TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

alecbenzer Archive

View 0 posts and 326 comments by alecbenzer 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)
2

Why is the math overly complicated? It's just 200 guys * 3 bangs/guy * 100 stokes/bang * 11 inches/stroke. There's no need to involve any of the time stuff.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen28/12/19 05:08 PM
33

It's not just saying 'no' though, it's acting like it's some moral wrongdoing to ask. But I don't know how many of those women would actually act like it's some kind of moral wrongdoing.
/r/MensRights03/03/17 04:39 PM
3

I don't know, that seems like it's treating all women as a collective. I don't know how many of those girls would turn around and accuse him of being a pig if he were less attractive. Maybe I'm just being optimistic though.
/r/MensRights03/03/17 04:38 PM
-4

.... to like, be nice? There's something wrong with choosing to take someone else out to a meal?
/r/MensRights05/03/16 06:40 AM
0

I think a lot of people find singular they pretty acceptable.
/r/MensRights02/01/15 10:08 AM
18

I think so. The money is just for alimony, not child support.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 03:52 PM
1

What would be interesting to know if they took into account that there probably are a lot more fatherless homes to begin with. Yeah, I think the sensible way to handle this would be to say "of those people that are [father/mother]less, what percent are [dropouts/homeless/etc]?"
/r/MensRights19/05/13 08:55 PM
15

Nadia doesn't like men lol "Misandry, lol" Seriously though, at least someone did recognize the misandry.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:42 AM
27

Eh, I think both occur with relatively comparable frequency.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:59 PM
7

They literally stole it from a chemistry textbook because they thought it sounded cool. Um, what? Are you sure they didn't just "steal" the latin prefix cis- and affix it to the word "gender" to mean the opposite of "transgender", as "cis-" means the opposite of "trans-"? Or are you also disputing the legitimacy of the word "transgender"?
/r/MensRights06/04/13 11:25 PM
1

Seriously, I don't know what the whole downvote brigade is about. People "make up" words by attaching prefixes to other words all the time. Those words in chemistry were "made up" by some chemist once, too.I don't see how you can recognize "transgender" as a legitimate word but not "cisgender" as a word meaning the opposite of "transgender" when cis- means the opposite of trans-. r/MR seems to be becoming increasingly fickle and less and less conducive to conversation.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 11:23 PM
2

click link srs nope.jpg
/r/MensRights18/03/13 07:39 PM
5

I think it would work better with just the top section (ie, no "Feminism - A whole new level of HATE"). Also, just graphically, not a big fan of the font.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 02:38 AM
1

First of all I was just saying that if it's true that the minimum wage isn't effective and it results in unemployment, then (rest of what I said). But anyway. I don't think you addressed in your post the actual argument that Drainedsoul was making, which is that the minimum wage is actually ineffective. Ie, the argument is not that what you want isn't good/shouldn't happen, but that the minimum wage doesn't do what you want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1Moeaa-W8
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:30 PM
2

Like a slave, who is able to deny the masters wishes and refuse to work, but he will hunger and suffer for it. Those aren't equivalent situations. If a slave denies a master and is punished for it by the master, he is suffering directly at the hands of the master. If a person chooses not to work and goes hungry, his suffering is a result of the fact that the world does not materialize food in front of people, but requires labor to produce.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:19 PM
6

Well, if you accept that logic then no one should be supporting the minimum wage. But people still do. Ie, it's not like the fact that the minimum wage makes people unemployed implies that just people making the minimum wage should oppose it.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:12 AM
3

Honestly I don't think we need to do much to defend our name. I think any reasonable sane person who actually comes to /r/MensRights after hearing about it would see that we're (for the most part) not the hate-mongering misogynists that some would make us out to be. Being slightly optimistic, every time some RadFed makes these kinds of accusations against us, I'd like to think it just brings more people in to see what we're really like.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 01:08 AM
6

https://twitter.com/oerbadianikki/status/299939832115912704 What site is this person on?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 07:53 PM
4

An "academic" feminist might, or someone who adheres to the original ideas of feminism, but I don't think the majority of people who call themselves feminists would be happy about this.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 07:50 PM
1

I think "voluntaryism" is a better term for it.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 07:36 PM
3

They mentioned this once on Scrubs... I thought they were joking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5TizcgEXR4
/r/MensRights05/02/13 08:29 PM
3

What the fuck is wrong with these people? I like do not understand. I've had some arguments about gender-issue related stuff with people on /r/2X and the like, but I can usually sort of understand where people are coming from. SRS though, I just have no fucking idea. Do they just like to have someone to hate so they can feel oppressed or something?
/r/MensRights16/01/13 01:11 AM
35

Does anyone else find such a violent reaction from three parties like this kind of hard to believe? If anything, I'd imagine people would just be more patronizing with stuff like "lol, dude, I don't think you were raped, you just had sex and didn't remember it" kind of stuff. I guess I could imagine an SRS/rape-fetishist type reacting this way, but I don't know, maybe I'm just lucky (edit: with the people I know), but I can't imagine something like that going down in real life with a real person…
/r/MensRights11/01/13 05:07 AM
0

The violence would be violence (or threat of violence) used by a state to force people who independently raise money for a shelter to also open it up to men. I said "even it it weren't funded by tax money", so in this hypothetical no one is being denied a publicly-funded service.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 01:08 AM
1

Even if it weren't funded by tax money, while I wouldn't be in favor of using violence to force people to use the money for both men and women, the fact that there's a shelter only for women certainly seems indicative of society's general tendency to be more concerned with caring for women than men.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 10:40 PM
1

I think there are a lot of feminists who are less interested in gender egalitarianism or women's rights and more interested in just benefiting the state of women without much concern for anything else. Most people here believe that these kinds of feminists are the ones that should represent the movement (since they're the more vocal ones that lobby and do other stuff).
/r/MensRights14/12/12 07:26 PM
37

Seriously. So they're fine with people who advocate for men's rights, just as long as they're not called MRAs? Although this sort of reminds me of r/MR's general attitude towards feminists. I think there are a lot of feminists (or people who call themselves feminists) who are basically just women's rights advocates or gender egalitarians that might be off-put by r/MR's anger towards feminists because we're angry at a different kind of feminist, but they might think we're angry at the gender-egal…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 11:42 PM
1

Well, yes, at least more so than it is anti-MRA.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 05:02 PM
14

I think MRAs like to point out instances where a mother is unfit to care for/have custody of her kids to help dispel the myth that women make better parents, or whatever it is people think that results in mothers being granted custody more often.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 04:01 AM
4

I don't think the opposite joke would be such a big deal. This one gets thrown around a bit: "My girlfriend's dad put me in such a bad mood by calling me a pedophile, just because I'm 31 and she's 19. Totally ruined our 10 year anniversary."
/r/MensRights18/11/12 09:34 PM
215

It's unfortunate since groups like that make it impossible to actually discuss the nuances of gender Oh, I see you are a member of MR so we won't be discussing this anymore. seriously.jpg
/r/MensRights07/11/12 05:37 AM
2

The point the post was trying to make, I think, was to point out that there's a difference between cautioning someone on how to not get robbed/raped, and trying to blame them from the robbing/rape. Though I'm not sure how good of a job the post does of this.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:25 PM
6

I tend to agree with you, but the point the first half is trying to make is that people sometimes confuse victim-blaming with telling someone to be cautious. The impression I get is that when some women are told they should refrain from doing X to avoid being raped, they get mad and think it's victim-blaming. If I were to get mugged walking down a particular street, and some other night my friends told me "No dude, don't walk down that street again", they're just trying to help me not get mugged…
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:23 PM
1

Lies. My daughter is graduating high school this year and is an AP student and they definitely didn't teach logic like that. I guess my high school was different. I'm pretty sure I learned about inverses in a freshmen math class, and I definitely learned them at some point in high school -- I have a pretty vivid memory of it. It was a "magnet school", so I don't know, maybe that was part of it. I also learned about data structures and complex analysis in high school -- I don't think most high sc…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 11:37 PM
1

No it wasn't. You applied logic incorrectly because you have an inflated sense of worth and understanding because you learned something interesting this week. Lmao, I don't know what I did to make you see me as having some kind of inflated sense of worth, or that I think I'm all special because I go to college or something like that. None of what I talked about is stuff I "learned this week". Like I said, I'm pretty sure this is stuff that's generally covered in high school. No one's formally ta…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 11:03 PM
1

Flunked out, did you? Nope, I'll be moving to an apartment. Dorm food sucks. I've got about a 3.7, if you care. Would that have made you happy though? What is it about an apparent misunderstanding of facts that makes you think I'm a horrible person or something? My friends appreciate my honesty and no bullshit, calling people out on their stupidity attitude. I only seem to be a jackass to, well... jackasses. First off, do you equate stupidity with being a jackass? Secondly, sorry you seem to thi…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 10:20 PM
1

Have fun, however, keeping yourself in your dorm room over the course of the next few years. I actually won't be staying in a dorm in the future, but it has been fun living in a dorm for the time that I have been. And I think I will have fun "keeping myself" where I'll be living in the future. Admittedly, I doubt you're as much of a jackass as you were in this particular conversation in life in general, which would explain friends and potentially other things you might like about your life.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 08:43 PM
1

You're an idiot man. Hope being a stubborn jackass works out for you.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 06:40 PM
1

Uh, yes it does. You may not agree with that argument, but that doesn't mean it isn't an argument. poop. If I think that's an argument is it an argument? what the fuck are you talking about? No, I'm just smarter than you I doubt that. I can understand something as simple as why a statement and its inverse are not the same, while you cannot. I am also capable of responding to statements with actual reasoning, while you have repeatedly demonstrated you have not been able to. It's actually quite mi…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 03:50 PM
0

You didn't address anything. You said "wrong" a bunch of times, and then said some stuff about not understanding grammar without providing any actual details. Just because you think you're making an argument doesn't mean you actually are. I'm beginning to think you're actually just a troll, though. If that's the case, 10/10, excellent job. I was pretty thoroughly convinced that you meant all the stuff you were saying and that you were actually incapable of understanding the difference between a …
/r/MensRights03/11/12 12:06 AM
1

I can follow a conversation just fine. I don't think you know how reasoning works.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 09:27 PM
0

Oh how disappointing, your messages still come through. Doesn't change the fact that your 10,000% wrong, though. Or maybe more like 20,000%.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 09:16 PM
0

Lmao. No. You're wrong. End of story. Period. Finito. It's over. You are 5010% wrong. I'm right. Because reasons. It's not my fault you can't see it. I'm not going to hold your hand. RES ignored, mate. All the best.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 09:05 PM
0

What you quoted above is paraphrasing the words on the flyer to show their actual meaning. Which quote? Please be specific. You're just having trouble following the logic and clearly don't have a firm grasp on grammar. No, I'm actually fine at those two things. If you'd like to try and convince me otherwise, you're free to try, but you're going to actually have to, you know, try, and use reasoning and logic and all those other nice things to explain your position. Not just "no you're wrong you j…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 08:43 PM
0

You're confusing two different arguments. This is in fact what the flyer says, I never said anything to the contrary. I did say that I think what the flyer is saying was true, but this is a separate issue. The first point I am trying to make is that you claimed the flyer was saying something that it was not. Once we deal with that, we can move on to the second issue, which is discussing the truth of whether or not what the flyer actually said is true or not. I think you have some reading compreh…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 06:02 PM
0

I've copied the wording from the flyer verbatim. Where is this grammatical discrepancy you're referring to? By the way, looking back through the conversation, you said this: What it actually says is: When a girl takes a step toward her liberation, it makes it easier for a boy to do the same. which is in fact equivalent to what the flyer says, so it's not a problem in reading the flyer. This, however, is not what you claimed the flyer was saying (which, for your reference, was "that men can't mov…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 02:29 AM
0

No, I've been explaining why what the flyer says is not what you said, and you've responding by ignoring my arguments, or else dismissing them without actually addressing, like by calling them "hooey". Though considering this behavior on your part, I can see why it'd seem to you that I'm not actually make an argument, since you seem to be ignoring the part where I do and just skipping to the conclusion. I don't know, if I can't get you to actually address my explanations as to why what the poste…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 07:55 PM
0

Yes, I did. It was a load of hooey. Lol, alright, I think I'm done here. If you feel like acting like an adult feel free to message me. Until then, I'll just reciprocate the same kind of language you're using. YOU'RE WRONG, I'M RIGHT, LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
/r/MensRights01/11/12 05:03 PM
0

Wrong "Nuh...nuh uh!" Did you read anything I wrote? What it actually says is: When a girl takes a step toward her liberation, it makes it easier for a boy to do the same. No, it says what I wrote... check the poster again (actually it says "boy who finds the way to freedom", not "path to freedom", but anyway). This is not a fact. Oh, okay, so you do agree that you originally said that the poster was saying something that it is in fact not saying? You just still think the fact is wrong, even tho…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 12:05 AM
0

What you said they said: "Men can't move forward until women do first." What the poster said: "For every girl who takes the step toward her liberation, there is a boy who finds the path to freedom a little easier." Let A be "men move forward/towards their liberation". Let B be "women move forward/towards their liberation". What the poster is saying: "B -> A" (B implies A) What you said they were saying: " B' -> A' " (not B implies not A, ie, if women are not moving forward, then men are not movi…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 06:12 PM
0

First of all, I'm just talking about what the poster is saying, regardless of whether or not it is true. Sorry, but the poster is not saying what you said it was. Second, I think that most gender roles are pretty inherently two-sided, which means that fighting to minimize a gender role from either side would effectively reduce it from both sides.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 02:45 AM
1

Oh, ok, so the airline was likely being racist.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 02:40 AM
4

This is, on a rough level, the classic gender dynamic. Men are big, strong, tough protectors and women are dainty little flowers that need protecting.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 02:03 AM
14

It makes no mention of the men in jail because the courts sentence men more harshly The poster seemed to be focusing on more day-to-day mundane issues that people face due to their gender, and not the more extreme, but less common issues. It makes no mention of the men who are considered perverted or creepy or a rapist for talking to a girl and showing interest, or walking on the same side of the street as her. I don't think leaving out this one issue makes the poster particularly one-sided. The…
/r/MensRights28/10/12 02:00 AM
2

No, it just says that when women try and fight their gender roles, it also helps men fight gender roles. The opposite is also true and should probably have been there too, but I'm not going to let a wording choice that was likely made due to historical reasons (ie, women's rights become a more popular movement first) ruin a poster that otherwise does a good job of explaining the inherently two-sided nature of gender roles.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 01:55 AM
5

That's not really the kind of evidence I was looking for. I'm not trying to suggest that gender identity is definitely something that's learned, either, but it seems to me that no one really understands what's going on in non-cis people at biological or psychological level (and it seems like a jump to assume it must be in place from birth just because people people's reactions make it seem like this). What about someone constitutes their gender, as something separate from their sex? Hormone leve…
/r/MensRights27/10/12 11:12 PM
4

I wouldn't doubt that many of these kinds of feminists actually believe a lot of what they say.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 11:03 PM
28

Wait what? So: Person A does not have first class ticket -- does not get to sit in first class. Person B does have first class ticket -- gets to sit in first class. Since Person B is a black female and Person A is a white male, racism! Am I missing something here? Did the white guy not have a ticket either?
/r/MensRights27/10/12 11:02 PM
6

Is there any actual evidence to suggest that your brain's gender identity is something that's set at birth, and isn't something that can be developed (either other than just anecdotal evidence)?
/r/MensRights27/10/12 10:59 PM
0

See I would counter and say that instead of making things like knowledge gender exclusive you should try and make them as open as possible. One major ramification to the policy of gender exclusivity is that unless you offer a male-only class then you basically promote that its OK to make gender exclusivity for females OK. What if the OP is poor and does not have the resources to go and pay for a class like this for the knowledge? Then you have potentially stopped someone whom could have created …
/r/MensRights14/10/12 10:43 PM
0

That does seem troubling, though I'm not sure if segregation of the classroom is a good solution to this (well, it probably is a good solution for this problem, but I think it would create others).
/r/MensRights14/10/12 10:34 PM
0

the only real issue is that having the same for men probably wouldn't be as socially acceptable. Yeah, that's basically what I said.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:19 PM
-2

Well, I'm not sure I'd totally like that idea, but I certainly think (private) schools should be free to run that way if they wanted.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 08:11 AM
-1

They could just be trying to introduce them to a field that they might be hesitant to get into for themselves because of the disproportionately low number of females in the field, and their goal is just to get over that initial alienation hill. I mean really, who knows? I think things like this make sense to try and get women into a field where they're under-represented, but even if I didn't, what, just because I think that something you're trying out isn't going to work means that you should be…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 08:08 AM
-2

Sure, the fact that men doing the same thing wouldn't be accepted is a problem, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with gender-oriented workshops like this.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 08:01 AM
-1

Who cares? Someone thinks it's a problem and would like to do something to get more women involved in cs. They think introducing cs to women in a female-only context might help. What's wrong with that?
/r/MensRights14/10/12 07:45 AM
-1

FWIW I think this should totally be allowed -- the only real issue is that having the same for men probably wouldn't be as socially acceptable. There's definitely the possibility that women might feel off-put from cs courses by the disproportionately large number of men in them, so trying to introduce them to cs in a female-only context might be useful.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 07:44 AM
4

I'm Armenian; my great-grandfather's family were all killed when he was around 10. But if you look at me, I'd look totally white. So I guess I don't have any problems? I get that your background can affect the kind of life you live and the hardships you face, but there's a lot that goes into what your background is besides the fucking color of your skin (or your race), and there's lots of ways people can have hardship in their life without it being due to their background. edit: Didn't mean to i…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 12:14 AM
1

What does this have to do with postmodern feminism/marxism?
/r/MensRights05/09/12 06:14 PM
2

"Real women don't abuse children". (assuming women are the perpetrators of child abuse more often, which I think was the case, at least some time ago...)
/r/MensRights05/09/12 06:11 PM
8

tl;dr "I was verbally assaulted and threatened by someone on a train (ostensibly because I'm an attractive female) and men have no idea what it's like to be assaulted and threatened by someone for no real reason." "Also men should respond to other men being rude with violence."
/r/MensRights05/09/12 06:03 PM
5

So basically this person wants to reinstate gender roles? Or perhaps she wants to reinstate only the gender roles that help women.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:08 AM
2

Assuming it wasn't that the man didn't want custody and the woman did.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 08:56 PM
1

So if a man chooses not to major in interior decorating or cosmetology, that's entirely his choice and has nothing to do with societal expectations No? Where did I say that? Good thing women don't face a lot of opposition when they decide they want to enter scientific fields. It doesn't need to have to do with opposition so much as it might have to do with society raising girls in a way that leads them to not want to enter those fields to begin with. Granted, opposition once one has decided to d…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 08:55 PM
5

Can she actually not provide for her kids? If so, shouldn't the guy be paying child support? (unless he tried to obtain custody and was denied it despite being a capable father, then I'd understand) Or is she just blowing money on herself instead of using it for her kids?
/r/MensRights01/09/12 07:36 PM
1

Then why don't they also pour thousands of dollars into getting more men interested in interior decoration? Because they don't want to? If they're doing it with their own money, why not just do what you want to do? If you or anyone else feels that there aren't enough men in interior decoration, then you can go start an organization that raises funds for that. I think people are perfectly capable of deciding what they're interested in on their own. Unless you swing really hard towards the "nature…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 07:33 PM
1

I don't want to deal with morons in my class who are only there because of affirmative action or Title IX or something. As a CS student, I totally agree with this, but that didn't seem to be what the email was talking about? It was just trying to get more women interested in CS, which seems fine to me, especially if they're doing it with private funds. If it is the case that women are socially guided away from CS and related fields (which seems likely) what's wrong with taking social measures to…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 04:10 PM
2

A database of military-aged males with up-to-date contact info so that they can be called upon if congress were to instate a draft.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 12:15 PM
1

With a dictionary/encyclopedia? sexism is ... prejudice or discrimination based on sex -- wikipedia
/r/MensRights30/08/12 12:57 AM
2

The teacher is sexist and so is your sister. The statement "only men can be sexist" is pretty meta.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 12:54 AM
-2

Why does it matter? It matters because the post is inaccurate. I didn't say the situation wasn't still sexist, I just said it's not the situation that OP described. and you are subject to imprisonment and fines source? I was not aware this was the case.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 08:14 PM
-9

There is currently no draft in the united states. The selective service is a database of military-aged males in the country with up-to-date contact information so that the government could quickly contact them in the event that congress instates a draft. Is this sexist? Yes. But it's not a draft, and likely just due to the fact that the last time there was a draft, it was male-only, so the selective service was created based on the (sexist) conditions of the last draft. Congress may well conscri…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 04:29 PM
7

One of the examples they gave to this was your friend (who had been talking about getting with this girl) and the girl at a party are both drinking together and go into his room. The "responsible" thing to do in that situation apparently, would be to bang on the door and demand they both come out, because your friend could get in trouble for sexual assault. It's really funny how misogynistic this actually is. It furthers the whole "women are little helpless flowers that need saving" stereotype, …
/r/MensRights29/08/12 12:18 PM
1

Having said that, HeadingTooNFL is right on the mark. About what? That hypothetically, if someone wanted to make sperm a marital asset, but was also pro-choice, that they would be a hypocrite? Yes, that's true, but other than this one person, I don't know how many people believe in the sperm being a marital asset thing, which makes it a bit of a moot point. If the point is, "men should have just as much of a right to their sperm as women do to their uterus", then yes, that's true.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 07:49 PM
0

The comment didn't seem like it had that connotation, though. I suppose the "ant-eater" comment is a bit offensive/in poor taste, but I don't know exactly what context it was said in/what she meant by it.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 10:44 PM
1

My issue was with the word "hypocrisy". You can't be a hypocrite based on what other people of your gender think.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:06 PM
10

Really, we're mad because someone has sexual preferences? I'm un-circumcised, and it makes me sad sometimes to hear things like this, but if someone doesn't find something attractive then they don't find it attractive. I had a female friend once who saw that I was hairy and would occasionally say stuff like "eww, I wouldn't have sex with a hairy guy" (it wasn't so overt and it was said sort of teasingly/jokingly, but I forgot exactly what she said and in what context). I didn't really like heari…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:31 PM
2

They never even mentioned women. "the standards for a man failing ... is much higher" higher than what? this is an implicit comparison to women. Why do we even need to establish which gender suffers more? We don't. This is what that comment seemed like it was doing, though.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:22 PM
2

A lot of the comments seem to be implying that he's getting shit for taking precautions to defend himself. He's not. No one would be giving him shit if he was carrying around a gun. They're giving him shit because pepper spray is a weapon often associated with women.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:02 AM
1

No one would be giving him shit if he were carrying around a gun. It's just that pepper spray is often associated with women.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 03:00 AM
0

But it undercuts a major problem, which is that the standards for a man failing (and carrying pepper spray is deemed a failure of ability to protect yourself via 'manly' means) is much higher Can you elaborate on this? It seems to me that there's plenty of stuff that women are "expected" to do as well. Are you making the argument that men suffer more when they fail to meet the expectations set for them by their gender?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:57 AM
2

Neither of these promote healthy marriages. It shouldn't be the government's responsibility to promote healthy marriages.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:23 AM
0

Was there anything about abortion in that article?
/r/MensRights27/08/12 02:18 AM
1

To advance the shared common values of the Nation. According to whom was this the goal of society? Who decides what the shared common values of the Nation are?
/r/MensRights25/08/12 01:27 AM
0

There was What was it?
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:37 PM
2

This presumes that there was a social goal and that we got rid of it.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:11 PM
2

We haven't removed anything from society. People are just people, they do what they want. There's no such thing as an objective societal goal. How would you presume to tell other people what their goals in life are? What if they disagree and say "no, you're wrong, my goal in life is to do this"?
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:53 PM
2

In this specific case, I don't know, maybe. If you discount Steve Jobs for all the terrible work conditions in the factories where his company's products were made, it might make the bad the pedo caused seem not so bad. But getting hung up on this specific case is missing the point. I meant that there's not really an objective viewpoint from which to judge people's worth, and perhaps more importantly, there's no reason to allocate different rights to different people based on what certain people…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 07:59 PM
3

Asking people essentially how fearful they are of something is not a useful metric, you're right. Better would be to get a group of men and women together and ask them how many had actually been assaulted.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 07:23 PM
6

Victim blaming would be "What, are you really going to punish the guy who shot Bill for his death? I mean really, Bill should have taken cover." (perhaps not as applicable in a war scenario, but anyway).
/r/MensRights24/08/12 07:21 PM
1

When society gains so much more from one than the other According to who?
/r/MensRights24/08/12 07:17 PM
1

As people, yes, fundamentally their worth should be equivalent. In certain sense Steve Jobs might be worth "more", but should we do things like be more lenient if Steve Jobs murders someone because he's of higher social worth? If the pedo assaults Steve Jobs, should we subject him to harsher punishment than if Steve Jobs were to assault the pedo? These are the kinds of things egalitarianism is concerned with.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 06:48 PM
2

Egalitarianism does not mean "equality" in such a strict sense. From wikipedia: Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status
/r/MensRights24/08/12 04:39 PM
9

If by "men's rights activist and a feminist" you mean "a gender egalitarian", then there's no contradiction there. Honestly I think everyone would be a lot better off if we just did away with the MRM and feminism and just had gender egalitarianism.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 12:28 PM
1

I find it less offensive and more just irrelevant. I'm not that strong, but I'm fairly big, so unless the gay guy hitting on me was particularly muscular (ie, more than just the average guy would be), my potential uncomfortableness wouldn't have anything to do with fear of getting raped. It would have to do with being made to think sexually about someone I wouldn't normally think about in a sexual way.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 12:18 PM
4

I'm sure, but there still needs to be an actual crime on the books that he was convicted for, no?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:58 PM
6

Always get consent. It's easier on the wallet. I'm not sure if you intended it to come off this way, but this makes it sound like you don't think it's important to get consent because, you know, women are human beings and stuff.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:45 PM
20

IIRC, this poster was a sarcastic response to a "how to not get raped" poster that had things like "make sure to have a buddy with you". It's silly in order to make a point.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:43 PM
25

What law did this guy break? Really, even beyond men's rights issues, criminalization of expressing an opinion is pretty ridiculous. (I feel the same way for, say, Holocaust denial laws).
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:38 PM
1

I do not think penetration while sleeping is 'okay' but it certainly isn't rape. That's pretty undeniably rape. Whether or not it should be taken as seriously as more serious kinds of rape, or even punished at all, it's pretty undeniably rape based on current definitions.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:19 PM
3

They started yesterday. It could just be a new blog. Well, it is a new blog, I guess.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 08:28 PM
10

Ah, I see. FWIW, I don't really know if she's a troll. A troll is someone who intentionally says things they don't agree with to piss people off. Someone who genuinely believes this stuff isn't a troll, they're just crazy. edit: I'd like to believe SRS is actually full of trolls, but I'm pretty sure most of them believe what they're saying.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 07:32 PM
3

One of the posts is a direct SRS comment source? (or at least what post/comment?)
/r/MensRights19/08/12 06:49 PM
15

The posts started yesterday (so the fact that there's four of them doesn't say much). This strikes me as just not crazy enough to be believable. I think it's likely either a very skilled troll, or someone who's just crazy. I have a bad feeling it's the latter...
/r/MensRights19/08/12 06:47 PM
1

I think if CEOs are being over-paid, that it has more to do with the fact that they're the ones making pay decisions (or have influence over the people that do) and have a vested personal interested.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:30 PM
0

But, in the USA, I understand in order to vote you need to register for the draft. You don't register for the draft, you register for the selective service, which is essentially a database of people and their addresses to be used in the event that congress institutes a draft. There is currently no draft in the United States to register for. Also, I'm not totally sure if it's even accurate that you have to register for the selective service. I am not yet registered to vote, but I'm still signed u…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 02:52 PM
1

I don't really understand, you're saying that when companies try to decide how much to pay people in HR, accounting, etc., all they do is say "hm, well, how much do we think these people are worth?" without actually doing any analysis into how they actually affect the company and how much profit they help generate? You think that if we tricked enough people into thinking HR people were the most valuable members of a company, that just because of their perceived societal worth, they'd end up gett…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 02:42 PM
2

No one wants to be oppressed, but it everyone would want to be classified as being oppressed. Everyone has their problems, and who wouldn't want everyone else to agree with them on how much of a burden their problems really are? People want to be told "hey, we fixed the wage gap, now women make a ton more money than they used to!". They don't want to be told "Oh, looks like we were mistaken, you aren't really being systematically paid less". Now the only thing that's changed is that society has …
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:17 AM
2

This was cited in the article, fyi.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:13 AM
8

I think what happens is that people say things, other people refute these things, and the initial reaction if for the first person to kinda just be like"uh... nuh-uh!". But eventually they realize that they don't have much of an argument and that all they're doing is saying "nuh-uh" and they concede. That is unless there's a whole group of people supporting the initial "nuh-uh"-ers with even more cries of "nuh-uh". Then we get a huge "nuh-uh" circlejerk and people manage to convince themselves t…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:12 AM
2

a capitalist society explains why the profession that is perceived as more valuable pays more. This seems to imply that a profession that is only perceived as valuable, but actually not lucrative, will pay more. I don't think this is the case. If the field isn't generating profits (ie, actually being valuable) then it won't be able to sustain higher wages, regardless of how valuable it is perceived as, will it?
/r/MensRights19/08/12 05:09 AM
8

that doesn't say shit about societal views on women. I think that's short-sighted. Most elements of a culture reflect on that culture in some way. OP misrepresented the song No argument there, I'm not saying this thread isn't irrelevant, just that the "it's just a song" argument isn't always great.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:59 AM
4

less important EVERYONE DROP EVERYTHING. NOTHING MATTERS EXCEPT STARVING KIDS IN AFRICA. Seriously, unless we adopt this kind of thought process, people need to stop with this whole "my problems are worse than your problems therefore your problems don't exist" thing. Because eventually everyone loses that game (except starving kids in Africa, etc.)
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:18 AM
1

Okay, so as much as I think we probably have bigger fish to fry and that we could benefit from focusing our efforts a bit more, saying "it's just a song" doesn't mean that it might not be indicative of societal views on men and therefore relevant.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 04:11 AM
1

Yeah this argument is 100% illogical. 'Patriarchy being something that hurts men' does not make it everything that hurts men.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:51 PM
1

Meh, sad for my state :( Maybe he could try for full custody? Seems unlikely, but given that he has a job and perhaps more capacity to care for the child than the mother, might be worth a shot?
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:42 PM
1

Do you want to share custody? Could you try and pursue that? edit: Or push for adoption? I'm not sure how feasible any of that is.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 05:27 AM
1

I'm not sure what you're trying to say -- the idea is that if someone commits suicide because they were sexually harassed (in a non-physical way), it's possible to hold someone legally accountable for the sexual harassment but not for the suicide.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 09:03 PM
1

I think you misinterpreted what I said, what you describe is exactly what I'm advocating we should not do.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 04:49 PM
1

where the goal is social ostracism and destroyed identity. This part is important. It might be sensible to persecute this girl for her intended goals (eg, social ostracism/destroyed identity/whatever else) if we can establish intent for those things, but not for the kid's death (well, unless it can be established that the girl's goal in this was in fact to kill him by driving him to suicide, but I find that unlikely). We did have that case awhile back with the gay student who killed himself afte…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 04:10 PM
1

I should clarify -- while I'm not necessarily defending the criminalization of sexual harassment, that's not what I'm talking about. I was talking about holding people accountable for what people end up doing based on their emotional state. Putting someone into that emotional state to begin with, and criminalizing that, seems like a separate issue. In other words, I think someone could consistently see things like sexual harassment as a crime, but not things like this, by saying that we can hold…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 04:04 PM
1

I think the difference with feminism is that, for certain feminist ideas (not the whole "women shouldn't enjoy sex/get married" crowd), the people who believe the things that we see as harmful are now the majority of the people who use the label. Once this happens I think it's sensible to use the label to refer to the group, but not while they represent a minority.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 03:54 PM
16

I think it's a good thing to bring attention to. IMO, penis size is in many ways different from things that women get objectified for like breast size. The size of a women's breasts is pretty plainly obvious just by looking at her. The size of a guy's penis is something much more private which only suddenly gets exposed when being intimate with someone. I think the differences make it worthwhile to discuss in the context of men's rights (as much as things like objectification of a woman's breast…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:28 PM
15

From what the story says, that girl is a bitch and a horrible person, but I can't get behind the idea of holding people legally accountable for the emotional states of others.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:23 PM
1

I highly doubt it's the same feminists that are doing each, more like different groups of feminists. The thing is, I think that such a high majority of people who call themselves feminists are the "bodily autonomy" kind of feminists, that I don't think it makes much sense for those "other" feminists to be calling themselves feminists, and for others to honor their label only serves to further confusion and complicate discourse. It'd be like if a crop of people came up who believe that men should…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 12:59 AM
1

just that the issue is relevant to considering men's rights. If male and female homosexuality are equally oppressed, why? If I went out and tried to speak in public about the economic situation and was forced to stop, is this a men's issue because it happen to me, a man? I don't think it's sensible to say that all issues that people who happen to be men face are "men's issues". I don't think this distinction helps discourse in any way, and it distracts from "actual" men's issues (ie, issues that…
/r/MensRights12/08/12 03:09 PM
1

Oppression of homosexuality is usually much worse for male-male relationships than for female-female ones. I don't really notice this that much, but if this is the case, then I can see why it would make sense to frame oppression of male homosexuality as a men's issue. If this weren't the case though (and even if it is, but not to a huge degree) it strikes me as silly an counter-productive to try and separate out male homosexuality as a different issue and work only on that, instead of trying to …
/r/MensRights12/08/12 02:56 PM
1

In any case, that would be a women's issue. Why? Is women's free speech a women's issue and men's free speech a men's issue? Or is free speech just a human rights issue? It seems to me that homophobia stems from the idea that all sexual relationships should be heterosexual, which doesn't seem like a men's issue or a women's issue, but just a human issue.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 02:37 PM
1

Do you have any sources off hand? I've seen feminists argue for bodily autonomy so much that I can't believe those same feminists would then presume to try and control what women do with their bodies.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 03:20 AM
1

So this passage is about helping a rape victim and making sure her rapist provides for her material needs until she dies. Hardly patriarchal. That is patriarchy. The idea that women are helpless and need big strong men to take care of them. You're right, the point of the passage is, in a sense, to help the rape victim, but that doesn't make it not patriarchy anymore. I'm saying that when you squint real hard and give yourself a concussion, some of them almost make sense. I'm not saying it doesn'…
/r/MensRights11/08/12 11:09 PM
1

No one else would marry her That's patriarchal -- the idea that a woman is evaluated by her worth as an object of sexuality. It also pretty much completely dismisses the rape itself, unless you seriously consider having to marry someone you sexually violated as appropriate punishment. Plus, the rapist would pay her father 50 silver shekels. This made me laugh. Are you being serious? I don't think what is effectively a fine amounts to appropriate punishment for rape. (Also, I think paying money t…
/r/MensRights11/08/12 10:41 PM
1

Calling something a "men's issue" carries the implication that men are more affected by it. It makes no sense to call human rights issues "men's issues" because men happen to also be human. Is free speech also a men's issue because it affects men?
/r/MensRights11/08/12 10:26 PM
8

See this is why I hate feminism, they're all for choice, but God forbid if a woman wants to save herself for marriage to have sex. They don't like it when women dress modestly, generalizing to make me feel better and to fit my point lol a bunch think if you've got it you should flaunt it. You can't attribute every random thought that people who call themselves feminists have to feminism. I've never seen feminism advocate shaming any woman for what they choose to do with their body.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 03:19 PM
34

If Christianity were patriarchal on the other hand the why does it teafh self-control, and preaches against lustful thoughts until marriage. This is just for comparison Christianity, at least "traditionally" (ie, if you go only by what the Bible says) is pretty darn patriarchal. I think there's a passage that describes the punishment for rape as the rapist having to marry his victim. If a woman isn't a virgin when they try to get married, shes's supposed to be stoned to death. It's just that Wes…
/r/MensRights11/08/12 03:15 PM
4

for example, homosexuality is usually taboo How is this a men's issue? Are countries like Iran okay with lesbians?
/r/MensRights11/08/12 03:09 PM
4

Whether or not you agree with this image, it is not saying that men are at fault for everything, because, according patriarchy theory, men are not the only ones who cause patriarchy.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 04:57 AM
1

"bigoted" might be more appropriate. Anyway, it's ignorant/bigoted because it's a ridiculous, baseless notion, and the language you used to express it seems to indicate an irrational dislike for fat people. I'm a bit chubby, my dad's fat, some people I work with are fat, and none of them are "shamefully greedy". They just like to eat, or don't take time out to exercise, or have poor metabolisms.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 06:53 PM
2

Maybe seeing gigantic monstrosities disgusts me? ... Also, it lowers the dating pool of acceptable partners, making it harder to find someone you are compatible with. etc Maybe that's too fucking bad? Are you seriously implying that because you are annoyed by the way someone looks, that it's the right thing to do to shame them into changing the way they look? Should I go around shaming everyone with tattoos and piercings because I don't like the way they look and it bothers me? No, I think that …
/r/MensRights07/08/12 06:46 PM
2

I don't think there's anything all that wrong with not shaming smokers. They know what it's doing to them (hopefully) and they're making the choice to continue doing it. If that's how they want to live their life, then why not let them? It's not your job to motivate people to change their lives. If someone says "fuck it, I'll get fat, I just want to enjoy eating", then why not let them?
/r/MensRights07/08/12 05:36 PM
5

There's no reason to shame you for it. An example where the thing is under a person's control: short hair. I don't like short hair on women; I just don't find it attractive. But there's a difference between shaming someone for an appearance that's based on a choice they made and just not finding it attractive. Why do we need to shame fat people? Maybe they're okay with it -- they understand the repercussions and would rather eat what they want than get in shame. Why do we need to shame them for …
/r/MensRights07/08/12 04:14 PM
4

that is, they are trying to force men to find fat women attractive. I'm sorry, but that's not at all what fat-shaming is. There's a pretty huge difference between not finding something attractive and shaming people for their appearance. Eg, I'm generally not all that attracted to black people. Not sure why, but it's nothing I can help, I'm just not attracted to them, generally speaking. That doesn't mean at all that I would ever imagine shaming someone for being black. Obviously being fat is dif…
/r/MensRights07/08/12 05:23 AM
4

As someone that's quite easily annoyed by both liberals and conservatives, I definitely see no reason to associate the MRM with either. In theory, though, a lot of the ideas MRAs stand for (like the "reduction", for lack of a better word, of gender roles) strike me as more traditionally liberal.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 05:12 AM
23

But honey, you were raped. You're just a helpless little girl, how was your tiny female brain supposed to understand that by saying things like "I want to have sex", he was actually trying to change your mind about having sex? /s It's really surprising how misogynistic this definition of rape is when you think about it.
/r/MensRights07/08/12 12:32 AM
1

What don't they do, exactly?
/r/MensRights04/08/12 10:48 PM
1

if any woman belived that they would be first in line to change that social atitude by example... You think people can just snap their fingers and be like "Wow, I never realized how women were conditioned to think in a particular way and act in certain ways. Now that we get it, everyone in the world knows and it will never happen again!"? I don't think social change comes that easily. but they don't What don't they do, exactly? They don't promote the idea that women should be encouraged to go in…
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:48 PM
1

How did you reach the conclusion that "remediation" means "womens choices should not carry consequences" and not "social atitudes that need to chnage"?
/r/MensRights04/08/12 08:22 PM
1

Do you have a source? I've never heard a feminist (or anyone really (edit: well, at least in a totally serious context)) explicitly complain about this.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 06:01 PM
1

no she does not mean it's the social atitudes that need to chnage but that womens choices should not carry consequnces. How did you reach that conclusion? What's wrong with trying to encourage women to go into "traditionally male" fields, or removing the stigma that women are "supposed" to be the ones who care for a household/children.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 05:49 PM
1

Yes, she's insane. She thinks she can force other women to do things they don't want to do. What you should have asked is, "are you a feminist, or a misogynist? I think this sentiment exhibits the same misunderstanding of choice that OP's feminist was exhibiting by referring to "brain washing". To quote myself from another comment: Unless you swing really hard to the "nature" side of the "nature vs nurture" debate, there's a fine line between raising people to think a certain way and "brain wash…
/r/MensRights04/08/12 05:26 PM
2

Why does everyone think she was implying that we have the government just skew things to even out wage gaps? Couldn't she have just meant that we should change social attitudes?
/r/MensRights04/08/12 05:19 PM
1

"A pay gap relating to “choices” is still totally in need of remediation." I'm surprised to see everyone thinking she's crazy. I think she's more or less correct. I'm assuming everyone's seen this video explaining the wage gap? Not only does the video do a good job of explaining why the wage gap is not due to labor market discrimination, but it also goes on to explain how sexism can still be at work in influencing women to make the choices that they do. I totally agree with her that we should wo…
/r/MensRights04/08/12 05:10 PM
3

Do you believe that men should pay most of the time, open doors for women, be chivalrous, etc? Or are you for the abolition of gender roles? Does this vary from individual to individual? I think we should try to minimize gender roles, but FWIW, unless you swing pretty hard to the "nature" side in the "nature vs nurture" debate, you can't ever totally abolish gender roles imo. Unless we abolish gender, I think there's always going to be gender roles to an extent. That's not to say that we can't c…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 11:08 PM
175

MRA: "I'm an MRA because men face problems too." Feminist A: "Feminism is supposed to work towards equality for men, too." MRA: "If that's the case, then why hasn't feminism done anything about XYZ?" Feminist B: "Ugh, can you stop with the 'what about teh menz?' Feminism has its own stuff to deal with." Feminist A: silence MRA: "Okay....so, I'm an MRA because men face problems too." Feminist A: "Feminism is supposed to work towards equality for men, too."
/r/MensRights03/08/12 01:07 AM
0

Though I struggled with adolescent anxieties, I never doubted that I belonged on that campus. It was at Berkeley, however, that I learned about white male privilege for the first time. I saw how my sense of belonging served as an invaluable crutch in times of personal crisis. Didn't finish reading, but this bothered me a lot. Having just finished my first year of college, I think I know the feeling the author was talking about, and I also know that I didn't have it at all at the beginning of col…
/r/MensRights02/08/12 04:31 AM
2

It's not just not really related, it's really more like the opposite. Ie, making the parallel to rape culture makes "pedophile culture" sound like the opposite of what OP intended it to mean.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:22 AM
3

Solution: rightsbot responds to ALL the comments.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 01:41 AM
1

It's not a concept that gets applied on an individual basis. The idea is that catcalling a man is just something that doesn't happen all that often, whereas catcalling a women is a "thing". I'm not vouching for the accuracy of any of these statements/notions by the way, just explaining what they are.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 12:19 AM
1

The idea is that you're privileged because that minority of men don't bother you with that behavior.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 12:00 AM
2

Is there any "Male privilege is X" statement that can't be re-stated as "Being a women sucks/is annoying because X"? If not, "female disadvantage" would probably be a much term for these things than "male privilege", since the former does not promote the baseless notion that because a group suffers from certain disadvantages, that the "opposite" group cannot also suffer from from disadvantages.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 11:59 PM
40

A bit of a nitpick: that's not what "rape culture" means. Rape culture means that society excuses/minimizes rape. I don't think you're trying to argue that society excuses or minimizes pedophilia. In fact, you're probably closer to arguing the opposite. Not to say that "pedophile culture" might not be a good term of what you're describing -- but drawing the parallel to rape culture is misleading.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:18 PM
15

There's lots of ways this could have played out. He could have jokingly made fun of her sexuality, been slapped unexpectedly, and reacted too strongly. Or, he could have been genuinely insulting her sexuality, and his violent response could be indicative of his bias. At any rate, the title of the post is a bit disingenuous. They're not arguing that arbitrary violence against lesbians is a hate crime, they clearly think the guy's attitude indicated that he was biased against lesbians.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:40 AM
3

Religion is anti-me Unfortunately since they can't get religion to call itself "anti-people" they're probably going to have to go on calling themselves antitheists.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 12:23 AM
1

Violence might be an appropriate response to the threat, if you feel it's genuine, but OP didn't seem to indicate he was being seriously threatened.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 10:07 PM
2

Well, I guess I would. Violence is not an appropriate response to someone talking to you, I guess, even if they're being an ass.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 09:44 PM
13

Grabbing a woman's ass seems the more natural parallel to grabbing a man's penis, socially speaking.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 09:32 PM
13

Honestly I didn't either. I thought about it and thought "cmon, is this really something we need to be concerned about it?", but then I thought about the reaction it would get if the genders were reversed.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 09:30 PM
2

In context I would consider it a "violent" issue in that someone actually took something physical off of your person instead of just talking. "Non-physical" might be more appropriate.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 09:28 PM
2

Your equating calling someone names with theft?
/r/MensRights29/07/12 08:57 PM
72

Last night I accidentally grabbed some stranger's ass in a bar and then I turned around and saw it wasn't andrea and I paniced and punched her in the face
/r/MensRights29/07/12 06:25 PM
2

There's already /r/GenderEgalitarian and /r/Equality, btw. Though as others have pointed out, the issue is that since there is such strong support for feminism, as a matter of practicality, it's more helpful to have a group that explicitly focuses on men's rights.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 06:18 PM
2

That doesn't mean we can't differentiate between how things should be and they are. OP could have said "me not wanting to take insults from anyone". Also, violence doesn't strike me as a particularly good way to resolve non-violent issues.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 06:07 PM
2

Okay? It just doesn't seem nice to be shaming someone for their body, regardless of what it's like.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 06:04 PM
10

So me not wanting to take insults from someone less muscular than a schoolgirl Uh, so it's okay for muscular people to act like dicks though? Is it also okay to shame men for not being muscular?
/r/MensRights29/07/12 04:28 AM
9

That’s the best revenge of all: happiness. Nothing drives people crazier than seeing someone have a good fucking life. -- Chuck Palahniuk
/r/MensRights29/07/12 01:53 AM
1

The situation with the genders reversed is much less likely to occur. When have you heard anyone even suggesting getting people to beat up an ex girlfriend of theirs?
/r/MensRights29/07/12 01:36 AM
3

I also live in Jersey (in the county where the crime happened, too), and I don't think there's much more of a gender bias here than there is anywhere else. You make is sound as if New Jersey is particularly biased against men.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 01:34 AM
0

I disagree. I think it'd be far less likely for the opposite to ever happen (ie, a boyfriend arranging to have his ex beaten up). People are less perturbed by violence against men than against women.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 01:31 AM
-6

Ok, since people seem to have trouble reading, let's try again: She's smiling because as a girl, she knows she won't be punished. You don't know that's why she's smiling. If you do in fact know that's why she's smiling, please provide your reasoning for this conclusion.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 03:36 PM
4

But some people promote the idea that even when a drunk person "consents", it isn't really consent because the person didn't know what they were doing. This is the argument Gingor was addressing, I think. It's not other people's responsibility to keep track of your mental state for you and know that you don't actually mean "yes" when you say "yes".
/r/MensRights28/07/12 03:44 AM
-7

So you think the same way as someone that arranges to have people beaten with lead pipes?
/r/MensRights28/07/12 01:51 AM
-7

It's justified because she was mean! Why would you think that?
/r/MensRights28/07/12 01:25 AM
-5

It sounds like you're implying that I said this was the case, which I didn't.
/r/MensRights28/07/12 12:52 AM
13

When someone has something sexual done to them that they did not consent to. To perhaps offer a perspective likely to be a bit contrary to some answers you might get from /r/Feminism, here's an example of something I do not think is rape: Two people are in bed. One wants to have sex, and the other does not. The one who wants to have sex continually nags/bothers the other about wanting to have sex, and the other person eventually gives in. I've seen people try to argue that things like this are r…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 11:52 PM
-19

She's smiling because as a girl, she knows she won't be punished. That's a pretty baseless accusation. If the guy did something that made the girl feel he was an ass, maybe she's just smiling because she feels like justice was served from her perspective, and she's glad to deal with the repercussions of that justice. edit: Well, I guess the downvotes and lack of an explanation mean that this wasn't a baseless accusation, and the only possible reason she's smiling is because she thinks she won't …
/r/MensRights27/07/12 11:36 PM
14

SO, let's see. I want sex. Male privilege. I don't want sex. Male privilege. Good to know. It's really quite hilarious how oblivious people are to "traditional" gender issues when they happen with the genders reversed.
/r/MensRights27/07/12 08:38 PM
11

There's also, you know, already a female version of the word hero (heroine). She didn't need to invent one...
/r/MensRights27/07/12 08:37 PM
6

Sacrificing yourself for another person is a heroic gesture, but it should be not expected. Not only is this offensive to the people who are just "expected" to do the heroic act, but I think it also cheapens the actual act itself. As if to say that what those men did wasn't as heroic because it was what they were supposed to do anyway. Still, running away without looking after the people you came to the movie with, considering it's your significant other and her children (regardless of whose chi…
/r/MensRights27/07/12 08:28 PM
6

There's this quote I knew that was supposed to describe how a particular countries justice system works. Something like "We'd rather let 10 guilty people go free than punish one innocent one."? Must be some other county's justice system, though...
/r/MensRights27/07/12 03:46 AM
1

For the longest time I thought the two numbers were for my two eyes. It's just been a fucking fraction all this time?
/r/MensRights26/07/12 08:25 PM
1

Yeah, I think I confused agency with something more like accountability.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 07:19 PM
29

Record numbers aren't marrying Whose fucking business is it if I decide I don't want to marry?
/r/MensRights26/07/12 05:53 PM
6

Out of curiosity, OP, what are your thoughts on this poster? What message do you think it sends? ** The picture I see this poster painting is this one: At bars, you have two kinds of people. You have women, who are drunk, and who don't want to have sex with men, and you have men, who are sober, who want to have sex with women. The men wait until the women are drunk, and then have sex with them, which counts as rape, regardless of whether or not "consent" was given, because apparently people can …
/r/MensRights26/07/12 04:10 PM
8

It isn't alcohol's fault you make bad choices. The idea is that a woman is being acted upon, which is not her choice (women are still totally liable for drunk driving, for instance, because that is a choice). I think the issue is the perception that sex is something done to a woman, as opposed to something a man and a woman do together.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:35 PM
7

The idea is that people have the ability to act while drunk (why, eg, drunk driving is a crime) but not to give consent to be acted upon (why when a sober person has sex with a drunk person, it's considered rape). The issue is, I think, when two drunk people have sex, the man is arbitrarily seen to be the one acting and the women is arbitrarily seen to be the one acted upon. So I don't think the issue is agency, but the perception that sex is an act committed by a man to a woman.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:33 PM
2

Okay. What does this have to do with the responses to the tweets?
/r/MensRights26/07/12 04:06 AM
4

Perhaps, but I still don't think any of the responses to the tweet indicate any sort of gender bias.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 12:06 AM
9

Agreed. I don't know why this is being up-voted so much. Everything people are saying makes sense, it's just irrelevant as far as this post is concerned.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 11:50 PM
10

While I'm sure that the idea that men are "supposed" protect women and that their deaths are not as bad as women's and all that misandric stuff are going through some people's heads, none of the responses to the tweet I saw mentioned in the articles show any such sentiments. I also find the comment a bit offensive and in poor taste, regardless of gender. No one "asked" to have someone else die for them. Those men made their choice to do what they did. The girls might already be feeling survivor'…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 11:46 PM
7

You can't control what other people post. You never could. No matter how much you complain about it. We could make a new rule about our content guidelines and delete posts that don't meet it.
/r/MensRights25/07/12 06:45 PM
1

Oh, lol, I see. Killing as a conqueror isn't necessarily better than killing for no reason, it's just different. I doubt Genghis Khan would have gone into a group of people just sitting around and killed them for no reason, and I doubt the Aurora shooter would ever become a conqueror.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 06:29 PM
2

That doesn't mean that they come from fundamentally different thoughts. Fantasizing about banging a cheerleader indicates a desire to bang a cheerleader, which is the same thing that would cause someone to actually bang a cheerleader.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:13 PM
2

Do you think there is a fundamental difference between sort of day-dreaming about having people die and actually doing it? I don't think there is. Ie, I think it's just a difference in scale. When those thoughts become potent enough, people might act on them.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 03:13 PM
1

Right, so Genghis Khan -> conquer/enslave/subjugate Aurora Shooter -> no ostensible reason right? it sounded like you were disagreeing with me.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 03:10 PM
2

You don't think a lack of romantic interaction can lead to anger/frustration/depression? In my experience it definitely can.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 01:57 PM
1

I don't know that the opposite (ie, the original) is impossible, though. I was often quite frustrated by my lack of romantic success in high school, and it made me feel/think a lot of strange things. Not to the point where I'd actually shoot up a movie theater or anything, but I see how it could escalate to that point in people.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 01:55 PM
2

What? You think the Aurora shooter did what he did to subjugate and enslave people?
/r/MensRights23/07/12 01:55 PM
5

So I'm a creep? D: I don't belong here?
/r/MensRights22/07/12 10:07 PM
2

wordlessly doing the work for everyone, never chiming in with personal motivation. I'm pretty sure this is just to make the player feel more in tune with Gordon.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 09:26 PM
-7

If his crazy was caused by a lack of sex/romantic relationships in his life, then yes, a vagina might be able to "cure" that, and it doesn't have to be made of magic.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 09:16 PM
1

Any man that has a woman that he genuinely feels for doesn't do anything stupid, and disregarding of consequences like that. The same could be said about someone who has a good job that they like and care about. Do you really think he came in dressed as Bane to achieve something? No, he honestly didn't care about life anymore, his life, their lives, it didn't matter. I think taking the gun to himself would have been a thought he was battling with continously while the shooting was going on. This…
/r/MensRights22/07/12 09:11 PM
2

I think the idea is that an inability to have sex results in anger/frustration/depression which can lead to people lashing out at society.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 09:09 PM
36

This is a virulent form of creep shaming. Millions of men are unsuccessful with the ladies. Does virgin/unsuccessful with women == creep? "Virgin shaming" seems like a more appropriate term.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 05:21 PM
14

For example, people all over asia are supposedly descendents of Genghis Khan's seed. That didn't stop him from being a psycho mass murderer. Genghis Khan was arguably a very different kind of mass murderer -- he was a conqueror, not some guy who shot up a movie theater for no ostensible reason.
/r/MensRights22/07/12 05:18 PM
1

Really? Only dentist's office I've ever been to had three male dentists.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 06:14 PM
3

The problem is, abortion was always about maternity. It was always about that choice, the choice to forego the responsibilities of parenthood. What makes you say this? While medical abortion is a necessity from time to time, it's rare and represents a minority case of abortions Just because an abortion is not a medical necessity does not mean it's necessarily motivated by a desire to be free of parental obligation. Why would abortion be necessary as a form of absolving oneself from parenthood? C…
/r/MensRights16/07/12 03:12 PM
6

It's mostly column B, especially considering your use of "bullshit". There's a huge difference between "I really don't think that idea makes much sense, because XYZ" and "that's bullshit. XYZ" (although even that would be an improvement from "that's bullshit")
/r/MensRights16/07/12 02:59 PM
2

Was this always the case even in, say, ancient Roman civilization? I think the Romans kept Greek slaves/servants to do a lot of work, and so in that sense Greek women might have had to work along-side men (although I'm not totally sure about that even), but as far as I know I don't think Roman women ever really worked. Also, in Roman society, women, as far as I know, didn't even really have names, at least legally. They were just referred to by the feminine version of their clan names (ie, all w…
/r/MensRights14/07/12 06:30 PM
2

Patriarchy definitely exists, or did at a time, at least. Men were the ones "in power" in society in the sense that men were the ones that did important things and women stood around acting a bit like eye candy and keeping households in order, etc. This might sound like it's good for men, but it isn't necessarily. While being "in power" sounds nice, it also means things are expected of you that you might not want to do (ie, dying in a war). And it's not like you're "in power" in the sense that y…
/r/MensRights14/07/12 02:08 PM
3

Why do you despise him?
/r/MensRights13/07/12 05:14 PM
3

I haven't been watching him all too much often lately -- do you have a specific example?
/r/MensRights13/07/12 04:48 PM
1

Was this video intellectually vacuous? If so, how? It's not exactly a formal debate style thing or anything, and he does spend a lot of time making jokes, but I wouldn't call it "intellectually vacuous".
/r/MensRights13/07/12 03:28 PM
41

"WHY CAN'T I STOP OPPRESSING PEOPLE?!!?!?!" I don't why certain corners of reddit like to hate on him so much. Yes, he can be a bit abrasive at times I guess, but I always find myself in a better mood after one of his videos.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 05:01 AM
1

I get to vote for the first time this election -- I'm seriously considering just voting for an independent, because while I guess I generally disagree with your average Republican, this is just -- really? Before I just passed off this kind of stuff with Obama as "meh, it's probably just random stuff he's signing off on but doesn't really represent his position too much".
/r/MensRights11/07/12 05:06 PM
6

Guys, before we jump to conclusions, I think we should do some fact-checking. I mean, it's a commonly known fact that women don't falsely accuse people of rape. /s
/r/MensRights10/07/12 11:56 PM
5

Is it relevant to men's rights, though?
/r/MensRights10/07/12 11:50 PM
6

Ask her for a source for this definition? From wikipedia: Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex
/r/MensRights09/07/12 03:46 AM
3

It has to do with how reddit formats numbered lists. If you type 1. One 1. Two 1. Three You get: One Two Three And if you do: 2. One 2. Two 2. Three You still get: One Two Three So if you start a list with a '2' after a line break, it just assumes you're starting a new numbered list, and starts at 1.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 08:47 PM
6

I know what it was trying to imply, but saying "I'm the guy -- I get paid more" is silly. I guess unless he's referring to the fact that statistically, guys are paid more. But still, given the usage of "I'm a guy" in the previous panel (ie, it's a situation where something's happening to the guy literally because he's a guy) doesn't match up with the usage of "I'm a guy" in the second panel (it's a situation where something's happening to the guy because he works harder -- not because he's a guy…
/r/MensRights08/07/12 03:40 PM
12

The comic shouldn't say "I'm the guy, I get paid more", because it seems to be implying that only men are capable of doing better jobs (despite perhaps being true in construction, on average)
/r/MensRights08/07/12 03:28 PM
11

I guess the issue is that it seems like women can change on a whim who the baby/fetus really belongs to based on what suits them. It's their body/child, except when they need money, and then it magically becomes the man's responsibility as well, despite the fact that the man has no say in anything else involving the child. So if you want the ability to make men pay both child support and the abortion bill, then give the man some legal rights over the child. Or, if that's not okay because it's yo…
/r/MensRights07/07/12 06:42 PM
17

W: I'm pregnant with your kid, but I'm thinking of getting an abortion. Since it's also your child, do you think you could help with the costs? M: Sure, I guess that seems reasonable. W: Actually, nevermind, I think I'm going to keep the child. M: Oh, really? I was sort of relieved to hear that you were getting an abortion, I don't know if either of us is ready for a child. W: Um, lol, it's kind of my body? What makes you think you have a say in what I do with it? M: Well, I guess that's true. W…
/r/MensRights07/07/12 06:19 PM
1

I think you're confusing me for the person who originally made the "drunk driving is bad" comment. But anyway. UnoriginalMike's point was just that their intentions were probably good, it's just that they chose a rather tactless way to carry them out. The post above his original comment also had mentioned "not behaving the way the government wants you to", which seemed to carry an implication that preventing drunk driving wasn't really a good thing for society, but just some arbitrary imposition…
/r/MensRights05/07/12 03:03 PM
-3

I can't help feeling like there's something, just something different about drunk driving. Oh, right. It was mentioned in this post, whereas those other things weren't. This subreddit can really be a bit too argumentative at times.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 03:28 AM
6

In Illinois I've seen cakes that say "You hold the power to stop rape in your hands" Ah, yes, as a male who would be otherwise unable to help raping anyone, your helpful little message has instilled into my tiny male brain that rape isn't okay.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 03:25 AM
-1

If you are a Feminist, then you subscribe to a hateful ideology, with scapegoating of men as it's reason for existing....ergo, a hateful bigot. Well, I'm not, at least not the way you define feminism (I believe in gender equality, essentially). So try again. So, if you call yourself a Feminist I don't, so try again. and subscribe OFFICIALLY to the hateful beliefs espoused by your CHOSEN ideology. Yes, how officially OFFICIAL it is to describe yourself using a certain word on the internet. So...i…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 09:30 PM
-2

I give a fuck about that about as much as I do getting called an assface by a KKK member for not liking them either. Hateful bigots disliking me doesn't make me worry one little bit. How am I a hateful bigot, assface?
/r/MensRights04/07/12 09:21 PM
-1

You go ahead and waste time asking every adherent to feminist ideology what each and every one of their beliefs are. I, on the other hand, refuse to differentiate. Kinda like I would with any other hate group, like Nazis or somesuch Be prepared to occasionally be called an assface then. Assface. who the fuck are YOU to tell ME what to believe? Could you please point to where I did this? And the more people that agree with my assessment (a rapidly growing number - ergo the feminist focus on prese…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 09:04 PM
-2

Hooey. IF this wasn't a course of action flat out COUNTED ON by feminist ideologues, in order to isolate each and every instance and person to then dismiss it as 'tiny percentage' type things...then and ONLY then might you have a leg to stand on. But you don't. So, you're basically saying that because you believe people lie about what they believe you get to ignore what they actually say they believe and just fill in the blanks for them? No, you're publicly identifying with an ideology. Which id…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 08:48 PM
-1

Sure. And I can choose to see you, and everyone who shares your political views, as hateful fucking shrews without an ounce of redemptive value. YOU can decide what YOU mean by the term...but YOU don't get to tell ME what the word means. See, I'M entitled to my own understanding, and if you're a feminist who wants to change that opinion, then the onus is on YOU to show otherwise. Personal definitions of Nazism, Racial Supremacy, or Political Ideology are worth exactly nothing. How the OUTSIDE WO…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 08:20 PM
-1

or anyone who espouses feminist views I'm sorry, your definition is recursive. Your 'personal interpretation' of feminism is irrelevant I'm not a feminist, but if I chose to call myself one, you don't get to decide what I mean by me choosing to call myself a feminist. I get to decide what I mean by the words I choose to use. and mostly used to wiggle out of responsibility for your actions and those taken on your behalf (without complaint from you). I'm sorry, what actions are you talking about? …
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:32 PM
-1

Meh, I guess I distinguish between what I like to think of as genuine feminists (like people who think we should treat women well and protect their rights, etc), and idiots who like to call themselves feminists, but I guess when enough of such idiots call themselves feminists it's hard to argue. But maybe more to the point, this article was just plain stupid. Not in a "oh wow look at these policies feminists think are a good idea, when really it's quite a bad idea" sense, but in a "wow, this loo…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:27 PM
-2

it's preety much boilerplate standard feminist narrative Well, I guess that depends on your definition of feminist. Defend your religion somewhere else I don't have a religion.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:19 PM
-8

Idiots employing the gender shaming they whine about so often. This is nothing new. ftfy not implying that all feminists are idiots, but that this behavior is likely more representative of idiots than of feminists in general
/r/MensRights04/07/12 03:25 PM
0

Does anyone take them seriously?
/r/MensRights04/07/12 03:23 PM
4

If anyone's interested, I had started a thread on r/2X about this: http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/vq33p/whats_wrong_with_mens_rights/ Not that r/2X-ers are necessarily feminists, but I'd guess that there's a decent amount of overlap. The responses were more positive than I expected. I got a few needlessly hostile people, but I was expecting worse.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 09:18 PM
-2

http://xkcd.com/54/
/r/MensRights29/06/12 01:47 AM
2

Not terribly relevant, but found this comment on the original 2x post discussing some mr issues.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 08:46 PM
2

People are looking at this in entirely the wrong way. "Banning doing something to someone's body before they have the right to consent is anti-semitism"
/r/MensRights27/06/12 08:23 PM
9

Or if I'm ever assaulted, the guilty party will almost certainly walk free. wut. edit: I was initially genuinely confused by what could have been possibly meant by this. I guess she means in cases of domestic abuse, people write it off as "yeah, the wife was just acting out so the man taught her her place" or something. Ie, this is the stereotype I imagine she was actually referring to. One that, as far as I know, is thankfully no longer an issue in society. Unfortunately, the opposite stereotyp…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 08:18 PM
1

Rape on the other hand, is one sided, something that women cant just physically do. He goes on to (sort of) take this back ("of course, men can also be raped"), but I'm not sure why he left the first statement in there.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 12:49 AM
1

The man added: 'Just at that time their mother was leaving the building. We asked her if these were her children and she replied, emotionlessly, "Yes, I threw them away.”' I don't even... Regardless, I find this post's title a bit disingenuous. The full quote is: It has been reported that Mrs Ryabkova has attempted to kill herself in the past and that her husband may have been cheating on her. The emphasis seems more on the mental instability (caused by her husband cheating on her, but really an…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 12:36 AM
1

This is really not that big of a deal. I'd be fine making the same (slightly joking) comment in a case where the genders were reversed.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 12:26 AM
1

Only men can be sexist. That's pretty meta.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 04:08 AM
1

You should be able to do that, despite the fact that you can't. (well the intentional insult weakens the analogy a bit and makes you seem like more of a dick, but it still doesn't it make it okay for you to get robbed, imo).
/r/MensRights24/06/12 04:20 AM
3

Should a rich guy walk through a poor neighborhood in a fancy outfit with money coming out of his pants? Probably not. Does it make it less of a problem if he gets mugged? No.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 04:16 AM
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey
/r/MensRights23/06/12 03:46 AM
20

Yes, clearly he should have waited until his life was ruined, and then he should have su... oh wait.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 03:42 AM
4

Am I the only one around here that thinks patriarchy exists and affects these things? Not in a "well it's all your fault anyway so no one cares if it's a problem you brought in on yourself" kind of way that some feminists like to do, but just in a "this is why it's like this" kind of way. Ie, men are big strong leaders and are supposed to go and have sex a lot with all the women to spread their seed, and women are pretty much sex objects that are better the less they've been used.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 06:25 PM
2

What the fuck is her problem? a) you weren't even responding to her comment. b) you were totally polite, didn't seem worked up about anything. c) you explicitly explained that you're not questioning anyone's reproductive rights, which two people accused you of doing anyway. d) your comment had literally nothing to do with her thanking that guy for anything -- apparently you sharing an opinion on a topic being discussed (on what I imagine was some kind of public forum?) is "getting pissy". I do h…
/r/MensRights22/06/12 06:06 PM
4

More to the point, who cares what's causing it? Does that make not as existent somehow?
/r/MensRights22/06/12 05:59 PM
5

I upvoted because it's the right answer. If you're depressed, go to a professional about it. If someone posted asking for help dealing with cancer and the top comment wasn't something along the lines of "don't ask reddit, go to a doctor", something's wrong.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 12:03 AM
2

Ironically, if he did put his dick in crazy, he might be in a better situation right now.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 11:50 PM
3

Are you implying that not all women are innocent? You do realize how misogynistic that is, right? /s
/r/MensRights19/06/12 11:49 PM
1

Makes money doing virtually nothing. That's a silly accusation. It's as silly as when feminists pretend pointing out misandry is somehow misogyny, which is as silly as saying that no one should care about anything ever except about starving kids in Africa, because they have it worse than anyone else, and pretending that anything else is an issue is taking away from help that could be going to them. Let Anita blog and do whatever else she wants, and hopefully Brian will also get his documentary o…
/r/MensRights17/06/12 07:00 PM
0

If they became one it shouldn't change what "atheist" means. I don't think feminists started a major political party either.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 10:09 PM
-3

Yeah, defining a movement/group by the actions/thoughts of certain people is pretty silly. I don't believe in god, so I'm an atheist. Richard Dawkins might declare that anyone who doesn't have a passion for biology isn't an atheist, but I wouldn't care, and it wouldn't change the fact that I was still an atheist.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 08:21 PM
33

Sorry? why? It's nice to have support. The post's title makes it seem as if a woman who supports r/mr is a rare thing, so she's apologizing if this isn't the case. Just wording/semantics, though, always nice to hear from supporters. :) edit: Also, while it's true that practically speaking we focus on more legal and political issues, I think in general the MRM (and feminism, or "true" feminism or whatever) also addresses the general stereotypes against men, and work on fighting them. I think just…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 08:00 PM
2

Devil's advocate: I don't know what this guy looked like when he was in the store, but if I saw a person wearing certain kinds of clothes, sitting on the ground at a bookstore and talking on the phone, depending on how they were talking, I might be slightly off put by them as a crazy/homeless person type, regardless of their gender. Not that that's much of a good reason to kick them out of the store, but I can imagine a clerk making that decision, and it not having much to do with gender issues/…
/r/MensRights04/06/12 04:49 PM
1

Certainly, if there were more reasonable criteria for rape convictions, this wouldn't be an issue and we could probably treat false rape accusers as we would anyone else who lies about crimes under oath. But the analogy to a murderer doesn't work. The victim of a murder isn't gaining anything for an admission of guilt. The entire thinking behind letting false rape accusers who come clean off the hook is that what we (should) care about most is getting the victim out of jail and mitigating the af…
/r/MensRights31/05/12 02:23 PM
2

The way society is set up right now it seems so easy for women to get away with lying about such things, though. If we severely punish women who come out as having lied about rape accusations, they might just stop doing it all together and let the victims who might have gotten out of jail or had their reputations restored just rot away. Would I like it if it could be as simple as "just punish them"? Sure. But for the sake of false rape victims, it seems important to have some kind of amnesty sys…
/r/MensRights31/05/12 12:01 PM
7

I think in this case it'd be safer to prosecute. It's not like she spoke up willingly while the man was still serving. If we can encourage people who lied to speak up before the falsely accused has served a full sentence, then we're at least helping the falsely accused. But here there was nothing the guy really got out of the admission. If we're lenient on people speak who up before the whole (or most) of the sentence is served, but then jump on them if it comes out later, it might further push …
/r/MensRights30/05/12 09:47 PM
14

I think to be fair she'd have to serve a bit longer. If an innocent person served 5 years a guilty person should serve more.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 09:42 PM
21

evidence once again that people really need to be using /s on r/mr. sarcasm gets mistaken for seriousness in almost every significant post.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 12:43 AM
3

I don't know the details of the situation(s), but "I can't think of any other reason so clearly it must be this" seems like bad reasoning. At a glance, the whole "women make 75% of what men make thing" makes it seem like it could be labor market discrimination, but if you actually look into potential causes, you get other answers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow
/r/MensRights23/05/12 11:32 PM
1

This makes about as much sense as saying "since there are starving kids in Africa so no one should ever worry about anything except that" (which, honestly, is not a completely ridiculous idea, but few people actually think like this).
/r/MensRights23/05/12 04:46 AM
1

Has anyone in the world ever heard of correlation doesn't imply causality? It's ridiculous to see this kind of "statistically women do worse in jobs so obviously the PATRIARCHY IS OPPRESSING US" reasoning.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 04:37 AM
7

looking at this from the perspective of gender equality is deranged No it isn't. In Mongolia, it's considered okay to kill a man for his crimes but not a woman. This is undeniably gender inequality. It perpetuates the whole "men are tough and can take it/women are delicate flowers that need protecting" stereotype. Sure, if you're against the death penalty, from a practical standpoint yes, a lot less people are subject to potential execution. It doesn't change the fact that the Mongolian governme…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 05:07 AM
4

enjoy masturbation I don't think I've ever met anyone who didn't enjoy masturbation.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:34 AM
3

tl;dr: you know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing our justice system has got going on? probably a good idea.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 01:11 PM
9

Would you be okay with a bar charging more for non-whites?
/r/MensRights10/05/12 04:41 AM
2

the person doing it is fat, dirty, wearing a sweatshirt, and loitering? what? so if the person was thin, clean-cut, and wearing nice clothes, it'd be okay? I mean, I understand why it might be less off-putting if that were the case, but it seems odd to classify the behavior itself as disgusting just based on the people doing it.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 06:53 PM
2

You're imagining attractive women doing it. It's usually not. Hm, well, while I suppose while it's true that I wouldn't be as happy about it if the women doing it were not as attractive, that feels like bad reasoning. Ie, it feels wrong of me to like/dislike the behavior based on the attractiveness of the people doing it. Although I see your point about the aggression/dehumanizing (honestly I probably wouldn't mind a little dehumanization if it meant more confidence about my appearance, but I ca…
/r/MensRights09/05/12 06:47 PM
-4

I guess it might make me feel a bit uncomfortable, but I wouldn't describe it as disgusting behavior.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 02:32 AM
1

I've noticed it as a problem more often on r/mr. A lot of people do seem to genuinely believe things that commenters assume people will recognize as sarcasm.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 02:18 AM
-11

other times it's just disgust. lately, men have been making slurping sounds as i walk past them. Honest question: why is this such a bad thing? As a guy with relatively low self-esteem, I'd be pretty happy if I walked by a group of girls and they "made slurping noises" or did something else to indicate sexual attraction. Do women just not care about this as much?
/r/MensRights09/05/12 02:15 AM
8

ending sarcasm with /s seems to be pretty important on r/mr, because people do actually tend to say some pretty stupid stuff
/r/MensRights09/05/12 02:12 AM
1

I take some medication that supposedly has a negative affect on my libido, but it's just a side effect. I think I notice it now and again, but it's not really any kind of a deterrent from taking the medication. I'm just over high-school age.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 06:44 PM
9

No woman in her right mind would commit rape, only men do that. She must have had some psychological problems. What a poor lass. /s
/r/MensRights30/04/12 10:52 PM
1

Perhaps not assault, but certainly grabbing anything out of anyone's hand constitutes some kind of crime, doesn't it?
/r/MensRights26/04/12 02:38 AM
2

Can we get someone who's been seriously hurt by society to go tell her off? Ie, someone who's been hurt by a court involving child custody, someone wrongly accused of rape, etc. A "fuck you if you think my problems aren't real" from someone like this might get people to understand.
/r/MensRights25/04/12 07:37 PM
2

Well, the woman wouldn't have to turn it down. If the man promised he'd pay before she agreed to the date ("Hey, want to go get some dinner? It's on me"), then I think it's viable to hold him accountable for the check, regardless of what the woman would have done had he not explicitly offered to pay. On the other hand, if the date was agreed to without any explicit promise on the man's part to pay, then there's no contractual obligation on his part to act on any promise he may have made after th…
/r/MensRights17/04/12 05:26 PM
5

I don't like this whole situation, but if someone asks me to come eat something, and I say "oh, sorry, I don't have money", and he says "that's alright, I'll pay for you", and then leaves in the middle of dinner, that seems like a bit of a break of contract. Although I guess this situation is different. The woman (likely) agreed to the date without any promise of the man paying, which seems like the point at which a "contract" is established, so any promises the man made after that should't real…
/r/MensRights17/04/12 04:26 AM
1

Are there any crimes for which women are (or are at least perceived to be) the primary perpetrator? Maybe if we made posters about that, people would realize why this kind of stuff is a bit offensive to men.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 12:15 AM
3

So a woman's perception is still more important than facts. Yeah, some of the language in that article was worrisome. It made it sound like if there wasn't any evidence supporting the guy's innocence, that the lack of evidence for his guilt alone might not have been enough to get him off the hook.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 12:12 AM
10

When women are sexist against men, and they get called out on it, they tend to laugh if off and pretend it isn't a big deal more often. But when men are sexist against women, it's generally considered much more serious and you're less likely to be able to get away with it by chalking it up to humor
/r/MensRights21/03/12 09:01 PM
7

Yeah, and all women are dumb cunts! Oh, wait, sexism isn't funny anymore?
/r/MensRights21/03/12 06:50 PM
1

Considering that the person on the couch is female, isn't it biased against non-heterosexuals more than against men? Although I guess the choice to have a female on the couch might be a bit sexist. But I mean, they have to pick one gender and go with it.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 07:32 AM
1

As a virgin this has not been particularly relevant for myself, but I've always been confused by the whole "she said yes but she was under duress" thing. So, I can ask a girl to have sex, she can say yes, but unbeknownst to me she actually feels threatened and now all of a sudden it's rape?
/r/MensRights21/03/12 07:29 AM
4

Count the number of women who have been raped/murdered in films, and then count the number of men who have been killed in films. I'd be surprised if the first number is anywhere close to the second. Men are killed all the time in films as if it's no big deal, and in the rare cases where a woman dies, it's generally a pretty big deal.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:37 PM
2

As a man, as much as I would like to have more rights to my (potential) children, I'm uncomfortable treading on someone's right to their body. Biology seems to give women privilege in this case, which, while perhaps unfortunate for fathers, is something I don't see a good way of getting around. I'm open to the possibility of regulating later abortions to allow for the removal, but not termination, of the baby, but only in an effort to respect the baby's potential rights to its body and to its li…
/r/MensRights07/03/12 01:37 AM
18

This seems like a great idea. Attempts at making them gender-neutral: There isn't a single thing I can think of that is going to convince me that it is okay for a [person] to walk away entirely from a child [they were] 50% responsible for making. I will never support [abortion]. If [they do] feel bad as a result it's because of [their] own actions. [They might] not have asked for a baby, but [they] now [have] one coming whether [they like] it or not. This is yet another rant of mine that basical…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 05:18 PM
9

I get the feeling people that people tend to resort to using ad hominem as much as people seem to against MRAs only when they're faced with the uncomfortable truth that they have no real arguments against a movement. edit: a "/s" will go a long way, especially when I've seen people say pretty much exactly this before (and I don't think they were being sarcastic)
/r/MensRights06/03/12 06:56 AM
6

Would this even be viable? Eg, if I was hired by a mining company as a programmer, could they outsource the programming but keep me on as a miner, claiming that they haven't fired me?
/r/MensRights05/03/12 07:51 PM
24

Ho, ho! Do you get it guys? We have small penises! Looks like we got a sharp one here.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 09:11 AM
1

Are you fucking kidding me? That actually happens? What the fuck is wrong with people?
/r/MensRights24/02/12 06:06 PM
0

I suppose it doesn't affect your "rights" in the traditional sense of the word. I guess I was thinking more of a man's "right" to not be libeled or slandered by people claiming that we are solely responsible for the perpetuation of certain female stereotypes.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 05:00 PM
3

Doesn't it sort of affect your rights if people try to blame you for what is caused by the hypocritical actions of others?
/r/MensRights21/02/12 09:43 AM
1

That's what I meant... it's comparing how ridiculous it is for men to say things like that to how ridiculous it would be if women said things like that.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 08:41 PM
-2

I guess, but I take issue with the language of "men shouldn't have a say in abortion". In any case of abortion, it's either morally acceptable to have one, in which case no one, not a man and not a woman, should be able to tell someone whether or not they can have one, or, the abortion is not morally acceptable, and should be prevented from happening. For women who don't think the second case should ever happen, I don't think the real issue is that a man is telling them they can't have an aborti…
/r/MensRights17/02/12 10:01 PM
-5

Oh... ok, so the comic is trying to show how ridiculous it would be if women did actually say something like that?
/r/MensRights17/02/12 09:09 PM
0

Does anyone actually say that "emotional bias" crap? How the hell does that work with the "men shouldn't have a say in abortion" stuff?
/r/MensRights17/02/12 07:25 AM
5

They probably rationalize it by saying stuff like "oh come on, the guy was a robber anyway!" If the genders were reversed, I could see them thinking "Wow, this chick probably has it bad enough as it is, having to resort to robbery, and then this guy rapes her?"
/r/MensRights13/02/12 09:14 PM
2

For example, boys chasing girls seems like an innocent act of play. In actuality, the girls that are chased are endowed with a certain higher social status that only the boy chaser can initiate. Girls’ social status is then dependent on a popular boy’s willingness to chase them creating a patriarchal system in which boys are privileged. What the hell, how does this not work both ways? The popular boys pick the popular girls to chase, leaving both the unpopular girls and the unpopular boys with r…
/r/MensRights13/02/12 06:34 PM
2

I'd be totally fine with a Doritos commercial or something with a wife nagging the husband and taking away his Doritos and giving him celery or something, and the husband kinda just bitch-slapping her and taking his Doritos back.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 07:10 AM
1

Honestly I thought it was funny. My issue is more with how it's not acceptable to do the commercial with the genders reversed.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 05:59 AM
11

I love how it's apparently specifically my fault for establishing a patriarchy over women.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 06:45 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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