TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

akuta Archive

View 0 posts and 463 comments by akuta 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)
4

Have you ever fallen front first on the ground from that height? That noise is actually a pretty standard reaction when it happens and you impact hard enough to cause injury (and knock wind out). It's probable that she landed and knocked the wind out of herself and what little air she could get in was immediately squelched out with the "Euuuu euuu euuu" followed up with the "I can't breathe."
/r/MensRights18/03/14 05:25 PM
1

There is no emotional spin on my part. Me saying that you're corroborating the assumption I had of 5th_law's post, (this assumption is what you claim is my misrepresentation) is not at all a statement that you hold ANY specific position. And why would someone support an argument that they did not themselves uphold? It seems that reading comprehension is not your only fault but also logic. I have not asserted anything as being correct or incorrect. This conversation was a spinoff of your conversa…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 10:25 PM
1

Or you know, you could actually read what you said and realize that you've been doing this to both of us from the beginning (misrepresenting what was actually typed and attempting to argue against it). Time for you to actually look at it and not apply your own emotional spin to it. Perhaps you can look back at it in a few weeks and realize the err of your ways.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 10:05 PM
1

Where? Quote me and I'll concede this. I never once said or implied that this was a position you held. [that black men won the right to vote through military service] It's almost as though you either don't think of or read what you write before you post it: You're corroborating this assumption with this part of your post. Corroborate: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain I was in no way supporting what they said. I was pointing out that you were either misinterpreting or pur…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 09:55 PM
1

No, this isn't accurate. He/she was comparing, yes, but with added opinion from the peanut gallery and even a nice strawman. The post can absolutely be correctly interpreted as an argument that women haven't yet proven that they should have the right to vote, and this is only substantiated by his/her subsequent posts. *sigh* It seems you have a serious comprehension problem here. It also seems as though you are attempting to pick a fight that isn't being fought at this juncture. And I didn't say…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 09:27 PM
1

You're corroborating this assumption with this part of your post. Only those who could own land and/or serve in the military would have the right to vote. Thus, white men. How can you "prove yourself" in this manner if you're not allowed to? No, I'm not corroborating this. I was pointing out that what he was arguing against was being misrepresented. If you actually followed the conversation as you have led others to believe by replying with an opinion (and participating in so many replies that i…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 08:40 PM
2

If you're looking at the numbers as a whole, the female-to-female abuse is going to be very low (just by sheer numbers, the percentages of populace in that demographic, etc.) compared to the rest. The numbers that TMF generated are general, and statistical studies typically have an accepted variance of a few percentage points either way.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:45 PM
4

Where did I say this? I'm pretty sure that you said it right here: So white males have the right to vote by default without needing to "prove themselves" in the manner that black people and women should. You were making an assumption that they got the right to vote by default because they were white men, when this is historically untrue. Just being a white male did not give them the right to vote. Owning land and/or serving in the military did so. The individual you replied to stated that citize…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:14 PM
1

Choosing to be single may or may not have anything to do with mens' rights on an individual scale. The term has been around as long as the people who have been doing it made up the term, but that doesn't mean that all mens' rights followers should automatically know what it means... It's jargon. Time to get over it.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 11:53 PM
7

"Men Going Their Own Way" (meaning life-long bachelorism).
/r/MensRights04/06/13 05:38 PM
6

Sounds like a return for this guy.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 03:40 PM
20

I'm inclined to point this out: "In 1958, President Dwight Eisenhower asked a joint session of Congress to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, the first President to show such a level of support for the amendment. However, whenever the ERA was proposed the Hayden Rider was added; this would make the amendment unacceptable to the National Woman's Party, who would then ask that the ERA be withdrawn." While this is rather poorly composed, it appears that it's saying that the National Women's Party fou…
/r/MensRights20/05/13 07:57 PM
1

Yup. Pretty much it. It's quite a unfortunate scenario. The only thing we can do is stand up for true equality and ensure that everyone is treated equally on all grounds. Part of that process is reinforcing the idea that everyone deserves to be treated like a human being.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 09:44 PM
1

And the length that our societies have gone to convince our guys that we aren't worth girls who treat them well, so they fall into these types of traps just trying to find love.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 08:09 PM
3

It actually explained it in the article...
/r/MensRights10/05/13 07:55 PM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 02:10 AM
1

It's illegal to publish the name of a person who's admitted to sexual assault of a minor in Australia? (I'm not Australian, so I apologize for my apparent ignorance of the situation)
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:50 PM
1

Why are they not naming her again?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 03:22 AM
2

I made the distinct mistake of opening the link to the Imgur page and clicking on the "view comments on Reddit" link instead of clicking the comments link while viewing Reddit like I normally do... Now I'm concerned about the subreddit this originally came from being linked/associated with the MR subreddit and creating falsified proof of some "ism" association.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 04:55 PM
1

If the student is introducing content to other students on school grounds, the school may get involved. Whether you feel it's a violation of privacy or not (which it isn't. The moment the individual decided to show the content to someone in a public environment where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy else it is no longer private) it is a violation of school policy.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:13 PM
1

Merely claiming that saying something to that effect is "flirting" doesn't make it so. It's well beyond flirting and well into the seduction stage.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 03:11 PM
1

The scary thing is that they don't even have to identify themselves as feminist. It's pretty much beat into many of their heads that the man is commonly at fault for a great deal of circumstances... Someday, and I hope I'm alive to see it, we'll get to the point where everyone is evaluated upon their merits and not on what's between their legs, the color of their skin, or their religious beliefs. Someday...
/r/MensRights18/04/13 07:16 AM
15

Oh goodness, even worse... Making an example out of you for the sake of making an example out of you with no reasoning behind it other than a fat check in his pocket.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:48 PM
56

Unfortunately, trial by judge means you're at the whim of a single individual that may be trying to use you as an example (it's more common that we'd like to think).
/r/MensRights17/04/13 03:23 PM
1

Depends on where they live and the cost of living there.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:35 PM
1

Well, now you know.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 12:30 AM
1

All one would need to do is look at the timestamp of the submission... This one is now at 7 hours, the one you linked to is 6 hours. This is the original (or the first repost of the two).
/r/MensRights28/03/13 12:24 AM
2

I think that the concept of "triggering" should be tossed out the window entirely. You can't handle hearing words or phrases? Don't leave the house. Speaking is the one thing that we should be able to do unfettered. People need to take responsibility for and ownership of their own context. I agree that it should be done away with. It's merely a politically correct version of censorship, and I believe in the FA of the Constitution. The point I was making was that if it were going to be used as a …
/r/MensRights25/03/13 04:24 PM
7

Hahaha, yeah, because I'm inflammatory by assuming you all are biased against feminism. Isn't that, like, your platform? Don't worry, I'm going to get the fuck out of here. OMG I said, "fuck." I'm being inflammatory. No, it's not the MR platform. The MR platform is the same platform as what the WR platform was when it started: Equality. There are bound to be a few people still raw and chomping at the bit to verbally punch someone in the nose because they feel they were slighted (on both sides), …
/r/MensRights25/03/13 03:47 PM
1

I honestly don't know a single person like that at this point in my life. I've known a few over the years, but it's usually not an all-encompassing "Captain Asshole" in one person but some traits here and some traits there. There was an individual that I knew for a long time that was about as close to sexist as anyone else I've met, and he was diagnosed with chemical imbalances and has always had mental & drug addiction issues.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 11:40 PM
1

I suggest you go ahead and do that yourself.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:29 PM
1

Pot calling the kettle black? You've literally said that this is an issue about women being able to "fool" men into supporting someone else's babies, yet the story here has absolutely nothing to do with the man in question getting fooled. This is far from "pot and kettle" scenarios, and your lack of addressing the rest of my post makes this clear. Let's look at facts: http://www.jacksonvilledivorcelawyerblog.com/2009/12/fort_lauderdale_florida_man_fr.html Quote: "Rodriguez is legally on the hook…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:49 PM
1

Since when do men give birth? The switched baby scenario only affects men by way of it happening to mothers. But the point is that contrary to your assertion, giving birth to a baby does not automatically identify the baby as belonging to a particular mother. Care needs to be taken. It's not as obvious as you're making it sound. I'm going to attempt to address each of these, because it seems as though you are truthfully mistaken about the conversation that is going on here and you're not trying …
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:01 PM
1

This is an entirely different scenario altogether. We're not talking about mixups or baby-switching. We're talking about one parent betraying the other and fooling them into raising a child that is not theirs.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:52 PM
1

Of course there is another side to it. When a hospital accidentally switches a baby, women win incredible amounts of money. We're not debating a switched baby scenario, so to suggest it is the same is quite a waste. Both males and females suffer from the chance of a baby being switched. This isn't the discussion up for debate. What is being debated is whether or not one parent can fool the other into raising a child that is not theirs. Genetically, it's a one-sided deal. A woman who gives birth …
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:51 PM
0

Not entirely accurate. While a woman can't be fooled into believing a child is hers in the same way, someone who became a stepmom can be susceptible to these laws, when a relationship fails. Is the enforcement equivalent across genders? Probably not, but I don't have any studies to cite. Point being, it's a lousy law in general, not just because it disproportionately impacts men. So which part of my statement are you rebutting? That a female wouldn't accept paternal responsibility, that a woman …
/r/MensRights17/03/13 08:51 PM
8

If they were female, they wouldn't accept paternal responsibility, and if a child comes out of a woman's womb as a result of fertilization with her own egg(s), it's a guarantee it's hers. There is no "other side" to this as it pertains to men vs. women.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 08:20 PM
1

Personally I think you put it well. I'd be interested to read the responses she has to your last reply. My guess is it will be some drivel that is just regurgitated from some other source... but one can hope that there is some light at the end of that cold, dark tunnel where logic and reason as supposed to reside.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:22 PM
0

So then that means you're just the asshole? Gotcha. That being established: learn how to spell the name of that which you are speaking of if you whoever anyone to take you seriously... then again, you would also need to actually have knowledge of the topic too, so there's that too (which it's clear you have zero real knowledge about the topic, only anecdotal, unfounded personal slights).
/r/MensRights10/03/13 04:09 PM
6

So your evidence is your personal anecdotal experience? Go get a psychiatric degree and come back and have this talk... Hell, how about you actually read about it for a while (and more than a single Google'd article) and sit on the findings for a while before you start labeling and pointing fingers because by your definition it seems you might have Aspergers.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:58 AM
1

Ok, so the camera used appears to be of high quality, so let's lop 10k right off the top for the benefit of the doubt. That eliminates half of the first month's costs.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 03:45 PM
16

I can't answer for GuitarsAreKindaCool, but my "better than expected" comes from the fact that I figured she wasn't even going to release anything and was going to have to go to court.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 10:31 PM
4

Let's hope the production quality increases though... There was a hell of a lot of money apparently put into it; however, I agree: Better than I expected as well.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 10:25 PM
11

That calculation is actually assuming that they're working a 40 hour work week too... No restaurant that I've been a part of has a great percentage of 40 hour workers. Most of them are part time in order to provide for coverage of call-ins. So the hourly rate would go up even further.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 03:51 AM
1

You absolutely did not respond to the 'loving your girlfriend is emotional abuse' bit. Actually, I did. You just attempted to separate "love and sex." Perhaps for you, sex and love are not intertwined; however, for others it is. That's your choice and that's your right to believe the way you wish, but it doesn't mean that it isn't that way for others. Just because I'm male doesn't mean I don't associate my sexual intimacy with love. If you don't, that's on you not me. It's funny...when people sa…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 04:18 AM
2

No, I provided the evidence you asked for and you addressed a single part of it. Again, work on those communication skills and maybe I'll reply again, but as of right now I'm done trying to rationalize with someone who fails to see reason.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 07:34 PM
1

Next time actually read what's provided to you in it's entirety instead of cherry picking and maybe the other person will be more readily be willing to converse with you. Take responsibility for your lack of soft skills instead of projecting.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 06:31 PM
1

It seems you have a real had time grasping comprehension, and you also seen to have a very difficult time resisting the whole cherry picking thing. Our conversation is done. Do some reading before opening your mouth.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 06:08 PM
2

So that was some people's interpretation of what someone else said. And that is your proof? When the person who said it herself has rejected that claim? Really? I love how you cling onto one of the three and ignore the others. I can play that game too, but I prefer to take the intellectual high road. The reality that you take no time to actually read and comprehend the whole thing is really telling. Her denouncing the interpretation does not mean it wasn't the intent. Her reply has done nothing …
/r/MensRights03/03/13 05:54 PM
1

Oh, no. The burden of proof is on you. You made a claim and I asked for the proof of said claim. I am the one who is skeptical that those things are true and so why would I go on a wild goose chase? Awe, how sweet. The evidence certainly is out there. There are a number of quotes from leaders of the feminist movement that support what I've said and they've been posted here many, many times. Since you clearly haven't read anything here, I'll post a of reference points and let you do the rest of t…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 05:15 PM
1

Please quote me where someone said that 'loving your significant other is abusing her' and 'consensual sex is rape.' Go ahead. I'll wait here. It's already been provided for you in the sidebar and a variety of threads. Go ahead and read them. I'll wait here.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 04:54 PM
11

What's been irritating me most lately is the focus or rape and violence. I have never assaulted or raped anyone, never had any intention of doing so and never will. But I can be profiled as a potential violent rapist when the only thing I've ever done to women is care, support and protect them. Thats really depressing when I think about it. This is a conversation I had with my SO yesterday, actually. All of these violent, angry arguments by seemingly feminists telling us that everything is rape.…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 02:14 PM
0

I looks like Wikipedia (as a whole) is trying to keep the article, not delete it. It seems that one person, with the support of a couple others, is trying to delete it. Votes thus far: To Delete : 4 To Keep : 13 I'm inclined to think that it needs to be rewritten in a manner that doesn't make it appear in a way that could inflame criticism (not because of the topic but if there are any attempts at stabbing points); however, it seems most certain that there isn't what we commonly see on Wikipedia…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 01:15 PM
0

No, I am not "inventing" anything. There is a difference between the examples being given, and they aren't arbitrary. They are decided by the society that the events took place in, not by individual, personal, decision nor on a whim.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 09:34 PM
1

I still don't see what that has to do with the school. Co-operate with police, sure, but why suspend? Did they break a school rule? Break a school rule by forwarding pornography while on school grounds? I'm almost certain that there's a school rule against this. Most schools have rules against pornography being presented to minors/students.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 07:31 PM
1

Isn't that what we're talking about here? Yes, and that's what I stated in my first message was that we were dealing with what is essentially child pornography and why the school likely got involved, as it was being passed around while on school grounds and during school time. (It seems you have gone through and replied to every single one of my posts. I'm attempting to reply to each of your replies as timely as possible).
/r/MensRights01/03/13 07:30 PM
1

In this type of scenario? Permanent existence of nude photos of an individual as a minor being available to anyone with an internet connection. In other types of scenarios? Depends on the situation.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 06:37 PM
1

Writing in a diary is not introducing the content to other students. If the student wrote something in their diary that was deemed outside of the acceptable content for the school and they proceeded to stand in the hallways between class and read it, sure... But just writing something in a private fashion is quite different. So basically : It's a false equivalency.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 06:36 PM
1

I don't see a correlation between a text message saying, "I think you're cute" or being flirtatious and a text message saying, "I want your hard cock deep inside me." They are quite different in my eyes.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 06:34 PM
1

I was under the impression that they were referring to "junior" as in, the third year high school students... Which would be 16 or 17 years of age; however, I get what you're saying.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 06:33 PM
1

Just as if they found someone distributing drugs on school property, they'd have to deal with it. It seems that some of the people in this subreddit forget that schools are government entities and have to follow rules and laws specifically written for them.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 04:05 PM
1

Seems we agree on everything then, with only a small difference of perception. Perhaps, but it may not be as close as it seems if I were to go off of the judgement you've made in this particular reply below this statement... Well, from my point of view it isn't... I have been around nude people, no harm done. Really. "Naked bodies" you make it sound like a crime. For me, all of your examples are on the same "topic". They all are harmless activities that some people characterize as bad, due to ig…
/r/MensRights01/03/13 02:34 AM
1

I'll attempt to address your questions in order: What types of things you think we should take measures against? I don't think it's a matter of taking measures against something. I think it's about honest education without topical avoidance due to someone deeming it "icky." Who exactly is harmed when they flirt? There's quite a difference between flirting and sexting or sending naked photos of oneself. Why did they steal phones and essentially distribute personal photos among "authorities" in or…
/r/MensRights01/03/13 01:45 AM
3

It's not about the phones, it's about where it's being done. Again, if you read what you replied to again: "I imagine these images were being passed around while at school to schoolmates." Things occurring on school grounds, and during school time, are school business. Period. Unfortunately we have no answer for whether it was or not at this time (that I know of). It seems a lot of you who are replying to debate with me completely ignored the last part of my other post: "None of them should have…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 11:04 PM
1

That's precisely my point. There is very little sexual education, parents are allowed to opt their children out of sex ed in school and many of the puritanical views of a great deal of our society encourage them to do just that. We are having more and more children and giving them less and less information on their own bodies, we ignore or deny their sexuality, and we make them feel horrible/dirty/"evil" for having urges, desires and habits that are completely normal for our species. We really s…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 11:01 PM
4

I'll give you the same answer I've given the person I was talking with: "Honestly, I couldn't care less about two youths sending each other pictures of themselves; however, pretending that there isn't a potential for much worse consequences of actions taken by young people who have no real concept of the resulting repercussions is to ignore reality." Victimless crimes are not crimes in my eyes. Just because I think we should actually do something to prevent these types of things from happening d…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 10:50 PM
2

1) I'm not arguing the logistics of stopping "kids from taking nude photos." 2) By addressing the concerns when they occur, as was done in this situation. Honestly, I couldn't care less about two youths sending each other pictures of themselves; however, pretending that there isn't a potential for much worse consequences of actions taken by young people who have no real concept of the resulting repercussions is to ignore reality. "By doing what?" How about education of the reality that is sharin…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 10:49 PM
-1

Child pornography is merely nude photos of a minor taken for sexual arousal. While I agree that there should be some kind of leeway for youths in this circumstance, we still have to look at the potential for these pictures to be uploaded to the internet and shared to others. Edit : I want to explicitly state that I'm not trivializing child pornography but giving a simple definition of it. It's not "merely" in a way that would mean it's not bad but in a "this really is what it is."
/r/MensRights28/02/13 10:43 PM
20

I'm just guessing, but I imagine these images were being passed around while at school to schoolmates, that's why. The concern I have is that we're dealing with (legally) child pornography in this situation. They stated that most of the females in the photos were minors (it's my understanding that none of the males had posed nude for pictures, but I may have missed that).
/r/MensRights28/02/13 08:38 PM
81

Well, that and the fact that not everyone was punished by the administration... All of the youth involved in the situation should have received equal punishment. The boys for violating assumed privacy and the girls for providing nude/semi-nude pictures of minors (themselves) to others. None of them should have been punished whatsoever; however, if any of them were to be punished all of them should have been punished for participating.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 06:11 PM
1

Just my understanding of the information available when I initially read it (which was the same article you found plus the comments in the Kickstarter itself).
/r/MensRights24/02/13 09:15 PM
1

I wouldn't be that angry with the Quest guy if i would've gotten my money back. There must be something missing. The thing missing is that he dragged his feet for so long before admitting that he didn't have everything in order. The first month of production was Jun. 2011. The lawsuit was filed somewhere around March 29, 2012. That means that the people waited almost a full year. It wasn't until November of last year that he "finally admitted defeat" as per the words of the article. that means t…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 08:24 PM
1

granted, the lawyer was a dick somehow with him already gotten his money back. But correct nonetheless. Unfortunately, the way that Kickstarters are funded and contracted the person running the Kickstarter and receiving the funds enters into an agreement to guarantee the rewards. Seth Quest didn't follow up with his guarantee and that's what caused the lawsuit. I don't think the lawyer was being a dick but being a consumer. He paid for something and expected the product, not an excuse. I'm not s…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 07:26 PM
6

There was a lawsuit over a Kickstarter for an iPad stand of some sort that put the daughter into bankruptcy. The precedent is there. It's only a matter of time before someone realizes that the wording of Kickstarter documents make it a contractual agreement... in short, she's fucked once someone starts the class action suit.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 08:42 AM
19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#United_States "The National Center for Health Statistics reports that from 1975 to 1988 in the U.S., in families with children present, wives file for divorce in approximately two-thirds of cases. In 1975, 71.4% of the cases were filed by women, and in 1988, 65% were filed by women.[31] It is estimated that upwards of 95% of divorces in the U.S. are "uncontested", because the two parties are able to come to an agreement without a hearing (either with or witho…
/r/MensRights21/02/13 08:06 PM
2

Ahhh, you were merely referring to the instigator of the violence. Gotcha. It's hard to determine if they mean "instigator" when they say "perpetrator" because it could very well mean that in reciprocal incidents both are considered perpetrators of violence.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 10:58 PM
3

If 50% of the relationships that experience violence are reciprocal, and of those that aren't reciprocal, 70% of those are female to male assaults, the numbers look like this for example: 100 incidents 50 incidents involve reciprocal violence 50 incidents involve mono-directional violence 50*.7 (70%) = 35 That means that out of 100 events, there are 85 events that involve female violence toward their partner which would be 85:15 or 5.66:1 odds that the female is physically violent, not 3:2 odds.…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 10:31 PM
6

I'm guessing that either you didn't read the link or skimmed it based on your post. this statistic DOES NOT correlate that women are more violent, simply because there can be multiple explanations for such numbers: Indeed it does suggest that women are more prone to act violently toward their partners. "According to both men and women, 50% of this violence was reciprocal, that is, involved both parties, and in those cases the woman was more likely to have been the first to strike." Using purely …
/r/MensRights18/02/13 07:41 PM
1

It began as genetic and turned into both a genetic predisposition and a developmental process due to the fact that our brains evolved to the point that they did. Example: If a single celled organism avoided direct light evolved into a multi-cellular organism that inherently avoided direct light, which evolved into a complex organism that had cognition that avoided light and put "2 and 2" together and realized that the light was bad for the organism because it caused rapid cellular decay... it wo…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 06:06 PM
1

I can agree that they'd be the introduction of the processes that became them, sure.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:48 PM
1

Labeling and compartmentalizing occurred long before "concrete reasoning" and the "scientific method." It's a part of the natural selection process that allowed us to survive by creating "rules" to live by... like what we could eat or not eat, drink or not drink. It really is genetic, but it doesn't mean that we can't, at this point in our evolution, change the way we look at things as we have a higher cognition.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:29 PM
28

Well, I'm glad everything got sorted out. Honestly, gay, straight, bi, asexual... we're all human. I understand that it's genetic for us to label and compartmentalize things; however, once we realize that it's the labels that caused the initial hatred and hurt and that they need to go in order for us to become "one people" again, the better, in my eyes.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 07:31 PM
27

What a bully... and that being said, you shouldn't have had to stop going to your favorite hangout to avoid her. She should have gotten the hint and stopped talking to you because you didn't like her. :/
/r/MensRights12/02/13 07:08 PM
38

I think it's because they don't think of men as human in order that they don't have to act humane toward them.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 10:46 PM
2

Yeah, I read that last week. She is claiming it's for the children... But it's important to remember that those of us who live on that much a YEAR don't have a concept of how much that is... The guy is a billionaire. So even if he was a single billionaire, that's 1,000,000,000. The 30,000 doesn't seem like much comparatively. That's not to say she's not a gold digger for going for more money. As far as I'm aware, she's also receiving 250k a year alimony.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 07:04 AM
3

Unfortunately most of the villains in this country have plenty of the money and will never see this type of punishment. That's why they pass this crap. It's to subvert the commoner... us lowly wage slaves.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 05:32 AM
8

It seems you have missed the entire point of the post... The OP wasn't trying to make "little boys play with puppets too." The OP was saying it was sexist that they were only accepting applications from females for the job, which it is. Equal rights includes the equal right to employment. This is what the EEOC is there for (to ensure this). Honestly, you come across as the kind of person who would condemn a man for choosing to be a nurse as well. It seems you're stuck in a time that no longer ex…
/r/MensRights09/02/13 03:13 AM
2

And Vitamin N<sup>apalm</sup>
/r/MensRights05/02/13 08:32 PM
17

I wish we got to see the rest of the interview (if there was one, it cut off pretty quickly)... I certainly hope he replied with, "You get child support as well... for your children. What's the alimony for?"
/r/MensRights05/02/13 06:06 PM
2

Still looking for it. It was in one of the admin responses regarding the upvotes and downvotes from the user page not counting, and the mechanism in place for capturing "mass voting" from one user toward another. Here's the closest thing I could find without an extensive search: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/hkhy6/so_i_was_wondering_why_can_you_upvote_and/ Edit : Here's another discussion regarding anti-spam/shadow banning... http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/gisrh/shadowb…
/r/MensRights31/01/13 11:44 PM
1

Interesting. Do you have a source for that? I'm actually looking it up for you right now (I suspected I would be asked. :) ). Give me a moment and I'll try to find the admin post that explains it.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 11:21 PM
2

You can always just go into somebody's profile page and downvote their comments or submissions from there. If you downvote someone from their profile page, it does not count toward their actual count and is only falsely displayed as being downvoted to you, the person who downvoted them. This is a security measure put in place to prevent downvote brigades from destroying profiles of individual users with ease.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 11:16 PM
2

Bartering is considered commerce in most states (services rendered are valued with monetary values)... So money changing hands or not, goods and services were changing hands. It'd still fly.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 08:25 PM
2

Yeah, you can do that if you force Reddit's general CSS (rejecting subreddit specific CSS setting). I certainly hope that most of them aren't savvy enough to go about it.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 08:19 PM
3

As far as I can see, they have no recourse as there aren't any downvote buttons in /r/subredditoftheday.
/r/MensRights31/01/13 07:49 PM
2

Except.. it's only that .01% of MALES that are psychos who might rape you for wearing your "whores uniform".. ..Still a feminist While I see what you are saying, it seems as though what she's focusing on is the perception of feminist views (that only men rape) and pointing out that the problem of rape (in this view) should be handled from both perspectives (education on both sides of the coin). That was the one part that I kind of got hung up on as well, but after thinking about it I came to my …
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:59 PM
5

My only suggestion: It is "unheard of," not "unheared of."
/r/MensRights17/01/13 11:40 PM
3

Not attempted murder? Interesting.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 12:47 AM
1

Thy venom outweighs all the worms of nile. I'm not sure if I should be insulted by the insult or flattered that you used a Shakespearean reference.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 04:44 AM
1

If I may say, it seems our positions are rather closer than I thought, though you may disagree. I couldn't tell you if they were close or not, as it appears that they are not simply because of the words you've used to describe your position. Time will tell, I suppose. You seem to rely on an empirical claim that women's and men's movements have been unequally concerned with genuine equality. We should be careful here because if feminists are capable of deceiving themselves about their true intent…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 03:25 AM
1

Thanks Akuta for your hypothetical analogy. I understand that you believe, in the hypothesis, feminism is not pushing for equal rights for group A (men), and you remind us that no one group can be equal to another without the other being equal to the one. In your example, then, the state of equality entails: { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 } = { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 } Yes, this is what I'm saying: That the only way for "equality" is that all people have equal rights 100% of the time. These are …
/r/MensRights02/01/13 02:50 AM
5

I am struggling to see how this is incompatible with what I wrote. I would certainly agree with it. Indeed it was entailed by what I said at one point, and which I could now copy and paste again. You're struggling with it because you're refusing to read what I've written. I've already explained it as simply as possible. Copying and pasting what you said to someone else that has absolutely nothing to do with my reply to you is a waste of both your and my time. I am not convinced by your reply tha…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 02:41 AM
2

Sorry Akuta, I'm not convinced. If you define "feminist" as non-egalitarian, then of course it is tautologically true that no feminist can be an egalitarian. But if you define "feminist" as something else then it's hard to see why someone who wants equal rights for women cannot also want equal rights for men. There remains the question of what historical feminists have stood for. Some will say they have never in fact stood for equality because they always stopped short of pursuing men's rights. …
/r/MensRights02/01/13 01:56 AM
5

Your post doesn't have anything directly to do with the link between what you stated that I replied to and what my reply was to you. You are making claims of the OP being "egalitarian feminist" which is absurd. This would be akin to saying "so and so is an Independent Republican." It just doesn't work that way. Either you are for equal rights or you are for special rights.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 01:27 AM
3

This is most unfair. If she believes in equality and calls herself a feminist then she is an egalitarian feminist No, if she believes in equality between sexes then she is egalitarian. To append "feminist" to the end just for the sake of having it there is pointless. Feminism and Egalitarianism don't sit hand in hand. Egalitarianism includes the rights of men and women. Feminism includes only the rights of the female sex (contrary to the argument that they put out that they are for "equal rights…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 01:10 AM
3

I can agree with the idea that he needs to remove it to avoid negative reactions, but it really is the perfect term to describe the undesirables over at SRS; they're not worthy of the term 'feminist.' Even if you hate feminism, they're still not good enough for it. The problem is that the OP wasn't specifically talking about SRSers. They were talking about militant feminists (or "radical feminists, if you prefer the term) but looping it into a generalization of all feminists. We don't want to gi…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 01:47 AM
18

So much so that I wanted to create a facebook page and disseminate information on what men. I specifically wanted to avoid pointing out the consequences of feminazism First of all, using terms like "feminazism" is only going to hurt your cause. It's merely "name calling" and are you sure you want to lower yourself to that standard? Secondly, your friend's response is a programmed response from the mentality of our society.-The same society that ignores the negative male stereotypes (and laughs a…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 08:06 PM
3

Yeah, apparently these "EPICCards" are like prepaid debit cards. It's really disgusting what people will do to abuse the system.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 05:45 PM
6

A lower case t is a straight line down, then a straight line across. Not a line crossing an s. Jesus. You mean a backward s with a line crossing it (even more absurd)? Like this: Ƨ
/r/MensRights27/12/12 05:43 PM
2

I don't understand how its being political when you say that America bombs brown people but because I say Obama does it (which he does), its being politicize???? You politicizing my argument of why petitions suck with America bombs brown people. This is really becoming pathetic. Your post focused on the waste of time, energy and money. I explained that the fact that the government goes out of its way to make war with countries that are comprised of brown people for the sake of making war is more…
/r/MensRights24/12/12 02:41 AM
2

I still think you are missing the mark, I me myself is am and are stating that this petitions are a waste of time and money , then you come in so bravely and point out America waste money by bombing brown people( which they do). You make the jump that bombing brown people are a waste of money when I am simply saying these petitions are a waste of money, which makes you so brave. You gonna say "so brave" again? I don't think you've quite hit the meme-threshold just yet. It's clear that you seem t…
/r/MensRights24/12/12 02:24 AM
2

you being so brave because you are a brave soul pointed out that >America bombs brown people What does America\Obama bombing have to do with useless petitions that Obama does not read nor care about , it doesn't matter what context the petition is in because its all a waste of tax payers money Your suggestion is that the government going to wars that involve American troops doesn't have anything to do with those that have the possibility of being drafted? Interesting perspective, but I believe i…
/r/MensRights24/12/12 01:55 AM
5

SO BRAVE!!!!! What does Obama bombing people have to do with Obama\white house not giving two shits about petitions? You realize that this a) has nothing to do with Obama and b) has been going on for close to 8 decades, right? Had you looked at your post that I replied to: Because these things are a massive waste of time and energy and tax payer money Then taken a look at what the petition in question was referring to (draft into the military that does said bombing/occupation)... I think it's ve…
/r/MensRights24/12/12 01:33 AM
9

I think the "finding random brown people to bomb" habit of our government is a greater waste of energy, time and tax dollars than paying a few interns to read petitions and monitor them.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 12:24 AM
3

My suggestion for them to try a specific drink, if the apple flavor is what they like, was not a detraction from their preference of appletinis. Honestly, I don't care what people drink, and those who do seem a bit overbearing and silly. People should drink whatever the hell they like.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 07:47 PM
9

You should try a "Washington Apple." Very decent. (If it's the apple flavor that does it for you)
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:19 PM
6

She had zero previous sexual experience, good bad or indifferent, and no other hangups or bad history that I ever found out about. More often than not these mysterious hangups can be attributed to being told from a very early age that only whores enjoy sex and a "proper lady" shouldn't be doing those types of things out of wedlock. (Please note that I'm not saying these things are correct or right or just. Just noting that they are commonly said to young girls to "keep them chaste" by some parti…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 05:39 PM
1

Sometimes I am wondering if people read a single thing I type or just spout random BS again and again. If this was an honest mistake I apologise for the outburst but I'm getting VERY tired of repeating myself. First off, it's important to remember who the hell you're talking to. You never said hide nor hair about "tell her when the condom breaks" to me. Secondly, what if he wasn't aware the condom broke? This happens more often than one would think. They simply take the condom off of their penis…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 03:59 PM
1

That's not what I meant, but I can see how you took it that way due to the wording. I meant that you shouldn't be under obligation. Obviously the government would have something to say if it was. The main point is that the lie does nothing to harm anyone and has no negative consequences, while still protecting you. Other than the fact that if she believes that he's had a vasectomy she may be less likely to go for Plan-B should the condom break, and given the OP's now self-defined history of bein…
/r/MensRights19/12/12 11:33 PM
1

If she gets pregnant under the clear guise of not wanting to have a child and the rare situation the condom breaks and she decides to keep it you would be under no obligation whatsoever. In what country do you live in that you believe this to be true? If she gets pregnant you're on the hook. The government will see to that.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:50 PM
1

No, that particular bit dissuades her from trying to extort me with either a false pregnancy scare, or with another dude's child. And what if she ends up doing this to another man because you have lied to her and you end up getting her pregnant? What if she convinces another man that your child is his because you lied to her about having a vasectomy and doesn't believe it could be yours when it is? Is it, "Well, fuck that guy then. Not my problem," ?
/r/MensRights19/12/12 09:47 PM
2

but it feels good that justice was served. I wish more justice was served for the 40 years of abuse than 3 years of prison, but yes... justice was in appearance.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 11:41 PM
1

Personally, I would recommend men's support groups which are based around spiritual self-hood. And what of those men who have no belief in spiritual things? The point to men's sheds is to give positive male role models to impressionable young men and boys.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 11:27 PM
1

Colors are only what we make of them. Originally pink was the "boy color" and blue was the "girl color." It wasn't until the 1950s that this really changed. Black and silver are definitely neutral colors. Neither color has been socially associated with either gender.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 10:50 PM
1

This was likely the result of the campaign that the young lady started a couple of months ago because her brother wanted to cook and wanted an EZBake but they were only sold in pink and purple which deterred him. She put a video out and got the attention of the internet, which apparently got the attention of Hasbro. Also, it's important to remember that just because "the top chefs are mostly men" doesn't mean that there isn't a social deterrent for males to avoid cooking in the kitchen. Socially…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 10:47 PM
2

Yeah, I was really privileged when I was kidnapped as a child, beaten and abused, grew up in south Sacramento, shot in the chest as a youth... They were all privileges, let me tell you. (I apologize in advance if this post comes through twice, it erred out on me when submitting.)
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:25 AM
5

Or you could describe some of this internal pain to them and shatter their misunderstanding/ignorance of the issue.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 06:37 PM
4

Apparently, you have to be in a power position (white) to be racist. But I'm "white" (legally speaking, regardless of my ability to claim minority status) and I'm far from being in a "power position" as far as society is concerned.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 05:57 PM
5

You're already on the list... maaaaaaaan! lol Yeah, maybe CT will have some ideas, right?
/r/MensRights12/12/12 02:03 AM
4

This is commonly because someone who sees it in JusticePorn immediately goes and flags it as bad. This hasn't anything to do with JusticePorn or even Reddit other than it's the censorbrigade trying to control what can and can't be seen.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 01:55 AM
5

Yeah, most of the videos that involve physical altercations are quickly reported. It's a must to go through and look for mirror links that are typically in the comments rather quickly if they're available.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 01:54 AM
1

My fiance is one of the most wonderful women that I've ever had the opportunity to have in my life (and I have had a lot of them, being raised by a few generations of women). We ended up finding each other in a very unlikely scenario and have been virtually inseparable since with the exception of a days. When I initially found MR I was a bit wary of sharing the knowledge too quickly with anyone in my life (as I'm sure most of you are aware of the reactions you can sometimes get). I merely showed…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 09:31 PM
2

I watched it and it gave some good points about how men don't have as many choices to prevent pregnancy... however she makes it sound almost as if not only preventing pregnancy is all on the woman, but being pregnant is all on the woman... if that logic continues, then could a woman technically deny the biological father rights to the child since... hey... it was HER pregnancy, and the child came from HER body... I don't know... sounds like a loophole in the argument. Isn't this done by some alr…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:40 PM
1

Feminine dress is typically designed to garner attention and can be strictly for aesthetics instead of function You contradict your first statement. If it is strictly for aesthetics then they indeed could "get away with a hawk dress" depending on the social circles they go in.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:05 PM
10

They're complaining about it because it's making two assumptions: 1) That the default act of a male is to rape and that they must be trained like monkeys not to which labels all men as rapists by default. This is false. 2) That rape is only possible if perpetrated by a man. This is also false.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:52 AM
2

This is a catch 22 by the person you're describing. Any positive action by a man around a woman and its written off as trying to get in her pants. Any negative (or even neutral) action and its written off as being bitter he can't get in her pants. That was my point. It is always a lose-lose. There's nothing that can be done to resolve the issue. I guess that's the best solution for them though as it allows them to be angry and political without accepting any resolution. Unfortunate, if you ask m…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 07:32 PM
6

Just a question. You state "2)it is not full blown rape" yet follow it up with the character being drugged and "comes to" being ridden. This is rape. This is "full blown" rape. This is not like "drunk rape" this is like "drugged date rape."
/r/MensRights02/12/12 02:11 AM
0

I understand what you're saying completely... however, it doesn't seem that that's the kind of kindness they're complaining about. They seem to be complaining about any kindness and assume that this automatically means that the man expects something in return. I have females that I knew were into me and that I wasn't necessarily into, and yes I've had them do things for me but it was not uncomfortable because I returned the favor, just not the feelings and I made it very clear in a kind manner (…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 03:06 AM
3

For the record, I have lots of friends that are women. Here's the rub, though: They're friends to me, which means that when I buy a round, they buy the next round. We'll pick each other up at the airport. They'll take me out to dinner on my birthday, and visa versa. This has been the way I've always lived too, which may be why I don't get a lot of the stuff that people complain about. I've never really been "friend-zoned" either, so while I have seen friends of mine experience it and I can empat…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:00 PM
2

Ok, well, I couldn't even understand your logic on the first point. The fact is that birth control is not available for men and in no way is related to prostate cancer. I am now subsidizing birth control costs for women, for which I receive zero benefit. I wear condoms as it controls the spread of STDs in addition to preventing pregnancy. Now, since it seems that there's a difficulty with you following the conversation (your own words), I'm going to work on this at a much more detailed level. 1)…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 01:11 AM
1

Birth control is different than a prostate exam. Breast exams and exams for ovarian cysts are already covered by healthcare. So you are not comparing apples to apples You realize that the general list of options for male birth control are rather slim, right? You can't equate all options to all other options because there aren't viable options available to us (like hormonal birth control, which is close but not seen by drug companies as profitable so they aren't pushing for it). By all means, mal…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 12:14 AM
1

What is it called when you provide women with birth control who are more than capable of paying for it themselves? What is it called when they provide you with a prostate exam that you can pay for yourself? There's missing logic here, friend. I suggest you look at it from a different angle. The fact that the women in my office are paying the same price as I do is absolutely redistribution of wealth. During an average life span a woman spends nearly twice as much as a healthy man First: That they…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 11:53 PM
0

When only women receive benefits from an increase that even men have to pay into, I have trouble condemning wtf81 for wording it as "paying for them to get laid". To my knowledge, the Affordable Car Act isn't going to cover things like condoms and vasectomies and other male reproductive services/needs. I agree that the male counterparts should be included; however, it's not the government forcing male payers to pay increased fees, it's the insurance companies that choose to do so that are doing …
/r/MensRights28/11/12 11:48 PM
1

breast feeding coaches? Really? I'm not entire sure what you are talking about. I never mentioned breast feeding coaches.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 11:33 PM
-2

I work in an office that is predominantly women that make more than me and the fact that I'm paying for them to get laid is a little incredible. First off, you're not "paying for them to get laid." You're starting to sound like Rush Limbaugh now (whereas up until this point I was supportive of your plight). Some women use hormonal birth control not only for birth control but for normalizing their hormones (exwife used it for this manner). This is naked redistribution of wealth and has nothing to…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 11:21 PM
2

Still a shitty insurance company...
/r/MensRights28/11/12 11:17 PM
2

This is a wonderful post. This is the best we can hope for: Opening eyes, one pair at a time. I am glad to read that your current relationship is the best you've ever had, especially when it comes to applying true egalitarianism to the approach. Absolutely wonderful. Thank you for sharing.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 07:40 PM
1

To address your edit, as it appears you snuck it in while I was typing: EDIT: Don't suck me into a troll thread... If you don't have a point to make that relates directly to what I said, start a new comment as it wouldn't be right to have it placed as a reply to me. I suggest it's time to learn what trolling actually is. I pointed out what you said and I stated that if you believe what you said that, in conjunction/agreement with what you said: Perhaps this is not the right place for you. You ar…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 07:06 PM
2

Ah I didn't check the name. Na seriously, I've been trolled so hard in these forums I'm just so damn close to giving up. MR and liberal hivemind don't seem to mix very well. Most of the trolling comes from those who wish to undermine the intent and general well-being of the subreddit. What is the point you're trying to make? From what I see you're implying that I asserted something that I did not. You asserted that you were "in the wrong place" if it's optional to remove gender from the statemen…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 06:44 PM
3

I only took issue with you suggesting that gender is optional, if you want to dodge that then there's no useful conversation to be had It seems you've mistaken me for the person you replied to. Having made that mistake (i.e. not actually knowing who you are speaking to), I suppose there's "no useful conversation to be had," is there? The person you replied to was referring to removing gender from their statement. It's a phrase of terminology. Had you taken the time to deduce this from the conten…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 06:30 PM
3

What makes you think that's even optional? Fuuuuck I'm really in the wrong place if this is what you folks believe You're in the wrong place if people here believe that laws and socially accepted norms should be equally rewarding and punishing regardless of gender? You certainly are if you don't believe they should be.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 06:08 PM
3

Not being one of the people who's downvoted the guy, I can't speak for them, but the guy is likely getting downvotes because he's being condescending to those who don't agree with him (which really they do agree with him but he's so busy trying to be right he's ignoring this).
/r/MensRights17/11/12 10:04 PM
3

Not really. Think of it like a specific speed limit, but if police radar could be 10 miles over or under. It's not anything like that at all, in fact, your comparison makes absolutely zero sense. If police radar could only be accurate to a 20 mile range it wouldn't be used to accurately determine speeds. As well they should. My problem is all the deluded assholes in this thread yelling "SEX WHILE DRUNK IS RAPE!!" when all they are doing is perpetuating that feminist mythos and propaganda. If a w…
/r/MensRights17/11/12 09:35 PM
3

There is a clear legal standard, it is just difficult to ascertain. You are contradicting yourself here. Either it's a clear standard or it's difficult to ascertain. The bottom line is that people have been prosecuted and put on sex offender lists for even moderate alcohol involvement in a situation. If the woman has been drinking at all (regardless of whether the man has or not), the man has consistently been proven at fault. It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it make sense, but it's…
/r/MensRights17/11/12 07:02 PM
2

I agree that sometimes the sub has groups of people that lash out against marriage. Some of the "horror stories" create a very scary and daunting image of sharing life with a partner and parenthood. Keep up the good fight. Not all people are horrible human beings, and it's important that we all remember that.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 05:05 PM
2

That is horrible. Stories like these should not be brushed under the rug, as it seems our culture attempts to do. It sucks not being able to be intimate with your wife whenever you feel like it due to being accosted by someone else (gender aside). It sounds like your wife may be understanding of the situation, and for that I, as a third party, am thankful. We need those kinds of people in our lives.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:23 PM
1

Indeed. It's more like, "Do unto others how you feel and legislate how others can do unto you," anymore. :/
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:17 PM
2

Fair enough. :)
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:04 AM
1

I would think a manager's job is to protect the company's interests, and showing that s/he took action on the sexual harassment does that. It is part of the job, yes; however, part of the job is also looking out for the interests of those they manage. But law suits alleging sexual harassment by women who are fired by a man ( or vice versa) do happen sometimes, and having evidence proving why you fired someone (for not following instructions) proves the employee was in the wrong, at the same time…
/r/MensRights06/11/12 05:42 AM
3

I'm also sorry your reading comprehension has problems today. I specifically used gender-neutral language. I'm wary of spousal abuse in all American/immigrant cases, mostly because I've seen so much awful stuff, from both sides. So you say "Don't generalize people" and follow it up by generalizing people... Got it.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 08:28 PM
3

The cya part is what i was referring to, since as a manager you may be called upon one day to prove you take action to protect the company's interests and dont just ignore sexism as a general rule. No they won't be called to do so... because the person was terminated for not following directions and not for their sexist remarks. That is the CYA duglock was referring to. You make it about something related to performance (or lack thereof) instead of subjective perspective.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 05:47 PM
2

Don't worry about it. Seriously. I had been interested in parts of the cause and basically found this subreddit by accident. A lot of what I already felt/thought was reinforced by hard statistical data. I showed my SO the subreddit. Within minutes she was subbed and a few days later LadyMRAs started and I pointed it out to her, so she could join that one too. I had a friend (who is pretty close) make some very sexist statements about men a few months ago. She didn't grasp why I would call her ou…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 04:19 PM
1

Hey if people want to waste their time going after facebook posts and rude things individuals say then thats fine if they want to waste their time on that. That's precisely the point. If they wish to do it, it's on them. Let them do it. My point is that is accomplishes nothing other than taking up energy that could be used to actual discussion of the issues. In your opinion... Others may not feel that it's accomplishing nothing. In fact, perhaps they feel that it's being more grounded in their a…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 05:12 PM
6

Ok answer me this does it make more sense for the police to go around using all their time going after petty infractions like jawalking, parking tickets, littering, and loitering, or would you rather them use their time going after bigger issues like finding murderers, crime prevention, kidnappings etc. Unfair question to ask. Why? Because there are people employed by the police departments to handle both of these groups of infractions. The point is there is only so much energy and resources to …
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:25 PM
1

Always use condoms...but NEVER have sex with a woman who isn't also using birth control. I believe it was you who gave that advice.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 04:47 PM
1

Take something to print that doesn't require only a digital file. Trust me, they're different fonts. Anyways, that's besides the point. It was a fun little exercise, so I thank you for that.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 03:25 AM
7

Font 1: "How To Make Your Man Behave" "in" "days" "Dog Trainers" Font 2: "21" Font 3: Or Less, Using" Font 4: "The" "Of" Font 5: "Professional" The font at the bottom is the same font as Professional, but not bold. Can also be considered a font as well, if you were taking this to print. As far as print is concerned, different weights are differentiated as a separate font prep.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 03:18 AM
77

Five fonts and looks like a 7 year old drew it.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 02:33 PM
3

I did, so I know that it can be done. There were no children involved, so that helps. She made more money than I did (she was a nurse, I was a lackey in the process of educating myself to become a software developer and system administrator), but I didn't request alimony. I wouldn't have taken it even if it were offered.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 04:54 AM
1

I'm sure if there were no social constrains on violence either way that the ratio's would be somewhat even, although violence can both increase and decrees violence in other situations so it is impossible to tell. All I'm saying is that if group B can get away with punching group A while the opposite leads to a jail sentence then odds are group B will be more violent in action if not nature. My bad then. The act of encouraging (and allowing) violence is what raises occurrence of violence.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 12:27 AM
1

I am suggesting that women might detest being arrested for what many consider not to be crimes, and I suspect a lack of consequences and responsibility are the reason for women's higher levels of violence by comparison to women in the past (my grandmothers generation for example). I'm not saying women are any more violent by nature than men but rather that there are virtually no social constrains on their levels violence. And if not having social constraints on their violence, and suggesting tha…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 12:21 AM
1

I am not suggesting this, I am simply pointing out why women (the voting majority) won't support this. I'm pretty sure that women would not only only be prosecuted in larger numbers compared to women now but also men now. Don't you find it rather sexist that you allude that women would find equality unsavory if they were to be treated as the same beasts as men? Or that you are stating that they are innately more violent, by your comparison of them being prosecuted more than men are even now? Sal…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 11:33 PM
1

On an individual basis they would be screwed just as much, but what I am saying is that the increase in female "criminals" would be massive, let's say you have 20 people who all abuse children, 15 of them are women, 5 men, well the way it is now if there were 5 convictions then odds are they would all be men, but if laws were to be changed then despite men and women being treated equally on an individual level only women would suffer from it. I'm saying this is a good thing. So because women wou…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:49 PM
1

Yes, and if women had to face punishment then they would be screwed. They would be no more screwed than the men are already due to the same laws. They aren't more screwed. They are receiving equality in punishment. I said they WOULD get the short end of the stick in any situation where men and women would be treated equally, or rather they ARE the short end of the stick, this does not make them victims of anything other than their own actions. Twisting your words to sound like it means something…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 09:12 PM
1

I'm saying that if the law was fair then women would be screwed, not due to the lack of Y chromosome but because of women's actions both as a whole and as individuals. No, women would be getting punished for crimes they committed. I have no idea where you got this fro, I am saying nearly the exact opposite. Women should be treated EXACTLY the same under the law as men, I'm just saying that if women were treated equally the results would still be unequal. I got it from the words you put into your…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:50 PM
1

"then they are not the victim in the situation and pretending that they are the victim is playing the blame game." 10 points. Would you care to give an example of this in the reverse which you think I would respond differently too? You've already exhibited bias in the scenario, equating women to taking the "short straw" regardless of how the law is placed... I'll quote you, so you can see this in plain sight, so to speak: Either way you look at it there are better more fair ways to deal with it,…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:29 PM
2

In a nation where still nearly half of the population rejects evolution, I would argue it is a societal indoctrination that we will not be able to thwart off until things are corrected beyond the scope of the government. Fortunately, more and more Americans are breaking free of this indoctrination each year. We can only hope in time that it will be like the majority of the other developed nations and we won't be holding back our society based on campfire stories.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 06:22 PM
1

"Someone walking down the street doesn't automatically put themselves into a situation to be mugged, but someone walking down MLK in Seattle at night may very well be doing so because of the elevated crime in the area in comparison to other areas." is exactly what I have been saying the whole time. No, no it hasn't... And anyone reading over what you've said this entire discussion can see that. Your whole argument is that women will have "the short end of the stick" no matter how we look at it: …
/r/MensRights17/10/12 04:00 AM
1

Are victims still victims if they are only victimized by situations they deliberately bring onto themselves?... Again, you're seriously looking as though you're baiting. Knock it off. To assume that someone can only be a victim if they put themselves into the situation is ridiculous. Of course someone can be a victim of a situation they didn't directly put themselves into. Someone walking down the street doesn't automatically put themselves into a situation to be mugged, but someone walking down…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 12:50 AM
1

While I agree with the sentiment, it's important that current-day German society is still heavily wounded by the WWII imagery that the world has of them today. Even wearing a costume, or pretending to goose step, can get you thrown in jail. That being said, to take another human's life should be a very difficult thing to undergo. We really need to think heavily about the permanent impact we'd be making... then again, life imprisonment is could be seen as a death sentence merely prolonged.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 12:40 AM
1

Would you please explain why that is? I am simply pointing out the main reason for anyone to avoid a topic, feminists currently are on the moral low ground, they cannot win by legitimate means and if the world was fair and just then they would be worse off for it. I am not bating for quotes, just new to Raddit (immigrant from Yahoo Answers) Your statement was absurd because you are trying to make it so that the female is the victim even when she's the perpetrator. This is absurd. The victim of a…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 12:34 AM
1

Either way you look at it there are better more fair ways to deal with it, but the problem is that either way women would get the short end of the stick, you either punish people according to the harm they inflict on others in which case more women would go to prison or you punish people the same for all classes of assault regardless of how severe in which case more women would go to prison. To be honest I can't blame him (for deflecting) since he has nothing to go on. I think it's time you stop…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 12:15 AM
1

It is a good question, and one that is sometimes difficult to answer (unless of course you are having it with a zealot... to which they respond that the person deserves to die).
/r/MensRights17/10/12 12:13 AM
3

I'd venture to agree with you on this. I've had women outright punch me in my days. I've never done more than restrain and deflect. I don't like to hurt people, regardless of gender. This guy is just trying to justify the female group doing it more by trying to somehow balance it out with an arbitrary idea that men could hurt women more if they wanted to, so it should balance the two out... When they have nothing to do with each other.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 11:43 PM
2

I get that, but my point is, women hit men more than men hit women, but this is not a completely valid point to bring up in discussion, because on average men hit harder than women too. This does not matter. It doesn't matter if a hammer hits harder than a twig. If someone is constantly smacking you with a twig, they're still violent and are still violating your personal rights. Period. I'll repeat: It doesn't matter if one is stronger than the other, the act is what is wrong. I am not saying it…
/r/MensRights16/10/12 11:42 PM
1

You are acting outside of your rights if you violate others' rights.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 11:39 PM
7

What you're doing is called justification. You are justifying the actions of an aggressive female towards a male victim on the assumption that simply because "most men are stronger than most women" that it somehow takes the mental state of violent behavior out of the mix... It does not do this in any manner of the sort.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 09:35 PM
3

That's precisely what that jumbled up combinations of words says, if I read it as intended.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 09:30 PM
1

You're splitting hairs. Either most women are weaker than men and they would or they are not. If in this scenario they were all weaker than men, there is the alternative choice of whether or not they would ask for help. I'd venture that most women would also ask for help. Why? there are a number of reasons; however, a couple of the most prominent would be a) their experience in life is that when they ask for help they tend to get it (these experiences could be sexist or not, but that is decided …
/r/MensRights15/10/12 10:44 PM
3

On average, yes, but certainly not as a rule. The sexist part is the generalization. It seems you are saying conflicting things here... "as a rule" (which is actually a shortening of "as a rule of thumb") means "generally" or "most often" and is not expected to be taken as an unwavering constant. "On average" means the same thing... So basically you are saying, "Generally, yes, but certainly not generally. The sexist part is generalization." Even that statement, given the strange linguistics is …
/r/MensRights15/10/12 02:36 PM
2

Okay. Let me get this straight. You said "they", thinking anyone reading your comment would just automatically know you were talking about some sort of "hypothetical picture" that you hadn't mentioned a single time, and NOT the pictures of r/Ladyboners, which you were just talking about? And you think I cannot comprehend words? Let's set up a similar sentence. "The apples in this basket are absolutely disgusting because they're old and bruised. If they were bananas, they wouldn't have bruised th…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 10:50 PM
1

Oh man. You are a funny dude. This is exactly what you said, immediately after talking about r/Ladyboners: "If they were pictures of females, regardless of if the original picture was consensual, there would likely be outrage of exploitation and objectification." It appears that there is a break in communication. "They" is referring to the hypothetical pictures that I am referring to, not the location of where the pictures were being stored. You did not say females being objectified. After talki…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 10:34 PM
1

Oh, and I guess I just wasn't in the poorest city in America doing the same thing? Sacramento (where I grew up) isn't the "poorest city in America," but it's far from wealthy and it still is regarded as one of the worst in terms of socioeconomic situations. Honestly, I come from the inner city of Detroit. I know what I'm talking about. Maybe race relations are just better wherever you're at. Because here? Even being a poor white person gives you some white privilege. And I was raised in south Sa…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 10:31 PM
1

Huh? You said that if the material of r/Ladyboners was pictures of females, there would be outrage of exploitation and objectification. No, I said if there were pictures posted of females being objectified, there would likely be outrage of exploitation and objectification. Please try to read what is written and not put your own spin onto it. That's what I burst out laughing about. Because what you just described is r/Prettygirls (female-picture equivalent to r/Ladyboners) and there is absolutely…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 10:26 PM
0

You're distracted from two of the main points. 1) You're confusing posting with consent to being taken with consent. Most people in LadyBoners are models and celebrities, with professionally taken photos. These are obviously consented to and can be posted anywhere. There are plenty of posts in there that are not celebrities or models. I'd venture that a great majority of Reddit users are not indeed celebrities or models, yet their pictures still can end up there, without consent. Most/All the ot…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 10:21 PM
1

HAHAHAHAH this is total bullshit. r/prettygirls. Totally fine and approved of by everyone. It is THE EXACT equivalent of R/ladyboners. I'm not the one who compared Ladyboners to Creepshots. I don't think they are "the same" at all. I'm talking about a specific portion of what the person I replied to said. Nothing more.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 10:16 PM
2

As per your first point - no, I'm not. Poor black people and poor white people have different experiences. Middle class black people and middle class white people have different experiences. I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't sitting there eating government cheese and peanut butter that crumbled apart on cheap ass crackers in metal wrapping just like the poor black and hispanic people that were my friends... Perhaps you should just stop now, while you still have some dignity left. When I posted that, i…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 10:11 PM
1

The pictures may have originally been taken with consent; however, the consent was not expressly given to be posted in Ladyboners, thus they are used without consent of the person in the picture. If they were pictures of females, regardless of if the original picture was consensual, there would likely be outrage of exploitation and objectification. As for your last statement about the types of comments made: I've seen much more sexual comments made that "would snuggle!"
/r/MensRights11/10/12 10:03 PM
2

Well, class is one such thing. But race? Being white I experience the world magnitudes differently than a black person in my own shoes. You're ignoring the fact that inherently black people are commonly in a lower socioeconomic class. This is not specifically because they are black but because they are born into the class to begin with. I grew up in the same socioeconomic class as the black and hispanic families in my neighborhood. I was not "benefited" by the fact that I'm caucasian/native. The…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:37 PM
1

I wouldn't even suggest that it was, myself. It's the fault of many other things that cause that... And we're all victims of it, male or female, light or dark, middle class or poor.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 04:57 AM
3

Full beard. I actually started on my own and have decided to keep it at least through last third of the year... Septembeard, Octobeard, Movember/No-Shave November, Decembeard. We'll see if I decide to keep it after that.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 10:16 PM
5

As a woman who has been at the wrong end of overzealous and power hungry police, I can tell you that women can be treated just as badly. Police are given too much power, and the system is basically about making money for the government. While I think I understand the sentiment behind your statement, most women will never experience the almost immediate rush of accelerated use of force that men experience in many situations involving police regardless of the actions of the man involved. I'm guess…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 09:43 PM
3

Don't sweat it... it happens all the time. Look at his username. Next, we'll probably get some stupid ass link to one of those Manhood Academy videos from them.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 09:37 PM
1

Yeah, she's a scumbag and her charity is shady, but at least it has brought some form of cancer to the forefront.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 09:19 PM
15

And you can't cut it off to avoid the oppressive actions of your tool, because then you're seen as trying to steal their gender.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 10:42 PM
23

cheapsteak, half off equality
/r/MensRights02/10/12 03:02 PM
1

I dont have a problem paying to support my kids, if she would actually do that rather than neglect them like she has. When it left me homeless and living in my car, and on friends couches for two years while serving in the US military because I barely had enough to eat all month, then it was more than just supporting my kids, it was punishing me. Seriously, $1000 a month support for two kids, and my pay was $1740 gross. The only benefit I got those two years was I got paid the earned income cred…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 08:53 PM
1

The thing is it is all fucked up. I know women who pay nothing despite having jobs, others who cant work that are in debt like I am to the state, men who live out of their cars because the state keeps upping the support, and disabled women who get a pittance from their ex compared to what my worthless ex gets from me. The disabled woman lives half a mile from me, I fix her car for her so she can get around, has three kids gets $600 for them. What the fuck. She cant work and has to live on next t…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 08:25 PM
1

I agree that the court system makes it very difficult for most people to go through divorce. I believe that much of this difficulty is due to the religion-pushed laws put into place that label the woman as less-than-capable and as "to be taken care of."
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:31 PM
0

Holy shit, that is exactly how I was treated, both by a rather embarrassingly large group of women, and also the state of Nebraska. Just a wallet, a source of income for her despite all the abhorrent shit she did. It makes sense now. Sexism can only be against women, if its the other way around then its equality, right? As a man it is difficult to be taken seriously about the damage that is capable by the State when a woman decides she wants to ruin his life or use him as a source of free income…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 11:25 PM
2

It's not that simple in either case. Men and women are different in very real ways. They have different physiology, drives and skills. People who grew up in different cultures, have different beliefs and custom. One cultures beliefs may be offensive to another. There is a difference between two cultures separated by thousands of miles and two subcultures separated by nothing but hereditary origin. If two groups of people are going to share space in the same country, both sides must give and take…
/r/MensRights30/09/12 08:17 PM
6

Yes, totally agree. In the end teaching kids that this kind of sexism is OK hurts everyone in the end. If we taught kids to truly treat everyone equally it would go a long way to solving many problems for both sexes in the future. Indeed it does (hurts everyone in the end). I think we should really begin teaching the same type of way for sexes as we do for races (at least in more progressive locations, that is)... Everyone is to be treated equally and absolutely no deviance will be accepted.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:09 PM
54

Which can have the effect of causing some young men to treat women badly because they've been lead to believe all their lives that women have it better than they do. Or causing some young women to treat men as disposable, unimportant and/or only a resource because they have been lead to believe all of their lives that women are more important than men are. The argument can go both ways.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 05:01 PM
1

Fair enough. :)
/r/MensRights28/09/12 07:53 PM
2

As to if you and I met on the street? I'd probably ask you to coffee so we could continue our discussion. =) I tend to think of all people regardless of gender as friendly, and good natured until they prove otherwise. And this is how we should view people we don't know... as good people until/unless they prove otherwise. We spend far too much of our time segmenting ourselves in society... We need to break some of these cellular walls. Does that mean that if a large man is walking behind me at ni…
/r/MensRights28/09/12 07:43 PM
0

It can be the truth as one group sees it not necessarily 'the truth' for all groups. I enjoy strong opinions and debate. However I do not enjoy being beaten over the head during said debate, nor do I enjoy being insulted or other nonconstructive forms of debate. I in no way suggest that /mr is solely guilty of this, but perhaps the person, or people that she has spoken to regarding specifically /mr presented what they believed were good arguments in a way that made her for what ever reason, unwi…
/r/MensRights28/09/12 07:24 PM
1

I think I too stated it clumsily. Atheism subreddits "suffer" from similarly strongly opinionated people as some of the posters here in mens rights, and have an equally hard time admitting that the 'other' side of the argument may have a few good points as well. (try and admit your are a christian for example...its not pretty =P) I think that sort of thinking is common in new movements. Fair enough. We can agree that the subreddits do indeed suffer from some strongly opinionated people, just as …
/r/MensRights28/09/12 06:43 PM
4

I think her point, clumisly stated with regards to mens rights and anti religious subreddits etc. is that these movements, or subreddits, are populated by very opinionated people. She didn't loop anti-religious subreddits into the groups of "troll subreddits." She actually lists it as something of "interest." Not sure if you unintentionally included "anti-religious subreddits" in your grouping or not; however, I just wanted to point out that she's saying "Men's Rights, Beating Women, Space Dicks…
/r/MensRights28/09/12 05:22 PM
2

How is babby formed?
/r/MensRights24/09/12 05:20 PM
2

My apologies. I wasn't attempting to deplete your daily upvote allocation. :)
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:26 PM
1

I was merely replying to the reply with another quote that responded relatively in line. :) Yes, three is enough for today.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:24 PM
17

“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.” - Sun Tzu
/r/MensRights20/09/12 07:56 PM
68

“He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them.” - Sun Tzu
/r/MensRights20/09/12 04:17 PM
2

You are attempting to justify it. Just as it was not acceptable for women to have to hear men at the office talk about banging some gal from the bar/office, men shouldn't have to hear about how physical violence is the proper method of handling a simple mistake of bumping into another person. This is especially important because the individual is in a position of authority. As VP of the company I work for, I would never condone the likeness of these types of actions... It's just a lawsuit waitin…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 06:06 AM
9

Thanks for the kind words and understanding of my situation. I'll try and talk to her about this. But I don't think that she'll understand why I judge her actions. Guess it will end in a "man up"-answer. Then she's not a friend.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 08:37 PM
3

I think Shakespeare figured it out. After all, most of his stories are about the times and trials of his era.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:39 PM
12

Does that make said people "Schrodinger's Victim?"
/r/MensRights24/08/12 05:31 PM
1

I was just playing, you know.. the whole Octo thing. :) I dunno, I have a beard most of the time, so I can't really play. Maybe stop trimming it for a month.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 04:42 PM
1

I'd say the little girl's smirk looked malicious.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 04:27 PM
1

Do we have to braid the beard into 8 distinct parts, or can we just have one beard? :D
/r/MensRights24/08/12 03:59 PM
5

Both are great articles. Thanks for linking!
/r/MensRights16/08/12 02:40 PM
3

I was blown away by that... Not that someone would suggest but that it would be so damned blatant of a suggestion.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 06:55 PM
1

Or stabbed.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 11:25 PM
1

If that's the case, then that's too bad. :/
/r/MensRights04/08/12 07:32 PM
5

I don't think it was intentional, but it definitely was the result. SLPC, from what I've been able to determine over the last couple of years, is rather biased in their observation of what is and is not a "hate group."
/r/MensRights04/08/12 07:15 PM
4

Great article and excellent anecdotal experiences by the author... I think I'm going to have to read a bit more from the site now.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 06:50 PM
7

I was rather confused about it as well. The content of the article proves the points being made by MRM members, and the misandrous posts underneath the article prove the points of people being horrible, horrible human beings sometimes.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 05:48 PM
4

"These days, money as much as infidelity is causing discord between couples. Men are making financial demands on women that they weren't 10 years ago. This is partly due to the economy, but friction arises when women can't meet these demands or don't want to.'' This is what happens in any situation where one group of individuals wish to directly compete with another in the workplace... They are expected to perform on all levels at equal pace. I don't see a problem with this.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 05:03 AM
3

From what I can tell, the son only visited during the summers and at some point between when he was a child and when he was 21 (maybe after he became an adult?) he moved in with the father in Atlanta, then subsequently moved back to Toledo a year ago. From what it looks like, the son was getting into trouble when he was back at home with the mother in Toledo and the father is suggesting that if the son had lived with him in Atlanta as a youth that he thinks the son wouldn't have gone down the pa…
/r/MensRights11/07/12 09:42 PM
2

Yes, you are correct. I wasn't sure who Pat Duffy was, but I looked him up before I posted the video (I was shocked at some of the crap). That's why, right after the Duffy video, I made sure to include the line "But the fact that it is acceptable may be our fault. We let someone kick us in the balls for entertainment?! Really?" The point I was trying to make with that video is that sometimes we help solidify this image of males as punching bags, but even still, the violence in the video (request…
/r/MensRights05/07/12 08:49 PM
5

Just a heads up on the last video: Pat Duffy is a visitor to the Opie & Anthony show and does gimmicks to get on air. This was just one of them. He has also had a world champion eater drink egg nog until the point of vomiting and having the individual vomit all over his face. Or the time he drank pee. Or the other time where he took a handful of feces out of the toilet and put it on his head like a hat. While it does show violence by a women on a man, he most certainly set it up himself and requ…
/r/MensRights05/07/12 07:21 PM
1

So now we need them to fix that as well... It shouldn't be penetration whatsoever. That is very specific in terms of making it so only people putting things into others' bodies can be identified as rapists. Forced intercourse is rape, plain and simple... regardless of who the aggressor is.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:18 PM
1

If rape is defined (in a certain jurisdiction) as "penetration" then neither party could be considered a rapist (legally) in a blow-job situation. There is nothing in the law that says that the receiver of the blow-job is the rapist because "only men can be rapists". You realize what the term "penetration" means, right? It doesn't mean that only penetration of anal or vaginal cavities constitute penetration... oral penetration (penetration of the oral cavity) is still included in this... Otherwi…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:11 PM
2

Many outdated laws define rape as "penetration," which creates this double standard. It's just now getting to the point where the laws are being reworded to correct this disgusting situation (that "only men can be rapists"). Hopefully sooner than later. From what I read, the FBI made the change last year... Now all we need is the rest of the country to fix their local laws.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 09:00 PM
1

:) The content wasn't from me, it was from the OP of this thread. :D
/r/MensRights27/06/12 11:08 PM
0

Yes, it's been removed; however, I have pasted a copy of your text in a reply to IsADragon below.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 10:01 PM
2

The content is here (this is the original text copied from the OP's profile): I have no idea how this will go over, but here it goes. As a guy, who does his best to be socially aware in almost every way possible, I find this fucking exhausting. It's not that this isn't important, it's not that this hasn't always been important, it's that this is thrown in my face all ALL. THE. TIME. I work everyday to become a better human being, but does that matter? No. I'm regularly lumped in with every other…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 10:00 PM
4

I honestly think the new meds have a lot to do with this, but getting her to stop taking them could be impossible. Whether they are or not, do not use this as justification (subconsciously) to allow her to manipulate you (i.e. "Oh, they took me off of those drugs, you can trust me again... It wasn't me, it was the drugs."). Stand firm and fight for your child and do what you need to to give your child a fighting chance at a semi-normalized life to build from. Good luck and take care.
/r/MensRights09/06/12 05:46 PM
1

Actually, it wasn't a question of whether they made sense or were insulting. The person you replied to stated, "Wrong in quotation marks - as if paternity doesn't even matter!" which doesn't even make sense in the context of the text they are replying to. The context of the text being used out of context for use of argument doesn't mean it's being used in context. It would be akin to making a Ben Franklin quote saying something and then twisting it to conform to a meaning that it didn't have.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 09:24 PM
1

I'm not sure why you would state "THEREFORE, scare quotes make perfect sense." I didn't say that they didn't make sense. Are you just arguing to argue?
/r/MensRights06/06/12 08:34 PM
2

I fully understand the words of the statement. The statement wasn't saying "wrong" as in "wrong man given parental rights" (as it seems you are implying) but "Oops, the wrong man (i.e. not the husband) is the father of my child... better abort."
/r/MensRights06/06/12 06:32 PM
3

"Wrong is in scare quotes because biology has no notion of a "wrong" father. The biological father is the father, from biology's point of view. It is society that decides that the husband is the "right" father." No, it is the woman who decides that the husband is or is not the "right" father, not society. That's why this issue is even being discussed.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 05:11 PM
1

An equally valid analogy I suppose.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 10:39 PM
2

I've never played Minecraft, so I can't give experience from that; however, I find that for those of us who wish to be treated justly that we must also treat all others with the same justness.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 06:43 PM
4

To me the "single with money" comment is eerily similar to extreme feminists stating that men are only good for breeding. In this case women are only good for what? Nothing? To suck your wallet dry. I agree that they seem as though they are equal distances from the center point of the teeter totter.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 06:41 PM
31

Or the first option, mutual love and respect between two people. Agreed. Why are so many people on here so quick to jump to the conclusion that women must be avoided at all costs. Many of those you see here that exhibit that trait are likely still freshly wounded (and those who aren't haven't truly healed after a long time) from their ex-wives. Yes, men's rights definitely take a back seat in this country, but that doesn't mean women have to be eliminated from our lives. They're half of the fuck…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:46 PM
10

I agree. To take it further, we should be focusing on helping those in need regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, etc. We put ourselves into these little groups of people and then create a lot of "in-fighting" which detracts from the greater good of humanity.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 08:31 PM
7

I don't think they were advocating violence... I think they were attempting to make a joke. A poorly constructed and poorly executed one, but a joke nonetheless.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:01 PM
3

Even more inspirational than the original quote (which was pretty damned good, and I'd like to thank you for taking a stand).
/r/MensRights12/05/12 09:02 PM
1

That's not how I read the title. Whereas you seem to be focusing on the idea of being unarmed somehow makes you more at risk of home invasion, I see the title focusing on "This is how simple it is for someone to find out who is guaranteed to not have a weapon of defense." In fact, the title didn't have much to do with the video itself at all in the first place outside of the name of the guy and that he was invaded, so who knows.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 03:02 PM
1

I'm thinking that your logic is broken... The OP didn't imply anything other than potential invaders could easily find out who has a restraining order against them (as this individual "Daddy Justice" most likely may have, by inference) to find out who's unarmed. Given the prior assumption on your part that was not conveyed in the initial message, yes, our points are the same.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 12:36 AM
2

That is exactly my point. My apologies. Apparently I'm not following. Your initial statement was exactly the opposite of your point? So you were being sarcastic?
/r/MensRights08/05/12 10:03 PM
4

The entire country of Canada is unarmed. Surprisingly, very few home invasions. Being armed or not has nothing to do with the level of home invasions (i.e. correlation does not equal causation).
/r/MensRights08/05/12 06:14 PM
3

Doug Stanhope is hilarious outside of his amazingly rational quips about social inadequacies. +1 for Doug, +1 for you.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 05:27 PM
2

Under many circumstances, those who are filing rape claims are protected by special laws that keep them anonymous and safe from backlash... Meaning they currently can do it with impunity unless the local police department decides that they wish to press the charges for filing a false police report (which many don't bother with because a good lawyer would point to the victim's rights laws (even though they weren't really a victim) and say they are immune to prosecution).
/r/MensRights04/05/12 03:32 PM
2

She fired a warning shot... Warning shots are not covered under any SYG laws and are illegal in their own right. The story isn't relevant to this scenario, and it appears you are attempting to quote mine which is likely why you haven't received a response.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 03:22 PM
4

I agree completely... We should be striving for equality, not special circumstance for each sex. I, like many others in this subreddit, welcome egalitarians of both sexes. Thank you for acknowledging that both sexes have issues to overcome and that maybe we just need to do this together instead of creating a battle.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 06:38 PM
7

But wouldn't she have known that it did if she would have actually read the document instead of blindly arguing against it? :|
/r/MensRights02/05/12 11:46 PM
13

I'm confused why the person kept emphasis on "white" people... All of those studies were generalities, taking many individual things into account for them.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 10:10 PM
1

Well, every person here should be a feminist.... If we are fighting for the fact that men should be equal to women, then women should also be equal to men. No, not everyone should be feminist, and honestly not everyone should be an MRA... We should all be egalitarian and we should treat each other with equal respect regardless of our sex.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 04:26 PM
3

Showing a calf quietly being led through a gate into a building isn't as effective in generation of emotional response (i.e. knee-jerk) as throwing a bucket of red paint on someone wearing fur and pretending it's blood... This is why they spout off the numbers they do (all people trying to argue an extreme point).
/r/MensRights01/05/12 09:15 PM
5

You will likely never be flamed for standing up for equality in this subreddit. +1 point for you for being a great woman and +1 for your boyfriend for being a great man.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 04:33 AM
2

Very well said. Thank you.
/r/MensRights29/04/12 04:32 AM
0

Standard html doesn't work on Reddit. You must use the markup language they've provided. Using a single asterisk (*) around your content will italicize it, so that typing "*this*" will result in "this." Typing two asterisks on either side of the content (**) like "**this**" will bold the text and result in "this.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 04:00 PM
7

Of course. We need to do whatever positive things we can to make sure that everyone is treated equally. :)
/r/MensRights27/04/12 10:09 PM
10

I'll definitely have to get my SO to join. She's kept up on MRA since I pointed out to her the strange things our society has done. I'm sure she'd be very interested in a female-based MRA group.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 09:53 PM
1

No need to apologize. And with a name that embraces Ass Parties, I'm not so sure it's necessary. :P
/r/MensRights27/04/12 04:48 PM
3

I think you're taking her response wrong. You said that your ex hit you several times to get you to hit her. She was asking a rhetorical question of "why is it ok for women to hit men?" You know, because she hit you and wasn't even slapped on the wrist and you would go to jail for hitting her.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 04:43 PM
7

Me too, friend, me too...
/r/MensRights26/04/12 11:25 PM
4

The title is pretty misleading (the title of the speech), but I think he intended it to be. Very interesting information. Thanks for sharing.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 07:56 PM
3

But you are doing the painting, and that's what it seems that has most of the people up in arms about... You keep making suggesting statements that appears to implicate the male, regardless of the fact that we don't have nearly enough evidence to suggest that he was in deed the "drunk husband screaming" that you are stating. Yes, your examples are all hypothetical; however, you are only displaying one possible course of action vs. a comparison of what could happen.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 08:36 PM
2

From article: "Mr Davey said she had gone to the kitchen and picked up the knife with a blade which reached two-and-a-half inches across at its widest. After returning to the living room she approached her husband as they continued the argument. He then tried to disarm her but in doing so suffered deep cuts to his arm and hand. Both were nearly an inch big with the tendons visible." She went and retrieved the knife in another room and then came back. Whether he was attempting to disarm her prior…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 08:34 PM
3

That's the part that's hard, article doesn't say who got physical first. Drunk husband screaming at you and looking threatening might be good cause to feel a need to defend yourself. Article doesn't say one way or another. And a crazy wife wielding a knife may be cause for a drunken husband to start screaming at her... You're trying to paint the chicken before the egg here.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 07:29 PM
4

However article states that he tried to disarm her when he was wounded. This to me suggests it may not have been a one sided attack, and she may have armed herself out of fear, not aggression. Are you implying that the fact that he tried to disarm her after being stabbed that he was not simply attempting to save his own life by preventing further injury and was actually involved in a mutual assault? Because from the looks of it, it appears you are attempting to paint him as the aggressor and her…
/r/MensRights19/04/12 07:25 PM
1

Nope, no cheap shot at all. I call it as I see it. There are some great benefits that the iPhone has; however, those benefits can be met by many Android devices as well. I guess I'm just not really a fan of the elitism that Apple encourages. And yes, no big deal. Definitely not attempting to sway anyone's decisions on the matter. Just pointing out the facts. :) Anywho, take care. Have a good night.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 03:53 AM
1

A cheap shot? At whom, may I ask? Because the beginning of our conversation began with you saying what I said was a load of shit. I hadn't even replied to you? If you mean a cheap shot at Android: All of my smart phones have been Android devices. I love them. iPhones are fantastic if you want to overpay for a subpar hardware (other than the touch screen, I'll give them that... The touch screen performs well). I actually don't even mind the iPhone. I just don't like Apple's business practices... …
/r/MensRights05/04/12 03:43 AM
1

Because this site houses many more users than just the one. :) It may be useful to someone at some point in time in the future (plus I'm a HUGE advocate for spreading of knowledge and educating those around us... it's the only way we'll grasp our way out of infancy as a species).
/r/MensRights05/04/12 03:22 AM
1

Well that's a load of shit. It's at easy as restoring your device from iPhone. Complete reversal with one click. "Load of shit." Right... Do you even know what's being discussed here? I didn't say "there are no ways to reverse a Jailbreak on an iPhone," did I? I said that there are ways to reverse the process on an Android that are not available on the iPhone. Just as there aren't "one-click Roots" for all Android devices. Time to straighten up your panties. No need to have them in a wad.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 02:36 AM
0

No just my dick. Come on. Eat it. Here comes the plaaaane! Welcome to the teens. May your time in high school be full of premature ejaculation and ridicule. Dipshit.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 10:00 PM
0

You got exactly what you deserved. Judge, jury and executioner. You do it all! Your honor, eat a dick. Sincerely, The proletariat PS. We are starving. Send food. Are you attempting to put words into my mouth like you did to the other guy? Don't be a dipshit. To be truthful, I probably am more of a "working class" than you are, so leave that shit at home, kid. Eat your own dick if you're starving.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 09:09 PM
12

He didn't say that they were all like that. The examples he was giving were of extreme actions... Just like not all men post naked pictures of their exes online to destroy their reputation. This seems to be a misunderstanding of perception more than the poster being sexist. Note that he says "I believe when a woman does [ABC]" and "when a man does [XYZ]." He's basically saying "When people do these things, they are seemingly projecting their own value system upon the objects/actions they are tak…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 06:28 PM
0

INSULT. I know, I know... Public school has failed to teach you anything. I don't even know why I'm trying to explain myself to you since you keep insulting me for what reason? Oh, you think I called someone else stupid. Oh god.. please have mercy on my soul for this horrendous crime. No, I insulted you for being an ass to me. You reap what you sow. If you don't want someone to be an asshole to you, don't be an asshole to them. You got exactly what you deserved. The poster above me said "you mar…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 05:41 PM
3

Having trouble reading today? YOU (as in YOU) did not realize that the first three lines of my response were examples? The "you" in there is a general 'you', I could've replaced you with 'someone' and my point would still stand. No, I'm not having trouble reading today. The fact that you can't seem to grasp the difference between someone saying something and not saying something, it's clear that much more will be lost on you if I were to attempt to explain the situation to you; however, I'm alwa…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 05:27 PM
1

I agree. I rooted my Thunderbolt within a couple of weeks (I got it during the first few days, so the scene took a while to have a root process that was solid). I love all of the control (superuser is phenomenal, AdFree is also great). It's very handy.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 05:12 PM
3

He didn't call the guy stupid. You did call him stupid. There's the difference. Your examples are failures of logic.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:52 PM
2

It doesn't have to do with the gender of the individual doing the fucked up act. Exactly, this was addressed here in the message you replied to: The main problem in this case is not the gender but the individual. What exactly are you arguing against?
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:50 PM
1

Jailbreaking is literally as easy as visiting a website and clicking a button. It's been dumbed down to the point that anyone can do it, really. Rooting (an Android phone) is a little more complex, but not really that difficult either. Most of the models have already been rooted (or are soon after they hit the public market) and become easier as the userbase expands. Yes, both make your phone more powerful in terms of control (performance isn't typically affected other than being able to remove …
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:48 PM
2

My initial observation for a TL;DR: A male saw another male look a female up and down and then make a snide remark about her being a "depressed feminist" and did nothing, and is labeled a "tolerator" which means he is silently allowing and supporting said behavior to continue. Followed by the rest of the 80% of the article that is arguing against the "men can stop rape" campaign mentality (or so it appears). All a summary of course.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 11:38 PM
1

I've no doubt they did it on purpose. I just think that they put themselves in a rather defensible position because they can reply "Well, the words themselves say something other than that which is being read." Good call though and thank you for pointing it out.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 05:06 PM
1

I'm not entirely sure that's what their intent was with that statement (Edit to clarify: to associate MR with underage images, it's obvious that they are calling MR either sick and/or deluded). In fact, grammatically it is tying two points together into a compound sentence: There's a subreddit for MensRights. The site admins tolerated subreddits devoted to pictures of underage girls. Now, of course, it can appear that they are saying the MensRights subreddit "admins" allow this; however, that's …
/r/MensRights25/03/12 08:30 PM
0

Gotcha. So if she blackmailed him then she broke the law and he should be exempted, no? Oh wait, then the state would be paying for it. Poor guy is going to get stuck with it.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 07:11 PM
1

You would think that if he went through the divorce process that part of the documentation would have been a withdraw of his consent.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 05:47 PM
2

You should be careful what you wish for. Some people say this subreddit "invades" others by sometimes crossposting to other subreddits. Crossposting and redditbombing are entirely different acts. One is done to spread information the other is done to create a smear campaign.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 03:38 PM
4

So the constant trolling on r/Christianity in the name of r/atheism is ok because only a few people do it. Or all the downvotes I get for saying I practice religion? The hate mail and angry pms? That's all justified because only a few do it? Who said anything about it being ok? I don't find it ok to call someone immoral on the simple principle that they are atheist. You likely got the downvotes (I don't know for sure, because I'm not the one who did them) for being a hypocritical with the way yo…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 08:56 PM
1

I hardly see any offensive stuff posted there, to be honest. Things are only as offensive as you expect them to be when you look at them.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 06:52 PM
1

There are a great deal of communities on the web to test your mettle so to speak. I have heard that the International League of Skeptics is a decent place to start, but I've never actually spent a whole lot of time there.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 06:40 PM
3

The arguments will never die down unfortunately.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 06:15 PM
12

Don't try to defend [1] /r/atheism. Seriously, just don't. It's a giant circlejerk that prides itself on offensiveness. It irritates me that it's one of the defaults. First off, do not tell me what to do. Secondly, not all of its members are like that. Some are offensive, yes; however, so are some of the members of this subreddit, but we still defend the group as a whole by saying that we're not all like that don't we? There are trolls in every subreddit on this site. They (r/atheism) received t…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:48 PM
12

The bulk majority of the people who use the internet haven't a clue how it works nor how to circumvent security measures. Other identifying features are sent with IP traffic that could be used to narrow down who is doing what and from where. The trick is to continue to make it more and more difficult for them to bypass the security to the point of making the effort not worth the reward.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:39 PM
16

Or force their immorality on people. I, for one, was pretty offended at the endless pot shots r/atheism was taking at r/Christianity. Especially when the former fired first and the latter refused to stoop to their level. 1) Not all atheists at /r/atheism are immoral or take pot shots at religious people. 2) There are morality shots taken at atheists on a daily basis by many people in the other religious subreddits, so it's really neither here nor there. 3) You are doing exactly what you're fight…
/r/MensRights17/03/12 05:37 PM
31

As much as the content on r/atheism offends me, I don't think it needs to be shut down. Why the hate on us? I don't get it. Because people think they have the right to force their morality upon other people. The irony is that they are being oppressive and disgusting while they are at it. I say it should be a violation of the rules to "redditbomb" any subreddit and that all of their IP addresses should be logged and banned from the site, but that's just the software developer in me.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 04:11 PM
1

The cause of the divorce should not have any weight on alimony/spousal support, allocation of assets, etc. unless it has been predetermined in a prenuptial agreement. This is quite different than making it a legally binding aspect of a marriage contract (which is what a marriage license is) and puts it into the aspect of two parties deciding to create a legally binding document and both consenting to it and having it notarized. If the couple wishes to have stipulations put onto their marriage co…
/r/MensRights14/03/12 09:41 PM
1

You mean we haven't evolved society enough that "at will" marriage arrangements aren't universal? :) In fact, I think that "misrepresenting a desire for children" actually is grounds for divorce in some places. Yes, it's called "marriage under false pretenses." This should be applicable either way, but to put it into writing that you are legally required to attempt to have children is just way, way overboard. Can you imagine the hay-day pro-women movement groups would have with that (regardless …
/r/MensRights14/03/12 04:44 PM
2

I would add that if with-fault divorce still exists in a jurisdiction then it should be possible to put into a marriage agreement that there will be a genuine attempt to have children, and if one partner in such an agreement gets sterilised without the agreement of the other, that would be grounds for a with-fault divorce. That provides a bit of extra protection to certain religious types who insist that sex should be open to conception, as well as making the situation you describe a little fair…
/r/MensRights14/03/12 04:06 PM
16

It appears that her definition of "male aggression" and my definition of "male aggression" are quite different. It seems to me that she has an anger problem (and/or a drinking problem). Perhaps it's time to treat her like so many men are: Mandatory AA and anger management after a lengthy stay in lockup for assault and battery.
/r/MensRights13/03/12 03:27 PM
2

Your response shows me in a short interaction that you know what you need to do to make sure your son doesn't fall trap to what so many boys experience (and girls for that matter). As for what I went through: A lot of children in that time (the 80s and early 90s) had to go through the same type of situation I did, so I handled it as best I could and knew I wasn't the only one, so to speak. I grew to be a boy who grew up to become a man who will never be that kind of a father. Thank you for the k…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 04:35 AM
9

As a son of a broken home, I can tell you that more damage will be done by the father throughout the duration of your son's life regardless of whether or not you stick around (given the information you've stated, if absolutely unbiased and true, he's a negligent parent). The bottom line is that you have two options (which have more than two possible results): You can stay with the father or leave. The outcomes for each have their positives and negatives. One of the major things I suggest directl…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 12:45 AM
1

Indeed, but my view of the word oppression is more like Buddhist monks who are kept in cages in China and are tortured by red guard. I don't really adhere to what "women" say they suffered as oppression. In terms of men, being jailed for not being able to afford child support I would consider oppression. I don't necessarily agree with that comparison; however, you are entitled to feel that way. I find that some of the oppression that women claim is very real; although, much of it is self-induced…
/r/MensRights29/02/12 04:34 PM
1

Look at this way, I live in the UK which is by and large a secular country and well they pretty much force their beliefs coded onto laws on to me. Should I complain about that? Or should I just accept that the majority of people have a different morality than me? You see thats the thing, those religious people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs and they are entitled to be part of the law making process. You have to accept that they're going to have some say on the matter and if they are …
/r/MensRights29/02/12 12:22 AM
1

Of course you're not all bad, but there is a large segment nowadays who do seem to have a big massive chip on their shoulder in concerns to religion. I've talked to quite a few internet atheists and I've seen some who are downright insulting to others and/or others who who displayed quite a lot of ignorance. I used to have common interactions with a guy who was so bad that not only did he ignore what you just told him but he would not admit he was wrong on anything, even if he was clearly was wr…
/r/MensRights28/02/12 05:55 PM
0

I can understand that. I believe that the trend towards more uneducated debates has occurred on all fronts in the last 5 or 6 years, not just on the front of religion. There are many things that people "take as a fact" or "take as everyone knows" so to speak without doing the research themselves. I don't think we're (atheists on the internet) all that bad. :) I think that it tends to come down to those who wish to put in an effort to understand why they believe what they do and those who don't. …
/r/MensRights27/02/12 08:44 PM
0

I can wholly agree with you that his videos are well put together and that I don't necessarily agree with everything he presents; however, that his approach is well thought out. AmazingAtheist is more abrasive, for sure, though most of his videos aren't even on religion (that's just how the channel started). Everyone is entitled to their beliefs in my eyes, and as long as it doesn't oppress my own liberties (meaning they aren't forcing it upon everyone else, not just me specifically) they can ha…
/r/MensRights27/02/12 06:12 PM
0

I can definitely recall that they did. Thanks for the reminder (I actually think that's the video that I found linked from AmazingAtheist that made me a subscriber to manwomanmyth).
/r/MensRights27/02/12 05:14 PM
1

I've seen the video... She tries like six times to knock that V-shaped platform over with her whole body and the male literally puts a foot on it and leans into it and it goes over. I actually think I saw it linked off of one of AmazingAtheist's videos.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 04:42 AM
2

You don't need to worry about "the enormous url" as the end user clicking on the link doesn't have to worry about that... They have to worry about the text you use, and frankly you've created a text link that is longer than the google search address would have been in the first place.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 02:50 AM
2

To answer your question... I suggest you look them up. They used to be "all the rage." I'm not sure why, but they were. I'm at work, so I most certainly won't be looking it up; however, a quick search will score you some information.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 12:04 AM
5

I'm male. And that's why it doesn't matter what everyone else is doing, only what they accuse you of.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 05:51 PM
7

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if she feels that she went "above and beyond." It also doesn't matter if the other people in the office are telling inappropriate jokes (or even the same joke). The employer is only required to take the single instance into account and to take action if necessary. I once had a male file sexual harassment charges against me (fraudulently, but they couldn't prove or disprove that, so they didn't fire him)... Because I was not allowed, as the accused, to bring up th…
/r/MensRights22/02/12 05:29 PM
2

It seems you are having a hard time following this, so I'll repeat myself: At no point during my initiation of the conversation with you did I mention that medical benefits should be based off of gender bias. Secondly, I not once stated that anyone should be allowed to dictate what medical health provisions should be provided to anyone else on the basis of religion. Again: You made a statement about it being a bound agreement through the employment contract and I questioned that. And the new fed…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 08:08 PM
4

No dude, I was trying to be nice... and not dwell on your overly pendantic insistence on using the legal definition of "contract". Substitute "agreement", and my point remains, while yours is completely built upon the premise that there is no legally binding "contract" in at-will states. That was you attempting to be nice? By trying to argue something that wasn't even the topic of conversation? I suggest you actually read what at-will employment is before you carry on further with the conversati…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:46 PM
2

Don't pedantically dwell on my use of the word "contract". I am not a contract lawyer. I mean "contract" in the generic sense of a quid pro quo exchange of labor for wages and benefits (including medical insurance). You see, now I was attempting to be nice... I guess this won't work with you. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties. There is no other 'meaning' for it. In at-will states, there is no contract. There is no implied contract either. It is an at-will employment o…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:27 PM
2

I believe you're missing the point (and the fact that I mention absolutely no gender discrimination in my post)... I'm not talking about whether it's a protected class or not. At-will employment states do not require an employment contract and as such it is not received "as part of their employment contracts." There are no employment contracts. As I said, I've yet to see a compelling argument presented by yourself to warrant making the claim that it's guaranteed by employment contracts when it h…
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:02 PM
2

I'm not sure where the "employment contracts" come into play... Many states are at-will, of which there is no employment contracted and either party can opt-out for any reason whatsoever as long as it isn't a constitutional violation. So do these new laws not apply to women who live in these at-will employment states?
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:44 PM
2

Another well-though-out reply by InfinitelyThirsting. Always nice to see an even-toned, balanced response that isn't taking away from one issue to point out another. Thanks for sharing it (I don't frequent the 2XC sub).
/r/MensRights15/02/12 09:00 PM
1

And you've made it clear that you agree... but they should not be disapproving. This isn't the ancient Middle East. They don't get a say in what the people do with their lives. Disagreeing, yes. Disapproving, no. None of what the OP said was being said to his wife was about her "making a mistake." It was either painting her as lazy or him as an abuser. This is not "disapproving" because they think they're making a mistake but "condemning" because they disagree with their lifestyle. I've said it …
/r/MensRights11/02/12 02:29 AM
1

Precisely. He's asking you how you feel about people disapproving loudly about their agreed upon arrangement. He's not asking you what YOU think about his agreed upon arrangement. You (and those "disapproving loudly") can't say they are making a mistake because you don't know what the hell is going to happen. You do not have a crystal ball and you cannot see the future. There are people who live very happily in this situation for a very long time. There are also those who agree together that the…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 02:06 AM
1

I have zero time to post right now, but I'll just say if people don't want others to make comments on their lives DON'T POST ON REDDIT. The whole point of reddit is to have discussions on user posts. The OP came here to know what we think (read the OP's post please). And I let him know what I think. Now you're condemning me for doing what the OP asked for. Go figure. I love how you assume that what you say is "what the OP asked for." He didn't ask you to question his way of life. He asked you wh…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 01:45 AM
1

Please understand that I don't care what you or anyone else does with regard to this issue. It really doesn't matter to me. Read all my posts on this matter. What I'm trying to point out are the risks associated with such a decision. Just as there are risks of raising a child in a home where neither parent is there at home... Just as there are risks of walking across the street. Are you equally vocal about people walking inside of crosswalks? What seems like a good idea now, may not seem so year…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 11:19 PM
1

It was the OP telling you many are befuddled by his wife's lifestyle. NOT ME. I'm just explaining why this lifestyle has so many detractors. No, you have been only labeling "housewives" as "financial dependents" which is "NOT a good adult trait." You know what? It's not your call to judge a couple on their dynamics. If it didn't work for you, too bad. Grow up and move on. It doesn't mean you should label and condemn a lifestyle just because you don't seem to like it. These are YOUR words, not "t…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 11:16 PM
13

We are in the year 2012. This is not 1812 or 1912. You are an adult, not a child. We live in a world of widely available educational and career opportunities. Most people expect to see adults working. If they are not, is it not legitimate to think something is amiss? I'm here to tell you, to most people, it looks bad. Financial dependency is NOT a good adult trait. So in other words: Your way is the only right way. Got it... So much for progressive open-mindedness, right? Here on men's rights we…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 05:27 PM
3

It's ok, I put another one up there for ya.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 05:14 PM
1

In the end, the situation is just as you two decided you wished it to be. If they don't like it, they can get lost. My girl likes to make me dinner and do other home-maker-like things. She works, but she works part time and earns enough money to take care of her own financial obligations. I work full time. Our situation is very similar to yours; however, none of my friends would ever think of accusing me of "keeping her at home" or "oppressing her." Why? I'm guessing it's a) because they know me…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 05:11 PM
3

Yeaaah...say no more. Or, in other words: You are too closed minded to watch a liberal comic on a conservative news program. Got it. No. The government saying that someone can't say something is censorship. Telling someone that what they're saying is tasteless, stupid, promotes violence, unfunny, etc? Welp, that's just life, friend. Do you understand what the word "censorship" means? Perhaps not. It has nothing to do with who is doing it. It's about controlling what information can and cannot be…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 01:20 AM
2

I suggest you watch a little video of the late Patrice O'neal when he was on Fox News discussing something similar to this with a feminist... The joke doesn't have to be funny to you, or to anyone else for that matter. Saying that someone can't make a joke based on content is censorship. We don't need censorship, we need everyone to treat each other as equals.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 11:20 PM
8

You clearly do not understand what dehydration does to the body if you think that it would be a "minor side effect" to intake 8 times the maximum dosage of a laxative. Your "just talking about the science" is invalid. Your scenario is an exception, not a rule. You had an infection/inflammation in your intestine that required that much to liquefy the feces to make it through the swollen organ... This is not the case for most people and 5 or 6 can cause major dehydration (I'm guessing your doctor …
/r/MensRights06/02/12 04:59 PM
3

This country could actually really use some industries that process raw materials (like we used to) and stop shipping the raw materials out at a discount and purchasing the processed materials at a premium. It would save the country more money and provide jobs for those skilled craftsmen.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 05:33 AM
2

But can't you guys own silenced shotguns? lol It's definitely a strange law structure over there.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 07:31 PM
10

Why not do both? If you are going to stop the poisoning of the minds of society with archaic, invalid information... you might as well stop it at both sources. At least that's my opinion of the matter.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 06:14 PM
3

transformers don't kill people in east los angeles. No, but shoes do. Let's ban shoes.
/r/MensRights21/01/12 06:02 PM
1

Exactly. I support the exact same "outs" as the woman does. First trimester, I believe it is. It can be tricky (like if she hides the fact and then it's too late), but I think it can be worked out. Oh, it can definitely be worked out. It would also require the pregnant woman to notify the biological father within a timely manner, because if she doesn't, she's putting herself at risk of being outside the timeline that she has to change her mind. If women begin holding it back and hiding it until …
/r/MensRights20/01/12 04:08 PM
1

1) Penetration isn't the only form of "rape." 2) It is still a violation. 3) Does this man not have a behind that could be violated? Is this not rape to him either? (Those aren't directed at you, but his response)
/r/MensRights19/01/12 08:50 PM
2

The PC answer is that he should man up to his responsibilities. Oh the irony... right? "man up" to his responsibility if she decides she wants to keep it, but she shouldn't "woman up" and have the baby if the man wishes to keep it. I'm inclined to agree with you on the matter: If the man doesn't want the child and she insists on keeping it, he should be released from obligation. Of course, there should be timelines and laws put into place to control people from just walking away, but we have tho…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 07:25 PM
2

This isn't statistically relevant since most of those serving are men, and almost all on the front lines of wars (most death prone zones) are men. I'm not saying this shouldn't be righted but right now that's not a valid argument. Oh come on. Of course it's relevant. It's relevant specifically because of the fact that more males are put into harms' way in the example given. regardless of gender infantry are going to be higher, so instead of insulting the lack of women fighting on the front lines…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 07:22 PM
0

It's not necessarily that simple. In some states, one must only place a placard or statement somewhere where it can be seen within reasonable distance (say next to an entrance) that states that the person could be recorded and it is received as implied consent if they do not object openly. The recording itself could be done covertly or openly at that point. That's why I suggested that the person actually do the research for their State and county.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 10:08 PM
0

You addressed the consent part, yes; however, whether the recording can be covert or not is also an issue.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 09:40 PM
0

You must be careful when recording someone covertly to make sure that it is legal within the jurisdiction you live (State and County, specifically). Some require only one participant to accept the recording of the conversation and others require both (which means it cannot be covert).
/r/MensRights19/12/11 09:32 PM
1

I think you already answered your question... How can I still try to help advocate rights for good fathers... Right there. You're advocating rights for good parents, not all parents. Parents who treat their children like garbage shouldn't be regarded in the same light as someone who treats their children like another human being.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 06:25 PM
6

Yeah, that's just disturbing... It's an imprisonable offence here in the US, so I doubt he would have had a problem with his nullification here under those grounds. I hope.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 03:57 PM
1

Just a heads up: I'm not going to get into a conversation with you about this. It's clear that your "mind is made up," and it would be pointless to attempt to rationalize anything with you directly. What I'm replying to is this: If women are causing more abuse per hours spent with children how does this contribute to the "oppression" of men? It should be posted in r/childrensrights, not r/manchildrensrights. If women are causing more abuse per hours spent with children, while men are being label…
/r/MensRights29/11/11 06:00 PM
9

It seems to me that this is either a disingenuous inquiry or an attempt at comment harvesting.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 09:58 PM
1

I'm inclined to agree with you. I just don't like that they would immediately jump to the conclusion of "mentally unfit" simply because she's trans.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 04:18 PM
5

That's really an unfair assessment of your mind. :/
/r/MensRights08/11/11 04:21 PM
1

So now we're running into the subjectivity of what a "real man" is. Did you miss that discussion last week? The problem is that you have no more right to define what a "real man" is than I have to define what you should be to justify your own existence. I could easily say "real men enslave others by dominating them and fighting them." Doesn't make it right or true.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 03:01 PM
1

Tribe-mentality is one hypothesis... Mob-mentality is another. Who knows why they do it. Hell, I'm not even sure they know why they are acting that way. The problem is that they don't care whether it negatively impacts their message, because well, as I said: It's as though they don't really want more people to think like they do. They want to seem like a "martyr for men" and to keep others from taking that away from them. What they don't realize is that they could change a lot of minds on the to…
/r/MensRights13/10/11 02:55 PM
1

I don't think it's necessary. I think it's very clear. Now that we've already established this for a third time, I'm done with you. You are a waste of time and effort.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:37 PM
1

I think you've made it clear, kiddo.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:29 PM
1

Keep them coming. You're just showing your true character.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:27 PM
1

Certainly seems like you have a hard time doing anything right, don't you? Let's try this again: Just leave and shut up.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:25 PM
1

How many times are you going to post a different message for me? We were done long ago when you refused to see a logical comparison to what you were doing (being intellectually dishonest). Just turn around and keep walking. Making idiotic condescending remarks, while appearing to be your trade, doesn't flatter the message you are attempting to get across. I certainly love how: I'll allow you to have last word. Turned into you trying to take one more chance at a stab (even though it was actually …
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:21 PM
1

How pathetic. Really. They aren't on "equal footing." One is a fact (that they are not the same) and the other is not (that they are). Again, you are arguing that the removal of a toe is the same as the removal of a foot. That is a direct analogy of what you're comparing. They are not the same. By the way, it was you you began with the insults, not I. Try again, pal. Try again.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:50 PM
0

It appears you have a really difficult time comprehending words put in order, so I'll try a more simple example: Circumcision =/= Clitoral Removal. Circumcision == Clitoral hood removal. You, by stating the first, are being intellectually dishonest. You are lying. The fact that you are either ignoring that or outright supporting that displays much about you and your character. You used no rationale in your answer. You tried to equate something that is not equal. What you are doing is trying to c…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:26 PM
3

No, actually it's more along the lines of "You appear to be too blind to understand general biology and are thus equating unequal actions and as I've already given a plain as day explanation of how you're wrong you still don't get it so there's no use." Take a little time to actually use rationale and logic in your arguments and perhaps you'll sway people. Using outright lies does not do the job.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:35 PM
2

I believe lasttoknow was referring to the fact that he disagreed with them, and by default it appears that that position is immediately downvoted, not referring to Requi3m's specific response. Though it's difficult to tell unless lasttoknow clarifies.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:21 PM
2

It appears that you need to have a little bit of biology education; however, I'm not going to feed your desire to argue. You are wrong. What you are saying is akin to claiming that the amputation of a toe is the same as the amputation of a foot. It simply is not analogous. Are you ignorant to this fact or simply lying?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 04:58 PM
5

My friend, trying to explain this to them is impossible. They don't understand that their manner of delivering the message is what's failing them and not the message itself. By belittling those who would be their greatest allies, they alienate themselves from the majority of men that frequent the subreddit. It's almost like they are anti-circumcision hipsters and they don't want more people to think like they do.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 04:43 PM
4

You realize that chopping a clitoris off and circumcising a penis are not analogous, right? Chopping a clitoris off would be akin to removing the head of a the penis. Circumcision would be more akin to removing the clitoral hood. I am telling you guys that continue to use these intellectually dishonest methods to try to fight your fight: It's not doing any of you any good and in fact is turning off many members of an otherwise supportive group of men from your cause because of your failure to co…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 04:39 PM
1

How can you say that that is the intent, when the language states otherwise though? That's the objection I've had all along with many of the replies that the anti-circumcision people in this subreddit exhibit. Not the message but the method. If you guys want to get the method across, using techniques like PETA and feminists to get the message across is not going to work. We've already seen them fail, so why repeat their mistakes? (Note that I haven't agreed or disagreed with any argument on the …
/r/MensRights12/10/11 03:17 PM
10

I've pointed this out several times that their approach is what puts a lot of the circumcised men of this subreddit off. Unfortunately, they like to sensationalize a lot of what is said by using emotionally-charged words. It is funny to see people saying "I'm fighting for men's rights, you're just too stupid to realize that you're not a real man because you had a piece of flesh removed from your penis. You don't know what you're talking about." I ended up just avoiding the circumcision threads a…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 03:22 AM
5

PS: If you're interested in real men who face the issue head-on, check out r/intactivists So you are suggesting that people who don't have a problem with themselves being circumcised are "real men?" How... broken... that seems. Do you call a man who's lost his eye or ear not a real man because he is at peace with it? How about a leg? This here is precisely why you guys get downvoted. You attack the people you claim to be standing up for... Akin to fighting against negative treatment of women whi…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 03:16 AM
1

She definitely is lucky that the person didn't resort to physical violence... She's also lucky that the person wasn't smart enough to record the initial conversation where she admits to sexually abusing the child.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 03:09 PM
4

Unfortunately, she can't... If she did, the sister-in-law would likely cry foul and say that she was doing it only to reoffend her as the victim. Such a shame... Why must people be so fucked up?
/r/MensRights05/10/11 11:46 PM
2

I seriously just had a conversation about this topic with someone over the last 24 hours (not knowing this situation)... Intentional assault, regardless of gender or age, should never be acceptable.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:55 PM
1

Nope. Not at all what I was speaking of. :)
/r/MensRights29/09/11 09:14 PM
1

I am not using a method to calculate 100% certainty. You mentioned 100% certainty. I'll use a more childish example to state what I'm relaying (not childish because you are childish but because it's a more simple example): Do unicorns exist? All assessments come to the conclusion that they do not. Could they exist? Sure. They could exist; however, given the information we have up to this point, the potential for them existing is so far down the "fraction of a fraction of 1%" that it is safe at t…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 08:45 PM
2

But... but if they do that they'll have to take their "Pay twice the price for one and get a second one free" flyers back.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:00 PM
1

No, that is not the observation I'm making. I stated that there is no evidence of it, and as such it should not be assumed to be a possibility until there is evidence of it. Do you not understand the scientific method at all? You do not support hypothesis and develop them into theories by making assumptions but by providing evidence through experimentation. If the experiment does not give supporting evidence, then it is of no point to assume that the original hypothesis is valid until said time …
/r/MensRights29/09/11 04:41 PM
1

Our minds are models of reality, not the fact of reality. Which is what you're saying but you're misunderstanding me. Please do not put words into my mouth. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not misunderstanding you. You type words, I read words for the value we as a society have given them, you claim it's a misunderstanding. Perhaps you should find different words if the words you used weren't the ones you intended to use to get your point across. Communication is 90% perception and 10% inten…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 04:20 PM
1

The mere fact of something being subjective means it is influenced by that which is viewing/calculating the subject. This means that it is not certain, but dependent upon the viewer/observer/opinion holder. This means that nothing subjective can be considered with 100% certainty. Merely having a vision of something or hearing a noise could be caused by many things outside the control of the observer. I could say that my opinion is that the moon is a ball of cheese... That is a subjective opinion…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 10:55 PM
5

The funniest thing is that in my open support for the subreddit, my GF has actually begun to read it and notice the atrocities as well... I guess she must be "angry and bitter because women won't screw" her either, right? lol Gawker received my last website visit long ago...
/r/MensRights27/09/11 09:10 PM
2

100% objective? Or 100% SUBjective? Because objective things are rather cut and dry... they have facts.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 08:51 PM
1

They could have likely saved that much money (and maybe more) by cutting back on political conferences and their costs as well... Not to discount what you're saying, I just think that it's important that if you're bringing up cost, you compare it to many other things that they waste money on. :)
/r/MensRights27/09/11 08:50 PM
1

Anyone notice that the "for" side also had the taller "Intelligence Debate" sign? Subconscious messages do a lot.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 10:28 PM
6

Let's see: I don't call women "bitches, cunts, whores or sluts." I don't advocate murder or violence in either direction. I don't post blogs or link to such that support them (apparently AMR likes to mod hateful people, since it says you're a mod and you're very hateful). Just as I would not say that all women are assholes, it's not a valid affirmation to assume that all men are sexist pigs. Move along.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 06:47 PM
13

I'm not so sure he intended to kill the man... He, after all, only struck him once.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 06:57 PM
1

My happiness does not come from others fixing their mistakes but in assisting them in seeing the faults so that they may prevent from making them in the future.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 06:32 PM
1

Uhm, yeah having the "opportunity" to work as a stripper is a great advantage - privilege even!- that men simply don't have. I must admit I see your point. Yet you somehow think that the "opportunity" to work as a toilet scrubber is a great advantage. As for the last part of that: Your logic is showing. Please tuck it back into your shirt. ;) Two times counts as several as I now have learned. And there is no forgiveness for making a mistake - twice! Mea culpa. Yes, two times does count as severa…
/r/MensRights16/09/11 06:31 PM
1

I'll repeat myself as well: the OP is. Well, how is what he chose to exemplify his stance to be interpreted? First of all, stop trying to change what you said. Secondly, stop trying to put words into the mouths of people that haven't been spoken. The OP didn't say shit about complaining about men not being able to work in the sex industry. You're obviously incapable of understanding that the topic is the fact that there are more opportunities for women in hard economic times, yet they are still …
/r/MensRights16/09/11 04:14 PM
3

I suggest you learn proper quoting, first and foremost. You keep quoting me as saying something you are replying with. I sell carrots. But few like them. People are more into cucumbers. Now I go and complain to the equal vegetable organization and complain that my carrots are not being treated fairly. Do I have a point? Of course not. If there is low demand for carrots then that is too bad for me. I might want to think about selling different vegetables as well. Cucumbers some to mind. This isn'…
/r/MensRights16/09/11 04:36 AM
1

Too bad for them that the market for male exotic dancers is very tight. And too bad for women the market for female business executives is tight? Do you not see how sexist that statement is? The bottom line is that there is no "bottom" for a woman. And fyi, strippers get paid very well on average. Women are at fault for men not being able to have a job in the stripping club. But how is one to interpret putting "At least I have the option" in bold? The OP didn't even insinuate this... And yet you…
/r/MensRights16/09/11 03:53 AM
3

Who's blaming anyone? The principle of the matter is that there are more money opportunities for women as far as spectrum is concerned. Apparently reading comprehension isn't important where you're from, hmm?
/r/MensRights15/09/11 06:15 PM
4

They should be praised for wishing an imbalance in the system that they fight for equality in? That's just silly. If we're looking to support egalitarianism, then we must not support bias in either direction...
/r/MensRights02/09/11 06:20 PM
3

Yes; however, there are some women out there that call themselves feminists that are actually looking for "better than equal" treatment. They want all of the benefits of being female and none of the responsibility of being adult.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 05:33 PM
2

You don't know why? lol It's because of the circumcision hate-mongers that frequent circumcision threads. Should you state that you're ok with your own circumcision or that it should be "and individual's choice" (without specifically stating that the individual is the person being circumcised), you can be victim of their downvote party. I've upvoted you for the mere sake of supporting the fact that you are fine with your own body the way it is now. Kudos to you, and know that there are more of u…
/r/MensRights01/09/11 04:06 PM
1

Some people may call her a whore for getting drunk and sleeping with someone; however, this doesn't detract from the original point that only the man would be charged with rape, arrested, imprisoned and fined and subsequently put onto a list of sexual offenders that include child molesters and serial rapists. It's very important to remember that one problem does not negate another problem. They are both problems. Justifying (which is what your first sentence would do if not followed up by the se…
/r/MensRights17/08/11 03:32 PM
1

lol First I was like :|, then I was like :) and then I was like ;). Excellent humor.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:20 PM
1

True enough that they have to contend with the physical unpleasantness (and to address the subtext: Some women's bodies are just better equipped for multiple children, I suppose. I'd hate to assume it was for the paycheck.). I just see this perspective used quite often when it comes to having children.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 03:34 PM
1

Awe, that's no good. Don't waste food! There are starving children in <enter 3rd world country> who don't even have that to eat! :)
/r/MensRights16/08/11 03:27 PM
2

Heh heh I wouldn't suggest you do so. It can be like sticking your fingers in something very pungent... and then wondering why no one wants to shake your hand afterward.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 11:13 PM
2

Now, whether that is sexist is probably a good topic for debate That topic was up for debate... ^ Up there. Remember? ;)
/r/MensRights15/08/11 08:41 PM
2

I agree, but the problem (that you're asking about) is that there are those who would condemn the man as a rapist for the act and not the woman. It's unfortunate.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 08:19 PM
6

The only difference between men and women in this situation, if one were to evaluate for evidence of reverse sexism, is that the woman bears (or is it bares? crud, sorry) the risk of pregnancy. So the consequences are greater. The only problem I have with this is that you make it out to seem as though the males don't have that risk as well... Men do have to deal with pregnancy as well. Just because a child isn't grown within their bodies doesn't mean society, government and the woman herself do …
/r/MensRights15/08/11 08:01 PM
1

Indeed. We have an understanding. Have a wonderful day.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 05:51 PM
1

Fair enough. Perhaps that could have been elaborated within the initial reply and we'd not have had this conversation in the first place. (I'm not complaining about the conversation, just pointing it out) There is definitely a lot of ignorance about how the disease functions. A lot of that is due to society's trained-in fear of the disease since the 80s.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 05:39 PM
1

I think that honesty should be at the core of most arguments, but point made. It still appears, with your words, that you are objecting to what he says by pointing out that the transmission rate is low... Which is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it's low or not. It's also relatively low percentage that if someone shoots a bullet up into the sky that it'll come down and kill someone... But we don't do it and it's illegal and someone who does goes to jail for it. Make sense?
/r/MensRights11/08/11 05:28 PM
1

Perhaps it is you who should look up the word... It's a "slight objection." Objection to what? It appears as though you are objecting to what you're replying to. And you're right, it does sound patronizing. It also sounds asinine.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 05:23 PM
2

Clearly you worded it as such that it sound as though you were condoning what she did merely because the potential for infection was reduced, dude. I didn't read anything into it. You made a statement, and I asked if you were saying that because the transmission was comparatively low that it means it's not an equal infraction (due to the fact that you were responding to someone saying that she was likely doing it to infect men). There's no need for you to get defensive. I didn't say you didn't h…
/r/MensRights11/08/11 05:13 PM
1

I misread you or perhaps you wrote the wrong words you intended in order to portray the message you were trying to get across? Either way, the percentage chance of infection is not an excuse for justifying the act which is what the original verbiage appeared to convey. There will always be misinformation about any "make or break" topic that humans discuss... Because humans are by nature dishonest, if not only to themselves, about topics that they have "made their mind up" about.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 03:19 PM
1

Please read my response to notcaptainkirk. I think it will sum up the apparent misunderstanding of words.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 03:15 PM
0

Interesting how you read things one way and the original response was more apt to be read as "she was likely doing this to give guys HIV." Maybe next time you can fully remove the foot from your mouth before you get smarmy?
/r/MensRights11/08/11 03:13 PM
0

If you would have read what Jack's response to me was, it would show you that they released her name to find her (which means she was missing or hiding)... I'm sure this is the loophole they used to be able to do so. To suggest that they couldn't even use the name in that context would mean all of those "Missing Child" alerts would be violating that Act as well. ;) Either way, if they caught her they caught her. She obviously knew what she was doing and the risks involved. Also, if you read the …
/r/MensRights10/08/11 11:46 PM
0

How do you know it is false? She knew she had HIV and she knew she was having unprotected sex... It's not rocket science to figure that infection would follow, and my reply was regarding the lack of logic in yasee's response... as if the percentage of infection somehow negates her from being guilty of potentially infecting her partner.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 11:43 PM
1

Ahh, well, this would be presumably similar to an runaway situation where they cannot find the minor... They still post their names in those articles too.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 08:35 PM
1

I don't see her name in the article linked... Was her name released somewhere else?
/r/MensRights10/08/11 07:44 PM
2

So because transmission is comparatively low it means it's not an equal infraction? I'm not sure I follow your logic here. She had unprotected sex, as a person with HIV, with someone who didn't know she was infected. The law is rather clear of the recourse. She shouldn't be given leeway just because she's female.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 07:42 PM
1

I was very pleased to come back this morning and read your two replies and not just because you opened your mind to the damage that can be done to the cause by using the terminology. Thank you for the open and honest response.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 05:27 PM
1

I already addressed most of this in my replies to other people, and retired from the conversation; however, since you are the person I initially replied to I'll address your questions. I'm not comparing any two things. There was an attribution by another member (and many anti-circumcision advocates) that FGM, specifically cutting off the entire clitoris, is the same as circumcision. It is not, and it's clear that you see the difference (by the second line in your reply). As for the statement "Bu…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 05:35 PM
2

True enough, but you're also betting that you're going to get more in return than you put into the system.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 08:56 PM
4

Honestly, it's no different than going to a casino... You are betting against the house (insurance company) that your <enter type of insurance> will fail before you shell out all of that money. It's a losing battle either way.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 08:26 PM
8

You're right... Cartels is a better word for it. Government Sponsored Cartels.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 07:04 PM
24

Well of course they will... They don't want to lose money... Fucking insurance snakes. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:58 PM
1

John, I'm answering your condescending question in all seriousness: Yes. English is my first language. Let's go over some definitions, while you're in this condescending mode (and regardless of whether or not you say "I mean no offense" it still causes offense. Especially when you're wrong. Definitions of mutilate: "(mutilated) maimed: having a part of the body crippled or disabled" "(mutilator) a person who mutilates or destroys or disfigures or cripples" "an injury that causes disfigurement or…
/r/MensRights26/07/11 11:14 PM
1

Perhaps you are right. It's unfortunate because I try to share knowledge and understanding in a very factual and open manner... And it bothers me to see people in one breath complain about emotional manipulation and another breath do the same to support their own ends. I shall take the advice, and hope that in that silence my point may become known. Thank you for the straight forward response without the "lynch mob" mentality.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 10:55 PM
1

By this definition, female genital mutilation should not be called "mutilation" either. A woman does not need a clitoris to become impregnated and give birth, so cutting it out does not make her sexual organs "useless." On the contrary, removing sexual stimulus completely could reduce the rate of pregnancy (has been proven that female orgasm during or immediately after male orgasm increase chance of conception as the cervix "dips" down into the area that semen pools below it). If you're discussi…
/r/MensRights26/07/11 10:48 PM
0

Bullshit. Would you say that cutting off a person's earlobe without a clear therapeutic purpose is mutilation? What body parts can you cut off and have it not be mutilation? Do they have to be body parts with a clear function? No, I wouldn't say it would fall within the definition of mutilation. You took enough time to groom your search to find definitions you liked, why not look at the widely accepted definitions of the words? An earlobe is a non-essential piece of skin. A foreskin, evolved for…
/r/MensRights26/07/11 08:01 PM
-1

This has nothing to do with being objective. You are opposed to the use of the word "mutilation" because of the connotations it has. I'm so glad you know exactly why I oppose the term mutilation... Or, rather, I'm glad that you haven't a clue. I oppose the term mutilation because it doesn't fall within that definition by the definition of the word. At the very least it could be described as disfigurement if you believed that it was an appearance thing; however, that's not the argument that's bei…
/r/MensRights26/07/11 07:08 PM
2

One could argue that it isn't indeed crippling the part (it is not making it useless). As per the accepted definition of crippling, your initial definition is invalid as proof of mutilation. Also, it could be argued that it is not indeed essential to life and as such isn't seen as essential. Just as a single finger being removed could be seen as unessential (the person missing the finger can still function without and is therefore not crippled). Again, I'm not arguing against the idea that circu…
/r/MensRights26/07/11 06:36 PM
0

Firstly, I'd like to start off with stating that I'm not disagreeing with your views on the topic; however, how do you quantify that circumcision of a male has degraded the appearance or function of the living tissue? I do see the likeness of male and female mutilation; however, without evidence that male circumcision degrades appearance or function of the penis, you cannot truly call it mutilation by your own definition, could you? Both of those are fulfilled by subjective perspective as oppose…
/r/MensRights26/07/11 04:58 PM
2

And what about the government's misrepresentation of his or her age? ;) Seems to me that the government should be paying the price, not the poor shlub who was doing porn to make a living.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 03:21 AM
1

Maybe, maybe not... Hell, they may see it as an easier way to control their husbands. The current state of society is disturbing.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 08:39 PM
1

This is absolutely disgusting.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 08:38 PM
1

Ooooh. Yeah, that'd be fun to watch. :)
/r/MensRights21/07/11 06:59 PM
1

She is getting a piece of what she deserves... Now it's time to request the show be canceled because the rest of the hostesses were helping right along with it.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 06:51 PM
6

You know... You could have removed that "#articleTabs%3Darticle" from the end and made it readable... For those of you who don't want to deal with the link's garbage.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 02:55 AM
2

Perhaps he's referring to something specifically; however, it appeared to me to be a generic reference to birth control there (in which case the tubal inserts, injections, etc. are included). shrug Either way, we as men in the US need to push for these things if we are to expect to get them. They won't just 'hand' them to us unfortunately.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 08:08 PM
2

Recent? They've run multiple decades-long tests in India with regards to male birth control... If that's considered "recent" then I guess so. It's not going to be available here until the pharmaceutical corporations find it a viable money maker. There are plenty of sites out there for submitting requests to local and federal politicians for these rights. I suggest everyone utilize them.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:47 PM
1

Excellent. Don't thank me, thank demiurgency. :) Thanks for mentioning the video and beginning the discovery process. It's a great resource.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 08:39 PM
1

Take a look at the video that demiurgency posted as a reply to me. Perhaps this is it?
/r/MensRights07/07/11 08:18 PM
2

Thank you again. I've got it loading up. It's a pretty good listen thus far.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 08:03 PM
5

Excellent find. Thanks! I'll be watching this now. :) I have upgraded the stoutness of your boat, kind Reddizen.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 08:01 PM
6

I would genuinely like to view this video. Any chance you may have bookmarked it?
/r/MensRights07/07/11 05:33 PM
3

I agree that that's how you'd be seen. Unfortunately, "equal treatment" is a guise for "equal or better treatment." By all means I treat all of the women in my life as wonderfully as I can... But I do it because I want to, not because I've been bullied or guilted into it. I swear, it still amazes me the amount of violence that goes unchecked and overlooked (a sickening amount to say the least) merely because it goes from female to male. (By no means would I condone it either way)
/r/MensRights06/07/11 04:45 PM
1

I am not going to stick around if the only invitation I get is an entire thread devoted to downvoting me... and you wonder why I'm on the defensive? And yet did you see me specifically suggest you should be downvoted? Absolutely not, yet here you are... Arguing with me. Stop making excuses. On a thread entirely devoted to attacking me... hm. Shall we start honoring ALL "poor me" mentalities now? I never suggested that someone be violently punished for their poor reactions that do not inflict har…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 02:16 PM
6

Ever heard of Darwin Awards? Are you profoundly offended by those as well? Now, now. I didn't say that you offended me. Who's got the assumption going now? BTW, the Darwin Awards are talking about people doing stupid things that get them killed, thus carrying on the cycle of Survival of the Fittest... I'd venture that spitting on someone isn't something that should get someone killed. It's not even an equal comparison. Strawman much? Oh fuck off. Man bash? Really? That's the language that you gu…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 04:46 AM
6

Assumptions? Hardly. Your statement is rather clear. You have absolutely no right to determine who should and should not have the right to reproduce (obviously, due to your compete lack of rationale). I suggest you actually go learn what trolling is before you start an attempt at a man-bash and get upset that someone is defending their position. The statement check made was no different from what you made... Are YOU a troll?
/r/MensRights06/07/11 03:02 AM
9

Yes, it is unfortunate that we have been dealt this one-sided sword; however, there are many great things that come along with being male (as many of us males know). I usually take the whole misandry thing as what it is: pent up hatred of a single person who destroyed the well-being of another. Violence is not the solution, but they find that violence is the solution because they think that's all we men understand... Unfortunate that we do not stand up as a group and voice our concerns openly wi…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 08:24 PM
63

I find it mildly ironic that what seems to be a female is condoning female on male violence... I'm certain she wouldn't agree that if she kicked the guy in the testicles that he should then punch her teeth out of her mouth... When will these people learn that violence is never a rational answer to anything? A guy spit in your face? Return in kind or move on. OP: You're not the troll in that exchange.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 07:43 PM
1

My ex wife wasn't "baby-crazy"; however, she was very interested in creating conflict... Almost as if she were never happy unless someone else was miserable. Save your mind. You need to either a) get out of the situation or b) get her into some counseling to deal with her emotional issues. As for the emotional response after miscarriage: It happens, and you should expect it and be supportive. It's difficult for us guys too, but they don't see it as the same because you "didn't carry the child in…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 07:27 PM
6

Their reasoning is that criminals have guns... Unfortunately, criminals do indeed have guns (not all of them, mind you... but some of them do). I feel that if a police officer "accidentally" shoots an innocent person I feel their privilege to carry a gun while on duty should be revoked.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 07:32 PM
2

Bill Burr is hilarious. I actually know the bit in question that you refer to as it's on my phone (the whole 4 hours of routine). :D
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:28 PM
2

Well, I think they need to realize that if they want equal opportunity to the job market (which they should have if they can do the jobs, by all means) they should expect the detriment of quality of life that men experience by doing said jobs... Can you imagine how many women we'd have lost if they were doing asbestos installation? Or how much of that genetic damage could have been passed onto their children? It's really unfortunate to see that their lifespan is not increasing at the same rate; …
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:11 PM
3

[sarcasm]That's it... Let's get right up there and tell those women that they simply are giving up too easy! [/sarcasm] Are they really getting upset that their life expectancy is lower? They're demanding more physical responsibility and are receiving the physical impact of it. :/
/r/MensRights23/06/11 09:46 PM
1

Well, I'm glad you got out of the situation with your head held up. I remember when I got out of my poor marriage... She was such a negative woman. She really did some lasting damage that I had to take a few years to repair. The bottom line is that those around you saw you for who you were and not for the villain she was attempting to paint you as (which always amazes me... people encourage this kind of response from the woman. It's appalling, really). Even though I don't personally know you, kn…
/r/MensRights23/06/11 03:04 PM
4

Congrats. It's always good to see a positive story for men instead of "A man beat his wife and ended up in jail" or the quintessential "Could YOUR husband be cheating behind your back? We'll tell you how to tell at 10!" :/ Again, congrats. Be proud of being positive... sometimes it's tough, but it's in your own best interest.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 11:50 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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