TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

a_weed_wizard Archive

View 0 posts and 674 comments by a_weed_wizard on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Debatable on poor, especially given how many jobs have disappeared from things like outsourcing and how many jobs that could be described as gainful employment exist in proportion to the population. Socioeconomic class is a real thing that across the board determines your access to a lot of things in our society. Unlike these notions of male or even racial privilege in most first world countries, in the 21st century in these cannot be shown to be universal. All empirical data on quality of life …
/r/MensRights10/11/12 03:55 PM
1

Cuckholding implies lying about paternity. It's an important distinction. That is actually a subset called "paternity fraud" and if we lived in a sane world would be quite illegal.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 04:28 PM
5

It's dailymail and it was carried out by a "dating" website for married people so it's suspect, but what isn't suspect is that the laws are very much against you as a man. If you get married, it's like one of the commenters in that article says: Heads women win, tails men lose. If she's the one who's been hopping onto other men's cocks, she will still get a favorably outcome in the divorce. Worse still if you end up having a child you thought was yours but isn't and it slips by for whatever arbi…
/r/MensRights09/11/12 02:33 AM
10

How isn't it? Guarantee you the guy would straight up leave her if the legal system wouldn't destroy him.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 04:55 AM
12

The only reason women are given special treatment in the workplace is because employers are terrified of litigation, not because they deserve to be treated preferentially better than men, which they aren't entitled to and shouldn't be given.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:16 PM
12

Yes but you're replying to an SRS poster who thinks it's somehow different and worse when it happens to women, so don't expect anything but bleating along that line.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 08:08 PM
14

It's a highly competitive arena that does not give women the kind of special treatment they are used to in regular life so the women who think they are entitled to this complain about it.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:35 PM
13

Like what? I can't think of any areas where women are entitled to special preferential treatment that are compatible with notions of gender equality.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:32 PM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays - basically unfiltered feminism
/r/MensRights04/11/12 10:40 PM
10

Groupthink and conformity dynamics are pretty powerful which is why I simply put the ideas in people's heads and get them to think about these things. That's what a lot of the recent few years have been about, really. Unapologetically getting the message out there. Those opposed to us used to be able to ignore the small numbers but they're getting scared and trying the old smear and character assassination lately.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 11:30 PM
1

Well unless you want to repeal women's rights so that the child matters more than them as well, you are supporting the current model where men are second class citizens and only men are held to this standard of no reproductive rights. A model that says "you had sex so deal with it" to men, but gives women the choice to never have to be responsible for a child unless they want to. You can appeal to emotion all you want about the child but having a system where the child's needs only matter when i…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 01:30 PM
27

Well, it's Warren Farrell so you can be assured it'd be worth going to if you were thinking about it.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 03:44 AM
3

It's about the level of integrity you can expect from huffingtonpost.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 03:30 AM
18

Well, it is in an SRS-lite circlejerk sub for one.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 03:23 AM
1

Maybe because we live in a culture in which a child's well-being is not more important than a woman's bodily autonomy, for one. If a woman can decide she doesn't want to have the child and aborts it or unilaterally choose to give it up, I see no reason to force men to labor under pain of prison if they don't. If sex isn't consent to parenthood for women, it shouldn't be for men. It's pretty simple. You can't have it both ways where women have the choice to never be responsible for a child unless…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 01:38 AM
1

Also if a child has no right at all to have a father....why the fuck would a father have a right to see that child? Well if he opted out, he wouldn't have any such right. Sorry that your mother made the choice to have a child she couldn't support knowing she'd be able to have the government coerce money out of a man that had no interest in having a child with her, but your personal story has nothing to do with men and women having equal or at least equivalent rights.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 09:08 PM
3

This is 2012 where women have a plethora of options related to reproductive rights and men have none. Women are not held to a standard of "Well, you had sex so deal with it!" so why should men be?
/r/MensRights02/11/12 08:51 PM
-3

Well-indoctrinated idiots. Everything you can come to expect from the humanities these days.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 01:59 PM
16

It's amazing how there is not a single thought in the article about the falsely accused, which is par for the course with MSM articles about this subject matter. It's all about women. Women women women. That guy who lost his job and friends and is now a social leper because of a bogus claim--fuck that guy, right?
/r/MensRights02/11/12 01:52 PM
1

This is also true in competitive video games, though I guess there is a physical component of hand-eye coordination. Any competitive type of game from fighting games, to first person shooters, to real time strategy you'll notice the best players are entirely or almost entirely male.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 08:41 PM
3

As other people have pointed out, a DNA test will easily resolve this problem. Get it done ASAP if she tries to use the legal system to extract money from your boyfriend.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 08:24 PM
1

Oh no they do know what they're doing, they just don't have universality as part of their "moral" code (which makes it worthless) so they actually think different rules apply to them.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 05:03 PM
1

The concept of hate speech is almost universally applied by those who have power to silence those who do not. I've yet to see it applied consistently without any bias. Under current regimes with their "hate speech" codes, shit like that linked in the OP somehow isn't hate speech but you have well-funded organizations like the SPLC trying to label us as "hate speech" for merely pointing these people out and opposing them.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 11:41 AM
5

For much the same reasons that Galileo was unpopular with the Church.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 12:48 AM
3

Living here I can tell you that Canada talks a lot about human rights but has a horrible track record of violating them.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 12:41 AM
3

Really they handwaved a lot of things away. Some people have no idea what it takes in terms of labor, maintenance and so on to keep what they take for granted all running.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 08:23 PM
3

Plenty of bad books, I'm sure. Some TV series episodes I remember (of Outer Limits, Sliders) that were set in worlds where most or near all of the male population died off somehow. Most of them were feminist fantasy, not really dystopian.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 07:04 PM
24

She also doesn't understand where things come from, how they get to her, who produces and ships them, who creates, produces and ships all of the modern things like the computer she shit her blog post out on, who keeps the water running and power on and so on. She doesn't understand what makes the modern world go.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 04:29 PM
3

Possibly, it really depends what percentage of men are used. She says 98% would be excluded, so in her delusional views you'd be right, but DNA analysis has already shown that only half as many men as women have reproduced throughout history... and as you've seen her kind of thinking isn't really unique to her: A lot of batshit feminists have called for the reduction of the male population to a small percentage, probably a percentage that coincides with their reproductive desires. Either way, mo…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 04:22 PM
3

It is with feminists as it is with politicians. Don't buy into the party line. Scrutinize what they really say and do.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 04:19 PM
4

It's already been done, but I don't think it's a very viable technology right now for general use. Artificial wombs may be on the way as well, which I am sure women like her would hypocritically hate.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 04:16 PM
1

Right you are. Feminists have in fact if anything made male "gender roles" even worse, and more restrictive.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 10:06 PM
5

The difference is that we, unlike feminists, do not claim to be there for everyone. We don't claim that the solution to women's problems is with us as feminists do with their hollow claim that the solution to men's issues (many of which feminists created or exacerbated) is somehow "more feminism." This is specifically called men's rights and for a reason. Feminists who claimed they were all for "equality of the sexes" (whatever that seems to be) turned out full of it, and men's rights proponents…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 09:57 PM
0

The problem I have with this article is that it rests on several faulty assumptions straight from feminism and PC academia. For example: Sometimes men have sought to improve their chances for sex by keeping women at a disadvantage in terms of economic, educational, political, and other opportunities (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). For example, researchers have found that in New York in the 1800s, surprisingly high numbers of employed women resorted to occasional prostitution to supplement their meag…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 09:57 AM
11

Added to careposts.txt.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 08:58 AM
3

Well the sad fact of the matter is that this society is so fucked up that something like this which should be an open and shut case somehow isn't.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 08:42 AM
23

It's the exact reason that a bot now copies all self posts, strangely enough also beginning 8 months ago, the same time that post happened. You should know seeing as you post in SRS and would be the type to pull something like that.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 08:39 AM
6

Could be fake, but lots of people have said dumb shit on facebook and lost in court because of it.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 08:35 AM
2

Yeah I don't think anyone here has even read any of her material. It's not really any different than any other feminist who buys into the faith-based dogma.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 05:50 PM
3

"Patriarchy" has become a meaningless, nebulous catch-all word from the feminist lexicon used to silence dissent. Talking on feminist terms is pointless. What's really going is feminism has leveraged the innate biological reproductive value that women have and men lack to an extreme for even more special treatment for women at the expense of men. Even surviving primitive societies recognize this value and use men for all of the dangerous shitwork and tribal warfare-- the difference is that they …
/r/MensRights27/10/12 05:00 PM
4

Mostly already happening, but there are large amounts of women who are not ignoring "beta" guys and are instead using them. See: Paternity Fraud.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 02:42 AM
9

Paul defines hypergamy as he does because that is how it is currently practiced with law as it is. Incentives drive behaviors.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:20 PM
3

A man is something someone is born as. You don't choose to be a man. A feminist on the other hand is something someone makes a choice to be. And their belief system's core holds conspiracy theories, and the collectivist guilt bullshit the OP is about.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 02:46 AM
7

Quotas and lowered standards for some groups while holding others to the normal standards are by definition discrimination, or does discrimination somehow only count for you when it's against certain groups as defined by group identity politics. It's amusing to see you revert to a facile "may not seem fair, but where is it stated that they have to be fair?" position here when challenged on this, though. Cool casual racism/sexism, too, because as we know all white men come from upper class backgr…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 03:12 AM
7

You heard it here, discrimination is somehow not discrimination because mental gymnastics about how quotas for selected groups and nothing for other groups is somehow not discrimination.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 02:39 AM
11

Bax argued against it for the reasons that women were not going to get the same kinds of sentencing for criminal actions nor will they be held to the same standards as men in any other arena of society because women had no interest in any of that. The early feminists only wanted the good parts of what men had. What would you know it, he was right.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 02:35 AM
9

More so than today but no, not really. Like today, they still want the rights men have but don't want the same responsibilities men have. You should really read Bax's "The Fraud of Feminism." The feminists of 1887 weren't trying to indoctrinate society with hateful ideas like "all men are potential rapists"--a recently repackaged turd under the new name of "schrodinger's rapist" to make it sound all intellectual even though feminists apparently don't understand schrodinger's cat, but they still …
/r/MensRights24/10/12 02:25 AM
2

Some men (a small percentage) get hit on a lot, and if you think guys get "mad" when turned down then you haven't seen anything really. Far worse when you a tell a woman you're not interested. The worst I've had is hysterical screaming calling me a "faggot" in public because I was just not into them. Most women will never know what it is like to actually have to put forth the effort to approach or to put in effort for sex and relationships, but so what? What you were dealing with was just a weak…
/r/MensRights23/10/12 12:41 PM
29

Have you seen the difference in conditions in female prisons in the same countries? Except for maybe countries like Norway where prisons are like nowhere else in the world, even when women are imprisoned it usually is just for show. And now in the UK they are saying women are somehow a higher class of citizen and prison is somehow below them for committing crimes because, and get this, they suffer from mental illness and a poor socioeconomic background as if male prisoners don't?
/r/MensRights23/10/12 12:09 PM
2

"Alpha" is relative and if they think a system which codifies discrimination against one group to prop up another and encourages mediocrity rather than competitive excellence is sustainable, good luck in the future when it all comes crumbling down.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 12:46 AM
6

I think on some level especially as an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins has to know what's up but is an old man and doesn't want to tarnish his legacy when he dies by actually speaking out directly against specific elements.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 01:19 PM
24

Possibly but it doesn't make it any less valid.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 01:42 AM
8

I already said before that life isn't easy for anyone in these countries. Talking about women isn't implicitly denying that men are important or exist. Instead, these countries and societies insist on oppressing women, and gang-raping women, and marrying them off at young ages to older men. So yeah, it makes sense that there are 38 TED talks about women. Well you seem to think having 38 talks about women to 2 about men is justified, and the ones about men are probably just talks about what basta…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 11:44 PM
7

I suppose you think life is peachy for the common man there, with boy soldiers, targeted for gendercide (like in Rwanda) and used to mine diamonds and all of that. Oh, you don't hear about that. Because third world men are considered subhumans which no one cares about.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 10:54 PM
7

What it boils down to there is women consume more. In a consumer culture, women are more valuable to the people who sell shit and are at the top of the hierarchy. Given that this is all about exporting our consume culture, no fucking kidding this is how it's presented.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 10:38 PM
8

Tell me more about how the common man that has been the dangerous shitworker and cannon fodder who only barely got the vote before women did (women got theirs for nothing) have had the entire world for centuries and centuries.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 10:35 PM
10

Regardless, any feminist that does read this will see that it's that utterly misogynistic field of "evo psych" and snerk about how feminists rely on real science.... The great part is that they don't rely on any science. Feminists rely on just-so statements about human behavior that keep being proven false, like their fanciful ideas about "patriarchal domination." Evolutionary psychology however is very predictive and is something that is actually based on biology, Darwin's work on evolution, an…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 08:50 PM
6

The whole soul mates/twu wuv 4ever female mating strategy sure seems to be losing its effectiveness as more men start to make a cost benefit analysis.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 08:43 PM
1

A country which says your legal and social status is lesser than that of another class of people who do not have any obligation or social expectation to fight and die, and gives all sorts of unfair advantages to that same class they expect less from is not worth fighting for. I would never take great risks and possibly make the greatest sacrifice for such a country. Trying to say it's better than living in a violent third world shithole is small consolation and is a lot like the cliche a lot of …
/r/MensRights21/10/12 05:24 PM
1

Well that's fine as far as it goes but in that scenario it's all about incentives isn't it. Why should men perform this "duty" in a society with law and policy stacked against them. Even in the military, women who largely do not enter combat situations are given affirmative action promotion. What is in it for men to participate in this. It's the same as the general population, really. Men are expected to do more, to compete against each other but have women injected into the competition on a ver…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 09:27 AM
4

Not really. The kind of opportunities and/or extra pay you are given for being physically attractive including being hired for jobs you are not qualified for, being hired more often is substantial. Tall men for example have been shown to earn quite a bit more than short men, and plenty of experiments have been run showing more attractive people tend to get hired or at least contacted while applying far more often for jobs and with less qualifications needed. The linked shit is really dumb and is…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 09:09 AM
78

Only if you're a man, of course. Somehow a man retains agency while drunk but a woman does not. Funny that.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 09:16 PM
23

PZ Myers will try to call you a misogynist no matter how much you walk on eggshells. He's an irrelevant old white knight and freefromthoughtblogs is a landfill of some of the most horrid feminist ideologues that exist and where the joke called "atheism+" or what I like to call a+theism started.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 12:01 PM
1

You can directly compare their irrational beliefs and hatred to the how racist groups view other races unfavorably and they still won't get what they're doing. That is how indoctrinated they are. Just like racists brought up to hate others.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 02:07 AM
1

There is no reasoning with these people. They are literally no more reasonable than cultists. You can cite all of the data you want to show that rape is a vanishingly rare crime committed by less than 1% of the male population and they will still irrationally hold onto their warped and hateful views.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 01:40 AM
0

Actually, the topic we are discussing is "why do women blame men for society's views on women?" And I responded by saying that men control the media. It is pretty much a cold hard fact that the people who control the media are men. And as we've demonstrated, those who have power do not necessarily use that power to benefit those like them. Here's something real that might interest you. Research into in-group bias. What would you know it, these psychological experiments showed that women have a s…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 01:37 AM
2

I don't know, 4 hour old account guy. Let me know what you think.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 11:40 PM
5

A better thing is to turn it around on them and ask why women don't just all adopt, or suggest that law should be such that women are legally required under pain of prison to support the children produced by their husbands in an affair with another woman. Suddenly, you'll find that having your own biological children and not being forced to take responsibilities for someone else's actions now matter.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 11:16 PM
0

Gynocentrists who are looking to excuse women who cuckold men.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 11:14 PM
1

It's simple. They are not logical or rational people.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 11:04 PM
1

The only thing you can do to protect yourself is not engage in the behaviors that have this kind of risk. Yeah, that sucks, doesn't it? It's unfortunate but there is no personal solution to systemic problems, and that's exactly what these problems are. The system itself is against you and perpetrates the injustices. So you can either put blind faith in someone not taking advantage of the system to screw you, or you can just disengage any kind of risky behavior. As you can tell, our fight is with…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:56 PM
2

This happens in a lot of European countries I believe.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:48 PM
1

Schrodinger's rapist is the same old "all men are potential rapists" hate propaganda dressed up in the kind of pseudo-intellectual wrapping that feminists are known for. It's really not any deeper than that.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:30 PM
1

These people who buy into bizarre concepts like schrodinger's rapist which run contrary to observable and empirically demonstrable reality are not logical or rational people. If you ever run into the kind of morally reprehensible kind of person who espouses these kinds of beliefs and feels the need to share them with you (and you probably won't outside of the internet) then just flippantly reply with your own made-up on the spot one-line concepts like schrodinger's psycho bitch, schrodinger's fa…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:25 PM
1

First it was 90! Now it is 54. What completely arbitrary numbers will we see made up next?
/r/MensRights18/10/12 10:19 PM
8

Most any serious MRA doesn't give a shit about any political party that currently exists because they clearly don't have any of the common man's interests in mind. For example, in the US if you think it really matters to any of these issues we speak of here if Romney or Obama are elected, you are delusional. Neither of them will do a fucking thing.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:39 PM
0

I'm sorry, I wasn't talking about fictional movies including children's movies which cannot be said to be "for men" because I live in the real world. I was talking about literal legal rights and freedoms. Who is represented by those who have power? Not men. The fact that the sidebar links of this subreddit contain info on so many glaringly unjust issues present in this society in which you claim is run by men and for men speaks volumes there, and debunks your "men are in power therefore men bene…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 09:28 PM
4

The "patriarhcy" nonsense is a cornerstone of all feminism, though. Not just the super nutjobs who advocate gendercide.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:28 PM
0

And who do they cater to, who do they represent? Certainly not men as a group. They pander to women's interests. Not men's.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 10:26 PM
0

Tone arguments have nothing to do with feminism. The idea that something is wrong because of how it was said or because you don't like how it was said is what a tone argument is. They've attempted to appropriate it but misuse it, yes. But so what? That doesn't mean that tone arguments aren't stupid.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 12:34 AM
3

This is a meaningless tone argument.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 11:32 PM
3

This is a meaningless tone argument. You can walk on eggshells all you want but those who don't like what you have to say are not going to like it no matter how you present it and will try to smear you if they have no real substantive counter-argument.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 11:27 PM
2

Try holding women to the same standards you hold men and call out the obvious double standards, hypocrisy, and special treatment as you see them. Tell me how that goes for you unless you are self-employed and/or otherwise don't have any kind of reliance on others for your livelihood. It's not that holding these opinions is actually morally reprehensible, it's that we still very much live in a society where mob rule and indoctrination of the masses is a thing. Only it's not religions these days, …
/r/MensRights15/10/12 11:15 PM
4

A safe society is one in which it is alright to expresss an unpopular opinion. We unfortunately do not live in such a society.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:53 PM
1

Looks like the original and top entry (Sep 03) is the correct entry.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:59 PM
6

Her popularity compared to a lot of other names could largely be explained by in-group bias, although she puts out excellent content I'd say. There are other names like barbarossaaaa and Stardusk which don't get enough credit.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 02:11 AM
0

Just like with Rayon McIntosh in the McDonalds incident, the video evidence shows who the actual aggressor was.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:20 AM
-2

-1,549 comment karma redditor for 1 month Yeah ok.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:14 AM
2

It's called propaganda. Feminism has no substantive argument against what we say.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 01:09 AM
5

Shut up. I was going to tell you why your double standards and selfserving moral code that lacks any universality is terrible but... Shut up.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 06:52 PM
15

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11f33g/we_refuse_to_take_male_passengers/c6m1nyb However unfortunate, that's India and not England, and the dude get lynched. In Asian countriesm women's only cars are there because womenfolk getting harassed and assaulted is a widespread problem. Their reaction is total mob behavior, but it's less about snobbery and misandry, and more retaliation against a perceived potential threat to their person. You show clear support for what can only be describe…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 11:46 PM
9

It's the exact same type of thing. These are the result of decades long hate propaganda campaigns. "Perceived potential threat"? Sounds right at home with actual racist fearmongering. Yet you support it here.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 11:33 PM
44

Oh? Think again.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 08:12 PM
76

It's "No Coloreds" for the 21st century.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 06:53 PM
5

It's amazing how feminist "ethics" are a stack of special pleading with universality nowhere to be seen.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:28 PM
0

The data in the study doesn't show any of that. You made it all up on the spot. It shows that even the supposedly supremely privileged white man has a steeper average sentence than even a black woman, in what SRS posters like yourself deem a so-called white supremacist nation. 3.6. Race-Gender Interactions. Columns 11-12 of Table 5 show that the gender gap is substantially larger among black than non-black defendants (74% versus 51%). The race-gender interaction adds to our understanding of raci…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:48 PM
6

Yes I'm sure being sentenced more often and for an average of at 60%+ longer sentences for the same crimes has nothing to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:27 PM
4

"Don't start none if you don't want none." Wise words to live by.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:16 PM
3

Maybe you should watch the video.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:16 PM
2

McDonalds incident redux: Dishonest mainstream media Part Deux.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:10 PM
2

Not those weird but cool game shows. Not those ever.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 01:34 PM
3

The fact that tubecrush even exists is proof positive of this.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 06:22 AM
30

By the way it's not just sentencing. This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 06:15 AM
1

I don't think you can quantify that statement. I think it's something you heard, unquestioningly accepted, but can't really provide any evidence for. There's plenty of evidence that proves otherwise. Who does almost all of the dangerous shitwork? Who accounts for the most suicides by far? Who is imprisoned more often and longer for the same crimes? Homeless? You see where I'm getting? With almost any metric you look at for quality, men tend to have a worse average outcome than women do. A tiny p…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:46 AM
1

This is very interesting commentary coming from someone like you who regularly posts in a subreddit that makes the New Black Panther Party seem reasonable. Just saying.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:33 AM
1

Probably because those commenting in the image are also feminists and we've all heard this doublespeak before.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:08 AM
2

Instead it's assumed that we're all CEOs of fortune 500 companies or some shit, and if we happen to have been born into a generationally poor family and have had no real opportunities in life it's somehow our fault (but not the fault of an individual of any other group who happens to end up in the same situation, oh no).
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:05 AM
1

Another more recent similar case sans the suicide
/r/MensRights12/10/12 07:26 PM
2

redditor for 1 day
/r/MensRights12/10/12 05:15 PM
1

There isn't a letter in the greek alphabet to describe that image.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 05:14 PM
2

I fail to see how taking to task fraudsters as proven by a DNA test is an "attack on motherhood."
/r/MensRights10/10/12 08:03 PM
1

Rape usually carries a harsher sentence than murder these days, funny that... and you think it's OK to throw someone in prison for a very long time simply because the death penalty may not exist for that crime, where in prison they themselves will likely be raped or killed by fellow inmates for what they're in for, even if they didn't do it. Great 'merican Justice there, and feminism too! Throwing the innocent in with the guilty as collateral damage in the more important war on rape, I see. By t…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 07:52 PM
1

The funny part about this is that feminists have no problems using hearsay about non-crimes to smear the accused, i.e. "Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a womanizer" -- the implication that he is somehow guilty. You see that when a lot when famous men are accused. They were so insistent that he was guilty and this was their reasoning. He must be a rapist because... he was able to consensually bed a lot of women? Yeah, ok.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 07:46 PM
3

You may be joking about that, but here are some feminists who are trying to find reasons for why it's somehow bad if men pay the same rate as women for car insurance. You probably already knew such people existed but for casual readers here is what we're up against.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:44 AM
9

Whatever in the world makes you think life sucks less for men in the third world? Third world countries prefer male children because they are less of a burden, because they want their family name carried on, and because men are bigger producers. Men are still the ones who do the most actual productive work even in first world countries.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 05:09 AM
4

I think this guy is very unusual because famous men in particular who are victims of this kind of thing tend to not speak out about it. Most of them are too afraid to speak out. You don't see Dominique Strauss-Kahn being loud about what happened to him. He should be, his life was turned upside down.... but he isn't being loud about it. Mostly it's normal men who do, men who haven't much to lose by going against the regime. Like for example one of the guys who started being the loudest about pate…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:00 AM
1

So wait, this guy married her after she fucked two guys on a 5 day "break"? How brainwashed can you be.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 01:25 AM
1

Men don't really have more than one unless you are talking about sterilizing yourself.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 01:03 AM
80

There was actually an article a few years ago which called DNA paternity testing, and get this: "an anti-feminist application of science" because it "removes a powerful tool of choice from women".
/r/MensRights07/10/12 12:21 PM
1

Rape and many other undesirable human behaviors are in fact something natural. Doesn't mean they're good. It is natural to shit just about anywhere, but today we have toilets and use toilet paper to wipe our asses. It is natural to want to cave in the skull of someone else over a disagreement or altercation that isn't really that serious, but murder is a crime in our society today and offenders lose their freedom. The problem we call paternity fraud or cuckolding is also a natural female mating …
/r/MensRights07/10/12 12:12 PM
1

There's plenty of historical evidence for it. Take times of war for example where noncombatant men are killed off but women and children (except maybe male children above a certain age) are not. It's not a social construct.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 12:41 AM
1

It's not just "fat" it's basically any man who isn't considered attractive is creepy/potential rapist/whatever pejorative. Given that women consider a stunning 80% of men as below average, well...
/r/MensRights06/10/12 11:51 PM
1

Not exactly. It's a complex issue. The issue of rape isn't as black and white as ideologues would have you believe. That is, it's not "all about power." There's a good amount of that is about sex (it's obvious when you look at the demographics most likely to be raped, young men and women at the peak of their physical attractiveness), and porn is a sexual outlet of sorts. There is a VERY high correlation of reduced rape rates in countries that have easy access to porn. Rape in such countries has …
/r/MensRights06/10/12 11:26 PM
1

Maybe in some small number of individual cases. Unfortunately what we have here is the assumption that they were all poor widdle abused girls, contrary to findings recently posted here in /r/mensrights within the last week that very few women murder their husbands due to that.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 10:54 PM
0

Wait wait wait what what whattttt How in the fuck can pornography lead to domestic violence.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 10:43 PM
2

So you're saying they're using the same tactics that feminists and other PC types use, and it bothers you when someone who isn't "on your side" does that. Interesting.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 10:21 PM
4

Largely a societal bias. When a man does something bad it's generally said it's his own fault but when a woman does something bad people reach for excuses, usually nebulous "mental disorders."
/r/MensRights05/10/12 09:38 PM
1

It's the double standard. Our sick feminist society calls men who do it perverts but has no problem with women who do it.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 04:51 AM
1

How is reducing the risk of harm to yourself a bad thing or "counterproductive". People who are intent to kill, rape, or commit other crimes are going to do so no matter how many lame slogans you chant at them or how many hateful utopian posters created where you blame half the population for the actions of less than 1% of that half of the population. That is the reality of the world we live in. You can try to live in a fantasy land where you think eliminating these things entirely can actually …
/r/MensRights05/10/12 03:27 AM
1

Yes I have and get this: They are not very common. Usually what happens is a suggestion that someone takes precautions to avoid being victimized in this world is conflated with "victim blaming" is somehow transmogrified into "the victim deserved it" by very intellectually dishonest ideologues pushing their politics of hate where they slander about half of the population for the actions of a tiny fraction of 1% of the that half of the population.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 03:14 AM
2

No, I would rather it simply be removed altogether.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 12:09 PM
-2

The judicial system already takes action against rapists, and rape isn't considered acceptable by any stretch of imagination. It's like feminism and those who buy into their propaganda and slogans are willfully ignorant.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 05:22 AM
-1

Oh no biggie bro, I totes agree with this poster that implies that either all men are rapists or that men have some kind of collective guilt for the actions of a tiny fraction of a percentage of all men's actions.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 03:02 AM
2

I do think Lowtax is mad he never struck it rich like a lot of other internet pioneers.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:57 PM
2

So you think that's a more likely scenario, than, say, the far more logically viable explanation such as the one outlined here in this example of a war veteran who returns with severe disability/disfigurement? Real interesting.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:52 PM
3

I think this post is another piece of great to throw onto the giant mountain of evidence for the "looks don't matter for men" canard we usually hear. Keep in mind women rate an astounding 80% of men as below average. The double standard that we have in today's society that it is unacceptable to criticize a woman's appearance for any reason whatsoever is especially funny when you consider these things. Obviously this is an extreme case but when you see these posts on reddit about these guys who h…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:43 PM
1

The terminology is brief and is descriptive enough to explain very real observable phenomenon. The semantics people are just people who don't like what is being said but have no real argument against it.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:33 PM
1

E/N had always been a trashheap since it was created but that aside I don't know why you'd keep paying to rereg given how comedy is now outlawed on what used to be a comedy website's forum!
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:30 PM
0

It's based on this thing which brings up a lot of valid points.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 06:08 PM
2

I think it's amazing that some people (who totally by coincidence happen to not like you and are kool-aid drinkers who think men's rights is some kind of joke) think you're somehow running some kind of scam here. It's a real coincidence that I just got finished watching one of Stardusk's latest videos where he responded on a tangent about someone making this same allegation about you guys, and he had the same thought I did about it. You'd think there'd be much easier ways to make money, even run…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 05:32 PM
0

Is a judge likely to lose their job or be subject to mob violence over unproven allegations of their misconduct? Do you think that is realistic or even likely. It is for rape accusations. Also do keep in mind that this is a judge so bandying about what can amount to defamation or libel is a serious matter. If the facts as presented aren't actually true, those making these allegations could land in some serious hot water, couldn't they? These are not even the same things. One is an allegation and…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 05:23 PM
3

Ms. Snead claims that publicizing this case is hurting the children. This is absurd. Snead (or Judge Jackson using Snead as her mouthpiece) is asserting that reporting the truth of the children’s abuse by their mother is harming them, while neglecting the fact that what is most harmful to the children is their continued abuse by their mother. The logic is completely backwards. Seems this also... describes you? Birds of a feather and all that.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 03:24 PM
4

There isn't, though? The only thing I see is objections to the terms themselves on semantics nerd grounds which I suppose you could word them more aptly to apply to human males, but it would take way more words.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 02:46 PM
2

Patriarchy is a nebulous term feminists use to silence dissent and shut down discussion. It is a conspiracy theory, slur, AND a catch-all excuse to justify their bigotry and bad laws and policies all in one.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 02:40 PM
3

Given that he was awarded money, I highly doubt it. Kind of surprising that a state which I hear Americans constantly say is full of "ignorant rednecks" turns out a just ruling like this when all of the states they say are great have the most horrifying outcomes for the same scenario.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 02:38 PM
50

It's ironic though because somethingawful basically started up SRS and their forums are chock full of feminist ideologues including moderators who will ban you for holding a dissenting opinion. The site owner has actually claimed he hates this subreddit.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 02:05 PM
8

At least AVfM is producing results, unlike hucksters like feminist Anita Sarkeesian who seems to have handily swindled a couple hundred thousand dollars from sad dupes for her idea which is dumb even in concept.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 12:56 PM
6

I have big respect for Paul for having the balls to put himself out there, speak truth to power and never back down no matter what kind of intimidation and blatant propaganda he faced. I'd say he's probably the one most responsible for getting the ball rolling for things as they've been going the last couple years, and now there are plenty more following that example and refusing to kowtow to feminists as previous failed proponents of men's rights foolishly did. Still a long way to go but more a…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 12:50 PM
3

You are conflating someone's right to a fair trial and right to be free of extrajudicial punishment with something that has fuck all to do with any of that-- exposing a corrupt judge.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 12:43 PM
1

I can't imagine he will be successful. No state takes adultery seriously even if there are still laws on the book for it. That aside, the other guy isn't the one who's not following what is supposed to be a contract (marriage) -- his ex-wife was.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 07:01 PM
1

It's largely a matter of genetics, strictly speaking. More than half of all men who have ever lived never got to pass on their genes, and DNA testing is (big shock) showing that culture really doesn't have a huge effect on this.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:34 PM
1

We're talking about today's society where women are given an artificial leg up in the competition for resources and where we have all of this "equality" rhetoric jammed down our throats from birth. It is women who refuse to let go of hypergamy and animal instinct here, when it is perfectly within their means to do so.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 11:56 AM
2

Yes and he's right. Rape shield laws also tend to be a violation of the constitutions of the nations they're implemented in and yet naked appeals to emotion somehow keep them on the books.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 07:27 AM
1

Things like this are why Canada has such a strong men's rights presence, like johntheother's group in Vancouver. Things are far worse here than in the US. More blatant and codified discrimination against men than in most countries save maybe Sweden and Australia which are probably about equal.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:15 AM
3

It's more apt to say that even a 9 year old child can smell the bullshit a mile away.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 04:40 AM
4

They ban you even if you haven't posted there ever, and then claim it's somehow a circlejerk and they are "trolling." "Atheism Plus" is full of the same types of people, lot of overlap.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 03:07 AM
3

She hasn't changed her perspective at all. She's doing damage control. Look at what she's saying. She still has the same fucked up beliefs but is trying to play the victim because people are calling out how fucked up these beliefs are.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 03:03 AM
3

Well Manboobz Jr. I can see you're very good at quoting out of context snippets.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 02:02 AM
9

The problem is that Hanna Rosin is willfully ignoring reality. Successful career women still complain about a lack of "good men" -- that is, men who are above them in income, status, etc. "Society" hasn't forced men into the provider role-- women have. Generations of social engineering resulting in men and women who have known nothing but eras where men and women have similar opportunities in life (infact women have more opportunity due to the stacked deck of affirmative action, quotas and the l…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:56 AM
3

She's backpedaling now that she's been called on her shit by people like the regulars of this subreddit.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:47 AM
3

Honestly the guy is a total chump and pushover. If this is the kind of behavior she engages in during a "rough patch" in life (and she's probably just saying this to cover up after being caught), I would not be surprised if none of "their" children are his.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:42 AM
6

Elam advocates jury nullification when it is clear a man is not going to get a fair trial due to rape shield laws.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:33 AM
3

I hope it was used ironically because "trigger warning" is definitely a weasel term.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 01:28 AM
1

The male cosmetic industry is expanding rapidly and its market growing. This will lead to more advertising. What advertising does is it tells people to be unhappy with what they have and offers to sell a solution. As this happens you will see an increase in male body image issues similar to what we've seen for women over the last several decades. The thing is these issues existed well before any male cosmetic industry. You can even find historical precedent for men wearing make-up, wigs, and eve…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 12:54 AM
3

Male body image issues have always been there. Always. Before a "male cosmetics industry" even existed. I can think back to my childhood when there were "hair club for men" commercials and the like on TV. And this is just ONE example. Think of all of the guys who obsessively work out, even going as far as to use dangerous steroids just to look better. The whole "men don't care about their looks"/"looks don't matter for men" thing is largely a form of pervasive misandry, largely peddled by femini…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 01:49 PM
6

AVFM did start out as just Paul Elam, yes, and wouldn't have been possible without him. It's grown, though.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:48 AM
6

Everyone who agrees with or likes Paul Elam on reddit must also be Paul Elam, I see. Allow me to adjust your tinfoil hat, SRS alt account poster.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:47 AM
0

freefromthoughtblogs just can't stop embarrassing themselves.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 02:23 PM
22

It's not only sexism but also in-your-face racism.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 10:35 AM
9

"Women" have a problem with this subreddit because we refuse to buy into dogmatic beliefs like "male privilege" and "patriarchy"? I thought feminists had a problem with this, but there does seem to be a problem with feminists conflating feminism and women.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 08:59 AM
9

Actually he makes fun of people like you, an SRS regular, who calls any criticism of a woman's behavior for any reason whatsoever "misogyny."
/r/MensRights29/09/12 08:48 AM
102

Money doesn't grow on trees. A man is forced to labor to pay for a woman's unilateral choice to have a child he never wanted, something a man cannot do to a woman because women have actual reproductive rights. It is a double standard.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 08:39 AM
1

RockingMrE has serious cognitive dissonance problems. The whole marriage problems exchange between him and others on marriage showed that. I'm not so sure Chapin is traditionalist rather than a capitalism true believer who thinks the free market can solve everything but too many of his videos are just basically the contentless pointing out of crazies so I don't find him very interesting. But barbarossaaaa and Stardusk produce most of the finest content on youtube that is often deep stuff that is…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 04:48 AM
1

barbarossaaaa? He has admitted that he's religious (probably not serious about it given how scientific minded he is) but keeps that entirely out of his videos, and he certainly can't be called traditionalist by anyone. Did you even listen to the same youtube clips I did? For example, his latest video: Organic dissolution of traditionalism, and small govt. platitudes An older one that shows he can't be labeled any of that: Concordia sinking proves "equal" female life is valued over male life. He'…
/r/MensRights29/09/12 04:21 AM
42

Well you can, but you can't sign away having your wages garnished to pay for someone else's unilateral choice.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 04:06 AM
3

Tl;dr: It's sophistry and the cognitive dissonance it creates is amazing.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 01:05 AM
2

I wasn't aware the thoughts of ancient philosophers had any real connection to the actual status and treatment of women, SRS poster. Women have had and still do have a better average quality of life and better outcome in life than do men. An apex fallacy would be if I were talking about some rich dudes in the Victorian era and how the women were entirely taken care of with no need to actually do anything. Pretty sure the chance of death, dismemberment, lower life expectancy and not having succes…
/r/MensRights28/09/12 01:00 AM
4

You mean the constant posts that talk about how women are literally getting away with slap on the wrist for crimes? Crimes that would undoubtedly land men committing them behind bars. How is that not related? The reason we aren't "taken seriously" is because there is a pervasive indoctrination that men somehow have it all and are the kings of society. There is this disgustingly dishonest conflation of the uber-rich 1% of men with all men, largely down to feminist ideologues and their lies. How e…
/r/MensRights28/09/12 12:30 AM
5

Tell me where you see women being historically undervalued when the common man historically worked real shitty jobs with high chance of injury and/or death to support them, SRS poster.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 12:08 AM
1

Canada really isn't much better off than Sweden. The ultimate scapegoat feminists always use to try to justify this shit is the Marc Lepine incident from decades ago.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 03:37 AM
63

This was linked in /r/shitredditsays and totally by coincidence a bunch of downvotes occurred.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 03:07 AM
3

She's a women's studies indoctrinee. How can things like hours worked, time taken off and other personal choices which will affect how much employers value you NOT be relevant to earnings? You can provide her with all of those gloating articles based on studies where women in their 20s are actually being paid more than their male peers. The fact that she unquestioningly believed this shit and still clings to these dogmatic beliefs should be a huge red flag to you. I wouldn't marry her.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 02:42 AM
9

/r/anarchism should really be called /r/fascism
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:09 AM
7

It's wikipedia. Wikipedia has a long history of censoring/defacing men's rights related pages and the admins are in on it.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 05:33 AM
1

But remember, feminism is all about equality folks.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 01:15 AM
7

redditor for 2 hours So brave.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 06:03 AM
3

Most of those aren't "male friendly" unless you buy into western media and feminist propaganda. It's more accurate to say those are great countries to be a man, if you happen to be society's elite. Same as for women, really. For the the vast majority of the population, not so much. Australia however is a certified feminist nightmare under Julia Gillard.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 01:34 PM
1

whoosh
/r/MensRights20/09/12 09:15 PM
4

Thanks for the usual conspiracy theory shitposting in avfm/johntheother links.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 01:32 AM
7

A half century of male demonizing propaganda and a skewed legal system later, no one should be surprised at this kind of outcome.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 05:01 PM
16

What a big surprise. You expand the definition of rape to be almost meaningless with all of the shit shoehorned under its umbrella and the reports for petty grievances go way up? The case of one Julian Assange is a prime example.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 04:59 PM
2

I wouldn't be so sure as the virtual harem paradigm here in the west seems to suggest that it will just be the same old hypergamy but with even bigger winners.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 08:27 PM
7

No, there aren't any good arguments against it. When people try to make arguments against it they tend to show their horrifying and true colors.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 11:23 AM
6

Cognitive dissonance. I thought that "patriarchy" held that men are superior? Who even knows what this "patriarchy" is other than a convenient deflectionary tactic when feminist dogma is challenged. It's nebulous and the definition is ever-changing to suit whatever ill-formed argument the feminist employing it at the moment is attempting to make.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 11:02 AM
-2

Downvote brigade went through here it seems.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 03:37 AM
2

The tone regarding getting a vacestomy may be crude but the logic of it is correct because the legal system is no man's friend. I'm more amused by the fact these are the types of guys who tend to call MRAs "beta" for pointing these things out, but then turn around and are doing exactly what MRAs say you have to in order to 100% protect yourself from the biased legal system.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 08:42 PM
3

I didn't read the comments until now, but just looked over the comments and it looks like he's trying the sarcasm thing in response to a poster who went by "cognitive dissonance". He's assuring you that it still works like any good snake oil salesman, but hey I'm just getting this vasectomy for no real reason at all guys, honest.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 07:24 PM
7

I think the worst thing about it and a lot of these game blogs is that they claim to have some magical powers or they're so skilled at manipulation or some shit to avert any kind of legal system disaster, but then here's a guy who's proving that's all bluster by getting a vasectomy.
/r/MensRights13/09/12 06:35 PM
2

Maybe because we live in a society which talks out of both sides of its mouth about "gender equality"-- where on one side it says "women shouldn't be punished for having sex" and on the other it says to men "you should have kept it in your pants."
/r/MensRights13/09/12 06:27 PM
6

Yes except you'd be smart to move to a state that has a cap on the amount of money that is paid towards support so that it doesn't become tens of thousands of dollars a month mommy support.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 10:32 PM
5

It's not even a real legal contract as the judges who are supposed to enforce it decide to just make shit up on the spot to benefit women.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 10:30 PM
5

Well it's true enough, groupthink seems to be horrifyingly the norm.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 08:59 PM
4

It is, except in the way our legal system handles it and how the response is socially. When men do something unacceptable, there are consequences. When women do? Not so much. Which is the entire point of that whole MGTOW thing that Stardusk is all about.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 08:27 PM
2

I'm pretty sure the user you're replying to is not in fact youtube user Stardusk.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 05:42 PM
6

In terms of the legal system and social norms which is what he is talking about, he is 100% correct and you cannot refute what he is saying.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 05:41 PM
12

I'm pretty sure no one said it was, but you post this kind of derailing bullshit all of the time.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 07:07 PM
4

Tell me more about how successful the groveling, walk-on-eggshells approach of the likes of Glenn Sacks has worked in getting these issues out there.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 09:47 AM
0

Here you go. Bonus: Men sitting on buses is "male privilege" and oppressive.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 07:30 AM
0

I wish I was joking.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 01:48 AM
4

And so the feminist politburo puts out some more propaganda.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 11:09 PM
4

Attempting to compare birth control to viagra is a false equivalency. One prevents pregnancy, a normal function, while the other is used for actual sexual dysfunction. An equivalent comparison would be if there were some kind of meds to deal with something like vaginismus. What I find most curious is that you and society at large find the suggestion of female celibacy "offensive" yet society at large has no problems telling men they should keep in their pants when men not only haven't got birth …
/r/MensRights06/09/12 06:04 PM
3

I assume you mean "most gender neutral/equal country" in the Orwellian sense.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 01:56 PM
1

this is some serious ivory tower shit if you think a short chubby guy is going to get anything but laughed at. two people can do the same thing but experience different outcomes based on their physical appearance. it's a kind of cognitive bias that drives this
/r/MensRights05/09/12 12:29 PM
1

This isn't about the status of the homeless in general. The fact of the matter is that men seem to have an average worse outcome in life. Whether it be homelessness, life expectancy, imprisonment, reproductive success rates even. You name it, pretty much any quantifiable metric, men have it worse in greater proportion and usually by far. This flies in the face of the made-up-on-the-spot idea that men are some sort of uber-privileged class and have any kind of systemic privilege, a bogus idea too…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 08:40 AM
5

SRS poster so mad they made an alt account just to post this. Excellent jimmy rustles going on here.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 07:28 AM
30

It actually devolves even further than that level of argument to just calling the one questioning the whole thing a "troll" because he pointed out that the fact that homeless men outnumber homeless women more than 2 to 1 kind of shows that the idea that men have some kind of systemic privilege is laughable at best.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 07:25 AM
3

Oh I know there was censorship but now it is like every other feminist echo chamber.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 10:29 PM
2

That was when Matlack ran the show and there wasn't as much censorship. Things are different now.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 10:11 PM
2

Communal child rearing and cultures where they think "paternity doesn't matter" are a failure, and anyone who understands biological imperative can easily tell you why. Hint: Those expected to produce and prop up those cultures largely do not get anything from doing so, not even an assurance that they pass on their own genes. dcipres hit on a lot of the reasons why.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 01:53 PM
2

What she wanted was artificial wombs. I wonder if she really grasped the implications of those and how they'd probably help take away the kind of preferential treatment men give women, exposing women to the male experience like never before where competition, performance, and merit are paramount and no amount of special pleading will get you anywhere. Artificial wombs may be a reality in our lifetime.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 01:49 PM
6

No, but they are rather destructive manifestations of female nature. It's unrestrained hypergamy and resource-seeking by having the state forcefully extract resources from men to give to women. We expect men to control the undesirable and destructive sides of their nature, but somehow not women. In a way I suppose you could say that feminism has allowed women to act animalistic and free of responsibility for their actions at men's expense, but it's not the whole picture. The short of it is that …
/r/MensRights03/09/12 01:45 PM
3

He states 90% of those brought up on charges are men, which is probably true given societal attitudes that no crime occurred when women do it. His own biases are shown, though, in claiming that there should be no equal protection and punsihments under the law.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 01:40 PM
3

/r/LGBT was hijacked by SRS types, last I heard. That's why /r/ainbow was made.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 07:14 AM
3

Who would have thunk it, a guy who thinks among other loathsome things that men should be willing cuckolds and runs a concern-troll-in-blog-form is a feminist shill who hates the idea of men having rights?
/r/MensRights03/09/12 06:48 AM
6

Facebook and most "social media" is the smelly unwashed asshole of the Internet.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 06:47 AM
2

This isn't "faux" feminism, this is just everyday feminist lunacy taken to its logical conclusion.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 06:45 AM
6

Well John, I can only suggest you and your group start carrying audio-video recording devices with you and documenting this and uploading it all over the place to expose it. In Canada it has become clear that men have no rights and the "proper authorities" will do nothing, so this must be brought to the attention of the world community at large to show what these brownshirts are really like.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:33 AM
17

Congratulations on supporting tyrannical mob rule.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:20 AM
1

Well, there's a pretty easy way to find out but your financial situation is pretty bad I suppose. It's something you should consider getting done.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:18 AM
1

If you're a good person, you don't exploit others like that is the bottom line. I'd say I agree that you should get out but you seem to be a bad position. The courts are supremely biased and you'd be lucky to even get custody of your own child even though you were the primary caregiver, just because you're a man. You should definitely try, though. You're stuck in a really shitty place, and it could be even worse. This whole "going out to drink" (or "girls night out" which is often code for "goin…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:57 AM
6

You mean Eivind Berge in Norway who was let off both because it was deemed he did not post his thoughts in a public place but also because he didn't threaten anyone specific or make any specific plans but largely said he thinks police who uphold unjust laws are scum who deserve to be killed, a whole different picture than you were painting. When you post shit like this, it's like you're re-telling a legend that gets to be a taller tale with every telling.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:46 AM
15

Elam advocates not letting rapists go free but using jury nullification against patently unjust rape shield laws-- but here you are! Our favorite bipolar concern troll, here to misrepresent and distort the facts. Nothing new to see here.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 02:50 AM
10

Even black women have a higher response rate than white males, don't let the colors used fool you as those are merely a comparison towards same-sex-- and even there you'll notice it's almost entirely green for most women sending to most men. The entire male response rate chart is abysmal, especially when you compare it to the female response rate.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 01:06 AM
6

I would attribute this largely to the postering that a lot of guys are doing in various cities across North America. It may seem pointless because there are ideologues around every corner that will try to deface or rip them down but they sure seem to be getting a lot of attention. If anyone out there wants to do something to promote people actually seeing and thinking about these issues, that's probably one of the best things you can do.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 01:01 AM
1

It's not. This same disgusting "a woman must always be believed" feminist dogma where accusation is proof of guilt is held in various other first world countries.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 11:45 PM
2

I suggest you use google and shock and amaze yourself at all of the cab drivers who've been falsely accused because their female passengers did not want to pay $20 or less in fare.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 11:42 PM
3

The bottom line is that the word rape is beginning to have no meaning at all due how how feminists distort and try to expand the definition.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 07:43 PM
3

redditor for 7 days
/r/MensRights31/08/12 12:30 AM
4

Well he is a feminist shill from "Good Men Project," trying now to move the goalposts and claim that we shouldn't hold women responsible for doing one of the worst things you can do to a man and claiming that a willing cuckold is a good man, now that the information about how widespread paternity fraud is happens to be getting out there.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 12:18 AM
5

It's entirely her fault.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 12:00 AM
1

Your sister is everything you can come to expect from a women's studies indoctrination program.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 04:14 AM
1

The corollary of course being that they execute 18 men a day. The big thing you don't hear about Islamic polygamist societies due to the western media propaganda filter they run through is how these big bad "patriarchal" societies treat the common man like dirt, just like the west does. It makes you wonder who really has it worse in the middle-east. They are clearly doing something about those excess males. This is bound to happen because when some men have four wives, the result is that there a…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:55 PM
7

Yes that is exactly my attitude towards the subject: I will care about your reproductive rights about the same time I start getting some.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:04 PM
6

It's the bogus claim that we live in a culture that somehow supports and condones rape even, which runs contrary to reality where we lock convicted rapists away longer than murderers and the mere accusation of rape dooms a man to a pretty terrible life from then on. Their least flimsy bit of "evidence" for this is that people "make jokes about rape" -- the same way people make Hitler jokes and all sorts of other jokes. The only "rape culture" that exists is male prison rape where people will act…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 11:22 PM
1

Consider that half as many men as women who've lived have a living ancestor today. If you think that there's really nothing to the whole alpha/beta dichotomy then how is the disparity so huge? Why did only half as many men get to pass on their genes. You can strawman it all you want or claim I'm using invoking some sort of naturalistic fallacy--even though I'm not because I'm not making any sort of value judgment on whether it's good or bad, I'm just saying that's how it is--but you can't erase …
/r/MensRights23/08/12 07:20 PM
1

About 25-33%~ of the tests taken in total say that man aren't the fathers of the child. Whether you suspect a child is yours or not doesn't have a causal effect on whether it is or isn't-- that's magical thinking. The truth is that we really don't know what the real rate is and can't unless, say, every child born was secretly DNA tested and a statistic built off that. All we have right now is the knowledge that of the tests taken, a quarter to a third tend to turn out saying the man isn't the fa…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 10:52 PM
2

When you think of paternity fraud this scenario presented where a man is not told he is a father is not... really it. What does come to mind is that the wrong man is told "you are the father" and is held responsible, either because the woman knows or knows there is a good chance he is not the father but goes ahead anyway. The injustice comes from when the system knowingly holds the wrong man responsible under the sophistry of "best interests of child" attempting to justify it by saying it would …
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:11 AM
3

You have a reasonable standard for the definition of rape.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 03:23 AM
2

I don't know what exactly makes Assange a "douchebag" though really. He's successful with women, and he's somehow a douchebag? Yet women choose him anyway. The cognitive dissonance is amazing.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 03:19 AM
3

Yeah they were 18 so not exactly children but the point stands that a man would not get the same sentence.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 02:28 AM
4

Yeah, your reasons listed are the real reasons why men do not want to be with promiscuous women. The much higher risk for infidelity is doubly bad these days because a woman will still be able to fleece you in divorce when she's in the wrong and in most so-called "civilized" jurisdictions there is little to no recourse for men who are paternity fraud victims. The article is pretty bad and I don't know what the author was thinking.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 06:53 PM
4

Yeah it's a pretty obvious one at that.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:48 PM
5

Problem here: Women are not a minority.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:33 PM
8

Sociology is almost entirely a form of feminism with far more sophistry. It's not surprising that they blather on about "double standards" but then hold one themselves and try to pass it off as "gender justice".
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:31 PM
7

Saying rape is worse than murder is mostly just plain dumb.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 10:53 AM
4

You can't miss a fictitious creation of desperate ideologues.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 09:21 PM
1

The longer you stay with her the more the legal system will fleece you. Get out now. You have no kids. Just do it.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 01:08 PM
4

Already is in parts of Europe.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 06:56 AM
3

We live in a culture that has created a legal and social apparatus that literally dooms a man merely accused of rape. This is the reality we live in, far removed from the fantasy that feminists claim. The only "rape culture" that exists is in prisons because we have a fucked up society that believes, say, nonviolent offenders who are shoehorned into prisons for some minor drug possession charge (ah, the "War on Drugs" and the prison industrial complex, what a conflict of interests and how disgus…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 06:51 AM
9

Well that certainly explains a lot about your posting.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 10:50 PM
6

It's not that they're not working, it's that less and less of them are working in (or are even able to acquire) highly gainful jobs due to a variety of factors including things like outsourcing and affirmative action and quotas. Even if many men wanted to be a woman's high earning wage slave (and men doing their own thing suggests they don't,) they can't due to these factors. To women who see men are utilities and resources to be exploited, this is of course unacceptable. They'll just ineffectua…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 06:00 PM
13

The problem with the "creepy" label is that it's nebulous as fuck. It ranges from comical serial killer caricature to the far more likely scenario of "guy I find unattractive who dared to approach me."
/r/MensRights13/08/12 05:47 AM
2

He can just do it shortly after the birth.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 06:21 AM
2

Nope, he doesn't have to do that at all. All he has to do is have a private, peace of mind test that only he knows about. That will clear it up and help him decide his course of action depending on whether the child is his or not.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 12:31 AM
7

No because their definition of "privilege" is a facile gynocentric tautology where something is bad if it benefits men in any way but good if it benefits women in any way.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 12:21 AM
2

John the Other said on that radio segment that some footage was in fact captured but that police asked them to not just throw it up all over the internet. I'm sure if some sort of misrepresentation happens it will end up on the internet, though.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 11:04 PM
2

Another thing is that apparently video of the event had been captured.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 11:02 PM
14

Here's what I got from listening: Jack Day, an MRA, was out putting posters up. No sooner than he had gotten one posted in broad daylight in a heavy traffic area near a construction site, a small group of feminists showed up and tried to start ripping them down. The safety officer of the construction crew came out and told this feminist she couldn't do that. She started slapping and hitting him and pushing him around (while he predictably did not restrain her or fight back, because this is the s…
/r/MensRights08/08/12 10:36 AM
2

If you read the article what's really going on is a propaganda piece. The author points to obvious troll subs like beatingwomen or in this case "r/chokeabitch" most of which are made by SRS users and tries to claim /r/mensrights is in the same boat.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 09:23 PM
9

No this isn't the belief at all, but men never know whether a woman does want him unless he in some way asks. Men are still expected to initiate everything and do all of the footwork, don't kid yourself. Wayne Gretzky is once quoted as saying: "You miss 100% of the shots you never take."
/r/MensRights05/08/12 07:00 PM
3

A large part of why women select men is a man's income (resources) but if those resource needs are met via affirmative action, quota systems allowing more women to get jobs that they would not be able to legitimately out-compete men on a level playing field for those well-paying, or by forced wealth redistribution via government... well, along with the sexual mores of today then what you see is a whole lot of women selecting from an ever-smaller pool of men largely based on inborn physical trait…
/r/MensRights05/08/12 06:43 PM
0

Well I think you really nailed it, the problem is that feminist who claim they're against "gender roles," that is political feminism, academic feminism, and the white knights that support it like PZ Myers don't want to get rid of the male side of what they call "gender roles" at all. They in fact try to reinforce it and make men double down on it. Men are demanded to stay in a 1950s role. There could not be a more perfect of this then the Aurora shooting with the men who got shot, and the one wh…
/r/MensRights05/08/12 05:59 PM
1

Yeah, he got trolled by SRS and made some offhand comment about that kind of thing which was blown way out of proportion. I think he later said he's less critical of feminism after talking to one of his friends at length but he's still posting videos that are pretty critical of it. In any case, it's surprising to see the top search results on youtube are all very critical of feminism. Things are changing.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 05:44 PM
8

Wikipedia administrators are far from neutral and impartial. It's not gonna happen.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 05:40 PM
8

This is a pretty good article, considering the source. Unfortunately they tried to blame it on "male gender roles" rather than the mate selection process and how absurd the mate selection process has become for a lot of men due to affirmative action, quotas, wealth redistribution etc and how this affects the whole process. If you got rid of men's "gender roles," then women still wouldn't pick the average nerd to have sexual relations with. Psychology today is pretty PC after the Satoshi Kanazawa…
/r/MensRights05/08/12 10:05 AM
2

Well, these organizations asking for money that are clearly ineffective are a scam for sure. But the act itself sometimes does happen. Was a news story recently about a slave labor compound in Britain. Police, not some money-grubbing organization, uncovered it.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 08:53 AM
2

Yes a place that instantly bans dissenting voices (even sometimes if you haven't even posted there) is clearly a place of intelligent debate and social equality. Good show.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 03:18 AM
3

To be honest so much of this discussion relies on love, the ultimate weasel word. A guy who tends to upload videos with topics similar to what we talk about in this sub uploaded something today I'd largely agree with on the subject. Kind of funny that SPLC is trying to spin the questioning of society's valuing of female over male life as "hate" though.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 03:11 AM
1

How much is hotness worth? Hamermesh calculates that ugly women (who score 1 and 2 on a 1-to-5-point attractiveness scale) earn 4 percent less than average-looking women (who score 3). Beautiful women (who score 4 and 5) earn 8 percent more than average-looking women and 12 percent more than ugly women. The best-looking men earn 4 percent more than average-looking men, while ugly men earn a daunting 13 percent less than average-looking males, and a staggering -- disabling? -- 17 percent less tha…
/r/MensRights04/08/12 07:26 PM
2

It's very easy to find these common feminist arguments when you get into the endless bleating about the mythical "wage gap". Other factors include complaining that less hours worked don't get equal pay to someone who works more hours, that less dangerous jobs pay less than dangerous ones. It's fairly easy to see the people who are making these arguments are supremely ignorant or simply have a bad case of special pleading.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 06:07 PM
2

The point is that these feminists love to complain that their women's studies, political science or sociology degrees earn less than that of someone who studied to get some actually useful skills.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 05:48 PM
5

Oh no the problem is that they tend to not count yardwork and other such things most women won't do as part of housework. They think men enjoy doing these things (which we usually don't) so they "don't count".
/r/MensRights04/08/12 04:54 PM
6

I've heard that Jeremy Kyle is the British equivalent of Jerry Springer or Maury Povich but I'm not so sure I agree because I've seen a few clips of his show and it doesn't seem that he kisses the ass of anyone who's clearly in the wrong, even if it's a woman.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 04:19 PM
1

Yes, she's insane. She thinks she can force other women to do things they don't want to do. What you should have asked is, "are you a feminist, or a misogynist?" Furthermore, ask her why she chose to go into some humanities garbage rather than something like engineering.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:50 PM
11

Sure seems that way. The good news is that any reasonable person who clicks the link to say, johntheother's article on AVfM will see how full of shit SPLC is.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:47 PM
28

I've read the article and she sounds like an actual pedophile. prosecutors declined to bring charges against her. What the fuck.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:40 PM
11

Well, that's their source. Arthur Goldwag takes money from radical feminists and then uses their propaganda for that payola.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:37 PM
6

That's the great assumption, isn't it? How many men do you think went into marriage thinking that "oh, she'd never do that to me"?
/r/MensRights04/08/12 03:35 PM
3

I did not even have my account subscribed, just noticed that. I just hit that button.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 07:18 AM
3

Well, him leaving was not a smart thing to do because the family court will take any opportunity to make a strange leap of logic to divest him of his assets. Even if he's the sole owner of the house who owned it before he even met her.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 07:02 AM
23

Tom Leykis advises men to avoid the ultimate fate of your stepfather.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 06:59 AM
15

Due to the legal system, that's become the only safe way to play it. You can thank feminists.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 06:57 AM
3

[1] I define it as the political, academic ideology which is largely today completely separate to the idea of civil rights. This ideology is founded on just-so faith-based beliefs like "patriarchy" "male privilege" and "rape culture" which are largely disproven by actual evidence. It uses this ideology to push anti-male legislation through and justify these attacks on men's rights. Organized feminism definitely has much to answer for when it comes to creating and exacerbating male issues. Femini…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 09:05 PM
1

It's not really enforcable because you can't tell who did it. I think most major subs that link to shit they don't like tend to end up downvoting things. It's the nature of reddit. At the very least it tells you something about the beliefs of users of that subreddit.
/r/MensRights03/08/12 12:30 AM
5

The "official MRA stance" on this subject is "tough shit." Find someone who wants to have children with you. Women should also do this rather than feel entitled to support.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 10:58 PM
5

You'll notice that her position was not very popular among her fellow feminists.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 10:39 PM
5

The "Don't have sex" argument didn't hold for women. Feminists explicitly stated that women should not be punished for having sex and yet they turn around and tell us it's ok to hold men to a standard they say is unacceptable for women.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 10:37 PM
8

A lot of strawmen there.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 08:53 PM
1

The same kind of thing would happen in Canada.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 07:53 PM
1

It seems the only rape society really condones, ignores and encourages is male rape.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 04:44 AM
5

I think the most important lesson to take from earlier men's rights proponents is that the attempt to work with feminists or to work within their framework and appease them by walking on eggshells and trying to present is a complete failure. The style of Paul Elam, John the Other and those like them of the past few years has been far more successful. The mainstream media which is the very mouthpiece of feminist propaganda has had no choice but to start acknowledging these issues because of the w…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:53 AM
3

Sociology is almost synonymous with feminism so I can't imagine this going over too well, OP. Paternity fraud and how the courts double the injustice. Reproductive rights (men's lack of). False accusations or more specifically how the system refuses to punish proven liars, and how it is automatically assumed the man did it when he is accused. Huge disparity in suicide rates. Huge disparity in criminal sentencing for the same crimes when compared to women. These are a few more.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:08 AM
11

Feminists had no arguments then and have none now. They are simply losing popular support as more and more men begin to question things. This is why it's somewhat safer now for people to openly criticize feminism.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:21 PM
-1

There's a lot of really attractive black women but the problem is a lot of black women don't take care of themselves and so end up severely out of shape and overweight. Asian men are generally the shortest and stereotyped as having small dicks and if true it's not like they can do anything about it, it's purely based on inborn traits there. I don't think there's anything wrong about having preferences for certain races, and even radical feminists like SRS don't think there's anything wrong with …
/r/MensRights01/08/12 07:14 PM
11

Well they pick and choose which parts of it they like to augment their dogma with while they simultaneously and paradoxically claim to believe in things like the blank slate, say things like "gender is just a social construct." They completely ignore the female side of evolutionary psychology because it says a lot of very unflattering things about women and destroys the man bad, woman good narrative they have running. It shows women do things like manipulate men with sex, the promise of sex or t…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 06:57 PM
3

Even if you're not comfortable with traditional gender, feminist politics and their insane laws still tar you with the same brush, while paradoxically claiming that "gender is a social construct" and other specious claims they use purely for special pleading purposes.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:09 AM
6

He keeps getting his shit published because he's like one of those crazy television preachers and society at large has been indoctrinated with feminist bullshit.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 12:58 AM
2

SPLC is funded by feminists and suddenly men's rights sites become "hate groups" except sort of not hate groups when pressed for why, and then radfemhub (a site that calls for male targeting eugenics and all sort of other crazy shit) is linked and praised by Arthur Goldwag, the clown running SPLC's online presence. It's payola for propaganda.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 04:53 PM
2

Can you show these people are actually MRAs? I think you cannot. I can show that Harriet Harman and Hillary Clinton have wielded considerable power in our society and that bigots like Marcotte have significant amounts of crazy feminist readers that actually buy into her shit.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 04:51 PM
0

You should look at the differences in survival rate in the same classes of men and women on the Titanic. It wasn't at all related to men being crew. Now of course, large percentages of men are refusing to die for the benefit of women or simply because they don't value themselves less than others but that is largely because ordinary men are acutely aware of their untermensch status and the blatant doublespeak peddled by the orthodoxy of the day. When the Titanic sunk, J. Bruce Ismay, the chairman…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 03:36 AM
4

The big problem is that the Christina Hoff Sommers of the world who do not buy into the cornerstones of feminist ideology as taught in our universities are exceedingly rare and tend to actually be disowned and hated by the rest of the feminists. Those indoctrination grounds on campuses churn out all feminists of note. Those in politics, those in feminist organizations, those who are politically active. They all buy into bullshit like "male privilege" and "the patriarchy." Using those like Sommer…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 03:06 AM
3

It's the other way around. Radfemhub funds the SPLC.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 03:03 AM
4

When you reward bad behavior you will obviously get more of it, this is true. Doesn't change the fact that on an individual level these women are still terrible people who choose to do these things.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 12:16 AM
9

This is removing women's agency and shifting the blame. The women choose to do these things do so of their own free will.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 09:14 PM
3

A lot of the stuff on mgtowforums is pretty bitter sounding because a lot of those guys got fucked in divorce or by some other unjust application of law but that doesn't mean they're not factual valid.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 09:13 PM
6

Wow, that reads like the female version of that ladder theory website.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 12:17 PM
19

The first time I remember having something like this happen to me was when I was 14 and it was some 18 or 19 year old girl I didn't even know, one of my older brother's friends. The accusations of being gay are really common in this kind of scenario.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 07:52 PM
12

Feminist jurisprudence is corrupt and turns the Blackstone formulation on its head. This is basically the MacKinnon quote about false accusations repackaged.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 01:32 AM
12

You are the real victim in this story.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 09:33 PM
62

As you can see time and time again, the sick feminist society we live in sees men as disposable utilities. That is what a "good man" is.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 03:19 PM
1

Except it's really not and even SRS didn't like you even though you toed their line. A pretty harsh condemnation of how awful you are.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 03:10 PM
5

Yes sort of like how there's more condemnation when a mother kills her children compared to when a man does. Oops, that also doesn't happen as highly televised examples show. People either look for the nearest man to point a finger at or make endless excuses about "mental issues".
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:59 PM
1

Well it's good that you've admitted it, which is why I linked to your main account so that no one gets the idea that you're impartial or anything. It just goes to show the kind of no-arguments-against-the-issues butthurt like yourself that spends their time posting in this subreddit with, well, no argument against the issues.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:33 PM
1

Who cares when it was when people can still peruse your posting history and see what you're all about. Maybe coward up and delete your account to cover your tracks. Seems common with SRS types.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:26 PM
1

Oh my bad, you recently had a falling out with SRS mods so this totally changes everything and invalidates the shit you'd been posting for months and months, easily accessible by anyone who reads your post history at /u/HarrietPotter.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:10 PM
2

Yes allow me to take the word of a known SRS alt.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:00 PM
6

Men should stop sacrificing, especially for a society that hates them and sees them as utilities.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 08:03 AM
2

Another good example in a youtube video barbarossaaaa upped today. It's about a guy who read MRM materials and was warned that this would be the likely outcome. Still dumb enough to marry anyway.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 12:47 AM
4

I like that Taranto has the balls to write this kind of stuff likely risking his employment and I hope that his employer doesn't bow to the tyranny of the feminist orthodoxy. I can tell that if he doesn't read MRM material that he's at least been exposed to some of the ideas in some way.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 11:44 PM
2

Cool 1 hour old account bro.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:28 PM
8

"No fault divorce" is what caused this problem. "No fault" comes to mean "the man's fault" (the man must pay for her misconduct)
/r/MensRights25/07/12 09:26 PM
16

It is not hyperbole when MRAs claim that due process for sexual-related crimes simply does not exist for men. That is how this happens.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 08:50 PM
10

Big wake up call for anyone considering marriage. She can do this and still get half your assets you worked hard for, thanks to the corrupt courts with no interest in justice. A couple highlights and commentary Later she introduced me to a couple with kids who decided to make their marriage an open one after the wife's affair with a neighbor was exposed. This "open relationship" here was likely just the woman wanting his permission to go screw other men. Not that she would stop if he said no to …
/r/MensRights25/07/12 07:58 PM
4

Yes and anyone who reads those things in their full context will come to the same conclusion: You are a butthurt, out-of-context quoting numbskull who keeps trying to ad hom everything because you can't stay on topic and argue the issues.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 07:46 PM
3

Some serious manboobz out-of-context straw grasping from milquetoast concern troll "Grapeban" going on in here.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 07:14 PM
46

Your problem is mostly with the way reddit works and the average kind of meme-image posting yokel that populates it. This is a problem with every single subreddit. Skip the shitty threads and deal with it.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 05:01 PM
4

This subreddit is even subject to the occasional constant trolling and shaming.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 03:31 PM
8

This isn't exactly news. Plenty of killers have gotten a bunch of female attention just for becoming famous through mass media.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 02:33 PM
0

Don't link that garbage and give them revenue. Just screenshot or text dump.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 02:33 PM
2

Howard Stern could because of the nature of his show and its viewers, yes. Can't think of any other male host of any other kind of show that could though.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 07:41 AM
4

Can anyone even try to deny the MRM claims that society is anti-male now? The actions of maybe one in ten million men is used a springboard to attack all men. And these mouthpieces of the mainstream can get away with publishing this bigotry with no censure.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 07:12 AM
2

The Duke lacrosse accusation was false because it was in fact proven to be false, damning evidence including one of the accused proven to not even be in the area when it allegedly occurred, and DNA of men unrelated to the accused found in the false accuser while none of the accuseds were. Another highly televised case was the Hofstra false rape accusation case which again people like yourself assumed guilt by default. A video was then produced, captured by one of the young men which showed the e…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 03:21 PM
1

Yes, that's exactly what questioning the situation before you pass judgment is. Rather than forming lynch mobs on the mere accusation as your ilk did in say, the Duke lacrosse case.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 03:14 PM
2

Standing up for due process rights is bad in the world of this SRS poster and totally means you think a woman is lying.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 02:59 PM
10

When I first saw this person's videos and blog I thought it was a gimmick, an extreme parody of radical feminism. A transparent troll. Until I see real proof otherwise that this was even a real person, I would call the entire thing--the blogs, the videos, the suicide a hoax. My personal opinion is that whoever was running the whole hoax just got tired of it (it's pretty one-dimensional) and decided to stop doing it with one last cliched hurrah.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 02:28 PM
9

It's kind of cute how you have such a raging boner for AVfM but can't really substantiate any of your claims against them.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 02:26 PM
0

You are no friend of this subreddit if you are quick to throw due process out the window. You sound like a pathetic white knight ready to throw someone under the bus on the mere accusation.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 12:50 PM
-3

How do you know they weren't intimidated into taking a plea bargain by police. You must not be aware of the kinds of practices employed by law enforcement to coerce false confessions and in the case of some accusations of some crimes, especially domestic violence-related ones, to make the accused believe "things will be easier on them" if they just say they're guilty. You seem to be quick to jump the gun there, "jackass".
/r/MensRights24/07/12 12:29 PM
2

The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar
/r/MensRights24/07/12 10:16 AM
1

How do you know it wasn't a consensual sex act that later became regret because it was photographed and those photographs were shared. You are quick to throw the rights of the accused under the bus before an actual trial or any real evidence is admitted. Despicable.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 10:09 AM
2

This is the biggest grasp for straws I think I've ever seen in this subreddit. It is not violence to offer money to identify people who write crazy shit like plans for male infanticide and male-targeting eugenics and the creators of a video in which a man is shot in the head where the absolutely insane SCUM manifesto is glorified. Your assertion that the tagline "fuck their shit up" (by exposing them) is somehow violence is the dumbest thing and you're the dumbest poster with no real argument to…
/r/MensRights24/07/12 03:17 AM
9

Once again here you are trying to use the contextless tagline as proof of threats of real physical violence. Yes, you are the one so far gone that this is the kind of dishonesty you have to stoop to. You are pathetic.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 08:55 PM
18

How does anyone know the whole thing wasn't just a hoax?
/r/MensRights23/07/12 08:34 PM
8

I think it's great how far you grasp for straws to make Paul Elam sound like he's violent for using his tagline "fuck their shit up" (that is, by exposing them as what they are) as some sort of threat of physical violence. You are so far gone from being able to make any kind of logical or rational argument that this is the kind of shit you post.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 08:33 PM
6

the land of texting
/r/MensRights23/07/12 01:44 PM
2

Roissy brings up paternity fraud I think because he actually cares about the issue and thinks it's unjust--which it is, and our courts and legal system do nothing about it. He has few these shining little moments of clarity when he isn't writing a bunch of meaningless misattributed garbage that really amounts to how he lucked out on the old genetic lottery and supposedly ends up having more sex than the average man.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 02:45 AM
-1

Confidence \Con"fi*dence\, n. [L. confidentia firm trust in, self-confidence: cf. F. confidence.] The act of confiding, trusting, or putting faith in; trust; reliance; belief; -- formerly followed by of, now commonly by in. [1913 Webster] Having an excess of assurance; bold to a fault; dogmatical; impudent; presumptuous. [1913 Webster] In the context of men and success with women of course, the way you apply "confidence" becomes a tautology. Q: What do women want? A: Confidence! Q: What is confi…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 02:41 AM
2

That seems unlikely because Roissy unlike a lot of these people is not trying to sell you anything. He is not trying to sell DVDs or seminars or run some kind of lame boot camp or anything. He is not profiting from it.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 02:19 AM
1

First you have to define what "confidence" is and where it comes from. If you do this I think you will find yourself in quite the jam with the PUA cult ideology and other new-age self-help mumbo jumbo that amounts to magical thinking.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 01:46 AM
-1

All of the negging in the world won't get a guy that looks like Danny DeVito but without the money success. All of your waffling amounts nebulous mysticism.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 01:13 AM
1

The idea that sexuality and mating is some impossible code to crack is kind of sad. I honestly feel bad for guys that think this way. That type of thinking is probably the single greatest limitation that's preventing them from succeeding. Do you think that you would ever get good at chess if you thought that people who were grandmasters were just born that way? Sure, inherent talent plays a role but a mediocre player who has logged thousands of hours will crush someone who has the mental gifts t…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 12:19 AM
4

Weird subjective ideas about "emasculation" have shit all to do with observable animal mating patterns i.e. sexual selection.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 10:26 PM
7

Except they haven't. How do you know the success stories aren't just naturals chest-thumping, or similarly physically attractive outliers who were shy using it as a placebo so they actually go and approach women. There are plenty of guys who follow that shit to the word and never get laid.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 10:21 PM
6

No, the feminist culture created a feral mating system that works like with chimpanzees if anything. Where a small amount of men get a lot of sex mostly based on inborn traits and most get little to none.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:49 PM
18

Roosh and in fact most all PUA snake oil salesmen really aren't what you could call MRAs. Not even Roissy really is even though he has his moments where you might sort of peg him as one, like where he talks about paternity fraud. Most of them tend to characterize MRAs as "beta" because we care about having rights. Aside from a few like Roissy, they mostly seem to be under the misguided assumption that because they can maybe get laid a bit more than the average guy that this magically gives them …
/r/MensRights22/07/12 07:35 PM
2

How does AVFM use violent rhetoric? I saw you insist this a few days ago in another thread and use what was in fact a rhetorical flip-the-script article which was based on parodying the jezebel article where they admit to abusing their boyfriends as some kind of "proof".
/r/MensRights22/07/12 05:58 AM
2

It's like you don't understand what the word democracy means.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 10:31 PM
11

These concern trolls are largely the same people who post in those subreddits, and come here on newish alt accounts. This would be fine if they could actually address the arguments made in this subreddit. Instead what they do is present empty tone arguments because they cannot argue against what is being said here. It's not close to SRS policy at all because no one gets banned here for not toeing the line.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 10:13 PM
6

It's funny how the comments section proves him right about the general attitudes people have.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 04:47 PM
2

It's a 1 month old troll account with one comment and one post.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 11:45 AM
1

That is the standard boilerplate, yes, that women "dont lie about rape" but then they often go one further and into circular reasoning i.e. Women don't lie about rape, so protections for the accused are uneccessary. Protections for the accused are not necessary because we know women don't lie about rape. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2012/01/winner-of-most-odious-defense-of.html http://falserapesociety.blogspot.ca/2012/02/harvard-woman-pooh-poohs-false-rape.html See also: Feminist support…
/r/MensRights21/07/12 11:02 AM
1

Pierce over at COTWA sure does. He's done plenty of articles on the subject.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 01:18 AM
1

This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 09:08 PM
4

It has always been "you never hit girls."
/r/MensRights20/07/12 08:27 PM
4

No but I am going to call you an ignoramus who should probably stop posting in this subreddit with an obvious 8 day old alt account and maybe use a dictionary to learn what the word "analogy" means.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 08:17 PM
6

It's not a "war" game at all. It's a game series where you essentially play as a hulked out angry guy who kills anyone who gets in his way, but mostly kills mythical monsters. It has included noncombatants at times. Are you going to claim this is somehow worse when it happens to female characters? Are you really going to make that same kind of value judgment that corrupt politicians have made recently in their declaration that all males of a certain age are considered combatants in the middle-ea…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 08:08 PM
1

The thing is that boy bands have been around since basically the 60s and had have screaming fans that no female musicians have ever had so it's just another thing a feminist made up. Most teenage boys don't have status and wealth, though, which is a thing that says something about women's preferences.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 01:54 AM
21

No big surprise coming from ms magazine. A lot of women, especially feminist women, hate guys they aren't attracted to and try to dump on them any way they can. Elevatorgate was a great display of that.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 10:57 PM
6

No it sounds more like she's been through a women's studies course or two and reads SRS or another feminist subreddit that censors anyone who doesn't toe the line.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 10:47 PM
1

Ah I see an ends justify the means argument: It's ok to enslave a man becaus...oh god won't someone think of the children! Real champion of human rights here creating different classes of citizens.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 05:02 AM
2

No, they wouldn't be able to legally force themselves back into the child's life at all. They would be forfeiting any rights and responsibilities. Again though you're just looking to maintain the status quo where women have absolute say up to and including making an indentured servant out of a man who simply doesn't want to be the father of her child.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 05:00 AM
0

You made a weak alt troll account and have been spending your time making garbage posts like this. Who's worse?
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:53 AM
8

The aftermath of the whole thing made it crystal clear that what she was really against was men she is not attracted to approaching her, and she manipulatively tried to compare it to attempted rape to not look like an obvious bag of shit.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 02:26 AM
3

There's also the glaring issue of infidelity and who tends to get more lenience there these days. Tiger Woods can be beat half to death with a golf club but don't you dare call a woman who does it a slut.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 11:11 PM
9

Except this doesn't make sense when you look at feminist definitions of their patriarchy conspiracy theory, and is therefore a hollow deflection.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 11:06 PM
50

There is a lot of feminist appropriation in the so-called atheist community. Yes, too many people who claim to not believe in fairy tales like a god or gods instead choose to believe in fairy tales like the patriarchy or rape culture.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 10:46 PM
5

It's less about the problems young men face and more a whine-fest about men that these men are increasing numbers not lining up to go into the proverbial meat-grinder of the legal system.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 08:11 PM
2

Correct me if I'm wrong but that is what the guy was doing.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 10:56 PM
2

Except that "hate speech" laws are invariably used to enforce the doctrine of the regime and ruling class and so you have a very Orwellian world today where for example the SCUM manifesto is somehow OK but people who oppose this are caught up in the nebulous net of "hate speech" laws. "Hate speech" comes to mean anything that doesn't toe the line.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 10:55 PM
17

SRS originated largely from something awful where they make fun of the autistic constantly and SRS was still doing that until very recently until called out on the obvious hypocrisy. The whole "neckbeard" thing is largely a jab at autistic guys who like computer-related things. If you want to know who's really like a cult, look at who has many faith-based beliefs. It sure isn't /r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 06:47 PM
19

The entire thing is about the sentencing disparity. A man would not get the same sentence.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 06:29 PM
3

Where are the circumcised "intactivists?" That would probably be most of them, clownshoes. The procedure was very common until very recently.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 12:21 AM
2

See: Pillow Queen
/r/MensRights12/07/12 06:04 PM
8

Well that's the idea but feminists and a lot of women seem to not think it's mutilation when it happens to boys.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 03:21 PM
7

because irrational emotional argument and normalization of cutting up penises in that poster's cultural values (Read: They have no actual argument for why it's not mutilation)
/r/MensRights12/07/12 02:46 PM
2

Well even the assertion that it happens to women all of the time is pretty bogus. If something like this does happen usually bouncers or other guys get involved, and the fact most guys know this is enough deterrence that it tends to not happen "all the time."
/r/MensRights12/07/12 05:18 AM
2

Because we live in a situation where men are the vast, vast majority of CEOs, men control the financial world. Feminism is about equality. Frontman fallacy from you again. Good Shit. Might want to look up who controls what percentage of wealth and who spends what percentage of it. That aside, you seem to be about forcing equality of outcome. Feminist thought once again proves it has a very facile ends-justify-the-means way of thinking and doesn't care about things like merit or those they actual…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 03:00 AM
1

The correct term is nepotism and it's hardly male exclusive in human societies.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 02:50 AM
-1

That is exactly what Grapeban and other feminist lackwits like yourself claim. That a society in which leaders are men (even if voted in by a majority female voting demographic!) means that all men are in power.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 09:44 PM
1

I am sure initially the technology will be very expensive, but over time will be improved, refined, and made cheaper and more efficient as many pieces of technology are.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 09:40 PM
5

Polygamous societies like those in the middle-east do not act in the best interest of all men, either. It should be obvious why some men having four wives is very detrimental to the other 3 out of 4 men, for example.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 05:41 PM
255

What power does the average man even have anyway? None. These power structures with male leaders certainly don't act on behalf of or in the interests of men as a group, either. They never have. So this idea that men are "the group in power" is bogus. If men were the group in power and acted in men's interests then we would see a vast majority of female homeless, imprisoned, etc. The reality that is that the lowest of the low positions in society are filled by almost entirely by men. This is pure…
/r/MensRights09/07/12 01:54 AM
8

Well, no. There is no proof for their claim. See government statistics for who occupies the lowest stations of society such as the homeless and you'll see it is overwhelmingly men.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 12:38 AM
2

That's correct but the data that existed from before these mass mutilations presented an (even smaller than 2%) difference of contraction rate in favor of the circumsized. The differences shown by that data are so small that it's definitely not worth being mutilated for. I am guessing the larger rate of infection likely had to do with the way circumcision has been sold to these people.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 12:18 AM
0

It certainly is when this issue is used as a bludgeon by people who claim that it's some sort of patriarchs paradise and that men as a collective group are well off and causing these problems.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 12:03 AM
9

No, there isn't. Condoms are all that currently exist. A vasectomy is not a contraceptive, it is sterilization.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 11:30 PM
0

Ah I see, most of societies leaders are male, therefore all males are society's elite and leaders. The frontman fallacy. How were women any more "oppressed" than the vast majority of men who were basically slaves for the bulk of industrialization and used as cannon fodder up until very recently.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 10:48 PM
4

They sold it to these people as a sort of cure or immunization and so after being cut, these men went out and had plenty of reckless sex. Of course the infection rate is going to end up higher. Lesson: Do not get mutilated for a tiny maybe one percent less chance of being infected per unprotected sex act. Should have educated them about condoms instead.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 10:47 PM
-3

Yeah, but feminists don't need to have "faith" in the Patriarchy, because they believe they have proof for it. And yet they don't have proof for it, and in fact it is empirically possible to disprove the definitions they have for it by looking at government statistics which show that men have an average worse outcome in life than do women in western nations, which they claim are "patriarchies." Here in Canada, statscan disproves the very definitions given by feminists of patriarchy. Could I say …
/r/MensRights08/07/12 10:34 PM
-2

Trusting a person and believing in fairy tales like The Patriarchy are two different things, but I didn't count on making false equivalencies being below the concern troll of the month.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 10:26 PM
1

"Science" doesn't say this at all. What says this is loaded surveys with a warped definition of sexism. Guys mostly work out to attract women, something even confirmed and given away in the article: "Remember that scrawny guy who was into you in high school? Maybe you should have given him a shot." What's really going on is these guys are extremely successful with women and are doing things that the newspeak says is "sexist" like not committing, not calling back, pumping and dumping in a climate…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 10:23 PM
-7

Feminism and atheism are fundamentally incompatible because feminism requires believing in articles of faith. What someone who claims to be a feminist and an atheist usually means is that they're a feminist who is against Christianity or Islam or some other religion largely due to their conflicts with feminist dogma, and is trying to co-opt atheists as useful idiots to fight against those other non-feminist religions.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 10:15 PM
0

It's a counter to bad feminist arguments about the middle-east that it's somehow a "PATRIARCHY" and all men are living the high life over there at women's expense. It's not a springboard to be used for any other purpose, unlike when feminists try to use it as an example to justify anti-male laws in the west.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 10:12 PM
2

The idea exists because feminism and its societal elite enablers have allowed women to mercilessly loot and cuckold men who play into the model that is healthy for society in the longrun. Marriage is for all intents and purposes defunct. There is nothing in it for men anymore but a large chance to end up a destitute debt peon.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 04:39 PM
3

Really? You'd rather rather be one of the low status "loser" males who are consigned to never being able to have a family due to the polygamous culture and who may be randomly killed or forcefully recruited by say the Taliban under pain of death if you refuse?
/r/MensRights08/07/12 04:35 PM
2

You're aware that feminists constantly do this, right? By claiming that women uniquely suffer in the middle-east and that this is why fucking men over in the west is so justified. When of course the truth is--as anyone who knows more about that culture than what comes out of mainstream media on the idiot box can tell you-- that everyone but the sheiks and their favored for example, are fucked over in the middle-east. If you are not the monied elite in those kinds of countries, chances are your l…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 04:31 PM
0

The CDC numbers about forced to penetrate/forced penetration? One interesting thing about those numbers is that more men than women are likely to shrug off and not report something like that and just pass it off as a bad experience. i.e. it takes a really, really bad experience for a man to consider it unwanted and forced.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 01:30 PM
1

Oh I'm not saying like American media is the best in the world or anything, it's just that the standard-fare in the UK is even worse.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 01:15 PM
7

The tiny potential difference of less than one percent infection chance is of course not worth getting mutilated over and of course the westerners who tried to sell Africans on circumcision made it sound like some sort of immunization or cure to a largely uneducated people rather than telling them how it actually is. Teaching them about condoms would have been far more effective.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 12:45 PM
0

Higher standards than in the UK for sure. But this "DAILY FAIL! DAILY FAIL!" post that happens every single time someone posts a link to dailymail is always posted by someone who doesn't seem to understand that dailymail is pretty standard as far as British news sources go.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 12:42 PM
4

About 80% of women who ever lived but only about 40% of men who ever lived have a living descendant today. From this book.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 12:00 PM
-1

By American standards, every British news source is a tabloid.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 11:52 AM
-3

Let me guess having not read this: Futrelle is up to his old tricks using out-of-context quotemining and the old association fallacy to attempt to link this guy saying he thinks police deserve to be killed to say everyone who stands for men's rights must be just like this guy.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 04:04 AM
1

Sure being able to know for sure is great, but it doesn't change the fact that reproductive success for men is still abysmal and that feminist arguments are based on the frontman/apex fallacy. These reduced figures are based on nothing but conjecture. Most experts agree it is at least 10%.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 02:19 AM
1

Yeah except that's still not happening as DNA testing is showing that upwards of 1/3 of men who think they're fathers really aren't.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 01:22 AM
3

It's essentially a concern troll here to tell you that men's position is fine in society because there are more male CEOs than female CEOs.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 12:16 AM
3

The Frontman Fallacy Troll: The Post: The Movie
/r/MensRights08/07/12 12:15 AM
-1

Bottom line is that men cannot trust women with matters relating to sex and pregnancy. Men are second class in terms of what rights they have to determine when and if they become responsible for a child. If a woman does not want to be responsible for a child she does not have to be. If a man doesn't want to be, society tells him to "keep it in his pants" -- a standard that today's society would NEVER hold for women. You have zero empathy for the person in this situation who has zero rights and t…
/r/MensRights07/07/12 11:53 PM
1

You have put out a long line of replies to an obvious concern troll who has (shockingly) shown themselves to be as Orwellian as it gets.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 03:47 PM
8

Is anyone even surprised by this special pleading doubletalk anymore?
/r/MensRights07/07/12 03:18 AM
1

I have searched every single post on the blog linked by you and cannot find this but there is a lot of anti-police rhetoric I found while searching for "example" and "police." The only thing even close I can find is where he says a dead police officer who illegally broke into someone's home without the requisite warrants deserved to be killed.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 01:04 AM
0

His blog posts are in full English and I can't see anything to that effect so I'm guessing this is just a matter of him posting something that a feminist would be able to get away with by claiming "satire" (even after the author actually shot someone, like with the SCUM manifesto). He seems to have a distrust and dislike for police who enforce feminist laws.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 12:47 AM
0

He says he's a libertarian on his blog but I would guess he was arrested for writing about how he thinks attacks on police who uphold unjust laws would be justified.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 12:45 AM
5

Sweden, Canada, USA, UK and many other countries are just as bad in terms of feminist politics. The "Obamacare" passed recently is very gendered in terms of who will receive what coverage, for example, and yet presumably the second class citizen, the male, will still have to pay as much into it.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 07:05 PM
8

Supporting double standards. Aces.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 06:22 PM
9

A guy might approach you in an elevator and then leave you alone when you reject him. Oh horror of horrors at atheist conferences, being approached by guys you find unattractive. Clearly we need totalitarian measures and Orwellian organization names like "free thought" blogs to combat this unacceptable normal courtship behavior.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 06:14 PM
2

They aren't known as freefromthoughtblogs for no reason.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 06:12 PM
2

The phenomenon the OP is about is well-documented. Misandry - Men Don't Exist
/r/MensRights05/07/12 05:40 PM
6

The thing you have to realize is that feminists do not have any real arguments against what anti-feminists have to say, so they bust out garbage like "you must be gay" "you must have a small penis" "you have issues with women" and other ad homs and deflections.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 02:50 AM
3

You are right. It doesn't need to change to please concern trolls like Grapeban. Infact, trying to kowtow to such people is why the early proponents of men's rights were such dismal failures at getting the issues noticed. The style of the last few years has been far more effective.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 05:43 AM
6

I assume the higher income one would become the indentured servant.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 05:11 AM
6

How far can this continue, will women get-out-of-jail-free card for every crime in future? That's the aim with feminists trying to shut down all of the women's prisons in the UK for example.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 03:38 AM
15

It's Canada. You don't even need to get married for this outcome.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 03:09 AM
3

Political correctness implies there would be some sort of negative thing that would happen to you if you were to publicly say these sorts of things. You can shit all over men in public and even the media with no ill effects. You can't say a single critical thing about even the actions of individual women no matter how in the wrong she was without causing a shitstorm.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 08:42 AM
2

"Neckbeard" is largely a slur that implies the man is a nerd who is not liked by and unsuccessful with women Trying to say it has nothing to do with sexuality is dishonest. It originated on the Something Awful forums about a decade ago.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 08:39 AM
1

People are merely pointing out the double standards.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 08:29 AM
2

Ah but you're not supposed to talk about things like that because the decades of just-so bullshit built up by crackpot ivory tower "academics" about the blank slate is easily invalidated.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 07:24 AM
2

It's like you think this isn't a human thing. Why don't you think about at the physical characters that women tend to say they like in men, and then take a look at /r/ladyboners or the celebrities women tend to gush over. Next, think about the female preference for monied men and what that means. That is, any man who thinks about it will know he's essentially being valued as a walking ATM/money tree. Also, there is then the fact that women further value men based on what men can do for them. So …
/r/MensRights01/07/12 06:14 AM
6

Not only are men "objectified" or judged by women on their appearance, but men are also judged by women on how much money and what utility they provide. The entire female concept of "Good Man" is usually centered around how much a man is willing to self-sacrifice for her in usually uneven relationships where he puts in way more than she does. Saying he's invoking the naturalistic fallacy because he is saying that is the way things are, that is that people prefer those who have the physical featu…
/r/MensRights01/07/12 06:00 AM
1

It's mostly just a bad way to try to stifle discussion from sexually jealous frumps who get no such attention.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 05:52 AM
1

They already did "win" it for decades where they had literal monopoly over the public discourse and yes, you see the outcome of it with laws stacked against men.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 11:50 PM
1

Ah I see, the Orwellian more equal argument. Women have a "larger share of medical expenses" because men are simply not covered and/or no one cares about men's health. It's no big surprise when you have the kind of disparity in spending in breast cancer vs. prostate cancer even though they seem to afflict similar numbers. All of these offices for women's health but zip for men. America is a profoundly sick country and I am glad I do not live there as I could be relegated to languish and die with…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:04 PM
0

It's also a bad thing for those who have to pay an equal amount of taxes and yet not receive the same level of benefit as someone else because they happened to be born with the wrong genitals. They are then paying more into the system to get less out of it than someone who happens to be part of the favored group. This isn't just considered bad by the bootstraps idiots, this is bad for the common man for a different reason. The common man who will pay just as much of his paycheck as as the common…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 10:21 PM
3

All of these benefits that the bill will mandate must be covered for women but not for men. How is being forced to pay pay additional taxes and not receiving the same services you would if you happened to be born with a vagina instead of a penis not a men's rights issue? Essentially this is yet another backdoor into wealth redistribution.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 10:06 PM
1

Do they have access to those services now? No but now they're going to be taxed even more for services they still aren't getting.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 09:54 PM
2

How is being forced to pay additional taxes for benefits you do not receive because of a gendered bill not a men's rights issue?
/r/MensRights28/06/12 09:52 PM
3

So where are all of those feminists who won't censor because they don't mind their ideology being challenged...?
/r/MensRights28/06/12 09:18 PM
3

This could be an apt flipping of the script if we were based on just-so ideologies like feminism instead of being entirely about the issues. One thing you might want to also consider is that there are no well-funded men's rights groups that inform public policy and create a direct public representation of men's rights activists. Not so with feminists where the crazy is at the forefront doing all of the things talked about in this sub. But then this would all be assuming you're arguing in good fa…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 02:32 PM
0

You're aware that there is a rather high false positive rate for breast cancer screening as well, right? No one is suggesting to not cover it on that basis.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 12:39 PM
8

You'll notice it is accompanied by a completely unfounded caveat that somehow only a tiny minority of mutilation of female genitals is of the same perceived seriousness as the much larger in incidence and much more widely practiced male mutilation. What this person is trying to say is that if all female mutilation were just pin pricks it would be ok and that this is totally the equivalent of cutting off the foreskin, which it isn't in terms of lost nerve endings, which outside of infibulation (i…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 12:14 PM
10

Which it is. It is directly comparable in terms of lost sensation due to lopped off nerve endings, scientifically. It is only cultural normalization of boys being mutilated which allows them to so brazenly make statements that do not fit with the notions of equality they purportedly operate on--This is because they don't operate on a basis of equal rights at all. They operate on special pleading for superior rights for women.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:52 AM
4

Feminists state their beliefs up-front, and you are making a false equivalency to boot. Feminists are not not a biological demographic as men are. One is not born feminist. Feminism is an ideology and its adherents choose to uncritically believe the dogma and use it as justification to strip men of rights and subject men to all sorts of fucked up shit.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:27 AM
5

Articles on crazy women doing crazy stuff is no more of a mens rights issue then Ted Bundy murdering women was a womens rights issue. The fact of the matter is that there are serious changes that need to be made in the direction of mensrights but saying that femenisim has been good for nothing would be untrue. The fact that these same women get lesser sentences and get sentenced less often for the same crimes is, and that's why they keep getting posted.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:24 AM
5

I'm guessing this is because you post in /r/OneY which is an explicitly feminist subreddit that tends to censor those who don't drink the feminist kool-aid and toe the line. This is a typical concern troll thread, but let's talk about this for a sec here. Early men's rights proponents tried to work with feminists. It did not work. You are delusional if you think the people who continually try to strip men of rights including your right to a fair trial will work with you in any mutually beneficia…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:21 AM
0

You may recall for example several challenges to Title IX where a man tried to invoke it to the same ends that women currently do that ended in dismal failure, showing how Orwellian and one-sided feminist law is. These are very good reasons to want something like this not put into the system. There is already plenty of precedent to show that any call for equal treatment of men will go unheard or will simply be thrown out by corrupt courts who are not even interested in upholding their own laws o…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:01 AM
-1

How is he acting like it's a trade-off? He's showing that the bill will even go so far to pay for women contraceptives but it won't do a fucking thing for men, even when it's life-saving. He's showing how ludicrous and chock-full of feminist-hypocrisy and doublespeak the whole thing is.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 10:57 AM
12

Ozy is fairly notorious for deleting comments that she can't refute or she simply doesn't agree with. All feminists are. Their ideology is a house of cards that can't weather the slightest bit of examination and questioning.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 10:54 AM
8

Or, you know, female mutilation as a direct analogy. I highly doubt these feminists would say that's A-Ok due to religions freedom.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 10:50 AM
-1

I can't think of a single paid person who talks about these issues. There is no money to be had in caring about men's rights.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 10:48 AM
1

I would say yes if I had any faith at all in the system, but perfectly logical challenges to obviously one-sided and abused feminist laws have been shut down before so any kind faith in the system correcting things is simply not there.
/r/MensRights28/06/12 10:04 AM
6

this is all another observer is seeing: this shit is wrong because downvote brigading make me right. you are a prize idiot
/r/MensRights28/06/12 07:20 AM
-4

in what way is it sex-hating? he's merely pointing out that this bill would literally place women's sex lives above life&death coverage for men. it doesn't make a value judgement on sexuality. this is a dumb tone argument you're making here, at best
/r/MensRights28/06/12 06:52 AM
8

haha yeah this guy is wrong and here's why: (doesn't say shit)
/r/MensRights28/06/12 06:48 AM
1

I would not be surprised if that was the case because menshealth.com is as feminist as it gets. I'm willing to bet this study doesn't control for the age of of the mother, and this would work for them when attempting to propagandize something like this. Reason? Most men when getting into old age cannot attract a young mate because most men do not rise to the higher levels of financial success in the old rat race, which is a mere matter of fact in our world of limited resources and very uneven di…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 11:04 PM
3

The mainstream media tends to point a finger at the nearest man whenever a woman kills her children.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 11:57 PM
3

Psychology today has become really PC since the Satoshi Kanazawa incident.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 11:50 PM
2

I've said that male circumcision has worse effects on women than on men. That makes no sense.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 12:31 AM
2

Actually your comments in this thread are entirely about comparing them and making a worst-case female vs. best-case male strawman argument which ignores the legal and social realities about male genital mutilation in most of the so-called civilized world.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 12:18 AM
1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ
/r/MensRights25/06/12 12:11 AM
5

Pretty sick [Deleted] comments
/r/MensRights25/06/12 12:10 AM
2

Yes but we are often told that even poorer people in first world countries have life better than those in third world countries. This is quite the challenge to that notion.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 02:05 AM
1

It tends to mean a small percentage of men are having sex with many women.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 12:58 AM
4

The concept is largely Orwellian newspeak for what is really a totalitarian echo chamber.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 08:56 PM
1

Canada is also a feminist shithole and that's where this took place. But really almost any first world country is interchangable in this kind of scenario. Women can and do get away with things men do not in these countries, and then we are told it is somehow "equality" -- like an Orwell novel.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 05:54 AM
1

Oh I agree that's messed up but then he's stuck between a rock and a hard place with all sorts of bad possible outcomes. There was probably no winning move for him.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 05:22 AM
1

Textbook example of the female self-interest that sociobiologists talk about.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 06:55 PM
6

The One Good Man
/r/MensRights16/06/12 07:12 AM
1

Funny, nobody here focuses on the bad laws (Vawa), police and prosecutor conduct and feminist falsification of research and statistics, and feminist blaming of all men as potential child rapists and wives engaging in false accusations of sexual misconduct with children. Isn't this r/mensrights? The poster you are replying to said: but you too were scared by all the media and MR hype to be a decent human being, So of course this is /r/mensrights but you are replying to a concern troll.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 05:05 PM
2

Here's the thing: Last year, users of a "feminism wikigroup" or some such including a wikipedia administrator defaced men's rights related wikipedia pages and used, among things, a glorified blog like jezebel.com as references--which were astoundingly somehow upheld as a valid ref . Here are some articles about what went on from around that time, although you'd be better served asking users from this sub who got personally involved in that ugly business of dealing with biased wiki administrators…
/r/MensRights12/06/12 12:02 PM
6

Not necessarily. The etymology of the word is from the greek words hyper and gamos, sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't alternate definitions of the word. Take the word "Gay" for example. Strictly speaking the origin of the word has nothing to do with homosexuals but that's how we most use it today. Hypergamy's current colloquial use is largely popularized by the writings of people like F. Roger Devlin and Roissy/Heartiste.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:13 AM
1

His statement about the game being different is put into context by the fact that he said he'd soon be ranked even lower and offered a rematch, the implicit statement being that even male players who aren't even top 100 are better players than top 10 female players. They both play the same game.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:02 AM
9

It would seem that for average time worked alone, male tennis players are getting paid .60 to the dollar of female tennis players. This doesn't even cover the skill gap where for example the #203 ranked male player who likely gets no prize money destroyed both Williams sisters.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 05:40 PM
1

FRS/COTWA really isn't even a men's rights thing but Pierce's views often align with ours because he actually cares about justice.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 01:54 AM
1

The article itself isn't anything new as an idea but it also isn't what is usually terrible with the spearhead and its assorted traditionalist appropriators, nationalists and other weirdos. Sometimes, they post decent stuff. The Apex Fallacy article originated there, as an example.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 01:29 AM
1

How much is hotness worth? Hamermesh calculates that ugly women (who score 1 and 2 on a 1-to-5-point attractiveness scale) earn 4 percent less than average-looking women (who score 3). Beautiful women (who score 4 and 5) earn 8 percent more than average-looking women and 12 percent more than ugly women. The best-looking men earn 4 percent more than average-looking men, while ugly men earn a daunting 13 percent less than average-looking males, and a staggering -- disabling? -- 17 percent less tha…
/r/MensRights09/06/12 07:56 PM
0

In what way is men's rights politically correct when this goes against what is the accepted norms and what is considered socially and politically acceptable in society. Cool doublespeak bro.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 12:01 PM
3

Oh I agree there is always the option for her to claim the money and the laws are stupid because men have no actual reproductive rights, but if she doesn't do that then I can't really find much to get angry about here.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:16 PM
5

So feminist "ethics" are basically self-serving emotive rationalizing garbage that has nothing to do with fairness or any sense of justice. If it feels good or benefits you, do it! That is the essence of feminist "ethics." "Feminist ethics" sound like they'd lead to a world like Mad Max.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 01:27 PM
7

She didn't tell him but she didn't screw him with child support payments. Did he want the child? Maybe, maybe not. Assume he didn't--The end result you have here would be what a "financial abortion" type policy would accomplish, that he'd not be burdened with the responsibility for her choices. I can't really find much fault with her.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 01:11 PM
3

A much simpler solution is for societies to stop treating men as disposable second class peons and give us legal parental surrunder/"financial abortions" or whatever you might call it.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 12:00 PM
4

Sure it would, but that's not a real solution. Try this thought experiment in a first world country: Suggest sterilization of women in countries where they don't have the reproductive rights they do in these first world countries as a "solution." See how that plays out.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:19 AM
6

This happens all of the time. Feminist/SRS users who insist they're not downvoters and are "just a circlejerk" can't stop reading this sub and downvoting rather than actually presenting any counter-arguments (probably because they can't).
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:46 PM
5

You see there he is basically agreeing with someone that everything he had previously thought (and written is his book he's trying to shill for) is completely backwards, and that video games and porn are a symptom rather than the cause. That's pop psychology for you. He made a complete 180 once someone presented a good argument.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 11:45 PM
13

Such as: Christina Hoff Sommers, who all other feminists despise and call her an "anti-feminist." This doesn't really work how you think it does.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 08:17 PM
7

Isn't paternity testing expensive? Is a couple hundred dollars expensive? Not compared to decades of your life spent living a lie, subsidizing your own genetic metadeath by toiling away and paying tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise someone else's child you were deceived into believing is yours.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 08:14 PM
8

Basically Tory Shepherd, the author of the article is using bizarre religious practices from a simpler time as an appeal to ridicule strawman argument against the concrete science of DNA paternity testing.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 07:41 PM
2

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/response_gilding1.htm That is not how to interpret these statistics. They are simply the statistics for paternity tests, and say little reliable about the nature of the population being testing. It is likely, but not certain, that the true rate of non-paternity in that sub-population concerned is less than 28%. Some of the exclusions may be an exaggeration caused by the legal processes being followed, and these wil…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 07:40 PM
-1

These are false equivalencies. Paternity fraud does not have any universal telltale signs like drunk driving usually does or living in a coastal area or flood plane would for insurance buyers.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 06:06 PM
3

The US government is Orwellian.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 04:59 PM
14

There is nothing "patriarchal" about wanting to pass on your own genes and avoiding subsidizing your own genetic metadeath.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:55 PM
2

It isn't obvious. The only way you can really tell is to paternity test. There is conjecture that it occurs more frequently in lower socioeconomic classes and this assumption is based largely on a poor understanding of evolutionary psychology. If anything it would possibly be even more common at higher socioeconomic levels. There has been no genetic change since we were hunter-gatherers, but deep in the mind of modern man is a simple hunter-gatherer rule: strive to acquire power and use it to lu…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:52 PM
1

The "guy" who wrote this article is actually a woman and a feminist crank who tries to use misinformation from self-styled sociology "experts" like Michael Gilding (also a feminist, surprise) to re-frame and downplay the incidence and seriousness of paternity fraud.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:37 PM
-1

How do you know they were all suspicious or paranoid and many weren't just curious after hearing about this up-until recently taboo subject. You don't. You are projecting your own values onto others here.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:35 PM
1

One poster is the rule, 2 month old concern troll account. You're right.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 10:58 PM
3

There is no fucking way a man caught having sex with 3 underage girls let alone his students would be spared jail time. Also note she is married and has a small child. Wonder who's it is.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 10:35 PM
1

It's even worse those old folk tales because in this day and age even a lot of largely uneducated people know what DNA is and can easily learn the basics of the science behind it with some reading. This is willful ignorance. The creationism of feminism.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 01:46 AM
-3

Simply take the Tom Leykis approach: Give a whiff of the money but never let them have any of it. In other words be very safe about sex and don't ever marry (or cohabitate if you live somewhere like most of Canada with its ridiculous forced common-law marriages)
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:29 PM
2

His entire point in making this article (and the youtube video it is transcribed from) is to conclusively demonstrate that no viable political platform that exists is friendly to men and men's issues.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:25 PM
3

Of course in the "other dicussions" tab you have a shitstorm of cognitive dissonance up to and including calling paternity a "social/patriarchal construct" along with appeal to authority in self-referencing sociology bullshit. Denial isn't just a river, etc.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 10:27 AM
3

Feminism isn't just a word. Its definition can be and in this case is defined by the actions of its adherents.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 10:19 AM
0

Making the pocketbooks hurt is perhaps one of the only ways to overcome inbuilt bias towards females and make any progress towards men having actual rights. Money talks and bullshit walks.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 09:00 PM
3

This is your only post on a 2 month old account. FascistOrigami must have hit pretty close to home about you.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 08:58 PM
7

Look at the endless excuse making in the article. When do you ever see such excuses made for men?
/r/MensRights31/05/12 02:24 AM
3

they know what MRAs are but don't like what the end of their chokehold on public discourse means: no more unchallenged special pleading for women-first-last-and-only this and that
/r/MensRights30/05/12 06:01 PM
5

Japanese men may just be the smartest in the world.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 01:25 AM
6

Yes but you're replying to a literal crackpot who made this post so you should know what kind of utter bullshit to expect.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 01:23 AM
1

that's not all that tends to happen on "girls night out"
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:04 PM
1

Even those countries have a bias which favor women over men, something innate to human psychology. That is, the common man is still treated worse than women there.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:58 AM
1

This is a pop-culture addled idiot finally noting the "bigorexia" problem that has existed for decades and decades, and only because they noticed it in their pop culture. They actually think this is a new thing: So, what are these mostly-naked, marvelously buff dudes doing to the expectations and ideals of the mostly female audiences who are watching them? It may be too early to tell; after all, this is a relatively new trend. But if it continues, how might it shape women’s ideas about what regu…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:28 AM
1

yes and it's usually after i refuse to have sex with them because i am just not that into them.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 01:59 PM
2

Manosphere blogs mostly. The term is a few years old at least.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:20 PM
0

women hate hate hate hate hate men they aren't physically attracted to and try to rationalize it in the most fucked up ways
/r/MensRights26/05/12 05:08 PM
20

yes, dawkins is such a shithead for calling out the firstworldproblems of a woman who underwent the unspeakable horror of having someone unattractive ask her out
/r/MensRights26/05/12 04:08 PM
8

More accurately, a false rape claim was filed by his ex.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 09:43 PM
6

To settle down with long term? Not unless the guy is financially solvent. To screw around with? Definitely.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 09:06 PM
3

How it works: Biological determinism is bad... except when it benefits me.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 08:37 PM
1

no one can "know" that. nobody can read minds, you are making a gamble with bad odds by getting married as a man in countries with no fault divorce laws. things can change and if a woman decides she doesn't want you anymore some day down the line in the future, she is incentivized to destroy you with the tools the legal system gives her and the vested interests of those who profit from doing so. That is the reality. Not the fairy tale truelove4ever marriage scam peddled to men. As long as the la…
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:42 PM
1

you present strawman arguments about why men would not want to get married. always gotta be because be bitches, rite? that's why. it couldn't at all be because the law is currently codified to allow women to act as a callous sociopath during a marriage and still be able to leave the man destitute in divorce, could it? oh no of course not. it's because they think bitches be crazy
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:07 PM
3

It means the current marriage and divorce paradigm i.e. no fault divorce, which really means "it's the man's fault" and he will end up paying no matter what, even if she fucked the poolboy and gave birth to his child and he has video, audio, picture and DNA test results to prove it.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:49 PM
1

ah yes, hateful because they acknowledge the reality that is the system being biased against men. You sure are fair and balanced, like fox news.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:47 PM
1

Not many want it but would welcome it as an alternative to ruinous divorce in a system blatantly rigged against men.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 06:45 PM
1

In the rest of Canada the government will allow a woman to loot you if you merely let her live with you for a year; they want to lower this to 6 months. And now it looks like Quebec is joining the rest of Canada with this precedent.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 03:13 PM
5

Sort of like rap and rock and roll music and whatever scapegoats used before those, I'm sure.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 09:14 PM
1

Why? The article tries to blame facebook when all facebook is being used for is providing evidence of infidelity in divorce cases. "Facebook" can easily be replaced with "e-mail services", "cell phones" or any other kind of thing that isn't a causal factor in infidelity in the first place but can also be used to prove infidelity. All it shows is that many people are really dumb and leave incriminating evidence behind rather publicly on facebook, easier to find than on other communication mediums…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 05:47 PM
2

if all-girl schools outperformed all-boy schools they'd have no problem with it, but because there is a history of these single sex schools being the other way around they are making a political statement against this
/r/MensRights22/05/12 05:34 PM
6

Hm? Look at the names on the advisory board. You'll see the a who's-who of influential anti-feminist writers and those who've debunked feminist claims. Pelle Billing, MD, author, commentator, Malmö, Sweden Roy F. Baumeister, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States Warren Farrell, PhD, Independent Researcher, Mill Valley, CA, United States Steve Moxon, Independent Researcher and Author, Sheffield, United Kingdom Lionel Tiger, PhD, Charles…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 03:56 AM
1

The real problem is the fact that even after a child is born (and not a part of her body anymore) women are allowed options that amount to never having to take responsibility unless they want to, yet men are held to a standard of "should have kept it in your pants".
/r/MensRights22/05/12 12:24 AM
2

The whole country. The laws. The media (although there are at least a few notable anti-feminist columnists in papers, probably because things are so bad). Universities.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 12:08 AM
6

"Octomom" didn't abandon her kids, she simply expects society at large (the taxpayer) to pay for it all. It is not the same as abandoning a child, it is a form of entitlement mentality. I am all for people who do not want children to just not have children if they can't afford to take care of them. I am definitely not for the unequal treatment of unwilling parents where women get a free pass and men are somehow "deadbeats".
/r/MensRights21/05/12 08:52 PM
3

It's theoretically possible, yes. Much like it's theoretically possible for every man due to the specifics of reproduction to leave behind as many descendant as this guy is going to. Sexual selection doesn't work in a way that allows even the majority of men to leave behind a single child, however. Something science has proven within the last decade. That's all theory and boring scientific fact, though. We're not talking about that. We're talking about the black letter of law and society's attit…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 08:20 PM
4

Canada is worse in regards to feminist governance than the US. Do not move here if you're looking to get away from that.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 07:26 PM
17

Please don't link this garbage and give gawker hits. Copy and paste or use pastebin or something. The article shows how absolutely obsessed feminists have become with combating a real threat to feminist dominance, at least, that they need to go scouring anonymous comments on articles and then write about them.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 04:20 AM
2

Donald Trump knows how divorce law practice works seeing as he's been screwed by it. He is exactly the kind of guy you'd want to take advice from on this subject.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 04:14 AM
1

stardusk is hit and miss with his videos but some of them are great. good to see them posted here
/r/MensRights21/05/12 12:34 AM
2

"radical" feminists are only distinguishable from mainstream feminists in that they write absolutely insane power fantasy shit about exterminating men and do things like run hate blogs where they shit all over transsexuals (like for example the owner of radfemhub does). "mainstream" feminism being the power majority of feminism that pushes legislation, fills colleges/universities, comprises feminist groups like NOW or AAUW and holds the same highly antagonistic and unscientific, dogmatic views a…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 12:00 AM
3

well because they're filling the coffers of those who arbitrate what is a "hate site" with their donations, of course
/r/MensRights20/05/12 10:50 PM
3

Please read the article in question before commenting.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 03:15 PM
3

i guess these feminists thought they'd forever have these easily abusable sexual harassment policies with lax-standards to bludgeon men withand never counted on some men abusing them in the same way it became very apparent that women were abusing them, shortly after their creation. maybe now they'll realize what bullshit these policies are, but i doubt it. seems like another thing to conveniently blame on "the patriarchy"
/r/MensRights20/05/12 10:23 AM
6

it looks that way, but the comments where people say in the hypothetical that for what seemed to be a consensual drunken gangbang he somehow "deserved" the prison rape are disgusting
/r/MensRights20/05/12 10:14 AM
2

And so can you. At least now she doesn't have to make up an excuse like, 'he's hitting me!'. Why did you think there was a drop in assault cases? yeah except that lawyers routinely advise women to make up completely uncorroborated allegations of assault, sexual assault towards her or children and all sorts of other things to insure the woman gets the most of the man's assets upon dissolution of the marriage as well as custody of the children. just accusations with zero evidence will get a woman …
/r/MensRights20/05/12 09:58 AM
2

well you may have a point if it weren't culturally ingrained that men are to be looked at as provider-workhorses and utilities rather than as human beings with their own feelings who may not want to be used, like the analogy in the title says, like tools
/r/MensRights19/05/12 08:38 PM
0

exact opposite, actually. factory, paul elam, angry harry and others like them who are willing to push the message out there without diluting it or kowtowing to those most opposed to the idea of men having equal rights are the reason you have feminists so scared of losing their hegemony over the public opinion that they're running propaganda hit pieces where they have no argument and wildly flail about attempting to call MRAs "hate groups" with zero evidence to support their lies. guys like fact…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 08:28 PM
2

it wasn't even that huge of a gain. i saw the documentary and the typical gain is less less than a couple inches in height. yes, he went through about a year of pain and limited mobility plus large medical expenses to be at most a couple inches taller. the kid's father who was also short and knows first-hand about how much height matters when you're a man in our society actually had no problem with him going through with it all.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:39 PM
4

and yet "male privilege" is part and parcel of the well-debunked patriarchy hypothesis which claims that society favors men over women. this is clearly empirically disproven by government statistics that show men have a worse average outcome than women do. look at your own government's statistics on homelessness, joblessness, workplace deaths (shows who works the shittiest, dangerous jobs), imprisonment and any other down and out category you can think of feminists like to commit the frontman fa…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 04:53 PM
1

that would require moving to a third world country where mass media doesn't exist
/r/MensRights19/05/12 03:14 PM
3

it's not cultural at all. it's sexual selection at work. here is a simple experiment: go to /r/foreveralone and see how many of them are male vs. how many are female.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:17 AM
2

look at magazines for women with pictures of half-naked men and the very small number of, say, male celebrities and what their bodies tend to have in common with the narrow female preferences displayed for them tends to be. i think you'll figure it out
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:12 AM
1

Anything associated with "men's rights" is under fire by propaganda from the very people most opposed to it, feminists and those with vested interests in feminism. For example: SPLC now quotes the woman who runs radfemhub, a real hate site, and many transexual-hate blogs and who has also been caught harassing transexual people on the Internet as some sort of "credible source." Having some other subreddit is not going to change a thing.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 07:09 AM
1

feminists don't feel comfortable talking here because they can't just ban dissenting voices or demand that dissenting voices be banned. that is the thing. there is no censorship going on here and no one-sided moderation that they can use to claim they're right after they use that power to remove their opponents
/r/MensRights19/05/12 06:44 AM
2

it's not even the "MRM model of gender relations" -- that's the thing. this all started with things like E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology" and has gone on with evolutionary psychology -- the main opponents of it and even of Wilson's work of course being feminists. oh i do wonder why? so if you tend to approach the world scientifically and empirically you are of course going to largely agree with something that has an actual basis in science rather just-so ideologies like the blank slate or social con…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 06:41 AM
2

bonobos are maybe the only example that doesn't fit the mold of females choosing the proverbial alpha male to the exclusion of others in nature. even in today's society where women are given artificial legs up in forms of affirmative action, women-first and only this and that and many other women-favoring practices you just don't see women going out of their way to make the first move and their selection practices are still observably the same as ever social constructionism and the blank slate j…
/r/MensRights19/05/12 05:19 AM
0

Is it really needed? Given that this sub's mods does not ban people simply for having dissenting opinions like most feminist subs do, I would say no.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 03:59 AM
2

thought police feminist users
/r/MensRights19/05/12 03:55 AM
4

is this really needed? this sub /r/mensrights doesn't ban users with dissenting opinions like most feminist subs do
/r/MensRights19/05/12 03:51 AM
2

in other words, beta boy is plan B for when mr. big doesn't put a ring on it. something that the manosphere has been telling men for years now
/r/MensRights19/05/12 03:50 AM
1

so how exactly do you "break out of" something which is also seen in nature with, oh, i don't know, just about every other animal including our closest cousins
/r/MensRights19/05/12 03:46 AM
2

lmao @ the idea that any mainstream publication is "credible"
/r/MensRights19/05/12 03:40 AM
0

and why not? women are able to opt out of caring for children they never wanted after they're born. equivalent rights for men too unthinkable for you?
/r/MensRights18/05/12 01:07 PM
1

the chickens have come home to roost with draconian punishments that were originally doled out to male offenders now being applied to female offenders. only now that a female offender is getting more than what a murderer would receive in sentence do people seem to care
/r/MensRights18/05/12 01:00 PM
4

Men's suffering also occurs without them. some of it does, sure. the whole disposability problem was there before, for example. that's true. but then you have things that feminists campaigned for like no fault divorce. you have feminist filibustering on things like paternity testing, shared parenthood, and a host of other things including decade-long demonization campaigns against men. big box feminism is the cause of the majority of issues discussed here.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 12:53 PM
12

the guy is obviously just doing whatever it takes to get those benjamins and doesn't care one bit about integrity or even consistency.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 11:17 AM
1

even those guys were less awkward, shockingly enough
/r/MensRights18/05/12 10:46 AM
0

seems really petty. ask maury to sort it out on his television show. practice your dance just in case
/r/MensRights18/05/12 02:28 AM
4

And the common man was a de-facto slave or disposable cannon fodder (still is in some countries today in fact!) for the majority of industrialization, something you've neglected to mention. Please take your ill-informed oppression olympics based on revisionist history elsewhere if you cannot answer the question I posed: Where is comparable sexism in the public sphere against women to justify the shit in the OP? There isn't any. This kind of shit you see now is the result of decades of feminist c…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 02:03 AM
4

yes it was certainly an awkward propaganda video
/r/MensRights17/05/12 10:32 PM
6

If you have unprotected sex while circumsized, chances are you're still going to get that disease in a place with such a high percentage of infected people. This is very bad because the way they are selling this to the largely uneducated populace in these countries is as if it were a cure or vaccination of sorts. It's not. They would be better served teaching these people about condoms.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:42 PM
2

In what way do men looking to get married to a woman from another country "take advantage" of them. Sex tourism you might have a point but that's hardly male exclusive. It's just that men who do it make no bones about it while the women who do it are hypocrites and/or in denial about what they're doing (exchanging money for sex).
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:31 PM
6

Can someone explain this to me? I'm reading this article and the thought process in support of the center seems to be "there's a women's center so there should be a men's center." Why is formal equality a bad thing? It's simple. Feminist "equality" is Orwellian. Women are "more equal" than men. This is to be seen in the claim that women are as capable as men and yet paradoxically the continued special pleading that women need affirmative action, quotas and so on to enact an equality of outcome r…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:05 PM
3

giving people money and/or services for making claims could lead to false claims in order to take advantage of those things being available? who would have thunk it
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:57 PM
4

THAT attitude has what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Misandristic feminists combating sexism against women by grinding men into the mud. THAT sort of disgusting attitude is exactly why the sexist chain mail OP got even fucking exists. Please direct me to things in the public sphere which show the level of sexism against women which you are attempting to imply justify the chain letter in the OP. You can't? Exactly. Do you know why we can't really find these things? Because even…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:47 PM
1

What standard? The standard of "you had sex which resulted in pregnancy, now you need to support it. No choices for you!" For what? Not paying child support? Something unrelated? No one is jailed for happening to be a father. Don't be stupid. non-payment for a child they never wanted. Never see women in this situation, do you? Ohhh that's right. Women have reproductive rights. That's why. There are very few women who would purposefully impregnate themselves in order to try for child support paym…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 05:07 PM
9

redditor for 2 hour you are responding to an anonymous coward of an ideologue
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:50 PM
2

You either let all suspect men go free because they say that their sperm were stolen, which leaves a lot of single parents that shouldn't be, or you make all men who impregnated a woman a parent. No one is going to jail because of this. You either pay child support or be a parent, if you are the parent. a standard you strangely do not wish to hold women to. Hmm... No one is going to jail because of this. You either pay child support or be a parent, if you are the parent. Think again. so-called "…
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:44 PM
7

I did get you. you can't demand equality where it benefits you and then turn around and say "b-b-but biology" when it doesn't. it's hard to take you seriously when you read like a character from Orwell's Animal Farm
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:24 PM
6

red herring argument (rape) as a justification of unequal rights? aces.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:12 PM
18

this argument was very persuasive when it went by the name "keep your legs shut" and was used by anti-abortionists. Thank you for the shitty post
/r/MensRights17/05/12 04:11 PM
2

yes, you only have to pay them 77% what you pay the men... when they work 77% as many hours as those men
/r/MensRights16/05/12 12:45 AM
4

#203 ranked man beat both Williams sisters in one afternoon.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 03:30 AM
2

are you under the mistaken impression that is it a man's "duty" to act as a human shield for others...?
/r/MensRights14/05/12 02:17 AM
-1

how is non-violent inaction as a response to violence he is in no way an actor of in any way advocacy for or of violence.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:22 PM
1

most people work out to make themselves more sexually attractive. this includes barely literate people like the man who wrote that post
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:19 PM
2

i got through it but it was really painful to read his post because of obvious reasons relating to him not being the sharpest tool in the shed
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:18 PM
4

DAMN BRO GET THAT BRIGADE IN THERE
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:15 PM
11

the worst part was probably how dishonest the mainstream media was by not showing the whole video, only a clip of where he defended himself. they tried to make it look both in writing and by showing only part of the video that he was the aggressor and these women were completely innocent when nothing could be further from the truth
/r/MensRights13/05/12 08:08 PM
25

far as I know it's just a troll from /r/gameoftrolls. could be that fatass and wouldn't surprise me but until i see proof i'm skeptic
/r/MensRights13/05/12 09:31 AM
5

and how many of those anonymous posters on MRA site comment sections that you're using to deflect are informing public policy?
/r/MensRights13/05/12 01:15 AM
8

the department of education's April 4, 2011, "Dear Colleague" letter which has created kangaroo courts in higher education is a direct result of feminist activism. where are those who stand against it? there are none. nice godwin in this post, but this plausible deniability angle you're trying to work isn't doing much for you
/r/MensRights12/05/12 09:47 AM
6

my position is ridiculous and this is why i can find example after example of feminist academia supporting lower standards of evidence and expansions to the definition of rape. i can do this because my position is ridiculous how about i share one written just a few days ago? http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/univ-policy-lowers-standards-for-sexual-misconduct-charges-1.2870390 a choice quote here being “It’s obviously one of the big side effects, if it could result in an innocent person being…
/r/MensRights12/05/12 09:38 AM
4

what's it like being an insufferable armchair psychologist? rhetorical question of course
/r/MensRights12/05/12 09:32 AM
7

"feminists" are not half of the population. one is not "born" a feminist, but don't let that stop you from giving appeal to ridicule the old college try
/r/MensRights12/05/12 09:27 AM
11

It's part of the effort of feminists to expand the definition of rape so that rape claims become a sort of clearinghouse to enact state violence against a man who a woman is displeased with.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 02:26 AM
3

What points? Your entire "point" is an appeal to authority on flimsy conjecture. Now you're probably going to go all Captain Liberty on me about mandatory testing of paternity (despite all of the other tests run as a battery of tests during pregnancies which you have no problem with), again, showing your bias in this issue.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 08:55 PM
3

an unsourced essay by an MRA Dr. Roy Baumeister is an MRA? News to me. By the way, chuckles, it's not an essay, it's partly from his book by the same name. Good on you showing your bias, though.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 08:49 PM
3

Attempting to say that the article wasn't at all political or biased towards any certain world view is disingenuous as value judgements are made to the contrary in that article. The only way you would ever get an exact usable percentage for would the testing of live births without telling anyone for a statistically significant period of time. Under mandatory testing and as as per game theory you would see less women sleeping around as a matter of simply knowing you can't get away with it.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 08:14 PM
2

The answer is lower than the commonly accepted 10% figure. The game theory examples you mention appear to be of low occurrence. Feel free to continue your mental gymnastics. They actually don't prove this. The whole thing is conjecture even on the part of that blogger who you appear to be using in an appeal to authority argument here. Available empirical data shows an average of about 1/4 of the tests come back negative and any kind of estimations made by "experts" is on grounds of almost comple…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:51 PM
1

Can I assume then that you support all internet surveillance bills such as CISPA? You have no problems with the TSA scanners? False equivalency. What innocent person is thrown into prison for failure to use TSA scanners?
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:43 PM
3

every woman has the power to say a man raped her and in our insane legal climate he has to prove he didn't. that is the point. under feminist jurisprudence, a man literally has to choose between privacy violation by recording or being thrown into prison under a rape conviction with murderers and gangbangers who think he's a rapist. if you know anything about prison culture you'd know what that means for someone convicted of rape
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:39 PM
2

I think if there was a rule/law that FRAs face the same amount of time as a conviction for rape (30yrs) than the reporting of real rapes would be effected. Rape victims would fear prosecution if they are not believed. this assumes you're working on the same flimsy framework that real rape cases do right now where insufficient or no evidence and the woman's word is enough to secure conviction.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:38 PM
2

There have to be consequences for false accusers, but if those consequences are too harsh, we may create a greater injustice by discouraging false accusers of the future from recanting... put yourself in the shoes of the falsely accused whose accuser might have recanted if the system was more lenient, but instead you're doing hard time for a crime you didn't do. the solution is of course to stop prosecuting rape based on hearsay or he-said-she-said. to make both prosecuting rape cases and prosec…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:35 PM
3

Your first point seems to be negated by the fact that high confidence in paternity is associated with higher probability of actually being the biological father in the data presented. How so. Men who have paternity tests usually do so for a reason (i.e. they know or think the woman may have been unfaithful), or upon divorce as instructed by attorneys or even judges. Whether a man thinks the baby is his or not has no causal link, that is magical thinking to the extreme. A man may think his wife w…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:24 PM
2

this is the same sophistry that assumes whether you think a child is yours has any casual link that's been presented time and time again to downplay the seriousness of this issue. when making the claim of "urban myth" it also doesn't explore the opposite possibility that those obsequious types who wouldn't take a test are at the highest risk i.e. game theory. in other words what you see in that article is someone who has a personal vested interest in a certain outcome it gets worse though. near …
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:07 PM
1

Citation? Andrea Dworkin probably, if it's in the "billions." All sex is rape and all of that.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 06:11 PM
8

well yes it started out that way and then the founder saw the ugly face of feminism when he didn't 100% kowtow to the dominant narrative's ideology. who knows what it is now, but it started off with a faulty premise that a "good man" is some disposable piece of shit that does whatever he's told and sacrifices it all for the benefit of people who hate him
/r/MensRights10/05/12 03:34 PM
4

yeah, this meme of "don't stick your dick in crazy" is stupid. you can't read someone's mind and largely don't know when they'll pull something like this ahead of time.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 03:30 PM
9

ultimate solutions? technology. artificial wombs and any possible future "sex robots" will make the monopoly power women have over men with their superior position in reproduction granted by nature being a non-point
/r/MensRights10/05/12 02:40 PM
2

it actually sounds more like someone he knows set it up. why would they know he keeps a stash of money in his house and that his door would generally be unlocked?
/r/MensRights08/05/12 08:49 PM
1

not exactly true, it's just that you can't own most types of firearms that would be effective for personal defense. i know a lot of people tend to own knives, though. this is irrelevant however, whisper pointed out with switzerland you might say it has more to do with the largely exploitative nature of the american socioeconomic hierarchy that lends to a higher rate of crime-for-profit than elsewhere than any scapegoat like gun control laws.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 08:48 PM
1

feminist law and policy is hypocritical and will never be applied to women as it is men
/r/MensRights08/05/12 04:30 AM
1

i voted you up because the feminist statutory rape law enforcement is absolutely insane, but the big issue people tend to have is that the law isn't applied equally to male and female offenders. you see men getting years, women getting a slap on the wrist suspended sentence if that
/r/MensRights08/05/12 04:27 AM
3

misogyny is basically go-to feminist word for anything i don't like. it has largely lost its meaning
/r/MensRights08/05/12 02:46 AM
3

its likely quite the opposite because rape has been way going down in every country with access to porn
/r/MensRights08/05/12 02:44 AM
13

it has to do with accountability, for which there is none for women
/r/MensRights08/05/12 02:13 AM
2

the purpose of the article is to show that feminist rubric is dishonest and attempts to conflate "men at the top" with "all men." we see an attempt to shut down dialogue constantly by feminists, using this very justification; that because more men are at the top than women, then we should just shut up. even though by just about every available metric, men have worse average outcomes in life in our society
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:32 PM
2

this is an excellent article that can really be summed up as explaining the frontman/apex fallacy that feminism operates on
/r/MensRights07/05/12 11:28 AM
6

i'm guessing you're working on the feminist model of "false rape accusations never happen" (except when they do) here to make this claim
/r/MensRights07/05/12 09:49 AM
1

it's a somewhat reasonable analogy but look at the poster's posting history: 8 hour old account, posting repeatedly with the same post which is a feminist caricature of this subreddit
/r/MensRights06/05/12 10:06 PM
0

i'm sure you can find no shortage of male perpetrators listed on that news site, mentioned in exactly the same uncompromising way
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:26 PM
6

what you are describing has nothing to do with your not having been born a man. a lot of people seem to think that being a woman is something that is innate but that being a "man" is something you have to qualify for, with whatever ridiculous (usually self-serving interests) they put forth as conditions
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:08 PM
6

more proof that sweden is in fact the saudi arabia of feminism
/r/MensRights06/05/12 03:00 AM
3

You might notice that many of these labs also do tests for these reasons: Immigration Family study (people doing that "family tree thing") Determining whether daddy really is daddy for the purpose of transplants for a child These are completely unrelated to man trying to figure out if a child is really is, so it's not as if these aren't mixed samples, which again number in the millions. There is no casual link between whether you think a child is yours and whether it actually is, though. That ma…
/r/MensRights05/05/12 11:34 PM
0

Oh I wonder why anyone could think that feminists and their quislings are against men's rights. I do wonder. Could be because in the real world they are.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 09:37 PM
3

well that's one way to attempt to frame it, if you ignore what the response was actually a witty response to: an everyday casual bit of misandry because hey, they're just MEN and not human or anything
/r/MensRights05/05/12 09:33 PM
0

bingo
/r/MensRights05/05/12 09:14 PM
1

they're free to post here. but since this isn't a closed echo chamber with a totalitarian commenting system they soon grow tired of being proven wrong
/r/MensRights05/05/12 09:00 PM
4

http://www.aabb.org/sa/facilities/Pages/relationshipreports.aspx They have them for several years. You'll notice a disturbingly high percentage is displayed. There is the boilerplate damage control/PR to appease "women's groups" about it not being representative of the the general population but it tends to use bad logic in that there is this idea that there is somehow a causal link between having a test done and whether or not it will come back negative. I could also put in some effort and dig …
/r/MensRights05/05/12 08:50 PM
5

It's actually more than 20% from the labs that come back negative. It's usually around 30% on average. Some years ~26%, some years upwards of ~34%. If rape were even 1/10th as common a state of emergency would be declared. I would think that those who would question paternity and are willing to test no matter what would have the least chance of being played like a fool. In any case, year after year after year of consistently getting 25%+ of paternity tests back negative with the sample size in t…
/r/MensRights05/05/12 07:11 PM
2

because the "progressive" label is the biggest misnomer there is, and you've figured it out
/r/MensRights05/05/12 06:05 PM
9

paternity fraud is very common so i'm not surprised
/r/MensRights05/05/12 03:51 AM
6

With the pill covered, there would be way less cases of men having to pay child support to unwanted children. maybe you should learn the concept of moral hazard and how this applies to women who "accidentally" stop taking birth control
/r/MensRights05/05/12 03:37 AM
1

and here we see the ever-shifting definition of "patriarchy" custom fit to make bad arguments, once again
/r/MensRights04/05/12 11:06 PM
19

hey guys, the sexes are exactly the same! social constructionism! except when it doesn't benefit me to believe so
/r/MensRights03/05/12 04:26 PM
1

She doesn't even have to "evade"; she can just lie about where you live and big surprise, you never get the notification and a default is entered.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 04:43 PM
9

what exactly does this bit of irrelevant emotionally manipulative deflection have to do with testing at birth?
/r/MensRights02/05/12 01:30 AM
1

the government gets a cut both ways. either through child support agencies or your tax dollars
/r/MensRights01/05/12 08:38 PM
5

yes in the uk there are terrible laws because of feminist hegemony over discourse and it being framed as "bad for families" (feminists see no problem with "families" built upon lies)
/r/MensRights01/05/12 08:18 PM
1

don't "request" it as things stand, simply do it covertly
/r/MensRights01/05/12 08:13 PM
2

the mainstream of feminism did indeed disown her and does not like christina hoff sommers
/r/MensRights01/05/12 08:01 PM
5

Well it's your right to force a paternity test if someone is trying to collect child support in most jurisdictions. The problem is that there are stupid semantics games that show the state's clear conflict of interest (they want some man, any man to pay) and will lock a non-father into paying, such as this garbage of no response in 30 days or these "time limits" which shouldn't exist at all.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 04:32 PM
2

what do you think would happen even if you called them out on this? "sexual harassment" policies are a weaponized farce to be used against men and i think you'll find this out if you attempt to report also notice the behavior falls strangely in-line with what feminists tend to call "objectification" -- but of course it's only bad when men do it
/r/MensRights01/05/12 02:27 PM
41

if this were a man people would be calling for his head on a stick and the jobs of those didn't keep him locked up the first time
/r/MensRights30/04/12 03:37 PM
3

a woman with feminist leanings against paternity testing? why i am shocked. doubly shocked that the common non-arguments and false equivalencies like "oh b-b-but adoption!" and "oh a man can love a child that isn't his!" are trotted out as well
/r/MensRights29/04/12 11:46 AM
1

as far as i know it wasn't even him cheating, just wanting a divorce. probably because he was married to a psycho bitch
/r/MensRights26/04/12 09:11 PM
14

of course they can't, it's a shitty throwaway troll account
/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:27 PM
3

this is a "no true scotsman" if i've ever seen one. why specify when the only type of feminist visible and active in the real world is in fact what i am describing
/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:09 PM
12

the vast majority of people who use the term use it as a means to stifle discussion
/r/MensRights26/04/12 08:52 AM
6

when we refer to feminism, we don't refer to some theoretical feminists you hear about only on the internet. we refer to institutionalized feminism, feminist academia. that is, those who have sway and lobbying power in the real world. that is the feminism that matters, not this fringe element that desires equality yet cannot be shown to actually exist outside of internet posts that say "Not All Feminists Are Like That!"
/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:41 AM
1

I somehow don't see men's rights groups ever getting the kind of billion+ dollar bankrolling that feminist special interest groups have to facilitate and create a vested interest in keeping things up because there is money to be had in doing it, as feminist groups currently do. It's taken men decades to finally start standing up for themselves. Men essentially said "yes dear" and let women have what they wanted within the span of a decade in the 60s and early 70s.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:38 AM
2

This has already been done. user:SRS_Invasion_Bot Another user who has done something similar (alerted threads to SRS invasion) is user:HITLARIOUS
/r/MensRights23/04/12 06:13 AM
2

It's Only Sexist When Men Do It
/r/MensRights23/04/12 04:09 AM
2

it's all in the advertising. advertising for just about everything but things that are nearly male-exclusive interests pander to women. why? because women are the ones who buy it for themselves
/r/MensRights23/04/12 03:52 AM
10

his username is just a jab at the way 12 year olds in online gaming tend to talk to people, i'm sure. he was actually banned from this sub before for his username, i think
/r/MensRights23/04/12 12:57 AM
8

~80% of consumer spending must be one hell of a carbon footprint, so i would doubt her source as well
/r/MensRights23/04/12 12:09 AM
-2

the spearhead probably wouldnt be so bad if it didn't attract so many traditionalist appropriators in some of the submitted articles and especially in the comments
/r/MensRights21/04/12 02:13 AM
3

another case of a woman using children as a human shield to avoid responsibility for her actions, and a legal system in which justice is definitely not blind
/r/MensRights21/04/12 01:25 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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