet that partner preferences will be completely identical in fully equal societies - it just demonstrates a correlation that does not reach unity. It's possible (even likely) that TRP's charts are biased towards the US. It'd be neat to see (scientifically created :V) similar charts for a variety of countries.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/13 05:15 PM
1

They seem to believe the contrapositive is true. That's not the contrapositive. The contrapositive would be "men who don't choose heterosexuality aren't too ugly to be gay." The contrapositive is true iff the original statement is true. In this case, there are plenty of logical situations where, at least in theory, the TRP explanation could be true and your statement could be false. Also, I interpret the TRP statement as being "some women choose to be lesbians only because they're ugly", not "al…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/13 11:34 AM
4

I don't see why there would be a difference in ability to get in LTR. I don't see why there wouldn't be, personally. The genders behave differently enough that I'd be honestly shocked if the two genders found it equally easy to get in a long relationship throughout their entire lives. There are a few top-ten lists for the best places for men to date and the best places for women to date. The best places for men to date will be the worst places for women to date and vise-versa, and this has a lot…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 10:45 PM
4

But will she be good at getting a long-term relationship? Again, remember that SMV is meant to include all types of relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 09:21 PM
7

Again, they're not talking about it in terms of physical attractiveness. They're talking about it in terms of relationship attractiveness. That, on average, if you take a 20 year old woman and a 20 year old man, and record how good they are at getting one night stands/SO's/long-term relationships, and then check up on them again 20 years later, the man will - usually - now be significantly comparatively better at those things than the woman will. Physical attractiveness may be a factor, but it's…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 08:54 PM
5

Both genders, as far as I know. Although the theory is that women's SMV relies more heavily on physical attractiveness, just based on what men are looking for and what women are interested in providing. (On average, of course - there are always exceptions.)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:09 PM
5

Sex isn't just about physical attractiveness, it's about a whole host of other things. I'll quote the official TRP definition: SMV – Sexual Market Value. A shorthand statement for “what you bring to the table,” whether for an one-night stand or for a longer sexual/emotional relationship. This includes many things beyond straight-up good looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:42 PM
2

The picture is indicating overall desirability, not just physical attractiveness. The theory is that older men have other things which more than compensate for their slowly-fading physical looks.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 04:50 PM
6

In general, TRP seems to be reasonably happy to make generalizations without implying that these generalizations are universally true. For example, "men are stronger than women"; in significantly more than 50% of cases, if you picked a random man and a random woman, the man would be stronger. Not 100% of cases, but certainly more than 50%. "Men age better than women" should be taken in a similar light - something that is generally true without being universally true.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 04:25 PM
6

I never quite understood why TRP doesn't quite believe that men generally age also and they too get unattractive as much as women who age do. The fact that SMV is only attractiveness-related in women and not men is laughable. I don't think they're saying that SMV for men is completely unrelated to attractiveness. They are saying that, for men, attractiveness is generally a much smaller part of SMV, and that many of the other parts (mostly based around wealth) actually increase with age. In contr…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 02:42 PM
2

It stands to reason if all they wanted was sex, they could have paid someone for that. That's a huge assumption. It assumes they have money, it assumes they don't want sex from one particular person, it assumes they're fully in command of their faculties, it assumes they know how to pay someone to get sex, it assumes they're even aware they're raping someone, I'm absolutely certain there are many more assumptions I haven't listed there. People rape for every reason under the sun but most of the …
/r/MensRights03/12/13 11:15 AM
2

However even a quick search "why do people rape" brings up a great deal on the fact that rape is a crime of power and control. Without any evidence, it brings up a great deal on the opinion that rape is a crime of power and control. And none of them seem keen on providing evidence. I did find a single citation arguing against the claim, however. (The actual study is listed at the bottom of the article.)
/r/MensRights03/12/13 10:10 AM
1

I question the validity of a study done entirely by surveying people - people are terrible judges of their own motivations. Still, if you happen to run across it again, I'd like to see it.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 09:53 AM
2

I don't see a conflict here. Imagine there is a business owner that is in the habit of giving away a lot of free stuff for no benefit, resulting in balance sheets that are constantly in the negative. Two questions: Is this a business you would visit regularly? Is this a business you would invest in? It's possible to enjoy an aspect of someone's behavior in one situation and dislike it in another. I'm not trying to argue that they're correct, note, but "how can someone hate a behavior in one situ…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 09:36 AM
4

Can you give a citation?
/r/MensRights03/12/13 09:31 AM
3

Out of curiosity, how do we know?
/r/MensRights03/12/13 09:17 AM
3

Sometimes it's just about sex.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 08:45 AM
3

I admit to taking a certain gleeful pleasure in telling diehard feminists to check their privilege.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 02:01 AM
1

That's kind of an amazing series of games. Game 1: 55-year-old male, 14 years retired, beats 29-year-old female - the best in the world - by a landslide. Game 2: Rematch; female wins, though not by the same margin as in the first game. Game 3: Same player, now 67 years old, does a doubles match against two women who, put together, are still younger than he is. Loses again. (You'd think he'd learn.) Game 4: Roughly-evenly-matched players, with rules heavily weighted against the male. Male wins an…
/r/MensRights20/11/13 03:33 PM
3

To be honest, I'd really love to see a study on this. Unfortunately I suspect nobody has done one. :(
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 02:48 PM
6

While obviously (barring homosexual encounters, the small gender difference in world population, and reporter bias) the mean sexual encounters must be the same between the genders, there's nothing to say the median must be the same. It's mathematically plausible, for example, to claim that 90% of men are below average in sexual partners but only 50% of women are, with a small minority of men having a huge number of sexual partners and bringing the average up. This would imply that if you picked …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 01:57 PM
2

It's the details that really demonstrate how much he cares.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 12:48 PM
3

I also like that the system is set up as a democracy but he's trying to seize dictatorial power over it anyway. If your actions are put up for vote, then you are not the boss of the people who are voting. They're the boss of you. That's how voting works.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 11:41 PM
0

Technically that wouldn't help pass the Bechdel Test.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 01:15 PM
1

One can imagine a horribly sexist film that includes two named female characters who talk about yogurt for 5 seconds, which passes the test. "HELLO BAMBI DO YOU LIKE BABIES" "YES KITTI BABIES ARE THE BEST" (Scene change. Bambi and Kitti are never seen again.)
/r/MensRights07/11/13 01:15 PM
7

This isn't a list of how to be a better male feminists, it's a list of how to be used, how to lose all self respect, how to not have an opinion, and how to support a cause that is not about you and doesn't really want your opinion I admit I don't see a contradiction here. It might be both.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 11:11 AM
-2

I don't think it's making the point that feminism helps men escape stifling gender roles, it's making the point that women's rights helps men escape stifling gender roles.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 11:07 AM
-1

But people arguing against the claim aren't arguing for absolute truth, and (from what I can see) they haven't argued that the claim is necessarily false. This is not a counterexample. I was talking about your eagerness to accept claims that have not been proven - honestly, accepting an unproven claim as fact while still believing in the possibility of another claim is an example of what I am talking about. Not quite. The position I'm defending is more akin to: "There is no evidence that magic c…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 03:07 PM
2

You know what I think is fascinating about his original post? He almost never mentions feminists. The only times the prefix "femin" shows up is in quote citations or as part of actual quotes, with a single exception . . . Feminist Professor Catharine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified, p. 5. . . . when he calls Catharine MacKinnon a feminist. I think it's telling that he posts a bunch of misandric quotes and the immediate response from feminists is "Misandry? He must be talking about us!"
/r/MensRights05/11/13 02:28 PM
1

To be honest I have a hard time being annoyed at this. Equality of opportunity, not outcome. I'm not going to begrudge anyone the ability to live their life, no matter what's between their legs.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 01:58 PM
0

Are you able to link me to where I said that? I had a look through and I can only find you talking about accepting things as not being true. I don't think you've previously accepted something with a probabilistic qualifier. But hey, let me just go back . . . https://pay.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1ptsi0/women_lack_character_honor_integrity_loyalty_and/cd783qi I'm going to continue accepting the position that it did not happen. https://pay.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1ptsi0…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 01:42 PM
0

Going to skip most of this because there's one point that I think is extremely important: Certainly. In the mean time, we accept the position that it's unlikely to be true. This . . . isn't what you said before. At all. You said, before, that we accepted it wasn't true. Not that it was unlikely to be true. Can you see that there's a crucial difference between the two?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 01:27 PM
0

Of course, it would be absurd to accept otherwise given the lack of evidence. If new evidence arises, then we change positions. You seem to be interpreting the acceptance of a position as an absolute statement which cannot ever be changed. So, wait - does your definition of "acceptance of a position" include "I accept it because I have faith that it's true and do not need evidence"? I've been interpreting it as a belief that something has evidence behind it. If you don't need evidence in order t…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 12:48 PM
1

Hey, I've got a question - was this meant to actually be an argument against the OP's point, or were you just demonstrating what an argument looks like?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 12:38 PM
0

Not quite. My position is: "There's no evidence that magic can cure cancer, therefore we shouldn't accept the idea that magic can cure cancer". Should we accept the idea that magic can't cure cancer? Two problems with that: that's just an example of a valid argument I really do not agree with this. Look at it in context. I pointed out that the conclusion hadn't been disproved, and I was given an argument that claimed to disprove my conclusion. I don't see why you're claiming that it was intended…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 11:20 AM
0

Not quite. The position I'm defending is more akin to: "There is no evidence that magic can cure cancer so I'm not going to accept that claim until evidence can be provided". All scientists worth their salt will defend such a position. From your posts, it really sounds like the position you're defending is "there is no evidence that magic can cure cancer, therefore magic can't cure cancer". That's the claim I'm arguing against, at least; that's the claim I've been referring to when I say that th…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 10:51 AM
1

But people arguing against the claim aren't arguing for absolute truth, and (from what I can see) they haven't argued that the claim is necessarily false. The claim is simply that the claim is ridiculous, misogynistic and unsupported. At least one of them is. I mean, look at this response: Fine. I don't think you get how an argument works, but I'll humor your request. Humans are known to express character, honor, integrity, loyalty, and fidelity in general. Women are human. (Conclusion) Therefor…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 03:05 AM
0

Those two quotes are the same comment? I think you may have misquoted. seem to be trying to shift the burden of proof, or at least try to reframe the issue so that both sides have some burden. This is obviously incorrect. Why is it obviously incorrect? I think both sides do have some burden, at least if they're trying to claim their belief as absolute truth. If you haven't proved something, you shouldn't be trying to claim you have. The red piller made the claim about women lacking those traits,…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 02:38 AM
1

Technically you haven't proven point 1 :P Also, while I admit it's unclear, I read the argument as being a generality, not a statement that no women possess those traits. If we were somehow able to prove that women, on average, express those traits to a far lower degree than men do, then the claim would be true, regardless of the existence of outliers and regardless of the average behavior of humans. Although it probably should be stating the existence of those outliers more explicitly. As an ex…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 02:15 AM
3

I will point out that you haven't actually disproven the conclusion, just demonstrated that the logic leading to that conclusion is faulty.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 06:10 AM
5

I believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities, yet I've been told by plenty of feminists that I'm not a feminist. The only conclusion I can draw is that, according to feminists, this picture is incorrect.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 09:33 AM
2

That's a sign that they weren't common enough to be included in the rankings.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 12:35 AM
9

Well, yeah. I mean, everything is the fault of the patriarchy. So of course that is too.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 12:21 AM
1

And framing the falsely accused as a "violator".
/r/MensRights31/10/13 08:48 PM
6

The Catherine Comins quote is a misquote - it's actually a quote from the person writing about Comins's real quote. Which is sort of a pity because her real quote isn't any better: Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of "rape." She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. "To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't c…
/r/MensRights31/10/13 09:03 AM
15

So, wait . . . does that mean reality fails the Bechdel test?
/r/MensRights31/10/13 08:56 AM
13

Let's be real: it wasn't single-handedly, she had plenty of help.
/r/TheRedPill28/10/13 08:36 PM
3

I recognize all of this, but there is legitimate reason to focus on sexism against women because sexism against men is only a result of the oppression of women(by society, not by men). How do you know?
/r/MensRights21/10/13 10:12 PM
24

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. Nope. We're pretty open to discussion among ourselves and it's kind of hard to "punish" someone over the internet. I'm not entirely sure I buy this - I've had blue-pill insults slung at me for disagreeing with someone.
/r/TheRedPill15/10/13 04:44 AM
5

Save this the next time somebody brings up the phrase "straw-feminist." "No, that doesn't count, she's not a real feminist"
/r/MensRights06/10/13 03:33 PM
6

Or especially that a woman with other skills would.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 05:59 PM
19

Men don't actually kill themselves! It's just a conspiracy, by the patriarchy, to make you think men are killing themselves.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 07:03 AM
6

reeks of revisionism frankly. Slightly-related question for you: Do you believe Valerie Solanas truly thinks all men should die?
/r/MensRights27/09/13 07:01 AM
10

And as an added bonus, when you're done cooking pie, you have pie, which is fuckin' delicious.
/r/RedPillWomen26/09/13 10:14 AM
-1

My logic is only flawed if you expect me to talk outside of the issue I was discussing. For the points I covered, it was mostly NOT about gender. I disagree. I think there's a lot more effort put towards preventing homicide of women than there is put towards homicide of men. The same is, in fact, true of industrial accidents - see the Triangle Shirtwaist fire for an example of that. Industrial accident with women: sweeping reforms. Industrial accident with men: silence. I used the broader spectr…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 10:12 AM
1

Are you expecting me to think about every issue that could regard gender, issues that are outside the current debate? No, I'm demonstrating why your logic is flawed, and why we shouldn't be focused on your statement "(bad thing) rates wouldn't lower if the split was 50/50". I'm also interested in your point about women being murdered kicking up a media frenzy, at least in relation to men being murdered; Do you have anything at all to suggest that this is true? Total back-of-the-envelope example:…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 09:55 AM
-2

For the most part this isn't about gender. I sort of agree, but I also sort of don't. Let's take domestic violence as an example, since I think it's the most extreme example. There are incredible amounts of money plowed into reducing domestic violence against women. There's virtually nothing put towards reducing domestic violence against men. It's easy to say "domestic violence wouldn't be lowered if the split was 50/50", but if we rephrase that - if we were to, say, put as much money towards ma…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 09:37 AM
5

The problem here is that nothing in this list is a result of feminism, at least not conclusively. To be honest, I don't care if things are a result of feminism or not. I consider it totally irrelevant. The only important thing is to recognize that these are problems and attempt to fix those problems. If that means going up against feminism, sure, whatever; if that means solving it in a different way, sure, whatever. If someone looks at this page and says "wow, those are serious problems that nob…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 09:23 AM
2

On the other hand, "freedom of the press" doesn't require that the police tell the press who the victim is, and it does permit for laws that prevent people involved in the case from talking about it.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 04:44 PM
2

Oh, definitely - Zimbabwe's history is, shall we say, not exactly the happiest in the world. The recent events mostly come down to "Hey! People with this skin color have fucked us over in the past, so this time, let's fuck them over! Even the ones who weren't involved in the first place! And in the process, ourselves as well! YEAH!" So, I sorta see where they're coming from . . . but it's not really a good response. And, good response or not, it certainly qualifies as a place where it sucks more…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 02:48 PM
7

Zimbabwe. It sucks for everyone there, don't get me wrong, but over the last decade or so white people had their land systematically and unilaterially seized by the government, and frequently assaulted based on the color of their skin. The ironic instant-karma moment is that it turns out the white farmers were the ones who knew how to take care of the land and, you know, grow things on it, whereas the new black landowners just don't have the expertise needed. This is one of the things that contr…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 02:21 PM
3

Hey man, he said always. He can't wimp out on us now.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 09:10 AM
2

In fairness, pretty much everyone could be hot if they tried. (Not quite everyone, but I'd say 98-99% of humanity, and that might be an underestimation.)
/r/RedPillWomen07/09/13 12:48 PM
7

A quote from feminist Simone de Beauvoir: No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. . . . Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. At some point feminism seems to have changed from "women should have the right to choose their own destiny" to "feminists should have the right to choose everyone's destiny".
/r/MensRights06/09/13 04:15 AM
4

I'm upset over the fact that I have to give up a musical career in order to have my chosen career. I can't become a film director either. Or an actor. Or a mechanical engineer. Nobody's forcing me to make the choices I made - there just aren't enough hours in the day for me to do everything I want. I choose and I prioritize. The pressure is coming from inside, nowhere else.
/r/MensRights06/09/13 04:11 AM
3

The statement is accurate: men are statistically more likely to commit violence against women. Women almost never commit violence against women! The implied joke is that nobody cares about violence against men, only about violence against women.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 01:07 PM
1

I think it's kind of funny that all the sex-negative feminists are using this as ammunition against the sex-positive ones. I swear, they don't let any opportunity for infighting go past.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 10:57 AM
-1

Chrome actually has it built-in. I don't know if that counts as "special" to you, though.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 10:42 AM
25

Sorry, the notary was drunk. It was rape.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 11:12 PM
10

A quote from feminist Simone de Beauvoir: No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. . . . Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. At some point feminism seems to have changed from "women should have the right to choose their own destiny" to "feminists should have the right to choose everyone's destiny".
/r/MensRights25/08/13 03:58 AM
10

Of course, he was banned from /r/askfeminists also . . .
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:35 PM
1

Pity. Well, a computer science degree certainly isn't a bad way to go, but if you really hate it, find another path if you possibly can :) Hopefully it'll work out great though!
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:21 PM
1

Definitely, but - this is where I have to urge caution - if you're not a rather good coder, you may not be able to make a lot of money at just coding. There's a lot of competition. However, if you learn some of the basics, especially in signal processing, you may be able to augment your passion in some very unexpected ways. Imagine you were able to write custom plugins for your favorite music production software, for example. I don't know electronic dance music well enough to know what opportuni…
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 06:07 PM
2

Well, first, note that I know game development better than I know the rest of the market. However, from what I understand, game development tends to be an exaggerated and more brutal version of the rest of the markets, with lower pay but (in return) longer hours and harder work. (three cheers for game development) Anyway, the good news, or possibly bad news: Programming is a meritocracy. After your first job nobody really cares what your degree is, they care what you worked on. If you can prove …
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 05:56 PM
2

And if you can, choose something that you're interested in and that can be converted into lots of money if you should choose. I'm a game programmer, because I really enjoy video games . . . but if I needed a whole lot more money, I could take the programming skills and swap to another job.
/r/TheRedPill16/08/13 09:38 AM
1

Logic would follow that there are as many lawyers experienced having a female client compared to having a male client. That's not really true. Thought experiment time: Let's say a lawyer becomes an expert after having twenty cases in a field. There are 1000 lawyers in the world, and over time, there have been 1000 custody cases. 50 of those lawyers market themselves as "female custody experts". As a result, they get all the custody cases from a woman's side. Each one of them handles 20 cases and…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 10:21 AM
7

I believe men deserve rights. MRAs fight for men's rights and nobody else does. So I'm happy to call myself an MRA. For the same reason, I believe women deserve rights as well. Unfortunately, the main "women's rights" group is feminism, which seems to be deeply confused as to its own organization's standards. So while I believe in women's rights, I don't call myself a feminist. The MRM is just as diverse - if not more so - but unlike feminism, it recognizes and admits that diversity, which makes…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 06:19 AM
7

Well, technically, only true if the quotas actually need to be enforced. If we set a quota that, say, 1% of military soldiers needed to be men, there would be no discrimination involved because nobody would ever have to pay attention to the quota. Of course, then we're wasting resources making pointless laws, which is also kinda dumb.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 09:32 PM
10

Don't worry, I'm sure she's not a real feminist, where "real" is defined as "convenient for the purposes of this discussion".
/r/MensRights05/08/13 04:49 PM
1

What do you mean by "quality"?
/r/seduction31/07/13 06:08 PM
16

The French, I'm guessing. Wild hunch. Could be wrong.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:53 AM
1

From my observations of people who talk about rape culture.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 07:36 PM
3

From what I've seen, the rape culture theory is that women never put up token resistance, and therefore any sort of "getting around no" is unquestionably the action of a rapist. Which sort of ignores, you know, reality, but so it goes.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 05:56 PM
6

I see it as being very parallel to the War on Drugs, personally. For years, we've been shouting about how "no means no", and it hasn't helped - not only is drug usage sky-high, but the really nasty drugs are just as easy to get as they've always been, and people who want to use the harmless ones can end up involved with the nasty drugs also. Prohibition doesn't work. It never has, and it looks like it never will. When you try to prohibit a huge and natural range of behaviors in order to prevent …
/r/MensRights27/07/13 01:10 PM
13

It also ignores the fact that many women are taught that being coy is lady like and they should never admit to wanting sex. Interesting study here: Of the 610 women who completed the Situation Questionnaire, 39.3% reported saying no to sexual intercourse when they meant yes. Out of the women who had strong commentary about why they said "no", 22.9% did so for manipulative reasons.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 07:33 PM
11

Part of me suspects that the reason feminists don't consider Lara a "female fantasy" is because of an underlying assumption that women don't play games. Therefore, games must be made for the enjoyment of men, by definition. Which is, of course, pretty dang sexist in itself.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 03:52 AM
-1

I'm in favor of a basic income for everyone, really, regardless of their gender, age, marital, or employment status. Children are just part of this. It's not a punishment for anyone - it's recognization that we're now rich enough that we have no reason to let anyone starve or die of easily-preventable diseases, besides greed and apathy. And I don't consider greed or apathy to be very good reasons.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 07:13 PM
3

In fairness, I'm actually all for that part. I think child support should be obliterated entirely and single parents of either gender should be paid a reasonable stipend to support the child.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 01:03 PM
17

How many men is that true for, though? Inherited money is a pretty amazing step up no matter what gender you are.
/r/TheRedPill18/07/13 12:52 PM
3

Do what I do when feminists feed you the bullshit of "are you for equality? then your a feminist" line. Either confront her with insane feminist doctrine or make up your own shit, even borrow from the MRM while maintaining that you are in fact a feminist, since you believe in true equality for both men and women. Even when it completely conflicts with feminist ideals (which will be often). I rather enjoy that second part. I just follow whatever the other person's definition of "feminism" is. Equ…
/r/MensRights17/07/13 12:30 PM
5

In some way, I'm starting to think that "rape culture" is real . . . . . . it's the tendency of people to assume absolutely every mildly sketchy behavior is a precursor to rape. The "real" rape culture has no relation to what people are actually planning to do, or society's response to real rape, or whether rape is accepted or not. It has everything to do with the entire public consciousness screaming "but what about raaaaaaape" at every opportunity, no matter how out-of-place or ridiculous.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 12:25 PM
2

For child support payments going to individuals I think the amount should be lowered to a reasonable amount considering the parent's income and if they're unable to pay then the deficit will be accrued for later. I don't like the idea of debtors prison. The state should enforce child support payments in the same way they enforce tax payment. While I'm not sure I agree with your position entirely, I will happily agree that this would be a huge step in the right direction compared to what we have …
/r/MensRights13/07/13 12:08 AM
1

Did you miss the "end of sexism in all forms" part? So then, an equally valid definition of feminism would be: Feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for men and the end of sexism in all forms. Would you agree? Because if not, then (ironically) that definition is clearly sexist. No, you demonstrated many ways in which men suffer because of gender roles. You didn't even attempt to argue that the world's systems of power are male-dominated and that …
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:47 AM
1

No CLUE what that site was. And that's why you don't just say "stanford" when trying to explain your sources. This might help: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Sure, let's try this! Feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms. No justice for men, I note. No mention of "equality", only "the end of sexism", which I hope you'll agree is not sufficient for full equality. Do you believe ending homophobia is a …
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:28 AM
1

Standford and Princeton both have well-known philosophy departments. First: "Stanford" isn't a reputable source. It's a college. But hey, let's do this. Here is a link to Stanford. The definition of feminism, therefore, is: Advocacy of the rights of women Not sexual equality at all. Why are you trying to contradict reputable sources within the field Of course advocating women's rights is advocacy of sexual equality. Women are the oppressed class. That's why women are sent to die in wars. That's …
/r/MensRights12/07/13 05:46 AM
3

Are you in favor of removing child support payments from people who are unable to pay, then? Because the current state of affairs is that people who are unable to pay child support are imprisoned until they're able to pay.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 11:08 PM
0

It's worth noting that OKC skews heavily towards tech areas with higher costs of living and technically skilled people. The average income of someone on OKC is probably significantly higher than the average income of the average person. Probably not 70-80k, of course.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 09:59 PM
8

What about all the children that go up for adoption and aren't claimed for a very long time? Shouldn't the remaining parent have to pay child support until then? After all, children have a right to support from their parents.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 05:47 AM
10

And that's why women who put up children for adoption are forced to pay child support for 18 years. Except they aren't, so . . . what makes you think the justice system is "in the best interests of the child"?
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:25 AM
2

I think it's just a visual effect caused by dubious art. First, their arm proportions are totally wonky. Second, the center of the blur effect seems to be on the tips of her fingers . . . but because his hand is behind hers, this ends up visually covering a lot more of his arm, even though it may actually be replacing more of her skin. And finally, as mentioned earlier, it's much easier to detect the change in his deep saturated blue than in her relatively-pastel pink. I wouldn't read too much i…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:01 AM
2

I should think the meaning is best-defined by reputable sources within that field. Great. Which ones? Because you just said feminism is about sexual equality. Wikipedia says feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". Now you've just said it's "a set of base characteristics involving the questioning or fighting of current sexual and gender roles", which is somewhat different from what you said before as well. Here's another defi…
/r/MensRights09/07/13 09:23 PM
3

Out of curiosity, who defines it? And how many feminists who disagree with that definition would it take for that definition to be wrong? 'Cause, oh man, I've been collecting contradictory definitions for a bit and it's kind of hilarious.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 05:42 PM
8

Here's one of my favorite quotes about the definition of feminism, pulled off a diehard feminist site: According to a new study at the Huffington Post (with YouGov) there is a major disparity between people that believe in equality “between the sexes” and identify as feminist. The study found that only 20% of Americans identify as feminist whereas 82% believe that “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.” Equality between men and women is the most commonly accepted, mains…
/r/MensRights09/07/13 05:40 AM
5

For what it's worth, the reason your /r/feminisms post hasn't been receiving any notice is because the mods deleted it.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 05:29 AM
1

I don't know about that - should it be okay for someone who doesn't understand social conventions to wait outside your house every day for you to wake up so they can greet you? Even if you don't want them to? I mean I'd find that extremely creepy and disturbing, and I'd want it to stop, even if the person intended the best. Of course there would be no reason to skip straight to arrest on that one, but I feel like a reasonable progression would be (tell them to stop)->(get police to tell them to …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 05:04 PM
0

I agree that's a difficulty, but I think there is definitely a value to having implicit threats also be illegal. The fact that it's tough is not necessarily a reason to avoid it :) But yes, "they scared me" shouldn't be intrinsically illegal. I think this is where the "reasonable person" legal trope would come in - as a vague shorthand, if a reasonable person would be legitimately worried for their safety, then perhaps the action shouldn't be legal. Now we get into an enormous tangle about what …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:51 PM
1

With how easy it is for women to abuse other laws regarding sexual behavior I am definitely not in favor of making more such laws. I agree that this is a very slippery slope to go down, and I think we would have to be incredibly careful when doing so. And we may already be "too far", so to speak. But I have a very difficult time saying "all harassment is OK and perfectly legal". For example: And really, the worst that happens in the above situation is that someone becomes uncomfortable. Do we re…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:15 PM
2

I'm a little bit torn on that. There is a line where harassment becomes illegal - if you're actively following someone around and yelling about how you want to screw their booty, then that moves over the okay-this-is-legally-considered-harassment-and-here-come-the-cops line. I think there's also an argument to be made that it's possible for a large group of people to collectively commit "harassment" when the actions of a single person wouldn't count. And maybe there's an argument to be made that…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:52 PM
0

(edit: ha ha you got like a billion responses, sorry for adding to the clutter :V) What I DON'T understand is why (or whether! If this isn't actually what you think, please tell me) anyone wouldn't see a problem with... I'm not an authority or anything, but I'll try to answer these one at a time. I don't speak for the entire MRM, so I'm gonna be using "I" instead of "we", but from what I understand my opinions are rather common throughout the movement. the persistent pay gap The pay gap is kind …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 02:53 PM
7

On the other hand, if someone calls themselves a humanist but acts in an anti-male fashion, it'd be a lot easier to call out that behavior. Right now there's this little dance they can do between "silly, feminism means equality!" and "silly, feminism means women's rights!", and renaming to "humanist" would make that a whole lot harder to pull off.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 09:46 PM
1

Why would you assume that?
/r/MensRights27/06/13 04:43 AM
16

I've just been in a week-long discussion with someone who insisted that it is impossible to say "men are stronger than women" because somewhere out there is a man who is weaker than a woman. Which is true, technically, but . . . it turns out that by the standards she specified, it's also impossible to say "Anchorage, Alaska is colder than Portland, Oregon". And if you can't claim Alaska is colder than Portland, I feel like you're probably doing something wrong with your comparisons.
/r/RedPillWomen27/06/13 01:35 AM
7

As long as OP keeps his WoW between himself and his gaming circle, it shouldn't serve too much of a deterrent of women. Honestly, sometimes it's even a plus - it all depends on who you want to attract. People shouldn't be changing who they are in order to be attractive to women, they should be the most awesome person possible for their own sake. If games are important to someone, then rock on, keep playing games, and recognize that a really skilled gamer is going to be really attractive to gamer…
/r/TheRedPill21/06/13 07:43 PM
2

Actually their attitude (the you're a disgusting loser if you want a sexual aid attitude) is pretty demeaning to women. I think the ultimate irony here is that there may actually be a grain of truth in the idea that men's rights and women's rights are intertwined . . . and that by spending so much effort on reducing men's rights, they are simultaneously reducing women's rights, all the while screaming bloody murder about the result of their own behavior.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:03 PM
3

Misquoted, yes. When you attribute a quote to someone, and they never said what you're quoting, that's a misquote. If you attribute a paraphrase to someone as a quote, it's a misquote. I agree that it's not exactly a better thing for her to have said, mind you :) Edit: Also, standard quoting style: [Men falsely accused of rape] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 04:47 PM
5

I'd love to see citations for these because at least one of them is a misquote. “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins She never said this - the line is a description written by a journalist in a Time article. Her actual quote: They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' '…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 04:40 PM
3

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 01:30 AM
5

If we're okay with wild conjecture - I don't think it's too much of a leap to guess that the reduced rape rate for women is thanks to the legal and cultural efforts to reduce the rape rate. And given that these focus almost entirely on female victims, I think it's quite believable that they wouldn't affect the male rape rate to anywhere near the same degree. But yeah this is all conjecture, I don't have any evidence for it.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 01:21 AM
5

So the rape rate of women continuously decreasing since 1960? Yep, pretty much. There's a good deal of evidence that women are getting raped far less frequently today than they were 50 years ago, which would at least partially explain the vast differences between the 12-month male/female rape victim ratios and the lifetime male/female rape victim ratios. I completely agree that it warrants more research, by the way, just that this one chunk of explanation seems to be quite clear.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 12:58 AM
6

If the 12 month numbers are the same, you would expect the lifetime numbers to be at least much closer than they are, unless there was a bias among the respondents in how they characterize their victimization over time. Unless the ratios have changed over time - a lifetime contains a hell of a lot of social change that can happen.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 12:45 AM
6

Personally? No. I wouldn't. And I wouldn't trade my Internet access for a billion dollars. And if I had to choose between losing my legs or my hands, I'd choose my legs. But I'm not everyone. And there are many people who would be happy to live without responsibility, or without internet, or without hands, given the other options they'd have available. Just because I would not choose an option does not mean it's strictly worse. The option is a preference, nothing more.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 02:40 PM
7

The logical conclusion to your argument is that children are treated worse than adults. I don't think that's true. They're treated differently, but not strictly worse.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 02:34 PM
37

"Look, I'm a nice person" is the cousin of "I can't be racist, I have black friends".
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:13 PM
39

I'm sure they'll get around to it once all issues facing women have been addressed. All issues, no matter how small, irrelevant, or imaginary.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 12:47 PM
2

Huh, interesting. Hard to reconcile the two charts with each other.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 04:03 AM
2

Do you have a citation for that? The numbers I've seen (admittedly out of date) have shown the opposite.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 01:08 AM
10

But not everyone plays by the rules. As men set their sights on women's earnings Yes, it's the men who are at fault here, of course
/r/TheRedPill11/06/13 09:22 AM
9

Now taking bets on when the all-female team will be accused of sexism.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 07:54 AM
8

It sort of accidentally came up at a dinner with some friends of my wife's. One of the friends had a new girlfriend. The girlfriend took very strong offense to the very idea of a men's rights advocate - I didn't even get a chance to explain what positions I thought were important before it turned into a stream of profanity from her. It seems like the girlfriend forbade the friend from talking to either me or my wife again, since he's said essentially nothing to us since, even missing our wedding…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 07:47 AM
1

patriarchy
/r/MensRights14/05/13 10:08 PM
25

"women are more likely to require medical treatment for their abuse than men" Interesting statistic: In World War 1, the British army decided to mandate metal helmets for their soldiers, on the theory that the helmets would protect soldiers from gunfire or shrapnel. This was almost reversed after they saw the resulting statistics: Total casualties doubled, and headwound counts went up by a factor of twelve. Luckily, people figured out what was actually going on. See, "casualties" didn't include …
/r/MensRights05/05/13 06:24 PM
4

Of course, we're also reminded frequently that date rapes are by far the majority of rapes, and violent stranger rape is a minority.
/r/TheRedPill01/05/13 04:41 PM
2

This might be a bad time, but . . . it's beet red, not beat red. As in the vegetable. :)
/r/MensRights30/04/13 03:07 PM
4

It's like if I wrote you the navy seal copypasta, would that make me a navy seal? Yes. Yes it would.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 12:15 AM
2

No, I think it's a decision based on the common preference, intentionally ignoring the fringes. You think it's just a fluke that the BBW fetish maintains such an established popularity?
/r/askTRP25/04/13 06:20 PM
2

Even if you do take that post as being correct - which, honestly, I don't, I think preference is a lot more complicated than simply "what you've had sex with before", otherwise virgins would never have fetishes - then it would be because men have in the past not had that access. But honestly I think he's just wrong. I don't know of any evidence that backs him up and there are very simple counterexamples to his claim, like the virgin-with-fetish issue.
/r/askTRP25/04/13 05:24 PM
4

I'm talking about the end effect. The end effect is that male preferences are quite varied. The details on how we reach that point are kind of irrelevant.
/r/askTRP25/04/13 05:05 PM
7

And yes it is the epitome of blue pill logic to believe men, generally speaking, do not have innate base physical preferences. "Innate base" does not mean "guaranteed universal". Reminds me of the fat acceptance movement. "Some guy out there will love you for who you are." Just lol. Did you actually read the post you linked? The entire point he's making is that men are much more varied in physical preferences than women are.
/r/askTRP25/04/13 04:55 PM
11

A single story with someone claiming our preferences are hardwired does not, in any way, serve as proof. And there's a huge gap between common biologically-wired behaviors and guaranteed behaviors. We all do things that are uncommon one way or another. You really think that it's a "blue pill" behavior to claim that men aren't identical automatons driven only by our raging hormones and desire to get laid? Because, seriously, that's the claim you're making right now.
/r/askTRP25/04/13 04:46 PM
15

I actually do prefer the first one :P Physical preferences are very relative.
/r/askTRP25/04/13 03:20 PM
6

But in many ways I think that's sort of tangential. People didn't say "yes, it harms men's rights, but that's okay because men have more rights". They straight-up said that improving rights for one particular group does not reduce the rights, in any way, for other groups. Which is now being directly contradicted. So. Welp.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 03:08 PM
9

I find this to be fascinating, given how often I've heard that improving women's rights doesn't mean harming men's rights.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 12:46 PM
2

I'm not convinced there's such conscious hypocrisy there. I think they really do believe what they say, but once in a while someone shows up and sweeps them off their feet and they don't really think about why it happened, or the fact that this person just broke all the previously-ironclad "rules of enthusiastic consent". "Oh, it's okay, because I really wanted to kiss him, and obviously he knew that! That's enthusiastic consent."
/r/TheRedPill20/04/13 11:41 PM
9

I've seen a few feminists redefine "enthusiastic consent" to mean what you're referring to, namely "making it obvious there's consent via body language" and none of the formal verbal requests that are so ridiculous. Of course, like everything in this area, the actual definition seems to depend entirely on who you're talking to, and if you don't have the psychic powers needed to intuit the specific definition they mean, be prepared to be called a rapist because you're describing consent that is n…
/r/TheRedPill20/04/13 03:27 PM
8

I like how the first paragraph elegantly demonstrates the beginning and end of the entire situation. The study found that only 20% of Americans identify as feminist whereas 82% believe that “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.” Hmm. So maybe they assume feminism isn't simply about equality. Equality between men and women is the most commonly accepted, mainstream definition of feminism. Well, okay, I can see that as being a problem. I mean, if feminism really is just a…
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:43 AM
3

Fair enough. Discussion is always appreciated, and it's good to talk to someone willing to analyse :) Until next time!
/r/MensRights12/04/13 05:42 PM
2

In the end, I guess I don't place as much importance on that as you do, in light of what I find to be more injustice towards women. Oh well. And I guess this seems to be the fundamental difference. We disagree on where the most injustice is, but I also don't find it terribly relevant - I think that people should either be free to join whatever group they want, or the single group claiming to be about "equality for all" should be devoting energy to all, not just to the oppressed-class-of-the-year…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 05:16 PM
2

In fairness, sometimes people really can't find the information they know they've seen, or simply don't have time to track it down. He doesn't seem to be claiming victory in this case.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 01:36 AM
4

Since I'm not going to do a long search for discussions of men's issues on various blogs I know of, I guess I just have to leave it at the fact that I've seen it brought up many times, in addition to in conversations with my friends. But again, this is exactly my point. Feminism is happy to mention men's issues offhand, and equally happy to say "oh this will be solved by improving women's rights". The real test is whether they're willing to put significant effort towards men's rights in its own …
/r/MensRights12/04/13 01:35 AM
4

But alongside any positive effort, I also see a denial, a downplaying of women's issues! Not an embracing. In contrast, I see in the feminist movement consideration for men's issues, especially by men that understand them. I'm sorry to say it, but I really don't see that at all. At best it's "no, don't worry, we'll handle men's issues simultaneously with women's issues even though we're not doing anything to improve men's rights specifically, so it will be luck at best if we succeed". At worst i…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 07:39 PM
3

I have stated and given justification multiple times that, whether or not you think it a "byproduct" or "accident", feminism, equality of the sexes, eliminates gender biases on both sides. And therefore men's rights also eliminates gender biases on both sides, correct? Seriously, I'll believe feminism eliminates the problems of men once I see it doing so. Largely, I don't see it doing so. You're telling me they're different. I don't buy it. You were Mr. Subjective just a bit ago, unable to tell …
/r/MensRights11/04/13 06:55 PM
3

Submission surely allows it to continue, yes. But women weren't the ones passing legislation, decreeing from pulpits, heading households, and in general making the rules that implemented male privilege. Until they started fighting back to remove it. What I'm saying is that the "male privilege" that you're talking about is not obviously beneficial towards men. A lot of it is beneficial towards women. If you start looking at that side of things, then you have men passing legislation, decreeing fro…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 06:04 PM
5

I don't know how to get across to you that women receive more online abuse when discussing feminism or acknowledging their sex. Are you a gamer? It's pretty clear there. I showed you a serious example, and I wonder if you can show me anything comparable going against men. Furthermore, in seeing the heightened rhetoric and vulgarity and ad hominim myself, I see more often an immediate jump to insults against women. I'm really not convinced that "insults" are directly comparable to "death threats"…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:24 PM
6

Though I guess we're both agreeing about the amount of noise in the data, but I reject the idea that we then skew it towards the disadvantage of men. I'm rejecting the idea that we can even know how skewed it is. We're looking at a number with so much noise that the noise completely overwhelms the signal. I don't think there's anything meaningful we can say about it. But do you have people insulting and threatening you years after you make a video online that started a discussion on sexism in a …
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:19 PM
3

No... You continually assert that I am (or feminists are) somehow trying to take something away from the MRM, and all I want is for MRAs to be open about the broader context they are within and the smaller scope. Some, maybe the majority, of MRAs here push that women are the privileged sex, which is contrary to evidence. But the "evidence" you're talking about is exclusively researched by feminists. I mean, big surprise - feminists think men are the privileged sex, MRAs think women are the privi…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:55 PM
2

I'm not proposing some top-down mandate. I'm saying that the general trend is for people to support issues roughly proportionally to how severe there are. Of course there is noise within that and tactics. Breast cancer absolutely gains and uses sex appeal, for example, and while that's good in the end, it's unfortunate for diseases without that capability. So . . . what you're saying is that we should research to determine the most serious issues, but not attempt to influence anyone's behavior o…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 01:31 PM
2

They are all interwoven with one another. These people discuss a wide range of issues, and in conversations lament and sympathize with men like myself that suffer because of sex-related inequality. It is an insult to characterize it as an "accident", and I sincerely wish you'd reconsider your characterization. There's a big gap between "sympathize with" and "work to correct". I have never seen a feminist say that men's rights was their priority. It is extremely rare, and almost unheard of in the…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 10:02 PM
3

Going back to morality for a comparison, are you a cultural relativist? How do you feel about FGM? It's a bit complicated. I think it's our duty to try to discover and move towards an absolute ideal, but at the same time I think it's dangerous to believe we've reached that ideal. We must always be willing to question our assumptions. I think it is possible that there is an absolute cultural ideal, but I think it is extremely unlikely we have reached it, and I strongly suspect it will always depe…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 08:18 PM
3

I still believe that the benefits afforded to men versus women are so disparate that we can discern who is, in general, worse off. I view it as somewhat lesser than whites versus blacks. I don't think we can. I mean, I don't think there's even an objective way to begin - it's always going to come down to subjectivity. I certainly wouldn't join a movement that demonizes me, after all! I should point out that not everyone can say this ;) I'm interested in elevating women to the same level as men. …
/r/MensRights10/04/13 06:23 PM
3

The same could be said of arguments about morality and ethics and how to properly value certain traits and ideals in order to create the best society. You're right that it's subjective: I might value intellectual curiosity more than average and physical ability less than average. And there are outliers, too. But just because it's fuzzy in the details doesn't mean it's impossible to get a general feel of the landscape. Subjectivity is definitely everywhere, no argument. But while I agree that it'…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:18 PM
3

I think it's important to recognize what groups are privileged over others so we can focus efforts on those who need it more. So we can properly assess reality and empathize with those different from us with another perspective and experience. In one way or another, all groups are privileged over all other groups. If you're trying to compare the magnitude of their various privileges, then you're diving into a subjective hellhole, because it all depends on what privileges the comparator finds mor…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:51 PM
2

Then, if you're absolutely determined to turn this into the Oppression Olympics, I don't think there's any productive way this conversation can continue. I don't think it's important, interesting, or even possible to determine which group is "more discriminated against" - by its very nature, discrimination impacts different people in extremely different ways. I think it's more important to work towards fixing problems than to tally up how many problems each person has so they can feel superior. …
/r/MensRights10/04/13 10:12 AM
2

Maybe it's not just with you, but I feel like I'm going in circles on this issue. The large group of feminists I reference as my friends and online in blogs and in activist groups do not say to stop caring about men's issues. I wouldn't be a feminist if so. But you just said: And now that I'm positing evidence for an equivalent situation for the plight of women, you should either find flaws in that list or join up! What if we don't want to join your movement? What if we'd rather keep working on …
/r/MensRights08/04/13 04:55 PM
3

I really don't want to keep harping about Adria Richards. Suffice it to say that the response was much more mixed in feminist circles than you imply. Most of my feminist friends had differing shades of opinions. I think, again, you are missing my point. A lot of men have "differing shades of opinions" as to the problems that women face and the advantages that men have in some situations. That doesn't make those problems or advantages go away. And now that I'm positing evidence for an equivalent …
/r/MensRights08/04/13 04:04 PM
1

I am sincerely tired of addressing this, but fine. I feel like you're intentionally missing my point. I'll quote it again and try to rephrase it: It is now so unacceptable to make an offcolor joke in public near a woman that people get fired for it, and women consider it to be perfectly reasonable to accuse men of doing so, even when that woman herself has a history of very similar offcolor jokes. The problem is not (entirely) her actual action, it's the response to it. It's that she chose to mi…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 02:59 PM
3

Regarding Adria, I was asking what that power was. It's not being female, it's not feminism. If anything, it's an overblown fear of public scrutiny. That's my point. Okay, then it's the matriarchy. It is now so unacceptable to make an offcolor joke in public near a woman that people get fired for it, and women consider it to be perfectly reasonable to accuse men of doing so, even when that woman herself has a history of very similar offcolor jokes. It's a condition that is the result of countles…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:09 AM
2

You're really mischaracterizing that incident. It wasn't Adria's intention to get anyone fired by tweeting a picture. Everything that happened beyond the two men being removed from the presentation were the overreactions of companies and hardly Adria's fault. And there's little reason to believe much of anything beyond Adria's internal monologue had anything to do with feminism or her sex. To be honest, I think even kicking them out of the conference was inappropriate. But Adria could easily hav…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 04:44 AM
3

Yes, there are feminists, especially from the past, that were man-haters. Fuck them. (Well, not... you get it.) They do not represent my position at all, which again is promoting equality of the sexes. I know they don't represent your position (and, seriously, no sarcasm here, thumbs-up for that, the world could use more people like you), but when you say "the hate on feminists came long before, and from people who identified as (or had alignment with certain aspects of) MRAs", do understand tha…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:24 AM
7

While the content posted here shows some instances (some legitimate, some not) of feminists disparaging MRAs, I believe the hate on feminists came long before, and from people who identified as (or had alignment with certain aspects of) MRAs. But then again, there's been feminist hate directed towards men in general since before the concept of "MRA" even existed. Men aren't threatened with rape or told they're ugly in pure ad hominem when they talk about perceived areas of female privilege. That…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:21 AM
9

"MRA" in the literal sense is a perfectly rational position to hold, as long as it's within the context of the smaller set of issues in which men are exclusively underprivileged. As long as it is taken not as an opponent to feminism, but a complement of it, as the vast majority of efforts to gain equality of the sexes (the feminist goal) benefit men in some way. I'd agree with you, except that feminists have taken MRAs as an opponent to feminism. At that point there's not a lot we can do about i…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:43 AM
3

Out of curiosity, how can you tell it's a "fauxminist"?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 09:47 PM
1

It just doesn't make sense that high-level people in any company would be saying to themselves "oh he has a penis? Better offer him $2k more a year". While I sort of agree with you, realize that you might be able to define "prejudice" as "people making systematic illogical decisions because they dislike another group of people". So, yes, it's illogical, but people do tons of illogical things, and merely saying "it doesn't make sense" does not in any sense prove that it isn't happening. And for t…
/r/MensRights31/03/13 08:19 AM
2

Women in computer science get hired faster, at a higher starting salary, and have no issues being taken seriously. In fact they're guaranteed to stand out better in a field of applicants simply because they aren't a man. I don't suppose you've got a citation for this? I've heard it both ways and nobody ever seems to have evidence.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 08:03 PM
4

It's not like bandwidth takes a significant amount of money anymore. They pay far more for content production than they'll ever pay for your ad-less bandwidth consumption.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 06:33 AM
6

can you give me the examples you're thinking of? The whole Sheik plotline is a good example. Fuck being captured, she's gonna turn into a badass teleporting assassin instead. Wind Waker is another good example - Zelda starts out as a pirate queen instead and manages to escape capture at least once. While Ganondorf finally manages to capture her, she is nevertheless able to be an absolutely critical help in the battle, wielding the Light Bow far better than Link is ever able to. She's actually pr…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 06:07 PM
3

I'm fine with feminism-defined-as-women's-rights. Women are still disadvantaged in many situations and it's perfectly reasonable to have a force fighting for women's rights. I'm fine with feminism-defined-as-equality. Equality is a good thing. We need groups fighting for equality itself, not just for one side or the other side. I'm not fine with feminism-defined-as-equality-but-fighting-solely-for-women's-rights. If you're claiming to be responsible for groups A and B, but paying attention only …
/r/MensRights12/03/13 01:17 PM
6

The Zelda games are supposedly about rescuing Zelda, but they're also about defeating Ganondorf, and more than once, Zelda demonstrates conclusively that she does not need rescuing from some untrained green-clad elf boy.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:59 PM
8

But it's sexist, they even sing that they will make a man out of here in song, because as a woman she isn't good enough. Of course, even that is evidence of sexism as well - imagine if the next God of War game required Kratos to become a hairdresser, and the training montage had the background music "I'll Make a Woman Out Of You". Although I would totally play that game just for the wtf factor.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:58 PM
4

My last apartment had a pink bathroom. Pink floors. Pink walls. Pink sink, pink bathtub, pink toilet. At one point the toilet broke and they had to replace it. Curiously, replacing it with a white toilet actually made the room worse.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:56 PM
5

In fairness, Samus Aran was treated pretty ridiculously. Seriously, she's meant to be the most feared bounty hunter in the galaxy, why is she hanging out in elevators pining over an ex-boyfriend?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:55 PM
1

On the plus side, PSUs aren't pricey.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:39 PM
17

Instructions for making out: 1) Don't be a zombie 2) Do be not a zombie
/r/seduction06/03/13 02:49 PM
1

That's not my belief. My belief is that there are more people willing to be in a criminal gang than there are people willing to risk their lives to stop criminal gangs. The majority of people will just tolerate the gangs as a necessary evil.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:50 AM
13

Women don't have the ability to hold down a well-paying job. You can tell because women are paid less than men on average. Therefore, there's no point in trying to get women better-paying jobs. QED
/r/MensRights06/03/13 12:32 AM
15

If you don't register for selective service, you are committing a felony, and may be convicted of it. Convicted felons aren't allowed to vote. In a slightly roundabout way, yes, men must register for selective service in order to vote. "Luckily" this is all made "easier" by the fact that registering to vote often automatically registers you for selective service. To the best of my knowledge, there are no similar mandatory registrations required for women.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 07:53 PM
8

The usual feminist response is to talk about how great those depictions of men are, which completely misses the point. It's very difficult to live up to that standard. To be honest, it misses the point even more thoroughly than that. Kratos is an ass, Brick is a dumbass. If that's their view of "great" then we're pretty much right back to objectification-world.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 06:06 AM
4

The problem is that everything is taken as proof of the patriarchy. Discrimination towards women is proof of the patriarchy. Discrimination towards men is proof of the patriarchy. I have no doubt that if we got rid of all discrimination, then non-discriminatory differences would be proof of the patriarchy, and if we got rid of that, they'd find something else to be proof of the patriarchy. Today, we have situations where women are disadvantaged, and situations where men are disadvantaged. You ca…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 11:08 PM
1

Cheers :)
/r/MensRights26/02/13 09:50 PM
2

When you get right down to it, everyone's a manipulator. You're manipulating me by trying to convince me. I'm manipulating you by trying to convince you. It's unclear if she was intentionally trying to set up a situation where she would be getting a free ride for the rest of her life, or if it just sort of happened. I don't see any reason to blame her for what might have been an unconscious action or a coincidence. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. However, if she was truly in love wit…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 09:19 PM
3

We shouldn't be shielding people from information from fear that they're so weak-willed that they will give in to the desires of others. At some point you have to trust that people are capable of making their own decisions. If he is so weak-willed that his friend could easily change his mind, then wouldn't his ex-fiancee be able to just as easily change it back?
/r/MensRights26/02/13 09:15 PM
5

Nevertheless, in the end, the people getting married are the ultimate authority, and the decision was made by them. She may have been innocent, but clearly there was enough doubt in the now-ex-fiance's mind to be easily convinced.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:48 PM
6

The people getting married do. And, in this case, they did.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:11 PM
3

Every marriage could have "worked". Not every marriage should work.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 07:50 PM
1

I'm really starting to wonder what the word "misogyny" means.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 03:50 PM
11

I suppose it's worth pointing out that you can't just swap the genders and call it good. Men and women don't have equal reproductive rights or equal alimony rights. That said, yes, if a good female friend of mine was about to marry a broke deadbeat who'd been pressuring her for marriage only a few months into the relationship, I'd want to have a long conversation with her first.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 03:44 PM
1

Sure, I mean, as I've said before, there are interesting differences to examine and good ways to describe those differences. They just didn't describe those differences. They described something else that is factually incorrect. Another way of saying this (perhaps an inapproprate use of the word "average") is that the average man has fewer partners than the average woman. Actually, it's pretty easy to make this extremely accurate and unambiguous - "the median man has fewer partners than the medi…
/r/TheRedPill16/02/13 04:57 PM
3

As I said: men just have a much higher variance.
/r/TheRedPill16/02/13 02:30 PM
3

Then perhaps they should have said so, yes? Because what they said is not, in any way, that.
/r/TheRedPill16/02/13 09:56 AM
3

In which case, on average, girls still have the same number of partners as men. There's many ways to phrase this to make sense, but my point is that none of this things were said. What was said was a simple statement that is trivially false.
/r/TheRedPill16/02/13 09:56 AM
6

But what they're saying is factually wrong. If they're trying to say something important about our culture, they're failing. If I said "water is made up of uranium" then I would be wrong even if I were trying to say that water contains uranium.
/r/TheRedPill16/02/13 03:52 AM
1

Males 30-44 report an average of 6-8 female sexual partners in their lifetime (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005). Females 30-44 report an average of 4 male sexual partners in their lifetime (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005). That's not "women have fewer partners than men", that's "middleaged women report having fewer partners than middleaged men do". Seriously, do you understand the point I'm making? That for every woman sleeping with a man, there is out of mathematical necessity a man sleeping wit…
/r/TheRedPill16/02/13 03:07 AM
-7

And therefore on average women sleep with just as many men as men sleep with women. Men just have a much higher variance. Barring homosexuality or massive gender imbalances, this statement: girls have been found to have fewer partners than men is trivially false, as is the converse.
/r/TheRedPill16/02/13 02:54 AM
1

I'm quite young, and girls sleep with older people. Maybe that's a reason? Perhaps, but then "girls have been found to have fewer partners than men" would still be inaccurate, as would the converse. Also, I think all those girls sleep with a very small set of guys. Perhaps, but then, if we're taking the arithmetic mean, it's still inaccurate.
/r/TheRedPill16/02/13 02:53 AM
-5

In lots and lots of studies, girls have been found to have fewer partners than men. From my limited sample, I found that claim very false: while most of my guy friends have been with 1 to 7 girls, a lot of girls my age (23) have been with 20 to 50 guys, already (I live in a very feminist country) The math on this confuses me dramatically. Unless your country has a 6-to-1 male/female ratio, how is it possible for women to have slept with six times as many guys as guys have slept with women?
/r/TheRedPill16/02/13 02:42 AM
18

She literally makes us make up bullshit and tell her how we are sexist. And if someone says, I don't think I am sexist, she will say "well you must be able to think of something" I'd be very tempted to start reciting extremist feminist talking points. "I am sexist because I do not believe men can be discriminated against." "I am sexist because I advocate for women's shelters, but not for men's shelters." "I am sexist because I believe fraternities should be required to talk about women's issues,…
/r/MensRights04/02/13 11:17 AM
9

Hey man, if you're not actually causing abuse, then I'm pretty sure you're responsible for it somehow. Because patriarchy.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 07:46 AM
4

(spoiler warning) Borderlands 2. Axton and Maya are conventionally hot, Salvador and Gaige aren't. Ellie weighs the same as a small car and thinks she's awesome (in fairness, this is justified, because she is awesome.) Moxxi, Patricia, and Axton are all bi - Moxxi refers to flings of both genders, Patricia hits on the player no matter what gender their character is, and Axton has extremely flirty voice clips in co-op that, again, are played no matter what gender your friend is. Hammerlock is gay…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 11:30 PM
9

I love how feminists constantly feed their growing list of demands for male behavior while offering less and less in return, up to the point where the have been offering nothing for a long long time. What is she really planning to offer? More women will play video games?? So what? My favorite example is a comparison of two games. One game has two male playable characters, two female playable characters, and one androgenous playable character. Of the two male and two female characters, one of eac…
/r/MensRights28/01/13 10:33 PM
1

It may be that once women's scholarships are cut back, things will be equalized again, and we don't need to focus on boys. At which point handing the money over to boys is bringing us right back into imbalance.
/r/askTRP25/01/13 12:15 PM
17

From what I've heard about Sealand's history and "business plans", it may contain the world's largest amount of idiots, per capita.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 11:25 PM
9

Here's a fun bit of historical fact. I assume you've heard that one of the main feminist points is that women shouldn't be considered the primary childraisers, right? They want women to not be the one who's necessarily the homemaker, staying out of the workforce in order to take care of the kids. And in fairness, I can kinda see that! It sucks for them! I'd be happy to help them deal with whatever evil force caused that in the first place. So let's look back about 180 years, way back in time, to…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 11:24 PM
9

I was recently in a "debate" where I kept saying that, if college enrollment equality was our goal, we should be cutting back on women's scholarships and using the money for more productive things, like, for example, non-gender-specific scholarships. She kept asking me why I wanted to hurt women instead of helping men. The conversation kind of imploded when she demanded I provide documented scientific proof that, somewhere in the country, a male has been rejected from college. Which . . . is som…
/r/askTRP24/01/13 04:25 PM
2

On the plus side, if you go Dutch, and she decides you're not deserving of a second date, then you find out real fast what kind of a person she is. I'd call that a benefit, personally.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 05:32 AM
1

It's not super-hard, but you need the bandwidth to support it, you need a reliable upload system that is capable of yelling for help if it breaks down, you need either unlimited storage or an automated cleanup system to take care of old video, you need either a reliable enough tech to retrieve video on demand or a good interface for doing so. Certainly not impossible, but for a non-profit men's shelter with limited staffing, it may not be the best use of money and worker hours.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 05:28 AM
1

Depending on your budget and the tech abilities of your volunteers, it may also be worth rigging it up to upload video to a remotely hosted storage site. Dedicated vandals will absolutely try to destroy any monitoring or recording equipment, but they probably won't think to cut the internet line before entering the building.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 05:20 AM
8

The consensus seems to be that the girl's pleasant demeanor and giggling, her constant rubbing of his arms and her refusal to bluntly remove herself from the scenario was something that should not have confused the man. He should have known all along that she was just being polite.Now I understand that women may have been doing this historically to avoid any physical backlash that might arise from an abrupt and explicit rejection.But as an expectation from the average male, how reasonable is thi…
/r/TheRedPill19/01/13 08:39 AM
6

No man, that's what I thought before taking the social justice course You should take the course it will open your eyes I had a similar debate with a feminist just recently. Wouldn't answer my questions ("go read the literature"), wouldn't ask any questions ("it's not my job to educate you"), and when I read the literature she linked, it directly contradicted claims she'd made. Oy.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 05:33 AM
41

Not to use an SRS meme... but literally fucking hitler That's not an SRS meme anymore! They banned it because it could be triggering and/or offensive to people who are either German or Jewish. Anyone who uses a term like that is now considered a rapist white male shitlord neckbeard, which itself, as we all know, is a term that is not triggering nor offensive to anyone.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 02:26 AM
36

Yes, how dare the woman be forced to sell one of her multiple cottages. Truly, that would be an inhuman punishment. (sigh)
/r/MensRights14/01/13 06:14 PM
8

Feminists made sure to create a space to engage. Yes, a carefully-placed space, far away from the majority of feminists, so we can "engage" in isolation and without danger of having any influence.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 07:51 PM
4

I've had a hard time finding this claim of 1 in 4 being made. Does anyone have something to show that this isn't just a strawman? The 1-in-4 number comes from an extremely old and badly-designed study by Mary Koss. There's a reasonably good dissection of it here, and GWW has a large teardown of it as well. It used to be used a lot more frequently - people seem to be toning it down lately.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 04:40 PM
8

Same thing happened to me. I went on a bunch of dates with the intent of getting a girlfriend. Nothin' panned out, and one person kept delaying things due to being sick or busy. So I gave up for a while and went back to pursuing other goals. A few weeks later, that one person finally got in touch with me and we went on a date (with me thinking "this isn't going anywhere, let's just have a good chat and be done with the whole mess for a bit, and, hey, let's poke around and see where her limits ar…
/r/seduction08/01/13 03:18 AM
1

Wouldn't surprise me if the real response was something along the lines of Susan Brownmiller's old quote: From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 02:25 AM
7

What do you mean? It is a "victory" over feminism. Feminism may be a large force working against us, but our goal should not be to "defeat feminism", it should be to reach gender equality. If the entire feminist movement has a change of heart tomorrow and comes to our side, I will gladly welcome them. Focus on the war, not the flag being waved by the people fighting against us in a single battle.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 10:26 PM
2

It's part of the underlying belief that every difference is rooted in prejudice against women. If it disadvantages women, it's actually prejudice against women. If it advantages women, it's still prejudice against women. Doesn't matter what it is, it's prejudice against women. The best example of this is Hillary Clinton's infamous speech: Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. which is usually explained by saying that th…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 10:24 PM
2

The problem is that there's just too much chaos involved. That's the entire point of insurance - that you can lump together a large number of people, most of which won't ever get into an awful situation, and get them all to pay to support the extremely unlucky few. That said, they already do take those things into account. This is just saying that they can't take gender into account.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:40 PM
13

Of course not! Blacks are a minority, therefore that would be racist. If you were mugged by a white man, it would be perfectly acceptable to demand a no-whites-allowed facility, though.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 12:23 AM
2

Counter-argument: What do you call a male sibling? A brother.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 06:17 PM
7

school massacres where almost entirely men are shot: "The murderer killed 47 people, including two women"
/r/MensRights07/12/12 11:14 AM
4

It's possible for anti-social and violent people to fixate on a specific group that they consider "to blame for it". See all the religious killings in history, see a good number of anti-male extremist feminists, and yes, see some nutcases who decide they hate women.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 11:14 AM
27

quick, someone catch the power, it's getting away, someone grab it
/r/MensRights04/12/12 04:24 PM
13

I'm still trying to figure out how to activate mine. I think it's broken or something. Is there a warranty? Can I send it back to the shop?
/r/MensRights01/12/12 01:49 PM
3

And feminists constantly shit talk Men's Rights, so is it reasonable for us to feel like feminists are anti-Men's-Rights?
/r/MensRights01/12/12 02:08 AM
16

Okay, this still isn't working, someone go get the flashing neon sign that says RAPIST. Yeah, plug it in. Around his shoulders. That's right. Let's try this again. Ma'am, can you find the rapist? No, that's the jury. That's the audience. That's the jury again. That's me, ma'am. Okay, that's close, just keep pointing in that direction. Defendant, can you step three feet to the left? Let the record show that the plaintiff has identified the defendant as being a rapist.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 01:27 AM
11

I think it's important to realize that "anti-feminism" does not mean "anti-women's-rights". Most (I'd love to say "all", but let's be honest, most) of the people here agree that women deserve just as many rights as men do - they just don't see feminism as being a force towards equality or a force solely to improve women's rights, but rather, a force away from equality, and sometimes a force to remove men's rights.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 04:27 PM
4

Wait, can I sell one of them? Because at that price I totally will. oh man why does the patriarchy not tell us about these things earlier
/r/MensRights20/11/12 12:41 PM
16

2) men's rights obviously come at the expense of women's rights, and women still have so inequity that needs to be addressed, so we can't talk about men's rights yet. Rights are an either-or proposition I always find this fascinating. Decades of being told that advancing women's rights doesn't require that men lose rights, but the instant men start needing more rights, whoops, turns out asking for men's rights is actually misogynistic
/r/MensRights18/11/12 09:15 PM
19

I'll admit it wasn't top on my list of life goals, but, hell, I'm a white man, how bad can it be? :D :D :D
/r/MensRights14/11/12 10:33 PM
1

2) Do people get an orange envelope if I comment here/if I update the original post? No, in both cases. The only way for them to get an orange envelope is with a direct reply to a comment of theirs. (okay, or messaging them directly, or commenting on a self-only post that they've made)
/r/MensRights02/11/12 12:04 PM
1

The ironic part is that they've been saying for years that men don't have to worry about women's rights because rights aren't a zero-sum game. But as soon as men's rights start being an issue, all that gets forgotten.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 12:03 PM
3

I'd like to upvote this post, but I'm afraid I'll have to know how large your penis is first. Please respond, TIA.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 07:29 AM
3

The problem with feminism is that it feels like it's fighting a fight in the past or in another parallel culture. I read this comic book about ten years ago. It was pretty average. I'd picked it up because the cover art looked good, and, well, I wasn't disappointed in that regard, but the writing was meh and the plot was meh and overall it was kinda disappointing. The back jacket described why they'd written it. It talked about how comic books were all male power fantasies, and main characters w…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 05:53 AM
9

men are, in fact, affected by cancer. This whole "patriarchy" thing is really turning out to be a serious letdown :(
/r/MensRights01/11/12 06:04 PM
1

Hmm. If I recall correctly, Watson didn't actually make a big stink about it, just sort of an offhanded comment, and it was other people who took up the banner. That said, she didn't really call them back from it, either. I don't have a citation on this, unfortunately, I've just been unable to find any really awful things that Watson herself said about it. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate a link, 'cause for something so huge there's surprisingly little factual information available :V
/r/MensRights01/11/12 01:15 PM
3

Can you give me a quick two-sentence-each rundown on Wolf, Dworkin, and Watson? I've been gradually collecting info on feminist extremists and while I've got a little bit on Dworkin, I don't have anything on the other two.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 05:50 AM
1

As a coder, I don't think any such app could possibly exist.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 03:13 AM
8

Nonexistence is cheap. I think a nonexistent wedding ring is roughly what he should be planning right now.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 04:53 PM
14

In /r/feminism? Look, I have no enormous love for feminism, but /r/feminism has bent over backwards to ensure that sensible discussion has a place. Up to the point where most "real feminist" subreddits claim that /r/feminism is an MRA subreddit. I've debated several of its moderators to a standstill, and while neither of us were able to convince the other, I never got ban threats or the kind of dismissive attitude that I'd expect from the extremist side of feminism. I may not agree with feminist…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 06:09 AM
1

Most major MMOs today either ensure that healers have good solo damage output, or support some kind of dual-spec-or-greater system so that healers can have a solo spec.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 06:05 AM
3

Normally you get told to be a healer cause you suck at everything else, not because you're a girl. This sounds like a recipe for a really bad raiding group. Good healing is tough.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 06:04 AM
2

Amazon lists the book it was enclosed in with a publish date of 1996. Kirkus lists it with a publish date of 1995 - I think Amazon is referring to the paperback, while Kirkus is referring to the hardcover, which means a year-long gap makes sense. Assuming the Kirkus date is valid, the essay is, at the very least, 17 years old.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 02:17 AM
4

but it seems to me that no one really understands what's going on in non-cis people at biological or psychological level In fairness, I'd also say that no-one really understands what's going on in strongly cis people at a biological or psychological level. I personally don't have much personal gender identity - as I put it, "if I had a button to change genders instantly and painlessly I'd probably mash the fuck out of that button on a regular basis" - but there are many people who have a much st…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 02:12 AM
12

I am wńting this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder. I stare him down with rage, tell him that I do not want to hear his liberal apologies, his repeated insistence that “it was not his fault.” I am shouting at him I let him know that he had an opportunity to not be complicit with the racism and sexism that is so all~pervasive in this society (that he knew no white man would have been called on the loud-speaker to come to the front of the plane while another white …
/r/MensRights28/10/12 02:08 AM
1

In reality, hearthstones are actually crafted items. You'll have to give someone enough materials to level Quantum Mechanics up far enough to craft one. (And note that technically that's just to find out the recipe - the ingredients may require other high-leveled tradeskills.)
/r/MensRights16/10/12 10:33 AM
10

hell yeah
/r/seduction12/10/12 03:49 PM
2

Detective Chief Superintendent Mick Duthie is taking action as the Metropolitan police investigates a big decrease in rape reporting, which has sparked an outcry from victims' groups concerned that women have lost confidence in the police because of failings in the unit supposed to be the gold standard for the country. "Not enough reported rape? Well, shit, we'd better go arrest more people for rape, just in case"
/r/MensRights11/10/12 07:38 AM
1

What countries still link the two? I don't know if the USA used to, but at least today, you can vote without registering for Selective Service. (Of course, it's also illegal not to register before 26, but that's a different issue and unrelated to voting.)
/r/MensRights10/10/12 11:20 AM
11

Nobody's asking for any control over whether a woman chooses to stay pregnant or not. We're just asking to not be held accountable for her decision. Her body, her choice, her responsibility.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 07:23 AM
1

My fiancee got linked by SRS. Behavior like this isn't exactly uncommon.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 11:21 AM
1

I think that also depends on who you ask :V There's a shitload of self-proclaimed feminists who think that men have the advantage in all situations. See "misandry don't real", for example. I agree that the MRAs could stand to do a better job of acknowledging the extremist fringe, but I still think they're head and shoulders above most feminists.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:50 PM
2

I agree 100% with everything you've said here. That said, I've seen more acknowledgement of the insane fringes on /r/mensrights than I have in feminist discussion groups - instead, you get things like this. I wish the crazy /r/mensrights extremists would go away, but unfortunately, they haven't yet and probably never will.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 04:57 PM
8

As a sort of a metacomment, I think it's really depressing that people can read comments like yours and still describe /r/mensrights as a den of misogyny. Welp. :/
/r/MensRights30/09/12 10:57 PM
1

It's a bit angrier than I usually write, but not massively so. Honestly, I don't have a good explanation - here is a relatively recent thread involving me, for comparison. It could be that they decided you were both just over the line and decided to wipe you both out, or it could be that the other person was extremely over the line and they decided to wipe the entire conversation. Or maybe you ran up against a more sensitive mod than I tend to. Next time, if you notice quickly, I recommend just …
/r/MensRights29/09/12 07:55 AM
1

You did, but again, your comments were deleted, along with everyone else's in that thread. The only people who can see them now are you and the moderators. If you want to show them to me, you'll have to take a screenshot - all I see is a string of [deleted]'s.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 11:16 PM
1

Well, at this point all I can do is shrug and ask you to post a screenshot of the comments. But, again, I haven't seen any requirement that comments be a circlejerk.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 04:01 PM
1

Due to the fact that I can't read the comment, I can't say why the thread might have been deleted. That said, they've shown no hesitation to leave comments up that are critical of the current implementation feminism, as long as they're somewhat rational and don't attempt to claim that the general concept of feminism is not needed.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 12:51 PM
1

That's what happens when the thread is deleted - if the account is deleted, it just shows [deleted] in the username. That said, note that your posts were deleted also - you're the only one who can still see them. :)
/r/MensRights28/09/12 07:37 AM
1

Eh. Yeah, you get some downvoting and angry replies, but that's just what you should be expecting. Feminists get the same response in this subreddit. What I'm saying is that the mods won't ban you for it.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:08 PM
1

They tend to give out warnings if you're toeing the line, or occasionally hide posts if they think the post really goes against the rules, but I honestly haven't seen one of those given out without good cause. Including a few times to me :V And yeah finding a comment more than a few pages back in reddit history is an absolute bear. If you can find it, I'd be curious, but I'm not gonna ask that you dig through what may be dozens of pages of Reddit comments to find it. I suppose I may be getting o…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 06:50 PM
8

It depends on how you disagree. If you say "FEMINISTS ARE EVIL >:(" then yeah that's gonna get you banned. I've had no problems with a detailed critique of what I see to be the most problematic parts of modern feminism, though.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:56 PM
19

The mods of /r/feminism are actually quite tolerant of rational discussion - as long as you're not straight-up denying that women are disadvantaged in some ways, and as long as you're capable of calm and sensible debate, you're not really in any danger of being banned. Naturally, this has resulted in some of the more extremist feminists declaring that /r/feminism is now a Men's Rights hate group.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 03:54 PM
5

In a case like this, it wouldn't surprise me if the morale hit alone is costing them more than the lawsuit would. Especially if she's been there for a long time.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 03:30 AM
3

It also provides the perfect excuse to justify stereotypical behaviour as well. If someone catches you misbehaving, you can always play dumb. "what do you expect? I'm a man". I think this is a really dangerous road to go down. Half the posts on this subreddit are about women doing exactly this. It's not cool when they do it, and it's not cool when we do it.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 03:29 AM
1

I did. It doesn't deal with the issues I've raised. Answer the question. Also: "Every other government in the world has realized that the U.S. has it wrong. They're saying, 'I'm going to have lower taxes, period.' That's what you see all across Western Europe, that's what you see in Asia in the developed countries," Chambers said. This is blatantly wrong. Many governments aren't doing anything of the sort. The total amount of money U.S. companies have trapped overseas is $1.2 trillion. Chambers …
/r/MensRights14/09/12 11:14 PM
3

You're dodging the question. Tax havens will always exist. Lowering the tax rate reduces taxes gained from companies that don't have tax havens and does nothing for companies that will keep their tax havens anyway. What makes you think that we're on the far side of the Laffer curve instead of the near side? And why do you believe halving the tax rate would be the right amount, instead of quartering it or 2/3ing it or increasing it by 30%? Alternatively, why not just fix the tax loopholes?
/r/MensRights14/09/12 11:02 PM
3

Citation, please. What is the optimal tax rate and how did you arrive at that number? Many of the things done in the US today can't be practically shipped overseas, and we've got tech hubs that the rest of the world simply cannot match.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 10:57 PM
3

You cut taxes, and then you're getting less money. It's all part of the same pool, really.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 10:53 PM
15

"Don't worry, God will save us, we just need to spend more money on prayer and tax cuts, and less money on education and social services"
/r/MensRights14/09/12 03:54 PM
62

Well obviously, USA is the most bestest country ever and only a communist would think otherwise
/r/MensRights14/09/12 02:54 PM
1

Yep, that's exactly what I was saying. Are you the George Rekers of strawman arguments or something?
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:58 PM
1

Here, you claim to have knowledge of what predators are looking for. Quote: Right, not someone that a predator is looking for. Um, exactly someone that a predator is looking for. What do you think they're looking for? That is the point where you should be posting evidence or admitting to a lack of evidence, not just saying "you're wrong I'm right".
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:52 PM
1

So "I smell bullshit" is, in your mind, equivalent to "that seems unlikely to me, but I don't have counterproof"? Repeatedly claiming your beliefs as fact is, somehow, not claiming that your source is superior? Look, I'm sorry, but read over the conversation again. You're clearly claiming your gut feeling is the truth and attempting to override his hazy memories. I'm not saying that you need to bend to his will, but there's a hell of a big difference between "clearly neither of us remember" and …
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:44 PM
1

For what it's worth, I remember seeing the same studies he did. I believe he's correct, although I unfortunately don't have time to go hunting down a citation. That said, it's kind of hypocritical for you to behave as if your source is superior to his, when he's working off a forgotten study and you're working off assumptions and guesswork. He certainly doesn't have anything ironclad but unless you think he's straight-up lying for some reason, it's better than what you have.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:39 PM
1

Okay, I have to ask: do you have any statistical source, or are you just objecting to Sigil1 because your gut feeling tells you he's wrong?
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:32 PM
4

The vertical axis represents cats.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 07:53 PM
3

"buy our stuff"
/r/MensRights02/09/12 06:32 PM
9

Homophobia: The fear that another woman will treat you like you treat men.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 02:55 AM
43

But what about the womenz
/r/MensRights24/08/12 02:51 AM
8

As evidence, I present Exhibit A: NihlusKryik.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 10:39 AM
6

So, if they charged women more than men, would that be misandry?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:37 AM
5

The two aren't mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:36 AM
2

It's frustrating that a single person that claims to be from /r/mensrights behaves badly and it's "all MRAs are awful people", but then you point at true misandrists like Mary Daly or Valerie Solanas and suddenly it's "not every feminist is like that". Sigh.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 03:11 AM
1

Here, I started it for you
/r/MensRights14/08/12 01:42 PM
2

Why would anyone attempt to cry more bundles of sticks? How would anyone cry even a single bundle of sticks? That sounds incredibly painful!
/r/MensRights13/08/12 09:25 PM
19

It's really surprising how misogynistic this definition of rape is when you think about it. I've had more than a few conversations with feminists where it seemed like they were trying to convince me that women are frail useless creatures, unable to have their own opinions or influence men in any way. I always end up thinking, what the fuck, you're the feminist, why are you going to all this trouble to convince me that women are worthless? Despite their best efforts, they still haven't managed to…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 03:10 AM
10

I'm uncircumcised in the US and I've never been teased for it.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 06:52 AM
1

Oy, trying to find this source is so annoying due to the complete lack of comprehension most of these groups have for numbers. "Some people say that skimpy clothing is more likely to lead to rape! But I totally know someone who was raped while wearing jeans! Therefore skimpy clothing is obviously not a factor" Unfortunately, due to how completely worthless every Google search is on the subject, I'm not able to find the study :/ If you manage to find it please let me know, I'll save a copy of it …
/r/MensRights05/08/12 10:22 AM
8

Wearing a mini skirt doesn't mean you're getting raped but it does profile you as a target to rapists. There's actually some evidence that you have it exactly backwards - wearing skimpy clothing makes you less of a target to rapists because they think you're more likely to defend yourself, but someone doing their best to hide their body is unlikely to resist significantly. (don't have time to look for citations, unfortunately)
/r/MensRights04/08/12 10:16 PM
3

Nope! I explicitly asked the same thing. They insisted that, on average, women are just as strong as men.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 03:09 AM
5

Surely there can be no debate that men are larger, stronger and more durable than women? It's a scientific fact of our species. I've had people tell me that this is factually incorrect - that women are just as strong as men are. I'm pretty sure my reaction was along the lines of ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights30/07/12 02:58 AM
4

Any one of them could prove that wrong at any time. They haven't. How? How could anyone somehow prove that they'd accomplished more than you, when all you're doing is making unbacked grandiose statements about how awesome you are? How could anyone prove that they're aware of the issues facing men when you're not going to accept anything but complete agreement as "awareness"? These are not objective things. They are highly subjective. That's funny considering my ideas combined with those of about…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 11:26 PM
6

Frankly, because if all I ever did from now on was sit on my ass and complain I would STILL have accomplished more than the sum total of all these asshats put together. These are PRIMARILY people who have little to no understanding of the true scope of the issues facing men, or the roots of these issues. Those are a pretty broad statements, aren't they? You have no idea who these people are, what they've accomplished, or what they're aware of. You're only saying that because it fits the stereoty…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 11:01 PM
1

Uh-huh. Meanwhile you're sitting around arguing with people that you think are trolls instead of producing good content. Why is that? obviously this is proof that you're the real concern troll /s They think the best use of their time is to steer the movement from what they think is the wrong direction, and towards what they think is the right direction. You, meanwhile, are doing the exact same thing. The only difference is that you're the one unable to comprehend that disagreement is not always …
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:21 PM
1

Or, if he can convince the moderators that it's no longer needed, you can start your own subreddit. The subreddit rules aren't written in stone. They change. A year ago, the subreddit sidebar talked about bigoted feminists and kloo2yoo's ridiculous global feminist conspiracy. Now it doesn't, and IMHO it's better for it.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:12 PM
3

What's your point? Maybe he thinks the FAQ should change.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:00 PM
5

No, that's his opinion, not yours. You don't speak for all of us any more than he does.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 08:57 PM
0

Except as we've seen over and over again, the Reddit format lends itself very well to low-quality easy-to-digest posts and not so well to high-quality deeper posts. The subreddits that have kept a high bar of quality have done so either through strict moderation or frequent reminder posts to keep the bar of content high. It's much, much harder to produce good content than it is to produce bad content, and far fewer people are willing to do so.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 08:26 PM
9

Maybe it just indicates that there are lots of people who agree with the OP? Crazy, I know. Let's not turn this into a tinfoil hat brigade where every dissenting opinion is dismissed with conspiracy claims.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 07:32 PM
7

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 07:31 PM
1

Cheers, thanks for the links :)
/r/MensRights19/07/12 11:33 PM
1

I don't suppose you've got a citation for that? Note that this isn't "I don't believe you", this is "I want a citation so I can show it to other people".
/r/MensRights19/07/12 05:02 AM
5

It's a good example of something to be very careful about. The more certain you are that you're correct, the more determined you should be to criticize yourself and find holes in your logic. They didn't do that, and you or I could fall down the exact same hole tomorrow.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 05:00 AM
2

They're certainly more gooder, though perhaps not the most goodest.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 09:26 PM
2

Well now I'm just really confused.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 04:08 PM
2

I have absolutely no idea. :V Maybe different dictionaries for different regions?
/r/MensRights13/07/12 04:01 PM
2

Not really likely - chances are good the user modifications are included as a diff from the main dictionary, so the main dictionary can be updated without interfering with the user mods.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 03:46 PM
3

If feminism is about equality, then men's rights is a subset of feminism. The problem I have is that feminists claim feminism is about equality. And yet, feminism has this curious tendency to focus only on the women's issues side of things. I don't mind that they focus on the women's issues side of things, that's their right. I do mind that they do so while hiding behind the smokescreen of "feminism is about equality and if you don't agree with feminism you must be a sexist". Men's Rights isn't …
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:47 AM
1

They'd say that power is a global thing, and since white men hold all the power globally, it doesn't matter what your local population breakdown is.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 12:26 PM
3

I dunno, I think "I'm a lesbian" would be quite effective for a male trying to get someone else to go away.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 12:11 PM
3

The behavior of a single subreddit certainly can't be used as a sign of the entire movement, no, but it's a common issue. I've honestly never seen a feminism discussion community that is happy to discuss men's rights issues.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 09:35 AM
8

Only if they admit that feminism isn't about equality for everyone. I've talked to them, and they're quite insistent that feminism = equality = feminism. I find it quite comical that /r/feminism doesn't actually permit feminist discussion.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 09:23 AM
7

Here's one of my favorite examples of how well-regarded equality feminism is: Welcome to the feminism community! This is a space for discussing and promoting awareness of issues related to equality for women. Please help us keep our discussion on-topic and relevant to women's issues. Discussions of sexism against men, racism, classism, ableism, and other -isms are only on-topic here if the discussion is related to how they intersect with women's issues. This is from the sidebar of /r/feminism. W…
/r/MensRights09/07/12 09:05 AM
7

Why wouldn't you?
/r/seduction05/07/12 10:22 AM
0

Feminist authors have admitted as much. Citation?
/r/MensRights30/06/12 11:36 PM
4

And, ironically, is one of the things feminists point to as evidence of the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 11:36 PM
2

TL/DR: Met a girl. Ended up being Friend-zoned. Forced girl to experience what it is like to be friend. She came back begging to be more. Which is really a perfect explanation of how to "deal with" friend-zoning: treat them like a friend. Not like a perfect idol on a hilltop that you can strive to someday achieve, but like someone you're friends with. It ends one of three ways: You get a good friend out of it You discover some mutual incompatibility that makes friendship not viable They turn out…
/r/seduction20/06/12 10:36 PM
7

Why would the editor of this page link to non-existent pages though? Usually, because they think the pages should be written, but haven't gotten around to writing them.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 04:31 PM
1

I'm assuming this is parody, possibly making fun of anti-abortion laws. If it's not, then ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights14/06/12 01:07 PM
5

Best when spoken in a thick Russian accent.
/r/seduction14/06/12 11:51 AM
17

Next time someone makes that claim, ask for scientific studies to back it up. AFAIK there aren't any - the best example that has been found is that it seems to slightly reduce the chance of AIDS transmission. And that falls firmly into the category of "they can do it themselves if they want to".
/r/MensRights13/06/12 10:16 PM
50

I think that irreversibly mutilating a child's body should generally be considered a bad thing.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 09:28 PM
6

While I have no idea what levelate is getting at, here is a rather interesting and concise history about who was allowed to vote.
/r/MensRights27/05/12 11:53 PM
1

Not true at all. Government, by force of law, can very much dictate the balance. And that's how marijuana usage has been completely eliminated from the United States. Seriously, no it can't. It's simply not possible. No single force can do so.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 05:06 PM
1

The Constitution. In all honestly, they've also vastly overstepped their very limited rights to regulate economics. Would you be happier if they amended the constitution? But in any case, the Constitution applies only to the federal government. State governments generally have a lot more power. Try reading this over, remember your presumption that "government is 100% biased towards women" and then apply logic on how that would trickle down to every male-female interaction in society at the socia…
/r/MensRights15/05/12 04:49 PM
0

Government has no right nor authority to regulate social values. How so? Or, more to the point, what gives them the right to regulate economics and law, but prevents them from regulating social values? If and only if government does not influence every day life.... which is not the case. "Influence" is not "sole control". I can influence Reddit by posting a lot of stories about things I find interesting, but that doesn't mean I own Reddit. Similarly, yes, the government influences day to day lif…
/r/MensRights15/05/12 04:25 PM
-2

Sometimes you need to get the government involved in order to bend the non-government aspects in the right direction. It's possible for the government to be 100% biased towards women, and yet still have everyday life biased towards men.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 03:58 PM
2

Why restrict it to the government? The government isn't the sole arbiter of people's behavior.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 03:43 PM
1

Well, as for that, I have no idea :) I'm just pointing out that the idea is theoretically reasonable - I don't have any evidence one way or another as to whether it's true.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 03:30 AM
1

I don't think it's needed for something to be an explicitly stated reason in order for it to be a significant reason. Humans are more subtle than that. And keep in mind that the general "gender change is difficult and dangerous" thing applies to both sexes no matter what. We're already talking about the people who are dedicated enough to get a gender change despite the obvious hardships involved - it's possible that the gender differences just make the hurdle bigger.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 01:13 AM
2

I don't think Mylon is claiming that it's the sole reason, only that it may be an influential reason. That, given an M who is right on the edge of transitioning to F, and an F who is right on the edge of transitioning to M, the MtF may be subconsciously encouraged towards while the FtM may be subconsciously encouraged against. Small changes can strongly influence people who are just barely balanced.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 09:13 AM
2

You have to say something the SRS mods don't like. So, yeah, it's just random.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:34 PM
1

There. Two drunk people sleep together - what can you do? people gunna fuck. When I went to college, we were told that two drunk people sleeping together were legally raping each other.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:31 PM
1

Yes. Yes, I am.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 12:24 PM
23

The font being used is Swiss 721 Bold Rounded, if that helps. Make sure to left-justify the text in the middle and make it white. May as well make it as accurate as possible :V
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:32 AM
7

Well, in fairness, any possible counter will be sexist, in the exact same way that these posters are sexist.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:20 AM
3

Mom tip #2 Baby won't stop crying. Don't smother baby with a pillow. Oh shit, I've been doing it wrong all this time
/r/MensRights09/05/12 11:19 AM
13

Gesundheit.
/r/seduction09/05/12 09:55 AM
0

edit: what? Im posting something pro-MensRights and im being downvoted? What is this opposite day? You've been posting about how you dislike Ron Paul. The liberty-loving Free-Speech-loving Ron Paul fans have taken that as a sign to mass downvote you everywhere you post. There's a bit of commentary on this in /r/enoughpaulspam and /r/13downvotes. It doesn't have anything to do with Men's Rights, it's all a Ron Paul thing.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 10:23 AM
1

Definitely better paid. No question about it. If you're good enough to work professionally in games, you're good enough to make quite a lot of cash in software engineering.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 07:54 PM
1

Hey, nice :D Looks well-polished! If you want to get into the game industry, start coding games. Nothing matches experience. Do code jams as well - Ludum Dare is the big one, but there's a bunch of others. Also check out /r/gamedev, /r/indiegaming, and /r/ludology. Note that games are really insanely tough - the hours are long and the pay is bad. You only want to be in games if you really really want to be in games.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 07:49 PM
1

I'm a game developer. I could absolutely get a job as a programmer, but games are what I love, and the talent pool for game developers in Norway is unfortunately quite a bit smaller than in the SF Bay Area. If I was going to really immigrate I'd definitely be learning Norwegian, but that's a significant time and effort commitment :)
/r/MensRights07/05/12 07:40 PM
2

Yeah, Norway is pretty dang sweet. Unfortunately there are things holding me back. The language barrier, the cost, the fact that there really aren't that many opportunities for my chosen profession. If I was moving out of the US I'd probably want to go there, but for various reasons it's damn hard to want to leave the US. The SF Bay Area is a really fantastic place as well, which is why I'm here :)
/r/MensRights07/05/12 10:13 AM
2

You've got a great standard of living, fantastic education and human rights, and a government that is generally sane. It's a bit pricey there, but I'm living in the SF Bay Area and it's really pricey here. If I were to leave the US tomorrow, Norway would probably be my first pick, and it's fighting with Sweden only because Sweden has a really good indie game development scene.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:27 AM
2

And now I'm jealous :V
/r/MensRights07/05/12 08:35 AM
1

Assuming you mean 9:15 am, that would be, what, Europe? I think most of the EU uses that timezone, along with a good chunk of Africa. In the US, it's currently anywhere from 1am to 4am. 3am (since it's about an hour after y4s's post) would be in the central eastern quarter of the US. Or most of Mexico, or a similarly-sized chunk of Canada.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 08:09 AM
1

That's the right time for him to be in Central Time.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 07:13 AM
2

Worse than that: an early feminist success is now "part of the patriarchy".
/r/MensRights03/05/12 01:02 AM
4

I suspect a good deal of it stems from the Tender Years Doctrine. The tender years doctrine is a legal principle which has existed in family law since the late nineteenth century. This common law doctrine presumes that during a child's "tender" years (generally regarded as the age of thirteen and under), the mother should have custody of the child. The doctrine often arises in divorce proceedings. It was one of the earliest feminist successes.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 08:33 PM
2

You make a convincing argument. I am now in favor of that plan.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 12:42 PM
1

I don't think even die hard feminists don't acknowledge that there are huge physical differences between men and women. I understand that boys/girls sports will always generate a little conflict, but not because anyone pretends that the genders are equal in the physical arena. I've had people get furious at me for suggesting that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. People do, in fact, pretend that the genders are equal.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 08:29 AM
9

You are in a BF/GF relationship when you commit to another person exclusively mentally or physically, or both. You're in a BF/GF relationship when you mutually decide you're in a BF/GF relationship. Nothing more, nothing less. It means different things for different people.
/r/seduction24/04/12 10:47 AM
5

In fairness, babies are pretty stupid.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 05:06 AM
2

Reminds me of a (possibly apocryphal) story about military armor. Many years ago, helmets weren't standard issue. Then someone realized that people often peek up above things to see, then get shot in the head. And getting shot in the head sucks. So they started issuing helmets to everyone. There was an immediate noticable increase in deaths due to head injuries. Simultaneously, the mortality rate dropped. What they realized is that deaths due to being shot in the head in the field weren't being …
/r/MensRights23/04/12 06:00 AM
2

Personally I'm just glad I haven't taken any advice lately from applesauce. Man, applesauce gives the worst advice. oh shit
/r/seduction21/04/12 07:56 AM
1

Because patriarchy, obviously!
/r/MensRights17/04/12 03:06 AM
21

And I hate to say it, but men as a group are like electricity. I'd say this is true of people, not just men.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 11:26 PM
10

Personally I just use it as a filter. Games are my life - I'm working at a game studio, trying to start an indie studio, and in the middle of starting a goddamn game museum in my spare time - and if someone hates games it really, really isn't going to work out well. It'd be like a butcher dating a PETA boardmember. Bad mojo. Don't have to close with everyone! :V
/r/seduction12/04/12 06:51 PM
7

While IMO in general MRAs are respectful. Some are. Some, unfortunately, most definitely aren't.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 01:38 PM
3

I think this is the first time I've seen one pre-deletion :V Thanks, I'll know what to look for next time.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 08:49 PM
14

men are stronger, smarter and more capable than women Yeah, uh, what? Stronger, maybe. Smarter and more capable? Citation needed.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 07:56 PM
6

One, that's illegal. Two, most SA ads are posted on a cost-per-month basis, not a cost-per-click basis. Three, that would prove everything they claim about us. Four, it wouldn't be the first time people have tried that against SA and it wouldn't be the last time. It quite simply would not work.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 07:37 PM
5

It costs $10 to join and you'd get banned immediately.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 07:16 PM
4

The code isn't the important part, the community is.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 07:15 PM
4

Whoa, man, slow down
/r/MensRights17/03/12 07:13 PM
4

I'm browsing through the thread a bit and the subject is instantly dropped. I'm pretty sure it just never happened. I admit to being curious if the poster was even telling the truth.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 12:59 PM
2

It's like kicking a puppy. A cheerful robotic puppy, that brings your paper every day and makes you coffee, and whose batteries can only recharge by being kicked.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 12:43 PM
26

Do note that was slightly over a week ago. If it happened, it was the least effective redditbombing ever. If it didn't, chances are good they've forgotten about it entirely.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 12:41 PM
7

Schrodinger's Rapist may or may not be a necrophiliac.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 08:13 AM
1

Which Reddit users don't have. There's no way for us to distinguish between "misogynistic comments upvoted by MR" and "misogynistic comments upvoted by SRS".
/r/MensRights11/03/12 09:16 PM
2

How would you ever prove it either way?
/r/MensRights11/03/12 12:56 PM
64

How many people have you pushed further towards suicide through heartless comments without ever realizing it? Words are powerful weapons. Be careful with their use.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 10:23 PM
2

I would argue that it challenges feminism's pre-concieved notion of being virtuous and always in the right. I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to look at the sidebar and have an instant change of heart. Not people, feminists, and as the specificity has been delineated, bigoted feminists. No. People. You don't need to be a feminist to look at that and think, hey, maybe this is a group I don't want to be part of. By having that in the sidebar, we're saying that our best presentation of ourselv…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:33 PM
2

Any time you're taking joy in someone else's misfortune or anger, it's hostile. Would you consider it hostile if a feminist wrote "god, I'm so happy about all those misogynist men's rights activists that we piss off"? And what good does it do? If it doesn't do any good, then it's unnecessary. I don't see any good that comes out of alienating people.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 10:02 PM
2

No, I think reveling in "earning scorn from bigoted feminists" is unnecessarily hostile. We shouldn't define ourselves in terms of who we're able to piss off.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 09:46 PM
1

I've seen that. It still doesn't help us to be unnecessarily hostile. Nobody wants to be around the person who's lashing out bitterly at everyone around 'em.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 09:30 PM
1

Maybe it's just a very popular subject? To be honest, I wasn't expecting to get anywhere near that many comments. I mean, there's two options here. One is that there are many readers of this subreddit that think we're being unnecessarily hostile. Another is that the board is being lurked by a cabal of shadowy feminists, waiting to leap out of the shadows and tell us to stop being as mean for some unexplained ulterior motive. You really think the second option is the real one? What would it take …
/r/MensRights04/03/12 08:35 PM
1

I'm curious, what outside feminist influence was linked to this? I've been keeping an eye on incoming links and besides a low-scoring one in /r/subredditdrama I haven't seen any.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 07:57 PM
1

Note that I'm not suggesting that Men's Rights turn into "equal rights" as a global thing. I'm suggesting that Men's Rights should be the male side of equal rights - the counterpart to feminism, not the opponent. Move towards equal rights by fixing the areas where men have fewer rights than women. I think a group aiming for true equal rights/gender equality is a great thing, and I'm a member of several subreddits aimed at that. I just don't think this is the right subreddit - we've already got a…
/r/MensRights04/03/12 01:00 AM
2

To be honest, this is why I keep using the phrase "self-described feminist". People can argue for hours on whether someone "is" a feminist or not, but it's just not an interesting argument - it depends on the definition of "feminist" and people, even self-described feminists, don't agree on that. That particular argument is a one-way trip to No True Feminist arguments. On the other hand, it's quite unambiguous whether someone calls themselves a feminist or not.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 12:45 AM
-1

To be honest, if nobody had accused me of this, I would have been disappointed. It's practically a badge of honor on Reddit.
/r/MensRights04/03/12 12:40 AM
9

I want to rehab the reputation of Men's Rights, not feminism.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 05:42 PM
4

I'm not saying the subreddit should change from being called "Men's Rights". I'm saying the subtitle, talking about scorn from bigoted females, should be changed.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 05:40 PM
1

Prejudice isn't good, whether it's done by someone who has power or not.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 05:32 PM
5

feminism is about hating men, plain and simple While I completely disagree with this, I do agree that, even if you are correct . . . But no we do not simply want to be "anti-feminists" any more than anyone would simply call the soviet union the anti-nazis. . . . this is definitely the right conclusion to draw. No matter how evil you might think feminists are, we're better served by not defining ourselves in opposition to them.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 05:26 PM
8

I don't. What makes you think I do?
/r/MensRights03/03/12 05:19 PM
8

Giving women the vote. Vastly reduced the sexism that women faced in the workplace and in education. Given women power to be in control of their bodies and selves. Look at the current birth-control thing going on - feminists are pushing hard to get birth control included in medical plans and this is a good thing.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 05:15 PM
11

What I'm saying is that /r/science's title and sidebar shouldn't say "THE PEOPLE THAT CREATIONISTS HATE". It should describe what science is, not revel in how much some other group hates them.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 05:06 PM
1

IMHO the problem isn't really "feminists", it's sexism. I don't believe there's a large feminist conspiracy attempting to keep men down. I think there's a large number of feminists who honestly believe they're doing the right thing and just aren't looking at things from the opposite direction. It's kind of an ironic mirror, to be honest - for years feminists have been saying that misogynists are unaware of their prejudice, and now I think we have a situation where feminists are unaware of their …
/r/MensRights03/03/12 04:42 PM
5

I'm fine with the name "mensrights". The problem I have is with the front-and-center references to how much feminists hate us. Finally, would changing the name of the Portland Trail Blazers make them a better team? If the Portland Trail Blazers relied on PR and public opinion in order to play their sport properly, then yes, it might. Sports don't work that way, but social movements do.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 04:27 PM
0

Why not do both?
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:39 PM
13

The goal isn't to stand against a sexist movement. It's to stop sexism. We should be focusing on the actual goal, not one of the mostly-irrelevant roadblocks to achieve that goal.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:33 PM
9

The title brings the hateful crazies, who are the bread and butter of the movement, for awhile. Isn't that part of the problem? I, for one, would rather have a movement not based around hateful crazies. Most people think of Mras like unemployed super fat middle aged white losers, but like, good. How on earth could that be good?
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:12 PM
4

If there's nothing we can do about it, why call attention to it? I'll repeat sTiKyt's question - what possible benefits could there be for keeping it the way it is?
/r/MensRights03/03/12 03:11 PM
34

You're welcome to stand against feminism. I'm honest here - go for it. I just don't think "we are against feminism" should be part of the tenets of Men's Rights. We are for Men's Rights. If that means we frequently stand against feminism, then so be it, but that's a problem with feminism, not part of our core goals.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 02:22 PM
1

Again, the word "feminist" does not appear in that article. Why do you say it's about feminists? Maybe it's just about awful people. I don't care about their definitions. They're welcome to vilify us as much as they want. We should be better than that.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 02:17 PM
1

I think we would be better off taking that out of the title entirely. It is simply not the primary focus of this movement.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 02:13 PM
41

And I disagree strongly. The feminist movement has certainly made mistakes, but they have also done good things. I'm not saying that we should be completely friendly with anyone who claims to be a feminist. I'm saying that we should be focusing on the goals of Men's Rights, not focusing on how much some of us dislike feminists.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 02:11 PM
11

The word "feminist" does not appear once in that entire article. Of course we can be against things that we disagree with. I'm saying we shouldn't be focused on being against "feminism". We should be against the bad things feminism does and in favor of the good things feminism does. (And yes, there are some.)
/r/MensRights03/03/12 02:07 PM
3

Its not that the mens movement has defined itself as opposition to theirs This subreddit has. Look at the title. Look at the second segment in the sidebar. I'm not saying we need to start cooperating with feminists. I'm saying we need to deal with people based on their actions, not based on their labels. Its their labeling and policies and attacks on mens rights that make the mens movement anti feminist. It's not their fault how we choose to label ourselves. We did that to us.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 02:05 PM
100

That doesn't mean we should define the entire movement as "anti-feminism". Men's rights is about men's rights, not "feminsts are a bunch of poopyheads".
/r/MensRights03/03/12 02:04 PM
22

Not all feminists fall under that umbrella, and even if they did, I don't believe that defining our movement as opposition to theirs is a long-term successful strategy.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 01:53 PM
57

That's a very good example of what I'd prefer, yes. Let's talk about the rights themselves.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 01:52 PM
10

I've always felt that politics would be far more entertaining if every political group were named by their opponents. Maybe not better. But oh man, so much funnier. "Yes, I am a proud member of the CHILD SLAUGHTER COALITION, we're in opposition to the MANDATORY PREGNANCY CABAL."
/r/MensRights02/03/12 09:42 AM
2

Known glitch with youtube: a very popular video will usually stick at about 300 views for a while before adjusting. It's not clear if this is a bug, a hack put in to deal with scalability, or intentional behavior to avoid some sort of malicious behavior. Give it a day or two and it'll adjust.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 07:26 AM
11

Well, I agree with that, but that's how most of the "women get paid less than men" stories evaluate it, so I don't blame them for using the same evaluation.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 06:00 PM
14

What they're basically saying is, yes, on average, women earn less than men do, but that difference appears to be caused not because of institutional sexism on the part of the employer, but because men and women approach work differently. They cannot prove this, but the gap keeps shrinking substantially every time another factor is added. So, it does end with a big "we need to study this more", but their conclusion is a far cry from "sexism is a problem in workplace compensation".
/r/MensRights15/02/12 05:50 PM
11

Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers. That seems to sum up the point …
/r/MensRights15/02/12 05:41 PM
3

"Why does it always have to be about the man? Why can't it be about the woman once in a while!"
/r/seduction15/02/12 04:11 PM
1

The voting results are roughly what all the serious polls predicted. I agree he's not being given a lot of news camera time, but it's also extremely questionable if he's ever been a viable candidate.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 12:33 PM
3

"I'm right, and if nobody believes me, then I'll manipulate the world to prove that I'm right". It's the same behavior you can see in the current Ron Paul campaign - "we're the popular candidate, and if we're losing, that just means we need to cheat to prove we're the popular candidate".
/r/MensRights14/02/12 10:09 AM
1

This is unknown and the few honest evaluations performed suggest it is untrue. Do you have a reference for this? LT;DR 86% of suicides are male, 14% of suicides are female, yet IllThinkOfOneLater would have you believe suicide is a predominantly female problem. I don't think that's what he's doing at all. He's saying women attempt suicides more often than men do. That's not a claim that it's a "female problem" and I don't see why you're reading that into it. Counting may be quite difficult, but …
/r/MensRights09/02/12 12:17 PM
2

That's kind of an overgeneralization. Some women no doubt want to be dead, and some men no doubt want attention. The only thing you can conclude without further study is that, intentionally or not, men are much more effective at killing themselves.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 10:25 AM
2

What lies is he spreading?
/r/MensRights09/02/12 10:24 AM
0

There are also a lot of people who went to college to party, and ended up working. And there are a lot of people who went to college to work and ended up partying. I'm not at all convinced that we have any good way to distinguish those cases.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 07:36 PM
2

Then we expand the capacity. This isn't rocket science. Online courses would help with this substantially, of course.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 07:35 PM
1

Prove it. Remember to correct for funding and culture. Here's a nice place to start: The private schools appeared to have an achievement advantage when the raw scores of students were considered alone. But those perceived advantages melted away when the researchers took into account variables like race, gender and parents’ education and income.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 09:10 AM
5

I'm going to ignore your other two (edit: four) verbal diarrhea comments and respond only to this one. The point of government isn't to act as a judicator of who deserves money and who doesn't. The point is to make everyone better off. If your education results in the entire citizenry being wealthier, then it makes perfect sense to tax the entire citizenry a small amount to provide for your education. The same goes for my education, for your neighbor's education, and so on and so forth. If we ca…
/r/MensRights06/02/12 08:52 AM
0

One problem is that we don't really have firm numbers for cost and benefit. I'm looking at cost vs. benefit too, and I strongly believe that the benefits greatly outweigh the costs - but neither you nor I have hard numbers to back this up. I agree that you certainly want to invest limited funds appropriately. I just think that the appropriate amount of funds is "enough for anyone to go to college free of charge".
/r/MensRights06/02/12 08:39 AM
2

There's a lot in there I disagree with. For example: showing they can actually study and take classes seriously I know a lot of people who only buckled down a year or two into college, but then did buckle down. Conversely, I know a bunch of people who never really committed to taking classes seriously, but who were fucking brilliant and were still getting a lot out of college - even if it wasn't exactly what college was intended to teach. By throwing in qualifiers like "actually study and take c…
/r/MensRights06/02/12 07:03 AM
3

I think people who have shown they can earn a good education and actually use it should have it paid for. So, let's imagine this situation from a poor person's point of view. You go to college. Once you're done, there's some way you can prove "whether or not you can actually use it". If you fail to prove it, you're hit with a six-figure debt. I don't exactly like this idea.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 06:20 AM
1

I dunno about that. I would - I like accomplishing things. And I suspect a lot of people would want luxuries - the life of a student isn't exactly a luxurious one.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 06:18 AM
4

Why shouldn't students cover some of the cost of their own post-high school education? I'd agree for government free-ride programs if there were contracts that made the graduate give back to the community (or opt to buy out the contract). Because the education pays for itself. A well-educated worker will pay far more back in taxes than he spent in education. Why should the government force people to fork over money when they can make that money back in spades? I'm not saying we should throw mone…
/r/MensRights06/02/12 04:48 AM
0

Alright, that I'll mostly agree with :) Take my previous post and rip the word "college" out, because I'll admit that word is unnecessary. Lemme try it again: I disagree. An education helps everyone, not just the person getting the education. A better-educated workforce is a more valuable and wealthier workforce. I would be quite happy if education were free to all, with no admission requirements. I'm counting "trade school" under the umbrella of "education" - trade schools are about learning th…
/r/MensRights06/02/12 03:37 AM
-1

I disagree. A college education helps everyone, not just the person getting the education. A better-educated workforce is a more valuable and wealthier workforce. I would be quite happy if college education were free to all, with no admission requirements.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 03:19 AM
21

Alright. I personally think that education should be provided free for the population, paid for by those who make the most profit off that population. Happy now?
/r/MensRights06/02/12 01:32 AM
10

I think education in general needs a hell of a reform, but public schools aren't all that much worse than private schools, and much of the difference is funding-related.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 01:02 AM
36

I personally think education should be paid for by the government.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 12:47 AM
2

Bodyslam her into the ocean?
/r/MensRights04/02/12 04:51 AM
25

And she is still there to this day.
/r/MensRights04/02/12 04:49 AM
1

Is 40 years still too much? I don't see any point to a penalty that is more than twice as long as the accused's entire lifespan to date. What, exactly, does it accomplish?
/r/MensRights04/02/12 01:04 AM
9

"This bar's boring, let's go to your place. I need to use an outlet so I can charge my phone and remember how to seduce you."
/r/seduction02/02/12 02:20 AM
2

I see your flair is well-deserved. Please, tell me how moderators shadowban people.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 06:21 PM
2

Subreddit moderators are incapable of shadowbanning people.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 01:35 PM
2

Maybe male and female chests are fundamentally different? The only reason they're different is because we've been hiding female chests for centuries. Get rid of that disparity and things will even out in a generation or two.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 06:24 PM
2

I don't know about that. I know a lot of people who'd love to discuss your guild's recent attempts at Heroic Deathwing. And if you're up to Heroic Deathwing, then raiding is probably pretty important to you - do you really want a relationship with someone who disrespects your primary hobby?
/r/seduction16/01/12 11:53 AM
10

To an extent, but videogames are generally a no-go (unless you're really fucking lucky). About two years ago I had a date with a girl. At one point we started talking about World of Warcraft. I said I was the lead developer of the world's most popular addon. She said she raided in the world's best-known guild. We spent an hour or so talking about raiding. Got engaged two weeks ago. You never know.
/r/seduction16/01/12 11:50 AM
6

I'll admit, I kinda like Hyper Speed better.
/r/seduction13/01/12 11:43 AM
12

Yes. In a pinch, you can use a bike rack or telephone pole. Some people will resort to chairs or tables, but ideally this should only be done if the furniture is bolted to the floor. Under no circumstances should you place the chain so that it can simply be slipped out under a table or chair leg. This is also much more effective if you have sturdy furniture, made out of steel or cast iron - avoid flimsy wood furniture, like Ikea chairs or grade school desks (I can't tell you how often I've made …
/r/seduction30/12/11 02:49 PM
6

I find human behavior fascinating and enjoy learning about it.
/r/seduction27/12/11 02:19 PM
8

First corporations, now schools! When will it end? Will my coffee mug be considered a person next?
/r/seduction27/12/11 07:59 AM
5

1) Go to a sushi restaurant on your own. Order a couple of rolls and learn what you like. Be able to order them next time you go out. 2) Learn to use chopsticks. It's easy if you actually do it a few times. Just to generalize this a bit: Every week, go out to a place that offers a cuisine you've never tried. Try it. This isn't really seduction advice, this is enjoying-life advice, but it'll do a lot to prevent faux pas like the one mentioned in the OP. If you want to make this an even better thi…
/r/seduction12/12/11 09:56 AM
3

Anchovies are objectively delicious.
/r/seduction29/10/11 04:06 AM
3

And note that there's no reason this should be applied merely to seduction. Take it as a life guideline.
/r/seduction04/10/11 08:27 AM
0

Ah, I missed that. My mistake, sorry. Still, I think it's kind of weird to be bringing up someone's reasonable comments when you're trying to point out that she trolls /r/MR.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 12:28 PM
0

So, wait, giving good advice to someone to take responsibility for their own actions makes them a feminist if that person happens to be female?
/r/MensRights20/08/11 12:11 PM
1

How does that make them a feminist? That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 02:36 AM
5

I swear I've posted this video a dozen times so far.
/r/seduction16/08/11 11:57 PM
50

Scumbag girl. Claims to be an alpha female. Uses her friends as an excuse to dump you.
/r/seduction15/08/11 10:49 PM
3

Also see this, which puts it far more elegantly than I could.
/r/seduction15/08/11 05:46 AM
26

That only lasts until you start succeeding, and the best way to succeed is to learn all the ways imaginable to fuck up and then stop doing them.
/r/seduction15/08/11 01:26 AM
1

No, I think that's sorta backwards, he is those examples :) I'll admit it's really hard to explain what I'm getting at. It's been a long time too, which isn't helping.
/r/seduction02/08/11 12:57 PM
3

Hmmmm. In all honesty I haven't really talked to him for a few years - the only reason I run into him at all is because he's going out with a good friend of mine. But, as a sort of vague example, he's one of those people who's always ready with a story in conversation. That's cool, right? I do the same thing. The problem is that his stories are almost invariably about how he managed to one-up someone. "X did something that I didn't like, and I totally got back at him!" And the stories aren't ina…
/r/seduction02/08/11 02:31 AM
8

An alpha man is one who gives value rather than takes it. He has nothing to prove to anyone else and therefore has no need to boast or brag. There's a guy I know, who does almost all the stuff you'd expect of an alpha, but somehow totally fails. One of my friends put it thus: "He has nothing to prove to anyone, and he'll stop at nothing to prove it to you."
/r/seduction01/08/11 04:17 PM
8

Can't stand long blonde supermodel hair. It's like an instant turnoff. I have no idea how anyone can tolerate it.
/r/seduction28/07/11 09:29 PM
6

To be honest, I think its best use is attracting her less bitchy and more intelligent nearby friends. Which would be a pretty dang good use of it. :)
/r/seduction20/07/11 04:26 PM
21

As clever as I think this is, I feel like anyone who says "I'm always right about everything" will likely not understand the trick.
/r/seduction20/07/11 11:41 AM
5

Oneitis: this song. Not oneitis: this song.
/r/seduction20/07/11 11:37 AM
1

"Game" is about improving your personality into something that is attractive to other people.
/r/seduction18/07/11 03:58 PM
1

Personally I'm a fan of roasting them. Chop them apart until you've got moderately-sized chunks, toss 'em in a roasting pan, toss with a little olive oil, balsamic vinegar, salt and pepper, put 'em in at 350 until they're tender when poked with a fork. Takes maybe half an hour.
/r/seduction13/06/11 07:33 AM
0

Ah, good point. Yeah, alright, the OP is nuts
/r/seduction10/06/11 07:58 PM
1

I'm with you, the girl on the right is far cuter. Girl on the left looks like she's just eaten something she's allergic to.
/r/seduction10/06/11 05:55 PM
8

If you ever get responses to your posts, you're not shadow-banned. :)
/r/seduction26/05/11 08:05 AM
1

You said it yourself: prudes.
/r/seduction20/04/11 12:54 PM
1

I don't see how this is complicated. When he was dating his girlfriend, the other girls wanted him and didn't shit-test him. Now that he isn't dating his girlfriend, he's getting constant shit-tests from those very same girls. He is confused by this.
/r/seduction16/04/11 06:33 AM
6

I agree, but I don't believe there is significant difference on this per gender. Also I think it's pretty funny that we're now describing women as "cold" and "rational" when the assumption used to be the exact opposite.
/r/seduction12/04/11 08:33 PM
8

The advice is simply that when dealing with a person who happens to be female, you should not take it for granted that the person will understand honor. While I agree with that, I don't think you should take it for granted when dealing with males either. No group of people is guaranteed to understand honor.
/r/seduction12/04/11 06:30 PM
22

The only way I'd buy a girl a drink is if it roughly followed this pattern: "Hey, buy me a drink!" "Okay, what do you want?" "A Mai Tai!" (turns to bartender) "Two shots of whiskey, straight." You wanna shit test me, I'll shit test you right back.
/r/seduction07/04/11 09:46 PM
3

Well, he can't get all the chicks anymore, but he can still fuck all the chicks. I think he's probably fine with them apples. Or, uh, thm appls.
/r/seduction01/04/11 11:06 AM
2

It was a series broadcast over a decade ago, and it lasted less than one season. I don't think it's even on DVD. Hell, I don't think it's even on VHS.
/r/seduction31/03/11 12:42 AM
28

There was this old sitcom years ago called Cupid. Basic plot: Cupid lost touch with humanity, God throws him down to Earth to live as a mortal, he can't come back up until he's matched 40 pairs of people (or something along those lines.) He spent most of the series hanging around guys who were basically romantic losers, trying to teach them how to hit on girls. I remember one part clearly: he brings half a dozen of the worst cases into a bar, has them all chip in $20, and tells them that whoever…
/r/seduction29/03/11 09:17 PM
4

Well, if you're talking about the variant that like 90% of the US already has, it seems somewhat foolish to worry about it - you already have it, and if you somehow don't, and have sex with anyone, you'll probably get it. If you're talking about the nastier and rarer varieties, then people tend to get tested frequently and use protection, which significantly reduces the chance of transmission. You don't need 100% prevention to essentially eliminate transmission within a group.
/r/seduction14/02/11 03:08 PM
7

From what I've seen, the poly and sex-positive communities are pretty closely intertwined, and both of them are very careful about STD spread. It's true that poly involves more risk but that's why poly people tend to put more effort into mitigating that risk. The culture in Africa is quite different from the first-world-country geek poly culture.
/r/seduction14/02/11 02:38 PM
9

Quite possibly he's poly. The entire thing strikes me as a reasonably excellent and common geek relationship - geek girl, transhumanism, OKCupid, etc - and a truly shocking number of those are polyamorous. Mine included. Good times. :)
/r/seduction14/02/11 02:07 PM
3

I went into Wall-E knowing nothing besides what Wall-E looked like. The entire plotline was a gigantic mystery for me. That was a damn good movie, but going in blind? Even better.
/r/seduction09/01/11 10:59 PM
3

All of them.
/r/seduction05/01/11 06:05 AM
2

Luckily, it's really damn easy to trigger real yawning: just think about yawning a lot. Bam! Yawn!
/r/seduction04/01/11 04:04 PM
2

Don't worry about it too much, dropping Spiderman jokes in Seddit is always a bit of a risk :) If I'd wanted easy karma I would have thrown in a joke about slinging sticky white webs around.
/r/seduction31/12/10 03:35 PM
10

Pickup artistry is a lot like being Spiderman. With great power comes great responsibility. And now I've disqualified myself from ever getting laid again.
/r/seduction31/12/10 11:51 AM
2

Choose something specific. Start ten conversations with ten different people in coffee shops. There's your something specific to do.
/r/seduction14/12/10 11:32 AM
6

Go somewhere that you don't need to worry about making an idiot of yourself. Long trips are great for this. Worried that you'll be so inept that the entire city of Buttzville, New Jersey will hate your guts? Hey, no problem, you don't live in Buttzville! (Unless you do live in Buttzville, in which case, my sympathies, but find somewhere else instead, the basic concept is what I'm going for.) Once you've walked up to the first ten or twenty people, it gets far, far easier from there.
/r/seduction14/12/10 11:00 AM
2

From my years in California, it's when the trees get a little orangish and it starts raining once in a while. Also, it's when you start considering a second layer for warmth purposes. You don't actually need one. But you think about it.
/r/seduction18/11/10 10:43 PM
4

I went on a date with a girl off OKCupid who seemed moderately interesting but nothing particularly special. Turned out she raided in a world-famous WoW guild and had better gear than I did. Like . . . a lot better. Not-in-the-same-ballpark better. We're creeping up on a year together.
/r/seduction16/11/10 03:28 AM
1

Sometimes it's really confusing reading both this and /r/gamedev.
/r/seduction11/11/10 09:12 PM
2

I'm pretty sure you can only get away with that one if you sound like Barry White.
/r/seduction05/11/10 10:34 AM
1

You don't have to win everything. It's okay to lose with style.
/r/seduction03/11/10 02:57 AM
1

If a "below-average-looking" man did the same with 10 single heterosexual women his success rate would almost certainly be zero and he'd be lucky to escape without physical injury, shattered self-esteem and/or the police being called. He would also have vividly discovered that disgust for male sexual urges which Ms Anderson thinks doesn't exist. Actually, I knew a guy who occasionally used this as a bar pickup line when he wanted to cut past the BS. Apparently it was surprisingly successful.
/r/seduction31/10/10 09:23 PM
3

As a corollary to this, note that if something was destined to be unsuccessful anyway, you want it to end sooner rather than later. Why waste both people's time? And to take this even further, the goal's to succeed, not to not fail, and the number of times you get shot down is basically irrelevant. Who's more successful - the guy who spends ten hours talking to women, or the guy who spends six hours talking to women? Wrong question! Who's more successful - the guy who spends ten hours talking to…
/r/seduction29/10/10 04:27 AM
3

A lot of people have had success using homeopathy also.
/r/seduction28/10/10 12:19 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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